Crapshoot 2018: Where Things Get Weird (Finale Part 1)

Every once in a while, the film industry will produce duds for which there simply seems to be no rational explanation.

An artist makes a critical misstep at a key juncture, resource management was fatally mishandled, everything that could have possibly gone wrong from budgeting to shooting to post production did, etc.

Whatever the reason, sometimes the final result of a movie manages to leave some sort of lasting impression that goes far beyond any notion of it actually being good and leaves the viewer aghast, asking themselves but a single question with little to no answer in sight: Why?

These are those movies of 2017.

I’m going to do this film a massive failure and not judge it on the merits of its own premise’s stupidity. Tearing apart the concept of a “James Bond” villain’s world conquest plan as the premise of an entire movie is not only far too easy and exceedingly redundant given the nature of these sort of disaster films as excuses to revel in levels of unrealistic carnage but would also be an inefficient approach in communicating exactly what makes “Geostorm” such a terrible movie.

Perhaps, then, I should look at the hellish production to establish a sense of exactly where this movie fails?

First time director Dean Devlin, known as the long time cinematographer for disaster artist (in more ways than one) Roland Emmerich, tried his hand at an over $100 million production that screen tested so poorly with audiences, the film was reshot and reedited over the course of 3½ years just to be made “presentable.” That level of basic ineptitude in the craft resulting in a story boiled down to Gerard Butler being a scientist (you have no idea how difficult those words were to type out) who has to stop a conspiracy by punching and shooting things on a space station after CGI happens, may be enticing to gawk at but it still doesn’t quite encompass how much of a waste “Geostorm’s” existence is.

The sloppy dialogue and borderline non-performances from a cast of actors with impressive careers under their belts doesn’t quite nail what went wrong either.

“Geostorm’s” fatal error stems from its very reason for existing. The antiquated position of disaster movies as an excuse to generate impressive special effects the likes of which are rarely seen has more or less gone the way of the dodo once CGI and technological innovations have granted filmmakers the ability to easily integrate spectacle with the impact and techniques of actual storytelling.

Theater goers don’t have to choose between impressive effects and worthwhile storytelling with compelling character building; they can choose between a plethora of options that can strike memorable balances between all three. If a blockbuster is going to rely on CGI spectacle, it needs to be a truly creative wonder to behold and “Geostorm” doesn’t even come close.

For a film aiming to pride itself on its budget, not only are the disaster sequences underwhelming in their over the top usage of visual short hand, but they’re barely even used as set pieces as the major characters aren’t directly involved in more than a single one of them toward the tail end of the movie and there aren’t even many of them to begin with.

Not all movies are required to be ground breaking, thought provoking, or bar raising to justify their existence. They do however need to try to execute the core of their thesis to a level of competence that can justify entertainment.

“Geostorm” has no ambition but can’t even be bothered to properly do the one thing expected of it with some level of enthusiasm. It is a movie that has nothing to offer anybody.

Speaking of failures to live up to potential, “Monster Trucks” manages to turn a glorified 80s/90s style toy commercial into a $100+ million loss before it even saw release.

To be fair, some level of financial failure is probably destined whenever you’re a studio head that pushes through the development of an idea you pre-school aged son had into a big budget feature film. That’s also the sort splendorous stupidity that makes your ungraceful exit from the studio President position all the less sympathetic.

Having said that though, as easy as it is to make fun of, it’s worth noting that once again, “Monster Trucks” is not an inherent failure based on its concept alone.

A smarter studio executive or more talented director would have been smart enough to recognize a potential reconstructive parody of the sort of post Regan-era economic deregulation toyetic merchandise driven narrative that dominated children’s entertainment of the 80s and 90s that could have thrived in a modern nostalgia obsessed culture.

Unfortunately, what we get, courtesy of the good folks at Paramount and Nickelodeon studios is something far less imaginative; a boy and his creature story so generic and unremarkable it feels like principle photography cobbled together over the course of a weekend to construct the bare minimum of a loose narrative surrounding what was intended to be a joke trailer.

Of course, the “boy” aspect of the trope becomes fairly problematic when your casting choice is a man.

I have absolutely nothing against Lucas Till. Quite the opposite actually, I think he’s a decent character actor with leading man potential under the right director and circumstances. He’s also in his late 30s and in a world that rejected a passable 27 year old Andrew Garfield as a high school aged Spider-Man, there’s probably a casting director at Paramount that needs to pack his bags and catch the same bus the President of the studio rode out on.

It’s particularly sad because spots of inspiration rear its head in the third act that demonstrate the type of vehicular carnage and creature feature insanity that the film would have been better off for indulging in. Ultimately, “Monster Trucks” fails to come close to be half as compelling as its own title would imply.

Oh boy, where to begin?

“The Book of Henry” has quickly gained an infamous reputation for derailing the once promising career of “Jurassic World” director Colin Trevorrow.

Ignoring the stupidity of such a hyperbolic notion over his career being sunk over a low budget glorified independent movie that he neither wrote nor produced, sitting through the final product has left me scratching my head for more reasons than one.

Following the titular boy genius played by Jaeden Lieberher from “It,” the film has been vilified and gawked at for having a series of tonal whiplashes, dedicating a first half to the whimsical and quirky nature of Henrey’s life with his well meaning but irresponsible mother played by Naomi Watts and his offbeat relationship to his school friends and younger brother, before shifting gears to a shocking second act twist that sees his sudden death, leading into a twisted third act in which his mother must be the adult that she should have been in his life by figuring out how to save their neighbor from her ambiguously abusive relationship with her step-father (ambiguous as to the nature of the abuse, not the fact that it is very much happening).

While Trevorrow’s biggest flaw as a director continues to be an assertion of confidence within the execution of the genre tropes that he demonstrates a fascination of playing with, I feel as though much of “The Book of Henry’s” criticism has been taken a bit too far out of context.

Does the subject matter, turns of the plot, and direction features a lot of inconsistency in tone and audience appropriateness. Of course it does; the PG-13 rating denotes something that is clearly not the family feature that its first half attempts to sell in a Trojan horse manner, while the twists are framed as a very obvious and very deliberate slap back to reality and the introspective revelation that treating the precocious Henry like a young adult due to his superior intellect rather than remembering that he was still a child may have seemed cute but was ultimately very dangerous.

The film is an intense and unapologetic deconstruction of the gifted child trope and the whimsy often associated with it. While the nature of that tropes stories and audience along with the polarizing atmospheres of the story that unfolds puts it in an awkward position of lacking a true audience beyond fans of storytelling for storytelling’s sake, its nontraditional filmmaking choices are not done without reason and its boldness should be commended.

If nothing else, it also shouldn’t overshadow the craftsmanship put into territories such as the excellent performance. Lieberher shows a lot of promise as a young actor and Jacob Trembly continues to show a level of potential unseen in anybody as young as he is, while Watts continues to prove herself worthy of more roles than she seems to receive these days and never would I have believed Sarah Silverman could be so effectively utilized dramatically.

“The Book of Henry” is not without a great many problems given the nature of its assembly. Between straddling a line to not utilize child abuse as manipulatively exploitative and a series of 3^rd act stumbles that badly diminish the movie’s endgame, it stands with movies like Darren Aronofsky’s “mother!” in that it’s bold enough to be worth watching but difficult to recommend widely.

As baffling as its conception and execution can be however, I don’t find it to be worthy of the intensity of its negative reception.

With that said and done, it’s time to wind Crapshoot 2018 down with a round up of the winners of losers from 2017.