It's a double dip for Yes No Maybe So as we're way behind. Can't the movie world just stop for a little bit during the holidays so that we can all enjoy the movies we have right in front of us? Too many things. Too many things. Here's a girlish double and we'll get more manly in the next installment.
Let's start with The Other Woman which used to be called Love and Other Impossible Pursuits (better less generic title) starring the ubiquitous Natalie Portman. And that's ubiquitous with a capital U because, really, she's only going to get more inescapable from here on out.
The Other Woman
First there's this movie, then there's that Ashton Kuchner romcom, then Your Highness, then there's Thor (yes, 4 releases in 2011) plus the next two months of awards shows and then the wedding and the baby and so on. Is she aiming for Jolie/Pitt levels of über celebrity status? You won't be able to get away from her. You're going to look in the mirror and seeNatalie Portman.
Don Roos's key successes (The Opposite of Sex and Happy Endings) were told in a unique voice (always a plus) and revealed a deft hand with actors. His frequent collaborator Lisa Kudrow (yay!) plays the first wife and I think everyone wants to know if Natalie, post-Swan even though this was shot earlier, is going to be able to up her game as she moves into her thirties.
On the other hand this looks soft, overly happy and above all unfocused (child rearing, adultery, infant death, custody battles, family bonds, the kitchen sink). It also displays this other woman and asks you to root for her to win the married man which is...unnngh. Really? But it's a trailer, and maybe this isn't at all easy to summarize. Roos, particularly in Happy Endings, was able to balance a lot of flawed characters and emotional arcs. So maybe the marketing department just doesn't know what to do with it?
Despite what seems like far too many plot points (especially for a trailer) you have to admit there's a certain amount of 'wow... this could go in all sorts of interesting emotional directions.' That is if, and it's a big if, the trailer is a false witness to the actual tone.
It doesn't look promising to me but I am curious. You?
This trailer and discussion has presumed spoilers.
Hanna
Next we have Saoirse Ronan training for kills in the woods, with the dissonant mix of modern music and fairy tale titles. Little Saoirse's eventual target: Cate Blanchett.
You can't say that Joe Wright skimps on acting talent lining up Queen Blanchett to square off against Eric Bana (daddy?) and Saoirse Ronan (baby girl?). You also can't say that he didn't earn a couple films worth of experimentation and possible failure after his first two terrific pictures (Pride & Prejudice and Atonement).
I know that the deady little girl thing is a rite of passage for all underage startlets (just ask Natalie Portman, Kirsten Dunst, Dakota Fanning and Chloe Moretz and whoever gets cast in Hunger Games) but I can't say that the child soldier thing is for me. Rooting for trained assassins is so ... unpleasant. Child assassins? Even worse. Why is it such a popular genre? And isn't the trailer giving away a huge twist. [SPOILER?] Isn't it basically saying that Saoirse is Cate's daughter and that Cate is the villain rather than the victim/target? [/SPOILER?]
Visually there are a handful of hooky images and many trailers don't succeed at that even though they all try. Maybe Joe Wright and team could provide real chills (acting) and thrills (action).
So I guess that's two Maybe Sos for me. How are you feeling about seeing either of these pictures? *
Another round of insta-judgments. Just add trailer. Suddenly we know if...
yes) we're buying tickets
no) we're shunning the movie, or...
maybe so) withholding the judgments until we have more info.
Maybe so is usually the correct answer. Sometimes great trailers lead to disappointing movies. And sometimes virtually every piece of marketing for a movie will practically beg you not to see it when you might actually like it if you do (*cough* TANGLED... more on that soon).
But it's hard not to pre-judge. Commercials invite you to do just that.
In brightest day... in blackest night...
Ryan "Sexiest Man Alive" Reynolds stars as the Hal Jordan incarnation of Green Lantern. There have been many Green Lanterns, both before and after him but Hal is the most famous.
Yes. For those of you who are unaware, Green Lantern is actually not just any old superhero. He's powerless. The power is in his ring, a mystical device, and though he's superheroic, he's but one of many. In a way he's like an anonymous everyman worker-bee hero. It's an interesting twist on the typical one-of-a-kind hero concept if you stop to think over it. Which is why I was hoping some really crafty creative type would've pitched this as Green Lantern Corps to some cable station, and made it a really intelligent sci-fi multiple worlds series using something complex/multi-dimensional like Battlestar Galactica as inspirational role model rather than IronDevilSpiderBatSuperHulkMan. Instead it looks like we got...
No. ...just another Superhero Origin Flick. You've got your boyman who is suddenly given the gift of great power and he has to learn adult responsibility and heroism while some bland but beautiful girl encourages him from the sidelines. Sound familiar? It should. And: YAWN. I get that we need our hero myths. But do they have to be so similar every time? Also I laughed so hard this afternoon when @MediaObsessed said on twitter
Blake Lively as a fighter pilot? Oh Hollywood, sometimes penises should not be allowed in casting decisions.
