I wasn’t a huge fan of Chucky back in the day. However, the possess doll has proven himself more than able to stand the test of time. Indeed Chucky is still popular and in recent years had both a reboot and a TV series. Reviews of the former was poor and the latter mixed. But still, Chucky is obviously around to stay. SIn recent years I have re-watched the first two movies and gained a new appreciation for the character. Those were the only Child’s Play movies I had ever seen up until now. Part of that was because the third movie had poor reviews and it’s worth noting only one of the movies has gained a lower score on IMDB (Seed of Chucky). So I wasn’t expecting greatness, but perhaps I would be surprised. After all, movie quality isn’t what it used to be and what was rated badly back then may not be rated so low now.
The movie is directed by Jack Bender from a Don Mancini Script. We pick up eight years after Chucky (Voiced again by Brad Dourif) was defeat in the previous movie. After years out of the market, the Good Boy factory is opened up again. While clearing out the debris a drop of Chucky’s blood falls into the plastic mixing vat and thus when the first new doll comes off the line, Chucky’s soul is transferred into it. Chucky wastes little time hunting after his old nemesis Andry (Now played by Justin Whalin) and mails himself to his new address, a military school. In a twist of events, Chucky ends up being unpackaged by a young boy at the military school, Tyler (Jeremy Sylvers). Chucky realizes he can steal this kids soul instead. It’s down to Andy to try and stop him.
Hide The Soul
Child’s Play 3 is an attempt to move the franchise on from the structure of the first two movies, but it fails to really achieve this. Andy is now a teenager and that was a sensible move. The switch to a military base provides a lot of fresh opportunities too. However, Chucky is now trying to switch souls with a different little boy and that means we’re largely still repeating the first two films. This is largely the trend for this film, ideas that are not bad but are not really developed. Instead everything just gets thrown out there. This is not a long movie and the pace is pretty quick. For a slasher movie that’s not the worst idea, but it doesn’t hurt to slow things down a little now and then and get to know the characters.
While the film does feel rushed, it actually does achieve everything it needed to. We get a basic grip on all the characters, they all feel somewhat two dimensional and broad character archetypes but it’s a functional knowledge. The kills are fairly unique and Chucky provides a few humorous moments on the way. Despite that there is nothing really here that stands out as particularly memorable. Outside of Brad Dourif, the cast are pretty average. Brad of course is returning here for his third movie as Chucky and is very comfortable in the role. The cinematography has it’s moments but again, nothing stands out. The musical score is actually pretty good and I liked the frantic feel of it.
Conclusion
While this third installment in the franchise is somewhat by-the-numbers and rushed, it manages to hit all the vital notes to make the film work. The end result is a solid, but not outstanding slasher that doesn’t overstay it’s welcome. Ultimately it is exactly the kind of film you’d expect from the third installment from a horror franchise. This is a strong 5.5/10. Fans of the first two movies will probably enjoy it.
The Resurrected is based on the H.P. Lovecraft story “The Case of Charles Dexter Ward“. It is directed by Dan O’Bannon and written by Brent Friedman. The pair had been independently working on adaptations to the story for years before their eventual team up. The Lovecraft story is sort of an unusual one in that the author himself didn’t like it and refused to release it during his lifetime. However, it was printed posthumously and is regard by some as among his finest work. Lovecraft usually works best as an inspiration rather than directly adapting his work and as a result there are few examples of successful. Usually those that were successful (Such as “The Re-Animator”), barely resemble the source material. Lovecraft it turns out is hard to adapt faithfully. But here it is attempted.
The story follows detective John March (John Terry), who has been hired by Claire Ward (Jane Sibbett) to investigate her the increasingly bizarre activities of her husband Charles (Chris Sarandon). Claire reveals the catalyst for this behaviour seems to be the sudden uncovering of his family history and their visitation to an abandoned ancestral farmhouse near Pawtuxet. In the farmhouse Charles found a painting of a man called Joseph Curwen who bares an uncanny resemblance to Charles. John’s investigation reveals that there may be something unnatural going on, perhaps something supernatural.
Comparisons
This movie is based on the same Lovecraft story as Roger Corman’s “The Haunted Palace” (1963). Since I’ve reviewed both I may as well compare. First thing to note is that this is a more faithful adaptation. Not a surprise given Corman marketed his version as an Edgar Allan Poe story (The only thing Poe in the story was the title). However, low budget horror is Corman’s specialty and his movie had the benefit of Vincent Price as the antagonist. As a result it still managed a 6/10 from me. Not earth shattering but solid. O’Bannon’s version is more faithful and certainly has the better effects. Dan is no slouch when it comes to gory visuals as he demonstrated with his brilliant “Return of the Living Dead” in 1985. Now these have aged in the 33 years since release, but for the budget and era they were great.
It’s important to note when it comes to Dan O’Bannon is that while he was fine as a director his real claims to fame comes from his writing. His biggest credit being on the sci-fi horror masterpiece “Alien” (1979). So the fact this story was written by Friedman and not O’Bannon leaves me wondering what could have been had O’Bannon had completely creative control. This is especially true given the studio had the final cut here. That said Friedman’s approach was to basically make as few changes from the source material as possible, so not a terrible idea. The movies opening is not especially strong, but things do pick up after. The gradual unraveling of the mystery is played out well and as we reach the final act O’Bannon breaks out the effects in a big way. The ending though is a little disappointing, but is at least visually memorable.
Final Notes
Where this loses points to Corman’s version is with the acting. Chris Sarandon is excellent but the rest of the cast are average at best. The cinematography is somewhat lackluster too. When we’re not seeing something monstrous, we’re not seeing much at all. The movie definitely feels made for video. The plot though is solid and works better than the simplified Corman version. The ending switches out the heroic save of the damsel in distress for a much darker confrontation. It may lack the excitement but it fits the tone of the story. Overall this just about warrants a 6/10. Not the best horror, but a decent one that remains very faithful to it’s Lovecraft roots. It’s narrow, but this is the better version of the story.
No October Horror Challenge would be complete without at least one stop over to the world of Giallo, Italian horror. For tonight’s movie I’m watching a movie from one of the legends of the golden age of Italian Horror Mario Bava. I’ve only seen one of his movies before (Black Sunday), which is probably my loss. That movie was in black and white, so this is my first colour Mario Bava horror. This has been on my list for a long time, so I’m looking forward to it. Ubaldo Terzano is the movies cinematographer. Carlo Rustichelli provides the score. The movie stars Cameron Mitchell, Eva Bartok, Thomas Reiner, Claude Dantes and Dante Di Paolo.
Set at a classy fashion house, Blood and Black Lace tells the story of a murder mystery that evolves into a killing spree. The catalyst is the murder of model “Isabella” (Francesca Ungaro) by someone in a white, featureless mask, a black fedora and a trenchcoat. It’s not so much the murder itself, but rather that the next day someone publicly discovers Isabella’s secret diary. It’s clear the diary could lead to the killer, but it seems everyone has their eye on it and their own concerns. It seems this won’t stop at a single murder. Police investigator “Silvestri” (Thomas Reiner) is on the case and everyone appears to be a suspect.
Every Frame A Painting
The most important thing to note about this movie is it looks fantastic. The use of both colour and contrast make this a piece of art in it’s own right. Ubaldo Terzano’s cinematography is fantastic, with a lot of truly original touches that felt fresh even though I was watching a 60 year old movie. The use of colour was a feast for the eyes. This movie along with “Peeping Tom” showed that those more aggressive tones of 60’s cinema actually could be used incredibly effectively for a horror film. That also means they do still come off as quite original since the approach to colour has changed so much since that period. Modern colour is realistic, but this was like a painting.
