Delayed Reaction: Now You See Me 2

The Pitch: You think Now You See Me was improbably and barely held together? Just you wait.

A lot of people complain about franchising and I get it. All the studio money is going into a very few properties. No one ends up taking a chance on new ideas and the whole industry gets stale. That's the running theory. I don't agree with that. Not entirely. At the end of the day, my only concern is if it's a good product. If I had to pick between a bad original movie and a good sequel, I'm going to pick the sequel. Normally, I'm focused on the 2 hours while I'm watching a movie, not what those 2 hours mean. No, what I think we could all use less of is unintended franchises. You know what I'm talking about: hit movies that weren't designed with a sequel in mind but got one anyway. Just look at a list of worst sequels of all time. Son of the Mask, Jaws: The Revenge, Speed 2: Cruise Control, Caddyshack II, Exorcist II: The Heretic, Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2, Basic Instinct 2 (and I could keep going). None of these movies were designed with a sequel in mind*. And it shows.

*Yes, there are plenty of intended sequels that were pretty bad too - Batman & Robin, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Spider-Man 3 - but those almost all have additional considerations for why they are bad beyond being sequels.

Now You See Me 2 is a textbook example of why it's best to leave well enough alone. Technically, it's not an awful movie compared to the first. If you recall, I had plenty of issues with the first movie. It's just...nonsense. Utter nonsense. I refer to my One Big Leap often because I think it's a good principle. Literally, every single explanation of a trick/illusion in this movie uses up my big leap. Everything about this plot is a "go with me here" explanation and I have no patience for that. Either be clever enough to prepare for all contingencies or own up to the nonsense. If every "master plan" relies on chance, then that's just lazy screenwriting. You know what the crazy thing is? If they didn't spend so much time trying to explain how each illusion works, I would've been less bothered by them, but the movie invites me to question it. And, under the lightest of scrutiny, it doesn't hold up.

If I can find a way to get past the screenplay [which I can't], there's a lot about the movie which is pretty terrific. They bring back Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Dave Franco, and Mark Ruffalo, all playing to their strengths. While I'm sad to see Isla Fisher go**, Lizzy Caplan could not be more in her comfort zone. And I'll never complain about having Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman in a movie. Daniel Radcliffe didn't add much to the movie, but it's a net-plus convincing Harry Potter to play the villain in a movie about magicians. If I could find a way to turn my brain off at all, I'd enjoy this movie. That's a non-starter though. All my issues with the first movie were just amplified.

**Real talk for a minute. I was reminded a lot of The Karate Kid: Part 2 (another terrible sequel) with how they wrote around the casting changes by slipping in an early line of dialogue and never again acknowledging how Ilsa Fisher (and to a lesser extent Melanie Laurent) are missing.

Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The Secret Life of Pets

The Pitch: Pets have lives even when their owners are away.

This is an OK movie. The best animated movies tend to leave a little room for heart and the rest of the time is a showcase for all the jokes the writer(s) can come up with. In that respect, I have no complaints about The Secret Life of Pets. Like Zootopia, it's packed with in-jokes about different animals that mostly work. The voice cast is on-point. I would not have thought of Louis C.K. as the voice of Max yet it works surprisingly well. Kevin Hart , Eric Stonestreet, Jenny Slate, Ellie Kemper, Albert Brooks. It's hard to argue with that lineup.

I can't with this movie though. I just can't. I know it's silly and nonsensical, but I still spent the whole damn time figuring out the logistics of it. None of this world makes sense. Wouldn't the owner with the poodle get noise complaints from all the heavy metal music being played? What happens if the owners return before the pets are back in position? How does a bunny drive a car? Wouldn't hundreds of animals showing up on a bridge in New York City make national news or get the National Guard called? I know the point isn't to get caught up in that, but I couldn't help it. From a One Big Leap perspective, I couldn't process it all.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Movie Reaction: The Mummy

Formula: The Mummy * The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

I think it's evident by now that I find the business end of movies nearly as interesting as the films themselves. While there's few things better than sitting down in a movie theater and discovering a new favorite film or seeing a filmmaker try something I've never seen before, I spend just as much time at home tracking studio strategies, box office results, and shifting audiences trends. In that respect, The Mummy is a very interesting movie. Of the studios, Universal is the one most suited to compete with Disney's market dominance. Between Jurassic World, the Fast and Furious franchise, and the massively successful animated films from Illumination Entertainment (Despicable Me, The Secret Life of Pets), they have a lot of golden geese already. However, they want in on the extended universe business that has been printing money for other studios. Since Disney (Marvel) and WB (DC) already have the comic rights*, they have to come up with something else. That something else is the Dark Universe - their name for a shared universe with all the classic horror movie villains like the Mummy, Frankenstein, and Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde.

*Fox too, since they refuse to let those X-Men rights lapse despite have no clear plan for where to go with them.

