Ted R's top tens #4: Top ten best selling music albums (as of September 2013)

Now this isn't something I'm used to doing.  You guys all know that my forte on this blog is to review either video games or movies or do top tens about those things and maybe historical facts and occasionally add in a food review or two.  But in all honesty I've never really thought of doing a post about music and seeing as how its probably the most expansive celebrity profession in the modern world I thought to myself, 'ah sod it, if there are Youtubers reviewing songs then I may as well do something similar'.  Thus, LO AND BEHOLD!  Here cometh the top ten selling music albums of all time!  (as of 28th August 2013).

Naturally everyone has their own tastes so some of the entries on this list may cause a few ruffled brows and mildly heightened blood pressures but even taking this into account, one cannot deny the popularity of an album or similar medium on the basis of how much it sells.  Therefore I'm discounting popularity as something to measure these albums by and am instead basing their height on the list solely on the number of copies sold.  Now without further ado, lets get down on the dance floor!

#10: Bat out of Hell by Meat Loaf (released 1977, tracks-7, genre-progressive & hard rock, produced by-Todd Rundgren)

In all honesty I thought that the likes of a progressive & hard rock album might not have a chance of appearing on this top ten (no offence intended to Meat Loaf fans or fans of the genres in general) because I've always thought of the two genres of progressive and hard rock as not being mainstream enough to grant wholesale success in sales.  But considering the cult following that artists like Meat Loaf have with their music and persona's to this day so many years after the golden years for hard rock in the later 20th century, perhaps this shouldn't appear as too much of a surprise to anyone with even limited knowledge of the genre.

In turn it seems that this most certainly translates into sales for Meat Loaf's best selling album of the 1970s which features the songs "Bat out of Hell", "You took the words right out of my mouth", "Heaven can wait", "All revved up with no place to go", "Two out of three ain't bad", the three part "Paradise by the dashboard light" and "For crying out loud".  Oddly enough though, sales for the album were slow despite it reaching 34 million sales, 20.5 million of which were certified and yet since the lukewarm reaction to the album it has since become hugely popular in the UK, US and Australia and elsewhere while reaching such high positions on other lists such as 9th on Australia's top ten most popular albums and 38th on the top 100 heavy metal albums list in a 1989 edition of Kerrang! magazine.

Unfortunately, despite the popularity that the album has garnered for itself, those involved in its production and the good Mr Meat Loaf himself one of its most lasting aspects have been the legal conflicts between Cleveland International and Sony Records over branding featured on copies of the album between 1995 and 2007.

#9: Led Zeppelin IV by Led Zeppelin (released 1971, tracks-8, genre-hard rock & heavy metal, produced by-Jimmy Page)

Hmm, you know I just thought of something about music and film in the 70s.  Perhaps the reason why there was such a big swing from softer forms of rock, swing and other slightly older fashioned genres of music in the 1970s is because of the broadening of social horizons and consciousness at this time due to events such as the cold war and Vietnam war which challenged thoughts in the minds of common citizens that supported pro-conventional/establishment sentiments.  Perhaps that's the reason why bands like Led Zeppelin and artists like Meat Loaf were so huge not so long after the, in hindsight, lyrically tame phenomenons like Elvis and the Beatles in the 60s and 50s.  Therefore it should be no surprise that this cultural swing in the early and mid-70s resulted in Led Zeppelin's best selling album of the 1970s reaching approximately 37 million sales in 1971, 29 million of which were certified.

Yet whereas like Bat out of Hell had a lukewarm initial appearance onto the scene of musical success, Led Zeppelin IV was a smash hit from the 'go' resulting in a smashing 23 million copies sold in the USA alone, generally good reception by critics upon release and high placement on popularity lists such as being placed 4th on the US Rock and Roll's hall of fame's '200 albums of all time'.  Not only this, the album stayed longer on US charts than any other by the band since and was praised for being one of the best albums of the year of its release what with being titled as a 'masterpiece' of ground-breaking song writing thus making the album not only popular but also culturally ingrained in the minds of Led Zeppelin fans for decades to come.