Italian Horror always had a tradition of style over substance and this is no exception in its priorities. However both are of a higher standard than the average Giallo film. The plot here is a murder mystery and it’s a slightly above average one. It is though definitely the weakest aspect of the movie. With less graphic kill scenes this wouldn’t even really be a horror. Those scenes are in the movie though and they are brutal for the period. It even had the Italian tradition of an eye poking, but done in a way that the gore was merely implied. Given the limitation of 1964 effects that is for the best (And a relief to me, I’m not a big fan of eyeball gore). Brutality aside, the murder scenes are the most artistically filmed of the lot. They are each a work of art in their own right.
Sound And Vision
Acting wise, the only stand out for me was Eva Bartok as Countess Cristiana Cuomo. The rest were fine, but forgettable. The soundtrack by Carlo Rustichelli is also quite notable. It reminded me a lot of Henry Mancini’s 1962 work on Experiment In Terror. Like a lot of Italian horror soundtracks, it is perhaps not the most fitting the mood. Instead, it is something you could listen to by itself. In this instance it does enhance the sensory feast this movie provides, but does little to help the plot or characters.
The script and acting are pretty average here. This isn’t a film that wins you over with the story or personalities. Instead it’s the audio/visual spectacle. The cinematography and use of contrast and colour especially raise this up. The murder scenes are exceptional and still feel original many years later. This is worthy of a 7.5/10 and a strong recommendation and a must see for Giallo horror fans.
Initiations to a sorority crop up relatively frequently in horror, especially in the 80’s. This one goes straight for the obvious with the title “The Initiation”. The movie is mostly directed by Larry Stewart. The original director, Peter Crane was fired a few days into filming but some of his footage remains. Charles Pratt Jr. provides the script. The movie stars a young Daphne Zuniga as “Kelly Fairchild” one of the aspiring pledges for a sorority. Daphne would most famously appear in “Spaceballs”: The Movie” (1987)” as “Princess Vespa”.As is usually the case for this kind of horror, the head of the sorority has a grudge against our lead and so wants to make their initiation especially unpleasant.
Kelly has plenty of her own issues however since she is plagued by a recurring nightmare. In the nightmare she stabs her father with a knife and then a man is set on fire in front of her. She decides to investigate this with the help of an older student, “Peter” (James Read) that is working on his PhD and is specializing in the study of dreams. The answer to the puzzle seems to be related to a series of murders that has started to happen around town, apparently at the hands of a partially burned man. All threads will link up as the pledges attempt their initiation in the department store.
Sorority Slaughter Shenanigans
Despite the title, the story doesn’t really revolve around the initiation until the final act. It’s a bit like “Jason Takes Manhattan” in that regard. It’s also worth noting the initiation plot is virtually the same as in “One Dark Night”, only intimidating for the girls. Here the setting is a department store and the pranksters trying to scare them are totally ineffective. Not that it matters when there is a psycho hanging out there as well and that’s where the two stories diverge. It’s similar setup but very different movies. The focus is really more on Kelly and her dark past, along with building to a big twist. The twist here while somewhat predictable isn’t embarrassingly so. So it does work.
One thing this has over One Dark Night is that these characters are a little more varied and relatable. That’s not to say they are particularly deep. Instead they are very much college kid stereotypes, but there is enough there to actually care when they die. The acting quality however varies a lot across the board. Daphne Zuniga is the stand out and it’s no surprise she found her way on to Mel Brooks radar for Spaceballs. Her performance is great as the lead and also (spoilers) in her second role. Most of the main cast are passable too, but as you reach the smaller roles the quality drops off. Notably Peter’s colleague in the dream clinic Heidi has a few lines that really dropped me out of the movie.
Conclusion
Overall, I found this a pretty reasonable horror. It is generally fun, with a touch of that college kid comedy humour in places (Porky’s, American Pie, etc). The kills are relatively creative, the characters aren’t horrible and there is a proper story to it. There’s nothing exception here though, so it doesn’t warrant a high score. The movie lands a 5.5/10, held back from a six by those spots of bad acting. Still worth checking out though, especially if you like seeing frat boys/girls killed in slashers films.
Heavy Metal Horror, “Black Roses” is directed by John Fasano. At this point in his career he was a relative unknown. Later he would gain some solid writing credits and become a popular Hollywood script doctor. Back in 1988 he had only one directing credit to his name. That was for another Heavy Metal themed horror called “Rock ‘n’ Roll Nightmare” (1987). Writing credits for this one went to Cindy Cirile (John’s now ex-wife). John was obviously a metal head and by the late 80’s that’s no surprise. This was the era where metal was mainstream. So heavy metal themed horror was inevitable and there are many examples of it throughout the 80’s.
Heavy Metal was also highly controversial in the 80’s. It was linked with the Satanic Panic and Court cases had been brought against the likes of Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne for allegedly encouraging suicides. In our story the band “The Black Roses” want to open their first US tour with an appearance in the small town of Mill Basin. Despite local opposition the band play a series of gigs, but they have a secret. The band actually are demons here to corrupt the youth. The only person that can stand in their way is local school teacher Matthew Moorhouse (Played by John Martin).
Ready To Rock
This is a movie I would describe as “Fun trash”. The budget for the movie was reportedly one million dollars. The directors previous heavy metal horror cost a mere $52,000 and ended up a big success. It’s notable that what made it work though was it’s trashier aspects. Many critics said it was unintentionally funny. So upgrading the budget for a similar film could have been a recipe for disaster. It’s hard to say if the film was financially successful. While it was originally due a theatrical release, it ended up going direct to video. In the 80’s however that market was booming. That inflated budget mostly went towards creature effects, which is one of the films strengths. These effects look dated by today’s standards, but they aren’t terrible.
Not all the budget was spent on effects though. A great deal was put towards providing the songs for the soundtrack. The band “The Black Roses” was made up mostly of members of King Kobra. This was former Ozzy Osbourne Drummer Carmine Appice’s band. While most of the songs on the soundtrack are by this group, there are also tracks from Lizzie Borden, Bang Tango and a few others. The movie makes sure to give you the time to enjoy each song, which makes it all the more unfortunate the tracks aren’t particularly good. Still, they do the job and the band are the villains anyway, so maybe the music didn’t need to be great!
Dirty Demons Done Dirt Cheap
When it comes to plot, this movie keeps it as straight forward as possible. It doesn’t waste much time or hold much back from the viewer. In the very first scene we see the band in full demon form (Notably different looking to when they transform later) and see the kids at the concert similarly transformed. We do get time to get to know some of the characters and while it’s very bare bones it does what it needs to. Things fully kick off fairly early (Compared to a lot of 80’s films) and they really do showcase a great variety of hellspawn. None of it really seems to have much purpose though and the truth is the kids are far more effective threats before they transform.
That is the big dilemma for this film. The creature effects are its strength but the lack of mobility for those beings really makes them seem almost comical and not a threat at all. This isn’t helped by the way Matthew manages to defeat all The Black Roses demons entirely by himself in a room full of monstrously transformed teenagers. So this is why we are back at “Fun trash”. You really have to shut your brain down a bit and just enjoy the ridiculous visuals. A few beers should make that pretty easy. I’m going to be generous here and give this one a 5.5/10. What can I say, I’m a sucker for movies that mix horror and metal!
The Watchers (Known as “The Watched” in UK/Ireland) is a mystery horror written and directed by Ishana Shyamalan, the daughter of M.Night Shyamalan. This is her feature debut. The movie stars Dakota Fanning as “Mina” who is stranded in a strange Forrest when her car breaks down on an unfamiliar road. She follows a woman named “Madeline”(Olwen Fouéré) who hurries her into a nearby bunker like building she calls “The Coop”. Inside she meets two other strangers Ciara (Georgina Campbell) and Daniel (Oliver Finnegan). Madeline explains that it is impossible to escape the forest and that every night they must return to the coop where they are observed by mysterious and menacing beings. Mina is determined to find a way out and to find out who or what is observing them.
Chip Off The Old Block
The Watchers is another film with an interesting premise that falls short on delivery. It’s interesting to see how much Ishana Shyamalan takes after her father. Like most of his films, the movie throws out a mystery right at the start. Then it gives you the expectation for twists, challenging you to figure them out. Like many of M.Night’s films, those reveals underwhelm and/or are predictable. That’s not to say the Shyamalan formula can’t work, but the success rate is low. Like her father, Ishana seems technically competent and has a good eye for visuals. The problem for this story is that the main twist is particularly predictable and the characters are especially stupid. On the positive side it lands a similar running time to most of M.Night’s work at around an hour and forty and keeps a relatively quick pace.
It’s interesting to note that there is one notable change between the movie and it’s source novel. I can’t reveal that without hitting spoilers but effectively the big reveal of who the watchers are is totally different. The strange thing is from what I can tell (I’ve only read reviews/synopsis of the novel) very little else is changed. But then I recall M.Night did something similar with Old. I don’t think the change improved the story but to be honest neither twist seems especially good. As far as the smaller twists go though, that is far too predictable. The movie runs into a lot of the pitfalls of the science fiction trope strangers trapped in a location. Why does it take the protagonist turning up for anyone to figure anything out? Why do people blindly trust the person that was there the longest?
Conclusion
I had to laugh early when after running around trying to escape for half the day, the protagonist is show the “Point of no return” markers. These are the furthest you can go and have time to return before dark. But heading there part way through the day and then having a conversation at the location make it pretty clear you could definitely go beyond that and still make it back. Especially if you ran instead of casually walked. It made no sense, but no one questioned the bad logic. That sort of sums up the film really. It does have something going for it though as far as the atmosphere is concerned and the fast pace means it isn’t boring. I am going to write this one down as a reasonable start for a first time director, but ultimately not a recommendation. 5/10
1960 was an important year in history of the horror movie. Most importantly it was the year that “Psycho” came out, but it also featured “Eyes Without A Face”, “Village of the Damned”, “The House of Usher” and the less well known “Peeping Tom”. Despite the lower profile, this is a film that heavily influenced Martin Scorsese and many others of his generation. Indeed it’s largely thanks to Scorsese that the film is known at all these days as he helped fund a wider re-release for the movie in the 1978 after it had fallen into obscurity. When the movie was released the critics were disgusted by it and savaged it suggesting it be thrown into a sewer and other colourful language. As a result it was withdrawn from theatres fairly early and effectively ended the career of it’s director Michael Powell.
Decades later, critics revised their opinion. Now they called it one of the greatest horror films of all time. The revision was too late to save Powell’s career. Some people are ahead of their time, but if you are too far ahead the response can be savage. One of the main reasons for the backlash was that some sections of the film involve old movies of the main character and his father. These scenes reveal how the character was abused as a child by his father. The problem here was that Michael Powell chose to perform these scenes with his real life son. There was no actual abuse involved, but it seemed this made critics uncomfortable. Anyway, let’s look at the film itself shall we?
Don’t Let Me See You Are Afraid
The movie opens up with “Mark Lewis” (Played by Karlheinz Böhm), picking up a prostitute. Lewis is secretly filming her with a hidden camera. We see from the point of view of the camera viewfinder as he follows her into the flat and murders her. Later, we see him watching the recording in his dark room. Following this opening we are introduced to the other side of Lewis. A focus puller for a film crew who aspires to become a filmaker. His job doesn’t pay enough to cover his costs though and so he supplements that as a soft porn photographer for a local corner shop. His photos are sold under the counter to select customers.
Lewis is a shy but relatively pleasant person during the day. However he has been secretly working on his own film, a documentary about fear. Mark lives in his childhood home, though most of it is now rented out to other residents. One of which “Helen Stephens” (Anna Massey) has taken a liking to the young man. Mark likes Helen too but doesn’t want her to become one of his victims. He shows her the few films he dares to share with anyone, those of his childhood where his psychologist father abused him to investigate the nature of fear. She is shocked, but supportive. Their relationship becomes tricky because Mark is reaching the end of his documentary and soon he will be unable to keep the two halves of his life separate.
The Eye Of The Beholder
This is a very good movie. There is no denying that. The story has many layers, but the visuals are masterfully put together too. Let’s start with those visuals. This is 1960. Shooting from the first person perspective isn’t completely unknown at this point (Indeed there has been whole movies of it), but showing murders from the killers perspective is pretty new. Psycho of course made use of this two, but here it provides a double function. We’re not simply seeing from the killers eyes, but we’re seeing through his camera. We are seeing effectively a section of his documentary on fear. The movie has made us a voyeur of murder.
This isn’t the only thing interesting visually. Powell uses a technique called colour Chiaroscuro, where he uses a saturated palette with dramatic shadows. The colours are quite aggressive, almost feeling seedy. This is contrasted by the “Old” black and white camera footage of the young Mark taken by his father. This is another interesting one for horror at the time, it is almost a found footage situation. The scenes skillfully portray the abuse that Mark suffered but because of the nature of the home movies these scenes didn’t require much in the way of acting skills, so not a huge surprise he filmed them at home with his own son.
The Price of Obsession
In the film Mark has two obsessions and they are almost indistinguishable from each other. One is his obsession with fear. It is seeing fear that drives him to kill. More importantly though it drives him to capture that fear on camera. That is the real obsession here, Mark is a filmmaker and he is making his masterpiece. Most of the time Mark is a nice enough person, shy even especially around women. But his entire demeanor changes when he is preparing to film a kill. His most ambitious murder is recorded at the studio he works on the set on the very movie he has been working on for his day job. As his victim dances (Warming up for what she is an audition tape), he dashes around adjusting props and cameras. He is focused like a razorblade, his victim is no longer a human but just another prop to get in position.
Mark is driven by obsession. Obsession with his camera, which he takes with him everywhere he goes (Until Helen asks him to leave it behind on a date). There is also Marks original obsession with voyeurism, where the movie takes it’s title. But it is his obsession to finish his documentary and record the faces of fear that drive him beyond all reason. Martin Scorsese felt this obsession reflected the drive of many a filmmaker and the dangerous line they walk in their pursuit of perfect. Considering that, it frames Powell’s direct involvement and the damage it did to his career with the themes of the movie itself. The masterpiece reflects the reality (But fortunately it was only a career killed in real life).
Conclusion
This is an exceptional film and I can see why Scorsese was so heavily influenced by it. Karlheinz Böhm is not an actor I know, but he is exceptional here. The film really is clever and definitely was ahead of its time. As always though I review from the modern day, not in context of how ground breaking something was. This movie has aged remarkably well though. Nothing here really has dated, except perhaps for the color palette but that palette works so well for the movie even this isn’t a problem. This scores a well deserving 8/10
If you’ve followed my past October Challenges you know I always give a few days over October to checking out some golden age horrors. This year is no exception and I’ve decided to finally check out the American independent film that predated and influenced “Godzilla” (1954). That is “The Beast From 20,000 Fathoms”. Directed by Eugène Lourié and is very loosely based on the Ray Bradbury short story “The Fog Horn” (Ultimately just one scene). Paul Hubschmid stars as “Prof. Tom Nesbitt”. Paula Raymond, Cecil Kellaway and Kenneth Tobey provide support.
