Why China cracking down on Bitcoin is ultimately GOOD for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies…

Ever since it hit an all-time high of $65,000, Bitcoin has seen a steady decline in its price, with YTD lows of $28,000 per coin. As of this writing, BTC is trading at $32,000/coin. Even though there are a number of reasons for this (roughly) 50% drop-off, like Elon Musk/Tesla no longer accepting BTC as a form of payment, environmental concerns, governmental regulations, crypto usage in criminal activities, etc., one of the biggest reasons has to do with China cracking down on BTC transactions and mining operations. Even though China has ‘banned’ and then proceeded to lift those ‘bans’ on BTC and other cryptos before, the likelihood of the ban being permanent is very high. A few weeks ago, the CCP announced that banks will no longer be allowed to provide any crypto-related services to customers. Now, the CCP has ordered dozens of BTC mining operations to stop any mining-related activities in regions like Xinjiang, Sichuan, Inner Mongolia, Yunnan, etc. As of this writing, roughly 90% of all BTC mining activity has been shut, with BTC hash rates plummeting. The question becomes – Why is China doing this? For starters, China has begun experimenting with its own digital currency, digital yuan, something it can closely monitor and control. Thus, it would make no sense for an authoritarian country like China to also allow a decentralized digital currency like Bitcoin to be commonly used in their country. Second, China’s Central Bank (erroneously) argued that cryptocurrencies “breed the risks of illegal cross-border transfers of assets and money laundering” and apparently, a ban will lead to a big drop in criminal activities.

Even though this might seem like a major headwind for BTC and possibly hinder the widespread adoption, in reality, China banning BTC is arguably a positive catalyst for BTC and the crypto community as a whole.

Environmental impact

According to various sources, China is responsible for roughly 70%-75% of all BTC mining in the world. Even though some regions in China like Sichuan use a lot of hydro-power for BTC mining operations, there are also other regions like Xinjiang and Inner Mongolia where coal is the biggest energy source for mining, which is a major greenhouse gas emitter. Thanks to the bans, miners now have the option to move to different areas in the world, especially energy-rich areas like Kazakhstan or even the US. In fact, a CNBC report recently suggested that states like Texas or Florida or Wyoming will likely experience a massive influx of BTC miners. Politicians like Miami Mayor Francis Sanchez or Texas Governor Greg Abbott have already indicated that they support cryptocurrencies and the exodus of miners to their states. Gov. Abbott recently “signed a law for Texas to create a master plan for expanding the blockchain industry in Texas.” While miners could always move to cheap coal-rich areas to resume mining operations, I contend that they will be more inclined to move to clean-energy areas, primarily due to the fact that the Biden administration has made ‘addressing climate change’ as one of its top priorities. If miners continue using fossil fuels, the US government will likely follow a similar path to China, which will absolutely crush Bitcoin. However, if these miners start addressing the issue at hand by using clean energy to mine BTC or other cryptocurrencies, the government will likely be laissez-faire towards cryptocurrencies. To sweeten the deal, the federal government could perhaps even offer tax incentives for miners and mining companies to use clean energy.. Maybe I’m getting a little too ahead of myself but, the possibilities are endless. Ultimately, Elon Musk’s comments on the environmental impact of BTC mining were “partially” responsible for BTC and other cryptocurrencies plummeting from their record highs. However, with miners now forced to leave China, they can find alternative, more cleaner energy sources to mine BTC and other cryptocurrencies, which will further legitimize the entire sector and remove the ‘Bitcoin is bad for the environment’ FUD all together.

PS – Elon Musk has already stated that Tesla will resume accepting Bitcoin as a form of payment, when there is sufficient evidence that more than 50% of mining is done using renewable energy!

Decentralization

As many of us in the crypto community know, the whole purpose of BTC and the underlying blockchain technology is that it is decentralized, meaning no single, central authority can control it. Being an autocratic country, China controls virtually every aspect of its citizens’ lives and immediately cracks down on/eliminates any opposition. Thus, there were always burgeoning concerns over China embracing Bitcoin. In fact, Peter Thiel, PayPal co-founder and self-proclaimed “Bitcoin Maximilist”, recently warned that “China being long Bitcoin” was bad, as it could be used “as a Chinese financial weapon against the U.S.” Furthermore, he added that “Bitcoin threatens fiat money, but it especially threatens the U.S. dollar, and China wants to do things to weaken it.” Ultimately, China ending its relationship with BTC ends the FUD that “Bitcoin can be controlled”, which further highlights the importance of having decentralized currencies like BTC as legal tenders. In other words, by ‘banning’ BTC, China’s influence over the crypto-space will pretty much end, which might even dissuade lawmakers from enacting tough measures against BTC and other cryptos.

Conclusion

Thanks to the China ‘ban’, I, for one, am more bullish on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies than ever before.. El Salvador recently became the first country to make Bitcoin a legal tender, with dozens of other South American politicians hinting at BTC adoption as well. Ultimately, China’s involvement, or lack thereof, is great news for Bitcoin and will only accelerate the usage of clean energy while also convincing BTC skeptics that the currency cannot be controlled by dictatorial countries like China.

PS – Let’s not forget that companies like Google or Facebook or Twitter are banned in China. Would you have sold your entire positions in these companies when the ban was enacted? No.. If you did, you’d have missed out on 100%+ gains over the last decade. Relax, buy the dip and HODL!

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is as-bitcoin-china.jpeg

AT&T’s WarnerMedia + Discovery Merger – Does it make sense?

In 2018, AT&T’s (T) acquisition of Time Warner was finally approved by various governmental agencies for a whopping sum of $85.4 billion. Essentially, AT&T wanted to use its wireless and broadband services to deliver high-quality content (Time Warner-owned CNN, TNT, WB’s film & TV slate, HBO, etc.) to its consumers. 3 years later, however, AT&T is now planning to sell its entire WarnerMedia division to Discovery for a sum of $43 billion, through “a combination of cash, debt securities, and WarnerMedia’s retention of certain debt.” The deal would merge WarnerMedia and Discovery’s streaming services, making the ‘merged’ company worth roughly $150 billion, including debt. In addition, AT&T shareholders would receive a 71% stake in the new company while Discovery shareholders would receive a 29% stake.

That said, the question becomes – Why is AT&T selling WarnerMedia for a loss of $42.4 billion? After all, WarnerMedia has a plethora of lucrative assets, from its news division (CNN) to WB’s film & TV franchises like DC Comics, Harry Potter, etc. On paper, the idea of a cable and wireless company like AT&T leveraging its broadband services to serve customers with media content makes sense. In reality, however, the acquisition has been a disaster for AT&T and its shareholders, while also stretching its resources thin. Even Wall Street was against this deal, with the company seeing its stock price drop more than 20% since 2018.

