Sometimes I see a review or a comment about a film that I've seen and I think, "that's precisely what I thought". Most of the time the viewpoint is expressed more eloquently than I could put it myself.
So, I give you the latest example, regarding Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End.
"Thought Pirates 2 was bloated, overplotted and made no sense? You ain't seen nothing yet."
Tim Robey, Daily Telegraph, May 26 2007.
For comparison, read my review here.
Expect me to rant quite a bit about Pirates 3 in the coming days.
[2/5] Cinema Review: The Amazing Spider-Man
The Spidey saga gets a reboot only a decade after it started. Rich finds out whether Marc Webb's new take manages to justify its existence...
[3/5] Cinema Review: Prometheus
Ridley Scott reaches for the stars as he returns to the Alien universe. Does he bite off more than he can chew?
Second Time's A Charm
I recently saw 28 Weeks Later, and it pretty much blew me away (review here). For me, it's a big improvement over the original. That got me thinking: how many sequels are there that actually are clearly better than the first instalments in the series? The list is bound to be a short one, but here are some that come to mind.
- The Empire Strikes Back. One of the most obvious ones, perhaps. Empire is easily the best Star Wars film to me, and it's the only one that I regularly feel like returning too. It seems more than just a coincidence that this one had the least imput from a certain Mr. Lucas.
- Terminator 2: Judgment Day. The first Terminator is a classic, but T2 is a prime example of how you can use a bigger budget to craft bigger thrills. It may be a bit sentimental sometimes, but it's one of the best action films of all time if you ask me. And no, Terminator 3 should not have happened. (Don't get me started on Terminator 4 or the Sarah Connor Chronicles...)
- X-Men 2. I find that Bryan Singer's comic sequel lessens on repeat viewings, but it's still hard to deny it's a more entertaining beast than the relatively restrained series opener. Singer juggles the various characters with aplomb.
- The Bourne Supremacy. There's not much to choose between the Bournes, really, but a more satisfying ending means that Supremacy pips it for me.
- Spider-Man 2. I waver on this one. At first I thought Spidey 2 was miles better than the first, but I've since rewatched the original a few times and it's grown on me. Still, Spidey 2 has some superb action scenes and better effects.
- From Russia With Love. I'm not sure you can really count any of the 20 subsequent Bond films after Dr. No as proper sequels, but FRWL is the best one if you ask me. In fact, a lot of them are better than Dr. No to be honest.
- Batman Begins. Again, this isn't truly a sequel, because it's a restart. But the fact remains that it's the fifth Batman feature film (the Adam West movie doesn't count) and is the best superhero flick ever.
- Back to the Future Part II. BTTF is possibly one of the best-structured screenplays ever. Part II is more convoluted and has the trouble of restarting the story but it does it with apparent ease. It's also ingenious.
- Alien 3. After seeing the workprint cut of Alien 3 in the Alien Quadrilogy box set it instantly shot up in my estimation. I love the set design and atmosphere of the piece. It's not what people expected after Aliens, which is probably why it went down poorly.
- Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. When I first watched DMC, I wasn't hugely impressed. Since then, I've slowly come round to its charms. I watch it regularly and still can't get enough of that waterwheel set-piece. I may even prefer it to the first one now.
- Superman II. Superman II does have an unfair advantage in the re-watch stakes as there are now two versions of it, but even if there was only the theatrical I think I'd watch it more than Superman: The Movie. General Zod is an awesome villain, and the "General, would you care to step outside?" moment is a classic - one agonisingly ruined in the Donner Cut.
Pirates 3 Tomorrow!
Tomorrow, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End is released. I've been really looking forward to it since last Christmas, when I got the Dead Man's Chest DVD and decided that I did actually like it a lot. But a couple of things have me slightly concerned.
I've mostly avoided reviews of the film, unlike with Spider-Man 3, because I had the ending of that film annoyingly spoiled for me. I have seen a few star ratings and read the odd sentence or two, though. They generally have given it an average grade (3 out of 5) and said that it's too long and muddled; basically what they all said about number 2.
Theoretically, that shouldn't really bother me. As I've said, DMC grew on me considerably with repeated viewings, after being disappointed with it initially. I still have some issues with it, but I think it's generally pretty entertaining, especially the awesome waterwheel swordfight. Fundamentally I now think that it's a solid continuation of the franchise.
