2018 Year in Review

The year is almost over and I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the films that came out in 2018. To clarify, I'm talking about the films that I saw in 2018 (I can't fairly comment on ones I haven't seen!). I saw 14 new movies in theatres this year (one less than last year) and whereas in 2017 I ended up watching a bunch of good ones, this year I saw a whole lot of OK ones and a few disappointing ones. To illustrate, look at the average stars I gave per film: 3.8 for 2017 and 3.4 for 2018. While this isn't the lowest stars average I've awarded in a year – that distinction goes to 2011, 2.9 stars on average – it does indicate that there were a lot of films I reviewed this year that were around three to three-and-a-half. It just seems that there were fewer standout films that I ended up seeing; less spectacular ones and less awful ones. But today I'm going to give a brief overview about the movies this year that did stand out to me.

Best movie: Mission Impossible: Fallout

In a movie series that only seems to get better with age, Fallout is a blast. Loaded with those high-octane action scenes that make you hold your breath, this sixth Mission Impossible film maintains the same level of intensity as at least its two predecessors did. Tom Cruise turns in another great performance as Ethan Hunt, the fearless IMF agent who is basically Captain America without the shield. Costars Simon Pegg, Henry Cavill, Rebecca Ferguson, and Ving Rhames are great additions as well and the story nicely ties in with that of previous instalments. The only negative I can say is that Fallout doesn't always ace it when it goes for emotional moments. That complaint aside, it's still a fine action film.

Runner up: Avengers: Infinity War

Worst movie: Solo: A Star Wars Story

Don't get me wrong, Solo isn't a terrible movie but it is a very dull and forgettable one that I have no cause to ever watch again. Imagine The Last Jedi but without all the cool stuff and also without all the (most) aggravating stuff, and that's more-or-less Solo in a nutshell. A lacklustre story (that is barely self-contained), dull characters, and Hollywood's inescapable political agenda make this a film that's difficult to admire in spite of its jaw-dropping budget. It's clear that Disney didn't make this film because they were artistically compelled to, not because they had an epic story to share or something new to offer. They put it out simply because they could – or rather they had to considering all the money that was sunk into this black hole of a project. For the first time in years a December will go by without a new Star Wars movie being released and considering the current state of the franchise I think that might be a good thing.

Runner up: Venom

Most disappointing movie: Venom

A Venom movie is not an idea that was doomed from the start. Who wouldn't want to see one of Spider-Man's most dangerous and ruthless foes given life on the big screen? Two months later, and I feel as if I still haven't seen such a thing. What we ended up with was an edited-for-TV buddy action movie in which Venom isn't even a villain! But when you've got a film that has a generic script full of plot holes, an odd choice of lead actor, a conflicting tone, and dismal special effects I guess you've gotta take what you can get. The film is certainly watchable and if you've never heard of the Venom character before then you probably won't be too offended by its missteps. But from where I'm sitting Venom was not the film it should've been. It should have had an R rating, a grittier tone, and (preferably) some relation to the comics it's based on. What a shame.

Runner up: The Girl in the Spider's Web

Previous Years' Rundown

You know, just for the heck of it I'm going to give you a quick rundown of how I viewed each years' movies since 2011 (the year I began writing film reviews). Here's a brief list of the previous seven years' best movies, most disappointing movies, and worst movies (or in the case of those marked with an *asterisk, the least-good movie I saw that year).

Year	# films reviewed	Average stars /5	Best	Worst	Most Disappointing
2011	7	2.9	Captain America: First Avenger	30 Minutes or Less	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
2012	10	3.7	Looper	* The Bourne Legacy	The Dark Knight Rises
2013	10	3.1	Gravity	After Earth	Thor: The Dark World
2014	13	3.4	Interstellar	Transformers: Age of Extinction	Amazing Spider-Man 2
2015	13	3.8	Mad Max: Fury Road	Project Almanac	Halo: Nightfall
2016	15	3.1	The Revenant	God's Not Dead 2	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
2017	15	3.8	Blade Runner 2049	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales	Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

Movie Review -- Bohemian Rhapsody

  So I finally got around to watching Bohemian Rhapsody and to my great disappointment it wasn't a two-hour music video for the song of the same name. Talk about false advertising! Instead it's a biopic about Queen and its lead singer Freddie Mercury. So can this movie spread its wings and breakthru or will it bite the dust? Let's check it out.

  So yeah, as stated above the film follows Mercury from his days as a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport all the way to his performance with Queen at 1985's Live Aid at Wembley Stadium. And yeah that's about all there is to say about the plot. It covers a few major events of the band's life up to 1985, detailing the origins of their most popular songs interspersed with Mercury's relationships and sexuality. It is, regrettably, a lot of surface-level stuff. I didn't know all that much about Queen before seeing this film and after seeing it I still don't feel as if I know all that much about them.

  Apparently there's also a lot of historical inaccuracies to Bohemian Rhapsody. For example, in real life Freddie Mercury didn't learn that he had HIV until after Live Aid, not before. Also Queen never broke up, which means that Live Aid wasn't really a reunion gig as the movie suggests. If you're like me and you're not overly familiar with Queen's history then these stone cold crazy glitches shouldn't bother you too much (I had to look these up). I can accept biopics often require little changes to real life stories in order to streamline events into movie script material. But if you're a big fan of Queen then you may be disappointed that the band's history was oversimplified to this degree. Plus Bohemian Rhapsody suffers from that old familiar problem of a lot of musical biographies: anyone who's familiar at all with the subject already knows how the story is going to end.

  In the director's chair we've got Brian Singer and his work here is kind of a mixed bag. One can't deny how well-shot, energetic, and fun the concert scenes are but on the other hand there are a bunch of scenes that overstay their welcome. For example the movie's climax is Queen's performance at Live Aid and this legendary 21-minute set is almost fully recreated (I think they only left out “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” and “We Will Rock You”). But as good as this scene is, I couldn't help but wonder is it over yet?

  As one might expect of a Queen movie the main character is Freddie Mercury, played by Rami Malek. Malek does a fantastic job with his somewhat weird performance and it definitely grows on you after a while, as Freddie becomes more comfortable with himself as the film goes on. The other characters are alright although I suspect that some of them fall prey to the aforementioned oversimplification, especially with regards to the film's antagonist.

