A New Age for the Movie Trailer

I want to talk about two different trailers that made a huge impact on me as a movie-goer. Both were teaser trailers, first ones to arrive online and in theatres, the first being for Watchmen, the second for Where the Wild Things Are.

Movie trailers are evolving into tiny movies in and of themselves. They are creatively constructed, and have a story arch that depicts mood, tone, and style. The two I want to talk about struck me immediately upon viewing, for a number of reasons, but mainly, as a trailer is designed to do, made me want to see the film. However, in these two cases, it really really made me want to see it. Movie trailers are truly achieving their goals set by the studios, and then some, but are there negative outcomes once the film is released? Hmmm....

The trailer for Watchmen was pretty much brilliant. The main reason I think was the song choice used. It's a Smashing Pumpkins song called "The Beginning is the End is the Beginning," and to boot it was the darker, slower, more ominous "Rarities and B-Side" recording. It was the perfect fit for the cut they used, and depicted this sort of beautifully dark imagery, set against this song that was scary almost, with lyrics about the end of the world. Now, at the time, I had never heard of the book or the artists/writers or anything having to do with Watchmen. I'm not an avid reader of the graphic novel, but this trailer just knocked me sideways. I immediately went to pick up the book after watching the trailer over and over again several times, in awe of what this movie could possibly be about, given nothing more than edited clips of of a bizarre, intriguing story, set to the backdrop of this song that at first I thought was newly written for the film itself. That's how seamless the song and editing matched up. It was perfectly paced, and not too long, leaving you desperately wanting more. In retrospect, I can't imagine what the effect of that trailer had on well established fans.

As it turns out, the film was so-so. It was visually spectacular but the story was such a perfect adaptation from the book that it almost didn't work as a movie. It was by no means bad, but it wasn't what i expected. it wasn't what the trailer seemed to promise me i think. the music wasn't included, which is fine i guess, but in my opinion, I honestly would have preferred seeing the movie the trailer pitched me rather than the final cut. Needless to say, Watchmen didn't last too long in theatres, and to fans, I read some loved it, and the oppositional; some loathed it. All I know is, the trailer and the film itself didn't match up in the expectations department.

So what does this mean? Did the trailer help or hurt the movie. It helped it in terms of getting people in the seats initially but for longevity's sake, i don't think it helped ultimate in theatre ticket sales. maybe the DVD's have done better. all in all, the teaser trailer first and foremost, let alone the two or three longer theatrical trailers, did its job. Butts in seats. Initially. But would it have been more beneficial to just have had the teaser trailer not be so ominous, ambiguous? would it have been better to just be a very short depiction of the actual film? maybe the music for the film hadn't been fully decided or looped yet, and they needed a great song to pump up the audience for those first 30 seconds to catch a glimpse of some movie that looked really cool? you be the judge.

The second trailer, which i think i watched maybe a million times in anticipation, was for Where The Wild Things Are. Let's talk about the perfect trailer, with all the same characteristics of the former. Same awe invoking response to a story so well known by so many generations of big and little kids around America, around the world. Same beautiful array of imagery, letting you lick the spoon of what was cooking in Hollywood's oven. and most of all, a song choice that was more perfect than perfect: The Arcade Fire's Wake Up, one of the most epic pieces of new age alt. rock written about the lives of children and how they are shaped. Sound like the movie's premise? The trailer was beautifully edited, and the images came at you with blasting harmonies with the powerful chords of this gorgeous, haunting, and thoughtful piece of music. Spike Jonze's film turned out to be the perfect film for that song, and visa versa. It didn't matter what came first, the egg or the chicken, i just sat there in awe that they were made for each other, and actually met to create this feeling that this film Where the Wild Things Are was going to be every bit as meaningful as the children's book of its origin.

