On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

One side of my family is Italian, so of course pasta was an important part of my upbringing and has become one of my favorite types of food. And because I have seen so much of it, I’ve formed opinions about what I like and what I don’t. This isn’t specific to one brand of pasta, or one type, but the shapes and forms pasta can take. Of course homemade pasta blows everything else out of the water (no pun intended), and may immediately qualify for “A” tier or better.

What makes one type of pasta better than another when they are made of the same thing and prepared appropriately? For there are three things. First, texture. Does the pasta have an appealing texture, or does it feel like I’m eating a slimy piece of plastic? Second, ease of use. How hard do I have to work to get this pasta (and its filling) in my mouth? Finally, the types of dishes it is associated with, and how it can be used. The more famous and more variety the better.

Below is my personal ranking of select pasta varieties. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Among my absolute favorite foods.

A = Classics, foundations to some excellent dishes.

B = A dinner I look forward to.

C = Edible.

D = I’ll eat them, but something is off.

F = Nope. Do better.

Elbows = Self explanatory and certainly deserves to be at the bottom.

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of these select pasta varieties:

Filled pastas are the best, especially when they are enclosed so the filling does not slide out when you try to lift it to your mouth. Furthermore, but ravioli and tortellini are very easy to prepare, and have a lot of excellent varieties of fillings. You can’t go wrong with these.

Penne is a classic pasta form. Many many dishes can use Penne, it is very versatile. It’s easy to stab with your fork, and the slightly crisp texture is pleasing. Fettuccini, another staple of many Italian dishes. For some reason, they don’t have spaghetti on this list, but I would rank it as an “A” along with fettuccini for the same reason. Gnocchi are great, same positives as the “S” tier picks, but less variety. Cavatappi is an excellent pasta form. Easy to eat and among my favorite textures of any dish.

Linguine and angel hair are lesser forms of fettuccini and spaghetti, respectively. Slightly less easy to eat, used less often. Farfalle has its positives, including a great texture and can be used in a variety of dishes, including soups and pasta salad. Unfortunately, its a little slippery and difficult to eat. Gemelli is like the child of cavatappi and penne. Good, but not as good as the originals.

Lasagna is a staple in Italian cuisine. But its also kind of limited and difficult to eat. You have to figure out how to cut it and then scoop it so the fillings don’t slide out. Medium shells are less famous, but slippery and have pockets that could be stuffed but there’s not really a reason to. They are kind of in no-man’s-land on the pasta spectrum. Orzo is great, but I view it more as a rice or side dish. Rotini are solid, and nothing against the tri-color. They can just be difficult to scoop up or stab with your fork, and can be delicate.

Ziti and ziti with lines are the same thing in my book. Bland, texture-less pasta that is hard to scoop off your plate. Ditalini is interesting, but its kind of like orzo where it is used as a compliment to something else in the dish, rather than the star itself. You also have to eat it with a spoon or you have no chance. Jumbo shells are not my favorite. Difficult to get the filling in, difficult to keep it in when you are eating it. Slimy and slippery texture.

Mini wheels (Rotelle) are not a classic shape when I think of fine Italian cuisine. They are more of a niche pick. That weighs them down more so than the texture or ease of eating, which both rank high in my book. Orecchiette - see my issues with shell shaped pasta - same problems, but worse. Manicotti are a common food, but it is impossible to eat or move them without losing filling. If you want cheese in your pasta, see the “S” tier.

Finally, elbows. Not necessarily terrible, but can be more difficult to eat. Its position at the bottom has more to do with its reputation. It is limited in where it can be used, and is associated with kids food (mac n’ cheese) more than fine dining.

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

The 98th Annual Academy Awards will be held this Sunday March 15th, 2026. I will post my Oscar predictions later this week, but thought I would first start with something a little more personal. You see, Oscar wins are not always just about the quality of the film. You have to consider the film’s competition, the politics of the moment, and hype surrounding the nominee. What constitutes a “worthy winner” is a complicated proposition, and unfortunately, it doesn’t always boil down to which one is the best (even if best is subject to personal perspective). So, for this post I thought I’d rank the Best Picture nominees NOT by which ones I think are most likely or deserving to win, but by how much I enjoyed them.

