Book vs. Movie - The Hunt For Red October

The Hunt for Red October is awesome, both the movie and the book. Penned by the legendary Tom Clancy in 1984, THFRO is a great techno-espionage thriller. In 1990, director John McTiernan turned it into an award-winning action-thriller classic that's still talked about today. One hotly debated topic is whether the film is better than the book. So today we're going to find out which piece of media is superior in its story-telling and mood-setting. To do this we'll mostly be looking at the differences between the two in order to get a feel for which Hunt for Red October is the more effective experience in fiction. So climb aboard, let's cast off!

But first, just a quick recap of the plot. The Red October is the newest Typhoon-class missile submarine that runs on an experimental new propulsion system that makes it nearly invisible to sonar. Its disillusioned captain Marko Ramius and his handpicked officers decide to steal the boat and defect to the US after killing the ship's political officer. After learning of Ramius' intentions, the entire Soviet Northern Fleet takes to the Atlantic to find him under the pretext of a search and rescue operation, which doesn't sound too convincing to NATO, whose forces are placed on alert. Jack Ryan, a CIA analyst who has been following the mysterious circumstances surrounding the Red October's construction, learns of these developments and correctly deduces that the sub's officers are wanting to defect. He is then tasked with guiding the boat (and its critical tech) into the US and away from the pursuing Red Fleet. After some close calls and some intensive searching a US attack sub, the USS Dallas, manages to locate the Red October, whose officers fake a reactor meltdown in order to get the crew to leave. Ryan, Commander Bart Mancuso (the Dallas's captain), and a few more American officers board the Red October, rendezvous with the defecting officers, disarm a bomb planted by a GRU mole, and begin their plans to transport it into the States, when the group is suddenly attacked by the Konovalov, an Alfa-class submarine (commanded by Viktor Tupolev, a former student of Ramius') that trailed behind them. Due to Cold War rules of engagement, none of the subs are able to fire on the Konovalov, but eventually they outsmart Tupolev and destroy it. The Red October and its remaining officers are then escorted safely to Norfolk, Virginia.

Of course one major difference between movies and books is that books have a lot more room to get everything across and are thus typically longer than film adaptations. Since movies are only around two hours long, the screenwriters have to judge which elements are important enough to make it to the script. And so there are a few components of THFRO that were cut out for brevity's sake. For example, the movie completely leaves out the scenes where a NATO helicopter crashes and a Soviet submarine suffers a reactor meltdown during the search. Similarly, Skip Tyler's role is drastically reduced and no mention is ever made of CARDINAL, the CIA mole inside the Kremlin. Unfortunately there are also some elements left out that would have made the movie better. For instance, the book explains in more detail why Ramius is so disappointed with the Soviet system and why he wants to defect. More importantly, the book also explains how the CIA hopes to cover up its theft of the Red October once the US Navy links up with it. In the book their plan was to detonate a different sub in its place in order to fool the Soviets into thinking that the Red October has been destroyed. In the movie, there is no such plan; the Americans basically luck out and manage to destroy the Konovalov (whose location is unknown to the Red Fleet) in the exact spot the Red October's crew thinks their sub was scuttled. What're the odds?

Another aspect that was altered for the film was its audience; American movies typically cater almost exclusively to American audiences. As a result, the film changes this operation into one involving only US servicemen, whereas the Royal Navy played a significant role in the novel's events. In fact, the only Brit in the whole movie is a flight attendant! Another change that often happens to movie adaptations is that the book's “boring” parts are jettisoned in favour of giving the film a more dynamic and exciting feel to it. For this reason the movie got rid of a lot of the Kremlin/White House scenes and instead added air-dropped torpedoes, lots of countermeasures, and even a few explosions. Also, while the novel had two climaxes, the movie saw fit to combine them into one (possibly due to run time constraints). This has the overall effect of making the film slightly less realistic and more intense in its action. I'll leave it to you to judge whether that's a bad thing or not.

There are a few major differences between the film and the book that sort of change how the plot and atmosphere unfold, such as the aforementioned lack of the Americans' cover-up plan. Another big difference is that in the book the Soviets never ask the US Navy to help them sink the Red October. Instead they continuously maintain that they're conducting a search and rescue operation. Probably the biggest change is the climax. In the book, the Konovalov remains behind after the Soviet fleet is informed of the Red October's apparent sinking and follows the October's convoy for a while – believing it to be an Ohio-class US sub – before realizing its true identity. The October is damaged by a torpedo, but eventually defeats the Konovalov by ramming into it, splitting that sub in half. In the movie, Tupolev correctly guesses his former mentor's course and attacks with torpedoes immediately after the October links up with the Americans and expels its crew. Through some expert manoeuvring and a lot of countermeasures, the October and the Dallas manage to hit the Konovalov with its own torpedo, destroying it in full view of the Red October's crew, who believe they are witnesses to Ramius' last stand. Honestly both these scenes are really good, but it's pretty obvious which one is more realistic.

Other than that, the remaining differences are not all that important. I won't go into detail; here's a brief list of changes the movie made:

• Ramius doesn't let his crew in on some aspects of his defection plan
• Jack Ryan boards the USS Dallas, which he didn't in the book
• the GRU agent shoots and kills Borodin instead of Loginov (in the film Loginov is the GRU agent)
• there's approximately 4 Americans board the Red October instead of around 12
• the film ends with the October being escorted to Maine, not Virginia

And that's all for the differences. In spite of them all I've got to say, the movie follows the book pretty well. The characters are spot on and the plots are more-or-less the same. But which THFRO is better? Well, they're both really exciting and intriguing. But if you pointed a Trident missile at my head and forced me to choose, I'd probably go with the book both because it has the ability to go into more detail and into the characters' heads and because its plot feels more realistic with more professionalism from all persons/organizations portrayed. But if you're looking for an adult-oriented spy/action movie that won't make you feel like you're watching a comic book, then go watch the movie. Or go and see both. They're worth it.

