This is Colin Trevorrow’s smaller budget film about, well, I’ll let Variety explain:
[quote]
The film’s muted yet still rather flamboyant terribleness derives from the fact that it seems to be juggling three or four borderline schlock genres at once. It starts off as one of those movies about a precocious kid genius — and on that score, for half an hour or so, it’s actually rather watchable. Then it evolves into a tale of the child abuser next door. Then it morphs into a disease-of-the-week weeper, at which point the awfulness is only just getting started. For “The Book of Henry” — I’m trying not to give too much away — is a movie about how an 11-year-old brainiac lays a trap for the child abuser, all as a way of taking everyone through the grieving process. It’s not entirely clear whether you should be laughing, crying, or waving a white flag.[/quote]
[quote]
The Book of Henry offers a despicable child hero, a ludicrous plot, and a cast of characters carved with all the delicacy of a chainsaw on a butter sculpture.[/quote]
[quote]
The movie dances along the edge of incredulity and bad taste before pulling back from the abyss in a way that feels even more mawkish and calculated.[/quote]
The Hollywood Reporter gets to the heart of the matter for fans of a certain galaxy a long time ago and far, far away:
[quote]
The preposterousness of Gregg Hurwitz’s screenplay isn’t enough to throw star Naomi Watts off her game, and the actor’s sincere performance may suffice to keep a segment of the family-film demographic on board, barely. Another group, though, will find acceptance much harder: Those of us who’ve allowed ourselves to care about the latest Star Wars trilogy may be made fearful about the prospect of an Episode IX directed by Trevorrow. The garden-variety blockbuster lameness of his Jurassic World was one thing; after this near-catastrophe, can he really be trusted with the fate of the Jedi?[/quote]
So best case scenario for Episode IX is that Star Wars is too big to really be steered off course by the director. Which would make me much less excited for Episode VIII. Whereas if I want to remain excited by the potential Rian is bringing to VIII, I’ve got to accept Colin might blow the whole thing. Fun.
[quote]
The Book of Henry is the equivalent of eating a cake baked with salt instead of sugar, or listening to a Beatles song where the lyrics are in Esperanto—you understand the idea of what Trevorrow was going for, but the end result is an appalling, irradiated mess, a Frankenstein’s monster version of a feel-good classic.[/quote]
This trend of the majors hiring inexperienced filmmakers to helm massive franchises isn’t going to end well. These sophomore directors don’t have the clout to challenge studio on anything.
To be fair to Disney and Lucasfilm, Marvel has a proven track record of making serious bank by using these “cheaper” directors and Trevorrow made Jurassic World which blew out the box office. The studios don’t really want directors that will “challenge” them on these massive franchises. They want directors that will turn in a safe and profitable product.
For sure! I should have specified that it’s not going to end well for the audience, because the end result is frequently studio-notes: the film. That said, I’m sure the studios are extremely happy with the arrangement, as they get to maintain full control of the project, and it’s not like these indie directors, with micro-budget backgrounds, can complain. Even if what they contribute is seriously compromised, the filmmakers get to have their name associated with a massive franchise.
The worry here is that you could get a Josh Trank and Fantastic Four situation and have an inexperienced director completely bomb out a franchise. I think that comes from a misunderstanding of the respective scenarios.
Josh Trank was allowed to direct Fantastic Four into the ground because 20th Century Fox didn’t know what they were doing with the property and management didn’t step in until it was way too late to course-correct. In contrast, both Marvel and Lucasfilm have strong management that is 100% invested in their films. Both companies also have a franchise vision that they guide. I think the worst thing Trevorrow may be allowed to turn out with Episode IX is a bland movie, instead of a batshit awful one like Book of Henry or Fantastic Four.
Then again, you could get a super-successful director take control of a franchise film, power their way through any oversight, and make a bunch of money despite the film’s badness like Prometheus/Alien Covenant or Batman vs Superman.
Your last point is something I hadn’t considered, but is absolutely true. Personality and authorship definitely doesn’t guarantee quality, but it can help set expectations as a viewer.
