Saturday, 24 March 2018

Movie Review -- Tomb Raider


  Movie adaptations of video games are notorious for their suckitude. Whether it's due to the games' improper interpretation onto the silver screen by people who don't understand what made the game fun to begin with, or if it's the fact that several hours of mood and storytelling have to be compressed into just two hours, films based on games don't score well with critics. But the recent wave of video game films – 2015's Agent 47, and 2016's Assassin's Creed and Warcraft – seem to be giving a second chance to fans of both movies and video games: people like me! So does Tomb Raider buck the trend or does it fall victim to the old Hollywood crap trap? Let's find out.
  Tomb Raider closely follows the plot (or so I'm told) of the 2013 game which served as a reboot of the series. Lara Croft is a gifted young woman and reluctant heir to the Croft estate who decides to undergo a perilous adventure to find out what led to her father's disappearance. It's a pretty standard plot with few surprises. Given that the Tomb Raider games range from supernaturally-driven to being grounded-in-reality, I didn't quite know which direction to expect from this movie. I won't spoil it for you, but I do think the route the filmmakers chose was handled well and left me guessing right up until the film's climax. What wasn't quite so well handled was the ending, which pulls the old sequel-bait trick via a whole lot of last-minute revelations.
  There's also a pre-credits scene where Lara buys some handguns from a pawnshop (which, given the UK's gun control laws, I believe is quite impossible). This scene only serves (1) as a reference to the games and (2) as trailer filler.
  Alicia Vikander does a pretty good job of bringing Lara Croft to life. Lara's character is somewhat bland but Vikander gives her just enough personality to keep her from being dull. Her English accent could've been a bit better, though. Vikander does deserve credit for performing in a very physically demanding role; Lara gets thrown, tossed, and smacked around a lot in Tomb Raider. And yet she hardly ever suffers any serious injuries. She also has the gift of being able to instantly solve weird puzzles she's never seen before. Other decent performances come from Dominic West and Daniel Wu as Richard Croft and Lu Ren respectively. The film's biggest not-so-great performance is from Walton Goggins as the main villain Mathias Vogel, though to be fair this may be more due to the way this character is written. Vogel is completely colourless and without any charisma whatsoever.
  The overall production of Tomb Raider leaves much to be desired. Computer-generated effects are everywhere; there's scarcely a scene after the first 15 minutes that doesn't have them. The environments are a mixed bag as well. There are some scenes that take place in interesting locations – for example, a foot chase across small boats on a busy pier – but other locations (mainly the tombs) are only lightly detailed and without much character.
  Another downer is that most of the fight scenes are presented through that really choppy, incomprehensible editing that 21st century action movies frequently suffer from. I will never understand why directors are so hellbent on preventing their audiences from being able to tell what's going on when two people are fighting!
  And that's Tomb Raider, a thoroughly OK action-adventure film. It isn't as much dumb fun as the original starring Angelina Jolie, but its more serious tone is done well enough and Alicia Vikander is a worthy Lara Croft in her own right. In short, Tomb Raider is easily one of the better video game-to-movie adaptations out there. But, again, that's not saying much.

Grade:

Sunday, 18 March 2018

Ranking Canada's Prime Ministers, Worst to Best


It's been a long time since I tried my hand at a historical article. This'll be fun.
So one month ago the United States celebrated President's Day and as usual the New York Times put out its rankings of all US presidents. Donald Trump was ranked last. While ridiculous (he's only been in office one year!), this hardly comes as a surprise. You know, mainstream media and all. This got me thinking what my own rankings would be if I were to undertake it myself. And that's exactly what I did.
But what kind of patriot would I be if I didn't include my own country in this fun little exercise? That's why this week I'm presenting my rankings of all 23 of Canada's Prime Ministers from worst to best. Here's the guidelines. Each person on this list is judged only on the actions they undertook during their premiership. (For example, Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize won't be taken into consideration because he was only Secretary of State for External Affairs at the time.) For each PM I'll present the reasons why I gave them the rank I did. As you might expect, the short term PM's all ended up at the end of the list, from the 15-23 range.
As one might expect, a list like this is going to be very political and so of course this is all just a matter of opinion. (Having said that, I did study Canadian history in university so I think I know what I'm talking about.) Anyways, disagree if you like.

  1. John Turner (1984, Liberal)
  • Pros: ???
  • Cons: his 79 day-long term was characterized by patronage appointments which he was called out on. His leadership was weak and indecisive.

