Bond Film Rankings Redux

 This list took far too long to write. My bad.

You knew this was coming, and not just because I mentioned it in my review of No Time To Die. Way back in March/April 2016 I gave my personal rankings of all the official James Bond movies. That was six years ago and since then I've rewatched them all – yes, even Die Another Day – and there's been a new movie released. So have my opinions on these films changed in the past six years? Yes, obviously! But how exactly have they changed? Did they rise or fall? Which movies do I appreciate more? Which ones don't I like as much anymore? And where does NTTD fit into all this? Let's find out!

25. Die Another Day (position change from last time: -1)

Yep, six years later and I'm still unimpressed. You remember how silly superhero movies were in the 1990's? That's what Die Another Day reminds me of: a film that's trying so hard to be cool but is too silly to take seriously. The one good thing I can say about this film is that it is very reminiscent of the 007 video games that were released around that same time period, with the outlandish plots, fanciful gadgets, and improbable action scenes – not to mention the bad CGI. This might be an OK movie to watch when I'm feeling nostalgic for my bright-eyed preteen years – so I guess you could say that I don't hate it as much as I used to – but regardless Die Another Day isn't a movie I feel like watching often.

24. Quantum of Solace (-5)

The second Bond movie of the Daniel Craig era takes a steep fall in my rankings since last time for two reasons. The first is, as I've complained many times before, it isn't always a pleasant movie to watch because of the incomprehensible action scenes and the obnoxious editing. The second is that there simply isn't much to this movie story-wise. The development of Quantum of Solace's script may have been affected by the 2007 Writer's Guild strike and it shows in the lacklustre plot and the forgettable villains (although I did think the ending was alright). What we end up with is a 106 minute sequel to a 144 minute film that at the same time tries to be more than it is with an unsuitably artsy direction and a half-baked environmental message. The result is a messy flick that's just as confusing as its title suggests.

23. Moonraker (same)

The reason I don't like Moonraker much is because it has too much in common with Die Another Day: the outlandish plot, lousy humour, and overall campiness. Aside from that, Bond and Holly Goodhead have no chemistry, Jaws is an unimposing bore, and the whole thing lacks originality: the same tired 007 formula (and basically the same plot as The Spy Who Loved Me) trying to chase after that Star Wars popularity. The reason it's not last place is that Hugo Drax does make for an fine villain and the film boasts some impressive set design and special effects for its time.

22. The Man With the Golden Gun (-5)

TMWTGG is another movie that's taken a sharp dive in my personal rankings since 2016 which doesn't surprise me at all. Aside from Christopher Lee's coolness and the jaw-dropping corkscrew car jump there's really not much about this flick to draw me back since most of the rest is lame comedy, ripping off kung fu movies, and an uninspired performance by Roger Moore. There's not much The Man With the Golden Gun does better than any other Bond movie and as such it's a film I pretty much only watch if I'm doing some sort of marathon or watch-through.

21. A View to a Kill (+1)

Yeah, A View to a Kill still isn't great but I don't view it quite as unfavourably as I did before. My previous complaints haven't changed: the setup is boring at first, the Bond chick Stacey Sutton is kind of useless, and Moore is getting too old for this crap. But on the other hand I can't help but admire how bizarre the whole experience is. There's that weird genetic/steroid experimentation subplot, that over-the-top firetruck chase scene, the obvious stunt doubles, and of course Christopher Walken, who might just be the straight-up craziest Bond villain ever. When I'm in the right mood for it A View to a Kill can be an entertaining movie, but that doesn't make it a good movie.

20. Spectre (-9)

And here we have the movie that's fallen the furthest in my Bond film rankings: Spectre. In some ways this was inevitable; when I did the previous rankings list I had only seen Spectre once and it was five months prior to the writing of that article and thus I was mainly judging it based on my first impressions. But in the five years since then successive viewings have really put this film into perspective for me and now I think it's a pretty average, unremarkable 007 film. Making Blofeld Bond's adoptive brother – and then not going anywhere with it – was a boneheaded move. (Also how am I supposed to take Blofeld as a serious threat when he wears ankle-exposing pants, no socks, and shoes with no laces?) The romance wasn't all that convincing, the plot is pretty standard, and the action, while not bad, isn't very memorable. The one problem that I believe has plagued every Daniel Craig-era movie is that they focus on the continuity and world-building at the expense of making each film complete in their own right. Aside from some great cinematography, a dramatic theme song, and an expert performance from Craig there isn't much about Spectre that stands out to me.

19. Tomorrow Never Dies (+1)

Tomorrow Never Dies moves up one spot mostly because other films moved lower on this list. My opinion hasn't changed much. With mostly bland settings, a lame-ass villain, and an overemphasis on all-out action over intrigue and stealth, TND remains an average Bond film for me. However there are still things about this movie that are enjoyable. I like how Elliot Carver, as unimposing as he is, has a sense of humour. While the film is very action-heavy the action scenes are done rather well – my favourites are the car chase in the parkade and the motorcycle chase in Ho Chi Minh City. While lacking in chemistry with Bond, Wei Lin is still a kickass Bond girl. And while it didn't amount to much I do like how the film tried something different with Bond returning to a past lover. All in all, Tomorrow Never Dies is a mixed bag that could've been better.

18. Octopussy (+3)

Probably the biggest surprise as I made up this list is how much more I like Octopussy than I did before. Repeat viewings have led me to conclude that this one may not be as average as I once thought. First off, India makes for a pretty unique and interesting setting – it makes one wish more movies took place there! The assortment of villains is excellent with the intimidating Gobinda, the slimy yet smooth Kamal Khan, and the slightly unhinged General Orlov. The title character is a splendid addition, arguably the best bond girl of the Roger Moore films with their decent chemistry, and she's no slouch either: with her henchmen, secluded lair, and self-defence skills she could easily have qualified for a bond villain herself. Top it all off with some cool stunt work, like with the fight scenes atop a moving train or even atop a flying airplane! I was wrong before; this movie ain't half-bad!

17. Dr. No (-1)

Coming in at almost the same spot is the one that started it all: Dr. No. When you compare it to the almost sixty years' worth of action movies since it's easy to see this film as quaint and kind of campy. While I must admit that there isn't much Dr. No does better than any other Bond film it still has an undeniable charm to it, and the the coolness of its main character – and especially his introductory scene – still makes for a decent watch.

