2018 Year in Review

The year is almost over and I'd like to take a moment to reflect on the films that came out in 2018. To clarify, I'm talking about the films that I saw in 2018 (I can't fairly comment on ones I haven't seen!). I saw 14 new movies in theatres this year (one less than last year) and whereas in 2017 I ended up watching a bunch of good ones, this year I saw a whole lot of OK ones and a few disappointing ones. To illustrate, look at the average stars I gave per film: 3.8 for 2017 and 3.4 for 2018. While this isn't the lowest stars average I've awarded in a year – that distinction goes to 2011, 2.9 stars on average – it does indicate that there were a lot of films I reviewed this year that were around three to three-and-a-half. It just seems that there were fewer standout films that I ended up seeing; less spectacular ones and less awful ones. But today I'm going to give a brief overview about the movies this year that did stand out to me.

Best movie: Mission Impossible: Fallout

In a movie series that only seems to get better with age, Fallout is a blast. Loaded with those high-octane action scenes that make you hold your breath, this sixth Mission Impossible film maintains the same level of intensity as at least its two predecessors did. Tom Cruise turns in another great performance as Ethan Hunt, the fearless IMF agent who is basically Captain America without the shield. Costars Simon Pegg, Henry Cavill, Rebecca Ferguson, and Ving Rhames are great additions as well and the story nicely ties in with that of previous instalments. The only negative I can say is that Fallout doesn't always ace it when it goes for emotional moments. That complaint aside, it's still a fine action film.

Runner up: Avengers: Infinity War

Worst movie: Solo: A Star Wars Story

Don't get me wrong, Solo isn't a terrible movie but it is a very dull and forgettable one that I have no cause to ever watch again. Imagine The Last Jedi but without all the cool stuff and also without all the (most) aggravating stuff, and that's more-or-less Solo in a nutshell. A lacklustre story (that is barely self-contained), dull characters, and Hollywood's inescapable political agenda make this a film that's difficult to admire in spite of its jaw-dropping budget. It's clear that Disney didn't make this film because they were artistically compelled to, not because they had an epic story to share or something new to offer. They put it out simply because they could – or rather they had to considering all the money that was sunk into this black hole of a project. For the first time in years a December will go by without a new Star Wars movie being released and considering the current state of the franchise I think that might be a good thing.

Runner up: Venom

Most disappointing movie: Venom

A Venom movie is not an idea that was doomed from the start. Who wouldn't want to see one of Spider-Man's most dangerous and ruthless foes given life on the big screen? Two months later, and I feel as if I still haven't seen such a thing. What we ended up with was an edited-for-TV buddy action movie in which Venom isn't even a villain! But when you've got a film that has a generic script full of plot holes, an odd choice of lead actor, a conflicting tone, and dismal special effects I guess you've gotta take what you can get. The film is certainly watchable and if you've never heard of the Venom character before then you probably won't be too offended by its missteps. But from where I'm sitting Venom was not the film it should've been. It should have had an R rating, a grittier tone, and (preferably) some relation to the comics it's based on. What a shame.

Runner up: The Girl in the Spider's Web

Previous Years' Rundown

You know, just for the heck of it I'm going to give you a quick rundown of how I viewed each years' movies since 2011 (the year I began writing film reviews). Here's a brief list of the previous seven years' best movies, most disappointing movies, and worst movies (or in the case of those marked with an *asterisk, the least-good movie I saw that year).

Year	# films reviewed	Average stars /5	Best	Worst	Most Disappointing
2011	7	2.9	Captain America: First Avenger	30 Minutes or Less	Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides
2012	10	3.7	Looper	* The Bourne Legacy	The Dark Knight Rises
2013	10	3.1	Gravity	After Earth	Thor: The Dark World
2014	13	3.4	Interstellar	Transformers: Age of Extinction	Amazing Spider-Man 2
2015	13	3.8	Mad Max: Fury Road	Project Almanac	Halo: Nightfall
2016	15	3.1	The Revenant	God's Not Dead 2	Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
2017	15	3.8	Blade Runner 2049	Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales	Star Wars Episode VIII: The Last Jedi

Movie Review -- Bohemian Rhapsody

  So I finally got around to watching Bohemian Rhapsody and to my great disappointment it wasn't a two-hour music video for the song of the same name. Talk about false advertising! Instead it's a biopic about Queen and its lead singer Freddie Mercury. So can this movie spread its wings and breakthru or will it bite the dust? Let's check it out.

  So yeah, as stated above the film follows Mercury from his days as a baggage handler at Heathrow Airport all the way to his performance with Queen at 1985's Live Aid at Wembley Stadium. And yeah that's about all there is to say about the plot. It covers a few major events of the band's life up to 1985, detailing the origins of their most popular songs interspersed with Mercury's relationships and sexuality. It is, regrettably, a lot of surface-level stuff. I didn't know all that much about Queen before seeing this film and after seeing it I still don't feel as if I know all that much about them.

  Apparently there's also a lot of historical inaccuracies to Bohemian Rhapsody. For example, in real life Freddie Mercury didn't learn that he had HIV until after Live Aid, not before. Also Queen never broke up, which means that Live Aid wasn't really a reunion gig as the movie suggests. If you're like me and you're not overly familiar with Queen's history then these stone cold crazy glitches shouldn't bother you too much (I had to look these up). I can accept biopics often require little changes to real life stories in order to streamline events into movie script material. But if you're a big fan of Queen then you may be disappointed that the band's history was oversimplified to this degree. Plus Bohemian Rhapsody suffers from that old familiar problem of a lot of musical biographies: anyone who's familiar at all with the subject already knows how the story is going to end.

  In the director's chair we've got Brian Singer and his work here is kind of a mixed bag. One can't deny how well-shot, energetic, and fun the concert scenes are but on the other hand there are a bunch of scenes that overstay their welcome. For example the movie's climax is Queen's performance at Live Aid and this legendary 21-minute set is almost fully recreated (I think they only left out “Crazy Little Thing Called Love” and “We Will Rock You”). But as good as this scene is, I couldn't help but wonder is it over yet?

  As one might expect of a Queen movie the main character is Freddie Mercury, played by Rami Malek. Malek does a fantastic job with his somewhat weird performance and it definitely grows on you after a while, as Freddie becomes more comfortable with himself as the film goes on. The other characters are alright although I suspect that some of them fall prey to the aforementioned oversimplification, especially with regards to the film's antagonist.

  So that's Bohemian Rhapsody, an ordinary musical biopic that, while lacking in staying power, does manage to have some scenes of genuine fun. If you're already a hardcore Queen fan then you may end up going slightly mad at this one vision. For everyone else who's thinking about seeing it, don't stop now because it will rock you.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Overlord

  Remember Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter? Wasn't that movie cool? Don't you wish there were more historical-fantasy movies like that that didn't take themselves so seriously and instead just focused on being fun? Fear not, comrades, because Overlord has got you covered. Covered in the blood and guts of Nazi scum, that is!

  Overlord takes place on the eve of D-Day and follows a squad of American paratroopers dropping into France to assist with the Allied invasion at Normandy. After an exhilarating opening scene – that reminds me of Band of Brothers, but way more scary – the men find themselves approaching their objective, but they soon stumble upon a more gruesome discovery. Gruesomeness and violence follows, the good old typical Nazisploitation stuff.

  Julius Avery directs this frightening adventure and he does horror well. The tone shifts handily between exciting action, mild humour, uneasy suspense, and gripping tension in this film that carries itself seriously but not too seriously. Overlord is also a rather gory film and its special effects get the point across nicely.