HEE. So so true. I was worried about the casting from the get go. Ryan Reynolds is somewhat talented but there is something a touch blande/assembly line about him... like he's the photograph of a star rather than the flesh and blood actuality (though we totally thank him for the approximation of flesh part). When you add the Hot Girl of the Moment as the love interest it starts to just seem really... generic, like no one had a vision other than a Hulk-like grunted directive "Make Tentpole. Smash Puny Box Office Records."
Maybe So. Er... uh... I got nothing this time. It just looks so generic. It doesn't even look like good eye candy. The visual effects are generic too. It's hard to imagine this even being in contention for Best Visual Effects at the Oscars for 2011. Unless it's a really weak year. They do have 5 visual effects slot now. My point is this: I curse the day that CGI made filmmakers so lazy about the aesthetics of power. Why do all spells, mutations, powers, mystical or scientific equal gaseous colorful swirls?
I'm not interested. I'm a no. I know I complain about superhero movies a lot but I actually love superheroes. Like most boys and some girls, I grew up adoring them. I just want their movie doppelgangers to have more individualized personalities and to be made with real care for the big screen.
. JA from MNPP here. If Nat were around he'd perhaps do one of his "Yes No Maybe So" posts for this, but I've got nothing but yes for this, the first trailer for Cary Fukunaga's adaptation of Jane Eyre, which isn't out until March. (via)
.
.
Fukunaga's Sin Nombre - and I know Nat agrees with me on this - is a wonderful film. Thrilling and moving and gorgeously shot. So no matter what he did next I'd have been paying attention, but an adaptation of Jane Eyre was not at all what I was expecting and that makes me even happier. Love it when a director throws a curve-ball. And the cast... the cast! Michael Fassbender, Mia Wasikowska, Michael Fassbender, Judi Dench, Jamie Bell, Sally Hawkins and Michael Fassbender... drool.
And that trailer is just stunning. I posted a slew of screencaps over at MNPP in case you want to ogle it that way. What do we think? .
This goes out to anyone who caught the Sucker Punch trailer and anyone who cares about women as action heroes. Which, as you know, The Film Experience does. Unfortunately caring about something and enjoying it in practice are two different things. In practice there are so many things that can go wrong...
The trailer begins with an abused girl fights back set-up (a blouse ripped off and a button flying in slo-mo. Suggested rape as your opening gambit? Distasteful). Emily Browning is playing the lead role of "Baby Doll" and reading the summaries, I see something about a lobotomy? Is that why the performance looks so sleepy/blank? Not promising. But soon enough Abbie Cornish and Jena Malone appear and seem to be channeling the kind of badass bitch energy that films like this need as life blood. They're both good actresses and I'm especially curious to see Abbie let loose given that I've mostly seen her in heavy dramas, corseted or otherwise.
There's some sort of Matrix like plot where reality is not reality... but we're in Baby Doll's imagination instead which, as it turns out, is like a parodic version of the imagination of a teenage boy: in her alternate reality, she's a master swordswoman / hooker who fights giant samurais, robots, zombies, aircraft, and dragons. She's backed up by a whole army of interchangeable blonde sex workers with machine guns.
Who knew that hookers were criminally insane, that their imaginations were so similar to teen boys, or that their favorite movies were Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Beowulf and 300?
On the other hand...
You wants us to watch the über watchable CARLA GUGINO doing a funky accent while ruling over a posse of criminally insane burlesque backup dancers? I mean... hells yeah. Count me in... as long as the movie is so bad it's good and knows how absolutely stoopid it is. (Past history suggests, unfortunately, that Zach Snyder is way too earnest a filmmaker to do justice to the ridiculous content of his movies. And Dawn of the Dead showed such promise, damnit.)
Summaries of Sucker Punch's confusing "girl retreats into imaginary universe to escape her wicked father" storyline, suggest that Carla is one of the villains. But in the trailer, she seems to be playing Laurence Fishburne's "Morpheus"" to Browning's idiot cousin version of "Neo."I have a loftier film icon in mind for Carla's gifts: Can't someone give her her own Cristal (Showgirls) level "Goddess" role soon. Time is running out. 'She's gettin a little old for that whorey look.'
Are you a yes, no or maybe so?
I'm leaning hell no unless I hear that the lively cast of supporting actresses are fun enough to redeem the non-entity central role -- if this trailer is indication (let's hope it's not) Browning has only three expressions in her arsenal: scared, constipated, braindead. Can the fun cast make any kind of impression amongst the visual chaos/violent excess of Zach Snyder's sexual fantasies Baby Doll's imagination?
I probably need to start covering movies I'm not absolutely drooling for in this yes, no, maybe so trailer series. It gets hard to pick the "no" and "maybe" elements for a film like, say, this one here...
John Cameron Mitchell's RABBIT HOLE will hit theaters, albeit only a few of them we're guessing, on December 17th, a date obviously chosen with the perception that it will maximize Oscar prospects.
YES I am, for better or worse, what is known as a "fan" which is to say, once I love something, it tends to be intense (hair pulling excitement, joyful weeping... metaphorically speaking!) and it takes a lot for that love to die out . The word "fan" used to have both negative and positive connotations but now, I suppose, with the invention of the terms "fanboy" and "fangirl", the simpler word "fan" has lost some of its negative connotations. So I'm okay. I'm still discerning. Unless you think I'm a closer to a Kidman "fanboy" in which case, well, yeah, maybe but shut up -- [hyperventilating, crying]She is awesome!
NO Grief as Major Theme is tricky to pull off. There are all sorts of movie potholes on that journey: pornographic actorly histrionics, pandering "everything happens for a reason!" sentimentality, monotony of tone, boredom of plot. Plus the best work in this genre is nearly impossible to live up to. The best grief dramas are always French (Ponette and Trois Coleurs:Bleu) or are one hour long and found in really unexpected places ("The Body"). But it could be I am just overly touchy on this subject because it cuts too close to the bone when it's sharp. When it's dull, it just makes an awful mess of an important and universal topic. I hope this one is sharp, even though that means it'll hurt more.
MAYBE SO Ever since I heard about the artistic teenager that becomes intermingled with the grieving family, I was curious about how John Cameron Mitchell, who proved a very visual director in his first two features (Shortbus and Hedwig and the Angry Inch), would work that in. I'm pleased to note that the marketing team has used it as a sort of guiding motif in the trailer. I love the linear drawing emphasizing the Academy Award titling, don't you? It somehow seems more playful -- and the Oscars should be cuz they're fun! -- than the boring title cards we usually get when studios want you to know that "A PRESTIGE MOVIE IS COMING!"
Even if this movie didn't have such great festival buzz and Best Actress hype, I would still be a YES as all three principle actors are people I either obsessively love (Kidman) have loved ever since I can remember and always will (Wiest) or generally quite like (Eckhart).
But maybe your reaction veers far off in some other direction? Are you a yes, no or a maybe so when it comes to Rabbit Hole and why? *
The teaser for our Christmas present from The Coen Bros has arrived. It's our first good look at the second film version of the novel True Grit. Now why can't trailers for musicals admit their genre as readily as all westerns do -- despite westerns being a similarly troubled genre with notoriously fickle public interest.
As a teaser there's not much to go on yet. But I am happy to say...
yes Joel and Ethan Coen reuniting with "The Dude" is cause for rejoicing all by its lonesome self and the cinematography by Coen regular Roger Deakins looks unsurprisingly purty. I also reckon Carter Burwell stuck with his "protestant hymn" scoring idea that I scooped for y'all from Nashville this spring if the music in the teaser is representative of what we'll hear in the full movie.
no Matt Damon shooting things is less thrilling than it once was.
maybe so Apart from those strong directorial hands, all four of them, this entire thing will rest on Hailee Steinfeld and she's unknown to us. Good luck Hailee!
I'm actually just doing the Yes, No, Maybe So™ from habit. I am 100% YES. And you? *Jeff Bridges Joel Coen
I suppose I must pick up my Oscar-pundit speed now. Sorry for the delays...
Let's talk about The King's Speech
As you know this film came roaring out of Toronto as the audience award winner (see previous post) and The Film to Beat at the Oscars... unless you think that's The Social Network but it's since it's only late September fans of either (in reality or in theory) need to calm down. We were always confident that The King's Speech was an Oscar film even before they started filming which is why we've predicted it for several nominations since April. But now that the trailer is here allowing non-festival goers to have a looksee, what do we think?
On the bright side, it looks fun. Or at least it looks fun to anyone who loved watching Eliza Doolittle learn to properly e·nun·ci·ate. It also gives Colin Firth a meaty role that seems like a reward for elevating A Single Man (2009) (but for the fact that he probably signed for this before anyone saw how great he was in last year's nominated turn). I'm also THRILLED -- and yes it needed to be typed in all caps -- to see that Helena Bonham Carter has managed to escape Burton's gothic dungeon for some badly needed air. She's probably heading straight to her second Oscar nomination with relative ease; You know how they love those supportive wives. What's most surprising about the trailer is that the production values look superb and not in some vaguely rote prestige way but with a vividly handsome specificity. I didn't expect great visuals so maybe Tom Hooper's Best Director buzz isn't so far-fetched for a film that on paper seemed like one for the acting and production design branches mostly.
On the other hand, I am completely allergic to Geoffrey Rush in hambone mode. His win for Shine (1996) is one of my least favorite Best Actor prizes in the category's history and they nominated him for the entirely wrong film in 1998 as he was much more restrained and effective in Elizabeth than he was in Shakespeare in Love. He looks to be bringing the kook to scenes that already have inherent kookiness (speech therapy's comedy friendly exercizes) and I may just break out in hives watching him go for a second Oscar. I'm taking epipen into the theater with me... just in case.
