Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

Trailers & New Movies: Coming Soon to a Cinema Near You!

nymusix

By nymusix
in Everything Else About Movies

  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 2.6k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

AimingforYoko
AimingforYoko

Pro tip: Do not watch this trailer at work, or people will ask you what's wrong.

AimingforYoko
AimingforYoko

I don't know, I think Idris Elba is too "street" to play an African Warlord.

AimingforYoko
AimingforYoko

My favorite comment on YouTube was, "Yet another movie showing how dangerous it is to travel with Tom Hanks."

Posted Images

Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

11 minutes ago, hendersonrocks said:

The Nutcracker and the Four Realms dropped its first teaser trailer for a November 2018 release. I had no idea this was going to be a thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ktuvx9hrMw

Looks good, but I really hope they're not Alice in Wonderlanding the Nutcracker.

  • Love 1
Spartan Girl

Spartan Girl

14 hours ago, AimingforYoko said:

Gender-swapped remake of Overboard. Because it's a woman taking advantage of a man, it's less problematic, right?

 

[Watches Trailer] Nah, it's still messed up.

Definitely. The original only worked because of Kurt and Goldie. These two? I cannot see any chemistry.

  • Love 1
aradia22

aradia22

Finally caught the Ocean's 8 trailer. I am SO hype for this cast. But the movie looks a bit... ugly? Like, it looks poorly lit/using those same ugly filters from action movies. You'd expect something like this to be highly glossy and doing all the things that commercial Hollywood does best. This looks more like the original movie. But maybe it'll look better on the big screen. I can't get enough of the acting and writing from this trailer yet so I'm reserving judgment. The fashion looks great. Cautiously optimistic.

I wasn't expecting The Nutcracker. It hasn't been on my radar. It's a bit weird to drop a trailer now around Christmas when it's not coming out this year. It is very pretty in the style of the live action Disney fairytales. It makes sense to go a bit darker and not purely glossy and gorgeous with that genre. The hair work on Morgan Freeman is bonkers. It looks like The Nutcracker by way of Alice in Wonderland, Narnia, and The Wizard of Oz universe. And... I don't hate it. I have no idea if it will have a compelling story but it sure looks pretty and it'll probably be nominated for a costuming Oscar and I'll want to see it eventually if only to stare at the clothes. 

Quote

Mamma Mia 2. Here we go again?

OK, so maybe it's just the trailer but they use all the songs from the musical/original movie. No digging into the rest of the ABBA catalogue and no originals. Is that really going to work for people? Also, Cher's the grandma? She's only a few years older than Meryl Streep.

VCRTracking

VCRTracking

17 hours ago, aradia22 said:

OK, so maybe it's just the trailer but they use all the songs from the musical/original movie. No digging into the rest of the ABBA catalogue and no originals. Is that really going to work for people? Also, Cher's the grandma? She's only a few years older than Meryl Streep.

Meryl though was 59 playing a character in her 40s.

JBC344

JBC344

I really liked Mama Mia, but this new one is a head scratcher.  The first movie was primarily about these characters reminiscing about their past and the conception of the daughter.  Now the second movie is going to show us their past and the conception of the daughter?  Seems like two different forms of the same concept.  I would of been much more interested in a sequel.

  • Love 3
Dejana

Dejana

(edited)
2 hours ago, JBC344 said:

I really liked Mama Mia, but this new one is a head scratcher.  The first movie was primarily about these characters reminiscing about their past and the conception of the daughter.  Now the second movie is going to show us their past and the conception of the daughter?  Seems like two different forms of the same concept.  I would of been much more interested in a sequel.

I wonder if there were sequel hopes until the studio could only get Meryl in a limited capacity, and rather than completely let go of the dream, it became a prequel.

Edited by Dejana
methodwriter85

methodwriter85

(edited)
On 12/23/2017 at 2:28 PM, VCRTracking said:

Meryl though was 59 playing a character in her 40s.

See: Sophie was 20 in the first movie, and Donna said specifically that she was about her age when she got pregnant with her. Which does jibe with the prequel, where Donna appears to have just graduated from university, which would put her somewhere in her early 20's. I think we're supposed to all take it for granted that everyone in that age group is about Colin Firth's age, as he really was 40-something in the first movie.

I'm just trying really hard to wrap my head around the timeline, because they seem to present Donna's youth as being the 1970's, yet Sophie in the 2008 movie was only 20 years old. That should mean that Donna's youth was the 80's, but whwatever. I keep telling myself that the first Mama Mia is set somewhere in the 90's. (They DO seem to be pretty timeless- you don't see cell phones, and there's only a mention of going online without actually showing it.

Also, Jeremy Irvine should be playing Young Colin Firth, not Young Pierce Brosnan.

Edited by methodwriter85
SeanC

SeanC

On 2017-12-24 at 8:55 PM, Dejana said:

I wonder if there were sequel hopes until the studio could only get Meryl in a limited capacity, and rather than completely let go of the dream, it became a prequel.

That trailer aired right before the trailer for The Post when my friend and I saw The Greatest Showman.  She joked that Meryl must have had a hard time choosing between those projects.

  • Love 1
aradia22

aradia22

I'm not entirely sure if this movie looks good or I just want to see all the makeup and costumes. They're particularly extra. Like... unless he's one of those magical Instagram teens, it's hard to achieve that level of professionalism without help. But... suspension of disbelief? 

I want to like this because Lucy Punch and David Tennant and that girl with the pink hair has a cool look but... no. I can't imagine this is more than a decent watch on streaming.

At first I thought... this looks like a relatively decent Nicholas Sparks movie. But it's not a Nicholas Sparks movie! So it might have a chance of actually being decent. And relatively speaking, the country music isn't bad. I watched a different trailer first with more of the kid.

aradia22

aradia22

It was kind of inevitable that this sort of movie would be made though the trailer gives the impression that the movie doesn't believe open relationships can really be a thing. Though it seems less like an open relationship and more like the sort of sexy games you'd get in other movies of this sort that dealt with a third person or love triangles or anything like that in the past. Or, I guess I mean it's less polyamory and more of an open relationship/whatever ethical nonmonogamy is supposed to be.

proserpina65

proserpina65

It's not the trailer, but I did see a commercial for A Wrinkle In Time during the Golden Globes last night, and it did not fill me with confidence.  In fact, it had the exact opposite effect.  It made the film look like a big glossy, flashy Disney-fied version of what is, despite the science fiction elements, a small and intensely personal story.  I know that commercials can be even more misleading than trailers, and so I'm trying to have hope, but it did fill me with foreboding.

  • Love 2
GHScorpiosRule

GHScorpiosRule

17 minutes ago, proserpina65 said:

It's not the trailer, but I did see a commercial for A Wrinkle In Time during the Golden Globes last night, and it did not fill me with confidence.  In fact, it had the exact opposite effect.  It made the film look like a big glossy, flashy Disney-fied version of what is, despite the science fiction elements, a small and intensely personal story.  I know that commercials can be even more misleading than trailers, and so I'm trying to have hope, but it did fill me with foreboding.

It seems like everything is so FLASHY as you posted, and I'm so not a fan of that. I remember reading A Wrinkle in Time in school, and I was also looking forward to seeing it, but now? Not so sure. It seems I'm more interested in the "less showy" movies, like The Post, and yes, even Phantom Thread. The latter because it's no secret I'm a MEGA fan of Daniel Day-Lewis, and this is last film. Regarding The Post, I'll try not to, but I know I'll just end up comparing it to All The President's Men! Even though they're not about the same subject-Watergate, and it wasn't actually The Washington Post who broke, or rather ended up publishing the story--it was The New York Times, if memory serves. 

Of course I do like my Flashy movies/superhero/Star Wars movies, too. They I expect to see lots of Technowhatzitnot.