The Mummy is the first film in and a less than encouraging start to the Dark Universe. The movie begins with Nick Morton (Tom Cruise) and his put-upon partner, Chris Vail (Jake Johnson) in the Mesopotamian desert looking for priceless artifacts to loot. They are officers with the US Army but mostly play by their own rules. Nick is roguish and charming. Chris is nervous and exhausted by Nick's antics. Classic adventure movie duo. Despite being in Iraq, they stumble onto an ancient Egyptian tomb*. Then attractive female scientist, Jenny Halsey (Annabelle Wallis), who Nick of course had a fling with before the movie begins, shows up to investigate and explain what they find in the tomb. As you can imagine, they end up unleashing a mummy intent on destroying the world. Along the way, they meet up with a man (Russel Crowe) who leads a group investigating creatures like mummies and vampires - kind of a SHIELD for monsters. Nick also has a curse that ties him to the mummy for some reason. And, that's about it.

*For non-map whizzes out there, even though both are Middle-East-ish, that's a long distance away.

A Quick Warning: Before I get any further, I want to make a note of something. When I saw this movie, I was very tired and just about anything would've made me nod off a little. There's a chance that some of my appreciation of the film was impacted by this.

There's a few ways for a movie like this to work well. It could populate the world with interesting characters and a charismatic lead. It could create a memorable villain who threatens to take over the whole movie. It could string together a story that surprises you with each new development. Or, it could produce exciting sequences that drive the movie. The best movies do several or all of these things. The Mummy doesn't do any of these things.

The characters are duds. Tom Cruise takes all his movie star charm he's picked up from films like Mission Impossible and Knight & Day and uses it to animate a character that doesn't otherwise exist. His character is a generic Indiana Jones. By the end of the movie, I didn't know him any better than I did in his first minute. Wallis' character is a non-factor on her own and she also has little chemistry with Cruise. Johnson is there for comedic effect that never materializes. When looking back, his entire character feels like it was written in on the margins of the final draft of the screenplay right before shooting started. He exists to explain things that we could've intuited on our own. Crowe is pure exposition. Virtually every scene with him should've included a title card at the bottom of the screen reading "Look for the sequel in Summer 2019". And let me be clear, I like many of these actors in many other roles. They try to save these characters as much as they can, but there's not enough there to begin with.

The mummy was a bore. I haven't seen Sofia Boutella in much, just Kingsman and Star Trek Beyond. She's an OK actress, but if you cast her, it's because you want a character with some physicality. The woman can do some acrobatic moves. Mostly, Boutella is used in The Mummy to walk around menacingly or jump around in the shadows. The CGI effects do most of the work for her.

The story is too complex too be effective. It takes a little too much structurally from a Robert Langdon novel by tying everything to Crusade knights, missing jewels, and undiscovered tombs. I feel like a lot of this was done to move the action from Egypt to London so they could introduce the tie-ins to later Dark Universe installments.

As for the action sequences, they were uninspired. If you told me they were all designed so that Tom Cruise could do as many as possible, I'd believe that. There's one in which a plane is crashing and rolls Cruise around like he's in a giant clothes dryer. Another one is the classic "run out of a building as things keep exploding a half a pace behind you". It was all very manufactured. The horror side of things weren't much better, relying on a bunch of jump scares and weird body contortions.

One last thing, and this could be more about the specific audience for my showing than in general. The jokes bombed. Jake Johnson's character is there entirely to add some laughs and Tom Cruise is usually good for a couple as well. Not this time. Whenever the movie hit a beat that I could tell was supposed to get a laugh, there was silence. It was bizarre. Normally there's a least some polite laughter or people laughing because they are conditioned to. There's was almost none of that [that I could hear]. There is a reason for that. The jokes weren't very good. It's not like people were passing up killer material. I don't remember the last time they were this rejected by an audience.

The Mummy is by no means unwatchable. It's more like the inverse of Wonder Woman last week. Wonder Woman is a movie that does no one thing exceptionally. It just does everything well which elevates the film overall. The Mummy doesn't do anything unforgivably poorly. It does a lot of things not very well, which drags it down overall. This is looking more like another Sahara or Golden Compass*, than an Iron Man. If nothing else, this isn't an encouraging start for the Dark Universe.

*Sahara was a Matthew McConaughey bomb that was one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time . It only made back about half of its massive budget in the US and made even less internationally. It was intended to launch a series of adventure films and be the next Indiana Jones. No sequel was ever made. The Golden Compass is the is the 2007 film, intended to be New Line's next The Lord of the Rings, that was so expensive and did so underwhelmingly in the US that it crippled the studio beyond repair. Three month after its release, New Line stopped distributing films independently.

Verdict (?): Strongly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Changeling

The Pitch: A mother in the 1920s with a kidnapped son battles the LAPD when they refuse to admit that they brought back the wrong kidnapped boy and pretended he was her son.

Changeling is several movies. It's the story of a woman trying to find her missing son. It's the story of a woman trying to expose an LAPD cover-up when they bring back the wrong boy and pretend he's her son. It's also about the investigation of a serial killer. As a result, the movie is too long and doesn't know where to end. I'm not sure if that's a consequence of the script or if no one knows how to tell Clint Eastwood "No". The up and down pacing of the story plus the time period it's set in reminded me a lot of The Shawshank Redemption, but that movie is an outlier in almost every way. It shouldn't work but it does. Changeling is more of an example of how structuring a movie like this normally goes. By the end of the movie, I just wanted them to settle on a stopping point. The LAPD cover-up which is how the movie was sold had been over for a while. The cover-up was exposed. The trial had concluded. The son's probable murderer had been killed. They kept finding excuses to not end. That got fatiguing.

