Great TV shows often fail to end in the appropriately great manner. See Lost, GoT, etc.
To be fair, the Umbrella Academy doesn't quite go as far as some of those offenders, but there's still a bit of that "F You, audience, we're doing it" sort of thing.
What are they doing? Well, ending the world, of course. Again. After all, it's kind of their thing.
Ever since they burst onto the scene, the Umbrella Academy siblings have been wrecking the world and saving it, over and over again. And it was all their fault, over and over again. Much like Doom Patrol characters, they were the problem. Side note: Doom Patrol managed to end quite perfectly in four seasons.

The Umbrella Academy started off as a rather average comic book and might have ended there, and quite quickly, one might add, had it not been picked up and beautifully expanded for TV. One of Netflix's shiniest stars, it ebbed and flowed, but always entertained. Then it twisted itself a bit too far. Coming back two years after season 3 and five years into the future, we find the siblings scattered, de-powered, and living rather underwhelmingly (and occasionally amusingly) mundane lives. Of course, this doesn't last.
Soon enough, they are brought together by another plan involving their terrible adopted father (and this time not just him either!) and the apocalypse.
In just six episodes (the shortest season ever), the bickering (adult) kids must put aside their differences, superpower back up, come together, sand save the world. And this time it comes at a doozy of a cost.
Season 4 is emotionally involved, bombastic, and has the best guest stars yet in the dynamic duo of Megan Mullaly and Nick Offerman. So what's missing?
A more detailed answer below, but let's just say the rushed, brutal ending did them no favors.

Well, so, if you haven't finished the show, you should probably stop reading now. Okay? Okay.

What sort of a f*cked up ending was that? Seriously? After all that, everything they'd been through, they get to be absorbed by molten goo and winked out of existence? Yeah, it's super heroic of them to just stand there and take it and save the world, but it doesn't offer a lot of emotional payout on investment for the viewers, does it?
It seems like after everything those academy kids had been through and been put through by their father, the very least they should get is a chance to strike at the happily ever after. Yeah, they weren't doing a superb job of it in the interim five years, but they had a choice. Which is no small thing for people whose lives have been by and large robbed of choices.
Look at Five, the finally-aging-though-already-old teenager was just becoming a man. A man looking disconcertingly like a miniature Timothée Chalamet and having an affair with a much older woman, no less.
At any rate, I'm not saying the series needed a happy ending. Those can be tedious. But if it was going to do a tragic ending, it could have handled it better. This one felt like kind of like a write-off. Like the sort of thing made when the steam and, more importantly, money is suddenly gone.
An argument could be made that the fans and the characters deserved more

But it was entertaining enough. And the entire thing was fun while it lasted. And not it'll be like it never happened at all. Just another, perfectly normal TV lineup.

After a very long and very successful collaborating with his brother, Ethan Coen (the shorter and younger of the two) decided to do his own thing. Or rather, the thing without his brother, since he is still a collaborator on here, only this time with his wife, a professional editor who edited and co-wrote this movie.

The result ... well, frankly leaves a lot to be desired. I mean, this is definitely not going to win any awards like other movies with Coen name attached. But it may get some kind of play for lovers of campy cinema. With nods to all manner of kitsch from sexploitation to John Waters, this lesbian road trip movie is fast-talking, free-wheeling, and as cheesy as (inset the cheesiest food you can think of here). Sometimes it's cheddar and often it's just Cheez-Wiz. But it does get a joke in here and there, the leads are charming and have a decent chemistry, and the supporting cast is almost fascinatingly diverse and random.
The movie has entertaining ideas about violence and rather tragically limited ones about lesbian sex, despite the fact that Cooke, Coen's wife and co-writer, calls herself lesbian and queer. (They've got an unconventional marriage, apparently.)
The trippy cutaways (with Miley Cyrus or all people) were wildly indulgent and unnecessary. The ending was cute.

All that said, the Drive-Away Dolls knows it's niche and, at just 86 minutes, doesn't overstay its welcome. Don't expect much and you might, just might, have some fun.