#8: Come on over by Shania Twain (released 1997, tracks-12, genre-country/pop/rock, produced by-Robert Lange)

Sigh.  I'm not going to lie, and I don't mean any offence to Ms Twain, her many fans and the other up and coming musicians who think that country is more credible against the other main current genres (i.e. pop, rap,  rock and modern R&B/soul) but I don't think that country music is collectively all that good (I'm looking at you Taylor Swift, you bloody psycho-ex-girlfriend nut-case).  Now there are some individual songs within the genre that I think are are as delicious as mature Brie with premium onion marmalade on a freshly baked baguette (i.e. "I feel like a woman" which is the best song on this album by far).  But for the most part I'd have to say that most country songs just don't appeal to me on the basis of how I think that most country tracks sound mono-note and are devoid of much variety in theme and tune.

Still, none can deny the popularity of Ms Twain's smash hit album of the late 1990s which sold a smashing 39 million copies, nearly 30 million of which were certified and resulted in Twain becoming vastly more famous than she was before by the popularity of her songs placing the album in the US top ten for 151 weeks.  Contrary to my earlier point about personal tastes though, the album was praised regardless for melding themes and parts of other genres such as rock into the usual fortes of country without diluting the traditional sense and themes of country music already present in the album's tracks.

#7: The Bodyguard: original soundtrack album by Whitney Houston and various others (released 1992, tracks-13, genre-pop & R&B, produced by-multiple persons including Houston herself)

You know its weird.  I swear sometimes that the soundtrack of the legendarily mediocre film The Bodyguard (1992) is more famous.  Then again, the dearly departed Ms Houston was more well known throughout her life for her musical talents and any film starring Kevin Costner as one of the main leads is bound to be pretty lukewarm (see Waterworld (1995)).  And therein lies the appeal of the album for if any of its songs are featured in a film or show then said film or show will probably be well recognised at least for a short time afterwards.

Case in point, this seems not only to be the case due to the fact that Houston had a shining career studded with stellar popularity but also that the soundtrack for the film of the same name as the album was indeed the best thing about The Bodyguard as its tunes are still recognised today as some of the most recognisable in modern music.  In turn it should appear as no surprise to anyone that the album sold around 40 million copies of which 27.4 million sales were certified making the album the best selling of the entire decade which in no doubt contributed to it reaching number one in the album charts in 17 countries.  Oddly enough, despite the album's since popular following, The Bodyguard: original soundtrack album received lukewarm reviews upon release usually rating somewhere around the halfway mark thus leaving some to think that the album's success could be pinned on the fame attributed to the dearly departed Ms Houston herself.

#6: Rumors  by Fleetwood Mac (released 1977, tracks-11, genre-soft rock, produced by-Fleetwood Mac, Kan Caillat and Richard Dashut)

Ok, now perhaps unlike the other bands/artists in the other entries in this list, I'm kind of mixed in my opinion towards how good Fleetwood Mac are.  Don't get me wrong, I acknowledge that the band has amassed considerable popularity and a cult following to rival that of the Clerks film franchise (1994-) but while I do like some of their songs like 'Dreams' I just don't find myself all that interested in their music perhaps simply because it just doesn't fit in with my tastes or that the lyrics of the band's songs don't connect with me much.  Just be glad that they aren't as bad in that regard as say someone like Kesha (no I'm not using her stupid fucking stage spelling).  Regardless of my film references and mixed feelings towards this band however, no one can deny that the 1977 album 'Rumors' was undeniably popular with a total of notably more than 40 million sales of the album upon its release of which 26.8 million sales were certified.

Fortunately for this popular soft-rock-with-occasional-hints-of-very-mild-techno band, the popularity of the album 'Rumors' is well warranted as unlike the soundtrack album for The Bodyguard this album received largely popular reviews from musical critics and magazines and has continued its popularity into the modern era along with the other works by Fleetwood Mac.  In fact, the album was so popular and well received at the time that it received a 35th anniversary re-release and was praised by band member Mick Fleetwood as "The most important album we ever made..." on account of the popularity that the album raised for the band thus enabling it to continue for years to come.

#5: Saturday Night Fever by the Bee Gees (released 1977, tracks-17, genre-disco, produced by-Bill Oakes)

THESE GUYS.  Man, if the Bee Gees had broken out in an explosion of fame nowadays they'd probably be laughed at for being so high-pitched and being so out of place in how flamboyantly dressed they were in their glory days.  Mind you, considering the freaking ridiculous costume wardrobes of artists these days like Nicki Minaj, Rhianna or Lady Gaga maybe they would probably fit right in.  However, regardless of how easy it is to poke fun at these legends of disco music, I can't deny that I wholeheartedly enjoy the cheesiness of the band's collective persona and the rhythm of the Bee Gee's music.

