Author: fenrisfil

Guardians of the Galaxy 3 (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Marvel has lost all momentum in the cinema in recent years, so much so that some of their movies have even lost money. Everything is relevant of course and these movies are still bringing in hundreds of millions. However when your budgets reach$250m (That they admit to), you are basically looking at $600m just to break even. These are films that need the majority of the general audience to turn up to make a profit. Yet, Marvel have been putting out an increasingly niché product, that fails in broad appeal. On top of this franchises tend to suffer a delayed impact on box office from underwhelming entries. In this instance the previous MCU film, clearly made people cautious for Guardians 3.

Marvel of course is fairly unique in having sub-franchises. Two of these run largely independently from the greater MCU, namely Spider-Man and Guardians. Despite the long gap between the second and third movies there is still a strong fanbase for this franchise. What we’ve seen in the box office so far is a cautious opening weekend. This reflects a lack of faith in the MCU in general right now. The second week however had a very strong hold. My interpretation of that is that a lot of people held off until they heard the word of mouth. So is it worthy of that hold? Let’s dig in.

Synopsis (First Act Spoilers Only)

Part three part picks up a fair way after the second movie. Like many characters in the MCU, the team were heavily impacted by the Infinity War. The Gamora that was in a relationship with Quill was sacrificed by Thanos and is not coming back. However an alternative version of her from her own past has been transplanted into the modern day, rolling her back to where she started with the franchise. Quill is naturally not too happy with this and has found himself spiralling into depression.

This story actually picks up shortly after the Christmas Special, but with minimal impact. Basically just the groups new home and the revelation that Mantis is Quill’s brother.

The Guardians have settled down on Knowhere (The former base of the Collector) and renovated it into a a decent sized settlement for former Ravagers and other space misfits. Things are relatively peaceful (Outside of an increasingly drunken and mopey Starlord). That peace is disrupted by the sudden appearance of Adam Warlock. You may remember Adam as the genetically modified super being from the end of GOTG2. Warlock attacks the settlement, leading to Rocket Racoon being badly injured. As the Guardians attempt to give him medical treatment, a failsafe inside Rocket activates threatening his life. The Guardians then find themselves in a race against time to deactivate the failsafe so they can safe their friend.

Their quest brings them into conflict with The High Evolutionary, a powerful super genius whose past is heavily linked with Rocket’s. They find themselves working with another group of Ravagers, including the alterative Gamora. Neither Quill nor Gamora are especially happy with this arrangement. In classic James Gunn style, every character big and small gets their moment in the story. The downside is this pushes the run time up to a whopping two and a half hours. That gives us a lot to talk about, but don’t worry I’m keeping this as spoiler free as I can.

Villains

Let’s have a look at the move’s characters, starting with the big bad, The High Evolutionary. It’s hard not to compare Chukwudi Iwuji performance to that of Jonathan Majors as Kang. It’s a comparison that has Iwuji coming up on top… by a long way. Frankly Majors is overrated and has been over promoted.That’s understandable given how important the character is to the Phase Five. Iwuji however is severely underrated, has not really had any kind of push. Indeed he is barely in the promotional material for this film.

This is a shame, because he really nails it. He brings a sinister calmness to the role with a dangerous rage quietly bubbling under the surface. Iwuji delivers a superb performance and in my view is the best Villain the MCU has given us since Thanos. Admittedly that’s not a terribly high bar for phase 4/5 of the MCU. This is a villain you could build an entire phase around. But, Iwuji is a Gunn recruitment not a Fiege one, so this was probably never on the table. Fans of the Gunn TV series “Peacemaker” will recognise Iwuji from there and I wouldn’t be surprised to find him returning to DC in the future (In a new role).

We have a different story with Adam Warlock however, but this is a complicated one. Will Poulter is fine in the role. The problem is that Warlock feels superfluous to the entire story and has been made into yet another goofy, fish out of water “Bim-Bro” type character. Effectively he’s MCU Thor. Now fans of the comics will know that Adam Warlock is actually a great character. They will also know he was central to the entire Infinity Saga. So here he’s effectively missed his own destiny leaving him directionless. So it’s unsurprising he’s being set up as the next Thor. I fully expect his next few appearances in the MCU to involve him going off to find himself.

A character missing their own destiny isn’t new for the MCU. The Mandarin also missed his chance as Iron Man’s primary antagonist by not turning up until Tony had sacrificed himself. At least that character managed to slip into the role left by Shang-Chi’s comic book father Fu Manchu. Adam has no role to take over and it tells. It is likely only here because he was promised in the post credits scene in the previous Guardians movie. It’s impossible to know if Gunn had larger plans for him originally, but now he’s just sort of there. To be fair, he does get to kick some ass early on. For the rest of the movie though he’s just sort of hanging around. Honestly, he could have been cut entirely and the movie may have been better for it.

Heroes

So that leads us to the heroes. This is a bit of a mixed bag. As I mentioned earlier, everyone gets at least one moment to shine, but not much more. It is possibly too large a cast at this stage to do give everyone serious character arcs. Gunn’s style is somewhat similar to Joss Whedon in that the stories are heavily character based and rely on smaller moments of character banter to gradually develop the characters. The result is that many of the characters don’t develop in a significant way throughout the movie. This is a bit more realistic but not always as satisfying as a story focused approach.

Case in point Quill (Minor spoilers) doesn’t really develop much. He starts out lost and ends up trying to find himself. At this stage that is basically a generic Marvel cliché for the male characters. Drax meanwhile has his character arc sort of thrown at him late in the movie. This is very small, but is actually quite satisfying for the character and will no doubt resonate with some audience members. Nebula is just sort of there. To be fair she has gone through a lot of character development prior to the movies and the Infinity War. What we get instead with Nebula is to see just how much she has evolved since her introduction.

Alternative Gomorra has some development, but is effectively just repeating the development her other version had during the first movie. Mantis has a small amount of development, but quietly in the background and Groot is Groot. Kraglin, despite being a minor character, basically get’s an 80’s martial arts movie character arc. Just replace the special ancient technique with controlling the Yaka Arrow). Perhaps though Kragin’s real story is in his relationship to the telekinetic super-dog Cosmo. That’s one thing I’m sure all the dog lovers in the audience will get a kick out of.

Then we get to Rocket Racoon and be in no doubt this is his movie. We get to see his origins and what made his personality the way it is. Through all that, he gets a serious amount of character growth. It’s just a shame that the set up to all this actually eliminates the popular character from the majority of the movie. Despite this it is an emotional journey for him and the audience. If you are a fan of Rocket Racoon, expect it to be both frustrating and emotional.

And the Plot?

Story wise, I have issues and this really reflects how much of a character based writer Gunn is. The first point of note is the often self defeating actions of the antagonists. On several occasions the villains do things that seem to sabotage themselves for no readily apparent reason other than to drive the plot forward. This wouldn’t be so bad, if those errors of judgement weren’t the driving force for the majority of the movie. The film is very lucky to have such a capable actor as it’s main villain, since his performance can at least in the moment let you ignore all that. Hard not to question it after though.

A big issue for the movie is it’s length. There is a lot of debate to be had on whether the inclusion of either Adam Warlock or Gomorra was really necessary for the movie. The truth is they are both there just because they were expected to be there. Gomorra is there because she was a key character in the first two movies and that’s it. There is some purpose for her though in showing how circumstance can change where someone ends up, but doesn’t change who they are at heart. It’s a nice sentiment, but wasn’t really needed to conclude the story.

Adam Warlock is perhaps the films biggest issue since his presence seems to damage both the movie and the character. The truth is he wasn’t needed for the film and had he not been revealed in the post credit scene after Guardians 2, he probably wouldn’t have been in it. Removing either him or Gamora would probably have reduced the films run time by a good 15 minutes without any real impact. There was also a random scene involving giant space monsters that basically don’t do anything, making the entire section superfluous. Removing all of that would probably have had the runtime down to a solid 1 hour 50. Just about perfect for a superhero movie.

That said, the movie doesn’t drag much. It is basically split into three very distinct acts, each with their own build up, major action scene and wind down. The format kept me interested and each section had it’s positives and negatives. They movie is packed with references and cameos too, which while not something that helps the overall quality. It does add a little bit of fun on the first viewing though, and some talking points. Naturally the cameos include yet another appearance from Howard the Duck, but we’re also treated to a brief appearance of Sylvester Stallone, reprising his role of Stakar Ogord from the second film.

Mix Tape Vol. 3

That brings us to the final element we all expect from a Guardians movie: The music. Well… yeah, it’s not that great this time out. It’s not that the music is itself bad, it’s just not quite up to the level of the previous movies and when the music has been so good previously, you notice the drop off. Some of the choices are quite strange too, for example Alice Cooper’s version of “I’m Always Chasing Rainbows”. That is far from Alice’s best track and the song itself is a cover, with the original being over a hundred years old.

I can’t help but wonder if the music clearance budget for the film was slashed this time or if Gunn simply chose to keep back the really good tracks so he can make use of them in his upcoming DC movies. Gunn has good taste in music, but his choices are usually pretty big hits from their era/genre. Not obscure gems such as the ones Tarantino tends to dig up. I imagine there is a limit to how many good tracks he can dig up. Perhaps he didn’t want to waste his best ones at a company he is departing? Who knows. Either way, the soundtrack is the least memorable of the series. It’s not actually bad however, it’s just not a selling point like it was for the previous films.

Assessment

As a critic, I have to be critical. But despite all that I want to be clear, I had a lot of fun with this movie. Despite the flaws and the step down in some regards from the previous movies this was an emotionally satisfying movie with fun action scenes and some good humour. The length didn’t damage my enjoyment, at least not on the first viewing (Remains to be seen how I feel in the years to come) and while I didn’t leave the theatre humming any of the tunes I wasn’t putting my fingers in my ears either. The story focus on Rocket definitely works and the villain is the best MCU villain since Thanos.

That said, we don’t have a very high bar in regard to villains in the MCU and even when Marvel was more consistently good, the villains were rarely the selling point. They really need to nail that Doctor Doom casting if the MCU is to have any hope going forward. This was a final chapter for the Guardians and it may be a final chapter for many’s journey with the MCU, but the good news is it’s a pretty satisfying ending. If you were to watch Phase 1-3 and follow that up with just Spider-Man No Way Home and then this you would feel pretty content with your journey. This movie is a strong 6.5/10 and a hairs width short of a 7.

VERDICT: 6.5/10 – Recommended, especially to fans of the previous movies.

Rating: 6.5 out of 10.

Bonus Round – The State of the MCU

With this movie and Gunn’s departure it seems certain this is the end of the Guardians as we know them. Sure Disney still owns the rights, but without Gunn, it won’t be the same and many of the actors will not want to return. On top of this there is no announced Spider-Man film suggesting that Sony may be pulling out of their deal with Disney. Things look bad for the MCU. This of course follows the departure of Tony Stark, Steve Rogers, Natasha Romanov, T’Challa and probably Thor. The MCU desperately needs to bring in some top name draws again to prop up the smaller sub-franchises, but there is no sign of this happening any time soon because of Kevin Feige’s stubborn refusal to change his plans for Phase 4-6 despite the Fox purchase.

The comic book giants of The Fantastic Four, The X-Men and huge names like Doom and Wolverine have just been sitting on the shelf while Marvel rolls out it’s E, F and J list heroes. I’m not kidding with that either, there are definite tiers for Superheroes, the A list for Marvel is just Spider-Man. The B-List are Hulk, X-Men and until a string of failed movies downgraded them, The Fantastic Four, then you have Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Wolverine and Magneto/Prof-X as the C-List. That was the level on which the MCU was built. Blade, Daredevil, Ghost Rider and maybe She-Hulk and a few of the X-Men as individuals are the D-List level. The rest, including Ant Man and The Guardians would have been E-List or lower, which shows you can make it work on an individual basis, but you need some bigger names for the larger franchise.

The Downward Spiral

The problem with using the lower tier heroes is you need someone with real talent and creativity to make it work. They had that with James Gunn and now he is gone and Marvel don’t have anyone else that can pull that kind of thing off. With budgets increasing and returns decreasing, each new Marvel movie represents an increasing poor ratio of risk to reward. Ant Man Quantumania lost money, Guardians 3 will likely only generate the same profit level as a successful Horror (About $100m in profit), but Horror does it on about a tenth of the budget of a Superhero movie, so far less risk. The next three movies Marvel has on it’s slate may struggle to even achieve Ant Man numbers and when they finally get to Blade, it most likely will be back in that Horror film profit range (But with a Superhero film cost).

Logic would suggest Disney needs to radically slow down on the number of Marvel movies it puts out and focus on the bigger B and C list names, leaving the D and E list to the TV shows and relegate the rest to supporting characters for now (Until they can find a new Gunn or Whedon and even then probably best to focus on the teams instead of individuals at that level). It’s worth noting that the original plan was probably for Phase Four to cash in on the momentum from the Infinity Saga, bringing in the expectedly large audiences by default for those lower tier characters. But Covid struck and by the time they could get any of those titles out, the momentum was gone. Still, the failure to find a pivot to a new plan is entirely on Feige.

