[drewprops]

Okay.
This isn't a movie review (yet), it's a TRAILER review (for now).

Here in the US they're playing a preview for the third installment of the Brendon Frasier driven Mummy series, arguably the series with the best claim of inheritance to the Indiana Jones series. The first two had the right mix of effects, comedy, fright, and adventure.

So of course the first time I saw the trailer I was jazzed.
The idea of using Chinese mummies was fun and a good way to move away from Egypt.

But that's where the word "good" stopped working.

The trailer is too long.
It gives away the entire story.
The glib banter between characters is predictable.

The surprise and delight of the first installment has not survived through to this last film...

...and all of this has been inferred by the trailer alone.



Anybody else with me on this?


.

[Brad]

Yeah, I saw this trailer with the Indiana Jones movie earlier this summer. Yup, the trailer gives everything away and the characters feel stale. I'm right there with ya', Drew.

And again we're getting another Hollywood dead-horse beating. Rehash successful movie, rinse, repeat. Ugh.

[chucker]

I thought they should have left it at one movie.

[psmith2.0]

I saw, and enjoyed, the first two "Mummy" movies (the first one especially). But this one really doesn't excite me. Fraser seems to be on auto-pilot here, the smart-ass kid from the second one has apparently grown-up and seems to be a smart-ass teenager (pretty much my least favorite thing on the entire planet, in case anyone was wondering ) and Rachel Weisz appears to have flown the coop (although she's been replaced by the equally luscious Maria Bello, so that's pretty much a wash).

But it just looks like a big, loud and dense CGI orgy, and believe I've had my fill of those for the year, starting back in May with Tony Stark's little creation...

The first "Mummy" movie is one of those borderline-perfect "guilty pleasure" movies that just comes out of nowhere and is 100% fun to watch. I remember seeing it at the theater and feeling quite "Raiders of the Lost Ark" about it: thrilling, funny, a few jolts, fun action, nice banter and dialogue, etc. I've enjoyed it on TV a few times over the years as well. The second one, less so for all sorts of reasons (but still an okay, fairly enjoyable flick if you're in the right sort of mood).

But I'm just not really wound up about this third one, to be honest. The trailer kinda makes my head hurt.

[tomoe]

I think they should have stopped prior to making the first movie.

[Moogs]

The first one was mildly amusing... but seriously... it's Brendan Fraser. You can't exactly expect the guy to carry a franchise.

[psmith2.0]

Come on, he could've easily made four more "George of the Jungle" and "Dudley Do-Right" flicks, Moogs! The man has "franchise" written all over him.



But seriously, I'm kidding.

[tomoe]

Originally Posted by Moogs ... but seriously... it's Brendan Fraser. You can't exactly expect the guy to carry a franchise.

Exactamundo!

[Brad]

While we're on the subject of horrible Brendan Fraser movies, has anyone else seen the trailer for "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? When I first saw it, I thought to myself, "Well, this movie has absolutely no redeeming value," but then I saw this updated trailer and changed my mind.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Brad While we're on the subject of horrible Brendan Fraser movies, has anyone else seen the trailer for "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? When I first saw it, I thought to myself, "Well, this movie has absolutely no redeeming value," but then I saw this updated trailer and changed my mind.

That's awesome.

Poor Jules Verne, though.

[drewprops]

Of interest to no one and absolutely tangential to the point of my own thread:

As a complete matter of chance I am currently reading the English translation of 'Journey to the Center of the Earth'... so I was jazzed when the trailer first started rolling, before I figured out it was one of those "in name only" projects.

[zsummers]

Originally Posted by Brad While we're on the subject of horrible Brendan Fraser movies, has anyone else seen the trailer for "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? When I first saw it, I thought to myself, "Well, this movie has absolutely no redeeming value," but then I saw this updated trailer and changed my mind.

"Journey's melting the Earth!"
"We gotta go!"

Awesome. I saw it coming and it was still awesome.


On an only semi-related note, I once picked this Verne classic: From the Earth to the Moon. It was in my school's library and hadn't been checked out since the 1950s. I believe it's badly translated title was actually "From the Earth to the Moon, Around the Moon, and Back Again." It was great, and I remember being somewhat astonished by reading about how close some of his predictions were (and how far off some were--like launching the rocket with a huge pit of gunpowder that took weeks to fill).

The story is also notable in that Verne attempted to do some rough calculations as to the requirements for the cannon and, considering the total lack of any data on the subject at the time, some of his figures are surprisingly close to reality. However, his scenario turned out to be impractical for safe manned space travel since a much longer muzzle would have been required to reach escape velocity while limiting acceleration to survivable limits for the passengers. The story bears similarities to the real-life Apollo program: Verne's cannon was named the Columbiad; the Apollo 11 command module was named Columbia. The spacecraft crew consisted of three persons in each case. The physical dimensions of the projectile are very close to the dimensions of the Apollo CSM. Verne's voyage blasted off from Florida, as did all Apollo missions. (Verne correctly states in the book that objects launch into space most easily if they are launched from the earth's equator. In the book Florida and Texas compete for the launch, with Florida winning.)

I suggest Fraser try this one out, perhaps in real life.

[SKMDC]

I mean....He's Canadian! for Crissakes.

I've always wondered who he had photos of fornicating with corpses to keep his career going! But I love Monkeybone! and I enjoyed the first two Mummy movies and actually liked the idea of Jet Li in the new one. I haven't looked it up but I think the Mummy movies are the only movies he's ever been in that made money. (which of course is no measure of quality)
Frasier is actually admired in Hollywood for being the consummate "Green Screen" actor! Will Smith seeks out his consultation.





(I made the part up about Will Smith, but not the part about his Green Screen skills)

[709]

I liked him in Gods and Monsters, and thought he was pretty funny in whatever that movie was with Elizabeth Hurley as the devil, but yeah, he's kind of predictable.

I'll see The Mummy III, it'll be about as good/bad as Hellboy II, and I'll leave the theatre wishing I'd waited for it to come out on DVD.

Oh yeah, the OT...yes, I've noticed a lot of trailers nowadays give the whole movie away, especially action-movies for whatever reason.

[Xaqtly]

I'm going to see the Mummy 3 for one collective reason: Jet Li and Michelle Yeoh. Apparently they're going to fight each other for the first time in their respective careers. So uh, yeah, I'm going to see it.

[psmith2.0]

I get tired of the "lazy, stock trailer". We've all seen them dozens of times...they follow a formula: ominous on-screen words (seems to have replaced the "in a world..." voiceovers here lately), big bass drum/heart beat, scenes fading to black, some sort of "realization" moment (a gasp, shock, door opening, gunshot, tagline, etc.) and then launch into a quick-cut montage of all the best action scenes/money shots in the entire movie (pretty much giving everything away) - always with that operatic chorus thing going - and then a final funny/scary/eye-popping line of dialogue or stunt, or a big "money shot" type of visual designed to make you go "ohmigod, that's Captain Kirk!" or whatever.

I used to love trailers (one of my favorite things about going to movies). But now, with the Internet, I can see them any time (and as much as I want), and I've kinda come to realize how many of them truly just suck and really wind up doing the opposite from what they were designed ("That looks like the most idiotic thing I've ever seen; mark that down on the list of stuff to skip!")



If it's a comedy, it does this, this and that.

If it's an action movie, expect this, that and that other thing.

If it's an Oscar-bait drama, then you're going to get this and this (Diane Keaton, a Paula Cole song, some snow, probably somebody dying, "I never really learned how to say I love you...it was inside me all along", beach running, middle-aged women dancing to a Motown song, etc.)

You can tell by the mood, voiceover (if any) and typography, within the first 2-3 seconds, kinda what you're in for.

If it's a "wacky family comedy", look for a big red poochy font and a hopped-up/nitrous oxide-assisted voiceover ("from the producers who brought you Robin Williams and Owen Wilson's last six shitfests, comes the story of a little boy, a magic tricycle and one craaaaazy monkey, Bobo the Hip-Hop Chimp! This summer, they'll save the planet!"



Piss off.

[murbot]

Originally Posted by Brad While we're on the subject of horrible Brendan Fraser movies, has anyone else seen the trailer for "Journey to the Center of the Earth"? When I first saw it, I thought to myself, "Well, this movie has absolutely no redeeming value," but then I saw this updated trailer and changed my mind.

Oh man, thanks for that site. I'm diggin' Iron Ma'am

[BlueRabbit]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 I get tired of the "lazy, stock trailer". We've all seen them dozens of times...they follow a formula: ominous on-screen words (seems to have replaced the "in a world..." voiceovers here lately), big bass drum/heart beat, scenes fading to black, some sort of "realization" moment (a gasp, shock, door opening, gunshot, tagline, etc.) and then launch into a quick-cut montage of all the best action scenes/money shots in the entire movie (pretty much giving everything away) - always with that operatic chorus thing going - and then a final funny/scary/eye-popping line of dialogue or stunt, or a big "money shot" type of visual designed to make you go "ohmigod, that's Captain Kirk!" or whatever.

