Trailer Hitch
By BOP Staff
May 19, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Josh Spiegel: Just what we all needed: Roland Emmerich, purveyor of such schlock as 2012 and The Day After Tomorrow, to shake up the stories of William Shakespeare (or the mystery writer behind these tales!!!) with explosions and hot sex scenes. It'll be just like Spartacus or Camelot or The Tudors! In all sincerity, I am shocked that a Shakespearean performer like Derek Jacobi is involved in this project, if only because it seems to be so bored with the actual history. I could be wrong - and I hope I am, though probably in vain - but this just seems like another movie I can't wait to avoid.
Jim Van Nest: First off, I'm a little upset that a major American city was not destroyed to make that trailer. Second, um...why? The music and the sound cues are all there, as if this is an epic film about mysteries we can't possibly understand. But when you boil it all down, the message is "William Shakespeare didn't write his own material??" Really, that's it? For all the negatives that came along with The DaVinci Code...at least its story line completely destroyed religion as we know it. Anonymous would just change a bunch of Literature course syllabuses.
Edwin Davies: This looks like an Asylum rip-off of The DaVinci Code without the timeliness that those usually display by being released within a few months of the original. Waiting five years is not the way to capitalise on a trend. Aside from the obvious "erm, what?" factor that comes from any non-disaster film from Roland Emmerich, there really isn't anything in this trailer that makes me think that I need to see this film. The subject matter is something for English Literature professors to argue over, so by trying to turn it into a potential blockbuster they could demean the interesting idea behind it. I'm not saying that Roland Emmerich lacks the subtlety and nuance to make an intelligent, thought-provoking film that also works as a piece of mass entertainment but then again I am.
Kim Hollis: It looks like it wants to be a Showtime mini-series. The English major in me finds the premise mildly intriguing, but knowing Roland Emmerich directed makes me think, oh, never mind. I still haven't forgiven him for the awfulness that was 2012. I do like David Thewlis a whole heck of a lot, though, as well as Jacobi and Rhys Ifans. I guess I'll hold judgment for later. If it happens to get some decent reviews, maybe I'll give it a shot.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
Josh Spiegel: If 2010 was the year of James Franco becoming a Renaissance Man, then 2011 is the year of everyone in this country being tired of him. I mean...why? Why does this movie need to exist? On the one hand, exploring how Earth becomes dominated by human-like apes is interesting, but Franco doesn't seem charismatic enough to anchor this story. The effects - clearly the main draw - look cool, but I don't think I'll rush out to see this one.
Edwin Davies: I hear everything you're saying, Josh, but I'm going to offer this as a rebuttal - this is a film in which a gorilla fights a helicopter and that is awesome.
To be somewhat serious, this film looks way crazier than I was expecting - the first thing I thought when I watched it was that it was kind of like The Birds but with apes - and that intrigues me. I still don't understand why anyone felt the need to continue The Planet of the Apes franchise when its relevance, awful Tim Burton remake aside, ended sometime in the late 70s, but I would probably see this for the spectacle and the nuttiness of it.
Jim Van Nest: Ya know, if the remake had never been done, I might be more intrigued by this. As it is, I have a sour taste in my mouth from the Marky Mark Apes. And when one of the bigger selling points (and it must be or it wouldn't be in the trailer) is "from...the visual effects company for Avatar" it seems like they're reaching for anything that might make people throw away their skepticism.
Kim Hollis: That Tim Burton film from 2001 is seriously one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I agree that the stink of that film makes me hesitant to watch another one ever again. With that said, the effects do look pretty great. Even so, that's the only thing I see that intrigues me - otherwise, this is a big pass for me until I hear any sort of buzz that indicates it's better than I think it's going to be.
Cowboys and Aliens
Josh Spiegel: I will be the first (probably) straight man to say it: what does Hollywood love so much about Olivia Wilde that they can't find in other beautiful starlets? I'm not blind: she's beautiful, no doubt. But her acting borders on the emptyheaded. So, while she'll be nice to look at, it seems weird to have such forceful, tough-minded performers as Daniel Craig and Harrison Ford playing off of her. That said, I am very curious about this movie. It looks pretty cool, Wilde aside, and Ford seems more at home here than he did in last year's Morning Glory.
Pete Kilmer: I think it has potential to be quite fun. From a graphic novel that's been out of print for years (just came back into print a couple of months ago). With Craig anchoring the film as the amnesiac hero and Ford looking like he's having fun for the first time in years this could be a fun genre mashup. Olivia Wilde is clearly filling in the Megan Fox role here, the nice thing is she's not Megan Fox.
Kim Hollis: I'll start by saying I like Olivia Wilde and have for quite awhile, so I've never seen her as seeming "emptyheaded." With that said, I think Cowboys and Aliens has either a Wild Wild West or League of Extraordinary Gentlemen vibe...which is so very bad. I do love me some Sam Rockwell and Jon Favreau hasn't let me down yet, but I don't really see anything here that has convinced me that my bad feelings are wrong.