Star Wars Again

The last time this happened, I felt like writing far too much about my history with this particular franchise. It has been a hell of a two years, folks, because so much of my attitude about Star Wars has morphed and shifted, to the point where I'm really not looking forward to The Rise of Skywalker at all. And that has all to do with how much I loved The Last Jedi (2017), not how much many people hated it. So, let's dive into this a little bit, particularly what has become more and more apparent over the past two years.

They better bang by the end of this

The past four years have been packed with cultural events. Can you believe that The Force Awakens (2015) came out a mere four years ago? From that moment an entire new Star Wars Trilogy launched, and us long-term fans couldn't really understand the long-time ramifications of that launch. First, all of the Expanded Universe was bunk now. That's a nice way to clean up a conflicting sandbox that authors and video game creators have played in for decades so everyone can catch up equally with the new films, but with this franchise and new ownership, it also feels like a way to re-do thirty years of mythos and sell even more literature and video games.

There is more to it than that, though. There are substantial narrative issues with jumping into this without any sort of backstory. I think about this far too much. How did Star Wars (1977) work with much less of a backstory? Why does it matter? Well, the simple answer is that when we're thrown into something fresh we can piece things together in our own heads. We get that Darth Vader is bad, this moisture farmer is good, and okay, there is a story here.

I hate JJ Abrams. That is the biggest thing I've realized in the past four years. He is a fine director, casts well, his films look great, and he chases heart like few directors out there. But he chases it. He's a hack. He's probably the biggest fraud con artist director of all time. His specialty is creating films that emulate the feelings of old films, but actually contain none of the substance - and so he covers this with his infamous mystery box. Those mysteries never have an actual answer. They just distract the viewer from the fact that the film sucks. Looking at his work over and over again it's just so clear that none of his mysteries actually have any satisfying answer. They just exist to be interesting in themselves.

The Force Awakens is full of this. From the first damn scene we get Max Von Sydow who seems like an important character. He's not and it's never explained. I am done with believing that this will ever come. It's just running on a treadmill with no end. This goes on and on and on. Snoke. Rey's parents. The origins of the First Order. The Resistance. It's so obviously an overreaction to the prequels.

To some extent we can't complain about this. The prequels were pretty awful and near universally reviled among fans. The thing is, though, this really wasn't the fault of story or creativity. It was just acting and dialogue, which George Lucas really really can't figure out. This has been examined to death. I've been rewatching the prequel trilogy this past weekend and it's striking just how good Revenge of the Sith (2005) actually is thematically. It strikes me that the Jedi had no business being the main military arm of the Republic and Generals in the Clone Wars. The Order had to be re-started. Palpatine is right. It's close to being downright brilliant.

Now, beyond these big overarching themes it's incredibly clear that Lucas didn't know how to write a love scene or handle basic character motivation. The casting of Hayden Christensen was one of the worst casting decisions in modern cinema. These bog down the prequels. But what's bonkers is that kids who grew up on the prequels and Clone Wars and an Era where they have had nothing but Star Wars media rammed down their throats have started to reevaluate these movies. Nostalgia has shifted. It's not as much old nerds pining for the OT, but rather younger nerds interested in prequel memes.

This brings up all kinds of weird issues. Both the animated and computer animated Clone Wars shows likely went on a little too long for a three-year war and created all kinds of problems when these Clones decide to all kill the Jedi. How did their spider senses not alert them to any of this mischief? Well, it's quite simple - Palpatine was right and the Jedi were blinded by their hubris.

This brings me to Rian Johnson. He's the exact opposite of JJ Abrams. Burn the past. Destroy it. But he also is one of a very few (including, I think Lucas himself) who understood what the Jedi are actually supposed to be - humble peacekeepers of the galaxy, better suited to meditate and contemplate than raise a lightsaber. I never thought The Last Jedi (2017) was about destroying our collective appreciation of Star Wars, but actually righting it.

When this suddenly conflicts with a more commoditized vision of Star Wars that normalized the Jedi as fun soldiers and action heroes, then the conflict becomes a little more apparent. That and also general woman-hate from insecure incel nerds. Basically, all of society is terrible now. Everything great is ruined by Nazis, from Rick and Morty to Joker (2019) to the fucking okay hand gesture. Thanks, Nazi jerks.

So, what's wrong with Rise of Skywalker? In the past weeks one thing has become painfully obvious. This franchise has had absolutely no direction from its outset. How is this possible? First, how can you have literally no overarching idea of where these three movies are going? There was always going to be three. Marvel has done this down the hall with no definitive story and adding Spider-Man halfway through. How can you give one movie to JJ Abrams to set up all this crap and then to Rian Johnson who loves undermining this crap, and then BACK to Abrams to set up all the crap he originally wanted?

It's astounding. It may prove to be one of the biggest blunders in movie history. How can you acquire the most valuable IP of all time and then just wing three of the biggest movies of all time? It's baffling. More than anything it just feels like Disney wants to jerk us around. Will there be another Trilogy? More Disney+ series? Who cares. It just all feels like a waste of time. Nothing is fueled by artistic merit or a desire to tell stories. It's just a big huge way of selling us the same stuff we bought in 1977.

But you may say, isn't this obvious?! We knew all this going in! Yes, that is true. It is obvious to anyone. But there has been an assuredly strong amount of this lately. For a while for all their monopolistic criticism Disney at least actually did feel like the studio that gave a shit. There was reason why they were so mammothly successful. They put the right people in place both behind the camera and behind it, gave films the right resources, and had the confidence to set trends, not follow them. When they gobbled up Fox, it was a sigh of relief that we'd never see another Fant4stic (2015). This is hardcore Devil's Advocate, but when every studio screws up superhero movies far harder than Disney, we might as well cheer for them all to be under a studio that's trying.

That seems to be unraveling now. Modern Star Wars is creatively bankrupt. Like everything else, they're stuck in safe remake mode rather than trying to be something actually new and interesting. I never thought I'd appreciate the prequels this much. It's actually tough to generate races, planets, technology, and costuming for the same universe but different. It's depressing to see so much of the same crap again instead of any evolution. It would have been such a more liberating step to see these characters dealing with an entirely new set of circumstances.

This gets back to our original question. Why does the sequel trilogy have a harder time selling itself? The problem is expectations. We're no longer wide-eyed and awestruck, able to explain away inconsistencies with fanon, but also acknowledging small errors for likely just issues with 70s filmmaking and it was good not to overthink anything. We're just not in that world anymore. Lore is important.

If The Last Jedi lacks anything it is some misunderstanding that people actually cared a lot about characters like Ackbar and Nien Numb, as dumb as they are. Rian Johnson should have treated them like a major death instead of just some random people. I don't really even have an issue with Canto Bight. In fact, that felt like the most Star Wars to me of any scene - it's just so dumb, incoherent, and childish. Yeah, that's this series of movies. Very Lucas. While it doesn't hold up to fridge logic, it aligns with the ideology they are trying to establish, and that's more than most of the other factions in the Sequel Trilogy, which seem to have no goals or ideology.

This is all to say that I'm pretty turned off. There is a part of me that wants to see Rise of Skywalker, but even that freaking title makes me cringe. I was so satisfied that the Skywalkers were passing. Rey is probably Luke's daughter or something stupid, undoing Rian's most brilliant story move. I hate this. I do want to see how it ends but I know it's not going to be satisfying. I'm so upset.

I hear The Mandalorian is good?

Celebrate Midsummer with Spider-Man

And Midsommar (2019)! Last year Ari Aster showed us new levels of terror and emotionally draining depression with Hereditary. Now it's time to him to take a light romp through the weird Swedish summer festivals. Oh, and also a new Spider-Man movie.

I'm actually pretty excited for both of these. Aster is an exciting young director who is already building a cult following. The sophomore picture will really determine whether he becomes a Yorgos or an M. Night. Either way, this should come full circle and he'll be able to direct a Marvel movie soon.

