Top 10 Movies of 2024

Greetings, reader!

Well, here we are, once again. From a year full of great cinema, these are my very favorite movies. I hope you enjoy!

Also, if you're wondering why there's no Wicked (2024), I have to admit that I did not get around to seeing it before posting this. I'll try my very best to catch it before my 'Best of 2024 nominations+winners' posts in January!

Here are my honorable mentions: Carry-On, Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter One, Salem's Lot, Scoop.

10. Turtles All the Way Down

This under-the-radar coming-of-age flick is a bit of a mixed bag for me, but I tend to give a film's positives more weight than its negatives because I watch cinema in order to enjoy it, so despite its share of flaws, Hannah Marks' Turtles All the Way Down makes it into my top ten.

The negatives are mainly the over-corny style, where much of the dialogue and humor is a bit too clear in its 'adults trying to write quirky teenager dialogue' execution, thus not feeling all that authentic. Once you get past that, there's tons to enjoy: the characters are entertaining and heartfelt, and the main character's struggles with OCD are fascinating on many levels. It's much-needed representation and awareness for a disorder that is far too often mischaracterized in media (as far as I could tell and based on what I read from reviews by viewers with OCD, this film nails the realism of its portrayal far better than most), and the ways in which the OCD reflects onto her family, friendships and romantic relationships make for emotional content more broadly relatable to viewers who may be neurodivergent in any number of ways. A very worthwhile viewing experience despite some clunky elements!

9. The Beautiful Game

One of the quintessential feel-good movies of the year, The Beautiful Game is a goofy and endearing mixture of football (soccer for my American readers), social issues and heart. While not based on a true story, the film inspired by a very real annual event - the Homeless World Cup, a football event that raises money and awareness for homeless people all over the world, while giving hundreds of economically disenfranchised people the unique experience of participating in an international sports tournament. By some estimates, the event has transformed the lives of million of homeless people, and such a wonderful concept definitely deserves an homage-paying movie.

In The Beautiful Game, the legendary Bill Nighy plays the manager of England's team for the Homeless World Cup, as we follow the assembly of the team, their journey to the big competition and their misadventures on and off the pitch. The characters on the team are fascinating, and learning their stories would serve as a strong lesson for any 'being poor is a choice' capitalists who don't understand their privilege - you have an addict who never got the treatment he needed, an immigrant failed by a broken integration system, someone who was just born into a poor family with no way out, and other stories that surely have millions of real-life counterparts all around. The movie deals with the heaviness of its theme in a respectful manner, while also managing to be uplifting with its inspiring story and fun soccer (football for my European readers) sequences.

8. Stevie Van Zandt: Disciple

A good rockumentary is only as good as the rock musician it's about - and Stevie Van Zandt is no joke. This film really opened my eyes to the fact that this man is everything I've ever wanted to be in life: a rock star, an actor with both dramatic and comedic chops (who also wrote and directed episodes of the TV shows he was on), a political activist (not just the performative kind, but the kind who actually got shit done), an author, and on top of it all, one half of a by-all-accounts happy and healthy marriage that has been going strong for decades. That combination is fucking crazy, man.

Like all three of the documentaries that made it onto this year's top ten (that's got to be a record - good for the genre!), the editing and overall style aren't as revolutionary as in the best of them, but it goes with a classic tried-and-true rockumentary format that music&film nerds like myself will never grow tired of. You got some legendary producer chuckling while telling an anecdote of a creative moment half a lifetime ago to the visual backdrop of a mixing console close-up with someone sliding a knob with their finger in a dramatic fashion? Hell yeah, give me more.

All in all, Disciple is an eye-opening account of just what a historically cool dude Stevie Van Zandt was - by the time we got to the sentence "He's like a music encyclopedia - I know a lot, but he knows more", spoken by PAUL F**KING MCCARTNEY, it was pretty clear that if anyone deserves such a praiseworthy film about their career, it's Miami Steve. 

7. Joker: Folie à Deux

Now we arrive at one of the most opinion-splitting films of 2024, one that garnered tons of hate online and a whopping 5.2 on IMDB. I know I'm not the first to make this hot take, as my experience is that surprisingly many actual humans who don't live on the internet (especially its incel section) did enjoy the Joker sequel quite a bit. I will lay out a few points on where I think the overdone hatred comes from, and why the movie is actually really good (pretty much on par with the first Joker, with slightly different strengths and weaknesses but also much of the same).

1) The musical curveball. For a movie buff like me, it seemed wildly clear that Joker: Folie à Deux was going to be a musical; this was announced a few years ago, and the film's marketing made it clear. My observations of the reactions online tell me that for thousands and thousands of people, this was not clear, and they went into the cinema not expecting a musical. I can see how it would be a lot to handle with no prior notice, as the genre does make it very different stylistically from the first film. Walking into the film with the knowledge of the genre, I found it enjoyable and not at all distracting. I get why many less film-obsessed people with actual lives might have missed this information beforehand, but it's upsetting that so many choose to blame the film and its marketing (as if they had intentionally hid this fact to confuse viewers), when the information very clearly was out there for anyone interested.

2) Misogyny. Now, obviously I'm not saying that everyone who didn't like Folie à Deux is a misogynist - there are plenty of valid reasons not to like this film, and if you didn't like it for any number of those reasons, then this post isn't analyzing your valid subjective opinions but rather analyzing what the massive online hate campaign came from. In our patriarchal and sexist society, it's no shocker that when a film with an individual male protagonist gets a sequel where there are two main characters, the new one being a woman, thousands and thousands of self-proclaimed 'film enthusiasts' were never going to give the movie a chance and instead walked into the theater with the steadfast attitude of looking for flaws so they can complain about how the woke left is destroying Hollywood.

(Related sidenote: one of my favorite aspects of the film was how it subtly made fun of the incel fans who missed the point of the first film! 2019's Joker is a great film about serious subject matters, and it has been upsetting to see how many toxic men have interpreted it as some heroic tale to be romanticized: the subplot in Folie à Deux about the people who show up to the trial to cheer for the Joker and laugh at everything he says made it pretty clear what the filmmakers think of those 'fans').

3) Too specific expectations / missed points. I didn't know exactly what to expect from Joker in 2019, and I loved every expectation-subverting curveball it threw at me, and I didn't know exactly what to expect from Folie à Deux (sure, Lady Gaga and musical numbers, but nothing specific), and I loved it for largely the same reasons, because (and this might be an unpopular opinion), the two movies are ultimately very similar. Sure, the musical genre makes the narrative and aesthetic quite different, but when you look at the themes and substance, I'd argue that Folie à Deux is a perfectly natural continuation. The musical element isn't random, but rather Todd Phillips' artistic way of exploring the same exact themes that the first film was all about. It works, at least for me; the otherworldly musical numbers work just like the Hangover-style humor worked in the first film: it might be fun in a different context, but in a film about a dangerous and mentally unstable person, they read as electrifying horror, like you're actively watching the inner workings of a mind that isn't okay. Many viewers wanted something specific, and weren't open-minded enough to look beyond the surface and realize that this film is just as Joker as the first one.

Also, my last line of defense for this over-hated film: everyone who has ever complained about Hollywood's generic sequels is full of shit. So often you hear stuff like "Why should I care about the new Marvel film / Star Wars film etc., it's just more of the same" or "This new sequel feels like it was written by a committee or an AI, it's so generic and predictable" or "God, filmmakers never take risks anymore, everything is so mediocre because they're playing everything too safe". That's fucking bullshit. The reaction to Joker: Folie á Deux shows why: if you do what people who watch movies supposedly want, and take risks with an artistic direction, this will be the reaction. The instant that a sequel is something bold and artistic and not the safe bet people were expecting, they will review-bomb online about how the film is terrible and ruined their year. No wonder so many filmmakers play their sequels safe: the ever-hypocritical masses may complain about that and claim to want something original, but in reality, it seems to be those same masses who instantly crucify anything different and creative. Showbusiness is pretty brutal to people who want to make actual art.

6. Outstanding: A Comedy Revolution

This Netflix original was a delightful surprise to brighten up the year in entertainment! As a bisexual who does stand-up comedy recreationally, this documentary about the history of LGBTQ+ stand-up comedians was quite naturally a hard-hitting story. Directed by Page Hurwitz, Outstanding isn't quite as cinematically groundbreaking or stylistically unique as some of the best documentaries out there, nor does it need to be - the fairly standard directing and editing choices leave room for the substance at hand to be the main hook.

Legends like Lily Tomlin, Margaret Cho, Wanda Sykes and countless others share their stories, and the combination of footage and interviews make for a beautiful tapestry about a revolutionary movement. The end result will not only make you hope that we could make the world a better place via laughter, but maybe even believe in it.

5. Will & Harper

Staying on the topic of heartfelt LGBTQ+ documentaries (what a niche coincidence!), Will & Harper details an atmospheric road trip filled with laughter and tears. For those who don't know, Harper Steele is a former Saturday Night Live (1975-Present) writer who came out as a trans woman in recent years - and when she told former colleague and close friend Will Ferrell about this, the latter decided to be a true friend and ally in the coolest way possible.

The dynamic duo hit the road, hitting various American locations while exploring what Harper's transition meant for her life's path, their friendship, and her relationship to America. Will & Harper is gripping at times, hilarious at others, and as informative as it is heartwarming for all of its duration. Very recommended, and I recommend recommending this film to any older relatives etc. who might still be confused about the whole transgender thing, to clear up that the nice people just trying to live their lives are, in fact, not the bathroom-stalking demons that the right-wing media wants them to be.

