Score: **** out of *****
Long Story Short: Pixar gets itself into the game of strong film heroines with its first non-sequel in several years. Everything is the done with the high quality you expect from Pixar - animation, pacing, humor, etc. The only area where I felt a bit of a letdown was in the ideas department, where Brave sticks closer to convention than most Pixar films.
For the next installment in my review of summer films, I'm pleased to go to yet another genre, this time animation. It has been awhile since I've seen an animated film in theaters, since I passed on last year's Cars 2 which did not appeal to me and (by Pixar's standards) was critically panned. This year Pixar decided to come up with a new idea rather than another sequel to one of their successful franchises, so I was happy to come back to support them. Brave was directed by Brenda Chapman (first) and Mark Andrews (took over later), and features voice work from Kelly Macdonald, Emma Thompson, and Billy Connolly.
The first few minutes of Brave set the scene for the film's main characters, the ruling family in medieval Scotland. Merida (MacDonald), the king (Connolly) and queen's (Thompson) daughter, is seen as rambunctious from an early age and even as she nears the age of betrothal she resists her mother's attempts to make her into a lady and instead enjoys adventures in the forest and practicing archery. When the lords of Scotland bring their heirs to seek Merida's hand in marriage, she instead humiliates them all in an archery contest. The queen is horrified by her daughter's rebelliousness, and Merida, frustrated by her mother's control of her life, storms off into the woods.
There, Merida follows a trail of luminous will-o'-the-wisps to an area circled by giant pillars. The next thing she knows she is standing in front of a witch's hut, and she eventually convinces the witch to give her a spell to take back her fate from her mother. The spell, however, soon wreaks havoc on the royal family. Merida is forced to push aside her personal goals in order to prevent her family from being torn apart forever.
Obviously, in an animated film there isn't any acting per se, but I'll review the characters. Merida is the main character, the first female lead in a Pixar film, and another in a growing roster in Hollywood recently (rather similar to The Hunger Games' Katniss, in fact). Merida, like Katniss, is not only physically capable but also emotionally independent yet fiercely loyal to those close to her. The queen is a standard strict yet loving mother (who also commands respect from Scotland's lords). The king is a bit of a goofball, a former warrior who is now content to wrestle with Merida and his three energetic, mischievous young sons. In the supporting cast is an appropriately eccentric witch, as well as three very proud lords and their not-quite-ready heirs. (Note: despite the Scottish accents, the voice work throughout is both beautiful and easily understandable)
Digital animation has become so good these days that it is hard to impress audiences, but Brave manages to push the boundaries even further. Merida's long, unruly red hair is the top example of this, displaying an organic, realistic feel that surpasses all other previous efforts. Beyond the technical wizardry, Pixar continues its great work at the subtle movements of characters and objects that creates a unique liveliness. Brave is not quite as humorous as many of its predecessors, but there are still some good moments, generally involving the lords and their heirs, and Merida's young triplet brothers. The soundtrack really stands out in this film, with not only beautiful orchestral music but also some very nice singing pieces as well.
***
Pixar is back at it again, making films of consistently higher quality than other studio in Hollywood right now. Just about everything in Brave is perfectly done, from the aforementioned animation to great pacing to strong focus to emotional investment. The only thing that keeps me from rating Brave a little higher is, to me, a lack of "wow" in films like Up! and WALL-E and a not particularly inventive structure. Yes, Brave executes that structure better than 99% of its peers... yet, I feel like I've seen it before. Brave does a great job of focusing on the mother-daughter relationship and there are some really nice moments between the two; but there was also little about it that struck me as new. So it doesn't quite measure up to the best of Pixar (IMO: Toy Story, Up! and WALL-E); the quality is on par, just not the ideas. I still highly recommend it, and it's a great choice for any audience.
2012 NBA Finals
To start off, I'd like to give myself a small pat on the back for doing pretty well in my championship odds post to preview this year's playoffs. I listed the Miami Heat at #1, OKC at #2, and San Antonio at #3. My only major errors were the Bulls losing (who saw that coming?) and, to me, the Clippers' shocking upset of the Grizzlies. To get to the Finals this year, OKC had a pretty easy path. They swept the Mavs, lost just one game to the Lakers, and won four straight against the Spurs after losing the first two games (by the way, either the Mavs, Lakers or Spurs had played in the Finals every year prior to this year since 1999!!!). The Heat destroyed the Knicks in five games, then struggled a bit against the Pacers when Bosh got hurt, winning in six, then fought for their lives against the Celtics, winning in seven after being down 2-3.
Although I predicted the Heat to win the championship prior to the start of the playoffs, by the start of the Finals I thought the odds had switched to the Thunder. While dismantling the Mavs was no big deal, they took care of the Lakers surprisingly easily, and then had one of the finest playoff series I've ever seen in beating the fantastic Spurs four times in a row, a team that had won their previous twenty games. Both their offense and defense seemed to be at their highest levels ever. Meanwhile, the Heat was just getting Bosh, their third best player, back into the lineup after a nine-game absence. A short-handed, aging Celtics team had just pushed them to seven games. Oh, and OKC had home court advantage. Virtually everything seemed to be in OKC's favor.
Game 1 went pretty much how I thought the series would go, with OKC swatting away Miami's halftime lead and basically holding them off at arms length throughout the fourth quarter. But then in game 2, OKC got off to another terrible start. Miami held their lead in the third quarter, and barely held off the Thunder's fourth quarter charge. Of course, they benefited from a no-call on LeBron's foul on Durant's game-tying attempt with ~12 seconds remaining. I was confident that OKC would steal at least one game in Miami, but the Heat won an ugly game 3 by scoring at will in the paint and somehow making 31 of 35 free throws while the Thunder missed too many of their own. The Thunder finally got a fast start in game 4, but the Heat erased it completely in the second quarter and slowly took control in the second half. Despite Westbrook putting in the best individual performance of the 2012 Finals, the Heat's PGs (Chalmers and Cole) gave them the advantage. And in game 5, Miami built up a sizable lead before halftime and then just buried the Thunder in the 3rd quarter with insane 3-point shooting and a thunderstruck young OKC squad.
So, how did the Heat upset the Thunder and even win in a paltry five games? I think the biggest reason was coach Spoelstra's starting lineup, using Chalmers, Wade, Battier, James and Bosh. In fact, Bosh's earlier injury may have been the reason, forcing Miami at the time to use Haslem/Anthony at center and make Battier the starting small forward. In this series, that small tweak (rather than using the traditional lineup of Chalmers-Wade-James-Haslem-Bosh) wreaked havoc with the Thunder's big men. Ibaka and Perkins dominate the paint defensively when they can guard post players. But Ibaka was forced to guard Battier, who of course lives at the 3-point line. With the old lineup, I think the Thunder likely would have won in 5 or 6; that smaller Heat lineup caused chaos for the Thunder starters, though, and got them out of their comfort zone.
In addition, Battier, after playing quite poorly in the regular season and playoffs, finally came around. In the first three games he hit 11-15 from 3-point range (!!) and slowed down Durant enough to take defensive pressure off James. On the other hand, while James Harden won 6th Man of the year during the regular season and was great earlier in the playoffs, he flat out stunk in games 1, 3, and 4, and when forced to guard LeBron was completely destroyed. Overall, the Heat simply had different players step up when they were needed, from Wade all the way down to Norris Cole and Mike Miller, while the Thunder had to rely way too much on Durant and Westbrook. Despite this being the Thunder's third postseason run together, the Heat simply seemed more comfortable with the Finals pressure. And, of course, the Heat had the best player on the court and on the planet, LeBron James.
***
Finally LeBron James, or "King James," or "the chosen one," of whose greatness we were all "witnesses," won his first championship. Most of you probably know that I am not a fan of James - my first post for this blog was a criticism of James' Decision, after all. But as a basketball fan, I have to say that there is some small satisfaction in seeing the best player of his generation finally come through and perform to his potential when it mattered the most. His performance against Boston in game 6 should go down as one of the greatest ever in the NBA playoffs, reminding me of both Jordan, and LeBron's own game years earlier against the Pistons when he scored the Cavs' last 25 points. After last year's epic, historic fail in last year's Finals, LeBron played brilliantly throughout this time. He set the pace for his team on offense with consistent aggressiveness and then shut down Durant on defense when he needed to. So while I'm still not a LeBron James fan, I greatly respect his performance in this year's playoffs and Finals and for the sake of the game am glad to see him finally rise to his potential.
One other thing I would like to address about LeBron, though. In all the hoopla over the Heat's victory it's been said/written many times that this somehow nullifies everything that happened in the summer of 2010. Ummm, what? LeBron's performance and the Heat's championship does these things: 1) end legitimate criticism of LeBron's play in both high pressure games and high pressure moments (ie: 4th quarter); 2) end speculation that LeBron is content with statistical dominance yet not competitive enough to win at the highest level; and 3) end debate about whether the James-Wade-Bosh trio can win a championship. If Miami had lost the Finals this year, pundits would have a much better argument that the anger over summer 2010 was overrated because then there might have been some question that that trio is not as disgustingly unfair as it seemed to be. To me, though, LeBron's and the Heat's success does nothing to change my great disappointment in LeBron's decision and my disgust in the way that he made it. Whatever; I look forward to seeing the Thunder's organic big three (Durant, Westbrook, and Harden - all drafted and developed by the same team) battling the Heat's artificial big three (James, Wade, and Bosh - brought together by impatience and fear of failure) for years to come.
Tennis
At the French Open last month, #2 ranked Rafael Nadal won yet again, keeping his phenomenal streak there alive (ignoring 2009 when he was injured). Federer and Djokovic met in the semi-finals again, where Djokovic got some sweet, sweet revenge for last year, yet Nadal then prevented him from achieving the calendar Slam (winning four Grand Slams in a row). Sharapova also achieved an impressive accomplishment, getting a career Grand Slam (has won each tourney once - only tenth woman to ever do so) by winning the ladies' section.
In two days the most important tennis event of the year begins: Wimbledon. Here are some of my predictions.