Def more crowd pleasing than Spider-Man

Everything about Midsommar looks like classic Wicker Man stuff ('73 or '06, take your pick. TOTALLY EQUAL FILMS). Pagan holiday, the veneer of family festivals masking the darkness within. It's apparently got a handful of comedic elements that you'd have to be totally insane to laugh at. Since this is an Ari Aster film, you have to be totally insane to watch it to begin with, so that works pretty well.

It's hard to unpack much more than that. I do enjoy the fact that the movie is actually coming out right at the mid-summer date and should be good counter-programming for people who don't want to see animated toys or spandex swinging. Hereditary did surprisingly well, although a lot of that was more word of mouth and the simple fact that good horror is so rare people flock to see it (although it's becoming more common). You'd think that with that in his back pocket now, Midsommar would do even better, although the marketing belies a subtler, subdued horror, if horror at all. It's not quite as apparent as Hereditary, which could bank off itself, not just its director. And let's face it, there ultimately isn't Chris Nolan-level director worship for Ari Aster. Yet!

I can't really see this doing that well. There's no real big names in the cast (Will Poulter maybe?), an obscure premise, and nothing that really screams must-see horror. It's also two and a half hours long for some reason. Still, it ought to at least make its budget back. I will totally watch it, though, and you should too! We need more films that are content with being good movies that make their money back.

Then we have Spider-Man: Far From Home (2019). There's a lot riding on this one. Not only is it Jon Watts' follow up to the wonderful Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017), but it's coming hot off the heels of both Captain Marvel (2019) and Avengers: Endgame (2019). Dropping three movies in four months is audacious on Disney's part, but they've all been crowd-pleasing so it works so far.

Will it be minnows, guppies, or the classic goldfish?

While Endgame gave us all kinds of catharsis and finality, that very finality left a few doors open for our newer Avengers to deal with - one of the biggest being Spider-Man's relationship with Tony Stark. No one really seems to care that it has no basis in the comics, which once again goes to show that you can actually change whatever you want from the source material as long as the end movie turns out good. And after a string of really terrible Spider-Man movies, Homecoming was a great, clever addition.

Spider-Man 2 (2004) came out fifteen years ago this past Sunday (a date forever burned in my brain - I watched it twice on opening day) and for better or worse I've internally canonized it as the greatest superhero film ever. An underrated element to all this is that Spider-Man has so many bonkers villains that they have yet to use the same one twice, besides Harry Osborn. And they still haven't touched Kraven, Carnage, Stegron, or Swarm!

That's right folks, we finally get a little Mysterio. And this damn movie better end up with Mysterio being the big bad guy. He's got to, right? Him masquerading as the hero before showing how insane he is is the premise for every Mysterio story ever. Then again, as I said, if it's a good movie, no one will care. The issue right now is that I've already crafted a story in my head of Mysterio's illusions and deception that I know I'm going to be disappointed when the movie makes a left turn. Oh well.

Mysterio is one of my favorite villains. He's weird, has a big fishbowl, and can definitely manipulate the fabric of reality, which is always waved away as "Hollywood Special Effects." It makes no sense. But he's also one of the more psychologically damaging villains in Spidey's Rogue Gallery, preferring to defeat Spider-Man by convincing him he has no powers or to trick Wolverine into killing the X-Men. Old Man Logan really elevated Mysterio in to the A-level.

So Jake Gyllenhaal  has a lot to live up to. We'll see. Still waiting on some kind of Sinister Six move, which at this point will truly never happen. Rumours abound of Venom making the jump to the MCU. Why does everyone except fans hate Venom? Let's take him, Vulture, Mysterio, Shocker, Scorpion, and then add an MCU Doctor Octopus to round out the team. You got your dumbass B-listers Shocker and Scorpion for Spidey to beat early on, Venom can go nuts and rogue half-way, and then the rest are legit threats. Perfect. Perfect movie. Spider-Man 3: Home of the Sinister Six (2021). Put it in the bag, Feige, I've got plenty more.

So what are you watching this weekend? Padding the pocketbook of the Disney juggernaut or watching weird Pagan Summer Fest movies? Leave a comment below!

Toys Come to Life Weekend

Hey there. So we used to discuss the cultural, critical, and commercial prospects of each new film each and every Friday around here. So, that - but the short version because there isn't all that much to say beyond the fact that this weekend bizarrely features both the adorable and horrific aspects of toys coming to life. Toy Story 4 (2019) and Child's Play (2019), everyone!

So, these toys are immortal, right? Will we eventually reach
a Highlander-type situation?

I am a Pixar fan because I am a living, breathing human being with a heart, but the studio isn't without their problems. I just mentioned while talking about Secret Life of Pets 2 (2019) that the studio tends to be averse to the more cartoony aspects of animation, relies on cheap tearjerkers as excuses for depth (despite them mostly being earned, which is why their movies are genuinely good), and lately have traded in original stories for easy sequels that just don't the same panache.

And then they crank out COCO (2017) which is the most underrated Pixar movie ever, but also completely out of the Pixar tearjerker playbook. Sad doesn't automatically equal great, although like I said, COCO's tears are mostly earned, so it works.

I tried to get into their sequels, I really did, but they're just not all that good. I don't know why they've decided to go back to the well so often, either. They had a $200+ million streak from Monsters, Inc. (2001) to UP (2009). Even original films since like Brave (2012) and Inside Out (2015) have made consistent bank while the Cars series has had diminishing returns (but way more merchandisable than Princess Merida). Still, the big nostalgia jerkers - the Toy Stories, Finding Dory (2017), Incredibles 2 (2018) - those are making the kind of money that really gets attention. It's not about $200+ million anymore. It's about hitting that Billion Dollar worldwide mark.

So despite having the most satisfying cathartic ending of any movie in history here we are at Toy Story 4. Great. Half the original cast is dead. I honestly haven't even been interested in the trailer. My life if so complete with Toy Story 3 (2010) being the endpoint. I'm trying not to just be a whiner but I'm moved on. I can't even conceive of another adventure for these characters that would feel momentous enough to earn another outing. I'm glad they got Keanu Reeves. I'm sure he's great. I can't get hyped for this.

On the other end of the aisle is the new Child's Play which is totally a thing I didn't realise was happening until I randomly looked at what new releases we had this week. I knew this movie was coming, but Friday? Holy shit! There's Aubrey Plaza, Brian Tee Henry, and Tim Matheson (better known for being the best part of A Very Brady Sequel [1996]). Mark Hamill as Chucky?! Let's watch this!

I feel like I could have told you this doll is evil.
Ooooh he looks like Thunderbirds!

Chucky is so stupid. Just kick the doll away. Once the series started getting campy and insane with Bride of Chucky (1998) it definitely became more its own thing. I don't know if Chucky is a horror icon - I guess so? I'm surprised this hasn't had a more mainstream reboot, but in researching this I was surprised to learn it has had a fairly steady Direct-to-DVD presence. That's not really surprising.

So, let's talk cash, cultural cache, all that stuff. Toy Story 4 is going to make a lot of money this weekend. There's been no great financial juggernaut in a few weeks and there's really nothing next weekend, either. Chucky is great counter-programming and Summer Horror can work, but it's also a property that I don't think that many people care about. We will eventually reach a point where this movie is just debuted on streaming services and we coordinate enough that it doesn't get lost in the shuffle of hundreds of other low budget horror movies on streaming sites. That's not this weekend, though.

Will these movies have cultural weight? I don't think so. How often do you reflect on Monsters University (2013) in your life? It was nice to remember Bride of Chucky. That movie is fun as hell. There might be a little of that going on here - with a much more violent streak. It's a tough tone to do well, and it might get a bit of a cult following. A...Cult of Chucky (2017) following? Eh? EH?!

What are you going to see this weekend? I mean, this is the longest day of the year, do you want to spend it on this crap? Go watch Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019). Let's keep that franchise alive!

