29 replies to this topic

[K1Bond007]

http://www.latinorev...mup/index2.html

Notice the end bit? The year bit? Yeah...

Personally, it looks rather meh. Not that they're going for the look here, but it really shows me why he wasn't the best choice. Obvious choices rarely ever are.

[Loomis]

Notice the end bit? The year bit? Yeah...

Wow. That's rather cheeky.

As for the film, it looks.... crap.

[dinovelvet]

Notice the end bit? The year bit? Yeah...

Wow. That's rather cheeky.

As for the film, it looks.... crap.

WOW that was...generic. This kind of thing could fly prior to The Matrix, but since then you've really got to come up with something more than just gunfights. I remember reading somewhere about how this was going to "revolutionize the action genre", instead it just looks like everything that's wrong with American action movies. Still, I'm sure the paychecks were nice, Academy Award Nominees Clive and Paul

[spynovelfan]

My thoughts.

1. [Pedant] Someone, please, for the love of God, fix the apostrophe on the site so it's the right way round. [/Pedant]

2. Is this meant to be a spoof trailer? Seriously. I listened to it three times and it sounds like the first line Owen says is 'I'm a British nanny. And I'm dangerous.' That can't be right, can it?

3. Wow - Mike McShane has lost weight.

4. Oh dear, what has happened to Clive Owen's career? He was above doing Bond because he's all serious, but here he is wielding machine guns and talking about being a dangerous nanny in a film so poor it needs to trade off his candidacy for Bond in a desperate attempt to stop it from going straight to video. 'I'm going to be busy for a while'? Not for much longer, mate!

5. Thank Christ they went with Craig.

[dinovelvet]

4. Oh dear, what has happened to Clive Owen's career? He was above doing Bond because he's all serious, but here he is wielding machine guns and talking about being a dangerous nanny in a film so poor it needs to trade off his candidacy for Bond in a desperate attempt to stop it from going straight to video. 'I'm going to be busy for a while'? Not for much longer, mate!

Yeah I hear that. There's nothing in this trailer that couldn't have come from a Wesley Snipes action movie from 1994; they might as well stick some slo-mo doves flying in the background just to have the complete set of cliches.

[Double-Oh-Zero]

My thoughts.

1. [Pedant] Someone, please, for the love of God, fix the apostrophe on the site so it's the right way round. [/Pedant]

Agreed.

2. Is this meant to be a spoof trailer? Seriously. I listened to it three times and it sounds like the first line Owen says is 'I'm a British nanny. And I'm dangerous.' That can't be right, can it?

That's what he says, but no, it isn't right. Especially considering that Owen got an Oscar nom for verbally raping every single character in Closer. As a side note, his character does not look like a nanny I would entrust any child to. Fingerless black gloves? Leather trench coat? Three-day stubble? Hmm...

3. Wow - Mike McShane has lost weight.

Ha! The resemblance is rather stunning, isn't it?

Actually, if he had a full beard rather than just a goatee, my media studies teacher from high school would look exactly like Giamatti.

4. Oh dear, what has happened to Clive Owen's career? He was above doing Bond because he's all serious, but here he is wielding machine guns and talking about being a dangerous nanny in a film so poor it needs to trade off his candidacy for Bond in a desperate attempt to stop it from going straight to video. 'I'm going to be busy for a while'? Not for much longer, mate!

Oh, I dunno. Children of Men looks interesting. If this teaser is any indication, I'm sure he only did this for "some fun" (and to kill some time before Sin City 2 starts up). Seems to be the norm for many actors these days; do a few art/independent films to establish yourself as a "serious" actor, and throw a few shoot 'em up flicks (ugh, Jesus, sorry about that) in the mix to make a household name for yourself.

5. Thank Christ they went with Craig.

Yeah. I was an ardent Owen supporter, but I'm actually rather glad he didn't get it after all. As much as I like him, I've come to realise that if he had gotten the role, he may have ended up just shuffling through it for three films, and we would've known exactly what to expect in terms of his performance.

Still, I like him as an actor--even though everything I've said in my post thus far has indicated the exact opposite--and I'll prolly end up seeing this for a larf. Reminds me of The Transporter 1 & 2: big, dumb, harmless fun.



And that last bit of the trailer...cheeky, indeed.

Yes.

Considerably.

[TheSaint]

I'll give it a watch.

[Cody]

Personally, it looks rather meh.

About what I expected, given the writer/director's filmography.

The nanny line - it's not the character's actual trade, it's a joke line because he's stumbled across this baby (delivering it himself during a shoot out) that the gunmen are trying to kill and he is now protecting.

