Movie Review -- Cats

  And now for something completely different. Musicals aren't normally my bag but after hearing all the criticism going around about Cats I knew I had to check it out. Plus I had nothing better to do last Friday night. So is Cats a worthwhile means of passing the time? Let's take a look...

  And let's never take another look again. The felines in this movie look freakin' disgusting! If you haven't seen them then let me explain: they have human hands, feet, proportions, faces, limbs, fingers, and toes. Really the only cat-like things to them are the ears, whiskers, tails, and fur. So basically the cats just look like pygmies in really lazily slapped together cat costumes (if you've got fetishes then you'll really like this movie). Except they aren't even really that: the “costumes” are really just CG effects, and not very good CG at that. The computer generated effects are about on par with Monsters, Inc. which was 18 years ago. The actors' faces are very sloppily pasted on to the motion-captured digital bodies whose feet don't seem to be interacting with the ground properly (just watch their feet as they walk, you'll know what I mean). And last but not least, the four-legged freaks don't even land on their feet half the time.

  So who are these weirdos exactly? The main character Victoria is played by ballerina Francesca Hayward in her film debut which mostly consists of her not saying much for long stretches at a time while keeping that same dumbfounded facial expression throughout the film. The rest of the cast boasts some rather big names but there's two that really stand out for me. The first is Judi Dench as Old Deuteronomy because (a) she can't sing to save her life and (b) she's easily the most bizarre and creepy-looking creature in the whole film. The other notable character is Gus played by Ian McKellen who gives off this whole oblivious-grandpa-who-is-still-having-a-good-time vibe. Pretty much everything he says and does is hilarious and he's easily one of the best parts of the film.

  I guess I should mention the plot. It follows the recently abandoned Victoria as she's introduced to the world of the Jellicle Cats, a gang of stray cats in London who occasionally take part in a song and dance competition with the hopes of being reincarnated. It's a plot that's rather thin and goes off on a lot of tangents for the sake of giving the audience more songs to listen to. Some of the songs are alright, like the one about cat burglars that steal things from peoples' homes. Also Taylor Swift is here for about four minutes and her song is pretty good too – even though her English accent isn't quite up to par. However most of the songs are just “meh” – a lot of them have choruses/verses that are repeated too much – while the silly 1970's synthesizer filler music sounds weirdly out of place. And the whole movie is capped off by a fourth wall-breaking scene that takes forever to end.

  Cats's directing is a real letdown. There are a few nice-looking compositions, but most of the dance scenes are ruined by an overly-shaky handheld camera that makes it hard to see the choreography. Things don't get much better in the editing room. There's a ton of awkward cutting to random characters' faces during singing parts as if the movie is unsure of who the audience is supposed to look at. As if that wasn't bad enough, the sound balancing is inconsistent. Sometimes the lyrics are impossible to make out during choruses while some other songs sometimes have the music drowning out the singer's voice. This movie is a mess!

  And that's about all I can stand to say about Cats, a gross-looking, poorly-directed, sloppily-edited excuse for a movie. The only things that save this film from being utter trash is Ian McKellen and a couple decent songs. I don't want to be too harsh on Cats because, as mentioned before, musicals aren't really my thing. But that doesn't change the fact that Cats is one of the worst movies I've seen this decade.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker

  Another year, another Star Wars movie. Today I'm reviewing Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker, the last of the new sequel trilogy. After the double disappointments that were 2017's The Last Jedi and 2018's Solo can this latest entry redeem the current generation of this epic space fantasy series?

  Short answer: too little, too late.

  Taking place a few months after The Last Jedi, The Rise of Skywalker has both Resistance and First Order fighters searching for wayfinders that may lead to the origin of a mysterious broadcast from the not-so-dead Emperor Palpatine (this ain't no spoiler; he was in the trailer), who seeks to reestablish his Galactic Empire under Sith rule. This leads to... honestly there's an ass-load of stuff that happens throughout this movie. The riveting early scene introducing Palpatine notwithstanding, the first half of this film jumps around a lot with action scene after action scene, one right after the other. We're shown so many locations and so many MacGuffins that I couldn't help but tune out the finer technical details of things as the film ground on.

Remember what I said about TFA and TLJ, how they're remakes of the original trilogy films? TROS is no exception, a quasi-ripoff/remake of Return of the Jedi, especially in the last act. Here we get to see the return of:

• a planet-exploding weapon (What is this? The fourth time now?!),
• a jedi returning to an old master's retreat to do some more training,
• Lando and Chewbacca spearheading the attack in the Millennium Falcon during the final battle, and
• a jedi going alone to confront the bad guy leader as he eggs him (or in this case, her) on to kill somebody.
• (Trust me there are far more similarities that I can't mention without spoilers.)

  Return of the Jedi coincidences aside, The Rise of Skywalker's plot is very up and down. We learn the origin story of both Rey – which is pretty neat – and Snoke – which is totally lame. What's also lame is that the main characters are pretty much invincible; their ability to survive landspeeder crashes without a scratch, raid/board a star destroyer with only a handful of guys, and blast through a whole platoon of stormtroopers without even having to stop and take cover robs many of the action scenes of tension. There's one subplot that was established back in Episode VII that Rise of Skywalker hints at resolving but by the film's end this plot thread is still left hanging. Did the writers simply forget about it? I guess they were too busy working on the really disappointing and predictable ending and the half-dozen or so “what the hell” moments that occur in the film's last five minutes.

  The characters are about the same calibre as the previous two films: Rey is as to-the-point and lacking in personality as ever while Kylo Ren continues to be the best and most interesting character in the whole trilogy. While he's just as conflicted as he was before this time he's without a master and seeing him act with more agency – especially in relation to Rey – is a treat thanks to a focused performance from Adam Driver. John Boyega is around to shout Rey's name a whole lot. And of course it's always a delight to see Ian McDiarmid play the role of Emperor Palpatine once again. There's also Carrie Fisher back as Princess Leia one last time via unused footage from Episode VII; as you can imagine this doesn't make storytelling easy with her character so it's a good thing Maz Kanata (the goggles chick) follows her around and (apparently) reads her mind.

  As with other recent Star Wars films, Rise of Skywalker is a very well-produced film. The effects look great (better than the last two), the compositions are splendid, the music is top-notch, and the fight choreography is precise. In short, it's a nice-looking and nice-sounding film. The tone is somewhat more balanced than last time: there's slightly fewer cute critters to make the kids laugh. Some of the jokes are quite funny while some are simply bizarre and gratuitous.

