Movies: Thor

Score: *** out of *****

Long Story Short: Thor is a fun way to start off the summer, although it's pretty standard superhero faire. Hemsworth, as the title character, is mostly responsible for the enjoyable moments in this movie, while Portman's character unfortunately represents the ways in which it is also a bit sloppy and lazy. There are a few exciting action scenes, as well as moments to laugh, but also plenty of similar scenes that are less inspiring.

Well, the summer film season (my favorite of the year) is underway, and last week I saw the first major offering, Thor. To be honest, the trailers did not get me very excited about this one, but a very good score on Rotten Tomatoes (usually a good barometer) convinced me to go see it. This film is (yet another) Marvel superhero film, directed by Kenneth Branagh (better known for his acting) and starring Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, and Anthony Hopkins.

The beginning of the film is used to give a background on the fantasy setting, in which Earth is just one of nine "realms," among which one can travel by wormhole. The two others of significance are Asgard (the good guys), led by King Odin (Hopkins); and Jotunheim (bad guys), filled with ice giants which tried to conquer Earth before Odin stopped them. Once this setting is established, we find that Thor (Hemsworth), Odin's son, is on the cusp of inheriting the throne of Asgard. However, following a small security breach by the ice giants, Thor angrily goes to Jotunheim with his four buddies. They kick some ice giant butt there for a little while, but this angers Odin, as it threatens the peace agreement between the two worlds. As punishment, he banishes his son from Asgard and sends him to Earth.

Thor is dropped in the middle of a desert, where a crew of scientists (led by Portman) find him; they have been studying a phenomena which is in fact the wormhole through which Thor arrives. Thor does his best to shake off the pesky humans and get to his hammer, through which he derives his power. However, a group called SHIELD (see: Iron Man 2) gets there first, but no one is able to remove the hammer from its resting site. Meanwhile, off in Asgard, the aging Odin falls ill, leaving Thor's brother in charge, a man with a mysterious past. A plot to destroy Asgard evolves, requiring Thor to move past his youthful pride and bloodlust to reclaim the power needed to save Asgard.

The performances are a bit hit-or-miss in this film. Chris Hemsworth does a great job as Thor, making his potentially-ridiculous character both realistic and likable. This is especially so as he brings his entitled, powerful, medieval attitude to Earth. Portman, however, is a dud in this film. It's not all her fault by any means, as she gets few good lines and her character has little sense of purpose/motivation. But mostly she just looks at Thor with a variety of expressions, from fear to desire to wonder and so on. Hopkins, unsurprisingly, is effective as King Odin, a proud but disappointed father. Tom Hiddleston plays Thor's brother, Loki, who is interesting at first but then grows more silly, both in the role he is given and his performance. Among the minor roles, Stellan Skarsgard (Good Will Hunting) does well as Portman's mentor.

Thor does well in some of the miscellaneous categories, but not consistently. The best action sequence comes near the beginning, when Thor and his buddies seek revenge in Jotunheim; the action is clever, and the CGI, while heavy, only bolsters the excitement. However, the battle at the climax is pretty ho-hum as far as action films go; and the main fight on Earth is poor to the point of wondering if anyone bothered trying to edit it at all. There is some good humor, once again, near the beginning of the film, and especially when Thor first gets to Earth. As the film goes along, however, further attempts at humor aren't nearly as successful.

***

Thor is an alright start to the summer film season. However, I'm mystified by the impressive rating it has on Rotten Tomatoes. I would much rather see The Green Hornet, a fresh take on superhero films, than this, a serviceable film but kind of same-old-same-old when it comes to this genre. As a last description of the film, there are two plots on Earth. One is about Portman and her fellow scientists; they keep vaguely talking about their "years" of research, but this whole aspect is just an excuse for Thor to interact with sympathetic humans. Meanwhile, SHIELD's involvement offers much more intrigue, but it's also given much less attention. Too bad. There are some nice elements to this film, but it's not a must-see. If you're looking to Netflix a superhero flick, get The Green Hornet instead.

Sports: End of an Era

I should have seen this coming, right at the beginning of the playoffs.

As I type this, game 4 of the Dallas-Lakers series is only about half done. But the Lakers as we know them are already all the way done. As a Lakers fan, this is a painful period right now; it was a long, messy rebuilding following the departure of Shaq in 2002, but they got to three Finals appearances and two championships. But Magic is right: this team needs to be blown up, to one degree or another, during the offseason (not an easy task, with a lockout looming).

How did we get here? The Lakers didn't have a great regular season this year, but they didn't last year, either. I think that Bynum's good health and dramatic improvement covered a lot of decay in the rest of the team, however. Then came game 1 against the Hornets, a team that they beat decisively in the regular season, have good matchups against across the board (except for a big one vs. Chris Paul), and didn't even have their second best player available. They lose game 1 on their home court. Ridiculous. The Lakers managed to take the series 4-2, but they should have won it much more convincingly.

Then came the Mavs, the team that everyone in the West wanted to play. I'll admit, Dallas has proven that they are far better than everyone thought. However, they are just as old and slow as the Lakers, and have no legitimate offensive weapons beyond Dirk Nowitzki; yet the Lakers made them look like the Phoenix Suns of a few years ago. If the Lakers were still a motivated and confident team, they would have beaten the Mavs in 6 games, tops. Now they are being humiliated in a sweep.

Let's take a look at how the individual players performed. Kobe was unable to bump up his game a notch, as he did last year (regular season: 27 ppg, postseason: 29 ppg), and in fact his numbers dipped a little bit. Beyond this, his performance was erratic, scoring under 20 points in four of nine games (not counting game 4 against the Mavs, of course). He seemed to play hard consistently, which is no surprise, but perhaps did not help his teammates by taking over and then pulling back almost randomly. Pau Gasol has been a huge disappointment this postseason. He also bumped up his numbers during the playoffs last year, but this year has scored 5 points less per game (13 from 18) and shot much worse (42 from 53). He seemed very passive if not unwilling way too often as the team's second best player.

On the other hand, while Bynum faded in last year's playoffs (largely due to an injury he tweaked), this year he did his best to make up for Gasol's drop in production. He still looked passive at times, but more than ever he was quite assertive, and could simply dominate games for stretches at a time. Odom had a spectacular regular season this year, and was rewarded with the 6th Man of the Year award. However, he took a tumble similar to Gasol's, and it was quite obvious that he was the first Laker to give up in today's game 4. As I and many others have said it countless times, when Odom plays well the Lakers are almost impossible to beat. When he doesn't... beware.

Where do the Lakers go from here? They can't get rid of Kobe; first of all, he's arguably the team's best player ever (up there with Magic), and second of all he has an enormous contract (3 more years, +$25 million/year) that, frankly, is above his value to any other random team. The Lakers best hope for him is that he agree to a fundamental transformation of his role on the team. Pau Gasol also has 3 years left on his contract, hovering a little under $20 million/year. His stats (this postseason aside) have remained remarkably consistent. While he isn't, and will never be, a dominant player, he is about as good of a second option, or partner in a double-headed monster, as you can ask for.

Bynum... hmm, looking at his stats, it appears that I was wrong about him being better OR healthier this year than last. He still had a decent year, but hovers between 10-15 ppg and a little under 10 rpg. He's got 2 years at ~$15 million/year left on his contract. Odom came up with a great offensive year in '10/11, after a few down years, with 14 ppg on 53% from the field. He's got 2 years left on his contract, $8-9 million/year. Other notable salaries: Artest (3 years, $7 million/year), Walton (2 years, $6 million/year), Blake (3 years, $4 million/year), Fisher (2 years, $3.5 million/year).

As a final retrospective analysis, Artest's numbers slipped noticeably, even from last year; he's about the same age now as Gasol and Odom. Fisher is also slipping, but considering he's 36 now it's not a surprise; perhaps defensively it's the most noticeable. For the two new Lakers, Barnes had a little drop in production, though he was injured for nearly half the year, and Blake had a miserable year.

The biggest consideration is that Kobe is going to be a Laker for the rest of his career, which has both advantages and disadvantages. In order to get a significant new addition or two, the Lakers must give up at least one of their next three best players: Gasol, Odom, or Bynum. I think it's pretty obvious who this should be: Bynum. He has quite a big salary, and every year has an injury of some kind. He is quite a bit younger than the other two, but again, the next few years at least (3? 5?) will still have Kobe as the team's foundation. Sadly, the Lakers have some players that are practically dead weight, and will just have to make the best of what they can (Artest, Blake).

Getting young, athletic guards is priority #1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the Lakers. The fact that Dallas exposed Blake, Fisher and Brown with its "amazing" lineup of Kidd, Terry, and Barea is completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, I'm not sure there are many available PGs, but the Lakers must do something. Use Bynum as the trade chip. To me, the Lakers should shoot for Gasol (C), Odom (F), Artest (F), Bryant (G), and *new guard* (G) as their starting lineup for next year - assuming Bynum is gone for a PG or two. Sign some veteran big guy like the other contenders have been doing (particularly Boston) to give Gasol a little backup. Fisher can stay on as the backup point guard, and they can dump Brown (great athleticism, absolutely no skill). Try to develop Johnson and Ebanks for the bench, and get Walton some more action.

The Lakers' dominance, in the Kobe era, is obviously and irredeemably broken. However, they have the potential to remain competitive for several more years - IF they finally address the guard position. The Lakers basically signified their content with their roster last summer by signing Blake and others instead of just one good PG. These playoffs proved that was a mistake. Time to see if they can make the moves to keep alive the chance of another championship during the Kobe era.