Despite the fact that the late-1970s was fast becoming the era of genres like heavier forms of rock and punk rock in the western world, the Bee Gee's top-selling album of all time cannot be denied in its obvious popularity as it sold between 40-41 million copies upon its release, nearly 19 million of which were certified.  What is peculiar about this album though, is that like The bodyguard: The original movie soundtrack album, Saturday Night Fever was also a soundtrack album to a film of the same (released in 1977 as well) name which in hindsight is most likely more popular for its soundtrack than its impact on cult popularity or the inclusion of a young John Travolta as the film's main star.  

#4: Back in Black by AC/DC (released 1980, tracks-10, genre-hard rock/rock, produced by-Robert Lange)

Again with Mr Lange producing an album on this list?  I mean come on people, Shiana Twain and AC/DC play mostly different music apart from a limited connection via both Ms Twain and the immensely popular rock band sometimes sharing the same genre of music in their works.  Ah well its not like it matters anyway, after all I definitely prefer the iconically rocking tones of the works of AC/DC over country music in all its twangy and ear-grating anti-glory.  Therefore its gratifying (for me personally at least) to know that AC/DC's top-selling album ranks among the top three best-selling rock albums so far in the history of music over a country rock album of sorts (again, I mean absoleutley no intended offence towards Ms Twain and her fans).

On top of this, I was even more gratified to learn that my favourite rock band had nearly 41 million copies of their best-selling album sold upon its release with a whopping 25.9 million of those sales being certified.  To add to this, the album's popularity has proven so paramount over the decades that since 1980 it is believed that about 50 million copies of the album have been sold worldwide.  Needless to say, the criticism that some might level at AC/DC for not being the most 'metal' heavy rock band may be a valid point in some cases of a few of their songs but the popularity of the band and the sheer popularity of Back in Black is a solid fact that cannot be ignored.

#3: Their Greatest Hits (1971-1975) by The Eagles (released 1976, tracks-15, genre-country rock/folk rock/soft rock/rock, produced by-Glyn Johns & Bill Szymczyk)

Ok now this'll probably piss a few people off but to be honest...don't really care much for The Eagles and their music.  Again, I have to say that one's taste in music is wholly subjective from song to song and artist/band to artist/band.  So I acknowledge that while I might not pay much attention to the pretentiously-titled top-seller of an album by the famed soft rock band, its position at number 3 on this list is perhaps well deserved because of its sheer popularity and the extended period of best hits of The Eagles that the album covers.  Also, not to rag on The Eagles or anything, but the album cover for their greatest-selling album confuses me a little, seriously, what in the blazes is that thing on the cover and what is it sitting in, snow or sand?

But really, this is all fluff when considering the fact that the album sold a massive 42 million copies of which 32.2 million sales were certified upon its release 5 years after the album had begun production.  This just goes to prove that even despite one's musical tastes, the popularity of a band is more so measured by the sales that said band makes rather than wider opinions towards said band and its albums.  Unfortunately for the music industry this seems increasingly the case with artists who either have little talent (i.e. Souldja Boy or Lil' Wayne) or artists who set a poor example and role model to younger and more impressionable fans (i.e. Justin Beiber).  Still, at least The Eagles based their success on a mixture of talent and respectable image (excluding the heated arguments during their 1980 break up).  So at least I can praise them for something.

#2: The Dark Side of the Moon by Pink Floyd (released 1973, tracks-10, genre-progressive rock, produced by-Pink Floyd)

Ah, now this is an interesting entry indeed.  Not only is it the only entry by a British band/artist on the list, but it is also different to the previous 7 albums that had been released by Pink Floyd beforehand in the sense that it did not include extended instrumental excursions in its tracks.  On top of this, the album is also iconic in technical and visual terms.  Iconic in visual terms for having one of the most recognisable album covers of all time and also in technical terms for having the majority of the songs on the album based on technical and practical experiments to do with musical alteration and method.  This in turns means that the band was more able to express the themes of conflict, greed, the passage of time, death and insanity in a varying and vibrant number of technical manners.

This in turn resulted in The Dark Side of the Moon being the top-selling album by any British band/artist to date in the music industry which is no doubt obvious from the album's staggering 45 million sales, 22.7 of which were certified upon its release.  This in turn has translated into the album receiving such praise as being one of the most popular and important albums to musical culture in history so much so that it is a number of albums that has been selected for preservation in the US National Recording Registry of the Library of the US Congress.

