Oh, goody. We’re going to see dirty, dust-covered vehicles blow up again in Mad Max: Fury Road come 2015.
Pardon me, but I’m not going to get excited about this. I didn’t even care for the previous installments in director George Miller’s post-apocalyptic series, including the original Mad Max and Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior. These may have been kinetic films, but they also presented a dreary, despondent vision of society that I wanted no part of … and didn’t enjoy watching.
Once again, I’m probably in the minority on this, though. Fury Road will likely be a hit.
It does depend, however, on whether people’s taste for such pictures remains the same. I think the Mad Max flicks of the past decades caught lightning in a bottle; fantasy films were big, and the vision of filthy cars, souped-up battling each other along never-ending highways at some point in the future was an original one.
Can Fury Road resurrect this franchise? It remains to be seen. The trailer promises the usual explosions and mayhem (hey, is that Verdi’s Requiem in there, too?), so I suspect there will be interest among fans of the original series.
That may be enough to propel this movie into successful territory. Next year, we’ll know for sure.
Unfortunately, we can’t go back in time to feel what it was like to experience the original Star Wars firsthand.
We can, however, watch the trailer to the forthcoming Star Wars Episode VII – The Force Awakens, and after doing so, I have to say that I’m not impressed.
I wasn’t too happy with director J.J. Abrams’ work on Star Trek Into Darkness, which I felt was a lot of posturing. Tedious, sloppy filmmaking, in my opinion. Now’s he’s getting his hands on the Star Wars franchise, and I’m cautiously pessimistic. The trailer to the 2015-destined new installment suggests it’s very special-effects-heavy – nothing new for this series. But I have a bigger problem. Why add more to a story that’s already ended … and in a satisfying way, to boot?
You won’t get a more iconic villain in this franchise than Darth Vader, and I don’t know if Abrams will try for that. Part of the reason the original worked, however, was due to the strength of the mythology behind Vader and his minions. They were bad. They were evil. And they had James Earl Jones’ voice leading them.
You’re not going to get the same effect in the latest sequel, and I’m worried it’ll fail because of that.
The Star Wars fan base is sizable. I’m sure this will make a lot of money. And putting out a teaser trailer now for a film that’s slated for a late-next-year debut is a good marketing strategy.
I just hope it’s not all for naught. Given the many problems with the prequels, this isn’t a new hope.
Paul Thomas Anderson is a good director. Thomas Pynchon is a good writer. But will the film based on his novel Inherent Vice be any good?
That’s what I’m wondering some days after seeing the trailer to the picture, which made the flick look like a bit of a mess. Possibly an amusing mess, but a mess all the same.
I’m not totally happy with those prospects.
I like my movies tight, not sprawling. Frankly, I’m a bit worried that “sprawling” will be a euphemistic description of this film. Other movies in this director’s canon, including Boogie Nights and There Will Be Blood, were sprawling in an interesting way, meandering with purpose, getting audiences to wonder what would happen next. What I’m concerned about with Inherent Vice is that it will be directionless, muddled – that we’ll be sick of predicting where it’s going by the time we get halfway through it. And that could be a cinematic problem.
Sure, it might be on a par with Anderson’s other projects, in which case I’ll be more than pleased. But I’m cautiously pessimistic here. Not sure that’ll be the case.
Yes, I realize I’m jumping the gun when complaining about the trailer to a movie. But the preview for Wild, the based-on-a-true-story Jean-Marc Vallée film starring Reese Witherspoon as a woman who takes up hiking as a road to self-improvement, doesn’t look all that wonderful.
I’m not a huge fan of Witherspoon’s acting anyway, so that’s another hurdle. But in general, this picture looks manipulative, frustrating, like Dallas Buyers Club, which Vallée also directed. That flick also has a star that I don’t care for from a performance perspective: Matthew McConaughey.
There’s a trend here, though, and it’s the trend of trailers that don’t sell their movies as well as they should. If a preview doesn’t entice me, there’s something wrong with it. It should tout the picture’s best qualities, not make it look irritating. That’s how Wild came off. And unfortunately, that’s what it left me with.
There’s a chance that this film might be a good one. There is. I’m not expecting that, though. In this case, the trailer tells all. I’m buying that for now.
Yesterday, while at the theater to watch Nightcrawler, I saw the trailer for the Jon Stewart film Rosewater.
I have to admit, I’m a bit skeptical about this production. Stewart directed the movie and wrote the script for it, and although I think he’s a funny, often insightful guy, I’m far from a devotee of his work and don’t agree with him on everything. This serious picture, which documents the imprisonment and questioning of a journalist in Iran, is hardly comic material, and comedy is Stewart’s specialty. From a cinematic standpoint, it’s a big risk.
On the other hand, the trailer suggests some interesting cinematography and intriguing dialogue, which would be a big step forward for the usually lighthearted Stewart. It’s also topical subject matter, given the tyrannical regime currently in Iran, and might call further attention to the events occurring there. So there’s a part of me that’s looking forward to seeing it.
The question is: Will it be good? It’s hard to say. I guess I have to wait and see.
I hate doing that.