Annual: The Films of 2017 - Part I

*PROLOGUE*

Greetings, Hebrews and Shebrews! It's that time of the year, again. That time where you scroll and scroll, and scroll until your fingers tire, as you whisper to yourselves, "How long did it take him to write this shit?" Yes, that time where you skip the chunks of wordy novellas to scowl at my controversial grades; that time where you scoff in disbelief at how Wonder Woman could be ranked so low, and Mother! could be ranked so high (spoiler alert: It was a bodacious year for women in film no matter what). 

  This is also an important occasion because for the first time in a few years, I can say I was genuinely satisfied with most of what I watched in 2017 (although some of it was absolute, flaming HOT garbage). While last year I enjoyed everything in at least my Top 20, I spent plenty of time rolling at my eyes at the overabundant favor towards Moonlight and other obligated political underdogs, if you will (mostly just Moonlight). 

  2017 indeed marks an occasion for a few moments that I became "woke" as the kids say. For one, I detested a few of the year's most critical darlings (so light up those torches!). For another, comic book movies need a serious shake-up because most of them are miserable to watch these days. For one more, A24 Films have stormed the gates, planted their flag, and by God, they are here to stay (seriously, I have like 5 of their movies in my top 10). 

  Yes, although the rankings of this list will inevitably change with time (as with all films), I am turning a new leaf. Although in a year (or even in a couple months) at no point in my rambling or ranting, or use of run-on sentences, will any of this eventually be relevant, but with that, I am accepting a change in my opinions. Yes folks, I have indeed cemented myself into the pretentious, indie-loving dog of a moviegoer I've become over the last couple years. I have grown tired of formulaic weekly garbage that plagues the theater screens; I desire something fresh and original from my films, but I also won't be in denial of loving my Blockbusters; my John Wicks and my Star Wars...

  With that, there's also a grim, dark catch 22 when all you do is watch movies all the time, all year long, year after year... Eventually you see right through the bullshit. You beg and cry for someone to just make a movie that feels DIFFERENT dammit, IT'S NOT THAT HARD... Or MAYBE... maybe, you just suck it up and accept that sheeple are gonna wank Thor: Ragnarok no matter how formulaic it gets. 

  Alright, this is getting to be too much. I clearly gotta get this road on the show. Let's do this damn thing.

 *END OF PROLOGUE*

The Rules:
Just like Whose Line, everything is made up and the points don't matter. 
As always, I rank entirely based on grading system vs. personal affection. 
There are literal D grade movies on this list that are ahead of some Bs because it's a better preference for the overall score card. THE GRADES DO NOT IMPACT THE RANKING. 


The Bottom Line:
If you just want the gist of my review without actually going into a catatonic state of reading, just stick to the Bottom Line intros.

Let's dive into this madness...

Missed Out:

• Menashe
• The Lure
• Personal Shopper
• A Cure For Wellness
• Song To Song
• The Lost City of Z
• Graduation
• Beach Rats
• Super Dark Times
• Hounds of Love
• The Beguiled
• Columbus
• Marjorie Prime
• Ingrid Goes West
• Detroit
• Loving Vincent
• Logan Lucky
• Last Flag Flying
• Justice League
• Mudbound
• Thelma
• The Square
• Hostiles
• Molly's Game

LET THE GAMES BEGIN

EVERYTHING I'VE SEEN IN 2017

#53 - 41

53) The Fate of the Furious

The Bottom Line: Like sticking your head in a beehive for two hours

What started as a decent joke (with #5 being the peak of the franchise) has become an insufferable soap opera with cars, each unbelievably absurd stunt trying to outdo the last. 

  Believe me, I get it. It’s supposed to be outrageous. It's just mind-numbingly insufferable at this point. There's a whole sequence where HUNDREDS of cars are falling out buildings, smashing on to the streets as our heroes drive through the city trying to dodge each falling car. There's another sequence where a giant-ass submarine chases our heroes in their sports cars across a thicket of ice... Of course it's supposed to be ridiculous but folks, it's no longer entertaining. Give it up. 

  This one especially feels like flogging a dead horse. It is far and away the loudest, silliest and maybe even the worst of all the Fast & Furious movies. Some of it makes Tokyo Drift look like Chinatown, with Dwayne Johnson being one of the only saving graces even though he's reduced to nearly cameos in this one. Jason Statham is also a much needed comic relief but even then, it doesn't stop the movie from bombarding its audience with shell-shocking stupidity. 

 Unless Vin Diesel is voicing a humble-ass tree who only says three lines, the man should no longer be employed.

Grade: F

52) Beauty and the Beast

The Bottom Line: A Bloated, inferior copycat of the cartoon

I know, I know, it was always going to be damn near impossible to top the 1991 Disney animated Best Picture nominee, but what the live action adaptation of Beauty and the Beast gets wrong goes so beyond it just being a blasé movie. It’s lazy.

  Not that anyone’s asking, but I don’t give a damn about these live action re-tellings of Disney movies we grew up with as children, mostly because we’ve seen them already. You can produce stunning motion capture animation for The Jungle Book (‘16) but at the end of the day it’s still the same exact story you knew as a kid. We’ve said it all.

   This version of BATB is no different. It’s the exact same shit you knew from the cartoon down to the very songs and wardrobe decisions, just not nearly as good.

  One of the most dreadful aspects to the film is that it takes no liberties with whatever creative freedom it’s given. The movie is fine, sure. To a degree it’s well produced with actors singing and doing their best. The castle’s appliances are the most impressive characters of the bunch but even then, this is literally a carbon copy of the animated film. Much of the dialogue is identical, the beats of the script carry on in the same basic function, and most of the music is lifted note for note as the 1991 original.

  What’s worse is that what the near two hour film does add to the picture is bloated nonsense. We get minor but extra plot developments, additional (and dreadful) new musical numbers, and backstory for characters that never impacts the story. There’s even a brief, pseudo-subtle time travel song in Paris and it completely takes the audience out of the story.

  The biggest crime BATB ‘17 commits, by a long shot, is its detrimental tribute to the original animated film. Where the cartoon was simple and straightforward, the remake slightly alters moments and worsens them. For example, when Beast releases Belle so she can avenge her sick father, rather than letting out a haunting, heartbreaking roar, he sings a sappy musical number as he climbs the towers, watching Belle ride off into the distance, crying. It is a moment that worked significantly better in the cartoon and this film is plagued with these kinds of moments.

  At the end of the day, am I a grown-ass man wrongfully shaming a movie aimed at children? Of course. Am I over-analyzing what is a simple natured film that works for most mainstream audiences? Absolutely. Are these words worth a damn for anyone? Hell no.

But for those that carry on with their love of irrelevant opinions, take the advice: stick to the cartoon.

*5 points to the castle appliances

*10 points to Emma Watson who did her best

Grade: D+

51) Free Fire

The Bottom Line: A bunch of celebrities crawl on the ground and shoot at each other for 90 minutes

  Between A24 and the cast, Free Fire seemed like it was gonna be a fun, mindless escapist hour and a half, and it can't even accomplish that.

  Ben Wheatley is clearly a very stylized director who’s been influenced by Guy Ritchie (make of that what you will), infusing well choreographed gunfire sequences with sprinkles of rich humor, a snazzy soundtrack and a pulpy mood, but holy shit, this movie has literally nothing to stand on.

  Designed to be an oblique homage to Reservoir Dogs and B-movies of the 70s, Free Fire has the look and feel of a fun, nostalgic gun-toting waste of time but lacks any and all purpose. There’s legitimately no script. A bunch of characters meet in a warehouse to discuss trading money and weapons; one guy yells at another guy for sexually harassing his cousin and in the blink of an eye, two parties are separated and start shooting at each other for the remainder of the movie.

  No joke, you could skip ahead to any point in the film; 20 minutes in, 45 minutes in, one hour in, and you literally wouldn’t be able to differentiate what’s going on. Sure some of the actors are charming and some of the one-liners attempt to be witty but by not even half way through the loud madness, this becomes one of the more recently biggest headaches in action movie history.

  If the movie had literally ANYTHING to rely on other than its stylish direction, it would be a great flick, even as a silly popcorn movie, but it’s so damn sloppy; so all over the place, you can’t even tell who’s on what side, who’s betraying who, and why any of it matters. 

