Pajiba

That's an unusual great batch of posters this time.

I'd watch Much Ado About Nothing, Stoker and Only God Forgives based on their directors alone (whose names are very prominent in all of the posters)

Eva Longoria got the good old photoshop-boobjob until disfigurement. guh.

Upstream Color gets me interested in that it seems to show a scene in the middle of the movie, without any hints at how it came to this (aside from the obious "why are they in a bathtub", the broken nose adds a nice touch of danger).

Struck by Lightning is horrible and the horror ones (evil dead, frozen and the haunting in connecticut 2 - there was a part 1 to this?) are just your trypical horror flick posters, nothing special.

I'm very surprised by my favorite of the bunch, though: Side Effects. The simple yet clever concept plus the tagline sell this one for me. I hadn't even heard of the movie before and want to see it, so I guess we have a winner

Instead of "A Haunting in Georgia," they go with "A Haunting In Connecticut 2 -- But In Georgia"? You can tell a movie's going to be really good when it stretches its title to the limit to attach brand recognition from a cinematic turd.

Are we just supposed to go off the picture or can we use the words as well? Cause based only on the photos I would watch Stocker, Riddick, Oblivion, Side Affects, Jack the Giant Slayer, and Hansel and Grettle, But if I paid more attention to the writing on the poster only Jack the Giant Slayer makes the cut, but Much Ado About Nothing and Struck by Lightning get added.

Wesley and Fred. Definitely.

Whedon's. Always Pick Whedon's one.

With a little work this game could be more fun: shop out cast/directors/producers. Even more fun, shop out titles.

Oblivion.

Based on posters alone, Stoker or Oblivion.

Side Effects. Because Rooney Mara has a really interesting face.

I have never seen such a group of posters where I start to get excited then I hit something that stops me in my tracks. Cases in point: Stoker at Kidman, Baytown at Longoria,

The correct answer is Stoker. Park Chan Wook could direct a movie about a turd's journey from toilet to the ocean and it would win all of the awards. At least deserve to only for Micheal Moore to get them, because his boring ass documentary isn't even close to be half as controversial as he thinks it is. Yes, I'm still angry over Oldboy not winning Cannes! Anyways, here is the making of the poster of Stoker.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

Well since I'll see anthing by Whedon and Ryan Gosling I guess my choices are made for me. Also I loved Monsters Inc and they already made a Monsters University website to go with the movie that is adorable! I'm also interested to see what Upstream Color is about.

Based solely on graphic design I like "The Frozen" and "Evil Dead" and HATE "The Baytown Outlaws". Based on cast "The Baytown Outlaws" looks awful as well as "Oblivion" (Tom Cruise is an instant vote).

Why does Alexis Denisof look like the Scarecrow in that photo?

Will Fillion be spouting Shakespeare sans pantalons? Because I am totally down with that. Much more so than, say, Michael Keaton.

Marry, sir, they have committed false report; moreover, they have spoken untruths; secondarily, they are slanders; sixth and lastly, they have belied a lady; thirdly, they have verified unjust things; and, to conclude, they are lying knaves.

And bootay. Swoon.

Based only on the design, I'd say the Soderbergh poster is the most eye-catching and intriguing to me in its difference from the norm.

The Stoker poster is also notable, but (aside from its advertisement of a director that I usually enjoy) it doesn't grab me as a potential viewer in and of itself.

I'd rather rub my balls on the face of a schizophrenic high on bath salts than watch Struck by Lightning. And is he supposed to be wearing a watch?

"Hey, what time is it?"

"Blank douche circle."

"Thought so."

It's a standard digital watch face. The numbers are blurry, but you can tell it's not just a blank face by looking at it.

ok that was so funny I spit out my coffee

Yes. No. Yes. No. No. Yes. No. No. No. No. No. Yes. No. No. No.

Only God Forgives or Oblivion because I'm a sucker for expensive sci-fi?

Evil Dead, Upstream Color, and Only God Forgives.

I will see Stoker but only because its directed by Chan Wook Park (Kidman is definitely a minus for the poster).

Struck by Lighting - If you only were Colfer, if you only were.

Side note: I swore that was Burn Gorman in the Much Ado poster (not Alexis Denisof) until I read the cast names.

Totally want to see The Haunting in Connecticut: 2: Ghosts of Georgia: A poltergeist in Atlanta: The Apparition in Cabbagetown>

The first three, the bathtub one, and the one with Jeremy Renner, just because those pistols are LeMat revolvers and I love awesome old revolvers, especially the LeMat, which means somebody on that production also likes awesome old revolvers, and that kindred spirit compels me to give it a chance even if it's super generic.

The one for Baytown Outlaws reads as though it stars Billy Bob Thornton and Eva Longoria... 's Boobs.

And the problem is? Nobody is paying to see Billy Bob's ironed-out mug.

Much Ado About Nothing based on the fact that the title tells me it's a Shakespeare adaptation. I like Shakespeare.

Riddick, Side Effects, Stoker, MU - the book I'm Scary, You're Scary really sells it. Much Ado poster = nothing ado want to see.

I want the Stoker poster on a T-shirt, minus the actresses. Not sure if I want to see another Kidman film, though. I know I don't want to watch Cruise. On the other hand, Much Ado gets my vote simply because of the cast. The poster itself is not exciting.

"Jack The Giantslayer."

I don't care for "Much Ado About Nothing," the play or the poster, although I like the cast and the director.

Based on the poster, it's not "Hansel and Gretel" if it's "John and Maria." It kinda loses the whole punch of the movie title. I might watch it if it was "Hansel and Gretel and John and Maria: Bob and Carol and Ted And Alice's Fucked Up Kids."

See, neither Much Ado About Nothing or Struck by Lightning have terribly interesting posters. But they list the cast - which in both cases looks like a good enough reason to see them.

If you take the text out, I'm left with Stoker and Baby Goose. Which does not seem like a bad place to be.

RIDDICK, motherfucker!

The only poster worth one artistic damn up there is the one for Stoker. That thing is gorgeous. The others are all painfully generic. Maybe the one with the tub is a little different, and Jack looks fun.

Most of those look pretty awful, but put "Joss Whedon" on a poster and I will (eventually) watch the movie.

Oblivion would be interesting if that NY destroyed thing hadn't been done a million times. And ick on the Cruise factor.

Yes, the only way the "Much Ado" poster could have been better is if they reversed the fonts so Whedon's name was the big bold print.

Here's my thing about Evil Dead: My knee-jerk is "NOOOOOOOOOO!" but my intellectual reaction is "well, EDII was pretty much a remake of the orig, so it's got sort of a Hitchhiker's Guide thing going on where one thing is a remake/re-imagining/slightly different version of all the ones before thing going, and that could work for it."

Based on that poster, though? My current feeling is "meh."

Much Ado About Nothing based solely on its cast. Well, and the source material is ok too, I guess.

See, the poster makes me NOT want to see it, because it looks like a bad fit with the source material (even though I know the story behind the filming of the movie)

Is this based on Shakespeare's Much Ado? If not, I'm not familiar with the source material, but I'll see it because the list of actors at the top of the poster includes Fran Kranz, and I have a minor crush on him just from Cabin in the Woods. Good gods, he was good in that.

It is. And you are not alone - I went for Hemsworth, but stayed for Fran Kranz.

And Whedon, too.

Obviously.

The IMDB description of Upstream Color is baffling: 'A man and woman are drawn together, entangled in the life cycle of an ageless organism. Identity becomes an illusion as they struggle to assemble the loose fragments of wrecked lives."

tl;dr, sad white people

But it's by the Primer guy...so....

Really? SOLD. But that synopsis made me titter and chortle

Well then OF COURSE the description of the new movie is baffling. Primer was confusing as hell.

Yeah I was half-joking, it actually sounds like it might be good

I was most interested in Oblivion until I saw Tom Cruise's name and then I immediately lost interest. Huh.

me too

Much Ado because of Alexis Denisof and Amy Acker. They were great together on Angel. And probably only god forgives.

I would rather deal with a heroin problem than watch most of the rest. Will await reviews for the non sequel, non remake, non tom cruise, non billybob films

I would kill to be addicted to heroin for like 2 months, or at least until I lose the baby weight.

Which is fucked up because I'm a dude.

Umm...I'd have to go with Much Ado About Nothing as well, because I'm drawn to the Whedonverse like a junky moth to the flame under the spoon.

Upvote, just for the Angel cast reference!

I would watch Ryan Gosling's beaten-up face in anything... As long as he puts on that ridiculous yet sexy scorpion satin jacket, and delivers just an amazingly mind-blasting performance as in Drive.

Has Hollywood's creative team gone on a strike? These are terrible! That said: MU, because SULLY!

Saw the "Baytown Outlaws" or as it was called then "The Baytown Tango" in a prescreening. Unwatchably bad. The audience was audibly booing toward the end.

Aw. I was getting the so bad it's good feeling from the retro poster. More's the pity.

"Struck by Lightning"? Is that the new "Zapped"?

That's EXACTLY what I thought!

Scott Baio flavored kisses for that.

Yes, but should I be sad because I've seen Zapped? Does that cancel things out?