Men:
(1) Novak Djokovic: after destroying Nadal in last year's finals, Djokovic is probably the favorite this year. I'm hoping that my favorite player can indeed repeat, but it's never easy at Wimbledon. On grass, Federer is probably his biggest threat.
(2) Rafael Nadal: after Djokovic knocked him off the top perch bewilderingly quickly last year, Nadal has gotten his mojo back this year. Nadal has won Wimbledon twice, but grass is not his best surface; still, with his consistency and current momentum, he should get to the semifinals at least.
(3) Roger Federer: he just keeps defying "old" (for tennis) age, although it's clear he prefers playing in doors now. Still, he has both the skill and experience to know what it takes to win at Wimbledon, even if he has been shocked by non-Big Three opponents in the last few years.
(4) Andy Murray: the wobbly fourth leg of the men's stool, Murray has really struggled this year after losing in the semifinals to Djokovic. With the huge pressure to win his home tourney at Wimbledon, Murray is unlikely to get as far as his fans would like. (5) Tsonga is probably more likely to go deep into the tourney than Murray is.
Women:
(1) Maria Sharapova: very competitive and hard-working, Sharapova is always a threat and now finally back on top as the favorite. Her serve is often a concern, however, and it's been years since a woman has won back-to-back Slams in this era lacking any dominant players.
(2) Victoria Azarenka: after a great start to the year (including a brief rise to #1), she has struggled a bit. However, she did get to the semifinals at Wimbledon last year. To be honest, I haven't seen her play enough to know what her strengths and weaknesses are.
(3) Agnieszka Radwanska: with consistent play, she has risen to #3 in the world. She's a smaller player with more of a solid, precision game, and it could be tough for her to beat the stronger servers on the fast courts at Wimbledon.
(4) Petra Kvitova: speaking of strong servers, she can hit just about anybody off the court if she's on her game and won the title last year. However, like so many other Eastern Europeans (sorry to stereotype), she often has mental or emotional breakdowns that lead to shocking and/or lopsided losses. Still, Wimbledon suits her game (and there's also Serena Williams still lurking...)
Men's winner: Novak Djokovic
Women's winner: Petra Kvitova
Score: ***1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Prometheus explores some interesting ideas, just as Alien fans explore how close it comes to a prequel to their beloved franchise (answer: they're clearly in the same world, but it's not a direct predecessor via either story or character). A good cast, great sci-fi atmosphere and non-stop entertainment basically make up for it coming apart a little bit in its accelerated second half.
For another change of genre pace, the next film up for review is Prometheus. The film is directed by Ridley Scott, who also directed Alien back in 1979. Quite a bit of speculation came up about this new film being a prequel to that franchise. While I'm not a big fan of Alien, the idea of it being a prequel also didn't turn me off. I enjoy many sci-fi films (Star Trek, Star Wars, etc.), and the addition of some horror sounded like a fun diversion from the usual. Prometheus stars Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, and Charlize Theron.
The opening credits show pretty, expansive vistas before we meet Elizabeth Shaw (Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), archaelogists on a dig. Suddenly, four years later a spaceship run by android David (Fassbender) is speeding through the galaxy with Shaw, Holloway, and crew along in stasis. When the ship arrives at its destination, a moon capable of supporting life, Weyland Corporation (expedition funder) leader Vickers (Theron) briefs the crew on their mission. The mission is to look for the "Engineers," alien life forms alluded to in a variety of archaeological finds on Earth. Shaw and Holloway eagerly lead a trip out onto the planet's harsh surface.
Shaw and co. find the corpse of a life form there, but the team gets separated when they are called back to the ship due to an approaching storm. Although the planet has clearly been abandoned by the "Engineers," Shaw quickly finds herself fighting for survival in a rapidly deteriorating situation, against not only the Engineers' remnants but also the secret agendas of her fellow humans on their "scientific" mission.
The cast of Prometheus is good, although somewhat uneven. Noomi Rapace as scientist Shaw is the main character, a clear parallel itself to the Sigourney Weaver's heroine-led Alien. Rapace does a very good job in the most intense moments, lending the scenes extra believability, tension and/or horror. At times she doesn't behave quite the way you'd expect a scientist to, but that's probably more about the script. Michael Fassbender as David the android is the standout. He doesn't have Data's (from Star Trek) obviously nonhuman speech, but his mannerisms still make clear that he is an artificial life form. His character is also perhaps the most interesting, despite obviously not having "motives." Logan Marshall-Green is pretty annoying as Shaw's partner/lover. Theron as Vickers (cold corporate type) and Idris Elba (blue collar and disciplined) as the ship's captain are both good but they also unfortunately both have limited screen time.
Prometheus generally does a good job on the other things, beyond basic plot and character work. Perhaps what it does best is create a sense of scale, whether showing the fancy space ship dwarfed by the strange alien world, or the people lost in dark, massive alien-made tunnels. It all goes to help create the impression that these people are by themselves and there's no help coming no matter what happens. The horror is also very effective (of course, I set a low bar for them to clear) in both psychological, unseen and brutal, up-close-and-personal ways. Fantastic special effects, used somewhat sparingly, further aids all of the above. The film even has a little bit of humor, much of which is provided by minor characters (who also, and I doubt I'm spoiling anything here, provide much of the gore).
