Movie Review -- Spider-Man: Far From Home

  (Warning: this review contains spoilers for Avengers: Endgame.) Spider-Man: Far From Home is the twenty-third film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe and the eleventh such film in the past three years! However it is the first MCU film to not have a Stan Lee cameo, which I guess you could say is one of the few unique things Far From Home has going for it!

  Ok, ok, I'm being slightly facetious. I've found that one's enjoyment of the new Tom Holland Spider-Man films depends heavily on one's acceptance that they're deliberately trying to be different from Spider-Man media we've seen in the past. If you can make your peace with the fact that the tone is lighter than air, the life lessons are less poignant (i.e. barely there), the target audience is probably younger than before, and the characters only vaguely resemble their comicbook counterparts then you'll find the new Spidey stories easy to like.

  This one follows Peter Parker and his classmates a few months after all the people who died in Avengers: Infinity War suddenly came back to life in Endgame – this conveniently includes most of the characters in the Spider-Man movies. I've got to say the world is getting along pretty well despite the trauma of having half of its population disappear and then suddenly reappear five years later. Anyways, Peter is troubled over the passing of his man-crush Tony Stark (AKA Iron Man), but still goes along with his classmates on a tour of Europe where he plans to take a break from superheroing and confess his feelings for MJ. (When did he start crushing on her?) However he is forced to work with SHIELD and Mysterio to battle the Elemental monsters, but not everything is as it seems.

  Honestly though, the best way to sum up Far From Home's plot is that it's a teen road-trip comedy – and a Disney Channel one at that – featuring superheroes. It even plays the obligatory “Vacation, all I ever wanted” song. It starts out rather standard but gets better as it goes, especially after the “twist” happens. As for the comedy, it's fast-paced, silly, and mostly OK. Some of the jokes rely too much on predictable Disney-esque slapstick (and the main character's awkwardness) but some jokes I found genuinely funny. One could consider it a G-rated Deadpool of sorts. There's even a little tongue-in-cheek humour to be found such as when the badguys congratulate themselves by explaining their plan... to themselves.

  Like I said earlier the film uses the characters differently from the comics. Aunt May is more like wine aunt. MJ is more like Daria. Flash Thompson is more like narcissism personified. Ned Leeds is more like a whipped boyfriend. And Peter is more like Iron Lad, AKA Tony Jr., AKA Iron Fanboy. While some of these changes are fine (MJ), some handicap the characters' development. Look no further than Peter Parker himself. He's still a dweeb who has no commitment or conviction in his superheroing, he still sucks up to Tony Stark even beyond the grave, and he still makes a ton of dumb mistakes. First and foremost, Peter really sucks at keeping his identity a secret mostly because he keeps changing into his costume with the door wide open and he – as Spider-Man – meets with friends and family members in full view of the public. This guy's been in four movies so far and he's hardly grown or changed one bit. At least they got Quentin Beck, AKA Mysterio, right. Jake Gyllenhaal is believable as a guy who is both a likeable mentor but also just a little bit crazy. And when it comes to showing off great special effects, they couldn't have picked a better character than Mysterio.

  I'll end this review by stating that the mid-credits scene commits a cardinal sin in that it sets up a film that is so much better than the one the audience has just watched. This scene really puts Far From Home into perspective: it's truly a momentary and inconsequential episode that arguably didn't need to be a major motion picture. Its breezy tone, lower stakes, and lack of lasting change or consequence would've made it more suitable as a 3-part episode of some TV show or something. Don't get me wrong; I liked this movie but it is by no means essential viewing.

P.S. – The end credits scene sucks. Don't bother.

Grade:

100 Film Reviews Special: Top 10 Worst Movies I've Reviewed

Back in April I celebrated my 100 movie reviews by counting down the top 10 best films I'd written a review for. I think it's only fair that I do the same for the not-so-great masterpieces of crap that I've had to sit through. And so for your reading pleasure here are the top 10 worst movies that I've ever reviewed. (By the way, all of these reviews you can find posted here on Arnold's Benediction.)

10.  Project Almanac (2015)

Now, to be fair Project Almanac isn't a horrible movie but it is a very forgettable one. In fact right now I'm struggling to recall things that I can say about it. All I remember is that the characters were a bunch of self-absorbed brats who used time travel for their own personal gain (though really, who can blame them?) and the ending left a bunch of lingering questions. I have mentioned this film a few times on this blog so if you want to do some time travelling yourself just head on over to that search bar. Sorry, that's all I've got for this one.

9.     Apollo 18 (2011)

“There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon.” There's also a reason I've never watched this movie since it landed in theatres: it's dull. It's a shame that with such an interesting premise – a found footage horror movie taking place on a lunar mission in the 1970's – Apollo 18 could turn out to be so boring and forgettable. I remember the cinematography being good and the plot being threadbare, but not much else. I guess some found footage movies are better left unfound.

8.     Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Now this is what you call a hot mess. At the time I still thought well of 2012's Amazing Spider-Man so my expectations were good for this one. But as the end credits started rolling on this 2014 sequel I knew I had just witnessed a stinker of a film. It has a lot in common with another disappointing spidey flick, Spider-Man 3 (2007). They've both got intriguing relationships, good acting, and decent action but they've also got an overloaded plot with too many villains and unnecessary references to Peter Parker's past. But Amazing Spider-Man 2 is less watchable and has an irritating amount of sequel-baiting for a follow-up that never came to pass. I would say that it's a good thing that the Spider-Man movies got rebooted again in 2017 but honestly my appetite for the webslinger on the big screen has diminished significantly. So yes, it's possible that this movie was so bad that it killed my enthusiasm for Spider-Man movies. Way to go, guys.

7.     The Lone Ranger (2013)

A heroic, high-flying western made by the same guys who did the Pirates of the Caribbean movies was an undertaking that had a lot of potential, but also a lot of warning signs. Unfortunately The Lone Ranger contented itself with emulating the lamer POTC films with its bloated length, confused tone, and overstuffed story. But it added to the list of old familiar problems by having a total wussie of a main character who puts the moves on his brother's widow mere days after the man's death. It is true that The Lone Ranger is a great looking movie – the cinematography is superb and the sets and costumes are fine crafted down to a T – and the end train-chase sequence is thrilling, but ultimately it isn't enough to lasso victory from the jaws of defeat. The rest of the film is simply too much of a chore to sit through.

6.     Independence Day: Resurgence (2016)

1996's Independence Day was some good cheesy fun. As a kid I loved it so much I remember watching it with some friends for my birthday party once. Its hefty scope, likeable characters, and ground-breaking special effects made it a must-see for its day. It's certainly a shame that its 20-years-later sequel gets none of those things right. Instead we get an overblown scope that makes the whole thing look silly, dull characters who lack charisma, and run-of-the-mill CG effects that we've since grown numb to. Add to that a ton of expository dialogue, subtract anything that might get you emotionally invested, and round it all off with a cynical amount of sequel-baiting (good luck with that) and you'll end up with this fine mess. Pretty much the only things I did like about Independence Day: Resurgence was the interesting setting and Jeff Goldblum. In short, Resurgence is just another one of those “remember me?”, almost a franchise, CG-laden, snorefests that Hollywood loves to crank out these days. Beam me up, Scotty, there's no intelligent life here.

5.     Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales (2017)

Oh right, I keep forgetting that this series continues. And I really don't see why it does either. It's sad. By the time Dead Men Tell No Tales came around the well of pirate-related ideas had pretty much run dry. The bad guys in this movie are ghosts, which seems rather underwhelming given the multitude of creatures and monsters seen in previous instalments. What this movie does carry over from its predecessors are the never-ending plot holes and the boring romances. Not even the performances of Johnny Depp, Goeffrey Rush, and Javier Bardem are enough to make this film worth watching. I think the perfect word to describe Pirates of the Caribbean at this point is draining. We've had our fun with pirates, but now it's time to let it end. Please just stop.

4.     Jason Bourne (2016)

Oh my gosh, it's Jason Bourne! Was it any surprise that this movie sucks the big one? The warning signs were all there. First off, it's a Bourne movie that's come long after audiences' appetite for these films has dried up. Next, it ignores the not-great-but-still-better-than-this Bourne Legacy (2012) by not including the much more likeable Jeremy Renner. And third, the title's laziness is a pretty good indicator of how copy-paste the rest of the film is going to be (it's rarely a good sign when after a bunch of sequels the latest instalment's title is simply the character's name). The titular agent is an empty shell of a man. He wasn't much interesting to begin with but in this outing Matt Damon simply looks tired of doing this again as indicated by his meagre dialogue. Well if they bothered resurrecting this dormant series they probably came up with a good, gripping story, right? But no, it's the same plot as all the others. A shady high-ranking CIA dude who's at risk of being publicly exposed tries to hide evidence of his wrongdoing by sending an assassin to go kill off his former agent Bourne who tries forming an uneasy partnership with a female agent on the inside. It's lazy, so lazy that the previous two sentences you just read were copy-pasted straight from my review of Jason Bourne. If the film's writers can do it then so can I! And don't get me started on the incomprehensibly choppy action scenes that're fit to give you motion sickness just like it did to me. All in all, the only part of Jason Bourne that gave me joy was that I got to use the phrase “hardcore Bourne-ography” in my review. Other than that, it's trash.

3.     God's Not Dead 2 (2016)

The first God's Not Dead is a film so bad that it's a blast. I've seen it several times with friends and we've laughed ourselves silly. But God's Not Dead 2 is a film so joyless and dull that I've not seen it since it slumped into theatres. That's probably because it actually tried (a tiny bit) harder to portray more believable situations and people. Gone are (most of) the evil atheist stereotypes, gone are the terrible folks of other faiths who beat their family members senseless, and gone are the Duck Dynasty cameos. On the other hand we see the return of one-sided arguments, pointless subplots, dull acting, and Reverend Dave having the worst luck in the world. Oh yeah, the Newsboys are back too. Can't forget that. On the whole, God's Not Dead 2 is kind of boring and plays like a movie that could've been straight to DVD. And as it says in the Book of Tony, being boring is one of the wickedest sins any film doth committeth.

