E-MAIL THE AUTHOR | ARCHIVESBy Christopher Stipp
January 30, 2004
SUPER SUNDAY, SUNDAY, SUNDAY
The greatest news this week is not what was or was not nominated for an Academy Award. I couldn’t care less. Okay, I actually do care but seriously, not more than my anticipation for what trailers are going to run this Sunday during the Super Bowl. If any of you geeks remembers the Super Bowl from two years ago, it was the first time we all got a good look at Spidey and felt how agonizing it would be to wait until May to finally see him in action; or how STAR WARS: EPISODE I gave us all hope until Jake Lloyd and Jar Jar delivered a monkey punch to our collective admiration for George Lucas. This is a great time to see the big budget blockbusters that we’re all going to get suckered into seeing this summer. I’ve got my trusty TiVo at the ready and hope to recount some of the surprises that pop up this Sunday. As usual, I hope you all utilize the link below and e-mail me to say what you thought of the mix of goodies the studios are whoring for the amount of money ($2.3M for :30) spent on advertising their pet projects. Speaking of which, I must take a moment to give props out to all my peeps out there who wrote in this week with their own thoughts about the nature of trailers in today’s marketplace.
Here are a couple of highlights, capturing some of the more common responses (many of you out there were very angry SOBs when it came to this subject.), from the populace:
“I’m 55 years old…Trailers fashioned in the 50’s were a bit more honest about the goods they were hawking. They didn’t give away the plot. However, even back then, I don’t think the audience was given much credit for being very sharp….A good trailer should whet your appetite enough to get your butt into that theater seat on Friday [and] shouldn’t use the snake oil approach that Guber embraces.†— Jim L.
“That line from Guber about Hollywood being in the ’emotional transportation’ business is useless crap. Of course they’re in the emotional transportation business, but if Hollywood’s going to show me a trailer it should give an accurate map of where they want to transport me to!†— Buck T.
There were more, heavily worded, thoughts but I will be demure enough to keep those comments to myself, but I do hope some of you write in this week with what you thought of the offerings that will run this Sunday. I will, however, be ignoring any messages that say Terry Tate as I, too, hope they bring him back for another round of office football.
So, without further ado, let me crack open a sixer of Schlitz and start this week’s column. This week’s favorite trailer honors go to ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND. It’s trippy, cool, smooth and if you get a good look at the poster, you would be hard pressed to deny that the woman is not, in fact, Kate Winslet, but a very fine-looking Elizabeth Shue circa ADVENTURES IN BABYSITTING.
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Cast: Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Michael Madsen, Sonny Chiba, Vivica A. Fox, Daryl Hannah, Lucy Liu, LaTanya Richardson, Michael Jai White, Woo-ping Yuen, Samuel L. Jackson
Release: April 16, 2004
Synopsis: The second film in the two-part “Kill Bill” series, the first being Kill Bill: Vol. 1. Uma Thurman is going to “Kill Bill,” in Quentin Tarantino’s latest film about a former assassin betrayed by her boss, Bill (Carradine). Four years after surviving a bullet in the head, the bride (Thurman) emerges from a coma and swears revenge on her former master and his deadly squad of international assassins, played by Lucy Liu, Daryl Hannah, Vivica A. Fox and Michael Madsen.
View Trailer:
• Various (QuickTime, Windows Media, Real One)
Progonosis: Positively Enamored. Simple.The trailer is mostly in black and white, consisting of a single shot of Uma driving a convertible — it only divulges one brief color clip from the film starring David Carradine and Michael Madson. That’s it and it’s great.
Uma, however, speaks directly to the camera, makes a tongue-in-cheek comment of what populist reviewers summarized her role in the film as being, and ends the whole thing on a very nice note: that she is going to kill Bill. She even gives us a wink. Simple, clean, no-nonsense.
I used to joke that some people are either evolutionary predators or prey based on how their eyes sit on their face. Some have savage ocular cavities positioned front and center, but some, like Uma, have the kind of eyes that seem to give her thirty percent more vision for anyone who tries to creep up on her, trying to remove her from the food chain. She was my example, my thesis. But watching her in this clip make me feel like, yes, she captures the killer vibe that I don’t think any other kind of woman could have harnessed.