Meanwhile at DC…

But as one door closes another opens and a new chapter begins over at Warner/DC. James Gunn has a vision, it remains to be seen if that vision is any good but chances are it will be better than what Warner has been doing for the last decade (Aside from the excellent Joker movie of course). Before we get there though, we have to find a path through the last remnants of the older regimes. Namely we need to get past the Ezra Miller Flash film and Jason Momoa’s likely final appearance as Aquaman. Momoa is probably not going anywhere, but if rumours are true may be switching roles to one he is better suited for, namely Lobo. Miller meanwhile is almost certainly gone after The Flash, yet his movie is the pivot on which the old DCEU morphs into Gunn’s new DCU.

The new era truly begins with “Superman:Legacy”, a film that will make or break DC in the coming years. But even if it turns out to be a good film, it could be a case of too little, too late for Warner to properly cash in on the Superhero fever of the last decade. Superhero fatigue may well be a thing. We will have to wait and see. At the time of writing, though Gunn has announced a slate of films, he hasn’t cast anyone for them yet and we are a long way away from seeing trailers. Who knows where he goes from here. Chances are though, as someone that likes to work with the same people we may well see the actors behind the Guardians turning up in DC. Karren Gillan has already suggested she’d like to play Poison Ivy for instance. Sounds good to me.

Babylon (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Today I’m reviewing Damien Chazelle’s all star black comedy epic drama. This behemoth of a movie clocks in at three hours and nine minutes in length and boy does it feel it! The movie has a lot of talent on screen with three leads in Margot Robbie, Brad Pitt and Diego Calva. Robbie plays Nellie LaRoy, a brash ambitious young up and coming star of the silent screen. Pitt plays “Jack Conrad” an established star that is somewhat jaded and often having marital issues. Calva plays the true lead, “Manny Torres” a Mexican immigrant and studio assistant, who eventually works his way up to executive.

Naked Ambition.

Babylon is an ambitious look at the transition in Hollywood from silent movies to talkies, but in practice it is really just a collection of loosely connected scenes. The movie begins with Manny transporting an elephant to a debauched, drug-fuelled private festival for the rich and famous within the industry. This opening scene is long and provides much of the footage from the trailers. It’s not entirely clear if this is a celebration of the debauchery of classic Hollywood, a condemnation of it or just an excuse to film things that look good in the trailer. My guess is a bit of all three. The scene sets up Manny’s first meeting with Nellie and sets the tone for the movie.

From here we follow the characters through a series of scenes depicting movie productions, drunken, drug addled parties and occasionally the events in between. Manny becomes close with both Nellie, whom he has fallen for and Jack, so the story is really Manny’s. This contrasts the hard working backbone of classic Hollywood with the debauchery and mental instability of the stars that struggled not to believe their own hype. The concept there is solid enough, but the film is less solid in it’s execution.

Brad and Margot.

Margot Robbie does not provide the best performances of her career as the walking disaster Nellie (Who mostly drives the plot on by being randomly outrageous and self destructive). She is however in the movies best scene. One that comes on a fraught movie set during an early “Talkie” where tension over the quality of the sound recording drives everyone on set to their breaking point, with one character not even surviving. The scene is about fifteen minutes and is pretty deep into the movie.

Pitt however is almost totally wasted as disillusioned actor Jack Conrad. He has a few good scenes early on but ultimately you could remove him from the entire movie without impacting the overall narrative. This is especially true considering the other two main characters have a romantic relationship and so Jack’s scenes feel very much like a third wheel.

Make it Epic!

The big problem here is that dark comedies don’t really mesh well with ambitious epic story telling. On a scene by scene basis this is somewhat reminiscent of a Cohen Brothers movie, but their longest film is just over two hours and for good reason. This movie doesn’t even have it’s opening credits until the 40 minute mark. It largely just plods along and the events feel disconnected. Many of the scenes themselves are actually very good and the majority feature ambitious, flamboyant set pieces, which makes the movie appear more of a showcase of the directors talent than a coherent narrative.

This is a good example of a movie scaling up without reason, with a story that would have worked better more focused and personal. There is possibly a good, far shorter movie in here, but instead of that we got a movie that is self indulgent, pretentious and tiring to watch. I can’t help but wonder as well if this is meant to be a criticism of past Hollywood excess or a celebration of it. I mean you only have to look on social media to see modern actors are on the whole no more stable than their 1920’s counterparts. I can’t help but feel the movie missed an opportunity to make a genuine statement on all that.

The Final Word.

Ultimately the movie is a let down. Some scenes may be 7/10’s but as a whole the best I can give this film is 5/10. Unless you have a new sofa you really want to wear an ass grove into, I’d give it a skip.

Rating: 5 out of 10.

Infinity Pool (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

For today’s review I’m looking at the 2023 movie “Infinity Pool”, staring the underappreciated Alexander Skarsgård (Most recently staring in one of the best movies and yet biggest flops of last year “The Northman”) and rising horror starlet Mia Goth (Who hit a double whammy last year with “X” and it’s prequel “Pearl”). The movie is written and directed by Brandon Cronenberg, son of David Cronenberg. This is his second feature film after 2020’s “Possessor”, which I haven’t had the pleasure of seeing yet, but much like this film it sounds very much like something that could have been made by his father. So let’s find out if the apple falls far from the tree!

Under The Sun.

Our movie starts with obscure novelist James Foster (Skarsgård) and his rich wife “Em” (Played by Cleopatra Coleman) spending time at a resort in the fictional island of Li Tolqa, which appears to be, at least on the surface, some form of Banana Republic. Despite claiming no one has read his book, one of the fellow tourists, “Gabi” (Goth) claims to be a fan. She invites the pair to join her and her husband “Alban” (Jalil Lespert) to spend time with them and despite warnings that they should not stray from within the resorts walls, they decide to spend the next day driving in the countryside.

After an evening on the beach drinking heavily, James drives the group home and accidentally runs over one of the locals. The group panic and return to the hotel hoping it will go unnoticed, but the local police turn up the next morning and haul James away. It turns out the justice system in Li Tolqa is swift and harsh, with James condemned to be executed by the eldest son of the man he ran over.

Killing Yourself to Live.

However, this is where the film introduces some science fiction elements. It turns out for a hefty fee (Presumably paid for by his wife) they will create a fully grown clone of him, including his memories and kill that instead. Confused, but desperate he agrees. On return to the hotel James finds his passport missing and so must remain at the resort while this is sorted out. His wife however heads off.

Stuck on the island, James finds himself falling in with Gabi and her nihilist friends, a spoiled, dangerous group of people who seem to get their kicks from tormenting others and abusing the islands legal system and it’s loophole for the rich. This isn’t a spoiler review, so I’ll stop there with the plot. Suffice to say this is going to be a life changing experience for the man.

Tomorrow’s Dream.

Probably the main thing David Cronenberg is known for is using body horror as a study on humanity. The focus has never really been on the plausibility of the situations since they largely exist as a sort of metaphor anyway, instead they are really more character studies with a focus on their deeply flawed and often self destructive protagonists. Brandon has clearly gone for a very similar approach.

You have to basically just accept this island nation that in every other regard is a typical banana republic has the technology to create perfect clones of people (Including their memories) and that they use this amazing technology in the most bizarre and twisted way, as a frankly unnecessary side show to allowing the rich to pay their way out of trouble. None of it really makes any sense if taken literally. But beneath the surface it is clear that the film is a study in Nihilism.

Into the Void.

To some extent it is about the form of Nihilism that comes naturally from power (Specifically the power that comes from being rich). Certainly this is where bored sociopath Gabi comes in. James however, is not especially rich and not at all powerful. His wife and step-father are rich, but his Nihilism is somewhat different and perhaps more related to his creativity. He wrote a book no one read, married his publishers daughter and has effectively landed on his feet but without any real sense of achievement. He is empty inside and without a real direction or purpose. This much is obvious.

At one point in the story the dangerous crowd James has fallen in with poses the question: “How do you know if you are the original or the clone”. It’s a common sci-fi trope and the first place my mind went once it was revealed it was a clone story. However, the important part of the conversation was the follow up: “Perhaps you just watched the real you die” to which James answers “We can only hope”. The group seem to approve of the response and there we have it. The ultimate nihilism, death without consequences. This sets up James journey for the rest of the film.

Thrill of it All.

Infinity Pool is ultimately simpler than the usual David Cronenberg affair, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. The story still contains the elements you would expect from a Cronenberg body horror, but it’s presented a more accessible package. It is dark, violent, horrific, filled with deeply flawed characters and ultimately thought provoking. The ending is in some ways disappointing, but has purpose. This probably won’t be everyone’s cup of tea but if you like the films of his father’s this Brandon Cronenberg movie may be worth your time, otherwise probably not. I do, so it’s a solid 6/10 for me. Would be higher, but you need a LOT of suspension of disbelief for this one.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

The Terminator: Dead or Misunderstood – Part Two

Posted on by fenrisfil

Welcome back to my series on the Terminator franchise, how it got derailed and how to get it bac on path. As I mentioned in part one it is my view that there are two vitally important steps to bringing Terminator back, making it profitable again and legitimizing it as a true franchise. Not that it isn’t already a franchise, any movie that has a sequel or spin off is technically a franchise but many people don’t believe Terminator can support new ventures.

To me that position is laughable. Time travel and rogue AI are two areas of science fiction that have near limitless potential for stories, you just have to find the right angles to stand out from the crowd. Let’s take a look at film that started the franchise and should be the heart of any future installment: The Terminator (1984).

The Terminator (1984) – The Heart of the Franchise

In the original pre-release footage at the ending of The Terminator the camera reveals the factory in which the final showdown took place was owned by Cyberdyne systems. At some point, Cameron decided to remove that and hold back from the big reveal, something likely motivated by the potential to use it in a sequel and it’s a real shame because while this is all still implied it is something that raises up the original movie to the pinnacle of science fiction concepts. It creates a perfect time loop, somewhat similar to the one in Robert Heinlein’s “All you zombies”.

In Heinlein’s story (Spoilers for that btw) it is revealed that the time travelling protagonist of the story was also his own mother, father and recruiter. Effectively the character created himself/herself (They change gender mid story, hence being both of his own parents and romancing themselves). It’s all a very conceptual view of time travel, but importantly it maintains cause and effect… just in an infinite loop. That is the kind of thing you expect from Heinlein, but perhaps not from James Cameron and it’s entirely possible he didn’t really understand the significance of these story elements.

The Deep View

In The Terminator, both Skynet and John Connor are much like Heinlein’s protagonist. Both effectively created themselves out of nothing and form part of an eternal loop. That’s the thing about this story, it’s not about what it appears on the surface. The Terminator wasn’t really sent back in time to kill Sarah Connor and Kyle Reece wasn’t sent back in time to stop it. Both were sent back in time to conceive the entities that would then send them back in time for that very mission. The events that lead to that outcome are in some ways irrelevant (Though obviously entertaining to watch).

But what about Cyberdyne and Sarah Connor? Well the truth is while both are exceptional they are not unique, it could have been a number of companies and a number of potential mothers. They are merely the catalyst that grounds the time loop into a perceived linear reality. More important than who they are is what they represent. Sarah represents humanity, free will, emotion and family. Cyberdyne represents science, corporations, occupation and most significantly inevitability (Such as the inevitability of “The Singularity”, where AI’s reach the point they can create their own next generation). These become the very moral foundation for the war between Skynet and John Connor.

Good Vs Evil?

Many people have taken note that John Connor’s initials are the same as Jesus Christ and Skynet’s is the same as Satan. Of course John’s initials are also the same as James Cameron’s and since the idea of The Terminator supposedly came from one of his fever induced nightmares, it could just as well be a reference to himself. But regardless it is clear that John and Skynet are symbolic of ideas in direct opposition. This is of fundamental importance to the story, regardless of the whether the two physically manifest. Whether those forces are good and evil, order and chaos, progress and conservation or knowledge and emotion isn’t as important as the the fact the battle is eternal.

It’s worth noting however that other than good vs evil, these conflicts aren’t ones where you’d necessarily say one side must win. They instead need to maintain a balance. This is where I am not particularly keen on the Satan Vs Jesus Christ analogy, because that changes the story into one asking for a conclusion where the good guys ultimately win. That’s not necessarily where The Terminator should go. The thing with science fiction and part of what makes it a great genre is you get to ask the big questions.

The Horror Angle.

So, you have the deeper science fiction but you also have some great horror aspects such as humans fighting against their inevitable death. The unstoppable killing machine that is the Terminator relentlessly, but quite slowly pursuing the heroes can be seen as a fight of a mortal against their own mortality or humanity against their extinction. Time comes for everyone. But it’s not just mortality it’s also about redundancy. The machines on the surface appear superior to the humans and are replacing them. Again it’s a very natural fear and so perfect for the horror aspect of the movie.

Of course the final layer of the movie is the fun stuff. Killer robot from the future travels back in time. That’s the kind of pitch that is hard to resist and regardless of everything else promise to at least be a fun B-Movie. Throw in a very strong cast including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn and a small appearance from Lance Henriksen and James Cameron’s attention to detail and you know you are on to a winner.

Terminator 2 – The Ultimate Action Movie

This brings us to the sequel and we have a significant change of gears here. Instead of focusing on the horror and science fiction elements, Cameron went full tilt on the action and special effects and it paid off huge. This is a movie that could very well be the greatest action movie of all time and so it’s understandable why all too often it becomes the focus when looking at the Terminator franchise. I covered the momentum going into the movie in part one of this series, so here I want to focus on the the story itself.

