Trailers: Too See or Not to See

There are several different kinds of movie trailers, you have teaser, theatrical, red-band, green-band, TV spot, and all can show a diverse account of what the movie is about and what you will see on screen.  Back in the day when you could only see trailers in the movie theater, it was always a surprise and you always had a sense of excitement about what was coming soon to a theater near you.

Being young and not knowing that they made a second Lethal Weapon film and seeing the trailer for the first time…

 

Or being a little older and finding out that they made a movie out of my favorite television show of all time with a trailer that hit me after 40 seconds and one name…

 

To seeing something so original and powerful, that it would never have had the same impact if I had read about the trailer or seen something like this on-line…

 

Nowadays trailers are seen everywhere, on the big screen, on TV, on computers, tablets, i-pods, and phones.  And if you are looking you will get notices when one is coming out and you will most definitely not wait until you plunk down 12 bucks to see a movie just to see the latest trailers.  So studios have to do their best to get attention for their films from anywhere to a month to a year in advance.  Some know exactly how to do it which most teasers can do by evoking emotion with little actual film footage.  This was done recently with Christopher Nolan’s latest “Interstellar”.  Others make the mistake of showing everything including the kitchen sink all the way to the last bit of action as in the first “Mission Impossible” in which the final action scene is all laid out for you in the trailer.  You would think studios would learn from ones like that, but they are still around like for this film called “Reasonable Doubt” starring Samuel L. Jackson…

 

You pretty much get the whole movie and what looks to be the final climactic moments before you even see the film.  The best kind are the ones that give you the sense of what you will see in the film, and a storyline, but holds back enough to make you want to see the rest like this new one from the Wachowski’s “Jupiter Ascending”…

 

I still look to be surprised which is hard to do in the social media, 24/7 world.  But the love of film always keeps me coming back for more, and always looking to be amazed in the span of 2 minutes.  Even if the final result turns out to be a terrible film, nothing can take away the memory of seeing this for the first time on the big screen…

  

 

--Robert L. Castillo

Nebraska

                                                                 

               If you could see into a window of an average American family what would you see? Movies have always tried to portray the average family life, but there is always one problem, they are played by movie stars. I mean when I walk around my neighborhood I don’t see anyone that looks like George Clooney or Jennifer Lawrence. I think that filmmakers get the act down, but the look is just so hard to get, it’s hard to fake it. Well with that all said, I think someone finally got it right and also made one of the better movies of the year.

              “Nebraska” is Alexander Payne’s new movie about life in the Midwest. Woody Grant (Bruce Dern) has received a letter claiming that he has the winner of a million dollars. All he has to do to travel from Montana to Nebraska to claim his prize. That is exactly what Woody intends to do, even if he has to walk to Nebraska. Lucky for Woody he has a son, David Grant (Will Forte) who wants to help Woody live out his fantasy, even though he knows he hasn't won anything. So against David’s mother’s wishes, David decides to take Woody on a trip to Nebraska to claim his prize. David, whose life as a home electronic salesman isn’t the greatest, wants to use the trip as a chance to spend time with his father. David and Woody decide to stop by Woody’s home town and see Woody’s brothers and his old business partner Ed Pegram (Stacy Keach). What follows is the perfect story about what family truly is.

               I think if you were to ask twenty different people what their definition of family is; you would get about as many different answers. Family to me, put up with you no matter how you act and they are always there when you need them, no matter what adventures you take. Alexander Payne knows how to show a family that just feels right and just like in 2011 “The Descendants” you feel like these families could be your neighbors. Unlike with “The Descendents” though Payne only directed this film, but seems to have found a kindred spirit in writer Bob Nelson. The story is amazing, but what lifts Nebraska to greatness is the performance by the entire cast. Dern, who has always been a great actor, gets one of those roles that wins you awards. Forte, who is better known from his days on Saturday Night Live, doesn't welter next to Dern and more than holds his own. As great as those two are, the show is stolen by June Squibb, who plays Woody’s wife and somehow gets all the best lines. With this movie you can go from laughing to more laughing, and to just taking in a great flick. If it was up to me it would be required that Alexander Payne makes a movie every year like Woody Allen. I wish I had that power, but I don’t, so I will just enjoy his movies when they come out, and I promise you this is one you will enjoy quite a bit.

