I’m awesome. I wrote a book. It’s got little to do with movies. Download and read “Thank You, Goodnight” right HERE for free.
Welcome back…
I’ve been knocked on my proverbial hind quarters this week with some nasty flu like bug that didn’t allow me any coherent thoughts except thinking about the sweet release of sleep wherever I could get it.
However, in a brief moment of clarity I did want to see what anyone in the peanut gallery has to say (simply leave your comments below) about the nature of a flop and what SEMI-PRO has to say for itself. Was $15 million, give or take, an obvious disappointment for the suits at the studio when you consider the amount of brutal advertising that went into this film’s release? Will Ferrell’s face was everywhere, to say nothing of his pronounced presence on ESPN (who hooked that product placement up?) last week, and the amount of spot advertising this thing had all over the airwaves leading up to this film’s release.
As an aside, I realize I know dick about how much cash needed to be laid out for all these things to be in front of the people’s eyes but $15 million almost seems like a conservative figure for all that went into promotions.
Did this dismal showing at the box office (one of Ferrell’s worst of his career) have anything to do with the level of talent that goes into your usual Will movie, namely the absence of Adam McKay?
You see films where there are cores of talented people that move from production to production and this film saw the lack of Adam, a guy who genuinely knows what makes Will good on the screen. While Will Ferrell obviously makes other films without Adam’s help you can see how bad BLADES OF GLORY was, how not profitable STRANGER THAN FICTION was, and it makes a good case for why people can be more or less creative with those who know their style. Judd Apatow has a keen sense of this and, wisely, has kept the band together. I’m generalizing, mostly, here but I am curious to know if anyone else knows of any creative team that is not greater than the sum of its parts and, in fact, only did their best work when all were aligned like planets in the sky.
And, have you had a chance to see reviewer, part-time fill-in for Ebert for a few rounds with Richard Roeper, Robert Wilonsky’s new show, The Ultimate Trailer Show? I have and, to be perfectly honest, it’s a good show. I like someone else doing what I’ve been doing here for years, judging films before anyone has even seen them, and casting a few stones at how someone’s taken the preview material and slapped it on the screen. I do feel a sense of deja vu, though, as I hear someone else talk about how a trailer comes off to a viewer and what it says about wanting to see a film. It kind of validates, albiet in a very minute way, my ramblings in this space. It’s good to know there is something to be said about looking at trailers with a critical eye. Although I think I would be a little easier on the eyes…
That’s it for me. Talk amongst yourselves. I’m going back to bed…
Director: Michael Haneke
Cast: Naomi Watts, Tim Roth, Michael Pitt, Brady Corbet, Devon Gearhart
Release: March 14, 2008
Synopsis: In this provocative and brutal thriller from director Michael Haneke, a vacationing family gets an unexpected visit from two deeply disturbed young men. Their idyllic holiday turns nightmarish as they are subjected to unimaginable terrors and struggle to stay alive.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Negative. I hope this film finds its way to a slow, painful wet grave and at least has the decency to pull the dirt over its head.
I can’t for the life of me understand the marketing angle for this trailer. When you have a film that deals with the slaughter of a family by a pair of d-bags who aren’t creepy, who simply look like young actors putting on airs to put themselves over as young Patrick Batemans, you really don’t want to go for the jaunty orchestration that is usually reserved for comedic high jinks that has people slipping on pies and getting rocked by pillows in the face.
No, what we get here is a trailer for a shittily (yeah, it’s a word) plotted out film where you have people’s lives held in the balance by a bet some young homicidal dudes put out there.
What really grinds me, though, is that I partially blame the victims.
We are introduced to an upper crust family who are on vacation or are visiting their second home in the Hamptons; it’s idyllic, serene, hell, they love listening to classical music which just lets all of us know how blue blood these elitist assholes actually are, and they even show this family getting into a wooden sailboat as they plan on getting away from all the trappings of having way too much money. Even the little boy in this thing is shown beaming at the prospect of ingesting Puccini in mass quantities because that will really cement the idea of the filmmakers: these are whiter than white rich folks.
Michael Pitt is trying hard, you can just see it, to try and harness the power of Arno Frisch, the star of the original FUNNY GAMES which debuted some decade ago in Austria. I can already see that trying to use tracing paper to mimic the effectiveness of a satire that held some weight years ago has its problems. Because, like idioms and how they differ from culture to culture, and why its so hard to grasp American “sayings†for many an import to our country, trying to replicate an idea can get lost in transition.
Here is where we are introduced to the same jaunty classical music as the patriarch gets the snot beat out of him with a pair of golf clubs, Pitt trying to be all sorts of Camel cool as he questions whether the victims would like to call the police, ambulance.
I am also troubled by the use of the title cards which tell us, in all caps, THANKS FOR SHOUTING YOU TERDS, “THE GAME IS SIMPLE.†“PICK A FAMILYâ€, “PICK A VICTIM.â€
What follows is hard to take from a consumer standpoint as these two white shorted, white polo wearing a-holes then proceed to do an Eenie-Meenie game before proceeding to thrash Tim Roth, expose Naomi Watts, and just savage the entire family any way they see fit.
