Month: September 2017

A couple of weeks ago, there have been some reports of how the box-office was doing during the summer movie season.  While these reports didn’t hand out specific numbers, they basically said that the summer of 2017 was the worst summer for movies in 25 years.  That sounds suspiciously like hyperbole to me.  So, being the intrepid movie blogger I am, I decided to actually try and take a look at the numbers and see if those reports were accurate.  Bear in mind, that a lot of these numbers are not going to include marketing costs.  Also, they aren’t necessarily going to be one hundred percent accurate because some of these companies refuse to release their numbers.  One more note before we begin, my numbers come from Box-Office Mojo.  So, if you want to take a look for yourself, I’ve included a link to their website.  So, let’s see how bad the summer of 2017 was for movies.

The first thing I did was compare this year’s summer draw to that of previous years going all the way back to 1992.  Here are the numbers, starting with 2016 going back to 1992:

2016: $4,452,138,253
2015: $4,460,872,561
2014: $4,058,023,698
2013:  $4,851,137,978
2012: $4,305,232,111
2011: $4,326,713,619
2010: $4,215,426,660
2009: $4,303,984,081
2008: $4,160,697,308
2007: $4,210,520,687
2006: $3,732,453,450
2005: $3,567,356,579
2004: $3,842,295,369
2003: $3,751,162,389
2002: $3,597,801,083
2001: $3,378,160,693
2000: $3,001,153,212
1999: $3,199,354,115
1998: $2,824,208,840
1997: $2,465,428,506
1996: $2,391,455,399
1995: $2,311,108,408
1994: $2,348,735,086
1993: $2,177,675,687
1992:  $1,656,748,641

Those are the totals for each summer going back 25 years.  These are the actual(or as close to the actual numbers as we can get) numbers for each year.  As you notice, once you get past the first decade, the numbers seem to shrink considerably.  Again, factoring in inflation, the numbers tend to get skewed a little bit.  But, as you can see, for each consecutive year, the numbers are quite impressive.  At least, until you hit 1992.  That was NOT a good year for movies at all.  It had some major hits, but it was not the most spectacular of summers.  Now, let’s take a look at the summer of 2017: $3,735,494,165.  Seems pretty impressive, right?  Wrong.  When you adjust it for 1992, this is what you get: $1,656,811,800.  That’s only SLIGHTLY better than 1992.  So, the question is: Are the reports about the 2017 summer movie season being the worst in 25 years correct?  The answer is yes.  So, what happened?

To get a sense of what went wrong, I’m going to take a look at a few of the movies that were deemed box office bombs during the summer.  I’m only going to look at the domestic take.  The first film I’m going to look at is Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales.  According to Dark Horizons, Jerry Bruckheimer came out and defended the film’s performance.  Now, the final take of the film was about 800 million, but that’s including the foreign market, where it did far more business than it did here in the states.  In the states, the film didn’t even come close to hitting it’s budget.  At 173 million dollars on a 230 million dollar budget, that’s considered a big-time flop.  Most American movie studios would prefer that their movies perform better here in the states first, before relying on the international market.  While Bruckheimer is well within his rights to defend his movie, I hope he understands that Pirates 5 is nowhere near as successful as the previous films were.  I’m not saying the film wasn’t successful, but it was certainly the weakest entry in the series, both critically and financially.

Let’s take a look at The Mummy next.  Domestic take?  80 million dollars, give or take on a 125 million dollar budget.  The movie fell flat on its face.  Why?  It’s a movie that nobody asked for with very highly questionable marketing and PR.  King Arthur: Legend of the Sword: 39 million on a 175 million dollar budget.  It crashed and burned.  Alien Covenant?  74 million on a 94 million dollar budget.  Not entirely a flop, but a major disappointment.  20th Century Fox is reassessing the future of the franchise as a result.  Transformers 5: 130 million on a 217 million dollar budget.  Are we starting to see a pattern here?  A lot of these movies aren’t even coming close to hitting the mark, at least not domestically.  Some of them have been saved by the international market, but that’s no guarantee that we’ll ever see a sequel or follow-up.  Terminator: Genisys got saved by the market in China, but Paramount Studios put a hold on any direct sequel.  We’re getting another film, but it’s not going to be a direct sequel, at least, not as far as I can tell.