2.     After Earth (2013)

How? How did this happen? I'll tell you how: Will Smith wanted to show how off how cool his son Jaden is so he hastily wrote a dull, unimaginative story that was somehow supposed to spawn a trilogy of films because that's what all films try doing nowadays. Here's an idea: just make a good movie, worry about sequels later! Bringing on M. Night Shyamalan to direct certainly didn't do the lifeless script any favours either with his propensity for unenthused narration, uninspired sets, boring monologues, and numerous flashbacks. There's also some plotholes and illogical nonsense. For example, how come the whole “Earth's gravity is stronger than home's” stuff isn't brought into play? What does Cypher expect a toddler to do against a man-eating monster that's invaded his house? Why does the Ursa – the aforementioned monster – stick its victims on trees instead of eating them? But ironically it's the acting that stands out as the worst part of After Earth, a film meant to showcase the two lead actors. Will Smith gives an unaccountably emotionless performance as he spends most of the movie sitting in the same chair, talking directly to the camera. Meanwhile, Jaden Smith comes off as a whiny dweeb who falls asleep at least five times throughout the film. He tries but he severely lacks the charisma his father has (y'know, in other movies!). At the end of the day After Earth isn't the worst sci-fi movie ever made, but it will be remembered as a laughingstock for years to come.

1.     Transformers: Age of Extinction (2014)

And here we are, the worst movie I've ever written a review for: Transformers: Age of Extinction. Is anyone surprised? For years now it's been en vogue to roast Michael Bay's Transformers series of films as nothing more than overhyped, big-budget, brain-dead drivel. While I normally try to go into a movie with an open mind I must confess I knew this was going to be a bad one. The most I expected was that perhaps this fourth Transformers movie would be slightly more refined than previous instalments, maybe a few lessons learned, kinks ironed out. But no, how naive. The trademark horribleness is in full force here with the familiar kooky humour, irritating robots, dizzying camera movement/editing, mindless action scenes that go on for way too long, preposterous romances, puzzling casting, blatant product placement, in-your-face US flags, and explosions ad nauseum. Optimus Prime screams manically like a coked-up Vietnam vet and we're supposed to believe that Mark Wahlberg is a nerdy inventor. The goodguy transformers suck and they fight eachother more than they do the badguys. And to top it all off the film is obscenely boring, no thanks to the overabundance of action and humourless comedy. You'll have gone numb to the dazzling effects and never-ending action by the time the climax comes 'round. Not even robot dinosaurs were able to pull me back into this mess. That's the biggest thing I want everybody to know about Age of Extinction: the boredom it induces. We all like to poke fun at the Transformers series but do you really remember how it felt the last time you sat through one of these things? It was a chore, an utter waste of time. I'm never going back. You can't make me.

Movie Review Repost -- Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Here's another old review that I'm surprised that I haven't shared on Arnold's Benediction yet: Amazing Spider-Man 2. It's been a long time since I last watched this hot mess, but my thoughts on it are basically unchanged. It's a mediocre movie that could have been good but tried to bite off way more than it could chew and got way too greedy in terms of sequel-baiting possibly due to studio meddling. It took this Marc Webb spidey series two films to run into the same dead end that the original Sam Raimi series achieved in three. Does that count as progress or degradation? You decide!

  Aaaaaaaargh! They f***ed it up! Being a big fan of Spider-Man, I really wanted this movie to be good. But alas, it isn't. Let's take a look at it. I'll try to avoid spoilers as much as I can.

  After a brief sequence showing how the Parkers died, Amazing Spider-Man 2 begins with Peter and Gwen's high school graduation as the two contemplate whether their relationship should continue. Meanwhile, Harry Osborn, Gwen's boss and a childhood friend of Peter's, learns that he's inherited a few things form his now dead father, both good and bad (mostly bad). Then in subplot number sixty-one, a timid Spidey-obsessed OsCorp employee named Max Dillon suffers a terrible accident that turns him into Electro. So yeah, there's quite a few plotlines in this film, but it doesn't really feel like too much until the film's second half when scenes start jumping around really quickly. It makes the story more meandering and difficult to get into. There's also one or two conversation scenes that go on for a bit too long, particularly the romance scenes between Peter and Gwen because you already know how that's going to turn out (though the two still have good chemistry). There's also a bunch of stuff that happens for no reason: Harry's recovery towards the end, Peter suddenly becoming obsessed with his parents, Peter being OK by the film's end, and the entire Rhino story, which is brief, unexplained, nonsensical, unresolved, and extremely disappointing. The twist explaining the Parkers' deaths is extremely predictable and overdone. You might already know what it is.

  Look at the bright side, the acting is pretty good... for the most part. Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone both do their roles admirably. So does Sally Field as Aunt May. And while Electro's character has the most basic of motivations, at least he's acted well thanks to Jamie Foxx. Rhino is played by Paul Giamatti, who you can tell is having fun hamming it up. But then there's Dane DeHaan as Harry Osborn. At first he channels a young Leonardo DiCaprio, but then once (*ahem) something happens he starts channeling Frankie Muniz on crack. It looks really silly.

  In spite of Spider-Man's costume looking better, there are a bunch of dumb/cheesy production choices. A lot of fights seemed too short. Stan Lee's cameo was dull; he doesn't do or say anything. And the music cues are just weird and confusing. Apparently when electrical generators light up they sound off a musical note? There's also this weird tune that plays whenever we see Electro deep in thought and I'm not sure if the faint voices (that you can't quite make out anyways) are supposed to be in his head or if they're just song lyrics.

  Don't bother sitting through the end credits; there's nothing to see except an X-Men trailer that was so absurdly unexpected and out of place that I couldn't help but burst into laughter. What betrayal is this?!

  That kind of sums up Amazing Spider-man 2 in a nutshell. The plot is cluttered and overwhelming, as if they wrote two films into one. There is fun to be had here, but all the jumbled, confusing stuff makes it a hard movie to really get into.

Rating: two and a half stars out of five.

Movie Review -- Venom

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

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

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

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

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

Grade:

My Top 20 Favourite Video Games Ever (Part 1)

This is it, the one list that every gamer wants to make yet despairs when the time actually comes to make it. I'm talking about a ranked list of my personal favourite video games, that games that have given me the most enjoyment over the years, the games that I (almost) never get tired of playing. Making this list wasn't easy; in fact I'm still not sure about the order I've got here. (It'll probably have changed by the time I'm done writing this!) But such is the fate of an entirely subjective list based on preferences that aren't easily quantifiable. Let's do this!

Honourable mentions: Call of Duty 4 : Modern Warfare (2007), Guitar Hero: World Tour (2008), Operation Flashpoint: Cold War Crisis (2005), Star Wars: Republic Commando (2005)

20. Brütal Legend (Xbox 360, 2009)

If you haven't heard of Brutal Legend then I apologize in advance because my words here won't do it justice. You play as Eddie Riggs, voiced by Jack Black, the greatest roadie the world has ever seen as he gets transported back in time to a world inspired by heavy metal album covers. Armed with his lightning-summoning guitar and his trusty battle axe it's up to him to lead the human resistance and defeat hordes of demons, glam rock sellouts, and goth panzies. With its face-melting soundtrack, impressive voice cast, cool character design, jaw-dropping environments, and fun sense of humour Brutal Legend is a game that you'll want to explore every nook and cranny of. It does have a few downsides: the graphics are low-res and light on details, the side missions are repetitive, and the control scheme is a bit puzzling at times. (There's no jump button. Also it took me 2.5 playthroughs before I found out there was a sprint button!) Still, Brutal Legend manages to be a pretty fun game that serves as a heartfelt tribute to heavy metal subculture. Rock on.

19. Ultimate Spider-Man (Xbox, 2005)

Ultimate Spider-Man is a game that has a lot of sentimental value to me. It was the first video game I ever bought with money that I'd earned from a job. At the time I was a huge fan of the Ultimate Spider-Man comic series and I frequently compared myself to Peter Parker in middle school (I wasn't in high school yet). I had previously played the games based on the Spider-Man movies, but they didn't exactly blow me away perhaps because of their non-original stories and sometimes clunky controls. But Ultimate Spider-Man had none of those problems; it was like Spider-Man 2 (2004) but with more refined controls, an original story, more rewarding collectibles/unlocks, and a dazzling art design. And did I mention that you can also play as Venom? Needless to say, this game was one the coolest things in the world to my 15 year-old self. Sure its open world wasn't as big as the previous game's and it could be frustratingly difficult at times but that didn't hinder the feeling of truly being in a story of the Ultimate comic series. Excelsior, true believers!

   18. Call of Duty: Black Ops (Xbox 360, 2010)

Alternate history is one of my favourite subgenres of fiction, one that I wish video games would do way more often. This is probably why I like Black Ops so much. The Cold War is such an enthralling era of history which doesn't have all that many games focusing on it. Anyone who says that video games can't be educational needs to play this game. If it weren't for Black Ops I might never have learned about things such as the Vorkuta Gulag, the Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kowloon's walled city, MK Ultra, and Rebirth Island. And it's all wrapped up into a gripping story in which the fate of the world is at stake. As if that wasn't enough Black Ops has by far my preferred CoD multiplayer mode and it even has Dead Ops Arcade, a four-player overhead twin stick shooter that's way more fun than it has any right to be! This game has so much bang for your buck it's unreal.

   17. The Simpsons: Road Rage (Xbox, 2001)

You might be thinking “Tony, what the heck is this game doing on a list like this?” I'll admit, Simpsons: Road Rage is a simple game, one that wasn't meant to be played for hours on end. It's basically a ripoff of Crazy Taxi, in which you take control of Simpsons characters and pickup passengers and shuttle them to their destinations around Springfield as quickly as possible. Successful runs award the player with more cash (i.e. high scores) which allow the player to unlock more locations and playable characters each with their own vehicle. Sounds simple, right? That's because I haven't told you about one on one mode! In this mode two players compete to be the one to deliver more passengers. It involves ramming the other player to steal the passenger, a lot of detours to lose your opponent, and a ton of sneaky manoeuvres to try to shake off your pursuer. I play this game a lot with my brothers and when you get two experienced players facing off it makes for an intense, sweat-inducing game. Seriously, if you can find this game on the cheap its two-player mode easily makes it worth a try.