What happened, unlike Watchmen, was just that. The movie was near perfect in every form, although not what fans might have expected. Jonze took the message and the pictures from Sendak's book and wove a story about the confusion of being a prepubescent innocent who's life is a little scary. I could review the film itself all day. That aside, what the trailer did for me was not only set up what kind of film it was, but also carried me into the world of the film in its actuality. Jonze used Karen O's (lead songstress of the band The Yeah Yeah Yeahs) beautiful vocals and song storytelling genius to tell the story of the Wild Things. Zach Snyder, the director of Watchmen, used cheap music from each decade the film was set in, that neither was enjoyable to listen tom nor actually achieved the task of furthering the film's story. Karen O and Spike Jonze were a match made in heaven, and together, they envisioned a score that was as epic and as true to human emotion that could have been conceived by any big Hollywood director. There are many many criticisms to Jonze's film, and even more praises, but all I'm saying here, is there was an actual truth in the succession of the film to it's teaser trailer that came before it. It was a good lead in, a truthful setup, and even though the music didn't carry over, which is obviously fine, the music for the film was of the same vein, and the images and mood depicted matched sweetly. Where the Wild Things Are is still doing well in the box office and in IMAX and is running three times as long as Watchmen did.

There are many ingredients to the recipe of a film's success at all points during it's journey. the first hook for audiences being the teaser trailer, and this entity is evolving into something new and beautiful: a little film, for the editor to do the big film justice. Getting butts in the seats is the goal in terms of fiscal success, but is it worth the possibility of misdirection? maybe the film should be better from the get-go like Watchmen and we wouldn't have to be lassoed in with little white lies. Where the Wild Things Are delivered the goods and used it's trailer to the best and most positive and truthful abilities. The lesson is: Be wary in your excitement, but always see a film on your own judgement, never on reviews, or trailers for that matter. If it's not good, that's the price you pay for giving money to the continuation of your chosen form of entertainment. It builds character. go watch some teasers and get back to me.)

Oscar Buzz on Hurt Locker

definition: noun. a period of immense, inescapable physical or emotional pain.

I saw The Hurt Locker twice in theatres, and it blew me away the first time, and even more the second. This truly is going to be a film that we will study years down the line, as it was nearly perfect as critics described. Oscar buzz abounds and hopefully Hollywood will recognize the huge new talents that emerged through this incredible picture.

The Hurt Locker was just badass. All around. The acting, the cinematography, the direction, and the message, all the components were traumatizing to say the least. There was so much tension in this movie; I can't even describe the feeling of suspense and unrest I felt while watching for the first time. On top of the fact that the action and drama kept me on edge, even the tension of the emotions characters go through makes you reach into your chest and grab your heart out of feeling suffocation. A scene with actor Anthony Mackie, playing Sergeant Sandborn, confronts his own doubts and confusion about why he is doing what he is doing and the helplessness of knowing what he does may one day kill him, is incredibly truthful and moving. The levels and the roller coaster almost never settle. In moments of sheer calm, I sat there wondering what was going to happen at any moment that would make me jump or want to vomit out of anticipation. Truly, on the big screen, the mind wants to escape what its viewing because this film hits your senses at very close proximity.

The story revolves around Staff Sergeant William James, played effortlessly by Jeremy Renner, a newcomer to the mainstream and the "attention" of the masses as well as the powers that be. Before this gig, he caught the eye of many big wigs in Hollywood with his performance as Jeffrey Dahmer in the film of the same surname. The amazing thing about Renner is, just as the movie was released, he was shooting a reality show called "The It Factor," and on the show, he sky rockets from struggling actor to reading tons of scripts on camera with buddies, trying to sift through them, eventually finding his way to S.W.A.T. and other films. We need an actor in this world like Renner. He's not overtly good looking, no Robert Redford or Brad Pitt. To quote Kissing Jessica Stein, he could be deemed "sexy ugly," or just your average joe, in a macho sense. He's not your typical leading man either, but he has a strong presence, a quick wit, and he has a focus in his stare. You can read everything he is thinking in those beady eyes. Go watch 28 Weeks Later (GREAT film) and watch his facial gestures and mannerisms. In Hurt Locker he continues being precise, being smart with his choices, taking the simpler route, which is always more interesting because it's more instinctual, more real. He observes, he looks like he's thinking things through ten steps ahead of where he is at the present moment, which makes him a thousand times more interesting to watch than other actors who rely on quirky dialogue and good looks and bullshit charm.

Anthony Mackie, a little more known although not by much, shines as the straight arrow do-gooder contrast to Renner's renegade rogue. The situations and their realism create a tense environment for these two characters. They are members of an elite team of bomb diffusers, known as an EOD, an Explosive Ordinance Disposal crew. They receive intel on where bombs are hidden in areas of the Middle East, and go in to diffuse them, either by robot machine, or by their own hands in a massive padded disposal suit. It's completely insane, and the perfect cocktail for suspense. This entire operation was kept under government raps until recently, and director Kathryn Bigelow decided she needed to be the first to take this sort of war story and present it to the public. I'm glad she did, because her eye for detail and human condition is the closest thing to feeling like you're in war that we're going to get. Mackie's performance is so bare bones, so simple in the belief that he's doing this for a greater good, that Renner almost seems to mock him, because Renner's character apparently does it out of joy and the thrill of possible death, which is totally fucked, and severely dangerous, if he weren't the best of the best. As a colonel puts it (played by one of three special cameos), after finding out Sgt. James has diffused over 800 bombs, he respectfully concludes that "that's just...hot shit, isn't it?"

The most outstanding achievement I feel in this film is the capture of the characters in their scene. Bigelow has this slow motion camera work happening that captures the tiniest moving elements when a bomb explodes. The shifting of rust and gravel on a car 8 times as slow, for example, to give the audience a sense of how the guys right next to the bomb feel. Unfortunately for these men, sometimes the bomb does indeed go off, and even if they manage to get farther away in time, it ain't like the movies. This film shows the reality of the power and surge generated by an explosion, and how powerful it can be even from many yards away, and how slow the feeling of being blasted backwards actually an feel, what happens to all the surrounding when a bomb goes off. She actually captures this force on camera, and the emotions and reactions of the men who deal with it to boot. Renner's James doesn't have a death wish so much as he just isn't afraid of what he does, because he actually loves what he does. It's the only thing he truly loves. Mackie's Sanborn does it out of talent and necessity, but it isn't his life. This struggle throughout the film, as they enter dangerous situations from two different perspectives, brings these characters to a head, but Bigelow has shown truly through Renner that war is in fact a drug. Renner's character of love prevails over Mackie's character of necessity, because love trumps all, even if it's love of diffusing bombs by hand. Bigelow frequently uses handheld close-ups on characters faces, and her shots are usually long and uncut. The simplicity of this, I think, is the strongest tool for a director to really get the truth out of characters, because they can't hid behind edits. Mix this theory with some of the best young actors in the business and you have a film that captures the truest of human emotion.

The Hurt Locker didn't do well in theatres until hype got so big, people eventually went to check it out, but by then it was too late to make moves financially. It didn't last too long in theatres, wasn't widely released or marketed. The trailer didn't do much for the excitement factor of the film, and since Renner and Mackie were mostly unknown to the masses, it missed a lot of audience. But this never stopped a film from being recognized as a true masterpiece after the fact during awards season. There Will Be Blood has DDL attached to it as a major draw and still wasn't a huge box office success, but come Oscar time, and well, you know the drill. Hopefully this will be the same tale with Hurt Locker, because it truly is one of the best shot films and best acted I've seen in recent release for a long long time. I would like to think that of all the categories, Renner as lead actor, Bigelow as Director, and cinematography would get sure nomination, with Mackie and editing as next best guess. See the Hurt Locker. ASAP.

The First Review:The Last Daze of School, 1976...

My favorite film: Dazed and Confused.

A lot of people can't really name their favorite, because they have so many. I have many that I really love, love, like very much, and so on and so forth, but to name a favorite, all around, ready to view at any given moment, I can honestly say that Dazed and Confused is most definitely that one film.

I recently stumbled upon the trailer on the Apple website for Fix, starring Shawn Andrews who played Pickford in Dazed. I just stared, shell shocked, that this actor who hardly ever works, unfortunately, is about to be in a movie that looks great, and I haven't seen him since he painted the faces of a town statue black and white with Gene Simmons' tongue. That was the beauty of this film that I learned as I was becoming an actor. The idea that Richard Linklater, who directed the semi biographical piece, could find these new young actors, who were actually talented and not simply rising stars. Shawn Andrews made a huge impression in a film that was small, with simple ideas, based on a foundation of youth during a time where kids had crazy fun and did stupid things in the face of boredom and repression.

