Rant of the Week: Prequels

So, I was really racking my brain to think of what I should write for this weeks rant. Luckily, I saw an article over at CinemaBlend about Game of Thrones that sparked an idea. Recently, a lot of people have started speculating about when/if Game of Thrones will catch up with it's source material, A Song of Ice and Fire. With all of this speculation, people have thrown around the idea of making a mini-series to tide fans over by using the Dunk & Egg novellas. These novellas are technically prequels, but deal with completely different characters in the same realm, but at a prior date. Prequels are always rocky ground. It's one thing to make a prequel based off of source material (like this would be) but it's another thing to make a prequel just because something was popular. So, I guess my rant is going to be about that: why some prequels works and others just fucking blow.

One of my biggest issues with prequels is: is this story necessary? Will I be getting more insight into a character/plotline from the original that will actually develop the original story more? I think a movie that did this really well (please don't kill me for saying this) was Prometheus. No, I didn't think it was absolutely imperative that we get more information about the xenomorphs and where they came from, but it did give a great back story/origin story that I genuinely enjoyed. I also think the film benefits from all of the deleted scenes on the Blu-Ray (which is actually why I liked this movie.) If you haven't seen those, please do so. But that's neither here nor there. The fact that the film told a good original story that tied in with the franchise made it a success, as a prequel.

Sometimes prequels aren't necessary, but are made to satisfy fans of a series. A good example of this would be The Hobbit. No, I don't need to know how the ring came to be in Bilbo's possession or how Sauron came back into power, but it's nice stuff to learn for people of the Lord of the Rings series. That's because people of that series tend to enjoy the history aspect of the series. It's the same way with Game of Thrones. People don't just watch it for the characters, they watch it to learn about the foreign land and how it came to be what it is.

Now, sometimes you get awful prequels that just aren't necessary or good. I fondly refer to this as 'fluff' prequels. These can be original or not, but don't really explain anything important in regards to the original story. A great example of this is Oz: The Great and Powerful. This film (which is actually loosely based on the L. Frank Baum Oz series) doesn't give us any real insight into the land that we were shown in The Wizard of Oz or any of the main characters from the original. Yes, we see Glinda (who is exactly the same) and Oz (who is still a douche), but they are as static as they were in the original. And the origin story for the Wicked Witch of the West was so poorly done that I can't say that it was enough to warrant the creation of the film.

So, that's how I feel about prequels (I don't really know if I said anything really, but whatever.) I think that people shouldn't immediately get scared whenever they hear the word prequel, but should ask themselves if it  is really needed to improve the original story.

Just as a tail end thing, here are a few movies I didn't get to mention that I thought were solid prequels: Rise of the Planet of the Apes, X-Men: First Class, and Red Dragon.

Broken City Review

Ever since I started writing these reviews, I've seen a lot of movies that, previously, I wouldn't have touched with a ten-foot-pole. Broken City is one of those films.

The story revolves around an ex-cop turned private eye (Mark Wahlberg). He is hired by the mayor (Russell Crowe) to follow his wife (Catherine Zeta-Jones) and confirm that she is having an affair. The plot sounds like a typical 30's noir film, where a PI is paid to investigate one thing and uncovers a whole other plot. Sadly, that's exactly how this one reads as well.

My biggest issue with this film is that it wasn't an homage to noir films. If you just read the script, or just listened to the dialogue, you would find all of the typical tropes of noir stories. You have the typical one liners, the generic bad guy, the red herring. It's all there. The problem is that this film thought it was much more than that. It tried to be a gritty, modern day noir film, and horribly failed. If you want to be modern day noir, you can't have all of the cheesy one liners and dry dialogue. It just doesn't work that way.

The biggest problem with this film was the direction, because that is really why it failed for me. The director shouldn't have tried to make this a real crime thriller, especially with the script he was working with. If he had adapt the script the way it read, it should have been more like The Maltese Falcon and less like Pride and Glory. He was trying to turn a generic noir script into more than it was, and when you overreach, you are doomed to fail. Shame on him.

The acting in the film was pretty mediocre. They did the best with what they were given, and whatever the director told them to do, but it was nothing special. It's a shame really, since they had so much acting talent there.

------------------------------------------------

Just like Spring Breakers, this movie had the potential to be a much better movie, but was failed by it's director. Not only should you not pay to see this movie, just don't see it at all. There is no redeeming qualities about this film.

Writing: 4/10

Directing: 1/10

Acting: 4/10

Pacing: 4/10

Rewatchability: 3/10

Score: 3.2/10

Spring Breakers Review

When I first heard about Spring Breakers I thought that it was gonna be a silly way to show just how ridiculous people can be on spring break and the type of shenanigans they can get themselves into. I knew it was going to involve a lot of hot chicks in skimpy bikinis, which of course is a great selling point (do you really expect me to say otherwise?), but expected it to have great visuals and some interesting character development. I wasn't exactly wrong, but at the same time I kind of was.

This movie centers around four best friends (don't ask me their names, I doubt anyone really remembers) who want to go on Spring Break and party like crazy. The problem is, they don't have enough money to pay for the trip, so they decided to rob a diner to fund the trip. Then hijinks ensue. That sounds like a pretty decent plot, but this movie just didn't delivered what it could, and should, have.

The major problem with this movie is that it had a story to tell that was lost in a bunch of shots of partying and tits. I don't know if that was what the director wanted or if it just got jumbled in editing, but it was pretty horrendous. At least 40 minutes (of the total 94 minute run time) was needless shots of spring breakers partying and chicks flashing the camera. While it was important to show exactly what our characters were getting themselves into, it was by no means necessary that we see so much of it. It was ridiculously redundant and boring.

The thing that hurts the most about this movie is that it should have been good. If you just follow the straight story, and edit out all of the bullshit, it is a solid story of college girls getting in over their heads and discovering exactly what their threshold is. It differentiates between each girl and shows exactly who they are as people and what they value in life. Sadly, this great story was lost by what was either poor direction/editing. I genuinely believe that if you edit out the scenes that were pointless (aka partying scenes) it would have been an enjoyable 45 minutes, which then you could add more actual scenes, where we get more character development and see character motivations.

The best thing this movie had going for it was James Franco. I find it very refreshing to be able to say this after his atrocious performance in Oz: The Great and Powerful, because I actually like him and want him to be good. His character, Alien, was absolutely ridiculous, and he played it so well. He was a hick gangster that is just over the top. Franco absolutely nailed it. And don't get me wrong, he wasn't the only person to give a good performance in this movie, he was just the best and stood out. The four girls were actually pretty good, but he was a whole different level of goodness.

------------------------------------------------

This movie had great potential, with a great cast and a great story, but it was all lost when the final product was put together. It is genuinely upsetting to see what should have been a great movie jumbled because of poor directing/editing choices.

Writing: 6/10

Directing: 3/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 1/10

Rewatchability: 1/10

Score: 3.6/10

Life of Pi Review (read: Rant)

Any of you who actually followed my live-tweeting of the Oscars this year probably knows how I feel about Life of Pi. But seeing as how there is the huge controversy surrounding the Visual Effects people that worked on the film, I thought I would post a review  about how I feel about the film. Yea, I'm not gonna talk about the unionization or whatever is going on. I just want to talk about how much I fucking hate this movie.

I was completely unfamiliar with the book before I saw this movie. I knew that it involved a kid on dinghy with a tiger, but that was about it. I didn't watch a single trailer, because this was back when I decided to just stop watching trailers for most things. So, since there was huge hype around this film, I saw it. What a massive fucking mistake I made.

There was very little that was good about this movie. Let me start with the worst part and get better, I find that usually works pretty well. So, my biggest bone to pick with this film is the script. I really hope that the film script is nothing like the book, because it is horrendous. Every scene involving Irrfan Khan's character was absolutely excruciating. I just wanted to jump through the screen and FUCKING STAB HIM TO DEATH! Who was the fucking genius who thought that it would be a good idea to have a character TELL THE STORY OF WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO SEE ON SCREEN! HOLY FUCK! Do you not know how movies work? Remove all of those scenes and you start to have a pretty alright film. And it still wouldn't be that good, but I don't blame the script for that part...

All of the scenes in this film suffer from one problem: horrible acting. You know a movie is bad when the best actor in the film is a fucking CGI tiger. Yea, the acting was that bad. The kid who played Pi wasn't completely awful, but he sure as shit wasn't good. And Irrfan Khan was just...wow. The peak of badness. Not only was all of his dialogue fucking boring as shit, he also decided that he couldn't act and wanted to be a fucking board through all his scenes. FUCK THAT!

Now let me give this movie some backhanded comments. The direction and visuals on this film were the only reason that any sane person should go out and see it. Let me start with the direction. Ang Lee has always been great, but this is literally him at his finest. When you have such little scenery and actors to really work with, you would think it might be a hard task to make this movie look great. But Ang Lee (and his cinematographer Claudio Miranda) made every shot (ignoring the boring shots with Irrfan Khan) look phenomenal. You know it must be pretty impressive when a fucking boy on a dinghy looks awesome. That being said: neither of these pieces of shit deserved the Oscars that they won. Seriously, they did a great job, but you have got to be fucking kidding me. You shouldn't award someone for being good, you should award them for being excellent. When you pass up Steven Spielberg and the phenomenal Roger Deakins, you don't deserve to live.

The real crowing achievement of this movie is the visual effects. That is the one Oscar that this film earned. Richard Parker looked so fucking phenomenal, and you know you've done something right when the CGI tiger is the best part of the movie. Bravo to the visual effects team that worked on this film. And all of the crazy effects with the island and the whale...just breathtaking. Oh, and I can't forget to mention the ridiculously amazing shipwreck scene. Hands down, best part of the movie.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum it up: see this movie is you want to see something with spectacular CGI and great cinematography. Other than that, this movie is a huge pass. If this movie had won Best Picture this year, I would have murdered someone. I would have fucking blew a gasket. Thank god it didn't.

Writing: 3/10

Directing: 9/10

Acting: 3/10

Pacing: 3/10

Rewatchability: 1/10

Score: 3.9/10

Rant of the Week: Book Adaptations

So, in preparation for the upcoming season of Game of Thrones, this weekend I watched the first half of season 2. While I was watching it, Bonni mentioned how she remembered watching a specific episode with someone who just couldn't stop pointing out/complaining about differences between the books and the show. Then I decided to be the dick I always am, and point out all of the differences that I noticed. Then I actually thought about it and thought that this could be a great topic for this week's rant: book adaptations and why it's all right if they aren't exactly the same.

It seems like 90% of Hollywood films are either based on a) factual events b) adaptations of existing books/plays/comics, etc or c) remakes. There are very few original films nowadays, and those that are original, don't always feel that way. I understand why people would have issues with a remake of their favorite movie or what not, but I feel very indifferent about it. For example, The Evil Dead is one of my favorite movies, and something that I could watch over and over without getting bored. That being said, I have absolutely no problem with them remaking it. I think that this remake has been handled well, by involving the original creators and such, and will turn out to be good. And I feel that the same thing is true about book adaptations.

I think that there are several factors to making a good book adaptation. The biggest thing to me is passion. I think whoever is making this adaptation should be passionate about the material that they are involved with. For example, David Benioff and DB Weiss are huge Game of Thrones fans. They love the series and decided to make the show because of that (I'm going to be using Game of Thrones as an example a lot, so deal with it.) They are very familiar with the material and their vast knowledge of the universe makes it easy for them to know what needs to stay and what can be cut. I think that if someone isn't passionate about material, they might leave out pretty important stuff that they just think won't make for good movie material, but remove something that changes the feel of the film completely.

Besides passion, I think ability to part with extraneous material is very important as well. I think one of the biggest problems with The Perks of Being a Wallflower is that the writer of the book wrote and directed the film. He was so attached to his own work and didn't want to leave out any of it, so he left in a lot of needless material. I'm not saying the movie was bad, I just felt that it dragged a little and, if he hadn't been so attached to the material, it could have worked out better. I think a great testament to this are the Harry Potter films. All of those movies aim to tell an overarching narrative, so they know exactly what needs to be told, and what side plots can be left out. This is absolutely key to making an adaptation that has the same feel, and also doesn't drag.

Now I'm going to complain about...well...you. Maybe not you specifically, but viewership as a whole. I think that we suffer from a big problem: we are never satisfied. When we fall in love with a certain book, we get excited when they adapt it into a movie, or mini-series, or TV show. But we are always disappointed. Why? Because they cannot straight up adapt anything. There has to be some give and take when it comes to adaptation. Like I said, if you straight adapt something, it will drag, and people will complain that they left too much in! We literally cannot be pleased.

Now, I know I'm making a vast overgeneralization, but I'm doing it to make a point. Yes, some of us can be pleased with adaptations, but there are always those people that just have to complain that this part was left out, or this part wasn't. Those people are the ones that need to be taken out back and put down. Yes, I enjoy a nice discussion about what was left out and what was changed and why that might have happened. But I will never complain about a change unless it changes the entire theme or message of the property.

I really love reading a book and then watching a movie and getting to compare them and discuss why the filmmaker or screenwriter made the decisions they made. Hell, I even took an entire class on it. But that is discussing. People need to put on their big boy/girl pants and just deal with the fact that everything can't be perfect. I mean, they changed/left out a lot of stuff from season 2 of Game of Thrones, but it was still fucking awesome. That just shows what a little passion can create.

Oz: The Great and Powerful Review

I've have the film Oz: The Great and Powerful in my sights ever since Robert Downey Jr was signed on to star in the film (which I'll probably talk about more later.) I remember being really excited for this film when it was supposed to be Sam Raimi (one of my favorite directors) with RDJ (one of my favorite actors.) Sadly, the movie stay in development hell for quite some time, so they lost RDJ. I still kept up with the production of the film, and though they replaced RDJ with a ridiculously inferior actor (his only good role was 127 Hours, other than Freaks & Geeks, of course,) I was still excited for the film. I kind of wish I hadn't gotten my hopes up...

This movie wasn't awful. That is probably the nicest thing I can say about it on the whole. Individually, there were some shining parts/moments in this film, but it just didn't come together that well. I think the absolute worst part of this film was James Franco. I really don't know who thought it was a good idea to have him star as The Wizard. I can name so many films that I hated him in, and I'm really having trouble thinking of movies I actually liked him in. There are movies I liked in spite of him (this one might be one of them...I still don't know if I really liked it, or if I just "didn't hate" it.) Every time Franco opened his mouth, he either ruined a good scene, or just made a bad scene worse. His interaction with every character just didn't feel right. And it wasn't the dialogue (at least, not all the time), it was the way he was playing the role. It almost felt like Franco wanted the audience to know that he was just dicking around in front of a green screen or something. He was absolutely horrendous.

I'll get all of my bad comments out of the way, then end on a high note. The script for this movie was both awful and great. On average, it was pretty good, but the bad parts were really bad. I think what bothered me most about the script were the forced references to the vastly superior The Wizard of Oz. As someone who is vaguely familiar with the Oz books (though I haven't read more than one), I was hoping they would keep this one more or less separate from it's predecessor. The Oz universe is so much larger than just Dorothy and Glinda. They included a fair amount of the extended universe, but not enough to make this feel like anything more than a "let's make tons of money off of the 30's movie" instead of a "let's bring more of L. Frank Baum's wonderous world to life." I think they severely erred on this point. Also, the movie dragged a fair amount. I felt that a lot of the film could have been condensed. It had no right being 130 minutes. Seriously, why not pull out 20-30 minutes of Franco looking like a goofy idiot and make this a well-paced, fun movie? Ugh.

Now for the good parts of the film. The acting (with the exclusion of Franco) was actually pretty great. I thought Michelle Williams and Zach Braff were the obvious winners in this aspect, but I thought Mila Kunis was really strong in this film. I think a lot of people are bashing her performance because they are so used to seeing her in comedies and just can't take her seriously as *SPOILER ALERT* an antagonistic character. To those people, I would suggest watching Black Swan again, because she was phenomenal in that film. But I'm getting off track. The acting was really strong in this movie (if you pretend like James Franco doesn't exist.)

The best thing about this movie is that is had one of the best directors in the game. Say what you will about Spiderman 3, but I still love Sam Raimi. Even if Spiderman 3 has a horrendous script that is cursed by having too many villains, I still think it has some great shots and gorgeous camera angles. But this isn't a defense of that movie. Raimi really showed off his skills with Oz. As always, he uses really weird and unique camera angles to make the audience just shit their pants. I loved the feel of the opening at the circus and the clear change when they get into Oz. Everyone is gonna notice the clear difference (OHHH PRETTY COLORS) but it really is completely different. The filming style changes completely and it feels like a different movie. I love everything Raimi did with this film, and without him, Oz: The Great and Powerful 2 will fail unless they put together an amazing script that has very little Franco.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think this movie succeeded in a lot of ways, and also horrendously failed in a few ways as well. As always, Raimi delivered some amazing visuals, and I think the movie is worth viewing just to see what he does with the amazing world of Oz. While the script and acting weren't perfect throughout the film, they were good enough to make me not want to kill myself. I would say this movie should be seen on the big screen, because the visuals are stunning, but don't pay too much. Try and get a matinee price or something.

Writing: 6/10

Directing: 8.5/10

Acting: 6.5/10

Pacing: 4/10

Rewatchability: 6/10

Score: 6.2/10

Rant of the Week: Kid's Movies

I feel like kid's movies have changed a lot in the last decade or so. When I was a kid, we got a lot of the movies that were geared towards kids (and no, I'm not saying that because I'm an 'adult' not.) But in the last ten years or so, we have seen an evolution in 'kid's' movies: they aren't for kids anymore. 

I know some people will claim that this is a completely invalid statement, as I am just viewing it from a different point of view, but after watching several films from my childhood and watching modern kid's films, I really genuinely see a huge difference. So, if you are one of those nay-sayers, please hear me out. 

In the past, there was a clear schism between kid and adult movies. Yes, adult's saw kid's movies, but mostly because they, ya know, had kids and didn't have a choice. The filmmakers didn't gear the movies towards everyone who was going to see them because they knew that adults were going to see it either way, because they had to. Yes, every now and then you come across a movie that adds in a few 'adult' jokes to make the parents feel included a little, but that was the exception, not the rule. It wasn't until the late 90's that we started to see movies that were geared towards kids and adults. 

I think that the evolution that we are seeing was heavily influenced by what we saw in early 90's television. The TV shows on the air back then were rife with adult humor and adult situations that were all masked with kid's themes. Take Full House for example: Bob Saget. Need I say more? And what the movie industry saw there was that, if they made the movies for both groups, they could make money from an untapped market: childless adults. 

Kid's movies in the 21st century (like How to Train Your Dragon, Up, and Wreck-It Ralph) no longer adhere to the clear kid's movie atmosphere. They are now an amalgamation of what we used to call a 'kid's' movie and what we think of as adult films. This is one of the big reasons that we are finally seeing animated films being consistently nominated for Academy Awards other than Best Animated Film. In the last ten years, we saw two animated films nominated for Best Picture, six for Best Screenplay, and seven for Best Sound Editing. 

I guess what I'm trying to say (if I'm saying anything at all, really) is that movies aren't for a specific age group anymore. We now see a lot of cross age group movies (WALL-E anyone?) that are really covering the gamut. I absolutely love this trend, and love that movies that are geared towards kids are generally bombing now when compared to the competition. This is a positive sign for what is going on in cinema, I would say. Or maybe I'm a fucking idiot. Take your pick. 

The Brass Teapot Review

I'll admit that I only heard about this movie because I absolutely love Juno Temple and would (and pretty much have) see anything she is in purely because of her. I really liked her in Atonement (though she didn't have a huge role, and it was early in her career) and have always kept an eye on her since. She's been in a fair amount of alright movies, but last year's Killer Joe really made her stand out in my mind, so I've been keeping on top of her new releases. The Brass Teapot is her first of many exciting releases of 2013 (shut up, it didn't come out in 2012!)

So, the movie is a pretty simple, but original concept. It's about a married couple who come across a brass teapot that give money whenever they hurt themselves. Juno Temple plays Alice, the all to willing wife in this relationship. Michael Angarano (aka that kid from Sky High) plays her husband, who is less quick to jump on the bandwagon of beating the shit out of themselves. High jinks ensue and lessons are learned. 

It took me a few days to actually decided if I actually liked this movie or not. I finally decided that I did. There are a lot of aspects of this film that don't quite do it for me, but for the most part, I think it all works. 

The acting in this film coupled with the excellent and original script is mostly what does it for me. I thought that the pairing of Temple and Angarano was brilliant. They play off of each other really well, and make every scene work great. I especially liked some of the supporting cast which include great actresses like Alexis Bledel (Gilmore Girls) and Alia Shawkat (Arrested Development). I thought everyone delivered great performances, and though some of the physical humor didn't hit as well as they had hoped, I thought it was all really well done. 

The script for this movie was great in terms of originality. I thought it presented a very common issue (greed) and gave a clever spin on it and actually had a great moral at the end. I think the biggest downfall of the script was the fact that some of the dark humor didn't come across as humor well enough. They really toed the line between drama and comedy and some of it didn't quite land where they wanted it to. But, overall, the script was really good, and I definitely enjoyed it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This movie is definitely worth seeing at least once. Temple and Angarano give great performances that are hilarious and also gut-wrenching. The script is original, even if it is sometimes predictable. The direction is nothing special, but doesn't detract from the good parts of the movie. 

Writing: 7/10

Directing: 4/10

Acting: 7/10

Pacing: 5/10

Rewatchability: 5/10

Score: 5.6/10

Identity Thief Review

I'm fairly certain that I recently talked about the trend of January-February being the time of year that just dishes out absolute crap. Every year has a couple of exceptions (this year had Warm Bodies) but it's a pretty well known fact. I've already seen my fair share of horrendous atrocities that came out this year (see my review on Gangster Squad and A Good Day to Die Hard if you don't believe me) but nothing compares to the level of awful that is Identity Thief.

When I first saw a trailer for Identity Thief last year, I actually thought it might be alright. See, I didn't expect it to be good, but I expected it to be...tolerable. A few good laughs, but not a great flick. I mean, how could you go wrong with Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy in an over-the-top ridiculous comedy? Sadly, I now know that this combination is not the pure comedic gold that I once thought.

Let me be blunt about this: there is absolutely nothing enjoyable about this movie. I don't know where to start tearing this movie apart, because it was all just so awful. 

I guess I'll start with the least awful and go up. The direction in this movie was somewhere being "Oh god what am I watching?" and "Gouge your eyes out awful." And that's is putting it nicely. There was nothing enjoyable about the direction here. All of the scenes just looked so...staged? I know that seems like a silly thing to say, since it's a fucking movie and it is all staged. But it just didn't feel natural. Everything going on just looked and felt stupid. On a visual level, I hated every single second of this movie. It was even worse than your "typical" comedy style. I find it especially disappointing since I actually enjoyed his direction in Horrible Bosses and thought that film was very well done. Ugh, I feel like this review is only going to get more offensive...

I'm just gonna jump right into this one: the acting in this movie was god awful. Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy both phoned in their performances. I have always loved these two actors (mainly because of Arrested Development and Gilmore Girls, respectively) but those comedic geniuses did not show up for this movie. Both of them just showed up for their paycheck and did exactly what they were told, and read their unfunny lines. And that brings me to the worst part of the film...

So, the script. Where do I start with this flaming ball of garbage? Let's see: the plot is formulaic, the characters are static and unenjoyable, and the film has not one good joke. I don't mind that the plot was formulaic, because you can still come out with some major laughs and great characters in a comedy that follows a set formula. I think a great example of that is Due Date. No, that movie wasn't great, but it did have it's fair share of laughs and some characters you can identify with. This movie is just bland jokes for the entire 111 minutes. Oh, and can we talk about the fact that this piece of shit is nearly 2 hours?! Who thought that was a good idea? You have to have a really good story to justify a 2 hour comedy, and this film definitely did not. And can we just talk about how unlikable both characters are? Fuck that, I have to have someone I can root for, or at least enjoy. Even an anti-hero makes me feel better than these dumb fucks. I wanted them both to rot in jail by the end of this film. GOD!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum this up: don't see this movie. Don't even go if someone offers to pay for your ticket. Don't even go if they offer to pay for your ticket and give you 50 bucks. You tell them to go fuck themselves. This is undeniably the worst film I have seen so far this year, and might even be the worst film of 2013. Yea, I'm calling it early: this takes the shit cake. 

Writing: 0/10

Directing: 1/10

Acting: 2/10

Pacing: 2/10

Rewatchability: 0/10

Score: 1.0/10

Rant of the Week: Movie Trailers

I didn't really know what to talk about this week, and since yesterday saw the release of the new (and awesome) Iron Man 3 trailer, I decided I would talk about something that has always been a problem to me: movie trailers.

I really started having problems with movie trailers back in 2009 when I saw the Drag Me to Hell trailer. I was familiar with Sam Raimi's past work (namely the Evil Dead trilogy) so I knew that this was going to be a horror comedy. But when I saw the trailers, it was advertised as a straight horror movie. I even know people who went and saw this and came out saying "that sucked, it wasn't scary." Right, because it wasn't supposed to be. This has been happening even more frequently with movies that I actually really liked, like Funny People and The Cabin in the Woods. These movies were falsely advertised, so people were expecting one thing and were disappointed when they got another, even if it was good. 

Another thing that movie trailers have been doing is straight up ruining the movie. I can't remember how many times I've watched a movie and been like "this part was in the trailer" and it's like the big twist scene, or just the end of the movie. Why do you need to tell us how the movie ends in the trailer? Don't you want us to see the movie? There are too many of these examples for me to pick on, but I'm gonna pick the one that really felt like a travesty to me: The Cabin in the Woods. (Disclaimer: if you haven't seen this movie and intend to, don't read on.) In the trailer for The Cabin in the Woods they give away two "twists." Number one, they reveal to us that a character we believed to be dead was not. Number two, they tell us which two characters survive and that they both go "down" in an elevator. I was absolutely in shock when I finished the movie and watched the trailer again, just to make sure I was remembering correctly. Why the hell would you ruin a movie like that? WHAT THE FUCK?! 

I don't know if it's just because I pay attention to trailers a lot now that I'm watching a lot more movies, but this seems like a huge problem now. I've actually stopped watching trailers recently since I don't want to spoil movies for myself. I've actually found that it makes some movie experiences so much better. Not knowing exactly what I'm getting into makes the movie that much better. Some movies that I watched recently that come to mind are: Robot & Frank, Sound of My Voice, and Another Earth. As someone who used to go out of his way to watch trailers to try and be on the "forefront," I'm telling you that you're life will be better if you get basic details about a movie and just jump in. If you are worried about wasting your time, ask something if it is good or not, but don't get too much info. It's really fun trying to figure out where a movie is going when you just don't know.

I will tell you that sometimes I just need to watch a trailer to keep up with the movie news websites and such. Most recently, some of these include: Star Trek Into Darkness, Man of Steel, and Iron Man 3. I think these blockbuster/popcorn movies can't really be ruined as much as other films that I have mentioned. But what do I know? Maybe I ruined them for myself. We'll find out.

So, what do you think? Do you think trailers are ruining some films? Are you a staunch supporter of trailers? Tell me what you think, because I don't really get to hear a lot of people's opinions about trailers in this sense.