50 Goal Scorers You Haven't Heard Of

You don't know what you've got 'til it's gone. That phrase could apply to many things these days: movies, restaurants, public parks. But one of the things I'm missing most right now is hockey. It seems incredulous to me that after most teams have played 70 of their 82 games, after all those players put in that hard work, that (probably) nobody is going to be raising the Stanley Cup above their heads this year. This also means that I won't be able to do an all-time team for the champions this year because there won't be any champions. So today I'm going to do something a little different.

Everybody – and by everybody I mean everybody who cares about the Coolest Game on Earth^TM – was blown away by Alexander Ovechkin's 700^th goal this year and everybody was talking about how amazing goal-scorers are. Scoring 50 goals in one season is one of hockey's most celebrated individual feats. In the NHL it's been done 186 times by 91 different players. This elite group includes players we're all familiar with like Maurice Richard, Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux just to name a few. But what about the guys who aren't known so well? Today I'm going to spotlight some 50-goal scorers you may not have heard of before.

Mickey Redmond (Detroit Red Wings, 1972-73, 1973-74)

After winning the Stanley Cup twice with the Montreal Canadiens in 1968 and 1969 Mickey Redmond was traded to the Detroit Red Wings midway through the 1970-71 season. Playing on a line with the great Alex Delvecchio, he scored 41 goals in his first full season with the team. With support from Delvecchio and later a young Marcel Dionne, Redmond recorded two consecutive seasons of 50 goals (52 and 51). So how come this high-scoring all-star isn't mentioned these days? The first reason is that Redmond suffered a back injury that cut his 1974-75 season short at 29 games. The year after that he could only manage 37 before having to retire. The second reason might be that he was on the Detroit Red Wings during the “Detroit Dead Things” era. Detroit only made the playoffs twice between 1967 and 1983 and so the rest of the hockey world didn't care much about what was going on in Hockeytown. And the third reason was simply that there was more impressive talent out there dominating the headlines such as Bobby Orr, Phil Esposito, Frank Mahovlich, and Bobby Clarke. Tough break, kid.

Danny Grant (Detroit Red Wings, 1974-75)

Danny Grant also won the Stanley Cup with the Canadiens in 1968 before he was traded to the Minnesota North Stars the next season. He was a capable passer and scorer for that franchise (3x30 goals) for six seasons before being unexpectedly traded away to the Red Wings. This quickly proved to be a bad deal for Minnesota as Grant scored 50 goals in his first year in Motor City (like Redmond before him Grant also had Marcel Dionne as a linemate). Unfortunately Grant was plagued by injuries for the rest of his career. Unable to play more than 42 games a year he retired from the NHL in 1979.

Jacques Richard (Quebec Nordiques, 1980-81)

Now this guy is what you call a one-hit wonder. Jacques Richard was a very promising left winger who turned a lot of heads in the minor leagues but also led a very troubled lifestyle. He was big into drinking and gambling and he got into plenty of bar fights. Richard also had a lousy work ethic, squandering his potential over a mediocre professional career, only once scoring more than 40 points. That is, until his eighth season in 1980-81 when he exploded for 52 goals and 51 assists! Perhaps it was his return to his hometown of Quebec City that spurred him into netting the 7^th most goals that year. Whatever the reason, he went right back to being the same old middling forward again, retiring in 1983. One third of all his NHL goals were produced in that one season.

Hakan Loob (Calgary Flames, 1987-88)

If you're not a Calgary Flames fan you probably just said “Hakan who?” That's OK, I'd never heard of him either until I started researching for this article. Hakan Loob was a right winger who spent six seasons in Calgary and he was actually pretty good, scoring 30 or more goals four times and 70 or more points three times. He became the first Swedish NHLer to score 50 goals in 1987-88, but in 1989 he announced that he was returning to Sweden to raise his kids there. Fair enough. At least he had the decency to win his team the Stanley Cup just before leaving.

My guess as to why nobody remembers Loob is because it was the 1980's, back when torrents of goals were being scored left, right, and centre. In 1987-88 alone there were eight players who lit the lamp 50 times – and Loob wasn't even the only Flames player among them! And what chance does the legacy of a guy with a short NHL career and a silly name have against that of Joe Nieuwendyk's?