In the general, though, the writer/director's dialogue doesn't work for me, and it's the main reason I rank him as a "meh" filmmaker. I expect most of the dialogue will be attempts at clever observation jokes which annoy me more than amuse me (I've seen pages of the script where, during a shoot out, Owen's character has an internal monologue about "having a ponytail means your head is a horse's ), a lot of it sexual (like why Bellucci's character is called D.Q.), most of it having nothing to do with character or plot and some of which will be taken directly out of joke books (as the writer/director has openly admitted to doing).

That 007 bit at the end of the teaser kind of bothers me.

Edited by Cody, 20 September 2006 - 01:19 AM.

[jaguar007]

I would not be surprised if EON threatens to sue over the 007 at the end of the preview.

I have seen several movies with CLive Owen and this trailer just reenforces my opinion that he would not make a good 007.

[Ouroboros]

I almost posted something about this earlier, but I didn't figuring it would probably turn into a "Looks like crap, glad he's not Bond" etc kind of thread. Seems I was right.

Anyway, on the topic of the movie, I'll definitely see it. The entire cast seems to be having fun, and apparently nobody else has been really following the movie. It's supposed to be a send-up of hyper-violent, John Woo emulating, politically incorrect movies. It's not supposed to be serious. And as what it's trying to do, it looks like a lot of fun, and Owen looks like he's having a blast.

And I personally don't take offense at the "007" gag. I thought it was kind of cute.

[dinovelvet]

I almost posted something about this earlier, but I didn't figuring it would probably turn into a "Looks like crap, glad he's not Bond" etc kind of thread. Seems I was right.

Anyway, on the topic of the movie, I'll definitely see it. The entire cast seems to be having fun, and apparently nobody else has been really following the movie. It's supposed to be a send-up of hyper-violent, John Woo emulating, politically incorrect movies. It's not supposed to be serious. And as what it's trying to do, it looks like a lot of fun, and Owen looks like he's having a blast.

And I personally don't take offense at the "007" gag. I thought it was kind of cute.

Ehh I don't buy it. I haven't been following it particularly, but I did read the script review a while (year?) ago and watched the animated storyboards online, and I didn't notice any "send-up" aspects to it then, and I don't now, either. Is it going to be one of those movies like Snakes on a plane that starts out being made as a serious thriller, but then once people point out how ridiculous the whole thing is, they decide to play it up as a comedy instead?
If its not meant to be serious, what's with the pretentious 'moody' choir music at the beginning? "Having a blast?" Owen looks like he's constipated throughout the entire thing. I'll give you that Giamatti is having a laugh, but he also did Paycheck and that was awful too. The only really funny thing in the trailer though is that they're advertising that they have two Academy Award Nominees in it...I assume that's meant to be ironic?
Seriously, I just watched it again, and this movie looks as if it should be starring Jason Statham and Michael Madsen

[Dunph]

If the 007 gag bothers you, have you also noticed they use a portion of the Propellerheads remix of OHMSS between Fatboy Slim's Michael Jackson?

[spynovelfan]

The entire cast seems to be having fun, and apparently nobody else has been really following the movie. It's supposed to be a send-up of hyper-violent, John Woo emulating, politically incorrect movies. It's not supposed to be serious.

I can see that - it's why I asked it if was a spoof. The thing is - and this may be because I genuinely thought Giamatti was Mike McShane when he was hanging out of the car - it looks like a sketch from SNL or something along those lines.

A whole film of this? Not for me. It looks really cheap.

[Santa]

It looks so bad that it should be a wind-up but I don't believe it actually is. Really, is it a comedy or not? I can't tell. Clive Owen. He looks rough as bags, and not in a good way. Why did I fancy him when I was younger?

[dinovelvet]

If the 007 gag bothers you, have you also noticed they use a portion of the Propellerheads remix of OHMSS between Fatboy Slim's Michael Jackson?

Ha! I hadn't. Jeez, why don't they just put Owen in a tux and have him fire at the screen, asking "You were expecting someone...blond?"

[spynovelfan]

If the 007 gag bothers you, have you also noticed they use a portion of the Propellerheads remix of OHMSS between Fatboy Slim's Michael Jackson?

Ha! I hadn't. Jeez, why don't they just put Owen in a tux and have him fire at the screen, asking "You were expecting someone...blond?"

They're saving that for the sequel, HARD UP.

Indeed, if this is supposed to be a post-modern play on Woo-like excesses, why the emphasis on Bond at all? I also remember reading about this script about a year ago, and how it was meant to be brilliant, clever, post-meta-deconstructonist cool. But then I remember reading similar script reviews of SWORDFISH.

[Loomis]

Seriously, is there anything remotely exciting about this teaser, or am I just getting too old to recognise a terrific new action thriller when I see one?

Looks like John Woo parodying himself on a budget of $10. ... No, more like $6.25, come to think of it. Talk about "a bargain basement look"....

