The trailers have been flying at us so quickly these days that it could only mean one thing: summer movie season approacheth. All the late summer would be blockbusters and early fall Oscar contenders are waiting to spring from their respective buzz gates.
Left to Right: Brühl in "Rush", Damon in "Elysium", McAvoy in "Filth", Booth in "Romeo and Juliet"
So with so many newbies we'll just get them all out of the way after the jump with a look at the new Romeo and Juliet, the sports bio Rush, the depraved Filth with James McAvoy, and Neil Blomkamp's Elysium, his eagerly awaited sophomore effort post stunner-debut District 9. Ready. Set. Go...
Romeo and Juliet
- Yes: There's a reason people keep remaking it - it's spectacular; Booth looks the part and Hailee doesn't seem too much like Mattie from True Grit which has to be a good sign for a young teenage actress, right?
- No: After Zeffirelli's 1968 version which understood to go youthful, lush and erotic and Luhrmann's version which understood to go everywhere and everywhen Zeffirelli's didn't with anachronistic pizazz and SpectacularSpectacular visuals, what is there left to see here? Both are amazing and daunting for any future film versions hoping to make their mark.
- Maybe So: Execution is everything with Shakespeare since the text is great. It's tough to see that from a trailer but this one doesn't provide it.
- ... I'm a No I suppose. I have nothing against this per se but the trailer doesn't really make a strong case for it either. Why does it exist?
Elysium
- Yes: Some of those establishing shots are really beautiful and intriguing; nice rug pulling text "the rest of us live on Earth"; Matt Damon; Jodie Foster; Neil Blomkamp; Sharlto Copley
- No: Sooooo this is District 9 again and the quarantined 'have nots' are us instead of intruding aliens in South Africa?; Soooo this is District 9 again and Matt Damon is the increasingly less human Sharlto Copley?
- Maybe So: That first shot of Jodie worries me... I don't know why I'm averse to her as power bitches but I think she's usually off her game in this mode by which I mean the Inside Man mode; The takeaway mayhem is less intriguing than the set up. "They will hunt you..." blah blah blah Ka-Boom.
- .... I'm a tentative Yes but I'd turn Maybe So right quick if the buzz is soft.
Filth
- Yes: James McAvoy laughing; James McAvoy sneering; James McAvoy f•••ing; James McWellYouGetThePoint; Jamie Bell!; a few funny lines
- No: But it looks awfully repetitive, doesn't it?
- Maybe So: Stories about men behaving badly and then reforming or not are a dime a dozen in the movies; If reviews are strong, why wouldn't we give it a shot?
- .... which means I'm a Maybe So depending on advance buzz.
Rush
- Yes: Daniel Brühl's continued employment is something we've been rooting for since Good Bye Lenin! (2003); It seems like the cinema is always into the 50s and 60s so it'll be nice to get some 70s stories going for a change
- No: This is a terrible trailer telling the entire true story so we don't need to see the movie now; Ron Howard is not, generally speaking, a strong director no matter what is engraved on that 2001 Oscar statuette when he he beat four world class masters.
- Maybe So: Brühl and Hemsworth might be a strong pairing; Anthony Dod Mantle is behind the camera
- .... which I suppose means I'm firmly in the Maybe So camp, but only if Oscar Buzz is there. Can Ron Howard make a golden comeback after that weird post Oscar foray into utter irrelevance (hi, The Dilemma!) ?
Your turn.
What do you make of these trailers? Are you more or less excited to see these now?