Jonathan Cheechoo (San Jose Sharks, 2005-06)

Sure, I know who Jonathan Cheechoo is, but the article is called “50 Goal Scorers You Haven't Heard Of”. This isn't about me, we're talking about you. And if you didn't follow hockey in the mid-2000's then you can be forgiven for not knowing who Jonathan Cheechoo is. After a few years in the minor leagues, Cheechoo was called up to buoy the struggling Sharks in 2002. He put up modest numbers until he was eventually paired up with some talented linemates including Mike Ricci and later the mighty Joe Thornton. The ingredients were in place for Cheechoo to break out into a league-leading 56-goal campaign in 2005-06. The following season he netted a respectable 37 goals but his totals regressed each year to 23, then 12, and finally just 5. After 2010 he spent the rest of his career in the minor leagues. And just like Jacques Richard, one third of Cheechoo's NHL goals came from just that one season.

Tier List: Nine Inch Nails Albums & EPs

I've recently gotten into Anthony Fantano's music reviews on YouTube. Let me rephrase that: I'm not so much glued to his album reviews as I am interested in his videos where he talks about general music trends and entire band discographies. This includes his Tier Lists in which he ranks all of a band's albums into tiers based on quality. This inspired me to do one of my own. I chose Nine Inch Nails because not only is it one of my favourite bands but it's also a band that has a large and diverse discography. For this ranking I've listed all fifteen of NIN's studio albums and EPs; live albums and remixes don't count. So let me explain in detail what this means.

• S Tier: They way I see it, an S-tier album is an exceptional album, one that is most essential to knowing an artist. I believe only one NIN album meets this criteria and it should come as no surprise that that album is 1994's The Downward Spiral. Straight from the pain factory comes a dramatic, machine-generated descent into anxiety and depression that isn't exactly easy to listen to. While it isn't for everyone, TDS is well-paced, heavily textured, and memorable.
• A Tier: To me an A-tier album is excellent, something no true fan should be without. One of them is this band's debut album, Pretty Hate Machine, a 48-minute sample of dark synthpop/machine rock whose hooky songwriting and defiant-yet-celebratory tone brought some mainstream appeal to industrial music. The other is 1999's The Fragile, a grandiose double album that offers a lot in the way of textured soundscapes – 7 of its 23 songs are instrumentals – but represents an evolution of NIN's sound and themes rather than a revolution. It wasn't quite as good as TDS but it was a damn good effort.
• B Tier: Next up we have the albums that I consider to be very good and by coincidence they all happen to be EPs. The band's first EP, Broken, is a focused buzz saw of intense rage and ferocity. It's as metal as the band ever got and it catapulted NIN into public consciousness. On the other end of the spectrum is Still, a toned-down set of eight songs some new and some deconstructed remakes of older NIN songs. I would argue that Still is a hidden gem in the Nine Inch Nails discography, the fulcrum around which the band's tone has matured. The other two are the first and third of the EP Trilogy (2016-18), Not the Actual Events and Bad Witch, respectively. NTAE is exciting for bringing back a bit of hard rocking aggression that NIN fans hadn't seen in years and Bad Witch features some ominous dread with its interesting arrangements (which even includes some saxophone!).
• C Tier: This tier is what I consider pretty good, above-average work. Starting it off is 2005's With Teeth, which is more focused yet less daring than The Fragile. Despite this it still has some great songs and remains one of my favourites. Next is The Slip, a lean, straightforward industrial rock album that's easy to enjoy. NIN's following release, Hesitation Marks, sounds like an amalgamation of all that came before it but with a more mature – even hopeful – tone. Rounding out this tier is the band's most recent release (from two weeks ago), Ghosts VI: Locusts, an instrumental album of dark, anxious background music. It's a genre that Nine Inch Nails has become quite at home with.
• D tier: Lastly we have the D-tier, albums that I consider OK or average. The first amongst them is 2007's Year Zero. I find Year Zero, NIN's second concept album, to be an alright listening experience but there's not much that makes it standout. One year later the band released Ghosts I-IV, a sprawling instrumental album full of 36 brief untitled songs. While it does have a handful of catchy tracks, most of the album is kind of boring. Things are mostly the same with the 2017 EP Add Violence. The difference is that Add Violence only has about 3 ho-hum songs on it instead of 28! Lastly there's the 2020 instrumental album Ghosts V: Together. It's the lighter, gentler companion to Locusts, but NIN has always been better at making listeners feel uncomfortable.

