Sports: 2012 NBA Playoffs

2012 NBA Playoffs


It's one of my favorite times of the year for sports:  the start of the NBA playoffs!  This opening weekend is particularly great, with four games each day.  Quite likely, we'll get a taste of what's to come for the rest of the playoffs - or other teams might need some time to get going.  Every year, at least to me, the brackets seem pretty straightforward, at least compared to the NFL playoffs.  This is mostly because, of course, the NBA has best-of-seven series, whereas NFL teams, even heavy favorites, must be at their best each game.  While the longer series takes away some of the drama, the NBA playoffs still have great chess matches, and surprises aplenty.  Last year for example:  who picked the perennial disappointment Hawks to beat the Magic?  Who picked eighth-seed Memphis to take out NBA regular season champs San Antonio?  Who predicted *gulp* the left-for-dead Mavs to sweep my Los Angeles Lakers?  And then who in the world (answer:  no one) predicted the Mavs to beat the Heat in the Finals (how sweet that was...)?


Still, at this point in the 2012 playoffs, before any of the series have begun, I find it difficult to give you many good ideas for upsets.  So, I'll forgo a round-by-round prediction of series - which would be a bit tedious - and instead rank the teams 1-16 for their chances of winning the championship (based on overall quality and potential matchups).  Hopefully, this will be entertaining.




16. Utah Jazz (West - 8th seed)
This is a young team that doesn't have a lot of experience playing together.  Their former star player, Deron Williams, has only been gone about a year, and they're still in transition.  Their frontcourt duo of Jefferson and Millsap is potent, and they won their last five games of the season to make it in - but San Antonio took care of them easily this season, and is a much more cohesive team.  They'll be lucky if they take one game.

15. Dallas Mavericks (West - 7th seed)

It's not often that you see a defending champion this low, but it's appropriate this year.  The team lost key players Chandler and Barea in the offseason, and new acquisition Odom has "parted ways" with the team.  Dirk is having one of the worst seasons of his career, and they rely on old spare parts like Vince Carter and Delonte West.  Oklahoma City is going to get revenge, and they have the ability to really make it hurt - sweep, anyone?

14. Philadelphia 76ers (East - 8th seed)

The 76ers have a solid young foundation that is in its second year together now, and they're led by a great coach.  Unfortunately, Chicago has an even better foundation with an even better coach, and Philly has no one remotely close to matching Derrick Rose's star power.  The only chance the 76ers have is if Rose reinjures himself and the rest of the team gets down on their championship hopes not having him around.  Don't bet on it.

13. New York Knicks (East - 7th seed)

The Knicks have the most potential of any lower seed, based strictly on their roster.  If Lin was healthy, they'd be in even better shape - as it is, they have scoring power in Anthony and Stoudemire and a defensive stopper in Chandler.  Unfortunately, they play the Miami Heat in the first round.  Chandler is known as a Heat-killer, but other than that the matchup is heavily in Miami's favor.  Maybe next year, Knicks fans. 

12. L.A. Clippers (West - 5th seed)

Poor, poor Clippers.  They finally rise from the cellar of the NBA this year and seem on the verge of winning their division.  Only they don't, and they even choke away home court advantage in the first round AND draw the Memphis Grizzlies.  Other than Paul, this team has no playoff experience, and their second best player is useless in clutch situations (Griffin's free-throw shooting).  There's certainly hope for next year, but they face the toughest road to the Finals in the West.

11. Orlando Magic (East - 6th seed)

I suppose that not having Dwight Howard around will perhaps cut down on team strife momentarily.  But otherwise, it's a huge loss.  The Magic were third in the conference for most of the season despite Howard's contract situation (one that made Anthony's from last year look respectful).  Now the Magic literally have no center on their roster, no inside presence to balance their great three-point shooting.  And they have to go on the road to face on of the best pure teams in the NBA.  Not good.

10. Atlanta Hawks (East - 5th seed)

How I love to disparage the Atlanta Hawks.  They've had plenty of talent for years now, but they've completely squandered it with bad coaching and a total lack of discipline.  Last year, though, they surprised me quite a bit by even taking a few games from the Bulls.  This year, they get the Celtics, against whom they played pretty well in the regular season, and they also have home court advantage.  They have a puncher's chance of getting out of the first round, but the Bulls wait for them again.

9. Denver Nuggets (West - 6th seed)

What George Karl has done with this team post-Carmelo Anthony has been amazing.  Their top scorer is Ty Lawson - yes, Ty Lawson - and yet they finished 38-28.  They are the league's highest scoring team, and were quite a handful for the Thunder last year in the first round of the playoffs.  The matchup with the Lakers is one of feast or famine:  if they can dictate the tempo of the games, they can get an upset.  Should they do that, they will be hungry for revenge against the Thunder in the next round.

8. L.A. Lakers (West - 3rd seed)

OK, I have to admit I'm *partly* trying to reverse jinx my favorite team by putting them here.  I think they could be one of the league's best.  They have the pieces:  two seven-footers (Bynum is just a total beast now), a guy who can score at will, a rejuvenated (though suspended) Artest, and - gasp! - a real point guard!  Unfortunately their bench is thin (especially with Barnes stepping in for Artest in the first round), and they just go through frustrating ruts more often these days.  They should beat the Nuggets eventually, but the Thunder are simply better at this point in time.

7. Indiana Pacers (East - 3rd seed)

Yep, I'm down on both three-seeds (more like up on the four-seeds).  I'm very disappointed about the East draw this year.  Had the Celtics and Pacers swapped spots, we could have had Chicago-Indiana and Miami-Boston in the second round - fantastic matchups.  The Pacers are a very good team, for sure.  But they matchup poorly with Miami, which has been tossing them around easily for the most part this year.  The Pacers have to be clicking on all cylinders (no pun intended) and hope that someone steps up at the end of games, but the Heat will have much more margin for error, not to mention home court.

6. Boston Celtics (East - 4th seed)

Here is my first of two jinxes, my job as a Laker fan.  It seems like the Celtics have a hell of a road to the Finals:  they're on the road at all times, first against a tough Atlanta team, then against a bad matchup in the Bulls, then against the mighty Heat.  They should go down in the second round.  But if these old guys start sizzling again like they did in parts of March and April, they can take anyone.  This is the second of two teams that I give an outside shot of making - perhaps winning - the Finals.

5. Memphis Grizzlies (West - 4th seed)

Maybe I'm latching onto their playoff run last year too much.  But they won their final six games of the season, face a great matchup against inexperienced L.A. Clippers in the first round, the team they upset last year for the second round, and the team they almost beat last year in the conference finals.  After the first round, much will hinge on how well Zack Randolph improves.  He was injured much of this year and needs to resume last season's dominating play of the team to go far.  This is a scrappy, tough team, and they will be a tough out against anyone.

... Now for the top championship contenders - surprise, it's the #1 and #2 seeds.

4. Chicago Bulls (East - 1st seed)

The Bulls have done a fantastic job this season of keeping the top seed in the East despite having Rose play in little more than half the games.  But now it is Rose's health - and effectiveness - that will decide their fate.  If he gets hurt again, they could find themselves out in the second round.  If he can match last year's level of play, they could very well get to - and win - the Finals.  If.  It seems so strange that such a rock-solid team would hinge so wildly on one guy.  Without him, they can still consistently beat any but the best in the league.  But even with him, as we saw in last year's playoffs, they might still be helpless against the Miami Heat.

3. San Antonio Spurs (West - 1st seed)

The Spurs are tricky for me to evaluate for the simple reason that I have barely seen them play at all this year.  Tony Parkers is apparently having a career year, Duncan is reviving, and Ginobli is healthier, while they sport a much stronger supporting cast this season than last.  They will have a much easier time getting past the first round this year, but the true trial-by-fire will come against the Grizzlies.  I think we'll likely see in that series whether the Spurs have what it takes or not.  I think they can win that one, but the Thunder simply have too much firepower, and by now they have the experience, too.

2. Oklahoma City Thunder (West - 2nd seed)

Durant is this team's leader, scoring easily, efficiently and in the clutch, and is certainly the second best player in the league.  It will all come down to Batman's Robin - Russell Westbrook.  The guy is insanely talented and can turn a game against anyone into a rout when he's on fire.  But as a point guard, he tends to take way too many shots, and when he's frustrated he can be a detriment to the team. Harden is a fantastic Jason Terry 3.0 off the bench, and Perkins and Ibaka can hold the fort down low against even the Lakers' bigs.  But their fate in the conference finals and beyond will rest in the hands of Russell Westbrook.

1. Miami Heat (East - 2nd seed)

Jinx #2... hopefully.  Simply put, the Miami Heat have the highest ceiling in the league.  LeBron James is the best player in the game, and Dwayne Wade can take over a game at any time, particularly in the clutch (when Miami's Batman tends to shrink).  Bosh can be a potent option if teams focus entirely on James and Wade, and role players like Chalmers, Battier, and Haslem should be good enough to defend the edge given to them by their dynamic duo.  The Heat had another period of doubt this season, giving fans and analysts just enough to make arguments for others winning the title.  True, they didn't win it last year - the Mavs were red hot and LeBron choked to an extent perhaps unequaled in NBA history (to my great, sadistic delight).  But now they're hungrier.  They know how hard it will be.  They know they must anoint themselves champions, rather than let someone do it for them.  And as an NBA fan who still loathes the cowardly concept of the "Dream Team" they enacted in the summer of 2010 (taking what the Celtics did several steps further), I am frightened.

Movies: 21 Jump Street

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

Long Story Short: 21 Jump Street is a fairly conventional comedy based on an earlier TV show; two young, polar-opposite cops who band together in an undercover drug sting at a high school. Sadly, there's little spice to this adaptation, with mediocre performances, little creativity, and few big laughs. It's solidly done overall and still entertaining, but you'll also likely forget about it before long.

Now for my second movie review of the year... unfortunately, one month after its release in theaters. Well, hopefully you can either see if you agree with me, or take my review into consideration for a rental/Netflix viewing later. This film, like some others I see in the theater, did not interest me when I saw the trailers. But it got quite positive review on Rotten Tomatoes, so I thought I'd give it a shot; it had been awhile since I'd seen a comedy, anyway. 21 Jump Street (which is based on the late '80s TV show starring Johnny Depp) was directed by Phil Lord and Chris Miller and stars Channing Tatum and Jonah Hill.

A very brief introduction shows high school kids Morton (Hill) and Greg (Tatum) as cliched opposites - Morton the quiet nerd and Greg the buffoonish jock. Their paths cross again soon after graduation, however, when they both enroll in the police academy. There they team up to bolster each other's weak spots - Morton's physical training and Greg's procedural knowledge - to join the force. The two are made partners in a low-level role, but their personalities still conflict and it ends up in the debacle of a routine arrest.

Morton and Greg are transferred to a new undercover department housed, appropriately, in an old church. Their first assignment is to enroll in a local high school where a new drug is running rampant and caused a recent fatality. Unfortunately for Morton and Greg, their assigned student identities get switched, so that maintaining their cover becomes quite a bit more difficult. Of course, the two manage to embrace the aspects of high school life that they had previously resisted, and use them to foil the mysterious drug supplier.

There are a number of different ways that a comedy can be successful, and a good cast is one of the most effective. Here, in reflecting my score for the film overall, the result is... eh. Jonah Hill is certainly the more practiced comedian of the pair and his role is also slightly larger in this film. I think he's a good actor (excellent in Moneyball), but he gives a pedestrian, at times even sub-par, performance here. I was rather skeptical of Channing Tatum's presence in this movie, but he does a decent job. It wasn't anything special, but he at least seemed to put more effort in than Hill, and he surpassed my expectations. High schooler Brie Larson as Hill's love interest (kind of a creepy idea) is just kind of there, but dealer Dave Franco is a convincing cool kid asshole. Ellie Kemper (Office) and Rob Riggle (Daily Show) have small but humorous parts as teachers. Ice Cube clearly tries to be funny as the undercover boss, but generally fails. I was excited to see Nick Offerman (Parks & Rec) and Jack Johnson (New Girl) in the cast, too, but they have tiny parts, thus wasting their considerable talents.

A comedy also needs a solid structure, whether it's serious or silly, and either consistent laughs or at least several big ones. 21 Jump Street's story formula is not exactly original, but it's good enough. Tatum fits his part in the mold better than Hill, which obviously has something to do with his better performance, relatively speaking. There are certain parts of the story that are made for laughs; the film cashes in on some of these, but others play out with little creativity or humor. The opening police debacle works, and the ending does not, for example. The drug aspect doesn't get overload attention and jokes, fortunately, but there is a clever use of YouTube-like presentation that works well. On the other hand, there are sadly more instances of attempted humor that falls flat on its face (ie: Hill almost getting his cover blown by a completely oblivious relative) than gut-busting riots - in my opinion.

***

I'm really not sure why 21 Jump Street received all the positive critical praise that it did. It wasn't a bad film either; it was really just a middle of the road comedy, one that skews toward younger viewers but not to an extreme. Case in point, I actually saw this more than a week ago, and had to rely quite a bit more heavily on Wikipedia than usual to remember everything that happens in it. It's solidly done, but there's little to give it the kick in the pants that a comedy needs to really shine: a great star or ensemble, or a creative story, or a few outstanding scenes, etc. Jonah Hill is unable to carry the show alongside comedy newbie Tatum, unlike Will Ferrell's excellent job in The Other Guys pulling along the comically inept Wahlberg. I suppose if you are a particular fan of Hill or Tatum, or if you were a fan of the TV show, I'd go see it. Otherwise, you can do better.

Movies: The Hunger Games

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

Long Story Short: The first mega-blockbuster of the year, The Hunger Games kicks off the film franchise of another uber-popular YA book series. This particular series creates some serious balancing challenges with its scenes of youth violence. A PG-13 rating necessitates dilution of some of the series' powerful images and themes, yet opens it to a wider audience. A strong cast overall helps the film create both tension and effective emotion often enough to overcome the compromises made in the translation.

Finally, a new post! Shockingly this is the first new film I've seen in 2012 (although I caught Star Wars: Episode I in 3D). There are a few winter films that I may catch in the dollar theater, and I'll be seeing several more in the near future. This was one I was looking forward to quite a bit, however. I read the series a little over a year ago, and have been quite curious to see how it would be adapted on film. The Hunger Games was directed by Gary Ross and stars Jennifer Lawrence; it is based on the first of a three-book series. Here we go...

The opening scenes of The Hunger Games establish the main character's, Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence), home environment. It is an impoverished, desperate, backward setting where survival itself is a struggle. Katniss' poaching partner Gale is introduced, as well as her little sister Primrose and quiet mother. Katniss' home is one of twelve districts in a future North America, and each year the government randomly selects one boy and one girl from each district between the ages of 12 and 18 as "tributes" for the Hunger Games. Naturally, Katniss ends up going, as does Peeta (Hutcherson), a quiet but affable baker's son.

The teens are amazed when they see the Capitol for the first time - a place of far greater prosperity than their own district, and one that flaunts it to extravagant extremes. Katniss and Peeta get a few days to prepare for the Hunger Games under the half-drunken, sour supervision of former champion Haymitch (Harrelson). Katniss and Peeta are filled with dread for the coming Games, which they have been forced to watch all their lives: a death match of twenty-four children in an enclosed environment, with unseen "gamemakers" providing additional new peril at random for entertainment. Katniss gains widespread popularity and sympathy even before the Games begin, however, and soon becomes a symbol of hope around whom more and more people rally.

It's always interesting to compare one's impression of a character on the written page to the actors that have been chosen to represent them on film. In my opinion, there are mostly hits here, with a few misses. While Jennifer Lawrence looks quite a bit older than Katniss' 16 years, and is far less scrawny as I thought she would be, she conveys the more important personality traits appropriately. She dives into Katniss, the strong, independent girl who is often withdrawn and sometimes moody; she also reveals her as the scared little girl in over her head at times, yet fiercely loyal to those close to her. Co-star Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is even a slightly better fit (a younger actor, he looks his part better), portraying a quiet, affable boy who is comfortable in front of a crowd but believably awkward around Katniss. Stanley Tucci as the flamboyant media star Caesar is my favorite of the bunch, improving on the character from the book. Elizabeth Banks also shines as Effie; it could have been easy to exaggerate the part. Donald Snow as President Snow and Amandla Stenberg as little Rue are also well cast.

Not all the parts are successful. I enjoy Woody Harrelson, but not his watered-down version of Haymitch. In the first book, at least, this grouchy old guy is flat out unlikeable, though he's still a good character. Woody, in part due to the script, plays him as a grump but one who attaches to Katniss and Peeta too quickly. Liam Hemsworth as Gale is just awful - not only does he look ten or more years older than his character, but his acting is Twilight-esque. Fortunately he has little screen time. Lenny Kravitz plays Cinna as a bit too cool in my opinion, but nothing terrible.

What I was most curious about with the film adaptation of The Hunger Games, of course, was how they were going to portray the disturbing violence among minors. The books do not hand out bloodless, fairy-tale demises, to put it mildly. Overall, I give the film a positive rating in balancing tension and the idea of kids fighting to the death with taste. The actual events are pretty faithful to the book, if considerably accelerated; the tree scene was done particularly well. This is certainly not meant for little kids, but it's certainly well within the realm of its PG-13 rating (relatively little bloodshed, etc.). There are plenty of moments well-set up for considerable emotion involvement in the story. These are done well early in the film, in addition to one case involving another one of the tributes, but not all work so well. The book provided a few more laughs than the film, which helped the mood yet didn't interfere with the overall tone. The parts of the score that happened to register to me were inventive and effective.

***

It took me a while to decide on a score for this one. It's always difficult to assess a film on its own merits when you've previously read the book that it's based on. I actually thought about giving it a slightly lower score, but settled on four stars. On the downside, and I'm being a little unkind here, I think a significantly more effective adaptation could have been done if they made it rated R (of course, then it wouldn't have made over $150 million on its first weekend). Yes, many of the series' fans are early teens and younger - but the themes and images are potent and disturbing (yet somewhat easier to take in print). The dilution of certain scenes not only reduced gore but also numbed the truth, however horrific. But from the perspective of a general movie fan, I am pleased that a creative new franchise like this can have action, emotion, politics and some great characters, and yet still be successful. So while a PG-13 adaptation prevents it from reaching four and a half stars, its place among contemporary blockbusters puts it well above the average.

Sports: Super Bowl, Aussie Open, NBA

Sports Newsletter

As I have not seen any new films of 2012 yet, I thought it would be good to go over the most recent sports news of which I am interested - in this case, the Super Bowl, Australian Open, and NBA. I hope you enjoy it, and feel free to comment, as usual, if you agree or disagree with me.

Super Bowl 2012

Ahhhhh... it is a unique, warm feeling to see the team you hate most get their championship hopes crushed in excruciating fashion. The Mavs beating the Heat last June in the NBA Finals came close to this, but nothing beats the Patriots losing a Super Bowl in my ranking of sadistic pleasures. I figured, going into the game, that surely New England would be fired up to avenge their historic defeat to the Giants in the 2008 Super Bowl and get the win. Here is a retro diary of the game for me:

• 1st quarter, ~9:00 - Pinned deep in their territory, Brady sits in the end zone waiting for an open receiver... and then just chucks it down the field at the first sign of pressure, resulting in a safety. Good start! (NYG - 2, NE - 0)
• 1st, ~3:30 - Giants drive down the field, score a TD. Maybe I was wrong about how this game was going to play out! (NYG - 9, NE - 0)
• 2nd, ~14:00 - Patriots march right down the field, but Giants manage to stop them at the 11 and force the field goal attempt. Whew... but I'm getting a little nervous. (NYG - 9, NE - 3)
• 2nd, ~5:00 - Giants driving the ball again, and then get called for the flukiest holding call I've seen in a long time on a 10-yd run on 3rd and 1... oh, boy, the Patriots are starting to get the calls again like they always do. This is not good. (NYG - 9, NE - 3)
• 2nd, ~0:10 - Patriots drive from their own TWO YARD LINE and shred the Giants' D like it's butter in getting a TD... crap, Patriots are going to win this game, I'm getting depressed (NYG - 9, NE - 10)
• Halftime - The Giants played much better for most of the first half... and yet they are losing?!?! I then realize that the Pats have been brilliantly baiting the Giants into running the ball and keeping the score low by preventing big plays. I hope that Coach Coughlin gives Eli the greenlight to start chucking the football in the second half and lighting that miserable Pats' secondary on fire.
• 3rd, ~11:30 - Patriots march quickly down the field and score another TD, bookending halftime with scores... Game over. Giants' D can't stop them, and Eli will start to fall apart. This sucks. (NYG - 9, NE - 17)
• 3rd, ~7:00 - Giants drive yet again but are forced into another field goal... I still have some hope, but all the missed opportunities are getting really frustrating. (NYG - 12, NE - 17)
• 3rd, ~0:45 - After a nice stop on D, the Giants drive again, this time getting to the 9 before Eli make me cry out in despair after getting sacked on third down... For the love of all that is good in football, would you please score a touchdown, Giants?!?! (NYG - 15, NE - 17)
• 4th, 9:30 - Giants get close to scoring position before blowing it again, and TE Ballard gets hurt on the drive. At least they pin the Pats on a good punt... There's still some hope (NYG - 15, NE - 17)
• 4th, 4:00 - Patriots drive - which I'm OK with, as long as they don't get a TD. Then Welker gets left all alone in Giants' territory, the pass is a little long and high but he's got his hands on it... and drops it... and my heart starts beating again. (NYG - 15, NE - 17)
• 4th, ~3:45 - From deep in his own territory, Eli chucks it far down the sideline, and the Giants's Manningham, double-covered, makes a brilliant catch while staying in bounds... Please tell me that was a "helmet catch," please tell me that was a "helmet catch"...
• 4th, ~1:00 - Bradshaw falls into the end zone when the Pats don't try to stop him... Yeah, the Pats have a chance to win it still, but at least the Giants can't screw up an easy field goal like the damn Ravens (NYG - 21, NE - 17)
• 4th, 0:00 - Pats' receivers start to choke... Giants finally get pressure on Brady, including a huge sack... a desperate hail mary has little chance of success (ESPN Patriot sycophants crying that Gronkowski would have gotten it if not injured - yeah, right - not withstanding)... It hits me. Despite spoiling plentiful opportunities throughout the game, the Giants have done it again! They have defeated my least favorite team for the second time in four years! All hail the Giants!!!!!! (Final score: NYG - 21, NE - 17)

Some of you (mostly non-NFL followers) might be thinking, why do you hate the Patriots so much, John? It all started on January, 19, 2002: the Snow game, or better known as the "tuck rule" incident. Look it up on Google if you're unfamiliar with it. I was rooting for the Raiders, since Jerry Rice (my favorite NFL player of all time) played for them at the time, and I was particularly outraged by the horrible nature of the call/rule/whatever you want to call that abomination. The Patriots then went on to beat my favorite team (Steelers), then my dad's favorite team (Rams) in the Super Bowl. As the Patriots added more championships, media coverage revealed Coach Belichick to be a sullen, grumpy, secretive Emperor Palpatine-like figure, and QB Tom Brady to be a whiny, entitled "star" (look up his stats - mediocre until 2007) who kept reminding everyone about his being slighted in the draft. Then came 2007. A former assistant coach finally came forward that the Patriots had been cheating since 2001 - this came to be known as Spygate. Did the team, Belichick in particular, apologize or appear ashamed? No, they were outraged by their accusers and anyone who thought they had done anything wrong, and proceeded to run up the score on many teams that year. Fortunately, karma caught up to them in the Super Bowl as the Giants snuffed out their hopes for a perfect season.

Whew! That went longer than I expected - but then, I can go on and on about the Patriots. It's time to move on to more positive things - this is about sports, after all!

Australian Open:

Ending in an epic, nearly six-hour Men's Final won by Novak Djokovic (my favorite player), this year's tourney was a very enjoyable one for me. Sadly, I don't get to watch as much of this one since the time difference is so extreme, but still. Here's a look at some of the stars and how they did (seed in parentheses):

(1) Novak Djokovic: after basically mowing down his first five opponents, Djokovic earned it the hard way with consecutive five-set wins over Murray and Nadal. He proved once again that his skills and mental and physical toughness are the best in tennis right now, and perhaps the best in all of sports.

(2) Rafael Nadal: though he lost in the final, this was still a win for Rafa. He mowed down early opponents, too, then outlasted dangerous Berdych (#7) before meeting famed rival Federer yet again. This match was at least as good as the final, and showcased Rafa's utter tenacity. Better luck next time against Nole (Djokovic).

(3) Roger Federer: he seemed to be cruising dangerously after destroying big-serving Juan Martin Del Potro in the quarters, but Nadal once again served as his brick wall. I think Roger's a good guy and don't have anything against him, but I always kind of root against him after his past dominance. It's time for the new guys, Roger.

(4) Andy Murray: you've really gotta feel for this guy. He's worked so hard to put himself into legitimate contention with the Big Three, but he's always been that wobbly fourth leg of the chair - he's never won a Grand Slam. He even briefly surpassed Federer in the rankings last year, but got another excruciating defeat to Djokovic this in the tourney.

American men: embarrassing. Only John Isner got to the 3rd round, where he lost (granted, Roddick got injured, but he still probably wouldn't have gone much farther). At least the Davis Cup team beat Switzerland's this week (including Isner upsetting Federer in singles play).

(1) Victoria Azarenka: to be honest, about the only thing I knew about her was that she had a very annoying scream when hitting the ball. And I still didn't get to see her play very much. She pretty much demolished everyone, though (with one brief meltdown vs. Clijsters), so she must be quite good (and only 22 years old).

(2) Petra Kvitova: after winning Wimbledon last year, I thought she would be the new, Czechoslovakian Serena Williams (huge serve/forehand). Her loss to Sharapova thus came as a surprise to me. Perhaps she's another moody Eastern European who needs to build a mental and emotional state to match her physical skills.

(3) Maria Sharapova: her serve sucks and she's vulnerable to long stretches of poor accuracy, but boy does she work hard. She is at least as competitive as Serena Williams, and it's keeping her at the top of the rankings. I think she'll need more lucky breaks than most, though, in order to win another Grand Slam.

(4) Caroline Wozniacki: another women's #1 seed who just can't win a Grand Slam. At least Caroline doesn't completely implode when the pressure is on like some others (I'm looking at you, Safina). Wozniacki is extremely consistent, but doesn't have the weapons yet to slug it out with the other top players. Maybe in a few years - she got bumped to #4.

(12) Serena and (-) Venus Williams: upon further review, Venus didn't even play in this one although I thought she had. Serena lost in the fourth round. It looks like the Williams sister era is coming to an end at long last. While I'm glad of that, the current crop of "stars" aren't exactly exciting. Here's hoping some new American youngsters can become the new Chris Evert or Billy Jean King.

NBA

There are some surprises so far this season, more than usual I'd say (less than the insanely competitive NFL, admittedly). Dwight Howard is the Carmelo Anthony this year - will the Magic trade him and get something in return, or let him walk at the end of the season? Chris Paul already got traded, of course, and has instantly turned the L.A. Clippers into contenders. Just digest that for a second. The Clippers are contenders this year. Shocking. And there's the breakout player of the year, Jeremy Lin. No, he's not being overhyped: he scored more points in his first five game than anyone else. Anyone (including Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, etc.). Here's a breakdown of what I've heard about the top teams in each conference.

(1) Chicago Bulls: despite missing Rose and Deng for extended time and only having Hamilton for 11 games thus far, the Bulls have the league's best record. Noah is even struggling this year, but the defense remains top notch, and the offense is working better. It would be shocking if they did not at least make it to the conference championship again.

(2) Miami Heat: freaking LeBron James... sadly, Miami is right back at it this year, no surprise. They are even improved from last year, adding first year PG Cole and veteran defender Shane Battier. The best hope teams seem to have against them is to keep it close until the end and hope James chokes in the clutch (as usual).

(3) Philadelphia 76ers: here's a team to refute the theory that you need a star player to compete in the NBA - the 76ers' top scorer averages less than 16 per game. Six different players score in double digits for them, and they rely on a stingy defense. Haven't seen them play yet, but look forward to them as a potential playoff spoiler for the Bulls/Heat.

(4) Atlanta Hawks: with star guard - wait, hold on a second. The Atlanta Hawks are fourth?! Don't worry, they'll just lose in the first round or get swept in the second.

Others: Indiana Pacers have a great young core (just saw them play last night) and can hoop it up with anybody... Boston Celtics kind of suck this year, with Rondo dragging along the corpses of the "Big Three"... New York Knicks had a terrible start, but if they can all get healthy they could be scary - Lin at PG, Anthony as primary scorer, Stoudemire (offense) and Chandler (defense) as big men.

(1) Oklahoma City Thunder: possibly the most talented team in the league, and they've all been together now for several years. The biggest concern is the Durant-Westbrook duo. It's clear to everyone else that Durant is Batman and Westbrook Robin, but Westbrook often tries to star and usually ends up jacking up bricks and turning the ball over when he does.

(2) L.A. Clippers: "Lob City" is one of the most entertaining teams in the league, but they still need to work on their consistency. We'll see if they can survive Billups' season-ending injury, but I just don't see them making it to the conference championship yet, and maybe not even the divisional round in this deep conference.

(3) San Antonio Spurs: this truly shocks me. Their best player, Ginobili, has played just six game and yet they're right near the top of the standings. I have yet to see them play this year, and am interested to see how exactly they are winning games, what with Duncan's aging body and a young, unproven supporting cast around Parker and Ginobili.

(6) L.A. Lakers: how quickly the Lakers have gone from fighting for the top seed to fighting to just make it in to the playoffs. The reason is obvious: after Bryant, Gasol and Bynum it's a drop off a cliff in talent. Fisher is ancient, Goudelock is green, Blake is serviceable - as a back up, and Artest (I refuse to call him Metta World Peace) has completely fallen apart. Who else do they have? Barnes is pretty good, but again, basically a bench player; same with McRoberts who is injured. By the time they get to the playoffs Bryant, if not Gasol and Bynum, too, will either be exhausted or injured. Let's just stop this.

Wow, that was a long sports review. I hope you at least read and enjoyed parts of it. I will likely have a movie review next week - check Facebook to see which one!

Movies: 2011 Review

Now that it's almost February, it's time for my review of the last year in movies. Like last year, I will post my top 10 of the year with short explanations of why. Then I'll do some other random awards/thoughts. Before I begin, I have to say that comparing the films I saw in 2010 to 2011, I'd say that 2011 was a significantly better year. There are some interesting parallels in my top 10 from both years, though. Anyway, on to the list.

10. Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol (directed by Brad Bird; starring Tom Cruise, Jeremy Renner, Simon Pegg, et. al.)

Skyscraper scene. I just can't overstate the greatness of this tense, realistic action set. Ethan Hunt is at it again in this fourth installment of the series, and overall it's about as good as the third. The supporting cast isn't nearly as good (or well-written) as last time, but that Dubai scene, plus the missions in Russia, made this a great time in the theater.

9. Sucker Punch (directed by Zack Snyder; starring Emily Browning, et. al.)

Much like last year's Kick-Ass, this one isn't for everyone. Yes, it did have the potential to cross the line into misogyny, but - from this reviewer's point of view - it doesn't. Think The Matrix meets "Life of Pi" meets Shutter Island. If that strikes you as a bit strange, you're right, but it has a unique mix of striking, imaginative action scenes with brutal, hard realism.

8. X-Men: First Class (directed by Matthew Vaughn; starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, et. al.)

Speaking of Kick-Ass (same director), Vaughn reboots the successful X-Men film franchise with this slick origin story. McAvoy and Fassbender are the best parts of the film: both do fantastic jobs as the very different yet close mutant friends. I only wish that they had focused on these two even more than they did, and delved into the alternate history (mutants involved in Cuban Missile Crisis) rather than rushing into forming the X-Men team.

7. The Ides of March (directed by George Clooney; starring Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, et. al.)

Released about one year before the 2012 presidential election, this is a disturbing yet riveting portrait of the ruthlessness of politics. The cast, with the four stars seen above plus some, is obviously fantastic, effectively portraying regular, flawed, very un-starlike people. Although many won't be caught off guard by the twists like I was, it's still a powerful story.

6. Rise of the Planet of the Apes (directed by Rupert Wyatt; starring Andy Serkis, James Franco, et. al.)

The most important thing to keep in mind if you haven't seen this yet: don't trust the trailers and TV commercials for this. Completely misleading. This film is primarily about the unique chimp Caesar (Serkis) and the way his animal nature competes with his unnatural intelligence, one that makes him a person, just not a human. Recommended for all.

5. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (directed by Guy Ritchie; starring Robert Downey, Jr., Jude Law, et. al.)

Having been a big fan of the first film, I eagerly awaited this sequel and I wasn't disappointed. To me, RDJ does a phenomenal job as the wily Sherlock, and his performance alone is enough to get me in the theater. This one loses some of the clever mystery-solving elements, but picks up some of the most creative action scenes, a brilliant villain, and a near-perfect ending.

4. Super 8 (directed by J.J. Abrams; starring Joel Courtney, Elle Fanning, Kyle Chandler, et. al.)

This film takes you back to '80s-style filmmaking, and utilizes modern techniques only to enhance some elements. It's really a coming-of-age story, like so many of that era, and the lead actor does a fine job (Fanning is a scene-stealer, too). It's hard to recreate classic monster suspense in today's films, but this one manages it, and so the special effects, when employed, carry much more weight than audiences are used to.

3. War Horse (directed by Steven Spielberg; starring Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, et. al.)

Another film that brings cinema back in time, this one goes even further with its storytelling approach. Joey the horse is the emotional core of the film (enhanced by incredible filming technique), and the narrative introduces a wide array of WWI settings brought to life by an impressive array of great supporting actors. This one is for everybody, and if you happen to be an animal lover and/or historian (like me), you'll like it even more.

2. Moneyball (directed by Bennett Miller; starring Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, et. al.)

This was perhaps the biggest surprise of the year for me. It's basically The Social Network for baseball, except better in every way (and I thought Network was very good, too). Pitt manages to create a very relatable, flawed yet hardworking main character, and it gives the film the emotional core Network lacked. Throw in fantastic, hilarious dialogue and here's a sports movie I can fully endorse.

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows-Part Two (directed by David Yates; starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, et. al.)

A bit like Toy Story 3 from last year, this top spot was Potter's for the taking, and it stepped up to the challenge. It's not really fair, since I had gotten to know and love the characters from seven different books and the movie adaptations using (almost) all the same actors. I still don't think it's a perfect adaptation of the books (I'm doubtful it's possible, anyway), but the final film embraces the style (its pros and its cons) that has characterized this particular series of films. This final entry does the series, a favorite of mine, justice.

Other Awards:

Honorable Mentions: Contagion (really frightening yet entertaining, almost documentary-like portrait of a global pandemic), The Green Hornet (like last year's Kick-Ass, a wildly fun and original take on the comic book genre), Captain America: The First Avenger (formulaic comic book film, but done surprisingly well).

Worst Movie of the Year: Battle: LA (the trailers made this look like a potentially original, highly suspenseful and realistic action movie. I want my money and two hours back, please).

Most Overrated Movie of the Year: Thor (this was an OK comic book film, but it was lazily made in so many different aspects. Captain America: The First Avenger later in the summer completely outdid it in every possible way).

Most Disappointing Movie of the Year: Cowboys and Aliens (this actually qualifies for the all-century most disappointing movie list. I mean, come on. You get both Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) and James Bond (Daniel Craig) signed on, and a potentially wacky and humorous idea (the title says it all). Then you completely waste it all by having Hollywood producers think tank the "safest" most "marketable" story and script imaginable. I need to forget this movie ever happened).

Movies I Saw on DVD from 2011: Bridesmaids (I liked it a lot - especially dress fitting scene - although I didn't feel it was quite as good as many people raved), Source Code (College of Wooster grad directed! Very entertaining and a unique plot), Rango (the only animated film I saw all year; very bizarre with some good spots; overall pretty good), The Adjustment Bureau (I don't know what the hell Matt Damon was thinking... a neat concept utterly wasted), Fast Five (why exactly does this have such a high Rotten Tomatoes score? Skip it).

So, now it's on to 2012. I am bursting with excitement for The Big Three: The Dark Knight Rises (part three of Nolan's brilliant Batman trilogy), Skyfall (Craig's third Bond film), and The Hobbit Part One (*hums the Lord of the Rings theme*). Let's hope 2012 can match or even beat an impressive 2011 in film.

Movies War Horse

Score: ****1/2 out of *****

Long Story Short: Get ready to use some tissues in War Horse, a touching adventure story yet also at times a gritty, effective tale of World War I. Joey the horse carries the emotional torch admirably, while an impressive string of great human performances along the way gives it a compelling narrative flow as well. Another home run for Steven Spielberg.

War Horse marks the third holiday-season film I've now seen in theaters (I'm going to see one, possibly two more, then write my 2011 movie review wrap up). The main appeal in this movie was my favorite director, Steven Spielberg, and his usual musical sidekick, John Williams. Since Saving Private Ryan is the best war film I've ever seen, I also thought Spielberg would do a great job with another one, this time set in World War I. The film has no big stars, although you'll likely recognize a few people here and there.

War Horse begins with a brief prologue showing the title horse in question, Joey, being raised from birth, always under the fascinated watch of young adult man Albert. The day comes when Joey's owner is ready to auction him off, and Albert's drunken father overpays for him to Albert's delight. The family needed a work horse but Joey is a thoroughbred; Albert loves him so much, though, that he pledges to train Joey anyway. Even as Joey and Albert enjoy success, war strikes England and Albert's father sells Joey off for the war effort.

With Joey on the Continent, the film follows him over many miles and many various people that pick him up. Each encounter shows a different aspect of life during World War I, and how a faithful animal like Joey could change things dramatically. As you might expect, Albert joins the army in order to find his old friend, and he also becomes another link in the larger war story. You'll probably be able to predict many of the plot developments as you watch this, so I won't bother spoiling any more details about it.

War Horse is, oddly, rather like Rise of the Planet of the Apes from earlier this year, at least in that the main character is an animal. There is, of course, a big difference in that Apes' Caesar was simply the motion capture image of a real actor, while War Horse used real horses (eight different adult horses for Joey, according to Wikipedia). I have no idea to what extent you can train a horse to "act," but scene by scene, a combination of filming techniques and the horses' own movements create incredibly moving yet not over the top "performances." Joey really is a horse the audience "gets to know." Jeremy Irvine, Albert, is the main human character; he does an OK job, I suppose, but entirely forgettable (his role isn't that big anyway, fortunately).

There's a whole host of supporting actors, as Joey goes from place to place - and they all do far better than Irvine, fortunately. For the England scenes, Albert's parents (Emily Watson and Peter Mullan) are superb, as is landlord Lyons (David Thewlis - Lupin from Potter films). Tom Hiddleston has a brief but striking role as Captain Nicholls; Celine Buckens and Niels Arestrup have great chemistry as a young French girl and her grandfather; and there are several fun foot soldier roles later in the film, such as those by Toby Kebbell and Hinnerk Schonemann. Really a great, if largely unknown, cast.

War Horse has often been described as "old-fashioned" storytelling; take that as you will. To me, it's an interesting hybrid of serious historical fiction with sentimental individual journey. Thus, it's important for the film to achieve a reasonably accurate and interesting picture of the times and match that with a good arc of emotional development. Spielberg made sure to give his film the same authentic feeling that is in Private Ryan and Band of Brothers, and it is perhaps even more effective here in some ways since there aren't nearly as many WWI films as WWII films. War Horse is also known as a tearjerker, and that is quite true - from beginning to end, in fact (especially, of course, if you love animals). The film does a neat job of using Joey's development as the emotional structure, but also seamlessly introducing the steady diet of supporting (human) characters that parallel Joey's journey. There are a few special effects, but it is mostly the vivid landscape that catches the eye. For the ear, John Williams' score is particularly effective at the beginning before there's much dialogue; after that, I admit I was too swallowed up in the story to really notice the score much.

***

For a final comparison, War Horse reminds me of True Grit from last winter; two somewhat straightforward adventures that focus on their emotive leads and succeed with great casts and terrific execution. You may find that War Horse tries too hard to get the tears flowing in some parts; on the other hand, the film is not afraid at all to reveal the brutality of the war and the instant coldness of its deadly consequences. I guess, then, that perhaps a little over-the-top sentimentality at times would be necessary to get through such a violent yet pointless war. The film also includes Spielberg's underrated sense of humor, at the appropriate times. Well-done all around, from Joey to the stench of the trenches, and War Horse is certainly one of the best of the year.

Movies: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

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

Long Story Short: For a high-octane early-2012 time at the theater, check out Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol. There are flaws, but the pros outweigh the cons; Cruise is still fun despite a wooden supporting cast. Some fantastic scenes, most notably the Dubai skyscraper, will make you forget about the pitiful attempts to inject emotion into the story. If you're only going to see one film, I recommend Sherlock, but this one's good, too.

On my own mission: possible to check out a bunch of interesting holiday-season films in the theater, the new Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol turned out to be second in line. After thoroughly enjoying 2006's Mission: Impossible III, I was pleased when I found out about this one. After seeing it get such a high score on Rotten Tomatoes (currently 93% positive reviews), I was even more keen to see it. This fourth installment in the series was directed by Brad Bird (The Incredibles, Ratatouille) and brought in Jeremy Renner to co-star with Tom Cruise.

The IMF (super-secret American spy agency) is already at work on their first mission as the film opens - breaking out a prisoner from a Russian jail. The prisoner is none other than Ethan Hunt (Cruise). Hunt gets no rest, though, immediately receiving a mission to break into the Kremlin in order to discover the identity of a shadowy villain. Assisted by newbies Agent Carter (Patton) and Dunn (Pegg), Hunt has to improvise. To make matters worse, Hunt and his team find themselves on their own afterwards, even as they begin to understand the enemy's catastrophic scheming.

Using their few remaining resources, Hunt and Co. fly to Dubai to intercept a transfer of nuclear launch codes to the enemy. With a mix of success and failure, they have to scramble across the globe yet again to India in a desperate bid to stop a cunning foe from unleashing massive, worldwide destruction.

Tom Cruise once again leads the cast in this latest Mission, one that is notably weaker than the one from the last film. Cruise is great in this kind of action film, fitting the part of a strong, capable hero and leader with great energy. He also has underrated comic timing which is enhanced by but also fitting in with the intensity of his character. I mostly blame the script, rather than his performance, when the film's handful of attempts to draw emotion fall flat. His first two partners, Agents Carter (Paula Patton) and Dunn (Simon Pegg) are flat, one-note co-stars, although Pegg at least adds a good bit of welcome humor. Renner is rather disappointing in his role; he's good at the action, but his performance in the "emotional" bits is painful to watch. Villain Hendricks (Michael Nyqvist) gets relatively little screen time but does a good job. It was nice to see Lost-alum Josh Holloway (Sawyer) get a brief but entertaining part.

Fortunately, you probably won't go see Mission: Impossible for the acting. You go for the action set pieces. The key scene in this film is the Dubai skyscraper (I'm sure you've seen it in commercials). Wow. Now, I'm afraid of heights, which is significant, but this scene is shot so well and with so much tension, I think anyone seeing it in the theater would be gripping their seats for at least half of it. It's one of the most exciting scenes I've seen in a film in years. The opening scene with the prison break is also great, more so for its creativity and sense of humor. The break-in at the Kremlin also offers a fun ride. The effects (with a few exceptions) are fantastic, as is the general cinematography. These action films try to incorporate crowd-pleasing humor and varying amounts of emotional sideshow. As you probably have figured out by now, Mission handles the humor part of this MUCH better than the emotional. Finally, the score is a lot of fun, combining the classic Mission theme which is almost up there with the Bond theme, and the great film composer Michael Giacchino's clever modern variations.

***

Whereas the last film I reviewed, the new Sherlock, qualified as about the best possible 4 star film I can think of, this one just barely qualifies as a 4 star. The first two-thirds (ie: up until going to India) of the film would have easily put it up their with Sherlock. But the last third becomes a pretty formulaic affair; and to make it worse, the very last scene is drawn out way too long and tries really hard to get a tear out of the audience when it really just got a tired sigh from me. What gets this to 4 stars is 1) well, most of the movie is very well made, and 2) the Dubai scene. Yeah, it's that good. Plus, Cruise is still a charismatic, effective action star, and the humor and score are great. I think it's enough to make up for the film's flaws, even if I believe that critics overall are nuts to give Mission (93% on RT) a better reception that the new Sherlock (59%).