Book of Henry, the latest film from Colin Trevorrow (Ep. 9), is reviewing poorly.

The trailer makes it look like "Mood Whiplash : The Movie". Home Alone type character saving an abuse victim with crazy convoluted hijinks ! Sarah Silverman cracking single-mom-BFF jokes ! Grimdarkness ! Why.
 
Episode IX being notably the worst of the three new films would be perfect considering ep VII was a reskinned new hope and ep VIII is probably going to be the new ESB.
 
Shaanyboi said:
god fucking damnit...

This reminds me of the Sucker Punch reviews that said "This guy is going to direct Superman next?!"

I am so fucking terrified for Episode IX
Click to expand...
Trevorrow gonna bring back that prequel quality.

Like poetry.
 
Eh, I don't think it's worth panicking too much in regards to episode 9. They will be aware of his poor reception, and if the rushes are trash when they do start shooting, he'll be canned.
 
Hollywood is weird.

You have this guy, who directed one low budget indie movie that was okay, then a couple years later gets handed the keys to two of the biggest franchises in movie history, Jurassic Park and Star Wars

The writer/director of Monster, a critically acclaimed movie didn't get another shot until 13 years later.
 
DiscoJer said:
Hollywood is weird.

You have this guy, who directed one low budget indie movie that was okay, then a couple years later gets handed the keys to two of the biggest franchises in movie history, Jurassic Park and Star Wars

The writer/director of Monster, a critically acclaimed movie didn't get another shot until 13 years later.
Click to expand...

She's a woman though, everyone knows women can't do stuff or something.

:(
 
Man, the Trevorrow-hate is real, huh. Not saying he is the best director out there, but he isn't the develish schmuck you all make him out to be. No Jurassic World wasn't perfect and had it's tonal quirks, but it was a very competent blockbuster imo. Safety Not Guaranteed was pretty fun too. And it seems like this movies problems are mainly due to the wonky screenplay. Empire actually praised his direction on it. (And yes, I know Empire is a very mild medium which hardly ever pans movies, but they had there fair share of critisism on the film too)

So, let's judge his work on Episode IX when it comes out. For all we know it good be a solid or even great entry in the series.
 
Osahi said:
So, let's judge his work on Episode IX when it comes out. For all we know it good be a solid or even great entry in the series.
Click to expand...

I'd rather he get's replaced because I have no faith in him.

At most he'll do a serviceable job, that's not exciting enough.
 
ZeoVGM said:
... Wait, what?
Click to expand...

I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.

Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
 
ZeoVGM said:
... Wait, what?
Click to expand...

Hollywood gives white guys second (and third) chances all the time. Look at Zack Snyder's career. The dude made 3 movies in a row that couldn't even make back double their budget (Watchmen, Legend of the Guardians, Sucker Punch) and one of those was basically a bomb (Sucker Punch) and then Warner Brothers gives him Man of Steel and makes him the architect of the DC cinematic universe.
 
Osahi said:
Man, the Trevorrow-hate is real, huh. Not saying he is the best director out there, but he isn't the develish schmuck you all make him out to be. No Jurassic World wasn't perfect and had it's tonal quirks, but it was a very competent blockbuster imo. Safety Not Guaranteed was pretty fun too. And it seems like this movies problems are mainly due to the wonky screenplay. Empire actually praised his direction on it. (And yes, I know Empire is a very mild medium which hardly ever pans movies, but they had there fair share of critisism on the film too)

So, let's judge his work on Episode IX when it comes out. For all we know it good be a solid or even great entry in the series.
Click to expand...

I mean, if the most flattering thing you can say about his biggest film is that it was 'very competent' that's pretty faint praise. He's not an absolutely awful director, but he seems to hit fairly major stumbles in his work and doesnt have any particular aesthetic/thematic strengths to make up for them.

That's why people are so confused about his meteoric rise - as a director he is relatively inexperienced and there is nothing that seems unique about him stylistically, and yet he has been granted these mega franchises like he is some kind of visionary.
 
With his kid brother Peter (Jacob Tremblay), Henry is being brought up by his stressed but cheerful single mom Susan: a deeply unrelaxed and unconvincing performance from Naomi Watts. Henry is pretty much a prodigy level genius who, when not absolutely crushing his homework, has secretly made his mom a fortune by dealing in stocks from a payphone near their house. He has also apparently designed and built a huge and elaborate treehouse/den in their backyard, with sweet Heath Robinson inventions in it, the sort of thing that would take a grownup movie set-designer months to build. The film is always ordering you to believe in how joyful and life-affirming Henry is.
Click to expand...

...And after watching the trailer I have no doubt that this is this year's collateral beauty.
Can't wait for the reviews.
 
MooseKnuckles said:
I mean, if the most flattering thing you can say about his biggest film is that it was 'very competent' that's pretty faint praise. He's not an absolutely awful director, but he seems to hit fairly major stumbles in his work and doesnt have any particular aesthetic/thematic strengths to make up for them.

That's why people are so confused about his meteoric rise - as a director he is relatively inexperienced and there is nothing that seems unique about him stylistically, and yet he has been granted these mega franchises like he is some kind of visionary.
Click to expand...

You can say the same about Abrams actually.

To me Jurassic World succeeded in what it set out to do. It was a fun blockbuster with spectacular moments, offset by some wonky character bits. (Which I found strange, because this is actually something Trevorrow seemed good at in SNG, and it's also the only thing you hear good stuff about in Book of Henry)

His rise isn't more meteoric then other indie darlings that suddenly got handed a big franchise. Garret Edwards went from a no-budget monster-movie to do a big budget Godzilla, and got Star Wars afterwards. Rian Johnson didn't exactly have a classic blockbuster on his name when he got granted VIII (Looper is still a relatively small movie). I feel like there has been a moment in Hollywood where they were looking for fresh blood for blockbuster series and found it in directors of indie flicks. And Trevorrow only got IX after he made a billion dollar blockbuster, don't forget that.

To me, the hate comes over as hyperbole. People forget he had a similar careerpath as some other director's they do like and forget he made one of the most profitable movies ever (which isn't something Hollywood glosses over), just because they didn't like JW.

Betty said:
I'd rather he get's replaced because I have no faith in him.

At most he'll do a serviceable job, that's not exciting enough.
Click to expand...

People said similar things about Gareth Edwards. Rogue One turned out just fine.
 
He's the second coming of Brett Ratner. Just because a film is a hit doesn't mean it had a capable director behind it; Jurassic World is eye-poppingly bad.
 
Osahi said:
You can say the same about Abrams actually.

To me Jurassic World succeeded in what it set out to do. It was a fun blockbuster with spectacular moments, offset by some wonky character bits. (Which I found strange, because this is actually something Trevorrow seemed good at in SNG, and it's also the only thing you hear good stuff about in Book of Henry)

His rise isn't more meteoric then other indie darlings that suddenly got handed a big franchise. Garret Edwards went from a no-budget monster-movie to do a big budget Godzilla, and got Star Wars afterwards. Rian Johnson didn't exactly have a classic blockbuster on his name when he got granted VIII (Looper is still a relatively small movie). I feel like there has been a moment in Hollywood where they were looking for fresh blood for blockbuster series and found it in directors of indie flicks. And Trevorrow only got IX after he made a billion dollar blockbuster, don't forget that.

To me, the hate comes over as hyperbole. People forget he had a similar careerpath as some other director's they do like and forget he made one of the most profitable movies ever (which isn't something Hollywood glosses over), just because they didn't like JW.
Click to expand...

I would generally agree about JJ, he certainly has his strengths but he's never blown me away. He seems to be a more of a dependable 'all-rounder' than Trevorrow to me though.

Personally I found JW to be a very confused film that didn't understand exactly what it was trying to accomplish, with very awkward character motivations/arcs and no particularly memorable spectacle to gloss over it's flaws. Also to be fair, I count the original Jurassic Park as one of my favourite blockbusters of all time, so I could well have a harsher reaction due to my love for the original.