***
I thought about maybe giving Prometheus four stars, but ultimately it falls just short, in my opinion. The pace of the first half of the film is a bit slow but quite good, and then it speeds up significantly the rest of the way. Now, many times when this happens the effects on the film are bad, but Scott mostly keeps it under control and there's more logic to the change of pace than most similarly accelerated films. Still, a few parts start to jiggle loose on the streamlined Prometheus as things go faster, and most disappointingly the main moral and scientific theme turns to shambles. The film begs for a sequel, and without one it will probably fade from memory before long since it has no emotional component. With all that said, it's an entertaining film throughout with gorgeous visuals. Fassbender may steal the show, but Rapace does an admirable job in the lead role, too. If you want a change of pace at the cinema and you like/don't mind sci-fi, it's worth seeing.
Score: ** out of *****
Long Story Short: An impressive cast and tempting trailers are all that's good about this "horror/comedy" mess. The plot picks up threads and then unceremoniously drops them off, going instead for pointless and strange tangents. There's little comedy here, or horror, either, but plenty of head-scratching. Avoid.
For my next film of the summer, I chose Dark Shadows, a horror comedy (at least, according to Wikipedia). I was amused by the ads for the film, and, although it got mostly mediocre reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, I thought it would be worth a try. Also, it would give me the chance to review a film of a different genre than usual. Dark Shadows was directed by Tim Burton and stars his usual partner in crime Johnny Depp, along with Eva Green, Michelle Pfeiffer, and others.
Dark Shadows begins with a history of the Collins, a wealthy English family that settled in Maine in the mid-1700s and developed a successful fishing company, around which the town of Collinsport grew. Mr. and Mrs. Collins' son Barnabas (Depp) spurned one of his family's servants, Angelique (Green), who unfortunately was a witch. In revenge, Angelique tore the family apart and finally turned Barnabas into a vampire before burying him in the woods. In the present day, a young woman comes to the now-decrepit Collins manor desperate for a job (governess of the extended family's youngest son). Here she meets head of the estate Elizabeth (Pfeiffer); her obnoxious teen daughter Carolyn (Chloe Moretz); brother Roger and his young son; psychiatrist Dr. Hoffman (Helena Bonham Carter); and the family's two servants.
A construction crew shortly thereafter unearths Barnabas, freeing him. He returns to Collins manor and, although he reveals his true identity to Elizabeth, begins life anew as a "distant English relative" come to restore the family's business and prestige. This he does, but he also attracts the attention of Angelique, whose own business had supplanted the Collins'. Angelique becomes determined to possess Barnabas once again, forcing him to deal with her and yet keep his true identity secret.
Dark Shadows has a great cast; it's too bad that the film wastes their talents. Johnny Depp plays the main character, Barnabas the vampire. From the commercials/trailers, it seemed his role would be a humorous one; swap drunken pirate for aristocratic vampire. Depp pulls off the calm confidence and demeanor of his character pretty well, but there's very little humor in it and not much substance to the character, either. Eva Green does alright as the witch Angelique, alternatively both insane and seductive. Her part is a bit off the deep end, though. Michelle Pfeiffer is a believable, strong head of the household but she gets little screen time or variety. Helena Bonham Carter is clearly bored with her role, and understandably so as it's a generic one, albeit with an inexplicable, absurd plot twist. Jackie Earle Haley is perhaps one of the film's few bright spots as one of the cantankerous servants. Chloe Grace Moretz plays an uncomfortably sultry, over-the-top brat. And so on.
This film is pretty much a disaster. The plot starts off alright, if rather cliche, but doesn't take long before it just careens off the tracks, never to recover. It jumps all over the place. Just when you think that one thread will be a major storyline (particularly the new governess), the film suddenly drops it save a word here or there until much later. Then other mini- (and dumb) plot lines crop up (particularly concerning Roger and Dr. Hoffman) with little to no explanation or purpose. As I've mentioned, the trailer's promise of comedy is greatly, greatly exaggerated (in fact, I'd recommend watching the trailer and skipping the film). There's not really any horror, either, just a few somewhat gross scenes where Barnabas decides to stop acting like a British gentleman and indulge in his vampirism. A few scenes of action and one "love" scene are all ludicrously done and boring. I didn't notice the score.
***
As you saw with my score at the top of this review, this is indeed the worst film I have seen since I started my blog. Interesting comparison with Rise of the Planet of the Apes: while both had very deceptive marketing campaigns, Apes turned out much better than its marketing, and Shadows much worse. Quite simply, there is just nothing worth seeing in this film. It tries to do so many different things - the plot being nicely symbolic of this - and ends up doing, impressively, none of it well at all. I have to admit, it's kind of fun to write this kind of review, and easier than describing the accolades of good films. Hopefully, though, it's one of the few of its kind I have to write. Not recommended, unless you are a 100% completist Burton-Depp fanatic.
Score: ***1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Agent J and (old) Agent K's great chemistry is replaced by Agent J and (young) Agent K's in this third installment of the sometimes great sometimes not so great Men In Black franchise. Sadly, this film simply cannot replicate the magic from the first film when it tries to - but the good news is that it creates some new magic of its own thanks to Brolin, some great supporting characters, and a surprisingly good story.
Now for my second movie review of the summer! There are a couple comedies I'd still like to see that are already out, but they will be late, unfortunately. On the other hand, I'm finally writing a review for a movie during its opening weekend! Having immensely enjoyed the original Men In Black (although I thought the first sequel was not good at all), I have been looking forward to this one. This third Men In Black was directed by Barry Sonnenfeld again and returns old stars Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, with the addition of Josh Brolin (No Country For Old Men).
The film starts on a moon prison holding various alien bad guys; a visitor helps an alien named Boris the Animal to escape, an alien intent on exacting revenge on the agent who removed one of his arms. Back on Earth, Agents J (Smith) and K (Jones) respond to a typical alien disturbance in downtown NYC. Agent K discovers a clue there that leads him to realize that Boris has escaped, though he withholds details from J. That night, J feels something weird happen and when he gets to the MIB headquarters the next day he finds that K has disappeared.
J and the new MIB chief realize that Boris went back in time to change an important event. As an alien fleet descends on Earth, J travels back in time to stop Boris. He teams up with a younger, skeptical Agent K (Brolin) and Griffin (Stuhlbarg), an alien with a special ability, to stop Boris. In replaying Agent K and Boris' confrontation in 1969, Agent J discovers why Agent K changes from the (relatively) easy-going youth (Brolin) to the reserved, grouchy old man (Jones).
The work of Men In Black's leading men, Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, is certainly the main draw of the series. For a variety of reasons, that is not the case in this installment. Let's start with Will Smith, since he's the only one in the film from beginning to end. He gives pretty good effort throughout, but it's clear that he relished some scenes and kind of dragged through others. It doesn't help that the script in the opening scenes gave him pretty poor material. Still, overall a solid job. Josh Brolin as the young Agent K, however, does a phenomenal job. It's similar to his work in W. impersonating Bush (Texas drawl), but Brolin gets Jones' unique mannerisms down very well. Michael Stuhlbarg plays Griffin, an alien in the kind of role that often annoys me, but here the script actually makes him better than otherwise; he is strange but also wise in a genuinely humble sort of way.
Jemaine Clement plays Boris the Animal, the villain, and you'll likely recognize his voice. It is that voice, in fact, that makes him a distinct, dangerous and cunning bad guy. There is also a strong cast of supporting roles, including Emma Thompson as the new MIB boss (sporting a hilarious impression of an alien language), Bill Hader as Andy Warhol (one of my faves on SNL, and just as good here), and Will Arnett as Agent AA (a very brief role on an elevator, but very amusing). The low point acting in the film, and this truly shocks me, is Tommy Lee Jones. Simply put, he looks tired and bored in this film and obviously phoned in his performance. Granted, there are moments here and there of good Tommy, but overall he is bewilderingly bad.
Men In Black thrived on its quirky interactions with New Yorker aliens and its funky sense of humor. That formula is really only evident in Agents J and K's first scene and, disturbingly, it's perhaps the worst part of the film. The jokes are tired retreads, the performances are flat, and the interactions don't stand apart from the others in the series at all. The aliens and assorted goo and destruction has always had a slightly cartoonish feel to them, and the same is true here (perhaps too fake in that unfortunate first J and K scene). Several scenes were also clearly filmed to make more impact in 3D viewings (as usual, though, I saw it in 2D). Fortunately, once Agent J travels back in time, things improve significantly, mostly thanks to Brolin's performance and Griffin. The humor works much better in this section, and while the aliens are less numerous than you'd expect, the quirkiness is fresh once again. And then there's the ending...
***
You might be thinking, after reading the review thus far, that three-and-a-half sounds a little high. Up until the last few minutes, I was probably going to give this one three stars. However, the ending adds a twist that, while perhaps a little cliched, fits in perfectly with Agent J and K's relationship over the three films, despite the filmmakers not probably having thought of it before this film. I was expecting to love the Agent J and K back-and-forth and the bizarre collection of aliens, like the other installments. Instead, Brolin completely blew Jones out of the water (and mercifully had far more screen time), and the overall story actually trumped the creativeness of the aliens, save for Griffin. In other words, not what I was expecting at all. If you're a big fan of Men In Black, I would recommend seeing this in the theater. If not... well, you can probably afford to wait for Netflix/other rental options.
2012 NBA Playoffs Update
As I suspected in my playoffs preview column, there have been plenty of surprises in the NBA postseason this year. I'll at least mention a few notable ones at the end, but this post is primarily about my favorite team, the Lakers, and the early yet unsurprising end to their season. Of course, every time the Lakers have fallen short in the Kobe era, basketball pundits have declared an emergency and called for drastic action. This time, I'll add my own take to the situation. (If you aren't interested in a recap of their season, skip to What To Do Now?)
A Season of Change
Even before the first game of the 2011-12 season, the Lakers faced several events that would dramatically effect their ability to compete for a third championship in four years. First, of course, was the lockout, which pushed the start date of the season back to Christmas, even though the league still squeezed 66 games out of the condensed season calendar. So many back-to-backs, and even back-to-back-to-backs, figured to be tough on the Lakers' aging roster, particularly Kobe in his 16th season. The Lakers also replaced the best coach in the league's history, Phil Jackson, with Mike Brown, the guy who led LeBron's undermanned Cavs' teams to several strong seasons which nevertheless fell short of championship-level success.
Once the new collective bargaining agreement was made, each team had to scramble to sign the free agents they wanted and/or make the trades they needed. The Lakers nearly got the best point guard in the league, Chris Paul, in a trade that would have sent away valuable big men Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom. After the league vetoed the trade, however, the Lakers quickly traded - perhaps gave away is more accurate - Odom to the Mavericks. It's impossible to know how well Odom would have done playing for L.A. this season, but in Dallas he rapidly fell apart to the point of being forced to "part ways" with his new team.
So, before the season even began, the Lakers were looking at a grueling schedule and outraged at being denied a superstar addition - but also got rid of at least one potential distraction (Odom). Once the season began, the Lakers hovered just above .500, playing well at home and lousy on the road. The Clippers, who ended up landing Paul, got all the early L.A. basketball headlines with a strong start. Their defense improved under Mike Brown, to no surprise, whose Cavs also played stifling D. On the other hand, their offense, especially in the first half of the year, was often painful to watch and rarely got to 100 points in a game.
Ron Artest (yes, I know, he's now Metta World Peace, but I refuse to use that "name") played quite badly for most of the season, but he started to improve in March and ended up playing better than he had in years. Bynum's improvement was even better: he posted career highs in points (18.7) and rebounds (11.8) per game, in addition to 2 blocks per game and good shooting (56% from the field, 69% from the line) - and he stayed healthy, playing over 90% of the schedule. He became the Lakers' clear second scoring option, and even outscored Kobe on more than a few occasions. Finally, the addition of Ramon Sessions in mid-March drastically improved their production at point guard. He averaged 12.7 points and 6 assists per game, as well as nearly 50% shooting on 3s.
Despite a tough schedule at the end of the season, the Lakers grabbed the Pacific Division and 3rd seed in the West from the rapidly sinking Clippers.
Playoff Woes
The Lakers' first round matchup with the Denver Nuggets was an interesting one: the Lakers preferred a slow pace controlled by their bigs, where the Nuggets preferred a lightning pace with lots of easy buckets. The Lakers featured three great stars, while the Nuggets relied on an overall solid lineup (including their bench). Quite appropriately, then, the series went seven games (even though the Lakers had the chance to end it at home in five). Despite having Sessions' fresh legs at PG, the Lakers were still blown away far too often by the Nuggets' youthful speed and explosiveness. Eventually, the Lakers' big three were just too much for the feisty Nuggets.
Round two, of course, was a different story. The Thunder are no longer the run-and-gun team that they were when the Lakers beat them in the first round two years ago (en route to their second straight championship). No, the Thunder simply did everything better than the Lakers. L.A. did lose two games that they had great chances to win, true - but whereas last year I felt shocked by their loss to eventual champion Dallas Mavericks, this year it just seemed a matter of time. Even the Lakers' best strength, the 7-foot duo of Gasol and Bynum, was pretty easily nullified by OKC's Perkins and Ibaka. Kobe gave a few great performances, but it was increasingly obvious that he at least felt like there was no one else on his team who could help him win a game. The subpar bench, which did OK in round one, completely collapsed here, too.
What To Do Now?
The Lakers find themselves going home early for a second straight year. But when it comes to their future, the most important thing to remember is that they still have Kobe Bryant, for good or ill. He is one of the all-time greats, and while he's still among the league's best, he's obviously going downhill with his age. Taking into account his legacy, the pride and reputation of the Lakers organization, and his astronomical salary, there is no doubt he is going to finish his days as a professional basketball player in purple and gold. It's one of the few certainties facing the team right now.
If there was a simple way forward from here, this post would not be worth writing. But, of course, there aren't any simple solutions to the Lakers' situation. The Lakers and their fans want to both A) win at least one more championship with Kobe Bryant, and B) retain a core from which to quickly rebuild once Kobe's best days have passed. I rather doubt it is possible to achieve both of these outcomes, however (and, in a nightmare for fans like myself, perhaps neither is possible). Still, if I were in charge of the Lakers here is what I would do...
So you want to win one or two more with Kobe...
99% of Laker fans, and many NBA analysts, are calling for Pau Gasol to be traded, even more than they did after last year's playoff exit. I have also frequently been frustrated with Gasol, but if you want to go the win-with-Kobe route, the Lakers shouldn't trade him, for several reasons. One: he won't get much in return, and certainly no stars that would significantly upgrade their roster - Laker complaints are not made in a vacuum, and teams wouldn't feel the need to offer great value for him. Two: he is perhaps the Lakers' steadiest player, both on the court and in his head - his drop in production is mostly due to both Bynum's enlarged role and the team's adjustment as a whole to Brown's new offense.
So, if you want the win-with-Kobe route, Lakers, you should trade Bynum. Why? One: he is by far your most valuable trading chip - he's only 24, he just finished the season with Dwight Howard-like numbers, he stayed healthy this year, and he has just one year left on a reasonable contract. Two: he STILL has maturity issues, and L.A. is clearly not a place to work those problems out. Three: yeah, he was healthy this year, but who knows how long that will last? Four: the Lakers' biggest obstacle for the future, OKC, clearly has the strategy and personnel to contain him at the moment.
Trade Bynum, and you could potentially get Deron Williams and maybe a role player or two in return. Or maybe Steve Nash and your pick from the rest of the Suns' roster? Etc. etc. etc. I think the Lakers could do pretty damn well with a starting lineup of Kobe, Deron Williams, Ron Artest, Jordan Hill and Pau Gasol, with Blake, Sessions, Barnes, McRoberts (if he shows improvement), Ebanks, and any other role players you get from New Jersey Brooklyn.
So you want to build a future dynasty...
Obviously, in this scenario, you have to keep Bynum who would (hopefully) be the centerpiece of a post-Kobe Laker squad. And if you're going to keep Bynum, then of course the Lakers will want to trade Gasol (which so many people seem to want to do anyway), since he is already in his 30s and seems unlikely to regain his maximum efficiency sharing post production with the more dominant Bynum. What can you get for Gasol? This is the interesting part. As I said earlier, the Lakers won't be able to get much star power in exchange for Pau, so they can either get a handful of role players or perhaps a nice cache of draft picks. With my strategy, of building for the future, the draft pick choice is obviously better - but the Lakers and their fans obviously want it both ways, and will want at least some known quantity to help them right off the bat.
As long as Kobe is still around, he will fight like hell to win more championships. The risk with being too blatant about building for the future is that Kobe will return to his pre-2008 days of demanding trades loudly left and right (remember when he thought Bynum was useless?). Of course, there are also risks to building around Bynum. I already mentioned that his injury history is quite frightening, and his lack of consistency and maturity on and off the court makes him a dubious team leader at best. Another point to mention is that maybe the game has simply moved on to the point that you can't win a championship when your best player is a center. Look at Orlando: Dwight Howard is a defensive monster, and they surrounded him with great three-point shooting on offense. Yet the farthest they've gotten is losing the Finals in five games to the Lakers (and only got that far because the Celtics didn't have KG for the playoffs). Bynum has a lot more potential at the offensive end, but he's no where near as good a defender as Howard and never will be.
My choice...
If I suddenly became the Lakers' owner, I would choose the first option. Deron Williams would be the best choice for the Lakers at this point (trading for Howard might improve them but only by a few degrees - see above). By doing this, you keep Kobe motivated and happy, and excited to have a superstar point guard teammate for the first time in his career. You get rid of a potential distraction and/or season wrecker in the form of an unsurprising knee injury. You get a more up-tempo style of play to match the rest of the league. You completely erase OKC's biggest edge over you (Westbrook), perhaps even turning it to your advantage, while making their silver bullets (Perkins-Ibaka) far less meaningful as well. And even if you still fall short of another championship, at least you can say you were a major power at one of the most competitive eras in the league's history (the Bulls' Rose plus smothering defense; the Heat's Big Three; OKC's Batman and Robin; etc.). Stay with Bynum, Lakers, and you're simply a crotchety old basketball power who has been passed by unceremoniously.
A Few Other Playoff Thoughts
I feel so sorry for the Chicago Bulls and Derrick Rose, who tore his ACL and MCL in game one, right at the end as they were securing the win in the first game of the playoffs. The Bulls and Rose deserve better than that, and then Noah's was just insult to injury... On the other hand, props to the 76ers for beating a still-formidable Bulls team despite having no stars of their own... The Hawks were the same old Hawks again, blowing game 2 at home despite no Rondo. Oh, and Joe Johnson again "earned" his $18 million salary with 17 PPG, 37% FG and 25% from 3. Don't worry, Hawks fans, just four years and ~$90 million of that scintillating play left!... Punching fire extinguishers doesn't help you beat the Miami Heat, as Amare painfully learned... I've finally seen it with my own eyes: the Spurs have been destroying everybody. Resistance is futile... Biggest series-wide shocker of the playoffs for me so far - the Clippers beating the Grizzlies. The first three quarters of game one seemed to validate my thoughts on how the series would go - and then Chuck Norris intervened via humble souls bearing the long-scorned jerseys of the L.A. Clippers. Basically nothing played out logically in that series, especially the fact that L.A.'s subs won it for them in game 7 in Memphis... Durant is a beast, and he will not let OKC go down quietly against anybody... I'm extremely impressed at how competitive Philly and Indiana have made their respective series in the semifinals. All the more so when they happen to drop their guard for a moment; you see how ridiculously outgunned they are when Miami and Boston pounce on them...
Enjoy the rest of the playoffs!
Score: ****1/2 out of *****
Long Story Short: Despite commercials featuring a dizzing array of costumed superheroes, The Avengers succeeds spectacularly where so many team/large-cast films have failed. Whedon devises a simple plot, but its job is simply to support the great cast (which somehow develops individuals and relationships with equal conviction), soaring action and a phenomenal sense of humor and fun. Do yourself a favor and go see this in the theater, if you haven't already.
