By Breanne Brennan I'd like to introduce a new segment to the CDB called "Poster Double-Take." Here we'll examine upcoming posters that look a wee bit familiar--almost like a poster that we've seen in the past. Today I'm featuring one of the character posters for PERCY JACKSON: SEA OF MONSTERS. The high-contrast of the character's profile and the layout brings to mind a certain set of character posters for another blockbuster film: THE HUNGER GAMES. When I saw a thumbnail version of the PJSOM poster, I automatically thought it was going to be another character set for CATCHING FIRE. Oops, I was wrong. One might have thought the design studio was just recycling their previous layout, but they are actually made by two different studios. *cough* ripoff!
0 Comments
By Brett Blake Everybody has seen at least one trailer. They’re an inescapable, unavoidable part of the movie-going experience, and while they can sometimes give away too much, or misrepresent the films they’re supposed to be selling, a well-cut trailer can - in itself - be entertaining, a kind of mini-movie with its own pace, flow, and arc. The bad trailers, unfortunately, tend to outweigh the good, but I’m keeping this list positive, and what follow are ten of the most interesting, unique, and cool trailers and teasers. This kind of list is a dime a dozen on the internet, but I figured that this blog should contribute to that ongoing dialogue anyway. It’s also worth noting that I’m a huge fan of trailers that feature unique content, such as special footage shot specifically for the trailer and not found in the actual movie itself. You will find examples of this in at least half of the selections below. Rather thank ranking from one to ten, I’m presenting the trailers in the order of the movie’s year of release. Frankenstein (1931) This trailer is actually from a re-release campaign from the late 1930s, but it gives you a great sense of the kind of hyperbolic, over-the-top trailers that so often were used to promote B-grade science fiction and horror movies from the 1930s through the 1950s. The template was set right here. Psycho (1960) Probably the all-time classic teaser trailer, this six-minute short film features director Alfred Hitchcock himself leading the audience on a tour of the movie’s Bates Motel set. Its dry, macabre sense of humor (very much a stamp of the director) only hints at the story’s very dark undercurrents. The Exorcist (1973) A truly chilling teaser, it actually went unused during the movie’s marketing campaign, as some in the studio’s marketing department considered it too intense. It certainly is that, and even though the flashing, blinding imagery and shrieking, whirling music score become kind of a strain by the end, it’s a striking two minutes. Real Life (1979) Albert Brooks’ underseen film is a prescient and biting satire about reality television, and his trailer for the film is equally satirical; it remains especially topical today with the glut of 3D gimmickry that has been imposed (for good or bad) on movie-goers during the last few years. Alien (1979) A dialogue-less trailer that is memorable almost entirely because of its choice of music. It starts out moody, atonal, and creepy, and then explodes with a fully “alien” series of wails that accompany the expertly-edited montage of frightening images from the film. The final drop-off into silence is particularly effective. The Shining (1980) As simple a trailer as you could get, this ad for THE SHINING is only a single shot, but what a shot! And that music! Bizarre and unsettling. There’s a famous story, probably untrue, about the movie ratings board rejecting the trailer because of the copious amounts of blood, and director Stanley Kubrick then arguing that it wasn’t blood, but merely rusty water that is flooding out of the elevator. The board bought that story, and the trailer was released unscathed. Back to the Future (1985) This is a teaser trailer that really doesn’t tell you very much (if anything!) about the movie, but it does just enough to raise the audience’s collective curiosity. What kind of car is this? What’s going on with all the blinking lights and switches? What’s that title mean?! Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) The “terminator assembly line” seen here is kind of a brilliant idea for a teaser, and it does a great job of re-introducing Arnold Schwarzenegger as the title character a full seven years after the previous film. Jurassic Park (1993) Another teaser that relies almost completely on mystery to hook the audience. There’s not a single dinosaur on display, but it primes you for the eventual film to come. And the haunting dinosaur vocalization that comes over the credits list is a really neat touch. The Lord of the Rings (2001 - 2003) This teaser, which came out at Christmas of 2000, a full year before the first film in the trilogy, actually teases all three films, and deserves a place on the list because it establishes that the Tolkien novels were going to be done - and done seriously - on the