Along with the action, Terminator 2 had fantastic character development and some truly moving character moments. This for me is what makes the difference between a good and a bad action movie. True not everyone can pull off cool special effects and stunts, but even when done well that all means nothing unless it really reaches the viewer on an emotional level. They have to be with the characters as they watch the edge of the seat action. It’s probably more for this reason rather than the stunts and effects that the movie is still regarded as the pinnacle of the action genre.

The Uphill Struggle

Trying to top that in the modern day is an expensive game with a very high risk of failure. But that’s just talking about stunts and effects, the emotional/character aspects are problematic too because Terminator 2 provided closure to most of the characters story arcs. It provided an emotionally satisfying ending and so you are already in a difficult situation to get the audience to invest emotionally in a continuation in the same style.

It’s all an uphill struggle and probably the only director that could pull it off is James Cameron himself and only if he is really on his game and doesn’t decide to do something silly like remove all the guns from the story. But even if he came back and directed the movie itself and it worked, where would you go next? Would every installment need an on form James Cameron to not lose the studio hundreds of millions of dollars? More importantly, should they even really be trying to go in that direction?

The Ending That Isn’t.

For all it’s positives, Terminator 2 has some very serious problems. Most of which come the switch in focus and the way that the film both firmly established that it was a perfect time loop and then breaks that loop by the end of the movie. This is easy to ignore when swept up in the huge emotional character moments and edge of the seat action, but it has huge implications and the big question becomes, how does time travel really work in this universe?

How Does Time Travel Work?

While everyone recognises that the first two Terminator movies are both great movies in their own right it’s often overlooked how they don’t really fit together and a big part of that is in the change of how time travel works. Terminator 2 is the problem here because there is no way to resolve how time travel works in that movie that actually means they succeeded in defeating Skynet, at least not without making a large number of assumptions, many of which would be painfully convenient. Neither of the films truly explained how time travel was expected to work in that universe so we need to look at the possible ways it could and how they would impact the franchise.

When a man is his own father, mother and bartender.

Timeloops

The original movie as I have mentioned is a perfect time loop. Events in the future cause the events in the past that then causes those events in the future. This is a type of time travel where all events maintain cause and effect despite attempts to change things. All You Zombies”, as mentioned above is another example of this. The movie “Predestination” (2014) is based on this story.

The TV series “Futurama” is another example of this. Fry, goes back in time, accidentally kills his own grandfather and then impregnates his grandmother, later finding out he is his own grandfather. But this situation also allowed him to have a unique brain that rendered him immune to the powers of some would be galactic conquerors. Since this condition already existed (and is the whole reason he ended up in the future) his whole story thus becomes a time loop.

So That’s How It Works in The Terminator Franchise?

So this is how time travel appeared to work in The Terminator. The sequels seems to suggest that isn’t how it worked however, since they appeared to have broken the time loop at least on the T800/Skynet side. It is still possible though that some of the information gained from the T800 chip could have been backed up somewhere and Cyberdyne were still able to proceed. That would mean Judgement Day would still happen and the loop would be preserved. Alternatively, maybe Skynet was never a direct part of the time loop and was never truly developed from the remains of the T800. In that case Judgement Day would still happen and Kyle Reece would still end up sent back in time.

Doc Brown explains branching timelines.

Alternative Timelines

One of the most common types of time travel in fiction. Alternate Timelines deal with the potential impacts of travellers by breaking timelines off into alternate parallel dimensions. In Back to the Future 2, this is how it works. If applied to The Terminator it does leave an important question: Why would Skynet attempt to create an alternative timeline that won’t impact it’s present?

There is a possible answer for that however. Perhaps Skynet actually sent a compressed version of it’s own code back in the T800. Then the Skynet created from the T800’s remains would be the actual, original Skynet. Which would mean it could try once again. This time with a leg up technologically and perhaps in a reality where there is no John Connor.

One Side Effect of Parallel Timelines is Genisys would suck slightly less.

The Problem With Parallels

Aside from Skynet’s motivation, there is a big problem with alternative timelines. Prior to the T800 going back in time, Skynet must have had a clear, inevitable path to it’s own creation. Preventing the use of the T800 technology wouldn’t have prevented the creation of Skyne. At best have just delayed it due to Cyberdyne wasting time on examining the advanced technology. This was the path that both Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles followed. John and Sarah spent a lot of time attempting to find that orgin in the TV. During the show they also discovered that Skynet wasn’t the only powerful AI in play. Terminator 3 meanwhile basically just said “Nah, Judgement Day is happening anyway”.

Charlie from Lost: Destined to die now matter what Desmond changed.

Self Correcting Timelines

As a midway point between timeloops and alternative timelines is the idea that when you try and change history, time automatically corrects itself. For example, if you went back in time and killed Hitler, his parents may end up adopting a child and calling it Adolf and that adopted child would then do everything Hitler did. If the timelines worked like this then the original John Connor wouldn’t have been Kyle Reece’s son, but when the events of The Terminator was put in motion and Sarah didn’t meet John’s original father time corrected by having Kyle take up that role, with the child still called “John”. This set up makes key events more important than things like genetic. So it doesn’t really matter where Skynet came from or who fathered John as long as Judgement Day happens and Skynet and John can have their conflict.

The Future is Inevitable?

How Would A Self Correcting Timeline Work In Terminator?

If the Terminator world worked like this it would mean Skynet either didn’t understand time travel or was hoping not to change it’s present but provide it with some kind of weapon to change it’s future after the point the T800 was sent back. This actually fits in a way since the T1000 could be seen as that weapon. However, if that is the case it becomes a bigger question as to why it would send the T1000 back in time. There probably could be some justification but it’s probably getting a bit too unlikely at this stage. The important thing though is that Skynet would still happen after T2 because the timeline would correct.

City on the Edge of Forever

Actually Changing Stuff

In the Star Trek universe (At least up until the end of the run of TNG movies) and in most classic science fiction TV/Movies time travel basically works as intended and causal paradoxes are largely ignored. So if you went back in time and killed Hitler as a baby, you would indeed prevent his rule but in doing so also removed your reason to go back in time. These days this is viewed as a paradox that wouldn’t be possible, but for classic Trek it wasn’t a problem at all.

There would however be a window of time for people to repair the timeline. For example the entire Federation disappeared in the City on the Edge of Forever when the timeline was changed, but the crew on the ground close to the place where the change happened maintained their memory of it and were able to go back in time and fix things.

Similarly in “First Contact” the entire planet Earth ended up being assimilated, but the Enterprise was somehow able to avoid the impact and were able to go back in time and fix the problem. Honestly those two events contradict each other as in the first instance the Enterprise vanished and in the second it did not. The truth is with time travel in Star Trek, the people that are able to remember the world before the change are effectively, whomever is important to the plot to do so.

The Borg Earth from First Contact

Could Terminator Throw The Rules Out The Window?

You could have a version of this were only the person that creates the change remembers it and becomes like an interloper into reality, but that wouldn’t fit with The Terminator, because the moment the T800 went back in time the future would have changed and Kyle Reese wouldn’t have been able to follow. Honestly this is a messy way to deal with time travel, but it can work providing you make your own rules clear for it at the start.

In the case of Terminator 2, you’d still have the problem that if you don’t have a fixed time loop, there must be an alternative way for Skynet to be created and you still open yourself up to Judgement day. What does change however is there is no reason for the date to stay fixed and more importantly there is no guarantee that John’s resistance would always defeat Skynet. Indeed by attempting to prevent it, they could have changed things so Skynet wins. This kind of time travel really is anything goes and you never know if you’ll make things better or worse.

So what does that all mean?

The reason for going over all these versions of time travel is simply this: There isn’t a single version that means Terminator 2 should be the logical end of the story. Not one. The only reason people think it is or should be is because of how it works from a character perspective. In that regard it was a very satisfying end. But when you think about it, you realise it was ultimately not the victory it appeared.

However, that doesn’t mean the story of T2 was pointless. A Skynet born from it’s own future technology is going to have a significant advantage (Perhaps as demonstrated with the T1000), they prevented that. They also learned a number of important lessons that showed why John Connor could be the future leader of humanity. Perhaps most importantly though, they learned that a machine could learn the value of humanity. This means that long term there may even be a path to coexistence.

I’ll Be Back!

The important thing though is simply to recognise that there are more stories to tell with this franchise. In the next part instead of looking at the third to sixth movies and where they messed things up I’m going to get a bit creative instead and give you my idea for how the franchise could be revived. It’s not even particularly out of left field and to be clear you could go as wild as you like with it, but in my view before you get crazy you need to re-ground the whole thing. See you in part 3!

Paul (2011)

Posted on by fenrisfil

When following the films of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg it’s hard not to be underwhelmed when you get to this little number. It seems clear that while Frost may be a walking encyclopaedia of pop culture references, the creativity and flair of his more famous movies likely came from Edgar Wright, because this completely lacks either, but it does have a LOT of references in it. So if you are the kind of person that enjoys movies just because they reference other, better movies, TV shows and comics then this will be for you. If not… Maybe give it a skip.

Paul is written by Pegg and Frost and helmed by “Superbad” and “Adventureland” director Greg Mottola. It stars Pegg, Frost as a couple of Brits visiting America to attend comiccon and the talentless Seth Rogen (Sorry, but I don’t get why he keeps getting so much work) as the titular alien that stumbles into their path late one night after attending the con. The pair decide to help Paul return home, but are pursued by the FBI and various groups of rednecks… because rednecks, I guess.

By The Numbers.

The story itself is a pretty generic by the numbers, protect the friendly alien story. It could be “E. T.” , “*Batteries not Included”, even “Short Circuit” (If you ignore he’s not an Alien). Though those movies have a lot more heart to them. It could also be “Bumblebee” or “Monster Truck” or any number of similar stories of more recent years. The only thing different here is the Alien looks like a generic grey type alien…. So basically it’s a double cliché.

That’s really the game this film is playing. It substitutes any originality or heart for tired tropes and just out of the blue references that could have been stuck at any time in the film since they are only there to be references. This is exactly the kind of film I’d expect a pop culture junky to make and perhaps in the late 90’s to early 2000’s when those kinds of films/shows were relatively fresh and popular (I was a fan of Pegg’s own “Spaced”) they could have gotten away with it, but by 2011 that was all feeling pretty stale. Roll on to 2023 when I’m making this review and it’s still being over done but notably a lot less popular. Everyone is tiring of it now.

Clichés and Stereotypes.

Of course those pop culture referencing films of that period were also funny, which helped them a lot. Some even had artistic merit (The first Clerks film for instance). This doesn’t have either of those. It’s just references, tropes and cameos (Well, one cameo, but that’s also a reference).The closest it.

When the film isn’t doing pop culture references, it is basically just stereotyping people instead, because making a character that isn’t a hundred percent generic would apparently be beyond Pegg and Frost’s writing partnership in 2011. Honestly, it’s shocking to see the gulf between this movie and Shaun of the Dead/Hot Fuzz. Both of those also featured a tonne of references, but actually had a good plot, some really funny moments and… well… style!

Conclusion.

Ultimately this film exposes the limitations of the Pegg/Frost partnership without Edgar Wright’s involvement. Pegg especially is a one trick pony, only able to throw in pop culture references (It’s even how he wrote his Star Trek script, that’s why you had a major scene involving playing The Beastie Boys). Wright brought the quality and style to that partnership and is sorely missed here. This is a 4/10.

Rating: 4 out of 10.

M3GAN (2023)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Time for my first review of a 2023 movie. In what is already looking like a decent year for horror (Possibly just because we don’t have another bad Halloween sequel to deal with, though we do have an Exorcist remake to be annoyed at later in the year), one of the first to hit theatres this year was the AI gone rogue/Killer doll movie “M3gan”.

Viral Marketing.

This has been building itself a nice bit of hype as the release date drew near and featured an interesting viral marketing campaign a little reminiscent of the one used for Smile. The main feature of the campaign was creepy M3gan doll dancers turning up in high profile events/locations. The campaign also had some fun on Twitter with some playful interaction between the M3gan account and the Chucky one. Both being owned by the same company, you have to wonder if a crossover is on the cards.

But anyway, what about the film itself? Helmed by “Housebound” (2014) director Gerard Johnstone but from the mind of Horror legend, James Wan (scripted by Wan’s “Malignant” (2021) collaborator Akela Cooper), M3gan stars Allison Williams as under pressure robotics engineer and toy maker “Gemma” and upcoming child actress Violet McGraw as her orphaned niece “Cady”. The titular character herself is a mixture of animatronics, body actress Amie Donald (provider of M3gan’s dancier moments), and voice actress Jenna Davis.

The Set Up.

The story is pretty simple and built around two key strands that intertwine. One is a much more personal story about Gemma and Cady. Gemma is a woman that clearly put her career first in life, largely driven by her inventive nature and ambition to break new ground with technology and AI. Suddenly she has found herself as guardian to her young niece after both the girl’s parents are killed in a road accident. Cady is obviously traumatised by the experience and Gemma doesn’t really know how to cope and is torn between trying and attempted to hit deadlines at work.

The second part of the story is in Gemma’s passion project “M3GAN” an AI robotic doll, that she has been working on in semi-secret (much to the chagrin of her bosses). After a failed test she was told to abandon work on the project and return to the next line of fury robotic toys that her company is famous for. However after sharing her designs with Cady she realised that she could perhaps kill two birds with one stone by having a prototype of her design bond with Cady, helping her through a tough time while also allowing Gemma to spend more time with her niece while she works. Good intentions it seems, but that road to hell is paved with just those sort of intentions.

