Have to give credit to Cinemablend for introducing me to this trailer.
Imagine a horror film with a reputation so ghastly that people recoil from the mention of it. Now imagine a horror film with a concept so absurd that its mere name has been turned into tongue-in-cheek craft projects and a natural punchline. Now imagine those two things happening at the same time with one film.
The Human Centipede: The First Sequence is a strange film. Roger Ebert called it unreviewable and I eventually agreed, opting to mock the safe part of the film to avoid discussing the more extreme elements. It is a gross-out picture that hides the gross stuff behind copious bandages and clever camera shots. It’s a comedy without a punchline and a suspense film without a clear hero.
Tom Six has promised to turn the first film into a trilogy. This is the first trailer for The Full Sequence. And guess what? It’s totally safe for work. It’s negative press quotes played over people watching the film in the back of a van.
Here we go, people. Here comes Daniel Radcliffe’s upcoming test of his ability to sell tickets to a film not called Harry Potter and…. He’s doing a great job right now headlining the Broadway revival of How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying and hasn’t missed a performance yet. But headlining a feature film–especially a modern Gothic film–is far more challenging.
The Woman in Black is based on the novel of the same name by Susan Hill. Arthur Krupps (the Radcliffe character) is a solicitor called out to a funeral of an eccentric woman. Merely mentioning her home on the outskirts of town makes the villagers nervous. Krupps faces increasingly disturbing signs of a haunting by the mysterious Woman in Black. Is there more to the story than what meets the eye or is the house of the late woman irreversibly haunted?
The first trailer for the film was just released. I’m not particularly hopeful for the film. One, it’s coming out the first week in February, a typical dumping ground for horror films that no one knows what to do with. Two, it seems like a whole bunch of jump scares, which is out of character for all but the most experimental of modern Gothic stories. Those are the ones that decide to toss in some Lovecraft or slasher influences for kicks. Three, what we see tends to be very repetitive and not all that startling. What makes a scare in a Gothic piece work is how strange and unending it seems. It’s not enough for the curtains to rustle; the chimney needs to shoot out its soot and the candle needs to set fire to the painting on the wall.
What do you think? Are you up for a non-wizarding world of Daniel Radcliffe? Another quasi-Gothic feature film in a vague setting? Or will you skip it out and just read your dog-eared copy of Frankenstein instead? Sound off.
I wasn’t sure what to think when Nicolas Winding Refn’s Drive premiered at the Cannes Film Festival. He won the director’s award, but it sounded like it was just another action-crime film. The cast sounded great–Ryan Gosling, Christina Hendricks, Ron Perlman, Carey Mulligan–but the story seemed off to me.
Now that the trailer has been released, I’m sorry I ever doubted the film. It’s beautiful. It’s violent. It’s stylish. It has all the elements of an everything falls apart crime drama in the style of, say, Takeshi Miike or Danny Boyle. Fair warning: it’s the redband trailer. That means not suitable for all audiences. I don’t remember any cursing, but it does get violent in a brutal way.
Thank you for the early birthday present. I will cherish the eleven-day early gift of a stylish adult action movie with a great cast in September. It really means a lot. Now can you invite a smart and subtle horror film with a plot and a splashy big budget musical to join you for my birthday? Thanks in advance.
What do you think? Sound off below. And because of an incident earlier today with a certain foul-mouthed troublemaker who doesn’t understand humor writing, I must remind you that we keep the writing on this site PG. No cursing, no racial/sexual slurs, no threatening comments. That’s a one-way ticket to bansville.
It’s been a rough few years for Spider-Man. His third live-action film became a joke for many film-goers because of the infamous dancing Emo-Spidey sequence. Julie Taymor teamed up with Bono and The Edge to bring a Spider-Man musical to Broadway, only to be faced with significant financial, injury, and critical problems that are still ongoing. Any word on whether or not they’ve paid Julie Taymor any money yet or settled on royalty issues for the creators?
Now the rebooting of the franchise is nigh. Andrew Garfield will be replacing Toby Maguire as the pint-sized web-slinging superhero (even though he’s 6 feet tall: no shorter actors could fit the bill this time?) in the 2012 feature The Amazing Spider-Man. It is, once again, the origin story of Spider-Man. He will be bullied, he will be bit by a radioactive spider, and he will slowly develop his powers and persona over a roughly 2 hour period.
My question is this. Is there anything in the first trailer (embedded below) to actually get excited about? I’m not sold at all.
Wait, another Marvel superhero film? Didn’t we just get two of these back to back? ::checks archives:: Yes, yes we did.
But this isn’t about the campfest or the redemption. This is about that really strange looking superhero film with the creepy Benjamin Button CGI shenanigans.
As always, we will now attempt to decide whether or not it is worth it to see a new release film based solely on the information provided in the trailers. This week’s victim is Captain America: The First Avenger.
There is something really appealing about this trailer.
I don’t think there’s anyone who has been to a movie theater in the past three months who hasn’t seen the Larry Crowne trailer. That thing is ubiquitous. I’ve seen it in front of horror films, action films, kids films, foreign films, and even documentary films.
Based solely on that inescapable trailer, let’s see if we can decide whether or not Larry Crowne is worth the price of admission on Friday.