2022 Nutshelled: Best Movies of 2021!

Here's a new thing this year - now, we probably can't ever wholly drop doing a current year Best of List. But more and more that's just stupid. I don't live in a big city that gets every movie, nor do I have time to seek out every single thing that comes out each year. I just have like, a whole other life besides this blog. I know, it shouldn't be that way, but that's what it is, man!

I think it's fair to give ourselves a year to re-evaluate which movies sit with you, catch up on obscure ones, and get passed the initial hype which can sometimes be ephemeral. At the same time, I understand why sometimes what makes a movie great is how much it plays with the zeitgeist of its release. There are films that are great because their initial watch is so ground-breaking, while it loses impact upon subsequent watches. There are also films that reward repeated watches to bring out nuances and catch intricate things lost on the first go around. There are also films that come out that are just never going to be off a list. Like Pain & Gain (2013). I just love that movie.

So, for all of those reasons, we WILL do a proper 2022 list to see where we are this year and create that time capsule. But all lists are fluid and meaningless. I often have done a re-hash list (anyone want to join me in starting a regular ten-year out list, too? Why not, let's do all the lists!) as part of that, but let's get a little more in depth. For all to see, here are NMW's pic for Best Films of 2021!

#10: The Suicide Squad - the more people try to make movies like this movie the more I realize how special this one really was.

#9: Barb and Star Go to Vista Del Mar - This might win best comedy of the last five years, they literally don't make them like this anymore.

#8: The Tragedy of MacBeth - Joel Coen breathes life into this age old tale with some of the more breathtaking black and white shots of any film in the last five years

#7: Nightmare Alley - Guillermo del Toro's best film of the past five years, gothic, creepy, and wonderfully American

#6: West Side Story - I never thought I'd be a convert but Spielberg crushes this and give us a reason to enjoy this story again. Every aspect of filmmaking is such a high level. Don't let the haters in.

#5: The Last Duel - A strong amount of medieval films on this list, complex with every scene revealing something we didn't know that enhances the story and theme of the film.

#4: Zola - Gritter or glitter, compelling from start to finish. Inspired by Twitter - more movies need to come from backgrounds like this.

#3: Pig - Hey Nic! Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent (2022) needed more truffle pig references. Gets points for being the most unlike-Nic Cage Nic Cage movie of all time.

#2: Red Rocket - authentic, brutal, and beautiful, Sean Baker is crushing it.

#1: The Green Knight - steeped in simultaneous metaphor and authenticity, the corrosion of a kingdom told through vanity and narcissism. Should be required viewing for every American.

First out included House of Gucci, The Harder They Fall, No Sudden Move, and Power of the Dog. Dog is funny, man, that got so much hype, didn't really win any awards, and didn't really stick with me like it should have. I still think Kristen Dunst is amazing in it and the ending is the best of any movie. But it's ultimately just not at the level of anything else here. I want No Sudden Move to get back on here. That's another film with an outstanding ending. It might also reward rewatches better.

I am endlessly interested in how my own brain likes and interprets movies, and what stays and what doesn't. Looking back at last year, six fell off the original list and only one out of my nine listed contenders cracked it open.

That's part of why I was compelled to make this re-list. I just knew that 2021 was sneaky, man. Part of that was still dealing with Theater shut-downs so I just straight up didn't see a lot of films in time. I dig that The Suicide Squad prevailed. I was nervous about including that last year to prove my cred, but man, that movie's good. I want to watch it again.

What will next year bring?! I'm not sure, I feel decently good with my 2022 list, I know there are a handful I won't see before the cut-off, but I am really going a broad route for '22. You'll have to stay tuned to see what that all looks like!

52 for '22: The Sugarland Express

Movie: The Sugarland Express (1974)

Method: Netflix DVD

They're slowly getting away, Chief

Why Did I Watch This?

This is the first of one of the LONG-standing films on my Netflix DVD queue that I'm trying to aggressively work through this year, and quite frankly, a major basis for the impetus of this series! This has been on there for a while, wholly because it was Steve Spielberg's last film before JAWS (1975) and his first theatrical feature (Duel [1971] obviously comes first, but that was a TV movie that was later released theatrically). With West Side Story (2021) making the rounds, it felt very appropriate to pull the trigger on this and see what early Spielberg was like, if I could predict his greatness, and spy any future trends.

What Did I know ahead of time?

Surprisingly nothing. I especially realized that when it got going. First of all, Goldie Hawn was in this?! And the bad guy from Ghostbusters and Die Hard? As it got rolling I said outloud, "Is this the whole plot?" referring to the continuous chase scene. I really knew nothing except for Spielberg's directing participation, which really shows how potent he is as a director. Yet, I imagine many more of us are familiar with this film's follow-up.

What Did I think?

This was reliably good. The premise is kind of wacky, but based on a true story. Goldie Hawn busts hubby William Atherton out of a super-minimum security prison in order to save their baby boy from foster care. That's really it. Hilarity ensues. Nah, they hitch a ride with an old couple, who gets pulled over for going under 25 miles an hour on a highway. The couple gets the wrong idea when they are talking to the police officer, take off, and then end up taking that cop as a hostage. It all spirals out of control until nearly the whole state of Texas (and Louisiana) is on their tail.

There is a fundamentally painful question at the center of all this. Clearly Goldie Hawn and Atherton aren't really suitable to be parents, they are awfully unstable in every possible way. Except they do love their son and want very badly to settle down and be a happy family. But they're just not going to ever be in that position, especially as they dig themselves into a bigger and bigger hole. So, you're cheering for them the whole way, but at the same time, there's just no way this film can end well.

It doesn't. Spoiler for this 50-year old film, but when they finally approach the foster home, it's a trap! Atherton should have followed his gut, but he can't resist the pleas of Goldie Hawn (or his own desire), he approaches the house and gets shot in the gut. This is again an age-old film whose political statements reverberate today. Do they deserve to be shot and killed for their actions? Undeniably not, but hey, this is Texas. Everyone seems really eager to shoot them. Except for the main Sherriff guy, who is well-acted by Ben Johnson, who had won the Academy Award a few years before for The Last Picture Show (1971). He practices some restraint without losing any of his masculinity or authority, and his inability to keep his promise to the couple along with his duty to the law is a tragic conflict.

This is a surprisingly funny film, and while watching it, I did sort of realize that Spielberg's humour just sort of became mainstream blockbuster humour. There are bits where a character will react, say a broad joke, or the camera will linger just enough to demonstrate a punchline. It's stuff I see everywhere from Batman Begins (2005) to Captain Marvel (2019) these days. There's very much that sort of wry irony to the whole affair. Despite all this, the ending is an incredible downer. I wonder if that's why this hasn't really been propped up as high in Spielberg's canon, or that it's just so overshadowed by JAWS and his sci-fi work. He never really directed another roadtrip crime caper movie like this.

It does make it a weird film of its time. It feels like halfway between Bonnie and Clyde (1967) and Smokey and the Bandit (1977). There were a lot of these kind of movies in this era, and nowadays this stands out because of its Spielbegisms. The reaction shots, the steady hand, the incredible sense of space and location. The humour. You always have a keen sense of what's going on and it's a remarkably capable film. It constantly feels as if the talent behind the camera is outreaching the material. There were a few sunset shots that were really remarkable, but my favourite is the reverse mirror shot that I posted up above.

But as I remarked about the plot, once it gets going, it's basically just one drawn out car chase. Sometimes in slow motion when they run out of gas, sometimes in other cars when they get away, and sometimes on foot or in a portapotty. It spins its premise in quite a few unique ways and remarkably keeps driving its momentum forward.

I enjoyed this, it's a solid movie on its own footing, and assuredly a get watch if you're a fan of Spielberg, or just the craft of filmmaking. This was his first collaboration with John Williams and remains a solid film, fifty years later.

Check out more 52 for '22 right here!

Jurassic World: Fallen Trousers

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

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

"Welcome to my Hall of Boners" lol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ready Player None

Here are are at the end of March, and one has to think that in a bygone age this might have been a big Summer Spielberg masterpiece. In a bygone age.

I'm not totally on the Spielberg-hating bandwagon, to do so certainly ignores both a lifetime of making some of the greatest blockbusters of all time, hell some of which could even be considered the flat-out greatest films of all time. This is in addition to when he stretches his hand at making an incredible slew of dramas, mostly in the 80s and 90s.

There's no way this wouldn't only ever be used for porn

Where the haters come about, though, is that it actually gets kind of hard to find a true recent Spielberg classic. He has lately toddered between films that on the outside seem like stuffy Awards-bait flicks (The Post [2017], Bridge of Spies [2015], War Horse [2011]) or misguided, misfiring, CGI-heavy blockbusters that are all based on previous material that no one actually wanted to see (Ready Player One [2018], The BFG [2016], The Adventures of Tintin [2011], Kingdom of the Crystal Skull [2008]). And yeah, I've already included Ready Player One in there, because this preview will obviously shit all over it. But I'll try to be constructive?

You may notice two things here. One, at age 71, Spielberg has actually cranked out a flick a year for the past four years and eight out of the past ten. That's like Ridley Scott / Martin Scorsese levels. To be fair, they've both also made eight films in the past decade, but four of Scorsese's were documentaries. Doesn't it feel like they've made more than Spielberg? That's because for all of these New Wave geezers Scott and Scorsese are at the top of their game, and Stevie's just...not.

And two, I left out Lincoln (2012) because that's the exception. It should probably fall into that stuffy Awards-baity category, but that's also because it was pretty damn solid. As I was preparing to write this I had my Spielberg defense in my head as, "He made Lincoln!" that now I'm realizing falls apart because a) that was six years ago and b) that's the only damn certifiably great movie he's made in the past decade.

The backlash began a little bit before Indy 4, though. Parts of War of the Worlds (2005) were so damn good and with a few tweaks in writing that movie could have been great. It's bogged down by poor character decisions and a muffed ending. Robbie (and the City of Boston) really should have died. Still, it's iconic and memorable. I've tried to watch Munich (2005) but for some reason it can never hold my attention. It seems like it should be great. I probably just suck. Before that we have a pretty damn holy trifecta of The Terminal (2004), Catch Me If You Can (2002), and Minority Report (2002), which represent everything Spielberg can do. Light dramedy, Awards-caliber bait, and pretty legit sci-fi.

Now, we can't go back through all of Spielberg's filmography because it speaks for itself, but I wanted to figure out when his last great blockbuster was. The big sci-fi action that he's always been known for. I don't think it can be War of the Worlds because that's not outright considered great, and dammit, it isn't. It's good, not spectacular. Then it's Minority Report. Even that script is kind of muddled and overly convoluted for its own good, but it's still fun, intense, original, and memorable all at the same time. That's a significant achievement he hasn't really achieved since. 16 fucking years ago.

All this affects our anticipation and perception of what the man can do. In his favor is the fact that he has an endless supply of iconic movies to draw from. He could make ten more years of blockbuster flops and JAWS (1975), Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977), Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981), E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), The Last Crusade (1989), Jurassic Park (1993), and Saving Private Ryan (1998) will still be enough to get people excited. I mean, look at that list. This is why I still can't get on the Spielberg-hating train. What if he DOES have another Raiders in him? Actually as I look at this, I'm kind of awestruck about how much better he does period adventure and monsters over sci-fi and aliens. I mean, sure, E.T. and Close Encounters, but those were hardly traditional invasion narratives. Or even much science in science fiction.

At the same time, though, it does feel like he's out of touch. From comments made by world wizard, Shia LaBeouf to his recent statements that Netflix shouldn't qualify for Oscars, you wonder if the guy has any idea what's actually trending or has become too comfortable being the director who made JAWS for the past forty years. Suddenly it comes together - this guy who once knew how to tap into the beliefs and feelings of so many people doesn't understand us anymore. To be fair, he's 71, that's pretty damn old. Except that Ridley Scott is somehow hip and Martin Scorsese made Wolf of Wall Street (2013) at....guess what? Age fucking 71. They're cool, confident filmmakers. Spielberg in the past ten years reaches, man.

Let's start actually discussing Ready Player One. Man I hate this shit. I really hate this nerd shit. And I will reiterate this. Or the fact that my two longest posts of all time were for The Last Jedi (2017) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017). But that fact actually explains my views in itself. I'm a nerd who wants new things to be nerdy about. Ready Player One trades on an obsessive kind of nostalgia, where every line in the book rabidly features an onslaught of references. This article at the Outline finely outlines why that's simply narcissistic writing and reading. It's as if we nerds suddenly realized that a lifetime spent obsessing over pop culture has left us with no skills besides being able to recognize references. So now, we have a book (and movie) where that's what the hero does. We're useful after all!

That's such a lonely, desperate thought. It invalidates creation in favor of regurgitation. It's proper that this film is finally dropping in 2018. It's the saturation point, the threshold of our current culture that can't come up with its own iconography. The bleak limits, if you will. This is where things crash with Spielberg and his own twilight career. For all of even my optimism, perhaps he is done making new, great movies, moments, and characters. The only thing left is for him to re-use everything he made thirty years ago. He found a way to do that through Ready Player One, which trades on his career more than anything. It's a perfect 2018 meta-moment, the director whose previous works inspired the book author (Ernest Cline), gets to direct regurgitation of his own works. It's a hollow, endlessly repeating shell of pop culture, disguised with pretty flashing lights and CGI-clashing Orcs and Iron Giants.

To be fair, none of that is in itself a bad thing. 22 Jump Street (2014) and Deadpool (2016) did great things with meta-culture. Both films ended up falling into what they were trying to parody, and it's kind of depressing that the gravity of studio-mandated story beats is too great for them, but they provided entertaining experiences. It's clear that true nostalgic deconstruction like Last Action Hero (1993), The Cable Guy (1998), or uh...Freddy Got Fingered (2001) really don't work from a money-making perspective. Spielberg also isn't one who is going to raise a truly critical eye against material that so honors his own work. That's his bread and butter you're fucking with there.

