Trailer Breakdown: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

After the smash hit of the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the early 2000s, it was only a matter of time before director Peter Jackson brought The Hobbit to life as well. As one can imagine, Jackson has split the story into three separate films, the first of which - subtitled An Unexpected Journey - will be released this December. Here's the first, and still only, full-length trailer available for the film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind after watching the trailer:

1. At the end of the day, The Hobbit trilogy is going to be compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy whether it likes it or not, so why not tackle that right now? How will this new "franchise" hold up in comparison to its predecessor?

When you take a look back at the accomplishments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it can seem a bit staggering. Combined, those three films won a total of seventeen Academy Awards and have earned over $2.9 billion at the worldwide box office. You can make the argument that The Lord of the Rings is the franchise of the 21st century, and you probably wouldn't have many naysayers. All that being said, how will The Hobbit fare in comparison? I think the hype leading up to this first film will bring plenty of people to the theaters, but the overall success of the continued franchise will rely on how well-made An Unexpected Journey proves to be.

2. Why is this new saga being released so long after The Lord of the Rings? Will that affect its popularity?

There are a number of reasons that Peter Jackson probably waited this long to bring The Hobbit to audiences, many of which probably deal with his work schedule. In the time between The Lord of the Rings and now, he directed both 2005's King Kong and 2009's The Lovely Bones, both of which were rather grand in stature. After spending so much time creating The Lord of the Rings, the guy probably needed a bit of a break. Seeing as The Hobbit has, like its predecessor, all been shot at once, Jackson ultimately just needed the time to take on such an endeavor.

Now, as to the question of whether or not the nine-year delay between The Return of the King and An Unexpected Journey will have any affect on this new film's popularity, I have a few mixed feelings. Normally, I'd want to say that it will have no bearing, and the recent buzz makes it seem as though there are quite a few people excited for this film. However, in a world where franchises like Spider-Man are being rebooted only five years after the previous installment, it's really hard to say how today's "younger" audience will take an epic feature like The Hobbit. Teens and young adults are sure to be a key demographic for The Hobbit, but these people were only pre-teens or younger when The Lord of the Rings was released. Who knows how they'll respond to a film like this. 

3. Why is Jackson crafting The Hobbit into a trilogy rather than the original plan of a two-parter?

To be honest, I'm still trying to figure this one out. When the announcement for a third Hobbit film was made, Jackson stated, "It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, 'a tale that grew in the telling.'" He hopes that using three films will allow him to tell more of the story, but it's left a lot of people scratching their heads. From a pure standpoint of source material, we can see why a The Lord of the Rings trilogy made sense: it was already separated into three books with a combined page count of over 1500. The Hobbit, however, is a stand-alone story that tops out at 310 pages, making it shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books individually. How can Jackson possibly craft two films, let alone three, out of such a small amount of material? This one has all the feel of a grab for more money, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. 

4. At least the film seems to have the same vibe as The Lord of the Rings, right?

From this lone trailer, I think we're seeing a lot of the same pieces we got from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I think that bodes well for the carry-over audience. At the end of the day, most fans of a franchise want to see something similar to what they've already loved, and The Hobbit presents a very strong possibility for such. The trailer seems to show a good mix of drama, comedy, adventure and action, all of which made The Lord of the Rings such a success. If The Hobbit can dial into that vibe, there's no limit to what success it may enjoy.

5. Doesn't it seem like there are a lot of characters bouncing around?

That was one of my first real issues with the trailer. We're introduced to a number of characters right from the start, and they come flying at you at a very rapid pace. While The Lord of the Rings had a slew of key central characters, it never really felt like there were too many. Everyone played their role, and it all balanced quite well. This trailer, however, makes it seem like there are a few too many new pieces entering the canon, and that may cause a bit of confusion for movie-goers. 

6. Is anyone from the cast of The Lord of the Rings returning for The Hobbit?

While a lot of the talk should be about the newer characters - namely, Martin Freeman as a younger Bilbo Baggins - many people are going to wonder which of their favorite characters will be making appearances this time around. Heavily featured in the trailer is Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf, so we can be sure to see plenty of him. Also noticeable are the returns of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Andy Serkis as Gollum. And according to the cast list, we should be seeing appearances by Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood and Ian Holm. So we'll see how that goes, I suppose.

At the end of the day, none of us can truly be sure as to what's going to happen in The Hobbit, and we can't know for sure just what kind of an impact it will have. Although I wasn't a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I do find the films entertaining, and I understand their impact and presence on the cinematic landscape. For that reason, I am excited for, and am eagerly awaiting, the release of The Hobbit this holiday season.

The Hobbit is currently slated for a December 14, 2012 release here in the United States.

Trailer Breakdown: RED DAWN

One of the latest trailers to hit the Internet is the first for the upcoming remake, Red Dawn, which is directed by Dan Bradley and stars Chris Hemsworth. As I usually do with these trailer breakdowns, I'll be bringing up some questions concerning the film just after the trailer. To start, take a glance at this first look of the new film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer:

1. To start, what is Red Dawn?

As I previously stated, Red Dawn is an upcoming action flick that serves as a remake of the 1984 film of the same name. This film will center on an apparent invasion from the North Korean army that lands in a small, nondescript American town. An on-leave Marine (Hemsworth) visiting home gets caught in the middle of the attack, and he leads a rag-tag group of survivors in a strike against the enemy. This follows the basic plot and concept of the original film, with the key difference being that the foe in the 1984 venture was the Soviet Union, not the North Koreans. 

2. How will this film hold up against the original film?

The original Red Dawn film holds the illustrious status of being the first film released in the United States to achieve the newly-created PG-13 rating. It earned this rating after being considered, at the time, to be the most violent film ever made according to the Guinness Book of World Records, which states it holds a rate of 2.23 violent acts per minute. Made on a very modest budget of $4.2 million, the film managed to return nearly $40 million at the box office, making it a financial, if not critical, success. Considering the nature of the storyline, critics were divided on the film, which currently holds a fifty-three percent approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com. Still, there are some pretty lofty goals in there for this new Red Dawn to achieve, but will it be able to stand up next to its predecessor?