16. Diamonds Are Forever (+2)

I never thought I'd say this but I think I like Diamonds Are Forever more than Dr. No. It probably just took me a little bit to get over the campiness of it all. I can now appreciate the film's (at times) bizarre sense of tongue-in-cheek humour, this devious and arrogant version of Blofeld (played by Charles Gray) has really grown on me, and the assortment of villains is quite entertaining. Sean Connery still manages to give one more magnetic performance as agent 007 and Jill St. John is a fun addition as Tiffany Case. All in all Diamonds Are Forever is more enjoyable than I originally thought and is serviceable entertainment. It's basically Austin Powers but without the stupidity.

15. No Time To Die

Coming in at 15^th is the most recent Bond flick, No Time To Die, and as you can see I'm a lot more reserved in my ranking of the new film this time around. I think it's just because I'm a little more cautious with how I've compared this against all the other twenty-four movies. But that doesn't mean that I'm any less enthusiastic about how I view No Time To Die. With some great action scenes, dazzling cinematography, and fine characters NTTD is a pretty good addition to the series and a suitable end to the Daniel Craig era. If it weren't for Bond's out-of-character dialogue, the villain's unclear goals, and the over-the-top premise this film would have ranked even higher. For more detail, check out my full review from October.

14. The Spy Who Loved Me (+1)

Not much has changed with my opinions of The Spy Who Loved Me, probably the most popular of the Roger Moore 007 films. As such I really don't have much to say in addition to what I wrote back in 2016. It's a fine movie with good heroes, exhilarating action, a fun story, decent theme song, but lacklustre villains. Good enough to take it almost to the halfway point of this list.

13. For Your Eyes Only (+1)

Since 2016 I've rewatched For Your Eyes Only multiple times and I've decided that this movie is awesome – dumbass opening scene notwithstanding. The outlandish plots of previous films were reigned in to tell a more down-to-earth story with more believable action scenes and a compelling bond girl in Melina Havelock. But what I've really grown to appreciate are this film's locations: Greece and the Italian Alps are fascinating places to set a spy film, and seeing Bond partake in winter sports never gets old. All in all, FYEO is an excellent entry in the 007 series, one that you oughtta watch!

12. Live and Let Die (same)

Six years later and here I am still convinced that Live and Let Die is the best of the Roger Moore era 007 films. It remains the most different of the Bond movies and if the whole British-secret-agent-in-a-blaxploitation-movie thing isn't your cup of tea then I understand but for me this is a welcome change of pace and it serves as an enjoyable first outing for Roger Moore in this series. In spite of – or possibly because of – its uniqueness Live and Let Die proved that the 007 series was capable of going on post-Connery and it continues to entertain to this day.

11. The Living Daylights (-3)

The Living Daylights is unfortunately one of those films that's noticeably dropped in my rankings since last time. I say unfortunately because this is a film that I still very much like. Timothy Dalton's ruthless performance as Bond is a welcome change of pace, the settings (Cold War Central Europe, Afghanistan) are awesome and appropriate for the movie's period (1987), and I appreciate the (mostly) more serious tone. The only downside is that I've become more aware of the lack of a strong villain character; Whitaker and Koskov aren't all that intimidating or threatening. It's true that there are a few more 007 films that I've grown to appreciate more, but nevertheless The Living Daylights still manages to capture my attention every time.

10. The World Is Not Enough (+3)

Starting off the Top 10 of my list is The World Is Not Enough, a movie that gets better every time I see it. This one has all the things that were great about the Pierce Brosnan era: the one-liners, the over-the-top gadgets that verge on being silly, the henchman with a gimmick, Bond's personal drama, and some tongue-in-cheek self-awareness (Denise Richards is a nuclear physicist – just go with it). You've also got some memorable side characters – M, the new Q, Zukovsky, Robinson, Bullion – some exciting action scenes, and even a female villain, a rarity in this series. I'll admit that sometimes it seems that the over-the-top nature of the action and plot can sometimes conflict with the seriousness that the film tries to go for – something that the later Craig-era films did better – but The World Is Not Enough is still a great underrated Brosnan-era Bond film.

9. Thunderball (same)

Remaining at number nine is the 1965 classic Thunderball. Please excuse this brief description but there's not much I can say about it that I haven't already. It was a good movie then and it's a good movie now. 'Nuff said.

8. License to Kill (+2)

In a move that surprises me, License to Kill has replaced The Living Daylights as my preferred Timothy Dalton Bond film. As was the case with the latter film this one continues acknowledging the trends of its time period – the War on Drugs, hyper-violent action films, explosions, televangelists – and plays them off of Dalton's intense and cynical portrayal of Bond and it works so much better this time around, even if it does every so often seem like the film is grasping at the coattails of Scarface. The story of Bond's revenge for what happened to the Leiters is a welcome deviation from the typical 007 plot. It also helps that it has a compelling pair of Bond girls as well as some of the series' best action scenes ever (how could one forget that tanker truck chase scene?). License to Kill is a Bond film for the ages.

7. You Only Live Twice (-1)

This is the movie you go to when you want some all-out, high stakes action from the classic 007 entries. You Only Live Twice has it all: exotic locations, threatening villains, ninjas, exciting action, and dazzling set design: you know, all the things that Austin Powers copied. Really the only thing YOLT is missing is some memorable Bond girls and a little more vitality to Sean Connery's performance; these things could have elevated it to #4. But as it is You Only Live Twice is still makes for an excellent spy adventure.

6. GoldenEye (-1)

After six years of no 007 films this one comes along and totally breathes new life into the series. GoldenEye has it all: a pulse-pounding opening scene that brilliantly introduces us to the new Bond actor, an expertly-crafted tone throughout, a riveting ensemble of villains, a proficient Bond girl in Natalya Simonova, some intense fight scenes, a high stakes villain plot, and a cool, confident debut performance from Pierce Brosnan. In addition we're treated to likeable new supporting characters who would turn up in successive films, such as Valentin Zukovsky, Jack Wade, and Judi Dench's M. I don't even mind the much-maligned scoring. GoldenEye was the near-perfect start of a new era for 007 and for many filmgoers it made the series matter again.