You make a good point that his rise isn't necessarily out of step with the current trend of elevating indie filmmakers to massive blockbusters straight away, but that is a phenomenon that I find pretty fascinating in general. Gareth Edwards at least had Monsters being in a similar genre to Godzilla, and it showed that he had the right skillset to transfer across, so I get the reasoning there. Rian Johnson also took a huge step from Looper to Episode VIII, but his career has followed a more sensible progression with each film building in scope from his previous work.

Obviously money talks in the end and JW was a monster hit, so I get it, it's just surprising because Trevorrow is so genuinely uninteresting to me.
 
Osahi said:
You can say the same about Abrams actually.

To me Jurassic World succeeded in what it set out to do. It was a fun blockbuster with spectacular moments, offset by some wonky character bits. (Which I found strange, because this is actually something Trevorrow seemed good at in SNG, and it's also the only thing you hear good stuff about in Book of Henry)
Click to expand...
it's boring. There is nothing but visual spectacle to Jurrasic Word. Just like avengers from the same year.

and yes, jj is at best a mediocre director.
 
Arcia said:
I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.

Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...
There's also the fact that Trevorrow got the Jurassic World gig (which it was what led him to Star Wars) because of a "this guy reminds me of me" push from Brad Bird to the producers.
 
MooseKnuckles said:
I would generally agree about JJ, he certainly has his strengths but he's never blown me away. He seems to be a more of a dependable 'all-rounder' than Trevorrow to me though.

Personally I found JW to be a very confused film that didn't understand exactly what it was trying to accomplish, with very awkward character motivations/arcs and no particularly memorable spectacle to gloss over it's flaws. Also to be fair, I count the original Jurassic Park as one of my favourite blockbusters of all time, so I could well have a harsher reaction due to my love for the original.

You make a good point that his rise isn't necessarily out of step with the current trend of elevating indie filmmakers to massive blockbusters straight away, but that is a phenomenon that I find pretty fascinating in general. Gareth Edwards at least had Monsters being in a similar genre to Godzilla, and it showed that he had the right skillset to transfer across, so I get the reasoning there. Rian Johnson also took a huge step from Looper to Episode VIII, but his career has followed a more sensible progression with each film building in scope from his previous work.

Obviously money talks in the end and JW was a monster hit, so I get it, it's just surprising because Trevorrow is so genuinely uninteresting to me.
Click to expand...

I find it fascinating too. I understand the reasoning -> indie directors generally get a lot of heart and creativity in there work, so it's interesting to get them onboard on large blockbusters to have a new angle. But it still seems like a big risk to me.

And I understand people don't like JW, though I actually did (apart from some issues I have with it). It did what I expected from a new Jurassic movie: have some campy fun, show of some neat dinosaurs and let them trash the place.

What I realy don't understand is the pure hate and drivel Trevorrow gets because of it. I just don't. I feel like it's echochamber induced hyperbole, where opinions bounce of each other and amplify, untill people really believe Trevorrow is the worst director since Wiseau or Wood.
 
Blader said:
There's also the fact that Trevorrow got the Jurassic World gig (which it was what led him to Star Wars) because of a "this guy reminds me of me" push from Brad Bird to the producers.
Click to expand...

Yup. This and Trevorrow apparently says all the right things to Kathleen Kennedy and her husband Frank Marshall, who happened to be the producer of Jurassic World.

Hopefully this disaster leads Kennedy to kick Trevorrow off of IX and find someone else (i.e. Patty Jenkins if she's available) to write and helm the film.

In all honesty, it's probably for the best if they delay IX so that it can be done the way it needs to be. Obviously Carrie's death threw a huge wrench into their original plans and if Trevorrow ends up losing Kennedy's favor over Book of Henry, it's better for them to hold off a bit so that they make sure they have all their ducks in a row.
 
Skinpop said:
is there a story to support this claim?
Click to expand...
Her last movie, Monster, was in 2003. Despite her small movie being well received by critics and winning an academy award, according to her, Hollywood wasn't offering her any interesting projects until Thor 2, which she left over creative differences, and Wonder Woman.
 
I havebto believe that anyone working on Star Wars is going to have so much supervision that if it sucks it won't be any one person's fault.
 
Arcia said:
I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.

Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

This. I'm surprised people aren't aware of this.
 
When someone says a movie is as bad as The Room it only makes me want to see it that much more. I'd be impressed if The Book of Henry was of the terrible quality of The Room, that's not an easy feat.
 
I tried to warn you, Disney.

Actually considering how the sausage gets made nowadays Episode IX could end up great in spite of Trevorrow's mediocre ass.
 
As someone who thought Jurassic World was bad and was disappointed in the pick of Trevorrow for IX, I do think VII was JJ's best film and Rogue One was much better than Edwards' Godzilla. I'm hoping that, like with those two, Star Wars will bring out the best in Trevorrow as well.

ElBoxyBrown said:
Her last movie, Monster, was in 2003. Despite her small movie being well received by critics and winning an academy award, according to her, Hollywood wasn't offering her any interesting projects until Thor 2, which she left over creative differences, and Wonder Woman.
Click to expand...

I thought it was that she wanted to started a family after Monster, and TV afforded her better flexibility than movies would during that time. Though that's another problem all its own!
 
Just saw the trailer. This movie looks absolutely bonkers. Looking forward to the inevitable "how did this get made?" episode
 
Well, Jurassic World was not particularly good either so it doesn't come as much of a surprise. I still have never brought myself to see Safety Not Guaranteed for whatever reason, but this film sounds like a major departure from it and the other films so it's hard to say whether or not it's indicative of how Star Wars might turn out.
 
Blader said:
I thought it was that she wanted to started a family after Monster, and TV afforded her better flexibility than movies would during that time. Though that's another problem all its own!
Click to expand...

Even looking at her TV work it's still pretty barebones. She's very underutilized in the industry.
 
There are way too many people watching over Star Wars for that movie to suck.

Personally didn't understand what the big deal with Jurassic World was, pretty poor movie but thought it was competently directed, so I'm not worried about his directing ability.
 
MadLaughter said:
OFb8XRf.png
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
Messofanego said:
Yeah, which is why it's a problem cause it reinforces public misunderstanding of a disorder trumpeted as a metaphor. It's an outdated myth thinking schizophrenia is about split personality. People are usually meaning either bipolar or dissociative identity disorder.
Click to expand...

The etymology if schizophrenia is literally "split mind" so I think it's fair to use it this way in critical writing, even though, yes, psychology's understanding of the disorder has evolved significantly since the term was coined.

Arcia said:
I mean, what is confusing you about this statement? Plenty of mediocre white men get huge opportunities in Hollywood to direct, and yet at the same time women and people of color get one chance if they are lucky, and even then they usually don't get much follow up even after a success. As someone mentioned earlier, Patty Jenkins, a female director who made a critically acclaimed oscar winning film, didn't get another chance until 13 years later.

Hollywood fucking sucks, lets not kid ourselves.
Click to expand...

All of this may be true, but every white dude is still competing with a boatload of other white dudes who share the same privilege. A white director doing a bad job can be replaced by another white director. This doesn't contradict the thesis that women and POCs don't get a fair shake.
 
Spoiler for how this ends: He'll turn in something mediocre, there will be reshoots, eventually the studio will be happy with it and it will make a billion dollars.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The first ever documented Spider-Man fan film
2
147
kunonabi replied
Denis Villeneuve to direct the next James Bond film
2 3 4
164
1K
jason10mm replied
Mindhunter (Netflix) could get closure with 3 films from David Fincher
29
444
Audiophile replied
Project Hail Mary - Ryan Gosling Film
2
57
437
MrTroubleMaker replied
  • Poll
iPhone 16 vs Google Pixel 9
2
60
1K
Grechy34 replied
Top Bottom