The movie is fine though. I needed an Angelina Jolie fix and got one. The production design looks good. I like the 1920s/30s aesthetic and always appreciate it being done well in a movie. In the earlier parts, Eastwood does a great job showing how helpless Jolie's character was to fight the LAPD, due to the nature of their position vs. her standing as a single mother in the 1920s. So, yeah. I like it. I just needed less of it.

Some other thoughts that have no value but I still wanted to bring up:

-The main note I made while watching this movie was "Man-splaining: The Movie" and I don't think that's inaccurate.

-I think I need a new section in all these PG-13 movie Reactions for spotting the "Fuck". As I like to point out often, one of the quirks of the MPAA rating system is that, traditionally, PG-13 movies are allowed to use "fuck" one time. So, the game within the movie become about seeing how each movie burns it off. In the case of Changeling, it was an excellent use. I forgot who she was talking to (probably Jeffrey Donovan), but at some point, Angelina Jolie tells some cop or detective "Fuck you and the horse you rode in on". That's a terrific line!

-This is the most minute of points, but I couldn't resist. Jolie's character makes a bet with a co-worker about who would win the Academy Award for best picture. They paint it as Cleopatra being the favorite and It Happened One Night (the eventual winner) as the underdog. So, I looked it up. Both films were tied for 2nd most nominations that year. Cleopatra's were for more technical awards. It Happened One Night was nominated for the "Big Five" awards (Picture, Director, Actor, Actress, and Screenplay) and is one of only three films ever to win all five of those awards. Look, I wasn't there at the time, so I don't know what public sentiment was. However, I think this movie gave the wrong impression about the 1935 Oscar race.

-Finally, I'm not the only one who didn't remember what the son looked like at all by the time the fake son was found, right?

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: What's Up, Tiger Lily?

The Pitch: Woody Allen and friends re-dub a Japanese spy movie to make it about something else entirely.

Here's the idea: No filmmaker is as prolific over as long an amount of time at a major level as Woody Allen. Not that I know of, at least. So, I think it would be fun to work my way through as much of his filmography as I can to trace his evolution as a filmmaker and maybe see how that's reflected in the larger cinema landscape. In other words, how is a 1980s Woody Allen movie from a 2010 Woody Allen movie and are they different in similar ways to other movies from both of those periods? This isn't a formal project like Club 50 was/is and there's no timeline on it. In fact, I doubt there will ever be a formal examination of it where I explain my findings...That kind of makes this entire paragraph pointless. Oops.

That nebulous project is the only reason I bothered with What's Up, Tiger Lily? It's Allen's debut directorial feature and that's apparent. Before this, he was mainly known as a writer and performer. What's Up, Tiger Lily? is a clever way to break into directing, because he really didn't direct it in the traditional sense. He rewrote it and reedited it. There's a couple new scenes in there, specifically with The Lovin' Spoonful. However, he didn't do any of the directorial heavy lifting. That'll begin with Take the Money and Run a few years later.

What's Up, Tiger Lily? is reminiscent to what Will Ferrell and writer Andrew Steele like to do: movies in which the joke is the premise (Casa de Mi Padre, A Deadly Adoption). This winks a lot more though. It's fully addressed as one big joke. I wasn't surprised to learn that apparently Allen made this as a TV hour and the studio turned it into a theatrical release after the fact. The humor is thinner than I'd expect from Allen's work even a couple years later like Love & Death or Sleeper. The parts I most enjoyed were actually the cutaways to Woody Allen that explained the movie. Allen is a gifted comedic performer. He hasn't actually tried in years, so people have forgotten that. In 1966, he was still young and hungry and knew how to milk a laugh out of a line read as good as anyone.

This is a forgettable movie. It does help mark Allen's transition from writer to writer/director in a way that makes a lot of sense though. And, for that reason, it has value.

Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend

Delayed Reaction: The African Queen

The Pitch: Hepburn and Bogie on a boat for 105 minutes.

Katherine Hepburn. Humphrey Bogart.

That's all I needed to know. What I didn't realize is that it was a John Huston film and it won Bogart his only Oscar. In other words, this has all the credentials it needs. Following in the long tradition of the Oscars, this isn't the performance I'd've liked to see Bogart win the Oscar for (that would of course be Casablanca), but if it's the movie that finally made him "Oscar winner Humphrey Bogart", I'll take it. Hepburn was just as good but already had her first Oscar by then. It's interesting how she won three times in her last three at bats with the Academy, late in her career after a long cold streak. That's beside the point though.

I'm not sure that I agree with where AFI ranked the movie all-time in 1998 (#17) or even in 2007 (#65), but it was enjoyable. And, it had a scene with Bogart and Hepburn doing animal impressions/taunts. How can you hate that?

