« Friday Numbers... | Main | Rentiles Revenge »

November 05, 2005

Munich: The Trailer

Here it is.

What do you think?

Posted by poland at November 5, 2005 11:31 AM

Comments

Much better than the long and turgid "King Kong" trailer, at any rate. Wish there were a larger version.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 11:42 AM

Hmm. Watching this trailer made me realize that I've seen this story before (was it a made-for-HBO film in the 80s?). I can't remember the name but I'm pretty sure Michael York was in the Daniel Craig role . . . at least the scene in the trailer with him checking the "unexploded" bomb is almost exactly the same as I remember it in the earlier film.

Is MUNICH a remake of this film or just another take on the same events?

Posted by: Krazy Eyes [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 01:23 PM

The new Kong trailer is awkward and feels like it was a rush job. Good material in it, but some strange editing decisions.

Posted by: jeffmcm [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 01:23 PM

"Awkward" is a good description of the "Kong" trailer. It feels stilted, like bits are in the wrong place. "Strange editing decisions" indeed.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 01:47 PM

The HBO movie was Gideon's Sword. Same events as this.

Posted by: mutinyco [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 01:51 PM

correction: Sword of Gideon.

duh.

Posted by: mutinyco [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 01:53 PM

The HBO film is based on the same book that is now getting credit as Munich's source. That's probably why the scene was so similar.

Posted by: Filipe [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 02:40 PM

I think Bana's performance last year in "Troy" was terribly undervalued. He was the heart and soul of the film (also about the circular nature of political vengeance) and I'll bet it got him the role in "Munich."

Posted by: The Premadator [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 02:48 PM

Bana was good, "Troy" was not.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 03:09 PM

first time i've heard/seen negative comments on the kong trailer but I totally agree. in my opinion, it's so bad, so poorly edited in spots, that it HAD to be a decision at some point. There's a marketing philosophy that sometimes "bad edits" will actually stick in the audience's head more than good ones. And by good I mean ones that don't call attention to themselves or distract things. Kong's trailer is so bad, so all over the map and wrongly made that it had to be a decision at some point to go that way. Truth is, some huge films like Godzilla had amazing trailers, then didn't do much at the box office. Kong's people may be trying the opposite. Even that promo/behind the scenes thing for Kong that was up a week or two ago had a much sweeter montage section at the end than anything in this trailer.

Posted by: martin [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 03:18 PM

How were the LOTR trailers? I'm pretty sure I never saw one, which is amazing, I think. They couldn't have been this bad. Did anyone else dislike the faux voiceover? I have a bad feeling about this movie.

Posted by: Blackcloud [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 03:54 PM

No doubt the Kong trailer was a rush job. My guess is that Uni's been waiting to get final effects shots, which are late.

As for the Munich trailer: the film looks intriguing, but the trailer was pretty lifeless. I can't remember any specific scene from it, and I've watched it twice now.

Oh, and I wish they had kept the name "Vengeance." "Munich" is as colorless as the trailer.

Posted by: Wrecktum [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 06:18 PM

I agree on the fact that it should have been called "Vengeance" - sounded meaner and grittier than "Munich" (ooh, the city it's set! How... er, thought-provoking).

Ah well, a boring title, a boring (fake?) poster and now an apparently boring teaser.

How long is this movie supposed to be? Do we know yet? I have a feeling it's going to be long.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 5, 2005 11:57 PM

That's the actual poster--it's hanging outside of the Loews Lincoln Square in NYC. It feels like it's confused marketing to me--too serious for the "action flick" audience and too action flick for the "serious" audience.

Posted by: MattM [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 6, 2005 07:12 AM

The Kong trailer and this trailer showed back to back in the theaters, Kong's reaction was definitely a bit muted. Considering it ends with that one shot of Kong jumping and smacking a plane. It wants the audience up from their chairs at that point, but it didn't happen.

At least we know that, just looking at the Munich trailer that Eric Bana carries the emotional weight of the movie and that he is definitely in consideration for Best Actor. I think it looks great.

Posted by: Hopscotch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2005 10:15 AM

It also hit me while watching the Kong trailer what the movie will turn out as....

The Hulk. Some see that is good. I don't.

Posted by: Hopscotch [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2005 10:32 AM

I agree about Bana -- he has given some really good performances in not-so-great movies. He really captured everything that was noble and conflicted about Hector, but he wasn't afraid to portray his moment of anger and hubris, either.

Anyway -- Bana has been an actor waiting for the right role for a long time now. I hope this is it.

Posted by: Lynn [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2005 12:06 PM

It is not a question of if Bana will be a huge star. But when.

Posted by: Bruce [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2005 01:38 PM

I still can't get any volume on this Quicktime. Anyone have that probnlem?

Posted by: LesterFreed [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 7, 2005 05:58 PM

At least King Kong doesn't have laughable effects, like Hulk. King Kong also appears to have a cast made up of living people, unlike Hulk's corpse cast who zombied their way through it.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 12:24 AM

But King Kong's effects are laughable. I could hardly contain myself during the trailer. It's hilarious. The bad CGI looks exactly like bad CGI. I still have hope that it will be a good movie, but everything I've seen so far is making it harder and harder to be optimistic.

Posted by: Stella's Boy [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 05:57 AM

i'll reserve judgement on bashing the cgi til the movie comes out. its a trailer.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 07:28 AM

And what I'm criticizing is the CGI that is in the trailer. Or are we not allowed to criticize trailers?

Posted by: Stella's Boy [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 03:15 PM

It is a trailer. Not like it's the finished product. I'd give PJ a little more leeway. He's earned it.

Posted by: PandaBear [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 03:31 PM

Did you see the trailer for King Kong in a cinema?

Just like with the first trailer, a lot of people were mocking the effects because they were watching it on their computer screens or on tv, but then when people saw it in the cinema on the big screen, they were duly impressed.

Posted by: KamikazeCamelV2.0 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 8, 2005 10:47 PM

i just think u can't go around tearing down a movie because u feel the cgi in a trailer isn't up to par. thats like reading a book jacket and deciding the whole novel.

Posted by: bicycle bob [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2005 07:47 AM

The fact that so many hostile Kong cynics and pessimists are talking about that film in a forum thread for Spielberg's new film tells me everything I need to know about Jackson's King Kong: IT'S GONNA BE HUGE!!!

Posted by: aldebaran [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2005 12:50 PM

I agree. Kong will make a boatload of those greenbacks.

Posted by: BluStealer [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2005 01:36 PM

Now, as for the Munich trailer...well, I'm a big Eric Bana fan and have a lot of time for Spielberg and was really looking forward to this film. But that trailer is painfully morose. Unless I hear amazing things about this, I will probably wait 'til the DVD is released.

Posted by: aldebaran [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2005 06:05 PM

I can't give that much stock to a trailer. I don't see movies or not see them based on 1 minute. More goes into it than that.

Posted by: joefitz84 [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 9, 2005 07:38 PM

I liked the Munich trailer. Rewatched it a few times. Really brought my anticipation up for the film. The 20 Weeks to Oscar column didn't hurt either.

Posted by: Terence D [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 10, 2005 08:49 AM

Post a comment

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Remember me?