Yes, No, Maybe So: "Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows"

Michael C here to see if I detect in the trailer for the Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows any cause to get excited.

I vividly remember when the trailer for Guy Ritchie's first Sherlock Holmes landed two years ago. I could scarcely believe it was real and not some ingenious Onion spoof of action movies. Ritchie took the most cerebral character in all of literature, spliced him with Bruckheimer DNA, and created some unholy concoction involving ultimate fighting, black magic, and the destruction-to-running time ratio of a Road Runner cartoon. There can be no better parody of over-the-top action movies than that trailer's climactic moment when Watson bellows "HOLMES!" followed by what appeared to be a nuclear explosion.

And then the movie was released and it turned out to be...not that bad.

No masterpiece to be sure, but as a piece of big budget Hollywood fluff I can't deny it was a pretty painless way to spend two hours. So it stands to reason this equally excessive trailer for Game of Shadows will yield a similarly decent movie, right?

Click to read more ...

Yes, No, Maybe So: Hugo

Robert (author of Distant Relatives) here. If you, like me, have been wondering how the phrases "Martin Scorsese" and "family-friendly holiday season event film" could possibly fit together ever since the announcement of The Invention of Hugo Cabret...

...later shortened to Hugo Cabret, later shortened to Hugo (by the time the film hits theaters in November it may just be H.) the newly released trailer may answer your questions, though not necessarily satisfactorily, and may leave you with all new ones. Let's discuss.

The name Martin Scorsese was, is, and will continue to be the selling point behind this film, at least for cinephiles who consider each new Scorsese film an event. But the trailer here has definitely been cut for the kind of mass audience that doesn't flock to Scorsese in droves. If you're looking for something non-threatening enough for the kids, but well crafted enough for adults, this trailer is targeting you. And in that sense the trailer does have something of an "instant holiday classic" feel to it. Not to mention some possibly impressive production design by Dante Feretti that could get him noticed again after his Shutter Island snub last season.

Yet while the production design appears promising, there's always the possibility that this busy-looking film will be a gold and teal nightmare. The 3D cinematography is rife with things flying at the camera. In this trailer alone we count at least five: Sacha Baron Cohen's hand, a dog, dragon smoke, a key necklace, and Hugo's hand. (So help me if that scene of Hugo going down a big fun slide is accompanied with a POV shot) Barring the title card there's not much here that feels Scorsese. Sure it's off his genre, but even when he does go off genre, Scorsese explores the same general themes and ideas (once calling The Age of Innocence his most violent picture). So even the slightest hint of a Scorsese touch, like the presence of Ray Winstone, was welcome, though I wanted to shout "No Hugo! Don't go with Mr. French!"

So what is Scorsese doing? Pilling up money for his next project? An academic exercise in trying something new?

Actually what he's doing is a family-friendly holiday season event film in exactly the way Scorsese would do it. Scorsese was never going to do fantasy in the mold of something modern. His films always reference back to the classics. Even Shutter Island disappointed many by possessing the obviousness of an old melodramatic Hammer Horror film instead of something that felt new. But that's what he does. Something tells me that what interested Scorsese in this project was the potential to make an homage to Georges Méliès (played by Ben Kingsley) and the films that birthed the fantasy genre. And those films were indeed intentionally artificial and filled with gimmicks.

So maybe we can't fault Scorsese for inconsistency of vision. We may want Scorsese to be modern and inventive. We may want him to wow us with spectacle like Peter Jackson or Christopher Nolan. But that's the fault of our expectation. What Scorsese clearly wants to do is recreate the magic of the old days. Whether or not you end up liking Hugo may depend on whether you appreciate the note on which the trailer ends, a recreation of the Lumiere's brother's L'arrivée d'un train à La Ciotat this time with the train actually pummelling toward the audience... in 3D.

Yes, No, Maybe So: Contagion

In this edition of Let's Count the Oscar Winners, err, Yes, No, Maybe So, we take a look at Steven Soderbergh's Contagion. Details of this film had been kept quite secret until this trailer was released a few days ago. I'd seen snippets from the film at a distributors event a few months ago but they highlighted star wattage over plot. So now the trailer has arrived and in a move that has some condemning Soderbergh for spoiling his own film, he pulls off a Game of Thrones seconds into the trailer (at the bottom of the post)

YES - That cast!

All of them either have Oscars or have been nominated on multiple occasions but the best part is that they're not just "movie stars", they're all incredible actors. Is this like the "serious version" of Ocean's 11? Soderbergh gets bonus points for that The Talented Mr. Ripley reunion, but where is Cate when you need her?

NO - How can Steven Soderbergh deliver such a superb trailer and threaten us with early retirement? Also, considering he has developed a tradition of delivering one artsy film followed by a fun one, which one is this? His last movie was a documentary, so does it count or should we use The Informant as reference? The director has a tendency to work with genre and this looks like it could be his take on the psychological film or the disaster movie (I smell a fun double bill with Melancholia!)

Soderbergh is also one of the most ambitious directors in contemporary history. Most of the time he gets away with whatever he wants, but given the political references spotted in this trailer this could either be brilliant or end up turning into a bland piece of meh like Blindness.

MAYBE SO - With the revelation that Gwyneth Paltrow's character dies, we have to ask ourselves, how much will this affect the rest of the film? Some people have already called this a monstrous spoiler and are pissed at the director for letting this piece of information come out.

 PSA: Gwyneth Paltrow in The Perils of Gambling!

Killing one of your main stars isn't something completely new but it still sends waves of how-dare-they and where-are-we-going-now terror among audiences who want it the easy way. This revelation tells us that either her character was meaningless and there are bigger shocks to come or that Soderbergh is the kind of director you want to work with so badly that you don't care if he kills you before the movie is even released. 