I feel like I need to see Romancing the Stone now.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Movie Reaction: Wonder Woman

Formula: (Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice - Man of Steel - The Dark Knight) ^ All Quiet on the Western Front

I love tracing the studio battle between DC and Marvel. For decades, DC was the undisputed champ, starting with Superman in 1978 and continuing with Batman in 1989: Two mega-hits that solidified the age of the blockbuster. Then, DC came down with a bad case of Bat-nipples and left an opening for Marvel to give movies a try. Blade had been doing OK through the 90s. X-Men proved to be a hit in 2000 and Spider-Man broke box office records in 2002. DC quickly responded with the Dark Knight trilogy and a failed Superman reboot. It was Marvel who stumbled onto the winning formula with 2008's Iron Man by bringing all the properties they could into the same shared universe. However, DC was the one dominating the box office that year when The Dark Knight became (at the time) the third highest grossing film of all time in the US and only the fourth film to make $1 billion worldwide. After they couldn't convince Christopher Nolan and company to stick around after his trilogy was complete, DC was four years behind Marvel on the world-building. In 2012, it was Marvel's Avengers breaking records and DC's Dark Knight Rises lagging behind. Since then, DC has been working hard to "catch-up" to Marvel. Man of Steel was a perfectly fine introduction. Batman vs. Superman had a litany of problems though, that could be summed up as "too much, too fast". Suicide Squad had the problem of being too different too quickly. It's like the old writing adage [that I might be making up], "you need to prove that you've learned the rules before you can start breaking them". They were trying to break the formula by following villains turned heroes before they had mastered making a standard hero story in a share universe. Finally, that brings us to 2017 and the most encouraging DC film in almost a decade: Wonder Woman.

Why is it encouraging? Because it's DC going back to basics. Wonder Woman tells  the story of Diana Prince (as she is known in the present day), played by Gal Godot. She's raised on island that was hidden from the rest of the world by the gods and run by the Amazons. She is trained to be a great warrior and taught that basically everything in Greek legend is true (and in this world, it mostly is). One day, a WWI pilot (Chris Pine) crashes near their island. He's pursued by some Germans who are held off by the Amazons. This pilot, Steve Trevor, leads Diana to England, then mainland Europe where she is determined to end the great war by defeating the war god Ares, who she believes is forcing men to go to war with one another. And the movie recognizes that this is all pretty zany. A lot of fun is had with how little Diana fits into WWI Europe. You can see a lot of previous superhero movies in this one. The wartime period setting calls Captain America: The First Avenger to mind. Diana's fish out of water response to the world reminded me of Thor. The focus of the movie wasn't on creating some huge spectacle or one-upping Marvel or previous DC films. The film isn't an extended universe delivery system either. The idea for this film is simple: let's introduce Wonder Woman. That's all it's wants to do and that's what makes it so good.

It's ironic that by taking a step back from playing the Marvel game, DC ends up beating Marvel to a lot of firsts. Wonder Woman is the first female lead protagonist in a film in either extended universe. Director Patty Jenkins is the first woman to direct a superhero film and broke all sorts of opening weekend and overall records in the process. However, none of this would matter to me if the film wasn't any good*. And, this is the best reviewed of DC films since Christopher Nolan was working with them. I wouldn't call this film exceptionally made in any specific way. Rather, it's a collection of things done well. Wonder Women has a better sense of fun than the previous DC movies without losing the stakes. It switches between lighter and serious moments comfortably. The WWI setting is a refreshing change of pace and handled as seriously as a superhero movie can handle a real war. Jenkins holds back during the action sequences when needed, which is a nice change from something like Dead Men Tell No Tales last week that was a mess when the bullets started flying. Jenkins is more in  love with the slow motion shots than I was as an audience member. The film still struggles with some of the sillier comic book trappings in the same way all superhero movies do (i.e. the lasso of truth will always be a little silly, just like Dr. Strange's cape is). This is the thousandth iteration of the "men are capable of great evil but also great love" story I've seen, but they don't belabor the point too much.

*OK, yes, it does matter, big picture. It just doesn't matter for this Reaction. I'm all for more diversity of voices in film (or in anything). More voices means more variety which invariably means more quality. That just makes sense. Hopefully this success and other films that are already in production with female directors and leads will mark a lasting shift rather than a blip in the business.

The cast really shines throughout. Gal Gadot plays the titular heroine perfectly. I remember when her casting was first announced, I was worried. At the time, I only knew Gadot as the eye candy from Fast and Furious movies. I thought DC just cast the first 5'10 model who could pass a screen test. She made a believer out of me in only a few minutes of Batman vs. Superman last year and Wonder Woman only solidifies that belief. She pulls off the physicality. She has superpowers but also skills. Even if she wasn't a goddess, I'd believe she could kick some ass. She is good enough at getting a laugh, normally out of a physical gag, and she can sell a dramatic beat even if the dialogue she has to deliver is a little clunky. She has great chemistry with Chris Pine*, who is playing the "Chris Pine in an action movie" role. He's a little jaded. She's a little naive. There's a yin and yang to what they bring to the relationship. She's undeniably the hero of the story but he is also heroic. He takes away from her no more than Peggy Carter takes away from Captain America. The rest of the cast is enjoyable. Back on the island of Themyscira, Robin Wright and Connie Nielsen bring gravitas as the lead Amazons. I can't say any other characters matter. The other men on Diana and Steve's team are entertaining character-types who probably have names I'd recognize if you said them to me. The villains are thin, mostly by design. I doubt we are ever returning to WWI Europe, so it's fine if Diana is the only person with dimentionality by the end of the film.

I'm really not a music person. I like music, but I can't speak intelligently about it. That said, the theme music DC has developed for Wonder Woman is superb. Even going back to BvS, when that music starts playing as shit's about to go down, it's electric. Wonder Woman needs to show up in as many movies as possible just so we can get to that moment in any movie.

I really liked Wonder Woman. It's an efficient superhero movie that stands alone. It's familiar in all the right ways and different in enough ways that it doesn't feel like a rehash. It's not subtle thematically and the final battle feels a little tacked on, like some executive said, "She's a superhero, dammit, so make her have a 'super' fight." It's never boring though. I left this more excited by what's next in the DC universe than any of the previous films have. I'm perhaps a little higher on this than I should be, but that's what lowered expectations do.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Pete's Dragon

The Pitch: We [Disney] are on such a hot streak right now, we might as well.

Pete's Dragon is a pretty simple movie and that works. It's not flashy. It has the lowest profile of any of Disney's recent batch of live-action remakes, so the modest box office numbers are fitting. Pete's Dragon is tucked away in the Disney catalog, just like the logging community in the movie is in a quiet corner of the country. That's where Disney gets you though. People immediately think of the big movies when they think of Disney, but the reason the brand is what it is is the movies that are the next tier down: the Meet the Robinsons and Enchanteds. These are movies with heart that people forget about too often.

The original Pete's Dragon isn't very good, but it had a good idea behind it. That's the best kind of movie to remake, because there's room for improvement. This updated version looks great. It has a great cast, but no one is sucking up all the air (i.e. "It's a movie with Robert Redford. It's not a Robert Redford movie."). The end hits all the right notes. It's hard to find much bad to say about the movie, except that maybe it's a little too quiet. Looking back, I don't know how this managed to fill 102 minutes. However, while watching it, it didn't drag. It doesn't seem like it should be possible to be slow without dragging.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

Delayed Reaction: Arthur

The Pitch: A drunk millionaire tries to get out of his arranged marriage.

Some movies don't make sense on paper. Like Arthur. Trying to describe the movie, it's hard to make Arthur sound likable. He's a spoiled, alcoholic millionaire who has to marry the beautiful daughter of his father's business acquaintance or else he's cut out of the will. The movie opens with him picking up a prostitute and making an ass out of himself everywhere he goes.

And that's where casting [and writing] matters. I can't imagine anyone other than Dudley Moore playing the role, because he makes Arthur so much more lovable than he should be able to be. Moore mastered the "man-child" role  25 years before Judd Apatow redirected the comedy scene with that character type. I'm not sure how much of the likability is that laugh of Moore's or his unrelenting British-ness. I'm pretty sure the biggest reason that character works is because John Gielgub's Hobson tolerates him. It's a classic case of "he likes him, so I can too". It's a simplistic but effective character-building tool. I haven't seen Liza Minelli in much other than her more recent work, but her role in Arhtur is well-suited for her.

Oh, and "Arthur's Theme (Best That You Can Do)" has been happily stuck in my head for several days now. I really can't argue with that song being an Oscar winner.

Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend

June Movie Preview

I'll go ahead and say it. May was a bust. The couple big movies that came out were underwhelming and the art-house circuit didn't offer much. Thankfully, the release schedule is cyclical and June is stacked.

2017
 Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May  
2016
Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec  
2015

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | June | Jul | Aug | Sept | Oct | Nov | Dec 

2014

Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

2013

Mar |  Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec

6/2

Wonder Woman
The origin story of Wonder Woman in the days of WWI.
Working For It: DC is getting off the world-building express lane and making a standalone film. In doing so, they are finally beating Marvel to the punch at something: making a film with a female protagonist as the main character. Gal Gadot was arguably the best part of Batman vs. Superman. Chris Pine looks like a great sidekick. This is the most excited I've been for a DC movie since Chris Nolan was still directing them. Also, WWI is an under-served time period.
Working Against It: I spend too much time worrying about directors for these major studio tentpoles. Patty Jenkins has stayed busy with TV movies and shows since she last directed a feature film (2003's Monster). These indie directors moving to $100 million budgets have been a mixed bag so far (Jurassic World, Fantastic Four). That's the closest thing to a liability, and that isn't much. I'm not very worried.
Verdict: This shouldn't be missed.

Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie
Two students hypnotize their principal into believing he's Capt. Underpants: a superhero they created.
Working For It: As always, Dreamworks has assembled an impressive voice cast (Kevin Hart, Thomas Middleditch, Ed Helms, Jordan Peele, Kristen Schaal, etc.). Director David Soren has directed for Dreamworks before (Turbo). The screenplay is from Nicholas Stoller who is better known for writing and directing assorted Apatow/Rogen movies as well as The Muppets movies. The credentials are almost the Platonic ideal for Dreamwork Animation.
Working Against It: Stoller is not without blemishes as a screenwriter (Gulliver's Travels, Fun with Dick and Jane). Capt. Underpants is not a property that appeals to all ages. There's a fine line between a family film and a kids film. This appears to be firmly on the kids film side.
Verdict: Not worth it.

Band Aid [Limited]
A couple (Zoe Lister-Jones and Adam Pally) try to save their marriage by writing and performing songs about their fights.
Working For It: Lister-Jones wrote and directed this as well. You may remember her as Schmidt's politician girlfriend on New Girl or from Life in Pieces. She's assembled an impressive cast of "TV All Stars" (Fred Armisen, Brooklyn Decker, Jamie Chung, Hannah Simone, Erinn Hayes, and I could keep going). It's a Sundance movie and I have a well-documented soft spot for those. It looks quite charming.
Working Against It: This could fall into the same tonal and content traps that a lot of these indie movies fall into. There's no guarantee that Lister-Jones will bring anything to the direction (I feel much better about her as a writer). She's called in a lot of her friends/former-coworkers for this. Sometimes that's great. Other times, it's a sign that no one else was willing to be in the film, which is a little more worrisome. Regardless, I'm interested.
Verdict: This looks Netflix perfect.

Dean [Limited]
Demitri Martin plays an illustrator who leaves New York for L.A. rather than dealing with the death of his mother.
Working For It: As the writer/director, this looks perfectly aligned with Martin's specific sense of humor. Gillian Jacobs plays the love interest and Kevin Kline is Martin's father. That bit of casting piques my interest.
Working Against It: Pretty much what I said about Band Aid applies here. First time director. Indie movie. It could be a charming debut (In A World, Sleepwalk with Me) or a noble mess (God's Pocket).
Verdict: Less immediately appealing than Band Aid but probably still Netflix gold.

Past Life [Limited]
German film about two sisters in Berlin in the 1970s who learn about awful things their father did during the War.
Working For It: I don't recognize any of the actors or the director. Everyone tied to this seems accomplished enough. If I'm being honest, I included this because the trailer says that this is from Samuel Goldwyn productions and Orion Pictures, both of which I thought went away two decades ago.
Working Against It: They pushed the "based on a true story" angle hard. I've kind of had my fill of WWII/Holocaust stories by now, right?
Verdict: I've got a lot of other Samuel Goldwyn and Orion movies to catch up on first.

The Recall [Limited]
Wesley Snipes helps some young people stop an alien invasion deep in the woods.
Working For It: If the Wesley Snipes with a sense of humor shows up, this could be fun. It's not a high budget movie, but it looks good enough. That makes sense, because the director has worked in the art department for some huge films.
Working Against It: When Wesley Snipes and RJ Mitte (Walt Jr. from Breaking Bad) are the top billed stars in a 2017 movie, you know it's low budget. This looks like one of those horror parody movies like Tucker and Dale vs. Evil or Cabin in the Woods, except it's not playing for laughs.
Verdict: I've already forgotten about this movie.

Vincent N Roxxy [Limited]
Two strangers in a small town (Emile Hirsch and Zoe Kravitz) fall in love and try to get past the violence in their past and future.
Working For It: I like Hirsch and Kravitz in most things. It's got Zoey Deutch too. The trailer is plastered with film festival selections and awards. The marketing department wants to make it clear that this is just a generic Alpha Dog/Havoc story.
Working Against It: The director is one of those guys who has worked for several years, and I haven't heard of anything he's done. This appears to be his big break. The trailer make this look pretty generic, although it does seem like the kind of movie that doesn't get its strengths across in a trailer very well.
Verdict: It could be fun. No urgency to see it.

6/9

The Mummy
A mummy tries to destroy the world or something.
Working For It: I think we can all agree that plot is pretty secondary for this. It's Tom Cruise vs. Sofia Boutella as the mummy. Boutella is slowly making a name for herself with physical roles in movies like Kingsman and Star Trek Beyond. It also has Russell Crowe as a professor, Jake Johnson, Annabelle Wallis, and Courtney B. Vance. You can nearly piece together the story based on the casting alone and the types of parts each actor normally plays. This is Universal's first big play for their movie-monster extended universe. Even though prolific producer Alex Kurtzman hasn't directed anything this big before, I'm not worried. This is more of a producer's film anyway and he definitely knows how to function as that.
Working Against It: I get worried about any of these $100 million movies with no clear plot in the ad campaign. It can't be all about the spectacle, or if it is, it needs to be done at a very high level. I'm not convinced yet.
Verdict: I'm a sucker for an event film. It's worth seeing in theaters even though I'm not very optimistic.

It Comes At Night
In a remote forest, a mysterious creature terrorizes some unsuspecting outsiders.
Working For It: The ad campaign isn't giving much away, which is great for not spoiling the surprise, but can hurt with building the hype. I have very little idea what this is about. Mainly I'm relying on casting Joel Edgerton (and to a lesser extent, Christopher Abbott, Carmen Ejogo, and Riley Keough) and the fact that it's from A24. In general, I love what A24 has released. Their 2016 horror movies like The Witch and Green Room were quite good. This probably will be too.
Working Against It: I don't think there's enough of a hook to pair with the mystery. For all I know, this could be exceptional. I just don't know.
Verdict: More than likely, this is something to save for Halloween.

Megan Leavey
A female Marine tries to reunite with her combat dog.
Working For It: I like Kate Mara. I like dogs.
Working Against It: How is this not Max? Look, I saw A Dog's Purpose in theaters. I'm a fan of dog movies. Does there need to be a second movie about a heroic Marine dog? I'm leaning toward "no".
Verdict: Hard pass.

