Ted R's Top Tens #3: My top ten strategy game units

Okay, compared to the last two top tens that I did, this one might cause a little more one-sided arguments considering the fact that its my personal opinion compared to the last two which were based solely on historical fact.  Regardless, this is a top ten that I've thought about for a while considering the fact that as mentioned before; 1) I like lists (not to sound like Brick from Anchorman (2004) or anything), 2) despite my disdain for individualism I believe that it's important to express one's opinion and 3) if there's one genre of games I like more than adventure, racing, FPS or puzzle then its RTS (Real-Time-Strategy).

Naturally in games like these there always has to be a core plan in your mind regarding how you aim to take down your opponent and at the core of this is usually one or a select few units playable through a certain army/faction that express your strategy style.  For me this can vary from slow-moving and methodical attritional strategies to swift strategies tuned to keep the enemy off-balanced and disorganised.  So without any further delay ladies, gentlemen and fellow RTS enthusiasts I present to you my top ten strategy game units.

#10: The Goliath from Company of Heroes (2006)

Now this first unit is more so a unit to simply fuck around with rather than build a strategy around.  Don't get me wrong, it does huge amounts of damage in single hits, scares the crap out of the enemy and is hard to spot on a war-torn battlefield thus making it great for sabotage and ambushes.  In particular, the Goliath which features in the legendary World War Two strategy game Company of Heroes is a remote controlled box on fast-moving treads that the German army deployed during the later stages of WW2 when it was clear that they had to start fighting dirty and using terror as more of a tactic in order to have a chance of turning the tide against the Allies in France and Italy and the Russians in Eastern Europe.

In the war, the Goliath didn't have a huge deal of success as it did have some psychological impact but never really changed the strategic prospects of the German army.  In Company of Heroes however this is quite the opposite.  In the game, the Goliath is fast to move around, except around corners, and so can be used to pounce upon gun positions, slow-moving mobile artillery or columns of infantry and inflict crippling amounts of damage by blowing up right in the enemy's face.  The only two big problems with the Goliath however is that 1) it has pathetically low armour and so can be destroyed at a distance by even lightly-armed scouts and 2) its nastily expensive at 125 ammo points just to build one.  However, if you like using the Germans in Company of Heroes and enjoy scaring the shit out of your opponent then this is the unit for you.

#9: Amphibious tanks from Supreme Commander (2007)

Now sometimes when you face a certain problems you will need someone or something that can sustain a multitude of helpful roles in any number of given situations.  In the world of strategy games when I think about things such as these, amphibious tanks from the sci-fi RTS Supreme Commander are one of the first things to pop up into my mind.  The good thing about Supreme Commander is that all four armies playable in the game including the extra one added on in the expansion pack Forged Alliance (2007) share the basic premise for many of their units albeit with different weapons and capabilities so there's not a great deal of preference between any of them for me (although I do like playing as the Aeon Illuminate allot). 

In particular, I like amphibious tanks allot above other ground vehicles in Supreme Commander due to the fact that whereas other tanks have to be transported over water via vulnerable and unarmed air transports in order to attack a river stronghold or an island, amphibious tanks, as you probably can guess, just go gliding straight over the water like Moses if he had been encased in armour and had his head replaced with a gatling cannon.  Therein lies one of the problems of the amphibious tank however, as it is armed with a weapon that performs well against low-flying aircraft and infantry, its kind of weak in head-to-head fights with other tanks and gun turrets.  But regardless of this, if you build an armada of these things and send them ashore on the enemy's bank with heavier tanks coming in from the air then you will be sure to inflict some nasty damage on the enemy.

#8: Graal Knights from Rome Total War: Barbarian Invasion (2005)

Now what is slower than David Cameron's so-called rebuilding of the British economy?  That's right!  Internet explorer with good connection and the Graal Knights.  In the context of what the term "cavalry" stands for actually, these heavily-armoured horsemen from the first Rome Total War expansion pack are an oddity in the sense that 1) they are not swift and quick, 2) they are not hard to hit with archers and such and 3) they look more grim and imposing with their grey armour and green cloaks with gold face-masks rather than the chivalrous image painted of most cavalry throughout history.  However, despite the fact that the Graal Knights are slow as hell and super-expensive to employ as mercenary bands in the campaign mode, they are an in-game investment worth making.

The main reason for this is the sheer shock value and gravitas that these horsemen have in the attack and even in the defence as both they and their horsemen are heavily armoured in scales of metal thus giving them greater weight and therefore striking power.  What's more is that as these warriors are so heavily-armoured, if you give them enough defence upgrades then they will probably be able to withstand any missile-fire from the enemy.  So despite the high cost, small unit number and rarity of these human tanks they are a force to be feared by any unsuspecting infantry and artillery.

#7: Assault squads from Dawn of War II (2009)

Much like the Total War games, the Dawn of War II series forces players to usually form a strategy that combines a mixture of close-quarters-combat units and ranged units in balanced harmony to rip the enemy to shreds like a bloodier and more fleshy version of Mattersons fridge raiders.  As for the assault squads available to the Space Marines in the Dawn of War II series however, they combine the best of both worlds sporting a vicious array of weapons such as electrified claws, electrified axes and chainsaw swords (yeah you heard me right, fuckin' chainsaw swords).  

This is because of the fact that despite mainly concentrating on melee weapons, the assault marines are equipped with jump packs allowing them to traverse rubble-strewn battlefields while scattering enemies like scattered M&M's of death when the assault squad lands.  Thereupon after being scattered like the pieces of a collapsing Jenga tower, the enemy are then set upon by the blades of your assault marines who can also jump away to safety if aforementioned scattered enemy is too strong to overcome.  The one problem with these unsubtle knights of the sky is that they die easily due to slightly lighter armour compared to other space marine infantry but make up for this with their mobility and cheap production costs.

#6: Sonic dolphins from Command and Conquer: Red Alert 3 (2008)

Okay, this is a weird one, whereas the last few entries included ideas for army units that at least sound halfway respectable, this one just sounds like a navy officer and maritime naturist got stoned then drew up stupid ideas for weapons for the navy before passing out from idiocy and the ridiculous levels of weed smoke in the air.  But how are these plucky little maritime dolphins with sonic cannons attached to their backs in a battlefield situation?  Actually they're not all that bad despite poor armour and lack of a concept that can be taken seriously.