Some other initial impressions I have of the trailer is that it doesn’t give us any real good peek at what is going to be coming in April, but the who the hell cares? The first one was filled with enough chop-sockey, blood, blades, babes, great writing and dialogue, more blood, and enough homages that the whole film was like one big thank you letter to the masters that came before Quentin. It really doesn’t matter here what Tarantino put up on the screen to whet anyone’s appetitive.
But that’s what makes this a great trailer.
Since trailers are trying to sell something, and because KILL BILL VOL. 1 was so finely crafted, as evidenced by the amount of fanboys who are still drooling from its effects, VOL. 2 has already been bought, emotionally, by everyone who saw the first. However, what about those who didn’t see the first one who need to be sold on the second? Quentin seems to be replying with, “tough shit.†Get out to your dollar theater or wait until it’s released on DVD on April 13th, but only then, if you liked what you saw, will you see why this trailer doesn’t have to give away anything to anyone.
I’m feeling, though, that the suits above will put some pressure on Quentin or that Quentin himself will release another trailer filled with some more snippets from the film, but it’s great the way it is right now.
Director: Luke Greenfield
Cast: Emile Hirsch, Elisha Cuthbert, Timothy Olyphant, James Remar, Chris Marquette, Paul Dano
Release: March 12, 2004
Synopsis: Eighteen-year-old Matthew Kidman (Hirsch) is a straight-arrow over-achiever who has never really lived life, until he falls for his new neighbor, the beautiful and seemingly innocent Danielle (Cuthbert). When Matthew discovers this perfect “girl next door” is a one-time porn star, his sheltered existence begins to spin out of control. Ultimately, Danielle helps Matthew emerge from his shell and discover that sometimes you have to risk everything for the person you love – as he helps her rediscover her innocence.
View Trailer:
• Large (QuickTime)
• Medium (QuickTime)
• Small (QuickTime)
Progonosis: Eager Beaver. Okay. I’ll be honest. I may actually pay to see this one. Apart from having Elisha Cuthbert in the flick, this film has a director whose last directorial outing was Rob Schneider’s THE ANIMAL, and has a couple of writers who have done work on things like SAVING RYAN’S PRIVATES, Mad TV, and KEEPING THE FAITH. Quite a pendulum going on here.
It’s no lie that the teenage comedy has been languishing in some very murky box office excitement lately. If you take a look at what Freddie Prinze Jr., Matthew Lillard or Sarah Michelle Gellar have been up to on the silver screen you would have a hard time convincing me that are all destined to turn a professional corner someday and actually produce something that won’t be direct-to-video and sit alongside Antonio Sabato Jr. or Kari Wuhrer’s career at your local Blockbuster.
What we have here in THE GIRL NEXT DOOR might actually be something worth seeing judging by that large R sitting on the bottom of its website. There are countless dusty hits from the eighties with some of your average no-name actors that I believe still have some funny left in them (REVENGE OF THE NERDS and PORKY’S come to mind very quickly) and maybe it’s because of the preponderance of salacious, adult situations (reading between the MPAA lines: whole lotta nudity) that really did it for me as a young ‘un of 15. That’s why this movie may be a touchstone for some young prepubescent hornball. These kinds of films, if they deliver on the goods and don’t show up empty handed, have their place and can do well for themselves as long as they have some plot, humor (high brow or low brow, doesn’t matter) and have just enough of that je ne sais quoi (boobs) to actually sustain it for a full ninety minutes plus. Also, and this is simply an honorable mention, you have Timothy Olyphant from GO who seems to be reprising the same role as a psychotic nutcase and that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
However, the tagline in the trailer “always know if the juice is worth the squeeze†is a little clunky and awkward. I think “always know if Elisha Cuthbert is worth hitting it†would be the better angle. The answer, immediately, would be a resounding yes to all the adolescent boys who will be sneaking into the theater, after buying a ticket to see THE PRINCE AND ME, to see this one on March 12th.
Director: Bernardo Bertolucci
Cast: Michael Pitt, Eva Green, Louis Garrel
Release: February 6, 2004 (limited)
Synopsis: Left alone in Paris whilst their parents are on holiday, Isabelle (Eva Green) and her brother Theo (Louis Garrel) invite Matthew (Michael Pitt), a young American student, to stay at their apartment. Here they make their own rules as they experiment with their emotions and sexuality while playing a series of increasingly demanding mind games. Set against the turbulent political backdrop of France in the spring of 1968 when the voice of youth was reverberating around Europe, THE DREAMERS is a story of self-discovery as the three students test each other to see just how far they will go.