grandest scale possible, and because it shows footage from films that were still one, two, and three years away from release! Talk about building anticipation. This was only a small sampling of some of the great trailers that have been unleashed over the years; there are dozens more to discuss, but that's a discussion for another day. What are some of your personal favorite teasers? By Brett Blake Zombies. They’re a staple of the horror genre, and they’ve been the subject of films from the 1930s and ‘40s (WHITE ZOMBIE and I WALKED WITH A ZOMBIE come to mind), right on through the George Romero heyday that began with 1968’s bonafide classic, NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD. In recent years, thanks in no small part to television shows like The Walking Dead, zombies have remained strong in the public consciousness. The question then becomes: how do you do a zombie story that feels fresh? The answer: make it an action movie, and that’s exactly what WORLD WAR Z does, to more-or-less solid effect. The plot is as straight-forward and bare-bones as you could imagine - Brad Pitt plays Gerry Lane, a former United Nations investigator who is called back into service to uncover the origins of a massive zombie outbreak that is sweeping the world. The movie has an episodic structure as we follow Gerry from the United States to South Korea, then on to Jerusalem, and finally to a secluded research facility in Wales. It’s also worth noting that the movie’s source novel by Max Brooks had been - essentially - fully discarded in favor of an “original” storyline, and while I personally have no great attachment to that book, those who do will no doubt feel slighted that this film bears very little resemblance to its literary antecedent. Pitt’s good as our lead, though I think even he would admit that there’s not much to the character on the page. He’s not quite a cipher, but he has only one real goal - to be reunited with his family. Thus, the character’s quest to uncover the zombie plague’s origins and potential cure is only a secondary objective, a means to an end. It’s a curious narrative choice, but I do admire (to some extent) the stripped-down nature it gives the movie; there are no geopolitical conspiracies, no silly subplots or diversions. It’s just one man trying to find out what’s going on so he can return to his family. I don’t think it fully works on that level, but others may disagree. That said, the movie - as a whole - is surprisingly entertaining. It looks terrific (and expensive), and save for some sketchy CGI, the budget is very clearly up on the screen. The action - though occasionally succumbing to jittery, shaky camerawork - is fairly intense; given that the movie has a PG-13 rating, there’s very little blood spilled in front of our eyes, but the sheer ferocity of the zombie hordes helps to make up for that. Interestingly, the movie actually attempts to justify this by changing the zombies’ M.O. from what we’re used to seeing; instead of feasting on human flesh, the undead desire only to spread their “disease” to others. They exist to procreate, in a sense, not to eat, so after one bite, they move on to the next victim. Gore-hounds will no doubt be displeased by this, but let’s be honest - if a person wants to see a zombie flick of the gruesome variety, there are more than enough other films out there for them to seek out. It’s worth touching briefly on the well-publicized production troubles that befell this movie over the course of the last year-and-a-half, troubles that basically resulted in entirely scrapping the movie’s original ending in favor of a brand new climax, the aforementioned sequence at the facility in Wales. What’s fascinating about this is that, rather than hurting the movie, these “problems” might have actually made the movie better, as this new third act is the best part of the film; it introduces some neat ideas, has some nicely orchestrated suspense moments, and becomes more overtly “horror movie”ish than the earlier sections of the story. For those interested, the movie’s behind-the-scenes issues are documented in an extraordinarily detailed and candid article in Vanity Fair, which you can read HERE. I don’t want to make the movie sound like a great one, because it isn’t, but it’s enjoyable enough for what it is. The decision to take the genre into full-on blockbuster territory feels - on the surface - to be a questionable one, but given that zombies have been done to death (literally…), I respect the choice to do something different. WORLD WAR Z isn’t completely a success, but it’s a slice of summer entertainment that provides some modest thrills without aggressively insulting the intelligence of its audience. Given its production history, it could have been a whole lot worse. By Brett Blake “You’ll believe a man can fly.” That’s what the tagline for 1978’s SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE promised movie-goers, and I think most people at the time would have probably agreed that it delivered on that promise. That