Book Vs. Movie - First Blood

  So a few months ago Rambo: Last Blood was released, the latest in a series of movies that, much like its lead character, refuses to die (though personally I really do think that this will be the last one). I didn't actually see Last Blood – in fact I've only seen the first and fourth Rambo films – but it got me thinking that maybe it'd be fun to read the David Morrell novel where it all started: First Blood. Author David Morrell was inspired to write First Blood after witnessing the effects of the Vietnam War on American society. This made him wonder what might happen if a returning veteran were to bring the war home with him. Published in 1972, First Blood became a big hit with Morrell selling the movie rights to it immediately. After several rewrites – none of which involved Morrell – and a decade in development hell First Blood stormed the theatres in 1982 with Sylvester Stallone in the starring role. First Blood is one of the best action movies of the 1980's and one of my favourites as well. So how does it stack against the novel? Let's take a look.

  First let's recap the plot which generally remains pretty similar from book to film. Rambo is a homeless, shell-shocked Vietnam veteran hitchhiking around, making his way through a small town looking for a place to eat. Distrustful of such scraggly-looking outsiders, local top cop Will Teasle gives Rambo a lift out of town. Refusing to be pushed around, Rambo returns to the town in spite of Tealse's warnings leading to his arrest. “The kid” proves to be uncooperative and the police's attempts to shave him triggers a frightening flashback from the war. Rambo freaks out, overpowers the cops, breaks out of the police station, and leads them on a chase into the nearby mountains. Multiple officers start searching for him – both on foot and by helicopter – but Rambo's expertise in stealth and guerilla warfare give him the upper hand; he incapacitates them all with Teasle barely making it out. In the following days a massive manhunt takes form with the involvement of state police, the national guard, and civilian volunteers. Teasle receives advice (which he refuses) from special forces Colonel Sam Trautman who reveals that the kid was a highly decorated member of the Green Berets in Vietnam. Eventually Rambo is cornered in an abandoned mine/cave complex. After navigating the cave he finds an exit and makes his way back into the town to confront Teasle. Rambo blows up a good chunk of the town before the two engage in a climactic gunfight with Trautman not far behind.

  I think the biggest differences between the book and film can be seen in the portrayal of its main characters, Rambo and Teasle. The novel almost evenly splits its focus between the two of them and they're both made out to be flawed and complex characters. Whichever one – if either – is the good guy and the bad guy is left ambiguous as each man has his reasons and his faults. In contrast, the movie First Blood simplifies things by making Rambo – who in this version is given the first name John – the sympathetic main character. The film begins with Rambo looking for one of his old war buddies only to find that he's died from the effects of Agent Orange. Once he's arrested, the kid is treated rather viciously by the sadistic policemen (in the book the policemen seem agreeable enough). In addition, movie Rambo only inadvertently kills a few dogs and one police officer (which arguably wasn't his fault) and during the manhunt scene in the woods he dispatches all of Teasle's men, including Teasle himself, non-lethally as a warning to leave him be. This contrasts heavily with the book version of Rambo: he kills dozens of people. During his escape from the police station, he uses the razor to slash open and disembowel a cop, during his escape the next day he manages to shoot down a helicopter that had two people in it, he methodically slaughters the cops that were after him one by one, he knifes two civilian volunteers to death, and he blows up the police station with people still in it (in the movie he only shoots up the station once everyone but Teasle has gone). Before his arrest, book Rambo – who doesn't have a first name – has plenty of opportunities to back down and de-escalate the situation but he can't stop provoking Teasle. Once things have gotten out of hand, Rambo admits to himself that against his better judgment he wanted the fight, that it gives him a sense of purpose, and the thought of surrender seems disgusting to him. Compare this to the film version of Rambo who tries surrendering after Deputy Galt dies, but is forced to flee after Teasle opens fire on him. It's clear that this version of Rambo was just minding his own business and wanted to be left alone.