5. On Her Majesty's Secret Service (-1)

I still think On Her Majesty's Secret Service is an upper-tier Bond film and I watch it frequently enough – after all, it's the closest the series has to a Christmas movie. The action is intense by 1960's standards, the locations are dazzling, the score sets the tone excellently, and the performances are all great... except I find that my appreciation of George Lazenby has diminished slightly. “Same ball park as Connery?” Yeah right. Lazenby wasn't terrible – especially for a first-time actor – but he didn't exactly have the nuance and attention to detail we'd see with other 007 actors. It also didn't help that his lone 007 film demanded a lot from him as far as emotional displays goes. Despite this OHMSS can be enjoyed by just about any action movie fan.

4. From Russia With Love (+3)

Much like with The World Is Not Enough, From Russia With Love is a film that only gets better every time I watch it. FRWL is twice as thrilling as its predecessor, with a lot more tension – assassin Red Grant posing as Bond's associate on the Orient Express – but still some neat action scenes like the fight at the gypsy camp and the speed boat chase. Sean Connery is on fire in this film building upon the coolness established in Dr. No – and with a surprising amount of intensity too. Casting is also on point with the ensemble of villains we get to see, as well as Daniela Bianchi playing Tatiana Romanova. In many ways From Russia With Love is the film that really established the 007 series' look and method going forward, the one against which all successive films would be compared. And with a movie like this I'd say they set the bar pretty high.

3. Skyfall (same)

I'd say that Skyfall is easily the most popular Bond film of my lifetime: the one that plays on TV all the time, the one that everybody saw when it was in theatres, the only film of the series to have grossed over a billion dollars at the box office. For a lot of my friends this is the only Bond film they've ever seen. And if you're only ever going to watch just one 007 movie (what the hell is wrong with you?) then Skyfall is a very good candidate. Not only does it have the exciting edge-of-your-seat action moments, a fine story, a outstanding villain, gorgeous cinematography, and top notch performances from Judi Dench and Daniel Craig, but it also has the advantage of not being bogged down by continuity; unlike the other Craig-era films you can watch this one on its own and not miss anything important. But for those of you who do pay close attention, you'll be pleased at the multitude of subtle references to the past Bond films in this 50 year anniversary adventure. All in all, Skyfall is a fitting tribute to one of action cinema's greatest franchises and is one of the very best this series has to offer. My appreciation for it has only grown, but alas not enough to put it past the next film on this list.

2. Goldfinger (same)

Five years later and I'm still trying to come up with something unique to say about Goldfinger. It's regarded by many to be the best in the series and for good reason. Connery's performance as James Bond is spot on and cool and you can tell he's having a blast playing this character. The cocky but clever Auric Goldfinger, the domineering Oddjob, and the graceful, no-nonsense Pussy Galore make up what's arguably the series' most memorable supporting cast. The action and stunts are spectacular and give us just the right amounts of suspense balanced against just the right amount of levity. Top it all off with an unforgettable theme song, eye-catching sets, and brilliant villain scheme and you've got one hell of a 007 movie. With this third entry the series had now fully hit its stride, making Goldfinger the (gold) standard that all subsequent Bond films would be measured against.

1. Casino Royale (same)

That's right, my top three movies didn't change at all from last time. Coming in at number one is that Bond film that I can't stop talking about on this blog: Casino Royale. You're probably sick of me gushing about how gripping the opening scene is, how cool the credits sequence is, how riveting the action is, and how pitch-perfect the acting is. Since 2016 I've come to appreciate other aspects of Casino Royale like its beautiful photography and the character progression of Bond. It also has unquestionably the best romance of the series (yes, even better than Spectre & No Time To Die). In the mid-2000's people were unsure of whether the 007 series needed a reboot, but looking back I believe it was the correct choice – for better or worse – and Casino Royale was a great start to a new era of Bond. I eagerly await the day another film in this franchise can approach this one's excellence. (I mean I know there was Skyfall but... you know what I'm saying.)

Movie Review -- No Time To Die

 Time, Mr. Craig? Is it really that time again? It seems as if you only just arrived. You've done a great deal in a small time span. So it's only fitting that you go out with a bang, wouldn't you say? Yes the time for No Time To Die has finally come. After nearly two years of anxious waiting this damned film finally saw theatres and at last we can take in what is Daniel Craig's last outing as agent 007. His filmography in this series has been uneven so far, so does No Time To Die end his run on a high note? Let's take a look.

After an opening scene split into two parts – a flashback and a scene that happens right after the end of Spectre – NTTD picks up five years later with a retired James Bond living in Jamaica. He's approached by the CIA – and discouraged by MI6 – to assist in the search for a missing scientist who's developed a nanotechnology weapon that can kill pre-programmed targets. The trail leads him to some shadowy organizations and forces him to reconsider his lover Madeleine Swann. Honestly, this is a plot that has more in common with Mission Impossible films than Bond films: a generic spy movie premise, fanciful sci-fi situations, a story that focuses on the hero's personal life, and the highest stakes possible.

Nevertheless there is still the old 007 familiarity that accompanies No Time To Die, from the gunbarrel opening to the customary supporting characters and everything in between. Seriously, there are a ton of references and callbacks in this film, including but not limited to musical themes, models of cars, lines of dialogue, and portraits on walls. Try to spot them all! We even get the welcome return of post-kill one-liners and those henchmen who are based around one particular gimmick. And of course there's some great action scenes throughout put on dazzling display thanks to the capable cinematography and the often simplistic, yet lived-in looking set design. I especially loved the last 40 minutes or so: it includes this one gunfight in a stairway that's up close, consists of long shots, and is relentlessly intense. It beats any action scene found in Spectre by a mile.

While the acting is fine across the board the characters are a bit of a mixed bag. For instance, Rami Malek delivers the creepiness as villain Lyutsifer Safin (real subtle with the name there...) but after his chilling introduction his subsequent appearances have diminishing returns, not helped by the fact that his endgame remains a little unclear. Lashana Lynch shows up as Nomi, the new agent 007 since Bond's retirement. Her character's not so bad though she could have used a bit more development. On the other hand we have Ana de Armas as the inexperienced, yet effervescent agent Paloma. Her appearance in NTTD is brief but delightfully fun.