What I've heard about AWE, though, is that it's dark, and the humour is not present as much as in the previous ones. If you ask me, humour is key to this franchise's success, and it was DMC's darker edge that put me off. As I said in my first review, I thought they made the same mistake as in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom by going darker when they didn't need to. Fortunately the Indy series was redeemed by The Last Crusade, a return to the feel and excitement of Raiders.
In the case of Pirates, however, it seems that the third one is going to be the darkest yet. Not only that, there looks like there'll be less in the way of tropical island landscapes - an obvious staple of the series - and a more gloomy aesthetic overall (judging by the trailer). Plus it is the longest instalment too at about 160 minutes. I'd love for my concerns to be wrong.
On a related note, where is all the advertising? I remember clearly the advertising blitz for Spider-Man 3 and even wrote about it in an earlier post, but Pirates 3 seems to be going to the other extreme. There's only one trailer (which I must have seen dozens of times by now) and a few posters knocking about, I haven't noticed much. It's all very odd.
Going by that fact, and the film's running time, I'm pretty sure it can't beat Spider-Man 3's opening weekend (although huge opening weekends are getting more and more common these days, with Shrek the Third's surprisingly big 120m+ last weekend). It should last longer than its superhero rival though, since it doesn't have any particularly huge imminent competition and previous instalments have shown decent legs.
Whatever, as always, I'll be there on opening day.
I've mostly avoided reviews of the film, unlike with Spider-Man 3, because I had the ending of that film annoyingly spoiled for me. I have seen a few star ratings and read the odd sentence or two, though. They generally have given it an average grade (3 out of 5) and said that it's too long and muddled; basically what they all said about number 2.
Theoretically, that shouldn't really bother me. As I've said, DMC grew on me considerably with repeated viewings, after being disappointed with it initially. I still have some issues with it, but I think it's generally pretty entertaining, especially the awesome waterwheel swordfight. Fundamentally I now think that it's a solid continuation of the franchise.
What I've heard about AWE, though, is that it's dark, and the humour is not present as much as in the previous ones. If you ask me, humour is key to this franchise's success, and it was DMC's darker edge that put me off. As I said in my first review, I thought they made the same mistake as in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom by going darker when they didn't need to. Fortunately the Indy series was redeemed by The Last Crusade, a return to the feel and excitement of Raiders.
In the case of Pirates, however, it seems that the third one is going to be the darkest yet. Not only that, there looks like there'll be less in the way of tropical island landscapes - an obvious staple of the series - and a more gloomy aesthetic overall (judging by the trailer). Plus it is the longest instalment too at about 160 minutes. I'd love for my concerns to be wrong.
On a related note, where is all the advertising? I remember clearly the advertising blitz for Spider-Man 3 and even wrote about it in an earlier post, but Pirates 3 seems to be going to the other extreme. There's only one trailer (which I must have seen dozens of times by now) and a few posters knocking about, I haven't noticed much. It's all very odd.
Going by that fact, and the film's running time, I'm pretty sure it can't beat Spider-Man 3's opening weekend (although huge opening weekends are getting more and more common these days, with Shrek the Third's surprisingly big 120m+ last weekend). It should last longer than its superhero rival though, since it doesn't have any particularly huge imminent competition and previous instalments have shown decent legs.
Whatever, as always, I'll be there on opening day.
Spider-Man 3 Retrospective
Yes, I know it's a little early for a retrospective, considering the film in question came out 5 days ago. But I just saw Spider-Man 3 for the second time today and it solidified my thoughts a bit more.
Most importantly, the second go-around didn't really change my overall view of the film: that it has got its moments, but is considerably inferior to the other two. However, the bashing that it is receiving in some quarters is completely out of all proportion - it's nowhere near Superman III on the travesty scale, for example.
Warning, for the approximately three people on the planet who haven't seen it yet: SPOILERS.
One thing I kept thinking during my second watch was that I really want to do a re-edit of the film. It couldn't iron out all the flaws, certainly, but I do think the flow could be improved. I don't like how once the black goo has infected the Spidey suit Peter can still take it off easily, and turn back into nice Peter. I think the black suit should've latched itself onto him and stayed on him until he rips it off in the bell tower. With a bit of re-ordering of scenes, that could probably be worked out.
What editing couldn't really solve is the slow start. While the film takes a while to get moving, that's mainly because Spider-Man 2 really came to a nicely resolved conclusion, except with the Harry storyline. It means that at the start of this instalment some time has to be taken to restart the forward momentum of the plot. I would have just liked a fairly basic Spider-Man rescue to open the film, not really related to the rest of the plot but just to get the audience in the mood.