  So that's Bohemian Rhapsody, an ordinary musical biopic that, while lacking in staying power, does manage to have some scenes of genuine fun. If you're already a hardcore Queen fan then you may end up going slightly mad at this one vision. For everyone else who's thinking about seeing it, don't stop now because it will rock you.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Overlord

  Remember Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? Wasn't that movie cool? Don't you wish there were more historical-fantasy movies like that that didn't take themselves so seriously and instead just focused on being fun? Fear not, comrades, because Overlord has got you covered. Covered in the blood and guts of Nazi scum, that is!

  Overlord takes place on the eve of D-Day and follows a squad of American paratroopers dropping into France to assist with the Allied invasion at Normandy. After an exhilarating opening scene – that reminds me of Band of Brothers, but way more scary – the men find themselves approaching their objective, but they soon stumble upon a more gruesome discovery. Gruesomeness and violence follows, the good old typical Nazisploitation stuff.

  Julius Avery directs this frightening adventure and he does horror well. The tone shifts handily between exciting action, mild humour, uneasy suspense, and gripping tension in this film that carries itself seriously but not too seriously. Overlord is also a rather gory film and its special effects get the point across nicely.

  Needless to say, a film about Nazi supersoldier experiments gone wrong requires a little suspension of disbelief. Overlord isn't a historically accurate film by any means, especially when you consider that (A) the US Army in this film isn't segregated, (B) it apparently only took these troops three months to go from unenlisted civilians to fully trained, combat-ready soldiers on the front lines, and (C) wounded troops are seemingly left on the front lines to just tough it out.

  The film also leaves us with a few unanswered questions, such as why paratroopers in the middle of enemy territory aren't being quiet. What happened to the experimented people that weren't in the church, like the aunt? Or was the aunt the only one the Germans released? Why did that German motorcyclist return to his comrades when he knew he really shouldn't have?

  In spite of these shortcomings, Overlord remains a thrilling experience well worth the time of anyone who likes horror movies, war movies, science fiction movies, B-movies, or any combination thereof. It's a lot of fun and it's the closest we're going to get to a Wolfenstein movie. I try not to publish really short reviews like this but there really isn't much else to say about Overlord. It's a good film and if it sounds interesting to you then you oughta watch it.

Grade:

Movie Review -- The Girl in the Spider's Web

  Remember back in my Sicario: Day of the Soldado review (this past July) I said that there were three movies this year – Sicario 2, Tomb Raider, and Venom – I was going to watch out of pure curiosity in how the studios were going to pull them off? It turns out that I should've made that number four instead because as I found out only a couple months ago another movie was being made of the Millennium series of books, The Girl in the Spider's Web. Anyone who reads Arnold's Benediction knows that 2011's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is one of my favourite movies ever. Can The Girl in the Spider's Web match the high standard the previous film established? Let's take a look.

  TGITSW serves as a soft reboot of TGWTDT, with an all-new cast, with a new director and crew, and taking place at least three years after the original (with a slight retcon of Lisbeth Salander's backstory). Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander have become estranged after he cashed in on his experiences with her to publish some best-selling articles that may or may not have made her famous (the movie doesn't really make it clear). But the two must now work together to stop some bad guys from stealing some computer program that allows its user to hack into the world's missile control systems. That's right, the series has made the jump from mystery-thriller to espionage-action-thriller. Admittedly, I have not read the book this film is based on but this type of action story seems very out of place when compared to Dragon Tattoo. I've seen people unfavourably comparing Spider's Web to 2016's Jason Bourne and while I don't think this film is nearly that dull it is easy to see similarities in tone, the focus mostly on one character (in this film Blomkvist has been reduced to a mere side character in favour of Lisbeth), and in the action scenes. It's a plot that features tons of vibrating phones, people not paying attention to things in plain sight, and momentary lapses of judgment from characters who are supposed to be smart. For example, why did that whiz kid who just saw [SPOILER] die answer a phone call from [SPOILER] even though he knows that dangerous people are trying to find him? In the words of Carl Brutananadilewski, “you're stupid for a genius.”

  As mentioned earlier, Lisbeth is the sole main character this time around and she's played by Claire Foy. While Foy's performance isn't as haunting or nuanced as Rooney Mara's in Dragon Tattoo, it's still very well done. Instead of a private investigator who keeps to herself, Lisbeth is now a hacker-for-hire vigilante who goes out of her way to reap vengeance on men who mistreat women. The new version of Blomkvist, portrayed by Sverrir Gudnason, is way younger and less prominent than in previous movies. Gudnason's performance is OK, I guess. The only other character of note is the main villain who is rather dull and barely makes any facial expressions (possibly due to her hard-to-spot eyebrows).

  Like a lot of reboots, TGITSW cleans house. Without the likes of David Fincher, Jeff Cronenweth, Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross Spider's Web's cinematography, compositions, and musical scoring have a very different, much less pronounced style. Opening credits aside, director Fede Alvarez does his own thing. Really the only things of note are a couple long tracking shots, plentiful handheld camera shots, and shaky fight scenes with really choppy editing (speaking of Bourne...).

  All in all, The Girl in the Spider's Web reminds me a lot of Sicario 2 in that they're both artistically downgraded, action-packed sequels to critically lauded, stylish films; they don't stack up with the originals but are entertaining enough. But on the other hand Spider's Web – although I did enjoy it – was only half as captivating as Dragon Tattoo and is a debatably unnecessary film. I don't think audiences are necessarily against another Millennium film, they probably just wanted Fincher to direct it and they wanted it six years ago when the books were still popular. That might explain why Spider's Web is doing so badly at the box office; the cinema was about 3/4 empty when I saw it on opening night! Unfortunately it seems like the time for more English-language Millennium films has come and gone and that this series' continuation can officially be written off as a lost cause.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Halloween (2018)

  Happy Halloween, folks. It's that time of year when greedy kids are given candy, when lazy adults sit around and watch horror movies, and it's also the night he came home!... for the tenth time. Yes, this year we get to see the eleventh film (Michael Myers wasn't in the third movie) of the legendary Halloween franchise of slasher films, and I'm psyched. For over a decade I've been a fan of the Halloween movies and this is the first one I've gotten to see in theatres. The Halloween films are infamous for their nonsensical chronology – in fact this is the third film in the franchise simply entitled “Halloween” – but can the 2018 instalment make you forget about all that and keep you entertained while honouring the series' legacy? Let's find out!

