Thor: Ragnarok: Weird Avenger

Through the entirety of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, its main players have managed to not only fulfill their individual role but also stick completely to them (Iron Man is the smart one, Captain America is the wet blanket). While this helps viewers relate to these characters by humanizing them, the one Avenger that never quite manages this humanity is the most obvious: Thor the Thunder God. While the rest of the universe tries to maintain some semblance of varied reality, Thor is more a super powered version of Flash Gordon (insane plotlines, goofy villains, unintentionally hilarious dialogue). Apparently realizing this wonky 70s vibe of the series, director Taika Waititi (that name's just fun to write) has decided to just take the whole concept, crank the crazy up as far as possible and roll with it. The result: the best Thor movie currently on the market.

Yes, Thor: Ragnarok, despite being the third entry in what is considered to be the least interesting Avenger movies, is awesome. The plot is ridiculously fun, the improvisational script is hilarious and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) continues to be both the most relateable villain (he just wants what he thinks is his) and, perhaps, the greatest anti-hero Marvel has yet to offer (he's still capable of good deeds even if they do not benefit him). Throw in a continuing-to-improve Chris Hemsworth as a more relateable Thor (he's funny because of the fish-out-of-water aspect) and the previously mentioned wonky 70s aesthetic that complements the Thor mythos so well and you have what the Thor movies should have been from the beginning: a quirky, almost-joking story about a thunder god who fights evil with a hilariously tiny hammer and his awesome hair. Hey, stupid fun is still fun in my book.

Unfortunately, despite the mostly stellar cast, the movie ultimately suffers from having too many stars at the top. Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and Doctor Stranger (Benedict Cumberbatch) are both criminally underused in this entry and, probably because it runs north of two hours, the movie tends to drag around segments not tightly related to the actual plot (the Hulk Arena bit is overlong and outstays its welcome). Throw in a rather jarring transition mechanic that leaves too many dangling threads (your invested in a sequence that abruptly stops for something less interesting) and you have a movie that mostly nails it but can't seem to stick the landing where it counts. You're already awesome, movie! You don't have to drag yourself down for the sake of the boring side plots.

As for watching it, got anything better to do? While Ragnarok remains in my mind as the best of the Thor trilogy, it will likely benefit this weekend from a complete lack of competition. Do you love the Avengers movies and follow them religiously? You've seen this one at least three more times than I have. Do you hate superhero movies in general? Chances are nothing I say will convince you and this isn't the movie for that. Do you like the weird 70s and 80s sci-fi (Flash Gordon, Tron)? This is a loving homage to that era and that's the best compliment I can give it.

Taika Waititi (What We Do In The Shadows) expands upon his Team Thor web shorts with Thor: Ragnarok, a colorful, mostly great look at what would happen if Thor got trapped in a Pink Floyd album and just rolled with it. What do I say without spoiling anything? Thor (Hemsworth) gets into a pickle involving his sister and death goddess Hela (Cate Blanchett) and must find a way to save his people. Along the way, Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) will smash things, Loki (Hiddleston) will have humorous flashbacks from the first Avengers movie and you won't be able to get Led Zeppelin's “Immigrant Song” out of your head for the foreseeable future. Thank you, Marvel?

My score: 8/10. Is it weird that this movie makes me kind of nostalgic for the 1984 sci-fi movie The Dungeonmaster? Probably weird...

Stranger Things Season 2: More like Season 1.5 (in a good way)

Due to the fact that most current horror movies treading around movie theaters are either some version of a shameless retread (Jigsaw), a shameless cash grab sequel (Insidious 4), a shameless attempt to show off non-existent talent in a failed attempt at relevancy (Tyler Perry's Boo 2!) or a pretty awesome comedy that totally tricks you into believing its just another run-of-the-mill horror flick (Happy Death Day), how about I just review a TV show for a change? Sound good? Good! Here's Stranger Things Season 2.

The thing most critics, and, as a byproduct, most viewers, of the Netflix original series Stranger Things seemed to like about its first season was usually built more around what it wasn't (an E.T./Stephen King hybrid) than what it actually was (a confidence-free, bygone-era sci-fi series that ran too short and had little real need to exist in the first place). Regardless of the quality that Season 1 actually displayed, most people tended to roll over themselves either praising a poorly written throwaway character (Shannon Purser's Barbara) or not realizing that no one in the Byers Clan (Wynona Ryder, Noah Schapp, Charlie Heaton) was actually that interesting. And, while the the season was able to salvage itself in the final two episodes with some downright amazing production value (The Bathtub might be one of the best hours of television in Netflix's history), the season ultimately struggled with anything resembling a cohesive narrative, instead being forced into a lousy cliffhanger ending and a tacked on “Coming Soon” moment that felt pandering at best. The Duffer Brothers' (the creators) response? Make a second season and ANSWER THE STUPID QUESTIONS. The result? What season 1 should've been: an awesome E.T./Stephen King hybrid that focuses on its talented young cast and its own mythology. Why did it take a year to figure THAT out?

Yes, readers, Strangers Things 2 is the awesome we were promised that finally delivers in the amazing way we should have expected. The new additions to the cast (Sean Astin, Paul Reiser) are fun and show unexpected depth, new group member Max (Sadie Sink) is both a welcome female foil to the boys club she joins while displaying enough vulnerability to make you care about her and Eleven (Millie Bobby Brown) is just as awesome as you would expect a telekinetic middleschooler to be. Throw in a competent narrative that finally tries to give the audience nuggets of information about its own universe (The Upside Down actually makes a little more sense now) and you have the easiest reason to argue with Netflix about extending their episode allotment. Its like the entire season was dedicated to answering its own stupid questions. That's meta.

Unfortunately, much like season 1, the short episode run (9 this time) tends to feel cramped with the amount of information they are trying to feed us and, as a result, certain plot threads feel like filler segments meant to draw something out that didn't need to be explored in the first place. Eleven's weird journey to Chicago to find her adoptive sister (Linnea Berthelsen) felt like little more than a training montage that expanded over an entire 50 minute episode before being completely abandoned for the sake of the main plot and Sheriff Hopper's (David Harbour) two-episode adventure into the Upside Down was both underwhelming and forgettable. Maybe these were just arcs meant to be explored in later seasons and I'm just being nitpicky, but it felt like the writers were trying too hard here. You managed to impress me in 9 episodes, guys. You don't have to trip over your own legs trying to take a victory lap.

As for watching it, yeah, go for it. Considering the lackluster catalog currently running through Netflix (Orange is the New Black, House of Cards, 13 Reasons Why) that seem to be absorbing resources from much better productions (The Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt), this feels like a breath of fresh air in terms of creators understanding what paying customers actually want to see. Go for the pretty outstanding young cast, stay for the gonzo plot lines and Cthulu monsters. What else would you need for the Stephen King fan in you?

The Duffer Brothers (I'm not naming them because that's literally how they name themselves) finally, mercifully find their footing in a series that has more popularity than value with Stranger Things Season 2, a brilliant follow-up that does what follow-ups are supposed to do (close narrative gaps, fix plot problems, explore characters properly). What can I say here? Have you seen season 1? Go watch it, temper your disappointment, watch season 2 and then wonder why they didn't just combine both seasons and thereby spare us all the suffering of having to wait a year for all those stupid loose ends to tie up. Need more convincing? A telekinetic tween uses her mind powers to fight inter-dimensional slime monsters named after classic Dungeons & Dragons villains. The nerd power is strong in this one...

My score: 9/10. Does anyone like this idea of me reviewing TV series? Or is it just more of me ruining your favorite TV shows by pointing out their inconsistencies and lack of intelligence? If that second part is the case, I can promise to never review Big Bang Theory or Supergirl out of the fear of making you feel like you've given up too much of your life watching underwhelming and overrated TV shows. Did I just ruin those shows for you?

Blade Runner 2049: Same Setting; Still not Interesting

Are you ready for a horrific reality, People-Who-Think-Blade-Runner-Is-Awesome? Here it goes: the movie isn't great. Sure, it has a pretty interesting setting, Rutger Hauer was a lot of fun with his depressed wax on existentialism and, for the most part, the movie does a pretty good job in the whole world building department. But, let's be honest, the story and pacing are mind-numbingly boring, the movie is known more for its nauseating number of recuts and, despite its influence, the whole “Are we real?” question that movie seemed so anxious to ask in every version was so much better delivered in the dozens of Japanese homage movies made in its wake (Ghost in the Shell, Akira). Now, with so many recuts, obnoxious fanboy arguments about its place in science fiction and even the weird foreshadowing of Ridley Scott's personality (the existential angst is strong in that man), Hollywood has finally just gone the sequel route. The result: a passable sci-fi movie set in the world that you probably love with little or no context to care. Good job, Hollywood?

Look, from a clear aesthetic point of view, Blade Runner 2049 is a beautiful movie that never misses a chance to show off its weird future world. Future Los Angeles is still just as much a sight to behold as it was in 1982, there are partially successful attempts to reconcile the original's themes with the sequel's story, and, in an about face from the original, most of the cast (instead of just Rutger Hauer) put in enough work here to make me actually believe they cared this time around. Even in the hands of weirdo director Denis Villeneuve, the movie feels like the people who made the original memorable were still involved in some heavy degree. That's dedication.

Unfortunately, much like its predecessor, the movie is still an overlong, mostly predictable (even I saw the twist halfway through the movie) chore of a movie whose only memorable quality is its commitment to its own nihilism. Sure, you could argue that some of the action scenes (at least the ones you can see properly) play out well enough to understand, but it all comes down thematically to the same stupid question Ridley Scott asked back in 1982 and just can't seem to escape from now that he's almost 80. “How do we determine what is real in an artificial world?” just isn't that interesting of a question this time around.

As for watching it, got anything better to do this weekend? Considering it was the only major release and Friday the 13^th is coming with the promise of seemingly better action movies (The Foreigner), better horror movies (Happy Death Day) and even better historical dramas (Breathe, Goodbye Christopher Robin), my best suggestion would be to just take an off week this time around. Are you an unrepentant fan of the 1982 original and cover your ears to its myriad criticisms? Knock yourself out here.

Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) continues to make aesthetically beautiful, if thematically frustrating, movies about existence without deeper meaning. Basically, replicant Blade Runner 'K' (Ryan Gosling) discovers a conspiracy involving older model replicants that could cause a war between human factions and machines. Along the way, Harrison Ford will appear and act like he really needed a paycheck, hologram assistant Joi (Ana de Armas) will somehow display more depth than most characters despite being a soulless, body-less A.I., Robin Wright will sell her throwaway character's part for all its worth and, when it finally ends after two-and-a-half excruciating hours, you'll feel like the whole mess of a plot was literally for the sake of nothing while scrambling for deeper meaning. Thanks, Hollywood, but I already own every season of Rick & Morty. I don't need any more case studies on existential nihilism.

My score: 4/10. Seriously, if you want to have an existential crisis AND be entertained, just watch Rick & Morty. It's the only show that makes you laugh from the humor and cry at the horrors of existence in the same breath.

Kingsman: The Golden Circle: The Sequel NO ONE asked for

For those of you who just couldn't be bothered to see it or the rest of you who see Matthew Vaughn's name next to a movie and black out because he's not the most recognizable name, 2014's Kingsman: The Secret Service might have been one of the most entertaining, irreverent and psychotic action comedies of the last few years that sold its premise (lisping meglomaniac trying to take over the world) simply by taking a played out genre trope (overly courteous British agents) and blowing it all up with well-timed bouts of humor that tended to hit more than they missed (you will either love or hate the big finale; no middle ground). Regardless of where you stand on the film's merits, it was an honest take on an under-read comic book and, by the grace of Vaughn, sold itself for every cringe-worthy setpiece and joke it could muster. How does Vaughn follow-up his arguably best movie? By making a sequel no one asked for. This is the part where the world groaning about sequels starts to have a little more hold than usual.

Sadly, despite its pedigree, Kingsman: The Golden Circle is a movie with literally no reason to exist in any form. Not only does it expand too much beyond its comic book origins (which were already stretched thin with the original movie) but the premise (meglomaniac without lisp tries to take over the world) and the iconic action sequences of the original (the Colin Firth fight) are cribbed almost verbatim from its prequel. The narrative doesn't flow, the new characters feel like an old Oscar nomination check sheet for the sake of name recognition and the movie makes commits the cardinal sin of relying too much on its predecessor to fill its own plot holes. Kingsman worked fine as a stand alone movie BECAUSE it didn't need or promise any sequels in an era made up of little else.

Fortunately, if you can escape the inevitable deja vu of a movie trying too hard to recapture its glory from its superior big brother, there are small gems to find. Pedro Pascal's Whiskey is a fun, almost endearing character bogged down only by a late-game plot dump that seemed forced by the two hour-plus movie somehow running out of time. And, despite being a prime example of gimmick casting in a movie full of it, Elton John was both funny and wildly entertaining as a warped parody of himself. Say what you will about the man, seeing a 70-year-old, feather-laden musician kick a bad guy in the face with platform shoes while slyly winking at the camera almost makes the insulting nature of the joke funnier than it should be. See? Gratuitous overkill CAN be awesome if it sells it right.

As for watching it...just go watch the original and be happy you didn't fall for all the advertisements about the sequel being some kind of awesome expansion on the canon of the now pointless series. Better yet, just wait a few months and randomly search “Elton John fighting” and you'll likely stumble across the only aspect of this movie that warrants any of your time. Seriously, has the “good” movie season started yet?

Matthew Vaughn (X-Men: First Class) makes what can only be described as his first truly awful movie with Kingsman: The Golden Circle, a bloated, overly self-referential experiment in cinematic overkill that takes the good will of its predecessor and wastes it all trying to make you watch the same movie you saw three years ago with more moving parts and worse plotting. Having been rebuilt after the events of the first movie, the Kingsman intelligence agency is promptly decimated by a drug cartel known as the Golden Circle because...I'm not exactly sure. Their wonky world domination plan and the actual destruction of Kingsman don't really make any sense outside of being bad plot devices to push the bloated script onto additional set pieces people still didn't ask for. Take the previously mentioned advice to watch a cool 30-second clip of Elton John kicking a guy in the face to “Saturday Night” and just be glad you didn't waste your money again this week. Its sadly too late for me.

My score: 2/10. Is it weird that I want to see more action sequences involving Elton John kicking dudes in the face to his own music? Probably weird...

American Assassin: Tom Clancy for Dummies

Back in the 80s, for reasons that really defy logic, the classic spy genre of literature changed from your basic premise of debonair-spy-steals-microfilm-and-probably-kills-the-bad-guy-to-prevent-a-sequel to something... darker. While this was mostly because the bygone era of the genre changed with the times, it wasn't helped by the fact that, with the threat of total nuclear war dissipating to an almost non-existent conclusion, it was harder for readers to fathom why any spy would actually behave in a way that would encourage an angry nuclear power to retaliate. As a result, novels became more about the analysis and characters who were less James Bond and more Jason Bourne, more likely to just kill the threat rather than play baccarat and argue about martinis. Now, with even that whole section of the genre beginning to jump into the Age of Terrorism, Hollywood has decided to latch onto the premise (ten years too late) for the sake of filling their docket. The result: a decently acted but ultimately bland action movie with little reason to exist outside of a Hollywood number crunch.

Hey, I can be nice here for a bit: American Assassin works great if you like Michael Keaton and his wonky brand of acting. Despite being in a movie far below his own pedigree (the man was in Birdman for crying out loud!) and probably being the only guy who thought to earn his paycheck (he's the only guy who seems to be selling the hammy dialog), Keaton excels as an angry spy trainer with a simple mixture of mystery (which isn't actually that mysterious) and a more gritty performance than was probably warranted. Despite what I'm about to follow this paragraph with, know that the ultimate reasons for this movie's failure never have the line “Because of Michael Keaton” in it anywhere. Got it? Good.

Unfortunately, with Keaton safely in a bubble and removed completely from the movie, this is little more than an amateur attempt at a cheesy spy flick; never really knowing if it wants to go for gritty (because of Keaton) or it prefers the action approach (via its poorly choreographed fight scenes and shootouts) or if it wants to rely on its poor attempt at modern intrigue (via dialog that feels like it was read off of a teleprompter). Regardless of the promised premise of an angry man (Dylan O'Brien) seeking revenge for his losses and inadvertently becoming a super spy, nothing ever works how its supposed to. There's no character investment, none of the story really goes anywhere and, when it finally over, the only real advancement you feel is that you've wasted about two hours of your life watching the equivalent of a Tom Clancy short story while your waiting for better movies to come out and justify the movie theater's existence again (it's been a REALLY bad year at the movies).

As for watching it, don't. You could argue that, because it has O'Brien and because he was kind of awesome in those two Mazerunner movies (before that franchise was killed) he might be able to move onto another action franchise with his own on-screen charisma, but this movie doesn't actually require him to be anything more than a bland, blank slate character with only the tiniest of motivations to actually be doing what he's doing. You know what? Go watch It (the movie with the clown; not the pronoun for this movie) and be happy that Kingsman 2 is coming and there might still be hope to salvage this consistently awful movie season. Seriously, this movie season needs to die already.

Michael Cuesta (T.V.'s Elementary) tries to make his first big-screen action movie and pretty much proves he needs to stick with television with American Assassin, a wonky, unintelligible train wreck of an action movie that, save for the grace of Batman (Keaton), pretty much relegates itself to the bargain bin come rental time. To avenge the death of his fiance at the hands of terrorists, Mitch Rapp (O'Brien) joins a CIA offshoot known as Orion and tries to sound interesting for the rest of the movie. What's there to say? Stuff blows up, most of the characters basically deliver their lines phonetically and every single actor acts like they'd rather be anywhere else but in this movie. You were probably awesome in book form, Mitch Rapp. Maybe you should've stayed there...

My score: 3/10. Dear next week's Kingsman 2: please be a passable movie with relatable characters and an interesting story. That is literally your minimum requirement at this point.

Life is Strange: Before the Storm Episode 1: More of the Same; A Little Less

2015's Life is Strange might be one of my favorite point-and-click, choice-based adventure games that rose above much better reviewed (and even better selling) titles of the same genre (Walking Dead, Game of Thrones, All TellTale Games) simply by being different where it counted. Before LiS, I felt contempt for the genre merely because, due to vague displays and obnoxious timed responses, most of my characters tended to come off as unintentional assholes (Lee talking to Clementine with no indication of the inflexion of the conversation is an example) forcing me into the unwanted situation of potentially playing through a game with unskippable cutscenes and overlong dialogue sequences for a second time just to find out what I missed with the other option (note to developers: these games NEVER warrant a second playthrough). But LiS was different merely because of its most gimmicky mechanic: the time reversal ability. With this ability, I was now able to merely rewind when I didn't like the outcome and, barring an endgame decision, could easily reverse tactics. This gave LiS an edge over more conventional and (arguably) better games. I no longer worried what Max would say because rewinding and going Plan B was just as feasible and option. And while, in the end, the mechanic really meant nothing to the overarching narrative (the game would end on a binary choice regardless) the gameplay was backed up with a story told from the heart. Regardless of how you felt about mousy Max Caulfield or the seemingly incomprehensible anger of Chloe Price, you rooted for these characters because they felt more human in their emotions. These weren't superheroes trying to save the world or hardened survivors barreling toward some awesome, action-filled climax. This was a story of loss made bearable by the chance to rectify past mistakes. Regardless of your A or B decision in the end, you spent a week with someone important to you and, much like the ending to The Leftovers, you're level of success was dictated not by your actions but by your ability to just fucking BE THERE ("You're Here" might be the best explanation ever uttered on any show ever). Now, with 2017 nearing its end and the adventure genre kind of floundering, Square Enix has decided to continue a story that never really warranted a continuation. As of Life is Strange Before the Storm Episode 1: the same soul minus the only mechanic that made it unique from the rest of the dreg.

Let me be honest: I actually love Episode 1: Awake despite its total lack of replayability. Chloe Price is back (and very much alive) and her burgeoning relationship with Rachel Amber (also very much alive) keeps the story interesting and endearing enough even for the collector-crazy gamers who search every square inch of each map. Regardless of what you play these types of games for (mostly achievements/trophies) there is a soul here that makes you want to genuinely learn this story despite already knowing its tragic conclusion. Rachel Amber, often barely more than a plot-pushing point in the first game, is a well fleshed-out character with a compelling story (she carries a veneer of a perfect life while wallowing in the more tragic aspects of it) and, despite being an obviously bad influence on Chloe, you will root for her because it actually feels like these two need each other at the moment. Chloe, the angry punk chick who had terrible dialog and serious abandonment issues in the first game, comes off as a young woman veering toward the breaking point; her relationship with her mother is falling apart, her school life is hell and her reputation as a bad girl seems to have become her very character to everyone who knows her. When these two finally meet, the sense that they become one (due to being opposites with small connective tissue to keep them together) becomes more believable the longer they share scenes together. That's hard to write around. It's usually impossible to write believably.

As for bad, the Backtalk mechanic is a poor replacement for Max's Rewind and it shows in just how little it is actually utilized (three times in a three hour period). I'm aware that this mechanic is necessary in order for it to play as something different like its predecessor, but the idea that, every hour or so, a seemingly random event happens with a bunch of multiple choice nonsense just kind of boggles the mind. If your going to make this without the mystical side, that's fine. Backtalk is not the way to make this work properly.

Whatever. It's still the first Episode 1 of an adventure story that I've willingly played all the way through since the original and I'm still invested in the characters enough to want to see what happens next. Sure, lack of Max hurts a little, but its believable considering she would still be hiding in dark corners in Seattle at this point so, no worries. I've played far worse sequels in my life and none of those made me cheer at the end. Pick your heartbreak.

My score: 8/10.

Rick and Morty: The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy: Saying What Has to Be Said.

Throughout the entire run of Rick and Morty, I've counted myself amongst the few who openly defend my distaste for the character Jerry Smith (Chris Parnell). Yes, I'm aware that he's the "best" character on the show and that he's also the most stable human being amongst the entire Smith family (at least until Season 3 Morty came out of the woodwork), but he's also, beneath that veneer of just a guy wanting what's best for his family, one of the most pathetic creatures to exist in modern television, often displaying the characteristics more akin to a parasitic leech than anything resembling a loving family man. And, with the newest R&M episode "The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy", it seems that creators Dan Harmon and Justin Roiland, after spending the entire third season so far pretty much ignoring him, are finally ready tackle Jerry just to call him on his shit.
Mind you, it wasn't hard to actually see this finally coming from a few episodes away. R&M, despite being one of the best shows on television, needs its primary conflict between Rick's (Roiland) clinical, nihilistic view of the universe and Jerry's idiotic lack of relevance to succeed and the Season 3 has ignored this trope almost completely. But, in doing so, it created a chance to show us what Summer (Spencer Grammer), Beth (Sarah Chalke) and Morty (also Roiland) can finally accomplish without the pathetic anchor that is Jerry hanging around their necks. Summer has become more assertive in her life while also being prone to the usual teenage behavior (huffing in class, marrying into a post-apocalyptic marauder clan), Morty has finally matured to the point where he's both willing to call Rick on his own shit and also able to back it up with past experience expertise (like disarming bombs) and even Beth has managed to finally become something resembling a mother to her own children (she seems to care about her children rather than considering them burdens of a toxic marriage). Hell, outside of a few slight thematic problems (Beth still hasn't had much to do with her newly-divorced time to ensure she won't let Jerry weasel back into her life) this season has proven that the writers know how to find nurture throughout the chaos that is its own universe.
Then of course, there's the fact that Jerry still needs to be there because the universe needs its punching bag. This is where "The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy" comes in. In this episode, Rick decides to take Jerry out for an "adventure" to get Morty off his back about fears that his dad might become suicidal considering the train wreck that his life has become (in actuality, Morty conned Rick into it to get rid of him for a day). Unfortunately, being established by already well-known canon, Jerry is a guaranteed casualty in anything but the most mundane situation possible. The solution: take him to a place where death is impossible and thereby sparing the easiest target in the universe its own magic bullet. What follows is a textbook example as to how Jerry ruins everything (even temporary immortality).
Let's just skip past the basics here and get to my favorite part of the episode (other than Morty calling out Beth for lacking priorities): Jerry, beaten and once again defeated by pretty much everything in his life, finally cracks and angrily accuses Rick of not only stealing his family but ruining his long believed perfect life with Beth. Rick, in response, points out that Jerry is little more than a parasite who relies on the sympathy of others for his own survival and that, while he may try to blind himself from reality through his own self-centered personality, no one in his family nor anywhere else actually considers him anything more than a pest.
This statement is the exclamation point on Jerry's very personality throughout the series. He was married to a woman far out of his league because he managed to knock her up after a pity prom, he leeched off of her for years by belittling her downgraded profession (horse surgeon instead of human surgeon) and likely would have done so for years more had Rick not reenter his daughter's life and given her the confidence (via his own, much worse manipulations) to finally realize just how insignificant Jerry really was to her. Yes, this gave Beth severe daddy issues that she hasn't, and likely won't ever, be able to successfully resolve, but, in the words of most break-ups, at least she managed to lose a few hundred pounds of useless fat in the process.
This is not to say Beth was much better than Jerry on the marriage front. Much like Jerry latching onto her for the comfort of a home and the need to be pitied, Beth used Jerry to boost her own fragile ego when it came to terms of professional success (no matter how bad it might get for her, she at least wasn't Jerry) and their toxic marriage was definitely a co-dependent union made up of equal parts spite (their children seemed to exist just for further manipulation) and competition (their entire relationship was built on who blinked first).
My hopes for the rest of this season (and, hopefully beyond) is that the divorce actually remains a permanent fixture. Yes, the series tends to suffer without Jerry's constant screw-ups proving that Rick was right all along, but such an absence makes episodes like "The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy" so beautiful by comparison. Hey, you can't just show your best card for the entire series.

Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Shouldn't Talk

The Disney Pirates saga has been something of a sore spot for me over the last few years. Don't get me wrong about the quality. With the likes of Gore Verbinski directing, the first three movies managed to be both funny (because of Jack Sparrow being pure id) and massively entertaining (think every sword fight in the first three movies) even when the quality occasionally dipped into the absurd. Then, when previously mentioned trilogy had run its course so the series could fade away gracefully, the powers that be (see also: morons) decided it would be a good idea to make a fourth movie and basically destroy what made the originals so endearing by giving us an underused villain (Blackbeard) and the unforgivable mistake of making Jack Sparrow the main character (he's the comic relief; leave him alone). Note to Disney on the concept of Pirates 5: can't you leave well enough alone?