So….why did these movies crash and burn and basically take the summer movie season with them?  Ultimately, I feel it was a combination of bad decision-making on the part of the studios, viewer fatigue, and rising ticket prices among other things.  Now, we’ve also had film-makers and directors come out and slam Rotten Tomatoes for the piss-poor film performance during the summer.  Even without the numbers, I can tell you that is nonsense.  Film-makers are underestimating their audiences like they have the past couple of years.  People are getting kind of tired of sequels, re-makes/reboots, and everything in between.  Not to mention the ticket prices.  The average ticket price today is about $8.85, give or take depending on the theater and location and whether or not the film is in 3D.  Let’s face it, more people are going to be spending their time in front of their TV’s and computers when they have options like Amazon, Netflix and Hulu.  These platforms also have some very incredible material to draw from, so people are not going to the movies unless it’s something worth going to see.  The summer of 2017 has proven that the summer movie season is not as strong as it used to be.  The strongest movies are being released late winter/early spring and during the holiday season.

Now, be aware that this is MY personal observation on the 2017 summer movie season, so it may not jive with someone else’s point of view.  With the exception of Wonder Woman, Galaxy of the Guardians, and Spider-Man: Homecoming, 2017 has seen the weakest summer in a very long time.  Hopefully, things will improve next year.

Released: January 2017

Rated R

Director: Ben Affleck

Run Time: 125 Minutes

Distributor: Warner Bros.

Genre: Crime Thriller

Cast:
Ben Affleck: Joe Coughlin
Elle Fanning: Loretta Figgis
Remo Girone: Maso Pescatore
Brendan Gleeson: Thomas Coughlin
Robert Glenister: Albert White
Matthew Maher: RD Pruitt
Chris Messina: Dion Bartolo
Sienna Miller: Emma Gould
Zoe Saldana: Graciela

The gangster film has been an absolute staple of American cinema since the early 1930s with films like Howard Hawke’s Scarface, Little Caesar, and The Public Enemy.  Gangster movies would often take place from the perspective of the gangsters being portrayed.  The genre has endured for decades and reached a new milestone during the 60s with films like Bonnie And Clyde.  But the genre would be set in stone as one of the best genres due to the release and success of Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather in 1972.  The Godfather changed everything about the gangster film and elevated American cinema to all-new heights.  From The Godfather, not only did we get an astounding sequel, but we saw more and more gangster movies being made as a result.  In 1983, Al Pacino would star in the Brian de Palma re-make of Scarface which would become iconic in its own right.  Serpico, Carlito’s Way, Goodfellas, and Casino would also leave an indelible mark on the industry.  It made absolute sense that film-makers would try to recreate the success of The Godfather with films like Heat, Public Enemies, American Gangster, and Ben Affleck’s recent gangster opus, Live By Night.

Ben Affleck stars as Joe Coughlin, a former World War I soldier who has seen too much bloodshed and is out to live by his own rules.  After robbing a bank, he hooks up with Emma, who also happens to be the girlfriend of the notorious Irish gangster Albert White.  White is in a war with his Italian rival, Maso Pescatore.  After running afoul of Albert White, Joe ends up being left for dead.  As a result of three cops being killed, Joe, with the aid of his father, Tom Coughlin, is sentenced to three years in prison.  After getting released from prison, Joe goes to Pescatore for help settling a score with White.  Joe is then allowed to take over rum-running operations in Florida to compete directly with White.  Along the way, Joe falls in love with Graciela, who happens to be the sister of a Cuban gangster.  Joe realizes he may have bitten off more than he can chew when the KKK begin to interfere along with Albert White’s men.  Setting the film during the Prohibition was a very interesting idea.  The original Scarface was set during this period and there’s a lot of story potential to be had during this turbulent time in American history.  Prohibition gave rise to people like Al Capone who would become the main source for alcohol….for a price.  Setting Live By Night during that period was an interesting idea.  However, the story suffers from an overabundance of subplots, including one that involves a police captain’s daughter being involved in blackmail to get the police chief to give up his brother-in-law who is a member of the local chapter of the KKK.  The subplots are interesting enough on their own, but when you put them in a film together, it brings the entire experience to a halt.  As a result, the pacing is very uneven with story that is not as fleshed out as well as it could be and characters that aren’t really that compelling.  For a gangster movie set during Prohibition, these issues bring the film down a great deal.

