'Return of the Jedi' provides clues for 'The Force Awakens'

Return of the Jedi

I just finished watching the classic, albeit occasionally maligned, third installment of the original Star Wars trilogy, ostensibly to prepare for The Force Awakens.

But the thing about the upcoming sequel that is both exciting and nerve-wracking, is that there is no official direction the series is SUPPOSED to go.

George Lucas, as far as I know, has never spoken in great depth about where he imagined the series would go (or if it could) from here. The prequels were always at a disadvantage because most of the audience knew where they were inevitably headed.

They were robbed of a certain level of tension from the get-go because we were essentially waiting for Anakin to become Darth Vader.

The sequels are a total blank slate. That said, watching Return of the Jedi not only got me amped but it also raised a lot of questions and ideas for me. And that does include: Why does no one talk about the fact that the Emperor gets sexually turned on by the dark side?

In all seriousness, I would love to see Leia's maturation with the force explored in the new film. I am under no illusion that Carrie Fisher will dominate the narrative of The Force Awakens, but I would like to see her with the powers of the force at her disposal.

One of the coolest narrative threads that was always somewhat in the background in the original films, was Leia's growing awareness of her own abilities. By The Empire Strikes Back, she was already feeling the feels and sensing Luke from miles away. Her intuitive powers come to the forefront even more in Return of the Jedi, although I've never understood how she could "remember" her mother if we are to believe her mother died during childbirth. Thirty years later, Leia would presumably be much more advanced and adept with the force.. And perhaps equipped with her own lightsaber.

The empire also appears to be unfinished business. Although -- based on the original, unaltered films -- there appears to be widespread celebration over the destruction of the Death Star by Lando Calrissian and company, but it's not as if the entire empire has been wiped off the face of the earth.

Clearly, The Force Awakens indicates a more resurgent empire. But what I am curious about is whether the new leadership has learned from their predecessors' mistakes (no more Death Stars perhaps?) and has something or someone supplanted the Emperor in terms of supreme leadership.

Much has also been made about the fate of Luke Skywalker. J.J. Abrams has minimized his presence on the poster and in the trailer for The Force Awakens. He is listed prominently in the credits, so one would expect that his role amounts to more than just a cameo. Some have speculated that he has become a villain, a distinct possibility, but one I would consider a betrayal to everything that the original series established about his character.

My suspicion is that Skywalker did something that distanced him from the others. If Luke had a predominant flaw throughout the series, it's that he always acted very impetuously.

He was roughed up by sand people, lost his hand and eventually was captured by Jabba the Hut all because he wasn't listening or paying attention. In fact, his grand plan to "rescue" Han Solo from Jabba the Hut consists of all the heroes being captured so they can ... um ... escape?

Luke's tendency to always act first and ask questions later, never goes away. Sure, he grows up over the three movies, but more so in terms of understanding who he is in relation to his father. But he isn't humbled by the experience in any determinable way. I could see the at some point in the 30 years since Return of the Jedi, he might have crossed another line, but I doubt he would full on embrace the dark side.

Obviously, like so many fans I am simply nerding out. And in a few weeks I am sure I will be brought back down to earth. No movie could ever live up the the level of hype surrounding The Force Awakens. I just hope that it doesn't ignore some of the groundwork Return of the Jedi provides.

Championing 'Creed' and ranking the 'Rocky' movies

Sylvester Stallone and Michael B. Jordan in Creed

Happy Thanksgiving. This year I'm grateful for Creed, one of the best films I've seen this year and a real resurrection of the Rocky franchise and Sylvester Stallone's career.

This is riveting mainstream filmmaking of the highest order, that cements director Ryan Coogler's status as one of the most exciting up-and-coming filmmakers in Hollywood.

His first major film, the Oscar Grant biopic Fruitvale Station, was a little-seen masterpiece. And Coogler brings the same realism and frank honesty of that movie to this much more commercial project and strikes gold. This, along with Mad Max: Fury Road, is a reboot that draws on everything fans love about the original films, while bringing something entirely new to the table.

