Saucers of Mud

September 12, 2007

Coming Attraction

Filed under: Uncategorized — matt w @ 7:39 pm

Which of the following best describes the forthcoming Julie Taymor movie, Across the Universe?

(a) The concept of the Sgt. Pepper’s movie, the social commentary of Forrest Gump.
(b) Mamma Mia! on film, with pretensions.
(c) Van Wilder 3: Taj’s Revenge.

Early indications were that meddling studio executives had cut about half an hour from it; unfortunately, they seem to have restored the lost footage rather than cut the rest. I would say that they could cut it to three minutes, but really, even at that length it’d be too long. I’ve walked out on the trailer. (Perfectly timed for a bathroom break!)



  1. Van Wilder 3: Taj’s Revenge

    Actually, this is a better description of The Namesake. But that was a good movie!

    Comment by matt w — September 12, 2007 @ 7:39 pm

  2. It looked very Moulin Rouge to me.

    Comment by Becks — September 12, 2007 @ 10:36 pm

  3. Funny, I didn’t know Moulin Rouge suuuuuuucked.

    Comment by Matt W — September 13, 2007 @ 9:38 am

  4. Hey come on, what, you don’t like the ’60’s? Have you no nostalgia for the decade preceding your birth? (This is assuming I understand correctly from the trailer I did not watch, that the movie is a ’60’s nostalgia flick.)

    Comment by The Modesto Kid — September 13, 2007 @ 10:03 am

  5. (Le shana tova!)

    Comment by The Modesto Kid — September 13, 2007 @ 10:29 am

  6. Hm, further research reveals that my orthography is wanting.

    Comment by The Modesto Kid — September 13, 2007 @ 12:22 pm

  7. that the movie is a ’60’s nostalgia flick

    Trust me, that’s not the problem.

    Comment by matt w — September 13, 2007 @ 4:32 pm

  8. Stephen Holden appears to have liked it. Though his choice of stills to illustrate a positive review is sort of curious.

    Comment by The Modesto Kid — September 15, 2007 @ 6:41 am

  9. Did you notice how everything in the description of the movie is bone-crushingly obvious? Like how the characters are named Jude (Hey), Lucy (in sky with diamond), Max (has silver hammer), Sadie (sexy), Prudence (dear), Jo Jo (gets back), with cameos from Dr. Robert and Mr. Kite? And from the trailer the plot description seems to have pretty much every 60s cliché in it. And absolutely no sense of humor.

    This is how it’s done, people (ffwd to about 6:00 if you want), not by having a character come in through the flipping bathroom window, no doubt with silver spoon in tow.

    Comment by matt w — September 15, 2007 @ 8:06 am

  10. What I wanna know is, what’s the giant talking raccoon’s name?

    Comment by matt w — September 15, 2007 @ 2:02 pm

  11. Uh, you mean the giant talking racoon who is going back into the ring to reclaim his belt from a Soviet nemesis?

    Comment by The Modesto Kid — September 16, 2007 @ 7:26 pm

  12. Man, I wish I’d been reading your newish blog more regularly so that I’d have had something to say other than, “The trailer looks like crap,” when I got into a minor argument about my unwillingness to see this movie on Saturday.

    Comment by washerdreyer — September 18, 2007 @ 4:43 pm

  13. I think I liked this movie better when it starred Treat Williams and was called Hair. But even then it was an exercise in nostalgia.

    However, nothing can match the awesomeness of imagining the
    pitch meeting: “It’ll be like Umbrellas of Cherbourg meets Forrest Gump. With giant puppets!

    Comment by Ben — September 19, 2007 @ 3:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at

%d bloggers like this: