The last month of the year is upon us, which means that we have one final big movie day of the year: Christmas. All the studios are releasing their holiday guns, hoping for one last glory at the box office- or if you’re Sony you hope that you don’t drop another bomb and clog the January 2006 books- so in this parade of year-end hopefuls we have a fresh new batch of movie posters to review. I’m gonna critic two of the biggest flicks of the year, a hotly anticipated Oscar contender, and even a musical, as well as a few other potential quality posters. But enough with the exposition… on with the reviewing!

King Kong

Wow, look how good that special effect looks! Seriously though, are we supposed to think anything else but that? The gorilla looks real, congratulations WETA, but did you remember to include a story, or good characters, or a heart? I hope you did, because absolutely none of that is on display here. All I see is a mini-Naomi Watts and some clever-looking pixels on a page. Somebody tell me again why I should care.

Grade: C

Munich

I just don’t know. So much of this movie is shrouded in mystery, and this poster is far too frustratingly vague. Even after seeing the trailer and this poster I have no idea what this movie is about, or if it’s gonna be any good. Sure, I know what the plot is, but that’s like saying you know how Jaws ends. It’s the journey, not the destination. If I had to put my cards on the table I’d say it’s gonna be a good movie, though not great (he’s been rushing production on his movies lately, and the movies have not benefited from the protracted schedule), and yet it will be nominated for a ton of awards because the story is about the one thing where Spielberg is bulletproof from critics: Jews.

As far as the poster is concerned, it does its job of backing up the strategy of the marketing campaign, though it does little to amp up interest in the movie. I’ll put it this way, if Munich wasn’t a Steven Spielberg film I would think this a boring dud of a poster belonging to a movie I have no interest in seeing. But since it is a Steven Spielberg film I’ll say that it is an intriguing image for quite possibly the most intriguing movie of the year.

Grade: B-

Casanova

I pretty much completely forgot that at one point in history Heath Ledger was considered a sex symbol. Man alive, those were innocent, naïve days. I’m not saying he’s a bad looking dude, because he’s not, but when I think of Casanova I think of a man that could have any woman on the planet just by looking at them. So why didn’t they cast Johnny Depp? Or Orlando Bloom? Or Brat Pitt? Hell, even Colin Farrell? Either all those actors were booked, or the casting director has been under a rock since A Knight’s Tale came out, or this is an extremely low-rent production. It’s probably a combination of all three.

Grade: C+

The Libertine

Uh oh, someone’s going nuts with the font folder. Someone stop him before he gets to Comic Sans MS. Or goes crazy with the Arial Black!

Also, doesn’t this look almost exactly what the Casanova poster should look like? Tell me again why they didn’t just go ahead and pony up the money for Captain Jack Sparrow?

Grade: D

Rumor Has It…

Here’s the best thing I can say about this movie poster: Jennifer Aniston looks great in a white belly shirt and a pair of low-rise jeans. That’s maybe the most appealing she’s looked on a movie poster and it goes a long way in forgetting just how plain vanilla and nechy this poster actually is. The three floating torsos behind her do not help to sell the movie, nor does it’s confusing title and redundant tag line. This is the type of sure fire $35 million grossing, mid-range somewhat disappointment that Aniston is known for. But hey, at least she looks good, so it’s an improvement on the Derailed poster.

Grade: B-

The Producers

It’s almost as if the makers of this remake/retelling/sequel/re-imagination/whatever they’re calling this version of The Producers don’t actually want anyone to go see their movie, because if they did the poster would be a heap more appealing than this contrived one-sheet. I can’t think up a more awkward trio of actors to put on a poster, but if I did, I would try to pose them so it looked like they were all in the same room together when the picture was taken.

This is another example of filmmakers over-estimating the brand desire of their product. If you think I’m wrong, I present Exhibit A: Rent, and Exhibit B: The Phantom of the Opera. Not only does the world not need another Producers movie, but the two leads haven’t been box office draws in more than a decade. This poster is poorly staged, over-colored, obnoxiously cluttered, and succeeds only in making me want to see this movie less. Ye gods, what does it take to get a good holiday movie poster around here?

Grade: D

Memoirs of a Geisha

Now this is more like it. About as perfect a movie poster as you can find. A stunning, beautiful image that tells you everything you need to know about the movie, without giving anything away. A poster like this gives your film immediate class (and Oscar potential). I’ve never read the book, have no real pressing interest in the subject of geishas, and yet I still want to see it. This movie has “gigantic hit‿ written all over it.

Memoirs of a Geisha is quite possibly the best movie poster of the year.

Grade: A+

And I’m thankful, for December 2005 has an overall movie poster quality rating of about a “C+”, at best. Just a poor, poor showing from what is usually a good time for unique posters. Maybe 2006 will bring us a higher quality of cinema art (that’s “movie poster” for those who are still dizzy from staring at The Producers poster and wondering why Uma Thurman looks so gigantic), but until then…

Bangarang!

Ad: