So Warner Bros. released the first full trailer for The Hangover 2 and… I think it looks terrible. Watch for yourself.
Seriously, it’s like the exact same movie, except it’s in Bangkok. Tattoo = tooth, monkey = baby and there’s another missing person that Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms and Zack Galafinakis have to find.
Hey, I loved Ken Jeong’s Mr. Chow in the first Hangover as much as the next guy. But does it make A LICK of sense that he would be in Bangkok for the sequel?
Incidentally, if I were Justin Bartha, I’d be pissed. He’s not the one missing this time, but he’s still relegated to the sidelines.
Between this trailer and Due Date being pretty much a straight rip-off of Planes, Trains and Automobiles, I am seriously concerned that director Todd Phillips has run out of gas creatively.
What’s your reaction to this trailer? Leave your comments below!
Related Posts ¬
Apr 20, 2011 | WHAT X-MEN: FIRST CLASS GETS RIGHT |
Dec 22, 2011 | TRAILER – PROMETHEUS |
Aug 19, 2011 | TRAILER – MACHINE GUN PREACHER |
I had a hard time deciding what today’s comic should be about. I weighed my options and considered doing a comic either about Your Highness or Arthur. I also tried to decide if I would do a comic about the four minutes of footage from Green Lantern that was shown at Wondercon this weekend…
…but it didn’t really elicit a strong reaction from me one way or the other.
Even though I had somewhat swam in these waters before, I decided to do a comic about Your Highness only because it’s the only film even peripherally on my radar.
That said, the fact that Natalie Portman wearing a thong is the only thing from the marketing of this movie that I can remember doesn’t speak well of it’s overall entertainment value.
It’s kind of easy to make a joke at the expense of fanboys that are interested in seeing Queen Amidala’s butt. But the more I thought about it, the more I realized, “Y’know, guys. There are MUCH better opportunities to see this kind of thing and in MUCH better movies.” Both Closer and Hotel Chevalier came to mind.
Of course Hotel Chevalier is a short film, not a feature. But I’m willing to be it’s about four times as sexy as Your Highness. Danny McBride’s involvement in ANY film cuts it’s potential for sexiness by half.
Then again… Zooey Deschanel is in Your Highness. Ooo! Conflicted!
While conversationally honest, I am aware that today’s comic lacks the pizazz of my last few efforts. I was also a little worried that references to Mike Nichols and Wes Anderson might go over the heads of some. I was feeling bad about that.
But every time I underestimate you guys, I always end up surprised. So let’s all pretend that this is the funniest comic I’ve ever written and laugh heartily together as brothers and sisters!
Or not.
Let’s talk about Your Highness. Are you making plans to see it this weekend? How do you feel about Danny McBride? Is his cocky loser persona starting to wear thin, or is it just me? Leave your comments below!
First, apologies for not getting this week’s comic to you in a timely manner. I have a bad habit of working on the comic the day before it’s “due.” A holdover from the period where I was updating 3 times a week and wanted the comics to be as timely as possible. I forget that I have a 6 day lead-time on these things now.
I tried working on the comic Sunday night, but Pearl has been teething terribly and not sleeping. Kind of hard to work on a comic when you have to climb out of the basement, up two flights of stairs to console an infant while your wife tries to sleep. So I scrapped it and said “Let’s try again Monday.”
Incidentally, Pearl is doing much better. She just had to get over the hump, I think.
At any rate, I thought I would experiment with the comic today and try something sans-dialogue. I almost wanted to leave out the “Smek! Smek!” in the last panel because 1.) I thought I had done an okay job of communicating that Tom was yawning in the first three panels and 2.) I’m not sure if anyone else has seen “Smek! Smek!” used as a sound effect for smacking one’s lips other than myself.
Whatever. It’s in there now. IT’S CANNON, BABY!
Not to boast, but I like today’s comic a lot because I think it works on two levels. It works as a visceral reaction to the gaping maw of the Ghost Face mask (which has always inspired me to yawn) and I think it also works as a critical indictment of the Scream franchise. That is to say, it’s boring.
I’m not a fan of horror movies in general, but I’ve seen all of the Scream movies and give them credit for bending the rules of the genre and doing something fresh with the teenager slasher flick. The amount of talent cultivated for the first movie is extremely impressive, considering how many of the actors from that movie went on to bigger and better things.
Scream 3 is kind of a throwaway, though. A billion cameos from C-listers lke Jenny McCarthy trying to hop on the gravy train. I mean, Jay and Silent Bob show up, for crying out loud. If you squint, it’s not entirely dissimilar from the Wayans’s Scary Movie franchise. It was a parody of its former self.
To that end, why are we revisiting the franchise over a decade later? Did Wes Craven learn nothing from New Nightmare?
What about you guys? Any interest in seeing Scream 4 this weekend? Pardon the pun, but perhaps some morbid curiosity as to where they can possibly take the franchise?
I’d go, but I think I’d be too depressed watching the last gasps of Neve Campbell’s and David Arquette’s careers swirl around in the drain of nostalgia.
If you have something to say about Scream 4 or the Scream franchise in general… I implore you!… Leave a comment below! Before I kill again!
The following demo reel from animatronics expert John Nolan demonstrates brilliantly why there is still a need for the artistry and craftsmanship of practical effects.
I like computers. But sometimes I miss the warmth of a puppet.
No. Wait. That sounds gross. Just shut up and watch this, okay?
Warner Bros. released three new stills of Ryan Reynolds dressed up in costume for the forthcoming Green Lantern movie. As I’m sure you’re all aware, he’s not wearing an actual costume, but a CGI suit that is being painted over his body by very lonely computer nerds in post.
Here’s my take… I’ve always felt that this movie version of the Green Lantern costume was needlessly ornamental and vaguely Tron-like. But I’ve gotten used to it. Now that I’m looking at this complete head to toe shot, I’m really creeped out by what looks like shrink-wrapped socks on Reynolds’ feet. Seriously, animators. I don’t need to know what the indentation of Reynolds’ toenail bed looks like. But, my! Those foot tendons are FABULOUS!
I swear, with this movie, it’s one step forward and two steps back.
Do you have an opinion about Green Lantern? I bet you do! You should leave your comments below!
As it’s 50th animated feature film, Tangled is very much the summation of Disney’s previous output. Depending on your opinion of the House of Mouse, that could be either a good or bad thing.
Personally, I think it’s a good thing. Disney has finally figured out a way to align itself with current animation trends and attitudes similar to what Dreamworks and their contemporaries at Pixar are doing without sacrificing the traditional story elements that make a film uniquely Disney. The animations has a snappy feel, a fairy tale princess is front and center and the dialogue is wry without sailing completely over the heads of children.
Most importantly, it’s entertaining. It’s easy for me to say that Tangled is the most fun I’ve had watching a Disney movie since Aladdin. Frankly, its wit and pop makes it one of the few Disney movies I can imagine watching proactively instead of through the filter of nostalgia.
By now you’re probably familiar with the premise behind Tangled. It’s basically a modified take on the German fairy tale of Rapunzel. But, smartly, what directors Nathan Greno and Byron Howard did was expand the mythology and gave us a much more satisfying reason why Rapunzel was locked away in that tower lo’ so many years ago.
While pregnant, Rapunzel’s mother, the Queen becomes very ill. The kingdom sets out in search of a golden flower rumored to have healing properties. The flower has been hidden away by the selfish crone Gothel, who uses the flower to keep her young. But once the magical flower is found, it restores the queen to health – and infuses its healing abilities in the strands of the young princess’s hair. Gothel steals the child away in the night and locks her in a secluded tower, cut off from society, as she continues to use the healing magic to keep her young.
“Why dat hair gotta be so long?” the audience demands. Easy. Cut the hair and it loses its magical power. Well played, Greno and Howard. Well played.
Of course, the problem with writing a movie about an isolated character is that there has to be some drama or change in the status quo for the plot to move forward. Meet Flynn Rider, a thief and a rouge looking for a place to hide after stealing the kingdom’s crown jewels.
Cynically, critics complained that Flynn the Adventurer was introduced as a marketing tool to attract boys (who would be otherwise turned off by a “princess” story) to the film. Considering the disappointing box office on The Princess and The Frog, it’s easy to see why some might jump to that conclusion. Certainly the flim’s marketing and Disney’s decision to name the movie Tangled and not “Rapunzel” would seem to support this theory.