Thanks to its pricey acquisitions of DirecTv for $48 billion or 67.1 billion with debt, and aforementioned Time Warner for $85.4 billion, AT&T has become saddled with over $180 billion in short-term and long-term debt, making it one of the most indebted companies in the world. In a crowded wireless space, which is its core business after all, AT&T is in need of a lot of capital to expand its current 5G infrastructure to compete against companies like Verizon (VZ), Comcast (CMCSA), and T-Mobile/Sprint (TMUS). A few months ago, the Federal Communications Commissions (FCC) held a massive 5G airwave auction, where Verizon, AT&T, and T-Mobile spent over $45.4 billion, $23.4 billion, and $9.3 billion respectively to acquire “C-band spectrum.” Without going on a tangent about the auction itself and the 5G and broadband network, the fact of the matter is that it is very expensive to upgrade the current infrastructure to deliver a high-speed 5G connection. In fact, AT&T ended up further increasing its debt-load by borrowing $14 billion to pay for the auction, which is becoming very unsustainable. AT&T is essentially fighting behemoths on multiple fronts (in telecommunication and in entertainment) with very limited capital and is trailing in both. As Ron Swanson famously said, “Never half-ass two things”…

Speaking of, while half of the company’s focus was on 5G infrastructure, the other half was set on rolling out the company’s flagship streaming service, HBO Max, in the hopes of taking on Netflix, Disney, Amazon, etc. Despite spending billions of dollars on original content for both HBO and HBO Max, the results have been disappointing, to say the least. By the way, I do have to express my befuddlement at the marketing of HBO Max, as the company failed to effectively distinguish between its 4 services – HBO, HBO Go, HBO Now, and HBO Max. As someone who follows the entertainment and business world closely, even I was confused at the difference between the aforementioned services… Apologize for the tangent but, this marketing blunder proved to me why a merger & acquisition (M&A) of companies in 2 completely different industries is not a good idea. Okay, back to subscriber growth, or lack thereof in the case of HBO Max. In terms of subscribers, AT&T reported that HBO & HBO Max added roughly 2.7 million subscribers domestically in the last quarter, with a current tally of just 44.1 millions HBO and HBO Max subscribers domestically and roughly 64 million subscribers globally. The bump in new subscriptions was much lower than expected, despite having HBO Max-exclusive releases like Zack Snyder’s Justice League and day-and-date releases for big movies like Godzilla vs. Kong, Mortal Kombat, Wonder Woman 1984, etc.. On the other hand, many streaming services reported solid subscriber growth while not having to raise their subscription cost a whole lot. Here is the subscriber number for the other streaming services – Netflix (NFLX) currently has over 207 million subscribers, Disney (DIS) currently has roughly 160 million subscribers (Disney+ has 103.6 million subscribers, Hulu has 41.6 million subscribers and ESPN+ has 13.8 million subscribers), Amazon (AMZN) Prime currently has over 200 million subscribers, Comcast’s Peacock currently has over 42 million subscribers, Discovery+ has over 15 million subscribers, ViacomCBS’s Paramount+ currently has over 30 million subscribers, and Apple+ *is estimated* to have roughly 40 million subscribers based on third-party data. The competition is clearly heating up in the streaming service space and ultimately, consumers will only have the money to sign up for a couple of services, which has arguably left some services in the dust already (ie. Quibi). By merging WarnerMedia and Discovery, HBO Max and Discovery can offer more content for a reasonably priced subscription cost between $7/month and $15/month, making it a better bargain for the consumer. Considering Discovery+ is best known for its educational content (Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, etc.), and HBO Max is best known for its adult-oriented fictional content, an amalgamation of the 2 would have a four-quadrant appeal and would most definitely help expand its viewer base.

By merging the 2 entertainment companies, who have a similar entertainment-oriented vision anyways, the end result would be better for the consumer, while also allowing AT&T to use the $43 billion to focus on its core business of 5G network and fiber network expansion.

Reddit-rally: Is AMC Entertainment now out of financial trouble?

Despite the country still seeing high number of Covid-19 cases, deaths, economic troubles, one of the biggest stories that took the Internet and the world by storm was the Reddit-fueled mania. Without going super deep into all financial jargon, stocks like GameStop (GME), AMC Entertainment (AMC), and a couple of other ones like Nokia, BlackBerry, etc. saw a huge surge in their stock prices, primarily due to the actions of retail investors and short-squeezes by hedge funds, before tumbling down again… Because this is an entertainment-centric blog, I will mostly focus on the ramifications on AMC and whether the company is now out of any financial trouble.

Before this Reddit madness, AMC was in a really precarious financial position, as I elaborated in my previous article. The company saw a huge decline in revenues in 2020 and was expected to run out of cash by mid-January. Not to mention, the company was saddled with billions of dollars of debt and was on the precipice of (Chapter 11) bankruptcy. Because of the pandemic, the company had a cash burn rate of $125 million and based off the Q3 2020 earnings, the company reported having roughly $400 million in cash & cash equivalents. Despite the vaccine rollout, situation got much worse for AMC because film studios started delaying their blockbusters like No Time To Die or Morbius to the later half of 2020 or even 2021. At this point, it was all but likely that AMC would fall, which is exactly what the short sellers were banking on…

Note: In the next paragraph, I delve a little deeper into short selling and what led to AMC’s shares skyrocketing… Because this is a pretty complicated subject, I promise to keep it as simple as possible.

In case you’re still confused about short selling (even after watching The Big Short dozens of times), here’s a good summary of what it is – Let’s say Person A believes that a company’s stock price will fall. Thus, Person A “borrows” a stock from Person B and immediately sells it to Person C at the market price (let’s say $10). Now, Person A just waits… If the stock price of the company drops to $5, Person A buys the stock at that $5 market price and “returns” it to Person B, therefore pocketing that $5 profit. Now, if the stock price increases to $15 rather than dropping, Person A is forced to buy it at the $15 market price, thus losing $5. Relatively safe, right? Nope… Short selling is extremely risky and the potential downside is almost infinite. If the stock price increases to $30 or $100 or even $400 (in the case of GME), Person A HAS to buy it back at that market price. Meaning, he’s potentially facing a $390 loss if the price skyrocketed to $400. Because of AMC’s financial position and the repeated movie delays, many large institutional investors and hedge funds started shorting the stock en masse and were counting on the company going under. In fact, at one point, there were more AMC shorts than all the shares outstanding, which is actually possible. Retail investors, like you and me, noticed the crazy amount of short interest and because these companies’ stock prices were super cheap, these individual investors started buying it. As the share prices started to rise, some short sellers were forced to cover their losses and had to buy it back at that market price. This created something called as a “short squeeze”, which was responsible for Game Stock and AMC “going to “the moon.” Logically speaking, as more institutional and hedge fund investors started to cover their losses, the price of the stock rose even more. Essentially, the more the stock price rose, the more short sellers covered their losses, which only drove the price higher and higher. This is what led to stocks like GameStock and AMC increasing 100’s of percent, which led many brokerages to halt trading for such stocks… That’s a separate story all together.

