Skip to main content

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

Popular posts from this blog

Prepare the Heathen’s Stand! By order of purification!

Apostle (2018)
(SPOILERS) Another week, another undercooked Netflix flick from an undeniably talented director. What’s up with their quality control? Do they have any? Are they so set on attracting an embarrassment of creatives, they give them carte blanche, to hell with whether the results are any good or not? Apostle's an ungainly folk-horror mashup of The Wicker Man (most obviously, but without the remotest trace of that screenplay's finesse) and any cult-centric Brit horror movie you’d care to think of (including Ben Wheatley's, himself an exponent of similar influences-on-sleeve filmmaking with Kill List), taking in tropes from Hammer, torture porn, and pagan lore but revealing nothing much that's different or original beyond them.

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…

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Outstanding. Now, let’s bite off all the heads and pile them up in the corner.

Venom (2018)
(SPOILERS) A 29% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes can't be wrong, can it? To go by the number of one-star reviews Sony’s attempt to kick-start their own shred of the Marvel-verse has received, you’d think it was the new Battlefield Earth, or Highlander II: The Quickening. Fortunately, it's far from that level of ignominy. And while it’s also a considerable distance from showing the polish and assuredness of the official Disney movies, it nevertheless manages to establish its own crudely winning sense of identity.

You can’t just outsource your entire life.

Tully (2018)
(SPOILERS) A major twist is revealed in the last fifteen minutes of Tully, one I'll happily admit not to have seen coming, but it says something about the movie that it failed to affect my misgivings over the picture up to that point either way. About the worst thing you can say about a twist is that it leaves you shrugging.

Well, you did take advantage of a drunken sailor.

Tomb Raider (2018)
(SPOILERS) There's evidently an appetite out there for a decent Tomb Raider movie, given that the lousy 2001 incarnation was successful enough to spawn a (lousy) sequel, and that this lousier reboot, scarcely conceivably, may have attracted enough bums on seats to do likewise. If we're going to distinguish between order of demerits, we could characterise the Angelina Jolie movies as both pretty bad; Tomb Raider, in contrast, is unforgivably tedious.

If you want to have a staring contest with me, you will lose.

Phantom Thread (2017)
(SPOILERS) Perhaps surprisingly not the lowest grossing of last year's Best Picture Oscar nominees (that was Call Me by Your Name) but certainly the one with the least buzz as a genuine contender, subjected as Phantom Thread was to a range of views from masterpiece (the critics) to drudge (a fair selection of general viewers). The mixed reaction wasn’t so very far from Paul Thomas Anderson's earlier The Master, and one suspects the nomination was more to do with the golden glow of Daniel Day-Lewis in his first role in half a decade (and last ever, if he's to be believed) than mass Academy rapture with the picture. Which is ironic, as the relatively unknown Vicky Krieps steals the film from under him.

The whole thing should just be your fucking nose!

A Star is Born (2018)
(SPOILERS) A shoe-in for Best Picture Oscar? Perhaps not, since it will have to beat at very least Roma and First Man to claim the prize, but this latest version of A Star is Born still comes laden with more acclaim than the previous three versions put together (and that's with a Best Picture nod for the 1937 original). While the film doesn't quite reach the consistent heights suggested by the majority of critics, who have evacuated their adjectival bowels lavishing it with superlatives, it's undoubtedly a remarkably well-made, stunningly acted piece, and perhaps even more notably, only rarely feels like its succumbing to just how familiar this tale of rise to, and parallel fall from, stardom has become.

I will unheal the shit out of you!

Hotel Artemis  (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hotel Artemis is all set up. It's solid set up, undoubtedly – a heightened, John Wick-esque criminal world by way of John Carpenter – but once it has set out its wares, it proceeds to pulls its punches. One's left more impressed by the dependable performances and Drew Pearce's solid footing as a (debut feature) director than his ability to develop a satisfying screenplay. 

I take Quaaludes 10-15 times a day for my "back pain", Adderall to stay focused, Xanax to take the edge off, part to mellow me out, cocaine to wake me back up again, and morphine... Well, because it's awesome.

The Wolf of Wall Street (2013)
Along with Pain & Gain and The Great Gatsby, The Wolf of Wall Street might be viewed as the completion of a loose 2013 trilogy on the subject of success and excess; the American Dream gone awry. It’s the superior picture to its fellows, by turns enthralling, absurd, outrageous and hilarious. This is the fieriest, most deliriously vibrant picture from the director since the millennium turned. Nevertheless, stood in the company of Goodfellas, the Martin Scorsese film from which The Wolf of Wall Street consciously takes many of its cues, it is found wanting.

I was vaguely familiar with the title, not because I knew much about Jordan Belfort but because the script had been in development for such a long time (Ridley Scott was attached at one time). So part of the pleasure of the film is discovering how widely the story diverges from the Wall Street template. “The Wolf of Wall Street” suggests one who towers over the city like a behemoth, rather than a guy …