Stay tuned: next time I'll be evaluating the adaptation of the Patriot Games.

Movie Review – Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Here it is! A Star Wars movie from a different director, following a different set of heroes, set in a different time period of that galaxy far, far away. The whole world's been actively anticipating the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens, setting records for ticket pre-sales (apparently the thing has already earned back its budget after just one day!) But is it the grand adventure that we've all hoped for?

YES! YES! What we have here is a post-1983 Star Wars movie that's done (mostly) right. Taking place around 30 years after Return of the Jedi, The Force Awakens sees the New Galactic Republic at (never-ending) war with itself as the Empire's remnants – the First Order – still control many star systems, many of which are fighting back under the banner of the Resistance, led by Leia Organa. Both sides are also desperately trying to find Luke Skywalker, the last Jedi. This is a story that is very similar Episode IV: A New Hope in that it takes you to various different locations and includes a variety of characters with different backgrounds and motives. It's a very fun and energetic ride which some might consider too derivative – I mean how many movies can one make about a band of rebel fighters defeating a giant planet-destroying battle station by exploiting its one glaring, self-destructive design flaw? – yet it still holds a lot of potential for new stories.

As was the case with A New Hope, our cast of main characters is made up of a bunch of lesser-known actors, but they each do extremely well: especially John Boyega as Finn and Daisy Ridley as Rey. These two characters in particular are truly interesting and complex and I look forward to seeing more of them in the sequels. Of course the old cast of our childhood heroes is back, including Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Peter Mayhew, and Anthony Daniels. There's also Carrie Fisher back as Leia, who I guess took up smoking since Return of the Jedi, since her voice sounds so weird. Maybe it's the stress of leading so many insurrections and the fact that Luke was lying when he said he'd show her how to use the Force.

The one character I didn't like (and the film's biggest problem) was the main villain, Kylo Ren. He's supposed to be this tortured soul who's at odds with himself, but he kind of comes off as a whiny, angsty teenager who throws temper tantrums. Also, could they have possibly picked an actor with a less intimidating face to play him? Cool voice, though.

Director JJ Abrams really knows his stuff. In addition to getting the best out of his actors, he treats us to some well-timed comedy and some exciting cinematography. However one thing that was really disappointing was that The Force Awakens doesn't make as much use of practical effects as you might have been led to believe. It's still very CG-heavy, but at least the CG is a bit better than it was in Revenge of the Sith from 2005. A lot of the classic sound effects have been changed, but I guess that's not really a big deal. What is a big deal is that John Williams is back with another great score, which draws less on the classic themes that we're all familiar with and tries more to establish its own.

In addition to having a similar plot, TFA also has a lot of references to ANH. Some of them are delightful, others are kind of dumb. The lightsaber duels this time around are great. Unlike the ones from the prequel trilogy, they go for a less choreographed/rehearsed spectacle look and more for a natural/spontaneous feel like those of the original trilogy.

One last concern I have is that since there's once again a great evil in the galaxy that needs to be confronted, does that mean that the mythos of the previous six Star Wars films is nullified? What happened to the whole “ Chosen One (Anakin) will bring balance to the force” thing?

Oh well, I only nitpick because I care. Overall, Star Wars: The Force Awakens is a spectacular adventure for moviegoers of all ages. If you're a Star Wars fan... who am I kidding? You've already seen it. If you're not a Star Wars fan but you're slightly interested, then go watch it. The Force is strong with this one!

Rating: four out of five.

Star Wars Highs and Lows

There's a new Star Wars coming out! Isn't that rad? And it looks like it's going to be so cool. I'm pumped; I've got my opening night tickets ready to go, so expect my review of it to be up very shortly. Until then I've been going back and watching and admiring a lot of the previous films (mostly the original trilogy). When I was a teenager, I was a pretty big fan of the Star Wars series, especially since the prequel trilogy really brought the franchise to life just as I was coming of age. So to celebrate, I've compiled a list of the highs and lows of the Star Wars series just as I did for the James Bond series last month. Just note that obviously since I haven't seen Episode VII yet, nothing from that film will be included on this list. So here we go:

Best Movie: A New Hope (1977)

Worst Movie: Attack of the Clones (2002)

Most Action-Packed Movie: Revenge of the Sith (2005)

Best Actor: Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine (episodes I, II, III, VI, and later V)

Worst Actor: Jake Lloyd as Anakin Skywalker (The Phantom Menace, 1999)

Most Puzzling Choice of Actor: Samuel L. Jackson as Mace Windu? (episodes I, II, III)

Best Jedi: Obi-Wan Kenobi (all episodes)

Best Villain: Darth Vader (episodes III, IV, V, VI)

Best Villain Besides Darth Vader: Palpatine (episodes I, II, III, VI, and later V)

Best Villain Besides Darth Vader or Palpatine: Darth Maul (from TPM)

Least-Cool Villain: General Grievous (from ROTS)

Best Non-human Character: Chewbacca (episodes III, IV, V, VI)

Best Droid Character: C-3PO (all episodes)

Best Soundtrack: A New Hope

Best Opening Scene: Revenge of the Sith

Lamest Opening Scene: Attack of the Clones

Dumbest Moment: The awkward, cringe-worthy romance in Attack of the Clones

Funniest Moment: Yoda trying to steal Luke's stuff (from The Empire Strikes Back, 1980)

Most Pointless Moment: As a child, Anakin built C-3PO (TPM)

Worst Special Edition Alteration: Tie: Removing the Ewok victory song or CG-ing Jabba's singers (both from Return of the Jedi, 1983)

Most Hilarious Non-English Speaker: Nien Nunb (ROTJ)

Most Brutal Death: General Grevious (from ROTS)

Most Intense Lightsaber Duel: Qui-Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi vs. Darth Maul (from TPM)

Best Battle Scene: Hoth (TESB)

Best Special Effects: Return of the Jedi

Worst Special Effects: Attack of the Clones

Coolest Ground Vehicle: AT-AT walker

Coolest Space Vehicle: Vader's TIE fighter

Most Interesting Planet: Tattooine

Dumbest Line: “I don't like sand...” (Anakin, AOTC)
Who Shot First? Han. No argument on this point.

