Here’s the first full trailer for “This is 40” (because this is apparently Things The Rest Of The Internet Already Saw Week on Digressions, sponsored by Vicks VapoRub):
The movie is Judd Apatow’s fourth as a writer-director, and it is (as the trailer says) a sort-of sequel to “Knocked Up.” (Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann and Jason Segel reprise their characters from that movie, for some weird reason, as do Apatow and Mann’s two daughters, playing Rudd and Mann’s daughters again.) This trailer gives us a better idea of the movie’s general theme/story than the first trailer did, and it shows us new additions Albert Brooks, Megan Fox and Megan McCarthy.
It looks…fine? Nice? It looks warm and inoffensive. I don’t know if the “This is YOUR STORY” promotion works so well, because of the obvious weirdness in pitching a movie about well-off middle-aged people suffering ennui despite having successful careers, lovely homes and happy families as some sort of commonality shared by everyone. Apatow’s movies are, as you’ve heard a million times before, comedies that work because they have real, human feelings. Assuming this one doesn’t have a “Funny People”-esque strong start followed by an Act Three implosion, it will presumably be perfectly fine. Will it be funny? Not “Modern Family”-esque lightly-amusing-but-not-actually-funny comedy, but actual comedy with humor and laughter (like, say, “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up”)? I can’t tell from this trailer. The only real laugh line here is delivered by Albert Brooks. But it is just a trailer, so we will see if the actual film has more real comedy.
After a couple of cryptic teasers, we finally have a trailer for “Skyfall” that tells us a little more about the next Bond movie. The basic plot seems to be that Bond is thought dead following some kind of debacle and the identities of undercover MI6 agents are compromised. We meet the villain (Javier Bardem, who is blonde this time, because Javier Bardem’s villains must have varying hairstyles to give reporters something to ask Bardem), glimpse the new version of Q (Ben Whitshaw, the floppy-haired youngster who played Keats in “Bright Star”) and get looks at the other characters (like Judi Dench’s M, Naomie Harris’s Eve and Ralph Fiennes’s Unnamed Person Of Authority).
This is just a trailer, so we have to see the actual movie to know for sure, but it does appear that this movie’s highly-secretive plot is cobbled together from bits of other movies. The thing about undercover agents being in danger of being revealed was the crux of the first “Mission: Impossible” movie. Bond being thought dead borrows a bit from plenty of other movies, most recently “The Bourne Supremacy.” If Bardem’s villain is motivated by a grudge against M (which appears to be the case here), I’m pretty sure that was the premise of the first “Charlie’s Angels” movie (I know, I know). A lot is left unclear, though, including the meaning of the title (briefly mentioned in one of the teaser trailers), the backstory of Bardem’s character and the roles played by Ralph Fiennes and Albert Finney.
My main point of concern is still Sam Mendes, the man behind the camera. He’s an unexpected choice to direct a Bond movie, which is worrisome on its own (the last prestigious-ish director they hired, Marc Forster, made the incomprehensible “Quantum of Solace”); he’s also an incredibly uneven director. In any event, this does look good. It seems like the desired return to form for a series that relaunched so successfully with 2006’s “Casino Royale” and promptly took five steps back with “Quantum of Solace” in 2008. At the very least, the brief glimpses of action here tell us that (a) there will be a lot of action and (b) you might even be able to follow most of it. Watch the trailer below.
The movie “Robot and Frank” sounds ridiculous, but I’ve been curious about it ever since it came out of Sundance with stellar buzz. It follows Frank (Frank Langella), a former jewel thief, and the relationship he develops with his robot assistant (voiced by Peter Saaaarsgaaaard). Langella’s Frank is initially unhappy about having a robot helper, at least until he begins using the robot to return to his life of crime. This looks bizarrely terrific:
Here’s another look at Paul Thomas Anderson’s “The Master.” Much like the first teaser, it doesn’t reveal much of anything about anything. But it looks so, so, so good.
Okay, remember Philip Seymour Hoffman in Anderson’s “Boogie Nights”? Try to reconcile that actor and that performance with the very spare glimpse we get here of Hoffman. Separated by 15 years that feel like an eternity, the Hoffman and Anderson reuniting* for “The Master” are an Oscar-winning acting powerhouse and a glowing, ungodly behind-the-camera talent, respectively. Could Hoffman win all of the awards for this performance? Time will tell, but I’m going to say yes.
* – I know this isn’t their first film together since “Boogie Nights,” but you know what I mean.
Another trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises” hit the Web this morning, and while nobody really anticipated another trailer for the movie, why complain? It’s a trailer for “The Dark Knight Rises.” Watch, enjoy, salivate, etc.:
Here, in no particular order, are three thoughts:
Bane, played by Tom Hardy, still sounds utterly ridiculous. I know that was the big response to the prologue screening last December (those pre-“Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol” previews where they showed the opening scene of the movie, which centers on Bane), and I know Warner Bros. and Christopher Nolan claimed it was fine and that they probably went in and did a little tweaking (because it’s incredibly easy to record a voiceover for a guy wearing a mask for an entire movie), but he still sounds silly.We’ve seen multiple trailers and ads for this movie so far, and how many lines of dialogue has Bane had in these previews? Five, maybe? Hey, maybe the guy has almost zero lines of dialogue (maybe he just stands there, cutting an imposing figure, because Hardy certainly looks imposing). Maybe the villain in this movie has no dialogue. Who knows? Or maybe he just sounds ridiculous. We’ll find out!
This movie is absolutely not going to earn as much as “The Dark Knight,” nor is it going to open with as much as “The Avengers” netted in its opening. That’s not even a question. It’s going to be big ($400 million dollars is possible, but not definite). It also seems like it will be very good; it’s probably going to be a considerably better Film than “The Avengers” (a movie I liked, by the way). But it certainly won’t earn as much money as those two films.
This movie comes out one month from tomorrow. Just tossing that out there.
UPDATE: Well, it looks like the leaked trailer was yanked and so we will have to wait for the official one. I’ll re-post it below once it’s available. In the meantime, enjoy my thoughts on a trailer you can’t watch.
Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” has a trailer and I am not even going to bother finishing this introductory sentence, because: TRAILER.
Well, this is going to be all kinds of exploitative, isn’t it? But we already knew that. The plot, if you are as of yet unaware, revolves around Django (Jamie Foxx), who teams up with a German bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) and winds up fighting a monstrous plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio). And it’s Quentin Tarantino, so there will be all sorts of gratuitous violence and unnecessarily long stretches of dialogue and a few standoffs.
I have a renewed interest in Tarantino following “Inglourious Basterds,” so I’m very curious to see what he has in store with this movie. The DiCaprio elements are particularly interesting to me. Unlike Will Smith, a fellow movie star who declined to make this film (he was the first choice for Django), DiCaprio is continuing to show a surprising fearlessness in his choice of material and roles. This looks like a departure from his characters of late (haunted, grim men), and I’m very curious to see how he and Foxx thrive in Tarantino’s weird, weird world.
The first trailer for Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” is here, and it looks exactly like you would expect Baz Luhrmann’s adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” to look. I mean, if someone told you that Luhrmann was making a 3-D version of “The Great Gatsby” costing at least $125 million dollars (!), isn’t this precisely what you would have imagined?
I will say this for Luhrmann: He makes films that look unlike anything else being made today. His movies have an incredibly vivid visual stamp, almost like a Luhrmann filter added to every shot. His movies aren’t always good, of course, but they are wondrously sculpted visual affairs.
The movie stars Leonardo DiCaprio (reuniting with Luhrmann a full 16 years after their “Romeo + Juliet” came out, just in case you want to feel old) as Gatsby, Carey Mulligan as Daisy Buchanan and Tobey Maguire as Nick Carraway. It drops on Christmas, the same day “Django Unchained” (a Quentin Tarantino movie starring DiCaprio as a vicious slave owner) comes out.
You guys! I realize I have been away for a while, and in being away I have been remiss in the posting of things here. How have the last five days been for you? Have you been well? Did you see that Kristen Wiig left “Saturday Night Live” and everyone on the show seemed very sad? They all seemed so very sad. Not about Andy Samberg so much, because I guess everyone at “SNL” was supremely disappointed with “Turtleneck & Chain” or something.