#1: Thriller by Michael Jackson (released 1982, tracks-9, genre-post disco/pop/R&B/rock/funk, produced by-Michael Jackson & Quincy Jones)

Okay, lets be honest.  everyone but the most ignorant reading this top ten will have seen this coming.  Not only is the mighty and dearly deceased MJ regarded as the most popular music artist/personality of all time but his most famous song is the title of his best-selling album.  Naturally this would be placed at number one right?  I mean think about it, what if this list suddenly took a twist turn and we all of a sudden found out that the top spot was taken by a Bulgarian rural Christmas anthem from the 1970s.  Hang on, forgot where I was going with that point.

In all honesty though, what do I really need to say about this entry that already has been said?  Its songs are strikingly catchy, three of the most recognisable songs in western music are recorded on the album's roster of tunes, its the most popular album of the most popular artist and its cultural impact particularly on modern genres based on post-disco, pop and R&B are immense (perhaps more so for pop).  In turn this means that the album's impact is just as huge as its popularity which translated into 51-65 million sales of the album upon its release, 42.4 million of which were certified.  

Subsequently, this huge number of sales of the album have increased in multiple forms of music format even after Michael Jackson's untimely death in 2009 means that Thriller more than earns its place as the most popular and well-sold album of all time in musical history.

Now I hope you all enjoyed this top ten and just wanted to tell you all that I'll be going for a month to work on a panda conservation for a month in China on Friday which means that it may be a little more tricky for me to update with more frequent reviews, top tens and opinion blogs.  Still, I have always appreciated the patience of you guys and will try to get one more post up before I go away and attempt to do some while I'm working in China.

In the meantime, take care, care for others around you and if you are angry at my sudden announcement don't blame it on me...blame it on the boogy.

New film review #10: Only God Forgives

Once in a while there may be a film, game or book franchise that comes out that at first seems refreshingly unique like the UK constitution or either as dysfunctional as a plane hull held together with soggy duct tap.  But after a short while tends to get a better recognition on the basis of more rounded and focused analysis by the wider public due to a greater amount of time with which to analyse said franchise.  In regards to myself, one such franchise that I have had my views more rounded on over the years has been the Mass Effect series which over the years I have realised, tends to have some of the best storytelling of most game franchises of the last 20 years or so and colourful characters but also suffers from average (albeit testing) game play and a sour ending to the franchise itself.  One such franchise or stand-alone instalment that I wholeheartedly know I can say without hesitation that I hate as much as Red Faction 2 is the recent crime-revenge-bloodbath flick Only God Forgives starring everyone's current male heartthrob Ryan Gosling.

Now just before I get into why I think that this film is as confusing as Inception if it was played backwards in German on acid and is about as upbeat and light-hearted as the ending to the anime series School Days (which if you don't know is pretty damn grim and violent) let me say that Ryan Gosling is an actor I have no ire towards.  I mean he's about as colourful and emotionless as an ASDA home-brand cucumber and margarine sandwich on plain white bread in this film but he isn't necessarily a bad actor per-say in his other works.  Still I can't stand his performance or that of anyone else in this god-forsaken (ba-dum-tish, BTW I'm an Atheist) mess of a film which follows our sternly handsome main character Julian as he attempts to find and reprimand 'crime-family-revenge' style the man in the local Thai community where he lives who killed his paedophillic pus-bag of a brother, Billy.

And that is pretty much the extent of the plot in Only God Forgives, there are twists revealed later in the film about how Julian himself is kind of evil like his brother (prepare for pseudo-incestual and murderous hints in regards to his family relations near the end of the film) and how Julian isn't really the one you would or should trust with avenging your death or protecting you against a corrupt Thai police chief who can seemingly pull a short-sword out of his braces when he wishes.  As for the rest of the characters apart from Gosling's Julian, Julian and Billy's mum Crystal (Kristin Scott Thomas) is a selfish, egotistical and rude psycho who is just about prepared to let everyone else do all her actions for her in the film, Billy himself is a thoroughly unpleasant piece of  greasy shit who introduces himself with his death and rape/murder of a 16-year-old girl in the first 15 mins of the film and the sword-wielding police chief Chang (Vithaya Pansringarm) is utterly alien and confusing in his motives much like Gosling's character is throughout the film.

