Thoughts on/Review of "Look Who's Back"

Look Who's Back is a 2015 German satirical comedy film directed by David Wnendt and based on the bestselling novel of the same name by Timur Vermes. It stars German actor Oliver Masucci as Adolf Hitler, mysteriously teleported from the site of his death in April 1945 to 2014 Berlin. Disillusioned, Hitler wanders around modern Berlin, confused at numerous people ogling him and taking pictures and videos with strange-looking devices that he later figures out to be telephones. He stumbles upon a newspaper stand, where he catches himself up to speed with the history of Germany after World War II, and determines it to be a complete disgrace. With the help of a filmmaker desperate for striking footage, he goes around the country (in unscripted scenes) asking people about politics to find out how they feel about the state of the country, finding that most people have been feeling a shift away from Germany's greatness that he says is analogous to the anger felt in 1930. Mistaken for a brilliant method-acting comedian on TV, Hitler soon gains a large following, with some believing they are playing along with a joke and others genuinely infused by his political rhetoric. But Hitler has not evolved with the times he finds himself in, and his aims have not changed at all.

What follows is essentially Borat for Germany, as it is set up in a similar way (unscripted in-character interviews matched with scripted storyline sequences) and has similar goals (using brash comedy about touchy subjects with real-life people to reveal the issues with society). Now, this film's one huge downfall to me is that it is much less subtle than Borat (which is saying something), which definitely had its own sociopolitical points to make, but seemed to always put comedy first. Look Who's Back, on the other hand, seems pointedly made for the purpose of pushing an agenda (ironic in a film that consistently decries television and film as merely a means of propaganda). Especially in its third act, the film becomes pretty squarely devoted to criticizing right-wing German nationalists who are accused of Islamophobia in response to the increasing immigration from the Arab world to Europe and calls for multiculturalism. Now, to me, whether or not you agree with this movie's politics is neither here nor there, because I think this film has even more important and intelligent things to say that it does much more subtly. But as a warning, if you can't really stomach films with a very obvious political stance, especially one you disagree with, then maybe turn this movie off around 90 minutes in. But I'd like to talk about some other things it touches on - and by the way, spoiler alert.

To me, Look Who's Back's greatest strength, outside of Masucci's committed performance and its penchant for pitch-black humor, beyond being forwardly an indictment of the far-right movement against immigration, is that it is a more subtle indictment of essentially any democratic populace with access to a free press. In this case, of course, it focuses its satiric crosshairs on modern Germany, but I see many parallels to phenomena going on in the UK and America as well. Especially during this American election cycle with the rise of Donald Trump (not to be the millionth person to compare him to Hitler, by the way, just stating that the nature of his popularity is pretty similar to Hitler's in this movie), this film is a pretty brilliant satire of how our relationship with the media influences our politics, and what it says about us.

During the film's penultimate scene where, on the edge of a roof at gunpoint, Hitler gives a speech regarding the fact that the reason people supported him in the past and now is because to some degree they agreed with him. And the film makes a point to mention that Hitler is for fixing some pretty noble issues, like helping the environment and improving wages for the middle class. And while modern Germans (or anyone) might think it impossible that they'd be able to be duped into voting for a second Hitler, he embodies and lets out unfiltered the anger at the current state of politics that they feel deep down inside them, and it becomes attractive to them. Hitler isn't a monster - he's a guy who was angry at the wrong things, and persuaded a nation that was angry too.

Again, not to be another person drawing this parallel, but I see the same thing with Trump in America. Even people who aren't traditionally Republican or even conservative voters will say he "tells it like it is" and "talks about what everyone's thinking" and "says what no one else will say" (pretty much exact phrases that some of the right-wing German interviewees use when talking to Hitler). He's tapped into a fear and hatred people have, and to these people it's such a relief. So where are Hitler's other supporters? Many of them are either intrigued by the few legitimate points he at least claims to have, while others tune in to his shows, buy his book (a sequel to Mein Kampf, naturally), and even support him and cheer for him simply because they think it's funny how ridiculous, xenophobic, or whatever you want to call him he is. Sound like anybody else we know?

