There’s a new trailer for Wolverine debuting online tomorrow, except that it’s online now via a postage-stamp sized embed from USA Today. (It’s a soft open.) This is a more conventional trailer than the one we saw a couple months ago, and it looks like an exercise in giving way too much away. That’s even despite the fact that it uses a lot of the same footage, with a bunch of full-on views of some of the value-added muties shoehorned into Wolverine’s backstory. I’m surprised we don’t see every dump Logan took in 1944 because it seems like everything else is right up there.
This still doesn’t look like a good movie to me, but the kitchen sink approach at least makes it look like it could be a bit of fun, which isn’t something I’ve come to expect from this movie. I keep thinking of the big old X-Men Annuals, in which a generally too-long and useless story at least got to digress into a few neat ideas by sheer virtue of length. (Or via a couple of tacked-on shorts at the end.) The question is: how much more is there to this movie, with a trailer like this that (far more than usual) feels like it’s giving up all the goods?
An HD version should be available in a few hours, at which point I’ll update. In the meantime, hit the fullscreen button to see this in embiggened pixelvision.
EDIT: MTV has a better resolution version up. In the cold light of morning I can say, holy shit, this movie really looks awful. I’m not even sure I can get behind the fun assumption I voiced above.
Why is Cyclops in here? That’s a pointless retcon that trumps even the idiotic bone claws. Is his mutant power to write backwards on chalkboards, or flip shots? And why does old, scarred Deadpool eyebeam the hell out of something? Could the entire enterprise look more cheap? I’m not usually one to knock a film for budgetary concerns and shoddy effects, but this is a massive tentpole movie that looks like it was made on one constantly redressed back lot.
Behind every great book adaptation is a forgettable first try. — By Ryan Covey