No, as of now, Ready Player One's marketing material feels extremely earnest. Ernest is earnest. It's saying, yes, we too believe that you nerds and your references are special, that this is high art, what you've dedicated your lives to is not something we can make fun of. This is all pretty rough. It leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I at least KNOW I've wasted a lot of my life re-reading the Silmarillion in like, the Year 2017. I've been prepping the past few weeks for a long bitchy Rogue One (2016) post. I run this whole damn website! Pop culture is everything to me, but I'm honest about it. There is pop culture that people identify with, that creates national trends and social commentary that makes you reconsider life. Then there is pop culture that totally passes people by, and I've always been interested in what causes that. Everyone has a justification for guilty pleasures, and I suppose that's mine, but that's hopefully a little bit deeper than racing DeLoreans around just because they're DeLoreans.

I can't help but be drawn to something like last year's The LEGO Batman Movie (2017), which mashed up a dream team of pop culture references in addition to its deep as hell library of Batman villains. It seems like such a fun idea on paper but it just comes across as unoriginal and forced. Like Tobias' foray into the Fantastic Four. Like, what the hell was that about. I get the irony of mashing up a ton of pop culture references into this post. But clearly me referencing Arrested Development Season 4 isn't my attempt at pandering to a wide audience.

Maybe there will be some kind of commentary there, or nuance, or purposeful meaning behind every reference, or even Ready Player One's existence beyond being recognizable in order to to turn a profit. Maybe Spielberg does still have it and can knock this out of the park. It's at least been a notable release built up for a while and every other film right now is doing really shitty as Black Panther (2018) finally sorta fades.

I don't care when you are, this is and will forever be the
Columbus, OH of past, present, and future.

And to be real honest, all of this could have been fine, but that fucking trailer lost me at "I live here in Columbus, Ohio. In 2045 it's still the fastest growing city on earth." Nothing in that sentence makes any sense. Like, have they been to Ohio? Why would this happen? Did China take a few decades off? Columbus is actually 14th in the US and a toasty 228 worldwide. That took me two minutes to Google. When a trailer just loses you on the first line it's a horrible impression. It's a line so bad it takes you out of the entire experience. It's as if, "Well, they didn't care about getting this right, did they care bout anything else?" And that shitty uncanny valley of the OASIS. This film's getting away with it because it's supposed to be inside a video game, but ugh, just go Matrix with it and have real people be there. It's cartoony and weightless. The actual story looks super simple, and that's not a bad thing at all. You totally get hooked in that hunt. It apparently turns into some kind of revolution movie or something, I don't know, probably just an excuse to have Shrek fight Batman or something. Who would ever do that.

This was a long post, but it's a hard distinction for me personally. How can I have this entire website while hating the underlying concept behind Ready Player One. Can I truly pretend that my interests here are "academic"? I think it ultimately goes back to purpose. Like any proper evaluation, what is this film trying to achieve? The conduit for its message is pop culture references - do they truly support its message? Or do they become the actual message? As in, are we all just references? There we go with the critical commentary again. Are we all just empty shells filled with decades of shark and robot knowledge? I struggle to believe this film points in that direction, though. The references are there to be emblematic of an audience who can no longer see past them. Pandering, not challenging. And for all my endless pop culture references at Norwegian Morning Wood I hope you are challenged. Let's go meta and use this post for an example - is this pop cultural meta-distinction challenging? Or am I full of shit?

Ready Player One drops today.

Summer 2016 in Review Part II: LOSERS and Bad Burritos

Earlier this week we discussed all the Winners of Summer 2016, which can be easily summed up as Animated Films, Horror Films, and Captain America: CIVIL WAR (2016). Now for the much more fun part - the losers. And there are quite a few of them. This summer seemed notable for its continuous string of failures. Most of these had a smaller net gross than those on the Winning List, but there's quite a bit of difference when you're budget is $17 million vs. $175 million. Now, many of these films made their budget back, but that's not really the only way we can judge cinematic failure. Some of these just didn't reach the heights of their predecessors (since 9/14 are sequels), or perhaps did well overseas, but just didn't get the spark going domestically. In fact, almost all of these elicit that reaction of "Oh yeah, that came out this year, didn't it?" Well, not only this year, but like three months ago. That's rough.

LOSERS

X-Men: Apocalypse

Budget: $178 Million
Domestic Gross: $155 million
Worldwide Gross: $541 million

Now, it's odd to call $541 million a failure the same way that people weirdly piled on Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) for grossing $200 million more than Man of Steel (2013). But the real stinger here is how relatively weak this flick was compared to the other X-men films. This was supposed to be the culmination of that universe - finally the biggest of all bads, Apocalypse on the big screen. The issue, of course, is that Thanos (and even Darkseid at this point), has had more of a build-up, Days of Future Past (2014) already felt like both the culmination and a nice bow to the universe, and generally the film sucked. While it's the #3 X-movie worldwide, it came about $200 million short of Days of Future Past, and more importantly, $240 million short of Deadpool (2016). Deadpool! How did this happen.

Ghostbusters

Budget: $144 million
Domestic Gross: $124 million
Worldwide Gross: $208 million

I think I've finally come around to stop defending this film. I wanted it to be good so bad to shut up the anti-women haters out there, but we need to face facts - this was a monumental bungling. To be fair, it's about right where a Paul Feig film should be, except a budget double that of its most comparable analogue, SPY (2015) is problematic. I might say it's at least made a significant cultural impact, at least due to its completely unwarranted controversy, although it ultimately can't stand on any sort of critical level with the original. Then again, nothing can. Despite what SONY says, its cinematic failure can't be doubted and despite one of the more talented comedic casts in recent memory, it totally comes up short.

Independence Day: Resurgence

Budget: $165 million
Domestic Gross: $102 million
Worldwide Gross: $382 million

I'm not sure I'd even call this a really awful film necessarily, but it is certainly more of the same old shit and considering the original Independence Day has become a cultural landmark, regardless of arguments over its actual quality, and grossed triple what this thing did twenty years ago (and over double worldwide before that was really a thing that people cared about), there's no question that it came up drastically short of expectations. In 1996 this was THE movie to see. In 2016 it felt like just another whatever, crap, explosions, crap at the movie theater. That's less of an issue than people might think, because the marketing made it look cool. It just really was never something people wanted.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

Budget: $135 million
Domestic Gross: $81 million
Worldwide Gross: $240 million

Speaking of films nobody wanted...here you go! I'll actually respect Out of the Shadows for doubling down on ridiculousness and embracing its inner camp and appeal to weird little boys. I probably would have loved this if it came out 25 years ago. It never caught on, possibly because although the first of these new reinstallments did pretty well financially, no one seems to have swell memories of that abomination. I wouldn't even mind more of the campy side of things, but the once nice thing about all these bombs is that all these franchises may finally be dead. Probably. Probably not, to be honest.

Alice Through the Looking Glass

Budget: $170 million
Domestic Gross: $77 million
Worldwide Gross: $294 million

Here's where we start getting into the "unbelievably bad" section of films. How did Through the Looking Glass gross less than a third of its predecessor? Well, a disinterest in the novelty of 3D is a huge reason. Also, Alice in Wonderland (2010) was a clear aberration, even if its production design is pretty cool. No one has been waiting with baited breath on this one. There is no "Oh, I wonder where that story goes!?" or "I can't wait to see another wacky Johnny Depp whiteface character!" Through the Looking Glass was domestically outgrossed by The Purge: Election Year (2016). Let that settle in you for a bit.

