Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of War (Special Mention) (10) Trench & Tunnel Warfare

Posted on by

Trenches of the 11th Cheshire Regiment at Ovillers-la-Boisselle, on the Somme, July 1916. One sentry keeps watch while the others sleep. Photo by Ernest Brooks (public domain image in Wikipedia “Trench warfare”

 

 

(10) TRENCH & TUNNEL WARFARE

 

I quipped about trench warfare as a subterranean form of land warfare but that’s taking its subterranean elements too far – it is more akin to a form of fortification and the siege warfare from which it originated.

While it has those predecessors in pre-modern warfare, it particularly arose from the firepower in modern warfare, with the increased rate of fire in small arms, firstly breech-loading firearms and secondly machine guns, and the increased power of artillery.

“Trench warfare is a combat strategy where opposing armies fight from fortified, dug-in networks of trenches to seek cover from heavy firepower and artillery. It typically emerges when defensive weaponry—such as machine guns and automated artillery—outpaces mobility, often resulting in a prolonged, grinding stalemate or war of attrition.”

The archetype of trench warfare is of course famously the Western Front in the First World War, although increasing modern firepower saw it occur from the Crimean War and American Civil War onwards.

Ironically, the First World War saw both its famous archetype and its decline.

“The development of armored warfare and combined arms tactics permitted static lines to be bypassed and defeated, leading to the decline of trench warfare after the war. Following World War I, trench warfare became a byword for stalemate, attrition, sieges and futility in conflict.”

However, trench warfare has recurred in subsequent conflicts “where technological parity or drone threats restrict rapid troop movement, as seen in the Russia-Ukraine War”.

Tunnel warfare on the other hand is subterranean warfare, albeit overlapping with the semi-subterranean warfare of trench warfare, and it goes, well, deep into history, back to the Bronze Age “with recorded uses by the Assyrians”.

“Historically, besieging forces employed sappers to dig tunnels beneath a fortress wall, collapsing the tunnel to bring the wall down. Defenders would counter by digging their own tunnels to intercept the invaders in brutal hand-to-hand combat beneath the surface”.

A fascinating example of ancient subterranean or tunnel warfare is in the Roman-Persian Wars, with “well-preserved evidence of mining and counter-mining operations…unearthed at the fortress of Dura-Europos, which fell to the Sassanians in 256/7 AD”. From what I’ve seen or read of it, it looks literally hellish – not only hand-to-hand combat in cramped and suffocating conditions underground, but also at risk of accidental or deliberate collapse as well as burning sulphur and pitch to create poisonous gas.

If anything, it has been more commonly used in modern warfare – “a military strategy involving combat conducted underground, typically utilizing dug networks, natural caves, or existing urban infrastructure”, used to “bypass surface gridlocks, escape aerial bombardment, and neutralize the technological advantages of more powerful armies”. The focus of the latter two involves force protection but it’s also used for infiltration (as at Dura-Europos in the Roman-Persian Wars), logistics hubs, and tactical deflection. Perhaps the most famous use of tunnel warfare in modern warfare was in the Vietnam War.

“It includes the construction of underground facilities in order to attack or defend, and the use of existing natural caves and artificial underground facilities for military purposes. Tunnels can be used to undermine fortifications and slip into enemy territory for a surprise attack, while it can strengthen a defense by creating the possibility of ambush, counterattack and the ability to transfer troops from one portion of the battleground to another unseen and protected. Tunnels can serve as shelter from enemy attack…Tunnels are narrow and restrict fields of fire; thus, troops in a tunnel usually have only a few areas exposed to fire or sight at any one time.”

 

RATING: A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (Special Mention: Revised) (10) Arab Conquests

Posted on by

 

Go Greek fire you’re burning up the quarter mile
(Greek fire, go Greek fire)
Go Greek fire you’re coasting through the heat lap trials
(Greek fire, go Greek fire)
You are supreme, the chicks’ll cream for Greek fire – Greek fire in Byzantine manuscript

 

(10) ARAB CONQUESTS (622 – 751 AD)

 

The Arab conquests were a nigh-unstoppable historical explosion, once previously divided tribes in a historical backwater had been united under Mohammed – conquering one of history’s largest pre-modern empires (indeed the seventh or eighth largest in all history) on three continents in a little over a century, a blitzkrieg by horse, sail…and camel!

 “In speed and extent, the first Arab conquests were matched only by those of Alexander the Great, and they were more lasting.”

Mohammed had essentially conquered the Arabian peninsula, but his death left his successors – the three great Arab caliphates – only at the start of extending his empire to even wider conquests.

The Rashidun Caliphate, immediate successors to Mohammed, did most of the heavy lifting to break out of the Arabian peninsula. Two formidable empires blocked their path, the Persian Empire and the eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, but the Arabs conquered the former and routed the latter back to Anatolia.

However, it was under their successors, the Umayyad Caliphate, that Arab conquests reached their greatest extent, westwards from the north African shore to Europe itself – conquering Spain (well, not quite all, in a manner similar to the famous caveat to the Roman conquest of Gaul in Asterix comics) and famously invading France before being turned back at Tours by Charles Martel.

Eastwards, the Umayyads also extended beyond Persia through central Asia to the fringes of India and China – the latter of which presented even the Tang Empire some difficulty resisting their advance.

The Umayyads were overthrown by the Abbasids in 750 AD and the Abbasids then formed the third great Arab caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, who then presided over what is often regarded as the Golden Age of Islam from their capital in Baghdad. The surviving Umayyad dynasty fled into exile across the Mediterranean to Spain, continuing their Caliphate as the Emirate of Cordoba independent from the Abbasids, even with their own rival golden age of Islam in the fabled Al-Andalus of Spain.

Although the Abbasids made some more territorial gains – notably Sicily and Crete – their Caliphate saw an end to the rapid Arab conquests, albeit with victory against Tang China in the Battle of Talas in 751 AD as a postscript:

“Muslim armies had come against a combination of natural barriers and powerful states that impeded any further military progress. The wars produced diminishing returns … The priorities of the rulers also shifted from conquest of new lands to administration of the acquired empire … the period of rapid centralized expansion would now give way to an era when further spread of Islam would be slow and accomplished through the efforts of local dynasties, missionaries, and traders.”

One is spoilt for choice for wars in the century and more of Arab conquests, but if one were to choose the wars that best encapsulate them as a whole, it would be the Arab-Byzantine wars from 629 AD to 718 AD.

The Byzantine or eastern Roman empire was the first state of substance that the Arabs faced when breaking out from their peninsula. It seemed incredible that the Arabs could defeat such a firmly established state, even when that state was weakened from recent war with Persia, yet they did – routing it back to Anatolia as they conquered its other territory in Asia and Africa, which then became their springboard for further conquests.

Ironically, it then seemed incredible that the Byzantines could hold the line or withstand complete defeat or conquest by the Arabs as the latter went from one victory to another – yet they did, from Arab attacks by land and by sea, even as the Arabs besieged Constantinople twice, in 674-678 AD and in 717-718 AD. Among other things, the Byzantine superweapon Greek fire was instrumental in their success.

The frontiers of Arab conquest finally stabilized between them in Anatolia, as it did elsewhere under the Abbasid caliphate at about this time, until from about 863 AD when the Byzantines – incredibly again – were able to regain both the initiative and some of their former territory, in wars usually reversed in name to the Byzantine-Arab wars to signify Byzantine ascendance.

 

RATING: A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Comics: Top 10 Comics (Special Mention) (3) Calvin & Hobbes

Posted on by

Cover of Calvin and Hobbes, the first collection of comic strips published by Andrews McMeel Publishing in 1987 (fair use)

 

 

(3) BILL WATTERSON –

CALVIN & HOBBES (1985-1995)

 

Goddamn I love that tiger!