In fact if you spam enough of these leaping and tenacious little critters then you'll be able to take down enemy shipyards and battleships while also making the enemy feel like the bad guy in a knock off version of Free Willy (1993) but with dolphins and sexualised support characters instead of whales and a stoic native American that looks oddly allot like an older Steven Segal.  Regardless, combining the novel weapons that these plucky little creatures pack, a cute demeanour and noise and a low production cost they are definitely worth employing in any navy that doesn't mind looking like complete fucking idiots.  Just to be off topic, why the HELL does Free Willy have three freaking sequels?

#5: AT-AT's from Star Wars: Empire at War (2006)

Now even for people who don't really play RTS games but at the very lease recognise popular culture, this entry should be recognisable and obvious why its here to allot of people particularly those who enjoyed Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980).  In the Star Wars universe, the galactic empire makes use of the heavily armoured, huge and slightly camel-shaped known as All-Terrain-Armoured-Transports to transport their infantry while scaring the enemy shitless with their huge and thunderous gait and huge blaster cannons.

Naturally, because of their huge size, power and diversity of roles, the AT-AT's in Empire at War are quite expensive to build and on top of this they find it as tricky to shoot close-up targets as it is for a Dyslexic with a fear of numbers to solve algebra equations.  Yet regardless of high costs and poor mobility, the AT-AT is rated among the top 5 on this list due to its devastating firepower, psychological impact of making opposing players crap their breeches and also being able to deploy squads of infantry with no population cap consequences.

#4: Redeemer from Command and Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath (2007)

Come on Ted, again with the huge and overpowered super-walkers?  Well readers, despite your misgivings, there are a good few reasons why the Redeemer is on this list.  Firstly, it is the first super-only-build-once unit that I only had to build once to win a campaign mission in a Command and Conquer game but aside from this and much like the AT-AT, the Redeemer has a multitude of different roles to fulfil.  Whereas the AT-AT is limited in these roles however to a certain extent on account of the fact that it can only act as a line-breaker, tank/building killer and transporter of support infantry.  The Redeemer can top this by also crushing enemy vehicles and infantry as well as sporting self-repair domes, rocket launchers, machine guns, flame-throwers and chemical waste-throwers depending on what infantry squad you choose to garrison the mighty walker with when you first build it.

Again however as with the AT-AT, the Redeemer is agonisingly slow and so is vulnerable to WMD's, aircraft and hit-and-run tactics equipped with anti-tank weapons.  Furthermore, the build time of 50 seconds means that if you mean to build this multi-purpose walker then you'd better be pinning the enemy down with counter-attacks or build so many gun turrets around your base that you call it a homage to the fortress of Verdun.  Still, if you're like me and can live with the occasionally slow unit that has enough fire-power to level an entire regiment of tanks single-handedly then the mighty and indomitable Redeemer is a unit for you.

#3: Rangers from Company of Heroes

Again with a unit from Company of Heroes?  I know, I know.  Look, while there is no doubt that this WW2 RTS is one of the best if not THE best of its kind then there is a chance that references to it in such things as top tens will be notably frequent.  Yet still, I can't help but not ignore the might of these fearsome American shock troops that were immortalised by famous feats during WW2 such as the freeing of many prisoner camps in the Philippines in 1945, the crushing of German forces in Western Sicily in 1943 and the sterling efforts made by these brave men in the fateful D-day landings on the 6th June 1944.

As you would expect from assault troops, these tough yanks are capable of wielding a multitude of weapons and come in default when you spawn them with a pair of bazookas and four rifles.  However, for 100 ammo points you can upgrade these fellows with sub-machine guns and make them into truly fearsome assault troops.  Admittedly, it can be a slog to push all the way up the infantry tech tree on one side for the Americans but it is worth it when you are rewarded with assault troops such as these that have a greater value than most infantry units in the game.  So be prepared, these plucky boys from the land of apple pie, liberty and really fucking awful reality daytime TV are a fearsome force on any map on Company of Heroes, so if you play as the Germans, you'd better have some machine guns and snipers handy.

#2: Imperial guard cavalry from Shogun 2 Total War:Fall of the Samurai (2012)

Yet again we have a unit with a multitude of handy roles on the battlefield ladies and gentlemen.  Yes I know I sound like a broken record at this point but these fearsome infantrymen on horseback are the cream of the crop of the mobile part of my force when I play as a pro-imperial clan in this marvellous expansion pack to Shogun 2: Total War.  Admittedly, all cavalry units in the Shogun 2 games can dismount from their horses and fight as grim foot sloggers as my beloved sharpshooters, imperial infantry and black bear infantry brigades can and therefore act as striking units but also assault units in a siege operation.  In particular, my favourite unit to perform this double task is imperial guard cavalry.

These elite troopers are basically the imperial guard of the Japanese emperor in the late 1860s on horseback so they have all the benefits of their foot-soldier counterparts by being able to hold the line and deliver volleys of fire in waves more rapid than most infantry regiments while being able to displace to a new position at short notice like someone with the runs rushing to the toilet after having eaten half a dozen lamb vindaloo curries.  The one drawback is that like cavalry throughout the Total War series, these soldiers number less men per-unit than infantry regiments do.  But being able to both deliver shattering volleys of gunfire to said enemy infantry and doubling this with the capability to run down fleeing enemies and artillery positions with alacrity means that imperial guard cavalry are more than capable of delivering savage amounts of damage in a multitude of different ways.

#1: The Flak 88mm 37 anti-tank & aircraft/artillery cannon from Company of Heroes

You're probably scratching your heads for a few reasons at this entry.  Why is another Company of Heroes unit so far up on this list?  Why is Company of Heroes so popular?  (I swear do not ask me that) Why is a static weapon beating more mobile units on this list?  Why does Vimto taste so danm tasty?  WHY, THE, FUCK, DOES, FREE WILLY, HAVE, 3 SEQUELS?!??!?!?!???  Again I could say that the Flak 88 is number one because it too fills a number of roles but that would be too easy.  So furthermore, I decided to put the unit at number one because 1) It can kill most American and British units in the game really easily and with only a few shots, 2) it fires as fast as a plate of pot brownies at a stoners meeting and 3) its one of the most iconic weapons used by the Germans in WW2.

In fact, most if not all tanks and aircraft used by the Americans, British and Soviets during the second world war must have, at some point, come up against this powerful and multi-purpose heavy weapon.  Not only that, but later in the war, the Flak 88 also became iconic and feared among allied troops as a quick-to-set-up artillery weapon that the Germans could use to pummel them with before vanishing into the safety of the distant hills.  The one problem with this mighty cannon in the game however is the fact that its cost for just building one is insane and will force you to spend your manpower and fuel points very wisely.  Still, if you want to instil gut-clenching terror in the enemy and turn entire armoured brigades into scrap metal then the Flak 88 will serve you well.  But seriously, protect it and use it wisely because it costs a fucking mint to make.

So there you have it, my top ten units in strategy computer games.  As may be the case with other players I tended to build this list on the basis of equal amounts of diverse roles, reasonable costs, power and manoeuvrability.  Tell me what you guys think of this list, what your favourite strategy game units are and suggest ideas for future top tens.

Until next time...shit... I forgot what to say.

Ted R's top tens #2: Top ten movie box-office bombs

Now this is a top ten I've particularly thought about doing for a while.  Not simply because I love film and think that it is by far one of the top five most influential mediums of the modern era besides television, computer games, the internet and magazines/newspapers, but also the fact that there is something strangely perplexing about hating on a film because of its crappy quality and/or poor net profit.  And therein lies the subject of this top ten, the top ten films (as of July 2013) that have made the worst bombs or collapses in terms of income on the weeks/weekends of their releases.  Unsurprisingly, the majority of the content of these films as you may find is a little bit, well...shit.

#10: The Alamo (released 2004, net losses-$94,090,019.50)

Historically speaking, historical dramas with dramatic set pieces that follow the subject of an inspiring cultural struggle have done particularly well at the box office, tended to get good reviews from critics far and wide and have snatched up a considerable amount of awards.  To name a few, films such as The King's Speech (2010), Glory (1989, which is a great film coincidentally) and Letters from Iwo Jima (2006) are based on great historical events, happenings, figures and relationships with relatively simple storyline that have won multiple awards and critical acclaim.  The Alamo however, which details the battle for the Alamo keep between Texan revolutionaries and the Mexican army between 23rd of February and 6th of March 1836 during the Texas revolution received terrible reviews when it was released and lost Touchstone studios nearly $95 million.

One aspect that differs this telling of the doomed Alamo garrison from the famed 1960 original film is the fact that Texan director John Lee Hancock attempted to show the political world of not only the Texans but also the Mexicans as well.  In hindsight, perhaps he should have done the same as Clint Eastwood did with Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima (both 2006) and told both sides of the tale in two different films as The Alamo is a wholly confused and way-too-long mess.  Regardless however, I'd still recommend searching for the action scenes on YouTube as they're really well shot and directed with plenty of good effects to boot.  Still, even this can't hide the miserable worldwide gross that The Alamo made of only $25,819,961 against a budget of $107,000,000.

#9: Final Fantasy The Spirits Within (released 2001, net losses-$94,434,085)

Whereas The Alamo merely put a nasty-looking dent in the reputation and funds of Touchstone studios, Final Fantasy cost so much to make, took so long to animate and develop and made back nowhere near enough so much so that it is blamed by many for the economic collapse of Square Pictures.  Despite bearing the same name as the legendary JRPG (Japanese-Role-Playing-Game) series and being directed by its creator who had a huge budget of $137,000,000 behind him though, Final Fantasy was universally criticised for having surprisingly little to do with the game series it was based off of and instead concentrating on an unknown storyline set in a post-apocalyptic world populated by murderous ghost aliens.

Wait...what?  That's really what it's about?  Jesus Christ, no wonder the film was panned for a multitude of reasons, that sounds like a really freaking stupid plot.  Thinking back to when I first saw this in fact, I can probably see why the film was criticised for being 'boring' as the majority of the film's funds clearly went into its highly-detailed animation and staggering 4 year development period eschewing the talent of some of the voice actors that included the likes of the great Alec Baldwin.  Yet even the talents of the good Mr Baldwin could not prevent this flop of a film from only making back slightly over half of its budget in worldwide gross ($85,131,830).

#8: How Do You Know (released 2010, net losses-$95,665,546.50)

Generally speaking, romantic comedy films don't usually tend to do so well, particularly if they feature overrated actors such as Reece Witherspoon and Owen Wilson (yeah I went there, come and get me) which is even more so the case in terms of How Do You Know which was developed over 5 years and changed plots several times thus stretching its $120,000,000 budget to the limit.  Because of this crazily-over-the-top development time for a romantic comedy, the film ended up costing a huge deal to make thus meaning that Director James L Brooks's reputation to a poke in the eye because of the flop of his first film since The Simpsons Movie in 2007 and received further criticism for the overly-meticulous development of the film.

Not only did this increase the amount that had to be spent on  the film though as the combined salaries for Brooks and his four stars (Reece Witherspoon, Owen Wilson, Jack Nicholson and Paul Rudd) totalled a whopping $50 million despite the film's $120,000,000 budget and mere $48,668,907 worldwide gross profit after the film's release.  What many will remember the film most for however is undoubtedly the terrible reviews it received including a measly 32% on Rotten Tomatoes out of 144 reviews.

#7: Jack the Giant Slayer (released 2013, net losses-$96,156,198.50)

Another film genre that tends to have its very turbulent moments is the adaptation of classical fantasy and fairy tales onto the big screen in a modern age where such literature is not as commonly read as compared to a century or so ago.  Case in point, the 2013 flop of the adaptation of the famed books Jack and the Beanstalk (1807) and Jack the Giant Killer (1711) directed by Bryan Singer who is probably more recognised from directing the films of questionable quality, X-men (2000) and X2 (2003) as well as Superman Returns (2006).  However, we shouldn't rag on Mr Singer for these films but I find it hard to do otherwise with his 2013 release which seemingly drowns the classical story of adventure and courage with copious amounts of special effects that some argue got in the way of the adaptation of the source material.

In contrast though, the film didn't receive wholesale bad reviews but generally only managed to get mediocre or average reviews at best.  For example Metacritic gave the film 51/100 and Rotten Tomatoes gave a rough 52% rating, but as it stands, the $197,687,603 profits made by the film were barely enough to consider it being a success in much of a sense of the word.

#6: The Adventures of Pluto Nash (released 2002, net losses-$96,448,013.50)

Oh man, here be rough territory boys and girls.  Even though this comedy sci-fi, Eddie Murphy flick didn't have the worst box office losses on this list, it did by far make the least amount of money overall.  In total, the film only grossed $7,103,973 despite having been made with a budget of around $100,000,000 and starring one of modern Hollywood's most famous and popular faces in a role that you'd expect to fit him like a glove.  But considering the combined cost of the marketing for the film and the budget itself reaching $120,000,000 and the fact that the film only made back around $7.1 million both in the USA and overseas, it sure as hell isn't any wonder that this is considered one of the worst box office bombs in film history.