Beatriz at Dinner [Limited]
Salma Hayek is a Mexican healer who get invited to a dinner party with insufferable white elitists, one played by John Lithgow in particular.
Working For It: Salma Hayek, John Lithgow, Connie Britton, Chloe Sevigny, Amy Landecker, and Jay Duplass are a group of actors I would like to watch verbally dance around one another for 90 minutes. Screenwriter Mike White is perfect for this kind of the squirm-inducing screenplay. Director Miguel Arteta (The Good Girl) has the right touch to handle the topic. It's a Sundance movie too. That always helps.
Working Against It: I run hot and cold on Mike White's scripts. John Lithgow appears to be giving a committed performance for a character that I can barely put up with in the 2 minute trailer. I'm not sure I can make it through a while movie of him.
Verdict: I'm ready to ignore this one.

The Hero [Limited]
An aging Western star (Sam Elliott) comes to terms with the waning days of his career.
Working For It: In a case of life reflecting art, this is the best role Sam Elliott has had in as long as I can remember. I love that Nick Offerman plays his friend (Eagleton Ron and Pawnee Ron). Krysten Ritter, Laura Prepon, and Katharine Ross seem to have good roles too. I was going to chastise this for being yet another movie with a creepy romantic age gap (Elliott and Prepon, 36 years), but I'm holding back some, because Brett Haley's last movie, I'll See You in My Dreams, did the reverse of that, I believe. So, at least it's equal opportunity.
Working Against It: I'm not sure I see new shades to the "aging celebrity looking for meaning" story in this one. I could be wrong.
Verdict: How often are you really in a Sam Elliott mood?

My Cousin Rachel [Limited]
An Elizabethan revenge drama about a man who falls in love with the mysterious woman he believes is responsible for his guardian's death.
Working For It: I like to believe that Rachel Weisz was cast in the role because of her name matches. Regardless, I love her in just about anything. It also has Holliday Granger who I keep expecting break out in something.
Working Against It: Sam Claflin is one of those British actors who I forget as soon as he's off the screen. I can't say for sure if I like or dislike him as a performer for that reason (although it sure indicates one over the other). Roger Mitchell is a director with a very scattered filmography (including Morning Glory, Changing Lanes, and Notting Hill). I can't say that I'm aware of him taking on anything like this before.
Verdict: Soft pass.

6/16

47 Meters Down
Two women get stuck in a shark cage at the bottom of the ocean and have to get back to the surface without becoming victims of the circling great white sharks.
Working For It: This is outright an underwater Open Water and probably owes its wide release to the success of The Shallows last year. The two woman are Mandy Moore (getting a This is Us career boost) and Clare Holt (of ABC Family and CW fame). The biggest thing hurting my chances of seeing this is an actual fear of this happening.
Working Against It: Other than some questions about the story mechanics needed to set this premise up seeming a little sensational, I mainly worry because I couldn't name a single one of the writer/director's other movies.
Verdict: I'm going to let someone else tell me it's worth seeing.

All Eyez on Me
A Tupac Shakur biopic.
Working For It: I assume the success of Straight Outta Compton secured the nationwide summer release for this. Tupac has been turned into such a legend that a straightforward biopic could be nice to see. I don't recognize much of the cast, partly because they cast some newcomers and partly because Hollywood doesn't make a lot of room for young minority actors. So, I can't hold my unfamiliarity against them.
Working Against It: The standard biopic formula is getting pretty stale. The ads promise that it's the untold story of Tupac, but it looks pretty familiar.
Verdict: I have little desire to see this but not a stubborn desire not to.

Cars 3
Lightning McQueen fights becoming obsolete when a new generation of cars try to replace him.
Working For It: They are thankfully moving the focus back to McQeen and away from Mater. Pixar almost always delivers a good product, even if recent sequels have been a mixed bag.
Working Against It: Cars 2 is my least favorite Pixar movie by a healthy margin. Even Pixar execs would admit that Cars 3 exists because of massively successful merchandising that their other movies lack (except for Toy Story, obviously).
Verdict: I'm really tempted to skip this but I probably won't.

Rough Night
A bachelorette party goes horribly wrong when the male stripper dies in an accident.
Working For It: The central cast is a terrific mix of comedy people (Kate McKinnon, Jillian Bell, Ilana Glazer), non-comedy people (Zoe Kravitz), and a lead who has dabbled in comedy (Scarlett Johansson). It's from one of the Broad City directors. Thanks to the success of films like Bridesmaids and Bad Moms, hopefully films like this will be more common.
Working Against It: It looks like a mix of The Hangover, Very Bad Things, and Weekend at Bernie's. I worry some about the originality.
Verdict: The reviews would have to be savage for me to not give this a chance.

The Book of Henry [Limited]
Naomi Watts is raising a genius son who wants to help the neighbor girl who is being abused by her stepfather.
Working For It: At first, this looked an awful lot like Gifted from earlier this year. Then it reveals itself to be more like Disturbia. It's interesting that this is what Colin Trevorrow chose as his follow-up to Jurassic World.
Working Against It: I'm too used to suburban thrillers disappointing me (See: The Good Neighbor).
Verdict: Probably not worth it.

I, Daniel Blake [Limited]
I covered this a while back. My opinion hasn't changed.

