Movies: Captain America - The First Avenger

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

Long Story Short: Captain America: The First Avenger is a fun summer blockbuster; yes, it's another comic book movie, but it's a worthy addition, not a cash-in. The main strength of the film lies in its ensemble of heroes, from the very likable Steve (ie: Captain America), to love interest Peggy, to skeptical Col. Philips. Sadly, the villains aren't nearly as interesting, but it all comes together nicely in a throwback adventure with a good sense of humor - and a surprisingly good ending.

Yet another superhero movie! I like the genre quite a bit, but I must admit I had started to grow a little bit weary of them this summer (I've seen two of the others, and skipped the dreadfully-reviewed Green Lantern). However, this film looked pretty entertaining from the trailers, and seemed different enough to be interesting - fortunately, I was correct on both. So, Captain America: The First Avenger - a title which refers to, if you aren't already familiar, a group of superheroes called the Avengers (including Iron Man, Hulk, etc.) who will have their own movie next summer - was directed by Joe Johnston (Jumanji, Jurassic Park III). Let's get to it.

After a mysterious opener in present time, the movie quickly reverts to the central time period - 1940s - where a team of Nazis, led by officer Schmidt, invade a Norwegian town searching for an artifact. Back in the States, we meet a pair of friends: Steve, a short, scrawny guy desperate to enlist, and Sgt. "Bucky", who is already set to be deployed. During one of Steve's failed attempts to enlist he is noticed, however, by Dr. Erskine, who recruits Steve for to try out for a special operations unit. At the training facility, he meets the skeptical (to put it mildly) Col. Philips and the lovely but tough Peggy. Admiring Steve for his strength of character over body, Erskine selects him to be the subject of a radical experiment to transform him into a super soldier. However, an assassin from Schmidt's Nazi division - known as HYDRA - kills Erskine, and ends his own life when Steve finally catches him.

With Dr. Erskine gone, the skeptical Col. Philips puts Steve to work - as an actor in the States selling war bonds to fund the military. When Steve comes to attempt to give moral support to troops in the field, Peggy prods him that he was destined to do more for the war effort. Thus, Steve goes on a daring mission to rescue some POWs - including his friend Bucky - and meets Schmidt along the way. After his spectacular success, Col. Philips changes his plans and the war soon intensifies as Schmidt puts his evil plans into action. (No need for me to go further than that in specifics).

One of the reasons that I give this film a better score than Thor is the cast. There are a number of excellent casting choices, and they really do a nice job. This starts with Steve, played by Chris Evans (a superhero veteran from the Fantastic Four series), who is a classic young man of the era, eager to, in his words, "stop the bullies." He isn't as charismatic as Thor - and isn't supposed to be - but his heart, humility, and sense of humor quickly win you over (particularly pre-transformation). In short he is a perfect Captain for America in WWII. Hayley Atwell plays team member - and Steve's love interest - Peggy Carter. She displays her character's imperfections as effectively as her intriguing yet natural combination of loveliness and toughness. Tommy Lee Jones as Col. Philips is perfect; maybe I just haven't seen him in anything for a while, but his dry humor combined with his commanding presence steals just about every scene he is in. Finally, Hugo Weaving also seems a perfect choice as the brutal and insane Nazi officer Schmidt; but I think the script let him down. Weaving, as shown with Agent Smith in The Matrix, is perfectly capable of incredibly creepy menace, yet he doesn't get the screen time nor the right scenes to properly convey this. A disappointing missed opportunity.

The supporting cast also has some stand outs. Stanley Tucci plays Dr. Erskine, who sadly doesn't last long, with such a warmth that you can practically feel it - a perfect yet brief mentor for the discouraged pre-transformation Steve. Toby Jones (Karl Rove from W.) also does a nice job as Schmidt's assistant, a timid little guy with unexpected humor. In an interesting but unintrusive cross-pollination, Howard Stark (Iron Man's dad) is basically Q for Col. Philips' division, and Dominic Cooper gives it some spice. Steve's friend Bucky is pretty uninteresting, however; he mostly just provides a nice plot device.

Obviously, Captain America is pretty much an adventure movie. Thus, even if it's not the most important thing, the action sequences and special effects need to be pretty good to keep pace with the film's numerous competitors. I'd say this film does alright in those areas, but perhaps nothing to write home about (oops, I guess I'm writing about it in my blog). It doesn't help that the villains are pretty generic - and I was a little disappointed to find that the enemy foot soldiers were not Nazis but Schmidt's own special troops (perhaps there were political reasons). Still, it's pretty fun to watch Steve kick some butt as Captain America. And his abilities are not so over the top as his name might suggest, which is refreshing; he relies on creative use of his neat shield mostly. Sometimes (particularly when Steve pursues Erskine's assassin) the action seems deliberately '40s propaganda-esque, a unique touch. As I've mentioned before, there is some great humor in here, that fits the less ambiguous, good-guy-vs.-bad-guy feel (ie: not Nolan's Batman) of the film. One of the best examples of this is Steve's brief stint working for USO to sell war bonds. Everyone contributes to this humor (well, except Schmidt - another flaw of his character), particularly Steve and Col. Philips.

***

Captain America is far from a flawless film. The last third arguably dips somewhat in quality as the fun character interactions subside. Schmidt and his evil organization are perhaps a little too dull and cliche. However, the film has more than enough strengths to make up for these and create an overall enjoyable summer escape. There aren't necessarily a lot of original concepts here, but most of the pieces fit together nicely. It's a feel-good film that really gets you rooting for Steve, who was once picked on mercilessly, couldn't get a girl to even look at him, and couldn't even fight for his country. But Steve is not self-pitying, and so when he starts reaping the rewards of his hard work, you feel happy for him. As Captain America, he doesn't zap guys from a distance, he beats them up with his natural weapons - hands and feet - or uses his trademark tool, a shield, which is of course defensive in nature. Hence, the old-fashioned feel. So if you don't see it this summer, then I would recommend it as a rental/Netflix in the dark days of winter when some good fun adventure is just what you need. (A final note: I was very pleased by the ending, one I certainly was not expecting given its genre brethren, and gives the film a little more emotional weight and finality than it might otherwise have had).

Movies: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallow - Part 2

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

Long Story Short: At last, the Harry Potter adventure on film comes to a close, and this last entry gives it a grand conclusion. The Deathly Hallows - Part 2 has all the elements of a classic (well, except for maybe the clunky title): exciting, epic action built around the concluding adventures and realization of a rich set of characters in emotionally wrenching scenes. Just about everyone in the superb supporting cast is given their curtain call, too, in this magnificent film that reminds you what a true blockbuster is.

Perhaps one of the most anticipated films of all time, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2 hit theaters with huge success, breaking the opening weekend box office record. I was among those who were very excited to see this final movie version of the outstandingly popular book series. This installment was directed once again by David Yates, who also directed the last three films. I've now seen it twice, actually, and am glad as my opinion of it has changed quite significantly with the second viewing. It's unlikely that we'll see many of the aspects of the Potter films occur anytime soon, such as watching the young actors portraying Harry, Ron, and Hermione grow up over ten years. So buckle up for the ride and enjoy it.

Those familiar with the books need no plot overview, but for those who aren't, here's a brief glimpse. Harry is back where he left off at the end of Part 1, at the seaside hideaway of the Order of the Phoenix (the group fighting bad guy Lord Voldemort). Here he makes a deal with a former (goblin) employee of the Gringotts wizard bank to break into the highly-secured facility to fetch another of Voldemort's horcruxes (long story short, horcruxes are magical items that need to be destroyed to kill Voldemort). Harry, Ron, and Hermione make their move, and get to the horcrux but face quite a mess trying to escape. After this event, Harry has a shared vision with Voldemort (the two have a magical connection) that lets Harry know that Hogwarts must be the next stop.

With Dumbledore's brother's help, a tavern owner in a nearby town, the trio sneaks into yet another heavily-defended facility - their old school. Unfortunately, word gets out that Harry has returned, making it a race against the clock for Harry to find the horcrux hidden in Hogwarts before the Death Eaters (Voldemort's followers) storm the school. Don't worry, though, it's not quite that simple: there are still two horcruxes left, and the true character of many players, both good and bad, come through in unexpected ways. Battle rages and emotion pours out like never before by the end of the climactic conclusion to Harry's grand adventure.

One of the most astonishing things about seeing the Potter films from 2001 to 2011 is the aging, maturation and evolution of Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Emma Watson (Hermione), and Rupert Grint (Ron). They have steadily grown more confident in their roles and really helped flesh out their characters - which is the heart of the entire series - quite well. By this last installment, Radcliffe gives a great, restrained performance. I can imagine it would be easy for his ego to balloon and make him exaggerate every line and expression. But he makes it all look very natural, humble, and sometimes pained as his character's experience should reflect. Watson has admirably made Hermione into a strong character who can both give her friends unequivocal support and display great courage in the face of real fear. And Grint has perfected his body language, while making the most of his few lines; he has a great sense of humor, and is Harry's true friend - competitive at times yet completely loyal. The actors have become so intertwined with their characters that it will be difficult to see them as anyone except Harry, Ron and Hermione, but what they have accomplished is quite a triumph.

The secondary cast is, as usual in the Potter films, excellent. Ralph Fiennes gets more screen time than before as Lord Voldemort, and he uses it very well to portray a cruel, slimy, yet in some ways pitiable villain. My only complaint is that he doesn't come off as intimidating as his character perhaps should. Michael Gambon gets just a little time as Dumbledore, but arguably he does his finest work yet as the clever old wizard. Alan Rickman gets to show off in a small segment of the film devoted to his character, and he really shines in his role as one of the series' most complex and interesting characters. Helena Bonham Carter is still perfect as Bellatrix Lestrange, and does a particularly nice job when her character's polar opposite, Hermione, is disguised in her body. Many minor characters get brief send-offs, such as perfectly-cast Robbie Coltrane as Hagrid, John Hurt as wandmaker Ollivander, and Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall. The only performance I was not a fan of was Matthew Lewis as Neville - but part of this is probably just my slight distaste for his transformation in the source material itself.

Certain that the movie was bound to make obscene profits, Warner Brothers let the filmmakers go for it in the special effects department. However, that's not to say that the whole thing is just one big action movie. But it does mean that there are a number of set pieces and effects that are quite fun. From the robbery at Gringotts to the Battle of Hogwarts, they spared no expense in creating a visually enthralling film. Interestingly, I might add that while the Room of Requirements scene had spectacular fire effects, I thought that it looked kind of odd when they got on brooms; the rest of the film is so well done that the mistake here is noticeable. There is a little bit of humor here, and when used it's effective, but there isn't a lot of room for it. Instead, we are provided with some of the most emotionally poignant scenes in the series - particularly for Potter fans, of course. I give Yates a lot of credit for really focusing on maximizing the impact while not going overboard at all. These included moments of both sadness (especially the Pensieve scene and Harry's "reunion" in the forest), as well as those of triumph or happiness - from Harry's return to Hogwarts, to *SPOILER!!!!!!!!!! (highlight to read)* his leaping from Hagrid's arms when supposedly dead. *END SPOILER*

***

The first time that I saw this film, I thought it was very good - but wasn't overly impressed. I think part of the reason is that I am such a huge fan of the books that I unconsciously compare how I feel particular scenes or characters should be done to the way they are shown on screen. But before sitting down for the second viewing, I tried to put myself in the mindset of the previous films, their style of storytelling, and it worked. Thus, I've given HP-DH Part 2 four and a half stars for the moment - and this may be upgraded to five stars someday, in other words, a classic. But a film has to stand up to multiple viewings over time for that status, so I'll withhold it for now.

The huge popularity of the Harry Potter series has combined with its long development time, from the beginning of the phenomenon in the late '90s to the last film in 2011, to create a special situation. As I mentioned, there are the young actors who spent literally half of their lives portraying the now-legendary young trio. But there are also millions of fans of all ages and backgrounds who came to know those characters and the world they inhabited so well that they became more special than just any ordinary fictional elements. Perhaps that's why I and others have sometimes had mixed feelings about the film adaptations, which are great in many ways (many casting decisions - Snape, Hagrid, McGonagall, etc. - informed my own mental images of the characters as I read the books), yet can't quite reach the magical status that the books achieved. Still, the films captured a certain vision of the series that had more than its share of special moments, and it is worthy of its mission to put the adventures of Harry Potter and his friends on screen.

Movies: Transfomers - Dark of the Moon

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

Long Story Short: Transformers fulfills its promise of being the loudest, longest, most CGI-spectacular film of the summer so far. And that’s about it. The film is way too long and while some of the action is indeed exciting, it simply becomes numbing, even boring, by the end. Main character Sam is fun, as are a few new faces, but they simply aren’t enough to turn this behemoth into a good film.

The summer movie season continues to roll along! I freely admit, I realized I was not going to see an Oscar contender when I decided to go see the new Transformers film. However, the trailer just appealed to the “id” part of my psyche that enjoys large explosions and big robots destroying each other. This third entry in the franchise, subtitled Dark of the Moon (nope, “side” isn’t in there), was directed by Michael Bay and stars Shia LaBeouf. Here we go…

The beginning of the film asserts an alternate history in which NASA detects the crash landing of a space craft on the moon – thus causing JFK to declare the space race. Once on the moon, Armstrong and co. are shown investigating the craft during a supposed period of radio silence. Back in the present, the Autobots (good-guy robots) are helping the U.S. to keep peace around the world, and stumble upon some old robot technology. This leads Optimus (Autobot leader) to go to the moon, where he finds a comatose Sentinel (former leader of the Autobots).

Elsewhere, Sam (human protagonist in the first two films) has graduated from college but struggles to find a job. He has a new girlfriend, who supports the two of them with a job assisting a wealthy CEO. Sam finally lands a job, where a kooky co-worker manages to warn him of an alien conspiracy just before he is assassinated. This leads Sam to take up the investigation with the help of former government agent Simmons (present in both previous films). Sam tries to warn the autobots of the conspiracy, but Sentinel is awakened first and betrays his former brothers. He allies with the Decepticons (bad-guy robots) in a daring bid to enslave humans and Earth’s resources in order to rebuild the alien robots’ former homeworld, Cybertron.

As with many of these summer films, nuanced performances are not the focus, and this film is no exception. However, to start I will say that Shia LeBeouf, as the main human character, Sam, continues to be, in my opinion, a fun, sympathetic and engaging lead. His character perhaps throws a few too many brief tantrums, but he acts with an energy that is able to match the heavy CGI that dominates the film. His new girlfriend, Carly (played by model Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) is, shockingly, even worse than the horrid Megan Fox. Why couldn’t they have just hired a real actress? His parents continue to be extremely annoying, though thankfully they have minimal screentime. John Turturro’s wacky, former Area 51-esque agent has worn his welcome by this point, but he is joined this time by Frances McDormand, who does a great job as the head of U.S. intelligence. Sam’s boss, played by John Malkovich, and his co-worker Jerry, played by Ken Jeong (The Hangover) are also both brilliant, hilarious choices, and are the highlights of the film to me. Finally, the obligatory U.S. soldiers (Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson) are as bland and cliché as ever.

Of course, the main thing to Transformers is the action. There are certainly some fun parts here, especially a chase scene on the highway early on; a brief but creative and intense sequence in which Bumblebee (Sam’s first car/speech-impaired Autobot) saves Sam while destroying a Decepticon; and a worm-like Decepticon destroying a skyscraper. But the last third of the movie, in which the Decepticons take over Chicago and the Autobots try to stop them, features a wearying parade of action that numbs you to the objectively-impressive computer effects. Another problem is that this film, like the entries before it, works way too hard to have the military be a key component in the battle, leading to redundant set-ups and “ambushes.” Most of the comedy is OK, with some good, some cheesy aspects; however, the aforementioned McDormand, Malkovich and Jeong and truly hilarious here. It’s too bad they aren’t given a much more significant chunk of this film’s hefty runtime.

***

I just couldn’t resist going to see this film: in part because it’s such a spectacle, and in part in the hope that it would improve on the previous entries. Consider me, overall, disappointed. There are two major problems. First, the film is way, way, way too long, at two and a half hours, due to a little too much exposition in the middle, an overbloated (to say the least) final battle set, and poor pacing. The second is that it follows the exact same formula of the other two films; all this one tries to do is do everything bigger and louder. Obviously, these movies ask the audience to suspend a lot of disbelief, which is fine. But here’s my small, fanboy-ish, rant: the Decepticons are always shown as fast, powerful, and smart at the beginning – but at the end, you have human soldiers picking them apart like they’re in target practice. It kind of ruins, to say the least, any sliver of suspense in the story when the big, bad robots, standing twenty-plus feet tall with the agility of a man and wielding missiles and guns, get taken down by some human commandoes with rifles (not to mention sliced through like a hot knife through butter by Optimus). It’s actually the human characters – at least, LaBeouf, McDormand, Malkovich, and Jeong’s – that give this film its small joys. Skip this, and wait for Harry Potter next week.

TV: Lost

Today's blog post is a new kind that I haven't done before - and probably won't do again. I want to talk about/review the ABC drama "Lost," which I watched in full via Netflix starting last fall and finishing last week (yes, I took my time). I was a senior in high school when the first season aired, and I did see that entire season (except for the last episode, actually). I loved the show, but when I went to college the next year I found I couldn't consistently catch it, so I gave up. One of my housemates in grad school was a huge "Lost" fan, however, and this was during the show's final season. So I decided to go through the whole thing on Netflix the next year, now that the whole thing was done. I instantly fell back in love with the show as I rewatched the first season, and then continued through the other five. Now I'll go through each of the seasons - as generally as I can, so as not to spoil too much for those who haven't seen it - and other random things I liked about the characters, story, etc.

Season 1:

In a way it's not exactly fair, since I'm most familiar with this one, but I think this is the best, or at least my favorite, season. It is by far the most character-driven season in the whole show; each episode focuses to one degree or another on a character (or family - father/son, brother/sister) on both the island, as well as flashbacks to their life prior to the plane crash. One of the things that makes "Lost" so great is that it has very few if any stereotype characters, and any that drift that way typically still have something unique about them. There are characters that are likable and unlikable; some that appeal to parts of the audience and not others. And there's plenty to choose from, as it's a huge cast (and it only gets bigger). Elements of the story that will be played out until the very end are set up in the first season, but are kept in the background enough that at this point, it's clear the characters' main focus is getting off the damn island. Another thing I liked about this season was the attention to aspects of simply surviving on the island, making it realistic but not overbearingly so. If nothing else, I strongly, strongly, strongly recommend you watch this first season: more than likely, you'll be pulled in and keep going. Maybe you won't make it to the end of season six, but I guarantee (trademark "Men's Warehouse") that you will enjoy season one.

Favorite episodes: "Walkabout," "White Rabbit," "Solitary," "Numbers," "Deus Ex Machina" (one of my favorites in the whole series), "Exodus, Part 2"

Season 2:

Over the course of this season, "Lost" begins to transition to more of the island-related storyline, but it maintains consistent flashbacks like in the first season. I like season 2 a lot, but by no particular fault of its own, it doesn't match season 1's outstanding level. The fact is, we basically know who all of the characters are now, both on the island relationships and off the island backstories (in general). We certainly get some more development, with some surprises, too, but it is just impossible to match the richness of season 1's content. I do like the way the show began to accelerate the progress of the plot lines on the island, though still at a pretty gradual pace. We get to meet new crash survivors (who aren't as interesting as the originals; possibly why season 2 isn't quite as good), and one other character who quickly becomes one of the most interesting characters on the entire show. *MINI-SPOILER* I have to say, I like the way they handled the hatch situation and how it fundamentally split Locke and Jack; I was sad to see it go boom at the end of the season, but it probably needed to go. *END SPOILER* I don't think I would change season 2 much at all, but it suffers a little bit of middle chapter-itis - important plot/character development, just not quite as good overall as seasons before and after it.

Favorite episodes: "Adrift," "The Other 48 Days," "Fire + Water" (agonizing, yet excellent), "?," "Live Together, Die Alone"

Season 3:

Now we have pretty much the inverse of season one: where that one focused on characters and their prior lives, season three shifts full gear into the plot on the island (although flashbacks continue, they are much less significant, in my opinion). For some reason, although I saw both seasons back to back this past winter, I remember season three quite a bit more clearly than season two. Season three had more "whoa" moments for me than the other two, but in a good way. Season three delves deeply into the other people living on the island, both "the Others" and the Dharma Initiative, and especially that character introduced in season two, Ben. Although it starts a bit awkwardly, season three really gets going, especially at the end (and that's even taking into account that ALL seasons of "Lost" crank up at the end). I love the balance that the season achieves by finally revealing those two mystery camps, one past (Dharma), one present (Others), while withholding full understanding of motives and objectives. In addition, the new characters in season three (I'll include the development of Ben's character here) are quite a bit more interesting than the ones in season two. These first three seasons form a sort of self-contained mini-arc, which I think is really neat. They all feature character flashbacks, with more emphasis on character in the first and more on story in the third. The ending of season three is a mind-blower, and the next season does not disappoint in flipping the whole series upside down.

Favorite episodes: "I Do," "Tricia Tanaka Is Dead," "The Man From Tallahassee," "Left Behind," "The Man Behind The Curtain," "Through The Looking Glass Parts 1/2"

Season 4:

In so many ways, season four is a bewildering collection of episodes, though also the shortest one. Even having seen it so recently, I have a difficult time remembering exactly what happens when; events start moving along faster and faster, and we start to get chronological complexity. Also, as started in the final episode of season three, we now have flashforwards of certain characters in their lives after getting off the island. (I know, that's a rather large spoiler, but I figure it can't be that unexpected.) Now I will start including some more detailed *SPOILERS* so be warned. I did find the freighter stuff to be pretty cool, in addition to the new characters; but I felt like there was no longer a stable foundation on which events were being played out, and in moments where I expected a lot of urgency, or at least felt the stakes were pretty high, the show seemed to confuse the tone. It's still an entertaining season, but probably needs to be seen more than once - I should probably see it again, too. I will say in season four's defense, it's cliffhanger is as exciting as all the others in "Lost."

Favorite episodes: "The Economist," "The Constant" (even for "Lost," this is an unusual - but excellent - episode), "Something Nice Back Home"

Season Five:

This season continues the separation of characters in time and place, but I feel that the show gets its rhythm back a little bit more. "Lost," of course, is a continuing narrative, but each season has its own "feel," and a certain point(s) of emphasis; season five, however, kind of feels like half of season four and half of season six. Really, then, it's remarkable that it has any stability at all. I personally found it more satisfying than season four, anyway. *SPOILER ALERT* It may require even more suspension of disbelief than prior seasons, but I thought it was pretty cool when Sawyer, Juliet and Miles finally settled in 1977 with the Dharma Initiative; it surprised me, but helped explain some more mysteries (plus, the time flashing thing was really getting annoying). *END SPOILER* The biggest downside of season five, to me, is the acceleration of character change begun in season four. With events happening more quickly in these two seasons, I feel like some of the characters started doing things they wouldn't normally do or say; and character-driven points generally became a bit more vanilla. All things told, season five had an enormous challenge, as a clean up of season four's chaos and a set up of season six's epic conclusion. A bit like season two, in that way.

Favorite episodes: "Jughead," "The Life And Death Of Jeremy Bentham," "He's Our You," "The Variable"

Season 6:

Ah, it's so nice to "only" have to follow two timelines again! Thanks to Jack "resetting" things at the end of season five, season six enjoys a little more stability, although the "simple" days of seasons one, two, and three are long gone. The timeline that acts as the sort of "flashback" for season six is well done, especially in the first few episodes. After that, one could argue that there are perhaps a few too many "coincidences," but I think the final episode clears that issue up. Speaking of stability, I think that the show does its characters justice in returning them to season one-three form, mostly. It's a little sad that certain characters don't get much/any time in the last season, but I'm also glad that things weren't twisted unnecessarily to include them. As for the other timeline on the island, the *SPOILER ALERT* Others, Dharma Initiative, Ben vs. Widmore, etc. storylines are pretty much thrown out the window, or at least suppressed significantly, in favor of the more mythic (though perhaps de-personalized) Jacob-MIB plot *END SPOILER* While I think this left a number of loose ends hanging (or maybe not; I'll have to check online fansites ;)), it was probably the wisest choice in keeping things (relatively) simple and continuing the "Lost" tradition of having a particular theme for each season. While not perfect, season six is certainly a worthy conclusion of the extraordinary web of characters and stories that make up "Lost."

Favorite episodes: "The Substitute," "Dr. Linus," "Across The Sea," "The End"

So, to rank the episodes, I would certainly say the first is my favorite. The third season is next, thanks to the intriguing new story lines (and info about The Others) and new characters. Season six would come in at third, since it resolves quite a few of the character arcs/story lines that developed (even if it wasn't quite as consistent as the early seasons). Seasons two and five would tie, for season two's overall consistency (but lack of anything really super) and for season five's interesting evolution (even if it was a little messy). Finally there's season four, which isn't bad, but it's just a little chaotic and off balance for my taste; at least it's the shortest one.

***

A few more thoughts...

Characters:

My favorites are Jack (impressive main character who was flawed enough to temper his heroism), John Locke (seemed like such a good guy, and was central in the show's most touching episodes... a shame that essentially his character ends in season 5), Sayid (just a cool dude, other than his habit of torturing and his sheer insanity for falling in love with Shannon), Ben* (I don't *like* Ben, but the actor playing him did a spectacular job, and he was always interesting to watch), Vincent (last episode: 'nuff said... OK, I admit, tears were shed)

Good characters: Kate (nice, stable presence throughout, and I liked the evolution from fleeing to protective), Juliet (charming character, although she was best in relations to other characters - Ben, Jack, Sawyer, etc.), Daniel (he wore his anguish and conflict on his face, but also came up with some of the biggest surprises), Sawyer (with a caveat: I refer mainly to season one and two Sawyer; I was disappointed by his "heroic" streak in later seasons), Desmond (sometimes a little over the top, his "ability" led to some neat ideas and he was easy to sympathize with), Frank (good comic relief, and didn't draw attention away from the main characters), Charlie (fantastic acting job by the former hobbit, gave us both the dark and light in humanity), Hurley (mostly referring to the ingenious backstory of winning the lottery and consequences), Miles (more comic relief, although he had spots of a little more depth), Christian (kind of reminded me of House... small parts, but enjoyable)

Least favorites: Michael (he wasn't really too bad, but his protective father thing got a bit irritating), Claire (good acting, but something about the way she pouted and screamed was like fingers on a chalkboard for me), Shannon (does she need an explanation? But she was needed for character variety, I suppose)... wow, I guess that's not too many (others I didn't like are the ones you're not supposed to like, such as Martin Keamy)

Series finale: while I haven't read any internet debates about it, I know that the finale has divided fans of the series. Well, I'll say here that I liked it. It gave all (I think) the major characters a little closure without going overboard. You could make a good argument that the execution of the lead up to the end was flawed, but the last ten minutes or so were perfect to me, and especially the very last few scenes. The biggest, most important issues were resolved. Do I still have questions. Definitely, but that's what the internet is for (and rewatching episodes).

Whew, that was a long blog post! To conclude, feel free to let me know what you think, "Lost" fans; for those who haven't seen it yet, go watch it!

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.