3. Considering the state of today's political society, how will this film be met by critics and audiences?

In recent years, the threat of a North Korean attack on the United States has always been on the back-burner with the news, and in light of the North Korean's recent misfire with their missile testing, I wonder whether this film's release is timely or not. In a way, the film is taking the idea of a possible attack and bringing it to life, following it through by showing that a small group of young Americans can take down an entire section of enemy army. I have a feeling that the film will be met by heavy resistance from the critical community, but there should be factions of audiences that will probably fall in love with the concept.

4. Plot Issue: This trailer makes it seem as though the North Korean army has a personal vendetta against the main family. Why would they?

The trailer clearly shows Hemsworth's character's father (seemingly) being murdered by a Korean military leader in execution style. The scene then jumps immediately to Hemsworth uttering, "They messed with the wrong family." I have a bit of an issue with this: Why would an army bent on taking over an entire country waste their time with one individual family? I'm sure the film will concoct some way to make it all make sense, but based off the trailer, it already seems a little bit silly. Still, it could easily make for a more emotional piece, but I can't see any way that this subplot won't be a cheap attempt at drawing that emotion from the viewer. 

5. Where does this film place Chris Hemsworth on the Hollywood scene? 

To answer this question, I'd like to take a look at Hemsworth's brief filmography. He made a memorable appearance in 2009's Star Trek, but it wasn't until his starring role in 2011's Thor that he became a household name. That name only grew with the release of The Avengers and Snow White and the Huntsman, both action films that showcased his ability to be an action star. If Red Dawn manages to be a success, it should solidify Hemsworth's status as the next big thing in action, and with sequels to Thor and Snow White and the Huntsman already in the works, he shouldn't have a problem continuing that particular vein of success.

6. How will the rest of the cast play out?

We're actually getting some relatively big names in this particular venture, and it should be a cast that performs well. Most prominent are the inclusions of Josh Hutcherson - fresh of the success of The Hunger Games - and Jeffrey Dean Morgan, but we're also going to see the likes of Josh Peck and Adrianne Palicki. In an action movie, acting sometimes gets shoved off to the wayside, but here's to hoping that this cast can bring something of value to the screen.

7. How will first-time director Dan Bradley handle the film?
After making a bit of a name for himself as a stunt coordinator, Bradley had the opportunity to go behind the camera with Red Dawn, making this his first directorial effort. I've seen many a first-time director make a quality film, but there's plenty more who have failed miserably. Given the type of film, I'd be a little worried that this first venture might be a bit underwhelming, but with his background in stunts, I'd say that the visual effects and stunt work should be top-notch.

8. At the end of the day, will Red Dawn just be another dumb, big-budget action remake?

This is always going to be the biggest question for a film like this. Remakes are always going to be taken with a grain of salt, and while it can be done, it's tough to make a quality remake. People are going to remember the source material in a nostalgic way, so to top an original film, a remake has to be something truly spectacular. Will Red Dawn be able to do just that? My money's on no, but I've been wrong before. 

Red Dawn will hit theaters in the United States on November 21, 2012.

Trailer Breakdown: DJANGO UNCHAINED

It's been three years since his last film, but Quentin Tarantino looks to come back with a vengeance with the Christmas 2012 release of Django Unchained. The first trailer for the film has finally been released, and I've taken the liberty of watching it a few times through to try to get a decent sense of what we may be getting once the film hits theaters. For starters, let's take a look at the trailer itself, shall we?

And now, let's talk about it a bit. I've come up with a few questions that came to mind while watching the trailer, and I'll do my best to answer them as accurately as I can. 

1. What is Django Unchained?

Although I'm sure many of you already know the basic plot outline, I'll recap what we're given from the trailer: 

A bounty hunter (Christoph Waltz) enlists the help of a former slave (Jamie Foxx) to find a number of slave owners with bounties on their heads. In return, the bounty hunter will help the former slave free his wife (Kerry Washington) from the clutches of an evil plantation owner (Leonardo DiCaprio) who now holds her captive. 

Knowing Tarantino, there's definitely going to be a bit more to the plot than that, but there's a good starting point for those of you curious about the film's storyline. The film is inspired by the 1966 spaghetti western Django.

2. What's up with the music in the trailer?

The first thing I noticed is that the trailer holds quite a bit of more contemporary music than one would imagine for a film of this genre. Normally, I'd think nothing of it considering Tarantino's normally brilliant music selections, but after his 2009 film Inglourious Basterds, which utilized a number of more rustic scores for the soundtrack, I had a feeling he might be going down that road again this time around. Still, this is only the trailer, and we'll have to wait and see just what Tarantino has in store for the film's soundtrack, but we can be sure it'll fit seamlessly into his storyline. 

3. Christoph Waltz is back. Is this the start of an ongoing Tarantino/Waltz collaboration?

Christoph Waltz has been acting for years and years, but most of his work prior to 2009 took place in either Germany or his native Austria. His supporting role in Inglourious Basterds, which landed him an Academy Award, revitalized his career and brought him into the international mainstream. Since then, he's appeared in sub-par films like The Green Hornet, The Three Musketeers and Water for Elephants as well as the stellar Carnage, but his role in Django Unchained looks like it might rival the one he crafted for his Oscar-winning turn. And we all know that Tarantino has a penchant for keeping some actors around his films. We can see Tim Roth and Steve Buscemi in both Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction. And I think everyone knows about the continued collaboration between Tarantino and Samuel L. Jackson, who will also appear in Django Unchained. So, if Waltz wants to continue working with the director, I honestly have no problem with it.

4. Will this film revitalize Jamie Foxx's career?

I've generally liked what Jamie Foxx has managed to do as an actor, but since his Oscar-winning turn as Ray Charles in 2004's Ray, he's had much less success in garnering critical praise despite appearing in larger films like 2005's Jarhead and 2006's Dreamgirls. His last role was in 2011's Horrible Bosses where he portrayed a man named - and I kid you not - Dean 'Motherf---er' Jones. If anybody is in desperate need of a push, it's Foxx, and hopefully the role of Django can help push him back over the hill.

