Posted on

“Dolittle” Trailer Review!

We’ve grown so accustomed to Robert Downey Jr. being a movie-star, it’s hard to imagine him ever losing that status. But Dolittle seems intent on sending Downey back to obscurity, with a lonely January release date, and a poorly executed trailer that showcases bad CGI, and a badly exaggerated British accent from Downey, who is clearly much more comfortable in a suit of iron armor: and can we really blame him? The role of Iron Man was tailor-made for the actor – whereas that of Dr. Dolittle is perhaps better suited to someone like comedian Michael Sheen, who will actually have a prominent voice role in Dolittle.

There is charm in this newly released trailer, and a sense of wonderment that is appropriate for the material: too often, these days, even the smallest, most intimate stories get turned into big-budget CGI spectacles – the first look at The Secret Garden is a good example of a low-stakes children’s classic rudely transformed into a mindless mess of visual effects wizardry. So in that regard, perhaps it’s encouraging that Dolittle is going in a different direction, with shots pulled straight from the pages of a fairytale – specifically, I’m thinking of the adventures of Sinbad, since Dolittle also has a sea-faring journey at its heart, as well as a faux-Indian setting (along with all its traditional, if rather stereotypical accouterments, such as hungry tigers, golden palaces, lavish banquets, and a malicious prince with dark eyeliner played by a non-Indian actor).

Now, it’s worth noting that this trailer, despite being two minutes long, mostly consists of large animals hurrying about without rhyme or reason. It seems that Dolittle will be called upon by the Queen of England to find a cure for a mysterious illness by traveling the seven seas with his menagerie of talking animals, but absolutely none of that is even hinted at in the trailer. Instead, we listen to a rendition of “What A Wonderful World” (a great song, but overused), while Dolittle himself mumbles almost incoherently about how it’s okay to be scared (meanwhile, his sailing ship is literally being torn to pieces by enemy warships, and he’s just crashed out on the deck in a clumsy 19th Century diving-suit: personally, if I were in such a situation, I think I’d be trying to get away as fast as possible, rather than just sitting about, but whatever; you do you, Dolittle).

I mean, one thing to look forward to is the all-star cast: but almost all of them are voice roles, and does Emma Thompson even count? She’s in literally everything these days: it’s almost like we take for granted that “obviously, Emma Thompson’s in this movie too”.

So what do you think? Is RDJ a good fit for the role of Dolittle? Is this movie going to be a hit or miss with modern audiences? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Trailer Rating: 4/10

Posted on

“Jungle Cruise” Trailer Review!

I’m just gonna say it, loud and clear: Jungle Cruise will be a billion-dollar blockbuster summer juggernaut next year. Even if the trailer had not been good, it would probably still crush its competition and rake in plenty of cash for Disney – but the trailer is fantastic.

I knew it was going to be good when Emily Blunt, decked out in her most Indiana Jones-esque fashion, came onscreen wielding a gigantic spear, trying to steal an ancient Amazonian arrowhead from a team of archaeologists in London. Having Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson as her unwilling traveling companion hilariously trying to swindle her out of £15000 is also exceptionally fun – Johnson is an excellent comedian. We even catch a brief glimpse of Jack Whitehall as Disney’s first openly gay character, though he has no lines just yet. But for me, the main selling point for this film is adventure.

During the interminable wait until Indiana Jones 5, I have been waiting for a new, epic adventure movie: one with high-stakes, danger, action, a dash of humor, and all the thrills that Disney has to offer. And, perhaps unsurprisingly, a movie based off a theme park ride delivers up all that, and more. There’s huge waterfalls, giant snakes, and a warrior god protecting a magical tree in the Amazon Rainforest: is that not what your heart has been secretly hungering for these past few years? I literally breathed a sigh of relief watching this trailer, realizing that I’ve wanted this for so long. Jungle Cruise looks like it will manage to give us all the fun that we expect from classic adventure movies, but with modern sensibilities: including the appropriately diverse cast of heroes.

My only complaint, as of right now, is that the actual cruise boat is a bit smaller than I had imagined – that’s entirely my fault, though: for some reason, I was picturing some majestic Mississippi riverboat sluggishly moving down the Amazon…off the top of my head, I can’t recall whether any such vessels were ever actually built for travel on the jungle waterways, so perhaps for once Disney might actually be kind of historically accurate? Or, more likely, it’s just cheaper and easier to build an itty-bitty little jungle cruise than a gigantic one.

So the real question is not whether you will see Jungle Cruise, because I have no doubt that everyone will at some point, but whether or not you will see it simply because it’s a Disney movie, or because this trailer actually does an awesome job promoting this film. In this day and age, great trailers aren’t necessary to boost a film into the billion-dollar club (looking at you, Aladdin and The Lion King), but Jungle Cruise can’t be hindered by the fact that its marketing campaign is off to a great start. Share your thoughts and opinions in the comments below!

Trailer Rating: 9.5/10

Posted on

“Charlie’s Angels” Trailer Review!

Months ago, when we got our first look at Charlie’s Angels, as reimagined for modern audiences by director Elizabeth Banks, I had no idea what to expect, no idea what to critique, and what to compliment. I had never watched a single second of footage from the two previous Charlie’s Angels movies, or the 1970’s TV show that started it all. Well, I’m proud to say today that that has changed, and that, thanks to Netflix, who always seem to conveniently release older movies just when they’re relevant again, I have watched both of the original films. They’re bad movies: they’re cheesy, ridiculous, and laughable – they’ve got sexist and racist overtones, and are unabashedly and sometimes even uncomfortably intended for the male gaze: so it comes as no surprise that, unburdened by a male director, the modern Charlie’s Angels is quite the opposite of the two films that precede it.

I completely agree with what Banks is trying to do with the franchise, bringing in more diversity, focusing significantly more on the women themselves rather than their relationships with men, and shaking things up in the general premise of the plot.

Now, on the flip-side, Banks also seems to have gotten rid of one of the more unproblematic elements of the first two films: the crazy, over-the-top action that made those movies actually watchable – there were some iconic and clever fight scenes in those films, made possible through CGI wizardry and a lot of wire-work: the Angels repeatedly verged on becoming superhero ninjas, even defying the laws of gravity – the fact that there are not one, but two scenes in those films where the Angels successfully climb onto a helicopter in mid-air, is proof of that. And yes, it’s so hilariously implausible that it’s hard not to laugh, but isn’t that what made the series fun? But Banks has chosen to focus less on cool action-sequences than on “party vibes”, which is an okay route to go, I guess, but doesn’t compare to the sword-fights, race-car duels and motorbike murder from the first two films. And with actresses like Kristen Stewart and Naomi Scott in this movie, is Banks seriously going to rob us of any cool fight sequences with the two?

And at the same time that the film is straying dangerously far from its roots into uncharted territory, the trailers are also extremely confusing: for one thing, Ariana Grande, Miley Cyrus and Lana Del Rey all show up in this new trailer – except, their footage appears to be taken straight from the music video they did for the film’s hit song, “Don’t Call Me Angel”. So, um, are they in the movie…or not? I mean, I guess it makes sense, since the song is pretty much the only thing that has so far captured the public’s attention, so capitalizing on that is a surefire win…but also kind of perplexing, since audiences who haven’t watched the music video are now going to think that those three, popular singers are in the movie – or maybe they are! Who knows?

So, the trailers are almost definitely going to be a miss for many people, and long-range box-office tracking predicts that Charlie’s Angels itself will be a miss: I mean, honestly, it looks decent. What it lacks is brand recognition, action, and cohesion. What do you think? Are you going to see the film, or will this angel’s wings be broken at the box-office?

Trailer Rating: 5.9/10

Posted on

“Onward” Trailer Review!

Pixar is going all out on the sob-factor in their new, humorously quirky, vaguely unsettling trailer for Onward, a film about two brothers trying to resurrect their deceased father in a world full of magic, mischief, and angry unicorns. And it’s a good thing they are, because it’s all they’ve got so far.

As in the first trailer, I’m still not seeing much about the actual concept that feels entirely unique – yes, it’s turning common fantasy tropes upside-down and giving them a funny twist, but…it’s been done. The unicorns raiding trash cans, the biker gang of fairies, the pet dragon: I mean, maybe it’s just because I read a lot of Terry Pratchett’s work, but “mundane magic” doesn’t feel extremely high-concept anymore. But, of course, Pixar isn’t relying solely on setting to sell this story – no, they’re relying on human tears to fuel this movie at the box-office.

In this new trailer, we watch Ian and Barley Lightfoot, our Elven protagonists, as they attempt to use a magic staff to bring their father back from the dead for a single day – but, this being Pixar, the plan backfires, and what they’re left with is a pair of sentient ghost legs that will probably make us all cry ourselves to death in the theater, but for the moment just look…kind of creepy, to tell you the truth. That situation is not alleviated when the brothers attempt to disguise the legs by giving their dad a fake body composed of several sweatshirts, jackets and a pair of glasses – am I supposed to stifle a sob at the sight, or tremble in terror? Honestly, I’m not sure.

Yeah, and then, um, I think somebody gets decapitated? And also burned to a crisp? I’m not entirely sure what to think of that, but the impression I’m getting is that, for all of Onward‘s yoga trolls and casual cyclops (cyclopses? cyclopsis?) this world is actually quite dark and dangerous: after all, it wouldn’t really be Pixar without somebody dying or getting killed in the opening sequence – though, as we recently learned from Toy Story 4, even some of the studio’s most nightmarish villains get served up justice.

The trailer gives us a bit of humor, mostly resulting from the highly awkward scenario of having to travel around with a pair of legs, searching for the top half of a ghost. But the actual jokes are pretty weak – probably because Pixar is saving their best ones for the movie-going experience. The studio has often been accused of having weak trailers for great films, and I hope that Onward is no different: sure, it might look a little derivative right now, but who’s not going to see this film at some point, whether in theaters or on streaming? Are you?

What do you think of the trailer, and what are your thoughts on the genre? Share your thoughts in the comments below!

Trailer Rating: 6/10