Movie Review -- Star Wars: The Last Jedi

  Another Star Wars movie? Ok, let's do this. 2015's Episode VII: The Force Awakens was pretty good, a healthy slab of light-hearted fun. Can The Last Jedi keep up the exciting pace and build upon the new stories set up by its predecessor?

  Short answer: not really.

  So the story is that the Resistance leadership is on the run from the First Order's fleet and Rey has to convince the hermit Luke Skywalker to help fight the badguys, as well as teach her in the ways of the Force of course. It's a story that accomplishes surprisingly little in spite of its two-and-a-half hour run time. This is partially due to the fact that about three-quarters of The Last Jedi is a ripoff/remake of The Empire Strikes Back. Seriously. Without getting too much into spoilers here's a brief list of things lifted straight off of Episode V:

• the majority of the film involves the insurgent leadership fleeing from an empire's fleet after evacuating their base,
• a group of heroes travel to a luxurious city to seek help in getting away from the badguy fleet,
• a submerged x-wing just outside an old Jedi master's hut,
• the wannabe Jedi apprentice enters a trippy cave of evil, and
• an old Jedi master refusing to train a young wannabe but giving in after having a chat with his ghost pal.

  For cryin' out loud, they even redid the Battle of Hoth! Except this time TLJ tries reassuring us that it isn't Hoth by having one random character go out of his way to remark that the white powdery stuff on the ground is salt, not snow. That makes it totally different, OK?! What's more, the series has mostly dropped the “resistance” label in favour of “rebels” – who now use the original trilogy's Rebel Alliance symbol. So yeah, the sequel trilogy is pretty much just straight remaking the original trilogy at this point.

  And could they at least be bothered to give this remake a good plot? Side characters come and go with little to no explanation: Paige Tico just shows up and we're already supposed to care about her whereas Benicio Del Toro's character inexplicably disappears from the film. In fact, Finn's whole subplot/adventure pretty much goes nowhere, seemingly just to set up a fight scene at the end. The film has not one, but two climaxes which could have been combined into one to save some run time, just sayin'. And to cap it all off, there's a scene in which a main character survives a near-death experience in what is without a doubt the stupidest and cheesiest moment in any Star Wars movie – including the prequels! I don't want to give away too much, but this one particular scene is so hokey that I half-expected Han Solo's ghost to pop up on screen and say, “Hey, audience. You believe in ______, right? Then why don't you clap your hands and help [him/her] out!”

  Some of these plot problems seem to be symptomatic of the Disney-fication of Star Wars; everything is frustratingly kid-friendly. Everything that happens in this film is explained in the most basic possible terms as if this was every character's first day in the Resistance navy. No detail is too small to clarify, no audience member too dumb. There's also a bunch of lame, forced humour reminiscent of the prequel trilogy. The only difference is that instead of bumbling droids, we've got General Hux and a bunch of CG Furbies (because Furbies are definitely something the world needed to be reminded of).

  Speaking of Disney, the SJW force is strong with the Last Jedi. Did anyone else find it kind of odd that almost all of the Resistance's commanding officers are human females? Normally this wouldn't bother me too much if it weren't for one character: Vice Admiral Holdo, played by Laura Dern. This purple-haired (seriously), t-shirt dress-clad character looks like she belongs in some sort of coming-of-age drama, not an action movie like Star Wars. She doesn't even have a badass English accent to lend her role some gravitas. I miss Mon Mothma.

  The rest of the characters are a mixed bag. Some, like Supreme Leader Snoke and Rose Tico are dull and not so interesting. However we do get to learn a lot more about Kylo Ren, perhaps the most engaging figure in this new trilogy. Additionally Mark Hamill's performance as Luke Skywalker is much more intense and nuanced than you may expect.

  The visuals of The Last Jedi are also of varying quality. There's a bunch of good-looking shots. The set design is top-notch and includes a lot of splashes of red. But remember in my Force Awakens review when I claimed that the promise of more practical effects over CG effects was a lie? I stand by that, and things on the FX front haven't changed much in TLJ. While the CG isn't bad (except on animals), some authentic tangibleness would be more greatly appreciated.

  In conclusion, The Last Jedi isn't a bad film; the fight scenes are excellent, the scoring is nice, and some of the characters are stimulating enough. Unfortunately the plot is an undercooked mess and the lack of originality is staggering. I fully understand why TLJ is getting so much hate from the fandom, but when considering the film's tone and presentation I'm beginning to think that this sequel trilogy is a set of Star Wars films that was simply made for a different type of audience in mind.

But at least we got to see where green milk comes from.

Grade:

Movie Review -- The Disaster Artist

  Oh hai, readers! I have announcement to make. The movie we're expecting has finally arrived! I'm not kidding; my friends and brothers and I are all big fans of 2003's The Room and ever since I heard that the tell-all book of that film's production, The Disaster Artist, was being adapted into a James Franco/Seth Rogen film I think I crapped my pants. (And yes, I have read the book, like, five times.) And now Christmas has come early, the wait is finally over, and I've got to say this is definitely the farthest I've ever driven to go see a movie. Limited releases... you drive me crazy. So did The Disaster Artist live up to expectations?

  Of course, whadya think?

  TDA is the hilarious and surprisingly emotional true story of how aspiring young actor Greg Sestero became friends with another aspiring actor and eccentric, mysterious weirdo Tommy Wiseau. After struggling to become actors through the usual Hollywood means the two decide to make their own independent movie, The Room, with Wiseau as director/writer/producer/executive producer/lead actor. The following ordeal tests both their friendship and their resolve. Just like the book it's based on, the story serves as a celebration of bold ambition and following one's dreams.

  There were a few changes the film made from the book though. There are events that didn't actually happen, there are events that went down differently, and a bunch of little fun oddities that were left out of the film entirely. For example, did you know that The Room actually went through three film crews and two script supervisors? I might have to write a “Book vs. Movie” article on this pretty soon because as is unfortunately the case with a lot of adaptations there was so much good stuff in the book that they couldn't possibly have put it all on the big screen. In other words, don't plan too much; it may not come out right.

  The cast is loaded with some pretty good talent here. First and foremost is James Franco as the bizarre Tommy Wiseau. Franco must have spent a long time studying Wiseau's oddities because he nails them The Disaster Artist. He's got Wiseau's speech, accent, mannerisms, and even his lazy eye down to a T. Everything is fine. Playing the role of Greg is James' brother Dave Franco. He does an OK job, but I found him to be too happy-go-lucky at times. For a young character who's struggling to find work he often seems too smiley and unflappable. Does he understand life? Rounding out the cast is such famous faces as Seth Rogen as script supervisor Sandy, Josh Hutcherson as Philip Haldiman (AKA “Denny”), and Alison Brie as Greg's girlfriend Amber as well as a bunch of cameo appearances from the likes of Sharon Stone, Zac Efron, Bryan Cranston, Judd Apatow, and even Tommy Wiseau himself (post-credits). It's as if Franco invited all his friends. Good thinking.

  That's right, James Franco also directed TDA. He does a pretty good job with a couple exceptions. One is that the film opens with several actors/comedians giving their thoughts on the “genius” behind The Room and its creator. I thought it was just a little unnecessary and pretentious. They should've left their stupid comments in their pockets. There's also frequent use of handheld wobbly camera, which is OK for emphasizing the Room's chaotic production scenes, but not necessary for scenes like when Greg is leaving his parents' house for Los Angeles. At least Franco made sure to cram in plenty of The Room's memorable lines.

  In short, The Disaster Artist is a joy to behold. It's the downright hilarious, bizarre, feel-good movie of the year. It's a shame it didn't get a wider release; they could've gotten new clients and made a lot of money. Keep in mind you don't need to have read the book in order to get TDA. Do you need to have seen The Room first? I think it would definitely help, yes. If you've not seen the original film yet then this'll just be a quirky comedy to you. But seasoned Room veterans will find that The Disaster Artist will make the world a better place to live.