  So the deal with Halloween (2018) is that it is the only film taking place after the 1978 original Halloween (making this at least the fifth possible timeline in the series. I'm writing an article on this!) and is appropriately set 40 years later. As such the only recurring characters from the first film are Laurie Strode and Michael Myers and it suits this film just fine. This film more-or-less serves as a return to form for the series. Gone is the weird cult stuff, gone are the unimaginative backstories, and gone are the reality shows and celebrity guest appearances. Halloween is a back to basics approach to slasher movies which doesn't quite nail the chilling atmosphere of the original but it at least tries. I'd say its tone and (to some extent) story are comparable to Halloween (1978) and Halloween 4 (1988).    After 40 years in a mental institution Michael escapes and continues his murderous ways, but fortunately Laurie Strode, the sole survivor of his 1978 killing spree, has been spending the past 40 years meticulously preparing for his return, much to the detriment of her personal life. It's a film that includes plenty of nods to the original as well as some unique setups of its own, such as a killing in a yard covered in motion-activated lights or Michael hiding in a room full of mannequins. It's a film full of tense scenes, from the opening scene to the final battle. This is helped by the uneasy musical scoring from John Carpenter himself, solidly building upon the established classic sound of the series. All this combines to make this year's Halloween one of the scariest entries of the series. Rob Zombie's two Halloween films (2007 and 2009) were pretty scary but they suffered from excessive violence and gore whereas this new one has the benefit of not being so over the top (though it is brutal at times).

  As mentioned before, there are two returning characters. The first, Laurie, is marvellously played once again by Jamie Lee Curtis. A slightly unhinged badass, she's let her 1978 experience drive her into obsession. Taking on an air of creepiness similar to Michael's in the first film, she's now a grandmother who will do anything to protect her family from the masked killer. Nick Castle returns to the role of Michael Myers after 40 years in a chilling, silent performance. I like how the film acknowledges that Myers has aged but without showing his full face. After all these years Michael is still a creatively freaky and effective murderer. The other character of note is Dr. Ranbir Sartain (played by Haluk Bilginer), Myers' psychiatrist. He's the obsessed, intense doctor who knows Michael too well. In the words of Laurie, he's basically the new Loomis... sort of.

  So that's Halloween, the one one from 2018. It's a thrilling addition to the franchise which pays homage to what made the classic entries in the series so great to begin with. While not as great as the original that started it all, I would say Halloween is possibly the best sequel of this undying franchise. Much like its star killer, Halloween will take you straight to the point and leave you speechless.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Venom

  Is it time again for a superpowered CGI-blob-fest already? You bet. Don't worry, it's not another episode in the MCU library. This time we're looking at Venom, a film about the popular 1990's comic book vengeful villain/murderous anti-hero. As a kid I was a huge fan of Venom thanks to the 90's Spider-Man cartoon – I read the comics later on – and I couldn't wait to see him brought to life on the big screen. My dream partially came true in 2007's Spider-Man 3, but that film's take on Eddie Brock and his sinister alter ego was rushed and ineptly portrayed. Can this movie be the one that does justice to this dastardly fiend?

  Meh. Instead of a gripping story about a down-and-out man coming together with a spurned alien companion to get revenge on the one who's taken everything from them Venom plays more like a silly buddy-action movie. Venom's trademark violence and bloodlust is present – albeit in a bloodless PG form – but it clashes with the tongue-in-cheek silliness scattered throughout. It makes for a frustrating viewing experience, especially if you're familiar with previous non-movie iterations of the title character. In short, it's kind of stupid. The plot concerns Eddie Brock, a journalist fallen on hard times after losing his job and fiancee Anne. He more or less wanders into an evil-corporation-up-to-no-good plot and stuff happens and he gains superpowers. It's a by-the-book story you've seen countless times before, a story that is told from a sometimes rushed pace with important events not given much time to sink in or develop.

  Normally Tom Hardy and Riz Ahmed are great at their jobs but here something's a bit off. Ahmed's character, Carlton Drake, often lacks motivation especially in regards to the third act. And Hardy, as Eddie Brock, tries his hardest but the accent he goes for is a bit distracting. At least he has good chemistry with the Venom symbiote (also played by Hardy). For everyone else the dialogue is kind of awkward and the acting is wooden. Look no further than Jenny Slate portraying scientist Dora Skirth who keeps the same facial expression throughout the whole film.

  Really the only other thing to mention is that Venom has tons of plot holes. For example, the Venom symbiote claims to know everything about Eddie, but then a few moments later it asks Eddie who Anne is. So does the symbiote know everything or not? Moreover, why does the Venom symbiote care about Eddie? Why does it care about Anne? Why does it care about Earth? How was it able to bond with Brock but no one else before him? How was it able to later bond so easily with the dog and [SPOILER]? How did the [SPOILER] symbiote bond with [SPOILER] so easily toward the end? How did the astronauts capture the symbiotes in the first place? Why was Skirth so apprehensive about running to the police but not about going to reporters? Is half the script missing or something?

  So that's Venom, a run-of-the-mill superhero (not supervillain) flick with sloppy CG effects, a confusing tone, and an unfortunate misfire in its attempt to bring its title character to life. What it needed was Spider-Man to give the story some focus and the tone some darkness. I'd be lying if I said this movie wasn't somewhat entertaining, but if you're a fan of classic Venom you're going to find this year's Venom movie disappointing. I would say that we'll have to wait another 11 years for another Venom movie but this is Sony; they'll have probably announced a reboot by the time this review is published.

Grade:

All-Time Team: The Loser Franchises (1967-82)

  The 2018-19 hockey season has begun and as promised we're taking a look at the all-time (heh heh) best that can be uncovered from what I like to call the loser franchises of NHL history, four teams whose existence was brief and woefully unsuccessful. Those teams are the California Golden Seals, the Kansas City Scouts, the Cleveland Barons, and the Colorado Rockies. (Just for the record I was considering including the Atlanta Flames but as it turns out they were a respectable team. Maybe some other time.) As per usual we'll take a brief – in this case very brief – look at each team's history before getting down to brass tax.

California Golden Seals (1967-76)

  The Seals were a part of the NHL's original expansion in 1967 when the league doubled from six teams to twelve. Although the Oakland-based club was the longest-lived of the four loser franchises it was one of the more pathetic teams to have existed in the NHL. In its nine seasons it only made the playoffs twice – knocked out in the first round both times – and ended up with a total winning percentage of 0.343. There were a few gifted Seals players over the years but their abilities were wasted on a team that lacked depth and couldn't come up with a consistent roster. In fact, Seals players frequently rank among the lowest plus-minus rated players in league history. Really they only thing the Seals led the league in was name changes. At first they were called the California Seals, then the Oakland Seals, then for just two games they were known as the Bay Area Seals before settling for good on California Golden Seals. They also changed their colours/uniforms/logo during their brief existence, which along with the name changes suggests that management was indecisive and shaky. Today the Golden Seals are mostly remembered for handing over Guy LaFleur (draft pick) to the Canadiens in one of the worst trades ever, and for the fact that they were the first team to showcase players names on the backs of their jerseys. The last remaining former Seals player in the NHL was Dennis Maruk and he retired in 1989.