Actor Michael B. Jordan is the new lead, and he is sensational. For years, Hollywood has been searching for the "next Denzel," the gold standard in black leading men. Several actors have stepped up to the plate and whiffed (*cough" Terrence Howard *cough*), and lately some British actors like Idris Elba and Chiwetel Ejiofor have appeared to seize the mantle, but not so fast.

Coming off a big flop in the latest Fantastic Four reboot, Jordan comes out blazing in Creed, creating a vulnerable, but fierce unforgettable hero that in theory could sustain his own series of films. His partnership with Coogler has the same electric charge as Scorsese and De Niro's did 30 to 40 years ago.

But perhaps the biggest revelation of Creed is the performance of Sylvester Stallone. He gives a truly Oscar worthy performance as his most lovable character -- Rocky Balboa. Say what you will about his filmography as a whole, he always plays the hell out of this character. With the exception of the off-key Rocky V, I consider every other Italian Stallion movie fantastic. But in this one, he wisely plays his age (69!) and for the first time ever allows himself to appear frail on screen.

It's shocking to see Stallone appear so weak and unglamorous. Gone is the macho posturing of The Expendables and in its place is a stripped down and emotional performance that shows off how compelling this man could have been had his career taken a different direction.

This is a throwback to his underrated work in CopLand, and it should force audiences to look at him in a totally new way.

But how does Creed match up against the originals? It's hard. It certainly is the most visually dynamic of the series -- Coogler stages incredible fight scenes in one shot, something I've never seen before -- but it's also a more somber and realistic film than any Rocky film since the original. But the Stallone-penned films have a lot of bravado and action, that has become justifiably iconic. So like I said, it's hard, but here goes:

1) Rocky (1976): Ranking this one first is a no brainer for me. Not only is it one of my all-time favorites (and something akin to "our movie" with my fiancee) but it's the movie that creates the whole world based in Philadelphia that makes all of the subsequent films possible. The Rocky-Adrian romance is wonderful, the Rocky-Apollo rivalry is great and the friendship between Rocky and Mickey is key. Paulie may be the most useless character in cinema history, but he's entertaining.

2) Creed (2015): This new classic squeaks into second due to its sheer originality. It manages to do what I thought was impossible, both make Rocky relevant again (although 2006's Rocky Balboa was a tender and terrific send-off for the character in the ring) and bring something fresh to the boxing genre. The entire cast is kinetic and there really isn't a single thing I'd change about this crowd pleaser.

3) Rocky II (1979): Stallone took over the directing reigns in this one and works wonders with the story of the inevitable rematch between Creed and Balboa. Interestingly he sticks with the gritty, dramatic tone of the original here, showing Rocky's struggle to establish a life outside of the ring, while also showing Creed's battle to redeem his image. The final bout is brutal and it's suspenseful finish is epic. This sequel really reaches the emotional heights of the first film.

4) Rocky III (1982): With the casting of Mr. T as the antagonist, the series creeps a little closer to camp territory here, but there's so many great things in the movie, I can't complain. You see a more stylish somewhat cocky Rocky here, which is a cool turn for the narrative to take. SPOILER ALERT, the loss of Mickey is a real gut punch, leading to one of the most heartbreaking scenes of Stallone's career and the heart of this movie becomes the burgeoning friendship between Creed and Balboa, which is convincing.

5) Rocky Balboa (2006): Pushing 60 and reeling from a series of flops and direct-to-DVD drivel, Stallone pulled off this amazing comeback film, which defied all the jokes about an aging Rocky. Not only did he get into phenomenal shape, he brought the character back to his roots, and staged the most believable fight scene in the series up to that point. Even if the movie had its share of cheesy moments, I shed a tear when Balboa gave his final curtain call. A great film for fathers and sons.

6) Rocky IV (1985): Arguably the most over the top of the Rocky films -- Balboa appears to singlehandedly win the Cold War by beating a roid-raging monster played by Dolph Lundgren -- but it's also one of the most purely entertaining of the series. It's fast paced, leaning heavily on flashbacks and music video style cutting. But I enjoy it's absurdism and hubris. It could only work in the era in which it was released though. Today, it would be dismissed as laughable.

