#quo film review era. okay that's that.

[groochi-gang]

The Theory of Everything is great because it’s 1) not ableist and handles the textures of Stephen Hawking and his relationships really well, 2) Jane is a BAMF, and 3) even though I have my complaints on incongruencies, it’s overall very good and I’m glad it exists. 

1) It’s not ableist because it doesn’t take narrative control away from Stephen to focus more on healthy and able-bodied characters, it treats him realistically and with respect. His performance was so good that when Stephen saw it, he said that at times he thought he was looking at himself instead of an actor, and that he was deeply moved. So, the performance was definitely in the way he wanted. Stephen’s performance is not problematic and I respect that.  Also, it’s clear that Stephen was autistic but some people aren’t ready for that conversation. A disabled autistic person being treated with respect is very cool. Him being perceived as rude, him having trouble socializing (like interjections without elegance and being unable to dance (bad at social events and only actually danced when they were alone in a quiet environment) and being an introvert), his total honesty and lack of filter, plus he’s commonly seen as an “eccentric” astrophysicist, and “eccentric” is a label typically used on autistic people. 

You’re more likely to have autism if someone else in your family has it, so considering how one of his grandsons is diagnosed with autism, it’s fair to imagine that Stephen himself had it and passed it on to him.

2) Jane was a giving and respectful person, who always put others before herself. Contextually, this isn’t toxic, and I’m glad she did her best with keeping him safe and prioritizing him while being in touch with herself, and juggling all her responsibilities. Of course, she’s not as fleshed as Stephen and that’s a shame for her, but overall I think she was given a good performance. The grieving of Stephen choosing Elaine over her was very classy and I think was handled well, you can really tell that Jane and Stephen were in love, but with a shift of priorities. 

3) The incongruencies include Isaak Khalatnikov for some reason making an appearance (which .. I don’t think literally happened? And the irony about how Stephen protested against nuclear weapons and then choosing one of the first soviet nuke bomb creators is very weird); Stephen having a roommate named Brian, who was a composite character who represented all of Stephen’s friends at Cambridge, who didn’t literally exist- Stephen dormed alone; Jane and Stephen going to the same uni despite that literally not being the case (he went to Cambridge and she went to London); Jane not being seen with any friends or parenting the children, or shown the hassles of traveling with Stephen; Elaine being aged-up and a renowned nurse, when in actuality she was only 19 and a noob- also: in the movie he asked for tea when really he asked if when knew how to make poached eggs. 

At some point I was like damn the the contempt shown to the audience that assumes they won’t research these things is very annoying lol.

I do think the movie is obsessed with romantic tropes, so there is indeed a surface of cliches and unrealism, but it does delve deeper into the textures of his relationships. The main focus is on him and I like that, even if others don’t. As someone who’s a softy, like a total romantic, I genuinely enjoyed myself.  

I’m glad it didn’t do anything crazy like show sex scenes, and did have some semblance of respect for boundaries. Regardless, some of Stephen’s relatives boycotted the movie saying that it was a gross invasion of tough times. 

I don’t expect anyone to see this lol but here’s the writers not forgetting that Stephen’s a socialist: 

:D

[miraakhan]

10 reasons why Thugs of Hindostan failed

This is not a film review. This is a critique of all the unwarranted criticism Thugs has garnered, which has been so extreme that part of me wonders if it’s all somewhat premeditated. But conspiracy theories aside, nothing evokes such vitriolic more than challenging the Indian people’s implicit prejudices. Which ones? Well, where do I even start. Here are just the top 10 prejudices reasons why this perfectly acceptable movie is getting unacceptable levels of hate...

1.       Because Indians are racists

How many Pirates of the Caribbean movies did they make again? And how many of them flopped at the Indian box office? I assure you, nobody was complaining about ‘illogical’ stuff in those movies. Why, because those movies were made by white and not brown people? Mind you the same junta will go watch Guy Ritchie’s Robin Hood this weekend and come out all praise for its fantastical, logic-defying action sequences. But since he’s a gora, well.. as Khudabaksh Jahazi says – “Ek Hindustani ka sabse bada dushman ek Hindustani hi hota hai.” 

2.       Because Indians are sexists

There are two female protagonists in the movie. And needless to say that is just two too many for the patriarchal junta of India. How dare they have a female character who is not a damsel in distress, but instead is a terrific archer and kicks total ass?!? To top that, how dare they have the other one be a prostitute with clear agency over her body, a rebellious mind of her own, and wield actual power over her male patrons? Nope, that’s just too much for desi pricks to handle, isn’t it? Also, given Aamir’s very vocal support of the #MeToo movement in India, I won’t be surprised if the social media attack on the movie was an orchestrated effort to hurt him for it.

3.       Because Indians are ageists

This is a country that clearly still idolizes youth and still hasn’t seen life expectancy go up like in the developed world. So how ridiculous to have a septuagenarian play one of the leading heroes, isn’t it?!? How utterly unbelievable to have said man look his exact age too, maybe even older. Mind you this is the country that happily sits through heavy-duty special effects just to have Rajni in a movie look half his age, because who the hell would ever come to theaters to watch Rajni the way he truly looks like now? 

4.       Because Indians are casteists

I hadn’t thought of this myself until an article in the Indian Express pointed it out. Firangi Malhar – Aamir’s character is clearly what one would call a ‘low-born’ hailing from an oppressed social and economic background. But that simply won’t do, will it? Did the movie makers really expect Indians to root for a… a Dalit? How dare they force us to confront our deep-rooted casteist prejudices like that, when all we want to do is enjoy a movie on a long weekend?

5.       Because Indians are religious bigots

And let’s not forget the other sacrilegious decision the movie makers now live to regret… to have three out of the four main protagonists be Muslim?! Oh my God. Literally. Keep in mind who this country voted into power five years ago and probably will again next year – a Hindu fundamentalist wannabe-dictator with a track record of supporting communalist elements in his own party. Here’s what’s funnier but also sad: the villains are more secular than the audiences of this movie. The British are actually celebrating Dussehra, and even if it’s nothing more than cultural appropriation, it’s still more religiously tolerant than Indians these days. 

6.       Because Indians are self-righteous hypocrites

The self-righteousness dripping from some of the reviews I read online is both laughable and infuriating. What about the word “Thugs” did these apparently literate guys not understand? Protagonists can be regular people too you know, and regular people are not perfect. The heroes in this story aren’t trying to be heroes, nor do they claim to want anything more than their very deeply personal objectives – revenge, resolving internalized guilt etc. In fact, the only person who ends up risking everything without any personal agenda, is Suraiyya Jaan. But does the desi audience appreciate the multidimensional complexities of these very human characters? Noooo. In a period movie set during the colonial era, desi heroes better be a sati savitri, or sata savitra, or they might as well be villains.

 7.       Because Indians are stereotypers

So if the Indian audience is to be believed, stereotyping morons that they are, Aamir Khan should only do movies with a social message in them and nothing else. He’s an actor for god’s sake, why can’t he just do a movie for the sheer entertainment value of it? He has repeatedly said so in his interviews, to the very same media people who now completely choose to ignore his pleas to just let him be an artist. The fact that he is socially responsible is a huge bonus that we should all be bloody grateful for, not use it to put him in a box that restricts his creative instincts. (And if some of you are now arguing that I’m doing the same thing, stereotyping all Indians as the same, well I’m sorry. I know I’m doing it, but at least now you know how it feels.)

8.       Because Indians are ungrateful

How quickly everyone seems to have forgotten the immense contributions Aamir and Mr. Bachchan have made to Bollywood. And this isn’t unique to the film industry. Indians are just as ungrateful to their sports idols, refusing to acknowledge that sportspeople, like actors, are only human. Everyone is bound to have bad days. So what if Yuvi doesn’t perform today, why let it erase the memory of the six sixes he hit in Durban ten years ago? How is it okay to insult and deride this man who is trying his best? It’s especially hurtful when it happens to Aamir because he’s been incredibly selfless in his attempts to improve quality of life in India. Sadly, Aamir, this society does not appreciate, let alone be grateful for, your activism, or your artistry.

9.       Because Indians are group-thinking morons

I don’t know if this is particularly true for desis or just a human trait in general. But it’s particularly hilarious to see it play out on social media. The lack of individual thought is sorely evident in all the reviews and trolls I read online. Also, newsflash, if all you do is retweet, reblog, and forward, you might as well be a mindless bot spreading fake news but adding no value to the discourse whatsoever. If you have a contrarian opinion (like maybe you actually liked the movie) but are too afraid to share it, why have a social media page at all? And for God’s sake, if you never saw the movie, shut the fuck up.

10.   Because Indians are trolls

Years of repression is likely responsible for this surge in social media trolling in India, but come on, you can only understand and excuse this behavior for so long. These trolls seem to have taken special interest in bringing down our biggest heroes and mind you, Aamir truly is a hero in real life – the kind we sorely need. And yet, for the very same reasons, he seems to have a target on his back, especially on the internet where cowards attack him while hiding behind anonymity. No matter what their agenda (jealousy, SRK stans, an episode of SMJ hit too close to home), they seem intent on holding Aamir personally responsible for shortcomings of the movie. I’ll admit Thugs isn’t perfect but none of its faults are the actors’ fault. Either way, I don’t think they’re doing it mindlessly. Like I said before, I strongly suspect an orchestrated conspiracy to bring the movie down. Why? Well, take your pick. Aamir has definitely pissed off a lot of people who want to keep the status quo. 

[hellzyeahthewebwieldingavenger]

I want to use Star Wars to discuss my feelings on modern Spider-Man

SPOILERS for the Last Jedi coming up.

 Okay so anyone who’s been following me for a while should be aware I hate Slott’s run and modern Spider-Man in general (a few exceptions not withstanding).

 Often times I’ve heard my criticisms and complaints shot down or countered (even with people who’s preferences for Spidey echo my own) with the argument that I am biased in favour of the type of Spider-Man status quo I  grew up with and that now I’m older I just don’t like the new stuff and am letting my biases taint that.

 Obviously this most obviously manifests in the form of ‘you just don’t like it because Spider-Man isn’t married anymore’. Similarly I hear comments like “You only like Renew Your Vows BECAUSE Spider-Man is married in it’.

 Here is the thing. Ever since 2006 or so I’ve made a very conscious effort to try and draw lines of distinction between what I critically evaluate and what I simply like or dislike.

 As I define it, liking and disliking something is involuntary. It’s sit back consume a story and let yourself feel about it however you are going to feel about it. It’s something you can’t really help or control.

 Critical analysis is a little different because you are really looking for points of praise or condemnation. That’s you looking at a story and really asking what it is trying to do and how well it succeeds at doing that whilst being aware of what you personally enjoy and do not enjoy but trying to rise above that.

 One is subjective and the other is trying to be as objective as possible.

  I place zero stock in the lazy post-modern notion that the latter is beyond all possibility and does not exist. Writing is a craft and human beings are biologically geared to tell and consume stories. It literally chemically stimulates us. It’s why jokes work. Jokes with no set up or pay off do not work specifically because the human mind is geared towards that construction. Similarly it is the reason so much of human culture relies upon a rhythm involving the number three. For whatever reason that number and rhythm just resonates with us. So yeah, objectively good and objectively bad storytelling are a thing although it’s not a one size fits all thing. Depending upon the genre or the intentions of the story the criteria for its success or failure can change. A romantic comedy and an action thriller don’t have identical criteria for what makes a good story within those genres.