film made Superman a credible cinematic icon, and in the 35 years since, filmmakers have been unable - or, in the case of 2006’s SUPERMAN RETURNS, unwilling - to break free from the template that Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve set back in the ‘70s. Jumping ahead to 2013, that has changed, and we finally have a Superman film that establishes a unique identity for itself, a film that treats the character seriously, ponders what makes him tick, and showcases his abilities in an incredibly cinematic way. MAN OF STEEL is that film. It begins with an extended sequence set on the doomed planet of Krypton, where we meet Jor-El (Russell Crowe) and his infant son, Kal-El (later to be known as Clark Kent), before Kal-El is shipped off for Earth. We are also introduced to our villain, Zod (Michael Shannon), in the process of attempting a military coup, foreshadowing the antagonism that Zod will eventually come to represent on Earth. From Krypton, the story moves to our planet, where we see grown-up Clark (Henry Cavill) trying to find his place in the world, interspersed with flashbacks to his childhood as he was raised by the Kents (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane). If it wasn’t obvious from that brief description, MAN OF STEEL is an origin tale, but the film feels fresh, even when the audience probably already knows the broad strokes of where the story’s going, and it eventually does take a turn into larger type of story framework. What makes the movie so successful (primarily) is the deeply contemplative and thoughtful way in which the first half (or so) of the story plays out; there is a genuine interest and concern with the emotional life of the Superman character that is nuanced and delicately-handled. Christopher Nolan and David Goyer (the chief architects of the story and screenplay) do what they did with Batman - they make the audience care about (and identify with) a potentially unbelievable, unrelatable person. The somewhat non-linear structure has Nolan’s fingerprints all over it, but it fits the story well (the flashbacks involving Costner’s Jonathan Kent are particularly effective). The soul-searching quality of the first half eventually gives way to a second half comprised of action on the most massive scale imaginable, and it is stupendous stuff, exciting, exhilarating, and spectacular, even if it does eventually begin to border on overkill. The sheer amount of property damage that comes about during the course of the mayhem is staggering, and director Zack Snyder stages the action in impressive and inventive ways, with none of his trademark “speed ramping” shtick to be found. Indeed, this is Snyder’s most visually restrained effort since his DAWN OF THE DEAD remake, and the movie’s all the better for it. As Clark Kent/Kal-El/Superman, Henry Cavill is outstanding; he handles the emotional inner life of the character with a deft touch, while simultaneously tearing into the physical, actiony elements with zeal. He beautifully sells the character's innate decency, his desire to help others, and balances that with a dry, understated sense of humor. It’s a star-making performance, and the greatest compliment I can pay him is that I did not once think of the last great cinematic Superman, Christopher Reeve. They are different enough interpretations to stand on their own. Cavill is equally matched by Michael Shannon as Zod. I called him a villain above, and he certainly has plans for Earth that threaten its existence, but what makes the character so interesting is that his motivations are totally and fully understandable; what drives him makes sense, and from his point-of-view, he has no choice but to do the things he does. Shannon is extraordinary in the role, channeling a sense of righteousness and coupling it with a simmering intensity that eventually boils over into malevolence and rage. The bar for villains has been set incredibly high right out of the gate, and it’ll be fun to see how the inevitable sequel tries to top Zod, because I can’t fathom how they’ll do it. Amy Adams, portraying intrepid reporter Lois Lane, does fine work, and the character is well-served by the screenplay, which actually finds ways for Lois to proactively serve the plot, rather than simply being the stereotypical damsel in distress (though there is a bit of that). As the dual fathers in Superman’s life, Crowe and Costner give some terrific - and, in the case of Costner, highly affecting - performances, and it’s interesting to see the fusion of the two characters’ philosophies represented in the personality of their son. The rest of the supporting cast is packed full of incredibly talented performers. Laurence Fishburne, Diane Lane, Richard Schiff, Christopher Meloni, Harry Lennix, Ayelet Zurer, and (relative unknown) Antje Traue each have several moments to shine, and a couple even get mini-arcs, to boot. It’s rare that a so-called blockbuster gives us such an interesting array of secondary characters, but MAN OF STEEL provides an embarrassment of