  By the same token Will Teasle's character is changed up even more than Rambo's. In the book he's kind of a jerk but this is partially due to some personal issues he has at the moment. He'd lately been fighting with his surrogate father, Orval, over nothing and he's also anxious about receiving a phone call from his recently estranged wife. (There's a line in the film where upon walking into the police station Teasle says “hold my calls.” Possible reference?) He narrowly manages to escape Rambo in the woods by crawling though some thick brambles in an exhausted panic. It's this chase that prompts a serious heart condition but Teasle repeatedly refuses to rest/seek medical attention and instead loads up on painkillers because he feels guilty about starting this whole murderous affair and he's determined to see it through until the end. Towards the end he develops a bizarre admiration for Rambo as well as an uncanny ability to anticipate where Rambo is going. This differs wildly from the movie version of Teasle who is simply a proud, stubborn policeman who's mad that things aren't going his way. You don't learn much about his backstory, his motivations, or his sense of responsibility: he's just a jerkwad. This downgrade in Teasle's character comes with a corresponding downgrade in Orval's character as well: he's a major supporting character in the novel but in the movie he's nothing more than an angry redneck.

  It's these differences between Rambo and Teasle's portrayal that change First Blood's whole tone and theme. This can be explained by the fact that both versions of the story are very much products of their time. You see, many Americans in the early 1970's were getting sick and tired of crime and hippie culture and were longing for stern authority figures to reestablish law and order in the country (see 1971's Dirty Harry). One must also remember that the United States was still involved in the Vietnam War when this book came out and the public was very divided on how returning veterans should be viewed. Rambo's beard, long hair, and roaming loner lifestyle would have led many readers to label him as a hippie and therefore not as agreeable as a small town police chief. However, by the 1980's the American public was ready to view Vietnam veterans in a more sympathetic light. As a result, the veteran-focused themes in First Blood the movie are given far more attention than in its novel counterpart. More importantly, action movies in the 1980's were becoming more in-your-face as audiences' appetite for destruction swelled. This was the era of the underdog, one-man-army action films featuring a lone hero on a destructive rampage: Commando (1985), Robocop (1987), and Die Hard (1989) all owe at least some measure of their success to Rambo's first cinematic outing in 1982.

  The tonal change can also be seen in how Colonel Trautman's role was expanded. In the book, Trautman and Rambo had never met; Rambo only recognized the man's name and voice as one of the commanders of the army base that had trained him. But the movie makes their connection way more personal; Trautman commanded Rambo's squad on missions in Vietnam and is now basically the only friend that Rambo has left. As such the movie version of Trautman makes more of an effort to save Rambo by talking him down. There's an interesting line in the movie where Teasle asks Trautman , “What would you have done with [Rambo] if he came in? Wrap your arms around him, give him a big sloppy kiss? Or would you've blown his brains out?” Depending on the version of First Blood you're going through, Trautman did both!

  That's the other huge difference between the book and movie: the ending. In the novel Teasle chases Rambo through town and successfully sneaks behind the kid. The two deliver mutually fatal gunshots to eachother. Rambo survives long enough to crawl into some nearby woods with Trautman and a stumbling-yet-determined Teasle in pursuit. Hoping to coax Teasle into killing him – and thus go down fighting – an unsteady Rambo hits the policeman with a shot that he actually meant to miss. Trautman responds with a shotgun blast to Rambo's head. The colonel delivers the news to Teasle as he dies peacefully. In the movie Rambo makes his way towards the police station where Teasle waits for him alone. Rambo sneaks inside and a brief gunfight ensues with Teasle shot and Rambo about to kill him. Trautman shows up – moments ahead of hundreds of national guardsmen who surround the building – to talk Rambo out of it, insisting that there's no chance of escape and reminding the kid that he's the last of his army unit. An incensed Rambo throws his weapons away and starts to rant on his frustrations with losing the war, how unfair and unsatisfying civilian life is, and how sad he is that all his army buddies are dead. Now in tears, the despondent Rambo embraces Trautman who escorts him outside to surrender to the police.

