The Happytime Murders Review

Around some point in my teenage life, I fancied myself a bit of a cinephile. For the most part it was because I had seen a lot of gangster films and works by Scorsese, sometimes together in the same package. It snowballed in getting me into Kubrick and Tarantino and Hitchcock and soon I found myself watching some French New Wave here, an underappreciated piece of animation there, I was broadening my cultural palate. As such, I came to accept the more cynical approach to the current landscape, that being that it is nothing but dreck. I agreed with those that saw Micheal Bay as the cinematic blotch of overblown machismo that dumbed the medium and rolled my eyes to no avail to the creative bankruptcy that the industry holds. In doing so, I basically didn't allow myself to have any fun.

Now that I'm older and wiser, I realize that dreck has it's place in the cinematic landscape as much anything else. You can't really expect each film to provide a greater insight into the human experience, toying with your emotions and leaving you awake pondering the deeper meanings that lie within it. You'd never get any sleep that way. Not to mention that Hollywood's always been playing to lowest common denominators, so viewing the current mess as "the fall of cinema" is neglecting to see the shitstains that the medium left behind. So while that teenager within me that thought only to spend his time with the Coens may see my willingness to view The Happytime Murders as only fueling the degradation of true art, I still figure it to be fine to go see the puppet show.

The gimmick of kid-friendly media going R-rated is nothing new. Many people have taken the approach of twisting saccharine animation styles and fluffy critters into foul-mouthed, sex-craven, bloodthirsty abominations. We already saw a similar revival of the gimmick with Sausage Party, a film that left more to be desired, especially by those who worked on it. Like it, The Happytime Murders takes a different approach to the standard formula, ditching the faux-Sesame Street approach and instead operating as a buddy cop film in which a human, Connie Edwards (Melissa McCarthy) teams up with the main puppet of the production, Phil Phillips (voiced by Bill Barretta). It also brought about a lot of obnoxious advertising that focused heavily on how so edgy and crazy the idea is, to the point people would much rather stick the whole cast, flesh and felt, into a giant blender and use it as sofa cushion. But it's only gonna be one of these kinds of films for a long while, Sausage Party has yet to bring anything else with it, I doubt this will. 

If you can set aside the edgy posturing and take in the elevator pitch itself, it has some potential to work as a silly raunchy roller coaster. Just keep upping the wildness factor as you go along and you'll be alright. The Happytime Murders seems to take a more muted, Who Framed Roger Rabbit styled approach and instead has the world relegate puppets to lower-class citizens, and in which Phil blew his chance at being the first puppet cop hired in LA, now working as a PI who gets hired to figure out why Sandra, the lass that causes him to jizz silly string until his mind goes numb, is being blackmailed. It's only until members from The Happytime Gang (the show-within-a-show that provided further tolerance for puppetkind) get picked off one by one that Phil finds himself back on the beat, having to butt heads with Connie to find out who's responsible for these crimes. 

Little by little, there does appear to be more zaniness that does come about, though there is less emphasis on elaborate set-pieces or full-on surrealism, and more on world building and darker humor. For instance, puppets get high on sugar, so much so that their most potent drug essentially would cause a diabetic coma to any human in an instance. The reason as to why Connie can survive a hit of the stuff? She has a puppet liver. It certainly is disappointing that there isn't a big Blues Brothers meets The Muppets Movie type action scene in it but I appreciate it letting the contrasts and quirks of the world settle into the viewer rather than feeling it needs to rub its furry blue balls into everyone's face like the trailers would have you thinking. 

Indeed the humor and the main performances carry the film, with Melissa and Bill providing great banter with each other and recognizing themselves as flawed cops that come to embrace each other despite their shortcomings. The other puppets work well to add "grit" to the concept while the humans tend to just exist as a matter of convention. Both have their fair share of cliches, but at least with the puppets it feels a lot more different given the expressions and voices they put on. It's not to say that Maya Rudolph, Joel McHale or Leslie David Baker don't get a funny line every once in a while, but they could have had more given to them or more creativity that would have let them be stronger. However, it was nice seeing Michael McDonald play a smarmy asshole again, he really manages to nail those roles despite looking like a relatively nice guy. 