 Brian Taylor 

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I hate to have to compare Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” films to the Star Wars prequels, but it can’t be helped when they have so much in common like an overabundance of CGI, relatively flat characters, and terrible scripts.  That and the fact that the Hobbit films are in fact prequels to the superior “Lord of the Rings” trilogy.

“The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” the second of three films following the adventures of Bilbo Baggins, the wizard Gandalf and a company of dwarves continue on their journey to Erebor where they must enter the Lonely Mountain in an attempt to destroy the dragon Smaug and return the dwarf king Thorin to his former glory.

Their path takes them though Mirkwood where they encounter wood elves and a familiar face in Orlando Bloom, reprising his role as Legolas, the filmmakers did their best to make him look the same as he did over ten years ago, and they did for the most part.  Along with Legolas we meet the character created for the screen and who is not in the books the elf Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) who somehow has a star-crossed romance brewing with one of the dwarves.  In case you miss it, they actually have a conversation about stars.  So far her addition to the film version seems to only serve the purpose of a love triangle between her Legolas and Kili (Aidan Turner).  While on their quest through the woods, Gandalf is separated from them and is looking for a greater evil that is slowly growing in power.

When the star or the film’s title appears in the best CG rendering of a dragon that  has ever been on screen, the beauty of the look of Smaug is slightly off set by the fact that he talks about as much as a James Bond villain.  Constantly threatening and explaining his plans before he decides to carry them out.  There is a decent action scene between Smaug and our band of heroes, and that leads to the positive portions of the film.  The pacing is a step up from the first installment, and the action scenes are entertaining but border on the absurd as when the dwarves escape an army of Orcs down a river in barrels.  The other encouraging moments all involve the character of Bard (Luke Evans) who is a man from Laketown which would be the first town to be destroyed if Smaug is awaken.  If Lilly’s character is supposed to fill the Liv Tyler-Arwen role from the Lord of the Rings films, then Evans is clearly meant to mirror Viggo Mortensen’s-Aragon character in this series as he has something to fight for and a destiny that needs to be fulfilled.

Again there is much that have improved on this second installment of Hobbit films, and it looks as though we will get all the pay offs and a huge battle or three in the next and last film in this trilogy.  However the script and editing problems of this film just scream out “Hey, you only need to wait six months to see a better version of me on Blu-Ray, but I’ll take your money now!”

--Robert L. Castillo       

B.O.T.T. --Godzilla

This “Based On The Trailer” is for the up-coming 2014 “Godzilla”, directed by Gareth Edwards (Monsters).  It’s a great looking trailer and just gives you glimpses of the star of the film, as it has been done for years in Hollywood.

I wondered when they announced that a new version of Godzilla was being made in a post-“Pacific Rim” world, if it would be any grander than giant robots vs. giant lizards.  Would we want to see a movie that only had one giant lizard and no robots?

If this trailer is any indication of what the films focus will be, it’s clearly a case of man vs. a force of nature.  Much like “Battle: Los Angeles” was less an alien invasion movie and more of a war film.  This looks like the humans on the ground dealing with a natural disaster in the form of a 60-year-old movie monster.  And it will also most likely focus on the military response to a giant beast wrecking the city, as shown here with an impressive halo jump.

I’m looking forward to the film as a fan of the old Godzilla movies, that I just started showing to my own kids.  And having a director like Edwards who already proved that he can make a monster movie with heart, I think he’s the perfect choice for this new Godzilla.  Plus having him go up against Bryan Cranston whose name in the film is Brody, that’s a bold move to be sure.  Well as long as it’s better than the “Jaws” sequels that will be good enough for me.

