Summer 2016 Movie Wrap-Up Part III: All the MEH that's Meh to meh

Welcome again, loyal readers to our final Summer 2016 Wrap-up. We've gone through the clear winners and losers, but there were really a bunch of flicks that fell somewhere in between. These are the fabulous meh movies - the take it or leave it kind of drek that failed to inspire either esteem or pity. Some of these are weird, like those that financially succeeded but were critically reviled. Others were the inverse. Others kind of made their money back and good job, I guess? Let's dive in:

THE MIDDLE

The def posse is such a big chunk of whatevs

Suicide Squad

Budget: $175 million
Domestic Gross: $269 million
Worldwide Gross: $582 million

Right off the bad we ought to be contentious. Suicide Squad could easily slide in the loser category because of how much people tend to hate it, and even though I enjoyed it while sitting there (uhh...sort of), it was ultimately a pretty damn bad film. BUT - it's the #4 highest grossing film of the season and somehow the only film to gross over $200 million but under $300 million. It reset Guardians of the Galaxy (2014)'s August opening weekend record and has an excellent worldwide showing for a relatively unknown group of characters. I mean, its worldwide gross is basically Superman Returns (2006) and Green Lantern (2011) combined, and you may say "Well, those movies are awful, too", hey - the Squad did it! It's really hard to call it a failure, especially since despite all the bad vibes it seems to have staked out its place in pop culture pretty well, too. If the film was any good, we'd be throwing it in the "Winners" post without a second thought.

Star Trek Beyond

Budget: $185 million
Domestic Gross: $$148 million
Worldwide Gross: $234 million

Beyond should maybe fall more into the loser category because of its super high budget, general lack of interest, and the fact that it barely made over half of what Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) did worldwide three years ago. The vibe for this film, though, was so much better than Into Darkness and in some ways better than Star Trek (2009) that it ends up in this territory. It pleased fans more than any other of the modern Trek reboots and still managed to be the #6 movie of summer and currently #10 for the year. That's not quite the failure script, although you could certainly make that argument considering there's no way that holds.

Jason Bourne

Budget: $120 million
Domestic Gross: $143 million
Worldwide Gross: $281 million

The Bourne and Trek one-two punch this July really felt like a whiff, but honestly, Jason Bourne improved on the abysmal Bourne Legacy (2012) both critically and commercially, and worldwide its gross was pretty on par with The Bourne Supremacy (2004). That that film came out twelve years ago is still a rough assessment, and even though it couldn't nearly match The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), it was really in line with what a lot of these films are able to achieve. It was also a mild critical success, in the sense that people didn't revile it. If this all sounds kind of meh to you, well, there's a reason we're talking about this film here.

The Legend of Tarzan

Budget: $180 million
Domestic Gross: $125 million
Worldwide Gross: $352 million

The domestic gross is rough, but Tarzan's impressive worldwide tally and its moderate critical success are what brings it here. I don't know why or how anyone would spend $180 million on a Tarzan update, but whatever. I'm not sure who actually saw Tarzan, either, and it sort of got lost in the shuffle, although I'm not sure what shuffle that was. It wasn't like any big action blockbuster was crushing its way through July. That "fatigue" is becoming a common explanation for failures, but fatigue from what? No one saw Out of the Shadows (2016), Warcraft (2016), and Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)!

The Angry Birds Movie

Budget: $73 million
Domestic Gross: $107 million
Worldwide Gross: $346 million

This was...a thing that happened. That's about all you can say. This really came and went pretty fast and I remember thinking it had a decent opening for what it was ($38 million), and the 2.8 multiplier is actually pretty decent, but $107 million still feels so...not great. Still, it made its budget back in spades worldwide, so is it really a failure? It's all the more impressive it did this in what's looking like the most expansive year for animation ever, from Zootopia (2016) to Kubo and the Two Strings (2016). It dug its own niche, somehow didn't get in the way of other kids' fare and made a mild amount of money. That's so meh, baby!