The film really takes a nosedive into heavy-handedness in its final act regarding anti-immigration politics. On the surface, I agree with its message, but it's one that I think requires more nuance than this film allows for. I know that apparently the source novel didn't include such political statements, at least not so blatantly, and was more about the sociological thought experiment of people not only voting for someone who acts like Hitler, but, in the words of thousands of Tumblr users, is literally Hitler. And in that regard, I believe the film does great work comedically and satirically.

Regardless of how you feel about its political conclusion, I think this movie is near-essential viewing for any modern Western audience. The film's incarnation of Hitler returns, stirs up some brief controversy, and then garners a surprisingly large following out of a collection of irony, legitimate points, help from the media (who are only doing it because it translates to ratings), and actual support for his more radical ideas. The only time at which anyone believes he's gone too far is when images surface of Hitler shooting a dog, with one character correctly stating that you can get away with pretty much anything on TV except killing a puppy, but Hitler is soon back up on top when he secures sympathy from even the biggest celebrity names in Germany after being viciously attacked by no one else but neo-Nazis that believe him to be a fraud. It's a pretty essential scene, I think, as it separates neo-Nazis and those who actively support Hitler's ideology from those who have a lot of parallels in their political leanings to Hitler perhaps, but are not consciously bigoted or radical. As Hitler says at the end of the film, there's a little bit of Hitler in every German. Insert the horrible once-revered public figure relevant to your home country here.

Look Who's Back reveals our hypocritical denouncement of those leaders and figures we believe to be bad people while sometimes succumbing to aspects of those people's very principles, some of us more unabashedly than others (by far the most jaw-dropping unscripted event in the film is when a minor German political figure, believing the camera is off, admits that he would endorse the real Hitler today). It also reveals the illogical nature of societal taboos, as shown in a scene where a comedian says that jokes about Jews and the Holocaust are racist and tasteless while applying blackface to himself. Between their fascination with Hitler either as a joke or as a real hero that will make Germany great again (I swear to God those exact words are said by numerous people in the movie), the fickle nature of their support for him, as well as their general attitude about potentially having Hitler back in modern Germany, the audience in the film is a pretty great representation of basically any modern Western audience I can think of. If nothing else, Look Who's Back does a great job at showing us that, sometimes due to justifiable anger, to some degree, we're all assholes. We all have a little Hitler in us.

The film is on Netflix, at least in the US, and I really recommend it, even if you're not up for a pretty vehement pro-immigration message (the "movies" subreddit was so excited for this film when it was announced it and quickly dropped all discussion of it once its political positions became clear). I'm not really treating this as a formal review, but if it were, I'd probably give this film a B+.

Sorry in advance for a probable lack of actual reviews of new movies in the coming weeks. This summer's movies are pretty dry and uninteresting to me and I'm currently tight on money and don't get to make trips to the theater for anything I'm not already pretty sure I'd like. Hopefully both of those things will change.

"The Nice Guys" Review

The Nice Guys is a dark comedy crime/buddy cop film directed and co-written by Shane Black (Iron Man 3, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang) and starring Ryan Gosling, Russell Crowe, and Angourie Rice, with Keith David, Kim Basinger, Matt Bomer, and Beau Knapp in minor roles. The film is set in 1977 Los Angeles and follows bumbling alcoholic private detective Holland March (Gosling) and enforcer-for-hire Jack Healy (Crowe), who team up when their clients both present cases regarding the apparent suicide of a porn star, leading them into a twisty, bizarre mystery involving the government and the 1970s porn industry. I was super excited for this movie when it was being advertised. The trailers gave me a vibe similar to The Big Lebowski mixed with Boogie Nights, both of which I love, so I was pretty psyched. And yeah, this movie delivered.




You'll hear this from every single person who's seen this movie and recommends it, but the absolute best thing about the film by far is the chemistry between Gosling and Crowe, who make one of the most entertaining on-screen duos in a long time (wait, when did 21 Jump Street come out? Okay, not that long, but they're really good is the point). For the most part, this movie eschews the cliches of the buddy cop genre, for one thing making the tough guy the one who's not an actual cop or even a PI. Their personalities are distinct and they are both fleshed out and have a good deal of dimension, but they're very similarly laid-back dudes with similar jobs and outlooks on life, but with different methods of doing their jobs and their own personal demons to grapple with. Overall I think Gosling's character was the stronger of the two, but Crowe's got glimmering moments of depth that are just enough to make his character interesting, and his performance is understated and funny.

