Sports: Super Bowl, Aussie Open, NBA

Sports Newsletter

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

Super Bowl 2012

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

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

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

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

Australian Open:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NBA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movies: 2011 Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Awards:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Movies War Horse

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Movies: Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

Movies: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

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

Long Story Short: Robert Downey, Jr. returns as Sherlock to face his archrival Dr. Moriarty in a film cut from the same cloth as the first. Of course, in this reviewer's opinion, that is a good thing, with quick banter, elaborate sets and effects, and RDJ's brilliant performance in the lead. Add in higher stakes with more (but well done) action, and A Game of Shadows is, overall, just as good as the first impressive entry in the series.

Ah, back to the movies! After another slow fall season at the theater, it looks like a full slate of interesting titles await audiences. Having seen and highly enjoyed the first, I had been looking forward to this sequel to Robert Downey, Jr.'s Sherlock Holmes. While some may find this series' style too action-packed, I think it is an extremely entertaining one that still manages to include plenty of work for Sherlock's brain in addition to his brawn. A Game of Shadows, like the original, was directed by Guy Ritchie, and co-stars Jude Law as Watson opposite RDJ.

Irene Adler (McAdams), Holmes' competitor/lover from the first film, begins the action by delivering a package - under the watchful eye of Holmes. The package turns out to be a nasty one, and with that Holmes is on the hunt. Watson, imminently engaged to be married, returns to London to find Holmes brooding once more in his suite. Holmes has amassed a number of mysteries that he has linked together, and the recent package seems to be a new clue to the puzzle. Sherlock lets business interfere with pleasure, as usual, seeking out a woman (Rapace) linked to the package during Watson's bachelor party.

With his new evidence, Holmes confronts his nemesis Dr. Moriarty, who warns Sherlock to drop the chase. Following Watson's wedding, Holmes secretly follows the couple to their honeymoon, on the way to which they are ambushed as Holmes feared. His wife safely taken back to London by Holmes' brother Mycroft (Fry), Watson agrees to help Sherlock, traveling from France to Germany to Switzerland, in his quest to discover Moriarty's ultimate ambition and to bring him to justice. (I'm even more vague with the plot details than usual since I think some of the surprises are well worth keeping intact).

First thing's first: Robert Downey, Jr. is just as fantastic playing the legendary Sherlock as he was in the original. There are plenty of things to like about these films, but his performance is probably my favorite part. The delivery of his quips, the physical comedy of his disguises, and his chemistry with Watson, among other aspects, are just brilliant, in my opinion. One thing that brings this movie down a bit for me, however, is the drop-off in roles for other characters. Law as Watson is good again, but his role is reduced. The female lead, gypsy Simza (Noomi Rapace), has a much smaller role than the equivalent Adler (McAdams) from the first film. She is more of a plot device than a character. Sadly, bumbling Inspector Lestrade only gets a small cameo in this film.

On the brighter non-Sherlock side of the cast are two additions. The first is Sherlock's brother, Mycroft, played by the brilliant British comedian Stephen Fry. He doesn't have a huge part, either, but he elevates the scenes that he is in and I would be surprised if he didn't return for any more Sherlock sequels. The other is Dr. Moriarty, played by Jared Harris. Moriarty, for the uninitiated, is Sherlock's archrival in the literature, and Harris plays him with hair-raising menace and mystery. The sparring banter between the two is a treat for the audience.

All the essential elements you remember from the first Sherlock, if you saw it, return here in one degree or another. The action is certainly ratched up in A Game of Shadows, but I think almost every single set is brilliantly choreographed, tense, and of its own. Even action sets that might seem a little cliched in a larger sense are carefully designed and executed. I was a bit skeptical myself when I heard there was more action in this one, but believe me, it's not just there for the sake of appealing to a wider audience. The comedy is slightly down from the first, probably due to the "larger stakes" in the plot, but it still has plenty of laughs; they didn't cast Fry for no reason, after all, and RDJ's Holmes is quirky and hilarious as always, as I said before (one scene involving horses was particularly amusing to me). Both the sets and the special effects are even more spectacular than in the first, given the wider geographic scope and the increased action. And finally, Zimmer keeps the musical theme from the first which fit so well (the lead harpsicord), though the tone is darkened to support the film's atmosphere.

