Yep. Looks like "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."
I'm not the biggest fan of the Stieg Larsson trilogy of books, or the original Swedish trilogy of films, but in both cases, I think the strongest entry is the first one. Even so, when I reviewed the original film, I talked about how I think it's fairly pedestrian filmmaking that is carried largely by the character of Lisbeth Salander. I'm not even especially taken with the performance of Noomi Rapace. I think it's more a case of a wardrobe doing the work for an actor than anything else.
In short, there has always been room for improvement here, and now that the red-band version of the trailer has leaked online (and, no, I'm not comfortable embedding it or linking to it, but you are an adult who can presumably find YouTube), it's worth having the conversation about what we might be unwrapping come Christmas-time this year. If you want to see the best possible version of the trailer, you'll need to head to the theater, where it's playing in front of, among other things, "The Hangover Part II" this weekend.
Yep. Looks like "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo."
Okay, let's try this again.
I honestly don't think I'm spoiling anything to say that Disney has kicked off their campaign for "The Muppets" with a couple of different trailers now, and so far, they've made some big strange choices regarding the tone they're taking with the ads.
The "Green With Envy" trailer that was in theaters last weekend is a bait-and-switch bit that would probably work better if they weren't cutting around the joke so hard for the first minute-plus. Obviously, "The Muppets" is not a conventional romantic comedy starring Jason Segel and Amy Adams, so trying to find enough footage to make the film look like something it isn't could not have been easy. The tone of that trailer is tough, too, because I don't think that's the tone of the movie.
Now, there's a second trailer, and the first part of it is obviously trying to evoke the mood of the teaser for "The Hangover Part II." In doing so, they may be showing us spoiler material out of context, and it's worth looking at closely. All of the decayed, dusty locations they're showing in the start of the trailer appear to be inside the iconic Muppet Theater, which has been closed for a while when this new film begins. At some point in the movie, Walter, the new Muppet who you'll glimpse a few times in this trailer, must succeed in getting the Muppets back to that theater. To what end, though, and what happens inside? That's still the big question.
Welcome to The Morning Read.
That's so weird. I was going to celebrate my birthday yesterday with a few posts about various things, and I took a break for a quiet lunch with my two boys, Allen and Toshi. We all had juice boxes, and then I woke up and it was hours later and we were in Thailand and we all had Yo Gabba Gabba tattoos on our faces. I got Brobie.
Whatever the case, it's going to be a busy weekend. "Saturday Night At The Movies" will return this week, now that "Saturday Night Live" is on hiatus again. You can look for that around 8:30 PM PST on Saturday nights. I've also got a few pieces about things we're going to do here on the blog for the summer, during the big popcorn movie season, and ways you guys can be more active, because I do value your voices in the mix as well. It's summer. We should be having fun. That's what summer and movies are about as a combination, right?
Our review of 'Super 8" won't be up until next week, on June 1st, but this weekend, our full review of "X-Men: First Class" will be up, and we're going to dig into one of the most interesting Marvel movies made by any studio so far. In addition, we'll have reviews of films like "Submarine" and "Bad Teacher" and "Green Lantern" and even "Judy Moody and the Not Bummer Summer." In each case, we'll try to have the earliest possible reaction for you. It's a busy crowded summer, and you deserve to know what to expect from "Mr. Popper's Penguins" or "Cars 2." As July rolls in, look for word on "Transformers: Dark Of The Moon," including reviews of both 2D and the 3D IMAX versions of the experience. We'll be sure to review the new Tom Hanks film "Larry Crowne" and the raunchy comedy "Horrible Bosses" and, yes, even films like "Monte Carlo" and "The Zookeeper," because you seriously never know.
You can count on Motion/Captured for a breakdown on everything that's in the theaters this summer, whether it's "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2" or "Another Earth," whether it's "Winnie The Pooh" or "Captain America," or "Friends With Benefits" or "Snow Flower and the Secret Fan." The reason you can rely on us isn't because we believe our opinion is better than anyone else's, but because we opine on so many movies that the cumulative weight of all of that, all of those reviews and interviews and analysis pieces, removes the individual significance from any one review. You're not coming here just for my "Cowboys and Aliens" review. In a vacuum, what is any one review worth? But when you read that and my "Crazy Stupid Love" piece and even my review of "The Smurfs," then you'll get a sense of my consistent voice and likes and dislikes from film to film, genre to genre, as open and fair as I can be. And all of that is just what's coming out between now and Comic-Con. And that's just a look at the new films we'll be covering. We'll obviously also be covering books and DVDs and Blu-rays and older films and whatever else interests us in that same time period. Which mean, yes, we'll stay plenty busy this summer, and we want you to share it all with us.
Enough about the future, though. Let's see what's going on right now all over the Internet. Over at Latino Review, the one and only El Mayimbe broke the story that there will be an unexpected second big-name villain in "The Avengers." Or maybe even third, based on how you're counting. It's a pretty big piece of information if true, and so I'll just link you to their site without hinting about who it is or how they might fit into the movie, and if you don't want to know, don't click that link. Sounds interesting, though, and more than ever, I'm just curious to see how Joss Whedon brings all of these elements together in a film that is less than seven hours long. Normally I'd say it sounds too busy, having all these villains, but if you're going to put Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, and the Hulk together, they'd better have a credibly-scaled threat to face.