This in turn is supported by the generally negative reviews that the film received  what with it being given the title of 'one of the worst films of the early 2000's.  Therefore, it really is a wonder that Eddie Murphy was able to stay afloat as an actor thereafter, perhaps his success with the Shrek franchise however is to thank for the prevention of the collapse of his acting career.  By the way, why is it that Alec Baldwin is in this piece of crap too?

#5: Stealth (released 2005, net losses-$96,533,564)

Now call me crazy, but despite the poor reviews that this film received upon international release, I actually liked it.  Admittedly it is flawed in some departments but when looking at the more popular response to Rob Cohen's aerial combat, sci-fi action piece I have to admit that Stealth was by far the coffee-flavoured chocolate in the bag of revels that was the major releases of 2005.  Broadly speaking, the plot is relatively simple as the main 3 protagonists who fly highly-advanced fighter jets team up with a robotic stealth fighter in a special US air force experiment but realise that the technology they fight alongside is fundamental flawed, something that reveals itself more and more as the film progresses. Yet this set-up was not enough to prevent popular and legendary critic Robert Egbert from panning the film as a rip off of Top Gun (1986) crossed with the Hal 9000 computer from 2001: A space odyssey (1968) which reflected the popular mood towards the film that it was a rip off of the legendary 1986 Tom Cruise flick.

In turn, high expenses during the development stages and a poor reception at the box office meant that Stealth only grossed $76,932,872 despite the film having a budget of $135,000,000 making it one of the worst losses ever suffered by Columbia pictures in recent memory.

#4: Sahara (released 2005, net losses-$100,365,257)

Actually, now that I think about it, 2005 did see some poor-performers released onto the silver screen didn't it?  Mind you, the misfortune that befell the treasure hunt, action romp set in Mali and starring Penelope Cruz flopped more so due to the crazy amount of money that it took to develop and advertise the film,  the production itself cost around $160,000,000 and combined with the fact that the film took another $80,000,000 or so to distribute, meant that the $119,269,486 worldwide gross made by the film was negligible enough that Sahara still lost a huge amount of money.  

As for reviews, the film wasn't necessarily received badly per-say, but what it might be remembered for is the series of legal disputes between Paramount pictures and Sahara's producers that lasted for over 5 years over accusations between either sides and other parties involved that the production had been sabotaged before its release.  This resulted in a further loss of money in arguably pointless legal disputes and some bad blood being brewed between the conflicting parties in these cases.

#3: John Carter (released 2012, net losses-$108,610,950)

The only significant hype leading up to the flop that was John Carter last year only really manifested when 2012 began.  There had been some speculation on what this film would be like when it was released and some believed that its connection to the Barsoom book series would give it some weight at the box office.  Surely enough, many did end up going to see the film upon its release, unfortunately for those involved in the making, producing and distribution of John Carter, the $282,778,100 worldwide gross profit made by the film was not significant enough to overshadow the quarter of a billion production budget assigned to the film's development and creation.

Like Sahara and Jack the Giant Slayer, John Carter didn't necessarily receive bad reviews, but its poor opening weekend performance in the USA and high production costs meant that it ended up losing huge amounts of money for Disney studios regardless.  Furthermore, the film was the first live-action feature-length piece directed by Andrew Stanton  and considering the film's overall poor performance at the box office and generally 'eh' sort of reviews, Stanton's debeut live-action film has tarnished his career and definitely not made Disney look any better.  Funnily enough though, despite performing badly in the USA, John Carter actually performed well abroad particularly in places such as Russia and Hong Kong.

#2: The 13th Warrior (released 1999, net losses-$129,150,550)

I personally think that a film like John Carter, with the obscene budget that it received, has a little leeway to not be a totally unmitigated disaster if it loses a considerable amount of money.  However, if your budget is much lower than $250,000,000, or in the case of the historical action romp The 13th Warrior $160,000,000, then a large loss of net profit will hit you much harder in your stingy parts.  Case in point, when this poorly-conceived Antonio Banderas flick was released it was panned across the board (although not as hard as perhaps Stealth and The Alamo were) particularly by receiving a 1.5/5 from Robert Egbert who along with a number of other critics, pointed out that the costumes and sets were brilliant but that the rest of the film was a jumbled and confused mess.  

In total in worldwide gross profit, The 13th Warrior only made back $61,698,899 out of a fluctuating budget that peaked at $160,000,000.  Combining this with the poor reviews that the film received, it is no wonder that the film is considered a failure and a blight on Banderas's career as an actor.  What I find interesting about this film however is not how bad it is but more so the reaction of Egyptian actor Omar Sharif who decided to take a break from acting until the 2003 film Monsieur Ibrahim because he disagreed with the making of the film on account of seeing it as simply a way for the actors involved to get an easy buck.  Admittedly I have to agree with the good Mr Sharif as this does seem a pretty simple and immoral reason to make a major Hollywood blockbuster.

#1: Mars Needs Moms (released 2011, net losses-$130,503,621)

Quick question, do you remember this poor, animated, adventure sci-fi flick for the kiddies?  No?  No, of course you don't, after all, who would want to remember a film with such a lame concept as the Martians needing mothers for their dwindling race which forces them into kidnapping mothers from earth and therefore indirectly showing a little boy the importance of family.  Actually, that does seem a little creepy and pandering to conservative family values for my liking.  Hell, even the concept of kidnapping is a little creepy, regardless of whether it would be a mother, a child, a cat, a postman or a 12 inch meatball sub with double cheese and hot chilli sauce it must be handled with care as a subject in film due to the sensitivity of the subject.

This was not the film's main problems however as it was hammered by critics for pretty much everything about it except for the voice acting and the casting of said voice actors and actresses.  But regardless of this, the film was panned for most features particularly the poor handling of the subject of kidnapping and the lacklustre 3D effects that consisted of the film's animation.  On top of this, Mars Needs Moms was an advertising failure as well as a box office bomb what with being released virtually right next to the vastly more successful sci-fi, action flick Battle: Los Angeles which grabbed movie-goer attention to a far greater degree.  Taking into account all of this criticism and the fact that the film only made a $38,992,758 worldwide gross profit against a $150,000,000 production budget, its not hard to see why Mars Needs Moms is the biggest box office disaster so far in cinematic history.

