Movies: Super 8

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

Long Story Short: Made in the style of '80s adventure/sci-fi/coming-of-age films all put together, Super 8 is not your typical film of this day and age. However, it captures that older tone quite nicely, features a two-pronged story with both innocence and mystery, and makes prudent, effective use of today's special effects. Go see pop-culture guru J.J. Abrams' latest creation; I don't think you'll be disappointed.

Well, it's been a busy summer for me at the theater already, and we're only about halfway through. I'd say it's been about an average summer, quality-wise, but we'll see what the next wave has to offer. I'm afraid that my review for this film is rather late, yet again, but I hope it's still enjoyable. Super 8 was directed (and written) by J.J. Abrams (Star Trek, LOST, etc.), starring Kyle Chandler (Friday Night Lights) and pretty much no one else you'd recognize. Here's my review.

The beginning of the film is a flashback 4 months before the main events of the film, where we are briefly introduced to Joe Lamb, a 13-year-old whose mother died in a steel mill accident in a small, rural town in Ohio. We also see some of his friends, and his father, a police deputy. Moving to the film's present, the summer of 1979, Joe and his friends (led by a chubby boy named Charles) are driven to a train station by Alice (the apple of Charles', and soon Joe's, eye) to film a homemade zombie movie. They manage to get some great "production value" out of the trip when the train is derailed by a truck that drives onto the tracks. The truck driver miraculously survives, and warns the kids to run away just before soldiers begin to swarm the wreckage.

After this event, Joe and his friends attempt to complete their movie (and he becomes close to Alice), while his father is overwhelmed by a string of mysteries in the town, some odd (missing toasters) and some sinister (missing people) as the Air Force sets up camp to do its own mysterious work. The Air Force, led by Col. Nelec, stages a disaster in order to evacuate the town, and Alice disappears; Joe and his friends, suspicious and trying to find their friend Alice, go to their school, where the truck driver had been a teacher, to try to find clues to what's going on. I don't want to spoil anymore, so I'll just end by saying, this takes them on a wild ride.

Even though you won't recognize many faces in this film, you'll remember some of the performances. Kyle Chandler stands out as Joe's father, who is in over his head as a police officer trying to figure things out, and struggling to help his son, and himself, past their grief over his wife's death. Alice (Elle Fanning) also stands out in displaying a complex array of traits, from playfulness to detachedness due to her broken family life, but keeping it all believable. Charles (Riley Griffiths) is another nice character, a worthy addition to the lineup of outgoing young boy group leaders in these movies. Joe's character (Joel Courtney) is actually somewhat passive, considering he's the main character, but perhaps this is to allow the audience to see themselves in his place.

The film's greatest strengths are its characters, tone, and story, but it's worth briefly mentioning other aspects. Special effects are used quite wisely in this film. The main set piece is the train wreck, alluded to in the trailers, but fully expanded in the film itself to a genuinely frightening, (literally) explosive experience. The town's "mystery" is kept pretty well under wraps, with just hints most of the way until the end, where we are treated to full realization of the truth. There's a little bit of military stuff in here, but it's more for the tone of crisis in the town than for gratuitous action. The comedy is quite good again; really, as an aside, all of the films I've seen this summer have handled humor well for the most part. Charles and Joe's other friends provide the majority of the laughs.

***

This is the best film I've seen so far this year. When I first walked out of the theater, I wasn't quite so high on it - but it slowly dawned on me how this film is really supposed to be seen. Think of it a little like music: The Beatles made, obviously, incredibly good music. But if you've been raised on the music of the '90s and later, it takes a little while to get used to the different style of the '60s. In Super 8, J.J. Abrams has made an '80s-style adventure/sci-fi film mixed with some of that era's frequent, nostalgic coming-of-age tone. When you're used to watching the most recent films (*raises hand*), you don't really expect to see something like this. But looking back on it repeatedly, I think that Abrams has done an excellent job recreating the feel of that '80s style, but modifying it slightly to better accommodate today's audience, and also, of course, making use of the latest special effects. Another review you might want to check out that I agree with is in Entertainment Weekly (probably better written but containing more spoilers). J.J. Abrams continues to emerge as perhaps the greatest creative mind in pop culture today (in my opinion); if you want to have a great time at the movies this summer, feel the old magic of a blockbuster - but don't want to just go see any old thing - make this the one.

