Super Snyder Bros.?

I sometimes wonder if Snyderbros live in reality. I know that’s harsh, but considering how they extorted Warner Bros. into releasing Zack Snyder’s version of Justice League, then tried (unsuccessfully) to do it again with David Ayer’s “true cut” of Suicide Squad, it doesn’t help their case. This isn’t accounting for attempts at “restoring The Snyderverse” following Warner Bros. cancelling The DCEU and starting fresh, implying that only Zack Snyder deserves to control the property. It as if Snyderbros don’t understand when to move on, and that’s bleeding into the new Superman movie from James Gunn. It’s pathetic.

The Snyderverse Subreddit had a post recently from someone requesting that the new Superman movie be review-bombed. Among the demands were writing bad reviews before release, as well as reserving tickets, but not paying. If this sounds petty, the post was immediately removed upon being brought to Gunn’s attention. Because of course. And while I applaud the admins for taking action, I’m in disbelief this got as far as it did.

I’ll state this upfront: I don’t know if Superman will be good. I want it to be good, and released footage shows promise, but it’s not out yet. It won’t be for a few weeks, and anything can happen. That said, even if it’s not good, I still want Gunn to have the opportunity that was afforded to Snyder. He did excellent work on the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, and he deserves to show us his take on Superman.

Perhaps the best indicator the movie might be good is its trailers. Instead of being angsty and violent, Superman’s upbeat and restrained. He tries to minimize casualties, often at his own expense. He has a dog named Krypto, and he uses the dual persona shtick Christopher Reeve perfected in the late-70’s. Everything about what’s been shown has me optimistic, including a remix of John Williams’s score. So while I can’t say for certain it’ll be good, I’ll be surprised (and disappointed) if it isn’t.

Nevertheless, I fail to see why this is so antithetical for Snyderbros and their vision of Superman. You want a brooding loner? That’s what Batman’s for. You want someone violent? That’s what Daredevil’s for. You want someone who kills criminals? That’s what The Punisher’s for. Superman isn’t any of that. So why must it be grafted onto him?

I know the Snyderbros will use Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns in defence. Two objections. First, the Superman in that story, while subservient to The Reagan Administration, is a kind-hearted boy scout. And second, the Batman in that story, while violent, isn’t a cold-hearted murderer, even calling attention to that frequently. Not only do Snyderbros not understand Miller’s work, it’s also a red herring.

You want to know the biggest irony here? Ignoring how Gunn was unfazed, or that Reddit deleted the original post, Snyder himself hasn’t weighed in. Yeah, Zack Snyder, The Messiah to his cultist fans, has said absolutely nothing so far. There’s good reason for that: he wants to move on. And considering he’s had success on Netflix recently, I honestly don’t blame him. Especially since his daughter took her life during production of Justice League, and the wounds are still fresh.

If the Snyderbros were convinced of their righteousness, assuming you’d even call it that, wouldn’t they want Snyder’s blessing? They’re not getting Ayer’s blessing, he’s made that known, but Snyder’s the big kahuna. And he regularly interacts with fans. This is a perfect opportunity for Snyderbros to get his approval before trashing another creative, assuming Snyder has beef with Gunn at all. But that’s thinking too in-depth, so…

Look, I get being disappointed that something you love was discontinued. I’m unhappy that GoldenEye: Rogue Agent isn’t getting a sequel, if only to conclude its story. On the DCEU front, I’m unhappy that Batgirl was written off before it was released, as it genuinely had promise. But I’m not sending death threats, extorting creatives or threatening to review-bomb future projects. Snyderbros, however, are guilty of all three. And it doesn’t look good.

The biggest insult here is that this made headlines. When I initially found out about this, it was through an IGN video and article. But Variety picked it up too, and I’m sure other outlets have covered it. Do Snyderbros have no shame? Are they that desperate to stay relevant that they’ll sabotage other creatives? Because I have news for them, and it’s not good…

Ultimately, Snyderbros have to make a decision. On one hand, they can move on and cherish the few years they had with Snyder, irrespective of overall quality or perception by the public. On the other hand, they can continue whining about how their beloved franchise was discontinued, attack people who disagree with them and be immature to others. Either way, the ball’s in their court. I only hope they know what to do with it.

Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’d like to focus on more positive developments, like how enjoyable Mario Kart World really is…

Switch 2 Go

The Switch 2 had it rough initially. First shown off without any fanfare, it had to overcome its price and justify that it wasn’t an extension of the Switch. To make matters worse, none of its new titles could be owned, instead using licenses. And then there was the Donkey Kong redesign controversy. Yeah. The odds were basically stacked against the Switch 2. But the original Switch’s reveal didn’t set expectations high either, and that’s Nintendo’s best-selling console right now. How bad could the Switch 2 be? Ignoring how hard it was to find, I managed to get my hands on one this week. And I have thoughts. Mostly positive ones, but thoughts.

Let’s start with the console. Saying, “It’s a Switch…but bigger!” both does it justice, and doesn’t do it justice. Yes, it’s a bigger console than the Switch. Whether it’s the wider screen, or the bulkier controller, Nintendo’s takeaway design-wise was to go the WiiU route and make a bigger console. It feels that way too, as I’m more concerned about dropping and breaking it than I was with the Switch.

Nevertheless, that’s my only issue with the design of the console. While larger than the Switch, it’s also much more interesting. The Switch 2’s kickstand is far superior, and the joycon controllers attach and detach far more easily. They also have mouse controls, which take getting used to, but are actually pretty intuitive. Speaking as someone who recently purchased a wireless keyboard and mouse, as I was experiencing back problems prior, for when I’m at my desk, this feels like second-nature. Let’s not forget the HD resolution of the Switch 2’s screen in portable mode, something the Switch couldn’t do.

The interface of the Switch 2 isn’t much different from the Switch. It’s basic, but it has noises that play when you access the apps. The Switch 2 is also backwards-compatible with most of the Switch’s library, even letting you transfer save data. I didn’t overwhelm my Switch library anyway, but it’s nice knowing I could port over everything without it getting corrupted or lost. That I can play Switch games on my Switch 2 is a bonus.

New to the Switch 2 interface is voice chat. Simply set it up in the menu, make sure you have friends with a Switch 2, and you’re good to go. It reminds me a lot of Discord, in that it’s accessible for anyone with little-to-no knowledge of voice chat features. I’m a little worried about Nintendo’s strict guidelines, however. I don’t mind racial slurs being a no-no, but even dropping an f-bomb accidentally is a red flag. Considering how conversations can get heated during gameplay, that’ll be a difficult sell for me. Not even Twitch is that restrictive!

Another advantage the Switch 2 has is having classic GameCube titles in its NSO library. Perhaps it was a hardware limitation, but the original Switch couldn’t go beyond N64 titles, and even then they had lag issues. The Switch 2, however, can play GameCube games, even displaying them in HD. I love the GameCube, but its best games are impossible to find for a reasonable price nowadays. Them being on NSO removes that barrier.

Speaking of games, the Switch 2’s launch catalogue isn’t too impressive, but it has a gem in Mario Kart World, which is included as an optional bundle. I had to enter a code to download it, which took several tries, but I was blown away. Mario Kart Wii, while not a bad game, turned me off of the franchise because it reminded me that I can’t drive, so saying that about an open-world kart racer, something I never thought I’d be interested in, is impressive. And it’s great. I love how intuitive the overworld is, with challenges and collectibles that keep it lively and not boring. That’s something I wish more 3D Zelda games understood.

Also, the racing in the game is fun. The tracks have a lived-in feeling that previous entries couldn’t achieve due to technical limitations, and they’re quite expansive. They even have areas with branching paths, as well as rails and boosts for practicing parkour. I still don’t understand what purpose the coins serve, or why you can only hold up to 20 at once, but they’re a neat little novelty. They’re fun to collect, at least.

Other than that, this is a Mario Kart game, except with achievements and challenges that unlock characters and karts. Whether it’s the chaos of Battle Mode with 24 players, or hopping online and challenging friends, Mario Kart World has the potential to be another classic. And with the inevitable DLC, I can’t wait to see what the game has in store. I can’t get enough as is.

But that’s the Switch 2 in nutshell. Like the Switch, the Switch 2 has many cool features that make turning it on for even a few minutes, if only to check for updates, worthwhile. I’m only hoping the next few months make it more worth my time, as my one complaint is that it’s basically another Switch. A bigger, shinier and technically-superior Switch, but another Switch. And that’s not necessarily bad.

Switch in Reflection

In 2017, Nintendo, then struggling with the Wii U, debuted the Switch. Marketed as a portable-docked console hybrid, it became a hit, proving Nintendo, like the Wii, still had a few tricks up their sleeves. Despite an initially-emaciated library, with few launch titles worth buying, it quickly gained momentum and turned into a juggernaut capable of competing with the competition. And now, 8 years later, the Switch 2’s set to debut, taking the Switch and adding to it in subtle ways. With that said, I thought I’d reflect on my experience with this glorious machine.

Now, I didn’t buy a Switch at launch. I didn’t have the financial means to do so, and I had more pressing concerns at the time. Nevertheless, it was the first console I bought new with my own money, having saved up from my job in a warehouse. It felt like an accomplishment, especially since every Penny of that purchase was my own. It helped that the first game I bought, Super Mario Odyssey, was superb, redefining what Mario games were capable of.

The next few years would see my library grow slowly, as I got used to the system’s capabilities in docked and portable mode. I’d come to prefer docked mode, especially given the physical strain portable mode created, but both options had advantages. For the former, playing games on my flatscreen TV was magical, giving me a full-on experience the Switch was designed for. The latter was a novelty should I need to unplug from my TV, even if I was reliant on the console’s battery. Either way, there was something for me.

Perhaps the biggest draw, outside of portability, was its retro catalogue. The Wii did this over a decade prior, and possibly better, but the downside there was buying each title separately. The NSO, however, included everything for a flat fee, meaning no extra hassle. So long as you had a subscription and a working internet connection, you could play everything. This is something I’m glad the Switch 2’s incorporating too.

Another draw was the control scheme. Say what you will about the Wii U, but playing titles on a tablet controller, even if its range was limited, was something I’m glad was ported to and improved on by the Switch. Outside of that, the joycon and pro controllers were amazing, demonstrating how intuitive the games were to play. That the joycons could detach and be used in different ways was a bonus. Even the motion controls, something the Wiimote struggled with, were great.

But the Switch’s real legacy is its library. I don’t have a massive catalogue of titles, especially compared to the Wii, but quality’s its greatest asset. Whether its drafting new levels to play, or traversing Kanto in glorious HD, the Switch’s library was never boring. And whenever I was finished with a game, I could always fall back on classic titles. There was so much to do that simply turning on the system and browsing updates felt like an accomplishment. It was like the system had never-ending secrets waiting to be explored. That I kept discovering them via menial tasks helped.

That was the secret to the Switch’s success: it had something for everyone. That’s not to ignore its problems, especially the dreaded joycon drift, but none of the system’s limitations were dealbreakers. It was such a big game-changer that, honestly, I’m having a hard time picturing the Switch 2 outdoing it. Because it showed that the Wii U, from which it incorporated design ideas, had real potential that wasn’t utilized. In contrast, the Switch capitalized on its potential fully, such that I’m positive it hasn’t been pushed to its limits yet.

Does this mean the Switch 2 won’t live up to expectations? I honestly don’t know. Hefty price tag aside, it’ll definitely have its work cut out for it. Keep in mind that the Switch revived long-dormant and obscure franchises Nintendo had given up on due to sales numbers, which is no easy feat. For the Switch 2 to really do that justice, it’d have to continue the legacy of good decisions and marketability. And it’s still too early to tell.

Personally speaking, I don’t think it should try. The Switch, like the Wii, really does feel like lightning in a bottle, and trying to recapture that magic would be a waste of time and resources. The best option, one I hope Nintendo goes for, is leaning into the Switch’s success, except with some upgrades. Think less DS to the Game Boy and more Game Boy Color or Game Boy Advance. Especially since the Game Boy series was discontinued prematurely.

In the end, I’m excited for the Switch 2…assuming I can actually afford it. Yet while I’m ready for this new experience to debut, it’ll also be difficult to close the book on the Switch. So much about it has been baked into the last 8 years, and saying goodbye will feel bittersweet. Nevertheless, I’m optimistic the Switch 2 will be a worthy follow-up. Nintendo owes that much to everyone, myself included.

The Orthorexia Question

In my time online, I’ve rarely interacted with Talia Lavin. There’s no personal reason, and no vendettas either, we simply don’t travel in the same circles. But I respect her, and consider her a valid voice in the Jewish community globally. She’s also a great writer, based on what little I’ve read. I mention all this in case I’m accused of belittling her.

Recently, Talia wrote a piece dissecting a book from Trump’s Surgeon General, Casey Means, explaining why “Make America Healthy Again” reeks of orthorexia. I’m no health expert, but I agree that obsessing excessively about what you eat is dangerous. My late-Zaidy was ahead of his time with food, limiting his consumption of red meat early on, but he also owned a bakery briefly because you can’t deprive yourself of every indulgence. When he was diagnosed with diabetes in his mid-80’s, he’d already stopped caring despite his appetite dwindling by that point. He lived to 92, by the way.

Depriving yourself of pleasures in an attempt to be disciplined isn’t great. Not that you should fill your body with complete trash, but discipline and pleasure shouldn’t be mutually-exclusive. Interestingly enough, Judaism, the religion Talia and I share, understands this. There’s a reason we bless food before and after consuming it, as well as why we’re obligated to not be boorish when we eat. If we’re to live as decent, moral individuals, we need to respect our bodies too. After all, they were given to us on loan from God.

Anyway, let’s discuss keeping Kosher, which is what prompted me to write this in the first place.

In her critique of Means, Talia draws parallels between orthorexia and keeping Kosher. She admits it’s not a 1:1 comparison, even explaining the differences, but in doing so I feel she sells Kashrut short. Yes, Kashrut has many weird laws and regulations that are confusing to outsiders. There’s a classic joke involving Moses and God on Mt. Sinai where God becomes frustrated with Moses’s questions about not boiling a calf in its mothers milk and yells “You figure it out!”, underscoring how Jews tend to overcomplicate everything with minutiae. It’s a great joke, but ending it there does Kashrut a disservice. Talia may not have meant it, but there’s a less-than-zero-percent chance her correlation between orthorexia and keeping Kosher does that for the uninformed.

I’ll admit I’m biased. Unlike Talia, who left this practice largely behind when she got older, I became stricter about keeping Kosher as an adult. I blame part of that on my brother becoming a rabbi and going to Yeshiva University, but also part on me growing up with the Jewish educational system. Regardless, there was always a mystique around Kashrut’s strictness that intrigued me as a teenager, enough that it started as my way of “rebelling against the system”. I definitely see the correlation Talia made, and agree that violating Kosher laws is merely a personal affront, but I feel she sells Kashrut short here.

Remember that joke I referenced? While it’s definitely great, it intentionally ignores how Kashrut, like everything in Judaism, is meant as a living conversation that evolves. Having separate dishwashers for “meat” and “dairy” came about as dishwashers became standard in households, coupled with the rise in a middle-class that could afford such distinctions. Before then, people ate what was available to them and washed utensils by hand, so separate dishwashers was a nonstarter conversation. Even now, if you don’t use certain meat or dairy utensils for a certain period of time, you can theoretically get away with flipping their status. I haven’t even gotten into “Parve”, or “neutral”, utensils, because that’s a separate issue…

The rules of Kashrut are as conversational as they are rigid. The Talmud, every Antisemite’s favourite punching bag, makes a ruling designating poultry as meat. The rabbis agree with this unanimously, with one exception: Rabbi Yossi Ha’Galili, whose community ate chicken parmesan. However, he’s the minority opinion, included to facilitate discussion, and his stance didn’t last. Kashrut, like every other law in The Talmud, is a general consensus, even when it doesn’t make sense or, as with the case of a clay oven, is objectively wrong in God’s eyes.

Essentially, it’s as much communal as personal, and the more you understand, the more you know its ambiguities. I don’t think Talia’s review of Means’s book addresses that nuance, which is unfortunate because she had the potential to teach her readers about it. Not that she should revise her thoughts, especially when her goal was to critique orthorexia, but I consider it a missed opportunity. It’s why I felt I needed to respond to her at all. Which leads to my big point:

The rules of Kashrut go out the window if it means saving your life. If you’re forced to eat pork at the hands of death, you’d better eat it. Of course, there are scenarios where eating it would be murky, especially if you doing it is meant to make a mockery of Judaism, but God would forgive you anyway. This is because Jewish law’s meant to be practical, and common sense still applies. In this I think Talia also missed an opportunity.

One more point that throws a wrench into the orthorexia-Kashrut comparison is that Kosher food being “healthier” than non-Kosher food’s a debate. Maimonides believes there are legit health benefits, but even he was challenged by his contemporaries. Outside of that, Kosher food can be equally as unhealthy, if not more unhealthy, as non-Kosher food, as evidenced by “gribenes”, or deep-fried chicken skins. Even still, goose liver and veal can be Kosher, despite the ethical ramifications surrounding them, which is why I avoid them personally. Kashrut doesn’t guarantee healthy living.

I’ll end with a personal anecdote: even when I wasn’t strictly-Kosher, eating what my family calls “milky-treyf” (or dairy food that hasn’t explicitly come in contact with meat), I couldn’t stand certain non-Kosher smells. Bacon being fried gave me a headache, enough that I once had to excuse myself, while shellfish still makes me want to gag whenever I see it on someone’s plate. This aversion’s probably psychosomatic, but it helped me not develop cravings for treyf food. I’m not exactly hankering for a cheeseburger, as the thought of eating one makes me nauseous.

Maybe this is why I felt a need to respond to Talia. Again, my goal isn’t to judge her, as that’s between her and God. We all have our vices, and I’d be hypocritical to chastise her for that. Rather, my points are to stimulate conversation about Kashrut’s nuances, especially in relation to Means’s orthorexia. I only hope Talia’s receptive, as opposed to offended.

Sinners Are Winners?

I haven’t seen Sinners. I might down the line, but it released during an awkward time for me. Plus, I’m trying to budget my moviegoing, and I recently saw Thunderbolts*. I know that puts me in an increasing minority of filmgoers, especially given its box-office, but I’m not able to watch everything in theatres. Sorry!

That said, there are people who are downplaying its success in order to “keep the director in check”. This is disingenuous and racist given who directed the film. There are also people who are calling the movie “the saviour of cinema”. This, too, is also disingenuous and racist. And since both sides are arguing, it’s only fair to explain why I feel they’re doing it a disservice.

Let’s start with the downplaying. Ever since Sinners started doing well, there’ve been numerous articles and editorials calling it a “modest” success. They’re minimizing the impact it’s made, a sort of “yeah, it’s good…but-” scenario. I could go on about how this speculative journalism’s disingenuous, as no one outside of the industry knows how films work, but-oh wait, I already am. Never mind!

If that isn’t bad enough, it also feels racist since Ryan Coogler’s black. Not only that, but he’s talented. Beginning with Fruitvale Station, Coogler’s directed high-profile and well-received movies about the black experience. Even the Black Panther films, arguably Coogler’s most-commercial projects, were excellent, showcasing that he can direct mainstream properties with care. Coogler’s proven himself by now, with Sinners being another example.

So…why isn’t he allowed to own this? Ignoring how Coogler’s earned a blank cheque to do whatever he wants, he won this victory fairly. He should celebrate, and that he’s being shouted down because executives are scared they can’t control him is upsetting and offensive. After all, why aren’t Christopher Nolan or Denis Villeneuve being held down? They’ve proven themselves too!

The obvious answer here’s racism. Unlike Nolan and Villeneuve, Coogler’s a high-profile director who dissects black experiences. Fruitvale Station’s about police brutality and black people. Creed’s about a black boxer. The Black Panther movies are about black Marvel characters in a post-colonial world. And now Sinners is about black jazz singers fighting vampires in the Jim Crow South. It’s clear that Coogler wears his blackness with pride, and that frightens plenty of people. It’s wrong, but it does.

That’s what this is about. Yes, studio executives exist for a reason. And filmmaking’s as much a business as it is entertainment. But that doesn’t mean Ryan Coogler should be held to different standards. He’s earned his success with high-quality productions, and he deserves to celebrate. Not letting him is wrong.

I’d end on that triumphant note, but some of this movie’s defenders are also being unfairly-hyperbolic. Sinners might be a great movie, but is it the “saviour of cinema”? Can it “fix” the currently trajectory if people only “give it a chance”? I don’t think Coogler signed up for that. I think he only wanted to make a good movie that was personal to him.

By touting Coogler’s latest as a second coming experience, people are overhyping him. Not that he isn’t great, but he’s human. And he’s flawed. He might’ve consistently made great movies, but that doesn’t mean he’s a god. That’s a big mistake to be making.

Even going by his successes, so what? Two years after The Dark Knight Rises, which people were split on, Christopher Nolan directed the incredibly-divisive Interstellar. Two movies later, he gave us Tenet, a movie mired by the pandemic and his stubborn insistence it remain in theatres. And with Denis Villeneuve, he might be striking it big with his adaptations of the Dune books, but his trajectory has always felt lopsided. I wasn’t a fan of his until Blade Runner 2049, which didn’t exactly set the box-office ablaze.

While Nolan and Villeneuve are masters of their craft, they’re not flawless. In fact, it’s their hype that’s sometimes their downfall, as they’ve let their egos lose before. If Ryan Coogler’s to be a blank cheque director, there’s a chance he could fall victim to that too. There’s a chance his ego could be his undoing. After all, success is a double-edged sword!

Outside of that, that Coogler has to be the “saviour of cinema” feels racist. Yes, he’s made great movies, there’s no doubt about that. But that doesn’t mean he has to “redeem” cinema. This idea that Coogler’s the next wave of redemption treads a stereotype that harms black creatives more than white ones. Especially since they too are flawed.

You don’t need to look far, either. Ava DuVernay, the director of Selma, received a blank cheque with A Wrinkle in Time, and that movie wasn’t the hit she or Disney wanted. Barry Jenkins made headlines with Moonlight, even winning Best Picture at The Oscars, yet his work on Mufasa turned him away from big-budget productions. Coogler has yet to fall into this trap, but that doesn’t mean it can’t happen to him. Especially if he bites off more than he can chew.

Truthfully, I want people to adjust their expectations with Coogler. Yes, he’s a great director. Yes, he’s made consistently-great movies (so far). But he’s not invincible. He too has the potential to crash and burn, and it might not be pretty. So while Sinners might be fantastic, calling it cinema’s “saviour” is a harmful exaggeration. I don’t think it was originally designed to be that, even if Coogler’s definitely earned a blank cheque.

Then again, I could be wrong. Remember, the film industry changes regularly, and I guess only time will tell!

Marvel Tackles Depression

(Warning: this piece contains spoilers. Read at your own risk.)

While in high school, I downloaded LimeWire so I could play old video games. After two weeks and a realization that I’d compromised my computer, I deleted it. Unfortunately, I also accidentally wiped my computer of most of the writing I’d done, causing me to panic. Five days and three failed attempts later, it dawned on me that I’d never see those files again. It took two years to get over the slump I fell into as a result.

Despite various attempts to try and move on, my depressive state consumed me. I rarely smiled, I struggled to eat, my sleep patterns were ruined and my schoolwork started to suffer in quality. It wasn’t until my senior year that I was able to actually move on. Even now, I sometimes regret not retrieving what I lost. It was tough.

I mention this because I hadn’t seen an action movie accurately portray the emptiness of depression until Thunderbolts*. I’d seen other genres deal with it, like Inside Out, but the action landscape felt more concerned with explosions and carnage. So it was to my surprise that a Marvel movie would finally tackle that. But that’s what happened.

Taking place after Captain America: Brave New World, the film centres around Yelena Belova, former Black Widow operative and step-sister to Natasha Romanov, spiralling into emotional emptiness over her thankless job. Despite being good at her work, Yelena longs for meaning, which she feels she’s lacking. When a botched attempt at being incinerated forces her to team up with fellow operatives, Yelena discovers a man, named Bob, who’s suffering from an identity crisis. Who’s Bob really, and is he as helpless as he believes?

Unlike many, I’ve enjoyed Marvel’s post-Phase 3 stuff a lot. Much of it’s been better than people let on, and some of it’s even fantastic. Still, I recognize that The MCU’s been having serious identity issues, throwing around ideas and stories that haven’t gone anywhere. It’s felt like the franchise has been unsure of itself in recent years, which is why Thunderbolts* is so remarkable. Like the titular heroine, this is the franchise finding its way after years in the dark.

Perhaps its biggest accomplishment is giving a face to depression. Sentry, the movie’s antagonist, isn’t evil. He’s also Bob, and he struggles with depression. He might be super-powered, but he’s also unstable. He has plenty of grief from the cards dealt to him, and it makes him dangerous as his darkest form. I like how that adds layers to him.

Sentry’s instability manifests as a void of darkness. True to real life, Sentry’s most dangerous when he doesn’t feel anything. He absorbs others and spreads his darkness like a plague, a fitting representation of how depression can negatively impact those around us. It’s great writing, and I appreciate how, unlike past enemies, Bob’s only able to defeat this void with the help of his friends. Because no explosions or fistfights can overcome a hug.

This is the kind of writing I never thought I’d see from The MCU, but I’m glad I did. I like The MCU, but it routinely shies away from such material because it’s too emotionally-heavy. Thunderbolts*, however, tackles it without second-guessing itself, which I appreciate. It validates the concerns and frustrations surrounding depression in an honest and sensitive manner. It also does this with conversation, as opposed to violence.

Above everything, this is the most mature story The MCU has ever tackled. And I don’t mean that in a violent or sexual way. People complain that Marvel movies don’t “intellectually stimulate” their target audience, but here’s one that does that with a mental health disorder. Depression’s rarely outwardly-visible, so seeing Bob’s struggles visually is a great way to show how dangerous they are.

That’s not to say the writing’s perfect. Aside from some jokes that don’t land, I’m disappointed Taskmaster was killed off early on. Additionally, Valentina, arguably the scummiest character, never received her comeuppance, instead becoming a PR person for “The New Avengers”. And speaking of which, the title, which was spoiled in the film’s marketing, isn’t that creative or exciting, even if it makes sense. So yes, the movie has its share of issues.

But none of that overrides its strengths, specifically how it humanizes and visualizes the brain imbalance known as Depression. The entire time I watched the movie, particularly the scenes with Bob, I felt a pang in my chest knowing that I’ve been there. Depression, or any other mental illness, isn’t fun. It’s often debilitating, despite what many may claim. In that sense, watching this validates it, and it validates it respectfully.

I know not everyone will like this movie. As with all MCU entries, your mileage will vary, and that’s okay. But if Thunderbolts* is indicative of anything, it’s that detractors have sold the franchise short. Because it still has some tricks and surprises up its sleeve, and this is one of them. I only hope that’s enough to win critics over.

Andor's Big Problem...Resolved?

Three years ago, I ripped into Season 1 of Andor. Despite not hating it, I mentioned that the pacing and writing held it back somewhat. And since the finale ended a cliffhanger, I knew there’d be more to come. My only hope was it’d be an improvement over what’d transpired. So now that I’ve seen Season 2, I have one word to describe it:

Wow.

I’d like to apologize for ever doubting Tony Gilroy. Despite Season 2 containing many of the issues from Season 1, including scenes that drag, he’s embraced the criticism he received and fixed what didn’t work. This is no more apparent than in the opening arc, which starts with an action scene less than 5 minutes into the first episode. Seeing Andor blow up an Imperial Hangar while inside a TIE Fighter informed me this’d be a snappier season. It was awesome.

And it didn’t disappoint. It’d be easy to have the best moment upfront, but Gilroy’s smart enough to save his biggest surprises for later. If the first three episodes were the hook, the next three episodes were when Season 2 showed it was the superior season. Episodes 4-6 were standard affair for Andor, reverting to status quo, but they were also much more interesting. We got more development regarding Imperial deception and how it impacted the world of Star Wars, and it was done in such a way that I was never bored. Considering Season 1’s prison arc wasn’t that interesting, despite having plenty of meaty subtext, that I got more out of an exposition scene in Episode 4 than I did in than the entirety of that arc is astounding on many levels.

Season 2’s biggest strength was getting me to care about its characters. Specifically, its characters’ names. It’s a bad sign when I sit through an entire season of a show not giving a damn about anyone other than its namesake, but that was my experience with Season 1. Season 2, however, was the opposite. Suddenly, that scummy Imperial officer was Dedra. Cassian’s love-interest was Bix. That office worker with an overbearing mother was Syril. And Cassian’s boss was Luthen.

It sounds like I’m selling everyone short, as they weren’t badly-written, but that was how little an impact they’d made on me. Yet that wasn’t the case here. Much more investment was present here, such that it felt like playing catch-up with the cast. It didn’t work 100%, I can’t tell you Syril’s mom’s name, but it worked enough. Another point in Season 2’s favour.

Outside of that, there was more suspense and drama this time. Whether it was action scenes like those on Ghorman, or something as simple as debugging an artifact, Andor Season 2 never stopped keeping me on the edge of my seat. Nowhere was this more-apparent than the two big heists in the second half, neither of which I’ll spoil. They felt more like Star Wars than anything in the first season, and that had a major heist too. It’s both impressive and sad.

All of this is tied together with the snappier arcs, made more intense with the ticking clock in each three-episode arc. Season 1 didn’t have that sense of urgency, so constantly being reminded that BBY was this franchise’s D-Day was enough to keep me alert. Even in the boring parts, like the wedding, the countdown made it worth it. It also made the emotional moments more impactful, such that I actually shed a tear in Episode 10’s finale. That’s a good sign.

Season 2 redeemed Andor for me, re-contextualizing what’d happened prior. It doesn’t change my mind about Season 1, and I still think “prestige drama” isn’t the best fit for a series about space wizards and Nazis, but I commend Gilroy for sticking the landing. He may not be a big Star Wars fan, even openly admitting that, but Season 2 shows that he gets the material and can deliver if given a chance. If you’d have told me that when the trailer for Season 2 debuted, I’d have laughed. But I guess it’s true.

I know I’m coming off as unduly-harsh, to which I apologize. Still, many people love this show, and it’d feel wrong to not be honest. I love Star Wars! And it want it to take risks like this! But I also don’t want my time wasted, something Andor didn’t always understand. Season 2 isn’t even perfect, containing some of the same flaws that bothered me with Season 1! However, it manages to work around them, to the point where it almost didn’t bother me. Almost.

Anyway, consider this my formal apology to Mr. Gilroy. He may frustrate me as a creative, enough to criticize his work on a Star Wars show, but I might’ve been too hard on him initially in 2022. He definitely fixed the biggest problem I had with the show for Season 2, and for that I’m grateful. Though please, never make Star Wars into a prestige drama again. Once was enough, thank you!

DK's Big Glow-Up

Last month, I wrote about the Switch 2’s price, and how it was unavoidable. I stand by what I said, but it got me thinking about a less-inspired controversy that’s arisen from the Switch 2 reveal. It’s ludicrous, but it’s time I nip it in the bud. Let’s discuss Donkey Kong’s redesign. Pray for my sanity…

It’s not like DK hasn’t had redesigns. Most gamers remember his appearance from the 90’s, as that’s been used for over three decades, but he didn’t always look that way. When the gorilla debuted in 1981, he looked drastically different. It was only with Rare and 1994’s Donkey Kong Country that we got the design we know and love. And even then, he’s had tweaks over the years.

While I love the Rare design, it makes sense to revise it. Mascots go through changes constantly, and DK hasn’t updated his look in 31 years. That might not seem like a long time, but remember that Mickey Mouse had several updates in his first 31 years. Compare his appearance in Steamboat Willie to his appearance in Fantasia. Ignoring the redesigns in-between, that was a huge difference! And it was only 12-years!

Character redesigns happen frequently, and Donkey Kong’s no different. I’m actually surprised it didn’t happen sooner, and more frequently, given how many games he’s been in since 1994. It seems overdue. And if it’s a surprise? Well…that’s why most gamers aren’t in marketing.

I don’t mind the redesign. It might take getting used to, but it’s much more expressive to work with. We’ve seen that with the gameplay footage of Donkey Kong Bananza, which is releasing in July of this year. The new model has eyes and arms that are easier to work with than the Rare design, which was showing its limitations. And yes, it does feel largely inspired by The Super Mario Bros. Movie, particularly in the eyes. But is that necessarily bad?

People forget that redesigns are often calculated decisions. They don’t always work, but they’re not accidents. Link goes through drastic redesigns with almost every new Zelda game, and some are drastic. But while the Hylian hero might always reinvent himself, he’s still quintessentially-Link. That much isn’t changing.

So why’s the new design for Donkey Kong controversial? My guess is that an entire generation of gamers grew up with his Rare model. Remember, people are averse to change. #NotMyDonkeyKong, as the mantra goes. But while it might make sense to be against this redesign superficially, it’s still the same character. He loves eating bananas and punching enemies, and he enjoys go-karting. If the change is a dealbreaker for some, then it’s their loss!

Perhaps there’s some animosity over Nintendo’s push of this redesign, enough that it seems like there’s been retroactive scrubbing of older ones? While I won’t deny how that feels like revisionist history, it’s also not new. Cereal mascots change all the time, and that includes phasing out older variants. Millennials like myself remember the 90’s versions of Tony the Tiger and Snap, Crackle and Pop, but they were redesigns of their classic iterations from 30 and 40 years prior. And they’ve been changed since for younger generations. DK getting a redesign’s another example of that.

Maybe there’s even frustration over abandoning Rare’s design? I get being attached to them, especially since they once made great games, but Donkey Kong existed before Rare breathed new life into him. Rare might’ve given him his look, but they never owned him. They simply put a then-new spin on him, and not everything about the IP stayed consistent once Rare was purchased by Microsoft. (Need I remind everyone that Diddy Kong used to have Rare’s logo on his cap?)

Being attached to something that no longer exists, while fun, isn’t healthy. Yes, Rare made great games…but that was over 20 years ago. A lot has changed, including most of the original team leaving the studio. That they struck gold with Nintendo’s simian may not have been an accident, but that doesn’t mean Nintendo hasn’t made good games with him since. They might be different, but they exist!

I think this really boils down to gamers looking for reasons to complain. This also happened with the redesign of Princess Peach for Princess Peach: Showtime!, and it was ridiculous there too. People are turning nitpicks into their entire personalities, even though it’s nonsensical. Because it’s not healthy to focus on these trivial details, even if it feels good in the moment. I wish that was widely-understood.

Personally, while I don’t mind the new look, I understand being apprehensive. Not only have I had a mental image of what DK’s looked like since I was 4, hence it’s jarring seeing such a drastic change, but I’ll have to readjust to this design. It’ll take time to get used to, as I still see Donkey Kong through a Rare lens. But it’ll happen. And it’ll happen with the complainers if they give it a chance. I hope they do.

All About Abby

I’m not a fan of The Last of Us. There’s no personal reason, I simply don’t own Sony’s consoles. I also can’t watch the TV series because I’m Canadian, so I can’t comment much. What I can comment on is the big “controversy”. In particular, the toxicity surrounding it, and how that spilled into real life. Because, simply put, it’s wrong.

Let’s back up. I had to look up what was fuelling this controversy, and I found a commentary on the cycle of violence that some fans couldn’t comprehend. It’s one issue to be unhappy with the subtext of the series. I have thoughts myself, but they’re irrelevant here. It’s another issue altogether to take something in fiction and use it to harass and threaten someone. But that’s what’s happened here…twice.

It started with Laura Bailey, who voiced Abby in the video game. Ignoring her actions in the story, which are meant as a message, Bailey received backlash and threats for voicing her. Criticism’s inevitable in the entertainment industry, but a line gets crossed when said criticism becomes toxic. And it was with Bailey, such that her son was impacted.

This toxicity has resurfaced with The Last of Us on HBO. I know the show’s received plenty of praise, but with Season 2 adapting Abby’s violent behaviour, her actor, Kaitlyn Dever, has been receiving the same vitriol Bailey received. Never mind that it should’ve been snuffed out already, we’re now seeing a repeat of this toxicity with an actress who’s also been reeling with the pain of a family tragedy.

A while back, I wrote about how actors aren’t necessarily the characters they play. In it, I mentioned that while a good actor brings life experience to a role, they’re still performing. Performing’s pretending, so while the point of acting’s to look like you’re not acting, it also needs to be acknowledged as acting. Unfortunately, many fans don’t see the distinction, and as a result have ruined actors’ lives. Simply Google what happened to Ahmed Best...

You’re allowed to not like a character. Plenty of well-loved stories have unlikable characters, some of whom are supposed to be. But that’s not an excuse to be a jerk to someone playing that character. After all, actors take on many roles in their careers, good and bad, as that’s part of acting. You have to take risks to maintain employment.

With Bailey and Dever, I can’t help wonder if sexism’s playing a role in this. You may not approve of the actresses bringing life to a murderer, but Abby’s behaviour isn’t any worse than John Wick or Deadpool. With the former, he goes on a revenge spree after thugs murder his dog. With the latter, he goes on a revenge spree after Francis robs him of his beauty. Both have massive body counts, complete with gruesome deaths. And with the latter, you can argue he’s more monstrous than Francis!

That John Wick and Deadpool can get away with this, yet Abby can’t, is far more telling than any message The Last of Us imparts to its audience. Because while John Wick and Deadpool are sociopathic, we love them anyway. Meanwhile, Abby bludgeons a man to death, and she’s suddenly detestable? Why don’t Keanu Reeves and Ryan Reynolds get the same hate as Laura Bailey and Kaitlyn Dever?

This is why I don’t think fans deserve entertainment. If Captain Marvel’s all-powerful, she’s a Mary Sue. If Superman’s all-powerful, he’s doing his job. Princess Nausicaä can’t be the impartial mediator Prince Ashitaka is, despite having somewhat-similar struggles. And Abby can’t be a sociopath without her actresses receiving death threats, even though John Wick and Deadpool have higher body counts. Don’t you see how messed up that is?

The lack of media literacy fans have is beyond appalling. Again, you’re not required to like Abby. Based on what little I’ve read, she horrifies me too. But threatening the women who brought life to her, to the point of invading their personal lives, is unacceptable. There’s a line between not liking a character, and being hateful to their actors. This is crossed when the former turns into abuse toward the latter.

I’m not sure why I have to reiterate this clearly-sensible position: don’t be a dick to actors. You don’t have to like the characters they play. You don’t even have to like them! But if you’re going to be critical, it should be for legitimate reasons. Not liking the character they played isn’t a legitimate reason. That’s basic human decency.

Perhaps I wouldn’t be so infuriated if this hatred didn’t have consequences. Going back to Ahmed Best, his role as Jar Jar Binks was so despised that people sent him death threats for years. It got to be so bad that he contemplated suicide, ultimately deciding against it. I’m glad he’s still around, but he deserved better. Because Jar Jar Binks, ignoring whatever grievances people had, was a character.

So yes, I’m embarrassed that Laura Bailey and Kaitlyn Dever went through hell over this. I’m embarrassed because it’s impacted their personal lives, and I’m embarrassed because it shows a lack of fandom maturity. But most-importantly, I’m embarrassed because they were acting. You can argue about Abby’s likability, but that’s no excuse to send threats. We need to do better.

Toy Story Snore?

Ever see a YouTube video that makes you cringe? That was my takeaway from Nerdstalgic’s critique of Toy Story 4. And while I know that everyone’s entitled to have opinions, I found he deliberately misrepresented points to sound more negative than necessary. So I feel a rebuttal’s in order. Especially since Nerdstalgic also came off like he was pandering.

I should mention that I’m Subscribed to Nerdstalgic. While he plays up his opinions to game the algorithm, some of his stuff’s actually insightful. I especially liked his video about the freeway chase in The Matrix Reloaded, as it went into the nitty-gritty of how it was created and filmed. However, lately I’ve felt he’s been using popular media as punching bags. Toy Story 4’s another victim of that.

I won’t do a play-by-play of everything, but I’ll mention now that Nerdstalgic covers two main arguments. The first is how Toy Story 4’s unnecessary, created solely for profit. Ignoring how every movie is designed on some level to make money, I think this claim’s reductive. When people call a sequel “unnecessary”, they’re really claiming it doesn’t add anything. Toy Story 4’s the opposite of that. Not only does it expand on Woody’s growth, giving him a new purpose outside of children, it also adds character to Bo Peep, who was absent from Toy Story 3. Specifically, it retcons her into a capable heroine no longer exclusively tied down to being a love interest.

Let’s zone-in on that. When it was revealed that Bo Peep would be getting a redesign, many people were livid. They considered it a betrayal, even though she wasn’t all that interesting prior. Between the first two movies, I’m pretty sure Bo Peep had a handful of lines, and most were in service of Woody. Here, not only was she fleshed-out, but she also had intrigue and history. Considering the in-universe time jump from the beginning of the movie to when Woody reencounters her, it’s implied Bo Peep had given up kids because there was too much heartbreak. That, and the bandages around her arms suggested roughhousing.

Toy Story 4 also added a further layer of development to Woody specifically. If Toy Story 3 had him moving on from a single kid, then this movie had him moving on from kids altogether. Like an adult moving away, he’d grown up and retired. It sounds like a betrayal of character, but this was foreshadowed retroactively with Woody’s opening speech in Toy Story. It wasn’t out-of-place here, essentially.

And this is why I think Nerdstalgic was off-base. Toy Story 3 provided closure, but for Andy. That was his final chapter, not Woody’s. Woody, however, had more growing up to do, and he got that by learning to move on from ownership. It’s an arc that could’ve only concluded with a fourth movie.

The second complaint Nerdstalgic mentions is detracting from previous toys in favour of new, uninteresting ones. This is incredibly-unfair, especially since Jessie and Bullseye, two beloved mainstays, were once “uninteresting” newcomers themselves. Nerdstalgic complains about shafting Mr. Potato Head, even though his VA, Don Rickles, had passed away prior to this movie’s completion, hence Pixar had to use archived recordings. His complaints about Buzz are spot-on, but I doubt that there was much else to do with him that didn’t revolve around resetting him to his factory mode personality.

In terms of new characters, I can’t disagree more. Duke Caboom’s a great addition, even having a hilarious pay-off in the third-act. Ducky and Bunny are basically Key & Peele in animated form, letting them do their shenanigans without it being too mature or violent. And Forky lends to a genuinely-existential question of what it means to be a toy. But the real MVP’s Gabby Gabby. She’s initially the antagonist, but she becomes much more layered over time. She even gets redeemed in the third-act, leading to one of the two moments that actually made me cry.

None of these characters are wasted. It’d be one issue if they were disposable, even though the Toy Story franchise has always centred around disposable toys. But Toy Story 4’s new inclusions are no more wasted than Ken in Toy Story 3. Which is to say, they weren’t. By calling them “disposable”, I think that Nerdstalgic’s doing them a disservice.

This ties in with my biggest defence of this movie: subverting expectations with real logic. Many diehards were disappointed with Bonnie not cherishing Woody, but it’s important to remember that Bonnie’s different than Andy. Plus, she’s a girl, and would naturally favour Jessie over Woody because of that. And she’s 5, so expecting her to cherish Woody like a teenager or young adult is unrealistic.

That realism’s foreshadowed in the movie’s opening scene. We’re given a huge rescue scene in the rain involving Woody, Bo Peep and RC, only for it to end abruptly with Andy’s sister, Molly, relinquishing ownership of Bo Peep because she’s too old for her. As someone who’s seen his nieces and nephew grow up, I relate to that. Kids grow out of toys for many reasons, and not all of them are ones we like. In that sense, expecting Bonnie to be another Andy isn’t only unfair, it’s not the correct approach. That’s something more people need to understand, Nerdstalgic included.

Nerdstalgic using Quentin Tarantino as the closing argument in his video, therefore, doesn’t sit right. Not only is Tarantino not the be-all-end-all, he’s also not the target audience. He’s allowed to like the Toy Story films, as they’re all good (so far), but he’s an adult. He’s not the target age they’re intended for, and making him the arbiter feels like gatekeeping. Who’s he to tell children, let alone fans, how to enjoy this movie? That doesn’t sound fair!

Does this mean Toy Story 4 doesn’t have flaws? Of course not! Buzz’s character regressions aside, Woody’s rediscovery of Bo Beep was too contrived and convenient. Considering he hadn’t seen her in almost a decade, for her to still be in California, let alone one of the stops Bonnie and her parents go to, feels forced. I also think the climactic joke involving Bonnie’s dad and the RV’s navigation, while funny, goes on for too long. Finally, Gabby Gabby’s obsession with Harmony was clearly going to fail, and the movie dwells on it too much.

However, if those are the movie’s biggest flaws, then Toy Story 4’s a much better movie than Nerdstalgic claims. And yeah, he’s entitled to not like Pixar’s recent sequels, even if I’ve enjoyed some more than most. But that shouldn’t be conflated with the movie being a “lazy cash-grab”. If anything, I think this movie’s due for reappraising. I only hope it’s honest, as opposed to what Nerdstalgic presented.

Jekyll and Hyde

(Note: This piece contains spoilers for The Substance. You’ve been warned.)

I’m turning 35 in July. That doesn’t technically make me “old”, but I’m not as spry as I used to be. My stomach rebels against me if I overeat, and I experience back and muscle spasms constantly. And while I feel youthful mentally, that most of my peers have either gotten married or had children occasionally makes me feel more aged than I am. Basically, getting older sucks. Especially when reality moves on without you.

While I feel time slipping me by, I also benefit from being a male. I’ve never experienced societal pressures about aging from the perspective of a woman, which is infinitely worse. Men getting older don’t have it “easy”, but for women it can be a nightmare. That’s why my viewing of The Substance was eye-opening. It was also somewhat off-putting.

The Substance is about aging actress Elisabeth Sparkle. Once an award-winning icon, she’s now a fitness instructor for middle-aged women on television. When her boss fires her on her 50th birthday, Elisabeth becomes desperate and wishes for a new lease on life. She gets that with The Substance, allowing her to live for 7 days at a time as a younger, fitter person. Unfortunately, Elisabeth, and her counterpart Sue, don’t see eye-to-eye, and they begin to clash.

Right from the opening, which is a microcosm of the movie, I knew this wasn’t going to be pleasant. If seeing Elisabeth’s Hollywood star cracked wasn’t subtle enough, the passerby dropping his lunch and trying to clean it up definitely drove home how fleeting Hollywood is. Even the prettiest stars become washed up over time, irrespective of how much Botox or plastic surgery they have. You can’t escape aging, essentially. It’s a shame so many people learn this the hard way.

The movie’s main conflict is of dual realities. The Substance, inspired by Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, focuses on Elisabeth and Sue’s duality, and how that impacts their relationship. Elisabeth considers Sue a leech who frequently feeds off of her life-force. Sue, in contrast, reviles Elisabeth, considering her a grotesque slob who doesn’t clean up after herself. Both are valid outlooks, but they ignore the stresses society places on them, something The Substance program exploits.

Everything reaches a head in the third-act, when a decrepit and withered Elisabeth gets fed up with Sue and tries terminating her existence. She doesn’t have the heart to do it, so she revives her to free her from their tether. Sue, mistaking this, kills Elisabeth, only to regret it when her body starts falling apart. So she takes The Substance again…and turns into an abomination known as Monstro. It’s here where the real tragedy and body horror kick in, complete with a climax where Monstro bleeds on an entire auditorium as her body crumbles from instability.

Even with the opening scene spelling this out, I wasn’t prepared for this. But maybe that’s the point? After all, Sue had been leeching on her host’s energy in order to stay youthful, and this was the consequence. Like the doctor who recommended The Substance pointed out in the diner, it wouldn’t take long before the younger model started abusing the process. It got me wondering if that doctor had regrets, but I guess that’s not relevant? Either way, food for thought.

The bigger theme is that of misogyny, particularly surrounding ageism. All throughout the movie, Elisabeth and Sue are judged by men. For Elisabeth, it’s because of her age “wearing out her beauty”, while with Sue it revolves around treating her like a play toy. This duality’s personified most with Harvey, a gross and greedy executive who objectifies them both. If the close-up of him eating crawfish wasn’t indicative, he only cares about his bottom line. It’s for this reason that I wish Monstro had murdered him as an act of revenge.

Perhaps the one glimmer of hope for Elisabeth is Fred. Fred sees Elisabeth for who she truly is, and he tries catching up with her at a fancy restaurant. Unfortunately, this is when Elisabeth’s starting to struggle with Sue overstepping her bounds, so she’s a no-show. That’s when I genuinely started feeling bad, especially since I’ve called off plans multiple times for health reasons before. If it can happen to her, it can happen to anyone. Especially with those who care.

My takeaway from The Substance is twofold: one, society places too much emphasis on staying young. This is at the expense of aging individuals, particularly woman, and their “less desired attributes”. I know the youth love railing on older generations, and not undeservedly, for issues they inherited, but sometimes it’s excessive. After all, they deserve dignity! And what’ll happen when the young become old? Will the tables turn on them?

And two, people should enjoy life, even when they’re old. I only have one surviving grandparent, and she’s recuperating from an injury. It’s been challenging for the whole family, and she’s not happy, but I frequently remind her to be thankful that her cognition’s intact. Because, at almost-92, that’s remarkable. Especially given how many of her friends are worse off than her.

The Substance is the perfect companion piece to Thelma, another movie from last year dealing with aging. It’s not as accessible, and it’s much gorier, raunchier and grosser, but the idea that we should value and embrace growing old, not neglect and ignore it, is still as prevalent. I have to credit Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley for their brilliant performances as Elisabeth and Sue, as it’s not easy pulling off that duality. The same goes for director Coralie Fargeat, who rooted this movie in her own experiences with aging.

There’s been much talk about how The Substance was robbed at The Academy Awards. I can’t say for sure if it deserved Best Picture, but I do see the argument for it warranting more respect. After all, if Parasite can win Best Picture, and that was also graphic, then why can’t The Substance? It’s not exactly for everyone, but it intrigued me. And I’m no horror fan!

I Choose You!

If you’re like me, chances are your love of Pokémon is mostly-conditional to the original games. I distinctly remember getting multiple play-throughs of Pokémon Yellow in on my Game Boy Color before it broke in 2001, as well as subsequent play-throughs on my Game Boy Advance. It was magical, and that high would never be replicated with future entries. So when the original games were announced as a reimagining for the Switch in 2018, I was intrigued. 7 years later, I’ve safely experienced what this reimagining, particularly Pokémon Let’s GO: Pikachu!, has to offer.

You basically take the role of a young trainer and set out to become a Pokémon master. As Professor Oak tries showing you the ropes, the two of you are startled by a wild Pikachu that Oak quickly catches. He then hands you this newly-captured Pikachu at his lab, while your childhood friend/rival takes an Eevee. From here, you venture through Kanto, find new Pokémon, battle trainers and prove your worth. It’s a basic hero’s journey experience, complete with a blank-slate character.

Truthfully, this game doesn’t have much of a story. It has plot points, all of which are rendered with beautiful cutscenes, but while several elements are expanded upon from the original games, this is as bare-bones as possible narratively. The true experience lies in interacting with NPCs, trainer and non-trainer alike, and getting glimpses into their lives. If there’s any recurring theme here, it’s about using Pokémon for selfish VS selfless reasons. This takes shape via the frequent encounters with Team Rocket, which includes Jesse and James from the TV series and their boss, Giovanni.

Save that, the allure of this game is reliving classic Gen 1 moments, but with fresh paint. It was nice perking up like Rick Dalton seeing himself on TV in Once Upon a Time…In Hollywood at the references, be it classic dialogue, or an item or two. My favourites involve that trainer on Cerulean City’s bridge who tries coercing you into joining Team Rocket, the initial encounter with Pokémon fanatic Bill and a back massage for the seasick captain of The SS Anne. There were other moments that got me, but none quite like these three.

Another aspect that’s revamped is the original OST. This isn’t the first time Gen 1 has been remade, but the tunes shine in full orchestrations. They might not be as impressive without the bleeps and bloops of the Game Boy, and perhaps they’re showing their age, but that doesn’t make them less-iconic. Like the visual references, these cues had me jumping for joy when they played. They made me feel 9 again.

But no Pokémon game’s complete without battles, of which there are plenty. Following tradition, whenever you make eye contact with another trainer, you have to battle them. If you win, you get money and items, as well as witness stock animations and reactions. If you lose, you fork over money, black out and have to run back to your nearest Poké Centre to heal. Fortunately, thanks to Pikachu learning Thunder and Zippy Zap, I only ever lost one battle. Zippy Zap was so effective I was practically invincible, leading to me to think, “Zippy Zap, shut your trap!” whenever I used it.

Then there are Gym Leaders. If regular battles tested you on the road, Gym Leaders were boss fights that helped progress through the game. Each one required a pre-set condition that made me explore and level up, while the gyms themselves had unique patterns that kept me guessing. Fuchsia City’s gym, for example, had an invisible maze with a path that occasionally lit up, forcing me to time your moves. In contrast, Celadon City’s gym had me teleport from rooftop-to-rooftop in an attempt to get to Sabrina, requiring me to hope I hadn’t already visited a rooftop. My one complaint is that Blaine’s gym felt like a downgrade from the original. It transformed a guessing game into a game show quiz, robbing most of the gym’s intrigue.

The change I’m mixed on involves the new Pokémon capturing mechanic. Because I play my Switch in docked mode, I could only use one joy-con. Being a weird individual, I chose the right joy-con, yet used it with my left hand. This mostly played out fine, but wild Pokémon, save some exceptions, no longer let you to battle them directly, instead relying on tossing a Poké Ball and praying. Ignoring how a good chunk of the original challenge was combatting Pokémon and whittling down their health, I have a notoriously-bad throwing arm and frequently felt like I was playing Russian Roulette. It helps that wild Pokémon are now telegraphed in the overworld, but that’s not enough of a trade-off.

On the flip-side, a mechanic I welcome involves interacting with Pikachu directly. Pokémon Yellow teased hints at this, but it’s here that this concept’s fully-utilized. With a simple waggle of the remote, you can see Pikachu’s mood, play with him and feed him berries. Essentially, your companion’s now your personal pet, made better by Pikachu learning moves in the overworld that are well-above his pay-grade. This is true with his ability to fly and surf, both of which defy logic for an electric rodent.

Pokémon Let’s GO: Pikachu! may not be anything outside a simple remake, save for some minor updates, and there’s little post-The Elite Four outside of Mewtwo and more specialized trainers, but it doesn’t need to be. It took me roughly 22 hours to complete the campaign, and 4 or 5 of those were me reacquainting with some of the objectives, so it’s also not particularly lengthy. Despite some quibbles with stock animations and the capture mechanic, this was a nice trip down memory lane. It might not be as complex as many newer titles, but sometimes simple’s best. And given that I started growing weary with Gen 2, that’s what I need. I only hope it’s what you need too.

Moses's Major Revelation

You don’t need me telling you The Prince of Egypt’s great. Not only did I write a piece about its music, but people have come around to acknowledging that recently. While there’s plenty to say about the movie, I’ll instead discuss one of my favourite scenes. It’s when Moses discovers the truth about his origins. And given that Val Kilmer recently passed, I figured now was a good time. Besides, it’s almost Passover.

It begins after Moses’s internal monologue, spoken in song, and his return to the palace after encountering his real siblings. Moses has received bombshell news, and he’s in denial. After convincing himself it’s all lies, he settles down near a column and falls sleep. He figures rest will fix everything. Besides, Miriam was lying…right?

Enter Moses’s dream. As the animation becomes stylized, Moses sees the current Pharaoh, Seti, signal his guards to begin their mission. Moses is chased along the pillars, ending up in Goshen. Once there, he witnesses these guards rip Hebrew babies from their mothers. It’s terrifying, and the haunting music underscores that.

Amidst all of this chaos, Moses spots a woman and her children in the shadows. These are Yocheved, his mother, and his siblings, and they’re staying out of sight. When the coast is clear, Moses follows them to The Nile River, whereupon Yocheved places a baby in a basket. We never are told who the baby is, but based on the interspersing of Yocheved’s lullaby, as well as Moses shedding a tear, it’s pretty obvious that it’s him. It’s this part that always makes me choke up.

We’re not given time to sit on this moment, however. No sooner is baby Moses off-screen when the guards chase adult Moses into The Nile River, whereupon we see many babies, a swarm of crocodiles and the colour red surround him. The symbolism’s obvious. This is also when the dream reaches its peak, with the music being frantic. Everything then fades to black. And all this with no words.

This would be powerful enough on its own, but The Prince of Egypt decides it hasn’t punished the audience enough. As Moses wakes up in shock, he senses something’s wrong. He grabs a torch and makes his way past some wall etchings, right until he encounters a dead end. It’s here that he sees the etching of Seti, towering over the guards and ordering them to throw Hebrew babies into The Nile. Moses has seen this before, but he’s now put two-and-two together. He slumps to the ground, drops his torch, and Yocheved’s lullaby is heard again.

Moses then feels a hand on his shoulder. It belongs to Seti. In most situations, this scene would have a consoling speech, a lie of sorts. Instead, Seti tells the truth, or the truth from his perspective: he had Hebrew babies killed so they wouldn’t rise up against the Egyptians. As Moses demands he tell him this didn’t happen, Seti confesses that “sometimes, for the greater good, sacrifices must be made”. Moses isn’t convinced, believing this was unjustified.

And then Seti delivers the coldest line in the movie so far: “Oh my son…they were only slaves.”

Firstly, that’s an incredibly weak justification. And secondly, Seti’s inability to feel the moment, or even console Moses, reemphasizes his barbarism. You can argue that Seti’s haunted by this, and he might even have PTSD, but does it excuse infanticide? How can he disregard human suffering, even if it’s from slaves? Is that the best he can do?

Well, Moses doesn’t buy it, as he retreats. It’s fitting that this is the last time we see Seti, as the movie never shifts back to him. It speaks for itself: Seti, the harsh-yet-loving father-figure, has had his true colours revealed. He’s not a kind man, but a monster with no regard for his servants. It’s also interesting that Patrick Stewart, usually known for warm, sympathetic heroes, voices Seti. It’s a clever twist on typecasting, and it shows how good an actor he is. Not to mention, it’s a great close-off for this scene.

Much has been said of The Prince of Egypt over the years. While beloved now, there was time when people were mixed on it. It’s ambitious, but the common complaint in 1998 was that that ambition was too lofty. It was also accused of being uneven tonally, with humour in its first-act that felt out-of-place. Yet time’s been kind, and people’s reactions have softened since. It’s now considered one of the great Biblical epics, up there with The Ten Commandments.

Despite this reappraisal, I find that Moses’s dream gets overlooked in favour of other moments. Those moments don’t work as well without this particular sequence setting up Moses’s arc. I think it deserves more praise. It especially deserves more praise considering Val Kilmer voiced Moses. It's easily one of his best roles.

Either way, rest in peace, and Happy Passover. Also, if you haven’t seen The Prince of Egypt yet, then you owe it to yourself. It’s easy to find, and it’s worth watching.