riches in that regard. Technically, the movie is superb (excuse the pun, but I’m running out of adjectives!). The cinematography is textured, the production design for the Kryptonian elements is cool, and the sound design is bone-shaking in the best way possible. Then there’s the issue of what is sure to be one of the film’s most controversial elements: Hans Zimmer’s musical score. Some will praise it as bold and exciting, others will no doubt find it uninspired and overbearing, too reminiscent of his recent works for INCEPTION and THE DARK KNIGHT. Though there’s merit to both camps, I fall more into the former than the latter; while it lacks a singular, knockout theme, there are several strong (and, most importantly, optimistic) melodic ideas in play, as well as a rather atmospheric and ethereal soundscape that nicely underlines the introspective nature of Clark Kent’s character journey. It may not be as instantly rousing and cheer-worthy as John Williams’ seminal score for SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE, but Zimmer’s music suits this film perfectly. “Optimistic” is a word I want to come back to, because if I had to describe MAN OF STEEL in one word, that would be it. Optimism is a scarce commodity in most of contemporary cinema, replaced by cynicism and gritty reality, but the character of Superman is supposed to embody the best qualities the human race has to offer, and he should herald a world striving to live up to his example, a world that - whatever the challenges ahead - can be optimistic about its future. The film seems to get this in a profound way, and walking out of the theater, I was struck by how much that it resonated with me. It might not top SUPERMAN: THE MOVIE’s “gosh-golly!” exuberance, but it matches that film’s earnestness (and then some), and it sets up Cavill’s Superman as a character I can’t wait to follow on more adventures… because I still believe a man can fly. JP is looking for everyone to Kickstart his new production MERC. Check out the video in the link below. FRIENDS, FAMILY, and ENEMIES! We have officially launched the Kickstarter for our new short film, MERC. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE help support this project! Help donate and send this link to your family, friends, pets and those who are blackmailing you. We have 29 days to get this done! PLEASE AND THANK YOU!!! http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/mercfilm/merc-a-short-film By Brett Blake Why do good movies fall through the cracks? Nobody can say for certain, of course, but I’m always fascinated by the times when I’m having a conversation with somebody and I learn they’ve never seen (and frequently never even heard of) a certain movie. It’s usually a shocking moment. How can they not have seen it?! There are certain films that always seem to come up, and over the years I’ve made mental notes of which ones have appeared most often. Some of these movies were acclaimed upon their initial release and have since been kind of forgotten, while others were basically forgotten as soon as they opened. In either case, it feels like these are movies still waiting to fully find their audience. It’s worth noting that my initial list for this article ended up being over 30 movies long, so obviously this is just a very small sampling (a smattering, if you will) of some seriously underrated and underseen films that more people should check out. Keeping the list at 5 also opens up the possibility of some follow-up columns in the future. I decided to choose more contemporary films for this first list (3 of the 5 are from the last decade), but any future lists will take us a bit further into the past. Let's begin with the oldest film, then work our way forward... On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969) That’s right, this is the James Bond movie starring the guy (George Lazenby) that nobody remembers. That is a shame, as OHMSS is one of the few 007 films that takes an interest in Bond’s personal life, and it marks the first time that the character actually falls in love; there is an introspective quality to the story in this film that sets it apart from the standard Bond movie formula, in addition to being an engrossing spy yarn. The movie’s first hour and change, while never boring, aren’t exactly action-packed, but the final act (actually the last fifty minutes, or so) is extraordinary action filmmaking, boasting two (count ‘em!) ski chases, a car chase, an aerial helicopter assault on Blofeld’s mountaintop fortress in the Alps (some jaw-dropping scenery here), and a bobsled chase. The movie takes its time getting there, and there are some dodgy special effects shots that pop up, but it’s a breathless third act that sits alongside some of the best action setpieces of the era, culminating in a genuinely emotional climax that the series has yet to really match. John Barry’s score kicks all kinds of ass, too, which doesn’t hurt! The King of Comedy (1983) This is quite possibly the most uncomfortable comedy ever made, and I