  And that's Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker. I may have been a bit harsh on it, but the fact is that I don't hate this movie. Most of it is OK, that is until you get to the disappointing ending. It's a finely-crafted film and I believe that the only lazy thing to it was the writing. This movie remains trapped in familiar territory and simply doesn't bring anything new to the series – which is my main complaint about the sequel trilogy as a whole. But in case you're wondering, yes The Rise of Skywalker is better than The Last Jedi. But that's not saying much.

  Still, if you've ever wanted a Star Wars movie in which someone says the word “ass” then this is the one for you!

Grade:

Screw Die Hard: Top 10 Christmas Movies You Didn't Know Were Christmas Movies

Sometimes internet culture is like you when you were a little kid. You know, when you said something that the adults unexpectedly found funny so you repeated that same thing over and over again expecting the same hilarious result when in fact you were really making everyone sick of you. Case in point: OH MY GOSH GUYS, DIE HARD IS TOTALLY A CHRISTMAS MOVIE!!!!!!! AMIRITE? LOL FTW YOLO DOUBLE RAINBOW 360 NOSCOPE ROFL COPTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I am so sick and tired of people making the joke that Die Hard (1988) – a violent action movie that is not exactly festive in the traditional sense – is a legit Christmas movie simply because it takes place around 25 December, features a couple holiday songs, and has a handful of seasons greetings in it. It's an overdone joke that I've been hearing for at least eight years now and I'm simply tired of it, you know?

(Just for the record, I'm not hating on Die Hard. I thoroughly enjoy it and think it's one of the greatest action movies ever made. This is all just for fun.)

But I guess that if a few nods to Jesus' birthday and the festivities surrounding it is all you need to qualify as a Christmas movie then screw it, I guess Die Hard is a Christmas movie then. But you know what? Two can play at this game! This is my list of top ten other films that qualify as Christmas movies.

10. American Sniper (2014)

What? What are you talking about? American Sniper is totally a Christmas movie! There was that one scene where Chris Kyle is watching war footage of US soldiers getting shot in Iraq as he sits next to a Christmas tree in his living room. It demonstrates Chris' trouble with leaving the war behind and focusing on his family even during a holiday season on which families traditionally get together in peace. Chris sees his comrades in the military as his second family which he wishes to protect and thus he can't get the war out of his mind. And nothing says “Merry Christmas” like combat-induced stress in veterans, right?

9. Stalingrad (1993)

Stalingrad is a German war film about a platoon of Wehrmacht soldiers participating in the epic Battle of Stalingrad (1942-3). It is also unquestionably a Christmas movie. There's one scene set in late December where the situation for the Germans isn't looking good. The Red Army has them encircled, supplies are running low, and a breakout seems less and less likely with each passing day. The main characters have been sentenced to a penal company and are off to take part in a suicide mission. As they ride in the back of a freezing cold truck one of them spontaneously sings “O Tannenbaum” (or “Oh Christmas Tree” as it's known in English). As if that wasn't Christmassy enough, just look at all the snow that envelops three-quarters of this movie. Need I say more?

8. Miracle (2004)

You remember Miracle? It was one of the best hockey movies ever made and it's also a pretty darn good Christmas movie. During a brief holiday break from Olympic training camp the US hockey players take part in a gift exchange. I don't know about you but my holiday season isn't complete until I see Dave Silk being given a pair of silk underpants.

7. Jarhead (2005)

It turns out that it wasn't the waiting, the boredom, the heat, the sand, the thought of his girlfriend at home cheating on him, or his being denied the killing he was meticulously trained to do that drove Lance Corporal Anthony Swofford to have a mental breakdown. It was the fact that he missed out on Christmas 1990 with his family, of course! The closest he got was getting drunk and dancing naked wearing nothing but a Santa hat and even that got ruined by clumsy Fergus falling asleep on the job. Way to go Fergus, you ruined Christmas in Kuwait!

6. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (1969)

I honestly don't know why people pick Die Hard as the definitive faux-Xmas flick over OHMSS. This one's got it all: a wintery Swiss setting chock full of winter sports, loads of Christmas decorations, and a gift exchange scene involving beautiful young ladies being hypnotized into committing acts of biological warfare. Does Die Hard have those things? Nuh uh. Does Die Hard have Ernst Stavro Blofeld saying “Merry Christmas, 007”? Didn't think so. Sure, in Die Hard John McLane and Holly get back together at the end but do they get married like Bond and Tracey did in OHMSS? No they don't. I rest my case.

5. The Godfather (1972)

The Godfather is often cited as one of the best movies ever made. It is also one of the best Christmas movies ever made and here's why. There's not one but two scenes showing characters shopping for Xmas presents. Michael and Kay are having a fun time shopping for their friends and Tom Hagen gets kidnapped by Sollozzo the Turk while shopping for his kids. What a nice way to spend the holidays.

4. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2011)

You know I'll talk about this movie any chance I get. That's because TGWTDT is one of my favourite movies ever – and if we're going by Die Hard rules then it counts as my favourite Christmas movie of all time. In fact it's so Christmassy that it has Christmas in it twice! That's right, Xmas appears near the film's beginning – Blomkvist is at a Christmas party and Lisbeth gives a gift to her ward only to find that he's had a stroke – and again at the very end when Lisbeth gets a gift for her crush Blomkvist only to find that he's a man whore. Yeah, late December doesn't seem to work out well for Lisbeth Salander.

3. Batman Returns (1992)

Well, damn. Here I was going to make a big tongue-in-cheek thing about how Batman Returns is totally a Christmas movie – what with tons of decorations, trees, snow, and holiday greetings – but Wikipedia of all people beat me to it. Of course the joke was that Batman Returns is a somewhat dark movie with disturbing visuals and insane characters set against a backdrop of the most peaceful and joyous of holidays. But Wiki-freakin'-pedia already has it in their Christmas movies category. You know you've failed at comedy when an online encyclopedia beats you to the punch. Oh well, speaking of Batman...

2. The Dark Knight (2008)

There's a scene where one of Joker's crazy henchman says all the voices in him were replaced with lights “like Christmas”. 'Nuff said.