 Anyway, in a sense I always have 2 opinions on any given story I consume. One opinion on how good it was and one opinion on whether I personally enjoyed it and I do my utmost to NOT conflate the two. Of course there are happy instances where my enjoyment is in line with something being good or stems from the fact that it is good.

 Star Wars is always my main example to demonstrate this.

 From a critical point of view I can write you long essays on why A New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back are such powerful movies that succeed at what they are trying to do and why Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones are such bad examples of storytelling and filmmaking.

 I can tell you why Revenge of the Sith from a storytelling/filmmaking point of view has a lot of problems that means at the end of the day it isn’t really a good movie, just better than it’s predecessor prequels.

 However I can also tell you from the bottom of my heart that Revenge of the Sith is unquestionably my absolute favourite Star Wars movie, although I could only offer speculation as to why that is. For whatever reason I just adore that film more than all the other SW films even though I fully recognize it’s flaws for the most part and agree it’s inferior to the original trilogy.

 And I do this with Spider-Man too.

 The Death of Jean DeWolff from a strictly storytelling (not social/political POV though) is utterly fantastic whilst Spider-Man Torment is garbage. But I am indifferent to the former whilst I adore the latter, likely due to nostalgia.

 I have nostalgia for Spider-Man Torment but I have taken enough of a step back to really look at it and recognize it as mostly a mess by an artist with no experience writing trying to put out 5 issues worth of what he thinks would be kewl.

 I do not think it’s good. I just like it is all.

 So then we come to the modern era of Spider-Man and Star Wars and I’ve noticed more than a few similarities between the latest movie and the last several years of Spidey comics.

 Namely that there is a clear division within the audience, with the majority displeased with the content but nevertheless often drowned out and dismissed by it’s protractors, chiefly int he form of professional critics.

 Now in my view, most professional film critics are much more qualified to do their jobs than most ‘professional’ comic book critics. I’m of the opinion most film critics frankly forget that part of their jobs is to actually try and look at the film a bit more objectively than everyone else as opposed to just throwing out their own preferences for or against it and passing it off as coming from an enlightened place. But nevertheless I believe in their analytical abilities more than your average comic book reviewer on places like CBR who I thoroughly disbelieve have any really noteworthy experience or qualifications to analyse literature at all.

 To make matters worse, whilst I’m uncertain if this is an issue within film criticism as well, comic book criticism has the huge problem of having a vested financial interest in being supportive of the companies output and agenda no matter what. When the EIC of Marvel has/had a regular column on CBR’s website you should be able to tell they’re not going to be honest or accurate in their evaluation of Marvel’s output. This is why for any faults you can come up with about it, smaller fan driven sites are usually going to be more honest and even handed with their reviews of titles.

 Film criticism isn’t like that in my view and if a film sucks or a critic doesn’t like it is more likely than not that the film is going to get slated.

 The flipside to this is when a film that is aggressively and obviously bad gets praise and, as has been explained by other people more learned than me, this has a lot to do with critics living in a bubble due to their job. A film that is bad but subverts expectations is likely to hit more with critics than general audiences because critics see so many films that the tropes, formula and usual tricks become stale to them as they grow more desensitized to them. I love Disney movies but make me watch Snow White, Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty and a few other movies like that in one day and I’m likely going to love something subversive among their canon much more.

 This is a massive component to the Last Jedi’s generally favourable place among many professional critics. It very deliberately subverts expectations and critics reacted positively to that because it was so refreshing for them. Refreshing to the point where they were willing apparently to forgive the films numerous and serious problems. Perhaps the most serious of which was its complete and utter betrayal of the core defining philosophies of the Star Wars films as a whole and of one of it’s most central figures, Luke Skywalker.

 Closely tied into this is the fact that whilst professional critics have probably seen other Star Wars movies, probably liking at least A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back, statistically it’s unlikely that many of them, let alone anything close to a majority are fans to the point where they really spend any amount of time thinking about the movies after throwing out their reviews for them.

 I regard anyone with any interest in a story they’ve consumed to be a fan of said story but there are degrees of fandom. Whilst the 5 year old who just got done seeing A New Hope is 100% a fan it is foolish to argue they are fan to the degree as the 20 year old who has seen all the movies, written essays about them, dived into the expanded spin-off material and otherwise thought a lot about the franchise. Which isn’t saying older fans are MORE fans of something than younger ones.

 Case in point. Joe Quesada wrote a Spider-Man story that totally betrays the character and the defining philosophy of the series despite being a fan for longer than a sizable chunk of it’s readership.

 My point is the majority of Star Wars fans DON’T like Last Jedi precisely because being blunt about it, they think about Star Wars more than the average critic and actually know much more about it.

 They also see the film on two levels and prioritize both whilst critics only look at it on one of those levels, or at least prioritize that level above the other. Those levels being the film as an entity unto itself as well as part of a larger story.

 Film critics look at Last Jedi as a film unto itself more than they look at it as a sequel to the Force Awakens and apparently pay little mind to its place within the soon to be 9 film saga. For them the here and the now is absolutely the most or only important thing whereas for fans the here and now is 100% important but the past movies and broader universe is equally important.

 Now of course it is not JUST film critics who’ve praised Last Jedi. Non-professionals, including some fans (casual or otherwise) have as well. But in my observations thus far it is interesting to note that most people of this group are either rather young or decidedly older.

 In other words non-professional proponents of the Last Jedi are either people for whom the experience is rather formative in their history and relationship with Star Wars or people who statistically are much more likely to be cynical and jaded about...well most things in like actually.

 Which makes sense because for the former group they’re more likely to be impressionable and lack developed critical evaluation skills and are just hyped about seeing a rousing special effects driven action flick on the big screen. Meanwhile for the latter group the film’s cynicism likely speaked to them and was offering something new in a film franchise where they’ve believed they’ve seen all they can. Plus even if they are older that doesn’t mean they’re particularly good about analysis and can therefore not see how the film is in fact rather derivative in various ways.

  And as I said for these proponents of the movie the loud cries of defiance over the Last Jedi from the majority (and yes, it is the majority) of Star Wars fandom the primary tactic against detractors is to delegitimize their complaints. Mainly through deriding them for being too in love with nostalgia or recognizing that things need to ‘change’ and ‘be new’.

 This is all eerily echoes countless examples I’ve witnessed within Spider-Man fandom.

 ·         Professional critics not actually that familiar with the franchise heaping praise upon the latest issues mostly because it’s new to them and because they prioritize the quality of the latest content over the bigger picture (a bigger picture they aren’t necessarily invested enough in to properly criticise the latest work).

 ·         Newer fans who honestly don’t know enough about the franchise to see the problems in the latest material that is formative to their relationship with it.

 ·         Older fans who’re jaded and therefore supportive of taking the franchise in ‘new’ directions, even if those directions aren’t actually that new at all and overall damaging.

 ·         Fans basically tricked into seeing something flashy and ‘cool’ and generally a novelty as representing legitimate quality.

 ·         Delegitimizing the majority of fans who’re detractors of the material on the grounds that nostalgia is blinding them.

 Just using Slott’s run as a microcosm of this (because he is not the be all and end all of modern Spider-Man) we can see people fall all over his stories for being ‘new and fresh’ because they’re so used to what they perceive as the ‘standard’ Spider-Man.

 Street level, every man, limited gadgets, Bugle cast, down to Earth stories etc.

 So when Spidey is suddenly Doc Ock, or a tech billionaire, or dating Mockingbird it seems like something innovative when it isn’t.

 It’s a selling out and throwing away of the core values of the character and series just like Last Jedi was.

 You can be new and innovative whilst still respecting those.

 And it is stories like the ones I grew up on, the ones that these pro-Slott/modern Spidey fans use to attack fans like me, that prove that.

 Spider-Man returning to college. Harry Osborn dying. Peter becoming a teacher. The rise of Venom. Spider-Man marrying Mary.

 This mostly respect the core values of the franchise whilst still innovate something new that can challenge the character(s).

 They aren’t novelty for the sake of it and they are much more subtle than the flash nonsense Slott throws out.

 Which brings me to the fundamental lack of self-awareness and analysis of the ‘you just don’t like it because it’s not what you grew up on’ bullshit defenders of modern Spidey throw out.

 It’s a convenient argument to shut down all debate because it seemingly applies to everyone equally. You are only praising to criticising this thing because it is in line or out of line with the version of the series from when YOU were growing up. So your words mean nothing you are being a biased idiot, there is nothing wrong with this new stuff.

 But people are rather hypocritical about that now aren’t they.

 Because it’s blatantly obvious, rightly or wrongly, that there is a clear cut narrative at play within Marvel and within fandom in support of Marvel’s stance.

 Stan Lee/Ditko era Spider-Man when he was in high school is sacred, post high school Spider-Man is less sacred but still pretty sacred (especially the MP Trilogy and MJ’s introduction). Roger Stern Spider-Man was good. Death of Gwen Stacy is good. The marriage was bad. Everything in the 90s was bad. Everything else doesn’t matter at all except for everything post 2008 which has all been good.

 When you have multiple people within Marvel talking about how Spider-Man is defined by youth and the marriage was a mistake because of that and the Ditko run (especially when he was in high school) gets referenced more than literally anything else that isn’t the MP trilogy or Gwen Stacy’s death.

 So the ‘your childhood is blinding you’ argument already has a few cracks in it doesn’t it. It’s clear that there IS a quality judgement being made about different parts of the franchise by Marvel itself. Which is particularly galling because it’s blatant that post-OMD Spider-Man is essentially a gigantic nostalgia trip for the creators involved to recreating THEIR childhoods in direct reaction AGAINST the ‘wrong’ directions Spider-Man went in after whatever period they stopped considering the story legitimate.

 And in addition to that hypocrisy fans and creators will lambast whoever points this out and accuse them of doing the same thing if they do not consider post-OMD Spider-Man ‘legitimate’.

 But there is the rub isn’t it.

 There are genuinely incredibly strong valid reasons for NOT considering post-OMD Spider-Man legitimate in the grand scheme of the series much as there are totally valid reasons for not considering Last Jedi legitimate or a selling out on Star Wars’ core values and philosophies.

  The big one is that One More Day literally created a new alternate timeline meaning there are two distinct versions of the characters in play, a clearer watershed line in the franchise than anything else in it’s history. But even beyond that post-OMD Spider-Man has time and time again aggressively gone against the defined characterization and established intentions and philosophies of the Spider-Man franchise as a whole. I’ve already spoken about stuff in Slott’s run, but even the notion of Spider-Man as a representation of youth is anathema to what happened in Stan Lee and Steve Ditko’s run on the character and the broader character arc for Peter Parker across the decades. In particular his becoming married as this is clearly in line with aspect of the Stan Lee run.

 Marriage is a responsibility and responsibility is the entire point of Spider-Man’s first ever appearance. Responsibility to family is clearly conveyed as a major priority within the Lee/Ditko/Romita run as Spider-Man is chiefly motivated by how he failed his father figure and strives to do right in supporting his mother. Later he tries to support Gwen Stacy whom he has ambitions to marry and to whom Lee originally intended him to wed. Even Mary Jane is first mentioned within the context of her becoming Peter’s wife someday. And of course his big three villains within the Lee run are in various ways tied into family dynamics. Doctor Octopus is associated with Aunt May. Norman Osborn is the father of Peter’s peer and friend Harry and their father/son dynamic is key to both characters. J. Jonah Jameson is introduced to us as admonishing Spider-Man in support of his own son John Jameson, the first person Spider-man ever saved as a superhero.

 The notion that finding a Spider-Man story or run that undercuts and sells out on the Spider Marriage to be bad merely because you have childhood nostalgia for it is ridiculous because the Spider Marriage itself is very strongly tied into the core philosophies of the series.

 It’s just as stupid as admonishing someone for being blinded by nostalgia for Return of the Jedi if they found Luke Skywalker’s characterization and direction in Last Jedi to be wrong and anathema to the series.

 In summary:

 No, this stuff isn’t strictly subjective.

 Yes people can be blinded by nostalgia.

 But no, that doesn’t mean they’re beyond capable of seeing things as what they are.

 Yes, their nostalgia CAN be in line with the objective reality of a piece of storytelling.

 Fact is that on a story telling level Last Jedi AND post-OMD Spider-Man have precious little redeeming value.

 Both sell out the characters and core philosophies of the franchises for the sake of shock and novelty and are therefore objectively bad examples of storytelling.

[gameridernews]

Ex-Aid review: Choh Superhero Taisen

Ex-Aid's spring movie, from a distance, just looked like the familiar Rider/Sentai crossover format doing its usual thing. But recently, a producer at Toei has confirmed that they will no longer be doing crossover movies in the spring, meaning that Ex-Aid - turns out - has given us our final "so-called spring movie" experience.

In this world where weird and questionably written crossovers may cease to exist, let's see if it at least went out with something akin to a bang. 

Choh Superhero Taisen is a bit of a silly name. I mean, it implies this is a SUPER version of the usual spring movie crossover, but to be a little more accurate, this movie is... kind of like a better version of the first couple swings they took at the Rider VS Sentai angle.

To recap, we got a Fourze-era crossover that did not really give a good first impression, then a Wizard-era crossover I can't remember a single thing about except Space Shocker. Gaim and Drive went the route of Rider VS Rider, both in kinda interesting but shaky executions, and Ghost had a focus on the original Kamen Rider making a modern day appearance.

Oh and just to quickly establish the timeline here, Maximum Gamer premiered in the show and Kuroto got what he deserved. Bit of a shame since I’m sure he’d have a lot to say about the kid in this movie. Anyway, let's begin!

The movies opens up in Korea being attacked by the game Xevious. The Kyurangers send all of their attack stock footage at the invaders, which you would think the Cyber Rescue Center would know about but they are instead dealing with a strange patient who apparently has a tail. Oh hey, Zyuoh Tiger!

The way the movie plays out beyond this point is really weird. It feels like when Inoue wrote the OOO portion of Movie Taisen Core - things are oddly slow and somber for a series known for being bright and peppy. 

It’s uncanny. Hiro literally proclaims he will operate on Zyuoh Tiger even if she's an animal and no one bats an eye at that comment. That’s how weird it is. And when they see the Kyuranger mech land in the middle of the city, it’s treated as a quiet ominous moment like something bad is about to go down.

Okay, to be fair, that part is ominous because the Kyurangers are here for Poppy since they think this video game character is linked to other video games attacking reality - I guess since they have a lot of research at their disposal, because they know what Bugsters are!

But just as the Ex-Aid VS Kyuranger stuff begins, it quickly ends once Shishi Red... decides Kamen Riders are heroes because there's a game called Choh Superhero Taisen that Riders and Rangers are both part of. I mean, he's not wrong?

So yeah, that's a thing! Choh Superhero Taisen is a game that’s invaded this world and challenges Ex-Aid. Among its returning Riders/Rangers is an alternate version of Hiro, transforming into Kamen Rider True Brave. 

I was VERY interested in learning the backstory of this character - is it an alternate universe thing, or what? Turns out, he's a video game character... and for story reasons, it’s a Hiro who took a different path in life. 

It sorta makes sense, I promise.

Things get interesting once Ex-Aid and Poppy enter the world of Choh Superhero Taisen, which is more or less a bunch of Toei's usual filming locations but with returning actors accompanying them!

The first being Kyoryu Gold from Kyoryuger, Utsusemimaru - or Utchy for short. I watched at least half of Kyoryuger so I can appreciate his cameo. He does his Brave Daze thing and he gets some good action. 

More importantly, you can't have a bunch of returning actors without Toei proving they can somehow keep getting all of the Imagin from Den-O. And I can understand someone being sick of them by now, even if you were a fan before, but the scene where Ex-Aid has to pick his team makes me smile. Although... considering ToQGer's premise, should Urataros really be flirting with one of the girls? 

MOVING SWIFTLY ALONG, Emu chooses a "Gorider" team, with Momotaros being Pink - it's a pun. Ex-Aid uses Robot Action Gamer to cheat his way into the Red slot, which I kinda wish someone called him out on.

Ao Ninger makes an easy return as Blue, providing a nice callback to Ninninger as he basically takes charge and tell's Emu to pick his master, Magi Yellow, who taught him magic - but ends up calling Beet Buster from Go-Busters instead, because same actor. That was cute.

Lastly, filling out the team’s Green slot, the out-of-nowhere return of Zolda from Ryuki! I... y'know, it's best they didn't address his cancer since this is supposed to be the "game world" Zolda. Instead, they lean into his lawyer-ness - it felt very appropriate for him to dismiss the Gorider thing and only take part if they signed a contract. I also enjoy how he keeps referring to Momotaros as Goro-chan. It’s cute. I don’t have the heart to tell him Goro is in Zawame. 

With a team decided upon, this starts to feel like an entirely different movie with Riders VS Rangers. My only gripe here was I could've used at least one more fight. You get a nice tournament chart that shows you all of the different fights happening offscreen, and to be quite honest I needed to see the Dandy team in action.

Right, so I should talk about the kid now. There's a patient Hiro was responsible for, who made the Choh Superhero Taisen game and disappeared afterwards. This is where things get interesting because Hiro has this logic of "I won't perform surgery on a patient unless they want it", which was used well in the show. Hiro presented the kid a chance to be cured, and he said no, so Hiro reluctantly accepted the kid’s choice. 

Essentially, Alternate Hiro was made in this kid's game world as a personification of Hiro's guilt, and acts as his aide. It kind of works. But it kind of doesn't? Which is really a good way to describe spring movies as a whole. 

However, I dig the alternate Hiro in concept. He isn't an evil version of the character like you'd expect - he has some sense of justice to him, he's protecting this kid after all, it's just that he's wrong in the eyes of the actual Hiro because it conflicts with his own ethics. This may be the best part of the movie, or at least the part with the most depth.

Oh right, so Ex-Aid and the others on his team become Kamen Sentai Gorider... which is a combination of the original Sentai and the original Kamen Rider... and it's about out of place as it sounds. 

It feels right at home with all this chaos, I guess. But I don't have much to say about it beyond that. I still gotta watch the actual Gorider special.

Not a shocker for something to feel out of place in one of these movies. You know what’s also out of place? Shocker! Yes, the original villains are back again, and this time-- they don't have a different name, but I'd like to call them Game Shocker, because it implies they're living on in yet another form.

They also have a new young leader, Shocker Leader III to be exact, which I was admittedly interested in learning more about. The actor made a big deal about how he thinks of Shocker as a group that admires the Kamen Riders, quoted saying "I want you to understand Shocker's feelings".

In all honesty, though, the character doesn't stand out to me as being any different than a generic Rider movie villain, and would have probably been better off in a different movie. A shame too, because I love the idea it sounded like he was hinting at.

The movie is all over the place, and there's some things I wanna talk about but feel like I don't need to dedicate a whole screencap to. Let's go through these real quick...

Among the many cameos, we get the Kamen Rider Amazons crew, which includes Alpha, Omega and the then-new Neo! I haven't seen Amazons and this cameo taught me... they fight aggressively. I’ll be honest, I really felt nothing from this cameo. But I can appreciate how they added the dramatic lighting Amazons is known for. And Ex-Aid cleverly added some game logic to the fight by looking for a hidden power-up. He probably connects all of the pork chops in Castlevania. 

The Zyuohgers make a cameo! That's pretty fun considering this is one show later. Unfortunately this cameo also made me realize Amu really did not have much to do with the story. I legit forgot about her while writing all this.

Brave uses Galaxian Quest Gamer, which wins the award for most pointless and rushed movie form debut. Like, I think he put on the armor and fought some dudes real quick and you never see it again. Galaxian played some part in the game world destruction earlier, but now that I think about it, you could replace that with Shocker to make them fit in better...

To end on a positive note, Ex-Aid uses a special giant Energy Item with Maximum Gamer to grow to Sentai mech size and fight alongside the Kyurangers' mech, which was a very fun visual since it involved a unique transformation in which Ex-Aid grows in size as the armor builds around him. This felt like a "They knew this was cool and wanted to take it a step further" moment.

Since I sped through all of that, let's get to the ending.

There's a nice moment with the kid and Naga from the Kyurangers, as they both share the inability to properly express emotions, and I can appreciate how they made use of Naga even if I have little exposure to Kyuranger - that was nice and heartfelt.

Through a combination of Ex-Aid's previous efforts and Brave's current efforts (pretty cool having both of them involved there), the kid is saved, everyone who got sucked into the game world is back out, and the status quo returns to normal.

The credits roll with a nice collection of cards based on all the characters in the movie.

So how did this one turn out? Well, as a movie, pretty awful. As a toku movie, not great. As a Kamen Rider spring crossover movie, it's a'ight I guess? I feel like I'm a lot more forgiving of these than others - even though I'm not opposed to making fun of things like Tsukasa's bad hair day or Space Shocker, I do get something out of these, so that's why I watch them.

With the idea in mind that this is the final spring crossover movie we'll get out of Kamen Rider and Sentai - as the upcoming spring movie is gonna be about Amazons instead and the future beyond that is uncertain - I think they could have ended on a far more typical clusterfuck note. Arguably, they did? But I think among the far-too-many ideas this one had, some of the ideas were good. And for a movie trying to make heroes fight other heroes, it's doing so in a fun way by making use of Ex-Aid’s game motif.

I'm gonna miss these movies. They weren't great, but they were fun eye candy. I'm gonna be interested in seeing what they do with that spring movie slot - will Amazons be the last spring movie entirely, or will it be Toei's go-to for "We just wanna make some kind of thing" movie projects? Only time will tell!

I think you know what comes next, right? I’ve got the first winter movie reviewed, now the spring movie - so obviously spinoff material next. Or the summer movie! Whichever happens first. 

[canvaswolfdoll]

CanvasWatches: Avengers: Endgame

Well, I have to admit: the new trailer finally sold me on Detective Pikachu! Yes, the first trailer showed off uncanny valley designs with a suspicious genwunner undercurrent, but the trailer played before Avengers: Endgame showcased more designs that were from later generations and more aesthetically pleasing, and hinted at clever writing from a sincere love of Pokemon. It did the job trailers are meant to do: sold me on seeing it.

Sonic the Hedgehog will be a fun mess. Just need to decide if it’s worth a theater ticket, or just a rent.

Okay, I’ll talk about the MCU now.[1] There have been a couple more films since I last discussed the franchise, so I’ll play catch up, then talk Endgame and update my ranking list.

I have been rewatching the films sporadically in pieces, because my current job is essentially babysitting teenagers at varying emotional stages, so they’re on the TV sometimes. Oddly, haven’t seen anything before The Rift mentioned in the last review. Might try to rectify that, but I also need to catch up on Pixar films.

So, the new MCU films!

(Spoilers for all the MCU films follows)

Ant-Man and the Wasp

It’s good! Ant-Man and his cast are the only Earthbound characters I continue to care about. (Which I’ll get into more later). They did a very tidy job of elevating Hope van Dyne to a title character and advancing her character without being obnoxious about it. I am super in favor of female leads, but not a big fan of neon signs saying “Girl Power!”

The films do a good job of playing with scale, adding a third “Giant Man” stage to the options, and I care about the Lang/Pym/vanDyne family and their struggles. The villain(s) are also fun, playing with a Tracer-esque time displacement element that allows phasing, and making the motives of the bad guys completely sympathetic.

And they didn’t kill anyone. Gold star. I like people not dying.

Comedy’s still strong, and the callbacks to Ant-man were tasteful. I want more.

Captain Marvel

Okay, I know I risks boos here, but…

Good world building, character revelations for Nick Fury, and moving in and out of the cosmic stage and the earth stage (which carry different aesthetics and tones) but…

I’m not big on Captain Marvel as a character. She’s a rash, confident, quippy hero person, which is fine, except we have so many rash, confident, quippy hero people already. She didn’t distinguish herself as a distinct person to me, and it doesn’t help I’m also unclear about what her power set is.

The twist with the Skrulls was nice. I’m familiar with the general Skrull concept, so the twist worked even on those who know about the bad guys already. The 90s were a fun time to see, and I enjoyed everything around Carol Danvers.

It’s just… Captain Marvel felt generic to me.

There’s a chance for development later, but for now… it’s a’ight.

Avengers: Endgame

This one had the actual war in it. They should’ve called this one Infinity Wars. Maybe call the last one Infinity Gauntlet or Thanos Rising or something.

So, Thanos won in the last movie. How to fix that? Find Thanos and take the gems and fix things? Well, Thanos destroyed the Infinity Stones a week ago. That’s lame. Thor beheads him and stomps off.

There’s also a good comic nod when they show his armor hung up as a scarecrow.

So, how long do we all mope?

Five years.

Five years.

And they don’t reverse this time jump, which is going to make the timeline of the films an even larger headache!

And, worse still, we lost Abby Ryder Fortson. Sure, Cassie Lang survives, but she also aged a decade in five years and there’s no comfortable way to tell a story with young Cassie anymore. Which is tragic, because that actress was super on point in both Ant-Man and Ant-Man and the Wasp. She nailed being an adorable little mirror of her father, and it was a great dynamic to give a superhero.

But, nah, Scott Lang was in the Quantum zone for five years, but perceived by him to be five hours, so there’s not even an opening to fit in a film within the five year jump and depict that father daughter dynamic.

I want to like the commitment. Making bold decisions and not reverting to the status quo is something I’m here for. But Ant-Man is owed one more film, and Cassie was important to me. And an older teenager just wouldn’t be able to play the dynamic the same way as a precocious preteen.

But I guess I shouldn’t dwell on the past.

Plot continues, some characters attempt to move on, Black Widow clings to hope, Tony Stark starts a family.

Then Scott comes in to say “Hey, how about time travel?”

And everyone else says “That’s dumb.”

And Tony Stark says “That’s dumb.” But it naggles him, and he figures out how to traverse the quantum realm.

So time travel is solved! Time to get the Infinity Stones from backwards in time.

So we get some nostalgic walks to the past films, including validating The Dark World. Because that was the only time the Reality stone was in play.

Also, they fridge Black Widow.

That’s been a regular problem with the sole female presence of the original Avengers. She was there to support other characters. The buddy-buddy of Hawkeye, Hulk’s confusing love interest (because Betty Ross was… lost in a drawer somewhere between Incredible Hulk and The Avengers, and they’re too embarrassed to admit it), and assisting Cap in Winter Soldier. Besides angst about being an assassin and not being able to have children[2] she never had the space to be a character outside of what she was to others.

And she literally gave up her life for a man.

Maybe I missed something in the dull SHIELD-era stuff, but Black Widow never resonated with me.

So the stones are gathered, placed on an Iron Man gauntlet, and Hulk (now at peace with himself, he’s a half-step between Banner and Hulk) does the reversal snap.

But past Thanos comes in for one last fight.

We get a fun scene where Captain America, Iron Man, and Thor all try to fight him, which even gets to the point where Cap uses Mjolnir,[4] and it’s very good.

But Thanos gets sick of it, and calls down his army.

Which looks bad.

So Dr. Strange teleports in with those who were on Titan.

Then, other mages teleport in with everyone.[5]

And I believe I felt what most people felt during the first The Avengers. Because it was going to be an epic, all-hands fight, but this time there’s a good number of good guys I care about, the antagonistic force has context now, and there’s a clear goal: keep the Gauntlet away from Thanos.

A giant, crowded fight scene, and it was easy to follow the action.

Plus everyone gets a moment sign.

Though, that does bring me to a nitpick: Spider-man asks Captain Marvel, whose arrival destroyed a giant space war ship, who’s going to help her during her turn with the Infinity football. Dumb question, Peter.

But then all the named female characters show up to be like “We’re here to help! Girl Power!”

And it kind of undermined Captain Marvel? Like, she’s massively powerful, but the narrative implying all the women need to band together to help her when the last couple of football passes were men going solo seems demeaning.

But I’m a white guy writing about nerd movies, so whatever.

During this battle I realized something important: the costumes (except Thor and Spider-Man, who had plot reasons) were on point. Everyone looked like their iconic selves. Iron man had a good Red/Gold balance, and the suit was mechanical. Captain America looked like Captain America. Rocket had his jumpsuit and goggles. Captain Marvel had the right jumpsuit and short hair.

They all looked correct. It was great.

I have one last nitpick: Tony Stark did not deserve the Thanos kill.

Yes, they’ve been trying to play up his fear and paranoia of Thanos since the nuke scene from The Avengers.

But Thanos didn’t do anything directly to Stark. They barely knew each other. Stark got a family, an amount of stability. He’s a playboy, billionaire, philanthropist. Tony Stark was fine.

Nebula was maimed. Turned machine in both body and mind. She suffered a lot under Thanos and by Thanos. She had an arc through this movie. Nebula should’ve killed Thanos.[6]

I would’ve also accepted Gamora, if they wanted a big name character.

But, nah, got to give the big finish to the man who started the franchise off. Sure.

Tony dies, and it’s a good death because his death achieved a big victory. Which is what you should do when you kill a character: have their death be their moment of awesome and a good narrative closure to the degree of their importance. No-name backgrounds characters can be comfortably killed off with a backhand, but to kill off an Iron Man, who has been relevant since the start of the franchise and started an era, his death needs to be worth twenty plus movies of set up and close an Era. Which Endgame did.

Black Widow, meanwhile, had been around for almost as long, had been poorly served by the narrative, and her death brought her arc no closure. Her story just stopped, and it’s unsatisfying.

Which is the main point of Endgame: bringing closure. Iron Man dies, and has earned his rest. Captain America, given access to time travel, retires and (importantly) passes on the mantle.

Actually, that’s an interesting question: who’s taking over Cap’s battle commander role? Because Iron Man has his replacements in Spider-Man (for tech and science upstarty-ness) and the Pyms (for big concept sci-fi) and Pepper Potts can still provide funding and infrastructure backing. Captain America makes Sam Wilson the new Captain America, but Sam hasn’t taken a leading role yet, so making him the new Avengers Leader might be an awkward transition.

The point is, the original six Avengers got their closures (of varying quality). Brash adventurer Thor continues his adventures in space, Tony Stark died but left a positive legacy to override his war profiteer history, Captain America get his lost time back, Hulk found peace with himself (which happened off screen, but eh, he was fun). Hawkeye and Black Widow… well, they started out as “they’re here, too!” characters, and they ended as “and they’re done, too!” characters.

Now, it’s time for the next generation, and it’ll be fun to watch.

Ranking and Overview

Well, the big narrative is finished, and it got better as it went along. The first phase was marred by the trend of “Super heroes, but in our grim and gritty world” that the Nolan Batman Films inspired. Thor began to loosen the tone, and Captain America was hint towards more grandiose elements, but it wasn’t really until Guardians of the Galaxy that the creative team looked around and said “This is inherently silly, right? Can we just… have fun?”

And from there, every new franchise had fun, while the originals had to keep their serious faces on.

Anyways, I’m going to rank them now from worst to best:

The Incredible Hulk

Avengers: Age of Ultron

Thor: The Dark World

Iron Man 2

Iron Man 3

Captain America: The Winter Soldier

The Avengers

Iron Man 1

Thor

Captain America: Civil War

Doctor Strange

Captain Marvel

Black Panther

Captain America: the First Avenger

Thor: Ragnarok

Avengers: Endgame

Avengers: Infinity Wars

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

Spider-Man Homecoming

Ant-Man

Ant-Man and the Wasp

Guardians of the Galaxy

Despite being two parts of a full story, I ultimately decided Infinity Wars and Endgame were different enough to split them for rankings.

And I enjoyed Infinity Wars a little more.

And I think this confirms my self-assessment from last time: I enjoy fun, strong characters, and bold choices over trying to be real or attempt drama. I like to escape with my escapism!

Now, where do I think the movies go from here?

Honestly, I feel they’ll be able to do three more phases (for six total). In that time frame, Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man will get third films, while Black Panther, Doctor Strange, and Captain Marvel each get two additional films. Complete trilogies before their cast become part of team-ups to bolster other films. There may be a few other franchises introduced, but besides Fantastic Four, I feel like Marvel is starting to need to dig too deep (especially since they burned the Defenders on Netflix shows. Daredevil could’ve been a film character).

The X-Men work better, narratively, away from the rest of the Marvel Universe, so hopefully they keep to their own, separate franchise.

So, complete trilogies, grind towards two or three more Phases,[7] then it’s time for reboots.

As for overarching plots, I feel like we’re not going to get another multiphase big bad. Doctor Doom would be a great next step, as he represents political hand wringing, technology, and magic in a single megalomaniac, and I feel like we’ve gotten to the tonal point where Doctor Doom can be properly hammy. But it’ll be a single phase. Then one or two more big bads, possibly ending with some sort of villain team-up and time travel shenanigans to bring everyone (everyone) back for one, finally grand finale.

Then Reboot.

Maybe start with Captain America next time. Or the Fantastic Four. We’ll have to wait and see.

For now… I’ve got a Digimon project I keep hyping, and I have been meaning to rewatch Star Wars.

Maybe check out my Patreon or Ko-Fi if you enjoyed this essay.

Kataal kataal.

[1] I will note I stepped out for the Star Wars trailer. I’m gonna see it, so I want as little spoiled as possible. But the title and JJ Abrams being back at the helm has me concerned. [2] Which I think gets an unfair rap. I always felt that detail was just a pin in the life Widow was built for. She submitted to invasive surgery and cut off options to be what she was. It’s a symbol, not just poor writing.[3] [3] Age of Ultron still sucks, though. [4] For the record, I believe he’s known he could use it since Ultron, but he was being polite to Thor. [5] Except Black Widow. [6] Plus, comic accuracy points! [7] Amazon has two box sets for the phases with art based around an infinity stone each, so completing the set with six total phases makes sense.