Film Review: “The Martian”

by: Matthew J.R. Kohler

Picture1

Back Where Ridley Belongs

            It’s about time Ridley Scott goes back to his roots!  The Martian, starring Matt Damon, is about an astronaut/botanist who is stranded on Mars, after being abandoned by his teammates after a dust storm plagues the planet.  Now, Mark Whatney (Matt Damon) has to survive over a year- and-a-half before the next ship arrives on Mars.  And he has very limited supplies.  Mark must overcome the unthinkable!

From the get go, this movie knows what it wants to do—show the year-and-a-half-long journey on Mars.  Like Cast Away, the main part of the story is about one person isolated from the world.  What is unique about this film is that each side—Mark and the rescue team—must put equal trust into one another.  For me, this enhanced the drama because if one failed, they all failed.  On top of that, almost everyone’s job was on the line.  If Damon died, the rescue team would most likely lose their jobs.  Although this conflict was intriguing, for the most part there was not much character enhancement.

Mark goes through a couple scenes of drama, but for the most part he seemed completely under control.  One minute he’s with his team; the next minute he is abandoned and instantly decides, “I’ve got to survive.”  Damon’s character doesn’t become stronger, because he was already willing to do whatever it takes to survive.  The one conflict that plays a big role is whether or not NASA should tell Mark’s crew members that Mark is alive.  One of my favorite scenes is when Mark finds out that NASA never told his crew that he is alive.  Interestingly, Damon’s character reacts more negatively to this revelation than to any other situation in the film.

Confusion is the biggest problem with the movie, and that is because it did not know if it wanted an antagonist.  Jeff Daniels’ character felt like the antagonist throughout half of the movie.  When he finds out that Mark is alive, he makes it seem as though he did not want Mark to live.  Then, moments later, he wants to bring Mark home.  It seems that Daniels’ character didn’t know what he wanted.  Granted, he changed his mind because looked at the big picture—he may lose his job if he does nothing.  Nonetheless, it frustrated me that I was teased with seeing an indication of an antagonist, but not an outright bad guy who is trying to make sure the good guy does not get what he wants.  In some scenes, though, Daniels behaves like a bad guy.  He forces the hand of Sean Bean’s character to make a decision, leading to his ultimate fate; and he risks everyone’s reputations, including NASA, by doing something completely illegal.

Another major problem I had with The Martian was that there was hardly any setup at the beginning.  Basically, the movie starts by saying, “here’s the conflict, get oriented quickly”.  The other weakness in the film is the lack of emotional conflict between the characters.  Each of them are very interesting, so it feels like a waste to not see them try to push one another past their boundaries.

Not many movies can say that one actor stole the show, but Damon certainly did.  Much like Tom Hanks in Cast Away, this movie’s only true character, in my mind, is Mark Whatney.  Damon demonstrates Mark’s frustration with his situation through comedic dialogue.  When Mark finds out how much food he needs to survive, he realizes that he needs to fertilize the ground without water.  Many people would have simply shown frustration to drive home the bleakness of the situation, but Mark’s humor drove it home far more poignantly.  The reason being that a positive person can only resort to joking about the impossible task.

The best element about this film is the universe that unfolds on Mars.  Throughout, the audience is shown how the planet looks during the day and night, the brutal cold and storms, and the magnificent landscape.  Most of the time when Mark is doing something, the vast landscape of Mars is in plain sight.  This visual style reminded me of 2001: A Space Odyssey and of “old school” Scott films.  A lot of these shots/scenes were slow-paced, allowing the audience to take a breather from the intensity of the story by enjoying art.  Scott uses the same visual style outside of Mars.  When the space ship was first revealed, it reminded me of the long opening shot of the Star Destroyer in  Star Wars.  This the kind of shot that intends to suck the audience into the universe.  The visuals spoke for themselves, too.  Thankfully, there was no character that pointed out the obvious about its breathtaking look (as is common in modern movies).

