First Impressions: The Matrix Resurrections

Nearly twenty years after a generally unlauded finale, the Matrix series returned to HBOMax to create another fruitless sequel professing finality and promising nothing but corporate maneuvers rather than artistic storytelling. Or at least that's what seems to be at the core of this film's genesis, plot, and structure. Whether it is or it isn't is a source of debate, but hey, this is the Matrix, it was made for debating.

First, a bit of background. This film feels like the culmination of a trend of re-hashing old properties that most folks will say started with The Force Awakens (2015) but really it was Jurassic World (2015) but really it was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) but really it was Rocky Balboa (2006). Rocky's been at this so long he's gone back to it again with Creed (2015). The point is that the concept of bringing back old characters that worked once a long time ago is nothing new at this point. A lot of this is just because movies became too big in the 1970s and 80s. They became pop cultural standards and fandoms emerged. Human beings like to belong to groups and defend what they like as part of their identity. We then just got sort of stuck in these grooves and wanted to revisit them. What's weird is that now the revisit is fresh. I don't know what we'd do with a Jurassic sequel in the 2040s with an elderly Chris Pratt. Would anyone care?

Sometimes you find a good vehicle for aging characters to pass on the mantle (well...Creed I guess is it), but more often these films falter for three major reasons: 1) Characters are too old to be plausibly doing the same crap again, 2) They coast on nostalgia and recognition over creating genuinely engaging new adventures and 3) Their earlier stories wrapped up succinctly so that these new stories undercut the stories we actually liked and make us depressed about their happy endings.

That third one cuts rather hard in The Matrix Resurrections (2021), but we'll get to that. SPOILERS forever, you ought to know the drill by now. While this concept is nothing new, 2021 felt like a particularly egregious year when it came to this stuff. Ghostbusters: Afterlife (2021) surprisingly has a lower critical score than Ghostbusters (2016), although its audience score is far higher (you can't exactly trust these metrics that were driven by Troll campaigns), but more importantly it grossed $5 million less domestically and $44 million less worldwide than the 2016 effort. And the pandemic is a good excuse until...

Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021). Now, this is assuredly an anomaly, but the success of this film really seems to fly in the face of any other movie whining that the pandemic is the cause of their box office failure. The truth probably lies more in the fact that this was just the only kind of movie that made people want to risk their health and sanity to go to see. So why is that? Well, it's one of the most popular characters in one of the most popular franchises (the MCU) but also connected to one of the most popular franchises of twenty years ago (Spider-Man) with the promise of direct connections to said franchises in a frankly swell "I didn't know they could do that" kind of cinematic moment.

It's really just The Flintstones meets The Jetsons, this is assuredly nothing new. It's just a gimmick to get people in the theater, but on a grander scale. But what folks seem to forget is that this is really trading on early-2000s nostalgia. And more than almost any other time period, this is one that is so rife with memes, regurgitated from half-remembered bizarre cultural artifacts from millennial childhoods that propel said generation now to the theater. The marketing for this didn't start in the past month, it started two years ago when false COVID claims on snapchat accompanied Willem Dafoe saying "I'm something of a scientist myself." They just made that into a movie.

So, getting to the Matrix. People today might forget how big The Matrix (1999) was when it came out. Looking back, it feels like such a perfect movie. It was small and unpretentious about super-pretentious stuff. It was a fresh take on an old sci-fi idea, the simulacra of reality, but with an early Internet twist, which makes it feel so much like a movie of its time. It backs this up with a soundtrack and action that exists in service of its story. And the cast hits really well. It's this really rare film where it's this sincere blend of technology, philosophy, zeitgeist, Hong Kong action, and Keanu Reeves. If you want to turn your brain off to the philosophy it has the action. If you want to turn your brain off to the action it has the mind-fuckery. It just works on every possible level.

Now, the sequels get a lot of flack, but I really enjoyed Reloaded (2003). It felt like it was doing everything a sequel needs to do. We saw the ramifications of Neo's godlike powers within the Matrix, and villains' increased efforts to confine him (mostly by exploiting the Matrix to strand him on mountains or trap him in corridors. Some of Neo's reality warping was nerfed, which always disappointed me, but whatever. It expanded the world and mythology by traveling to the real-life last human city of Zion. And it doubled down on both the action and the philosophy, the former through the Highway Chase, which is paralleled in the past twenty years only by the entire Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), and the latter by long diatribes by both the Merovingian and the Architect, which folks will generally roll their eyes at for dipping too hard in that pretentious pool, but I also think that's the point. These are machines who think that they are better than humans and they...exhibit that.