Sports: NBA Wrap-Up

2010-11 NBA Wrap-Up

What a season... the NBA season just concluded may have been one of the best I've seen in quite some time. We had the Lakers going for another three-peat, trade drama during the season (mostly Carmelo, whose trade to the Knicks made them even more intriguing), and of course the whole Miami Heat storyline(s). Of course, it didn't turn out quite the way I expected, but that's sports for you. Now I'll talk about a few specific parts of the league.

Dallas Mavericks win the title

Wow. Just wow. If you had told me that Dallas would win the championship this year before the season began - heck, before the playoffs began - I would have told you you were crazy. But I have to give them a tip of my hat: what they did in the playoffs was perhaps one of the most impressive team performances I've ever seen. Seriously. Yes, the Mavs have Dirk Nowitzki, but until this year, he has been widely criticized for not coming up big in the important moments in the playoffs. He completely flipped that perception, and permanently. Beyond Dirk, they had no legitimate second star. Jason Kidd? Jason Terry? Shawn Marion? Tyson Chandler? All good, yes, and all stepped up their games in the playoffs, but perhaps only Chandler is currently at All-Star-level in his career right now. The Mavs' offense was spectacular in spite of this, riding Dirk's unbelievable streak and some of the best ball movement and spot-up shooting I've ever seen. True basketball. Their defense didn't really blow you away, but they got the stops when needed, and the zone threw teams off long enough to get the advantage. Portland Trailblazers. Los Angeles Lakers. Oklahoma City Thunder. Miami Heat. All fell. Bravo, Dallas Mavericks, you truly deserve a standing ovation.

One last thing: I've never been a fan of the Mavs, and I'm still not. But I can't help but feel pretty happy for Dirk Nowitzki and Jason Kidd, future hall-of-famers who have toiled away and now finally get their crowning accomplishment. I even feel kind of happy for Mark Cuban, who may have a big mouth, but he actually cares about his team and his players, and cares about winning, rather than just making a profit from them. Congratulations all.

Miami Heat: so close, yet so far

Before the season began, in the back of my mind I feared a dominant season for this team. I knew they would take some time to get adjusted, but felt it would only be a matter of time. Well, both of these tendencies came true. They finished the season at second in the East with an impressive 58 wins. In the playoffs, they put away Philly in 5 games (although it was a pretty close series despite that); more impressively, they put away both Boston AND Chicago in 5 games each (again, against Chicago, they got some unusually good 3-point shooting from Wade and LeBron). Those things made me fret.

However, it was not all good for Miami, obviously. They endured several curious losing streaks, including a poor 7-7 record in November, and streaks in mid-January and late February/early March. Of course, the kicker was the NBA Finals, where the Mavs served up some sweet revenge for their 2006 Finals loss. The Heat were up by 15 with less than 6 minutes to go in game 2, after having won game 1. They were then outscored 22-5 and lost. But the Heat had another great opportunity in game 4, after winning game 3 in Dallas. Dirk had the flu, and the Mavs' offense sputtered. But the Mavs again ended the game with a 21-9 run to win the game (by 3). After that, it was basically all Dallas in the last two games. Despite analysts' projection of an easy first title for the Heat, the Mavs decisively stomped that idea.

While at times the Big Three seemed unstoppable, there were many also that they seemed quite vulnerable. Chris Bosh, or as Skip Bayless brilliantly nicknamed him, "Bosh Spice," had a fairly disappointing year. I think he was just revealed for what he really is: a guy capable of putting up 20+ ppg as the star of the show, but someone who is not willing to consistently give superstar effort in rebounding or defense. He does not deserve to be discussed as the same class of player as LeBron or Wade. Wade, meanwhile, had a few moments of struggle during the regular season (especially against Boston), but turned it on in the playoffs. He is certainly the champion (literally and figuratively) on the team, but his game is a little like Bosh's in that he needs to have the ball a lot to be at his best.

Finally, of course, is LeBron. He averaged an outstanding 26.7 ppg, 7.5 rpg and 7 apg despite playing with both Wade and Bosh, and shot 51% from the field. Clearly, his performance was a major reason for their regular season success. However, in the Finals, LeBron had flashbacks to the Boston series last year, and disappeared in the 4th quarter of almost every game. If he had been able to dominate Chicago's defense, he should have been able to do it against Dallas as well. ESPN has been going over and over the reasons why that happened. Maybe it's because Miami doesn't know who to go to, Wade or LeBron. Maybe he just doesn't have the killer instinct of a Jordan or Kobe (though he seemed to have it against Chicago). All I know is, I'm glad he didn't win the championship this year. My two favorite LeBron moments this year: his calling the Cavs' 55 point loss "karma," then losing to the Clippers the next day while also spraining his ankle; and his posting up 5-foot, 8-inch J.J. Barea in the Finals, swatting him away and getting called for the offensive foul.

Next season?

I am going to be optimistic and assume that there will BE a season next year, although that's not guaranteed with the CBA expiring in July. The league as a whole seems to be in a transition to the next generation of stars, while the old generation struggles to hang on. Of course, it's only guesswork right now which teams will continue to fall, and which will continue to rise, but I'll give it a try.

2011-12 East Top 5:

1) Miami Heat. I have to put them here, since they got to the Finals this year and I don't want to risk underrating them. LeBron, Wade, and Bosh are under contract for years to come, and I imagine they will continue to get more comfortable playing with each other (although the Sports Guy thinks they might trade Bosh). Chalmers, a key player (and one of their few young role players) for them this year, is a free agent, however, and they will likely lose him. The Heat hope that Mike Miller gets better next year, and Haslem can stay healthy; everyone will still be gunning for the Heat next year, but they will have a better idea of how to beat them.

2) Chicago Bulls. More than anything, the Bulls offense was exposed in the playoffs this year. Their defense is fantastic, and will serve as a rock solid foundation for years to come. However, Boozer must play better than he did this year in order to help out Rose. They don't have any key free agents this summer, but they might benefit from getting an good scoring shooting guard. With their defense, Chicago should be near the top of the East in the regular season again, but a better offensive system, improvement from Boozer, and perhaps another scorer will be needed to get them to the Finals.

3) Boston Celtics. The Celtics face a difficult situation heading into the coming year. While they seemed to handle the Heat well in the regular season, they got blown away easily in the playoffs. It is pretty obvious that the Perkins-Green trade backfired on them. The top concern is: how much more can Garnett (35 yrs old), Pierce (turning 34), and Allen (turning 36) give them? Can Rondo continue to develop, especially his shooting touch, to take pressure off them? Can they find someone to replace Perkins? These are serious questions, but at least for the coming year, I give them good odds to be the East's third best.

4) Philadelphia 76ers. What?!?! you're probably thinking. However, the 76ers play great team basketball, and I liked the way they played the Heat in the playoffs this year. Unfortunately, I haven't seen them play much, but they have a solid young line-up: Elton Brand, Andre Iguodala, Jrue Holliday and Thaddeus Young. I can't seem them as a true championship contender without a superstar, but Doug Collins has them playing confident, cooperative team ball, and that's impressive given their youth.

5) Orlando Magic. Yes, Atlanta embarrassed them in the playoffs this year. However, I highly doubt Dwight Howard will quit on his team or sabotage them like Carmelo did this year. It's true that he doesn't have quite enough talent around him, but remember, they made a major trade in the middle of the year that will take some time to gel. I imagine they will let Jason Richardson go, who is good but a little redundant. Arenas could develop into a Jason Terry-type bench scorer (albeit an outrageously overpaid one). They just need to sign a decent back up for Dwight, and I think they'll be fine. The year after? We'll see.

Other teams to watch: New York (if they can make a few moves), Indiana (another good young core), Cleveland (if they draft Kyrie Irving... nah, just kidding)

2011-12 West Top 5:

1) Dallas Mavericks. I have to put the champs as #1 here. The downside is that they have several important free agents (Chandler, Barea, Butler). But since they just won the title, it should be easier to convince them to stay. Plus, the return of Butler from injury would make them that much stronger. I think it would be foolish to forget about this team among all the young, rising contenders; the Mavs now have the experience and the team chemistry to continue competing at the top tier.