7) Rocky V (1990): The one Rocky film that doesn't seem be able to get anything right. I see what Stallone and company were trying to do here by trying to bring Rocky back down to earth, and giving him a plausible, albeit depressing, plot line about brain damage. But his protege in this film (played by real life boxer Tommy Gun) has no charisma and the final showdown -- a street fight -- just lacks impact. Stallone himself seems off in this movie as if he forgot how to play his signature role. Luckily over a decade later he's redeemed himself and the character.

'Fat City' is one of the great, under-seen '70s films

Fat City, the 1972 comeback film for legendary director John Huston, is unlike any other boxing genre movie I've ever seen.

It's not uplifting like Rocky, nor does it plumb the depth of the human soul like Raging Bull.

It's an amiable film but it's not the least bit lightweight. It sort of shuffles along but with an understated power. Basically, it's a perfectly evocative 1970s film.

Seventies movies are often rich with ambiguity, they can be less plot driven and more about mood, and their heroes can be so self destructive they almost invite contempt.

Fat City possesses all of these elements. It's not about one big fight, or any fight in particular. It instead focuses on two characters that might gently be described as losers.

One at the very least has some prospects, that would be the character played by Jeff Bridges. He meets the Stacy Keach character by chance at a run-down local gym, then there stories separate for a time only to converge later.

Keach is a marvel in a performance that shockingly did not earn an Academy Award nomination. He doesn't act drunk, he genuinely appears to be in scenes. He had a lovely, lopsided smile and he can be both petulant and tender in a tour de force performance.

The film is full of these little asides that create such a rich tapestry. Bridges has a hilariously uncomfortable scene opposite Candy Clark playing his girlfriend, where she probes him to compare her sexually to his previous lovers. Another terrific moment comes from an aging black field worker who tells an amusing story of how his ex caught him cheating. These scenes don't necessarily push this languid movie forward, but they feel strangely authentic.

Stacy Keach and Jeff Bridges in 'Fat City'

And I can't say enough about "Earl", a no-nonsense character played by Curtis Cokes that isn't in the film much but has such a memorable presence, that he looms throughout, even when off-screen.

But what is the movie about? It could be about crushed dreams or the nobility of blissful ignorance. The film has a haunting final scene that I think is open to interpretation, it has a quiet grace that is so rare in movies today.

Fat City is also a profoundly funny film. The characters are boozy and blustery, they shout because they are so low on the totem poll, that very few people really listen to them. The ramshackle town where the movie takes place, Stockton, California, is also a character in the film -- its decrepit and seedy vibe really serves the story.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: they sadly don't make movies like this anymore. As much as I enjoy special effects extravaganzas, there is nothing more compelling than stories about real people in a relatively realistic situation. You get to hang out with and get to know the characters of Fat City, and yes, you pity them, but you are never bored by them.

Hear me out: Is 'Showgirls' secretly a good movie?

Last night I had the pleasure of watching what I have long considered one of the greatest "bad" movies ever made, Showgirls, on the big screen.

As I watched this endlessly entertaining film with a sold out audience, I began to see it in a different light, maybe as author Adam Nayman has presupposed in his terrific book, It Doesn't Suck: Showgirls, the film is actually a masterpiece.

There are several reasons I have begun to embrace this perspective on the film, which has become a cult classic 20 years after it was first released to brutal reviews and box office.

First of all, the film's director had been working towards the bombast and absurdity of Showgirls for years. Paul Verhoeven, a Dutch transplant here in the U.S. had been skewering American hubris, consumerism and coarseness effectively since 1987's Robocop.

He managed to top that film with one of Arnold Schwarzenegger's best, Total Recall, and then made the best erotic thriller of the '90s, Basic Instinct.

These movies have several elements in common. They are all gleefully over-the-top, revel in the vulgar and tread the line between earnestness and self parody with relative ease. My point is Verhoeven was too smart to make a purely horrible film. The excesses of Showgirls very well may be intentional.

And it is a well made film from many standpoints. The camerawork is often sublime, constantly in motion and hedonistic to the extreme. The Elizabeth Berkley lead performance is so crazy, so tonally jarring that it seems to be something out of a Russ Meyer or David Lynch film. I think Verhoeven chose to not rein her in intentionally, just to heighten an already extreme screenplay.

Her nemesis in the film, Gina Gershon, seems to be much more knowing about what kind of movie she is in. She actually gives a credible, camp classic performance, even though she has to utter dialogue like: "How do you like having nice tits?"

Gina Gershon and Elizabeth Berkley in Showgirls

Verhoeven's next major film, Starship Troopers, has earned praise and fans for doing many of the same things Showgirls does. It just appears that more audiences were in on the joke with that subversive B-movie, where perhaps Showgirls was hurt by the hype around it when was first released.

The film's biggest liabilities (besides being the most aggressively unsexy film to feature copious nudity and copulation ever) are its dialogue and narrative inconsistency, but I am sort of obsessed with both.

I remember I once played a drinking game where anytime someone in this movie says something no human being would ever say (like "Everybody got AIDS n' shit") you had to take a swig. Screenwriter Joe Eszterhas creates a truly stunning collection of some of the dumbest, most judgmental, shallow and obnoxious characters ever committed to film. And yet they are endlessly watchable. There is not a single boring moment in this film. How often can you say that about a movie?

The plot holes are just as fascinating. Berkley's character, Nomi Malone, veers wildly from naive to wise, and at one point transforms into a Kill Bill style assassin-vixen. There are spans in this film where, in 30 seconds,  so many wild things happen that you can barely digest them all. And yet at one point the movie jumps six weeks showing Berkley's character and her obligatory new black best friend living in domestic bliss after meeting by chance on the Las Vegas strip.

Last night a friend made a suggestion that I desperately want to steal -- there should be a film or a play based on the those six weeks. It should be told from the perspective of the black best friend character. She would write in her diary, venting about how whenever she ask Nomi where she's from she flails around and screams "Different places!"

Showgirls the Musical already proved this material is fertile ground for exploitation and the movie itself deserves a 30 for 30-style expose. In the meantime, I will keep on enjoying a wildly audacious film, that is more consciously funny than some people realize, and that I keep loving more and more, every time I see it.

'Spotlight' makes the case for more grown-up movies

The acclaimed new drama Spotlight is being called an homage to old-fashioned journalism -- and it is -- but it's also, on a more stealthy level, a reminder of how vital serious films for adults are.

It's sad that we so rarely get mainstream films anymore that feature no special effects, no cat-and-mouse chase sequences, and no condescension to audiences.

Spotlight is a sober and realistic retelling of The Boston Globe's investigation into the sexual abuse cover-up within the Catholic Church and while it has moments of levity and is definitely entertaining, it's the rare film I've seen this year that isn't afraid to have gravitas.

The film benefits from one of the best ensemble casts of the year -- featuring standout roles from Mark Ruffalo and Michael Keaton -- two of our best character actors. Spotlight wisely isn't dominated by any star turn or histrionic performance, its bigger than any one person. This is a film that effectively evokes a world and conspiracy without overstatement.

It is a low-key film, with few showy Oscar moments. And it's not as dynamic visually as say Mad Max: Fury Road or as emotional as Room, but it'll likely go down as one of the best films of the year, if for no other reason than it stands out as being about something.

Message movies can be tricky. You can feel like you're getting beat over the head with a heavy-handed narrative that is more or less preaching to the choir. But even though any person watching Spotlight would obviously understand that what the Catholic Church did was wrong, the movie does a great job of portraying why people (particularly of the Catholic faith) would feel torn about pursuing such an explosive story.

Rachel McAdams, Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight

The enormity of what was accomplished becomes most apparent right before the final credits roll -- this doesn't spoil anything for anyone -- the film presents the names of other cities where abuse scandals have been revealed in the aftermath of the Globe's investigation, and the sheer breadth of the crisis is simply stunning.

Meanwhile, I'm very curious about how this film will perform commercially. It's doing very well in smaller markets -- as prestige films generally do. But I feel like we are living in an age where people are more often than not willing to go see films about downbeat subject matter in theaters.

Spotlight doesn't gloss over the details of the abuse, which I appreciated, but it doesn't dwell on them either. It is not a relentlessly depressing or bleak film. And yet, I can imagine many people will feel like seeing the movie is like taking their medicine.

This is a shame because films like this, which put a priority on writing an acting, deserve to be seen. Although it is a very different movie, I was reminded of another Ruffalo drama, the underrated Foxcatcher, which was similarly quiet and muted, but also had a devastating power to it.

It's also a movie virtually no one went to see in theaters. I hope the same fate doesn't await Spotlight.

'Beasts of No Nation': A beautiful film about a brutal subject

Beasts of No Nation

The producers of the new film Beasts of No Nation took a big risk by releasing their film simultaneously on Netflix and in select theaters (to qualify for Oscar nominations). I have mixed feelings about this becoming the future of movies -- I still love physically going to the theater, and I don't want to lose the magic of that experience.

Still, considering how challenging the subject matter is of this particular film, it's hard to imagine it becoming a crossover commercial hit. However, if audiences can watch the film at home at their own pace, at their own leisure -- it might get seen by a lot more people, and this is a movie that deserves to be seen.

Beasts of No Nation may be the most gorgeously photographed film of the year. It is occasionally quite harrowing, but it is also not relentlessly bleak and depressing. It's very elegiac and because it is viewed from the perspective of a child (the remarkable Abraham Attah), the motivations of the characters and the grander elements of the plot are not immediately clear.

It is ostensibly about a young boy who flees a violent takeover of his unnamed African community and who winds up getting turned into a child soldier by a profoundly manipulative "Colonel", played very effectively by Idris Elba.

The film does a remarkable job of portraying the indoctrination process, how Elba's character preys on the children's aspirations and insecurities in such a way that their humanity slowly slips away. The casting of Elba is crucial, because he is so charismatic and powerful a presence on screen that the vile nature of his character doesn't overwhelm you at first.

Attah also gives a powerful performance. He is haunting and conveys a wisdom beyond his years, not unlike Jacob Tremblay in Room. It's always an uphill battle for children to Oscar nominations, but this year, both boys have a real shot at it.

What is unfortunate is that apparently major theater chains are boycotting Beasts of No Nation. I understand the logic of this to a certain extant, because Netflix is a real threat to their future. And again, I can't express how much I hate the idea that someday all movies will be streamed instead of watched in a theater with an audience.

Beasts of No Nation works just fine on the small screen, but it is also worth buying a ticket to and seeing it in all its splendor on a large scale. It's yet another film that takes a seemingly unwatchable subject -- child soldiering -- and does find some hope and humanity on the edges. It's definitely worth a look.

'Predator' propelled Arnold Schwarzenegger into the stratosphere

Arnold Schwarzenegger

When you think about it, it's pretty miraculous that Arnold Schwarzenegger became an A-list superstar.

He was best known for being a body builder, came with a long easy-to-mispronounce name, and had an unmistakable Austrian accent.

He was not, and never has been, considered a great actor per se, but he's always been very effective in the right role and has great movie star presence.

That said, he didn't become a real bankable star until relatively later in his career.

Sure, The Terminator and Conan the Barbarian brought him a certain level of cache, but neither film was as giant a blockbuster as people might presume.

In fact, it was really 1987's Predator that propelled him into the top echelon of Hollywood leading men. It's a terrific action film, one that is pretty compelling once you get past the relatively cheesy first act.

Some have called Predator a B-movie, and that's probably fair. It's premise is as thin as it gets -- alien creature stalks platoon of military men -- but there's something brilliant about how little the movie spells out. We see a spaceship early in the film but little else to explain the creature's origins. The creature itself never speaks, but appears intelligent as well as genuinely malicious.

Meanwhile, the refreshingly diverse cast of grunts won't be winning Academy Awards anytime soon -- Bill Duke and Jesse Ventura give over-the-top performances, while the underrated Carl Weathers is a nice foil for Schwarzenegger -- but they are engaging enough. Some of the corny jokes and hokey dialogue are wince-worthy, so much so that the "get to the chopper" antics are often what people remember most about the movie.

But once the cat-and-mouse game really gets going -- and virtually all of the other principles are killed off -- the film develops a sort of primordial gravitas. Schwarzenegger -- at his peak of being ripped and covered in mud -- is almost Caveman-esque. His character is forced to rely on his wits and his natural instincts.

The last 30 or so minutes of the film almost become a silent movie, ratcheting up the tension as Schwarzenegger tries to figure out how to outlast a seemingly indestructible enemy. This passage of the film makes it a classic. And even though -- SPOILER ALERT -- Schwarzenegger survives, his final moments on screen, looking positively depleted aboard the oft-mention "chopper" - is actually one of his better acting moments.

After this film, which was a breakout summer hit in '87, Schwarzenegger went on a huge roll. Predator was followed by a comedic change of pace in 1988's Twins, then Kindergarten Cop and Total Recall (both 1990 smashes) and culminating with the largest success of his career to date -- Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Age and a polarizing political career have since slowed his impact, but for a brief period Schwarzenegger was the biggest thing in movies, and Predator was one of the prime reasons why.

'Spectre': A strong Bond outing in the shadow of 'Skyfall'

Daniel Craig as James Bond

Spectre will likely be a huge hit but will possibly forever be remembered for not being as good as Skyfall. Having just seen the film, I can confirm that it isn't, but it also is not a series low-point like Daniel Craig's one misfire as 007, Quantum of Solace.

I am a huge Bond fanatic and Skyfall is my favorite film in the lexicon, so of course I had high hopes for Spectre. And although I was both predisposed to both love it and be slightly disappointed by it, Spectre is largely a successful entry in the franchise. If it indeed becomes Craig's last turn as the secret agent, it would be a fitting finale -- although I hope it isn't.

Craig fully owns this role now, and I think audiences sort of take him for granted. He has been playing Bond for nine years but because his four films were more spread apart than his predecessors he's been subject to more rumors about being replaced even though each film has outperformed the last commercially, and Skyfall was arguably the most critically acclaimed Bond film of all time.

Craig is the best part of Spectre -- he's relaxed, funny and dashing in both an endearing and exhilarating way. There are a few other elements that work quite well in the film too. Even the film's detractors have to admit that it's gorgeous opening sequence ranks among the series' best. It's an elaborately staged sequence set at the Day of the Dead in Mexico City, much of it comprising a single shot leading to an edge of your seat fight scene set in a plummeting helicopter.

Monica Bellucci and Daniel Craig

The action set pieces that follow never quite top it, but are nevertheless effectively staged -- particularly those featuring a silent and colossal David Bautista as the most formidable physical specimen Bond has faced in a very long time.

Where the film falls short -- and will rightly be compared negatively to Skyfall -- is in the tightness of its screenplay. Having recently watched all the Bond films in succession, I've drawn the conclusion that the simpler the plot the better the Bond film. Skyfall was a pretty straight forward revenge movie. Spectre is decidedly more complicated. And although I actually found many of the third act twists effective, the movie can meander at times while trying to tie up loose ends and link the movie to its predecessors.

Spectre also takes too long to set up its villain -- played by Christoph Waltz. He gets a terrific introduction scene but then sort of disappears. Bond movies are also only as strong as their villain, and while I like the direction they ultimately go with Waltz, some could argue its too little too late.

What is refreshing is that Spectre tries and mostly succeeds in injecting a little more humor into the series after three mostly straight Craig films. A couple bits verge on being too silly, but for the most part the laughs are well-earned, and the writers still wisely avoid the quips that often made the Pierce Brosnan Bond films feel stale.

Still, I do struggle with where to place this one. There is a lot to like in it (if not love). The new team of MI6 sidekicks (M, Q and Moneypenny) is very fun, the new Bond girls are effective in their roles, but I think the movie suffers from probably trying to do a little too much of everything. It's hard to rank this film but I am stunned by critics who are calling it cheesy or the worst of Craig's Bond films. Each one of these movies has to stand on its own terms, and I don't think they can all have the weight and gravitas of Skyfall. I don't think it's a step backward but it's not a landmark 007 either.

Here's where it fits in my all-time 007 rankings.

1) Skyfall
2) From Russia With Love
3) The Spy Who Loved Me
4) Goldfinger
5) Casino Royale
6) For Your Eyes Only
7) Live and Let Die
8) Dr. No
9) On Her Majesty's Secret Service
10) The Living Daylights
11) GoldenEye
12) Octopussy
13) Spectre
14) You Only Live Twice
15) Diamonds Are Forever
16) Thunderball
17) Die Another Day
18) Moonraker
19) The World Is Not Enough
20) The Man with the Golden Gun
21) Quantum of Solace
22) Tomorrow Never Dies
23) A View to a Kill
24) License to Kill

Countdown to 'SPECTRE': The 10 toughest Bond women

Carole Bouquet in For Your Eyes Only

As SPECTRE approaches and Bond fever grips the nation, I thought it was about time for another obligatory 007 post, which will be my last on the subject -- for one day!

I'm seeing the 24th official Bond feature on Friday and although the reviews are good, but not great, virtually nothing can dampen my excitement for this film.

 I've come to realize I love Bond more than any other movie series, even Star Wars.

Three out of six Star Wars films are good in my opinion, about 15 to 16 of the 23 Bond films released so far are great.

Much has been made over the years of how sexist the Bond series has historically been. There's no doubt about that. Still, almost from the very beginning, there have also been a number of strong, capable and compelling women in the canon as well.

The reigning James Bond, Daniel Craig, has taken pride in the fact that his iteration of the character is less misogynistic than his predecessors, and while that is almost certainly true, the series has almost always portrayed Bond's mistreatment of women as a flaw, not a virtue.

And although the Sean Connery and Roger Moore versions of Bond engaged in some behavior that is undeniably reprehensible, by the time Pierce Brosnan took over the part in the '90s, the tide had turned. His boss, M, was a strong woman played by a formidable actress (Dame Judi Dench) and the leading ladies were almost always more three-dimensional going forward.Still, Denise Richards remains quite possibly the worst female character in the history of the series.

Here are my picks for the top 10 toughest Bond women in no particular order:

Barbara Bach in The Spy Who Loved Me

Pussy Galore (Honor Blackman) in Goldfinger: The first so-called "Bond girl" who was not a damsel in distress, Galore is an experienced pilot who leads a team of female flyers, and she isn't the least bit seduced by Bond's charms (at first). Sure, Connery's 007 essentially assaults her on a pile of hay, but at this point in the series she was an advance.

May Day (Grace Jones) in A View to a Kill: Definitely one of the most unconventional women to appear in the series, Jones' character is portrayed as having both superhuman strength and relentless sexual appetite. Although she is a villain for the majority of the film, she does get to show her humanity in the last act.

Octopussy (Maud Adams) in Octopussy: Despite being saddled with one of the most ridiculous names in Bond history, the title character of this film is a formidable figure -- a successful woman with her own palace guarded by an army of gorgeous, trained ninjas. Her dynamic with Bond is more of a partnership than a male-dominated fantasy.

Anya Amasova (Barbara Bach) in The Spy Who Loved Me: Barbara Bach is often ranked among the most beautiful Bond leading ladies, and she is -- but what is often forgotten is that she played a ruthless Russian agent who is 007's competitor long before she becomes his ally and his lover. She also gets an intriguing subplot -- she discovers Bond killed a fellow agent she loved and swears to seek revenge. Naturally, she doesn't, but she definitely gets more to do than a lot of other women in the series.

Xenia Onatopp (Famke Janssen) in Goldeneye: One of the most unforgettable women in Bond history, Janssen became a breakout star after her campy and vampy role here as a Russian baddie who kills men by suffocating them with her legs. The whole role would be ridiculous if she didn't imbue it with such infectious, devilish glee. She is not afraid of Bond and never gets seduced by his charms. She is just lethal and badass until the very end.

Moneypenny (Naomie Harris) in Skyfall: For decades Moneypenny was in many ways the most retrograde Bond woman. Although the classic version of the character (played by Lois Maxwell) was lovable and feisty, she essentially served no function other than to swoon over 007. Harris gives her a backstory and a backbone, she's at the center of the action and no pushover. Her inclusion in Skyfall was a pleasant surprise and it really helped revitalize the franchise.

Vesper Lynd (Eva Green) in Casino Royale: Even though she eventually ends up (SPOILER ALERT) betraying James Bond, few women in the series have been given as much depth and detail as Vesper Lynd, the woman who stole Bond's heart and almost domesticated him. She is never less than his equal and matches him barb for bard throughout. They have terrific chemistry, so much so that you actually think they're going to live happily ever after, until you realize it's a Bond film.