Now You See Me 2

Budget: $85 million
Domestic Gross: $65 million
Worldwide Gross: $320 million

If only this was named Now You Don't. Does anyone remember Now You See Me (2013)? Do you remember how good that cast was? I always remember thinking, why are all these great actors in such a terrible movie. There are like two Academy Award winners and three additional nominees in that cast. What the hell is that? The movie didn't make any sense, though, and adding Harry Potter in a non-flatulence based role doesn't help anything. It actually came close to its predecessor's worldwide total, but the better question might be why a sequel existed for a film that only made $117 million domestically.

Ice Age: Collision Course

Budget: $105 million
Domestic Gross: $61 million
Worldwide Gross: $315 million

Has the Ice Age series finally run its (collision) course? The unbelievably grossed $100 million less than the previous worst-grossing film in the franchise, Continental Drift (2012). At least that one had awkward singing pirates. Usually these shitty films at least do well worldwide, although this was outgrossed by even the original Ice Age (2002), which somehow came out 14 fucking years ago. I've generally been amazed that this franchise has somehow made it to five movies, which is far more than any other major animated theatrical franchise. Is it finally dead? I'd be pretty content with a series of Scrat shorts.

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

Budget: $35 million
Domestic Gross: $55 million
Worldwide Gross: $107 million

Alright, so this flick definitely outscored its budget and did pretty well worldwide for a comedy, but for a heavily marketed Seth Rogen comedy that came off the heals of his most successful live action comedy, this didn't do so well. Neighbors (2014) out-grossed this by $100 million domestically, and felt like way more of a thing than this one did. It might be slightly funnier, but Sorority Rising really delivered a pretty good sequel. For whatever reason it didn't connect as well, which is weird, because even though I'm sure no one was super-into a sequel, does it matter for a comedy? It's all about what can make you laugh, right? I think the novelty was diminished here, and even looking back on it, it's not like this was an immortal comedy that changed anyone's life. 22 Jump Street (2014) still holds that distinction.

The BFG

Budget: $140 million
Domestic Gross: $53 million
Worldwide Gross: $153 million

So now we're getting into really really rough and sad territory. On paper partnering Spielberg and Roald Dahl seems like a great idea. It's a really genuine family film full of whimsy and spectacle that got decent reviews and could have been a great time. Still, doesn't this feel like a November film rather than a July film? I don't think it could get past its CGI creepy uncanny valley awkwardness, as much as it tried, and no matter how good of an actor he is, Mark Rylance just doesn't put butts in seats. It's also not like we're in a Dahl-mania or anything. Outside of Chocolate Factory movies, I think we're over-appraising how popular he is, or at least how much book readers want to see movies, because its gross was actually right in line with other adaptations. This might have done better, at least in the long-term (and for the budget) with a Wes Anderson-style Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) which married the material with the director really well, and while it also didn't really make its budget back, at least people are still into it seven years later. Maybe it's speaking too soon for The BFG, but how many CGI characters still look good seven years later?

Warcraft

Budget: $160 million
Domestic Gross: $47 million
Worldwide Gross: $433 million

Oh, China. You may have saved Pacific Rim (2013), and the $220 million you gave Warcraft may have saved this franchise, too. Can you really greenlight a sequel to a film that grossed a quarter of its budget in the States, though? It's a tough call for sure. They might do better to produce another film and then just focus on Chinese and worldwide marketing, with a limited US release. In many ways, Warcraft could signal an entirely new era in international filmmaking, one that pushes the International gross even farther than it does now. Or they could say "fuck it" because holy shit what a terrible movie.

Pete's Dragon

Budget: $65 million
Domestic Gross: $45 million
Worldwide Gross: $60 million

Who at Disney biffed this flick's worldwide release? By all accounts Pete's Dragon was actually a pretty great family film, and legions ahead of the atrocious 1977 version, but that never really caught on with audiences. Disney mis-read our love for the old one a bit and probably could have used some more context, or even a flashier title, because no one really remembers what the hell that old crap was. This isn't The Jungle Book (1967), which is pretty adored and well-known. Where is my all-CGI animal Robin Hood (1973) live action reboot?

Free State of Jones

Budget: $50 million
Domestic Gross: $20 million
Worldwide Gross: $20 million

I have a lot of questions about this. Why is Matthew McConaughey in this? Why did it come out in the middle of June against Independence Day and The Shallows (in fact, its stiffer competition was Finding Dory, Central Intelligence, and The Conjuring 2, all of which and the above beat it)? How did it cost $50 million to make? Wait, was it seriously in theaters for only a month? Are we overloading on slavery narratives? What does that mean for Birth of a Nation (2016)? Is that even a thing that can happen?

Ben-Hur

Budget; $100 million
Domestic Gross: $13 million
Worldwide Gross:$26 million

Now, to be fair, Ben-Hur only came out six days ago, and it'll surely make more money than this. Still, even with a really good hold it's probably looking at that $30-$35 million range domestically, and it's tough to say worldwide, but it's a real possibility it doesn't make back its absurd $100 million budget, without even taking in account marketing and theater costs. Did they really think this could make the $250 mill or so worldwide it would take to clear all its ancillary costs? That's crazy. That's so damn insane. Ben-Hur is probably THE flop of 2016, made even more painful by the fact the truly truly no one gives a shit at all. There's some sting with Independence Day and Ghostbusters tripping. There's really nothing but apathy here.

POPSTAR: Never Stop Never Stopping

Budget: Unknown
Domestic Gross: $9 million
Worldwide Gross: $9 million

So this one isn't making any more money. It did outgross MacGruber (2010)! This is that one that stings. It currently ranks as the 4,458th highest grossing film of all time and the single worst wide opening film of the Summer. Hell, seven films beat it that maxed out in less theaters, some significantly less, like a thousand theaters less. It's really proven how unviable Andy Samberg is at the Box Office, along with his Lonely Island partners and directors Akiva Schaffer and Jorma Taccone. They've had tremendous success on SNL and...their comedy albums I guess, but that's never really translated. I'm not sure how many more chances these idiots will get, and that's a shame, because I, for one, am a huge stupid fan. At least Samberg has Brooklyn Nine-Nine to crawl back to. POPSTAR was bad in a not okay way though. It's amazing to me that he was arguably one of the bigger modern SNL stars to break out, but has tripped so much when given his chance to shine in movies.

Well, folks, we've covered the Winners and Losers. What's that you say? Your favourite summer film wasn't in either of these lists?! Well, stay tuned because there are a ton of films yet to go which aren't really...good or bad. That mystical meh zone where they did kind of okay - that's the most thrilling list of all! Return, loyal readers and behold, our majesty!