Thanks for reading and I hope you enjoyed this top ten.  See you guys next time!

P.S. sorry for not getting one last post in before I left, but rest assured that I'll atone upon my return from Whales.  Until then, cheerio!

Ted R's top tens #1: The top ten largest empires in history

I've always liked lists for some reason.  And regardless of how much that may make me sound like a total loser, there is something perplexing about listing off your top ten best or worst examples of certain things.  If you don't believe me then just try watching you tube channels/shows like TFTW or Watch Mojo which solely consist of top tens on a wide range of subjects.  So taking into account the popularity of such lists I decided that I'd follow suit and start doing my own top tens alongside the usual reviews in order to add a little bit of variety to the proceedings of this blog.   To further add to the variety of these top tens I have decided that unlike the reviews, they will be about pretty much anything, and to start off with I have chosen one of my favourite subjects, history! Now enough with the rambling exposition, let's get cracking with the top ten empires that spread across the world like nasty rashes made out of exploitation, politicking and military might.

#10: The Portuguese empire 1415-2002 (greatest size-6.98% of the planet)

Despite the fact that the sunny paradise of Portugal has always been a small country with a smaller population (even today it roughly numbers between 10-11 million), it was the aptly-named 'Portuguese Overseas Empire' or Imperio Portuguese that became the world's first 'global' empire.  This all began in 1419 when Portuguese sailors used the country's maritime wealth and strength to travel the world, opening up many previously undiscovered sea routes and making the country rich off of the trade of spices and souvenirs from far away lands. 

 The process of Portugal's expansion and discovery of new and wonderful places sped up in 1488 when Bartolomeu Dias rounded the 'cape of good hope' and 10 years later when Vasco De Gama landed in India, further paving the way for Portuguese expansion by establishing the largest territories of the Portuguese empire and introducing the Portuguese Language to Southern America.  This continued further with the illustrious albeit accidental discovery of Brazil by Pedro Alvares Cabral who introduced the Portuguese language to what would become the empire's biggest territory.  Over the next 80 years, Portugal further expanded its influence by establishing trade posts in far away lands like Japan, the Middle East and East Africa before slowly entering into an alliance with the more powerful Spanish empire between 1580-1640 in order to keep its own domains safe.  

However, this came with unintended side-effects as the Portuguese empire was repeatedly attacked by Spain's three main enemies during the 17th century (The Dutch Republic, France and England) which resulted in a slow decline over the next 300 years marked by the independence of Brazil in 1822, the Goa crisis in 1961, the African colonial wars in the mid 1970s and the handing-over of the Macau territory to China in 1999 which essentially marked the end of the Portuguese empire.

#9: The Abbasid Caliphate 750-1258  (greatest size-7.45% of the planet)

There are many empires in history that have come so close to achieving their ultimate aims but have been turned back at the last moment by either a cultural movement, a disastrous battle and/or military campaign or a period of stagnation and the mighty yet ill-fated Islamic Abbasid Caliphate is no exception.  When it started out, the Caliphate encompassed only the region around Baghdad in modern Iraq but occupied lands stretching from the edge of Afghanistan, through the Caucasus underneath Russia, through Turkey and the middle-east and onwards to Morocco at its height in the late 9th century.  The empire initially was a huge superpower and a massive threat to the fractured Christian states of the Mediterranean and further deep into Europe, if the huge might of the Caliphate's armies could gain a foothold in Europe then this would mean that the empire could one day reach the glorious height of the legendary Roman empire.  

Yet despite the respect of the leaders of the empire being descended from one of the prophet Muhammad's uncles and the fact that the Caliphate ruled over some of the most holiest sites in the Muslim world. The 'golden age' of the empire where any resistance to expansion in Morocco and Spain was ferociously crushed between 750 and 900 began to start to fade after local 'emirs' in modern Iraq and Iran began to exert independence from the central government near the end of the 9th century and create their own territories with minimal adherence to the main Caliph.  This in turn resulted in a spree of similar occurrences where local generals and rulers began to cede from the central government and form their own, smaller Caliphates across the empire.  

Eventually the rule of the Abbasid Caliphs ended in 1258 when Baghdad was sacked by the Mongols but was reinstated 3 years later in Egypt where the Abbasid dynasty ruled the empire in part until the country was taken over by the Ottoman Turkish empire in 1519 marking the end of the Caliphate for good.

#8: The French Colonial Empire 1534-1980 (greatest size-8.73% of the planet)

Throughout the history of Europe, France has continually fought against England (later Great Britain), Spain and Germany either one at a time or all at the same time.  In turn this rivalry between France, Spain and England prompted the French government in the middle of the 16th century to establish small colonies in North Africa and America, the Caribbean and India. By far the greatest success of this early colonial French empire was the successful support given by the French government to anti-British revolutionaries during the American war of Independence (1775-1781).  However, unfortunately for the early-era French empire, the continuous defeats of French armies and navies by the forces of Great Britain, The Dutch Republic, the German state of Prussia and the Russian empire particularly between 1700-1815 kept this stage of expansion from proceeding much further.

As the last vestiges of Napoleon I's rule died off after the legendarily climactic and bloody battle of Waterloo in 1815 however, the French began to once more expand their power and influence across the world beginning with the occupation of North and West Africa and then moving onto Madagascar, some southern pacific islands and later territories in China, Vietnam, and Korea.  This new wave was based on the retrospectively racist assumption summed up by Jules Ferry that "The higher races have a right over the lower races, they have a duty to civilise the inferior races".  

Yet despite the 'golden age' of the French empire in the late 19th and early 20th century, France's colonial strength did not last as the country was invaded and occupied in 1940 by Nazi Germany followed by the occupation of North Africa by Italy and Far East Asia by Japan.  After the Second World War ended in 1945 and France was once more free the French government attempted to re-establish colonial rule in all the former provinces but was fouled in these attempts by defeat at battles such as Dien Bien Phu in 1953 in Vietnam and the rise of western anti-imperialism in the 1950s and 60s.

#7: Chinese Yuan Dynasty 1271-1368 (greatest size-9.40% of the planet)

When the Mongolian empire expanded into China and conquered the territory of the Song dynasty in southern China, the Mongol leader Kublai Khan established what is called in the Chinese language Da Yuan Digou.  When he conquered this territory, Kublai not only became emperor of China but also supreme Khan amongst all Khans of the Mongolian empire resulting in a level of power that had not been seen since his grandfather Genghis  had ruled the empire before his death in the early 1220s.  Yet despite the successful establishment of the Yuan empire, Kublai was pressed by his councils into expanding the Yuan territories resulting in vicious wars with what remained of the Song empire at battles such as  the climactic clash at Yamen in 1279.

