Movies: Men In Black 3

Score:  ***1/2 out of *****


Long Story Short:  Agent J and (old) Agent K's great chemistry is replaced by Agent J and (young) Agent K's in this third installment of the sometimes great sometimes not so great Men In Black franchise. Sadly, this film simply cannot replicate the magic from the first film when it tries to - but the good news is that it creates some new magic of its own thanks to Brolin, some great supporting characters, and a surprisingly good story.




Now for my second movie review of the summer!  There are a couple comedies I'd still like to see that are already out, but they will be late, unfortunately.  On the other hand, I'm finally writing a review for a movie during its opening weekend!  Having immensely enjoyed the original Men In Black (although I thought the first sequel was not good at all), I have been looking forward to this one.  This third Men In Black was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld again and returns old stars Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, with the addition of Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men).


The film starts on a moon prison holding various alien bad guys; a visitor helps an alien named Boris the Animal to escape, an alien intent on exacting revenge on the agent who removed one of his arms.  Back on Earth, Agents J (Smith) and K (Jones) respond to a typical alien disturbance in downtown NYC.  Agent K discovers a clue there that leads him to realize that Boris has escaped, though he withholds details from J.  That night, J feels something weird happen and when he gets to the MIB headquarters the next day he finds that K has disappeared.


J and the new MIB chief realize that Boris went back in time to change an important event.  As an alien fleet descends on Earth, J travels back in time to stop Boris.  He teams up with a younger, skeptical Agent K (Brolin) and Griffin (Stuhlbarg), an alien with a special ability, to stop Boris.  In replaying Agent K and Boris' confrontation in 1969, Agent J discovers why Agent K changes from the (relatively) easy-going youth (Brolin) to the reserved, grouchy old man (Jones).


The work of Men In Black's leading men, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, is certainly the main draw of the series.  For a variety of reasons, that is not the case in this installment.  Let's start with Will Smith,  since he's the only one in the film from beginning to end.  He gives pretty good effort throughout, but it's clear that he relished some scenes and kind of dragged through others.  It doesn't help that the script in the opening scenes gave him pretty poor material.  Still, overall a solid job.  Josh Brolin as the young Agent K, however, does a phenomenal job.  It's similar to his work in W. impersonating Bush (Texas drawl), but Brolin gets Jones' unique mannerisms down very well.  Michael Stuhlbarg plays Griffin, an alien in the kind of role that often annoys me, but here the script actually makes him better than otherwise; he is strange but also wise in a genuinely humble sort of way.


Jemaine Clement plays Boris the Animal, the villain, and you'll likely recognize his voice.  It is that voice, in fact, that makes him a distinct, dangerous and cunning bad guy.  There is also a strong cast of supporting roles, including Emma Thompson as the new MIB boss (sporting a hilarious impression of an alien language), Bill Hader as Andy Warhol (one of my faves on SNL, and just as good here), and Will Arnett as Agent AA (a very brief role on an elevator, but very amusing).  The low point acting in the film, and this truly shocks me, is Tommy Lee Jones.  Simply put, he looks tired and bored in this film and obviously phoned in his performance.  Granted, there are moments here and there of good Tommy, but overall he is bewilderingly bad.


Men In Black thrived on its quirky interactions with New Yorker aliens and its funky sense of humor.  That formula is really only evident in Agents J and K's first scene and, disturbingly, it's perhaps the worst part of the film.  The jokes are tired retreads, the performances are flat, and the interactions don't stand apart from the others in the series at all.  The aliens and assorted goo and destruction has always had a slightly cartoonish feel to them, and the same is true here (perhaps too fake in that unfortunate first J and K scene).  Several scenes were also clearly filmed to make more impact in 3D viewings (as usual, though, I saw it in 2D).  Fortunately, once Agent J travels back in time, things improve significantly, mostly thanks to Brolin's performance and Griffin.  The humor works much better in this section, and while the aliens are less numerous than you'd expect, the quirkiness is fresh once again.  And then there's the ending...


***


You might be thinking, after reading the review thus far, that three-and-a-half sounds a little high.  Up until the last few minutes, I was probably going to give this one three stars.  However, the ending adds a twist that, while perhaps a little cliched, fits in perfectly with Agent J and K's relationship over the three films, despite the filmmakers not probably having thought of it before this film.  I was expecting to love the Agent J and K back-and-forth and the bizarre collection of aliens, like the other installments.  Instead, Brolin completely blew Jones out of the water (and mercifully had far more screen time), and the overall story actually trumped the creativeness of the aliens, save for Griffin.  In other words, not what I was expecting at all.  If you're a big fan of Men In Black, I would recommend seeing this in the theater.  If not... well, you can probably afford to wait for Netflix/other rental options.

Sports: Trouble in Lakerland

2012 NBA Playoffs Update


As I suspected in my playoffs preview column, there have been plenty of surprises in the NBA postseason this year.  I'll at least mention a few notable ones at the end, but this post is primarily about my favorite team, the Lakers, and the early yet unsurprising end to their season.  Of course, every time the Lakers have fallen short in the Kobe era, basketball pundits have declared an emergency and called for drastic action.  This time, I'll add my own take to the situation.  (If you aren't interested in a recap of their season, skip to What To Do Now?)




A Season of Change


Even before the first game of the 2011-12 season, the Lakers faced several events that would dramatically effect their ability to compete for a third championship in four years.  First, of course, was the lockout, which pushed the start date of the season back to Christmas, even though the league still squeezed 66 games out of the condensed season calendar.  So many back-to-backs, and even back-to-back-to-backs, figured to be tough on the Lakers' aging roster, particularly Kobe in his 16th season.  The Lakers also replaced the best coach in the league's history, Phil Jackson, with Mike Brown, the guy who led LeBron's undermanned Cavs' teams to several strong seasons which nevertheless fell short of championship-level success.


Once the new collective bargaining agreement was made, each team had to scramble to sign the free agents they wanted and/or make the trades they needed.  The Lakers nearly got the best point guard in the league, Chris Paul, in a trade that would have sent away valuable big men Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom.  After the league vetoed the trade, however, the Lakers quickly traded - perhaps gave away is more accurate - Odom to the Mavericks.  It's impossible to know how well Odom would have done playing for L.A. this season, but in Dallas he rapidly fell apart to the point of being forced to "part ways" with his new team.


So, before the season even began, the Lakers were looking at a grueling schedule and outraged at being denied a superstar addition - but also got rid of at least one potential distraction (Odom).  Once the season began, the Lakers hovered just above .500, playing well at home and lousy on the road.  The Clippers, who ended up landing Paul, got all the early L.A. basketball headlines with a strong start.  Their defense improved under Mike Brown, to no surprise, whose Cavs also played stifling D.  On the other hand, their offense, especially in the first half of the year, was often painful to watch and rarely got to 100 points in a game.


Ron Artest (yes, I know, he's now Metta World Peace, but I refuse to use that "name") played quite badly for most of the season, but he started to improve in March and ended up playing better than he had in years.  Bynum's improvement was even better:  he posted career highs in points (18.7) and rebounds (11.8) per game, in addition to 2 blocks per game and good shooting (56% from the field, 69% from the line) - and he stayed healthy, playing over 90% of the schedule.  He became the Lakers' clear second scoring option, and even outscored Kobe on more than a few occasions.  Finally, the addition of Ramon Sessions in mid-March drastically improved their production at point guard.  He averaged 12.7 points and 6 assists per game, as well as nearly 50% shooting on 3s.


Despite a tough schedule at the end of the season, the Lakers grabbed the Pacific Division and 3rd seed in the West from the rapidly sinking Clippers.




Playoff Woes


The Lakers' first round matchup with the Denver Nuggets was an interesting one:  the Lakers preferred a slow pace controlled by their bigs, where the Nuggets preferred a lightning pace with lots of easy buckets.  The Lakers featured three great stars, while the Nuggets relied on an overall solid lineup (including their bench).  Quite appropriately, then, the series went seven games (even though the Lakers had the chance to end it at home in five).  Despite having Sessions' fresh legs at PG, the Lakers were still blown away far too often by the Nuggets' youthful speed and explosiveness.  Eventually, the Lakers' big three were just too much for the feisty Nuggets.


Round two, of course, was a different story.  The Thunder are no longer the run-and-gun team that they were when the Lakers beat them in the first round two years ago (en route to their second straight championship).  No, the Thunder simply did everything better than the Lakers.  L.A. did lose two games that they had great chances to win, true - but whereas last year I felt shocked by their loss to eventual champion Dallas Mavericks, this year it just seemed a matter of time.  Even the Lakers' best strength, the 7-foot duo of Gasol and Bynum, was pretty easily nullified by OKC's Perkins and Ibaka.  Kobe gave a few great performances, but it was increasingly obvious that he at least felt like there was no one else on his team who could help him win a game.  The subpar bench, which did OK in round one, completely collapsed here, too.




What To Do Now?


The Lakers find themselves going home early for a second straight year.  But when it comes to their future, the most important thing to remember is that they still have Kobe Bryant, for good or ill.  He is one of the all-time greats, and while he's still among the league's best, he's obviously going downhill with his age.  Taking into account his legacy, the pride and reputation of the Lakers organization, and his astronomical salary, there is no doubt he is going to finish his days as a professional basketball player in purple and gold.  It's one of the few certainties facing the team right now.


If there was a simple way forward from here, this post would not be worth writing.  But, of course, there aren't any simple solutions to the Lakers' situation.  The Lakers and their fans want to both A) win at least one more championship with Kobe Bryant, and B) retain a core from which to quickly rebuild once Kobe's best days have passed.  I rather doubt it is possible to achieve both of these outcomes, however (and, in a nightmare for fans like myself, perhaps neither is possible).  Still, if I were in charge of the Lakers here is what I would do...


So you want to win one or two more with Kobe...


99% of Laker fans, and many NBA analysts, are calling for Pau Gasol to be traded, even more than they did after last year's playoff exit.  I have also frequently been frustrated with Gasol, but if you want to go the win-with-Kobe route, the Lakers shouldn't trade him, for several reasons.  One:  he won't get much in return, and certainly no stars that would significantly upgrade their roster - Laker complaints are not made in a vacuum, and teams wouldn't feel the need to offer great value for him.  Two:  he is perhaps the Lakers' steadiest player, both on the court and in his head - his drop in production is mostly due to both Bynum's enlarged role and the team's adjustment as a whole to Brown's new offense.


So, if you want the win-with-Kobe route, Lakers, you should trade Bynum.  Why?  One:  he is by far your most valuable trading chip - he's only 24, he just finished the season with Dwight Howard-like numbers, he stayed healthy this year, and he has just one year left on a reasonable contract.  Two:  he STILL has maturity issues, and L.A. is clearly not a place to work those problems out.  Three:  yeah, he was healthy this year, but who knows how long that will last?  Four:  the Lakers' biggest obstacle for the future, OKC, clearly has the strategy and personnel to contain him at the moment.


Trade Bynum, and you could potentially get Deron Williams and maybe a role player or two in return.  Or maybe Steve Nash and your pick from the rest of the Suns' roster?  Etc. etc. etc.  I think the Lakers could do pretty damn well with a starting lineup of Kobe, Deron Williams, Ron Artest, Jordan Hill and Pau Gasol, with Blake, Sessions, Barnes, McRoberts (if he shows improvement), Ebanks, and any other role players you get from New Jersey Brooklyn.


So you want to build a future dynasty...


Obviously, in this scenario, you have to keep Bynum who would (hopefully) be the centerpiece of a post-Kobe Laker squad.  And if you're going to keep Bynum, then of course the Lakers will want to trade Gasol (which so many people seem to want to do anyway), since he is already in his 30s and seems unlikely to regain his maximum efficiency sharing post production with the more dominant Bynum.  What can you get for Gasol?  This is the interesting part.  As I said earlier, the Lakers won't be able to get much star power in exchange for Pau, so they can either get a handful of role players or perhaps a nice cache of draft picks.  With my strategy, of building for the future, the draft pick choice is obviously better - but the Lakers and their fans obviously want it both ways, and will want at least some known quantity to help them right off the bat.


As long as Kobe is still around, he will fight like hell to win more championships.  The risk with being too blatant about building for the future is that Kobe will return to his pre-2008 days of demanding trades loudly left and right (remember when he thought Bynum was useless?).  Of course, there are also risks to building around Bynum.  I already mentioned that his injury history is quite frightening, and his lack of consistency and maturity on and off the court makes him a dubious team leader at best.  Another point to mention is that maybe the game has simply moved on to the point that you can't win a championship when your best player is a center.  Look at Orlando:  Dwight Howard is a defensive monster, and they surrounded him with great three-point shooting on offense.  Yet the farthest they've gotten is losing the Finals in five games to the Lakers (and only got that far because the Celtics didn't have KG for the playoffs).  Bynum has a lot more potential at the offensive end, but he's no where near as good a defender as Howard and never will be.


My choice...


If I suddenly became the Lakers' owner, I would choose the first option.  Deron Williams would be the best choice for the Lakers at this point (trading for Howard might improve them but only by a few degrees - see above).  By doing this, you keep Kobe motivated and happy, and excited to have a superstar point guard teammate for the first time in his career.  You get rid of a potential distraction and/or season wrecker in the form of an unsurprising knee injury.  You get a more up-tempo style of play to match the rest of the league.  You completely erase OKC's biggest edge over you (Westbrook), perhaps even turning it to your advantage, while making their silver bullets (Perkins-Ibaka) far less meaningful as well.  And even if you still fall short of another championship, at least you can say you were a major power at one of the most competitive eras in the league's history (the Bulls' Rose plus smothering defense; the Heat's Big Three; OKC's Batman and Robin; etc.).  Stay with Bynum, Lakers, and you're simply a crotchety old basketball power who has been passed by unceremoniously.




A Few Other Playoff Thoughts


I feel so sorry for the Chicago Bulls and Derrick Rose, who tore his ACL and MCL in game one, right at the end as they were securing the win in the first game of the playoffs.  The Bulls and Rose deserve better than that, and then Noah's was just insult to injury... On the other hand, props to the 76ers for beating a still-formidable Bulls team despite having no stars of their own... The Hawks were the same old Hawks again, blowing game 2 at home despite no Rondo.  Oh, and Joe Johnson again "earned" his $18 million salary with 17 PPG, 37% FG and 25% from 3.  Don't worry, Hawks fans, just four years and ~$90 million of that scintillating play left!... Punching fire extinguishers doesn't help you beat the Miami Heat, as Amare painfully learned... I've finally seen it with my own eyes:  the Spurs have been destroying everybody.  Resistance is futile... Biggest series-wide shocker of the playoffs for me so far - the Clippers beating the Grizzlies.  The first three quarters of game one seemed to validate my thoughts on how the series would go - and then Chuck Norris intervened via humble souls bearing the long-scorned jerseys of the L.A. Clippers.  Basically nothing played out logically in that series, especially the fact that L.A.'s subs won it for them in game 7 in Memphis... Durant is a beast, and he will not let OKC go down quietly against anybody... I'm extremely impressed at how competitive Philly and Indiana have made their respective series in the semifinals.  All the more so when they happen to drop their guard for a moment; you see how ridiculously outgunned they are when Miami and Boston pounce on them...


Enjoy the rest of the playoffs!

Movies: The Avengers

Score:  ****1/2 out of *****


Long Story Short:  Despite commercials featuring a dizzing array of costumed superheroes, The Avengers succeeds spectacularly where so many team/large-cast films have failed.  Whedon devises a simple plot, but its job is simply to support the great cast (which somehow develops individuals and relationships with equal conviction), soaring action and a phenomenal sense of humor and fun.  Do yourself a favor and go see this in the theater, if you haven't already.




The summer movie season has begun!  It looks like there will be an interesting slate of films to choose from this year, and hopefully I'll have a bit more variety in my genre-watching this summer.  Still, I'm kicking off summer 2012 with, yes, a superhero movie.  Honestly, I was fairly skeptical about the concept of this film when I first heard about it; there have been many more instances of these team/large-cast action films that flop than succeed.  The trailers didn't completely erase my doubts, either.  However, I was quite pleased to see it get a Rotten Tomatoes score over 90%, excellent for any kind of film.  The Avengers was directed by Joss Whedon (Buffy, Firefly) and stars Robert Downey, Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and many others.


Before I begin the plot synopsis, I should inform you that this film does incorporate the events of the previous movies of its characters (Iron Man, Thor, etc.), but they aren't necessary to the understanding of the events of this film.


The first few scenes of The Avengers set up the villain of the film (Loki, demi-god brother of Thor) and his basic plot (steal an artifact - first seen in last summer's Captain America film - in return for an alien army to conquer Earth).  Loki (Hiddleston) acquires this artifact from the facility of a covert organization known as SHIELD, prompting SHIELD leader Nick Fury (Jackson) to begin summoning the heroes.  Black Widow (Johansson) is part of SHIELD already, and Captain America (Chris Evans) is in their custody, but the other Avengers prove a little more difficult to get onboard.


After some cajoling (and forest-leveling brawls), the team at last converges, grudgingly, on an aircraft carrier carrier (that's not a typo).  After discovering a secret SHIELD agenda, the team again forms rivalries, primarily between virtuous, team-player Captain America and skeptical, independent Tony Stark (Downey Jr.).  Loki attempts to further divide them, but the death of a mutual friend instead unites them.  After that, it's butt-kicking time.


One of the main reasons The Avengers succeeds is that it has a great cast, and it somehow manages to give every member a distinct and fascinating role.  As you might know from earlier reviews, I am a big fan of Robert Downey, Jr., and his role as Tony Stark/Iron Man is just as entertaining as Sherlock.  In fact, Stark is probably the most important character in the film, as his sarcastic, arrogant, often selfish yet always funny personality is so different from the traditional hero's.  Chris Evans' Captain America has pretty much the opposite personality, and he does a good job of portraying his character's extreme frustration with Stark, but also his cool-headed leadership skills.  Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) is kind of an interesting blend of Stark and the Capt. - he's a classic hero-type, but also arrogant/derisive of "puny humans" by virtue of his being, well, a demi-god.  Chris plays him with the same humor and charm that marked his character's own debut film.


Black Widow (Johansson) and Hawkeye (newcomer played by Jeremy Renner) are the tortured-soul members of the Avengers; each get a pleasantly surprising amount of development, considering they are really secondary characters, and the actors breathe life into them.  Mark Ruffalo is the third actor to portray the Hulk in the last decade, and he might be the best yet.  He gives Bruce Banner a quiet, friendly demeanor, but also a definite sense of hiding something huge and dangerous under that innocent exterior.  Tom Hiddleston as Loki improves on his performance in last summer's Thor, although he still is not among the best comic book villains.  Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is... well, pretty much what you'd expect from Samuel L. Jackson, but his underling Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) actually steals the show from him.


With a great cast balancing out a pretty straightforward story, next we look at the nuts and bolts of The Avengers.  A superhero film without good action scenes is kind of pointless, but fortunately this film has plenty.  There is great variety here, from intense individual skirmishes to heavy firepower shoot-outs.  Yes, the finale battle is an alien invasion in NYC, bringing back memories of *gulp* Transformers and many others, but here The Avengers provides a superior experience.  Overall, the film favors action that is appropriate for each of its characters rather than action that is original in a more general sense, which is a good trade off for this kind of team film.  The next aspect which must be spoken to is the film's sense of humor, because it is phenomenal.  The Avengers isn't a Green Hornet-esque action-comedy, yet it is far funnier than, say, 21 Jump Street whose primary mission was to be funny.  A little of the humor is based on (basic) knowledge of the comics, but most of it is accessible to the general movie-goer, and the showing I went to was laughing out loud on numerous occasions.  I won't spoil any specifics here, but while Tony Stark is of course humorous, the Hulk gets the biggest laughs.


***


Even while driving to go see The Avengers, I doubted that it would be good enough for 4.5 stars.  Team/large-cast films, to say nothing of action films that try to do it, are just so hard to do well.  But Joss Whedon deserves so much credit for succeeding, and in fact I would say he did the best job with the hardest task in any film I've seen in many years.  As I've said, the cast is a big factor - I love Downey, Jr., and the others also do a great job of creating distinct characters, with unusually good chemistry for a team of big names.  The combination of meaningful and fun action with an outstanding sense of humor also gives the film a huge boost.  And what all those things create together is a sense of fun unmatched by any superhero film in recent memory.  The film is certainly not a parody, but it's often a bit silly, reminding the audience that these characters did start off in comic books, after all.  The Avengers isn't perfect - the villain's plot, in particular, is not all that intriguing.  But the humor, cast, action and fun are all so good that they make The Avengers an instant classic in the superhero genre.

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!