mean that in a very good way. Martin Scorsese’s film stars his frequent collaborator Robert De Niro as Rupert Pupkin, a wannabe stand-up comedian who decides to stalk - and then kidnap - his idol, a Johnny Carson-ish late night talk show host played by the great Jerry Lewis. Pupkin is dangerously delusional, but De Niro never plays him as anything less than completely affable, just a guy looking for his big break, which makes the character all the more upsetting; if the character were a mustache-twirling psycho, it would be so much easier to brush him off, but De Niro presents him as plausibly unhinged, which is terrifically effective. One of the blackest of black comedies, the movie fundamentally deals with the notions of celebrity and privacy in quite interesting ways, and it’s rare that a comedy is actually about something. THE KING OF COMEDY won’t be everybody’s cup of tea, but whether you enjoy it or not, you won’t see many movies quite like it. Trailer here. Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World (2003) Set during the Napoleonic Wars of the early 1800s, MASTER AND COMMANDER is a rousing, thoughtful, and impeccably crafted high seas adventure film. An intellectual’s action movie, the film only really has two sequences of naval combat (at the beginning and the climax), but they’re spectacularly staged by director Peter Weir. In between these book-end setpieces, we are treated to a literate story of shipboard life, and of the friendship between the characters played by Russell Crowe and Paul Bettany. On a technical level, the film is almost unmatched: rich cinematography, meticulous costume and production design, incredibly effective sound, and top-notch special effects. It’s a classy and intelligent movie that manages to be thoroughly and completely entertaining. Trailer here. Zodiac (2007) I’m on the record in several different places regarding how much I love this movie, but I’ll re-iterate it here. Detailing the years-long hunt for the Zodiac killer in the 1970’s, David Fincher’s film is a masterful examination of obsession. The film moves slowly, methodically, through the dead ends, bad leads, and screw-ups that ultimately prevented a clear suspect from emerging in the case (Zodiac’s identity remains - now and probably forever - a mystery). And although the murder sequences are handled within the movie’s first hour, they leave a huge impression, being every bit as chilling and horrifying as anything you could find in a straight-up horror movie. That’s not to say the movie is dour, or morose, though; it has a very healthy sense of humor (with many of the choice lines of dialogue coming from Robert Downey Jr.’s character) that keeps things buoyant, as do some rather inspired period music selections on the soundtrack. The trailer for this is kind of terrible, so here's a scene instead. Trick 'r Treat (2007) Horror anthologies (films made up of several shorter segments) usually tend to be a mixed bag. You’ll get one or two good stories, one or two so-so stories, and one or two awful stories. That is not the case with TRICK ‘R TREAT, as all of its stories are aces, drawing upon classic horror ideas (serial killers, werewolves, ghosts, etc.) to create an old-fashioned sort of scary movie, but one that feels completely fresh and contemporary, with stories that weave around each other and intersect at different points. Beyond that, what really makes the movie special is that there’s a pure, complete, and tangible love of the Halloween holiday on display in every shot that I find incredibly appealing. It even goes so far as to create the masked character of Sam, a somewhat devious little imp who embodies the traditions and folklore of the holiday, and who presides over the goings-on. There’s a slightly tongue-in-cheek sensibility to the film, and it’s certainly not the most terrifying movie you’ll ever see; it’s “fun scary,” rather than “scary scary,” if that makes any sense, so set your expectations accordingly. Here's the trailer. If you’ve seen any (or even all!) of these, let me know what you think of them, and feel free to share some of your favorite underseen movies! By Brett Blake Where does one even begin to objectively assess a new M. Night Shyamalan film? I mean, let’s face it, at this point the very mention of his name carries enough baggage to make many cinephiles snicker and scoff. His last unequivocally good movie came all the way back in 2002 with SIGNS (though a vocal minority even think that one’s bad, too; these people are misguided, however), and 2004’s THE VILLAGE marked a strange sort of paradox, in that it’s - in my humble opinion - his most stylish directorial effort chained to his worst screenplay. Since then, his directing chops have steadily declined, to the point that (as of 2010’s THE LAST AIRBENDER) I was very comfortable calling him something of a hack, a very promising prospect with three great films under his belt who collapsed under the weight of his own hype and/or ego. So imagine my shock at finding AFTER EARTH to be just fine, a