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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Forwards

L-R: Hull, Berenson, Meagher

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

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

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

Defencemen

L-R: Pronger, Jackman

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

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

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

Goaltenders

Liut

Mike Liut (1979-85)

Curtis Joseph (1989-95)

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

Honourable mentions: Brian Elliott, Grant Fuhr

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

Movie Review Repost -- 22 Jump Street (2014)

You see? I don't always review action movies, I talk about other genres too. Here's a review I did for a comedy back in 2014 called 22 Jump Street. I liked it a lot, and while I still haven't seen 21 Jump Street, 22 Jump Street is a fun little romp I've been back to several times. So enjoy as we take a trip down memory lane. (P.S. -- Please don't think that I've been lazy. I've just completed two articles that'll be up in September. I'll see you then.)

  Hey guys, I hope you enjoy this super-late review of 22 Jump Street. Just for the record, I was planning on seeing The Purge: Anarchy, but it was sold out and so it was either this or Tammy. I think I made the right choice.

  This film's plot is a lot like the first one's: so much so that several jokes are made about it. Two years after the first Jump Street program, officers Schmidt and Jenko are on the streets going after drug dealers. Their efforts are not very successful, thus they are reassigned to Jump Street (whose headquarters have moved to the building across the street) to pose as undercover college students. It's a great plot, providing lots of scenarios for varied jokes. Also, the question of who is the dealer is a decent mystery, but its payoff is rather underwhelming.

  As expected, 22 Jump Street's central focus is on the bromance between Jenko and Schmidt. Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum have excellent chemistry. They are hilarious and the troubles they go through are epic. Ice Cube – playing the comedically short-tempered Captain Dickson – steals every scene he's in. He has a couple of especially good freakouts. Admittedly, the villains aren't all that memorable, but that's not that much of a problem; Hill and Tatum are more than enough to keep you entertained.

  The jokes in this film are rowdy, goofy, and nonstop. Although some of them aren't exactly new – the whole character giving commentary on his own predicament in the middle of an action scene – they're still just as funny as ever. 22 Jump Street even makes fun of itself with a ton of self-referential jokes.

  I've only seen bits and pieces of 21 Jump Street, so I can't say if this one is any better or worse. But what I can say is that 22 Jump Street is a load of self-aware, side-splitting fun. If you like modern comedies, than go watch this film you'll enjoy it for sure.

Rating: four stars out of five.

Movie Review -- Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

  You know what? I haven't seen all that many Quentin Tarantino movies now that I think about it: just Pulp Fiction, Inglorious Basterds, and some snippets of Kill Bill here and there. So to rectify this I took the opportunity to see his latest one on the big screen, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood. So is it worth a watch? Let's take a look.

  Set in 1969, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a story about Rick Dalton, a TV Western star-turned movie actor whose career is just starting to decline. He confides in his best friend and stunt double Cliff Booth who also has trouble finding work due to an incident on The Green Hornet set and rumours that he murdered his wife. Together they try to find their way through the changing face of showbiz while also dealing with some troublesome hippies. It's an interesting story with a methodical pace. If you can cope with its marathon two hours and forty-one minute running time it still manages to be a fun film to watch. But of course the pace certainly picks up towards the end just in time for the hilariously over-the-top ending.

  If you're a fan of 1960's pop culture then you've got to see this movie. The attention to detail is incredible. The 50-year-old cars, fashion, and everyday objects are accurate to a T with all the women in miniskirts and short shorts and all the men with cigarettes in their mouths. There's also too many pop culture references to count. Hardly a minute goes by without hearing a classic song, old-timey advertisement, or radio/TV chatter. And is it any surprise that the soundtrack rocks? (There's not one but two Deep Purple songs!) If Once Upon a Time in Hollywood has one thing going for it, it's that it's a marvellous period piece film.

  Anyone who knows Tarantino movies knows that the 1960's – with the classic music and films – is a period that suits this director just fine. His well-known use of extended suspense comes into play, even going so far as to let a television's creepy music serve as the scene's scoring at one point. Tarantino's trademark awkwardness returns in the form of drawn out conversations and unconventional hygiene right in the camera's face. You'll also find his trademark out-of-sequence cutaways as well as an amusing mid-credits scene. However Tarantino's signature use of over-the-top violence is relegated to only a couple scenes.

