Joseph T. Chunn, Jr.

Let's skip to what motivates reading audience reviews at all—one answer to one question: Does this movie justify a 15 dollar ticket, overpriced popcorn, and 3 straight hours in moderately uncomfortable sunglasses? Yes. James Cameron has once again set the industry standard in audiovisual world-building with a Pandora somehow more captivating than its first incarnation. From exotic sea life and gadgetry to light refraction in ocean depths, no hyperbole can overstate the gorgeousness of this film. That said, the only thing harder than critiquing narrative without spoilers is preventing outsized expectations from spoiling quality. Diehard fans and critics alike will leave theaters convinced that this film sacrifices storytelling for spectacle, ending almost exactly where the first film left off. My take: They are 100 percent correct. Go see it anyway. Despite one too many callbacks, a Niagara of family-first platitudes and foreshadowing aplenty, the film never leans so much on its predecessor that it can't justify existing. Cameron's point is not to propel the story but to raise the stakes, to pivot away from fantasy toward an appreciable realism of ordinary lives. Jake, Neytiri, and the entire Na'vi race appear less heroic and more human for the very first time—a step change that freshens the story while lending a clue as to what may come next. Ultimately, Avatar: The Way of Water stands tall as a great descendant of the film that defined a generation. It will prove the weakest installment in the franchise if only due to "catch up" storytelling, the politics of rising expectations, and its preference for a colorful black-and-white world over the reality of moral gray. But as Cameron said himself: "If you set your goals ridiculously high and it's a failure, you will fail above everyone else's success.” He told the truth.

If mediocrity is a game, its name is Black Ops Cold War.

Feelings about Modern Warfare are understandably mixed. The campaign, though realistic, overplays edginess while neglecting to say anything meaningful. Multiplayer adds more content and customization than ever before, but features questionable level design and sub-par matchmaking. And the Spec Ops mode is, well, indiscriminately terrible. These flaws aside, Modern Warfare faithfully reboots the sub-series. Its audiovisual quality sets the industry standard—and its gunplay is the most satisfying I've ever seen. Overall, I can't shake the feeling MW is a big patch or two away from near-perfection. As for the player base: I'm really disappointed with how the community has treated Infinity Ward. 2016 is over. And the infinite hatefare needs to stop. They have easily given us the most content rich and consumer friendly CoD of this console generation. That is an empirical fact. There's simply no reason to pounce on them without apology for every design flaw. News flash: All games have them. When the popularity wars are over, CoD players will lament the day Activision drops Infinity Ward as a lead developer. When Treyarch's cartoonish, rehashed, poorly-optimized Black Ops series is all that's left... Treyarch fanboys should be forced to tattoo "Pyrrhic" across their chest like a Scarlet letter. Modern Warfare—a solid shooter with problems like all other games—is an irrefutable counterargument to #InTreyarchWeTrust. If you care about this franchise, support this game. It's a leap in the right direction.