 

“One of the most (maybe the most) beloved newspaper comics of all time, that influenced, changed and thrilled an entire generation, all drawn and written by one man — Bill Watterson…Watterson reminded us that newspaper comics don’t have to be bland, crude drawings, funny animals can have deeper personalities and insights in life, and that it was still possible for a strip to successfully explore philosophical themes without feeling tacked on. And yes, comics about children can still be great”.

Also (as noted by TV Tropes) – unpredictable panel layouts, surreal nature, childhood fantasy elements, lush art, adventure, vivid characterization, satire, classic cartoon slapstick and a gently comedic look at the hard truths of life.

Calvin is a precocious 6-year-old, who lives in rich world of imagination – personified (or is that tiger-ified) by Hobbes, his (imaginary – or is he?) best friend, a “walking, talking tiger” to Calvin and an inanimate plush toy to everyone else (and intriguingly of different appearance from his animate appearance to Calvin).

Amusingly, Calvin and Hobbes were named for the sixteenth century theologian John Calvin and sixteenth century philosopher Thomas Hobbes respectively – pointing to the philosophical themes of the comic.

Arguably Calvin embodies the child in every adult, while Hobbes represents the adult in every child – particularly with the latter tending to act as the voice of reason and conscience to Calvin. Hobbes also has a thing for “babes”.

The fantasy – or reality – of Hobbes’ dual nature is one of the most appealing parts of the strip, as is the fantasy or reality of the titular duo’s many adventures and misadventures, but perhaps also (ironically) of least consequence – “Watterson has described the matter as being a non-question: This is not a strip about a young reality warper going on magical adventures with a stuffed animal that comes to life when no one else is looking, nor is it as simple as a boy with a stuffed tiger and an overactive imagination. This is a strip about the world seen through Calvin’s eyes. To Calvin, Hobbes is a real tiger, a cardboard box is a cloning device, a wagon driven off a ramp can fly to Mars, and mutant snowmen can stage a rebellion against their creator. And that is all that matters”.

I’m prompted to think of the play Harvey and its film adaptation as a spiritual predecessor, with its protagonist’s six-foot rabbit ‘imaginary friend’ Harvey playing the role of Hobbes:

“I’ve wrestled with reality for 35 years, Doctor, and I’m happy to state I finally won out over it. I always have a wonderful time, wherever I am, whoever I’m with”.

 

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD-TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of War (Special Mention) (9) Ground Warfare

Posted on by

A pair of AMX-30 main battle tanks and a truck of the French 6th Light Armored Division pause outside Al-Salman during Operation Desert Storm.

 

(9) GROUND WARFARE

 

Yes, all warfare except naval and air warfare is ground or land warfare – and even those two overlap with ground warfare in things such as amphibious or airborne warfare.

This special mention is for ground or land warfare by terrain and weather conditions, which both are, and are not, surprisingly diverse.

Not surprisingly diverse – as observed by John Keegan in an interlude chapter on the limitations of war-making in his history of warfare, war on land tends to have the same default terrain and weather conditions, avoiding difficulties of both.

Surprisingly diverse – because you can’t always pick your battles or where you fight them, such that there are some distinctive or specialized types of warfare within ground of land warfare in general.

Perhaps not quite enough for a top ten of ground warfare, but at least enough for six distinctive types of warfare (although I think arguments can be made for airborne and amphibious warfare as types of groundwarfare, at least in part, with island warfare within the latter, as well as wet-weather wrfare as its own distinct type of ground warfare):

  • (1) Urban warfare as featured in my top ten entry of siege and urban warfare
  • (2) Desert warfare – which I suspect might be the next most common after siege and urban warfare (at least on a large scale), because of the Middle East (going all the way back to the ancient Near East)
  • (3) Jungle warfare
  • (4) Mountain warfare, often overlapping with…
  • (5) Cold-weather, winter or arctic warfare, including ski warfare.
  • (6) Subterranean warfare – or in other words, my next special mention entry…

 

RATING: A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Comics: Top 10 Comics (Special Mention) (2) Asterix

Posted on by

Cover of the 1961 edition in English of Asterix the Gaul, the first volume in the series.

 

 

(2) RENE GOSCINNY & ALBERT UDERZO –

ASTERIX (1959-1979 – I’m only counting the ones written by both Goscinny and Uderzo up to Asterix in Belgium, the twenty-fourth volume in the series)

 

“The year is 50 B.C. Gaul is entirely occupied by the Romans. Well, not entirely… One small village of indomitable Gauls still holds out against the invaders. And life is not easy for the Roman legionaries who garrison the fortified camps of Totorum, Aquarium, Laudanum and Compendium…”

These Romans are crazy!

Asterix is the original source of my enduring love of comics – and my enduring fascination with the Roman Empire in classical or ancient history. It wouldn’t quite be true to say everything I know about the Roman world I learned from Asterix comics – as those comics inspired me to read more historical books on the Roman Empire and ancient history – but you could genuinely learn a lot about the Romans from them.

The basic premise is stated in the above introduction to each comic, accompanied by the famous map with a magnifying glass held up to show the titular protagonist’s village. (Asterix is also where I learned about the battle of Alesia, in which Julius Caesar defeated the Gallic chieftain Vercingetorix and conquered Gaul – a detail that recurs in a number of comics). This small but plucky village has withstood the vast numerical and military superiority of the Roman empire by virtue of a magic potion that bestows superhuman strength brewed by its resident druid. (Yes, technically it’s the Roman Republic at that time but it had gained imperial control over most of the same territory, hence I’ll use empire in lower case).

Each comic then introduced the major dramatis personae from the village – foremost among them our small but plucky titular protagonist Asterix, but also his generously proportioned fellow protagonist Obelix (who always has superhuman strength because he fell in a cauldron of magic potion as a baby), the aforementioned druid Getafix, village chieftain Vitalstatistix and ill-tuned bard Cacofonix. Oh – and Obelix’s cute dog Dogmatix. As you can tell, the names of Gauls in the comic had humorous puns or plays on the suffix “-ix” – the Romans similarly with “us” and so on with other groups within the empire. That was indicative of the general wordplay and puns in dialogue as well as visual gags that made each comic a delight – “part of the appeal of the series is probably the variety of humor, which includes slapstick fight scenes, plenty of wordplay, thinly-veiled social commentary, and Iron Age and Roman antiquity versions of just about every European (and beyond) stereotype you can imagine.

I must admit to having a soft spot for the Romans, even though they were generally the antagonists – although perhaps not quite to the point of rooting for the empire, as our protagonist and his village were just too damn charming. Generally the Romans weren’t cast as evil villains – indeed the hapless legionaries in the camps surrounding the village strove to serve out their time by quietly trying to avoid any contact with the Gauls – although they could also be effective antagonists in their schemes to conquer or undermine the village. And it helped that the Romans were also typically lovable idiots – indeed like almost everyone else in the comic, including the protagonist villagers themselves, except of course for Asterix, Getafix and flashes of brilliance among other characters (Gauls or otherwise). Interestingly, one character not played as an idiot – indeed, played as a worthy adversary – was Caesar himself.

I also have to admit to a soft spot – widely shared by other fans – for the cameo appearances by the recurring band of small but persistently unlucky pirates, a parody of another comic series Barbe-Rouge (Redbeard) – unlucky, that is, in persistently encountering our protagonist duo, the point that they would desperately try to avoid “the Gauls”, even sinking their own ship.

The series was also distinguished by some of the best translations in comics ever – from the original French (of course) by writer Rene Goscinny – as well as some of the best caricature art from artist Albert Uderzo. Goscinny sadly died in 1977 and Uderzo took over the writing as well, although not quite with the same superb quality of writing in the eyes of fans such as myself – until he too sadly passed away only in March 2020.