2) Oklahoma City Thunder. Since I am dealing with rosters as they are right now, I have to give the Thunder a *slight* edge over my Lakers. I have to admit, though, that I was rather shocked to see their offense struggle to get points when they really needed them against Dallas, what with both Durant and Westbrook on their team; and their defense, even with Perkins, was suspiciously porous. Even still, I think that this roster has the highest potential in the NBA (yes, including the Miami Heat), and they have the key players signed for several more years at least. Westbrook needs to really set his role on the team, Perkins needs to work with Ibaka on their team defense, and the offense needs a little work, but I think they are in great shape.

3) L.A. Lakers. I look at the Lakers' future with both apprehension and hope. The Dallas loss, while humiliating, decisively signaled the need for change in this roster: they are too slow, have glaring weaknesses at guard, and quite simply, are getting a little tired of each other. Unfortunately, their options aren't spectacular, but I still think the best move would be to ship Bynum for a good point guard and a backup center. That would give them a Bryant-new PG-Artest-Odom-Gasol starting lineup: still one of the best in the NBA. Backing them up would be Blake/Fisher/Brown (2 of the 3), Walton, Barnes, and the backup center. Tweak for the remaining Kobe years, Lakers, then start to rebuild.

4) Memphis Grizzlies. Am I a prisoner of the moment? Perhaps. It's possible that this team will not do nearly as well next year. However, I think that they play with high energy and great defense, and that is a style likely to keep them coming. The Grizzlies have a lot of young players with great potential; in all likelihood, some of them will pan out and others will not. If Conley and Gasol are two that do, they will be in great shape. The team doesn't even need to resign Battier if it doesn't want to, with great similar teammates like Sam Young and Tony Allen. At any rate, this might be the most intriguing team to watch next year.

5) Denver Nuggets. After trading Carmelo Anthony, Denver was filled with a bunch of talented role players - but they suddenly caught fire. It will be tougher for them this year, now that teams have had a chance to study them, but they also have plenty of options for trades, depending on what their needs turn out to be. I would LOVE to see a trade of Bynum and Brown for Felton and Chris Andersen (if the Lakers could manage to get Afflalo, too, even better). Like the 76ers, it's hard to see this team really beating the league's elite in a playoff series as is, but they should have a good regular season at least.

Other teams to watch: San Antonio (sadly, this will probably be just to see how much farther they fall), Portland (can't blame them now for losing to Dallas), New Orleans (will Chris Paul demand a trade?)

Well, that's all. I hope you enjoyed the season (and this blog!).

Movies: X-Men First Class

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

Long Story Short: X-Men First Class is an energetic prequel to the popular superhero franchise. McAvoy and Fassbender lead the charge with fantastic performances as the young Patrick Stewart (er, Professor X) and Ian McKellen (er, Magneto). The pace is great, the visuals dazzling, and the comedy well placed and effective. I have some personal reservations as a follower of the series (unnecessary/sloppy copying of plot lines/themes), but I still enjoyed it greatly. For those with less familiarity with the series, I recommend it even more so.

Now we're rolling! This review is a little bit more timely, only a week after its release (I saw it last week but needed to think over it a little while); and this week, I plan to see Super 8. X-Men First Class was directed by Matthew Vaughn (Kick-Ass) and is the fifth X-Men film of the last eleven years (and the second prequel). I have considerably more to say about this film than the last two, so it'll be a slightly longer review. Enjoy!

The film begins with a teenage Erik Lensherr, later to be known as Magneto, in a Nazi concentration camp. Erik reveals a latent mutant ability, and a Nazi scientist goes to great, tragic lengths to get him to repeat his "magic." Meanwhile, a young Charles Xavier, later known as Professor X, finds Raven, later Mystique, breaking into his home and offers her shelter. The contrasting backgrounds of the two mutants presented, the film goes forward 18 years in time, to 1962. In this period, Erik is crisscrossing the globe, hunting down Nazis in hiding, while Charles is achieving great success with his studies on genetic mutations.

