Mondo Poster for 'The Avengers'

Here's the Black Widow Poster by Olly Moss. Fantastic. Simple lines, thematic, graphic. Tagline "From Russia with guns" is too too.

.

Swinging Italian Poster for 'The Rum Diary'

I complain about it all the time. Our posters for our own movies suck when compared to international versions. Take 'The Rum Diary'. We get a weird conceptual shot of a half naked Johnny Depp with his ass to the camera:

The Italians get this grooving take:

Man, that's cool. We can't get posters this fun? Really, which poster would make you more inclined to see the movie?























.

Tom Hodge's Poster for 'Would You Rather'

From his blog:

To create a different sort of design i looked at a lot of the old polish posters and Swiss 'Plakatstil' stlye designs of the 60s, i also wanted to take a swing at the modern 'new wave' minimal icon poster designs. I really wanted to create a visual which had this totally alternative aesthetic if it was a clean edged poster i don't this it would reflect the dark nature of the movie so i wanted to give it that old screen printed style with the colours out of registration to reflect that... clean and minimal but twisted to giving it a more sinister and unnerving edge!

.

Tom Hodge's Poster for 'Cell Count', 'King of New York' DVD/Blu-Ray

I'm a fan of Hodge's work since 'Hobo with a Shotgun' and 'The Innkeepers'. Here's a very fine one sheet for 'Cell Count' and Tom's write-up.

And the DVD/Blu-Ray limited edition of 'King of New York'

.

'John Carter' Poster by Hopko

This is the first thing from this movie that I've liked. Very nice -- simple, thematic, gets the point across instantly. Good layout, color, nice graphics -- compelling. By Hopko.

This makes me want to see the movie.

.

'Black Gold' Finally gets a Good Poster

We've had several variations on a theme. First attempts were concerned with action and location.





























Problem is it's too generic. It says, 'old-timey desert fighting'. That doesn't tell us much -- we don't know what's at stake. And, that biplane is a little off-putting for most audiences. You gotta have a good reason to want to see a movie with a biplane, and this poster doesn't supply that. Also, that the story revolves around oil is hardly apparent -- you can't really tell that's an oil well on the left side of the sun. And, there's no sense of character -- necessary considering the storyline:

Set in the 1930s Arab states at the dawn of the oil boom, the story centers on a young Arab prince torn between allegiance to his conservative father and modern, liberal father-in-law.

Next poster takes a swipe at adding a sense of character:

See the guy on the camel raising his rifle defiantly? That's got to be Antonio Banderas (we can't see his face, but I'll hazard a guess) and the fact he's raising his rifle denotes character, leadership, a willingness to fight, etc. I'm sure of it. It must. Right? Sure... Personal conflict and character? -- check.

Also fixed is the lack of clarity concerning oil. Yes, yes. We get it. There are now, count them, six oil rigs. This movie is about oil. Can't miss that.

Improved as well is the biplane -- now in some sort of mechanical peril. You can tell because it's trailing smoke. Ooh!

Taken together, these improvements are exciting, but alas...mechanical. There's no sense of sweeping drama, we don't have a central character to connect with (aside from the anonymous camel rider with a rifle), and the disparate elements amount to boilerplate conflict.

They addressed these issues with the next poster:

Ah. Very David Lean. And! we can see faces. There are identifiable people we can connect with. Much better, but kinda soap-opera-y, and still with that biplane (although, in fairness, it looks like it's starting its attack run instead of about to fall out of the sky, which, you know, is gripping, edge-of-your-seat, and all). The oil-drilling equipment has been reduced in number, thankfully, and (to offset the cutback) set on fire to make up for it.

Still the poster just doesn't have a spine and seems a bit busy. Whereas we didn't have any faces in previous posters, now we have too many. Who are all these people? Is one of the guys a conservative father and the other a modern thinking father-in-law? They look kinda young for those roles. We don't know. If they're not fathers, who are they? We just don't know. That's a lot of uncertainty for one graphic.