 

RATING: S-TIER (GOD-TIER – OR IS THAT BY TOUTATIS TIER!)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Wars (Special Mention: Revised) (9) Roman-Persian Wars

Posted on by

 

Rock face relief at Naqshe-Rostam, depicting the victories of the Sassanid Persian emperor Shapur I over the Roman Emperors Valerian and Philip the Arab. Do you want emperors captured by Persians? Because that’s how you get emperors captured by Persians…

 

(9) ROMAN-PERSIAN WARS

 

The first world war, fought intermittently on the frontier between successive Roman and Persian polities over almost seven centuries.

No, seriously. Well, half seriously.

The Roman-Persian Wars were a world war, or war between two different worlds – that might have been fought on the frontier between them, a little like the Western Front writ large (and long) but had ramifications or repercussions throughout both empires that extended across Eurasia from Britain to India.

And that comparison to the First World War’s Western Front writ large and long stands. Despite seven slugging centuries of grinding war, the Roman-Persian border remained remarkably stable.

“One has the impression that the blood spilled in the warfare between the two states brought as little real gain to one side or the other as the few meters of land gained at terrible cost in the trench warfare of the First World War.”

That is, until the last dramatic phase of the wars, the Byzantine-Sasanian War of 602-628 – which might be compared to the similarly abrupt and dramatic reversals of fortune in 1917-1918 that ultimately saw the end of the First World War. However, even that last war of the Roman-Persian Wars effectively ended with the restoration of the status quo (and border) between the two empires.

The Roman-Persian Wars are an interesting contrast to those other Persian Wars of antiquity, the Greek-Persian Wars, in lacking the same existential stakes or outcomes – with the Greek city-states desperately defending themselves from outright conquest by the Achaemenid Persian Empire in the classical Greek-Persian Wars, and Alexander the Great conquering that same empire outright in his Macedonian-Persian Wars.

The latter always struck me as incredible in contrast to the failure of the Romans, more powerful and commanding more resources than either Alexander or their own Persian adversaries, to achieve anything like Alexander’s decisive defeat and conquest of Persia. That is despite the Romans, at least emperors Caracalla and Julian, expressly seeking to emulate Alexander. The reality seems to have been that for the most part neither side did little more than essentially raid each other over the frontier, with the Romans famously sacking the Persian capital Ctesiphon numerous times.

The Roman-Persian Wars might be classified into four phases, corresponding to three successive Roman polities and two Persian ones – not to mention Armenia bouncing back and forth between the two empires as client state or protectorate.

First, there was Roman Republic against the Parthians – initiated by the invasion of Mesopotamia by Roman general Crassus, which saw one of the Republic’s most crushing defeats at the Battle of Carrhae in 53 BC. However, the Parthians did nothing to exploit this defeat or the subsequent civil wars of the Republic with one notable exception, as they generally sought to remain on peaceful terms with the Romans. That notable exception was their support of the so-called Liberators – the assassins of Julius Caesar – and invasion of the Roman eastern provinces after the Liberators’ defeat. The Romans defeated the Parthian invasion, but the Parthians then defeated the retributive campaign by Mark Antony against them.

Second, there was the Roman Empire against the Parthians, which saw five major wars between them, mostly to the defeat of the Parthians with their capital Ctesiphon sacked three times and four Roman emperors claiming the title of Persicus Maximus. Those wars were the Roman-Parthian War of 58-63 AD (with the Roman campaign led by the general Corbulo under emperor Nero), Trajan’s campaign into Parthia, the Roman-Parthian War of 161-166 AD under Roman emperor Lucius Verus (the co-emperor of Marcus Aurelius), the campaign of Roman emperor Septimius Severus in 195-197 AD, and finally the Parthian War of Caracalla in 216-217 AD.

Third, there was the Roman Empire against the Sassanids or Sasanians, successors to the Parthians. The Sassanids were very different to the Parthians in hostile character towards Rome – in the words of Youtuber Tominus Maximus, “Sassanid Persia was like Parthia…on cocaine and mixed with crystal meth”. Most famously, there were the Sassanid incursions deep into the Roman eastern provinces during the Crisis of the Third Century, after fighting between them during the reign of Roman emperor Severus Alexander.

However, the Romans subsequently defeated the Sassanids, sacking Ctesiphon a further two times in campaigns led by Roman emperors Carus in 283 AD and Galerius (with Diocletian holding his hand) in 298 AD. The latter was the most decisive Roman victory against the Sassanids, enduring for decades until hostilities resumed in the Perso-Roman Wars of 337-361 AD under Roman emperor Constantius III and the ill-fated expedition by Roman emperor Julian.

Surprisingly, the Sassanids mellowed in the fifth century, remaining mostly peaceful with the Roman Empire while the latter’s western half fell to barbarian invasions. In part that was due to the Sassanids facing off their own barbarian threats, but it was instrumental in the survival of the eastern Roman Empire. Which brings me to…

Fourth, there was the eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire against the Sassanids or Sasanians. While the Persians were only peer state the Romans had as adversary, the classical empire had the advantage in population and resources, albeit that advantage was diluted by more far-flung commitments. After the fall of the western empire, the eastern empire and the Sassanids were much more closely matched.

Not surprisingly then, this saw the most dramatic and mobile phase of the Roman-Persian Wars from the preceding centuries of effective stalemate – with the Byzantine-Sassanid War of 602-628. First the Sassanids almost decisively defeated and conquered the eastern empire, even besieging Constantinople, but were then decisively defeated in turn by a near miraculous eastern Roman recovery under emperor Heraclius – albeit the eastern Roman empire was too weakened to exploit its victory other than regaining its lost territory and effectively restoring the status quo between them.

The ultimate futility of the Roman-Persian Wars came in their aftermath with the event that decisively ended them altogether – the Arab conquests, achieved in large part from both empires being so weakened fighting each other that they were unable to resist their new adversary, with one being completely conquered and the other barely surviving defeat as well as the loss of much of its former territory.

 

RATING: A-TIER (TOP TIER)

Top Tens – Comics: Top 10 Comics (Special Mention) (1) Mad Magazine

Posted on by

The literal face of Mad Magazine – Alfred E. Neumann – on the October 1982 magazine cover parodying Time Magazine’s Man of the Year

 

 

(1) MAD (1952 – PRESENT)

 

What, me worry?

Ah – Alfred E. Neuman with his iconic gap tooth grin and catchphrase as Mad Magazine’s fictional mascot and cover boy. According to Wikipedia, he actually preceded Mad as a visual image in advertisements and a presidential campaign postcard for Roosevelt, although the magazine named him and converted his original appearance as an idiotic figure to a more mischievous devil-may-care trickster – “someone who can maintain a sense of humor while the world is collapsing around him”. Amusingly – given his origins from a presidential campaign postcard – Mad Magazine has proffered him periodically as a joke presidential candidate from 1956 onwards with the slogan “You could do a lot worse…and always have!”

I was raised on Mad. Indeed, it was hereditary – I inherited it from my mother, who had classic collections of Mad from when she was a teenager and passed them on to me when I was a teenager. (I’m not too sure her parents – my grandparents – were impressed by this subversive publication – they were pretty straightlaced). And it has been a huge influence on my sense of humor and worldview ever since, mirroring its wider influence on parody and satire in popular culture. If you want to understand me, know that Mad Magazine is etched deep within my psyche (paired with Catch-22 and as part of an eclectic kaleidoscope with The Devil’s Dictionary and TV Tropes):

 

The film and television parodies – particularly as drawn by Mort Drucker, possibly the finest caricaturist ever (sadly passed away on 9 April 2020).

Spy vs Spy! Featuring the titular literal black and white Cold War-eque spies (drawn as, ah, bird-like people things?) outwitting each other with traps within traps

Don Martin – Mad’s Maddest Artist! And his recurring Fonebone character!

Dan Berg and his “The Lighter Side of” slice of life cartoons!

Sergio Aragones – with his “A Mad Look At’ recurring features and his marginal doodles (or “Drawn Out Dramas”)!

The classic Mad Fold-Ins!