Some of the recent picks to helm these massive franchises are really exciting, especially Jon Watts (Cop Car) and Ryan Coogler (Creed), but Jordan Vogt-Roberts, Gareth Edwards, Josh Trank, and Trevorrow’s efforts in the blockbuster arena so far have been sub-par.
Is your interest in Episode IX strong enough that you’ll watch Book of Henry?
You can head over to The AV Club and check out the review and also Spoiler Space for this movie to find out all you need to know, save yourself eleven or twelve bucks.
Anyone with a functioning 'noggin knew that Trevorrow being appointed director of E9 was horrific news because untalented bums like him can’t magically ever produce anything that’s not shit.
Jurassic World was moronic garbage, even compared to the previous sequels, but hit a box office sweet spot because the genre had been fallow for a while and Chris Pratt suddenly evolved into this generation’s Harrison Ford.
Some of the Marvel movies featured cheaper and sometimes inexperienced directors, or guys moving up to film from movies, but none of them had actually produced garbage before. Opting to transition from a talented, creative guy like Rian Johnson (an amazing choice after letting the “solid” JJA relaunch the series) to throw in a complete hack like Trevorrow in for the finale is a very non-Disney move. Even with the depth of their “talented committee” approach to filmmaking is not going to be able to overcome Trevorrow. Short of throwing in Mark Steven Johnson it’s hard to think of a worse choice. I actually can’t think of a worse one.
[quote=“Desslock, post:12, topic:130228, full:true”] Short of throwing in Mark Steven Johnson it’s hard to think of a worse choice. I actually can’t think of a worse one.
[/quote]
George Lucas! Zing!
But seriously, I think there are plenty of directors who would be a terrible fit for Star Wars, worse than Trevorrow. Specifically, I think of big names who are not untalented, but who have visions that it’s hard to reconcile with Star Wars as we know it. Del Toro, Ridley Scott, off the top of my head for example. I still lean toward Trevorrow just being a very bland choice.
I wouldn’t mind seeing Ridley Scott try his hand at a Star Wars movie, as long as they kept him away from the script. And it’s not too late to sign David Lynch!
Have no idea about Lucky McKee and had to google him to ensure that wasn’t a fake name you threw in there as a trap, but every one of those directors would produce an incredibly interesting Star Wars movie (well, except maybe Malick). I would just love a Star Wars movie from any of them.
That said, I agree that those directors haven 't shown much interest in making the family friendly Disney brand of entertainment and most are sufficiently independent that they’d expect a larger degree of artistic freedom than Disney would permit, but they’d all certainly make a far better movie than Trevorrow is even capable of making.
Again, even good/great directors occasionally misfire, through production issues/over indulgence or whatever. But no wretched hack like Trevorrow can ever produce anything worthwhile, because they don’t have the required intelligence and creativity. They can only ever produce crap.
It’s like expecting a 40 year old fat guy to possibly be a professional boxing contender just because he’s gone to the gym 3x a week for a few years. He doesn’t have it in him and it’s an impossible result.
You did manage to make me think of one name that might have been a worse choice: Roland Emmerich.
I don’t know about “love” but they would certainly be interesting. My point is that none of those directors would (if left to their own devices) create a Star Wars movie that fit into the franchise direction. Their visions for Star Wars would probably be divisive, challenging, and maybe even antagonistic towards the audience. They would be hilariously awful choices to direct a film in this universe. Frankly, I’m delighted that Disney/Lucas allowed Gareth Edwards to stray as far from the formula as he did.
I don’t know if Trevorrow will make a good Episode IX, but odds are that he’s a “safe” choice for the studio based on his Jurassic World output. I may not like the end result, but it will make money and it won’t outright offend the majority of the moviegoers.
What do you think is at the core of Hollywood’s refusal to let women directors into the club?
I think it stems what target audience they’re going after. If you’re only going after teenage boys, you’re going to hire a slightly older teenage boy to direct.
Is that true with the current direction of Star Wars? Rey and Jyn being the stars of the new movies would seem to indicate that Kathleen Kennedy and Disney are going for something more than just teenage boys.