  These are both really great endings, each one well-suited to the story preceding it. Book Rambo was a violent man who got what he wanted: a violent death. But since the movie version of First Blood tried to bring veterans issues like post-traumatic stress disorder to the forefront, it makes sense to let the main character express his grievances to a world that turned its back on him. It's not often you see an action movie where the hero breaks down and sobs helplessly at the end. And this is helped by the fact that Sylvester Stallone is an excellent actor in this film. (Fun fact: this wasn't the original ending to the film. Initially Rambo was supposed to beg and then force Trautman to shoot him dead. This ending didn't go over well with test audiences and was thus reshot.)

  One other difference I wanted to bring up is the setting. Whereas the book took place in the small town of Madison, Kentucky, the movie takes place in the small town of Hope, Washington. I'm not sure why the filmmakers chose to change locations but I certainly am in favour of it for purely selfish reasons. First Blood was filmed in Hope, British Columbia, which is just down the road from where I live! Some of the locations in the film are places I've been to and whenever I find myself in Hope I can't help but think of Rambo movies. Pretty neat, huh? Just thought I'd share that.

  And speaking of tangents, here is a list of a bunch of other differences whose effects on the film are slight and were probably only made to save the filmmakers time (which normally happens with adaptations):

• The book takes place in early October whereas the movie takes place in December.
• In the book Teasle is the Chief of Police but in the movie he's the Sheriff. I'm unsure if this makes any practical difference.
• Teasle's status as a Korean War veteran isn't given any attention in the film. However there is one shot where you can see some military medals in his office.

• Sylvester Stallone has no beard, which makes the whole shaving scene in jail a bit confusing.
• In the movie Rambo escapes the police station in boots, jeans, and a sleeveless shirt. In the book he was bare-ass naked.
• The movie does go to great lengths to recreate the cliff scene from the book. However, the police helicopter isn't shot down and considerably fewer people die in this version.
• The owl that Rambo caught and ate was changed to a pig.
• The novel's version of Rambo's escape through the caves is considerably more hazardous and longer than in the film. Most of it happens in complete darkness, he gets attacked by bats, and he even comes across the skeleton of someone else who also got lost a long time ago. At one point things look so bleak that he briefly considers committing suicide.

  And that's First Blood, both a gripping thriller novel and a fine action film. Both pieces of media do a fine job at what they've set out to do while telling a story that is mostly the same, but with two radically different tones, themes, and endings. For that reason I recommend trying both the movie and the book. I say start with the movie and if you're left hungry for more, for something meatier and more sinuous, check out David Morrell's novel, which I believe is the better version of the two.

Movie Review -- The Gentlemen

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

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

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

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

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

Grade:

My Top 10 Favourite Splinter Cell Levels

L-R: Paris-Nice, Cargo Ship, Third Echelon Headquarters

It sure has been a while since we've had a new Splinter Cell game. Wouldn't it be nice to get a new one for the first time since 2013? Oh well, I guess until then we can reminisce about the past games in this excellent stealth-action series of video games. I recently played through Chaos Theory and Blacklist and while I've already gone through and ranked all the games from worst to best on this blog (in January 2016), this time I thought it'd be fun to look at individual levels from the series that have really stood out to me. These are my picks for the top 10 levels in Splinter Cell games.

Dishonourable mention: Kalinatek (Splinter Cell), Diwaniya, Iraq (Conviction)

Honourable mention: Oil Refinery (Splinter Cell), Shanghai (Double Agent), American Consumption (Blacklist), Hawkins Seafort (Blacklist)

10. Seoul (Chaos Theory)

The eighth level in the series' best entry, Seoul shows us a startling look at what might happen if the Korean War ever broke out into armed conflict again. Sam Fisher is tasked with making his way through communist-occupied Seoul to steal information from South Korea's national data trunk. This involves navigating destroyed buildings and sabotaging KPA communications. Things turn sour as a US spy plane is shot down nearby and before Sam can extract he has to destroy the plane so that its contents aren't discovered by either side. To do this Sam has to wade further into the active warzone complete with firefights, tanks, and deadly UAVs . Danger is everywhere, there are no friends. As William Redding says at the mission's start, “there aren't any alarms to worry about, but anyone you encounter will... already be alert.” As a result it can be tricky to tell if you've been seen or not but I still think of this one as a decent level to mess about in. War: it's fantastic.