Cleveland Barons (1976-78)

  After plans for a new Seals arena in San Francisco were scrapped the NHL greenlighted the franchise's relocation to Cleveland. The team played at the Richfield Coliseum, the highest capacity arena in the league at the time, but were barely able to fill half of it due to a constant lack of promotion and public visibility. In fact, attendance was even worse than it had been in California. From the start the Barons were rather strapped for cash, finishing its first season while narrowly avoiding a players strike due to missed payrolls. Oh yeah, and the hockey sucked too. In its two seasons the Barons managed a winning percentage of 0.375 and zero playoff appearances. In 1978 the league approved a merger between Cleveland and the Minnesota North Stars, another expansion franchise that was facing financial difficulty. The integrated team remained in Minnesota and kept the Stars' colours, uniform, and name. Since then the Cleveland Barons have become largely forgotten amongst hockey fans (even though they had the least-bad winning percentage and goal differential of this group of 4 teams). Curiously, Dennis Maruk was also the last active Barons player – in addition to the last Seals player – in the NHL.

Kansas City Scouts (1974-76)

  You thought the California Seals were bad? The Kansas City Scouts will put you to sleep. The Scouts entered the league in 1974 along with the Washington Capitals. Aaaaaaaaand big surprise, they were brutal. The Scouts' inaugural season was painful enough but their second season ended in a 44 game stretch in which they only won a single game! The Capitals didn't fare much better. This is mostly due to the fact that a rival hockey league, the WHA, had recently started up in 1972 stretching the pool of available hockey talent thin. In two seasons the Scouts managed only 27 victories in 160 games (for a comical 0.240 win percentage), went through three head coaches, and averaged only 8218 attendees per game (less than half the Kemper Arena's capacity). At the end of the 2^nd season the team was sold and moved to Denver to become the Colorado Rockies. Just like the Barons the Scouts have pretty much faded into obscurity in the hockey world. Wilf Paiement was the last former Scouts player in the NHL and he retired in 1988.

Colorado Rockies (1976-82)

  And now to arguably the best (i.e. the least worst) of the loser teams. The Colorado Rockies are certainly the most well-known of this unfortunate lot. I guess that's still not saying much. After moving from Kansas City the Rockies spent six seasons in Denver, making only one playoff appearance – only because they were in a pathetically weak division – in which they were swept in two games. Though it did have a few talented stars here and there the team suffered from a chronic lack of depth and partook in some lousy trades. In spite of its instability (like revolving door coaches) the team did have a loyal following and attendance was pretty good. In 1982, the Rockies were sold and moved to New Jersey where they were renamed the Devils. 1996 saw the retirement of Joe Cirella, the NHL's last remaining former Rockies player. NHL hockey returned to Denver when the Quebec Nordiques moved over to become the Colorado Avalanche in 1995, but many hockey fans today remember the Rockies. If you ask me, it's probably because of their sweet jerseys.

  And now for the assembly of these teams' all-time best players. I'm going to come right out and admit that this team kind of sucks. I tried relaxing the minimum number of total games played with any of these four franchises to 150 (instead of the usual 200-250) and still the pickings were slim. As per usual only these men's achievements with these four teams will count for consideration on this roster. So that means that there will be no Lanny McDonald to be found here. What a shame.

Forwards

L-R: Maruk, Paiement, Johnston

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Joey Johnston (CAL 1971-75)	Dennis Maruk (CAL 1975-76, CLE 1976-78)	Wilf Paiement (KAN 1974-76, COL 1976-80)
Gary Croteau (CAL 1970-74, KAN 1974-76, COL 1976-80)	Dave Gardner (CAL 1974-76, CLE 1976-78)	Al MacAdam (CAL 1974-76, CLE 1976-78)
Gerry Ehman (CAL 1967-71)	Ivan Boldirev (CAL 1971-74)	Bill Hicke (CAL 1967-71)
Gary Jarrett (CAL 1968-72)	Merlin Malinowski (COL 1978-82)	Reggie Leach (CAL 1972-74)

In my opinion the best player available from these teams (who played at least 150 games) is Wilf Paiement, a decent two-way winger who could make plays and fight. In his formative years with the Seals and Barons, Dennis Maurk was already making a name for himself as an offensive threat (he was also included on my all-time Capitals lineup) . To their left is the capable playmaker Joey Johnston. Honestly, the rest of the guys here are just passers and skaters mostly devoid of any physicality or defensiveness. Like I said, pickings were slim. The most I can say is that Reggie Leach was just beginning to blossom into the goal-scoring machine he would later become with the Philadelphia Flyers with his back-to-back 20 goal seasons. In fact a lot of the guys here did better with other teams!

Honourable mention: Walt McKechnie

Defencemen

L-R: Ramage, Mattiussi

Rob Ramage (COL 1979-82)	Rick Hampton (CAL 1974-76, CLE 1976-78)
Dick Mattiussi (CAL 1968-71)	Carol Vadnais (CAL 1968-72)
Mike Kitchen (COL 1976-82)	Ted McAneely (CAL 1972-74)

This team's defensive corps seems a bit better staffed than its forward lines. With the first pairing we have Rob Ramage the hard-nosed, playmaking grinder and Rick Hampton's offensive contributions (three seasons of 36+ points, one 50 point season). The second pairing is made up of Dick Mattiussi, an excellent forechecker and penalty killer, and tough guy Carol Vadnais. Lastly we've got Mike Kitchen and Ted McAneely providing some solid stay-at-home defence on the third pairing.

Honourable mention: Doug Roberts

Goaltenders

Smith

Gary Smith (CAL 1967-71)

Gilles Meloche (CAL 1971-76, CLE 1976-78)

If I recall correctly these two were the only goalies that qualified for consideration under the 150-game rule. And in spite of Meloche's longevity (and the fact that I picked him as backup for my all-time Minnesota North Stars team), I chose Gary Smith as the starting netminder. His goals-against average was lower, he posted shutouts more frequently (nine in four seasons against Meloche's eleven in eight), and he also played 65+ games twice.

All-Time Team: Minnesota North Stars (1967-93)

  Mein friends, it's time for another all-time greatest roster of an NHL team. Today we're looking at the dearly departed Minnesota North Stars, who played in Bloomington, Minnesota from 1967 to 1993. Here's an abbreviated history.

  The North Stars were one of the original NHL expansion teams that doubled the league's size from six to twelve clubs in 1967. Despite a losing record, the team did well enough to make the playoffs in its first season and were eliminated just one win shy of making the Stanley Cup finals. After making the playoffs in five of their first six seasons, the North Stars went the next six seasons (1974-79) with only one postseason appearance (1977). This was bad news for Minnesota, as attendance dropped off and the team was in critical financial trouble. The situation was equally as dire for the Cleveland Barons, whose owners made the decision to merge their team with Minnesota's in 1978. This meant that the Stars' lineup was bolstered with Cleveland's best players – like Gilles Meloche and Al MacAdam – and were moved to the smaller Adams Division. This was also the year in which the team drafted future stars Bobby Smith and Steve Payne.

  Great things started happening. In January 1980 the Stars defeated the Philadelphia Flyers, bringing an end to the longest undefeated streak in professional sports history. Later that year, Minnesota knocked the 4-time defending Cup champion Canadiens out of the playoffs en route to the conference finals. This was also the year the team picked up scoring sensations Neal Broten and Dino Ciccarelli. What followed in 1981 was the North Stars' first ever appearance in the Stanley Cup finals; predictably they ended up losing to the heavily favoured New York Islanders.

  Minnesota made the playoffs seven years in a row from 1980 to 1986. Though they didn't get to hoist Lord Stanley's cup they were an exciting and competitive team that made several deep playoff runs. 1985-86 was the club's last winning season as their scoring output dropped off and the fans' attendance was inconsistent.

  The late 1980's and early 1990's were a rather dismal period in North Stars history, though they did make the playoffs every year from 1989 to 1992 (they were in a weak division and there was usually at least one team that played even worse than them). There were only two bright spots during the club's dying years: the drafting of Mike Modano who would go on to become the best player in Minnesota/Dallas history, and the team's 1991 Cinderella run to the Stanley Cup finals. After stunning victories against the Chicago Blackhawks, St. Louis Blues, and Edmonton Oilers (all of them great teams during this era) they lost in six games to the Pittsburgh Penguins.

  By now problems were mounting. Attendance wasn't good, the Met Center was getting old, a replacement arena couldn't be found/built, and owner Norm Green's wife threatened to leave him if he didn't relocate the team. In a sad move, the Minnesota North Stars were moved to Dallas in 1993 to become the Dallas Stars. That's right, a northern team – that has the word “north” right in its freakin' name! – was moved to Texas, where I'm pretty sure ice doesn't even exist. In their time in Dallas the Stars have won 8 division championships and two Presidents Trophies, made two Stanley Cup finals appearances, and one Stanley Cup championship out of 14 playoff appearances. They've had an up-and-down history, but they still exist. In fact they've existed almost as long as the North Stars have, so that's something I guess.

  The Minnesota North Stars, in their 26 seasons, made 18 playoff appearances and two Stanley Cup finals appearances while winning two division championships. The last remaining North Stars player in the NHL was Mike Modano and he retired in 2011. NHL hockey eventually returned to Minnesota in 2000 with the Minnesota Wild expansion team.

  So let's take a look at the best possible team that can built with North Star players. I've limited the roster to guys who stuck with Minnesota for at least 200 games, and as always only their accomplishments with Minnesota will be considered. Let's begin.

Forwards

L-R: Ciccarelli, Goldsworthy, Gavin

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Brian Bellows (1983-92)	Neal Broten (1981-93)	Dino Ciccarelli (1980-89)
Steve Payne (1978-88)	Mike Modano (1989-93)	Bill Goldsworthy (1967-76)
J.P. Parise (1967-75)	Bobby Smith (1978-83, 1990-93)	Stew Gavin (1988-93)
Basil McRae (1987-92)	Keith Acton (1983-88)	Willi Plett (1982-87)

This team's first line holds few surprises; it's made of Minnesota's top three career point scorers: playmakers Broten (four seasons of 85+ points) and Bellows (never less than 50 points) and in-your-face goal scorer Ciccarelli (two 50-goal seasons) . The second line adds some more point production from the likes of Bill Goldsworthy (five 30-goal seasons), Steve Payne (seven straight 20-goal seasons), and Mike Modano (three 75+ point seasons). With a bit of defensive play from two-time Selke Trophy nominee Bobby Smith, forechecker J.P. Parise, and penalty killer Stew Gavin the third line gives this team some versatility. And the fourth line is stacked full of grinders with tough guy Keith Acton and enforcers Basil McRae and Willi Plett.

Honourable mentions: Bob Brooke, Al MacAdam, Dennis Hextall

Defencemen

L-R: Hartsburg, Giles

Craig Hartsburg (1979-89)	Gordie Roberts (1980-88)
Curt Giles (1979-86, 1987-91)	Mark Tinordi (1988-93)
Lou Nanne (1968-78)	Dennis O'Brien (1971-77)

As far as I can tell Minnesota stuck mostly with stay-at-home defencemen throughout its history. Most of the guys on this lineup – especially O'Brien, Roberts, and Tinordi – played a good physical game (as all good defencemen should!). But amongst these blueliners only Craig Hartsburg has a talent for playmaking (three seasons of 60 points) and only Tinordi was a notable presence on the powerplay. What we've got is a defensive corps that does its job well, just not in any versatile way.

Goaltending

Casey

John Casey (1984-93)

Gilles Meloche (1979-85)

This was a tough call, both Casey and Meloche were pretty good goaltenders. But in the end I had to give the starting spot to John Casey whose save percentage and goals against average remained more consistent than Meloche's. Not only was Casey the only North Stars goaltender to win 30 games in one year (1989-90), but he also put up some great playoff performances, including the 1991 Stanley Cup finals run.

Honourable mention: Cesare Maniago

That does it for this week. Join me next time as I look at the all-time team of what I like to call the "loser franchises".

Movie Review -- Searching

  “Gimmicky” is a word that is thrown around a lot, but if you ask me just because something is gimmicky doesn't always mean that it's bad. Case in point, I just saw Searching, the latest in a new subgenre of films that take place entirely on computer screens and smartphone screens, a gimmick which isn't quite as boring as you'd initially think.

  At least it wasn't boring in this movie. I have seen the 2014 horror film Unfriended which runs on the same “only looking at the screen” schtick (does this subgenre count as found footage?). It wasn't very good and so I was a bit skeptical for Searching. But it turns out that there's nothing to fear here; simply put Searching is Unfriended done right, for two reasons. The first is that Searching has more dynamic presentation and editing to it. It's not just a static frame of the whole desktop. The “camera” pans around and zooms in on things so that the audience can follow what the main character, David Kim, is focusing on. It also doesn't take place in real time, it happens across several days and on several different computer and phone screens (and possibly some TV screens; it was difficult to tell at times). While this does undermine the narrative structure's unity it does do a fantastic job of drawing to the viewer into David's point of view, which is the second thing that Searching's visual presentation has going for it. Whereas Unfriended was a horror movie where people on Skype just sit around and watch eachother die – with no worthwhile character for the audience to really latch onto – Searching is a story told from just one man's point of view, displaying the paranoia and despair that he's going through as he tries to piece together what's going on. It's a concept done so well that it makes one wonder why the computer-POV thing hasn't been done with mystery-thrillers before (at least as far as I know). It brings new life into a story which would be considered average for any other movie.

  The story is follows David, a single father whose relationship with his 16-year-old daughter Margot has grown distant since the passing of his wife Pamela. Things get tense as his daughter vanishes without a trace one night. David then does everything he can to try to find her with the help of cyberspace. And it's a good thing he's one of those parents who records/photographs everything imaginable! Isn't it remarkable what one can find out about a person through social media nowadays? It's one of those classic “do you really know those who are close to you?” scenarios, but this one carries a surprising amount of emotional weight. I'd say the story of Searching is basically a more down-to-earth version of Taken. There's plenty of red herrings and the ending is pretty decent, though it is kind of silly when you consider the fact that David was able to figure out who the perp was through a simple Google search. The badguy really should've covered up his/her tracks better.

  The cast of Searching all do a fine job. John Cho's performance as David deserves particular praise. It's a role that takes his character to lots of different places emotionally and he pulls it off flawlessly.

  All in all, Searching is an interesting entry in the mystery-thriller genre, with its seasonable subject matter and unique gimmick. If you like missing person dramas and you want to find something new there then look no further... 

  See what I did there?

Grade:

All-Time Team: Washington Capitals (1974-present)

  It's that time of year again: hockey season! And once again it's time to look at the very best of what a particular team's history has to offer in roster form. As with last year we're taking a look at the most recent Stanley Cup champion team, the Washington Capitals.

  As always let's start with an abbreviated history. The Capitals entered the NHL along with fellow expansion team the Kansas City Scouts. This was a time when professional hockey teams were sprouting up everywhere and the talent was spread thin. The Caps finished their inaugural season with a pathetic record – even by the standards of expansion teams – winning a lowly eight games out of eighty and setting a league record for worst ever winning percentage. Their second season was only slightly better (I mean it couldn't have gotten much worse!) earning 32 points against the previous year's 21. Although the next few years saw Washington languish and barely survive they took advantage of some great draft choices (Scott Stevens, Ryan Walter, Bengt Gustafsson, Mike Gartner) who would go on to strengthen the team's lineup for the next decade... or at least would fetch some decent trades (Craig Laughlin, Doug Jarvis, Rod Langway).

  By the time the 1982-83 season came around the Caps had assembled a solid defensive corps and some robust goal-scoring capability. The team earned its first ever playoff spot that year, finally quelling the persistent rumours of relocation. The Washington Capitals were a pretty competitive team throughout the 1980's and early 1990's. They made the playoffs an impressive 14 years in a row (1983-96) and even recorded 50 wins in the 1985-86 season. Unfortunately their regular season success didn't exactly carry over into the postseason, where the farthest they ever made it was the conference finals in 1990.

  After missing the playoffs in 1997, the Caps came back with a vengeance in 1998. They beat out the Bruins, the Senators, and the Sabres to make it to the Stanley Cup finals for the first time ever only to get swept by the defending champions, the Detroit Red Wings. During the next five years Washington would attempt to find success by acquiring notable high-priced veterans such as Jaromir Jagr and Robert Lang. In those five years from 1998 to 2003 they made three postseason appearances, losing in the first round every time.

  During 2003 Washington unloaded its old talent and committed to rebuilding itself, missing the playoffs three years in a row from 2004 to 2007. But everything changed in 2004 when the Caps won the draft lottery and drafted the much anticipated Alexander Ovechkin who would go on to become one of the 21^st century's dominant scorers. Soon thereafter additional young talents like Alexander Semin, Mike Green, and Nicklas Backstrom developed into high-scoring phenoms, turning the team into regular season leaders and serious Cup contenders. The Capitals returned to the playoffs in 2008 and since then have only missed out once.

  During this period the Ovechkin-led squad developed a legendary rivalry with the Pittsburgh Penguins led by Sydney Crosby, the other point-scoring machine of this era. Since 2009 the Capitals and the Penguins have squared off in the postseason four times, with the Pens winning the first three series. Washington finally managed to defeat Pittsburgh in 2018 en route to their first ever Stanley Cup victory.

  Since their inception in 1974 (that's 44 seasons), the Washington Capitals have won 11 division championships and three President's Trophies (for best regular season record). They've made the playoffs 31 times, advanced to the finals twice, and won the Stanley Cup once.

  Today we'll take a look at the best players the team has ever had and see what the ideal fantasy lineup would look like. As always, only these players' achievements with Washington will be counted and I've tried only including players who wore the Caps' uniform for at least 250 games. Let's check it out!

Forwards

L-R: Maruk, Bondra, Konowalchuk

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Alex Ovechkin (2005-present)	Dennis Maruk (1978-83)	Mike Gartner (1979-89)
Greg Adams (1983-88)	Nicklas Backstrom (2007-present)	Peter Bondra (1990-2004)
Steve Konowalchuk (1992-2003)	Dale Hunter (1987-99)	Craig Laughlin (1982-88)
Craig Berube (1993-99)	Brooks Laich (2003-16)	Alan May (1989-94)

Unsurprisingly, this team's first line is all about goals. As such I've selected five-time 40 goal scorer Mike Gartner, 130 point producer Dennis Maruk, and the franchise all-time leading scorer Ovechkin. On the second line we've got sharpshooter Peter Bondra, playmaker Nicklas Backstrom, and tough guy Greg Adams. The third line adds a bit of versatility with two-way winger Steve Konowalchuk, power forward Dale Hunter, and forechecker Craig Laughlin. The fourth line is all about wearing out the opponents with the enforcer Alan May, grinder Craig Berube, and solid defensive play from Brooks Laich.

Honourable mentions: Mike Eagles, Lou Franceschetti, Bob Gould, Adam Oates, Michal Pivonka

Defencemen

L-R: Johansson, Langway

Calle Johansson (1989-2003)	Sergei Gonchar (1994-2004)
Scott Stevens (1982-90)	Kevin Hatcher (1984-94)
Rod Langway (1982-93)	Yvon Labre (1974-81)

Washington has been gifted with some very talented defencemen over the years. Picking just six wasn't easy but I think I've found the right ones. Our first pair has two blueliners that served for a long time and put up a good deal of points: Calle Johansson and Sergei Gonchar (who was also one of my picks for Pittsburgh's all-time team). The second pairing adds some excitement with the physical, high-scoring duo of Scott Stevens and Kevin Hatcher. The third pairing grants the team some good old fashioned stay at-home defence from the dedicated all-star Rod Langway and the hard-nosed Yvon Labre.

Honourable mentions: Sylvain Cote, Mike Green, Brendan Witt

Goaltenders

Holtby

Braden Holtby (2010-present)

Olaf Kolzig (1989-2008)

It came down to the two most tenured of Capitals netminders and while Olaf Kolzig was pretty great in his time I believe that he's since been overshadowed by Braden Holtby. Since taking over starting goaltender duties in the 2012-13 season he's put up some impressive numbers:three 40-win seasons, no save percentage lower than .915, and some superb playoff performances. He'll likely go down in history as the best Caps goalie ever... you know, until the next best one comes along. There really is no such thing as a final victory in hockey.

That's it for this week's all-time team. Check back newt time when we cobble together a winning team from a franchise of yore: the Minnesota North Stars.

My Top 20 Favourite Video Games Ever (Part 2)

Sorry about the delay. I had some computer issues a couple weeks ago but it's all good now. Let's take a look at numbers 10 to 1.

10. Brothers in Arms: Earned in Blood (Xbox, 2005)

I've already written at length about the Brothers in Arms series (back in March 2016) so I won't go too much into detail here, but suffice it to say I think BIA is a great underrated series for fans of tactical shooters. Road to Hill 30 (2005) was a good debut but it was just a bit too linear. Hell's Highway (2008) had a great story but wasn't challenging enough. For me it's the second game, Earned in Blood, that holds the trilogy's crown. It upped the ante in terms of smarter enemies, enthralling storytelling, and more open-ended levels that made you think more. Not to mention it had more multiplayer modes and even multiplayer bots. All three BIA games are fun but if you're thinking of just getting one, Earned in Blood is my recommendation.

9. Splinter Cell: Blacklist (Xbox 360, 2013)

If you've read my Splinter Cell game rankings (January 2016) then this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise. While Blacklist isn't a perfect game it is hard to deny the amount of effort put into it, not to mention the amount of fun you'll get out of it. In a return to the series' signature form, it combines the fluid gameplay of Conviction (2010) with the stealth and level design of the original trilogy (2002-05). A strong contender for most replayable game in the series, Blacklist is bursting with content: in addition to the single-player campaign, there's a coop campaign and an additional twelve levels that can be completed either solo or coop. Combine this with the three different playstyles and you've got a game you'll be playing for a long time. Overall, Blacklist is a fun and accessible game that I would recommend to anyone curious about the stealth game genre.

8. RollerCoaster Tycoon (PC, 1999)

And now for something completely different. I mean, this list can't all be console action games! RollerCoaster Tycoon is an addicting game that I still get out and play from time to time. There's so many fun things to do, it's a game that you can easily lose yourself in. By customizing the names of the park/rides I would make parks with ridiculous themes like King of the Hill quotes or a cyborg revolt against humanity. Whenever guests would die in a roller coaster crash I would build a statue and plant tons of flowers around it, rebuild a new roller coaster in its place, and give it a name that had the word “memorial” in it. Sometimes I would hire about 20 or so guys in animal costumes and have them all patrol the same little strip of footpath, mobbing any guests who tried to pass through. I'd always make at least one ride that was called “Pooping my pants” so that when the guests got off it they'd all say “Pooping my pants was great!” And sometimes if time was running out and my guest count wasn't high enough I'd dig a hole, wrangle up all the people who were thinking “I want to go home”, and drop them into the hole from which they had no means of escape! And all this stuff is just the tip of the iceberg. RollerCoaster Tycoon is a timeless game that never gets old. If you've never tried it before, consider picking it up sometime. You will not be disappointed.

7. NHL 2002 (PC, 2001)

Like most Canadian boys, I grew up playing a healthy amount of hockey... video games. I'm not particularly good at sports in real life so instead I kicked ass on virtual ice with the NHL games -- or "chell" as I like to call it. I've played NHL 98, 99, 2002, Hitz 2003, 2004, 2005, 07, 12, and 17 in varying amounts and out of all of those I've gotten the most enjoyment out of NHL 2002 (with 99 as a close second). This was back when the NHL games weren't trying too hard to be realistic. The players didn't move around slugishly and lethargicly and the contols weren't overly complicated. 2002 is a fast-paced game, just as a hockey game should be. The movement is fluid, the hits are devastating, and the slapstick colour commentary featuring Don Taylor is amusing. For (I believe) the first time in the NHL series you could choose which jersey each team would wear, which as a fan of both retro hockey and the Vancouver Canucks (the NHL team with the most uniform changes) I found to be awesome. Another awesome thing was the trading card system – which if it was done in today's NHL video games, I guarantee it would be tied into loot boxes or other such microtransaction BS – which allowed you to unlock mods and cheats. These mods included silly things such as sumo suits, big heads, higher/lower pitch voices, and my personal favourite, Shrink n' Grow. In this mode players shrink when they're hit and grow when they score goals, and after a few minutes it makes for a hilarious match. It's this whole arcade style of gameplay and presentation that is so sorely missing from recent games in the NHL series. But if you ever want to go back to a simpler time when sports games didn't have to take themselves seriously then NHL 2002 has got you covered.

6. Batman: Arkham City (Xbox 360, 2011)

From a purely objective point of view Batman: Arkham City may be the best video game I've ever played. It's definitely the open world game I've played through the most and one of the very few games in which I found every collectible. In this game Batman takes on Arkham City, an open-air prison full of common crooks, political prisoners, undercover cops, and of course a whole bunch of supervillains. This open world isn't terribly large but it is amazing how much stuff is packed into it including collectible Riddler trophies, Riddler riddles, AR challenges, side missions, destructible objects, hostages who need rescuing, crime scenes to investigate, mysteries to solve, and prisoners to beat up. And the world you're playing in is really fleshed out with all sorts of characters who each have their own backstories. Also the progression system is rewarding since it unlocks new combat moves and gadgets, encouraging further exploration and replays. And did I mention that Catwoman and Robin each have their own campaigns too? The developers' attention to detail in Arkham City is commendable; they've made a game you can spend a ton of time with. If I was stranded on a deserted island and I could only have three games to play there, Batman: Arkham City would easily be one of them.

5. Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory (Xbox, 2005)

I've written about this game before (January 2016) and everyone seems to agree that Chaos Theory is easily the best game of the Splinter Cell series. So let me tell you about why I rank it as one of my favourites. It's a game that makes you think for yourself. The most obvious path to your objective is often the most dangerous and difficult and so you must learn to find your own way through the levels and make use of things in the environment that you normally wouldn't notice. It encourages you to explore for hidden paths. In short, it makes you think like Sam Fisher would. It's what makes completing a level with a 100% success rating feel so satisfying. Chaos Theory was the first Splinter Cell game I played and I'll admit I got stumped a lot. But I persevered, eventually beating it and all the other SC games. Looking back I have to say that this was the Splinter Cell with the best soundtrack, the best level design, and the fairest challenge. It's no wonder why this game is liked by so many people.

4. Gears of War 2 (Xbox 360, 2008)

What can you say about Gears of War 2? It's just a good game, as simple as that. I've played all games in the Gears series except 4 and I believe that Gears 2 was the best of them. It was more refined, varied, and graphically impressive than the first Gears. It was more hardcore, serious, and fun than the third Gears. (For the record, I really liked GOW: Judgment, I just thought it was a bit short.) GOW 2's campaign can accurately be described as a badass simulator, chainsawing vicious foes, firing powerful-sounding weapons, and delivering brutal execution moves all along an interesting plot that takes you to unexpected places. And then there was the multiplayer which I sunk a ton of hours into; seriously, GOW 2 is one of the two games I've spent the most time playing (#1 on this list is the other game). The maps were great and the game modes were even greater. My personal favourite was King of the Hill on Ruins. Gears of War 2 was my introduction to the Gears series back in 2008 and I've been hooked ever since.

3. Civilization III (PC, 2001)

Strategy is a genre I don't play all that often but when I find a good strategy game I stick with it. Just like RollerCoaster Tycoon, Civilization III is a highly addicting game that I've been playing on and off for a decade and a half now. In Civ 3 you build up an empire by establishing cities, controlling resources, trading with other nations, managing productivity, keeping your people happy, and defeating opposing civilizations in battle. It's a game that is rich in detail and deep in terms of gameplay. Each civilization has its own distinct personality thanks to unique military units, historical leader figures, and civilization traits. For example France – the one I played the most because I seemed to do the best with – is an industrious and commercial society led by Joan of Arc and can produce musketeers. It's also really fun to see your empire progress through eras of history, learning scientific advancements which can support new city improvements and military units. Declaring war gives you a rush like nothing else, but it's not a decision to make lightly. Getting into the wrong conflict can have serious consequences! There are several different ways of winning the game, which supports different play styles and strategies, making replays a must. It's a game that never stops giving.

2. Halo 2 (Xbox, 2004)

My first few exposures to Halo 2 were always as I was hanging out at friends' houses playing the multiplayer. The game's presentation was the first thing that struck me: the jaw-dropping sound effects, the captivating music, the crisp blue menus, the multiplayer voice guy, the cool weapons, and the heavy-duty looking player characters just blew my mind. When I got around to getting my own copy of the game I quickly came to the conclusion that Halo 2 is the coolest game ever made. Though I hadn't yet played Halo: Combat Evolved (2001) I found Halo 2's story and universe to be fascinating. With such likeable characters, interesting enemies, and great locations I found the experience quite immersive. And the gameplay was fantastic also. The Legendary difficulty setting on Halo 2 was notoriously hard – full retard, basically – but after years of learning the intricacies of combat and all the right tactics I eventually beat the sucker on its most challenging setting. Conquering one of my favourite games on an infamously brutal difficulty: that made me proud. Although Halo 2's multiplayer mode was technically outclassed by its successor it is still a phenomenally awesome multiplayer suite, one that my friends and I still play occasionally.

1. Star Wars: Battlefront II (Xbox, 2005)

Please note, I said 2005, not 2017, as if that greedy pile of vomit deserves to share the name of this gem of a game. No, son. This is the classic Star Wars shooter game that deserves your attention, money and time. And that it has gotten; Battlefront II, along with Gears of War 2, is one the games I have played the most. My disc has got so many scratches on it it's a miracle my Xbox still runs it! I grew up during the prequel age of Star Wars and it was pretty awesome. The movies weren't the greatest but we still liked them. The video games were even better and we ate them up. In 2005 there came along an intense third-person shooter that put you into the boots of the soldiers fighting in all the franchise's big battles from episode I to VI. It was busy, chaotic, and fun. You had so many maps, several game modes, space battles, and even heroes from the movies one could play as. You could be Darth Maul cutting down clone troopers by the hundreds with your doublesaber like a one-man army, but sometimes it was more fun to just be an ordinary engineer sneaking behind enemy lines capturing command posts, trying to survive on your own with nothing but your shotgun, your health packs, and your wit to keep you going. You could hop in the AT-AT walkers on Hoth and blow up everything and everyone, or you could be a sniper holding out as long as you could at the shield generator base on Endor. In space battles you could land a squad aboard the enemy's flagship and destroy its systems from the inside or you could get in a starfighter and just fly around and shoot down enemy ships. In addition to multiplayer there was also the Risk-like strategy war game Galactic Conquest (which I don't think I ever completed when played against my brothers, we were just too good to fail!) and the undercooked but still enjoyable singleplayer campaign. With so many things to do and so many different ways of doing them it's no wonder I spent so much time having fun with Star Wars: Battlefront II. It's just that good.

Thanks for reading