Coming this Christmas! Sherri Bobbins, Miami Man, Bumblebee Prime

We've been in a black hole all Fall, and in the process missed out on some great previews. The latest crappy Harry Potter movie that's trying to be a thing. An animated Grinch that seemed to direly miss the point. Another Creed. Another Ralph. Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) that I can't figure out was good or bad. Another Robin Hood movie for some reason lol. And a Spider-Man animated film that is actually pretty amazing. Oh, Mortal Engines (2018), haha man that looked stupid.

This "Road to a Blockbuster" column has been going strong for a while here at Norwegian Morning Wood - I suppose we just wrapped up a month's worth of critical introspection with a few quick lines. There's your Fall Blockbuster season. It was pretty rough. But we need to dig a little deeper for a bunch of releases scattered across this week and the Holiday Season! Let's dive in!

Sherri Bobbins Returns

I've been singing you songs all day I'm not a bloody jukebox

Even as a kid I could not give less than a flip about Mary Poppins (1964). Maybe it was just the weird way everyone was totally okay with this random magic chick popping in and zapping everything. Something never sat right with me. Young Dick van Dyke is pretty amazing and although I'm more a fan of Blonde Julie Andrews from The Sound of Music (1965), her role is certainly iconic here. The movie is significant enough that other movies are made about making this movie. That one-two punch for Julie Andrews is actually damned amazing.

So we have Mary Poppins Returns (2018) which is really just the latest in a long line of Disney re-hashes in their bid to take over the world. Like, none of these movies are good. Except The Jungle Book (2016), that was actually super underrated. These are worse than superhero movies taking over. It's totally derivative. Returns is at least some attempt at continuing the story, but I get the impression that it'll drip nostalgia and fan service in the cringiest way. I have no interest in settling in for a warm fuzzy trip down memberberry lane, especially when I don't even like the original source material.

I'm not sure exactly why that is. I usually enjoy musicals and I'm a big fan of silly cute animation. Mary Poppins just always feels so smug and I hate winking at the audience. In the end I'm too cynical for the cheer she brings to the little children. But seriously, she's like a witch, right? She probably fucking eats these kids.

All that said, the crew behind this is pretty good. Emily Blunt is very reliable and she pairs this with A Quiet Place (2018) to have one of the stronger 2018s. Ben Whishaw and Emily Mortimer are great additions along with some classic actors like van Dyke, Angela Landbury, and Julie Walters for some reason. Gotta appeal to the crowd who actually saw the 1964 flick in theaters I suppose. Director Rob Marshall is also a real safe pick for the modern musical. It's also got Lin Manuel-Miranda who I'm just totally over. I mean, he's okay but everyone thinks he's the greatest artist of the century. He's the epitome of New York Bubble. Drives me crazy. It ought to be clear that I'm not that into this and will totally skip it.

Mermaid Man and Barnacle Boy

We've also got Aquaman (2018) in a few days. First in Entourage and now real life! Word is this movie is just bonkers and insane and makes no sense in all the best ways. Somehow Jason Mamoa and Aquaman are perfect casting and this could be one of those few great DCEU films.

As long as he's surfer bro we're gonna be fine

I stay up late at night wondering what is going to happen to this crappy cinematic universe. What kind of world do we have where Batman and Superman movies fail and the Wonder Woman and Aquaman movies knock it out of the park? So much of this rides on casting. The MCU largely works because the three leads of Downey, Evans, and Hemsworth just own each of their roles. Affleck was never right and while Cavill could have and should have been a great Superman, Synder really wasted him. Gadot and Mamoa, it's up to you.

Director James Wan is more famous from horror films and Furious 7 (2015), otherwise known as the second-best Fast and Furious movie. He's already proven to be a great, conscientious, and marketable director, and a cast rounded out by Amber Heard, Patrick Wilson, along with Nicole Kidman, Dolph Lundgren, Willem Dafoe (is that all for real?) makes an intriguing picture, even if it's totally just the exact film as THOR (2011) but underwater. Who cares, I liked THOR. Also Yahya Abdul-Mateen II as Black Manta who totally has the exact bomb-ass helmet and laser eyes from the comics and Superfriends TV show. I'm so pumped about Black Manta. That to me just shows that Wan's sensibilities are in the right place.

Ultimately Aquaman caps off an incredibly competitive Superhero year, including Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) which literally just happened. I think it can stand on its own, but it's not going to bust through any records. Disney is pretty bold in not backing down from Mary Poppins Returns' release date, but also totally right that they'll come out ahead.

Bumbletron

Competing most directly for dumb male butts in seats is Bumblebee (2018), the first of what we can only hope to be many Transformers stand alone spin-off films. The trailer got a lot of hype, I didn't much care because these movies are so bad, but this is also the first non-Michael Bay movie, so there's hope! Sweet Primus there's hope.

It's a paired down flick featuring, to our knowledge, just the Yellow Autobot Bumblebee and I guess the Decepticon Blitzwing? Bumblebee teams up with Hailee Steinfeld, who is awesome but hasn't quite matched her work in True Grit (2010) against both that jerk and John Cena, who I hope punches through a wall or something. Reserved WWE Films The Marine (2006) and 12 Rounds (2009) John Cena is not great. Insane Blockers (2018) and Sisters (2015) John Cena - now that's something I can get behind. He works best as a meme, people.

Anyway, this has been getting good reviews, but for a Transformers movie that's like being the smartest kid with down syndrome. At best we already got perfection with this "Kid befriends Space Robot" in The Iron Giant (1999) and a surprising amount of other movies. As franchises mature, though, and folks realize that something like Age of Extinction (2014) is past its Optimus Prime and over the top, yet STILL make a movie worse with The Last Knight (2017), it's nice to see the powers that be try something new. This has worked well with the X-Men franchise which long ago got tired of making the same X-Men movie and started doing period pieces, comedy pieces, lone gun westerns, and psychological horror movies (in addition to you know, also the same crap). I'd like to see where this goes.

At any rate it gives me an excuse to watch one of my favourite videos ever. Long live Oreobot! I mean, if they don't play John Cena's theme during every single explosion they've really missed out on a golden opportunity here.

There really is something beautiful about not even remotely trying to hide your product placement. Or male gaze for that matter. Michael Bay is not deceptive. Deceptivecon. Moving on.

Second Act

I don't know what this is. Jennifer Lopez is someone who gets fired and steals someone's identity or something? I half-watched the trailer. I think I have the just of it.

Haha, alright, cool.

First of all, there's a lot of "Woman YOUR age" jokes, which I think are supposed to land except that Jennifer Lopez turns 50 next year and totally looks 30. That ends up being a rough call on women who absolutely look great for their age. They should have cast someone who has aged horribly. Leah Remini is a year younger and right there!

There's actually a bit of madcap humour here and Migo Ventiglia or whatever is really rocking that This is Us moustache everywhere he goes I guess. This is not terrible counter-programming for old women who don't want to see any of the crap I listed above and to be honest, it's like #2 on movies on this list that I'm interested in right now.


Welcome to Hell

Or Marwen. Marwen, need to get that right. This looks terrible. Just truly awful. Steve Carell is some PTSD survivor living out his fantasies through puppets or something. I think it's problematic at best that he fantasies women in his life as objects for him to play with and control his destiny and at worst it's... well, probably that. Robert Zemeckis is one of our greatest directors ever for everything he did in the 80s and most of the 90s, but damn has he fallen down the shitstorm rabbit hole. I'll give him credit for maintaining a drive to make really weird animated stuff, but his sense of story and mass appeal has gone out the window. It's not great.

Surecock Holmes

There's a nice callback for long time readers. I've avoided everything here. Will Ferrell and John C. Reilly are Holmes and Watson - done, I'm in, it'll be great. Probably. For some reason Sherlock has been done to death lately, on literally every level - period movies with Downey, Jr, modern-day stuff with Cumberbatch, and that one with Lucy Liu on CBS that no one cared about. Arthur Conan Doyle's creation is still really popular, who knows why. I suppose it's just public domain and it's easy to reproduce the beats with really simple notes to go on without being so specific as to offend any serious fans. Easy as that. Hopefully this is funny or something.

