#why is viola there? just for comic relief?

[eliseliedl]

[freakshowrefugee]

Spoilers for Bayo 3 ahead!!!

Aight I'm playing Bayonetta 3 rn and I have some thoughts that I HAVE to share for the sake of my mental health. In no particular order:

LUKAON??? Bro the entire Luka plot in this game is almost impressively cringy. Who the fuck plays Bayonetta 1 & 2 and thinks—hmm, this Luka fellow should DEFINITELY become central to the plot for this game to REALLY work. Also, they somehow managed to write out any sort of endearing characteristics of the Luka from previous games?? New Luka's entire personality until now seems to be "uhhhh, me man find woman pretty". I won't even get into the masterclass in bad writing (and bad design tbh) that is "Lukaon" (henceforth named Whiter Luka in this rant). If they were going for a "mysterious stranger" kind of vibe, personally I think they fucking failed miserably. B3Luka is only Luka in name and (arguably) appearance. He has the depth of a blank piece of paper.

I fucking HATE playing as Viola, and this colors my opinion of the character too. No shade to the voice actress, I'm sure she did her best with what she was given, but I have audibly groaned almost every time she appeared on screen. I was okay with the idea of her being an edgy, cringy teen, but she eats up SO much fucking screentime that it becomes jarring. Her gameplay is painfully monotonous, even though I find Cheshire adorable, and her controls are stiffer and very limiting in comparison to Bayonetta herself. Gameplay-wise, Viola is everything a Bayonetta game should NOT be (in my opinion)—LIMITING.

Speaking of limiting, the Jeanne levels. Now, anyone who knows me knows that Jeanne is my queen, but HOLY FUCK those levels. Again, controls do not feel right, level design is atrocious and it all feels like a slog to go through. Why did they think we needed more gimmick levels for the love of fuck?? Why can't I just play Bayonetta in my Bayonetta fucking game? They did my queen dirty, on God...

Why the FUCK are we not exploring the Bayonetta alternative selves more??? There is so much fucking potential, the Egyptian version seems genuinely fascinating to explore, but NOPE!! Why should the Bayonetta game be about Bayonetta when it can be about new character we don't give a shit about and comic-relief-side-character that the writers PROMISE is srs bsns bro, I swear. Ask yourself this, if you were given the choice, would you follow the Viola storyline? I'm genuinely fucking curious.

Ngl, I'm not crazy about the gameplay. It's too much, too fast, nothing seems to matter and nothing is special. They constantly throw enemies at us with no sense of pacing or progression. Same for weapons. Remember the Grace & Glory entrance cutscene from the first game? Remember how memorable that was? Well, hope you DIDN'T like that, cause Bayo 3 will likely never give you that feeling. It's the DEFINITION of too much, too quickly. When everything is meant to be special, nothing is really special. Bayonetta 3 is flashy, for sure, but it feels shallow, at least on the first playthrough. I fucking hate saying this, but I'm genuinely disappointed. I think there are some good bones. I would love to be able to use the new weapons and techniques in a better designed, petter paced game (like Bayonetta 1), but as it stands, playing 3 feels cheap. When I got hit in Bayo 1 I never felt frustration, because most enemies and arenas were designed to allow you to experiment and figure out your own play style. With Bayo 3 I have literally dropped my controller out of frustration (usually when playing Viola). Listen, if be okay with Viola if she was an optional character, like King Zero from the first game or Rosa from the second. As she is, she makes me NOT want to fucking play the game, which is insanely frustrating.

The Crow and Cat umbran tears illustrate the weaknesses of Bayonetta 3's controls VERY fucking well. Why so many fucking gimmicks?? Who plays Bayonetta for the Route 666 and beginning of Isla del Sol, WHO??? Because they would probably love Bayonetta 3.

The world is sadly also quite poorly designed. Everything which shares an aesthetic blends together and orientation without a map of some sorts is a logistical nightmare. Again, it seems like they took the worst parts of Bayo 1 and filled 3 to the brim with them. Gimmicks, backtracking, the fact that you can MISS verses because of the poor map design.

It bears repeating, but this is very personal thing and less of a critique. I don't care about Viola. I don't care about Luka or Whiter Luka. I don't care about the Singularity or Sigurd. I'm. Or even curious about them at this point. Why was Bayonetta relegated to a side character in a game that is NAMED AFTER HER?? I care more about Ed and Edna than I do all previous individuals mentioned. The story of Bayonetta was never great, even in 1, but it was held together by memorable characters. You can't TELL me that a character is memorable, you have to show me. Even the character of Bayo herself has suffered as a result of the poor writing. The depth of her personality is nowhere to be found in 3. And no, it's not the voice change, I love Hale's work and she is doing a great job. We overlooked faults in the story in Bayo 1 (and arguably 2) because the gameplay loop was satisfying. Bayo 3 doesn't have that. And it makes me really fucking sad...

[sharkuccino]

Bayonetta 3. Oh Bayonetta 3. There’s so much to say that it all gets mucked up, but I’ll attempt to sort it out anyway.

I’ve heard a lot of arguments that Bayo 1 and 2′s stories are just as bad, and while the stories probably aren’t that great, in my opinion, they are both leaps and bounds better than 3 because they at least provide context for everything that happens in them. In 1, we know why Father Balder wants the eyes. We know the boss deaths are leading to something because each one praises Jubileus. We can even infer, unless we’re outright told (it’s been awhile; I’m a little hazy) that little Cereza has been yoinked from the past by Balder. In 2, it’s explained who Loptr is, why he wants the eyes, and why he sought to get rid of Loki. We’re told why the old war happened as it all connects back to 1. Some found this connection forced and unsatisfying, but, hey, at least they tried to make it work.

What are we told in 3? We’re never told why Sigurd wants to reshape the world or how he created the homonculi. The fae’s sudden involvement and Luka being one is never explained. There’s no context clues that Viola is involved with Bayonetta accept for characters saying she looks familiar, but honestly, where?

The biggest complaint I’ve seen is with the Bayonetta x Luka pairing which okay sure, but that’s far from the game’s biggest issue. I know it’s disappointing after all the Bayo x Jeanne official art, but I mean she’s bi anyway. It’s not outlandish for her to end up with a man; however, considering this Bayo is heavily inferred to be the little Cereza from 1, it is a bit weird to see her end up with Luka since he acted as her babysitter in the first game. Different Luka, sure, but it’s weird all the same.

And as cool as that little scene with Bayo 1 and 2 was near the end, I’m not sure how I feel about them being treated as separate entities considering how closely linked their stories are. They feel like the same person to me. In Bayo 1, since she lacked her memories, Bayonetta fought for herself and for her own reasons, but due to the story’s events, in 2, she has found her strength in fighting for others. It almost feels wrong to disconnect that.

Speaking of feeling like a person, Viola. Oh, Viola. She went from “serious character who just watched her close comrades die” to “clumsy comic relief who only sometimes remembers she was introduced as serious.” I mean don’t let me accuse Bayo characters of having depth, but since they were trying to do something more serious with this story, this was sort of the perfect chance to introduce a meaningful character with a touching arc.  I’ve seen others mention the theme  of individuality throughout her character song and design. Ignore the serious tone of the game for a sec (or maybe not). Her arc could have been about not needing to live up to anyone or their legacy and proving herself through her own means. Instead we get her yelling about being Viola the whole game only to end up using Bayonetta’s name at the end. It’s unfitting. It’s unsatisfying. It’s a waste.

It really does feel like they saw all their cancelled or scrapped games and ideas and said, “let’s just shove it in here.” The kaiju battles look cool, but they are slow and clunky and kill the pacing. They tried to copy DMC5 without actually looking into what made that game so satisfying. Somehow the game feels bloated and underdone at the same time. And as a last call for Bayonetta, it’s kind of insulting.

[shayminlucario07]

Post-clearing Bayonetta 3 thoughts

Obligatory (And obvious) spoiler warning!

So... people really didn’t like this game? Like, actually? Why?

Is it because of “Straight Bayonetta”? If so, I have news for you: Bayonetta’s relationship with Jeanne has always been deliberately ambiguous, just as much so as her relationship with Luka was in the previous two games, so like. Read it however you want- if you want Cereza and Jeanne to be a thing, they can be! Bisexuals do in fact exist!

Is it because people didn’t like Viola? Because... I mean, fair, I guess, since the narrative didn’t exactly do her justice, but she’s also the Cerezita/Loki of this game, which means she was never going to be as fleshed out as the other characters. And, frankly, if there’s going to be a Bayonetta 4, she’ll pretty obviously be the main character- which I’m totally here for, to be clear- and that’ll actually give her the chance to DO something.

Is it because of the Homunculi/Singularity plot being underdeveloped? Because... that’s kind of the case with every Bayonetta antagonist. The only reason Balder works as well as he does is because of the retroactive adjustments in Bayonetta 2, since he was... not exactly three-dimensional in Bayonetta 1. And the only reason Aesir worked is because of Loki, you know. BEING half of Aesir.

Is it because of how little focus the alternate Bayonettas got? Because... yeah, I agree, they deserved more emphasis than they had, but the thing you have to remember is- regardless of what the narrative in Bayonetta 3 implies, there’s no way to be sure that ANYONE is actually gone- Bayonetta 2′s storyline was literally about Cereza trying to bring Jeanne back from the dead, so like. As far as I’m concerned, resurrection has already been established. Also, when your story goes to multiverse level storytelling, all rules are out the window- not that there ever were any, since it’s Bayonetta, and rule of cool dominates everything, spectacle above all is the entire concept of the series.

Ultimately, my thoughts are thus:

It sucks that we have more limited weapon kits, but the weapons we did get are awesome in their own right and frankly, the acquisition of them is much more narratively effective than every other Bayonetta weapon except the guns and maybe Alruna, since. They actually HAVE A ROLE in the narrative. Also, the concepts were pretty great overall- though I could’ve done without having like, four separate slow weapons, but hey, we got Ignis Araneae Yo-Yo and Simoon and there’s a weapon named Ribbit-Libido BZ55, so, who actually gives a shit.

Some of the demon designs were... weird (Looking at you, Gouon and Clock Tower) but the returning demons were a delight to see reimagined (BAAL ZEBUL MY BELOVED YOU ARE THE HIGHLIGHT OF THE ENTIRE GAME) and while I’m kind of mad we didn’t get to see Sheba or Omne again, I also didn’t really expect it in the first place. At least we didn’t get a repeat of Khepri using Butterfly’s body model.

Demon Slave was a fantastic concept- in my opinion, a total step up from Umbran Climax, even if it did mean having to give up meaningful torture attacks- and I especially loved Wink Slave, because like. It’s like a Wicked Weave but EVEN BIGGER and AFTER A WICKED WEAVE. They took the best part of Umbran Climax and made it a normal gameplay move! Fantastic!

Viola’s combat was... weird. Not being able to move and shoot took an adjustment, and I don’t think I’ll ever know how to use the block properly for Witch Time, but it was at least successful in making her feel distinct from Bayonetta, which they never quite nailed with Jeanne and Rosa. She definitely could’ve used more polish in the gameplay department, though.

Speaking of Viola... she suffered from Luca syndrome (Admittedly, rather fitting) in that she was played for comic relief a bit too much to work as well as she needed to. I love the idea of her inheriting the name Bayonetta, but... she doesn’t quite feel like she’s actually THERE yet. She doesn’t have the badass level yet. Also, Cheshire should’ve had actual story in 3, and not just had it be locked behind Cereza and the Lost Demon.

Jeanne was neglected in a frankly depressing manner. Her missions were... fun at first, but overstayed their welcome, and honestly, the most memorable Jeanne moment was Jeanne Beta-Three/Egyptian Jeanne. She deserved better and she CERTAINLY deserved to live- she should’ve been alive to be Viola’s mentor in whatever the next story is.

Ah, Cereza... While I’m sad to see her die, frankly, they could bring her back in the next game and I wouldn’t be bothered in the slightest. It’s Bayonetta, who cares, there are no rules- just look cool and it’ll do everything it needs to. Make Bayonetta 4 be about Viola going to Inferno to bring Cereza and Luka back to the human world, and have her beat the shit out of Queen Sheba to do it. Full circle to the fullest, this time instead of killing God at the end of the game, we’re killing Satan. I’m 1000% in. Also, there’s no way that she’s supposed to be the alternate universe Cereza from the Records of Time in Bayonetta 2- They literally reference the Aesir storyline directly and how the Eyes of the World no longer exist, which is why the Multiverse fracturing happens and why the entirety of Bayonetta 3 happens at all.

Luka was... kind of weird, but not in the way people seem to think based on everything I’ve seen. First and foremost, the idea that the Bayonetta-Luka relationship came out of nowhere is simply untrue- she was always flirting with him. She put Rosemary in her perfume at the end of the first game SPECIFICALLY because of what he said- that’s what that meant! People were just blinded by the concept of Witch Lesbians, which is fair! (Let Bayonetta have both, y’all. Let her have her cringefail ambiguously-part-faerie boyfriend and her badass motorcycle-riding, literally-Joan-of-Arc immortal-ish witch wife. She deserves that.) The whole Lukaon thing was... not well developed, but frankly, I think that’s mostly because of how much the game tried to do. And really, none of the alternate universe things were that well developed, so if you’re going to criticize aspect of that, criticize them all.

Speaking of the alternate universe things- I loved all of them. Tokyo Street-Witch Bayonetta was perfect and I absolutely used that outfit the entire game, because hello, Chinese Warlord Bayonetta was awesome and it was super fun to see her lead an entire army, Egyptian Princess Bayonetta was super cool and it was amazing to see how she actually managed to have a full character arc, going from bonding with her first Infernal Demon to sacrificing herself to save Bayonetta Prime by the end, and French Thief-Magician Bayonetta- Masque*DeMasque Bayonetta, if you will (Hehe Ace Attorney reference I make myself laugh)- was an utter delight, even if she had the most tragic death. And she allowed us to see Rosa again! And she was the only Bayonetta to be blonde! Where did those genetics come from? No clue! Egyptian Bayonetta seemingly inherited Balder’s silver hair, so no clue where French Bayonetta’s blonde came from, but at least we know how/why Viola was blonde. (Also, we deserved to see a variant of Balder. Just one. It’s not fair that we got to see Rosa again but not him. Anti-feminist, dads and moms should be equally important (THAT’S A JOKE DON’T GET MAD AT ME)) I’d love to see more from any of those Bayonettas.

Sigurd was... not good, but he wasn’t really any worse than Aesir or Bayo-1-Balder would be without other characters to make them work better, and frankly, it’s probably a good thing there wasn’t an attempt at making Sigurd more well-developed, because the game was already pretty over-saturated. Singularity as a final boss was underwhelming compared to Jubileus and Aesir, but that’s honestly probably just because there was no summoning of Queen Sheba/Omne and no Infiniton Climax (Bring back the Big Bang Bonus!).

The setpiece segments of Bayonetta 3 were better than 1 and 2 by a landslide- at least, in my opinion. Even if you just focus on the setpieces from the Deadly Sin Ritual Summonings, they surpass the first two on theatrics alone- ESPECIALLY Baal Zebul. Bayonetta just randomly breaking out into a rhythm minigame with an opera-singing frog-princess-demon? PERFECT. But also... Mega-Godzilla-Sin Gomorrah rock-paper-scissors boss fight? Shockingly fun! Phantasmaraneae being upgraded to The Phantom (Devil May Cry reference! FUCK YEAH! Just make them the same universe PLEASE) and... low-key being implied to represent the Big Bang explosion? And the fight where you’re switching between him and Malphas? Fantastic. AND DON’T EVEN GET ME STARTED ON QUEEN BUTTERFLY. Madama Butterfly was badass enough on her own, but MEGA MADAMA BUTTERFLY USING THE CLOUDS AS A BATHTUB FOR A BOSS FIGHT? Immaculate. How does she relate to Queen Sheba, though? I wonder... (More Inferno lore Platinum please and thank you it’s the least developed of the trinity of realities)

And for one final note- Being able to CHANGE BAYONETTA’S HAIR COLOR FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER. WHY WAS THAT NOT A THING BEFORE. REDHEAD BAYONETTA.

[tinseltina]

i'm gonna rant about bayo 3 for a bit

SPOILERS AHEAD IM NOT PUTTING THIS UNDER A READ MORE I WANT MY RAGE TO SHOW PROUDLY

i hate viola. i hate viola because she's too much like luka and i hate luka and i hate clumsy characters as comic relief. and i assume that because of her inclusion THATS why we see so little of luka in the game (aside from all the other subplot for him or maybe BECAUSE of the subplot for him or a result of having his subplot) because it'd be too much clumsy dumbsy comic relief characters.

2! WTAF WAS THAT ENDING?! WHAT DO YOU MEAN BAYO AND LUKA END UP TOGETHER?! THEY LITERALLY HAVE NEVER HAD ANY CHEMISTRY IN THE ENTIRE SERIES!!!

MAYBE i can accept in another timeline/universe they got together and had a baby, i shudder to even think about that labor process (probably almost started armageddon early)

but THIS timeline? nahhhhh NO WAY! (yes i am aware of the theory that this is little cereza from bayo 1 grown up and she had a fondness for luka in that timeline for taking care of her. but it doesn't actually track for me for a couple of reasons i won't go into) THAT'S A SHOEHORN IN.

am i mad bayo and jeanne don't at least get hinted of being together? yeah, but most of it IS because of the actual chemistry and close relationship they have/d.

it's frustrating to see better relationship writing only when the characters are friends, and the actual romantic interests are dull and shallow. they vague flirtation does not a good romance make.

3. AND FRIGGIN VIOLA BECOMES THE NEW BAYO? GTF OUTTA HERE! AGAIN SHE'S WAY TOO MUCH LIKE LUKA TO TAKE UP THE MANTLE!

sure she's young, but bayo IS meant to be a campy but OP badass, viola doesn't have that (yet). she's just campy, but in a goofy way. in an (unintentional) comic relief way.

i had this thought while watching the cutscenes that this is both the gayest yet most hetero bayo game to date. gay in a "we watched 175 seasons of rupaul's drag race, paris is burning, and at least 100 hours of ballroom performances and competitions.

you get sexiness (arguably less sexiness/fan service than previous installments. bc to me it feels less like it's appealing to straight dudes and more like i'm simply watching a drag queen perform or a burlesque show. wherein the sexiness is primarily for the performer to feel good and express their own art and message.) you get a bit of comedy, you get lots of dancing, but it's also very fierce all the while. to me it felt like the devs realized the target audience/biggest fans were the girls and gays, and, in the words of bayo, "gave [them] everything [they] want"

every different version of bayo throughout the universes? different runway, their different weapons and fighting styles? different performance categories. it was all very fun to me.

i don't think viola can do any of that. that's not her style, she wants to be a cool badass and that's it. but that's NOT bayo. it never has been. if viola (if there was ever a continuation with her as the protagonist) doesn't have a total personality change, then she'll never be able to fill the shoes of bayonetta.

and then the bayo+luka endgame thing. thats the hetero bit. like, that didnt need to be there. heck they could both go to inferno together idc but dont leave like "and in the end they were actually soulmates" bs cuz it was clearly jeanne who is bayo's other half (whether platonic or romantic)

AND ANOTHER THING!!! why did they kill all the bayos? that was a total bummer. it made me cry. like was this platinums way of saying "no more bayo ever again. now leave us alone"

dmc5 wasnt this much of a bummer. and at least they had the excuse of nero already having been a protag who did was dante did before so it's not unusual for him to take up the dmc business. he's just not as funny as dante but he has snark and other characters to play off of that makes him entertaining. the bayo route would have been like if V survives and takes over DMC. WOULDNT FIT TONALLY.

[cto10121]

R&J Clown Takes Round ♾ + 6

In which Mercutio gets much (shipping) love as usual, more “R&J is a comedy/not a love story!!” nonsense, dumb headcanons, and more general R&J clown-foolery.

Cool Fanfic, Bro

You were told wrong, OP. I covered how Tybalt’s death was actually the catalyst elsewhere. Also, the Nurse is, too, a comic character providing comic relief, as well as the servingmen and Peter, yet they don’t die.

I guess this is my dead-inside self speaking, but…why? What is so special about Benvolio’s and Mercutio’s friendship that they are even shipped together? They have no romantic interaction or tension, all of their conversation is either about Romeo or the plot, and their dynamic overall is “Mercutio talks shit and Benvolio just tags along/humors him.” Romeo and Mercutio have more fun repartee in ONE scene than Benvolio and Mercutio do in the whole play. And then just before the duel Mercutio is ragging on Benvolio for secretly loving to fight and picking fights over dumb shit. #RelationshipGoals But I don’t know. People who ship Bencutio—what’s the draw to this ship for you?

Definitely, right? Romeo is so aromantic/asexual he has sex with Juliet on their wedding night. #JustAsexualThings #YouKnowYou’reAsexualWhen

Yeah, friends who have the same friend in common talk and hang out together a lot????? That’s unheard of, man.

“R&J Isn’t A Love Story Waaahhh”

OP shows (1) insightful braincell…before they cheerfully yeet it in the trash. Yeah, R&J is definitely portrayed as ~silly but beautiful—just look at how Shakespeare sinks the Juliet/Paris and Romeo/Rosaline ships so hard and portrays R&J’s relationship. Definitely the work of someone who is purposely writing R&J as a dime-a-dozen couple.

As for Juliet “resenting” her controlled existence and “relishing” her one chance at agency, that is non-canon. Actually, she comes across as very obedient in her first scene, to the point of silent and, well…16th century basic. “Je veux vivre” is simply a Gounod addition.

Shakespeare was so tired of instalove, he made fun of it by writing his own instalove love plots with Rosalind and Orlando, Phoebe and Rosalind (one-sided), Olivia and Viola/Cesario, all the four ladies and lords of Love’s Labour’s Lost, and Ferdinand and Miranda! Of course!!! What else would you do????

“Main love story is true, but also not love story.” You were so close, OP, what happened? Love stories and tragedies are not mutually exclusive, you know. In fact, I daresay the standard love story apart from the chivalric romances is tragic. Don’t feed the clowns!

You mean the myth where Eros kidnaps Psyche from her forced wedding/death pyre, takes her to his palace, has sex with her and impregnates her invisibly, and hides from her until she sneaks in trying to kill him because her sisters convinced her he was really a beast, only to flee from her while his mother does a Hera and makes her do seemingly impossible tasks?

Er. YMMV, de gustibus and all, but it has always been a very confused myth to me.

“aCTUALLY”

To be fair, I also did wonder why the Friar jumped to that conclusion and the exact nature of Rosaline’s chastity vow. English major minds think alike, it seems. But of course there are other explanations: Romeo may not have told him (unlikely, but there it is); Rosaline may have taken the vow for personal reasons, not religious ones, which would explain why the Friar, if he knew about it, did not take it seriously and why he thought Romeo had a chance with her after all. The vow could have just been to get all the men and fuckbois off her back, not just Romeo. But Rosaline’s making up the vow entirely just to get Romeo from ~stalking her is pure headcanon clownery.

[butchhamlet]

And for the characters, peril wingsoffire, orsino twelfthnight, ippolit warandpeace and uhhhhh firestar warriorcats

PERIL WINGSOFFIRE (yes i run a shakespeare blog yes im about to encourage you all to read wings of fire the children's books about dragons because they genuinely hold up and still slap)

Sexuality Headcanon: i think peril is bi i think that's her right Gender Headcanon: on the one hand i'm hesitant to hc peril as a trans woman because she's. a walking weapon and i feel like that could get dicey. however it could also be interesting as a reason why kestrel might not recognize her as an adult. + in the sense of... scarlet supporting her gender as long as peril does shit for her as another form of manipulation A ship I have with said character: peril/sunny maybe? i can't think of a reason why that one would be bad and i think they both have so much bright energy just in different directions yknow... like sunny is so sweet in a way most people (dragons) aren't to peril, and also i'm envisioning sunny curling up to sleep near peril because her heat reminds her of the desert :) A BROTP I have with said character: i don't really ship clay and peril romantically because i feel like peril really needs to sort out her own self-worth with regard to clay (and i'm glad that, at least as far as i've read, the books haven't shoved them together + have put an emphasis on giving them time to figure it out! we stan actually well-written het romance). however i DO think they are buddies and character foils and he's the only one who can hug her so he should A NOTP I have with said character: i guess peril and scarlet?? because of the obvious reasons?? maybe peril and turtle as well because idk i just like them as friends A random headcanon: i know most jewelry melts when it touches her, but turtle's an animus, right. i think he enchants her some jewelry that won't melt & she's so incredibly touched because she's never been able to wear bracelets before (bonus points if it's ugly as fuck but she's enthralled anyway) General Opinion over said character: peril my bestie my beloved. i had mixed feelings on her until her POV and now she's my best friend she's so much fun and her arc is so good

ORSINO TWELFTHNIGHT

Sexuality Headcanon: one of the most bisexual characters ever, actually Gender Headcanon: generally i think of orsino as a cis man (and presumed straight until he meets viola and Figures Some Things Out), but i also once read a fic where orsino is a trans bear and that concept is so god tier A ship I have with said character: orsino and violacesario :) A BROTP I have with said character: i think orsino and olivia become friends after the events of canon! i'd like to imagine he apologizes for being The Way He Was and they get to bond over being... very lonely people figuring out their relationships to love A NOTP I have with said character: orsino/olivia. dude she said to fuck off stop showing up at her HOUSE A random headcanon: he plays like five instruments very well but when it comes to singing he's tone fucking deaf. at first viola is like "why do you have other people make music for you" and then they hear him sing and they're like.... ah General Opinion over said character: i'll admit of TN characters i probably think about him the least? but i think his character arc is really interesting (and can be played in a very dark direction but i'm ignoring that because i'm in nice-headcanon-land)

IPPOLIT WARANDPEACE

Sexuality Headcanon: we know this man is gay Gender Headcanon: i haven't thought in depth about ippolit's gender but an agender ippolit could be cool. to balance out his siblings. the kuragins got one of each /s A ship I have with said character: ishpolit ofc <3 (the fact that this fic is unironically good. shakes my fist) A BROTP I have with said character: the obvious answer here is ippolit and lise but for whatever reason i read this and "ippolit and dolokhov" popped into my head. can you imagine dolokhov leaving either kuragin's bedroom in the middle of the night and ippolit is still awake doing weird shit downstairs and he's like "hi!!!" [waving] and dolokhov is like. hi? A NOTP I have with said character: ippolit and lise... he's a gay man and he wouldn't know how to have an affair if it bit him anyway A random headcanon: i'm partial to a neurodivergent ippolit but that's because i like to look at comic relief characters and go "oh me?" General Opinion over said character: i fucking love him im obsessed with him my war and peace blog url is literally lesbians4ippolit what else do i have to say

FIRESTAR WARRIORCATAS

Sexuality Headcanon: am i allowed to stand here and be like "firestar is a lesbian because he's my oldest comfort character and i'm a lesbian" Gender Headcanon: see above. A ship I have with said character: firestar/sandstorm i know it's basic and canon but literally who is doing it like them. WHO is doing it like them! shoutout to the post that's like "firesand walked so hiccup/astrid in HTTYD could run" like fucking say that A BROTP I have with said character: i know the obvious answer here is firestar and graystripe and i do adore them but i feel so much more passionately about firestar and cinderpelt like. ;-; A NOTP I have with said character: firecinder there is literally no reason to be like "actually cinderpelt loved him!" let them be friends. i also have a seething hatred for firestar/spottedleaf, kept burning in my body from when i was ten apparently. he's a married man why is he getting homewrecked by a fucking ghost and why does this keep happening for like... sixty books A random headcanon: he and bramblestar never said so in as many words, but they both considered him bramblestar's real father. (and they both knew it; they didn't have to talk about it to feel it.) General Opinion over said character: . this is so embarrassing. hopping on my shakespeare blog to admit that my oldest and deepest and #1 comfort character ever in my life is cat jesus from cat game of thrones for children

[the-himawari]

A3! Minagi Tsuzuru - Translation [N] Harugaoka Quartet

*Please read disclaimer on blog; default name set as Izumi

---

Tsuzuru: An air concert?

Citron: YES! You’ll air-play an instrument without holding one! It’s perfect for image training!

Sakuya: Makes sense…!

Citron: Until the day of the concert, the quartet group will improve their air-playing of the instruments they’re in charge of!

-pause-

Tsuzuru: …Phew. (Air-playing viola… As expected, it’s hard to get down from just looking at videos.) …Or more like, why am I the comic relief…

*flashback starts*

Citron: Tsuzuru, Tsuzuruuu!

Tsuzuru: Hm? What’s up?

Citron: Tsuzuru’s performance will be last for our air concert!

Tsuzuru: HAH!? Why do I have to be last?

Citron: Tsuzuru has extendable* talent that’s worthy of being last… So make it hyped up like the comic relief!

Tsuzuru: Um, it’s exceptional, not extendable, you know? And in the first place, is there such a thing as being hype while air-playing instruments…?

Citron: What I’m asking for from Tsuzuru isn’t just mad skills… As my partner in Citrun, I’m expecting a funny performance!

*runs off*

Tsuzuru: EHH!? Funny, you say… Wait, hold up, Citron-san, don’t just say your piece and run away!

*flashback ends*

Tsuzuru: Even if he tells me to hype it up, just what in the world should I do…

Kazunari: Huh? What’re you doing over here, Tsuzurun?

Kamekichi: A negative aura’s in the air!

Kazunari: If you’re worried about something, then talk to us!

Tsuzuru: Ummm… I wonder if it’ll help talking to Kazunari-san and Kamekichi…

Kamekichi: You won’t know unless you spit it out!

Tsuzuru: Well, the truth is…

-pause-

Kazunari: What the, that sounds wicked fun! It’s lit! We’ll lend a hand too! We’ll deffs come up with a hype performance that’s total fire!

Kamekichi: Leave it to Kamekichi-sama!

Tsuzuru: Kazunari-san, Kamekichi…

Kazunari: First off, how’s something like this?

Kamekichi: Do it like this for this part!

Kazunari: Write that down, write that down! Then after that—.

Tsuzuru: Is this gonna be ok…?

-pause-

Itaru: The last performance for our air concert is Tsuzuru, right?

Citron: The very last~!

Tsuzuru: …Then I’ll head out. ♪~♪~

Chikage: Oh, isn’t he doing well?

Izumi: Yeah, his posture's looking really great too!

Masumi: …Well, it’s not that bad.

Sakuya: It looks like Tsuzuru-kun’s playing for real!

Tsuzuru: …WAIT, y’all can’t tell the difference between a violin and viola with just me air-playin' it, riiight!

Izumi: !?

Tsuzuru: …Well, I mean, putting that aside… In the first place, what’s a viola, you ask? It’s a three dimensional model you usually see in things like photos, exhibits and plastic models… Wait, that’s a diorama, not a viola!

Chikage: …

Masumi: …

Tsuzuru: Even so, isn’t its shape kinda similar to something else? It’s tasty when it’s grilled, it’s tasty when it’s stewed… Wait, aren’t I talking about an eggplant!

Citron: …

Sakuya: …

-pause-

Tsuzuru: …

Itaru: It kinda became like a live comedy show in the middle of it.

Masumi: It wasn't air-playing, but more like an improv skit.

Izumi: Y-yeah, right…

Tsuzuru: Well that totally bombed…

Citron: Tsuzuru, it’d be better to improve your performance a little bit more!

Tsuzuru: Oh, shut it!

---

*Citron originally says "木材" (mokuzai: lumber/timber), which Tsuzuru corrects as "逸材" (itsuzai: person with exceptional talent).

"I told you to be funny, Tsuzuru"

[omgthatdress]

How to make Cats a good movie.

I watched Cats, and once I got over the initial horror, I was actually pretty entertained and found myself enjoying the shit out of it. Like god bless it, for as nightmare-inducing as much as it was, Tom Hooper was clearly *committed* to his vision and you gotta give him credit for that. The scenery was actually really beautiful and the cinematography was frequently breathtaking. Like it really did have a lot of elements that really worked for it. But for every bit of genius, there was something terrible that the movie just couldn’t overcome. So let’s dive in.

First of all, you kind of have to understand Cats: the musical. It’s an adaptation of poems that T.S. Elliott of nihilistic lost generation fame wrote for his godchildren about cats. And the poetry is charming af and totally captures the nature of cats and why they’re so lovable. In the in the 1970s, Andrew Lloyd Webber did a shit ton of cocaine and decided to make a musical out of these poems. As a result, Cats has no plot. It’s a bunch of cats singing their songs about who they are and doing a lot of dancing. The thinnest of narrative devices is created with the “jellicle” ball and the deciding of which cat gets to ascend to heaven or some shit. So yeah. Cats is actually pretty controversial among theater nerds, it’s very much a you either love it or hate it thing. Is it stupid? Yes.  Is it going to make everyone happy? No. Does it lend itself well to film adaptation? fuck no. I get the feeling that Tom Hooper was really going for deep, meaningful poetic cinema here and trying to make another Les Mis (which was way overly long and ultimately sank under its own sheer weight as a movie and probably is better viewed as a play). I’m operating under the assumption that Hooper was going for ground-breaking cinema that would have made millions and swept up during awards season and cemented him as a legendary director and gone down in movie history, because every little detail of Cats is clearly meant for maximum impact. You kind of need to drop all expectations going into Cats, so once you’re there, you can have fun with it. So how do you make it a good film?

