I'm trying to find out what music was used; even my friend working on the film doesn't know!

As soon as I find out, it will be entered into the Trailer Music Database.

JOHN WOO:
"I love my actors. I always relate to my hero. I shoot everyone with love....I think all actors have some kind of beauty: sometimes in action, sometimes in drama, sometimes in the face, sometimes from the heart....Every actor gets a different treatement. When I shoot Chow Yun-Fat, I know his specialty: His eyes are very charming, very dramatic, so I focus always on his eyes....John Travolta is such a pleasant man....When I look at him, I see a dancer. So I use a lot of camera movement to capture his joyful character....

When I'm working on a scene I have the whole thing in my mind: the action, the tempo. When I'm shooting, I know exactly what I need for every shot, every setup, and also about the speed of the camera--which angles use double speed, which ones use slow motion. I also listen to music--the music tells me the time....I usually shoot every angle at every speed to get whatever we get, then work on editing it together to get the real timing. Sometimes it depends on the actors. Some actors are good in slow motion, some not. Some you want to see them fast, like Jackie Chan: Pow! Pow! Pow! Pow! That's his real character....There's no reason to use slow motion. For Chow, Cruise, Travolta, or Cage, their moves are so elegant, the only way to show them in an elegant way onscreen is in slow motion. Each different actor has a different speed. Some actors are good for 120 frames in slow motion, some are good at 96 frames, some for 60 frames....Cruise is 120 frames, because his action is so beautiful. Cage, sometimes 60, sometimes 96. He's like a ballet dancer. His figure is so slim and strong. When he moves, you slow down a little bit. Travolta is 96. Chow Yun-Fat, also 120--he's good at any speed....

Sometimes I want to capture an unforgettable moment, so I use slow motion. American actors can be too subtle and fast; if I find that great moemnt, I want to hold it longer. So I usually set up two cameras--one at normal speed, one slightly slow motion, 60 frames--and I don't let the actor know. "

Really? Then I guess as far as war films go, according to your theory, GLORY, THIN RED LINE and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN all "look cheap and stupid" for they all have slow motion shots during the battle scenes.

The other thing is, as evidenced by the posted PREMIERE article, John Woo has defined and defended his "style" This is his style, the style that made him stand out as a director, a style that has often been imitated. And you want him to give it up? Would you have asked Kubrick to give up his lockdown, symmetrical, long panning, style? Why not? Because of a name . Because it is Kubrick. Now I like this director's work as well, but I'll tell you what, I'd watch a Woo film in a heartbeat before watching 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. And I think most people would agree with me on this, even the biggest film afficianados.

And I'll say this, too. Woo's MISSION IMPOSSIBLE creamed the first DePalma mess, in my opinion.

There is a HUGE difference between the slow motions shots in Glory, The Thin Red Line, and Saving Private Ryan when compared to those in the Windtalkers trailer. If you can't tell a difference well, I'm sorry. Even so, I've seen The Thin Red Line many, many times and hardly ever does Mallick resort to such a low level. Hell, I don't even remember a particular war scene where he does incorporate slow motion... I know there might be shots here and there, but I think it's proof that I, who have seen the film several times and rank it as one of my favorites, don't even remember a particular shot when slow motion was used. As far as Glory goes, once again... I rank it as one of my favorite films, but any slow motion that was used I cannot remember... The scene I DO remember, however, was the slow-mo shot at the very end when the bodies were being thrown on top of each other... Which is why some of these films might put SOME slow motion in there, for dramatic purposes. Woo obviously does it all for flash, at least lately, and it looks ridiculous. The Windtalkers trailer is proof of that. I haven't seen De Palma's M:I for quite a while, but I can't imagine it being as pitiful as Woo's... By the way, did Woo go so over budget on the film that he couldn't afford an editor? It sure looks like it.

PREMIERE:
Editing whiz Stuart Baird has been brought in to help you meet your deadline?

Now, the second thing is we cannot rely on trailers solely to give us an accurate idea of what a movie will end up as. How many times have you watched a trailer that was executed very well and it ended up that the movie was horrible. Most recent example I can think of is TOMB RAIDER. Now what about vice versa. Most recent example: SNATCH. I just bought the DVD this weekend and watched , not the trailer albeit, but the UK teaser and if I had seen this alone instead of the American trailer I would have had very low expectations for this movie that I absolutely and truely love. So we can't just judge based solely on trailers.

Next...the proof is in the pudding. I always like to back myself up with facts, specifically stated if I am able. Unfortunately, I am sitting in the dark now reliant upon my reserve battery power of my laptop due to an electrical storm (which interrupted my first viewing of Billy Bob Thornton's ALL THE PRETTY HORSES) and thus I cannot cite scenes accurately, but here goes.

Oh yes, if there is any movie that showed slow motion shouldn't be in war films, it's The Patriot.

Trailer can be decieving too with the slow-mootion shots. IF I remember correctly, some of the shots on the trailer for John Woo's Hard Boiled, some of the shots are slowed down or even sped up to either speed up the trailer or get the proper feeling needed to be captured in a 3min trailer.