Lame Trailer Clichés: 8 Things You'll Always See In Rom-Com Trailers

Ah, romantic comedies. When did we last see a good one? Well, if you did, chances are they weren't made for Hollywood's sake or they were made years ago. I think the question that we really need to be asking is when was the last time you saw a trailer for a romantic comedy and thought "YES. I'm going to see that because it looks so original." Yeah...didn't think so. That's because romantic comedy trailers employ the same techniques. Here are the main five:

1. "Meet this person in this glorious freeze frame."

The ironic thing about this freeze frame introducing us to Stephanie Plum, Katherine Heigl's latest 'heroine' from One for the Money, is that her facial expression is pretty much how I looked through the entire movie. Foreshadowing, perhaps? Oh One for the Money, you really are too good.

Lame Trailer Clichés: Pop Songs for Rom-Coms

One of the things that I dislike most about my job is the sound on the trailer disc. Sometimes, it'll be really quiet. Other times, I'll be half way through serving a customer and then the TV will suddenly burst out with some catchy but totally annoying pop song. More often than not, I'll look up and that annoying pop song will be accompanying a trailer for a rom-com. And then I'll get the song stuck in my head. So I don't know, I guess these trailers are doing their jobs:

I like you, but I don't like your movies: Amanda Seyfried

When I was thinking about my chances of see Red Riding Hood, I could only put it down to one thing: I like Amanda Seyfried, and she is the prime reason as to why I'd see this. I've always admired Miss Seyfried, and usually always watch a movie which she's in. But then I had a little think. I don't really like any of her movies. And that got me thinking even further. Can Amanda be one of my favourite actresses even though I don't like any of her movies? Let's take a look at the movies of hers that I have seen, and I'll weigh up my options: to like or not to like?

Tier One: I actually do like this one.

Mean Girls is one of my favourite movies of all time. While Rachel McAdams is undoubtedly the stand out in this movie, Amanda does a brilliant job in her first feature film as the really stupid Karen. There's dumb, then there's so dumb air is the only thing in ones head, and then there is Karen. In an ethical world, we shouldn't really laugh at ones misfortune, Amanda makes Karen Smith kinda likeable, but still really stupid. Like, a lovable kind of stupid. And, without our Karen, we wouldn't have known that this wasn't true:

"So, you have your cousins, and then you have your first cousins, and then you have your second cousins..."

 And, of course, if all else fails in life, you can use your breasts to find out whether it's raining or not. Karen is like the forgotten heroine of Mean Girls.

Tier two - I don't mind you, but I could do without you.

Okay, I admit, I do like Mamma Mia! Well...I did. I haven't seen it in two years. But seriously, I watched it a lot back in 2008, and I could sing you every one of the songs in that goddamn movie. Oh, and you wouldn't want to try and beat me at ABBA Singstar, because I rock at that. However, because half of the cast can't sing, Mamma Mia! is a painful experience for many. However, Amanda can sing, even though she comes across as trying a little too hard. She's pretty sweet in this movie, as she is in any movie, which is probably why she has built up this persona as the 'sweetest girl on the block'. She's a likeable heroine for such an annoying story, and the fact that her and Dominic Cooper click so well makes it so much easier to watch. I did feel like she couldn't quite stand up to all the talent around her (The Streep, Pierce 'I can't sing' Brosnan, Colin 'King of the World' Firth and Eric off True Blood's daddy), but she made a good effort. And that's all we can ask of Amanda. No matter what everyone says, Mamma Mia! is still great fun.

Here's another guilty Amanda entry...I did quite enjoy Jennifer's Body, but only to a certain point. I would never watch this shit again. Ever. I mean, it has Megan Fox in it. She was horribly terrible in that film. Absolutely horribly terrible. Then there's lots of strange sexualized horror in there which doesn't make any sense at all, and the story is effing terrible. Plus, not being homophobic at all, but there's random lesbian kissing which doesn't make any sense at all to the story. And the end is bloody annoying. Even though everything is so goddamn awful, now I remember it, I really quite enjoyed it. I don't know how, but I did. And I believe that most of that enjoyment came from Amanda Seyfried, because out of everyone in the film, she was the one who could act the most. Not that she had much competition. This is quite a random film to have on her filmography, as it required her to go back to high school long after she'd left, but the fact that it was written by Oscar winning Juno scribe Diablo Cody does give it some credentials. Anyway, this, on paper, must be one of her worst flicks.

Tier three - Dear God, you suck!