1. The HORRIBLE hyper-realistic cgi human-cat hybrids. YES, it’s a technical marvel, and the CGI artists who made it all deserve a ton of credit for the work they did. And I understand why the actors were kept in their human shapes: live dance is a huge part of what makes Cats work. One of the smart decisions made was hiring theater veterans for the filler roles in the cat chorus, so when you have the choreographed numbers, it’s really spectacular. It’s just the end result was way too uncanny valley and bizarre for any of the film’s good parts to ever rise above it. I think a minimalist approach would have actually worked best. Cat ears and simple costumes with clean lines that show off the dancer’s bodies. Go for the suggestion of cats, and kind of let the viewer’s imagination take over, and showcase the cat’s personality. A huge part of what I enjoyed was hearing the poetry and imagining these cats and how they all relate to cats I’ve known. The dance and the music helped heighten this experience, but hybrids kept reminding me of the joke: what do you get when you cross a human and a cat? An immediate cessation of funding and a stern rebuke from the ethics committee.

2. The schlocky, honestly amateurish attempts at slapstick humor. I’m gonna come out and say it and say that Hooper is pretty deeply entrenched in *dRaMa* and has no sense of how comedy works. There was a lot of added in comedic bits from Rebel Wilson and James Corden, and it was honestly terrible. I mean really, a crotch hit? That kind of lowbrow comedy is so crude and base that it’s actually really hard to pull it off well. Slapstick comedy actually lends itself to the whimsical tone, and slapstick done well can be utterly sublime, but Cats seemed satisfied that fat people falling over is the height of comedy and should be left at that. And a second note on the comedy? Weirdly fat-shame-y. A saw a post about how odd it is to see James Corden, who has been very frank about how he’s struggled with dieting and come to accept that his body is fat and can’t be made not fat, playing this role where fat is added to his body, his CGI vest strains at the buttons, and he’s literally stuffing his face with garbage. The theme of fat people as lazy, stupid, and slovenly carried over from Rebel Wilson’s role, in which she also plays a fat lazy cat who is leaned on heavily for comic relief. I know the role is about a fat cat, and gently laughing at a fat lazy cat who loves to eat is fine, but, speaking as a fat person myself, this felt like a gleeful exploitation of a nasty and cruel stereotype. James Corden and Rebel Wilson are both extraordinarily funny people who happen to be fat, and their comedic gifts were tremendously mis-used here, reducing them to simply two fat bodies to be laughed at.

3. Jennifer Hudson. She’s a talented actress who can sing and emote like a motherfucker. And emote she did. She was clearly GOING for that second Oscar. I really don’t want to call her performance bad. The same level of emotion, tears running and snot flowing, in another movie, would have been devastating (Hello, Viola Davis in Fences). But this isn’t Fences, it’s fucking Cats. You need a level of character depth and development that Cats doesn’t afford to make those tears hit. All the crying and misery was an odd maudlin and over-dramatic break in the fun and whimsy. With a subtler performance and a hint of self-awareness, it could have actually brought in an emotional anchor for this light-as-air film, but Cats doesn’t make any attempt at nuance, and as a result the scenes just hit you out of nowhere like a load of bricks. 

4. Francesca Hayward. Okay, before we go anywhere, I want to say that this girl is not un-talented. She’s the principal ballerina of the Royal Ballet, and has a very long list of ballets that she’s lead in. So it makes sense that she’d be hired for a role that’s primarily ballet. This girl is a really really great DANCER. But Cats was clearly trying to make an A-list actress out of her. They tried to make her into Florence Pugh, who has been acting for a while and is blowing up right now because she’s very talented. Like everything about Francesca’s role in the film said “This is a star-making role.” A new song was written just for her to sing as an addendum to Cats’s show-stopping signature song. But the song was just okay, it didn’t carry nearly the emotional weight or all-around beauty of “Memories,” and all in all felt wedged-in and totally unnecessary and really just felt like a grab at that “best original song” Oscar. Francesca’s voice is high, thin, and child-like. It’s not unpleasant, but next to the richness and depth of Jennifer Hudson’s voice, it crumbles, and it’s not the sort of voice that I want to seek out to listen to over and over again. As for her overall performance, she largely keeps the same look of wide-eyed wonder throughout her numerous close-ups, so much so that I found myself thinking of the the MST3K “dull surprise” sketch. But I don’t know if that’s really entirely her fault. There was an attempted romantic storyline with the magic cat, but again, because of the nature of Cats and its lack of real character development or depth, the chemistry fell flat. There really isn’t much of a chance to show off a lot of dramatic range, so to keep going back to her character, it kept reinforcing the one-notedness of her performance. Really, I just kept wanting to see Francesca dance. Ironically, I think they really blew an opportunity trying to make an A-list actress out of her. All she really need to make people want to see more of her is one spectacular dance number, but for some reason, she never really gets that show-stopping moment. 

5. Dignity? I guess this goes back to the whole CGI cat thing, but there were a lot of moments when I felt this tremendous wave of second-hand embarrassment hit me on behalf of the talented actors in this film. Watching Gandalf lap up milk from a saucer was a wholly uncomfortable experience, like come on, grant the great Ian McKellan some fucking DIGNITY here. Which goes back to whatI said earlier that a suggestion and interpretation of cats would have worked better than all-out just being a cat. Or it could again just be how much Cats just fails its attempts at comedy. But then again there was no fucking reason at all for Idris Elba to be that fucking NAKED. I guess they were trying to make him sexy? But his sexy smolder and just being Idris Elba wasn’t enough they had to make sure that we all saw his chiseled pecs and thick thighs. And then at the end when he’s dangling off of the rope of a hot air balloon and what’s supposed to be a funny scene, I think, I kept thinking “I’m so sorry this is happening to you, Idris.” 

There’s a bunch of other small, nit-picky things that I could go into. Those cockroaches would have worked so much better if they weren’t humans with an extra set of arms. Watching them get eaten was some horror movie shit. Taylor Swift’s Macavity song would have worked a lot better if the cat chorus full of cats we’ve gotten to know had sung it, but instead Taylor Swift is brought in as a new cat we don’t know whose only purpose is to sing the Macavity song? but of course a big oscar-bait movie needs to have that pop star that draws in the people who wouldn’t otherwise see it and making her a part of the cat chorus would have had her performing throughout the whole movie and she would have floundered the way pop stars tend to do when performing musical theater around a bunch of musical theater actors. So I guess I get why she was thrown in.

So.... yeah? Is there anyone else who found themselves enjoying it in spite of everything? I’m glad I have dogs and didn’t have to watch this mess with actual cats around me.

[talesofealdancynedom]

Corona Wintersleep, in fairy robes; Is she hiding to avoid her family, or just people annoying? You may not get an answer, because this is the comic relief episode.

Tale 19: Meriam Craweleoth: Mage Queen of The Grand West (chapter 5 -  Do Not Wait 5/10) part 4. Stories of Old

Maps

menton of death and/or casual drug use

After the Battle in Celticia, Meriam had some nice peaceful years with her family. Feon and Edmond gave her a lot to think about, including the value of her daughter, husband and nephew. She felt lucky to be queen, and use magic peacefully, and watch over the magic forest city she had made with the Raven Gate. The harvests where good, and Francia retreated from the east boarder for the winter. Anglia enjoyed finally being safe at every other boarder. Yet, Meriam lusted for more; she wanted another adventure, and more allies. She suspected Francia may be bribing the Eastern and Southern nations, to aid in conquest; or reap their land. It was almost too quiet this season. Then one day, at a court meeting, the scribe translator read a letter from the Far South: Hispania. Hispania was so far away from the rest of Ealden Cynedom, that people knew nothing about it. All except Meriam, who read about a specific type of mage in one of Feon’s journals, and that the main magic forest in Hispania, belonged to the Fairy Gate. The thought of undiscovered magical scenery, gave her wanderlust once more.

           The Letter said that Hispania had fallen into civil unrest, as families instead of governments, tried to acquire mages to rise to power. Currently there was no consolidated government, causing the balance around the Fairy Gate to fall into corrupt hands. The Far South of Hispania had no care for the politics of other lands, and instead wanted advice; They had heard marvelous stories about the mage queen of the Grand West. And one family decided to contact her.

But Meriam’s king husband, and the other court members, had no interest in the Far South. It was a month’s journey away, and provided no trade or threat. But these things are meaningless to a mage. Outside her window, the Raven Gate was visible in the square. Meriam could travel alone through the shadow veil, to the Fairy Gate, all by herself. Time and distance were malleable in the veil, and mages could use gates, like fey, to travel between magic forests. But Meriam needed to know if the Fairy Gate was open, because if it was, that meant there was a mage. The men around Meriam rolled their eyes, as she rose her hand to hear the rest of the message.

“Our mage is a fair lady, unlike her kin. There are white marks about her wrists, and a heart with a sword marked on her chest. She is a mage that can heal with compassion; If only she could love. Her name is Corona Wintersleapen. She was bred and possessed by her family for power, and then ran away to the peak of the city. Inside the mouth of the halved mountain, is a lush jungle of wonder around the iced Fairy Gate. Corona’s darkened heart needs to be healed, so the city can prosper. She must belong to no one, and stop harming anyone who attempts to reach her. The city needs to access, coexist, and expand into the enchanted jungle. We believe your queen’s power, and achievements, make her the best person for the job.” The Messenger said. The translator gave a brief summery.  Then there was a bump under the table. Meriam and the king looked under, and Eatheltwein, their nephew, was eavesdropping on the courts with his canary.

“Eatheltwein Cynedom, we talked about this. You should be studying literature, not joining our table. I know you wish to be included as you enter manhood, but this is not your time. Off with you.” The King demanded. Eatheltwein slinked off like a scared dog. Leaving the court embarrassed and the messenger, scribe, and translator very confused.

“I will quickly use the gates to settle this matter. I want to be on good terms with every kingdom. I cannot bring my men, as the pure magic of the shadow veil petrifies commoners in it’s deprivation of the senses. Not to mind the presence of the beast kings. I will go alone in my fairy robes, wielding the unbreakable sword and bow. Care for our daughter and Eathel well.” Meriam said. She stood up and left before anyone could stop her. It had been a long time since she had an adventure; it made her giddy. Meriam almost had a skip to her step as she went to her study; And then she noticed someone was following her…

           Meriam walked into the shadow veil, through the black marble Raven Gate in the square. She entered the serene setting of black, white and grey. As she walked though a rough forest trail, no birds sang, or wind blew. The light almost refracting as it spilled through the canopy. Meriam did not look behind her, nor her familiar Nithen; yet she still sensed she had a follower. The shadow veil was not deterring them... Then Meriam crossed into the plains full of unicorn, and carnivorous mares. Then hiked through the rough terrain of the wolf kingdom, with cats of luck and moonlight, that hid in the brush. Only magic had colour here; fey, fairy robes, magic tools, and the eyes of those who wield it. Nearly at her destination, Meriam crossed a bridge of ice into the Fairy Kingdom, where the frosted trees echoed with the laughter of children, and everything glittered like diamonds and snow. Yet, her pursuer still walked behind her. Is it even a person? Why didn’t the shadow veil deter them?   She thought. As Meriam stood at the foot of a stone circle, engraved with the table of fours, she decided to look behind her. Meriam was taken aback: Eatheltwein stood gleaming with joy, admiring all the fairies, and the soothing atmosphere. This meant two things: firstly, Eathel was now her responsibility, and was in a world of trouble. Secondly, in order to be content in the ether of all magic, he must be a mage. Noticing the confused glare of his aunt, Eatheltwein nervously waved hello.

“Sorry Aunt Merry, the quest just sounded like a lot of fun. I’m tired of talking to trees in the court yard, and reading books about dead men. I Love you, and want to go on an adventure! Also, what is this place? It’s a bit odd isn’t it.” He smiled, looking around innocently.

           Realizing Eatheltwein was a mage, and that his canary was his familiar, Meriam decided to take the opportunity to teach him more magic. Something so powerful must be utilized wisely and safely. Eathel had developed a habit of sneaking into her magic study, and reading her mage journals, this whole time. His little familiar’s name was Viola, and she was quieter than Meriam’s kestrel familiar Nihten. Though a golden canary suited Eatheltwein well; he never shut up, and was very innocent, and showy. When the surprise faded, they all began to take the adventure as an opportunity to bond. With joy, they stepped through the Fairy Gate, and into the Mediterranean heat of Hispania. Eatheltwein coughed; he had come from right from a pleasant and crisp winter in Anglia.

The fairy gate was atop a large, forested, fey infested mountain. It was overlooking a city of white sandstone, painted vibrant colours. The tall houses had tall walls with small iron gates, and where like vibrantly painted stacked children’s blocks. The view in every clearing was spectacular. You could hear music, shouting, and singing echo up the mountain. It sounded like an undying fiesta. In Feon’s book, she said this place was called Torres de Calendulas; Meriam had no clue what that meant, she only knew there was a Meader mage wielding healing love magic here somewhere. If the message she received was accurate.

           Eathel’s company was pleasant. He helped search. There were no trails, just twisted trees with odd leaves, ripe fruit, and large colourful flowers. What odd tree children, they both thought; And so many pretty, shinny, colourful Phoenix’s, minor Roc’s, and cockatrices. There were also many nymphs in the trees, creeks, freshwater springs, and patches of sunlight they passed; yet no people. The magic forest was thick, and toughly filled with fey. The Fairy Gate itself was a wonder made of solid aquamarine, that looked like ice; Yet, it was nothing compared to its forest. As they searched, Meriam and Eatheltwein suddenly walked into a short Indigo cornfield. It gave way to a yard of colourful patches of perfectly square vegetable beds, making a garden in front of a perfectly square spackled house, with a blue roof. On the porch sat a man of tanned skin, and deep eye’s and hair. His hair was curled, and waved into a short low ponytail, and weaved with marigolds of various colours. He wore a loose cotton shirt with a deep neckline, and poofed sleeves, that were embroidered with pinstripes and wild patterns of vibrant colours which matched his tight pants. He was tuning a lute, and humming with the cicadas. Meriam had the most confused look on her face. Between the hallucinogenic fey, perfect garden, and this man’s outfit, she wondered if she had eaten something unusual before she left.

“Eatheltwein, are you seeing what I’m seeing?” Meriam asked, in a mildly disturbed way.

“Oh my, It’s not just me! Thank the fjords! I thought I had eaten those mushrooms again…” Eatheltwein sighed. Meriam turned to look at him with a jerk; she made a gesture that suggested she had too many questions to actually ask them.

           Eatheltwein and Meriam were experiencing the special type of embarrassment that comes from walking into a stranger’s house, being offered a myriad of things, and not being sure what the socially acceptable thing to do is. The man talked in a monotone voice, with a slight cheer, and his face expressed no emotion, whilst still encapsulating a polite faux sense of enthusiasm. Like he might be in pain. He switched between old Anglian and old Hispanian, making him nearly incomprehensible. Meriam and Eathel were now eating what was probably chillies filled with cheese, and topped with a fried egg, inside a corn tortilla. The man starred at them with the same expression, while strumming is lute giddily. The unfamiliar notes not forming a coherent melody. They all made uncomfortable distressing prolonged eye-contact. Then the man started smiling. Meriam looked like she was in fear as the strings of melted cheese hung from her mouth and the iron skillet she shared with her nephew. Wait, it’s not iron… its copper?

“How is it dear visitors? I made it with my lady’s fine recipe; with golden goose eggs!” He said with a thick accent, and astrum of him lute. “She is a talented potion maker, and Heartmann mage.” He continued. The last part was in old Hispanian. Meriam started to cry. She had no idea what was going on. She had seen war, but this broke her.

“Aunty Merry, are you ok? I have concluded we actually may have shared some suspicious forest gatherings at the palace. But what luck! I love spending time with you. And to be in one of your adventures; This is fantastic! And this food, whatever it is, is disgusting in a way that makes me keep eating it.” Eatheltwein cheered. Meriam’s crying, now also contained a sort of gagging and laughter. Her mouth was still full of cheese. This was not her finest moment. Worse yet, this cabin bard, who was attending her fever dream, spoke in an incomprehensible fast language, and Meriam could not ask where the Meader mage, Corona, was. Then she recognized the word ‘Heortemann.’ She swallowed, and took some deep breathes, when she realized the walls were covered in paintings, potions, baking trays, and cookware. It was a gingerbread cottage, spackled like confetti cake. Eathel was now examining the large oven at the end of the cottage, and the stairs down to a cellar; Where Meriam began to hear laughter.

           Peering into the dim cellar, like two children looking into a well, Meriam and Ealtheltwein saw two large beautiful fairies, and a woman with platinum hair, amber eyes, white fairy kingdom fair robes, and a marking in black, of a sword in a heart upon her chest. The three cellar occupants looked unblinkingly at Eathel and Meriam.

“You brought mages my love! More friends for our party in our safe little garden!” the female fairy spoke. She matched the second fairy like a twin; though the other fairy was a boy. Their complexions were like ice, and their hair was silver, and eyes that were pale and lustered like aura quartz. Their wings were lilac and periwinkle, and shimmered like their eyes. They wore fairy robes, and had crowns of ice. They looked just like the Fairy King and Queen. Meriam was delighted; Royal Fairies. Fairies make sense! She almost started to tear again.

“Hello, you must be Corona Wintersleapen. Your people need you to stop attacking them, when they go near the magic forest. They fear your introverted nature is caused by your families neglect. But I think your just a mage, and people are mean.” Meriam said. “Also, your two royal friends are radiant, by the way.”

“Nada. I do not attack the people. They just get lost in the forest; the fey lead them back out again. It’s their fault for trying to cut down the tree children, instead of asking politely to be neighbors. If they were nicer, and stopped having children in hopes of bearing mages, their city could become entangled with this forest no problem. And I live happy in my little cottage, with all my true loves. I want nothing to do with tower folk.” Corona spoke. She sounded like a snooty child.

“Miss, this situation is so upsetting to common folk; they cower in fear-” Meriam said. Then she stopped. “Wait, you just don’t want to talk to commoners? It has nothing to do with your family or how close or far away they are?”

“Se” Corona chirped. “I even send them medicine, when the sickness passes time to time.”

“Wait, true love? With all four of you? That is a lot of love… Aunt Merry says you’re a mage that can heal with love; you must make everyone feel better with four times the hugs!” Eatheltwein smiled. “I love romantic stories! Is that why everything is copper and you have so many baking and brewing supplies? To heal people and befriend fairies?” Eathel gleamed. Meriam rolled her eyes.

“We are Earden Faries; royal fey! We came to look for our father, but my sister fell in love with this fine bard! And then I fell in love with this adorable lady! So, we stayed here, instead of returning home with no news of our father. Her shortbreads are wonderful!” the fairy prince said sweetly. Meriam went into seer mode; she covered Eatheltwein’s mouth, to start an interrogation:

“Why were you looking for your father: The Fairy Queen?” She asked.

“Oh, my love can sing that for you! It’s very sad. We taught him to sing it in every tongue.” The fairy princess said.

“I love songs and music! Why I would love a ballad form that fine lads lute!” Eathletwein said.

“No.” Meriam grimaced. “Just tell me. I want to record everything in grotesque detail.” she demanded. The man took his seat, and the fairies hugged his knees, and Corona curled up to keep brewing in the wine cellar. Then the unsettling bard took a deep breath, and started with one strum; and Meriam’s palm, met her face.

Upon the tallest mountain, in the southmost lands; A selfish king did ask a mage for a simple thing.

He held a knife to the mage’s kin, and then began to yell.

Summon me the Raven King; whose song will kill us all.

The armies of the bitter folk, come before my fort. Now have the biggest raven come, and make the men no more.

When the Raven King did come, from his shadowy throne; the Fairy Queen did run away, to stop the bird lord’s song.

Alas too late, the mage summoned him, and the Raven began to plea: “release my mage, my dearest friend and I may sing for thee.”

Forgotten was the darkness, of the king’s new oath; For when the Raven King began to chime, the king and mage began to fall.

The Fairy Queen, though light of foot, could not warn the peoples to flee;

And down came the fort and mountain, and all the fey and trees.

No one lived to tell the tale, of how a mountain halved; to quote the lives of all that died, or witness the beast king’s spell.

The Fairy King did cry, for the loss of her dead love. The Raven King forgiven, but the damage already done.

The lord of birds he cracked his voice, for death he saw as sin; and tells each mage of whom he sees, of what crimes he did commit.

Now that many years have past, and the Gate and Forest remade. The people here will never learn, but at last we’re safe.

           It doesn’t matter how talented a bard is, if the courts don’t care to listen. Meriam got up, broke his lute in a rage, and glared the man with malice.

“No. I am a Queen, a time controlling mage, a wife, and a Mother; I have seen battle, magic, murder, pain, and filth beyond imagination; AND I DON’T WANT TO BE SERENADED BY A HISPANION STALLION COLLECTING FARIES IN A FANTASY MUSHROOM SAMBA.” Meriam cursed. Her dark powerful voice even scared Eatheltwein, who cowered in the oven. The information was fun lore, and it explained the art on the walls. But it would not satisfy Hispania in terms of having good will towards this magic forest; or Anglia. Meriam pulled Eathel out of the oven, and Corona out of the cellar. She brought them to the table to sit, while the royal fairies swooned, and transmuted a new loot for their love, from a broken ladle.

           The most Meriam could do now, was inform Corona that common folk can’t talk to trees, so she would have to be a witch and negotiate the land partitioning between commoners and tree children. Corona hated the idea; that would require leaving the forest and talking to people.

“If you don’t want to talk to people, send your insufferable bard. He’s a special kind of peasant. Small people might find him charming.” Meriam scoffed.

“It’s only until the people who hate fey leave, and the rest accept living aside fairies and phoenixes. My aunt here, made the Raven Gate in the main square of the Capital of Anglia; a magic forest in the biggest city of the Grand West! And all the common people live well from what I’ve seen.” Eathel said with a smile. His sunny aura had begun to comfort and attract Corona. The idea involved her staying away from humans, having fey be safe, and still being able to be a magic healer, and baker, in the woods. The witch in a little cottage of a magic forest. Corona agreed, and offered Eatheltwein a spot in her bed with the bard and fairies. Then gestured at Meriam as well. She considered it, until her eyes met the bard’s; dead eyes. She didn’t trust him.

Meriam took Eathel aside, and warned him to stay away from sketchy offers like that, and they should get home before his uncle realizes he wasn’t becoming literate. Eathel was disappointed; he always wanted to make a pillow fort. Noticing Meriam was becoming short, Eatheltwein said they could tell him he was learning other kingly skills. Meriam argued creepy house, in creepy forest, with a creepy woman, who was asking if they wanted to be the fifth and sixth flower in her vase. Eathel gave up, as he didn’t understand; he was not full grown either. The two of them politely declined Corona’s offer. When she persisted, Eathel gave her his shirt as a distraction, and dashed into the tight twisted vibrant forest. Meriam followed behind, and they started looking for the Fairy Gate to get home.

           Meriam and Eatheltwein started to get trapped in the dense forest. The tree children were stubborn, and they had gone the wrong way. They were lost.

“Can we use our familiars to scout?” Eatheltwein asked.

“Too tight, we might lose them. We need a Mothkin.”

“Those giant fairy moths? that turn into human sized fairies that guide people?”

“I’m not going to ask how you know that, but yes. I don’t know the names of any in this forest, to call for one. By the way, saying a fey’s name, if it has given it too you out of fondness, is how to charm a fey to you. It’s rude to say, or share, a fey’s name; it’s a gift from their parents. Also, never summon them like edge lord Edmond.”

“The Wolf prince?”

“Yes. By the way, if he ever comes to you for peace, say yes, and don’t mention that I said that.”

“This place really got to you aunt Merry…” Eathel mused. He was ensnared in greater bean stalk, which was talking to him in tree euphemisms. Something about him being a treasure of the Grand West. Then, as he was being lifted by the tendrils, shortbread fell out of his pocket. Eatheltwein had taken it in the cabin, as the fairy recommended. Meriam picked them up; they were rum flavoured. She shrugged and put them on a nice plate from the palace, she summoned with chalk. Eathel was now having neon flowers and fruit nuzzled against him by the tree children. Now he was bothered. He was in need of a water closet.

It was a waiting game. They hoped some mothkin, whisp, or nymph, would come and help them for a cookie. Fairy logic is both the best and worst. Eventually the tree children parted way, slowly dropping Eatheltwein, and a night blue mothkin walked forward. She was deep blue and royal navy; wearing a sparkling velvet robe, long glassy hair, and soft eyed wings and antenna.

“The cookie is nice, but I could feel your desperation from across the creek. Sorry I took so long, you guys kept moving away.” She said calmly. “Oh! I remember you! Meriam Craweleoth?”

“Hello, my name is Eatheltwein Cynedom; what is your name?” Eathel said, hoping to get his first fey name. Meriam handed the cookies to the Mothkin, with a smile.

“Celscael. Most mages call me Chelsea. It’s nice to meet you Eatheltwein” Chelsea said, taking a bite and gesturing them to follow. The world will literally bend before a mothkin, between the start and finish of a journey. Meriam and Eatheltwein could see the warp of the trees and path as they followed; they didn’t even say where they were going, and Chelsea still led them to the Fairy Gate.

“Good tidings! Thank you for helping Corona; I can’t wait to make more friends when those lively dancing men move into the forest! This has got to be one of the better places mother has put me.” Chelsea said tenderly. Meriam smiled and waved goodbye, as did Eatheltwein to copy. They ran back to the gate and Shadow Veil without looking behind them, and walked into the square panting.

“Don’t take me on your next quest; I will be in the study becoming a good nobleman. Please Aunt Merry. PLEASE.” Eatheltwein said. He noticed he wasn’t wearing a shirt, and hugged himself in embarrassment. He turned to Meriam; she was ecstatic.

“I am going to spend the next two days writing that all down! That was so Exciting! Odette will love to hear about this!” Meriam giddily chimed. Meriam was never this cheerful. Eathel looked at her blankly, and then he silently walked back to the palace alone.

NEXT--->

<---PREVIOUS

[part2of3]

I'm bored so here's my take on the Joker: 

I don't think hes crazy. Paul dini and Grant Morrison a both said something similar. Morrison even used the term super-sanity. 

“It’s quite possible we may actually be looking at some kind of super-sanity here. A brilliant new modification of human perception, more suited to urban life at the end of the twentieth century…He creates himself each day. He sees himself as the lord of misrule and the world as a theatre of the absurd.”

And I have to agree with that. I don't see the Joker as just crazy. I don't see him as the comic relief. I don't see him as just psychotic. In all of the best representations of him he's portrayed as having a genius-level intellect. One that rivals Bruce and Lex Luther both. So thinking back to that term of super-sanity. I think it's almost like how a scientist would view a lab rat. His mind is on such a different level, he sees the world from such a wider scope, that he doesn't care about the small and petty lives of the rest of us. The Joker sees how truly impossible and magnificent and chaotic the world is. 

“All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players; they have their exits and their entrances; and one man in his time plays many parts.” 

The Joker is a man who sees behind the curtain of that stage. And that's the joke. The lives that people live, the so-called normal nuclear families that they have, the 1.5 children, the white picket fence, the 9-5 office job. All those little things that people think make life worth living are actually the lies we tell ourselves in order to cope with the fact that we are just a tiny speck of dust in this sprawling and incomprehensible universe.

“And in a weird way I think he’s a hundred percent sane. I think the things he does, the way he dresses, the way he acts, is kind of an act. That he’s like a performance artist. Everybody says nobody would behave that way. And The Joker has the sort of clarity where he knows what he’s doing, he enjoys what he doing, he enjoys what he’s doing, he loves what he’s doing. And that must come from madness inside him. And I mean, I think Grant Morrison said something  something similar like that he’s sane in this weird insane way. I’m badly paraphrasing what he was saying. But it’s almost like a super-sanity, I think. And I’ve often felt that about about the Joker too. That his greatest joke is convincing people that he’s insane when he’s actually just this bastard. And, uh, well he’s a sociopath. There’s no doubt about that. Whether or not he’s he’s clinically insane is another matter.” -Paul Dini

And he believes that the Batman is on his level. He believes that the Batman has his same level of intelligence, the same capabilities of seeing what he believes to be the bigger picture. The Joker believes that the Batman is capable of so much more, but it's his need to defend the lie of these petty little innocent lives that's holding him back. All of the atrocities that the Joker commits, are a gift to the Batman. The Joker is trying to open his eyes. Trying to push the Batman over the edge so that he could finally break from the delusion and reach his full potential.

And I love that the Joker was in some ways created by the Batman. I know that his origins have changed from time to time, but the most common one is that he fell into a vat of chemicals during his first confrontation with the Batman. I believe that the Joker was always intelligent, I believe that he believed there was more to the world. But he grew up in a society, in a culture, that ingrained in him the same lie that we all have about what life is supposed to be. That moment of being on the edge of death, facing that new and exciting and nightmarish figure of the Batman for the first time, then being pushed into those chemicals and changing in ways he never would have expected, I think all of those things are what forced The Joker to open his eyes and become what he is now. Maybe that's the cause for his obsession with Batman, his need to give back to the one who birthed him into this new way of life and this new way of thinking.

And when I think of it in those terms, I can understand where the Joker is coming from. Batman lost his parents when he was a nine-year-old child. It wasn't some mass conspiracy. It wasn't a super villain. They weren't targeted for being rich. It was just a random mugging from a random person in a random dark alley. It was meaningless. Wrong place at the wrong time. A moment of Chaos. And Batman has grown up since then devoting his life to logic and reason. Becoming a detective, pouring himself into the Sciences, searching for meaning. Trying to understand crime in order to end it, and prevent it before it happens to someone else. Batman is all about logic and order and reason because he has to be. Because if he wasn't a man of reason, he would crack and lose his mind. He holds on so tightly to what he believes in because if he didn't, he might see the world just chaotic as the Joker sees it. 

To me, that is the point of the Joker. He's not meant to have an origin story. Not really. He's not meant to be someone you can sympathize with. He's meant to be the Batman's opposite. He is the agent of chaos, meant to tempt the man who is constantly on the edge.

Jared Leto sending a rat in the mail to Margot Robbie, and bullets to Viola Davis in some poor attempt to emulate the joker for the Suicide Squad movie was just insulting. insulting to the joker, to his cast mates, and to the profession of acting. he wasn’t acting like The Joker, he was acting like some emo-goth-columbine shooter worshipping-marilyn manson listening-hot topic shopping-hichschool asshole. that’s not the Joker. 

and now this new movie? this Todd Phillips and Joaquin Phoenix Joker origin story doesn’t resemble anything of the Joker to me either. giving him a name. Arthur Fleck. A.Fleck. a name that is an obvious dig at a former Batman actor. it’s too much. a Joker origin isn’t needed. and a Joker story without the Batman is missing the entire point of the Joker. 

the internet trolls and “why so serious?” incels are probably going to love this trash though.

[tezsaltblogsrhpc]

Fifteenth Bottle of Mike’s, Part 2: SAVE ME FROM FANSERVICE

[Note: this post has been placed entirely under the cut because Tumblr’s in-dash display turned parts of the intro into gibberish.

This probably should not have come as a surprise, considering the in-dash display has been converting quote marks and apostrophes into strings of unrelated characters. - The Management]

"Tez...?" you call nervously from the stairs at the end of the hall.

The passage toward the bunker no longer looks passable. Purple flames dance in the air, and the goop, at least knee-deep on the floor now, bubbles and boils. The smell of burning is stronger than ever.

"Tez, the people next door are complaining that slime is manifesting in the corner of their living room now. They're saying we'll have to pay to get the rug cleaned if it stains."

"Ȋ͇̥̭̰̓͛͋t̢̙̣͇̃̒͐͠'̟͉̖̔͐̅̾͜l͚̮̪̠̏̂͒̕ĺ̢̲̳͎̆͐̚ ̢͚̫̦͒͑̔̽r̙̟̻̼̀̈̄͝ę̜̹̘̉̆̀̀v̨̫͈̝̄͆̈̈ĕ̢̟̙̞̉̾͠r̘͚͙̻̈̎̉̄t̗͖̫̻͊͐̋̿ ̪̲͔̎̆̃͘͜t̡̬͓̬̾̀͌͐o̢̫͙̳͐̑͗͝ ̡̯̻͖̇̈́͊̕e̼͍̬͓͊̂̃̚c̠̠͈͉̾͐́͝ṱ̘̳̯̈̓̔͋ŏ͓͈͕̥̀͂̉p̗͙͓̩͊͊̿̀l̳̥̠̟͆͛̄́a̧̠̝̱̾͆́̚s͉͍̳̙̄̈́̆̈m̹͓̰͕̀̃̀̕ ̤̝̘̙̒̽͗̋ẅ̠̲̝́͆̏̈ͅh̛̬̪̳̟̅̉͝e̢͕͓̙͊͂͆͝ń̺̥̬͈̃̑͝ ̲͉̝̰͒͋͛̕m̤͓͖̟̃̍͐̀ỷ̹̪̮̖̾̾̆ ̢̘̥͔̈̎̂̚a̲̱̲̩̍́̒̄n͕̺̝͖̽̿͘͝g̻̲̣̮̒̎̄̔e̡̖͎̱̿̽͋́ŕ̯͖̲͙͐̓̏ ̝̪̣͑͑͝͝ͅs͉̞̬̳̆̓̀̿u͍̲͈͑̿͛̍͜ḅ̥͍̳̋̽͛̚s̺͔̼̹̾̊̌͊i̞͍̭͔̿̅́̾d͓̣̹͖͑̔͂̇ḝ̜̘͔̇͐͗s̡̜̳͇̿̏̂̊.̡̩͚̦̄͊̈́͝"

"...So what you're really saying is it's going to get worse before it gets better."