[Ouroboros]

I dunno about Owen looking constipated. It looked like he was having fun parodying the typical tough anti-hero. Funny to me, bad to you. De gustibus non est disputandum.

As for it being a spoof, I think that's what it's aiming for, given the way the trailer plays and the OTT action sequences in the released animatics. The thing you have to keep in mind about the script review released last year by Latino Review is that they tend to approach everything with the same "It's sooo cool, and awesome..." standpoint, without really explaining the tone the movie conveys. Unless they don't like it. But Shoot 'em up, G.I. Joe, Kashmir, Casino Royale, it's all given the same coverage. I personally maintain that it's a parody and I think it looks pretty good, but I'm pretty eclectic in my movies.

At least we all presumably agree (roughly) on Casino Royale.

[K1Bond007]

I almost posted something about this earlier, but I didn't figuring it would probably turn into a "Looks like crap, glad he's not Bond" etc kind of thread. Seems I was right.

Anyway, on the topic of the movie, I'll definitely see it. The entire cast seems to be having fun, and apparently nobody else has been really following the movie. It's supposed to be a send-up of hyper-violent, John Woo emulating, politically incorrect movies. It's not supposed to be serious. And as what it's trying to do, it looks like a lot of fun, and Owen looks like he's having a blast.

And I personally don't take offense at the "007" gag. I thought it was kind of cute.

That's the only reason to post it, although I thought the thread would be a little more diverse. Also, I don't take offense to the "007 gag," I just thought it was sad. MGM might take offense though. They're usually pretty touchy about this sort of thing and it was pretty blatant.

[avl]

That's one lame trailer

[AnGer 007]

Thank Christ they went with Craig.

Yeah!

http://www.imdb.com/...E... Daniel (I)

[dinovelvet]

Thank Christ they went with Craig.

Yeah!

http://www.imdb.com/...E... Daniel (I)

Somehow I knew before I even clicked on it that it was going to be the standard "Daniel Craig with a scruffy beard photo to presumably illustrate how shockingly inappropriate for Bond he is" routine.

You know you're being foolish, yet you did it anyway. Pourquoi?

[Bond#9-GeorgeKemp]

http://www.latinorev...mup/index2.html

Notice the end bit? The year bit? Yeah...

Oh thats naughty.

Personally, I don't think he would have been THAT bad, he was NEVER my first choice, but I wanted Julian McMahon Still he's no Craig

Not that long ago we would have been saying 'Still he's no Brosnan'. Funny ol' world isn't it?

Edited by Bond#9-GeorgeKemp, 20 September 2006 - 08:27 PM.

[K1Bond007]

Thank Christ they went with Craig.

Yeah!

http://www.imdb.com/...E... Daniel (I)

At least he changes his appearance for movies. When was the last time you saw Clive Owen do that? King Arthur? Ha. Otherwise, never. You ever notice he looks the same in every damn movie? Seriously... it's disturbing. He's supposed to be a different character, but in almost ever film it's the same haircut, the same ing drone acting, and damn near the same style of dress - sometimes a leather coat, sometimes a trench coat, sometimes just to shake it up it's a leather trench coat. That's the extent of Owen's variety for you. Closer (omg a different color), Beyond Borders, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead, Derailed, Children of Men... I get it, he likes trench coats. Add this movie and Sin City to that list. You know it's true.

[Cody]

I never noticed that before. You should've saved the Closer link for last, the twist at the end.

[dinovelvet]

At least he changes his appearance for movies. When was the last time you saw Clive Owen do that? King Arthur? Ha. Otherwise, never. You ever notice he looks the same in every damn movie? Seriously... it's disturbing. He's supposed to be a different character, but in almost ever film it's the same haircut, the same ing drone acting, and damn near the same style of dress - sometimes a leather coat, sometimes a trench coat, sometimes just to shake it up it's a leather trench coat. That's the extent of Owen's variety for you. Closer (omg a different color), Beyond Borders, I'll Sleep When I'm Dead, Derailed, Children of Men... I get it, he likes trench coats. Add this movie and Sin City to that list. You know it's true.

LOL, I never noticed this before. Classic!

Hey but give him credit, he did wear that silly hat a lot in Croupier

[Arch Stanton]

Looks like a really fun movie. I'll totally go see it.

[dinovelvet]

Found something interesting about Poop-em-up, it just announced a release date in the US...September 7, 2007. This would seem to be an indicator that there is something really wrong with this movie, as the last two weeks of August/first two weeks of September are generally a dumping ground for movies that are just plain crap. We're talking stuff like Crank, The Covenant, The Wicker Man, Transporter 2, and uh, Snakes on a plane. Its where bad action movies go to die. Hope the paycheck was good, Clive!

[Bucky]

crank was a fun movie

[darkpath]

I haven't seen the trailer. Is it still working? I got an error message when i tried to view it today.