Despite that, I would still stay that in terms of comedy, the film does its part. However, I'm not just gonna give a movie a complete pass because it makes me laugh. Youtube Poops make me laugh too and I'd say they have a lot more consistency than this film. See, as much as I know I'm watching a dumb movie, I am still watching a movie. And as such, I feel that it suffers from not following through completely with the ideas it presents. This mainly takes the form of the puppet-human dynamic. At times, this is explicitly and implicitly shown to be the case, other times it feels like society's moved on from that discrimination. The shift from subtle to blatant can also be jarring given that it doesn't tend to have good transitions into that shift and tends to be random at when it shifts that dial. That's not even mentioning other aspects like playing on puppet stereotypes, Phil's former lover, or further significance of The Happytime Gang. Overall, the story has a few genuinely clever moments, more forced moments, and some moments that could have been clever but end up coming off as unnecessary. It could have done better to explore the world whilst still keeping to the simplicity of playing off its gimmick and paced itself better rather than having to feel like it needed to hit all the beats of a buddy cop film. 

Perhaps I'm just warring with myself here, getting all pedantic about all the elements in the movie. The Happytime Murders is a movie where puppets say fuck while fucking and get fucking murdered. If it suffers a bit from not being a narrative masterpiece nor a properly fleshed out experience, then that's fine. All it really needs to deliver on is laughs and being entertaining. And to that effect, it delivers quite well on those criteria, fulfilling the cravings of those with that style of immature humor. It is odd how it is both bizarrely paced well (humor-wise) and paced clumsily (story-wise) and I still find it a shame that it couldn't go beyond into a silly flick that has a lot more going for it than people expect it to.But I think people will come to find themselves pleasantly surprised by some of its bursts of cleverness. I say if you just need to indulge in some goofiness, get the hand out of your ass and go give it a whirl. 

P. S. - Now that I'm thinking about it, I am kind of interested in seeing what more you could do with adult-themed puppet movies. Maybe Henson Alternative might have another work in the making that could really take the idea to some new places. 

Sorry To Bother You Review

Social commentary in media can seem so tacky nowadays. Everyone has a take that they're willing to throw out, and many of them tend to either be sanctimonious rants about going back to the old days or cliche-ridden satires that have more snark than bite. You can't blame people for wanting to have their two cents though, it's natural for us to reflect on our times. Given that life lately feels like running backwards on fire on a treadmill from velociraptors, there's even more urgency to say something about the horrifying, insane situation we've found ourselves in. But what has been said is tired in its approach and tiring to see in abundance. Sorry To Bother You however, is anything but tiring. It is the slap to the face that jolts you mind and your heart too.

Following Cassius's rise through the ranks as a telemarketer down in Oakland, Sorry To Bother You sounds like a standard rags-to-riches story in which the protagonist must come to learn the folly of their greedy ways once they're in too deep. The story beats of his desperation for money, the betrayal of his "true" self and so on all call to a familiar and lackluster character arc. Sure, it's funny seeing Lakeith Stanfield and Danny Glover being dubbed over by David Cross, and there is quite a polished yet indie style to the production based on its tiny quirks, but for the most part it appears to provide nothing more deep than a puddle. Indeed the film itself doesn't really have much else to say that would warrant a doorstopper of a book to be published about it. But Sorry To Bother You is not concerned in lengthy diatribes. It's concerned with hitting you with what its got as hard as it can.

Much of what allows Sorry To Bother You to stand out from other stories like it is its forceful lack of tact regarding the way capitalism has affected our lives. Elements of Boots Riley's Oakland (and America) follow from Idiocracy's blatant style of commentary. Many of the people are barely getting by, living in tents or having to get ready while they're in their car. Wage slaves are essentially just slaves with hardly any wage at all. Those that are on top are literally above the rest of the working class. Hell, it even goes into the deterioration of standards in pop culture aspect by having a show where people get the living shit kicked out of them. Why? Just for the hell of it. That's not even mentioning the more obvious aspect of the black characters in the film having to pass as white to get any kind of legitimacy. All of this provides wonderful background the the main story, providing us with a world that is as frank as it is dark. Furthermore, it works perfectly at a time when subtlety is spelled in all caps.

The film itself is quite hilarious amid all the mayhem that occurs. The trailers emphasize the white acting but it's far from the only source of humor. From sight gags, to clever lines to just how crazy the story's willing to go, there's a lot that'll get one laughing as well as thinking. The fantastical elements of the movie have a particular contribution to the comedic aspect of the film with half of them serving as visual flourishes and the other being actual events in the reality. At times they both can come across as forced, as if they're trying to get a laugh from you from the sheer awkwardness of the situation. Other times, they go beyond what one expects and leave you cackling in utter confusion.

The characters in Sorry To Bother You offer interesting glimpses into Riley's views regarding politics, society and identity as a whole. Cassius perfectly exemplifies the malaise of the working class feeling more disposable and worthless with each passing day, contemplating about how worth it their lives will be given the inevitable heat death of the universe, clinging onto the fantasy of making it and holding onto it once they've had. His higher ups show a far more corrosive side of the system that he's a part of and how much they're willing to let those below them eat their cake. His friends (and girlfriend, Detroit, who does well to challenge the world with her artistic abilities) however manifest the ever-growing anger that the working class face and the need to take action, no matter how small it may be. For the most part they are all well contained, though a few have some ideas going for them that hardly come to any kind of conclusion.

All in all, if you want to see a film that cuts through the bullshit with its message and provides an experience that is as bizarre and thrilling as the daily news on acid, Sorry To Bother You is ready to take your number and tell you about the amazing experience it has to offer you.

The Cartoonish Vilification Of The Insanely Rich Innovator/Entrepeneur

I've been thinking about Elon Musk a lot lately. How he managed to strap his car into a space shuttle and launch it into space to the tune of David Bowie, creating an image with such poetic beauty that it could very well be the cover art of a soft-science fiction novel. I think about the Falcon Heavy launch of his both in the grander context of what it means for space exploration, and in the more selfish context of one's innate need to leave their mark on the world in some unique manner. After all, it's impressive that the rockets were able to break off and land in the exact locations with no problem. Moreover, the adolescent in me is just fucking hyped that there's a cool looking sports car out there floating around the Earth with a dummy astronaut on it. But really, the impact of the Falcon Heavy launch is not why Musk is on my mind. It's more his image.

While some see Elon as the next Tony Stark, others just see him as a young Lex Luthor. Many cite his views on urban planning as elitist, his interests lying more in bombastic spectacles out in space rather than helping out down on Earth. Not to mention he's not big on unions. Just around the time of the Falcon Heavy launch, Elon got into disputes with the unions, and has offered to his employees that if they go against them, they can enjoy all the frozen yogurt and rollercoasters they desire. Under this context, the launch doesn't appear as a symbol of humanity being on the edge of spatial exploration more than an over-hyped ego-stroking of a megalomaniac.

Such a view is perhaps a little too cynical (as well as ignorant of Elon's altruism and efforts to invest in greener energy), but Elon's not the only one to get negatively caricatured. Many other millionaires and billionaires get equated with the likes of Montgomery Burns, Gordon Gekko and Scrooge McDuck. It's only fitting that as you amass more wealth while others are left starving or struggling, that those on the latter will see your stockpiling as pretty dickish. But it's not just the grossness of one's net-worth that gets people riled up. It's also in adopting the role of the entrepreneur or the innovator. Those in this role often get more of the anger and vitriol than those in the entertainment industry. Sure, one might have some problem with the out-of-touch nature of the Hollywood types, but it's never to the extent that someone like Musk would get.

Of course that makes sense since the innovator/entrepreneur does more to affect people's lives and the way society (or politics in particular) acts. As such, it becomes important to look closely at the attitudes and the choices that these figures make, and be critical of what they choose to do with the money that they have. But these perspectives, couched with the general hostility that comes with the super-rich, often become harsh character studies of these people: Steve Jobs gets viewed as a fake-deep cut-throat, Oprah Winfrey as the jolly exploiter of human misery, Mark Zuckerberg as an alien weirdo; the current US president, Donald Trump, has been portrayed as an ignorant, idiotic, highly egocentric buffoon so much, it's not even funny anymore. All of them are created from actual problems that these people and their practices have created, but at times the over-reliance on these portrayals can prove to be overbearing.

Much of the problem stems with how these caricatures serve not so much to highlight the sins of the subject but rather to virtue signal about one's righteousness. When I was a teenager, I developed a massive hatred for Steve Jobs for how damaging his cult of personality was on others. To me, it bred this smug self-satisfaction among others who thought themselves as these unique individuals on the cutting edge of technology. However, I found that the more I bitched about how one shouldn't worship the turtleneck techno-hippie, the more I found that people weren't much too interested in talking with me. That's because I was more focused in turning this image I had of the devil that was Steve Jobs onto people to either chide them or make myself feel better for not buying into the hype. 

This problem was a lot worse when Trump was running as president. So much of the media was focused on building up this horribly exaggerated image of him to then parade around as a deterrent to supporting him,. This didn't really manage to convince those that were with him to deter, if anything, it only managed to magnified the posturing and hypocrisy of those who were using the caricature. The same could have been said for myself with Steve Jobs as I owned an iPod and would admire Bill Gates (who while more altruistic certainly was just as cut-throat, if not moreso). As tired as this conversation is to hear, it nonetheless emphasizes the problem with overuse of caricaturization. Rather than explaining the actual problems that exist with these individuals in a frank manner, one instead partakes in waving an image of the insanely rich innovator/entrepeneur with devil horns in the faces of others, expecting that they'll be converted rather than become apathetic or more ardent in their support.

It also isn't quite as fair to be so heavy-handed in the hatred of these individuals. It's not to say that I would outright condemn someone for being justifiably perpetually upset with how these people emphasize the massive economic inequality in the world (lest it reaches an obnoxious virtual signalling as stated above). But it is important to take in account the grey shades of the world every once in a while. There are very few people out there who are so truly bereft of any good, and for as much as innovators and entrepreneurs destroy, they also create. One needs only to look at the ever-explosive debate about Walt Disney to how each side of him left their mark on the world. Much as I greatly disagree with Elon's views, it's still remarkable to see what noble projects he's attached himself to as well as how he's managed to so thoroughly capture the public's imagination with the Falcon Heavy's launch. 

There would be no sense in me condemning the cartoonish vilification of the insanely rich innovator/entrepeneur. I think Jeff Bezos is the ultimate embodiment of everything wrong with capitalism. I take an insane amount of joy seeing Mark Zuckerberg fail in his efforts to be relatable to us humons. And some of my favorite MadTV sketches are the ones that portray Oprah as a nearly demonic being. It is both important to destroy the idyllic images that they wish to have portrayed upon them so as to not follow them blindly and cathartic to punch upwards at those who are probably too busy to care about what burns we lob at them. However if anything meaningful is going to come from pointing at their flaws, it's not going to be achieved merely with the plastering of their evil caricature all over the place. 

Moments Without Zen: How The Daily Show Is Fairing Under Trevor Noah

Ever since Jon Stewart turned a soft parody of celebrity gossip shows to a full-on satire of the modern news cycle and all of its sensationalism, partisanry and over-budgeted graphics departments, The Daily Show has been one of the cornerstones of political comedy in America. Whether people were on the left or on the right, there was always an interest in seeing how Jon and his correspondents would tackle the week's events. He was always able to find the absurd and the bullshit in a world that often posited itself as reasonable and honest. Many would come to be inspired by his work on The Daily Show that they would go on to create their own version, and his absence, former correspondents of the show have now populated the comedy scene seeing if they too could tug at the whiskers of the politicos and the pundits. But in his absence, there was only one who took his throne. He was Trevor Noah.

For as much progress as Trevor Noah has made on the show during his year or so on it, the decision to place him on to replace Jon Stewart remains to be one of the more bizarre choices on TV. Sure, he has a significant amount of clout in South Africa and managed to make some impact on the American scene, but it didn't seem like he would fit to take the mantle of a show with a massive audience. One which had so familiarized itself with the host that to even imagine a replacement felt like a betrayal. But as we all know, Jon was a stranger after taking over for Craig Kilborn. It seems unfair to constantly try to compare Noah against Stewart so I'll try to keep the comparisons limited. After all, Noah deserves a chance. Has he made anything of it though?

The long and the short of it is, no. Or at least he hasn't done enough.

Now don't take this to mean that I outright hate him. I don't really hold any strong negative feelings towards Noah. I was probably more positive about Noah taking the helm as other people might have been. After viewing some of his specials, I figured he did have sufficient enough potential to work on The Daily Show. Much of his act dealt with political matters and he was genuinely funny. Furthermore, considering that he was coming right along to the dawn of the Donald, he was pretty much given a golden opportunity to show his stuff. But at best all of it has left me with a dejected "Eh". 

Part of the problem is the material, which is just too by-the-numbers. Jokes at the expense of Republicans? Check. Attempts to connect with the youth via topical references? Check. Semi-serious calls for political reform with a liberal slant? Double check. It's especially with the last two that Noah trips up, as he'll make some sort of effort to seem woke by comparing trans issues with the iPhone having no headphone jack or by using the term "woke" unironically. It cheapens the effort at making a biting social commentary in favor of that sort of corporate hipness that has turned every fast food Twitter account into a snarky troll.

The humor isn't so much poignant as it is passable. Which is fine if you're trying to do a decent set, but for a show like The Daily Show, there has to be a little more. There needs to be a certain level of investment, a certain level of passion that comes from the humor. Jon can bring about the same amount of energy and interest into a subject he cares about deeply like the Zadroga Act or something far more trivial like the American diet. In political satire and political comedy, there is more to the joke than a surface-level observation, there is an underlying point. There isn't a sense of Noah's unique perspective, and since he's more interested in tackling the surface, the point that he carries through becomes limp and lifeless.

You can't blame Noah for being too shallow in his comedy - after all he is a foreigner. He can spout lengthy analyses of the Constitution all he likes, but he is aware that above his head still reads the words "that South African comedian". Which leaves him in a bit of an awkward spot. Should he just bring attention to it in very pointed ways or should he make the effort to assimilate and hope people can play along? He's done both, but neither really yield enough of a result. His efforts to play to the crowd can come across as too obvious, and the jokes done about his South African roots are too simple. Personally, I enjoy it more when he's able to compare and contrast between African politics and American politics. You get more of a sense of his strengths and how he's viewing what's going on based on what he knows. I do that all the time with Venezuela. Going more international and broadening the perspective could play quite well if done right. 

Course, why go for that option when you could just stick to the gold mine that is Trump?

Here's where we fall into the main problem with Noah, and really, just the main problem with the comedy scene as a whole. Trump is just too easy. Noah's jokes about Trump and his administration is where he falls flat the most, because you can see the punchline coming from a mile away. And it's not so much that the humor's so politically biased (though it's not like it's really helping the hyper-polarization in the US) more that it doesn't really tell me anything I don't already know. I can see that Trump acts like a complete idiot, a braggadocious buffoon. Unless you really push the limits on the kind of joke you can make at Trump's expense or have something far more to say about his actions that no one else is saying, there's not much else to it. There's a reason people people describe the humor as "Drumpf" - because it comes across as performative, stupid and circle-jerking. Every late-night comedian faces the same problem, but where it becomes a problem with Trevor is that the emphasis on banking on this humor overshadows serious issues within society and the genuine hysteria within the media.

The Daily Show existed to be an exaggeration of the world we're exposed through by the media. Under Trevor Noah, it has become an exaggeration of the criticisms the show faced: that it pandered too much to younger audiences, that it wanted to feel bigger than it was, that it leaned too heavily for liberals (I can't pretend that Jon wasn't left-leaning, but he was a lot more even-handed than Noah has been, and a little more subtle too). It is lacking a sense of purpose, a reason to be. Other shows like Last Week Tonight and Full Frontal have done a better job of providing what The Daily Show once did with different perspectives too. Without Noah distinguishing himself with his voice, there isn't anything else to gain aside from a abridged version of the world news with a couple of silly quips. 