Now you might have noticed as I mentioned earlier or as other people have said, this film is as bloody as a Nightmare on Elm St film on its menstruation working in a butchers shop with Oldboy (2003) as the shop owner.  And sad to say, but unfortunately, the violence is the only real thing that God Only Forgives has going for it and when you build a film with allot of the good old human-flavour Kool-Aid in it albeit without much reason or development behind the gore to make it meaningful then the violence of said blood-letting tends to lose its impact on the viewer and story.  Don't get me wrong though, the violence in this film does certainly show the visceral nature of the day-to-day lives that the characters live in as they all compete to see who can live the longest in this world of crime, bloodshed and corruption.

In turn, the way the bloodshed is shown and achieves its objective brings me onto the only other major pro in the film's favour, the cinematography  is GORGEOUS.  I'm not even kidding or exaggerating when I say that the mood that the shots set are some of the most compelling that I've seen in modern cinema for several years.  While the acting is largely emotionless, the cinematography is so good that it actually manages to add some colour, warmth and grounded realism to the film despite the unrealism of how robotic the characters are portrayed as.  So take this as a message, if you are ever in need of a film with excellent to settle an argument or possibly write a cinematography essay then use Only God Forgives as an example of cinematography that is as enjoyable as opening your Christmas stocking over a cup of hot chocolate on Christmas morning (a little cheesy I know, but that always sticks out in my mind as a pleasant memory).

So to conclude, this film is one hell of a downer and while that may not be always a bad thing, you at least have to make your film regardless of its mood interesting or at least catching and Only God Forgives fails pretty badly at this.  While the cinematography is brilliant and the violence is strikingly reminiscent of some more famous gore-fest, south-east asian flicks the film tends to lose the impact of the grimness of the story and setting and the impact of said violence when the characters are shown to all be unlike-able with no redeeming qualities or likeable traits.  On top of this, some of the torture scenes were really fucking hard for me to watch as they literally had me feeling physical pain as I watched them which wasn't helped by the lack of acting with any emotion in it.  All in all, don't see this film as it is dull, confusing as hell and gets really freaking creepy towards the end like a paedophile's diary.

Summary: If you want to see something that's grim and has allot of blood and revenge themes in it, see something like Battle Royale (2000) or Oldboy (2003) and steer clear of Only God Forgives.

Characters: 3/10
Plot: 3.5/10
Action: 8/10

Overall: 14.5/30

New film review #9: The Wolverine

Remember what I said a couple of posts ago in my review of Man of Steel that the longer a film franchise goes on then the more likely it is to have as many stinkers as well as golden nuggets?  Well the X-men film franchise owned by Fox studios is an anomaly in this sense. When the X-men film franchise first started out way back in 2000 with X-Men (duh, what else?) the first few films of the franchise namely between X-Men and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009) were generally a bit shit like Halle Berry's puns in the first film or the over-the-top twists and deaths in X-Men: The Last Stand (2006).  But oddly enough, much like the Resident Evil film franchise, the X-Men film franchise seems to be slowly learning from its mistakes and becoming slowly better beginning with that one helicopter scene in Origins through X-Men: First Class (2011) and onwards to the recent release of the second film centred around Hugh Jackman's trademark Marvel comics character.

Now in comparison to the other X-Men films, does this one show as much moving forwards and improvement of the franchise as much as X-Men: First Class?  Hell no.  Seriously, this might be the best film of the franchise yet but that is purely based off of how well the film was made and acted.  Unlike First Class, The Wolverine adds noticeably less new concepts in terms of character development to the film in regards to all of the characters.  Don't get me wrong now boys and girls, there are a huge few concepts thrown into this film which have really fleshed out the film version of the character Wolverine and one after the credits which may have considerable implications for the rest of the X-Men film universe characters.  But in sharp contrast, First Class fleshed out characters that covered a more diverse range of personalities than the characters in this flick with wider implications for the series in later instalments.