 

And so on. Nothing was sacred for Mad’s subversive satire and sense of humor – sacred cows make the best hamburger – “Mad’s satiric net was cast wide. The magazine often featured parodies of ongoing American culture, including advertising campaigns, the nuclear family, the media, big business, education and publishing. In the 1960s and beyond, it satirized such burgeoning topics as the sexual revolution, hippies, the generation gap, psychoanalysis, gun politics, pollution, the Vietnam War and recreational drug use”.

Robert Boyd from the Los Angeles Times summed up Mad Magazine for me as well as himself and other fans, with the apt line “All I really need to know I learned from Mad magazine” – “Plenty of it went right over my head, of course, but that’s part of what made it attractive and valuable. Things that go over your head can make you raise your head a little higher. The magazine instilled in me a habit of mind, a way of thinking about a world rife with false fronts, small print, deceptive ads, booby traps, treacherous language, double standards, half truths, subliminal pitches and product placements; it warned me that I was often merely the target of people who claimed to be my friend; it prompted me to mistrust authority, to read between the lines, to take nothing at face value, to see patterns in the often shoddy construction of movies and TV shows; and it got me to think critically in a way that few actual humans charged with my care ever bothered to.”

And it forever tainted the way I view films and television – much as it did critic Roger Ebert:

“I learned to be a movie critic by reading Mad magazine … Mad’s parodies made me aware of the machine inside the skin—of the way a movie might look original on the outside, while inside it was just recycling the same old dumb formulas. I did not read the magazine, I plundered it for clues to the universe”.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD-TIER)

Top Tens – History: Top 10 Types of War (Special Mention) (8) Logistics & Supply

Posted on by

U.S. supply convoy in Afghanistan photographed by Spc. Donald J. McMullen (public domain image – Wikipedia “Military Logistics”)

 

 

(8) LOGISTICS & SUPPLY

 

“Amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics”.

A quotation variously attributed to different military commanders, usually WW2 US Army General Omar Bradley although the definitive verifiable record of such a statement was by US Marine Corps General Robert Barrow in 1980. In fairness, the US Marine Corps lives by logistics.

However, the truth of it remains – all wars, except for the most prehistoric warfare, are wars of logistics and supply. And the only reason the most prehistoric warfare is an exception, despite prehistoric warriors needing food and water like everyone else, is that the whole nature of prehistoric warfare is that it did not keep warriors in the field for any appreciable length of time, hence they were essentially self-supplying, carrying or providing for themselves what little they needed for short periods of time.

“An army marches on its stomach”

Logistics and supply are the lifeblood of military forces in the field (or at sea or in the air) – the proverbial stomach on which armies march, including at the literal or most basic level of being fed, or the proverbial tail of “tooth-to-tail ratio” as requirements of supply and support for combat forces. Needless to say, the tail tends to be longer than the tooth, particularly for modern military forces, but vividly represented by the wagon trains that followed after pre-modern armies, often longer than the army itself. Sun Tzu’s The Art of War is arguably most notable for the way it bemoans the running costs of armies.

That is not to say that logistics and supply or supply lines win wars of themselves, but they can certainly lose them – as can counter-logistics to deprive enemy forces of supplies or supply lines, such as the scorched earth strategy famed for that purpose.

“Logistics is an enabler of military operations, not an end in itself. Poor logistics can result in defeat, but even the best logistics cannot guarantee victory. Conversely, the best possible logistics is not always required: fit for purpose can suffice.”

There are three basic means of supply – obtaining supplies in the field, carrying supplies with the army, and shipping supplies from the rear. While the first two are essentially self-supplying to some degree, they still often involved prodigious costs and organization, particularly as only so much of what an army needs can be reliably obtained in the field. The Roman Empire’s most impressive military achievements were perhaps not so much in combat but in its systematic logistics and supply, as represented by its road.

“Obtaining supplies in the field and carrying supplies with the army remained the primary means of supply until the 19th century…Starting with the Industrial Revolution, new technological, technical and administrative advances permitted supplies to be transported at speeds and over distances never before possible. At the same time, increased demands for ammunition, and the heavier weight of shells and bombs made it more difficult for armies to carry their requirements, and they soon became dependent on regular replenishment of ammunition from depots. Mechanisation, with motor vehicles replacing animals, created a demand for fuel and spare parts, neither of which could be obtained locally. This led to a “logistical revolution” which began in the 20th century and drastically improved the capabilities of modern armies while making them highly dependent on this method.”

 

RATING: S-TIER (GOD TIER)

Top Tens – Top 10 Horror Films (2026 New Entry) (10) Obsession

Posted on by

 

I mean, come on, what else was I going to use but that iconic frown from the film, which has become a meme reproduced throughout the internet (fair use)

 

 

(10) OBSESSION (2026) – thought I’d better post an individual entry for it, not just my revised Top 10 Horror Films for 2026!

 

“I love you so, so, so, so, so much. I don’t think I could live without you.”

And oh boy, does she show us just how much. The film that gave us the meme of that girl’s epic full-faced frown (although I’d seen the same expression from my ex-wife from a similar place of hot slice of crazy).

Easily ranking in my wildcard tenth place as best horror film of 2026 – indeed it was close call for best film but Project Hail Mary just pips it at the post – and one that will almost certainly rise much higher up my top ten instead of being swapped out for a new wildcard tenth place entry.

There’s not much more to be said about it without spoiling it so just see it. It’s a simple story with its monkey’s paw premise of a wish gone wrong. It’s the execution on a shoestring budget, reminiscent of Raimi’s debut Evil Dead film, that proves so effective – the simple effects among other things of using darkness and silhouettes, lighting on eyes, movement and so on – and the disturbing nature of its psychological horror on a number of levels.

The film owes much of its appeal in the stellar performance of its lead actress, Inde Navarette, and the character Nikki she conjures from the dark depths of the human psyche, similarly to how she is conjured by the wish of the film’s story. Although I share the view of Youtuber Toler Talks in his commentary on the film – “I mean, I know she’s a murderous psychopath and all but you still would, wouldn’t ya?” (I’m a sucker for a hot slice of crazy, hence the aforementioned ex-wife who was only slightly less obsessive than Nikki).

 

RATING:

X-TIER (WILD TIER)

 

Top Tens – Film: Top 10 Action & Drama Films

Posted on by

 

The iconic poster for The Godfather (fair use)

 

 

Exactly what it says on the tin – my top 10 action and drama films.

 

Well, perhaps not quite exactly, as although my cinematic tastes do indeed tend towards action or drama, that is my label of convenience for my top ten non-‘genre’ films – that is, excluding ‘genre’ films such as fantasy or SF films, animated films, films adapted from comics, and horror films, all of which have their own action or drama but also their own top tens. I also rank comedy films in their own top ten.

 

That said, quite a few of my non-genre films have fantasy or SF elements, just not predominantly so to rank them within the genre – but I will have a special section in each entry to note fantasy or SF elements. Also, almost every film has comedic elements or at least the odd gag – after all, one could classify almost every narrative work by the comedy-tragedy dichotomy of classical Greek drama – so I will also have a special section for comedy in each entry.

 

And yes – I know animation is more a medium than its own genre, although animated films are predominantly fantasy or SF genre. The same goes for films adapted from comics, although that depends on the genre of comic from which they were adapted. 

 

And no – despite my feature image being the poster for The Godfather, cited almost as often as Citizen Kane (which I used for my master list for Top 10 Films across all genres) as one of the best films ever made, it is not in my top ten, which again fortuitously avoids spoiling any entry in it. I like The Godfather more than Citizen Kane but not as one of my top ten action or drama films. It may pop up elsewhere as I wouldn’t go so far as Peter Griffin’s view of it expressed in The Family Guy – he didn’t care for it, as “it insists upon itself”.

 

Anyway, here are my Top 10 Action & Drama Films.