I was never a huge fan of Revolutions (2003), though. The big battle for Zion is the showpiece, but it didn't really feature anyone we had journeyed with this whole time. It mostly focused on these generals and that newbie wiener kid who no one cared about. And the Dragon Ball Z fight between Smith and Neo lacked clarity to be a final showcase. I mean, I kind of get it, Smith absorbed the Oracle, which somehow gave him Neo powers, and then absorbed Neo, which allowed the machines to blast him when touching the source code. Right? But like, why would the machines ever honor their truce?

Why indeed. That's probably why we get to where we are now. There was no reason for the machines to honor the peace, although Neo's efforts did lead to some machines defecting. That's great. To talk about this particular film, we then need to examine a handful of simultaneous levels. First is the actual story going on within the film. Then the meta commentary about the production of the actual film by Lana Wachowski, and then the actual cultural context of this film's release. So, before we get into all that, let's give them some credit for creating a film where this kind of discussion is even needed in the first place.

In Resurrections, Neo is a game programmer living in a new version of the Matrix where he has created a video game series called, The Matrix. He creates a module that rapidly evolves a program into an amalgam of Morpheus and Smith (I was never quite convinced they pulled this off, he doesn't seem to have much Smith-ness. More just like, some kind of hip Morpheus. But I'm still a big Yahya Abdul-Mateen II fan). This program, with the prodding of Bugs (the best new part of the film, played by Jessica Henwick), re-awakens him. They then try to re-awaken Trinity, for both were resurrected by the Analyst because of the great power they bring to the machines.

That's pretty much it. For all the convolution, this is basically a heist rescue story about a group of freedom fighters trying to free one of their former leaders, Carrie Ann Moss. The notion that you could trick Neo by telling him the Matrix was a video game he created is rather inspired, and I'll again give this movie credit for somehow creating genuine new mind-fuckery. You do really start to think, "What, were those previous three films all just a video game we were watching?" This film folds this meta commentary upon itself, at one point literally dropping the reason this film exists (one might surmise), which is that parent company Warner Brothers (mentioned by name) will make a sequel with or without its original creators. There is then a lauded scene of people in a room pitching what made the Matrix great and how they might replicate that in a sequel.

So, this is both really canny and clever, but also disappointing. It feels very clear that Lana Wachowski (her first time directing without her sister, Lily), was in danger of Warner Brothers making a sequel with or without her. It's nice to get the original creator back. The George Miller effect, if you will. But the key rub is that that long list of what made the original Matrix cool isn't wrong. It is what made the original film cool. Resurrections darts much of this. The Merovingian reappears and starts spouting off philosophy but it's during an action scene and every character ignores him. Neo isn't even the One anymore, or maybe he is, but Trinity is also the One. So there are two Ones and one is named after the concept of three. A lot of this feels like fucking with the audience, which is fine, except that you can't expect that you would ignore everything that made The Matrix cool and then still be cool.

I sound like a bro. What I mean is that this just isn't going to satisfy Matrix fans, but it's not trying to and it doesn't have to make a good movie. It ends up being a pretty shit movie because it defies a lot of expectations that come with being a long-range nostalgic sequel, but it also quite frankly doesn't. It still follows the beats of the first film (in fact, bits of all films), but just because it's commenting on itself doesn't mean it's elevating itself above itself. It reminds me of 22 Jump Street (2014) which everyone loved because it was so meta, but that's not enough, it still followed its meta path. Or the Deadpool movies which smile in their self-awareness but then still commit superhero movie sins. Or even Jurassic World, which fully admits that they are never going to make a movie as good as Jurassic Park (1993), so settle on making a shittier film. You get that sense constantly in this. Scenes from The Matrix are literally projected on the walls during companion scenes in this film. You could make an argument for that being brilliant art - it's saying "This is what you want? You want more Matrix? Here it is literally the same scene again" but within the context of the characters in the movie there is little more commentary than that and the function of the scene remains the same.

It's a hard film to have its cake and eat it too. There are still realistic stakes here for the characters. See, the big issue with this premise being a mystery is that there is this big question "What is the Matrix?" that has a pretty simple answer. The Matrix is a simulation of life in the late 1990s to keep human beings compliant and happy while machines in the real world suck the electricity out of our brains. While there is this deep philosophy and mystery as part of the story, the plot isn't all that convoluted and there are still progressions and consequences. This film seems to shy away from what could have been a sincere meta experience and instead use its meta elements to enforce a plot that is basically the first movie. Thus the film, despite all its effort, still falls into that nostalgia trap.