Purging Through the Jungle with a Big Fucking Giant

Ahh. The Fourth of July Weekend. This has traditionally been a powerhouse weekend at the Cinema, but truth be told, in recent years past that distinction has been put to the test. We have three films dropping this weekend, none of which I'd expect to really light up the box office. Still, let's try to discuss their critical, cultural, and commercial potential. First, though, let's update on Independence Day Weekend:

Way back when when I was crushing The Long Halloween, we discussed the obvious choice this weekend - Independence Day (1996). We're lucky to have Resurgence (2016) still slumming around theaters this weekend, and you should probably go see that. We haven't actually had an outstanding Independence Day weekend in a while though. If you check out the top all time, we have Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011) at the tip-top and Despicable Me 2 (2013) at the #3 slot, but that doesn't feel quite like a Fourth of July America Fuck Yeah-sort of blockbuster, does it? We're five years past Dark of the Moon - what else we got?

Well, the only other films in the past decade are a Twilight film, The Amazing Spider-Man (2012), and the original Transformers (2007). Recent years have given us some epic misfires, from Terminator: Genisys (2015) to Tammy (2014), The Lone Ranger (2013), and The Last Airbender (2010). These are some of the most high profile bombs of all time, or at least recent cinematic history. Once you get out into the aughts there are some better candidates like Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009), Hancock (2008), and Superman Returns (2006), but very few of these echo that epic patriotism of Independence Day. That's likely a solid reason why Transformers has done so well here. America wants to turn its brain off and watch some explosions, jingoism, and some fucking flag waving for the grand U S of A. I'm still kind of surprised that Tammy fell on its face, because even though it was a bit of a mess, it was totally a summer movie that had a lot of fun with itself, even if it had some heavy parts that didn't really hit on a tonal level.

My point is that in the 90s this weekend saw Die Hard 2: Die Harder (1990 - which, by the way, what did audiences think of the Christmas-themed film that uses a snowstorm as an integral plot component coming out in the Heart of Summer?), T2: Judgment Day (1991 - somehow this is way more of a patriotic movie than Genysis. Maybe it's just a better movie), Men in Black (1997), Armageddon (1998), Wild Wild West (1999), and The Patriot (2000). These are the films that Independence Day built its back on. All of these are classic American blockbusters. Well, Wild Wild West and The Patriot sort of, but they're still pretty damn American.

On that note, we ought to talk about Will Smith, who appeared in four of the above movies (plus Men in Black II [2002], also a Fourth of July movie). These were all decently successful. Even Wild Wild West made as much as Bad Boys (1995) and Ali (2001) put together. His absence in any good film since...jeez, I Am Legend (2007)? If that? Maybe we go back to Hitch (2005)? Anyway, his absense in any good films, despite how incredible and weird and awesome his brief scene in Winter's Tale (2014) is, is surely felt in a country that yearns for someone to fill the big gap left by his departure. And we have another Independence Day right now! Why wasn't this worked out? Damn it. Damney damn it.

So let's go through these films in order of how much I want to see them, and I don't think I'll spend all that much time on anyone this go around. I say that now. Let's start with The BFG. Now, I was an enormous fan of the Roald Dahl book as a kid, and twenty years ago I'd be ecstatic at the prospect of a film adaptation. I'm not into it nearly as much now for some reason. Maybe it's just because I haven't read the book in twenty years. I remember the Fleshlumpeater and that farting scene. And didn't he really like pickles or something?

That's not natural.

The BFG just really doesn't look that exciting. I don't want to blame the layers of endless hokey CGI...but it's probably the endless layers of hokey CGI. I also can't understand Spielberg's sudden love affair with Mark Rylance. I'm not convinced of his acting ability at all, Academy Award be damned. Maybe the whole thing is just a little childish for me. I was also never into The Adventures of Tintin (2011), which was due to a simple disconnect from the material, which I think The BFG echoes.

There's no real reason to expect a poor movie out of Spielberg, although Tintin is unfortunately the closest thing you can compare this to. He's always avoided streaks or trends (he made The Lost World [1997] in between Schindler's List [1993] and Amistad [1997] and 1941 [1979] in between Close Encounters of the Third Kind [1977] and Raiders of the Lost Ark [1981] - you never know what you're going to get). I get a bad feeling about The BFG. I don't think Independence Day Americans want to see a British-based fantasy film. There hasn't been that much urgency to any of the marketing material, and there doesn't seem to be any must-see scenes or cultural resonance to it. I'd call it a hard pass at this point.

Roald Dahl film adaptaions are also a fairly mixed bag. For every Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory (1971) you have a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005). Even in animation, they range from the dreadful James and the Giant Peach (1996) to the sublime Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009). I'd argue that this essentially all comes down to the adaptation team. Mr. Fox is very much a Wes Anderson film the same as Charlie is, for better or worse, very much a later-era Tim Burton film. It's hard to predict anything, but I'm siding on the "no one cares" angle.

Moving on to The Legend of Tarzan (2016), which is another movie where I don't understand its existence. Why do they keep greenlighting Edgar Rice Burroughs stories? This actually seems to have an interesting twist - it's set after Tarzan has already left the jungle and depicts him coming back and re-adapting to Ape Culture. That's totally not communicated in the marketing and I feel a Hercules (2014) thing coming on where you get all pumped up to see Hercules and then it turns out that Hercules isn't even Hercules.

Watch out for that tree!

Of course, Tarzan is one of the most popular film characters of all time. He's appeared in 54 films since 1918. Of course, 44 of those films came before 1980. Still, there's been ten Tarzan films since 1980! Did you even know that?! The most high profile recent film is probably the bizarre dreadlocked Disney Tarzan (1999) with Rosie O'Donnell and a particularly brutal villain death, even for 90s Disney Films. But did you catch the Casper Van Dien film from 1998!? That was the last live action Tarzan film, and because of its serialized Johnny Weissmuller history along with its trend towards ultimate camp (Christopher Lambert taking the title role in 1984 seals it), it's been kind of a weird IP to add legitimacy to.

Still, it's public domain, so play ball. The cast of this one is actually pretty spectacular, re-uniting Django Unchained co-stars Sam Jackson and Christoph Waltz (who actually seems to be kind of awful in non-Tarantino films), along with Margot Robbie, Djimon Hounsou (who I feel like is in everything), and Jim Broadbent. The weak link is probably Alexander Skarsgård, who is a competent enough actor, but has never been really exceptional or a memorable draw. I suppose this is his chance, and he has the abs, so that works.

It's actually a bit weird how pervasive Tarzan is in our social consciousness. I've never seen a Tarzan film outside of the Disney version, but I totally know the story. The yell, the loincloth, it's all good. Most my memory is probably more Brendan Fraser George of the Jungle (1997). I mean, this is gold. Pure gold. I'm not going to be able to watch The Legend of Tarzan now. All I will think about is Brendan Fraser swinging into trees. Does Tarzan really deserve the rain-soaked gritty treatment? The dude's in loincloth surrounded by Apes. He better do the yell. I hope this film doesn't think it's too good for Skarsgård to scream through the jungle like a maniac. It's like Godzilla's fire breath; the most distinctive trait for the character.

I don't think anyone will want to see a Tarzan movie for the same reason they didn't want a John Carter movie or a Lone Ranger movie. These are old characters that we don't really care about. Every kid and nerd wants to see a movie about Captain America because they grew up reading stories about him. No one has sat around reading Tarzan stories in literally a hundred years, and even back then, they were niche pulp, not highly respected literature. My hopes for this film's success are about as dismal as The BFG. Again, if you're an overzealous American kid on Independence Day do you want to see some Brits wandering around the jungle screaming at Apes? Where is my damn fighter jet. Now, if they were to finally come out with a Magnus, Robot Fighter movie, then we'd be getting somewhere.