5. Is Leonardo DiCaprio playing a villain? 

All signs point to yes, although this isn't exactly a revelation. Tarantino hasn't been shy about letting the world know he's bringing the three-time Oscar nominee into the fray as the film's antagonist, and everything I've seen thus far makes it seem as though this could prove to be one of DiCaprio's best roles yet. It will also mark the first time in his acting career that he'll have portrayed a film's villain. Sure, he's played shady characters before, but to be the outright bad guy is something a little out of his area of expertise. But with his talents and with Tarantino's direction, this could be the surprise performance of the film.

6. What genre will Django Unchained fall under?

That's actually a pretty good question. It's currently being listed as a dramatic western, but if the trailer is any basis, then there should be an ample amount of comedy. Tarantino's screenplays often hold a legitimate level of humor, and that's part of what makes his films so entertaining and engaging. For example, the trailer shows two clips that offer the following two lines uttered by Foxx's Django: 

(when asked whether he enjoys bounty hunting)

"Kill white folks, and they pay you for it? What's not to like?

(when asked his name)

"Django. The 'D' is silent."

So I would say be prepared to laugh. At the same time, however, there should also be quite a bit of action. Django, the film that inspired this particular venture, was once billed as the most violent film of all time, and we all know just how much bloodshed Tarantino is willing to spill. Is it going to be the most violent film of all time? Certainly not; however, I would be prepared for a rootin', shootin' romp through the Southern countryside. 

*****

Ultimately, none of us will know just how good or bad the film might be until it hits theaters this Christmas. That being said, I personally have to say that I'm ecstatic to see this film. Having only in recent years come to the see the brilliance of Quentin Tarantino's filmmaking, I'm sure that Django Unchained will fit right into the canon of his filmography. I simply cannot wait.

Trailer Breakdown: THE DARK KNIGHT RISES

When the teaser trailer for the upcoming 2012 Christopher Nolan-directed film The Dark Knight Rises was released over the summer, I had every intention of creating a trailer breakdown for it. The time came and went, however, and the idea was tossed to the scrap pile. Now, we have two full-length trailers that have been released for the film, and I find it only fitting to bring you a trailer breakdown not only for the new trailers but also for the teaser I so terribly forgot. As I always do with my trailer breakdowns, I have gone through and watched the trailers a number of times and have written down some questions and comments that came to mind. Below for your viewing pleasure are the three trailers followed by their respective questions. Let me know if you thought of anything else while watching these videos - there's a high chance there is something I might have missed.

Now that you've been reminded of the teaser trailer, here are the thoughts I had whilst watching it:

1. One of the most prevalent images in the teaser trailer is that of the crumbling skyscrapers that ultimately form the "Batman" insignia. What might this mean?
Despite the penchant for the dramatic, I think this image is rather easy to decipher. If we remember the end of 2008's The Dark Knight, we have the Joker (Heath Ledger) behind bars, Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) deceased, and the Batman (Christian Bale) run out of town and believed to be the villain. Because Dent supposedly will assume the graces as the hero and the evilest mastermind that Gotham has seen is now locked away, it might be safe to say that Gotham experienced a bit of a renaissance in terms of a drop in crime. However, with the visage of Bane (Tom Hardy) looming on the horizon, one can only imagine the destruction that Gotham soon faces. In a sense, the image of a crumbling Gotham is a sign of things to come.

2. Speaking of Bane, we actually catch a glimpse of him here in the teaser.
While this is a little old news by now, the teaser trailer was the first time anyone truly got to see Tom Hardy all done up as our central antagonist, Bane. Adorned with a massive breathing apparatus on his face and head, he still manages to send a shiver down the spine. We even get to see him square off against Batman in the final images in the trailer in what's sure to be a wonderfully-choreographed fight.

3. We're getting a lot of images and dialogue from the previous films. What gives?
I think this was done for a few of reasons. First, I think the filmmakers wanted to give everyone a recap of what had happened in the previous films while setting up this final chapter with something familiar. Secondly, I think they wanted to emphasize the finality of this film. Regardless of box office output and accolades, this will be the final installment in Nolan's Batman trilogy. They have two title cards that say, "Every hero has a journey. Every journey has an end." We also get a voice-over using dialogue from Liam Neeson's character in Batman Begins that says the following:

If you make yourself more than just a man, if you devote yourself to an ideal, then you become something else entirely. A legend, Mr. Wayne. A legend.

And, at the end of the trailer, we get another title card that says, "The Legend Ends." All of this ties together to emphasize the finality of this film. Finally, I think that, by using older scenes, they didn't have to use as much material from the new film, which is probably a plus for them given the nature of how popular this movie will probably be.

4. What exactly is Commissioner Gordon (Gary Oldman) saying in this trailer?
I remember that when this teaser first premiered, there was a lot of debate as to what exactly Oldman's character was saying while lying on the hospital bed. After a number of listens, here's what I was able to scrape out (Note: the conversation also includes a line from Christian Bale, either as Batman or as Bruce Wayne):

Gordon: We were in this together, and then you were gone. Now there is evil rising. The Batman has to come back.
Wayne: What if he doesn't exist anymore?
Gordon: He must... he must...

Now that that part's out of the way, let's talk about what it might mean. Obviously Gordon is referencing how he and Batman had worked together to bring down the crime in Gotham, but once Batman left, Gordon was left alone, waiting for evil to return. He knows he cannot combat it on his own, so he's essentially pleading for Batman to return to Gotham and reinstate himself as the vigilante power he once was. Wayne is obviously doubting whether he could possibly reprise his role as the Batman, but Gordon insists it must happen if Gotham is to remain alive.


And now, for the first full-length trailer:

So there's the first full-length trailer for The Dark Knight Rises; let's see what I thought about while watching it:

1. What's with the football game and the kid singing "The Star Spangled Banner?"
Right when I first saw this trailer, that was my initial thought. If you were only working off that first image, you would probably never guess that this was a trailer for a Batman film; however, it ultimately comes into play later in the trailer when we see Bane set off explosives that cause the football field to collapse. For those of you who may have seen the seven-minute prologue for this film at theaters in the past week or so, you'll know that Bane is going to be portrayed as a terrorist rather than your average criminal. That being said, his destruction of a public place seems to fit the mold a little bit better. And, with the crooning of the national anthem throughout the trailer, there's this odd sense of foreboding that the music somehow fits perfectly. It's an eerie combination, but somehow Nolan makes it work here.

