Trailer Hitch
By BOP Staff
November 4, 2010
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Josh Spiegel: Though I like The Rock (sorry, Dwayne, you're always going to be The Rock), Faster looks only slightly more engaging than the trailer for Drive Angry (which we'll get to in a moment). Because I'm shallow, all I was thinking about during this trailer was that Billy Bob Thornton should probably sue whoever did his hair for the film, and that in 2005, having Mr. Eko and Shannon from Lost in a movie would be awesome. Now, it just makes me sad to see them off the island. This one, maybe I'd rent or watch on TNT one Sunday afternoon. But that's about it.
Max Braden: It looks like Walking Tall meets A Man Apart, and is the type of non-James Bond action we get in November every now and then. The Chevelle is the biggest draw for me, and would almost get me into the theater. But I said the same thing to myself two years ago when Transporter 3 was coming up, and ultimately I was too busy with other November releases and waited to see it on DVD. I expect Faster will see the same fate and open in the mid teens.
Kim Hollis: I very much like The Rock, just like Josh, but I felt kind of the same about Faster. Billy Bob's hair is a huge distraction and the movie just looks sort of dark and muddy. I'm always up for that tune from The Heavy, though. That song is fantastic. I'll close out on a positive and say that I'm really glad to see Dwayne Johnson doing this kind of film. It's similar to Walking Tall and I think that movie is solid if not spectacular, and he's such a great tough guy that it's impossible not to root for him. He seems a little too somber here, which might be a detriment since I believe that so much of his charisma comes from his ability not to take himself completely seriously.
David Mumpower: Clearly, the shocking popularity of Taken has led to the greenlighting of several similar projects. I understand why there could be some disappointment that The Rock is doing a straight action piece rather than one that is imbued with his natural charisma, but I don't care. I think this looks white hot. Trailers are like movies in that they need to start strong and it's an imperative that they have an even better finish. Faster has this. When it starts with a sequence where The Rock enters a cube farm and he clearly has the intent to harm, I'm intrigued. It's the ending I find brilliant, though. The guy from Lost seems to be playing roughly the same character here, and he offers those words of wisdom gained through blood and suffering before begging for forgiveness. The way the clip ends seems to be the producers defining the type of movie this is, my type of movie. Taken has become one of those flicks that I watch every time it's on. Swapping in The Rock in a similar story fundamentally works for me.
Drive Angry 3D: In Theaters February 25, 2011
Brett Beach: It looks nutty, but not quite nutty enough - particularly with regard to Mr. Cage, who appears to be playing the role almost straight. Once again, the need for this to be in 3D sails right past me, out the door, and hitches a ride to whyshouldIcareville. Also, with a premise involving a cult kidnapping a child for sacrifice, perhaps this trailer should have been red band out of the gate? This is a great title with a trailer that doesn't do it service.
Josh Spiegel: Is saying "From the director of My Bloody Valentine" supposed to be an invitation or a threat? I mean...we long ago passed the point where Nicolas Cage's career was sad (remember when he WON AN OSCAR, and deservedly, for Leaving Las Vegas?), but this is equally embarrassing. William Fichtner looks like he's having fun, so I guess I'm glad for that, but there's no limit to how dumb this movie looks. And in 3D. Thank goodness I can spend even more money to be bored out of my mind.
Max Braden: Was the hell aspect supposed to have made Nic Cage uglier? Or is that just him looking really old? Again: muscle cars, so I'm in. But I'll have to turn Cage's absurdities into amusement rather than torture to make it through.
Kim Hollis: There is so much wrong with this trailer/movie, I don't really know where to start. So, I guess I'll start with the one positive: I love William Fichtner, and he seemed pretty entertaining right here. But other than that...
1) Why is this called Drive Angry? I thought I was seeing a Ghost Rider trailer for a second, what with the voiceover telling me Nic Cage had escaped hell and stuff. He does look like he escaped hell, or at least Satan's hairstylist.
2) It's like this thing sort of wants to rip off Justified, and sort of wants to rip off Taken, and sort of wants to rip off Gone in 60 Seconds, and totally doesn't know what it wants to be. Is it a car movie? A vengeance movie? A good guy versus the devil movie? Funny? Gross? Action-packed? I just do not know.
3) I almost giggled when "From the Director of My Bloody Valentine 3D" flashed on the screen. Really? No, really?
4) Clearly, this is in 3D because Summit wants to have a movie in 3D. That is the only reason that makes sense.
David Mumpower: Let's start with the obvious. This is one of the best titles in recent cinema. Then again, I'd also include Furry Vengeance and Ninja Assassin on that list and we know how well those flicks did. A great title is just a different form of catchphrase these days. Translating such a title into Squeakquel-ian box office is a different story. While we're also discussing the elephants inconveniently located in the living room, the voiceovers in this commercial are as heinous as I've ever heard. Whoever cut those isn't even trying.