Far north of the arctic circle, a covert nuclear weapons test awakens an ancient beast from it’s frozen slumber. The loan survivor the monsters rampage, professor Nesbitt finds himself in the position of having to prove an ancient Rhedosaurus dinosaur is roaming the earth and poses a very real threat to America. He finds allies in paleontologist “Thurgood Elson” (Kellaway) and his young assistant “Lee Hunter” (Raymond). Eventually they convince “Col. Jack Evans” (Tobey) to investigate. They find the creature, but now the question remains: How to stop it.
The Beast Awakens
Much like Godzilla, this beast is awoken by nuclear testing. However, unlike the famous Kaiju, the Rhedosaurus doesn’t have a direct connection with the radiation. Indeed, it is definitely not immune to it like Godzilla is. However, it does spend half of it’s time in the ocean just like Zilla. Another similarity is unknown virus spread from the creatures blood. In Godzilla, survivors of his attacks tend to suffer radiation sickness, presenting largely the same way. There are enough similarities that it seems unlikely this film didn’t influence the more successful piece. There is debate on the subject though and maybe this is just another one of those coincidences. Personally, I doubt it. However, Godzilla is the better movie.
That’s not to say “Beast” is bad. It is a little straight forward, but it was the first of it’s kind. It’s safe to say they were more concerned about how to put a believable giant dinosaur on the big screen than coming up with a layered plot. The effects are really worthy of praise too. Yes they have of course dated (After 70 years, that is a given) but they haven’t dated as much as you may think. The animation is jerky at times and the transition from model to set is occasionally jarring. Overall though, I was impressed. In it’s day, this must have been stunning. It (Along with a re-release of King Kong) did spur a spate of giant monster films in the US. That’s not a bad legacy.
Conclusion
There’s not a huge amount more to say about the movie. It was an effects and spectacle movie and it provided that. Impressive for its age and for the fact it was independently created. The rest of the movie is average. The plot is divided between proving the monster exists and then trying to destroy it. The first half is solid, but not what anyone watches this movie for. The second half is very basic, but provides most of the spectacle. There’s not really anything I consider bad here, it’s just I know you can do a lot more with a giant monster. I’m going to settle on a 6/10. Your enjoyment may depend on how well you handle 70 year old effects, but if you like Kaiju’s, you owe this film a viewing.
With the 2023 wrap up out of the way, it’s time to take a look at what movies are coming to our screens in 2024. I’m doing this in two halves, so this is just the first six months. It’s worth noting that several of the big names were actually due out in 2023 but got pushed back due to the various strikes. Dune: Part Two for example was a movie a lot of people were excited for in 2023, but it got pushed back, unnecessarily in my view, due to the strikes. Specifically they wanted the actors available to promote it. These days it’s debatable if the actors actually help or hinder a movies promotion given their tendency to make divisive comments in interviews. Then again, the last Dune movie didn’t perform that well despite meeting audience approval so I understand them not wanting to take the risk.
It’s also worth noting how few superhero movies are hitting the screens this coming year and neither the MCU nor DCU/DCEU have an official entry this year. The DCEU is dead now and James Gunn’s DCU doesn’t launch until 2025. Marvel meanwhile only have MCU adjacent content with their revival of the Fox X-Men universe via Deadpool 3 and three more entries in Sony’s more miss than hit “Venomverse”. This is probably for the best, given the disastrous box office both franchises have had in 2023. It remains to be seen if this little break will help the recent decline in the popularity of superhero movies or hasten it. Disney are putting out two MCU shows next year mind, but I doubt “Echo” or “Eyes of Wakanda” will help much.
First Quarter.
The first few months of 2024 offers several highly anticipated movies, several of which were originally slated for 2023. I’ll start off with a list and then break it down by month. Note, a lot of the movies I’m listing here aren’t big Hollywood Blockbusters. With the writers strike, the major studios took a big hit and as a result have less than normal to bring out. However, often the best movies aren’t from the major studios, so I’ve included a lot of smaller films I think have potential. Some of them aren’t even horrors!
Note: I’m updating this list with review scores as I watch stuff!
JANUARY Night Swim – January 5th (Horror) The Bricklayer – January 5th (Action/Thriller) – 4/10 Destroy all Neighbors – January 12th (Horror/Comedy) – 6/10 The Beekeeper – January 12th (Action/Thriller) – 6.5/10 Self Reliance – January 12th (Comedy) – 6/10 I.S.S. – January 19th (Thriller/Drama/Sci-Fi) Wanted Man – January 19th (Action/Thriller) – 5/10
FEBRUARY Lisa Frankenstein – February 9 (Horror/Comedy) Argylle – February 12 (Action/Thriller) Madame Web – February 14 (Superhero) Land of Bad – February 16 (Action/War) Drive Away Dolls – February 23rd (Thriller/black comedy)
MARCH The Fall Guy – March 1 (Action/Comedy) Dune: Part Two – March 5 (Sci-Fi) Imaginary – March 8 (Horror) NEW ADDITION: Roadhouse – March 8 (Action) Damsel – March 8 (Fantasy) Kung Fu Panda 4 – March 29 (Family/Comedy) Mickey 17 – March 29 (Sci-Fi) Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire – March 29 (Fantasy/Comedy)
January.
First up is the Blumhouse horror Night Swim (Which will be already out by the time I post this), this is a movie that was originally due out in 2023 but got postponed. The movie itself looks so so, but it does mark the new partnership between James Wan and Jason Blum who merged their companies on January 2nd this year. This will create a real powerhouse for horror in the coming years especially considering their partnership with Universal. Later in the month Jason Statham’s launches us firmly into 2024 in solid style with the fun looking action movie “The Beekeeper“. It’s classic Jason Statham, if you hate those movies you can probably skip it but if you enjoy them you can expect to be in safe hands.
There’s quite a few lower profile movies for January too that look interesting. Those after low budget horror fun though should check out the trailer for “Destroy all Neighbors“, which looks like “Psycho Goreman” levels of fun with more than a hint of Alex Winter’s “Freaked” (And not just because Winter is in this too). Another interesting one for January is the comedy “Self Reliance” which looks to subvert “Hunting Humans/Running Man” trope. This has been done a few times now (For example the excellent “Guns Akimbo”), but the trailer looked fun and they seem to have found a new angle to it.
Finishing up the line up is a couple of action films in “The Bricklayer” and “Wanted Man” and the science fiction triller “I.S.S.”. The Bricklayer (Which is already out), looks pretty good from the trailer and is from seasoned action director Renny Harlin (Cliffhanger, Die Hard II, Long Kiss goodnight). Wanted Man is directed by and starring Dolph Lundgren. Dolph has directed a few action films now and all hover between 5-6/10 on imdb, so don’t expect too much. I.S.S. meanwhile is a sci-fi/thriller based on the idea of what would happen on the International Space Station should nuclear war between Russia and the US kick off on Earth.
February.