--Robert L. Castillo

Flashback Corner (Spoiler Edition)--Unbreakable

**Once again this will be an all SPOILER Flashback**

 

          I will start off by stating that M. Night Shayamalan’s “Unbreakable” is one of the best on-screen superhero origin stories ever made.  It is better than the hero/villain origins done for the big-screen versions of Mr. Fantastic/Dr. Doom, Daredevil/The Kingpin, and Superman/Lex Luthor.  But it only works after you see it at least once, after the formerly ‘Twilight Zone’ now dubbed, at least for the last decade as the ‘Shayamalan’ twist-ending.  The first viewing comes off as “The Sixth Sense” lite, more silent moments, more brooding, more character’s giving a cold hard stare.  Granted this is not the same genre, less horror and more drama, drawn-out as it may be.

Everything about it upon second and in my case 10^th viewing screams superhero story.  Not just the villainess name drops of Mr. Glass and the overtly obvious comic book references.  Upon further viewing you can catch the way some shots are framed by cinematographer Eduardo Serra with characters motionless as if drawn in a comic book panel, Bruce Willis’s character name is David Dunn.  D.D. a call back to the early Stan Lee days at Marvel where heroes first and last names started with the same letter: Reed Richards, Peter Parker, Matt Murdock, Susan Storm, Steven Strange, Bruce Banner and so on.  There is also the rain poncho as the hero’s costume, and Sam Jackson’s character Elijah Price purple outfits, and freaky Frederick Douglass hair-do.

Even more subtle are moments like the beginning when David can’t even lie convincingly to the young sports agent on the train.  Most of the time when he does lie in the movie it’s unconvincing, because as we all know Lois.  Superman never lies.

This is the Bruce Willis I enjoy watching, when he is actually delivering a performance.  It seems that he responds better to a role when the director is also the writer, as in “Pulp Fiction”, “The Fifth Element”, and “Looper”.  Other times he just phones it in, like in “The Expendables”, “Cop Out”, and the last couple of ‘Die Hard’ movies.  With the character of David Dunn he plays it subdued, and very sad, which lends to the argument that Mr. Glass makes that he’s not doing what he’s supposed to be doing.  Sam Jackson as Elijah Price (Mr. Glass) plays like a total villain of Dr. Doom proportion, One: he’s rude an condescending to almost everyone he encounters from the comic book clerk to his own customers of his art gallery.  Two: he is calm and convincing to those that further his belief, specifically David and his wife Audrey played by Robin Wright who also turns in a great performance.  Her best moment being a quiet doorway scene with Wills when she asks about his faithfulness.

Again another comic book trope is that our villain either doesn’t see himself as the bad guy or only sees that he’s doing what must be done, as it is the order of things.  Price actually believes that it was destiny for him to find the ‘Unbreakable’ man who resided at the opposite end of the spectrum as him with his osteogenesis imperfecta disorder.  Much in the way The Joker and his chaos must be opposition to the Batman’s order.  Professor X believes in co-existence with the human race while Magneto intends to rule them, both feel that what they are doing is the right thing or at least that is what they are compelled to do.  The originality and world building o f the films is also worth noting.  Setting the movie in the real world with a superpower that was just exaggerated by years od comic book stories.  Instead of x-ray vision and flight, it's tremendous instinct and a super-dense bone structure. 

The other thing that makes “Unbreakable” worth repeat viewings is it has a firm place in the genre, before it crawled its way out of the sub-genre.  “Comic book movies” were overly saturated in the 80 and 90’s with multiple bad versions of Superman, Batman, Ninja Turtles sequels and just plain bad takes on characters like Spawn, Captain America, and The Phantom.  There were a few worthy entries such as “The Rocketeer” and “The Crow” leading up to the beginning of the renaissance of comic book movies in 1998’s “Blade” and 2000’s “X-Men”.  Though it wasn’t until the first decade of the 2000’s that they started to come into their own with classics like The Hellboy films, the Nolan Batman’s, Rami’s first two Spider-man’s, and of course the birth of the Marvel age on film, the perfection that was 2008’s “Iron Man”.

And had “Unbreakable” been more successful there would have been the two planned sequels.  As is the only way to do it nowadays, Shayamalan had said in interviews that two more “Unbreakable” movies were planned where the next would have had David getting into his role as a superhero, taking down thugs and being tested by more ruthless criminals all the while leading to the epic third film where David would face off against his nemesis Mr. Glass.  That’s a trilogy I wouldn’t mind seeing, especially now since Shayamalan’s filmography reads like failure, after failure, after failure “After Earth”.   Mean joke, I know, but it was done more out of disappointment that anything else.  I guess the best way to look at it as I do with Star Wars.  The prequels didn’t ruin my enjoyment of the originals, it just made me appreciate them more.  And hey it’s not over yet for Star Wars, there may be something fantastic on the horizon, I have not given up hope on Mr. Shayamalan yet.

Now with just as many hits as there are misses, and with a little comic book movie called “The Avengers” making a billion dollars, the genre is here to stay.  So now may be a good time to look back to when it wasn’t this kind of film that every studio wanted to make.  When a younger more visionary M. Night brought a story to the screen that gave us a glimpse into a very interesting world that is worth re-visiting.

 

--Robert L. Castillo

 

 

Disney and Pixar...Different but Same

          Disney was magic since 1937’s “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs”, amazing as it is, the magic on screen is still there almost 80 years later with Disney’s latest “Frozen”.  With its sing-song numbers and memorable characters that rivals one of the studio’s best 1991’s “Beauty and the Beast” “Frozen” is a great addition to the wide range of classics that have come down through the decades with a modern take.

The most interesting thing to me is that in all that time, Disney sticks, either intentionally or unintentionally to its formula:  Success, followed by years of failure, followed by tremendous success that rivals the previous achievements, then back again.

Case in point: after Show White, Pinocchio, Dumbo and Bambi came out in a 5-year span, there was a 7 year slump before Cinderella, Alice, Peter Pan,  Lady and her Tramp graced the screen from 1950 to 1955.  Then another 4 years until we saw “Sleeping Beauty” in 1959.  Then all was dormant on the animated front for the titan of toons for 30 years, the longest time Disney went without an explosive animated feature hit.  From the early 60’s to the late 80’s it was all Kurt Russell, Shaggy Dogs, Parent Traps, Flubber, Darn Cats, Don Knotts, Witch Mountains and Black Holes.  Most of which all but engulfed the animated features.  During that time we did get some later classics like “Robin Hood”, “The Sword in the Stone”, and “The Rescuers”.  As well as my childhood favorite "The Many Adventures of Winne the Pooh".

The next renaissance of Disney films came in 1989, when we went under the sea with Ariel and her friends.  This (no pun intended) opened the flood gates on the animation front for the 90’s boom of classics like “Beauty and the Beast”, “Aladdin”, “The Lion King”, and “Pocahontas”.  Yet there were still more Darn Cats, Flubbers, Parent Traps, and Witch Mountains.  All remakes and all terrible.

Everything transformed in 1995 when John Lassiter and his outlires at Pixar gave us the game-changing “Toy Story”.  Suddenly everything was digital, like video-cassette to DVD, it was a whole new world three short years after Aladdin and Jasmine sang about it.

By the end of the century there were three more Pixar films as they ruled the 2000’s.  Animated or live-action, there was nothing that Disney could put on the screen that could out-do its little brother Pixar.  Whether in animation and storytelling they had it all.  Disney still gave us some gems like “The Emperor’s New Groove”, and “Lilo and Stitch” and grew up on the live action end and struck gold with “National Treasure” and ignited the seas with the ‘Pirates of the Caribbean” films.  But Pixar had Monsters, the best fish story ever, superhero families, talking cars, and rats that could cook, and the awesome one-two punch of “Wall-E” and “Up”, followed by a knock out with the tremendous “Toy Story 3”.

It was in 2008’s “Bolt” where I saw a change coming though.  Produced by John Lassiter who brought his Pixar sensibilities to this favorite of mine about a TV super dog that doesn’t know he’s not really super.  Then just two years later Disney went back to the well in the way of re-imaging the tale of Princess Rapunzel.  “Tangled” showed new life in big brother Disney.  While Pixar made less-than sequels to “Monster’s Inc.” the undeserving “Cars”, and a so-so showing in “Brave”, Disney released the fantastic “Wreck-it-Ralph” and this year’s certain-to-be-a-classic “Frozen”.

For those of you who were put off by my whole, big brother-little brother analogy, and wondered why not big sister-little sister?  Then Disney’s latest “Fozen” is for you.  Old is the Hans Christen Anderson story, new and fresh is the animated version of this tale of two sisters separated by magic and brought together through love and friendship.  You can’t get more Disney than that.  There is no damsel here, and not much in the way of villainy, just two girls trying to find their path in life and knowing that they are strong enough to walk it.  Even more so is the songs and music that casts its own kind of spell, being a geek and knowing the early works of Joss Whedon in the “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” musical episode and “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog”, there is a similar quality to the musical moments in “Frozen”.  When the singing informs the audience and entertains as it develops the characters that are slightly aware that they are speaking in song.  The snowman, Olaf's musical number is one of the best.  It’s all pretty great, and they still find those gags that adults can enjoy as was done so expertly by Pixar.

Who’s to say what’s to happen in the years to come between the two animation giants.  On the toon town horizon for Pixar looking to reclaim the seat at the big kids table, have “Inside Out” a film about the voices in the head of a young girl, which sounds creepier than it actually is, “The Good Dinosaur” which seems like what it is, and a sequel in “Finding Dory” in 2016.  Disney looking to stay on top again while capitalizing on the recently acquired and extremely popular Marvel has a film coming called “Big Hero 6”.

Though it is possible that both will get overshadowed by the live action films like in the 60's and 70's in the way of Marvel films and in 2015 with the most anticipated sequel of all-time, “Star Wars Episode VII”.  Whatever happens, we shall see, and see we will, on both the big screens and small.  And whatever you may feel about Walt Disney, and his vision of his company and what it has become through the years, one thing can never be denied.   Disney films will live in our minds and our hearts forever.

 

By Robert L. Castillo    

Oldboy

                                                                         

                                                                   

          They say imitation is the best form of flattery. Now while it can be in some cases, where does reimagining fall? For some reason reimagining is ok for movies, so why isn't ok for everything else. Can you imagine someone doing that to a Rembrandt or a great novel? Now I am not trying to be broad, not at all, I think sometimes you can reimagining a movie, but I think you can only do that with movies not many people saw. You cannot do that to a classic, I mean that is just wrong.

     Well Spike Lee and Mark Protosevich have done just that, as they do a “reimagining “of Chan-wook Park’s 2003 classic “Oldboy”. Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) is not a good guy. He drinks way too much and neglects his wife and his three year old daughter. Joe is one of those guys who had it all in High School and is still living life like he is unbreakable. Well someone does not like Joe very much, in fact the dislike him so much they imprison him for twenty years. Joe is in a room that looks like a motel room, except in this motel you check in, but you don’t check out. While locked away he learns for the TV that his wife has been killed and that he is the chief suspect, and that his daughter was there as well. Time passes and Joe is clueless to why he is locked away, then one day he awakens outside, with money and a clean shave and haircut. All Joe wants to do is find out who put him away. Along the way he meets a social worker named Marie (Elizabeth Olsen), who helps him in his journey to find his captives. What follows is a true tale of revenge and a twist that will leave you talking about it afterwards.

    I like Spike Lee; in fact Lee has been one of the great filmmakers for the last thirty years, so I guess he was due for a mistake. If “Oldboy” was an original Spike Lee film based on the magna stories that both the original film and this film were based off of, and then it wouldn’t be bad. Where the problem lies is that this “reimagining” is nowhere near as good as the original, but I do not blame Lee completely. I just think that the story is culturally specific tale of redemption and revenge that does not cross over well. Brolin gives a strong performance as does Olsen; they just can’t save a story that does not translate well. Lee has said that this was not a remake of the 2003 film, but with so many key elements staying the same, how can you say that. You cannot make something better if it is already great. This is like if someone decided to do the same to the “Godfather” or “Goodfellas”, it is just not possible. Don’t waste your money on this, instead go out and buy the 2003 film, because greatness cannot be duplicated; only imitated.

Brian Taylor