#i watched the ultimate edition which is arguably the worst way to watch it

[bonecouch]

watched the watchmen movie against my better judgment. hate it hate it hate it hate it. stupidest movie i ever saw. absolute butchery of the source material. dr manhattan explode me now

[jordoalejandro]

The Thirteenth Annual List of Movies I Saw the Past Year

This was one of the better recent years for film, in my humble opinion. A lot of really excellent stuff at the top of my list. On the other hand, the gulf between the good and not so good films feels more vast this year. Not as much depth.

I think I prefer that though. I like a year where I have more A’s and C’s handed out than a year where everything is a B.

This is also my longest list ever so let’s get to it.

Here’s the list of movies I’ve seen since-ish the last Oscars (3/12/23).

77. The Re-Education of Molly Singer - This feels like a throwback to the bad, cheaply made, straight-to-DVD comedies of the 2000s. Poorly written. Jokes that barely register and often don’t really have a punchline. A janky, cliché filled plot. Forced character arcs. Even the editing feels off. This is the kind of movie that should be 90 minutes (or really 80-something) and it ends up two hours long. Fixing the pacing wouldn’t have saved it but it couldn’t have hurt. Really nothing working here at all.

76. Vacation Friends 2 - I didn’t love the first film but I had some positive feelings about it at least. There was simply no reason for a sequel other than grabbing at cash left on the table. The original was about normal people going through some fairly normal circumstances, albeit slightly heightened for comedic effect. There really wasn’t that much more left to organically explore with them. Thus, this sequel did what a lot of unnecessary comedy sequels do when they are desperate for plot and need to introduce some dramatic stakes: add a criminal element. A random drug lord who can have men with guns chase our heroes. It’s so artificial it immediately lays bare how forced this film is. (This film also does another classic bad comedy sequel thing where it brings back a character from the first film in a way that makes zero sense because they wanted to use the actor again. Here, for some reason, one of the couples has hired an employee from the Mexican hotel from the first film as a babysitter for their newborn on their trip to the Caribbean. You know: a thing that happens.) That alone makes you roll your eyes but it’s not a fatal flaw. It’s forgivable if you can still make it funny. The bigger sin this film commits is that it just doesn’t do anything funny. The jokes are almost nonexistent. They’re barely trying and absolutely none of them land. The original had some humor and some heart to at least make it a decent watch. The sequel is drained of all of that. The weird thing is I can’t say I hated anything in particular here. I just felt pretty much nothing at all through the entire runtime, which is arguably worse. Mark Mothersbaugh’s score was nice though.

75. Fool’s Paradise - It’s kind of fascinating how this film misses every major mark. It wants to be a satire about Hollywood but it’s neither sharp nor insightful. It has a storyline about friendship that is supposed to lead to the emotional climax of the film but it doesn’t ever feel earned. The characters never actually feel like friends in any way and there’s no payoff to their relationship. There’s also a little bit of a Charlie Chaplin homage going on but there isn’t really any delight or charm in it. I don’t know what happened here. Everything is off. The worst part is there are almost no laughs in the whole thing. You could get by a little easier if you could at least nail some good jokes or visual gags or something but there are maybe a few chuckles at best. Even with the crazy amount of cameos by funny people. No one can find a laugh. The film looks nice at least.

74. 65 - Ultimately, it’s a bore. It’s a lot of walking through the jungle and occasionally being attacked by dodgy CGI dinosaurs. The action isn’t very compelling. Nor the visuals and music. Nor the story. Really standard lone wolf and cub stuff. Adam Driver tries but he’s given very little to work with. It’s a step above a Syfy channel film – in budget and quality – but not a huge step.

73. Meg 2: The Trench - I started this one up thinking, “Well, I saw the first one, I might as well watch the sequel” and about twenty minutes in, I realized I wasn’t sure if I actually did see the first one. I certainly didn’t write about it. I might have watched it on HBO? Or maybe it’s one of those films you don’t actually need to watch to know exactly how it goes down beat by beat. Speaking of films you don’t actually need to watch to know exactly how they’re going to go beat by beat: Meg 2: The Trench. There are moments in this film where it realizes it’s a stupid movie and leans in and those are the best parts of the film. Page Kennedy is the only person who is at that right level throughout the whole film. Mostly, though, the movie comes off like another bad Syfy channel film, in writing and especially in CGI. It’s one of those films where nothing looks real. Not just the animals and the sets. It’s so overbearing you can’t believe in the props they’re holding. It’s so much that you actually see past the CGI in your mind's eye and see all the blue screens the actors are standing in front of. Not great for the immersion of it all.

72. About My Father - A couple of nice moments (it has a smidge more heart than I thought it would) but it’s not really funny or sharp or surprising in any way. A lot of flat scenes.

71. Ferrari - You see the title and think it’s going to be a story about the car Ferrari, right? At least half about the cars? But no, it’s really like 80% about the man Ferrari. And the man Ferrari? Not that compelling. Lots of family drama. Mostly uninteresting. Some driving, which is done well but not as good as you’ve seen in other movies (including other period piece movies made within the last five years that have Ferrari in the title). It rolls along like that for a while. And then there’s this one scene that occurs near the end that’s completely unhinged (I’m trying to be subtle to avoid any spoilers but anyone who has seen the film knows exactly which scene I’m talking about). Even though this scene is based in truth, it’s not cohesive with what we’ve seen for the previous 100 minutes. It certainly snaps you awake like no other part in the film, so there’s that at least. Then it goes right back to the family stuff and then it ends. I’m sure there’s enough interesting, unique stuff in Ferrari’s life that it could sustain a biopic but what we got was mostly his relationship drama and that’s not particularly captivating. Adam Driver and Penélope Cruz are decent in this but not great in any kind of way that would merit awards or special recognition.

70. Plane - It’s basically exactly what you expect from a 2023 Gerard Butler movie called Plane. It’s a functional action thriller that doesn’t do anything (action, character, dialogue, humor) particularly well but pieces one thing to the next and gets to the finish line.

69. Killers of the Flower Moon - There are a couple of scenes that happen early in the film: Robert De Niro’s character and Leonardo DiCaprio’s character do some scheming, and then some Native Americans are killed. I hope you enjoy these scenes because they will be repeated over and over and over and over again for the next two hours. Does it ever get interesting? No, not really. Because at its core, the film is a murder mystery-type story and we’re witnessing the entire thing from the perspective of the murderers. Are these murderers at least clever or intriguing or sympathetic in any way? No, not really. They’re dullards who get away with things because no one cares that Native Americans are being murdered. ("You're supposed to feel that frustration!" Fine, but I could probably get there in half an hour. You don't need to drag me through mud for two hours.) The final hour of this behemoth is the law and order part of the show, which is so slow it drove me to near rage. I came right up to the edge of literally shouting at the film to move along. It’s a shame that there’s apparently no one left in the entertainment industry who can tell Martin Scorsese to not make three and a half hour movies. This is a film that is technically sound, at least, and that’s why it’s not at the bottom of the list. It looks good, the writing is fine, the acting is fine (the actors don’t really get a ton to do which is weird because there is so much goddamn time to do stuff!). But it’s just so impossibly long that it becomes an endurance test more than anything, and in doing so, destroys any potential chance for me to care about what is happening in the film or to the characters. I think there’s a good story in here, one I might be interested in watching, if it’s told in, let’s say, two-ish hours. Watching this film, I found myself only wanting it to end already.

68. The Flash - Some decent pieces hidden throughout – a few clever bits or jokes, action sequences, and emotional moments – but more stuff that doesn’t work than does. An unsatisfying plot. An overload of terrible CGI to the point where it often looks like you’re watching a PS3 level video game cutscene. Cameos and Easter Eggs that are jammed in so poorly that there’s no joy in them. Mostly though, it’s just an irritating film. The dialogue often tries too hard to force a laugh. A lot of broad, lazy humor. And worst of all, Ezra Miller’s Flash, the center of the film, is flat out annoying. His awkwardness is turned to 11 and he comes off more like a romantic comedy heroine (I’m too clumsy to get my life together!) than a superhero for the first act of the film. Everything gets even worse when the teenage version of the Flash shows up and behaves, for some reason, like an eight year old hopped up on sugar. It’s not just grating, it’s bad for us as an audience to immensely dislike the film’s main character. This is a movie that feels like it was pieced together from too many visions (including producers demanding more cameos because the other studios do it) and ultimately, it’s a big mess.

67. The Machine - There’s at least some plot though it’s not particularly strong. It works well enough to keep the movie moving along. Serviceable action. The big issue is there are only a couple of genuine laughs and that’s all you’re really looking for here so to be so lacking in that department is a huge issue for the film. An okay plot and serviceable action is not enough to get by. It’s supposed to be really funny and it just isn’t.

66. Good Grief - It has its moments of humor or dialogue but just doesn’t get there for the most part. I think the writing was lacking. Not enough humor, drama isn’t gripping, emotion isn’t there. This plot was fertile ground for a good dramedy but it simply does not capitalize.

65. Polite Society - This is a movie that should be fun and breezy but it’s unfortunately very bad at maintaining any kind of momentum. The final act in particular drags horribly, gaining steam and losing it almost immediately several times, making a 1:40 movie seem much, much longer. A few good moments scattered throughout and definitely some style to it, but overall the humor and action are nowhere near the quality they should be for this to work.

64. Rebel Moon - Part One: A Child of Fire - Really generic sci-fi. You’ve got your farmer type rebels and your fascist military army and your laser rifles and CGI aliens and the one hero who can save the universe, but she’s got to pull together her ragtag group to do it. Fine. I can forgive generic if it’s executed well but this is all pretty dull. The characters aren’t interesting, heroes and villains alike. Nor the dialogue. The plot is a standard "get the team together" plot but the heroes just go place to place and have people join them without having to actually do much. Mostly they show up, watch a new character do some sci-fi business, and then that character goes “Okay, let’s go.” Even the action isn’t very good, which is generally Zack Snyder’s strength. The film is interesting to look at, at least, so he hasn’t lost that from his arsenal. But this is supposed to be the jumping off point for a new Star Wars type universe thing and I just don’t see it. I don’t care about any of the goings-on with these characters or this world. There’s nothing here that makes me even the slightest bit enthusiastic for like a dozen movies and spinoff TV shows and video games or whatever.

63. Priscilla - This is the newest addition to the “various scenes from a sad famous woman’s life” collection. It has a little bit more life to it than that but not much. Technically solid. Good looking, good music, fine acting performances. But this feels like a movie made as a direct response to Elvis because his relationship with Priscilla was a bit creepy and, in theory, it does deserve further inspection. The problem is, in practice, when you’re actually watching a two hour film about it and you’re like, no, I guess I really don’t care about any of this. For what it’s worth, the actual Priscilla (an executive producer on this project herself) doesn’t seem to fall on one side of the debate or the other too strongly. The film seems to be sending the message that there was good and bad, that the fame and drugs certainly made things worse and ruined their marriage but, well, the whole thing also ends with “I Will Always Love You” playing so… it’s complicated, I guess? I appreciate it exploring the issue as gray but then that really highlights the “who cares?” of it all. I can’t shake the feeling this was a whole film dedicated to telling me a relationship with Elvis that started when you were a child is kind of weird. Okay. Got it. Thanks.

62. You Hurt My Feelings - Too many scenes that don’t really go anywhere and too many exchanges with no punchlines. It makes it feel like the film is stretching to make its 90 minutes. There are some interesting ideas and some funny bits in here but simply not enough in terms of character or dialogue or plot.

61. A Good Person - It never reaches a level of emotion or poignancy to truly be worth the journey, especially because the journey, at its core, is a generic addiction story (read: a melodramatic, repetitive cycle of relapse and recovery). Florence Pugh is good as always and Morgan Freeman does nice work, but the film as a whole just never gets there.

60. Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget - I don’t really remember the first one. I saw it in theaters as a child and have generally positive feelings about it but that was also two-plus decades ago so I can’t say with any certainty if I liked it or if I just liked being unburdened by age. Anyway, though this sequel is fine, it doesn’t seem to me as good, in writing and style, as the original. (Or maybe it is. Again, I can barely remember.) This is a fine movie for children and I’m sure children would enjoy it. It’s not really anything that appeals to me.

59. Shazam! Fury of the Gods - A couple of funny bits (Djimon Hounsou actually gets most of the better laughs, stealing the few scenes he’s in) and serviceable though not exactly enthralling action, but it still mostly feels like an uninspired sequel. Middling villains and a plot it’s hard to connect with. A lot of murder of innocent people that doesn’t mesh with the otherwise more lighthearted tone. Two movies in and they still haven’t figured out how to make the adult and kid versions of Shazam seem like the same character. It’s a little closer in this one than in the first but adult Shazam acts like an eight year old and kid Shazam (who is 17 years old, not eight) is more serious. You feel like they’re two entities and not the same person. If I had to point the finger, I’d say it’s probably Zachary Levi’s fault. Maybe adult Shazam’s lines might match better with different readings but he plays it very much like a small child and it’s off. The director should probably be on top of this, too. All of this sounds more negative than it is. It’s mostly forgettable fluff but it’s easy enough to watch and not hate. It’s just that it’s also not going to interest anyone outside of fans of the first film.

58. Down Low - Some decent laughs but about as many misses as well. Not funny enough for what flows, plotwise, as a sort of standard dark comedy.

57. The Creator - A good looking film, in cinematography and production design. Slick. But it just could not get me to care about the characters or story. Another sci-fi flick that falls right into your typical lone wolf and cub story. It tries to provide a few cute moments to get you to buy into their relationship but mostly hopes you’ll just accept it because our main character is protecting a “child.” While that is usually enough to go on in most of these types of stories, the child here isn’t really a child. It’s a stand-in for something much more gray. The film hopes you won’t examine that gray area very much if the child says something sweet every now and then. I could maybe get there if the whole thing was executed better but our main character is only sometimes compelling and his relationship with the cub feels more obligatory than earned so I spent the last half of the movie not particularly caring if they succeed or not.

56. Nyad - There’s some of the decent stuff you expect in a story about battling nature (and yourself) to do something incredible. And the relationship between the two leads is strong (so is their acting). But the movie itself isn’t incredibly interesting as a whole. Mostly because it’s a lot of swimming, then getting hurt while swimming, then resetting, then more swimming. And repeat. Nyad goes through a The Revenant-esque series of ass kickings to the point it becomes almost humorous. Also, and this is probably mostly a personal thing, but I don’t really care about feats like this, swimming long distances and such. Of course, there are plenty of films that are about things I don’t care about and I was made to care about them by the film. Nyad never really did enough to get me to buy into why I should care whether or not she can do it. In fact, they often make her such a miserable, unlikeable character that I sometimes found myself rooting for the ocean. The problem is, if you’re not bought in to the glory of the achievement, then you’re really just watching swimming.

55. The Color Purple - I haven’t seen the original but I had a general idea of what it’s about and I sort of formed a version of the film in my head and now, having seen this version, I think I was pretty close. Lots of melodrama about being a woman and Black and poor in the South in the past. It’s not fun! This version has music, at least. A lot of enjoyable songs. Great performances (in singing and choreography). They’re the high points of the film by far and keep things lively. Honestly, another song was something to look forward to when you’re caught in the trauma and sadness parts. It’s a visually strong film as well. Good acting, with Taraji P. Henson, Fantasia Barrino, and especially Danielle Brooks doing strong work. All that said, I write a lot of these reviews and get to the end and say something like “this is coming off more negative than how I actually feel about the film.” This is sort of the opposite. All of this sounds more positive than how I felt about the film. Despite my enjoyment of the musical bits and appreciation of the acting, the film is a lot of dull melodrama. Maybe primarily that. That’s why it’s around here on the list.

54. The Super Mario Bros. Movie - I enjoyed the incorporation of musical themes from the game and some of the Easter Eggs. It’s a pleasant looking film. Colorful but not overwhelming. Is this just stuff I like about the games, though? Maybe there’s credit, at least, in the movie knowing what to pull from the games. Jack Black was good as Bowser. I’m just listing things now. It’s very much a decent kid’s movie: pretty straightforward story, basic jokes. That’s fine. It’s good to have movies for kids that aren’t torturous, but I don’t have kids so I don’t get a ton out of this.

53. Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom - It’s mostly a mess. Most of it is CGI’d to hell, so much so that you start to question whether Jason Momoa is even real. The action scenes aren’t very interesting and neither is the plot. There’s a lot of flat acting in it, too. It’s not what you would call a good film. But you know what? There’s actually a decent amount of enjoyable stuff in here. Some funny lines and gags (though many that do not work). And much of the second act has Momoa reuniting with Patrick Wilson’s villain/brother character from the first film and they have a little buddy comedy thing going that works surprisingly well. Their chemistry is good. Momoa himself is very charismatic. He’s trying. He just has very little to work with. The fun stuff in the film is simply not enough to save it but it at least prevents it from being a train wreck and makes it not a miserable watch.

52. The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial - Well directed, well written (it’s based on a 1950s play which is based on a 1950s novel so it’s mostly adapted but it’s been modernized well), well acted. William Friedkin was a masterful director, and he’s able to mostly keep the film moving and the energy up. Ultimately, though, it does end up feeling like the straight up play adaptation that it is. 95% of the film takes place in one room and it’s essentially a dialogue-only film, and there’s only so much you can do to prevent it from slowing down, even as an expert director.

51. Past Lives - There’s some strong acting and good writing in parts. Moments of brilliance (mostly in the last half hour) but I need more overall. Humor, drama. Something. I’ll settle for more dialogue. It’s a movie with a lot of walking and sightseeing. Very long takes with very few lines. I appreciate letting a moment breathe but, well, let me put it like this: it's a 105 minute movie and I looked up the screenplay and it’s 85 pages long and the dialogue within is written twice, one in Korean and once in English. That’s not an equation that adds up to a fast (or really even medium) paced film.

50. Gran Turismo - Decently directed. The action scenes are well shot and have good energy. David Harbour is very good, turning what might be a cliché curmudgeonly mentor character into a charming curmudgeonly mentor character. He takes really basic lines and imbues them with some life. That’s sort of the problem with the whole script, though. It’s very basic in both plot and dialogue. (There are tons of lines that are just describing what’s happening. “Gotta catch this guy!” “Make the turn!” It’s not the worst thing but once you catch it, you don’t stop hearing it.) There are parts of this film that rise above its base level of basic-ness, but not too many.

49. Dumb Money - Credit to the filmmakers for taking a story that doesn’t really lend itself to a plot nor have any real heroes and crafting a watchable film out of it. It’s entertaining enough and has a few laughs. The second act is very repetitive as they run through the hold or sell question like half a dozen times. I don’t know if this is valid as film criticism because it’s based on me knowing a lot about this story in real life but I found myself rolling my eyes at much of the film and its attempts to oversimplify and create heroes. That’s the issue with telling a story that just happened. The full fallout of the story hasn’t occurred yet. Some of the things in the film have already aged poorly. There’s a title card at the end saying what happened to some of the characters and one says a character was still holding GameStop stock waiting to sell. The stock is like 80% lower now than it was at the peak this film presents. She’s screwed. She’s not a real person, but she does represent a lot of real people who did get caught up in the excitement of this thing and got left holding the bag when it stopped working. Again, I debate with myself if that’s a legit way to criticize a film, so I’ll put that aside and just settle on this being fine.

48. No Hard Feelings - The story, the characters, the comedy: certainly could’ve been better but still passable. They all come together to make a solid enough film with a few laughs but nothing extraordinary.

47. Strays - It has some laugh out loud moments but most of the humor is more “hah.” than actually funny. That’s a problem for a film like this which is really about the jokes more than anything. There is some heart to the film but I don’t know if it’s a strength of the writing so much as an exploitation of our feelings about dogs. That is, show us a dog being sad, then being happy, and their faces and our brains do most of the work. It’s a nice effort to try and create some depth in a film that’s mostly about dogs cussing and humping things, at least.

46. Pinball: The Man Who Saved the Game - Cute and cleverly told. It has some good moments and a likability to it but not enough drama to really carry it over even its 90 minute runtime. It basically tries to get by on being cute and cleverly told and that can only get you so far. It’s solid if not spectacular.

45. Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania - Just okay. It just doesn’t have the life the first two films in this series had. It misses the groundedness of those films and those side characters. A lot of time here is spent setting up the Quantum Realm and its factions and showing it all off but it’s hard to really care about all these new characters or this world which reads like a generic alien world and never feels more than a giant load of CGI. A lot could probably be forgiven if it was funnier but while it has moments of humor and creativity, it goes too long in between to forgive its weakness in other areas.

44. Rustin - A decent, if straightforward, civil rights biopic. A very strong performance from Colman Domingo at the center. Not a lot of surprises but it moves well enough for a biopic.

43. Champions - It’s a film about a curmudgeonly, washed up basketball coach who has to coach a team of young adults with learning disabilities. If you hear that premise and immediately build the film in your head, you’re probably at least 80% right. It’s done well, though. It has some heart and a few good laughs and moves well enough. I would’ve liked it more if it was funnier or tapped into something more emotional, but as is it’s decent enough.

42. Lift - It’s a sleek heist film with a decent score and it moves well which makes it quite watchable even if it’s not exactly a great film. It’s very clunky. The writing isn’t fun enough. Only really Billy Magnussen and Vincent D’Onofrio are given characters with some personality. They aren’t written particularly well but the actors make them work by leaning in. The rest of the team doesn’t offer a whole lot. Kevin Hart seems miscast. He’s playing a veteran criminal (think George Clooney in the Oceans movies) but he doesn’t fit the role well and he’s given almost nothing funny to do. More action than anything, which is not his wheelhouse. The main heist isn’t plotted particularly sharply. It sidelines most of the team at the halfway point so Hart and Gugu Mbatha-Raw can have an action romance style third act. Again, it’s not great. More than a handful of weird choices. But it didn’t exactly stop me from enjoying the ride, so I can’t really ding it too badly I guess.

41. Bank of Dave - Cute, sweet, kind of simple. Nothing too surprising. Could be funnier. Based off a true-ish story (as it says) and a lot of it feels movie-fied (some parts egregiously so) but it still mostly works and you can watch it and feel good.

40. Blue Beetle - It’s a DC origin film that’s about on par with the first Shazam. It shares some of the highlights and issues with Shazam, as well. Highlights: some good humor, fun character interactions between the heroes and the side characters. Issues: action is just okay, some darker tone shifts that don’t jibe with the lightheartedness in most of the rest of the film. The villain in this film was much weaker than Shazam but the soundtrack was much better and more memorable. Xolo Maridueña is a more charismatic lead, too. So, some give and take but I’d rate them around the same quality level.

39. Linoleum - Some interesting stuff for the first 80% of the film but a bit slow. An excellent finale, though, that sort of saves everything. In that sense, it’s sort of the opposite of a film like Don’t Worry Darling, proving a good ending can really make or break you. Linoleum’s strong, moody, emotional finish ties everything together and sheds light on what we’ve seen and makes the whole thing feel worthwhile.

Are you still with me? We’re about halfway there. Grab a snack. Let’s do a quick mid-list documentary break.

Still: A Michael J. Fox Movie is a creatively edited, sometimes difficult to watch film about the actor’s life with some strong emotional moments throughout. Parkinson’s is a hell of a disease.

The Eternal Memory is another touching, heart-wrenching film. Also not an easy watch but it finds a way to inject love and beauty into something quite bleak. Alzheimer’s is a hell of a disease.

Okay, let’s get to the top half of the list, which is longer than some previous whole lists. Why did I do this to myself?

38. Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret. - A cute and snappy coming of age story. Doesn’t talk down and doesn’t get too melodramatic. Some sweet moments, some funny moments. I would imagine it probably hits harder for women but I can appreciate the quality of the work.

37. The Killer - Very stylish, as David Fincher does. It moves well. Michael Fassbender is very good in the role. Tilda Swinton has a good bit role, too. It’s fun as a sort of neo-noir experience but as a story it’s not incredibly fulfilling. The setup is fun (the opening sequence which gets you right inside the killer’s mind is the high point of the film), then you get the inciting incident, and then four revenge chapters which are different enough from one another to stay fresh but not entirely compelling overall in a storytelling way. It’s similar to John Wick in that sense, though it’s a bit more artistic and less action-y than that.

36. The Marvels - Funny. Good characters. Iman Vellani, who was strong as the lead in her MCU show, does an excellent job here, able to still stand out even amongst bigger acting names. There’s a power swap thing between the three leads that is inventive and creates for some very fun action scenes. The villain is entirely forgettable, though, and the story isn’t really there either. Plus, the film is structured in a weird way. It sort of skips a first act and jumps right into act two, which makes it feel a little bit unsatisfying. Not necessarily unsatisfying as in letting the viewer down, but unsatisfying in a way that makes you feel as if you’ve just watched an episodic adventure rather than a full satisfying film story.

35. Extraction 2 - A strong follow up that shares the same strengths and weaknesses from the first. Action is really well done. There’s a 20+ minute one-shot early in the film that’s so impressive and long it almost feels arrogant. Like, it just keeps going to the point where you start thinking enough already. It also kind of makes every action piece that follows feel like a let down. Chris Hemsworth is good in the role again. The weakness, like the first, is in the story. It’s mostly there just to give reason for our heroes to run around and kill bad guys.

34. Tetris - Presented in a really clever way. It moves well. It’s movie-fied for sure and you can absolutely feel it, but it’s in service of making what’s likely a pretty dry story into something more thrilling and effective.

33. Nimona - Great looking animation. A good story. Funny. Solid voice acting. It’s mostly for children but an adult can watch it, too, and appreciate some of the jokes and not be miserable.

32. Leo - Not every bit lands but there are some very good ones that produce genuine laughs. It has some heart and sweetness to it, too. Adam Sandler does solid voice work. A lot of songs, some good, some weak. Like Nimona, a cute film for kids that parents can watch and get something out of as well.

31. May December - A fascinatingly dark film with notes of sharp satire. It’s not the most thrilling film but it keeps you engaged. Well written and directed. Well acted. Natalie Portman and Julianne Moore are good, of course, but Charles Melton is excellent as well.

30. Elemental - A well done, insightful story about immigrants. The romance story was fine but didn’t really hook me. I enjoyed the film as a whole but it just didn’t hit me in the emotions like so many Pixar films do. A good film but not one of their best.

29. John Wick: Chapter 4 - A little too long to the point where even the action scenes, which are the main attraction, start to overstay their welcome. You start to go “Okay I get it, let’s move on.” Still, the action is very well done. Fun locales. A good looking film. Even a few bits of well-employed humor. I think it’s my favorite since the first one and perhaps the best one of the series but I also say that knowing that this series is very much four movies that are fun while you’re in the ride but leave your memory almost immediately after. They are what they are.

28. Maestro - Really impressive acting from Bradley Cooper and especially Carey Mulligan. Strong directing and visuals. It’s almost told in vignettes, which makes it kind of dreamlike. Some of the vignettes really work but a lot hit your sort of standard biopic pieces and don’t do as much. Overall, it’s solid.

27. Somewhere in Queens - Decent writing, decent acting, with Laurie Metcalf giving a nice performance. Complex, nuanced characters. It’s a good family dramedy with a little bit of humor and emotion.

26. Saltburn - It’s delightfully dark and keeps you interested, even if it sort of reaches an ending that, while not bad, doesn’t land with the sort of punch you want it to. There’s something missing in character motivation and plotting that makes it feel like it’s missed the mark. Still some fun performances (especially Barry Keoghan and Rosamund Pike) and excellent cinematography and design. It works as is. It just feels like there was potential for this to be more and it didn’t get there.

25. Bottoms - Very funny, very silly. I think my main problem is that it’s such a hyper-heightened reality the film takes place in that when it comes back down to Earth and tries to have some human drama it makes me roll my eyes. Having football players kept in a cage in history class and also a sincere best friends argument feels like trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Still very fun though when it sticks to the over the top satire, which is the majority of the film.

24. Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny - I think part of the problem is the original three were so good and ended so perfectly, it’s really hard to find a story to make further adventures worthwhile. This one is fine, but it just doesn’t get all the way there. It doesn’t quite measure up, in basically every sense. The action, the humor – they’re there but just not totally up to par. The other thing that is a little off is that this feels very much like a modern action movie, like someone doing Indiana Jones years later. There was a pulpiness to the original three that made them feel less plastic and that’s missing here. Even with its faults, I still think this is a good film. John Williams’ music is still great and Harrison Ford still has the charisma, and there are moments where you feel the magic again. Just not enough to string together a fully great film. It leaves a better taste in my mouth than Crystal Skull, at least, even if it can’t live up to the original trilogy. Maybe it never had a chance.

23. Theater Camp - Very cute, often funny. It pokes fun at theater kids and actors but in a loving way. A sweet movie that’s an easy watch.

22. Quiz Lady - A very endearing film. Sweet, silly, funny. A little bit of heart, too. There’s certainly room for it to be funnier or more original but it works and has some good bits and fun performances.

21. Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves - Lots of fun. It has solid action pieces and good humor. Importantly, it finds ways to do fresh things with a sort of standard fantasy story and keeps it entertaining throughout. The writer/director team of Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley did this with their last film, Game Night, too. Take a premise that could be kind of bleh and get creative. You don’t have to reinvent the wheel, just write a sharp, funny script.

20. Red, White & Royal Blue - This is my token “sweet gay romcom that I have a tough time being objective about” pick. I get one of these every few years or so. It’s a very cute film with some decent humor and good flow. Sort of your standard romcom fare but it’s executed well. Should it be this high on the list, quality-wise? No, probably not. It’s not that much worse, but it’s, objectively, not that great either. I enjoyed it enough, however, to bump it up here. And it is my list after all.

19. Wonka - Like Paul King’s Paddington films, this is much better than you expect it would be or than it really needs to be. Also, like the Paddington films, this is still mostly a movie for kids so it’s only going to go so far for me. But it’s quite a delightful film. Some clever lines and gags. Good songs, though nothing iconic that will stick long term. I have to stop doubting Timothée Chalamet. When I first heard of this, I thought it was going to be a mistake, but he’s so damn charming that he’s able to pull it off. He dives headfirst into this role and gives it his all and it pays off.

18. You Are So Not Invited to My Bat Mitzvah - It’s similar in theme to Are You There God? but mixed a little with Mean Girls and flavored incredibly Jewishly. I found it to be a sharper, funnier, and more modern approach to those themes. The nepotism of it all is a little gross (it’s crazy that Adam Sandler’s immediate family all won major roles in this film he produced after what I’m sure was a thorough audition process) but Sunny Sandler is, in fact, quite good in the role so you can forgive it.

17. Anatomy of a Fall - Smartly written, well acted. Sandra Hüller gives a strong, subtle performance at the center of the film and Milo Machado-Graner is great in a supporting role. The film does feel a little bit like an intense, fleshed out episode Law and Order though. There’s an hour of courtroom drama in the middle that’s engaging but also mostly dialogue on dialogue. It’s similar to The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial in that there’s only so much you can do to dress that up. It’s a film that doesn’t spoon-feed you, which I appreciate. It’s confident in its ambiguity and it lets you decide where you fall, pun absolutely not intended.

16. Air - Sharp writing, moves well, good acting. Matt Damon and Viola Davis are especially strong. (Damon delivers a speech near the end of the film that is particularly affecting.) Nothing groundbreaking. Just a really well done sports/business story.

15. Next Goal Wins - Sweet, funny, and some heart as well. The story has some clunkiness and there are definitely some misses amongst the many jokes in the film, but a lot more that works than doesn’t. Michael Fassbender is very good and Oscar Kightley is excellent as the surprising heart of the film. It gives you everything you want from a feel good sports film.

14. Oppenheimer - Some great stuff but also simply too long. The film is paced well enough for a three hour film but it likely didn’t need to be three hours. The most compelling stuff, as you might imagine, is the creation and moral implications of building a world destroying bomb. Interpersonal affairs, while interesting enough still, are much less so. Good acting from Cillian Murphy and Robert Downey Jr., who really are the only ones to get enough screen time in this giant cast to truly make their mark. (I would argue though, if you wanted to trim an hour from this film, you could probably pare down Downey’s role almost entirely.) Good directing and writing, taking what might be very dry material and keeping it enthralling.

13. Barbie - I really like how many wild swings this film took for being a big budget film based on a worldwide property. Interesting characters. Margot Robbie and Ryan Gosling do great work in their roles. Sharp writing. More than a few laugh out loud jokes and gags (though also a handful that fall flat). It does veer into too silly territory at some points and drags a little here and there but is able to recover, usually by taking a sharp left turn you don’t expect. Its messages are laid on thick but it’s playing to a certain younger audience so I’ll roll with it. A couple of nice humanist moments as well (which is something Greta Gerwig excels at including in her films) though nothing in the film that really cut through me emotionally.

12. Blackberry - A fairly straightforward rise and fall story of a tech company but particularly well done. Fun, smart, doesn’t drag. Good music, good style. Glenn Howerton in his wheelhouse as a barely restrained maniac and gives an excellent, memorable performance.

11. Rye Lane -  Smart, sharp writing. Strong performances from the two leads, David Jonsson and Vivian Oparah, who have great chemistry. Fun direction and editing. It rolls right along for about 75 minutes, tells its story, and then ends. This is another film where it’s like: is this, at its core, just a very cute rom com? Yes. But while it’s not reinventing the genre it is a great execution of it.

10. All of Us Strangers - A truly beautiful, haunting film about love and loss and the things we wish we could say. It’s very artsy so it certainly has its slow points where moments just breathe and breathe, but its high points are so damn high. It’s like an emotional assassin. Several scenes, especially in the back half, that just nail you right in the heart. It’s basically a four actor film - Andrew Scott, Paul Mescal, Jamie Bell, and Claire Foy - and each of them puts in just tremendous work, all worthy of being on my top five individual performances list.

9. Society of the Snow - “Alive - Now with real Latinos!” It’s a pretty straightforward survival film about a story that you’ve likely heard of and so there aren’t really a ton of surprises but it’s expertly made. Shot well, acted well. Tense and thrilling. Aided by a beautiful score from Michael Giacchino. It’s a brutal story but one that’s also about sacrifice and strength and hope. It’s a simple theme but it lands well, puns still completely unintended.

8. Poor Things - Absolutely fascinating from a visual and musical standpoint, as Yorgos Lanthimos does. His directing is truly excellent and matches great with Tony McNamara’s sharp writing. The film is just a bit too long. You can feel it gaining and losing momentum in the back half. Mark Ruffalo’s scenes are definitely the best in the movie and the others, while generally good, are just not as strong (with Willem Dafoe’s scenes being the strongest of the rest). Excellent acting performances from Ruffalo and Dafoe and especially Emma Stone at the center of this wild ride.

7. Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse - A fantastic sequel, on par with the first. Smart, funny, emotional writing, good voice acting. The visuals are excellent but often have so much happening on screen you can’t focus and have to just kind of glaze over and let it go. It’s fine – you never really feel lost – but it’s also kind of sad because there are interesting details happening that you almost literally can’t catch without stopping the movie. I was really loving this film until the final minutes. Without giving too much away, I’ll just note it basically concludes on a “to be continued…” note, stopping at what feels like the mid-point of the third act. It’s an ending that doesn’t not work but movies that end like that leave a bad taste in my mouth. Set up threads for the next film, sure, but don’t leave me hanging completely. Don’t make me leave your film with a groan. The ending was obviously not enough to make me hate the film, hence why it’s way up here on the list, but it would’ve been higher with a more complete one.

6. Leave the World Behind - A fascinating neo-paranoia thriller that’s masquerading as an apocalypse film, which is very meta in itself. It has a lot of interesting things to say about us as a society, which risks it getting preachy, but it walks the line by telling the story in a really engaging way and never sacrificing plot for message. Good acting, smart writing, and interesting directing. It doesn’t force you to a conclusion but presents you with some ideas and lets you decide.

5. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 - A little overstuffed but other than that a really wonderful end to this trilogy. James Gunn brings the humor, the music, the emotional beats, the action. He writes these characters and their interactions so well. I don’t know how or if this series will continue, but whoever takes it over will have a tremendous challenge trying to match Gunn. It would have been a travesty to have not let him come back and close out this chapter for these characters, and I’m so glad they got one last ride under his direction.

4. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning Part One - It feels like there should be another dash or colon or something between Dead Reckoning and Part One, right? But that’s how they list it. I think they got self-conscious about already having too many punctuation marks in the title. One more would look ridiculous. The night after we watched this film the first time, we were going to watch another film that we’d been putting off (it appears on this list, much lower) and all I could think while navigating towards the other film was how much I just wanted to watch Dead Reckoning again instead. That’s the kind of film this is. It energizes you. It makes you want to come back for more. The action sequences are fantastic, as always. The humor is there. The visuals. The music. The franchise has had issues with villains (generally its weak point) and making the main villain of this arc a nebulous computer program isn’t really helping to remedy that. (Esai Morales is fine but unremarkable as the human face of that program.) The decision to make the villain an AI that can manipulate essentially anything adds a really nice dose of paranoia to all the proceedings but also requires a lot more heavy exposition and makes the film much more heady. Making you think a little more isn’t necessarily a bad thing for a film, but is it the right choice for a Mission: Impossible film? I’m not sure. It’s maybe better for these films to just have a MacGuffin and keep things moving. Still, this film’s nearly three hours fly by and despite it being a “part one,” it tells a full enough story to be satisfying.

3. Asteroid City - The music, production design, and cinematography are excellent as always with Wes Anderson. Strong acting from the whole ensemble in small pieces and a surprisingly strong performance by Jason Schwartzman at the center. Smart writing as well. Fast and very funny, and then movingly poignant. It’s a little inaccessible in parts. The plot is purposefully all over the place and it can make it quite difficult to parse exactly what’s going on at first glance, but I think the greater message still comes through and in a deeply emotional way, in my view at least. It really worked for me.

2. American Fiction - Tremendous writing. A strong, smart, very funny satire about media mixed with a moving family dramedy. Great acting performances all around but especially Jeffrey Wright, who is excellent as the film’s anchor, and Sterling K. Brown, who delivers a very strong supporting performance, embodying a character who’s both funny and deeply pained. Everything about this movie works.

1. The Holdovers - I guess the theme of this year’s list is “brilliant execution.” No other film for me embodies that theme this year more than The Holdovers. Yes, the film is your sort of standard ��curmudgeon bonds with young person who melts his heart” tale but it is executed flawlessly. It finds the right tone immediately and never lets it slip. A pitch perfect mix of humor and drama. Heart and sorrow. Very human. Sharp writing. Brilliant acting all around. Paul Giamatti is fantastic. The too smart for his own good sad sack who is actually a human being underneath the layers of protection he puts between himself and other people. Da’Vine Joy Randolph, who, if this blog’s search function worked, you could find me singing the praises of for years, once again turns in an excellent performance. I’m so glad she’s getting big-time recognition. Dominic Sessa is great, as well, and it’s very impressive that he’s going toe to toe with these other two established actors and sticking right with them. The core three characters’ stories unfold so beautifully throughout the film, getting you to empathize with them slowly and naturally. It’s filled with great music and great visuals. You feel yourself in New England in the 1970s. I think the thing I can say most in favor of this film is that I just didn’t want it to end. It’s such a warm, wonderful story that I was actually disappointed when I felt it turning from act two to act three and starting to wrap up. In a year where I’ve complained over and over that a lot of these films are too long, this was the one film I could’ve spent much, much more time in.

Time to do some individual awards.