    22. Joe Clark (1979-80, Progressive Conservative)
  • Pros: ???
  • Cons: served 9 months. Defeated in motion of no confidence on his first budget.

    21. John Abbott (1891-92, Conservative)
  • Pros: Revised the criminal code
  • Cons: served for 17 months. Only took office because John A. MacDonald died and somebody had to take his place. Hated his job. Retired due to ill health.

    20. Mackenzie Bowell (1894-96, Conservative)
  • Pros: ???
  • Cons: served for 17 months. Couldn't handle Manitoba Schools Question, which led to a cabinet revolt. Indecisive.

  1. Justin Trudeau (2015-present, Liberal)
  • Pros: ???
  • Cons: no budget plan whatsoever, pro-multiculturalism, political correctness ad nauseam, openly praised dictatorships of China and Cuba, sees former ISIS combatants as citizens

  1. Kim Campbell (1993, Progressive Conservative)
  • Pros: first and only female PM of Canada; reduced size of cabinet and parliament committees
  • Cons: only served for 4 months, quickly squandered her early popularity

  1. Charles Tupper (1896, Conservative)
  • Pros: ???
  • Cons: his 68-day term is shortest in Canadian history. Took office after parliament had already dissolved, which didn't give him much of a chance. Failed to offer a solution to the Manitoba schools question

  1. Arthur Meighen (1920-21, 1926, Conservative)
  • Pros: ???
  • Cons: served a total of 21 months

  1. John Thompson (1892-1894, Conservative)
  • Pros: helped settle the Bering Sea seal dispute, reformed the criminal code, was anti-annexationist (as all good Canadians should be)
  • Cons: failed to resolve the Manitoba Schools Question, failed to bring Newfoundland into Confederation

  1. Paul Martin (2003-06, Liberal)
  • Pros: heavily involved in the G20
  • Cons: also involved in the Sponsorship Scandal

  1. Richard Bennett (1930-35, Conservative)
  • Pros: workaholic, created CRBC (precursor to CBC), founded the Bank of Canada, donated millions of dollars of his own personal wealth to starving families
  • Cons: had the misfortune of taking office at the beginning of the Great Depression. He dealt with it through ineffective and unpopular half-measures, such as the Relief Camps (which resulted in strikes and riots). His half-hearted attempt at replicating FDR's New Deal was seen as too little too late

  1. Pierre Trudeau (1968-79, 1980-84, Liberal)
  • Pros: tenacious nationalist, repatriated the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Handled the October Crisis well, effectively dissolving the FLQ
  • Cons: cult of personality? Multiculturalism, massively grew the national debt, doled out lots of patronage positions, was never able to get a handle on unemployment and inflation. National Energy Program and other policies alienate Western Canadians. Constitutional disputes alienate Quebecois

  1. Alexander Mackenzie (1873-78, Liberal)
  • Pros: established the Supreme Court, introduced the secret ballot, created the office of Auditor General, promoted honesty/integrity within government
  • Cons: made little progress on the national railway, didn't handle 1873 Depression well, free trade deal with USA was unpopular

  1. William Lyon Mackenzie King (1921-26, 1926-30, 1935-48, Liberal)
  • Pros: longest-serving prime minister, garnered broad support, workaholic, Chanak Crisis. Conducted Second World War, Canada becomes “arsenal of democracy”, ends war as a “middle power”, joins UN
  • Cons: nationalized Bank of Canada, big-government interventionism, beginnings of welfare state, refused to accept Jewish refugees from Europe. Improper use of War Measures Act, Japanese internment/disenfranchisement, Conscription crisis. Occultist who communed with spirits on policy issues

  1. Lester Pearson (1963-68, Liberal)
  • Pros: new national flag, abolished capital punishment, Autopact with the USA, kept Canada out of the Vietnam War
  • Cons: established the Canada Pension Plan, universal healthcare, expanded immigration from 3rd world

  1. Jean Cretien (1993-2003, Liberal)
  • Pros: privatized the CNR, eliminated budget deficits, lowered the national debt, cut taxes, reformed national bureaucracy. Handled the 1995 Quebec Referendum well. Committed Canada to the Afghanistan War but kept it out of the Iraq War
  • Cons: opened floodgates to 3rd world immigration and multiculturalism, “Shawinigan Handshake”, Sponsorship Scandal. Broken election promises

