Showing posts with label Marisa Tomei. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Marisa Tomei. Show all posts
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
And Another Poster for 'The Ides of March'
Isn't that just a bit freaky? The way their faces are mashed together like that? But, they blend really well together so it's cool too, and that's a good thing.
We got an internet banner/poster earlier if you want to see that. Same thing basically, but you might like it -- it has this funny kind of 3D or weird visual effect going on cause the two sides are out of focus and what's in the middle is in sharp focus which gives it depth, or something.
This one, though. One of the best posters I've seen in a long time. Nice. Don't know plot details but I'm sure there's some sort of thematic element represented in this poster. Like, the young guy, Gosling, is telling the presidential candidate, Clooney, what to say and what to do, so the public likes Clooney but only cause of what Gosling says and does. Something like that.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking this story is about. One of those movies where the characters are playing each other to get what they want. But, it's not that simple.
First, the Inciting Incident: Character A (Clooney) sets up Character B (Gosling) to get something.
Then: (First Act turning point) A gets what he wants at B's expense. B looks like a chump. A gloats.
B spends the first half of Act II looking bad and sulking around the place.
But then: (Second Act midpoint) B also gets what he wanted all along even though it appeared he was being played for a sucker. Turns out B was the one playing A the whole time and let A think he had won when actually he was being set up by B. A ends up looking stupid and we figure it's all over. B wins, A loses.
However: A wanted B to get what he wanted so that A could achieve his hidden agenda which was something he could only get after B got what he wanted. Now, because A got what he really wanted, B looks stupid (again). Really stupid. A tells B something like, "Look kid. This game isn't about winning, it's about finding out who you really are. And, you're not a winner. I am. That's why I beat you. And that's why you look like a schmuck. Because, that's what you really are. A schmuck. I'm a winner, you're a schmuck. That's what this has been. That's what we've been doing. I've been winning, you've been a schmuck." You know? One of those speeches that comes off really evil but is so clever and smoothly delivered you kind of like the guy that delivers it even though he's being a complete tool. (I can just see George Clooney delivering a speech like that. You know. Like in 'Out of Sight' when he was a crook, a bank robber, but he was so smooth when talking to the bank teller, telling her what to do, what kind of bills to put in the bag, and to stay calm and everything was going to be alright, and how he said 'no dye packs' but it wasn't like a rude demand but more like a polite request, and he didn't even use a gun but was so cool and intelligent and had that buttery voice and those eyes that the teller was captivated by that she practically wanted to give him the money, and they were flirting while he was robbing her and he even asked that she smiled and try to look friendly and she smiled but it wasn't forced but natural because she was so charmed she couldn't help it, and you kind of liked him and rooted for him even though he was robbing a bank). One of those speeches.
So now, even though the speech was really smooth, we hate A for what he did to B and we want him (A) to burn.
But: (Third Act twist/reversal) B knew all this all along and allowed A to think he was playing B for a fool (again), except it was B that was playing A for a fool so that B could achieve his hidden agenda which was only possible if A thought he had accomplished his hidden agenda. So now, B looks great and A looks like a clod.
Thing is, though, A looks so bad now we sympathize with him and hate B. Well, we kind of hate both A and B, but mostly B, at this point.
And, you know, the tag on the cover of Time: Is this man our next president? plays into all that. This man? There's two men. So, just who are we voting for? The front man or the guy with all the brains who's pulling the strings, making things happen? And just who is pulling the strings, making things happen? A or B? That's the point. We can't tell. Hell, things are so complicated they don't even know. We don't know, they don't know. It's all sort of a cosmic 'Things happen the way they're supposed to happen no matter how conniving or smart you think you are' thing. And that's the thematic stuff represented in the poster with the two faces jammed together so it's hard to tell where one man's identity stops and the other's begins. Like they've spent so much time and energy fooling everybody you can't tell who's who anymore. And the lesson of all this is: don't scheme so much you forget who you are and make your life so miserable you can't tell yourself from your worst enemy. Or, something like that.
So, that's what the movie is about. But, wait!
Theeeen: (big reveal at the end of Act III) Turns out character C (most likely female -- some cutey-pie [there's a couple in the movie -- Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, maybe a couple more] that nobody figured had a horse in this race cause she's just too cute to be smart enough to compete with the big smart men) winds up being the one that was playing both A and B to get what she wanted all along.
Now both A and B look terrible, which is good cause we hate both of them and C looks great which is okay with us cause she's really pretty and was such an underdog that nobody even took her seriously -- which makes everyone in the audience feel wonderful, and everyone wakes up the next morning with a 'fuck you get out of my way cause I'm a winner and you're a schmuck' attitude which is how movies are supposed to make us feel and we all go out and make the world a better place which is what movies are supposed to make us want to do so it all works out for the best.
The End.
Okay, I don't know the play Farragut North by Beau Willimon, which the movie is based on, or the political maneuvering that the play is based on. I'm not that kind of guy. I just know this movie, based on the imagery in the poster, must play out along the lines described above. I like to do that -- I like to try and guess what stuff is about from just a couple clues or a small amount of data, like what's in a poster or trailer. That's the kind of guy I am.
Anyway...nice poster. Don't know why there's so much negative space on the left side, though. That's kinda weird. But, I like it anyway.
We got an internet banner/poster earlier if you want to see that. Same thing basically, but you might like it -- it has this funny kind of 3D or weird visual effect going on cause the two sides are out of focus and what's in the middle is in sharp focus which gives it depth, or something.
This one, though. One of the best posters I've seen in a long time. Nice. Don't know plot details but I'm sure there's some sort of thematic element represented in this poster. Like, the young guy, Gosling, is telling the presidential candidate, Clooney, what to say and what to do, so the public likes Clooney but only cause of what Gosling says and does. Something like that.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking this story is about. One of those movies where the characters are playing each other to get what they want. But, it's not that simple.
First, the Inciting Incident: Character A (Clooney) sets up Character B (Gosling) to get something.
Then: (First Act turning point) A gets what he wants at B's expense. B looks like a chump. A gloats.
B spends the first half of Act II looking bad and sulking around the place.
But then: (Second Act midpoint) B also gets what he wanted all along even though it appeared he was being played for a sucker. Turns out B was the one playing A the whole time and let A think he had won when actually he was being set up by B. A ends up looking stupid and we figure it's all over. B wins, A loses.
However: A wanted B to get what he wanted so that A could achieve his hidden agenda which was something he could only get after B got what he wanted. Now, because A got what he really wanted, B looks stupid (again). Really stupid. A tells B something like, "Look kid. This game isn't about winning, it's about finding out who you really are. And, you're not a winner. I am. That's why I beat you. And that's why you look like a schmuck. Because, that's what you really are. A schmuck. I'm a winner, you're a schmuck. That's what this has been. That's what we've been doing. I've been winning, you've been a schmuck." You know? One of those speeches that comes off really evil but is so clever and smoothly delivered you kind of like the guy that delivers it even though he's being a complete tool. (I can just see George Clooney delivering a speech like that. You know. Like in 'Out of Sight' when he was a crook, a bank robber, but he was so smooth when talking to the bank teller, telling her what to do, what kind of bills to put in the bag, and to stay calm and everything was going to be alright, and how he said 'no dye packs' but it wasn't like a rude demand but more like a polite request, and he didn't even use a gun but was so cool and intelligent and had that buttery voice and those eyes that the teller was captivated by that she practically wanted to give him the money, and they were flirting while he was robbing her and he even asked that she smiled and try to look friendly and she smiled but it wasn't forced but natural because she was so charmed she couldn't help it, and you kind of liked him and rooted for him even though he was robbing a bank). One of those speeches.
So now, even though the speech was really smooth, we hate A for what he did to B and we want him (A) to burn.
But: (Third Act twist/reversal) B knew all this all along and allowed A to think he was playing B for a fool (again), except it was B that was playing A for a fool so that B could achieve his hidden agenda which was only possible if A thought he had accomplished his hidden agenda. So now, B looks great and A looks like a clod.
Thing is, though, A looks so bad now we sympathize with him and hate B. Well, we kind of hate both A and B, but mostly B, at this point.
And, you know, the tag on the cover of Time: Is this man our next president? plays into all that. This man? There's two men. So, just who are we voting for? The front man or the guy with all the brains who's pulling the strings, making things happen? And just who is pulling the strings, making things happen? A or B? That's the point. We can't tell. Hell, things are so complicated they don't even know. We don't know, they don't know. It's all sort of a cosmic 'Things happen the way they're supposed to happen no matter how conniving or smart you think you are' thing. And that's the thematic stuff represented in the poster with the two faces jammed together so it's hard to tell where one man's identity stops and the other's begins. Like they've spent so much time and energy fooling everybody you can't tell who's who anymore. And the lesson of all this is: don't scheme so much you forget who you are and make your life so miserable you can't tell yourself from your worst enemy. Or, something like that.
So, that's what the movie is about. But, wait!
Theeeen: (big reveal at the end of Act III) Turns out character C (most likely female -- some cutey-pie [there's a couple in the movie -- Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, maybe a couple more] that nobody figured had a horse in this race cause she's just too cute to be smart enough to compete with the big smart men) winds up being the one that was playing both A and B to get what she wanted all along.
Now both A and B look terrible, which is good cause we hate both of them and C looks great which is okay with us cause she's really pretty and was such an underdog that nobody even took her seriously -- which makes everyone in the audience feel wonderful, and everyone wakes up the next morning with a 'fuck you get out of my way cause I'm a winner and you're a schmuck' attitude which is how movies are supposed to make us feel and we all go out and make the world a better place which is what movies are supposed to make us want to do so it all works out for the best.
The End.
Okay, I don't know the play Farragut North by Beau Willimon, which the movie is based on, or the political maneuvering that the play is based on. I'm not that kind of guy. I just know this movie, based on the imagery in the poster, must play out along the lines described above. I like to do that -- I like to try and guess what stuff is about from just a couple clues or a small amount of data, like what's in a poster or trailer. That's the kind of guy I am.
Anyway...nice poster. Don't know why there's so much negative space on the left side, though. That's kinda weird. But, I like it anyway.
.
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
New Trailer for 'Crazy, Stupid, Love'
Just when you think you have a movie pegged they roll out a trailer with a whole different vibe that zigs when you expected it to zag.
So far, trailers for 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' have had that wacky sex comedy thing going on and it was working just fine. The movie looked like it was for the average everyday person and pivoted on crude jokes and predictable skits spiked with appropriate raunchiness, one-liners, slapstick-y physical gags, and had a fun kinda dirty pop/dance sorta 80s soundtrack. It seemed to be another Steve Carell summer popcorn vehicle that happened to include indie regulars Julianne Moore and Marisa Tomei for depth and credibility (along with the very solid and very indie Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone). And, icing on the cake, Kevin Bacon.
I was fine with that. The movie looked funny, easy to digest, and we can always use one of those.
In this new trailer, though, the movie plays like a smart observant indie with slow-burn comedic flare and subtly drawn characters that negotiate slice of life situations without missing a beat, and heartfelt performances that aren't out for crude laughs but keep you giggling at bits that feel real and have that 'Oh, yeah, I've been there' feel, featuring an introspective alternative soft-rock soundtrack that you're a little embarrassed to admit you really like. Here, Carell isn't the star carrying the movie but part of an ensemble. Moore, Tomei, Stone, and Gosling (and, icing on the cake, Kevin Bacon) aren't guests in a big summer comedy but at home in a cozy quirky intelligent dramedy (albeit one laced with raunchiness) about love, sex, marriage, and family. It's as funny as the first trailer and, if anything, more appealing.
Which would I rather see? Seems I can have both. I'm there.
So far, trailers for 'Crazy, Stupid, Love' have had that wacky sex comedy thing going on and it was working just fine. The movie looked like it was for the average everyday person and pivoted on crude jokes and predictable skits spiked with appropriate raunchiness, one-liners, slapstick-y physical gags, and had a fun kinda dirty pop/dance sorta 80s soundtrack. It seemed to be another Steve Carell summer popcorn vehicle that happened to include indie regulars Julianne Moore and Marisa Tomei for depth and credibility (along with the very solid and very indie Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone). And, icing on the cake, Kevin Bacon.
I was fine with that. The movie looked funny, easy to digest, and we can always use one of those.
In this new trailer, though, the movie plays like a smart observant indie with slow-burn comedic flare and subtly drawn characters that negotiate slice of life situations without missing a beat, and heartfelt performances that aren't out for crude laughs but keep you giggling at bits that feel real and have that 'Oh, yeah, I've been there' feel, featuring an introspective alternative soft-rock soundtrack that you're a little embarrassed to admit you really like. Here, Carell isn't the star carrying the movie but part of an ensemble. Moore, Tomei, Stone, and Gosling (and, icing on the cake, Kevin Bacon) aren't guests in a big summer comedy but at home in a cozy quirky intelligent dramedy (albeit one laced with raunchiness) about love, sex, marriage, and family. It's as funny as the first trailer and, if anything, more appealing.
Which would I rather see? Seems I can have both. I'm there.
.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Monday, May 23, 2011
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Trailer for 'Crazy, Stupid, Love.'
With Steve Carell, Julianne Moore, Marisa Tomei, Ryan Gosling, Kevin Bacon, and Emma Stone
.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Quick Cut Trailer for 'The Lincoln Lawyer'
I'm sensing trouble with the story here. Super-fast cuts are used to promote action pictures, especially ones with lots of eye candy vfx. TLL clearly isn't that kind of movie. It's loaded with dialogue-heavy scenes, I suppose a certain amount of procedural police/courtroom stuff, and some violence.
TLL doesn't deserve the quick cut trailer treatment. It doesn't fit for this type movie.
Problem is, first trailer was much more conventional, with far longer cuts, and the story it was selling bored me. Going the other way hasn't helped. What is it about the story that can't support a normal trailer?
If they're trying to entice the target demographic, which is used to seeing flashcut trailers for movies like, say, 'Fast and Furious', I don't think it'll work. Those guys can sense when they're being taken for a ride. If the target demo is 30-somethings, well, they're looking for story, and the trailer doesn't really promote that. Besides, does that age group really want to see this movie?
It's a jangly campaign for a movie that occupies a gray-zone as far as who it appeals to. Curious to see what the strategy will be for rollout of future promo materials.
Marisa Tomei is certainly a draw.
TLL doesn't deserve the quick cut trailer treatment. It doesn't fit for this type movie.
Problem is, first trailer was much more conventional, with far longer cuts, and the story it was selling bored me. Going the other way hasn't helped. What is it about the story that can't support a normal trailer?
If they're trying to entice the target demographic, which is used to seeing flashcut trailers for movies like, say, 'Fast and Furious', I don't think it'll work. Those guys can sense when they're being taken for a ride. If the target demo is 30-somethings, well, they're looking for story, and the trailer doesn't really promote that. Besides, does that age group really want to see this movie?
It's a jangly campaign for a movie that occupies a gray-zone as far as who it appeals to. Curious to see what the strategy will be for rollout of future promo materials.
Marisa Tomei is certainly a draw.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