Best Actor

5. Jason Schwartzman, Asteroid City 4. Barry Keoghan, Saltburn 3. Andrew Scott, All of Us Strangers 2. Jeffrey Wright, American Fiction 1. Paul Giamatti, The Holdovers

Best Actress

5. Sandra Hüller, Anatomy of a Fall 4. Natalie Portman, May December 3. Margot Robbie, Barbie 2. Carey Mulligan, Maestro 1. Emma Stone, Poor Things

Best Supporting Actor

5. Paul Mescal, All of Us Strangers 4. Willem Dafoe, Poor Things 3. Glenn Howerton, Blackberry 2. Sterling K. Brown, American Fiction 1. Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Best Supporting Actress

5. Julianne Moore, May December 4. Rosamund Pike, Saltburn 3. Claire Foy, All of Us Strangers 2. Danielle Brooks, The Color Purple 1. Da’Vine Joy Randolph, The Holdovers

Best Directing

5. Emerald Fennell, Saltburn 4. J. A. Bayona, Society of the Snow 3. Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things 2. Wes Anderson, Asteroid City 1. Alexander Payne, The Holdovers

Best Writing

5. Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, Barbie 4. Tony McNamara, Poor Things 3. Wes Anderson, Asteroid City 2. David Hemingson, The Holdovers 1. Cord Jefferson, American Fiction

And now let’s look at the ACTORS WEB:

What a nightmare! Here’s a fun fact about the making of this graphic: I almost cried and gave up on it four or five times! I saw too many movies with too many big casts this year. A terrible mistake on my part.

Okay, that’s more than enough for this post. It’s over. We made it.

Enjoy the Oscars.

- - - - -

Read More:

Annual Lists of Movies I Saw the Past Year

[sofoulandfairaday]

The ultimate How I Met Your Mother Finale rant

I know this has been done before, and I know I'm several years late to the party, but I don't care, so IN THIS ESSAY I WILL tell you about why this finale takes the spot as the second-worst finale in TV show history (because Game of Thrones is still, to this day, unbeatable, and it will probably stay like that forever). 

But first, a little context: I've just finished binge-watching HIMYM. This binge has been going on for three days straight (my final exam of the semester is in a week and I should be studying, so the fact that the last few days were a partial waste of time makes me so mad). Second thing: I already knew how it would end, and yes, kids, it does ruin the show for you. It ruins the show so much it makes your blood boil when you rewatch certain scenes, but I will get to that. 

You might want to make yourself a drink because this is a complete list of all the reasons why HIMYM's finale sucks - I'm warning you, it's gonna be looong.

It completely invalidates the entirety of season 9

This is one of the complaints people most often have with this series, and I have to agree. It would have been so much better if the last two episodes never existed, and they just showed Barney and Robin dancing at the reception after walking out of the chapel, Ted noticing Tracy and then the platform scene. "And that, kids, is the story of how I met your mother". Cut scene. Honestly, I don't get the hate people give to season 9, barring the last 2/3 episodes, especially since season 8 was so much worse (except for a few honourable mentions, like The Robin). S8 was slower, less funny, and less deep, and while the authors took a risk by making s9 happen in the span of a weekend it paid off: they took their time introducing the character of the Mother to the gang and fleshing her out. They make sure to highlight all the little ways in which Ted and Tracy are perfect for each other, and even tie up loose ends, like with the Slapsgiving episode, that was a filler but it wasn't boring to watch (although it may be problematic for different reasons, I'm not Chinese, so I can't say for sure if it's cultural appropriation or just the authors making fun of a particular movie genre). 

Some episodes were arguably great: "Daisy" was amazing, and that whole fight between Marshall and Lily was so realistic and well thought out, "Sunrise" was extremely important for Ted's character development, same goes for Tracy and "How Your Mother Met Me", "Bedtime stories" was impressive, "Rally" was incredibly funny and proved once again what a beautiful character Barney Stinson is, so much so that even Robin never has doubts that he (the guy with the biggest commitment issues on the planet) will bail on her before the wedding, and says to Ted that "he always comes back". Daphne's character is super funny and the right amount of annoying, the shenanigans of the gang are well thought out and all of the characters (not just Barney) complete their arc in this season. The last two/three episodes butcher that.

Marshall and Lily

Marshall and Lily, arguably the world's most solid couple, are the only thing this God-awful finale gets right, especially Marshall, who is my second-favourite character, that finally gets everything he deserves. But what about Lily? They never mention her career after Italy, and I refuse to believe she goes back to being a kindergarten teacher as if her year in Rome meant nothing. I also refuse to think she becomes nothing but a political wife, the equivalent of Zoey, but without saving the world. We know she has three kids, but her postpartum depression is never really talked about much and they definitely had the screentime to delve into it. 

Barney

 Where do I even begin? Barney Stinson is, without a doubt, the best character in this series, the glue of the whole gang. I think the message they were trying to give is that, since his trauma stemmed from the absence of a father figure in his life, he could only truly heal by becoming a father as well. People also say that n°31 had to stay just a number, because who could match up with Barney Stinson? First of all, I call BULSHIT on that last point, because Robin wasn't the only girl Barney could have ended up marrying. I used to think that too, but it's just not true: that is the equivalent of saying that Barney was incapable to truly love a woman and commit to her, even after all the development he got, and that he only got one shot at love in life, and that's it. This goes against the point the showrunners try to make by having Ted and Robin end up together AND by having Tracy get with Ted in the first place: "it's never too late, you always have another chance at love, etc." And, let's face it, Barney and Robin are legendary, but Barney and Nora (hell, even Barney and Quinn!) were pretty good together too. 

Second of all, if they wanted to give Barney a kid, they could have easily done that, before Barney married Robin. Barney's "redemption" starts when he gets with Robin the first time, hell maybe even when we meet James for the first time: Nora, Quinn, finding out who his father is, the episode dedicated to the lies his mum told him/finding James' father, him getting to know his own dad, etc... those are all steps along the way. The s9 episode where Barney accepts the relationship between Loretta and the reverend proves how far he's come. So why not give him a daughter BEFORE he proposes to Robin? Have him cheat on Nora/Quinn with n°31, giving him a relapse, and having him get closer to Robin while struggling to be a dad to Ellie. That would have been great. 

Or, you know, don't give him children. What's the point of burning the Playbook if you're going to have him write the second edition? What's the point of having him do a complete 180 in the last few scenes and acting like having a kid is the only thing that makes him change? What's the point of doing that when the show spends entire episodes berating Marshall and Lily for "changing too much" when they have a kid?

Also, Barney is the "challenge accepted" guy. He loves his wife so much, he spent years wanting her, and then he gives up because there is no WiFi in his hotel. How does that make any sense at all? This is Barney Stinson, the "I will fly out to San Francisco and buy Lily a plane ticket", the "I will steal every girl from my best friend just to save him for Lily", the guy that wrote the Playbook (it takes effort to pull those plays off), the guy that planned for weeks his proposal, the guy that waited years to get back at the man who stole his first girlfriend, the guy that makes every night legendary... are you telling me that that guy becomes the equivalent of a bored housewife instead of living his best life while travelling the world? Come on. They don't even try to make it believable.

Ted

While watching seasons 7 and 8, I felt that Ted was becoming the worst character on the show: he was boring, depressed, basically had no good storylines, the whole thing with Victoria was pointless and inconclusive (and the whole "stop being in love with Robin" was completely out of character for her), but whatever, we could have accepted that because it passed the message that two people could be good together, without being soulmates - which, by the way, renders the TedxRobin ship pointless, because they were right for each other, but Ted and Tracy were soulmates. Him being hung up on Robin in the latter seasons is almost pathetic, and the thing he does with the locket is insane, not romantic - BUT I will say this: it can be seen in two ways, depending on who's watching. I personally like the two as friends, so I see the whole thing as a "Dahmer" situation, but I get the people who see it as a "Dobler" one and see what he did as a grand romantic gesture. 

The problem, though, is that the whole TedxRobin ship gets pretty old, pretty fast: it's an annoying on-and-off thing, that should have ended with the locket. Because, yes, Ted was in a dark moment, yes, he was probably depressed, yes, he thought Robin was his only shot at happiness, but he changes during season nine! He spends entire episodes letting go of Robin, including the one where she transforms into a balloon and flies away. Ted is the good guy, ultimately. He is the guy that is genuinely happy for his best friends. In one of the deleted scenes from the finale, he meets Robin years later and says that he's so happy with Tracy he never thought about Robin in that way anymore. All of that gets thrown in the trash. Why do that? To use a Harry Potter metaphor, Ted is Severus Snape, while Barney is James Potter: the former loved the girl of his dreams with all his heart, even to the point of creepiness, but they weren't meant to be together. 

Robin

This, along with the next point, is the worst of all: Robin is the worst character of the entire finale. Her relationship with Ted in season 2 is wonderful, and I say that as a full-on Barney/Robin shipper. There was never a problem in their relationship, apparently, but they then break up because they have an "expiration date" and ultimately want different things in life. Except that Ted is not her soulmate. The only times when Robin wants Ted are the times where (1) she can't have him because he's either trying to move on or (2) the times where it's convenient, for example when they become roommates again and they solve their disputes again. Around that time, we see perfectly that Ted had moved on and that the person getting hurt was Barney. It's one thing to see Ted and Robin in the finale as two people picking up where they had left off after they dated. But this is not the case. 

In season 7, we have the exchange that should have put an end to any and all TedxRobin drama, and that completely invalidates whatever the writers wrote after that about the two of them: Ted declares his love - "I think you know how you feel about me now. I don't think time's gonna change that. Just tell me: do you love me?" To which she answers "No". And Ted also says later to Marshall, that he's "happy because he can finally move on". 

What a load of crap. 

Getting over someone is hard, believe me, I would know. And, oftentimes, it doesn't happen until we find someone else to love (and from the moment he meets Tracy, there is no one else for Ted). But by giving Ted feelings for Robin after this moment, it takes away from the beauty of it- because it's one of the most heartbreaking feelings in the world when you declare your love to someone and they don't love you back. Ted and Robin were both honest at that moment, and it was the last genuinely good exchange between them. After that, during season 8 they try to show us Ted trying to get over her (and failing) and in season 9 Ted getting over her completely. This is also weirdly paced because at the beginning of s8 both are in happy relationships with other people and there's no jealousy (which is good, because at least they weren't toxic) and they seem just friends (when Robin leaves Nick to go see him in the middle of the night, she implies that she would do it for any of her friends), but after Ted breaks up with Veronica because of Robin everything is weirdly coated in this sort of tension between the two: first Ted loves her, but she doesn't, so when he helps her by taking her to Barney's proposal ("which means my best bro in the world has given me his blessing"). 

And, by the way, every time they try to paint Ted as the guy that comes through for Robin after this moment, they dumb down Barney's character. And still fail to make Ted a better guy than him (see: the carousel in Central Park). 

Yes, Robin and Ted have some chemistry, but it is nothing compared to what Robin and Barney have. Every time Robin is jealous of Barney, it doesn't seem like a stupid whim, just because some other child is playing with her toys (except, perhaps, during The Robin). Robin and Barney's relationship would need a whole other post, and the next time I rewatch the series I will write down all the things that make them perfect for each other, but, to me, the biggest difference between the two relationships is this: in season 6, when she's not dating either one of them, Ted accuses Robin of never making him feel needed while they were together, whereas Barney praises her for it. Those are elective affinities: that's what Barney and Robin have, and what Tracy and Ted have. 

Barney and Robin have more or less the same arc: they both get over their fear of commitment and they do that with each other. Time and time again, we are told that if they're ever going to settle down, it would only be with the other. The first time they break up is honestly so stupid, and even when they are broken up, they are the best of friends, which also makes Robin's behaviour in the finale look so stupid. The way the two of them fit together is unparalleled, both in a romantic and a platonic way. 

Think about it: Robin makes Barney a better man, while she makes Ted a worse one. 

Also, the whole point that there are different seasons in life for everything gets thrown out the window: apparently, Ted and Robin (that were a couple that ultimately worked in their young twenties) are the same people in their forties.

But that's not even the worst part. The worst part is that the two final episodes butcher Robin's arc as well: episode 23 starts with Lily saying "I want this girl to be in our lives" and we know Robin never made other friends outside of the gang, because she didn't need to, and now she walks away from everything because of fucking Ted?? This is saying "hey, Robin was only in the group for Ted, who brought her in, and now she leaves because he's not her puppy anymore". Robin was the one that was eternally indecisive between Ted and Barney and you're telling me that three years and many many life experiences later, she's still not sure? 

The point of her story is learning how to get over her fear of commitment, learning how to be there for her friends (there's an entire episode dedicated to that, and it's the one where Lily's pregnant and we meet Robin's ex-best friend in Canada), and how to balance her job and her life. Also, the way her character is treated is un-feminist and un-progressive: she becomes Ted's consolation prize. She is passive throughout s9. She cannot, ultimately, win the modern-day struggle most women have and balance out career and love life, so her true life, her "happy chapter" begins after she has already accomplished everything she wanted to and she's free for Ted. She doesn't even go back to him, she just the prize the main character wanted for all his life and only got in the end because his wife died (ONE SCENE, people, ONE SCENE!). Also, this makes Tracy the "broodmare" that gives him the kids he wanted, and his "happy family" experience before he goes to be with his one true love. 

The mother

This. This makes me so mad. One whole season spent on building up Tracy's character, just for it to go to waste. It would have been so easy to screw her up, but she is hands down the best thing about s9. She's the perfect woman for Ted and the episode shot through her perspective is the sweetest. By the end, I liked her more than Robin and Lily. She was the perfect addition to their group, she fit together with them in a perfect way, and they show us the biggest moment of her and Ted's life... for what? To have her die in a few sentences? And I don't care if they shot a funeral scene, I don't care if the finale was supposed to be 40 minutes long, because, in the end, it wasn't. The scene where Ted meets her is the second most beautiful one (after Barney's proposal to Robin) and the climax of the whole show, but they ruin her... and for what? The chemistry Ted has with her, he has with no one. The joy she brings him, the way she understands him, is unlike any other. I am sure that one of the reasons they killed her off was the shock value and I hate it. 

I cannot stress this enough: Tracy makes Ted a better person. When he's with Robin, Ted is "the nice guy" in the most selfish and narcissistic version of the trope. When he's with Tracy, love comes easy to Ted. Also, the scenes between the two of them are arguably the best Ted scenes of the show.

The kids' reactions (ugh)

It's not really what they say- it's the way they say it. The end of HIMYM was not supposed to be funny, even though the show is a sitcom. It was supposed to be bittersweet and beautiful, because it's the end of an era, and the writers must have known that. So, Ted finishes telling his story, reveals to the audience that their now-beloved Tracy is dead, and the reaction is: "No, ahah, you totally have the hots for Aunt Robin" (their words, not mine). Like, what the actual fuck? I cringed when Penny said that. It's tasteless and not fun at all. Even if it has been six years... It's still your fucking mum, show a little bit of sadness at the thought of her. 

The reason the show ended this way

What makes me especially mad is that I know for a fact that the reason they went with this ending is that it was the original one, always intended for the show, from season 2 onwards. And, if you watch it right after s2, it makes sense. But if you consider the eight years that passed and the massive character development, then no, it's not the best possible one. So many things hadn't been decided yet back in s2, especially about Barney, Ted, and Robin, and I hate that they didn't dare to scrap their work. This ending probably had sentimental meaning to the writers, but authors have to do what's best for their characters, not themselves. It's like with GoT, in a way: I think that the authors were all too aware of the impact of HIMYM and didn't believe that their finale would live up to the expectations... which compelled them to make the worst decision possible?? Every single character is OOC during the episode. Oh, and Marshall and Lily moving in the last episode is a ripoff from Friends (or maybe a tribute? Idk). Anyway, I believe that the authors were too attached to their sentimental version of "what should have been" and didn't give the characters the endings they truly deserved.

"Life works this way" // "Life only moves forward"

Some people say that the show is realistic because that's how life works. But I call super-BS on that. That might be true, and yes, people do get sick and die (Max, Marshall's dad...) and life does go on. But then, you don't frame it the way they did. It's just bad storytelling if you do it like that. And the problem is not the structure of season 9, because the characters develop in that season. The problem isn't even the mother's death. The problem is Ted ending up with Robin because that's not life moving forward for him, that's him, doing the same thing he did in 2005, 25 (twenty-fucking-five) years before! 

In conclusion, this finale is incoherent and inconclusive, and not satisfying at all. The only character that gets a good ending is Marshall: why is that? What makes his ending great? It's the fact that his character arc is respected and he finally gets what he's been working towards for more than ten years.

[ultrahpfan5blog]

Retrospective Review - Zack Snyder's Justice League

I remember the hype when this film released last year. Even I was very excited to see this movie despite not having been a very big fan of BvS or MoS. As a movie, this is very hard to judge since this is a scenario where there is no attempt to make the movie into a releasable theatrical movie. For HBO Max, it was probably better that it was this long. While BvS Ultimate Edition still could be a theatrical release at 3 hours, there is no way that this movie would have released without at least 45 minutes cut down. Having watched it over two nights for the first time since last year, I will say that this film has both the best and worst aspects of Zack Snyder.

The things that are good about the film are the things that are always good about Snyder's movies. Snyder has a visual style to him which is distinctive. He definitely creates a world of his own which has a fantastical reality. The film also has enough screen time to give each character in the JL sufficient characterization so that we can get invested in them. This is our first introduction to Barry Allen, Arthur Curry, and Victor Stone in terms of DCEU chronology if this film had been released in 2017. Victor Stone/Cyborg gets particular focus since his personal journey and story are directly tied into the story of the Mother Boxes, which as the main macguffin of the movie. Barry Allen also gets an expansion of his role where we get a bit more background on his current situation with his jobs as well as a visual demonstration of how powerful he is when he ends up playing a very prominent role in the climax as well as in the resurrection of Superman. Obviously, all characters get a lot more screen time and there is room to breathe for these characters. There are some nice moments like Bruce and Diana working together to bring the team together and Diana and Alfred working in the Batcave. The film's expanded run time just allows for more character interaction. There is also a lot less of the awkward humor. Barry Allen in particular benefits from this in the movie. But unlike in the previous Snyder movies, there is some room for humor through Arthur and Barry. The action in the film is strong. Definitely the highlight scene is the Superman vs Justice League scene, but the climax is also very impressive and pretty exciting. The tunnel fight is also good.

Snyder's worst impulses are also felt throughout this film. This is obviously Snyder untethered from studio interference and it feels that way. The film is way too long. And I don't mean that it has got too much plot for one movie which causes the film's length. The existing film is stretched an hour too long. There are plenty of things in this movie that could have been cut out or edited down. You can feel that scenes need to be edited tighter because they just meander on for too long. There are a lot of cameos in this movie which was probably not required. There is also a ridiculous amount of slow mo. I swear that 20-30 minutes could be cut just from that. The film can feel really tedious as a result. Each character has some trauma or some trouble of his/her own and because there is so much screen time devoted to it, it can become boring and repetitive. Some characters are also a little underserved. Both Batman and Wonder Woman don't exactly have much character development, given they are arguably the two leads of the movie. Superman is shortchanged to the last hour. While I understand to build up on his return, it should have happened a little closer to halfway through the movie, rather than in the last hour. I would have liked a bit more interplay between the League. They don't really come together until halfway through the film. The film gets considerably better once the characters come together. There are a bunch of cameos in this film that distract from the film at times. Characters like MM, Vulko, Iris, and Joker are just unnecessary. The final MM scene is filmed very awkwardly and his appearance where he takes the guise of Martha to comfort Lois actually takes away from what would have been a genuine heartfelt scene if it had actually been Martha. Similarly, the Iris scene with Barry, while a nice showcase for his powers, is a little awkward and slightly creepy since he's fawning over her while she is being flung out of her car. The Knightmare scene with Joker goes on for way too long. There are also some SFX that are not that great and some musical choices that are just kind of strange. Steppenwolf as a villain is also just not up to par for a JL villain. The setup is more interesting that the actual villain plot of this film.

In terms of performances, Ben Affleck is solid in the lead role of Bruce/Batman. He is not quite as good as he was in BvS, where he felt like a badass. The part doesn't quite have the emotional depth shown in BvS. The film also struggles to make Batman relevant in the action scenes. Gal Gadot is also fine as Wonder Woman. She has a few poor line deliveries but she gets to have several badass action moments. Ezra Miller is pretty good. He is less awkward here than he was in the theatrical release and he comes across much better here. Jason Momoa is badass and makes an impression. Ray Fisher is good and gets quite a bit of scope to perform. Joe Morton as Silas Stone is a highlight as is Jeremy Irons as Alfred. Willem Dafoe, Jesse Eisenberg, Diane Lane, Connie Nielsen, JK Simmons, Amber Heard, Harry Lennix, and Jared Leto all make one or two scene appearances. Amber Heard sports a weird british accent for some reason. Amy Adams gets a rather thankless role of grieving almost the entire movie.

Overall, while this film is interesting to watch to just see what ideas Snyder had for his version of the DCEU, its not a film that is easy to watch. For Snyder fans, I can imagine this was nirvana, but it was tough to get through for me. 4 hours of Snyder is a bit more than I can handle. Still, I admire his vision, if not his execution of said vision, and the cast is likable enough to life the film. For me this is around a 5.5/10.

[fandumbstuff]

The DC Extended Universe, Ranked Best to Worst.

1. Wonder Woman Directed by Patty Jenkins

Wonder Woman might be the only good movie that DC has made. Patty Jenkins really hits the nail on the head and perfectly captures the voice of the character. For a character so old and so iconic, there are many versions of Diana’s story, but Patty Jenkins really manages to deliver a definitive version. Gal Gadot, like Christopher Reeve or Chadwick Boseman before her, is perfectly cast in a role that is so much more than just a movie character. Diana is as strong as she is compassionate. The character flaws she needs to overcome is her own naivete, rather than the misguided angst so many of DC’s other characters grapple with. While other action sequences in the franchise have been overly cluttered, Wonder Woman’s cinematography offers some of the slickest, most iconic action scenes in the genre. It’s an altogether incredible achievement and a milestone for cinema in general.

2. Wonder Woman 1984 Directed by Patty Jenkins

The greatest fault I could find with this movie is that it didn’t lean into the 80s setting more. It does tread the line of a rather schmaltzy central plot, but solid performances from cast members like Pedro Pascal make it believable. It’s an absolute joy to see Gadot and Pine return to their roles, and an even greater joy to see ther choice of outfits for every scene. Solid. While Kristen Wiig is expectedly brilliant like with everything she does, she’s handling a character arc that seems derivative and outdated. Like it’s predecessor, WW84 showcases some pretty stellar action sequences, with Jenkins once again showing a knowing eye for big, impressive set pieces paired with frenetically paced fight sequences.

3. Aquaman Directed by James Wan

After the convoluted mess of ensemble films like Suicide Squad and Justice League, and even some of Marvel’s recent fare, it was refreshing to see a more traditional origin story. This was ultimately what drew my interest to superheroes in general, and while this film doesn’t have the same elegance of a Superman (1978) or Batman Begins, it’s an origin story that modern audiences can sign on for easily. It’s strongest scenes are in the lore-expanding quest that Arthur and Mera go on, simultaneoulsy a National Treasure-esque adventure and a showcase for solid chemistry between Jason Momoa and Amber Heard. And while Ocean Master does seem like an exaggerated villain at times, It’s Patrick Wilson’s solid performance that manages to sell it and make him arguably the best villain DC’s had.

4. Shazam! Directed by David F. Sandberg

Obviously, an inordinate amount of fun. Shazam doesn’t try and be something it’s not. Ultimately, more than any other superhero film, Shazam understands that this genre was always intended for children. And while at times the plot might seem thin or the conflict inconsequential, Shazam never loses sight of it’s heart. A capable cast of child actors make this believable, and subverting the genre tropes makes the film charming and witty. While it seems overly simplistic in terms of it’s storytelling, in DC’s world of confusing plots, this is a welcome change.

5. Man of Steel Directed by Zack Snyder

Perhaps the strangest portrayal of Superman to date, Zack Snyder honed in on the mythos of the character and what makes him “super” Unfortunately, it seems to completely ignore what makes him a “man”. We’re left with a wholly alien representation of the character- a gross misunderstanding of who Superman is supposed to be. Horrible character choices for both Jor-El and Jonathan Kent leave Clark a shell of the hero he’s supposed to be. We’re left with a character more willing to grapple with moral dilemmas and his own inner angst than actually step up and do the right thing. Henry Cavill has an undeniably affective presence, and he certainly feels right for the role, but he’s never given a chance to actually play the part. Aesthetically pleasing to look at, and generally quite entertaining, it’s unfortunately the way Man of Steel fails its character that makes it so unbearable.

6. Birds of Prey (And the rest of the title) Directed by Cathy Yan

I mean, this is basically just a Harley Quinn movie with some other random characters thrown in. Considering Margot Robbie wrote the film, I find it particularly bothersome that the most work she does for character development is for her own character. We see brief intriguing glimpses of some of the other Birds and unfortunately never get more than a taste. Some of the fight scenes are handling quite capably, trading in the more grittier feel of the standard DC fare for more amusing prop and set work. However, much like Suicide Squad before it, I feel like the movie suffers from “soundtrack vomit”-  a post Guardians of the Galaxy symptom in which a movie tries to assemble catchy songs and them slot them into the edit with no real motivation. 

7. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice Directed by Zack Snyder

An absolute misfire from DC in a sad attempt to make themselves relevant amidst Marvel’s runaway success. A focal point in the movie is the collateral damage caused by Superman in Man of Steel. And apparently the best way for the movie to deliberate on this is by exhibiting even more collateral damage. Showcasing the conflict between these two iconic characters seems like a good idea on paper, and it’s certainly been captivating in past comics. But the movie seems to devolve it into nothing more than a bar fight between two dumb jocks. We see Batman get cyber bullied by Lex Luthor, and Superman get coerced by a stupid plot hole. Then they beat each other up like idiots. A movie that spawned a thousand jokes, it’s really only worth watching to make fun of.

8. Joker Directed by Todd Philips

Apparently, this movie isn’t supposed to be counted as part of DC’s Film Universe. But I couldn’t resist the opportunity to remind you what a steaming pile of garbage it is. It would be inaccurate to even call this a movie. It’s really just a desperate actor trying to win an Oscar from an Academy that continues to be woefully out of touch. And an even more pathetic attempt by a incel director to stay relevant. The talented work from it’s cinematographer and composer force me to show some restraint from putting it at the bottom of this list, but rest assured- while there might be films I put below this, there are none I hate more. 

9.  Justice League  Directed by Zack Snyder(?)

Painful to watch, I went into this movie with the lowest of expectations, and they were somehow not met at all. It feels altogether rushed, poorly constrcuted and boring all at the same time. They forego any need for world building and instead toss us headfirst into a horribly convoluted storyline. They rush through an origin for Cyborg and introduce Aquaman like he’s the douchebag you never invited who shows up to your houseparty. Batman over-compensates for his eye-rolling seriousness in the last movie by being overly witty in this one. And they solve Superman’s death by having a hilarious grave robbing scene that I guess is supposed to be funny but is so ridiculous to watch that it felt more at place in an Adam Sandler movie. And to top it all off, the movie in general is one big eyesore. It’s honestly painful to watch the shoddy CGI that constitutes the main antagonist and the waves of enemies we watch the JL plow through. And while the opening scene I think is supposed to be a last ditch effort for them to make Superman relevant, it would be promising if I could look past his god awful CGI lip.

10. Suicide Squad  Directed by David Ayer

A hilarious comedy where the characters don’t actually have any dialogue and instead just speak in one-liners. A touching romantic drama where the Joker abuses Harley Quinn. A moving character study where Deadshot just wants to be a better father by killing Batman. A thrilling action movie where we hope the heroes can overcome Cara Delevigne’s dumb dancing and blow up the generic pillar of doom she’s summoned in the middle of Gotham. Suicide Squad is all of these things and more- so there’s my rousing endorsement.

[carolinesiede]

Reflecting on 2020

The strangest thing about 2020 was how familiar much of it felt: Working from home, extended periods of isolation, weeks and months blending together. To a much lesser degree, those are things I experience each year as a freelancer. And while I suspect it will take awhile before the full extent of the trauma we’ve all lived through this year fully sets in, right now I’m mostly focused on gratitude. I’m grateful for the health of my loved ones. Grateful I already had a work-from-home routine to maintain during the pandemic. And grateful that I was able to quarantine with my family for much of the year—which had its challenges but also its rewards too.

In my 2019 year-end post I wrote about feeling like my career was finally on an upward trajectory after several years of plateauing. This year obviously offered some new wrinkles in that regard. I made significantly less money and felt familiar fears about how sustainable this career actually is. But having less work also gave me more time to focus on the actual craft of writing. I feel like I reached a new level in terms of voice, clarity, and the ability to self-edit. I'm the sort of person who constantly (arguably, obsessively) strives to be better, and it’s rewarding to feel like that hard work is finally slowly starting to pay off.

In addition to devoting my quarantine time to mastering a favorite curry recipe, getting really into the Enneagram, finally learning to French braid hair, and rewatching all of New Girl, I also had some really cool opportunities scattered throughout the year. I interviewed John Barrowman about his surprise return to Doctor Who, which felt like a real milestone for me. I also contributed to the Los Angeles Times’ list of TV shows to binge-watch during quarantine, which appeared both online and in print. And thanks to everything going virtual this year, I was able to attend a press panel for the fifth season of This Is Us, which is the sort of thing I’m not usually able to do as a Chicago-based critic. 

My career is always a juggling act between film and TV, and this year made me appreciate how valuable it is to be able to move seamlessly between both worlds. I took on new TV assignments covering the first season of Stargirl and the second season of The Umbrella Academy, both of which were a blast to write about. And while I didn’t watch quite as many films as I did in my insane catch-up year last year, I did fill in some more major blindspots. I also contributed to The A.V. Club’s list of the best films of 2000 and shared my own ballot over on Letterboxd. Oh, and I set up a Letterboxd this year too!

Elsewhere, I made my debut on Bustle and The Takeout, and ended the year with a Polygon article about “Kind Movies” that pretty much sums up my entire ethos on storytelling. I was also named a Top Critic by Rotten Tomatoes, which was a real honor. But the pride and joy of my career remains my rom-com column, When Romance Met Comedy. I devoted a whopping 49,000 words to analyzing 25 different romantic comedies this year. And I’m really pleased with how the column has grown and with the positive feedback I’ve received.

I have to admit, I sometimes worry that year-end highlight reels like this one can make my life seem easy or glamorous in a way that doesn’t reflect what it’s like to actually live through it. I'm tremendously lucky to get to do what I do, but I also struggle a lot—both with the logistics of this career and with bigger questions about what value it brings to the world. My goal is to approach 2021 with a greater sense of intentionality. I want to be more thoughtful in my career choices, more purposeful in how I use social media, and more active in my activism and politics. I’d also like to do 20 push-ups a day everyday for the whole year, but we’ll see how long that resolution actually lasts.

Finally, on a sadder note, one other defining experience of the year was the loss of my dear internet friend Seb Patrick, who I’ve known for years through the Cinematic Universe podcast. Seb created a wonderfully positive nerd space online, and was a big part of my early quarantine experience thanks to the Avengers watchalongs I did with the CU gang in the spring. I’m so grateful for all the fun pop culture chats we got to have throughout the years, several of which are linked below. Seb is tremendously missed, and there’s a fund for his family here.

As we head into 2021, I’ll leave you with wishes for a Happy New Year and a roundup of all the major writing and podcasts I did in 2020. If you enjoyed my work, you can support me on Kofi or PayPal. Or you can just share some of your favorite pieces with your friends! That really means a lot.

My 15 favorite films of 2020

My 15 favorite TV shows of 2020

Op-eds, Features, and Interviews

Women Pioneered The Film Industry 100 Years Ago. Why Aren’t We Talking About Them? [Bustle]

2020 is the year of the Kind Movie — and it couldn’t have come at a better time [Polygon]

Make a grocery store game plan for stress-free shopping [The Takeout]

What’s Going On: A primer on the call to defund the police [Medium]

Doctor Who’s John Barrowman on the return of Captain Jack Harkness [The A.V. Club]

Episodic TV Coverage

Doctor Who S12

This Is Us S4 and S5

Supergirl S5

Stargirl S1

The Umbrella Academy S2

The Crown S4

NBC’s Dr. Seuss’ The Grinch Musical!

When Romance Met Comedy

Is The Ugly Truth the worst romantic comedy ever made?

Working Girl’s message is timeless, even if the hair and the shoulder pads aren’t

You’ve Got Mail and the power of the written (well, typed) word

Love & Basketball was a romantic slam dunk

How did My Big Fat Greek Wedding make so much money?

America eased into the ’60s with the bedroom comedies of Doris Day and Rock Hudson

I can’t stop watching Made Of Honor

Notting Hill brought two rom-com titans together

It’s time to rediscover one of Denzel Washington’s loveliest and most under-seen romances

Something’s Gotta Give is the ultimate quarantine rom-com

20 years ago, But I’m A Cheerleader reclaimed camp for queer women

On its 60th anniversary, Billy Wilder’s The Apartment looks like an indictment of toxic masculinity

The Wedding Planner made rom-com stars out of Jennifer Lopez and Matthew McConaughey

After 25 years, Clueless is still our cleverest Jane Austen adaptation

William Shakespeare invented every romantic comedy trope we love today

Edward Norton made his directorial debut by walking a priest, a rabbi, and a Dharma into a Y2K rom-com

The forgotten 1970s romantic comedy that raged against our broken, racist system

His Girl Friday redefined the screwball comedy at 240 words per minute

Before Wonder Woman soared into theaters, the hacky My Super Ex-Girlfriend plummeted to Earth

Dirty Dancing spoke its conscience with its hips

The rise of Practical Magic as a spooky season classic

In a dire decade for the genre, Queen Latifah became a new kind of rom-com star

Years before Elsa and Anna, Tangled reinvigorated the Disney princess tradition

Palm Springs is the definitive 2020 rom-com

Celebrate Christmas with the subversive 1940s rom-com that turned gender roles on their head

The A.V. Club Film & TV Reviews

Netflix’s To All The Boys sequel charms, though not quite as much as the original

The Photograph only occasionally snaps into focus

Jane Austen's Emma gets an oddball, sumptuous, and smart new adaptation

Pete Davidson delivers small-time charms in Big Time Adolescence

Council Of Dads crams a season of schmaltzy storytelling into its premiere

In Belgravia, Downton Abbey’s creator emulates Dickens to limited success

Netflix’s Love Wedding Repeat adds some cringe to the rom-com

Netflix takes another shot at Cyrano de Bergerac with queer love triangle The Half Of It

We Are Freestyle Love Supreme is a feel-good origin story for Lin-Manuel Miranda’s first troupe

Sara Bareilles’ melodic Apple TV+ series Little Voice is still finding itself

Netflix’s sexist rom-com sensation gets a minor upgrade in The Kissing Booth 2

With Howard, Disney+ movingly honors the lyricist who gave the Little Mermaid her voice

The Broken Hearts Gallery tries to find catharsis in heartbreak

Netflix’s ghostly musical series Julie And The Phantoms hits some charming tween high notes

After We Collided slides toward R-rated camp—but not far enough

Holidate is a bawdy start to Netflix’s holiday rom-com slate

Kristen Stewart celebrates the Happiest Season in a pioneering queer Christmas rom-com

Isla Fisher gets her own Enchanted in the Disney Plus fairy tale Godmothered

Podcast Appearances

Debating Doctor Who: “Orphan 55”

It Pod To Be You: The Wedding Singer

Reality Bomb: Defending Doctor Who’s “Closing Time”

The Televerse: Spotlight on Doctor Who Season 12

You Should See The Other Guy: The Ugly Truth

Only Stupid Answers: Stargirl’s season finale

Motherfoclóir: Ireland and the Hollywood Rom-Com

Called in to Nerdette’s Clueless retrospective episode

Cinematic Universe Appearances

Cinematic Universe: Superman IV: The Quest For Peace

Cinematic Universe: Birds of Prey

Cinematic Universe: Infinity War watchalong

Cinematic Universe: Endgame watchalong

Cinematic Universe: Terminator 2

Cinematic Universe: Josie and the Pussycats

Cinematic Universe: The Cuppies 2020 (Cuppies of Cuppies)

And here are similar year-end wrap-ups I did in 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, and 2013.

[ace-pervert]

Ive finished watching eleven seasons of rupauls drag race and now feel I am ready to briefly review each season

S1: A good start though it must be said, ONGINA WAS ROBBED! Also there was favoritism.

S2: Not a bad season but at least somewhat ruined by Rupauls rather overt favoritism towards Tyra and dislike of Pandora. While I didnt like Tyra on the show his callout of the entire drag community after leaving drag has given me massive respect for him and feels like karma for RuPauls rather blatant self promotion and attempts to turn himself into some kind of rolemodel. But aside from the callout and Jujube, and Pandora the season is unmemorable.

S3: The top three were all highly skilled and the winner seemed to deserve it though that was later put into doubt after it came to light that Raja had worked with RuPaul before the show aired, and lets be honest Manilla Luzon was much more talented.

S4: One of the best seasons in drag race history, has the best music video, and Sharron Needles is hands down the most influential and versatile queen in drag race history. The only bad part, aside from the editing against phi phi, is Latrice Royal, who, and I feel this needs to be said, wouldnt have been in the top four had Willam stayed, and certainly wouldnt have made top five if Alaska had been allowed to join, mostly because she kept showing a similar outfit, her not being a particularly good actor, being thrown off really easily, and quickly relying on a shtick.

S5: Good season, but I feel that Roxxxy really did end up in the top three only because Visage and Ru love drama and the Jersey Shore look that was at the time Roxxxy Andrews trademark look, and the Coco Alyssa drama was really dull, neither deserved to be as high as ended up, and ultimately both queens are unmemorable.

S6: Not a bad season but i'm not a fan of Courtney Act or miss Lake, mostly because I think they both get away with looks that really they shouldnt have gotten away with, though arguable so did Bendelacreme. Though it was nice that there wasnt any drama, and Bianca del Rio is really funny.

S7: Ive tried to come up with words to describe this season, I cant, its just that bad. No not bad just dull, really dull and awkward, and the worst part is that its not the queens who drag the season down, the queens themselves are fine and Pearl stands out as being a particularly interresting person when not on drag race, its RuPaul being a tool off camera and coming up with challenges that play to the queens weaknesses rather strengths.

S8: Unfortunately I found Bob the Drag Queen so attractive out of drag that I stopped caring about what he looked like in drag with the end result being that I have no idea if hes a good drag queen. But ignoring the moments where I was drooling over Bob it was a good season with some truly great outfits,and a good Snatch Game, that wether for good or bad did very quickly become the Bob the drag queen and Kim Chi show, making it in hindsight the second most plann

S9: The season started off with an appearance by Lady Gaga , whose reviews of the outfits consisted of little more than name dropping and not much else, unintentionally setting the tone for a dull and awkward season with a cheerleading challenge that causes one person to crack a rib and another to almost permanently lose their ability to dance, a Reality Star Rusical that is well just dull, painfully bad lipsinks, uninterresting outfits, and perhaps the blandest wierd drag queen in the history of the competition. Its also in this season that introduced the lipsink for the crown format that I personally despise as it takes the power away from the viewers and puts it back in Rupauls hand.

S10: Solid season, mostly focused on returning contestant Eureka but the other contestants are given enough focus that it feels natural. The challenges are interresting to watch, the snatchgame is funny, and the dresses are well made. The top four are all stars in their right and the winner of that season could have easily been any of them, making this the only season where a lipsink for the crown made sense.

S11: Starts off strong with people like Miss Vanjie, Brooke Lynne Hytes, Nina West and Yvie Oddly revealing a high degree of skill both as actors and as dress makers. Unfortunately the blatant favoritism of Rupaul, the judges, and the producers towards Silky Nutmeg Ganache (honestly they seem like a nice person in real life, but on the show they just seem like a tool), unimaginative challenges, distracting and irritating cameos by former drag race contestants including by Bianca whos dull and unentertaining appearance shows exactly why contestants shouldnt return at all, a rusical so god cringeworthy you'll pray for death (Trump the Rusical), the worst snatch game in drag race history, and painfully predictable twists result in a terrible season, with the only interresting things being the romance between Vanjie and Brooke (they broke up four months after the last episode before the reunion due to conflicting schedules), Miss Vanjie being well himself, Nina Wests acting, and Yvie Oddly's outfits .

S12: Havent seen it, but lets be honest this season is the one where the star is a sex offender. By now many fans have analysed the season and its become clear that the person who was intended to be the focal point and possible winner was Sherry Pie, which means that editing them out for very well known reasons also makes them the focal point just in a different way than intended. Hell it wouldnt surprise me if this season becomes known as the one with Sherry Pie, not the one where the winner won. Though it might also be the last season that RuPauls on, as there are rumors that hes stopping with drag race.