Also, there were lots of trailers! So many trailers. Trailers for highly-anticipated movies, some of which just cannot arrive soon enough. Let’s discuss three of those trailers, shall we? Continue reading →
Warner Bros. has released the first trailer for “Gangster Squad,” which stars Josh Brolin and Ryan Gosling as L.A. cops in the 1940s fighting a mobster played by Sean Penn.
I really do not know what to make of this. I was really looking forward to this movie (originally titled “Tales from the Gangster Squad,” which I think was a better title, but what the hell do I know?), but this trailer suggests it’s basically a better-looking version of “Public Enemies.” It certainly looks nice, at least from an aesthetic perspective, but there’s something…off about this whole thing. Maybe it’s the fact that while the story feels familiar, the tone is odd? Or maybe it’s just jarring to see Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling — two very young and of-the-moment actors — dressed up in period clothing?
The other problem: We have no idea what to expect from director Ruben Fleischer. He was so full of promise after “Zombieland” — his smart, inventive take on the zombie movie — that the guy was considered for the fourth “Mission: Impossible.” Instead, he chose to make the woeful “30 Minutes or Less.” It’s hard to know which movie represented the Fleischer we’re getting with “Gangster Squad.” There are certainly touches of his overly-stylized “Zombieland” sensibilities on display in the “Gangster Squad” trailer — which isn’t a bad thing, because lord knows “Public Enemies” could have used some style — but he’s still an unknown quantity.
The cast is terrific and the script was reportedly quite a hot property (I know, I know, that doesn’t mean all that much). But it’s somewhat weird that Warner Bros. has this very high-profile movie with all of this star power and they’ve changed its release date twice. (It doesn’t even have an official release date right now, if that Deadline story is to be believed, though with this trailer we can assume it will come out sometime this year.)
The trailer is embedded below. You can also check it out over on Apple.
Desperate to keep up with the deafening hype for “The Avengers” (which opens today) and “The Dark Knight Rises” (which doesn’t open for another — ugh — 11 weeks), Sony has released the latest trailer for “The Amazing Spider-Man” (which comes out in early July, and has very little in the way of any buzz).
“The Avengers” has a Hulk, “The Dark Knight Rises” has an oversized Tom Hardy and “The Amazing Spider-Man” has…the Lizard. Yes, the third trailer (following thesepreviews) finally gives us our first real look at the Lizard, the green reptilian villain played (in human form, anyway) by Rhys Ifans. In the comics, he’s a one-armed scientist who experiments on himself and winds up turning into a giant, y’know, lizard. To non-fans, he probably just looks like a green velociraptor that hit the gym.
Marc Webb’s reboot still seems like what it has looked like all along: An unnecessary rehashing of a story we saw a decade ago. Yes, there are some key changes from Sam Raimi’s first “Spider-Man” in 2002 — the love interest is Gwen Stacy (played by Emma Stone), the villain is the Lizard, the tone seems very different (less comic book-y, actually) — but it’s still the same basic story of how a teenager named Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield) gets bitten by a radioactive spider and becomes Spider-Man and fights a scientist-turned-green-supervillain. We’re a decade removed from Raimi’s very successful first movie, but it’s been a mere five years since his mediocre (but still financially gigantic) third “Spider-Man.”
Recent rumors that Sony isn’t happy with this movie don’t actually tell us whether or not this thing will succeed or if it’sany good; whether or not the studio loves it, they still have a movie starring Spider-Man (an incredibly popular big-screen superhero) and we know they can market the hell out of a bad superhero movie (see: “Spider-Man 3”). I still think this movie is going to be a solid performer, but I’m beginning to doubt that it will crack $200 million domestically.
The fact that we’re two months out and there is almost no heat around the movie should be worrisome. And the fact that they’re retelling the same story looks particularly stupid given all of the hype for “The Avengers” (a new type of superhero movie — the all-star team-up) and “The Dark Knight Rises” (which also looks like the series and main character are growing and evolving). The other superhero movies offer something different, and this offers one more of the same. This trailer doesn’t really do anything to change that perception.