Weekly Movie Poster Round-Up: Prince of Persia, Zombieland, Saw VI Motion Poster
Not a ton of exciting movie posters released over the past week or so, but the first Prince of Persia posters are definitely worth a look, as is the cool motion poster for Saw VI. I like the Prince of Persia posters from a design standpoint but somehow they don’t quite suit the material.
Also this week, a strange poster for Tyler Perry’s latest film I Can Do Bad All By Myself, which pays tribute to Sam Peckinpah’s iconic poster for Straw Dogs, a Jim Carrey-esque UK quad for The Invention of Lying, and a completely blank poster for Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones. Now that’s how you sell a movie!
Comments (28)
The poster for The Invention of Lying reminded me a lot of the poster for Yes Man, and the poster for Zombieland reminded me a lot of the poster for Knowing. Maybe it’s just me.
Posted by James on July 21st, 2009Wow, that first Prince of Persia poster is terrible… Looks like a Wal-Mart Halloween costume. It also appears as though he is about to topple over.
And he should be looking the other way…
Terrible.
Embarrassing.
Ugh.
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 21st, 2009I a big fan of Saw and i cant wait for the next one and the poster looks really cool and it has got me more excited, cant wait for halloween
Posted by Michael on July 21st, 2009The Designs are Boring and Snoring….
Love the post though, keep it up.
Agree with the poster for “Prince of Persia” being Terrible.
And the poster for “The Invention of lying” was bad the first time I saw it with the words “YES” on it.
ZombieLand is close but in the end does not do much for me. Reminds me of a Transformer with just too much little stuff happening in it so it looks like a bag of crap. I think if the words popped more on this and the rest of the globe was darker this would work better.
I hate to say it but the “saw” poster is the best except it needs motion to work. It is not really a poster, but maybe some day we will see all movie posters have motion. I think this is the future… but is it still called a poster?
Posted by Big Hungry on July 21st, 2009is that jake jillianhol(or however you spell it) as the prince of persia? I love him, but as an action star….ummmmm, i don’t know about it.
They should of got the guy who played arragon for the lord of the rings.
Posted by rick on July 21st, 2009The SAW VI (animated) poster is kind of cool.
Posted by Sly on July 21st, 2009I was watching the original Funny Games right before I checked the website and when I oppened this page and heard the saw music it gave me the creeps for a bit.
I probably won’t be checking out The Invention of Lying in cinemas, except if they come out with a decent trailer to convince us it’ll be any good. I’d rather wait for his UK project with Stephen Merchant (awsome comedy duo), Cemetery Junction.
to rick:
Posted by AlexG on July 21st, 2009Viggo Mortensen (Arangorn from LOTR) now does more serious work and has established himself as a quality actor, imo, with a couple of great Cronenberg films (Eastern Promises, A History of Violence). I simply can’t wait for his next project, the upcoming adaptation of ‘The Road’, an amazing Cormack McCarthy (No Country for Old Men) book.
Plus Viggo Mortensen is in his 50’s.
The type is really weird on the Persia posters, way to modern for a period fantasy film. And that second one with the chick looks like a magazine cover.
Even though I hate Tyler Perry the artwork for his posters are usually very inventive and well designed. I don’t know about this Straw Dogs copy though.
Lovely Bones is surprisingly boring. I would think they would use something more exciting than an out of focus blob.
Invention Of Lying is shit.
Posted by Swarez on July 21st, 2009I agree on Lovely Bones – did the guy in charge of that put it off and throw something together 30 mins. before the meeting? really.
Posted by rus in chicago on July 21st, 2009The Saw poster is kind of copying the poster for Premonition in my opinion.
Posted by Sam on July 21st, 2009what’s with the font type in the Prince of Persia poster? looks like a magazine cover.
Posted by modesilver on July 21st, 2009oh really, thier making the road? i’ve always wanted to read that book. it’s a very psychological deep book. So the movie should be just as good. but even if he is re-establishing himself as a more serious actor i don’t think he should forget the movie that made him big and to just throw away action star would in my opinion hurt his carrer.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009You obviously haven’t been following his career very closely Rick. He’s always been a serious actor, never an action star. If you think his role in LOTR is an action role then you are seriously misunderstanding it.
Posted by Swarez on July 22nd, 2009i’m not underestimating his roll as aragon. but it is an action roll. how can you possibly say it’s not. he’s the ranger that kicks everyones ass. he saves the little hobbits all the time. I understand it’s about him coming to terms with who he is and finally taking the rings (even if it’s for the one he loves) and becoming the king he always should of been. but that doesn’t mean it’s not an action roll. the majority of the time in the movie he was swinging his sword and kicking some ork ass.
and your absolutly right swarez i havnt followed his carrer. but i think the majority of people didn’t even really know who he was untill lord of the rings. Or remembered him. As an action roll he’s awesome and i would like to see him do it again.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009While I’m not going in to a debate over this, let me just say this. It’s not an action role. Just because he has a sword and uses it doesn’t mean it’s an “action” role or that he is an “action star”. If that was the case then every actor in the film is an action star and LOTR are not action films.
Posted by Swarez on July 22nd, 2009how do you figure that it’s not an action film. even if it’s syfy or fantasy it’s still an action film. 80% of the film or more is action.
I call him an action star because all the movies i’ve seen him in that to me were action he did a great job. with all the others it just means that they can play action rolls. being an action star and being able to play them are two different things. where he may not be an action star he does a hell of a job. is he an action star, are they action films who gives a shit. he kicks ass, so pull the stick out of your ass swarez.
my original point was that he would do awesome as the prince of persia, maybe get someone younger.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009LOTR is not an action film. It’s an epic, character-driven, sweeping, fantasy-drama.
Rambo is an action film.
Aliens is an action film.
Top Gun is an action film.
Get it?
Posted by Shut-Up Ed on July 22nd, 2009wait, your telling me that top gun, with only two action scenes is an action movie but lord of the rings thats full of it is not. top gun is more of a drama then anything. all good movies are character driven. but it’s also an action packed fantasy flick.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009i rent to couple different places to find out what exactly is lord of the rings catagorized as.
Drama, Sci-Fi/Fantasy, Action, War (178 Minutes)
so how bout we just say were all right
it is a drama, it is sci fi fantasy, and it is an action movie.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009It’s “Sci-Fi”. Just because the network spells it that way doesn’t make it right.
Posted by Swarez on July 22nd, 2009I don’t think “Action” it means what you think it means.
so the people who catorgorize movies are wrong…..but your right? just admit a movie can be more then just one genre. lord of the rings is a drama, it is a si-fy, and it is an action movie.
Posted by rick on July 22nd, 2009What exactly is science fiction about Lord Of The Rings? Pray tell.
This comment makes me wonder if you really know what these words mean.
A movie can have many elements, all films do but they are categorized as one particular genre most of the time. Lord Of the Rings: Fantasy. Not action even though it has characters who “kick ass”. Top Gun: Action. Lethal Weapon: Action. Star Wars: Science Fiction. A History Of Violance: Drama. All these films have other elements, comedy, drama and such but the overall genre they are mainly focusing on is just one.
Posted by Swarez on July 22nd, 2009Hey Omar,
I’ve got to agree with you, was thinking of that earlier today listening to Kurt talk about 28 Weeks Later as sci fi. I think the word ’sci fi’ has kind of lost its meaning and has come to incorporate anything fantasy, even when movies are truly fantastical films in nature. Though a lot of movies are starting to cross into both, I mean the Matrix is a sci fi film but a lot of the ways it deals with things, especially in the shitty sequels, borrows so much from fantasy storytelling.
Posted by Goon on July 22nd, 2009dude, if i went to a movie store to rent lotr where would i find it. Action or drama?
Posted by rick on July 23rd, 2009Well Netflix has Lord of the Rings listed under “Action and Adventure” “Fantasy” “Dramas based on books” and “Action Sci-Fi and Fantasy” [note spelling]. They have the luxury of being able to classify a movie into many different genres by the mere sake of being an on-line store. A brick and mortar store is beholden to what corporate dictates, seeing as how they have to abide by shelf space. Whether or not Lord of the Rings is located in the Action or Sci-Fi section of Blockbuster does not make it the absolute genre.
Posted by Dave on July 23rd, 2009“dude, if i went to a movie store to rent lotr where would i find it. Action or drama?”
Neither, in the fantasy section.
Posted by Swarez on July 23rd, 2009my video store combines sci fi and fantasy together.
Posted by Goon on July 23rd, 2009I’m starting to really hate coming to this thread and having that fucking Saw poster start playing. Seriously, fuck this auto play bullshit.
Posted by Dave on July 23rd, 2009Leave a Reply