Then we come to the Oscar Bait -- as if Royalty Porn weren't enough of it -- which is the World War II 'Nazi's are coming!' time frame. I hope it's less awkwardly handled here than it was in Mrs. Henderson Presents which this film vaguely reminds me of sight unseen. That's not a purposeful mental jump. It's worrisome rather but probably just based on account of early Oscar buzz, prestige actors, and the world war haunting the periphery of a "light" film.
Again, I might need the epipen but the festival buzz is certainly something to think about in an optimistic way. I'm a Yes leaning Maybe So because, again, Geoffrey Rush is a total No for me most of the time ...especially whilst clowning around. Look, we can't help what we're allergic to. Don't give me a hard time about it.
Are you a Yes, No or Maybe So? And do you buy the Oscar frontrunner (or thereabouts) hype? *
Our first glimpse of the highly buzzed David O. Russell boxing picture The Fighter. If it becomes a major player at this year's Oscars I want y'all to remember that I believed it would happen first. Toot Toot. (That was my own horn).
And now the patented foolproof system for judging our own reaction to the trailer: Yes, No, Maybe So™. Join us with your own in the comments.
First things first: It seems obvious that this film will live or die on the chemistry between its central brothers, boxer Mickey (Mark Wahlberg) and his trainer (Christian Bale). It seems obvious from the trailer that their relationship could well float like a butterfly and sting like a bee or whatever the hell boxers are supposed to do. Maybe Wahlberg is the type of performer who has to have a strong director to be properly called an actor -- but that question of his ability is already solved by reteaming him with David O'Russell who is already responsible for his best performance (I Heart Huckabees). Plus we'd like Christian Bale to stop doing these crazy things to his body so maybe mass acknowledgement that he's a good actor will dampen down that particular self-destructive urge for awhile?
On the other hand, haven't we seen enough boxing pictures? Isn't it the #1 most populated sport within the movies -- you'd think there'd be boxing gyms on every corner of every street to meet the need. Boxers are like hitmen: way more prevalent in the movies than they are in real life. But there will be blood... in the movies. Since we've seen so many rise and fall and rise again biopics and so many boxing pictures, what could this possibly add to the bloated over populated genre? I fear it looks a smidge generic... at least visually. Not that you can always tell from a trailer.
The cast sounds good on paper but how do they all come together onscreen? It's possibly delicious that there will be a catfight of sorts between Mickey's mom (Melissa Leo) and his girl (Amy Adams) but it also just might be typical Hollywood poverty porn. You know how they love the 'We're going to Disneyland!' white trash families the movies... or maybe I'm just thinking of the last Oscar baiting boxing pic. So, to make a long story short: I knew that both Leo and Adams were in the movie but who expected that the movie would contain girlfights? Haven't we all wanted to see Amy Adams test her range a little ever since her triumph in Enchanted? So why am I a little worried about her in this context.
It's not intentional but today will be something of a TV day here at The Film Experience -- and to think how we were just bitching about all the false arguments in its favor -- and let's start with this trailer for the HBO Miniseries Mildred Pierce. [thanks to Sebastián for alerting me]
Like Angels in America seven years back, the director, cast and production values allow us to easily pretend that it's really just a feature film in disguise. It's just another part of The Great Convergence because what are today's franchises like Harry Potter and Twilight other than three season'ish long television series with bigger budgets?
YES I'll see anything -- and have seen everything -- that Todd Haynes directs. From subversive queer shorts like Dottie Gets Spanked to the inventive Superstar (the legally troubled Karen Carpenter bio with Barbie dolls) through to Oscar contending films like Far From Heaven and I'm Not There. His films never fail to excite the eyeballs, the intellect and hormones. Some people think he has trouble with the heart portion of entertainment, that his films are too heady, but to this complaint I say [insert expletive]. Even if that were true, better that problem than the far more common cinematic ailments of brainlessness, sexlessness and generic aesthetics.
NO I don't understand the casting of 23 year old Evan Rachel Wood as 34 year old Kate Winslet's nasty ungrateful daughter Veda at all. Aren't they too old and too young for their roles respectively, thus compounding the problem? Believable mother daughter chemistry won't be as important as usual since they're at odds, but still. Not sure I follow this. Plus, I've been aching for Evan Rachel Wood to get out of her bad girl rut. She has more range than this (or at least she once did).
MAYBE SO As much as I love Kate Winslet, performing in the shadow of Joan Crawford's signature role just seems so... foolhardy? It's one thing to star in an adaptation of a novel that's been adapted before. It's quite another to star in an adaptation of a novel that's been adapted before as an immortal and glamorous star's biggest hour.
I'm a yes given Kate + Todd + below the line players like DP Edward Lachman. Though I feel I should note that Todd's regular costume designer Sandy Powell did not work on this -- she told me her schedule conflicted when I interviewed her during the Young Victoria Oscar run.
My current plan: read the book in the next month or two so as not to be thinking of the gorgeous Michael Curtiz noir the whole way through.
Kate in her Emmy winning* role as Mildred Pierce.
You? Have you seen Joan Crawford's Oscar winning take on the Mildred Pierce role? If not, what are you waiting for?
It's a true story double feature for this installment of Yes, No, Maybe So, in which we break down personal reaction to movie trailers.
We'll start with Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire follow up -- and boy does this trailer not let you forget that this is the follow up -- which is called 127 Hours. In the movie, James Franco plays Aron Ralston who gets pinned under a rock and the rest is, well,his arm is history.
Yes James Franco is on the rise and this could be the movie where he finally proves the extent of his talents. He does have to hold the screen for virtually the full running time. If I've understood the prerelease mumblings correctly, what we're seeing in the trailer is only clips from the first half hour ish of the movie. I'd actually love to have that be the rule for Hollywood. You may not use anything past the 30 minute mark in your trailers. Begone Spoilers! (Not that people don't know what happened in this particular story since it's so easy to sum up and everyone has already been summing online for months.)
Also Moab, Utah is ridiculously beautiful even when shot by cinematographers far less gifted than Oscar winner Anthony Dod Mantle or Enrique Chediak. I know because I once lived in Utah and every photographer, good or un, has a million photographs capturing the rocky beauty of southern half of the state.
No For lost in the desert existential survivalist drama, I'll take something more contemplative like Gus Van Sant's Gerry. Will this be too tricked up to combat those nerves filmmakers so often have about how long they can hold the audiences attention? (Hence the current ridiculous average shot length being under 2 seconds problem.) Maybe So Even though I wasn't crazy about Slumdog Millionaire -- it's actually my least favorite of his filmography (that I've seen) -- I do think Boyle is an energetic and often interesting filmmaker. My Boyle heirarchy would break down like so.
Trainspotting ...choose life
28 Days Later ...choose the future
Shallow Grave ...choose a starter home
Sunshine ...choose a fucking big television
The Beach ...choose a family
Slumdog Millionaire ...but why would i want to do a thing like that?
Love the top three and admire the fourth quite a lot. Slumdog and The Beach are like weird twins of the B-/C+ overrated & underrated fraternal variety. So I'm curious about this movie. Where will it fit in?
Verdict: I'm a yes all told. I'll see it opening weekend in early November if I somehow miss the critic's screenings.
* In Fair Game, Naomi Watts plays CIA Operative Valerie Plame and Sean Penn her husband the journalist in this true story that's already been covered at the cinema in a movie with Kate Beckinsale and Vera Farmiga that nobody went to see called Nothing But the Truth. (It's on that annually expanding list of December Glut Plague victims)
Yes We need to be reminded of stories like this. Particularly since the sins of the past administration are still haunting us. It's definitely a compelling and resonant story about a nation that chucks their integrity and bedrock values for political point scoring (sound familiar? see also: current events).
No On the other hand, do we need to be reminded of it again this quickly? And doesn't the casting of Sean Penn in a liberal political type movie feel a bit too preaching to the choir, a bit too on the nose?
Maybe So I'm intrigued that they choose to end the trailer with Naomi Watt's defiant line reading...
They push you until they find the point at which you break. You can't break me. I don't have a breaking point.
(even though the underscore is laughably OTT) because I feel the exact opposite about her as an actress. She often seems so broken before a movie even begins. I think she's Oscar worthy in Mulholland Dr and nomination worthy in The Painted Veil (easily her two best performances) but my principal problem with her intensely pitched work is that she always seems ahead of the character arc, rather than developing it organically towards narrative peaks. I'm hoping she's calm and nuanced her at least before they threaten to break her.
Verdict: I'm a no in terms of desire, but I try to see everything if Oscar buzz becomes involved. So if awards seasons starts calling on Naomi, I'll definitely catch it.
How do these trailers breakdown for you in the yes no maybe so sense? Have at it in the comments. Whether you're pinned under a rock or your dangerous secret has just been outed, nothing is more urgent than blog commenting! *
The buzzy romantic dramedy set in the Viagra sales world known as Love and Other Drugs has a full trailer now. Let's give it our trademark 'Yes No Maybe So' treatment. You do the same in the comments. Because, well, it's fun. It's a healthy way to manage expectations -- You vs. the Hype! -- forcing yourself to see the potential good, bad and inbetweens of a future film experience.
Yes. It's no secret that I'm exceptionally fond of both of both Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway, two of the best 20something actors on the planet.That designation won't last much longer as Anne turns 28 and Jake 30 as the year wraps up. But the thirtysomething years are often the peak ones for movie stars so if Jake & Anne raise their respective games here and really deliver as leads, we could be looking at amazing decades ahead for both of them, rather than a deflation of the early promise. At any rate, it'll be fun to see them reunited post Brokeback Mountain. I'm of the opinion that Hollywood would be smart to offer moviegoers more frequent screen pairings of actors that have already proven their chemistry. It's a through line that can make movies extra magical and it's just bewildering that Hollywood doesn't see it since as a business they love repeating past successes in just about every other way.
