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.