Many film fanatics and critics have already been releasing their end-of-the-year lists on the best and worst films of 2017, respectively. Regarding the former, there are still a few belated releases on my schedule the next couple of weeks. Which means, my annual "Standout Films of the Year" post won't be released until the end of this month at the earliest.
In the mean time, while those same film fanatics and critics have had their takes on the "worst of the worst," yours truly takes a more unconventional approach. I should note that I have not yet to (nor may never) see such movies as the Tom Cruise remake of The Mummy (or, as I like to think of it, "The sign of a cinematic universe doomed to fail"), The Emoji Movie ("a clever high-concept that is ultimately a cash cow for Hollywood"), and several franchise follow-ups (Pirates of the Caribbean), remakes (Baywatch), reboots and adaptations of romance novels (Fifty Shades Darker) that have apparently been running out of box-office, critical and/or audience momentum lately. (The statements in parentheses represent only my impressions on these movies.)
Furthermore, I'm not going to merely talk about why the following selected films turned out disappointingly or unexpectedly (save for one, which was specifically made for polarizing reasons), but about what they could have been and/or what they could have improved on.
Let's start with the highest-grossing box-office champion of the year. Essentially a live-action remake of the 1991 Disney classic (and the Broadway version it inspired), this variation of the classic French romance between a bookish girl and a tormented beast has a lot of familiar songs, characters, and some worthy moments. Emma Watson is wonderful as Belle, and the supporting cast is terrific. It's the newer songs and some new character traits (Belle as a tinker, the Beast developing unexpected sympathy in a slightly different way) that could have been emphasized more over the more apparently passive sequences; although, the updated rendition of "Be Our Guest" is a showstopper. As for different choices in other characters (LeFou, anybody?), well, that's a different story. My feeling is, if you're going to adapt a Disney classic into a live-action feature, just stick to the source material and don't try to add contemporary statements and the like.
An undeniably ambitious project from director Colin Trevorrow (Jurassic World, Safety Not Guaranteed) about a boy genius (Jaeden Lieberher) who cares for his little brother (Jacob Tremblay) and his immature mother (Naomi Watts). When he realizes something traumatic is happening with his next-door friend and classmate (Maddie Ziegler), the story shifts genres from a compelling indie drama to a questionably dark and suspenseful mystery-thriller. Is violence really worse, or any different, than apathy? (Read my review here for more input.)
Like the Rocky and Die Hard sequels before it, here's another case of an unnecessary follow-up: an 8th Fast and Furious movie. ("Fate"="F8." Okay, that's clever.) Don't get me wrong, I like Vin Deisel and Dwayne Johnson. And I thought the filmmakers did a good job with the way they ended the last movie (2015's Furious 7 was one of that year's billion-dollar hits) that that one alone could've completed the series. I mean, certain franchises can't keep forever, right? Plus, Deisel and Johnson have shown they're capable of more than just fast cars, muscles and explosions. (Just look at Deisel in The Iron Giant and Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk, and Johnson in Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle and Moana, to name a few.) But it seems this series won't be running out of fuel (or box-office draw, considering its billion-dollar-plus intake) anytime soon, with two more sequels and some potential spin-offs on the way.
It's been debatable for several months whether this long-anticipated pairing of popular and engrossing DC characters (Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Aquaman, Cyborg and Superman, to be exact) would be good or not, let alone a successful follow-up on the heels of Wonder Woman this past summer. What results (at least, theatrically) is a middling mash-up of two directors (Joss Whedon took over for Zack Snyder during post-production in light of a family tragedy), a different composer (Junkie XL was replaced by Danny Elfman), and reportedly more studio interference in the final product. I, like many, am really hoping for a Zack Snyder director's cut. A positive in the mean time: the camaraderie among these heroes/actors (Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Ezra Miller, Jason Mamoa, Ray Fisher, and Henry Cavill) still makes me excited for future DC films nonetheless. (Read my review/retrospect here.)
The above ad says it. "The Most Controversial Movie In Decades." It may seem like a simple concept--a couple in an isolated home is soon invaded by uninvited guests--but it's the most provocative, unsettling and polarizing film this year, and then some. Writer-director Darren Aronovsky (2010's Black Swan), after all, intended it to make audiences and critics feel uncomfortable, to debate, and to be repulsed by his latest psychological horror story. (In my review, I describe it as both a contemporary parable and an anti-Christian allegory.)
Okay, some readers are probably going to be really mad at me for this one. Guillermo del Toro's period fantasy a la Pan's Labyrinth (one of my favorite films of the 2000s) doesn't lack for visually amazing scope, skilled direction, and compelling performances (especially Sally Hawkins as a mute custodian in 1950s America, and Michael Shannon as a villainous facility head). But that, and a certain level of innocence and wonder, is all sadly tarnished by on-screen sensuality between Hawkins' Elisa and a mysterious aquatic monster (del Toro veteran Doug Jones) she falls for. Did I mention there's unnecessary and graphic nudity. At least, the MPAA was accurate in their reasons for giving this film an R-rating.
Here's another movie I had secret high hopes for, especially after promising trailers that seemed like a more true step-up in a franchise based on toys; these anticipations strangely keep allowing me to give director Michael Bay the benefit of the doubt, that perhaps he's trying to keep doing a better Transformers movie. (He has gone on to state this is the last one he will ever direct.) But that turned out not to be the case here, as it wound up another cluttered, poorly-edited, meaningless, and rusted CGI-destruction excuse (despite some impressive IMAX 3D footage). Some good news (maybe): Bumblebee's getting his own spin-off film later this year, set in the 80s. At least that sounds retro. (Read my review/retrospect here.)
No comments:
Post a Comment