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

Budget: $33 million
Domestic Gross: $45 million
Worldwide Gross: $64 million

This is the same kind of script. I thought that this flick actually had a shot to stand out more than it did, and I'm sure the producers were hoping for a little more return on their investment, but as it stands, its gross is perfectly okay. Its reviews weren't great, but it looked pretty funny. I don't know, I didn't end up seeing the thing so maybe it's all my fault it didn't do that great at the box office. But it did beat POPSTAR: Never Stop Never Stopping (2016), so that's important. What's the breakout comedy of the summer? Sausage Party (2016)? I thought this was going to be the immortal Summer of Comedies, but nope it sucks.

Money Monster

Budget: $27 million
Domestic Gross: $41 million
Worldwide Gross: $93 million

No one really cared about a Julia Roberts / George Clooney film that didn't involve them robbing a casino in 2001. Still, despite seeming really really irrelevant, it somehow tripled its budget worldwide and although it wasn't a monster smash, it still made some money. Monster. Eh?! There we go. As adult fare goes, it held its own in a May swarming with more juvenile entertainment, and although this really felt like it should have been a fall release (my guess is it wasn't because nothing about it really felt Oscar-worthy), it actually proved that you can make a few bucks off adults in a summer drama. Not too much, but it was okay.

The Nice Guys

Budget: $50 million
Domestic Gross: $36 million
Worldwide Gross: $36 million

So before I started writing this I had no idea the budget for The Nice Guys was $50 million. What the hell cost $50 million? Actor salaries? The Man with the Iron Fists (2012) sure as hell didn't cost that much. Was it all trainer fees to get Russel Crowe in shape? Legal fees for his fights around the world? I have no idea, but despite its loss, it was one of the better reviewed films this summer, and although it's not likely to put in for an Oscar or anything, it felt like Shane Black getting back to his bread and butter (although to really do so, one of them probably should have been black), and according to Rotten Tomatoes it was the 8th-best reviewed film this summer. So consider this full circle from Suicide Squad - the great movie that gets no cash.

As for the rest, it's a bit too early to tell the fates of War Dogs, Kubo and the Two Strings, and Florence Foster Jenkins. Those were all the major films we previewed this summer. That and The Darkness, Nine Lives, and The Infiltrator, all of which were pretty significant losers that I don't totally care about.

See you next summer, folks! Bundle up!

Nice Guys, Bad Girls, Mean Birds - Weekend of Champions

I didn't say much in anticipation of Captain America: CIVIL WAR (2016) two weeks back, and unbelievably, I also kept my mouth shut during the premiere of The Darkness (2016) and Money Monster (2016) last week. Today, however, we have a trio of films that we need to discuss. As I've done in years past, we'll spend every Friday from now until forever discussing the critical, commercial, and cultural potential of each big summer film. It's a big beefy version of this.

There are three wide releases dropping this week, and although some of them are kind of similar, they make for a good block of programming. I'm not convinced any will do all that extremely well, but there's no reason to doubt we have some quality films on our hands. First up, Shane Black's The Nice Guys (2016).

Fightin' 'round the world!

The Nice Guys found its way on my most-anticipated list this year, and I'm still pretty excited. If anything it's a great excuse to talk about Shane Black, who I think gets a little bit of flack for writing the game changing Lethal Weapon (1987), then copying his own style for years and years until he literally had to parody himself in Last Action Hero (1993), which soured a lot of people on both his talents and Arnold Schwarzenegger (I, of course, personally disagree, although it was a bit ahead of its time). He actually had the gall to follow that one up with a Geena Davis / Sam Jackson buddy cop movie that no one has seen, then took a break for a while.