February sees our first Superhero film for 2023 and…. yeah, it doesn’t look good. “Madame Web” appears to be Sony scrapping the very bottom of the barrel of the characters they have available. Traditionally Madame Web is an elderly blind woman in a wheelchair that helps guide Peter Parker. I’ve never been a big fan of creating a “Spider-Family” when one of the things that made Peter Parker Spider-Man was having to solve his issues by himself. Madame Web at least was always very hands off, effectively just a quest giver. But it’s still just a gimmick hanger on character and not the kind you would make a movie for. This character is joined by three more Spider-Knockoffs, the only one I care about at all is Julia Carpenter, since she debuted it “Secret Wars” back in the 80’s, when I was heavily reading Marvel Comics.
On a potentially positive note we finally get the Henry Cavill spy thriller “Argylle“, though a word of caution on that one: I’m pretty sure that is a bait and switch. The trailer only shows Cavill playing an in world, fictional version of the character and as the trailer reaches the point of introducing the “Real” Argylle…. it ends. Yeah, it’s totally not going to be Henry. My guess is that the author of the fictional in world books that is central to the story is the real Argylle, in what would effectively turn the story into a “Long Kiss Goodnight” remake. This may or may not cause a backlash depending on if the movie is actually any good! Fortunately the trailer did look action packed and fun, so regardless of who the real Argylle is, it may be entertaining.
Filling out the rest of February are some real wild cards. Probably the most notable is Ethan Coen’s “Drive Away Dolls“. The trailer looked stylish but I honestly couldn’t tell much else about it. Then there’s the action movie “Land of Bad“, which looks like a typical soldiers in action type movie but those can sometimes be very good, so we’ll see. Finally, there is another comedy horror, “Lisa Frankenstein“, the plot is somewhat similar in basic concept to horror cult classic “May”, but with the comedy dial turned up to eleven. Lisa, like may is trying to construct her perfect man, but this time she starts with a re-animated corpse and is basically trying to replace bits of it to make it less… dead. Not sure if it will work in practice, but concepts like this are always a fine line between hilarious and terrible.
March.
March is where things really get interesting in 2024, with a number of highly anticipated movies. This includes the delayed “Dune Part II” finishing off Denis Villeneuve’s adaptation of Frank Herbert’s first Dune novel. The trailer for this looks superb and it may be the safest bet of the year for quality. The month also sees a fourth Kung Fu Panda movie, but more interesting for me is “Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire“, the fourth canonical Ghostbusters movie and direct sequel to “Afterlife”. The movie sees the franchise return to New York and there is more than a chill in the air. The remaining OG-Busters return once more, though it is unknown how large their roles are this time. My guess is you won’t see much of Venkman in this.
We also get a reboot of “The Fall Guy“, an 80’s TV series now turned into a movie. There seems to be little in common between this movie and the series, but the trailer did look pretty good. Perhaps this will be the new “Equalizer”. A potential movie to look out for in March is Bong Joon-ho’s science fiction adaptation “Mickey 17“. I don’t know the source material (The novel “Mickey7”), but the synopsis sounds interesting and this is an Oscar winning director with a strong list of science fiction and horror movies to his name. The very capable Robert Pattinson takes the lead roll in the movie, so there is a lot of potential. Capping off March is a pair of trope subersions with Netflix’s take on the fairy tale movie “Damsel” and the imaginary friends gone bad horror “Imaginary”. The latter of those is the first of two movies about imaginary friends this year.
Second Quarter.
The second quarter of 2024 features a run of big budget action based movies and a fair amount of horror along with a lot of franchise returns. In all (Of the movies listed), nine are either franchise sequels, prequels, spin-offs or reboots and only six are original films, four of which are horrors. Here’s the list:
April NEW ADDITION: Monkey Man (Action) – April 5th Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire – April 12 (Action/Kaiju) The First Omen – April 12 (Horror) Abducting Abigail – April 19 (Horror) NEW ADDITION: The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare – April 19th (Action) Civil War – April 26 (Action/Thriller)
May Horrorscope – May 10 (Horror) If – May 17 (Horror Furiosa – May 24, 2024 Garfield – May 24, 2024 Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes – May 24, 2024
June The Watchers – June 7, 2024 (Horror) Ballerina – June 7 Bad Boys 4 – Jun 14 Inside Out 2 – June 14, 2024 A Quiet Place: Day One – June 28 Horizon: An American Saga (Pt 1) – June 28
April
Already controversial film “Civil War” hit’s theatres April 26th. Hard not to feel that movie is cynically cashing in on extreme tensions across the US in what is sure to be the most controversial election of all time. Fortunately even in the trailer they make it clear the film is pure fantasy since it has California teaming up with Texas! April also gives us a new entry in the “Monsterverse” franchise, “Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire” this time it’s a full on Godzilla and King Kong team up movie and it remains to be seen if they can actually make this work. Certainly the scene of Godzilla running in the trailer was… strange. After the success of the Japanese Godzilla Minus One in 2023, it’s uncertain whether the audiences are still on board with a heroic running Godzilla teaming up with a heroic Kong.
For horror we have an ill advised old franchise prequel “The First Omen“, which just to be a little more confusing is a prequel to the reboot Omen film from 2006 and not the one from 1976. yes they made a prequel to the film that has a 5.5 (62k votes) on imdb rather than the one with a 7.5 (129k votes). Go figure. Though a prequel to the ’76 film would basically just be Rosemary’s baby. All feels a bit pointless to me, but maybe it’ll be a surprise hit. April also sees the release of Universal monster thriller “Abducting Abigail“, a movie little seems to be known about, but seems to be about people kidnapping someone that is actually a monster.
UPDATE: Two new movies have been added to the slate in April that are worth mentioning, both are action films. First is “Monkey Man” from Universal, released April 5th and from the looks of the excellent trailer is a action film/superhero origin movie. That is followed by Guy Ritchies latest movie “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare” with Henry Cavill. Ritchies output last year was nothing short of spectacular so I expect good things here as well. It seems April just got kicked up a notch!
May
May brings more questionable sequels with the first Mad Max film without Mad Max in: “Furiosa“. It’s also the first Max franchise movie to feature extremely heavy CGI and it was very noticeable in the trailer (And not in a good way). One sequel that actually looks decent though is “Kingdom of the Planet of the Ape“. Honestly it could go either way, but the trailer was promising. May also brings “The Strangers: Chapter 1“, a prequel to a home invasion film I wasn’t particularly impressed with. In my review of “The Strangers” the only positive I had about it was a surprisingly good performance by Liv Tyler. Another horror out in May is the deliberately misspelled “Horrorscope” about people having their fortunes read and then dying in related ways to that fortune. Straight forward gimmick; we’ll see how it lands.
May sees Garfield back on the big screen, now with Chris Pratt voicing the lasagna loving feline. The new film is called “The Garfield Movie” not to be confused with “Garfield: The Movie” from 2004. June also features a potentially big animated feature with “Inside Out 2“, though Disney doesn’t have the best track record with animation in recent years, so remains to be seen if it will be as much of a success as the original film. Disney can’t claim genre fatigue on their animation since everyone else seems to be doing well in that department. One movie that I think may be a hit this year (One of two for Ryan Reynolds), is “IF“, this years second movie about imaginary friends. These are good imaginary friends though, so don’t expect them to murder anyone. This is pure fantasy/comedy and the trailer looked great.
June
As we roll into the summer we get a pair of franchise action movies with the fourth installment of Michael Bay’s Bad Boys franchise “Bad Boys 4“. Not much is known about that one right now, so there is a chance it’ll get delayed. Before that though we get “Ballerina” a John Wick spin off set between the third and fourth movie of that franchise. The movie does include Keanu Reeves reprising his role, but the actual lead is Ana de Armas. It’s unknown how much of a role Wick will have in it. The third movie vying to be an early summer hit is Pixar’s “Inside Out 2“. While the original was a big hit, we all know how things are going for Disney right now and this isn’t Toy Story. It seems unlike “Anxiety” will be as popular a character as “Joy” was.
