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

Tuesday, March 30, 2004  


Update on the entry from the other day: Look, I have the Catwoman trailer of awful awfulness. It's less than a mb, if I recall correctly. If you have webspace and would like to host it, I can send it to you. Let me know.

posted by Cleolinda Jones | 4:02 PM


I have absolutely no experience with the TV show, except for having seen a couple of clips, tops, so I had no idea what the actual premise of the movie would be. The trailer does a good job of setting it up--the Tracy family has been captured, or something, and "Who rescues the rescuers?" Well, the one son left behind. And his friends, who seem to be... much younger than he is.

The weird thing is how easily it seems to slip into this Spy Kids/Cody Banks territory. It's basically three precocious kids who have to save people from Ben Kingsley. And once I realized that... meh.

Oh, and using the Pirates of the Caribbean score? No cigar, guys.

posted by Cleolinda Jones | 3:35 AM

Monday, March 29, 2004  


Ah, Natalie Portman! Ah, she's alive! And just when I started wondering what happened to the little one from Leon and Beautiful Girls! It's so nice to see her in a movie again... Or at least in a nice trailer such as this. Honestly, if you have a little indie movie, this is the was you market it: use neither voiceover nor dialogue, just a nice little indie tune, and show just enough character interaction and compelling character-oriented visuals to make the people in the movie interesting enough to make us go see what it's all about. Boasting (in a nice way) about having Portman or Sir Ian Holm or even Peter Sarsgaard in your cast can't hurt, either. Very sweet, very decent, very not-in-your-face--so unlike the regular trailers we see these days that it's instantly endearing. Zach Braff, who directed the film and stars in it, should be proud.

(Oh, I'm now told that Portman actually did appear in some rather popular big-budget movies recently, called Star Wars. Let me apologise to Miss Portman, then: as a lifelong fan of the Original SW Trilogy, I have had all memories of the entire series erased after Attack of the Clones. Hopefully the experience wasn't as bad for her.)

posted by Vladimir | 11:46 AM


This one's a pirated trailer--I'm going to guess from ShoWest--but it's really, really good. Or maybe I'm just a sucker for Carmina Burana-ripoff style music. But it does a really good job of setting up the essential conflicts of the story--Peter doesn't want to be Spider-Man anymore, Mary Jane's getting married to someone else, the James Franco character whose name I forget is still pissed off, and then Alfred Molina and his octopus arms kidnap Mary Jane. I'm not saying this is the best trailer ever, but this is what we need more trailers to do: set up conflicts that will make the viewer want to go to the theater and see them get resolved. Not tell me the whole story. Not give away all the good jokes. Just tell me exactly what I need to know, no more, no less, to get me in that seat.

Oh, and the last shot sets up a scene with Franco I'm now dying to see.

posted by Cleolinda Jones | 7:14 AM


Oh, my God, this is so bad. The girlish voiceover is bad, the tagline ("THIS SUMMER... THE CITY IS FULL OF RATS") is bad, the sushi and cream jokes are bad, the music is bad, the last shot is bad, and we knew the costumes were bad. And it's coming out in July. I am telling you, unless someone gets in there and does triage on this thing, Catwoman is this year's Gigli.

posted by Cleolinda Jones | 7:01 AM

Friday, March 26, 2004  


Ladies and gentlemen, we have another winner. The WORST PREMISE FOR A MOVIE EVER EVER EVER has officially been found. Raise your hand if you're surprised that the Wayans brothers are behind it. Nobody?

Shawn and Marlon Wayans play two FBI agents who are forced through some idiot circumstance to pose as white chicks.


I usually try and think twice before using the caps lock key for emphasis but I am truly at a loss for words here. Now, if you haven't seen the trailer yet (lucky you), think this through for a moment. There are two ways to make a couple of black guys look like white chicks. The first is essentially whiteface, using pancake makeup or something to lighten their skin. Any rant regarding how appalling that would be would surely be inadequate, so I won't bother. But this movie uses the second possible way, which is with rubber masks.


Shawn and Marlon Wayans wear rubber masks that are supposed to make them look like white women, except that they end up looking like the love child of Michael Jackson and Michael Myers. In drag. As the creator of Nun-Clown, let me be the first to tell you that this is the most disturbing sight my retinas have had the misfortune to witness in a hell of a long time.

So anyone who is foolish enough to see this movie will undoubtedly be subjected to the usual plot points that accompany plots like these -- you can rest assured that one of them will fall in love with an actual woman they encounter while undercover as a woman, plus there is all the offensive racial "humor" the Wayans will be sure to heap on there.

I'm not uptight, and I don't consider the subject of race to be off-limits for comedy, but what bothers me about the trailer for White Chicks is more than that: the premise ISN'T...FUCKING...FUNNY. The sight of the Wayans brothers wearing rubber masks to look like white chicks doesn't make me laugh, it makes me sick to my stomach. The whole concept is terrible, not because it's racist, but because it's not funny.

That's the most offensive thing about any bad comedy.

posted by Eric | 8:14 PM

Thursday, March 25, 2004  


Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner! The Movie with Most Melodramatic Cliches EVAR has been found! So much syrup, it's guaranteed to give you diabetes just from watching the trailer!

(...and then again, Rachel McAdams sure looks fetching. Pack that insulin, Igor.)

posted by Vladimir | 2:45 PM


Um, it's too easy to dig into this thing and rip it to greasy chunks like a steamy lasagna. I mean, look at all the available angles.

a) Wasn't this needed about 15 years ago? Is the technological advance the only reason we're getting a live-action Garfield movie in 2004?

b) Didn't Peter Hewitt also direct The Borrowers? You know, the only movie I showed my incredibly forgiving mom that made us both cringe?

c) How much sadder could you possibly want Bill Murray's follow-up to his loss at the Oscars to be? Compared to this, Santori Whiskey seems attractive.

d) Didn't Jennifer Love Hewitt want to widen her acting chops in Devil and Daniel Webster? So, after that got shelved, she's now reduced to mutton chops?

And, my favorite:

e) If you go to all the trouble to get a CG Garfield, why stick to a live silly doggie for Odie?

posted by Vladimir | 1:47 PM


I admit I fell in love with the teaser trailer, with the children's choir and all that: it felt English, it felt whimsically Christmasy, and yes, it even felt magical. And it assured me Alfonso Cuaron knew what he was doing, and that some desperately necessary new cinematic blood was being injected into the Potter series. If the actual movie works on those levels, I thought, we'll be okay.

Now this wicked thing this way comes. Oh, it has tons of new things, mostly geared toward people who will shriek and giggle when they see Hermione accidentally grabbing Ron's hand, or punching Draco in the nose. But it feels wrong, you know? The cute original John Williams score sits awkwardly on top of scenes that demand a much darker musical treatment - not that the composer couldn't provide it, the producers of this trailer obviously didn't want it.

This is basically a trailer to assure all the fans of the original two movies that things will not be drastically different this time around. Which would be, in their minds, a bad thing, of course.

Me, I'm still holding out my hopes.

posted by Vladimir | 2:48 AM

Friday, March 19, 2004  


I'm probably not the best person to ask if this is a good trailer or not, because I have all sorts of love-hate baggage regarding this movie. As in, I love all the actors involved, I love the character, I love the Dracula mythos, and GABRIEL? HIS NAME IS GABRIEL? SHE'S WEARING PANTS? And then I fall over in a frothing rage. So. Yeah.

And I'm still going to go see this movie, and I'm probably going to enjoy it. From this trailer, you see more of the characters and more of the plot and it looks a lot of fun. So don't mind me over here in the corner, rocking back and forth, muttering about Kate Beckinsale's pants. Really. I'll be all right.

posted by Cleolinda Jones | 11:25 AM

Monday, March 15, 2004  


(Also available on the Apple site, but only in non-dowloadable versions.)

Okay. When exactly did we all lose our collective brains and become pod people? Induced to respond to always the certain kind of blockbuster movie and always the same kind of blockbuster movie trailer stimuli? What is it that you say? Right about the same time Hollywood started counting their budgets in the eight figures? Well, apparently. Since their successful and thought-provoking films are too few and far between, they're playing it safe. And we all walk in step to the pounding trailer music they're playing. Seemingly in droves large enough to guarantee earnings in the same eight figures. Hell, even Wild Wild West made over a hundred mil. So the system works. The system called Pavlovian reciprocity...

You know what? They are quite welcome to pull this stunt on us with their Bad Boyses and stuff, but when they start laying this shit on people like Philip K. Dick, I bristle. Total Recall, Minority Report, and Paycheck all sacrificed provocative ideas for safe big bangs, and were the worse for it. To an extent, that even applies to Jackson's LOTR - oh, you cry sacrilege! sacrilege! but it's the fate of all cinematic adaptations nowadays, apparently, and PJ at least kept his dignity and didn't sell Tolkien's spirit cheap, even if, at times, he didn't qute grasp it. After all, it seemed that a dynamic reimagination was the better alternative to having a reverend and bland adaptation, like the recent Dune miniseries. (The both of them. The plural of "miniseries" is still "miniseries". Like the fish. Don't ever say you don't learn things here at the Park. Ehem.)