Fortunately in comparison to previous X-Men films though, this one has a plot that isn't unnecessarily long-winded or bogged down by too many token back-stories.  Therefore, not only is the plot allot simpler but also allows for an action/adventure flick that is far easier to follow than say X2 (2003).  As the film starts, we are introduced to Logan (AKA Wolverine or as I like to call him 'Mr Kebab stick hands') and a Japanese soldier named Yashida who is saved by our clawed, sweary and later-Batman-esque gruff Canadian soldier in the midst of the atomic explosion at Nagasaki at the end of the Second World War.  Years later, Wolverine is a social and emotional outcast in rural mid-America after the events of X-Men: The Last Stand while Yashida has become the most well-recognised technology manufacturer in all of Japan.  As Wolverine accepts one final request from his old comrade to say goodbye to Yashida before he dies Wolverine soon realises that Yashida is not resigned to death as he might expect but wants to do a two-way deal in which Yashida gets Wolverine's slowed-ageing while Wolverine will be able to live out the rest of his life at a normal pace.  This soon all goes to pot however as Yashida is seemingly murdered and Wolverine is forced to go on the run with his emotionally fragile granddaughter Mariko (Tao Okamoto) all the while running from a shady organisation that employs a mixture of ninjas, yakuza clansmen and a rather pointless side villain named Viper played by the adept Svetlana Khodchenkova (yeah I can't pronounce her name properly either).  And from here on out we experience a set of events that bring our heroes to the action-packed climax with a surprising amount of formulaic plot-lining yet surprising amount of excitement as Wolverine once more pits himself against legions of overconfident foes albeit with a greater sense of vulnerability this time round.

Yes that is the one thing that surprised me about The Wolverine and that is like Pacific Rim, The Wolverine has a formulaic plot and set of events that lead to equally formulaic character development and an equally formulaic climax, yet is all surprisingly entertaining to watch when it all comes together in the end much like a fried breakfast that took you four hours to make yet tastes like it was made by the hands of Zeus, Gordon Ramsey and Jamie Oliver combined.  Perhaps this in accordance to the fact that as I mentioned earlier, Hugh Jackman has become so associated with the role of Wolverine in the film industry over the last 13 years that he now is not only able to show us how good an actor he is by playing a character that can simultaneously be an emotional drawing board and powerhouse but also show us how much he understands the characteristics of this iconic Marvel comics character.  In turn, this is one of the film's main strengths in the sense that Jackman clearly knows how to play Wolverine so well and does so against the backdrop of a roster of characters that we have only just met and so have all the time in the world to get to know that creates a medley of character developments that go together like a grilled halloumi cheese salad and onion marmalade.

But whereas the storyline might not be as deliciously balanced between action and political/historical gravitas as X-Men: First Class, I personally think that the action has taken a notable improvement balancing between fast-paced, pitched battle and angry-Canadian-mutant VS giant-motherfucking-silver samurai-robot.  On one hand, the one-on-one fights throughout the film convey a sense of ultimatum, usually happening as is the case with other films like this one, when two characters of both or either emotional or plot-line importance face off against each other in a clash to the end.  This is interestingly smoothly contrasted against the clashes between Wolverine and legions of foes in fights where the now-vulnerable Wolverine must use wits and speed as well as his characteristic berserker rage to defeat the enemy whether it be at an old friend's funeral in the midst of hundreds of innocent people or atop a bullet train travelling at hundreds of miles an hour.  The one exception to this is the disappointing clash between Wolverine and a clan of Ninjas in an urban tundra town that just screams of similarities to the final set in 13 Assassins (2010) which was given considerable gravitas in the film's trailers yet divulges into a moment of savage clarity where Wolverine takes down a single squad of baddies then runs away like a total idiot thus exposing himself to massed poisoned-arrow fire.

And much like this scene, the flaws of the film really stuck out in my throat like when I first played the space-faring-ship-flying shoot 'em' up game Freelancer (2003) and came across that forsaken and blood-vein-popping race level.  For the most part, and thankfully unlike Man Of Steel, these flaws are not too striking and pretty much just apply to the continuity of the world of the X-Men film franchise.  For example, Wolverine is clearly able to remember the events at Nagasaki that brought him and Yashida together but this is overshadowed by exposition in X2 that explains that Wolverine had his memory entirely taken from him when he was shot many years after WW2 with a bullet encased in the metal Adamantium in the head thus making the flashbacks to WW2 in The Wolverine a little bit niggling to the conscience of X-Men fans.  As I also mentioned earlier, the side villain called Viper seems a little out of place and while she is played adeptly by Khodchenkova, proved to be a character that simply rubbed me up the wrong way as I never really enjoyed her presence on screen as I perhaps should have done.  Also as mentioned earlier, the scene between Wolverine and the ninja clan near the end is just about as disappointing as the entire Michael Bay Transformers movie franchise (at least albeit without horrible sexualisation of women and wholly awful special effects).

