Why You NEED to Watch The Young Offenders

Okay, so I was kind of late to the party with The Young Offenders movie. In that I only saw it earlier this year. Which is a shame when you think about how amazing it is. There's an argument to be made about comedy movies not being as good now as they were. I think that the issue is that of all the bad films in a given year, the worst ones tend to be comedies. I mean, just look at the worst of last year. Snatched, Baywatch, The Emoji Movie, Father Figures, Rough Night and many more of 2017's shit list were comedy films. And that's a serious shame. Done right, a piece of comedy can be a truly special thing. The problem is, many of the comedies we get now are failing on the most basic level.

Apart from the obvious surplus of bad films, the big issue with the current state of comedy is that you're more likely to ignore the gems. If something looks stupid or crass, chances are you'll dismiss it based on the abundance of terrible comedies. This isn't a new thing, but it's much more apparent now because of how instantly accessable information about film is now. Word gets out quick, and so pigeonholing can occur at an alarming rate. Sometimes it's justified, but every so often something wonderful slips under the radar. Enter The Young Offenders.

It's a good time for the Irish film industry. In the last few years we've seen some stellar pieces of work from filmmakers like Lenny Abrahamson, John Carney, John Crowley and Martin McDonagh. Because for every Mrs Brown's Boys D'Movie, there's a Sing Street, or a Brooklyn, or a Garage. And that's exciting. And it's in 2016 that we saw one of the finest Irish comedies released, The Young Offenders.

Which I won't be talking about today.

For those unaware, the film did so well that they made a series out of it. Which is one of the best comedy series we've had in ages. And that's what I want to talk about. Because you need to see this show.

The Young Offenders centres around the misadventures of two Cork teenagers, Conor and Jock. The film sees them hunt for a missing bale of cocaine, hoping to make millions off of it. Even though I will be talking about the series here, you should absolutely see the movie too. It's hilarious and charming, and always entertaining. If you're looking for a recommendation for the film, I highly suggest that you watch it. It's not necessary to see the film before the series, but if you want to get a feel for it, or just want extended shenanigans, it does the job splendidly. It's got the stupid sense of humour and big heart that makes The Young Offenders what it is.

And one thing that pleasantly surprised me was how much carries over from the film to the series. I had some worries about the show taking large portions directly from the film, but apart from the odd retooled joke, the series does the source material justice, feeling like a legitimate extension of the film. It takes the idea and wonderfully adapts it to accommodate further adventures for these two to go on.

And holy shit, do they go on some adventures. Across the six episodes, the writers create a plethora of offbeat setpieces for Conor and Jock, and the show explores all of these quirky and off the wall premises really well. It's not just funny, it's creative, intelligent, and often has surprising amounts of pathos. These six episodes work so well individually, and I suppose that the best way to do them justice is to break them down one by one. If you want the short version of this post and don't want to hear each episode broken down in detail, then I cannot recommend this show enough. It's not perfect, but it has this boyish charm and rich sense of humour that seriously makes it work. It's absolutely wonderful.

I've talked about the difficulty of crafting a successful pilot. And The Young Offenders opener is.... maybe it's weakest episode. It contains a lot of the spirit of the movie, which is generally a good thing, but also tends to be this episodes downfall. It (re)introduces the characters to us, and although the plot of the episode is different to the series, this is the one with the most repeated jokes. The pilot takes a lot of gags and lines from the movie, which works more than it doesn't, but it works because the jokes worked in the first place.

It's still good though. I mean, with a cast like this, even a reused joke hits bullseye. The chemistry of the leads is still the biggest factor in making it work, and when this episode offers up an original setpiece, it really works. It serves its purpose as a pilot; introducing new viewers to these guys and their adventures, and reminding the people who have seen the film who these two are, but showing them in a different context. Newcomers won't notice the odd repeated story beat, and returning viewers will be reminded how likable the characters are, and it'll get everyone interested in watching the rest of the series. Yes, it's the series weakest episode, but a pilot shouldn't be better than the show it opens. It should peak viewers interest (which this does), introduce the world and ideas of the show (which this does), and in the case of a comedy, be funny, which this episode absolutely is. It's a good episode on it's own, but it's a great way to get you excited to watch more. It's a solid beginning to this show. The following episodes are better, but I think that's by design. As pilots go, this one does its job. And as an episode, it's damn entertaining. When a pilot is like this, it only really gets better from there.

Episode 2 highlights two of the major changes between the film and the show. The first is the introduction of two new characters, love interests for Conor and Jock. Although they were introduced in the first episode, it's here that they really get fleshed out. And I have to say, as love interests go, they work really well. They're really funny in their own right, and the chemistry they have with Conor and Jock makes for some seriously amusing interactions. This is only made better by the second difference between the movie and the series, PJ Gallagher. In the movie, he was the vicious drug dealer hunting the boys down. Here, he's the father of the girls and the school principal, and he makes this episode great. His character may be different, but he's still a comic highlight in this show, with his overly gruff demeanour and outwardly hostile perception of Conor and Jock.

The second episode is an old story told with the humour and charm you'd expect from this series, being the most hilariously awkward and utterly disastrous family gathering you could imagine. The cast here is so strong that just having them bounce off of each other for half an hour proves to be incredibly entertaining. Which I think is the mark of a good cast. When just having them talk for the whole episode is both funny and charming, you've got something special. Which this episode, and show, definitely is.

The third installment is like an extension of the second, with Conor and Jock taking the two girls out for a day on the town, which turns out to be the worst date ever. But what else did you expect? The surprise of this episode is that it's not just funny, but it brings a surprising amount of pathos along with it. The reason for their outing is actually really touching, which is combined with the awkward sense of humour fantastically. The scene where they sing With or Without You will make you laugh, but may also tug your heartstrings at the same time.

It's easy to dismiss this show as crude or overly laddish, but this episode proves that there's definitely something more. Every episode does this too, but if you want the one with the most emotional heft, this is the one to go for. It demonstrates what makes this show great, it's effortless balance of jokes and soul. The characters here are never targets to laugh at, they're just especially inept individuals, but they're still people. People that constantly find themselves in unfortunate situations, but people nonetheless. If you wanted proof that this show was more than it initially appeared, watch this episode.

The second half of this show is where it gets really good for me. The first three episodes are good, but the last three had me utterly overjoyed week to week. Each of the episodes are funny, entertaining and damn charming. And it's the fourth episode, a road trip through Cork to get a new old fridge that makes for one of the best times that the show has to offer.

Despite the fact that the show is called The Young Offenders, the supporting cast is tremendously strong too. And for me, nobody is better than Mairead, Conor's abrasive mother, excellently played by Hillary Rose, who steals every scene she's in. And she makes for the perfect foil to Conor and Jock over the course of the worst road trip ever. And this for me is probably the funniest episode (although the sixth is a blast too, but we'll get there soon). The whole episode hinges on the interaction between these three characters, but the comic chemistry is so great that it just works. Even when they're just talking in the car, it's funny. When they encounter a cantankerous farmer with a vendetta against a rowdy duck, it's hilarious. Especially when the payoff to that joke comes in later on.

The fourth episode also delivers one of the movie's story beats, which actually has an impact on the status quo going forward. And that's kinda interesting. The ending also has one of the series's more dramatic moments, and like all of these dramatic moments, it's done with tact. It's taken seriously. This show isn't one that keeps it's characters in stasis, like so many sitcoms do. Their situations can change, and the status quo isn't a set in stone thing. I love that this show does that.

It's the moments like that that give this show substance. It's not just a silly funny lad show. It's a hilarious show about funny people, and it never shies away from portraying the moments of emotion. While also being an absolute blast to watch, filled with some seriously funny jokes. The scene when they try to lift the car kills me.

The fifth episode on the other hand, is some seriously offbeat fun. Conor and Jock steal a fish, and have to transport it across Cork. It's a pretty strange premise, but it's one that the show pulls off quite well. One thing I love about these guys is that they do everything with good intentions, and this is no exception. The thinking behind the fish theft is really funny and oddly charming.

The things that they encounter on their quest make for some very, very funny gags, and having Conor and Jock hang out with each other for an episode just works. These guys play off each other really well, and without that chemistry, an episode this quirky mightn't have worked. But it does. The interaction between them keeps this episode grounded, and makes it an absolutely joyous watch. The fish theft episode may not be a staple of the sitcom just yet, but the show's fifth installment makes that unusual concept work.

And the fifth episode's ending drops a bomb on the audience that leads right into the ultimate episode.

The final episode of the show is probably my favourite. It's a little bit like Speed meets Dog Day Afternoon.... in Cork. Basically local thug Billy Murphy accidentally kidnaps a busload of people, and things go south very quickly.

I love when a show can just put characters in one place for the whole episode, and have it be really funny and entertaining. And this episode does that in spades. Billy wasn't really focused on in the other episodes, but this one fleshed his character out in some really great ways. He's kind of terrible at keeping hostages, but that provides most of the laughs here. You have to laugh at how inept he is, but come the end of the episode, you kind of want to see him succeed. That that's done in a homage to Spartacus is even better.

And story beats and story arcs throughout the series are resolved here too. The fake Billy plot finally reaches a conclusion here, and all of the characters relationships are brought to a satisfying point, one that provides closure for now, but remains open for a new series. The fourth episode might just be the funniest, and the third one might have the most emotional weight, but it's the finale that becomes my favourite adventure for these two lovable idiots. Because it's the full package. Lots of laughs, plenty of character moments, heart and charm, well structured plot, satisfying end and some great potential for a second series. This episode demonstrates why you should watch this show. A good pilot gets you interested. But a good finale reminds you why you loved the show in the first place. And this one does that. By the time you reach the season's close, you're invested. And the climax should provide a good payoff to the season. When you reach this episode, you'll be reminded why this is one of the strongest series this year so far.

And that's what this is, one of the highlights of 2018's winter season. Okay, it has it's flaws, and I'm not gonna deny that, but when The Young Offenders works, it really freaking works. It's funny, it's charming, it's so entertaining and it's just a solid show. For how hard it is to transition between film and television, Peter Foott has done so effortlessly. Most of what makes the movie great is preserved here, and the new things that they do add actually feel organic and fresh. It would have been easy to jump the shark and try to up the ante right off the bat, but instead the show opts for the smarter route, retooling the film into a new beast entirely. Each of these six episodes hits the mark, and I found that they got progressively better as the show went on. I had my doubts at first, especially after seeing how much the pilot borrowed from the film, but all of my expectations for where the show was going were pleasantly surpassed. It builds on the chemistry of the characters, and has no trouble introducing new ones. It takes these characters and drops them into gleefully odd plots without having them seem out of place or out of character. And most importantly, it's just funny. And for a comedy series, that's everything. So, if you haven't seen this series, absolutely do. It's a highlight of this year for sure.

Why Bone Tomahawk is One of the Best Horror Films in Years

So, I've talked about horror quite a bit on this blog. And rightfully so. I love horror films. From 30s monster movies to 80s slasher flicks, and modern takes on classic ideas, horror is awesome. And one of the best things about horror as a genre is it's ability to meld with other genres. Combine it with comedy and you get An American Werewolf in London. Combine it with science fiction and you've got The Thing. Throw drama in there and you'll get The Babadook. But what happens if you make a horror western? What do you get when two seemingly different genres are put together? Well, you get one of the best horror films in recent memory, Bone Tomahawk.

Kurt Russell is an interesting actor to say the least. On one hand, he's a product of the 80s. With his masculine bravado, fabulous hair and suavely gruff demeanour, he's the ultimate 1980s action hero. But something quite interesting about Kurt Russell is that he's actually making a sort of comeback. From Quentin Tarantino to Marvel, this guy is making quite the return. And few films in his entire catalogue make as much of an impact as Bone Tomahawk.

I mean, considering Russell is significantly older now, you'd assume he'd struggle with heroic roles. His whole archetype doesn't really suit him now, so making a western set horror movie with him as the lead is a very strange idea. But it makes for a very pleasant surprise when you sit down and watch it.

The 2010s have been good for horror. Okay yeah, some bland stuff here and there, and the studio influenced saturation hasn't been too kind to the genre (hello Rings), but overall, the movies gods have granted us some genuinely scary films. Australian mental health demons, STDs that hunt people down, and Guess Who's Coming to Dinner meets Being John Malkovich, there's been no shortage of gems over the last few years. But it's S. Craig Zahler's strange marriage of the west and hell that really wows.

Bone Tomahawk is a little bit like True Grit..... if it was made by Eli Roth. A man's wife is kidnapped by a strange group of savages, and he teams up with the sheriff and a small posse to rescue her. The film is this fantastic road trip across the plains, and contains all sorts of brutality and amorality along the way, as any good western should. Actually, for the first two thirds, it's not even a horror film. It's a very atmospheric western, one that analyses the bigotry and moral ambiguity that permeated the outlooks of people at that time.

It's a violent film. That statement may sound obvious, seeing as it's rated 18, but there's more to the violence than pure gore. The gore's there too, but it's important to remember that the violence comes from both genres, and it exists here for other reasons. I mean, of course it ties into the horror, and makes the conflict unbelievably real feeling, but most of the violence in Bone Tomahawk comes from the western aspects.

It's easy to forget that movie violence goes deeper than what you see on the screen. Violence isn't just in the visuals. It's in the ideas that the film presents, too. That's a key idea in the western, the violent ideologies that people have, and how they affect society and the people in it. Bone Tomahawk uses its violence not just to scare it's audience with gory visuals, but to make them stop and think about that world and it's attitude to hate and conflict. There's a fantastic scene involving a group of Mexicans thats particularly poignant, and exposes a lot of the bigotry and hate that swirls under the surface of the cowboy film.

The sheriff and his gang don't tolerate those that they encounter. Much like The Wild Bunch or any Sergio Leone spaghetti westerns, Bone Tomahawk explores the violence that it portrays on screen, and uses that to dissect human nature. It's bleak and unflinching in it's take on our bloodthirsty tendancies, but it offers a take on violence that's interesting and different. How far do we go to pursue justice? Can we justify violence against other people? And most crucially, are the cowboys any better than the savages that they hunt? Maybe not. Zahler breaks these issues down and applies them to all of the characters. The heroes aren't heroic, and the people they fight are terrible, but that's just the kind of world that Bone Tomahawk is set in. A world of violence, and outlaws, and savages. It's gore and brutality is used to ask some big questions, and leaves it to the viewer to decide on an answer.

But the violence is also a big part of the fear factor too. Yeah, its used to explore the film's themes, but it's so extreme that it becomes disturbing. Okay, gore fests aren't automatically scary, but when put in a bleak atmosphere and wrapped in questions about human nature, extreme violence becomes unsettling. Because it's not just the gore that's scary. It's the outlooks that cause peoe to commit violent acts that frighten. And that goes for every act of violence in the film. There's horror in the cowboys bigotry and hate, but there's also absolute terror in the acts that the tribe commit, which are never fully explained. And Zahler let's the scary parts of those mindests sink in.

This film is truly disturbing all throughout, but it's the climax that terrifies. When you actually meet the tribe, and witness their violent acts firsthand, things get good. The film is scary when the violence comes from an understandable place, but when the violence is random and unexplained, it's freaking terrifying. When you see what the tribe do, you're seeing it from the sheriff's point of view. He's an outsider to their culture, and doesn't understand their rituals. When you view it from this perspective, everything becomes unfathomably scary, because you never understand these happenings. Zahler uses the fear of the unknown and the brutality of the violence on display to elevate the climax to terrifically scary proportions, and it works.

That's the real horror. It's not like "oh these cannibals are murdering people how scary". It's the brutal realism and horrifying motives of the violence that makes Bone Tomahawk come alive. It's portrayal of violence is terrifying, because it gets right to the root of it, and finds the fear along the way. It's not just a gory bloodfest, but an exploration of violence, which is a naturally disturbing idea.

So, what have we learned? Well, for one, the horror and western genres have an interesting link. Violence. Both of these genres contain ideas about violence in some way, and it's through finding the middle ground that Zahler is able to craft such a spooky experience. Because it's old West values and horrific visuals combined. And that's surprisingly scary. These are both ideas that allow Zahler to explore violence as an idea, and he finds both fear and pathos in his conclusions.

So while a horror-western may sound odd, it actually makes a huge amount of sense when you think about it. They're both genres that dissect violence, and they both create bleak, uneasy atmospheres when they do so. And here is no exception. Bone Tomahawk is a gruesome, tense and surprisingly human experience. So maybe Kurt Russell was an odd choice, but this movie dates to bring him back, and does so in style. Russell perfectly sells the jaded amorality of the western hero, but also has the sympathy and humanity of the horror victim. It's a wonderful performance that effortlessly revives it's star. It's not just a scary cannibal film, it's a chronicle of the darkest parts of humanity that scares with it's brutal violence and fearless gaze into the human mind. Bone Tomahawk shouldn't have worked, but it did, and it provided a thoughtful look into the human mind in the process. It may seem a bit B movie-ish, but trust me, there's a beautifully brutal allegory in there somewhere. And it's well worth watching to find it.

My Thoughts On Annihilation

Here's an idea. Take Apocalypse Now, Jurassic Park, The Thing and 2001: A Space Odyssey and throw them into a blender. Now imagine them by the guy that did Ex Machina and you've got Annihilation. Now, I'll admit that I have some problems with it's limited release, especially the reasoning, but having seen it, I have to say that it isn't a factor when it comes to quality. Limited release or not, this is some solid stuff. I've already talked about how much I love 28 Days Later, and Ex Machina was also a fantastic piece of science fiction cinema. But Alex Garland's most recent effort is also one of his best, a fantastic blend of sci-fi horror and surrealist storytelling that seeks to take the viewer on a journey through claustrophobic horror and unfamiliar insanity.

But let's backtrack. What is Annihilation? Well a soldier goes missing in an unusual ecosystem, and his biologist wife goes into the forest to investigate the natural phenomena. That's the core premise, but as time goes by, things get dark. Fast. The Shimmer contains a variety of anomalies, and the experience of being inside it gradually takes it's toll on the people within it.

This makes Annihilation a fairly interesting and often dreamlike experience. It's an idea that maybe could have been confusing in the wrong hands, but with Alex Garland at the helm, it's easy enough to follow while still being completely open to interpretation. That's a hell of a balancing act, but it's something that Garland never struggles with.

The film is one that's more driven by atmosphere and tone over story. There is a plot here (and a pretty good one at that), but it takes a backseat to the ideas on display. This results in a beautifully strange and dreamy ride through a world rich with interesting ideas concerning science, nature and life. It's pure cinematic experience, one that's simultaneously distributing and beautiful, and always impossible to take your eyes off of.

The performances as well are fairly good too. With a cast like this, you're guaranteed some strong turns, and the acting here is pretty great. Natalie Portman is a great lead, one that you sympathize with, being likable but never flawless. And watching here quest to get to the lighthouse is always fascinating.

The support is phenomenal. Oscar Isaac is great as a bewildered and traumatized soldier, who becomes the subject of some very disturbing reveals as the plot progresses. Jennifer Jason Leigh is really good as the leader of this investigation, and soon becomes ambiguously trustworthy, further increasing the doibt and fear of the characters. Tessa Thompson rocks too, being introverted but always charming. She's definitely one of my favourite up and coming actors, and this film proves why. She sells her character's quietly determined nature.

But it's Gina Rodriguez who steals the film for me. I adore Jane the Virgin. It's one of the best shows I've seen in a while, and Gina Rodriguez is a big part of that. When I heard she was in this I was pretty excited, and she did not disappoint. She effortlessly conveys her character's descent. She's always believable, and makes this seemingly simplistic character sympathetic and interesting. You always understand why she does what she does, and you empathize with her when things get hairy. I really need to gush over Jane sometime.

So, Annihilation. I was looking forward to this one, and for the most part it lived up to it. Okay, so it's occasionally incoherent, especially towards the end, but it's a potentially confusing idea told in an accessible way. Is it for everyone? No. Is it Garland's best? No. Is it good? Most definitely. It's fantastically directed, wonderfully atmospheric and contains some great visuals. The performances support the plot effortlessly, and the whole experience of drifting into a hellish ecosystem is a fairly strong one. It's a visceral film, one that you experience alongside the characters, and as a result, it works. Go see it, I assure you it won't be too intellectual for you.

Okay, I'll let that go now.

My Thoughts On Black Panther

So, with how densely populated the superhero genre is, you think that it'd be easy for releases to blend together and get lost. And while that is an issue for some, safe to say that it's something that Marvel rarely struggles with. I do understand the complaints about the MCU, and their essential mass-production of superhero blockbusters. But for me, they do it with a surprising amount of personality. I'm not some rabid fanboy leaping to defend the MCU, because I have my problems too. Some of their films do exist just to serve the interconnected universe (Thor: The Dark World), and sometimes the writing can be sloppy (Avengers: Age of Ultron), but the thing is, these movies, for the most part, are hugely enjoyable blockbusters. And one thing that Marvel has been doing is giving pre-established filmmakers free reign over how they tell their stories (except for the ice cream guy. The ice cream guy didn't get to tell any stories). It's a step in the right direction, because they can bring their own voice to the table, and subvert the expectations you would have for an action blockbuster.

So, yeah, the MCU is pretty good in my books, and with Infinity War always looming on the horizon, what better time to review Marvel's latest, Black Panther? This film has been making waves and breaking boundaries. And rightfully so. Ryan Coogler takes the no nonsense approach he used with films like Fruitvale Station and Creed and applies it to the superhero film, and it absolutely works. Coogler takes the idea of the superhero story and films it through a lens of cultural identify that's rarely been seen. And that's a shame, because Black Panther's take on heroism is an absolute breath of fresh air in the MCU.

Having already gotten the general idea of the character in Civil War, as well as knocking out most of his origin story in the process, Black Panther is able to forgo the exposition in favour of an on the move, thrilling and inventive plot. This isn't an origin story, it's a continuation. We know this guy already, so instead Coogler just pulls us into his world and shows us what he's going through post Civil War. And I love that. It's not a sequel that just exists to be another part of this franchise, it's a chronicle of a part of this universe that absolutely feels like it's just another story going on in the world of Marvel. And it would have been easy to just introduce a character purely to serve the brand, which the MCU did kind of do initially. But instead Coogler takes what we know about the world and shifts it to another part of this universe. It's not tied to the other movies, but it's not entirely separate either; it runs alongside them, and that's what makes a universe. That idea that outside of this film, other things are going on. In this time of cinematic universe fatigue, the fact that we get an organic expansion to the MCU is pretty great.

And the plot itself, which centres on T'Challa becoming king after his father's death in Civil War, is very good. It always reminds us that, yeah, he's a vigilante who's also the king of a small nation who's got a shedload of gadgets, but he's also human. Before anything else, he's just a man. And that'd something that Coogler always reminds us. It would have been easy to have this unkillable hero who can't be stopped *cough* DCEU Superman *cough*, but instead he's flawed. He's imperfect. One of my favourite ideas here is T'Challa being stripped of his superhuman ability to accept the challenge of the throne. He's got a clearly defined arc that acts as the backbone of the film. That's the core: T'Challa's progression over time and his ultimate acceptance of his responsibilities. He's far from perfect, but with Chadwick Boseman's nuanced and patient performance, he's likable and real.

Micheal B. Jordan is great as the villain, Killmonger. He's menacing and evil, but Jordan plays him with a surprising amount of pathos. His backstory, plan and motivation allow the audience to pity him, but his methods still make him an effective antagonist. He's almost a tragic villain, but is unlikeable enough for us to want to see him defeated. Or rather, we can sympathise with him, but understand that he needs to be defeated. Which is a great archetype for a villain. Because like how T'Challa is a human feeling hero, Killmonger is a completely real villain. He's not the simplistic personification of evil commonly seen in superhero fare, he's just a guy who feels like he needs to bring order and equality. That's his basic motive, but is built upon incredibly well with sketchy methods and debatable morals.

The rest of the cast thrills too. Lupita Nyong'o is an awesome foil to Boseman,  and an incredibly protagonist in her own right. But it's Letitia Wright who consistently steals the show. She's a great gadgetmaster, and her one liners brim with humour and wit. Andy Serkis is suitably seedy, and Martin Freeman is great as a fish out of water CIA agent. I wasn't a huge fan of his character in Civil War, but he's great here, essentially acting as the audience, experiencing Wakanda for the first time.

So, problems? Well, despite being one of the MCU's more accessible films, it does help to have seen most of the previous installments before this one. Especially some of the end credits scenes which depend on your knowledge of previous movies to really understand them. Some of the CGI is occasionally kinda ropey, and for every action scene with a clever set piece and good choreography, theres some of the scenes in the climax that don't really have the visceral and crunchy feel of some of the other fights.

But overall, this was the perfect direction for the MCU to go in. It takes the superhero genre in a fresh and richly cultural direction, while also being a solid fleshing out of a character that we didn't really know too well first time around. The villain is strong, the supporting cast nail it, the plot is simple but pretty effective and the action is fluid and fast paced for the most part. Yeah, not everything works, but it's still one of Marvel's best in ages. It's something that we don't see much of in comic book films; an identity and personality that goes beyond just acknowledging that it's based on a comic. It's not just serviceable, it's great in it's own right too. Strong solo outing.

Infinity War can't come soon enough if you ask me.