While the story and characters may have taken a major hit, everything else about the film is simply top-notch.  The production values are absolutely amazing.  This film is beautifully shot, with amazing sets and costumes.  There is certainly a level authenticity involved as some of the film was shot on location in Boston which played heavily into the gangster activities during the 20s and 30s.  The film was also shot in Savannah, Georgia.  It’s not just the sets that are spectacular, but also the environments.  It’s a beautiful film to look at.  The costumes are absolutely phenomenal.  The detail on the suits and the Fedoras are just incredible.  Everything is very period-specific, even right down to the jewelry that the women wear.  Ben Affleck spared no expense making Live By Night look as authentic as possible.

The acting is another area in which the film excels.  Everybody here, including Affleck himself, brings their A-game and are just really, really good.  Robert Glenister really gives Albert White a very menacing and evil persona as the Irish mobster.  Remo Girone is equally fantastic as the Italian.  One of the biggest surprises of the film was Elle Fanning.  She gives her character of Loretta a very innocent and naive quality that initially makes her quite endearing.  But after a traumatic incident, the character changes to a religious and very anti-crime preacher that may not believe what she’s preaching.  Chris Cooper plays her father, Chief Figgis.  He’s absolutely magnetic whenever he’s on screen.  Cooper is that damned good.  Zoe Saldana is lovely as Graciela.  She gives Joe something that he’s been missing for years:  The opportunity to become a better person.  The relationship between the two feels real.  Ben Affleck, for all his faults, is on top of his game here.  While his Boston accent slips from time to time, there’s no denying that Affleck throws everything he’s got into the role.

Live By Night, being a gangster film, has some really fantastic action set-pieces.  The opening sequence in Boston, basically show a city at war with the Italians and the Irish gangs laying waste to each other.  People are gunned down with Tommy guns and gangsters are thrown of rooftops.  It’s surprisingly brutal.  There is a car chase after the first robbery or two that is just mind-blowing considering the cars being involved.  There are a couple of action sequences peppered throughout the film, but the film’s climactic battle sequence is really freaking awesome.

Ultimately, Live By Night is not a terrible movie.  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  The problem is that it tries to do to much and doesn’t connect enough.  Ben Affleck, who serves as the film’s producer, director and lead actor, I feel has stretched himself far to thin to really make the film a more compelling experience.  If the characters and story were more focused, this would have been another knockout film for Ben Affleck.  As it is, Live By Night is his worst directorial effort to date.  That being said, if this is the worst that Ben Affleck has to offer, I don’t necessarily think I’m worried about future projects that he may be involved in.  I just hope he learns to rein himself in and not take on too many responsibilities.  So, can I recommend this film?  Yes, I can, if not for the story, but for the visuals, the action and the performances.

My Final Recommendation:  When someone makes you an offer you can’t refuse, run.  7.5/10

Last week, I saw a discussion of Facebook about “critics” on the Internet Movie Database.  It was about the recent movie about Bruce Lee, Birth of the Dragon.  So, I checked out those “reviews.”  They tore the film to shreds.  Here’s the thing, though:  Most of those “reviews” were mostly just single sentences.  A single sentence does not make a review.  It’s stating an opinion, but it may have no value to the reader.  Strangely enough, it got me thinking about the idea of criticism and what and who it is actually for.  I’m not necessarily talking about just film criticism, but art and writing as well.  The idea of criticism has been around since time immemorial.  The difference between criticism today and criticism centuries ago is the technology available.  With the Internet and social media like FaceBook, YouTube, Instagram and Reddit, there are many methods of putting critiques out on the ‘net.  Over the past few years, I’ve been noticing an increase of attacks on critics by artists, film-makers, and authors alike.  Attacking critics, again, is something that’s existed LONG before movies ever existed.  If someone like say, the Emperor of China, noticed a negative opinion, they would have sentenced the person who wrote that opinion to death.  Stuff like that still happens today in the 21st Century.  I’m not going to be talking about the actual violence against critics, but rather the vocal opposition to what people write about certain works.  In this case, movies.