"Ỳ̮͓͓͆̀̚͜o̤̪̹͍͛̉̄̈ǘ̧̙̠̱͛̒͐ ̨͙̞̭͂́̄͌ć͉͉̞̻̓̀͛o̠̘̬̐̚͜͝͝ủ̺̣̮̈́̂̒ͅļ̥̭̮̃̇̅̚d̯̭̯͍͒̆͒͛ ̡̮̟̭̄̾̈́̌p̫̩̖̻̋͂͌̌ü̲͎͊́͂͜ͅt̥̺̹̜̀̎̓̉ ͙̠̥͖̊̑̃́ī͍̪̩̪̏̈́̚t̺̬̺̐͆͋͜͝ ͉̫͕͒̋̔́͜t̰̯͇̟̓͐̄̈h̛̗̻̰̬̏̀̐ä̟̝̙̣́̊͋̃t̡̜̭͎͐̆̃̿ ̥̘̝̈́͑̏̏͜w̙̬̥͍͊͒͌̒ą̧͔͚͒͗͘͝ÿ̙͕̥͚̆̂͛.̗̻̙͓̽́̏̚"

"Er. Right. I'll just, uh..." you say, and retreat back up the stairs under the judgemental eyes of animate blobs of hatred.

You lot probably know what's coming. It wasn't what made me resolve not to buy PC (that was naked nine-year-old butt), but when it was first shown in the advertising in Famitsu scans, I saw more than one person react "Well, if this is the direction they're going, I'm going to save my money and replay the DS version." The first thing I did when I saw it in the tag was to schedule reblogs of every single piece of art tagged #raynie in sensible clothing that I could find out of sheer spite.

If you've somehow missed what I'm talking about, well... you're about to find out why I included the "Save me from fanservice" count even though I knew it wouldn't get that many pings.

As I unfortunately predicted from the moment I first heard the Wacky Comic Relief Music, it plays in this scene, presumably to renew my Pavlovian despair response to the sound of it.

*instinctively closes 3DS on black screen and makes a snack to put off the Moment Of Pain longer*

Dammit. Okay. Here it is. You were warned.

Yep. This is how they decided to use their art budget.

Didn't need portraits that actually moved. Didn't need to fix the sprite errors. Didn't need CGs for any actually important or emotional scenes. Didn't need anything on Kiel's death. Didn't need to see what Shadow Victor looks like. Didn't need to show us what a Beast Mark is. Didn't need to see the Hell Spider to make up for its lack of a field sprite. Didn't need Stocke and Eruca talking at the campfire. Didn't need Viola's last stand. Didn't need an establishing shot of the Imperial Ruins. Didn't need to see the prior Sacrifices talking to their families. Didn’t need Heiss turning into Apocrypha, or Eruca trying to do the ritual alone, though given the amount of creepy brothercon crap they saddled Eruca with in the DLC I should probably be glad they didn’t include a sibling hug.

Didn't need to see Stocke saying goodbye.

We needed Stripper Raynie so they could slap it on all the advertising to say, "Hey! There are boobs in this game!”

Great budget priorities: 14

Things I hate about this CG: 1

I actually kinda feel sorry for any people who bought this game because the advertising had cute girls and boobs in it, too. Because if you've seen the advertising, you have seen all the cute girls and boobs in the game (unless you shell out more money for the fanservice DLC). It is, fundamentally, not a game about getting to know cute people and romancing them and looking at them in limited clothing, but the marketing and art choices are trying to pretend it is to attract the kind of audience that buys things for the sexy girls. And I can't help but feel like somebody who bought this expecting something that would scratch the "between new Fire Emblem games" itch would be pretty disappointed.

Of course, I've got a whole lot more to complain about here than the fact that it exists, so I hope you jerks appreciate the amount of time I'm going to have to look at this stupid thing to break it down.

Let's start off with the layout.

This is how the gang are standing in the cutscene before this:

Stocke on the left, Raynie on the right. Off to the left is the exit to the front room of the inn, while on the right is a wall.

So our first, petty observation is that unless everyone shuffled around offscreen, that glowing window in the back would open into... the front room of the inn.

Things I hate about this CG: 2

Our second, less petty observation is that Raynie is leaning over and making eye contact with... the wall.

Things I hate about this CG: 3

Our third observation is that Marco, who's going "AHH, MY EYES," cannot see anything, because she has her back turned to him.

Things I hate about this CG: 4

My next observation is that Raynie's skin tone on her face is much lighter than her skin tone elsewhere, so her head looks pastede on yey.

Things I hate about this CG: 5

My next observation is that Raynie's shoulder-length opera gloves, bracers, and the great big leather cape-collar-gorget thing she wears have magically disappeared, and somehow Marco failed to react while that was happening.

Things I hate about this CG: 6

The more I look at her waist, the more I come to the conclusion that she has to be leaning forward at an uncomfortable and unnatural angle. It's not quite at the level Escher Girls labels "centaur women," but it's getting there- both her hips and her shoulders are upright, with just her spine flexed forward in the middle. Someone more flexible and in shape than me might be able to do that pose without discomfort, but I sure can't.

Things I hate about this CG: 7

How the hell does her dress work? This was already a problem just from the original design (there is literally a Stocke/Raynie fic with the premise "they fail to get to second base because they can't figure out how to get each other's clothes off"), and this... doesn't help much. It appears to be implying she is wearing a skirt that goes up to just under her breasts, with a metal plate attached to the front that I guess straps onto a thing on her back, and then she... pins the blue cloth under the metal thing? I guess? How does the base of the dress even go on, when it looks so form-fitted around both waist and hips? Is it laced like a corset behind her? Never mind that the blue thing wouldn't stay in place if you got up to anything strenuous (i.e. Raynie's entire life), or how astonishingly uncomfortable metal straight on skin is. I guess it might have some sort of lining, but it’d have to be thin. Or the fact that that metal thing actually isn’t boobplate, but there’s clearly an indentation in the cloth between her breasts in her portrait (and there’s something beautifully ironic about the gratuitous pinup art implying her normal portrait should be less sexualized than it is...).

I mean, I guess trying to figure out how to take off that outfit was one hell of a job and a valiant effort was made, buuut...

Things I hate about this CG: 8

Which of course brings us to: the alleged bra.

It clearly doesn't go around the sides, and while some googling turned up that there are some bras like that, they're made of adhesive silicone and only come in small sizes because you cannot hold up very much weight that way. But even the vast majority of bras with a profile that looks like that just have a clear plastic strap.

I have Raynie-sized boobs in real life, and I can say from personal experience that if I even want to run without having an arm pinned over my chest, I pretty much have to be wearing either an underwire monstrosity or the kind of sports bra that could double as a binder. The thing in that CG is purely a modesty measure, not a support one, and Raynie’s not only doing athletic stuff (i.e., fighting people), she’s doing athletic stuff in a hot desert. Even if we put aside whether RH even has the tech level to produce an adhesive silicone stick-on bra, she’d a) get slapped by her own runaway boobs (for those who have escaped experiencing this firsthand, yes, it happens, and it frigging hurts), b) end up feeling like the bottom half of her boobs were in a swamp because plasticky stuff stuck directly to your skin would stop sweat from evaporating, and c) probably have the damn thing fall off, because it was designed to stick to dry skin, not a grimy sweat-swamp.

Once again, this is a problem that starts with the original design; once again, the problem is made worse by the new art. They could at least have given her something that actually goes around her body, but instead they opted for the "oh crud we need to cover up her nipples or they'll give it an M rating, slap something over top of them, oh but we still want as much boob as possible exposed" option.

Things I hate about this CG: 9

No one in the entire world has made that face or that pose while taking their clothes off because they need to change. I ranted about this a while ago back over on my main, contrasting this with a couple of pages from Fullmetal Alchemist that feature a very similar joke: Winry goes into her bedroom and starts peeling her shirt off, and has quite a bit of underboob out before she notices that a very surprised Ed was sitting at her desk eating a sandwich the whole time. But all Winry's movements make sense: she shrugs off the coat/jacket she has on top while not looking at much of anything, starts pulling her tank top off with crisscrossed arms the way you really do remove a shirt like that, and then notices Ed and stares at him for a second before the penny drops.

Whereas, as mentioned, Raynie is leaning forward uncomfortably, waving part of her dress around like a flag, and making eye contact with thin air. The only way you could make any sense of her behavior is if she was actively trying to show off (though even then, leaning straight forward so any attractive or easily-flustered onlookers can stare down her cleavage would make a lot more sense than trying to curve her spine into an S), but her only possible audience are behind her.

Things I hate about this CG: 10

Oh, Marco's blond now, I only just noticed that.

Things I hate about this CG: 11

And Stocke's scarf is experiencing an inexplicable strong breeze that goes the opposite direction from the one on Raynie's hair.

Things I hate about this CG: 12

And, of course, there's the fundamental problem this scene has always had:

These are soldiers.

Even if you believe the artbook ages that never appear in the game and put them in their late teens (which I do not), they have all been in military service for multiple years. You do not keep being shy about people getting undressed near you for very long when you're staying in a barracks with 20 other people; even politely turned backs are more privacy than you’d typically get.  Even in terms of the gender thing, the simple fact that Raynie elicits no comment suggests we're not dealing with all-male militaries (or did, before PC gave every single human soldier NPC male voice clips...), and therefore, the boys would probably have been in extended close quarters with girls before, even aside from Raynie.

(And hell, nobody’s even getting naked- it’s not like they need to change underwear.)

And Marco's a medic and medics kinda have to know what people look like minus clothes, and Raynie was an orphaned refugee street urchin IN CYGNUS and has probably seen a lot worse than Marco in his underpants, and oh right, there's that little detail where THESE PEOPLE HAVE ALL BEEN TRAVELING TOGETHER IN THE WILDERNESS FOR WEEKS. There's no gender-segregated changing rooms in the middle of the desert, and if they had been making a fuss about Raynie and Aht going behind a rock if the dudes wanted to change clothes or kicking the guys out if they wanted to get clean(er) in a stream, RAYNIE WOULD REMEMBER BY THIS POINT.

Things I hate about this entire plot point: 13

It’s not just the fact that this is such gratuitous male-gazey fanservice crap that pisses me off. It’s that here are a ton of ways they could have still had their damn fanservice shot in this scene and made it make a minimum of sense, but instead we got... this.

Save Me From Fanservice: 5

How Do I Art: 49

FUCK YOU AND THE HELL SPIDER YOU RODE IN ON: 11

And just because I had to look at that longer and in more detail than I ever wanted to:

Save Me From Fanservice: 6

*drains remainder of bottle in one go, resolves to do the rest of this scene later with my eyes closed*

Tally:

Why was this changed? 305

Changes I Don’t Hate: 135

Poor choice of expressions/voice clips/sound effects: 77

How Do I Art: 49

Oops: 45

Annoying Sound Effects: 37

Handy-dandy gameplay changes: 26

Nyarlamesia: 20

Great budget priorities: 14

Let Stocke Say Ass: 12

The monkey's paw is flipping me off: 12

FUCK YOU AND THE HELL SPIDER YOU RODE IN ON: 11

Save Me From Fanservice: 6

[necromancy-savant]

My opinions on every single Shakespeare play

Most of this consists of things I wrote down a while ago when I was reading a play a day so I could keep them all straight in my head, particularly the ones I’ve only read once. 

COMEDIES

All's Well That Ends Well – Forgettable and made me roll my eyes but still better than Love’s Labor’s Lost.

As You Like It – I’m left with a lot of questions at the end of this. Does Orlando know that Rosalind was Ganymede? If he’s friends with Ganymede now, won’t he wonder what happened to him? And shouldn’t he be friends with Rosalind knowingly before marrying her? Should a relationship be built on deception like that? I guess you could say the same about Twelfth Night, but Orsino finds out Viola was disguised before marrying her so actually no, you couldn’t.

Comedy of Errors – This might just be the silliest thing I’ve ever read but it made me laugh anyway. You’d really think they’d figure out they’ve been talking to different people by the end of Act 2 at the absolute latest, but whatever. The best line by far is: “If she lives till doomsday, she’ll burn a week longer than the whole world.” It’s because she’s really greasy.

Love's Labor's Lost - So boring and pointless I almost couldn’t finish it. Literally nothing at all happens the entire time and there’s no reason for any of them to like each other.

Measure for Measure – Having already read Henry VI Part 3 a couple of times, this was déjà vu in the worst possible way. Plus the ending was fucked up in a whole variety of ways. Also, I realized I have no idea who the protagonist is, though I guess I thought it was Isabella. Other than the malapropisms (at least one character in this play should definitely have a Twitter) and the marriages, it’s hard to see this as a comedy. The aforementioned marriages are all fucked up in their own ways, except for Claudio and Juliet who were already pretty much married so they don’t count. Isabella should have stayed a nun and stayed single, and the Duke is totally the kind of guy who wants to think he’s a good person when really he’s an irresponsible douchebag. Like just do your fucking job instead of fucking with everyone for the sake of fishing for compliments or playing the hero or whatever.

Merchant of Venice – I might be able to like this if it weren’t for the worst anti-Semitism I’ve ever been exposed to. I like Portia; I kind of wish she was in a different play. I think Antonio and Bassanio should just be together, and she could be perfectly happy being single. This is one pairing I actually think is convincing, but to be fair I’m usually not particularly invested in the idea of anyone ending up with anyone.

Merry Wives of Windsor – I had high hopes for this because Falstaff is in it, because apparently Queen Elizabeth specifically requested more Falstaff, so in that regard she knows what’s up (I disapprove of the fact that she wouldn’t let Shakespeare perform Richard II because Richard II is wonderful). This was very silly but I thought the part where Mistress Quickly mishears a ton of Latin words was funny. Also there’s this girl whose parents each want her to marry a different guy except she wants to marry a third guy who she actually likes and he likes her and stuff, and her parents are like “you can’t marry him because he hangs out with sketchy people like Prince Hal and Ned Poins” and I just think it’s hilarious that they have such a bad reputation. After Taming of the Shrew I almost didn’t want to read comedies ever again but I’m glad I stuck with it because most of them really aren’t like that at all.

Midsummer Night's Dream – I love this and I can’t even explain why and I don’t really have a good reason for liking it; it just makes me lol, especially Nick Bottom. My favorite line is “In ten lines it is too long, making it tedious.” That’s a beautiful thing to say.

Much Ado about Nothing – I actually liked this one. It’s a tiny bit like Taming of the Shrew if Taming of the Shrew wasn’t horrible. I like that the leads have a healthy relationship based on friendship and mutual respect. They say they don’t want to get married because they just don’t want to have to settle for someone they don’t like enough, which I think is a good attitude to have cause it means they take marriage seriously, and they’re too afraid to be made fun of by each other to admit they like each other. Plus everyone likes Beatrice’s wit and outgoing personality instead of saying how awful she is and that she talks too much (for the record, Kate in Taming has waaayyyyy fewer lines than I expected her to have so that’s something to think about). I like how Benedick believes Hero when she says she was framed which was a pleasant surprise since I was worried he’d take Claudio’s side. It’s the part where Beatrice says “I’d eat his heart in the marketplace” and Benedick is on their side and doesn’t question or doubt them. And he and Beatrice were good friends first without being disguised as other people, except briefly but she might have known it was him. I like that he takes the high ground at the end by saying that it doesn’t matter what he said before and he doesn’t care what anyone says because he’s happy. And I like that he’s really, really picky about what he wants in a girlfriend but her hair color doesn’t matter. That was really funny.

Taming of the Shrew – Worst thing I ever read. First it’s all rape culture, and then it;s all abusive marriage. It has everything I can’t stand about certain kinds of modern comedies.

Twelfth Night – I didn’t think I’d like this one but I actually thought it was funny and really entertaining despite the fact that I don’t care who ends up together, so that tells me it’s doing something right. I also realized I remember whole passages that I had no idea I remembered from 8th grade.

Two Gentlemen of Verona – I don’t really have any strong feelings about this except that Proteus does not deserve a happy ending and I wonder what’s going to happen the next time he sees a woman other than Julia. But I guess that’s why they call him Proteus.

HISTORIES

King John – The whole thing was kind of just a will they/won’t they with the armies of England and France, but I like how extra Constance is, and Eleanor is pretty great which is why I’m pissed that she randomly dies offstage. Philip the Bastard is also an interesting character, but I still don’t really get how he walked into court one day a bastard and left it a Plantagenet.

Richard II – Love it; truly beautiful and tragic and has some of the prettiest, deepest lines I’ve read in Shakespeare, and it’s a reflection on the meaning of kingship that’s not seen elsewhere in the Histories. Richard is also not straight and seems kind of non-binary in the versions I’ve seen and I like that. Maybe part of the reason I like both of the Richards is that I see them as not straight. I know he’s no good at being king but I love him anyway. I didn’t think he was going to die though and was rather upset; when Bolingbroke was like “convey him to the Tower” I was like “oh shit, that’s where people go to die!” I mean I know they moved locations to Pomfret castle first, but that’s when I knew what was going to happen.

Henry IV, Part I – One of my favorites. I admit that at first I didn’t like Hotspur. I admit the most offensive thing about him to me was that he says he doesn’t like poetry. He struck the kind of person I can’t stand: loud, angry, annoying, and cares about things I think are stupid. But I’ve heard some different interpretations of his character, and I saw a production where he was really endearing and that got me to really like him. He’s a true chaotic good: he cares about justice first and doesn’t care who gets in the way of it, no matter how important they are. He really doesn’t deserve to die at all. Hell, he and Hal could probably be good allies if the circumstances were different. There are some really funny parts in this and Falstaff is great, and it’s actually really insightful when he says honor is a scutcheon in a way I wouldn’t have expected from him. Prince Hal strikes me as kind of a bro but he’s definitely more sympathetic for me in this one than the other two plays he’s in.

Henry IV, Part II – Honestly not much happens in this one until the end and I’m not sure if I can forgive Hal for what he did to Falstaff. The dude was so excited to go the coronation and see him and he was just like “I know thee not, old man.” It was cold, and normally when I say that I mean it in a good way but not this time. He was basically like “fuck off and die” and that’s exactly what he did. I’m not happy about that.

Henry V – I saw a joke summary of this that said “70% armed combat, 30% jokes” and that is completely accurate. This has its moments for sure. The comic relief characters aren’t as funny as Falstaff though, and I really can’t stand Pistol and couldn’t when he was briefly in the preceding play either. There are things I like about Henry V as a character, but sometimes I question his decisions. He manages to pull it all off somehow though, and that’s impressive.

Henry VI, Part I – I love this whole tetralogy. Joan of Arc was in this and that was a pleasant and unexpected surprise. York comes off as kind of a dick though. He and Somerset are the pettiest people ever. Plus I started to get some of Margaret’s backstory, and knowing what I know now I get why she’s so done with everyone by the time of Richard III. I still don’t forgive her for everything she ever said and I still don’t think she’s 100% a victim in all of this, but to be fair it turns out she is mostly a victim in all of this, and I get that she’s a bold person who’s willing to do what it takes to come out on top and survive, and this can be both a positive and a negative quality depending on the situation.

Henry VI, Part II – This one is largely about how York and Somerset’s pettiness almost destroyed England. Aside from that, this solidified for me that I really don’t like Henry, although Margaret continued to really grow on me in this one, and I feel bad for her that she has to put up with him and basically do everything for him. In spite of this, I find their relationship to be extremely entertaining. I like the part where she punches out the Duchess of Gloucester in front of the whole court and Henry’s just like “it’s whatever, she didn’t mean it” and the part where some guy fakes a miracle and they hit him to prove he can run away and Henry’s like “how could God let this happen?” but Margaret’s like “I thought it was funny watching him run away” (and I was like SAME; she really spends this whole play saying exactly what I’m thinking at any given time, particularly when it comes to Henry) and the part where they’re running away from the battle at the end and Henry can’t keep up because of fucking course he can’t and Margaret’s like “could you be any slower?” and he’s like “maybe we should just sit here and accept our fate.” He is such a wet blanket. I spent the whole thing yelling “Henry, what is wrong with you?!” at my book. While he’s not a terrible person he is mediocre and painfully stupid and I really don’t see him as having any redeeming qualities.  Also Richard shows up for like 5 minutes at the end to collect Somerset’s head and be called an “indigested lump” by someone he just fucking met, which incidentally is the same exact thing Henry said to him. Update: I finally figured out what it is I don’t like about Henry. It’s not even what he says to Richard in the Tower (that is not even half the reason I don’t like him, but for the record even if it was the entire reason it would be an excellent reason). It’s that I see him as childish and to me that’s an extremely negative quality, though I expect it’s also what makes him endearing to some people.

Henry VI, Part III – 10/10 I love it so much, I have a strong opinion on nearly every scene. Margaret is a badass in this one, Henry continues to be an ignorant, damp slice of bread, Richard is in it, and it has my favorite scene in all of Shakespeare when he kills Henry in the Tower, and another scene I love when he says “speak thou for me and tell them what I did” and then Margaret yells at Henry and says “art thou king and wilt be forced?” and her finest moment when she kills York, and the best piece of foreshadowing I’ve ever seen when Richard says about Margaret: “why should she live to fill the world with words?” Also Edward is a fuckboy and a bad influence. I’m ashamed to share a name with him. I kind of think he died of a deadly STD; serves him right.

Richard III – Favorite Shakespeare play, best thing I’ve read in a long time, and definitely one of the top five things I’ve ever read, especially taken together with Henry VI Part 3. It’s everything tragedy should be, parts of it are extremely relatable to me personally, I’ve memorized more of both plays than I care to admit, and it’s a good thing it’s short enough that I can read it over and over because that’s exactly what I intend to do. I don’t know why reading something about someone who makes all the wrong decisions would make me feel better about my life, but I think this is exactly what Aristotle meant when he said that tragedy should be cathartic. Also Richard is definitely ace as fuck and I will fight anyone who tries to say otherwise.

Henry VIII – First of all, Katharine deserved way better. Second of all, I feel like it really glossed over the part where he created the Anglican Church just so he could divorce her. Also there was some really shameless plugging of Queen Elizabeth at the end, so I’m guessing this was written during her reign, which would explain why Henry VIII doesn’t look as bad as he does literally everywhere else I’ve seen him (update: turns out it was written later). I seem to remember that he ended up killing Anne Boleyn and that didn’t happen in this play though I was kind of waiting for it to. I’ve really never read anything this positive about him, and that’s even counting the fact that he tossed Katharine aside after seeing Anne Boleyn once at a party. And I did find out that Buckingham’s real name is Henry, although it’s not like I needed another Henry to keep track of.

TRAGEDIES

Antony and Cleopatra – I really didn’t care for this one. Cleopatra seems like kind of a stereotype to me and I’m not terribly invested in either her or Antony. Romance isn’t really my thing unless it’s super compelling for some special reason or unless I like both the characters individually. This has neither of those qualifiers.

Coriolanus – I didn’t like this very much, even though it’s about Rome. Coriolanus is not a compelling figure to me; the whole premise is that he’s good at fighting but he’s also an asshole, and neither one of those things is interesting to me. Honestly the only part of this that isn’t extremely boring is Volumnia.

Hamlet – I hadn’t read this in a really long time and didn’t remember any of it, and I liked it more than I thought I would. It’s kind of gothic in a wonderful way, even though I know that’s not an appropriate term to use for something written at the time it was written. Honestly though, my liking for Hamlet as a character was severely diminished when he started making dirty comments to Ophelia, and she seemed way more sympathetic than I remember her being. The common theme in many of these tragedies seems to be a protagonist who is lost and overwhelmed and ends up lashing out because of it. The speeches in Hamlet are the best part for me by far, but yeah. As someone who likes language and anything dark, I like it.

Julius Caesar – This I quite liked; I think Brutus is a compelling character and it raises some interesting questions. It also contains the most passive-aggressive thing I’ve ever read. Although, during Act I when Cassius is trying to convince Brutus to kill Caesar, all I hear is “Brutus is just as nice as Caesar. Brutus is just as cute as Caesar, okay, people like Brutus just as much as they like Caesar.” Honestly I think Tina Fey purposely paraphrased Cassius’s lines when writing Mean Girls, which is pretty cool. I liked it when I auditioned for it and I’ve come to really love it, having been in it. I want to see more productions of this one.

King Lear – It’s grown on me over time, I guess. I do have some strong opinions on why Cordelia is actually kind of awful. I like Edmund and Regan and Cornwall, and Goneril have their moments, but none of these characters really get enough air time for me to like the play. What there is a lot of is Lear who is just depressing on multiple levels and his fool who annoys me with his overuse of the word “nuncle” even though I know it’s fairly normal for words in English to lose an /n/ at the beginning due to our articles like how “apron” used to be “napron” until people thought “a napron” was “an apron.” And there’s a lot of Edgar and Kent and Gloucester, none of whom I’m convinced to care about even though I have nothing against them. So overall I still think it is confusing and needlessly depressing, but I am slowly warming up to it. Like, I already know life is pointless, I don’t need something to tell me that like it’s some kind of revelation.

Macbeth – I really don’t understand Macbeth as a character. You think he’d be able to say “no” to murder seeing as he has no real interest in it. I don’t find it romantic at all that he does whatever crazy thing Lady Macbeth wants. I find it kind of disturbing, and certainly not something that reflects well on him. At first it seems like Lady Macbeth should just get rid of him and do everything herself if she’s going to be like that, and I don’t understand why she can’t bring herself to kill Duncan if she wants him dead so badly, and then she loses it halfway through the play and that’s always a let-down. Also isn’t this the one that has the line where it’s like “your father’s been murdered” -“oh, by whom?” and “what, you egg”? As funny as that is it doesn’t exactly speak volumes to Macbeth as having the greatest dialogue all the time. In conclusion, I want to like this play but I really don’t get what’s wrong with either Macbeth or Lady Macbeth and so I can’t really get into it.

Othello – This was always one of my favorites. I always thought Othello and Desdemona’s relationship was really beautiful and romantic in Act I but for some reason my liking of Othello never stops me from being intrigued by what Iago’s going to do next. There’s something appealing to me about being able to always say the right thing and having the self-confidence to make everyone do what you think they should do. That said, having now seen a Shakespeare villain who is manipulative (in an extremely different sort of way) but has motives and a personality, he seems really boring by comparison. I kind of get now how he’s just a plot device, and that does make Othello an even more sympathetic character. And it’s really heartbreaking how he thinks he’s not good enough for Desdemona and has to deal with his worst fears being confirmed after he’s had so much shit to deal with already. I think anyone would break.

Romeo and Juliet - I got tired of it a long time ago and honestly it’s not that good. It’s just kind of average. I get that people have to fall in love quickly in a play that can’t just go on for 10 hours but I still can’t bring myself to care about the characters. Juliet is mildly interesting but Romeo is just a boring person and I don’t care for him at all. Plus I feel like there’s a weird age difference between them considering she’s like 13 or 14 and he’s probably like 18. I’m probably just too ace for this play but I don’t get the appeal. (Update: I’ve now been in this play and I still don’t really get it. I don’t have anything against it but it doesn’t do too much for me either. I liked being in it a whole lot, but it wouldn’t be my top choice for something I want to watch).

Timon of Athens – I feel like there was the potential for this to be a good story about someone who kept giving people material things to get them to like him to the point of running himself into the ground (ha, literally) only to discover that doing that doesn’t actually make you real friends, but it never really came together for me. So good idea, not so sure about the execution, although my book thinks that Shakespeare only wrote part of it and Thomas Middleton wrote the rest so that probably has something to do with it.

Titus Andronicus – This has its moments but it’s not as violent as I thought it would be, which is not good for something that’s known for being violent. My first big problem with it is that Chiron and Demetrius get off way too easy. I was waiting the whole play for them to die horribly only to be let down. Being baked into pies hurts Tamora, not them, and I hate them so much that I’m out of fucks to give about her. My second big problem is that Titus is a selfish piece of shit. He fucking kills Lavinia because her condition is just too painful for him. He complains that he only has 5 children left but he kills two of them himself, on stage. I like Aaron in spite of myself, or at least I like a lot of his speeches; they’re a lot of fun to read. I was surprised that he wanted his child to live even if he couldn’t take care of it personally, but I have no idea how to feel about that because on the one hand I can see how it’s a redeeming quality, and so I like that there’s some effort to humanize him, but on the other hand I wish it was done a different way because that’s not something I have any basis to understand. All this said if I had the chance to see this performed, I admittedly would.

Troilus and Cressida – I’m confused because I spent most of this thinking it took place before the events of the Iliad when actually it was pretty much a different version of the same story, which is disappointing because as much as I love the Iliad, I already have the Iliad. As for Troilus and Cressida themselves, I was rolling my eyes when she thought she had to play hard to get, but then happy when he said that was never necessary and was just happy to be with her even though she thought she was embarrassing herself by expressing her feelings for him; he didn’t shame her for it and that perception was all in her head. But then she didn’t really have any choice but to go with Diomedes, so it’s not fair for Troilus to be mad at her. Plus they only just got together and they weren’t official or anything. He’s a bit of a dumbass, to be honest, even though he and Cressida have some sweet moments. I kind of like Thersites; he seems like my kind of guy. He hates lechery, doesn’t care for war, and thinks most of the Greek generals are full of themselves, which is pretty accurate. I like that he rejects the kind of masculinity most of them embrace where they just fight in order to get women. He thinks they’re the dumbest people ever for engaging in all of that, and frankly I think it’s pretty idiotic too. However, I don’t like that he makes fun of Achilles and Patroclus for being gay. There are already so many good reasons to make fun of Achilles.

ROMANCES

Winter’s Tale – I didn’t have any strong feelings about this until the end, but now I’m wondering where Hermione was for 16 years? I guess she stayed hidden somewhere, but how did she know when the right time to come back would be? Like that was some really good timing. I mean I guess I’m glad Leontes got his shit and part of his family together but to me that doesn’t really make for anything particularly memorable. And I don’t recall him actually apologizing to Hermione or Perdita, so he should really get on that.

Cymbeline – I wasn’t particularly expecting to like this, but I did. It had some of the same elements of the Winter’s Tale except it was way better and I liked the characters more – don’t get me wrong, it was still really…I’m not sure what the right word is, when all the male characters are assholes and they do awful things to Imogen and then she magically forgives them at the end, but at least I felt somewhat invested in her and her brothers, and there were some funny parts, but the part with the ghosts was really weird and I don’t know what to make of it. There are some weird parts in the Romances and I’m not feeling that.

Pericles – Not quite my cup of tea but I don’t hate it. I admit I don’t really like how it takes place over, what, decades? Plus I’ve never heard of this particular Pericles in my life. I totally thought it was going to be about the Athenian statesman. But I did like that it takes place partially in the Near/Middle East, even if it’s just the parts that were part of the Greek world (I’m guessing Hellenistic). But I liked the story well enough and I like that Pericles isn’t an asshole unlike Leontes or Cymbeline, and I like how Marina and Thaisa both were just dropped on a beach somewhere and by the time Pericles finds them they’re at the top of the societies they entered, and how the guy who was going to take Marina’s virginity was really embarrassed and gave her a bunch of money and was supportive when he found out she didn’t want to.

The Tempest – I actually enjoy this and I think it’s a fun play. Caliban is hilarious and I actually like that it turns out not to be a revenge story. Sometimes it’s nice to see someone be the bigger person and have everyone live, even if it’s not cathartic in the same way. There are some really cool interpretations out there but even on the surface I find it quite entertaining and I think there’s something to be said for something that makes me happy for no reason.

[vickyelizabethgalan]

Re-Viewing Suicide Squad: Still Just as bad as Before

Hey everyone!

If you read the title of this post, you probably clicked to question my sanity. I, like many, went to watch Suicide Squad when it first came out and I, like many, thought it was insanely terrible. HOWEVER, I also realized it was a fun movie with a great soundtrack and half-way decent acting. Recently, I re-watched the movie because I was running on the treadmill and, in my boredom, decided to watch it free on-demand. What followed was 2 hours and 17 minutes of Will Smith, Viola Davis and Cara Dela-whatever horror movie. I mean, B-movie horror (and that’s insulting movies like “Attack of the 50ft woman”). I’ve decided to write a mini-review about the movie, focusing mostly on the actors and their portrayal of the characters. In an attempt to keep the length of the post shorter, I’m just reviewing the top-billed actors and characters I felt were the most egregious. Without further ado…here’s Suicide Squad: 

Jared Leto: We begin with the Clown Prince and least needed character in the movie. The feelings I have for Jared Leto’s Joker can be summarized with: Does he even count as a joker? With alumni such as Jack Nicholson, Mark Hamill and even the late Heath Ledger, The Joker may be considered one of the most famous comic book villains of all time. However, something that has always been consistent is the Joker’s psychological, however humorous, HUMOR. The Joker is sick and sadistic but there is always, in his mind, a punchline. That is one of the reason’s Leto’s Joker fails. The marketing of the movie focused on how cute it was that he played weird pranks on his co-stars in an attempt to show the world he was “in character”. Sorry to break it to you, but even the Joker would never send Batman a rat or dead pig. He might, however, kidnap your loved one and turn him into a sadistic version of himself 

Ok, fine, this movie didn’t exactly focus on him or his relationship with the Bat, I agree. It did focus (and completely manipulate and romanticize) on his relationship with Quinn, and that might just be the most disturbing part of the film. I, personally, love Harley Quinn. Her craziness and mad love for the Joker is addicting to watch and as Harley’s comic book story-line progresses, it’s even nicer to watch her realize the wrong that is her “mad love” for the Clown Prince. It’s better to watch that Harley realizes how abused she is and attempt to leave (in her own Harley way). Finally, it’s better to watch Harley actually almost succeed in killing the Joker for everything he’s done to her. 