2. What is all this talk about "war heroes" and "peacetime?"
The first mention of this in the trailer comes when Commissioner Gordon is coming up to give a speech at what appears to be a memorial for Harvey Dent. Two men in the crowd discuss how the mayor is going to let Gordon go in the next few months because he's a "war hero," and those aren't needed in times of peace. If you recall what I said about the concept of a "crumbling Gotham" back at the top of this post, I think this idea makes a little more sense. Allegedly, The Dark Knight Rises will take place eight years after the events of The Dark Knight, meaning that there has been an extended time of peace and prosperity in Gotham. As a result, the mayor may think that Gordon is no longer necessary in his position. As we see later in the trailer, however, a new evil is, indeed, rising, as is evidenced by the quote, "There's a storm coming," which is said a little later in the trailer. It looks as though Gotham might be getting ready to experience a scene of utter and complete chaos.

3. Who is that woman dancing with Bruce Wayne?
This is actually our first real look at Selina Kyle, more commonly known as Catwoman, who will be portrayed by Anne Hathaway. Although we're not getting a ton of detail from the trailer, I think it's safe to say that Hathaway looks to be a bit feisty in this one, and I'm sure we can all breathe a heavy sigh of relief.

4. We get our "first" real snippet of Bane's dialogue in this trailer, but what does he say?
For those of you who have seen the film's prologue, you might know that there has been quite a discussion about Bane's dialogue in the film. I personally have not seen the prologue, but I know that many a moviegoer is scratching their head as to what exactly Bane said in his scenes. We do get one line of dialogue from him in this trailer, and it reads as follows:

When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die.

Because he has a breathing apparatus, it may be a tad bit difficult to understand exactly what he's going to be saying. I read an article chronicling the prologue that talked about how an unintelligible villain may have been Nolan's only real option after having an over-the-top and charismatic villain in Ledger's Joker in The Dark Knight. To go in the polar opposite direction, Nolan may have done just enough to distance his Bane from his Joker so that audiences won't necessarily be able to compare the two. Instead, they'll be able to look at each villain as an individual and see how effective they actually are.

5. Finally, is the film going to get too bogged down with too many big-time stars?
I often ask this question whenever a film looks to have a massive cast list that includes a lot of A-list actors. Sometimes ensembles can work, but often times, there's just too much bravado on-screen for the audience to handle. Generally, I have faith in Nolan and his direction, so I'm holding out hope that this will all work out; however, here's a look at the major players who will be appearing in this film, some of whom I've already mentioned:

Christian Bale (as Bruce Wayne / Batman)
Tom Hardy (as Bane)
Gary Oldman (as Jim Gordon)
Anne Hathaway (as Selina Kyle / Catwoman)
Joseph Gordon-Levitt (as John Blake)
Marion Cotillard (as Miranda Tate)
Morgan Freeman (as Lucius Fox)
Michael Caine (as Alfred)
Juno Temple (as Holly Robinson)

I don't know about you, but that seems like quite the crowded screen...


And now, for the latest full-length trailer:

Now that you've had the chance to watch the latest trailer, take a look at the thoughts that crossed my mind while watching it:

1. We're seeing a lot of familiar faces in the trailer, but we're also being introduced to what may be a bigger character than previously anticipated. What's up with that?

As you may have noticed, we are seeing quite a few characters from previous films as well as some we've already met in past trailers. We catch glimpses of Batman, Catwoman, Gordon, Lucius Fox, Alfred and Bane, but the biggest change here is that we're getting our first real look at Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character. As of right now, all that is really known about the character is that his name is John Blake, and he's a beat cop assigned to work under Gordon. However, if you've been listening to the rumor mill as of late, there's a little bit of talk that John Blake may be the character that stands up to take Batman's place should something terrible befall our hero. Perhaps it's just Internet rumor, but I wouldn't doubt Nolan taking a chance to leave his mark on the franchise.

2. I also thought there was a lot more action in this trailer.
Although previous trailers - as well as the previous films in Nolan's Batman saga - have shown quite a bit of action, I never truly thought of these films as strictly action-based. However, there's definitely quite a bit happening in this latest trailer. We're getting snippets of the opening scene - the one with Bane on the airliner - that has already been played for millions of fans, but it's the second half of this trailer that truly shows quite a bit of battle. We even catch a glimpse or two of hand-to-hand combat between Bane and Batman, which should be quite the treat for the audience.

3. Speaking of a fight between Bane and Batman... I thought I saw Bane holding a broken Batman mask?
Your eyes did not deceive you. As we've already seen in one of the film's teaser posters, this trailer confirms that there will be a scene in which Bane will toss away a broken Batman mask. In one strain of the comic books, Bane is the villain who finally kills Batman, and there's been a lot of talk as to whether Nolan will be going that route with his saga. The continued images of a broken down Batman and Bruce Wayne make it seem as though this might be the case, and this trailer even goes so far as to suggest that Bane may have a bit of a personal vendetta against Wayne. At one point, after hurting and terrorizing our hero, Bruce asks Bane why he didn't just kill him. Bane simply replies, "Your punishment must be more severe."

4. Should we still be worried that we won't be able to understand Bane?
After the first few trailers were released, there was a growing panic amongst fans that Bane may be entirely inaudible. I'm not sure whether this trailer debunks that idea or if we've just grown accustomed to trying to figure out his dialogue, but he seemed to speak more clearly this time around. The quote I gave you above is easily the most understandable line he's uttered in the trailers, but even another line - "I'm Gotham's reckoning" - is moderately understandable. Perhaps there's hope after all.

5. What will the relationship between Batman and Catwoman be?
It's starting to seem more and more apparent that the two will be allies during the film. The first full-length trailer made it seem as though the two might have a bit of a conflicted relationship, but this new one shows them working side-by-side on many an occasion. The two do happen to have one of the more interesting dialogue exchanges in the new trailer, however:

Catwoman: You don't owe these people any more. You've given them everything.
Batman: Not everything. Not yet.

I'll let your mind run wild with what that might mean. I have too many theories running through my head at the moment. 

