I finally gave in and watched some promotional material for Zombie Strippers, a movie about… zombie strippers. I have seen some movie posters floating around recently, but disregarded the film as B-grade crap. Having now watched the new red band trailer, which is included farther down this article, it definitely looks like B-grade crap, though if Sony markets the film right and takes a Snakes on a Plane angle, they might be able to squeak a few dollars out of the concept.
But that’s not what this post is about.
The Red Band trailer for Zombie Strippers is just plain awful. I’m not talking about the content, the forced dialogue, the cheesy script or the B-grade look. No, I’m talking about the lack of material, or the lack of the lack of material in the trailer. Just so you know, Red Band trailers are previews that are only allowed to be viewed by restricted audiences – i.e. people who can legally get into R-rated movies. Hence, as seen in the Pathology Red Band trailer, gore, nudity and the like are technically allowed.
The Zombie Strippers Red Band trailer looks like a toned-down version of a Green Band (approved for general audiences) trailer. There’s no nudity, no gore and absolutely nothing that would entice me to go see this flick. If I’m going to pay money to waste an hour and a half of my time watching a crappy movie, I better get some brilliant gore and a lot of breasts, and it’s the Red Band trailer’s job to notify me if such a movie is worth the investment.
So far, it appears as though Zombie Strippers is going to be a PG-rated waste of time.
OK, so in the American version of The Descent, Sarah, the lead character, scrambles up a bone-filled hill, crawls through a hole and escapes the cave where the monsters who killed all her friends dwell. She runs through the forest like a crazy woman, gets in her car and drives away. Once she is far enough away, she pulls over to the side of the road to catch her breath, sees her friend as a “ghost”, and then realizes it is just a hallucination. Ultimately, she survives. End of story.
However, in the original British version, that is not the end of the story. She does not escape the cave. Her escape, her frantic jeep drive and her stopping on the side of the road to catch her breath is just a figment of her imagination. Ultimately, she is still in the cave – miles underground – and the Crawlers are closing in. End of story. Presumably she doesn’t survive.
Now comes the interesting development of the week: The Descent 2 is coming to theaters at some point, presumably in 2009. Don’t get me wrong – I’m looking forward to this. The Descent is one of the best monster movies I’ve seen in a long time and features some of the coolest, scariest creatures ever, perhaps since Alien. When I first saw this movie (the American version) in theaters, I was huddled up against my friend half the movie – and I don’t scare easily.
Still, how will The Descent 2 work? American audiences who have only seen the theatrical version will be able to shrug it off, but everyone else will be left scratching their heads when Sarah returns. And, according to the synopsis on Comingsoon.net, Sarah does return:
Picking up from where the last movie left off, Sarah (Shauna Macdonald) escapes the cave and seeks refuge at a local gas station, where she collapses and is rushed to a local hospital. Not being able to speak because of the horrific events that have mentally scarred her, a search and rescue team take Sarah back to where the horrible events happened to find any possible answers and survivors. However, whilst down in the cave…things don’t go to plan as the group fight for their lives against the crawlers and find an unexpected survivor from the last film.
Now, I have to presume that most American audiences have seen the British version by now, since most people only saw the movie on DVD. If you haven’t, you should! But regardless, isn’t it a bit weird to have a sequel begin with a main character who was killed in the first one?
And this, folks, is why you don’t change endings for different audiences.
I just watched the new movie trailer for House Bunny, the latest comedy starring Anna Farris. I have actually grown to find her quite hot… unfortunately, she continues to choose absolutely idiotic movies. I have absolutely zero interest in House Bunny, which looks about as original… hell, I don’t have to work anymore this week – thus my mind has shutdown and I can’t think of anything clever to say.
Anyway, House Bunny is about a Playboy Bunny, who, after getting kicked out of the mansion for being too old (at age 27), moves into a sorority with a bunch of loser girls. As one might imagine, she teaches the intellectuals how to look pretty and get guys, while she falls for a guy who is more interested in smart women. Sound like any other college movie? I thought so.
The movie trailer really isn’t funny at all, but you can see for yourself:
I just received the Lars and the Real Girl DVD today in the mail. I got home from work at 5:30, went to my chiropractor’s from 6 to 7, watched the Seattle Mariners finally win a game (what is going on with their bullpen/offense?) and then squeezed in a trip to Costco. Got back at 8:40 with intentions of writing a bit on my new novel (I’m on chapter 2), and debated about watching the special features for Lars and the Real Girl before starting. It could eat up an hour of my time, I thought, but maybe I should pop in the DVD just to check things out…
First off, Lars and the Real Girl is a great movie. Seriously, it’s one of the best movies of 2007. Ryan Gosling is great, and the story is tragically uplifting and heartwarming without ever being sappy. It’ll make you laugh and even cry (well, if you’re into crying at movies, which I’m not), but more so it will just make you laugh. It’s also a lighthearted romantic drama, and works on that level as well. You can read my full Lars and the Real Girl movie review here.
However, the Lars and the Real Girl DVD sucks. My concern about wasting too much time watching the special features was not worth it, as the two movie trailers included on the DVD plus the time it is taking to write this DVD review more than account for the total number of minutes you should spend watching the special features.
The DVD includes a deleted scene that – I’m pretty sure – is only 1.3 seconds long. Wowzer, too bad that got cut!
There’s a small, 10-minute featurette about the movie, of which I only watched half of because I realized just how dull, uninformative and promotional it was.
There’s also a six-minute segment about the “real girl” in the movie (i.e. the sex doll) that is mildly amusing, as Gosling, in an interview, gets upset with her, tears off his mike and storms off, leaving the “real girl” to fend for herself. Still, is it really worth watching? No.
And that’s about it. 16 minutes of special features, only 0.76 minutes of which are worth your time. Lars and the Real Girl is a great movie, but if you’re into special features, the DVD is a waste of whatever material DVDs are made of.
Along with the announcement that Disney was going to release all of their new CGI-animated cartoons in 3D format came the horrifying revelation that for some God-awful reason, Disney and Pixar were going to make Cars 2. It’s sad to think that Pixar is going to devote its time to making a sequel of its worst movie EVER when they could spend time focusing on new and original content, which is their strong selling point among animated producers.
Here are five reasons why the Cars 2 movie will suck:
The original Cars was awful. It was boring, slow, unimaginative, not funny and lacked exciting animation.
The world of cars is a limited one. The first one featured some uninteresting racing action and attempted drama, which is about as much as you can get out of a car movie about talking cars. The original Cars used up everything you could possibly imagine in the first ten minutes of the movie.
Cars can’t show emotion. As seen in the first one, it’s hard to show emotion, expression and so on and so forth with a bunch of cars. Let’s just say no one wanted to see the love scenes and no one cared.
This is a weak reason why the movie will suck, but Brad Lewis is directing the film. He produced Ratatouille, one of Pixar’s best movies, but he has never directed a movie in his life.
The original Cars movie sucked. Did I already say that?
Frankly, I’m bummed that I will have to see previews for a sequel. Stupid Disney! Stupid Disney!
Here’s a Uwe Boll video you have to see, talking about people’s attempts to get 1,000,000 people to sign a petition calling for Uwe Boll to stop making movies:
Some people hated Cloverfield. I honestly don’t get it. The movie is fast-paced, action-packed, has great special effects and is rarely, if ever, cheesy. How many monster movies, especially movies about big monsters that attack cities, can make that claim? Cloverfield is probably the closest thing you’ll get to a “realistic” monster movie.
As for the people who claim they got motion sickness or what not, give me a break. How come people react so poorly to shaky cameras? The camera work was really not that shaky and, besides, you should have known what you were setting yourself up for. By the way, I took my mom to the theater to watch the movie, and she was suffering from massive vertigo at the time (she was on medicine and was supposed to do these stupid exercises). She didn’t notice anything wrong with the camera work, and loved the movie.
Anyway, if you want to read my Cloverfield movie review, you can, but the following is about the Cloverfield DVD special features.
There aren’t a ton of Cloverfield special features, but where they lack in quantity, they make up for in quality (and how much you want to bet that a 2-disc special edition is on its way out for the holidays?). There’s an audio commentary from the director, which I didn’t listen to – because unlike some reviewers, I don’t have time to re-watch every DVD release with voice-over narration.
I did watch the deleted scenes and alternate endings. As one might suspect, the deleted scenes and alternate endings are minor variations of what we got in the final release. That are a few cut scenes from the party sequence which don’t add much but are fun to watch anyway, while the alternate endings have subtle but significant adjustments. Ultimately, the director went with the right choice of endings, as the other ones lack the emotional punch. All of the scenes come with optional director’s commentary, of which I did listen to!
There’s also a 28-minute making-of featurette, which looks behind the scenes of Cloverfield. This is one of the better making-of featurettes I’ve seen recently, as we really get a pretty good look at what went into making the film, including the green screen action, set design, so on and so forth. One of the most interesting things is that it appears as though most of the actors have no idea what the movie is about while filming; they are constantly talking about how they know a few scenes, but that’s about it. J.J. Abrams and everyone else took the secrecy of the movie quite seriously.
There is also a featurette dedicated to the Cloverfield special effects. While this one doesn’t vary too much from special effect documentaries for other movies, it’s always interesting to see how the people approached the creature design, CGI and so on and so forth.
There’s also a small blooper reel for those of you who like seeing other people who make more money than you do mess up.
Overall, I enjoyed the Cloverfield special features. I know a little more about the movie than I did before, and that’s always a good thing. If you didn’t like Cloverfield the first time, I suggest watching it again – maybe you’ll like it this time around, or maybe you’ll just settle for being wrong and having bad taste. If you haven’t seen the movie, it’s a shame you didn’t see it in theaters, but the DVD comes out April 22nd, so you’ll just have to do with that.
Absolut Vodka has gotten itself in trouble with an ad aimed at Mexican audiences. The Absolut ad features the tagline, “In an Absolut World” and shows a map of Mexico and the United States… only Mexican territory includes California, Arizona and other states that once belonged to Mexico before the U.S. took the land over in 1848.
The ad has evoked criticism from some Americans, and after a slew of complaints, Absolut withdrew the ad. As a marketing director and an American, I find it sad that people get so worked up over something like this. Sure, some people living in those states may not like that “in an Absolut world” they would be living in Mexico, but come on? Who cares?
Whenever something offends someone, I think they should ask themselves these questions:
How has it impacted my life and will it affect my life in the future?
Is this something that I believe the general public would not want their children to see? (not just your personal opinion)
Of all the things I have to do today, is complaining or getting upset about this thing a priority in my life?
Of course, if you honestly answer those questions, this Absolut ad should fall so low on your priority list that it isn’t even worth a second thought. If it is a high priority for you, then I’m sorry for you, brother.
From a marketing perspective, I think the ad is great:
The Absolut ad was released in Mexico only, where, apparently, sentiments are still strong about the lost territory. Absolut was targeting the emotions of its audience, and it struck a chord.
The ad is visually appealing and eye catching.
The ad isn’t inappropriate in any way or form (and, in fact, for a hard liquor commercial it’s actually quite tame)
Shouldn’t the ad be in Spanish, though?
The ad is not intended to, nor will it, incite violence.
I am an American, but I am ashamed when people become worked up over such things as this. I’m sure in every country people complain about something, but it’s still embarassing. Do you think the “This is Our Country” song that plays with Chevy commercials play well in Mexico or other countries where immigrants derive from?
Matt Leinart, quarterback of the Arizona Cardinals, is making headlines this afternoon for appearing in several questionable photographs involving him and a bunch of scantily-clad college girls. The two “dirtiest” pictures involve Leinart holding a beer bong for a young woman and another where he’s in a hot tub surrounded by four young beauties.
Some bloggers and other people are calling him a loser, a bad role model, so on and so forth, but I say this is absolutely ridiculous:
Matt Leinart is 24 years old. If he wasn’t doing these things, I’d be worried.
If the worst trouble he gets in involves beer and women in hot tubs – still wearing their bathing suits – than isn’t that a good sign. I don’t see any drugs, guns, prostitutes or minors involved.
I say to all you people who are getting on Leinart’s case, “Get a f**king life.” Personally, I’m jealous, and I hope he took full advantage of the situation: the guy is young, a quarterback for an NFL team, and surrounded by hot college girls. He better have done more than just sat in a hot tub with them.
And, just for the record, I am a Seattle Seahawks fan, so I want nothing more than to see the Arizona Cardinals continue to fail – the way they do year after year regardless of pre-season hype. I have no love for Leinart, but come on, people… Get a life.
Honestly, could Tom Cruise’s week get any worse? In a matter of days, he’s been slammed with two major incidents. No, there aren’t more gay rumors, and no, he isn’t getting bashed for being a Scientologist or for jumping on a couch. He’s had a much worse week than that.
For starters, his wife Katie Holmes restyled her hair, and not in a good way. I mean, if he wanted to marry a middle-aged mom, he would have married… well, some really excited middle-aged mom. I mean, her hair just looks dreadful – the only excuse would be if the new ‘do is for a movie. Either way, Holmes continues to get less and less sexy, which is a real disappointment.
Secondly, MGM basically told the world that Cruise’s upcoming movie Valkyrie basically sucks. Here’s the announcement MGM gave:
“MGM is proud and excited to be presenting Valkyrie, and because of that we want to give it the best launch possible,” said Clark Woods, President of Domestic Distribution of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, which is distributing the movie domestically. “When an opening became available for President’s Day Weekend, we seized the opportunity. Having seen a lot of the film and how great it is going to play once it’s finished, moving into a big holiday weekend is the right move.”
Sounds good, right? Wrong. Read between the lines. MGM moved Valkyrie from October 3, 2008, an early but still potentially viable release date for award recognition. Financially, moving Valkyrie from October to President’s Day Weekend is probably a good one, but for a war drama, you have to assume that original intentions were for the movie to be some kind of awards contender. Now releasing in February, the movie has no chance of getting any recognition whatsoever. How do I read that? That Valkyrie is going to suck.
Of course, the trailer makes the movie look pretty good. I’ve been wrong before, but only a few times. Aside from the lack of German accents from the characters, including Tom Cruise who boasts his American accent, Valkyrie looks engaging, exciting and interesting. I had never heard of the story before the big Cruise/Germany fiasco, but it’s definitely an intriguing one: I had never heard of a Nazi plotting to kill Adolf Hitler.
Too bad MGM informed me that Valkyrie is going to suck, and too bad for Tom Cruise and his crappy week.
