Trailer Hitch
By BOP Staff
April 7, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Edwin Davies: Pretty much as soon as I heard that Kenneth Branagh would be directing Thor, I've had misgivings about the project. I like Branagh. I think he was once a really terrific actor and even nowadays can still deliver great work when required - his work on the TV series Wallander recently was great - but as a director I find him very hit and miss, and there's really nothing in his past work to suggest that he could handle the spectacle and lightness of tone that a summer blockbuster requires. This trailer, more than anything else, has got me thinking that, against all odds, he might have managed it. The few jokes highlighted are solid, the action sequences look really impressive and, with the exception of a moment at the end when the CGI looks unusually cheap for a movie that cost so much, the film does have a genuine sense of spectacle and grandeur to it. There is still every chance that the man who brought you Henry V, Hamlet and that terrible remake of Sleuth might not be the right man to bring a comic book character to life, but this trailer has pretty guaranteed that I will see this opening weekend.
David Mumpower: Before discussing the trailer, I would offer one counter to Edwin's assertion that Kenneth Branagh has nothing in his film library that is summer blockbuster-ish in terms of offering "spectacle and lightness". One of my favorite movies is Dead Again, a Scott Frank script (he also wrote Out of Sight, Get Shorty, and The Interpreter), that has a perfect blend of acting and out of nowhere humor. When I heard the casting announcements for Thor, this was the project that kept sticking in my head as the best case scenario. With that film (and Henry V), he reinvented Derek Jacobi, a brilliant actor whose career had gone wrong. I mention that because Anthony Hopkins is in Thor and...well, you know. I acknowledge history will not repeat itself as this is a paycheck role for Hopkins. Still, Branagh has consistently amazed me with his ability to remind actors of what they love about their craft.
The Thor trailer itself is one I would describe as best case scenario. I worry that the premise is too weird for a lot of people in that Asgard isn't a topic of choice on the internet these days. I have felt for a while that Thor as a character will play very well in an ensemble cast in that he's a lot of fun. We are talking about an oversized crazy dude who is well intended and has an unquenchable thirst for ale kegs. That is a strong avenue for comic relief. Is it enough to anchor a movie? I've been dubious in the past. I may be turning around on the subject a bit, though.
The opening sequence where the God of Thunder talks smack then gets tasered is quite funny and his ability to throw down a plate of waffles is engaging. Plus, they cleverly target the female demographic by showing off abs that put that the teen wolf from Twilight to shame. When we finally get to the superhero stuff, the cylon with the ocular fireball is also attention grabbing. This comprises a full two minutes of the trailer where I only have one small quibble, which is that Loki looks ridiculous. Not coincidentally, he isn't shown much. The rest of the movie is quick cut into the final 30 seconds of the trailer and while I have some concerns about what I see, they don't matter from a marketing standpoint. Whomever cut this clip understood the appeal of the premise then (correctly) chose to highlight those aspects while downplaying the out there stuff that is likely to alienate people. Thor is still a tough sell in several ways, but I am upping my opening weekend expectations based on the quality of this ad.
Kim Hollis: I am all about Thor, which I guess speaks to the point David made about the trailer highlighting the superhero's spectacular abs. It goes further than that, though. I feel - much more than any of the other superhero films set to debut this year - that Thor captures a spirit of whimsy and humor that I last saw present in the Iron Man trailer. Kat Dennings injects humor (and not in an awkward, why-is-she-here way), Natalie Portman brings a sense that there's someone who can actually act in this thing, and it just looks super fun. If you had asked me a year ago if I cared about Thor, the answer would have been no. Now, I can't wait.
Captain America: The First Avenger
Edwin Davies: Of the two Marvel releases this summer, this is the one that I've always thought had the best chance of working as a film. This trailer seems to suggest to me that Joe Johnston has done a pretty good job of transferring the character to the screen. The character and setting are established early on - and boy, does thin Chris Evans look weird and creepy - and it wastes no time in getting to the Nazi-smashing action. This looks like a fun, no holds barred blockbuster which is all you could really want from a Captain America film.
Shalimar Sahota: I'm a little underwhelmed by this. Maybe that's down to me not really being a huge Captain America fan. While Chris Evans can certainly pull this off, and I'm liking the 1940s production design, for the moment it just felt like a case of ticking the boxes and I don't see anything unique enough. However I did find it rather pleasing to see a few shots of Captain America working as a team, leading other men into battle, as well as the expected "hero-going-it-alone" shots. While I don't see this as a strong enough trailer, I'll take it as a hopeful sign that Marvel is holding back on the good stuff. I probably will see it, only because Joe Johnston's been here before with The Rocketeer (which I actually liked), and Captain America could be his Indiana Jones.