6. Holy smokes, Batman! Is that the Batwing? 
Yes. Yes, it is. We finally catch a glimpse of the Batwing, and boy does it already look glorious. I know the cast and crew had some issues with the Batwing during filming, but the final product looks as though it should bring quite a bit to the table. I suppose we'll still have to wait and see.

*****

Ultimately, all of these questions will have to wait until the film is released this summer. Until then, I can tell you that I'll be waiting (im)patiently until I am able to see the film hit the big screen.

The Dark Knight Rises will be released in U.S. theaters on July 20, 2012.

Trailer Breakdown: THE BOURNE LEGACY

All of the fans of the Bourne film franchise received a bit of a treat today with the release of the first trailer for the upcoming fourth installment, The Bourne Legacy. Although I'm not a huge fan of the series myself, I am somewhat looking forward to this particular film based on some of the changes that have been made. The trailer proves to be more of a teaser than a full-blown preview, but that doesn't necessarily mean that there isn't a lot to talk about. Here's the trailer for your viewing pleasure, and I'll break it down and bring up the important topics afterward:

And now, for the questions that arose while I watched the trailer:

1. The first image we get is that of a beaten and bruised Jeremy Renner. What's the deal?
This is probably our first glimpse into the storyline of this particular film. As the images flash by, we learn that Renner's character is a soldier in the same mold of Jason Bourne. With each passing second, we see a stronger and more healthy-looking man until we finally get a full picture of him. In a sense, the first half of this trailer is giving us what will probably be the film's opening sequences, and this bit of exposition sets the tone of the film quite nicely.

2. Wait a second. Where's Matt Damon?
When this film was first announced, Damon was set and scheduled to return as his ever-famous Jason Bourne, and director Paul Greengrass was set to return as well. In 2009, however, Greengrass expressed disinterest in directing another Bourne film, and Damon soon stated that he would not appear in the film without Greengrass at the helm. Because Universal Pictures still wanted to release the film, a few changes had to be made. The biggest change is that of our lead star, which will be Jeremy Renner for at least this film, if not more in the franchise as well. I personally think that this is a step in the right direction for the franchise. While I don't hate Damon as an actor, I personally couldn't find him all that believable in his role as Jason Bourne. Renner has already made a name for himself in a few action-oriented flicks (most recently in Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol), so giving him the star treatment here should work out well.

3. If Paul Greengrass isn't directing, who is?
Tony Gilroy has been attached to this film since 2010, so he shall serve as director for this film. It's not all that shocking if you don't recognize his name immediately, seeing as this is only his third directorial effort, and his first since 2009's Duplicity. While I did not see that film and therefore cannot comment on it, I did see his debut effort - 2007's Michael Clayton - for which Gilroy earned both Academy Award nominations for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay. Also, Gilroy has written or co-written the previous three Bourne films and has done so with this installment as well, so we can rest assured that he knows and understands the franchise. Still, we may have to wait and see whether he truly has directing chops or if he was simply a one-hit wonder.

4. We know about Jeremy Renner, but who else will star in this film?
We get a few glimpses at some of the supporting talent that will be joining Renner in this Bourne installment. We have three major actors - Joan Allen, David Strathairn and Scott Glenn - from past films in the trilogy who will be reprising their roles. Also immediately noticeable in the trailer is Edward Norton, who should bring his typical brilliance to the screen. Also be on the watch for the likes of Rachel Weisz, Oscar Isaac, Corey Stoll and Stacy Keach.

5. Where does this film fit chronologically with the rest of the franchise?
They're calling it a "sidequel," or a full spin-off with a new character who will have to handle the ramifications and consequences created by the Bourne character in the first three films. In a sense, it sounds like it will portray a story that runs parallel with parts of the previous trilogy, which should offer some interesting twists and turns if they manage to interplay the two storylines. That might not be on their to-do list without Matt Damon, but we'll see how it all plays out.

*****

Ultimately, it looks as though The Bourne Legacy should be bringing an action-packed experience to the movie theaters once it's released. There are quite a few changes from the previous trilogy's storyline, but with a new face in the lead and a spirited and knowledgeable director, here's to hoping that we'll be in for quite a treat.

The Bourne Legacy is slated for release in the United States and Canada on August 3, 2012. It will hit the United Kingdom two weeks later on August 17.

Trailer Breakdown: PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 3

Another teaser trailer has hit the interwebs, so I thought I'd break it down for all of your reading pleasure. It's the trailer for the upcoming horror film, Paranormal Activity 3, and rather than ramble on here, I'll just get right to it. Below is the video and then some of the questions and concerns that came up while I watched it. Enjoy!

And now for my thoughts and questions that arose while watching the trailer:

1) For starters, do they really need another film in the Paranormal Activity franchise?
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I was a huge fan of the smash-hit original back in 2009, and I was definitely a skeptic when they released the second film last year, but I ultimately reviewed it favorably (although my overall view of that film has changed a little bit since then). Still, there were many things to say about the second film, and in some ways, I thought it exceeded its predecessor. I liked how they set up the possibility for another sequel, but there didn't seem to be a need to make another film. However, part three was green-lit relatively quickly, so all my skepticism came rushing back. There's no reason that this upcoming film won't continue with the previous success, but I don't know if we should really be expecting all that much from this one. Apparently, the original's director-turned-producer Oren Peli has stated that this film will be scarier than the rest, and I'm just afraid he's setting too lofty of a goal for himself.

2) This film looks to be a prequel rather than a sequel. How does that play into its overall effectiveness?
I personally like the fact that the filmmakers chose to go back in time - in this case, to 1988 - to give us a little more of the background on the demon that haunts Katie and Kristi throughout the franchise. I think it adds a little bit of freshness that a continuation story might not have been able to bring. Also, I think it adds the potential for more of an emotional connection to the girls playing the younger Katie and Kristi, a point where I thought the second film succeeded. As I mentioned in that particular review, part of the reason that Paranormal Activity 2 was so good was that it was able to pull at your heartstrings as well as your nerves. By adding a baby and a German shepherd into the mix, you couldn't help but get emotionally attached. Maybe the filmmakers picked up on this and thought that using children again might be the best way to go. However, there are some issues with the thought of a prequel. For example, because we ultimately know Katie and Kristi's fate, there's not going to be much suspense in terms of how they'll fare throughout this particular film. Sure, they're going to get scared time and time again, but at the end of the day, we know they're going to survive their childhood to some degree. Be looking for some massive twists and turns to keep the plot moving this time around.