So now we move on to The Purge: Election Year (2016). Thank you, Purge. Thank you. This is my #1 movie of the week, at least that I'm pumped up about. It has tended to be a niche film, although to be fair, the original, even if wouldn't compete with traditional summer blockbusters, made thirty times its budget worldwide. It sequel, The Purge: Anarchy (2014) made a bit more than that, but more importantly, it drastically expanded its world in a way that I really respected. Election Year looks like it's going all-out nuts crazy, which is awesome. It feels like this series is getting looser and crazier as it goes on, toying with its premise in ways that progressively blur the line between horror and horror-comedy.

Do your patriotic duty and watch The Purge.

It's also flatly American. If there's any theme to this Independence Day Weekend post, it's that these films should have something American to them! I suppose the big studios don't actually care about that anymore because they can actually get a little more bank by focusing on more global issues while securing high worldwide grosses. Eww. Lame. There also seems to be a derth of political films in general this year. We've at least had W. (2008) or The Campaign (2012) in years past. Maybe The Purge: Election Year fits in with that lot.

Two years ago I argued that Purge movies could go on forever with the articulate yet simple high concept world they've built. The cool part is that they're not tied into any specific character or scenario. They can spin it into whatever they want. Obviously this year, with the chick from The Santa Clause 2: the Mrs. Clause (2002) wanting to ban the Purge, well that just won't stand. Hey it can't end with her being successful, right? Then these movies will stop! Maybe the creators are all purged out. No, that will not stand!

In terms of cultural resonance, I actually see Election Year blurring with Anarchy, unless it ends up really setting itself apart. It certainly seems like it could. It has the style, sardonic wit, and murderous irreverence to do so that seems to up the ante from the previous installments while communicating a pretty simple plot efficiently. Out of all the films coming out this weekend, Election Year is somehow the only one that has actually given me a compelling reason to see it - I want to know if the Purges stop!

Election Year will almost certainly make money, even if it doesn't debut near the top of the Weekend, which it'll honestly have to get through Finding Dory (2016) to get through, which ought to crush at least another $30 million. I can see The BFG reigning supreme, although it's going to be a close call. Election Year may also run into some trouble from The Shallows (2016) and The Conjuring 2 (2016), both of which have done decent for what they are. Are we horror'd out for Summer? They're all pretty different movies - ghosts, sharks, legal murder for 12 hours. What movie do you think will earn the crown this weekend?

Norwegian Morning Wood's Official Summer 2016 Movie Preview

Ah we have arrived at last at the greatest time of the year - that magical period between the first weekend in May and like the second or third weekend in August where common sense is thrown to the wind and the theaters are ruled by the loud and obnoxious rather than the tepid and mundane.

Of course, if this year is to prove anything it's that Summer Release dates don't actually matter anymore. Deadpool (Feburary), Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Just-Ass (March), and The Jungle Book (a few weeks ago) have already proven that whenever a film comes out, if people want to see it, they'll see it. You see this in television as well - more and more traditional Fall to Spring seasons are eschewed by cable networks in favor of just dropping episodes when they're ready.

Well, we're clutching on to something special, dammit. Let's take a look at every single film that's opening big enough to be worth our while:

MAY

May 6th:

Captain America: Civil War

Interest Level: Damn High
Cash potential: Fucking righteous
Cultural effect: Less than Bats v. Supes, but quite a bit more positive

May 13th:

The Darkness

Interest Level: What the hell is this?
Cash potential: non-existent, even if it's counter-programming for horror lovers
Cultural effect: In two weeks after its release this will be as unknown as it was two weeks before its release. I believe in a thing called love!

Money Monster

Interest: More counter-programming for adults who like George and Julia.
Cash: Could be decent, but not huge
Culture: This looks really dumb and tonally mismanaged.

May 20th:

The Angry Birds Movie

Interest: I'm not into Angry Birds at all. It looks like it's forcing things a bit more than The LEGO Movie (2014), which took likewise unadaptable material and made something really unique.
Cash: Kids movie opening in a graveyard. Although do kids play Angry Birds?
Culture: I don't think we're getting the next Minions out of this.

Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising

Interest: Pretty high. Seth Rogen almost never misses
Cash: It'll make like $80-100 mill and that's a success
Culture: Neighbors (2014) was absolutely hilarious and has had a decent cultural impact. This could just add to more of the same mythos.

The Nice Guys

Interest: I'm down, but not sure many more are. Summer is a weird time for this release.
Cash: I actually have a small feeling this will bomb. Not sure anyone cares.
Culture: Cult status is possible, but I think it'll be a decently small splash.

May 27th:

Alice Through the Looking Glass

Interest: For all it's ragged on, Alice in Wonderland (2010) has some cool and unique moments. It's not a good film at all, but whatevs. I don't think anyone has cared about it since its release so also whatevs.
Cash: There's no way this cracks $1 billion like the first one. For one the marketing has been way more subdued, and that was totally that early 2010s 3-D/IMAX affect. See also: Wrath of the Titans (2012).
Culture: Can't see it.

X-Men: Apocalypse

Interest: Certainly higher than Alice, but possibly more niche.
Cash: Non-Deadpool X-Men movies seem to have a ceiling. And the feeling around this isn't nearly where Days of Future Past (2014) was. I'm actually discounting this, but it won't flop.
Culture: There's lots of really cool iconography on display, although the plot seems awfully formulaic.

JUNE

June 3rd:

Me Before You

Interest: What the fuck is this shit?
Cash: There will be none
Culture: I repeat my first statement

Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping

Interest: I'm super on-board with this, although I'm not sure it has the buzz of some other high profile comedies like Neighbors 2 and Central Intelligence.
Cash: The Lonely Island trio have had a crazy amount of success making viral videos, SNL zeitgeist-capturing products, and have now branched out to shows like Brooklyn Nine-Nine and The LEGO Movie. Having said that, they actually have an egregiously terrible track record at the movies. This may land with a thud.
Culture: See above. Previous directorial works from either Jorma Taccone or Akiva Schaffer include Hot Rod (2007), MacGruber (2010), and The Watch (2012). I might consider the former two decent cult hits, and I have a sneaking suspicion that's where this lands as well.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows

Interest: I'm somehow more into this than the first go around. I think it's the emphasis on aggressive goofiness that I'm into more than any kind of self-serious gritty treatment of this material. It's more 80s cartoon than 00s cartoon (or 80s comics for that matter)
Cash: The first go around did alright and this has a bit better release date. It really finds its buck as a children's action film, of which there are virtually none of anymore. It will find its way.
Culture: The modern live action film series seems to add to mythos rather than extend it, and although there are some real wuuurd choices going on here, I'm not sure it'll really be cultural dynamite.