Vice

Adam McKay's takedown of Dick Cheney really appealed to Golden Globes voters and could make a splash with the Academy. I didn't think The Big Short (2015)'s method of parceling out fast-paced, "you don't really need to understand these crooks" method of storytelling really worked, but individual scenes work incredibly well. McKay is still a phenomenal director and I'm curious how he does with the bio pic, especially for a figure no one really likes.

The cast is top to bottom amazing, from Christian Bale to Sam Rockwell, Steve Carell, Amy Adams, Alison Pill, Eddie Marsan, Lily Rabe, and Tyler Perry for some reason. I'm disappointed that Tyler Perry is making another appearance in a non-Tyler Perry film that's not randomly in Star Trek (2009) or his ridiculously good work in Gone Girl (2014). Haha, I forgot Alex Cross (2012) and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows (2016). Tyler Perry's non-Tyler Perry work is insane.

I digress. This ought to be fun.

That about wraps it up for the year. What are you looking forward to seeing in December?

GET TO DA CHOOPPARRHH!!

We have two very different releases dropping today, although there may be more linking them than you'd think. Mystery! Threats of violence! Action! Sort of. Suspense! One is a long-awaited hopefully return to form from a franchise that's been up higher and lower than most, the other is Gone Girl 2. I mean, uh, A Simple Favor (2018). Let's start with that one.



Right? This is like...totally just Gone Girl (2014), right? Sure it seems like the novelty of Anna and Blake's meet cute is different, and that relationship sure seems different than Ben and Rosamund, but the core premise is identical. From reading the greatest authority on these matters, YouTube comments, apparently the book source material is very different, so cool. I'll trust you, unbiased commentators.

The film is adapted by Paul Feig, in a pretty radical departure from his usual schtick which has become directing Melissa McCarthy vehicles. I'm very split on Feig. On the one hand I love a lot of his television work on all of the greatest comedies of the past ten years (The Office, Arrested Development, Parks and Recreation, 30 Rock), Bridesmaids (2011) remains a landmark comedy film and I'm even a weirdly big fan of Other Space (there are dozens of us!). Lately he seems to have slipped into this female-driven comedy niche, which is fine, except that it's also kind of weird that a female director isn't championing the movement. There's also the simple fact that his latest films aren't all that good, which he refuses to take responsibility for, which to me deflates the whole movement.

To Feig's credit, there have been a lot of copycat films lately like Bad Moms (2016), Rough Night (2017), and Fun Mom Dinner (2017) that prove that it's harder than it looks to do what Feig does, which is namely, any kind of original comedy. To be fair, The Heat (2013) has grown on me and SPY (2015) is okay, but I wouldn't call either great, immortal comedies. At the same time, even when saying Feig on a bad day is a lot better than many other comedy directors, he's sliding into thriller territory, eh?

By all accounts the reviews so far are actually good. I feel like this flick hasn't had all that much buzz, despite having a pretty solid cast and director behind it. Maybe it's the genre shift or the fact that it feels so damn derivative. Or simply that it's a drama / thriller which seems more regulated to be a B-movie on the Lifetime channel than a major release these days. Not one superhero, Paul? What are you thinking? I'd suspect that this film doesn't really do well at all, but maybe it should.

Next we have The Predator (2018), the latest in a long line of franchises that we need to remember and differentiate by pluralization and definite articles attached. For the record:

Predator (1987)
Predators (2010)
The Predator (2018)

Got it? For the record we've also got Predator 2 (1990), Alien vs. Predator (2004) and Alien vs. Predator: Requiem (2007). These are all lesser movies than the previous ones listed, although I always have a soft spot for the insane things in Alien vs. Predator like the Weyland-Yutani Easter Eggs they tried to drop before Ridley Scott said fuck that with Prometheus (2012) and then the Predator / Human near kiss, which is the greatest sexual tension in movie history. Maybe I'm reading into things that aren't there.



Anyway, Predator is still one of the greatest action movies ever. I could rant about this for a long time. I already have! Predators is actually desperately underrated, with one of the greatest premises ever (and an incredible en media res opening). The cast is phenomenal and although Adrien Brody was definitely a little miscast (eight years on, even being a fan of the movie I had to double check to make sure he was the featured action hero. Like...really?), others from Danny Trejo to some early roles by the likes of Walton Goggins to Mahershala Ali really stand out. That's right - two Oscar winners in this cast.

Sure it doesn't match Predator in terms of sheer body mass or future Gubernatorial candidates, but how could any movie ever. It also doesn't quite match with dialogue, but how could any movie ever. Predator is great because it features a larger than larger than life opponent to fight Arnold, who is already larger than life. It spends the first half as Commando (1985) that everyone forgets about, then the second half as a largely dialogue-free Home Alone (1990) with the ugliest and most fearsome alien in movie history. It's a total treat.

That dialogue may return in The Predator thanks to Shane Black who slides in the directing chair after writing and being a supporting actor in Predator. The cast is also a who's who of current great actors from Boyd Holbrook, Trevante Rhodes, Sterling K. Brown, Olivia Munn, Yvonne Strahovski, and Keegan-Michael Key. It's hot, baby!

Apparently it sucks, though. That's crazy disappointing. Shane Black has had spurts of his career, but I'll be the first to say that The Nice Guys (2016) was actually surprisingly forgettable two years on down the road. He tends to have a lot of flash, style, and creativity, but not a lot of that sticks with you. Even Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005) I might dare say is an incredible time in the moment and a true screenwriting feat, but doesn't quite contain the pathos for sustainable cultural longevity.

Anyway, I suppose this franchise as a whole has a low bar to clear. If there are some iconic gruesome action scenes it'll all be good. Maybe we need another Predator equivalent, that is, a whole new action film that can drop and be as surprising, as well crafted, and as original as the original instead of continually coming up with Super Predators. Like, one normal Predator was enough for Arnold, why do we need a Super Predator to kill Jacob Tremblay? Anyway, I still hope to see it and get something out of it, even if it's just some wacky stupidness.

What do you think? Are you seeing the movie that looks terrible but may be good or the movie that looks great and may suck?

Nunppermint

It's been a minute since we've really sunk our teeth into a weekend preview post, but there are some half-way interesting flicks dropping this week worth talking about. Those would be The Nun (2018) and Peppermint (2018). This is a chance to ramble about the potential critical, cultural, and commercial prospects of these two not-that-great-looking films. Let's dive in!

The Nun comes out of the Conjuring Shared Universe, which by the way, is the right way to do a shared universe. No big announcement or logo or awkward Photoshop unveiling - just a main series of films along with spin-offs that explore little interesting nooks and crannies of the universe. I am no real Conjuring expert. I saw the first one. It was like, okay. To be honest, looking this up now I didn't even know there were two Annabelle films. They seem to be doing alright commercially. Cool, bro.

Hey nun! What out for that nun!

The eponymous Nun is a character from The Conjuring 2 (2016), possessed by a demon named Valak who causes some kind of trouble for that there Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga. It's always something. The spin-off centers around this demon nun or whatever and the zany hijinks she gets into. Word is that it's loud, silly, and fun - in a horrific way - but that's a solid through line. Horror movies really just need to be interesting in some way. Even if they insert cheap jump scares instead of real existential dread, as long as something happens and the film knows what it wants to be it can be successful. There have been a lot of really empty horror films lately (well, there are always terrible horror films), but Slender Man (2018) or Winchester (2018) really stand out.

Culturally, it ought to stand out amongst Conjuring fans, which have evolved into this solid little niche. Outside that group, I didn't even know there were two Annabelle movies, so whatever. It all kind of blurs together. I have only a vague understanding of what goes on in these movies. I've seen that Nun doing wacky things and maybe this will stick out because it's a pretty distinctive character. Or just typical Catholic demon possession, which happens all the time.

I get the feeling this R-rated September Horror release is just chasing after IT (2017) numbers last year, which it definitely will not achieve. IT was based off Stephen King fans, IT (1990) fans, Tim Curry fans, horror fans, 80s fans, and Stranger Things fans. There was a lot fueling that success. There's no damn Nun fans of equal standing. It'll likely be okay, but not a game changer.