Alright, let's shift and talk about some of the little things. It has been oft commented already, but while each of the first three movies has spectacular action set-pieces, this movie...doesn't. It feels cluttered, boring, and inconsequential. Maybe part of that is the darting of expectations, but I struggle to think so, because it feels like they are trying. It's not the 21 Jump Street (2012) mode of shooting at a gas truck and having it not explode. They are fighting, but it doesn't feel original or interesting. This means that a big staple of the franchise, why folks tuned in, is instantly dulled.

Again, maybe this was on purpose. The Wachowskis seem a little bit ashamed of the monster they created. Unfortunately the Matrix has many possible readings, and the alt-right has co-opted red pilling as becoming aware of liberal world conspiracies. It was about being closeted trans and finding a safe space on the internet to create the person you really are, you clods. One might look at the Wachowski's post-Matrix Trilogy filmography to gain some understanding of how this film came about.

Post-Trilogy they produced V for Vendetta (2005), which seems in their wheelhouse. It had decent critical reviews and remains a pretty solid film. Then they made Speed Racer (2008), which everyone hated. It has since earned a cult following and positive re-appraisal, but I will admit that I have tried to sit down and watch it twice with the mood to appreciate it, and don't totally buy into it. I'd like to show it to children I guess, which is is the target audience. It is colorful and unique and with the best casting ever, so I'll give you that.

It seems crazy that after the Matrix Trilogy and V for Vendetta they'd dive into Speed Racer. I suppose it's the George Miller Happy Feet (2006) effect, but it's also a chance for them to get into more green screen work, more building works out of CGI, and to do something totally different. Standing back now, I can appreciate that. They've only made two feature films since then though - Cloud Atlas (2012) and Jupiter Ascending (2015). Both were enormous box office bombs and appreciated by no one.

Cloud Atlas was an adaptation, but Jupiter Ascending sought to create a new sci-fi world that could have become a big blockbuster franchise. It...did not. These films combine for the popular fact that, despite any cult opinions, the Wachowski's really haven't directed a film SINCE The Matrix to receive universal critical acclaim. I'm including the sequels in that, which are fair to say have also been reviled. It must be hard to make a game-changing film and not be able to follow it up for like twenty years.

This feels like the context where Resurrections was created. They're coming off Jupiter Ascending, an original film that everyone hated. Warner Bros is in a position to dangle the Matrix and pass it on to anyone else willing to make a rank in file sequel. A Colin Trevorrow or oof, JJ Abrams. I want to see the JJ Abrams Matrix now, just so I may hate it forever. I picture Lana Wachowski being so fed up and thinking, "They just want the same crap?! I'll give them the same crap!" It feels like both a way to make a movie they want to make again (to their credit, I have no idea why people keep giving them huge budgets to make bombs, it's a testament to just how good The Matrix was that studios will still roll the dice on whatever insane shit they want to make) and to stick it to our current nostalgic trends.

Now, I'm obviously leaving out a big project of theirs - Sense8. I completely loved Sense8. It was the best work they've done in the past twenty years, the ending was obviously very rushed with impending cancellation, but I'm glad they got one at all. The mystery of that series may have also outpaced its execution, but it was generally really fun, comprehensible, and obviously the best showcase for LBGT and sex positivity maybe ever on screen. And of course, being a Sense8 fan allowed me to recognize that half of the cast in Resurrections were people from Sense8, which was fun as hell. 

Let's end how we began. We are finally at the point where we are getting knee deep in early-2000s nostalgia. Spider-Man: No Way Home nailed it, and it doesn't feel like a coincidence that Resurrections came out less than a week later. Spider-Man, the Matrix, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean, the Lord of the Rings, and Harry Potter were the biggest franchises of the early-to-mid 2000s. I'm surprised we haven't seen more Shrek stuff, especially as Mike Myers' career slumps, but they may have drowned that with four films of descending quality and a spin-off. The Pirates of the Caribbean is the same way - they just drowned us in Jack Sparrow with the most recent film coming out in 2017 until Johnny Depp burnt up all his goodwill. We just aren't really nostalgic for those first films. We did get more Tolkien films with the Hobbit movies, but the nature of that franchise (along with Harry Potter) has prevented more film-only projects from organically springing up.

