Is it just me, or is it a bit weird that on the movies main page of nytimes.com they have an "exclusive premiere of the trailer for "The Good Night," directed by Jake Paltrow." Have they done something like this in their bizarro multimedia section before? I can't recall so blatant a piece of (paid?) promotion amongst the actual film criticism. But, maybe I just hadn't noticed before, until the annoying Paltrow name jumped out at me.
It jumped out at me, because last February, the Times let little Jake Paltrow make these ridiculous little short films to accompany Lynn Hirschberg's article on "Great Performers." The films don't appears to be online anymore, but the were pure film school schlock, grainy black and white moving portraits of Penelope Cruz, Brad Pitt, and the like, complete with cliched kooky close-ups of random body parts. They played like a masturbatory three-way between Paltrow, the Times, and the stars they featured.
The trailer itself for "The Good Night" doesn't help me to feel any better. While I reserve the right to completely change my mind and become Jake Paltrow's #1 Fan should I see the film next week, the trailer makes it look the Anglo bastard child of The Science of Sleep and Abre Los Ojos.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Ah, you cannot hold this director completely responsible for the trailer (ok, a little bit maybe). But indeed.. it does have poor rythm and there is too much dreamy whispering going on. Maybe this is a bad Gondry imitation (with less imagination) or a bad version of Closer.
I understand that Peneloe Cruz is an object for reverie but this strikes me as a little unnecessary - why do we need one more movie like that -with such an odd cast?
true. i won't hold paltrow totally responsible for the trailer, but i will hold him accountable for the dreadful short films he did previously for nytimes.com. who is paltrow's friend at the times? aren't the nepotistic advantages provided by his immediate family enough?
Post a Comment