Welcome to the Evening Read.
Yes, that's right. I rearranged the schedule today so I could post those reviews first, and now I'm putting together an Evening Read after spending some time with the boys this afternoon. Lots of interesting stuff going on out there today, so I wanted to make sure we got a chance to share some of it before the day is done and I start celebrating my birthday... which, at this age, means "drinking heavily and weeping in the shower."
I'm not going to link out to the sites who are spoiling a very clever cameo in one of this summer's big movies, but I am going to ask the question why you would do that to your readers. I got yelled at (primarily by one guy repeatedly) by a few of you over my decision to run the "Muppets" trailer the other day without hiding the fact that it was a trailer for "The Muppets" in my headline, and that was a decision I had to contemplate. In the end, very few of you would have clicked on an article about an Amy Adams/Jason Segel romantic comedy that you'd never heard of before, and I don't blame you for that. I don't post stories with the specific goal of having no one read them, so I erred on the side of spoiling a two-minute trailer for you in that case. And that was, let's be clear, a piece of advertising. But regarding an actual movie? And a surprise hidden deep within that movie? There's no way I would do that to my readers. I won't even tell you what movie it was they screwed up. I'll just say that it's comparable to what would happen if there was a scene in "Cowboy and Aliens" where Han Solo showed up as one of the aliens and had an onscreen moment with Harrison Ford. The crowd would go berserk, right? Well, that's the way this particular cameo plays in its film, and the idea of someone posting the information as a headline… not even as part of a story, but as an unavoidable headline… makes me think that maybe studios aren't wrong when they play hardball on screening dates and embargoes. If you can't trust a fully-functioning adult to handle a piece of information properly, then you have to stop giving all the adults that information. It removes the temptation to be a total tit from the equation. Shame on you, Comic Book Movie.
One of the genuine delights of the original "Kung-Fu Panda" was realizing that the film was a perfect gateway drug into real kung-fu films for kids, an authentically built story of a misfit named Po (Jack Black) who wanted to become a master like the Furious Five, the kung-fu heroes he worshipped. The film featured a pretty menacing bad guy in the form of Tai Lung (Ian McShane), and when it offered up either philosophy or action scenes, there was a credibility to it that I found impressive.
With this new entry in what I can only imagine is a series, director Jennifer Yuh has crafted a truly ravishing visual experience, and the script by Jonathan Aibel & Glenn Berger is solid and streamlined. My one complaint about the film is just how painless the entire thing seems, how very linear the storyline is. There's a problem, the good guys go to deal with it, and then they do. It's not much more complicated than that, a particularly stripped-down version of Campbell's basic story form.
Having said that, the film is energetic, filled with clever and exciting kung-fu action, and there is an emotional arc for Po that I found personally very affecting, more so than I would have expected. Overall, I would call "Kung-Fu Panda" pretty rousing family entertainment, and if your little ones are eager to see the film this weekend, it's a safe bet that they'll be just as pleased as you are with your time in the theater.
I'm starting to believe that comedy and sequels simply do not mix.
It is no coincidence that horror, the other genre I believe this about, works because of the same sort of involuntary reactions that make great comedy effective. It feels to me like the simple act of making a sequel to a comedy or a horror film is an act of diminishing returns in practice. There is an element of surprise that seems necessary for comedy or horror to work on an audience completely. The first "Hangover" became an international hit based on two things: the chemistry of its cast and the clever way the film was structured as a mystery. That allowed for the film to drop its best surprises out of chronological order, and it saved its biggest payoffs for the closing credit photo montage.
"The Hangover Part II," opening tomorrow, is a well-made sequel. Once again, Todd Phillips seems to be one of the few guys making this sort of big broad mainstream comedy who loves to shoot in full 2.35:1 scope, and he's got a keener sense of what to do with a frame than, for example, Rob Marshall in "Pirates of the Caribbean 4," who shot the jungles of Hawaii like he was making a TV movie on a soundstage in Burbank. Phillips takes full advantage of the grimy, sweaty opportunities afforded by Bangkok and Thailand, and the film has this dangerous, sun-blasted visual style that really works. The cast all seem game for this return to the characters, and there's a manic energy to a lot of it that seems appropriate.
I just wish I thought the damn thing was funny.
It's been strange watching the production of "X-Men: First Class" from a distance.
Ever since I met Matthew Vaughn at a lunch with Guy Ritchie and Harry Knowles, he's been incredibly approachable and easy to talk to about his films, and I spent a fair amount of time watching him work on "Stardust" and "Kick-Ass." I shouldn't be surprised, though, because this time, he's not working for himself, and he didn't self-finance the film through his own Marv Productions. He was working for 20th Century Fox, and on a superhero film, pretty much the opposite of every professional situation he's had so far.