  Characters are all connected and you would never know. Random plot twists are dropped on the audience like they’re supposed to be these big grandiose moments but they only come across as confusing. Characters are killed and it’s not even clear as to what team they were on or who they even are. It’s just a gathering of people crawling on their bellies shouting and shooting at one another. There’s literally nothing else to it.

  I’m all for mindless entertainment if it’s done right, but I can’t recall the last movie I’ve seen that’s as loudly irrelevant as Free Fire.

(Although *100 points to Brie Larson for always being a total babe)

Grade: D

50) Brawl In Cell Block 99

The Bottom Line: Vaughn is great. Everything else is trash.

Vince Vaughn (former funny guy) gives arguably the defining performance of his career. He is all things believably dramatic, chaotic and at times frighteningly intimidating in S. Craig Zahler’s midnight movie, Brawl In Cell Block 99. Unfortunately, Vince is the literal only saving grace in this astronomically ugly picture.

  I’ll get right to it. This movie is trash. Many may argue that it’s supposed to be trash as the film is often a valentine to macho, Michael Mann midnight movies of the 80s; gritty grindhouse pictures; violent exploitation films. And in many of these aspects, the film shines (particularly in the brutal violence) but that doesn’t masquerade the fact that this is a poorly staged film built on mountains of bad cliches.

  Unlike John Wick, the film does not embrace these cliches at all and takes itself far too seriously (I don’t think even one character ever cracks so much as a smile - LIGHTEN UP FOLKS). Everything between the thug vs. police shootouts and the “really bad prison inmates;” From the threatening mobsters to the held-hostage pregnant wife; Nearly every character to every plot development has been poorly ripped off from nearly any movie about thugs or prison ever made, ever.

  More importantly, the movie flaunts itself in such a way that it doesn’t seem too sure who its target audience is. Deep down in the core of the script is a moral about Vince (title character “never Brad” Bradley), a tough-as-nails skin head who’s willing to fight and kill for the things he loves and buried in this film is a revenge aspect which is inspiring, sure if we hadn’t seen it in so many films before. In this film is a cheaply shot, darkly lit picture with somewhat of an artistic approach to its ugly depiction of prison violence.

  On the other hand, the film is also trying to be that hands-on, no-holding-back, prison violence movie; a gritty throwback to abundantly violent midnight movies. In THIS film, characters have their limbs grotesquely snapped out of place and their faces smushed and dragged across a concrete floor like half a tomato being squashed across a blacktop. The over-the-top violence beats its audience over the head the way our  beloved Bradley beats the bad guys to a bloody pulp and some of it is remarkably off-putting.

  Most notably (and impressively) of all is how lazily everything is thrown together. The dialogue is filled with cartoonish insults and presented like it was written by an aggressive ten-year-old. When the cliches come, we can smell them all from a mile away (“we got your wife and you gotta do some dirty job for us or we’re gonna kill her” YA DON’T SAY). 

  When characters aren’t making cliche threats, they spew unrealistically childish vulgarity at one another. Outrageous plot points break out for seemingly no apparent reason other than to progress the plot forward and as stated, we’ve literally seen it all before.

  Literally everything about the film, aside from Vaughn, is morose. It ranges from painfully predictable to unbelievably boring, to overly violent and much of the plot (if not all of it) feels like there was no reason for any of it to exist.

But for real, Vaughn was bomb.

* +20 points for Vince
* -10 for everything else

Grade: D-

49) Call Me By Your Name

The Bottom Line: Call me when it's over.

"We rip out so much of ourselves to be cured of things faster that we go bankrupt by the age of 30, and have less to offer each time we start with someone new. But to make yourself feel nothing so as not to feel anything? What a waste."

This is the most (and arguably only) poignant quote of the entire flick and it comes from Michael Stuhlbarg.

I expect this entry to be the one that causes people to click away out of disgust with my opinions. It's nothing personal.

Real talk, I respect the hell out of this movie and as I said last year with Moonlight, we’re way overdue for accepting gay culture in cinema. That said, while this might be one of the gayest movies of 2017 (which is a total compliment) I’m not gonna blindly favor what is essentially just a formulaic snooze fest.

  I detest most romance movies in general so maybe it's unfair of me to judge, but this one simply breaks no new ground. I mean how many times have we seen two characters in a traditional relationship, one of them breaks off to have a crackling summer fling, and then have to deal with the consequences?

The film is both genuine and heartbreaking but it’s also random as f**k. Whether sniffing each other’s underwear or jacking off into peaches, the characters bask in their own awkward nature of finding themselves but there’s nothing to truly grasp. 
 With the clash of the assertive, older Oliver and the timid, youthful Elio, the film had an opportunity to portray Hammer’s character in an aggressive, abusive manner which would have at least pushed the film into some dark territory but nevertheless, the story never pushes any of its potential boundaries.

The film is ambitious enough for not giving into traditional romance cliches, with an ending that is bound to resonate with audiences, but the whole thing feels like a bland, youthful Brokeback Italy.

  Furthermore, Armie Hammer and Timothée Chalamet are fine actors but they share zero chemistry. Watching Hammer’s Oliver tickle and caress a young Elio who appears half his age is one thing, but their dialogue feels staged; their interactions have no life.

  Michael Stuhlbarg is the only dark horse here. He’s an accomplished actor and the saving grace of the movie which is otherwise forgettable.

Anyway, that’s it.
I accept all consequences.

Grade: C

48) War For the Planet of the Apes

The Bottom Line: Woody Harrelson pretends to be Marlon Brando, yells at a bunch of monkeys, and people still can't get part three right

(AKA 'Prison Break of the One-Day Planet of the Apes')

Another fan favorite; Underwhelming at best, dreadful at worst, WFTPOTA is an absurdly misleading final chapter in the new Apes trilogy. Sure, it's "dark and gritty" but it's also absurd at this point. Most of the movie is Caesar and his counterparts drifting through deserted land until they come to clash with an overly dramatic, cartoonish Woody Harrelson doing his best 'Apocalypse Now' impression (although he is arguably the only saving grace of the film... He is Woody Harrelson after all). 

  The film contains breathtaking CGI (much of which is astoundingly convincing) but that doesn't disguise the fact that MOST of the film is a prison break movie featuring monkeys. Worst of all, everything builds to "war" and the climax couldn't resemble anything as such. Rather than leaving a final exclamation of a finale, the film ends in a hokey, lingering ending that pays tribute to Caesar's legacy but leaves no insinuation that this will ever link to the original Planet of the Apes film, making the three-film journey feel empty and for naught. 

Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar at this point but he deserves far better work than this.

Grade: C+

47) Baby Driver

The Bottom Line:  Drive for children

Edgar Wright's latest plays out as if a watered down, PG-13 version of Drive had an insufferable baby with every heist movie you've ever seen. Wright knows how to direct the hell out of a film (the stunts are breathtaking and the editing is top notch) but the plot is conventional and the characters are cartoons (Jaimie Foxx is absolutely unbearable and Kevin Spacey frantically changes motivations for no actual reason). The ending produces some decent twists but the plot is completely driven by a conventional love story which aims to be an homage to James Dean movies of the 50s, but it all comes off more corny than it does nostalgic.

  As if this wasn't enough of a headache, the pop-radio friendly soundtrack plays so frequently and so sporadically, it's like the music selection itself suffers from ADHD, not to mention the snazzy soundtrack creating an emotional bridge to the protagonist was a little too reminiscent of Guardians of the Galaxy, where it was done much more effectively with Star-Lord than with Baby.

Also, while I'm at it, Ansel Elgort is about as interesting as a plastic bag.

If you watched Drive and craved for it to be more like Fast and the Furious, this is the movie for you. For everyone else, just watch Drive again.

Grade: C+

46) Colossal

The Bottom Line: One of the most original concepts I've ever seen for a film - completely drops the ball in the third act

(Also, Anne Hathaway is more tolerable than in most movies)

Imagine Pacific Rim from the point of view of the other side of the world; being the average Joe's who watched giant kaiju-monsters fight each other in Tokyo, but on local news clips from your couch... this is kinda like that, but much more chill and comical.

  For one, this is Anne Hathaway's most tolerable role yet. She's still obnoxious but her annoyance plays into the character. 

  For another, for about two thirds of the flick, Colossal is a good movie, hell even a great one, if only for the concept alone. That said, once the "antagonist" is revealed and we enter the last act, the entire tone of the film wildly shifts gears and it all becomes overly dramatic, conventional, desolate and often hard to watch. 

  Good characters and great potential are tossed aside for bland, overly obvious metaphors about the monsters inside of us.

Great concept. Decent execution. Poor climax.

*10 points for tolerable Anne Hathaway

Grade: B-/C+

45) Gerald's Game

The Bottom Line: Carla Gugino talks to herself for 90 minutes 

(Stick to King's midnight movies)

  2017 has indeed been the year of Stephen King adaptations. America has seen the flaming hot heap of garbage that is The Dark Tower, the overrated but often very spectacular IT and now we have Gerald's Game, King's novel declared unfilmable which has now been filmed, and while it's more "Stephen King" than the aforementioned '17 adaptations it sort of falls somewhere in the middle of the two making it sort of bland to take in.

  With a clever survival plot that feels closer to a kinky take on 127 Hours rather than Misery, it's not even that the film is bad, it's just VERY routine (and often takes itself way too seriously). Sure, 90% of the flick relies on the legitimate talent of the two leads, Carla Gugino and Bruce Greenwood who both do a bang-up job with the material they're given, but it's the script and direction which sway back and forth in this blasé merry-go-round of tension.
  We go from Jessie's visions of her and her husband bouncing ideas off one another in a furious tennis match of how Jessie can escape the handcuffs, to flashbacks of Jessie as a child having very troublesome interactions with her creepy-ass father.

  And of course those flashbacks tie in to the present and the whole thing is a mental "game" and it's all very metaphorical and suddenly the cuffs become a representation of feeling trapped emotionally in certain states and yada yada yada, and it's not even that the film's plot is predictable but it's done in such a familiar way that just somehow becomes boring.

   So much of the film is literally just Jessie having back-and-forth conversation with herself in plotting different ways to survive and get out of her situation alive. The method is an intriguing take on fighting mental battles but the schtick gets old after twenty minutes or so.

  The whole thing would have worked better as a short film or an hour-long TV movie. I know Netflix put this one out but it literally feels like a TV movie. The shots; the pacing; it all feels cheap. Without the talents of Gugino the film wouldn't work at all but nevertheless, she chugs along making the whole thing not completely unbearable. Make no mistake, the story has that real "King" feel to it, even more so than IT, breaking down the psychosis of a fractured writer as the protagonist (as seen in Misery, 1408, so on and so forth) but this is one of the first Stephen King adaptations I truly feel should have just stayed a book.

  2017 is helping prove that Netflix is definitely setting the stage for remarkable Stephen King pictures that would give way to the often phenomenal 1922, but as for now, Gerald's Game definitely left a rather sour taste for what King we have to come. Until then, I'd honestly take Pet Sematary or Children of the Corn over this. They don't serve as much else beyond late night B-movie trash but at least they're more entertaining.

Grade: C+

44) The Blackcoat's Daughter (February) (2017 US Release)

The Bottom Line:Teenage Wasteland (and demonic possession!) in ways you’ve not quite seen

(although, it is a bit boring)

Between my blind affection for horror movies and my unabashedly positive reception to most A24 Films, I wanted with every ounce of my being to fall madly in love with the bleak, pitch-black and royally twisted dementor of a film like Blackcoat’s Daughter (AKA February) and to a degree, I in fact did truly love this small, sick picture, but the film also becomes progressively less interesting as it chugs along.

  The film moves like a slow rate heart monitor. For every jolt of activity, there’s a repetitive line of lifeless suspense in between. The pacing is like this almost entirely from beginning to finish.

For starters this is a film that is about both catholic school girls and demonic possession and yet neither genre is fully explored, which is not only kinda the point, but also a huge relief. 

  Rather than give in to the temptation of doing “school girls” with forced sexually charged themes and cartoonishly slutty antagonists; rather than depict demonic possession in ways that have scarcely been original since the original Exorcist, director Oz Perkins builds tension in remarkable ways.

  To call the film slow-burn would be an understatement. The story takes its sweet time unraveling the three leads of Kat, Rose and Joan as they all cross paths in what ultimately becomes not just a dark demonic flick but a brutal slasher. That said, the characters in the film are barely explored beyond breadcrumbs of development, ultimately keeping the girls shrouded in mystery but inevitably leaving the audience constantly wanting more.

  Also, the film has a couple enormous twists that help the film’s flaws but there’s definitely a couple complaints fans will have in regards to the decisions the casting director made in executing the specific actors through these twists (you’ll understand if you’ve seen it).

  In the end, and more importantly, the film is leagues better than much of what today’s horror movies have to offer. The moody picture relies on tension rather than jump scares; a brooding sense of terror rather than gross-out imagery. The film disturbs,  and crawls under your skin and that’s exactly what good horror should do, regardless of how frustrating the movie often becomes.

  It may not come close to A24’s other recent accomplishments but Blackcoat’s Daughter is living, breathing proof that the notable film company is putting out not just some of the best horror movies of today but some of the best movies, period.

+10 points

Actually, f**k Emma Roberts a little bit.

-10 points

Grade: B-

43) Wind River

The Bottom Line: NATIVE AMERICANS ARE PEOPLE TOO, DAMMIT

Look. I think it’s gravely important that Wind River addresses the very real nature of the lack of missing persons statistics for Native American women (REAL FACTS). I think the fact that this film was loosely based on actual events in order to bring this issue to light is something that should not be glossed over. That said, all emotionally, racially relevant topics aside, this also happens to be your very generic (though often very respectable)  run-of-the-mill detective story... that just so happens to weigh in heavily on the importance of protecting Native Americans.

  I’m not even gonna bash the film. The worst aspects by far are the formulaic cop-killer murder investigation plot developments. We get everything from the troubled, broken protagonist who helps out the law to the cartoonishly thuggish villains who are rapey dicks for no reason other than to give the plot some antagonistic edge. The film is fine but the catch 22 in watching so many films is that it’s hard to not pick up on where aspects get so goddamned repetitive.

  THAT SAID, when the film shines it really glows, no matter how brief. Renner continues to prove that he’s a remarkably underrated actor who brings hard, gritty emotion to the common American working man. Elizabeth Olsen has surpassed many young actresses out there with her range, and the two of them on screen are both likable enough to trek through the often conventional plot turns.

  The film has rare moments of genuine surprise but when it does it works for however long it needs to; everything from dirty cops to Mexican standoffs, the film constantly attempts to pull the rug from under the audience even though we’ve seen these tropes countless times, and for a plot that exists upon these said tropes, the film earns respect for at least trying to stay exciting.

*15 POINTS TO THE TEARS OF JEREMY RENNER

*1,000 POINTS TO THE GRAVES OF OUR NATIVE ANCESTORS

     DILLY DILLY 🍻

 Grade: B-

42) Thor: Ragnarok

The Bottom Line: A Guardians movie in Thor’s clothing (Too goofy for its own good)

Here's an inspired Marvel rant I went on because of this movie.

 Ragnarok succeeds for the exact same reasons it fails. It never takes itself seriously so it’s much easier to digest the often ridiculousness of the galactic Norse-god world of Asgard but because it never takes itself seriously nothing ever matters... ever.

  For starters, I adore Taika Waititi’s work (What We Do in the Shadows and Hunt for the Wilderpeople are both criminally underrated) so naturally I took to the idea of him taking on a Marvel movie (Odin knows we need someone to help shape things up) but when all the early reviews kept glorying the movie’s humor, I never actually expected this to be a two hour joke fest.

  That’s no exaggeration either. I’ve never seen a Marvel movie that tries to attempt humor like this. It’s as if Waititi sat down, watched Guardians and was like “we need to do this,” and cranked up the dial to eleven. The comedic aspect is far and away both the film’s biggest strength and weakness. When jokes land, they’re funny (although biggest laughs easily comes from Jeff Goldblum) but my God, there are literally a relentless amount of jokes. The film is quite literally impossible to take seriously. Even the scarce moments of drama (like Hopkins’ minimal screen time as Odin) are completely overshadowed by the film’s jabs at jokes. It’s so distracting that it often hinders much of the picture’s redeeming qualities.