Overall, The Martian is an excellent science-fiction movie that kept me engaged from beginning to end.  Like many other Scott films, it relied more on visuals than characters.  And there is nothing wrong with that, except for confusion on whether or not the film had an antagonist, and the lack of emotional conflict between otherwise interesting characters.  Matt Damon has had a fruitful career over the last 20 years, and in this film he gives his best performance since Good Will Hunting.  I give this movie a B+, and 100% recommend this film for anyone who wants a good time at the movies.

Ash vs. Evil Dead – What to Expect

by: Matthew J.R. Kohler

EDS1_KeyArt_Vert_1200x1800_Final

On Halloween, Bruce Campbell returns as Ash, to face the evil dead once again.  That leads to this question, what should we expect?

The trailer makes the show appear to be very similar to Army of Darkness, which I love.  But here is the real question: are we going to like this for more than one episode?  We apparently forget that a movie is a movie, and most of the time a certain type of humor only works in movies, not twenty episodes.  Although Bruce Campbell is amazing, we also have to look at the facts of shows that were hyped based on the strength of their originals, but then quickly forgotten upon premiere.  Who talks about MTV’s ScreamGirl Meets World, the painfully bad version of a show about boys growing up, is a stupid sitcom about nothing that nobody talks about either.  And, let’s not forget about the upcoming X-Files continuation that is enjoying its own daily newsfeed.  Weren’t 200 episodes enough?  From a creative standpoint, it is baffling why we need to see these Moulder and Scully again, after all this time.  Revitalization history is highly likely to repeat itself with the X-Files reboot, because (as recently proven by reunion-style works such as X-Men: Days of Future Past) it is far more fun to talk about something nowadays, than actually watch it.

So what does that mean for this show?  Well, I think Bruce Campbell will be the main reason this show holds on longer than the others, but overall it will not be what we want it to be.  Most comedians have trouble bringing laughs every day on Twitter.  A comedian such as Campbell transitioning from a 90-minute movie to hour-long episodes will result in a valiant effort that will stumble to the finish.

Nowadays, it is becoming increasingly common to revitalize beloved shows and movie franchises.  If you are thinking of watching a revitalization, such as Ash vs. The Evil Dead, the first thing you should always do is watch the original—what made the franchise great and popular in the first place.  The reason being is that reboots usually blow, and tend to taint the general view of the original (see: RoboCop).  Society needs to understand this fact before they become mindless yes-men to whatever is hyped as good.  If you want to watch Bruce Campbell, then watch his past movies.  Now that is an idea!  In all fairness, I would like to see this show succeed, but only because of Campbell.

Videogame Review: Transistor (2014)

by: Matthew J.R. Kohler

transistor = 1

With this game going on sale all the time, the time is now to buy and play Transistor.  I first played it three months ago, and it was one of the best experiences I have had with a video game. Transistor is about a pop star who loses her voice in a crazy accident, in which her husband dies by a magical sword.  You wake up to a sword that talks (it’s your husband) and a machine universe that is taking over the world.  Now it is up to you to stop the world from crumbling, and to seek revenge on the ones who did this to her.

transistor = 2

The game’s narrative is easy to understand.  There is a lot of background on the main character, the sword, and other characters who were turned into machines.  The story is very fast-paced as well.  Not only is the game five hours long, but also most of the main villains…well…die in Act II of the story, except for the final boss.  The game emphasizes the final boss more than the other three.  At first, I was surprised, but once the story started progressing, I knew that this emphasis made sense.