After Kublai's death in 1294, a succession of rulers attempted to continue Kublai's policy of cultural diversity, accepting trade from Europe and making peace with smaller kingdoms such as Vietnam and Korea.  This ended however with the rule of emperor Wuzong ( ruled 1307-1311) which saw the Yuan Dynasty fall into slow economic decline after some ill-advised monetary reforms to the economy.  Emperor Ayurbarwada however managed to reverse much of the Yuan empire's misfortune by reforming the Yuan empire's social and local administrative systems, codifying much of the Yuan law system and embracing Chinese culture more than previous leaders had done.  This period of improvement did not last much longer however as by the time of the dynasty's collapse in 1368, the country was rife with civil-war, famine, political divisions and economic recession.

#6: Chinese Qing Dynasty 1644-1912 (greatest size-9.87% of the planet)

Translating from the Chinese language into English as 'Empire of the Great Qing', the Qing dynasty was and is still by far the largest of the Chinese empires before the establishment of the communist People's Republic of China in 1949.  As the Qing dynasty started off when the Jurchen Aisin Gioro clan in the North Eastern Chinese province of Manchuria, it initially seemed as if the small kingdom would not last against the greater might of the Ming dynasty which ruled most of China at the time.  

But surely enough, over time the Manchurian forces which had united by 1635, began to push the Ming out of their land which resulted in the destabilisation of the Ming dynasty throughout the mid 1600s.  As the century wore on, the Manchurian army under Li Zicheng was swelled to greater numbers by deserters from the Ming army until the complete domination of China was achieved under the Manchurian Kanxi Emperor in 1683.

Over the next 200 years or so, the Qing dynasty enjoyed relative peace and economic prosperity as the rulers of the empire grew closer to the Chinese people by more extensively embracing traditional Chinese culture.  This period of prosperity began to fade however when parts of China were colonised by foreign powers such as Germany, France, Italy, America and the UK in the 19th century culminating in the first Sino-Japanese war between 1894-1895 when the Japanese showed that modernisation was the way forwards by using modern rifles, machine-guns, artillery and armoured ships to crush the out-dated Qing military.  The Qing empire continued to crumble thereafter resulting in the ill-fated boxer uprising in 1900 near Peking and the overthrowing of the empress Dowager Longyu in 1912.

#5: Ummayad Caliphate 661-750 (greatest size-10.07% of the planet)

Out of the four Islamic Caliphate empires that would come to dominate the middle-east throughout much of medieval and early-modern history, the second caliphate under the Ummayad family was by far the largest and most powerful yet was one of the most short lived surviving only 89 years after its founding by Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan after the end of the First Muslim Civil War.

Despite the fact that the empire stretched from Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran in the east through central Asia, the middle-east and North Africa to Spain in the West at its height, many have argued that the oppressive taxes levied by the Caliphate's rulers which moved away from  the original teachings of Islam were the main reason for the unrest that plagued this short-lived empire.  Regardless however, the Ummayad Caliphate was a powerful state that crushed dissent wherever it ruled with its huge army mainly made up of lightly-armoured horsemen that showed their worth when the empire invaded Spain and outmanoeuvred every European army that blocked its path with greater numbers, leadership and tactics.

However, the Caliphate fell into decline after the turmoil of the Second Muslim Civil War (680-692)  and the defeat of a Caliphate army by the army of the Franks in Southern France at the battle of Tours in 732 began a period of military and political decline that later culminated in the Caliphate's collapse after the Third Muslim Civil War (744-747).

#4: The Spanish Empire 1492-1975 (greatest size-13.04% of the planet)

From the landing of Christopher Columbus on the East Coast of America in 1492 to the loss of the last Spanish territory in Africa in 1975, the Spanish empire ushered in the age of the dominance of the European superpowers in foreign affairs during the era of colonial expansion between the 16th and start of the 20th centuries.  The famed landing in America of Columbus and his party was not the only thing that opened up the way to Spanish expansion however as Spain won control over all territories of the Iberian peninsular and the 'Gold coast' in Africa in the last years of the 15th century followed by a series of successful conflicts to ensure Spanish control over the Netherlands and much of Italy throughout the 16th century.

With the massive amounts of gold and silver discovered by the eradication of the southern American empires in the middle and later years of the 16th century, the Spanish Empire reached its height as it was able to fund Europe's most professional army at the time and conquer huge swathes of lands in the Americas, Africa and pacific islands.  However, over time the Spanish empire was continually raided by the navies of France, Britain and the Dutch which caused a slow and steady decline in the Spanish economy.  This was further instigated by the long and ultimately fatal war for Spain's domination of the Netherlands between 1568 and the early-mid 1600s.

After this period of misfortune however, Spain regained many lost territories and began economic and military reforms with the establishment of the Bourbon dynasty in 1700.  Throughout the 1700s the Bourbon's defeated attempts to remove them from power, expelled opposing religious groups from colonial territories in America and defeated the hold of the British over a number of wars in the Mediterranean which brought a number of important trading lanes under Spanish domination.  

After the late 1700s though, the Spanish lost territories in America to France who then sold them off to the recently established United States of America and suffered humiliating military defeats on sea such as at the battle of Trafalgar in 1805 and on land in the wave of revolutions that swept southern America in the 1810s and 1820s.  Over the next 150 years or so, the Spanish empire declined as more and more territories broke from Spanish rule which culminated in the disastrous battle of Annual in Morocco in 1921 in which North African rebels showed up the corruption and weakness of the Spanish army and government by defeating a far larger Spanish army.  From here on out the Spanish empire declined until the final ceding of Spanish territory in 1975

#3: The Russian Empire 1721-1917 (greatest size-15.31% of world's landmass)

Even simply taking into account the mass of Russia itself, the Russian Empire that succeeded the Tsardom of Russia was colossal and ruled over much of central and northern Asia at the height of its power.  At its start, the empire had a confusing future as there was a huge deal of land that needed farming but the population of Russia in the early 1700s was less than 15 million resulting in the majority of the population becoming farmers while only a small number lived in towns and became politicians.