The Christmass Special: To short for a christmass special, to much like the other episodes to be special, to blatantly commercial to be Christmass, and to scripted, even by drag race standards, to be drag race.

And now for a review of the Judges themselves

RuPaul: On the outside a warm, outspoken, well meaning person whose done things which are truly groundbreaking. But beneath that warm exterior beats the stone cold heart of a businessman. He's calculating, manipulative, greedy, has no qualms about setting queens up for failure, and ultimately hasnt done much that could be seen as groundbreaking. Perhaps the worst part is that its clear that in terms of humor , mentality and fashion hes never left the 70s, which combined with his callous way of treating the enviroment (as shown by his fracking empire) and his history of transpobia, makes him a liability to the show. Even if you manage to ignore all of that, the show is ultimately about the drag queens, not about Rupaul, and Rupauls attemps to make it about him really drag the show down

Michelle Visage: Shes a mother of two teenagers with a stay at home husband pretending to be a bitchy whore on a tv show about drag queens, yeah thats her career. Now in truth thats not the biggest issue, the biggest issue is that shes got hangups and makes the same jokes over over again and that after being on the show for ten years she hasnt developed as a judge so the routine, to paphrase miss Visage herself, has been done to death. In truth the show needs something other than the same damn shtick and same damn comments all the time, and if she cant do it then she should quite so someone else can do it for her. Ok maybe thats the second biggest issue, the biggest is that she kisses RuPaul's ass untill it shines brighter than a mirror.

Valentino Rice: Good judge, and had great chemistry with the other judges.

Ross Mathews: Cute guy, wierdly charming, and interacts well with the others.

Carson Kressley: He comes across as a very tired, very frail, very gay but very very very dull ninety year old man, which makes sense given the fact that his entire career is based on being gay, and hes, well old. Ok hes not really old, hes 50, but on camera he looks and acts closer to 150. And the issue isnt that hes gay, its that hes doing a shtick, a very dull and fairly offensive shtick. Possibly the worst choice for a judge, and the show jumps in quality whenever hes not there.

Now for a few things that just bug me.

Favoritism: Unfortunately one of the biggest issues of the show is that seasons tend to be structured around Queens who are intended to be the winner, or at least the hero, from the get go, which has the advantage of allowing the creators of the show to change the structure and challenges from season to season, but also makes it hard to watch if the season is blatant in its favoritism, if the intended winner isnt that good, or if the winner gets eliminated for one reason or another.

Cameos by former contestants: Cameos are a great way to get people to say "I know that person" which is great in a tv show because you know that the cast wont change in the next episode, but not great in a competition where all it does is take away screentime from competitors and giving it to competitors who most likely did not do well enough to win in their own drag race, and even if they did, the show is not about them, but about the current contestants. As such if Ru wants them to return he should put them in All Stars.

Cameos by celebrities: Add nothing. Its drag race not the red carpet, i'm watching for the up and coming drag queens not famous people trying to boost their careers.

Adding politics to the show: No, just no. Dont do things like Trump the Rusical, dont have steven colbert do a voiceover, theres no way that can go well and it comes accross as virtue signaling. If Ru wants to do something good he should double the prize money and have half of the money go to a charity of the winners choosing, or stop fracking.

Adding politics outside of the Show: Drag queens are celebrities and entertainers, as such are constantly in the public eye and dependent on being in it for their income which means that anything they say in public, wether its gossiping, or discussing politics, needs to be viewed as being some form of self promotion. Now this might make things difficult for them, but it is a well known part of being an entertainer so it can be assumed that they were well aware of this before they joined Drag Race. If they do want to talk about politics without being viewed as self promoting, they are free to make an anonymous account on one of the many sites, like tumblr, where its assumed that no one knows who the other people are.

Family Friendly Drag: Lets be honest its men shoving their cocks up their own asses while dressing up as women, and naking refferences to sex, for the sake of entertainment. Thers nothing family friendly about it. Nor should there be as part of the appeal of drag is that its something that is restricted to adults. Likewise they arent heroes, they are entertainers, not doctors, not construction workers, entertainers no more worthy of praise then a person on a sitcom.

Drama outside of Drag Race: While drama on the show is to be expected and is part of what makes it entertaining, drama outside of the show is different its more personal and something that in truth should not be shared. However by presenting it as gossip on various shows they are saying its part of the show, which is unhealthy at best.

Final note.

While I am critising the Drag Race, I am not doing it because I dislike the show, I am infact a big fan of the show but at the same time I want to get my thoughts out there see how others view these topics.

[aeroknot]

the thing about inuyasha (and in some ways naruto — which is the third of this kinda ‘big three’ anime i’ve ever cared about this much or spent the most time with, and with two the quality is outright bad at worst and questionable best) is that plot points just feel very sloppily contrived and disorganized. admittedly i sometimes just am not paying enough attention, but even so, both the obstacles and their solutions seem or frankly are completely random, therefore poorly integrated, explained or justified.

these are just some things that feel like loose threads within.. what, an arc of a mere ten episodes, maybe?: why does an effing random headless otter demon inuyasha and sesshoumaru encounter provide a vague-as-hell yet sorta-turning-point clue to the significance of their father’s grave? why does naraku’s infant get left with a random-ass noblewoman whose castle is almost immediately overrun as the result of naraku’s own meddling? after all these claims there are no ways other than pretty standard concepts (gates and fabricated portals, one that was previously used), a bizarre, and yet again random, bird happens to be a link to the netherworld, and there’s no lore given, it’s just.... yeah behead this demon, as opposed to all these other demons, and you’ll get there. what are all the rules and lore regarding the ‘border between this world and the next,’ and why is it also inu no taisho’s grave, and he has all these connections to the underworld, and seemingly bottomless power, yet we’re still led to believe that though he was a great and fearsome demon, that’s all he was? i do have fun world building on my own explanations — i suppose i should be grateful for that in actuality? — but at the same time it feels unfinished, and to me it seems like most worldbuilding in stories of this caliber that fans undertake has to do with smaller characters and sidequests, but though dead, inu no taisho casts a fantastically large shadow over the entire narrative, consistently having actions and implementing tools that change the course of his sons’ journeys, and therefore defeat the world’s biggest yet-known foe... but we still barely understand his involvement. he prepared so many eerily relevant opportunities for his kids.. could he see the future or is this just, like, retconning? i mean, did he know about the jewel? speaking of, the jewel’s origin/midoriko’s story is a relatively fascinating and arguably pivotal bit of backstory as well, and we get, what, 5 episodes that mention her? more time is spent in the band of seven arc. aside from the smaller side quest foes which are understandably miscellaneous, ones that insanely upgrade the brothers’ powers also seem irritatingly random.

idk i mean i concede a lot of this just results from the pitfalls of all long-form shonens, and i’m also not saying i’d do any better, and i’m also not saying an author is under an obligation to thoroughly delve into every little detail or defend every decision for their rising action, and a large cast is difficult to keep track of and build up to the climaxes all at once; (and, and, and...) there’s all manner of things i concede. but after the delicious food of fmab, which is a vastly intricate world spanning a paragraphs-worth— scratch that, an essays-length list of genres and facets of worldbuilding and threads of backstories for a large cast, it always feels / reads more coherent and contained, finely edited, with arcs and rising action justified and endlessly referred back to, and rules of the universe thoroughly explored (even if a bit over my head in some cases), whether or not it’s woven together with an obviousness or with an amazingly planted subtlety that you must go back to watch to fully appreciate. things feel to more organically culminate — and this is enrapturing storytelling on top of being impressively allegorical to her overall thesis that all life is intricately interconnected; so to are her various arcs and storylines, both in the personal obstacles, experiences and areas of growth for almost every character, many many antagonists included, as well as in the larger scheme of all the protagonists uniting toward their common enemy and threads of side-plot lines all beautifully coming together to completely illuminate the outcome of every mystery and follow through to the conclusion of every ripple-effect reaction.

the final act episodes of inuyasha seem better, and i suppose that’s to be expected of the endgame arc, and to contrast i also do like a lot of the solutions presented here even better than ones retconned or bizarrely conceived in naruto’s ending. it’s just perplexing and fascinating how differently i can find these animes— how wide they stretch in levels of effectiveness in getting across not only the meat of a plot but emotionally developing the characters in addition to satisfyingly presenting/explaining the lore and worldbuilding. and again, i’m not saying this should be easy, or that i could do better — it is amazing at all to do what these storytellers have done — all these stories have reason to be so popular — and almost every creator is valid in their own ways, and i believe all stories are worthwhile and worth my time at one point or another, even if not always worth my respect— and ultimately there are things about inuyasha worth respecting here even beside my critique of a lot, a lot, a lot of issues i take with this one. it certainly is an incredibly creative world, it does have compelling characters, even sometimes a compelling villain, if a little ridiculous sometimes, but perhaps my critique all boils down to this: it really is an embodiment of its subtitle, a feudal fairytale. because fairytales seem to introduce details containing a defensive finality of ‘that’s just the way it is, don’t question it,’ while following a narrative structure that has key elements just like any other, but introducing some more rather bizarre twists and turns, with explanations to things that are vague at best, if they even exist at all.

then again, while being a creative and an avid daydreamer, perhaps my mind is still too close-minded and strategic, resistant to a suspension of disbelief, and therefore in some ways, at odds with the fantasy.

[aracaj]

Renaissance Writers

We Need to Have a Moment of Silence for Wanda Maximoff’s Character Development (A review of WandaVision and Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness)

Jacara Kelly

June 20 2022

After learning of Wanda Maximoff’s importance in Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness, I took it upon myself to binge watch the entire season of WandaVision in one day/evening: this day being a very random Tuesday. And honestly, it was worth every minute of sleep I missed that school night; and I immediately understood why Wanda had such a strong fanbase. I experienced every emotion while watching this insane story unfold, and this ultimately led to my extreme love for Elizabeth Olsen, who makes Wanda Maximoff a really difficult character to hate. So, I guess you could imagine my surprise when she became the villain in the newest edition of the Doctor Strange Franchise.

WandaVision, released in January 2021, tells the love story of Avengers Wanda Maximoff and Vision… well, what could have been their love story, had Vision not been killed in Avengers: Infinity War. Dealing with overwhelming grief, Wanda uses her strong powers for the worst, creating an alternate reality that impacts the lives of once normal civilians. The show stars Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda, Paul Bettany as Vision, Kathryn Hahn as Agatha, and Teyonah Parris as Monica Rambeu. The execution of this entire season and how perfectly the story unraveled was really amazing to me. This is arguably the best series to be released in Marvel’s phase four, which is rumored to be coming to an end soon. Olsen’s performance as Wanda in this show was amazing. It was captivating, and her talent is one that keeps an audience hooked even while binge watching a nine episode show on a school night.

Another thing that I loved about this series is the way time passed. WandaVision begins as a 1950’s sitcom, and by the end of the season, the show was a Modern Family type sitcom. This is something I’ve never seen done before in a show, and watching the show go through different era’s on television was very entertaining. The show got nominated for 23 Primetime Emmy Awards, and the fact that it only won two of those 23 is something I will never forgive the award show for. I would recommend this show to anybody who asks for it.

Given the way that the limited series ended, I was convinced that Wanda was doing great and put the negative use of her powers away for good. So when it was revealed (very shortly into the movie by the way) that Wanda/the Scarlet Witch would be the villain, along with her reasoning behind being the villain, I was confused to say the least.

Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness stars actors Benedict Cumberbatch as Stephen Strange, Elizabeth Olsen as Wanda Maximoff, Benedict Wong as Wong, and Xochitl Gomez as America Chavez. In the movie, the Scarlet Witch is fighting to attain the powers of America Chavez to move through the Multiverse to be with her family that she created in WandaVision. But… in the series finale of WandaVision she seemed to have put those mistakes behind her and realized that they aren’t real. I believe that the cast did a wonderful performance, especially Gomez, who is only 16 years old. She did a great job as this character, and I heard that Anthony Mackie even was her acting coach at one time. I would recommend for people to watch this movie once, but I’ve definitely seen better from Marvel.

A lot of fans (especially  my mother) were disappointed in this movie because they didn’t like the way that Wanda was portrayed as a villain. Personally, Wanda can do no wrong in my eyes, so my views on the character didn’t change at all after watching the movie. Again, this is all thanks to the great Elizabeth Olsen, who amazed Wanda Maximoff fans playing both the hero and a villain and still was able to be a highly adored character.

[goprandall]

DC MASTERPOST >3

It’s no secret the DC universe is something of a DCpointment. There’s no cohesion in sotrylines, films are released at odd and illogical times and I decided to rewatch and give proper reviews.

MAN OF STEEL 2013 7/10

This film is something of an outlier on the DCEU, because it is not terrible.

The strengths of this film are defiantly the first act, I feel it was a clear and concise way to create backstory without the stereotypes of following him through childhood into adulthood, they did a great job of creating krypton and establishing an antagonist with a clear motive. I liked the jump straight into adult with flashbacks when confronted with items from his past, it allowed us to understand his past without saturating his journey all at once. Arguably the first arc of this film is completed here with Clark/kal discovering who he is and why he is here. The second arc of General Zod trying to bring back his people is still very well done, providing us more relevant backstory and shows logical actions from both sides of the fight nearing the end of the film. The biggest weakness of the film in my opinion is that it is 20 minutes too long. When superman destroys Zods ship killing the artificial children of krypton, I feel this arc was complete, although the after fight solely fought between SM and Zod does show us the struggle superman goes through becoming the last kryptonite in exaistance, this does not outweigh the pointless mass destruction this causes, on top of a already destroyed city. In my cut this would be disregarded.

Final thoughts of the film; my favourite part was the shot of ‘ALERT’ that slowly turns to ‘Toner empty’, a good transition and piece of direction. I’m giving this film 7/10, in my classification would make it a good Netflix film, one I’d be happy to watch but not pay money to solely see. It was a hard choice to not make it a 6 however, I rank wonder women as a 7, and this is more than equally as good, the only things preventing me from giving it a higher rank is it’s rewatchability. Personally I rarely would due to its lack of joy and humour, and overall darkness, not just in plot but also in cinematography and colour grading.

BATMAN V SUPERMAN 2016 6/10

Batman v superman had all the the ingredients to be the summer blockbuster, but as predicted it followed every DC film and tanked.

Their are some aspects of this film that are genuinely good, giving it a 6, one of those things is the first act of the film where we are introduced to Batman, although I didn’t personally feel the need for another origin story, the way this scene is directed especially with the earl sequence is fantastic, adding depth and differing from older versions of the same story. The other good thing about this film is the Batman fight scene, it is so well articulated and choreographed, i struggle to see how it fits within the wider film which is strangely badly directed, edited and in-cohesive.

Continuing from this idea, I feel the dream sequences are one of the leading problems for the in-cohesion of the film, the issue with these sequences is, if they are not well done it stops the audience trusting more daring scenes, ultimately taking you out of the story. Next, I feel another reason this doesn’t live up to its hype is, again, DCs continuous frenzy of oversaturating it’s film with characters. Here I argue Wonder women is not needed in the end fight, the fight could just have easily gone on sitbout her, or, if they had released wonder women before this film so we felt more engrossed in the character it wouldn’t been fine. However her and all the other justice league promo clips, should not have been in the film in the context they were as they’re a corporate shoehorn, promoting further projects. The other character I feel is unneeded is ‘Doomsday’, he’s quickly thrown in at the end of the film, and honesty an antigunist shown to us at the end of the film will never give the depth and fear of a hero fight, as a villain shown throughout the movie.

To me, Batman V Superman is a movie. Not a film, crafted and worked on to create a narrative for the audience, but a summer movie to get the kids out the house. The idea of having two meta humans as important as Batman and superman battling each other should boggle the mind, as the first avengers did for me or civil war for a closer comparison. But the difference with the MCU spectaculars is, they earned their right to blow people’s minds, DC is playing catch up and trying to get praise and awe without the hard work.

SUICIDE SQUAD 2016 3/10

Wow. This review has been hard to create and will most likely feature ideas from other reviews via podcasts and YouTube due to the fact this movie boggled my head in the sheer awfullness that ensued.

As always, I begin with the strengths of the film. In this instance it’s slight. I loved the aesthetics of the branding for the film, the colours, the neon animations, I loved it all. The mini descriptions in the film were funny and added to the VeRy little personalities of the characters. It is important to point out this clearly wasn’t present in the first edits of the film, but due to good feedback of later trailers that were released they were added, which is why this element of humour is the only of its kind that lands in the film.

Next I normally look into the storyline and the character arcs of the film, arguably my second favourite aspect to look for in a film. In suicide squad there is none, and there aren’t any. That sounds harsh, but the reality is there is no cohesive storyline, it follows no one character individually and the film darts back and fourth between every character, no matter the timeframe. Dean Dobbs (from adventures with dean and Bertie’s podcast) best describes this as ‘like playing a video game where someone is skipping every cutscene’ and this is absolutly true, especially when looking at the relationship of the joker and Harley Quinn. This film is so badly edited, As jack Howard describes, this film contains no scenes, it is obvious the whole film was rehashed and re-edited after the release of BVS (which crashed at the box office) and the final trailer was released, which was very different from the first few as it showed humour and action, and it is evident they cut out almost everything apart from these things. I would best describe it as many GoPrandall videos I have scrapped as I tend to forget to film opening sequencers and filler clips to show the progression of the story told apart from the action, and this is exactly how I felt about the editing of this film, they did the best with what they got but it wasn’t enough.

Although there was a lack of character arcs, this film had an ABUNDANT amount of characters to fill its shoes. This film crams as many famous faces in as many characters

As it can, because for some reason DC refuses to create stand alone films due to the catch up to the MCU that’s going on. We’ll start with the joker, or more exactly the 10 minuets of joker we got. Many scenes with the joker were so heavily edited, and deleted, it is hard to judge Jared Letos performance, because he didn’t have chance to give one. But, as a side note the hand on the mouth laugh is one of the WORST cinema moments I’ve experienced only closely beaten by ‘were bad guys it’s what we do’. Yuck. But we’ll finally look at the ‘suicide squad’, although looking at them it’s hard to identify why they are in this squad. We’ll start with reason no one on the team seems to have a reason to be there, aprt from deadshot, who had his daughters arc to think about. All the others just seem to around and don’t want to die and get out of prison. VERY good motives DC, you’ve outdone yourself this time. Next we can look at the abilities of this so called ‘meta human’ squad and how under utilised they really are, which could show why this film failed so badly. Firstly deadshot- ‘never misses a bullet- amazing at trick shots.’ Who in the film performs close quarter headshots, the same as the Seal team next to him, and in the film performs 1 trick shot. 1. That was in establishing scene right at the beginning, but he isn’t the only victim, we can look at Boomerang, my favourite character by far, with one the coolest abilities, who throws a total of:5 boomerangs and catches: 2. Let’s be honest Harely is there as the jokers Love Interest and to keep him in the film. We can also look at el deablo, the man that can shoot fire but refuses until he’s bullied for a whole minute. The worlds worst archaeologist who starts the entire battle, after BREAKING AN ANTIQUE immediatly after finding it (bravo) who if wasn’t attempted to be weaponised, would’ve skipped this whole mess. Slipknot, a man who could climb any wall or anything, who immediatly dies after climbing a wall, but don’t worry because they don’t even want you to worry about this due to the fact they don’t even intro him before he magically appears on the squad, hoping the audience will react ‘oh he’s going to be important!!! What a mystery man!!’. This is almost as bad as Katana, who adds nothing the story apart from a short intro and when she cries to her dead husband, at which point I began to cut my toenails, something I gave more of a shit about.

But, it is obvious I’m a teenage marvel fanboy just shitting on DC,and I hate when people complain without offering another viewpoint, therefore, to fix this, I would dedicate this film to the viewpoint of deadshot, giving him the character arc of changing with the goal of seeing his daughter- eliminate the extra characters- slipknot/katana and either dedicate more time to the joker and harley sub plot or eliminate entirely, NOT BOTH. With this, better editing around these eliminated plot points could make a more coherent story with more empathetic story arcs. I have a full idea for a plot but this is too long as it is.