The combat system is awesome.  It reminded me of Dragon Age/ Knights of the Republic.  I always loved that style of RPG—fast but slow.  It’s a mix of real time and base RPG.  The thing that I enjoyed the most is the wide variety of weapons within the game. Remember, the story only takes five hours and you receive about eighteen moves.  I enjoyed every ability.  From gaining the ability to regenerate, to shooting through several minions, there are plenty of way to build your character.  And believe me, I tried every single one.

transistor = 3

A throwback to Playstation-esque graphics was a smart choice.  I loved the universe in how it was presented, and that Super Giant Games utilized their budget effectively.  The graphics aren’t PS4 quality, but nowadays graphics should mean nothing.  It’s about how you use them.  And I enjoyed the backdrop images.  One of my favorite shots was of Red (the main character) going to the main base and in the backdrop is the machine army.  Most of them cannot move, but some do move within the image.  This reminded me of matte paintings in older movies such as Robocop, Terminator, and Aliens.

One of the lasting things about this game is its re-playability.  Most RPG’s today have new game plus modes.  And this game doesn’t disappoint.  With new enemies and new scenarios for battles, Transistor was intriguing enough to one hundred percent, AND beat five times.  This is one of the few games to receive such praise from me.

If you never have played Transistor, buy it now.  This is highly recommended for indie game fans.   Transistor blew me away each time, and I plan to play it five more times.  With its artistic backgrounds and ingenious ways to

How Have Fight Scenes Changed?

What Makes a Fight Scene Work? – Part 1

by: Matthew J.R. Kohler

02

Yesterday, I sat down to watch one of my favorite Jackie Chan movies, Rumble in the Bronx.  In it, Chan plays a martial arts champion dealing with the criminals of the Bronx.  The movie didn’t have much of a plot, but that does not matter; the focus is on the fight scenes.  And man, are they fun as hell.  These scenes also do something different, true to Chan’s form.  This time his stunts extend to jumping from a building onto a ledge.  That stunt was only the beginning of my excitement.  While watching the movie, though, a thought hit me.  In the last five ten years we have lost the art form of action sequences.  With guys like Chan, Sammo Hung, Yuen Woo Pien, and the Shaw Brothers growing older, the new wave needs to take over.  But that is not happening.

maxresdefault

In the early 2000s, The Bourne Identity was released in America, and became an instant hit.  This film skyrocketed already-famous Matt Damon’s career, while also popularizing a new style of filming fight scenes—the shaky cam.  The purpose of the shaky cam is to make audiences believe that they are in the fight scene, unlike setting up the tripod and moving with the characters.  While shaky cam was a unique look for the film, and therefore worked, the problem started when everyone else started doing it because it was popular.  The underlying issue here is that most American fight directors today do not realize that fight scenes are an art form.  Look at Bruce Lee’s films, Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger or Chan’s Drunken Master.  We used to live in an era where the fight directors would tell a story through the fight scene.

12167807_884483511658945_2061702673_n  12167860_884483571658939_1475255893_n

Let’s take a look at one of my favorite American fight scenes ever—Luke vs. Vader in Star Wars: Episode V – The Empire Strikes Back.  In act I, we have the confrontation between Luke and Vader.  This is the stare down, and the first real surprise to Vader. Luke actually hits him a couple of times.  The audience wonders. Maybe Vader is unwise to lower his defenses?  Not only is the speed of the fight scene perfect, but there is buildup to the fight scene (I’ll discuss more of this later).  Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, which was made 25 years later, lacks all of the aforementioned qualities in its climactic duel.  The focus is more on CGI.  On top of that, the fight lasts for eight freaking minutes.  A fight scene isn’t good when it not only drags, but also looks choreographed to be flashy rather than emotional.  Back to The Empire Strikes Back.  Act II is the midpoint of a fight scene.  In this act we have Luke turning the tables against Darth Vader, that is until Vader unleashes a small dose of his power via the force.  The audience realizes that Luke cannot win, and his mission now is to escape.  Then there is Act III, the climax.  Well, we all know what happens here—the finale that emotionally devastates both Luke and the audience (I won’t say it just in case you have somehow missed every pop culture reference to what caps off this scene).  The Empire Strike Back has arguably the best climax to any fight scene ever, because each character has gained and lost something from it, both mentally and physically.