  Once Upon a Time in Hollywood's acting is stellar. Leonardo DiCaprio does a fantastic job as the stuttering, borderline-alcoholic nervous wreck Rick Dalton who is easy to sympathize with. He's got great chemistry with the other lead Cliff Booth, played by Brad Pitt in a very comfortable and fun performance that recalls just a bit of Fight Club's Tyler Durden. Lastly we have Margot Robbie as the fabled Sharon Tate. Robbie gives a charming performance, often forgoing dialogue and relying more on facial expressions, getting her point across just as – if not more – effectively.

  All in all, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood reminds me a lot of 2016's Hail, Caesar!, another comedy-drama about classic Hollywood. But for me OUaTiH blows HC out of the water. It may be longer and slower-paced but I found it far more intriguing and fun, not to mention better written. If you can bear the length then Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is a must-see.

Grade:

All Songs, Best to Worst: The Doors (Morrison era)

Has it really been two years since I've done one of these? Hard to believe. I guess it's because I don't listen to the entire discography of that many bands (or at least I'm not comfortably familiar with enough bands to judge their entire discographies). Anyways this time we're going to compare The Doors' songs from the Jim Morrison era against eachother.

The Doors is a band that I've only recently gotten into and I'm wondering what took me so long; they're one of the most highly regarded American rock bands ever and their mix of blues, psychedelic, and rock is right up my alley. Their music was both intense and groovy (especially the keyboards by Ray Manzarek), Morrison's vocals were mesmerizing, and the songwriting never failed to take you on a mystical trip. The enigmatic Jim Morrison was the face of the band and he grew increasingly unstable as time went on. He died in 1971 and the remaining members tried continuing The Doors without him but called it quits after two marginal albums. Not many people care about the Doors after Morrison so today I'm going to rank all of the band's 61 songs from the six Morrison albums, best to worst. (Just for the record, I have heard 1978's An American Prayer and while I do think it's interesting I don't consider its tracks to be songs.)

1. “The End”, The Doors (1967)

2. “Light My Fire”, TD

3. “L.A. Woman”, L.A. Woman (1971)

4. “Hello, I Love You”, Waiting for the Sun (1968)

5. “Roadhouse Blues”, Morrison Hotel (1970)

6. “When the Music's Over”, Strange Days (1967)

7. “Riders on the Storm”, LAW

8. “Love Me Two Times”, SD

9. “Five to One”, WFTS

10. “Shaman's Blues”, The Soft Parade (1969)