The movie itself looks similar to The Rock's flick with the supernatural element thrown in, which is fine by me if it's done well. Either way, what grabs me about these spots is that William Fichtner seems to be the perfect foil as the villain of the piece. In fact, given my disliking of Cage, I'll probably root for Fichtner to pull off the upset throughout the film. I've always liked him as an actor and I had expected his small but memorable role in The Dark Knight to lead to better roles for him. I would love it if he Hans Gruber'd his way into the upper echelon of big budget films through this role. That's ambitious, but Fichtner has always had that type of talent. Cage is...well, let's be honest here, Ghost Driver. I could take that or leave it, but Fichtner + Amber Heard (aka 406 in Zombieland) + a great title makes this a project I want to see.
As an aside, I like the specific wording at the end of "Shot in 3D". That demonstrates the appropriate studio learning curve, an indication that they realize there have been Clash of the Titans related mistakes, but this film isn't like that. Very, very smart.
Cars 2: In Theaters June 24, 2011
Josh Spiegel: I'm not sure if I'm BOP's resident Pixar Fanatic or not, but I'm one of their biggest apologists in most cases. That said, I cannot muster up any interest for this movie. When the first Cars came out, I was turned off by the ads shoving Larry The Cable Guy down my throat. This time, after seeing the original (which is both a great example of why HD content can be jaw-droppingly amazing, and kind of a snooze, in my opinion), I'm just kind of confused. A sequel to Cars seems a bit baffling to begin with, as the original is a rare family film in that there's no actual villain (the Michael Keaton-voiced car is something of an antagonist, but he's in, what, 10 minutes of the movie?). And now they're...secret agents? I will see this, I'm sure, because it's Pixar and I want to be proven wrong. But I feel like the Cars films are the only proof that Pixar is made up of fallible, imperfect human beings, not perfection-minded aliens.
Brett Beach: I have never seen Cars, but I still might. This, however, does not inspire me to stick around for the sequel. There is a big giant WTF posted on my forehead right now. Good thing my track record for first impressions is pretty crappy...
Jim Van Nest: I've said this many many times since Cars was released. Larry the Cable Guy? I'd like to choke him with his shoelaces. Mater? Absolutely love him. This is only a teaser and it does just what a teaser needs to do. It serves to remind us that we loved Lightning and Mater and that they're coming back. Until they have more to show, I think this is a perfect teaser.
Max Braden: I thought the first Cars was great and thought complaints about it being unrealistic were silly. At first this teaser appears to jump from the first movie in a series to the seventh, when the writers have run out of ideas and just throw stuff against the wall. If Cars as spies is the plot they're going with, it wouldn't be far off from the third movie in The Love Bug series, Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo, when Herbie gets involved with a diamond heist. But there's so little in this teaser to go on that I wouldn't automatically believe that Cars as spies is the real plot, rather than some joke. I'll save the judgment for the full trailer, but I still anticipate wanting to see the sequel.
Kim Hollis: There's not a Pixar film I don't like, and frankly, I like Cars more than Finding Nemo, which I'm pretty sure is a rare thing in this world. I love Lightning McQueen and I agree with Jim that although Larry the Cable Guy is someone I would never ever ever watch in a live-action film, Mater is adorable. I'm totally onboard with the spy thing, because it's silly and fun and with the Cars series, that is what parents and kids are going to be looking for. My suspicion, like Max, is that the spy portion of the movie is just going to be a very side element of plot, and Pixar is choosing not to give anything "real" away with this teaser - same as they've done with every other teaser.
David Mumpower: Let's be up front about a couple of points here. We are getting a Cars sequel because Cars is the most lucrative franchise Pixar has other than the crown jewel, Toy Story. If you don't believe me, go to Amazon and do a search for "Lightning McQueen". I get 1,811 results. Eighteen months ago, The New York Times published an article stating that Cars had already accrued $5 billion in merchandising revenue. Just spin that number over in your head for a moment.
Secondly, let's be realistic about the fact that if this were anyone but Pixar saying, "Remember that movie we did in 2006? Now those people are spies in the next film!", we'd be rolling our eyes in disgust. While I understand the skepticism about whether this is anything other than a joke in the teaser rather than the plot of the film, I would not be surprised if it is. Again, merchandising is driving the decision making here. Think about how cool spy cars would look to kids. Then again, they sell those just by making this joke in the film.
I agree with Max that I think Cars gets a bad rap regarding its quality. The melancholy nature of the story is certainly in the mold of Doc Hollywood, probably to a legally actionable degree. Still, I have no problems with an unoriginal story premise as long as it's told well. To my mind, Cars has one of the most memorable moments in Pixar history, that romantic drive down Highway 66. The visuals in that sequence are also among the best Pixar has done. Cars is a movie marketed to kids with a story that appeals to adults who want to reminisce about a strip of land that once united all Americans but has become less important over time due to an improved interstate system. I really like that we can have a silly story about an egomaniac learning to the art of selflessness masking a tale about a lost slice of Americana. Similarly, I would not be surprised if the spy story being postured right now is hiding a much more enriching tale. I've learned to give Pixar the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. If they can make a cooking rat a winning character, they can do anything.