12177947_884483448325618_1715395822_n

The modern approach to fight scenes is wholly different.  Apparently, people’s attention spans demand that characters start and end the fight scene as quickly as possible, and if it doesn’t end within less than a minute, it better have a screen full of CG eye candy.  What is the logic behind this thought?  It is an action movie!  The audience should work for those moments of action by anticipating the next fight.  And while it is happening, they should still work for the payoff, by anticipating during the breaks in the fight (in which the opposing characters stop fighting for at least a few seconds).  One of the handful of modern fight scenes that demand anticipation is Ip Man.  After a master’s head is blown off by a Japanese general, Ip Man realizes that Japan’s oppression of China is happening right in front of him.  So, he asks for ten Japanese warriors to step into the ring with him.  When he finally gets into the ring, after taking several moments to stare them all down, he explodes with rage, brutally beating all ten of them.  This scene once again showed how fight scenes can move a story; in this case, by showing the emotions of the main character in relation to the plot.  In addition, the fight scene is crucial to the story, because it leads to scenes that deal with the consequences of his actions.  Action movies in America have always had a hard time understanding the full potential of fight scenes.  Even though, over the last 40 years, greats such as Bruce Lee have shown America what can be done, America is very much stuck in the primitive state of fight scene filmmaking, in which the intended reaction is always “ooh” or “ahh”.  I think it is about time that American audiences desire and demand more out of not only fight scenes, but also out of a story.

With Ip Man 3 coming out soon, I only hope the movie feels more old school than what we see nowadays.

Check back soon for part 2!

One Last Time… Again…

A hobbit’s tale by Ian Blaylock

In true Peter Jackson fashion, each of The Hobbit films received an extended edition. Fans of The Lord of the Rings films swear by the extended editions of their films, citing how much better an experience it is to watch added and extended scenes of what are already impeccable films. However, with its lackluster reviews, and lukewarm acceptance by the Tolkien fandom, The Hobbit films extended cuts are less well-received. Certainly, some of these added scenes add some glimmers of magic to the films, but the larger question remains, “Do the additions make the films better?”

I own the extended cut of An Unexpected Journey and there are moments that I think are some added scenes that are beneficial to that film. For example, it’s great to see Bilbo as a kid in the Shire interacting with Gandalf, and there is a great scene with Bilbo and Elrond having a private chat at Rivendell. There is also a disastrous musical number in Goblin Town, which is why I am hesitant to revisit it.

Watch at your own risk.

After last year’s release of the extended cut of The Desolation of Smaug, I was more hesitant, and I ultimately decided not to opt for an extended cut. I am not very fond of the second film. I don’t think it is a very fulfilling movie to watch. Unlike its counterpart, The Two Towers, The Desolation of Smaug ends without resolving any of the major plot threads, and ends with one of the most annoying cliffhangers of movie history. (When I saw the film in theaters, there were audible groans from the audience when Ed Sheeran started singing, but I don’t think the groans were directed at him.)

This is why I had great trepidation when the news broke that The Battle of the Five Armies extended cut would be released this year. I had major issues with the theatrical cut of this film. The pacing was strange, characters were handled poorly, major chunks of the story were omitted, the battle either seemed too long, or too short, and, of course, there’s Legolas’s audition for either Super Mario Bros., or for the Jedi Academy. I didn’t even purchase the DVD.

Now, I am a huge Tolkien fan. I’ve read The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings, The Silmarillion, The Children of Húrin, and I have delved into The History of Middle-Earth a fair bit. I’ve listened to podcasts about Tolkien’s works, and attended online seminars where people discuss his works. I love this stuff.

Anyhow, I came upon a Facebook ad which reminded me that ahead of the release of the extended edition of The Battle of the Five Armies, Warner Bros was hosting a special event where fans could see the extended cuts of all three Hobbit films in theaters, each for one night only. I had not planned on seeing them, but I happened to see that the next day (10/13/15) would be the date of the final showing. I could see the extended cut of The Battle of the Five Armies in theaters. Part of me thought, “Oh, no.” Another part thought, “Oh, yes!”

I checked my calendar, and the ticket price. I figured that I would be paying to see the extended cut at some point. Since I disliked the theatrical cut, I figured I needed to give the extended cut a chance. I’d either wait until November to rent it on iTunes, or buckle down and risk buying the Digital HD version ahead of the Blu-ray release. I knew that I didn’t want to wait until November, and buying a ticket was cheaper than buying the earlier Digital HD. So, I bought my ticket, and I went.

Surprisingly, the theater didn’t show any trailers before the film started. There was a short clip from Peter Jackson, thanking the audience for coming, and taking part in the three night special event. It was a bit unfortunate, yet unsurprising, that the theater was not very full. I had little time to think about it as the logos quickly flashed by, and the Master of Lake-Town was once again loading his boat with whatever gold he could get his grubby hands on as Smaug began attacking the city. The adventure was back, and I needed to keep my eyes peeled for any changes that may flash in front of me.

I didn’t keep a list of all of the changes, so I won’t be outlining them specifically. However, I hope to highlight some of the differences between the two cuts, so as to give a clearer picture of how the film changes with the added material. I think overall the extended cut feels more cohesive than the theatrical cut. The narrative is more connected, especially towards the end of the film. Most of the added footage comes in the second half, and is often whole scenes, rather than two second snippets. This is definitely a good thing. In the first half, there are very few changes. The most notable one comes when Galadriel enters Dol Guldur. It’s not a very long addition, but I think it helps strengthen her character. I don’t think it completely repairs her character’s somewhat unexplained frailty later on, and it introduces a plot hole in the story, but it was a cool moment, and helped a little bit.

Picture1

This is the major point I would make to those who are looking to the extended edition of this film to repair everything that they didn’t like about the theatrical cut. The added content won’t turn the film into the next The Return of the King, nor does it do away with some of the more cheesy elements of the film. However, the additions largely make the film more palatable.

Picture2

One criticism of the theatrical cut that I had heard was how little the actual battlefield battle seemed to matter in the grand scheme of a film named after said battle. The battle scenes receive the most additions in the film, and the battle itself becomes much different. There is a big twist that was added to the battle that was not present in the theatrical cut. Like Galadriel’s extended scene, it was cool, but it was also a bit shocking. It also leaves a new important issue unanswered.

Picture3

Overall, the additions to the battle come with little complication to the story. They’re fun, humorous, and add to the already high body count. There’s plenty of blood and decapitations to go around, which is probably what pushes the film to the R rating, although the twist probably has something to do with this too. The additions make the battle scenes generally lighter than their counterparts in The Lord of the Rings, decapitations notwithstanding. However, I think that as a film by itself, this actually works to its benefit. The Hobbit films have always suffered from an identity crisis. They want to be darker and more serious like The Lord of the Rings films, but they also feel the need to retain the lighter tone of The Hobbit novel. I think that this may have been a fool’s errand in the end. Tolkien himself had tried to go back and rewrite The Hobbit so it would match with the tone and style of The Lord of the Rings, but this rewrite was never completed, or published. If the author couldn’t do it to his own books, why should we have expected someone else to achieve it? Adapting The Hobbit, and The Lord of the Rings for the screen is an insurmountable task. Putting them in the same universe, despite the huge narrative differences is also extremely difficult. However, it seems pretty clear that despite the best efforts of the writers, The Hobbit doesn’t live up to the expectations that The Lord of the Rings set.

Picture4

The extended edition of The Battle of the Five Armies makes the film into much more of an action movie than a serious high fantasy adaptation, but I think owning that makes this version of the film superior to the theatrical cut. Additionally, in the extended cut, the post-battle sequence features added material to flesh it out a lot better. Before, it was too quick, abrupt, and lacked a key scene that has now been added. My overall takes of the extended edition of this film is that it makes the film more enjoyable, and palatable, but viewers who are looking for the extended edition to miraculously erase all of the problems with the series, and the theatrical cut, will, most likely, be disappointed.