    16. Doom 3 (Xbox, 2005)

This is some serious crap. I don't play horror-type games often but I thoroughly enjoyed Doom 3's campaign which is set in a dark, creepy research facility on Mars that's been invaded by demons and monsters from hell. The scary enemies that spawn from nowhere without warning, the inability to hold a weapon and the flashlight at the same time, and the unnerving sounds one can hear are extremely effective at putting the player on edge. This is one of the very few “silent protagonist” games in which I felt truly immersed. I think this is due to two things: the outstanding sound design and the PDA. Early on, the player is given a PDA through which they can read emails and listen to audio logs that are found throughout the game. In addition to providing security clearance and helpful tips (such as supplies storage), these emails and audio logs offer significant story details and really help flesh out the world you're playing in. While I do have a couple gripes with this game – the enemies who constantly respawn behind you do get rather annoying, plus weapon switching can be cumbersome at times – I still have tons of fun with Doom 3. Horror developers, take note.

    15. Forza Motorsport 4 (Xbox 360, 2011)

I've played plenty of Forza games and while they're all very finely crafted racing simulators I'd have to hold up Motorsport 4 as my preferred title of the series. It's more detailed and varied than Forza Motorsport (2005), less restrictive than Forza Motorsport 3 (2009), and is more straightforward than Forza Horizon (2012). The variety of tracks and cars available were phenomenal, the unlockable cars (AKA autovista) were really cool, and the number of unlocks, titles, and events was mind-boggling. I especially liked the little things they included such as how each pass, turn, draft, and drift is given a grade from one to four. These grades were surprisingly helpful in teaching the player how to play the game. And just like the other games in the series, it was very highly polished with excellent physics and graphics. Also, the commentary from the Top Gear guys was amusing and gave this game a bit of personality. If you like racing games at all, then Forza Motorsport 4 is a game that's easy to love.

    14. Halo 3 (Xbox 360, 2007)

Please don't get mad at me for not putting this one higher on this list. I had become a Halo fan after playing through Halo 2 the year before and I was all aboard the hype train in anticipation of Halo 3. I was slightly let down at things like the lacklustre sound effects, slower pace of gameplay, and lack of surprises in campaign. While it's not as memorable or as badass as its predecessor I still appreciate Halo 3 for what it is: a well-designed sci-fi action FPS set in a fascinating universe with enemies that are fun to tango with. This entry in the series added new vehicles and weapons, had fun locations for single-player, had a fantastic soundtrack, and gave the players more multiplayer options than ever before. It's a game that my friends and I still play to this day and probably will continue playing for quite some time. From a purely objective viewpoint it's probably the best Halo game ever made but there's just one other game in the series that I prefer over Halo 3. More on that later...

13. Wolfenstein: The New Order (Xbox 360, 2014)

Why yes, this game did come out on Xbox 360. (I don't have an 8^th gen console... yet.) Remember what I said about how much I love alternate history in CoD: Black Ops? That goes double for Wolfenstein: TNO. In this game the Germans have won the Second World War through their use of highly advanced technology. The game takes place in a 1960 in which the Third Reich rules most of the world and has even established a colony on the moon. This is a fantastic – if somewhat absurd – setup for a video game; rarely have I been so enthralled at a game's character and environment design. What's more, TNO boasts some very fun and addicting gunplay as well as some options for those who prefer a stealthier style of gameplay. Though it can be difficult at times, Wolfenstein: TNO never feels frustrating and it rewards players who are willing to change up their strategy from time to time. That's what being a great first-person shooter is all about.

12. Red Dead Redemption (Xbox 360, 2010)

What can I say about Red Dead Redemption that hasn't already been said? It's one of the best games this decade and one of the best open-world games ever made. Never has the act of driving around – or in this case horseback riding around – and shooting things been presented in a way that's so fresh and exciting. At times it really did seem like I was playing a Sergio Leone film thanks to the excellent soundtrack, enthralling story, and diverse cast of relatable characters. And that's not even counting all the interesting side missions! There's so much to do, so many places to go, so many people to meet, so much trouble to get into. It's a highly detailed and beautiful looking game. Describing it all in depth would take up an entire article on its own. I'll just leave it at this: Red Dead Redemption is a game that took on the often underutilized setting of the old west and brought it to life in the most ambitious and amazing way one could hope for. You done good.

11. Fight Night 2004 (Xbox, 2004)

It's no secret that the best part of an EA Sports game is getting to make your own butt-ugly characters. Fight Night takes it one step further by letting you make butt-ugly characters who can then beat eachother up! My brothers and I would go all out with the dudes we created in this game. I even went through the trouble of making Beavis and Butthead to watch them duke it out. Even without all that silly stuff, Fight Night is a fun and intense game. It's probably my favourite sports game aside from the NHL games. Making your way up to the top and fighting some of history's greatest boxers was a simple yet satisfying setup for a career mode. Really the only complaint I have is that all the punching is mapped to the thumbstick which works well, but if you play the game at length (like I have) I guarantee that your thumb will end up calloused. But as your coach tells you between rounds, “This is boxing, kid: pain comes with the territory.”

That'll about do it for this week. Check back next time for the top 10.

Spider-Man Movies Highs and Lows

It's been a while since I did a high-low list. Well since this series has now had its sixth film – and third re-imagining – I think now would be a good time to take a look at the best and worst of the Spider-Man movies. And unlike the other high-low lists I've done, this one is after the new film's release so expect to see elements from Spider-Man: Homecoming here. Enjoy!

Best Movie: Spider-Man 2 (2004)

Worst Movie: Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014)

Funniest Movie: Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017)

Best Spider-Man Actor: Andrew Garfield (ASM, ASM2)

Best Peter Parker Actor: Tobey Maguire (SM, SM2, SM3)

Best Villain: Green Goblin (Spider-Man, 2002)

Most Disappointing Villain: Venom (Spider-Man 3, 2007)

Worst Villain: Rhino (ASM2)

Worst Main Villain: Lizard (Amazing Spider-Man, 2012)

Best Villain Introduction/Origin: Sandman (SM3)

Best-Acted Villain: Michael Keaton as the Vulture (SMH)

Best Love Interest: Either Mary Jane or Gwen Stacy. Too close to call. Sorry.

Worst Love Interest: Liz (SMH)

Best Aunt May: Rosemary Harris (SM, SM2, SM3)

Least Interesting Aunt May: Marisa Tomei (SMH)

Best Uncle Ben: Cliff Robertson (SM)

Best Side Character: J. Jonah Jameson (SM, SM2, SM3)

Most Puzzling Choice of Actor: Topher Grace as Eddie Brock/Venom (SM3)

Most Out-of-Nowhere Character: Bernard, Harry's butler (SM3)

Best Special Effects: Spider-Man: Homecoming

Worst Special Effects: Spider-Man

Best Action Scene: Spider-Man vs. Dr. Octopus (SM2)

Most Brutal Death: Green Goblin (SM)

Best Characterization of New York City, for better or worse: Spider-Man

Silliest Moment: Peter dancing at the nightclub (SM3)

Stupidest Moment: Reporter chick commentating the final fight scene (SM3)

Worst U.S. Flag Moment: Spider-Man 3

Movie Whose High School Characters Actually Look Like They Belong in High School: Spider-Man: Homecoming

Best Spider-Man Costume: Spider-Man: Homecoming

Worst Costume: Green Goblin (SM)

Best Musical Score: Spider-Man

Best Stan Lee Cameo: Amazing Spider-Man

Best Bruce Campbell Cameo: Spider-Man 2

Most Accurate Portrayal of Web Shooters: Spider-Man: Homecoming

Most Easter Eggs/Name Drops: Spider-Man: Homecoming

Most Shameful Sequel-baiting: Amazing Spider-Man 2

Movie Review - Spider-Man: Homecoming

  It's rare to see a movie series rebooted just ten years after its inception. It's even rarer to see one rebooted a second time just five years later (four if you count last year's Captain America: Civil War)! I'm of course talking about Spider-Man: Homecoming, the now third incarnation we've seen of the friendly neighbourhood webhead.

  And it definitely shows. With all these reboots and retellings of Spider-Man tales they're all starting to feel very similar. Homecoming in particular feels very much like 2012's Amazing Spider-Man, just with a lighter tone that feels more like a comic book and less like a movie. There's no denying that the cinematic well of Spider-Man ideas is starting to run dry. Just look at how they've already run out of ideas for good titles; the titular homecoming only lasts a couple minutes and has hardly any significance to the film.

  So what did the powers that be at Marvel (6 screenwriters? Really?!) whip up for us this time? Fifteen year-old Peter Parker is an awkward, nerdy high school student in New York City, but is also the hero known as Spider-Man, seeing himself as Tony Stark's (AKA Iron Man's) protegee. But evil is afoot once Adrian Toomes and his gang of techies discover that leftover alien technology from the events of 2012's Avengers can be used to make superweapons. Peter must learn to balance his everyday problems with his activities as Spider-Man while taking on the blackhearted Vulture. While Homecoming isn't quite an origin story – and thank goodness because I can only bear to see Uncle Ben shot so many times – we do see Spider-Man's early development as a hero. He has to learn how to be a hero, how to fight, how to handle loss, how to approach situations, and, most critically, how to keep secrets.

  Not having Uncle Ben die changes how Spider-Man works as a movie. One one hand, it robs Peter of the depth that he had in the other movies. Ben isn't even mentioned in Homecoming (just barely hinted at), which brings up the question: why does Peter do what he does? But on the other hand, the absence of Ben and his death's consequences preserves the lighter tone of Homecoming. Probably the funniest Spidey movie yet, this film has a tone very similar to 2015's Ant-Man. So it's a tradeoff: we get more lighthearted fun at the expense of solemn maturity (relatively speaking; this is a superhero movie after all).

  Now for the actors. Tom Holland is pretty cool. He pulls off the whole Peter-Parker-as-a-teenager thing better than any other actor so far. Michael Keaton is a great villain as the Vulture and is surprisingly intimidating. It makes me wonder if this is supposed to be a sequel to 2014's Birdman... I really like the role Robert Downey Jr's Tony Stark plays here, as a mentor – quasi-father-figure – to Peter. Homecoming also has a bunch of supporting characters. We've got Spider-Man's nerdy pal Ned, the showy Flash... umm... Trujillo?, Liz the love interest, dull, attractive Aunt May, and the misanthropic Michelle (AKA Daria). The side characters are all fun and humourous but they're not all that interesting or deeply developed.

  The action scenes are all decent, most them taking place in environments that we've not seen in Spider-Man movies before. It's interesting to see how Spidey takes on badguys in places without tall buildings like from high in the air or on a ferry. Spider-Man's costume has also been upgraded from previous films. Not only does it have a nice classic look to it but it's also got a ton of functionality built into it. I guess this makes up for the fact that this version of Peter doesn't seem to have spider-sense. My only complaint about the action is that it appears very CG-heavy. The other Spider-Man films were too, and while these computer-generated effects do look good it would be nice to finally see live-action Spidey action imbued with some visceral physicality.

  It seems as if the trend of each successive Spider-Man film is to be funnier and to have a progressively younger cast with less developed side characters. But when all's said and done, Spider-Man: Homecoming is still a flashy, fun film like a well-acted cartoon in live-action form. It may not be the best Spider-Man film ever made, but for superhero fans and spiderfans alike it's definitely worth a watch.

  Also, the end credits scene is savage.

Grade:  

Movie Review Mistakes?

You know how sometimes you rewatch a movie and you find your opinion of it has changed? That happens to me sometimes, even to movies that I've already written reviews for. While a lot of thought goes into my reviews – and believe me I try to include my thoughts on every aspect of a film before judging it here – there are a few times where I've realized that my judgment was incorrect. There's a couple times where I was too harsh on a movie and there's also a few times where I was being too generous. So on this article I'm going to clarify my current thoughts on some movies that I've reviewed in the past. This isn't me rewriting history (the original ratings still stand and I still very much have confidence in my own writing), and these aren't mistakes. Think of these as updated opinions on films of whom I now think differently. Let's take a look.

X-Men: First Class (2011); I gave 3/5, should've given 3.5/5

In my original review for this flick – the second I ever wrote, by the way – I called the film “a mixed bag” that was full of plot holes. While I do acknowledge that there are a bunch of logical fallicies in First Class, I don't think that they are that much of a hindrance to the audience's enjoyment of it. I mean when it gets to the point where I'm criticizing the fact that First Class doesn't fit into the timeline of the other X-Men films, you know I must be nitpicking. (Because pretty much every X-Men film has that problem!) The movie still has a lot of fun moments and gripping action scenes. Don't be afraid to give this one a try.

The Amazing Spider-Man (2012); I gave 4.5/5, should've given 3/5

What was I smoking? Yeah, Andrew Garfield was alright, the romance was good, the special effects were more advanced than the original trilogy, and the overall tone was less cheesy. But as a whole, Amazing Spider-Man is a mess. Instead of an awkward nerdy loser, Peter Parker is now portrayed as a skateboarding hipster. (I mentioned this in my original review, but didn't make it clear whether that was good or bad. While some might prefer this version of Peter, I wouldn't consider it ideal.) The Lizard sucks, big time. He has pretty much no motivation for being a bad guy, his plan comes out of nowhere (Peter discovers it conveniently edited into a video ready to go on Conners' laptop), and just like most of the Spider-Man movie villains he may or may not have a split personality disorder. In short, the Lizard is forgettable. Did anybody else notice that Peter just gives up the search for his uncle's killer? How about the part where Peter breaks his promise to a dying Captain Stacy to stay away from his daughter? Oh yeah, they also sequel-baited the hell out of this. And we all know how that turned out. Overall, Amazing Spider-Man isn't a horrible movie, but I'd take the original (2002) over it any day.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012); I gave 4/5, should've given 3/5

Bloated: that's what this movie is. There's so much going on, there's so many ethical issues debated, and the thing is just too dang long. Repeated viewings of Dark Knight Rises really shows how boring it can be. And I never thought a movie with Anne Hathaway in a Catwoman outfit could possibly be boring! For a movie with Batman's nickname in the title, where on earth is Batman? He – as Batman, not Bruce Wayne – has probably around 30-35 minutes of screen time in a 165 minute film. The romances come out of nowhere, the super-prison is so lax that even a child was able to escape it, and another child was able to figure out that Bruce Wayne was Batman because... reasons. And worst of all, how did Bruce Wayne make it to a military quarantined city after being stranded on the other side of the world so quickly without anyone noticing? Who cares? Trilogy over.

Iron Man 3 (2013); I gave 4/5, should've given 3.5/5

This movie was pretty good. Maybe not 4/5 good as I said four years ago, but still good. The only thing that's changed for me is that the reveal of who's really behind the Mandarin attacks is a little disappointing. Nevertheless, Iron Man 3 is remains a pretty fun movie that I still enjoy.

Monsters University (2013); I gave 4/5, should've given 3.5/5

Same as above: the film's good, just not as good as I once made it out to be. The plot lines aren't terribly original and since the movie is a prequel, you already know how it's going to end; no matter how hard Mike Wazowski tries to become a scarer you know he's going to fail. Despite this though, Monster University's still alright.