3) On that note, I still want to know what happened to baby Hunter from the second film.
As of right now, it doesn't look like we'll really be getting much in terms of that part of the story, unless this "prequel" business is only a piece of what Paranormal Activity 3 will entail. If we don't get the answers to Hunter's whereabouts, we might be looking at a fourth film in 2012.

4) How much of Katie Featherston will we be seeing this time around?
As the first film's lead and a major source of drama in the second film, it goes without saying that we should expect Featherston to at least make an appearance at some point. The only way they could get away without her would be to keep the entire story as a prequel without any flash-forwards to more present day events, but because she's been the staple of the franchise, I'm not sure whether they'll be able to pull that off. Still, there's no official word on the Internet Movie Database as to whether she'll be making an appearance, so I guess we'll have to wait and see.

5) How will the directors fare with this type of material?
Normally, the course of direction wouldn't pose much of a problem as long as Peli remains on-board as a producer, but the two directors helmin this particular picture do send up a little bit of a red flag for me. Ariel Schulman and Henry Joost, who made a name for themselves by crafting the 2010 faux documentary Catfish, have taken the reigns of this one, and I'm a little bit concerned as to how they'll approach it. They went to great lengths to prove to everyone that their last film was a true story, and I personally don't know if they've yet to come clean on that particular point of order. And considering this will really be their first foray into the horror genre - no, Catfish was not a horror film, or even a thriller, for that matter - it should be quite an interesting watch. I guess we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

Paranormal Activity 3 is currently set to hit U.S. theaters on October 21, 2011.

Trailer Breakdown: THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

It's time to break down another trailer! In the past few days, I'd been hearing rumblings about a leaked teaser trailer for the upcoming 2012 film, The Amazing Spider-man, but I hadn't found it until it officially hit IMDb. With the release of a teaser trailer for another 2012 film some of you may recognize as The Dark Knight Rises, I'm sure that this particular trailer has taken a little bit of a back seat. However, I found quite a bit to talk about, so let's get to it, shall we? Here's the trailer for your viewing pleasure, and below will be my breakdown and analysis.

And now, to the thoughts that arose while I watched the trailer:

1) Will a franchise rebooted this quickly be able to grasp its former audience as well as a new generation of audiences?
It may not seem like it, but it's only been nine years since the first of Sam Raimi's Spider-man films hit theaters back in 2002. The most recent - and ultimately final - installment in that particular branch of the franchise was released in 2007 and sizzled in rather lackluster fashion, in my own personal opinion. Because of creative differences, the studio chose to part ways with the Raimi and Tobey Maguire-led films, instead choosing to restart everything. Now, we have seen quick reboots before (need I remind you of the 2008 film, The Incredible Hulk, which came only five years after Hulk), so I suppose it's not entirely unprecedented. However, Raimi's Spider-man franchise was (mostly) applauded, so taking something that worked and tweaking it so soon could spell certain doom. Fortunately, I have quite a bit of faith in this particular adaptation, for one particular reason...

2) ...which is the cast list for The Amazing Spider-man.
While the use of Tobey Maguire as our central lead in Raimi's films worked relatively well, I never could get past the fact that he was a little on the annoying side. Sure, he had some stellar actors working alongside him (with Willem Dafoe, Alfred Molina and James Franco, just to name a few), but seeing him as the lead in this big-time action franchise never sat well with me personally. However, the reboot's cast list seems extremely promising. First and foremost, we're getting a high-caliber, uprising star in Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker, which would be enough to make me see the film. He first blew me away with his subtly dramatic performance in 2008's Boy A, and he reached the collective consciousness of the mainstream public in 2010's The Social Network. I think he'll take this role and run with it. The rest of the cast fills out rather nicely as well, if I do say so myself, with the likes of Emma Stone, Martin Sheen, Sally Field, Rhys Ifans and Denis Leary in lead or supporting roles. It's almost a little unfair when you think about it.

3) How will director Marc Webb perform with this much pressure?
If you don't instantly recognize the name of Marc Webb, I honestly wouldn't be surprised. The man made his career start by directing music videos for the likes of No Doubt, Green Day and 3 Doors Down. He only has one feature film to his name to date, but that one film - 2009's (500) Days of Summer - was a sheer act of brilliance. Still, there's nothing to say that he won't be a one-and-done director, and I'm sure there's a lot of speculation as to whether Webb can deliver in this particular situation. I have faith that he'll be just fine, but because it's only his sophomore effort, I can assure you that he'll have his skeptics.

4) Does this film seem a little bit darker to anyone else?
While Raimi's franchise always seemed a little cheesy to me, probably as a result of Maguire's inclusion, there's something about this trailer that makes me think that The Amazing Spider-man might be delving into a deeper and darker level. And how can you blame them for such? With the success of superhero films like Christopher Nolan's Batman franchise, there really shouldn't be anything stopping them from trying to get into the grit of the story. Will it work for this particular film? No one can really know for sure, but I know that Garfield is capable of reaching those deep emotional levels, so we could be in for quite a performance.

5) Hooray for exposition!
As you can see at the beginning of the trailer, we'll be getting at least a little bit of the back-story as to why Peter Parker ends up living with his aunt and uncle rather than his own parents. Now, I can't quite remember everything from the first of Raimi's Spider-man films, but I don't recall ever having any true discussion as to Peter's parents' whereabouts. If you know me at all, you'll know I'm a bit of a sucker for exposition and background, so this should play right up my alley. Kudos to the filmmakers already!

6) How will this film look visually?
There's moments in the trailer where I was already being wowed by what I was seeing. For example, I instantly fell in love with the beauty of the room where Peter is ultimately bitten. However, there are a few scenes in the trailer that made me scratch my head as well, most noticeably the final sequence where we see Spider-man weaving his way through the rooftops above New York City. I don't know about the rest of you, but that scene felt a little too much like a video game in its look and style, and although it was definitely a fascinating watch, there's a part of me that's quietly hoping the visual effects won't quite look like that. I realize the film's still a year away, but that's enough to give me reason to pause. At the end of the day, this will be a big-budget action flick, and it has to look the part.