Film criticism is a form of journalism, even in the loosest sense of the word.  It’s about informing the audience about movies and whether or not they should see said movies.  In my opinion, we are guides, nothing more.  We try to give people information that they may need if they decide to see a movie.  Whether or not they actually see the film is their choice, not ours.  The thing is, a number of film-makers like Alex Proyas, have come out against critics because they said some of the movies they made are crap.  Sorry, Mr. Proyas, Gods of Egypt was indeed a big pile of steaming horseshit, but that’s neither here nor there.  That is my opinion, and quite frankly, the opinion of many others.  Going after people for voicing their opinions about films can be a very, VERY dangerous proposition, unless you’re going after those dingbats on IMDB who can’t form a cohesive opinion of their own.  In that case, knock yourself out.  Just don’t go after folks who are trying to offer constructive criticism.  Are there critics who clearly have an agenda that is liberally or conservatively biased?  Do certain critics have an axe to grind or have it in for a particular film-maker?  Definitely.  Uwe Boll is notorious for going after his critics, going so far as to challenge them to a boxing match.  It was a publicity stunt, but still.  The critics that clearly have agendas tend to stick out, so they are generally easier to ignore.  At least, in my opinion.

It’s not just directors that go after their critics.  Actors do it, too.  Jesse Eisenberg tried to attack film critics using a short story called “An Honest Film Review.”  If he was trying to attack film critics, he didn’t do a very good job.  As I said above, going after a film critic because they didn’t particularly care for your movie is not a great idea, especially if that critic has a wide audience.  I’m lucky to be small enough not to be noticed by these guys.  If you put anything out there like a movie, song, painting or hell, even film review, it’s going to get criticized.  That’s the reality of the world we live in.  Everybody’s a critic.  How you respond to them could affect how people respond to you.  I try to keep my reviews as fair as humanly possible.  Sometimes, I can’t.  We’re only human and we have voices.  If you don’t like what we have to say, feel free to ignore us.  You’re not going to hurt our feelings.  If you have an issue with someone’s review, try to approach them in a constructive manner.  Have a discussion.  You may find some kind of insight that you might not have thought of before.  Don’t get me wrong.  Getting criticized can be painful.  I’ve had people criticize my reviews from time to time.  But as I said before:  How you choose to respond to that can make all the difference in the world.

On the flip-side, I’ve seen movie bloggers go after film-makers for various reasons.  I’ve seen critics attack folks like Quentin Tarantino for the level of violence in his movies, and that’s all they focus on.  That is not constructive criticism.  That’s pushing an agenda.  That’s taking a “won’t you think of the children” approach which is a completely false narrative to start with.  Tarantino’s response to those kinds of questions is probably the right one.  He doesn’t give a damn what you think.  He never really has, which is why he’s able to make the movies that he makes.  He’s gone after critics, to be sure, but the critics he went after had an agenda and didn’t understand the movies that he made.  So, there are two sides to this issue.  On the one side you’ve got egotistical film-makers that get butt-hurt because somebody didn’t like their precious film and you’ve got critics with an over-developed sense of social justice.

Again, I ask:  What is the purpose of criticism?  It’s to give people a certain perspective on a particular subject.  That’s generally all we film reviewers have to offer:  A perspective.  I can only speak for myself, but I try to be fair on each and every film that I review.  However, sometimes a movie sucks so bad, I just can’t help myself and I tear it to shreds.  Criticism doesn’t have to be a bad thing.  It is a tool that one can use to improve upon something.  In this case, if you made a movie that isn’t so good, you can take the criticism of the audience and certain critics and you can build a better film from there.  Just don’t try to silence us.  We only get louder….and we are here to stay.

Released: February 2017(Russia)

Director: Sarik Andreasyan

Run Time: 88 Minutes

Not Rated

Distributor: Shout! Factory(USA)

Genre: Action/Science Fiction

Cast:
Anton Pampushnyy: Arsus
Sanjar Madi: Khan
Sebastien Sisak: Ler
Alina: Lanina: Kseniya
Stanislav Shirin: August Kuratov

For decades, the superhero film has essentially been lorded over by Hollywood and western film makers.  It makes sense in a way, since the first superhero comics were written in the United States.  DC/Warner Bros. and Marvel essentially have a stranglehold on the superhero film, starting with Superman: The Movie and continuing on with movies like Batman and X-Men.  But every so often, we see stuff from other countries like India, Japan and China.  The problem is that those movies are not very good and aren’t taken very seriously by the people who made them.  But the one country that we really don’t see superhero movies come from is Russia.  Russia is known for many things like vodka and gorgeous woman as well as a language that is difficult to learn.  Enter The Guardians, the first real Russian superhero movie.