The surprise of the film was the character of Gosling's daughter (Rice), who's sort of the Penny to Gosling's Inspector Gadget. She's never annoying and doesn't make Gosling seem completely incompetent, but the two complement each other and learn from each other. It's a really surprisingly sweet father-daughter relationship coming from a film with such a dark sense of humor, and even Crowe and the daughter manage to get in a nice cute scene or two in. Really, just the whole main cast does a great job of breathing life into these goofy but fully realized characters, even Basinger and David who are pretty sorely underused.

The performances don't uplift the film from nothing, though. Black's script is dripping with his signature pitch-black humor, bloody slapstick violence, and snarky jackass characters, this time set against the backdrop of 70s L.A., a time period which the film captures pretty well. Unlike other 70s-based dramedies like American Hustle and Boogie Nights, I was never really blown away by the soundtrack, but they get some good tunes in, and it's more the look and feel of the flashy-but-trashy LA underworld that the film nails. Especially during the second act when our characters dive deeper into the porn scene, the movie's vibrant neon colors, costumes, and funky hairdos really come to life in a film whose palette and production design are already teeming with personality.

That, and the humor is pretty constant. There are numerous belly laughs of all types, ranging from the silly slapstick violence to nice subtle quirks and background additions, as well as some delightful jabs at hippies, a group of people whose views and actions are juxtaposed to hilarious ends with Gosling and Crowe's rigid (but in a lot of ways equally flawed and selfish) outlook, often resulting in some funny gags as well as some telling character moments for Gosling regarding the world his daughter will be growing up in that I thought was an understated but interesting touch.

Such is the success of Black's screenwriting, managing to thread together bloody shootouts, drunken Gosling hijinx, and a talking bee with the voice of Hannibal Buress with a coherent, twisty neo-noir story about clashing generations and how to judge whether or not one is a good person. It's a movie that I'm sure I'll be able to further identify its narrative achievements upon later viewings, but I can just tell they're there. The movie gives lots of hints that it is very aware of the flaws in all of its characters' outlooks on life, and they are each the butt of a number of jokes. The film has few downsides, the only major one being that it can sometimes feel unfocused (though I thought the same of The Big Lebowski on my first viewing) and the ending is a little overblown, however it does result for a pretty great jab at the invincible hero trope and runs with it brilliantly.

Overall, The Nice Guys is a super fun time at the movies. It's an original and fun buddy cop comedy with well-rounded characters performed excellently by a talented cast, a smart and self-aware script, and some really nice 70s imagery and music. I wish I could get more detailed in my analysis of its narrative themes, but I'd honestly need to see it again first, which I know I will. All I know is that Gosling better get a Golden Globe nomination for best actor in a comedy. His physical comedy was probably the best I've seen from a serious actor since the Quaaludes scene in The Wolf of Wall Street. If you want a fun comedy and want to support an original movie made by a guy who clearly just loves writing movies, then go check out The Nice Guys.

Grade: A-

"Captain America: Civil War" Review

Captain America: Civil War is a superhero action film directed by Anthony and Joe Russo and starring Chris Evans, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Sebastian Stan, Don Cheadle, Paul Bettany, Elizabeth Oslon, Chadwick Boseman, Tom Holland, Paul Rudd, Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Emily Van Camp, William Hurt, and Daniel Bruhl. It is the third film in the Captain America trilogy and the 248th film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the beginning of Phase Three. In this film, the US government has taken notice of the collateral damage caused by the Avengers during their hero work and has introduced the Sokovia Accords, agreed upon by over 100 sovereign nations in reaction to the events of Avengers: Age of Ultron, aiming to have the Avengers sanctioned and operated by the United Nations Security Council to ensure that they only respond to threats they can control and diffuse without any collateral damage. Iron Man, having been guilt tripped by various families of victims of Sokovia which triggers his serious daddy issues, agrees with the government that the Avengers, himself included, have become too arrogant and need to be put in check in some way. Captain America, on the other hand, refuses to sign the accords, saying that the agreement would involve too much political red tape, would serve whatever corrupt agendas of the UN at the time, and would only pass the blame to someone other than the Avengers themselves instead of forcing them to take responsibility for their actions. This creates an ideological divide among the Avengers, who decide to then punch each other. Also, there's a guy who keeps wanting to get information about Bucky and Hydra. Also, Black Panther is angry. Also, Spider-Man.