On the horror side of things June brings “The Watchers“, the directorial debut of Ishana Shyamalan, M. Night’s daughter. Hopefully she isn’t also obsessed with building movies around a single twist. The big horror movie of June though is the Quiet Place prequel “A Quiet Place: Day One“. If you read my review of the previous movie you’ll know I really liked the prequel section and was indifferent to the rest, so I’m actually on board with this one. Stepping away from horror, the final movie of note in June is Kevin Costner’s latest Western Epic “Horizon: An American Saga“. This is a self funded two part movie with the second due out in august. The total run time is apparently eleven hours, though it was originally meant to be four movies and seems to now be just two. The final length remains to be seen… But probably not by me!
End of Part One
Part two launches right into the summer holiday season and beyond. Right now its pretty barren terrain thanks to last years writers strike. They delayed a lot of films due out last year to make sure they had some content, but that could only stretch it so far. Also the end half of the year is where films are more likely to be delayed again, so it is a lot more speculative. Suffice to say part two will be shorter! Anyway, thanks for reading and I hope it’s given you a few films to look forward to.
When looking at the box office, in past years I’ve used a more accurate spreadsheet that takes into account the slight variation in percentage of ticket sales that goes to the studio for the opening week and global territories. This year however I’m just using the simple 3 X production budget formula. What that effectively does is assume the marketing costs are about 50% of the production budget again and that the ticket percentage is a flat 50%. The actual figure is far more complicated. I’ve split this years films into Epic Wins, Success, Met Expectations, Disappointments and outright bombs. Let’s start at the top!
Epic Wins of 2023!
This is a relatively short list. The biggest winner of the year is “Barbie“. A movie that most expected to do well, but literally no one expected to cross $1.4 billion. There’s a lot that could be said about the movie, it certainly isn’t perfect but it does seem to have truly resonated with fans of the franchise. Regardless of if they agreed with the treatment of the Ken’s, the real world or the crude humour, they also recognised that this really looked like Barbie’s world. Barbie wasn’t the only franchise though to give it’s fans something that felt right and the second biggest winner of the year is again way out in front of the rest of the gang this year and that is “The Super Mario Bros. Movie“. Another film most expected to do well. My particular prediction was it would do “Minions numbers”, but it blasted even past that to a whopping $1.36 billion globally. I feel there is a lesson to be learned here about, but I’ll get to that later.
After these two phenomenons things get a little more subjective. Here we need to look at which movies massively exceeded all expectations rather than the gross ticket sales. The first such hit is unsurprisingly Oppenheimer. In what was probably the strangest viral marketing tactic of any movie people were encouraged to go an see “Barbenheimer”, a double bill of Barbie and Oppenheimer. Bizarrely this was embraced by audiences and both movies saw a considerable boom in ticket sales. The two movies couldn’t possibly be more different, but it’s an important lesson in never underestimating the power of a good meme. Is it something we’ll ever see again? Well Barbie is almost certainly getting a sequel and Christopher Nolan isn’t going to stop making movies any time soon, so who knows?
Two more movies to land in the epic win category are “The Sound of Freedom” and “Godzilla Minus One“, both with low budgets and both massively over performing. On top of that the audience response was off the charts. The Sound of Freedom is an emotional thriller from Angel Studios made for $14.5m, originally meant to be distributed by Fox, but after the company was purchased by Disney the movie remained on the shelf until Angel Studios requested out of the deal and found alternative distribution. Disney screwed themselves out of a good bit of money on that one, but they are full of bad decisions these days. Godzilla Minus One meanwhile is a Japanese Godzilla film made for a mere $12m and looking every bit as good as a $200m Hollywood blockbuster. The film takes Godzilla right back to his roots and is widely considered the best Godzilla film since the 1954 original.
Success Stories of 2023
At the higher end of the production budget scale there isn’t a lot of success stories for 2023 (Outside those epic wins). It’s pretty much just the animated Spider-Verse film “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse“, largely coasting off the great reception the previous Spider-Verse received back in 2018 as well as the continuing strength of the Spider-Man brand. Fan reactions to this one were mixed, with a few of the character portrayals not quite landing with viewers and the ending feeling anti-climactic. Turns out this was only half of a story and the continuation is already delayed thanks to the writers strike. However, the animation continues to receive praise and the Spider-brand remains the one guaranteed cash cow in the Superhero genre.
The most successful horror movie of the year was the video game adaptation “Five Nights at Freddy’s“. With a $20m production budget, perhaps on the higher side for horror the move raked in $300m globally, The thing to note here is that was with a day and date streaming release. That means no one actually had to go to the theatres to watch this legally but they chose to anyway. That is a huge success and honestly could have pushed this one to the epic win column. The movie itself was very true to the game and absolutely nailed the look of the animatronic monsters. That said it wasn’t without flaws, most notably how light the horror elements actually were. As a result the reaction to the movie was decidedly mixed, but the important thing was fans of the game loved it.
Not too far off the success of FNAF was an early release in 2023 the horror film “M3GAN“. A personal favourite of mine from the year, the film drew in $181m worldwide against a production budget of only $12m, making around $145m. That’s a considerable amount of profit and you can bank on this film seeing a lot of sequels in the coming years. The latest entry in the Saw franchise “Saw X” made itself a healthy profit with $109m against it’s $13m production budget. That’s a $147m profit and you can bet Saw XI won’t be too far off. Surprisingly, the sequel no one asked for “The Nun 2” managed to earn itself $268m against it’s $38.5m budget, netting $152m in profit.
“Talk To Me” had a production budget of just $4.5m and raked in $70m, with many calling it the horror film on the year. The latest Insidious sequel meanwhile, “Insidious: The Red Door“, had a $16m production budget and raked in $186m globally. Despite it’s financial success though, The Red Door was not well received and it remains to be seen how much life this franchise has left. Last but not least The Evil Dead series had it’s second reboot with “Evil Dead Rises” drawing in $146m against it’s $19m budget. That’s a profit of about $89m. though it’s worth noting when the production budget is under $30m the P&A cost (Mostly marketing) is likely more than 50% of the production budget so these films possibly made a bit less than I am listing, but they still did well.
Business As Usual – Meeting Expectations
I’m not going to cover too many lower budget movies here as it’s quite hard to judge what expectations are for a lot of those. Many of those films will be of more value on streaming after their theatrical run or are more about studio prestige than actual profits. But there are still a few films to talk about. First up, the most successful live action superhero film of the year “Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 3“. This was the final part of the James Gunn’s Guardians story and his final Marvel movie before heading over to DC and Warner. With that in mind, expectations for this film were high and because of that it could be debated this is actually a disappointment.
Guardians of the Galaxy, Vol 3 is the fourth highest earner at the box office with a worldwide haul of $845m. The problem is the production budget of $250m pushes the break even point to about $750m, meaning the movie likely didn’t even bring home $100m of profit. On top of that it brought in less (Inflation adjusted) than the previous GOTG movie and represents a creative dead end for the MCU. That said, outside of the depiction of Adam Warlock the film was well received and made for a strong send off to the team and James Gunn.
Also rounding off a well love movie series was “John Wick: Chapter 4” and in doing so achieving about what would have been expected. The movie drew in $430m against a production budget of $100m. Despite the lower numbers it likely ended with a greater profit than GOTG3 and kept in line approximately with the previous movies. The reception from audiences were positive, despite a few noting how over the top it has all become now and how John Wick is basically a superhero at this point. The choreography and camerawork in the action scenes though was pretty spectacular. While the movie ended John’s story, it opened up the world in which is was set to any number of spin offs, so the franchise is still alive and strong.
Doing about what was expected in the box office was “Creed III“, the now Stallone-less Rocky spin off franchise pulled in a franchise best box office of $275m, but against a production budget of $75m (Also a franchise high), giving it profit of only around $50m. Fan reaction for this one was down on the previous two movies and it is doubtful we’ll see as many of these films as we did from Rocky. Still, no one will be too upset with this performance. Last on this list is “Scream VI” pulling in $168m against a $35m budget and with mixed reception from fans, it’s not lighting the world on fire but for the sixth entry in a horror franchise that should probably not have had sequels at all it’s not a bad showing.
The Disappointments of 2023
Obviously flops and bombs are also disappointments but we’ll deal with those separately. First film on the list is the latest out, “The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes“. This is a movie that seems to have landed precisely at it’s break even point of $300m against it’s $100m production budget. No one will be celebrating that, but at least it hasn’t lost money. The tepid box office about reflects the audience and critical responses for the movie. If ever there was a movie that could be described as “Mid” it is this one.
Next up we have “Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem“, a movie that sort of farted onto the cinema coasting off general franchise popularity and then heading into the sunset with a haul of $180m against it’s surprisingly high $70m production budget. The theoretical break even point for that is around $210m meaning this probably made a loss of a round $30m. It’s close enough to the break even point that it may have cleared it’s costs, but it could also be a lot more. That ambiguity is why it is in the disappointment section instead of outright flops, but it’s safe to say no one will be happy with this. Seth Rogen continues to be franchise poison.
Next up on the disappoint list is a director for who the word “Disappointment” has become somewhat synonymous with his career. Shyamalan M Night is a capable director that occasionally just makes very bad decisions. His movies tend to revolve around twists and that is always going to leave a lot of viewers disappointed if that twist just doesn’t resonate with them. The movie in question here is “Knock at the Cabin“, Drawing in about $54m global against it’s $20m production budget. Again technically under it’s break even point, but close enough that only the studio and their accountants likely know if it is in the black or in the red.
The last movie on this list to avoid being full on flops or bombs is somewhat debatable and that is Pixar’s “Elemental“. Going just on it’s theatrical performance of $486m against a $200m production budget it would be in definite flop territory. However, it has done very well on streaming and perhaps enough to remain out of Bob Iger’s nightmares this year. After all he has a lot more to be concerned about. The movie is pretty generic pixar stuff, but there’s been far worse animated movies out this year. No one is going to celebrate this one, but it could definitely be worse.
A few movies came out this year and flopped but avoided going “Full bomb”. First is Neil Blomkamp’s “Gran Turismo: Based on a True Story“, pulling in $117m against it’s $60m production budget and losing about $60m. This will certainly not help Blomkamp, which is a shame because he is a very talented director that should be the one making those big franchise movies. “A Haunting in Venice“, the third Kenneth Branagh Poirot movie had a $60m production budget, but drew in only $114m, losing about $66m. These last two I’m told are good movies, but am yet to see them. Last on the list is Trolls Band Together” drawing $139m against it’s $95m budget and losing about $45m.
In the genre of Horror an interesting one is “The Exorcist: Believer“, which technically did okay $136m against it’s $30m production budget. But Blumhouse paid out $400m for the rights to the franchise, meaning that they likely expected more from the film. If future movies do about the same, scraping out under $50m in profit, the franchise won’t actually have made any money until it’s ninth installment (Which would technically be Exorcist 10,12 or 13 depending how you count it). That definitely isn’t what they had in mind when they purchased it.
BOMBS AWAY!
This is where most of the big budget movies of 2023 ended up, so since I’d like people to actually read this article I’m not going to be verbose on this one and just plow through it. First up “is “. Next on the bomb list. “Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves“, a movie I found disappointing but one not without support, it drew in $207m against it’s $150m production budget, losing around $200m for Paramount. Second on this list is Disney’s controversial live action remake of “The Little Mermaid“, which generated $568m globally. An impressive haul, except that with a production budget of $250m it’s break even was a whopping $750m, meaning the movie actually lost $182m for Disney.
Big franchises were no guarantee of success in 2023. “Transformers: Rise of the Beasts” drew in $438m globally against it’s $195m production budget, losing around $147m for Paramount. It’s worth noting on this one, domestically the last three Transformers movies have made about the same, but the international numbers have been plummeting movie after movie, going from $555m to $391m to just $280m. Also Bumblebee had a more modest $118m production budget putting it’s break even point at $354m, had Rise of the Beasts been as careful with it’s spending it would have made $84m instead of turning into a bomb. However, there is no denying internationally Transformers may have run it’s course.
One of the years more surprising failures is “Mission: Impossible Dead Reckoning part one“, a movie that drew in a whopping $566m globally, yet still ending up losing $300m due to it’s insane $290m. The lesson there should be obvious, but I would add that I don’t feel audiences are too keep on going to see what they perceive as half a movie either. In practice the movie did have a conclusion but seeing “Part One” in the title probably put some people off. The movie also had unexpected competition from surprise “The Sound of Freedom”. Joining in the insane budget club is “Fast X” with an astronomical budget of $340m, meaning it needed to make over a billion to break even. It made $714m, loosing $306m.
Disney attempted to turn an amusement park ride into a successful movie franchise again this year with Haunted Mansion. The movie cost $158m, had a break even of $474m and generated just $115m. That’s a whopping $359m. If that is embarrassing it’s not as embarrassing as their centenary celebration movie “Wish”, whose nonsensical plot managed to pull in only $146m against it’s $200m (that they admitted to) budget. That means the movie lost Disney $454m, probably not how they planned to celebrate. It’s worth noting last year I was optimistic about Wish since it was supposed to be a return to classic hand drawn animation. However, that plan was abandoned and they reverted to rather poor looking CGI instead. The plot apparently was changed too and I Can’t imagine for the better.
But as bad as all that looks….Well, then their is “Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny“. Another movie with a $300m production budget (bang on $300m supposedly, which likely means it was a lot higher but that’s all they’ll admit to). Indie 4 drew in a mere $381m worldwide losing Disney $519m. That is half a billion lost digging up a long dead franchise that already had two send decent send offs (I’m talking just of the end of “Crystal Skull” there, not the entire movie). It could be argued most of the damage was done with Crystal Skull or that the trust in Lucasfilm after it’s horrendous mismanagement of Star Wars is so low it didn’t matter what they put out, it was doomed from the start. Then again word of mouth wasn’t good either. Technically this was the biggest box office bomb of all time, at least for a few months….
Superhero movies were, with a couple of exceptions, box office poison this year and with Marvel and DC dominating the genre that means Disney and Warner Bros took a big hit. Disney’s “Ant Man & The Wasp: Quantumania” only brought in $463m globally against it’s $200m production budget, losing $187m for the company. But if that sounds bad, it was a huge success compared to some of the other movies in the genre this year. DC’s “Blue Beetle” could only manage a minuscule $128m against it’s fortunately more sensible budget of $120m. That means a loss of $232m for Warner on that one. The Shazam Sequel “Shazam! Fury of the Gods” is in a similar situation earning $132m globally against it’s $125m budget, losing Warner $243m. It’s worth noting had Quantumania cost $120/125m, it would would have broken even. Warner’s due meanwhile would have had to be produced for $40m to break even, but then let’s remember Godzilla Minus One cost $12m, so these things are possible.
So, as bad as those losses were they are nothing compared to the this years true super villains, “The Flash“, Aquaman: The Lost Kingdom” and “The Marvels“. It’s worth noting the Aquaman sequel is still out in theatres, though after the first full week and the first few days of the second we can make a pretty reasonable prediction. Least disastrous of the bunch is theoretically “The Flash”, but a lot depends on if you believe the official production budget of $200m. This film had a *lot* of reshoots. But even going by the official it’s break even would have been $600m and it only managed a paltry $266m. That means at best The Flash lost Warner $334m. Between this bomb and his personal issues it’s fairly safe to say Ezra Miller’s career may be over.
Speaking of people with no Hollywood career anymore, Amber Heard’s controversial legal feud with Johnny Depp may well have cost Aquaman II a good portion of it’s box office, but in a year where every DC movie has bombed it’s unlikely to be just that. The first Aquaman movie reached the billion mark, this one has barely scrapped $145m and going by it’s current legs will probably finish somewhere around $188m. The movies official budget was $205m and again this movie had a lot of reshoots. At one time Michael Keaton’s Batman was in it, at another Ben Afflecks, but the final released version contains neither. Going by their numbers it needed $615m to break even and will likely end with a loss of around $334m (Yes, the same as The Flash). Add it all up and Warner’s DC brand has cost them $1.14 billion this year. Ouch!
Remember when I said Indiana Jones was the biggest box office bomb of all time… for a few months. Well, that was until “The Marvels” came out. The movie probably winning the award for dumbest name of the year (Marvels The Marvels? Really?) and demonstrating that perhaps requiring the global audience to need to watch a load of Disney+ TV shows to have an entry point on a movie is not the best plan. It also suggests that perhaps Marvels D and E list characters just aren’t popular enough to lead a movie, at least not without the hype of an impending “End Game”. I’m not exaggerating about the character tiers either, Captain Marvel was always D-List and Kamala Khan is E list at best (Though Iman Vellani could have raised her up in better circumstances).
The movie’s official production budget was $275m making it’s break even a whopping $825m. How much did it make? $199m global. That’s a crippling $626m loss. That’s over $100m than Indiana Jones loses. I’m reminded of that time Kathleen Kennedy posted a “Passing of the Lightsaber” to Kevin Feige for breaking the $2b point with Infinity War (After The Force Awakens had previously hit that mark). How times have changed. Now if they were to pass that lightsaber around it would probably be to commit harakiri… except these days being stabbed through the guts with a lightsaber is something you can walk off, so maybe not.
Since I charted Warner’s superhero loses, it’s only fair I do that for Marvel too. Thanks to the small gains of GOTG3 that figure is around $715m in loses. While that may make Marvel seem healthier than DC, at least Warner is able to do a full reboot. Plus Disney have to add those other loses from Lucasfilm and their animation wing into that pile and those sting. The final tally is a loss of $2.4 billion for Disney’s movies. So yeah, Warner got off light.
Conclusion
Appearances can be deceptive, when you look at a list of films with the highest box office for this year you will probably see a few of these disasters and perhaps be mislead into thinking they are successful, but the level of production budgets and marketing costs these days means those big Hollywood movies need to make an incredible amount of money just to break even. Meanwhile most horror films, dramas and independent movies need to make very little to be a success. Hollywood tends to favour the bigger budget movies though because when they are profitable they tend to be incredibly profitable. But it is always somewhat of a gamble. This year most of those gambles ended in disaster.
Indeed it’s probably safe to say this is the worst year in history for the box office. The problems though are pretty clear. First of all, there is no denying that superhero fatigue is a thing now. People may debate on if it’s just over-saturation or too many low quality movies, but the truth is both of those are symptoms of a genre trend reaching the end of it’s road. Superhero movies won’t disappear, just as westerns never disappeared or horror movies after the 80’s boom. Quite often the best movies in a genre come out after it hit’s decline (For example both “Unforgiven” and “Tombstone” came out long after the western was supposed to be dead).
Not that superhero movies were the only clangers this year. Disney movies were almost entirely bombs this year, with only GOTG3 bringing in some bacon for them. It’s notable James Gunn’s swansong at Marvel was probably Disney’s most universally accessible movie that year, the rest of their output tended to be on the divisive side and when your budgets are at $200m and higher you really can’t afford to turn any potential fans away. Elemental was probably their next most accessible movie and that ended up the most likely to claw back into profitability via streaming and physical media sales. There is a definite pattern there. It’s not to say you can’t make heavily progressive leaning movies, but you need to budget them appropriately. When you are talking about huge franchises, it would be seriously stupid to turn off half the audience.
But accessibility goes for the global audience too. It’s not just about left and right leaning English speakers, it’s about global cultures. If you have stories and themes that resonate with people no matter where they live or what their politics are, then that $1 billion + box office will be in reach. If your film only really appeals to the population of California, then you need to realize that it’s probably capping off around the $200m mark. That means you need a budget of around $60m or less if you hope to make a profit. It’s as simple as that. Even aside from being divisive a number of films this year have shown that you can make spectacular looking movies for much less than Hollywood has been spending. Outside of a James Cameron Avatar movie, I don’t see why any film should cost more than $120m for it’s production budget. If CGI is so expensive, stop relying in it!
On the positive side though, for me at least, there is a clear indication that Horror is a sensible way to go right now. The “Success” section of this article was almost entirely horror movies because you can make them cheaply and the audience is fiercely loyal, both for horror in general and for specific franchises. Personally I don’t feel we need an eleventh Saw movie or a Seventh Scream, but chances are the fans would turn out for them. The first Evil Dead movie came out in 1981 and yet the second reboot in a row is 42 years later is still able to make a solid buck. The Exorcist is a trickier one, but had they not spent so much for the rights that would be considered a success. Considering the film had terrible word of mouth and fell off a cliff in it’s second week, it did surprisingly solidly. Certainly “The Nun 2” had no business being a success and yet it made more profit than “Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 3”. Right now, horror films are the only safe bet that a studio can rely on and studios love a safe bet.
When I look at this years epic wins though one thing becomes really clear. The top end of the movie market isn’t really driven by the studios or the mainstream movie media anymore. They are driven by the fans and social media. Mario Brothers and Five Nights at Freddy’s cashed in on a very dedicated gamer fan base. Barbie and Openheimer meanwhile, while likely to be successful in their own right, made huge gains due to a simple meme. It’s worth noting too that Mario, Barbie and FNAF all gained praise from the most dedicated fans of those non-movie franchises. It seems once again giving the core fanbase what they want pays off. Sound of Freedom and Godzilla Minus One were never expected to be hits (At least not in the US), but word of mouth can have a huge impact. In this instance it seems the secret is just make something worth watching!
Anyway that’s all for now… Thankfully! A year like this gives me far too much to have to fit into one of these. It remains to be seen if Hollywood (And more specifically Disney) will learn anything from this. In previous decades Kevin Feige and Kathleen Kennedy would be out of a job for taking the mantle of worst bomb of all time, but we don’t live in those times anymore and some producers seem untouchable. That’s not a good situation for Hollywood, but as we’ve seen if they aren’t willing to give people the entertainment they want, they will find it elsewhere. Not necessarily in movies either, we’ve had a good 100+ years of cinema, it would be foolish to think future generations would be as passionate about these films as you or I. Happy New Year!
You must be logged in to post a comment.