June 10th

The Conjuring 2

Interest: I actually JUST saw the first one, and didn't really think it was that much better or scarier or different than any other stock horror film, although I remember it getting a ton of good press back in the day when it was released. I'm not all that in to it, although if I had been more impressed with the original I might have been.
Cash: The first one made a ton on its own, but do horror sequels ever outgross their predecessors? My guess is that if the critics come around again and are like "It's sick, bro!" it'll do fine. If they be like "Nah, it's whack, dude" then it's fucked.
Culture: The Warrens have kind of penetrated pop culture, but for most normies it's still all about the ghosts or whatever is possessing whatever. Remember Annabelle (2014)? Lol

Now You See Me 2

Interest: Here's another sequel to a film that did well and was generally well-received, but did anyone really care? The cast for the first one was always way too good for its source material (boasting two Oscar winners and three more nominees - and the best left is still Mélanie Laurent).
Cash: This is another instance of a sequel to a film that did surprisingly well. There's honestly not a lot of exact competition around it (Ninja Turtles might be the closest thing that steals its dollars, and that's saying something), so it could do pretty well.
Culture: Name any one of the first film's characters! Didn't think so!

Warcraft

Interest: This is all but guaranteed to be the first really big flop of summer. I can't get into this at all. What the hell is the story here? It looks like a CGI explosion, admittedly a pretty good one, but who the hell can tell what's going on. Stop giving B-movie material huge budgets just because Lord of the Rings did well fifteen years ago.
Cash: Calling my shot now, this one totally bombs.
Culture: No one will care about Warcraft, except for possibly nerds.

June 17th:

Central Intelligence

Interest: That Dwayne Johnson fat shower is real, real weird, but putting these two in a film together is a damn solid move. I don't really find myself caring about it, but a lot more will.
Cash: No brainer. This one rules June.
Culture: I have trouble naming Kevin Hart movies, but then again, I'm not black.

Finding Dory

Interest: I have almost zero interest in this, even though Finding Nemo (2003) currently sits at #2 on my Pixar Movie list. Long-term sequels just feel weird coming out of Pixar, who is known so much for its original storytelling. I'd take something weird and experimental like Brave (2012) over Monsters University (2013) any day.
Cash: Nemo is one of Pixar's truly great moneymakers. It'll do damn fine.
Culture: This all depends on how they push it. Are we really talking much about Monsters University three years down the line? No, but Obama still watches Toy Story 3 (2010).

June 24th:

Free State of Jones

Interest: I was totally getting this confused with The Birth of a Nation. Is it weird to be turned off by too many prestigious slavery movies? The premise got me but I thought the trailer took some wind out of it. If it's good I'll see it.
Cash: Why is this coming out in late June? McConaughey pushes it towards popular territory, but no part of this feels like it deserves to be here. Counter-programming against ID4: Resurge? No doubt, and it shouldn't be too tough to make its budget back.
Culture: That kind of depends on whether it gets lost between Django Unchained (2012), 12 Years a Slave (2014), The Birth of a Nation (2016), and Harriet Tubman on the $20.

Independence Day: Resurgence

Interest: Summer '96 was so hard for ID4. I remember seeing that motherfucker on vacation, man! This is totally going the Jurassic World (2015) / Force Awakens (2015) route of going bigger and nuttier while more or less retaining the exact same storyline. I lean towards not caring.
Cash: For all the reasons above there's no real reason why this doesn't light it up. I still have a nagging feeling though, mostly because nothing really grabbed me in the trailer as must-see. It will probably do okay and not the Jurassic numbers it's hoping for.
Culture: ID4 was so pure for so many years as that one non-franchise franchise. Fuck that now. I don't think this will necessarily damage the brand, but tough to add to it.

JULY

July 1st:

The BFG

Interest: Could care less. Spielberg tends to fumble with this kind of material (namely beloved stuff that's not his), although our only real example is The Adventures of Tintin (2011). It's amazing how much that soured me. But I feel the same way about this as I did about that disaster.
Cash: Hard to say. It's coming off of ID4: R and running into Ghostbusters (2016) soon after, so it's a tight window to make a buck - and moviegoers have tended to run out of steam in July lately. Not sure anything about this screams "SEE ME!" and we might have our second major bomb of the Summer.
Culture: Doofy CGI. Nothing that won't be forgettable. Why does Spielberg have this hard-on for Mark Rylance all of a sudden?

The Legend of Tarzan

Interest: So damn low. I don't care about Tarzan. No one cares about Tarzan. See my comment above about B-movies getting A-Blockbuster treatments.
Cash: It seems to skew a bit darker and older than The BFG will, but they're still splitting that weekend. That's tough to come out with any significant cash flow.
Culture: Will we see a lot of Tarzan Halloween costumes? You know, you might have a kid factor, because I think I'd be down for a Tarzan when I was like 12 years old (actually, I got one - with dreads, bruh!), but it's not that cool for thirty-year olds to swing around their furniture screaming that they're Tarzan. Hrmm...

The Purge: Election Year

Interest: There seems like there is a ton of shit coming out every weekend this summer, and some of it is decent counter-programming, but stuff like this will totally cannibalize itself. Purge movies actually seem to be trending better, which is cool, and I didn't even know another one is coming out. I'm down, what the hell.
Cash: It's probably good. This is horror, but it's more fun horror, unlike The Conjuring 2, which is scary horror. This weekend certainly trends in a line from The BFG to this in getting more serious and adult, and that could pay off. It's certainly not running into The Secret Life of Pets (2016).
Culture: It's all the same at this point, although the second one actually did a decent job differentiating itself, and introducing a larger, bigger budgeted world. There's room to innovate here.

The Shallows

Interest: No one knows what this shit is. Move on.

July 8th:

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

Interest: I'm personally super on-board. The trailers have done a really nice job, the cast is a dream of young likable people right now, and the turn presented among the principal characters is amazing.
Cash: Will this be the Summer of Efron? I'm actually curious how this differentiates itself from Neighbors 2, but I think it can break out. It seems like it has enough of a hard edge over some of the other comedies this summer.
Culture: Will 2016 give us one of the best summers for comedies, ever? The action films all look like garbage so I'm down.

The Secret Life of Pets

Interest: I'm generally on Team Zootopia (2016), which looks like the total winner in this "animated talking animals" showdown. Nothing about this looks very clever or interesting and it's a solid pass.
Cash: Finding Dory isn't that far behind, and that's all but guaranteed to be giant. Angry Birds isn't too far behind that, either, and has had a fair amount of marketing awareness. This will be the third talking animal movie of the summer and fourth on the year. In just two weeks it also runs into the much much much more well established Ice Age: Collision Course (2016). "Totally doomed" is a phrase used all too often these days...
Culture: Does anyone care?

July 15th:

Ghostbusters

Interest: So hard for this one. There's no one in the cast that I don't adore (for all the hate, Melissa McCarthy delivers more than she misses, even if her movies have missed lately), and Feig obviously has the credentials, but the honest truth is that nothing the film has put out has been all that funny. Hoping something lands, but could probably pass at this point.
Cash: The expectations are obviously huge. This is probably the major film of the summer if not the year. There's probably enough goodwill amongst those who follow all the bits from the cast to beef it up, but it probably won't win summer based on the collective meh of a lot of people like me.
Culture: It seems like it's halfway steeped in 'buster lore, and halfway doing its own thing. That's probably good. If this could just make Kate McKinnon a bankable megastar I think my work here on earth would be done.