So, I'll say right off the bat that the comparisons to Age of Ultron and Batman v. Superman were inevitable, so don't be surprised that I'll be the four hundredth person you hear bring them up while discussing this movie. In my opinion, this film far surpasses both, in that this movie has a lot of storytelling gears to turn and mostly does all of them justice (though it's worth noting that this is a Captain America film first and foremost, even though the cast essentially makes this Avengers 2.5). The premise of this film is significantly different than previous Marvel films, in that there's not much of a big bad villain out to destroy the whole universe (there is a big bad villain, but he's not a giant robot or a cave troll that shoots electricity, he's just a dude), but rather the action, tension, and drama all stems from the differing ideas of characters, and in general, while keeping with Marvel's signature brand of fun silliness, this movie goes a bit darker in its themes and storyline. That being said, this isn't as transgressive structurally or stylistically as, say, Guardians of the Galaxy, so if you're already sick of the formula or general "feel" of Marvel movies, this will probably be passable entertainment to you. But if you're like me and are pleasantly content with the Marvel formula (if a little weary of the consequences of the dawning of our new mouse overlords in the film industry), then this movie's pretty damn excellent.

Perhaps this film's best achievement is making a decent understandable case for both sides presented in the movie. While I went into the film being team Cap and came out being team Cap, there were some snippets during the beginning where I really felt for Iron Man's rationale. I've heard some critics and friends of mine say as a critique of this movie that the conflict was difficult to get invested in because one side was so clearly right, yet all of them sided with different characters in saying that, which to me proves that the film actually does make a compelling case for both characters, to the point that people on both sides can't seem to see how anyone sides with the other. Without getting into spoilers, I was also happy that the ending wasn't absolute. To put it in vague terms, things don't end definitively with everyone one way or the other. In the context of the MCU, this is sort of the dark middle chapter and/or the beginning of the finale, and it's a good kick-off for the last several movies in the series as we see everybody's stories basically start to wrap up.

I was also refreshed to see such a different finale than most Marvel movies for this one. While I do love The Winter Soldier and think it's almost as good or maybe better than this one, it did devolve into a now-cliched "fate of the world is at stake" effects-heavy action scene in its climax. While this one does sort of jarringly shift into a fun, silly fight on an abandoned tarmac (which, while inconsistent with the relative darkness of the rest of the film, is probably the best scene in the whole movie), the actual climax is much more scaled down, to the point that only three characters are involved. It's simply a confrontation that has built up and is for completely personal reason. There's no making up to fight some unrelated monster thing (cough cough, Batman v Superman, cough cough). Most if not all of the characters have well-written and fleshed out reasons for choosing the sides they do (unlike some recent superhero films where their reasons for fighting each other either don't make any sense or are just not explained at all - cough cough, Batman v Superman, cough cough), even including the admittedly under-written villain, who does serve a pretty huge purpose in the story in the end and whose motivation fits well with the movie's themes. I'm probably reading too much into a superhero movie, but I actually found a lot of subtle insight into pretty timely issues of relinquishing freedom for personal security (which it makes sense Captain America would side against), and it's all done pretty smartly. At least, as smartly as a superhero movie can do without being boring or detracting from the fun, but smart nonetheless. It's a big dumb action movie; you look for hints of brilliance.

The action is superbly directed for the most part, save for a few shaky moments in the film's opening action scene, and Civil War has an amazing stunt team on its hands. An impressive amount of the effects, fighting, and stunts were done in-camera, and I urge you to look up some YouTube videos of the filming of the movie, because it is pretty amazing what they accomplish with surprisingly few computer effects. Not to decry the computer effects, of course, which are also state-of-the-art, especially a scene toward the beginning involving a face-mapped younger version of Tony Stark that surprisingly never entered the uncanny valley and was pretty damn convincing the whole way through.

Along with their general tendency to hire talented directors and their near-scientific understanding of what elements of story and action are note-perfect for box office success and audience enjoyment, I think Marvel's greatest strength in these movies that is most evident here is their casting. The Russos have a cast of a dozen or so characters that all get at least one chance to be either funny or badass, and not only do they direct and edit these scenes so fluidly that it never feels nearly as overstuffed as Age of Ultron, but the actors do a wonderful job with the material. Pretty much everyone of the Avengers is fun to watch on-screen - even Vision gets a few laughs. Stark is decidedly dour in this film due to his grapplings with the past, so much of the charm and snark is left to the likes of Ant-Man and Wilson. The show-stoppers for me, though, were the newcomers - Black Panther (played in full badass fashion with an African accent to boot by Chadwick Boseman) and most notably Spider-Man, played by young newcomer Tom Holland. As well as being the youngest Spider-Man (who has fucking Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, which probably led to a few awkward nerd boners), Holland's Spider-Man is funny, charming, and probably my favorite cinematic depiction of Peter Parker thus far. I'm very confident for his standalone film next summer, as he stole most of the scenes he was in.

Now, remember, all of this cool shit is wrapped in the typical Marvel formula, so as I said, if you're already not sold on that, then this movie probably won't be more than a simplistic good time at the movies for you. But as a good time at the movies, and especially as a comic book movie, it's just about as perfect an adaptation you can get in terms of keeping the tone, fun, characters, and most of all, brand recognition. I've heard a lot of people complain that Marvel movies are hard to evaluate individually because the cinematic universe operates as a story on its own and they sort of force you to see the previous seemingly unrelated films in order to understand the story, and I guess that's a valid argument, but I've never really minded it. And judging by the fact that this movie is poised to gross twice as much money as its predecessor, I guess most moviegoers don't seem to give a shit either, most probably because at the end of the day Disney has box office draw and audience fulfillment down to such a fucking science that even non-superhero fans ends up seeing this shit just because there's some visceral entertainment value in most of these movies. It's a massive corporate ploy that tugs at your emotions for profit, but then again, what are movies if not that? I feel my soul is in good hands with Marvel if I've chosen to sell it to them now.

Overall, I'm not sure if Civil War will win many converts, but it's a very tightly written, well performed, well directed, and just overall very entertaining comic book movie with exciting action, well developed characters, some moderately ambitious storytelling with some thoughtful themes, and even some surprising little twists (although every movie buff I've ever talked to always sees popular movies and complains how he saw everything coming because film nerds are little-known descendants of God himself, but if I'm just a stupid idiot with no foresight, so be it). I don't want to seem like I'm blindly praising this movie with no gripes because it's by no means perfect but there's not much I find fault with it as a blockbuster. There's a notable injury late in the movie that I kind of wish had been a death just to add some more emotional weight to the story, and the musical scores of these Marvel movies are pleasant but very calculated and unnoticeable, but other than that, this movie does everything on some level of good to great. This may be a controversial rating, but my grade system is and will never be completely sacrosanct, so fuck it, I liked this movie.

Grade: A

Predictions: The 2016 Box Office

We're now into May 2016, and it's not quite late enough in the year to be predicting my other favorite thing which is awards (I'll be starting that in June/July), but it is a good time to start predicting the tops and bottoms of the box office for this year's major wide releases. I usually like to do it right at the start of the summer movie season because we now have a fairly good idea of where the money's flowing this year, but there's still some room for surprise. After all, last year, Jurassic World was projected in May to have a pretty healthy opening only to be undercut by some of the summer's other blockbusters, and then turned out to be the fourth highest-grossing film of all-time. So, in this post, I'll be trying to predict the possible top 10 highest-grossing films of the year, counting worldwide grosses because why shouldn't you, then some of the possible upsets, and then just some general thoughts about all of those things. 2015 was a really fun year to watch box office-wise just due to the sheer number of unexpected or underestimated hits (not many people thought that we'd see a third film break the $2 billion mark), and 2016 is turning out to be equally fascinating not only because of the amount of money being made, but also the direction of the money. Anyway, let's get into this shit.

My Predicted Top 10

#1 - Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

While my proposed #2 also has a very good chance of absolutely destroying the 2016 box office, I'm gonna go ahead and guess that Star Wars will reign for the second of possibly three years in a row (I'd be surprised if Episode VIII makes less than $1.6 billion). The hype for the series is real after the arguable cultural landmark that was The Force Awakens, although the fact that this is an anthology film lacking Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher might tell some non-ardent fans to sit this one out. On the other hand, perhaps audiences will share my curiosity in the first Star Wars film outside the main series. That, and it's coming out in December with little competition for many weeks, meaning its legs could be impressive. And, y'know, it's fucking Star Wars. If they show a glimpse of Vader in the next trailer, watch out.
Release Date: December 16th
My Predicted Gross: $1.55 billion

#2 - Captain America: Civil War

The first movie in Phase Three of the behemoth Marvel Cinematic Universe drops this weekend, and has already made a killing in Europe, taking in just over $200 million in its first week overseas. As of a few weeks ago, Civil War was tracking at a minimum $175 million opening weekend stateside, which has only grown since, with most trackers predicting it will just barely break a $200 million domestic opening weekend, which is a very exclusive club. This could very well make Age of Ultron numbers. Detractors of this theory, some of whom maintain that this film might not even break $1 billion, have pointed out the relatively low gross of the previous Captain America films. The problem I see with that is that this isn't just a Captain America film - we've got Iron Man, Hawkeye, Ant-Man, the introduction of Black Panther. This is essentially Avengers 2.5, and fucking Spider-Man is in it! That, and it's getting great reception from critics and audiences alike, which should lead to great word of mouth to keep it afloat amid the heavy competition in the latter weeks of May. It should be a nice palate cleanser after Batman v Superman.
Release Date: May 6th
My Predicted Gross: $1.4 billion

#3 - Finding Dory

Finding Nemo is the second highest-grossing Pixar film behind Toy Story 3, the latter film teaching us that drawn-out nostalgia fares well for audiences, at least in America. This will probably either just break $1 billion or go a little beyond that. The problems: it has some stiff competition after opening weekend (Independence Day, The BFG, The Secret Life of Pets) that could do some damage to its legs, and it needs to be really good to hold audience interest. Monsters University managed to gross a hefty amount with newcomer talent and lukewarm audience response, but Finding Dory has the majority of the first film's original crew returning and is a much more precious property to try and get right. I'm gonna give Pixar the benefit of the doubt(?) here on the wings of Inside Out's success and say that Dory is gonna be the fifth animated film to break the big B, even if by a hair.
Release Date: June 17th
My Predicted Gross: $1.1 billion

#4 - The Jungle Book

This one's tricky to place. Numbers 3, 4, and 5 on this list are almost certain to cross the billion-dollar mark; it's just a matter of by how much and in what order. The Jungle Book looks like a fairly safe bet for such a milestone, though. After a prediction-shattering opening weekend (well-deserved and elevated by positive critical reception and IMAX viewings), the film has shown amazing legs in the last few weeks, managing to keep its week-by-week drops under 40%. I'm predicting a 45-50% drop this weekend with the opening of Civil War, but its more kid-friendly nature should keep it above water in the first few weeks of the actual summer movie season. It already sits at nearly $700 million worldwide, is doing phenomenally overseas, and hasn't opened in some big Asian markets yet, so it looks like this will fall squarely at $1 billion. It could very potentially outgross Finding Dory worldwide, but Civil War's huge tracking numbers give me reservations, so I'm saying it comes just under.
Release Date: April 15th
My Predicted Gross: $1.07 billion

#5 - Zootopia

Arguably the most surprising film of the year is faring incredibly well at the box office, but its run is coming to an end. Zootopia is still in the top 10 in its ninth weekend, so it's proven amazing staying power throughout the spring even in the US, though I'm sure once Captain America and the X-Men come in it'll be all but unavailable in most domestic theaters. But the film has fared extraordinarily well overseas and currently sits at around $930 million worldwide after nearly two months of release, and has just opened in Japan, where it's expected to stay in theaters for months. I'm saying this one could creep up to $1 billion or juuuuuust under. We could have two animated billionaires in one year for the first time, folks.
Release Date: March 4th
My Predicted Gross: $1.01 billion