9. Cargo Ship (Chaos Theory)

Don't worry, these won't all be levels from Chaos Theory. Cargo Ship might just be the SC level that I've played the most. It's an easy level to figure out but more importantly it's one of those levels that are fully accessible from start to finish: if you're near the end and you realize you've forgotten something there's nothing stopping you from going back to the beginning. I also love the idea of a level set on a ship at sea. There's 36 bad guys (I think) and there's no way out... for them. Sometimes I would go out of my way to see if I could find and kill all of them. Failing to do that I would instead try knocking them out and leaving their unconscious bodies in weird places, such as in a freezer or leaving Hugo Lacerda's dead body in the same cabin where I knocked out the captain. I also liked checking the sticky camera I left in Lacerda's cabin just to see if his bodyguards were still waiting silently for him to get them a drink. All in all, Cargo Ship is a fun level that's basically a playground.

8. Presidential Palace (Splinter Cell)

As the finale to the first game in the series, Presidential Palace doesn't disappoint. There's tons of guards patrolling everywhere, lots of rooms where guards will enter suddenly, and there's even a few dogs you'll have to avoid. You'll get to take President Nikoladze hostage for a few moments before assassinating him later on. In short, it's a tense level that serves as a suitable capstone to a fine classic game... even if I died dozens of times falling off the cliffs at the beginning due to that tricky double-jump.

7. Bathhouse (Chaos Theory)

The longest and most difficult level in Chaos Theory, Bathhouse is an exercise in patience thanks to its many hard sections and sometimes unpredictable lighting. In the lobby room (the one with the scaffolding), the pool room, and the hallway with the two factions fighting eachother it seems like a crapshoot whether the badguys spot you or not. I've since learned to make use of smoke grenades in such tricky sections. My advice: save frequently. Remaining undetected and nonlethal in Bathhouse is certainly not an easy thing to do, especially in the end section when you have to disarm bombs in a boiler room with roaming commandos. But seeing the 100% success rating once it's all over feels so satisfying. In addition to providing some fine challenge, this mission is also quite story-heavy with some shocking twists and a thrilling ending. It's a wonder they didn't save Bathhouse as the final level in the game.

6. Bank (Chaos Theory)

I swear this is the last Chaos Theory level on this list. What can I say, it's an excellent game with some really fun levels. One of them is the MCAS Bank in Panama where Sam Fisher has to break in to discover who's been bankrolling Lacerda's revolutionaries. But in order to cover up these intentions Fisher also has to crack the vault and steal some bearer bonds and make it look like an inside job. It's a clever setup for what's basically a bank heist mission carried out by the NSA. Just like the Cargo Ship mission there's a variety of ways you can approach each objective and you're free to tackle each one in whichever order you want. I've had hours of fun with this level avoiding lasers, hacking every computer, and even flooding the vault with the sprinkler system. Not only is Bank the only level in the series where you get to use the telemetric lock pick, but it's one of only two levels in Chaos Theory were I managed to complete it while leaving all enemies undisturbed (the other one being Displace). That's right: I completed this level without touching anyone. Try it out yourself!

5. CIA HQ (Splinter Cell)

You knew this one was coming. In a game about sneaking around places where you're not supposed to be, what could be a more appropriate setting than the headquarters of the CIA? A lot of the levels on the original Splinter Cell are ordinary office buildings which gets kind of old, but CIA HQ mixes things up with ventilation rooms, supply closets, server rooms, and patrolled hallways. It can also be rather difficult (just like all the levels of that first game); you're not allowed to kill anyone, you have to retrieve your SC-2000 rifle, and the level's exit is teeming with enemies. The only downside is that you have to haul some unconscious dude on your back an awfully long way to the end. Also the lighting in this level works a bit wonkily at times. But apart from that CIA HQ is a fine level that epitomizes the first Splinter Cell game.