11. “Not to Touch the Earth”, WFTS

12. “Break on Through (To the Other Side)”, TD

13. “Love Her Madly”, LAW

14. “The Soft Parade”, TSP

15. “The Changeling”, LAW

16. “Strange Days”, SD

17. “The Unknown Soldier”, WFTS

18. “Soul Kitchen”, TD

19. “The Crystal Ship”, TD

20. “People Are Strange”, SD

21. “Peace Frog”, MH

22. “20^th Century Fox”, TD

23. “Love Street”, WFTS

24. “The Spy”, MH

25. “The Wasp (Texas Radio and the Big Beat)”, LAW

26. “Ship of Fools”, MH

27. “End of the Night”, TD

28. “Been Down So Long”, LAW

29. “Land Ho!”, MH

30. “We Could Be So Good Together”, WFTS

31. “Maggie M'Gill”, MH

32. “Touch Me”, TSP

33. “Take it As it Comes”, TD

34. “Blue Sunday”, MH

35. “Waiting for the Sun”, MH

36. “Tell All the People”, TSP

37. “You're Lost Little Girl”, SD

38. “I Looked at You”, TD

39. “Back Door Man”, TD

40. “Wintertime Love”, WFTS

41. “Cars Hiss By My Window”, LAW

42. “My Eyes Have Seen You”, SD

43. “Wild Child”, TSP

44. “Alabama Song (Whisky Bar)”, TD

45. “Summer's Almost Gone”, WFTS

46. “I Can't See Your Face in My Mind”, SD

47. “Yes, the River Knows”, WFTS

48. “Queen of the Highway”, LAW

49. “Runnin' Blue”, TSP

50. “L'America”, LAW

51. “You Make Me Real”, MH

52. “Do It”, TSP

53. “Unhappy Girl”, SD

54. “Crawling King Snake”, LAW

55. “Moonlight Drive”, SD

56. “Spanish Caravan”, WFTS

57. “Easy Ride”, TSP

58. “Horse Latitudes”, SD

59. “My Wild Love”, WFTS

60. “Indian Summer”, MH

61. “Wishful Sinful”, TSP

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 -- Dark Phoenix

  This is the end, my only friend, the end. Dark Phoenix marks the end of the 19-years old X-Men series as run by 20^th Century Fox and it's been quite a ride, hasn't it? We've had some ups – Days of Future Past, Logan – some downs – Origins: Wolverine, Apocalypse – and everything in between (I didn't think The Last Stand was all that bad!). And to cap it all off we've now got the twelfth and final film which takes another stab at a classic comic storyline already tried in an earlier film back in 2006. What could possibly go wrong?

  Let's start with the film's title. Why doesn't it say X-Men in it? This isn't exactly a solo movie that's all about Jean Grey; Dark Phoenix is supposed to serve as the conclusion to the “new”, soft-rebooted series that began with First Class (2011). What, are the producers trying to disassociate this film with the others or something?

  Anyways the story takes place in 1992 and the X-Men are now international celebrities, but not all is well. Professor X's motivations/intentions as the face of mutantkind are called into question and during a rescue mission in space Jean absorbs an extraterrestrial force that amplifies her powers far beyond what she's used to. A shape-shifting alien race travels to Earth to reclaim this force. Trouble ensues and relationships are put to the test. It's a plot that borrows a lot of elements from 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand: the same locations, the same external forces, even some of the same deaths. As with that film, Dark Phoenix raises a bunch of ethical debates which cause friction amongst the team, which is interesting to see. It's just a shame that the dialogue is a bit heavy on the oversimplification.

  It's also a shame that Quicksilver gets the shaft. Remember the whole he's-the-son-of-Magneto thing? Totally forgotten. And as was the case with Days of Future Past, he gets written out rather early on account of how overpowered he is.

  Speaking of characters getting the shaft, Jennifer Lawrence really lets down this time around as Mystique. She acts like she barely gives a damn about anything. There might be a bit of truth to that considering how much time she doesn't spend in her blue mutant makeup.

  Some of the acting is quite good, especially from James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, and Sophie Turner. But having been set in yet another decade, Dark Phoenix suffers from that old familiar problem of the soft-rebooted X-Men series: the returning characters look way too young. Cyclops, Jean Grey, Storm, and Nightcrawler haven't aged at all since 1983. Quicksilver looks just as he did in 1973. Xavier, Magneto, Beast, and Mystique were all born the 1930's and yet they look just as they did in the 1960's! After four movies they still can't get aging right. Is immortality a superpower common amongst all mutants? Am I really watching a series of Highlander films?

  But the rotten turkey award has got to go to Jessica Chastain as Vuk, the aliens' leader. Her delivery is so awkward and her dialogue is so Care Bears-esque that it's impossible to take her seriously.

  The scope of Dark Phoenix's production is a mixed bag. The Hans Zimmer score sounds excellent, but a lot of the film's other elements gives the impression of a relatively a low-effort affair. For example, the action is of notably smaller scale than in previous instalments. And even though this is a movie set in the 1990's hardly any attempt was made to make it look so. There isn't a single Nirvana song, which is pretty much obligatory for 1990's period piece films nowadays. If you walked into the theatre a few minutes late you could be forgiven for assuming that this takes place in the present day. And to cap it all off, we don't even get to see what the aliens truly look like. From beginning to end Vuk and all her minions look just like regular people! How lazy can you get?

  That's not to say I hated Dark Phoenix. There are some genuinely cool scenes, sympathetic characters, decent songs, and emotional moments on display. I'd say it's slightly better than 2016's X-Men: Apocalypse in that it has a more focused cast, is more emotionally commanding, and is less unintentionally funny. That being said its lesser scale, toned-down action, and silly villains keep this phoenix firmly mired in ashes.

Grade: