Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!

Attack of the Sci-Fi Trailers

The last week has seen a deluge of trailers for some of next year’s big bucks blockbusters, predominately science fiction-related and three of which representing something of a risk as they’re original material. So how do they stack up against each other?

Oblivion

UK Release Date: 12 April 2013

US Release Date: 19 April 2013

Tom Cruise looks to further cement his career comeback (albeit based on one big hit) by attaching himself to this Joseph Koskinski film. Kosinski’s debut was TRON: Legacy, which earned both brickbats and plaudits but most agreed that it featured some stunning visuals. Oblivion will likely continue that at very least but, as with TRON, the script for this may be of questionable merit. Kosinski came up with the idea, an eight-page treatment that was turned into an illustrated novella (the release delayed until the film comes out), but there’s little sense of a meaty premise to this trailer.

Tom’s (as others have noted, Wall-E-like) a maintenance worker on a deserted future Earth who comes across Morgan Freeman. And Olga Kurylenko tells him he’s not who he thinks he is. And there are some monsters/mutants. And Tom may be in the future but don't worry he’s relatable because he likes the Superbowl and shoots hoops. And there are lots of BWAAAAA BWAAAAA sounds, so you know this is big and dramatic like every post-Inception trailer. Sometimes Morgan Freeman can be a real lift to a story, sometimes he makes Chain Reaction; I’m not getting a hugely positive vibe from him here. Nice eye goggles, though. And very nice design work generally. Tom’s getting ordered to stand down. Twice. Andrea Riseborough features quite a bit, which is a good sign, but no glimpse of Nikolaj Coster-Waldau or Melisa Leo (unless I missed them).

This looks like it wants to be intelligent sci-fi, which is to be celebrated. But in this trailer it hasn’t translated into a must-see factor. “Earth is a memory worth fighting for” is a wishy-washy tagline. Hopefully the next spot will have more of a grip on the story, or make the mystery more compelling.

Business: By the time this is out, Jack Reacher will or won’t have become a big hit. Oblivion has about five months to work out its marketing (provide it isn’t a stinker, in which case nothing will save it), but right now I’d be surprised if it does much more than $120m US/$300m worldwide.

***/5

After Earth

UK/US Release Date: 7 June 2013

Oh look, another deserted Earth movie (this time quarantined), from Cruise’s buddy Will Smith. But is it really a Will Smith movie, or is it a Jaden Smith vehicle, the young nepote claiming a summer blockbuster by stealth under daddy’s star power? It’s been suggested that Will won’t see out the film, so that may well be the case. Along for the ride is M Night Shyamalan, who didn’t originate the screenplay but has a co-writer’s credit (Stephen Gaghan’s presence at least suggests it may have a bit of nuance). With this and The Last Airbender, the director has eased off on self-originated projects; probably because they have received increasingly mixed receptions.

So all the animals on the planet have evolved to kill humans (this seems peculiar, if there are no humans present). More importantly, we learn that fear is not real; it is a product of thoughts we create. Fear is a choice. Very rousing, Will. Are these those deadly engrams we must seek to eliminate? Whether or not Smith is espousing a doctrine, it has that whiff.

As trailers go, it’s better put together than Oblivion. Yet I have no interest in seeing a Jaden Smith movie, and I didn’t bother checking out Shyamalan’s last picture. What it does with the significance of the revelation that this is Earth is more questionable; it appears to be all about Jaden’s quest for survival (the imdb synopsis tells us he is trying to recover a rescue beacon, and that Will’s playing General Cypher Raige; I kid you not).

Business: Will this do well for Will? I can’t see it making much more than $100m US/$300m worldwide, unless there’s some added ingredient that makes it a discussion piece (the Shyamalan factor, basically)

***/5

Pacific Rim

UK/US Release Date: 12 July 2013

More BWAAAA BWAAAA. Big robots. Big monsters. Duking it out. It’s like Transformers meets Cloverfield. Or something. Fanboys have been getting all over-excited by this because it's Guillermo Del Toro directing. And I can understand that; he has a rock solid track record (even Mimic is okay), he’s an unashamed geek and presumably this premise is tickling an itch for many. And it features Idris Elba (although that didn’t stop Prometheus getting a drubbing).

But I’m not sold on this, or excited. Enlisting actors rather than stars (Charlie Hunman, Elba) can add credibility to your project (see Ridley Scott’s 2012 film) it won’t save it if you can’t tell people why they need to see the film. Alien life came from a beneath the sea, a portal between dimensions? Lovecraft lives on. The premise is so cheesy that the self-importance of the trailer makes the whole thing look no fun at all. The robot designs aren’t all that, and the control suits’ virtual movement doesn’t come across very well. Worst of all is the dialogue, which is all-round terrible (“Let’s go fishing”, “Today we are cancelling the apocalypse!”)

This could be one of those movies that the internet goes wild for but the general public can’t see the attraction (Scott Pilgrim vs The World).

Business: I’m iffy at the moment, I can’t see this getting Transformers numbers, or being the hit Del Toro really needs to get In the Mountains of Madness off the ground. It may do decent business in the rest of the world, but at the moment I reckon $70m US/$250m worldwide.

**/5

Star Trek into Darkness

UK/US Release Date: 17 May 2013

Who Benedict Cumberbatch is playing is all everyone (everyone who gives a shit, anyway) can talk about. That, and how J J Abrams should quit already with being such a perpetual tease. Except Sherlock is playing John Harrison, a footnote in Trek lore. Is he actually someone else? An agent for Khan?

More voice overs, ominous BWAAAAs and proclamations (“I have returned – to have my vengeance”) and exciting glimpses of things you want to see more of; the Enterprise underwater, an alien planet with flora of a peculiar reddish hue, a provocative shot that echoes Kirk/Spock in Wrath of Khan (hands meeting against a glass wall). And de rigueur mass destruction.

Nothing terribly original, but effectively brief nevertheless.

Business: It will likely build on the success of the 2009 film, that only made $128m in the rest of the world (peanuts compared to the expectation for most films to now do the majority of their business outside the US). It will probably end up with something not too far off the original’s $250m US tally, but what’s the ceiling on the series abroad? $250m US/$450m worldwide.

***1/2/5

Man of Steel

UK/US Release Date: 14 June 2013

I really liked the first Malick-esque teaser; this comes across as a little more generic, and all together more portentous than the Reeves era (but with Christopher Nolan producing, it’s little surprise that Clark has been dirtied up – why, he’s even sporting an unruly mass of whiskers!), particularly with the heavenly choir accompaniment. And glimpses of Zod and Lois (not sure about Crowe’s armour as Jor-El, but Costner seems like perfect casting). There’s not much plot here, but it neatly re-positions the question of how Supes would work in today’s era but I assuming that he would be rejected.

Business: For such a definably homegrown superhero, the films have historically done about 50/50 US and rest of the world. So far this is being sold with finesse and care, and expectation (and the desire) for a rebirth for the hero to take away the bad taste of Superman Returns is high. $300m US/$600m worldwide.

****/5

Comments

Why would I turn into a filing cabinet?

Captain Marvel (2019)
(SPOILERS) All superhero movies are formulaic to a greater or lesser degree. Mostly greater. The key to an actually great one – or just a pretty good one – is making that a virtue, rather than something you’re conscious of limiting the whole exercise. The irony of the last two stand-alone MCU pictures is that, while attempting to bring somewhat down-the-line progressive cachet to the series, they’ve delivered rather pedestrian results. Of course, that didn’t dim Black Panther’s cultural cachet (and what do I know, swathes of people also profess to loving it), and Captain Marvel has hit half a billion in its first few days – it seems that, unless you’re poor unloved Ant-Man, an easy $1bn is the new $700m for the MCU – but neither’s protagonist really made that all-important iconic impact.

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

As I heard my Sioux name being called over and over, I knew for the first time who I really was.

Dances with Wolves (1990)
(SPOILERS) Kevin Costner’s Oscar glory has become something of a punching bag for a certain brand of “white saviour” storytelling, so much so that it’s even crossed over seamlessly into the SF genre (Avatar). It’s also destined to be forever scorned for having the temerity to beat out Goodfellas for Best Picture at the 63rdAcademy Awards. I’m not going to buck the trend and suggest it was actually the right choice – I’d also have voted Ghost above Dances, maybe even The Godfather Part III – but it’s certainly the most “Oscar-friendly” one. The funny thing, on revisit, is that what stands out most isn’t its studiously earnest tone or frequent but well-intentioned clumsiness. No, it’s that its moments of greatest emotional weight – in what is, after all, intended to shine a light on the theft and destruction of Native American heritage – relate to its non-human characters.

Sorry I’m late. I was taking a crap.

The Sting (1973)
(SPOILERS) In any given list of the best things – not just movies – ever, Mark Kermode would include The Exorcist, so it wasn’t a surprise when William Friedkin’s film made an appearance in his Nine films that should have won Best Picture at the Oscars list last month. Of the nominees that year, I suspect he’s correct in his assessment (I don’t think I’ve seen A Touch of Class, so it would be unfair of me to dismiss it outright; if we’re simply talking best film of that year, though, The Exorcist isn’t even 1973’s best horror, that would be Don’t Look Now). He’s certainly not wrong that The Exorcist “remains a superior work” to The Sting; the latter’s one of those films, like The Return of the King and The Departed, where the Academy rewarded the cast and crew too late. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid is the masterpiece from George Roy Hill, Paul Newman and Robert Redford, not this flaccid trifle.

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Poor A. A. Milne. What a ghastly business.

Saving Mr. Banks (2013)
The absolutely true story of how P. L. Travers came to allow Walt Disney to adapt Mary Poppins, after 20 years’ persistent begging on the latter’s part. Except, of course, it isn’t true at all. Walt has worked his magic from beyond the grave over a fairly unremarkable tale of mutual disagreement. Which doesn’t really matter if the result is a decent movie that does something interesting or though-provoking by changing the facts… Which I’m not sure it does. But Saving Mr. Banks at least a half-decent movie, and one considerably buoyed by the performances of its lead actors.

Actually, Mr. Banks is buoyed by the performances of its entire cast. It’s the script that frequently lets the side down, laying it on thick when a lighter touch is needed, repeating its message to the point of nausea. And bloating it out not so neatly to the two-hour mark when the story could have been wrapped up quite nicely in a third less time. The title itself could perhaps be seen as rubbi…

Everything has its price, Avon.

Blake's 7 4.1: Rescue

Season Four, the season they didn’t expect to make. Which means there’s a certain amount of getting up to speed required in order for “status quo” stories to be told. If they choose to go that route. There’s no Liberator anymore as a starting point for stories; a situation the show hasn’t found itself in since Space Fall. So where do they go from here? Behind the scenes there’s no David Maloney either. Nor Terry Nation (I’d say that by this point that’s slightly less of an issue, but his three scripts for Season Three were among his best).

Do you read Sutter Cane?

In the Mouth of Madness (1994)
(SPOILERS) The concluding chapter of John Carpenter’s unofficial Apocalypse Trilogy (preceded by The Thing and Prince of Darkness) is also, sadly, his last great movie. Indeed, it stands apart in the qualitative wilderness that beset him during the ‘90s (not for want of output). Michael De Luca’s screenplay had been doing the rounds since the ‘80s, even turned down by Carpenter at one point, and it proves ideal fodder for the director, bringing out the best in him. Even cinematographer Gary K Kibbe seems inspired enough to rise to the occasion. It could do without the chugging rawk soundtrack, perhaps, but then, that was increasingly where Carpenter’s interests resided (as opposed to making decent movies).

Now In Full Color, with a Happier Ending

Search This Blog