You know what really spoils this poster, though? Freida Pinto: right smack in the middle of all that macho posturing. She's a distraction, and a prominent one at that. Doesn't belong. Love Freida, but she's not right in this rendition. It's just off. Don't think so? Disagree? I offer as exhibit #1: (Speaking of David Lean) the poster for 'Lawrence of Arabia'

See? No women. Love interests, romance, not included. Okay, I guess there isn't such an element in this movie, if memory serves. Some major bro-mance to be sure, what with Peter O'Toole, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, and Omar Sharif all making eyes at each other, yes, but no women (I think. It's been a while). Anyway, there's no 'meet my better half' silliness in this great one sheet.

You have to admit, the Lawrence approach works. You see this poster and you goddam well want to watch the movie. Take my money, dammit!

Yeah. It's just a bit pandering to sell the 'girlfriend' in a poster for such a movie. We want romance, yes, but not the 'she's my main squeeze' type. We want the grand classic idealistic brand of romance.

And this next poster, finally, gets the mix just right. A very fine effort.

Good work. A nice combo of the action elements from the first poster with a very romantic (in the dramatic sense) Antonio Banderas? (the only identifiable face thank you very much). And, taking a cue from O'Toole of Arabia, he has sword in hand, leading men into battle to fight for honor, all with a sense of sweeping drama, far away lands of yore, chivalry, one lone oil rig (surrounded by smoke but, apparently, not on fire), and (still)...that damn biplane. That plane better be important.

I feel like watching something. Where is that DVD of 'Lawrence of Arabia' anyway?

.

'The Meat Merchants of London'

When I saw the first still from 'Burke and Hare' it looked like the kind of movie I might enjoy on a Saturday afternoon. 'Turn Cadavers Into Cash!' I said. With John Landis directing I was sure this would be worth a look -- clever, fun, well-cut. How could it miss with the guy that did 'The Blues Brothers', 'Animal House', and a little ditty called 'An American Werewolf in London' at the helm?

Saw trailer yesterday, and it's fun, but too silly. Too 70s. Sight gags, physical schtick. 'Animal House' bits without the cool setting. That's where the problems start. The setting and title are a turn off for this kind of material. Goofy slapstick -- best set today, no accents, no cobblestone streets -- and give it a cool title. The target audience doesn't want to see a period piece even if it's a wacky comedy (well, not in this country at least, I don't think), especially one called 'Burke and Hare'. That title sounds like a startup law firm looking to hire a couple more partners. Look at Landis' other titles. Animal House is killer. An American Werewolf in London says it all and makes you want to see the product. Those are cool titles.

Let's try out some alternative titles for poor Burke and Hare. How about 'Body Sellers' -- too 'Fatal Attraction'. Or 'Death Dealers' -- too 80s shoot em up. 'Death Duo'? 'Corpse Croppers'. 'Body Buddies'? (Okay, that's a no go).

I know. 'Meat Merchants'. Yes. That's way better. Let's tweak it a bit: 'The Meat Merchants of London'.

Okay, we have a better title. Now comes the poster. More silliness. With Andy Serkis doing the pop-star pointing at the audience thing (as if that's going to work), and Simon Pegg smiling at us as if we know who he is. They need to work up their trumps, which ain't the two leads. These guys aren't mainstream. The average moviegoer probably wouldn't even recognize them. So. What to do. Play the schtick card. This guy:

He's dead, body broken backwards with his, um, parts thrust up in the air. What could be funnier? So, why put him in the background behind the two barely recognizable leads? Put him up front.

Reminds me of that shot of Cameron Diaz with her hair all sticky from the 'hair gel' in 'There's Something About Mary':

That's funny. Way. If any image helped sell 'Mary' it was this one.

Okay, B&H has to be in old England with the accents and cobblestone streets and it's too late to change the title, but if they want anyone to see this movie they got to play their ace up front.

Give us more of the dead upside down guy. Put him up front and use Pegg and Serkis like they were unknown actors -- put them in the background (preferably with a bucket of poop on their heads and a straight-man disgruntled look on their faces).

