Trailer Tracking 4: The Best and Worst in Recent Movie Trailers by Tom Burns
Here at The Deadbolt, we take movie trailers pretty seriously. How seriously, you may ask? First of all, while we totally acknowledge the general public's right to talk amongst themselves during the Coke and Moviefone commercials preceding the film, the second that the "Coming Attractions" reel begins and the lights slightly dim, we demand total silence. TOTAL. Screw in-theatre etiquette. That deep green "The Following Preview..." screen is a portal into a holy land, a world of limitless potential, where all movies seem shiny and new, and even clunkers like White Noise look like they might actually be Michael Keaton's comeback vehicle. That sacred realm must not be tainted by cell phone chatter, Blackberry vibrations, or cross-aisle discussions of whether or not you want the large for a quarter more. Coming attractions deserve your respect and, if you won't comply... well, there's not much we can do. But we'll totally give you the stink-eye for the rest of the feature and, if we're feeling particularly bold, we might cough into our hands and call you a "douche" at the same time. Oh yeah, we're that hardcore.
As such manly and intimidating trailer devotees, we here at The Deadbolt thought we’d take a look at some recent coming attractions and rundown what we’re excited about, what underwhelmed us, and what we’re planning to avoid – based on these terrific (and not-so-terrific) previews, first looks, and trailers. Join us as we spew some praise (and some bile) at the best and worst of what we’ve seen recently.
Trailer That It's Almost Pointless to Criticize - The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
It's almost impossible to judge the trailer for The Mummy 3: Mummy Takes China within your typical definitions of the words "good" and "bad" - a dilemma that really sheds light on how much subjectivity there is in the world of coming attractions. Granted, normally, you can look at a preview and judge it pretty easily. Was it entertaining? Did it make me want to see the movie? Was my intelligence insulted in the two minutes and twenty-two seconds they had to make their pitch? Those are fairly easy questions to answer. But when you're watching the trailer for The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor, you can't escape the overarching question: "Well, what the hell were you expecting?" Is the trailer for The Mummy 3 bat-sh** ridiculous? Yes. But so were the first two Mummy movies. If this was a stand-alone adventure, without the past Mummy franchise behind it, I'd probably be tearing the preview to shreds. ("Yetis AND three-headed dragons? One or the other wasn't enough?") However, the previous Mummy films have been so self-consciously goofy, silly, and completely illogical, that it's not really fair to fault The Mummy 3 for keeping the tradition alive. If you liked the other Mummy movies, you'll probably like the trailer. If you didn't, you won't. Simple as that.
So, since we can't fault any of the trailer's silliness - including the fact that, thanks to the dual miracles of Hollywood make-up and hair pieces, Brendan Fraser looks about ten minutes older than his son - what can we bitch about? I have two main complaints. First off, maybe I'm being a Universal Classic Monster purist, but aren't mummies supposed to be wrapped up in bandages? How the hell does Jet Li coming back from the dead technically make him a mummy? Second - even though the movie itself looks like a ridiculous clusterf*** of CGI action scenes (the dragon really does look pretty cheap) - the biggest red flag in this trailer is the phrase "A Rob Cohen Film." Not that the previous Mummy director, Stephen Sommers, was Kubrick or anything, but he definitely was able to tap into a silly Saturday morning serial vibe that really did work for the series. Cohen, on the other hand, is the director behind such self-important snorers as XXX and Stealth. I have no faith in the man's ability to deliver the same kind of slapstick thrills that Sommers brought to the other Mummy adventures. And plus, having the movie's official website at "robcohenthemummy.com" already sounds conceited and lame. (Someone HAS to have already bought the domain rights to "robcohenthedummy.com", right?)
Final verdict: We can't blame Universal for returning to the Mummy franchise, we can't blame Rachel Weisz for weisz-ly passing on this chapter post-Oscar, and we can't blame the trailer for being a bit ridiculous. However, we can blame Cohen if he fails to deliver the twelve-year-old boy, logic-be-damned adrenaline rushes that were the hallmarks of the previous Mummy films. The Mummy movies are by no means classics, but, since they obviously do have a hungry fan base, let's hope that Cohen doesn't screw things up too badly.
The "Didn't You Learn ANYTHING from John McTiernan's Rollerball" Trailer of the Month - Death Race
Um... Paul W.S. Anderson? What the hell are you thinking? Now, granted, you've always been known as Paul Anderson the Lesser (thanks to that stupid emo P.T.A. Anderson and his "award-winning" movies), but your movies have generally had a sort of pretense-free badness that almost makes them fun to watch. (And, yes, all of your movies are B-movie bad, and we're including Event Horizon.) The Resident Evil movies, Mortal Kombat, Soldier - they all exist in such exaggerated fantasy or sci-fi realms that it's hard to fault them for being a little crazy. (Boy, this is starting to sound like our Mummy 3 review, eh? Previews for August movies tend to look alike.) So, given your history, why the hell did you decide to dump the sci-fi aspect in your remake of Roger Corman's classic Death Race 2000? Talk about a bad decision.
And the sad thing is... I can see why you did it. Someone - some lame-ass goateed screenwriter or development exec - convinced you that, in the era of reality TV, the idea of a televised competition like Death Race, in which convicts are given tricked-out, weapon-laden cars and try to kill each other, isn't that "sci-fi" anymore. "We're almost there, man," that anemic little told you. "It's so much more relevant to set it in today's world." But, here's the thing - that's total bulls***. A televised demolition derby to the death is still a very, very silly concept. However, if you set it in a sci-fi world, the story becomes an allegory, the silliness is excusable, exaggerations become understandable, and we wouldn't blink an eye at Jason Statham driving around a car with a rocket launcher. But trying to make the concept look plausible in today's world - it's simply bulls***. It's EXACTLY the same problem that John McTiernan ran into with his abortion of a Rollerball remake, and Paul the Lesser, you should've known better.
And the real-world setting isn't the trailer's only problem. Aside from the fact that Joan Allen's appearance as the jail's warden makes us really, really sad for the state of her career, the rest of the trailer looks like a weird mish-mash of Running Man, The Longest Yard, and the Stone Cold Steve Austin classic, The Condemned. The color palate is gray and miserable, Jason Statham loses all of his bad-ass-ness by being a whiny "innocent man convicted for a crime he didn't commit," and the introduction of the female navigators, straight from the pages of Maxim, who they apparently ship in from the women's prison almost completely negates the movie's decision to set the story in the "real" world. Should've gone sci-fi, Paul. We would've been much, much more forgiving.