Alright, alright. I get why a lot of people would dig Dear John. It has a sad story, I admit. It has a father with mental issues, which is the kind of character I always get attached to. It has that hot buff guy from Step Up. BUT IT'S WRITTEN BY NICHOLAS SPARKS. Therefore, it is awful. Before I launch into a huge rant on why Nicholas Sparks is the most annoying man to have anything to do with literature, I'll say this: how is it that this man can ruin our lives with his horribly schmaltzy pieces of work and still give us enough to get a wee bit emotional at the end of all his films? I hate myself every time I feel like crying at the end of a Nicholas Sparks movie. Which is why I avoid them like the plague. I thought Dear John would somehow be different, since it has such likeable stars like Amanda and Channing, along with back up from Richard Jenkins. Mind you, The Notebook had suck likeable stars as Rachel McAdams, Ryan Gosling and James Marsden, and it was still annoying. Dear John was just so boring. And to think that this was the film that knocked Avatar off the top of the box office. Do cinemagoers really like being bored like that these days? Amanda shone, though, which was the main thing.

Ah...it's like deja vu. Amanda seems to like her letters. First she stars in Mamma Mia! which opens with a scene of letter postin'. Then she stars in Dear John, which is like a romance told through letters. To round it all off she stars in Letters to Juliet, which is pretty much a film about letters. God help us when she discovers emails. I actually regard this one as a better film than Dear John, even though you could pretty much watch the trailer and know exactly what was going to happen in the film. But, like Dear John, this movie is bland. Just really, really bland. And totes forgettable. Because, since when were a whole lot of letters to someone who never existed in the first place an interesting plotline? Never. But when you have Amanda in the lead role, things just seem better already.

Chloe must be one of Amanda's better performances. The movie is pretty bland, and pretty awful (even though it has Julianne Moore and Liam Neeson in it), but Amanda's out of character turn as a high class hooker was actually pretty good. Even though I'm sure 55% of her performance is based on her being so good looking. Chloe is such a strange character, which I think Amanda played with really well. And this film managed to take all the sweetness out of her and make her a less than innocent being. Which was nice, considering that this is such a change of scene for young Amanda, but the rest of the film was pretty stupid, so it doesn't exactly offer fireworks and what not for her career. Though, to the minority of people who did check this Atom Egoyan flick out, she'll remain as the most memorable thing in this otherwise forgettable work.

What lies in the future for Amanda? Is she better than all of this?

I know that Red Riding Hood is a very present movie, but it's very futuristic for me since I'm waiting for the DVD release. But I've heard quite a bit of praise for Amanda's work, even though this looks like crap. Which is exactly why I thought of this post. She's always good, but her movies? No. Her next movie is one called Now, previously known as I'm.Mortal, which also stars Justin Timberlake, Olivia Wilde and Cillian Murphy. If it has Cillian Murphy in it, it has to be good. And I like the look of it's plot: a world where aging stops at 25 years old. Yeah, Nicole Kidman would like a world like that, too. Then she wouldn't have to use all of that botox.
P.S. Notice how Amanda is sitting in Cillian Murphy's chair? She's great, but not that great.

I think Amanda is still a pretty cool actress, but I'd place her well outside my most favourite actresses since her filmography isn't anything to scream about. But who knows? I think she could pick up an Oscar nomination before she retires.

What are your thoughts on Amanda Seyfried? Is she a yay or nay for you?

DVD--Letters to Juliet

or: Another Amanda Seyfried movie with letters.

One word to sum it up: Ummmmmmmmmm.

If you have seen the Letters to Juliet trailer, I think you may feel like you have already seen the whole movie. I mean, I didn't know how they could possibly turn that 2 minutes of trailer into a whole 100 minute film. To my surprise, the trailer was missing some of the film, but you could get the basic storyline, from beginning to end, in the trailer. So instead of doing a plot synopsis, here's the trailer. Oh, and I guess I should put here *spoiler alert*.

While Letters to Juliet had a nice enough story (by that I mean the actual 'letters to Juliet' and Vanessa Redgrave finding her true love), that didn't excuse how cliched it was. One of my friends asked me how the movie was, and this is what I said: "It was amazingly cliched, as predictable as our main street in town, and the script was so awkward it made Paulie Bleeker look normal." Then I later tweeted: "Wow...Letters to Juliet has some of the bigest twists and turns I have seen since...Valentine's Day." I think either of those two statements rightly sum up Letters to Juliet. It may offer a little more than the usual romantic film, but it sure doesn't strain itself to set itself apart from the crowd.

I wish Amanda Seyfried would take on some better roles. I mean, look at this: three of her films, Letters, Dear John and Mamma Mia have all had letters playing a more prominent role than her. I say send an email and get it over with. There are only so many times we can see Amanda all puffy from crying over love. Also, I think the film over did the role that Gael Garcia Bernal had. If he was really that ignorant, then why would Sophie stay engaged to him? Christopher Egan wasn't that much better. If anything, this film suffers from some bad characterization and limp dialogue, but there is still Vanessa Redgrave's story to swoon over. That's true romance, right there.

THE VERDICT: Romance fans will love it, but even they might have a hard time not noticing the outward awkwardness of this film. And they may feel like they have seen it all before.

4/10