Comedy and Critique.

What we see unravel then is a fun horror/comedy wrapped around a quite intelligent critique of both irresponsible science and parenthood. It is a double mistake that ends up costing several people their lives. Cady ends up become so emotionally bonded to M3gan that the relationship has become unhealthy, meanwhile the capabilities of the doll to learn and adapt to the emotional state of it’s primary user has led to the AI become dangerous unstable itself. Meanwhile Gemma’s focus on making the product a success has lead to her missing the warning signs of both issues. I couldn’t help but be reminded of that line from Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.”. It definitely applies here.

Friend, Entertainer, Murderer.

But that’s the nuts and bolts, what makes the film really work is the fun approach to the character. Really gave the movie a sort of 80’s feel in it’s slightly silly approach where the killer is firmly there to entertain the audience first instead of just terrify them. That said though, she certainly ups the creepy factor when needed. The doll taps into a lot of horror history, providing some fun “Chucky” like moments, some parts with more in common with “The Terminator” and a good helping of “Village of the Damned” too, with it’s creepy dead eyed children.

The doll appears realistic and humanlike at one moment (going into dance routines for example) and then in a moments notice changes into something far scarier, with a clear influence from the movement patterns of the more impressive Boston Dynamics robots. It’s those moments that M3gan transitions between lifeless doll, imitation little girl and savage robot that makes the movie really work and the great thing is those moments can be moving, scary or funny depending on what was needed at the time.

Conclusion

M3gan is a straight forward movie and makes for easy viewing, which is really what you want from a Horror Comedy. It’s a fun movie but most importantly it firmly establishes a new member to the Horror Icon hall of fame. Even though horror has been making a big comeback in recent year, there hasn’t been many iconic characters added to the list. Indeed the last addition was probably Annabelle and that killer doll has been more miss than hit (“Creation” was fantastic mind). If you’ve only gotten into horror in recent years perhaps this won’t be what your looking for but if you were a Horror fan in the 80’s, I’m pretty sure you’ll love it. It’s a 7/10 from me.

Rating: 7 out of 10.

James Gunn DCU – Analysis

Posted on by fenrisfil

So James Gunn has finally dropped the plans for the DC movies going forwards and it was a bit of a mixed bag and frankly overall somewhat disappointing. Not that I’m going to join the Snyder fans or Henry Cavill fanclub in calling it DOA before a single trailer or even casting decision. But my enthusiasm has certainly lowered. But let’s have a look at what was announced. There were three main categories (Technically two but I’m adding a third reading between the lines).

The Elseworld movies that won’t relate at all to the DCU and likely Gunn won’t have any involvement in; The legacy movies inherited from the previous regime that need to play out and lay the groundwork for the full reboot and finally the new movies that start to paint a picture of the direction Gunn wants to go. Obviously I’m going to focus more on those but we’ll cover it all so let’s get started!

Elseworlds

The first thing to note is that there basically seems to have been some kind of deal to continue to support The Batman (Which also has a couple of TV show side projects in the work), The Joker (Which was DC’s biggest film since Dark Knight) and Teen Titans Go (Which I gather is also very successful). The deal means they are labelled as “Elseworlds” a title used in the comics to designate an entirely self contained universe where anything goes. These are likely decisions not directly involving Gunn and basically the directors/show runner has free reign with them.

It’s interesting to note Gunn didn’t mention any other Elseworlds stuff or future plans. However there is a rumour the dreaded JJ Abrams Superman project may still be in the works as an Elsewords story. Can’t say I’m pleased to hear that since it sounds dreadful but it’s possible they are committed to make it through old contracts. That Gunn didn’t mention it means he likely wants to wash his hands of it if it is happening.

Sadly, I get the impression the Elseworlds tag is basically there just to support contractual obligations and milk relatively successful IP’s for a bit longer. There doesn’t seem to be any real creative drive behind it and it’s a shame because I’d love to see something like Gotham by Gaslight or Batman Vs Dracula. Maybe they’ll get creative with it later. It actually could have been a useful tool for supporting the main DCU if used properly.

The Gunn Show

The second thing are the legacy films/shows. These can be split into two separate categories, the ones that Gunn listed as part of his “Gods and Monsters” chapter and the ones that aren’t. Likely the key difference between the sets are that those that are included are shows Gun is behind and those that aren’t are ones he had nothing to do with. But just how much the legacy Gunn projects will actually be worked into the Gunnverse remains to be seen.

It’s worth noting there was no mention of the Peacemaker crew here except as being a part of the Waller series so it may their second season will effectively be merged into that show. Creature Commandos is being written by Gunn and likely will be a testing ground that can be ignored in the DCU if none of the characters get over. Basically it’s a Groot/Grogu generating machine. See what is marketable, then move it to live action.

Remnants Of The Past.

The more immediate legacy shows though come with them big question marks too. How much will they relate to the new DCU? Will the actors still be employed after the theatrical run? The Flash is marked as the point that changes the whole DCU which means that the Gunnverse is effectively a spin off of the Snyderverse. Not sure how smart that is. But the main question is will they carry over the PR nightmare and frankly terribly cast Ezra Miller into the DCU?

It’s worth noting Gunn has made no mention of The Flash, Aquaman or Shazam outside of their originally scheduled movies. But it’s also interesting to note that Aquaman 2 is released after The Flash, so will it be set before those events or does that mean Momoa is still Aquaman going forward? That wouldn’t seem to fit with the actors own hints about perhaps switching to playing Lobo in the DCU.

That just leaves Blue Beetle which is new and far enough off to scrub any reference to the DCEU, meaning the character could well have a place in Gunns’ DCU. But if it doesn’t perform they can just forget about the character without too much worry. So on to the important stuff and what should suggest a direction for the DCU moving forward and raise potential issues. Let’s look at this first chapter of the DCU or as Gunn calls it: “Gods and Monsters”.

Superman: Legacy (2025)

The first real movie of the “DCU”/Gunnverse. All we know about this is that it features a younger Superman meeting the people at The Daily Planet for the first time. Presumably day 1 in Metropolis. It’s likely you won’t see his Smallville upbringing and possibly if you see him departing Krypton it’ll be relatively brief. Gunn clearly didn’t want Henry Cavill in the roll and it’s not clear how much of that is a desire to sweep out the Snyderverse (We’ll know when we find out if Shazam, Flash and Aquaman are remaining the same).

If he just didn’t picture Cavill in the role it makes me wonder what kind of actor he did picture for it. It’s worth noting he literally said this was a 7-10 year plan, so the age factor does come into it and how long they can expect actors to commit. Still, Cavill seems so well suited for the role it does raise alarm bells that he wasn’t even considered to continue.

Supposedly (according to a press release) the film will be about Kal/Clark balancing his Kryptonian heritage with his human upbringing. There is potential there for character growth, I just hope it goes in a way of establishing Superman as he really should be and not just deconstructing and subverting his story for the sake of it. If it involves his Kryptonian heritage it suggests that Lex Luthor probably isn’t going to be his main focus.

It also seems unlikely they’ll bring in Zod or Doomsday since they’ll want to differentiate it from Zack Snyders’s Superman films. It’s also probably too close to Aquaman 2 to be Momoa as Lobo and I don’t think they’d want to start with Lobo anyway. Maybe we’ll see Braniac. Honestly we won’t likely know until they start filming.

Lanterns (2025)

The first legit live action show of the DCU is one that has been in the works for a while but seems to have changed form enough to become a key part of Gunn’s plans. It is supposed to lead into a key story piece perhaps setting up the first big team up. The series was originally supposed to air in 2023, but went through a lot of re-writes before Gunn even came on board. It’s an obvious show to do though and it’s not linked to the old DCEU so made sense for Gunn to convert it.

While it’s great news they are using both the most popular Lanterns (Interestingly, neither is the original) it seems a strange choice to do such obviously CGI intensive characters in a TV show. The suggestion seems to be it is going to be a bit of a buddy cop mystery, but with Lantern powers. The two are somewhat strange bedfellows, but on a TV show budget you can’t throw CGI out there every five minutes so I guess focusing on detective work helps, but will it satisfy fans? I think a lot of that will be down to if they can find the balance with the CGI and don’t end up with a show that looks as bad as She-Hulk did.

The Authority (Movie – probably 2025)

Based on the Wildstorm characters, which originated outside of DC but are now part of that family, though a fairly isolated part. It’s interesting that the second official movie out of Gunn’s DCU is based on characters that originated elsewhere. It’s also odd that they’ve basically decided to introduce what is effectively a subverted version of the Justice League (Even including a blatant Superman character (Apollo) and a blatant Batman character (Midnighter)… except these guys are gay and dating each other) before introducing the actual Justice league. Hopefully they’ll try and make them a bit more different to the characters they are blatant subversions of, otherwise it’ll damage the credibility of the originals.

There’s also the issue that they are basically all Black Adam and so when they engage with the actual Justice League it’s basically going to be that same story again. Again, a strange choice. However, they are obscure enough that Gunn probably feels he can do whatever he wants with them and figures he can turn them into another GOTG or Suicide Squad. Honestly though I’m not interested in this. I’m bored with subverted superheroes, popular culture has been swamped with them for a decade. We need to get back to the roots to remind us what is even being subverted. If I was more cynical I’d say they only picked this one because of the gay superheroes.

Paradise Lost (TV Show 2025/26)

Described as Game of Thrones but set in Themyscira. Game of Thrones isn’t easy to pull off, indeed not even Game of Thrones always managed it. Indeed it failed spectacularly in the end. So unless they have very talented show runners and actually get George R.R. Martin to write it (Which he’d probably do; anything to avoid actually finishing the next GOT book), it is likely the only thing it will have in common is the boring bits. I mean imagine all the conspiracies in gardens without anyone pulling off the shock factor. It’d basically be like all the scenes from The Witcher season 2 without Geralt in. Boring. Really boring. So I don’t hold much hope.

There is potential to set up some big events here, but the trouble is (As I think Marvel are discovering), most people will watch the movies, but very few will watch all the shows and all the movies. So if you don’t want to put people off the movies, you can’t make it a prerequisite to enjoy those movies to have watched the shows. So the truth is there is only so much they really can set up. If I was more cynical I’d say they just wanted a show with a majority female cast so they could say “Look, female characters!”.

The Brave and the Bold (Movie probably 2026)

Based on Grant Morrison’s work featuring Damian Wayne. Damian is Bruce Wayne’s biological son with Talia Al Ghul. He was raised to be an assassin, so he’s a little broken psychologically. In the comics, Bruce “Died” and Dick Grayson took over as Batman for a period and Damian became Robin. When Batman returned from the “Dead” he continued as Robin and after Flashpoint reset the universe and Bruce became Batman again, he continued to be his sidekick.

Now the question is, how does that possibly work for a first Batman movie for this new universe? You need a Batman old enough to have a kid and chances are he won’t be a ten year old like he was in the comics when he becomes Robin. So we’re probably looking at a Batman no younger than 35. Likely already well established. Meanwhile Gunn is apparently aiming for a younger Superman’s first day at the Daily Planet. This younger Superman, older Batman dynamic is suspiciously similar to Zach Snyder’s set up. It seems like a missed opportunity to pair two younger actors together. I can only hope that they won’t place this Batman too close to the end of his career.

One of the most frustrating things about Batman in the old DCEU was that they were constantly hinting at stories that were in the past and that sounded far more interesting than what they were actually putting on screen and largely made Batman seem like a has been. That’s not the way you should treat your top IP and make no mistake, these days Batman is way more important than Superman. DC’s tactic right now seems to be to hammer it with three separate franchises, “The Batman” with a younger Batman, but no larger DCU, “The Joker” with no real Batman but in a variation of his world and this older DCU version. I’m not sure this is a smart play.

Honestly as far as “The Batman” goes, they should really have either scrapped the film series or merged it into the new DCU. Having it run alongside it makes no sense. This isn’t exactly a really out there “Elseworlds” Batman, it’s just another darker, grittier Batman. While I didn’t like the movie, the casting was fine and nothing was broken. But if Gunn really wants his Batman he should have scrapped the future plans for that one. Instead it looks like they are trying to contrast them by making the character older again and this is disappointing. Still, we’ll see, maybe the movie will be good. At least they are actually introducing their Batman in a stand alone.

Supergirl: Woman of Tomorrow (Movie probably 2026)

Based on Tom King’s work. That’s not good. That’s never good. The guy has written some of the most hated DC comics in recent years and it’s not bad writing but what he actually does with the characters that puts people off. This Supergirl will be a bitter twisted mess. It does contrast her with Superman of course, but not sure how likeable people will find the character. I also feel like introducing Supergirl so fast is a mistake, but it’s notable that Gunn talked about the “Bat Family” when talking about his Brave and the Bold movie. So if that movie sets up the Dark Knights family, this sets up Superman’s. Of course we also have multiple Lanterns right out the gate too.

I’m not sure diluting the water is that sensible, when you have such a variety of superheroes to draw from, putting all these “Family” characters into the shared universe right away seems the wrong way to go. In the case of Batman and the Lanterns it perhaps is just to pad numbers for epic fight scenes down the road, but Supergirl is being introduced in her own movie, she could have just as easily been Wonder Woman, Black Canary or Zatanna. Unique characters that don’t need life trauma to make them different from Superman. I get that Supergirl would eventually need to join the DCU, but this seems rushed.