solid, well-made, and low-key science fiction tale. It’s not flawless, it’s not great, but it’s far better than any Shyamalan movie since SIGNS, and I think it’s perfectly enjoyable if taken on its own terms. The plot, as outlined in the trailers, involves Will Smith’s Cypher Raige (okay, that’s a really goofy name, I’ll grant you) and his son, Jaden Smith’s Kitai, crash landing on Earth 1,000 years after humanity was forced to leave due to our species’ mishandling of its resources. When Cypher finds himself marginally incapacitated, it falls upon Kitai to trek through a vast and imposing forest landscape to locate the beacon required to summon help. What follows is a series of encounters with the evolved plant and animal life that has flourished on the planet during mankind’s absence. There’s slightly more to it than that (involving the Ursa, an alien creature that stalks Kitai), but that’s the basic gist. Will Smith is saddled with the “cold, emotionally distant” father archetype (some might say cliche), while Jaden Smith is given the role of the “yearns for father’s understanding” son archetype. Their relationship is all kinds of hackneyed, and I guarantee you already know the major beats of how their conflict with resolve, but the two actors are convincing, and it’s - for the most part - effective enough to provide at least a bit of emotional resonance. I called the film “low-key,” and I mean that as a compliment. This is a small-scale story. The fate of the entire world, or of humanity, is not in the balance. Huge cities are not in danger of being destroyed. It’s about two people trying to survive in a hostile environment, and I appreciate that the movie understands this and doesn’t try to elevate the scope into something bombastic. The decision to set the movie primarily in a dense forest environment (as opposed to your more standard tropical jungle or barren dystopia settings that are so often employed in science fiction) is refreshing, and gives the movie an interesting look. Similarly, the animal life Kitai encounters feels plausible; with the exception of the Ursa, which is an extra-terrestrial, the animals feel like the sort of things that could evolve after only 1,000 years. Again, I go back to “low-key.” The temptation could have easily been to design bizarre and strange creatures, but the filmmakers wisely pattern the designs after animals we’re familiar with. For fear of overselling the movie, I’ve got to point out that certainly there are problems. The pacing drags in the midsection (though not in an overly egregious way), and there are some rather ham-fisted exposition dumps at key points in the story that grind things to a halt, in addition to some really undercooked philosophy about controlling our fear (or something). There’s also the issue of the weird accents that creep in and out of the performances; I admire the attempt at using accents to hammer home the idea that mankind 1,000 years from now has changed somewhat, but it just comes across as strange. Back on the positive front, the technical credentials are very solid. The production design for the future technology, ships, accessories, etc. is quite strong, integrating an organic motif into the tech and sets in an interesting way. Also, the sound design and crisp cinematography sell the forest environment as a living, almost primordial place. In terms of the music, James Newton Howard once again provides a good score, one that underlines the more introspective elements in a subtle and atmospheric way. Even when Shyamalan’s movies have been less than stellar, Howard’s scores have always been great, and his work here is no exception. One final thing must be said. For this film to draw the ire of the critics the way it has is utterly baffling and silly. If you don’t like the movie, that’s perfectly fine and valid, but there is no way it deserves the (justified) roasting that Shyamalan’s THE HAPPENING and THE LAST AIRBENDER received. So many critics, it seems to me, had their minds made up about AFTER EARTH before they even saw it, and were convinced that there was no possibility it could be any better than those two prior films. Well, guess what? It’s a lot better than those, and the fact that so many of said critics’ reviews spend so much time rehashing Shyamalan’s past failures (and granted, I did a bit of that at the top of this very review) is sort of depressing. M. Night Shyamalan has become a punching bag (and, of course, that’s chiefly of his own making), but if AFTER EARTH has taught me anything, it’s that he’s still capable of delivering solid entertainment. Perhaps this is the beginning of an upswing in his career trajectory, because if he can somehow get back (or even close) to the heights of THE SIXTH SENSE, then we as film fans will be a lot better off for it. That's a long shot, I know. In the meantime, I hope people give AFTER EARTH a fair shake. Like it or not, judge it based on its own merits (or lack thereof), not the past work of its director. |
Archives
January 2023
Categories
All
|