Predicting the Movie Hits and Bombs of 2017

I've seen many of those movies except for the animated ones, foreign language ones, chick flicks and a couple others, such as Split, Baby Driver and Get Out. I wanted to see those three movies but just never got around to seeing them for one reason or another.

My favorite movies of the year so far, in no particular order, except for the top 3 (all 3 are neck and neck to being my absolute favorite of the year so far):

Logan
It
Wonder Woman
John Wick: Chapter 2
Atomic Blonde
American Assassin
American Made
War For the Planet of The Apes
Fate of The Furious
The Foreigner

I imagine, or at least hope, that Thor: Ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi will knock 2 of these movies off my top 10 list. Maybe a couple other movies too that will be released before the end of the year.


Barely missing the cut: Life, Spider-man: Homecoming, Kong: Skull Island, and Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2


Other movies I enjoyed but either got bad reviews from critics, audiences or preformed below expectations:

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (I think this one was fun to watch, like the first couple were, even though nothing really new was brought to the table.)

The Mummy (I liked this take on the story. Sure, it isn't classic like the original or nearly as fun as the Brendan Fraser ones, but I was entertained and Russell Crowe's Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde was the highlight for me.)

The Great Wall (Whitewashing aside, with Matt Damon as the lead, and the absurd plot about defending The Great Wall from fantastical creatures, I still had fun and was entertained throughout.)

King Arthur: Legend of the Sword (Despite getting ripped by the media, critics and audiences, I enjoyed this take on the story. I was entertained despite it trying to be a mashup of Lord of The Rings, Game of Thrones and other popular fantasy stories.)


Movies that I didn't think were bad but still felt a little bit of disappointment due to high expectations:

Blade Runner 2049: Visuals were great but I expected way more from the story to add more to the original one. Movie was a little long and could've been trimmed by at least a half hour and maybe tightened it up some more. It was boring in parts. I just don't think it quite delivered the promised goods. For me, this was a movie where hype well exceeded reality.

Dunkirk: Definitely a well-made movie but was slow in parts and wasn't really realistic in the scope of the actual historical events. No enemy soldiers were seen except at the very end. Also, the beaches looked deserted and were too orderly for it being a mass evacuation/rescue effort, especially when considering not many rescue boats were seen either. It lacked the urgency needed to be realistic. I understand trying to keep the costs down in making it, but this movie deserved extra money spent on it to make the scope grand. Either hire lots of extras to fill up the beaches with soldiers and the ocean with boats or use more CGI to do the same thing.


Movies I originally liked but changed my mind after further review and thinking more about them:

Kingsman 2: The Golden Circle : This one, upon initial review, I thought I enjoyed, thinking it was similar to the first one. In some ways it was but in many other ways it went way too overboard. What made me change my mind was watching the first one again after seeing the 2nd one and then realizing how much sillier and stupider the 2nd one was. And the portrayal of the Statesman Organization, based in Kentucky, was just flat-out wrong. They were portrayed more like Texas Rangers/Cattle Ranchers than they were from people in Kentucky Bourbon Country.

Ghost In the Shell: Going in, I knew nothing about the comic version it was based on. So, I thought it had an intriguing story, at first. The Whitewashing of using Scarlett Johansson in the lead didn't bother me at first until after seeing the movie and reading people's comments about it. Then it hit me after watching the movie again at home. Why would a Japanese company that made these cybernetically enhanced humans not make them in their own image instead of another race? Also, the 2nd time watching it, the story just felt kind of empty. I guess during the first viewing, I was blown away by the visuals and not really paying attention to the lack of a good plot. The premise was decent but the excecution was not.

Alien: Covenant: Another one that just didn't have staying power with more than one viewing. Even though Prometheus got knocked badly, I ended up enjoying that one more than this one, despite the stupidity of the actions of the scientists involved. I didn't lose my original opinion of Prometheus after multiple viewings like I did with Covenant. The one thing I did like about Covenant initially and still like was that it somewhat does bridge the gap between Prometheus and the original Alien. Hopefully the next Alien movie does close that gap.



Worst movie of the year: Valerian And The City Of A Thousand Planets. For my thoughts on this piece of crap, see the thread about the film.

Another contender for worst of the year: Transformers: The Last Knight

Another possible contender, but didn't see yet: Geostorm. When the first trailers first appeared over a year ago, I thought I would want to see this. Then it kept getting pushed back with multiple rewrites and turnover in production crews. Despite that, I still wanted to go see it on release day (yesterday.) But as the reviews started pouring in and after hearing word of mouth from people who actually saw it, I decided this movie can get a pass on my part. I won't rule out seeing it though. There is a family member who still wants to see it and if he doesn't find someone to go with, I might go with him if I am not doing anything. I have a feeling this will be in the same vein as, but worse than, Independence Day: Resurgence, 2012, and Day After Tomorrow since the guy who directed this is a protege of Roland Emmerich.


(Note: Since I never read The Dark Tower series of books, I had nothing to compare that movie to. So, as a standalone story for someone who knew nothing going in, I didn't think it was nearly as bad as most people. It kept me entertained for 85 minutes. LOL. I imagine The Dark Tower will be on most people's lists for worst movie of the year, based on people's comments.)

 

I hope this does well and am going to see it on release day. But, I don't think it will do nearly as well as Wonder Woman did or as well as Thor:Ragnarok will.

 

I haven't seen many movies at the theater this year but I would rank them as below.

1 Blade Runner 2049
2 mother!
3 Logan
4 It
5 John Wick: Chapter 2
6 War For The Planet Of The Apes
7 Kong: Skull Island
8 Ghost In The Shell

The Last Jedi is a must see and I am contemplating seeing Murder On The Orient Express. Other than that I am done for the year.

 

Yes. Forgot about Murder on The Orient Express. Definitely seeing this one on release day. Been looking forward to it ever since the first trailer started to appear.

 

Fact that gets overlooked due to all the positive press about "Wonder Woman": it performed about the same as the 2 films that preceded it.

Wonder Woman: $821m worldwide
BvS: $873m worldwide
Suicide Squad: $745m worldwide

"WW" has a rep as the biggest hit because a) it got the best reviews, and b) it did the best of the 3 in the US. It also was cheaper than the other 2 - a LOT cheaper than "BvS", in fact.

But it's not a step up in terms of actual box office receipts. I'm betting "Justice League" will top it - there's now a lot of fanboy goodwill toward the DC stuff after "WW", and the impact of all the other characters helps.

As for "Ragnarok", the 1st 2 Thor flicks made $449m and $644m worldwide, respectively.

Will "Ragnarok" outperform those? Probably - there seems to be good buzz for it.

Will it far surpass those 2? Maybe. For it to get to the $850m or so level of the 3 DC films I mentioned, it'd have to earn about 33% more than "Dark World".

To date, only 2 of the Marvel solo character films have topped $800m; "Civil War" and "Iron Man 3". Those were both third films, so maybe third time's the charm for Thor!

 

Have a bad ferling about Thor

 

The early reviews on Thor: Ragnarok are actually surprisingly positive...

Thor: Ragnarok is poised to be a (Hulk) smash. The embargo on reviews lifted Thursday, and the Marvel movie is by and large earning raves from critics.
Early Reviews Show High Praise for Thor: Ragnarok

And while it’s not saying much, “Thor: Ragnarok” is easily the best of the three Thor movies — or maybe I just think so because its screenwriters and I finally seem to agree on one thing: The Thor movies are preposterous.
Film Review: ‘Thor: Ragnarok’

Disney opens this certain blockbuster on November 3 as the official kickoff to the holiday movie season. With this summer’s Wonder Woman, the smart reinvention of the Spider-Man series, and now Thor: Ragnarok, it appears comic book movies are getting their groove back.
‘Thor: Ragnarok’ Review: Third Time Is The Comic (Book) Charm For Marvel Franchise

 

He lost me right there.

 

From a business point of view, plus the fact that Sony handed over the franchise to Marvel to let them control the creative end of it, and from the critical point of view, Spiderman: Homecoming was extremely successful, winning near-raves from all the major newspaper and trade press critics. Here's a chart of costs and box office:

Spider-Man: $821M (cost $139M)
Spider-Man 2: $$784M (cost $200M)
Spider-Man 3: $891M (cost $258M)
The Amazing Spider-Man: $757M (cost $230M)
The Amazing Spider-Man 2: $709M (cost $293M)
Spider-Man Homecoming: $880M (cost $175M)

The numbers make a lot of sense, and Homecoming also has a very high 92% Rotten Tomatoes score. It's hard to argue with this, no matter what you think about the films personally. Me, I never liked the Tobey McGuire films at all, and I think Homecoming was the first film that captured the way I thought of Peter Parker from the original 1960s comic books.

 

I'm surprised you feel that way, as I don't think "Homecoming" replicates 60s Peter at all. I think the Maguire Peter was waaaay closer to the original.

The "Homecoming" Peter lacks any of the internal angst that stalked the 60s Peter. I get that they didn't want to give us another film where we see Uncle Ben gunned down again, but this movie makes virtually no reference to that trauma and how it influenced Peter.

Original Peter was the guy who couldn't win - he had the best intentions but always ended up with the fuzzy lollipop.

"Homecoming" Peter is a hyperactive kid who acts like a puppy dog chasing Tony Stark for love and attention.

Original Peter was a loner - he wouldn't have craved acceptance into the Avengers.

And on and on.

"Homecoming" is a decent movie, but it's not a good reproduction of 60s Spidey - it's the farthest from the source of the bunch...

 

"Geostorm" bombs at the box office.



I don't think the general public was in a mood to see the entire planet threatened with extreme weather, in the wake of all the meteorological chaos of the last few weeks.

 

I wish I enjoyed this as much as you did. I just loved the first one. But I didn't really like the sequel much at all. There was SO much talent in this. 4 academy award winners (Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Halle Berry and Jeff Bridges) who were just cashing a paycheck. But... silver lining... my youngest son liked it. So, time spent with a child who had fun is time well spent.

 

Suburbicon with Matt Damon looks like it could be interesting.

 

It's a bit of the 60's Peter, but it's also a bit of the modern comic. Personally, I think they did a good job of tying together these elements.

Oh, and Spidey did, very early on, try to join the Fantastic Four, only to find that he was too much the loner for a team. But, all the later team-ups Spidey constantly did pretty much put that to bed.

Having him mentored by Stark is also a modern part of the book, so it makes perfect sense for him to try for The Avengers - and join Iron Man.

I grew up on the '60's Ditko/Romita era, but I don't think the film series should be 100% beholden to that period.

 

I changed my mind on this movie. After seeing the 2nd one and after posting my initial review, I went back and rewatched the first one. The first one is so much better. The 2nd one is way too silly and went way overboard with things. Basically it was a caricature of the first one. I misremembered the first one when making my initial comments about the second one. The only thing I really remembered was that I really liked the first one and how it was a different take on the spy genre.

 

Toby McGuire is a short doughboy with big round eyes and a puffy face, plus he mumbles; Tom Holland is a tall-ish thin kid who's fairly ripped and sounds like a kid who grew up in Queens. Trust me, the latter describes what Peter Parker looked like in the Steve Ditko Spider-Man comic books. I think McGuire is a good actor in the right role -- he was exceptional in Cider House Rules, which I worked on for 5 or 6 weeks -- but he's awful as a super hero.

 

Yeah, Geostorm is turning out to be one of the biggest bombs of the year.

This is a pretty astonishing story of how and why the movie got made, particularly when you consider it cost $140 million and that Jerry Bruckheimer stepped in to do weeks of reshoots to try to fix it...

Disaster Movie ‘Geostorm’ Fails To Thunder With $13.3M Opening: Here’s Why

They also point out that this is Warner Bros.' second huge disaster of the year, following King Arthur (a $175 million movie that I think few remember) in the spring. But the studio is still making money because of the DC Comics movies.

TheWrap had some good takes on why Geostorm failed:

1. Weak Promotion.
2. Real-Life Natural Disasters.
3. Is This "Independence Day 3"?
4. October is a dumping ground.

4 Reasons 'Geostorm' Hit Stormy Waters at the Box Office

I would've added, "don't let a first-time director make a $140 million movie," and " don't shoot scripts that have stupid stories." If they could've made this a much more fun movie and also had it make more sense and cost $80M, they might have at least broken even. Now, they're most likely going to lose at least $100M on it, which is very bad.

Hollywood Reporter had some good theories as well:

Box-Office Bomb: What's Behind 'Geostorm' Meltdown

 

Does somebody go see the latest Tyler Perry movie -- Boo 2? I guess so, since it "outperformed" most the other films at the box office. I just don't see any appeal. Nothing novel about it, he is always playing the same old lady . . . who does this appeal to (what demographic)?

 

Tyler Perry has one schtick and he's gonna continue getting richer while running it into the ground.

 

Yeah, I know Spidey wanted to join the FF, but I think that was because he thought he'd get a paycheck. He was willing to be in a team if he got paid - "old school" Peter always needed cash!

 

I'm not discussing the actors' physical resemblance - I'm discussing the depiction of the character.

Holland makes Spidey/Peter more like a 10-year-old than a teen, and he totally lacks the internal angst the character had.

And I read the same comics, chief, so I know what Ditko Spidey looked like! You might be older than I am but I still got eyes!

 

He's really a talented guy when he tries other forms of acting. For instance, he was very good as the lawyer in "Gone Girl"...

 

From what I've read, and from the trailer, The Death of Stalin is going to do very, very well. Indeed, I'm considering going to the cinema this weekend for it.

 

Doesn't look like it's getting any US release!

 

It's had a US release, but I can't see it doing well there, sadly. Might be doomed to "cult film" status after all.