One part of the set-up I might jettison is the first scene where we meet Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), soon to become the Sandman. The scene sets up his relationship with his daughter and estranged wife, but it slows down the beginning too much if you ask me, creating the need for some cumbersome cross-cutting. It does make the character of Marko more sympathetic but I could live without it.
On the subject of Sandman, I didn't really like him as a villain. Church gave an excellent performance, as I'd expected after Sideways. I just didn't feel he really belonged in the Spider-Man movie universe. Somehow, a guy who has four mechanical arms attached to his body (i.e. Doctor Octopus) seems more plausible and less outlandish than a guy who can literally turn into sand. I also didn't think the effects were that great at all. The Sandman 'birth' scene was good but I think a lot of that is down to the music and the performance rather than the believability of the CGI, which was never really top-drawer in my opinion. On top of that, I really didn't like Sandman's ability to turn into a sand cloud and fly around at will, a power which seems to have been made up by the filmmakers.
Moving on to one of the major bones of contention, the dance sequence. Personally I do find it pretty funny but I also think it's a bit too cheesy and goofy to completely work. But it is the only point in the film where Tobey Maguire is really able to have some fun in the role, and he revels in it. Going by the evidence of Spider-Man 3 it really looks like Raimi is dying to make a musical, and I'd prefer that he scratched that itch before making the next Spidey, if he does indeed return.
Now, Venom. For one thing, as I said in my review, in his full form I think he looks amazing. The design of the creature was absolutely nailed. He's not in it enough unfortunately, and even when he is, there are certain aspects that I found really jarring. One, of course, is the really perfunctory "let's team up" scene between him and Sandman. More importantly to me, I don't think he should have talked, or if he did it should have been a really growly, animalistic voice. I also didn't like that Venom's 'mask' kept receding and showing Brock's face underneath, as it really lessened the menace, and Topher Grace is completely ill-suited to that aspect of the character.
Despite the clunkiness of many elements of the film, I still find it highly enjoyable. No sections have bored me either of the times I've seen it. I love the frequent little touches of humour - not the broad goofy stuff like the "Evil Peter" hairdo, mind, but things like the door jamming routine and the cookie girl - which reminded me of the earlier films and showed that Raimi hasn't completely lost touch with them.
The climactic action scene kind of sums Spider-Man 3 up. I like it, but there are certain aspects that really get on my nerves. One such example is the British TV news reporter. Another is the aforementioned moments when Venom speaks. Also Sandman seems to be in the fight just because he's one of the villains and therefore has to be; when he later shows up, rather out of the blue (after having been apparently defeated), he says he was forced into everything, but that doesn't stack up. He may have been trying to get money because his daughter's ill but that doesn't mean he has to help Venom put an innocent civilian (Mary-Jane, again) in peril. Also, his dumb, groaning giant sand creature form reminded me of Mongo, the giant gingerbread man fro Shrek 2, which made him seem kind of laughable. Nevertheless, despite the problems with the sequence, it is still engrossing and fun, and I absolutely love that shot in which Spidey and Venom fall towards the ground, fighting each other all the way down.
Interestingly, the cinema didn't seem very busy today. For the Wednesday after the release of a blockbuster that has broken so many records, that's kind of surprising. It's going to see quite a drop in its second weekend, by the looks of it.
Most importantly, the second go-around didn't really change my overall view of the film: that it has got its moments, but is considerably inferior to the other two. However, the bashing that it is receiving in some quarters is completely out of all proportion - it's nowhere near Superman III on the travesty scale, for example.
Warning, for the approximately three people on the planet who haven't seen it yet: SPOILERS.
One thing I kept thinking during my second watch was that I really want to do a re-edit of the film. It couldn't iron out all the flaws, certainly, but I do think the flow could be improved. I don't like how once the black goo has infected the Spidey suit Peter can still take it off easily, and turn back into nice Peter. I think the black suit should've latched itself onto him and stayed on him until he rips it off in the bell tower. With a bit of re-ordering of scenes, that could probably be worked out.
What editing couldn't really solve is the slow start. While the film takes a while to get moving, that's mainly because Spider-Man 2 really came to a nicely resolved conclusion, except with the Harry storyline. It means that at the start of this instalment some time has to be taken to restart the forward momentum of the plot. I would have just liked a fairly basic Spider-Man rescue to open the film, not really related to the rest of the plot but just to get the audience in the mood.