View Trailer:
• Large (QuickTime)
• Medium (QuickTime)
• Small (QuickTime)
Progonosis: Positive. I don’t mean to bring it down a notch but now, since the ten of you who are now reading this column, judging by the e-mail that is simply crushing my inbox, might actually be interested in films that are just outside of the mainstream I’d thought I would pass this along for your perusal.
Set against the backdrop of 1968 Paris, France, and all the things that were swirling around in the world at the time, from the worries of communism, the Vietnam War, to the massive student protests that were unfolding in the streets, this movie follows a young American, Michael Pitt, of HEDWIG AND THE ANGRY INCH fame, who is studying abroad and gets involved with a brother and sister who are, um, real close; just think Angelina Jolie with her odd-looking, manservant brother and how close they came to actual on-screen coitus at times.
What is interesting about this trailer is that even though this is coming from the same man who brought us LAST TANGO IN PARIS, and who forever obfuscated my perception of the uses of butter, it challenges the viewer with some fairly heavy imagery, intricately threaded storylines and a subtext that would make any Freudian befuddled. It is at the same time gorgeous and repellant to view.
It looks fabulous.
Now, some of you enjoy the slam and blam approach to mainstream fare and may be turned off by the movie’s heady themes, but after watching this tightly packed trailer, and reading some of the advance reviews from Sundance, I would recommend this picture for those looking for something new, fresh, and outside the lines of one’s own comfort zone.
The trailer blatantly confronts basic tenets of most people’s values (thou shall not sleep in the nude with thine own sister), but THE DREAMERS looks like it could give a good cleaning to everyone’s cinema calibrator of what defines good film and great film. Even though the trailer skeeved me out a tad, I love that this two-dimensional trailer is making me feel something real. That alone is a lot more than I can say about a majority of tripe out there that passes as a good night out at the theater.
Director: Joel Coen
Cast: Tom Hanks, Marlon Wayans, Irma P. Hall, Ryan Hurst, Tzi Ma, Stephen Root, J.K Simmons, George Wallace, Jason Weaver
Release: March 26, 2004
Synopsis: Tom Hanks teams up for the first time with filmmakers Joel and Ethan Coen for this retelling of the critically acclaimed 1955 comedy, THE LADYKILLERS. Hanks stars as Goldthwait Higginson Dorr III, Ph.D., a charlatan professor who’s assembled a gang of experts for the heist of the century. The thieves: experts in explosions, tunneling, and muscle, and the critical inside man. The base of operations: the root cellar of an unsuspecting, church-going little old lady named Mrs. Munson (Hall). The ruse: the five need a place to practice their church music. The problem: it quickly becomes evident that Dorr’s thieves lack the mental capacity to do the job. The bigger problem: they have all seriously underestimated their upstairs host.
View Trailer:
• Small (QuickTime)
Progonosis: Positive. Say what you will about Marlon Wayans but the man turned in some great work on one of my always top ten distinguished titles, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, and on my other list which I keep crumpled under my mattress for movies that still make me giggle but would be blasphemy to publicly endorse, MO’ MONEY. The guy is funny and has proven himself with the SCARY MOVIE franchise no matter what your feelings are concerning the film’s welcome factor after its third installment. He’s no Eddie Murphy circa 1984, but really, Eddie only had five good years before the writing was on the wall, and in large letters: What the hell happened to the funny, Eddie? Marlon is good and he only looks better with Tom Hanks looking like a screamingly funny throwback to a forgotten southern era.
On first glance you would think that this new movie from the brothers Coen had crafted another period piece. Not that it would have been a bad thing, mind you, because the Coen’s skewed view of modern life (RAISING ARIZONA, FARGO, BLOOD SIMPLE) is always a pleasure to indulge in.
As Tom Hanks plays up his obviously crooked character, and as the other players are introduced, the movie has to work to set itself apart from the classic English comedy that starred Alec “Obi†Guinness and Peter “Strangelove†Sellers nearly fifty years ago. And it does it very well.