Maudie [Limited]
A Nova Scotian woman becomes a semi-famous painter and falls for the gruff loaner (Ethan Hawke) she works for.
Working For It: It looks like a sweet little movie. I like Hawkins and Hawke (Ha, I just noticed that).
Working Against It: The plot seems inconsequential and the rest of the charms of the film aren't conveyed well enough in the trailer to really drum up my interest.
Verdict: I'll probably forget about it before I get a chance to see it.

6/23

Transformers: The Last Knight
More Transformers, this time, after they've destroyed the world.
Working For It: I LOVE the first movie unapologetically. I think it's a simple and effective action movie. A lot of the Michael Bay hate out there is pretty lazy and reflexive*. I actually quite enjoyed his last non-Transformers movie (Pain & Gain). Mark Wahlberg is a good lead for this kind of action movie, and he's surrounded by a good enough cast to make this work.
*It's like making fun of Nickelback. Sure, they aren't great and are more popular than they "deserve". They are still around because they've managed what talent they have effectively. There's skill in that.

Working Against It: A decade since the first film Bay and company have lost the thread of what I enjoyed about these in the first place. They keep making these movies bigger and bigger until the stakes stop mattering at all. Despite four sequels, I couldn't tell you what this cinematic universe is about. What really bothers me is this: when in the trailer do any of them actually transform? C'mon Transformers. You had one job to do.
Verdict: I'm going to see it because I've seen all of these in theaters and I'm going to hate myself for it.

The Bad Batch [Limited]
A woman moves through a cannibal post-apocalyptic wasteland.
Working For It: I don't know what to make of it. This looks like a cousin of Quinten Tarantino or Robert Rodriguez's films but with more visual flair. Suki Waterhouse traverses through this world that includes Keanu Reeves, Jason Mamoa, Jim Carrey, Diego Luna, and Giovanni Ribisi. It looks strange.
Working Against It: It looks strange to the point of being off-putting. I could see this being either really good or a complete slog.
Verdict: I don't know. Maybe. Probably. I doubt in theaters, but eventually.

The Beguiled [Limited]
An injured Civil War soldier is taken in at a girl's school and things take a turn for the worse.
Working For It: Directed by Sofia Coppola. Starring Kirsten Dunst, Nicole Kidman, Elle Fanning, Colin Farrell, Oona Laurence (Pete's Dragon), and Angourie Rice (The Nice Guys). This is the second adaptation of this novel. The first was a 1970's Clint Eastwood film. I've very excited and curious about this one.
Working Against It: As much as I like Sofia Coppola's films, I haven't seen a lot of them. I don't know why.
Verdict: I'll be seeking this one out as soon as it expands to a theater near me.

The Big Sick [Limited]
A Pakistani man bonds with his recent ex-girlfriend's family after she goes into a coma.
Working For It: This was the hit of Sundance. Married couple Kumail Nanjiani and Emily V. Gordon co-wrote the script. It stars Nanjiani in what looks like a star-making performance. It also has Zoe Kazan as the ex-girlfriend and Holly Hunter and Ray Romano as her parents. Director Michael Showalter hasn't directed a lot, but I thoroughly enjoyed his 2005 film, The Baxter.
Working Against It: It's maybe a little too similar looking to While You Were Sleeping. Different enough though.
Verdict: I'm seeing this. Done.

6/30

Baby Driver
A young getaway driver is forced into one last job before he leaves that life behind.
Working For It: It's an Edgar Wright film (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, The World's End), which should be enough to convince you. The trailer looks stylish, fun, and funny, full of interesting characters.
Working Against It: I suppose some people don't like Wright's films. I know I'm not as crazy about them as some people. I still like his work a lot though.
Verdict: In what looks like a pretty strong month, this is what I'm looking forward to the most.

Amityville: The Awakening
Another story of the haunted Amityville house.
Working For It: They assembled a decent cast (Bella Thorne, Jennifer Morrison, Cameron Monaghan, Jennifer Jason Leigh) for a fairly generic movie.
Working Against It: Oh, the PG-13 studio horror movie. Do you ever cease to disappoint? For horror ro work, I need to know it's not holding anything back. PG-13 conflicts with that.
Verdict: Hard pass.

Despicable Me 3
Gru is pulled back into a life of crime by his twin brother.
Working For It: The franchise is Illumination's hitmaker, and they put more and more into each film. I have no reason to believe this won't be as good as the first two films (or Minions).
Working Against It: I hate the Minions! For some unspeakable reason, I forced myself to see Minions in theaters. I did my time. I refuse to do that again.
Verdict: Good god, no.

The House
Amy Poehler and Will Ferrell start a casino at their house in order to pay for their daughter's college tuition.
Working For It: With Poehler and Farrell as the parents, how can I say no to this? And it's written and directed by one of the writers of Neighbors.
Working Against It: This looks more like Sisters than Neighbors and Sisters underwhelmed me. Hopefully, that's the exception.
Verdict: It looks like this will be a two movie weekend for me.

The Little Hours [Limited]
Alison Brie and Aubrey Plaza as profane nuns.
Working For It: If that last line didn't do it for you, I don't know what to say. It's an ensemble comedy cast. It looks raunchy and hilarious. It's a Sundance movie, which only increases my esteem for it. Even if the trailer only existed as a Funny or Die sketch, I would be happy with that.
Working Against It: Perhaps I'm over-hyping it in my mind.
Verdict: When is this expanding to a theater near me?