That's really what makes superhero films superior to anyone - there's always another story to tell. There is no holy text. All we have is an abhorrent New Shadow lurking as a sequel to the Lord of the Rings. Don't tell Hollywood about that one, by the way.

Ultimately we're just in this conundrum, which I think the Wachowski's realized. The best move is to not make a sequel. Obviously the original Matrix Trilogy wrapped things up pretty tightly, with most characters dying and the world being saved. A nostalgic film won't make us feel the way we did when we first saw The Matrix or Spider-Man (2002) or The Fellowship of the Ring (2001). But in the absence of original creators with artistic vision we get The Rise of Skywalker (2019). It is a really difficult position to be in when Jupiter Ascending doesn't catch on. But also, I watched this so what does that mean? I'm still in this world as guilty as anyone else propagating a machine of drained culture.

A lot of this is actually in Resurrections, by the way. Neil Patrick Harris' Analyst says as much. The Matrix exists both within its world and as a sequel because it's what people wanted. It makes them happy and continues to feed them. This is as close as the film gets to upgrading the lessons of the Matrix and Internet culture to 2021, and I admittedly would have liked to see that aspect pushed further, but also in the world of the Matrix that no longer makes sense. I suppose they must have had 2020s, right? Unfortunately it's just not going to be as groundbreaking, or maybe this film is what the Wachowski's now think of the Internet in 2021 but it's just not as in line with the zeitgeist as 1999. And that makes sense, since no one can capture 2021's zeitgeist - it's just a fractured mess where everyone has only their own opinion and as big of a microphone in history to shout it and accept no others.

Except for Spider-Man. We all like Spider-Man.

I may have convinced myself in this review that I actually liked Resurrections. It's always hard at first to enjoy a movie that says you're dumb for watching it, but I can maybe appreciate what they are saying. I still think it didn't pull off the commentary quite the way it wanted to, and didn't elevate beyond its whining about the state of nostalgic movies. But honestly, I'd still rather have this than overly reverent Ghostbusters: Afterlife and JJ Abrams.

Take that red pill and transition, baby!!

Let's Hit the Beach! Lifeguards n Pirates!

Welcome again, folks to another Summer Friday - and this is a special one indeed. I always consider the first Friday in March to be the Official Start to Summer, but almost any other human being considers it to be this weekend. Memorial Day Weekend is upon us and we've got a big movie weekend, as usual. Well, it could be big, and I think there will be an upset, at least to traditional thinking. There's two big flicks dropping into a wide-open field, you are only going to need $20 million or so to win the weekend, and the weather looks like shit. These films could definitely blow up - let's start with the clearly awful one:

What's the most you ever lost on a coin toss?

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017) is coming about four years too late after the last sequel, which was really four years too late from the last last sequel. I'm actually a big fan of the first three PotC films, and even Verblinski's attempt to do the same damn thing Out West with The Lone Ranger (2013). Apparently, though, it takes a more precise hand than you'd think to juggle the ridiculous series of epic swashbuckling plot twists, since Rob Marshall's On Stranger Tides (2011) was a forgettable, billion dollar mess that no one cared about, and there's a surprising derth of copycat films for a genre that could be imitated so easily. That's clear again here, since Dead Men Tell No Tales looks and is fucking terrible.

There's some cool shit here, but it all feels like a chored retread than anything to get excited about. We might again cite how the Fast and the Furious series has impeccably managed to keep things fresh, despite being on #8, not #5. I think it may be as simple as our conditioning. We've been conditioned to accept that Fast movies are mere episodic installments, even if there is also some kind of overarching story. It works through its lack of epicness and finality. The first three Pirates films were an exhausting trilogy that got bigger and weirder each time, even if thematically really only the last two were coherently linked. On Stranger Tides always felt like hacking off a dick that had already blown its load in grand finale. The current Transformers series feels the same way, and the commercial results have been similar, although I'll admit to my greater interest in The Last Knight (2017) because I'm both a loyalist to giant robots and love ambitious trainwrecks.

You get this feeling with the upcoming Toy Story 4 (2019), too. We all felt so good with where we left these characters! Further installments cheapen that emotional high point and certainly in the case of On Stranger Tides' domestic returns, hurt its finances as well. To dwell on that a second - also akin to Transformers, this feels like the posterchild franchise for not giving a shit about American audiences. It will likely do just fine overseas, although last year's forced sequels reminiscent of this all stumbled. The international market is finally showing signs of fallibility, which I think will continue.