***

I would say A Game of Shadows is at the upper end of the four-star score for me. Above all else, I think it is simply the most entertaining movie I've seen all year. RDJ is responsible for most of this (have I mentioned that I like him as Holmes?), and the action is so well done and yet not overbearing. Dr. Moriarty is both cast and written appropriately as Holmes' archrival, a major improvement (even if not really a fair comparison) from the first film. Still, it is hard to keep everything up to par in a sequel when you ratchet up some aspects. The clue collecting and dissecting aspects do take a hit, though it's far from abandoned. The supporting, non-Holmes/Moriarti cast definitely takes a back seat, but they still provide significant boosts here and there. And the series still doesn't exactly have a strong emotional component, and for this reason I think it would be difficult for an RDJ-Ritchie(Director)-Sherlock film to become a true classic. But at the same time, these films have a style that is so well-defined and well-made that they are worth going back to again and again.

Music: Christmas Special #1

Music: Christmas Extraordinaire (Mannheim Steamroller)

I thought about doing a blogpost or two on Christmas music last year, but didn't end up getting to it. So this year I am going to do a (hopefully) four-part review on by far my favorite group making Christmas music, Mannheim Steamroller. Their music connects me to the season with an intensity beyond any other similar effect in music. Put simply, I can't imagine Christmas without listening to this musical act. I have four of their albums, which I'll review in reverse chronological order; I think there are one or two more but I haven't listened to them yet. As a brief introduction to those unfamiliar with Mannheim Steamroller (yes, both of you), the group is primarily instrumental and uses a unique combination of electronic, modern symphonic, and Baroque-era styles. There is great variation in their arrangements, from major to slight alterations on the originals (and they have a few of their own compositions as well). On to the review!

1. "Hallelujah"

I hate to start off my review of Mannheim on a less than stellar note, but I'm afraid that's how it goes. This arrangement is not bad, but not up to their very high standards. Like the rest of this album, and leans much more on the electronic side of their style than the Baroque-y, featuring a number of synthesizers and drums to keep a pretty steady tempo. Towards the middle, some real strings and brass give a nice change of pace, but the overall vibe is a little like disco (particularly the drum part) which is kind of off-putting and not the best choice for this literally classic piece. A fine album opener, but by no means in the group's upper tier.

2. "White Christmas"

Occasionally, Mannheim adopts a style that is almost too cheesy - but they usually choose the right songs for which to use it. This is one of them. A kiddy-sounding set of bells plays the main melody and is supported by a nice chorus; later a string section takes over to give a tad more weight to the mood. Finally, the chorus takes over for the last major recitation of the theme, and the usual Mannheim electronic instruments show up. This song shows off one of Mannheim's strengths: knowing what style to use in adapting beloved Christmas tunes. Still not a personal preference of mine, I give credit for the quality of the song nonetheless.

3. "Away In A Manger"

Unfortunately for me, here is another song that, regardless of the arrangement, is not one that I especially enjoy. However, the Mannheim touch for style comes through again, perhaps even better this time. Certainly it shows more creativity in the combination of instruments. A lone guitar starts with an intro and continues on to provide support for a recorder playing the melody - a nice combo. The recorder is joined by a pretty oboe in the melody, and a backing string part, all playing well together. Some Mannheim electronics join the party at the song's climax but then fade away. Classic Mannheim, despite my personal lack of fondness for it.

4. "Faeries" (from the Nutcracker Suite)

Here Mannheim goes back to the heavier electronic emphasis heard on the album opener. A deep electronic bass intro precedes the tinkling xylophone-like melody. As the song moves to the second major part of the song more traditional instruments jump in, mostly strings and I think a bassoon. At 2.5 minutes, it's quite short and ends very abruptly so it almost seems like an interlude piece. Nothing wrong with this one, but it last long enough to leave a very significant impression.

