So, the migration from the big screen to the living room has accelerated due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This also the first time I can think of that I made the next Power Ranking list while still not finishing watching all the films in the previous list.

If you feel my description for why I chose the films on my list you ain't wrong. I don't watch trailers anymore (not before I see the movie anyways), I don't even read the plot summaries. I choose based on rating (Top 1000 IMDb's voters), track record (director, writer(s), et al. and the cast), critical acclaim, feel and instinct. I now prefer to go in cold, which makes for a more rewarding viewing experience, but terse description, I don't mind the trade.

I want to note that films that were considered for the 2020 Power Ranking and were postponed to open at a later date were not considered for these rankings.

Without further ado here are the 2021 Power Ranking:

1. Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson Project
2. The Card Counter
3. Three Thousand Years of Longing
4. The Matrix 4
5. House of Gucci

• Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson Project: From Paul Thomas Anderson... do I need to say more? Yes? It takes place in the 70's. Don't know much about it, but I don't need to. Stars Bradley Cooper, Benny Safdie (Good Time) and Joseph Cross. This is the second appearance by PTA in the Rankings (Phantom Thread, 2017).
• The Card Counter: From director Paul Schrader (American Gigolo, Affliction and First Reformed) and writer Paul Schrader (Raging Bull & Taxi Driver) comes a film about gambling... I'm in! Stars Willem Dafoe, Oscar Isaac, Tye Sheridan and Tiffany Haddish.
• Three Thousand Years of Longing: George Miller's first film since the spectacular Mad Max: Fury Road. Stars Idris Elba and Tilda Swinton.
• The Matrix 4: From Lana Wachowski comes the 4h installment of the Matrix series. I have my guard up, hopefully this isn't merely a cash-grab, or a CGI fest or as bad as Matrix: Revolutions. Stars Keanu Reeves, Carrie-Anne Moss, Priyanka Chopra, Jessica Henwick, Jonathan Groff, Neil Patrick Harris, Yahya Abdul-Mateen II and Jada Pinkett Smith.
• House of Gucci: From "I used to be a great director" Ridley Scott, comes a film about something something the Gucci family. It features a star-studded cast: Adam Driver, Lady Gaga, Jared Leto, Jeremy Irons and Al Pacino. Could Scott be the director that finally reins Alfredo James Pacino? I doubt it, but hope springs eternal.

Honorable mention:

• The Guilty
• The Tragedy of Macbeth

Some observations:

The Streak continues: Already at least 1 film has attained a 7 out of 10 rating (Tenet) and we still have two films to go (Dune and Those Who Wish Me Dead). So, the 2020 list still has a chance of becoming the first Power Ranking list to include more than one film rate 7 or above. The streak of the film rank #1 not achieving a 7 out of 10 or higher rating also continues.

• Power Ranking' movies I have seen at the theater:
  • 2015: Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Spectre and Sicario.
  • 2016: The Accountant and Rogue One.
  • 2017: Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
  • 2018: None.
  • 2019: None.
  • 2020: None.
  • 2021: Probably none, you know why.

***This review contains SPOILERS***

Firefly, a variation on Han Solo and like Han itself, it lost its edge as it went along. Compare the abrasive character Mal is in the pilot (the actual pilot) to how he behaves later in the series. He goes from giving zero fucks and killing a "Fed" with one shot without mincing words to letting Saffron/Yolanda live at the end of “Our Mrs. Reynolds” episode, then a second time at the beginning of "Trash” and finally a 3rd time at the end of the same episode. Also, it seems unlikely that the guy in the pilot episode would had let Jayne to live after betraying them in “Ariel”. This is a series that was meddle by the suits from the very beginning, probably requiring to smooth Mal’s rough edges and steering the series towards a more action-comedy direction. Plus, for all the open-mindedness of the series, a protagonist straight up killing a woman character on screen was probably a bridge too far for broadcast television.

Serenity had a $39 million budget and it shows, the practical effects/vehicles are spectacular. Just imagine, if the series was conceived in 2020 in Netflix or at Disney, it would look more like the movie instead of the original series. It is just a treat to see the ship, Serenity, fully realized with considerable resources put up for the production design.

Mal’s character also goes back to its roots, as cocky and confident as ever, more like in the TV pilot than in the rest of the series. Pushing that poor guy from the rover at the beginning and then mercy-shooting him before the Reavers took him away, quickly dispatching an Alliance survivor from the attack on Shepard with one shot and that fast shot on Chiwetel Ejiofor after he shoots Mal in the back. That last one seems to be a “Han shot first” reference.

With all that said, that its turnout to be that the movie, and really the whole series’ motivation was for the Alliance to silence River because she knew about the “Pax” killing all those peoples and creating the Reavers felt ugh, anti-climactic. I dislike it on two levels: first, we never got to explore why was River “created/modified”, how the actual mechanics of her psychic abilities combined with her weapons worked and who “the men in the suit with blue gloves” that appeared in more than one episode of the series were. I thought there was more to them, but it seems they were just some government lackeys. Second, this origin story for the Reavers is so underwhelming. Why couldn’t they just be humans that went to the edge of the universe and then went over the edge? The “Pax” feels like a device to make us feel sorry for them at some level. Like, villains are allowed just to be evil, we don’t need to lessen the load. Whatever; at least the movie leaves the door open for more adventures.

Firefly: 6/10, Serenity: 6/10

***This review contains SPOILERS***

Mario Puzo's The Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone vs. The Godfather: Part III

I would argue, in my humble opinion, that the only improvement between in the Coda vis-a-vi the Original Cut (OC), is opening the film with the “sit down” or audience between Michael and Archbishop Gilday where he asks him to deposit 600 million dollars in the Vatican Bank. The argument in favor of opening with this scene is two-fold:

First, it evokes the opening of The Godfather were patriarch of the Corleone family, Vito Corleone, is asked for favors on the day of his daughter’s wedding, but in this occasion, he is dealing with one of the most powerful intuitions in the world and in human history: The Catholic Church. It is meant to illustrate the depth and breadth of the power the Corleone family wields now roaming the sacred halls of the Vatican itself, several steps up from being asked to arrange murder in the name of justice or an argument over a casino license with a U.S. Senator. In 1979 Michael Corleone deals with the self-appointed representatives of God on earth themselves. Who’s pulling the strings now, am I right?

Second, it serves to accentuate the Vatican Bank/Catholic Church plotline as the main driver of the film. This is how director Francis Ford Coppola originally intended for this scene to be sequenced and it shows, because then other lines of dialogue throughout the films fall into place. For example, the exchange between Michael and Gilday after the former makes a substantial donation to the Church for the “resurrection of Sicily” during a reception:

Gilday: Michael, you've done a wonderful thing for Sicily.

Michael: Well, let's just hope the money gets to the people who need it.

Gilday: Amen.

In the OC this exchange just reads (at least to me) as Michael making a general comment on how sometimes money donated to charitable causes may not entirely serve the intended cause. But by opening with the sit-down scene it adds an extra layer of “let's just hope the money gets to the people who need it” since you and your friends already embezzled 769 million dollars for which I had to make a 600-million-dollar deposit in your bank.

It also fits better with this exchange at the reception between B.J. Harrison (Corleone’s family new lawyer) and Gilday:

Gilday: “The Vatican knows nothing of these shareholders…”

Harrison: “Good; I have a tendency to worry. We’ve increased our position substantially and naturally I worry.”

Gilday: “Come along now, stop worrying. We have an agreement.”

Ostensibly the agreement being the 600M deposited in exchange for a 25% stake in Internazionale Immobiliare.

That on the pro-side, on the con-side the Coda does away entirely with early scene where we actually see the ceremony in which Gilday bestows the order of Saint Sebastian upon Michael. To me this scene also did a good job alluding to how far the Corleone family had come and now being “validated” by the Church. It also straightforwardly established why all these family members were gathering in a celebration to honor Michael Corleone which turns out to be the first long sequence (the reception) of the film. But, as discussed earlier, showing the Gilday sit-down before the reception achieves a similar job (presenting Michael’s ascension in the legitimate world) plus helps with dialogue referencing the “agreement” so the change is a net positive, I just wish Coppola had found a way to keep both scenes in the correct sequence.