Just before the Reddit-mania, AMC started raising capital from various places. First, the company raised $204 million in December, and in early January, it raised over $713 million. For the most part, the company raised capital by issuing more common shares, which is both good and bad for the existing shareholders. By raising money through equity, shareholders might feel a sense of relief as their investment is less likely to go under. On the other hand, increasing the number of shares also dilutes the holdings of existing shareholders. More on stock dilution later… According to insiders, “the company during the summer restructured its balance sheet to wipe out more than $500 million in debt and has negotiated with landlords on its rent payments throughout the crisis.”

However, the Reddit-mania helped AMC further reduce his debt load while simultaneously shoring up its cash reserves. Apparently, Silver Lake, one of AMC’s lenders, “converted $600 million in AMC debt into equity”, who then sold their shares at the high market price. Meaning, AMC effectively shaved off $600 million of its debt. In addition, AMC has since issued new shares multiple times since the rally, which has led it to raise over $300 million on top of the $900+ million before the Reddit-mania. Meaning, AMC now has enough capital to last well into 2021. Thanks to our friends at Reddit’s wallstreetbets, AMC has also wiped “out all of last year’s pandemic losses.” However, analysts also warn that AMC has now diluted equity shareholders “by roughly 75%” and if situation doesn’t improve by summer/early-fall, we’re likely to see a repeat of bankruptcy talks. Fortunately, the Biden administration is playing a bigger role in vaccine rollout than the previous administration and as more companies like J&J and Sanofi report positive vaccine data, we could start seeing things normalize by the summer. Meaning, we could once again return to the multiplexes and watch a movie the way it was intended to be seen – on the big screen!

Why movie studios should NOT buy theatre chains

Because of the Covid-19 pandemic’s impact on the entertainment industry, one question that has repeatedly come up is “Why don’t movie studios buy theatre chains like AMC or Cinemark or Cineworld (which owns Regal), etc.?” After all, the exhibition industry has seen a huge drop in their share prices & market value, which could potentially be a steal for a major movie studio. In addition, the Trump administration recently abolished the Paramount Decrees, which prevented movie studios from buying theatre chains in the past. Now that the Paramount Decrees have ended, studios are legally allowed to own and operate movie theatres, albeit after a short 2-year “sunset period”. So, why haven’t we heard reports of one of the major studios (Disney, WB, Universal, Sony, Paramount) or even one of the streaming giants (Amazon, Apple, Netflix) lining up to own movie theatres? Well, there are a few reasons…

Even though such a vertical integration idea might sound good on the surface, in reality, it would be a poor financial decision for movie studios to make. Because of declining ticket sales, coupled with lackluster financials for movie theatres and a big emphasis on streaming, studios should not open up their wallets to buy movie theatres.

Declining Domestic Ticket Sales

For starters, domestic ticket sales have been declining for years now. Even though 2019 was a record-breaking year for Hollywood with over $42.5 billion in sales, actual tickets sold were far lower from their early-2000 highs, as seen below.

In 2019, 1.244 billion tickets were sold, a drop from 1.301 billion tickets sold in 2018, which is already much lower from 1.575 billion tickets sold in 2002. The only reason 2019 was a record-breaking year, in terms of revenue, is because the average ticket price increased by 36 cents to $9.37. As ticket prices keep rising, fewer people go to the movie theatre, which compel exhibitors to further raise ticket prices to offset the losses. Thanks to burgeoning ticket prices and plethora of other entertainment options like streaming, video games, etc., the average person now only goes to the movie theatre a couple of times a year, primarily for big tentpole films like an ‘Avengers’ or ‘Star Wars.’ In 2019, more than 1/4th of the worldwide box office total came from just 10 movies. The fact of the matter is that people don’t go to the theatre anymore to see smaller films like ‘Doctor Sleep’ or ‘The Lighthouse’, something they routinely did in the past.

Financials

Looking at the financials of AMC, Cinemark, and Cineworld, it is clear that the industry does not have a *high* profit margin. Based on the company’s reported income statements –

Cinemark’s annual net income was: $216 million in 2015, $254 million in 2016, $263 million in 2017, $213 million in 2018, $190 million in 2019.

AMC’s net income was $104 million in 2015, $112 million in 2016, net loss of $487 million in 2017, $110 million in 2018, and a net loss of $149 million in 2019.

Cineworld’s net income was $75 million in 2015, $82 million in 2016, $101 million in 2017, $213 million in 2018, and $141 million in 2019.

While Cinemark and Cineworld have performed considerably better than AMC, at least when it comes to net income, all 3 major theatre chains have billions of dollars in debt (both short-term & long-term).

Not to mention, owning and operating movie theatre is an extremely expensive endeavor. Movie theatres have high overheard fixed costs and because of the pandemic & the resulting lockdowns, they’ve burned through 100’s of millions of dollars of cash every quarter. AMC, the largest theatre chain in the world, recently issued a dire warning, stating that it was going to run out of cash by January. If a studio were to acquire one of these chains, especially AMC, they’d also have to assume all the debt. The 2 biggest movie studios, Disney & AT&T-owned WB, are already riddled with billions of dollars of debt from their recent acquisitions. In 2019, Disney shelled out $71.3 billion to buy 20th Century Fox’s assets, while AT&T purchased DirectTV for $67 billion (including debt) and Time Warner for $85 billion in 2015 and 2018 respectively. An argument could be made, however, for a streaming company to buy movie theatres. As I detailed in my last article, however, Netflix is already $17+ billion in debt, so they are pretty much in no position to run movie theatres & assume all the debt. On the other hand, Amazon ($1.5+ trillion market cap as of this writing) and Apple ($2.2+ trillion market cap as of this writing) have billions of dollars in cash and could potentially acquire movie theatre chains. Even though paying a few billion dollars to acquire one of the 3 big chains is chump change for the likes of Amazon or Apple, both are already investing heavily on their streaming platforms and more importantly, are facing anti-trust lawsuits. It’s safe to say that the last thing either of the 2 tech giants needs is more government scrutiny over its alleged monopolistic business practices.