This trailer for the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie says more or less the exact same thing you just did, except with pictures to go along with it. In my opinion, it's one of the best trailers ever.

[SKMDC]

michelle yeoh is in it as well?
I'm there, she should be in more western movies.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, I like her. Quite sexy.

I won't lie...when I first read your post, SKMDC, I thought "why in the hell should she be in more western movies...she doesn't really even look the part", but then it hit me what you were actually saying. But I was, for a second or two, sitting here thinking "High Noon", "Open Range", "Tombstone", etc. and how Yeoh would fit into that.



Yes, I'm an idiot.

[psmith2.0]

Man, they're promoting this thing like crazy the past few days. Any time I've got the TV on, I see a trailer.

But do you know what's a bit odd? They're not mentioning Maria Bello at all. I find that strange because a) she's got better acting chops than Fraser (that might be why), b) anyone who saw "A History of Violence" or "The Cooler" will no doubt want to see her some more and c) she's a Golden Globe-nominated actress and seen as a solid performer (see "a"). She's not considered box office "poison", is she?



I've not seen one trailer or promo item (web ad, one-sheet, theater lobby standee, etc.) with her featured, or even mentioned. Is Rachel Weisz so popular that the producers are afraid of letting on that she's not in this one? I can't imagine that being the case...

I'd put her name above Fraser (and possibly Li) if this was my movie. Especially if she puts on that cheerleader outfit again...



BTW, only the greatest picture ever...Maria Bello and Mariska Hargitay? Did I die...is this heaven?

Just move in three more inches, ladies.

[SKMDC]

That movie Maria Bello was in with Viggo Mortensson, she has wondrous nipples man.

I'd watch Michelle Yeoh in anything. (Silver Hawk? awful! but I watched it all the way.) She is aging in the most graceful way, I think she's 45 or so, young by my standards but Hollywood would have pitched her to the curb by now.

edit= I just looked up Maria Bello to find that movie with Viggo, it's History of Violence, and I just realized she's over 40!

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, there is nothing wrong with Ms. Yeoh (other than she looks like she might've stolen one of Dwight Yoakam's jackets ). I hope she doesn't start up with the "refreshening procedure" merry-go-round. So many actresses looked amazing (Marg Helgenberger and dozens more) and they hit 40 and start getting stuff injected, removed, pushed around, lifted, cut, sliced, repositioned, etc. and before long they don't even look like themselves anymore. Sad.

I think a few lines around the eyes and mouth is sexy as can be. And looks 10x better than that crazy-ass fish pout or the "scared out of one's mind" eyes/eyebrows look you see so many sporting. So unnatural, and, frankly, it really only calls more attention to your aging...it looks worse and more noticeable - like you're desperate and trying so hard - all these procedures, than to just take care of your skin and body naturally and age with some grace and acceptance. That's much more attractive, because of what it says and the message it sends ("this is me; I'm real...deal with it"). But Hollywood is weird and expects some whacked-out take on "age and beauty".



I think the first place I saw Maria Bello was that Mel Gibson movie where he went after Kris Kristofferson and the mob (William Devane and James Coburn also starred). She played a call girl and Gibson's character used to drive/bodyguard her. It comes on TNT quite a bit these days. "Payback", I believe.

[psmith2.0]

Hey, a quick head's up...Fraser is going to be on Leno tonight. And, looking at the schedule/roster thingie at NBC.com, it appears he will be playing second banana to some lady from Sea World with her animals.



If that's the case, that's just funny because "big movie stars" (especially if they've got a huge, new movie out or opening that week) always get the first slot, then Jack Hanna or Joan Embrey or whatever "second tier"/Amazing Big Survivor reject/castoff guest is slated, and then the show is closed with a musical act.

But tonight, it'll be otters, a pelican and a penguin pooping all over the stage, and then Brendan Fraser (they usually list the proper order of guests on NBC's site, and they're showing Fraser second, after all the above).

Ouch.

"Jay, I know I've made a shit movie that nobody was asking for, but come on...I really have to follow the Sea World gang? Johnny never had Jimmy Stewart walk out and having to step over kangaroo shit...".