Booster Gold (TV Show probably 2026)

Booster Gold is a very obscure character only DC comic fans will know, but he is popular amongst those. Gunn describes it as basically being the story of a loser from the future that goes back in time to the modern day so he can use future technology to be a Superhero and be popular. The character is an obvious one for Gunn really since it’s basically all his male leads. But that’s a problem too, how is this character going to feel unique if someone like Peacemaker is still in this shared universe and with his own TV show?

My feeling on this one is it will probably be funny, but it’s also yet another subverted Superhero character. When everything is a subversion, nothing is a subversion and Gunn needs to be careful not to make the majority of his DCU a subversion of superhero tropes. This seems to be the way it is going so far and that is not what is going to turn DC into a true rival to the MCU. I’ve said it many times before, but we are so far into subversion and deconstruction that these originally interesting writing tactics have just become clichés and what the public really needs, especially in a time when people are so divided is actual, traditional superheroes that are aspirational and universal.

Swamp Thing (Movie 2026/27)

Said to be “Tonally different to the DCU” but a key part of events (So not Elseworlds, despite the fact some media outlets are claiming it is). This I am looking forward to. It was a real shame the Swamp Thing series got axed right out the door (due to a messed up tax break situation I believe). Swamp Thing is a great character and I hope they focus this on the Alan Moore run and use it (though not in the first film) to introduce John Constantine to the DCU.

The thing is though, so far the trend has been for Gunn to follow Marvels current direction of adapting far more recent material instead of the more popular classics. So we will have to see if we get Moore’s version of the character or something else. Either way though, if they really double down on the horror tone this could be a great movie. On the other hand, I hope Gunn doesn’t direct this or if he does he doesn’t make it a comedy horror like his previous horror films (Remember Gunn started out at Troma). This needs to be a more serious affair.

But then this is a constant worry with Gunn. All his work so far has had a similar tone to it and that’s not what you want for every DC project. There are a lot of modern directors out there that simply can’t stop themselves from making every film about themselves (e.g. Taika Waititi who has made some good films, but every film has his stamp all over it, often to the point where it is more about him than the franchise he’s working in), if Gunn is going to make his DCU a success he needs to be a little bit more invisible and just provide what the film needs instead of showcasing James Gunn tropes and style all the time. If he can do that, he can do well.

Red Flags.

Ultimately while this is a fairly disappointing reveal with a large amount of red flags and one that will likely stir extreme anger from Snyder fans and the more obsessive Henry Cavill supporters, all that really matters is that they nail Batman and Superman. Those two have to be the main pillars of any shared DC universe and that universe can only ever be as strong as those characters. It really can’t be overstated, if they want to rival Marvel they need to weaponize their top assets. While neither of their movies scream “Masterpiece” just from the pitch they don’t sound terrible either. I don’t see any reason for them not to be able to pull them off and if they do they don’t need everything else to land. So with that in mind they announced the films and that is what matters.

The next tier of DC heroes (The B-List if you will) is Wonder Woman, The Flash and Green Lantern. Wonder Woman is the third most popular hero in DC and the most popular female superhero there is full stop, but the only mention of Wonder Woman at all is through the Game of Thrones knock off show in her homeland. It seems Gal Gadot isn’t continuing in the role, so there must be plans to introduce a new actress as some point, but probably not in that TV show (As Gunn would have mentioned that and it’d be silly to relegate your third most popular hero to a TV show anyway). It’s odd too that they are introducing Supergirl before Wonder Woman, again pushing duplicate “family” characters instead of embracing variety.

The Flash Situation.

The fourth most important character in DC is The Flash and this is a big, big issue for Gunn. Ezra Miller is both a terrible Flash and someone that constantly attracts terrible publicity to the point that many people will simply boycott his movies just because he is in them. This is guy that is mentally unstable and is regularly in trouble with the law (For everything from grooming, kidnapping, breaking and entering, theft, assault and running a cult… I should add most of that is accusations, but he was found guilty of the B&E and at least one of the assaults was captured on camera). If Superman and Batman can be pillars, Ezra Miller has the potential to be a fault line under which those pillars are built.

Currently Warner is publicly suggesting they support the actor but they really need The Flash movie to be a success as it sets up the new DCU. It was be logical to dump the actor after the film, but you still need a Flash. They need to find a way to justify the character changing the timeline in such a way it actually radically changes his own appearance. Either that or just switch actors like Marvel did with Hulk and War Machine and not even mention it. Whatever they pick, they need to get Miller as far away from their plans going forward as possible.

Underappreciated Heroes.

As for Green Lantern, this is a character that has never been given the respect he deserves on screen. The Fifth most popular DC hero and yet all he’s had is a bad movie and now a TV show that has to have multiple Lanterns in. This seems a waste, but hopefully the pair can move over to the big screen at a later date. At least they will be in place and with two there they have two chances to get it right.

After the top five, DC should really embrace it’s variety. There is a very big C tier including the likes of John Constantine, Hawkman, Zatanna, Martian Manhunter, Green Arrow, Cyborg (Safe to say that will have a change of actors), Aquaman (We still don’t know if Momoa is continuing in the role, though he’s hinted he isn’t) and Shazam (Likewise and Black Adam being canned possibly bodes badly). It would be a mistake to ignore this tier just so Gunn can try and find the next Guardians of the Galaxy. Many of these characters have never had movies either.

Missing An Open Goal.

There are two Superman related characters that would actually be perfectly well suited to James Gunn’s style and neither of them got a mention. Those are Bizarro and Lobo. Films with those two could be incredibly fun and Gunn would have been perfect to write and direct them. So I can’t help but feel a little disappointed he hasn’t opted yet for either, but I still suspect after the Aquaman film comes out they will announce Momoa is departing that role but will be Lobo instead. I hope that is the case anyway.

So that’s my thoughts on the announcements. Ultimately there were a lot of strange choices and disappointing omissions but there is potential here so I’m not rage quitting just yet. I will give them at least until their Superman film has a trailer and that will be a long time off. At the same time though I don’t feel at all enthusiastic about the various remnants of the previous regime we have to get through before we get a sniff of the direction of this new DCU. If other people feel like I do on this, that’s at least three movies likely to flop in a row, maybe four if no one gets on board with Blue Beetle.

Then we have the new Superman movie sandwiched between two Elseworld Batman movies (Joker II and The Batman II). That’s a good run of films, but if DC has four flops before that, will it be able to recover? Also will it confuse the audience to place the launch of the new DCU between two movies not even set in the DCU? Honestly, Warner still largely seem like they don’t know what they are doing. Time will tell however.

The Menu (2022)

Posted on by fenrisfil

Tonight’s movie is technically this is classed as a horror comedy, but it’s really a nihilistic dark comedy with an emphasis on the nihilism. Directed by Mark Mylod (Whose only previous feature was 2011’s Romcom “What’s Your Number?”) and is written by first time feature writers Seth Reiss and Will Tracy. The movie stars Ralph Fiennes and Anya Taylor-Joy with notable support from Nicholas Hoult and John Leguizamo. This movie has had a pretty positive reception but audiences are torn between people saying it’s the best movie of last year (It’s not) and those were more sort of “Meh” about it. So where did it land for me? Let’s have a look.

Starters

The setting for the film is a trip to a special exclusive restaurant based on a remote private island. Naturally such a remote location never bodes well in a movie for those foolish enough to go there and this is no exception and naturally as the extravagant multi-course meal goes on it becomes increasingly clear there is another agenda to this meal. It is hard to get further into the story and to a lot of my criticisms without hitting spoilers, so I am going to save that until the end. For now all you need to know is that the guests have all been invited specifically, with the exception of Anya Taylor-Joy’s character “Margot”, who is a last minute replacement.

Since Margot was never intended to be there not only does this provide an element of the plot (As the spanner in the works) but also provides an outsiders view into the events and the crazy world the rest of the characters seem to inhabit. Anya Taylor-Joy provides as solid a performance as I’ve come to expect from her, but it is Ralph Fiennes as the broken, vengeful “Chef Slowik” that steals the show here. Hoult gives a pretty solid performance as the obsessive fanboy “Tyler” but doesn’t have much asked of him and Leguizamo is just sort of there and I can’t help but feel wasted.

Main Course

The movie certainly has it’s charms both in concept and in the performance of Fiennes, but it is also very slow, plodding and predictable. The most notable aspect is an overwhelming sense of inevitability and going through the motions. Slowik is motivated by the fact that he feels the focus on pretentious highbrow cooking has robbed him of all the enjoyment he used to have for his art and he blames his high class clientele for leading him to this point, so he he plans a pretentious and ironic recipe for revenge on those he feels are most to blame.

The revenge plays out through a series of twisted courses with his victims ranging from rich investors, to restaurant critics, to an obsessive fanboy (Hoult), to an actor that just happened to be in a movie he didn’t like when he needed cheering up (Leguizamo). None of the courses though, outside the final one are actually directly about inflicting violence on the customers, because as I said, this isn’t actually a horror. Most of these events play out completely without surprise and in at least one instance the obviousness of the event is frustrating to watch, though I can’t help but wonder if that is somewhat of the point since the Nihilism and Fatalism seem to be strong themes here.

– – – SPOILER TERRITORY – – –

Obviously a key part of the plot revolves around Margot. As soon as she arrives on the island it causes a disturbance in Chef Slowik’s plans and eventually he confronts her so he can determine if she belongs with the dinners or the staff. The decision though isn’t about if she will live or die as Slowik’s plan includes all their deaths regardless of which side of the counter the are on. So to save herself she needs to find some way of convince him she shouldn’t be on either side. This is eventually done when she is randomly given the freedom to travel about the island and decides to have a look at his private residence. There she notices early photos of the Chef working as a short order cook, flipping burgers and apparently very happy doing it.

It’s worth noting that at this point she is still trying to save everyone so doesn’t just take the opportunity to escape, instead calls for help from a coast guard who all too predictably turns out to be working for Slowik (That was a real low point for the movie for me). However, after that plays out she makes one final gamble complaining about the quality of the food and demanding a cheeseburger, which Slowik provides and then allows her to take the rest of it she couldn’t finish “To go”, basically letting her escape. Partially because this probably reminded him of a time he was happy but also because of her compelling rant which showed she really understood. The rant is interesting here, because it is a rant that could equally well be applied to the film itself.

– – Deserts (Still Spoilers) – –

The cheeseburger rant is about how the focus on being clever with the cooking and appealing to an elite few that are more interested in being pandered to then actually enjoying the food has drained all the joy out of the experience for both the clientele and the cooks. This can be seen in the film itself with how easily everyone but Margot become resigned to their fate. When the final moment comes they all seem largely dispassionate about the whole thing, like it is almost ceremonial. On one hand this shows the movie is dedicated to it’s own themes, but on the other hand I couldn’t help but wonder if they had considered the same argument could be put towards movies too and that the main issue with this movie is it is totally lacking in the “Cheeseburger factor” itself.

That’s the thing, because the movie is designed to seem clever, but it plods through the story joylessly throughout. Despite being labelled as a horror comedy there are no real moments that indulge for horror fans or really that are likely to make anyone laugh, except perhaps that kind of fake laugh people make when they want to show approval of something clever but that they don’t actually find funny. There also aren’t really any individual scenes that actually stand out. It only really works as a package deal, all together, much like the menu chef Slowik has prepared in the film itself.

Conclusion and Coffee

The key here is the film is the movie version of just those kind of “work of art” menus. It’s not an emotional experience, instead It is one that needs you to stand back and appreciate the whole thing as one piece. It’s hard to get past the fact the moral of the story is apparently that art like that is not really a good thing without a bit of joy thrown in too. So the question is, do the film makers really believe in their own conclusion or do they only consider that an issue for cooking only and not entertainment? As a result this movie leaves me somewhat torn. What I do know is that I am not likely to come back to it.

The movie did keep me interested and was definitely well made, but that’s about it. Had I seen it last year it may have made my top ten, but it wouldn’t have been near the top 5. Conceptually interesting and helped significantly by a great performance from Ralph Fiennes, but at the same time it is a melancholy experience with no real fun to it whose end is more like a toilet flush after a satisfactory bowel movement than a crescendo in an emotional orchestral score. A joyless, yet strangely compelling cerebral offering distinctly lacking “Cheeseburger” this movie is a 6/10.

Rating: 6 out of 10.

2023 – Overview Of Upcoming Releases

Posted on by fenrisfil

While 2022 may have been a poor year for the box office and feature an abundance of bad movies, you can see from my top ten it wasn’t totally devoid of quality. The truth is though only the top five was something special and the rest was just above average movies that wouldn’t bother a top ten list prior to around 2016. So does the outlook seem any better for 2023? Let’s have a look, genre by genre.

AI Generated, so don’t bother trying to figure out what the movies are.

Horror

There are a LOT of franchise movies coming in 2023 in the horror market and I can’t say I’m excited for any of them. These include Scream, Evil Dead (reboot), The Nun, The Exorcist (reboot), Saw, Salem’s Lot (reboot), The Meg, Insidious and The Strangers (A reboot of a movie not even 20 years old, that I slammed in my first October Horrathon in 2021). None of these have me excited and none of them will get me in the theatre but I will no doubt watch them all once they are on streaming. A more interesting one though, which could also be a total disaster is the possibility of a “Gremlins 3” movie around Christmas time. There is no trailer and few details so hard to say if it’ll even make that date.

How has it taken so long for someone to use this name for a horror story?