Elektra King (Sophie Marceau) in The World Is Not Enough: Although this is a deeply flawed 007 film (hello, Denise Richards) it does have a gem of a performance from the underrated Marceau as a complex and, in the end, downright creepy woman. In fact, she may be the true lead villain of this movie, although Robert Carlyle gets to do all the punching. She totally manipulates Brosnan's Bond and almost comes across as someone parodying the stereotypical helpless female archetype.

Melina Havelock (Carole Bouquet) in For Your Eyes Only: One of my favorites -- this Greek, crossbow-toting beauty has one of the best plot threads of any woman in the Bond series. She is on a mission of revenge after a brutal smuggler murders her parents in cold blood. Although she ends up teaming up with Bond, she is a capable heroine in her own right and more than adept at fighting.

Countess Tracy di Vincenzo (Diana Rigg) in On Her Majesty's Secret Service: Audiences may know Rigg best for her iconic turn in the '60s-era series The Avengers or for her delicious supporting role on Game of Thrones, but she was also the only leading lady (SPOILER ALERT) to marry James Bond. She seems to genuinely intimidate Bond, which is a fresh departure for the series, and her fate is one of the most powerful 007 moments of all time.

'Steve Jobs' finally brings something new to the biopic

Steve Jobs

The underwhelming box office performance of the new film Steve Jobs is surprising for a number of reasons. It's got a top-notch cast, headlined by rising star Michael Fassbender. It's got a popular director (Slumdog Millionaire's Danny Boyle). It's getting excellent reviews, Oscar buzz and its subject matter is an enigmatic and mysterious modern-day legend.

And yet the film has pretty much tanked. I think it's too good to be ignored come Oscar time, but audiences aren't interested in it.

Why? My hunch is that they think this is just another biopic -- a genre that has grown incredibly tired and predictable. The unfortunate thing is that they're wrong.

What Boyle and screenwriter Aaron Sorkin have done here is make a story we think we already know seem fresh and exciting. They accomplish this feat to a certain extent with fluid camera movement and a highly literate screenplay, but also through old fashioned terrific acting and sharp, focused pace.

Michael Fassbender delivers my favorite leading male performance I've seen so far this year as the self-described "poorly made" Steve Jobs. He does a flawless American accent and manages to make a relentless control freak and egomaniac seem both vulnerable and charming. This is not a flattering portrayal of Jobs but it isn't the indictment that Sorkin's The Social Network was of Facebook guru Mark Zuckerberg.

He is surrounded by a supporting cast at the top of their game -- Jeff Daniels, Kate Winslet and a surprisingly compelling Seth Rogen -- as the film hurtles from one major product launch to the next.

It's a risky film, almost a throwback to the days when plays were translated to film more often. The action is in the dialogue and it's a high wire act totally dependent on the actors' ability to sell the material, which they do with aplomb.

But the best thing about the structure of Steve Jobs is that it sidesteps the traditional beats and cliches of the biopic genre. A great comparison would be the blockbuster Straight Outta Compton. The first half of that movie is a real romp, exciting and illuminating, but then then the movie descends into a Cliff Notes version of history, where every major demarcation point (fights, deaths, make-ups) is covered in exhausting fashion.

Steve Jobs doesn't delve into the illness that eventually took the Apple CEO's life, it doesn't show a single scene from his childhood (although there are some interesting references to the fact that he was adopted). The movie isn't trying to portray the entirety of a life, it's just giving you an interpretation of a man at the peak of his powers.

It's definitely not going to be for everyone's tastes. Like all Sorkin-scripted films, it's very talky and the dialogue requires the audience to keep up and pay attention, this is not a movie that gets spoonfed to you. It's also a pretty unflattering portrait of Jobs, so much so that it might alienate audiences who have come to revere the late impresario.

Still, I think Steve Jobs ranks among the better films I've seen this year. It's been an intriguing year for movies; besides Mad Max: Fury Road, I haven't seen many game-changers -- but plenty of solid doubles and triples.