In the near future, in California (and exclusively in California) general population will get into the business of killing lotto winners for their money. And I mean, they will go all Purge on those winners ... not so much John Wick style as anything goes method.
In this nonsensical reality, Katie Kim, a child actress who decided to get back into show biz but has apparently no clue what's going on, ends up inadvertently signing up for the lottery and immediately winning it, which instantly puts a target on her back.
Now the only things that can save her are the skills she has picked up in her stage combat class and a solid brick of manhood, the bastion of decency so Christmas miracle-ish that his name is Noel.
From there on, it's essentially one long action scene until the utterly predictable resolution.

Jackpot! is the sort of movie that probably art some point sounded conceptually funny, but even the combined talents of Paul Feig (a seasoned comedic director who gave the world Bridesmaids) and John Cena (who is always genuinely amusing) and even the dubious charms of Awkwafina can't lift this dud. The movie is simply too stupid.

The idea sinks. It worked exceptionally well in the Purge movies as social commentary but was never meant to be funny. The jokes are occasionally funny but uneven and get buried under all the action sequences. The plot itself makes almost no sense whatsoever, especially the protection agency angle. 
Basically, the movie only works as one protracted action scene, and that just isn't enough. It could have/should have been a delightfully chaotic mess that mixed social relevance with madness and did it all for great laughs. Instead, it's a cheap exercise in pandering to the least demanding stratosphere of the audience that falls flat at every turn. Pass.

I may have underestimated Julio Torres. That is to say, I stand by my review of his movie debut, Problemista, 100%, but my opinion of his as a creator has changed and evolved, following checking out his stand-up (though technically a sit-down) special and his show, Fantasmas,
Now, I'd say that Torres is genuinely talented, unique, and quirky in a good way. Is it pure awesomeness? Well, no, there are limitations. For all his brilliant asides, Torres continues to tell the exact same overarching story - his. It's a tale of someone who's main struggle is obtaining a legal status in the country through being exceptional. This individual is indeed quirky, gay, Latinx, creative/imaginative though not especially great at real life things, his favorite color is clear, etc.
While it is admirable that Torres managed to stay so true to himself and be himself and achieve this kind of success, it can also be tiresome, like he's beating the story to death ... or rather is finding new ways to beat it.
Martine, the artist performing as his agent (and a well-known artist in her own right), is also fascinating to watch in such a surreal role, the themes of which jive perfectly with her own work.
It's a bit frustrating too, because there are such dazzling glimpses of cleverness here and there amid his work that it makes you really curious as to just what Torres can do is he really stepped outside of himself and went for completely original storytelling.
I suppose I ought to check out his other show, Los Espookys and see if that's any different. For now, though, I am impressed, albeit cautiously. Though he continues to be in some ways a one-trick pony, the trick is elaborate and charmingly quirky and a very good kind of weird. Torres may be too self-focused, but there's no one out there like him. Which is to say, his work is certainly worth paying attention to.

Ever wonder what the most diabolically named writer/creator has been up to lately? Well, apparently Diablo Cody's been writing this movie, her latest stab at a cult classic.
Of course, the thing to remember with cult classics is that most of them are crappy movies that for one reason or another (usually nostalgia-tinged) find a dedicated audience.
This is very much the case with Cody's work in general and this movie in particular.
With Lisa Frankenstein, Cody goes back to the area she knows best - high school. Yeah, she's tried writing adults, but no one really thinks of Diablo Cody and Tully. People think of Diablo Cody and Juno, Jennifer's Body, and now this glitzy dud.
I have very strong feelings on adults enjoying YA, but I checked it out anyway. 
The story of a reanimated dead is basic enough, and as always with these things, you have a cast of people well into their 20s and 30s playing teens.
This was a movie of almosts: almost amusing, almost clever, almost witty, almost funny. Frustratingly so, it never quite hit the mark in any department.
Worst of all, under the flashy 80s throwback, nostalgia-fueled ride and fun soundtrack, the plot makes no sense.
It's possible the idea here is to distract people from considering it, but if you do stop to think about it ... the emperor has no clothes.

From here on out, plot details will be given away. Until noted otherwise. Proceed if you like. You've been warned.

1989. Lisa is a sullen goth-ish teen, still traumatized by witnessing her mom being ax-murdered. You would be shocked at how Cody does almost nothing with this. 
Lisa's milquetoast dad has inexplicably remarried almost immediately after to the classic wicked stepmother type and moved towns to live in what looks like a Barbie house. Lisa now has a stepsister, Taffy, who is far from wicked and is actually (incredulously) okay with it all, calling her new stepfather Daddy and doting on her new stepsister.
Typically, Lisa loves hanging out at the local cemetery, obsessed with one dead young man in particular. One crazy party and lightning strike later, and he has been brought to life, albeit a bit janky and mute.
Lisa cleans him up and keeps him in her closet, but eventually the two of them get more and more murderous and affectionate, as these things are known to occur.
Inexplicably, the reanimation is done via a malfunctioning tanning bed. Even more inexplicably, in the end, Lisa decides to burn herself up in that bed, so The Creature and her can be undead together.
Seriously? If you were to kill yourself with a view to perpetuate indefinitely, why would you choose fire? That's pretty much the worst way to go. Especially since The Creature is (inexplicably) fully revived by the end, reading Shelley to Lisa who is wrapped up entirely like a mummy.
Yeah, see, that doesn't make any sense. Neither does most of the movie. It tries to be edgy and witty and fun, but never quite gets there. The acting and character development is wildly uneven, inconsistent and makes even less sense than the plot.

Okay, you can look now.

The movie, conceived as an homage to other, older, cult classics, is basically an uneven mess that can't seem to commit to either comedy or horror and fails as a combination of both.
Performance-wise, Sprouse is the real star of the show here, embodying his character's twisted physicality and conveying his thoughts and emotions wordlessly throughout the movie. The rest are just hamming it up in cheesy 80s getups.
The movie is campy and aesthetically amusing, but aside from that, doesn't offer much. Although the 80s soundtrack will get stuck in your brain. I promise you, I promise you ...

I was rather looking forward to this movie ever since I first heard about it being made. 
I'm not entirely sure what I expected, but let's talk about what I got out of watching it.
First off, it stands to mention that even in this day and age, it is still somewhat revolutionary to have a movie with lesbian characters played by lesbian characters. (Although, yes, technically, allegedly, in the movie one of them claims to be bi.)
Secondly, this is very much a sort of anti-romance romantic movie. Lesbians and crime thing has been done before, most notably in the stellar Bound, but wherein Bound was sleekly stylish, LLB is as raw and gritty as they come. Complete with ALL the worst 80s hairstyles form a particularly grimy look.
Set in 1989, it tells a story of a rather aloof gym manager (K.Stew) who falls hard for an aspiring female bodybuilder (Katy O'Brian and her insane muscles.) Both feature atrocious hair and a devil may care approach to personal habits: one smokes, one has no qualms about shooting up with 'roids to beef up.
As it turns out, K. Stew's Lou is actually the daughter of the local crime boss/arms dealer/very dangerous man and a sister to a pathetically-addicted-to-love woman who lets her husband repeatedly beat her to a pulp.
That husband, an impressively slimy Dave Franco, is also the guy the bodybuilder woman sleeps with to get a job. (Maybe she is bi? She certainly doesn't seem to be into it.) Nevertheless, she is very comfortable using people to get what she wants i.e. sleeping with Lou immediately gets her a free room and board.
Lou is too enamored to care. So much so that when her jacked-up-on-'roids lover commits a murder, Lou covers it up, starting a dangerous trend in their relationship.
And on it goes, one crime after another, as the entire thing rapidly spirals out of control. All in the name of love. 
Presumably.
Because honestly while the crime aspect was perfectly well done, I wasn't sold on the love story here. Ironically, despite the on-point casting, there didn't seem to be much chemistry between the leads. As a viewer, I don't care about messaging, nor do I think it is the movie's job to serve as a message platform. Which is to say, I don't care if gay characters are played by straight actors and vice versa. It's all ACTING. Just make sure the leads have good chemistry so I can believe their connection. And I've seen straight actors do gay love stories better than this. Sorry, love. Don't mean to leave you lying there bleeding.
Also, what is up with bodybuilding? Why would anyone want to do that to their bodies? It looks hideous, on both genders. And oh, so unsexy.
(On a side note, Kate O'Brian has stated that she had to audition for her role 6 times. Seriously? How many other actresses do we have out there that look like that?
All in all, the movie is entertaining, compelling, and only occasionally does it A24s into self-consciously, precocious territory. But I'm not in love.

 I definitely watched Sausage Party the movie whenever it came out on streaming, but it wasn't particularly memorable. I mean, I remembered a bunch of food gags and a ton of food sex, but not the plot. 
And I wouldn't have known or cared that I had forgotten the plot until the TV show came out. And, sure enough, it happened on a week so slow that there didn't seem to be anything more amusing to watch.
Eight (mercifully brief) episodes later, I am writing this review. The food has had its day. They killed all the humies (cute) and took over the world. And promptly realized they may not be particularly equipped to deal with their newfound freedom. Moreover, they slowly come to realize that they may not be much better than their former archnemeses when it comes to governing themselves.
Despite the best efforts of the eponymous sausages, Foodtopia devolves into a brutally divided dictatorship quickly enough. The political satire is definitely there, but the show doesn't seem to quite commit to the bit, opting for gross-out sex gags instead.
All in all, this is, both in substance and production, VERY much a sausage party. You can practically hear Seth Rogen's famous stoner guffawing in the background.
The puns rule the day here.  Some are clever, a lot are pure groaners. And in the end, (SPOILER ALERT) as if to punctuate just how much of a sausage party it is, they kill the main (and one of the only) female characters, who also happens to be the best and most likable of them all. It's a Game of Thrones thing through and through, where an awesome female character is sacrificed so that the males can resolve the plot among themselves. (OVER.)
Overall, the show is kinda sorta fun of a very lowbrow variety. But you can't help but think the entire time that the creators are having more fun than the audience.
Either way, it worked. Season two is in development right now. Because hot dogs don't have to be gourmet to be enjoyed.

Everyone (with a brain) knows Hollywood is a pandering, cliche-ridden apparatus more interested in what sells than telling original stories. But every so often a reminder of it so salient that it seems worth talking about.
Enter The Idea of You and A Family Affair. Both movies came out at roughly the same time, the former on Prime and the latter on Netflix. Both movies feature romances between young famous man and older nonfamous women. Both romances are challenged by the women's daughters. Even the age difference between the leads is the exact same, very precise sixteen years. Seriously. Someone did that. Was this on purpose? Were the two movies meant to be juxtaposed? Frankly, it's difficult to imagine that the target audience for such cinematic nonsense does much juxtaposing. 
But I am not the target audience, and having sat through both of those, I'm happy to tell you that The Idea of You is infinitely better as far as these things go.
So, let's do some comparisons.
Both movies are obviously fantasies for middle-aged women. Sad but true. TIOU was actually based on a book written by a woman, and AFA was never a book, but the script was written by a woman.  Women drive the market for books and possibly now movies too, so the existence of this fantasy makes sense from a demographic perspective.
Apparently, women fantasize about being the exact sort of mature lovers that a sexy, famous boy-toys need.
The thing is TIOU feels genuine (or genuinely made-up anyway) with genuine chemistry between the leads.
The AFA feels as fake as Kidman's preternaturally youthful appearance. Zac Efron as the self-absorbed movie star known more for his looks and physique than acting (how did he ever flesh out that character?) does his best here, and he is plenty entertaining to watch, but he's stuck acting against an approximately-human-shaped icicle, which can't be easy.
Kidman uses her natural Australian accent for the role, but that appears to be the only natural thing about her. 
Her romancing Zac Efron is just as unnatural onscreen. There isn't much emoting, and all the sex appeal of a translucent, very tall (taller than Efron) twig.
There might have bene some genuine chemistry between the two leads back in the The Paperboy, but that was a long them ago.
And Joey King as her 24-year-old daughter is kinda sorta funny, but much too annoying about the entire thing and has way too many opinions for someone who still lives with her mother.
Wherein TIOU features a normal, albeit more attractive than average, female lead who brings warmth and confusion to the role of a woman swept away by a surprisingly mature boyband star. And her daughter is only sixteen, which makes sacrificing love for her sake a bit more reasonable.
Overall, it's down to the simple things like chemistry and personal appeal and casting the right female lead, and TIOU absolutely wins this round.
But the point is, this should have never been a competition with rounds to win. There should not be two movies out that similar. Diversity and originality should not be sacrificed at the altar of commercial viability. Write your own story, people. Seriously. Come on. 

This is a movie that almost works, but, lamentably, the forced precociousness of it consistently overrides its quirky charm.
This story of an El Salvadorian immigrant is clearly meant to be both poignant and whimsical, and it is to an extent, but Torres (who rather impressively wrote, directed, and starred in it) keeps going over the top and getting in his own way. It's very possible he's never subscribed to the less is more theory of storytelling.
In the movie, he plays Alejandro, a young man who looks like a child but apparently Torres is in his mid-thirties, go figure. Alejandro acts a bit childlike too, including his walk (one of those over-the-top touches), a ridiculous shuffle seldom seen on a person, let alone an adult. To that effect, he also has a stubborn stray cowlick that is very obviously (you can practically see the product) is styled into place. Ta-da! Whimsy!
Alejandro's biggest dream is to create toys for children, though all of his ideas are wildly derivative and similar, including slinkies that don't slink and toy cars whose tires go flat.
So, he isn't employed as a toy maker, and instead works for a company that preserves bodies in order to wake them in the future. This is one of the movie's most amusing aspects.
Because Alejandro is wildly incompetent, he gets himself fired from a very simple job, thus revoking his visa, leaving his with 30 days to find a new job and a sponsor.
Enter Elizabeth, a profoundly unhinged art critic obsessed with preserving the legacy of her dead spouse. Elizabeth is played with gusto and wild abandon by Tilda Swinton as a sort of sad lunatic that is much too unpleasant to people around her to properly feel sorry for her.
Alejandro sees her as a ticket to ride to a new visa, so he latches on, promising to help stage her late spouse's art show. It's another thing he isn't particularly good at, but Elizabeth is too out there to notice. Despite the volatile situation and employer, he perseveres, going as far as subletting his crappy rental and resorting to Craigslist prostitution. Also, he turns down a perfectly good legitimate job for an immigration law firm.
Instead, in the movie's penultimate (and completely unrealistic even by the movie's loose standards) scene, proving that he has learned a thing or two from Elizabeth's insane belligerence, he pushes his way into his dream job at a famous toy company.
The happy ending set far into the future wraps everything up with a neat bow. Ta-da again!

So is it worth watching? That depends. Maybe if you're a huge Swinton fan or for the absolutely delightful anthropomorphic representation of Craigslist or you like a trendy politically correct indie. But ultimately, Problemista has too many problems to truly shine. Though, of course, user mileage may vary.

As it turns out, you don't need a lot to make a good movie. All you have to do is write a good script, get two quirkily compelling leads, and let the cameras roll.
(The futuristic effects can be added in postproduction. They can even be cheaply cheesy if it's done ironically. In fact, it'll add to its appeal.
As it turns out, you can make a romantic comedy that doesn't annoy the viewer or make them feel like their IQ is dropping just by watching or is rife with cringe-inducing cliches.
Or at least you can do all that is your name is Michael Lukk Litwak, who wrote, directed, and co-produced this quirky charmer.
This amusing indie starring most amusingly named leads Zosia and Aristotle as the eponymous (and rather plain by comparison) Molli and Max spans over a decade and a number of planets as two best friends try to figure out the thing that's obvious to everyone but them - they love each other and should be together.
It's the tropiest of tropes, but it works because it's entertainingly futuristic and generally well done. Recommended.