New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

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.

Continued:       1       2       3