But it actually makes a great deal of sense to have the smarmy and charismatic Flynn as Rapunzel’s guide in the real world. It’s Rapunzel’s dream to investigate the floating lanterns she sees in the distance every year on her birthday. She doesn’t realize that it’s actually a symbolic ceremony from her kingdom longing for the return of the kidnapped princess.
Rapunzel, despite her wonder, is so closed off from the outside world she doesn’t even wear shoes. You need a fast-talking character like Rider to essentially provide both sides of the dialogue. Otherwise you’d be left with a movie where the heroine walks around, clutching a frying pan and looking confused for two acts.
Despite being the Disney movie with the longest running time since Fantasia, Tangled’s 100 minutes never lags or bores. In fact, if anything, it almost feels short. Time flies by as Rapunzel and Flynn explore the soft, rounded, painterly world developed by Disney animators using techniques they were tasked with inventing in order to achieve their look. Typically, whenever Disney sets out to create techniques to develop their films, the results are always memorable.
If I could be critical of Tangled at all, I think they almost made the process too easy. This familiarity with the traditional fluidity of Disney’s style probably made audiences feel as Tangled was something they had seen before. Considering some of the visual cues the film picks up on from Disney’s past (the romantic kiss in the boat from The Little Mermaid or Flynn “surfing” down the trench of a water wheel like Tarzan “surfed” across mossy tree branches) it’s understandable.
As a Disneyphile, I found the references endearing and appropriate for Disney’s 50th animated feature. In fact, these references were very similar to the visual cues producers of the James Bond films did for their 20th franchise film, Die Another Day back in 2002.
In terms of Blu-ray extras, I found them a little light on substance. A short behind-the-scenes feature called “Untangled: The Making of a Fairy Tale” played more like a bunch of bumpers ported from the Disney Channel and were stitched together with narration from the film’s stars, Mandy Moore and Zachary Levi.
There are a handful of “deleted scenes” (or, rather, slightly enhanced animatics), a couple of extended songs and two alternate versions of the film’s opening sequence. They’re interesting, but not substantive.
Most entertaining are the “9 Tangled Teasers” – a collection of parody commercials made for the theatrical release of the films that utilize the film’s characters.
Ultimately, the success of Tangled relies in its unique ability to be respectful of the Disney fairytale tradition while also keeping it pliable enough to have fun with it. The movie keeps things snappy, but never looks down its nose at you for enjoying traditional storytelling. The movie is a fine addition to any animation fan’s library.
Related Posts ¬
Aug 20, 2009 | TRANSFORMERS 2 – OCTOBER 20 |
Feb 4, 2011 | EXIT THROUGH THE GIFT SHOP – REVIEW |
I’m not exactly sure where the idea for today’s strip came from. Except that I read the headline that Lindsay Lohan was in talks to join Zack Snyder’s Superman reboot, potentially being cast as Lana Lang- Clark Kent’s high school crush.
The casting news seemed so out of place to me, the only was I could reconcile it in my mind was to presume Snyder wanted someone on-set with access to good drugs.
Y’know… because Lindsay Lohan… has a… has a drug problem.
She takes a lot of drugs, is what I’m saying.
I didn’t really think this one through. I was probably more focused on the reversal in the punchline, if I’m being honest with you.
Something I won’t do in this space is use this news as an opportunity to bash Zack Snyder again. Even I know that I’m sounding a bit like a broken record on that front.
Although I will admit that I’m somewhat curious about the casting decisions so far. For example, Diane Lane and Kevin Costner as Ma and Pa Kent are interesting choices. Individually, the casting makes sense. Amy Adams as Lois Lane makes a little bit of sense if you’re going for the spunky reporter angle. Less so if you’re trying to portray her as a hard-nosed journalist. Then again, Bryan Singer cast Kate Bosworth as Lois, so I suppose there is no where to go but up.
I guess my concern is that all of these casting decisions sound fine on-paper. But I wonder how they are going to perform together as an ensemble? Tossing Lindsay Lohan into the mix would be a real wild card – and I don’t mean that in a positive way.