Streaming

As alluded to before, the industry, as a whole, is transitioning more towards streaming. Today, consumers have over 8 major streaming services, with tons of content to watch from the comfort of their homes. With high-quality, cinematic-level shows produced like ‘The Mandalorian’ or ‘Game of Thrones’ on TV, coupled with all the upcoming ‘Marvel Studios’, ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Lord of the Rings’ shows coming on streaming platforms, many consumers feel like they’re already getting their money’s worth on streaming without having to spend $15 to watch a VFX-heavy movie in a theatre. For less than $15 a month, consumers get access to 1000’s of classic & original TV shows and movies, which is a better deal for an individual.

In addition to all the classic content, consumers also get new movies on the streaming platforms, including films like Wonder Woman 1984 or Soul or Mulan, etc. Recently, WB dropped a bombshell on the industry, announcing that it will have a simultaneous release strategy for its entire 2021 film slate. Meaning, you will be able to watch films like Kong v. Godzilla, The Suicide Squad, Dune in theatres AND on HBO Max on the same day. In the past, studios and exhibitors had a 3-month theatrical window, which meant that studios couldn’t release their movies on Video On Demand (VOD) or on streaming within that 3-month window. If more studios make similar moves, it’ll render movie theatres useless.

I genuinely hope I’m wrong and will happily eat crow if movie theatres come back stronger than ever, once vaccines are rolled out to the masses. If AMC is unable to raise more money through stock issuance or debt and does end up declaring (Chapter 11) bankruptcy in the next few weeks, which is likely, I hope they are able to successfully reorganize their debts and get back in the business. I cherish the theatrical, moviegoing experience and would like nothing more than to go back to the movies again. Yes, there is also an argument to be made that studios need theatres for their movies to make billions of dollars, which is simply not possible on a streaming service. An ‘Avengers: Endgame’ isn’t going to make $2.8 billion on a streaming service or on VOD. However, the costs of buying and operating movie theatres are far greater than the returns and based on the current trajectory, I suspect that going to the movie theatre might eventually become a relic of the past, with a very niche audience.

Conclusion

As I laid out above, I don’t think it would be prudent for movie studios to own and operate movie theatres. Fewer people were going to the movie theatres today than before, even before Covid-19 wreaked havoc on the exhibition industry. With a razor-thin profit margin & a shifting entertainment landscape to streaming, it simply does not make (financial) sense for a movie studio or a streaming platform to spend billions to acquire movie theatre chains.

3 ways to improve Netflix

In the last earnings call, Netflix executives warned investors that the company expects its future subscriber growth to drop, especially as “Covid and social restrictions end.” Not to mention, more streaming services have joined the fray, meaning Netflix now faces significantly higher competition than ever before, which has prompted the company to double down on their original content. In 2020, Netflix planned to spend “$17.3 billion” on their original content, “a $2 billion increase from 2019.” Spending such exorbitant amounts of money requires the ability to raise capital and rather than raising money through equity (offering more stocks), Netflix decided to borrow money. Currently, the streaming giant has $726 million in short-term debt and a whopping $17 billion in long-term debt. Their debt-to-asset ratio, which indicates the percentage of assets financed by (short-term and long-term) debts is at a staggering 47%. Their debt-to-equity ratio, which is measured by dividing the total liabilities by the shareholders’ equity, is at 298%! Generally speaking, a lower debt-to-asset ratio and debt-to-equity ratio is better because it involves less risk. Even though this isn’t as big of a problem right now, Netflix absolutely needs to take this into consideration for their overall streaming strategy.

That being said, I believe that Netflix can do 3 things to alleviate some of the inevitable financial stress and further solidify its #1 ranking in the streaming arena.

Marketing / Quality vs Quantity

One of Netflix’s defining ‘qualities’ is that it releases all of its episodes at once, as opposed to dropping it weekly like traditional cable or other streaming services. Say what you will about HBO Max’s launch, there’s no denying that HBO is easily the best streaming service, in terms of quality. In the last number of years, HBO Originals have repeatedly swept the Emmy’s and generally receive better critical reception than their rivals. Netflix’s strategy, on the other hand, is to completely bombard its subscribers with so much content, often times lackluster, that they completely forget to even market them. In the last 2 months, we’ve had big Netflix original shows like Lucifer Season 5, Ratched Season 1, Umbrella Academy S2, Away S1, etc. In terms of original movies, Netflix recently gave us Enola Holmes, Project Power, The Devil All The Time, etc. However, do you still hear anyone talking about these shows/movies? Or even better (or worse), did you first hear about these shows through marketing or by aimlessly scrolling through Netflix? Chances are, it’s the latter. It’s fair to say that Netflix is absolutely abysmal at marketing its content and one reason for this is because they have TOO MUCH content. Unlike an HBO or Disney+ or even an Apple+ that is focused on putting out quality content and marketing their content to get the maximum eyeballs, Netflix has chosen to just drown its viewers with content and simply doesn’t have as much money allocated to promote them. This also explains why Netflix has been known to ending popular shows after a couple of seasons. Just recently, Netflix cancelled Glow, The Chilling Adventures of Sabrina, Altered Carbon, etc. If people don’t know that there’s a new season coming out, how does Netflix expect them to watch it? Frankly, I do not get the rationale to greenlight a gazillion shows if Netflix isn’t going to take the time to even market them properly… @Netflix, focus on promoting the content and spend more time on the quality of the content itself!!

PS – This SNL skit perfectly sums up Netflix’s current strategy

Introduce a free, ad-supported tier

This is a no-brainer. One way Netflix can see a big boost in their subscriber count is by releasing a free but ad-supported tier, similar to NBCUniversal’s Peacock. Of course, they can choose to offer limited content on this particular tier and drop weekly episodes as opposed to dropping them all-at-once if need be, but the strategy is quite sound. This will most definitely help them see a boost in the number of subscribers AND more importantly, allow them to recoup some of the expenses through advertisements, as one Steve Burke, a former NBCUniversal executive explains for Peacock. According to Burke, “Former NBCUniversal Chairman Steve Burke said last year he expects Peacock can make about $5 per month for every free Peacock subscriber in advertising revenue.” If Netflix were to offer a free tier, a lot of previous Netflix users will undoubtedly come back to the service, simply due to the amount of (four-quadrant) content available on the platform. Currently, the cheapest Netflix plan is $9/month, higher than Disney+, Apple+, and Peacock. However, Netflix is obviously the biggest streaming platform in the world and will likely be able to demand significantly higher in advertising fees than a newbie like Peacock. As more people “subscribe” to Netflix, the company will have higher leverage, which will likely translate to more revenue for the company. That being said, there is a risk of losing current, paying subscribers to the free tier instead. However, Netflix can entice these customers to stick to the paid plans by offering more content, especially in HD or 4K, allowing users to download and watch movies offline, etc. These are the benefits that the free tier won’t have, for obvious reasons. Besides, the “turnover” rate and “revenue lost” will be minuscule to the advertising revenue generated from the free tier.

Release weekly episodes

This is likely to be the most controversial suggestion but based purely on the research and data, I believe Netflix (and us, the viewers) will most definitely benefit from this strategy. For starters, releasing weekly episodes has shown to generate more buzz, translating to higher viewership, than Netflix’s drop-it-all-at-once strategy. Recently, Amazon switched their prior model and decided to drop weekly episodes of The Boys season 2, as opposed to dropping them all at once for Season 1. The result? Double the viewership. How about The Mandalorian or Game of Thrones? These shows wouldn’t have been anywhere as big as they are/were if studios dropped the entire season at once. Releasing one episode a week gives viewers the time to speculate and buzz about the show for an entire week! By dropping weekly episodes, the buzz only goes up and if the shows are any good, more people join the ‘bandwagon’ because of the word-of-the-mouth. As we all know, people like being a part of the cultural zeitgeist and releasing weekly episodes makes the show feel like an “event.” As I alluded to before, there is very little buzz, if any, for a Netflix show after a week or 2 of its release. This is also true for high-profile Netflix shows like Stranger Things, The Witcher, Daredevil, etc. Once people watch the entire season, the buzz dissipates and viewers naturally move on to other shows. As we’ve seen from HBO or Disney+ shows, subscribers will continue to pay if they like a particular show. Another benefit of weekly episodes is that Netflix will then no longer need to spend billions of dollars on shows that would likely have been ignored anyways.

As I mentioned before, releasing weekly episodes is also good for the viewers. There have been detailed studies on the negative impact of binge-watching on one’s health, but my argument will solely be based on the ‘cultural’ impact. When Netflix dumps the entire season at once, interested viewers are compelled to binge the show to avoid spoilers. Often times, that’s 10+ hours of time commitment in one weekend, which a lot of people are unable to commit to for a plethora of reasons. If no one talks about the show after a week, viewers might be inclined to skip the show all together, which explains why a majority of Netflix shows don’t gain significant viewership. People want to be a part of the conversation!

Look, I totally understand that this suggestion is very disruptive and if enacted, will anger a lot of current subscribers. However, the company can always find a “middle-ground” of sorts. For certain low-profile shows like Ratched, Glow, etc., it’s perfectly fine if Netflix chooses to dump the entire season at once to satiate the appetite of binge-watchers. However, for their ‘tentpole’ shows like Stranger Things, The Witcher, House of Cards, why not release an episode, or even a couple of episodes, weekly? The conversation/buzz will go on for weeks and will make these shows more of an “event.” This model has been proven to be more successful than Netflix’s current strategy, hence why more streaming services chose this route for their platforms.

Conclusion

Based on the sheer amount of debt the company owes and lack of buzz with a majority of their content, I believe that Netflix should – focus on marketing its content and emphasizing quality over quantity, offer a free, ad-supported plan, and lastly, switch to weekly episodes. Again, all of these suggestions are intertwined. Netflix will not be compelled to bombard its viewers with so much original content if they released weekly episodes for their popular shows. If viewers do enjoy this show, they will continue to pay for the service. This will save the company billions of dollars in original programming, which can also better be used to promote the content itself and get higher viewership. Offering a free, ad-supported tier will only lead to more subscribers and open a new source of revenue for the company. I believe if Netflix does decide to adopt these suggestions, they will most definitely be in a better financial condition and continue to remain the cream of the crop! As the Hulk joked in Avengers: Endgame, “I see this as an absolute win!”

The Old Guard Review (No Spoilers) – Netflix Original

Who knew that our first comic-book movie since Birds of Prey, which was released in February, would’ve been a Netflix original in July?!! Yes, you read that right. ‘The Old Guard’ is based on a comic-book. Thanks to Covid-19, high-profile comic-book movies like Black Widow, Wonder Woman 1984, Morbius and Venom 2 have been delayed, thus leaving us desperate for content that can satiate our hunger for super-heroics, especially in today’s world… Enter streaming services, our new overlords. As more and more movies get bumped off their release dates, Netflix and other streaming services like Disney+, Apple+, etc. have taken the initiative to provide us with much-needed entertainment in our lives. Earlier this year, Netflix’s original Chris Hemsworth-led action movie, Extraction, was a huge success (critically and ratings-wise) and a total blast!!

The Old Guard is about “an army” of 4 immortals who’ve been secretly helping people throughout history and subtly influencing world events in the process. However, when a seemingly normal rescue mission goes south and their identities and abilities are exposed, they’re forced to go on the run and defend their freedom against an affluent, pharmaceutical CEO who wants to extract their ‘gifts’ for profits. Further conflicting matters is the ‘discovery’ of a new and fifth member who’s just gained immortality.

Positives

Just like Extraction, The Old Guard’s biggest strength is with its action. Being very long-lived, these characters are immediately portrayed as a well-oiled, highly-trained machine who’ve had centuries to learn new fighting skills and hone their team-work (s)kills in the process. However, don’t let the immortality fool you into thinking that this movie has no stakes, as it very much does! These characters can/do feel pain and do momentarily die but thanks to their healing factor, their wounds slowly but surely regenerate.

Action aside, one aspect where ‘The Old Guard’ is better than your average action film is with its characterization and strong performances. Each and every one of the ‘immortal’ beings has a distinct personality and gets just enough character work to make us care about them. Charlize Theron, who plays Andy (the leader of the group) is fantastic, as she always is, and brings that warmth yet ‘badassery’ that she displayed in Mad Max: Fury Road, Atomic Blonde, etc. Because of centuries of fighting for what’s right but not seeing any direct results of hers actions, she’s become far more jaded and nihilistic. At one point, Andy even states that it is futile to try saving the world as it seems to only get worse everyday. However, she once again starts valuing life when she ‘discovers’ a young U.S. Marine named Nile, who just gained immortality. Speaking of, Nile’s character arc is empowering and especially touching as she’s conflicted on embracing the violence-driven aspect of the ‘Old Guard’ or to go back to her family and pretend that she isn’t “blessed” with immortality. Kiki Layne, who was phenomenal in If Beale Street Could Talk, manages to hold her own against Theron and ends up adding a whole new dimension to her character. The supporting cast of immortals, played excellently by Matthias Schoenaerts, Marwan Kenzari, and Luca Marinelli, all get their fair share of fleshing out and have some of the more emotionally resonant and comedic scenes in the movie. Lastly, the ever-reliable Chiwetel Ejiofor plays a sympathetic yet flawed ‘antagonist’ and absolutely sells his character’s motivations, even if questionable.

**Courtesy of Netflix,** **Skydance Media, and Denver and Delilah Productions**

If you’re one of those that isn’t fond of the action-heavy spectacles like the John Wick series or Extraction, fret not as this one also has a lot of mythology that is explored and and can most definitely be explored further in future installments. In addition, the immortality is treated more like a curse, similar to Logan. Because these characters can never die, until their abilities mysteriously vanish at some point as we are told, there is a sense of loneliness that comes with living forever. Some of the members even had families before, so seeing their loved ones die while they don’t is kinda — heartbreaking. Lastly, I have to give the filmmakers props for have a diverse, inclusive cast, without ever feeling like pandering to satisfy the modern ‘woke’ culture. 2 of the immortal characters are openly gay, but it was poignant and not stereotypical in the slightest.

Negatives

Even though the trailer promises an action-packed movie, this isn’t as action-heavy as some were potentially hoping for, which could end up disappointing certain genre fans. At times, the movie slows down considerably to give us the obligatory exposition scenes and could’ve easily shaved off 5-10 minutes from its runtime.

In addition, there are two significant twists in the movie. Even though the first one was revealed in the film’s marketing and trailers and pretty much drives the entire plot, the second twist is indeed quite predictable and doesn’t turn out to be as earth-shattering of a revelation as the filmmakers hoped it’d be. Also, there are some directorial choices, specifically playing music over some of the fight scenes, that felt incongruous with the movie’s dark tone. Lastly, the main villain is a cartoonish, one-dimensional villain and doesn’t have much motivations, beyond corporate profits.

Rating – Solid Recommendation

Overall, The Old Guard is a surprisingly thought-provoking film, with excellent performances and palpable chemistry among the cast members! The action is very well-shot, for the most part, and there is a lot of character development to leave me engaged, entertained, and invested throughout the runtime. Even though Extraction is more fun and exciting, The Old Guard has a better mix of action and emotion and is absolutely worthy of your time!

PS – There is a huge mid-credits scene, so stay “seated” till the end!!

All the major streaming services (content, pricing, etc.)

Covid-19 has kept us apart from our families, friends, relatives, but one of the few sources of comfort to ‘cure’ our loneliness are the seemingly-countless streaming services. As more and more people cut cable, more streaming services seem to be popping up. Netflix started out as a DVD rental company in 1997, with streaming only being introduced a decade later. Now, they are primarily known as a streaming service provider and have inspired dozens of companies to provide their own services as well. With HBO Max and NBC-Universal’s Peacock launching very soon, I think it’s a perfect time to list all the major streaming services that are/will be available for our consumption.

Netflix – Easily the most popular streaming service out there, Netflix currently boasts of 180+ million subscribers, with a recent surge in subscribers thanks to the quarantine measures. The service has 3 pricing plans – $8.99/month, $12.99/month, $15.99/month. In terms of what content Netflix has, the real question is “what don’t they have?” They’ve borrowed a lot of money to fund their original programming, which includes heavyweights like Stranger Things, The Witcher, House of Cards, etc. More importantly, Netflix is arguably the only service that has something for everyone, which has worked wonders for them.
Amazon Prime Video – Prime Video is one of the many perks of having an Amazon Prime membership, which costs $12.99/month and $6.99/month for students. And, Prime Video has some of the best streaming content available, including original series like the acclaimed The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel, Jack Ryan, and original movies like The Report, Late Night, etc. Fun fact – many college students get 6-months of free Amazon Prime using their .edu email ID’s!
Hulu – Hulu is one of the most affordable AND one of the better streaming services available. The service costs $5.99/month with ads and $11.99/month without ads. In terms of content, Hulu has popular shows like ‘Rick and Morty’, ‘Killing Eve’, ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ etc. In addition, Disney (currently a 2/3rds owner) is offering a $12.99/month bundle for Disney+, Hulu, and ESPN+, which is a terrific deal!
Apple TV+ – After realizing that the streaming service model can be profitable, Apple decided to jump in the game, with the launch of Apple TV+. Even though Apple+ doesn’t have a lot of IP-driven content, it costs a measly $4.99/month and has critically-acclaimed shows like ‘The Morning Show’, ‘Defending Jacob’ and original movies like Samuel Jackson-Anthony Mackie’s ‘The Banker’, etc. PS – you can get one year of free Apple+ if you’ve purchased an Apple product after September 2019!
Disney+ – The major appeal of Disney+ is the family-friendly content. On top of that, Disney owns some of the biggest Hollywood franchises (Marvel Studios, Star Wars, Pixar) and recently acquired 20th Century Fox’s assets (X-Men, Avatar, Simpsons) to boost their D+ content. This service currently costs $6.99/month and has most (not all because of existing deals) of the Marvel movies, the Star Wars films and 100’s of Disney toons. Fun fact, current Verizon Unlimited customers can get one year of free Disney+, so win-win! In terms of content, one criticism levied against D+ is the lack of high-profile new content, which Disney will soon rectify with the launch of Falcon & Winter Soldier, Mandalorian season 2, and WandaVision this year! And, they have more Marvel shows (Loki, Ms. Marvel, She-Hulk, etc.) and Star Wars shows (Obi-Wan, Rogue One’s Cassian Andor) in production!
CBS All Access – CBS All Access is arguably the least-buzzy of the big streaming services, as there isn’t a whole lot of appealing content. Aside from the Star Trek shows (Picard, Discovery), The Twilight Zone, CBS All Access simply doesn’t have the content that justifies paying for this service. However, the service has 2 pricing plans – $5.99/month (with limited ads) and $9.99/month (no ads).
HBO Max – HBO Max is essentially a derivative of the existing HBO Now (streaming service) and HBO Go (cable service for DirecTV & Spectrum customers) and will launch on May 27. Max will cost $15/month and will feature the usual HBO content (Game of Thrones, Westworld). However, it is an upgrade from Now & Go in that there will original content (Justice League Dark, The Shining’s Overlook series) and licensed content like Friends, Southpark, The Big Bang Theory, etc., which the existing versions won’t have. I also suspect that WB will merge the DC streaming service into HBO Max. At least, that makes more sense…
Peacock – Lastly, NBCUniversal’s Peacock has already launched for some Comcast customers but will launch for everyone else on July 15. Now, Peacock has 3 different price tiers – $0 (limited content + ads), $4.99/month (with ads) and $9.99/month (no ads). In terms of content, Peacock will have all the Universal movies (Jurassic World, Fast & Furious), original content (a new Battlestar Galactica series) and more importantly, The Office and Parks & Recreation. As you may or may not know, Parks & Rec, and The Office will depart Netflix in October 2020 and January 2021 respectively!

PS – If you subscribe to every aforementioned service at the cheapest price, you’ll still be paying at least $50/month!!

Unless another major studio decides to launch their own streaming service, it looks like the majority of the competition will be among those 8 services. Of course, we have also have other lesser-known services like Quibi (will soon allow for TV viewing), Tubi (free, ad-supported), Shudder ($4.75/month for horror/supernatural content), Crackle (free, ad-supported), Showtime ($10.99/month), Starz ($8.99/month), YouTube TV ($49.99/month), AND more!! So don’t worry, you have plenty of content to keep you entertained!

Extraction Review (No Spoilers) – Netflix Original

With movie theatres shut down and all of us stuck in our homes, thanks to Covid-19 and the shelter-in-place orders, streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, Quibi(!), etc. have been stepping up their game and releasing a ton of content to keep us entertained.

Extraction is a bit of a mini-Avengers reunion as it is written and produced by Joe Russo (one of the directors of Winter Soldier, Civil War, Infinity War and Endgame), stars Chris Hemsworth (Thor himself), and is directed by Sam Hargrave (stunt-man in the Avengers films). The premise is fairly straightforward – A group of mercenaries are tasked with rescuing the kidnapped son of a big Indian crime lord but when the mission goes south and the boy becomes expendable, Tyler Rake (played by Hemsworth) has to choose: to protect or to ditch the boy.

Positives

At the risk of stating the obvious, Extraction has some of the best action sequences I have seen in a while, ever since the first John Wick film. Just like that Keanu-led franchise, this movie is also directed by a stunt-coordinator, which is showcased in the fight scenes. The action is brutal, visceral, and is extremely well-choreographed. Rather than relying on shaky-cam or quick cuts, the filmmakers let the action scenes breathe and use a variety of action (car chases, gunfights, knife-fights, etc.) to keep it from getting stale. In fact, there is one 12-minute long-take, which had me at the edge of my seat!

Action aside, this movie also has solid performances, especially from one Chris Hemsworth. He sells the film’s action convincingly but also does a really job in the one-on-one character moments. Tyler has a very traumatic past, as he lost his 6-year old son to lymphoma, and ends up seeing Ovi (the kidnapped kid) as his surrogate son. Speaking of the kid, played well by newcomer Rudhraksh Jaiswal, he has some good back-and-forth with Tyler and ends up being more than a lad-in-distress (male version of damsel-in-distress?). David Harbour has an extended cameo and he delivers as usual. Lastly, one of the more humanized characters in the film ends up being this elite Special Forces-type assassin figure, Saju. Initially, he’s presented as an antagonistic figure and has questionable motivations but the movie, thankfully, delves deeper into his backstory and makes him a sympathetic character.

Courtesy of Netflix, AGBO, Thematic Entertainment, India Take One Productions, and T.G.I.M. Films

Negatives

Don’t expect anything Shakespearean from a movie called ‘Extraction.’ The plot is pretty thin and is pretty predictable. Not to mention, the backstories provided feel obligated to appeal to those who want some semblance of a story rather than 100% action. As mentioned before, we learn that Tyler suffered a terrible loss and has been on a suicidal mission ever since. Ovi, the son of the Indian drug lord, talks about his dad and how uncomfortable it gets to, for example, have dinner with him, knowing that his dad kills people. However, the movie just glosses over the duo’s lives to get to the destruction and mayhem, which feels a little disappointing, as they had the set-up to explore these characters more and become more than a mindless action film. Tyler’s popping-pills-and-drinking-alcohol persona is one of the few scenes we get of him suffering from PTSD and as we all know by now, those are absolutely some of the biggest cliches for a hardened-action movie hero.

In addition, the inevitable bond between Tyler and Ovi needed more fleshing out. The pair only have a couple of conversations before a hardened-mercenary like Tyler decides to save the boy at all costs.

Courtesy of Netflix, AGBO, Thematic Entertainment, India Take One Productions, and T.G.I.M. Films

Rating – Solid Recommendation

Extraction doesn’t redefine the action movie genre by any stretch of the imagination. The story is boilerplate and is riddled with the genre cliches but more importantly, it delivers on its promise. It has terrific action and just enough character work to make me care for these characters. If you got a couple of hours to kill, I recommend checking out Extraction!

The Invisible Man Review – No Spoilers

Universal has attempted to create its own ‘Monster-verse’ for a long time now. From movies like Van Helsing (2004) to Dracula Untold (2014) to the recent ‘The Mummy’ (2017), it became abundantly clear that Universal wanted to quickly replicate the success that Marvel has had, without laying a solid foundation to support such an endeavor. As expected, their ‘putting the cart before the horse’ approach crashed and burned every time and now, they seem to be taking things slower and in a totally new direction.

PS – remember this star-studded picture?

Hell, even Angelina Jolie was rumored to play the Bride of Frankenstein. RIP Dark Universe…

In ‘The Invisible Man,’ Cecilia escapes the clutches of her incredibly smart and opulent yet abusive boyfriend (Adrian) and seeks to start her own life. Soon after, she learns that her boyfriend committed suicide and left her his vast fortune, with a couple of (fairly-reasonable) stipulations. Good, right? Not so fast. Cecilia’s life soon becomes a nightmare, as she realizes that her supposed-dead boyfriend is back and is well– invisible and starts terrorizing her and her friends.

Positives

Elizabeth Moss gives such an excellent performance as the tormented Cecilia. Her multi-faceted performance is very similar to Lupita Nyong’o’s performance in Jordan Peele’s Us, where they’re forced to make people believe in something so ‘ludicrous.’ However, Moss completely sells the pain, anger, fear, and frustration so effortlessly.

Courtesy of Universal Pictures, Blumhouse Productions, Goalpost Pictures, and Nervous Tick

Cecilia, unfortunately, also deals with an incredible amount of gaslighting in the film, something all too prevalent in society today. She is sure that Adrian is indeed behind the mayhem (thanks to his expertise in the field of optics) but, she has no way to prove that her dead boyfriend is indeed alive and well and has also found a way to be invisible. As a result, Adrian capitalizes on her apparent descent into madness and starts alienating her from her friends and family. After all, he is presented as an extremely meticulous narcissist, who’s concocted a ‘clever’ plan to win her back. Apparently, Cecilia is the only woman to ever leave him, which hurt his fragile ego. Throughout the film, you feel for her and her powerlessness in the situation. Furthermore, The ‘Invisible Man’ is definitely real (spoiler alert?) but more importantly, he is a parable for the pain and suffering that victims (especially women) endure, long after a toxic and abusive relationship has ended. Even seemingly-innocuous actions like going out to get the mail end up being difficult to overcome, as Adrian had such a deep control of her. She mentions the fact that he controlled what she wore, who she talked to, when she could leave, etc. Another theme of the movie is the use of surveillance and the role it plays in trivializing domestic abuse, as evident in the Weinstein case. Not to scare you any further but I highly recommend reading about a new facial recognition company called Clearview AI and its potential implications, should it ever be made available to the public.

Anyone that has known me for any period of time knows that I’m pretty stoic during a horror movie. A majority of the time, the jump scares are painfully predictable and lack any sense of build-up. Not here, folks. There are ‘jump-scares’ in this one that are well-earned and actually made me, well — jump. Clearly, director Leigh Whannell knows how to craft jump scares, without them feeling cheap. That being said, he never exclusively relies on jump-scares either. Instead, he puts his characters through situations that are arguably more frightening and awful than the ‘monster’ itself, which makes it all the scarier.

As mentioned before, the direction here is spectacular. One aspect I especially love is the use of spacing. Despite the houses being incredibly spacious, you can’t help but feel Cecilia’s claustrophobia. There is a constant, palpable sense of dread that the ‘Invisible Man’ is lurking around and watching her, which further adds to the suspense. In addition, Whannell clearly has an eye for action, as showcased in his last film, Upgrade. Check out Upgrade, by the way!

Negatives

Even though it was not a problem for me, some might get a tad bit bored by the slow-burn of the first 2 acts. For me, however, the first 2/3rd of the movie is more emotionally resonant and thought-provoking than the action-fueled final act. Don’t get me wrong, the third-act is really enjoyable but it’s definitely not as cerebral as the first 2 acts.

In addition, some of the twists are pretty predictable. Being an ‘Invisible Man’ movie, there are quite a bit of plot conveniences and logic is sporadically thrown out the window. Finally, there are a lot of events that transpire in public locations, with visible security cameras, but they’re inexplicably ignored.

Rating – Must-Watch

The Invisible Man is an incredibly powerful and empowering movie about an abused woman trying to overcome years of psychological trauma by confronting the monster from her past. Scares and suspense aside, this is a thematically-rich, thought-provoking movie that absolutely warrants a watch at the theatres!

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) Review (No Spoilers)

With yet another critically-lauded film, it’s safe to say that DC is on the right track. Out of their last 6 movies, 5 of them (Wonder Woman, Aquaman, Shazam, Oscar-nominated Joker, and Birds of Prey) have been varying degrees of good to great. With Wonder Woman 1984 coming this summer, and The Batman and The Suicide Squad well under- production, the future looks strong for DC.

Birds of Prey takes place after the events of Suicide Squad. Jared Leto’s Joker and Harley break up (happens in-between movies), which takes away Harley’s “immunity” which she enjoyed as the Joker’s girlfriend. Now that they’re not together anymore, everyone that she ever hurt wants revenge, including the crime boss Roman Sionis (Black Mask). However, he offers his “protection” if she were to retrieve a precious diamond stolen from him. As the story starts to unfold, Harley ends up protecting a young girl (Cassandra Cane) from the diabolic Sionis, with the help of other female characters (Black Canary, Renee Montoya, and the Huntress).

Positives

BoP excels when its main characters are interacting with each other, which unfortunately only happens in the final act of the film. However, the cast has solid chemistry and plays well off each other. Margot Robbie is once again gleefully delightful as the maniacal-yet-lovable Harley Quinn. She’s crazy yet endearing, vulnerable yet strong, which gives Robbie a chance to display a wide range of emotions for her character. It’s almost as if she was born to play this character. Other characters like The Huntress and Black Canary don’t have much of an arc and often feel like sidelined but to be fair, both Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Huntress) and Jurnee Smollett-Bell (Canary) are fine with the material given to them. However, one of the biggest positives is easily Ewan McGregor’s Black Mask. McGregor’s having the time of his life and absolutely relishes playing this over-the-top, maniacal villain. Even though the character itself ends up being wasted and doesn’t really do much in the film, McGregor’s performance differentiates him from some of the other DCEU villains and is a welcome, refreshing addition to the DCEU.

One of the film’s biggest strengths is in its action and gotta say, it is extremely well-choreographed. Similar to the action in John Wick, it was always clear as to what was happening on-screen, which can partially be explained by the fact that the filmmakers behind John Wick were hired to improve the action. Also, BoP is easily the most vibrant and colorful DCEU film thus far, although that looks to be topped by Wonder Woman 1984.

Courtesy of Warner Bros & DC Films

Thanks to a female director (Cathy Yan) at the helm, the ‘male gaze’ is also gone and instead, Yan gives us strong, badass female characters without necessarily overtly-sexualizing them.

Negatives

As mentioned before, this movie really isn’t a Birds of Prey movie, as the majority of the focus is on Harley herself. Characters like Huntress, Canary, Montoya are relegated to side-roles and don’t really have much justification for being in the movie. Speaking of, this film ‘borrows’ a ton of elements (4th wall-break, non-linear storytelling) from Deadpool but simply isn’t as funny or as creative as the Merc with the Mouth’s first adventure.

The story is pretty lackluster, but my biggest gripe is easily the decision to keep these characters apart for the majority of the film. As a result, certain unions often end up feeling contrived and lacked an emotional punch. In addition, the fight scenes (albeit great) had very low stakes because none of the villains/henchmen pose any form of a threat for our superheroines, which takes away any tension whatsoever.

Lastly, there was no reason for making this film R-rated. The sporadic f-bombs or occasional spurts of blood don’t take me out of the movie but looking back, the film could have easily circumvented that. Unlike superhero films like Deadpool, Logan, or Joker that necessitated the R-rating for the themes they were tackling or for staying truthful to the character, this iteration of BoP is an example of one that would arguably have benefitted from the PG-13 rating and appealing to young girls. Aside from a really out-of-the-blue sexual assault scene (that’s horrifying, of course), it’s not like BoP tackles any adult/mature issues. Had the movie delved deeper into Joker and Harley’s toxic relationship and Harley ‘breaking’ free from her “puddin’s” manipulation and control, this movie would arguably have been more powerful and empowering.

Conclusion – Mild Recommendation

Even though Birds of Prey continues DC’s hot streak, it’s a bit of a mixed bag overall. The lackluster story, coupled with the ‘heroes’ being apart for the lion’s share of the runtime, ultimately left me feeling empty. It’s definitely not as re-watchable or as enjoyable as Aquaman or Shazam but, if you’re looking for a decent time at the movies, Birds of Prey does deliver a semi-enjoyable experience.