  Needless to say, a film about Nazi supersoldier experiments gone wrong requires a little suspension of disbelief. Overlord isn't a historically accurate film by any means, especially when you consider that (A) the US Army in this film isn't segregated, (B) it apparently only took these troops three months to go from unenlisted civilians to fully trained, combat-ready soldiers on the front lines, and (C) wounded troops are seemingly left on the front lines to just tough it out.

  The film also leaves us with a few unanswered questions, such as why paratroopers in the middle of enemy territory aren't being quiet. What happened to the experimented people that weren't in the church, like the aunt? Or was the aunt the only one the Germans released? Why did that German motorcyclist return to his comrades when he knew he really shouldn't have?

  In spite of these shortcomings, Overlord remains a thrilling experience well worth the time of anyone who likes horror movies, war movies, science fiction movies, B-movies, or any combination thereof. It's a lot of fun and it's the closest we're going to get to a Wolfenstein movie. I try not to publish really short reviews like this but there really isn't much else to say about Overlord. It's a good film and if it sounds interesting to you then you oughta watch it.

Grade:

Movie Review -- The Girl in the Spider's Web

  Remember back in my Sicario: Day of the Soldado review (this past July) I said that there were three movies this year – Sicario 2, Tomb Raider, and Venom – I was going to watch out of pure curiosity in how the studios were going to pull them off? It turns out that I should've made that number four instead because as I found out only a couple months ago another movie was being made of the Millennium series of books, The Girl in the Spider's Web. Anyone who reads Arnold's Benediction knows that 2011's The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is one of my favourite movies ever. Can The Girl in the Spider's Web match the high standard the previous film established? Let's take a look.

  TGITSW serves as a soft reboot of TGWTDT, with an all-new cast, with a new director and crew, and taking place at least three years after the original (with a slight retcon of Lisbeth Salander's backstory). Mikael Blomkvist and Lisbeth Salander have become estranged after he cashed in on his experiences with her to publish some best-selling articles that may or may not have made her famous (the movie doesn't really make it clear). But the two must now work together to stop some bad guys from stealing some computer program that allows its user to hack into the world's missile control systems. That's right, the series has made the jump from mystery-thriller to espionage-action-thriller. Admittedly, I have not read the book this film is based on but this type of action story seems very out of place when compared to Dragon Tattoo. I've seen people unfavourably comparing Spider's Web to 2016's Jason Bourne and while I don't think this film is nearly that dull it is easy to see similarities in tone, the focus mostly on one character (in this film Blomkvist has been reduced to a mere side character in favour of Lisbeth), and in the action scenes. It's a plot that features tons of vibrating phones, people not paying attention to things in plain sight, and momentary lapses of judgment from characters who are supposed to be smart. For example, why did that whiz kid who just saw [SPOILER] die answer a phone call from [SPOILER] even though he knows that dangerous people are trying to find him? In the words of Carl Brutananadilewski, “you're stupid for a genius.”

  As mentioned earlier, Lisbeth is the sole main character this time around and she's played by Claire Foy. While Foy's performance isn't as haunting or nuanced as Rooney Mara's in Dragon Tattoo, it's still very well done. Instead of a private investigator who keeps to herself, Lisbeth is now a hacker-for-hire vigilante who goes out of her way to reap vengeance on men who mistreat women. The new version of Blomkvist, portrayed by Sverrir Gudnason, is way younger and less prominent than in previous movies. Gudnason's performance is OK, I guess. The only other character of note is the main villain who is rather dull and barely makes any facial expressions (possibly due to her hard-to-spot eyebrows).

  Like a lot of reboots, TGITSW cleans house. Without the likes of David Fincher, Jeff Cronenweth, Trent Reznor, and Atticus Ross Spider's Web's cinematography, compositions, and musical scoring have a very different, much less pronounced style. Opening credits aside, director Fede Alvarez does his own thing. Really the only things of note are a couple long tracking shots, plentiful handheld camera shots, and shaky fight scenes with really choppy editing (speaking of Bourne...).

  All in all, The Girl in the Spider's Web reminds me a lot of Sicario 2 in that they're both artistically downgraded, action-packed sequels to critically lauded, stylish films; they don't stack up with the originals but are entertaining enough. But on the other hand Spider's Web – although I did enjoy it – was only half as captivating as Dragon Tattoo and is a debatably unnecessary film. I don't think audiences are necessarily against another Millennium film, they probably just wanted Fincher to direct it and they wanted it six years ago when the books were still popular. That might explain why Spider's Web is doing so badly at the box office; the cinema was about 3/4 empty when I saw it on opening night! Unfortunately it seems like the time for more English-language Millennium films has come and gone and that this series' continuation can officially be written off as a lost cause.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Halloween (2018)

  Happy Halloween, folks. It's that time of year when greedy kids are given candy, when lazy adults sit around and watch horror movies, and it's also the night he came home!... for the tenth time. Yes, this year we get to see the eleventh film (Michael Myers wasn't in the third movie) of the legendary Halloween franchise of slasher films, and I'm psyched. For over a decade I've been a fan of the Halloween movies and this is the first one I've gotten to see in theatres. The Halloween films are infamous for their nonsensical chronology – in fact this is the third film in the franchise simply entitled “Halloween” – but can the 2018 instalment make you forget about all that and keep you entertained while honouring the series' legacy? Let's find out!

  So the deal with Halloween (2018) is that it is the only film taking place after the 1978 original Halloween (making this at least the fifth possible timeline in the series. I'm writing an article on this!) and is appropriately set 40 years later. As such the only recurring characters from the first film are Laurie Strode and Michael Myers and it suits this film just fine. This film more-or-less serves as a return to form for the series. Gone is the weird cult stuff, gone are the unimaginative backstories, and gone are the reality shows and celebrity guest appearances. Halloween is a back to basics approach to slasher movies which doesn't quite nail the chilling atmosphere of the original but it at least tries. I'd say its tone and (to some extent) story are comparable to Halloween (1978) and Halloween 4 (1988).    After 40 years in a mental institution Michael escapes and continues his murderous ways, but fortunately Laurie Strode, the sole survivor of his 1978 killing spree, has been spending the past 40 years meticulously preparing for his return, much to the detriment of her personal life. It's a film that includes plenty of nods to the original as well as some unique setups of its own, such as a killing in a yard covered in motion-activated lights or Michael hiding in a room full of mannequins. It's a film full of tense scenes, from the opening scene to the final battle. This is helped by the uneasy musical scoring from John Carpenter himself, solidly building upon the established classic sound of the series. All this combines to make this year's Halloween one of the scariest entries of the series. Rob Zombie's two Halloween films (2007 and 2009) were pretty scary but they suffered from excessive violence and gore whereas this new one has the benefit of not being so over the top (though it is brutal at times).

  As mentioned before, there are two returning characters. The first, Laurie, is marvellously played once again by Jamie Lee Curtis. A slightly unhinged badass, she's let her 1978 experience drive her into obsession. Taking on an air of creepiness similar to Michael's in the first film, she's now a grandmother who will do anything to protect her family from the masked killer. Nick Castle returns to the role of Michael Myers after 40 years in a chilling, silent performance. I like how the film acknowledges that Myers has aged but without showing his full face. After all these years Michael is still a creatively freaky and effective murderer. The other character of note is Dr. Ranbir Sartain (played by Haluk Bilginer), Myers' psychiatrist. He's the obsessed, intense doctor who knows Michael too well. In the words of Laurie, he's basically the new Loomis... sort of.

  So that's Halloween, the one one from 2018. It's a thrilling addition to the franchise which pays homage to what made the classic entries in the series so great to begin with. While not as great as the original that started it all, I would say Halloween is possibly the best sequel of this undying franchise. Much like its star killer, Halloween will take you straight to the point and leave you speechless.

Grade:

Movie Review -- Venom

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

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

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

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

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

Grade:

All-Time Team: The Loser Franchises (1967-82)

  The 2018-19 hockey season has begun and as promised we're taking a look at the all-time (heh heh) best that can be uncovered from what I like to call the loser franchises of NHL history, four teams whose existence was brief and woefully unsuccessful. Those teams are the California Golden Seals, the Kansas City Scouts, the Cleveland Barons, and the Colorado Rockies. (Just for the record I was considering including the Atlanta Flames but as it turns out they were a respectable team. Maybe some other time.) As per usual we'll take a brief – in this case very brief – look at each team's history before getting down to brass tax.

California Golden Seals (1967-76)

  The Seals were a part of the NHL's original expansion in 1967 when the league doubled from six teams to twelve. Although the Oakland-based club was the longest-lived of the four loser franchises it was one of the more pathetic teams to have existed in the NHL. In its nine seasons it only made the playoffs twice – knocked out in the first round both times – and ended up with a total winning percentage of 0.343. There were a few gifted Seals players over the years but their abilities were wasted on a team that lacked depth and couldn't come up with a consistent roster. In fact, Seals players frequently rank among the lowest plus-minus rated players in league history. Really they only thing the Seals led the league in was name changes. At first they were called the California Seals, then the Oakland Seals, then for just two games they were known as the Bay Area Seals before settling for good on California Golden Seals. They also changed their colours/uniforms/logo during their brief existence, which along with the name changes suggests that management was indecisive and shaky. Today the Golden Seals are mostly remembered for handing over Guy LaFleur (draft pick) to the Canadiens in one of the worst trades ever, and for the fact that they were the first team to showcase players names on the backs of their jerseys. The last remaining former Seals player in the NHL was Dennis Maruk and he retired in 1989.

Cleveland Barons (1976-78)

  After plans for a new Seals arena in San Francisco were scrapped the NHL greenlighted the franchise's relocation to Cleveland. The team played at the Richfield Coliseum, the highest capacity arena in the league at the time, but were barely able to fill half of it due to a constant lack of promotion and public visibility. In fact, attendance was even worse than it had been in California. From the start the Barons were rather strapped for cash, finishing its first season while narrowly avoiding a players strike due to missed payrolls. Oh yeah, and the hockey sucked too. In its two seasons the Barons managed a winning percentage of 0.375 and zero playoff appearances. In 1978 the league approved a merger between Cleveland and the Minnesota North Stars, another expansion franchise that was facing financial difficulty. The integrated team remained in Minnesota and kept the Stars' colours, uniform, and name. Since then the Cleveland Barons have become largely forgotten amongst hockey fans (even though they had the least-bad winning percentage and goal differential of this group of 4 teams). Curiously, Dennis Maruk was also the last active Barons player – in addition to the last Seals player – in the NHL.

Kansas City Scouts (1974-76)

  You thought the California Seals were bad? The Kansas City Scouts will put you to sleep. The Scouts entered the league in 1974 along with the Washington Capitals. Aaaaaaaaand big surprise, they were brutal. The Scouts' inaugural season was painful enough but their second season ended in a 44 game stretch in which they only won a single game! The Capitals didn't fare much better. This is mostly due to the fact that a rival hockey league, the WHA, had recently started up in 1972 stretching the pool of available hockey talent thin. In two seasons the Scouts managed only 27 victories in 160 games (for a comical 0.240 win percentage), went through three head coaches, and averaged only 8218 attendees per game (less than half the Kemper Arena's capacity). At the end of the 2^nd season the team was sold and moved to Denver to become the Colorado Rockies. Just like the Barons the Scouts have pretty much faded into obscurity in the hockey world. Wilf Paiement was the last former Scouts player in the NHL and he retired in 1988.