WONDER WOMEN 2017 7/10

Wonder women is a refreshing instalment into the DCEU, showing they seem to e learning, but are still falling behind on some of the most basic hurdles.

Firstly, as always we’ll start off with the strengths of his film, firstly it is vividly important to recognise that this is the first major Superhero film to be directed, and sustain a heavy female cast. It does so fantastically and leaves me more excited for the next instalment now knowing female directors and stars now have evidence for an accomplished superhero movie, which arguably has outdone the past 2 major films. With this we see a brilliantly refreshing opening act with a subtle and bright, vibrant origin story.

However, this film slowly returns to madness throughout the film when major plot holes appear, and the film making quality slowly deteriorates. Firstly, the iggest plot hole that has been so easily overlooked is the WW1 aspect. Given a World War Two film, having the Germans be the sole enemy is obvious and logical, however WW1 is not as simple as this and the use of Germans as the enemies is vaguely lazy. Also, as DC loves to do, it adds in extra characters and neglects to give them logical and coherent backstory and arcs. We only need to look at the ‘best marksman in the war’ who doesn’t fire a single shot, and continues not too all the way to the end of the film, showing no growth. The final plot hole is what draws it into the wider EU. The entirety of this film is showing Diana that the human race is bad and should be left alone, although when she defeats arias, this is meant to break this curse and peace seems to be restored. But, in BVS she claims to have stopped helping mankind because of their evils, neglecting Stalin, WW2 and the Vietnam war to name a few, but making a reappearance for- lex Luther. Wow.

Although in almost most of its entirety this was a pleasant watch, my personal issue stopped this at the third act when the final fight begins. To me the film returns to DCs favourite colour scheme of dark and clouded, and uses quite frankly some of the worst CGI I’ve seen recently, making me wonder why they didn’t at least try to incorporate real elements, such as Marvel, but this is still the best DC film after man of steel and I’m excited to see more female led and directed films come to screen.

JUSTICE LEAUGE 2016 5/10

This will be the shortest of the DC reviews, this is the film I’ve seen least of the lot and I feel I’ll need at least another viewing to get a full understanding. To premise this I fully understand Zack Snyder had personal issues leading him to leave and Joss take over, and this is in no way mocking him.

But I’ll dive in, maybe the fact I’m struggling to write this review tells me a lot about the movie. Wonder women was one of the only saving graces of this move, she was well understood and I feel her likeness as a character was well transferred from WW to JL. Contrary to this, I’m struggling to write about cyborg and flash, we were given next to no backstorys, although the flash’s was hinted at at least twice that I recall and what we were given were quite chaotic. Batman was a major letdown for me, coming down from BVS where he was a certified badass taking on superman, he turns into a wimp and hides for a majority of the film, quite evidently showing Ben affleck Clearly does not want to be there. I feel the overall plot of the film was almost underatsnvle, but had the taken the time to set up this storyline in previous films it would’ve been much better, this movie lacked the right to have all these characters on screen together. The characters had adequate screen time each, but contrary to its biggest rival ‘the avengers’ this really wasn’t that special, most of the characters had the same abilities, barring the flash, and the way the avengers films have shown all the characters working together simultaneously in cinematic mastery, you can see hints of Joss attempting this, but with a bad set up it’s an impossible task.

I conclude, not going into the issue with the CGi because I don’t have that much time.

[theheavymetalmama]

Batman V Superman topic: About the Martha scene, the point of that scene is that its causes Batman to stop thinking Superman as an evil alien. It also gives Batman a second chance to be a proper hero by saving lives instead of killing them. The askbox is too small to talk about everything in detail, so I recommend you watch the CinemaWins video "Everything GREAT About Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice!" for more info.

Anon, I do understand what they were going for with “Save Martha.” That’s why I hate it. Not because it’s a stupid moment, though that certainly doesn’t help, but because it’s supposed to be this big reveal to tug right at the heartstrings…and everybody was laughing at it.

Why is that? Because intent ends where execution begins. On paper, it was a good idea. Batman was at the end of his rope and had lost his way so much that he was willing to hunt down and butcher a man because he might be a threat. Then, just as he’s about to deliver the killing blow, Superman says something that hits Batman like a freight train that makes him realize that not only is the man he fabricated to be his enemy not his enemy at all, but he’s crushed by the grim, brutal realization that not only did he break the promise he made to himself that nobody would ever experience what he went through as a child but the salt in the wound is now he’s the one holding the gun that cut down his parents.

On paper, that idea is gangbusters. But as I said, intent doesn’t override execution. Because the movie chose to focus on the odd coincidence that Clark and Bruce both have mothers named Martha, instead of being the powerful moment it was intended to be audiences were going “Huh, never realized that before” or “Really? THAT’S what makes them make-up?” or simply asking “What grown-ass man calls their mother by their first name?” Sorry, but “Save Martha” earned its’ meme status.

But here’s the thing. Even if the scene played out as the writers, producers, director, and so on had intended, it wouldn’t have saved the movie (not by a long shot) and it wouldn’t have fixed the fatal flaw with the movie, and it’s this. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is not a Batman and Superman movie. It’s a Batman movie with Superman in it.

No, I’m not talking about how in the theatrical cut Superman has less screen-presence than Lex Luthor and infamously has less speaking lines of dialogue than Spider-Man did in Civil War despite his name being in the title (though that certainly didn’t help.) Yes, I have seen the ultimate edition, no, it didn’t help and in fact I hated it even more.

What I mean by “It’s a Batman movie with Superman in it” is that all the time, attention, and agency goes to Batman while Superman is…there. The only time Superman shows any agency is when he ignores Perry White (who for some baffling reason wants to waste an investigative reporter on a story about college football) to investigate in Gotham. Other than that, everything he does is dictated not by motivation, but by plot.

For example, the capital hearing. Does Superman give a rousing and inspirational speech? No, it just blows up. Also, how can Superman hear Lois lane falling from half a world away and drowning from several blocks away amidst the Doomsday fight but he can’t hear a bomb about to go off just over ten feet away from him? How about when the capital actually blows up? Does he help with the rescue effort and make a statement to the media vowing to catch the one responsible? No, he’s shown saving one person and then fucks off from the movie until the title fight.

I could go on and on. Superman is shown ascending a snowy mountain, does he build the Fortress of Solitude? No, he listens to his Ghost Dad tell some stupid story about how he shouldn’t be a hero because he tried it once and then some horses drowned. Does Clark investigate the crime scene and find out that parts that made up the bomb came from Wayne Enterprises and then he does some research and connects the dots? No, that bit goes to Lois solving a mystery everybody already knows the answer to.

It’s also obvious which character the people making this movie preferred over the other. Jimmy Olsen (arguably the second or third most important character to the entire Superman lore and mythos) gets shot in the head seconds after being introduced, Perry White and everyone at the Daily Planet are basically those assholes from TMZ, all of Superman’s heroic feats are summed up in a brief 30-second montage while pundits complain about how everyone either hates or fears him in the background, Lex Luthor is a terminally obnoxious dated-on-arrival tech sector caricature, Clark and Bruce’s first encounter ends with Bruce’s smug dismissal of “Don’t believe everything you read, son,” their second encounter ends with Bruce standing tall and asking “Do you bleed?” and finally their third encounter in the big title fight ends with Superman on his back crying for his mommy after he landed a total of three hits between getting his ass completely handed to him.

And it gets worse still. Superman dies, and instead of being treated as this big tragic event that affects those closest to him and the world as a whole…it’s used as a plot device to spring Batman and Wonder Woman into action to create the Justice League in case something like Doomsday ever happens again. Superman died not to advance his story or character, but to advance Batman’s. Zack Snyder, David S. Goyer, and Chris Terrio put Superman in the refrigerator.

And that STILL isn’t the worst part.

If an adaptation of ‘The Death and Return of Superman’ was ever going to work in live-action, it was only going to work one time, and Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice threw it away forever. Even if the DCEU manages to Flashpoint their way out of this raging garbage fire of nonsense and does it properly, it won’t matter because now everybody who’s never read a comic knows how it plays out and it won’t have the impact that the comic book had decades ago. Bear in mind that killing off messianic parental figures is so effective a tool in fiction that generations of children are still traumatized to this day from when it happened to a lion…

A dinosaur…

And a talking truck.

And the DCEU shit the bed with Superman. They stabbed Superman through the heart and showed us his funeral…and nobody cared. How could anybody care? Marvel didn’t even think about making Civil War until after Phase One proved to be a success, and even then they didn’t get going earnestly until they had two Avengers movies and almost a dozen solo films. DC did The Death of Superman in two movies, and he had the share the second one.

My point is that yes, I get what ‘Save Martha’ meant and I understand where they were coming from. But even if they managed to make the moment not stupid, it wouldn’t have saved the movie and the movie itself would still be a giant middle-finger toward Superman, everything he’s supposed to represent, and the people who love him.

[frontproofmedia]

DOLO FLICKS: Friday The 13th Franchise Ranking From Worst to Best (#4-1)

(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

By Hector Franco

Follow @MrHector_Franco !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs'); Follow @Frontproofmedia!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');

The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the original authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Frontproof Media, the Frontproofmedia.com staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Published: November 05, 2020

In this final installment of my ranking of the Friday The 13th franchise, we take a look at what I consider to be the top movies in the series.

Two of the films on the list below do hold a level of nostalgia as they are the only movies I was able to see in theatres. The films that are in the top two don't stray far from common opinions.

Watching all 12 films in the franchise has given me a new appreciation for Friday The 13th and certainly solidified for me Jason's standing as a horror icon.

4. FREDDY VS. JASON

RELEASED: AUGUST 15, 2003

DIRECTOR: RONNY YU

APPROXIMATELY 22 KILLS

The long-awaited battle between Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees spent a decade in development hell before finally being released in 2003.

Freddy vs. Jason was one of the most anticipated films in horror history. It had a fantastic marketing campaign that led to the film becoming the highest-grossing film in both the Friday The 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street franchises.

Admittedly, Freddy vs. Jason is a personal preference of mine since it was the first Friday The 13th/A Nightmare on Elm Street film I was able to see in theaters.

The movie premiere that I attended was filled with horror fanatics dawning all of their favorite Jason and Freddy memorabilia and clothes, leading to a fun movie-going experience where the audience loudly celebrated certain parts of the film.

The plot of the movie finds the people of Springwood, Ohio, unfamiliar with Freddy Krueger due to a pill that suppresses people’s dreams. Krueger manipulates Jason to kill people in Springwood to spread fear back in the community to regain his powers.

Jason, who is played by Ken Kerzinger, does the majority of the killing in the film. One of the kills at the beginning of the movie to a character named Trent sticks out as Jason folds him in half using a mattress.

Krueger isn’t the over-the-top, almost cartoonish character he portrayed in the latter A Nightmare on Elm Street films, specifically in the fifth and sixth entries in the franchise.

Robert Englund plays Krueger, similar to the franchise’s third installment Dream Warriors, a blend of comedic one-liners infused in terrifying nightmare scenarios.

The weakest portions of the film come when the movie focuses on its protagonist characters. Some of these characters are the worst in the franchise, such as Kelly Rowland’s Kia and Jason Ritter’s Will. There is even one character that is a blatant rip off of Jay from the Jay and Silent Bob movies.

There are some plot developments that make little sense, such as Jason being afraid of water as throughout the series Jason is shown going in and out of bodies of water.

The film’s ranking rests primarily with its third act, where Jason and Freddy battle at Crystal Lake. The action scene’s between the two delivers in big fashion, with both characters having their moments.

Surprisingly, there has not been a sequel with the amount of money the movie made. Despite the film's lower-tier characters, Freddy vs. Jason is a fun time for fans of both franchises and delivered in its most crucial act.

3. FRIDAY THE 13TH (2009)

RELEASED: FEBRUARY 13, 2009

DIRECTOR: MARCUS NISPEL

APPROXIMATELY 14 KILLS

The 2009 reboot of Friday The 13th may be the most divisive film in the franchise. Like Freddy vs. Jason, the film suffers from a subpar cast and, for many, one of the worst characters in horror movie history in Trent, played by Travis Van Winkle.

The film followed a reboot renaissance from studio Platinum Dunes that included The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that brought a more modern touch to the horror classics.

The film's best asset falls on its portrayal of Jason, played by Derek Mears. Jason is a hybrid of the zombie Jason that was introduced in Friday The 13th VI: Jason Lives and a survivalist that sets traps and can kill in a variety of ways.

Arguably, Jason is at his most frightening in the 2009 reboot.

The highlight of the film is in the first 25 minutes as it shows a group of friends camping as they look for a field of marijuana. Jason takes out each one brutally, including a sleeping bag kill leaving a victim hung in the bag over a fire for a brutal slow death.

Also, the fan-favorite bag head version of Jason makes an appearance in the film before finding his infamous hockey mask.

The plot of the film is somewhat by the numbers as Jason kidnaps one of the campers from the beginning of the movie, who resembles his mother. The girl’s brother comes looking for his sister and runs into a group of friends staying at a friends’ family cabin.

They run into Jason, and the killing commences.

While for many the characters in Friday The 13th (2009) may make the film hard to digest, Jason and the kills in the movie make it the most accessible Friday The 13th film. This film is the Friday The 13th that you would show to someone who has never seen any of the movies and is unfamiliar with the franchise.

2. FRIDAY THE 13TH IV: THE FINAL CHAPTER

RELEASED: APRIL 13, 1984

DIRECTOR: JOSEPH ZITO

APPROXIMATELY 13 KILLS

The fourth installment in the Friday The 13th franchise is an amalgamation of the previous three films that combines a majority of their best elements.

The Final Chapter is the quintessential Friday The 13th movie.

With the return of Tom Savini as a special makeup effects artist, the kills throughout the film are stellar.

Similar to the Friday The 13th Part 3, The Final Chapter begins immediately after the previous film's events.

Jason is taken to a hospital where he is presumed to be dead. He then awakens and brutally kills his way out of the hospital to head back to his stomping grounds at Crystal Lake.

The Final Chapter follows two groups of people.

The first is a group of friends staying at a friend’s home for the weekend. The second group that is being followed is the Jarvis family, who live next door.

There is also a slight storyline that follows the character Rob played by Erich Anderson, who is seeking revenge for his sister, who died in Friday The 13th Part 2.

The movie is best known for introducing Tommy Jarvis to the franchise who is played by Corey Feldman. Jarvis is a unique character that could be based on Tom Savini, as he is shown to have made horror movie quality masks.

In the age of social media, the standout star in the movie is Crispin Glover, who plays Jimmy. Glover has a scene in the film that would make Elaine from Seinfeld cringe as he shows off his dance moves in one of the most memorable and mocked scenes in the entire franchise.

Ted White, who chose not to be credited, portrays one of the best Jason’s in the franchise. One of the best kills in the film includes a twin character that is thrown out a window in dramatic fashion.

The movie’s final act features Trish Jarvis, played by Kimberly Beck, who runs the final girl circuit of discovering dead bodies one after the other. Trish does put up a fight against Jason, but it is ultimately Tommy Jarvis who puts Jason down for good.

Tommy shaves a majority of his head bald to resemble what Jason looked like as a kid, which puts the killer on hold, allowing for him to be whacked in the head by Trish with a machete.

Tommy follows up with a hit of his own with a machete that kills Jason dramatically.

Jason’s death is arguably the best kill in the film, with his head slowly going down the machete after getting hit.

The Final Chapter, for many, is the best Friday The 13th film. It features a serviceable yet memorable cast, fantastic kills, and one of the most satisfying endings in the franchise.

This film could have easily been at the top of my list, and over the years, it could end up at the number one spot.

1. FRIDAY THE 13TH PART VI: JASON LIVES

RELEASED: AUGUST 1, 1986

DIRECTOR: TOM McLOUGHLIN

APPROXIMATELY 18 KILLS

Written and Directed by Tom McLoughlin, Friday The 13th: Jason Lives is one of the most unique and fun horror movies of the 1980s. The film brings forth the zombie version of Jason that is most well known in pop culture.

The film brings back Tommy Jarvis, who wants to make sure that Jason is dead. He heads to the deceased killer’s grave and digs up the body only to impale it with a metal rod. The metal rod is struck by lightning, and Jason is reborn.

The movie brilliantly inputs Meta elements throughout the film blending a mix of comedy and action that make it stand out to this day.

Jason Lives is the only Friday The 13th film with no nudity and even shows kids at the camp setting. Don’t worry; Jason does not kill any children in the movie.

The kills throughout the movie are well made despite the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America) editing them down to reduce the gore amount. Even the kills that are done off-screen are well made as the film does a brilliant job of showing the aftermath of the kill.

The chemistry between the Sheriff’s daughter Megan played by Jennifer Cook and Tommy Jarvis, allows the audience to care more about the antagonists instead of viewing them as mere fodder for Jason.

The Friday The 13th franchise is a series that doesn’t have an absolute classic film that transcends the horror genre such as 1978’s Halloween or 1984’s A Nightmare on Elm Street.

Jason Lives and even The Final Chapter are the closest the series comes to having a transcendent horror film. At the very least, these films are about as good as any of the sequels in the Halloween and A Nightmare on Elm Street franchises.

Jason Lives is the film that I think of when I think of Friday The 13th. Undoubtedly, it is the movie in the franchise that has the most replay value and the film that I would choose to show to anyone who hasn’t seen Friday The 13th.

Let me know what you think of my rankings and put your rankings down below.

(Featured Photo: New Line Cinema/Platinum Dunes)



[ultrahpfan5blog]

Retrospective Review - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition)

There are few movies in the world that have left me as disappointed as BvS. I tried very much to convince myself, after watching the movie the first time, that I liked it, but my insides just knew that it just wasn't up to the mark. To me, the film was just a gloomy mess of a movie, with bizarre editing choices and inconsistent performances. Later Ultimate Edition was released and people kept saying that it was a a masterpiece. I watched it and while I certainly think its an improved version of the movie, to me it is still not a good movie.

Don't get me wrong, this isn't the worst movie in the world. Its just the most disappointing to me. Making a BvS movie that is not fun should not be possible. Yet, that is exactly what we got. I was meh on MoS, but I felt the building blocks were there, but this film is incredibly convoluted and dull. Like with all Snyder films, it looks great. Zack Snyder knows how to present great visuals and set pieces. There are definitely a few visuals of the movie that I remember very distinctly. One is when Superman rescues a child from a burning building in Mexico and people around him touch him as if he's some sort of deity. The other is the Superman memorial at the end with the public holding a vigil. The use of music and visuals is exquisite in these scenes. The action is definitely very cool. The standout is the warehouse action scene. That is arguably the best Batman action scene ever but to film. The Batman and Superman showdown is exciting and the final Doomsday vs Superman, Batman, and Wonder Woman is really cool. Wonder Woman really gets to have a badass entry into the DCEU. The musical choices for the character were brilliant and she has some cool interactions with Bruce as an enigmatic figure that we don't know much about. Also, there are some interesting ideas here. The idea of Superman being a polarizing figure, with half the public scared of him and half adulating him. The fact that Superman's presence affects geopolitics quite significantly. These are interesting concepts to explore in this context.

However, what lets this film down is the plotting. As I mentioned before, the plotting is ridiculously convoluted. I mean, there are so many ridiculous coincidences and requirements for characters to act stupid in order for certain events to occur. Ultimate Edition is definitely a more coherent version of the film. There are story points like the whole Africa ambush subplot, which definitely make a lot more sense in the Ultimate Edition, and the UE definitely fleshes out the Superman side of the BvS conflict. But despite it being more fleshed out, the storyline is still very dull and plodding. The film has to go out of its way to have characters tell other characters what the audience should be feeling. Like how there is literally a character that tells Clark that someone like Batman should be killed because her human trafficker husband was killed in Prison because of the bat brand. Its a scene literally there so the audience doesn't miss why Superman should be resentful of Batman. There are similarly heavy handed scenes throughout. The Superman side of the conflict is poorly handled. Also, Superman as a character is just a dispiriting and miserable figure throughout the movie. The Batman side of the movie is better but still has a lot of problems. Batman's resentment towards Superman doesn't really work as an excuse for him to basically want to kill him despite there being no concrete reason to do so. It makes Batman look a little bit like a maniac. The film also requires Bruce to be pretty stupid because he falls hook, line, and sinker into Lex's plot.

