The Curse of the Misleading Trailer

How many times have you seen a really good movie trailer, only to be let down by the actual movie?

The problem is that the purpose of a movie’s trailer is to sell the audience on the movie. It is not necessarily intended to accurately represent the movie.

This can be a problem because it can affect what you actually think of the movie itself. It’s really too bad when the trailer kills the movie, but in some cases it’s hard to think of how it could have turned out otherwise.

Take, for example, three recent would-be swords-and-sandals epics. The movies I’m going to be talking about to illustrate this point are Antoine Fuqua’s 2004 King Arthur, Ridley Scott’s 2010 Robin Hood, and Brett Ratner’s 2014 Hercules.

Let’s start at the beginning. Fuqua’s King Arthur has virtually nothing to do with the legend of King Arthur as most people are familiar with it. There is no sword in the stone, no quest for the Holy Grail, no love story between Lancelot and Guinevere, no Morgan le Fay, no Mordred, none of that.

king arthur psotre

This isn’t automatically a problem, mind you. I don’t mind people putting a new spin on a familiar story. The problem with all three of these films is that their trailers and titles all promise things that the movies themselves fail to deliver, even though the movies aren’t necessarily all that bad (another good title for this post would have been The Curse of the Misleading Title, but I thought The Curse of the Misleading Trailer had a better ring to it).

When you hear the phrase “King Arthur,” what are some of the first things you think of? Chances are they include some of the things I mentioned above. It’s somewhat galling that a movie called King Arthur has almost nothing to do with the King Arthur stories that most people are familiar with. I don’t even think Arthur is a king for most of the movie. Merlin is just some forest wizard who does almost nothing, Lancelot freaking dies at the end of the movie and has almost no relationship with Guinevere, the list goes on and on.

The thing is that Fuqua’s film isn’t necessarily all that bad, but it most certainly does not live up to its title. Maybe it would be slightly easier to take if it had been called something different, but this leads to my second point: what the hell else were the filmmakers supposed to call it? It’s a swords-and-sandals epic about a dude named Arthur and his pals, some of whom just so happen to be named Lancelot, Guinevere, Merlin, Galahad, and so on. So sure, call the movie King Arthur and that ought to put asses in seats. The obvious problem is that you’re setting yourself up for a fall when you (rather brazenly, in the case of King Arthur, since the movie claims to be a true story and, you know, isn’t) don’t deliver on the audience’s expectations.

The same holds true for Ridley Scott’s 2010 version of Robin Hood. When you hear “Robin Hood,” what do you think of? Robbing the rich to give to the poor, duh. Guess how much of that there is in Scott’s film? Yep, you guessed it: virtually none.

robin hood psotre

Instead, the movie is an origin story, telling how Robin, Marion, Little John, etc. all came to be living in Sherwood Forest and hunted by famous douchebag King John. The original script of Scott’s film actually began with the title Nottingham, and portrayed a more sympathetic Sheriff of Nottingham as the main protagonist. From what I’ve read about it, the script portrayed the Sheriff of Nottingham as a CSI-style forensics investigator, torn between his duty to serve the king (who was corrupt) and his sympathies for the outlaw he was supposed to catch.

I don’t know about you, but I think that sounds like a hell of a good movie right there. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott himself apparently didn’t think so, and filming was delayed while the script was rewritten. It’s really too bad, because the resulting film’s story, while not terrible, is nowhere near as interesting.

Again, I wouldn’t call it a bad film, but it most certainly does not live up to the expectations its title and marketing suggest. But again, what else would (or should) the film have been called? Calling the film Robin Hood should put some asses in seats, but it’s hard to blame the people those asses belong to for leaving the theater unsatisfied.

Are you starting to see a pattern here? You should, because it continues with Brett Ratner’s Dwayne Johnson-starring Hercules, which was released last year.

Brett Ratner is kind of a sleaze (I mean, he does have the word “rat” in his name), who has one of the most punchable faces I’ve ever seen. I mean, look at this face. Don’t you just want to punch it after looking at it for more than two seconds?

the most punchable face in the universe

Gah, so punchable. I feel kind of bad for saying that I liked his film more than the previous two, (and it feels especially weird saying that I liked a Brett Ratner film more than a Ridley Scott film, that’s not something I ever thought I would find myself saying), but it’s true. Fuqua’s King Arthur and Scott’s Robin Hood are both so relentlessly dour (not to mention overlong) that, while I still don’t think they’re terrible, they aren’t always very much fun. Ratner’s film, at least, is more consistently entertaining. As Alfred so wisely told Bruce Wayne in Batman Begins, “Who knows? If you start pretending to have fun, you might even have a little by accident.”

So, here comes the first inevitable question. When I say “Hercules,” what do you think of? You probably think of the twelve labors, gods and monsters, that sort of thing. And here’s the second inevitable question: how much of these elements do you think Ratner’s film has? If you were to say “not very much,” then congratulations, you’re right.

Ratner’s Hercules is basically a mercenary with really good PR. He’s the guy who does all the hard jobs that no one else will do (although he doesn’t do them by himself, he’s the guy who gets all the credit for it), and he has a really good PR guy who spins tales of his legendary deeds.

hercules psotre

He becomes involved in a plot by a couple of douchey kings played by John Hurt and Joseph Fiennes, and the movie portrays him as a character separated from magic and mysticism. The whole point of the movie is that all of the things that people think of as being magical (centaurs, the hydra, and the like) turn out to be nothing but people (or just really mean animals, such as the Nemean Lion).

I kind of like this approach, to be honest. I love the idea of events becoming legends (such as in The Road Warrior) and Ratner’s Hercules taps into this. Not as well as The Road Warrior obviously, but the ideas are certainly there. The main problem with Hercules was the trailer, which hyped up the twelve labors of Hercules (such as the hydra and the Nemean Lion), and made it seem as if that was what the whole movie would be about.

But in the actual movie, all of those big trailer moments (the lion lunging at Hercules, chopping the heads off the Hydra) happen in the first five minutes, and are later revealed to not have been everything they were cracked up to be.

I feel like I’m starting to sound like a broken record here, but can you blame the people who may have left the theater unsatisfied? Not really. How else could the movie have been marketed? What else could it have been called? I dunno. The whole situation is a bit of a Catch-22.

It’s not that surprising that movie marketing is frequently misleading, advertisements are misleading all the time. There’s always a relationship between the consumer’s expectations of a product and the ability of that product to deliver on those expectations, and sometimes it skews dramatically one way or the other. Generally, when a product doesn’t do what it says it will do, it’s a bad product.

But it’s different with movies. A movie can maybe not fulfill all of your expectations, and yet you may still end up liking it to some degree. Such was the case for me, with all three of the films I’ve mentioned here.

So the next time you see a movie that wasn’t quite what you expected it to be, maybe try asking yourself: Okay, what did the movie do that I liked? Were there things about it that were really good that I wasn’t expecting?

I love movies, and I want other people to love them too. I guess that if there’s one thing writing this post has made clear to me, it’s that there is more than one way to like something, not just movies. So I guess what I’m saying is, try keeping an open mind and who knows, you just might end up surprising yourself.

Advertisements

Popcorn Perfection

I am on the record as saying that I like many of Tom Cruise’s movies. He may be a weirdo in real life, but he’s a fantastic entertainer. He’s very good at what he does, and his latest film, “Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation”, is probably my second-favorite summer movie this year.

I’m a big fan of the Mission: Impossible series. Last week, I re-watched all four of the previous films in anticipation of the new one, which I then saw on Friday. I thoroughly enjoyed all of them, with only one possible exception.

The first film in the series was released all the way back in 1996. Cruise was in his mid-thirties then, but man, the whole time I was watching the first movie I kept thinking he looked like he was about 17. I didn’t use to like the first movie all that much, but I have a newfound appreciation for it. It’s fairly light on action but is more concerned with intrigue and the many twists and turns of the plot.

MI1 psotre

The plot is complicated and there are still some things about it that are slightly baffling to me, but I can see how the various pieces of the puzzle fit together, even if some of the details continue to elude me. It’s a tense, well-made spy thriller that contains one truly iconic sequence: the famous vault heist, where Cruise’s superspy Ethan Hunt is lowered from the ceiling into the CIA’s most secure vault. It’s a wonderfully tense scene that still holds up as one of the best, most suspenseful sequences in the series.

Unfortunately, its sequel, Mission: Impossible 2, is by far the worst film in the series. The first entry was directed by Brian de Palma, who crafted a tense, complex spy thriller. MI2 was directed by John Woo, well known for his particular brand of super-stylized, slow-mo, firing-two-guns-whilst-flying-through-the-air action filmmaking. Now don’t get me wrong, Woo’s films can be great fun (if you haven’t seen Hardboiled you really should, it’s amazing), but his style is not suited to a Mission: Impossible movie.

In stark contrast to the first film, MI2 is a much more straightforward action movie, lacking the twists and turns of the plot, which is of the fairly dull “Stop the bad guy from selling the incredibly lethal supervirus to the highest bidder” variety. The first half of the movie is mostly buildup for the second half, which is full of ludicrous shootouts and slow-mo flip kicks. Seriously, this is the kind of movie where, instead of simply punching a henchman, the hero performs a ridiculous-looking slow-motion backflip kick.

MI2 doesn’t even feel like a Mission: Impossible movie, it’s title could have been “Generic Action Movie” and that would have been entirely appropriate. At one point near the end of the film, I noticed that the villain has these big containers in his lair, which are clearly labeled HAZARDOUS WASTE. Geez, dude, you probably shouldn’t just leave that kind of stuff lying around in your hideout, you just know a grenade is eventually going to find its way over there.

MI2 psotre

The movie’s final showdown is a mess of over-the-top kung fu and those ridiculous slow-mo flip kicks that John Woo couldn’t seem to get enough of. Tom Cruise has an awful hairdo in this movie, and his stupid emo hair flops around all over the place during the final fight, which is just silly. Oh, and this is preceded by a truly absurd scene where Ethan and the villain do this kind of motorcycle joust, where they drive at each other on motorcycles and then throw themselves off the motorcycles and collide in midair, and the motorcycles fly through the air and explode for absolutely no reason.

To top it all off, the end credits feature tracks from Metallica and, uh, Limp Bizkit. Wikipedia informs me that the soundtrack also featured such “artists” as Rob Zombie, Godsmack, and a band called (I kid you not) Butthole Surfers. Good luck getting that image out of your head.

Let’s move on, shall we? The third Mission: Impossible movie is one of my favorites, not just in the M:I series, but, well, generally. It’s a top-notch action thriller that also features the series’ best villain: Owen Davian, a ruthless arms dealer played brilliantly by the late, great Philip Seymour Hoffman. The third film was the film directorial debut of J.J. Abrams, who gets a lot of flack from various corners of the internet, but I’ve always been a fan.

He fills the movie full of action, but gives it a much more grounded feel than the second entry. It’s less stylized and much more engaging. The plot is full of twists and turns, but crucially, they are twists and turns that still make sense. The movie also gives Ethan a personal life, and gives solid character development to him and his wife Julia. It’s nice that the movie acknowledges that Ethan the superspy can still have a personal life (although this is largely abandoned in the subsequent films) and it humanizes Ethan quite a bit.

MI3 psotre

The movie is so full of action that it might be a bit overwhelming for some viewers, but I loved every second of it. It’s a tremendously exciting film that is one of my favorite summer action blockbusters. The bridge sequence, where Ethan and his team are attacked by bad guys with a predator drone, is one of my favorite action sequences of recent years. The movie also features one of the most satisfying villain deaths I’ve ever seen in a movie, where Philip Seymour Hoffman’s villain gets run over by a truck. That sounds a bit anticlimactic, but it’s actually incredibly satisfying. The movie’s ending is great and its opening is also great: the first line of the movie is “We’ve put an explosive charge in your head.” Oh, SNAP. You know shit just got real when there’s an explosive charge in your freaking HEAD. Now THAT is how you start a movie.

The fourth movie, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, is similarly excellent. Ghost Protocol was the live-action directorial debut of Brad Bird, who previously directed several acclaimed animated films (such as The Iron Giant, Ratatouille, and The Incredibles). Bird proves to be a sure-handed director of live-action, and orchestrates several impressive action sequences. This is the movie with the famous Burj Khalifa sequence, in which Tom Cruise scales the tallest building in the world (yes, Cruise actually did that).

The plot sounds simple, with Ethan and his team trying to stop a rogue nuclear extremist from inciting nuclear war between the US and Russia. In contrast to the second and third films, in which the villains had small armies of henchmen, Ghost Protocol is notable in that its villain has a grand total of one henchman. And yet, these two guys almost cause nuclear war. I really like this movie’s more stripped-down approach. The stakes in the film are very high, since Ethan and his team have no backup and have to rely mostly on each other because their equipment keeps malfunctioning.

MI4 psotre

One of the things I like most about these movies is the way that they emphasize teamwork. Sure, Ethan Hunt is a badass, but he wouldn’t get very far without his teammates. Every member of the team is important, and every one of them contributes. I really like that.

This trend continues in Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation, the triumphant fifth entry in the series. In it, Ethan and his team must track down the Syndicate, a rogue terrorist organization responsible for all sorts of dastardly deeds. They must once again do this with no backup, since the Impossible Mission Force, or IMF, has once again been disbanded, this time by a pompous bureaucrat played by Alec Baldwin, who is admittedly pretty great at playing pompous bureaucrats.

MI5 psotre

If I have one complaint about this series of films, it’s that they tend to fall back on the same plot elements a bit too often. Ethan and his team have gone rogue or the IMF has been disavowed in four of the five films. That aspect of the plot is a bit repetitive, but the movies are so consistently entertaining that I can forgive a little plot rehashing.

Rogue Nation was written and directed by Christopher McQuarrie, who worked with Cruise on Jack Reacher and also co-wrote Edge of Tomorrow, which was one of my favorite movies last year. His film strikes a perfect balance between thrilling action and international intrigue.

One of the film’s strongest assets is the character of Ilsa Faust, a slinky, sexy secret agent played by a Swedish actress named Rebecca Ferguson. Ferguson is a relative newcomer, but I certainly hope this is a star-making role for her, because she’s awesome. She plays a character whose loyalties are in question for pretty much the entire movie, and Ferguson really nails the conflicting aspects of her character. She’s also great as a foil for Ethan, since she proves herself capable of doing anything he can do on multiple occasions. She’s also not overly sexualized and exists as more than just a potential love interest for the hero, and it’s really refreshing to see such a strong female character portrayed in this way. Ferguson gets my vote for breakout star of the year, she tackles a tricky role and absolutely kills it. She niftily steals the movie right out from under Tom Cruise’s nose.

MI5 best thing evar

The film’s action sequences are also excellent. McQuarrie proves himself to be a more than capable action director, deftly avoiding the extreme close-ups, shaky camerawork, and rapid-fire editing that can make action sequences hard to follow. The action scenes in the film benefit from a strong sense of spatial relationships, in that you always understand where things are in relation to each other. This is especially important in the riveting Vienna opera house sequence, in which a complex cat-and-mouse game plays out. It would have been easy to get lost in such a complex sequence, but McQuarrie’s confident direction ensures that the viewer is always able to follow the action.

Other highlights include a thrilling motorcycle chase, an underwater heist that is as nail-bitingly tense as the vault heist in the original film or the Burj Khalifa sequence in Ghost Protocol, and the much-hyped plane stunt, in which Ethan desperately clings to the side of a cargo plane as it takes off. All of these sequences look great and are riveting to watch. Cruise proves once again that he’s game for all manner of insanely dangerous stunts, and his commitment enhances the film’s realism and makes it all the more exciting to watch as a result.

Other than Cruise and Ferguson, the supporting characters are also great, with solid work from Jeremy Renner, Ving Rhames and the always-great Simon Pegg. All of these actors have great chemistry and there’s a sense that they’ve all been through this kind of thing before, they understand the stakes but they know what they’re doing and they know that they can rely on each other.

MI5 other psotre

The film’s villain, the head of the Syndicate, is a bespectacled baddie by the name of Solomon Lane. Lane is played by an English actor named Sean Harris, whose raspy voice practically oozes menace. There’s also a terrifying henchman nicknamed the Bone Doctor, who you just know is seriously bad news.

I really love the Mission: Impossible movies. They are perfect popcorn movies, and Rogue Nation continues the series in fine fashion, offering tense and thrilling action, a plot that keeps you guessing, great acting, and a fine performance from one of the breakout stars of the year. What more could you ask for?