Colorado Rockies (1976-82)

  And now to arguably the best (i.e. the least worst) of the loser teams. The Colorado Rockies are certainly the most well-known of this unfortunate lot. I guess that's still not saying much. After moving from Kansas City the Rockies spent six seasons in Denver, making only one playoff appearance – only because they were in a pathetically weak division – in which they were swept in two games. Though it did have a few talented stars here and there the team suffered from a chronic lack of depth and partook in some lousy trades. In spite of its instability (like revolving door coaches) the team did have a loyal following and attendance was pretty good. In 1982, the Rockies were sold and moved to New Jersey where they were renamed the Devils. 1996 saw the retirement of Joe Cirella, the NHL's last remaining former Rockies player. NHL hockey returned to Denver when the Quebec Nordiques moved over to become the Colorado Avalanche in 1995, but many hockey fans today remember the Rockies. If you ask me, it's probably because of their sweet jerseys.

  And now for the assembly of these teams' all-time best players. I'm going to come right out and admit that this team kind of sucks. I tried relaxing the minimum number of total games played with any of these four franchises to 150 (instead of the usual 200-250) and still the pickings were slim. As per usual only these men's achievements with these four teams will count for consideration on this roster. So that means that there will be no Lanny McDonald to be found here. What a shame.

Forwards

L-R: Maruk, Paiement, Johnston

Left Wing	Centre	Right Wing
Joey Johnston (CAL 1971-75)	Dennis Maruk (CAL 1975-76, CLE 1976-78)	Wilf Paiement (KAN 1974-76, COL 1976-80)
Gary Croteau (CAL 1970-74, KAN 1974-76, COL 1976-80)	Dave Gardner (CAL 1974-76, CLE 1976-78)	Al MacAdam (CAL 1974-76, CLE 1976-78)
Gerry Ehman (CAL 1967-71)	Ivan Boldirev (CAL 1971-74)	Bill Hicke (CAL 1967-71)
Gary Jarrett (CAL 1968-72)	Merlin Malinowski (COL 1978-82)	Reggie Leach (CAL 1972-74)

In my opinion the best player available from these teams (who played at least 150 games) is Wilf Paiement, a decent two-way winger who could make plays and fight. In his formative years with the Seals and Barons, Dennis Maurk was already making a name for himself as an offensive threat (he was also included on my all-time Capitals lineup) . To their left is the capable playmaker Joey Johnston. Honestly, the rest of the guys here are just passers and skaters mostly devoid of any physicality or defensiveness. Like I said, pickings were slim. The most I can say is that Reggie Leach was just beginning to blossom into the goal-scoring machine he would later become with the Philadelphia Flyers with his back-to-back 20 goal seasons. In fact a lot of the guys here did better with other teams!

Honourable mention: Walt McKechnie

Defencemen

L-R: Ramage, Mattiussi

Rob Ramage (COL 1979-82)	Rick Hampton (CAL 1974-76, CLE 1976-78)
Dick Mattiussi (CAL 1968-71)	Carol Vadnais (CAL 1968-72)
Mike Kitchen (COL 1976-82)	Ted McAneely (CAL 1972-74)

This team's defensive corps seems a bit better staffed than its forward lines. With the first pairing we have Rob Ramage the hard-nosed, playmaking grinder and Rick Hampton's offensive contributions (three seasons of 36+ points, one 50 point season). The second pairing is made up of Dick Mattiussi, an excellent forechecker and penalty killer, and tough guy Carol Vadnais. Lastly we've got Mike Kitchen and Ted McAneely providing some solid stay-at-home defence on the third pairing.

Honourable mention: Doug Roberts

Goaltenders

Smith

Gary Smith (CAL 1967-71)

Gilles Meloche (CAL 1971-76, CLE 1976-78)

If I recall correctly these two were the only goalies that qualified for consideration under the 150-game rule. And in spite of Meloche's longevity (and the fact that I picked him as backup for my all-time Minnesota North Stars team), I chose Gary Smith as the starting netminder. His goals-against average was lower, he posted shutouts more frequently (nine in four seasons against Meloche's eleven in eight), and he also played 65+ games twice.