Grade:

The Real Deal -- Batman Forever (1995)

  Back in September I wrote an In Defence of... article for Batman & Robin (1997). Don't get me wrong, the movie is freakin' stupid but it has a certain dumb appeal to it. But 1995's Batman Forever is the real deal. It sucks and it doesn't even have the so-bad-it's-good factor working for it. It's simply bad with very few enjoyable elements to it.

  Imagine yourself in the theatre watching this in 1995. Perhaps you just rewatched the first two Batman films to get in the mood. You're fresh off those Tim Burton films' dark, moody tone and gloomy atmosphere. Then all of a sudden this Joel Schumacher mess throws you into a world of flamboyant campiness. Forever doesn't mesh at all with the preceding two films. In fact, it more closely resembles an episode of the 1960's TV show, but it's even more cartoony than that! There are bright neon colours everywhere, the music is bombastic, and everything looks very – I dunno – plastic, as if the film was made specifically to sell toys (which may not be far from the truth). Gotham City is no longer a gritty and grey metropolis, but now a flashy, lit up place with massive statues of naked folks that would make Las Vegas blush, all done in very fake-looking CG effects by the way.

  People often ridicule Batman & Robin for the bat-ass shot and the bat-nipples, but these blights to cinema were actually introduced to the series in Batman Forever along with tons of lame jokes to make the kids laugh. We get jokes about how “chicks love the car [batmobile]” and going to get drive thru whilst in the batmobile. There's also a scene where Robin uses karate to... do his laundry.

  So let's talk about the characters, starting with the titular hero. In my opinion Val Kilmer is the blandest actor to play Batman on film. He's pretty wooden and he often looks uninterested in what he's taking part in. On the total opposite end of the enthusiasm spectrum is Jim Carrey playing the roll of... let's face it: Jim Carrey. Ok, he's actually the Riddler but he does the whole Jim Carrey bit: making silly faces at the camera, talking in silly voices, basically just being a big manic man-child. His appearance is at times weird. In the climatic final battle he wears a sparkly leotard and has a ludicrous haircut. (On the film's poster he's doing this pose that I didn't know was possible in real life. His hands are palms-out at his shoulders, but his elbows are together. Can anyone here do that?) It's little wonder that Tommy Lee Jones, as the other villain Two-Face, didn't get along with Carrey during the filming. There's also the fact that he's Tommy Lee freakin' Jones! Why was he here? Instead of a tragic and interesting look at fallen white knight Harvey Dent, we're instead given just Joker lite whose goals in this film are a total enigma. He seems to be just a laughy, jokey dude who wants to kill Batman, I guess. Lastly, I have to mention Nicole Kidman as Dr. Chase Meridian, the main love interest. Her character goes beyond weird; she's just straight up horny for Batman. Dr. Meridian's got fetishes that makes me wonder if her character came from some teenager's fanfiction.

  The saddest thing is that Batman Forever tried elevating itself above its own campy tone by pitting it against a serious introspective tone, as one of the main plotlines concerns the psychology of Bruce Wayne and his duality in also being Batman. Or something like that; needless to say the two tones don't fit together very well. And yes, this involves a long drawn-out scene in which we see the origin of Batman once again (which was already shown to us in 1989's Batman).

  And no crappy movie is complete without a bunch of plotholes, right? For example, why are there trick-or-treaters at the Wayne mansion? Thought his mansion was out in the middle of nowhere and surrounded by iron fences and gates. Why is the password to the office-to-batcave pneumatic tube chair “chair”? It seems like a password that's very easy to guess/accidentally say; it's not that much different from making your computer password “password”. How did the Riddler get his flashy not-so-secret base built without anyone discovering his secret identity? Oh yeah, and Batman kills Two-Face at the end, which is peculiar since I thought he made a point about not killing people. But then again, he killed some dudes in the Burton films, so who knows?

  Of all the original quadrilogy Batman films (that series really needs an official name), this is the one I've watched the least simply because it's the least enjoyable. It's quite obvious that this instalment was meant to dumb things down to make it more easily digestible for a wider audience. So what we were left with was a frustratingly kid-friendly movie that didn't really break any new ground for the Batman series, unless you count campiness and stupid jokes which, honestly, Batman & Robin went further with and did more memorably. And when Batman & Robin isn't the worst film in the series, there's something seriously wrong.

  But at least Batman Forever gave the world the Batman thumbs up gif. Right?

Video Game Retrospective -- GoldenEye: Rogue Agent (2004), Part 2

And now, the thrilling conclusion to my look back at the most frustrating 007 video game of them all, GoldenEye: Rogue Agent.

  Next up is not-SPECTRE headquarters in an underwater lair called the Octopus, which sort of reminds me of Stromberg's base from The Spy Who Loved Me. Other than that, there's not much to say. The Octopus is just more of the same bland tedium found in the rest of the game. By the next level, Goldfinger's found out that Dr. No's home base is in Crab Key and dispatches GoldenEye there to kill the doctor and target the island for an OMEN strike. This is the only level that seems to open up into wide open spaces as you brainlessly sludge your way through the docks, around the mine, and finally into the base itself. There's two tanks guarding the base's entry doors, but if you activate your invincibility and sprint around them you can safely shoot rockets at their backs since they can't turn around for some reason. The level ends with a pretty good boss fight against Dr. No. Once he is dead, Goldfinger, believing the rogue agent to be too powerful to control – and revealing that he has plans to overthrow not-Blofeld to take over not-SPECTRE – betrays GoldenEye and leaves him to die in the OMEN strike. However GoldenEye manages to escape before the island is destroyed.

  With Scaramanga and Pussy's help, he returns to the volcano lair (straight outta You Only Live Twice) to confront Goldfinger. This is the final and most difficult level of the game. Not only is it ungodly long, but it's also the only level featuring the OMEN rifle. This weapon uses OMEN technology to fire glowing blue thingees that kill in just one hit (or two if you've got your invincibility shield active). The blue thingees can be dodged, but it's very biased. OMEN wielding enemies fire their guns very rapidly and if the blue thingees come anywhere near you you're dead. However when you use the rifle (which can only fire 3 shots before needing to reload, by the way) you don't get to fire rapidly, reload times are slow, and the enemies always seem to dodge the projectiles at a distance of anything more than 15 meters or so. My tactics for this level avoided using the OMEN rifle and involved a lot of hiding behind cover, a lot of grenade spamming, and very brief and careful poking of my head out to shoot for brief seconds lest I get hit by a stray OMEN blue glowing thingee. You have NPC allies at certain points but they're useless; they die quickly and only serve to momentarily distract the enemies.

  So you forge ahead through so many freakin' rooms, many of which are repeated multiple times. I should also mention that while Rogue Agent does have a checkpoint-respawn system, not all checkpoints are save points. So if you try leaving the game in the middle of one of its ceaselessly long levels, you may lose a bunch of progress when you come back. Finding this out was not fun, believe me. Eventually you make it to this wide round room with loads of badguys (including some OMEN gunners) pouring out of multiple doors. Cover is sparse, ammo is out in the open, enemies are constantly running around all over the place, and you can't go back since the door behind you closes. Unless you stay in the doorway and pick off badguys from afar (even this doesn't accomplish much) there's nowhere to hide. Once you enter that room, you're committed. I was stuck on this one room for over an hour before I gave up, threw the game disc against the wall, and watched a longplay on YouTube to see what I missed. It turns out that there's only one hallway and one cutscene after this room. So yes, I didn't fully beat the game but I did complete 99.9% of it. That much effort is far more than this game deserved.

  So after the hell room and straightforward easy hallway following it, you reach some bulletproof glass behind which Goldfinger makes his grand villain speech with the OMEN by his side. Unbeknownst to him, GoldenEye (that is , the player) has been using this moment to hack the OMEN and activate it, killing the evil mastermind and his remaining henchman. Were you expecting a final boss fight or something? What are you, crazy? Pussy Galore picks up the agent in her helicopter and the two celebrate with a victory shag. Little do they know that the events of this whole game were part of not-Blofeld's plan and that he and Scaramanga (who was in on it) will be keeping an eye on the rogue agent.

  So that does it for the singleplayer campaign and to sum it all up it's one of the most dreary and joyless video games I ever forced myself to slog through (or at least 99.9% of the way through). The plot is uninteresting, the enemies suck, and the levels are obscenely long. What it needed – aside from the aforementioned level design and gameplay variety – was a main character who had a bit of personality. Never once throughout the entire game, including cutscenes, does GoldenEye speak or even show some character. He's an empty skull for the player to rent. GoldenEye: Rogue Agent would've also benefited from a level in which you could fight James Bond as a boss. How cool would that be?

  As for multiplayer, I can't really say all that much because I didn't play too much of it. There's two reasons why. The first is that there's no bots, which is a real letdown because multiplayer shooters are generally funner with more opponents (plus previous 007 games did have bots). The second is that the GoldenEye abilities, which are available in MP, take some explaining/getting used to for players who haven't played the singleplayer campaign – and let me tell you, I've never met anyone else who played Rogue Agent's SP. Other than that, the multiplayer is pretty average. There's few match types, the character skins are dull, and the weapons are all the same as in SP. The most noteworthy thing about this game mode is the maps which most 007 fans may find rather interesting. There's maps based on Tomorrow Never Dies, A View to a Kill, The Man With the Golden Gun, and Moonraker, and a lot of them have traps that can be activated on one's opponents.

  And that's all there is to say about GoldenEye: Rogue Agent; it's a very dull, very bland, very colourless FPS that barely feels like it has anything to do with the 007 franchise. It's no wonder the game's box comes with a flashy “007 Presents:” sticker on it, just to remind you what it is. They even took the name of the most popular 007 game ever – GoldenEye 64 – and slapped it on this one in a blatant cash-in attempt. It doesn't work because this doesn't feel like a Bond game, nor does it feel like a Bond villain game. It's a no name henchman simulator, a wasted opportunity destined to be forgotten by all but the most hardcore of Bond fan completionists. For everyone else, don't bother with Rogue Agent.

Movie Review -- Justice League

  Justice League marks DC Films' fifth time up to bat for their Extended Universe. Most of their films so far haven't been all that great, but this year's Wonder Woman showed signs of promise. Which direction will Justice League try taking this universe? Let's take a look.

  JL's plot is rather standard. Some intergalactic bad guy shows up to take over Earth using the power of the ancient MacGuffin(s) and a smart guy with access to lots of money and advanced technology tries to put together a team of superheroes to stop him. Are you starting to see the similarities to 2012's Avengers yet? While there are a few huge battle scenes the film doesn't have the same epic weight that that film did. There's also a few plot holes towards the end; namely what happened to the Mother Boxes after the final battle? Did they just disappear? And where did the aliens go afterwards? One good thing Justice League ripped off from the Avengers is the overall lighter tone, making it more fun and less serious than other films of the series like Batman v Superman (2016). It also includes subtle nods to the heroes' backstories and lore.

  Now let's talk about the characters. Some are great, some aren't. Ben Affleck is still a strong and charismatic Batman. Gal Gadot is quite comfortable playing Wonder Woman for a third outing, a real highlight. Ezra Miller brings enthusiasm and quipiness to his role as the Flash. Although his jokes don't always land well, he grows on you after a while. Aquaman/Arthur Curry, played by Jason Momoa, is rather amusing and cool. It sure was nice of them to name him after a Canadian First World War general, and he doesn't suck nearly as much as he does in the cartoons. The same can't be said of Cyborg, whose actor is pretty wooden. But the biggest failure in the character department is the main villain, Steppenwolf. He is about as bland as you can get and his physical appearance isn't all that impressive, not helped by the overabundance of CG effects used to render him.

  Yes, like the other DCEU films Justice League is drenched with computer-generated effects, some of which look like they haven't quite dried yet. I mean, why did they have to CG Cyborg's tracksuit? Is it truly that hard to find a real tracksuit these days? At least the effects team did a good job of wiping away Henry Cavill's moustache. When you take all special effects into consideration it isn't hard to understand why JL is one of the most expensive movies ever made.

  You may have heard about director Zack Snyder having to leave the project halfway through, entrusting the post-production's directing/writing/reshoots to Joss Whedon. And it shows. The difference doesn't wreck the overall film but there are times when you can tell who did which scene based on the scene's tone, cinematography, and/or use of slow-mo.

  On the whole, Justice League is an OK movie without any dull moments (and it's only 2 hours long, btw). It has its issues but I believe it does more things right than wrong. Seeing (most of) these heroes done justice on the big screen is gratifying and watching them interact and fight evil together is pretty fun. For now at least it seems as if the DCEU has taken a turn for the better. Superfans, rejoice!

Grade:  

Video Game Retrospective -- GoldenEye: Rogue Agent (2004), Part 1

  There are a ton of James Bond video games out there. There's 007 games for just about every console from the ZX Spectrum to the Wii U and I'm sure most fans of the Bond movies have tried at least one of the franchise's many interactive experiences. I've only played a handful – Agent Under Fire (2001), Everything or Nothing (2003), GoldenEye 007 (1997) – and to be honest I suck at most of them (the only one I've ever completed is AUF). But earlier this year I put myself through one 007 game that I just had to write about, 2004's GoldenEye: Rogue Agent.

  Although its title implies the game's based on the 1995 film GoldenEye, Rogue Agent is an entirely original creation. Taking place in an alternate universe, the plot follows a former MI6 agent who's turned evil and gotten a job with Auric Goldfinger of not-SPECTRE (remember, this was when the legal rights to the name SPECTRE were in dispute). Playing a Bond-style adventure as a villain instead of the familiar hero had a lot of potential. Just think of all the stuff an evil version of James Bond could get up to! This is going to be amazing, right?

  Let's go through the single player campaign together, shall we? The game begins with an introductory level at Fort Knox just like in Goldfinger, except you take on the roll of some agent dude partnered with Bond. You spend a minute getting acquainted with the controls, which this game maps out serviceably. Within moments your helicopter crashes and falls through a roof, crushing agent 007. Oops.

  It's in this beginning level you're introduced to the gunplay, so let's go over that for a moment. Unlike most 007 games of the era, Rogue Agent only allows you to carry two weapons instead of a full arsenal. Lame! There's a basic pistol you always have in reserve, but it thankfully disappears if you choose to dual wield two other weapons. That's right, you can dual wield in this game. This only goes for some weapons though; larger weapons like rocket launchers and assault rifles need both hands to operate them. Also, most of the guns don't allow you to zoom in. Ranged weapons are limited. You've got a limited assortment of weapons: 2 pistols, an assault rifle, an SMG, a grenade launcher/detonator, a rocket launcher, a lever-action shotgun, a slow-firing rail gun, and a poison/stun gun that slows people down. That's pretty much it. The only real escalation in firepower comes in the form of a minigun (in the 4^th or 5^th level) and the final level's OMEN rifle. More on that one later...

  As far as abilities go, you can't jump, but you can melee and you can also take enemies as human shields which is always good for a laugh. However, the dumb badguys can often be seen doing the same... to eachother.

  Anyways, you fight through Fort Knox to prevent a nuclear bomb from detonating and as soon as it looks like you're going to fight Oddjob, the bomb detonates and the level ends. But it's OK because it was just a simulation. M (voiced by Judi Dench herself) scolds the unnamed agent and dismisses him. The player is then treated to a rather cool opening “credits” scene setting up the plot. The agent gets a job with Goldfinger, Dr. No breaks away from not-SPECTRE and tries to take over the world on his own, a rivalry develops between Goldfinger and Dr. No, the doctor shoots the agent in the eye, and Francisco Scaramanga, not-SPECTRE's tech specialist (voiced by Christopher Lee himself), implants a cybernetic eye of gold in the vengeful agent's head thus giving him the moniker “GoldenEye”. Uh hum. This eye gives the player special abilities that are gained as the campaign progresses. These include MRI vision, hacking, brief invincibility, and later telekinesis. Weird.

  The next cutscene shows off Goldfinger's new weapon, the OMEN, which destroys organic matter and disintegrates dudes. Dr. No and his forces discover it's being held at Goldfinger's secret arctic hideout and attack it. And so the second level tasks you with defending the arctic base, and it's not all that great a level. It's a boring arrangement of dull rooms and hallways. The only real highlights are (1) the level's traps that you can activate and (2) the appearance of the laser from the movie Goldfinger (too bad you can't use that as a trap!). Anyways, the base is wrecked but the OMEN is shepherded away. GoldenEye is picked up by Pussy Galore who, by the way, looks and sounds almost nothing like she did in the film. Here she's basically your chauffeur... in a pink helicopter. Remember that from Goldfinger? I don't.

  The next mission takes place in Hong Kong where GoldenEye is tasked with assassinating Dr. No. Spoiler alert: it doesn't work. With an objective like this they could've mixed things up a bit with a sniping mission or stealth gameplay. But no, the majority of this level is shooty-shooty bang-bang inside and above dozens of high rise buildings. Hong Kong may be a bit more colourful than the previous level, bit it's just as mind-numbingly boring. Not only is this the most tedious level yet, but it's also far longer than it has any right to be! It just goes on and on and on and on. The idea is that you've got to go to a specific rooftop for Pussy to pick you up from, but why does the building she picked have to be on the other side of town? Any old freakin' rooftop will do!

  Once that nightmare is over, you head over to Las Vegas where you've got to defend the OMEN in its casino hideout from Xenia Onatopp who is rumoured to be working for Dr. No. This level is only slightly less dull than the previous ones. The gameplay is unchanged but I'll give it credit for being the most visually interesting level in Rogue Agent. The places here look vibrant and alive. If only the other elements of the game were like that!

  It's not until the following level where we actually get to go toe-to-toe (or is that thigh-to-thigh?) against Xenia Onatopp in a boss fight atop Hoover Dam. The only problem is that it comes after about an hour of the worst level in the game: an unending series of similar, lifeless, grey, concrete rooms with generic enemies. (By the way, all the bad guys bleed bright blue blood. I guess it was to avoid an M rating?) You start the level at the bottom of one side of the dam, you go inside, fight your way to the top, cross it halfway whilst taking on dozens of tanks and helicopters, go back down to the bottom of the dam, retrieve the seismic bomb (your mission objective), climb back to the top again, and cross the other half. It is a brainless chore. This game is in serious need of some variety. Other Bond games had vehicle sections, turret sections, stealth sections, even on-rails sections. But in this level I was so fed up I found myself simply running past enemies in order to get to the end quicker.

  There's also a cutscene in which Oddjob betrays GoldenEye, but the rogue agent throws the henchman down a bottomless shaft. And that's the last we see of Oddjob. Why did he betray GoldenEye? Was he really working for Dr. No? Did Goldfinger order him to do it? Seriously, the game never explains it and it's never mentioned again. What a waste of a cool character! By this point I had stopped caring. The only thing motivating me to continue was to see what would happen to the characters and what movie references would be made next. If I weren't a 007 fan this game would've been in the garbage by now.

That's all I can take for now. Check in next week for part 2!

Movie Review Repost -- Thor: The Dark World (2013)

I've been working on some new stuff these past few days and I promise I'll have it ready to go for next week. But for now let's have a look at the previous Thor movie, The Dark World and why I thought it was a disappointment. My thoughts on it haven't changed since 2013, though I wouldn't mind watching it again since I've kind of forgotten most of what happened in it. Enjoy.

  It's not easy to write these reviews when there's a cat sitting between you and the computer. Anyways, Thor: The Dark World! (Damn you, Willy for ruining my intro!)

  Thor 2 was OK. Really OK. It follows Thor and his girlfriend Jane Foster as they strive to defend the Nine Realms against the no-longer-dormant threat of the Dark Elves who have located the no-longer-missing ultimate weapon, the Aether. In addition to some fun new characters we're also treated to all the classic ones from the previous film, all brilliantly acted. This includes Loki, the most entertaining Marvel movie villain ever, the guy who steals every scene he's in and keeps you guessing as to what he's going to do next.

  At times the story seems rather rushed, especially in the beginning where it seems as if we're given a lot to swallow in 15-20 minutes. The same can be said of the fighting scenes; they often end abruptly with a very fast move that you can't really see. This movie also ends in a not-unpredictable cliffhanger. The mid-credits scene is a great big WTF moment and, let me tell you, the post-credits scene is pointless. Don't waste your time waiting for it.

  As with the first Thor movie, The Dark World has good special effects and is really funny when it wants to be (although some of the jokes were kind of predictable).

  Unfortunately, the film's main villain, Malekith (or Malarkey as I call him), isn't all that interesting. He commands an army of dark elves who carry cool weapons and can turn into Hulk-like monsters but wear these silly-looking masks that make me chuckle. And please tell me: why exactly do they want to destroy the universe anyways? Also, the Asgardians apparently just rebuilt the Bifrost that Thor destroyed in the previous film, thus completely validating one of my complaints from that film two years ago.

  In short, Thor: The Dark World is an OK film, but not nearly as good as the first. The story isn't as complete and the characters aren't as developed. In the first Thor movie, characters learn lessons and go through changes. The sequel, on the other hand, is just one of those good-guy-fights-bad-guy movies. But for what it is, it's entertaining enough and worth seeing once.

Rating: three stars out of five.

Movie Review -- Thor: Ragnarok

  It's been four years since the mild disappointment of Thor: The Dark World and you know, I really liked the first Thor movie and I think Thor is one of the funner characters in the Avengers family of films. What did Marvel Studios and director Taika Waititi (that guy with the saucer eyes) do to try to turn this subseries of films around?

  The difference between Thor: Ragnarok and the other two films is noticeable from the very first scene. The tone has taken a noticeable shift to the colourful, comedic, and campy – one might even say, deliberately cheesy. Imagine Guardians of the Galaxy, but with Thor instead of the Guardians. It may take a moment to adjust – especially if you remember what the other Thor films were like – but I think these changes mostly benefit the Thor series whose charm was beginning to wear thin after The Dark World. I said mostly because a lot of the jokes come from characters you wouldn't expect and sometimes they undermine what should be serious moments. Some of the humour feels forced, even immature. It all makes Ragnarok a movie that is very fun, but which borders on self-parody at times. As black Iron Man once said, “Never go full retard.”

  The story revolves around Odin dying (for the second or third time), which releases his evil firstborn daughter Hela from captivity. She takes over Asgard and expels Thor and Loki to a planet called Sakaar. The two must escape Sakaar and save Asgard with a little help from some friends along the way. As I said earlier, Ragnarok has a very different feel to it than the other Thor films. The third act, when things return to Asgard, is when it truly becomes a Thor movie. But the second act, which takes place on Sakaar (AKA 1980's Mos Eisley, USA) is kind of weird, considering the context of Thor 1&2.

  This weirdness is personified by Jeff Goldbloom as the Grandmaster (i.e. himself), the ruler of Sakaar. This dork is a joy to watch and I'd bet any money that Jeff was allowed to ad-lib some of his lines here. All the classic characters are back – Thor, Loki, Odin, Heimdall – as well as a new villain, Hela. She's played by Cate Blanchett who does ham it up a bit but is still very good in the role. Another excellent addition to the cast is the Hulk, badass as ever. And he's even learned a bit of speech since Avengers 2 (2015) adding depth to his personality. Thor is a bit different this time too. Aside from cracking more jokes he now has short hair, a new costume, and doesn't use his signature hammer. One last character I have to mention is a rock-skinned, soft-spoken gladiator named Korg. Voiced by Waititi himself, Korg might be the funniest character in the film but I think he's given too much screen time. In a film that already has Loki, Jeff Goldbloom, and an overall funnier tone does it really need yet another comedic relief character?

  Ragnarok suffers from numerous narrative troubles. These include cheap deaths of established characters early on in the film, a multitude of clunky exposition trying to set up backstory in as few words as possible, and a wholly pointless scene featuring Dr. Strange (which is also nothing but comedic relief). Considering all this pointless stuff, this is a movie that doesn't need to be 130 minutes long.

  In spite of this Thor: Ragnarok is a rather fun and entertaining movie that's worth watching once. I'd say it's better than Thor 2 (certainly more memorable) but not quite as good as Thor 1. It's an alright superhero adventure flick that doesn't try to be taken too seriously. (Warning: the 3D on this one sucks. Avoid it!)

Grade:  

Movie Review Repost -- World War Z (2013)

So guess what: I'm in the middle of packing/moving again, which means that I haven't had much time to spare for writing lately. Sorry about that. I've got ideas for new material, but it may be a week or two before I can get any of them written and posted. In the meantime let's take a look back at the review I wrote in 2013 for the action-horror flick World War Z. I liked it. I know a lot of people didn't think much of it and I don't fully understand why. It was alright; perhaps an In Defence Of article is in order?

  Is it just me or are there, like, a ton of zombie shows nowadays? I wonder why people like them. Is it because these stories demonstrate how fragile civilization is? Or do people like seeing mindless walkers being shot by the hundreds? Rejoice, zombie fans; World War Z has both of these elements!

  World War Z's story follows Gerry Lane (Brad Pitt), a UN inspector, in his worldwide search to find and halt the rapid spread of a rabies-like virus that turns people into zombies. This highly suspenseful plot wastes no time getting straight to the action; zombies appear within the movie's first five minutes. Conversely, one thing you might notice about World War Z is that there's actually a lot of pointless stuff. There's pointless locations (South Korea), pointless characters (Thomas and Dr. Fassbach), and pointless plotlines (Gerry's family having to leave the navy ship). However, even though the movie is nearly two hours, the story never feels like it's dragging on and manages to be entertaining throughout. One thing that you might find disappointing is that the climax isn't as impressive as the rest of the film might condition you to expect. It's hard to explain; let's just say that you may be surprised at where the film decides to end.

  There's only a handful of characters that get any significant fleshing-out, but the acting is good from one end to the other, especially from Brad Pitt. Just remember to stay away from him if a zombie apocalypse ever does break out. Pretty much everyone around him ends up dying; he's like a bad luck charm. But to be fair that's partially because he's surrounded by clumsy characters who take forever to learn basic things like not making noise or how to not shoot yourself.

  As you've probably seen from the trailers, there are some impressive long shots from this film's action scenes. Unfortunately some of the fight scenes (not all, but some) suffer from the menace that is shaky cam. (Also the 3D in this movie is pointless. Don't bother with it.) And like so many other zombie apocalypse shows we don't learn where or how the zombie virus originated. Also, why don't the humans just let the zombies starve to death? Or would that be double death, I guess? Whatever.

  Anyways, World War Z is a fine addition to the zombie horror genre. For a movie about a zombie apocalypse it's relatively bloodless, which is fine if you're like me and prefer suspense to gore. Both horror and action fans will be able to enjoy this film.

Rating: three stars out of five.

Movie Review Repost -- Apollo 18 (2011)

All Hallows Eve approaches. I'm sorry I haven't got anything new for you this weekend, so I figured I should look back at one of the few horror movie reviews I did in my early days of reviewing (and it's not the greatest review I've ever written). This is the sci-fi found footage film Apollo 18. It was mediocre and didn't leave much of an impression on me. I've not seen it since and I've barely thought about it since. So I guess my opinions are unchanged...

  The summer is at an end and last weekend I tried to fit in one more movie viewing. I chose Apollo 18, a horror/sci-fi flick set in the early seventies about the supposed last lunar mission.

  This movie is filmed in found-footage style, meaning that the cinematography is similar to grainy, staticy late-sixties video camera footage, so get used to seeing cameras malfunction and flicker around and go offline; it happens every five minutes. I can't help but wonder if that was even necessary. Anyways, don't expect to see a masterpiece of film here. The plot is very cliched and unoriginal and somewhat predictable. The film has a noticeably slow start as well as a few slow moments throughout.

  What did I like about this movie? Well the special effects look great, but with the grainy, low-res footage, making good looking special effects on this film couldn't have been that difficult. The acting is better than average, but the actors' best efforts are inhibited by the underdeveloped characters. By the end of the film you still won't really know that much about the three characters.

  During those slow boring parts, you'll find yourself thinking of plotholes and other weird stuff. Like why did Commander Walker want to be saved even though five minutes earlier he didn't want to go back to Earth fearing he'd infect the whole planet? And how come the aliens attacked on this mission but not the other moon missions? Unless the producers... And then it hits you: you're watching a hippie movie! Think about it, the pieces of the puzzle are all there: faked moon landings, the government being portrayed as evil, indigenous creatures fighting back (AKA environmentalism/anti-racism), technology being portrayed as useless, the USSR being depicted in a sympathetic manner...

  Wow. I've got to go warn people of this. Meanwhile, you should stay away from this crazy movie unless you really want to kill some brain cells. (And to think I chose this instead of My Idiot Brother!)

Rating: Two stars out of five

Movie Review -- Blade Runner 2049

  I've got to admit that I was rather worried when I heard a sequel to the 1982 classic Blade Runner was being made. I thought that Blade Runner 2049 would wind up a cheap cash-in trying to belatedly jump start a whole series of films, like last year's Independence Day: Resurgence. Sometimes it's good to be wrong.

  Blade Runner 2049 takes us back to the future Los Angeles to follow K, a Nexus-9 replicant working as a blade runner for the LAPD. After a routine “retiring” of a rogue Nexus-8 model, K discovers that there may have once been a pregnant replicant and he is tasked with investigating and covering up the potentially volatile revelation. It's a great story that takes you to some interesting locations, has a decent twist, and has a great ending that sort of harkens back to the original's. The film doesn't try too much to copy the plot of the original and tries its own thing. Will you be lost if you haven't seen the original? It's hard to tell. I guess it depends on how good you are at picking stuff up from opening text crawls. As was the case with Blade Runner, 2049's story moves along at a very slow pace. And as good as this two hour and forty-three minute film is, you'll feel every minute of it.

  While this Blade Runner flick doesn't have any unicorns, it does boast a talented cast that gives us some engrossing characters. (You can tell because pretty much every single character in this film cries at some point!) Chief among them is K, portrayed by Ryan Gosling who does an excellent job at bringing to life an artificial human undergoing personal crisis, trying figure out if he has a soul. Harrison Ford also does a fine job at playing Deckard again. It really does feel like the same character has returned, and not just another standard Indiana Jones/Han Solo/who-knows-what's-next “Hey, I'm back” performance.

  Blade Runner is a film that's well-known for its striking visual style and this tradition has been carried over to its sequel. The cinematography of Blade Runner 2049 is gorgeous, putting on a dazzling show with landscape shots, smooth camera pans, and an eye-catching use of colour palette. Future Los Angeles appears less gritty and just a bit more colourful this time around, with less fire and smoke filling up the skies. The city's bright hologram adverts are back and given more life with modern special effects. The visual effects in 2049 are seamless, just as CG effects should be. In short, 2049's visuals have a noticeably more 2010's feel to them than a 1980's feel, which is fine considering that this film takes place 30 years after the original.

  The same goes for the soundtrack. Blade Runner 2049's score is still very synth heavy, but with less keyboard/xylophone/bells/whatever those sounds were. And there's pretty much no saxophone (or synth equivalent of a saxophone). It gives the film less of a noir feel (that the original had) and more of a modern sci-fi feel to it. Again, since this film is of a slightly different flavour than the first I don't consider this to be a bad thing.

  However, the film's effect on the state of Blade Runner's lore might not be so defensible. Don't get me wrong, Blade Runner 2049 doesn't ruin BL's story, not by a long shot. But personally I liked the original's ambiguous ending. 2049 also definitively settles the debate on whether Deckard is a replicant or not. Fortunately there are other possible fan debates that might spark from this new film, such as: Where was Luv taking Deckard near the end? What was up with that dog and what happened to him?

  In conclusion, Blade Runner 2049 is an excellent science fiction movie made by people who truly care about its forerunner and its genre. Easily one of the best films of 2017 so far, it's not an altogether necessary sequel, but it is a worthwhile one. If you're remotely interested – and if you can stomach lengthy films with a relaxed pace – then I think you'll quite like it.

Grade:

Is it time for Splinter Cell to retire Sam Fisher?

  It's been a while since I last wrote about Splinter Cell. Shall we write about Splinter Cell? Let's write about Splinter Cell.

  Since playing 2013's Blacklist one thing that's been on my mind is the future of Sam Fisher's character. I think it may be time to retire him. Don't get me wrong, I love Fisher's character. I think he's one of the coolest and iconic characters in the action genre this century. But it's quite clear that his glory days have passed. Let me tell you why.

  The first reason why Sam isn't as cool as before is, you guessed it, Michael Ironside leaving the series. Ironside contributed so much to Fisher, with performances that gave the character intensity, professionalism, and at times dark humour and sarcasm. Without Ironside, Fisher simply wasn't the same character he was before. Eric Johnson's performance in Blacklist, while it wasn't outright awful, robbed Sam of much of his personality. Gone was his cool professionalism and much of his sarcasm. In fact at times he just came off as a somewhat disinterested ass. Also, he sounded too young to be playing the highly experienced 4^th Echelon agent.

  Which brings me to the other point, Sam Fisher is simply getting too old to do field work. Sure Sam was already in his 40's when he became a splinter cell in the original game in 2002. His experience in his middle age is part of what made him so distinctive from other video game characters. But seeing him able to effortlessly pull off so many acrobatic moves in Blacklist was really starting to test my suspension of disbelief, especially when you consider that Sam was born in 1957! Part of Sam's backstory is that he was involved in past historical events like the Soviet-Afghan War and the US invasion of Panama. So unless the next game is a prequel or reboot, Sam will be at least 60 years old!

  The solution to these problems is simple. I propose that Ubisoft have a different player character for the next game. I'm not saying that Sam has to disappear; he still could be an advisor/mentor/boss within 4^th Echelon – perhaps he could be the new Lambert.

  I think it would be interesting to let Briggs take over the mantle of the trifocal goggles. We already played as him in two levels of Blacklist (if you don't count the sniping sections), which could serve as a “passing of the torch”. The first level you could tell he was learning how stealth espionage tactics worked and by the final level of the game he was so skilled at it that he was almost indistinguishable from Sam.

  It seems unlikely that the Sam Fisher we all know and love (from the first 5 games) will be coming back, but we do have the chance to move on to someone else who could prove to be just as interesting. In just one game we've seen that Briggs is smart, is skilled, can work on his own, shows initiative, has a sense of humour and comradeship, and has learned that 4^th Echelon spy work doesn't have to be done “by the book”. Sounds like a worthwhile player character to me.

  Anyways, those are just my opinions on the matter. This isn't related to any new Splinter Cell news or anything; I just wanted to share my thoughts on something that's been on the brain for a while. What do you think should be done to revitalize Splinter Cell?  

All-Time Team: Vancouver Canucks (1970-present)

  Blast off! It's hockey time! Last week we looked at my picks for an all-time team for Pittsburgh, so now we'll go over the all-time fantasy roster for my favourite NHL team, the Vancouver Canucks. I've been a Canucks fan for much of my life, I own several of their jerseys, I buy a Canucks calendar pretty much every year (you know, those calendars that show players half of whom are no longer with the team by the time their month comes 'round), and I keep my eye on them even though I don't watch their games as frequently as I used to.

  As usual we'll begin with a brief history. The Vancouver Canucks entered the NHL in 1970 along with the Buffalo Sabres. Buffalo ended up winning first draw on both the amateur draft and the expansion draft, taking future Hall of Famer Gilbert Perrault. For some dumb reason Vancouver was lumped in with the East division. The competition here was fierce and the new expansion team didn't stand much of a chance, missing the playoffs in each of its first four seasons. Thankfully the league was reorganized, putting the Canucks in a much fairer position in the Smythe division; the team immediately won its first division title and earned its first playoff berth. By the end of their second playoff run in 1976, the team's original core – Orland Kurtenbach, Andre Boudrias, Jocelyn Guevremont – had left. Though there were good players around, the team was kind of directionless. And yet despite several years of awful regular season efforts the Canucks did make the playoffs six years in a row from 1979-1984. This was mostly due to the fact that there was usually one or two teams in the Smythe division that were even worse than Vancouver, usually Colorado or Winnipeg.

  Although the Canucks were pretty bad in the 1980's they still fielded some talented forwards who could put out a decent amount of points. By far the most exciting thing to come Vancouver's way in this time was their Cinderella run to the Stanley Cup finals in 1982. Despite never winning a playoff series before and going into the postseason with a losing record, the 'Nucks swiftly defeated the Calgary Flames, the Los Angeles Kings, and the Chicago Blackhawks while losing only two games in the process. This was largely thanks to stellar play from Stan Smyl, Thomas Gradin, and the dependable goaltender Richard Brodeur. Unfortunately they had to face off against the juggernaut New York Islanders in the finals and were swept in four games.

  The late 80's were tough for Canucks fans. The team was about as bad as it was in the early 70's, and it only made the playoffs twice (1986, 1989). After joining Vancouver as its general manager and president in 1987 Pat Quinn set the team on course for a rebuild, trading for players like Greg Adams and goaltender Kirk McLean and drafting players like Trevor Linden and Pavel Bure.

  This was a huge turning point in Canucks history. McLean proved to be a top-tier goalie. Linden was a fine scorer and excellent leader. And Pavel Bure became the team's first bona fide superstar, winning the Calder Trophy as the league's best rookie in 1991-92 and following it up with back-to-back 60-goal seasons. As a result, Vancouver jumped up from a 65 point season in 1990-91 to 96 in 1991-92, earning Quinn an award for coach of the year. The early 90's rocked for Canucks fans; they played an exciting game and easily made the playoffs. In 1994, the team once again struck forth into the Stanley Cup finals. Though they battled hard, defeating the Flames, the Dallas Stars, and the Toronto Maple Leafs, they fell to the New York Rangers by just one goal in the last possible game.

  From this point the Canucks began to decline. Despite some promising acquisitions (and some wasteful ones, i.e. Mark Messier) the team missed the playoffs every year from 1997-2000. The only good news from this period is that the 'Nucks got some good draft picks in 2000: Swedish twins Daniel and Henrik Sedin. At the turn of the century, the team showed signs of improvement. The big name stars had all gone, leaving room for development in the lesser-known players. This included the high-scoring West Coast Express line of Brendan Morrison, Todd Bertuzzi, and Markus Naslund. The early-2000's saw the team return to division-contending, playoff-battling form. Despite impressive individual heroics of various players, the Canucks were unable to advance past the second round of the playoffs, mostly due to stiff competition and just plain bad luck. After the 2004-05 lockout, Vancouver was unable to return to the playoffs for the first time in four years.

  The mid-to-late 2000's were a time of restructuring for the Canucks. Older talents were traded away, the Sedin twins' offensive game had exploded, the defensive corps was rebuilt, and Roberto Luongo – then arguably the best goaltender in the league – was acquired. The team's fortunes increased dramatically (despite faltering out of a playoff spot for a couple seasons). From 2008-2009 to 2012-2013 the Canucks were quite simply one of the best teams in the NHL. They topped the league standings twice and numerous players won individual league awards. The biggest story of this period is the Canucks' third trip to the Stanley Cup finals in 2011. After knocking out the Blackhawks, Nashville Predators, and San Jose Sharks, the 'Nucks ran out of gas, putting up a pathetic (albeit 7-game) effort against the eventual champions, the Boston Bruins.

  The 2010-11 season was the high point of the dominant Vancouver team, and the beginning of a slow decline. Since 2013 the team has made the playoffs only once. Since 2015-16 the Canucks have been firmly committed to rebuilding, so don't expect anything amazing any time soon! Sure they suck now but as I always say, “Canucks will be Canucks”.

  In their 46 seasons in the NHL, the Vancouver Canucks have made the playoffs 27 times and won 10 division titles, 2 President's Trophies, and have made 3 Stanley Cup finals appearances. And while they have yet to capture Lord Stanley's Cup, they do lead the league in uniform changes. That's cool, right? So today I'm here to see what the ideal all-time roster of Canucks players would look like. The rules: only the players performances as members of the Canucks will count, and each player needs to have played at least 200 games with the team. Let's dive in!

Forwards

L-R: Bure, Naslund, Williams

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Daniel Sedin (2000-present)	Henrik Sedin (2000-present)	Pavel Bure (1991-98)
Markus Naslund (1996-2008)	Trevor Linden (1988-1997, 2001-08)	Stan Smyl (1978-91)
Tony Tanti (1983-90)	Ryan Kesler (2003-14)	Todd Bertuzzi (1998-2006)
Gino Odjick (1990-98)	Matt Cooke (1998-2008)	Tiger Williams (1980-84)

The first line puts together three 100-point players known for their speed, scoring, and playmaking ability. Sure this line is devoid of physicality, but just the thought of having Bure play with the Sedin twins is enough to make any Canucks fan salivate. The second line puts together three players who were both the longest-serving captains in team history and at one point were the highest scoring players in team history. In addition to scoring ability, Naslund brings powerplay prowess and Smyl adds toughness. On the third line we have power forward Bertuzzi, two-way forward Kesler, and goal-scoring powerplay specialist Tanti. With the fourth line I broke the rules a bit (reassigned positions) and gooned it up with enforcers Odjick and Williams and pest Cooke (featured previously on the all-time Penguins lineup).

Honourable Mentions: Thomas Gradin, Alex Mogilny, Sergio Momesso, Brendan Morrison

Defencemen

L-R: Ohlund, Snepsts

Doug Lidster (1984-93)	Jyrki Lumme (1990-98)
Matthias Ohlund (1997-2009)	Ed Jovanovski (1999-2006)
Kevin Bieksa (2005-15)	Harold Snepsts (1974-84, 1988-90)

The first defensive pairing consists of what I think are the best offensively gifted blueliners the Canucks have had: Lidster and Lumme. From a purely defensive viewpoint, I do think the second pairing, Ohlund and Jovanovski, are the greatest defencemen Vancouver has ever had. Ohlund brought excellent positional play and Jovo was a very good hitter and skater. The third pair benefits from Bieksa's toughness and leadership and Snepsts's intensity and killer moustache.

Honourable Mentions: Garth Butcher, Dennis Kearns, Sami Salo

Goaltenders

Luongo

Roberto Luongo (2006-14)

Kirk McLean (1987-98)

No contest here. While Captain Kirk was a beast in the playoffs, there's no denying the astonishing accomplishments of Lou. A 0.919 save percentage, a 0.56 win percentage, six seasons of 30-plus wins (including a career-high of 47), four seasons of 60-plus games played (including a career-high of 76), and the first goalie to be named an NHL team captain since the late 1940's.

Movie Review -- It

  This weekend I saw It, a creepy clown horror movie based on Stephen King's novel of the same name. I've never read the book – nor any Stephen King book, for that matter – though I am somewhat fond of the 1990 miniseries even if it was kind of silly.

  This rendition of It isn't as funny as the previous one (though it's far from humourless), but it is significantly scarier. I don't watch too many modern horror movies, but it seems to me like most of them suck. But It doesn't, and here's why. For one thing the scares feel warranted. Most horror films today bombard the viewer with cheap and spontaneous jump scares to get some kind of reaction. Instead, It only uses jump scares after the proper tone has been set for the given scene. Not only that, but only a fraction of the scares found in this film are of the jumpy, computer-generated type; there's plenty of horrifying imagery and sounds throughout. In fact, the scene that I thought was scariest didn't even have a “Boo!” moment.

  Another thing that sets It apart from most modern horror is that it doesn't dump a load of unlikable characters whom you want to see dead. These characters are very well-acted and even better-written. I feel as is I knew each of these kids in real life when I was a kid. (At one point in life, I was the kid who constantly made “your mom” jokes.) Each of these kids has something up that you want to see resolved. And of course there's the evil clown himself, Pennywise, played by Bill Skarsgard. Needless to say this rendition of him is much creepier than Tim Curry's from 1990. I think it's in the unsettling way he moves about as well as his CG enhancements. It's a welcome update, even if he does kind of suck at catching the kids.

  And of course, when the audience cares about the characters, they'll care about the story. This one's story is more or less the same as the miniseries'. A group of seven outcast kids in a small town are terrorized not just by bullies but also an evil supernatural clown who exploits each of their greatest fears. With themes that deal with growing up, overcoming fear, and maintaining friendships, it's a horror movie that's got heart. The major difference is that the second timeline with the adults fighting It has been jettisoned and presumably left for the sequel.

  One last thing I'd like to mention is the setting. Instead of 1960, the setting's been updated to 1989. I'm guessing it's so that the sequel can take place roughly in the present day. I'm down with that; the late 80's were cooler than the early 60's! While It doesn't exactly hit you over he head with how 80's it is, it does manage to mix in a sweet cleanup montage! (The one thing that would've made that scene complete is Jules Winnfield and Vincent Vega.)

  So that's It, an engaging update of a classic supernatural horror. It hits all the right notes for this type of horror film. Is it the best Stephen King adaptation out there? I have no clue, but based on the ones I've seen I'd say that's no difficult feat. Can't wait for the sequel!

Grade:

All-Time Team: Pittsburgh Penguins (1967-present)

  The NHL season is upon us! The most wonderful eight-ish months of the year. And so to celebrate, I'm doing some more renditions of what I believe are the all-time fantasy lineups of two NHL teams. For this week I'll be putting together the ideal historical lineup of last year's Stanley Cup champions, the Pittsburgh Penguins.

  But first, a brief history. The Pittsburgh Penguins were one of the first batch of National Hockey League expansion teams in 1967, which doubled the league's size from six to twelve teams. The team's first few years were pretty average for an expansion team, posting losing records and making sporadic playoff appearances in the late 1960's and early 1970's. However in the mid-1970's, the NHL realigned its divisions which benefited the Penguins greatly just when the franchise was dealing with bankruptcy. Around this time the Penguins also fielded some effective scorers such as the Century Line's Jean Pronovost, Lowell MacDonald, and Syl Apps Jr. Between 1975 and 1982 the team only missed the playoffs once, though they only ended up winning two playoffs series.

  Unfortunately the team bottomed out in the league standings in the 1982-83 and 1983-84 seasons. This brought back fears that the team would once again go through bankruptcy and possible relocation. The only hope of saving the team, it seemed, was Mario Lemieux, a superstar in the QMJHL and a foregone conclusion as to the #1 draft pick in 1984. In a controversial move, Penguins management made the decision to finish 1983-84 with the worst record in order to draft Lemieux. Super Mario proved a godsend to the struggling team, dazzling fans with his impeccable scoring prowess – which was only rivaled by Wayne Gretzky's – as well as serving as the nucleus around which a strong team could be built. The mid-to-late 1980's saw the acquisition of other big names such as Kevin Stevens, Randy Cunneyworth, and Tom Barrasso.

  In 1989, Pittsburgh made the playoffs for the first time in seven years. They missed the playoffs the following year, spending their off season acquiring even more talent: Ron Francis, Joe Mullen, Larry Murphy, and Ulf Samuelsson. But by far the most crucial acquisition during this time was the drafting of Jaromir Jagr who would go on to be one of the premier offensive superstars of the 1990's. This roster overhaul transformed the team into Stanley Cup contenders. Not surprisingly, the Penguins won the Stanley Cup two years in a row, in 1991 and 1992. The next few years consisted of excellent regular season performances (including a President's Trophy for 1992-93 and several division titles), Lemieux's play time limited by various health problems, and many deep playoff runs. Although they didn't return to Stanley Cup glory the Penguins remained one of the dominant NHL teams of the 90's, never missing the playoffs between 1991 and 2001.

  Mario Lemieux retired from professional hockey at the end of the 1997 playoffs, and so Pittsburgh's slow regular season decline began. At the same time, not only was home game attendance dwindling, but also the team had tons of debt to deal with and was forced to declare bankruptcy yet again in 1998. Then in December 2000, to everyone's amazement Mario Lemieux (who was by now the team's owner) returned to the ice, his scoring touch still with him. He lead the team to another playoff run, ending with a semi-finals loss to the New Jersey Devils.

  Due to financial restraints, Pittsburgh was forced to trade away Jagr and Alexei Kovalev, another high scorer. Combined with limited appearances from Lemieux, the team posted terrible regular season efforts, missing the playoffs four consecutive seasons. Attendance continued to suck and the Mellon Arena where the Penguins played was super old. In short, times were bad.

  Fortunately, history seemed to repeat itself. As was the case in the mid-80's, the Pens' poor performances in the mid-2000's resulted in some favourable draft positions, giving them star players like Evgeni Malkin, Marc-Andre Fleury, Jordan Staal, and of course Sidney Crosby, the Jaromir Jagr of his generation. These new additions made the Penguins exciting again – in spite of Lemieux's permanent retirement in 2006 – giving attendance a noticeable bump. Things were finally looking up; goals were being scored, the new arena was being built, and the team's financial problems were dealt with. The Pens finished the 2006-07 season with 105 points, whereas in the previous year it could only manage 58!

  The Penguins returned to the playoffs in 2007 and haven't left it since. They've had many deep playoff runs in the past 11 years, including 4 Stanley Cup finals appearances and 3 Stanley Cup championships (2009, 2016, and 2017). Needless to say, they're one of the dominant teams in the league right now.

  In their 49 seasons of existence, the Pittsburgh Penguins have made the playoffs 32 times and won 8 division titles, 1 President's Trophy, and 5 Stanley Cups from 6 finals appearances.

So today, let's take a look at the best Pittsburgh's 49 seasons has to offer. But first, the rules: only the players' accomplishments with the Penguins will be considered, and the roster is limited to players who have played at least 200 games with the team. So here we go.

Forwards

L-R: Lemieux, Stevens, Pronovost

LW	C	RW
Kevin Stevens (1987-95, 2001-02)	Mario Lemieux (1984-1997, 2000-06)	Jaromir Jagr (1990-2001)
Chris Kunitz (2009-17)	Sidney Crosby (2005-present)	Joe Mullen (1990-97)
Randy Cunneyworth (1985-89)	Pat Boutette (1981-84)	Jean Pronovost (1968-78)
Matt Cooke (2008-13)	Bryan Hextall (1969-74)	Nick Harbaruk (1969-73)

  

  You know you're dealing with a team with offensive depth when Evgeni Malkin doesn't make the cut. The starting centre is a complete no-brainer (unless you're a dumb kid who knows nothing about hockey history). Three-time league MVP, two-time playoff MVP, six-time leading scorer, ten-time 100 point scorer: I could go on, but when you get right down to it no player has ever meant as much to his team as Mario Lemieux. To his left is Kevin Stevens, one of the NHL's premier power forwards of his time. To the right is Jaromir Jagr, the other big scorer of 1990's Pittsburgh. On the second line we have capable playmaker Chris Kunitz (it's weird; the Pens have had a lot of outstanding right-wingers but not a ton of great left-wingers), Sidney Crosby, the 21^st century's high-scorer, and the reliable goal-scorer Joe Mullen. The third line provides some defensive posture, with special teams specialist Randy Cunneyworth, tough guy/playmaker Pat Boutette, and the defensive forward who could still net 50 goals, Jean Pronovost. The last line is meant to get under the opposition's skin. We've got the defensive Harbaruk, the enforcer Hextall, and the pest Cooke.

Honourable Mentions: Val Fonteyne, Ron Francis, Pierre Larouche, Evgeni Malkin, Mark Recchi, Jordan Staal

Defencemen

L-R: Coffey, Gonchar

Paul Coffey (1987-92)	Sergei Gonchar (2005-10)
Randy Carlyle (1978-84)	Ian Moran (1995-2003)
Ulf Samuelsson (1991-95)	Bryan Watson (1969-74)

  Our first defensive pairing puts together two of the most offensively-minded blueliners of their respective times: Sergei Gonchar and Paul Coffey, the second highest scoring defenceman in NHL history. The second pairing has Ian Moran and Randy Carlyle (who was also included on my all-time Winnipeg Jets team), two long-serving rock-solid defenders. And the third pairing has aggressor Bryan Watson and the infamous enforcer Ulf Samuelsson (previously listed on my all-time Hartford Whalers lineup).

Honourable Mention: Larry Murphy

Goaltenders

Fleury

Marc-Andre Fleury (2003-17)

Tom Barrasso (1988-2000)

  This was kind of a tough call. Both Tom Barrasso and Marc-Andre Fleury were great goaltenders for their respective times, but I'm giving the edge to Fleury because of his longevity and consistency. Fleury played 60 or more games in seven seasons and from 2006 to 2017 posted consistent save percentages between .905 and .921. While both goaltenders had some impressive seasons, Fleury simply had more of them, recording 30 or more wins in eight seasons to Barrasso's two.

So that was my all-time picks of Pittsburgh Penguins history. I hope you like it. Next time I'll be showing off my picks of the all-time greatest of my personal favourite NHL team. Stay tuned.

In Defence of Batman & Robin (1997)

  Joel Schumacher is rightfully reviled the world over for what his films Batman Forever (1995) and Batman & Robin (1997) did to the Batman series of films. B&R is often regarded not only as one of the worst superhero films ever made, but one of the worst films ever made – period. Batman & Robin is undeniably a very bad movie.

  But I don't mind it that much.

  Now let me explain. B&R is a very silly film, but that's part of what gives it its zany charm. In the 1990's most comic book movies were trying really hard to be gritty and “serious”. But along comes Batman & Robin, a throwback to the campy 1960's television series. How can one not appreciate Mr. Freeze's themed hideout where his Eskimo henchmen partake in sing-alongs? It's a bunch of over-the-top fun silliness, a comedy. It's a film that's pretty funny at times, though not always intentionally so. One could even argue that this film is a spoof of comic book movies, one which is perhaps more relevant now than ever with the abundance of superhero flicks Hollywood is churning out. This is definitely true with the modern DC comics movies that try way too hard to be gritty and serious. Their attempt at subversive comedic action with 2016's Suicide Squad failed when what they should've done is just rerelease Batman & Robin! Compared to the serious Dark Knight trilogy and the joyless version of the Bat we got in 2016's Batman v Superman B&R feels like a breath of fresh air. It wasn't made to tell a deep story, explore philosophical themes, or study a complex character. It was made simply to give fans a good time.

  But as we all know not all fans did have a good time with Batman & Robin. I will admit there are plenty of stupid things to be found in this flick. There's the embarrassingly dumb Bat-credit card. The police of Gotham City are wholly useless. Robin is a whiny baby who does little besides complain. The special effects are shoddy. And the bat costumes all have nipples on them except for Batgirl's, the only costume that should've had them!

  But the film has plenty of lovably silly parts too. It's amazing how many ludicrously specific gadgets the heroes have on hand at exactly the right time. It's amusing to see actors George Clooney and Alicia Silverstone sleepwalk through their roles, not giving a f--- about anything. What's even more fun is seeing Uma Thurman overact her badguy stereotype. But even Thurman is out, um, “shined” by Arnold Schwarzenegger hamming it up as much as possible with his goofy makeup and neverending stream of bad puns. (Speaking of which, it's nice that a supervillain criminal who's trying to hold the city hostage so that he can get the funds he needs to cure his wife's advanced disease can still maintain a sense of humour. There's hope for everyone, it seems.)

  It's also true that by forcing the project to be more marketable and child-friendly (i.e. just doing it to sell toys and make money) Warner Bros. killed the Batman series. But to be fair this was a series that was already in decline. Ever since 1989's Batman, each movie got more or less progressively worse. Still, nobody wanted to see the series end up like this, even if it did go for more of a spoof tone.

In short, I have to reiterate, I don't think Batman & Robin is a good movie. It's definitely a bad movie, but it's a very watchable movie. If you're in the right mood, it's downright enjoyable. It's not good, but I've seen much worse.

  As far as I'm concerned, it's not even the worst Batman film. Stay tuned...