Local Convenience Store Still Has Outdated Limited Time Drink In Fridge

Montreal, QC - While doing some shopping at a local convenience store, Marsha Hayes was reported seeing a common but bizarre sight of a brightly colored beverage in the fridge which was part of a promotion that had occurred over half a year ago. "I could have sworn it was there a lot longer" remarked Hayes. "I managed to get one of them out of sheer curiosity. It was good for the first little while but after that it was just the weirdest thing. I don't know if it's because it was old or because the flavor just was too out there for my taste buds." The owner of the store, Lola Sakayashi, doesn't feel it necessary to throw away the drinks. "Most of the people going to my store generally are tired and just need to get something from here. I figure the least I can do to make their experience more interesting is by having a more eccentric selection. Plus, the drinks are in the fridge so they're not spoiled yet." At press time, Hayes decided to randomly purchase a foreign product, unaware of whether or not it was edible.

The Asshole Protagonist

Rick and Morty recently concluded its third season at a time where the show has managed to garner a great amount of attention on it. Though it mostly had to do with the pursuit of an old McDonald's sauce, part of it stems from the incredibly dark and cynical tone that the show has going for it. And no one manages to embody the mood of the show more than Rick Sanchez, a near-godly mad scientist with a drinking problem and a penchant for being an asshole. It was funny seeing how Rick would interact with the world in his hard atheist and sardonic tone, seeing it fit to talk down to everyone and coping with the effects of what his intellect has done to his mind. But in the latest season I found myself growing annoyed with the writing, particularly in reference to him. I understand that he's an asshole and that I'm not supposed to like him, but at the very least I should tolerate him. After all, he is a protagonist.

Though he may think himself as above the conventions of character classification, Rick is an asshole protagonist. An asshole protagonist has all the temperaments of an asshole but the focus and spirit of a protagonist. Asshole protagonists tend to be selfish, they are often finding ways to benefit themselves first before anyone else. Though some wish not to admit it, they are often emotional, with one of their main emotions being anger. They're also quick to fall into vices and sin. They view the world as either cold and unforgiving or chaotic and degenerate and as such feel that it's necessary for them to play dirty to achieve results. They're also vocal about their disdains, their hates, their loathings. You'll often find the asshole protagonist ranting and raving about society's ills. Despite their attitude, there's something about the asshole protagonist that other protagonists and characters gravitate to, enough to be able to tolerate their behavior. And even when at their worst, the asshole protagonist has some sort of "heart" that elevates them from just being an asshole.

The asshole protagonist is an interesting trope in our media. Though we feel like it's a modern convention brewed up by disgruntled Gen-Xers, we can trace it back to two little ducks: Donald and Daffy.

Both Donald and Daffy place their own interests before that of others, with Daffy being the more extreme case. They're also greedy, confrontational and often have fits about the most minuscule of inconveniences. Despite this, they're hailed as some of the most beloved characters of all time. To an outsider this would come off as ludicrous. What we're missing is that as protagonists, they rely on being relatable. When we see Donald Duck flip out from some bad news or Daffy Duck try and fail miserably, we're able to empathize with their situation. Sure, we might not rip a letter into shreds and rain it on ourselves like confetti, or hope that our frenemy gets shot in the face, but we feel for their plight.

The same can be said about other asshole protagonists like Duckman or Bender. With Duckman, we appreciate someone who is able to speak their mind freely as we often find ourselves trying to adjust or self-censor ourselves for certain audiences. We also like frank honesty, particularly when it agrees with our own biases on the world. Duckman is infamous for his insights on the modern world and we're willing to listen to him because they resonate with us. As for Bender, the liberty and lack-of-fuck-giving that he has provides a freedom that we'd like to have. Not to mention that he's freed himself from a job that didn't exactly offer much in terms of excitement.

Beyond reliability, well-written asshole protagonists have other components to them that allow them to function well in a story. For one, they are in balance with the rest of the world. They stand out, either because the world is not like them or the world is very much like them but only they are able to call attention to it. Bender is the counterweight to the rest of the Planet Express crew, serving as the wild card and comedic relief. Duckman works in his world because the world he lives in is absolutely shit and most people just seem to tolerate it rather than make mention of it.

Another aspect of a well-written asshole protagonist basically relates to having a good protagonist in general. That being that they should not be impervious to the world. It can definitely play into a plot point like say the asshole protagonist gets another protagonist into trouble and doesn't face any damage for it. But they too must also have problems that must be confronted or suffer for their actions. The advantage of the asshole protagonist is that unlike a regular protagonist, their morality and sympathies are able to drastically shift, either to maintain their image as a detached and rude person or to highlight their eccentricity.

One of the best examples of this is Helga Pataki from Hey Arnold. She is aggressive and bossy to others at school but in private moments, she has an undying passion for Arnold, the boy that she constantly pushes away with her character. Further information about her character provides us with the image of a neglected child who uses the tough-girl act to avoid being hurt by anyone, and ultimately desires to one day be freed from that role. With her, we're able to forgive her asshole attitude as we come to understand her character more and both laugh and feel sorry for her when she inevitably reverts to her role in the status-quo.

Though it doesn't have to be as sentimental when it comes to dealing with their pain. Sometimes we just want to see them in pain. This is where we get to the bare minimum of what an asshole protagonist should have - humor. Asshole protagonists are able to benefit as humorous characters because they both are able to inflict pain onto others and because we enjoy seeing them in pain. They're often written to provide snappy retorts or lead other characters down a series of wacky adventures through their actions. Furthermore, if ever there's a dull moment or the asshole protagonist is getting too much to bear, inflicting damage on them always helps to lighten the mood. Master Shake from Aqua Teen Hunger Force is perhaps the master at being the humorous asshole protagonist, constantly tormenting Meatwad and having his ego be cut down either emotionally or through physical violence.

How does all of this manage to tie into Rick? Well, during the first two seasons, Rick was able to fit the characteristics of a good asshole protagonist. He was willing to cut through the bullshit, but also had moments that allowed him to be vulnerable and show it. The world was also balanced in a manner that his presence didn't throw it off-kilter. However, when the cynicism of the rest of the world is cranked up along with others' abilities to be self-aware about it, Rick loses his place in the balance. Sure he's the the most asshole of the bunch, but if everyone's also a dick and willing to make reference to it (even when it doesn't necessarily serve their character), then Rick comes across as far more insufferable

Another problem with Rick in the third season is that he's impervious. He's essentially a god who's always right. Though one can argue that he lives a very toxic lifestyle, in regards to certain plot points, he can do no wrong. This has led to the idolization of his character by some on the internet as they'd rather be right and have all of his capabilities than be a decent person. Asshole protagonists are not someone to idolize, they're someone to empathize with. If they're to be idolized, they need to earn it by changing as characters, shedding what makes them terrible. Because if they're idolized as is, it only encourages apathy, resentment and anti-social behavior. Which is essentially what happened with Cartman.

Cartman is perhaps an odd inclusion. His behavior and relationship to the rest of his "friends" in South Park is far more fitting of an antagonist and indeed he works best when more directly pitted against others. Yet with the way that some episodes frame it (particularly Cartoon Wars, Imaginationland and The Coon), we come to follow Cartman as a protagonist through how much we focus on him. We are interested in his arc, for better or for worse. The story beats that he goes through reflect that of a normal protagonist, making it play off as though he has more innocent intentions. And in the end, he comes out of it not only unscathed but also achieving whatever goal he wanted. Though it can come off as humorous, this creates a similar warped admiration, where people wish to emulate him because he's an asshole who can get away with it. Which generally does not bode well.

In the end, an asshole protagonist is just a trope. And like any trope, there's a fair amount of subjectivity to them. Some people outright cannot deal with asshole protagonists. Others have varying degrees of what they're willing to tolerate. Ultimately, an asshole protagonist is someone that we can follow around without wanting to turn back. Be it because they speak some truth, have some emotional complexity to them or are just fun to be around. Take that away, and you just have an asshole. And no one wants to be around an asshole.