No. Well, there is the potential problem of this being a story we've seen a bazillion times (minus the viagra bit): cocksure young successful man who isn't the settling down type finally meets a girl who turns his world upszzzzzzzz. Sorry, I fell asleep thinking of 2,302 other movies whose names have escaped me. If these movies aren't made with great flair, they're virtually undistinguishable from each other at core.
Maybe So. This is what I find most surprising. I've never really liked an Edward Zwick picture before but I want to see this. It always seems like he's trying to win an Oscar rather than make a movie... but perhaps it's the earnest Baity historical subject matter he tends to favor that gives this impression. Maybe this more contemporary story will loosen up his direction and he will finally get that Best Picture nomination he's been chasing since the 80s. He's won the Oscar as a producer (Shakespeare in Love) but none of his own directorial efforts have been nominated. Even the ones Oscar really liked like Blood Diamond and Glory.
I'm a yes. I want to see Anne & Jake sparkling in synch. And you? *
I almost don't have the stamina for this after drooling all over Showgirls (1995) for three or so hours yesterday. But the first trailer for the new musical Burlesque (2010) has arrived and we'll all be comparing the films from now on. Until we're actually watching it at least. Then... who knows? Movie|Line has already memorably mocked the trailer saying
What would happen if Glitter, Showgirls and Nine had a baby — and that baby was raised by Cher and Stanley Tucci’s character from The Devil Wears Prada?
And we can't compete with that. Sometimes you just have to tip your hat.
But we're here for the "Yes, No or Maybe So?" treatment anyway which isn't the same thing as making fun. Are you eager to see it, desperate to avoid or totally on the fence? It's often some mix for me and this is how it breaks down.
Cher in a big starring role insures my ticket purchase. Listen up, I paid for Tea With Mussolini for pete's chaz's sake. I think only 90 people did. I am loyal. From the ebb and flow of this trailer (already disappearing from the web) it looks like she's playing the Velma Kelly or Cristal Connors role only mixed with Mama Morton. It's like she's being the seasoned pro diva but leaving the dirtywork catfighting to minions (like Kristen Bell?). I can totally get behind Cher as wisdom dispenser/diva entrepreneur who delegates her bitchiest moments to others.
Did it have to be Christina Aguilera? Hasn't she been working this burlesque thing for some years now? That big character reveal moment that is supposed to shock everyone where she starts the vocals, preventing the curtain drop? It already feels anti-climactic. Big whoop-dee-doo. Christina can do growly runs. I think this sort of storyline begs for an unknown in the lead or a name that we didn't know could sing like a madwoman. Someone who can shock you with their lion's roar when you assumed they were a pussycat (doll).
On the other hand... the supporting cast looks very fun. We see a lot of reliable ol' Stanley Tucci in Prada mode, Kristen Bell promises great catfight in her blink and you'll miss her kittenish moment, and Alan Cumming, who could outperform most Burlesque divas just by replaying any single moment of his Tony-winning emcee performance from Cabaret , is also glimpsed. How enjoyable the movie is may well rest on how much screen time these supporting players get. Of course it might make me crazy that they're all second fiddle to Xtina but what can you do. Hollywood has never been much of a meritocracy.
You know what to do in the comments. And you'd better do it. Cher is in the (movie) house and she doesn't come around too often. Be ready with a tip for a true show queen.
Here's the trailer to the comedy It's Kind of a Funny Story. The movie, based on the book of the same name, opens on September 24th.
This film was previously covered in the "We Can't Wait" series but now that there's more physical evidence, are we looking forward to seeing it?
Yes. Keir Gilchrist is an exceptional young actor (if The United States of Tara is any indication). And the film looks sweet and funny. It's directed by Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck who've only made Sugar and Half Nelson but both films were received warmly by critics and the small audiences that sought them out. Can they expect there appreciative audience considerably this time?
No. The 'mental disorders are hilarious and crazy people help you grow!' movie trope can wear thin and false real fast. Does the movie have more emotional range than this trailer suggests?
Maybe So. But it does look funny, focused and specific. Specific is good.
Here's the trailer to Ben Affleck's The Town, which opens exactly two months from tomorrow.
Gone Baby Gone devotees, we understand there are a small but very serious group of them, should be pleased to note that Ben has already completed his second feature.
Do we want to see it?
Yes. When famous actors direct they can often call in favors and rope in impressive casts. This time we get Jeremy Renner, fresh off The Hurt Locker, Jon Hamm (Mad Men) in what could be an important transitional screen role, the oft acclaimed Chris Cooper. Best of all it looks like Rebecca Hall, who we consider practically the young actress to watch, is front and center in what looks like a possibly rangey role: crime victim? secret-hoarder? romantic object? inner strength finding heroine and/or downward spiraling conflicted bystander?
No. Cops and robbers, shoot outs, bank heists, blue collar criminals, passionate FBI agents on the hunt, blood brother betrayals, women caught in the crossfire...
Haven't we seen these stories, characters and the invididual story elements every year since the dawn of the cinema? a million times? When you're working in very very familiar cinematic playgrounds, your work better be revelatory. Your actors, not just your automobiles, better be on fire.