The trailer is delicately pieced together with the plot’s set up, which is Hanks’ intentions to rob a riverboat casino, going on to describe the specialized abilities of all the players who are going to help (since the advent of OCEAN’S 11 isn’t there a good all-in-one thief for hire anymore?) and, the most important when trying to sell a comedy, the physical slapstick that is sure to follow. If I do have one gripe about the trailer it is the use of Irma Hall near the end of it. For those who have not seen the greatness that is NOTHING TO LOSE, which isn’t for those keeping track, the trailer for that film featured Irma giving a good smack to Martin Lawrence (something that should be done more often. Maybe that would knock a little funny loose in him as well.) for uttering something untoward in front of her. Well, she does it again in this trailer to Marlon who says something untoward in front of her. If anything it is a mild annoyance that the device is not only used again to sell a different movie, but, also, that it’s being done by the same woman. Whether it’s something that Irma does really well, and was accentuated as such, I have no idea. The trailer showcases, wisely, Hanks, who looks like a delight to watch for his mannerisms alone and the Coen’s have yet to seriously make a misstep with their work (as long as you don’t look too harshly upon THE HUDSUCKER PROXY).
ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND (2004)
Director: Michel Gondry
Cast: Jim Carrey, Kate Winslet, Tom Wilkinson, Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood, David Cross
Release: March 19, 2004
Synopsis: Joel (Jim Carrey) is stunned to discover that his girlfriend Clementine (Kate Winslet) has had her memories of their tumultuous relationship erased. Out of desperation, he contacts the inventor of the process, Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Tom Wilkinson), to have Clementine removed from his memory. But as Joel’s memories progressively disappear, he begins to rediscover their earlier passion. From deep within the recesses of his brain, Joel attempts to escape the procedure. As Dr. Mierzwiak and his crew (Kirsten Dunst, Mark Ruffalo, Elijah Wood) chase him through the maze of his memories, it’s clear that Joel just can’t get her out of his head.
View Trailers:
• Various for Trailer versions 1 and 2 (Windows Media, Real Player)
• Small (QuickTime…For an extra sparkling clean version one)
Progonosis: Positive. Some trailers live up to being a gold standard for promising, and delivering, great things. TRUE ROMANCE, PULP FICTION, SPIDER-MAN, and FIGHT CLUB, regardless what you thought of them, did their jobs perfectly. What made them great was that it either set up the story with such hidden excitement that it gave you no inkling, at least to those, like me, having little brain power at all to see forests for trees, what kind of ending awaited in the last reel.There is no greater sin in trailer creation than letting an audience see every money shot you have in your cinematic arsenal because it will only lead to bad word-of-mouth and will kill the film. What is really special about ETERNAL SUNSHINE OF THE SPOTLESS MIND is that it doesn’t give you much as it does in setting up the wonderful possibilities of what this movie can possibly hold.
Coming from Michel Gondry, a director who is most well-known in music video circles (yeah, I had no idea that they still made ’em either) for his work with the overrated, overexposed, over easy White Stripes, the solid Foo Fighters, and the thrilla from Iceland-a, Bjork, and based on a screenplay by Charlie Kaufman the trailer bleeds images that this could be a nice pleasure trip. What stands out, starkly, is the approach the first trailer takes. An infomercial as an initial promotional device for a movie, burning away a good third of the trailer’s time, could be seen as a risky move. Confusing an audience would be one concern but it works so well and helps a great deal in explaining, vaguely, what is going to happen with Jim Carrey. Jim is in no need of a hit as his last movie, BRUCE ALMIGHTY, scored a quarter of a billion dollars at the box office, but too bad it sucked. I did not like THE MAJESTIC for its sentimental Capra-crap and don’t even jump start me into how I feel about THE GRINCH.
But I’ll be honest here: I am excited to see Jim in this movie.
There is something very alluring and attractive about Jim’s character, to say nothing of the attractiveness of Kirsten Dust cavorting in her skivvies (hell, I’ll camp out and get my advance tickets now just based on that). He appears to be a normal man who just happens to live inside the body of the person who gave us the testosterone fueled man-lady Vera de Milo and I honestly believe that just by watching him in the trailer. On top of that you throw Tom Wilkinson, Kate Winslet, Mark Ruffalo (who is also cavorting around in his Fruit of the Looms as well), Elijah Wood and David Cross into the blender and you have the makings for a lot of potentially fabulous performances or an a-list train wreck simply waiting for opening weekend to jump the track. Either way, they’ve got my money.
Comments: None
Leave a Reply |