Clueless was ok - really good at the time, but I recently watched it and much of its original charm had worn off. The other exception to this rule would be Bridget Jones’s Diary - the film version of which was Austinesque. It was a great film.
*10 Things I Hate About You * is a very good film - I own a copy of it. However it really is a stretch to compare it to Taming of the Shrew. There are several references to Shakespeare in the film but the actual plot and characters in the film hardly resemble WS’s play. The writers may have had TOTS in mind when they began the project but that’s it. Anyway I don’t think that the movie was promoted as being based on Shakespeare was it?
Actually, it was me, and the point I was trying to make was that there really aren’t a lot of superhero movies.
I mean, there’s the Superman movies, and the Batman movies, and the new Marvel flicks (the X-Men and Spider-Man serieses, Daredevil, Hulk), and that strange-but-wonderful bolt out of the blue known as Mystery Men, but pitifully little else. I wouldn’t count the Robocop movies as superhero movies, or the Rocketeer, or Unbreakable, or The Mask, and I’d have to stretch it to place Judge Dredd and Tarzan in that category. Heck, if you’re going to include Tarzan, you might as well include James Bond and Rambo. Action heroes are always a cut above the ordinary Joe on the street, but to fully qualify as superheroes takes something extra (which usually involves spandex).
Compare this with the number of spy movies. Or the number of cowboy movies. Or the number of musicals. Or even the number of time travel movies. The cinematic super-hero genre is extremely sparse.
Working for a theatre chain I found that the more elaborate and varied promotional stuff they gave out (press kits, funky tie-in stuff, etc.) the worse the film. We’d just start rolling our eyes when little flags, handkerchiefs, etc would show up for a movie.
Often, especially these days (this wasn’t as true in earlier times, IMO), but not always. After all, Burger King has a licensing deal with Spider Man 2.
I’ve seen this any number of times in the video store: “Featuring the music of…” or “Includes a video for…” and then usually names some random, flavor of the month, hip hop artist.
If the best part of the movie is the music in the background or a video tacked on to the end of it- bad sign.
Another big warning for me is when I see a trailer/ commercial for a movie that cuts off the obvious swear at the end of the sentance and replaces it with a sound effect. IE: Are you kiding me?! You take one step closer and I’m gonna put my foot up your- (Explosion, car horn, needle scratching across a record, etc)
I don’t get the marketing behind it. Oooh… They SWEAR in this one?? I gotta see that, if only to find out if they really say “ass” at the end of that sentance.
Honourable exception: those directed by Paul WS Anderson. Bastions of wonderful scripting and acting they are not, but Mortal Kombat and Resident Evil are at least entertaining and they look decent.
what Soapbox Monkey said. other than the spirit thing it had nothing common with the usual traditions of a final fantasy <insert number>. not to mention the lack of chocobos!
If the trailer features nothing but bad physical comedy gags. This means one of two things–either the movie contains nothing but physical comedy gags, or there was just nothing else worth putting in the trailer.
If the trailer features either a dog or someone getting hit in the crotch.
If the characters include multiple generations of feisty Southern women. (My wife would disagree, and would substitute any movie with a trailer including the words, “Al Pacino is Lieutenant Frank…”.)
If the movie is not a musical, yet contains a song-and-dance number.
In addition to that, I’ll add if the movie contains long music video-like sections, where the actors have no dialoge.
Also, if at some point in the film, there’s a scene which focuses almost exclusively on a band performing on stage. (Exceptions to the above rules would be if the film was about a band. Otherwise you know they’ve got the music video segments because they needed to pad out the film, and the band’s in there because they’re related to the producer/director of the film.)
I think a movie is going to suck if they advertise during every commercial of a popular tv show. It’s the last act of desperation in hope that people who watch the tv show will come watch the movie.
I like Curtis’ movies (except for “Love Actually” which I haven’t seen but, judging by the plot and responses too it, sounds incredibly noxious). “Four Weddings” was married by Andie McDowell’s presence, and I took “Notting Hill” as a fairy-tale, nothing more. Especially loved that long camera sequence which showed the passage of time by having Hugh walk through NH and the seasons changing around him.
But judging by the responses from the British posters on this board, Richard Curtis is absolutely HATED over there, second only to Hugh Grant.