Maybe So. Now that his directorial learning curve is gone baby gone, Ben is working both sides of the camera. He might not be the rangiest actor but he's also proven to be a solid and/or charming performer at times. But can he direct himself as well as he directed his brother Casey? Amy Ryan may have won Gone's sole Oscar nod for her trashy druggy mother scene stealing but wasn't Casey Affleck the interesting hard to read protagonist rock that was holding that film together?
Nathaniel (that's me) is a firm "maybe so". Which are you?
It's a "yes, no, maybe so" first. It's just a yes and no which is actually just a no. Bias alert!
Let Me In While I normally try and maintain an open mind about new films, beyond the common 'I know what I like' biases that every critic or casual moviegoer goes in with (whether or not they admit to it... but that's another topic), this is a special case. I'm a "No" before watching the trailer given that the whole thing reminds me of nothing more than those knockoff dresses meant to replicate a popular Oscar gown. Only in this case, it makes no sense to buy the knockoff because it's not any cheaper than the great original. In fact, it's more expensive since ticket prices are always going up.
But before I even watched the trailer I must admit unoriginal but sincere confusion as to why the aesthetically beautiful teaser poster is constructed of blood and ice. One of the most chilling aspects (hahaha) of the original film was its wintry Scandinavian setting. The new film supposedly relocates the movie to New Mexico but both the poster and the trailer suggest we're still in wintry Scandinavia. Now, I've personally only been to New Mexico once, for cheesy 'Drive around the four corners!' tourist reasons so my knowledge is extremely untrustworthy... but it didn't strike me as a wintry place at all. And though I'm no meteorological expert I have the vague perception that it's not very cold in the Southwest even in the winter. Do lakes even freeze over in the winter?
Whatever. I'll shut up. It's just a poster. Here's the trailer.
Yes Here's the one thing I'm genuinely curious about. What's the cinematography by Greig Fraser going to be like over the course of the whole film? His work on Bright Star was just exceptional. I could see forgiving this film's existence if it made people notice (retroactively) how amazing his work on Bright Star was since it won virtually no awards. No I can answer that in five words "Let the Right One In" or I could use just two "Chloe Moretz". Maybe So A trailer has finally stumped me. I have no mixed feelings about this movie. I object to its very existence as well as all the credit it will get as "original" or "visionary" or whatever adjective the press notes will supply people should it happen to win good reviews whilst copying a superior film.
BlaA--AA--aaaARRrrrggh. Sorry.
Are you a yes, no or maybe so? I won't judge you. I'm still too busy judging the film I haven't seen. *
Stepping away from the Oscar bait trailers for a moment, let's take a spin on the color wheel. Will you have blue (The Smurfs) or green (The Green Hornet) or will you going to hold out for something red or purple?
Let's apply the Film Experience's trailer treatment Yes, No, Maybe So™ to both starting with The Green Hornet (2011).
Yes It's directed by Michel Gondry who made movies as visually singular as Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep and as energetic and fun as Dave Chappelle's Block Party. Plus, Christoph Waltz is the villain and we already know what he can do in that department. No But... I'm confused. Could this look any more generic? It looks like Stephen Sommers or Mark Steven Johnson directed it, yes? The plot seems to be some weird mishmash of Batman and Kick-Ass instead of a Green Hornet story. Finally that 3D tag at the end just depresses. I have nothing against 3D but it's just starting to feel like a desperate peer pressure crutch at this point, like wearing the same brand name jeans/shoes as everyone else lest the kids at school make fun of you. If you're a gifted stylist like Gondry, do you really want to be aping other people's looks?
Maybe So Perhaps the trailer purposefully looks generic to rope in people who are scared of visual originality (i.e. unfortunately large percentage of moviegoers)? Also, remember when Jay Chou (Kato) was lusting after his hot mom Gong Li in The Curse of The Golden Flower. No? Okay I'm stretching but maybe he'll be good? But then I'm back to no. Because why does Kato still have to be a manservant in 2010? Think about it: Kato has the knowledge, the weapons and mad crime fighting skill. Plus he has to teach the bumbling rich white boy. So why isn't the white boy the sidekick? Please to explain.
And... The Smurfs (2011)
Yes Well, the cast (not featured here but for Neil Patrick Harris) is interesting. No Jesus! Is that really Tone Loc's "Wild Things" playing underneath the lalalas? This was made in what decade exactly? If this is all they got did they really need to release a teaser already? Maybe So Live action mixed with animation once produced Who Framed Roger Rabbit and that's a totally classic comedy so maybe...
First things first, changing your movie title from something very specific like Betty Anne Waters to something as generic as Conviction is not a good sign. Searching for Conviction on IMDb will get you several films, theatrical/dvd/made-for-TV. Searching for Betty Anne Waters gets you just one. Are they scared of people thinking "ewww, it's a girl's movie!" or maybe "Is this a sequel to Amelia? That sucked" or what?
