The Zombieland and Maleficent Sequels Both Fail, But for Different Reasons

The cast of "Zombieland: Double Tap", all clearly terrified of Angelina Jolie.

Asked to describe Claude Rains’ self-regarding police captain in Casablanca, Humphrey Bogart replies, “He’s just like any other man, only more so.” Aside from accurately summing up one half of cinema’s most beautiful friendship, that quip encapsulates what might be called The Law of the Hollywood Sequel. The motion picture industry is big business, so it’s only logical that when a movie makes money, you make another one. And because follow-ups are typically driven more by fan enthusiasm than by creative compulsion, you make the sequel just like the original, only more so: more action, more jokes, more special effects, more stars, more blood.

Last weekend saw the release of two decidedly different sequels which, if not exactly long-awaited, are certainly far-removed from their respective progenitors. Maleficent: Mistress of Evil arrives five years after Robert Stromberg’s surprise smash, which found Angelina Jolie donning pointy black horns and vivid green contact lenses for a reimagining of Disney’s Sleeping Beauty. Five years is an eon by Hollywood standards, but it’s half the interval between Zombieland: Double Tap and its predecessor, whose comic take on the apocalypse won moviegoers’ hearts and wallets a full decade ago. These unusually long gaps might suggest that both sequels are motivated by art rather than commerce—that their creators returned to their universes after significant time away because they’d actually developed exciting new stories rather than because greedy studios recognized an opportunity to cash years-old checks. Read More

Ranking Every Movie of 2018 (all 135 of them)

Matlida Lutz in "Revenge".

Yesterday, the Manifesto unveiled its list of the 10 best movies of 2018. Today, per annual tradition, we’re expanding that list and ranking every single movie of the year, or at least every single one that we saw. This is a deeply silly exercise, but it’s also a fun one, designed to inspire frivolous debates and indignant arguments, which are of course what the internet does best.

It’s also meant to be something of a service. For each title, in addition to embedding a hyperlink to my full review (where applicable), I’ll include a parenthetical identifying the movie’s director, its Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores (to see whether I conform with or diverge from the critical consensus), and—most usefully—a notification if it’s currently available on a particular streaming service. The idea is that you can continually refer back to this list over the coming years when you’re craving something to watch and you’re too lazy to Google the latest Indiewire poll. You’re welcome. Read More

Ranking Every Movie of 2017 (all 108 of them)

Daniel Kaluuya and Allison Williams in "Get Out"

Yesterday, we posted our list of the 10 best movies of 2017. Today, per annual tradition, I’m ranking every single theatrical release of the year (well, except for all the ones I didn’t see). To be clear, this is a stupid and arbitrary exercise; if I made the same list from scratch tomorrow, I’m sure it would look dramatically different, especially the bottom half. But I like doing it because it serves as a recordkeeping function, and it encourages people to yell at me about my taste.

Housekeeping: For each movie that I formally reviewed, the hyperlink will take you to that review. I’m also including the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores for each film, just to show whether I conform to or diverge from the so-called critical consensus. And because I’m first and foremost a public servant, if a movie is currently streaming on a popular service, I’ll note that, just in case that nudges you into watching something from the comfort of your couch. Read More

Under the Streaming Radar: 20 Good Little-Seen Movies You Can Watch Right Now

Alison Brie and Jason Sudeikis in the underrated "Sleeping with Other People"

Every week, my father and I discuss which new movie(s) we’re going to see in the theater during the upcoming weekend. Last week, however, the conversation didn’t last long, as the two high-profile new releases—the fifth entry in a moribund blockbuster franchise and a big-screen adaptation of a hacky ’90s TV show—barely reached 50% on Rotten Tomatoes combined. Frustrated over the lack of quality options at the multiplex, my father grumbled, “Thank God for Netflix.”

Sarcasm aside, my father’s faux-religious praise for a multimedia company spoke to the behavioral trend that’s been emerging among American adults over the past decade: We don’t like going to the movies anymore. Of course, that isn’t strictly true; though the total number of tickets purchased may have stagnated, we still gave theaters more than $11 billion of our money last year, so let’s not eulogize the communal moviegoing experience just yet. But the appeal of the streaming service—a mode of viewing that combines a broad selection of options with the convenience of never leaving the couch—exerts a strong pull on many grown-ups (particularly those with young children). Why go through the hassle of hiring a sitter when you can just rip through three episodes of Master of None or Thirteen Reasons Why after the kids are in bed? Read More

Small-Screen Swagger: Six Shows Stretching the Boundaries of TV

Aubrey Plaza going bonkers in FX's "Legion"

Television used to be a safe space. It was a repository for the comfortable and familiar: the family sitcom, the police procedural, the doctor show. After a long day, we settled on the couch to bask in the routine pleasures of our favorite weekly programs—chuckling along with the laugh track, racing to uncover the killer, wagering on the survival of the patient. We didn’t watch TV to be challenged or jostled. We watched it to be soothed.

Here’s a decidedly cold take: TV has changed. Over the past several decades—the point of origin is a matter of dispute, but most critics cite the launch of The Sopranos in 1999—television has transformed into a multi-headed hydra of prestige entertainment, teeming with hard-bitten dramas and historical epics and anarchic comedies. (It’s also grown more cinematic, but don’t worry: This is not one of those insufferable think-pieces declaring that TV is better than movies, or vice-versa. (For the record, the only correct answer to the question of “Which is better, movies or TV?” is “Yes”.)) As competition expands and delivery options multiply, showrunners are capitalizing on this land of digital opportunity, developing series that are bigger, costlier, and riskier than anything we’ve seen before on television. Read More