Pickford is just one character in a cast of about fifteen principals where, if you watch the movie, you sit there and go 'Holy crap, she's in this?!' Parker Posey, Ben Affleck, Matthew McConaughey, Milla Jovovich,Adam Goldberg, Rory Cochrane and Anthony Rapp all put up early career jump start performances. I mean, Matthew McConaughey was actually pretty damn good, playing stoner Texan Wooderson, living in his high school past, chasing high school girls, and is totally happy with his choice in lifestyle. He should just stick with those kinds of roles, (that being his big breakout actually) because he was fantastic. Ben Affleck plays the asshole who got held back a year or two. Again, perfect. Anthony Rapp, of Rent fame, plays the brain, with his sidekick and conscience Adam Goldberg chiming in with perfectly delivered quips at opportune moments. Parker Posey is flawless in the super bitch senior role, hazing freshman girls rigorously, out of sheer joy of the power trip.

Then there is, of course, the iconic Slater. Rory Cochrane has created the most lovable stoner in history. His "dollar bill" monologue, which I actually used for an audition piece as a freshman at Syracuse Drama, is delivered with such conviction, that one is just enthralled in listening and actually believing that all that about George Washington growing pot as a cash crop, could actually have been plausible. Cochrane fit the role of Slater like a glove, and his nuances, physicalities, and adherence to the spirit of the script and its message was balanced perfectly. To create a character that lasts through the decades says something about how well he told the story that Linklater wanted to tell. He changed himself completely, albeit into a slacker pothead, but delivered a performance that rings true today: the goofy, pot dealing clown, the laughter in the turmoil of confused high school seniors, the simplicity of Dazed personified.

As for production value, I think Dazed is really visually stimulating, and on a small budget, Linklater makes the most of 'less is more.' He spent less time on camera tricks and more time on bringing us into 1976, with well lit shots of the Emporium game all, crappy Taxas convenience stores, and the moon tower party. Two shots stick out in my mind, one being a upshot of the interior climb the kids do inside the moontower ladder. it's a vertical shot watching the kids climb from below. Easy, but creative. The dialogue that accompanies the shot, delived by a drunken Slater: "Look at the bloodstains!" Costumes also superb, especially our main character, Mitch, who wears what looks like a shirt print from his Mom's wallpaper. Bellbottoms galore, and a shot of the girls zipping up their superhigh waist jeans with a grip wrench. There's some car chases, some low riders cruising the strip, and some great tableau shots. Linklater captures the characters in their element, totally at ease, but it's always a well constructed shot, with minimal camera movement. He focuses the audience right onto what he wants them to see, which is friends talking to each other, and people interacting.

The allusions to the same questions asked by every high school senior about to enter the "real world" are the main dilemma in Dazed and Confused. Defining the "every other decade" theory, comparing the lame '70's to the rockin' '60's and believing that the '80's would be "radical," when we all know whilst watching what really went down. The feeling of being stuck, in physical location and in the role you play. The star quarterback, Randy 'Pink' Floyd (get it?) not wanting any of the things expected of him by his football circle, wanting only to have a fun time with his friends. His "top priority," as he says. The stoner, the pretty girl, the slut, the brain, (Adam Goldberg's character) longing to just get into that random fight just to feel alive, like all of this has a purpose. All the stories told in this film are relevant to every generation of high school kids who ultimately want to have a great time, breaking the rules, with all of their friends, before they part ways.

Linklater brings out simple qualities in his simple yet hilariously poignant script that brings these young characters to life. Linklater is all about the people, the relationships, the little things in life that can happen to you to change your perspective. He's definitely on top of the indie world, and in 1993 when Dazed was released, it's effect on cult film following was tremendous. It's listed in the top three cult high school films of all time by Entertainment weekly, and if you mention it to someone, 9 times out of 10 they don't just know of it, they've seen it a million times and love it. The movie was small, and in a time when indie films weren't such high brow under-goings as they are now, grossing slightly over 7 Million in the USA was a travesty. But what was left were some very memorable quotes, great film moments for a lot of young actors who are now "somebody's," and led hundreds of thousands of American youths to teen drinking and substance abuse in the name of boredom and the need to escape the now. So, good luck to Shawn Andrews, who made an impression on me then and who's next film, which seems to be in the same vein, will put him back on the map.