5. "Do You Hear What I Hear?"

The tinkling xylophone leads us off again with an intro, backed by a beautiful part in the bass by a string section. A woodwind plays the melody (I believe a clarinet), and the xylophone plays on while the strings are reduced to a quiet but high-pitched backing. Eventually lower-octave strings start a neat plunking rhythm which is quite nice. A return to the stripped-down xylophone/lower strings part ends the song. Certainly one of Mannheim's more passive arrangements, it is one of the album's stronger efforts, fitting very well with the album's sonic themes if not branching out very much (it doesn't hurt that the original is a nice song, anyway).

6. "The First Noel"

A full, beautiful string section intro starts things off, followed by another prelude to the original melody, played by electronic instruments and low, low strings. A violin plays the main melody slowly and somewhat sadly, with only the xylophone still tinkling away beneath it. The second play through gives the oboe a shot at the melody with greater support, with those low, low strings again. The song climaxes with a violin-oboe duet, and it peters out with, again, just the xylophone. Although it's not a bad arrangement, there are several problems. First, the placement is poor, coming after the not much more upbeat "Do You Hear"; second, in my opinion this song's melody tires itself out extremely quickly. Something more creative than xylophone, oboe and violin was in order here.

7. "Silver Bells"

Here we have a more upbeat song, although it's not exactly a rousing rondo, of course. A muted keyboard sound backs the melody throughout and gives it, unfortunately, a rather sleepy feeling (not to mention almost elevator music-like). And guess what instrument plays the melody? Yep, the tinkling xylophone is here again. It isn't until about a minute left that a non-electronic/percussion instrument enters; a single French horn gives the song a little more life. To top it all off, the song is way too long at 4.5 minutes. As you can tell, I'm not a fan of this song. I pretty much skip it every time it comes along.

8. "Some Children See Him"

Ah, no more tinkling xylophone at last! A familiar Mannheim bass drum starts an intriguing beat; overall, in fact, the song feels much more like classic Steamroller than the last few tracks. With strings and keyboard playing an exotic backing, a very high woodwind plays the main melody, one reminiscent of "Pat A Pan." Familiar harpsichord takes over the backing after that and finally some great drumming and a little low brass brings the song to its full energy. The main melody carries on for a good while, though not quite too long, before giving way to the bass drum again and one last solo play through. Perhaps the album's strongest song.

9. "Fum, Fum, Fum"

Lone recorder starts off the quiet, interesting melody, joined by a few siblings after a minute or so. The xylophone makes a return, but the tinkling is toned down and an oboe soon dominates the main melody, anyway, as the song assumes the album's overall instrumental pattern. This one is much like "Faeries," in that it's done before you expect; it's a little bit longer, but has really only two sections in it. Thus, my feelings on it are pretty much the same.

10. "Winter Wonderland"

The heavier electronic theme bounces back for a third round here, with a guitar-like keyboard playing an intro that serves as the backing for the song throughout (sounds a little like a TV intro theme, actually). The main melody is played by a different keyboard, one that sounds more like 80s-style Mannheim, or other similar artists. High strings shimmer and tambourines shakes to give the song yet more of a floaty, whispy feeling. More variety, with harpsichord and French horn, have a bit at the end, but by then it is what it is. I suppose it's a pretty appropriate arrangement for the song, and a fairly strong one at that - but again, here's an original that doesn't rank among my favorites.

11. "O Tannenbaum"

A men's chorus sings a few strains of the melody to start this one, a nice touch. This is followed by a major style change with xylophone, French horn and other electronic effects added in before the most horrifying thing ever heard on a Mannheim record comes in: the voice of Johnny Mathis. This awful decision really overrides everything else, and this is probably the only Mannheim song that I always skip when it comes on.