Top 10 Biggest Military Losers of Modern History

You may not have known this, but I'm a pretty big fan of modern history. From growing up with history books and studying it in university, I love learning about past cultures and ideas, and I am especially intrigued by the history of armed conflict. Scarcely a week goes by where I don't read a book or watch a movie about some past struggle. What I find curious, though, is that you'll often see the great debate about “which civilization has won the most wars throughout history”, when hardly anyone ever asks about who has lost the most. So that's what I'm here to discuss today.

Now before we begin, I'd just like to make clear that when it comes to war there are no winners, only losers; it's just that some states lose more than others. So for this reason, my list here takes human and material losses into account as well as the level of tactical/strategic victory achieved versus the sheer number of conflicts outright lost. This list will focus only on wars (not including internal coups or rebellions) fought after 1800, for two reasons: first is that most of today's countries didn't exist back then and, second, because this is the era of history I'm most familiar with. And as always, this is just a matter of opinion, so feel free to disagree.

Dishonourable mentions: Bulgaria, Finland, Germany, Iraq, Italy, Syria

10 – Hungary

In 1848, Hungarian nationalists started a revolution to gain independence from the Austrian Empire. After nearly succeeding, they were crushed once the Russians decided to lend Austria their aid. Later, Hungary became a semi-autonomous kingdom within the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was in this state that Hungary sided with the Central Powers of the First World War. After losing in November 1918, the empire was broken up. The newly independent state of Hungary was defeated the following year in a brief war against Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Serbia. Hungary sided with the Axis forces during the Second World War and participated in the invasion of the USSR. It didn't go well; the Soviet Army turned the tide, Hungary suffered heavy casualties, Hungary's government tried to surrender, the Nazis then staged a coup, set up a puppet government, and occupied the country. The Soviets invaded Hungary, laid siege to Budapest, and conquered it in February 1945. In 1956 the Hungarians rebelled against continued Soviet domination, but the uprising was violently crushed. The nation remained under occupation until 1991.

9 – Austria

Between 1792 and 1809, Austria lost no less than four wars to the French who twice occupied Vienna. Austria finally beat France in 1814. But the French – with some Sardinian and Italian help – got their revenge by defeating Austria in 1859 in the Franco-Austrian War. Defeat again came at the hands of the Prussians during the Austro-Prussian War of 1866. After arguably initiating the First World War, Austria-Hungary took the side of the Central Powers. It suffered total defeat in November 1918, losing much of its territory. After being annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, the Austrians fought as part of the Third Reich during the Second World War. The nation lost once again and was under Allied occupation until 1955. Since then Austria has remained strictly neutral in international affairs. And really, who can blame them?

8 – France

Although Napoleon's France conquered and commanded much of Western and Central Europe in the early 19^th century, the First French Empire met its end at Waterloo in 1815. Under imperial ambitions, the Second French Empire, under the leadership of Napoleon III, invaded Mexico in 1861. Unable to cope with the Mexicans' guerrilla warfare tactics, the French withdrew in 1867. Not long after – in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1 – an alliance of German states swiftly crushed and humiliated the French army and occupied the country's northern half. Although France was on the winning side of the First World War, the victory's human, material, and economic cost was so devastating that most Frenchmen today consider it a loss. During the Second World War, the German blitzkrieg forced the Third French Republic to surrender after only a month and a half of combat. The northern half of the country was again occupied, while the southern half was ruled by a collaborationist regime, which was also later occupied. Despite the bravery of various resistance groups, France was not fully liberated until the summer of 1944 when the Western allies invaded and drove the Germans out. Following WWII, France then lost two major colonies after losing long and bloody campaigns: Indochina (1946-54) and Algeria (1954-62).

7 – Russia/USSR

Russia's military history has been very up and down over the centuries. After defeating Napoleon's armies once and for all in 1815, imperial Russia spent the next century winning a multitude of wars against Turkey, Poland, Persia, Egypt, and China, but also losing in several wars against the French, the British, and (at the time, surprisingly) the Japanese. Russia entered World War One on the side of the Entente Powers, where it proved completely ineffectual. Not only did Russia lose more than two million lives and tons of territory, but the nation was totally bankrupt and on the brink of a Bolshevik revolution. From 1917 to 1922, the nation was engulfed in Civil War; i.e. Russia was on both sides, so no matter what, Russia would lose. Around three million lives were lost, and of course, the bad Russians ended up winning, forming the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The new state tried expanding its union by waging war with neighbouring states in Eastern Europe and Central Asia with mixed success. The Second World War saw the USSR capture the Baltic states, and conquer half of Poland and parts of Finland. But in June 1941, the largest invasion in human history was launched against the USSR. The Eastern Front of WWII was the largest and most destructive military confrontation ever, and by the time it ended with the capture of Berlin in May 1945 around 27 million Soviet citizens had perished. During the Cold War (which the USSR ended up losing in 1991) the Soviet Union asserted its power over its sphere of influence, successfully pacifying uprisings in Hungary (1956) and Czechoslovakia (1968) and assisting in wars against Western-allied governments such as Korea (1950-3). However, its attempt at propping up the Marxist government of Afghanistan (1979-89) via invasion and occupation was a costly and unpopular mistake. Since 1991, the new Russian Federation has participated in many small regional wars, some successfully (against Moldova, Georgia, and now Ukraine), some not so much (against Chechnya and the Taliban).
Update 10Jan18: I originally mentioned here how Russia's fight against ISIS wasn't going well. But since writing this article history has proven me wrong; it looks as if ISIS is in serious trouble!