Below is my personal ranking of this year’s Best Picture nominees for the Academy Awards. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

SSS = Oscar front-runners if I had my way

S = In my top 5 films of the year

A = Very good films, appropriately placed in the “Best Picture” category, but not my favorite.

B = Good films, but I don’t think they are worthy of “Best Picture” nomination.

C = Fun movie, happy to be here, but widely agreed upon not deserving it.

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of the 2026 Oscars Best Picture films:

(I didn’t make this template, so don’t get mad about the “SSS” tier. At least they skipped the double “s” tier…”)

One Battle After Another is a thrilling not just because of the high-stakes conspiracy-laden plot, but because it brings us a modern setting to a Paul Thomas Anderson picture. Maybe it is not as artistic as some of his earlier films, but it is nonetheless an impressive production with incredible acting and interesting story. I can say the same thing for Marty Supreme, which was my favorite film of the year. I don’t really have any complaints about either.

Hamlet is an incredible film. Very emotional, well-acted, and the cinematography is breathtaking. I would not be upset about it winning best picture. I put it on a lower tier just because it is a more simplistic film compared to others in this year’s race. Sinners is also an impressive achievement. I love the blending of genres without relying on cliches, and the film’s setting. It’s just a bit messy compared to the higher ranked films.

The Secret Agent is a great film. Full of color and character, it capitalizes on the paranoia/conspiracy theme that seems to be popular with this year’s nominees. But it is also long and takes a while to get where it needs to be. Train Dreams happens to be similar to Hamlet in its simplistic approach, but is more solemn and introspective. It discusses the impact of loss on mental health, and is a very sad film for this reason. I just wish it has something a little more to give us. Sentimental Value is also a very emotional film, this one dealing with mental health and growing older. I thought it was beautifully made and incredibly well-acted, but didn’t stand out to me as much as some of the others.

I am a huge fan of both Guillermo del Toro and Yorgos Lanthimos. But unfortunately, these are not their best films. Frankenstein feels somewhat convoluted in its narrative structure. I think because the story is so familiar, they tried to present it in a way that was more authentic to the original story. But in doing so, it needed to have more depth of character in the middle section, rather than just rely on the legacy of the story itself. Bugonia is fun. Jesse Plemons perhaps deserved a nomination. The ending is great. But it feels like a film that Lanthimos didn’t write - it just didn’t really match with his strengths as director.

Finally, we have F1. I really enjoyed F1, as a summer blockbuster. It was Kasinski’s follow-up to the very-excellent Top Gun Maverick. But if Maverick was a “100%” on the scale of blockbuster awesomeness, F1 is a 85%. Still great. Still one of my favorite films of the year, and a very enjoyable watch despite Brad Pitt’s involvement. But is it the best picture of the entire year? No.

How would you rank this year’s 2026 Best Picture contenders? Make your own tier list with this link: https://tiermaker.com/create/2026-oscars---best-pic-nominees-17205085

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

There was a time when Steven Spielberg represented the pinnacle of quality cinema in Hollywood, and therefore the world. As a member of the “New Hollywood” movement in the 70’s, he brought forth a new era of cinema that is still going strong today: the blockbuster. And, maybe more importantly than that singular achievement, he made films that found very widespread appeal (and therefore, box office success).

What may be just as impressive is how he has managed to stay near to the top of his game for nearly all of his career. Look at the filmographies of some other “top” filmmakers and you will typically see a rise and fall as they are embraced by cinephiles and then cast aside when the freshness of their voice wears off, they fail to find commercial footing, or work less consistently.

Steven Spielberg has never really had that problem. Sure, all his films aren’t great (although I would argue he has only made 1 bad film), and he is not representative of the high-caliber Hollywood star as he had once been. But he has remained an important, consistent, and extremely proficient contributor to cinema in both commercial success and critical appraisal. For this reason, and the fact that his newest film Close Encounters of a Third Kind 2 Disclosure Day is on its way to theaters this summer, I try to rank his films.

Below is my personal ranking of all Steven Spielberg’s feature films. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Among the best films ever made.