The film opens with an explanation that during the Cold War, the Soviet Union had been secretly experimenting on people to create superheroes to defend the Union against any possible aggressor.  When the Cold War ended, the project called “Patriot” was deemed classified and shut down.  However, during the experiments, one scientist who was scorned by the Soviets, took his own projects to the extreme, which ultimately ended up exploding in his face, literally.  The chemicals that were released in that explosion changed him physically, making him super-strong.  Decades later, the scientist, Kuratov, has resurfaced and began taking control of tanks and robots using a machine that he created.  To fight this evil, the government has been tasked with locating 4 people that were successfully experimented on: Arsus, who can transform into a werebear(you read that right); Khan, who can teleport and is an expert martial artist with two curved swords; Ler, who can telekinetically manipulate rocks and soil, and Kseniya, who can become invisible and can control her own body temperature.  Story-wise, this plays out pretty much like almost any other superhero movie that we’ve seen in the past 40+ years.  To be fair to the folks that made this movie, it’s extremely difficult to stand out in a genre that’s VERY over-saturated.  And yet, the makers of The Guardians managed to do just that.

Aside from being Russian, what actually makes this particular superhero film stand out from the rest is in its design.  While somewhat familiar in design, I’ve never seen characters designed like this before.  The real standout here is the guy that can turn into a bear wielding a minigun.  If I’m lying, I’m dying.  It’s bizarre, and yet it’s really cool at the same time.  Thing is, this character, Arsus, can transform at will at any time.  Ler can manipulate rocks and create stone armor around himself to protect himself and beat the living daylights out of the opposition.  Kseniya’s character is basically the Russian equivalent of The Invisible Woman from the Fantastic Four, except she can manipulate her own body temperature.  She’s also a martial artist, so she can kick all sorts of butt.  Khan is very interesting.  He’s not only super-strong, but he’s also super fast.  He also wields these two really curved swords that he can actually combine to make a single double-bladed weapon.  The villain, though, is not that impressive.  He’s basically just super-strong and he has a backpack that he can use to manipulate electronic devices including tanks and robots.  He’s about as bland as a villain as you can get.  His ultimate goal?  World domination, what else?  The villain is strictly by-the-numbers and not even memorable.  The acting is a bit of a mixed bag.  From what I understand, some people had issues with the acting while watching the film with the English dubbing.  That is almost always a bad idea.  If you’re going to watch a foreign film, watch it in its original language with subtitles.  It’s a better performance every single time.  That being said, even in its original language, the acting in The Guardians can be pretty awful.  Thankfully, the four main leads do a decent enough job, but everybody else is just…meh.

The action in the film is surprisingly pretty decent.  The camera-work is mostly wide enough so that we can see what’s going on.  Some of the hand-to-hand choreography is decent enough, but lacks the punch of some other action films.  You’ve got big explosions, a guy that manipulate rocks, mass destruction and a guy that can turn into a fucking bear wielding a fucking minigun!  How awesome is that?  The film moves at a pretty decent clip and running at just 88 minutes, the film doesn’t overstay its welcome.  The CGI on the other hand, ranges from decent to “what the fuck was that?!”  Again, I want to be fair.  The film industry in Russia is nowhere near as robust as ours, so they don’t have access to the equipment that we do, nor do they have the money to really craft something truly epic in scale, at least not for superheroes at this point.  That being said, it’s still visually interesting and quite enjoyable to watch.  The final battle on the tower is really cool and the destruction sequence is something to behold.

When it comes to superhero movies, I always enjoy watching something new.  Unfortunately, Hollywood doesn’t really give a damn about originality.  As a result, I have to look elsewhere for originality, even Russia.  Thankfully, The Guardians is original enough for me to enjoy, even though it tends to follow similar tropes that you see in other superhero films.  The Guardians has gotten a lot of bad press not just in Russia about around the world.  I’m not entirely sure why.  I found it to be a breath of fresh air in terms of visuals.  It’s a pretty spectacular film.  Does it always work?  No.  There are issues with the dialogue and the fact that the whole thing is taken way too seriously.  That being said, if you’re looking for something a little different and new, give The Guardians a shot.  It may be what you’re looking for.

My Final Recommendation:  Did I mention that there’s a man that turns into a bear that wields a fucking minigun? 8/10.