12. "Auld Lang Syne"

Obviously, this is a very appropriate album closer. I'm not sure what instrument plays the melody here; the best I can think of is perhaps an electronic chime. This is backed by a quiet chorus and high strings from time to time, along with a strange electronic effect. The song ends with a men's chorus, like the one at the beginning of "Tannenbaum", taking over the melody, backed by a deep electronic bass. It's certainly a very Mannheim-y take on the holiday classic, and the sort of minimalist style is a nice touch, symbolizing the reminiscence that takes place at the end of each year. Good finisher.

One reason that I wanted to go backwards in reviewing the Mannheim Steamroller albums was that I could get the worst over with first. This is not a bad album by any means, but I think its songs come across much better when listened to among a mix of other Mannheim songs. The album keeps a nice theme of sound, but sticks to it almost too well in creating more similar songs than you typically find on a Mannheim album (the song selection certainly did not help the group to diversify their sound here). There is still very good quality musicianship and creative arrangement here, but many of the songs are simply not my favorite Christmas tunes. Worth checking out, at least shuffled in among a larger collection of Mannheim music.

Essentials: "Away In A Manger", "Do You Hear What I Hear", "Some Children See Him"

Weak(er) Songs: "Silver Bells", "O Tannenbaum"

Music: Mylo Xyloto (Coldplay)

Album Review: Mylo Xyloto by Coldplay

It's been awhile since I've done an album review, but this was the perfect opportunity: an actually new album! I've listened to Mylo Xyloto a number of times by now, which I think you have to do, for any album, in order to review it properly. I've read a few other reviews for this by "experts," and they clearly listened to this at most once through, and probably only the first minute or so of each song. Anyway, enough about my annoyance with "expert" music critics. This is Coldplay's fifth album, which came an agonizing three years and four months after their last one, Viva la Vida (review to come eventually). The band teamed up with producer Brian Eno again, and created a collection of music largely based around a musical theme of electronic sounds and a bit of modern pop. All songs were written by the band, with some arrangements /effects added by Eno.

As a reminder, I listen to music for the music itself first, second, and so on, and pay attention to lyrics if and when they happen to be prominent. If the lyrics are exceedingly good or bad, I'll comment on them, but if not it doesn't concern me either way. Before I start the song-by-song review, I should mention that there is some neat lyrical continuity that Coldplay built into the album. It isn't a huge thing, but even I noticed it, a non-lyric aficionado. Without further ado...

1. "Mylo Xyloto"

This is the first of three mini-instrumental interludes which basically serve to transition between different parts of the album. They aren't really intended as stand-alone songs, but they're still OK. This one, of course, opens the album, and it immediately introduces the electronic-type sound of much of the album with a shimmery combination of instruments, a high and low part. Sadly, I'm not familiar with these instruments enough to tell you what they are, but I think the high part might be a distorted keyboard. On top of this is added a tinkling xylophone playing a brief but pleasant theme. The last few seconds serve as the lead in to...

2. "Hurts Like Heaven"

... the first real song on the album. It practically explodes out of "Mylo Xyloto" at such a rapid clip that at first you think to yourself, Is this still Coldplay? A lively drum and keyboard rhythm nicely support one of Martin's perkiest vocal performances to date. His voice smoothly transitions from way up high to way down low in a cheerful set of verses. The refrain then bursts in, a classic falsetto croon from Martin, backed by more of the shimmery electronics and drums, before he concludes the stanza using a more relaxed tone for the title lines. The song just coasts along on a bundle of energy and the tight, quick tempo set by the drums and keyboard. Martin uses some clever variations on each verse, and the song fades out, part by part, until all that remains is the guitar in high octave, perfectly symbolizing a journey up to the elusive, weightlessness of heaven. One of the album's best, and a great opener.

3. "Paradise"

This song was released as a single just before the album itself, and it is probably, indeed, the centerpiece song of the album (a la "Viva la Vida"). "Paradise" is worthy of this status. It begins with two different instrumental themes. After this interlude, the main instrumental part crashes in dramatically, a booming electronic bass part and a high-pitched synthesizer. And yet another change as Martin's vocal starts at last, a minute into the song: the backing reduces to drums and piano, supporting Martin's solid singing. Gradually the backing builds up again, and after Martin sings a refrain that mirrors the opening instrumentals, the full band kicks in for the chorus. It is almost a trance-like part, Martin's distorted vocals followed by an "oh"ing chorus and all of it sandwiched between the powerful high-low electronic support. Perhaps not quite as good as "Viva," this one still grows on you quickly.

4. "Charlie Brown"

After a strange opening (I'd do more harm than good by trying to describe it), this one settles into a much more standard Coldplay sound, with little of the electronic theme to be heard. The guitar introduces a neat little hook after the intro, the latter half of which is indeed reminiscent of the "Linus and Lucy" theme from the cartoon strip. Martin starts in on the verses, an unconventional line of music insistently backed by strumming guitars. After a rerun of the guitar hook, a more standard Coldplay refrain composed of the whole group hits the climax of the song. The strange intro is repeated before giving way to the guitar hook, and finally the song ends on a quiet piano solo. A strange song, and one that took me several listens to really get into my head, it's still a good one, although I don't like it as much as the two previous.

5. "Us Against The World"

Here is another song with a more typical Coldplay-like sound (thematically connected to the rest of the album via lyrics), which begins with an indefinite, floaty, soft sort of electric guitar part. This soon subsides and acoustic guitars take over, supporting a simple but beautiful melody sung by Martin. The chorus starts with a distinctive little loop from Martin before settling gently into the title line. The second time through, Martin's vocal is double-tracked and adds a little on at the end before the chorus. A swell composed of electric guitar and the bass of a piano comes in and then fades away, allowing Martin to sing the title line once more. This is a great little song, slower and quieter than its neighbors but very beautiful.

6. "M.M.I.X."

I'm not sure what the acronym stands for, but this is the second instrumental transition song, connecting the slow, quiet "Us Against the World" to the upbeat, electronic-heavy...

7. "Every Teardrop Is A Waterfall"

Now the album comes back full-tilt to the electronic sound theme. A techno-y keyboard hammers out the main, very simple theme of the song a few times, before Martin takes over singing it as the song's verses. A bright, cheery guitar part follows this, sounding to me like shades of Viva la Vida, before coming back with the verses with a full backing band, especially a toe-tapping bass part. Martin then begins the refrain, a variation on the theme including more of his trademark falsetto. From there, it's a bit like a song from The Police in that there are several different variations on both the main line, both musically and lyrically. This was a single last summer, and while it's not their best song, it is very, very well done and a nice, upbeat piece.

8. "Major Minus"

Released with "ETIAW" last summer, this is quite a contrast to that brighter, more pop-friendly tune. A very cool, slightly forboding guitar part starts things off in a not very Coldplay like way. Martin then sings over these guitars in the verses, his voice slightly distorted to convey an uneasy tone. A brief but well-placed deep guitar riff leads into a more familiar Coldplay chorus, a little like some of their earlier stuff with the falsetto and guitar style, then some neat fast singing by Martin. A brief refrain, with Martin singing in a strange tone I've never heard him use before, is followed by a lengthy instrumental section to dwell on the unsettling nature of the song. The song abruptly ends after some more of the rapid singing from Martin. A very creative song, this is a great addition to the album and their repertoire as a whole.

9. "U.F.O."

I was not a big fan of this song the first few times through, but it's been growing on me a little. It's another slower, quieter song like "Us Against the World," but it seems quite a bit more similar to some of their earlier songs in the same vein. There are a number of chord progressions that I did not expect, and at first did not like at all, but they grow more tolerable upon further listening. Strings enter midway through to add atmosphere, and then the song ends with essentially a little interlude to lead more smoothly into the next song. It's not really a bad song, but it just reminds me too much of stuff like "Till Kingdom Come," of which one is probably enough for any band.

10. "Princess Of China"

This song was likely inspired by Coldplay's small collaboration with Jay-Z for an alternate version of "Lost!". Here the collaboration, this time with Rihanna, is more comprehensive; it sounds like some random techno/hip-hop song you'll hear on the radio (forgive my ignorance but I tend not to listen to that genre very much) mushed with a bit of Coldplay's style. The electronic sound theme is at its most extreme here, and I have absolutely no idea what most of the instruments used here are (most of them synthesizers of some kind I guess). The song is based on, unsurprisingly, a pretty simple oriental-sounding theme. Still, Chris Martin and Rihanna sound quite good together, and the beat is fun. There's nothing complex here, but it's a change up for Coldplay and perfectly good ear candy.

11. "Up In Flames"

Here's another song that has a similar basic structure to older songs... but it's done much more creatively than "U.F.O." and just sounds much better. It starts off with a lone bass beat that seems like it would be in a usual hip-hop song - but then a piano comes in along with Martin singing one of his slower, pretty melodies. Somehow, this mismatch works really well. He goes to his trademark falsetto for the chorus, one that exudes some hope despite the melancholic lyrics. Strings gradually filter in passively, and then as Martin repeats the chorus towards the end, a neat little guitar part that reminds me of The Beatles for some reason also joins in. I think this is one of the best tracks on the album - creative and pleasant sounding.

12. "A Hopeful Transmission"

The final instrumental interlude. This serves to improve the mood, using higher-pitched strings and a soft bass drum to keep the beat, leading into...

13. "Don't Let It Break Your Heart"

Here is a pretty standard Coldplay tune; it wouldn't have sounded too out of play on X&Y, with some of that album's noisier songs. The band does do a good job of certainly injecting the song with the electronic theme again, and it fits perfectly fine. There isn't a particularly noteworthy melody to it, but it has that nice album closer sound to it. The instrumentals give it good energy, and Martin's vocal gives it the uplift portended by "A Hopeful Transmission". If you like typical Coldplay stuff, you'll like this; if not, it's probably forgettable. I think it's fine, if not one of the album's strongest songs.

14. "Up With The Birds"

This is a rather odd song, particularly as the album's final one. It's essentially two-in-one, like some of those in Viva la Vida ("Lovers in Japan," "Yes"). The first part is, to be honest, pretty bad in my opinion. Martin sings with no particular tune, backed by a little piano and shimmering electronics. Strings burst in after a little while, but the slow-paced singing takes no better structure. Sound effects enter here and there, and at the end of this part are some bird-like guitar calls. The second half, fortunately, is much better. Guitars play an insistent theme, aided by a fiddle (I think) that blends right in. When Martin starts to sing, he does so near the top of his range without going to falsetto. It gives the piece a little more umph, and Martin manages to sound strained yet under control. I wish Coldplay had just dumped the first half of this song and expanded the last half. Oh well.

Score: 4 out of 5

I would say this album is on the upper end of the 4s, nearly a 4.5. If you decide to give it a try, give it some time because I'm confident it will grow on you. Musically, the album holds a nice theme of sounds, but within that realm it has quite a bit of variety. Some things, as I say, may sound quite a bit like older Coldplay, and others are completely new to this band. A very thoughtful, well-made album, and the only thing I'd like Coldplay to change is the time they take between albums: three years is too long!

Also, check out the song "Moving to Mars" from Coldplay's EP last summer (iTunes should have it). I don't know why it wasn't put on Mylo Xyloto, because it would have fit in nicely and it's one of the band's most creative pieces. It really does convey a space-y type feel, almost haunting. It starts slow but builds to a pretty impressive climax. Give it a try.

Essentials: "Hurts Like Heaven," "Paradise," Major Minus," "Up In Flames"

Weak(er) Songs: "U.F.O.," "Up With The Birds"