 

Film poster art

 

(10) WARFARE (2025)

 

Warfare is “a 2025 American action war drama thriller film” that earns my wildcard tenth place entry by my usual criteria as best film of the present or previous year. Also, it’s a nice bookend with my film in top spot – you’ll see why.

I like the films of Alex Garland, who wrote and directed the film with Ray Mendoza, based on Mendoza’s experiences during the Iraq War as a US Navy Seal. The backdrop is apparently the (Second) Battle of Ramadi or its aftermath in 2026. Mendoza’s platoon – shown with pseudonyms in the film – are on a surveillance mission, which involves them taking over a civilian house, much to the fear and distress of its occupants, and literally scoping out the local jihadi insurgents. Literally, that is, through their sniper sights.

And that’s where things go horribly wrong, as the insurgents scope them right back and get in first, just as American air support withdraws (except for a couple of shows of force that are indeed awesome). From there, it’s a tense story of survival, as the Americans focus purely on extraction – just getting the hell out of there, in one piece or as close as possible. Spoiler alert – it’s not possible, at least in one piece.

You, the viewer, are right there with them, immersed in a visceral experience of combat, and in real time to boot. Also the futility of it all, apart from the destruction of a random civilian house because it was in a good position for surveillance. As one of the female civilians repeatedly shouts after them – “Why?”. They don’t have a good answer for her.

 

FANTASY & SF

No – all gritty reality here.

 

COMEDY

That gritty reality means few comedic elements as well, almost entirely in the opening sequencce of the film with the soldier’s enthusiastically h0rny reaction to the equally h0rny music video for Eric Prydz’s Call on Me, featuring a leotard-clad aerobics class.

 

RATING: X-TIER (WILD TIER) – BEST OF 2025

 

 

From the films’ theatrical release poster

 

 

(9) THE RAID (2011-2014)

 

100 minutes of awesomeness in a frenetic, claustrophobic martial arts action masterpiece – the martial arts being the Indonesian pencak silat that is showcased by the film’s fight choreography and the claustrophobic being the film’s premise.

That premise being an Indonesian police squad deployed to raid a drug lord’s apartment block in the sums of Jakarta – actually a fortress-like safe house for the city’s worst criminals – only to find themselves forced to fight their way through the complex to carry out their mission or just to survive long enough to escape.

“Good morning, everyone. You may have noticed we have some guests trawling the halls today. Now, I certainly did not invite them and they most certainly are not welcome. So, in the interests of public health, should you rid this building of its recent infestation, well, then, you can consider yourself a permanent resident of this building. Free of charge. You’ll find these f*cking cockroaches on the sixth floor. Now, go to work. And please, please enjoy yourself.”

And yes – it was the same premise that was (independently) used to similarly great effect in the 2012 Dredd film.

And ever since, I’ve enjoyed whenever The Raid pops up in one form or another – most obviously in its 2014 sequel, which maintained the frenetic action of the first. You know you’re in for glorious action when the climax of the film is preceded by a character telling its action hero that the only way to solve his problems is to kill all of the parties responsible. My personal highlight of the sequel was the assassin duo dubbed Hammer Girl and Baseball Bat Man.

I also get excited whenever I see what I call the Raid guys – primarily Iko Suwais and ‘Mad Dog’ Yahan Ruhian – in a film. Even when they were disappointingly wasted in The Force Awakens. Fortunately, John Wick Chapter 3 made up for that.

 

FANTASY & SF

No, except to the extent that the intense fighting skill and survival of characters borders on supernatural.

 

COMEDY

Again, not really any comedic elements, except occasionally of the blacker kind

 

RATING:

B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

Scene from the Zulu film, with Michael Caine front and center – so much so that I tend to think of his historical character, Lieutenant Bromhead, simply as Michael Caine

 

(8) ZULU (1964)

 

The Battle of Rorke’s Drift.

That’s it – that’s the entry. Well that and the 1964 film Zulu which depicted it.

If you’re a fan of the Battle of Helm’s Deep in The Lord of The Rings film (The Two Towers), then you’re a fan of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift as depicted in this film, as the former was filmed in a manner deliberately reminiscent of the film Zulu according to Jackson.

If anything, Rorke’s Drift in Zulu was even more epic than Helm’s Deep – as a small company of less than 150 soldiers attached to the Royal Engineers (including a substantial number of sick and wounded) fought off a force of about 3-4,000 Zulus.

The battle was a small albeit highly celebrated part of the Anglo-Zulu War, with the British soldiers finding themselves in the path of a Zulu force in the aftermath of the opening Zulu victory at Isandlwana.

When it comes to Rorke’s Drift, I tend to default to its depiction in the film Zulu, as it is deeply embedded in my psyche. While generally accurate to the historical battle, it does of course have inaccuracies (with perhaps the most egregious involving the depiction of Private Hook, a model soldier, as a rogue redeemed in the battle). The film may also be seen as somewhat problematic in these times given its celebration of British imperial victory – I don’t care.

Indeed the film tends to glamorize both sides in the battle – with the Zulus depicted as a brave, intelligent, capable, resourceful and ultimately honorable adversary. And if anyone can resist the stirring orchestral theme by John Barry, I don’t know what to say.

The British soldiers were led by Lieutenant Chard, portrayed by Stanley Baker, and his second in command Lieutenant Bromhead, portrayed by a young Michael Caine in his breakthrough film role. Deciding that retreat isn’t an option as they will move too slowly with their sick or wounded and the Zulus will catch them out in the open, they have no option but to stand and fight behind improvised barricade defenses.

Throughout the day and night (into the following day) after the Zulu force surrounds them, wave after wave of Zulu attackers are narrowly repelled by the desperate British defenders. At one point, the Zulus succeed in setting fire to the field hospital, leading to tense scenes of the evacuation of patients under fierce attack by Zulu warriors – and British Surgeon-Major James Henry Reynolds calmly continues his surgery on a wounded soldier with fighting all around him. And yes – he got a Victoria Cross.

The British defenders retreat to the shortened lines of their inner barricades. One tactic you see through the film is the use of multiple ranks of soldiers to maintain a nearly continuous volley of fire with their bolt-action rifles. None more so than the climactic scene with three such ranks used (after falling back from desperate hand-to-hand combat at an outer barricade) to defend a massive assault by Zulu warriors. And as the camera pans back, you see the fallen Zulu warriors mere inches away from the front rank of breathless British soldiers – an impressive feat of holding the line.

That’s when you start to think from the preceding sense of overwhelming doom that hangs over the British soldiers – holy crap, they’re actually going to make it! And then – no, holy crap, they’re not…as the Zulu force masses on the hill overlooking Rorke’s Drift, seemingly barely diminished, while the British are exhausted and running low on ammunition. Lieutenant van den Burgh, their Afrikaaner advisor serving with the Natal Native Contingent, sinks to his knees and rebukes the British officers (and arguably their imperialism as well) – “Haven’t you had enough? We’re all dead!”

And then, holy crap again – as the Zulus chant, raising their spears. “They’re taunting us!” Michael Caine’s character exclaims. Van den Burgh laughs – “You couldn’t be more wrong – they’re saluting us as fellow braves!”. And then the Zulus slowly turn and walk away, still chanting, until a lone warrior is left, before he too turns and leaves.

Sadly, the historical battle ended in a more prosaic way, without the Zulus saluting the British but more withdrawing from strategic sense and an advancing British relief column. I prefer to think it ended the way it did in the film.

11 Victoria Crosses were awarded to the defenders of Rorke’s Drift, as the film itself narrates with a full roll call just before the end credits – including the surgeon as mentioned but also Hook and the two commanding lieutenants Chard and Bromhead.

 

FANTASY & COMEDY

 

I’ll deal with both at once, since the film has little fantasy or comedy as pure historic drama.

 

RATING:
B-TIER (HIGH TIER)

 

 

Bruce Lee in his iconic pose from Enter the Dragon

 

(7) BRUCE LEE –

ENTER THE DRAGON (1973)

 

“Don’t think. Feel.”

The iconic martial arts action film by the iconic martial arts action film star.

And yes – the film may be somewhat cheesy at points, albeit not more so than other films in the 70s and which may also owe something to how much this film has blurred together with its superb parody A Fistful of Yen in the 1977 comedy sketch film Kentucky Fried Movie deep within my psyche. (The other thing deeply embedded in my psyche from that film is the sketch Catholic High School Girls in Trouble – “never has the beauty of the s€xual act been so crassly exploited”).

But it is glorious, showcasing Bruce Lee – “the quintessential martial arts film star, particularly for action films set in contemporary times, a breakthrough star for Asian actors in Hollywood and widely considered one of the most influential martial artists of the 20th century”.

So deeply has it embedded itself in my psyche that it has fostered a love of martial arts action films ever since – which I then consciously or subconsciously compare to Enter the Dragon.

As per TV Tropes, it is the martial arts action trope codifier – “since this movie, almost every other work of martial arts tournament fiction has borrowed from Enter The Dragon, particularly its usage of the main hero seeking revenge against the Big Bad in a fighting tournament in a faraway exotic location full of colorful villains and other supporting heroes with their own personal motives for entering”.

Of course, the whole concept of the martial arts tournament doesn’t hold up too well as a vanity project by a criminal organization – given the potential for exposing and jeopardizing the organization, at least to the very infiltration that is the plot of the film.

Nor for that matter does a criminal organization relying on training masses of minions in martial arts – another visually iconic element of martial arts films, moving and shouting in unison – instead of, you know, guns.

Finally, I have to give a chef’s kiss to yet another iconic element of martial arts films codified – the climactic showdown between protagonist and antagonist, strikingly displayed here in a mirrored maze.

 

FANTASY & SF

Not really here, but there’s always been a fine line between martial arts action films and fantasy in the mystical skill (or visions) of combatants – something which things like wuxia films and animated or anime series cross over. Not to mention the space Shaolin monks of Star Wars…

 

COMEDY

It has its comedic elements, albeit not as prominent as other martial arts action films – notably those of Jackie Chan (who had a minor role in Enter the Dragon). It certainly has its comedic elements after you’ve seen A Fistful of Yen – such that you’ll never watch it in quite the same straight-faced fashion again – and it has been repeatedly parodied elsewhere.

 

RATING:

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

Perhaps the most iconic image of Clint Eastwood as Dirty Harry

 

(6) CLINT EASTWOOD –

THE MAN WITH NO NAME & DIRTY HARRY (1961-1966 & 1971-1988)

 

Ask yourself a question: “do I feel lucky?” Well, do you, punk?

You had me at Clint Eastwood.

No, seriously – I could just stop there, with one of the foremost icons of screen masculinity.

As per TV Tropes in rating him the trope Rated M for Manly – “The 6’4, gravel-voiced, ultra-macho action star Clint Eastwood is one of the most enduring cultural icons of masculinity in the history of American cinema and beyond.”

Although my quip for his vocal delivery is one of whispered menace. The above description also omits his signature steely gaze or glare – the latter lending itself to TV Tropes coining the trope Clint squint. Not to mention a certain wiry quality to him, even grizzled, if not both.

However, it doesn’t stop there. There are his two most iconic characters, who also happen to be two of the most iconic characters in cinema – the Man with No Name from the so-called Dollars Trilogy or even The Man with No Name Trilogy, most famously the third film of the trilogy, and Dirty Harry.

Again as per TV Tropes, Eastwood is “most famous for portraying tough-as-nails gunslingers who speak very little, and make each word (and bullet) count. The two most famous roles of this kind are Dirty Harry, and the Man With No Name in Sergio Leone’s Dollar’s Trilogy.”

The Man with No Name came first – in the cinematic trilogy of Westerns directed by Sergio Leone, labelled as the subgenre of Spaghetti Westerns because they were produced by Italian film studios and Italian directors in the case of Leone. The trilogy itself consists of A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and the best (as well as most famous) of them, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

Of course, the Man with No Name has a name in each film – Joe, Manco, and Blondie respectively – but they are nicknames given him by other characters. There is only a loose continuity, if any, between each film, such that it’s not clear that he’s even the same character. I prefer to think of each film as more within a mythology than a continuity – and the Man with No Name a different incarnation of a mythic character in each film.

And that mythic character – the lone gunman, with “his aloof nature, questionable motives, and his mysterious past”, not to mention his laconic persona.

“There are two kinds of people in this world – those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig”.

Personally, I’d say that Eastwood played the type in almost all his Western roles – he was the Man with No Name even when his character was named, from Pale Rider through to Unforgiven. And I am here for each and every one of them.

But I am here for his Dirty Harry over and above his Man with No Name. In part, that is due to the eclipse of the Western as a film genre, although I would argue that most films are essentially Westerns in all but setting, as reflected by the Dirty Harry films themselves with its anti-hero gunslinger protagonist transferred from the Wild West to the urban landscape (which, being San Francisco is still in the geographic American West).

Or as TV Tropes labels the character type, the Cowboy Cop – “a blunt, cynical, “the buck stops here” kind of law enforcer who’s constantly at odds with his indifferent, incompetent, strictly-by-the-book superiors”.

And, I would argue, an instinct for justice as an essential character type – and one that is often at odds with (and usually played as superior to) the letter of the law.

Not to mention his most iconic character trait – well, apart from his Smith & Wesson Model 29 .44 magnum revolver (“We’re not just going to let you walk out of here.” “Who’s we, sucker?” “Smith, Wesson and me”) – his one-liners, “(like the Pre Ass Kicking One-Liner, Pre-Mortem One-Liner, or just the generic “I’m so badass”-One-Liner).” They’re so good I’m fond of adapting them to my work.

Hence TV Tropes attributes to Eastwood that “his Influence on the movie industry was such that without him (or his Dirty Harry library, to be more specific) the ‘80s would have seen about a mere fourth of the action movies it actually did see.”

Some of you may also recognize the “thematically similar'” influence of Eastwood in general and Dirty Harry in particular on someone who just happens to be my favorite comics character and protagonist of my favorite comic – Judge Dredd. Judge Dredd is essentially a futuristic Dirty Harry in a dystopian SF satire. The character was also directly modelled on Eastwood – something to which we see paid tribute in the name of Judge Dredd’s block from Eastwood’s character in the Western TV series, Rawhide – Rowdy Yates.

Which makes Dredd one of two characters from the 2000AD anthology comic modelled on Eastwood and his two iconic characters – with Strontium Dog’s Johnny Alpha as the Man with No Name to Dredd’s Dirty Harry.

So yes – if I had to choose, I would pick Dirty Harry over The Man with No Name. And if I had to choose which Dirty Harry, well the first one with that title obviously – not just for the title but also for the most compelling presentation of Dirty Harry having to break the rules to apprehend the antagonist serial killer Scorpio.

 

FANTASY & SF

Yeah – The Man with No Name and Dirty Harry are pretty solidly grounded outside fantasy or SF, although some of his Western incarnations of the type border on fantasy, particularly Pale Rider with its revenant protagonist.

 

COMEDY

Well there’s those one-liners, although I wouldn’t really describe them or the films as comedic, even if they have their dry and wry moments of black humor.

 

RATING:

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

One of the best movie poster images (for John Wick 2)

 

(5) JOHN WICK

(2014 – PRESENT: JOHN WICK 1-4 / BALLERINA)

 

 “Yeah, I’m thinking I’m back”

 

You sure are, John Wick, you sure are. You too, Keanu.

 

The best action franchise of the twenty-first century. There – I said it. Also one of the best roaring rampages of revenge and one-man armies on screen. Also some of the best poster designs.

 

I also dig the whole assassin mystique and mythos it’s got going, with its intricate rituals and rules, implausible as it all is – the implausibility just makes it more mythic! The Continental, the High Table, and so on. Although I suspect real hitmen are a lot less glamorous and a lot more seedy.

 

“Neo-noir action thriller franchise…set in a shadowy world of assassins and criminals”. I can’t resist quoting TV Tropes that “the films can be best described as what happens when Neo is reimagined in the real world as the deadliest assassin alive”.

 

It has been hailed as reviving the flagging action genre, not least due to its “choreographed sequences and practical effects that were filmed in long takes” – none of that quick cut shaky-cam crap. Also lots of gunplay and headshots – not that John needs a gun to kill anyone. A book, a pencil, a horse – anything will do.

 

This entry represents the franchise as whole – four films deep and spinoffs as at 2024 – but if I have to choose one, it would have to be the 2014 original film for the franchise at its freshest, albeit Chapter Four comes close in the sequels.

 

 

FANTASY & SF

 

That assassin mystique and mythos borders on fantasy, while John Wick’s skill and survivability borders on supernatural ability (as do the action sequences in general).

 

COMEDY

 

Surprisingly for a film set in the underworld of assassins, it hits some black and dry comedic beats  sometimes unintentionally, as in the number of times John Wick can fall and bounce without being disabled (or killed) by injury. 

 

 

RATING: 

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

 

The iconic James Bond gun barrel opening sequence

 

(4) JAMES BOND (1962 – PRESENT)

 

“Bond, James Bond”

A spy action film franchise that needs little more than its iconic protagonist’s own signature introduction.

Well, perhaps a little more introduction – James Bond codenamed 007 as British special agent of the 00 section of MI-6 (the 00 signifying licence to kill), created by Ian Fleming as protagonist of the books (and stories) that were the origin of the franchise.

There’s enough in the franchise not only for a top ten Bond films and special mentions (or alternatively a top ten worst Bond films) – twenty-seven films and counting as at 2024 – but also easily for a top ten elements or motifs of Bond mythos.

The Bond girls. The Bond villains – and their infamous flaws of monologuing (to Bond) or just not shooting Bond as opposed to convoluted death traps or schemes. (To borrow a quote from Family Guy – “Sure, you could kill me with your gun but are you willing to try something much more elaborate and unnecessary?”)

The Bond gadgets. The Bond cars. The Bond one-liners. The Bond action prologue – introduced with the Bond gun barrel sequence and concluding with the Bond title sequence (and song). The exotic Bond globetrotting. Shaken not stirred – Bond’s drinking habits and games of chance or skill. (I seem to recall that Fleming was also fond of sumptuous descriptions of Bond’s dining or food although that hasn’t been adapted as much into film).

The Bond secondary cast from MI-6 – M, Q and Moneypenny. Recurring Bond characters (or actors) in general. Bond’s allies – perhaps foremost among them his CIA contact Felix Leiter. For that matter, typically a climactic Bond action sequence with special forces allied to Bond assaulting the villain’s forces or lair – even IN SPACE!

Heck – you could just squeeze out enough James Bonds for a top ten James Bonds, with six actors having official portrayed the character and a seventh signed up. Yes – I know that leaves three short but in addition to counting Sean Connery at least twice (at least once more in addition to his original run for the unofficial Never Say Never and arguably also for Diamonds are Forever as yet another separate incarnation in the role), there’s also Barry Nelson and David Niven in different adaptations of Casino Royale.

At very least you could compile a top ten of his incredibly versatile proficiencies or skills, and for that matter his character traits or types. As per TV Tropes – “the Ace, the Charmer, the Deadpan Snarker, the Renaissance Man, the Man of Wealth and Taste, the One-Man Army, the Professional Killer, the Sociopathic Hero, the Alcoholic, the Orphan, and the man who can always find women but can never find love. Which of these traits are pushed to the forefront will depend on the tone of the movie in question.”

And that’s not to mention all the inspirations for and adaptations, imitations or parodies of the character, enough for their own top ten (and more) – in turn reflecting Bond himself “having become one of the most iconic and quintessential action heroes in fiction”, founding the “tuxedo and martini subgenre” while defining “most of modern spy fiction and much of the action genre”.

Dare I describe the Bond film franchise as the Roman Empire of film franchises, with its various rises and resurgences or declines and falls?

Playing with that, the first Sean Connery films would be the classical empire of the first and second centuries – at its archetypal height but not without its excesses.

George Lazenby (and Diamonds are Forever) might be likened to Rome in crisis after its classical zenith, although this is unfair not only to Lazenby’s performance but even more so his film On His Majesty’s Secret Service – which is a fine Bond film, with some of the finest elements of any Bond film. (Its Bond girl for one thing and its banging theme tune for another).

The early Roger Moore films would be the resurgent later empire after the crisis of the third century, before devolving into the campy later Roger Moore films in the decline and fall of that half of the franchise. Timothy Dalton and the early Pierce Brosnan films might be likened to the eastern empire, a little rough around the edges to start after the fall of the Moore franchise before their own resurgence – but collapsing with the later Brosnan films on a camp scale almost to the point of the later Moore films.

The Daniel Craig films would be the eastern empire bouncing back to its medieval heights, with a blunter and tougher protagonist (Bond the Bulgar Slayer, anyone?) before crumbling in turn.

Which brings me to the question of which Bond film to choose, if I have to choose one film above all others in this entry – it was a close call with Casino Royale, but I’d have to go with Goldfinger as the archetypal or definitive Bond film. Even if, much like Indiana Jones in the Raiders of the Lost Ark film, Bond doesn’t actually do anything in it to achieve the final result.

 

FANTASY & SF

 

No fantasy in Bond – other than the obvious lifestyle or wish fulfilment fantasy of its protagonist for Fleming and countless male fans since.

However, it does verge into SF territory in its technothriller edges – perhaps most notably in the Bond space adventures of You Only Live Twice and Moonraker

 

COMEDY

 

Do I need to mention those Bond one-liners again? Although the James Bond film franchise has always walked the line between its more serious dramatic elements and tendencies to camp humor bordering on self-parody – falling over that line in the later Moore and later Brosnan films.

 

RATING:

A-TIER (TOP TIER)

 

Uma Thurman as the Bride in her most iconic appearance in Kill Bill – that yellow tracksuit (as well as motorcycle and helmet) a homage to that worn by Bruce Lee in his 1972 film Game of Death

 

(3) QUENTIN TARANTINO –

KILL BILL (2003-2004)

 

“When I woke up, I went on what the movie advertisements referred to as a roaring rampage of revenge. I roared. I rampaged. And I got bloody satisfaction. I’ve killed a hell of a lot of people to get to this point, but I have only one more. The last one. The one I’m driving to right now. The only one left. And when I arrive at my destination… I am gonna KILL BILL”.

Quentin Tarantino – “his films are characterized by elements including recurring actors, non-linear storylines, stylized violence, black comedy, witty dialogue oft laced with pop culture references, trunk shots, close-ups on feet, especially women’s bare feet (don’t ask), and a volume of homages and shout-outs to other movies only attainable with an absurdly encyclopedic knowledge of film history”.

In fairness to the foot fetish thing, who wouldn’t cast themselves to drink off Salma Hayek’s feet?

Also a director whom I have to love for his dedication to a top ten in his own films, having famously declared his intention to retire after ten films, although we’re still awaiting that tenth film as of 2024.

As for which Tarantino film to choose for this entry, it was a close call – particularly with the film that brought him widespread acclaim, Pulp Fiction – but as my featured quote indicates, I have to go with Kill Bill.

“Kill Bill is the fourth (and fifth) film written and directed by Quentin Tarantino, taking all his favorite things at that point in his career – westerns, samurai movies, martial arts, pop-culture references, actions girls, and bare feet – and combining them into one hell of a revenge drama”.