4. Challengers

Very few films in 2024 captivated the minds of cinema enthusiasts, and stirred conversation among them globally, as much as Luca Guadagnino's Challengers. With a perfect mixture of sports and human drama, this riveting tennis flick has a lot to love: expert cinematography with Sayombhu Mukdeeprom's stylized shots throughout the tennis sequences, a killer score by Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, and some of the year's very best acting performances by the trio of Zendaya, Josh O'Connor and Mike Faist. The combination of intense sports and sexual tensions make this into the undoubtedly sweatiest film of 2024, but also one of its best.

3. Longlegs

And here we have what is undoubtedly the biggest deal of the year in horror cinema, and one that I believe will stand the test of time and perhaps become a future classic! Directed by horror royalty Osgood Perkins, Longlegs was such a perfect film to see in the cinema as a fan of the genre - while it's not quite the scariest horror flick I've seen, it probably makes the top 10 for my subjective taste in getting scared, and it's probably the most frightened I've ever been in the movie theater.

There's a lot to love cinematically as well - Maika Monroe and Nicolas Cage provide brilliant performances, and the stylistic choices by the directing, cinematography and editing departments are quite genius (and play a big part in the horror element being so authentically scary). It's an approach to horror quite similar to Robert Eggers' The Vvitch (2015) - a lot of long, lingering and weirdly unsettling shots and scenes, where quite often nothing bad ends up happening, but the striking feeling that something might go down at any second leaves the viewer wonderfully anxious. All in all, Longlegs is a strong contender for best horror flick of the decade so far if you ask me.

2. Myrskyluodon Maija

In the late 60's and early 70's, Anni Blomqvist published the Myrskyluoto book series, the deeply melancholic themes and frankly depressing milieu of which really resonated with the Finnish mindset, thus becoming a beloved classic. It was adapted into a TV series in 1976, becoming so culturally relevant that its theme song is etched in Finland's collective memory as one of our most beloved musical compositions. Further love to the story was given with two critically acclaimed stage musical adaptations, one in the early 80's and the other in 2017. This year, we finally got a movie adaptation, which once again proved that one quite simply cannot do a version Myrskyluodon Maija without captivating the hearts of the Finnish people.

Running at nearly three hours long, the film by Tiina Lymi is everything a true cinema enthusiast is bound to enjoy (beautiful camera shot after beautiful camera shot, magnificent acting performances, slow-paced and thought-provoking dialogue, heartstring-tugging music, and a script that is a loyal adaptation of its source material yet changes some focal points in order to be more culturally relevant such as giving the female protagonist more agency). It also manages to be everything a typical Finn is bound to enjoy - sad, somber, even tragically heartbreaking enough to fit our mindset (someone should really check in on us), yet simultaneously filled with grit and endurance, not to mention spectacularly beautiful nature scenery.

1. Dune: Part Two

They said that Frank Herbert's crown jewel of sci-fi literature could never be adapted into a movie. David Lynch said 'hold my beer', did his very best in the 1980's, and very much seemed to prove that they were right (I love Lynch but his Dune adaptation is a glorious train wreck). They continued to say that a proper Dune movie could not be achieved - until along came Denis Villeneuve, a lifelong Dune fan who made a career of decade-defining sci-fi flicks like Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, only to reveal that they were mere trial runs for the project he had really waited his whole life to do, the project he was destined to do (not to sound like Stilgar, but yes, I believe Denis Villeneuve is the Chosen One that the science fiction genre was promised, and he will lead us unto a glorious Golden Path).

Yeah, this is the best movie of the year and there's no way around it. Villeneuve's first Dune from 2021 already knocked it out of the park, with the end product being perhaps the greatest book-to-movie adaptation I had ever seen in terms of loyalty to the source material. But, somehow, the second instalment is even better.

Earlier this year, I ranked my all-time favorite second instalments from movie franchises (because I'm a huge nerd). Dune: Part Two was boldly in third place, ahead of classics like Aliens, Terminator II: Judgement Day and even The Godfather: Part II, with only The Empire Strikes Back and The Two Towers being ahead of it. It might have looked like recency bias then and might still look like that now, but I'm standing by it - this is a film for the history books, one that will be discussed and re-watched decades and decades from now.

Villeneuve's directing and the entire production is so groundbreaking in terms of just how well-done a cinematic work can be: it's not just the huge budget and massive visuals, but the passion that goes into the craft. The cast isn't just a bunch of talented actors - it's people like Javier Bardem, who grew up reading Dune and said that it feels crazy to be paid to play a role so fascinating that he would pay money just to get to play Stilgar. The same goes for all departments - the people hired for production design, CGI, sound editing and everything else are largely people who authentically care about science fiction and respect the importance of Dune, and this can be seen from the end product. There are many Marvel movies from the last few years that have budgets even bigger than that of Dune, and when you contrast those with each other, you see how important it is to have art made for the sake of art and not with only money on one's mind. Dune: Part Two doesn't just look expensive, but rather achieves a much higher standard often forgotten by Hollywood - it looks right. Definitely the cinematic highlight of 2024.

Thank you for reading! Tune in next week for my list of the greatest television shows of 2024.

Ranking every major change from the books in the Lord of the Rings + The Hobbit movies

Greetings, reader!

In honor of The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014), the final film in Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth franchise, turning 10 years old this month, I'm taking a look at both the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies - speficially as adaptations of J.R.R. Tolkien's books this time. Re-watching the six movies time and time again has caused a lot of reflection on the changes Peter Jackson made from the beloved source material, and how some of these changes landed better than others. In an admittedly slightly arbitrary fashion, I used my self-proclaimed Tolkien expertise to rule what the 'biggest' individual changes from book to movie are (it was easy to draw the line at the 21 selected candidates - every other change would veer into nitpicking territory) - and ranked them from worst to best.

A spoiler alert is in order for people who haven't read the books and/or watched the movies!

21. Alfrid (The Desolation of Smaug & Battle of the Five Armies)

Yeah, this guy sucks.

20. The whole thing with the dwarves trying to kill Smaug (The Desolation of Smaug)

I mean, I understand the reasoning for this - the second film needed some sort of climax, instead of just a cliffhanger, and the source material doesn't have a natural climax around the 2/3 mark. Arguably this is the best possible choice for the situation they were in, and the slight cruddiness of the film's climax is just (a part of) the cost of the decision to split the story into three films. It's not terrible, but it is a bit clunky.

19. The warg attack and Aragorn's side quest (The Two Towers)

Yep, not all of the worst changes came from the overall worse trilogy - even the Lord of the Rings movies have a few questionable ones (this is coming from a person who puts all three Lord of the Rings movies in his top 15 movies of all time). Yeah, The Two Towers is an overall masterpiece, but I never quite bought this particular escapade. The fake-out death comes across in a cliché manner, the Arwen (Liv Tyler) dream sequences go on for too long, and the whole thing doesn't add very much to the end product.

18. Cutting several side characters while creating new ones (The Lord of the Rings trilogy)

I would get the need to have a few films-only characters to complete Peter Jackson's vision for his long-ass films - but at the very least, those films should then also include beloved side characters like Tom Bombadil and Beregond from the books. Similarly, I would understand cutting some of the semi-iconic book characters due to the runtime, but that would be more understandable if the film's wouldn't use a lot of screen time for characters created for the movie (such as the villainous Uruk-Hai Lurtz (Lawrence Makoare)).

17. Azog as a major villain (The Hobbit trilogy)

We're still in the low-tier territory of changes where the book is overall better than the movie, but slowly getting to ones where I understand the film's reasoning for the change better. Azog's (Manu Bennett) role in the films is and easy target to criticize - a character who is literally mentioned once in the book, as a deep-cut lore villain, is turned into a major villain with his own storylines and a bunch of screentime across three films? Yeah, that sounds bad.

But I've honestly warmed up to this upon re-watching the films. In the Hobbit book, there's no need for the enemy to have a name and face, as the mysterious build-up of a faceless orc/goblin army and their eventual emergence into the battle of the five armies works. But on the big screen, it is inescapably more engaging to follow this build-up when they have a clearly defined leader, a personification of the enemy. It's a bit weird how much time we spend following Azog, but I still think the films are better with him than they would be without him (in either case, the films aren't as good as The Hobbit book, but that's okay).

16. The existence and storylines of Tauriel (The Desolation of Smaug & Battle of the Five Armies)

Yeah, I'm definitely not a full-on Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) hater like many fans, but I do agree the character could've been done better. Among the reasons for the existence of this non-book character are the complete lack of female characters in the source material, and the lack of agency for the Elves (they just show up in masses, which works in the book but would've been boring and less personable on the big screen).

So, I do get why Tauriel needs to be there, and she definitely has her moments. This is still fairly low on the list, though, because the character's overall execution isn't on the level of the other characters (and who can blame the filmmakers for this - a character originally created by the J.R.R. Tolkien is likely to be more interesting than a character created by filmmakers who are not Tolkien). Some of Tauriel's storylines are on the boring side, and they get a bit too much screentime.

15. Everything in general being expanded (The Hobbit trilogy)

I'm still more on the "I understand why The Hobbit was split into three movies" team, as I do enjoy watching and re-watching all three, and one film would've been too rushed. Still, the split had its price, especially as Jackson wanted the films to be closer to three hours long (to feel more like the epicness of The Lord of the Rings, I guess).

