(Guest post by B.J. Bethel)
Some thoughts from the end of the concession line …
It’s truly remarkable how dreadful most of the new movies look. There are always duds, and not every film is “Gone with the Wind,” but I was surprised about how unexcited I was about most of the trailers that were shown along side “Captain America:The First Avenger” this weekend.
Cases in point:
I’ve yet to see any purpose to the remake of “Conan the Barbarian.” The original was strict Arnold and John Milius B-grade goodness. What it is the producers believe they feel they can add or bring to the franchise is unknown to me, because I don’t see the magic in it.
The most depressing trailer of all – in more ways than one – was “The Amazing Spider-Man.”
The few blips we get is of another origin re-telling, something that feels way too soon. Maybe he lightens up, but Andrew Garfield doesn’t look like Peter Parker, and he’s so dour and angsty in his few moments he doesn’t appear worth noting.
Take out some redone special effects shots (ones that are nowhere near as inspiring as those shown in the first few trailers of the Raimi movies), the movie looks no different than any other “depressed kid with a hoodie and Mommy-Daddy issues” dreck. It looked more “Twilight” than “Twilight” and was eerily similar to the dreadful “I Am Number Four.” Sony, what have you done? A hint to the studio and Marvel – “Spider-Man” did eventually grow up.
The big secret following “Captain America” was the now requisite Marvel Studios Easter Egg post credits scene. This time the feature was a trailer for “The Avengers.” Director Joss Whedon’s wonder was cut so fast I felt like I was being given a subliminal message. I don’t remember anything remotely from it, outside of one shot of Robert Downey, Jr. patting Chris Hemsworth on the shoulder for comic effect. If I wake up tomorrow with my credit cards maxed, laying in a bed of Marvel merchandise from Walmart, I know what happened.
Oddly enough, the best offering was the new Tom Cruise flick “Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol.” Well-done, to the point, and the additions of Jeremy Renner and Tom Wilkinson are all winners. What does it say that a 49-year-old Tom Cruise still manages to be more of an action star than nearly every actor in Hollywood he’s old enough to have procreated? Some of the trailer looked stunning and it should play well in December.
Related posts:
on 
on 
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Have to agree, not excited about the new Spider-Man at all. MI3 looks good, but your knock on I Am Number 4 seems harsh. I actually enjoyed it for what it was, a good action movie for kids.
MI: Ghost Protocol well-done (presumably) why? Brad Bird. Accept no substitutes.
You caught me. I didn’t realize Bird was the director until after I wrote this, and comically enough, I actually sent Christian a note about that fact.
One thing I’ve concluded – not enough great films because there isn’t enough great directors.
“I’ve yet to see any purpose to the remake of “Conan the Barbarian.” The original was strict Arnold and John Milius B-grade goodness. What it is the producers believe they feel they can add or bring to the franchise is unknown to me, because I don’t see the magic in it.”
Well that’s the thing: this isn’t a remake. It’s a new film featuring a character created in 1932 by Robert E. Howard. What started as a series of two dozen short stories, novellas and one novel grew into a vast franchise comprising scores of books by other authors, a dozen comic series, games and who knows what else. The 1982 film only comprises a mere fraction of what is a huge universe of stories created over the course of 80 years.
They’re not even trying a retread of the Arnold/Milius movie (outside a token reference to Conan going on a quest for revenge against the warlord who killed his father because executives are unimaginative idiots) because Conan as a character existed for 50 years before the film came along – indeed, it’s precisely because of his popularity in comics and books that the film was made in the first place. If all one knows of Conan is the film, then I can see why doing a new one would be anathema: for the legions of Conan fans, however, we’re astonished that Conan isn’t the star of a film franchise to rival Tarzan or James Bond, with the sheer number of stories still untapped in the cinematic medium.
“I’ve yet to see any purpose to the remake of “Conan the Barbarian.” The original was strict Arnold and John Milius B-grade goodness. What it is the producers believe they feel they can add or bring to the franchise is unknown to me, because I don’t see the magic in it.”
Exceot that NOTHING in the Milius movie was even based on the books in any way, shape or form. Arnold was not the Conan described in the book. The entire story of the movie was a mish mash of stories taken from the Comic Magazine Swords of Conan and the rest Milius and Stone made up. It was a mess of a movie which was saved by the “R” rating, the blood, the nudity and action scenes. It was ok for its time but it was not Robert E Howards Conan who was ten times the man in the first movie.
I’m glad they’re making more Spider-Man movies, but why in God’s name are they doing another Spidey origin story? Show of hands, what would moviegoers prefer to see: a movie about Spidey in NY fighting new enemies, or a movie about Peter Parker moping around his high school, for the second time in 10 years?
Lol I just noticed that Al and I had the same gut reaction to the remake of Conan. We both know that the books are infinately better than any movie that has come out based on the Genre Howard and others helped start in the 20’s and 30’s.
I dug Conan the Destroyer as a kid, but can any film starring the oh, so 80s Grace Jones hold up??
Normally I’d say as long as it had Wilt Chamberlain and Olivia d’Abo, but ultimately, CT, I’m gonna have to say no. Grace Jones kills everything, especially “Demolition Man.”