One part of the set-up I might jettison is the first scene where we meet Flint Marko (Thomas Haden Church), soon to become the Sandman. The scene sets up his relationship with his daughter and estranged wife, but it slows down the beginning too much if you ask me, creating the need for some cumbersome cross-cutting. It does make the character of Marko more sympathetic but I could live without it.
On the subject of Sandman, I didn't really like him as a villain. Church gave an excellent performance, as I'd expected after Sideways. I just didn't feel he really belonged in the Spider-Man movie universe. Somehow, a guy who has four mechanical arms attached to his body (i.e. Doctor Octopus) seems more plausible and less outlandish than a guy who can literally turn into sand. I also didn't think the effects were that great at all. The Sandman 'birth' scene was good but I think a lot of that is down to the music and the performance rather than the believability of the CGI, which was never really top-drawer in my opinion. On top of that, I really didn't like Sandman's ability to turn into a sand cloud and fly around at will, a power which seems to have been made up by the filmmakers.
Moving on to one of the major bones of contention, the dance sequence. Personally I do find it pretty funny but I also think it's a bit too cheesy and goofy to completely work. But it is the only point in the film where Tobey Maguire is really able to have some fun in the role, and he revels in it. Going by the evidence of Spider-Man 3 it really looks like Raimi is dying to make a musical, and I'd prefer that he scratched that itch before making the next Spidey, if he does indeed return.
Now, Venom. For one thing, as I said in my review, in his full form I think he looks amazing. The design of the creature was absolutely nailed. He's not in it enough unfortunately, and even when he is, there are certain aspects that I found really jarring. One, of course, is the really perfunctory "let's team up" scene between him and Sandman. More importantly to me, I don't think he should have talked, or if he did it should have been a really growly, animalistic voice. I also didn't like that Venom's 'mask' kept receding and showing Brock's face underneath, as it really lessened the menace, and Topher Grace is completely ill-suited to that aspect of the character.
Despite the clunkiness of many elements of the film, I still find it highly enjoyable. No sections have bored me either of the times I've seen it. I love the frequent little touches of humour - not the broad goofy stuff like the "Evil Peter" hairdo, mind, but things like the door jamming routine and the cookie girl - which reminded me of the earlier films and showed that Raimi hasn't completely lost touch with them.
The climactic action scene kind of sums Spider-Man 3 up. I like it, but there are certain aspects that really get on my nerves. One such example is the British TV news reporter. Another is the aforementioned moments when Venom speaks. Also Sandman seems to be in the fight just because he's one of the villains and therefore has to be; when he later shows up, rather out of the blue (after having been apparently defeated), he says he was forced into everything, but that doesn't stack up. He may have been trying to get money because his daughter's ill but that doesn't mean he has to help Venom put an innocent civilian (Mary-Jane, again) in peril. Also, his dumb, groaning giant sand creature form reminded me of Mongo, the giant gingerbread man fro Shrek 2, which made him seem kind of laughable. Nevertheless, despite the problems with the sequence, it is still engrossing and fun, and I absolutely love that shot in which Spidey and Venom fall towards the ground, fighting each other all the way down.
Interestingly, the cinema didn't seem very busy today. For the Wednesday after the release of a blockbuster that has broken so many records, that's kind of surprising. It's going to see quite a drop in its second weekend, by the looks of it.
Will Spider-Man Have Legs?
Well, looks like my very first box office prediction of the summer has turned out to be a bit wide of the mark. Great way to start.
According to early estimates, Spider-Man 3 has blasted past the opening weekend record set by Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest last year ($135m), reaping an astounding $148m in North America alone. Include worldwide receipts and it's already made $375m. Wow.
I predicted $125m - I thought it would be a big hit (that would've put it second in all-time weekends) but I personally wasn't hugely hyped for it, so I thought my feelings might be shared by others. I still went to see it on opening day though, and apparently everyone else and their grandmother did too.
Unless it drops like a stone, Spidey 3 looks guaranteed to be the highest grossing film of the series, with the first instalment's $403.7m total to beat. But it may not be a shoe-in, because the general word of mouth hasn't been stellar. Or, at least, the reviews haven't. It's a similar pattern to that of POTC: DMC, because that wasn't particularly well-reviewed but the punters still went in their droves.