6 – Egypt

After three wars against the Ottoman Empire in the 1830's, the Egyptians had finally won their independence. But in 1882, they lost to the British who then ruled the land as a protectorate until after WWII. Egypt took a leading role in the Arab League's war against the new state of Israel in 1948 and suffered an embarrassing defeat. In 1956, Israeli, British, and French troops overpowered the Egyptian army and captured the Suez Canal in just seven days before the UN forced them to withdraw. It wasn't as bad as in 1967 when Israel again attacked and routed the Egyptians during the Six-Day War. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the Egyptians and Syrians made some impressive initial gains from their surprise attacks. However, the Israeli Defence Force promptly recovered and soon drove its adversaries back beyond their starting positions. Having lost no less than four wars to the same country in the span of 25 years, Egypt signed a permanent peace treaty with Israel in 1979.

5 – China

China was defeated in both Opium Wars against the British and French in 1839-42 and 1856-60 respectively. With its loss to Japan in the 1894-5 Sino-Japanese War, a severe blow was delivered against the Qing Dynasty. The anti-imperialist Boxer Rebellion of 1899-1901 was handily put down by an invasion force of Japanese, American, and various European troops. In 1931, imperialist Japanese forces overran and annexed Manchuria, and then launched a full-scale invasion of China in 1937, interrupting the civil war that began in 1927. Despite losing major territories and more than 20 million lives, the Chinese fought on. The Japanese withdrew after surrendering to the Allies in summer 1945. Less than a year later the civil war resumed, and since this was a civil war, that means that China was on both sides, thus assuring that the Chinese would lose. And wouldn't you believe, the bad side ended up winning, too: double loss.

4 – Poland

After gradually being partitioned away to other states in the 18^th century, the Poles tried many times in the 19^th century to regain their independence. At first, they cast their lot in with Napoleon's empire, but that didn't work. At the Congress of Vienna, Poland was split between the victorious Prussians and Russians. Subjugation to foreign emperors provoked a number of nationalist uprisings between 1830 and 1905, all of them ruthlessly suppressed. After the First World War, in which the Poles fought on both sides, Poland became an independent state for the first time in 123 years. Through a series of regional/local wars from 1918 to 1920 Poland managed to expand its arbitrarily-drawn borders. However, the Polish military collapsed under the weight of a joint Nazi-Soviet invasion in September 1939, sparking the Second World War. Although Polish armed forces continued to wreak havoc abroad, Poland itself was absolutely devastated by the German occupation. Despite the best efforts of the sizable Polish resistance movement, whole cities were razed and the region became the main stage for the Nazi's Holocaust. By the time the war ended, Poland's population had fallen by nearly 30%, the highest of any nation involved in WWII. Since then Poland has remained a bit more peaceful, focusing more on its commitments to its Warsaw Pact and (now) NATO brethren.

3 – Bolivia

Under the inspiration of the legendary Simon Bolivar from whom the country takes its name, Bolivia won its independence from the Spanish Empire in 1825. And it's pretty much all been downhill since. Three years afterwards, Bolivia was invaded and defeated by Peru. In 1835, the two countries formed the Peru-Bolivian Confederation. It didn't last; the confederacy was broken up after losing to the Chileans and Argentinians in 1839. Later during the War of the Pacific (1879-83), Chile again defeated a Bolivian-Peruvian alliance and was awarded with Bolivia's coastal provinces and other resource-rich territories. From 1932 to 1935, Bolivia fought against Paraguay in the costly Chaco War, which it lost despite having the larger and better equipped army. Having lost more than half of its original territory since independence due to conquest, Bolivia is today the poorest country in South America.

2 – Spain

After six years of guerrilla warfare, the Spaniards finally expelled Napoleon's Grande Armée in 1814, but the war brought about a significant social and economic upheaval of Spanish society. This turbulence resulted in Spain's overseas colonies revolting. From Boliva in 1809 to Equador in 1822, Spain lost war after war trying to keep its grip on its American territories, even going so far as (unsuccessfully) starting new wars to reconquer them. Between 1833 and 1877, Spain underwent three civil wars known as the Carlist Wars; since Spain fought on both sides, that means that Spain lost all three. After losing the Spanish-American war of 1898, Spain lost Cuba and Puerto Rico – its last remaining colonies in America – as well as Guam and the Philippines to the USA. From 1936 to 1939, Spain once again descended into civil war (possibly making it the country with the most civil wars ever!), bringing about severe destruction and numerous atrocities. Since the 1990's Spain has focused more of its attention on its NATO commitments.

1 – Turkey

By the 19^th century, the Ottoman Empire – in which Turkey was the centre – was undergoing an irreversible decline, earning its moniker as the “sick man of Europe”. In the 1800's it lost three wars each to both Russia (in 1812, 1829, and 1878) and Egypt (1832, 1839, and 1840). Also, the Greeks gained their independence by defeating the Ottoman Turks in 1827. After losing a war to Italy in 1912, the Turks found themselves in another war, this time losing to the combined forces of the Balkan League. This defeat cost the Empire nearly all of its remaining European territories. The Ottoman Empire entered the First World War on the side of the Central Powers. Its defeat in 1918 brought about the final dissolution of the empire and the occupation of Turkey. The Turks finally scored some victories from their War of Independence (1923) and the invasion of Cyprus (1974).

Movie (Sort of) Review – Halo: Nightfall

OK, I know that Halo: Nightfall isn't technically a movie, it's a webseries. But the way I watched this was in a collected format on blu-ray which came out earlier this year, so close enough. I also decided to write about this movie since there doesn't seem to be that many reviews for it floating around. A couple weeks ago at a Halo tournament with a bunch of friends I was voted MVP (for some reason; I really didn't play all that well) and was awarded with this (thanks, Dylan!). Now let me just quickly tell you where I'm coming from, here: back in the day – from around 2005 to 2009 – I was a huge Halo fan. I played all the games, read all the novels, and listened to the soundtracks. But after a while, I guess I got tired of it and I fell out of the loop. I eventually did play Halo 4 – the first few levels – but it just didn't feel right and I couldn't bring myself to finish it. And I'm not planning on playing Halo 5 any time soon (but that's a story for another time). So can this Ridley Scott-produced series/movie/whatever be the jumping-on point that I needed? Let's find out!

Halo: Nightfall starts off with some ONI (office of naval intelligence) guys casually following an alien whose species was never shown in the games or novels – dangit, three minutes in and I'm already lost! Way to go, guys! Well, I looked it up and it turns out that this guy did appear in the comics. OK, fine, whatever. So our plot, which takes place between the events of Halo 4 and 5, follows ONI agent Jameson Locke trying to shut down a network of Elite terrorists. He does this by tracking down where the materials for their chemical weapons are coming from. This leads his team to a place that should be familiar to all Halo players, except this place is now occupied by a grave threat. The location for this film is a pretty cool idea, though it doesn't have all that much payoff to it. Unfortunately, the story winds up falling into standard survival movie territory that you've already seen lots of times before. It's also supposed to serve as an origin story for Locke: give away the ending much? There's only about three interesting characters, but at least the acting is all-around decent.

Nightfall isn't like traditional Halo stuff that we're used to. There's pretty much no gunfights or battle scenes. That's rather sad since not only is Ridley Scott great at doing battle scenes (Black Hawk Down) but also because shooting stuff is kind of what Halo is all about. Likewise, there's only three alien species in this game: one we haven't seen before and another which displays abilities radically different from what we've seen in any other media. (Seriously, if this species did behave this way in the games, the player would get wrecked all the time.) And as I mentioned earlier, the movie takes place in a familiar setting, but it just looks unrecognizable. Also, why the hell are there so many of those aliens at this place anyways?

The production was alright. The sets, environments, props, and costumes all look good. The CG effects, not so much. The cinematography was OK, not much to say there.

When I was given this movie, I jokingly asked, “Is it like Predator, but on Halo?” It turns out that that joke was actually fairly accurate. The only difference is Halo: Nightfall's plot is less original and it has a Halo paint-job. Mind you, it's a rather thin paint-job with familiar guns that are scarcely fired, a few aliens that behave in ways we've not yet seen, and a location that is unrecognizable. Overall, this barely feels like a Halo movie. If you want to get into Halo 5 and other subsequent media, you can probably skip this and it wouldn't make a difference. And if you take away the Halo name and judge it on its own, then all you're left with is an ordinary, by-the-numbers survival movie that's set in space. In short, Halo: Nightfall is watchable, but also forgettable. For die-hard fans only.

Rating: two-and-a-half out of five.

How My Out-of-Five System Works

You've probably noticed that I like to use an “out of five” star system for grading the movies that I review. It seems that nowadays, on the internet, you're only allowed to absolutely love or absolutely hate whatever piece of media it is that you're talking about. But that's not how I roll. I like to give an overall judgement to my media, weigh its positives and negatives. But some people still don't get it. They'll say to me, “Tony, you gave that movie three-and-a-half stars! Why didn't you like it?” So for this reason, I'd like to take a minute here to break down the out-of-five system into grades and explain just how it really works.

5/5 – Simply put, a five star movie is a must-see. It's a movie that draws you in so well, that it's easy to forget that it isn't real. You'll very much care about what's happening. A five star movie is one that all others of its respective genre will be compared to in the near future. Not all 5/5 movies are perfect, but they render their stories, characters, and themes so convincingly that any problems those films might have are inconsequential to the viewing experience. Very few will be disappointed in viewing this flick. Examples of 5/5 films I've reviewed are Looper, Gravity, and Mad Max: Fury Road.

4.5/5 – Four-and-a-half movies are excellent, very well done. They're not quite must-see material, but anyone who was looking forward to this particular film will be very satisfied. These are also the types of films one might very well consider buying once they're released. It may have a couple issues, but the viewer will most likely be willing to ignore/forgive them for the sheer awesomeness that is packed into this viewing experience. Films that I've awarded 4.5 to include Saving Mr. Banks, The Lego Movie, Interstellar, and Skyfall.

4/5 – A four star film is a solid film, sufficiently accomplishing almost everything it sets out to do. The vast majority of its viewers will be satisfied and adequately entertained. These types of movies are memorable and are well worth rewatching in the near future. One or two things about it might bug you, but it was still a good movie so who cares, right? Just a few tweaks here and there could have made it a true classic, but it was still worth it. Movies that I'd place into the 4/5 category include Captain America: First Avenger, 22 Jump Street, and Monsters University.

3.5/5 – This is where the “pretty good” movies go. These types of films are better than most, but they still could have been done considerably better. While there will probably be lots of viewers who like it, even they will have to acknowledge that the flick had some flaws. This is also where I'll place a lot of movies that were disappointing (as opposed to outright bad). Nothing great, but you'll probably be satisfied, nonetheless. Time well spent. Movies that I classify as 3.5/5 include Fury, Jurassic World, Men in Black 3, and Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows.

3/5 – Popcorn territory. It may not be your thinking man's movie, but it's good for some mindless, casual entertainment. Three star films are not for everyone and they're far from being works of art, but if you're in the right mindset to watch it then you won't regret it. Just keep in mind that it demands that you view it on its own terms. When I give a three to a film, you can take that as a cautious recommendation. I've given 3/5 to such movies as Furious 7, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, and Lone Survivor.

2.5/5 – Distinctly middle of the road, two-and-a-half movies are average at best. It may be hard to take seriously, it may include several glaring/distracting issues, or it was just was boring to sit through. Unless you were really looking forward to this film, you'll likely walk away feeling indifferent towards it. It may also just be a niche film for a specific group of fans or it may have been the best that could've possibly been done with a flawed original concept. There's a lot of good parts to it, but whether or not you'll want to put up with the bad stuff is up in the air. Still, more needed to be done to make this presentable. These films are destined to be forgotten. They include Bourne Legacy, Olympus Has Fallen, The Three Stooges, and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides.

2/5 – Movies that are graded at two out of five are below average. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone who lists a 2/5 movie as their all-time favourite. These types of films can really only be recommended for hardcore fans of whatever it is that's being portrayed. There's still some cool bits, but it's hard to get into them because of all the other failures going on. If you value your time and/or money, then you'd be better off spending them elsewhere. Examples of 2/5 movies I've reviewed are Watchmen, Lucy, and Apollo 18.

1.5/5 – A movie that can only earn one-and-a-half stars is a dumb movie. It's the kind of flick that you'd probably regret sitting through. There may have been just a couple of good ideas, but they're almost totally drowned out either by utter stupidity or overwhelming boredom – or both. An overall poor effort at worthwhile entertainment. Few viewers will feel that they got their money's worth with this one. Examples of 1.5/5 movies would be Lone Ranger, After Earth, and 30 Minutes or Less.

1/5 – Now this is what you call a really dumb movie; the kind of movie that is so inept in everything it attempts (story, acting, effects, mood/tone) that it is impossible to take seriously. This is also the category where you will find so-bad-it's-good movies that are funny because of their ineptitude. But other than that, movies that score one out of five are barely watchable. For the morbidly curious only. This includes Meet the Fockers and Transformers: Age of Extinction.

0.5/5 – After really dumb, you've got movies that fall under the freakin' stupid category. No effort was put into making this unwatchable... thing. Half-star movies earn their grade either by being insulting, infuriating, or dumbfoundingly boring. The whole thing is littered with fundamental filmmaking flaws like incompetently executed dialogue, plot, and even editing. Stay away. I have yet to write a review for a movie that's this bad, but I would consider movies like Mac and Me, North, and Son of the Mask to fall in here.

0/5 – It's rare for a movie to achieve a zero-out-of-five rating. That's because zero star movies are completely worthless, directionless, and absolutely inept. Scarcely a thing was done right, hardly anything pulled off convincingly. A total waste of time. If the film was part of a series, then it must have completely crapped all over the previous entries to have earned this rating. This is also the class where offensively bad films reside; the film either straight-up insults or talks down to its own audience or it puts forth an idea that is just evil or insane. Again, I haven't reviewed any 0/5 films, but I'd imagine films like Highlander: The Source, Nukie, and Gingerdead Man 3: Saturday Night Cleaver would feel right at home in this dark abyss. Avoid them at all costs; they're hazardous to your health and well-being.

Movie Review Repost - Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

So far you've seen a few of my movie reviews, but those were all for good movies. I think it's time you guys saw what one of my bad-movie reviews looks like. It's a shame that reviews of bad movies are way more fun to write and yet I rarely go see bad movies (mainly because no one ever wants to go with me to see it). Oh well. Here's the worst movie I've ever written a current review for: Transformers: Age of Extinction. And just so you know, I 100% stand by everything I said here. I believe that you'll find the Extinction in the subtitle refers only to what'll happen to your brain cells while watching this... thing.

Why did I do this?! To be honest, I didn't think Transformers 4 was going to be any good but I hoped that at least Michael Bay would have learned a lesson or two from the negative reception of the previous films. But no, this one is cut from the same cloth.

If you've seen any of the previous Transformers films, then everything about Age of Extinction will be extremely familiar to you: evil government guys are bad at their job of protecting people, evil big businessmen are greedy and really unfunny, product placements are plentiful, and there's not one, but two annoying comic relief characters who aren't funny. Again we have a handful of somewhat predictable character-building scenes that don't go on for very long because we need to make room for a bagillion action scenes. Transformers 4 also suffers from the series' two main problems (besides an overly complicated plot): (1) the Transformers aren't the main characters. Instead we're saddled with a bunch of snarky, immature American humans who aren't terribly interesting. And (2), this film is BORING! I was already bored out of my mind even before the hyperactive, 45ish minute-long climax. Why do these movies have to be so insufferably long?

But enough about recurring problems, because Age of Extinction has enough problems of its own. Our main character is a tech nerd played by Mark Wahlberg. 'Nuff said. Our female lead is a useless dummy. And Optimus Prime often shouts crazed threats like a shell-shocked lunatic. As for the rest of the Autobots, there's a reason why they're not the main characters: they each have no personality and only one defining characteristic. They're also really trigger happy and undisciplined. They spend about as much time fighting bad guys as they do each other.

Michael Bay's direction has changed little over this series. He still treats his audience to obnoxious US flags, excessive shaky cam, randomly placed slow-mo and quiet moments, and explosion after explosion after explosion after explosion. And of course every woman in this world is a single-minded hot chick who wears revealing clothing. Lastly, Bay's frequent use of sweeping camera shots and shaky cam do not lend themselves well to 3D. Avoid 3D viewing if you can.

Is there anything good about this film at all? Well it isn't nearly as racist as the others were (instead there's a robot who talks exactly like Mr. T). Shia LaBeouf is gone, which should make some people happy. There's also an Autobot voiced by John Goodman who's actually kind of fun, though he does get a little grating by the film's end. Likewise, the special effects are very good, but after two and a half hours mostly of exhausting action they don't make much of a difference.

Man, was this a chore to sit through. The only truly fun moments came from a couple of the earlier action scenes. I'll give it credit, it isn't as bad as Transformers 2 (there isn't nearly as much blatant sex appeal and nutty humour; also I haven't seen the third one). Hardcore fans of the series will like it I'm sure, but for everyone else Transformers: Age of Extinction is just a huge waste of time and money.

Rating: one star out of five.