And…that is it for the list of improvements of the Coda over the OC. The rest is pretty much Coppola cutting scenes shorter than they were in the OC if not pulling them out altogether. This results in film sequences that end abruptly, leaving the viewer confused as to why the things that happen are happening. Seeing as how the bridge scenes or the extra dialogue that could help the viewer follow the plot exist already and were originally included in the OC removing them is baffling. Let’s provide some examples.

Right after the shareholders meeting scene in New York the Coda cuts abruptly to Michael saying: “Mary. Mary, this is real this foundation, it’s real. I wanted Anthony to be a part of this. I wanted -- I thought the two of you would be together on this. I won’t interfere. I’ll help, only, only if you ask…”

While in the OC the scene starts earlier and lets the audience know what the heck Michael and Mary are talking about:

Mary: Dad?

Michael: Uh huh?

Mary: Tony says that I’m a front for the foundation. That you’re using me just to pull the strings. To get the money where you want it...

Michael: Oh come on, please.

Mary: …to shine up your public image.

Michael: Mary. Mary, this is real this foundation, it’s real. I wanted Anthony to be a part of this. I wanted -- I thought the two of you would be together on this. I won’t interfere. I’ll help, only, only if you ask…

The OC is simply clearer and doesn’t parachutes in the middle of the conversation. It lets the viewer know what Mary and Michael are talking about and it brings up the point that the foundation might be farce and that Michael is using it to “wash away” his past sins which is exactly one the first things that comes to mind when the concept of the charitable foundation in the name of the Corleone family is initially introduced. It also reinforces the theme of Tony being aware of the whole Corleone family deceitfulness and how he rebels against it which mirrors Michael’s own arc in GF1: enlisting in the Marines, rejecting his father’s/Hagen’s “plans” for his future and Michael’s early insistence to Kay that “that’s my family, that’s not me”.

In another instance Coda goes from Vincent tucking in a weak and feeble Michael at the hospital to out of nowhere Michael traveling to Sicily. Why? How? We don’t know and that’s because for some reason Coppola cuts the intervening scene in the hospital in which Don Altobello talks to a healthier, but still in the hospital, Michael about retiring and then Michael stating that they should see more of each other in Sicily. Yes, that scene ends with an overdone handshake between Michael and Altobello but that in no way or form justifies cutting the scene and jumping from the hospital to Sicily. Just mindboggling.

Another puzzling choice by Coppola is to cut the scene in the hospital chapel after Michael’s diabetic stroke in which Connie gives the go ahead to Vincent to kill Joey Zasa. This scene is literally 40 seconds, I timed it. The scene serves to show the Corleone family under siege and an interesting power dynamic in Michael’s absence. We see Connie taking the lead, Neri falling in line and doing a good job illustrating Vincent’s eagerness and hot-headed streak to go after Zasa just like we know Sonny would and further solidifying the “see?, isn’t Vincent such a short-tempered guy, so this is definitely Sonny’s son!” theme that the movie oversells at other times.

Last cut that I will discuss is, after the brief montage of Lamberto taking over, promising to do “things right away” and showing Keinszig, Luchessi and Gilday being nervous it goes straight away to Don Tommasino’s funeral and Michael stating:

Michael: I swear, on the lives of my children: Give me a chance to redeem myself, and I will sin, no more.

This cut, in my estimation, the earlier part of this beautiful soliloquy:

Michael: Goodbye my old friend. You could have lived a little longer, I could be closer to my dream.

(then)

You were so loved, Don Tommasino. Why was I so feared, and you so loved? What was it? I was no less honorable. I wanted to do good.

(then, as Michael cries)

What betrayed me? My mind? My heart? Why do I condemn myself so?

(then, in prayer)

I swear, on the lives of my children: Give me a chance to redeem myself, and I will sin, no more.

To me these lines give a poignant insight into Michael’s state of mind and advances the theme of regret that permeates the film. Shows a contemplative and introspective Michael reflecting on the choices he made and how his life turned out to be.

There are other examples and I will mention some of them quickly since this post is already extensive and I don’t want Francis to get any ideas.

Cutting:

Altobello: Blessed is the peacemaker, for he can be can be called a child of God.

Lucchesi: (to Vincent, in Italian)

"Can you speak Italian well?"

Vincent: "Yes."

Coppola again truncating scenes for no other reason than saving few seconds.

Coppola also cuts a personal favorite, which, while I won’t argue that it is essential (it isn’t), it hurt my feelings to see it cut. On the helicopter hit they cut my man saying while dying: “Joey Zasa. You son of a bitch”. How dare you Francis.

And then, in one of the few scenes Coppola extended or added new footage (not sure which one is the case here) now when Lucchesi gets stab with his own glasses we get a cartoonish, volcanic blood explosion where it wasn’t there before. I don’t know if he had been hearing all these years that Lucchesi’s original wound didn’t seemed severe enough or what but this is worse and distracting.

Regarding the changes to the ending, they didn’t work for me. I understand that one of the reasons for Coppola re-editing the film is that in his original vision this film is a Coda and not “Part III”. Then, by removing the flashback scenes where he dances with Apollonia (GF1) and dances with Kay (GF2), he removes what could be seen as a wrapping up for the whole saga and instead leaves just the dance with Mary which reinforces the message that this is a standalone film. That might be fine conceptually but it was mishandled. For one, the music editing was poorly done, it was a butchering. I didn’t need to see Michael’s death depicted since I always saw “the scream” as his actual death, regardless of whether he still possessed bodily functions so that change isn’t here nor there.

At the end of the day, the movie opening with the sit-down scene provides a more coherent narration even if I wish Coppola had kept the Gilday ceremony bestowing the order upon Michael. The inner cuts to the meat of the film are not only unnecessary, they do a disservice to the storytelling of the film. To be clear, these cuts do not serve as a way in my estimation to “focus the narrative” or “cut unnecessary dialogue” or “streamline the film”. When we take stock of the cuts, they amount to 12 minutes. Coda or no Coda 12 minutes is an insignificant amount of time in the great scheme of things, the cuts aren’t worth it and end up hurting the film. The ending is badly mishandled in the audio department and I prefer the original which I find more emotionally satisfying (I specifically mean the 3 dances in sequence).

The truth is the changes made in the Coda aren’t enough for the Coda to substitute the original cut in my Godfather Trilogy viewing rotation which, let be honest, it is what this is ultimately about.

PS: Quotes from the film were obtained from http://www.thegodfathertrilogy.com/gf3/transcript/gf3transcript.html

Earlier this year I began writing a blog post about Puerto Rico and its political status. I intended to release the blog just before the 2020 Democratic primaries in Puerto Rico. The primary was scheduled for March 29, 2020 but after the COVID-19 pandemic hit and all that entailed it was obvious that the primary would be rescheduled and the blog didn't seem as important anymore. I knew that eventually I would finish the blog since I had spent so many hours on it so here it is.

The content from this blog is a combination of my own views and knowledge of Puerto Rican politics (as a Puerto Rican born and raised in the Island and still living here), news articles & other sources, Wikipedia (because they are never wrong) and a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by R. Sam Garrett, titled: Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress. Sections titled "2012 Plebiscite in Brief", "2016 Elections in Puerto Rico", "2017 Plebiscite", "Initial Plebiscite Ballot and DOJ Reaction", "Amended Plebiscite Ballot", and "2017 Plebiscite Results" are reproduced directly from the CRS report.

Puerto Rico's Political Status: Statehood or Independence

The 2012 Plebiscite in Brief

Before the 2017 plebiscite, Puerto Rico had held five status plebiscites or referenda since adopting its current relationship with the United States. These votes were held in 2012, 1998, 1993, 1991, and 1967. Ballot wording and options during each plebiscite or referendum differed. Most recently, in 2012, voters were asked to answer two questions: (1) whether they wished to maintain Puerto Rico’s current political status; and (2) regardless of the choice in the first question, whether they preferred statehood, independence, or to be a “sovereign free associated state.”

According to results certified by the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission, approximately 54.0% of those who cast ballots answered “no” to the first question. In the second question, approximately 61.2% of voters chose statehood. However, results of the plebiscite were controversial. Debate focused on whether almost 500,000 blank answers on the second question should be included in the total, thereby affecting whether any option received a majority. A concurrent resolution approved by the territorial legislature and supported by PDP Governor Alejandro García Padilla (who was elected on the same day as the plebiscite) contended that the results were “inconclusive.” Another CRS report provides additional detail about the 2012 plebiscite. After Governor García Padilla assumed office in 2013, momentum toward revisiting status waned on the island. As explained below, interest in status rebounded in 2016.

In Washington, the House and Senate provided federal funds to support a future plebiscite. Specifically, in the FY2014 omnibus appropriations law, Congress appropriated $2.5 million for “objective, nonpartisan voter education about, and a plebiscite on, options that would resolve Puerto Rico’s future political status.” These plebiscite-education funds remain available until expended, but Congress placed conditions on their release that appear to exclude the “enhanced commonwealth” status option as a choice on the ballot. As discussed below, the Justice Department determined in 2017 that enhanced commonwealth remained inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution.

The 2016 Elections in Puerto Rico

In the 2016 general election, Puerto Rico voters selected NPP candidates for both the Governor and Resident Commissioner posts. The prostatehood NPP also retained majorities in the territorial House and Senate. Governor-Elect Ricardo Rosselló announced that he “intend[ed] to make joining the union [as a state] the central focus of his administration.” Soon after the November election, some in the NPP began urging congressional action to admit Puerto Rico as a state.

In his election night victory speech, according to one media report, Rosselló called his election an “‘unequivocal mandate to tell the world that the transition to statehood has started,’ which he will promote through the Tennessee Plan.” The “Tennessee Plan” is a term of art referring to the method by which Tennessee and six other states joined the union. Each territory employed this method somewhat differently, but the central thrust of the Tennessee Plan involves organizing a political entity that is essentially a state in all but name. Steps typically include drafting of a state constitution, election of state officers, and sending an elected congressional delegation to Washington to lobby for statehood. These developments notwithstanding, there is no single path to statehood. Changing Puerto Rico’s political status by the Tennessee Plan or any other method ultimately would require a statutory change by Congress with presidential approval.

The 2017 Plebiscite

In January 2017, Rosselló assumed the governorship and the NPP assumed the majority in the legislature. Puerto Rico was thus now primarily represented by a Governor, legislative majority, and Resident Commissioner who publicly favored statehood. On February 3, 2017, the legislature enacted, and the Governor subsequently signed, legislation setting the June 11, 2017, plebiscite date. The new NPP government framed the 2017 plebiscite as the first “sanctioned” by the federal government (through the FY2014 appropriations language discussed above). The legislature also characterized the 2017 plebiscite as a way to “reassert the desire for decolonization and the request for Statehood” from 2012. Similar arguments that had surrounded the previous plebiscite language resurfaced in 2017. Similar criticisms also emerged from those who opposed the plebiscite.

Initial Plebiscite Ballot and DOJ Reaction

As explained below, the initial ballot was subsequently amended after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to certify the federal funds appropriated in FY2014 (discussed above) to administer the plebiscite.

• NPP supporters argued that the 2012 plebiscite established that Puerto Rican voters preferred a nonterritorial option, and that statehood or a form of independence were the only constitutionally permissible choices.
• The plebiscite law thus included two “non-territorial and non-colonial political status” options on the ballot: (1) “Statehood” and (2) “Free Association/Independence.” The law further specified that only ballots marking one of those options would be counted—a reference to controversy over “blank” ballots believed to be cast in protest in 2012.
• The law also directed that if the “Free Association/Independence” option received a majority in the June 11 plebiscite, an October 8, 2017, referendum would be held for voters to select from these two choices. Both free association and independence would entail Puerto Rico becoming an independent country. The former suggests an ongoing, mutually negotiated relationship in which the United States might continue to provide some benefits or services, such as the United States today has with the Western Pacific nations of the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), the Republic of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau.
• PDP supporters objected to the ballot wording and choices. They argued that the ballot improperly omitted a status-quo option and was biased to favor a statehood outcome.
• After the legislature enacted the initial law establishing the plebiscite date and ballot, attention turned to whether the U.S. Justice Department would approve releasing the federal funds appropriated in FY2014. Importantly, Puerto Rico does not require federal approval to conduct a plebiscite or to otherwise reconsider its political status, but plebiscite supporters argued that federal approval would enhance the vote’s perceived legitimacy in Washington.
• On April 13, 2017, Acting Deputy Attorney General Dana Boente wrote to Governor Rosselló that “multiple considerations preclude [DOJ] from notifying Congress that it approves of the plebiscite ballot and obligating the funds.” According to the letter, “the Department does not believe that the results of the 2012 plebiscite justify omitting Puerto Rico’s current status as an option on the [2017] ballot.” Boente explained that DOJ also had determined that the ballot language included “several ambiguous and potentially misleading statements, which may hinder voters’ ability to make a fully informed choice as well as efforts to ascertain the will of the people from the plebiscite results.” In particular, DOJ raised concerns about what it regarded as deficiencies in how U.S. citizenship rights were explained in the “statehood” ballot description; and the chance that voters could “misperceive” the “free association” option as a constitutionally impermissible form of “enhanced commonwealth.”

Amended Plebiscite Ballot

After DOJ issued its determination, attention shifted back to the island. As discussed briefly below, the pro-statehood government amended the plebiscite law to include a commonwealth option.

• Soon after the DOJ issued its April 13 letter, the Rosselló Administration and the NPP majority in the legislature announced that they would amend the plebiscite law. The amended “statement of motives” declared that,“[D]ue to the position stated by the U.S. Department of Justice, [the Legislative Assembly has] acted, under protest, on [DOJ’s] recommendation to include the current territorial status among the options, so that the Plebiscite may be fully supported by the Federal Government.”44
• As Figure 3 below shows, the revised ballot included three options: (1) statehood, (2) “free association/independence,” and (3) “current territorial status.”
• The Justice Department did not formally respond to the ballot changes before voters went to the polls. However, supporters framed the new ballot options as tantamount to federal endorsement for the plebiscite. Opponents noted that the department had not approved the language.
• Changing the ballot language was intended to address the Justice Department’s concerns, but it also reignited political controversy among the island’s political parties. The Independence Party (PIP), which initially announced that it would encourage its supporters to participate in the plebiscite in hopes of defeating statehood, changed its position. In light of what it regarded as a colonial “commonwealth” ballot option now being included, the PIP announced that it would boycott the plebiscite, as did the PDP, in addition to some other nonparty groups. PDP leadership called for repealing the plebiscite law and beginning anew.

2017 Plebiscite Results

On June 11, 2017, voters in Puerto Rico chose among the three options on the revised plebiscite ballot.

• 97.2% of voters chose statehood,
• 1.5% of voters chose free association/independence, and
• 1.3% of voters chose the “current territorial status.”

Turnout for the plebiscite was 23% (approximately 518,000 of 2.3 million voters).

In anticipation of a statehood victory in the plebiscite, the territorial legislature enacted, and the Governor signed, legislation in June 2017 to pursue a “Tennessee Plan” path to statehood, including appointing a “delegation” to advocate for statehood before the House and Senate in Washington. The PDP opposition criticized the law and vowed to challenge it in court and in future elections. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the House and Senate may determine how or whether to respond to these developments.

2020 Plebiscite

On November 3rd, 2020, along with our general election for governor and legislature, Puerto Ricans will be voting on their 7th plebiscite/referendum since 1952 regarding our political status.

The question to be vote on is: "Should Puerto Rico be admitted immediately into the Union as a State? No or Yes?"

This is the 7th such plebiscite/referendum since 1952 but, do to changing political circumstances in the U.S., this is the first time in my lifetime that it feels there might be a small chance of finally resolving the political status problem. For the first time there is not only an interest from inside the Island to resolve the issue, but from outside the Island too (Democrats). I'm not naive, Democrats see adding Puerto Rico as state mainly as a realpolitik move to add two Democratic senators to change the balance of power. But if that's how it's got to be, so be it.

According to local polls, "yes" for statehood in the plebiscite is either comfortably ahead or narrowly ahead. Strategically you have to remember that the statehood option is battling against, those who prefer independence, those who prefer the status quo, those who think nothing will happen regardless of how the plebiscite vote goes and those who are angry at the current NPP administration (the pro-statehood party) and may which to punish it at the ballot box after 4 years in power. All of them could vote "no" either to send a "pro-independence message" or a "leave it as it is, status quo" message. There is also the possibility, like in 2012, of a split vote. Statehood may win the plebiscite, but the NPP loses the election which would muddle the message. Then, whichever non-NPP option wins (most likely the PDP candidate with a small chance for the CVP candidate), it would try to snuff out the plebiscite result by trying to ignore it or claim the election results are contradictory and it shouldn't be acted on.

Contrary to popular belief, I would contend that Puerto Rico would be more of a purple state than a solid blue state. Currently, our governor, who came in to power due to our constitutional succession line and was not elected, is a Republican who endorsed President Trump. Our current Resident Commissioner is a Republican who endorsed Trump. Our Senate Majority leader is a Republican who endorses Trump. Our House Speaker is a Republican who endorsed Trump. I think you see the pattern.

Regardless, I'm highly skeptical that Democrats would actually admit Puerto Rico as a state if they were to sweep the elections, with Biden winning, keeping the House and winning the Senate with whatever number of seats. Let me explain why.

For one, if Democrats sweep and win big, they might again, like after 2008, feel like they got a handle on things and if they can still win elections by comfortable margins then they don't really need to add any states. Yes, I understand that "everything changed" after 2016 and Democrats claim they won't ever make the same mistake twice but the high after winning can be intoxicating. If Democrats win big, they might get complacent, if they win narrowly (specifically the Senate) they might thread carefully not wanting to do anything too drastic that might imperil their newly gained majorities in the mid-terms with a move that will be seen by some (including independents and some moderate Democrats) as a crass power grab. Also, if they win narrowly, Senators like Joe Manchin (maybe others) and whoever is elected in 2020 from conservative/purple/swing states will probably balked at adding 1 or 2 states to the Union. It is one thing to say it in the middle of a campaign and a whole other to actually add states to the Union because, mainly, you think they will help you electorally.

A second issue is the matter of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA). For those that may not know it, PROMESA states the criteria by which the Fiscal Oversight Board the law creates would cease it works and disband. The law states that:

(Sec. 209) The board terminates when it certifies that: (1) the territorial government has adequate access to short- and long- term credit markets at reasonable rates to meet its borrowing needs; and (2) for at least four consecutive years, the government has developed its budgets using modified accrual accounting standards and has achieved balanced budgets.

Puerto Rico is subject to PROMESA due to our territorial status under the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution. A state cannot be subject to a PROMESA like law (U.S. cities can be subject to fiscal boards) so if Puerto Rico were to become a state either, and this is me speculating, PROMESA would need to be repealed and the U.S. government would need to assume the 74 billion dollar debt or Puerto Rico would need to be admitted in some kind of "delayed" admission protocol in which PR would only become a state after complying with PROMESA's criterions. And just to be clear, Puerto Rico has not serviced (paid) its debt since at least 2016. PROMESA provides for an orderly restructuring of its debt but that process is still ongoing. We aren't close to achieve the criteria under PROMESA for the fiscal board oversight to end and it will probably take a decade to get there.

74 billion is peanuts in the grand scheme of things regarding money in the federal government, but absorbing the debt as matter of principle and as a practical matter would not seat well with some Democrat's stakeholders (not to speak of Republicans). Moderates, independents and the public in general isn't likely to approve of paying someone else's debt or the lack of accountability. As a practical matter, some states might ask themselves to be bailed out, like Illinois. If a Democratic Congress passed a law for some kind of "delayed" admission by definition if Republicans came to power they could amend or repealed said law in the future.

As for myself, I will be voting YES on the plebiscite in favor of statehood for Puerto Rico.

I hope these blog posts have helped Gamespot users to understand the current political situation in Puerto Rico.

Earlier this year I began writing a blog post about Puerto Rico and its political status. I intended to release the blog just before the 2020 Democratic primaries in Puerto Rico. The primary was scheduled for March 29, 2020 but after the COVID-19 pandemic hit and all that entailed it was obvious that the primary would be rescheduled and the blog didn't seem as important anymore. I knew that eventually I would finish the blog since I had spent so many hours on it so here it is.

The content from this blog is a combination of my own views and knowledge of Puerto Rican politics (as a Puerto Rican born and raised in the Island and still living here), news articles & other sources, Wikipedia (because they are never wrong) and a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report by R. Sam Garrett, titled: Political Status of Puerto Rico: Brief Background and Recent Developments for Congress.

A Brief History of Politics In Puerto Rico Since 1898

The most important detail to understand about politics in Puerto Rico is that the foundational organizing principle of the 3 main traditional parties is the political status they support for the Island (Statehood, Independence or Status Quo) and not their political philosophy (Conservative - Liberal).

Puerto Rico has a First Past the Post Electoral System: whoever gets the most votes, whether that's a majority or a plurality, wins. It has a government composed of 3 branches: The Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial. It has a bicameral legislature divided in a House of Representatives and a Senate. In general, it works as any state government of the 50 states of the United States of America. Governor and legislature are elected to 4-year terms.

The 3 main parties are:

• New Progressive Party (NPP, PNP in Spanish): Favors statehood. Important to note that the word progressive here is not as it commonly used currently in US politics. Historically it has been a center-right party. Part of a de facto two-party system with the PDP.
• Popular Democratic Party (PDP, PPD in Spanish): Favors status quo. The oldest party, from 1948 to 1964 it won the governorship and legislative majorities but it has been severely debilitated in the last 20 years.
• Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP): Favors independence. This is by far the smallest of the 3 main parties. Since the year 2000, the party's total percentage of votes for the governor's race is:
• • • • 2000: 5.0%
      • 2004: 2.7%
      • 2008: 2.0%
      • 2012: 2.5%
      • 2016: 2.1%

Puerto Rico is a colony of the Empire of the United States of America since 1898. "When the United States defeated Spain in the Spanish-American War (1898), the United States acquired Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines from Spain via the Treaty of Paris" (1).

"Puerto Rico is a U.S. territory subject to congressional authority derived from the Territory Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Territory Clause grants Congress ""Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States."" (1)

"The U.S. military briefly administered the island until Congress established a civilian government in 1900" (1). The Foraker Act also established the Resident Commissioner position to represent island interests in Washington. These duties came to include nonvoting service in the U.S. House of Representatives (the primary role of the Resident Commissioner today)."(1)

In 1917, the U.S. granted, via a law passed by Congress, U.S. citizenship to those born in the Island.

In 1952, after an effort from the World Powers to recognized the free determination of their colonial possessions, the U.S. created the Estado Libre Asociado (ELA), literal translation: Free Associated State or the practical translation: commonwealth. In a constitutional assembly Puerto Ricans redacted a constitution, this constitution was approved by the U.S. Congress and henceforth the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or ELA was created. This was important for the U.S. as a "showcase" of what could be accomplished in the Caribbean under the umbrella of the U.S. government. Puerto Rico would acquire importance as a "counterbalance" and contrast in the Caribbean to the communist government of Fidel Castro in Cuba during the Cold War (1945-1991).

The commonwealth or Estado Libre Asociado (ELA) is the current political status of Puerto Rico, the status quo. A colonial status.

Aside from some specific taxes, like Social Security, Puerto Ricans don't pay federal taxes in most cases. U.S. citizens living in Puerto Rico can't vote for any federal office with the exception of 1 non-voting delegate to the U.S. Congress. This no-voting delegate is known as the Resident Commissioner.

Due to the fact that the foundational organizing principle for the parties is the political status they support for the Island (Statehood, Independence or Status Quo) Republicans living in Puerto Rico (by which I mean members of Grand Old Party of the U.S. living in PR, not small r republicans) are members of the New Progressive Party. Republicans living in Puerto Rico nearly unanimously support statehood for PR thus they support the only statehood party in PR, the NPP. This might seem obvious but I state it since it is essential to understand politics in Puerto Rico. The GOP platform has supported statehood for Puerto Rico, if Puerto Ricans so choose to become a state, since at least 2000. Both President Reagan and President HW Bush supported statehood for Puerto Rico.

Democrats living in PR who support statehood for PR are also members of the NPP. Yep, imagine a mainland party which members included both Republicans and Democrats, well, that's the NPP. For example, in 2016 Puerto Ricans elected a Democratic governor and a Republican Resident Commissioner. This also means that there is an inherent internal instability to the party since members of a broad ideological spectrum reside in the same party. Let me tell you, public policy isn't very coherent in Puerto Rico. Democrats in the NPP tend to be moderates, there are few "progressives" in the NPP and not many I can think of in actual elective office. Republicans in PR are mostly cultural conservatives (evangelicals) and not fiscal conservatives.