The movie forget something though. Throughout everything, Harley’s love is very rarely reciprocated by Joker and it’s even doubted that Joker could ever feel the same way for Harley. The movie distorts the relationship to make it look like the Joker is willing to “sacrifice” and “care” for Harley and that is seriously out of character for him. The movie is so desperate to re-brand the “mad love”, that there is even a line saying “She was his queen, and god help anyone who dared to disrespect his queen”. The movie greatly misunderstands and misrepresents what Harley is to Joker, a pawn. Don’t believe me? Hollywood Reporter seems to agree and voice my exact worries: 

If there was one constant in the portrayal of the relationship between the two characters in both comic books and animation, it was that Harley loved the Joker more than he did her. Actually, it could be argued that the Joker didn’t love Harley at all — that his occasional sweetness and attempts to woo her were merely manipulative attempts to keep her from being too much of a nuisance. Certainly, there would be countless appearances by the Joker without Harley in which she wouldn’t be mentioned at all, and when the two did share scenes, it was as common for him to be cruel as to be affectionate.

In recent years, this has been addressed in the comics themselves. As Harley has slowly transitioned from supporting player to solo star — the Harley Quinn comic book being a surprise hit for DC Entertainment, leading to multiple spinoff titles in the last few years — her relationship with the Joker has gone from awkward, uncomfortable comic relief to a problem that needed to be solved.

-When Harley Met Joker: A History of the Twisted ‘Suicide Squad’ Love Story

So this is my biggest problem with the entire movie: The Joker is reduced to a Hot Topic shopping, emo tattooed boy who cares and waddles around in a circle of machine guns. The portrayal is a lack of respect to the character who has so much more sophistication than what was portrayed. I’d love to know what Leto was studying so hard while he was mailing condoms and rats, which is just gross, that made him think any of this was ok. Needless to say, I’m not looking forward to seeing him in future installations. 

Margot Robbie: I basically said everything i needed to say about Harley in the Joker section but in general, I’d just love to point out that Robbie is beautiful and does a great job as a beautifully insane diphead. She talks crap for most of the movie and my favorite moment would just be when she blurts out “What was that? I should kill everyone and escape? Sorry, it’s the voices. I’m kidding! That’s not what they really said.” That quote does a really good job of setting the scene for the kind of character Robbie’s Harley Quinn will be. She is fast talking, crazy and eye candy. This, however, is terrible considering in her history, Harley has been all of this and way more. Harley is smart, agile in combat and over-all powerful. So it makes me wonder why we need to pair her with the Joker so much, she really doesn’t need him. Joker was completely unnecessary in this movie but Harley is needed because, along with Deadshot, she basically IS the Suicide Squad. 

Cara Delavigne: Why does this woman think she can act? She really has little to no acting ability and this movie shows it. She is either the least enjoyable part of the movie from how bad her acting is or the opposite, because I was laughing every time she was on screen. I couldn’t help but compare her to Shakira and her “Hip’s Don’t Lie” music video. Enchantress is a character I was unfamiliar with before the movie but I felt like I knew her even less when I saw her character, an archeologist, break a rare artifact upon finding it. I never understood where she came from or what her motive really was. She felt a lot like Apocalypse from X-Men, just some all mighty mutant who wanted to rule the world, original. The part that bothers me the most about her character is that she is brought into the Squad to become the movie’s villain. If it wasn’t for Waller, Enchantress wouldn’t have been a threat. 

Viola Davis: We’re almost done, but no Suicide Squad review would be complete without talking about the Queen, Amanda Waller. This is a woman that is so strong-willed, even Batman follows her order. Viola does an amazing job, as she normally does, BUT, it’s not the best work we’ve seen her do. She seems very disinterested for most of the movie and the audience writes this off as a character trait when really, it’s just the actor who couldn’t care less about the role she’s portraying. Great job but it’s only great because everyone else is so bad.

Will Smith: Now I end this review with the character I consider the redeeming factor of the movie: Deadshot. Before this film, I knew very little about him and now all I know is that he never misses and his daughter is his greatest weakness. Will Smith is an amazing actor and, honestly, if I knew more about Deadshot, maybe I would be able to critique his performance more. For now, he basically gives the movie the motivation it needs to continue and he gives it the character emotion and humanity. He seems to be one of the more fleshed out characters of the film and one of the better characters. 

And this, ladies and gents, is my review of Suicide Squad based on the portrayal of the characters. This is also the first modern movie I have taken to review so please let me know any other movies I should be reviewing. Thanks for reading!

[moviemagistrate]

2016 Movie Year in Review

All the 2016 movies I saw, ranked from worst to best, with superlatives in the end.

Notes: 

1. I apologize for some of these reviews being half-assed. I went a bit overboard with this and at a certain point just wanted to be done.

2. Thank you for reading this. Even if you don’t read it all, just pretend that you did and tell me how great I am. I love validation.

3. If you disagree with any of my reviews, please tell me, so I can explain precisely why your taste is shit. I also welcome regular discussion.

91. Diablo – In what was a recurring theme in 2016, I saw this under-the-radar Western despite its’ shitty reviews. I was never one to let critics influence my own opinion on something, and I figured that Scott (son of Clint) Eastwood’s Western debut with a supporting performance from personal-fave Walton Goggins couldn’t be that bad. Well, if it’s completely forgotten about and accomplishes nothing else (it already has been and it doesn’t), “Diablo” shows that even the majority of people can sometimes be totally, totally right.

This film is about a young Civil War veteran whose sexy wife gets kidnapped and he goes out on a journey to rescue her. Along the way, we start to realize that the motivations in the kidnapping and the rescue aren’t so simple, etc. The premise is decent and it starts out well (with one hell of an entrance for Eastwood’s character) but the longer the movie goes on, the exponentially faster it falls apart.

This is one of the most poorly-made and ineptly-written actual movies I’ve ever seen. It’s kind of like an Ed Wood flick minus the schlocky charm. None of the characters in this movie act or talk like actual human beings. It’d be surreal if it felt intentional. I’ve written better screenplays on toilet paper, and I don’t mean with a pen. The dialogue is awful and often goes nowhere, the direction is confusing, guns are shot with zero recoil (a personal trigger for me, no pun intended), the acting (even from good actors like Goggins and Danny Glover) sucks, the plot twist is retarded and obvious from a minute into the movie, and I’m willing to bet that even the catering for this film wasn’t that great either.

If Scott Eastwood wants a future in Westerns (or movies in general), I would ask/bribe/intimidate everyone who saw this film to sign a non-disclosure agreement, which shouldn’t be hard since so few people saw it. “Diablo” has nice intentions, but intentions will only get you so far when everyone involved in the creative process is so inept at their job that they make Sony/Warner Bros. executives look almost competent. It’s would all be hilarious if it wasn’t so damn dull. It feels a bit mean giving my bottom spot to a tiny, independent movie with almost no release when there’s plenty of studio-produced garbage to choose from (more on that shortly), but trust me, even in a shitty year for film like 2016, “Diablo” deserves it.

Nice cinematography, though.

90. Suicide Squad – I’m probably going to spoil parts of the movie here. I also probably won’t proofread this review after I finish writing it. I don’t care, honestly, because just thinking about the aptly-named “Suicide Squad” makes me lose the will to live.

I went into this film expecting it to be garbage even before the negative reviews started pouring in. When I heard that Warner Bros. were planning massive reshoots and rewrites to “make the movie more light-hearted”, a million red flags went up for me. It’s one thing to add in a few additional shots or lines, but WB wanted to fundamentally alter the film’s DNA, while still retaining much of the original footage. The result isn’t so much a new film but rather two films horrifically Frankensteined together, not unlike last year’s “Fantastic Four” (how’s that for a comparison?) The first half is atrocious. It’s just a series of introductions to the main cast that all feel like badly-edited music videos. EVERY. GODDMAN. SCENE in the first half of the movie has some really out-of-place popular song that is not only groan-inducing but also doesn’t fit the tone of the scene in most cases. Slipknot doesn’t even get one of these introductions (not that it matters much since he’s killed off about 10 minutes after we first meet him). His intro amounts to another character saying the funniest line of the movie; “That’s Slipknot. He can climb ANYTHING.” Whoa, watch out for this bad motherfucker.

I don’t know how much of this you can blame on the reshoots, but the plot is fundamentally retarded, as well. Putting aside the basic idea that the contingency plan for a rogue god-like superhero is just a small team of criminals with guns and melee weapons, only two of whom have actual powers, the story progression beats are just plain dumb. The main villain is an all-powerful witch that was supposed to be on the squad but escapes because the government was very lenient in looking after her. Upon being rescued, Viola Davis’ government higher-up kills her subordinates because they “didn’t have clearance” or something like that, even though it was literally their job to help her run everything. At one point, the Joker shows up, takes Harley Quinn away from the squad, only to crash and die (but not really), and she just returns a minute later. In wanting to show his trust, the soldier in charge of the Squad smashes his explosion-app phone, and allows them to leave if they want to. In the ONLY genuinely funny moment in the movie, comic relief character Captain Boomerang wordlessly gets up and leaves. In a move I will never forgive Warner Bros. for, he just returns unceremoniously a minute later (there might be a boomerang joke there, but that’s giving the script too much credit). During the climax, the Squad has a fight with the witch, during which no one even gets hurt so it feels pretty pointless, before she says to stop and tries to coax them into joining her by making them envision and promising them their greatest desires (once again wasting the character’s potential, Captain Boomerang’s is never shown).

The characters might have been the saving grace, but they are all handled incredibly poorly. Despite being “bad guys” (which they verbally remind each other and the audience throughout), they are more like quirky Guardians of the Galaxy-esque heroes, spouting quips and doing the right thing even when it’s against their supposed nature. El Diablo makes sense, as he’s trying to repent for his sins, but why do the rest of them have morals? Why, during Diablo’s story about how he accidentally killed his family, does Harley Quinn un-ironically give him a “how could you do such a monstrous thing?” reaction. What little character development any of them have feels rushed and/or forced, where by the end they are willing to sacrifice themselves for each other and calling themselves a “family” despite having only met a few hours earlier and only exchanged a few quips here and there. Where they could have made genuinely interesting characters by making the main-characters actual villainous anti-heroes who act against the government even while working for them, Warner Bros. just made them typical Marvel heroes, spouting typical Marvel quips while killing typical Marvel cannon-fodder enemies and trying to close a typical Marvel sky portal that can destroy the world or whatever it was supposed to do, except doing it all worse. It doesn’t help that Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc, Katana, and even Joker are all useless and have literally no practical purpose for being in the plot.

How do you fuck up a movie so badly that even Will Smith can’t save it? Smith is one of the few good things about this movie, basically playing his typical leading-man Will Smith persona but he’s so charismatic and likable that you can’t help but feel bad for him for being in this dreck. The rest of the cast is a mixed bag. Margot Robbie has the potential to play a good Harley Quinn, but none of her jokes work (a combination of her delivery and the awful script) and as mentioned before, she’s written to be way too sympathetic. Jai Courtney (Boomerang) had the career-first potential to be good here, but is barely used and what little comic relief he provides is squandered. Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (who I was actually looking forward to in this movie) has only like 6 lines as Killer Croc underneath all that makeup, and all of them make him sound like a black stereotype; as a favor for accomplishing the mission at the end, he asks for BET in his cell, which is a step above asking for fried chicken and grape-drank, so at least there’s that. The guy playing El Diablo is alright. The actors playing Col. Flagg and Katana are forgettable. Oscar-nominee Viola Davis is actually pretty bad as the government head of the squad, looking bored throughout and giving stilted line-deliveries while failing to be intimidating. Cara Delevingne (in her witch form) looks and talks like a particularly poorly-written Game of Thrones character, and is probably the least intimidating villain I’ve ever seen in a comic book movie. Ben Affleck is in the movie for like, a minute. That’s all there is to him.

And how can I forget Jared Leto’s performance as Joker? No seriously, how? Please tell me. He decided that playing the most famous bad guy in comic history would be to act like a Tourette-afflicted edgy teenager who rebels against his upper-class parents by shopping at Hot Topic. At least he was entertainingly cringe-worthy, unlike most of the movie, which is just the regular kind. Who knows, maybe in all that cut footage of him lies a good performance or character arc, but he seems less like a demented criminal mastermind and more like the type of person who would giggle maniacally to himself after tearing the tag off of his mattress. Also, if there’s a word for the introduction version of an anti-climax, Joker’s first appearance in the film is exactly that.

In summary, the acting ranges from decent to bad, the characters are weak, the writing is abysmal, the plot is nonsensical, the tone is all over the place, the music choices are head-drillingly irritating, the action scenes are dull to the point where I zoned out quite a bit during them, and all-in-all a movie that should’ve been stylish and cool is just drab and embarrassing. I know that director David Ayer is better than this (and that he didn’t even have any say in the final edit) and I’m sure there’s a decent cut of this film somewhere, so instead of blaming him I’m going to blame Warner Bros., a studio that gives Sony Pictures a run for their money in terms of sheer incompetency. They’re in such a hurry to catch up to Marvel that they forgot to properly set up their universe and don’t even have a clear vision for what they want to accomplish, story-wise. Say what you will about the MCU and how formulaic a lot of their movies are, but at least Kevin Feige has a vision for his series and makes it work. WB saw the less-than-ideal performance of “Batman v Superman”, panicked, and butchered Ayer’s film to try and make it appeal to as many people as possible, ultimately appealing to no one.

Hell, give Zack Snyder the reigns to the DCEU. He’s not without his flaws, but he’s the closest thing to an auteur working in superhero films today and he’s infinitely more competent in telling a story than the hacks who edited the “Suicide Squad” I saw in theaters. Who is the real Suicide Squad? Is it the team of “bad guys” in the movie? Or is it the audience who is forced to endure this piece of shit? If there is justice, it will be the executives at Warner Bros. who should be forced by shareholders to commit ritualistic suicide live on The CW following “Arrow”

Or just punched in the stomach.

89. Ghostbusters – A “Ghostbusters” reboot is the most politically divisive film of 2016. It’s things like this that make me wonder if we’ve lost our way as a culture. Why people got so up in arms over the casting is beyond me. Personally, I think that anyone who condemns or praises a film solely because of the sex of its leads should be sterilized. But for months ahead of release, I saw almost nonstop articles, Tweets, and arguments about “misogyny” and “the patriarchy” and “raped childhoods” in regards to a silly comedy about people who hunt ghosts, and I started to wonder if it was actually a bad thing that the Chinese will soon take over the West (not that the Chinese would ever allow this film to be released, because Commies are afraid of ghosts or something like that).

It should come as no surprise to anyone with the slightest bit of rationality and foresight, however, that all this controversy would amount to nothing because the film is just a dull, unimaginative slog. I was expecting the movie to be shit because writer/director Paul Feig is a hack who never should have moved past television comedies, and Sony Pictures is a major movie studio run by a bunch of chimps with Down’s Syndrome, and apparently I’m better at pattern recognition than most. But honestly, I can’t even get worked up about “Ghostbusters” because it was just so boring. It never reached the point of being offensively bad like “Suicide Squad”, but this movie doesn’t really have anything going for it either. The lead actresses are fine, and could do well if they had some decent material to work with, but they aren’t funny enough to carry a very improv-heavy feature length film by themselves. A good improvised bit can be like a nice sprinkling of cinnamon on a tasty dessert, but “Ghostbusters” felt like eating several spoonfuls of cinnamon straight from the container. This felt like a modern-day SNL sketch arduously stretched out to two hours.

The improv could have worked if the leads had actual characters to work with, but each one is given just one personality trait (Leslie Jones is scared, Kate McKinnon is koooooky, Kristen Wiig is insecure, and Melissa McCarthy is…there), and they often break their trait for their banter where they constantly try to say funny things and tell jokes, making them feel like a bad college comedy-troupe instead of actual characters. Paul Feig didn’t even bother with any character development; just one forced scene where the animosity between Wiig and McCarthy’s characters, that’s forgotten within 15 minutes, is finally brought up again in the last 5. After a point, I started to feel bad for the cast. I know that McKinnon, Wiig, and McCarthy can do better than this (and have), and even Leslie Jones (who was the worst part of the trailer but is surprisingly the only likable and believable character in the film) deserves more than what she’s given. The only somewhat funny character was the mayoral aide who privately supports the team while publically insulting and condemning them.

As with Paul Feig’s other films, the plot is thin as can be (four women team up to investigate ghosts, start their own business, and before you know it, all hell breaks loose), and it feels very disjointed, with a lot of scenes feeling like they could be put in different orders and it wouldn’t make a difference. As a result, the film fails to properly ramp up in terms of stakes and motivations. There are set-ups without payoffs, and payoffs to things that were never really set up. And of course Feig can’t shoot action or comedy for shit, to the point where even a gifted physical comic like McCarthy looks like she’s lightly swinging at air in her fight scenes. He also clearly misses the R-rating he’s had so far in his feature films, where the lack of jokes is exacerbated without the crutch of swearing to lean on. Plus, as typical of a Sony Pictures movie, there’s enough forced product placement on display to make Michael Bay blush.

The lowest points of the film are the cutesy references to the original film and cameos from the original cast, with the absolute nadir being a scene with a Bill Murray who looks like he’s wondering if it’d be faster to run away from the film set (that he was sued into being on) or to slit his own throat. This just points to a studio product that plays it so safe and close to the original that it doesn’t have any identity of its own, and funnily enough, the gender-swapping of the lead roles is the only decent idea it has to differentiate itself.

As I said before, this wasn’t terrible or painful to watch (possible because I was already detached very early in the movie, but still). I got two chuckles, one from Jones and one from Chris Hemsworth, and a handful of snorts here and there. The CGI, sets, and prop-design are all colorful and surprisingly solid. But the overall movie is just mediocre and a chore to sit through. I normally don’t write lengthy reviews for comedies because there are only so many ways to say something isn’t funny, but the 2016 “Ghostbusters” just isn’t funny, and all the controversy that was brewed up (it wouldn’t surprise me if Sony manufactured the hateful reactions to the trailers themselves to drum up publicity) ultimately led to another one of the same bland, cash-grab remakes that Hollywood has been pumping out for the last several years. Now I may be a sexist, chauvinistic white cis-het misogynist shitlord, but I think the movie-going public deserves better than this, even those dumb bitc…[REDACTED]

88. The Neon Demon - A 16-year-old girl moves to LA to become a model, and finds quick success due to her good looks (and we know she looks good because none of the other characters, including her, ever stop mentioning it), but soon after finds herself succumbing to her own hubris and the jealousy of those around her. That’s literally the entire plot of the movie, minus some of the dirty specifics. Then again, you don’t see a Nicholas Winding Refn for the plot. As can be expected from any of his post-Drive films, characters speak very obvious dialogue with remarkably long pauses, they stare off into the distance a lot (even when just looking into a mirror), jarring ultraviolence occurs, and pretty red-and-blue lighting abounds.

I found NWR’s particular brand of violent, brightly colored autism amusing up to a point, but after a while, it became increasingly grating. Part of that is that the movie as a whole just feels kind of pointless. Thematically it’s quite obvious; the modeling world exploits young women, and said women are also jealous, catty bitches (at least, that’s the impression I got from Refn). But why the fuck is this movie two hours long? So much of the film is just NWR indulging in all of his trademark filming techniques at the expense of making interesting characters. Yes, there are plenty of striking visuals with their fair share of obvious symbolism, but that’s pretty much all there is to it. Much of the movie is filmed like a modeling session or a runway show (which is probably intentional), but there comes a point where you just want to shout “YES, I GET THE GODDAMN POINT, ALREADY.” After about an hour in, I just wanted it to end and couldn’t really care about what happened next. In what seemed like an attempt to rope me back in, the last 40 minutes or so is when the twisted and violent stuff starts happening, but I was less shocked and more annoyed and disgusted by what I was seeing.

The cast is alright, I suppose. The performances from Bella Heathcote and Abbey Lee as the two models that become jealous of the main character are fun and biting. Keanu Reeves is surprisingly entertaining as a sleazy motel manager. As much as I hated that one particular scene with Jena Malone (you’ll know it when it happens), I commend her for being so committed to her performance to actually pull that scene off. Everyone else kind of just occupies that NWR character spectrum that exists somewhere between ethereal and autistic (leaning much closer to the latter in this film).

I hate it when people say the stuff I dislike about a movie is done intentionally. Was my boredom intentional? If, however, the prospect of having Nicholas Winding Refn slowly jerking himself off in your face for two hours while maintaining unblinking eye contact with synth music playing in the background sounds like your cup of tea, then “The Neon Demon” will satisfy your unusually specific fetish, you weirdo.

87. Triple 9 – Have you ever seen an urban police drama? Congrats, you’ve already seen “Triple 9”. Basically, there is a squad of crooked Atlanta cops who plan to rob a government building with some criminals in order to appease a mob wife (hammed-up by Kate Winslet in what could possibly be her first bad performance), and they aim to simultaneously stage the murder of a fellow cop across town so there would be little resistance during their robbery. There are ride-alongs, roughing up of suspects, lots of swearing, drug use, betrayals, etc. Pretty much every “gritty” urban crime movie cliché since the ‘90s is in this film, and very little of it is interesting. The movie only really comes alive during its action sequences. The opening bank robbery and mid-film raid especially are expertly crafted and are genuinely exciting. However, they (and a wonderful little cameo from Michael K. Williams) are the film’s only highlights, and the only other thing “Triple 9” is noteworthy for is having such a talented cast and wasting them on such been-there-done-that material. It’s not an ordeal to get through; it holds your attention and it’s thankfully not as edgy as I feared, but between the dull plot, lame dialogue, and unlikable, two-dimensional characters, “Triple 9” is more of a Single 5 (out of 10).

86. The Invitation – A man named Will, who looks like a cross between Jesus and Tom Hardy, brings his new girlfriend to a dinner party set up by his long-estranged ex-wife and her new husband. Things start to get weird when they begin talking a lot about a spirituality group they’re a part of, and Will’s paranoia over their strange behavior is made worse when all of his friends seem to accept it with no problem. I went into watching this movie with little to no expectations, and those expectations were steadily raised by the performances and direction, and it all got pissed away at the end. For a while, it seemed like a really good drama with a genuinely interesting exploration of grief, but without spoiling anything, in the third act it became the EXACT movie I was really hoping it wouldn’t become. I’m sure most people won’t have the problem with this movie that I did, and the good actors and Karyn Kusama’s strong directing (she expertly builds tension and creates a great sense of space) keep it going for the most part, even despite how dumb and illogical a lot of the characters are. But I was just so disappointed by the schlock it became that it just left a bad taste in my mouth. Accept this “Invitation” if you want, but I’m staying home instead.

85. Swiss Army Man – Look, I give it points for originality, but this was never going to be my kind of movie. It’s the kind of premise and cast (Paul Dano uses Daniel Radcliffe’s magical farting corpse to get back to civilization while learning about life) that seemed destined to be “baby’s first high-concept indie film”. I saw it because I wanted to give it a chance anyway, and while it’s not without its merits (a good deal of creativity, two committed performances, and plenty of visual flair), the endless grossout humor, montages, and really ham-fisted explanation of themes and character development wore me down to the point where I just didn’t care by the end. I would have liked for the movie to have a more straight-faced approach to the situation, which I think would have underlined the absurd humor present. Instead, we have the kind of ironic whimsy one would get if they saw a bunch of Spike Jonze and Michel Gondry films and completely missed the point. I also would have liked a darker and more realistic ending, one that would actually feel like a culmination of the themes of loneliness and isolation the movie wouldn’t shut the fuck up about. As you might have guessed, the tone is all over the place, too.

If you like this movie, that’s fine. But “Swiss Army Man” is certainly not 2deep4me, and if there is any point I missed in watching it, I don’t care enough to re-watch it. Someone told me that a lot the things I found annoying about this film are intentional. Well, intentionally annoying is still. Fucking. Annoying.

84. Elvis & Nixon – The premise for this movie is really neat. On a December morning in 1970, Elvis Presley strolls up to the White House to request an emergency meeting with Richard Nixon and convince the President to swear him in as an undercover agent, leading to one of the most famous photos in U.S. history. The execution: not so great. The main problem is that the actual meeting is only the last 15-or-so minutes of the movie. The lead-up involves Elvis and his manager’s efforts to actually set up the meeting with Nixon’s staff, while Nixon is hesitant about allowing it. There is way too much stuff about the manager and his family, and Nixon’s staff. It’s not a lot of screentime, but it’s stuff/people you don’t care about in the slightest and is too much by definition (no offense to Colin Hanks, but he should really stick to TV). A lot of this stuff could have been replaced by more Elvis/Nixon, or just cut out entirely, since even at 87 minutes, the film’s length is stretched out.

Luckily, the movie is saved by the outstanding talents playing the titular characters. Michael Shannon as the King and Kevin Spacey as Tricky Dick are so good that they go beyond mere caricatures and actually feel like they embody the historical figures, even if the material is rather light. Much of the movie’s focus is on Shannon’s Elvis, and he easily holds the film together, even though you wish there was more of Nixon. The meeting between the two is of course the highlight of the movie, a wonderful stranger-than-fiction moment of history that would have made a pretty good short film. Here’s hoping for an exploitation-style sequel where they team up to fight evil drug fiends, because they deserve a movie as fun and unique as they are.

83. The Little Prince – Full confession: I wrote this review a couple of months after actually seeing “The Little Prince” on Netflix and I barely remember anything about it. I remember thinking it was a nice little animated film with a nice message about not forgetting your childhood spirit and imagination and sense of wonder as you grow up. I remember thinking that the CGI animation was nothing special (it was animated in France with a modest budget, so I won’t complain), but the stop-motion sequences were pretty impressive. I remember chuckling a few times and getting the feels once or twice.

It’s alright, from what I recall, so check it out if you like. I’m sorry if you’re a big fan of “The Little Prince” and were hoping for a more in-depth and detailed review, but I genuinely had a hard time remembering stuff about this film, which (considering the film’s message and key themes) is pretty ironic.

82. Jack Reacher: Never Go Back – I was going to make a superlative at the end of this list for “most generic”, but I realized nothing came close to this Tom Cruise action thriller. This movie is so relentlessly generic that it almost feels intentional, like a satire of one of those mediocre 90’s thrillers that are shown endlessly on cable, probably as a double-feature with “U.S. Marshals”. Tom Cruise has never made a bad movie, but this is easily one of his worst ones. Typical conspiracy thriller plot from the type of shitty airport-bookstore paperback novels that boring middle-aged people enjoy (and that these movies are adapted from). Noteworthy only for the scenes with Cruise’s maybe-daughter and their dynamic, something that feels like it’s from a different movie altogether but funnily enough is the only stuff that actually works. Not terrible in any way, but this is something for a lazy Sunday afternoon or to have on in the background while you do something more interesting like ironing your clothes or vacuuming dog hair from underneath the sofa.

81. Gods of Egypt – Who would have thought that a silly fantasy movie about ancient Egyptian deities would be such a beacon for controversy the way it was prior to release? (The controversy was swiftly forgotten about, as it usually happens). Don’t get me wrong, whitewashing is certainly an issue in Hollywood, but in a film where 10-foot-tall, golden-blooded gods rule over a flat Earth consisting entirely of Egypt while Ra, the God of the Sun, rides around in a magic spaceship taking potshots at a giant space worm all day, complaining about historical inaccuracy is a bit silly. Regardless of what ancient Egyptians actually looked like, any attempt at historical realism would just be jarring and out-of-place here.

Gerard Butler and Chadwick Boseman hamming it up as the evil Set and smarmy Thoth are fun, as is Geoffrey Rush as Ra. Shame that the rest of the cast is as dull and forgettable as they are. The CGI quality is in the halfway-point between “good” and “Syfy movie-tier”. It’s not exactly convincing, but it’s pretty and colorful enough that you don’t need too much suspension of disbelief. Tonally and stylistically, the movie harkens back to those cheesy low-budget fantasy films from the 80’s (if not in budget and star-power). I particularly love how the human girl love interest is portrayed as an innocent girl-next-door-y type, but her massive, barely-contained rack is prominent in almost every frame she’s on screen.

The only major detrimental flaw (and it’s kind of a big one) is that “Gods of Egypt” feels about 20-30 minutes too long. It just doesn’t have the narrative strength or filmmaking energy to sustain its’ running time. If it was edited down (particularly the parts with the young, discount-Orlando Bloom main human character), it’d be a reasonably fun movie. Still, I appreciated “Gods of Egypt” for its goofily-sincere throwback spirit, and nothing about it was painful to watch. Not god-like, but not god-awful either.

80. High-Rise – It’s difficult for me to review a film like “High-Rise”, because while there’s a great deal I admire about the film, the overall experience just felt hollow and repetitive to me. It’s about a young doctor who moves into a fancy 1970’s London high-rise, a self-sustained building with many luxuries intended to provide equal quality of housing to all its inhabitants, where mounting tensions between tensions between the upper and lower floors eventually give way to literal class warfare (subtle). While the first half of the movie is engaging, as the doctor maneuvers through all the social groups and meets a lot of the residents, the second half where the actual fighting starts lost me pretty quickly. None of the characters behave like normal human beings, which makes it hard to be invested in their conflict. While there’s some maintenance issues and disrespect in the building, it’s not clear why they all descend into savagery so quickly. I guess it’s something we’re just supposed to accept (human nature, man), but I feel like a more prolonged slide into chaos would have helped the movie, especially since the second half is just repetitive “one side does bad shit to the other, while the doctor tries to stay out of it” nonsense.

While I don’t buy any of the characters, the cast is strong and they play these caricatures with great conviction. I actually love the aesthetics of the movie; the set design, lighting, camerawork, etc. all being very striking and creative. Director Ben Wheatley’s talent here is evident, even if I stopped caring about the material after a while. I get that this movie is intended to be satire, so a lot of my complaints about the movie could be something that someone else would enjoy because it was all intentional, man. Maybe you’ll get more out of it than I did, but to me it was just a pretty and well-acted slog.

79. Lion

White saviors

Inspirational piano-heavy music the occasionally remembers to throw in some foreign flavor

A cute kid

A solid performance from a minority actor (Dev Patel)

A former Oscar winner who cries a bunch (Nicole Kidman)

A well-intentioned but kind of condescending depiction of another culture

Over-reliance on fish-out-of-water humor

Really obvious plot beats and recurring elements

An attempt to depict “realism” in poverty but watering it down for a PG-13 rating,

A happy/emotional ending

“Based on a true story”

Ending text that not only says what happened to the real-life figures with photos and video, but also includes a statistic about missing children in India and how this film is helping to fix the problem while a pop song by Sia plays.

I know this was based on a true story, but it’s like the fucking Academy themselves made this movie.

78. Independence Day: Resurgence – Roland Emmerich is like a more boring Michael Bay. Many of his films are little more than special effects showcases, dragged down by stock characters and awful writing. Oftentimes, the stupidity on display in a Roland Emmerich movie goes past the point of fun and becomes downright insulting to the audience. Charitably put, the man’s kind of a hack., but even a broken hack is right twice a career (sort of). The first time was 1996’s “Independence Day”, one of the most famous movies of the 90’s and a fun piece of cheese in its own right. The second time was 2016’s long-awaited (by nobody) “Independence Day: Resurgence”*. I don’t wish to imply that “Revengeance” is high-art or anything, but if you’re in the right frame of mind, it’s a simple and comfortably enjoyable flick.

A big part of that is that it’s never insultingly stupid. It’s not smart or anything, but it goes about its business without giving anyone a headache. The characters aren’t deep, but they’re likable enough for the audience to enjoy following them and for possibly the first time in Emmerich’s career, they’re not irritating. “Revolutions” is sincere in its goal to entertain, and displays enough self-awareness to get the audience to relax, like when Jeff Goldblum cheekily comments “They like to get the landmarks” during the film’s main destruction sequence. There’s also some hilariously goofy dialogue like “The ship will touch down over the Atlantic.” --> “Which part?” --> “ALL of it.” There’s a little bit of Chinese pandering (including that juice-box filled with milk or some shit that I keep seeing in these movies), but not enough to annoy, and weirdly it suits the theme of different nationalities banding together.

The cast is fine, but really nothing special. Goldblum is enjoyable because he seems constantly aware of the kind of schlock he’s in, but “Regurgitation” is sorely missing Will Smith, who is more charismatic than all the new cast members combined. When Bill Pullman is giving the best performance, your film isn’t going to win any acting awards. One other thing that I personally really missed was David Arnold, whose score for the 1996 film is one of my favorite film scores of that decade, and the only time the soundtrack for this one comes alive is when it occasionally reprises his majestic themes.

In summary, if you’re looking for something original or high-brow, look elsewhere, but if you just want to kill a few hours and seeing a diverse** group of attractive, multinational humans band together to fight aliens warms your heart a little bit in these cynical times, then “Independence Day: Redemption” will scratch that particular itch.

* I also admit to enjoying “White House Down”

**by diverse I mean black, white, Chinese, and Jeff Goldblum.

77. X-Men: Apocalypse - There's a bit in "X-Men: Apocalypse" where the younger characters go see "Return of the Jedi" and one of them comments on how the third movie of the trilogy is always the worst.

How prophetic that line turned out to be.

Not that X-Men: Apocalypse is a bad movie, but it’s definitely closer to Brett Ratner’s “X-Men: The Last Stand” than it is to Bryan Singer’s previously strong entries in the franchise. This is definitely one of those “you take the good with the bad” situations. This is a really inconsistent (tonally and otherwise) movie, so instead of writing a repetitive “this is good, but this isn’t” review, I’ll just list off the positives and negatives and leave it up to you to decide if it’s worth watching or not. This will include some spoilers, but you’re not missing much and the canon in these movies is a complete mess anyway. I’ll say that I was entertained, sometimes genuinely and sometimes ironically, for most of the film, so take that how you will.

The Good:

Evan Peters’ Quicksilver, who steals the second X-Men movie in a row

The Quicksilver mansion scene

Nice visuals

Good soundtrack

The early scenes in Poland

The Wolverine cameo

The Bad:

Nightcrawler being wasted despite being one of the best parts of Singer’s “X2”

Jennifer Lawrence is clearly phoning it in

The film does nothing fun with the 1980s setting

Oscar Isaac is wasted on a generic “I’m going to destroy the world and only the strong shall remain” villain.