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (2014); I gave 2.5/5, should've given 2/5

You thought the first movie was a mess? Wait until you get a load of this one. This is where the second Spider-Man series became unworkable, just as Spider-Man 3 did for the first series seven years earlier. But I would rather watch that movie than this one because you can at least tell what's going on. In Amazing Spider-Man 2 there are way too many plotlines and they make the series take a turn for the weird. For example, Peter's dad apparently had a secret hidden laboratory in an abandoned subway station for some reason. Electro is basically a cross between the Riddler from Batman Forever and a Care Bears villain. When he first becomes Electro the electricity fixes the gap in his teeth. Seriously. Also, Gwen Stacy is pretty dumb, always throwing herself into dangerous situations. Her death comes as no surprise. The events of the ending five minutes could (and should) have been stretched out and repackaged as the third movie. I mentioned a lot of these problems in my review, but it just recently hit me that they really do impede on the viewers' ability to enjoy the movie and its overall cohesiveness. I was being a little too charitable.

Project Almanac (2015); I gave 2.5/5, should've given 2/5

Speaking of being too charitable... Project what? Not only was this a forgettable movie, but even by found-footage movie standards this flick barely had any effort put into it. From what I remember, the characters were nothing special, just bratty self-centred teenagers willing to manipulate others to get what they want. And how did the chick not realize that the main character dude was manipulating past events in order to score with her? She's a time-traveller too, so how did she miss putting two and two together? If the dude time travels back to a time he was at before, then shouldn't there be two of him in that location at that point in time? How is a time travel machine able to transport people across vast distances? Why are there so many unanswered questions in Project Almanac?

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015); I gave 4.5/5, should've given 4/5

Before you start cursing my name and rioting in the streets, just hear me out. Age of Ultron is good, very good. It's just not 4.5 good. Compare this to the first Avengers movie from 2012. In retrospect, that movie was somewhat standard with a very straightforward, no frills plot, but it deserves a 4.5/5 because it was satisfying to finally see the culmination of several years worth of movies. Seeing all the Marvel characters come together, crack jokes, and kick ass was in itself kickass. Aside from adding a few new characters to the mix and slightly more nuanced plot details, Age of Ultron didn't really build upon what the last movie had established. While Age of Ultron does a lot of things very well, it feels at times like it's just going through the motions. But I still think it's good. OK?

Jurassic World (2015); I gave 3.5/5, should've given 2.5/5

How on earth did this movie become the fourth highest-grossing film of all time? Remember the first Jurassic Park movie? The suspense, the terror, the sense of wonder. This movie throws it all out the window with an extremely predictable plot, tension-free action scenes that lead right where you think they will, and bored main characters who aren't impressed with dinosaurs anymore – possibly because instead of using animatronic dinosaurs for closeups, Jurassic World settles for CG for every shot. If you think that looks bad, just wait until you get a load of the ugly colour palette; everything is graded to blue/grey, making peoples' skin appear very orange-ish. Jurassic World had four writers working on it, which in most cases results in a jumbled and convoluted end product. But in this case, the film ends up being just a dull, predictable rehash.

Straight Outta Compton (2015); I gave 3.5/5, should've given 4/5

Here's another movie I should've given more credit to. The casting, music, directing, and editing were all fantastic and full of energy. Sure, it plays it safe a lot. Sure, it's idealized and romanticized. But it still stands as a compelling entry in the musical biopic genre.

Jason Bourne (2016); I gave 2/5, should've given 1.5/5

Dang. In my original review I called Jason Bourne “a semi-competently made film”. Even that was giving this movie too much credit. Once you've seen this movie, there's no point in ever seeing it again other than to squint at it even harder just so you can fail again to make any sense of those unwatchable action scenes! I forgot to mention that Tommy Lee Jones is in this movie playing the role of... let's face it, Tommy Lee Jones. He's just there doing his same grumpy old man thing. Remember when I said that Matt Damon was “good”? I meant that he was still good at doing action. When it comes to playing the part of the titular agent, he does nothing to add to this character's personality thanks to his extremely sparse dialogue. It's the same problem as with the Bourne Supremacy and the Bourne Ultimatum: there is simply nothing to this character. By now, Jason Bourne isn't compelling at all. This, in combination with the copy-and-paste plot, makes for a bafflingly uncreative and underwhelming comeback movie. It offers nothing that its predecessors didn't. Like I said, there's just no point.

Suicide Squad (2016); I gave 2.5/5, should've given 2/5

My final recommendation for this film remains unchanged. What has changed is that I now see what the critics mean. Suicide Squad is a mess. From the scattershot tone to the overload of exposition, plot points that go nowhere (e.g. Katana's sword is never used to trap the souls of its victims), a jumpy, disjointed narrative, a bunch of nonsense (e.g. how is the team expected to counter Superman-level threats when most of its members don't have real superpowers?), and violence against women presented as humourous and/or sexy – it's quite clear that there were tons of rewrites and significant portions of the film left on the cutting room floor. In some cases this is a good thing; the less we see of Jared Leto's Joker, the better. And making Enchantress, a member of the team, into the main bad guy is just lame and disappointing. Though I guess it does make sense since she's easily the most uncontrollable, craziest, and least trustworthy member of the team. Dangit Amanda Waller, everything in this movie is your fault! Why didn't you get in trouble for this? I'll still commend Suicide Squad for trying something different from the rest of the DC movies, but there's no denying that the final result is faux-edgy, juvenile, and not all that great.