As Wooderson put it, "you just gotta keep livin' man. L-I-V-I-N." The heart of Dazed and Confused is more than just making a hilarious movie to watch whilst smoking the gonja. There's a message that Linklater understood, and still does understand, frustrated youth. His cast of characters, as they roll through this one last day of school in 1976, find that they can break their own mold and be whoever they want to be, defy those who tell them otherwise, don't take everything too much to heart, and just keep livin'.

The Idea Behind the Review

I've always wanted to start a blog. Even though at first I thought the idea narcissistic and a tad snooty, I realized that if you're an interesting and intelligent person, you may have interesting and intelligent things to say. My sister is one of these people, and just started a travel blog of her trip cross country from Oregon back to Brooklyn, to settle into her new apartment in Clinton Hill / Bed Stuy / The Projects with her boyfriend of many years, and Radzinsky look-alike, Pat. It seemed that this event has lit the fire under my butt, which may be hazardous to those nearby due to my incredibly powerful flatulence. If you know me, you know I'm proud and not ashamed of the loud toot or the SBD. Isn't my blog going to be just dandy?

The idea behind my blog has always been a film review. I am obsessed with movies, ever since I watched An American Tale at age 2 and Back to the Future as a toddler 9 times a day re-enacting the entire script and action on my parents bed with a toy DeLorean. Sweet. I am a lover of Netflix and when I'm not broke, I try to catch new releases on the silver screen. I am an encyclopedia on actors, directors, names, dates, film titles, 6 Degrees of Kevin Bacon. I swear, its uncanny, ask Danny Gordon's Dad about our car ride up to Syracuse. He tried to trick me a bunch of times and every time, I foiled his plot. I can date any film within 2 years and see a face and know pretty much every major film that actor has ever made. If I could make this my living, or as it goes, if I had a dime for every, well, you know, then I'd have...some pretty nice things. That I'd own.

But reviews pretty much always suck, and are biased. I guess films are biased, but when reviewing a film, I don't care who you are, if you haven't ever acted, which I do, if you haven't ever been open-minded, which I am, if you've never actually been part of a film making process on and off camera, which I have, then shut the fuck up. Seriously, who are you to judge someone else's vision, and with a one sided opinion no less? Your misguided angst towards a world that has obviously not accepted you or else you wouldn't be such a pill about it, are affecting the minds of film-goers everywhere. If they can't do, they unfortunately teach. Movies die at or even before the box office because people unfortunately trust some reviewers out there. Some movies flourish, and they are the biggest piece of drivel you've ever seen in your life, because one idiot thought the lead girl was a hottie toddie. My mom looks at how many stars Cablevision gave an Argentinian B-movie from 1974. Just watch the damn thing and make up your own mind!

So, my review page is going to break down a film into categories, including acting, screenplay, direction, production value, overall package, accessibility, editing, the works. I'll throw in my opinion on each subject from time to time, but this isn't going to work if people don't step up to oppose me or clear something up I might misconstrue. I am all for a good film discussion, and in this forum, it's all abut the positivity. I am a pretty positive person, and unless a movie REALLY sucks, I don't believe it tearing movies down, because any vehicle for storytelling, especially with drama and vivid imaging is worth shedding some positive light. Yes, there will be discrepancies involved, yes, there will be aspects of films that suck, yes, I may be dead wrong, but none of this matters unless my readers chime in. I will not dwell on the negatives in a medium I love to death. I will not be overtly harsh just because the film industry if a harsh truth sayer and they hurt my feelings.

I want to talk about why Zombieland was AWESOME, not why it was "terrible" like so many people said it was. All the nay-sayers, feel free to come at me with whatever you've got, cause in the end, you're really just sad and bitter. Come at this with the an open mind. See something in a new way. Nothing is bad or crap, it's just different and under developed. To help us make our own projects the best they can be, let's talk about the best aspects of projects we have watched, and love, or don't love. I don't really care if people call me weak or naive for only wanting to discuss the upbeat side, but they're so much negative Nancy shit in this world, with unhappy people perpetuating it with their annoying opinions. I am here to counter attack all that bullshit and say: DON'T HATE, APPRECIATE! word.