There’s a couple of very loose sounding adaptations in the works too. One for Michael Gilio’s “Dark Harvest” and one for Stephen King’s “The Boogeyman“. However, both have synopsis’ that sound radically different from the story in the book. The Boogeyman especially sounds like a totally different film with the title slapped on top, something that always used to happen with King’s books and I guess what was old is now new. Dark Harvest meanwhile has switched the focus from the monster as the hero to two kids (A boy and a girl) that want to share the prize.

It’s worth noting both of these were male focused stories (Only boys can take part in the competition in Dark Harvest in the book and The boogeyman’s story is focused on two men in a room), so it sounds like have been re-written for modern Hollywood to make them more female focused. We’ll see if “Dark Harvest” still has anything to offer (the shift away from the monster as lead is the real issue here), but I don’t hold a lot of hope for “The Boogeyman” given how little it has in common with the original story.

Another horror with a creative marketing campaign. This time sending AI’s to stalk people on social media. Creepy!

Four of the higher profile original movies “M3gan” and “Knock at the Cabin” , “The Pope’s Exorcist” and “There’s Something Wrong With The Children” seem at least on the surface to feature heavily familiar tropes and not especially original stories. That said though they all have potential and perhaps even enough to get me to see them in the cinema, especially M3gan and Knock at the Cabin.

Speaking of familiar tropes 2023 also features two new Dracula movies each with their own specific take on the tale. One with Nick Cage focusing on (and named after) “Renfield“, Dracula’s insane minion and the other “Last Voyage of the Demeter” based on his voyage to England from Transylvania. While I probably wouldn’t bother with yet another Dracula film, Nick Cage has been on fire lately and both these films have interesting angles on the story. I will at least be keen to see a trailer.

Alexander Skarsgård may not be box office gold, but he certainly picks interesting movies!

Perhaps the most original looking horror movie in 2023 though appears to be the Brandon Cronenberg directed Alexander Skarsgård movie “Infinity Pool“. The movie sounds like a lot of crazy weirdness and who doesn’t love crazy weirdness? The trailer certainly looks interesting and it seems the apple may not have fallen too far from the Cronenberg tree (Yes, he is David’s son) because if I didn’t know better I’d think this was one of his father’s films. Oh, almost forgot, out very soon is the fun looking horror comedy “Cocaine Bear” likely to get Elizabeth Banks back in peoples good books.

The most generic looing action movie posters ever.

Action

Like most recent years the action scene has been dominated by franchise movies and 2023 looks to be no different. Some are the usual cynical cash ins but there are a few that are worth keeping an eye on. Top of that list would be “Mission Impossible – Dead Reckoning – Part One“, this is the big finale to the entire franchise and while it will probably get a reboot (Let’s remember this started as a TV series before Cruise rebooted it to the big screen) that will be the end of Cruises run with the iconic franchise. At some point he will just be too old to do his own stunts and it seems he wants to bow out of the franchise while he still can. No idea if the story will be good, but expect something spectacular in the stunt department.

May even have a plot this time, but let’s face it, if the action is as good as the last three we won’t mind either way.

Another sequel that will have a lot of people excited is John Wick: Chapter 4. While the writing quality has dropped since the first movie the sequels continued to deliver spectacular fight scenes and solid pulp style entertainment. With things heading towards an end game for the franchise Chapter 4 promises a step forward with the world building and story, while continuing the trend of high octane action. Not wanting to be left out of the sequel game though is Netflix who are planning to release “Extraction 2” at some point in the year. I haven’t watched the first one, so can’t say if that is worth being excited over.

Ewar Woowar would be proud, even if someone stole all the D’s from his name.

A couple of unexpected action film returns that may also prove to be solid entertainment are “The Expendables 4” and “The Equalizer 3“. But with Denzel now 68 and Sly 76 these certainly represent a challenge in believability. I am fairly confident in the Equalizer after the first two movies, but the Expendables 3 was a bit of a clanger so the fourth movie could go either way and for an action star 76 is a lot harder to sell. Obviously Sly will bring in some new blood, but that was part of where the third movie fell apart so fingers crossed he can find the right balance this time.

No, I don’t care either.

At the “Why did they bother” end of the returning franchise scale is the tenth main Fast and Furious movie. I’ve still never watched a single one, but I don’t really feel I’ve been missing out. At some point I’ll remedy that but for now I just have no interest in “Fast X“. While I may be indifferent to that franchise, one that I am very actively dreading is “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny” where an 80 year old Harrison Ford is forced to don the hat and whip one more time just so Disney can milk a few extra dollars out of the franchise and probably try and pass the torch on, like anyone one else can possibly fill that role. Something they already tried and failed to do years ago with the poorly received fourth film.

What year ending in a number is complete without Guy Ritchie making a movie with Jason Statham?

So that’s the franchise films, but what about the rest? There are a few interesting ones here, so let’s start off with Guy Ritchie’s two entries into 2023. First up is “Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre“, which teams Ritchie back up with his regular star Jason Statham and from the looks of it may be the start of a new Statham action franchise. Does he really need another one? Probably not, but lets face it they are always, especially when Ritchie is involved so let’s just roll with it.

The second Ritchie movie, “The Covenant” is a bit more out there with the setting switched to Afghanistan and featuring the bravery of an Afghan interpreter attempting to carry an injured army sergeant (Played by Jake Gyllenhaal) across hostile terrain. Ritchie doesn’t always do well outside his comfort zone so that one could go either way.

The real mystery is who wrote the book and why did Apple pay so much for it before it was even released?

Of the rest of the action slate three in particular stand out for me. The first is the Apple Original “Argylle” featuring Henry Cavill as a superspy. There is however very little to go on with this one, the teaser just shows him dancing with his co-star and while it is based on a book, the film was greenlit before the book was released, the author doesn’t appear to actually exist (Suggesting it’s a pen name for someone more famous) and I can find no reviews or useful information about the plot of it.

The best information I have suggests a sort of “Last Kiss Goodnight” kind of story where Cavill stars off unaware that he is actually a superspy and has to be woken up to it by another field agent (possibly Catherine O’Hara or Bryce Dallas Howard’s characters in the film). The movie is planned as a trilogy so if Cavill doesn’t get the Bond gig, he may have a spy franchise anyway.

A movie about Gran Turismo doesn’t sound that interesting but add in Neil Blomkamp and you have my attention.

The next movie of note for me is Neil Blomkamp’s return, with the movie “Gran Turismo“. Named after the video game and about a champion player that became a real life race driver. This is on the lighter end of the action genre and a long way from what you expect from Blomkamp, so it’s a definite wildcard but it’s certainly going to be interesting. Last on my list to watch is the Nick Cage western The Old Way. The plot seems about as classic a Western tale of revenge and redemption. Not particularly original but Cage has been on form in recent years and I can’t wait to see how this turns out.

Along with these the movie will also see a new action moviess from some of the usual names in the genre including Dwayne Johnson with “Red One“, Gerard Butler with “Plane” and Tom Hardy with “Havoc“. The later two have interesting enough plot synopsis but couldn’t guess on quality from them and The Rock’s entry has no plot information released yet.

I’m not saying the market is oversaturated but even the AI drew like double the number of posters for Superhero movies than any other genre.

Superhero

Well…it can’t possibly be worse than 2022’s Superhero slate turned out right? Not that I would have predicted a Batman movie that fell apart in the final act or a Thor movie that draws comparisons with “Batman and Robin”. “Black Adam” turned out the most enjoyable of Superhero film of last year, but was still a flawed beast so can we do better this year? I’m going to break down this one in the order of what I think most likely to be the better movies.

Potentially the last good MCU movie, so enjoy it while you can!

Top of the pile is almost certainly going to be Guardians of the Galaxy vol.3. While some weren’t keen on the second movie, most enjoyed it and everyone seems to universally like the first. This is the teams final outing and will no doubt be an emotional journey as well as a fun one. It’s almost certain at least one of the team will be dying here, so bring your hankies. This is also the only Superhero movie of the year likely to break the billion dollar mark.

That’s it for the sure things. The next few on my list are more in the “Could go either way” territory. Starting with the most obscure character out this year “Blue Beetle“. The protagonist for this movie is Xolo Maridueña, a name that doesn’t likely ring a bell but if you are a fan of Cobra Kai (And really, you should be) you’ll recognise him as Miguel from that show. He did such a good job in Cobra Kai I am certainly rooting for him bring this relatively unknown DC character into the limelight. Sadly though however it turns out chances area this is a one off as it is technically a part of the old DCEU universe and not James Gunn’s new DCU.

Zachery Levi has my respect, so I really want this to be good, but I fear the worst.

Coming in off a rather poor looking trailer is “Shazam! Fury of the Gods“. This is a tricky one because the trailer for the first film didn’t totally sell it either and yet it turned out to be surprisingly good. It helps that Zachery Levi is very good as the character, but can he surprise people twice in a row? Again though, he is part of the old DCEU so expect this to be his final appearance.

Following on from that is the long delayed “Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom“. This is likely an editing mess due to all the scrapped plans and Amber Heard controversy. Michael Keaton shot scenes for the film, but isn’t in it. Ben Affleck may or may not be in it. Basically it’s a mess, but the previous movie did well so who knows. What is certain is Momoa is done in the role after this, but will be back in the new DCU likely in the role he was born to play – Lobo and that is a movie I am really looking forward to!

Ant Man and The Wasp and Old Wasp and Young Wasp and Kang the miniature and Bill Murray for some reason.

Next in the “Either way” category is “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania“. This movie looks like a mess that exists to drive forward the larger story of MCU phase 5. As fun as Paul Rudd was in the role, his part has was diluted in the last movie and looks to be diluted even further here. On top of that the entire movie seems to be CGI, which means it will be expensive and largely look like a video game. Odds are this won’t be that good, but there is a strong cast so perhaps if the movie is character driven there willb e something to enjoy in it.

Let’s be honest, people will watch this movie for Keaton’s return as Batman. No one cares about Ezra Miller as The Flash.

Speaking of movies that look like a mess, the potential disaster that now looks to be the final entry in the old DCEU is “The Flash“. Much like the rest of the DCEU, it brings an idea to the table long after Marvel has already exhausted it, in this instance it is the multiverse. An idea that has potential for sure but after Spider-Man did it and Doctor Strange sort of did it and after the CW did it in their DC TV shows it has far less value as a gimmick. People will be excited to see the Michael Keaton cameo and perhaps that will make the whole exercise worthwhile but it’s hard to get over the sad fact that Ezra Miller is both an abysmal Flash and not a very nice person.

Kraven the animal rights protector

Over to Sony next to see if they can bring out something even more meme-able than 2022’s Morbius. Honestly this is entirely possible for their “Kraven the Hunter” movie seeing as it appears they have gone the route of making Kraven the Hunter an environmental activist motivated by protecting endangered species. All very noble but doesn’t really fit a character known as “The Hunter” famous for hunting dangerous animals (and people) for sport. Indeed it’s sort of bizarre. Kraven may actually be the best Spider-Man villain never seen in a movie, so I’m not going to totally rule it out as potentially good, but the odds are against it. Especially with how they botched Morbius.

Now for the almost certain dumpster fires. I’m not even going to dwell on these but fighting it out for worst superhero movies of the year are likely going to be franchise killer Seth Rogen’s attempt with “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem” and the movie no one asked for “The Marvels”.

Is it just me or does the top left movie look like Lucasfilm made a film about the life of Owen Lars?

Science Fiction

Not the biggest year for Science fiction in 2023, but there what it lacks in quantity it may make up for in quality. We have potentially four franchise movies and a couple of original movies of note. The biggest movie of the year though, maybe in general and not just in science fiction is the second part of Denis Villeneuve’s Dune series. Simply called “Dune: Part Two”. This is the conclusion of the story of the first book (and the story depicted in David Lynch’s version in the 80’s). This has a whole lot more going on than the first half of the story and could be a truly awe inspiring movie. Probably something you want to see in IMAX.

Well, it’ll probably be better than the later Bay movies anyway.

2023 also sees a new Transformers film in “Rise of the Beasts“, which seems to be vaguely a sequel to Bumblebee and a prequel to the Michael Bay movies but not really committed to either. Like Bumblebee it looks like they have made an effort to make the characters look more like the toys but I haven’t seen much evidence of quality outside of that.

Joining Transformers in making a return is Ghostbusters, But with a December release date tentatively scheduled for the Afterlife sequel, few details and no teaser it remains to be seen if it will make it out before 2024. Hopefully we’ll get some details in the new year. The final franchise movie returning in the genre is The Hunger Games with it’s prequel movie no one asked for “Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes“. The movie follows the rise of the main series antagonist. Maybe it will be a surprise, but I doubt it’ll be a hit.

Why they didn’t just do a Turok movie I don’t know.

The two original movies that have caught my attention for 2023 are the Spacemen Vs Dinosaur movie “65” with Adam Driver. The idea is obviously a bit of a novelty but the trailer looked good and Adam Driver is a decent actor so definitely worth checking out. Another film due out early in 2023 is Universal Pictures “Distant“, which seems to be a space disaster movie (along the lines of “Oxygen” or “The Martian”). I’ve not seen a trailer and there doesn’t seem to be one which is odd for a movie due out in January, which does not bode terribly well.

Is it just me or do these all look like book covers?

