Trailer Park
Want to know if that trailer is worth your download time? Find out.

Friday, December 26, 2003  


TWINS WHO FUCK EACH OTHER? EWWWWWWW!!! But I guess that's what we're supposed to think because Michael Pitt is grossed out by it too. He's an American in Paris who meets two attractive young people such as himself who invite him to live with them and have lots of kinky threesomes. Then he finds out that they're actually brother and sister and runs away, because...well, I hope I don't need to explain why.

The trailer looks very Y Tu Mama Tambien, all kinky and graphic and foreign. (I'm so much more intelligent than this is making me sound, by the way.) It's very artsy and pretty, worth checking out as long as you don't mind that it's one of those trailers that doesn't really tell you much about the movie.

posted by Eric | 1:08 AM


Topher Grace and Kate Bosworth are best friends who are such good friends that they don't realize that the love of the their life is right in front of them. Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Kate Bosworth enters and wins a contest to go on a date with hunky movie star Tad Hamilton (Josh Duhamel), who proceeds to woo her, which in turn makes Topher Grace realize that he really loves Kate Bosworth. It's all very stupid because Kate Bosworth (the person) is, of course, actually a movie star and looks like one the whole time she's going on dates with Tad Hamilton even though she's supposed to be "plain" and "common."

Then there are some scenes in which Topher Grace and Tad Hamilton compete for Kate Bosworth. I think I'm having a hard time getting this trailer because I'd much rather go on a date with Topher Grace than Josh Duhamel. But that's just my surface reaction. Luckily, that's all there is to the matter.

No wait, there's more: I'm not buying that the American public would allow someone named "Tad Hamilton" to become famous. Okay, that's all.

posted by Eric | 12:56 AM


So we already know that I automatically hate any movie in which a romance is built on a lie and then the woman shrills, "YOU LIEEEEEEEEED TO MEEEE!" and runs away dramatically when she finds out the truth about the man she THOUGHT she loved! But this has to be the absolute stupidest use of this convention ever: Julia Stiles is a college student (lovably clumsy, of course, because she's "real") who falls in love with a Danish prince who has come to America to escape the strict lifestyle and snobby, traditional familial obligations that come with being the future king. Because being king would suck, I guess. Anyway, he doesn't tell Julia Stiles that he is actually a prince, because he is a complete idiot, and then she finds out, and in the trailer, she actually screams, "YOU'RE A PRINCE? GET AWAY FROM ME!"

I don't have time for this shit, people.

posted by Eric | 12:47 AM

Thursday, December 25, 2003  


You know, I honestly don't subscribe to the view put forward by Chris Snyder in An Age of Tyrants that there was no Arthur, simply because those dodgy chroniclers, Gildas and Nennius, don't name him openly. John Morris' reconstruction of the Fifth and Sixth century Britain in The Age of Arthur actually seems more convincing. There was, then, a time when the Britons still considered themselves to be Christianized Roman gentry, even after the last of the Roman legions departed the island and all contact with the decaying Empire was severed; and those Britons had a small period of revival under a dux bellorum, apparently named Arthur, who successfuly resisted invasions from Irish Scots, Northern Picts, Jutes, Angles, Saxons and sundry pagan pretenders to the realm - and, in time, this period began to be viewed as a golden age of pre-English history. The fact that even a thousand years ago there weren't many actual histories detailing this time then attracted a whole other layer of interpretations, not historical, but primarily mythical. And a huge legacy of pagan belief systems came to life again from the Twelfth century onward, attaching itself to Arthur and fascinating the Western world ever since. Including Hollywood.

And now, Tinseltown gives us a movie that purports to be the first "historical" telling of the Arthur legend, not as it came to be known in later ages, but how it might have actually been. From what I remember, the scriptwriters - John Lee Hancock, and David Franzoni, the man who wrote Gladiator, and can thus be safely discounted as a stickler for historical accuracy - chose a Roman military leader as their potentially original Arthur, even though he's actually not a very good candidate for this identification according to respectable authorities. No matter: it appears that this Bruckheimer production has recreated Fifth century Britain in a way never even attempted before - and it looks bloody accurate, too. Also, even though the marketing campaign obviously tries to account for the fact that this looks nothing like Excalibur by drawing upon the alleged historical veracity of this retelling, what is really endearing - and especially in this trailer - is how the process of transformation of "real" Arthur into the mythical Once and Future King he was to become is already at work here, within the story, in the legend that spreads around Arthur as he achieves his victories. And by the same token, instead of real British nobles of the same period, Arthur is surrounded by the "original" versions of Guinevere, Lancelot, Galahad, Merlin etc.