David Mumpower: Something I would note of the first two replies is that our Englishmen are the ones who have commented. I find this noteworthy in that how Captain America is perceived outside the United States is of seminal importance in determining its box office fate. G.I. Joe gave us the blueprint of this when it earned $150 million domestically and $150 million abroad. Yes, they had to pretend like it wasn't the most jingoistic cartoon ever created to make people willing to believe that, but it (largely) worked. Captain America faces that same challenge. The story has two primary benefits, though. The first is that the shield is iconic. Those of us who have played one of the Marvel Ultimate Alliance games know just how much excitement those boomerang throws create. And military personnel treat Cappy's shield with absolute reverence. The other benefit is one that will be an unknown for people going into the movie without any knowledge of the characters. The enemies are Nazi Aliens. I will say that again. The enemies are NAZI ALIENS! Cha-ching.
With regards to the trailer, I feel like Thor does a better job of marketing itself than Captain America does. Those shots of Chris Evans with his chest reduced have the wrong impact, taking the viewer out of the action. It's the same problem I have with the CGI Jeff Bridges in Tron Legacy. Bad CGI is much, much worse than bad makeup. I've seen some speculation that since it's World War II, they're trying to give him a concentration camp physique, as if that makes it better. It doesn't. In fact, that is even creepier if that is the intentional theme. I have little issues like this throughout the trailer. If a team of scientists has finally found someone who survives the superhero serum, would one of them shoot a bullet at his head right afterward? That's an eye popping bit that doesn't pass the laugh test even if it is good for a chuckle. I also think the costume looks stupid when he walks down the narrow tunnel, even by superhero costume standards. There are so many of these minor quibbles that mean nothing if the movie engages. At this point, however, I find myself wishing for a better Captain America trailer.
Kim Hollis: I'm pretty blah on the Captain America trailer, myself. I am *extremely* creeped out by skinny Chris Evans, just as others have mentioned here. I'm having a really difficult time getting past it to enjoy the rest of the trailer. I do think the aliens are nifty, but unfortunately, there was just something a lot like them in Sucker Punch, so it's not evoking a totally positive reaction.
Super 8 (Trailer Two)
Josh Spiegel: I mean...what is there to say about this movie aside from "I want this now"? The trailers have been cut together expertly, and manage to evoke the Spielbergian nostalgia of E.T. with the fear and suspense from Cloverfield. The score - presumably from Michael Giacchino - is great, and let's not forget that Kyle Chandler is the adult lead. So it needs to be June 10th right now.
Brett Beach: Based on this trailer vs. the initial teaser, I am both more skeptical and more intrigued. I don't have an undying affection for JJ Abrams, but he has a willingness to play by conventions and simultaneously find a way to work around them, if not exactly subvert them. The level of action and explosions in this trailer wouldn't be out of place in a Bruckheimer or Bay action-ganza, but I trust that there will be something (s) deeper going on and that many things will not be what they seem. If this is a tribute to 1970s and early 80s Spielberg, as has been suggested, I think it would mean a little more if he wasn't the executive producer. Still, I cautiously consider it a bright spot for this summer. P.S. Love the sideways poster. Gorgeous!
Shalimar Sahota: Given the Cloverfield style of marketing, this trailer effectively doesn't really answer anything, except offer more questions. Most of all, it builds up the mystery in making us want to know what it is that's in the carriage. Even though all signs point to it being an alien, and I'm sure once the film is out there, word-of-mouth amongst teens will be limited to, "Yeah, it's an alien, and it looks crap." I'd like to be proven wrong. It's one of the few original films out this summer, and I am looking forward to it. There's also been a bit of buzz about hidden images offering clues (the Superbowl spot playing on the official site was being updated with different images), and this new trailer in particular has a split-second flash of a URL address for those who wish to follow the viral marketing.
David Mumpower: I'm going to be somewhat contrarian here and say that I am not drinking the kool-aid on this one quite yet. For all of the attempts to connect the dots to E.T., The Goonies and Cloverfield, the ads thus far have reminded me most of *batteries not included, a largely forgotten Steven Spielberg production from 1987 that wanted so badly to be deemed a de facto sequel to E.T. Instead, it earned a paltry $33 million. Given that J.J. Abrams has directed features thus far and both of them, Star Trek and Mission: Impossible III, would be on my short list of best action films of the 2000s, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt here. I'm overly paranoid due to how much Cloverfield disappointed me, though. No, he didn't direct, but it was the advertised the same way with similar conceits. When I see so many quick cuts that beg for freeze frame screen captures, this is the first thought I have.