|
|
Posted by moviePig on 10/04/87 11:35
Nick Macpherson wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
>
>>Goro wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Ralph Grossi wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Goro" <evilninjax@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1135359593.625968.174190@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>I just watched the RED EYE dvd. It was a decent movie; the first half
>>>>>was very good, the latter half, quite awful. One thing is that I found
>>>>>myself rooting for Cillian Murphy throuhgout. SInce there's little if
>>>>>any substantial character development, there wasn't anything really
>>>>>pressing me to care about Rachel McAdam's char or the senator target.
>>>>>I did find Cillian Murphy really engagingl, though, and wanted him to
>>>>>succeed and off McAdams and Brian Cox, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>-goro-
>>>>
>>>>Nice double bagger, spoilers on an unreleased DVD (Jan 10). Well done!
>>>>
>>>
>>>WHoops. sorry about that, but to be fair, it's very obvious fromt he
>>>beginning what the outcome is going to be. I guess i should have put
>>>some sppoiler space, though, for people who have avoided the trailers
>>>of this.
>>
>>I, who crusade against spoilers, have occasionally committed worse. I
>>usually just wear a hair shirt for a couple of days. I can loan you mine...
>>
>>What's a bitch is that, e.g., the *trailer* (iirc) gives away who the
>>villain is. Sure, so does the movie within 5 minutes... but it does at
>>first pay a little lip-service to some low-level misdirection. I figure
>>the studio said, "We want clips. Screw the plot." Typical, to be
>>sure... but that means that few screenwriters should ever consider using
>>an early far-reaching surprise.
>
> It's a thriller. It has to have a bad guy and there's no other
> candidate than Cillian Murphy so I don't see how under any stretch
> revealing him as the bad guy could be considered a spoiler violation.
> It was a good trailer. It starts out like the trailer to yet another
> dreary romantic chick flick (Wth Rachel McAdams taking the Brittany
> Murphy part) and then gets tense. I went from, oh man, I'll never ever
> ever see this, no, not even on cable, to, oh wow, maybe this is going
> to be halfway decent (and it was--and while the ending sucks, I think
> Craven cannily turns the film into comedy after the plane lands so it
> doesn't matter.)
I can defer on the relative quality of trailers, since I almost never
watch them. (Still claiming, though, that in a ideal world Craven wants
us to see Cillian first as sympathetic, however briefly.) And I suppose
a "good trailer" might indeed be one that gets you to watch a good movie
you wouldn't've. From my rigid perspective, though, I can recall right
now only two exemplary trailers: One was CLOSE ENCOUNTERS's, which was
merely a slow dolly along a dark highway, towards an eerie glow just
over the next rise. The other was PSYCHO's, consisting of Hitchcock
himself doing a droll stroll through the newly cleaned room at the Bates
Motel. All questions, no answers. (Well, almost... PSYCHO starts out
as a white-collar crime drama...)
--
/---------------------------\
| YOUR taste at work... |
| |
| http://www.moviepig.com |
\---------------------------/
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|