But discounting this, the film on the whole is actually pretty damn good.  It might not have the same level of maturity and historical reference in the plot as in X-Men: First Class or the same level of epic gravitas in the action as in X-Men: The Last Stand but at the very least, the action is most certainly the crowning glory of the film (especially the ball-grabingly awesome train fight scene) with its excellent juxtaposing while the plot is pleasantly easy to follow while including some twists at the end and after the credits (seriously, by now it should be a given that everyone stays after the credits at a Marvel comics film) that genuinely made me feel like doing a dramatic turn like I'm a character out of the American soap The Bold and the Beautiful (1987-present).

So in conclusion, I definitely think that this film, much like First Class before it, shows that the X-Men film franchise is most certainly heading in the right direction after the debacles of X-Men, X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine (I know that many dislike X2 but bite me, I like it and I care less than I do about The Bold and the Beautiful).  The action is well-paced with great juxtaposition which also applies to the plot which is as pleasantly simple yet enjoyable as a foot-long meatball sub sandwich with cheese and the twists at the end just at chocolate frosting that is the indulgent crème caramel that The Wolverine is. I will say one perhaps dark and prophetic last point though, is there much room for the franchise left to go?  Because that seems increasingly the question on my mind.

Ratings:

Plot: 7/10
Characters: 8/10
Action: 9/10
Overall rating: 24/30

New film review #8: Pacific Rim

With the rise of the vastly overrated Transformers franchise in recent years, it has only been inevitable that there has also come a slew of hopeful and futuristic tech-themed action romps that are clearly trying to overshadow the mega-giant that is Michael Bay's Transformers films.  In some cases these films have turned out pretty badly (e.g. Transformers Dark of the Moon (2011), Atlantic Rim (2013) and After Earth (2013)), yet as with every genre of films, there are some golden nuggets for every few shit pellets.  For this year it seems that the special sci-fi flick in question is Pacific Rim directed by Guillermo Del Torro (who you may also remember from his directing of the first two Hellboy films (2004 and 2008) and Pan's Labyrinth (2006)) which stars the talents of Charlie Hunnam as Raleigh Beckett (our hot-headed yet noble underdog), Idris Elba as Marshall Pentecost (the gruff and battle-hardened, pseudo-arrogant mentor of a commander) and Rinko Kikuchi as Mako Mori (the naturally unstable and attractive yet surprisingly fierce and deadly stereotyped love interest).

Now there is a chance that Pacific Rim may in turn be overshadowed by this year's other hopefully good sci-fi blockbuster Ender's Game but until that is proven otherwise, I at least, will personally hold Pacific Rim in high regards as the year's best sci-fi film so far.  Now is t flawed?  Totally with a capital 'T' while drinking a cup of Starbucks cappuccino and eating a Subway's foot-long turkey, ham and cheese melt in all its generic glory.  Yes, Pacific Rim is generic to the extent that I should be calling it a bad flick but in all honesty?  I actually liked it.  Admittedly its not going to be remembered in as iconic a light in sci-fi/giant robot/action flicks as the first 20 mins of Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) but regardless of its lack of a truly strong and well-told moral and plenitude of action blockbuster stereotypes (annoying scientist support characters notwithstanding) its at the very least, a fun film to watch.  Think of it a film version of the experience of watching episodes of Ultimate Force (2002-) and Gordon Ramsey's Kitchen Nightmares USA (2007-) while eating a Domino's large sized football meat special pizza with a 2 litre bottle of cherry coke.  Its not intellectually engaging like the likes of Splice (2009) or Surrogates (2009) but like Real Steel (2011), its a sci-fi action romp with a hearty underdog hero and a proud charge to victory in the third act so predictable it makes you want to play Hulk Hogan's wrestling theme and wrap yourself in the American flag.