If Spidey follows the trend of Pirates, the superhero flick should finish with around $465m (domestic), which surely isn't going to happen. Comic book films tend to be more front-loaded than others, with the most extreme example being last year's X-Men: The Last Stand, which had a surprisingly huge opening weekend of $102m but only made $234m in total. The average big blockbuster these days seems to make about a third of its money in the first weekend, but with Spidey I expect a little more. Add to that the fact that in Spidey's third week Shrek 3 opens in the US, followed by Pirates 3 the following week, and Spider-Man 3 may indeed struggle to top the first film's grosses.
All of which is rather irrelevant, really. More importantly, how good is it? I have to admit, I didn't think it was brilliant. My review spells out my thoughts. Interestingly, despite my underwhelmed-ness, I really want to see it again already. Same thing happened with Dead Man's Chest, and I now like that film a lot.
I have plenty more to say about Spider-Man 3, but I'll keep the numbers to a minimum next time. Honest.
UPDATE: Double wow. Sony underestimated it. The actual total is $151m! It would really have to drop like a stone to not top the first one now.
According to early estimates, Spider-Man 3 has blasted past the opening weekend record set by Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest last year ($135m), reaping an astounding $148m in North America alone. Include worldwide receipts and it's already made $375m. Wow.
I predicted $125m - I thought it would be a big hit (that would've put it second in all-time weekends) but I personally wasn't hugely hyped for it, so I thought my feelings might be shared by others. I still went to see it on opening day though, and apparently everyone else and their grandmother did too.
Unless it drops like a stone, Spidey 3 looks guaranteed to be the highest grossing film of the series, with the first instalment's $403.7m total to beat. But it may not be a shoe-in, because the general word of mouth hasn't been stellar. Or, at least, the reviews haven't. It's a similar pattern to that of POTC: DMC, because that wasn't particularly well-reviewed but the punters still went in their droves.
If Spidey follows the trend of Pirates, the superhero flick should finish with around $465m (domestic), which surely isn't going to happen. Comic book films tend to be more front-loaded than others, with the most extreme example being last year's X-Men: The Last Stand, which had a surprisingly huge opening weekend of $102m but only made $234m in total. The average big blockbuster these days seems to make about a third of its money in the first weekend, but with Spidey I expect a little more. Add to that the fact that in Spidey's third week Shrek 3 opens in the US, followed by Pirates 3 the following week, and Spider-Man 3 may indeed struggle to top the first film's grosses.
All of which is rather irrelevant, really. More importantly, how good is it? I have to admit, I didn't think it was brilliant. My review spells out my thoughts. Interestingly, despite my underwhelmed-ness, I really want to see it again already. Same thing happened with Dead Man's Chest, and I now like that film a lot.
I have plenty more to say about Spider-Man 3, but I'll keep the numbers to a minimum next time. Honest.
UPDATE: Double wow. Sony underestimated it. The actual total is $151m! It would really have to drop like a stone to not top the first one now.
Summer Predictions
As if you didn't know by now, Spider-Man 3 opens tomorrow in the US and UK and looks certain to kick off the 2007 blockbuster season with a bang. I'm getting tired of writing this now, but this summer has the potential to be the best on record by some distance, so I'm going to take this last opportunity before the juggernaut starts rolling to give my final predictions for the major films' grosses.
Film title - US Opening Weekend/US Total/Worldwide Total
Spider-Man 3 - $125m/$350m/$800m
Shrek the Third - $90m/$380m/$800m
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $120m/$390m/$1 billion
Ocean's Thirteen - $40m/$130m/$380m
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - $70m/$160m/$340m
Evan Almighty - $55m/$170m/$340m
Ratatouille - $65m/$230m/$500m
Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard - $35m/$100m/$300m
Transformers - $60m/$160m/$330m
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $100m/$260m/$850m
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - $42m/$120m/$220m
The Simpsons Movie - $60m/$190m/$450m
The Bourne Ultimatum - $55m/$180m/$370m
Rush Hour 3 - $50m/$160m/$260m
And that's your lot, as far as I can see. Knocked Up has good buzz but it lacks star power, and there may be a few others to hit big, but those are the main ones I think. And bear in mind these are just amateur guesses!
Most of these are included and discussed in some detail in my 2007 Summer Blockbuster Preview at Filmverdict. Speaking of which, there's a new review of Next over there.
Film title - US Opening Weekend/US Total/Worldwide Total
Spider-Man 3 - $125m/$350m/$800m
Shrek the Third - $90m/$380m/$800m
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End - $120m/$390m/$1 billion
Ocean's Thirteen - $40m/$130m/$380m
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer - $70m/$160m/$340m
Evan Almighty - $55m/$170m/$340m
Ratatouille - $65m/$230m/$500m
Die Hard 4.0/Live Free or Die Hard - $35m/$100m/$300m
Transformers - $60m/$160m/$330m
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix - $100m/$260m/$850m
I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry - $42m/$120m/$220m
The Simpsons Movie - $60m/$190m/$450m
The Bourne Ultimatum - $55m/$180m/$370m
Rush Hour 3 - $50m/$160m/$260m
And that's your lot, as far as I can see. Knocked Up has good buzz but it lacks star power, and there may be a few others to hit big, but those are the main ones I think. And bear in mind these are just amateur guesses!
Most of these are included and discussed in some detail in my 2007 Summer Blockbuster Preview at Filmverdict. Speaking of which, there's a new review of Next over there.
The Year of The Beef
Shia LaBeouf's been having a good run of luck lately. And his surname is almost the same as the French word for 'the beef' ('le boeuf'). Therefore from henceforth he shall be known as Shia The Beef.
For those unaware, The Beef's latest film, and his first as the proper lead, Disturbia, has just topped the US box office for the third week in a row, which is a rare feat these days. (You can ignore the fact that it was an absolutely terrible weekend where the top film made less than $10 million.)
The film that may confirm 2007 as the Year of The Beef is Transformers. Michael Bay's banking on the young actor to carry the CGI behemoth on his untested shoulders, but the success of the relatively low-profile Disturbia bodes well. I'm still not convinced that Transformers will be that massive (seems like a niche audience to me) but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if the film is good.
Other recent Beef-related news, he's been cast in Indiana Jones 4 - rumoured to be titled Indiana Jones and The City of the Gods, which sounds suitably Indiana Jonesian - by Steven Spielberg, incidentally executive producer of Transformers. All the speculation is that he's playing Indy's son, which sounds logical, if not particularly appealing. Another confirmed cast member is Cate Blanchett, but I'll save my ranting about Indy 4 for another post.
I first saw Mr. The Beef as a young actor in the underrated and underseen Holes, alongside Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight. Since then he's appeared as a fairly superfluous but tolerable sidekick character in I, Robot, as well as popping up in Constantine (which I haven't seen) and Bobby (which I have, and he was quite entertaining in it).
So he may well be on the path to superstardom. And with a name like that, who'd bet against it?
For those unaware, The Beef's latest film, and his first as the proper lead, Disturbia, has just topped the US box office for the third week in a row, which is a rare feat these days. (You can ignore the fact that it was an absolutely terrible weekend where the top film made less than $10 million.)
The film that may confirm 2007 as the Year of The Beef is Transformers. Michael Bay's banking on the young actor to carry the CGI behemoth on his untested shoulders, but the success of the relatively low-profile Disturbia bodes well. I'm still not convinced that Transformers will be that massive (seems like a niche audience to me) but I'll be happy to be proved wrong if the film is good.
Other recent Beef-related news, he's been cast in Indiana Jones 4 - rumoured to be titled Indiana Jones and The City of the Gods, which sounds suitably Indiana Jonesian - by Steven Spielberg, incidentally executive producer of Transformers. All the speculation is that he's playing Indy's son, which sounds logical, if not particularly appealing. Another confirmed cast member is Cate Blanchett, but I'll save my ranting about Indy 4 for another post.
I first saw Mr. The Beef as a young actor in the underrated and underseen Holes, alongside Sigourney Weaver and Jon Voight. Since then he's appeared as a fairly superfluous but tolerable sidekick character in I, Robot, as well as popping up in Constantine (which I haven't seen) and Bobby (which I have, and he was quite entertaining in it).
So he may well be on the path to superstardom. And with a name like that, who'd bet against it?
Suffocation Marketing
Suffocation Marketing - noun. Marketing that is so extensive that you cannot get away from it.
You've heard of saturation marketing? Well I'm attempting to coin a new phrase: suffocation marketing (or as CHUD.com called it, "carpet bombing"). Take a guess which film I'm referring to here.