The Killer Inside Me

It's getting to the point where everything Casey Affleck is in is a must-see. It's his eyes, I think. The way they belong to the character he is portraying.

Kate Hudson and Jessica Alba never seemed more on. And, this poster...

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work

Looking forward to this.

Keep It Simple

I see this poster and I immediately like it. It sums up what the movie is about. The character appears to be running away, (as opposed to chasing someone). He is facing (our) left and is moving to our left yet is placed poster-left, leaving the majority of empty space behind him where an unseen antagonist is giving chase.

If you look at what is behind the character all you see is out of focus highlights. This creates uncertainty and enhances the feeling one is being followed. It also lends more power to the antagonist. That is, the bad guy is frightening enough for the protagonist to run like hell despite the fact we can't see that anyone is giving chase.

The shot is done with a telephoto lens the way a sports photographer would cover an event, which creates an objective feel -- the viewer is watching from a distance (where it's safe), more of a disconnected observer, and is not an integral part of the action. This isolates the character from us making him appear more alone, more separated from anyone who might care or watch out for him. The telephoto lens also creates compression, which is the illusion that distant objects are the same distance as close ones. This ramps up the sense that the character is being chased because whatever is behind him appears closer than it really is -- a typical nightmare scenario.

The character's index finger is on the trigger of the pistol. A rather uncool thing considering the normal 'finger alongside the weapon, flat and off the trigger, very cool and benefiting from lots of training' look usually favored in the movies. This yields a gritty feel that conveys the gravity of the subject matter -- appropriate in the current environment. Of course, this may have been done simply to avoid having the character look as if he did not have an index finger on his right hand as it would not have been visible if it were flush against the far side of the weapon. Even if that was the case, the end result still works despite being a convenient side-effect.

Another effect that stands out is the use of vertical lines across the entire poster. These are the kind of lines you see if you look closely at a CRT video monitor.

Read the rest

Appaloosa Poster

I don't know. The layout doesn't do that much for me. I don't like that the revolver is half-cocked (not that anyone would ever notice that). But, 'Feelings get you killed'? Come on. Please come up with something else or make the font on that tagline much smaller.

Nice, But A Tad Over Literal

Here's the international poster for 'Eagle Eye'. I like everything about it better than the domestic poster except for the terribly on-the-nose 'protag runs away from starburst/explosion' element. On the other hand, maybe ours (below) is just too damn conceptual for its own good. Hmm. That's a lot of thinking about movie posters. I should seek help.

Anyway, modify/soften the over-literal bit of above poster and you have a winner.

And Now, Some Misdirection

No way can they bring back Gort as he appeared in the 1951 original. The figure in the poster is an image projected onto smoke or mist that resembles Gort but this may be the producers' way of paying homage to the robot's character while doling out some misinformation. There may be a robot in the remake but I can't imagine it will look like Gort -- that's just too dorky for a movie today.

Blindness

I haven't liked this idea too much. Based on a novel by Jose Saramago, the story is pretty intellectual and heavy. (I knew before I checked that this movie was based on a novel) -- not a good sign. This will be a tough sell. Release is in September when audiences are burned out from summer CGI spectacle, but still, it's hard to imagine people will want to see this one.

I do like the poster, though. There is a series of them with the same motif, but Moore's is the most compelling. I'm pretty sure the images used for this series are not stills from the movie but were created specifically for the posters. Hats off to the photographer (sorry I don't know who he/she is). It must be a bit daunting for a still photographer to direct a Hollywood actor.

Here is a trailer:

Not So Much A Poster

It's not so much a poster for 'The Dark Knight' as it is a conceptual trading card for The Joker. It has what all good portrait photographers strive for -- it captures character and makes you feel like you know the subject.

What's notable is that, even though the focus is not on the eyes, it's difficult to look into them -- they hint so strongly of The Joker's malcontent and hidden motives. This is yet another tribute to Ledger's depth of performance. An unconventional, beautifully executed portrait.

Dark Knight Poster

What a beauty.

Not So Righteous Posters

All around the net the talk re: 'Righteous Kill' goes like this: Element 1) De Niro and Pacino haven't been in full form for about ten years, and Element 2) I'm still kinda sorta looking forward to this movie.

Okay, fair enough. I have to agree these guys did some of their best work in Michael Mann's 1995 crime opera 'Heat', and, I'm hoping 'Righteous Kill' will be good.

However, early signs aren't so good. The two poster workups that have been released are flat, without direction, and lacking focus. Take poster 1, at the top:

The running ink running from the stars' names implies a slasher/horror element -- doesn't belong. Movie has a killer element, not slasher. Also, this is the kind of graphic used in small indy pictures -- doesn't belong on this poster. The ink runs into De Niro's face but not Pacino's -- implying De Niro will die, but Pacino will not -- not right (even if it's true). Also, the 'drips' are clearly drawn -- drawn to look natural (and creepy), like running ink, but clearly drawn -- it's forced and bad.

De Niro is standing in front of Pacino -- shouldn't be, they should have equality. Not only that, Pacino's face isn't fully in frame -- his hair is cropped out. (It's fair to say a movie stars' hair is part of his face). Hello. Who slapped this together? Very sloppy work.

The grainy look is not appropriate for a slick crime thriller that takes place today. Would be more appropriate for a political drama that takes place, say, in the sixties.

The snags of ink coming off the title at the bottom imply a psycho-technological element as in 'Silence of the Lambs' -- doesn't fit. This movie has a human psychological element, but not a tech-psycho element -- lacks focus.

The roller-painted red highlighting of the title at bottom is random looking at best. An afterthought, probably.

Okay, now poster 2:

First the headline: 'The most acclaimed actors of our time in the film event of the year'. Do you think we're stupid? Any movie that calls itself the 'film event of the year' is a lost cause. A movie has to earn that title after it opens, not before. This type of slugline is meant to separate the most gullible audience from their cash on the first weekend, before word-of-mouth kills the picture.

The selling point 'From the writer of Inside Man' just doesn't click. 'Righteous Kill' is being marketed to a broad audience -- they don't know what 'Inside Man' was. Besides, the poster screams 'De NIRO PACINO'. How can you follow that by trying to sell the movie as being written by a particular writer (unless the guy wrote a super-hot genre thriller and has the same name recognition as De Niro or Pacino). Lacks focus.

And, what is that backdrop? A tarp? What does that mean? All that does is confuse the viewer.

What's with the fancy handwriting? Are we supposed to read that? It looks like the preamble of a constitution. Are we supposed to wonder what it's there for? Is the movie about someone who writes in such a manner? This is a total gaffe. These people are trying to sell a cop thriller with fine curvy handwriting -- done with a fountain pen or an actual quill pen (dipped in ink and everything), no less.

I do like the way the title at bottom is cracked and corroding -- this fits. Implies the corrosion of moral values and the rules by which society works, the law. This element works.

These posters send a clear message: "Stay away, this movie barely holds together, spend your money on something else, don't be one of the chumps that has to admit they saw 'Righteous Kill' in the theater."

Come on, guys. Get your shit together and make a decent poster for this movie. This is just plain lazy. Movie opens in September -- you've got time to fix the damage you've done.

Point And Listen

Yahoo Movies has a point and listen version of 'The Spirit' poster featuring Eva Mendes, Scarlett Johansson, Jaime King, and Sarah Paulson saying the most wicked things. Really...it's quite racy. Not for the faint of heart.

Evolution Of Stardust Poster

Here's a good look at the evolution of a movie poster. A few weeks ago Anne Thompson asked for opinions about this poster. I said I thought it was too busy in places, had a couple poorly placed elements, and had dead corners.

Below is new version.

They removed the two characters on the right of Michelle Pfeiffer -- good but it's still too busy. They got rid of the hand on the spoke of the ship's wheel -- distracting to say the least. All good, but the real problem is the two guys between Robert De Niro and Pfeiffer -- these guys detract from the relationship between the two stars. Would suggest moving the two stars closer (make De Niro bigger) and, if they must be in the poster, put the two guys in the new space created on the left of De Niro.

One of the 'poorly placed elements' in the first poster was the sword held by character on the right -- it cut into the sun in the center, adding a jangly feel. They fixed this in the second poster but would have done better to get rid of the sword altogether (two swords in one frame should be crossed or at least pointed at one another).

The other weak element was the protagonist in center of sun -- he was the main point of focus but was too small to command attention (also, the original layout did not give enough weight to the 'boy meets girl' element of the story). Both problems are fixed in second poster.

However, with the correction of one problem comes the creation of another. Main character's sword is now pointing off in a random direction, which leaves the protagonist vulnerable to attack from the guy with sword behind him -- just not right. Sword also points in same direction as the shooting star that cuts across the title -- redundant -- protag should have a more open stance (as is he appears to be trying to shield the woman from us -- alienating the audience) with his sword pointing to our right, toward the other character who is holding a sword, and pointing in the opposite direction of the shooting star. This would give the composition a lot more energy.

Color was changed to a more friendly blue which both brightens the formally dead corners and implies a magic/fantasy element. It's way better than the orange color of the first poster -- which didn't convey anything.

Still, poster would benefit by removing the ship's wheel and maybe even the sun. Make the character on right smaller and/or move him down so his head doesn't block Pfeiffer's hands (I mean, really). Would consider a second lightning bolt on upper right side to give some balance (and imply Pfeiffer's character is as dynamic as De Niro's).

The poster is much better, but still needs tweaking.

Poster Needs Work

There's something(s) way off about the poster for 'The Invasion'. The font, for instance -- too clean, looks like a good choice for a musical set in the near future. The digital 'melt' effect of the bad guys at top of poster is too photo-shopped looking, also too clean. The placement of the two stars is very retro, like what you would have seen in the 50s. Their faces take up too much space (I didn't want to say 'their heads are too big'). Craig's head should be lowered so there's less vertical space taken up.

Taglines, clunky -- also seem like they're from the 50s when an audience would have had to have been told what to expect from a new genre.

'Do not trust anyone'. -- we already knew that. Being unable to trust anyone is de rigueur for paranoid thrillers.

'Do not show emotion'. -- well, duh. You don't joke with zombies or people whose minds have otherwise been commandeered. As for laughing or crying, please. We know we have to be stonefaced around the living-impaired.

'Do not fall asleep'. -- okay, that's pretty good. The 'avoid REM sleep' thing is alright. That should probably stay.

Okay, on to layout. The title at the bottom doesn't work here. Should be moved to the traditional placement below the names of the stars at the top of poster. Should also be shifted off-center, probably to the left, to work with the arrangement. Also, put it all on one line. Stacking the 'the' on top doesn't work -- there's plenty lateral space, not much vertical space. (On second thought, title should stay in the center -- composition should be changed so it will look good in center).

Okay, from the look on her face I don't think she's too happy with my suggestions, but I have just a couple more.

The color scheme is too simple, too flat -- there's just too much red. Try adding some depth and layers, use some dark purples with very grayed-down green around the edges (something that says 'My soul no longer exists').

Daniel's head is floating in space -- give some definition to his shoulders. (And, what's with Craig's expression? Not very paranoid, heroic, or 'you can't trust me even though you think you can'. What does that expression say? 'Look, I think there's a parking spot half a block up on the right.')

Where's the 'mother protects her child' element seen in the trailer? This poster makes the movie look like it's all about the relationship between Craig and Kidman, when the trailer hardly shows this at all. Trailer emphasizes the relationship between Kidman and her son. Come on, guys. This is Movie Poster 101 stuff.

Net effect: looks like someone slapped this together on a laptop in their spare time. Please apply above fixes.