Or as the female protagonist best known simply as the Bride (or Black Mamba as a former member of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad) – although her name Beatrix Kiddo is dropped in the second film – played by Uma Thurman puts it in my featured quote, a roaring rampage of revenge. Indeed, one of the finest roaring rampages of revenge – and certainly top of my top ten roaring rampages of revenge.

Also it has one of my all-time favorite lines of cinema (note to self – compile a top ten lines of cinema) from legendary sword-maker Hattori Hanzo, played by Sonny Chiba, referring to the blade he made for the Bride – “If on your journey you should encounter God, God will be cut”.

(And how! From what we see her do with it, I’d say he was right about that).

It consists of two films although I tend to follow Tarantino in his own classification of it as one film, given that it was conceived by him as such although the studio split it in two for length. Although if I had to choose between them, I’d have to go with the first film or Volume 1 for the sheer glorious frenzied action of the Bride’s fight with O-Ren Ishii and the Crazy 88 Gang. (Although you’d think that at some point, maybe just one of those Yakuza gangsters would, you know, pull a gun on the Bride).

And of course Gogo Yubari, etched deep in my psyche ever since with her portrayal by Japanese actress Chiaki Kuriyama – who also starred in cult classic Battle Royale, one of Tarantino’s favorite films.

 

FANTASY & SF

Interestingly, Tarantino has said that his films fall into one of two cinematic universes – “one being the more realistically grounded of them…and the other being a meta-fictional narrative which Tarantino says represents the kind of films the characters in his main cinematic universe would watch”, arguably with more fantastic or at least cinematic rule of cool elements. Kill Bill falls in the latter.

 

COMEDY

That signature Tarantino black comedy.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

“Yeah well, you know, that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man”

 

(2) COEN BROS –

THE BIG LEBOWSKI (1998)

 

The Dude abides.

Indeed, he abides in second place.  The Coen brothers – Joel and Ethan Coen – also abide as my favorite directors of film (albeit obviously not of my favorite film in top spot).

And yes – they have enough of a filmography for their own top ten films, but one that is impossible to categorize by genre or style apart from a blackly comedic and idiosyncratic quirky flair. “Their films span many genres and styles, which they frequently subvert or parody”.

While I enjoy all their films I’ve seen – even the weirder ones like Barton Fink and weaker ones like The Ladykillers – the holy trinity of their filmography for me would be The Big Lebowksi, O Brother Where Art Thou, and Intolerable Cruelty (although Fargo – film and television series – comes close).

And of these, the greatest is The Big Lebowksi – which despite a mixed reception and box office return at the time of its release – rose to cult classic status.

As TV Tropes describes, “it’s a bit hard to describe but let’s just call it a film noir parody”, albeit an affectionate one – particularly of Raymond Chandleresque noir detective stories set in L.A., with the title itself a nod to The Big Sleep.

Except of course for its Philip Marlowe protagonist, it’s slacker Jeff Lebowski – although he prefers to go by the Dude – played to perfection by Jeff Bridges. He’s not the titular Big Lebowksi however – and it’s the mix-up in identity between them that effectively gets the ball rolling on the plot. Well – that and also the Dude’s rug really tied the room together.

Again as per TV Tropes, “this being a Coen Brothers movie, though, the plot isn’t important. The driving force within the movie is the collection of various, bizarre, main and secondary (and tertiary!) characters, almost all of whom seem to come from completely different movies.”

Not least the film’s cowboy narrator, styled as The Stranger, played by Sam Elliott – giving us my featured quote, although the Dude himself takes a shine to it.

Oh – and of course, the Jesus.

But yeah well, you know, that’s just like, uh, your opinion, man.

 

FANTASY & SF

The filmography of the Coen brothers definitely dips into the fantasy genre with some of their more fantastic elements, although not enough that any of their films would be described as fantasy – particularly as those fantastic elements are more in the nature of dreams or trips, as in The Big Lebowksi

 

COMEDY

The kings of black comedy, dryly delivered.

The Big Lebowksi in particular could be outright classified as comedy.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)

 

One of the most iconic scenes in the film – and in film

 

(1) APOCALYPSE NOW (1979)

 

“I love the smell of napalm in the morning…smells like victory.”

Yeah – this is the big one, the cinematic equivalent of Catch-22, lodged next to it deep within my psyche ever since seeing it (by happenstance at about the same time as reading Catch-22).

And not coincidentally, like Catch-22 also set in a war, except of course in the Vietnam war as opposed to the former’s Second World War, and similarly using the war as a backdrop for a story beyond the war itself – a satire of modern society in Catch-22 and an exploration of the human psyche on the edges of madness and beyond in Apocalypse Now.

While it is usually (and accurately) considered a war film, it is a psychological war film which could well have been set elsewhere – and indeed originally was, given that it is a very loose adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s novella Heart of Darkness from nineteenth century Africa to the Vietnam War. One might well quip that it was also a loose adaptation of the Vietnam War itself (to the American or human psyche).

Hence some of those who watch it expecting a more straightforward war or action film might be disappointed, particularly with its pacing – although I was entranced by it throughout when I first watched it, even in my adolescent days. Don’t get me wrong – it absolutely does have action scenes, indeed some of the most visually striking and iconic action scenes, hence my entrancement, but not quite in the pace or style of a contemporary action film blockbuster.

As per TV Tropes – “packed to the gills with now-iconic scenes and quotes, it is a common choice for not only the definitive anti-war movie but the definitive cinematic depiction of war not as battle, or even as purgatory but as an illogical fever dream”.

Illogical fever dream is overstating it – it has a coherent plot – but things definitely get wilder and trippier the further the protagonist and his squad go.

As for that protagonist and squad – again as per TV Tropes, “”special operations Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen) is sent to kill Walter E Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a Green Beret colonel who has gone mad and formed a personality cult in Cambodia”…Willard and his crew including George “Chief” Phillips (Albert Hall), Jay “Chef” Hicks (Frederic Forrest), Lance Johnson (Sam Bottoms) and Tryone “Mr Clean” Miller (a 14-year-old Laurence Fishburne) — go up a river and into the recesses of humanity.”

Directed by Francis Ford Coppola at the height of his career, it’s a miracle the film was even made, let alone be this good, given a trouble production that’s almost as legendarily epic as the film itself. On that point – and perhaps not surprisingly given that production history – the original cinematic edit is definitely the best. While the ‘redux’ director’s cut has points of interest, Coppola definitely got it right for its original cinematic release.

I’ll conclude with Roger Ebert’s thoughts when adding it to his list of great movies – ” “What’s great in the film, and what will make it live for many years and speak to many audiences, is what Coppola achieves on the levels Truffaut was discussing: the moments of agony and joy in making cinema. Some of those moments occur at the same time; remember again the helicopter assault and its unsettling juxtaposition of horror and exhilaration. Remember the weird beauty of the massed helicopters lifting above the trees in the long shot, and the insane power of Wagner’s music, played loudly during the attack, and you feel what Coppola was getting at: Those moments as common in life as art, when the whole huge grand mystery of the world, so terrible, so beautiful, seems to hang in the balance,,,Apocalypse Now is the best Vietnam film, one of the greatest of all films, because it pushes beyond the others, into the dark places of the soul. It is not about war so much as about how war reveals truths we would be happy never to discover.”

 

FANTASY & SF

It’s trippier moments border on some dark fantasy but no – it remains grounded in the mundane reality of our world. Or at least as mundane as the Vietnam War got.

Although it is tempting to conflate, as Kim Newman did in a short story, Coppola’s Apocalypse Now and Coppola’s Dracula film – with Harker as Willard and his crew of vampire hunters on a gunboat upriver into Transylvania…

 

COMEDY

It has its comedic elements – some of the blackest and driest in film perhaps but they are there, at least according to my sense of humor. Definitely not a comedy though.

 

RATING: 5 STARS*****

S-TIER (GOD TIER)