Before I tear into this movie for once again wasting two hours plus of my life for the honor of seeing Johnny Depp basically play himself for the twentieth time this decade, let it be known that, contrary to this series' connection to massive dips in quality, there are still a few gems to find if you're willing to search hard enough. Javier Bardem's Salazar at least looks cool and backs up his neat effects with something that tries to resemble a sympathetic backstory (he was a pirate hunter who was cursed through trickery). And, while I'm sure no one will give her credit for it because that's been how her career has treated her, Kaya Scodelario was at least a little interesting before becoming just another damsel in distress who spouts exposition a la Keira Knightley. If anything, it was nice to see the powers that be rectify the biggest mistake of part 4 by pushing Jack (Depp) back into the background so he can do all the fun stuff while the adults are busy talking. Its like seeing the original trilogy but dumber.

Unfortunately, the movie never seems to have the urge to escape its past. Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightley are here to cash a paycheck., Geoffrey Rush makes it three movies in a row with very little to do outside of play a stereotypical pirate and the script seems to crib from the earlier movies just to follow suite so they don't have to try anything new. Is there another pirate curse? Check. Is the only way to solve the problem by finding a needlessly complicated path to a dumbly named mystical item? Check. Is there a boat full of zombie pirates bent on revenge aimed specifically at Jack Sparrow that will probably cause more problems for the searching crew than if they'd just left the guy at a port and continued on? Check and check. The movie that harkens back to the pretty okay original trilogy is here, but its bogged down by needless franchise tropes that ultimately kill the whole experience.

Reasons for watching it come down to your opinion of Pirates 4. Did you feel the well was dry for that particular waste of time and the whole thing was just sucking the last fumes of creativity for the sake pushing the series just a tiny bit further? This will probably give you some pleasant flashbacks to the simpler times when the series still had a reason to exist. Have you said aloud what this movie series truly is (a five-movie series based on a ten minute theme park ride that has earned a cumulative $2 billion)? Chances are its not worth your time or money. Choose wisely.

Joachim Rѳnning and Espen Sandberg (Marco Polo) try to see if they can go from terrible Netflix originals to passable movies with little success with Pirates of the Caribbean 5: Dead Men Tell No Tales, a loud, sometimes obnoxious flashback episode that laments what the Pirates franchise used to be (i.e. a moneymaker with somewhat talented writing). To free Will Turner from his curse from part 3, his son Henry (Brenton Thwaites) attempts to find the fabled Poseidon's Trident with the help of Horologist Carina Smyth (Scodelario) because she's hot and Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) because...he's drunk, maybe? Along the way, the British Empire will act like tools and zombie pirate Salazar (Bardem) will lead a crew of well-animated other zombie pirates on the exact same quest because, apparently, no one has anything better to do that week. 4 was worse (I think that's a compliment).

My score: 4/10. Keira Knightley appears at the end, says no dialogue and was paid for roughly forty seconds of screen time. I want her job...

Doctor Strange: Awesome Movie I Don't Recall Asking For

We've all heard my argument before: it's beginning to look a little redundant that Marvel has yet to make a movie that not only doesn't qualify as “good” but hasn't even managed to make one in the definitive “bad” category. With the closest thing to an actual “bad” movie being the likes of Iron Man 2 or Thor 2 (which are still incidentally better than anything currently in the DC catalog), it just feels like Marvel should be cockier and willing to take more deliberate chances just to see what characters audiences might not be willing to tolerate (Howard the Duck? Gwenpool? Ms. Marvel?). Finally, after seemingly running through what feels like their entire roster, Marvel seems to at long last have landed on the unfilmable superhero with Doctor Strange (he's a wizard who sometimes freelances as a Necromancer and a therapist to the superheros). The result? A predictably great movie with fun humor, interesting main characters and enough charm and wit to be memorable. This is getting kind of old, Marvel.

If you haven't guessed it, yes, Doctor Strange is awesome (sigh). Benedict Cumberbatch is fun and interesting and fits the character well enough that I'd like to see him more often in the universe, the cast chemistry is endearing and, even when the movie goes off on the whole gonzo metaphysical stuff characteristic of the Doctor Strange comics, it still remains simple enough to follow. Throw in Mads Mikkelsen as arguably the best and most relateable villain since Loki and you have something that not only appeals to the masses but somehow will likely appease all but the most psychotically devout fanboys. Its like a universally appealing art house movie; it just doesn't happen like that!

As for bad, try as she may, Rachel McAdams is criminally underused and completely underwhelming as human love interest Christine Palmer. This could mostly be chalked up to the script writers wishing to blow off Strange's human life quickly to get to the good stuff (and by “good stuff” I mean weird metaphysical nonsense with hints of Inception), but it is kind of sad to see how thoroughly pointless the actual human side of Strange becomes in this movie. Newsflash, screenwriters: the less human a character seems, the less we relate to them.

The argument for watching this comes down to how you feel about Marvel movies. If you like the path this is going and are not at all concerned that they may have added a kind of Deus Ex to the next Avengers movie (the guy is basically a mortal with the power to stop time and destroy whole universes), knock yourself out because this is just more of the same good writing mixed with great casting that you've come to expect from this franchise. If you're seeking something with a little more depth or character development, you probably own four or five other Marvel movies that do it better. Your choice.

Scott Derrickson (Sinister) proves that you can escape the bottomless pit of a horror genre director to make movies that Disney will throw money at you to make with Doctor Strange, a fun, mostly enjoyable trip through alternate dimensions that you might want to be sober to partake in. Having lost the use of his hands in a car wreck, neurosurgeon Dr. Stephen Strange (Cumberbatch) begins looking for ways to regain not only the proper use of his body again but for a deeper purpose to his life. Along the way, Mads Mikkelson's Kaecilius will be a totally awesome bad guy who the powers that be should have taken more advantage of, Strange's human friend (McAdams) will drop in and out occasionally to ask the questions we're already asking, Strange will prove that you can beat an enemy to death with boredom (literally) and, all in all, it will probably be the second most magical thing you've seen in November (Because The Cubs Won The World Series!). Go have predictable fun with this one.

My score: 8/10. Is it me or is Marvel beginning to seem a little bit arrogant about their seeming inability to make a bad comic book movie? I would suggest they make another Howard the Duck as a humbling exercise, but I have an odd feeling they'd just make that awesome too. Maybe they should steal some Deadpool characters (Dazzler anyone?) for the challenge...

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2: Still Messing With Expectations

James Gunn's 2014 masterpiece Guardians of the Galaxy has me conflicted for numerous reasons. On one hand, its arguably the best Marvel movie made during the current cinematic cycle, has a perfect cast with spot-on humor and chemistry and action sequences that remain some of the best you will see on the market today. On the other, Gunn is something of the directorial equivalent of an internet troll and I could never quite shake the thought that the man might just be arrogantly teasing us with his talent by making the most un-Marvel movie ever (a nothing post-credit scene, an air of self-loathing on top of all the humor). If I were to go by Volume 2, I might as well just remain conflicted.

Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 is awesome. The characters are still perfect, the humor is still spot-on, there's actually some depth to the side characters for a change and Drax (Dave Bautista) is still the weird, out-of-touch psychopath that we all know and love from the first movie. Throw in a surprising narrative turn that gives both Nebula (Karen Gillan) and Yondu (Michael Rooker) much needed back stories with out-of-left-field depth they were sorely lacking in the original and you have a movie that fixes the only niggling things I could manage to find from its original. They took a practically perfect movie and made a sequel seemingly to remove the hard-to-find blemishes. That's insane in a good way.

As for bad, as with most Marvel sequels, there's just not a lot of wonder to go around this time and there's really nothing even the likes of Gunn can actually do to fix such a problem. While it's easy to love these characters, we already know them and their motivations, making them familiar and, to a lesser extent, kind of boring. Throwing in a misplaced alien psychic with Mantis (Pom Klementieff) as the new character doesn't help when you realize she only seems to be there for strict plot progression purposes. This was a movie that somehow made Sylvester Stallone into a deep and relatable character yet somehow couldn't make the newest member of the Guardians anything but a plot point? Come on, man!

As for watching it, yeah, go do that. It's still a fun time with all the humor you could either want or stand and, while the whole main plot does tend to get a little out of hand near the end, you'd still be hard-pressed to find anything to truly dislike out of the whole experience. If anything, this is a nice farewell for James Gunn from the franchise and his last, big obscene gesture to us all for expecting him to play by the book. Plus, they made freaking Yondu (the guy who openly talks about eating Peter) a sympathetic character! Talent!

James Gunn (Slither) continues to make movies seemingly as practical jokes on audiences with Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2, a fun, mostly entertaining, sci-fi epic-like movie that spends very little time trying to acquaint you with its lore and more time making fun of your expectations. While fleeing from another botched heist, the Guardians encounter weird, hippy alien Ego (Kurt Russell) who promptly drops a bomb on Peter (Chris Pratt): he's his father and he's also a freaking planet (it makes more sense when you watch it)! While everything seems good and he's finally at peace, Peter and his friends can't shake the feeling that something is seriously wrong with Ego. Along the way, Yondu will finally show just how honorable he can be and why he's so cynical in the first place, Nebula will form some kind of sisterly bond with Gamora (Zoe Saldana) while describing the unpleasant things she wants to do to Thanos (Josh Brolin) in later movies and 5 (FIVE) post-credit scenes will tease us with nothing except how stupid we are to be sitting in a movie theater waiting for the credits to end just for a few milliseconds of some future, unfinished movie (it openly mocks you for expecting anything more). Go watch it and feel kind of dumb for not realizing these things earlier.