A big tactic in this was taking all of the key events from The Hobbit, and expanding them in various ways - an average turn of events that merely happens in the book is given more backstory, more context, and more phases as it unfolds. In some cases, this works quite well - the extra dialogue and tensions in moments like the troll encounter makes the moments feel more dramatic, making the viewer invested. But in many cases, it feels unnecessary, making many action scenes feel "sigh, I already know how this is going to shake out" to people who read the books, and likely just as predictable to viewers who haven't.

14. The Elves being at Helm's Deep & Haldir's death (The Two Towers)

This one always felt slightly extra to me, as it doesn't contribute all that much to the plot, but I also don't mind it - I've watched the films so many times that they are just as nostalgic to me as the books, and the moment where the Elves arrive with its cool score is always one of the many scenes one looks forward to, as it is quite well-done and memorable.

Sure, the battle would've worked without the Elves as it does in the books, but it's a nice extra moment of alliance. I feel similarly about Haldir's (Craig Parker) death in the battle - he didn't need to die, and it's objectively a bit weird that Jackson killed him off as it doesn't happen in the books, but now that the decision was made, I can't help but admit that the death scene does add extra emotion to the battle, so I have no special quarrel with it.

13. Bard's lore and destiny (The Desolation of Smaug & Battle of the Five Armies)

I have mixed feelings about this one. In the book, Bard of Laketown (Luke Evans) is a cool guy with not much of a backstory, and when he ends up becoming the unlikely hero to kill Smaug, it's delightfully unexpected - he was in the right place at the right time, and utilizes the mysterious Black Arrow in the right way. For the movies, as a means of the expanding-everything that I discussed at #15, Peter Jackson builds this moment up across multiple scenes in two films, with Bard and the Black Arrow having a whole lore-riddled backstory.

I can't quite decide what I think of this - a part of me feels like it makes the moment too predictable and thus less of an exciting turn as it is in the book, but another part of me sees exactly why Jackson went with it, as Bard's arch in the book could be argued to be a bit too random and coincidental, and the movie integrates him into the story while giving him an arch. In the books, Smaug's death is a payoff just because it's Smaug's death, but in the movie it's also a payoff for Bard and his story. It wasn't exactly needed, but it does make the movie-Bard more of a character than the book-Bard.

12. Legolas being in The Hobbit (The Desolation of Smaug & Battle of the Five Armies)

This is one of the many changes that the hater-fans were all up in arms about when the Hobbit movies came out, claiming that there is no reason to include Legolas (Orlando Bloom) in the movies, as he wasn't in the book, and that this is merely soulless and superficial fan service. I disagree with this view, and this is why: the book includes the Hobbits traveling through Mirkwood and encountering the Elves there, and Legolas is an Elf who comes from Mirkwood and lived there as its prince during the events of The Hobbit, and the only reason why he isn't in the book is that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit before he wrote The Lord of the Rings, so he likely hadn't created the character yet. Story-wise, it makes perfect sense that Legolas would be there - so really, why not do this logical bit of fan service and let us see this beloved character again?

This might be even higher on the list, but I'm keeping it around the halfway mark because I do admit that Legolas doesn't add all that much to the quality of the films, although it is fun to see him again and he has some neat moments. I fully agree with the choice to include him (and I'm convinced that the fans who complain about his presence are those fans who went into the movies with a strongly pre-conceived attitude that they don't want to like the film and won't give it a chance), but it's not like his presence makes the films massively better.

11. Storylines like the flooding of Isengard and the Paths of the Dead being on-screen (The Two Towers & The Return of the King)

This was such an obvious change to make that it would be a bit weird if they took the books word-for-word on this one. In Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, there are a few storylines where a character goes on a side quest, we don't hear from them for a while as the side quest isn't followed from their POV, and eventually the character returns in a surprising manner and they later tell other characters what happened in order to fill in the blanks.

This happens with the flooding of Isengard (after the Ents decide to attack Saruman's (Christopher Lee) stronghold, we don't hear from them until Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and company find Isengard flooded and it's left to Merry (Dominic Monaghan) and Pippin (Billy Boyd) to explain how it happened), as well as Aragorn's (Viggo Mortensen) journey to the Paths of the Dead (he leaves with the Dunedain, and what went down there is revealed in a dramatic manner when he arrives dramatically in the midst of the battle in the Pelennor fields). It's pretty natural that for his big-budget big-screen films, Jackson wanted to show these massive events, instead of merely including them in dialogue or even doing a cliché flashback.

So, it's a well-reasoned change and works in the medium. I'm still not putting it the top 10, because even though the way both versions do these storylines works just right for that medium, I do have to say that the Return of the King one is objectively even better in the books - nothing beats that feeling when a first-time reader thinks that the arrival of the Black Ships means certain defeat in an already dire situation, only for the Aragorn reveal to act as a major injection of hope.

10. Where TTT ends and ROTK begins (The Two Towers / The Return of the King)

This was one of the hardest ones to get used to as a kid - the structure of the story in the books was so deeply etched into my mind, that it felt a bit wrong how the second instalment ends at such a different place for the first few times watching the movies. Once I got used to it, I had to admit that it makes sense in the context of the films. Like all of the changes that I've ranked here around the middle, above the simple 'this thing was worse in the movies than in the books' ones and below the simple 'this thing was better in the movies than in the books' (yes, those exist, come for me you literature elitists) ones, this is a case of the grey area where the way Tolkien does it works for the books, but the way Jackson does it works for the films.

The Two Towers (the book) ends with Gandalf and Pippin on their way to Gondor after Pippin's Palantir vision, Aragorn and company on their way back to Rohan after taking care of Isengard, and Sam on his way to rescue a captured Frodo from the tower of Minas Morgul. The Two Towers (the movie) ends a little over halfway through the events of the second book - with the battle of Helm's Deep and the attack on Isengard only just being over, while Frodo (Elijah Wood), Sam (Sean Astin) and Gollum (Andy Serkis) are still on their way to the stairs of Cirith Ungol. That means that the first one and a half hours or so of The Return of the King (the movie) are adapted from the last chapters of The Two Towers - but hey, it works, so what's the problem?

The reasonings for this can be analyzed and debated to an endless degree, but here's my take: Jackson wanted the final film to be the longest and most epic (including events like Shelob's lair helps with the escalating dramatics), and turning a few events from the middle of The Two Towers into more climactic versions of their book counterparts (namely Helm's Deep and Frodo&company being in Faramir's (David Wenham) custody; more on both of these later) helps give The Two Towers its own personable climax so that it works better as an individual film and not just a middle instalment concluding on a cliffhanger.

9. Cutting Tom Bombadil and the surrounding mini-adventures (The Fellowship of the Ring)

Oh man, I have mixed feelings on this one. Some fans are devastated that we never got to see Tom Bombadil in the film, and I get that - he's an iconic character in his own right, just like the misadventures and sidequests that the four hobbits get into around that part of the first book are very entertaining pieces of adventure literature and worldbuilding. But at the same time, the more I have matured, the more I have grown to understand and accept the decision to cut them from the films, simply because they don't add anything necessary to the plot.

Essentially, the film skips four consecutive chapters from the book - we cut from the hobbits escaping on Bucklebury Ferry to them arriving in Bree, while in Tolkien's text, the way to Bree includes a whole bunch of wacky hijinks like the Old Forest, the protagonists hanging out in Tom Bombadil's home, and the myserious Barrow-Wights being a thing. Those are fun to read in the book, but the story doesn't also lose anything when cutting that part, as they don't contain much character development, important lore or game-changing events.

8. When Boromir dies and how it's told (The Fellowship of the Ring)

This is an interesting one: the largely same event takes place in both book and movie, but the manner of how it's told narratively is different. In the books, Boromir's (Sean Bean) storyline is left wide open at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, as we last see him despairing after he betrayed Frodo, and hoping for a chance at redemption. We don't follow his POV in the following events - but in the first chapter of The Two Towers, Aragorn finds him fatally injured, and we find out from their dialogue that he had heroically fought off the Uruk-Hai to save Merry and Pippin. He passes away at the end of their discussion.

Event-wise, the same things happen in the movies, but with these major changes: A) we see Boromir's sacrifice happening on-screen before Aragorn finds him, and B) it all happens at the end of The Fellowship of the Ring, not the beginning of The Two Towers. This is well-reasoned, as it gives an emotional climax to the first film. It's largely one of those cases where the book version and the movie version both work in their own medium, but it's above others of that sort because it could be argued that the movie does it even better. Yes, Boromir's death is emotional in the books, but the dramatics of the death scene on screen are hard to beat.

7. Arwen's bigger role (The Lord of the Rings trilogy)

Yeah, I'm glad that the fandom seems to see eye to eye on this one. I don't exactly blame the books for handling Arwen differently, because Tolkien writes what Tolkien writes and his versions of the storyline worked - but I'd be lying if I didn't say that this one is a bit of an improvement on some level. In the books, we don't spend very much time with Arwen, or learn too much about her despite her being an interesting character.

The movies give her more of a spotlight, especially with the clever call of replacing Glorfindel with her - in the books, it's Glorfindel who rescues Frodo on the way to Rivendell, but in the movies, we never meet him and the protagonist is saved by Arwen instead. It works on many levels - a female character is given more screentime and agency because they have so little to do in the source material, Liv Tyler gets to kick ass in a career-defining role, and let's face it, cutting Glorfindel was smart because he doesn't do anything for the rest of the books so it would've felt like getting to know another face in a crowded ensemble without it leading to anything.

6. How both stories start / when we learn the lore (The Fellowship of the Ring & An Unexpected Journey)

In Tolkien's literature, the beginnings of both The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring are low-key introductions to a story yet to unravel - as is fitting for such books. But, as is fitting for large-scale cinematic adaptations, Jackson's films went with a more bombastic approach with his opening acts. And it works like a charm both times.

The first Lord of the Rings movie opens with an epic, massive-scale prologue, narrated by Cate Blanchett's Galadriel, filling us in on the origin of the One Ring (details that are learned only later in the book, which begins with the Hobbits vibing in the Shire). As this worked, Jackson repeated the narrative choice and opened the first Hobbit film with a similar lore-blast concerning the history of the Lonely Mountain, the Arkenstone and Smaug (again, something we would only learn later in the book that starts with a Hobbit vibing in the Shire). It's a neat trick, and while the openings aren't necessarily better than the beginning of each book, they certainly aren't worse either.

5. Following Gandalf's POV during The Hobbit (The Hobbit Trilogy)

This one was a no-brainer: in the Hobbit book, Gandalf often disappears on mysterious side quests, and they are left largely unexplained with always just a quick and cryptic answer on where he was. It's likely that Tolkien himself didn't have the exact answer in mind when writing The Hobbit - but years later, when he wrote The Lord of the Rings, he added appendices where he explains in detail just what was up with Gandalf during the events of The Hobbit.

This White Council storyline ties into iconic LOTR characters like Saruman, Galadriel and Sauron - so of course it made sense for the movies to include these side-quests on screen. Today's top four is all The Lord of the Rings, which means that out of all the changes to the source material that The Hobbit trilogy made, this one is my favorite.

4. Cutting the Scouring of the Shire (The Return of the King)

This choice was a tad bold, and one that split the opinions of some deep-end book fans when the films came out - but it seems that with the passage of time, more and more fans agree that this was the right thing to do. For those not familiar with the source material, believe it or not, Mount Doom isn't the all-evil-has-been-defeated climax in the books that it is in the movies. After events like Aragorn's coronation, we find out that leftover Isengard troops have taken over the Shire, with Saruman (still alive at this point, unlike in the films) calling the shots. Thus, those of the main characters who have returned to the Shire must vanquish this foe before all is well.

This final battle works well in the context of the book, but oh man, it would've totally broken the rhythm of the film, and undercut the dramatic nature of the bombastic Mordor climax. I will forever defend the decision to cut the Scouring of the Shire storyline from the films - I mean, they even took its best part (Grima (Brad Dourif) dramatically killing Saruman) and adapted it into a different context!

3. Helm's Deep being an overall bigger deal (The Two Towers)

If you watch the films first and only then read the books, this is bound to be one of the most confusing revelations: in Tolkien's Two Towers, the battle of Helm's Deep takes place across one chapter, a little over halfway the first half of the book. When making the films, Peter Jackson took a slightly different route: via a combination of telling the narratives of the book's first and second halves simultaneously instead of one after another, the decision to leave some post-Helm's-Deep events out of The Two Towers and into the beginning act of The Return of the King, and generally stretching out events from the book with good taste, Jackson turns this one-chapter mid-book battle into the massive, film-defining climactic event of the second film.

This works on many levels: the middle instalment gets more of a climax than it does in the books due to Jackson's genius combination of showing the Ent attack (see #11), a certain speech (see #1) and this battle, and just on a cinematic level, what is merely an interesting chapter-long battle in the books becomes one of the greatest and most iconic battle sequences in movie history. So, while I mean no offense to the battle of Helm's Deep in the books, the movie version does kick its ass.

2. The storyline of Sam leaving (The Return of the King)

This is a small-ish addition compared to some, but it makes all the difference in the world. Every time I re-read the books, I'm a bit sad that this storyline doesn't happen there - it feels sacrilegious to suggest that anything should be changed from the works of the arguably best storyteller of all time, but with all the possible respect to Mr. Tolkien, I'd argue that this genius addition from the movies would've worked as well in the books and made an already semi-perfect trilogy even a tad better.

Yep, the storyline of Gollum turning Frodo against Sam, Frodo eventually telling Sam to leave, and Sam leaving until he has a change of heart and arrives to save his friend at the nick of time (no, I'm not crying while writing this, you are) never happens in the books. Sure, similar themes are implied and Gollum definitely does try his best in manipulating Frodo against Sam, but it never goes nearly as far. This storyline was a magnificent addition from Peter Jackson and company: it gives the story even more despair, drama and heart at the eleventh hour, and Sean Astin's delivery of "You don't mean that" is probably the most heartbreaking moment in the movie.

1. The added speeches (The Two Towers & The Return of the King)

Yeah, this one takes the cake. I'm counting the combination of two speeches as the best individual change to the franchise, as both were similar writing choices with similar goals and consequences for the end result. One is Sam's "the stories that really mattered" speech from The Two Towers, the other is Aragorn's battle speech at the Black Gate from The Return of the King, and both of them kick the utmost ass.

Granted, Sam's speech isn't entirely a cinema original, as it draws inspiration from certain Samwise Gamgee lines in The Two Towers. But the way that it's shaped into a full dramatic monologue in the film, and the way this ties in with imagery from the unlikely victories at Helm's Deep and Isengard, is a work of genius - not to mention Sean Astin acting his heart off with his delivery, and parts of the monologue (emphasizing the 'great stories' and how amazing it was that they ended happily despite things looking so bleak in the process) really feels like Peter Jackson paying tribute to Tolkien and telling on a meta level how much his stories - the ones that really mattered - meant for him and so many others.

Aragorn's speech is an entirely original creation, and oh man, it makes an already great part from the book even better. The whole sequence is so fist-pump-worthy, lifting the trilogy's emotional core off the charts, and making for one of the most memorable scenes in the saga. So, out of all the major changes made from source material to adaptation, these two speeches are my pick for #1 favorite.

Thank you for reading! Tune in next week for my last post of the year: naturally, it'll be the top 10 best movies of 2024.

10 years since the Hobbit movies: Top 5 things the trilogy did wrong, top 5 it did right, and top 5 I have mixed feelings about

Greetings, reader!

I'm doing a few posts concerning Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth films this December, because The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) turns ten years old this month, and I recently re-watched both trilogies. I still have a lot of mixed feelings about the polarizing prequel trilogy: I certainly don't hate them like many fans do, but rather enjoy a great deal of things in them, while also recognizing that they do fall short in many regards. So, I've listed my own top fives of what The Hobbit films did right, what they did wrong, and what fall into the grey area of mixed feelings. I hope you enjoy!

#5 in wrong: The villains

I get the impulse to have more individual villains: in the book, it's basically just Smaug and then a faceless mass of orcs, goblins and other such groups, and one might think that a villain with a name and somewhat of a personality would make the plot more accessible on the big screen.

But it ends up as a half measure: we spend a lot of time learning the backstory of the orc leader Azog (who is only mentioned once in the book) and the motives of secondary orc leader Bolg (a character original to the films), only for the characters not to be very interesting. The trilogy's take on Smaug is alright, but the loads of time we spend on semi-generic secondary villains is a bit much.

#5 in mixed feelings: Tauriel

I still don't exactly know how I feel about this one; unlike the incel fans who heard "female character" and retreated to scream in their Gollum caves, I do very much see the need to add a woman into the story when you're making three films based on a book that has, and this is true, no female characters. I don't exactly fault Tolkien himself for the male-dominance of the books, as he grew up in a time of all-boys' schools and the army et cetera, so men pretty much were the life he knew apart from his mother and wife. But for modern audiences, three films of just guys would feel a bit too testosterone-sausagefest-nowhere-near-the-Bechdel-test.

But I do, very begrudgingly as not to liken myself to the fans who dislike Tauriel for the wrong reasons, admit that the character could've been done better. For all the screentime she has, her arch and character relationships aren't all that interesting. So, the need for the character was there and I will always defend her addition, but her storylines still do drag especially the second film a bit (this should go without saying but NOT BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, but because Peter Jackson and company aren't the character-writers that Tolkien was).

#5 in right: Connecting to the White Council / Necromancer storyline

This one was a no-brainer, but I still give points for it. In the original book, Gandalf just kind of disappear onto various side quests every now and then, returning to the main group eventually, always with some quick excuse on what he was doing. We don't follow his POV on these misadventures, and we learn only very little about what he's up to. Tolkien himself seems to have come up with the answer later, as the appendixes to the Lord of the Rings books explain how the villain Sauron was growing in power already during the events of The Hobbit, and Gandalf's absence was due to his role in the White Council, investigating Sauron's possible return.

So, when making the movie adaptations in a world where the Lord of the Rings movies already exist, it's just natural to bring the White Council storyline, largely adapted from the appendixes, into the story. It's a well-reasoned way to bring back beloved characters like Galadriel and Saruman, who wouldn't otherwise be in the story, as well as perfecting the "Lord of the Rings prequel" feel with the Sauron lore.

Some complain that this storyline was just cheap fan service, but I wholeheartedly disagree - it makes sense so show this subplot, it ties into the story and makes the LOTR connection stronger, and it is also based on Tolkien's literature (I swear, many of the reasons that the more negatively charged fans have for over-hating the Hobbit movies are so far-fetched that one can only reach those opinions when entering the cinema with a very strong "I want to dislike this film and complain about it so I can sound smart on the internet" attitude).

#4 in wrong: Over-wacky action sequences

And here's one where I (at least for the most part) agree with the haters. One of the reasons that the Hobbit trilogy, for all its strengths and enjoyable aspects, isn't nearly as good as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, becomes abundantly clear when you compare the action sequences in the two. To a certain point, I understand what they were going for - the Hobbit book is more lighthearted and child-friendly than the darker and more dramatic The Lord of the Rings, so scaling back the intensity of the action sequences to some degree would've been fine and understandable.

But, the Hobbit films (especially The Battle of the Five Armies) go about ten steps too far into that direction - a bit of wackiness would be called for, but no one wants to see Legolas falling off a bridge only to save himself by jumping upwards on top of individual falling pieces of debris like a video game ninja. So yeah, they definitely went overboard with that one.

#4 in mixed feelings: The Lord of the Rings easter eggs

Here's a broad spectrum of storytelling choices, where some instances stick the landing and others don't. Naturally, the filmmakers wanted to do easter eggs and connections to the beloved film trilogy - cynics will say that all fan service is superficial and bad, but I disagree, as it can be done right and makes for nostalgia and fun when kept in check and justified by the plot.

In addition to the obvious connections that come straight from the book, the film came up with other ways to connect to The Lord of the Rings, and some of them really work - Legolas being around makes perfect sense as he was the Prince of Mirkwood at the time when the dwarves pass through, and the only reason he isn't in the book is that Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first and hadn't come up with the character yet, so of course it's smart to use this to bring back a beloved character from the films. I even like the stuff like Gloin mentioning his 'wee lad Gimli' to Legolas, just so fans of the movies can have knowing chuckle about the eventual bromance being teased - it's cheesy, but fun.

But just like with the wacky action scenes, the third film especially does go a bit over the line with the connections - Thranduil telling Legolas to seek out Aragorn is more than a bit heavy-handed and random, for example. So, I like the easter eggs for the most part, but quite a few of them could've been cut from the end product.

#4 in right: A vast majority of the locations (and most of the events) from the book

See, here's another thing that the "The Hobbit movies were 1/10 and completely terrible and ruined my childhood and killed my parents" crowd (I might be exaggerating a bit, but not much - they're a dramatic bunch) totally disregards and/or takes for granted. For all the things that the films could've done better, I massively appreciate how much thought went into creating so many beloved locations from a book very nostalgic to me, places that I always hoped to see on the big screen. Mirkwood looks just as mystically beautiful as it's supposed to, while the Carrock is properly majestic, the Lonely Mountain looms large, and the set design of Laketown feels just right.

The same goes for most of the events in the plot. While there's a lot that the films add, and many moments from the book are expanded with more backstory and phases, that doesn't take away from the fact that all of the best parts from the book are there, and we get to see them unfold in a manner mostly very loyal to the source material. The dwarves' humorous arrival at Bag End, Bilbo's tense encounter with Gollum, the chaotic escape from the Misty Mountains, Bilbo using the Ring to fool the spiders, the dramatic despair turned into inspiring hope at the doorstep of Erebor et cetera - a lot of the book's greatness translates well onto the big screen.

#3 in wrong: Many of the original creations

Sure, some of the material that Peter Jackson and company more or less invented for the films, in order to really pad the runtimes admist everything adapted from the book, is good. But quite a bit of it is, well, not. Did we really need the extra action sequence of wargs attacking the heroes in the first film, the subplot of some of the dwarves staying behind in Laketown and one of them almost dying only to be dramatically healed in the process, or the character Alfrid? Seriously, and this is coming from someone who likes and defends the Hobbit films more than any other Tolkien fan I know, Alfrid sucks.

#3 in mixed feelings: Pretty much the entire third film

Much like how season 4 of Stranger Things was definitely the show's best AND worst season with its varying quality and record-breaking pluses and minuses, The Battle of the Five Armies is definitely my favorite Hobbit film in many ways, and my least favorite in many others (in my all-taken-into-account ranking, I put in the middle after lots of deliberation, because the good sides alone make it better than The Desolation of Smaug, but the bad sides alone make it worse than An Unexpected Journey). So, yeah, mixed feelings on the whole film.

The book's climactic events, such as the death of Smaug and the titular battle, are adapted into a film that could be a masterpiece if it was about an hour shorter. The six last chapters of the book simply aren't enough for a two-and-a-half hour movie, and the film's answer to this dilemma was to drag the battle out to a ridiculous degree.

On one hand, I understand why many fans consider the film a complete flop and the easily worst out of the trilogy, as all of the trilogy's worst moments come here (the over-wacky Legolas stunts, too much lazy Alfrid humor), but on the other hand, I always defend aspects of the film because it also has all of the trilogy's greatest moments (the main dwarves' epic charge into battle from the gates of Erebor, the wholesome moment between Bilbo and Gandalf after the battle, the final scene that works as such a perfect bookend for Jackson's six-film saga). So, yeah, its lowpoints are lowpoints for the whole trilogy, but the same logic also applies to highpoints - so, in total, a very mixed-feelings gray area.

#3 in right: The feel of Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth

Again, this is something that the "the Hobbit films were 1/10 garbage that ruined my childhood" elitists just take for granted to an infuriating degree. Say what you will about the Hobbit films, there is objectively a lot to like if you loved The Lord of the Rings and watch them with an "I want to enjoy cinema" attitude instead of an "I want to complain on the internet so everyone sees what a smart little critic I am" one. I hate to be the 'it could be worse' guy, but seriously - imagine if the Hobbit films would've been directed by someone else than Peter Jackson, filmed somewhere else than New Zealand, and scored by someone else than Howard Shore?

While I obviously agree that the films aren't as good as The Lord of the Rings, I still enjoy the Hobbit films a lot, and a big part of that comes from the fact that all flaws notwithstanding, it is the magical world we fell in love with in The Lord of the Rings. The music is great, the scenery feels mostly the same (yes, they used too much CGI, but still, Rivendell looks like Rivendell and that makes me squeal with joy), and a lot of the magical atmosphere from the Lord of the Rings movies is present here as well.

I love the Lord of the Rings movies so much that I loved to return to that magical world for three more films, and that makes it very hard for me to understand the people who supposedly love The Lord of the Rings so much that they can't find anything positive about these films made by the same people and taking place in the same world.

#2 in wrong: EVERYTHING being expanded

Yeah, there are many valid opinions for and against The Hobbit being split into three films. But, since Jackson wanted a trilogy - couldn't they at least be shorter? Three solid two-hour films would've been plenty to adapt everything from the book without feeling rushed, and even adding some non-book material in good taste. But, Peter Jackson did the mistake of trying to recreate the epic-length feel of The Lord of the Rings movies - needless to say, that feel works better when your source material is three books and not one.

All three movies being as long as they are means that there is too much filler material, and while the 'event X from the book happens in the movie as well, but as an expanded version with more backstory and steps and dramatics and fallout' touch works on some storylines, it falls flat with many others.

#2 in mixed feelings: The grave sin of simply not being The Lord of the Rings

Yeah, this one is tough. I'd argue that this is the biggest reason why so many claim to passionately hate these movies. No matter how many things The Hobbit trilogy does right, there's no getting past the fact that it isn't, couldn't possibly be, and was never going to be as great as the Lord of the Rings trilogy. My take is that many fans couldn't get past that, in order to find a 'well, let's still enjoy this one and its good parts' attitude - for a certain kind of fan, it's easier to hate and to want to hate the less-good franchise expansion, thus turning a blind eye to its respectable parts and focusing (even endlessly nitpicking) on the bad.

For me, it's in the 'mixed feelings' bracket, because on one hand - yes, it's not nearly as good as The Lord of the Rings, I obviously admit that, and that is a clear minus when forming an opinion of these movies. But on the other hand, I wasn't realistically expecting them to be as good either, because who the hell could make the greatest film trilogy of all time and then fully repeat that again with a completely different source material?

So, it's a very unfair comparison (I mean, the trilogies can and should be compared, but not in the "I will completely disavow these films, no matter how many things they do right, if they aren't as great as the greatest film trilogy of all time" sense that so many have chosen). If the LOTR trilogy is a 10/10, then surely The Hobbit films are worth a 7 or an 8 - which means that they're still really good! So, in my opinion, the films not being The Lord of the Rings is a valid point to make when discussing why they aren't as good, but an absolutely bullshit reasoning for hating the films and not finding anything to enjoy in them.

#2 in right: The lighter adventure feel being faithful to the Hobbit book

As is the running theme with the "Things the movies did right" portion of the list, this is yet another major positive that the hate-train elitist fans simply don't bother to think about or engage with. In J.R.R. Tolkien's bibliography, The Hobbit is a much lighter, more whimsical and family-friendly adventure tale than the Lord of the Rings books, that are much heavier, more dramatic and intense. This is something that peter Jackson understood, thus giving his Hobbit adaptations a lighter tone than his previous trilogy.

Fans love to complain about how the Hobbit films are too kid-friendly, too light, too song-and-dance and thus not as epic as The Lord of the Rings. These 'fans' either haven't read their Tolkien or at the very least didn't understand it, because this lighter tone is loyal to the books. I will admit that some of the wacky elements go overboard in the action sequences, as I discussed in #4 of the 'wrong' portion, but for the most part, the films feel less heavy and intense in comparison to the LOTR films with pretty much the exact difference in tone that the corresponding books have.

#1 in wrong: Over-reliance on CGI

Yeah, this is a big one. While I will defend many of the visual aspects in the films, I will criticize many others, as there is no getting away from the fact that despite visual techniques in Hollywood getting better and better during the decade between the trilogies, the Hobbit films do not look as magical and genuine as the Lord of the Rings movies.

This is largely because of the over-use of CGI, which came across as the filmmakers not trusting the New Zealand scenery and practical effects that did a lot of the heavy lifting (with the CGI being an addition only when needed and in good taste) in the LOTR movies. Doing everything with CGI just makes many of the scenes feel plastic, a bit too cartoonish, and like you're watching a video game.

#1 in mixed feelings: The decision to split them into three movies

I'll probably never quite know where I land with this one. Was it a good decision to split The Hobbit into three films or not? There is no easy answer. Many will say that it 100% was a bad decision, and it is an easy criticism to make - but I always see that as a bit of a cop-out. The writer in me says that it can't possibly be that simple, as making the Hobbit adaptation into one movie (or a compromise two) would've brought its own problems, and the end result would've had its own problems. It's really hard to estimate what the best option would've been, and I mostly like the one they went with - I see the reasoning for the split, it gave us three films with their own vibe and identity and I enjoy all three despite their flaws, and pretty much every good part from the book is adapted because they didn't have to cut anything out due to runtime stress.

Still, I do see how a one-film approach would've had the positive of having less film-only filler material, and how two films might have been the best of both worlds (not as hurried as a one-film adaptation but not as over-full as a trilogy) - but then again, it could've been the worst of both worlds (a bit too full like the trilogy, but also a bit too hurried like the hypothetical one-film approach) just as easily. So, I still have mixed feelings about this one, as the three-film adaptation certainly had its positives and its negatives, and it's hard to compare to the potential other versions that we never got to see.

#1 in right: Casting

If there's one thing that I get truly defensive about when discussing the Hobbit films, it's the casting. Say what you will about the rest - I understand not liking any of the aspects I had in the 'mixed feelings' category, and I'm even willing to swallow not liking the other things I had in the 'did right' column (I will still respect you as a human if you don't like the White Council storyline or somehow don't think that the lighter feel is book-accurate) - but if you criticize the casting, we're in for a big debate.

Martin Freeman is pitch-perfect as Bilbo, as is Richard Armitage as Thorin. Many of the smaller supporting roles are also thoroughly decent, such as Lee Pace as Thranduil and Luke Evans as Bard, but these two major roles are especially praiseworthy - despite not being in The Lord of the Rings, they both make my list of the top 10 greatest acting performances in the entire six-film saga, up there with performances like Christopher Lee as Saruman and Andy Serkis as Smeagol et cetera.

Bilbo and Thorin are fantastic characters in the book, and everything interesting about them translates so well into the acting performances, whether it's Freeman bringing out Bilbo's nervous jitters turning into careful confidence throughout the adventure, or Armitage's gripping portrayal of Thorin's ambition slowly turning into corruption, until his eventual moment of redemption. These actors were the right people for the job, and that is a hill I'm willing to die on.

Thank you for reading! Tune in next week for another Middle-Earth list, as I rank all of the major changes from book to movie in both the Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit trilogies, from worst to best.

In honor of Finland's Independence Day tomorrow, here's my list of the top 10 accomplishments by Petteri Orpo's government!

Greetings, reader!

Well, since tomorrow is Finnish Independence Day, I figured I would be a patriot and list some of the greatest accomplishments of our current government. As a proud Finn who cares deeply about his home country, it has been fascinating and downright consuming to follow what all the government headed by Prime Minister Petteri Orpo has been up to ever since the 2023 Parliamentary Elections. After careful considerations, these are my favorites!

Honorable mentions: Adding a fun visual outlook for the government's policies with Secretary Purra's giant-scissors photo-op; Boldly challenging institutions like "international human rights agreements" with the new border laws; Kokoomus steadfastly forming the coalition with the Perussuomalaiset despite the haters saying it would "show a green light to openly racist rhetoric"; Showing loyalty to our newfound NATO membership by literally cutting all funding to Finnish peace work; Party members of the coalition government literally promising to attend a Nazi rally on Independence Day in case anyone missed the more subtle indicators.

10. Bringing representation to marginalized groups (like neo-nazis)

In today's society, there are many groups who have a hard time getting their voices heard - for example, every time a nazi sympathizer voices their views on media, journalists and activists harass them by pointing out that nazi-sympathizing rhetoric is offensive and dangerous and evil. I'd imagine it can't be easy to be a vocal proponent of neo-nazi views in today's society, as you might quickly lose any friends and supporters who are into views like critical thinking or human rights.

However, Petteri Orpo's government decided to step up for this particular minority and give them a megaphone! It's inspiring, really - for any kids out there who were raised by racist parents, who might be afraid of being cancelled because "you can't say anything anymore", this government has proved that you actually can say whatever you want - even people who repeatedly and unapologetically use racial slurs and violence-inciting language can rise to be cabinet secretaries!

Also, I cannot discuss representation in this context without bringing up Orpo's beautiful story - it takes some serious overcoming of obstacles to become the first-ever human born without a spine to serve as Prime Minister.

9. Bravely defending the peat industry

In Finland, we have beautiful nature that we're very proud of (so much so that nearly 13 per cent of us even vote accordingly). One of the many riches found in our nature is the peat found in our soils, and the industry that harvests that has been somewhat controversial.

With various natural protection organizations and experts warning that expanding the current peat industry further will eventually lead to entire ecosystems being destroyed, countless species becoming extinct and gravely contributing to how quickly we run out of fresh water, a more persuadable government might have listened and made some changes to their plan. But not the iron nerves of Orpo and company - they stood by the peat industry, championing their expansion with full funding and support. You rarely see such conviction in today's politics!

8. Their amazing commitment to party lines

Anyone who has ever seen a Fast & Furious movie will know that loyalty counts for a lot. Not that that's the best comparison - the gang in F&F are criminals who pull off car-related heists, whereas the criminals in Orpo's government don't use cars when emptying our pockets. Anyhow, I'm getting sidetracked here - the point was about loyalty.

Loyalty to party above all else is a deep-rooted institution in the political history of many countries (and also several cults), and that is one thing Orpo's government holds dear. For example, I used to see Orpo's party Kokoomus as a semi-diverse party of various individuals, some of whom have views against racism (source: they occasionally say the words "I am against racism"). However, when the left-leaning opposition called a vote of no confidence into two cabinet secretaries on the grounds that their extremely racist rhetoric sends a dangerous message of unsafety to our immigrant population, Kokoomus showed where their loyalty lies - in a moment of self-sacrificing any reputation of being against racism that any of Kokoomus' parliament members may have gained over the years, every single one of them voted for confidence in the guy who has referred to Arabs as "stupid sand n*****s" multiple times and the woman who has written fantasties of violence against migrant families online under her own name as cabinet secretaries.

So, yes, party loyalty is everything, even when the party's line is to be very much on the side of racism in the fight against racism.

7. Courageously standing up for ideas like accessiblity

Wait, what's that? Oh, excuse me, there was a typo in my notes - the subtitle was supposed to say "courageously standing up to ideas like accessibility", not "for".

Indeed - Finnish society has made some major strives towards accessibility in the past few decades, although a lot of work remains to be done. However, Prime Minister Orpo and his ever-vigilant government seem keen on keeping this progress in check, making sure that we don't make things too equal too fast for disadvantaged groups.

Kehitysvammaliitto, an association that works for the benefit of people with intellectual disabilities, has had a government funding of 315 thousand euros a year for producing easy-to-read materials. In a classy right-wing move of motivating everyone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, Orpo's government tried to give a spirited challenge to the disabled community by deciding to slash this funding to a zero as of next year. That'll show 'em!

6. Bringing Jesus back into politics

I've been highlighting the accomplishments of Kokoomus and Perussuomalaiset, the two biggest parties as of the 2023 election, so far in this text. But let's not forget that the coalition government also has smaller parties in its support system, such as the Christian Democrats! Having read the Bible from cover to cover, it's nice to know that there's a faction of our government keeping the wisdom of that book in mind while writing policy.

Well, except for the parts such as "They sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need" (Acts 2:45), or "On hearing this, Jesus said to them: It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but the sinners" (Mark 2:17), or "Do not say, ' why were the old days better than these', for it is not wise to ask such questions" (Ecclesiastes 7:10). I guess the Christian Democrats forgot to read those parts.

In my defense, I admit that I cherry-picked just a few carefully selected parts from the Bible to fit my agenda. Would be a real fucking shame if that's something that our people in power did when deciding how much funding gay conversion therapy deserves.

5. Inventing a fascinating new approach to immigration

Immigration, as we all know, has been a hot-button issue in politics forever. It's a classic he-said-she-said: those on the right claim that they'd be all for immigration as long as it's done responsibly and that the left wants open borders and chaos, whereas those on the left claim that immigration is good for our society and they always have the plans and numbers to back up how to do it responsibly via prioritizing a comprehensive integration system - who's to say who is wrong and who is right?

Anyways, it's always a hassle, with the anti-immigration parties always claiming that they'd be all for more immigration if only there were a way to increase it without the negative side effects of failed integration, and the left always reaching out by saying that they have realistic plans on making the current integration system better. However, Orpo's government has come up with their own, truly unique form: by cutting a whole bunch of money from the current integration system, all the problems relating to immigration will become more prominent and they'll have a reasoning for the more Trump-coded immigration policy that the Perussuomalaiset are proposing, and the opposition can't whine about how we could take in more immigrants, as they won't have any proof that their plan would work, because the integration services will have no money! Absolutely genius 4-D chess moves right there.