The film also basically spends 2 hours before it delivers a proper action scene. The Batmobile car chase is quite literally the only scene we can consider an action scene until the 2 hour mark. And then there are basically 3 back to back action sequences in the last hour with the titular showdown, followed by the warehouse fight, followed by the Doomsday fight. While action scenes are good, there is also some serious stupidity on display in the context of these scenes. Like, if Batman wants to kill Superman, who would he use conventional weapons first when everyone knows that has no impact on him. Superman is trying to convince Batman to join him but he doesn't make much of an effort before he starts throwing him through buildings. I honestly feel that there are things that just make this movie overstuffed. They really shouldn't have stuffed Doomsday and all the awkward JL setup in this film. Even WW is not really necessary in this film. It just bloats the film excessively and makes the film a slog to get through. The film is also straining at the edges to make Lois Lane relevant. Her investigation into the Africa incident is a big part of the film but its one of those things that is hard to care about because we are already aware that Luthor is behind it all. It is only Lois who is finding out. The film then basically uses her as

In terms of performances, the film is very inconsistent. Without doubt, the highlight of the film is Ben Affleck and Jeremy Irons as Batman and Alfred. Ben Affleck delivers a very charismatic and visceral Batman. He looks intimidating and his performance definitely delivers the seething resentment. I am not a huge fan of the characterization of Batman, but I have no complaints of his performance in this film. I love the dynamic with Alfred and Irons delivers a very different Alfred than previous version. Alfred is more a friend and a mentor as compared to the father figure in past iterations. The interplay between the two characters is definitely the best aspect of the film. Henry Cavill is a very naturally charismatic figure, which is why its quite sad to be so stripped of charisma in this movie. He's let down by the script which requires him to scowl and grimace throughout the movie. Its really probably his weakest performance in the role. Amy Adams tries her level best and she's likable, because she's Amy Adams and its impossible not to like her, but she's missing a spark. Plus, there really is no chemistry between her and Henry, and given these films rely a lot on the Superman and Lois connection, it is a big sticking point. Gal Gadot is appropriately enigmatic and badass in the role. Jesse Eisenberg is another big casting stumble. He delivers and over the top and twitchy performance which is very grating at times. There are a few moments where he hits the right note of menace, but its largely a misfire. Diane Lane continues to be solid as Martha as is Laurence Fishburne as Perry. Holly Hunter has a pretty thankless role as Senator Finch. She's quite wasted.

Overall, while I am hard on this film, it is because this is not a film that should be hard to figure out. Whether it was WB or Snyder, this film really should have probably been two movies. It was definitely a big stumbling block from the DCEU from which it hasn't really fully recovered from yet. For me, there is still a certain thrill to be seeing Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman on screen together and that itself makes it worth seeing but I genuinely think the problems with this are very apparent and hinder the film quite a lot. Unlike a Batman & Robin, which is so bad that you can enjoy the campiness, this film is so dark and serious that its issues stand out even more because it wants to be taken seriously. I would say it ranks at a 4.5/10.

[shrimpkardashian]

I am going to post this text which I used to make this 90-minute podcast where I ranked all of David Lynch's films. It’s close to 5,000 words long. Since I took the time to write all this out, I wanted to post it, edited for the page. Enjoy:

David Lynch has created ten feature films in forty years, specifically between 1977 and 2017. I am going to rank all ten films right now.

I’ve broken down the Lynch filmography into four tiers.

Tier #4 consists of two films that, while they’re not necessarily horrible, I’d be OK with never re-watching again.

Tier #3 is Dune, just… Dune… (crickets)

Tier #2 also consists of two movies, two features that are close to being really great, but are ultimately flawed for very different reasons.

And then there’s the Final Tier, Tear #1, ALL-TIME CLASSICS, of which, by my count, there are five. Not bad, considering that equals, oh I don't know... half of his filmography.

You might be wondering what constitutes an ALL-TIME CLASSIC... great question. In my book, it’s a movie that scores a 9.500 or higher on my highly scientific to-the-thousandths scale movie review scoring system. All ten of these feature films have been scored between 5.999 and 9.819. Using the thousandths scale allows for accessible gaps as I slowly fill in the list as I continue to compile my personal ranking of the greatest films ever made (and also... the not so great). I urge you to go to my website www.movies.myameri.ca to see the list of over 200 films that I've reviewed and ranked thus far.

Now, let’s get to the list...

#10

Perhaps, The Elephant Man––David Lynch’s second film, from 1980––doesn’t work for me because you can feel, in a sense, that he’s selling his soul. Sure, it's "good" and was recognized as such in all the ways and by all the metrics that the most mainstream critical pipelines assess and award art that is "good."

It's what I couldn't put my finger on at the time I recorded my initial review, and the truly repulsive thing about it: It's bad in the way these  "good" films often are. It feels older than it is: a 1980 film about the 1920s that feels like it was made in the late 50s. It’s stylistic feel is both confusing and confused. The brief intrusions of Lynchian originality are present and welcome, but they’re all too quickly dispersed by stale set pieces, and performances that are either overwrought or stiffly boring. Only Freddie Jones, in the devious role of the elephant man’s original "handler," strikes a cord.

The look and feel of John Hurt’s titular character is effective, because it is grotesque. It is in no way fantastical, even if we’re looking at the height of movie magic, because this person existed. And through this realism, a sickening is induced. With every one of Hurt’s nasally slurps––while that’s surely the point, and it wholly succeeds on that level––the film becomes less re-watchable, a major tenant of my grading scale. Wherein Eraserhead’s baby is pure fantasy––a goofy, disgusting, horrifying little buddy that the viewer wants to spend time with––the Elephant Man is an abomination. Our horror with him, at him, over him, is both the movie proving its thesis, and shutting itself down.

David Lynch is on record as having been pleased with the film, but what amount of that pleasure has been framed by four decades of opportunity in large part because of its success, isn’t clear.

The Elephant Man was nominated for eight Academy Awards. No other David Lynch feature was nominated for more than one. It is his worst film by a wide margin.

#9

It would be easy to dismiss 1999’s The Straight Story as a joke disguised. Here was David Lynch making a relatively, well, "straight" movie about a man named Alvin Straight and it was titled The Straight Story. It was released by Disney. When I rewatched this recently I imagined what the movie might have been like if it had the same plot but, you know, felt Lynchian. What it would be like if the entire film had the tone of my favorite scene, the "I LOVE DEER" scene... but, alas, it isn't that.

The film is just a feel-good story. Sometimes, when you peel back the layers, there's just more goodness hiding underneath, and nothing more. And maybe there's a kind of horror in that as well.

#8

Dune stands alone.

Released in 1984, it's the only film among the ten wherein Lynch didn't have complete final cut. It's, by any classic metric, a bad film. At the end of the documentary Jodorowsky's Dune, which details one of the first attempts at bringing the best selling science fiction book of all-time to the big screen, Alejandro Jodorowsky describes going to see Lynch's version and being filled with a perverse glee that the movie was a failure, that it sucked. And it is definitely a failure.

The film is a god-awful mess. Do not under any circumstances attempt to watch the 3-hour "extended cut" version. Lynch had nothing to do with this and it does not re-insert anything by way of noteworthy lost footage. It merely accentuates the worst elements of the original theatrical cut. The biggest crime by far being... the dreaded voice-over, which plagues both versions.

In 2011, a YouTuber posted a 9-minute super-cut compiling all of these whispered voice-overs, which––if you aren't familiar––are meant to give more clarity to the story by presenting the audience an inside look at "the thoughts" in various characters' heads. But these "thoughts" do exactly the opposite: bogging down the story and actually making it harder to follow (in my opinion).

But even with all of its many, many flaws, the film is not without its charm. The look of it is extremely interesting, if not inconsistent. Some imagery looks dated, while other effects seem ahead of their time. The soundtrack, an amalgamation of Toto's overblown rock aesthetics and a nuanced main theme co-written by Brian Eno, is kind of awesome

But really Dune is just a huge mess of ideas. For example, in one scene the actor Freddie Jones is given a cat with a rat taped to its side, hooked to a contraption, and is told to "milk the cat" if he wants to stay alive. His character is never seen or mentioned again. These are the ideas of Frank Herbert told through the lens of David Lynch and filtered by producers who were so damn concerned whether or not the plot would make sense that they butchered the whole damn thing. What's left are pieces, intriguing pieces strewn about the 2-plus hours.

It would be easy to submit this film as the last place entry, #10 out of 10. But I just can't do that. I would re-watch this under the right circumstances. The strange convergence of wild visuals, bad editing and too-fast, too-big, too-soon nature of the production, puts this in a special category among the Lynch filmography. It almost hits "so bad it's good" notes, in a way. When Denis Villeneuve unleashes his high stakes, huge expectations version of Dune in 2020, David Lynch's third film will likely become nothing more than a footnote.... a grain of sand among the great DUNES of film history, one might say. (Sorry.)

#7

Inland Empire is, technically speaking, the final film of David Lynch's career. Released almost thirteen years ago in 2006, it's certainly the most confounding. Three hours of lo-fi footage, welded together by a director whose contempt for the industry he was a part of had reached a boiling point. And that boiling point is INLAND EMPIRE.

For years, I attempted to watch this film in stops and starts. That, for quite a long time, I never got past the relatively straight, narrative-driven first hour is probably telling. Outside of a classic Grace Zabriskie appearance as Laura Dern's crazy Polish neighbor, not much really happens.

But it isn't so much that nothing is happening that's the issue. It's that nothing interesting is happening. An actress gets a role. Her co-star is a womanizer. Her husband might be jealous. There's some mystery concerning the development of the project. They have an affair. After a burst of imagery at the start, this all unfolds in a fairly normal fashion. The most noteworthy thing about it is how it looks. Lynch used a digital camera to film some ideas with Laura Dern one day and then decided to make a feature film out of it. He's stated that he had to keep using the same camera out of necessity. That he had to make it look this way, is a very Lynchian answer to the question "Why does INLAND EMPIRE look like garbage?" Because it does truly look like trash. You can get better video fidelity from any cheap Android phone nowadays. It has not aged well.

Some might point to this and say that's exactly why it's genius, why it's underrated... but I ain't buying that line of thinking, either. It's a misstep, in my opinion. The film is a bloated experimentation of a script written on the fly. It has only one true saving grace... Laura Dern.

Even if they hadn't reunited for the successful collaboration that was Twin Peaks: The Return, I think I'd be OK with this being the pair's final work together. The film only works because of Dern. The entire thing is a testament to her ability and it transcends the hardware that was used to capture it. When I finally got around to completing this watch, I was struck by how weird it got. Which is saying something about a David Lynch film! Without Dern this might play like someone's forgotten student project of the mid 2000s. With her, it's a strange bookend to an amazing career.

One that I have no other choice but to start, and stop, and start again. Someday.

#6

Wild at Heart was produced at the height of David Lynch's success in 1990. Riding the high of Blue Velvet, arguably his most beloved work in a critical sense, even to this day, and filmed just as the world was experiencing TV’s Twin Peaks. Lynch's fifth movie arrived just as the concept of "Lynchian" was soaking into the cultural landscape. It's a brash, outrageous film that feels like the work of an individual who could no wrong. This cockiness both makes it fun, and provides its flaws.

While there seems to be "a point," however cloudy and/or veiled and/or vague, behind most things in every David Lynch film, Wild at Heart seemingly indulges in bombast for the sake of bombast. It's no surprise this Louis CK's favorite film and the film that nearly gave Roger Ebert a heart attack. (See this video)

I'd like to split the difference between those two sentiments, if I may. I don't agree that Lynch is always trying to "get off the hook" as Roger Ebert put it. But that may be the case with Wild at Heart. That it is the only Lynch film to take the top prize at Cannes, perhaps speaks more to the idea of Lynch and his influence in the culture at the time, then it does to the film itself. CK was right to read this film as a comedy, it's the only way it works. And Ebert was wrong to crucify it for being such. But It stands outside the top tier of Lynch's career for a different reason. With cockiness comes laziness. Lynch notoriously had his hands full during the development of this project, as he abandoned the TV world of Twin Peaks to make it. Wild at Heart feels half-baked as a result.

Sure, it has its moments. Willem DaFoe gets to hang his hat on the mantle of notable, completely over-the-top supporting characters in the Dennis Hopper / Frank Booth tradition. And Nicolas Cage and Diane Ladd are every bit as crazed in their performances as well. And yet, therein lies another problem: the movie has only one speed, out of control. The Sailor-Lula love story is meant to provide the downbeat, something earnest in a sea of chaos. But it falls short. You can't stop to smell the roses if the car never stops.

#5

That half of David Lynch's filmography constitute all time classics is no minor accomplishment. I imagine there are only a handful of directors with a better batting average. And so, the order of these next five films is fairly insignificant. Certainly there are biases at play which have placed them into the positions you find them here. For example, I certainly haven't watched Eraserhead enough and I've probably seen Mulholland Drive too many times by comparison. It's also about timing. Maybe This Moment™ in My Life™ is more fitting for Lost Highway then it is Blue Velvet, for myriad reasons, and so on and so on.

The thing to know is this... These five projects have all stood the test of time, and any one of them is deserved of the top spot. Now, back to the countdown...

Eraserhead was exactly like I thought it would be.

I neglected to watch this film for a very long time. I kept telling myself "Now is the right time to watch Eraserhead, Jeff." What I didn't realize until I finally watched it is that the answer to that question is both never and always.

Eraserhead is a feat of nature. A film that took years to complete feels and flows like it was molded together over a single month. It almost feels silly to expound on the film at this point. It's been dissected to death. Even critics who fail to understand it can appreciate it on the most basic of levels. This. Is. Art. PERIOD. There's no denying that.

Wherein the surrealists who decided to make films couldn't get past the concept of the singular idea, confining their work to shorts OR a series of loosely connected "living paintings," Lynch was able to extrapolate the aesthetic to feature length and also tell a story.

It's soundscape alone is a work of art, and perhaps the most important facet of the film from a historic point of view. This world sounds exactly as it looks: manufactured, fractured, jarring and glum. What brief respite the Lady in the Radiator provides with her haunting, off-kilter serenade is all we get by way of counterpoint to the unnerving soundtrack of Lynch's debut feature. It took Lynch, working in tandem with master sound engineer Alan Splet, nearly a year to complete. From the 1991 book, Midnight Movies:

"The soundtrack is densely layered, including as many as fifteen different sounds played simultaneously using multiple reels. Sounds were created in a variety of ways—for a scene in which a bed slowly dissolves into a pool of liquid, Lynch and Splet inserted a microphone inside a plastic bottle, floated it in a bathtub, and recorded the sound of air blown through the bottle. After being recorded, sounds were further augmented by alterations to their pitch, reverb and frequency."

Lynch's first film is also his shortest, just shy of ninety minutes, and it's hard to find any flaws. Is the detour with the severed head at the pencil factory meaningless? How about the next-door neighbor character... unnecessary? Inside the Top 5, I won't be nitpicking just to do so. In the Top 5, everything is fine.

#4

While I don't necessarily think Blue Velvet is the best film of David Lynch's career, it's hard to argue that it isn't the most important. It is the world from which all subsequent Lynch things are built. Following the creative and commercial disaster of Dune, Lynch's fourth feature is a dark psychological horror that both expands upon and completely blows apart the aesthetic of Film Noir. And there really isn't a single David Lynch film project after Blue Velvet which doesn't also explore this form to a degree.

The movie marks the debut of a pair who would turn out to be lifelong collaborators in the David Lynch cinematic universe: Laura Dern, acting here in one of her first "adult" roles at age 19, and the composer Angelo Badalamenti. Badalamenti would go onto write the scores for every subsequent entry in the filmography except Inland Empire, and his main theme to Blue Velvet remains one of the most memorable.

Blue Velvet is also notable as being a vehicle for Dennis Hopper's re-entry into mainstream cinema. Relaunching his career, Hopper's portrayal of the deranged Frank Booth remains as skin crawling as ever.

I think the fact that I have watched Blue Velvet and Mulholland Drive more than any other of Lynch's films had a lot to do with where I've placed them on this list (that they aren’t higher). But I swear I'm not being contrarian for contrarian's sake. As I said a minute ago, all five of these films are worthy. When it comes to the movies of David Lynch, well, I guess you could say, "....HE PUT HIS DISEASE IN ME." (Sorry.)

#3

The strange origin story of Mulholland Drive somehow eluded me for years. I only found out that this movie, Lynch's ninth, released one month after 9/11, was literally developed and shot with the intention to be a TV pilot for ABC. I found this out from the book, Room to Dream, by the way. The half autobiography/half biography of Lynch's life, which came out last year that I highly recommend. Only when it was clear that it wouldn't work for television did Lynch decide to re-cut and film additional footage to release as a feature. Though this was common knowledge, I managed to watch this many times over the years with no idea. When I rewatched it again recently with this information, I couldn't help but try to pick out what was filmed when in the timeline, and if I could see any inconsistencies... a true hellish way to watch a picture. I don't recommend it. But I digress..

From Blue Velvet on, each one of David Lynch's films (outside of The Straight Story) has had a longer running time. At close to 2½ hours, 2001's Mulholland Drive was his longest to date by a decent margin. It’s something of a misnomer that Lynch's films meander, as people mistake deliberateness for slowness or frivolity. Mulholland is filled with detours, inhabiting the film like micro movies in their own right. This also continues the loose Los Angeles trilogy (after Lost Highway and concluding with Inland Empire), which, at their heart, are films about coming to grips with who you really are. This might be the most direct lampooning of the film industry itself, but all three deal with being someone who you're really not.

Lynch has repeatedly stated his admiration for the 1950 film noir classic Sunset Blvd., another film about the film industry. In some respects, the naïveté of Naomi Watts' Betty is the counterpoint to Norma Desmond. In Mulholland Drive, her character says, "I'd rather be known as a great actress than a movie star. But, you know, sometimes people end up being both." Whereas, Norma Desmond portrayed by Gloria Swanson, has already reckoned with the true fate: "No one ever leaves a star. That's what makes one a star."

The arc of the characters—plural—Betty and Diane, and the power of Naomi Watts' performance as them both, is behind the wheel on Mulholland Drive. I found it odd that she took second billing in the opening credit crawl to co-star Justin Theroux. Was this because she was unknown to the masses at the time, or perhaps another piece of the puzzle to this movie's greater themes?

Mulholland Drive touches all the bases. At times bleak and bizarre. Sometimes bright and hopeful. In many ways, it's modeled after the next film on our countdown, as it can almost be read as two separate entities: converging, crossing and meeting together again? Well...

#2

No film surprised me more during my recent rewatch binge then 1997’s Lost Highway. David Lynch’s seventh film might be his most divisive, in so much as it failed to ignite the critical response that really any of his other films did upon their release.

While it’s industrial rock heavy soundtrack perhaps dates the film to its actual era of production more than any other Lynch picture, it also works as an anchor. Outside of Inland Empire, this is easily his most abstract and seemingly rambling work. It is grounded through style and feel. And it might just be his best singular statement.

Bull Pullman is a revelation as the jazz saxophonist Fred Madison. His chaotic emoting on the stage through his blaring instrument is but another counterpoint, this time to his subdued, confused off-stage demeanor. Who knew the goofy President from Independence Day could pull this off?

My critique of Patricia Arquette in many of her other roles is that she comes across as lifeless. Well, with her performance here as a dead-on-the-inside beauty, that mode has never played better. She's tremendous, acting the conduit in this strange play, this circuitous journey that is often described as a theatrical möbius strip, where our leading man has quite literally been replaced. 

And that brings up another interesting point: There doesn't seem to be a traditional main character in this film. Arquette in her dual role as Renee and Alice is functionally it, but she gives way to Pullman and Balthazar Getty's Pullman––a car mechanic named Pete––for long stretches, and its Lynch's most diplomatic film in terms of dolling out the heavy lifting in this regard.

And last but not least we have to talk about... Robert Blake.