But what they just did to Isaac Asimov's I, Robot is still unspeakable. Why is it that after at least four decades one of the great masters of SF gets finally adapted to the screen - and ends up looking like a bland, run-of-the-mill Will Smith vehicle? And not even an original one - in the usual pitch lingo, it can quite safely be described as Attack of the Cloned Minority Reported Mechas on Street Cred Dude.

And it's bland and forgettable and I can already hear the sound of that gallon of popcorn in the joints of my jaws. And I know I'll pass on the Special Edition DVD, because there doesn't seem to be anything special in here. And there is no Asimov of any kind, except the Three Laws of Robotics. And very, very mutilated, at that.

And to think Alex Proyas, the clever director of Dark City, did this. That's the height of it - why get someone smart to do this, if the movie is going to end up looking just like some action unit director put it together? Using Wisecrack One-liners provided by StarPower Inc.

Oh hell. Guess what they would do to Arthur C. Clarke's The Sentinel nowadays... I guarantee it would feature guns. And it wouldn't be called 2001: A Space Odyssey.

posted by Vladimir | 3:04 PM

Tuesday, March 09, 2004  


Aw Chr1st. I go to CHUD, read the new Daily Leak, and that poor misbegotten nerd Nunziata actually has the nerve to complain that Best Buy employees don't have a goddamn clue about the Hellboy Promo Featurette that's playing in their store as part of some cross-promotion-pollination-breeding-gonzo-penetration scheme. Yeah: you go work for a chain store that pays you minimum wage, offers no healthcare, can throw you out on the street any minute and get an even less qualified minion to take your job, knowing that if you as much as utter the word "union" you will be out in the street, and yeah, you so will be motivated to peddle stuff other than the usual hardware.


Okay, for those who are not in the know, Mr. Nunz and his own minions live in a lalaland in which gory fanboy titles rule the universe. Their site rocks all the same, because they are usually funny as hell, even though their grasp of film history and, worse, film understanding is often less than palatable. But okay: they've been peddling Hellboy for a while now, and this latest rant actually got me so interested that I downloaded the huge 10-minute Best Buy promo.


Not because of the monsters and the mutants featured therein, however. I wish. Sadly enough, it was the first time I ever saw Guillermo del Toro, and I must confess I was expecting something along the lines of his namesake, my man Benicio. Imagine my horror!, horror! when instead, I get a clone of a movie nerd even bigger than Teh Nun3, who speaks English with the most stereotypical bad Mexican accent, and yet has none of the boyish glee of other recent nerds who made it big in franchised filmmaking. But, as the current main story on the last linked site says, "New to the epic? Click here for the highlights."

And that's just the deal here, boys and boys. This featurette will give you the usual EPK stuff which desperately hopes to get some butts in the seats to watch a movie with Hell in the title, preferably those same butts that just went in droves to watch Teh Chr1st dying for our sins. Hopefully, one day someone will make a movie about the one really interesting part of the Jesus story, which is the all-CG sequence of Our Lord and Saviour going to Hell and kicking Devil's ass and opening its gates and then getting resurrected like the God Almighty that He is.

So, for the sake of that particular Ridley Scott movie, I am actually kinda hoping that Hellboy makes it good at the boxoffice. And, I mean, it looks decent enough, for what it's worth. I'll pay to see it, even though I don't have to. See? It works. 'Tis a nice little promo vignette.

posted by Vladimir | 6:56 PM

Saturday, March 06, 2004  


Ah, so the advertising campaign kicks into Minion Planned Stage Two. We've seen the Superbowl ad ("Look! We bought MASSIVE software!") and now we get to see the Personal Story With the Cast of (Rendered) Thousands angle. And, I don't know, but the whole thing so far totally reeks of aping the LOTR advertising strategy.

The problem is, the movie doesn't convey anything similar to the depth that the Jackson movies had. Which is utterly ridiculous, considering that the Illiad is one of the greatest stories ever told. In fact, if anything is conveyed here, it's the complete devotion of the filmmakers to boil the story of Troy into a mindless summer blockbuster. ("This will be the greatest war the world has ever seen. We need the greatest warrior." Caption: BRAD PITT. My brain: LIQUEFIED.) Eric Bana still seems to have less of an emotional range than the CG Hulk, even, and while Orlando Bloom seems quite fitting for the role of Paris, that German model chick who plays Helen, one of the greatest beauties of all time, seems about as intriguing as an average centerfold.

And poor Brad Pitt seems to be really trying to do good work here. Abstractly speaking.

posted by Vladimir | 1:43 PM