Storm joins Apocalypse’s gang for like no reason, then switches sides pretty abruptly during the climax

Olivia Munn’s Psylocke has like, one or two lines the whole movie

For the third movie in a row, Magneto becomes the bad guy because he’s Magneto

For the third movie in a row, Professor X gives Magneto the “You don’t have to do this, there is still good in you” speech.

I know it’s the key theme of the franchise, but to hear these characters complain about mutant rights and discrimination is getting tiring after so many movies

It’s two-and-a-half hours long

The Funny:

Nightcrawler’s makeup

Everyone in the movie keeps saying how important Mystique is when this is the most useless and unnecessary her character has ever been.

After killing like, millions of people during the climax, they just let Magneto go, with Professor X telling him “I’ll see you around, old friend”

The characters are 20 years older than they were in “X-Men: First Class”, but all still look like they’re in their 20s or early 30’s.

That scene where Professor X beats up Apocalypse in his mind

Coca-Cola product placement

Magneto destroying Auschwitz

76. The Finest Hours – “The Finest Hours” is a period disaster/rescue drama about a small 1950’s Cape Cod Coast Guard team’s attempts to rescue the crew of an oil tanker after their ship gets Titanic’d by a major storm, and it’s as old-fashioned a movie as it gets, even to a fault. It’s a refreshingly straightforward film. I liked the community/teamwork-focused buildup, as we get to know Chris Pine’s Coast Guardsman, his love interest, and the crew of the ship before the disaster hits. I liked the scenes on the water the most, the experience of them struggling to clear the huge waves during the heavy weather is actually pretty harrowing. I liked the warm tone and the understated heroism.

There’s really not much to this film. I feel like it’s a bit too safe and predictable and not as white-knuckle exciting as I’d hoped. I wasn’t a fan of how the movie kept cutting back to the generic worries of the people on the shore, and the only things in this film thicker than the nostalgia ah the faahkin New England ahhccents. Still, I enjoyed it. It’s not a first-rate vessel, but it stays afloat.

75. Warcraft – I’ll start this by saying that I’m not a Warcraft fan and have never played any of the games. With that out of the way…

"Warcraft" is the nerdiest movie I think I've ever seen. It was so geeky, I felt like watching and enjoying it gave me my virginity back. This movie was made for Warcraft fans and literally nobody else (maybe the Chinese, but they're an easy-to-please bunch).

I actually really admire that. In an age where almost all blockbusters are watered-down, homogenized garbage made by people who seek maximum profit by catering to the largest possible demographic, seeing Universal Pictures take such a risk and sinking $160 million (plus marketing) into a film so niche and nerdy warms my heart. A movie that tries to please everybody pleases nobody in particular, and I'm happy for the Warcraft nerds for having their own cinematic moment.

The movie itself is kind of a mess, however. Even putting aside the stuff you probably need to be a WC fan to understand, the pacing is wonky, the script is weak, most of the human cast is bland, the editing sucks, and it ends very anticlimactically. While Duncan Jones (who is the main reason I saw this movie) pulls off some impressive visuals and great moments, the movie for the most part lacks the epic feel you’d expect in a big-budget fantasy movie. I was able to follow the basic story, but I was definitely lost at times, and remembered like, 3 or 4 of the characters’ names by the time the movie ended.

“Warcraft” certainly has its positives, however. While most of the human cast is underwritten or boring, Travis Fimmel and Ben Foster are both quite good in their roles, easily standing out from their cardboard cut-out castmates. The orcs won the lottery on their actors, all of whom play the orcs with such conviction that they feel more believable than most of their human counterparts. Even the writing was better during the orc scenes, weirdly. Speaking of believable, the special effects on display are fantastic. Between the amazing-looking orcs, the magic effects and the scenery, the CG artists have definitely earned their paychecks on this one. The battle scenes were fun, and (THANK GOD) shot clearly without using shaky-cam or fast editing, those two errant turds on the delicious pie of most action films. It’s also nice to see a movie that seems like it was created out of love and affection by people who actually care for the franchise, and who don’t feel the need to make it ironic or quippy.

While I mentioned that the writing is weak (most characters are frustratingly undeveloped and there are lots of important-sounding proper nouns that left me scratching my head), I see plenty of room for improvement, and with more refinement and focus, I can see a great sequel arising from this. I genuinely hope this franchise continues, because even though it’s not my thing and certainly not without its weaknesses, I enjoyed it for the most part and it feels like such a refreshing medicine to the disease of bland, corporate modern blockbusters that I don’t mind the odd taste or that the spoon is made from frozen fanboy wank.

74. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows – I admit to being one of the few people that liked the Michael Bay-produced 2014 TMNT reboot, so I was also one of the few people looking forward to this year’s generically-subtitled sequel. I’m happy to say that as incremental as it may be, OOTS is a definite improvement. It feels less like the factory-assembled reboot typical of Hollywood attempts to cash in on nostalgic properties, and feels more in line with the original cartoon series. No longer is charisma-vacuum Megan Fox the main character; she is relegated to supporting duties, and the turtles (still enthusiastically played by their mo-cap actors) take center stage. This movie does the typical sequel thing where it includes more villains than the first, but all of them (besides Shredder, who is little more than a cameo) are surprisingly entertaining and never outstay their welcome. Tyler Perry is delightful as a mad scientist, as are the two guys who play man-beasts Bebop and Rocksteady. “Arrow” star Stephen Amell is clearly having a blast as vigilante Casey Jones. The action sequences are creative and fun to watch.

There’s plenty of product placement, but the Turtles have always been whores designed to sell merchandise, so it doesn’t feel out of place. I miss Brian Tyler’s bombastic music from the first film, the score here by Steve Jablonsky being much more generic and forgettable. The few attempts at character development are trite and unnecessary. The writing is still kinda crappy, and there’s a bit too much juvenile humor. I suppose my biggest complaint is that while the filmmaking is competent, it really lacks the sort of energy and inspiration to take it to the next level. Almost all the elements for a genuinely good Turtles movie are here; it just needs someone to put it all together into something that’s more than the sum of its parts, and not the dude who directed “Earth to Echo” (I’d heard of it either).

73. Zootopia – Nice animation, great attention to detail and some good visual gags (the population-counter on the rabbit farm, the wolf cop going undercover, etc.). Highlight of the film was the opening school-play scene. Nice message for the kids about how prejudices can lead even the most well-intentioned of people astray. Plot goes through the familiar beats of a Disney film, except for a pretty retarded third-act heel turn that I won’t spoil, but it would make more sense and have more story impact if the character didn’t feel so minor, and if it wasn’t so last-minute in the movie. “Frozen” was dull as shit, but at least the scene where HANS BETRAYS ANNA (spoiler warning) was pretty hilarious because of how well-timed and out of nowhere it was. The “grown-up” references (Godfather, Breaking Bad, etc.) feel pretty forced, mainly due to them just being references and not actual jokes. Overall, it’s a decent, well-made, and occasionally funny film (“I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but we are good at multiplying”), but the overly-formulaic and predictable plot signifies that Disney’s lack of creative ambition is still there. Also, the sloth scene might have been funny if I hadn’t already seen it in the trailer. It’s definitely not one of those scenes that’s funny more than once.

Recommended for kids, furries, and those who love animal puns.

72. Hush – A deaf-mute writer is terrorized in her home by a psychopath intent on killing her. A nice premise with a refreshing twist on the tired home invasion genre, and the movie is a brisk 81 minutes. However, I feel like it should have been shorter, and it was only so long because the villain was so unbelievably stupid. At multiple points he could have entered her home and killed her pretty easily, but the plot dictates that she needs to think of ways to survive and outsmart him, so he’s just written as a crazy and evil idiot who wants to toy with his prey. I imagine most people would be fine with it, but his behavior became more annoying than scary after a while.

Making the film watchable is the solid directing and cinematography, along with writer/star Kate Siegel who makes for a very sympathetic and likable protagonist. We both wince and feel for her character when she gets hurt, as she sobs quietly but can’t audibly cry. Her performance is so convincing that I was genuinely surprised to find out that she’s not actually deaf in real life. The movie is decent and worth watching if you like horror-thrillers, and it shows than Blumhouse can still produce the occasional, not-garbage horror film.

71. War Dogs - I wasn’t a fan of the “Hangover” trilogy, even if the third entry was an admirably bold middle-finger to all of its established fans, but I saw talent in Todd Phillips’ direction which made me somewhat look forward to his next endeavor. Based on a true story, Miles Teller and Jonah Hill play two 20-something Miami dudes who get into the world of gun-running and happen upon a major but shady deal with the U.S. government. Basically, “Lord of War” for the new generation. However, where “Lord of War” was, despite its’ wry sense of humor, a pretty dramatic and searing look at the arms trade and the U.S. government’s involvement with it. “War Dogs”, meanwhile, feels more like a lightweight “Wolf of Wall Street”-esque rise-and-fall story of two friends and businessmen that, despite the constant references to the Bush administration, feels like only a passing criticism of the government. The key problem with the movie is how been-there-done-that it is. Even if you know nothing about the real-world story that inspired it, all the dramatic beats and character progressions are thoroughly predictable, and watching it I felt like I’ve seen this movie a hundred times already. It even opens with a variation of that freeze-frame “You’re probably wondering how I got in this situation” cliché. It’s not bad. It’s solid in pretty much every aspect. The directing by Phillips (I like a visual gag where a character sees approaching Iraqi insurgents in his truck’s side mirror, then the camera pans down to “Objects in mirror are closer than they appear”), the writing, the acting (with a noteworthy turn by Jonah Hill). It’s all fine. But the movie’s crippling lack of ambition means that by the end of the year, it’ll probably be completely forgotten about. I’m writing this review two days after having seen it and I’m genuinely having trouble remembering things about it. To put it in a hack-y movie critic kind of way; “War Dogs” is a gun that doesn’t malfunction, but never hits the bulls-eye either.

70. Jason Bourne – If the Bourne films popularized the “gritty espionage thriller” genre, 2016’s “Jason Bourne” feels like a generic knockoff made while the trend was hot, except it’s several years later and no one really cares. Still, I was looking forward to the film, because there are so few good action movies coming out these days and Paul Greengrass is at least a pretty strong director. I will always slightly resent Greengrass for popularizing the shaky-cam, fast-editing style of action filmmaking, but I admit he does it better than pretty much everyone, and it actually suits Bourne’s gritty, improvisational nature. There’s an early chase set during a riot in Athens and a climactic chase in Las Vegas that feel as urgent and intense as any action scenes I’ve seen in a while. Still, you wish the guy would invest in a tripod or something. It’s nice that Greengrass doesn’t discriminate, but exclusively hiring camera operators with Parkinson’s does make the end product a bit hard to follow, visually.

The plot is some hokum about the CIA trying to knock off a billionaire social media tech guru because he won’t let them use his product to spy on everyone, and somehow Jason Bourne is brought out of exile/retirement because of EVEN MORE buried secrets about his past. It’s pretty generic stuff that tries to be timely but comes across as trying too hard. Damon’s a compelling lead, and he’s given a decent villainous counterpart in Vincent Cassel, but it’s hard to be involved in the material. I was also disappointed by the lack of character development for Julia Stiles’ returning Nicky Parsons. Some insight into why she came out of hiding to give Bourne information would have been nice. The rest of the cast is unmemorable; Tommy Lee Jones in particular looks like he’s counting down the seconds until he stops shooting and can cash in his check.

You can tell that this is a tacked-on cash-grab sequel. They couldn’t even bother thinking of a proper Bourne title (The Bourne Resurgence, maybe?), and while Damon and Greengrass are definitely not half-assing it, you can tell their hearts aren’t really in this. Their workmanlike approach and their undeniable talent, however, does mean that Jason Bourne is an enjoyable thriller, and you’ll at least get a great pair of action scenes out of it. Still, what the hell were they thinking, making a Bourne film without Jeremy Renner?

69. Rogue One: A Star Wars Story - There is perhaps no bigger red flag to me for a major blockbuster movie than hearing about “extensive reshoots”. Putting aside the lessons we’ve learned from “Fantastic 4” and “Suicide Squad”, the main problem with these kinds of reshoots is that it speaks to the studio not having enough confidence in the director’s vision, and more in the opinions of test audiences. I know that reshoots are commonplace in the film industry, but when they announced that “Rogue One” would have several weeks of reshoots that weren’t even headed by director Gareth Edwards, my heart sank a bit.

Now, I don’t mean to compare this to the previously mentioned comic-book dumpster fires, but the fact that “Rogue One” is just “kinda good” makes it pretty disappointing for me. Before some of you nerds ask; no, I didn’t watch this film with the sole purpose of criticizing it and ruining the Star Wars circlejerk. I was really looking forward to it when I heard that Gareth Edwards would direct, because his recent “Godzilla” reboot was fucking awesome and easily one of the best blockbusters of recent years, and I had hoped that “Rogue One” would mark an effort in taking this unkillable franchise to bold, new directions. It’s not like doing so would even be considered risky; “Star Wars” fans would literally pay money to eat dogshit if they were told it’d be canon or if the actor who played Wedge Antilles told them to do it.

But there’s the problem. Despite some differences in approach to the main saga, “Rogue One” is as safe as they come. Sure, there’s no opening crawl and the visuals are grittier than usual, but in terms of dialogue, storytelling, style of music, etc., it’s still very much a Star Wars movie. I do like how the movie takes itself fairly seriously and is bereft of the typical cringe-worthy Disneyquips©, but it kind of lacks the passion and inspiration that made so many people fall in love with the original trilogy.

Michael Giacchino’s score does the job, but isn’t all that memorable. He happily mimics John Williams’ style, but doesn’t display the sense of flair or majesty that made Williams’ music for this series so famous. It’s a shame we’ll never get to hear original composer Alexandre Desplat’s work for this film (he couldn’t do the score due to rescheduling around the reshoots).

The cast is a major case of “talented actors let down by a weak script and thin characters”. Try doing the Plinkett thing and describe the characters’ personalities, without talking about their role in the plot or their motivations, and ask yourself if any of them sound interesting. The main character Jyn Erso is especially disappointing, since what initially seems like a personal quest to find her father turns into her just selflessly becoming a noble rebel hero. There’s kind of an arc, sure, but it’s seriously missing any real drama to make the arc meaningful. This is especially bad during the slow and plodding first two acts of the film, which are rather unengaging and even boring at times.

The only somewhat amusing characters are the droid K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), the blind kung-fu former Jedi (Donnie Yen), and the Death Star director (Ben Mendelsohn). The droid is pretty much the only source of humor in the film, and he feels welcome because he doesn’t feel over-the-top (he’s a kind of cross between C3PO and HK-47). Donnie Yen is an insanely charismatic actor, and he makes his character interesting enough that he can overcome the writing. Ben Mendelsohn makes for an entertaining and slimy villain, but he’s let down by the script and the constraints of the canon more than anyone. Mendelsohn’s naturally villainous performance is wasted due to his character’s frequent emasculation at the hands of old franchise baddies Grand Moff Tarkin and Darth Vader.

And therein lies the crux of the matter, both that of the film and of Disney; they focus less on building the future or telling new, memorable stories in lieu of milking the past for all it’s worth. This is best exemplified by Disney’s decision to reintroduce a pair of ANH characters using their creepy, uncanny-valley CGI technology and body doubles. They did this in a few Marvel movies to have actors play younger versions of themselves, but here they use it to bring a dead actor (Peter Cushing as Tarkin) back to life, and it’s quite morbid and uncomfortable when you think about it. They literally bought a dead man’s likeness from his estate to milk it for nostalgia bucks. Is that where we are as a society where we’re totally cool with something like this? Wouldn’t it be much more natural (and cheaper) to just recast the old characters? You know, with human beings and whatnot?

Don’t get me wrong. As an action-space-fantasy movie, “Rogue One” works well enough. I mentioned previously that the first two acts are meh, despite some good moments (like the Death Star’s demonstration on a desert city, and the whole opening scene). Most of the movie was characters traveling from one colorless location to the next, getting into a scuffle with the Empire, then escaping. It’s in the third act where the movie really kicks into gear. The stakes are raised, things feel more urgent, and the bland locations are swapped for a beautiful tropical beach setting with an Empire base on it. It’s basically one large action sequence, but it works. Edwards again uses his excellent sense of scale and visual prowess to make the battle feel epic and exciting. As someone who isn’t a big Star Wars fan, it’s easily the best 30-40 minutes in any of the movies for me.

However, while “Rogue One” gives an admirable effort in being its own thing, it can’t help but keep calling back to the original trilogy just to please its established fanbase. I don’t blame all of the film’s flaws on the reshoots. There’s no obvious difference between original and new footage like a crappy wig or awful, forced humor. And who knows, maybe the reshoots actually made the film better. But at the end, “Rogue One” feels like it doesn’t want to be a Star Wars movie but is forced to be one (pun intended) by its strict parents. So often the characters go on about “hope”, as if they are seeking HOPE of a NEW variety. It may be like poetry (it rhymes), but after a point it becomes less poetry and more beating you over the head with a rhyming dictionary. For future installments, let’s cross our fingers for a little less “hope” and a little more “new”.

68. Passengers – Betrays Chris Pratt’s best movie performance to date, an excellent first act, and its own interesting (and pretty disturbing) premise by watering it down with schmaltzy Hollywood romance, unnecessary action, and a cancer-inducing end-credits Imagine Dragons song. I could write an entire essay on why the movie’s specific approach to its story is deeply uncomfortable. I’m also pretty much over Jennifer Lawrence at this point.

67. Three – Intriguing and unique chamber piece, but its comical elements and over-the-top melodrama feel out of place, and the final shootout feels like style just for style’s sake, which makes it oddly boring. Watchable, but a massive step down for Johnnie To after his excellent “Drug War”.

66. Captain Fantastic – Soulful performance from Viggo Mortensen and the occasional touching and insightful moment help buoy this portrayal of family and unconventional parenting whose biggest flaw is having a script and viewpoint that’s too smug and proud of itself for its own good, which makes most of the emotional moments feel cheap and unearned. Wes Anderson could have made a great movie out of this.

65. The Edge of Seventeen – Overcomes (just barely) the unlikability of its main character, the annoying way characters always describe what they’re going through, and its own sheer predictability with good performances, the occasional funny line and a fairly honest and empathetic look at growing up. I’d respect it more if it had the balls to have an unhappy ending. Woody Harrelson gives probably my favorite portrayal of a teacher in a movie.

64. Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice – Oh, boy, here we go. For the record, this review is of the extended cut of the film.

I firmly believe that you can make or break a movie in editing. No matter how good the writing, acting, directing, and cinematography are, if a film is poorly edited, it becomes confusing at best, and a complete chore to watch at worst. Such was the case with the theatrical cut of the highly-anticipated (not by me, of course) “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice”, a film that despite being two-and-a-half hours long, felt like a rushed and confusing mess. I’m not saying that the extended cut is some sort of masterpiece, but this 3-hour version is what Zack Snyder intended the finished product to be before Warner Bros. got their stupid fucking fingers on it. Characters are given more scenes to be fleshed out, subplots are better developed, and the pacing is significantly improved, amounting to a much more coherent and downright better film. If you saw the theatrical version and are really on the fence about the film, I recommend watching the extended cut.

The movie itself is still fundamentally flawed in some aspects. It’s still a film constrained by the pressure to set up an entire cinematic universe, which makes the story itself suffer. It probably should have been solely about the personal grudge between Batman and Superman and the consequences it takes on both of them, and them eventually teaming up together when they realize they’re not so different and both want the same thing. The actual movie tries to do that, have Lex Luthor try to destroy both of them, introduce Wonder Woman, set up Wonder Woman’s origin story, set-up three other Justice League members’ origin stories, set up the Justice League movie itself, have an investigative Lois Lane subplot, hint at a future bad guy, and create a giant Frankenstein monster for the third act, among other things. The movie does keep most of these plates spinning, but some of them do fall. It’s an ambitious undertaking, but we’re still left with expensive broken china.

The writing is pretty hackneyed, too. If you can explain Lex Luthor’s motivation for hating Superman to me without citing a comic book or saying “it’s just what he does”, please do. They hint at some biblical reason for it (the Christ allegories and symbolism are even less subtle here as they were in “Man of Steel”, to give you an idea), but it came across as Lex hating him for no particular reason and trying to quote scripture to justify it. There are like three extended dream sequences in the movie, which feels like two too many. And then there’s that awful flow-breaking scene where they set-up The Flash, Cyborg, and Aquaman. I’m reminded of an anecdote where during the making of “Man of Steel”, Zack Snyder wanted to include an after-credits scene but producer Christopher Nolan opposed, telling him “A real movie wouldn’t do that.” This story is probably bullshit, but I think it’s funny that Snyder made an after-credits scene and just crowbarred it into the middle of the movie.

“Batman v. Superman” attempts (and actually succeeds for a while) to really create a sense of consequence in a comic book movie, with the whole world, particularly Batman, being concerned about Superman’s presence on Earth after the destruction caused in “Man of Steel”. But it’s all kind of thrown out the window when that conflict is immediately dropped after the “MARTHA” scene so they could team up to fight the aforementioned Frankenstein monster. The “MARTHA” scene has become kind of infamous, but I was actually fine with it (even if it could have been better written) until Batman says “Don’t worry. Martha’s not dying tonight”, which got a good howl out of me. It was at the very least an interesting movie until it became the typical third-act destruction fest that has characterized so many superhero flicks, with even a few tonally jarring quips thrown in for good measure. The actual fight between Batman and Superman only lasts for like 5 minutes, despite so much buildup. While fun, it feels really schlocky, especially when Batman rips a sink out of a bathroom wall and starts beating Superman over the head with it. Why they started fighting in the first place instead of talking it out like Superman originally intended is beyond me, as well. Zack Snyder’s penchant for outstanding visuals is never in question (he does handheld camerawork better than pretty much anyone) but his grasp on storytelling has always been a bit iffy, even if this is arguably his best work.

If you’re a comic book fan and weren’t a fan of the characterization in this film, the extended cut won’t change your mind on that. Superman is still kind of a dick, Lex Luthor is still a Jolly Rancher-sucking autist, and Batman still kills people. It (mostly) makes sense in the context in the film, and I personally didn’t care too much, but I know some comic book fans who won’t forgive it. Last but not least, I want to mention what is probably the most annoying product placement I’ve seen in a movie this year. It’s not as gratuitous as a TMNT or Transformers flick, but at least those films didn’t take themselves seriously. There is nothing that can ruin a good, serious scene like a really out-of-place product placement. I was enjoying the scene with Clark Kent and Lois Lane in the bathtub until the camera turned to the bottle of Olay and stayed there for like a solid 2 seconds. The scene I was most looking forward to in the movie (the “Man of Steel” destruction of Metropolis as seen through Bruce Wayne’s eyes, which was really well done) was really hurt by the fact that right before the movie started they showed an ad for the Jeep used in the scene, using footage from the movie. There’s also a scene where Lex Luthor tries to force-feed Holly Hunter a Jolly Rancher. I understand that the movie’s titanic budget has to come from somewhere, but it’s shit like this that really pulls me out of the movie.

The cast is strong, particularly Jeremy Irons’ Alfred and Ben Affleck, who exceeds all expectations as Batman, even if he looks a bit silly in the suit. If nothing else, I’m really looking forward to his solo Batfleck film. Gal Gadot is nothing special, but at least she isn’t terrible. Henry Cavill is solid and likable even when the script lets him down, as is Amy Adams (not to politicize things, but I feel like this movie is getting no credit whatsoever for actually having a female love-interest who is like ten years older than her male counterpart, as opposed to the typical older-male-younger-female one). I like how they try to make Laurence Fishburne’s newspaper editor like a reverse J. Jonah Jameson from Spider-Man, constantly telling Clark Kent to report on some local sports team and admonishing him for writing about a vigilante dressed up as a bat beating the shit out of criminals and branding them.

I could go on, but at least BvS feels like an actual movie, instead of the really long trailer that was “Man of Steel”. Its (many) flaws aside, Zack Snyder is to be commended for using such a massive budget to at least try and do something different and ambitious than typical superhero films, and the fact that he succeeds as much as he does despite so many expectations and so much pressure is to be lauded. His cast is good, his action scenes are brutal and weighty (I loved that “Arkham” style warehouse fight between Batman and a group of armed thugs), his heart is in the right place, and he really, honestly dares to be different. If he had a better script and a not-terrible studio to back him up, “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice” would be appreciated for what it is, and not the kind of movie that inspires actual news articles about RottenTomatoes.

63. Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk – Uneven but occasionally powerful and refreshingly biting look at America’s oft-hypocritical worship of its soldiers and what battle can really do to their psyche, with lead actor and newcomer Joe Alwyn deftly carrying the movie on his shoulders. Let down by a weak script and most of the supporting characters being one-dimensional caricatures, however intentional it may be. The weirdest cast ever assembled for a drama (Garrett Hedlund, Chris Tucker, Steve Martin, Kristen Stewart, and Vin Diesel) works surprisingly well, except for the sadly out-of-place Martin. Didn’t get to see it in the original 4K, 120fps format, but at least I don’t get a headache out of it.

62. Hidden Figures – Typical inspirational historical drama. Sugary and as clichéd as it gets, but solid enough that it works. Elevated by strong performances from the three leading women, made amusing by how every other line spoken by any of them is an Obama-esque crowd-pleasing “Mmhmm” moment, and almost ruined by the presence of Bazinga as a racist, sexist strawman who is just there to be continually outsmarted and embarrassed by the smart, black lady. Probably going to become a staple in high school math/physics classes with lazy teachers. Thumbs up for the Oscar-bait title.

61. 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi – I let out a good chortle when I heard that there would be a movie about the 2012 Benghazi attack starring Jim from “The Office” and directed by none other than Michael Bay, a man whose approach to maturity and good taste generally amounts to a passing laugh and cocaine-sneeze. It was to my pleasant surprise (and admitted slight disappointment) that “13 Hours” turned out to be not only a solid military thriller but also Bay’s most restrained and mature movie. Don’t get me wrong; there’s still plenty of military hardware porn, explosions, and tastefully lit shots of a shirtless John Krasinski (hnnng). However, it also doesn’t include the obnoxious humor and out-of-place product placement that characterize most of his films (although there is a really unnecessary scene in a McDonald’s drive-through), and it actually takes itself fairly seriously, which is surprising coming from the guy who directed a film about two Miami cops who single-handedly invade Cuba.

It presents an account of what happened that night at the U.S. embassy and nearby CIA station as seen through the perspective of the security contractors stationed there, and it avoids politicizing the matter. There’s an annoying CIA chief strawman who refuses to let the contractors go in early to rescue the ambassador, but that’s pretty much the extent of it. The rest is a tense military action film, along with the expected jingoistic hero worship that these types of films have to include by law or something, though thankfully it’s not as bad here. Bay spends a decent amount of time setting up the location, the characters and the situation, before tits go inevitably up. The characters are fairly thin, their non-action scenes amounting to the usual dick-swinging soldier banter and some phone calls to their wholesome, attractive families back home, but the actors are good and convincing enough to make you care about them.

The action scenes are the reasons to see this, characterized by strong sound design and the aforementioned hardware porn that I admittedly enjoy, as well as some great shots, like the slo-motion one of a soldier surrounded by sparks. I also liked the atmosphere of the film, as the contractors slowly move through the ghostly streets of Benghazi, one of them remarking “It’s like we’re in a horror movie”, as some residents nearby are casually watching a soccer match while ignoring the gunfights outside their homes, as if it’s just another weekday evening.

The writing is pretty weak. It gets the needed information across, but the characterization is thin, the dialogue ranges from corny to boring, and there really isn’t enough plot to make this movie as long as it is.

Nontheless, it’s a solid action-thriller. I’ve defended Michael Bay for a long time now (mainly because he made “The Rock”, and I don’t see any other fucking director that made “The Rock”), but between this and 2013’s “Pain & Gain” he shows how much better he can be with smaller budgets and when not constrained by a plot involving giant robots punching each other and making racial wisecracks.

60. Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping – Imagine “Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story”, but not as good, and you get a good idea of what “Popstar” is like. The humor was pretty hit-or-miss and definitely favored quantity over quality when it came to the jokes, as can be expected from a movie made by SNL alumni, but it kept me entertained and made me laugh enough to warrant a recommendation. Funniest bits were the TMZ parodies, Justin Timberlake, and the “Equal Rights” music video.

59. Midnight Special – I like Jeff Nichols as a filmmaker. It’s partly because Michael Shannon is in all of his films, and I’ll watch anything that man does at this point, but Nichols has shown himself to be a nuanced and compelling storyteller with an excellent command of both atmosphere and tone. It’s this skilled storytelling and another strong performance from Shannon that make Midnight Special worth watching, even if it’s all in service of a story that becomes pretty dumb by the time we find out what’s going on.

The basic plot is that of a father who runs away from a religious compound with his son and is soon hunted by a number of groups because of some mysterious power that his son possesses. The opening scene where they and a helping friend of the father hurriedly leave a motel room and drive away into the night is excellent and expertly sets up a low-key but involving sci-fi thriller tone. Unfortunately, the more the movie goes on, the more we find out what the son’s powers are and what his “purpose” is, and without spoiling anything, it lost me pretty quickly after the late-second act revelation. The strong cast led by Shannon and Nichols’ direction kept the movie compelling enough to get me to the finish line, but this is definitely a case of a screenplay being too ambitious for its own good.

58. Green Room – Punk rockers vs. neo-Nazis is a premise more fitting of a sillier movie, in my opinion. Writer/director Jeremy Saulnier (who made 2014’s underrated gem “Blue Ruin”) probably knew this, and subverts it by making “Green Room” as grim and unpleasant as he possibly could. Going off of a theme from “Blue Ruin”, the deaths in this movie are often bloody, realistically brutal, and purposely sudden and anticlimactic, simultaneously being a violent movie but also anti-violence. Saulnier’s technical aptitude and the talents of the cast are never in question, and the movie itself is quite gripping and well-paced. I don’t think “Green Room” is as good or thematically rich as “Blue Ruin”, and the ending is a bit of a letdown, but it’s still a well-made and clever genre flick, and if you enjoy feeling like shit and averting your eyes from the screen then it’s the movie for you.

57. Eye in the Sky – A government joint-operation to kill some high-ranking terrorists in Kenya via a drone strike is halted when a little local girl enters the kill-radius. The story is told from the perspective of a ground recon team trying to get her out, the drone pilots, and the military brass and government officials who argue about whether the strike is justified and should be carried out. It has a good setup and a pretty powerful climax, but drags quite a bit in the middle portion where those in charge of the operation keep referring up to their superiors to figure out if they can/should/will fire the missile. The cast, in particular the late, great Alan Rickman as a weary general, are good enough to get you through the duller bits of the movie, and it’s really nice to see Barkhad Abdi in a movie again. While it could have trimmed some of its excess fat, “Eye in the Sky” is a tense, compelling thriller, and a much more mature and responsible examination of the consequences of drone warfare than “London Has Fallen”, albeit much less entertaining.

56. Sully – You’ve got to give Clint Eastwood credit. For a guy in his mid 80’s, he sure is prolific these days, regularly cranking out solid movies every year or two. In retelling the events of the “Miracle on the Hudson” passenger plane water landing from a years beack “Sully” continues that tradition by being good. Not great, but good. Tom Hanks makes for a fine lead, Aaron Eckhart is decent as Hanks’ co-pilot and friend (albeit constantly overshadowed by his own glorious mustache), just about everything else is meh. The highlight of the movie is the water landing itself, shown 3 times at different points from the perspectives of an air traffic controller, the passengers, and finally the cockpit. These scenes are intense and pretty harrowing, dodgy CGI aside. The rest of the movie is either the lead-up to the flight, or the aftermath where Captain Sully deals with the mental trauma from the incident and contends with a federal investigative committee that easily wins the award for “Most Obvious Strawmen of the Year”. Whatever. The film is well-made and compelling enough. As I said before, it’s good. It’s the definition of a 7/10 movie. If you’re old, like the audience during my theater showing was, you’ll probably love it. Everyone else will probably just like it. If you’re expecting something along the lines of Eastwood’s “Unforgiven” or “Letters from Iwo Jima”, you’ll be disappointed, but if you just want a solid, likable movie, this won’t Sully your expectations…I’m sorry for that one.

55. Christine – An amazing, simultaneously magnetic but also hard-to-watch performance by Rebecca Hall as 1970’s reporter Christine Chubbuck, and a very raw portrayal of depression, but ultimately feels pointless as it says nothing about Chubbuck or her mental state, as if the film is keeping her at a distance when it should be holding us down face-first into what she was truly feeling, making the ordeal feel kind of exploitative, when you think about it. If you know her story, the scene you spend the whole movie anticipating is done excellently, however.

54. Certain Women – MINIMALISM. It’s either your type of thing or it isn’t. “Certain Women” is three loosely-connected stories about women who live in Montana, and it’s as grounded and un-flashy as a film can get without being a home movie. It’s one of those films that’s about normal people and their everyday problems, and makes it all seem profound. To me, it worked well for the most part. I was engaged by the nicely composed cinematography and the good performances. The three stories vary in quality. Laura Dern plays a small-town lawyer who gets caught up in a hostage situation, and this is the most straightforward of the three, but also quite engaging. Michelle Williams plays a mother who wants to build her dream home in the woods but faces ambivalence from everyone in her life, and hers is the weakest story, if only because it feels so short and anticlimactic (even by this movie’s standards). 