Truthfully, Lohan is rumored to be in consideration for SO many movies today (as she tries to bouy her sagging career), I’m not convinced this isn’t a little bit of campaigning on her part. Would anyone put it past her to cravenly beg for the park like Sean Young did for Catwoman in Batman Returns?
I tried to find video from when Young went on The Joan Rivers Show dressed as Catwoman before sitting down for an interview about how she’d be perfect for the part. But the clips I found didn’t have any audio. Reportedly, Young also showed up at Warner Bros. Studio in her costume and was thrown off the lot after she tried to meet with Tim Burton.
I guess it’s wait and see with Lohan. I’m not exactly against the idea of her playing Lana Lang. It’s a bit part, a fun cameo, probably. I’m just more confused by the reports than anything else.
Had you already heard the rumor? What was your reaction to it? Does anyone want to grab a Coke with me? LEAVE YOUR COMMENTS BELOW!
The trailer for new Will Ferrell “dramadey” Everything Must Go showed up online a couple of weeks ago, but I’m just getting around to it now. Actually, it’s been occupying my mind-grapes for that long, so I take that as a good sign. Check it out.
Ferrell plays a borderline alcoholic whose wife throws all of stuff out on the lawn, changes the locks on his house and walks out on him. Sucks to be him. As you can probably predict, great personal growth befalls Ferrell’s character when he decides to sell all of his possessions and separate himself from the failures of his past life.
The movie looks pretty straight forward. But as someone who deeply enjoyed Stranger Than Fiction, I’m looking forward to Everything Must Go because it seems to have a similar feel. How much of that can be contributed to Ferrell dialing it down a notch is purely conjecture at this point.
I know Ferrell is an acquired taste and that any movement into dramatic territory will be immediately dismissed as a craven attempt at legitimacy by his detractors (See Also: Jim Carrey). But what do you think of what you’ve seen so far. Is it worth a look?
Related Posts ¬
Jul 13, 2009 | BROTHERS OFFICIAL TRAILER AND TEASER POSTER |
Jan 13, 2012 | TRAILER – FRIENDS WITH KIDS |
Feb 10, 2011 | X-MEN FIRST CLASS FACEBOOK TRAILER |
The new trailer for X-Men: First Class hit the internet today. Take a peek, won’t you?
Here is what X-Men: First Class gets right:
- Casting of James McAvoy
- Casting Michael Fassbender
- The design of Magneto’s helmet
Here’s what X-Men: First Class gets wrong:
- Everything else
Thoughts?
Related Posts ¬
Jun 4, 2011 | X-MEN: FIRST CLASS – REVIEW |
Jan 13, 2012 | TRAILER – FRIENDS WITH KIDS |
Jul 27, 2011 | TRAILER: NEW YEAR’S EVE |
Nov 16, 2011 | BRAVE – OR, AS I LIKE TO CALL IT, SCOTTISH MULAN |
Dec 16, 2010 | TRAILER – TAKE ME HOME TONIGHT |
I realize that the punchline of today’s comic is kind of specific. So if you don’t know what I’m referencing, let me introduce to Rage Guy.
What is learned cannot be unlearned.
When Fast and Furious came out in 2009, I thought it was pretty lazy marketing to simply strip the word “The” from the original title and try to convince audiences, “Hey! Brand new movie!” I didn’t really think they could get less imaginative than that.
Boy, was I wrong.
Fast Five? Seriously?
I guess at this point they’re not even attempting to attract anyone that isn’t already familiar with the franchise. Fair enough. If you weren’t already a fan of the first four movies, there’s nothing about the new one that would probably attract you to it.
I’m just trying to establish context. Free from any other references, if I saw a movie called Fast Five on the marquee, I’m not sure I would be able to reconcile what that title has to do with anything from the movie I paid good money to see.
I feel it’s not beyond reason to presume that they could end up calling the next movie “Fix” or – perhaps more likely – something equally stupid like “F-Six” or “FF6.”
I probably shouldn’t be so hard on these films. As a fan of action movies from the 80’s, the Fast and Furious films are really about as close as we get to that these days.
Keep making cars explode randomly, Vin Diesel! And Godspeed!
Any thoughts about Fast Five, Vin Diesel or internet memes? Leave your comments below!