#6 - Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice

This movie is a fucking anomaly, I swear to God. This film had one of the biggest worldwide opening weekends of all-time, and ended up only just barely making a profit. With a total budget amounting to somewhere in the $400 million range, this film's total gross so far of around $860 million worldwide is hard to call a success, especially considering that this was the DC Extended Universe's tentpole start-up film that Warner Bros oversold as a thoughtful groundbreaking thrill ride that would easily take in over $1 billion. With the release of Civil War, it's bowing out of most American theaters and capping out at around $875 million. Still a ton of money, and obviously it's still in the top 10 so it's a success, but when you have a drop in interest of over seventy percent after one week of bad word of mouth, it may be time to rethink your decision to let Zack Snyder the next two biggest movies in your franchise. Also, fucking Deadpool outgrossed this movie in America. Isn't that nutty? If you'd said that would happen three months ago people would've thought you were crazy.
Release Date: March 25th
My Predicted Gross: $875 million

#7 - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them

It's not a Harry Potter movie, but it's a Harry Potter movie. And Harry Potter makes fuckin' bank. And the advertising for this film has already been totally playing up the HP connections. And it looks like a generally fun time. The generally lucrative release time of Thanksgiving and some light December competition should make for a healthy gross for the start of Harry Potter 0.5.
Release Date: November 18th
My Predicted Gross: $800 million

#8 - Deadpool

This movie is just closing out, and it looks like it's coming in at just under $800 million worldwide. Pretty decent for a fringe movie that was pinned as "risky" and released in early February. And was also filled with swearing and gore and pegging. The new highest-grossing R-rated film of all-time will probably enjoy a cozy spot toward the bottom of this year's top 10.
Release Date: February 12th
My Predicted Gross: $780 million

#9 - Suicide Squad

Lack of faith in the DCEU may hurt this film, but it's coming out in August with little competition in its coming weeks, which could have a Guardians of the Galaxy effect. It's also being advertised as considerably more fun than Man of Sadness and Murderman v. Captain Hypocrite so who knows? I'm saying it makes in the mid-700 range.
Release Date: August 5th
My Predicted Gross: $750 million

#10 - Independence Day: Resurgence

This movie is being released amid a pretty crowded summer release schedule right at the tail end of June, but people like their throwbacks to the 90s nowadays, so I think it'll do decently for its first few weekends in the US. Where I'm guessing the majority of this film will score is overseas. Mindless but exciting American-directed action with little dialogue to translate always does very well in foreign markets (see also: the Transformers series). Its lackluster performance stateside will most likely hurt its overall gross though.
Release Date: June 24th
My Predicted Gross: $680 million

The Possible Upsets for the Top 10

Moana (November 23rd) - Disney's on a roll, and it's supposed to have some bomb-ass music. But its competition is crowded and we already have a good number of animated giants this year.
Alice Through the Looking Glass (May 27th) - This one and X-Men: Apocalypse both come out in the same weekend, and both are continuations of possible franchises. Days of Future Past grossed just under $750 million a few years ago, and the original Alice grossed over $1 billion. However, their mutual popularity I think will end up cancelling each other out and giving them each middling grosses. If either of them catch on with positive word of mouth, watch out though. (Alice also has the added benefit of IMAX 3D being a bigger selling point)
Doctor Strange (November 4th) - Bad idea to bet against Marvel at this point. Any film of theirs making under $600 million worldwide at this point is basically impossible, so if it doesn't break the top 10, it'll be just under it. Heavy competition could break it after opening weekend, but people love Betterbeard Crabblesnatch and magic.
Ghostbusters (July 15th) - I have no idea how this movie will do. It will either gross big because of positive word of mouth or people seeing it out of spite, or perhaps online social justice activists will get perfect thinkpiece material by having it bomb, or at least under-perform. I'm guessing it cracks $400 million.
The BFG (July 1st) - If it's really great. Spielberg hasn't had a box office smash in a while, but his films always do well, and this one's got that old-school Spielberg magic oozing from it based on the trailers. 3D tickets should boost it as well, but the competition is tough, and people overall might take silly animals and espionage over early-80s whimsy.


So, it seems that by almost everyone's estimation, half or more of the top 10 highest-grossing films of the year will be released by Disney and their affiliates. Say what you will about Disney creating a cultural monopoly. As long as they keep producing good, entertaining films that people want to see, I warmly welcome our mouse overlords. Shower me with tie-in comics and toys, Bob Iger, so long as your four hundred Marvel and Star Wars movies are fun to watch.

That's all for now. Check back later this week for my Civil War review.

"Sing Street" Review

Sing Street is a musical comedy-drama coming of age film directed and written by John Carney (Once, Begin Again), and starring Fredia Walsh-Peelo, Lucy Boynton, Jack Reynor, Aidan Gillen, and Don Wycherly. Distributed by the Irish Film Board, the film takes place in 1985 Dublin and centers on a troubled angsty young Irish teenager named Conor (Walsh-Peelo), who puts together a group of similar loser students to start a band in order to impress an enigmatic young model (Boynton). With the help of Conor's music junkie older brother (Reynor), they become Sing Street, writing songs in the styles of Duran Duran and The Cure to overcome the bullies and harsh rules of their Catholic prep school. The result is a sort of cross between School of Rock, Dope, and Moonrise Kingdom. And it's great.

I had a ton of fun with this movie, and it's unfortunate that it hasn't been released more widely, because it's one of the most unabashedly optimistic and uplifting films I've seen in recent years. It really is a perfect feel-good movie. It's not entirely wrought with poignancy or depth, but it embraces its cheery anti-authoritarianism and childlike drive with complete sincerity. And a good deal of the reason that that quality works to the movie's benefit is credited to its colorful and fun cast of characters.

The teenage performances in this film are terrific, with most of the band members given some considerable dimension and all of them given at least one chance to shine comedically. Much like the plot line, the characters aren't entirely original or groundbreaking and, curiously similar to the music of the titular band, borrows and apes off of the successes of the same general formulas of the sentimental coming of age works of the 1980s. Our main character is bullied, has family issues, and is misunderstood, unattractive (props to this movie, by the way, for casting actually unattractive kids and not "movie ugly" people), socially awkward, but plucky and driven. His crush is mysterious, alluring, and has a dark past of her own. His friends are variants on the spectrum of nerdy and silly, there's a bully whose penchant for abuse comes from his own history of receiving it, and the adults are mostly authoritarian, traditionalist, and uncompromising. We've seen most of this before, all the way down to the "running away together" plot device. But luckily, these characters are written and performed with such grounded sincerity and are so entertaining to watch that the film teeters closer to being a throwback than a rip-off.

My two favorite characters for sure, though, were the love interest Raphina and the older brother Brendan. I mentioned that this film plays its sappy 80s coming of age movie tropes well, and that's no better shown than in Raphina. Boynton's performance makes a character that is very easy to fall in love with. Brendan is sort of the Cameron Frye of the movie, being the snarky old soul with a soft spot due to his troubled relationship with his parents, and Jack Reynor gives what is in my opinion the best performance in the movie. Brendan's character introduces the film's best semblances of depth in his monologues about music and growing up, which cement Sing Street's love letter to the youthful power of music to connect, communicate, and to give adolescents the thrilling assurance that someone else in the world has the same feelings as them.

Ultimately, this is a film about the connection between music and love, and it presents this theme at its most youthful - naive, full of angst, and confused, but also innocent, pure, and honest. In a way, I think this is what makes the film's formuliac plot sort of work - its story and characters embrace the childlike and sentimental just as much as the main characters embrace those same qualities in their art, and both have really refreshing and endearing results. And the music is phenomenal - the reason I compare this film to Dope is that, like that movie, the in-movie band makes songs that I actually want to listen to outside of the context of liking the movie. The songs not only work well within the narrative, but are fun, jumpy, heartfelt, and perfect imitations of the era.

Overall, Sing Street is an eminently good time at the movies. It has only hints of depth, and its story has definitely been seen before, but it plays those familiar notes so well. The characters are entertaining and charming and played spectacularly, the music is catchy and fun, and the film reeks of a now archaic sweetness and blind optimism, with all its faults, that is honestly very refreshing to see in a modern film. If it's playing near you, I encourage you to check this film out. It deserves money.

Grade: A-