Fantasy

Very little to talk about in the fantasy area and only one that involves traditional sword and sorcery fantasy. That would be the second attempt at a “Dungeons and Dragons” move. The first attempt back in 2000 was a total disaster, but the trailer for this at least looks entertaining. The table-top game is probably more popular now than it was in 2000 (Largely thanks to Stranger Things) so I imagine it’ll do reasonably well in the cinema. Hopefully it’ll be worth the price of admission!

Timothee Chalamet to take on Sand Worms and Oompa-Loompa in 2023

A movie that may turn out to be a surprise family hit is “Wonka“. On the surface a Chocolate Factory prequel may not sound like much but with Paul King, director of both Paddington movies behind it, it could turn into a surprise hit.

In the are of not remotely interesting to me is Disney’s live action version of The Little Mermaid. I’ve never seen the original animation and so was never going to be interested in this, but let’s face it most of these remakes have been bad and I don’t expect this to be any different.

9/10 of these movies have anthropomorphic animals in.

Animated

Animation had a few successes in 2022 but also the two biggest box office bombs. This year looks a bit more promising with at least two guaranteed hits and a few interesting originals. The two obvious hits are the sequel to Sony’s well received Spider-Verse movie “Spider-Man across the Spider-Verse” and the heavily anticipated “The Super Mario Bros. Movie“. These are likely to be the Sonic 2 and Minions 2 of this year, but that doesn’t mean either will be good. I have mixed feelings on both, but I’d say I was overall cautiously optimistic. I’m not a Nintendo fan especially, the only console of theirs I ever owned was the N64, but I know there are a LOT of fans out there looking forward to this.

The War of the Rohirrim

A surprise franchise return for 2023 is “Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget“. While the original was a good fun film, it came out in 2000 and so it’s hard to say how well a sequel nearly a quarter of a century later will do, especially with an entirely new set of voice actors (Which is quite baffling). Another surprise this year is “The Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim“, this anime style story is from Warner Brothers and is being directed by anime legend Kenji Kamiyama. It is heavily influenced by the movie series. This will likely be pretty good so keep an eye out for it in April.

While a lot of Disney’s output this year is on the cringe side, they may surprise people with an animated feature this year as they have chose with “Wish” to return to hand drawn animation, something they’ve not done since Princess and the Frog in 2009. The movie may well still be bad, but it will at least look good. Disney’s Pixar meanwhile are sticking to their familiar style with their new movie “Elemental” which sounds like a fairly generic kids story about getting on with people different to you. “Trolls 3” is due out next year too, I’ve never watched any of the others so am totally indifferent to that.

Yes apparently according to AI al you need for a comedy film is a moustache!

Comedy

I’m not particularly looking forward to any comedy movie in 2023, however that’s fairly normal for the genre. It’s not so much the situation as it is the execution that makes a great comedy and the best ones are often the least expected. So who knows which of these may turn out to be a classic. However, by far the highest profile comedy due out in 2023 has to be the “Barbie” movie. Not a movie that would normally appeal to me, but the teaser trailer was actually pretty damn funny and Margot Robbie is actually pretty good at comedy. It’s worth noting the teaser showed almost none of the actual movie, so it could go either way still.

80’s for Brady.

That’s not Margot Robbie’s only comedy this year either as she’s joining an all star cast including Tom Hanks, Ed Norton and Scarlet Johansen for Wes Anderson’s new movie “Asteroid City“. Like most of Anderson’s movie it will no doubt be highly divisive, massively praised by some and be greeted with confusion by others. Personally I find him quite hit and miss, but I will no doubt check it out. More likely to just be trash however is Disney’s new theme park adaptation “Haunted Mansion“, however it’s worth remembering that was where Pirates of the Caribbean started too and it does have an all star cast. We’ll see I guess.

I’ve not watched any of the Magic Mike movies, so I have no feelings on his “Last Dance” at all. But if you are in to those films, there is a new one (And presumably last one by that title). There’s also a remake of the 1990’s comedy “House Party” because of course there’s a random remake here too. This year also brings a trio of romantic comedies “Maybe I do“, “Your Place or Mine” and “You People” all of which I’ll skip (Not into RomComs, sorry) and a trio of sports related comedies “Champions”, “80’s For Brady” and Taiko Waititi’s “Next Goal Wins“, all of which actually look quite funny. Last but not least Tom Hanks returns to comedy for “A Man Called Otto” which will probably be out by the time you read this.

A coming of age drama about overcoming disability set against a backdrop of violence and poverty.

Drama

Last but not least are the more serious movies of the year, some of which may even find themselves up for an Oscar nomination (Not that the Oscars mean anything anymore). Even this category isn’t free from remakes though with Spielberg’s “The Colour Purple” randomly getting the treatment. I think that is the first Spielberg movie to be remade but it was only ever a matter of time. We also have a tired old franchise that refuses to die in the third movie from Rocky spin off Creed. We also see Kenneth Branagh stubbornly return with another Poirot movie, this time “A Haunting in Venice”.

Want to see nuclear tests recreated with practical effects? Nolan is your man.

A very old franchise sees a return this year as hard boiled detective Philip Marlowe is actually going to be hitting a new case with the movie “Marlowe“. This isn’t based on a Raymond Chandler book though, but a newer one written by John Banville. I’ve read all the Chandler books and until I heard about this movie I didn’t know anyone else had picked up the mantle, so I’m not sure what to expect. The movie stars Liam Neeson as the titular detective.

The most notable drama coming in 2023 would have to be Christopher Nolan’s new movie, the biopic “Oppenheimer“. The movie features the recreation of an atomic bomb blast done with PRACTICAL EFFECTS. Please let that sink in for a moment before moving on. Nolan didn’t actually set of a nuke but I think he did create the largest explosion ever done explicitly for the purpose of making a movie.

Just how much does Willem Dafoe have to do to win a damn Oscar?

Another one to look for this year is the Willem Dafoe movie “Inside” about an art thief that accidentally gets locked inside a penthouse apartment with nothing for company but priceless works of art. I think that is destined to be a good one and you never know maybe even get Dafoe a long overdue Oscar. Other dramas this year includes the Zach Braff directed “A Good Person” staring Florence Pugh support from Morgan Freeman; Hippy Awakening movie “Jesus Revolution“; The biopic for record producer Neil Bogart “Spinning Gold“; and missing person thriller “Missing“. Also (and I almost missed this, showing it’s poor publicity) Scorsese’s new movie “Killers of the Flower Moon” with DiCaprio staring, which joins Apples slate of original movies for 2023.

Release Dates

Remember these films are only the higher profile ones. Some of my favourites from last year were indie movies that wouldn’t have had any hype this time last year. Often the best things come out of nowhere and I look forward to being pleasantly surprised. This also doesn’t include any foreign language movies and most years my top ten includes at least one non-English movie. In 2022 it was an obscure Finnish body horror. So this is far from the full picture. However, given the size of this article I hope you’ll forgive me not digging in any deeper!

I’m going to finish with a quick month by month of the upcoming movies (Note, some of the films don’t have set release dates yet so aren’t included). I’ve put the movies I’m looking forward to in bold, but tell me what you are looking forward to in the comments.

JanuaryA Man Called Otto, M3gan, The Old Way,
Operation Fortune: Ruse de guerre, Plane,
You People, Maybe I do, House Party, Infinity Pool
February Ant-Man 3, Cocaine Bear, Knock At The Cabin, Magic Mike’s Last Dance,
Your Place or Mine, Missing, Jesus Revolution,
Puss In Boots 2 (UK Release Date), Distant, Marlowe
MarchScream 6, Shazam 2, John Wick 4,
Creed 3, Dungeons and Dragons, 65, 80 For Brady,
Inside, Spinning Gold, A Good Person, Champions
AprilSuper Mario Bros, Lord of the Rings: The War of the Rohirrim,
Evil Dead Rise, The Pope’s Exorcist, Renfield,
The Covenant, Next Goal Wins
MayGOTG3, Little Mermaid, Fast X,
JuneSpider-Verse 2, Indiana Jones 5,
Transformers: Rise of Beasts, Flash, Elemental
JulyMission Impossible 7, The Marvels, Barbie, Oppenheimer,
Insidious 5, Asteroid City,
AugustTMNT Mutant Mayhem, The Meg 2, Gran Turismo, Blue Beetle
Haunted Mansion, The Last Voyage Of The Demeter
SeptemberExpendables 4, Equalizer 3,
The Nun 2, A Haunting In Venice
OctoberKraven the Hunter, The Exorcist (reboot), Saw sequel, Trolls 3
NovemberDune part II, Hunger Games Prequel, Wish
DecemberGremlins 3 (Maybe), Ghostbusters 4 (or Afterlife Part II) (Maybe),
Wonka, Aquaman 2, The Colour Purple (Remake).

2022 Year in Review – Box Office Breakdown

Posted on by fenrisfil

This has been another year of huge box office bombs, but another year where the success stories show that it’s not just as simple as “Post Covid” resistance to returning to the theatres. Overall ticket sales are way down and while the past two years were lower due to lockdowns this year really doesn’t have that excuse. It’s been a year where even horror has seen numbers decline, animation has been all over the place with two big hits and two utter disasters and dramas have on the whole simply failed to find an audience with viewers likely waiting to see them on streaming. It’s also been a poor year comparatively for superhero movies with only one really living up to expectations.

This isn’t every film that was released in cinemas this year, far from it but it is all the ones I decided to keep track of. I’m not gong to cover movies that went straight to streaming here at all. The the numbers I’ve listed are my estimations on profit, not the total box office. This is a harder number to lock down and there will no doubt be some debate. My model takes into account the studio gets a higher cut of the opening week and less later and takes into account the minimum cost of P&A instead of still applying the 50% of production cost rule on lower budget films.

Anyway, I’ve split this up into sections based on how successful the movie was. From the biggest disasters to the greatest successes. Let’s dig in.

The Bombs

These are the movies that will cost the studio big time (Losing $50m or more) and will derail a number of careers. They may lead to a number of studios rethinking their strategies, though whether they learn the right lessons or not is another question entirely.

So let’s start with “Death on the Nile“, the second in the Poirot series directed by Kenneth Branagh, who also staring as the Belgian master detective. This is a classic case of over estimating the demand for such a movie and spending too much ($90m) on the budget. This is a movie that has been done better for cheaper several times before now. No surprise it ended at a loss. I expect this will end Branagh’s series or perhaps lead to a direct to streaming approach in the future.

For Warner Brothers, the bomb I think everyone could have predicted was “Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore“. Subject to a boycott from people that are angry with J.K. Rowling for saying only women can get pregnant and a far larger one from Johnny Depp’s army of fans that refused to watch the film after Warner dropped him from the role of Grindelwald, only for him to win his court case and come out looking like the abused and not the abuser. As much as people may like to argue morality on both these topics the truth is Depp is VERY popular and that was the biggest issue here. However, it doesn’t help the previous film wasn’t that well received. This lost the studio around $62m, however the IP is far from dead, so much so they are already looking into ways to reboot the main, more popular series.

The next biggest bomb of the year is sadly also my pick for best movie of the year. “The Northman“. Over time I hope it will join such classics as “Blade Runner” and “The Thing” in being bombs on release but becoming timeless classics and long term earners after. At this stage it is hard to say what the impact on Eggers career will be but losing around $85m can do a lot of damage to a career. It’s worth noting this was easily his most expensive film and if he goes back to making things a bit cheaper I have no doubt he can win studios around again. Mostly his movies have more of a highbrow audience anyway and he won’t have lost any of that. What he has failed to do though is really connect with the larger popcorn crowd. It’s a shame and a sign that we won’t be seeing the likes of Northman again any time soon, but at least we got it once!

The next clanger is another one literally everyone saw coming. “The 355“. After failures of movies like Terminator Dark Fate, Charlies Angels and Birds of Prey it should have been pretty clear that action movies that are not just female lead but lack strong male characters (A male character there just to be the comedy relief isn’t a strong male character), absolutely do not resonate with fans of action movies. It’s odd when you consider this would never happen the other way around (As male lead action films go out of there way to provide multiple strong female characters these days). This is a recipe to lose money. Charlies Angels and Harley Quinn didn’t even have big budgets and still bombed so the 355’s $75m budget was pretty much box office suicide.

The movie ended up losing about $100m, more money than it cost to actually make the film, meaning had they taken the “Batgirl” route, turned it into a tax write off and buried it in the desert with all those copies of E.T. The Video Game, it would have turned out far better for the studio! This is a good one to point to when someone says they don’t understand the logic in writing off Batgirl. Of course we don’t know if Batgirl would have performed this badly and female lead action movies can do well providing they don’t neglect the male characters along the way, but it does explain why it can be better to write movies off sometimes.

Joining the 355 in losing about $100m and being better off for the studio as a tax write off is the all star period murder mystery “Amsterdam“. Costing $80m to produce Fox/Disney (It was probably greenlit under Fox) must have been hoping the cast would be enough to get bums in seats but apparently not. It’s worth noting none of these stars have been immune to underperforming movies in the past, not even the very talented former Batman, Christian Bale.

Margot Robbie especially has been plagued with a string of bombs and if her upcoming Barbie movie doesn’t draw, she could find herself relegated to TV movies and horror films. Fortunately for her, that movie will probably do well, but then Fox no doubt thought the same about Amsterdam. Maybe murder mysteries are just not in vogue these days, but losing more than your production budget is a sign of there being more wrong than failing to find the popcorn crowd.