  1. John Diefenbaker (1957-63, Progressive Conservative)
  • Pros: Bill of Rights, restored the vote to status Indians, commitment to NORAD, opposed apartheid in South Africa
  • Cons: Bomarc Missiles Question, mishandled the Cuban Missile Crisis, Coyne Affair

  1. Brian Mulroney (1984-93, Progressive Conservative)
  • Pros: cancelled National Energy Program, privatized crown corporations, reduced government spending, free trade with USA, opposed US intervention in Central America, enacted environmental protection laws, added national parks
  • Cons: under-funded the armed forces, added to the national debt, Airbus Affair. Finances were complicated by early 1990's recession. Alienated Quebec with clumsy attempts at constitutional reform during Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords

  1. Stephen Harper (2006-15, Conservative)
  • Pros: Federal Accountability Act, Softwood Lumber Agreement, increased funding to veterans affairs. Helped Canada weather the late-2000's recession better than most Western nations with such policies as the Economic Action Plan
  • Cons: Quebecois Nation Motion, decreased government transparency, sold arms to Saudi Arabia, made a mountain out of a molehill with the Niqab issue

  1. Robert Borden (1911-20, Conservative, Unionist)
  • Pros: conducted the First World War, leading Canada to greater nationhood in the process with Canada's delegation to the Treaty of Versailles and membership in the League of Nations. Granted women the right to vote
  • Cons: introduced income tax, Wartime Elections Act disenfranchised many. Created the War Measures Act and used it to intern/disenfranchise Ukranian-Canadians. Conscription crisis alienated Quebec. Used violence to put down Winnipeg General Strike

  1. Louis St. Laurent (1948-57, Liberal)
  • Pro: with its “middle power” status Canada maintains active foreign policy with joining NATO, participating in Korean War, helping resolve Suez Crisis. Massive public works projects such as Trans-Canada Highway, Trans-Canada Pipeline, St. Lawrence Seaway. Added Newfoundland & Labrador to confederation. Anti-communist without infringing on liberty. Fiscally conservative (at least in the short-term), decreased the government debt
  • Cons: introduced equalization payments, expanded social welfare programs

  1. Wilfrid Laurier (1896-1911, Liberal)
  • Pros: winner of 4 majority governments, made reciprocity with USA work, upholder of individual liberty. Added Alberta and Saskatchewan to confederation. Came up with peaceful compromises on contentious issues like the Manitoba Schools Question and Canada's involvement in the Boer War. Founded the Royal Canadian Navy. Maintained national unity during period of great changes
  • Cons: naval compromise was unpopular, took away suffrage for status Indians

  1. John A. MacDonald (1867-73, 1878-91, Conservative)
  • Pros: Country's first prime minister. Winner of 6 majority governments, popular with both English- and French-speaking Canadians. Incorporated Rupert's Land into Canadian territory. Added Northwest Territories, Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia to confederation. Put down Red River Rebellion and Northwest Rebellion. Established Northwest Mounted Police (now RCMP), built national railway, fostered a national identity. Nation-building with National Policy
  • Cons: alcoholic, Pacific Scandal. Execution of Louis Riel in 1885 alienated French-Canadians

That about does it. Check back again soon when I rank all US presidents.

Sunday, 11 March 2018

An Announcement: What's Going On

Hey, fellas. Let's chat for a bit. You may have noticed that my output in new content has slowed down a bit in recent months (hence all the old review reposts). The reason? Due to certain changes in my life I now have far less free time than I had before. I know that this may be upsetting to some of you who regularly check in with Arnold's Benediction (if you people really exist).
I apologize for this recent lack in content, but before dismissing me as a lazy tosser who deserves an untimely demise I ask that you please consider the following:

  1. Writing new material for this blog takes time. Even my movie reviews take around two hours to write. This article you're reading right now took about 45 minutes to complete. After coming up with an idea for an article I've got to do preliminary research, I've got to gather and organize my thoughts, plan what I'm going to say, and then once the first draft is done I've got to do one or two edits/proofreads to see if it meets my standards. Even the research can take a long time since it typically involves watching films, playing video games, and reading books and articles in their entirety. I do all these steps because (A) I want to make sure my articles are readable and at least somewhat interesting to you guys, and (B) because I need to make sure that what I'm writing is true and as factual as possible.
  2. I'm not getting paid to do this. Arnold's Benediction is just a hobby for me. If I was making money off of it then I would probably invest more time in providing a steady stream of content. But as it is now, this is and always has been something I do simply for fun. And if you readers get any enjoyment out of the free content I've barfed up on this blog then that's a cool bonus.
  3. I have a full time job and a dwelling to maintain. On top of that I also volunteer once or twice a week. So yeah, my free time is kind of at a premium.
Like I said, I'm sorry that I can't come up with new stuff every single week (though I wish I could). However, having said all this I have been working on something new which will hopefully be ready for next weekend. In the meantime I'll keep reposting old reviews (from the Facebook days) for as long as I can/have to and don't forget that there's always two-and-a-half years' worth of past articles to read on Arnold's Benediction.
Thank you for your patience. I'll see you next time.

Movie Review Repost -- Gravity (2013)


  A good movie that isn't two-and-a-half freakin' hours long? Yes please! Gravity is to space thrillers as Scarface is to crime dramas. It makes Apollo 18 look like a hunk of space garbage (which it is).
  Gravity's story is simple, but engaging. It involves the crew of space shuttle mission STS-157 repairing space telescopes in the Earth's orbit. Unfortunately, they soon find themselves bombarded by debris from the destruction of an old Russian satellite, which destroys their space shuttle. Matt Kowalski and Ryan Stone are the only survivors – as well as the movie's only characters – and must find a way to safely make it back to Earth. We also get to see Stone re-evaluate her current outlook on life. Sandra Bullock plays Ryan Stone, a nervous and withdrawn, yet quick-thinking engineer on her first mission. George Clooney plays Matt Kowalski, a calm and brave veteran astronaut who's equipped with a thruster pack. Both of their performances are excellent. The viewer can really see what's going on inside Stone's head and can sympathize with her easily.
  But where Gravity truly shines is in its cinematography. Without hesitation I can say that this is one of the best-looking movies I've ever seen. Most of the film consists of long, uninterrupted shots that really give the viewer the feeling of isolation in the vastness of space; the opening shot is held continuously for about eight to ten minutes straight. And when the movie wants the viewer to get the same claustrophobic feeling that the astronauts feel, it gives us point-of-view shots from inside their helmets or a wide angle shot of the cramped insides of an abandoned spacecraft. Combine all of this with the amazing special effects and you've got a gorgeous picture that's really a treat to see in 3-D.
  The score is also very effective at building tension. It's very atmospheric and sounds very modern and alien: kind of like The Social Network, but on drugs. I like it.
  The movie tries going for a very realistic approach in portraying what a zero gravity vacuum environment is like. The only thing that kind of bothered me was how simple it seems for Stone and Kowalski to spacewalk between space stations. It only takes them a few minutes to leapfrog between installations. Are they really that close in real life?
  Whatever. Gravity is still a wonder of space cinema. It has great acting, effects, music, and camerawork. It's the best movie I've seen so far this year. If you're the least bit interested, then go watch it. And make sure it's in 3-D.

Rating: five stars out of five!

Saturday, 24 February 2018

Movie Review Repost -- Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol (2012)

Hey, guys! Didn't have time to write anything this week. You know what that means: a repost of a previous review from the Facebook days. This time we're taking a look back at the first movie I ever gave five stars to: Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. To my regret I haven't seen this film since it hit theatres, but I remember it being really fun and I love to see it again sometime.

  Wow. This movie is incredible. I'm going to try to keep this short to give you plenty of time to do what I think you should be doing, which is watching the movie! Seriously: go watch it.
  Mission Impossible 4 has superb acting, brilliant action scenes, and a solid plot. Simply put, this movie is a ton of fun to watch. The plot centres around agent Ethan Hunt and his team as they try to stop a madman who has stolen Russian nuclear launch codes from starting a nuclear war. The action scenes include a prison riot in Moscow, a chase scene in Budapest, a fight scene in an automated parking garage, and a car chase scene in the middle of a sandstorm. My favourite scene is where Hunt has to climb the outside of the Burj Khalifa, the tallest building ever made. This is where you start to notice how amazing the editing is, with sickening camera angles and highly effective sound effects. Thanks to the IMAX that this movie was shot in, you will get vertigo like you wouldn't believe. Just the thought of watching this scene in 3-D makes me feel sick.
  As I mentioned earlier, the acting is some of the finest that action movies have to offer. Tom Cruise continues his role as the courageous Ethan Hunt. Jeremy Renner portrays agent Brandt: badass. The beautiful Paula Patton is agent Jane Carter, who is out for revenge for the murder of her lover. Lastly, we have Simon Pegg as Benji, the quirky, funny computer geek.
  One of the only things wrong that I can think of is the confusing and just downright dumb opening credits. But it's only the opening credits, so really, who cares? This isn't a perfect movie, but any cons it may have are far outweighed by its pros. Anyone who likes action movies must see Ghost Protocol.
  Final Rating: Five stars out of five!

