In this case: Sure! The Angry Birds Movie is really not bad. Can the result of that be any good at all? Can capitalism, so unfettered, produce anything of artistic value? Here are the basic stakes of the cash grab-cinema-for-the-spreadsheet and cinema-for-the-soul-colliding, in the form of a movie that came from a game that is best known not for entertaining people so much as distracting them. Here is a movie with such pretensions toward global universality that it does away with humans entirely. In that sense, there’s something wonderfully pure about The Angry Birds Movie, which is a cash grab of the most nakedly cashgrabby strain: Here is a movie that is itself a brand extension, and one that’s been extended from a brand that got popular entirely on the basis of its own whimsical nihilism. It’s also possible, of course, that a movie might prove popular and thus lucrative precisely because it has artistic merit, just as it’s possible that the factors at play in a Hollywood cash grab-an increasingly globally minded studio system making movies that are as broadly human and relevant as possible-might actually be a good and democratizing thing. Why You Should Wait Out the Wild Housing Market Derek Thompson

Angry birds movie zipster costume