Tuesday Movie Poster round up

- Advertisement -

1. 11-11-11: Grade D

This is a very boring poster, but what I find amusing is the fact that we are supposed to be excited about the director of Saw II, III, and IV.

2. Barney’s Version: Grade C+

Besides the fun pastels and the 70’s sheen they appear to have pulled off with this film, Paul Giamatti’s perm is the best thing about this poster.

3. Red State: Grade B-

The third poster from Red State to appear on the round-up and they are progressively getting less interesting. But, the stylishly minimal approach still makes it better than most posters.

4. Kill The Irishman: Grade D

There is a lot going on in this poster, but none of it is good. It is a cluttered mess that makes me a little dizzy when I look at it. The cast for this film looks really interesting though.

5. Vikrutasi: Grade D

I’ll admit it, the only reason I chose this poster was because of Milla Jovovich. The rest of the poster is oddly smooth and photoshopped. Even Milla looks a little too touched up, but she still looks nice though.

6. Hood to Coast: Grade C+

The blue is nice to look at, and the watermark images in the background add a little more mood.

7. The Dilemma: Grade F

I’m completely indifferent to this poster. It says something when the artwork on the wall behind the subjects is far superior to the poster as a whole.

8. The Lincoln Lawyer: Grade D

The whole gritty sort of texture to this poster seems unnecessary. Overall the poster feels a little like it was mailed in.

9. Phil Ochs: There But for Fortune: Grade B

For some reason this poster feels like it was shot out of a canon. That is both a good and bad thing. The bad is: it makes for a loud, sort of chaotic poster. The good: It makes for a good energy and feel for the film.

10. Black Swan: Grade B+

Due to the fact that no poster really stood out this week, this is the Poster of The Week by default. The reason it sets itself above the rest is the fact that it seems like a great deal of time and thought went into it, unlike many other posters. The subtle dreamy look of the color is striking more than anything. The detail put into the crack is also a nice touch.

5 Comments
  1. The film was definitely worth watching. Sort of reminds me of an Old Boy remake. But going as far as saying it’s going to get some kind of Oscar nod is crazy. No way. I don’t understand why it’s getting so much buzz. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEc8FSAUU8I

  2. James Merolla says

    Did you even read the header on the 11-11-11 poster?

    1. rageaholic says

      Did you even read what I wrote? I said, that the focus is not on the fact that DLB is a part of the project, yes this is a point made on the poster, but clearly the design indicates that the date 11-11-11 is the movie title and the date the movie is coming out. This is why it is enlarged more than any of the type on the poster. What makes you think that they want us to get excited about DLB in this movie?

      1. James Merolla says

        If they didn’t want people to get excited about who directed it they wouldn’t have put his name on it, nor would they have put the three previous films he directed on there. Look at the other posters on there, do any of them feature the name of the director so prominently, as well as three previous films they directed? It isn’t typical for a poster to have that, especially when the director’s other films are Saw II, III, and IV. I found it odd and kind of hilarious.

  3. Rageaholic says

    “This is a very boring poster, but what I find amusing is the fact that we are supposed to be excited about the director of Saw II, III, and IV.”

    Where in that typography throughout the poster says to you “I see that they designed this poster to make you excited about the director?”

    Please tell me. The focus is clearly on the date, which is the main focus of the movie, because it’s called 11-11-11. It is suppose to inspire curiosity about the numbers. The poster does suck, but what you clearly see is not why it sucks, which in turn makes you a horrible critic of movie posters.

    And Red State a B-? Why it’s just a floating head with cuts on the poster. And throughout your “Reviews” you mock floating heads throughout posters. You even claimed the posters are getting less interesting. How do you justify this poster getting B-? I don’t see it in your writing. This is such a garbage repeating article.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.