Saturday, 17 February 2018

Movie Review Repost -- Ant-Man (2015)

Hey, folks. Sorry I missed last week; it's been a very busy time for me. So Black Panther is out this week aaaaaaaaaaaand I'm not planning on seeing it. I'm getting pretty close to burnt out when it comes to Marvel superhero movies. There's so freakin' many of them and they're all so similar in structure (and increasingly the same in tone as of late) that they're all starting to blend together. Plus Black Panther is a character I've never been all that interested in. So for this week let's take a look back at another Marvel superhero film I reviewed back in 2015: Ant-Man. It's amusing to look back and see that even back then I was starting to grow weary of the super-flicks! Though I haven't seen this one since but I wouldn't mind watching it again.


  It's been, like, two months since I've seen a Marvel superhero movie! I need more, dangit! Not seeing them leaves me feeling... antsy. OK, to be serious I wasn't terribly concerned with going to see Ant-Man, at first. So how did Marvel Studios make this one any different from the other dozens of hero flicks they've made this century? Let's find out!
  The story follows Scott Lang, an ex-con who, after a run-in with Dr. Hank Pym, becomes involved in an industrial heist that could have global consequences. It's a fun ride that also has some clever tie-ins to the greater Marvel cinematic universe. The premise of men shrinking size leads to a few great action set pieces in some rather imaginative locations. In a welcome change from most of the other Marvel films, Ant-Man has an appropriately smaller scope and doesn't take itself quite as seriously. This leads to the film having a more comedic tone that works brilliantly.
  All around, the acting is great. Paul Rudd makes a very funny and likeable main character. Corey Stoll – who reminds me a lot of Telly Savalas – delivers a fine performance as the main villain, Darren Cross. We're also given a fun group of sidekick characters as well, which even includes Michael Peña.
  Lastly, Ant-Man is a good-looking movie as well. The dazzling special effects, the intuitive slow-motion, and (if you're lucky enough to get it) the radiant 3-D make this movie a real treat for the eyes.
  All in all, Ant-Man is a fun addition to the annals of Marvel filmdom thanks to it's lighthearted nature and humour. And since it's eponymous character isn't exactly known as the coolest of superheroes, this may be the best that can possibly be done with him.

Rating: four out of five.

Sunday, 4 February 2018

Top 20 Good Parts of Bad Movies, Part 2

  1. The Battle of Britain in Pearl Harbor (2001)
Remember in Part 1 where I unfavourably compared Passchendaele to Pearl Harbor? The time has come to talk about Pearl Harbor itself; it's a pretty bad movie. It's a sappy by-the-numbers romance with weird dialogue and the type of logic that would exist in an elementary school student's short story. The titular battle scene could've been great if it weren't for (1) the historical inaccuracies, (2) the US sailors are incompetent and helpless, (3) the audience isn't given time to get attached to the servicemen and as such won't be invested in what happens to them, and (4) much of the focus of the attack scene is given to the fictional characters whose actions are only loosely based on true events. Having said all that, the one aerial battle scene with Rafe McCawley over the English Channel is pretty good (he volunteers to join the RAF, which in real life wasn't allowed to active USAF pilots) even if it is fictional. It's an intense, thrilling scene that just goes to show that director Michael Bay can do a decent action scene every once in a while.

  1. Leonardo DiCaprio in J. Edgar (2011)
It's no secret that Leonardo DiCaprio is one of this generation's best actors. But it wasn't until 2016 that he finally won the Academy Award for best actor (for The Revenant), which means that before then we got performances like this one in which he tried Oscar-baiting so hard but to no avail. DiCaprio tries so hard to go for gold – in fact one could be forgiven for thinking the word is spelled “Oscurbate” – but the film it's in just isn't interesting at all! I must confess, I found J. Edgar to be so boring that I couldn't finish it; I quit at about the 45 minute mark. And I'm not a guy who usually quits watching stuff due to boredom (I made it all they way through the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy miniseries, for cryin' out loud!). But what do you expect when you're watching a movie about a dull long-serving bureaucrat?
And speaking of Leo DiCaprio...

  1. The soundtrack to Before the Flood (2016)
I stand firmly against the commonly held misbelief that celebrities know what's best for us. Celebrities live in a completely different world from us normal folks and lead very different lifestyles than ours; they don't have to worry about the same things us commoners do and so their political advice and opinions are unrelatable at best and nakedly cynical at worst. (For example, I don't want some super-rich late-night talk show host who can afford to airlift his family to any hospital in the world to get the best medical treatment money can buy lecturing me on which political candidate will support a half-assed public healthcare service.) Additionally, celebrities certainly don't hold any moral high ground, as their never-ending stream of scandals will attest. Honestly, I could write a whole article on this topic but I'll just get to the point: Leonardo DiCaprio is not someone to lecture us on climate change. The man is notorious for his obscene overuse of private flights – which burn more fossil fuels than dozens of ordinary people will burn throughout their lives – and his affinity for hanging out with Arab royalty (ie. oil barons) on giant, diesel-guzzling luxury yachts. Apart from that, Before the Flood itself is a terrible argument. Not much scientific evidence is presented, not a single counter-viewpoint is put forth. For example, the Athabasca oil sands surface mine is shown to demonstrate how oil sand extraction is ugly and scars the landscape when in reality those mines were opened in the 1960's and 1970's and only about 10% of the Canadian oil sands are shallow enough to be mined in this way. It's pure and simple propaganda. But at least the music is nice. For all its faults, Before the Flood has one of the best soundtracks I've ever heard in a movie. The mix of ambient electronic/experimental scoring from the likes of Mogwai, Gustavo Santaolalla, and Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross sets up an organic, introspective, and cerebral atmosphere that deserved a better film. My recommendation: listen to the soundtrack, skip the movie.

  1. Private Witt's death in The Thin Red Line (1998)
OK for the record, Thin Red Line isn't a terrible movie, but it is a very disappointing one. I went into it hearing that it was one of the greatest war films ever made. But what I got was an almost 3 hour snoozefest where director Terrence Malick periodically forgot he was making a war film and instead made a bunch of nonsequitur dream-like, abstract inner reflection bullcrap, the same kind of bullcrap that made Malick's The Tree of Life (2011) utterly unwatchable to me. One of the most annoying parts of Thin Red Line is this Pvt. Witt character. Played by Jim Caviezel, Witt is a frequent source of the whole shoe-gazing boredom that pervades the whole film. He's a total slacker hippie loser who makes you wonder why he ever joined the army in the first place. The only part of Thin Red Line that made me stand up, pump my fist, and shout “yeah!” was the part where Witt freakin' dies! That may sound callous of me, but unless you've seen this movie you have no idea how irritating this dude was. They even made it a heroic death too, so kudos there.

  1. The possible trolling of Saving Christmas (2014)
Saving Christmas is a pretty bad movie, even by the standards of Christian movies. It's a shoddily put together load of faux-festive materialistim and weird conspiracy theories pumped full of padding in an effort to barely scrape the threshold of feature-length (79 minutes). Some of the theories put forth in this film are so out there and held together with only the thinnest of logical explanations, like how stacks of presents under the tree symbolize the skyline of New Jerusalem (because boxes are the same shape as buildings, you see). And yet, consider for a moment that perhaps none of this was ever meant to be taken seriously and that the audience is just being screwed with. What if Kirk Cameron is actually just trolling us and that this movie is really just an elaborate satire of the War on Christmas? If this is true then Kirk Cameron might just be a comedic genius the likes of which we haven't seen since Andy Kaufman himself!...or it might just be a load of crap. Who knows?

  1. Jack Black as Slip in The NeverEnding Story III (1994)
I really like Jack Black. He's one of those rare actors who makes good movies better and bad movies watchable. He's pretty much the only good part of NeverEnding Story III, a sad little sequel that really had nothing to add to its series and was clearly made just to earn a quick buck. But Black's rendition of Slip, the school bully, is truly something to admire. He plays this leather-clad, monobrowed punk villain like some kind of elaborate mastermind; a combination of Kahn and Blofeld. And he clearly revels in it. Jack Black gets so into this role and has so much fun that the audience can't help but feel it too. Like Michael Ironside in Highlander II, Jack Black is in his own little world with this one and it makes for some great entertainment.

  1. Meat Loaf in To Catch a Yeti (1995)
Now we get into the truly awful stuff, starting with To Catch a Yeti, a movie whose quality is pitiful even by the standards of made-for-TV children's films. The plot and characters are forgettable, all problems are solved within minutes (mostly by random chance and not any actual thinking on part of the characters), the special effects don't deserve the moniker “special”, and the acting is almost uniformly bad. The reason I say almost is because the one bright spot in the whole film is Meat Loaf's performance as Big Jake Grizzly, a grumpy big game hunter. Similar to Jack Black in NeverEnding Story III, Meat Loaf plays a riveting villain, but in this film he brings a surprising amount of intensity found nowhere else. He also gives the irritating bad guy kid his comeuppance at the end.

  1. Matthew Lillard as Shaggy in Scooby-Doo (2002)
Let's face it, Shaggy is the best character in any Scooby-Doo show or movie. He's by far the most fun and most memorable of the Mystery Machine bunch. And so it's only fitting that he is the only good part of the live-action Scooby-Doo film from 2002. Matthew Lillard – who apparently watched as many episodes of the show as he could before filming began – is spot on in the role of the laid-back, lanky, cowardly slacker/jokester Shaggy. His speech and mannerisms are uncanny; if you're patient enough then the film might be worth watching just to see the Shagster brought to life. Since 2002, Lillard has gone on to play and voice Shaggy in subsequent Scooby-Doo media so I guess some lasting good came out of it. And let's not overlook the fact that if it weren't for Lillard the role likely would've gone to either Jim Carrey or Mike Myers. That fact alone is enough to earn this actor's efforts a spot on this list.

  1. Al Pacino as himself in Jack and Jill (2011)
Yeah, yeah. We all knew this was coming. Who hasn't heard of Jack and Jill's legendary awfulness? Is there anyone who doesn't immediately think “disaster” when they hear of a Happy Madison comedy in which Adam Sandler plays identical twins, one of them female? (Fun fact: this is impossible because identical twins are almost always the same sex. There've been a few confirmed cases of boy/girl identical twins being born, but each time the girl is born with Turner Syndrome. I really hope that this wasn't what Jack and Jill was going for!) Apart from its stupid premise it suffers from the usual Sandler comedy problems: the humour is dumb and mean-spirited, the plot is directionless, the child characters are creepy, the tone shifts wildly between low-brow comedy and sentimental schmaltziness, and Sandler's character is an unlikable jackass who also serves as Sandler's self-insert fan fiction. But the one thing that stands out from it all is Al Pacino playing himself, giving his all in a performance where he really didn't have to. Sure it's sad to see such an accomplished actor in a film like this, but he really commits to portraying an intense version of himself who is so obsessed with acting that he's gone a little bit crazy. This affords the film a few genuinely decent gags. This includes the last spoken lines of the film, uttered by Pacino himself: “This must never be seen by anyone... All copies: destroy them!” I'd like to think this is an instruction to the audience as to what should be done with their copy of Jack and Jill.

  1. Michael Chiklis as John Belushi in Wired (1989)
If you've never heard of Wired, then allow me to fill you in. Wired is a biopic of the “laughs and times” of comedian John Belushi who died of a drug overdose in 1982 at age 33. It's pretty freakin' terrible. It's a low budget, tone-deaf pile of trash that plays like a melodramatic PSA about Hollywood drug abuse. Wired offers little insight about its subject and focuses way too much on his addictions. The anti-drug stuff isn't always handled well and mostly consists of characters yelling at John to stop doing drugs. In other words, the film lectures a man who is dead. And we haven't even gotten to the part where Belushi's ghost/corpse lies screaming during his own autopsy delivered by sushi chef as John's guardian angel dances around. Yep, that happens. I could go on about how much truly awful stuff is in Wired but I'll just cut to the chase: Michael Chiklis is outrageously good in this film. He's got John Belushi's manic energy, his mannerisms, and even his appearance down to a T. He impersonates Belushi so well that it makes you a bit sad that that actual comedian isn't around any more. It's a performance that definitely deserved a better movie than this. In fact Wired was so controversial when it came out that it kind of wrecked Chiklis' career for a couple years, which is a shame. It's not his fault the movie was crap!