That's right, Spider-Man 3. If there's anyone in the country who doesn't know it's coming out on Friday, they must be living in a cave. Or Wales. There are posters for it on every street around here (Manchester). That's is not really the point of this post, though. I've got no problem with seeing posters covering every wall, phone box and bus within a 5 mile radius.
What I do have an issue with is the trailers. There have been so many by now (I think four plus a teaser) that I feel like I've seen the whole film, and can certainly take a good guess at how the whole plot pans out. It's inevitably going to take away from the 'wow' factor when I see the film, which is a shame.
The makers were trying to keep Venom's appearance in the film a secret for a while. Now they've just clearly thought 'to hell with it' and chucked in everything and the kitchen sink. It might be the internet's fault - there was endless speculation that Venom was going to be in it - or it might be Kirsten Dunst's fault (she accidentally gave Venom away in an interview). Or maybe they were just planning to spoil the secret anyway.
Think about it: how awesome would it have been if you went in to Spidey 3 not knowing if Venom was going to be in it? His eventual appearance would be brilliant. Now I just have a feeling there are going to be plenty of people complaining he doesn't show up early enough.
I can see why Sony have shown a few glimpses of Venom in the trailers. He's obviously a big selling point. I just wish they'd held back on the trailers a bit and not quite given away so much of the film. Having said that, I've obviously not seen the film yet so they might still be withholding something amazing.
On the other side of the coin, there's Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I know there's still the best part of a month to wait for that one, but so far there's only been one trailer. Disney will probably step up the advertising once Spidey's out, but at the moment I'm sensing a lack of buzz for it (although it's one of my most anticipated films).
It'll be interesting to see what does best at the box office. Last year, Superman Returns was marketed to high heaven, but that smacked of desperation on WB's part, and resulted in a lacklustre opening. POTC then went and stomped all over it. This year, Pirates has stiffer competition.
So, will people be fed up of Spider-Man before it even comes out? Will Jack Sparrow bust the same blocks as he did last year? Does anyone really care??
I do!
(I know I've been talking about Spider-Man 3 and Superman Returns a lot. Sorry about that. Superhero films are taking up a large part of the film space in my brain at the moment.)
You've heard of saturation marketing? Well I'm attempting to coin a new phrase: suffocation marketing (or as CHUD.com called it, "carpet bombing"). Take a guess which film I'm referring to here.
That's right, Spider-Man 3. If there's anyone in the country who doesn't know it's coming out on Friday, they must be living in a cave. Or Wales. There are posters for it on every street around here (Manchester). That's is not really the point of this post, though. I've got no problem with seeing posters covering every wall, phone box and bus within a 5 mile radius.
What I do have an issue with is the trailers. There have been so many by now (I think four plus a teaser) that I feel like I've seen the whole film, and can certainly take a good guess at how the whole plot pans out. It's inevitably going to take away from the 'wow' factor when I see the film, which is a shame.
The makers were trying to keep Venom's appearance in the film a secret for a while. Now they've just clearly thought 'to hell with it' and chucked in everything and the kitchen sink. It might be the internet's fault - there was endless speculation that Venom was going to be in it - or it might be Kirsten Dunst's fault (she accidentally gave Venom away in an interview). Or maybe they were just planning to spoil the secret anyway.
Think about it: how awesome would it have been if you went in to Spidey 3 not knowing if Venom was going to be in it? His eventual appearance would be brilliant. Now I just have a feeling there are going to be plenty of people complaining he doesn't show up early enough.
I can see why Sony have shown a few glimpses of Venom in the trailers. He's obviously a big selling point. I just wish they'd held back on the trailers a bit and not quite given away so much of the film. Having said that, I've obviously not seen the film yet so they might still be withholding something amazing.
On the other side of the coin, there's Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. I know there's still the best part of a month to wait for that one, but so far there's only been one trailer. Disney will probably step up the advertising once Spidey's out, but at the moment I'm sensing a lack of buzz for it (although it's one of my most anticipated films).
It'll be interesting to see what does best at the box office. Last year, Superman Returns was marketed to high heaven, but that smacked of desperation on WB's part, and resulted in a lacklustre opening. POTC then went and stomped all over it. This year, Pirates has stiffer competition.
So, will people be fed up of Spider-Man before it even comes out? Will Jack Sparrow bust the same blocks as he did last year? Does anyone really care??
I do!
(I know I've been talking about Spider-Man 3 and Superman Returns a lot. Sorry about that. Superhero films are taking up a large part of the film space in my brain at the moment.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