A = High quality, Oscar-worthy films.

B = Impressive film, if it was in the filmography of anyone else it may be the best film they ever made.

C = An average Spielberg film, still fun or emotionally compelling, just not as good or memorable as higher ranked films

D = You could consider these as bad movies, but they are still fun to watch once.

F = The only bad Spielberg movie.

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of Steven Spielberg’s feature films:

Does any other living filmmaker have as many films that can easily be classified as “S-Tier”? These are the films that I grew up on, they made cinemas enjoyable, and inspired my interest in film. All of these films were hugely influential on the industry, and the fact that they are from different genres and eras but from the same filmmaker speaks volumes on Spielberg’s talent as one of the greatest of all time.

Don’t sleep on these A-tier films. They won OSCARS! The only reason they aren’t ranked higher is I personally don’t enjoy watching them as much as the S-Tier movies. But you honestly have a valid claim if you want to elevate some of these. Really, what other filmmaker has a film that is not in the top five of his filmography but has won Best Picture?

My B-tier selections feel like lesser versions of the A-tier selections. These are still very highly acclaimed movies. They were nominated and won many Oscars. Most other filmmakers spend their entire careers without being able to achieve this level of competent moviemaking. For me personally they just don’t move the needle as much, even though I personally enjoyed all of them.

The C-tier selections are full of ambitious films, but they just didn’t really connect with audiences as much as some of Spielberg’s other films. Again, you have Oscar contenders and winners - but they are all less accomplished than the higher selections. That being said, there are still no bad movies in this tier. In fact, I would call all of them good, but not great.

The D-tier is where things get interesting. The Terminal is a fun concept, but sort of boring and safe for Spielberg, and didn’t really come together in a compelling way. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was in many ways a huge misstep, perhaps the biggest in Spielberg’s career. But it still is enjoyable, as long as you don’t compare it to the other Indiana Jones Films. Hook, is really in the same category. Swings for the blockbuster fences, but misses badly. These films HAVE potential, but even Spielberg struggled to convey it.

Finally, we have 1941. Easily Spielberg’s worst film. But I will give him a pass for it. He was young when he made it, and the success of the films immediately preceding it did grant him the freedom to experiment. It’s just a really strange movie for him, going from commercial blockbusters to a campy comedy.

How would you rank Spielberg’s films? Let me know in the comments!

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

I’ve been thinking about the Honda Civic lately. Not because I own one, or have ever owned one, but because of how much of an enigma it is in the automotive landscape. Like its older brother the Honda Accord, the Ford F-150, BMW 3 Series, and maybe the Toyota Camry, there are really no other cars that have had as long a run with such universal high praise. Not only did Honda literally break the automobile industry with the introduction of the original Civic, but they kept hitting it out of the park on successive generations despite heavy competition.

While it’s hard to fathom today, there was a time when the Honda Civic was the bread and butter of the automotive kingdom. It was the compact CUV of the 1980’s and 1990’s. They were everywhere, and every competitor had one to try and compete. But, even Toyota couldn’t really get the formula right. Honda Civics were basic transportation, don’t get me wrong, but they somehow elevated that proposition. They weren’t cheap for the sake of being cheap. They were brink-truck reliability on a shoestring budget, in a sophisticated wrapper that continuously set the tone.

And even in the wake of the SUV craze and the general move away from compact cars, the Honda Civics of today are very impressive cars. Unlike almost every other carmaker who has given up on them, Honda still puts a lot of effort into the Honda Civic to make it the best that it can be. And even if you aren’t in the market for one, that has to at least make you appreciate what it is and what it has been.

Below is my personal ranking of all eleven Honda Civic generations. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Among the best cars ever made - icons of a generation.

A = Great generation. Well-executed, important cars, moves the needle.

B = Solid. Still has some charm.

C = Average generation. Not very exciting or has aged poorly.

D = Junk compared to higher ranked generations.

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of all the Honda Civic generations:

My S-tier picks are the Honda Civic generations that I think are the best of the bunch. Civic styling has always kind of been ahead of the curve, and the 6th generation was perhaps the best the Civic ever looked. To me it really defined a sophisticated late-90’s look which other car brands attempted to emulate but failed. I also think the current generation Civic is a great car, with interesting sporty-but-not-too-flashy looks that really bring what a Civic should be to the modern age.

The 10th generation is also quite good, but maybe the styling is a bit too flashy and it does not have the excellent drivetrains of the existing gen. I also stuck the original Honda Civic in the “A” tier because it is a classic. It changed the automotive landscape forever, and really made everyone have to start paying attention to quality over quantity. Where would we be today if the industry never learned that lesson the hard way?

The “B” tier generations had ahead-of-their-time styling just like the 6th gen, but were just not as well-polished. They were very reliable and you can still find many of them on the road today, something you can’t find for any of this car’s competition from the same time period. Furthermore, they are still cool - even the beaters.

“C” tier generations are not ones that excite me. The second gen was a refining of the first gen, introducing squared-off styling that would sweep the industry. It introduced the CVCC engine, but to me is not as ground-breaking as the original and is kind of boring. The third gen is very radical styling when you think about it, but it just seems so dated today and is not as polished as later versions. The 8th gen was also very radical, but it also became very dated very quickly. It also tended to look cheap, even when it was new, something I could not really say about any other generation with exception to the mildly remade 9th gen.

The 7th generation Civic had big shoes to fill coming after the 6th gen, and they really fumbled hard with styling and reliability taking a step back, making it the most disappointing generation. The 6th gen was over-engineered, and so they needed to cut costs with this generation, and it showed. Same with the 9th gen, which I think is the absolute worst generation. Honda did a very un-Honda thing and took the criticisms of the 8th generation and baked them into the 9th gen. Its no wonder they had to rush an emergency facelift to make it even competitive. Not that its a terrible car, but by Honda Civic standards, it was a misstep.

How would you rank the Honda Civic generations? Post your own tier list in the comments. You can create it here: https://tiermaker.com/create/honda-civic-tier-list-17069965

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

In honor of President’s Day next week in the United States, I decided to rank all of the presidents. Woof. This was the most difficult ranking I have attempted yet. There are a lot of ways you could go with this. To be as fair as possible, I decided to consider all of the Presidents as impartially as possible. That means, try to keep my own political views out of it. How is that possible, you might ask? Well, it means judging Presidents by what they accomplished and whether or not those accomplishments made life better or worse for the majority of people living in the Unites States at the time, and after.

So, for example, I think hope we can all agree slavery is bad. Same with civil rights. Presidents that were pro-abolitionist and supported universal freedoms were better for the country than those who were against them. Likewise, presidents that cracked down on corruption and unfair labor practices should be considered “good” compared to the ones which utilized corruption and racketeering to their advantage. Likewise, presidents which accomplished what they set out to do were effective leaders and therefore better presidents. Those who were ineffective for one reason or another (health, strong opposition, weak-willed) were not.

Of course you have to consider the scandals and international incidents. You have to take into account their responses to natural disasters and ability to end terrible wars. I also considered their legacies during and after their time as president. I didn’t really consider their legacy before becoming president. For example, Grant is a very important figure in American history and is highly regarded for his role during the Civil War, but his presidency and political career afterwards was not as impactful.

Is the world a better place because of their contribution as president? Not always an easy question to answer, but I tried my best.

Below is my personal ranking of all of U.S. Presidents. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Monuments are erected in their honor for a very good reason.

A = Made critical contributions to the improvement of the country through their leadership, actions in crisis, or legislation. There may be a few aspects of their term or person which I don’t agree with, but these are not significant enough to impact my overall consideration of them as president.

B = Competent presidents. Did more good than harm, and overall improved the country in some way.

C = Average presidents whose legacies are not influential, or made critical mistakes due to inadequacy/weakness/lack of political power which ultimately destroyed any progress they could have made.

D = Corrupt, completely inept, did more harm than good, or died before they could do anything.

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of the presidents:

(Order they are listed does not matter in this ranking, all “A-Tier” presidents are equal in that category)

Since these may be difficult to make out, here is a table with names:

S = G. Washington, A. Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, F.D. Roosevelt

A = B. Obama, R. Reagan, J.F. Kennedy, W. Wilson, H. Truman, D. Eisenhower, T. Jefferson, J. Madison, J. Monroe

B = B. Clinton, L. Johnson, J.Q. Adams, W.H. Taft, J. Adams, A. Jackson, M. Van Buren, J. Polk, A. Arthur, G. Cleveland, W. McKinley

C = J. Carter, G. Ford, G. H. W. Bush, G. W. Bush, C. Coolidge, B. Harrison, J. Biden, J. Tyler, U. Grant, R.B. Hayes, J.A. Garfield

D = D. Trump, R. Nixon, A. Johnson, J. Buchanan, W. H. Harrison, F. Pierce, H. Hoover, W. Harding, Z. Taylor, M. Fillmore

A few things that stand out:

I don’t think I need to provide any explanation for my S-Tier picks. Those should be pretty well-established by a majority of Americans.

A-Tier presidents are in three categories: 1. Obama - the most effective president we’ve had in the 21st Century so far, and important for bringing the country out of “the Great Recession”. 2. Important leaders of the 20th century, when arguably the country was at the height of its powers. These are the figures which made America great when it was at its greatest. 3. Founding fathers that were presidents. Besides Adams (B-Tier), they all were very instrumental not only in the creation of the country, but establishing the role of the president and guiding it in the early years when the country was arguably at its weakest. All future presidents owe their accomplishments to the foundation these men created.

Presidents in the B-tier are either more controversial versions of A-tier presidents, or more forgettable. Clinton helped usher in the most productive era in American history, but was plagues by scandal. Johnson achieved significant gains in Civil Rights and many wins in legislation, but has a black eye because of Vietnam. The two Adams’, Van Buren, and Polk all followed in the footsteps of the founding father presidents by helping construct the foundation of the country, but their achievements were less important to our lives today.

Andrew Jackson is a very controversial figure. I considered ranking him lower because of his abhorrent treatment of Native Americans. However, I can’t deny he was an effective president, and maybe more importantly, he stood as a figure of fierce individualism which would really define what America stood for home and abroad. Taft, Arthur, McKinley, and Cleveland were all very competent presidents who brought important change (especially when compared with their predecessors), but they perhaps did not go far enough and were overshadowed by the economic and social issues of the late 19th century.

C-tier presidents were generally weak presidents who struggled because of the positions they were in. Be that economic fallout (Carter, Biden, Bush Sr., Coolidge, arguably Bush Jr.), being ineffective in a time when the country needed strong leadership (Ford, Bush Jr., Grant, Tyler), facing strong opposition (Grant, Tyler, Hayes), manipulation (Harrison), or even premature death (Garfield). These presidents just did not have as much of a lasting impact as they could have, or they openly hurt the country in some way.

Finally, the D-tier presidents are the ones who have really set the country back domestically or on the world stage, or died without accomplishing anything. The less said the better. For example, the Civil War is as much a result of growing tensions as it was term after term of terrible leadership in the presidency (Taylor, Filmore, Pierce, Buchanan). And that inept leadership returned just as soon as Lincoln was assassinated (Johnson).

How would you rank the presidents? Post your own tier list in the comments. You can create it here: https://tiermaker.com/list/celebrities/the-presidents-of-the-usa-18985141/5933088

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

Nike took over as supplier of the NBA jerseys in 2017. With the new sponsor/supplier, the NBA allowed some important changes to jersey design to reflect a broadening and more competitive marketplace. Among the four major sports leagues in the United States, the NBA was the first to introduce special edition jerseys that teams would wear-in game. These were opportunities not just to change up a look and achieve more merchandise sales, but also to honor the history of the league and those teams which performed well.

City Edition jerseys are unique each year and are meant as representation of the place where the team calls its home. These can be homages to the city itself, the history of the team, or even famous people who have resided there. In other words, City Edition jerseys don’t have to follow strict requirements for adhering to team colors or traditions. This makes them stand out, attracting more attention to the sport from casual viewers while also giving avid fans something new to collect and look forward to.

Now that we are half way through the 2025-2026 NBA season, I have had a chance to see quite a few of the City Edition jerseys in action to better appreciate them. Below is my personal ranking of all of the 2025-2026 NBA City Edition jerseys. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Could become these team’s full-time look and we wouldn’t be disappointed.

A = Interesting and well-designed, bringing style, color, or a welcome throwback to the team’s wardrobe.

B = Solid. Brings something new and crisp, but doesn’t really elevate the team’s look.

C = Shrugs shoulders. Not the most creative or different from the team’s standard style, but well-executed.

D = Boring and uninspiring. They could have tried harder.

(Yes, I know some teams are missing or wrong. I didn’t make the list, so don’t blame me!)

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of these jerseys.

A few things that stand out:

Love the “Miami Vice” look for the heat. Instantly recognizable with the city, and is not a retread of their existing theme. Stands out on the court, is unique, and daring. My pick for the Warriors tan “Oakland” jersey might be controversial, but seeing these on the court they look clean and different, while having some connotation to alternate looks they have done in the past. The Phoenix look is ‘chef’s kiss’ and they could do the same thing every year and it would never get old.

Denver, Cleveland, and Toronto are all great returns of classic looks, bringing color and bold graphics back. I love the colorfulness of the Nets jerseys, and the color scheme of the Spurs jerseys really speaks to me. I think the Memphis jerseys with the stylized glyphs on the side are really cool and work well with their NBA cup court, which IMO was among the best this year.

Everything in the “B” tier is good, but I feel like they could have done a little more. Special shout out to the Timberwolves Price-inspired look, but it has a lot of wasted space. Trailblazers jerseys are an interesting take on their traditional look but the color doesn’t connect with that team. Love the font on the OKC, Pacers, and Clippers jerseys, and the looks are very clean if kind of boring. The Lakers jersey may be controversial, but to me it is creative feeling both new and old at the same time.

“C” row is fine, but not very exciting. The Boston and Chicago jerseys feel like blasphemy with how similar their previous City Edition jerseys have felt to their traditional looks. The Knicks jersey is nice, but also feels simple. Same with Dallas and New Orleans. I give the Hawks some credit for creativity with the MLK jerseys, but again - could have done more with it.

Final row just feels like lazy designs. “Cream City” is a redo of their 2019 look, but is neither literal enough (it is referencing tan bricks used to build the city), nor does it connect to the traditional Bucks look. Sacramento and Philadelphia jerseys are just boring, and H-Town is cool but also too simplistic for my taste.

How would you rank these jerseys? Post your own tier list in the comments. You can create it here: https://tiermaker.com/create/25-26-city-edition-leaked-jersey--18341176

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

Nominees for the 98th Academy Awards ceremony have been announced. Every year I try to watch every Oscar-nominated film in the 5 (6) major categories - Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Director, Best Screenplay (Original and Adapted). Most of them I am able to catch during the year, but some of them end up being binge-watched the month before the ceremony. A lot of times it is really hard to find a particular film because it has a limited release or is only in theaters during a short window.

This is a look at all of the films that have been nominated for Best Picture during the decade of 2010 to 2019. I didn’t create this template, but I think it looks like it has all of them. Let me know if you think anything is missing. I find it helpful to look back at past nominees to kind of refresh my mind about the kinds of trends and approaches these films capitalized on to first gain nominations, and then for some of them, win. This kind of thinking is helpful to recognize trends to predict future winners.

The films that end up getting wins are not always the films I think were the best each year. Some films tend to age poorly, others are more timeless. I’m the type of guy who tends to fall for more timeless films over ones with poignant of-the-moment messages and presentations. This may explain some of my rankings. To me, the best films should be the ones that are always going to be re-watchable and enjoyable for generations to come, not just when they were released. This can be a difficult perspective to use when objectively reviewing films (to separate the reviewer’s momentary desires from the broader appeal), but an important one when considering the history of cinema.

Below is my personal ranking of all of the films that were nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars during the years 2010 - 2019. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

Awesome = Best of the best, won best picture or should have.

Great = Must-watch film, worthy of the nomination, I can appreciate most of the best picture winners here.

Good = Excellent film, but doesn’t really deserve best picture.

Meh = Can be entertaining, maybe has limited appeal, feels like it earned its nomination by names associated or trends, rather than merit.

Have Not Seen = I’ll get to these eventually!

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of these best picture nominees:

A few things that stand out:

I would consider all of the films in the “Awesome” category to be among these directors’ best films, unless they have come out with something better after their release. These are all films I would consider among the best films released in the 21st Century so far.

Films in the “Great” category are films I enjoyed, some even won best picture or deserved to (La La Land comes to mind). I would say all of them except for Manchester by the Sea are very re-watchable, which is a major factor of my rankings. But the performances in Manchester by the Sea are so memorable, even all these years later, that I couldn’t rank it lower.

Films in the “Good” category also tend to have great re-watchability, but for me tend to not be as cohesive or ground-breaking as those films ranked higher. At other times, movies like Roma, The Post, The Room, and Nebraska are terrific films, but I couldn’t really see myself being interested in watching them again. To me they are interesting as a watch for purposes of Oscar consideration, more than the stories or performances they provide.

“Meh” category features a lot of experimental films that can be hard to watch again (Boyhood, Tree of Life), controversial films that have not aged well for one reason or another (Green Book, American Hustle, American Hustle), and films that feel forgotten because the filmmakers have come out with something better (Vice, War Horse, Hugo, Blackkklansman), or are just straight bad movies (Green Book, Les Miserables). I don’t know why a lot of them feature Bradley Cooper. I don’t have anything against him, so….sorry Bradley.

How would you rank these films? Post your own tier list in the comments. You can create it here: https://tiermaker.com/list/tv-and-movies/best-picture-nominated-films-of-the-2010s-oscars-251344/5887303

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

With the new release of Star Trek: Starfleet Academy, it seems to be bringing out a lot of opinions about Star Trek. While I am a huge fan of Star Trek, I have not seen all of the shows yet, so I could not rank them completely. Instead, I decided it would be a good opportunity to rank the Star Trek feature films instead. Who knows if or when we will ever get another one.

The first Star Trek film was released in 1979. Originally, the producers were working on a new television series to bring back the original cast of Star Trek for a new adventure. However, with the release of Star Wars in 1977, studios saw the potential box-office draw for science fiction films. As a result, the Star Trek sequel series instead became a feature film. The original cast would go on to be star in 6 films, and be featured in another, Star Trek: Generations.

When Star Trek The Next Generation wrapped up in 1994, the adventures of the crew from this show continued with Generations and three more films. In 2009, J.J. Abrams released a reboot film, which recast the original cast and presented their adventures in an alternate timeline. Two more sequels of this film were released. The most recent Star Trek film was 2025’s Section 31, a spinoff of the Star Trek Discovery streaming show.

Below is my personal ranking of the Star Trek feature films. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Award-worthy films, excellent representation of the genre.

A = Must-watch film, very enjoyable for everyone.

B = Solid film, more for fans than non-fans.

C = Average film, not the most exciting or inspiring.

D = Not worth your time.

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of the Star Trek feature films (and no, I don’t count Galaxy Quest as a Star Trek film):

Maybe its controversial, but I think 2009’s Star Trek is an excellent film, not only J.J. Abram’s crowing achievement in feature films, but what exactly a Star Trek film should be for the modern era. For the classic era, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan is a masterpiece, and one of my all-time favorite films. The Voyage Home is also a magnificent film, as its time travelling plot was incredibly inventive (as well as fitting for Star Trek) and is still very entertaining all these years later.

First Contact is the best Next Generation film by a mile, but doesn’t quite live up to the heights of the show. Undiscovered Country is more of a slow burning film, but I love the tension and how it plays as a thriller. Star Trek Beyond may be action-heavy, but it also manages to recreate the feeling of classic Star Trek for the modern big screen like the 2009 film did.

Star Trek: The Motion Picture is actually a spellbinding achievement in science fiction films, but it is slow and drawn out. Generations is a fun idea, and it has its moments, but it also struggles to stay exciting like the films ranked higher. The Search for Spock is a perfectly fine Star Trek film, but as a direct sequel it feels less unique and adventurous than the others.

Nemesis feels like lazy writing and an attempt to compete with more modern sci-fi action movies rather than try to be a fitting end for the Next Generation cast, which is a shame. Insurrection actually has a lot of cool ideas, but its also pretty mundane and lacks excitement compared to the others. Into Darkness is trying too hard and suffers from a lot of the mistakes of Nemesis.

I won’t even write anything about the last tier. Not worth my time to do so.

How would you rank the Star Trek feature films? If so, post your own tier list in the comments. You can create it here: https://tiermaker.com/create/star-trek-all-movies--1031859

On Tuesdays I will post a tier list on a given subject, with a short explanation of my rationale and perspective. I’ll include a link for you to create your own. Post it in the comments for comparison and discussion!

Do you like heavy metal? What about progressive rock? Well….have I got a band for you! Dream Theater is the innovative progenitor of the progressive metal sub-genre, blending their love of classic progressive rock such as Yes and Rush with the heavier hair-metal sound of the mid-eighties. I am a huge fan of both Yes and Rush, so it was very easy for me to jump onboard the Dream Theater train. They are one of my favorite bands which I have been luck enough to see live many times.

Dream Theater began in the mid 1980’s as “Majesty” the grouping of three students at The Berklee College of Music. Right away you could tell this would be a very technical band where musicianship would trump all else. But instead of playing classical music or mere “rock”, they utilized their impressive talents to create a new type of heavy metal. The band would find commercial success with their second and third album, before earning a loyal following from consistent album releases, bootlegs, and live tours. The band has since released 16 studio albums, and continues to tour frequently all over the world, culminating in a 40th anniversary tour that is currently ongoing.

Below is my personal ranking of their albums. This is the criteria I use to decide between each rank:

S = Genre-defining release, no skippable songs

A = Excellent album that defines the band, maybe 1 or 2 skippable songs at the most.

B = Solid album, more songs I can listed to on repeat than ones I would skip

C = Average album, some songs are great, more that I don’t really like

D = Bad album, lacking quality to keep me engaged, majority of songs I would skip on

F = Never should have seen the light of day, nothing redeemable at all

With all of that out of the way, here is my ranking of Dream Theater’s studio albums:

Train of Thought, Six Degrees, and Images and Words are all very highly regarded albums that I would say are quintessential to the progressive metal subgenre, and helped show what could be achieved with the fusion of technical instrument playing and heavy metal. They still feel fresh to this day, are very well produced, and feature a variety and ingenuity that makes them exciting to listen to no many how many times you have them on repeat.

Awake and Octavarium are very close to “S-Tier” in my mind. There are only a couple songs on each which I don’t really appreciate the direction. Metropolis Pt. 2 is also very good, but as a concept album with songs that are dedicated to creating a narrative, its not something that is as easily accessible. A Dramatic Turn of Events felt very fresh as a lighter, more expansive take on the band, a direction I would have hoped they would have leaned into. However, some of the songs on that record do feel a little drawn out and repetitive.

Falling Into Infinity is a fascinating album - an attempt to be “more commercial”. Unfortunately, the band doesn’t really know how to do that and despite some amazing highs on this album, too much of it feels like uninspired filler. Same with the self-titled album which feels more rock at times than metal. Systematic Chaos is great also, but feels like the lesser version of Octavarium. Finally, their latest record is a promising return to form, with drummer Mike Portnoy’s return really giving them a jolt of excitement they have been missing on previous releases, even if it feels like a retread of past success.

Distance Over Time did not resonate with me as it felt unfocused and too heavy on the keyboards. Black Clouds is too self-indulgent for me, more issues with heavy-narrative songs. The Astonishing is a remarkable musical achievement (basically a dystopian stage play in sonic form), but you really have to listen to the whole thing for it to work, and that is a huge commitment. The debut album has some interesting ideas, but feels unpolished and sometimes grating compared to later releases. Finally, A View From the Top of the World just never resonated with me. It felt like musicians just going through the process with poor lyrics and long, unfocused songs.

Are you a fan of Dream Theater? If so, post your own tier list in the comments. You can create it here: https://tiermaker.com/create/dream-theater-2021-60895