The Amazing Spider-man is set to hit U.S. theaters on July 3, 2012.

Trailer Breakdown: MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - GHOST PROTOCOL

It's been five years since the last Mission: Impossible film hit theaters, but Hollywood has decided to bring the franchise back to the big screen with Tom Cruise reprising his role as the lead Ethan Hunt. He'll be surrounded by an impressive cast, so I'd say we could be looking at the makings of an interesting return to the franchise. The film's first trailer was released this week with the opening of Transformers: Dark of the Moon, and I thought I'd break it down for you and give you the skinny on what we should probably expect. Below is the trailer, and after the jump, you'll see my breakdown. Enjoy!

And now for the questions that entered my mind while watching the trailer:

1) What is Ghost Protocol?
Because it's the film's subtitle, it must play a relatively important part within the film itself. I know that there was never going to be an explanation within the actual trailer, but Tom Wilkinson's mention of it makes me a little more intrigued to find out exactly what this "Ghost Protocol" may be.

2) The trailer sets this film up to be extremely fast-paced. Will it deliver on that promise?
For much of the trailer, we get to see a number of sequences of intense action scenes that will hopefully stay off the cutting room floor once the final product is released. Now, I know that the Mission: Impossible series is an action-oriented franchise, but in the past three films, I can't really remember anything truly stellar about the level of action that makes them stand above similar films. In a way, they're just not all that memorable. Still, there's no reason that Ghost Protocol won't change that standard. They even managed to throw in a big-time effect at the end of the trailer, like I mentioned all action film trailers do in my breakdown of Fast Five.

3) What was the reasoning behind bringing this franchise back to theaters?
I know that money was definitely a driving factor in bringing Mission: Impossible back to the big screen, especially considering that the three previous films all surpassed the $100 million mark to be considered "blockbuster" films. That being said, the most recent installment in 2006 spotted the lowest domestic gross of the franchise. Add in the fact that Tom Cruise has had a bit of a shaky personal image in the past few years, then you could start to question the reasoning for bringing this one back.

4) On that note, is Cruise still right for this role?
It'd be tough for Cruise not to come back to a franchise he dominated for ten years, and had he not been asked to return, there would have been quite an uproar from fans. That being said, I simply wonder if he's a little too seasoned to be playing Ethan Hunt yet again. And while I don't think his personal image is as scared as it was a few years ago, I'm pretty sure there's still a good number of people who would avoid this film just because he's starring in it. I just don't know whether Tom Cruise has the star power to draw a massive audience anymore. I personally think he's a great actor (he's nabbed wins in my personal "Best of" awards in 2004 and 2008), but his portrayal of Ethan Hunt was never one of my favorite of his roles. Still, it'd be strange not to see him in the film, so I guess we'll have to live with it.

5) Can the all-star cast around Cruise help give this series a fresh breath of air?
All that being said about Tom Cruise, I'd have to say that whoever was in charge of casting did a great job with this one. The aforementioned Wilkinson brings some serious acting chops to the film. Bringing back Simon Pegg is a huge plus as he's sure to bring some much-needed comic relief to the screen. The addition of the beautiful Paula Patton also brings a level of grace to the screen that I'm not sure the Mission: Impossible franchise has had to date. However, the biggest signing has to be of Academy Award nominee Jeremy Renner, who in the past two years has proven himself twice over that he has the potential to be a great actor. Throwing him into the mix with a legend like Tom Cruise should play out very well, and I'm definitely excited to see Renner delve more into the action side of things.

6) Can director Brad Bird succeed in making this live-action film?
Before this film, all of Brad Bird's previous films have been of the animated nature. His debut feature film was 1999's The Iron Giant, and he followed that up with the Pixar endeavors The Incredibles and Ratatouille. He hasn't directed a movie since that 2007 film, so I'm interested to see how his creative tendencies will translate to the live-action format. The fact that he helmed The Incredibles is a little reassuring, considering that was an action-packed film despite being animated. Still, I think the jury has to remain out until the final product can hit theaters.

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol will hit U.S. theaters on December 16, 2011.

Trailer Breakdown: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

A teaser trailer has been released for the upcoming American remake of the Swedish film Män som hatar kvinnor, which translates to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. That film was the first of the Millennium trilogy and was based on a series of novels written by Stieg Larsson. I reviewed the original film in December, giving it a rather glowing review. It even fared well enough to nab three nominations in my personal "Best of 2010" list, so that should say quite a bit about its overall quality. When I first heard about the remake, my immediate thought was, "Well, of course they're going to remake it. That's what we do as Americans." However, as I heard the list of cast and crew grow, my feelings of worry slowly started to dissipate. Could we actually be getting a legitimate remake? I suppose we'll have to wait and see. Here's the new teaser trailer for your viewing pleasure. I'll break it down after the jump.

And now for some thoughts and questions that came up while I was watching the trailer:

1. This trailer is ridiculously fast-paced. Should we expect that from the actual film?
At the end of the day, this is just a teaser trailer, and it should be taken as such. It's purpose is to give us a taste as to what we might see in the film, so I'm not sure whether we should take any of the pacing style here and assume it will convey to the actual feature film. I personally thought that the original Swedish film was a little on the slow side, but that ultimately worked towards its advantage. The plot was so intricate that it almost needed to be a little bit slow in order for it to be understandable. This American remake, however, has David Fincher at the helm. He's known for creating some fast-paced flicks (i.e., 1999's Fight Club; 2010's The Social Network), but he's also shown he can slow it down (i.e., 2008's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). Despite the blinding speeds shown in this teaser, I think the final product will end up being a little bit slower. However, if it does maintain a fast pace, I couldn't think of a director other than Fincher that I'd rather have handling it.

2. What's the storyline of the film?
There really isn't much in this teaser to get people interested in any semblance of a story. I think that this particular trailer works more as a means to grab the attention of people who may already be fans of the novels or the original Swedish films. Everything moves so quickly that it's almost impossible to understand anything that's going on if you don't have prior knowledge of the story. Still, the fast pace could draw some into the trailer in the hopes that they'll be receiving an action thriller come December. The trailer just doesn't give much in terms of guessing what might happen in the film. If you already know the story, then you're one step ahead.