Under empress Catherine the Great (ruled 1762-1796) the Russian Empire expanded its territories in eastern Europe and defeated the Turkish Ottoman empire in multiple wars of territorial dispute.  This period of power continued even through the massive invasion of Russia by France in 1812 until in the 1850s when Russia once again went to war against Turkey but was this time drawn into a disastrous conflict against France and Great Britain and lost some parts of the Crimean peninsular.  This resulted in a period of decline that culminated in two revolutions against the autocratic regime; the revolution of 1905 established a constitutional monarchy while the second revolution of 1917 against Russian involvement in World War One resulted in the end of the Russian empire and the establishment of the Soviet Union.

#2: The Mongol Empire 1206-1368 (greatest size-22.14% of world's landmass)

When the legendary Genghis Khan united all of the Mongol and Turkic tribes of Mongolia in 1206, he did so with the aim of creating a singular and united people that would be able to defeat all threats put against them. Initially, the main target of the Mongolian army's wrath and that of its leader was the Chinese kingdom of the Sung dynasty and later the Khwazerwarheim empire.  After the conquering of these kingdoms, the death of Genghis sometime between 1223 and 1227 and the death of his successor Ogedai in 1241, the empire experienced a period of instability as warring factions competed for dominance of the empire.

Despite the unification of the empire under Guyuk Khan in the civil war that followed,  the Mongol empire would never be as feared and powerful as it was under Genghis and Ogedai despite the huge swathes of territories the empire conquered and the size and organisation of its armies.  A physical example of this can be found in accounts of the battle of Ain Jalut in 1260 which remains the only pitched battle where the Mongols were decisively defeated.  Despite the power of successive Khans, the Mongol empire declined from here on out and eventually crumbled in the later decades of the 1300s following the collapse of the Yuan dynasty in 1368.

#1: The British Empire 1497-1997 (greatest size-22.63% of global landmass)

Despite the fact that the British empire never reached its full height until halfway through the 18th century, it is still recognised as the largest and most influential empire in living memory encompassing territories as far and wide as Canada, India, the Middle-East, Australia and New Zealand and multiple African nations and introducing a large number of countries to relatively modern technologies such as connected, nationwide railways, radio, television and mechanised armies.  For the first 200 or so years that England began to colonise territories from 1497 to the end of the 1600s between the "age of discovery" and the unification of Great Britain, the only real expansion consisted of establishing small colonies in America and establishing trade routes through the Mediterranean into Africa, India and the far east.

Following the unification of Great Britain in 1707 and the subsequent wars with Spain, France and the Dutch republic, Great Britain was left as the dominant power on the North African side of the Mediterranean ocean.  With this new-found power and access to the Suez Canal as well as one of the world's finest and largest navies, Great Britain began its colonisation of India and parts of southern and eastern Africa.  This increased the power of the British state by bringing huge profit through trade and power through the recruits for the British military that were gained by conquering these territories.  Despite opposition to British colonialism in Canada and America in the 1750's from France and again in the 1770's from American revolutionaries, the British empire remained the largest and most powerful empire of its day.

This condition was strengthened further after the British defeated France and Spain at the naval battle of Trafalgar in 1805 which in turn also cemented Britain's naval supremacy up until World War One (1914-1918).  over the next hundred or so years after the battle of Trafalgar the British remained the world's main superpower as empires such as those of France and Spain came and went according to the waxing and waning power of their governments whereas Britain continually experienced political stability because of its balance between government and monarchy.

However, even as the empire reached its zenith at the end of World War One and during the 1920's, the economic strain of the war and the rise of nationalism in India prompted a wave of somewhat timid albeit increasingly confrontational dissent across the empire.  This dissent increased with the economic strain put on the British empire by the Second World War (1939-1945) which resulted in such a widespread wave of nationalism across territories that it prompted a swathe of countries gaining independence from Britain in the late 1940's and throughout the 1950's.  This continued throughout the 20th century until finally in 1997, the United Kingdom finally handed over its last major imperial territory of Hong Kong city to the People's Republic of China.

I hope you guys have enjoyed this top ten, please be sure to submit suggestions for future top tens and I'd greatly appreciate it.  Until next time, keep safe, clever and happy.

New film review #7: Man of Steel

The more a franchise has been around the more we grow nostalgically attached to it whatever medium format it may be in.  Personally, I am nostalgic towards game franchises like Battlefield and Jak & Daxter, book series' like The Horus Heresy and Alex Ryder, comic/manga series' like Spider Man or Love Hina and movie franchises such as Rush Hour and Mission Impossible.  The reason why I am bringing this up is that the movie that is the subject of today's film review is part of an undeniably long and popular franchise that stretches way back to the inter-war era between the end of World War 1 and the start of World War 2 (1918-1939).  If a franchise has been around for longer and therefore possibly rooted itself more strongly in popular media and culture then there is the very strong likelihood that it will be more recognisable to those who see works attributed to the source material and adaptations of such works.  Case in point, the recent (and hopefully strong in the far future) reboot of the superman movie franchise in the form of the reasonably well-acclaimed Man of Steel directed by Zack Snyder.

Now as with any franchise that has been around as long as it has, the superman franchise has faced its fair share of both damn fine moments (e.g. Superman (1978) and Superman 2 (1980) and the original comics from the 30's and 40's) and moments that have tarnished this franchise with a shit-covered paintbrush made out of odd and poor decisions and executions (e.g. Superman 4 the quest for peace (1987) and Superman Returns (2006)).  Some could argue that this recent reboot which sees the aptly named 'man of steel' face off against the legendary superman villain General Zod many decades after the death of his home-planet Krypton has given some much-needed boost to the image of not just the superman franchise but also the superman character himself after the debacle of the movies brought out in 1987 and 2006.  But do I think this film is as great and much-needed as others do?  On one hand I definitely think that this film is much-needed as the superman franchise was in desperate need of some boosting after the 2006 reboot but on the other hand I may not see it in as positive a light as others may do so.  This isn't to say that Man of Steel is a bad film however, oh no indeed, in fact its actually quite good particularly in regards to the action, the exposition by Russel Crowe  as Superman's real dad (Jor-El), the aforementioned directing by Zack Snyder and the portrayal of Superman/Clarke Kent/Kal-El himself by Henry Cavill.

Anyway, enough with my own exposition, lets get down to the plot which coincidentally is really anything that you'd be forgiven for taking for granted from the source material.  When Superman is a little mite being born out into the world of Krypton it is revealed to us that while he is the first newborn in centuries of Kryptonian history, his monumental birth is marred by the fact that the planet is on the verge of collapse due to the fact that the natural resources are so depleted that the structural integrity of Krypton is wavering.  As Superman's father Jor-El tries and fails to persuade the typically-ridiculously-over-dressed high council of Krypton to find more economical methods of powering Kryprton's energy systems and technology, General Zod (played by Michael Shannon) of the Kryptonian military stages a coup to deal with the council's indecision and find a solution to Krypton's energy crisis pronto.  This coup fails and Zod is thrown in an awesome-looking cryo-tech jail for several decades along with his personal guard while Jor-El is killed by Zod but not before implanting the Codex of Krypton ( the genetic coding of the entire Kryptonian species) within lil' baby superman and shooting him off in a space pod towards earth days before Krypton explodes from sheer instability.  As Superman is discovered on earth by Johnothan and Martha Kent (Kevin Costner and Diane Lane respectively) he grows up into a world where he must use his rapidly developing super powers sparingly or else alienate (ba-dum-tish) himself from the population of earth but where he must use them increasingly as he goes on in life and crosses more and more dangerous situations like holding up a falling oil rig that's on fire (y'know, the kind of stuff we all help out with normally).  This in itself reaches its peak as General Zod finally discovers where Superman has been all these years and aims to track him and the codex down in order to rebuild Krypton regardless of the damage he causes along the way which brings him into conflict with Superman over the fate of the human race.

Now if that doesn't in itself raise some important questions about morality, what we should prioritise first and the importance of re-usable energy sources in a world where fossil fuels are running out fast then I don't know what does (except half of the major blockbusters of the last 13 years such as The Last Samurai (2003) or Avatar (2009)).  Regardless, the matter of re-usable energy is put across surprisingly effectively in the first 10 mins while the rest of the film is taken up by the conflict between Superman and Zod about what is a greater priority between the preservation of the population that already inhabits earth or the creation of a new Krypton through the destruction of humanity.   And much like the morals being explored in this film as well as the plot, the rest of the film is also relatively straightforward and simple allowing for the audience to be easily drawn in and subsequently understand what the film and its individual characters are trying to convey to us through action, speech and expression.  particularly relevant to this aspect is the central argument and conflict between Cavill's Superman and Shannon's Zod.

This is a bad thing in some films where the characters need an ample amount of character development but there is not enough of a complicated or complex plot to base this progress off of (e.g. see The Losers (2010) or Rambo III (1988)).  However, given the fact that Superman is a characteristically straightforward fellow this actually works not too bad in Man of Steel as Superman's aim is to simply stop Zod from killing everyone on planet earth.  Accompanying this simple expression of conflict and telling of Superman's back-story we also have fight scenes that are strikingly different in the sense that they cover a sprawling amount of destruction caused by the clashes between Zod's forces on one side and the combined might of Superman and the US national guard and air force on the other on both small and huge industrial and urban areas in which the hectic nature of Superman's struggle to preserve American lives while also fending off the equally strong attacks of Zod's lieutenants is shown.  Particularly this is shown as Superman begins to realise that while he is singularly outnumbered and out-trained by Zod's forces, he has a moral superiority over the bad guys and couples this with a greater capability to focus his powers and senses in order to gain advantages in one-on-one fights with Zod's troops.  This aspect of the action in itself is given considerable time throughout the film and is used as both an expression of Superman's connection with both his dead/real parents and his adopted ones and his right to power on account of being the only live Kryptonian who won't do evil with his powers unlike Zod and his troops.  Therefore, some aspects of the action not only serve to grip us to our seats and squeeze our cups of icy lemonade in anticipation but also serve to convey a limited albeit compelling sense of character development in Cavill's adeptly-played role. furthermore on top of all this good stuff, the comedy of Man of Steel is well-placed and not over-used throughout the film unlike in Superman IV: the quest for peace where comedy was the soup of the day and was done so disconnected and poorly that it made Superman IV feel like a drunken dane cook sketch which only made the film worse than it already was (not taking into account the awful special effects and the bizarre villain Nuclear man).  On top of the great action scenes and the well-placed humour, Zack Snyder also treats us to some truly beautiful cinematic scenes of destruction in the form of the death of Krypton at the beginning of the film and the destruction wrought on the fictional American city of metropolis near the end of the film by Zod's terraforming machine during his final gambit to turn Earth into Krypton.

However, taking this all into account and respecting the hard work of Snyder, Cavill and the marvellous exposition by Crowe not to mention the commendable visuals throughout the film, there are some aspects of Man of Steel  that just stuck out a little too uncomfortably for me like the spotty sun-rashes that I got on my feet during my holiday to Greece.  The highest point on this particular list is the fact that the film itself is so simple and straightforward that while the raising of the ethical points I mentioned earlier are done compellingly, they did not have the fullest impact on my views on the subjects of recyclable fuel and prioritisation of pressing issues according to either a conservative or ideological mindset.  Furthermore, despite the visual beauty of the destruction wrought throughout the film, the possibility of thousands of deaths isn't addressed after the battle is won and remained a niggling issue in the back of my head for a while afterwards, something that is particularly the case when metropolis gets the shit kicked out of it by Zod's terraforming machine.  Subsequently, the bad guys are not all that threatening despite their clearly superior numbers and training in comparison to Superman.  Shannon tries his best to make General Zod appear in a perpetual state of anger and misplaced hope throughout the film but instead makes Zod look and sound a little like he's eaten a dozen boiled eggs and half a dozen meatball subs with three bags of toffees and is now having constipation problems while the lieutenants of Zod's forces seem like they went to the Kristen Stewart school of acting.  Lastly, it doesn't take very much for the US military to ally itself with Superman near the climax of the film despite the fact that the US military feared him throughout the majority of the film for the possible destruction he could and does end up causing.

So all in all this film is good but flawed.  Like I said earlier, its good but has some technical flaws and some changes in certain characters just happen way too easily, not to mention the actors who play the main characters don't seem like they care much while Shannon seems like he took acting coaching from the legendarily over-the-top Jeremy Irons (see the first Dungeons and Dragons movie).  However, I would still recommend this film as it stands out from most other modern remakes as being quite good and has admittedly injected the superman movie franchise with some much-needed life after the wet farts that were Superman IV and Superman Returns.  

In conclusion: see this movie if you like superhero films (particularly Superman), good action scenes and Amy Adams dashing good-looks but beware of some hammy acting and lack of a real rounding-up to the 'moral of the story'.

P.S. I'm going away to Whales next week so I'm going to do another 3 posts over the weekend, hope to see you lot soon!