4. Solving the student housing problem

Here's another one where the out-of-the-box genius of Orpo's government, and Minister of Finance Riikka Purra in particular, is just mind-blowing. For a long time, university students such as myself have been demonized by right-wing politicians, and rightfully so - the student benefits used to be so high, that they were actually (barely) enough for students to pay their rent so that they could focus on their studies instead of taking a job. This socialist utopia was defended by facts like "The current system requires a student to do the average of 60 credits per year, and as one credit is the equivalent of 27 hours of work, and assuming that the student has the luxury of taking the weekends off as well as those months of the summer when student benefits aren't received, this would total to an average of over 10 hours of work per day". So, yeah, us youths are so lazy that we haven't even bothered to take another full-time job on top of the actual full-time job we already have!

Well, thankfully, Orpo's government is changing all of that.

However, the true genius of their cuts to housing benefits lies in a peculiar loophole. When Minister Purra defends the reasons for her cuts, she always makes it sound like a student struggling for money to live can always just take a part-time job, few hours a week, on top of their studies, in order to make ends meet. But in truth, as she well knows, it's not that simple - if you start making just a couple hundred extra per month, just enough to pay rent when the benefits aren't enough, our national treasure Kela chimes in with "Hey, looks like you're making money, we better cut the flow of those student benefits!" - and suddenly those two hundred per month from the job are the student’s only revenue, which naturally won't be enough to pay rent, so they have to take more shifts until they have a full-time job, therefore interfering with their studies! As a means of discouraging young people from studying higher education and rather going straight into the labor market, this plan is sure to be damn efficient, and I'm sure we'll have quite the generation of hive-mind wage slaves in the next few years after these cuts are implemented.

3. Heroically prioritizing homophobia over humanitarian aid

Ville Tavio, our Minister for Development Cooperation and Foreign Trade, takes center stage in this one. Some months ago, Tavio announced that Finland would not be joining an international coalition centered on the rebuilding of Ukraine. One would think that getting behind the Ukrainian cause in light of Putin's war would be a cause that internationally respected countries such as Finland could get behind in harmony, but as Tavio pointed out, it's not that simple - as a reasoning for the decision to pull out of the alliance, he pointed to a section about LGBTQ+ rights in the agreement.

For those wondering what LGBTQ+ rights have to do with Ukraine, well, in a nutshell, war always affects various minorities to a disproportionate degree, so giving some special attention to them is considered an important part of the rebuilding of a post-war society, and Ukraine itself had asked for the inclusion of this in the agreement. However, this was too much for Tavio, and you can see his logic - two rights always make a wrong, as the saying goes! That's how the saying goes, right? Because otherwise there wouldn't be much sense in pulling out of a morally compelling alliance, for the reason that it includes the morally compelling addition of also looking out for the LGBTQ+ community in Ukraine? Maybe it’s a ’too much of a good thing’ thing? It’s gotta be that, because otherwise it would look like our foreign relations are being dictated by a massive homophobe…

2. Saving Finland's economy from those pesky welfare state elements

Finland, despite all its problems, has been successful for multiple decades in different metrics and studies where the happiness and well-being of citizens in different countries are measured. This is largely thanks to the socialist-democratic welfare state system that has dominated the Finnish society since the 70’s, enabling universal healthcare, a social security network that tries its best to look out for everyone and not just those born into money, and one of the world’s most acclaimed education systems.

But, wait - socialism? That’s bad, right? That’s who we fought in the Cold War! We can’t have that!

And that’s where Orpo’s government comes in. The inflation caused by Putin’s war in Ukraine (or, if you get you news from Fox, caused by Hunter Biden’s laptop) has affected Finland like many other countries, and in order to save our economy, Petteri Orpo’s government has made it clear that everyone and everything must participate in our cutting-fest. Well, not everyone - we can’t have them cutting from gay conversion therapy, or weaponry sent to Israel, or the various industries making the best out of our beautiful Finnish nature by destroying it. But everything else is on the line - by cutting from our education, our health care, and our benefits specifically designed to help those most in need, this visionary government is testing what happens to Finland when it is stripped of everything that makes it the country we know and love. An estimate of over 17 thousand minors will drop below the poverty line as a direct result of the government’s cuts, and the effects of these bold strokes will be fascinating to follow from the nearest homeless shelter.

Some have criticized these cuts as being ’cruel’ and ’unempathetic’, but as Orpo repeatedly says, these decisions have to be made. I reckon he’s right; I do recall seeing a government lead by a young female Prime Minister that got through the COVID pandemic and the first years of the Ukraine War and subsequent inflation, without cutting from those who have the least, and our economy and way of living wasn’t destroyed - but that must have been a dream. I’m sure if something like that could be done, our swell fellows in Orpo’s government would be working on it.

1. Bringing the American dream to Finland

As a half-American half-Finnish dual citizen interested in politics, I have an odd perspective on the politics of my two home countries. It’s especially fascinating whenever a phenomenon I’ve witnessed in one of my home countries occurs in the other one as well, which is bound to happen as politicians and national leaders often take inspiration from each other in this globalized world. As an American who followed the events of 2016 very closely, it has been abundantly clear how elements of Petteri Orpo’s government have taken inspiration from those movements, and that causes a great deal of excitement - I mean, America has often been referred to as the ’greatest country in the world’ (by various Americans, and they should know as they live in the greatest country in the world), and we’ve all seen the amount of calm, humane and reasonable politics that the events of 2016 lead to over there, so why not follow in those footsteps!

I must admire how closely the situations manage to mirror each other - Orpo and company have clearly been taking notes while learning all about the art of the deal from the very best. Basically, to dumb down the American side for Finnish readers who might not be caught up, we had a faction of the Republican Party known as ’moderate Republicans’, spearheaded by figures like Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, who made it clear during the 2016 primaries that Donald Trump is dangerous and that they would never support him - this faction is comparable to the Kokoomus party, and how they made it clear before the 2023 parliamentary elections that the Perussuomalaiset are dangerous and this moderate right-wing party would never get behind racist rhetoric.

And to dumb it down for American readers who aren’t acquainted with the Finnish situation - just as happened with the Paul Ryan / Marco Rubio etc. faction of the GOP in 2016, our very own Kokoomus folded into a territory of new loyalties in an exactly similar manner - just like the ’moderate Republicans’ were suddenly okay with extremely racist populism when they bravely broke their promises in order to get Trump elected, the ’moderately right-wing’ Kokoomus leadership broke previous promises and made it clear how okay they are with extremely racist populism in order to form a coalition government with the Perussuomalaiset. Sure, they theoretically could’ve drawn the line at racism and therefore tried to form a coalition with any number of the other parties in Finland’s political landscape, but one must remember the disadvantages Kokoomus faced, with the tragedy of the party’s leader being born without a backbone. So, his hands were tied, and now the once-respected party has fully endorsed the wildly xenophobic and violent rhetoric of Finland’s own migrant-demonizing faction (the MAFA crowd, if you will).

Okay, that sounded a bit negative for the description on a list about the government’s greatest accomplishments. After all, tomorrow is our Independence Day, so maybe, as a true patriot, I should throw Orpo’s government a bone and admit that the last point may have been exaggerated. I will give them this: every time those pesky cabinet secretaries and MPs from the Perussuomalaiset party face a typical run-of-the-mill political scandal (such as using openly nazi-sympathizing language, using shocking racial slurs during parliament sessions, grooming minors, firing a gun in the streets after attempting to hit on minors at a bar, baselessly accusing immigrants of crimes they didn’t commit and contributing to the rise of hate crimes with this rhetoric, getting caught talking about how you’d love to gun down loud-mouthed immigrant families on the local train etc. (all of these examples are real)), Prime Minister Orpo always makes the point to go on national television and say the words: ”We have a zero tolerance for racism” and ”Our government program is good”. I mean, what more could he do? Actual consequences? Keep dreaming, hippies.

Anyways, I hope everyone (except for the neo-nazi protestors who will be doing their annual parade tomorrow and the government representatives who have made it clear to said neo-nazi protestors that they are on their side) has a good and safe Independence Day tomorrow!

Signed, a once-proud Finn.

Thank you for reading! Tune in next week as I get back to my movie/TV themes, with a ranking of the top five things Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit movies did right, and top five they did wrong. See you then!

Top 15 Movie Musicals

Greetings, reader!

Well, I've done all-time rankings of various genres this fall, and this ought to be the last one of the series for now (I have other themes to explore in December). From a genre very dear to me, these are the all-time greats!

DISCLAIMER: There are a few must-see classics of the genre that I have woefully not seen, as I haven't found them available to watch anywhere in the last years, from streaming service to streaming service or even a quick search of local DVD collections and down-the-rabbit-hole websites. Chief among these are Cabaret and Rent, so if you're wondering why they're not featured, that's why. Tips on where to watch them would be most appreciated!

Here are my honorable mentions: Jersey Boys (2014), Jesus Christ Superstar (1973), Joker: Folie à Deux (2024), Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007), The Greatest Showman (2017).

15. Chicago (2002)

This is one of my fiancée's favorite movies, and I can see why. The Best Picture -winning musical is all about flair, showmanship and female empowerment - with a good deal of murder and other crimes to balance it out with some edge. Renée Zellweger and Catherine Zeta-Jones provide absolutely enthralling performances, while the lavish set design and zany showtunes make the aesthetic charming and memorable. And let's not forget about the choreography, which could be argued to be the film's strongest suit, especially in the Cell Block Tango number.

14. Les Miserables (2012)

Oh yes! The film adaptation of the Broadway adaptation of Victor Hugo's classic novel is the very epitome of the revolution-themed musical, sure to inspire the viewer to stand on the barricades and sing songs of liberation. Iconic numbers like I Dreamed a Dream and One Day More come to life in a brilliant fashion, making for one hell of a fist-pumping experience for fans of musicals and/or revolutions.

13. The Sound of Music (1965)

Ah, this is the stuff. Made in the mythical era where American audiences were trusted to realize that the Nazis are the bad guys, this Robert Wise classic gets points for its wholesome-turned-nervewracking plot, the beyond-iconic Julie Andrews performance, and immortal musical numbers like Do-Re-Mi, My Favorite Things and the titular The Sound of Music. A truly beautiful film, this one.

12. West Side Story (1961)

Yeah, a film doesn't win TEN Academy Awards by accident. The film with the all-time fourth-highest Oscar count is a brilliant big-screen adaptation of the Broadway musical created by Jerome Robbins, Leonard Bernstein and Stephen Sondheim. While the 2021 remake by Steven Spielberg does certain aspects better, I do consider the 1961 classic to be the overall better film.

Numbers deeply ingrained in musical history, like Maria, America and Tonight, come to life with stunning choreography, while Natalie Wood and Rita Moreno provide some of musical cinema's all-time acting performances as Maria and Anita, respectively. It's a tale as old as time, and I reckon ol' Shakespeare himself would've been proud of this one.

11. Rocketman (2019)

It might be sacrilege to put such a new and opinion-dividing film ahead of West Side Story, but hey, it's my blog and I make the rules. As a cinematic experience, considering all possible aspects, I enjoy and appreciate this slightly under-the-radar biopic of Elton John even more than many conventionally more-acclaimed musicals.

If you haven't seen Rocketman and are wondering why a biopic is on this list, trust me, it's not a case like Bohemian Rhapsody (2018) where we cut to a bunch of the famous songs in between moments of dialogue - Rocketman truly is a musical in every sense of the word. While it does tell the real-life story of Elton John, it does so in a fantastical manner, bending the rules of reality whenever one of the musical numbers hits, which makes for a magical viewing experience. The musical numbers, and the way they tie the conventions of the genre into John's story while showcasing many of his greatest songs, truly make this film tick, and the end result is fantastic.

10. Grease (1978)

With this one, it's all about the vibes. Watching Grease in retrospect is so weird, because you realize that the characters aren't very likable, the central love story is littered with red flags and the moral of the story is horrible - yet that doesn't change your opinion on the musical very much? Because it was never going to be a thematically powerful story with life-changing lessons, nor does it need to be. The all-time legendary aesthetic, coupled with the songs being just banger after banger after banger, makes for a product that is just so fun to watch and listen to.

John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John are beyond perfect for their roles, and like I said, the songs man, THE SONGS! Grease with Franki Valli performing? Coolness personified. Summer Nights? Classic. Hopelessly Devoted to You? Beautiful. Greased Lightnin? I'm not even into cars, except when this song comes on. You're the One That I Want? One of my all-time favorite musical numbers. We Go Together? Just the ridiculously over-corny and all-out delightful ending track that such a musical calls for.

8. The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975)

It's queer, it's colorful, it's fun and zany and subversive and weird, it's The Rocky Horror Picture Show. No other picture show is quite like the Rocky Horror one, whether it's thanks to the flamboyant songs by Richard O'Brien, the eccentric performances by legends Tim Curry and Susan Sarandon, or the visual aesthetic and costume design being some of the coolest, most revolutionary and iconic imagery seen in the genre. Side effects may include re-examining your sexuality and not getting Time Warp out of your head for three weeks, but be that as it may, I do recommend this beloved fever dream to everyone!

7. The Blues Brothers (1980)

Very few movies can claim to be even half as cool as this one. Two guys, just out of prison and down on their luck, embark on a mission from God - and lucky for the viewer, that mission is filled with entertaining musical numbers, featuring cameos from the combined star power of Ray Charles, James Brown and Aretha Franklin. Throw in a record-breaking car chase sequence, and you've got yourself a classic.

6. Mamma Mia! (2008)

The thing about Mamma Mia! is that it's probably cinema's best example of low-to-no-stakes storytelling. While there is a plot to keep the viewer engaged, very little goes wrong, with most of the runtime being drama-free and devoted to the characters having a good time. Making such a film is a dramaturgical challenge, but they sure pulled it off, making for one of the least stressful and most fun films ever made.

Also, it's a jukebox musical consisting of ABBA's music, so there's no way it was going to be anything but awesome. The clever arrangements and whimsical choreographies make for an end product that truly does the all-time greatest pop band's music justice.

5. The Meaning of Life (1983)

And now for something completely different. For the theater geek part of me, it feels a bit wrong to rank the third Monty Python film ahead of the likes of Grease and The Rocky Horror Picture Show, because in many ways, it isn't as conventionally good as a musical as those films. But, this is a subjective list, and while the compositions and arrangements of The Meaning of Life aren't quite Oscar-worthy, they do make for a film that I enjoy watching time again, more than almost any other musical.

A good musical can be a great deal of things, and this one succeeds in making one laugh better than all the others, much thanks to the hilarity of numbers like Every Sperm Is Sacred and Galaxy Song. This film is bizarre, unforgettable, surprisingly thought-provoking, and in the end, one of my favorite musicals albeit in an unconventional manner.

5. Les Parapluies de Cherbourg (1964)

Oh, yes. This vintage French film was nominated for five Academy Awards, which is quite the feat for a foreign film in the deeply America-centric Hollywood of the 60's. But it's just that good - the central love story is bittersweet heartbreak, and I love how it doesn't spell out to the viewer exactly how they should be feeling (something American romance films tend to do a bit too much), but rather leaves the emotional takeaway up to multiple interpretations.

But the music itself is an even bigger asset than the deeply emotional plot - the main melody of the song I Will Wait for You, which is also heard in multiple instrumental reprises across the film's score, is one of the most authentically and heart-wrenchingly emotional pieces of melody ever composed. Even before I knew anything about the film and its plot, just hearing that melody always moved me, as there's just something about it that invokes raw emotion on an exceptional level.

4. La La Land (2016)

After all the hype has died down, we cinema enthusiasts must ask ourselves - was La La Land really that good?

Honestly, no. It was better.

While many films seem like a huge and game-changing thing at the time of their release but then lose points in retrospect, this masterpiece by Damien Chazelle did the opposite for me. I definitely enjoyed it and considered it one of the year's best movies, but I wouldn't have put in my top 3 movie musicals of all time. However, as the years have passed, I've realized how much layers there really were...in addition to being an aesthetically pleasing love letter to Hollywood with obviously fantastic costume and set design, it's also a good love story made great by how it ends and how much that says about us humans, our goals and ambitions, and our relationships.

Also, the songs are JUST. SO. FUCKING. GOOD. I swear, every time I listen to Another Day Of Sun, my opinion of not only that song or the soundtrack but of the entire movie seems to move up a notch, as its magical atmosphere seems to have infinite "Damn, I didn't remember it was THIS GOOD!" value.

3. Hair (1979)

Yeah, I'm not a big fan of war. And neither is this movie. For my pacifist soul, Hair is pretty much the most thematically powerful musical one could imagine, with its anti-war message hitting deep to a heartbreaking degree. In addition to the values being on point, the film's hippie aesthetic is fun and memorable, and the musical numbers are on point - very untypical songs for the musical genre, but untypical in a good way, as every track is just so incredibly groovy. The haunting final number The Flesh Failures / Let the Sunshine In will stay with you.

2. tick, tick...BOOM! (2021)

I'm guessing that quite a few fans of the genre liked this film alright, but will wonder at me placing it this high. But, man, tick, tick...BOOM! spoke to me. Like, to a staggering degree. I felt this movie on a level that I have felt only a few others.

First of all, the musical itself was written by Jonathan Larson before his untimely passing, and adapted onto the big screen twenty-five years after his death. The musical is an autobiographical one, and Andrew Garfield's performance as Larson is overwhelming in its vulnerability and raw passion. The musical presents Larson as a geek who spends all his time on ambitious creative endeavors, while being frustrated by the inequalities of the world and the fact that everyone can't be saved, as he over-analyzes everything to a point of philosophical conundrums and rambling stand-up bits so convoluted that the only thing he could do with his thoughts was to write a musical about it. Now, as hard as it might be for people who know me to believe, I saw quite a bit of myself (or at least what I aspire to be) in this, making this into the downright most relatable musical I have ever witnessed.

I also love the unconventional style of the narrative, breaking so many barriers of the musical genre while somehow also managing to feel like the genre in its ultimate, unleashed final form. It's a massive tearjerker, and it will always have a big place in my heart.

1. Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Yeah, this one also just really spoke to me. Moulin Rouge! was a gaping hole in my general education for a long time, until I finally saw it for the first time earlier this year. And by God, it became my favorite in the entire genre.

The chosen songs, from how they fit into the story and themes to how they are arranged, are spectacular. The performances by Ewan McGregor and Nicole Kidman are heart-melting, making for a love story that feels larger than life - and this is further boosted by director Baz Luhrmann's arthouse style, the flamboyant set design, and naturally, the musical numbers. Moulin Rouge! takes everything that is great about the genre, celebrates it and bathes in it, in a manner that would make even La La Land jealous. This chaotic, silly and deeply touching film entertained me and moved me to a profound degree, and has quite a firm hold on this list's #1 spot.

Thank you for reading! Tune in next week as I celebrate Finland's Independence Day with a patriotic post: the top 10 accomplishments of Petteri Orpo's government!