The Infiltrator

Get outta here

July 22nd:

Ice Age: Collision Course

Interest: I obviously have no interest in Ice Age 17 or whatever. I actually, I think it's #5. How have they made five Ice Age movies? It battles the mind. I am pretty into Scrat, though. Great throwback to clever silent animation of yesteryear.
Cash: There's a reason why this is the fifth Ice Age and we haven't seen Ray Romano do shit else in like ten years.
Culture: Can you remember what happened in the last Ice Age? Was that the one with the pirates? It's all the same movie by now.

Lights Out

Interest: This is turning into a big summer for horror. This actually had a cool and creepy trailer, and if it rides that vibe, I might be down. Looks real stupid, though.
Cash: Right after The Purge 3 is rough, but it's a pretty different style of movie. Summer horror counter-programming doesn't work, however, when it strikes three times.
Culture: I don't think anyone will remember this years on down the line, but it's kind of a cool gimmick for the summer.

Star Trek Beyond

Interest: Ohhh yeah, another Star Trek is coming out this year. Do you remember how pumped up everyone was for Star Trek (2009)? How was that seven fucking years ago? I remember even getting jazzed for Into Darkness(2013) despite its dumb title, terrible obvious and unnecessary plot twist and the general apathy I had after it sandwiched itself in between Iron Man 3 (2013) and Fast & Furious 6 (2013). That's kind of where I'm at again. For some reason the property can't seem to elevate itself in its franchise wars.
Cash: It's really hard to say. I'm not sure this summer will undergo blockbuster fatigue at this point like 2014 or 2013 did, but that could spell doom for this. Depending on if people are enough into Ghostbusters to ignore this it might do okay.
Culture: Into Darkness, even if it was ultimately a pretty forgettable movie at least gave us that sweet space jump scene and a terrible character twist to endless debate and bitch about. Can Beyond hope to do the same!? We haven't really seen much at all about it (or even Idris Elba's villain. Yeah - he's in this film! He's in every film! He's like a black Samuel L. Jackson).

July 29th:

Bad Moms

Interest: What the fuck is this movie? Wait - is it some kind of raunchy comedy starring Christina Applegate, Kristen Bill, and Mila Kunis? Ahh - the trailer literally dropped a few hours ago....and was apparently pulled already. That's not a good way to make Bryan watch your movie.
Cash: Who knows. This seems like it's going for a Bridesmaids (2011) thing, which obviously did pretty well. Considering the cast of Bridesmaids is jamming out in Ghostbusters a few weeks before, the release date seems like a weird move. These should be pretty different films though. Or we're clearly looking at the greatest Ghosbusters ever.
Culture: Got me. Could be something.

Jason Bourne

Interest: Next to nothing. I love how they dropped Damon for Jeremy Renner, made a shitty movie, realised he sucked, and are now trying to circle back. Man, the Bourne story just feels soooo finished.
Cash: It's really really weird how the Bourne Franchise became a franchise. I remember seeing the first one alone in theaters and feeling like I was its only fan. Now it's legit, albeit with a definite ceiling. There's no real reason for audiences to feel like they need to come back, though, and it could bomb pretty bad.
Culture: Bourne's shaky cam set pieces really ruined action films for a long time. Let's avoid that.

AUGUST

August 5th:

The Founder

Interest: Decent. Can you tell that Mike Keaton was sore after not getting the Oscar he should have? He's crushing these kind of high profile roles. This is totally The Social Network (2010) for McDonald's, but who cares, that was a damn strong trailer.
Cash: Again, the release date seems off. Shouldn't this be an October picture? Sure, the non-Fincher here is a whole bit lighter, but it feels like this gets buried, unless its good reviews bring the old people who have been neglected all summer - having only received the maddening Money Monster a few months ago.
Culture: Could be pretty high. A good portrayal in what looks like an unconventional biopic that's relatively high profile can make a splash. The issue I can see is if McDonald's is glorified, but do average people really care about that? I had McDonald's in the past 10 days and I hate their food.

Nine Lives

This is some kind of Kevin Spacey / Jennifer Garner cat movie.

Suicide Squad

Interest: Super high. This flick has had some of the best marketing ever. Hopefully it rises past Batman v. Superman's terribly bad will and is actually a rad picture.
Cash: There's certainly a market for this anti-Superhero movie, and if Deadpool proved anything, it's that audiences want more. This could rake it in and coast through August.
Culture: All the pieces are there. Personal investment is high, the iconography is strong, and the cast and performances seem damn solid. I'm all in.

August 12th:

Florence Foster Jenkins

GTFO

Pete's Dragon

Interest: So damn low. I don't really care about the original movie, and this feels really shoe-horned. Is he the one who puffs by the sea? No, that's Puff the Magic Dragon. Is that the same thing? You gotta give me something here.
Cash: There might be enough nostalgia here to lift it up, but it just doesn't feel on anyone's radar, especially for a live action adaptation on the heels of The Jungle Book, which was super successful. Bomb.
Culture: Nope.

Sausage Party

Interest: This seems really weird. I'm not totally into the concept or the parody of animated "Secret World" films with adult overtones. I was actually looking forward to this out of intrigue, but I'm not sure that it has the wit to back its crudeness.
Cash: There's almost no way this is profitable. It's so niche. It belongs on Adult Swim or something, which is influential and popular, but not in the sort of broad sense you need to sell tickets.
Culture: If anything, this could leave a huge dent in our culture for being really super weird, but I'm not sure enough thought leaders will see it for that to matter.

Spectral

No one knows what this is. I mean, seriously, you don't have a poster, yet? This sounds super-August with notes of Skyline (2010).

August 19th

Ben-Hur

Interest: Do I really have to talk about these last four? These are absolute abominations that no one will see. But Ben-Hur is damn sure trying, so we ought to include the weekend.
Cash: Not for all my pocket change.
Culture: Well, the original isn't that well known or culturally significant, so surely the remake will fare better.

Kubo and the Two Strings

What the fuck is this shit? Actually this trailer is kind of legit. It might have a shot with the right marketing.

The Space Between Us

Alright, so admittedly I need to research some of these shitty movies. This trailer is also kind of cool. I'm all about original sci-fi, although that's pretty horseshit, because that doesn't a good movie make. But I'm curious about this, which probably won't light up the box office but could make a decent late August splash if marketed right.

War Dogs

Lastly we have a weird Todd Phillips war profiteering dramedy starring Miles Teller and Jonah Hill. I don't care if this movie exists or not. It has the production acumen, although I think Phillips struggles when the tone isn't explicit. He seems to have trouble finding the moral sweet spot between elucidating boorish behavior and condoning it. His movies end up a pretty dark shade of gray.

So that's it. As of now you actually don't need to see any movies this summer because we've listed them all here. And just for finality's sake, let's give an official list of my "Definite Want to Probably Spend Money On":

Civil War
Neighbors 2
Nice Guys
Never Stop Never Stopping
Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates
The Founder
Suicide Squad
Kubo and the Two Strings
The Space Between Us

There. You only need to see nine movies and your life will matter.