The third story is surprisingly the best, with a ranch hand played by newcomer Lily Gladstone who forms a bond with a young law school graduate played by Kristen Stewart, and it’s an affecting and nuanced look at loneliness. Kelly Reichardt’s direction is modest and very low-key, but it’s empathetic and creates a good sense of atmosphere. This movie is also slower than watching paint dry at half-speed, lacks any overt drama and is very light on plot, so it’s one of those movies you’ll either completely love or won’t care for at all. I liked it, because I’m an edgy contrarian, and because I like a movie that gives its characters breathing room and trusts the audience to be smart enough to get their own thematic value out of it, so it’s worth your while if you’re not feeling too sleepy. Plus, there’s an adorable corgi in it, so automatic recommendation from me.

53. Manchester by the Sea – Reading the reviews and seeing all the award nominations, you’d think this mostly plotless exploration of grief is the desperately-needed salvation of cinema. When the credits rolled, however, all that hype ended up giving me was a resounding “Wait, that’s it?”.

The film is about a Boston janitor with a tragic past whose brother dies, and he goes back to his coastal New England hometown to handle his brother’s affairs and break the news to his son. As the janitor, Casey Affleck delivers one of the best portrayals of grief I’ve ever seen. Even before you know his story, his eyes and demeanor subtly hide an ocean of pain and heartbreak, and he pulls it off so naturally you often forget you’re watching an actor. Equally as good (and possibly better) is Michelle Williams, who plays his ex-wife. The filmmaking crime of the century is only putting her in the movie for like 5-10 minutes, where focusing more on her and Affleck’s relationship would have made the movie infinitely better, in my opinion. The guy who plays Affleck’s nephew is alright, given that his and Affleck’s relationship is the core of the movie, but nothing to write home about other than one really good breakdown scene. Everyone else ranges from “passable” to “clearly acting for the first time” to “distracting cameo from Matthew Broderick”.

I don’t wish to imply that the movie fails in any major way. I wasn’t a fan of how often the movie tried to be funny (“funny” in that New England way where characters swear a lot), and there is a glaring overuse of music, but it wasn’t a deal-breaker. I suppose that outside of a small handful of powerful scenes and moments, “Manchester by the Sea” felt like it was missing that emotional gut-punch it aimed for. It peaks halfway through in a flashback where we see what made Affleck’s character the way he is, and the movie only comes close to matching it during the last scene between Affleck and Williams. Don’t get me wrong; I understand the intention of making the film understated, so as to show a realistic depiction of grief, where people kind of just continue going about life and trying to not think about it. However, it goes a bit too far in this direction, to the point where I didn’t care for the mundanity of their lives and wanted some crying and goddamn emotion. This may be an over-simplification of how I feel, but basically, the movie is 10/10 when Affleck and Williams are onscreen together, an 8/10 when it’s just Affleck, and a 5/10 or a 6/10 when it’s any other combination of actors.

52. A Bigger Splash – Seems like it’s going to be a mature meditation on romance and desire until Ralph Fiennes shows up 5 minutes in, steals the entire fucking movie away from both the director and the rest of the cast, rubs his dick on the print, then sets it on fire while giggling to himself and dancing around naked. One of the best performances in a career filled with great performances. Movie goes downhill significantly in the last 30 or so minutes.

51. The Love Witch – Clever satire of gender dynamics as seen through the eyes of a love-addicted femme fatale witch. PERFECTLY nails the old-school Technicolor horror/sexploitation vibe. The art design, camerawork, hair/makeup, and even the way the actors behave is spot-on. Bravo to director Anna Biller and all involved as far as the technical aspects go. Story is at first detrimentally slow and the movie is far too long, but it picks up in the second half. Feels a bit too written, as if the characters occasionally stop being themselves and become mouthpieces for the writer/director.

50. Hardcore Henry – Let it not be said that there is no innovative filmmaking these days. Russian musician and music video director Ilya Naishuller was given a few million dollars to make a balls-to-the-wall action film filmed entirely from the first-person perspective of the main character. The most impressive thing about the stupidly-titled “Hardcore Henry” is how much mileage it manages to get out of its first-person gimmick, and how surprisingly well-made it is. Actual stunts are performed, effects are mostly practical (aside from a few bits of awful CGI), and you always feel like you’re in the body of the main character. The action scenes are fun and inventive, there’s a good deal of humor (I liked the bit with the overlapping subtitles), and Sharlto Copley gives a great performance as several incarnations of the same man with different personalities and looks. The plot is completely shit, and gets a bit too bogged down with exposition at times, but it’s never too intrusive. I suppose the biggest concern there is with this movie is if you can handle the filming technique, because the constant movement of the camera, especially during the action scenes, can give you motion sickness. I got a headache and a bit of nausea while watching it, but it could have been from the McDonald’s I had just before seeing it, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt. I think that it works much better on a small screen instead of a movie theater either way, and even while on the verge of throwing up, I had a good deal of fun with “Hardcore Henry”. If you’ve ever used a VR headset while on meth, it should give you a good idea of the experience.

49. Hail, Caesar! – The Coen Brothers are my favorite filmmakers. So strong is their output that even their “bad” movies are good movies by any other standard. I don’t wish to imply that “Hail, Caesar!” is one of their “bad” ones, but it’s definitely on the lower end of their spectrum. The promotional material led me to believe that it would be a comic thriller about a 1950’s Hollywood fixer (a “problem solver” for studios) who teams up with a number of colorful showbiz people to rescue a kidnapped leading man. While the basic plot is there, the movie feels more like a leisurely series of vignettes about the colorful characters, loosely-connected by the fixer asking them for their help. It’s all amusing, colorful, and beautifully shot by eternal Oscars bridesmaid Roger Deakins, but it feels like it’s missing any sort of narrative thrust or stakes. The Coens don’t seem to be going for that sort of film, and it feels intentionally meandering and light, so the film is better if you go in expecting it. The writing is entertaining, but while the film is certainly hilarious in parts and never boring, some comedic bits feel stretched out for far too long (such as the scene with the religious leaders), which is unusual for the Coens.

The whole endeavor is less about plot and more about being a fun tribute-by-way-of-pisstake to Old Hollywood. It reminds me a bit of their earlier work “Barton Fink”, albeit broader, sillier, less existential, and much less cynical. We see old-fashioned editing rooms, grand movie sets, a wonderful musical number, Communism, etc. The Coen Brothers made a film that feels nostalgic towards a simpler era of filmmaking, while still acknowledging that even back then they made crap films. The biggest selling point in the movie is its’ all-star cast. I can’t remember the last time a movie had this many big-name actors attached to it. Sadly, due to the light nature of the story, a lot of them feel like glorified cameos, even if there isn’t a weak link among them. George Clooney is in top-form in the role of the kidnapped actor, the type of buffoon the Coens always seem to make him play. Channing Tatum is great as a tap-dancing musical star. Completely stealing the show is up-and-comer Aldren Ehrenreich, who plays a dopey but sweet cowboy actor, and who is so naturally funny, likable and charismatic here that I don’t have a single doubt about him becoming huge in the near future.

It just goes to show that even a lesser Coen Bros. film is still vastly better than the best work by most directors. While slow and kind of pointless overall, “Hail, Caesar!” is still a funny, gorgeous, and charming homage to the Hollywood Golden Age, one that rewards attention and repeated viewings, and welcomes them as well.

48. Finding Dory – Not on par with “WALL-E” or “Up”, but entertaining and nicely emotional. Feels like a welcome return to form for Pixar after so many years of disappointments. Bonus points for being the good kind of sequel, one that not only works on its own but actually adds new dimension to the original. Kind of disappointing, because before seeing the movie I was all ready to say “Finding Dory? More like FOUND IT BORING”. Nice message about family and taking care of a family member with special needs. Looking forward to “Finding Marlin”, where we see Marlin as an alcoholic going through a midlife crisis as he tries to singlehandedly raise a crippled son and his mentally handicapped friend.

47. Deadpool – One of my biggest pet peeves in movies is characters breaking the fourth-wall. I don’t mind a film being cheeky, but a movie occasionally pausing itself to acknowledge that it’s a movie annoys me to no end. I say this because “Deadpool” actually does fourth-wall breaking right, making it a key part of the humor and tone and story rather than an occasional “look at how clever and ironic we are” moment.

One would think because of this that “Deadpool” is just an endless series of self-referential jokes. It mostly is, but thankfully there’s an actual story, a bicycle for all the colorful tassels to hang on. Don’t get me wrong; the story is generic as hell. It’s still your typical superhero origin story, albeit one helped greatly by the nonlinear structure, alluding to Deadpool as an unreliable narrator. Also helping is a surprisingly engaging romance aspect, thanks to Ryan Reynolds’ and Morena Baccarin’s great chemistry and that the romance is a key part of the main character’s motivations (and that the girl feels like an actual character, not just a crowbarred-in love interest like almost every other comic book movie). One of the best scenes in the film is a montage of them “celebrating” various holidays.

Reynolds is perfectly cast as Wade Wilson, a role that his whole career since “Van Wilder” has been building towards. He effortlessly captures the character’s smarminess and gallows humor, but also makes him just likable enough to root for. Baccarin shows enough personality and comic timing that I certainly won’t mind seeing her having a bigger role in the sequel. The action sequences are the highlights. Tim Miller (in his directing debut) shows a clear aptitude for this, making the fight scenes bloody, funny, and visually creative, doing more with $60 million than most directors can do with $200 million.

Your enjoyment of “Deadpool” will come from whether you like its sense of humor. Given the sheer amount of jokes the film flings at the wall, a number of them are going to fall flat. However, to me a lot of them did land, and the movie is quite funny despite being a bit too in love with itself, and any comedy film that doesn’t give away its best jokes in the trailer (especially with a marketing campaign like this film had) is worthy of a recommendation in my eyes.

46. Blood Father – This is the best Liam Neeson movie that Liam Neeson never made. The action is tense and hard-hitting, the cast is good, and the movie is a very lean and efficient 88 minutes. However, there’s some distractingly bad editing at times, the plot is typical Liam Neeson fare (daughter is in trouble with criminals and seeks out her estranged ex-con dad to help out) and the dialogue is pretty wonky and overly reliant on swearing. Also, the girl is fairly annoying, but I suppose it suits her character so I won’t judge her too much for it. What makes the movie work is Mel Gibson’s performance. Looking increasingly like a shredded, captivity-era Saddam Hussein, Gibson is a volcano almost constantly on the verge of eruption. He plays a pissed-off man better than anyone, but he also showcases a good deal of humor and heart, able to convey more with his demeanor than most actors can with an entire monologue. Plus, watching him bite a guy’s ear off before head-butting him repeatedly is great fun. While Gibson is definitely better than the film’s B-movie material, he sells the hell out of it, elevating everything around him and making up for a lot of the movie’s flaws (you get the feeling it’d be much better if he directed it, as well). “Blood Father” is not quite the Mel Gibson renaissance-marking comeback I keep hoping for, but it’s good enough to recommend. Here’s hoping we don’t have to wait another few years to be reminded how great of an actor he is. Can’t quell the Mel.

45. The Brothers Grimsby (AKA Grimsby) - It’s been a while since we’ve gotten a comedy from Sacha Baron Cohen. His stuff other than “Borat” has gotten a mixed reception, but I’ve always felt that that as a comic he has excellent timing and creativity, and even when not doing his famous “interacting with real people while in character” routine, the guy knows how to put together a joke. In a comedy world filled increasingly with endless cameos and cringe-worthy improv humor, it’s relieving to see a comedian that can still write a solid gag and perform it well.

Cohen plays Nobby, a trashy but kind-hearted English football hooligan who lives in Grimsby, a town so squalid that on a sign it says that its sister city is Chernobyl. He’s spent decades searching for his long-lost younger brother Sebastian (played by Mark Strong), and upon finally finding him he discovers that Sebastian is a highly-trained secret agent who is involved in stopping an elaborate terror attack. Naturally, shenanigans ensue which results in the two brothers teaming together to save the world. The plot is basically “What if James Bond had a fuckup brother?”

Some of the humor is as gross-out as it can get, getting plenty of use out of genitals and bodily fluids (there’s one sequence involving elephants that I don’t think I’ll ever forget). Quite a bit of the humor is based around English class differences, which may go over the head of American audiences, but I quite enjoyed. And some is just tastelessness and over-the-top comedic violence. Sometimes it doesn’t work, but I found myself surprised at how much did. There’s a good deal of set-ups and payoffs to the jokes, which I found refreshing, like someone actually spent time to craft the comedy in this film. I’ll say that I laughed pretty often, and I was never less than amused. Strong and Cohen have excellent chemistry together, and the film is at its best when it focuses on the two and their exchanges, with Strong proving to be an excellent straight-man to Cohen’s ridiculousness. It even has a nice little subplot about the two brothers bonding and coming to terms with why they were initially separated that even pays off during the climax.

The movie is a little over 80-minutes and moves at such a fast pace that even if a certain gag doesn’t work, it quickly moves past it. The trade-off to this is that when a gag does work, it’s not given much time to play out. I full-heartedly believe that brevity is the soul of wit, and it’s not a huge issue, but I do wish some of the jokes had a bit of breathing space. Probably the movie’s biggest sin is completely wasting its supporting cast. Penelope Cruz, Isla Fisher, Rebel Wilson, and Ian McShane all feel like bit players who are there just for plot purposes. Maybe that was intentional, to play the film like a straight-faced James Bond film with Cohen there to single-handedly derail it, but why cast talented, well-known actors in such useless bit parts?

I still recommend the film for being genuinely, unapologetically funny, and while a lot of its jokes are in bad taste, they never feel mean-spirited or overly edgy. They come from Cohen’s desire to shock you into laughing, but it feels self-aware and innocent enough that you’re more amused and bewildered rather than offended. Still, if gags about AIDS, incest, bestiality, casual gun violence, lower-class scum, and things being shoved into asses don’t sit well with you, then “The Brothers Grimsby” is not the bland, PG-13, all-inclusive safe-space you want, you precious snowflake.

44. Operation Avalanche – Starts off slowly and ploddingly but before long, it overcomes its’ potentially-gimmicky premise and occasionally unconvincing façade to become a surprisingly engaging and creative foray into “historical” found-footage bolstered by writer/director/star Matt Johnson’s deft storytelling and clear passion for filmmaking, with an unexpectedly excellent car chase to boot.

43. Loving – Jeff Nichols’ “Loving” is an account of Richard and Mildred Loving, an interracial couple who were arrested and then exiled for being married in 1950’s Virginia, and whose case to return home eventually went all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the material and the convenient title, you’d think this was blatant Oscar-bait all the way through, but for the most part it’s not. Jeff Nichols’ empathetic direction and the strong, restrained performances by Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as the two leads make this film feel human instead of exploitative. Nichols makes an interesting choice to keep the movie very personal and focused on the couple, with the broader Civil Rights Movement only briefly mentioned. I actually liked this approach as it makes you feel the pain and struggle and love of the characters first, and then by extension see how damaging prejudices (both institutional and personal) can be to people.

The film doesn’t completely escape Oscar-bait trappings, however. It still has the comedy-actor-playing-a-dramatic-role in the form of Nick Kroll as the ACLU lawyer assigned to the Lovings. He’s not bad or anything, but he feels a bit distracting and the role doesn’t amount to much. The music is fine, but it still has those corny inspirational cues at moments of triumph and perseverance, places where I think silence would have been much more effective. My biggest complaint is that it’s a Jeff Nichols movie and Michael Shannon is only in it for one scene. It's an important and good one, but you really wish he’d be in the movie more or maybe that’s just me because I LOVE MICHAEL SHANNON, HOLY SHIT. I've come to the conclusion that the quality of a Jeff Nichols film is often in direct proportion to how much Michael Shannon is in it (seriously, go see "Take Shelter" if you haven't already).

The best part of “Loving” is the two leads, who share a quiet but powerful chemistry, both of them reserved people whose love for each other you can feel in the littlest gestures and who don’t need any obvious histrionics or even words to show their feelings to the audience. It’s the solid core that makes the movie good, elegantly guided by Jeff Nichols’ confident and mature direction, even if the rest of it isn’t all that remarkable. Not quite a “Loving” for me, but eaily a “Liking”.

42. Deepwater Horizon - I’ve liked Peter Berg as a director ever since his underrated action-comedy “The Rundown”, starring The Rock back when he was still billed as “The Rock”. He shows an aptitude for action, pacing, and getting good performances out of his actors, but lately, he’s had a really bad case of hero worship. This, “Patriot’s Day” and “Lone Survivor” all have a frankly fetishistic view of real-life bravery, all ending in a text commending the bravery of those involved and including the names of victims, etc. This always felt like a cheap trick to me, one meant to elicit tears and nods of approval from middle-aged audience members who don’t go to the movies that often, rather than properly characterize his heroes. He gets around this somewhat by casting good actors who are likable enough that we care for them in spite of the weak writing and schlocky sense of patriotism. It all just feels weirdly exploitative of the real-life tragedies that the films depict.

As for the movie itself, it’s quite good. It starts with the prerequisite buildup on the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, showing negligence on the part of some of the management and the BP executives (read: strawmen), while showing the intelligence on display by the regular, blue-collar engineers and oil rig workers. I don’t deny that things were actually like this (truthfully, I don’t care enough to look it up), but it does feel pretty clichéd in movie form. Then the disaster hits, and there’s a solid 40-or-so minutes of the rig blowing up while the crew scramble to try to contain the situation and evacuate. This part is great. Berg’s technical skill is on full display, helping you follow the characters and what’s going on despite a lot of them speaking in mostly technical terms and the setting feeling like being trapped in a maze that’s on fire. It’s fantastically gripping, edge-of-your-seat stuff, helped by the theater-shaking sound design and convincing visual effects.  The film ends with some tearful family reunions and heart-wrenching breakdowns when the survivors get back home. I’ll say that if I walked out of the film RIGHT after the screen faded to black, I would have a higher opinion about it.

If you like or at least don’t mind the hero-worship stuff, I’ll say that Deepwater Horizon is one of the year’s best-crafted thrillers, a disaster movie where the disaster actually feels scary and real as opposed to the dumb fun of something like “San Andreas”. I’m not against paying respects to the dead or to the bravery involved, but I think it should be done within the context of the film and the script, not forcing the audience to stay an extra five-minutes as some sort of memorial service that we paid money to attend.

41. Rams – This film is about a pair of Icelandic brothers who own neighboring sheep farms. They haven’t spoken to each other for 40 years due to implied but never explicitly-stated petty squabbles and stubborn jealousy, but are forced to work together to save their sheep when their flocks suffer from an outbreak of scrapie, a fatal degenerative disease that affects sheep and goats. This film is very affecting, low-key filmmaking, deftly handling heartbreaking drama, touching bonding, and even some surprisingly funny (albeit-bleak) comedy such as a scene where one character transports another to a hospital. It makes great use of the “show, don’t tell” filmmaking rule. Many scenes have little to no dialogue, but all serve a purpose in terms of plot or characterization or insight. The plot of sheep farmers trying to protect their flock may seem like a hard-to-relate-to storyline, but the film has universal themes of family and loss, and its observant and sympathetic storytelling makes the film accessible to anyone, even if they aren’t familiar with sheep mating procedures.

40. Kubo and the Two Strings - Laika has always been an overlooked animation studio, most known for making the wonderfully creepy “Coraline”, but finding little success in terms of box office even while their films are all quite good. Take “Kubo and the Two Strings”, a flawed but highly original and absolutely stunningly animated film that only managed to make a little over its production budget back, while “Zootopia” made over a billion dollars. Such is life.

The film itself is about a one-eyed boy named Kubo who is hunted by a vengeful demon and must team up with a magical monkey statue and a beetle-man to find some mystical MacGuffins that can help defeat it. It starts out very well, showing the boy’s daily routine of using his magic guitar and origami to tell stories to the local villagers. After shit goes inevitably down, it’s still quite compelling for a while, bringing a melancholy flavor to the boy’s journey and his interaction with his two companions. The problem is that the actual plot is pretty uninteresting, especially after the predictable late second-act plot twist, and while I can appreciate that the conflict resolution in the third act doesn’t just end by one character beating up another, the actual manner in which it’s resolved is pretty dumb.

The reason to see “Kubo and the Two Strings” is its gorgeous stop-motion animation. I had to smack my mouth a few times to remind myself that I wasn’t looking at high-quality CGI. It’s reassuring to learn that Laika is owned by the billionaire former CEO of Nike, so the studio isn’t exactly hurting for cash and can continue to focus on making their original and creative and beautiful movies without needing to dumb them down for most audiences, but it’s still a little depressing when good, accessible films fail to find their audience. While flawed (and nowhere near as good as “Coraline”), “Kubo and the Two Strings” is worth checking out if you love stop-motion animation as much as I do and you’re just waiting for the next Aardman film to come out.

39. April and the Extraordinary World - In an industry almost completely dominated by 3D CGI-animated films, it’s somewhat refreshing to come across a traditionally-animated 2D film. “April and the Extraordinary World” is a French film set in an alternate-history 1940’s where the world’s foremost scientists of the past several decades have gone missing, causing crucial technological innovation to not happen and for the world to continue relying on coal and eventually wood-burning steam power. In a world on the brink of war for resources, April is a young French woman whose parents are two of the missing scientists, and we follow her and her talking cat Darwin as they attempt to solve the mystery behind the disappearances.

I want to start off by mentioning the art style. The characters are the simple but expressive beady-eyed 2D people you’d expect from European animation, but the design of the bleak steampunk world and the technology is amazing. However, and this is what I really like about the film, while it shows how cool-looking steampunk technology can be, it also criticizes it for being completely retarded and impractical and damaging to both the environment and to people, cosplayers be damned (Europe is completely treeless and characters have to wear gas masks if they’re outdoors for too long). The characters (especially the talking cat) are spunky, entertaining, and even have their fair share of depth. The film carries a nice message about using science and optimism instead of violence and negativity to solve the world’s problems. This feels more like the film that “Tomorrowland” should have been, before it got Lindelof’d.

However, it does have kind of the same problem that “Tomorrowland” did, in that the third act gets pretty stupid. It’s certainly not as bad or as nonsensical as it was in that film, and while the plot twist and eventual revelation are actually built towards instead of just dumped on us, it does get rather silly and I sort of lost interest. Without spoiling too much, it does end up relying on that tiresome “in order to save humanity, we have to destroy it” sci-fi cliché that was dumb even back when “The Terminator” did it.

Still, on the whole, I was surprised by how much I liked “April and the Extraordinary World”. While it certainly loses some steam near the end (pun originally unintended), it’s still engaging and surprisingly entertaining enough for the duration of its running time to warrant a recommendation.

Note: If you can, see the French-dubbed version. The English voice actors are good, but the movie and lip-sync feel off by not being in their original language. For the record, this is the only time I’ll ever say that something (other than bread) is improved by being French.

38. Mascots – To me, a mark of a good comedy is if it makes me laugh a lot. By that criteria, Christopher Guest’s latest mockumentary about a professional mascot competition and its participants is a good comedy. There’s not much to say about this film if you’re familiar with Guest’s other improv-heavy comedy films, and structurally it’s very similar to “Best in Show”. It’s not as good as that gem, partly because it feels like a more manufactured scenario, a parody of a part of culture and a competition that doesn’t feel real in the first place (as opposed to the biting satire of the very real world of professional dog-shows), and partly because Fred Willard is only in this for like 5-10 minutes instead of 40-45. Guest regulars Eugene Levy and Catherine O’Hara’s absences are also felt.

Still, what I like about Guest’s style of comedy that I despise about the Judd Apatow/SNL style of improv is the timing. He knows how to edit his jokes and his characters to keep them funny, and he knows when to let a joke go, as opposed to letting it linger and rot. The fact that he doesn’t write screenplays or hold any rehearsals for himself and his cast pretty much means that he films them performing improv and leaves in whatever is funny. Despite the aforementioned absences, the cast here is still great (with standout performances by Parker Posey, Susan Yeagley, and the guy who fucks from “Silicon Valley”), the movie has plenty of laughs and a surprising amount of poignancy and sweetness, and some of the actual mascot routines in the latter half of the movie are both hilarious and even breathtaking, particularly one involving an expressionist modern-dance about feminism and art in an armadillo costume.

37. The Accountant - One of the most entertainingly uneven films I’ve seen in a long time, “The Accountant” tries to be a character study, a corporate thriller, an operator-style action film, a family drama, a quirky comedy, a PSA about autism, and it even flirts with being an odd-couple romance. It never really comes together in the traditional sense, but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t a blast watching it try.

The plot is about an autistic accountant who in his secret-life uncooks finances for some of the world’s most dangerous people, and how a seemingly simple assignment in auditing a robotics firm becomes dangerous and blah-blah-blah. This movie has far too much plot and little of it is worth caring about. Where it works surprisingly well is in the character study of the main character, Christian Wolff (who sounds like a name belonging to a character in a cheap erotic novel you can find in airport shops). You see his upbringing, the circumstances that led him to his current career, and his routines in trying to deal with life with high-functioning autism. I (cheekily) said from the start that Ben Affleck is perfect casting for an ass-kicking autist but he’s actually, genuinely, unironically good in a committed and fleshed-out performance that wouldn’t feel out of place in a more serious movie about adults with autism.

In trying to do the other aspects, however, the movie kind of falls apart. The first act is a mostly straightforward setup that you could be forgiven for thinking that it won’t even be a thriller. Wolff’s awkward bluntness around neuro-typicals is played for mild chuckles, because of course it is. Only at the end of it do we see that he’s a badass operator once he’s betrayed and people try to kill him. The second act where a government agent played by J.K. Simmons gives us a 10-minute exposition dump is pretty dull. There’s a hint of some romance between Wolff and a young accountant whose life he saved played by Anna Kendrick, but thankfully it’s never fully realized (“Gosh, I find your lack of social development and the way you cleanly killed the men who attacked me soooo sexy.”)

It’s only in the third act where he goes out to get the people who are after him where the movie becomes a wonderful nirvana of schlock, the “John Wick meets Rain Man” asploitation I hoped it would be. I’m not going to spoil too much, but it has the two funniest plot twists of any film this year, a solid 5 minutes where a caretaker at a home for autistic children gives a PSA about caring for people with disabilities, and a hilarious and completely unnecessary villainous monologue for the ages, courtesy of a paycheck-loving John Lithgow. My only complaint at that point were that there were no accounting-related one-liners in the film, including but not limited to:

- I just depreciated YOUR LIFE

- Don't write me off as a loss just yet

- They must be held accountable

- She's becoming a liability

- He's likes torturing people. He's accrual man

- A character named General Ledger

I don’t know. I chose a dull major, alright?

36. Moonlight – Clichéd dialogue and an annoying tendency to skip over some important/interesting events in the main character’s life, but empathetic performances, a great cast, and a good understanding and balance of the movie’s story and its’ theme of identity. I’m a bit of a tough nut to crack, emotionally speaking, so I feel like the subtle approach from this movie didn’t affect me as much as it did the many people who hail this film as the Second Coming of Christ.

35. Kill Zone 2 – Insane, jaw-dropping, balls-to-the-wall fight scenes that are too often hampered or outright interrupted by that silly and intrusive “plot” nonsense that unfortunately characterizes most post-Jackie Hong Kong kung-fu films. Still, any film that has Tony Jaa doing a flying double knee through a bus windshield and into the driver gets a recommendation from me.

34. Anthropoid – “War is not romantic”.

I’ve always held a soft spot for well-made genre films, and “Anthropoid”, a World War II thriller that, despite a title and poster that look like they belong to some sci-fi horror movie, is certainly that. “Anthropoid” is about a historical real-life mission by the Czech Resistance to assassinate a high-ranking Nazi official in occupied Prague. What I like about this movie is how solemn it is. None of the good guys are clear-eyed heroes who live happily ever after. These are anxious, grimly-professional saboteurs. Most of the resistance members question over whether killing one man is worth the possible consequences it would bring to the Czech people, while the two leads soldier on, determined to follow their orders. Cillian Murphy and the guy from “50 Shades of Grey” (Jamie Dornan) make for a likable pair of leads, and the characters feel human instead of movie-ish. Even during their romances with two local Prague women, it feels less like forced Hollywood trite and more like people trying to comfort each other in a hopelessly bleak environment.

The movie starts slow, but builds well to the more thrilling stuff. Interestingly (minor spoiler), the assassination attempt only occurs halfway through the movie, with the second half being the fallout and repercussions. A more generic movie would have ended with the assassination, before including text commending the bravery of the Czech Resistance and how their mission was successful, but “Anthropoid” instead shows and talks about the horrible things the Nazis did in retaliation, including killing thousands of Czech civilians, before showing what happens to the Resistance members involved in the assassination. I won’t ruin it, but the last half-hour of the movie is pretty devastating stuff.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with Anthropoid, as long as you don’t mind the slow build. It doesn’t really strive for greatness or deep meaning in any way. It’s just a well-made, well-acted, tense, bleak, and morally grey look at an important event in World War II and how it (and war in general) affects people. Bonus points for the cast actually making an effort to speak with Czech accents, instead of the usual historical non-British movie done entirely with British accents.

33. The Siege of Jadotville – Hey, speaking of solid genre flicks starring Jamie Dornan! I love a good war film, so when I heard that when Netflix produced one set during the Congo Crisis of the 1960’s, a refreshing change from the usual “popular” wars like WWII, ‘Nam, and Iraq/Afghanistan, my ears perked up. The plot is about an Irish company of UN peacekeepers who are sent to the tiny town of Jadotville in the resource-rich Congo during a period of upheaval and civil war. Murky politics and other UN operations in the area make things worse, and in retaliation the rebel government and French/Belgian mercenaries send a massive force to attack the isolated Irish troops.

There’s about 40 minutes of setup, in which we see the soldiers (led by Dornan), most of them still teenagers, at home before they get shipped off, we get a broad overview of the political climate in the Congo, including the coup leader and the UN representative sent to assist the central government (played by a shitty hairpiece with a Mark Strong attached to it), as well as the situation that led to tits going up for the peacekeepers. The remaining hour of the movie is the titular week-long siege, with the Irish defending a tactically disadvantaged position with limited food, ammo, and water against a very numerically superior enemy.

All of this is very well-crafted, with good pacing and editing, especially during the battle scenes, which are tense, harrowing, and filmed in a way that you actually get a solid idea of the geography of the siege. History, and even the movie at one point, both say that there were 150 UN troops at Jadotville, but it never seems like there's more than a few dozens of them. It's not a huge issue, but a little distracting.

The characters are pretty thin, with only a handful of the soldiers actually having names, and the writing is nothing special. It’s efficient in the sense that it gets the necessary information across and doesn’t intrude on the story, but it does have the usual clichés you see in a war film. The soldiers are portrayed as brave, noble, and heroic, while the UN leaders and generals are shown as callous, selfish, and incompetent. After some reading into the history, I found that this is not untrue, but it still feels like a conventional audience-pleasing dynamic. To the film’s credit however, it does a nice job of showing how morally grey the conflict was, without really claiming moral superiority for either side, but still makes you care for the UN soldiers at the heart of it. Even the trademark ending text is done tastefully and respectfully.

If you want a compelling, well-crafted war film and have a Netflix subscription, then “The Siege of Jadotville” is worth checking out. Between this and “Anthropoid”, Jamie Dornan has proven himself a capable (and wonderfully mustached) leading man, and in my eyes has done a good job getting his reputation back to “respectable” after “Fifty Shades of Grey” and...oh, there's two sequels to it coming out? Well, here's hoping for more good war films from the lad afterwards.

32. Doctor Strange – Same-old shit from Marvel, in terms of writing and story, but at least contains enough beautiful visuals and creativity to take away a good deal of the staleness. Bonus points for having a climax that is the exact opposite of a typical superhero destruction-fest.

31. The Magnificent Seven – At a film festival like TIFF, which is mainly meant for foreign, independent, arthouse films and prestige pictures, “The Magnificent Seven”, a remake of John Sturges’ 1960 original and an unapologetic, old-fashioned Western, stands out. As a genre-film aficionado, that appealed to me enough that I saw this movie even though it would come out in theaters a few weeks later.

And I’m glad I did. “The Magnificent Seven” is just plain, loud, over-the-top fun. If you see the trailer, the movie is exactly what you think it’ll be like. A woman seeks frontier justice against the power-hungry coal baron who terrorizes her town and murdered her husband, and pays a bounty hunter (Denzel Washington, who looks like he was born to play a cowboy in this movie) to go after him. He recruits 6 more outlaws, killers, and warriors to aid him in his quest to protect the honest townsfolk from the evil businessman and his army. Whiskey is drunk, guns are drawn, banter is exchanged, and lots of people get shot and blown up. Antoine Fuqua (an expert in making solid genre flicks) keeps the movie paced well, gives the characters breathing space to flesh out a bit, and makes the action loud, exciting, and well-filmed. No shaky-cam bullshit here, just good, efficient filmmaking with lots of nice Western vistas.

The cast is strong, especially Washington and Chris Pratt (who I worried would be out of place but acquits himself well here), along with solid supporting players. The writing is nothing special, but gets the job done, although there are some unfortunate missed opportunities at character development and payoffs, especially when it comes to Ethan Hawke’s (fabulously named) Goodnight Robicheaux, a former Confederate sharpshooter who hung up his guns. Also, a minor issue, but the film severely overplays how effective a mid-19th century gatling gun is.

There’s nothing altogether remarkable about this remake from a quality standpoint, but in a year filled with failed reboots and sequels and unremarkable superhero films, a good, solid personality-filled Western shoot-em-up about a multicultural team of badasses teaming up against the evil establishment is more than a welcome breath of fresh air.