4. Paris-Nice (Pandora Tomorrow)

There's something about train levels in video games that certainly bring a nice change of pace. Perhaps it's the confinement that makes the action more focused and immediate. That's exactly the effect that the Pairs-Nice level has in Pandora Tomorrow. Not only do you have to avoid detection inside the cramped quarters of a French high-speed train, but you'll also be crossing the train's undercarriage, shimmying along the sides as other trains rocket by just inches away, and running along its roof. This level is easily one of the most unique missions in the whole series. No wonder this is such a popular one.

3. Los Angeles, California (Pandora Tomorrow)

It's a shame that this level doesn't get as much love from the SC community as other levels do because I think Pandora Tomorrow's finale is brilliant. Sam has to sneak through Los Angeles International Airport to intercept Norman Soth and his goons before they have a chance to set off their smallpox bombs. But if just one alarm goes off the terrorists will detonate their bomb and it's all over so there's no room for mistakes. I love the idea of a level set in a public place. Not only do you have to avoid the gaze of a variety of people – terrorists, security guards, airport employees, and random civilians – but the bad guys are all in disguise so you have to seek them out before making your move. You do this through your goggles' thermal vision since the bad guys' smallpox vaccines give them a higher-than-normal body temperature. It's a simple mechanic but I always thought it was cool. And once you complete the pulse-pounding ending the day is saved and LA can rest easy. Pandora Tomorrow isn't a game that I'm terribly fond of but this LAX level goes some way towards redeeming it.

2. Third Echelon Headquarters (Conviction)

As I've mentioned in earlier articles, Conviction may not be as traditionally stealthy as other Splinter Cell games but it can still provide an intense and thrilling gameplay experience. This is why the Third Echelon Headquarters mission stands out to me. From the no-detection-allowed opening to the sneaking through patrolled office areas, to defending yourself from waves of goggled commandos, there's plenty of tense moments to this level that will have you on the edge of your seat. This is also quite possibly the most badass Sam Fisher has ever been. Not only does he have unlimited Mark & Executes at the end, not only does he interrogate (i.e. beat up) Andrei Kobin, but he also delivers the line “I used to work here,” to the receptionist just before detonating some bombs in his former workplace. That's right, Sam has gone rogue. As if that wasn't enough he learns the truth about what happened to his daughter Sarah and that Lambert, his friend that he was forced to kill, lied to him about it. True, the words flashing on the walls during this scene come off as a bit cheesy. Nevertheless, Third Echelon Headquarters is great story-driven level that has some really gripping gameplay to keep me coming back again and again.

1. Special Missions HQ (Blacklist)

This may be a bit of a surprise. I like Blacklist but I find that it doesn't have many standout levels to it apart from this. That may be because, as you've noticed by now, I like Splinter Cell levels that take place in special forces/intelligence headquarters. They make for a great you're-not-supposed-to-be-here vibe that really make you want to play through them flawlessly. Achieving ghost mastery on perfectionist difficulty in this mission is very difficult but extremely satisfying once you pull it off. But what makes Special Missions HQ so special (no pun intended)? Well, Sam Fisher has to infiltrate Quds Force headquarters to manually retrieve data concerning Iran's ties to the Blacklist attacks in order to prevent the US from declaring war. To do this he has to gain entry by extorting a general, taking to the shadows once the general betrays him and the alarms are set off, downloading the data from an airtight server room, and then wading through room after room after room – each one full of bad guys furiously searching for him. You'll deal with all manner of enemies from regular guys to heavy armoured guys, commandos, and even dogs. It'll test your stealth skills to the limit. It's not a perfect level – the UAV part at the end seems a bit gratuitous and it's a roll of the dice whether you'll be detected or not once the alarms go off – but Special Missions HQ is still an exciting level that's well worth your time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Force Awakens

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

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

The Last Jedi

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

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

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

The Rise of Skywalker

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

Movie Review -- 1917

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

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

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

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

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

Grade: