XXX OK Jaanu clash LOL

We are just under a month away from the domestic release of xXx: The Return of Xander Cage and exactly three weeks from the film's overseas debut. The Revolution (and friends) production is arriving courtesy of Paramount/Viacom Inc. in the states as well as France and Germany while Sony (which distributed the first two xXx movies) is handling Belgium and Univeral/Comcast Corp. is releasing the film in the Netherlands. I have not seen the 107-minute film and I have no idea if it's remotely "good." For that matter, I have no idea how it's going to connect here and abroad when it starts its international roll out in France on Jan. 18 of next year. But, let's play "In Brightest Day" for a second and assume it does very well in North America and/or overseas.

Now the bad news is that xXx: Return of Xander Cage is a fascinating example of our current cultural contradiction. It was a franchise that began in 2002 specifically as something "new," "different" and apart from what was already in existence. Like The Bourne Identity that same summer, it sold itself as a newfangled espionage franchise for those tired of the "status quo" James Bond series. Yet here we are in 2016, with Xander Cage coming back to our screens specifically because the franchise is "old."

Yet despite my misgivings about the whole affair, xXx: Return of Xander Cage looks, on paper, like a rather canny attempt by star/producer Vin Diesel to resurrect a dormant action franchise. To wit, Diesel has assembled an eclectic and diverse/inclusive cast that would arguably make this third xXx movie something of a must-see for action junkies even if it wasn't tied to a known franchise. Heck, to the extent that relative disinterest in the xXx brand may hurt the threequel, the ridiculously stacked cast may well make up the difference.

Imagine two "options." Option A: There's a new xXx movie coming out next month! Option B: There's a new big-budget action movie opening next month starring Vin Diesel, Donnie Yen, Tona Jaa, Samuel L. Jackson, Ruby Rose, Toni Collette, Deepika Padukone, Nina Dobrev, Rory McCann, Michael Bisping, and Kris Wu among others. No, there is no Option C.

There is a good chance that the second description makes the film look a lot more exciting to you than the first one. Even if you don't know all of the people in that cast, you probably know a few of them and the idea of them fighting with or against each other is relatively exciting to you. The third xXx may, emphasis on "may," become a hit next month mostly due to its value as a big and macho action spectacular filled with a mix of international action stars. That it exists as a threequel will almost be irrelevant.

I am not saying that xXx: Return of Xander Cage is going to be the first monster hit of the new year. After all, watching 49-year old Diesel play a "super extreme" action star is different than watching him do the same at 35. Maybe the rather large numbers of trailer views (100 million in the first two days for the last one) and the uncommonly high traffic whenever I write about the film is merely a matter of consumers looking for something else "triple-X"-ish. But it would appear that Vin Diesel and friends are smart enough to know that the actual brand isn't worth all that much.

If it hits, it will be because it's a globe-trotting action spectacular with a rather interesting cast that just happens to be part of a known franchise, combined with the "Inclusivity works, dammit!" factor that helped make the Fast/Furious franchise into a monster for Universal/Comcast Corp. Like Sony's Jumanji (which stars Dwayne Johnson, Kevin Hart and Jack Black) and Paramount's Baywatch (which stars Dwayne Johnson and Zac Efron), xXx 3 is an IP play that is at least wise enough not to rest entirely upon the value of said IP. xXx earned $277 million worldwide back in 2002 on a $70m budget. We'll see in three weeks if this threequel can match or top that particular bar for success.