I've certainly had plenty of tough things to say about Fox and Fox management over the years, and I was concerned during production that part of the reason for the cone of silence was that Matthew was having a terrible experience. Based on the final film and our chat today, I'd say he was just busying running as fast as he could to make his release date, staying focused because there was no time to get this one wrong.
When we spoke, he was in bed with tonsillitis, but he sounded just as sharp and energetic as usual. As we started our conversation, I told him how pleased I was with the end result. Vaughn says, "Yeah, well, we were up against it on this movie, but somehow, I think the Movie Gods shone on us."
We talked about how rich the world established by this film is, and I asked him about his choice to use Sebastien Shaw as the main villain in this one. The filmmaker reveals, "He was the villain… no, the character, that I was most afraid of. I kept thinking, 'Are we going to pull Shaw off?' And the comic book version made me nervous, and I would argue with Lauren [Shuler-Donner] about it, and she'd say, 'He must have the ponytail and the cravat.' And I would argue, 'He is going to look like an Austin Powers villain, Lauren. We cannot do that. I have to make the movie work, and Kevin Bacon with a ponytail and a cravat dressed as an 18th-century fop will look ridiculous.'"
Tilda Swinton is one of those people I was eager to sit down with precisely because I knew I wasn't going to get something cookie-cutter and overly-managed out of her. I think she's a fiendishly smart performer, with an underground sensibility that still makes her feel like she's resolutely outside the Hollywood system, even after winning an Academy Award.
Her work in "We Need To Talk About Kevin" really shook me up, and I was excited to sit down with her and discuss the way the film came together. It was first thing in the morning, the third or fourth day I was in Cannes, and we met at the special beachfront pavilion that Moet Champagne had set up. She was dressed in a knee-length green dress, with minimal make-up, and couldn't have been more striking.
As soon as we were seated, I started talking to her about how much the film rattled me, and how it's full of moments that any parent can immediately understand, no matter what their relationship with their child. In particular, we spoke about the way most movies romanticize the process of parenthood, taking out all the ugly and unpleasant and unhappy moments, which is really what "Kevin" starts with. I asked her how early she became involved with the material, and how much she helped to shape the approach they took. "When we first talked about it, there was no script. There was a book," she said, "but more than the book itself, there was this attention paid in the book to this… this survival. The film really is about surviving. I don't think you have to be a parent to know the nightmare fear that can be involved. Even if you were just left with someone else's kid for the day. There was no script, so there was only the question of how to extract that feeling from the book, which was incredibly dense."
I can't believe Cannes is already in the rear-view. It seems like we just found out a few weeks ago that I had my press badge for this year's festival and would be going, and now it's all over except for the publication of a few final pieces. Crazy.
I'm going to start with a round-up of four reviews, movies I liked to varying degrees but didn't fully love in any case, and I want to make sure the films at least get some attention. With one of them, I'm sure you'll have a chance to see it later this year, and with the others? Well, who knows if they'll ever play US theaters? I could easily imagine that these might just disappear or show up a few years from now, once any potential heat has dissipated. It's happened to plenty of good movies over the years, and sometimes, these festivals represent my one shot at seeing them in a theater.
Take "Bonsai," for example. Chilean filmmaker Cristian Jimenez, working from a novel by Alejandro Zambra, has crafted a wry, sincere piece about how easy it is to get hung up on an idealized love from the past at the expense of an imperfect but attainable love in the present, and it's a small-scale charmer that would probably have a nice tidy little life on the arthouse circuit in English. I'm not sure distributors are cool enough to give a movie like this a chance when it's done Spanish-language instead, and without any easily marketable names. There's no real high-concept to the film, so you can't even cut a trailer that sells it just based on the premise. This is a film that has to play out in full before its appeal is totally evident. Julio (Diego Noguera) is a young man looking for work who meets with Gazmuri, a semi-famous writer. He tries to get the job typing up Gazmuri's new novel, but he asks for too much money and Gazmuri turns him down. Julio doesn't tell his semi-girlfriend Blanca (Trinidad Gonzalez) that he lost the job and instead take the opportunity to write his own book, the story of his first real love, Emilia (Natalia Galgani). In writing the book, Julio begins to really buy into the romantic legend of how great things were with Emilia, but he seems oblivious to just how determined Blanca is to help him.
You know, I give the generic poorly-scripted romantic comedy a hard time in print, and that seems very, very mean of me. After all, they can't help it. The audience will pay to see the same formula a bazillion times over, and if they don't have to try any harder than they already are, then why bother?
Jason Segel and Amy Adams, though, are fairly appealing, and in this case, I'm willing to give "Green With Envy" a chance. After all, James Bobin is directing and his work on "Flight Of The Conchords" was always sharp and funny, so I'll give him a chance.
I'm having a hard time understanding what the hook is, though. Doesn't look like anybody body-switches or gets amnesia or is aging backwards or anything that might typically motivate a sort of high-concept riff on the romantic comedy. Is this really just as simple as "Love struck meets star struck when a small town couple (Amy Adams, Jason Segel) head to Hollywood and discover their dreams of hitting the big time may cost them the one thing that matters most - each other"?