Charles and Erik finally meet, by accident, as they both hunt down the same man: Dr. Schmidt, aka Sebastian Shaw. Shaw himself is a powerful mutant, and was the scientist who deeply hurt Erik as a boy; in addition, in 1962 he is leading a terrorist group intent on inflaming relations between the U.S. and Soviet Union (that's where Charles comes in). Charles takes Erik under his wing, and the two begin to study and work with other mutants. It is quickly apparent, however, that Charles and Erik have significantly different world views; by the climax, as Shaw attempts to start WW3 as the Cuban Missile Crisis hits, these differences come to the fore. (this is one of my more vague plot overviews, I know, but I don't want to spoil too much)

One of the strengths of X-Men: First Class is its cast. In the first three films, Patrick Stewart as Professor X and Ian McKellen as Magneto provided a rock solid foundation for the series; in the prequel, James McAvoy (Professor X) and Michael Fassbender (Magneto) do the same. I was particularly impressed by McAvoy; he somehow conveys both the assuredness of a James Bond with the compassion of, well, take your pick (Dumbledore?). His performance is so lively, energetic, and precise, he grabs hold of your attention in all his scenes. Fassbender seems to be getting more attention for his acting; he does a fine job too, especially in a couple scenes near the beginning, but I think McAvoy is truly the star of the show here. If they continue making X-Men movies with these two, they will have a great chance to make more high-quality entries in the series.

There is a fairly large cast around these two stars, mostly good, some not. Kevin Bacon plays Sebastian Shaw, and he does quite a nice job as a creepy, menacing villain. He doesn't get a whole lot of screen time, but makes use of it. Jennifer Lawrence plays Rogue - er, Mystique - and does an OK job (I'll explain the Rogue part later). Emma Frost is portrayed by January Jones, who proves again her skill at playing smoking hot ladies with a cold, flat personality (see: "Mad Men"). There is also a fantastic cameo here, one that many people who have not even seen any of the other X-Men films may get.

X-Men: First Class serves up the kind of action you've come to expect from the franchise. Much of it, to put it simply, is the mutants showing how easily and creatively they can kick our unevolved human butts. A good bit of this is just good entertainment value, but there are also some rather gritty action scenes with the anger of the aggressors (mostly Erik or Shaw) amplifying the effects of their actions. The climax is done quite well, with a four-way showdown (U.S. vs. Soviets vs. Shaw vs. Charles/Erik). There is also some very effective humor here, in part because it is done somewhat sparingly and not *wink wink*, and in part because of the acting of McAvoy and Fassbender.

***

For me, this film is very similar to the new Star Trek. Both films are reboots of popular franchises that Hollywood felt went astray (personally, their arguments are dubious in both cases). And both, oddly enough, I feel appeal more to filmgoers who are not familiar with the respective franchises. This is because, while both films are very good, they tended to pack in a bit too much, smoothing over a few too many familiar franchise aspects (here is where my opinion starts to become somewhat fanboy-ish), and quite simply copy some plot/character points of the films that came just before them. It's almost as if the new directors are spitting in their predecessors' faces and saying, "I can do this better." Well, perhaps you can, but for those of us who have seen the latest entries in the franchise (even if they were critically panned), give us something a little different.

WARNING: PLOT DETAILS AHEAD (SKIP TO NEXT PARAGRAPH IF YOU DON'T WANT TO READ ANY OF THEM). In this new X-Men, the writers put in a fairly small subplot about finding a cure to the mutant genes; not only is this kind of a HUGE series idea in itself, it was what the third X-Men film was all about! On a related note, this cure idea is mostly tossed about in regard to Mystique, whose natural body is a yucky, scaly blue, and so she uses her ability to keep herself looking like the attractive blond Jennifer Lawrence. They play this role much too close to Rogue's from the original trilogy (thus, my "mistake" from above). Again, we've been over these ideas before! What disappoints me most about the new X-Men film is that it is so eager to start up the new school of mutants, and to have the break between Erik and Charles at the climax, that they wasted an opportunity that has NOT been addressed in the films yet: the development of friendship between the two fascinatingly opposite young men.

(OK, it's safe to read now)

My expectations going into X-Men: First Class were pretty high, based on the cool trailers and great reviews it was getting. This tends to be a dangerous thing. To be honest, my feelings on it upon leaving the theater were lower than they are now. As a fan of the franchise, and thus watching the film with the memory of the other films in mind, I am tempted to bring this down to a ***1/2. But for those who have perhaps only seen X-Men films once or twice, or haven't seen any at all, this is a very satisfying, summer blockbuster event. I'm afraid I've done a lot of griping in this review, but it really is a very fun film. The pace is great, with few if any letdowns, there are a number of great individual scenes, and McAvoy and Fassbender give tremendous performances. It's certainly a better choice than Pirates or Thor from earlier this summer.

Movies: Pirates of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides

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

Long Story Short: The Pirates franchise's fourth entry, On Stranger Tides delivers a fun summer adventure. With Jack as the main character and a fairly long run time, however, it does drag a bit. Rush really does a great job with Barbossa, and there are some neat new characters, but unfortunately a few other (inferior) characters steal valuable screen time. Not a lot new for Pirates faithful, but it's an entertaining summer event.

Unfortunately, I'm taking a little longer than I'd like to see and then post review of movies this summer. Well, if you haven't seen it yet, here are my thoughts; and if you have, see if you agree with me. This Pirates movie is the fourth film in the immensely successful franchise, but it doesn't really continue any storylines from the previous movies. It was directed by Rob Marshall (Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha), his first time at the helm for this series; Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush reprise their roles as mischievous pirates.

The film begins with Jack in London trying to free his old first mate, Gibbs, from a hanging. After running into some trouble of his own with the British government, Jack meets an unexpected old acquaintance, Angelica (Cruz). Angelica and her father, Blackbeard (McShane) are after the Fountain of Youth; as are the British and their new "privateer," Barbossa; and the Spanish. In need of a ship anyway, Jack agrees to go along.

After a surprisingly short time at sea (these are pirates, after all), each group reaches the island known to hold the Fountain of Youth. Blackbeard/Jack's group has a dangerous encounter with mermaids guarding the island - and we're not talking Ariel-type mermaids. Barbossa, meanwhile forges his way onto the island with little regard for the safety of his crew, intent on getting revenge on Blackbeard for his capture of the Black Pearl. After Jack is separated from Blackbeard and Co., he happens upon Barbossa and the two begin working together. By the end of the film, each group converges on the Fountain of Youth, and mayhem ensues.

There are several familiar faces in this Pirates, and a number of new ones that contribute nicely to the film. Johnny Depp is as good as ever as Captain Jack, although it feels a little strange in this one since he's really the main character for the first time. I think Depp keeps his acting restrained enough here that it doesn't get old, and then turns it on when needed. Barbossa, however, is the star of the show here, in my opinion. I found him to be even more humorous than Jack, and Rush really shines in his bigger role this time around. Ian McShane does a nice job as Blackbeard, but he doesn't actually have a lot of screen time; same for Penelope Cruz as Angelica. For other notables, Keith Richards has a scene, Gibbs is limited to the first part of the film, and there is a surprise (but a little awkward) cameo in the London part.

On Stranger Tides stays true to the theme of the franchise as a swashbuckling adventure story. The plot is more akin to the first film's this time, although, unsurprisingly, this is mostly just a skeleton for the rest of the fun. The action is well done here, with some entertaining sword fights (a Pirates trademark, but continued admirably) and more supernatural aspects. Blackbeard has a strange ability (fortunately, used sparingly), and the mermaids provide an interesting element. Most of the effects are also quite good, but the set of the climax is poorly designed (kind of cheap-looking to be honest) and kind of stands out. There is some pretty good humor here, led as previously stated by Barbossa, but there are some long stretches that could really have used some more/better efforts in this department.

***

I feel as if I've written a ***1/2 star review. However, this film is simply too long with not enough that stands out. The worst part is a subplot involving a cleric on Blackbeard's crew who falls in love with a mermaid. This is really just mini-Bloom/Knightley stuff, but done quite poorly and unnecessarily (plus, both actors kind of stink). If they had taken it out, this would probably be bumped to ***1/2. I really would have liked to have seen more from Blackbeard and Angelica, too. Barbossa's character seems a bit better suited to being a main character than Jack, but neither is a perfect fit. This film is certainly better than Thor, but there are a few things holding it back from a better score. A fun summer viewing, nonetheless.

Movies: Thor

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Sports: End of an Era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sports: 2011 NBA Playoffs

Sports: 2011 NBA Playoffs

It's my favorite time of the year for sports: the beginning of the NBA Playoffs!!! This year is full of promise, and one of my favorite sports writers Bill Simmons (aka "The Sports Guy") believes it could be the best playoffs in over a decade. The primary storylines seem to be the big guns in the East (Chicago, Miami, Boston, possibly even Orlando) and the unpredictable West (with Denver, OKC and Portland all looking very dangerous). You also have the Knicks finally back in the playoffs, every real sports fan rooting against the Heat, and the Lakers going for another three-peat (which would be Phil Jackson's fourth - simply astounding). Without further ado, here are my picks for the whole thing, round-by-round, with some commentary:

Round 1: East

Chicago Bulls over Indiana Pacers (4-0)

The Pacers have an interesting roster, with a number of young players (led by Danny Granger, Darren Collison - who filled in so well for Chris Paul last here on New Orleans, Roy Hibbert, and even Tyler Hansbrough) who could form a nice nucleus for the future. But the Bulls are just plain superior in every way. Chicago's defense should suffocate Indiana to the extent that there's no hope at all for an upset.

Orlando Magic over Atlanta Hawks (4-0)

I hate the Atlanta Hawks. They resigned their best player to a ridiculous 6-yr contract, and the guy averaged 18 ppg this year. They have had loads of talent for several years now, and always get swept in either the 1st or 2nd round of the playoffs. I hope they get destroyed so badly that the ownership finally realizes "hey! this isn't working!" The good news is, Atlanta lost their last six games of the season, while Orlando has quietly been looking pretty strong. The Hawks won 3 of 4 between the two teams this year, but Atlanta is great at shrinking in the playoffs.

Boston Celtics over New York Knicks (4-2)

This is the matchup everyone in the northeast is looking forward to. A lot of people are whispering of a possible upset here, but I don't think the Knicks have a shot at more than 2 wins here. Carmelo, Amare, and Chauncey give them a great start - but the rest of their team is pretty weak. Boston has not been the same without Kendrick Perkins; most significantly, Rondo has fallen apart. But their playoff experience and pride, not too mention chemistry, is way too much for this new Knicks group.

Miami Heat over Philadelphia 76ers (4-1)

Philadelphia has been quite a surprise this season. Led by the unspectacular duo of Elton Brand and Andre Iguodala, they have overachieved under new coach Collins. But you need at least one potent weapon, either on offense or defense, to beat Miami. The Heat have really started to click in the 2nd half of the year, most notably giving the Celtics quite a drubbing. I think Philly could get a game here, but mostly because Miami will realize how much better they are and will take their foot off the gas for a moment.

Round 1: West

San Antonio Spurs over Memphis Grizzlies (4-2)

Now things get interesting. Both these teams were a LOT better this year than expected. Both are also dealing with injuries to key players; however, the Spurs will have theirs back soon, while the Grizzlies will not. If Manu were fully healthy, I wouldn't have the Grizzlies getting 2 wins, but I can see Memphis stealing another one while Ginobili gets back to full strength. I have not seen Memphis play at all this year, so I'm looking forward to watching what they can do in an actual game.

Oklahoma City Thunder over Denver Nuggets (4-2)

This could be the most exciting series in the 1st round of the playoffs. Both teams are very young and athletic, and the games will likely be pretty high-scoring. Unfortunately for Denver, they probably just don't have quite enough firepower, and aren't as good all-around as OKC. Durant and Westbrook are a scary combo. The Nuggets will make the Thunder earn their first postseason series victory, but earn it they will.

Portland Trailblazers over Dallas Mavericks (4-2)

The Blazers' bandwagon is getting so full it's probably about to fall off its axel. However, it's not hard to see why: they have a load of talent, and they've shown they can beat the league's best teams. The frontcourt combo of Aldridge and Wallace is scary, and while Brandon Roy is no longer a consistent star, he has his moments. Dallas was the team all the lower West seeds wanted to face; this is because they're basically just Dirk. Chandler has been playing pretty well, as has Terry, but it just seems like Portland has superior talent. We'll see.

Los Angeles Lakers over New Orleans Hornets (4-1)

My Lakers could not have asked for a better 1st round matchup. They dominate New Orleans even when David West is healthy, which he is not. Hopefully, this series will allow L.A. to get into the kind of rhythm that has won them two straight championships. Bynum's health is the most critical concern, but I also want to see Artest get back to his playoff form from a year ago and make sure Kobe can still take over the end of a game like he always has. They'll probably drop a game here because, well, they're the Lakers.

Round 2: East

Chicago Bulls over Orlando Magic (4-2)

Both teams may have a bit of a shock in the increase in competition over their 1st round foes. Orlando has played Chicago well this year, and Howard, as he does for just about every team, poses a matchup problem for the Bulls. But Chicago has such a disciplined defense that they will be able to shut down Orlando's perimeter shooting most of the time. For Orlando to have a chance, Jameer Nelson needs to make Rose work hard on defense, and also provide some scrappy defense of his own.

Miami Heat over Boston Celtics (4-3)

This is a matchup so many fans (including myself) are salivating over. Boston seemed to be in firm control of this matchup for the first 3 games, and then at the end of the season Miami just whalloped them. Rondo must must MUST make Miami pay for not having a decent point guard, and create offense for his entire team. It's quite clear that LeBron and Wade have significant advantages over their aging counterparts, Pierce and Allen. Still, Boston will not go down until every last drop of blood (er, sweat) has been spilt.

Round 2: West

Oklahoma City Thunder over San Antonio Spurs (4-2)

This is quite a tough one. The old guard, San Antonio, has done everything they can to stay not only competitive but in the upper echelon, despite their age. But I think that with the added toughness of Perkins, the Thunder now have more than the Spurs can take. San Antonio's defense is not what it used to be, and now they are facing two elite scorers, not to mention a very solid supporting cast in Ibaka, Harden, etc. I wanted to talk myself into the Spurs here, one of my favorite teams, but I just couldn't do it.

Los Angeles Lakers over Portland Trailblazers (4-3)

A LOT tougher matchup for the Lakers here. L.A. has had a lot of trouble playing in Portland, as far back as the Shaq era. That means they must make sure to hold serve at Staples Center, and there will be some very tense moments I predict; they may even have to steal a game back in Portland. Ultimately, I think the Lakers' experience, with Gasol and Bynum having fought so many wars against the Celtics and Kobe not facing any elite defenders, will get them by in a tough series.

Round 3:

Chicago Bulls over Miami Heat (4-3)

Another great series in the East. This is where (I hope) the Bulls will show that the superior team will overcome superior star power. Plus, Chicago may be able to play with a bit of a chip on their shoulder, after Wade and LeBron turned them down last summer. I think LeBron and Wade's teammates (especially the cowardly Bosh Spice) will shrink against the Chicago defense, and leave them in a Butch Cassidy situation. Fortunately, what I hope for and what I believe will happen are aligned here.

Oklahoma City Thunder over Los Angeles Lakers (4-2)

Unfortunately, my hopes and what my brain is telling me are not the same for this series. Once again, I think it will be the Perkins addition that will get the Thunder over the top. He will be able to disrupt the Lakers' big men enough so that the Thunder can simply outscore them. And that they can do, because the Lakers have no answer for Westbrook, and I'm doubtful that Artest can guard Durant again this year the way he did last year. Here's to hoping I'm wrong.

Championship:

Chicago Bulls over Oklahoma City Thunder (4-3)

This should be an awesome championship series. I think it comes down to the Bulls' defense once again, and just being able to do all the gritty things required for victory. Derrick Rose will show his ferocious determination to win, one that will take even an inspired Durant by surprise. One hunch that I have, even if this series goes the other way, is that unexpected players on both teams are going to be thrust into more important roles than they're used to. But regardless, my prediction is that the Chicago Bulls will be the 2011 NBA Champions.