I’m no prude but there doesn’t seem to be any hook why I should fiscally support this film if this is either going to result in the family’s killing or the usual Hollywood one-up at the end when the beaten and downtrodden find a way to overcome their aggressors. Naomi’s pleading for her life at the end of this thing doesn’t help matters at all in the slightest.
While I understand that Michael Haneke’s the writer and director for what is, oddly, a retelling of a movie he’s already done (that must have been strange) I don’t think anyone gave any serious thought to how this should be marketed. As it stands this is perhaps one of the worst trailers I’ve seen this year and if this is a satirical examination of violence, which has been done so many times since he released his original, someone in marketing at Warner Independent Pictures needs to take a class in to what people think about women being tortured does to the bottom line.
Here’s a hint: Look at the campaign and grosses for CAPTIVITY.
Director: M. Night Shyamalan
Cast: Mark Wahlberg, Zooey Deschanel, John Leguizamo, Betty Buckley
Release: June 13, 2008
Synopsis: A couple goes on the run from an apocalyptic crisis that presents a large-scale threat to humanity.
View Trailer:
* Large (QuickTime)
Prognosis: Positive. I can’t get beyond the idea that there has been much made of the “Gotcha!†kind of filmmaking that has plagued the critical explanation of much of Shyamalan’s work. Be it the wretched VILLAGE or LADY IN THE WATER he’s had a lot of movies go the way of box office bust. Films like SIXTH SENSE and UNBREAKABLE make you scratch your head about where is the consistency in what he does.
I am uplifted, though, by this trailer.
No one more than me could be amazed by the meteoric rise (and what a strange idiom; don’t meteors fall from the sky?) of Marky Mark. The guy’s been absolutely grand in movies like THE DEPARTED and BOOGIE NIGHTS and so many others that he comes off just as well here.
The trailer does a little something extra and it’s almost too subtle to notice its strength; we’re allowed to get extended scenes here and get a feel for the pacing, the cinematography and genuine feel for the movie proper.
A discussion about the disappearance of bees has lofted a few plausible thoughts but since this is a Shyamalan flick you’ve got to go to bizzaro lengths to get a good idea to one suitable for him. Hence, the bee idea is taken to its most implausible degree and applied to human beings. Not that I’m breaking bad on the trailer because I’m not. You’ve got a logical beginning, no Voiceover Guy pushing his way into our understanding of this film and a neat segue into a beat cop walking on the street one minute and, the next, dead on the street.
This film’s bizarre-ness is taken a step further in the auditorium meeting with Cameron Frye who starts the proceedings with being ambiguous about what’s happening to people. Now, I get the populist red herring that the Homeland Security, CDC, virus attack grand scale thinking that this could be a terrorist thing is one way to proceed (the trailer does a good job in setting that theory in motion) but the cheesy 80’s retro rock instrumental music is a bit odd. However, the way that this is handled is quite effective. For a movie that is going to be hanging that fist low, ready to pop you in the jaw at the very end in that Shyamalan way, the pieces that we’ve been given here are enough to make you wonder what is It. What will It be?
I’m not quite sure I know what the surprise ending will be when you hear that it really won’t be a terrorist attack (it would be an all too easy way out and I am sure some in Middle America are going to be floored that it’s got nothing to do with terrorist killers) but the real thing that should be apparent to everyone is that M. Night is never going to change.
His style, his perspective on things, the almost generic way he sets his shots up, you’ve got to believe he lives and dies by his writing. Like others who won’t give up the directorial duties to someone else, you’ve got to know it’s a ballsy move to make a movie where you remove one-half of what could carry you through if one part suffers, Hence, that’s why this film’s trailer does well: the story at least has an intriguing premise. Now, whether he can create a sustainable story is another.
But to see those guys falling off the roof? Show me more…
Comments: 1 Comment
One Response to “Trailer Park: Robert Wilonsky Is Ripping Me Off, Man”Leave a Reply |
March 10th, 2008 at 10:50 am
Could it just be that people are growing a little tired of Will Ferrell’s shtick? I’m not going to say it’s a curse on Saturday Night Live alumni from the 90’s…but, how many times can the same actor play the same character in different movies? I mean, seriously…David Spade, Jimmy Fallon, Chris Kattan…been there, done that. The curse even applies to those who have enjoyed success since leaving the show…I’m sure there are Jim Belushi, Phil Hartman & Chris Farley jokes to be made, but I’m trying not to cement my one way ticket straight to hell.
I liked ‘Stranger Than Fiction’ and was hoping it would do for Ferrell what ‘A League of their Own’ did for Tom Hanks…open the possibility that he’s got some acting chops instead of replaying characters from tired sketch comedies. It should have been a sure fire winner…after all, he didn’t have to share screen time with Rosie O’Donnell or Madonna.
Is Will Ferrell funny in Semi-Pro funny? Maybe…I wouldn’t know. But I bet it isn’t as funny as when it was ‘Talladega Nights’ or ‘Anchorman’ or ‘Old School’.