30. Everybody Wants Some!! - Richard Linklater’s spiritual sequel to “Dazed and Confused” feels very much like a Richard Linklater film. There’s not much plot; it’s just about a college freshman baseball player and his team’s escapades over the weekend before the semester starts in the fall of 1980, as they hang out, go party, try to get laid, and attend their first practice. There’s no real structure to this film. It’s meandering in typical Linklater fashion, where the movie is more about the characters, the setting, and the dialogue. If you don’t mind this sort of thing, “Everybody Wants Some!!” is a very enjoyable movie. The characters and performances are on point, the banter is entertaining, the music is great (used especially well during a scene where the characters drive around town singing “Rapper’s Delight”) and even when Linklater waxes philosophical as he sometimes tends to, it feels less pretentious and more like the characters being themselves. When they talk about life, man, they’re often drunk or high or sleep-deprived, which feels like a nice bit of self-awareness from Linklataer. It even gets a bit inspirational at times, as the themes of finding out your identity and place in life and making the most of your short time on this Earth hits home surprisingly well. Funny, charming, and likable in every way that “Boyhood” wasn’t, “Everybody Wants Some!!” marks a welcome return to form for Richard Linklater, which is amazing considering it didn’t even take TWELVE YEARS to make.

29. Love & Friendship – Not being a big fan of hoity-toity costume dramas and having never read any of Jane Austen’s work, I really didn’t think this Austen adaptation would appeal to me. However, following the initial 10-15 minutes where my brain adjusted to the Regency-era English, I found that I really enjoyed this film. It’s a comedy of manners centered on a widowed socialite (played by the never-better Kate Beckinsale), a cunning and manipulative woman who is well-known as the best flirt in London, and her attempts to get her daughter married to a wealthy suitor as she herself juggles those in her social circles. I found myself loving the barbed interplay between well-written characters. The cast is uniformly excellent, with a strong performance by Beckinsale and a show-stealing turn from Tom Bennett as a wealthy but utterly gormless suitor, the kind of man who keeps talking even when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, and who is completely enchanted by the “tiny green balls” at dinner (peas). The whole movie is kind of plotless, with very little narrative drive and it feels like important character developments are often skimmed over (two characters have a pleasant conversation in one scene and are married like, 5 minutes later). The whole movie feels very light, albeit very watchable. Watch it for the excellent cast, the lovely sets and costumes, and for the genuinely hilarious writing, but don’t expect to be all that invested in what happens. The whole thing feels like a dinner party with much wittier and politer versions of your extended family, albeit just as catty and spiteful.

28. Captain America: Civil War - By now most people have acknowledged the problems with the Marvel Cinematic Universe. While most are solid superhero flicks, they all feel kind of safe and sterile, films marked-tested to appeal to as large an audience as possible. While this leaves less room for error, it also limits how good they can become. If all you want is good actors wearing ridiculous costumes punching each other and destroy expensive CGI environments while mumbling groan-worthy quips, the MCU has got you covered. Those of us who want them to approach something like Raimi’s Spider-Man films or Nolan’s first two Batman films are often left wanting. Sometimes it has gotten better than the norm. The first half of “Captain America: The First Avenger” was excellent before it became kind of a rushed mess in the second. Shane Black’s “Iron Man 3” felt like the only genuinely auteur-driven film in the whole MCU (if only because so much of the humor is based on what Black and Downey Jr. accomplished in “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang”). “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is still the high point of the MCU, a terrific and surprisingly character-driven action thriller that barely felt like a superhero flick. The point I’m laboriously trying to get to is that while “Civil War” for the most part takes itself seriously and actually approaches “Winter Soldier” levels of greatness, it can’t help but fall back on the lame, quippy, fanboy-masturbating sameness that has defined this cinematic universe since Joss Whedon first got involved with the franchise.

The plot is that a mysterious man frames Captain America’s friend Bucky for a terrorist attack, while Tony Stark feels guilty about collateral damage caused by the Avengers’ various battles and wants to sign some UN accord to make the Avengers government regulated, and tries to hunt Cap down when he goes rogue to try and protect Bucky. It’s pretty convoluted stuff if you’re not already caught up on the franchise, but not too difficult to follow. My main concern going into this film was that it’d be more of an “Avengers” film than a “Captain America” film. Cap’s films have a good track record, while the two Avengers movies are kinda crap. Thankfully, the heavy focus is on Cap and his efforts to protect Bucky from an increasingly hostile and angry Tony Stark. Despite what the marketing tries to say, the whole UN accord business feels minor at best, only there for a #WhoseSideAreYouOn hashtag to appease the autists who want their precious comic-book to be faithfully adapted. The story is surprisingly engaging, and while the aforementioned mysterious man is the real villain and does an effective job, the role of antagonist is actually filled really well by Iron Man. The characters are given enough room that pretty much everyone in the ensemble gets a moment to shine, the pacing is good, and (despite the Russo Brothers’ annoying use of shaky-cam and fast editing) the action scenes are solid and actually serve a purpose. It was almost a great “Captain America” film. And then Spider-Man shows up.

Spider-Man was added to this film halfway through filming due to Marvel striking a deal with Sony Pictures for the rights to the character, and his crowbarring into the movie is really obvious. There’s a whole half-hour of the movie that he’s in, where from introduction to the big punch-up at the airport to his exit, it feels like a completely different film, filled with the aforementioned light-hearted quippy humor that pretty much completely dissolves all tension, momentum, and conflict that movie had done a pretty good job building up to that point. It’s not bad in and of itself, but it feels like it suddenly became an “Avengers” movie, a big-budget re-enactment of a 10-year-old boy playing with his action figures. The only reason I don’t despise this part of the movie is because it at least has a few genuinely funny moments (most of them courtesy of Paul Rudd’s Ant-Man). The film recovers fairly well from this, and actually serves up a strong and pretty emotional climax that isn’t just wanton CGI destruction, but it still left a bad taste in my mouth, like I was bukkake’d by neo-nerd hipsters while sleeping and managed to clean myself off but the stains on my soul remained.

Look, I’ve said a bunch of negative (and some disgusting) things about this movie and the MCU in general, but “Civil War” is overall a good movie. The character work is strong, it’s occasionally funny, the cast is mostly terrific, and it’s definitely in the upper-echelon of this franchise. But the things that hold this series back (the sameness, the dull visuals, the lack of stakes, circlejerking, etc.) hold this movie back as well. Who knows? Once they’re done with this phase of the MCU, they can actually start to experiment and not just make the same kind of movie over and over, because let’s face it; people will come see these anyway. Hell, give me a She-Hulk movie directed by David Lynch, or a blaxploitation-style origin story about Nick Fury starring Michael Jai White, or a musical romantic-comedy about Squirrel Girl directed by George Miller. I don’t know. I’d rather see any of those than ANOTHER GODDAMN SPIDER-MAN REBOOT.

27. Train to Busan – Pretty much what you’d expect, plot and character-wise, from a zombie movie, but damned if South Korea doesn’t possess some of the finest film directors in the world, and Yeon Sang-Ho brings his A-game to revitalize an appropriately undead genre. Great cast, intense and creative set-pieces, and a nicely emotional focus on character. I’m not Korean, so I’m not sure if there’s any satire or message involved (the film does seem like a pretty accurate depiction of South Korea when StarCraft II servers go down). Somewhat dragged down by iffy CGI and the hair-pulling stupidity and dickheadedness of main human antagonist, who makes “The Walking Dead” Season 2-era Shane seem like a rational and believable fellow.

26. Fences – Little more than a filmed play, but a well-filmed one bolstered by good writing and knockout performances from Denzel Washington and Viola Davis. About 20 minutes too long.

25. Arrival - Canadian director Denis Villeneuve has been making quite the reputation for himself in recent years for his mature and well-crafted thrillers. While I find his movies just a touch overrated, I do admire a lot in them, from the technical craft to his ability to command strong performances out of all of his actors. This year’s “Arrival” continues that trend, marking his most mature film to date and one of the extremely rare mainstream hard science-fiction movies to come out these days. This is not a movie about laser battles and space explosions and sticking your tongue down the throats of hot human-looking alien babes (I’m excited for “Mass Effect: Andromeda”, alright?), but about communication.

Several banana-shaped alien spacecraft touch down at random points around the earth without any apparent motive or pattern, and countries around the globe bring experts together to try and communicate with them. The plot centers around linguistics professor Amy Adams, who is brought in by the military along with a physicist played by Jeremy Renner to head into the alien craft in America to try and set up communications with the aliens. It’s a neat perspective to see one of these alien contact movies from someone trying to understand them rather than fight them, and Amy Adams turns in another strong performance as a woman who is experiencing a personal crisis while being at the very center of a worldwide phenomenon. The rest of the cast is good too, but this is her movie to command, and she does so with ease.

While Villeneuve no longer has Roger Deakins as director of photography to rely on, he and his new DP Bradford Young make this a very strikingly beautiful movie, filled with bleak subdued colors but with an astonishing sense of scale. The scene where Amy Adams enters the alien craft for the first time is outstanding, with the camera work, lighting, and environment doing a genuinely amazing job conveying how…well, alien the ship feels. I also like the design of the aliens themselves (a sort-of cross between the facehuggers from “Alien” and the Reapers from “Mass Effect”), a refreshing change from the humanoid aliens you typically see in sci-fi.

The plot is surprisingly brainy, primarily concerned with the process of establishing of communication and later a very different perception of time and choice from how we typically perceive them. It’s not too difficult to wrap your head around this stuff, but you do have to pay attention, because this isn’t a movie that dumbs itself down or holds your hand.

As much as I admire and enjoyed the movie, I do have a criticism, and it’s that the whole thing feels…cold. I don’t just mean the color palette or the really strong air conditioning in the theater where I watched it. I mean emotionally cold. I’ve heard a lot of people praise how emotional the film is, but it didn’t really affect me all that much. Even the scenes with Amy Adams and her daughter, no matter how Malick-y they’re shot, felt mostly like salad dressing to try and make the audience connect with the main character. Even when you (no-spoiler) find out the plot significance of these scenes, I liked it much more on an intellectual level than on a gut-level. Also, and this part is hard to explain without spoilers, but there’s a love story that’s pretty crucial to the theoretical concepts later in the film that feels comically underdeveloped, like we’re supposed to believe these people fall in love despite working with each other for a few days and rarely talking about anything other than work (and because they’re attractive movie stars, of course). Plus, there are quite a few annoyingly clichéd characters, like the fear-mongering radio talk show host, the weary and no-nonsense military man, and a Chinese officer named General Shang who apparently rules the entire country of China without answering to anybody.

Despite these niggles, I still liked “Arrival” a lot. It attempts (and in my mind strongly succeeds) to present a realistic scenario of what alien contact would be like in today’s political and cultural climate, and again, it’s really refreshing to see a science-fiction film where science, communication and peace are used for conflict resolution as opposed to violence. It’s really ambitious on both a thematic level and a technical one (the special effects in this movie are some of the most seamless and believable I’ve ever seen), and even the problems I have with the writing don’t distract from Denis Villeneuve’s directorial talent. Here’s hoping he doesn’t screw up the new “Blade Runner”.

24. Shin Godzilla – Lacks the awe-inspiring visuals and sense of scale of Gareth Edwards’ “Godzilla” (which I forgive because this had like 1/10th the budget), but makes up for it with a richer story and sense of humanity. Whereas that film is about our powerlessness at the hands of giant monsters, this one is more about working together to overcome it. What begins as a bureaucratic farce eventually gives way to the Japanese government putting aside any squabbles and politics to focus on saving the lives of its citizens from a giant, rampaging lizard. It’s kind of inspiring to see a movie like this where a government tries to prevent destruction instead of causing it (with a not-so-subtle pisstake of the Americans, whose contribution to the efforts amounts to little more than bombing and almost nuking Tokyo). Plus, Godzilla himself is awesome here, looking and acting like a genuine monster, and pulled off with a nice mix of practical and digital effects (other than his initial form where he looks like a retarded CGI iguana with googly eyes). Kickass soundtrack, as well.

23. War on Everyone – “I’ve always wondered; if you hit a mime (with a car), does he make a sound?” Michael Peña’s character wonders out loud at the start of the movie, right before he and his partner (and driver) find out. Within one minute of the movie, you already know if it’s for you or not. “War on Everyone” is about two cops (Peña and Alexander Skarsgård) who are as corrupt as they come. They regularly blackmail and beat up suspects, take bribes, and drink on the job. They never really try to justify this behavior. Their attitude can be best summed up by a line Skarsgård says before getting into the driver’s seat of a car while piss-drunk; “Let’s go fuck some scumbags.” There’s some plot about their investigation into a robbery/murder orchestrated by the guy from those shitty “Divergent” movies who looks like discount-Toby Kebbell, but the plot feels like an afterthought. It’s more so about the two characters and their antics and their musings on life, greatly enlivened by the excellent performances and chemistry of the two leads, as well as the cracking, pitch-black funny script from writer/director John Michael McDonagh (who also made the fantastic Irish gems “Calvary” and “The Guard”). This feels like if McDonagh made a Shane Black film. It’s not a powerful meditation on faith and morality like “Calvary” and it’s not a great character-study like “The Guard”, but “War on Everyone” shows that even a lower-tier McDonagh film is still as hilarious and biting as they come, and it even comes with a bit of heart and soul. Still, definitely not recommended to the easily-offended. It feels kind of pointless, but I could listen to McDonagh characters talk shit to each other all day.

22. 10 Cloverfield Lane - I will try to be as spoiler-free as possible in this review. Honestly, if you STILL haven’t seen it and want to, just go watch it and know that it definitely comes recommended.

I’ll admit it; even though I wasn’t a huge fan of the shaky-cam monster-athon that was “Cloverfield”, the mysterious and vague trailer for “10 Cloverfield Lane” got me properly hyped up as I tried to figure out the connection between the two movies. In an unusual twist, most of the movie is only tangentially a work of science-fiction. The plot is about a young woman named Michelle who runs away from home as some vague disaster occurs. She’s knocked out, and wakes up in an underground survival shelter run by a paranoid survivalist named Howard, along with a young guy named Emmett. Howard says that there has been a massive attack, but Michelle is skeptical and is unsure if Howard is trustworthy or crazy.

The bulk of the film is in the bunker, as the trio try to cope with the various realities of living in a survival shelter, including each other. This entire section is excellent. Deftly alternating between lighthearted bonding, uncomfortable comedy, and pressure-cooker intensity, debut director Dan Trachtenberg shows he is an expert when it comes to tone, pacing, and atmosphere, further enlivened by Bear McCreary’s terrific score. Even better is the main trio of actors, all of whom play off of each other well and really flesh out their characters. The guy who plays Emmett displays a dopey likability that suits the character well, while Mary Elizabeth Winstead makes Michelle much more intelligent, tough and compelling than your average "horror" protagonist (I use that term broadly). Powerfully commanding the whole movie is John Goodman, who easily makes Howard sympathetic at times and genuinely terrifying at others. This is a brilliantly batshit performance by one of our very best character actors, and even if the rest of the production wasn’t up to par (which it definitely is), he alone would make this film worth watching.

The reason this movie isn’t higher on my list is because of the last 10-or-so minutes. Without going into detail (and the trailer gives this away anyway), Michelle leaves the bunker by the end. It’s like the entire film gets wrapped up and ends satisfyingly, but then it goes on for another 10 minutes that feels like a completely different movie with a whiplash-inducing change in tone. It’s all still skillfully made and well-acted, but the effect just feels bizarre if you’re watching it for the first time. At first I thought the sequence was there to connect it to the first “Cloverfield” and make it a semi-sequel, but it’s too vague for me to buy it.

Maybe it is all some continuous “Cloverfield” universe, or better yet, it’s an anthology film series in the vain of “The Twilight Zone” or “Black Mirror”, one where talented up-and-coming directors make unique sci-fi thrillers. If that’s the case, it’s best not to read too much into the ending, and to just try and accept the movie as a standalone despite the jarring tonal shift at the end. One thing I actually quite liked about the ending is that it satisfyingly concludes Michelle’s character arc, making her a surprisingly well-developed protagonist that has actually grown by the end. Maybe if I watch this again (and I do plan to), I’ll like it more and probably give it a higher spot on the list, but even on a first impression, “10 Cloverfield Lane” is an engaging and balls-tighteningly tense thriller with a top-notch cast and production working at the top of their game. John Goodman is so good, man.

21. London Has Fallen – Holy hell, where do I even begin? Rare is the movie where I honestly cannot tell if it’s trying to be a comedy or not. It has a serious post-9/11 depiction of terrorism, but it treats all the bad guys like cannon fodder to be disposed of in spectacular ways. It has some lines about the consequences of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, but these lines are throwaway at best and never brought up again. It tries to somewhat humanize its villains, but it also has Gerard Butler executing a wheel-chair bound terrorist before going on a tirade about how they’ll never win and that America will still be standing in a thousand years (not sure if the Third Reich comparison is intentional).

The action scenes are competently shot/staged, if unremarkable (despite a fun CGI-assisted long-take shootout). The script feels like it was either written in a weekend or improvised on the spot by Butler and company. In fact, I feel like this wasn’t originally written as a sequel to “Olympus Has Fallen”. None of the previous movie’s events are referenced, and all the recurring cast members (save for Butler and Aaron Eckhart) feel like glorified crowbarred-in cameos. It’s absurd to have a White House cabinet of Oscar winners/nominees and give them all a collective 5 minutes of screen-time. I’m pretty sure Oscar-winner Melissa Leo doesn’t even have any lines. I’m sure the paycheck was nice, at least. The first 15 minutes or so are fairly boring, even if things pick up considerably afterwards.

The one indisputable quality this movie has is Gerard Butler. Butler gives a genuinely jaw-dropping performance as bloodthirsty and very likely insane Secret Service agent Mike Banning (our hero, naturally). Mike Banning is the type of guy who reacts to getting shot in the shoulder and the birth of his child with roughly the same facial expression. Mike Banning is the type of guy who despite being very proficient with and usually having convenient access to firearms, frequently elects to brutally stab the bad guys numerous times with a combat knife. (“Was that really necessary?” President Aaron Eckhart asks after Banning slowly stabs a terrorist in the ribs to death while making his brother listen via walkie-talkie. “No”, Banning bluntly admits.) Even from the peaceful initial scenes of him accompanying the President on a jog or talking to his wife, you can tell something is very off about him. We as the audience are of course expecting/awaiting shit to hit the fan, but Butler is nearly trembling with anticipation to start murdering terrorists during these scenes. Butler makes almost every bit of dialogue sound like a badass one-liner, on one occasion offering the President a glass of water while saying “I don’t know about you, but I’m thirsty as fuck”, spewing the word “fuck” out of the side of his mouth like a shotgun blast. Even on the off-chance that the movie isn’t taking the piss, Butler most definitely is. I’m not being ironic when I say that this is one of the great comic performances of our time, and the success of the movie (for me) is due to the movie being centered around Butler and his hilariously absurd machoism.

The director of this movie is an Iranian who escaped his war-torn home to Sweden as a boy. This, coupled with Butler’s performance, Butler and Eckhart’s borderline-homoerotic bromance, the ridiculous one-liners and speeches, and an indefensibly heroic portrayal of drone-warfare, makes me feel like “London Has Fallen” is really one big satire of U.S. foreign policy subtly disguised as a stupid, offensive action movie, something conservative idiots will applaud, liberal idiots will condemn, and fun, smart, attractive people will appreciate and enjoy for what it is. I saw this and “Gods of Egypt” with a few friends as a sort of once-in-a-lifetime Gerard Butler double-feature, and I had a grand time.

I felt like I could smell this movie, and I like that. Watching “London Has Fallen” is like sex; You wouldn’t want someone walking in on you during, and you’ll probably want to take a shower afterwards, but once you get past the initial foreplay, it’s a great time from start to raucous, bloody finish.

Wow, that metaphor got gross in a hurry.

20. The Witch – I put off watching “The Witch” because every time in the past few years that people heralded the newest “great, modern horror film” (It Follows, The Babadook, etc.), I found them to be massively overrated and even a bit disappointing, even despite their good qualities. After finally seeing it, I can safely say that it’s definitely one of the best horror films in years (which isn’t saying much, but still).

The story is of an early 17th century Puritan family who get exiled from their village and set up a farm in an isolated area near the woods. Strange supernatural things start happening to them, and the movie becomes the gradual degradation of their mental states, as they start to blame and fight amongst each other, not unlike my beloved “The Thing”.

This is a very atmospheric, slow-burning kind of horror. The emphasis is on creeping dread rather than murdering attractive 20-something teenagers. For a first-time filmmaker, director Robert Eggers shows an excellent grasp of pacing, tone, and visual storytelling. Once you get used to the historical Ye Olde English manner in which the characters speak (subtitles are recommended), the writing is surprisingly quite good, with well-defined characters with clear conflicts and motivations. The acting ensemble is terrific. The whole movie is pretty much just two parents, a teenage daughter, an adolescent boy, and two young children, and they are all fantastic. Seriously, as someone who despises children (both in real life and in film), this is some of the best child-acting I’ve ever seen.

My problem with the movie is that (and this is kind of a spoiler, but it happens early in the film) I was hoping that it wouldn’t be clear whether or not the supernatural stuff is actually happening, or if the family is just losing their minds because of some clever metaphor or allegory. But no, it’s revealed pretty early on that it is actually supernatural stuff, which takes away some of the surprise and the suspense. The music is the kind of discordant “unnerving” string-heavy stuff you’d expect in a horror movie, and I often felt that silence would be much more effective during the scenes it’s used in.  Also, without giving away anything, the ending is pretty silly. It wraps up the story and the character arc of the lead character (the teenage daughter), but the manner in which it does it felt kind of over-the-top. You know what, though? I honestly thought we would get some shitty, cop-out, cut-to-black ending 5 minutes earlier, so it’s not that big of a deal. I’ll take a retarded ending over a non-ending any day of the week.

“The Witch” is a horror movie for those who don’t like horror movies, and one that treats its audience with intelligence and respect, and (the last few minutes notwithstanding) is actually satisfying and builds well to its climax. As someone who doesn’t care much for horror movies, I would say that “The Witch” lives up to the hype, and is well-worth checking out. Also, best (and surprisingly similar) use of a goat since Sam Raimi’s “Drag Me to Hell”.

19. Nocturnal Animals – A problem a lot of movies have for me in particular is when they’re tonally or stylistically inconsistent, feeling like two separate movies at odds with each other. Tom Ford’s “Nocturnal Animals” is a rare example of a movie with strikingly different stories complementing each other and actually improving the end product. The film is about a LA art exhibitor played by Amy Adams, who has an unhappy personal life despite her successful professional life. One day, her long-estranged ex-husband sends her a copy of his upcoming novel, a violent thriller about a family man terrorized by hillbillies in West Texas. The movie cuts between the novel’s story, Adams’ current life, and her past relationship with the ex-husband.

Tom Ford showed with his debut “A Serious Man” that he was great at filming and telling a story about people in rich houses being sad, as he does here, but also displays an uncanny talent at filming a gritty desert-set revenge tale. The parallels between the real life story and the novel are very finely drawn, and while I found the novel sections much more gripping than the Amy Adams story, the seemingly-disparate styles and tones never clash and instead fit really well with each other, creating a movie that is more than the sum of its parts. For a fashion designer, it’s surprising how good of a writer and director Tom Ford is, and he shows that “A Single Man” wasn’t just beginner’s luck.

Also helping the movie is the fantastic cast. Jake Gyllenhaal gives one of his best performances as both the ex-husband and the protagonist of the novel story, and Amy Adams shows incredible nuance and subtlety, reminding us why she is one of the best actresses working today. Michael Shannon steals the show for me (yes, I love him and I’m biased, shut up) as a shady detective in the novel’s story. All the supporting players are great as well, even if their roles aren’t as meaty.

My main complaints are that the dialogue is sometimes silly, some of the supporting characters are pretty one-dimensional and cartoonish (Amy Adam’s current-day husband played by Armie Hammer is a distant businessman who has to go away to New York to “make that very important sale”), and that the editing is a little wonky and overdone at some minor points. I initially had mixed-feelings about the ending, feeling that it was a bit anticlimactic and expected more to happen, but after thinking about it and how it ties to the movie’s themes and character relationships, I like it a lot more in retrospect. Unlike the movie, I can’t think of a good way to wrap this review up, but I’ll say that “Nocturnal Animals” is engaging, unique, and worth checking out, so let’s move on.

18. The Wailing – Its imposing length and frustrating lack of resolution/clarity can be hard to overcome for some people, but this South Korean supernatural horror flick is (in terms of acting, writing, directing, pacing, editing, themes, and just plain scariness and dread) the best and most effective horror film in quite a while. Like a bloodier and more emotionally tormenting version of “The Witch”.

17. La La Land – Before some of you call for my beheading for placing “La La Land” this “low” on my list, let me begin by saying that I still enjoyed the damn thing. From a purely technical perspective, “La La Land” is hands-down one of the best films of the year. Damien Chazelle’s immaculate direction perfectly captures the nostalgic sense one gets from watching old Hollywood musicals. This, coupled with terrific musical numbers and game actors makes “La La Land” an easy movie to enjoy. The story, however, is where the movie is a bit shaky.

The plot is about a down-on-their-luck aspiring actress and jazz pianist who fall in love while pursuing their dreams, and struggle to deal with the reality of keeping their relationship together while their paths go in different directions. The movie goes for a contrast between a magical, cheery Hollywood musical and a more grounded, dramatic approach, but for most of the movie it doesn’t quite gel as well as one would hope. I loved the first half of the movie, where it’s an extravagant musical about aspiring artists, but halfway through, it kind of jarringly becomes a relationship drama, with hardly any musical numbers, and this part seriously drags. It’s only near the end where Emma Stone sings her big “Give me an Oscar, goddammit” number that I even remembered this movie was supposed to be a musical. It’s like the movie takes two different approaches to its material, whereas one middle-ground approach (keep the big musical bits throughout but make them gradually more dramatic) would have made the movie a lot better, in my opinion. It doesn’t help that the two lead characters just aren’t very interesting. Don’t get me wrong; Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling try their damnedest here, but it feels more like two likable actors playing parts instead of real people with flaws and humanity, a feeling exacerbated by them not even having that good a chemistry.

If you can put up with an uneven viewing experience long enough, the film rewards you with one of the best endings I’ve seen in years, one where the themes, motivations, and songs are meshed together in a perfectly bittersweet sequence that actually makes up for a lot of the film’s flaws, and the one point in the film where the aforementioned contrast between fantasy and reality is perfectly in sync with the filmmaking style. It’s here where it stops being a movie about struggling artists and becomes something grander; a film about following your dreams but realizing that life never really works out the way you intend. This and the opening single-take number are ones for the ages, and make the film worth watching all by themselves. To put it in a one-sentence review, “La La Land” is still a case of a movie musical being really good in the first half but fizzling out in the second (something which happened in every one I’ve ever seen besides the “South Park” movie), but at least it recovers well enough to leave a positive impression.

16. The Shallows – I’m as surprised as you that this “hot-girl-gets-attacked-by-shark” film is this high up on my list, but here we are. Blake Lively plays said hot girl, a medical student who travels to an isolated beach in Mexico as a sort of spiritual journey/tribute to her deceased mother, and before long gets shark’d and stranded a few hundred feet from shore on some rocks during low-tide. I thought this would be the sort of cheeky, “Piranha 3D”-esque exploitation flick, but “The Shallows” actually has enough confidence to take itself fairly seriously. The main character has intelligence and some depth and even an arc (as obvious as it may be), and she’s buoyed by Lively’s terrific and believable performance. The shark is intimidating and scary, even when it’s not onscreen. The film has a good sense of progression, gradually escalating the threat level before arriving at the admittedly over-the-top but highly entertaining finale. It has a scene of the main character performing surgery on herself, which for some morbid reason I’ve always enjoyed seeing in movies and shows. And to top it all off, there’s a seagull that befriends the main character as she’s stranded, played by an actual trained seagull whose reactions (and lack thereof) are hilarious and his role in the plot surprisingly affecting. This seems like a stupid thing to harp on about, but if there was an Oscar for Best Performance by an Animal, Sully the Seagull’s performance as Steven Seagull would easily take home the prize.

There are a few issues, like how the main character tends to speak too much to herself (i.e. the audience) about her situation, and while I didn’t hate the very end of the movie, I do wish the film had ended a minute or two earlier right when it had a perfect moment to do so, instead of going on with an epilogue. However, given the expectations I had going in, director Jaume Collet-Serra uses Blake Lively’s good looks and strong acting ability, the beautiful camerawork and setting, his storytelling skills, and an adorable seagull to blow those expectations completely out of the water (har-har).

15. The Handmaiden – Gorgeously filmed, lurid, and thoroughly entertaining Korean erotic thriller with strong performances, writing, and a wonderfully dark sense of humor (an attempted hanging scene yielded one of the year’s biggest laughs for me). Strikes a good balance between artful grace and trashy pulp.

14. Silence – Of the 2016 films in which an accented and deeply religious Andrew Garfield has his faith tested by horrific violence committed by the Japanese, I like “Hacksaw Ridge” more, but this is still a powerful and deeply personal look at faith from Martin Scorsese. A challenging movie, but rewarding if you put in the effort to understand it thematically. A bit overlong and repetitive in the middle portion (though this is probably intentional), and I feel like the movie would be better if Garfield and Adam Driver switched roles, but from the moment Liam Neeson comes back into the movie, it’s outstanding to the end.

13. The Dressmaker – In the early ‘50s, a bus rolls into a tiny, rural Australian town that looks like something out of a Western. Out steps Kate Winslet, accompanied by a Morricone-esque guitar and violin, immaculately dressed and carrying a sewing machine in her case, who proceeds to light up a cigarette and say “I’m back, you bastards.”

Two minutes in and you already know you’re in for a fun movie. Winslet plays a dressmaker who returns to her hometown after being banished as a child to care for her cantankerous mother (Judy Davis), and before long, dredges up a lot of bad blood among the townsfolk that hurt and humiliated her years ago. To say any more would be to spoil the wonderful weirdness that emanates from this film. “The Dressmaker” blends family melodrama, Western, comedy that ranges from the dark to the surreal to the slapstick, campiness, tragedy, romance, and revenge. It’s a mess, sure, but it struts along with such confidence in itself and its source material that all these seemingly disparate elements miraculously work together, for the most part. It helps that Winslet and Davis are so excellent that they deftly maneuver through all these tones and keep you engaged in what’s happening. It’s tough to say what kind of person I’d recommend this to, but I’ll say this; If you’ve always wanted an Australian Western version of “Twin Peaks” where the protagonist is a female couturier instead of a male gunslinger, then “The Dressmaker” will quench that extremely particular thirst.

A note on why I consider Kate Winslet to be one the best actors in the business: SHE IS A FOREIGN ACTOR THAT NAILS A PERFECT AUSTRALIAN ACCENT.

12. 20th Century Women – Mike Mills somewhat tones down the quirkiness from “Beginners”, but still delivers a personal, heartfelt, and funny portrayal of humanity, here subverting the typical coming-of-age story of his teenage boy self-insert protagonist by focusing the film on the women in his life and how their feminist strength and independence help shape him as he grows up. Fantastic performances from Annette Bening and Greta “Love of my Life” Gerwig.

11. Moana – Beautiful visuals, wonderful music, top-notch voice acting, and a compelling and even touching story. I was pleasantly surprised by how long the movie took to set up the characters and their relationships and individual personalities before diving into the adventure. Even the stuff I normally find annoying in Disney movies (needless action scenes, cute animal sidekicks, hip modern references) are toned down here. Maui (voiced by The Rock, who has more charisma than the ocean has water, and a nice singing voice to boot) is extremely entertaining, but Moana is surprisingly a compelling character herself, someone who has aspirations and flaws and a sense of agency, as opposed to the usual dull Disney heroines who unwillingly fall into their fate before falling in love with Prince Flawless McGeneric. Great, empowering message (especially for young girls) about forging your own path in life. A million bonus points for not giving Moana a forced love interest. Another million points for Jemaine Clement as a giant, singing crab. Best animated film of 2016 by a wide margin. Disney’s best non-Pixar movie since “Lilo & Stitch”. Probably my favorite Disney Princess movie. I don’t care what anyone says; “Moana” was fucking lit.

10. Eddie the Eagle – One thing I’ve noticed about myself lately is how sick I am of “irony”. Not in the dramatic sense, but in the “replacing sincerity and any genuine feeling with some detached sense of humor” sense. I think it was the inexplicable but somehow expected rise in popularity of a meme involving a dead gorilla that did it for me. But my point is, lately I’ve been finding myself watching movies otherwise labeled as “corny” or “cheesy” by jaded, cynical and emotionally detached people, who do so just because said movies believe in their own stories without shame or self-referential humor. Well, fuck those people. They can rot in hell along with their precious gorilla.

“Eddie the Eagle” is about Michael “Eddie” Edwards, a British skier who despite having very little experience and natural talent managed through sheer determination and willpower to accomplish his dream of competing in the 1988 Winter Olympics. Eddie comes from a working class family with a loving, supportive mother and a stern, disapproving father. Despite being a talented skier, he is rejected by Olympic board members due to his uncouth and dopey nature. He realizes that he still has a chance of making it onto the Olympic team as a ski-jumper, since the British have not competed in the sport in several decades, so he runs away to Europe to start training, where he meets an alcoholic former ski-jumper-turned-snow-groomer that helps him train.

This film has pretty much every inspirational sports cliché imaginable, from the plucky loser underdog, to the grumpy mentor, to the uplifting synthesizer music, to the late moments where the protagonist is at his lowest point and wants to give up, and so on. In many cases these would be negatives. However, the movie embraces these clichés instead of trying to shy away from them, and in doing so it feels so sincere and full of heart that it actually works. You acknowledge the unoriginality, but you find yourself rooting for Eddie to succeed so much that you just don’t care. Dexter Fletcher’s direction is spirited and full of energy, the aforementioned synth music by Matthew Margeson is wonderful, and the two lead performances by Taron Egerton as Eddie and Hugh Jackman as his mentor are excellent. The movie isn’t all that historically accurate. The real Eddie Edwards himself said that “only about 5%” of the film is true, and even the tagline is “Inspired by a dream come true”, rather than “Based on a true story”. But as a Huffington Post critic said, “You can't believe most of it, but you can believe in it. That's a subtle but important difference.”