But here's the trailer.
So here's where we break it down.
Yes, no, or maybe so?
The supporting cast is jam-packed with good actors: Melissa Leo - sure okay; Sam Rockwell - yes, please; Minnie Driver -why the hell not?!; Juliette Lewis -Yes, please x 10. And wherever I can get her which isn't on silver screens that much. I had all but forgotten that she had a role in this film. I never knew, even before the forgetting, that it would a real role, and not some throwaway part. But she's even name-checked in the trailer and with her Academy Award Nominee status no less. Yay and also Wow because that doesn't happen much. With all of these good actors on board, maybe they'll all escape the typical "I'm poor! Listen to my weird townie/rural accent!" actor's trap. An accent is not a character.
You're smart. You'll know that I don't have to explain myself here. Kapeesh?
I don't think there's enough films made about brothers & sisters and their unique bonds. I really don't. Usually if you see a film about siblings it's almost always brothers with a random sister act hitting us now and then. I'm always curious to see if actors can pull off a familial bond. Most of the time this game of pretend is no more than adequate but when something really clicks between two actors in terms of family chemistry, it can be truly potent stuff. I'm hoping Swank and Sam pull it off since the whole film will kind of depend on it.
I suppose I'm a "maybe so" based solely on Juliette Lewis and Oscar interest. But I'll be an immediate "no" with mediocre reviews. I really can't be bothered with courtroom dramas unless the reviews are strong. I personally think it's the genre that's most "dead" onscreen. As in, why is someone making this movie? They'd better have a damn good reason and explain it with some cinematic zing! But every once in awhile there's a great one (see Erin Brockovich)
This is neither here nor there but the film is directed by Tony Goldwyn, grandson of legendary studio mogul Samuel Goldwyn. You might not know Tony's name but you surely know his face. He's that vaguely eyebrow-less guy who Hollywood always wants you to loathe and also loathe yourself for loving because he's super attractive.
Hey, it's a niche. An actor's gotta work.
But is it really fair to hate on him for killing his best friend to get into Demi Moore's pants? Because who wouldn't have offed their buddy for Demi circa 1990? I mean, cut a guy some slack. It'sDemi.
Goldwyn A.D./B.D before and after psychoanalyzing one Dexter Morgan
I've been watching Dexter lately on Netflix Instant Watch (that obsession has cooled a bit). Goldwin directs multiple episodes and in one he even directs himself as a psychiatrist who kills off powerful women after reducing them to hot messes with a lethal combo of bad therapy and drugs. [Why are psychiatrist always evil in movies? Discuss.] Naturally, Dexter cuts him up into little itty bits.
Goldwyn previously directed the critically well received A Walk in the Moon (1999) but, alas, Conviction (née Betty Anne Waters) doesn't star Diane Lane and Viggo Mortensen.
I guess June is when the OscarBait trailers begin their stampede? I always forget summertime occurences as I have already melted. I hate summer. Yesterday we performed our patented three pronged expectation-management on Somewhere. Today Mark Romanek's adaptation of Kazuo Ishiguro's best sellerNever Let Me Go.
You might not want to read this if you're worried about subject/thematic spoilers. I still need to read the book but I feel like this would have been great to go into blind. I'm glad that the trailer is hinting rather than telling, as all trailers should.
The cast is a big draw: Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley, Sally Hawkins (looks like a good part), Charlotte Rampling... it just keeps on giving people that are a) fine actors and b) interesting to look at in one way or another. And they're all in the service of sober non-f/x driven sci-fi which is all too rare at the movies. [SPOILER] This one has to do with a school for clones though this trailer doesn't make that too specific. [/SPOILER] The last such sci-fi flick that comes to mind was Children of Men and those three words strung together should prompt fine cinematic memories.
This is an entirely personal thing. I don't tend to respond well to bifurcated structures where we get used to one actor playing a role and have to switch to another or switch back and forth. I like it when movies cover a short frame of time in their character's lives. Movies are most equatable with short stories, if you ask me. The television miniseries is the ideal home for novel adaptations but nobody in Hollywood agrees with this assessment. That said, that's the only "no" I could come up with which is a great sign. And those young girls do seem well cast to evoke Mulligan & Knightley.
Blade Runner (1982) is one of the greats and when an image like the one to your left explicitly calls it mind, it's both exciting and worrying. It seems likely that the movie will similarly examine entirely human concerns about the purpose of life, the mystery of the soul, and the fear of death through the distancing protection of a genre lens. Can Mark Romanek do all this justice? He's got a great eye and makes absolutely incredible music videos. But I didn't get much apart from aesthetic value from his previous feature, One Hour Photo. There's so much rich thematic possibility here: Do I have a soul? Is my life not even mine? Will loving someone save me? There's not enough time. All these moments will be lost like tears in the rain.
In short, I'm a yes. But I do think I should read the book first since it's supposed to be incredible. I'd rather know the real thing before experiencing its copy, even though the copy looks to have plenty of soul.
Posts