But perhaps the most surprising performance comes from Daniel Craig himself. In contrast to Craig's usual Bond exploits, No Time To Die's Bond is much more talkative, jokey, and expressive than the cool, steely agent we've seen before. Although some might argue this is because Bond's personal life plays a bigger role in NTTD, it still doesn't quite seem right.

As far as overall quality goes I'd rank No Time To Die squarely in the middle of Daniel Craig's 007 films. (Expect an updated Bond films rankings sometime soon!) While it doesn't hit the highs set by Casino Royale and Skyfall, it's at least better than Quantum of Solace and its predecessor Spectre thanks to its more exciting action, more colourful characters, and more memorable story. If it weren't for Craig's atypical performance, the fantastic premise, and the bloated length – not to mention the forgettable theme song – this could have been truly great. But as it is No Time To Die is a suitable end to the Craig era of Bond. Mission accomplished.

Grade:

The Academy Awards Ratings Catastrophe and the State of Awards Shows

 By now you've probably heard of the 93^rd Academy Awards and their disastrous ratings on 25 April. With a viewership reportedly in the seven digit range this year's show is the new all-time low in Oscar ratings, representing at least a 56% drop from last year's awards which themselves were the previous all-time low for the Oscars since 1974, the year ratings were first recorded. Similarly this February's Golden Globes Awards also bottomed out with their lowest ratings ever, a 68% drop from last year. Big-name awards shows on television are something that's been on the decline in recent years for a multitude of reasons and it seems that 2020's social unrest and economic hardship were the catalysts that have brought the situation to head in Hollywood.

The notion that awards shows suck is a shared opinion amongst many filmgoers these days. Many argue that the differences between good movies and bad movies is purely subjective and thus a series of awards given to those judged to be the finest is a matter of opinion at best and arguably meaningless at worst. Regardless of your opinion on that subject I think we can all agree that such an awards show should at least be entertaining. But alas, almost all of them are snoozefests. The jokes are tragically unfunny (and sometimes predictable), the overall vibe is too political, the musical performances are boring, half the award winners have some moral grandstanding to do, and it seems that the awards often go to undeserving winners. I thought it was weird in 2010 when Avatar was nominated for best picture and the bizarre candidates trend has only continued (Black Panther? Bohemian Rhapsody? Really?).

Personally I've always found it frustrating that these award shows hardly focus at all on the craft of film-making and how awesome movies can be. Instead the spotlight is placed on the superficial characteristics of the individuals involved in making them. So you're an actress who's a lesbian and a woman of colour. Ok, cool... Are your movies any good? Because that's all I care about. Tell me about the movies! In September 2020 the Academy announced new eligibility rules for awards nomination, which come into force in 2024/2025. In order to be eligible a film must meet certain criteria designed to bolster representation and diversity both onscreen and offscreen. This is odd for several reasons:

• Who exactly gave the Academy the authority to dictate who productions have to hire? Unless producers don't care much about awards I guess we'll never get another Lawrence of Arabia (too male) or Saving Private Ryan (too white).

• You're preaching to the choir (the choir being Hollywood). Have you seen any movies from the past decade? Unless there's behind the scenes stuff I don't know about, I'd say most American movies already meet these diversity quotas.

• Technically speaking the Academy Awards will no longer be for excellency in the art of film-making, but for excellency in the field of diverse films. Again, the focus is shifted further away from the movies and more towards the politics of those who make them.

Admittedly, political grandstanding is nothing new to Hollywood and I think this may be symptomatic of the whole culture surrounding Tinsel Town. If there's one thing Hollywood is good at it's celebrating itself. Elitism and self-congratulations are all part of the glitz and glamour, and – apart from those who just want to see what the celebrities are wearing – it seems fewer and fewer people can stomach it. It's bad enough that the big names in the movie industry make obscene amounts of money for basically playing dress-up and make believe, but when they also try preaching their brand of morality in spite of the movie industry's decades-long scandals (Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, Kevin Spacey, etc.) and its catering to foreign markets despite the atrocities taking place there (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.) it leaves a bad taste in the public's mouth.

People hate being lectured to and as Ricky Gervais pointed out during his legendary 2020 Golden Globes speech, “You're in no position to lecture the public about anything.” In this memorable address Gervais roasted the showbiz establishment on several issues: the Weinstein scandal, 45-year-old Leonardo DiCaprio's affinity for very young women, the foreign labour practices of major TV & streaming platforms, the Jeffrey Epstein scandal, and celebrities who use the awards show as a platform for their political views. It poked fun at the whole American entertainment industry in all its excess and pretentiousness. So naturally the establishment and the journalists all hated the speech – the look on Tom Hanks' face says it all – while the public loved it.

Celebrities pontificating about politics is something that's only intensified with the rise of social media and to be fair it must be tempting to use one's position of influence to spread ideas that one finds virtuous. The problem is that most actors and producers are no better educated on the topic of politics and sociology than the average person. Moreover, these people tend to be very wealthy and live in secure, gated communities far away from the issues that concern the average citizen. Spouting off their beliefs to a public that (for the most part) didn't ask for them is often seen as talking down to people. The best example of this is the “I Take Responsibility” video from last June in which a number of famous actors renounce their privilege while condemning racism. It was a nakedly cynical gesture full of empty words designed to simply garner attention and nothing else and people saw right through it. Need proof? Here are some snips of how this video was received on YouTube.

FYI: Disabled comments are pretty much always a sign of someone trying to quell dissension.

And just for comparison here's how Ricky Gervais's Golden Globes speech was received.

It's no secret that 2020 was a bad year for the film industry. Lots of productions were delayed or shoved onto streaming services at a net loss, costing a lot of jobs in Hollywood. There were comparatively few films that premiered last year – I only saw three in theatres – and most of the Academy Award nominees were boring movies that most people have never heard of. Additionally countless movie theatres around the world were forced to close down, putting many more out of work. Were any of these hardships mentioned at the Academy Awards this year? Was any relief or tribute given for these afflicted souls? No. The show went on just like any other with all the self-importance and virtue signalling we've come to expect, giving the appearance of an elitist bubble culture that's grown out of touch with its audience.

The past 14 months have been hard for a lot of people. Maybe it's been hard for you. Perhaps you can't find work as easily as you once could. Maybe you're struggling to make ends meet. Maybe you've been feeling lonely since you can't visit your friends and relatives like you could before, or because dating has been far more difficult. Maybe you're disappointed that you had to cancel a vacation or you weren't able to attend a friend's wedding or a relative's funeral. Or perhaps you're just plain bored since the places you used to go for fun are closed. And on top of all that the big movie you were looking forward to still hasn't gotten released and when you tune into the boring awards show to see what your favourite entertainers – who are infinitely richer than you'll ever be – are up to they all tell you that you suck because you're privileged, you didn't share a certain hashtag, and you didn't vote the right way. How could you blame somebody for not wanting to watch that?

Does that sound entertaining to you?

2020 Year in Review

 At an end this year is, and not short enough it was. Friends, another year has passed and what an extraordinary one this has been. Thanks to a certain new virus from a certain communist dictatorship most of the world's nations have had – and continue to have – tight restrictions and regulations forced upon their hapless citizens, costing countless jobs and bringing the economy to its knees. The movie industry was especially hit hard this year with the postponement of numerous films, the shuttering of countless cinemas, and the release of some big box office bombs. As a result I only actually saw three films in theatres in 2020: part of the reason why there wasn't much content on Arnold's Benediction this year! These three films I gave an average grade of 4.2 out of five, but take that with a grain of salt since, again, there were only three films I reviewed. So yeah, this is going to be a very different Year in Review article from previous ones. Now let's get into this.

Best Movie: 1917

Some of you may be thinking, “Tony, wasn't this a 2019 movie?” It may be, depending on where you're from. It did sneak into a handful of film festivals in late December in order to qualify for 2019 awards shows, but in here in Canada 1917 wasn't released in theatres until 10 January so I'm counting it as 2020. Man, British war films have really hit the nail on the head as of late. In 2014 we got '71, then in 2017 there was Dunkirk, and now in 2020 we saw 1917. (Can't wait to see what 2023 brings us!) I love how the First World War is becoming a part of popular consciousness again; with all the turmoil that's going on these days it's easy to forget that just over a century ago millions of young men like me were being swallowed up and annihilated in massive, apocalyptic battles. And if you've ever wanted to see what that struggle looked and sounded like then Sam Mendes' masterpiece has you covered. Not only does it show a good cross-section of all the things that soldiers saw on the Western Front but its continuous-shot perspective places the viewer amongst the main characters as if you're there yourself. Further supplementing this approach is 1917's punchy sound editing, the detailed set design, and the refined acting, which all makes for a quite immersive film experience. Fans of war movies, rejoice.

Runner-up: The Gentlemen

Worst (A.K.A. Least Good) Movie: Tenet

Of the three movies I reviewed this year none of them were bad, but one of them does have to come last. That's why this year I've changed the category to Least Good movie and unfortunately that distinction goes to Christopher Nolan's Tenet. I feel bad for Tenet; not only does it end up being the least good movie I saw this year but it was also a box office bust thanks to its costly production and theatres around the world operating at a fraction of total capacity. Still, had it premiered any other year I highly doubt that it would have matched the resounding success of Nolan's previous films. The lack of a compelling main character, the muddled sound design, and the convoluted plot make Tenet a tough film to recommend to all but the most die hard Christopher Nolan fans. But on the other hand it does present a unique spin on how time travel might work and some viewers may find it rewarding to try to figure out the contorted plot lines. Like I said, Tenet ain't a bad movie. It gets a pass.

Runner-up: (none)

Most Disappointing Movie: (none)

1917 was awesome and I went into the other two films cold, so there really wasn't any disappointing films this year for me. I guess you could say that the biggest disappointment this year was 2020 itself. Let's hope the next one goes better.

Movie Review -- Tenet

 

  Man, has it really been six months since my last movie review? It's been a while, hasn't it? Time sure does fly. I wish I could have all this lost time back. If only I could go back... Go back... Time... Christopher Nolan. Yeah, today's movie is Nolan's latest, Tenet, a film in which the infamously metaphysical, space-bending director goes all in and finally makes a straight-up time-travel film. So is it any good? Let's find out.

  Tenet is about an unnamed secret agent who, after a botched hostage rescue mission, is recruited into a secret organization called Tenet. The Protagonist is tasked with leading an investigation into objects and weapons whose temporal disposition has become “inverted” – i.e. they move backwards through time. By tracing these objects' origins he hopes to avert a worldwide catastrophe. This is a great idea for a film; we get loads of twisted action scenes with cars speeding backwards, bullets flying back into guns, people having awkward fights with inverted people. There's also occasionally the same scene shown from different points of view simultaneously depending on which characters are inverted or not. And this is in addition to the frequent cutaways of concurrent scenes that Christopher Nolan films are notorious for. This all makes for a mind-bending and cerebral plot that can be kind of hard to understand if you're not paying the utmost attention. But if you're into non-linear storytelling, Tenet is right up your alley. Its two-and-a-half hours goes by rather briskly.

  Bringing this plot to life is a talented cast which, in true Christopher Nolan fashion, sees the return of some familiar faces from the director's previous works. Back from Dunkirk is Kenneth Branagh as the intimidating Andrei Sator. (Michael Caine also lends a mandatory, albeit brief, appearance.) The other actor that really shines in Tenet is Elizabeth Debicki as Kat, Sator's estranged wife who's desperate to free their son from his criminal clutches. Robert Pattinson looks right at home as the unflappable and dependable agent Neil. The only disappointment in the casting lies with John David Washington as the Protagonist. There's a line early on in the film where one character tells him that their conversation has to be to-the-point and without any small talk. Apparently Washington obeyed this line like the word of God because his character is more-or-less a blank slate, largely devoid of personality.

  The production values on Tenet are on par with what you'd expect from a Nolan film. The compositions and cinematography – combined with the backwards-moving events – make this film a real treat for the eyes and will leave you wondering just how much of this stuff was done in-camera. Knowing the director the answer is probably all of it! While Tenet is one of the best-looking Nolan films out there, the film's sound design is more of a mixed bag. The pulse-pounding score from Ludwig Goransson fits well with its hair-rising horns and electronic compositions. However the sound mixing needed some more work; the sound effects and (sometimes) the music is too loud, making it hard to make out dialogue during action scenes. At first I wanted to chalk it up to the fact that I saw this movie in a really loud IMAX theatre, but I've heard other critics are making similar complaints.

  Overall, Tenet is a visually stunning, daringly fanciful sci-fi action flick with some flaws. The main character isn't all that memorable and the plot verges on confusing. But I will say that if you want to see time-travel done differently this one is well worth checking out. Time well spent.

Grade:

Movie Review -- The Gentlemen

  While I have seen a few Guy Ritchie movies, his direction never left much of an impression on me. So when I went to go see his latest film, The Gentlemen, I didn't know what to expect. From what I can tell, he's famous for his crime comedies of which The Gentlemen is definitely one. So is it worth a watch? Let's find out.

  The Gentlemen tells the story of Britain's marijuana kingpin Mickey Pearson. He wants to sell off his underground empire and retire but there's plenty of schemers and blackmailers out there who want a piece of the pie. A great big mess ensues. It's a story with lots of twists and surprises, mostly because it doesn't take itself too seriously. The film's playful and humourous tone is highlighted by sharp, tangent-laden dialogue. In this regard, The Gentlemen is roughly similar to Pulp Fiction except much faster-paced. Try not to blink because this plot is on the move and it's easy to miss things.

  One thing you can't miss, however, is the acting: it is superb throughout. Colin Farrell gives a memorable comedic performance as the nonaligned MMA instructor Coach. Charlie Hunnan is confident and in-control as Pearson's badass consigliere Raymond Smith. Ironically, it's lead actor Matthew McConaghey's performance as Pearson that stands out to me the least. He certainly isn't bad in this movie, but he comes across as restrained. For me the actor who steals the show is Hugh Grant as the cocky, self-assured, and slightly deranged private investigator Fletcher. What's really great is that for the first half of the film Grant serves as a narrator-of-sorts so you get to hear his take on all the events unfolding.

  This narration is given life through the film's energetic directing and editing. Scenes playfully jump back and forth, sometimes out of order and with plenty of flashbacks. And since the narrator – sometimes narrators – isn't always reliable, we even end up with a few “what if” scenarios. Even the aspect ratio and filmstock aren't immune from being messed around with.

  All in all, Guy Ritchie has crafted a very enjoyable experience with The Gentlemen. If you like your comedies with a bit of a rough edge – or conversely, if you like violent gangster films that have a great sense of humour – then I'd very much recommend it.

Grade:

My Thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy (2015-19)

(Warning: this article contains SPOILERS for Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker.)

  At an end, the Sequel Trilogy is. And not short enough, it was.

  Star Wars is perhaps the most beloved fictional property of the past 40+ years and while only time will tell if Episodes VII, VIII, and IX are the last films we'll see in this franchise (I kind of doubt it) we'll at least be left with these recent three to contemplate for the foreseeable future. So I'd like to take this opportunity to discuss my thoughts on the Star Wars Sequel Trilogy (2015-19).

  But first let me give you a little background on my personal history with Star Wars movies. In the 1990's I grew up in the lingering cultural wake of the original films. Without having watched the Original Trilogy I already knew the main characters, some of the lore, and the basic gist of the story. And then The Phantom Menace came out and just like that the whole world was awash in hype, nostalgia, and toys; my brothers and I had so many Star Wars toys we didn't know what to do with them all. We all thought Episode I was awesome and we watched it dozens of times on VHS. When Attack of the Clones came out I was conflicted; I liked the world-building and the stories it told but I thought the film itself was mostly boring. In spite of this, I was hyped for Episode III and when it came out I was not disappointed. Revenge of the Sith completely blew me away and from that moment on I was hooked on Star Wars. I read dozens of Star Wars novels, played every video game I could get my hands on, and of course I went back and finally watched the Original Trilogy which I found easy to admire. Sure, my opinions on various Star Wars movies have changed over time – see articles published July 2017 – but what hasn't changed is my fondness for the series as a whole.

  And then I heard that a whole new trilogy was being made. I was skeptical at first – Hollywood has a well-deserved reputation for doing ill-advised things just because it can – but when I heard that talented people were being put in charge (not to mention that the special effects would be as practical as possible) I kept an open mind and saw the series' latest entry on opening night.

The Force Awakens

  Since that night in December 2015 I've rewatched The Force Awakens only once. That pretty much sums up how I feel about it: it was only once, but I did want to rewatch it. The review I wrote for it ended in a four-out-of-five score which in retrospect seems rather generous. Maybe I was caught up in the hype or I was so relieved that it wasn't a bad movie. Episode VII was and still is respectable. The action is thrilling enough, Kylo Ren was a decent villain (even if his temper tantrums made him hard to take seriously at times), and the music was well done. But on the other hand most of the new characters didn't have much going for them, the effects were mostly CGI just like every other movie these days, and the world-building is lacking; there's not much to fill audiences in on what's happened to the galaxy since Return of the Jedi. What is the First Order and where did it come from? Who is Snoke and where did he come from? Does the New Republic rule the whole galaxy or does it share it with the First Order? Is the New Republic at war with the First Order? If so then why is it making a Resistance movement fight them? Why did it allow the First Order to make the superweapon, Starkiller Base?

  What bothered me more than Episode VII's lack of background was the fact that 90% of the movie is simply a remake of A New Hope; the plot is more or less the same, even a bunch of the scenes are similar. Regardless, I was willing to forgive most of these shortcomings at the time. Cramming in all the details and interesting arcs of a trilogy into the first film is a tall order. The filmmakers will have more freedom next time for crafting a truly great Star Wars film with Episode VIII, right?

The Last Jedi

  Oh, I'm afraid the suckage was quite operational when my friends and I arrived at the cinemas in December 2017. The Last Jedi was both a transparent ripoff of The Empire Strikes Back and also a heavily Disney-fied snoozefest. It's bad enough that the film was loaded with cutesy humour, little details explained in very dumbed-down terms, and a not-so-subtle political slant (a whole subplot about war profiteering and animal rights in a Star Wars film? Really?) but could they have bothered to make the premise exciting? The film is about the Resistance leadership – which many characters now refer to as “the Rebels” – in a handful of ships on the run from a First Order fleet. Why can't the Resistance ships hyperspace jump away? Because this. Why don't the First Order ships open fire on them? Because that. Why doesn't the First Order fleet attack with bombers and more than just a handful of fighters? Because this. Why don't the First Order ships make a small hyperspace jump to close the distance between the two fleets? Because they lack imagination. Why doesn't (sigh) vice admiral Holdo tell her officers her plan for escape? Because that. This isn't a plot that's fun or exciting. This is a plot made up of excuses! Sure, the majority of Episode V was about trying to escape an Imperial fleet too but it involved a variety of neat tactics and manoeuvres that made you appreciate the ingenuity of the main characters. The other half of The Last Jedi has Finn and some boring chick named Rose go and find a hacker who can help the Resistance in their flight from the First Order fleet, and this whole subplot – I'd say at least 35 minutes of the film – leads nowhere and is pointless.

  As for the rest of the film, what isn't lazily ripping off Episode V is basically turning everything upside down and discarding all the new trilogy's intriguing possibilities that could've developed further. Luke Skywalker is a sad loser who scarcely resembles the optimistic Jedi he was at the end of Episode VI. Snoke is killed off before we've learned much of anything about him. Princess Leia is now Superman apparently. Captain Phasma is killed off unceremoniously; they said she would be this trilogy's Boba Fett which she indeed turned out to be... in the most disappointing way. Also, hyperspace jumping one capital ship into another can apparently destroy half a fleet: so why haven't we seen this done in Star Wars before or since? It sure looked cool and it sounds to me like a way more effective attack than going through the trouble of building a superweapon (that will inevitably be destroyed).

  So yeah, The Last Jedi pissed a lot of people off, and I was one of them; I've not rewatched it since nor do I particularly want to. At this point I was starting to lose hope in this franchise and my expectations for part three weren't great. I knew I was going to watch Episode IX not out of a sense of anticipation, but rather a sense of obligation. The only thing about the marketing that intrigued me was that Palpatine was back – now that got my attention.

The Rise of Skywalker

  According to The Rise of Skywalker's opening text crawl, a message from Palpatine was broadcast across the galaxy and everybody is scrambling to find its source. Now let me ask: why was this world-shaking event relegated to the opening text? Imagine how cool it would have been to see everyone's reaction upon hearing a surprise message from the Emperor, a powerful and evil Sith who's been thought to be dead for the past 30 or so years! That would've made for one hell of a cliffhanger ending for The Last Jedi, wouldn't you say?

  Now you're not going to believe me, but get a load of this: Episode IX is an approximate remake of Episode VI. The laziness – err, I mean pattern continues and it makes the film kind of predictable. We see an evil empire armed with planet-exploding weapons headed by Palpatine who is confronted face to face with a lone Jedi who is aided by a former Sith who sacrifices himself. The only thing missing is the Ewoks... oh wait, never mind. There actually are Ewoks in Episode IX. In fact there are a ton of little incidental things you may remember from other, more creative Star Wars movies because the best that this one has to offer is an overabundance of fan service, cameos, and rehashed dialogue.

  What The Rise of Skywalker does bring to the table is a bunch of fake-out deaths, a rather dull explanation for Snoke, and a brand new giant fleet of Star Destroyers called the Final Order that Palpatine has been building in secret. The only downside is that this Final Order fleet doesn't really do anything, has a massive weakness, and is defeated easily as it floats helplessly in one spot. It makes me wonder if this fleet is even staffed by living people or just remote controlled. Are the personnel of its command ship clones? Where did they come from? Also, remember the whole Finn-might-be-in-love-with-Rey subplot? It's left unresolved, totally abandoned even though it was hinted at in all three films. What they did remember to tell us is Rey's origin: turns out she's Palpatine's paternal granddaughter. This raises several questions, such as who is Rey's dad then? And when/with whom was Palpatine bumping uglies? Who was he R2-Doing and when did he Darth Invader?

  I will say that The Rise of Skywalker is a better movie than The Last Jedi. It shares all the things I liked about the latter film – the fights, the effects, Kylo Ren, the music – and it has less of the things I hated like the childish humour, heavy-handed liberal politics, and boring plot lines. But it seems like it was written as a damage-control type of film meant to undo the mistakes of the previous two. As a result there's a lot of stuff that happens in just Episode IX, suggesting that this trilogy wasn't plotted out in advance as a smoothly flowing and proper story arc like the other two trilogies were. If you wanted to get the gist, the bare-bones story of the Sequel Trilogy you could arguably skip Episodes VII and VIII and be fine with watching IX on its own.

Conclusion

  Just to be clear, I don't think the Sequel Trilogy films are bad per se. They're an OK-to-average bunch of films that I kind of despise. It really says something when one of the only characters I sympathize with was Chewbacca; even though the poor fella can't talk I felt bad that he has to watch his old friends die over and over again. Luke and Han were brought back only to turn out as grumpy old losers. I thought the main character, Rey, was flat and uninteresting and most of the other new characters weren't much better.

  If you couldn't tell already, one of this trilogy's biggest flaws is the stunning lack of imagination on the part of both the writers and the artists involved. We should have been given a more detailed explanation of what the galaxy was like in the 30 years following Episode VI. There should have been superweapons that do something else besides blowing up a planet. The Final Order fleet should have fought back. Star fleets shouldn't still be using TIE fighters and X-wings. (Though to be fair the TIE fighters in Episode IX now have hyperspace drives, which they didn't before. That's something, I guess.) And we shouldn't be seeing battles and plots we've seen before. This is Star Wars, dangit, the series that takes place a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away. Get creative with it!

  But perhaps my biggest gripe with the Sequel Trilogy is that it diminishes the events and characters of the previous films. The first six episodes cover the life of Anakin Skywalker, his origin, his rise to power, his turn to the dark side, and ultimately his redemption. With his death he fulfilled his destiny as the Chosen One and destroyed the Sith once and for all. But with these new films, I guess none of that mattered. Anakin wasn't the Chosen One after all. It's stuff like this that makes we wish the Sequel Trilogy never happened.

  But at the end of the day, I'm not mad. I'm just disappointed. No, my childhood isn't ruined by these new films. My childhood is in the past, therefore nothing can ruin it. To me, Star Wars is a series that never needed more than six parts and that's how I'll choose to remember it: the series that concluded with an Ewok festival on Endor.

Movie Review -- 1917

  Now this is how you start off a new year! Historical films about wars have always intrigued me and I'm pleased to see people are increasingly interested in the First World War. But a First World War movie directed by Sam Mendes, the same guy who made Jarhead and Skyfall? Sign me up, Sarge! Let's bust some caps at those Huns!

  1917 takes place on the Western Front and focuses on two British soldiers, Lance Corporals Schofield (George McKay) and Blake (Dean-Charles Chapman) who are tasked with relaying a message across occupied territory to a cutoff unit: that they're walking into a German trap. And so the two men are in a race against time to warn the oblivious battalion before it – along with Blake's brother – is wiped out. It's a movie reminiscent of both Saving Private Ryan – due to a comparable plot and up-close action – and '71 with its survival-against-all-odds motif. (Dude, if I wrote an article comparing those two movies it would be called '17 vs. '71. Neat, huh?) The story takes you places with some really tense moments, grim moments, and sad moments. There are a lot things that happen in 1917 but the pacing is excellent and things never seem as if they're being rushed along. I found 1917 to be a film that feels longer than it really is, but I mean that in a good way: by the time it winds down you'll have the impression that you've truly been on an adventure.

  This is given a huge boost by the film's immersive cinematography by the great Roger Deacons. I can't think of another movie that deserves the all-in-one-shot treatment more than 1917. If you've ever wanted to see WWI trench warfare up close then you need to see this film. A lot of the time it seems as if you're there yourself; the camera stays at ground level and never strays too far from the main characters. Along the way you'll end up seeing these scarred, barb wire-strewn battlefields just as our lads did more than one hundred years ago, complete with their filthy conditions and gruesome wreckage as rendered by the meticulous and highly detailed set design. It all lends an air of authenticity to the whole picture.

  This authenticity is upheld by the talented cast of all-British actors, with lesser-known ones portraying Blake and Schofield. The big-name cameos are fleeting and don't distract from the story you're watching. Tom Arnold does a fine job with the film's score, giving scenes a gloomy yet restless feel to them.

  It's funny: whenever I see a truly great film my review of it ends up being a short one. But what else can one say about a technical masterpiece of cinema like 1917? It plays on a level of immersive realism that I've scarcely seen before and is the best war movie since 2017's Dunkirk. In fact it might just be a bit better. Well done, Mr. Mendes.

Grade:

2019 Year in Review

Well folks, another year is in the books; another decade, in fact. Now I've only been reviewing movies since 2011 and since I've recently published top 10 lists on Arnold's Benediction of best and worst movies I've ever reviewed (in April and June of 2019 respectively) one could basically assume that those are my top 10 lists for reviewed films of the 2010's – with a couple exceptions as you'll see in a moment. And so today we'll ignore the past decade of films and look just at what I saw in 2019.

Movie-wise 2019 was more interesting than the previous year; in the past twelve months I saw 14 films in theatres and they earned an average of 3.2 stars each. Whereas the 2018 films (average 3.4 stars) I saw were either average or lacking in surprise, a bunch of the 2019 ones I saw were more unique and risky. That made this Year in Review article way easier to write than last time, which hopefully makes it more interesting for you to read. So without further ado, let's reminisce about the past year of movies.

Best Movie: Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

It was close but I decided to give this award to Quentin Tarantino's love letter to latter-day Golden Age Hollywood. OUATIH is a long, slow-paced movie but it rewards those who can appreciate its atmosphere and setting which was crafted with such a fine attention to detail that you may as well be watching a live-action late-1960's time capsule. There's a lot of fun to be had in watching Leonardo DiCaprio's and Brad Pitt's characters make their way through the sometimes-absurd world of show business, partially because the absurdity is often of their own making! Mixing these lively fictional characters in with real-life events during a tumultuous period of US history and having it all directed by a famously unorthodox filmmaker is, in this case, a recipe for true greatness. And yes, the ending is totally worth the wait.

Runner-up: Joker

Worst Movie: Cats

No contest here: Cats is by far the worst film I saw in 2019. When general film-making elements such as editing, camerawork, and sound balancing aren't done right you know you're dealing with some shoddy work. And that's before you lay your eyes upon the disgusting, quasi-feline monstrosities that barely look, move, or behave like the animals they're supposed to represent! Needless to say, if you don't like the musical genre – like me – then Cats certainly won't win you over. And even if you do you won't be too pleased at the inconsistent singing quality, the difficulty in discerning the lyrics, and the sub-par acting.

But is Cats the worst movie of the 2010's? No, that distinction still belongs to the movie that took the #1 spot on my Top 10 Worst Movies I've Ever Reviewed. I won't name it here but that film is way more boring and irritating, and is almost one hour longer.

Runner-up: (none)

Most Disappointing Movie: Star Wars Episode IX: The Rise of Skywalker

I hate to do this but for the second time a Star Wars movie is my most disappointing film of the year. I hesitated at choosing The Rise of Skywalker to fill this spot since my expectations for it were not great – thanks to Solo (2018) and The Last Jedi (2017) – but gosh darnit this is Star Wars! I've been a Star Wars fan most of my life and to have this many mediocre films come out so rapidly is a tough pill to swallow (I mean at least Attack of the Clones was only one lousy film, not three!). Episode IX continues the Sequel Trilogy trend of remaking the Original Trilogy films one by one, but innovates in the overly-technical department with plenty of MacGuffins and an unnecessary amount of locations to make you start tuning things out. There are a bunch of plot threads that go nowhere and several plot elements and characters that are criminally under-utilized. In fact, there's so much that could've been done better that I'm planning on writing a separate article on the shortcomings of episodes 7, 8, and 9 that includes spoilers. To conclude, The Rise of Skywalker is better than The Last Jedi – in fact, it's not that bad in general. However it is a fittingly so-so capstone to a trilogy that I kind of wish never happened.

Runner up: Midway

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.