For moviegoers who want a serious Tolkien adaptation that delves deep into character, takes the plot seriously, and is mostly faithful to the source material, the film series you are looking for is still The Lord of the Rings. As one writer on this blog quips, “If I wanted to watch an excellent adaptation of The Hobbit, I would watch the first fifteen minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring.”

Picture5

For those who enjoy The Hobbit films, the extended edition is a great way to get more action out of an already action-packed movie. For those who have a bad taste left over from the theatrical cut of The Battle of the Five Armies, the extended cut should prove to be a better time.

the-hobbit-the-battle-of-the-five-armies-extended-edition-logo

Has media hype affected movies?

by: Matthew J.R. Kohler

Remember a time when you saw the trailer, waited six months to see the movie, talked about the movie, and then continued to talk about the movie once it was released?  Nowadays, trailers and movie news arrive in such massive, daily droves that there is no excitement anymore, at least for me.  For the past six years, movies news has continued to grow at an alarming rate. For each release, moviegoers are with news, trailers, teasers, apparently leaked trailers, and teasers to a teaser, all within about 18 months before the film’s release.  By the time you go see the movie, no one cares anymore, including Hollywood, because they’re sick of hearing about how the umpteenth cast member from the movie said that the script is good, and that the sequel will be coming out two years after the movie.  I suppose that overhyping is a smart business decision in terms of building a franchise. A studio builds hype for about 18 months, releases the movie, and immediately repeats the cycle for the sequel.  With cases such as the recent Marvel movies, this appears to be working, at least for the short-term.  But what about the long term?

01

It seems that the bigger the movie’s hype, the less people there are who care for a movie after its initial release.  For starters, I don’t hear anyone talking about The Avengers or Age of Ultron—two of the most-hyped movies this decade so far.  When a superhero movie is released, most people compare them to four movies that have changed the game: Tim Burton’s Batman, Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Fox’s X-Men, and Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man (Guardians of the Galaxy will probably be included on this list soon).  Most of the post-Dark Knight blockbusters don’t hold up over time.  Hype in trailers and movie news have killed movies such as Dark Knight Rises, Godzilla, and most likely Age of Ultron.

02

This is you, waiting for the movie to come out.

Now, The Dark Knight was released while there was lots of online media hype, but thanks to its new grounded look and performances of all the actors, it continues to endure.  The other aforementioned game-changing superhero movies were luckily released before the supersaturation of online media.  They made a push, and they broke through.  When Spider-Man 2 was coming out, sure I was excited, but the internet didn’t tell me to be excited.  Every time I get on the web now, all I see is news about Deadpool getting a sequel, and pictures of Harley Quinn giving tattoos to someone.  I know these news pieces are viewed a lot, but I still say that no one cares in the end.  Being constantly flooded with information takes away the intrigue about a movie, which hurts the viewing experience.  Let’s take my theory for a spin, shall we?

Alright, the year is 2014 and you’ve just seen “leaked” footage of your favorite actor inside an outfit that reminds you of a famous superhero, which is, holy cow—The Punisher!  It gets better—you’re going to get a direct sequel to Dolph Lungdren’s Punisher and it will feature Spider-Man, Daredevil, and Scarlett Johannsen.

03 04 05

You know, I might actually pay money to go see this.

The next day, you find out who is playing all these characters.  We have Tony Jaa playing costumed Spiderman, Thomas Jane reprising his role as Punisher, and that new guy who’s playing Daredevil.  Then, they give us the villain of all villains – Kingpin, played by none other than Sammo Hung (if you have to look him up shame on you).  And the whole world says “Wow, a culturally diverse movie in 2016!  This is the new style of superhero movies!  YEAH!”

By now you’re on the edge of your seat, wondering, “When is the trai…” But, don’t wonder for too long because, “The trailer has just been leaked a day before schedule!  Man, do I feel like a winner!”  So you watch the trailer. You think it’s amazing, and then you hear nothing for a month.  You are wondering, “When the hell am I going to see the movie everyone deserves?”  Then, the studio releases another short segment, and a release date!

06

By then you are making your terrible memes about the movie (just like I did) and are so excited.  Then the day comes!  You get into line three hours before the movie starts because everyone does it.  You sit down and, at the moment of truth (when the movie starts) you blurt out “What the hell is this piece of crap?”

07 08

This is the movie you got.                                            This is the movie you’ve been waiting for.

And you know what?  The movie wouldn’t have been so bad if it weren’t for those leaked trailers, news feeds every day, talking about the movie every day, and just out right thinking it was going to be the best thing you’ve seen (talking to you Richie Watkins—being excited for The Dark Knight Rises cost you 18 months of your life).  So please, never get too excited, or you will hate a movie that might actually be good.  One love!

Do Trailers Reveal Too Much?

by: Matthew J.R. Kohler

Trailers are supposed to give the audience a taste of a movie, not give away everything.  I feel that for a while now, all trailers do is reveal the best parts of the movie. Nowadays, trailers throw everything at you, which means there are less things for  you to be excited about in the theatre.  I noticed this recently with movies such as Batman vs. Superman, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and The Dark Knight Rises.  Now, I know one of these has not been released, but it falls in the same feel as the other two.

-At least Batman Returns let people known it was going to be a sexual sequel.

In The Dark Knight Rises, we see Bane being just like Joker in The Dark Night, Batman being the same Batman like in the previous two films, and there is a huge fight between 10,000 people.  All of this happens for about forty minutes of the three hour movie.  They should have tried to show a trailer that was more dramatic than action based, because that is how the film actually is, but I guess the movie would not sell many tickets that way. I think the movie fell flat partly because of the trailer makes the film appear that it will be nonstop action the whole time.

Unlike the other two, X-Men: Days of Future Past manipulates the audience a different way. Once again, it shows all the good stuff from the “future” scenes, but it also uses a tone that is not seen in the movie.  The trailer makes it seem that the old cast was going to be prominent in the movie.  It also seemed that the future was going to play an important role.

Well, Wolverine was in it, does that count?

Not only did that happen, but most of the movie dragged, or was just plain boring.  They hyped Quicksilver in the trailers, when, in fact, he was in one scene.  The trailer gave the impression that it could have been the best of the X-Men bunch, but instead, I cannot even watch the movie anymore.  This is mainly why I don’t get hyped when I see a trailer, talking to you Ip Man 3!  The X-Men: Days of Future Past trailer a lot of action, a lot of drama, and a little of “Hey, the first one was awesome, this looks even better.”  Not only did this movie have some of the worst CGI I have seen in recent years, but I could not stand how the filmmakers dealt with the characters of Magneto, or Mystique in this movie.  The only scene that holds up to the trailer was the scene between James McAvoy and Patrick Stewart.   I guess having two amazing actors in one scene can’t go too wrong.

Let’s look into the future, 2016.

Holy cow, it’s almost here! It’s the day we’ve all been waiting for! Batman vs. Superman!  The crowd sits down.  I decide to go because cause I enjoy being disappointed (what can I say). I purchase the high salt intake popcorn, and I sit down to watch the trailers for movies that could be good.  Then, just as the movie starts,  I realize, “What the hell! I saw all this in the trailer.”

No matter how hard you try, you cannot get excited for scenes you’ve already seen, I’ve tried it with movies such as Captain America: The Winter Soldier and Godzilla.  The experience was not fun.  No matter what everyone wants to believe, the trailer has showed the best parts of the movie, and because I’ve already been excited, I will never get that excited for it again, unless what they were doing was real (talking to you martial art fans, you know who we are!).  Batman vs. Superman is going to come out, and it will go just like all big blockbusters, because, let’s face it, trailers are designed to get the audience pumped until its sequel comes out.  Then, it will start all over again.