Then we have Peppermint. This is like Jennifer Garner starring in a Liam Neeson movie. I remember seeing the trailer a while ago and it looked alright if not especially notable. I got thinking this morning, though, about Jennifer Garner's career. See, this is actually the kind of movie she started with and should have starred in in like 2008.

She got her original start being a badass spy on Alias and then transitioned that to playing badass ninja Elektra in both Daredevil (2003) and Elektra (2005). I'm not sure if you've heard this, but neither of those movies are held in high regard. I will now reiterate how much I liked Daredevil. Anyway, Elektra was not that good. Pretty bad, in fact. It seems pretty clear that Garner immediately switched her career trajectory and has barely had a lead role since then, much less an action-themed role.

Sydney don't miss

The closest she's come is The Kingdom (2007), but since then oscillated between romantic comedies like Ghosts of Girlfriends Past (2009), supporting wife / mother roles like in Draft Day (2014) and Alexander and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day (2014), or sappy Christian crap like Miracles from Heaven (2016). There are some Oscar baity picture roles in there from Juno (2007) to Dallas Buyers Club (2013). Actually, Garner is one of the greatest parts in Juno, but the point is she's no where near her start. Until now.

So that puts us at odd odds. Can we buy Garner as a badass? I mean...she totally WAS. But can we remember back to 2005 (maybe 2003) and jump in? I think so - it surely happens with dudes all the time. If John Cusack can be a weird vengeful old dude, Garner should be able to. Evanescence, man. Is that the most 2003 movie scene in history or what. Ultimately Peppermint is likely a forgettable vehicle anyway, but the career flow of Garner really piqued my interest.

I'm betting The Nun takes this weekend, and we'll see if Peppermint can surpass the crazy legs of Crazy Rich Asians (2018). Also, who wants to watch an action movie named Peppermint. It's also actually the latest in a long line of conservative vigilante fantasies in the vein of Punisher, Death Wish (2018), and the Equalizer movies where the government system fails and so we have to turn to private interests to exact justice. None of these are really mainstream popular, but it's an indication of the frustrated and confused moment in time we live in that this shit keeps being made.

What are you seeing this weekend? Creepy nuns? Conservative propaganda? More Asians?

Mission Impossible 87 or whatever

At this point there may not actually be that much more to say about the Mission: Impossible franchise. This holds up pretty well. It's not as if the series has really changed significantly in any meaningful way. Christopher McQuarrie returns, who has somehow grown into this productive relationship with Tom Cruise, also directing him in Jack Reacher (2012), but also contributing to the writing of Ealkyrie (2008), Edge of Tomorrow (2014), and The Mummy (2017). It all kind of feels like more of the same.

But maybe that's just what we need. Hear me out.

This has been a bit of a weird summer. We've had some big successes, sure, but it's all been in spandex. As it turns out, Infinity War (2018) was such a big cultural force and became so ubiquitous that it feels like it came out years ago (my homies are still casually talking about Thanos' morality and motives). Other big flicks like Solo (2018) and Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018) have done alright, but nothing really culturally notable. We didn't even really have any major releases last week.

Just watching Tom Cruise go to work is like going back in time to when movie stars were a thing. He branched out and did some terrible floppy movies, but we're getting to the point where the Mission: Impossible series is his bread and butter. It's what he returns to whenever his career needs that reliable shot in the arm. This is also actually the fastest a Mission: Impossible film has turned around, only three years after Rogue Nation (2015).

That could also be why these films just seem like a blur. Or the fact that there isn't much of any plot left. Frankly I can't actually remember the plot to any Impossible movie, but the last few in particular tend to be built around specific set pieces and big stunts - don't get me wrong, this crew delivers better than any other team out there right now, but the films don't have too much going for them. Still, Ghost Protocol (2011), Rogue Nation, and currently Fallout (2018) are all ranked in the mid-90s on Rotten Tomatoes.

Not like RT is the best measure possible, but it's surprising for the 4th, 5th, and 6th installments of a series that seemed to be dying. It's like the Fast and Furious series except it only revolves around Tom Cruise. Ving Rhames doesn't do too much anymore. Neither really does Simon Pegg. People are going to these films to see Tom Mapother jump out of airplanes and almost kill himself.

Maybe that's enough, it's clearly earning some hype and this weird position as a late summer burst of frenetic blockbuster energy. Throwing Superman into the mix with the grandest moustache ever is icing on the cake that should promise a solid throwdown. I literally don't care what this film is even about - is Ethan Hunt fighting to clear his name against the IMF? Like literally every other fucking movie in this franchise? Why does it have so much goodwill?

hahahahhahah

It might be a combination of familiarity. That is, both the jump off from the original television show (which the original 1996 film quickly shat all over) as well as 90s nostalgia and then 2000s nostalgia. For a while the cool thing about this franchise was guest directors like Brian de Palma, John Woo, JJ Abrams, and Brad Bird stepping in and doing their thing. It was like comparing side to side visions of different artists and then being able to parse out which styles spoke to you personally. Like, I am a fan of the original and Ghost Protocol - I suppose that makes me a fan of natural lighting, clarity of action, iconic set-pieces, and high tension. Cool. It took them 22 years to break this style, but I'm not sure it was even a trend they set out to begin with.

Anyway, I'm somehow pretty jacked up for this. It feels like an antidote. You know you're getting a solid product. A movie that cares about action, the audience, isn't trying to set up anything (somehow that world is built just fine for Tom Cruise to pop in and out of every few years), and just wants to entertain you. There actually hasn't been much of that this summer. It's nice.

Oh, also Teen Titans Go! To the Movies (2018) comes out this weekend, which I definitely need to see. I watched LEGO: Ninjago (2017), people. I'm amazed at the life of this series. Teen Titans was a pretty rad young adult show that I was definitely just too old to watch as much as I did, but then they retained all the same characters and voice actors and made it far far goofier with Teen Titans Go!. It's always been this wannabe anime that's also rooted in DC comics lore that's totally insane.

It's a show that has descended down and down into more child-friendly territory, to the point where it uses its superhero characters for doofy shit all the time instead of real-superhero problems. This is brilliant and the series trusts its characters so heartily over the need for mindless action and power showcases. It's lovely. Teen Titans Go! To the Movies is an extension of this, one that I did not realize was so popular. Magical. I'm so tired right now. Wondermagic.

What are you checking out this weekend? Kid stuff that's actually pretty awesome? Awesome Tom Cruise movie? Wonder Woman (2017)? Leave it below.

Hotel Transylvania 3 and Skyscraper

July is a surprisingly lax month as far as movies go. Maybe Hollywood is learned from the bloat of a few years ago where solid films like Jason Bourne (2016) and Star Trek Beyond (2016) were totally ignored because they all ran into each other. Can you believe Star Trek Beyond was only two years ago? How did that happen? I was literally think it was 2014 or something before I looked it up. That's disturbing and probably needs its own post about how easily we can turn on a franchise and ignore good work they do. That movie did have a lot of problems, but...okay, I'm getting really distracted by an offhand remark.

Hotel Transylvania 3: Summer Vacation (2018). Alright, so I'm going to be pretty bold here and make the claim that the Hotel Transylvania movies are totally underrated. It is a sincerely weird amalgamation of Adam Sandler and his buddies making childrens' monster films for some reason, but under the guidance of Genndy Tartakovsky, whose animation style guided my entire childhood through Dexter's Laboratory, Powerpuff Girls, Samurai Jack, and Star Wars: Clone Wars (not the lack of the definite article - The Clone Wars is the CGI show. Moving on...). All this mixes together for a really irreverent and fun animation style. It is a little obnoxious in that soulless Dreamworks pop-culture spouting kind of way instead of that sweet, timeless Pixar kind of way, but it's also SONY Animation, which is its own animal.