3. Since we're not getting any clues to the storyline, what can we get from the trailer?
Because we're simply given a string of flashing scenes for nearly one hundred seconds, I think the thing that most viewers will take away are the actors featured within the trailer. For those of you paying attention, you'll be happy to find the following actors and actresses who will be holding important roles within the film: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara, Christopher Plummer, Stellan Skarsgård, Robin Wright, Embeth Davidtz and Joely Richardson. It's a pretty legitimate cast list, if I do say so myself. Will they be able to hold up to the Swedish original? We'll have to wait and see.

4. Who covered "Immigrant Song" for the trailer?
I'm not quite sure as to the reasons behind using Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song" in this teaser trailer, but I can say that I'm thoroughly impressed with the rendition offered by Academy Award-winner Trent Reznor and Karen O. It adds to the overall pace of the trailer, and it gives us a little taste of what we might be hearing once the final product hits theaters. Reznor is helming the score, of course.

5. "The feel bad movie of Christmas?"
Having seen the original film, I'd have to say that this might be the perfect tagline moving forward. I don't want to get into too many specifics about the storyline for fear of ruining it for those of you who may not know the story already, but it's definitely a visceral experience that's going to leave you wondering just how to feel.

Overall, I'd say I'm pretty excited about the potential for this particular remake. Having been a fan of the original film, I'd have to say that I do have rather lofty expectations. However, with the direction of Fincher and the look of this trailer, I feel a lot more confident in my overall judgment.

The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo will hit theaters in the U.S. on December 21, 2011.

Trailer Breakdown: SHARK NIGHT 3D

For those of you who may have seen my preview of my most anticipated movies of the 2011 summer season, you'll have seen a little movie called Shark Night 3D that has been slated for a September 2nd release. Now, there aren't many people who would be interested in a movie like this, but my friend Caitlin and I have been excited for it since the moment we first heard about it. I hadn't heard that a trailer had been released, but she informed me only moments ago, and after watching it, I felt immediately driven to create this post to share it with all of you. As is the norm with these trailer breakdowns, I've crafted a list of questions and observations that you'll see below the video:

And now, for my questions and observations:

1. Is it just me, or does every movie involving a group of college co-eds going on vacation tend to take a turn towards disaster?
When a movie starts with some twenty-somethings heading out to a place in the middle of nowhere, you're going to get one of two types of movies: a porn or a horror (although often times, the two are mixed a little bit - that's the vein of horror movies nowadays). Seeing as this film is entitled Shark Night 3D, I think it's safe to assume we're in for a little bit of horror and, hopefully, a lotta bit of gore. I'd say that's enough to consider it a bit of a "disaster" for all those involved.

2. Wait, there's sharks in a lake? Does that even make sense?
Strangely enough, it does despite the college co-eds' initial confusion about the subject. I've watched enough Shark Week to know that there are some sharks that travel into freshwater basins, so the idea of a man-eating shark in a lake or a river isn't all that far-fetched. Is it going to serve this film well? We'll have to wait and see. However, an early tidbit of believability has slightly been presented. It looks as though one of the sharks (pictured at right) appears to be a bull shark, one species that does find its way to freshwater. So there's some real-life continuity with that particular choice. However, I'm pretty sure that I saw a great white somewhere in the trailer, and that's not something that's ever been observed. Let the ridiculousness resume.

3. Will this film achieve the same amount of success as 2010's Piranha 3D?
It's hard for me to imagine that creation of Shark Night 3D isn't a direct response to the success of last year's Piranha remake. While that film only grossed a $1 million dollar profit (it cost $24 million to make but made $25 million), it garnered very strong critical reviews. Online review aggregate Rottentomatoes.com says that Piranha 3D plays "exactly to expectations for a movie about killer fish run amok...dishing out gore, guffaws and gratuitous nudity with equal glee." Can Shark Night 3D pull in the same type of feel? My early guess is "no." The reason for this thought is this: Piranha was marketed as a horror-comedy while Shark Night is only being marketed as a horror. The reason Piranha was so good was because the audience was supposed to laugh at it. By posing as strictly a horror film, Shark Night leaves itself open to be laughed at rather than laughed with.

4. Will this film tribute Jaws or rip it off?
Let's face it - any movie involving a killer shark is automatically going to garner comparison to the bar that Jaws set thirty-six years ago. We've seen a slew of bad shark movies in the past, including the sequels to that original 1975 film - at the end of the day, it'd take an act of sheer brilliance even to match the staying power of Jaws. Piranha 3D actually came the closest to doing just that (it was still a long way off, but it was closer than any other film I've ever seen) in that it served as a bit of a homage to Jaws without ever feeling like it was stealing from it. However, those were piranha. Shark Night is actually about a shark (or sharks), making the comparison direct. Even in the trailer, I've already seen one scene that looks like it's taken directly from Jaws (it's the scene where the shark rips a piece of the dock into the water - I have it pictured to the left). Shark Night is going to have to tread a very fine line if it wants to peek its head out of the shadow that Jaws already has over it.

5. Can a 21st-century horror film make it through its run-time without involving torture?
There's a scene in the trailer that looks like a redneck sheriff is lowering one of the co-eds into the water on some kind of crank and pulley system (pictured at right). Can you say a sick and twisted bit of torture? I realize that the face of the horror genre was drastically changed by the creation of the Saw franchise, but that doesn't mean that every single horror movie has to involve torture. It's getting kinda old, and I don't think it has any place in a movie about shark attacks. Let the sharks do the torturing - we don't need Leatherface's cousin taking care of it for us.

6. The black dude dies first.
The trailer already proved this. I really don't have anything to say about it. I guess it just fits the mold of your standard horror flick. At least they're sticking with the necessary conventions. (If you're reading this and thinking I'm racist, then you're obviously not fluent in sarcasm.)


That being said, I cannot wait for this film to hit theaters over Labor Day weekend. I know I'll be seeing it on opening day, and I'm already ecstatic about the prospects for its terrible-ness. However, we shall have to wait and see.