Let me now describe the Puerto Rican Independence Party (PIP). Ideologically they range from social democrats to communists. Many of them like to think of themselves, and actually tend to be more so than the general public, as intellectuals. Do to many factors, of which probably the most important is their previous historical persecution by the PDP (Gag Law of 1948) and the US government (COINTELPRO) their support has never been above 19% (1952) and has not surpassed the 10% threshold since 1956 (12.4%).

It is important to understand that there are many strains of independence thought in Puerto Rico. For a long time there were a limited number of Puerto Ricans that believed in an armed struggle for the liberation of PR. There was a revolt from members of the National Party in 1950. The was an attack on the US Congress by members of the Nationalist Party in 1954 in which 5 congressmen were injured. There was also the "Los Macheteros" group or Boricua Popular Army which did bombings against government structures (trying to avoid civilians). Such groups are pretty much none existent in today's day and age.

While these attacks and revolts are relatively recent, they seem like ancient history to me. I'm a relatively "old" millennial (1981-1996) and I have never witnessed any attacks, of felt under siege or anything of the sort. After the federal authorities clamped down on these armed groups, they have never re-surged back. Unlike the Nationalist Party (which exist mostly in name only) the PIP exists explicitly as an electoral movement which seeks to achieve independence for PR by civil means within the Puerto Rican electoral system. This is important because there still certainly exists a strain of independence that considers the US presence in PR as illegitimate (since 1898) and hence doesn't recognize the electoral process as a legitimate mean to achieve PR's independence from the "occupiers". This is part of a group of individuals who also doesn't participates in, or boycotts the electoral process as a whole.

Finally, there is the Popular Democratic Party (PDP). After 1952 and with the political status issue "resolved" (according to them), the PDP styled themselves as a liberal/social democratic party for which the only thing left was to provide good administration of the Puerto Rican government. From 1948 to 1964 the PDP won every governors election and had legislative majorities in both houses, this under the leadership of the most important Puerto Rican political figure of the 20th century, Luis Muñoz Marín (also one of the founders of the PDP, architect of 1952 constitution and the ELA). After a split going into the 1968 elections, for the first time in our history a party other than the PDP won the elections (NPP) and the 2 party system came to life. Since 1968 the governorship has gone like this:

• 1968: New Progressive Party
• 1972: Popular Democratic Party
• 1976: New Progressive Party
• 1980: New Progressive Party
• 1984: Popular Democratic Party
• 1988: Popular Democratic Party
• 1992: New Progressive Party
• 1996: New Progressive Party
• 2000: Popular Democratic Party
• 2004: Popular Democratic Party
• 2008: New Progressive Party
• 2012: Popular Democratic Party
• 2016: New Progressive Party

For the 2020 election two new parties have been created. Movimiento Victoria Ciudadana (Citizens' Victory Movement), a left wing, social democratic party running on an anti-corruption platform and to end the current colonial status (via statehood or independence, it is nominally neutral). The other new party is Proyecto Dignidad (Project Dignity). PD is running on a social conservative platform and they don't support any political status solution (statehood/independence), which means by default that they support the status quo.

Throughout the years, and as things have gotten worse, the credibility of the ELA or Commonwealth has been catastrophically eroded and by consequence the credibility of the party who defends it (PDP). The commonwealth is the "resting state", you do nothing, we remain in it by default. GDP Annual Growth Rate in Puerto Rico averaged 3.52 percent from 1961 until 2017, reaching an all-time high of 13.80 percent in 1971. Aside from one blip in 2012 PR has been in an economic recession since 2006:

The economic malaise has eroded confidence in the foundational structure of our government of ELA under the Territorial Clause of the U.S. constitution. But the coup d'état to the ELA in the mind of the average Puerto Rican came in a recent two-punch blow.

First, in a Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) case decided on June 9th, 2016 known as Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle. It goes like this, in the U.S. you have the double jeopardy clause, which states that you can't be tried for the same offense twice, with one of the exceptions being the dual sovereignty doctrine. The dual sovereignty doctrine allows both federal and state prosecution of the same crime since the governments (state and federal) are "separate sovereigns". For example an individual can be prosecuted under both state and then federal laws for possessing a gun while being a felon.

In a 6-2 decision, the Court affirmed that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars Puerto Rico and the United States from successively prosecuting the same person for the same conduct under equivalent criminal laws.

According to this 6-2 decision, because the power of the Puerto Rican government, by way of its 1952 constitution, is derived from a law passed by Congress, known as the Federal Relations Act (as provided by the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution), it was determined that the dual sovereignty doctrine didn't apply to Puerto Rico. This laid bare the lie that Puerto Rico had achieved sovereignty by virtue of the ELA as the PDP claimed. It was a slap to the face of those that still believed in the ELA fairy tale.

The second and absolute destruction and obliteration of any kind of Puerto Rican political sovereignty came in the 30th of June 2016 via the passing of the Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act (PROMESA) by Congress (again, as provided by the Territorial Clause of the U.S. Constitution). PROMESA is the law that established a financial oversight board and a process for restructuring PR's debt after it was obvious PR wouldn't be able to service its debt from 2016 onward. Sovereigns states, like any of the 50 states in the U.S. Federation, can't be put under a financial oversight board, but territories or colonies can. The fiction was over, the defeat was total for those that still dare to argue in favor of the ELA after the Sanchez Valle decision.

In September 20th, 2017 Hurricane María made landfall in Puerto Rico with a devastating human, economic and structural toll.

Now, don't be mistaken, it was obvious to a large segment of the population that PR still remained a territory/colony of the U.S. even after the 1952 Puerto Rican constitution but the PDP was, and still is, a big part of the problem. For a time, if you feel like being charitable (I do not), you might say that the ELA structure worked well. But by the 1970's the cracks were starting to show and the PR government started emitting debt to cover an ever-bloated annual budget. As they said locally, we drove a Ferrari when we could only afford a Corolla. Taking on ever more debt seemed to work, at least a while, but eventually the piper needed to be paid and we couldn't.

On July 24th, 2019 Governor Ricardo "Ricky" Rosselló (D) announced he would resign. His resignation became official in August 2nd, 2019. He resign after a conflagration of events, including an FBI arrest of a cabinet member on corruption charges, the leak of controversial Telegram chat among his most closest advisers and the biggest mass protests since 2000.

On November 3rd, along with our general election for governor and legislature, Puerto Ricans will be voting on their 7th plebiscite/referendum since 1952 regarding our political status. I will discuss this 2020 plebiscite in part II of this blog.

Needless to say that it is probably that some (all?) of these movies that were scheduled to be released in 2020 are subject to change due to the devastatingly nature of the COVID-19 pandemic on all aspect of every day life.

With that said, these are the 2020 Power Ranking:

1. Mank
2. Tenet
3. Dune
4. The Trial of the Chicago 7
5. Those Who Wish Me Dead

• Mank: Directed by the great David Fincher, from a screenplay by his father Jack Fincher, according to IMDb it "follows screenwriter Herman J. Mankiewicz's tumultuous development of Orson Welles' iconic masterpiece Citizen Kane (1941)". Do I need to say anymore? This is Fincher's first feature film since 2014's Gone Girl (he kept busy in the meantime on TV with the enthralling Mindhunter). You shouldn't expect a "straight" biopic but more in the lines of The Social Network.
• Tenet: Christoper Nolan's next film, that's all I need to know. Nolan means high quality. Heard it is something about dream robbers/ time travelers or something of the sort, who knows? Watched the first 30 second of the trailers but decided I don't want to know anything about this movie, it isn't necessary. This is Nolan's 2nd appearance in the Power Rankings (Dunkirk, 2017).
• Dune: From director Denis Villeneuve (Sicario, Arrival and Blade Runner 2049) and co-writing with Eric Roth (Forrest Gump & The Insider) and Jon Spaihts (Prometheus) comes the 2nd adaption of the Dune material. Villeneuve is one of my favorite directors working right know and has been highly successful in the science-fiction arena (working with different writers) so he is qualified to tackle what has already proven to be material difficult to adapt. This is Villeneuve's 2nd appearance in the Power Rankings (Sicario, 2015).
• The Trial of the Chicago 7: from word-scribe Aaron Sorkin, the writer of some of my all time favorite scripts (A Few Good Men, The Social Network, Moneyball and Steve Jobs) and the director of that awful Molly's Game movie (also Aaron Sorkin) comes his 2nd crack in the director's chair. The plot according to IMDb: "The story of 7 people on trial stemming from various charges surrounding the uprising at the 1968 Democratic National Convention". I see the words trial in that description and the subject matter is political in nature, I rest my case.
• Those Who Wish Me Dead: from my newest favorite scribe Taylor Sheridan (Sicario & Hell or High Water) comes (see if you can find the pattern) his 2nd effort as a director (Wind River) for a movie that I don't intend to read the plot description but I can expect people dying and guns cocking. This is Sheridan's 3rd appearance in the Power Rankings (Sicario, 2015; Wind River, 2017).

Honorable Mentions:

• Nightmare Alley: from director Guillermo del Toro and co-writer Kim Morgan comes the 2nd adaption of a novel by William Lindsay Gresham. IMDb describes it as a drama/mystery/thriller (my body is ready). The cast reunites the lovely duo of Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara (Carol) and includes the scorching hot Bradley Cooper (do I mean his talent for picking good projects or his looks? You decide.), Toni Collette, Willem Dafoe, Mary Steenburgen, Ron Perlman, Holt McCallany, David Strathairn and Richard Jenkins. The film is currently described as "filming" which we know ain't true with social distancing around the world so the movie may be pushed back to 2021.

Some observations:

The Streak continues: In each year only 1 out of the top 5 has been rated 7 or better (no film has actually been rated higher than 7). The #1 film in the Rankings has never been the highest rated movie for any year (highest has been Once Upon A Time In Hollywood... which was #2 in the 2019 Power Rankings).

Now Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker holds the dubious distinction of being the lowest rated film (4 out of 10) to ever be part of the Power Rankings.

• Power Ranking' movies I have seen at the theater:
  • 2015: Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Spectre and Sicario.
  • 2016: The Accountant and Rogue One.
  • 2017: Star Wars: The Last Jedi.
  • 2018: None.
  • 2019: None.
  • 2020: Probably none and it has nothing to do with social distancing or COVID-19. As stated before, I just don't enjoy going to the movies anymore.

1) Grand Theft Auto: Vice City: The greatest of them all. Probably the best dialogue in terms writing and voice acting that I have ever seen in a video game. Look at the cast, look at the cast! It is unbelievable. The storyline is also pretty straight forward, just a mash of some 80's, early 90's crime movies/TV series, Scarface, Carlito's Way and of course, Miami Vice (among many others). This element, the dialogue, writing, and voice acting is also a strong suit of GTA III.

Just a lot of fun to play and highly underrated thanks to its simplicity. I simply love missions like: pick up person X and drive them to place Y. Snipe person X. Go steal X's car. Go steal X's car, rig it with a bomb and place it right back. Today a day some GTA's missions can be unnecessarily complicated. Again, this is also a strong suit of GTA III.

Always felt the map needed to be 5 to 10% bigger and it would have been perfect.

Also, let me not end this without talking about the fabulous soundtrack and the excellent radio dialogue. To this day, I can just sit and listen to Pressing Issues. It remains, for my money, the best and funniest radio dialogue that has ever been recorded for a GTA game. It is the pinnacle.

2) Grand Theft Auto III: The (3D) one that started it all. My relation with GTA III is funny; I an Xbox owner so we didn't got the GTA series until the famous GTA Double Pack release. I knew Vice City was the most recent iteration and that if I started playing it before III that it would be a long long time before I ever got to it so I decided to "force" myself to play III before City for as long as I could. Well, good job by me! It showed me III's dialogue and mission design were just as good as City's (or at least as good as a predecessor can be with the inherent advantages that a sequel has on to which build upon).

Again, look at the cast. Listen to the radio talk shows. The combination of play and dialogue/narrative remains as a clear number 2 for me. The first two remain clearly as the top 2 (San Andreas, as part of the "original trilogy" is clearly a step below) in terms of actors and voice acting. It is truly a treat and top notch.

On the downside I would point out to the game breaking my heart with the mafia Don betraying me (I thought the game would be all about the mafia) and the fact that after you end the game you couldn't freely roam through some sections of the game (close to the Don's mansion, close the Yardies stronghold). This would be a persistent blight on an otherwise stellar series.

3) Grand Theft Auto V: I'll admit it, I thought I wouldn't like the 3 character system and that it was a unnecessary gimmick (I still believe that part). It was no problem, it allowed the game to explore 3 different characters while intertwining their stories cleverly for different points of view in a mission. It is difficult to compare a game of this scope and magnitude to the early ones, it is almost unfair. Better graphics, more cars, more mini games, more variety in type of missions, planes, boats, submarine, bikes, hunting. The heist storyline/design is taken right out of perhaps my favorite movie of all time (Heat) so that's always a plus.

The best "mature" dialogue of the series thus far it makes me long for the more arcaey, satirical, not taking itself so seriously storyline of the first 2 3D entries (see what I did there?).

On the downside, the game tried to fix the "NPC will continue to hassle you by calling and leaving you messages even after you complete the game" but not entirely in a satisfying manner. The game still pops up with tasks every 20 minutes or so that you feel like you have to attend to (like "so and so gang is attacking your bar" or whatever, "we need you to come"). No, don't need me to come back to anything you silly game, when I finish the game I just want to roam around without anyone annoying me. Which is also a problem ironically, once you finish the game, there is really not much else to do in terms of mini-games or the like. Like, I can only drag cars out of railways so many times before it becomes stale.

4) Grand Theft Auto IV: A tale of 2 games, basically one of my fondest memories from this game is realizing right away that it had fixed everything that I hated about San Andreas. It is the first of the more "grounded" style gameplay, less arcaey and more "mature" or more "adult oriented" tone.

A highlight of the game is the 2 DLC's packs: specially The Ballad of Gay Tony with the Lost and Dammed being a worthy addition too. Loved to just go around and complete the parachute mini-games over and over and over again.

On the downside I would point out to the dreaded constant calls/messages from NPC's after you complete the game which you had to accept a task and then call them back to say you couldn't complete said tasks because if you simply ignored the call you lost some "friendy" thingy points that I don't remember. Also felt that the storyline was a little bit too dramatic with the wedding and whatever.

Important to point that this is was where Rockstar starting to use B and C level voice actors instead of AAA voice actors which is a loss for all of us. It isn't that the voice acting in IV and V is bad, it is that in III and Vice City is spectacular.

5) Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas: I will summarize my main problems with the game. It is a 2 prong problem which end up compounding themselves.

First: I felt the map was big for the sake of being big. It is like the developers went like "oh, we have all this new disk space, lets make the game as big as we can!" for no rhyme or reason. Clear case of just because you can it doesn't mean that you should.

Second: the controls/ camera. It was a close mess, they changed them so you could drive-by shoot but in the process they nearly broke them.

So in the end I'm left driving I don't know how many miles for one mission that started all the way in one spot of the map while doing it with fucking crappy controls and I wanted to throw the control through my TV. It was such a frustrating experience. I think I still have nightmares about it.

Which is a shame because the game had so many things going for it: a kind of Boyz n the Hood storyline, still a some good voice actors (albeit not as much as in the previous 2) including Samuel L. Jackson, the game is still funny as hell (Loc was hilarious), the beginning of car modification in the GTA series, the dancing mini-game, the introduction of parachuting!, the introduction of being able to complete some missions with a stealthy approach, finally learning to swim!, and probably the most "weighty" flying gameplay up to that date and arguably the best of the series (I'm talking specifically about the jet).

On the downside I didn't like the whole you have to go the gym to learn how to fight/get pumped mini-game. Too much time wasted on that, it wasn't permanent (you had to keep doing it) and some of it wasn't fun (too much button mashing).

I also felt that the connection to the previous game, while good (they chose to bring back the best possible character: Rosenberg) I felt it came too late in the game. By the end of the game I was zombie playing wanting it to be over and just doing it because I wanted to be able to say that at least I had finished the game. It wasn't a good experience and it stands alone with the dubious distinction of being the only GTA that I haven't finished 100% (looking for all the packages etc.).

Wikipedia summarized well my first point about San Andreas and IV:

Although smaller than San Andreas, the main setting for Grand Theft Auto IV's predecessor Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas, Liberty City is comparable to it in terms of scope when "the level of verticality of the city, the number of buildings you can go into, and the level of detail in those buildings" are taken into account.^[53] The goal for Liberty City was to have no dead spots or irrelevant spaces, such as the wide open deserts in San Andreas.^[44]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Theft_Auto_IV#Production

In boxing the "lineal" champion is defined very easily: the guy who beats The Guy. What does that mean? Imagine whoever won the Heavyweight Championship for the first time in history. Then someone beat him and became the new champion. Then someone else beat the new champion to become yet another champion and on and on and on until today.

This is a simplification, at least one heavyweight champion retired undefeated (Rocky Marciano) but you get the gist of it. I have for a long time applied that concept to the movies I have rated. Why? What do you mean by why? Because it is fun! It is silly but I like to have fun with the concept.

So my lineal champion for movies, how do I define it? I define the lineal movie champion as the last movie that I have rated 8 or above. That would make the current movie champion:Field of Dreams with an 8 out of 10 rated on November 21st, 2018.

Why movies 8 and above? I feel 7 and above would be too expansive of a definition, I have rated 542 movies a 7, not 7 and above, but just 7! In total I have 694 films rated 7 or above on a 1 to 10 scale. I think the lineal champion should feel special, and 694 films are just too much.

Ok, so why not just films rated 9 and above or just 10's? Because that would be too restrictive, let me show you. I have 45 movie rated 9 or 10, 16 10's and 29 9's. At first glance this might seem like a nice number for this subset to be "my champions" but the problem is twofold.

First, today a day, I just don't seem to rate movies 8 or above, heck I rarely even rate movies a 7. 8's, 9's, and 10's are in such a premium that we would rarely see any turnover at the top. Take a look: In the year 2007, which is for practical effect the year I started rating movies in IMDb, I rated 53 films 8 or above out of 145 movies that I rated in 2007. That's a staggering 37% of the current total of my 8 and above ratings.

*(The Godfather was the 1st film I rated in IMDb and it was the only film I rated in 2006).

Needless to say that if I subtract the 8's the percentages are even dire.

The 2nd problem is that while I have rated a total of 152 films 8 or above the reality is that many of those films, if I were to rate them again wouldn't stay in the 8 or above bracket. Which makes sense, I still see a healthy amount of movies each year but the percentage of the 8 or above group keeps dwindling, that's a product of a more refined palate (snob alert!) and discriminating taste.

My journey to re-rate films that have suspect ratings (in today's context) will be the subject of another blog but needless to say that it is an incredibly painstaking process to complete since to complete said process I have to abide by the most important rule of them all: I can only rate (or re-rate in this case) a movie if I see it (or re-watch it).

This re-rating problem is also related (and worthy of another blog) to the "Original Sin" problem. In short: when I first opened my IMDb account and started rating movies I tended to rate movies that I had "seen" before but had not watched recently in some cases in batches which is the natural impulse. Basically you start rating movies that you have seen left and right which isn't the same exercise as sitting down, going through the experience of watching a movie, thinking about it and then rating it. When you rate movies that you watched months ago or even years ago those ratings tend to be more unmoored in reality and more on how good you "remember" a film being. Memory can be a fuzzy thing, and that, mixed with the fact that I'm simply a much more tougher rater nowadays means older ratings a less representative of my current thinking and taste than the more recent ratings (so always keep that in mind).

With all that said, how does the Lineal Champion list actually looks?

In my next blog I will be probably discuss the more interesting concept of the Contemporary Champion or the concept of the Crisis of Infinite Films.

Here is a column by R. Elisabeth Cornwell discusses how can an atheist celebrate Christmas:

https://www.richarddawkins.net/2012/12/a-very-atheist-christmas/

A very atheist Christmas

When people find out I’m an atheist, the question often comes up about what I do during the Christmas holidays. There is an assumption that atheists don’t ‘do Christmas,’ so they are surprised when I say how much I love it.

Most atheists grew up in religious households, and most of us grew up with celebrating religious holidays. We have childhood memories of Christmas or Hanukkah, family meals, holiday cheer and the quirkiness of our relatives. While we might make noise when religion attempts to break through the wall of the separation of church and state, we are not in the habit of kicking Santa in the shins, tearing down creches, or, like the Grinch, stealing the Christmas stockings from the mantle. I admit I have known atheists who grow quite surly and Scrooge-like at any suggestion of Christmas merriment. But historically most of that sort of opposition to Christmas and its symbols has come not from atheists at all, but from rival religions. Most of the the atheists I know revel in the season as a way of celebrating family and friends, which really is the modern meaning of Christmas.

Some Christians have accused me of being hypocritical for celebrating a Christian holiday. However – and perhaps this is from my background in anthropology – celebrations are a natural part of human culture, and Christians simply appropriated local celebrations to suit their own peculiar beliefs. Christmas is only ‘Christian’ because ancient winter pagan celebrations were incorporated by the Church.

The Christmas tree, which became a part of English and American tradition through German influence is a recent tradition. The English took on the German tradition of the Christmas Tree during the Victorian era under the influence of Prince Albert. Americans, on the other hand, were likely influenced by the Prussians during the American Revolution as well as the many German immigrants who came to the fledgling nation. But evergreens have been part of human celebrations at least as far back as the Egyptians as a symbol of the triumph of life over death. In pre-Christian Britain, the druids placed evergreens outside their door to symbolize the coming of spring. Christians adopted the symbolism so readily that they use palm leaves to celebrate the ‘triumph’ of Christ’s rise from the tomb at Easter, and then use those same palms as ashes to mark the cross on the forehead of Catholics throughout the world to signify the beginning of Lent the following year.

Feasts have been part of human culture since long before we worshipped a monotheistic god. It is a deep-seated part of our social nature, and humans are arguably the most social animals on the planet. Eating together, breaking bread whilst telling stories about ancestors, about hunting, battles, and travels, were part of everyday life for successful tribes throughout human history.

Music too has its role in the universal human experience: singing, drumming, and dancing were part of the celebration – whatever particular gods or goddesses the people worshipped. Long dark winter nights would have lost their gloom with the warmth of a fire and voices raised in song. Worship has nothing to do with our love of music; it is in our genetic heritage – it is an intimate part of our social mind that induces bonding and fellowship.

Celebration is not owned by any one culture and especially not by any one religion. It is part of our humanity.

I was raised in a mainly Christian culture, and my traditions are influenced by a peculiar blend of American, Scottish and German heritage. Some traditions sprang up out of the circumstances of living in Los Angeles – we always had grilled hamburgers on Christmas Eve because it was warm enough and my mother wanted the kitchen to herself to prepare the Christmas feast. Now that my family live in Idaho they still maintain the same tradition, with my father often grilling as the snow falls, a long way from the 80 degree December days of my Southern California childhood. I do wonder if my young niece will carry on the tradition of Christmas Eve burgers (with green chilies) with her family – and what will she say when her children ask how the tradition came about.

Families and friends are what create the celebration of the season, and especially in the US where we come from every corner of the world, where cultures freely mix, and traditions ebb and flow. We can see how celebration is truly a human phenomenon, independent of religion. I feel no sense of hypocrisy because I enjoy the many threads of my familial past. Nor do I shy aware from singing the familiar and much loved Christmas songs that I sang for years in choir or at home. Silent Night still can bring a tear to my eye because it recalls memories of childhood. And my sister, niece and I will suddenly start singing ‘I Want a Hippopotamus for Christmas’ to set sail in a sea of laughter. Why should religious indignation take that from me? Celebration, despite their protests, does not belong solely to the pious.

Christmas is also a time to remember family and friends who are no longer with us. They stay with us in loving memory, and we celebrate how much richer our lives are because they were a part of us, shaping us, and making us better for knowing them. And so we hand down stories to our children of grandparents, aunts, uncles and others who they shall never know, but ought to know about. Such stories were told by our ancestors as far back as language has existed. Embellished with each new story teller – and after all only the best stories survived, so they had to be wonderfully repeatable tales. Thus legends of celebrations grew, of myths and magic, and of wonder. And yes, this too is a part of our cultural heritage for which we should be thankful.

Like many of my Christian friends, I am not overly fond of the commercialization of Christmas. I bristle at seeing decorations any time before Thanksgiving and this year I’ve been particularly annoyed with a car advert that has hijacked one of my favorite secular holiday songs. However, I let all that fall away and think about being with my family and spending time laughing, telling stories, and watching the joy of Christmas shine through the eyes of my niece Quincie.

Christmas belongs to anyone who wants it, and just because I gave up believing in a god doesn’t mean I gave up believing in the love and joy of family. I did not give up the joy of celebration with my abandonment of the absurd. So to my religious and non-religious friends, I wish them all a Merry Christmas or a Happy Hanukkah from the heart and I hope they take it with the true spirit with which I give it – that of the spirt of humanity – something we can all celebrate.

How do I decide which movies to watch?

At first glance that’s an easy enough question to answer, I watch whatever the hell I want. If the premise of a film interests me, I'll watch it. If a trailer peeks my interest, I'll watch it. If the film is by a director that has delivered before or includes an actor or actress with a proven record (according to me), I'll watch it. Simple enough, no? Yes, but let’s dig in more formally at the process of selection for the movies that end up in my screen, since, believe it or not, I do not watch everything and time is a finite resource (allegedly).

2006 seems like a pretty important year in terms of my relationship with the world of cinema. I created my Internet Movie Database (IMDb) account in July 2006. This is crucial because IMDb is where I keep score of which movies I have seen, roughly when I saw it (for movies seen after March 2007), and how high or low I have rated them. This, in a manner of speaking, is the foundational structure in which everything else is set up.

The first movie I ever rated was The Godfather, rated on December 14 2006. But it wouldn’t be until March 2^nd 2007 that I would rate my second film: Con Air. It was on March 2^nd 2007 in which, like many others have done before and after, that I went on a frenzy rating movie after movie. You know how it is, you get in a groove and decide that you are going to rate every movie you have ever seen as a matter of bookkeeping. The rest is history, IMDb became ground central to rate all the films that I had seen and for future reference to score any new film I would see afterwards.

All of this was part of an important transformation that was years in the making. This transformation literally modified the manner in which I would interact with films.

1) I decided I would watch films in their original language. English in English (remember English isn’t my native language), Spanish in Spanish, Japanese in Japanese and so on and so forth. This meant no more dubbing and a lot of subtitles but I felt dubbing just couldn’t capture the affect the actors conferred in their original language.

2) I decided I would not watch movies with commercial interruptions. This development cannot be overstated, this marked a before and after. This meant that basic cable and local channels, the medium that almost exclusively had delivered me with movies during my entire lifetime, was out from there on till the end of time. Out was the Rocky marathon during summer on TNT and the James Bond marathon on Spike and in was HBO and HDNet Movies. Out was content edited for time constrains and dubbing for cursing and in was Tuner Classic Movies' 31 Days of Oscar.

3) Finally, and more abstractly, I decided I would watch movies at my own pace. I would not wait for movies to be released in DVD, I would go to the theater. Television would not dictate the terms of engagement, hence alternative sources of procurement. Television would not limit the library of movies available to me, I was finally free. I would watch any film I wanted, when I wanted (generally speaking, ha).

But which movies to watch? There are roughly 100 years (give or take) worth of movies out there and not any real authoritative source to guide me on which films I should see first, where to start? I lie, there were lists, and I was just put off by what they said. In AFI's 100 Years...100 Stars list of the top 25 male greatest screen legends of American film history I barely recognized any of the actors on the list. Where was Al Pacino? Where was Jack Nicholson? Where was Robert De Niro? Ditto for the female list, I was as clueless as anyone can be. As for the lists of greatest films, I couldn’t shake the perception (my perception) that whoever compiled these lists seemed to have forgotten that they didn’t stopped making movies after the 1970’s. What is this Battleship Potemkin that everyone seems to talk about? Bicycle Thieves? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. And who the hell names their film after a number (8½)?

For years I simply and happily just wandered around and saw whatever my hearts desired. And then around 2013 one of my dreams came thru and I acquired my 50 inch 1080p Panasonic Plasma TV and I knew it was go time.

Enter IMDb’s Top 250. This a list of the top 250 films as rated by IMDb users. As an exercise let’s look at Top 250 list for January 1st 2014:

The list always seemed to me like the good blend of new and old films. You got your Seven Samurai (1954) and 12 Angry Men (1957) with your Goodfellas (1990) and The Dark Knight (2008). Meaning: a great pop culture relevant list. I had it made, I knew I would eventually get to Battleship Potemkin and 8½, but this was a good introduction to an eclectic group of films.

Like many before and after me, I decided that I would watch all the films in the Top 250 list.

Of course, there were some films from the list that I had already seen but I decided that I needed TO SEE them again, meaning without TV editing or dubbing etc. and I wanted to see them with fresh eyes in High Definition. For all others, I started collecting and procuring from different sources if they were available plus some of them I could catch on HBO, TCM, HDNet or other premium channels. It became clear there were some films I wasn’t immediately interested on so they would be part of “a second phase”.

It also became clear to me that I would watch the films not in the order they appeared in the list (1 through 250 or vice versa) but in chronological order according to their date of release. I preferred it this way because I wanted to get a sense for each era in cinema (Classical era, New Hollywood etc.) and experience the progression in techniques and filmmaking as they developed through the years. Plus it is easier to “get in the mood” to watch a handful of movies from the 1930’s than to watch one from 2005, then one from 1939 and then jump back to 1976.

Just as a note, the Top 250 lists aren’t statics, movies “enter” and “leave” the list. Many times you may see a just released film shoot up through the list just to slowly fall away as the months/years go by. That means that, if we take them by year, all the Top 250 are different and the one that I ultimately used (which I’m not sure if it is the list from 2012, 2013 or 2014) is different from the current one in 2019. I eventually intend to watch all the films in all the Top 250 lists but that will take some time.

Now, the Top 250 is more of a Historical project for me which goes hand in hand with a Contemporary side. Of course, I’m not only sitting watching the films on the 250 list and nothing else. Like everyone else I like watching the latest films, so that’s where you would see a change in pace for me. Not in the mood for some 1940’s black & white films?, let’s see the most recent offering from David Fincher or Martin Scorsese. This combination are the two pillars of my movie watching experience.

So at the same time I’m on two tracks: the Historical Top 250 lane and the Contemporary lane. Looking back at my IMDb ratings it seems I finally started to go through the Historical component in the 8^th of October 2014 with It Happened One Night (1934), The Wizard of Oz (1939) and Mr. Smith Goes To Washington (1939). This also coincides with a limited revival of seeing movies at the theater in 2014 (as seen on an earlier graph).

That’s how you arrived, for example, at a 15 movie streak of: Avengers: Endgame (2019), Patton (1970), McQueen (2018), Andre the Giant (2018), Mid90s (2018), Eight Grade (2018), Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018), The Last Picture Show (1971), The Mercy (2018), Boxcart Bertha (1972), Badlands (1973), The Sting (1973), Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore (1974), Barry Lyndon (1975) and The Omen (1976).

As of this writing, my number of items rated in IMDb stands at 1,458. Out of the 2013 Top 250 list I have seen 168 titles for a 67% of completion so far. I would think, with 82 movies left, plus the never ending Contemporary component and the TV series component which has gathered steam in the last 15 years of so, that it will take me at least 10 more years to complete the Top 250. Thankfully, so far, finding good quality copies of the films hasn’t been an issue.

Looking into the future, right now I’m at 1988 on the Historical tract and of course in 2019 in the Contemporary tract. It will be fun to see once the Historical side ends (2013) and the Contemporary side (at large) takes over after 2013. There are plenty of movies from 2014 onward that got left behind (because of lack of interest or simply lack of time) and which I intend to see before going back to start Phase 2 of the Historical tract.

Chronologically, Phase 2 will start significantly earlier than Phase 1 with: The Kid (1921), The Gold Rush (1925), The General (1926) and Metropolis (1927). Phase 2 has a much more European and international feel than Phase 1 with works from Fritz Lang, Andrei Tarkovsky, Akira Kurosawa and Ingmar Bergman prominently featured in the early part of the list.

I love movies, they can make you cry, laugh and dream. They let you escape from the monotony of everyday life. I hope to be able to continue to watch many films into the future and to finish the 2013 Top 250 IMDb list. After that, I look forward to completing all the Top 250 lists, seeing all the 4 star movies as rated by Roger Ebert, all the movies that have been nominated for Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and every movie that has been included in every Sight & Sound poll. So I guess what I’m saying is, let’s get on with it and lets watch some movies!