Critically, as I've said, it's already clear that this is a piece of shit with no real redeemable merit. Every thing seems forced and instead of a Johnny Depp revival, it feels more like another stake in his career. Was his last great role, like, Tusk (2014)? Can we say that? Culturally, this feels more in line with On Stranger Tides, which I honestly remember nothing about. I don't even remember what the fuck they were looking for in that stupid movie. This is all to say that, unfortunately for everyone involved, Dead Men Tell No Tales represents everything that sucks about summer movies right now, is generating no excitement or anticipation and is a total waste of time.

That's an important distinction - you kind of feel like the audience here is a bunch of people seeing this either out of obligation or ignorance. There aren't any fans any more. There's been nothing in the marketing really remarkable or engaging - and let me tell you, as a movie I don't give a shit about seeing, I have devoured every trailer available.

This has got to be gold right

On that note, let's move on to a film in the exact opposite vein - Baywatch (2017). I'm feeling big things about Baywatch. Watch the trailers side by side with Dead Men Tell No Tales and examine which film is better in tune with 2017. I was hating a few months ago, but I'm on the bandwagon now. Let's break this down:

Here is a film doing the basics so right. It's unconditionally set up to be a Summer Blockbuster. The only reason it exists is 21 Jump Street (2012)'s success as a cheeky, self-aware revival that leaned on its source material less than being its own relentlessly fun thing (we could have a whole other post about how in a weird way Johnny Depp is the cause of his own demise here). Baywatch is clearly just doing the same thing, but unlike CHiPS (2017), it actually looks fun, inclusive, and interesting.

Take the TV revival premise and just add a ton of sex. Baywatch could very well be the sexiest movie ever. Beyond The Rock, who on his own is a huge draw for this movie, we got Zac Efron, who had stumbled in non-Neighbors (2014) films but generally has a lot of good will. And girls aren't the only ones who can whack off to this movie - Alexandra Daddario and Priyanka Chopra are stunningly beautiful in addition to a real pride in slow motion running in swimsuits.

The sheer lack of shame in its source material is what elevates this film. It's also all about beach lifeguards. What more could you add to a summer blockbuster? The advertising had been everywhere and largely successful. I predict this will slaughter the weekend. My mom really wants to see it. That's got to be a good sign.

Critically, reviews haven't really come out yet, but they're largely positive. It may not be high art, but it reeks a film that does exactly what it wants to do, which is perfect. Finally, its cultural effect relies on its staying power, which is possible if it becomes either an eternal summer movie or the Best Comedy of the Year. Both are within reach and this could be great.

So I'm probably too high on Baywatch. That's okay. What are you seeing this weekend?

NMW's Totally On-time Summer Movie Preview!

That's right - it's time to go through an exhaustive list of every film coming out this summer. It's alright that we're already two weeks into the official Summer Movie Season - you didn't miss anything. We went pretty in-depth last year, and I assure you that we care much much less with each year that goes by. So let's start with what dropped two weeks ago:

Anticipation levels are out of 10,000

MAY

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Anticipation Level: 8653 - Marvel is on a ridiculous streak of competence (not really excellence, but surely competence), and the first one was amazing on all levels.

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword

Anticipation Level: 3079 - No one cares about this.

Snatched

Anticipation Level: 5436 - This could be pretty entertaining and Amy Schumer can be good or bad, but it's the return of Goldie Hawn that has a lot of people interested.

Alien: Covenant

Anticipation Level: 4550 - I was actually a big fan of Prometheus (2012) when it came out, although my eagerness has waned with more fridge realizations of how much that story made no sense. This looks exactly like Alien (1979) which is exactly as good and as bad as you want that to be.

Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul

Anticipation Level: 0349 - I don't know what this is.

Baywatch

Anticipation Level: 8043 - This is looking top to bottom like a fun movie that really gets what it is, although we'll see if it just apes 21 Jump Street (2012).

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales

Anticipation Level: 3374 - Javier Bardem is inspired casting, but the last one was pretty bad. So bad I even forget its name. Was it like Davy's Locker or Sunken Treasure or something? On Stranger Tides (2011), that's right. The promotional materials aren't that shitty, but we just seem so worn of this by now.

JUNE

Wonder Woman

Anticipation Level: 6792 - I don't totally care about Wonder Woman, although really sinking into her character can be pretty interesting if it's done right. All the marketing has been excellent so far and this could be hype. Then again, it could be like every other DC movie and be total shit.

The Mummy

Anticipation Level: 1334 - I don't understand on any fundamental level the process that went into creating any aspect of this film. The Tom Cruise stunts for the sake of stunts angle, the Universal Monsters shared universe angle (can't wait to see how it ties into Dracula Untold (2014)! Or not), or the misplaced tone. The Brendan Frasier Mummy movies were actually really enjoyable camp, but this is just altogether bizarre.

Cars 3

Anticipation Level: 0457 - I'm about as excited for this as I was for Cars 2 (2011). Or Cars (2006). There was actually that chilling first trailer, which is kind of bold and interesting, but I'm confident about my life moving on without any interaction with this material.

Rough Night

Anticipation Level: 7844 - Scarlett Johansson may be somewhat miscast here, but the rest of the troupe is an unrivaled comedy dream team. I have reservations over this being similar to a lot of other movies out there, from Bridesmaids (2011) to Bachelorette (2012) to hell, even Very Bad Things (1998), but I enjoyed all those movies, so maybe that's not a bad thing.

Transformers: The Last Knight

Anticipation Level: 9006 - Hell yeah! I've grown more and more into accepting this franchise's absurd idiocy and absolutely love every insane facet to come out of the marketing material so far. The Transformers franchise is so dead and gone, but no one tell Michael Bay that.

Baby Driver

Anticpation Level: 9007 - just slightly above Transformers, of course. Everything about this screams awesome visual filmmaking like few besides Edgar Wright can do. The last time he struck out from the Cornetto Trilogy we got the fabulous Scott Pilgrim vs. The World (2011) and everything from the cast to the premise looks fantastic.

Despicable Me 3

Anticipation Level: 1899 - Trey Parker voicing some weird 80s Supervillain is interesting, especially since he and Matt Stone have shied away from a lot of non-South Park Hollywood work since Team America (2004), and this is also the kind of stuff they'd usually make fun of. Still, Trey is an amazing voice actor and a huge get. I don't care about anything else in this franchise.

JULY

The House

Anticipation Level: 2981 - I wish modern comedies had more distinctive names. Even Rough Night is just so vague. I had to look this up before I remembered that it's a surprisingly rare Will Ferrell / Amy Poehler vehicle that should be getting more hype than it is. That may be because the premise is pretty weak and the first trailer was largely a dud.

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Anticipation Level: 4232 - This isn't really doing it for me - I'm sure it'll be just fine and I'm really looking forward to writing a lengthy post about Mike Keaton's Batman to Birdman to Vulture journey, but there's not a ton here to get excited about. Maybe that's because Captain America can be in a political thriller movie, Wonder Woman can be in a period war movie, Deadpool can be in a comedy, Wolverine can be in a western, but Spider-Man is just kind of Spider-Man. I think the official moniker they're going for is a John Hughes movie, but fuck it, Spider-Man 2 (2004) was as pure a superhero movie as we're ever going to get and it was grand.

War for the Planet of the Apes

Anticipation Level: 5000 - right down the middle. I stay up late at night wondering if Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) was a good movie or not and feel much of the same here. I like the continued cycle of human actors, and a menacing Woody Harrelson is inviting, but I feel like this will be the Star Trek Beyond (2016) of this summer - great competent blockbuster filmmaking that no one cares about.

Dunkirk

Anticipation Level: 4126 - It's not often that I'm not up for a Chris Nolan film, but nothing about Dunkirk that's been presented so far has been awfully interesting. He's a great director who can find meaning in almost any material and is great at offering new takes on tried subjects, and you'd easily think that a Nolan War movie would be great. I hope it is, but I have no reason to blindly believe it will be.

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets

Anticipation Level: 6045 - Despite the mouthful title, this feels like Luc Besson going nuts and I love it. The weirder the better, wacky adventure ahoy! There's a lot of unknowns here, though, and it could so easily be shitty that its AL suffers.

The Emoji Movie

Anticipation Level: 0000 - you knew it had to be somewhere. What is this. No.

Atomic Blonde

Anticipation Level: 8504 - I'm into everything about this. Charlize Theron is suddenly a go-to badass, the team from John Wick (2014) returns to craft some hopefully amazing action pieces, and the style is out of this world. Plus this.

AUGUST

The Dark Tower

Anticipation Level: 7172 - I've never read the books or anything (of course not), but the basic premise of the Dark Tower linking all of Steve King's work is really interesting. The trailer that dropped last week was fantastic and actually pretty buzz worthy. This might be the sleeper of the summer.

Detroit

Anticipation Level: 8014 - It's about time Kathryn Bigelow returned after the one-two punch of The Hurt Locker (2009) and Zero Dark Thirty (2012). The Detroit riots of 1967 are an overlooked part of American History, complex to take apart and timely as hell.

The Hitman's Bodyguard

Anticipation Level: 5478 - This could be good. Ryan and Sam are both hot right now and their pairing in this premise is ironic and fascinating. It'll have to deliver on its goods, but the release date is cherry and it ought to find its niche.

So, to conclude, let's rank these bastards:

Baby Driver	Anticipation Level: 9007
Transformers: The Last Knight	Anticipation Level: 9006
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2	Anticipation Level: 8653
Atomic Blonde	Anticipation Level: 8504
Baywatch	Anticipation Level: 8043
Detroit	Anticipation Level: 8014
Rough Night	Anticipation Level: 7844
The Dark Tower	Anticipation Level: 7172
Wonder Woman	Anticipation Level: 6792
Valerian and the City of A Thousand Planets	Anticipation Level: 6045
The Hitman's Bodyguard	Anticipation Level: 5478
Snatched	Anticipation Level: 5436
War for the Planet of the Apes	Anticipation Level: 5000
Alien Covenant	Anticipation Level: 4550
Spider-Man: Homecoming	Anticipation Level: 4232
Dunkirk	Anticipation Level: 4126
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales	Anticipation Level: 3374
King Arthur: Legend of the Sword	Anticipation Level: 3079
The House	Anticipation Level: 2981
Despicable Me 3	Anticipation Level: 1899
The Mummy	Anticipation Level: 1334
Cars 3	Anticipation Level: 0457
Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul	Anticipation Level: 0349
The Emoji Movie	Anticipation Level: 0000

What do you think? What's your anticipation level for Diary of a Wimpy Kid: The Long Haul?

Three Years Gone: Revisiting The Lone Ranger. Again.

Ever since its premiere three years ago, my obsession with understanding the abject failure of The Lone Ranger (2013) has somewhat consumed me. It's such a curious story to me because it seems to get at the overblown failure of most modern blockbusters, although on paper there's no reason why it should have failed, and after having seen the thing a few times now in the past three years, there's also no real reason to think it's even a bad movie.

This really reminded me of The LEGO Movie (2014).

So, to place this film in context, the only reason it exists at all is The Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003), which was somewhat improbably successful (there has been a surprising dearth of imitator pirate films in its wake), and led to two gargantuan sequels, the first of which, Dead Man's Chest (2006) soared to become at the time, only the third film to cross the billion dollar worldwide mark at the box office. At World's End (2007) is surely the most insane of the trilogy, but perhaps also the best. That film juggles an insane amount of plot, ridiculous action, a full-on movement towards the surreal, and finds room for plenty of call-backs, deeply embedded character symbolism, and rich yet totally insane characters.

In many ways, The Lone Ranger feels like a Pirates of the Caribbean movie set in the Wild West. Much of the same team returned, from director Gore Verblinksi, to star Johnny Depp, but also producer Jerry Bruckheimer, and writers Terry Rossio and Ted Elliot. From there they really just supplanted trains for ships and cowboys for pirates and massive deserts for endless oceans and you got a film there.

There's no reason to expect that the old adventure-style Lone Ranger would be that well-received, but when's the last time a swashbuckling pirate movie was treated seriously? This is in the wake of Cutthroat Island (1995) and hell, even Muppet Treasure Island (1996). The thing of it is, The Lone Ranger acts like a version of Pirates of the Caribbean where all the elements are refined, simplified, and executed with a sharper brilliance and knack for expansive yet idiosyncratic storytelling.

It was ostensibly dragged down by development hell, a damning overblown budget, and a simple lack of interest in the source material, even though it's a Lone Ranger movie exactly as much as Black Pearl is an amusement park ride movie. There are many more factors rumbling around, though. Some of these were discussed at the time, and it's interesting how much Despicable Me 2 (2013) triumphed that weekend, although by now that films' content is fairly blurry to me.

Clearly the second-best Tonto ever.

We're still in the middle of this, but in 2013 we were really knee-deep in Johnny Depp "Wacky Character" exhaustion. Even though he virtually disappears into Tonto the way he does into Jack Sparrow, he crafts a distinct character, playing him as eccentric without being aggressive or a buffoon. There's a lot of pain to his Tonto; pain that's essential to the story and his own character arc. Still, in the marketing material this seemed a whole lot like "Oh whatever!" It's tough to get up and amped for another white-faced Depp character (he plays an amazing high amount of them). As 2016's Alice Through the Looking Glass (2016) just proved, we're still in eye-rolling mode for his antics, regardless if they do or do not have merit.

It's also very plain to see that no one cares about either Old West action epics or big-budget adaptations of pulp material. John Carter (2012) is plain evidence of both these elements, even if it starts as a Western and ends as a Fantasy. Everything from Wild Wild West (1999) to Cowboys & Aliens (2011) suggests the genre's instability. While this weekend's Legend of Tarzan (2016) opened ten million higher than The Lone Ranger, it's also still a drastically underperforming template to base a genre around.

Now, one important thing is the overblown budget. Not only was this a oft-repeated means of knocking down the film (for some reason. I'm not sure why anyone cares about budgets or source material. The only thing worth caring about is the film itself), but it would have actually been profitable if it cost less, and not much of the purported $215 million appears on screen. It earned a mind-bogglingly low $89 million stateside and $260 worldwide, but truth be told, this film failed more as a cultural black hole. I remember seeing Lone Ranger LEGO sets, as if that'd ever take off. Something about that whiff is just sad and desperate.

I have suggested this before, but I'll say again, that the biggest reason for its failure is that he central conceit of the film is a huge blow to the myth of American manifest destiny and a reminder of our blood soaked and treacherous history of industrial corruption and Indian genocide. Maybe it wasn't the the greatest film to come out Independence Day Weekend. These are some really important concepts, though, and part of the thrill of watching this flick again is its boldness in addressing some relatively unpopular sentiments.

In this way its themes surpass PotC, although it still has some tonal issues with its tendency to switch between brutal heart-eating action set-pieces, addressing genocide, and silly horses in trees. The dueling train finale is very much the equal if not superior to the Maelstrom of At World's End, in part because it juggles less pieces of plot, offers more of a focused goal (even if that goal is actually non-existent - they blew up the bridge anyway!), and is a bit more grounded in reality. The triple villains also echo the big bads of At World's End - like the establishment, over-arching villain (Cutler Beckett / Latham Cole), the rogue gross dude (Davy Jones / Butch Cavendish), and the instrument of government oppression, a man torn by honor (Captain Norrington / Captain Fuller).

Verblinski also seems really into his repeated character motifs, such as the pocket watch that symbolizes Cole's greed and corruption and crow/seeds that signify Tonto. Repeated viewings give greater meaning to Cole fondling the pocket watch near the beginning of the film or Tonto exchanging seed for dead men's belongings. They become elements equal to Barbossa's Apple or Will Turner's sword that add little cohesive details to everything else wacky going on around it.

Its length is surely bloated, but its imagination and characters are pretty solid. The middle is certainly a slog to get through, but it's also the richest in theme and meaning. Armie Hammer still isn't great for some reason, even though I find myself liking him and his inherently noble characteristics work well for the role. There's something off about the casting, though, perhaps just a lack of charisma or actual reason to cheer for the character, even though he has a well-developed an intricate arc from prude to rude. Then again, perhaps that's why the film routinely states that this the wrong brother, wrong hero, and wrong protagonist leading everything.

On that note, like I mentioned earlier, there are certain things that don't really make sense. Why does John Reid wake up at the top of an impossibly tall wooden tower in the middle of the desert? Why is "nature out of balance" with these mysterious elements like carnivorous rabbits that are never exactly addressed? Finally, the end train conflict actually only exists to serve as action for the sake of action, since the same result would have taken place regardless if Tonto and the Lone Ranger had done anything (they blew up the bridge, meaning that no matter what Cole would have plummeted with his silver to his death). I suppose Tonto distracts him enough so that he doesn't see the missing bridge and slow down. And they rescue John's brother's widow (which, it's also totally weird that he's hooking up with her), although that's treated as more a side consequence to their assault.

What works is that all of this can be explained by the bookending Tonto narrator structure, which proves many times to be an unreliable narrator. He embellishes, skips around, and fully admits to lies and story changes. It may be a cheat, but Verblinski and Depp execute fairly effectively, with a layer of cheekiness that winks at its audience expecting a straightforward story and instead turns a lot of typical blockbuster elements on their head.

All this is not necessarily to say that The Lone Ranger is a great movie. There are many issues, most of which I dug into here. It's certainly no worse than any PotC movie, though, and probably the best summer blockbuster of 2013, or at least right under Pacific Rim (2013). I'm most curious about how or why its legacy got so unjustly maligned.

What do you think?