  The tone is wildly chaotic and drastically different from not just the past Thor movies but from any of the previous MCU movies. Guardians’ success is a clear influence on Ragnarok’s sense of humor but it’s literally TOO overbearing. Even Guardians Vol. 2 which was hazed for trying to be too slapstick works because at least it has strong character development. Ragnarok spares every single should-be serious moment and trades it for a belly laugh (many of which rely on either physical humor or one-liners). It doesn’t even feel like a comic book movie at times rather than an ongoing sketch comedy that stars Hulk and Thor.

  It’s not that the movie is outright bad; it’s certainly an entertaining popcorn movie by itself but it’s often childish and formulaic. The action is spectacular but repetitive; Cate Blanchett plays a sexy “goddess of death” but her motivation is as bland as even the worst villains in the MCU (and there are some awful villains in the MCU); The CGI characters and set pieces are so overbearing that by the end, it’s just more of a repetitive headache than a home run. We get everything from giant wolves, giant demons and all sorts of animated creatures, and it’s all just so loud and obnoxious. 

  The film tries to use its humor as a safety net to keep audiences from rolling their eyes at the ridiculousness of it all (anyone who would snicker at a nickname called ‘The Devil’s Anus’ should get a real kick out of this one), but it’s also kind of tragic because although Hemsworth nails the comedic timing of the role, and although part of him not being too serious helps keep the goofy universe grounded, in the end Thor shouldn’t be this silly.

  Granted, it’s difficult to capture the bodacious world of Asgard and have audiences take it seriously, but at least the first Thor movie tried to blend the Shakespearean themes of Hercules, Sword In The Stone, and whatever classic stories it tried to spin. As far as Ragnarok goes, all faith in even a semi-serious take on Thor is gone, right from the opening scene. 

  Also, using Immigrant Song in the actual movie? And using it TWICE? It doesn’t even feel like a Thor movie so much as a Guardians imitator, and the end result shows zero confidence in the movie being capable of standing on its own two feet.

In the end, it’s fun which is welcoming (if wildly out of place) but no movie in the MCU should ever rely on humor this much. Not even Guardians.

*5 points to Hulk
*10 points to Jeff Goldblum

Grade: C+

41) Wonder Woman

The Bottom Line: Wonder Woman: The First Leaguer

(or dare I say... Faptain America?)

To get things out of the way, sure WW is entertaining and yes, by critics' standards it's the DCEU's first step in "the right direction," and absolutely, it's an accomplishment that it's a comic book movie both starring and directed by a woman, that doesn't completely suck... but that's not to say the movie's still not Captain America: The First Avenger dressed up in women's clothing.

  And before you click away, that's also NOT to say the movie's bad by any means. It certainly ponies up the at-times remarkably hokey "girl power" attitude which at times comes off more corny than it does empowering, but it's also got a LOT of worthwhile moments. That said, it definitely follows much of the script of First Avenger beat by beat and that's not only due to the plot taking place during a World War.

  Nearly all of the modern day comic book tropes are here, from the two-dimensional villains to the charming love interest which inevitably must meet a fateful end (Chris Pine's role reversal sidekick to the hero fares well for him, btdubs) and honestly, much of it is not only predictable but sometimes just tiresome. We get everything from CGI action sequences to corny jokes to a villain twist that we've seen in plenty of past movies, making this the most Marvel-esque entry in the DC movie universe thus far.

  And while I would normally declare that the film's 'MCU' feel is why critics are eating it up, it's mostly due to the fact that we have women leading the show in the comic book genre and for the first time in movie history they're doing a pretty decent job. 

  Patty Jenkins keeps the pace light and fun and Gal Gadot is a total babe. She eats up the role as much as any Avenger and she is easily the strongest female comic book character ever put on the live action screen before, so obviously the film deserves praise. We've been keeping women out of the comic book spotlight for far too long so yes, this film is a remarkable occasion.

  Again, most of the tropes done before in the first Cap flick (the films could even be related), not to mention plenty of comic books to come before, but because a comic book movie is doing so well with strictly women in charge, all comparison and criticism aside, it is definitely an absolute accomplishment and staple for the comic book genre.

*10 points to flawed but fun comic book movies*

*500 points to Gadot for being drop-dead gorgeous*

*10,000 points to beautiful, extraordinary women all around*

Grade: B-

-Part II-