Shane Black really is the buddy cop expert. Literally every film he's written with the exception of The Monster Squad (1987, and that was mostly Fred Dekker) have featured some kind of buddy pairing, whether it be meta-commentary or not. He arguably peaked with Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (2005), which more blatantly used all of Last Action Hero's fourth-wall breaking along with serving as the first entry in Robert Downey Jr.'s comeback tour (and Val Kilmer's. And Black's himself). That film was able to fulfill all of Black's tropes while toning down the extreme, over-the-top masculinity of something like The Last Boy Scout (1991), which is super-insane. It tempers his wild energy with freshness and charm instead of shock value.

The other big entry is obviously Iron Man 3 (2013), which remains one of the better-constructed Marvel films, even if the third act gets wonky and there's suddenly a fuss over the lack of a female villain. This isn't even really anything to get mad about. I mean, getting mad at evil corporations for wanting to make money is like getting mad at a pig for eating shit. It's objectively a sexist move, but we ought to stop thinking of big movies as creative, progressive expressions of art.

So, what do you do when you make the 10th highest-grossing film of all time (5th at the time of release..)? Obviously you scrap together $50 million to make an original goofy period buddy movie starring Russel Crowe and Ryan Gosling. It's really telling to see what movies directors choose to make after they get carte blanche. Nolan made Inception (2010). Bay made Pain & Gain (2013). Raimi made Drag Me to Hell (2009). Verbinksi made Rango (2011). Look at James Cameron making fucking AVABAR (2009)! It also reminds me of the Coen Bros riding astounding critical acclaim and a Best Picture win after No Country for Old Men (2007) settling into Burn After Reading (2008) and A Serious Man (2009). Who does that?! We've gotten some really great, really weird films from directors trusted to do whatever they want, typically using their name alone to sell the film. I don't think Shane Black's there yet, since this is actually only his third feature as a director, but it's nice to see this getting made at all and squeezing in among the blockbusters that he helped helm three years back.

The ad campaign for this has been light, fun, and witty, and it feels like a total throwback film, which I think will appeal to a certain age group. It can capture that certain feeling of older audiences who want to move on from juvenile superhero films (although CIVIL WAR is decently mature), but still have a fun and fresh time at the movies. That seems like a narrow window, though. Ultimately I think this could have a decent cultural effect if it's good and warrants a lot of repeated viewership. There's no real reason to expect it wouldn't, if Black is trending more Kiss Kiss Bang Bang than The Long Kiss Goodnight. What's most fair, though, is that his career in general is about equal hits and misses, even if his misses are fucking spectacular.

They call the JV squad "The Joeys"

Up next we have Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising (2016) starring Seth Rogen, Rose Byrne, Zach Efron, and a whole gaggle of insane young actresses. The first Neighbors (2014) was a spectacular film and pretty close to the funniest film of 2014. Seth Rogen rarely misses when he makes a film where his Rogen-ness is fully on display. The Green Hornet (2011) and The Guilt Trip (2012) are clear blemishes on his record, but I can get behind just about anything else he's ever done. It's that great ability to write really funny and intelligent scenes while playing up his natural doofiness. More than that, he just seems like he strikes the zeitgeist really well, providing a sense of humour tailor-made for the current generation of feisty youths. Neighbors nailed this to a T, offering a classic generational conflict that succeeded in part because the Frat House feels extreme yet believable. If their Sorority spin is any indication, we should see a lot more of that.

I can picture this succeeding pretty well because it's a classic extension of the premise that worked so well last time. It's exactly as simple an idea as the first film with just as enticing a cast and an assurance of similar levels of silliness. The only thing that could bog it down is the simple fact that comedy sequels so rarely work. We've discussed this at length here at NMW, but namely, that initial surprise that first generates the funny is difficult to sustain.