I actually really dig the SONY Computer animation films because they aren't afraid to actually be cartoons. Pixar tends to ground its films - they are exciting, funny, and certainly wondrous in ways that only animation can do, but they're hardly ever slapstick. There isn't much Looney Tunes heritage there. No piano drops or flexible reality. Even Dreamworks tend to sly away from this kind of tone. SONY for some reason does that really well, and everyone tends to ignore it. I suppose that's why more profitable studios steer away - either no one but me actually cares or no one else even enjoys it. Or notices.

This blog has been leaning pretty hard into some Adam Sandler love, too, and if you look at my latest movies watched...it's a lot of Sandler lately. And we all seem to constantly forget the fact that Sandler is capable of phenomenal voice work. This includes Sandler himself - he doesn't do nearly enough legitimate vocal work or songs. It's another reason why his personal interests always seem so selfish and frustrating. His Dracula, though is spot on and brilliant, and for some reason, Tartakovsky also animates him exactly as a young Adam Sandler-as-Count Dracula would look like.

Having said all that, I mean, yeah, the plots for all these films are ridiculously thin, the jokes are really easy and obvious, and there's not a tremendous amount of thematic depth anywhere. They are kids films but unlike Pixar, kids films that are tough for adults to get into. They're explicitly juvenile. On some level that should be fine - kids can enjoy them for their own merit, but I think the greater critical and Internet cultural community has ignored them. And to be fair, while I am a big fan of all their technical work - animation, direction, and vocals, literally everything else is awful, which makes them tough to slog through.

I mean, Summer Vacation looks really bad. On its face it's a total cash grab. And we're not even starved for kids animation hits - Incredibles 2 (2018) just passed the $500 million mark. It's amazing that that film, with 14 years in between installments has built up a fan base far surpassing anything Hotel Transylvania (2012) could hope to do. Amazing when you make a well-structured, four-quadrant film, with heart and hope, it can actually connect with people and build goodwill year after year. THAT'S when you drop the cash-grab sequel, SONY. Get it together.

So yeah, I don't see Summer Vacation making much of a splash commercially or culturally, and surely not critically. Still, it'll do okay, lest we forget that Hotel Transylvania was the highest grossing September release for five straight years until surpassed by IT (2017) last fall. This of course doesn't compare to Sweet Home Alabama (2002), which held the September record for ten years before that. That's right. Come to Norwegian Morning Wood to learn all about obscure Box Office Record history. Still, this is July, not September. Summer Vacation won't be nearly as notable.

Next we have Skyscraper (2018). Props to the Rock for trying to launch all these franchises, and between this, Rampage (2018), Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle (2017), and the upcoming Hobbs & Shaw (2019), his action hero status is pretty secure. As if it wasn't already. I am more concerned, however, about the opposite. Is Dwayne diluting his brand by appearing in a major original (or semi-original) action franchise every three months? I don't know a single soul excited about Skyscraper. In fact, I barely know what it's about.

It's basically like San Andreas (2015), right? Just the Rock like, fighting buildings falling down? I should go watch the trailer. Here, I'll post it because you haven't seen it, either:



It all feels kind of generic, right? "Courage has no limits" could be the tagline for literally every movie ever. Except maybe A Fantastic Fear of Everything (2012). Cool that the building is really tall and on fire and Johnson's got a cripple leg - that actually brings the Rock down from god status quite a bit, although it doesn't seem to impair him like....at all.

My deeper impression of this film is that it doesn't quite know what it wants to be. The premise seems outrageous - a vertical city under attack by Terrorists, or maybe an inside job, or whatever. This could easily get into Snowpiercer (2013) territory where reality is thrown out the window in favor of exploring some wacky themes that still end with some potent bite. Skyscraper, though, also seems impeccably earnest. I talked about this a little bit when watching Blood Fest (2018) - the impossibility of telling a straight story these days. It should be possible, I think sincerity is slowly coming back and there does seem to be an increasing movement away from cynicism, irony, and sarcasm into more genuine moments, everywhere from comedy to major motion pictures, but that also seems to be playing out in different parts of the country.

See, I see this failing on the East Coast. We're still very much a jaded and eye-rolling bunch. I can, however, see this succeeded in more rural or Southern parts of the country that would like to just sit down and watch a movie where good guys fight bad guys in a big burning tower. It's an easy concept to wrap your head around. I think it's too simple and undeveloped for more experienced (some would say arrogant) movie-goers. Maybe this isn't the right judgment call, but that's the vibe I get. I'd be curious what ya'll think. Am I way off base?

Anyway, I can see this being as significant as we remember Rampage three months on. Do we? It should do fine - there's no real competition around it besides Ant-Man and the Wasp (2018) and for the record, yeah - that's what I mean when I talk about movies that can't take their premises seriously. That isn't doing crushing numbers, though, so it ought to do fine, if it can bring in any seats at all.

What do you think? What are you watching? There's actually a lot to digest this week. Is it okay to have child-like fun with whimsical monster-based slapstick? Or to truly invest in a straight action film? These are genuine moments, movies for their own sake. One could say a momentous weekend, in fact. What say you?

An Ant-Man and A Wasp

Boy, it's been a while since a Marvel movie, hasn't it?! Ant-Man and The Wasp (2018) makes it three on the year for the studio that's having a non-stop party rolling in billion-dollar bills. Well, only three billion dollar bills. That's still pretty good.

BBF: Best Bug Friends

We may not see the same kind of insane numbers for Ant-Man and The Wasp as we did for Black Panther (2018) and Infinity War (2018), though. Then again, I'm not sure anyone expected Black Panther to be the film to actually outperform Infinity War (and currently rule Marvel's all-time domestic tally. Ant-Man (2015) followed Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) in similar fashion - providing an entertaining little mid-level clever side jaunt from all the dread and serious world-ending of the main storyline.

In this way these films have done better than anything else at world-building on the periphery of the big name Marvel folks like Captain America, Thor, and Iron Man. That's a weird sentence to say, but that's where we are now. Ant-Man made about the same as Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), THOR (2011), and a bit better than The Incredible Hulk (2008). It's thus a weird reminder that these films weren't ALWAYS box office juggernauts (still, $180 million isn't anything to laugh at). It serves its role well, though, which is just having some fun.

In the wake of Infinity War where everybody died, it's nice to have a little reprieve. It's a pallet cleanser. Just some madcap heist fun. At the same time, though, it's notable to check in with Paul Rudd's Scott Lang, who did appear in CIVIL WAR (2016) and was observably absent from Infinity War. That alone has piqued some curiosity - where exactly was he and why not in on the action? Does Ant-Man and The Wasp even take place before or after half the world went ploof? There are some serious implications there. I could probably look this up easily, and you may even know, but I'm INFINITE-ly curious yuck yuck.

This how this series has become self-sufficient. I don't really care about Ant-Man. I didn't even see the first one in the theaters. BUT it's still a way to keep involved in this overall grand story they're telling. And to be fair, Marvel seems to have done a better job lately of only peripherally tying in stories, but Infinity War was so monumental and game-changing that its universal implications can't be ignored.

Having said all that, this film does have some exciting merits on its own. Besides Paul Rudd being the greatest superhero ever, a supporting cast of Michael Pena, Michael Douglas, Lawrence Fishburne, Michelle Pfeiffer, and Evangeline Lilly is pretty spectacular. Let's focus on those last two:

Fist, Pfeiffer. She's obviously an immortal 90s actress, but I've actually dug her a lot in some terrible recent movies like Dark Shadows (2012), The Family (2013), and mother! (2017). It's this rare older actress career resurgence that's been wonderful. She's also one of the original superheroines (villains, probably?) from Batman Returns (1992). You what this means, right? Michael Keaton and Michelle Pfeiffer are now both in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. There's your Infinity War 2 (2019) right there. Can we get Danny DeVito to play Mole Man and Chris Walken to play Tyrannus in some underground war Hulk movie? We need to get into the weird underground Kingdoms, people. I want that movie now.