So what was the biggest disasters of the year? Well that’s a double whammy and both are animated Disney movies. It’s interesting to note the studio that made it’s name on it’s animation now appears to be being destroyed by it. The two films in question are the ill advised Toy Story spin off “Lightyear” and the more recent movie “Strange World“, crashing Disney’s bank balance by $162m and $161m respectively . Between them they cost the studio over $300m, effectively wiping out everything they gained from their most successful movie of the year, “Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness”.

I think we need to jump right in and address the elephant in the room here. Both these animated kids features are incredibly woke. It is pretty clear that many parents don’t really want to take their children to see something they see as woke propaganda and it’s worth remembering that perception is everything. It would be one thing to have those elements in the story but when the marketing heavily focuses on it and executives at Disney are outright admitting their agendas it can’t really be denied or covered up. Even Lightyear, jumping on the back of the hugely successful Toy Story franchise failed to really utilise that link since they recast Buzz Lightyear and went out of their way to tell us it wasn’t directly related.

The Flops

The Flops are the movies that lost money, but were within a debatable range where heads probably won’t roll over it and the studio will likely shrug and move on. These movies likely won’t get sequels though and it certainly suggest mistakes were made. Narrowly making it into this category is “The Woman King“, losing a mere $13m. Likely enough that half the internet will call it a huge success and the other half a huge disaster. The truth is it’s more sort of “Meh”. As a historical film a sequel was probably never on the cards anyway.

A film that unsurprisingly failed to resonate with it’s franchise fan base is “Clerks 3“. Since Kevin Smith went from criticising Hollywood and being the voice of the fans to a full 180 and started criticising the fans and being the voice of Hollywood it’s not a shock that most of his audience for his own projects had totally dried up. At this stage he needs to either totally reform his public perception or reinvent himself creatively and find a new audience. He certainly didn’t do himself any favours with his lies and bait and switch approach to the Masters of the Universe series and with a second season of that due next year his movie career could well be over after that. Clerks 3 lost around $19m and that is on a low budget so those loses will have quite a sting to them.

In the category of “Why?” is the remake of Stephen King’s “Firestarter” that simply failed to heat up audiences with a loss of around $20m. That’s low enough it’ll probably make up the difference later and it probably won’t stop them doing more Stephen King remakes. However, I doubt we’ll see a sequel to this one. Honestly the first movie wasn’t that great anyway but one thing it does have in common with this is that the Soundtrack was better than the film. The original was of course provided by Tangerine Dream, while the remake was done by John Carpenter. Perhaps as a nod to the fact that Carpenter was originally going to direct the first film and if he had perhaps we really would have had a classic.

The biggest Horror film failure this year though, at least financially goes to the movie “Men” losing somewhere between $20m and $50m. It’s hard to be precise as there is no official listing for budget with a good $10m variation in estimates and it’s impossible to know the precise P&A value. Not a huge surprise, given the movie comes across as confusing and potentially woke. I’m not sure it is the latter but I think confusing is more than fair.

Landing as both the least successful superhero movie of the year and arguably it’s best is The Rock’s “Black Adam“, losing around $32m (Though it’s still in a few theatres so may squeeze that down a little). Dwayne Johnson can take some solace of the fact that his movie was well liked by those that did bother to go see it, but clearly a spin off from Shazam isn’t quite the career vehicle Dwayne may have thought it was. The final scene of the movie teases a stand off with Henry Cavill’s Superman and sadly that will be the final appearance of either in those roles. Both have gracefully taken their final bows via Instagram posts with very respectful comments to their fan bases and without burning bridges with the studios.

Michael Bay will no doubt be very disappointed his pretty decent action movie “Ambulance” flopped to the tune of losing around $34m. While it wasn’t going to bother my top ten list this year, it was a fun popcorn flick and pretty decent for a Michael Bay movie. However, I think the film’s name failed to sell the action and the truth is Bay isn’t the draw he used to be. I dare say we haven’t seen the last of Bay though. His next movie sees a return to robot movies, but this time not transforming ones.

The Also Ran’s

Some movies only just scrapped into the black and while it won’t make or break any career, it leaves some potential to become cult classics or at least earn a substantial amount on streaming and Blu-ray sales. First up is “Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent“. In theory it lost about $40m in theatres, however this was a movie simultaneously released directly to streaming (A rarity for this year), so it can’t really be judged like most releases. The movie has been well received so I think it will likely make up for that shortfall.

“Morbius” narrowly made it into the black with a profit likely around $1m. Possibly the ill advised re-release may have turned that slight gain into a loss but I’d say overall the movie will be very much in the “Meh” category. Which really defines the movie too. Not bad, not good, not a success, not a failure, it’s the most just there Superhero movie ever made. Apparently “Morbin’ Time” means an abundance of mediocrity. Not much ahead of that is the DC Animated movie “League of Super Pets“. The movie actually looks quite fun but the DC brand was at an all time low so it was only able to generate around $2m in profit.

Not quite over the line into the black but losing so little it is within the margin of error are the movies “Don’t Worry Darling” falling short by about $4m and “Downton Abbey: A New Era” throwing away around $7m. The latter could possibly be written off by having a more mature audience that are likely still wary of covid, but it also may just be that the Downton effect is starting to wear off as we get further away from the peak of the series. Another movie losing by a small margin in “The Menu“, which has garnered positive reactions from both critics and the audience but looks set to fall short by maybe as much as $9m

Below Expectations

These are movies that are comfortably in the black but represent a far lower level of success than would be expected for the genre, franchise or stars involved. Sometimes these movies can actually earn over $100m in profit and still be a disappointment to the studio. It’s all about the context.

“Nope” did reasonably in theatres earning around $25m in profit, but was notably weaker than past Jordan Peele outings. It seems the honeymoon period may be over for the controversial comedian turned director or else he’s just suffering for the mixed reaction to his previous film “Us”. Speaking of Horror, “Halloween Ends” made a solid $36m in profit. However this represents a substantial drop off from the second film in this trilogy and a huge drop from the first (Which did insane numbers), I think Blumhouse may feel a little short changed. The movie was badly received too, so I don’t think they’ll be rushing out to replace Michael Myers with a new killer any time soon. Expect a 5-10 year hiatus and a reboot.

“Thor: Love and Thunder“. Despite earning a $142m in profit, made less than half the profit that Doctor Strange 2 managed and performed far below what Disney must be expecting from it’s MCU movies. “Black Panther: Wakanda Forever” managed to outperform that with around $175m in profit (and did especially well in the US), but still far short of where the bar had been set this year. It seems that right now Marvel’s movies are reliant on their proximity to a Spider-Man movie to get anything close to the audiences they garnered in phase 2 and 3. Phase 4 is absolutely a failure by comparison and if they don’t start turning it around the MCU is in real trouble.

“The Batman“, earned a profit of about $234m. On the surface you’d think the studio would be happy with that substantial gain, but this is one of the true A-List superheroes and right now the number two most popular superhero in the world (After Spider-Man). He should be easily doing double that and Warner/DC knows this well. Things are being shaken up over DC these days with James Gunn taking full control of the DC movies and no doubt will be wondering if this version of Batman is worth a continuation or if it is best to leave it as a one off.

Also disappointing financially was Sandra Bullock’s “The Lost City“. Actually a good, fun adventure comedy that showed Sandra still has it, Channing Tatum can actually be good in comedy and Brad Pitt is cameo gold. The movie was comfortably in the black but only making $18.5m in profit for a film with a $74m budget is probably uncomfortably close for the studio. However, the film has been positively received and I have no doubt will do well on streaming. It wouldn’t surprise me if some time next year they announced a sequel. After enjoying this, I’d certainly check out a sequel if there was one.

Meeting Expectations

On occasion a movie achieves exactly what the studio expected, no more, no less. These movies will be treated as a win by the studio, likely will lead to sequels but probably won’t impact other movies at the studio by contrast. The “Scream” reboot for example drew in about $40m in profit. That may actually be a little below what they were hoping for but given they instantly green lit a sequel it’s safe to say the studio were content with that profit margin.

The sequel (and sixth Scream movie) lands next year, but given the reaction from fans was very mixed for this I suspect the sequel will end up disappointing financially by comparison. We will see. At the other end of the scale though is “Violent Night“, only making around $10m at most but likely wasn’t expected to do much more than that. The positive reaction however may lead to a more financially beneficial sequel. I’m not sure it needs one however, the movie was a classic but how many Christmas movies (Aside from Die Hard) had worthwhile sequels?

The action films “Uncharted” and “Bullet Train” managed to find enough of an audience to make substantial games ($85m and $35m respectively). Uncharted of course is based on a video game while Bullet Train was original. Perhaps this shows you just how much the video game market can impact sales these days. Bullet Train was undoubtable the better film, but while it didn’t make as much as uncharted in the theatre I have no doubt it will make more money in the long run through Blu Ray sales and streaming. It definitely has more rewatchability. Still the studio will be happy with what it made up front. Uncharted is almost certain to get a sequel, but I don’t think one was ever on the table for Bullet Train.

“Doctor Strange: In the Multiverse of Madness” was both Marvel’s first movie of the year and it’s most successful. The film managed about $350m in profit, but it definitely wasn’t due to the quality. The lure of cameos, the knock on effect of following the hugely successful Spider-Man: No Way Home and the possibilities of the multiverse, all likely helped. Ultimately the movie only achieved an average box office for an MCU movie with a major star and a key story arc. It’s not great for phase three but after the lacklustre output of most MCU movies last year this was probably as good as they could expect.

The Dreamworks animated comedy “The Bad Guys” probably hit just about where the studio expected netting a healthy a profit of around $40m. Animation has been frankly all over the place this year, but it is good to see a fun original story giving a solid performance. It probably has a sequel on the table but they may want to see how the streaming numbers go first.

“Jurassic World Dominion” meanwhile landed itself a huge profit of about $350m, for the third of a trilogy for a major franchise and with the return of characters from the original film this is probably about what they were hoping for. It may even be under their expectations.

Last on this list is “Elvis“. With Tom Hanks as the movie’s true lead Colonel Tom Parker, this extravagant biopic cost $85m to make and as such was expected to turn at least $50m in profit. The end result was around $70m so job done. I’ve not seen this yet, but most that aren’t too hung up on historical accuracy seem to have enjoyed it.

Success Stories

Every year there are a handful of movies that far exceed all reasonable expectations of the studio. These movies not only get hurriedly tagged for sequels (Where appropriate), but also tend to lead to studios revaluating their priorities going forward. These films may be low budget dramas or indie movies hitting far above average for those genres, horror films landing like superhero movies or big budget action movies hitting the coveted $1b mark or beyond. The actual numbers vary wildly but within their own play pen of budget/genre people will be taking notes.

Over the last few years Horror has become an easy genre to make money with and even though several of the films didn’t live up to expectations (Both in quality or receipts) almost all of them made bank. One movie though made a real killing beyond expectations and that is “Smile“. Beaming wide at a huge profit of around $110m and possibly propelled by the ingenious marketing campaign of having the movies stars standing around staring blankly at sporting events with creepy smiles on their faces. The movie also had a great trailer and solid word of mouth.

On were also a couple of lower budget non-horrors that bucked the trend this year. First up the movie “Dog“. Obviously movies about dogs always draw in a bit more than similar ones just about people. We love our doggies, I get it. But I still think the studio were probably surprised a drama with a $15m budget pulled in a solid $20m in profit. Some possibly would label this as even more successful (If they didn’t take into account the minimum cost of P&A), but either way it’s still a big win. I haven’t seen the movie but I hear it is a good one.

The other movie bucking the trend for low budget, non horror success was “Everything Everywhere All At Once“, if you’ve seen my top ten you know I highly rate this film and it was my number 3 movie for most of the year (Only dropping down to 5 this December). The movie managed to draw in a respectable $27m in profit which for a movie that cost only $25m in production is a definite win. It’s also been a rare movie that wins over both the woke and the anti-woke since it gives both parties things they want. Given the message of the movie is about bringing people together and getting over our differences it is almost poetic it has that universal appeal.

There’s been a couple of big success stories on the animation side this year too (Causing further embarrass those huge bombs mentioned earlier), both however are sequels to established franchises. First you had “Sonic the Hedgehog 2” hitting about $140m in profit and then you had “Minions: The Rise of Gru” hitting a staggering $310m in pure profit despite (I hear) not even being that good. Minions it seems is a licence to print money. Sonic meanwhile has built up a good reputation between it’s two movies of both quality and success and showed that sometimes you can make everyone happy.

Easily the big winner of the year though is “Top Gun: Maverick” bringing in a staggering $750m of profit with a global box office exceeding the $1b mark. This has been a clear lesson to the movie industry that respecting the IP, respecting the fans and respecting physical stunts/effects can be a recipe for huge earnings. Whether the industry will actually learn that lesson or not remains to be seen. It is a stubborn beast and it may just end up making more movies about planes instead. Given Paramount has had a lot of financial issues and failings over the previous years I’m sure they at least will take note.

End of Part 2

That’s it for the year in review. I hope the recap of this years winners and losers was interesting. One final note, I haven’t covered “Avatar: The Way of the Water” here, partially because it’s still in full swing at theatres and partially because while my figures would suggest it’s $1b+ box office already has it in profit, Cameron himself is suggesting it needs to make closer to $2b to break even! So I don’t know where to place that one. Anyway, that is it for 2022, I will be posting a look at the movies to coming up in 2023 in the next few days to see if there is anything worth getting excited over. In the meantime, Happy New year!