None of this is history - and it shouldn't be. Forget what Touchstone and Bruckheimer tell you, then: this is apparently a fresh retelling of the Arthurian myth in a period-accurate setting, and as such, it's the most interesting take on the Matter of Britain to come out of Hollywood in many a decade. It's fast becoming my most eagerly anticipated film of the summer, even more so than Forlani-deprived Troy: because, hey, on top of everything else, Keira Knightley looks as badass and as hotass as they come.

posted by Vladimir | 5:14 AM

Monday, December 15, 2003  


Just a quick note that the trailer's up. My sound isn't working, but it looks pretty awesome, that's for sure.

posted by Cleolinda Jones | 9:20 AM

Thursday, December 11, 2003  



P.S. Jennifer Love Hewitt should be banned from doing anything ever.

posted by Eric | 11:33 PM


Where is the horse and the rider? They were supposed to be rendered and comped three hours ago! (Bitchslap) We're never gonna be able to put this in theaters on time! What! You're telling me you can't crunch out three more measly shots with 5000+ horsemen in them in over a day? What are we paying you for, people? No wonder everyone thinks that Serkis braggart did all of Gollum himself! We work our asses off here for five long years, and then he comes in and totally bogarts our spotlight! (Lights a Lucky Strike) Jaysus! Have you seen that new video on the official site? Already they're trying to convince people that the whole Rohan cavalry was shot for real! Even Taylor! The man sure could mince his words some more. (Takes a long puff) How did it come to this? (Shakes head) Know what? I'm going over to New Line. Will try to convince them to make a making-of video that focuses exclusively on our work. So that people see just how much stuff in there is ours! Ours ours ours! And not just a bunch of tax-dodging racetrack enthusiasts! And when I come back, y'all better have all the final comps done and ready for film-out, or I'll uninstall Tetris on the entire network.

posted by Vladimir | 3:10 AM

Thursday, December 04, 2003  


Also known as, Seabiscuit of Arabia.

Or, A Movie about a Guy Who Belongs to a Vanishing Kind of the West, and Would Yet Rather Spend His Time with a Horse. Who else but the Vig. And of all the LOTR luminaries, this man here has apparently chosen the wisest follow-up project - perfectly, perfectly suited to his charm, his laid-back humor, his manliness and his horsemanship. And it's light enough to make your mum - heck, your grandma - actually beg you to take her to cinema after seeing this trailer. It honestly does kick ass.

Now, if only it had manly stubble in it...

posted by Vladimir | 4:28 PM


What can I say. I like Philip Kaufman, since he thought up Raiders, even though I heartily despise most of his recent output, the banal Quills first and foremost. And I like Ashley Judd because she publicly complimented my English, even though I wish I could see her in more movies like Frida, where she was surprisingly charming... and thin.

Well then. Here, Ashley hides her admirable figure under a lame leatherette outfit and short hair. And Samuel L. Jackson is a detective. And the whole thing has a very putrid Movie of the Week vibe, not helped by it looking like something produced by Golan-Globus circa 1986. Raw deal, what can I say.

posted by Vladimir | 4:17 PM


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! My eyeses! They just got them stabbed!

Like, the first thing you see is Leno and Elijah Wood gleefully turning to the studio widescreen TV. And then... Sam on top of Gollum. Writhing.

It then expands into a full version of the "He means to murder us!"/"I'm not sending him away!" scene from the trailer, but, folks... Over the course of my long association with the brilliant mistress of this and sundry sites, I've been exposed to so much LOTR slash fanfic... and yet... noone has yet thought of... to my knowledge... Sam and Gollum... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Just wait until this vidcap starts to make the rounds.

The clip ends, for added enjoyment, with Leno holding his hand in the uncomfortable vicinity of a beaming Wood's posterior, and going, "Whoooooo".

posted by Vladimir | 3:54 PM


Okay, this is later than late, but I'm catching up on trailer reviews after a ton of Real Life things, so bear with me.

Ergo. Hellboy. Looks like the comic. At least Perlman does, bless his heart. His character is the Dirty Harry of comicbook mutants and Perlman nails him to the T. The movie, though? Puerile, and then some. Cheesy dialogue, cheesy cinematography that could have used a hard look at the Mignola original, pedestrian CG, lame jokes and Spy Kids-type gadgets. Even the Evil Nazis from the comic look cheesy here, courtesy of the vastly overrated Guillermo del Toro.

Oh, I guess it hasta be better than Blade II. And let's keep the faint praise at that, hoping that the general audience doesn't think this is an X-Men ripoff.

posted by Vladimir | 3:48 PM