Naturally, the story is pretty generic as you may have gathered and doesn't try to do much outside of the usual comfort zone of these types of summertime blockbusters.  When earth is invaded by inter-dimensional aliens named 'Kaiju' (Japanese for 'Monster' or 'Giant monster') that spew forth from a rift in reality in the pacific ocean near Hong Kong waters the earth's armies successfully take down the first few hulking monstrosities but only at a huge cost of a few hundred thousand lives.  After a few years, the world's governments come up with enough resources to fund the 'Jager' (German for 'Sharpshooter' which is pretty much the opposite of what the heroes do in this film) programme which involves putting two-man teams into the heads of giant robots with varying weapon sets and capabilities in order to take down the monsters with maximum efficiency and minimum loss of life.  7 years after this war starts we get our predictable scene that proves the motivation for our heroic underdog Raleigh Beckett throughout the film as he and his brother Yancy (did their parents name them after bikes or what?)  fight a Kaiju that rips their mech's arm off and kills Yancy in the process.  Years later, the world leaders attempt to reverse the effects of heavy casualties amongst the Jagers by building giant walls across the shores of pacific nations that ultimately fail to keep the Kaiju out of human territory, the last few 'Jager-bots' (one each from Russia, China, America and Australia) are gathered in Hong Kong in order to tackle the Kaiju threat as closely to the aforementioned portal in the ocean as possible.  While participating in this desperate endeavour, Raleigh and trainee pilot Mako Mori must prove that they are compatible enough to pilot their bot effectively, combat bad memories that literally threaten their combat effectiveness and prepare to face down a threat that could very well mean the apocalypse on earth as we know it.

And therein lies the main selling point of Del Torro's post-Transformers shit-storm sci-fi flick.  It.  Is.  EPIC.  The very theme of giant robots of varying nations  and fighting styles fighting inter-dimensional aliens from the ocean deep for personal and national pride as well as the survival of the human race is in itself an alluring prospect for a film even taking into account the generic and predictable plot and character development that features throughout Pacific Rim.  Now this definitely does contribute to the enjoyment of watching this flick.  Such an idea of selling a film on epicness alone hasn't worked sometimes in the past but in cases such as this one, it can work quite admirably well.  Aside from the epicness of the film's concept, the other main selling point is the action scenes which works actually quite well through some relatively-good CGI, Del Torro's direction and the work of audio specialist Scott Martin Gershin to convey said epicness of humanity's last struggle for survival against the apocalypse.  In these scenes, the different fighting styles of the crews of the Jagers are clearly put to the test as the film tries its best to show that while the Jagers are strong, they individually and collectively have to pull out all the stops in order to defeat even just single Gaiju's that are in turn shown to be capable of adapting to the tactics of humanity's champions.  Subsequently, even though it is short-lived, the bright-red Chinese Jager with a three-man crew with three arms that have circular saws on the ends and can use Chinese martial arts is FUCKING BADASS.

In turn the actors also fit their roles quite nicely which allows the personal drama between the pilots between the battles to blossom quite nicely and smoothly.  Idris Elba who is clearly the best actor in the entire film (not least thanks to his recognisability due to playing Heimdall in Thor (2011)) kicks ass as the hard-as-nails Marshall Stacker Pentecost who is rigid in his unwaveringly tough approach to war but is ultimately a great strategist and respectably noble character who despite his hard nature and 'mentor' rather than 'main character' status is probably the most interesting character in the film as well.  This isn't to say that the other actors are bad though as Hunnam plays the dashing underdog of a hero pretty well while Kikuchi plays the style of a character that is unstable but ultimately very powerful nicely while also looking damn fine in the form-fitting suits that the Jager pilots all must wear to connect with their bots.  Some of the characters in this film however can perhaps be seen as either really annoying (i.e. Gottlieb played by Burn Gorman) or just a bit pointless and therefore a hindrance to the plot's advancement such as Hannibal Chau played by Ron Perlman who is undoubtedly unsuited to the role and film in general despite starring in epic flicks like the first two Hellboy films.

So in conclusion, some of the actors are a tad mis-cast (no offence intended to the good Mr Perlman and his many admirable performances) and the film in general is undoubtedly generic in the sense that most summer action blockbusters are.  Yet despite its lack of an intellectual side (which to be fair, is not always necessary in sci-fi flicks like this) and some characters that I out-rightly hated, Pacific Rim was an enjoyable film to watch despite not necessarily being precisely on par with the hype it received from producers and film magazines and programmes before its release.  Still, I would highly recommend you get yourself a nice big tub of warm and buttery popcorn with a bulging paper bag of pic 'n' mix and a large lemonade and sit back because this film is something to be enjoyed amongst the mostly (not entirely, see my review of Man of Steel) lacklustre film releases of the film so far.

Verdict: see to enjoy but don't expect to be blown away, this is strictly a popcorn flick albeit a truly enjoyable one at that.

Overall rating:  6.65/10

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.