Movie Review – Spectre

Well here it is, folks! The movie that we've been waiting three years for to follow up on the spectacular Skyfall. Is this the end of Daniel Craig's tenure as agent 007? Does Spectre measure up to the high standards that Sam Mendes has us hoping for? Can I properly review this thing without spoiling it? Let's find out.

Following the orders of the previous M's (Judi Dench) cryptic beyond-the-grave message, James Bond follows the trail to uncovering a secret organization known as Spectre which has evidently (in one form or another) been behind all the really bad stuff that happened in the previous three films which Spectre refers to constantly (though not so much Quantum of Solace. Haha!). For the first time since 1971's Diamonds Are Forever we get to see the classic showdown of Bond vs. Blofeld and it is... pretty good. Yeah, it's not as intense as it was in the classic Bond films, but it's still a sight to behold. One thing that's atypical about Spectre's plot is that it has quite a bit of action involving the supporting characters. Collectively, M, Q, and Moneypenny have almost as much screen time as Bond. At times the plot seems pretty derivative; there are locations, plot points, and even whole scenes that are lifted directly from earlier 007 movies, whether intentional or not. And it all ends on a bittersweet ending, (most likely) closing up the Daniel Craig saga.

That's right, the ending makes it almost certain that this is Daniel Craig's last 007 film; I'd be very surprised if it wasn't. And his last performance is a fine one, as ruthless and intense as ever. The main Bond girl this time around is Madeline Swann, played by Lea Seydoux. She's OK, I guess. She's just not all that interesting and she doesn't end up doing a whole lot. Also the romance between her and Bond didn't seem all that convincing, not for this era of Bond films anyways. Nevertheless, Christoph Waltz is perfect as Ernst Blofeld. Quietly menacing and uncomfortably calm, he was the perfect choice to bring this classic villain back to life. Although his character is given a riveting introduction, I've got to say it seems that Bond defeats Blofeld too easily. And lastly we have WWE superstar Dave Bautista as Mr. Hinx, the first notable 007 henchman since 1999's The World is Not Enough. He hardly speaks – probably because he's not that great an actor – but he does an alright job here, even if his death is less than satisfactory. (Shut up! That's not a spoiler. Henchmen always die!)

Sam Mendes' direction is dazzling once again, with some great cinematography to boot. The action scenes are coherent enough while maintaining a high level of intensity. Also, Spectre's opening scene starts off with a really long continuous shot that follows characters around from all sorts of different angles for probably around three minutes. Amazing.

And since I'm a huge 007 fan, I'm just going to take some time here to gush/nitpick. It was great to finally see a Bond film that starts out with the classic gunbarrel sequence (haven't seen that since 2002's Die Another Day). I mean that part always gets me really pumped up so it makes sense that it should be at the beginning. It's just a shame that Craig isn't even trying to hide the gun that's clearly in his right hand as he walks to the left. (Note to self: you know you're really nitpicking when you're commenting on how someone holds a gun in a ten second nonsequitur shot.) Anyways, the theme song and opening credits were average. I didn't hate them, but they weren't all that impressive either. Is anyone else wondering why the previous M waited until after she'd died to give Bond these new orders? Why not just make it a regular mission for him while she was still alive and before MI6 was slated to be downsized and taken over? Also, what was up with the enemy mole who was so obviously a bad guy? It's like the film wasn't even trying to hide the fact that he was a bad guy. Lastly, is the Spectre organization still around at the end? If so, then there's still quite a lot of work for MI6 to do!

Regardless, Spectre is a pretty good Bond flick. It may not be as good as some of the other Craig-era movies, but it is a worthy addition to the series and a decent wrap-up to the whatever-they're-going-to-end-up-calling-it saga. My vote's for The Quantum Saga. Who's with me?

Rating: three and a half out of five.

Movie Review Repost - Skyfall (2012)

So Spectre is finally here! And I'm psyched! I'm planning on seeing it this Tuesday, so I'll probably end up posting my review on Wednesday. In case you're curious of what I thought of the previous 007 film, Skyfall, I've decided to post the original review I wrote for it. Looking back, my opinion of Skyfall pretty much remains the same and I stand by what I've written. The only difference is that since then I've now seen all the 007 films and I now appreciate Skyfall for the subtle references that it makes to the other films in the series. Anyways, here's the review I wrote back in 2012.

Has it really been fifty years since the first 007 film? Well in case you haven't noticed, Skyfall – the 23^rd James Bond movie – is a celebration of those fifty years. With the return of a few classic characters, the original Aston Martin car, some neat gadgets (thankfully not as silly as they used to be), and just those quirky spy movie cliches that we all recognize, Skyfall clearly knows what it is and where it came from.

In his third 007 outing, Daniel Craig does the same excellent job we've come to expect. In her seventh and last appearance as M, Judi Dench gives what is probably her finest performance yet in this series and serves as the second main character. Plus it was cool to finally see her kick some ass during the final battle. Skyfall's villain, a cyber-terrorist Raoul Silva, is played by Javier Bardem. In short, he's definitely a Bond villain: kind of funny, kind of flamboyant. While he may not be one of the most menacing Bond villains, he is certainly one the most tortured and unpredictable.

Similar to Quantum of Solace (and unlike Casino Royale) the plot is easy to follow and you don't have to watch the movie four times to finally understand what's going on. Like I said before, some classic characters whom the recent movies have been lacking are now back: Miss Moneypenny and Q. The stunts and fights are (as always) top-notch. The last battle scene is like an extreme version of Home Alone.

However this movie does has a few slips. For example, some of the CG effects don't look all that great – especially on a couple scenes that feature CG animals. Also, don't expect a whole lot of that “resurrection” stuff you may have seen in the trailers. In the film it's not that big a deal.

Try not to let that distract you from how exciting this movie really is. Skyfall is a combination of everything that makes a good 007 film and is a must-see for fans of the series as well as any action/spy movie fans.

Final rating: four and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review - Straight Outta Compton

So here I'm reposting my most recent film review (originally from Facebook), which just so happens to be the 50th film review I've ever written. Yeah, I know Straight Outta Compton came out two months ago (at least that's when it arrived at my town). Please excuse the lateness, as I've been pretty swamped with school work and thus haven't had a whole lot of time for movies since. Enjoy!

That's right fellas, I'm pleased to announce that this is my 50^th movie review! I'd like to thank all of you guys for helping make it this far in four years. Thanks for reading, supporting, and not blocking me out from your newsfeed! So let's celebrate with a review of Straight Outta Compton.

Straight Outta Compton is a musical biopic about the late-80's-to-early-90's pioneering gagsta rap group N.W.A. It follows the group from their inception all the way to Eazy-E's death (spoiler alert!). While it does cover a lot of ground and contains a multitude of subplots (hence the two and a half hour length), the main focus is that of the members' relationships, mainly between Eazy-E, Ice Cube, and Dr. Dre. And despite (or possibly because of) having the latter two rappers as producers, this film is a surprisingly raw and honest telling of history, displaying all the nastiest little details. Right away the movie grabs your attention and establishes a dreary mood with a scene depicting one of the main characters getting involved in a drug bust. At times the plot seems a bit formulaic, but it's never uninteresting. It just slows down a bit halfway through once the group splits up; that's when all the subplots begin splintering out.

By far the best part of this movie is its acting. Our three leads – O'Shea Jackson Jr. as Ice Cube (i.e. his dad), Jason Mitchell as Eazy-E, and Corey Hawkins as Dr. Dre – all do an amazing job in addition to being great lookalikes. I was especially impressed by their ability to convincingly rap all the classic N.W.A. songs. During their performance scenes it is easy to forget that these guys aren't the real thing. Paul Giamatti also does a good portrayal of the group's manager Jerry Heller.

Overall, Straight Outta Compton is more or less what you'd expect. Imagine a daytime soap opera that had lots of violence, profanity, and nudity, but wasn't lame or corny and had brilliant acting, and you've got an entertaining biopic that even non-hip hop fans will be able to appreciate. And is it any surprise that the soundtrack kicks ass?

Rating: three and a half out of five.

James Bond Series Highs and Lows

So Spectre, the 24th official James Bond film, premiered in the UK two days ago and since I'm a huge 007 fan I am psyched! (Expect a review soon, once it reaches Canada.) And to celebrate, here’s my personal thoughts on the best, worst, and most noteworthy elements of this momentous 53-years-long film series. Enjoy!

Best Movie: Goldfinger (1964)

Worst Movie: Die Another Day (2002)

Most Underrated Movie: The Living Daylights (1987)

Most Overrated Movie: The Spy Who Loved Me (1977)

Most Undeservedly-Hated Movie: On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

Most Realistic Movie: From Russia With Love (1963)

Least Realistic Movie: Tie: Moonraker (1979) or Die Another Day (2002)

Most Violent Movie: License to Kill (1989)

Most Unremarkable Movie: Octopussy (1983)

Most Atrocious Editing: Quantum of Solace (2008)

Best Bond Actor: Sean Connery

Least-Good Bond Actor: Roger Moore, I guess. I like them all, really.

Most Eligible Bond Replacement Actors: Tom Hardy, Colin Farrell

Best Non-Bond Actor: Tie: Judi Dench as M (7 films) and Desmond Llewelyn as Q (17 films)

Best Villain: Ernst Blofeld (from You Only Live Twice, 1967)

Best Villain Besides Blofeld: Alec Trevelyan (from GoldenEye, 1995)

Best Ensemble of Villains: GoldenEye (1995)

Lamest Villain: Elliot Carver (from Tomorrow Never Dies, 1997)

Best Henchman: Oddjob (from Goldfinger, 1964)

Worst Henchman: Mr. Wint, Mr. Kidd, Bambi, and Thumper (from Diamonds Are Forever, 1971)

Best Villain's Plot: Alec Trevelyan (from GoldenEye, 1995)

Worst Villain's Plot: Elliot Carver (from Tomorrow Never Dies, 1997)

Best Romance: Casino Royale (2006)

Best Bond Girl: Pussy Galore (from Goldfinger, 1964)

Worst Bond Girl: Stacey Sutton (from A View to a Kill, 1985)

Best Ensemble of Bond Girls: Tie: Thunderball (1965) and License to Kill (1989)

Worst Ensemble of Bond Girls: A View to a Kill (1985)

Best Theme Song: “Thunderball” by Tom Jones (1965)

Worst Theme Song: “Die Another Day” by Madonna (2002)

Best Opening Scene: Casino Royale (2006)

Worst Opening Scene: For Your Eyes Only (1981)

Best Credits Sequence: Casino Royale (2006)

Worst Credits Sequence: Quantum of Solace (2008)

Best Gun Barrel Sequence: GoldenEye (1995)

Worst Gun Barrel Sequence: Die Another Day (2002)

Dumbest Moment: Jaws falls in love (from Moonraker, 1979)

Funniest Moment: Blofeld's cat freaks out (from You Only Live Twice, 1967)

Most Brutal Death: Milton Krest (from License to Kill, 1989)

Most Intense Fight: Bond vs. Alec Trevelyan (from GoldenEye, 1995)

Most Awkward Fight: Bond vs. Jaws atop the cable car (from Moonraker, 1979)

Best Shootout: You Only Live Twice (1967)

Best Musical Score: The Living Daylights (1987)

Best Stunt: Corkscrew car jump (from The Man With the Golden Gun, 1974)

Worst Special Effects: Die Another Day (2002)

Best Gadget: Garrotte-wristwatch from From Russia With Love (1963)

Dumbest Gadget: Venetian gondola/hovercraft from Moonraker (1979)