But do you want to know why this movie is so high up on my list? So many movies over the years have been praised as “emotional” and “tear-jerking” and to me ended up feeling manipulative and artificial (*cough*Room*cough*). “Eddie the Eagle”, however, with all its sincerity and heart and feel-good splendor, touched me so much that I actually cried at the end. I can count the movies that made me genuinely cry on one hand, and this is the only one that has ever made me cry tears of joy instead of sadness. If the ending scene at the airport doesn’t melt your heart, then congratulations on not having one.

9. Hunt for the Wilderpeople - Due to my continual disappointment in my usual preferred genres of film in 2016, I started to branch out a bit and check out films I otherwise normally wouldn’t, one of which is New Zealand coming-of-age comedy drama “Hunt for the Wilderpeople”. The plot is about a young juvenile delinquent boy and his grumpy foster father who, due to odd circumstances, find themselves hunted by the law and escape to “the bush”, the vast New Zealand forests. We follow them as the two survive, get into various misadventures, and face off with an obsessed child services worker. To reveal any more would be to spoil this wonderful movie. Suffice it to say I enjoyed the hell out of it. Rarely do you encounter a movie that does adventure, buddy comedy, or tragic drama this well, let alone one that does all three, while at the same time showing interesting aspects of Kiwi culture and the beautiful landscape without feeling like a travelogue. The boy (Julian Dennison) starts off as annoying, but this is intentional rather than the fault of bad acting, and he not only grows on you but also shows a good deal of comic timing and emotional range. Sam Neill as the grumpy foster dad gives a career-best performance, showing the kind of depth I didn’t expect from someone who I think I’ve only ever seen in the “Jurassic Park” movies. Honestly, I recommend this film to pretty much anyone (that has access to subtitles). It’s funny, touching, creative, and lovely to look at. Between this and “What We Do in the Shadows”, writer/director Taika Waititi has given me just the slightest bit of hope that “Thor: Ragnarok” will actually be good.

8. Paterson – Wonderfully understated, warm, and compassionate ode to the passion and creativity found in everyday life, making even the smallest mundanities feel profound and moving. No story arc or big dramatic moments to speak of; just the story of a quiet but observant bus driver/poet and his seemingly unremarkable but, well, poetic life. The relationship between Adam Driver and his wife (Golshifteh Farahani) is one of the most beautiful I’ve ever seen in a movie. Also; casting Adam Driver as a bus driver? Bravo, Jim Jarmusch.

7. The Nice Guys – I can’t believe I used to not care for Ryan Gosling. Granted, for the longest time the only movie I’d seen him in was “Drive”, and it’s hard to take someone seriously as an actor when all the role asks of someone is to stare silently for uncomfortably long periods and occasionally hit people. But nonetheless, in recent years the guy has done phenomenal work and completely won me over as an actor, culminating in Shane Black’s “The Nice Guys”, where he gives his best performance to date. He is shockingly funny and provides not only a lot of the laughs in this movie, but also a good deal of its heart. He’s gotten a lot of awards attention for his role in “La La Land”, but to me this is the highlight of his career so far.

Gosling plays an alcoholic, bumbling private detective and single father who teams up with the low-rent enforcer who broke his arm (Russell Crowe) to crack a major conspiracy involving a missing girl and a dead porn star. Tagging along for much of the mystery is Gosling’s teenage daughter, played by Angourie Rice in one of the best child performances I’ve ever seen in a movie (damning with faint praise, but still, give her credit), easily holding her own in scenes with Gosling and Crowe, despite a few awkward line deliveries. The three leads are great and have excellent chemistry with each other and with the strong supporting cast, helped along by Black’s hilarious dialogue, irreverent sense of humor, and his continuing growth as a director. I already harped on this in previous reviews, but it’s really refreshing to see a comedy that actually sets its jokes up before giving them a good payoff, especially one where some setups aren’t initially obvious (a seemingly throwaway story about Richard Nixon ended up giving me one of the biggest laughs of the year later on).

There’s kind of a lack of urgency to the mystery that makes the pacing a bit lethargic. I didn’t mind it much because the characters are so likable that you don’t mind spending time with them, but it’s worth mentioning. While there’s some character conflict and growth, I wish it tied into the plot a bit more. The lack of a clear antagonist for the first half of the movie also hurts. There are a lot of jokes and visual gags, and while most work, a few do fall flat. I feel like an extra rewrite and some tighter editing could fix most of these problems, and none of them are by any means a deal-breaker.

It feels weird to call this film “original”, since it’s more or less the same film Shane Black’s been making for the past 30 years, but in an increasingly bland world of mainstream filmmaking, it’s so refreshing to see a unique voice like Black do his own thing with a great cast and a solid budget. It’s a damn shame that a film which should’ve led to some sequels instead just barely made its’ production budget back. Put it another way; if you complain about a lack of originality in Hollywood but still paid money to see the latest superhero flick instead of “The Nice Guys”, please dip your head into a bucket of wet cement until the bubbles stop.

6. Hacksaw Ridge – I’m willing to go on record and say that “Hacksaw Ridge” is probably the most violent movie I’ve ever seen (at least the most violent since the last Mel Gibson movie). Considering this, only Mad Mel can make such an insanely violent film while also telling a moving story about one man’s faith and adherence to pacifism. The story is about Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector and pacifist who wanted to serve his country as a combat medic, and whose extraordinary rescue of over 70 soldiers during the Battle of Okinawa became the stuff of legend and earned him a Medal of Honor.

The movie has kind of a typical biopic structure, showing his early years as a troublesome lad who finds meaning in life with Christianity, to his young adult days where he tries to romance his impossibly attractive later-wife, before moving to the boot camp scenes where he’s persecuted by others for his refusal to pick up a gun, and finally to the war scenes. The transition between corny but solid, old-fashioned melodrama (or MEL-odrama) and the incredible, surreal, horrific war stuff may sound jarring, but in a very smart move, Gibson opens the film with a slow-motion montage of combat with a narration from Doss. This seems kind of clichéd, but it sets your mind up to expect the stuff you’ll see later, while at the same time taking away none of the impact.

Contrary to what some may think about the film and of Gibson going in, it’s not one of those shitty “Christians are good, others suck” films that do remarkably well in the southern states. The subject of the film is deeply religious and the film has its fair share of unsubtle Christ-like imagery, sure, but not only does it not beat you over the head with it, it even feels earned after seeing what Doss is put through. Plus, if anything, it’s less about the strength of faith and more about sticking to your convictions even when the whole world tests you. Plus, it’s refreshing for a war movie to heroically portray a man who saved lives instead of taking them.

Despite being away from the director’s chair for a decade, Gibson has lost none of his storytelling prowess or his penchant for striking imagery. The period and technical detail is fantastic (during one scene where you see through the scope of a Japanese sniper rifle, the film even got the scope right). Despite having to fill the late, great James Horner’s (who couldn’t do the film due to his unfortunate death in 2015) shoes, Rupert Gregson-Williams surprisingly turns in one of the strongest musical scores of the year. The mostly-Australian cast is excellent, with Andrew Garfield giving a career-best performance as Doss (at this point, I forgive him for “The Amazing Spiderman 2”), as well as strong supporting turns from Vince Vaughn as the funny/tough drill sergeant, and especially from Hugo Weaving as Doss’s PTSD-ridden WWI veteran father. Weaving genuinely looks like a man who died in the trenches in France but whose body still returned home, turning to booze and anger to make him forget the trauma he experienced.

I would say that Hacksaw Ridge has all the makings of a great film but is slightly held back by some story choices. The film kind of ends shortly after Doss’s heroic exploits with some standard biopic text and interviews from his real-life former comrades. It’s fine, but I think it would have had more impact to first show Doss returning home and reuniting with his wife and family, considering how prominent the theme of family was in the film. Also, there is one scene late in the movie involving Japanese officers, which I won’t spoil, but it feels forced and EXTREMELY unnecessary (I guess Gibson just has a thing for beheadings).

Still, considering how good this film is overall and how well it’s being received, I’m happy to report that Mel Gibson is no longer persona non-grata in Hollywood, and that I absolutely look forward to whatever he’s making next. Welcome back, Mel. We missed you.

Note: Something I thought of after watching “Hacksaw Ridge”; Mel Gibson could totally direct a “Mad Max” film.

5. Hell or High Water - On an early Texas morning, a two men rob a pair of branches of the Texas Midlands Bank. While not without a few hiccups, the robberies go smoothly. The two men are siblings; calm and smart divorced father Toby (Chris Pine), and his loose-cannon ex-con brother Tanner (Ben Foster). They are trying to raise enough money to save their family farm by paying off the foreclosing bank with its own stolen money, while being hunted down by Texas Rangers Marcus and Alberto (Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham), the former close to retirement. There are still a number of branches they need to rob in order to raise the needed amount. What ensues is one of the most mature and intelligent thrillers I’ve seen in a long time.

There is no black or white. Just two sides of the law. We understand both sides, and the motivation of each man. While the robbery scenes are thrilling and gritty, the movie actually shows a tremendous level of restraint. The pacing is deliberately slow, but the film is so well-made and well-written and so confident in itself that it never becomes boring, and it builds exceptionally well to its grip-you-by-the-balls climax. The movie spends a lot of time with the characters talking, with dialogue that feels both realistic and entertaining. The extremely underrated TV show "Justified" has instilled in me a joy in hearing Southern people talk shit to each other, and the movie doesn't let me down in that regard. The rural, neo-Western setting is wonderfully atmospheric and does a good job conveying how tough life can be in such a place (with a noteworthy supporting performance from Katy Mixon as a waitress who refuses to give back a large tip of stolen money to the Rangers).

Even though his character is pretty much a less alcoholic and more down-to-earth version of his Rooster Cogburn from the Coens’ “True Grit”, Bridges still impresses with a soulful and highly entertaining performance. Similarly, while Ben Foster feels a bit typecast as the “wild man” brother, he still knocks it out of the park with his confidence and screen presence. The biggest surprise is Chris Pine, tuning down his smirky charm and turning in his best performance to date as a man whose cool-headedness masks his desperation.

If I had to think of a flaw, it's that the film has a slightly-annoying over-reliance on licensed country songs in the first half of the movie...really, that's all I can think of. The slow pacing might be a turnoff for some people (some extremely thick people who very likely have ADHD and are virgins), but it pays off so well that I can't even consider it a problem for anyone with a three-digit IQ. If you are tired of action movies or thrillers being dumb, this is the movie for you. If you are tired of smart movies being dull, this is the movie for you. "Hell or High Water" is a diamond in the rough that is 2016, and deserves your attention.

4. Elle – I saw this movie solely because Paul Verhoeven directed a sizable portion of my childhood (Robocop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers), and he has enough goodwill based on that alone that I’ll check out anything he makes. While his European films are noticeably different from his American action classics, one thing that hasn’t faltered is his skill as a director and unique voice in telling provocative stories. “Elle” certainly has one hell of an opening. A wealthy middle-aged woman named Michèle is attacked and raped in her home in France. After the intruder leaves, Michèle calmly collects herself, cleans herself and her home, and goes to work the next day as if nothing is wrong. The rest of the movie is about her conducting her own investigation into finding out who attacked her as we learn about her feelings and why she doesn’t notify the police, as well as her complicated relationships with her friends, neighbors and family.

I can definitely see a lot of people getting offended by this movie’s depiction of rape and its consequences on the main character, but considering how complex and unpredictable human beings can be, this is one of the most bracing, raw and honest depictions of the subject I’ve ever seen. Put it simply, this isn’t your typical rape-revenge film. The excellent writing and Verhoeven’s strong command of the material and his cast elevates it beyond what I thought possible. The characters are very well-defined, with all their own quirks and needs and insecurities, and despite how uncomfortable the film can be, it’s also surprisingly very funny in how it presents them and their relationships with each other, especially during a fantastic Christmas dinner scene where all the characters and their animosities come together. There is a lot of gossiping, resentment, passive-aggressiveness and cuckoldry on display (it’s a French movie, so no surprise there). The film is certainly lurid, but everything from the story and performances to the themes and subtext is done so well that you can’t stop watching. At no moment during its two-and-a-half-hour running time was I bored.

“Elle” is a film I wouldn’t recommend to everyone due to its’ length and subject matter, but thanks to the strong writing, Paul Verhoeven’s confident direction, and a stunning lead performance from Isabelle Huppert, this a bold, gripping, and surprisingly entertaining film that is absolutely worth going out of your way to see if you can stomach it. Plus, there’s a really cute cat.

With that out of the way; please come back to America and make another gory, over-the-top action film, Mr. Verhoeven. Hollywood needs you more than you need it.

3. Sing Street – An Irish lad from a broken home in 1985 Dublin gets transferred to a rough, inner-city school. Soon he meets a mysterious girl hanging around outside the school, and in an effort to impress her, asks her to be a model in a music video for his non-existent band.

What follows is a coming-of-age story about artistic expression and love where the boy gathers anyone that can play an instrument (including the funniest part of the movie where they try to recruit “probably the only black guy in Dublin”), starts making music and videos, and slowly starts bonding with the girl. It’s tough to make a movie set in 20th century Ireland feel optimistic, but writer/director John Carney deftly maneuvers between comedy and drama, makes the film simultaneously fantastic yet grounded, making the story of falling in love and following one’s dreams feel believable and easy to root for.

From the tagline “Boy meets girl. Girl unimpressed. Boy starts band”, you can probably guess the general progression of the plot. This, coupled with the fact that I don’t like coming-of-age stories, or musicals, or Irish people*, means that this film was facing an uphill battle from me. Imagine how goddamn good this film must be that it’s number 3 on my list this year. A cynic would say that it doesn’t face much competition from an unremarkable year for film like 2016, but “Sing Street” is a wonderful ode to the power of music and young love that would be great in any year, and I defy you to watch it without a smile on your face. Basically, if you possess a heart, a soul, a dream, a love for music, or a pulse, I cannot recommend “Sing Street” enough.

*kidding. I love you, you pale, swear-y, chip-shop bombing drunkards.

2. Star Trek Beyond – After a strong start to a reboot of the storied franchise with 2009’s “Star Trek”, the series took a nosedive with “Star Trek Into Darkness”, the woefully misguided attempt to make the series dark and gritty. Because of this and the new director being Justin Lin, a man who has made four (well, three and a cameo) films about Vin Diesel sleepily growling about family in between scenes of supercars performing Cirque du Soleil acts, I wasn’t all too excited for the new entry, even though it’d be written by talented comic actor and well-known nerd Simon Pegg. Who would have thought that Pegg and Lin would have been the ones that saved not only 2016 from being a shit year for blockbusters, but also the soul of the “Star Trek” franchise?

The plot is about Kirk and the Enterprise crew getting stranded on a remote world after being attacked by a mysterious warlord while investigating a missing ship. It’s a slick and self-contained adventure, making it feel like a long and big-budget episode of the series in the best possible way. I don’t want to imply that this is the “Star Trek” of yore. It’s still a big, over-the-top space action film. But it has something that the previous two films (especially Into Darkness) lacked; spirit. The spirit of discovery, of exploration, of optimism. That despite the dangers in the galaxy, any problem can be overcome as long as all the species work together. Most importantly, it has an emphasis on character, actually slowing down at times to let them breathe and talk and joke with each other (y’know, like they’re people or something, and not just plot-devices). There’s a wonderful little scene at the start where Kirk and Bones share a drink to toast Kirk’s deceased father, and the tributes to the gone-but-not-forgotten Leonard Nimoy and Anton Yelchin were beautifully done.

It’s remarkable how well Lin and Pegg capture this “Star Trek” spirit while still making an exciting, blockbuster action film. Lin brings his A-game to the action scenes, making them fun, creative, and natural as a story progression. You always understand why the action is happening, as opposed to a random fight being thrown in for its own sake. There’s a certain scene later in the film where a ship has to take on a swarm of smaller enemies with a familiar musical cue, and I cannot remember the last time I ever felt so much hype and childish glee in a movie scene.

I guess the villain is the same generic normal-guy-who-was-betrayed-and-wants revenge that the past two films had, but between the still-excellent cast (newcomer Sofia Boutella steals the show as an alien warrior/scavenger that Scotty meets), a strong soundtrack, awesome visuals, a fun story, involving action scenes, and that warm “Star Trek” feel to it, “Star Trek Beyond” feels like a jolt to the heart of a series that was in danger of becoming lost to soulless, studio-driven blockbuster territory. Assuming there’s more to this series of films, I cannot wait to see where the franchise boldly goes from here.

1. Free Fire – This is the most fun I’ve had in a theater since “Mad Max: Fury Road”. I wasn’t a huge fan of Ben Wheatley’s previous films, but among the material I didn’t really care for, I saw an undeniable talent in his work. Here, it’s like he used his powers to make a movie precisely for me.

The film is about an arms deal that takes place in a warehouse between two groups of criminals that quickly gets out of hand after shots are fired in the exchange. The remaining 70 minutes of this 90-minute long movie is basically one really long shootout as everyone picks sides, betray each other, and get increasingly wounded while rarely ceasing their shit-talking. Think “Reservoir Dogs” as a comedy of miscommunication. In an amazing feat of filmmaking, Wheatley makes sure that this lengthy shootout set mostly in one large room isn’t boring for a second. His smart, gradual escalation of events punctuated with a number of “holy shit” moments and set pieces, held together by excellent editing, keeps the film exciting and darkly funny throughout. In between the big moments, characters take pause to hurl expletives at each other and ponder their own situation as they desperately try to get out of it, adding up to people you care about and are interested in even if they’re all dicks. This is a brilliant example of how important pacing and characterization is to a film, especially to one with so little plot.

Also helping is the hilarious banter, delivered by a wonderful and colorful cast of characters played by a small but absolutely stellar cast. Everyone is great and play their characters perfectly, with a standout performance by Sharlto Copley as an unhinged, self-absorbed arms dealer who causes much of the conflict in the film. I knew I’d love him as soon as a character says “Vernon was misdiagnosed as a child genius and never got over it.” I also want to mention the sound design, which is some of the best in recent memory, with every bullet fired feeling like a loud jolt to one’s system. The writing is highly enjoyable on a superficial level, and even carries a bit of depth with the shootout being a clever allegory for human nature and just generally what happens when idiots own guns.

“Free Fire” is by far the best movie I saw this year, and when it gets a theatrical release, I implore you to go see it. The only complaints I can think of are that the ending is just alright, and after a certain point you start to wonder where some of the characters keep getting their ammo from. Time will tell if this film stands up to repeated viewings, but this was easily the funniest, craziest, and most entertaining film I’ve seen all year. Yes, my favorite movie of 2016 is a 2017 movie in which characters argue and shoot each other in a dirty warehouse for 90 minutes. Cinema isn’t dead yet.

The “30 and Still Living in Parents’ Basement” Award for Biggest Disappointment 

Nominees:

 ·         Jack Reacher: Never Go Back

·         Jason Bourne

·         Passengers

·         Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

·         Warcraft

Runner-up:

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

Winner:

Passengers

The “Clever Marketing” Award for Best Tagline

Nominees:

·         Elvis & Nixon – “On December 21st, 1970, two of America's greatest recording artists met for the first time.”

·         Free Fire – “All guns. No control.”

·         London Has Fallen – “Prepare for bloody hell”

·         The Dressmaker – “Revenge is back in fashion”

Runner-up:

The Dressmaker

Winner:

Elvis & Nixon

The “Postcore Avantwave” Award for Best Film Score

Nominees:

·         Bear McCreary – 10 Cloverfield Lane

·         Justin Hurwitz – La La Land

·         Mark Mancina, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Opetaia Foa'i - Moana

·         Matthew Margeson – Eddie the Eagle

·         Michael Giacchino – Star Trek Beyond

·         Rupert Gregson-Williams – Hacksaw Ridge

·         Shirō Sagisu – Shin Godzilla

Runner-up:

Mark Mancina, Lin-Manuel Miranda, Opetaia Foa'i - Moana

Winner:

Bear McCreary – 10 Cloverfield Lane

The "I'm Glad We Decided to Keep It" Award for Best Child Performance

Nominees:

·         Angourie Rice - The Nice Guys

·         Auli'i Cravalho - Moana

·         Ferdia Walsh-Peelo – Sing Street

·         Harvey Scrimshaw - The Witch

·         Julian Dennison - Hunt for the Wilderpeople

·         Kim Su-an – Train to Busan

·         Lucas Jade Zumann – 20th Century Women

Runner-up:

Julian Dennison - Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Winner:

Angourie Rice - The Nice Guys

The “If Only the Rest of the Movie Was This Good” Award for Best Scene

Nominees:

·         Athens riot – Jason Bourne

·         Beach drowning – Silence

·         Captain America and Winter Soldier vs. Iron Man – Captain America: Civil War

·         Car chase – Operation Avalanche

·         Christmas dinner party – Elle

·         Climactic robbery/shootout/getaway – Hell or High Water

·         Desmond’s rescues – Hacksaw Ridge

·         “Drive It Like You Stole It” – Sing Street

·         Epilogue – La La Land

·         Entering the ship – Arrival

·         “How Far I’ll Go” – Moana

·         Police station – Manchester by the Sea

·         Sabotage – Star Trek Beyond

·         The un-destruction of Hong Kong – Doctor Strange

·         The 90-meter jump – Eddie the Eagle

·         Quicksilver and the exploding mansion – X-Men: Apocalypse

·         Warehouse rescue - Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

Runner-up:

Police station – Manchester by the Sea

Winner:

Sabotage – Star Trek Beyond

The “Pig in Lipstick” Award for Prettiest Movie

Nominees:

·         A Bigger Splash

·         Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

·         Doctor Strange

·         Hail Caesar!

·         Kubo and the Two Strings

·         La La Land

·         Moana

·         The Handmaiden

·         The Love Witch

Runner-up:

The Handmaiden

Winner:

Kubo and the Two Strings

The “Premium Meth” Award for Best Chemistry

Nominees:

·         Adam Driver and Golshifteh Farahani - Paterson

·         Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams – Manchester by the Sea

·         Chris Pine and Ben Foster – Hell or High Water

·         Gerard Butler and his knife – London Has Fallen

·         Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham – Hell or High Water

·         Michael Peña and Alexander Skarsgård – War on Everyone

·         Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton – Loving

·         Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe – The Nice Guys

·         Ryan Reynolds and Morena Baccarin – Deadpool

·         Sacha Baron Cohen and Mark Strong – The Brothers Grimsby

Runner-up:

Michael Peña and Alexander Skarsgård – War on Everyone

Winner:

Casey Affleck and Michelle Williams – Manchester by the Sea

The “Healed Broken Bone” Award for Best Cast

Nominees:

·         20th Century Women

·         Captain America: Civil War

·         Everybody Wants Some!!

·         Fences

·         Free Fire

·         Hail, Caesar!

·         Love & Friendship

·         Sing Street

·         Star Trek Beyond

·         The Magnificent Seven

Runner-up:

Sing Street

Winner:

Free Fire

The “Convincingly Faked Orgasm” Award for Best Performance

Honorable Mentions:

·         Andrew Garfield – Hacksaw Ridge

·         Ben Foster – Hell or High Water

·         Blake Lively – The Shallows

·         Chris Pine – Hell or High Water

·         Emma Stone – La La Land

·         Hugo Weaving – Hacksaw Ridge

·         Joe Alwyn – Billy Lynn’s Long Halftime Walk

·         Joel Edgerton – Loving

·         Judy Davis – The Dressmaker

·         Kate Beckinsale – Love & Friendship

·         Kate Winslet – The Dressmaker

·         Kwak Do-won – The Wailing

·         Mahershala Ali - Moonlight

·         Ruth Negga – Loving

·         Sam Neill – Hunt for the Wilderpeople

·         Viggo Mortensen – Captain Fantastic

·         Woody Harrelson – The Edge of Seventeen

Nominees:

·         Adam Driver – Paterson

·         Alden Ehrenreich – Hail, Caesar!

·         Annette Bening – 20th Century Women

·         Casey Affleck – Manchester by the Sea

·         Denzel Washington – Fences

·         Gerard Butler – London Has Fallen

·         Greta Gerwig – 20th Century Women

·         Isabelle Huppert - Elle

·         Jeff Bridges – Hell or High Water

·         John Goodman – 10 Cloverfield Lane

·         Michael Shannon – Nocturnal Animals

·         Michelle Williams – Manchester by the Sea

·         Ralph Fiennes – A Bigger Splash

·         Rebecca Hall – Christine

·         Ryan Gosling – The Nice Guys

·         Ryan Reynolds – Deadpool

·         ­Sharlto Copley – Free Fire

·         Tom Bennett – Love & Friendship

·         Viola Davis – Fences

Runner-up:

Gerard Butler – London Has Fallen

Winner:

Ryan Gosling – The Nice Guys

In regards to my final award:

The whole “Fuck 2016” thing has been done to death, albeit not undeservingly, so this’ll be my only word on the matter. A lot of us had a rough year, dealing with political strife, global conflict, environmental issues, personal problems, celebrity deaths, “Suicide Squad”, etc. Even in film, 2016 has felt like a bit of a downer, with many films I was looking forward to letting me down. However, there have been quite a few gems, especially in the latter half of the year, and a good number of these are off the beaten path, ones I actively searched for to find and ones I gave a shot even if they’re the type of thing I wouldn’t normally see.

My point is, we have to make an effort to get the good out of life. You can still find some gems while wading through a river of shit (which you’re going to wade through anyway), and I’m not just talking about movies. Try something you normally wouldn’t. Try to pick up a new hobby. Make some personal time for yourself, even if you’re swamped with work or school. Start exercising if you don’t already (hell, try yoga). Don’t just accept that life is shit; do something to make it less shit. Always strive to better yourself, because while there’s no such thing as perfection (unless you’re Michael Shannon), it doesn’t mean we shouldn’t reach for it.

The mere fact that you’re reading this means that you’re actively trying to de-pleb yourself, or maybe it’s because you love me or maybe I just make you laugh sometimes. In any case, thank you for reading this year-in-review. As it has been for the past two years, writing this was fun and therapeutic. I wish you all luck in seeking happiness (and good taste in film, like mine), and for those of you who have a bad day somewhere on that journey, film is always there for you, including the following films which can cheer one up even on the rainiest days.

The “Ancient Indian Burial Ground” Award for Film Most Likely to Raise Your Spirits

Nominees:

Eddie the Eagle

Sing Street

Hunt for the Wilderpeople

Everybody Wants Some!!

Moana

Runner-up:

Sing Street

Winner:

Eddie the Eagle

[jessicakehoe]

Exclusive: Up Close With L’Oréal Paris’s New Muse Katherine Langford

Katherine Langford has a brand new gig, and while it may not be able to snag her another Golden Globes Award nomination, it does add her name to an impressive roster of lauded global ambassadors such as Viola Davis, Céline Dion, Eva Longoria and Helen Mirren.

Today, beauty behemoth L’Oréal Paris has named the 24-year-old actress as the brand’s newest face. The Perth, Australia-born breakout star is famously known for playing Hannah Baker in the 2017 Netflix hit series 13 Reasons Why, as well as starring in the 2018 coming-of-age teen drama Love, Simon. What’s more, Langford plays the lead role in the upcoming Netflix series Cursed (dropping in July), a TV adaptation of the illustrated novel by legendary comic book artist Frank Miller and writer Tom Wheeler.

In celebration of her new partnership with L’Oréal Paris, we spoke to Langford ahead of the global announcement about beauty and her budding career.

On her everyday beauty look:

“When I’m working, I wear makeup for 16 hours a day, and I do full glam for press events. So, when I’m not working, my everyday is a ‘no-makeup’ look, and I really like to take care of my skin. I always wear a good sunscreen and moisturizer. When I go out, I’ll definitely wear a brow and maybe some mascara.”

On her red carpet glam squad:

“I feel very lucky to be able to work with some of the best people out there. My teams is amazing, and have come up with some incredible looks. They are true geniuses. It kicks off with my stylist Molly Dickson, and I work with hairstylist Christian Wood a lot. He and I have a combined love and obsession with old Hollywood, so we sample a lot of inspiration from there. He’s the one that came up with my 2018 Golden Globes look, which is one of my favourite looks to date!”

View this post on Instagram

⭐️ The stunning @katherinelangford for today’s #golden globes 💄 @stephensollitto 👗 @mollyddickson #hair me using @wellahairusa #hairaccessories @jenniferbehr 💅🏻 @stephstonenails @thewallgroup #katherinelangford

A post shared by Christian Wood (@cwoodhair) on Jan 7, 2018 at 8:15pm PST

View this post on Instagram

⭐️The stunning @katherinelangford for todays #GoldenGlobes 👗 @mollyddickson wearing custom @prada 💄 @stephensollitto #hair me using @wellahairusa #hairaccessories @jenniferbehr #13reasonswhy #katherinelangford @thewallgroup #nails @stephstonenails

A post shared by Christian Wood (@cwoodhair) on Jan 7, 2018 at 3:31pm PST

On her biggest Hollywood inspirations:

“When I started pursuing acting, part of the struggle was not having grown up in the industry and feeling like Hollywood and film were so far away from where I lived in Perth. I would look up to Australian actresses like Cate Blanchett, Rose Byrne, Nicole Kidman, and Margot Robbie. And last year, I worked with Toni Collette on Knives Out, and I feel so lucky because, the more people I meet, the more consistently inspired I get by other people’s stories, let alone their talent and work. Kate Winslet is also a huge inspiration for me because I didn’t always feel like I fit the Hollywood mold, but people would say that I reminded them of her, which, in many ways, validated me as a young actor. It’s such a credit to the impact that she’s had on other women, but also goes to show how respected she is in the industry and the breadth of her talent and work.”

View this post on Instagram

Oscar nominations are in, and @knivesout has been nominated for an academy award!! HUGE congrats to @riancjohnson for best screenplay – such a brilliant creative and person, and so well deserved 🙏 Thank you to everyone who’s seen it! 🌟🌟 🏆🏆 🔪🔪

A post shared by KATHERINE LANGFORD (@katherinelangford) on Jan 14, 2020 at 8:46am PST

On the impact of her past acting roles:

“Being in 13 Reasons Why and then Love, Simon, both of those projects meant so much to me because people have said that they saved their lives. And in terms of feedback, there’s not much else that compares to that to let you know that what you’re doing is making an impact.

There is a specific story I remember from early on with 13 Reasons Why, where I met this girl and she said that people had been bullying her. But when the show came out, because we looked similar, people started saying she was beautiful. And that in turn, it made her feel beautiful and confident. That really stuck with me because it goes to show how important representation is, even if it’s in a super small way, like seeing someone that looks similar to you. And hearing positive things about that person, it can change the view you have on yourself and that’s really powerful.

13 Reasons Why was my first role, my first real job, and Hannah Baker was such a special role to be able to play because she resonated with so many people’s story. It’s a character I will always have with me, and an experience that I’ll always be grateful for.”

View this post on Instagram

Hannah wasn’t the only one. For the full trailer visit YouTube.com/Netflix.

A post shared by 13 Reasons Why (@13reasonswhy) on May 8, 2018 at 7:00am PDT

On her new Netflix series, Cursed:

“I was sent the manuscript of the book by Tom Wheeler and Frank Miller and, after reading it, I knew it was something that I had to be a part of! These stories, especially in this particular genre, seldom explore the stories of the women within them, let alone place them at the epicenter of these legendary tales. I knew we had an opportunity to tell the story of a true heroin, and honour all of her capabilities and struggles — and those roles are once in a lifetime. We’re living in such a surreal moment in time — these are trying times — and it’s important to keep focused on the issues at hand, but I hope the show can be a form of entertainment and bring some escapism and relief to the reality of the current climate. We also address issues of oppression and obliteration of the natural world within the series, so I think the show will be interesting to compare that to what’s happening right now.”

View this post on Instagram

What if the sword chose a queen? All episodes of Cursed drop July 17.

A post shared by Cursed (@cursed) on Jun 18, 2020 at 5:59am PDT

On the words she lives by:

“In life, I’ve adopted a motto from my friend, which is ‘Do what makes you feel free.’ It’s something that’s been very liberating.”

  In Her Kit

Discover the L’Oréal Paris beauty bag staples Katherine Langford swears by.

Courtesy of L’Oréal Paris

Courtesy of L’Oréal Paris

Courtesy of L’Oréal Paris

1/3

Rouge Signature Matte Lipstick

($13.99, L'Oréal Paris)

“I like Rouge Signature for an easy but bold and chic finish. The colours are really rich, but the feeling is almost like skin, so it’s very easy to wear and lasts a long time throughout the day. They’re great for events.”

Buy Now

2/3

Color Queen Oilshadows

($10.99 each, L’Oréal Paris)

“I often use these shadows by themselves on a bare face, and apply them with my finger.”

Buy Now

3/3

Hair Expertise Nutri-Oils Extraordinary Oil

($6.97, L'Oréal Paris)

“L’Oréal Paris’ whole hair range is great, especially the Extraordinary Oil. I like to add some after a shower, or when I’m about to head out the door just to give my hair a really nice, smooth finish. I have wavy hair and it’s really nice to be able to add something that helps smooth without having to heat style. I still get to keep my natural texture, plus I know that I’m putting something nourishing on my hair.”

Buy Now

The post Exclusive: Up Close With L’Oréal Paris’s New Muse Katherine Langford appeared first on FASHION Magazine.

Exclusive: Up Close With L’Oréal Paris’s New Muse Katherine Langford published first on https://borboletabags.tumblr.com/