I find this pretty interesting. I’ve viewed and thought about a hell of a lot of films. So have you (obviously), and you know a hell of a lot more about how they’re made and how they’re presented to audiences (and potential audiences).

Your evaluation of the trailer in the context of a standard structure does interest me — largely because that aspect of the thing went by me altogether. That I viewed and judged the trailer from a thoroughly different perspective and (almost!) included that judgment in my premature assessment of the film surely says something about me as a film viewer.

That I should be forever barred from focus groups and preview screenings, to name just a few things.

As for the trailer I was intrigued only in that it doesn’t follow the required 3 act structure for film trailers where it takes you right up the crucial part of the 3rd act. As for the film, who knows?

Or am I reading your question too literally?

With respect to the trailer . . . hmmmmm. (I seem to be mumbling a lot these days.) It doesn’t bode too well for the film (but then I’ve never much cared for De Palma, and I wasn’t impressed by Ellroy’s book.) As period pastiche, it hits just enough wrong notes to set my teeth on edge.

Not that a trailer serves as indicator of a film’s merit.