Amazonian Might - A Wonder Woman Review

Wonder Woman is not a movie that is designed for me. In a way I suppose you can take it in a sexist sense. As a man, the narrative of the Amazonian goddess does not exact seem all that relevant as I do not face the same struggles that a woman does. But more fundamentally, I am not familiar with the series in question. I come at this movie as a general movie-goer, not as a comic book nerd nor semi-familiar ultra-fan. I know no monumental stories involving her, I don't know any of the villains that she fights, I don't really even know where she lived. The only things I know are the aforementioned goddess title, the Lasso of Truth, the invisible jet and some of the more sensational parts of her character's background. I mostly came about watching this movie in part due to the wave of positive reviews that seemed to be a rarity for DC and in part to finally understand their main heroine whom I had neglected for so long.

Since it is the first film to ever have Wonder Woman as the lead, the film definitely seemed to cater to certain needs that a beginner like me would have. For starters, I was able to find that her name is Diana (yes, I did not know) and that she lives on the island of Themyscira with other Amazonian women. She is told great stories about the war between Zeus and Ares, and how Ares being the vengeful god of war that he is, came to corrupt man. She later is told that if Ares were to ever show himself again that only a weapon deemed "the god killer" would be able to defeat him. After saving Steve Trevor, an American spy who crashes near the shores of Themyscira, she comes to find that a massive war is brewing in the human world. Believing that it is the work of Ares, she goes along with Steve to stop the war.

I was generally optimistic when it came to Gal Gadot being Wonder Woman. Even though Batman vs Superman had her in the cameo corner, I could see that there was more potential. Wonder Woman proved to show that potential in full force as she could properly balance bright-eyed idealism with stern determination and fish-out-of-water antics with sophistication. Though her voice didn't have the proper energy for certain moments, her expressions and actions more than made up to express her character.

The whole cast was a ton of fun as well. I absolutely loved seeing the Amazonian women kick some serious ass as they went on horses armed with only arrows, swords and shields to charge at German soldiers armed to the teeth with guns. Steve Trevor (played by Chris Pine), much like the Cap who shares his first name, was able to provide a sincere charm and reserved demeanour that worked well off of Diane's more brazen attitude. Later on in the movie, we come across a group of mercenaries who offer some wonderful banter as we transition to larger scenes. And of course the villains were entertaining, with Dr. Poison (Elena Ayana) having a quiet madness to her and Ares relishing in the destruction of mankind through his ruthless actions.

As expected, the action was wonderful throughout the film. It was focused, with the proper angles and use of slow motion accentuating each movement, making each hit have it's impact. The cinematography was vibrant, with even dark and dreary scenes popping out like an intense comic page. Both elements would have been well enough to simply sate the masses but what I think took this film into riding the waves of high praise was what DC movies were lacking, balance. Wonder Woman allowed itself to be comedic, to be light-hearted, in a way that felt natural rather than as an awkward way to offset the rest. The characters were able to breathe and interact with one another as humans rather than exposition devices or melodramatic caricatures.  It was able to tell its story without rush, and let the pieces fall into place.

There are certainly some imperfections this movie has, most of which I can't speak of without spoiling it. But part of why I feel it necessary to embolden the strengths of Wonder Woman is that it is bold enough to deserve such. I could have not been more perfectly introduced to Wonder Woman's character and her raison d'etre. She carries the standard badass nobility of a superhero, but her warmheartedness and frankness allowed her to stand out alongside her contemporaries. The moral of the movie was not particularly new or radical but it was so genuine in carrying it through that I could not help but feel emotional over it. It disappoints me that by simple virtue of being a female lead that it will come to be a battleground for the constant culture war that the Internet wages. It is a movie that is larger than the politics that has surrounded it and will come to surround it in the coming days. Even if this film does not do proper justice to the source material for some reason, I feel that it can serve as a magnificent interpretation of her character.

At a time that superhero movies have become to feel derivative, I'm glad that Wonder Woman managed to stand out as a bright beacon amid the tired, the gritty and the hollow.