  • Love 1
aradia22

aradia22

Quote

It seems like everything is so FLASHY as you posted, and I'm so not a fan of that. I remember reading A Wrinkle in Time in school, and I was also looking forward to seeing it, but now? Not so sure. It seems I'm more interested in the "less showy" movies, like The Post, and yes, even Phantom Thread.

I didn't go to film school so I don't have the right language for this but to me it's not a simple either or. You need some kind of chart. There are different axes like big vs. small, cheap vs. expensive, indie vs. Hollywood, and gritty vs. glossy. For example, your typical bad movie (like a low budget student film without redeeming qualities like surprisingly good acting, performances, writing, etc.) would be small, cheap, indie, and gritty (because of things like not being able to afford proper lighting, etc.). But you could also have a DC superhero movie that is big, expensive, Hollywood, and gritty. And you can have Ocean's 8 which looks like it's going to be big and Hollywood but the way it's being filmed is surprisingly gritty and cheap (weird lighting, etc.) which feels off because it doesn't fit what that kind of movie is supposed to be. To me, The Post and Phantom Thread look very showy in their own ways. They are smaller stories but the movies look expensive and glossy. 

It's been forever since I read A Wrinkle in Time. I remember really loving it but I can't remember what the hell it was about. I don't know if it's what I was reading at the time but I think of a it as a fantasy book like Narnia with fewer animals. You would expect something like that to look like The Neverending Story or one of those Jim Henson projects... something that obviously cost money but had some whimsy to it. Again, still big and Hollywood but with a bit of grit and charm to it. 

proserpina65

proserpina65

On ‎01‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:59 PM, aradia22 said:

It's been forever since I read A Wrinkle in Time. I remember really loving it but I can't remember what the hell it was about. I don't know if it's what I was reading at the time but I think of a it as a fantasy book like Narnia with fewer animals. You would expect something like that to look like The Neverending Story or one of those Jim Henson projects... something that obviously cost money but had some whimsy to it. Again, still big and Hollywood but with a bit of grit and charm to it. 

Despite the sci-fi/fantasy elements, at heart A Wrinkle in Time is a very personal story, and big and Hollywood are inappropriate.  Now the film might not be as glitzy and Disney-fied as the commercials make it look - I'm still holding out hope.

 

On a different note: another Grinch movie?  Really?  Can't they just admit that the half-hour tv special was perfect and leave it alone?

  • Love 2
Irlandesa

Irlandesa

5 hours ago, Gillian Rosh said:

This looks so bad. 

I liked the book but what I've been reading about the movie is---eh. 

54 minutes ago, Silver Raven said:

This actually looks like fun.  Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams in Game Night.

I've seen a few people online mention they laughed a lot at early screenings so I'm thinking I will go see this.  I need to see comedies with a crowd.  There's an early free screening in my area soon but I was too slow at pulling the trigger.

topanga

topanga

On 1/31/2018 at 11:40 PM, aradia22 said:

Why? No. WHY? NO. WHY!?!

You want me to root for the conventionally pretty people!?! I would only watch this for the adults. Drew Droege, Shannen Doherty, Selma Blair, cash those checks.

I don’t like any of the main characters. The Heathers are boring, and the teenagers portraying them seem like over-acting Disney/Nickelodeon channel alumni. Veronica is not the socially awkward but intriguing girl that Winona Ryder was. Hard pass. 

 

On 1/25/2018 at 12:03 AM, BetterButter said:

Breaking In 

The girl playing Gabrielle Union’s daughter looks so much like her, it’s uncanny. The movie looks predictable, but it’s nice to see a black family in a predictable suburban horror movie. 

 

16 hours ago, Silver Raven said:

 

This actually looks like fun.  Jason Bateman and Rachel McAdams in Game Night.

 

Yes, it does. And there’s Ginny Baker! Nice to see Kylie Bunbury. 

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...