1. Jingle All the Way (1996)

You probably didn't know this but Jingle All the Way is actually a Christmas movie. Even though it clearly wasn't meant to be. It couldn't have been. There's no way that's what they were going for with this film. In truth Jingle All the Way was intended as a black comedy, a satire depicting the over-commercialization of North American society and how rampant consumerism has driven us all mad to the point of greed, violence, and theft. The film's “happy ending” is simply some greedy kid being given some plastic toy he covets. Materialism brings everyone together, I guess. But if you look closely you can see some subtle Christmas flavour sprinkled about. For example, in some scenes you can catch a glimpse of some Christmas decorations. And did you know the reason people are buying so much stuff in this movie is because 25 December is approaching? And lastly, if you look closely enough you might just see Santa Claus in there somewhere. The only downside is that in order to spot any of this you have to pay attention to the movie, which I wouldn't recommend.

Movie Review -- Midway

Hey, guys. I’m in the middle of moving again so I’m afraid I’m going to have to keep this review short. Thankfully I did find a moment to escape to the movie theatre to see Midway, an American war movie detailing the events surrounding the pivotal Battle of Midway in 1942. Is it as stunning a victory as the real-life event or does it land as a dud? Let’s take a look.

The film begins with the attack on Pearl Harbour. A leadership shuffle results in Admiral Chester Nimitz commanding the Pacific Fleet. He charges his intelligence officer Edwin Layton with keeping tabs on the Japanese plans and avoiding another disaster. Together they keep the Pacific Fleet busy in the following months as the navy’s pilots, led by the daring Lt. Richard Best, wreak havok on the high seas. And that’s only some of what goes on in this flick; there’s a lot of plot stuffed into this movie and some of it is ultimately inconsequential to the big picture. This includes the Doolittle Raid, the submarine Nautilus, and some film director on Midway Island.

Similarly there’s also a ton of characters in Midway and there’s only a few truly interesting ones to latch onto, chief among them Nimitz, Layton, and Admiral Yamamoto. Richard Best, played by Ed Skrein, is OK but his accent sure sounds weird.

Perhaps the most disappointing thing about Midway is the obvious CG-heavy effects. The Pearl Harbour attack scene looks downright terrible, like watching a cartoon. Moreover, pretty much every scene taking place at sea is green screened, lending an air of fakery to the picture and makes the battle scenes a little less exciting. It’s a shame that director Roland Emmerich – the guy who made 1996’s Independence Day – has only gotten lazier and lazier with his visual effects.

All in all there’s two movies that come to mind when I think of Midway. There’s similar subject matter to be found in Pearl Harbor (2001), which while way sappier at least has some exciting action and characters that stood out more. I’m also reminded of 1962’s The Longest Day in the overabundance of plot/characters and the whole old-fashioned war movie feel. But at least The Longest Day had some impressive real-world visuals.

So what does Midway have? Pretty much the only neat things I’ll remember are the dogfights, the submarine parts, and any scene showing the Japanese perspective. But these are all things that have been done better in other movies. In short Midway is, in a word, average.

Grade:

A Brief Look at Combat Memoirs, Part 2

Welcome back to part 2 of my rundown of combat memoirs that I've happened to have read.

Lima-6: A Marine Company Commander in Vietnam by R. D. Camp. Pacifica Military History, 1989.

Unfortunately I won't be able to too into depth about this book because I don't have it anymore and I last read it about six years ago. Lima-6 is written by R. D. Camp who commanded a company of US Marines in Vietnam from June 1967 to January 1968. I do remember how the book detailed Camp's efforts to gain the trust of his men; as such a lot of attention is given to the camaraderie between the troops. One moment that stands out for me is when Camp first experiences the death of one of his men. Apart from that I really don't remember much. Lima-6 isn't a bad book but still if you want one about leadership in combat then you're probably better off looking elsewhere.

Mad Minutes and Vietnam Months: A Soldier's Memoir by Micheal Clodfelter. Pinnacle Books, 1988.

I believe that this was one of the first soldier's memoirs I ever read and to this day I still think it's one of the best. Mad Minutes and Vietnam Months – in reference to how life in war is made up of long stretches of boredom broken up by brief moments of action and terror – recalls Michael Clodfelter's experience in the US army in Vietnam from July 1965 to December 1966. He originally enlisted as an artilleryman but volunteered to extend his tour of duty with the infantry, hungry for some action in the service of Uncle Sam. But the jungle's dangers, the hostile populace, and the overall course of the war gradually made him reconsider his prior gung-ho attitude. His time in the army abruptly came to an end after a wound from a punji stake booby trap. Clodfelter's account shows how much patriotism and machismo played a role in how GIs behaved during war. It's also interesting getting to know the troopers he served with. His squadmates run the gamut from cowards to klutzes, from patriots to bloodthirsty killers, from career soldiers to kids, and not all of them get along very well. If you're looking for one book about one soldier's experiences in Vietnam then check out Mad Minutes. It's got everything; it's like Platoon (1986), just without the GIs murdering eachother.

Soldat: Reflections of a German Soldier, 1936-1949 by Siegfried Knappe. Dell Publishing, 1992.

In Soldat Siegried Knappe covers his entire military career in the German army from 1936 straight to the conclusion of the Second World War. He served as an artillery officer across various fronts including Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, the USSR, and Italy and as Germany's forces retreated back into the Reich Knappe found himself stationed in Berlin's Fuhrerbunker until the bitter end. Captured by the Soviet army, he then spent five years in captivity before returning home and then moving to the USA (as far away from communism as possible). Since the book covers a significant chunk of Knappe's young adulthood you get some nice insight into what it was like to live, grow up, and start a family in Nazi Germany. You also get a good sense of what army life was like back then. While not an especially political individual, Knappe initially had great pride in the achievements his country made in such a short timespan but as the war ground on he grew disillusioned with the inefficient and corrupt Nazi regime. There are a couple drawbacks though; as this is an officer's memoir there isn't all that much combat to be found in these pages. Also the book seems to have a bit of emotional detachment, almost like reading a textbook at times. But still, for those looking for some insight to the German experience of WWII, Soldat has you covered.

Helmet for My Pillow: From Parris Island to the Pacific by Robert Leckie. Random House, 1957.

Well, this was disappointing. If you've seen by Band of Brothers vs. The Pacific article (from January 2016) then you can probably tell that I'm a big fan of The Pacific which was partially based on this memoir by Robert Leckie, one of the miniseries' main characters. Regrettably, the miniseries makes Leckie's wartime experience look more tense and exciting than this book gets across. While there are a are a couple decent battle scenes – as well as a few tense patrols – most of this book revolves around Leckie and his pals getting drunk, stealing things, and getting in trouble. Helmet for My Pillow is written in a very illustrative, almost poetic, kind of way that contrasts with the brutish life and harsh living conditions. On the other hand, it sometimes comes off as pretentious and boring. At least the book is a short one. I'd recommend this one to die-hard Pacific fans only.

With the Old Breed At Peleliu and Okinawa by Eugene Sledge. Ballantine Books, 1981.

However, you don't have to be a fan of The Pacific in order to appreciate the other memoir that it's based on. I'd say that Eugene Sledge's With the Old Breed is probably the best war book I've ever read. Its level of detail is staggering and it unapologetically paints a brutal picture of what combat was like in the Pacific Islands in the Second World War. From notes he kept in his pocket Bible, Sledge lets readers in on the dirty and unsanitary conditions US Marines had to contend with. He also describes the intense hatred both sides had for eachother, which facilitated a loss of compassion and subsequent acts of brutality. In contrast to Helmet for My Pillow, With the Old Breed is written in a very plain, straightforward language that gets across the indignities and fears of the war's participants. As you read it yourself you'll instantly admire the people described within – most of them, anyways – and sympathize with their challenges and heartbreaks. With the Old Breed is a powerful read that I highly recommend to anyone interested in this genre of literature.

Jarhead: A Marine's Chronicle of the Gulf War and Other Battles by Anthony Swofford. Pocket Books, 2003.

Here's a book of which I've just finished my second read through. Jarhead is scout sniper Anthony Swofford's graphic, no-holds-barred account of his time in the US Marines during the boring and interminable Operation Desert Shield and then finally – but all too briefly – Operation Desert Storm. The central focus of the book concerns the Marines' expectations of a war like their forefathers and their subsequent near-existential disappointment at seeing very little actual combat. This disappointment is compounded by the military culture the author grew up in and that fact that the Marine Corps trained him to be a ruthless killer. But the ground war against Iraq ended so swiftly and uneventfully that all the waiting, isolation, and training seems to have gone to waste. Pretty much the only Iraqis Swofford ever saw were either dead or in the process of surrendering; in fact Swofford didn't ever get to fire his rifle in combat. The author seems aware of how boring such a campaign might be to a reader so to compensate Swofford's book randomly jumps around talking about other stuff from his life both before and after the war, most of which involve drunkenness, fighting, and sex (or any combination thereof). While there are some tense scenes with some haunting imagery – the burning oil wells and the bombed-out columns of retreating vehicles come to mind – Jarhead is a very up-and-down read for me. It's worth reading once but I don't think I need to read it again.

A Brief Look at Combat Memoirs, Part 1

Remembrance Day is coming up soon (or Veterans Day for my American readers). As such let's turn our gaze to the past once again, shall we? Ever since I was a kid I read a lot of history books. (I lead an exciting life. What can I say?) One subgenre of history that I read a lot of is combat memoirs. Also known as war memoirs or soldier memoirs, combat memoirs are books about war written by the guys who fought it. I find that the first-hand experiences of individuals – ordinary, everyday people – provides the most engrossing viewpoint of historical events. In short, they're enthralling and hard to put down. So for this article I thought it might be fun to look at some combat memoirs that I've read over the years, sorted alphabetically by author.

Shoot to Kill: From 2 Para to the SAS by Michael Asher. Cassel Military Paperbacks, 1990.

Shoot to Kill details the young adulthood of Michael Asher throughout the 1970's. As a high school graduate he enlisted in the Parachute Regiment. After making it through the gruelling training process he was posted to Northern Ireland during the height of The Troubles. Once his time with 2 Para was up he qualified for the SAS and completed his training there. But soon after he quit the SAS due to some personal difficulties and joined the Royal Ulster Constabulary in a Special Patrol Group. After one year Asher quit the RUC as well, realizing that a life surrounded by violence was wearing on his soul and that the conflict in Ulster simply wasn't his war to fight. I found Shoot to Kill a fascinating read. I like learning about the experiences of people involved in The Troubles – how daily life in a developed Western country existed alongside domestic terrorism and lawlessness – and it's told from the viewpoint of a young man struggling with his self-confidence and sense of identity. And yet you can tell how his training and development amongst the elite of Britain's armed forces gave Asher such a sense of empowerment and pride. Anyone who likes books about boot camp and training should check out Shoot to Kill. The only downside is that there's not much SAS action in it. Otherwise, Asher's memoirs is a fine read.

One Soldier's War in Chechnya by Arkady Babchenko. Portobello Books, 2007.

This freakin' book, man. This might just be the most depressing book I've ever read (and I've read The Jungle for crying out loud!) I knew that things in post-Soviet Russia and Chechnya were bad but still this book was a real eye-opener. Taking place in both Chechen Wars (mid-1990's and early 2000's), One Soldier's War depicts the army of what was once the world's second most powerful nation as little more than an undisciplined horde of barbarians, thieves, and drunkards. No wonder the Russians lost the first war: they were beating eachother up as much as they were the Chechen rebels! The infamously brutal Russian practice of dedovshchina is on full display and life for the average soldier didn't get much easier after boot camp. Being constantly surrounded by danger, corruption, and abuse made it easy for grunts to feel depressed, worthless, and hopeless. Regrettably, the book's veracity does often come into question amongst those who have read it. In the preface Babchenko states that while “everything in [the book] is true” some events told within have been “shifted in time”, he personally didn't witness every event, and that in a few cases he “combined two or three persons into one character”. Real or fake, One Soldier's War is still a powerful read that's hard to put down. But I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart.

Nam: The Vietnam War in the Words of the Men and Women who Fought There by Mark Baker. Berkley Books, 1981.

I know, technically Nam isn't a combat memoir but I figured oral history is close enough. An oral history book such as this one is a collection of interviews from people who took part in or witnessed historical events. Nam's sources range from troopers to pilots, nurses to doctors, pacifists to patriots, killers to POWs: all of them Americans who were involved in the Vietnam War. These accounts – ranging in length from a couple paragraphs to a dozen pages – encompass a wide range of tones, viewpoints, and experiences. Pretty much everything from enlistment (or in some cases conscription) to homecoming is covered. However, as was the case with One Soldier's War in Chechnya, I couldn't help but question how truthful it all was since these are the memories of scores of unidentified people. Nevertheless, if you want a general overview of what the Vietnam War was like for the boots-on-the-ground average American participant, Nam is a fine place to start.