My only trust at this point is that Seth Rogen is smart enough to put a spin on the typical sequel. We've actually had some decent ones recently, most notably 22 Jump Street (2014) and Anchorman 2: The Legend Continues (2013). Of course the latter is somewhat debatable (although I'd actually consider it superior), and the former is more the product of Phil Lord and Chris Miller who hide behind layers of meta and self-awareness to get past the groan-worthy hurdles of tired sequel tropes. I have similar faith in the Rogen / Evan Goldberg / Nick Stoller team. Of course, as a writer, Nicholas Stoller misses at least as often as he hits (for every The Muppets [2011], there's a Sex Tape [2014]). He also just gave us Zoolander No. 2 (2016), which doesn't exactly inspire confidence. Still, as a director, with Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008), Get Him to the Greek (2010), The Five-Year Engagement (2012), and Neighbors under his belt, you have to be excited for the chances this has to succeed.

Comedy sequels are also difficult because it's rare that they'll actually add anything new to the mythos. Ghostbusters II (1989), Christmas Vacation (1989), and even Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (2008) did this pretty successfully, mostly because each one took the well-received characters from the first installment and put them in completely different situations (Ghostbusters II may come the closest to leaving this promise unfulfilled, but Viggo is at least as iconic, if not more so than Gozer). Sorority Rising doesn't really look like it's elevating above the original's source material. Instead it will probably just rely on being the funniest film of the Summer. I'm not sure we will really adore this flick 10 years from now or just blur it together with Neighbors. That's the Horrible Bosses effect.

Lastly we have The Angry Birds Movie (2016). Now, there is objectively no reason for this to exist, but we've seen a lot of movies like this lately. The LEGO Movie (2014) comes to mind for sure. That film relished in existential inter-textuality, though, while maintaining a really sincere level of goofiness. I'd argue that The Angry Birds Movie seems capable of doing the same thing as long as it adds layer after layer of irreverence.

The critical difference here of course, is that LEGO is a well-known brand that's been around for decades and I don't think anyone really cares about Angry Birds anymore. It's also really a lot less substantial of a brand. It's not nearly as expansive as the LEGO empire. But this is sort of an unfair comparison. How much money will this thing make?

I have no idea what Angry Birds is actually about.
Is this in the app game?

It's an easy assumption that The Angry Birds Movie will win the weekend. It has the broadest appeal and kids haven't really had anything to see at the theater since Zootopia (2016). May seems a little early, though, because most of those brats are still in school. There's a reason why Pixar does so well when it drops its flicks in late June when little wiener kids can actually go see it. I also can't really understand if little kids would even be into this. Doesn't Angry Birds feel really really 2013? Sure it does, that's when they started putting together this movie.

Then again, what else could win this weekend? Based on Civil War's hold, it'll probably pull in $30-some million, so that's the mark to beat. Neighbors somehow made $49 million back in 2014 and The LEGO Movie pulled in $69 million in February 2014. I don't really think either can be a direct comparison to now, but it may actually be a good bet that Neighbors 2 wins by hitting that $40-50 million mark. It likely won't have to compete much with the Angry Birds audience.

The film does seem to shoe-horn in a lot of how the game is actually played. We call this the Battleship (2012) effect. If it comes off organic that's great, but it also makes you question whether any of this was really necessary at all. It's one of those great mysteries. Does this count as a video game movie? No, it's an app movie, right? Do you think we'll get a ton of app movies now? Tinder: The Movie (2021) coming soon. Don't worry, they preserved the experience.

Ultimately like with anything else, the legacy of Angry Birds depends on if the film is actually any good or not. Zootopia, Frozen (2013), and every non-Good Dinosaur (2015) and Cars Pixar film ever makes its bank on its critical success, which attracts parents willing to sit through this crap in addition to giving it to their unloved bastard children. And to be fair, despite Jason Sudeikis' decidedly non-presence, it looks like it has its decent share of jokes. In terms of its production pedigree, it's a product of Sony Imageworks, which is really just building its animation tradition. On one end of the spectrum is the vastly underrated Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs (2009, and its arguably better sequel). On the other end is the Hotel Transylvania series. If it leans more towards the former we could be in a for a decent experience. After my endless comparisons, this really should have just been directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller, right?

So, what do you think? What are you seeing this weekend? I can see each of these films fulfilling their niche and making some bank, or they could just all cannibalize each other. Go see something!