Anyway, Pfeiffer plays the original Wasp, who was lost to the Quantum Realm by taking Steve Martin's advice and I guess she's back. There are a lot of theorists out there that think this Quantum business of existing in multiple states at once is the key to solving the Thanos flinger snapping riddle, which is super-possible.

If the Pfeiff is the original marvel heroine (sidebar, we've got Peggy Carter, Wonder Woman 1984 [2019], and a 90s-set Captain Marvel [2019], why the hell are we afraid of contemporary female heroines), then Evangeline Lilly is good to take up the current mantle, sharing the spotlight with Paul Rudd in a way expanded capacity here that looks to be more than a cheeky War Machine-style sidekick. She's a great character and has been a huge comic and cartoon show presence for years.

Not only this, people, but we get a sweet villain who isn't a carbon copy of the hero - Ghost, played by Hannah John-Kamen. I don't know too much about the actress, but Ghost is a real bitch of a villain with a power set that's complimentary, not derivative of Ant-Man. She phases and turns intangible, Ant-Man avoids capture by shrinking. She's a tech whiz that can interface with tech, Lang's shrinks and fixes shit manually. It's a nice diversion from usual Marvel doppelganger crap. Also how do you catch a Ghost? Proton packs?! It's all fun and weird and clever and out there in a way that feels really refreshing right now.

What do you think? This certainly shouldn't present any tough moral challenge or arduous blockbuster to ponder on in darkness, but looks like the kind of summer fun very few other studios understand right now. I mean...Jurassic Park: Fallen Kingdom (2018). It may not be something we're discussing years down the line, but does that even matter anymore? At this point it's all more garbage on the same pile. What say you?

Sicario 2 and Uncle Drew

Riiiiight.

What?

To be honest, I'm not totally sure why either of these movies exist. But let's talk about them. In the wake of some monster weekends from The Incredibles 2 (2018) and Jurassic Kingdom: Fallen World (2018) we have a pair of really niche weirdo films getting some primo late June release dates. This certainly has all to do with a summer actually filled with studios spreading out their releases, or at least afraid of competing with some of the biggest potential movies of all time. As we usually do, though, let's preview the cultural, commercial, and critical prospects of each of these flicks. How about we start with the less weird one:

Sicario: Day of the Soldado (2018) is the follow-up to the moderately successful Sicario (2015), a contemplative look at the US-Mexican Border cartel war that focused more on a female perspective finding her way in a violent male world. It is a classic Denis Villeneuve film filled with muted cinematography, raw emotion, striking violence, and personal tragedy. It made $46 million stateside and $84 million worldwide. Apparently that's enough for a sequel?

The biggest elements of Sicario are Emily Blunt's anchor and Villeneuve's subtle direction, but looking back that's not exactly what folks remember, and apparently that's what Soldado rolls with, focusing instead on Benicio del Toro and Josh Brolin's shady morally nebulous characters. That's all more appealing on the surface and can form a more standard thriller, but a ultimately more typical thriller than Villeneuve's bold entry.

This is undoubtedly selling the really great performances of del Toro and Brolin short, and despite having a lengthy unbelievable career, this role does seem to fit del Toro like a glove. I've never seen anyone fire a gun like that. And somehow this is the Summer of Brolin, with Infinity War (2018), Deadpool 2 (2018), and now Soldado. I'm not sure what they were thinking with that mixed language title - wouldn't Dia del Soldado or something be more appropriate? Whatever.

I'm curious about the political implications of this film. In 2015 we definitely had cartel border issues, but in 2018 the issue has exploded. Will Soldado take a careful look at the intricacies of border protection? Will it stereotype Mexicans as the drug users, murders, and rapists that Trump and his supporters want them to be? Are its implications inherently right or left leaning - because suddenly that's incredibly significant. I'm curious if it can appeal to Mexicans and Mexican-Americans by focusing on their troubled exploits or if it becomes an indulgent, exploitative ICE fantasy. There's a lot at stake here.

Villeneuve is out and Stefano Sollima is in. He's directed...uhh...well, nothing notable, really. He's Italian. Made a few crime dramas, perhaps most notably a movie I know nothing about except the title - ACAB - All Cops Are Bastards (2012). So maybe that would answer some questions as to Soldado's ICE sympathies.

In the end this looks pretty intense, and considering the rarity of quality thriller-dramas with political implications like this, could end up having some cultural impact. It also feels radically different than Sicario already, clearly, which could elevate it away from that film's shadow. We'll see if it can follow a coherent story enough that it gets some critical love, although I don't get a total sense that it will be as highly renowned as its predecessor. Lastly, I can see it making some bank, there's enough hype around it as an adult summer anti-dote and cool violent ride at the cineplex that it could do well. Also, frankly just by making it a franchise tends to legitimize the series, people want to feel like they're part of this, witnessing the next chapter and on-going Sicario Saga. Probably.

Uncle Drew (2018). So, first just watch the trailer and then contemplate how this film exists:



On some level I'm actually kind of pumped up. This reminds me of a weird 90s children's sports movie or something. I kind of love wacky NBA players goofing around and making movies. For some reason other sports stars don't seem to get into that. It helps when Shaq's on board, who has made more terrible movies than he has NBA Finals appearances.

Rounding out the cast of NBA stars past and present is Reggie Miller, Chris Webber, and Nate Robinson. Not to be outdone, Lisa Leslie joins in the action, too. Again, this is 90s dream. The eponymous star is of course Kyrie Irving, whose commercial character seems to have inspired this whole affair. I wish I was there for the pitch meeting when Kyrie convinced some studio head to make a whole movie with this shit. Apparently this movie was literally just written by Pepsi. Could we be in store for product placement not seen since the glorious days of Josie and the Pussycats (2001)?

And if only Kyrie wasn't injured for the playoffs, maybe the Boston Celtics would have had a great run, maybe even a Championship run (tall order against the Warriors, but damn that would have been good advertising for this movie) and given Kyrie the best summer out of all of us. Just keep drinking Pepsi, Kyrie! It'll help you heal.

There's also some legitimate rising comedic talent peppered in around these old NBA stars. Nick Kroll, Lil Rey Howry, and Tiff Haddish all look like they're on point, along with pop-ins by J.B. Smoove and Mike Epps. I mean, who cares if this movie is good at all, it's definitely just shooting for fun and silly and that's probably enough. I see no world where this is a monster smash, its commercial intentions are just too apparent and making it a narrative film instead of a weird fun prank loses a little of the concept's edge. Still, a basketball version of Bad Grandpa (2013) isn't the worst idea ever. At the very least, this should be a notable cultural film for how weird it must be.

What are you checking out this weekend? Sticking with Dinosaurs? Or families that wear tights together? Mexican drug wars? Old basketball players? Dish it below!

Jurassic World: Fallen Trousers

I really like that name for a porn parody. We used to always comment on Porn Parody names around here, the apex of that, as well as all human life on earth being Hairy Pothead and the Breastly Swallows: Fart Poo (2011). Anyway, let's preview Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (2018).

Now, we already got Revenge of the Fallen (2009), but still, I'm just amazed we didn't get Dark Kingdom or something. That's only been taken by Thor: The Dark World (2013), Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), Dark Shadows (2012), Star Trek Into Darkness (2013), The Dark Knight (2008), Zero Dark Thirty (2012) (and its parody, Zero Dark Flirty - you know where I'm going with that one!), Monsters: Dark Continent (2015), so much more. This is a diversion, but I'm curious if "Fallen" replaces "Dark."

"Welcome to my Hall of Boners" lol

At this moment I'd really like to get into a complete cultural history of Jurassic Park (1993). It's easy to forget that Jurassic Park was a game changer on every possible level of cinema. It exhibited a monumental leap forward in special effects, had a startlingly innovative plot structure for an adventure film, made a ton of money, and became the perfect Summer Blockbuster movie. It also really made strides towards Spielberg's Legacy, and perhaps most significantly, actually shifted public perception of Dinosaurs quite a bit. Let's break all this down.

Jurassic Park still looks good. This is is actually a fallacy. The CGI seems better because it's so mixed in against practical effects that our brains sort of gloss it all together. It also works because the beasts generally obey some pretty strict physics. The craziest thing anything does is probably a raptor jumping on a table. There's no huge explosions, floppiness, blurriness, or frankly, interaction with the human actors that seems impossible. Ahem. We see reactions more than interactions, and this puts us in the moment, altogether tricking us into thinking this this is all real. Somehow in the past 25 years Spielberg went from being a master of this to Ready Player One (2018)'s CGI regurgitation overload, which he can kind of get away with since it's all a computer game, but that's a cop out to disguise a crummy experience.

Most importantly, though, Jurassic Park proved this shit was possible. We had had some pretty cool little CGI moments before this, from Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan (1982) to The Abyss (1989), Death Becomes Her (1992), and perhaps most notably, Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991), but this was the first fully textured rendering of living, breathing, fleshy creatures. Everything done since owes a debt to Jurassic Park.

For a blockbuster action movie it's bizarre that its main protagonist is a child-hating nerd in the most platonic relationship with a woman in cinematic history. Yes, there is no boning in Jurassic Park. I mean, we'd all pay for a deleted Malcolm / Sattler hook-up scene, but instead Laura Dern played Ellie as one of the strongest independent women in any movie like this before or frankly, since. In addition to gender politics, the plot is constantly surprising, with different levels of systems failing, all matter of chaos unfolding, from tropical storms to Sam Jackson's arm, it's wild. More importantly, though, it all connects to a greater theme of Man vs. Nature, Man's attempt at bringing order to a chaotic realm, which is simultaneously embodied in each character's personal struggle. It's a supreme feat.

This came out really at a perfect time, the mega-event blockbuster wasn't quite a thing yet, at least not a weekly thing. Sleepless in Seattle (1993) came out two weeks after Jurassic Park and was fifth for the year. To be fair, Last Action Hero (1993) came out the week after and really really tried. The point is that Jurassic Park felt like a really big thing. To some extent Jurassic World (2015) hit that, although half of the point of Jurassic World is saying "We're never going to see these days again, but this is the best we got."

Let's get to Steven. While he had E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial (1982) and the Indiana Jones movies in the 1980s, he really spent most of his time in this decade spinning somber contemplative drama films. Hell, Schindler's List (1993) came out the same year as Jurassic Park. I already covered a lot of Spielberg when I rambled about Ready Player One, but this film really cemented his Legacy, as if it needed cementing. Hook (1991) made okay money, but was kind of forgotten in its year of release, and also slaughtered by critics. Spielberg needed a win, and Jurassic Park could easily be the second coming of JAWS (1975), and for my money, it is.

Finally, let's talk about what Jurassic Park actually did for us as a nation. Now, the first instance of really cool cinematic dinosaurs may very well be a little Sharptooth action from The Land Before Time (1988), but in the realm of live action cinema, Dinosaurs were more regulated to campy B-Movies. They largely still are, as a matter of fact. No movie outside of the Jurassic series has really gotten dinosaurs right. And by right I mean, not as a total joke or novelty. Maybe King Kong (2005). We still tend towards Triassic Attack (2010) and Raptor Ranch (2012). See, you don't know these movies. Even in 1993 the very year Jurassic Park came out we also got Carnosaur, which looked stunning.

The additional point is that Jurassic Park put a lot of ideas into our heads. Just as the discovery of Deinonychus first gave paleontologists the idea that these animals must have been fast and scary rather than slow and dumb, Jurassic Park really livened up Dinosaurs for a mainstream audience. It popularized the idea that Dinosaurs evolved into birds (there is even some debate now whether or not T-Rex had feathers). It also paved way for a lot more of that corny crap, some featuring Whoopi Goldberg and others just...how was this ever a mainstream show? Being a kid in this 90s era was incredible. So many Dinosaurs to gaze in awe at. Anyone have these Dinosaurs Attack! cards? Now that deserves its own blog post.

For some reason or another Dinosaurs were always in the realm of juvenile campy ridiculousness. Jurassic Park brought them into grounded, intelligent adult cinema. Okay, well, sort of, but it's better than Planet of the Dinosaurs (1977). It's an incredible feat to achieve.

So yeah, then we hat The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), which actually has a lot of decent moments, but like all sequels, more feels like adding to the zeitgeist rather than driving it. By that time we had had a lot of Jurassic-ness and the Dino fad was more cresting than beefing up. It is notable for featuring Vince Vaughn, along with a fairly underrecognized cast. They barely returned anyone from the first film, although Hammond and his grandkids show up looking slightly older, which always freaked me out because I watched the first one 40,000 times and the second only once or twice. Of course Goldblum's back as Ian Malcolm, but I thought he always worked better as a bit of a selfish side character rather than an action hero. Shirtlessness aside, he never really fits that role as the anchor of this film.

Still, that caravan ledge scene, the T-Rex stomping through San Diego, and the High Grass are all pretty incredible. I always think of Velociraptors when I venture into High Grass. Every. Single. Time.

The less said about Jurassic Park III (2001) the better. I saw this in theaters while still forming my critical eye and I remember it being a strange feeling...I was excited going in...but very disappointed coming out. What's most notable is that at age 14 I actively recognized this as a bad movie - not a campy jokey of course it's bad movie, but a terribly written film that wanted to be good so damn bad. Every character sucks. The ending is a horrible deus ex machina (worse than the...original film's also deus ex machina), and the Raptor scenes are just so damn weird. At least we got this meme out of it. Then this. Even LEGO knows this is moronic.

So we cool for a while then flash forward to 2015 and Jurassic World trades on nostalgia and admiration for spectacle and sets a new standard for the mega-blockbuster of the current age. It's amazing that it would eventually appear as a template for other fan course corrections like The Force Awakens (2015) which just re-make the original with enough shiny new shit to make it seem new. This is a bit different than the gritty reboot era, and definitely past the late 90s / early 2000s turn everything into a sequel era. I have of course talked about this film at length already.

As you can read, I actually really liked this when it came out. I think that appreciation has decreased over time as I've reflected how at best a lot of it is dumb and at worst pretty problematic when it comes to those Ellie Sattler gender roles Laura Dern nailed so well 25 years ago. It at least seems self-aware of all its bluster sating a fan's appetite that will never full or get over nostalgia, which elevates it thematically, but it still never quite innovates.

Why would you do this again? That's like buidling
another Death Star. No one's THAT dumb!

What's more amazing is that Fallen Kingdom is actually only the fifth film in this series. That sounds like an insane thing to say, but we've had five Pirates of the Caribbean films and five Transformers films in half the time. Somehow Jurassic Park as a franchise just nosedived with the third installment, fell into that B-movie zone and never recovered. These films are all about spectacle and deserve being events. Jurassic World has even taken somewhat of a step behind Star Wars, the Avengers, and other franchise that have since greatly outshined it. It may not even finish as Chris Pratt's most successful movie this year.

And if you're looking at the marketing material for Fallen Kingdom, I certainly feel a great deal of who cares. Like, why are they back on the island? And it's exploding?! Volcanoes are certainly very Dinosaur-y and it's amazing it took them this long to insert one, but that also pushes that concept into the novelty zone and outside of the genuine discussion about universal themes through a familial lens that Spielberg did so well. Evidently this movie is half volcano adventure and half haunted house movie, which does sound interesting, but that's again camp and novelty over story and character. I'm wary. We're away from a beautiful Furious 7 (2015) world and into a shitty Fast 8 (2017) world. Also, there's been eight Fast & Furious movies since Jurassic Park III. What happened, guys?

Reviews are...good? It seems we can't quite tell. Better than Jurassic World but still shit? Well, what if I liked it the first time? I think it's important to remember that even if cinephiles and hardcore fans are disappointed there are plenty of casual fans who dig this shit. Name recognition alone will earn a lot of dollars, but I highly doubt it'll reach the heights Jurassic World did. It kind of just feels like any other movie sequel, and that's always something that doesn't work with this franchise.

What do you think? Did you prefer the Mars Attacks trading cards?