I for one am beyond excited to see what he has up his sleeve this time. How about you? Are you as impressed by the cast? Should Soderbergh retire yet?

Yes, No, Maybe So: "John Carter"

With Hollywood searching madly for the next franchise and the next one after that -- which can mean billions upon billions of dollars even when you stop trying (Deathly Hallows Pt 1, Pirates part whichever, Etcetera) -- so why not John Carter of Mars. He's the other oft-naked hero from Tarzan creator Edgar Rice Burroughs. If Tarzan could generate millions upon millions for decades upon decades, why not this other guy?

Taylor Kitsch is THE PRINCE OF PERSIA JOHN CARTER.

So on March 9th, 2012 John Carter arrives on Mars... albeit without Mars in his franchise title. Weirdness. After a decade of ever-lenghtening film titles, Hollywood has decided to go short again. The Invention of Hugo Cabret becomes the boring "Hugo" and John Carter of Mars becomes the boring "John Carter". Hopefully the movies bearing these names aren't similarly reductive.

Let's break down the trailer with our patented Yes No Maybe So system. How badly do we want this one?

Writers never tire of naming their messiahs JC  - SUBTLE! -- but we're curious about this "John Carter" fellow and his director, too. After five years of heavy glowering and heavy drinking and sensitive soulfulness on Friday Night Lights will Taylor Kitsch's charisma transfer to the big screen. That cameo in X-Men Origins: Wolverine (let us never speak of that fi---oh, damnit!!!) was eyegrabbing but will he be able to carry an entire movie? The other huge question mark here in terms of transferring is Finding Nemo / WALL•E director Andrew Stanton. How well will his gift transfer to live action (a similar challenge awaits Brad Bird in Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol) . We're ready to find out.

Like many fans of Pixar, we hoped for a huge genre leap for Pixar when this was first announced; why shouldn't the great animated studio do a dramatic sci-fi action flick with their insane technological wizardy? Alas the only thing that appears to be animated here are the super tall multi-limbed martians. And if this trailer is any indication they stick out like... well... animated characters in live-action filmmaking often do. That last line reading is curiously disheartening too.

When I saw you I believed it was a sign that something new could come into this world.

...because, you see, this movie doesn't look "new" at all. It doesn't look like some great new hope coming to our movie world. It looks like every other movie! You've got costumes that give you Prince of Persia or Zardoz flashbacks, you've got animated superhero leaps in the desert that recall Hulk's big jumping bean moment or maybe something from that Immortals trailer. Mars doesn't look otherworldly really unless by other worlds you mean Tattooine. And why are John Carter and his love interest (Lynn Collins) wearing so many clothes? We knew they couldn't be starkers like they often are in the book, but why so much material even covering their midriffs? On the other hand this trailer is very short and perhaps they're saving the provocative or eye-candy imagery for the movie itself and maybe it'll all be magic in context.

We're a maybe so for the source material, the director/star double risk, and the off chance that the movie is a helluva lot weirder than this generic peak. But we're starting to worry about leaning full on "no".

You?

Yes, No, Maybe So: "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"

One more Yes, No, Maybe So to take you into the holiday weekend. This one is the espionage thriller Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy adapted from the bestseller of the same name by John LeCarre. The movie arrives in September. Let's break it down.

The trailer is quite riveting. I blame the intriguing imagery, the cold precision of the editing and those musical trills (not sure if that's the right word) in the score. (Though with scoring in trailers it's always a bad idea to get excited because chances are it's another score entirely in the film. Turns out this score is Danny Elfman from The Wolfman) The trailer is also smart about setting up the central dilemma 'there's a long term mole in our ranks and it's one of these five men!' without fussing too much over the details... or even which five cast members, exactly, that we're talking about. I understand from plot descriptions of the novel that the main character George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is pulled back from semi-retirement to uncover the mole so you've got your old hoary trope in there too. One Last Job!

It's 2011 and knowing the internet, we'll hear who the mole is any second now, let alone waiting for the big reveal within the film in September while we're watching it. Not the film's fault of course but it hasn't taken some of the electricity out of all genres that use mystery and twists for their thrills. Then there's a more personal thing: Two hours without any actressing to speak of though... in a genre I can take or leave. Speaking of personal pecularities: though it pains me to say it for fear of the virtual retribution, I've really never been one for Gary Oldman. No, I am secretly not a member of AMPAS but they've really never really been into him either: Note the  "BAFTA Winner" above his name during the cast shuffle before the "Academy Award Winner" for Colin Firth; Oldman has never been nominated for an Oscar. Will this year be different? (Best Actor Predix - updating in a few days)

The director Tomas Alfredson made the remarkable Let The Right One In (which we were just reminded of) and he's brought back some of the same team for this one which means it will, at the very least, be strongly moody with sticky images. That's a big plus for any thriller. The cast is also sharp. Tom Hardy gets a lot of face time in the trailer but there's also Mark Strong, Toby Jones and John Hurt (among others). It'll be interesting, too, to see if Colin Firth can keep up the remarkable momentum he built from A Single Man and The King's Speech. Will that prove a two year peak or will he have another couple more years up top of the "must-cast pile"?

And finally: how the hell will this fare with Oscar? It's so hard to say since the genre and filmmaking team are not Oscar Bait in and of themselves. When you aren't carrying obvious bait, you've got to have strong golden hooks (excellent reviews, showy performances, surprise hit status) if you hope to catch Oscar.

The Trailer in Question...

Are you a yes, no, or maybe so? Break it down in the comments

Previously: Mission Impossible - Ghost Protocol, War Horse, Moneyball, Footloose, and A Dangerous Method