My score: 8/10. I often say that April is the month Hollywood dumps their worst tripe as some kind of extended April Fools' joke. After seeing the line up of last month, I stand by that accusation.

Ghost In The Shell: The Philosophy of Humanity for Dummies

It is said that, to sell any foreign entity to an American audience, one must first know those consuming the product to begin with. Are you trying to sell Mexican food? Mix together some random combination of meat, cheese or vegetable and give it a Spanish name. Trying to sell a Japanese role playing game to the American public? Simplify the combat system and translate the dialog. And, best of all, trying to sell a story that argues about the nature of their own humanity? Bog it down with backhanded commercialism comments and add some pretty scenery. If Ghost in the Shell is any indication, the Japanese have long ago mastered this particular art.

Okay, to be nice, Ghost in the Shell is a pretty awesome movie from a strictly cyberpunk/sci-fi standpoint. The original message of the 1995 anime (What Makes Us Human?) is still there and, although dumbed down for mass consumption, does feature moments of philosophical brilliance. The story, though mixed together with limited success with not only remnants of the '95 movie but also the late 90s TV series, still manages to pull off something resembling a cohesive and immersive plot. The characters range from decent mirror images (Batou) to straight-up improvements over their source material (Aramaki). Throw in a setting and overall oppressive feeling of a world tinted with a fresh coat of paint to cover up its unpleasant underbelly and you have a movie that tries and mostly succeeds in at least being a cliff notes version of the property. Regardless of your opinions on the casting or even the need for this property to exist in live-action, you can't deny that the production didn't skimp over details when it came to giving you something pretty to look at.

Unfortunately, while it is a very well-shot movie filled with some deep-rooted philosophies, the movie ultimately fails on its insistence on focusing solely on the image rather than the brain. Yes, The Major (Scarlett Johanssen) is a lot of fun to watch in action, but she's mostly just playing a blank slate (a literal amnesiac) with the occasional doubts about her own humanity. Yes, Kazu (Michael Pitt) is an interesting villain with a sympathetic story and a few interesting twists to go along with it, but he doesn't really have much of a point out of being a catalyst for Major's own awakening. Even the city, so well rendered and full of unique sites, gets stale after the fiftieth freaking pan shot because the filmmakers apparently couldn't think of a better way to do screen transition. I get it! The city looks cool! You don't have to keep proving it to me every time you want send me somewhere else!

As for watching it, did you watch the original and wish there was more humor to go along with its dour tale of humanity lost? This will offer enough moments of levity to at least feel more entertaining than the original's rather depressing plot. Did you love the original and, as a knee-jerk reaction, spit on any attempt to recreate that particular tone? This probably won't change your mind and you could find better uses of your time trying to figure out how to get over yourself.

Rupert Sanders (Snow White and The Hunstman) continues to make visually stunning, if thematically flawed, movies that pretty much no one asks for with Ghost in the Shell, a cyberpunk-themed story about how being human doesn't necessarily involve humanity. Fatally injured in a terrorist attack, The Major (Johanssen) is augmented to the point of near complete machine and put to work fighting cyberterrorists. Along the way, she will realize that everything about her may or may not be a lie, Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano) will be the most awesome version of himself ever and the soul of the original will be lost in translation in exchange for a by-the-numbers action movie with only hints of the whole darkness-of-the-human-soul stuff Japan doesn't seem to have any problems with. Hey, looks cool, though!

My score: 5/10. So...did anyone else notice that The Major is actually an Asian woman inside the body of a white woman? Isn't that kind of like sidestepping the “whitewashing” puddle just to fall of a freaking cliff?

Power Rangers: Fixing Old Problems

If you, like me, were a kid in the early 90s, chances are you heard of Saban's Power Rangers, a Fox Kids staple that featured bad stereotypes of teenagers who used their karate powers to operate giant dinosaur robots in their eternal battle with Moon monsters. While I'll admit that last part in the description sounds ridiculously awesome, the show never quite reached its potential as a watchable series mainly because 1.) the dialog was laughably bad, 2.) none of the main characters were anything short of bad 90s stereotypes (the funny one, the smart one, the hot one, the leader) and, regardless of how hard I tried, 3.) I just couldn't find a real world scenario where five attractive, smart and athletic “teenagers” could be possibly bullied by an overweight greaser and his moronic sidekick (that's Bulk and Skull in case you were wondering). In the end, the human element never felt real because any characterization always came off as forced or written by someone who'd never even met a teenager. Now, with that particular franchise run into the ground (almost 20 seasons of this stuff!) and Saban Studios seemingly desperate to relive the “good times”, we've been given Power Rangers, the first iteration in the franchise that actually feels like the writers knew what they were doing. And it's awesome!

Yes, Power Rangers, despite being based on one of the dumbest kids shows of the 90s (an era dedicated to dumb kids shows), has somehow managed to bottle lightning and become far more awesome that its predecessor could ever hope. The characters are likable and display actual depth, the script seems to realize how bad of an idea its inception was and actually tries to fix its most glaring problems, Elizabeth Banks is fun and campy as Rita Repulsa, the action is fluid and the dialog doesn't feel like it was written by a childless thirty-year-old. Throw in a straight-faced Bryan Cranston as Zordon and ACTUAL BACKSTORIES for everyone and you have what Saban should have done twenty years ago: write smarter scripts and rely on your audience's intelligence.

Unfortunately, while the movie works great as an origin story, the actual “morphing” into multi-colored ninja warriors and flying giant mech parts still reeks of a property woefully connected to its past. While its not all bad (there's a pretty awesome Rita vs. giant robot moment that's perfect in its build up and execution), its still sad that the franchise succeeded so well in making believable characters just to skimp on the crazy monster fights at the end. Oh well, at least you have interesting kids fighting monsters this time.

As for watching it, do you remember growing up with this tripe in the nineties? Chances are you've either booked tickets far in advance or renounced all connection to that series permanently and are, thereby, confined to that opinion regardless of what I say. Have you only heard of Power Rangers in minor passing references and always wondered what all the fuss is about? This would be a much better starting point than the T.V. Series. Pick how you want to watch Karate-infused teenagers fight monsters, I guess.

Dean Israelite (Project Almanac) tries to get away from bad found footage movies with pretty resounding success with Power Rangers, a movie that didn't have to be as good as it was for a reboot. Basically, five teenagers stumble across karate powers and use them to fight monsters while wearing tights, driving giant dinosaur robots and kicking rock monsters in the face. Yeah, its actually as awesome as it sounds. Go for it.

My score: 8/10. There have been many great lines in movies over the last century, yet I am hard pressed to find a better recent one than, “We have to stop Rita from destroying the Krispy Kreme!” That's like Shakespeare for millennials there...

Logan: The Best There Is At What He Does

Even with occasionally spiraling quality of the parent X-Men movies, there just never seemed to be a way to make a good movie about its flagship character Wolverine. While this could be chalked up to Fox losing faith the series after a few self-inflicted misfires (X-3), it never helped that the first actual trip into the tattered psyche of the character (Origins) still consistently ranks as one of the worst comic book movies ever put to film. And, while they did try to fix this problem with an awesome premise (Wolverine vs. Ninjas!) in The Wolverine a few years later, even that effort came off as too ham-fisted and afraid to explore the character fully. Apparently tired of hearing these complaints over the years and with the added bonus of Deadpool totally proving their business model wrong (R rated movies CAN make money!), Fox has finally decided to give us Logan, the movie Wolverine always deserved but never seemed to get. The result is something very near perfection.

Yes, despite taking 17 years and literally another hero (Deadpool) to convince stupid people of its potential, Logan is an awesome send-off to a worthy character who deserved it a decade sooner. The action is visceral and merciless, Stephen Merchant as Caliban is both a disconcerting comic relief and a genuinely honorable character, Dafne Keen might be the best newcomer of the last few years and does so with little or no dialog and, finally freed of the hang ups of a PG-13 movie, the script is able to weave and honest and believable narrative without neutering it for consumption purposes. This world isn't a happy place for mutants and whole dream of that utopia never came to fruition. Instead, the world just found a way to “deal” with mutants and left the survivors not so much to pick up the pieces but to wallow in the ash of the perfect world Xavier (Stewart) so desperately wanted to create. The final result is a world where mutants aren't so much a vilified race anymore as a decimated and little thought-of population desperately trying to find hope where they are little more than an endangered species no one is really keen on saving. It's a superhero movie where the superheroes are the ones who need rescuing.

Unfortunately, while the movie works so well when it focuses on its own humanity, it ultimately fails on its biggest selling point: the over-the-top violence. While this worked early in the movie as an explanation for just how hard the world has become, it eventually loses its context and falls into nothing but pointless bloodletting over its 135 minute run time. While this violence is still fun to watch, by the third act, it all falls into a tired pattern of Logan (Jackman) running into an army of disposable meat heads and choosing to dice his way through them for little purpose outside of feeling like the producers purchased too much overpriced fake blood. This, compounded by the film's scattershot narrative being given too much time to fester, causes the movie to have multiple narrative problems when it should be wrapping up for the awesome finale. While it still nails the ending by giving the main characters a worthy send off, it still remains a sad footnote that they pretty much had the whole movie in the bag before someone said, “Hey! Let's add one more action scene!”

As for watching it, do you like comic book movies but hate that they seem to neuter their best characters for a more box office-friendly PG-13 rating? This isn't kid-friendly in the slightest. Would you prefer being able to take your kids with you to the theater? Go watch Disney Marvel while the big boys finally get their day in the sun over at Fox. Either way, Marvel gets your money here.

James Mangold (The Wolverine) finally gets the green light to make a proper Wolverine movie with Logan, a dark, poignant superhero movie about a man wanting to die while desperately seeking something to live for. In the far future, mutants are now on the verge of extinction and Logan (Jackman) is an old man slowly dying from sepsis due to his metal bones. When offered a job to get mutant clone Laura (Keen) to a safe haven in Canada, Logan packs up his last friend Charles (Stewart) and the three go on a road trip occasionally punctuated by Laura getting angry and bad guys dying horribly. Basically, its The Road with a slightly more hopeful message and more cyborgs. Check it out.

My score: 8/10. Showtime just released its newest promo for the Twin Peaks reboot. It's a twenty second clip of creator David Lynch eating a glazed doughnut. Never change, man...

The Great Wall: Too Tall An Order

There are a lot of things I feel when people claim they are offended by a movie. Due to the fact that I'm incapable of such an emotion (I blame G-Force), I tend to mock said people because, in my mind, they are wasting what little time they have on this Earth not so much being offended by something that targets them particularly, but because they are offended AT THE BEHEST of an entirely different demographic of people. So, to those people, I say this from the bottom of my heart: shut up! Don't hate Great Wall for casting Matt Damon (a box office draw) in a Chinese movie (not a box office draw). If you have to hate it for something, hate it for being a generic cash grab with little depth and an even less understandable story.

Sadly, Great Wall, despite its obvious ploying for a Chinese audience (98% of the cast are established Chinese stars), is a pretty terrible movie. The story is confusing, the acting is hammy at best, the pacing is glacial and most side characters tend to go off on tangents that don't really get resolved in any satisfactory manner. Throw in the fact that some of the most memorable characters' best aspect get completely lost in translation due to poor introductions and you have a movie designed solely to pander to the Chinese under the guise of normalized relations instead of any kind of attempt at entertainment.

Fortunately, if you can bear with the heavy slog of exposition dialog via subtitles, there are a few awesome things to behold. Like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, the White Witch and pretty much every Chinese epic ever made, the battle scenes are colorful and exciting and never skimp on a chance to see some interesting battle choreography. And, while she kind of gets written into a corner as a forgettable soldier with too much emphasis on duty, Tian Jing is kind of fun to watch and actually displays more depth than this movie would ever require. Hey, it made me interested in one foreign actress's career for a little while. I call that a win.

Reasons for watching it come down to you preference or lack thereof for foreign movies. Do you overlook subtitles and just enjoy the experience? You'll probably find a few things here to have fun with before the inevitable White Man Meddling that comes into play in the second act kind of drags the whole thing through the mud. Do you hate all foreign movies because they require you to read? You won't be missing anything really unique and, in all honesty, Damon and his English speaking cohorts are so bland they might as well have been named Bland English Speakers in the credits. It just comes down to how you want to spend about two hours of your life this time.

Yimou Zhang (House of Flying Daggers) goes from making amazing movies about Chinese legend to a sort of okay movie about Chinese legend with The Great Wall, a hammy-at-times, mostly overbearing attempt to dumb a foreign culture down enough for American consumption. After killing a mysterious creature on their way to China to trade for black powder, Mercenaries William (Damon) and Tovar (Pedro Pascal) are drafted into a secret Chinese order dedicated to guarding the Great Wall against supernatural attacks (via lizard...things) that occur regularly every sixty years. Along the way, William will learn about honor by watching a bunch of Chinese soldier die, Tovar will randomly spout something that's hilarious about sixty percent of the time and the whole movie will feel more like D-Wars (minus that awesome second act) than anything resembling an epic adventure. Tread here at your own risk.

My score: 4/10. Seriously, has anyone ever watched D-Wars? It's one of the worst movies ever made and, near the eighty minute mark or so, becomes freaking awesome! They've got dragons fighting helicopters, giant rhino things fighting tanks, stone soldiers fighting dudes with machine guns and a Korean snake dragon hugging a building! Then they all wind up on Mars or something and the thing dips back into its original, terrible quality. Why couldn't this movie do that?

Lego Batman Movie: Everything is (Slightly Less) Awesome

While I'm aware he's been around for far more decades than myself, it's still really hard to take anything Batman-related seriously because, let's be honest, no one else seems to even when they seem to demand your respect. The character, either through federal intervention, lazy writing or just the simplest of greedy motivations, has run the gamut of everything from hilariously bad (Batman and Robin) to horribly bad (Batman vs. Superman) to goofily awesome (Batman 66) to realistically average (Dark Knight Rises). Throughout these iterations, it always feels like the creators all had one thing in common: none of them were actually Batman fans. Well, for those of you wondering about the creators of Lego Batman, yes, they are fans and, yes, they are ready and willing to call out the character for his shaky history. The good news? The result is freaking awesome.

For all intents and purposes, Lego Batman could possibly lay claim to not only the best version of the character ever (Will Arnett) but also the first Batman movie to not take itself too serious to actually be fun. The characters are interesting, the setting is fun, the jokes are funny and, underneath the kid-friendly veneer of Lego blocks and PG dialog, there's an encyclopedic knowledge of Batman and his history that seems to exist for one very special reason: to make fun of just how ridiculous he truly is. This isn't the broody Nolan movies or the wasted Snyder attempt. At its core, its an argument that, if Batman wasn't such a loner, maybe he wouldn't constantly be reinventing himself (via numerous different writers and artists). Its like a Batman movie that tells you that Batman kind of stinks if you think about it too hard. Take that, nerds!

Unfortunately, and mostly because of its obvious connection to the superior Lego Movie, not quite everything really lines up when its supposed to. While the cast, setting and story are near perfect, the movie falls into a rut near the beginning of the third act due to the poor animation of what I call “Lego Action” (i.e. what happens when you try to fluidly animate plastic bricks). And, while its predecessor went out of its way to cleverly mock crass commercialism and kid movies as a whole, Batman lacks some of the biting humor that probably would have pushed this one over than particular ledge of quality. Hey, they can't all have an annoying song that you don't mind getting stuck in your head.

As for watching it, are you a Batman fan or a small child? Go watch this. The fan in you will love the Easter Eggs of days gone by and the kid in you will love the inherent silliness (sort of like the franchise as a whole). Are you neither of these things? Go watch Fifty Shades Darker as punishment for your boring existence.

Chris McKay (Robot Chicken) takes his irreverent comedic talents to the big screen with The Lego Batman Movie, a movie meant to help Batman fans get over themselves. When Gotham City, a multicolored metropolis supported by a flimsy brick bridge over a void that “smells strangely of dirty underwear”, is attacked by The Joker (Zach Galifianakis), Batman, with the help of accidentally adopted son Robin (Michael Cera), must find a way not only to put everything right, but also help Batman work out his compatibility issues with...well, everyone. Along the way, Rosario Dawson will be the best Batgirl ever, Superman (Channing Tatum) will seem like a bigger tool than he probably is and Jerry Macguire will be openly mocked as an unintentional comedy. It's like the movie equivalent of a flame war, but you have to be a comic book fan to either laugh or be offended by it.

My score: 8/10. In the movie, the Joker does bad things because he feels neglected and unappreciated by Batman's constant indifference to him. This movie actually claims bad things happen because Batman's a jerk. I wasn't aware filmmakers had guts like that. Respect.

Riverdale Episode 5: A (Mostly Successful) Attempt at Character Development

For all its downright amazing aspects (okay, really the only things amazing about this show are the reimagining of Betty and Veronica and the whole Jughead-as-a-goth thing), one thing Riverdale consistently tries and fails at is actual character development. Hermione Lodge? Totally up to her ears in her husband's dirty deeds and the show doesn't even try to cast her in a more sympathetic light (working at a diner and secretly making illegal deals is NOT an arc!). Reggie? He's the same alpha-douche he is in the comics with the added benefit of being portrayed as a dumber than usual douchebag. Even when the show tries to add depth to otherwise unnecessarily shallow characters (Fred Andrews?), it always comes off as half-handed and underwhelming before the writers seemingly realize that they like these characters to remain in a familiar rut. Then...the funeral happened and finally, mercifully showed us all that this show might finally have some legs to make older fans uncomfortable.

Okay, total confession: I'm totally in the whole camp that believes Polly (Betty's sister) is pregnant and away because of her "sickness" and the show itself hasn't really done a good job of trying to make that anything less than a really lousy red herring. And, while there are small bits of info regarding Jason Blossom as ranging anywhere between a generally bad person to a total future serial killer, the fact that his only confirmed (and definitively described) actions are almost exclusively noble tend to put a wrench in the whole "He was killed for being a total bastard" theory. Outside of some out-of-this-world twist meant to uproot the entire plot, it all still comes down to the idea that Jason abandoned his family for a probably noble cause (Polly) and was killed by someone who probably believed the less noble things about him (which could still be almost anyone directly related to the whole forbidden romance in the first place). The fact that Cheryl has finally become less of a basket case and accepted that her brother was less than perfect (even though the journal from the last episode kind of hints otherwise) and finally been given room to grow before her mother stamped it out also lends to the idea that maybe she's not just the bitch character in this scenario. What can I say? I love when characters finally show a little more life beyond their initial impressions and the CW isn't known for that kind of nuance.

As for bad, its still kind of sad that the show is skimping on actual answers 5 episodes in even without any real hint of the direction its planning on going. Instead of solving anything (I don't care if its unrelated to the main murder mystery), the show continues to pile on plot threads that, at this current rate, could cause the entire series to bog down into little more than a bad teen melodrama long before its first season is up. Dear writers, solve a few problems before you go on to others. If you want to make the murder mystery the big payoff, fine. But, for the love of God, please don't keep dangling so many bizarre plot threads (Hermione's activities, Betty's "problems", Archie's new music stuff) above everything else! You did fine when you finally got rid of the whole Grundy thing in the last episode (which probably should have happened an episode sooner). Please don't bog us down with something that feels so unnecessary and pandering toward future seasons you don't even have yet!

Riverdale Episode 4: Chasing the Darkness, Not Quite Catching It

The main selling point of Rivedale, at least up to this point, is not that it is a modern retelling of an old comic, but that it tries to put a much darker spin on something better known for messy threesome jokes and overly dated dialog. And, while it has managed to exceed those expectations (a murder mystery, a teacher-student "relationship", mental health problems), it never quite manages to go the proper distance when it comes to embracing the darkness in a believable way. Regardless of how awesome Jughead comes off, his dialog is still pretty awful even for a CW/Teen-focused show (how does one keep a straight face when he delivers a somber monologue involving his sister Jellybean?). And, while its still managed to maintain its biggest strengths (the friendships are nearly perfect and the re-imagined characters mostly work great), it can never seem to get over the hump of its problematic quality.

For every wonderful new thing that brings out either the redemption of Veronica or the steady fracturing of Betty, the show continues to focus either on mostly one-dimensional characters (Kevin is still just "the gay guy" and needs to improve) or underwhelm with its side characters that don't really feel like they were meant to be this big a part of the story (Betty's mom hasn't really done anything outside of being a "kind of crazy bitch with some serious parenting issues" character). Fortunately, following Episode 4: The Last Picture Show, it at least feels like the writers are trying to remedy some of the more dangling plot elements of the show.

Let's be honest: the Grundy/Archie thing was icky at worst and just kind of poorly written at best and, even with its end, didn't seem to have any way to actually end it with any kind of clear resolution. And, while it was still nice to see Fred Andrews rear his kind of oblivious head again, it remains a sad state of the writing department that he's basically the most relatable adult in the series merely because he's the only one who either isn't batshit crazy (The Coopers), a potentially criminal (The Lodges) or just kind of there to pop in every once in a while to remind you of their existence (The Blooms). The adult problem on this show is beginning to show its seams.

Fortunately, when the series still clicks, it clicks beautifully. This week, Betty finally shows off the detective skills she sort of possesses in the comics and, instead of a willing Jughead to egg her on, she has recruited a reluctant Veronica as her sidekick (which somehow makes it all kind of feel like a buddy comedy). And, while Jughead still remains something of a blank slate when it comes to actual character development (four episodes in and all I know is he has some serious people issues), it was nice to see that he not only does have family that we get to see, but also that he hates them for some unforeseen reason (which I'm more than willing to grant them leeway for). Good job taking a slowly flailing character and trying to give him new dimension, I guess.

As for actual resolution to the plot of the season so far: its fair to say that at least one step was made forward here. Removing Grundy from the scenario finally opens Archie up to some kind of character development and, while he's still the doofus with a heart of gold here, its nice to not see the kid bogged down by hormones and actually trying to work out things for a change. And, while there still wasn't enough of it, Betty's ability to stand up to her mom final feels like it yielded some kind of result (her mom seems to be underestimating her less). While this didn't address the bugfuck nature of the previous episode (Betty tried to kill a guy with a hot tub), its nice to see that, when she cracks from the pressure, its meant to elicit a favorable response to her plight. All in all, not bad four episodes in. Please don't hurt me, Episode 5.

Riverdale Episode 3: Full Dark

So far, as a CW TV series, Riverdale seems to be defying expectations despite its less-than-memorable opening. Most of the characters, excepting Kevin Keller and his overboard gay best friend shtick, become more interesting with time, the murder mystery that started so lame is finally reaching some level of compelling storytelling and, even though its all based on the most bubblegum of bubblegum classic Americana comics in existence, the series seems to be more than willing to not only change the characters in interesting ways, but also seems to be willing to give them a sense of darkness one would never associate with the character to begin with. Now, with Episode 3: Body Double out and ready to hopefully expand on the brilliance that was Episode 2, my only response is: "Wow! They actually went there."

Let's start off by pointing out that, despite its massive and hasty improvement, Riverdale still lacks quite a lot before my own brand of "Perfect TV Show" ever comes into play. Yes, the murder of Jason Blossom is finally getting interesting as the plot finally feels stabilized, but the Archie-Grundy-Hot-For-The-Teacher plot thread remains the weakest holdover from the pilot and, while he is steadily improving, Keller just isn't that interesting and all he seems to be here for is to randomly say gay things because "he's the gay guy". Come on, writers! If John Barrowman and Neil Patrick Harris can make homosexuals seems awesome in a totally guy movie way, you can find a way to make Kevin Keller more than a walking stereotype and GIVE HIM SOMETHING INTERESTING TO DO.

Other than that, what can I say? The episode is awesome. Cheryl Blossom, no longer the bitchy widow (to her twin brother), finally gets added depth as a woman who finally realizes that her brother was more of a bastard than she ever realized. Fred Andrews, the constantly niggling grownup voice that never comes off as anything more than a buzzkill for all the teen fun, is actually acting like he might be trying to understand Archie (which makes his character arch much more interesting). Jeez. Even Betty (the good girl in a way that makes other good girls look like whores) has finally been given a dimension of darkness that I didn't expect (I wasn't aware that the name "Betty Cooper" and the phrase "might fucking kill you!" could actually go together on this show). Kudos for not being afraid to slaughter some sacred cows!

My recommendation for Episode 4: for the love of God, kill Grundy or give her something interesting to do besides be Archie's creepy obsession. The character is bland at best and uninteresting at worst and, even though she seems to have some pivotal reason for her influence on Archie, her plot thread feels like the only thing on the show still struggling to tread water.  Other than that, the show is as close as your going to get to great disposable teen entertainment. What more could you ask for there?

Riverdale Episode 2: A Touch of Evil. Second Time the Charm

It's no secret that I kind of hated the pilot to Riverdale. Despite its best intentions, my only positive takeaway was that Betty and Veronica were two kind of awesome gems in an otherwise drab river of shit plotlines, overly broody characters and a kind of screwy murder mystery tying all the lousiness together. What a change a second episode makes!
Episode 2: A Touch of Evil is what the pilot should have been if the writers were intending to draw people to its original premise. Archie finally comes out in his own, becoming a somewhat loveable dunderhead (especially with his love life) who, despite being kind of an asshole (he keeps waffling on his girlfriends) always does the right thing when it counts the most. Jughead (Cole Sprouse), who spent the first episode as little more than a voiceover with an underwhelming intro, stepped out as more than the emo, asexual goth he was portrayed as in the pilot and finally became the "Archie's Best Friend" archetype he was meant to be without feeling tacked on for the sake of plot twists. Even Cheryl Blossom, the queen bitch in this version of Riverdale, had a little time to shine and gain a little depth. Seriously, where were these writers when the pilot was being filmed? Also, how did this show suddenly go from a drab, Twilight-inspired, teen angsty, cry-fest to a somewhat less drab, well-cast, teen angsty, murder mystery with the occasional spot-on humor (its actually an improvement if you didn't realize that)?
As for bad, why on Earth did the writers make Betty...that? I get they were trying to add friction for the purpose of drama with the whole fallout from the pilot, but isn't Betty supposed to be intelligent in this reimagining? To have a character go from shy but intelligent to irrationally bitchy because of something no one could have prevented (in this case: Cheryl's machinations to torment her) boggles the mind when she started out as one of the few steadfastly strong things about Episode 1. Whatever, it all felt like unnecessary padding to an otherwise well-rounded hour of television and, in defense of the her bitchiness, at least she shook that particular funk off before the credits. You can make mistakes when you properly time out how to fix them, Television.
As for watching it, surprising even me, I actually recommend it this time. Archie no longer feels like an Edward Cullen wannabe (because they added some sunniness for a change), Jughead shucks his Nameless narrator status for a sort of compelling character (who I'm anxious to see if he will capitalize on it) and what worked in the pilot still works here when it finally clicks (Veronica and Betty's friendship is still pretty fun to watch play out).  All in all, good times. Talk about a perfect 180!

Riverdale: Takes a familiar formula; does the same thing...

While I would be surprised if I'm alone, I'm one of the few people I know who's actually read a large number of Archie Comics. And, keep in mind this is coming from someone who made the conscious decision to read this tripe (a lot!), let me be the first to say that the comics are complete bullshit. Archie is a selfish idiot, Veronica is a bitchy socialite with a competitive streak, Betty is an airhead who seems to be slumming it in her infatuation with Archie and the whole town of Riverdale was pretty much just an overly perfected version of classic Americana with little beneath the surface. Now, apparently realizing that their signature creation really is THAT awful, the creators have decided to turn the whole damned thing into a CW series and...they really didn't add much to the mix. Talk about not hearing the dogs barking in your head.
Sadly, from a strictly watchable standpoint, Riverdale excels in its own averageness. Archie is now an oversexed teenager with a serious Edward Cullen complex (I'm curious if he would sparkle if the sun would ever come out). Kevin is little more than you basic stereotype of a gay best friend to Betty, the series rather cheery outlook on life as been replaced by a murder mystery in the heart of eternal fog country, Jughead has become an emo and, apparently to be just a little late on the timely train, Veronica's dad is now Bernie Madoff. Good job swinging for the fences and still missing, CW!
Fortunately, if you can look past the fact that the writers basically took Vampire Diaries (dark and broody), Pretty Little Liars (somewhat interesting characters with uninteresting plots) and Teen Wolf (beautiful, oversexed people in various states of undress), you might find something worth the forty plus minute slog the pilot quickly becomes. Despite being the second least likeable character from the comics (behind Archie), Veronica (Camila Mendes) is sort of endearing as a former socialite-queen-bitch-turned-wannabe-good-person. I know this is only the pilot and they have twenty-plus episodes to totally screw her up and turn the whole damned thing into another will-they-won't-they love triangle but, come on, when was the last time you felt like rooting for the Veronica in this particular tricycle? And, while the character quickly devolved into Joey from Season 1 of Dawson's Creek (openly pining for the guy too stupid to notice the burning house in front of him), Betty (Lila Reinhart) actually kind of fits the role well enough to make her memorable and, dare I say it, endearing. Hell, if the show could have just been about Betty and Veronica and just killed off Archie (or sent him away to boarding school for a semester, I don't care!), it almost feels like this show would have improved twofold based solely on the winning combo of catty (Veronica) and stoic (Betty).
As for watching it, is there literally anything else on? Yeah, good luck with that decision. I guess if you're really hard up you can endlessly repeat the out-of-nowhere Veronica-Betty cheerleader audition makeout on CW.com or laugh at some of the stale jokes that fall flat because of Jughead's (Cole Sprouse) terribly bland delivery, but, let's be honest, nothing in this particular episode feels even remotely unique. Every character is playing a worse version of terrible characters you've seen in slightly better shows and, even with the added incentive of a series that is trying to "modernize" a very outdated story, there just isn't anything here that makes it stick out. Maybe Jughead will get more screen time to actually DO SOMETHING in Episode 2...

Virginia: Less Interesting Than The Actual State

While I can appreciate game companies and their strange (and often ridiculous) methods, sometimes their wonky ideas just don't lead anywhere particularly special because they don't actually seem to GET what makes a person actually play a videogame. For those uninitiated to the whole process: we play for a.) mindless entertainment (Gears of War), b.) puzzles that we feel smart trying to solve and better about when we finally do solve (Portal) or c.) we seek an in-depth story that we can not only immerse ourselves in, but also feel like we are a pivotal part of the living narrative (literally ANY RPG ever made). With the adventure/mystery Virginia...I'm not exactly sure where the hell developer Variable State was going with it.

Okay, nice things first: the game has an amazing soundtrack and, despite having no discernable dialog, works on a narrative standpoint that wouldn't have if it somehow hadn't been able to make you care about the poorly pixelated characters. And, while I never really cared about the story, the fact that I genuinely cared about the central mystery says wonders about either how well the game is made or how low my actual standards for a videogame might actually be. There's a win in there somewhere.

Unfortunately, the game ultimately fails because, unlike other narrative-driven games (Walking Dead, Life Is Strange, Game of Thrones, ANY RPG!), the gameplay itself is boring as hell. There's no puzzle to solve or even real mystery to uncover (despite the central plot trying to be interesting). Its just your perspective with a little damn dot that occasionally grows into a circle to tell you where to go. Point A to Point B and so on without any rhyme or reason only punctuated by the occasionally jarring jump to the next section of the game. Throw in the obnoxious probability of FUCKING COLLECTIBLES and you have a game that, once finished, you just can't bring yourself to ever play again because of the increasingly boring slog that was that three hours of your life.

Now, with that out of the way, why was this game so beloved amongst the critical circuits? Most critics seemed to praise the fact that the main characters were two black women, but isn't that like trying to give the new Ghostbusters a free pass for its terrible script strictly because it had women leads? Or nominating Ava DuVernay for an Oscar simply because she's a black woman (anyone in Hollywood could have directed Selma)? Yet, beyond reason, most gaming outlets shower this game with praise for its progressive thinking instead of its actual gameplay innovation when, in the end, it's little more than an obnoxiously long walking simulator with limited replay value and one of the most unsatisfying endings I've seen in gaming in many years. The annual gaming award circuits have some explaining to do...

Passengers: Heroes Can Suck Too

While it might seem strange to hear this, Rogue One has managed to point out one of the most serious flaws in our movies: the heroes are just too freaking perfect. I don't mean they are annoying simply because they are good guys or that the whole “truth and justice” thing has become any less compelling. Its just that, when a hero emerges in a movie, whether he possesses superpowers or just a really dry wit, they tend to be written as perfect specimens of humanity rather than what they should be: selfish, egotistical people who, when called upon, set aside their most human aspects for the greater good. I might root for Captain America to catch the bad guy but I'd still like to believe he has some kind of personal flaw that makes him, you know, HUMAN. Now, with the failure of Morten Tyldum's Passengers to make any kind of dent in the box office, it...appears people disagree with this opinion. Go figure.

Yes, Passengers, despite having one of the easiest-to-dislike protagonists in recent memory, is a passable sci-fi movie that at least seems to understand its own tropes. Chris Pratt is still funny and pulls off a strangely human performance as engineer Jim, Jennifer Lawrence is just likable enough that the weird second act can almost be forgiven, Michael Sheen is the second best robot of 2016 without having to do anything outside of mix drinks and, even though you don't see enough of it, the ship and space action is still enough fun to justify its overly long run time. On top of all this, it finally gives us something in a sci-fi movie that we actually need: a protagonist that you can't in good conscience root for because of his most selfish act. Say what you will about Pratt or his charming onscreen presence. No amount of humor will ever overshadow the fact that Jim is a bad person and, unlike pretty much every other movie I've seen this year, it is a welcome change from the usual batch of All-American (Captain America), socially conscious (Now You See Me 2), overly rote-with-humanity (Hacksaw Ridge) characters that seem to permeate everything in movies over the last few years. He makes you like him by hating yourself.

As for bad, why exactly is Laurence Fishburne in this movie? The guy is a better actor than what this movie requires and to have someone of his caliber here merely to spout sci-fi lingo and try to play temporary peacemaker between the two leads almost feels trite in its very concept. This, mixed with the wonky chemistry (which is also mixed with the foreknowledge of how they came together), make this otherwise passable sci-fi movie feel like some kind of back-handed soap opera rather than anything meant to entertain. You don't tie good actors into a bad game of will-they-won't-they just to extend the run time, people!

As for watching it, are you a fan of Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lawrence, Michael Sheen or anything space travel related? Go for it and feel bad about being a human who would totally do the same thing in the same position. Have you managed to avoid the undeserving hype surrounding the limited talents of Lawrence but think Pratt's pretty awesome in most of his stuff? You'll get plenty of him to make up for the unfortunate Lawrence presence but probably feel the awkwardness when the big reveal (that you've known for an hour) is finally exposed to all. Pick your poison.

Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game) tries to make his Oscar-level directing fit the sci-fi genre with passable results with Passengers, a heavy on the charm, light on the brain, sci-fi romance with early actions that are almost guaranteed to take you completely out of a sympathetic state. Awakened 30 years into a 120 year spaceflight, Jim (Pratt) must contend with the fact that he will die from old age long before anyone else awakens on his space ark. Contemplating suicide, he is given a new lease on life when he finds the pod of Aurora (Lawrence) and, bear with me here, sabotages her stasis pod and pretty much CONDEMNS HER TO THE SAME FATE. Romance ensues. Yeah, I can totally see that working out for the best.

My score: 6/10. Is it weird that I completely understand Jim's actions even though they took me completely out of the movie less that thirty minutes in?