Storming the Falklands: My War and After by Tony Banks. Abacus, 2012.

As was the case with Nam, it might be a little misleading to call Storming the Falklands a combat memoir. A more accurate classification would be “an autobiography starring the Falklands War”. Tony Banks was an average working class youth in the rough-and-tumble Scottish town of Dundee who joined the army and served with 2 Para during the war in the South Atlantic. His experience there was nasty, brutish, and short. A significant portion of the book deals with his life after the war, about how he lived with this sense of anger, frustration, and a single-minded drive for success that still didn't satisfy him even after becoming a millionaire. About 18 years after the war Banks broke down and realized that he was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. The book ends with him coming to terms with his experiences, travelling to some familiar places. In spite of – or possibly because of – it being so different from other combat books I've read I found Storming the Falklands to be a riveting read. Most other combat memoirs come to an end once the war is over or once the author comes home, but Tony Banks reminds us that even after the fighting our veterans need our support.

Poilu: The World War I Notebooks of Corporal Louis Barthas, Barrelmaker, 1914-18 by Louis Barthas. Yale University Press, 2014 (English translation).

Originally published in French in 1978, Poilu is the collection of notebooks kept by Louis Barthas who more-or-less spent the entire First World War on and around the front lines. By the time the war began Barthas, a reservist, was not only a zealous socialist who hated militarism but also was in his late-30's which is pretty old by soldiering standards. As a result pretty much every page of Poilu is filled to the margins with criticism, sarcasm, and complaining about everything from incompetent officers and wasteful tactics to the lousy weather and pitiful sleeping quarters. Sometimes it's humorous while other times it's serious and tragic. With everything Barthas went through it's a miracle he was never wounded, although as the war went on he certainly became exhausted and worn out. War from the viewpoint of a mature artisan in early 20^th century France frequently takes on a religious perspective and attention is always drawn when the author comes across another soldier from his hometown of Peyriac-Minervois. However with so many place names and with so many people to keep track of the book can be a bit dense at times. Also the author's political beliefs often manifest in an overbearing self-righteousness: does he think that only socialists value human life? Do only socialists dislike war? Regardless, Poilu is still an interesting look into the French trooper's day-to-day life more than one hundred years ago.

LRRP Team Leader by John Burford. Ivy Books, 1994.

One subgenre of combat memoirs I find fascinating is that of the elite soldier or special forces soldier. In the Vietnam War the US Army made use of Long Range Reconnaissance Patrols (LRRPs, pronounced as “lurps”) that would be deployed in small teams deep into enemy territory. Their missions included things such as observing enemy outposts/movements, rescuing downed pilots, staging ambushes, and calling in airstrikes. Burford's book LRRP Team Leader is a short book that sheds light on how LRRPs operated with such a high level of professionalism and calmness in the face of danger. In spite of the high level of tactics involved the book never gets too technical on the reader. In fact it gets pretty personal by the end, as Burford's uncomfortable homecoming ends up with him becoming estranged from his family. In short, if you like books about professional soldiers or counterinsurgency then LRRP Team Leader is a book you'll want to check out.

That's all for this time, but come back soon for Part 2. Thanks for reading.

Movie Review -- Joker

  Is it just me, or is it getting crazier out there? Entertainment companies are invoking censorship to appease Chinese communist totalitarianism, Bohemian Rhapsody got nominated for Best Picture, and even Star Wars movies are becoming boring now. It's a funny world we live in and sometimes the only sensible way to live in this world is with a smile on that face. If laughter is the best medicine then let's see how this year's Joker treats us. So without further ado let's dance with the devil in the pale moonlight.

  All joking aside, Joker is definitely not a comedy, it's about as grim and gritty as they get. With its serious and unnerving tone, Joker reminds me a bit of 2017's Logan in that it's the rated-R story of a character we've always wanted to see done justice. Joker takes place in the harsh and unfriendly Gotham City of 1981 and I've got to say the attention to detail is astounding with the claustrophobic and messy sets and period-appropriate aesthetic. The story follows Arthur Fleck, a lonely part-time clown and aspiring stand-up comic who takes care of his aging mother. He also has a multitude of mental conditions and as events unfold he steadily loses his grip on sanity. While the story starts off conventionally enough, it soon becomes apparent that this is a dedicated character study of the Clown Prince of Crime and his origin. It's a fascinating tale, one that arguably doesn't require the ties it has to the Batman mythos.

  The star of the show is Joaquin Phoenix, and he is outstanding. His Oscar-worthy, frighteningly energized, and hypnotic performance – for which he reportedly lost 50 pounds – represents a total commitment to what is a textbook example of a villain-protagonist: Arthur Fleck is a captivating guy and while you will sympathize with him from time to time he is definitely not a person you want to be. Robert De Niro stars as a talk show host that Fleck and his mom like to watch. At first it may not seem like he's properly cast to play a comedian but soon you realize that he's believable as a smug, elitist entertainer who intermittently tries to show some morality.

  When I first saw trailers for this movie I jokingly referred to it as “Taxi Driver but with clowns”. It turns out that I wasn't that far off: both films take place in roughly the same time period with comparable settings and lonely characters that aren't quite right in the head. Both films have finger guns pointed at the head, Robert De Niro, a pretty girl who's just out of reach, and a big shot rich guy running for public office. Oh yeah, and those endings... All in all, Joker is a masterpiece thanks to its finely crafted tone, excellent performances, and socially relevant themes that you could debate for weeks on end. If you want a comic book movie that isn't all about loud and flashy superheroics, watch Joker. This more grounded and down-to-earth version of the character is well worth your time.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Ad Astra

  Every once in a while a friend will invite me to go see a movie I know absolutely nothing about. Ad Astra is one of those movies; I went in almost totally cold. The only things I knew was that it took place in space and that it has Brad Pitt. So is that all there is to this out-of-this-world odyssey or is there something more to discover? Let's take a look.

  In the somewhat-near-future accomplished astronaut Roy McBride must go on a secret mission to make contact with his previously presumed dead father Clifford whose experiments in the outer Solar System may be the cause behind dangerous power surges that threaten the Solar System's stability. Along the way Roy must come to terms with his father's absence and his emotional responses which are highly regulated by Space Command. It's an intriguing premise reminiscent of Heart of Darkness – or perhaps The Thin Red Line when you consider all the introspective narration going on – but it isn't paced all that well. There are a few action scenes jammed in that seem like they were added to keep the film from being boring because the plot does take its time in small steps.

  The plot also has some giant leaps in logic. For example, how does Roy not end up in jail for the things he's done? Why do all the planets have the same level of gravity? And speaking of Gravity, how do the astronauts survive such punishment? But the silliest moment of all is when the movie expects you to believe that duct tape can effectively seal a shattered helmet against the vacuum of space, as if this is some kind of goofy comedy.

  Brad Pitt's performance as Roy McBride is dead serious, however. His acting is very understated as he's portraying a very repressed astronaut who tries staying focused only on his job. Tommy Lee Jones portrays his reclusive, solitary father Clifford McBride which is a fine choice. When I think of crazy old man, Tommy Lee Jones is one of the first actors to come to mind. While these are fine performances, it is unfortunate that their characters aren't terribly interesting.

  At least Ad Astra is pretty to look at. It's a finely-shot film with eye-catching visuals, compositions that would look right at home in an art gallery, and excellent special effects that rival other space movies like Interstellar. While much of the sets appear cold and utilitarian they're given life by the dynamic lighting. Ad Astra's use of lighting, whether it's the coloured glow of nearby planets or the flickering fluorescent bulbs of neglected spacecraft, makes its scenes more rich and enveloping the way few other movies do.

  In short, Ad Astra is an ambitious movie. Unfortunately the grand story it tries to tell isn't all that original and will leave you wanting. In spite of some decent performances and some beautiful visuals Ad Astra winds up being merely OK. In one line in the movie Roy says, “below the surface there was nothing.” Couldn't have said it better myself.

Grade:

Movie Review -- It: Chapter 2

  Has it really been two years since the remake of It came out? I remember it being a well-put together picture with plenty of good scares, some good acting, and a charmingly creepy setting. I also remember that it was only half the story told in the novel (and TV miniseries), showing only the Loser Club's harrowing struggle against a supernatural evil in 1989 as children. So how does the modern-day second outing stack up against the retro one? Let's find out.

  It is 2016 and a new string of It-pattern murders are popping up which prompts Loser Club member Mike to gather the other, now grown-up losers (who are all rich now) back to Derry, Maine, to finish off the killer clown Pennywise once and for all. It's a story that ties in nicely with the first with a lot of flashbacks. However, a lot of these flashbacks end up retconning the previous film, railroading in a bunch of the kids' confrontations with It that weren't shown or even mentioned in the first It. But that's nothing compared to It: Chapter 2's biggest problem: it's way too long! If you're going to make me pay to sit still in one place for nearly three hours then you'd better deliver something that'll make my resisting of going to the bathroom that whole time worth it (or perhaps an intermission like the good old days?). Instead there's not one but two generic inspirational speeches, each Loser has to go searching for old tokens, the ending takes forever to wrap up, and the characters all split up and confront It alone... twice! They could have easily trimmed 45 minutes off and the film would have been better for it.

  Tone is everything in a horror movie and the tone in It: Chapter 2 is sometimes unfocused. Don't get me wrong, there are a bunch of decent scares, Pennywise's kills are rather brutal, and the visual design and effects on the film's various monsters are freaky. But unlike the last film comedy pervades almost every scene. Oftentimes just as something frightening is about to happen somebody does something that ends up being funny rather than unsettling, thus ruining the tone. In other scenes the jokes work fine – and they're downright hilarious at times – but overall It: Chapter 2 is far less scary than its predecessor.

  What Chapter 2 does copy from the first is a great cast that all have good chemistry together. While Bill Skarsgard does just as good a job as before in the role of Pennywise, new faces such as Jessica Chastain, James McAvoy, and Bill Hader give splendid performances of their own. Stephen King himself even makes a cameo appearance as a pawnshop owner who is disappointed in novels that have lousy endings. Henry Bowers, the bully from the last film, returns to menace the Losers some more but his presence in this film is kind of wasted.

  I also couldn't help but notice that there's some gaps in logic. For example it's established early on that since she previously saw It's deadlights Beverly knows how each of the Losers is going to die. But after the first death, this ability never comes into play nor is it mentioned again. Also, we see that in 2016 body parts are washing up in Derry's river and has made front page news in that town. So why has it not made national news? And when you think about it It kind of sucks at catching people. He wastes time messing around with his prey and as long as you can run and avoid falling for his tricks then you'll be fine, even if you're just a kid.

  Regardless, It: Chapter 2 is simply OK, a far cry from the one we got two years ago. It runs for much too long, the script could have used another edit or two, and the experience isn't as scary as the one before it. Basically a handful of good scares, a bunch of laughs, and a few standout performances are all that keep this one afloat.

Grade:

All-Time Team: the Atlanta teams (1972-80, 1999-2011)

Howdy, fellas. Here's another all-time fantasy roster of some defunct National Hockey League teams for you. This time we'll be looking at the two Atlanta, Georgia, based franchises, the Flames and the Thrashers. Both these teams were but curious blips in NHL history and they didn't last too long, making Atlanta the only city to have lost more than one hockey franchise (in the modern era of hockey). Before we look at the best players these clubs had to offer let's take a brief look at Atlanta's sad history with hockey.

Atlanta Flames (1972-80)

The NHL originally had no immediate plans to add more franchises after 1970 but the formation of the rival World Hockey Association (WHA) in 1971 was a catalyst for further growth. As the two leagues battled for new markets – such as the American South – the NHL announced it would grant a team to Atlanta. While unsurprisingly the Flames missed the playoffs in their inaugural season, they did qualify in their second thanks to the efforts of top-scoring rookie Tom Lysiak. After missing the postseason in 1975 the Flames got a new coach, Fred Creighton, whose technical style produced a team that consistently finished at or above .500 for the following five seasons. However, the team's exploits weren't exactly headline-grabbing for a city like Atlanta, a place that barely gets snow. Attendance gradually subsided and the Omni Coliseum's lack of luxury boxes certainly didn't help the club's financial woes. The Flames, which had earned a net loss of $12 million during its history, were sold to the Seaman brothers and moved to Calgary in 1980. In their eight seasons in the NHL the Atlanta Flames made six playoff appearances, winning only two playoff games in the process. Kent Nilsson was the last remaining Atlanta Flames player in the NHL and he played his last game in 1995.

Atlanta Thrashers (1999-2011)

The Thrashers entered the NHL as part of the league's 4-team American expansion scheme in the late 1990's (the other new teams were Columbus, Minnesota, and Nashville). Their first year was pretty bad – as is usually the case for expansion teams – and their top two draft picks in 1999 turned out to be great big flops. Fortunately, the Thrashers' top draft picks in 2000 and 2001 were far better: playmaker Dany Heatley in 2000, followed by franchise player Ilya Kovalchuk the following year. These two guys made their debuts in 2001-02 and they finished first and second in the league in rookie scoring. While the team wasn't any good, the games were still entertaining and attendance held steady. After the NHL lockout in 2004-05, the Thrashers made a series of trades that saw the team's output improve from 78 points in 2003-04 to 90 in 2005-06. A playoff berth still eluded them but the following season Atlanta finally saw playoff action in 2007... only to be swept by the New York Rangers in the opening round. It turns out that this would be the Thrashers only foray into postseason play. Key players (Kovalchuk, Marc Savard, and Marian Hossa) would be traded away, coaches were shuffled round, the team's ownership group was at eachother's throats, and ticket sales were dropping. The franchise – which had allegedly lost $130 million in its last six years – was sold to True North Sports & Entertainment and relocated in 2011 to become the new Winnipeg Jets. (Winnipeg previously had an NHL team called the Jets from 1979 to 1996, but they were moved to Arizona for some confounded reason.) In their eleven seasons, the Atlanta Thrashers won one division championship.

So let's take a trip down memory lane and have a look at what both these clubs might offer to a hypothetical fantasy team. As usual only these players' achievements as an Atlanta-based player will factor into consideration. Also, only players who participated in at least 200 of Atlanta's games qualified. And in case you're wondering, no player has ever played for both the Flames and Thrashers. Let's begin.

Forwards

L-R: Kovalchuk, MacMillan, Hossa

Ilya Kovalchuk (2001-10)	Tom Lysiak (1973-79)	Marian Hossa (2005-08)
Vyacheslav Kozlov (2002-10)	Guy Chouinard (1974-80)	Bob MacMillan (1977-80)
Keith McCreary (1972-75)	Bill Clement (1976-80)	Willi Plett (1975-80)
Eric Boulton (2005-11)	Chris Thorburn (2007-11)	Jeff Odgers (2000-03)

Let's load up the first line with some top-notch scorers, shall we? For Atlanta fans there’s no one better than the Thrashers all-time leading point scorer Kovalchuk (5x40 goals), the Flames all-time leading point scorer Lysiak (5x60 points), and Marian Hossa, the only Thrasher to score 100 points. Right behind them is some deft passing from Kozlov (3x70 points), Chouinard's goal-scoring ability (50 goals in 1978-79), and playmaking ability from the squeaky-clean MacMillan (1.06 PPG). On the third line Keith McCreary and Bill Clement bring some defensive stability, while Willi Plett (also my pick for the Minnesota North Stars' all-time team) contributes his trademark aggression combined with a not-insubstantial amount of scoring (3x30 goals, 3x171+ PIM). The fourth line adds some hard-nosed tough guys, chief among them Jeff Odgers.

Honourable mentions: Dany Heatley, Marc Savard

Defensemen

L-R: Quinn, Enstrom

Randy Manery (1972-77)	Tobias Enstrom (2007-11)
Pat Quinn (1972-77)	David Shand (1976-80)
Andy Sutton (2001-07)	Garnet Exelby (2002-09)

For our first defensive pairing we have the versatile Randy Manery, who can kill penalties, defend consistently, and adeptly move the puck up to his teammates (never less than 29 points). At his side is the durable Tobias Enstrom (played all 82 games in 3 seasons) who never scored less than 32 points. The second pair has solid stay-at-home defence from the tough Pat Quinn and the consistent David Shand (+21 or higher three times). The rugged Sutton and hard-hitting Exelby hold down the fort on the third pairing.

Goaltenders

Lehtonen

Kari Lehtonen (2003-10)

Dan Bouchard (1972-80)

This one was a close call. At first glance Lehtonen and Bouchard (whom I previously chose to be the Quebec Nordiques' all-time starting goalie) don't seem all that different. They posted similar per-year stats for games played, minutes, and shutouts. But Lehtonen's performance seems just a bit more admirable when you consider that he did this while playing with squads that weren't as good as the ones Bouchard played with. Bouchard always had a fine defensive corps in front of him, so of course he ended up never having a losing season. In contrast, Lehtonen was one of the few things holding his team together. And he did it while maintaining a more consistent GAA and save percentage.

All-Time Team: St. Louis Blues (1967-present)

  Happy Labour Day, everyone. It's that time of year again. The Coolest Game on Earth^TM is about to begin anew and as per tradition I'm taking a look at the history and greatest all-time players of last season's Stanley Cup Champion team, this time the St. Louis Blues. Here's a brief history.

  The Blues are one of the six expansion teams that doubled the NHL's size in 1967. They were easily the best of the new franchises and led by their sterling defence and the past-their-prime-but-still-dream-team goaltending duo of Jacques Plante and Glenn Hall they made the Stanley Cup finals in each of their first three seasons only to be swept every time by an Original Six team. The 1970's were a shakier period for St. Louis. The playoffs format was shuffled, the defensive corps was broken up, and the NHL was given a divisional realignment which didn't favour the Blues (at first). From 1973 to 1980 St. Louis made the playoffs five times but couldn't win a single series. At around this time several deferred contracts came up due. Additionally there was the rival league, the World Hockey Association, splitting up the hockey market. In short, the team was in financial distress.

  At least their game was making a recovery. A year after posting a franchise worst 18-50-12 record (1978-79), the Blues returned to the playoffs for what would be the first in a 25-year playoff streak (1980-2004). New talent was emerging within the team, including franchise player Bernie Federko, captain Brian Sutter, and star goaltender Mike Liut. Off ice, things were a mess by 1983. To make a long story short, the team was losing money year-on-year, new owners came in, they tried moving the team to Saskatoon, the NHL blocked the move, the owners tried suing the league, the league countersued, new owners couldn't be found, the Blues were set to dissolve but a new owner was found just in time so the team stayed in St. Louis.

  The Blues remained a competitive, though not spectacular, team throughout the 1980's. They didn't score as much as most other teams, but their defence was pretty good (a common strength throughout Blues history). They seemed unable to hold on to their young stars. Some – including Doug Gilmour, Rob Ramage, and Joe Mullen – would go on to become key figures in the Calgary Flames' 1989 Stanley Cup championship. But in the late 1980's and early 1990's St. Louis made some solid trades thanks to GM Ron Caron. New faces included Curtis Joseph, Brendan Shanahan, Adam Oates, and – as fate would have it, from Calgary – Al MacInnis and of course Brett Hull, one of the greatest goal-scorers of all time.

  Despite this new and exciting talent, St. Louis still couldn't make it past the second round of the playoffs. Mike Keenan was brought in as head coach and GM in 1994 and he immediately got to work swapping out Shanahan and Joseph for big names like Grant Fuhr, Pierre Turgeon, Chris Pronger, and even Wayne Gretzky (who didn't stay long). Keenan's schemes didn't quite work out and he was canned in 1996.

  The late 1990's Blues saw the departure of star players Hull and Fuhr, but also saw the emergence of new stars like Keith Tkachuk, Pavol Demitra, and goaltender Roman Turek. These acquisitions combined with solid defensive play from blueliners MacInnis and Pronger made St. Louis a strong contender. I'm going to go on record and say that the early 2000's Blues were one of the best NHL teams to have not won the Stanley Cup. Despite a league-topping season in 1999-2000 (51-19-11-1, 114 points) the deepest playoff run the team could manage was a semi-finals loss to the Colorado Avalanche in 2001.

  The 2005-06 season saw the Blues' playoff streak come to an end as they finished with the worst record in the league. Given that another ownership tossup was underway and game attendance was fading away, a serious rebuild was in need. New management was brought in, new players were brought in. The team's game improved but a return to the postseason wouldn't happen until 2009. After an opening-round four-game sweep at the hands of the Vancouver Canucks that same year the Blues would have to wait another three years for playoff action thanks to an overwhelmingly competitive Western Conference.

  2011 saw a new set of owners and a new coach, but this time things went according to plan thanks to new free agents like Jason Arnott, Jamie Langenbrunner, and Brian Elliott as well as some decent draft picks later on including David Backes and Alex Pietrangelo. Since then St. Louis has been its normal competitive self and despite being last place at the start of 2019 they somehow rallied back that same year to earn a playoff berth and then win Lord Stanley's Cup, becoming the last of the remaining 1967 expansion teams to do so.

  In their 52 seasons the St. Louis Blues have won nine division championships and one President's Trophy (1999-2000). They've made it to the postseason an astounding 42 times, advancing to the finals four times with one Stanley Cup championship in 2019.

  The Blues have had some excellent players in those 52 years and today I'm going to put forth my idea of what an all-time fantasy team might look like. For this I've considered only the achievements of players as they wore a St. Louis uniform (so don't expect Wayne Gretzky to show up) and I've restricted this roster to players who were in St. Louis for at least 225 games. Let's begin!

Forwards

L-R: Hull, Berenson, Meagher

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Brian Sutter (1976-88)	Bernie Federko (1976-89)	Brett Hull (1988-98)
Keith Tkachuk (2001-07, 2007-10)	Gary Unger (1971-79)	Pavol Demitra (1996-2004)
Red Berenson (1967-71, 1974-78)	Doug Gilmour (1983-88)	Jamal Mayers (1996-2008)
Tony Twist (1994-99)	Rick Meagher (1985-91)	Reed Low (2000-04)

As per typical fare, the first line consists of the most talented scorers. This includes aggressive playmaker Brian Sutter (7 campaigns north of 140 penalty minutes), four-time 100 point-scorer and all-time points leader Bernie Federko, and Brett Hull who had five straight 50-goal seasons (including three straight 70 goal seasons!). Next up, with 3x30 goal outings and 5x70 point showings, is the clean playmaker Pavol Demitra. Backing him up are two tenacious scorers, Gary Unger (8x30 goals, 5x60 points) and Keith Tkachuk (3x30 goals). On the third line we've got the durable special teams man Red Berenson, versatile agitator Doug Gilmour, and reliable defensive specialist Jamal Mayers. And our fourth line provides some enforcement from Low and Twist as well as some forechecking and defensive play Rick Meagher.

Honourable mentions: Joe Mullen, Jorgen Petterson, Brendan Shanahan, Vladimir Tarasenko, Pierre Turgeon

Defencemen

L-R: Pronger, Jackman

Al MacInnis (1994-2004)	Chris Pronger (1995-2005)
Rob Ramage (1982-88)	Barrett Jackman (2002-2015)
Bob Plager (1967-78)	Barclay Plager (1967-76)

As you might be able to tell from the lengthy honourable mentions list here picking the Blues's six best defencemen was not an easy task. St. Louis has had a multitude of amazing blueliners over the years, but I believe that I've found the cream of the crop. Let's start with the back-to-back Norris Trophy-winning duo of Chris Pronger and Al MacInnis. Not only did they shut down the opposition but they also contributed a fair bit to their team's offence. Rob Ramage's style of play was similar but with a bit more physicality (which previously earned him a spot on my all-time loser franchises lineup [for the Rockies]). At his side is the rugged stay-at-home D-man Barrett Jackman. And our third pairing is anchored by the rough-and-tumble Plager brothers.

Honourable mentions: Tim Bothwell, Jay Bouwmeester, Jeff Brown, Jack Brownschidle, Paul Cavallini, Alex Pietrangelo

Goaltenders

Liut

Mike Liut (1979-85)

Curtis Joseph (1989-95)

There were several netminders I considered putting on this team,but in my opinion Mike Liut barely beats out Curtis Joseph as the best Blues goaltender ever. Arguably the NHL’s best goalie of the 1980’s, Liut – whom I also selected as the Whalers’ best goalie back in May 2017 – posted two consecutive 30-win seasons and was voted league MVP by his fellow players in 1980-81.

Honourable mentions: Brian Elliott, Grant Fuhr

That does it for this year's defending Stanley Cup champions. Check in later this month for my top picks from one of the NHL's past clubs.