In a sea of outstanding, intensely weird and occasionally unforgettable supporting characters throughout the Lynch filmography, Blake’s Mystery Man might just take the cake. That Robert Blake, more than likely an actual sociopath, instructed Lynch on his character’s look––which, let me remind you was such: Blake decided to cut his hair cut extremely short, parted in the middle, white Kabuki make-up on his face, and an all black outfit––might be the best example of the auteur trusting his instincts, and having it pay off completely. Only on screen for a handful of scenes, Blake, who would be arrested and acquitted for the murder of his wife just a couple years later, delivers a truly unsettling performance. In his final film role ever, he encompasses true evil more than Twin Peaks’ BOB or Frank Booth in Blue Velvet. The Mystery Man is the lurking, vile corruption of what’s good that Lynch has always been looking for.

But Lost Highway is not a “what’s beneath the surface” film like Blue Velvet or Twin Peaks or even Mulholland Drive are. The “point” of Lost Highway might just be that evil exists in plain view... and there’s nothing we can do about it. Gary Busey sometimes has to watch his only child disappear in a lightning bolt of spoiled meat and that’s that. When they reappear, broken and struggling, and falling down the same path until it happens again, well... that’s just life.

One of my favorite parts of the entire movie is a scene early on when a detective asks Fred Madison if he owns a videocamera. His wife, Renee Madison, portrayed by Patricia Arquette, responds, "no, Fred hates them." Fred responds, "I like to remember things my own way." The detective asks, "what do you mean by that?" Bill Pullman, as Fred Madison, replies, "how I remember them. Not exactly the way that they happened."

#1

(DISCLAIMER: I’m sorry if you think it’s cheating that I am including the expanded Twin Peaks Universe as one single entry on this list. I’m sorry if you think the only thing that should count is Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me because that is the only Twin Peaks thing that is actually a “feature film.” But also: SORRY NOT SORRY.

This is my list and I’m putting Twin Peaks at #1, specifically: all of Season 1 of the original TV show, plus the beginning of Season 2 (until the episode where we find out who killed Laura Palmer) and the Season 2 finale. Then of course Fire Walk with Me, and the 18 hour MOVIE that is Twin Peaks: The Return, or Twin Peaks Season 3, if you will (I prefer the former as it gives the masterpiece the gravitas it deserves).

If you put a gun to my head and I ABSOLUTELY had to only include Fire Walk with Me, I would probably drop it to #4 or #5 and slide everything else on the list up a spot.  End of DISCLAIMER.)

I was given the Twin Peaks Gold Box as a Christmas gift in 2007. The 10-DVD set had just come out and this was still an era when people treasured physical things like that. It was really important and meaningful to me, and I still own it despite no longer having a DVD player. Watching it for the first time was a treasure and a fond memory. The feeling I got when I heard that Badalamenti theme music start the show and everything in between...

...yes, even James in Season 2. I loved it all: the good, the bad and the ugly, the whole kitten caboodle. The original TV series is, obviously, far from flawless. Lynch stepped away for long stretches before going fully AWOL after it was revealed that Laura Palmer's father, portrayed by the great Ray Wise, is in fact her killer. After that, the show took a turn (to put it lightly).

But Lynch never gave up on the world. He returned to helm the stunning Season 2/de facto series finale. So much of the mythology that Fire Walk with Me and certainly The Return is built upon is ignited in that finale, fittingly titled "Beyond Life and Death." But really, the original series is most notable for merely existing at all. A precursor to the "golden age of television" that was right around the corner, there still hasn't been a network series remotely this daring. There's often much made, too much if you ask me, about the "cult of David Lynch." Critics of this “cult” say its followers are blind: The man can do no wrong. It's weird for weirdness' sake. And so on, they drone.  Now, I'm a fairly big David Lynch fan (no duh). But I've always tried to remain grounded in regards to this. He's not perfect. But he has made near-perfect art. And I'm a fan of ART first. A practicer of admiration? Maybe some distant second, third, fourth or beyond. I see his infiltration of the masses with Twin Peaks as one of his finest achievements in the arts. How many powerful people had to be convinced that the mainstream was ready for something like this. It's baffling. That, of course, they weren't ready is kind of besides the point. Someone has to poke the bear.

If Lynch had closed the books on Twin Peaks with Fire Walk with Me, his sixth film released in 1992, that would have been fine. It's a polarizing feature and was a fairly significant box office bomb, even for Lynch. Fire Walk with Me nonetheless retains an otherworldliness among the filmography. Given the subject matter––you know, just your average super-violent father-daughter incest rape thing––it's hard to argue this isn't his darkest tale by a wide degree. It's perhaps not ripe for repeated viewings. In fact, I did not rewatch it for this review, the only film of the ten. Why? Well, I had given it a replay back in 2017, just before the debut of Showtime's Twin Peaks: The Return. And, to be honest, I just wasn't ready to return to this madness quite so soon.

Only David Lynch could mold one of the loftier aspects/thematic devices/main characters (?) of the long-awaited follow-up to perhaps his most beloved work on one of the most random, seemingly meaningless, toss-away lines spoken in a bad Cajun accent in a cameo role by David Bowie. "We're not going to talk about Judy at all..." Until, that is, the time is right... Say... 25 years later?

I just recently began to rewatch The Return and I'd like to say thank you for this, David Lynch. This needs to be put into the discussion with his greatest work, if it's not already there. I can recall after various episodes of its original run (May to September 2017), feeling a sense of awe and wonderment and confusion and joy. I say to anyone that's curious that this is an 18-hour movie. David Lynch made an 18-hour movie when it wasn't certain if he'd make any more movies again.

It would be dumb, if not downright foolish, to try and hash out the plot-lines or gush over Kyle MacLachlan's performance in not two, but three distinct roles. Here, the duality of man has fractured yet again in these modern times. And when I got to that final two-hour finale, I found myself on a family vacation. So I carved out a block of time to watch it at the house we were renting on my laptop, alone, in the dark, as the rest of my family enjoyed a sunny day at the beach. I filed Kyle and Laura Dern's Diane into one more sketchy motel and then onto El Paso, Texas, of course, just as everyone had guessed, and then back to Twin Peaks, Washington, where the series ends on a question... Special Agent Dale Cooper turns to Laura Palmer outside her childhood home and asks, "what year is this?" She screams into the abyss and the lights in the home spark off and the screen explodes into darkness. For a series that was, ultimately, about the passing of time as much as it was about the origins of evil in the universe or anything else, it was a fitting end.

[summonerwithbedhair]

Reflections on Final Fantasy XV (Spoiler-Free)

First off, it seems Square Enix has just posted this feedback survey for those who have played or are thinking of playing Final Fantasy XV. And I took it, because a) any chance I get, I will spew endlessly about this game, b) there is definitely some room for improvement, and c) because of the aforementioned points, I’m rather obsessed with this game’s future.

Before I begin, I think it best you know the headspace I was in before I purchased and started playing Final Fantasy XV. First off, Final Fantasy X, being the first FF I ever played, is the standard to which I’ve held every subsequent FF I picked up. I’ve come to expect well-developed characters I actually care about, a beautiful world actually worth saving, and a story that intertwines the two, keeps me hooked all the way to the finish, complete with a major twist somewhere along the way, which can come out of the blue, but has to be decently explained before the conclusion of the game. I felt I had all of that in Final Fantasy X, and when I went back and played VII, VIII, and even IV, though they didn’t quite rock my world the way X did, I felt satisfied at their conclusion (albeit not wholly emotionally drained and bawling my eyes out for the rest of the day - on my 18th birthday, no less - holy teen angst, Batman).

After X I was eager for the next release I could play (living in the internet-less boonies at the time, no XI for me). All the reviews said XII was up to snuff, quite possibly the “best Final Fantasy EVER” (I’ve since learned that they say this every time a new main title comes out). For me, it wasn’t. The characters (other than Balthier) fell flat, the story was way too political, and I HATED the gambit fighting system (which seemed to force me to pre-program commands ahead of time, then just stare stupidly at the screen while all the action was going on, unless I frantically tried to intervene mid-battle when something happened that I hadn’t planned for, and my party was dying left and right). As a result I never finished that game, and I’m hesitant to even bother with Zodiac Age. It took me even longer to pick up FFXIII, and while the combat was vastly improved, again, the characters were boring at best and unbearable at worst, and I was never 100% clear as to what was going on, story-wise (though admittedly watching the cutscene movie on YouTube made things slightly more clear than mud). I did try FFXIII-2, and got almost all the way to the end (before boredom set in), and I do own Lightning Returns, though I’m certain it’s still wrapped up in plastic.

So after 13-odd years of going without a stellar main FF title in my life, I took a real chance on FFXV, getting the limited edition PS4 set with all the bells and whistles (except for a Seasons Pass, so... WTF Square Enix?). I was very leery of it. Even though I pre-ordered it, I didn’t start playing it until the middle of December, and initially I had huge doubts. A Final Fantasy based on reality? Reality sucks. This is going to suck. Then when I spent the first 10 or so minutes with no epic cutscene, just pushing a car to a garage with a (surprisingly good) remake of Stand by Me on the radio and meeting up with some horny male’s tits-and-ass ultimate fantasy girl to fix said car, with no other females in sight, I was legit worried.

That said, once the game gets going, and you’re wandering around near Hammerhead, getting used to the combat system and listening to the chocobros bug Noct about his upcoming nuptials, this completely juxtaposed world surprisingly starts to feel natural. Actually, I feel this ongoing banter between the four main characters was the saving grace of the whole game. Unlike with previous titles, all your three companions are out in the field with you (almost) the entire time, providing a running commentary on either the task at hand (e.g. trying to navigate a confusing dungeon), or, when you decide to wander around for no apparent reason, mentioning the scenery or the weather.

The major surprise for me was Prompto. Though I could sense from the start that beefcake Gladio and I wouldn’t have a lot in common, and therefore he was doomed NOT to be my favourite character, on the other hand, I was certain that I had found said favourite in resident brain, Ignis (though I confess I have a major bias for Brits, and Final Fantasy characters who wear glasses). Noctis was suitably appealing, given his good looks and weirdly charming distaste for his royal status (and “beeeeaaaannnnsss”). Prompto’s position as the goofy comic relief character was almost a guarantee to me that I would like him least (given my history with other FF characters who fill that role). Oddly enough, though, he seems to be one of the most genuine, lovable, and ultimately relatable Final Fantasy characters in the history of the franchise. While he provides most of the entertainment on the journey via near-breaks of the fourth wall (”It’s like a real-life RPG!”), he has his own demons, and his backstory (mostly explained in the Brotherhood anime) is arguably the most endearing and heartbreaking of the four companions. By the end of it all I was wishing I could give all of these guys a hug, because they needed one - and so did I, after the emotional rollercoaster this game put me through. I honestly can’t wait for the DLC so I can spend some more time with these guys - I really miss dungeon-trolling with them.

All that said, this game’s story - more than anything else - had some MAJOR flaws. First of all, the pacing is TERRIBLE. You spend the first 3/4 of the game in Noctis’ homeland of Lucis, and (if you’re like me and you have to do EVERYTHING you can before proceeding), about 3/4 of that time is spent sidequesting. The sidequests are a bit repetitive, though since each is accompanied by amusing chocobro commentary, I didn’t mind at all. The problem with this comes when you’re ready to move on to Chapter 9 and go to Altissia. By this point, the main story has ground completely to a halt, and it’s very difficult to remember what it was you were supposed to be doing. You have about a 10-minute refresher on the boat once you bite the bullet and make the ride to Altissia (from which you can’t actually return, save for via a gimmicky, ill-explained time-travelling trick), after which all hell breaks loose. From that point on, you’re completely railroaded (literally!) a la FFXIII until you find your way down the never-ending hallway from hell (literally!), past the confusing-as-hell-and-not-at-all-foreshadowed plot twists, and on to the final chapter of the story. Which is epic - but could have been up to par with its predecessors had FFXV writers actually taken the time and effort to explain everyone’s motivations properly.

The biggest ripoff of the entire game is Lady Lunafreya. Without giving too much away, she has a significant role in the game, but so little screentime that it’s very difficult to grasp her level of importance, nor why Noctis cares for her so much, even when he hasn’t seen her since they were kids (how do you keep up a long-distance relationship that sincere and enduring when you write one-liners in a book carried by dog-courier and you don’t even get the chance to phone each other, anyway?). Kingsglaive sheds a little more light on Lunafreya’s significance, but given the amount of attention she is paid in all the game trailers and promotional materials for FFXV, one would think she would factor in as more than just a catalyst, but alas, no. I cared more for the fate of the Regalia - the chocobro’s ride - than I did for Noctis’s lady-love. This lack of Lunafreya is something I hope the developers are able to rectify via DLC - even more so than a certain monotonous and notoriously frustrating chapter toward the end of the game which shall go unnamed here (it’s that evil).

To touch on gameplay quickly (which I’ve always valued slightly less than story), I was initially leery of a non-ATB battle system (given my history with XII), but I was pleasantly surprised by the level of enjoyment I got out of the FFXV battle system, particularly the rush of warp-striking. I will confess I hardly ever used my tech points on my allies’ techniques, and mostly barrelled headlong into battle, gulping down potions and elixirs like a junkie if I ran into trouble (though I did pull out the Armiger for boss fights). I didn’t feel the battle system was quite up to snuff with that of Crisis Core (which I guessed it might resemble), since button holding doesn’t have quite the same immediate appeal to me as button-mashing, and I could never quite figure out how to block/parry or dodge in time. Not to mention how crazy battles would get with a bunch of enemies in the fray (the camera frequently got stuck in the foliage). Still, the slick grace with which the chocobros tackle battles, banter and all, was much appreciated, even when I was swearing profusely at the camera to get the hell out of the bushes.

The other hidden touch that I never thought I would appreciate as much as I did was Prompto’s memorialization of the chocobros’ journey via his daily collection of photos. Some of these photos truly capture the beauty of world, others show off the guys’ personalities, and on occasion you’ll get a few magnificently awesome atrocities to save to your scrapbook (one photo I had was an alluring solid shade of pastel green, and NOTHING ELSE - though in Prompto’s defense, it was probably taken while he was writhing on the ground post-badly-aimed-lightning spell). When you get to the last portion of the game and come to realize the true significance of these photos, it’s just another level of loss you experience as the game comes to an end.

In conclusion, despite its flaws, I loved this game. Its story doesn’t have the staying power of VII’s, VIII’s or X’s, and it does have several noticeable flaws, but the sheer presence, depth and likability of the four main characters work wonders making up for these problems. I haven’t become as attached to a set of video game companions since finishing Mass Effect 3, and unlike that game at least, Final Fantasy XV has a satisfactorily fulfilling ending, leaving you with a deep sense of loss when it comes to the end and you must take your leave of it. Too much is never enough - I know Final Fantasy XV is going to stay close to my heart for the rest of my life.

[scifimagpie]

Bad, Broken, and a Seed of Hope: How Dark Speculative Fiction Works

After I'd spoken to a client yesterday, I found myself binge-watching (and listening) to a number of short video essays about Greek and Roman history, and a bit of Egyptian history, on Youtube. The purpose was to help research and enhance our Dungeons and Dragons campaign's storyline and setting - which I should probably write about at some point - but it yielded a most unexpected fruit.

Last night, I found myself lost in a very enjoyable dream with a cohesive and interesting plot; as soon as I woke up, I did as I sometimes do after such a dream, and took notes as best I could, in hopes of capturing the story. But the story's setting was decidedly post-apocalyptic - not Greco-Roman in the least, at least not on the surface.

How did the one result from another? Well, I do have a developmental and line-edit of a post-apocalyptic book on the queue right now - a third installment in the superb and bold (and inclusive!) Eupocalypse series by Peri Worrell. (Other platforms to snag books can be found on a drop-down menu on the book's GoodReads page, so I'm including those henceforth.) Dealing with a potential future in which all plastics and petroleum products suddenly break down, the series is an enjoyable, elegantly written, and ultimately hopeful story about a tremendous, world-shattering catastrophe - as well as a cautionary tale about our reliance on plastics and petroleum products.

In my free time, I have been working through The Odyssey at a pace slightly slower than continental drift, but I recently read Emily St. Mandel's Station Eleven, and I'm currently reading Koko Takes a Holiday by Kieran Shea, a trashy but incisive work of dystopian cyberpunk (which may, admittedly, be a redundant phrase, as cyberpunk is seldom cheerful).

Now - how does all this fit together?

Well, here's the key - civilizations on Earth have gone through phases of development, growth and expansion, internal struggle, and ultimately, either collapse or transition. It happened for the august and remarkable Egyptians; it happened for the Greeks, and it happened to the Romans. Yet all of those peoples persist to this day, and while their populations have changed or interacted with invading or arriving forces, their cultures, ultimately, are not dead.

We have the benefit of thousands of years of history as a mirror, and perhaps it is unsurprising that we cannot but ask if we are participating in the same patterns. The answer is "probably yes, somehow" - but the conclusion is decidedly hopeful nonetheless.

The way we run through potential scenarios and hypothetical risks (not unlike the brain while we sleep at night, busily creating its illustrative dreams from scraps of our experiences) is through storytelling and fiction.

Surprise! I'm a writer, not just an editor

As long-time readers may know, and as newer readers may not be aware, I myself write primarily in two genres - dystopian fiction and post-apocalyptic fiction, both of which fall into the broader categories of science fiction and speculative fiction in general.

Where speculative fiction broadly encompasses all fiction a) including at least one element changing the setting or reality from our own and b) subsequently asking, "What if?", its subset science fiction accomplishes these aims primarily by taking inspiration from biology, climatology and the earth sciences, technology, astronomy, psychology, and medicine. Magical, non-Earthly, or transhuman elements may also sneak in there. Fantasy does so by pulling both from history and (arguably) from non-scientific or trans-scientific ideas, usually based on magic (which is about going beyond the boundaries and limits of science).

But how do dystopias and post-apocalyptic fiction actually work? How do we define them exactly? A fair bit of digital ink has been expended on this topic, but I think it comes down to two very specific iterations of the question.

The question is, "What if everything changed?" In the case of a dystopian book, the question is, "What if everything got worse?" In the case of apocalyptic fiction, it's "What if everything broke?", and in the case of post-apocalyptic fiction, it's, "What do we do after everything breaks down?"

How these questions are answered, and how they change in specific instances - for the much maligned YA romances set in post-apoc or dystopian worlds, the question is, "How do we love after everything breaks/when the worst possible thing happens?"

But the more I thought about dystopian and post-apoc stories in broad strokes, the more I came to a conclusion that surprised me: dystopian books, even the famously grim 1984 by George Orwell, always posit that change is possible. So in a sense, what the two genres have in common  - apart from literally meaning "bad world" and being about "a broken world" respectively - is that they both aim to answer, "and now, what do we do next?"

"It's not for you to know, but for you to weep and wonder, when the death of your civilization precedes you."

To cope with the loss of one's civilization is an almost unimaginable task, but that is what these types of fiction set out to do - and in the process, to ask, "How will we rebuild, and what will we create?"

And from that, as grim as it may seem, we can look to history and feel a sense of hope. As much as Percy Shelly wrote about Ramses in "Ozymandias" as a king's statue broken and abandoned in the desert, we still know and speak his name to this day. We know he was an exceptional and fecund king who brought peace to the Nile kingdoms and built great and beautiful monuments that have outlasted even Time itself. And we are learning more each year about our ancestors. So as much as the Egyptian civilization - which lasted five thousand years and was so old that Cleopatra lived closer to the discovery of flight and space flight than to the building of the pyramids - has fallen to ruin and dust and the sands of time, it's also fine.

We remember. We speak the names of the fallen. And as Terry Pratchett, author of the magnificent Discworld series put it,

“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”

Even if the worst possible things happen, these dark and dire settings are about what we remember, and ultimately, what we rebuild. Post-apocalyptic and dystopian books aren't about the end of the world - they're about a disruption in civilizations and our worlds, and how we carry on and return to greatness.

***

Michelle Browne is a sci fi/fantasy writer. She lives in Lethbridge, AB with her partners-in-crime and their cat. Her days revolve around freelance editing, knitting, jewelry, and nightmares, as well as social justice issues. She is currently working on the next books in her series, other people's manuscripts, and drinking as much tea as humanly possible. Find her all over the internet: The mailing list * Amazon * Medium * Twitter * Instagram * Facebook * Tumblr * OG Blog