The summer movie season has begun! It looks like there will be an interesting slate of films to choose from this year, and hopefully I'll have a bit more variety in my genre-watching this summer. Still, I'm kicking off summer 2012 with, yes, a superhero movie. Honestly, I was fairly skeptical about the concept of this film when I first heard about it; there have been many more instances of these team/large-cast action films that flop than succeed. The trailers didn't completely erase my doubts, either. However, I was quite pleased to see it get a Rotten Tomatoes score over 90%, excellent for any kind of film. The Avengers was directed by Joss Whedon (Buffy, Firefly) and stars Robert Downey, Jr., Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, and many others.
Before I begin the plot synopsis, I should inform you that this film does incorporate the events of the previous movies of its characters (Iron Man, Thor, etc.), but they aren't necessary to the understanding of the events of this film.
The first few scenes of The Avengers set up the villain of the film (Loki, demi-god brother of Thor) and his basic plot (steal an artifact - first seen in last summer's Captain America film - in return for an alien army to conquer Earth). Loki (Hiddleston) acquires this artifact from the facility of a covert organization known as SHIELD, prompting SHIELD leader Nick Fury (Jackson) to begin summoning the heroes. Black Widow (Johansson) is part of SHIELD already, and Captain America (Chris Evans) is in their custody, but the other Avengers prove a little more difficult to get onboard.
After some cajoling (and forest-leveling brawls), the team at last converges, grudgingly, on an aircraft carrier carrier (that's not a typo). After discovering a secret SHIELD agenda, the team again forms rivalries, primarily between virtuous, team-player Captain America and skeptical, independent Tony Stark (Downey Jr.). Loki attempts to further divide them, but the death of a mutual friend instead unites them. After that, it's butt-kicking time.
One of the main reasons The Avengers succeeds is that it has a great cast, and it somehow manages to give every member a distinct and fascinating role. As you might know from earlier reviews, I am a big fan of Robert Downey, Jr., and his role as Tony Stark/Iron Man is just as entertaining as Sherlock. In fact, Stark is probably the most important character in the film, as his sarcastic, arrogant, often selfish yet always funny personality is so different from the traditional hero's. Chris Evans' Captain America has pretty much the opposite personality, and he does a good job of portraying his character's extreme frustration with Stark, but also his cool-headed leadership skills. Thor (played by Chris Hemsworth) is kind of an interesting blend of Stark and the Capt. - he's a classic hero-type, but also arrogant/derisive of "puny humans" by virtue of his being, well, a demi-god. Chris plays him with the same humor and charm that marked his character's own debut film.
Black Widow (Johansson) and Hawkeye (newcomer played by Jeremy Renner) are the tortured-soul members of the Avengers; each get a pleasantly surprising amount of development, considering they are really secondary characters, and the actors breathe life into them. Mark Ruffalo is the third actor to portray the Hulk in the last decade, and he might be the best yet. He gives Bruce Banner a quiet, friendly demeanor, but also a definite sense of hiding something huge and dangerous under that innocent exterior. Tom Hiddleston as Loki improves on his performance in last summer's Thor, although he still is not among the best comic book villains. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is... well, pretty much what you'd expect from Samuel L. Jackson, but his underling Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) actually steals the show from him.
With a great cast balancing out a pretty straightforward story, next we look at the nuts and bolts of The Avengers. A superhero film without good action scenes is kind of pointless, but fortunately this film has plenty. There is great variety here, from intense individual skirmishes to heavy firepower shoot-outs. Yes, the finale battle is an alien invasion in NYC, bringing back memories of *gulp* Transformers and many others, but here The Avengers provides a superior experience. Overall, the film favors action that is appropriate for each of its characters rather than action that is original in a more general sense, which is a good trade off for this kind of team film. The next aspect which must be spoken to is the film's sense of humor, because it is phenomenal. The Avengers isn't a Green Hornet-esque action-comedy, yet it is far funnier than, say, 21 Jump Street whose primary mission was to be funny. A little of the humor is based on (basic) knowledge of the comics, but most of it is accessible to the general movie-goer, and the showing I went to was laughing out loud on numerous occasions. I won't spoil any specifics here, but while Tony Stark is of course humorous, the Hulk gets the biggest laughs.
***
Even while driving to go see The Avengers, I doubted that it would be good enough for 4.5 stars. Team/large-cast films, to say nothing of action films that try to do it, are just so hard to do well. But Joss Whedon deserves so much credit for succeeding, and in fact I would say he did the best job with the hardest task in any film I've seen in many years. As I've said, the cast is a big factor - I love Downey, Jr., and the others also do a great job of creating distinct characters, with unusually good chemistry for a team of big names. The combination of meaningful and fun action with an outstanding sense of humor also gives the film a huge boost. And what all those things create together is a sense of fun unmatched by any superhero film in recent memory. The film is certainly not a parody, but it's often a bit silly, reminding the audience that these characters did start off in comic books, after all. The Avengers isn't perfect - the villain's plot, in particular, is not all that intriguing. But the humor, cast, action and fun are all so good that they make The Avengers an instant classic in the superhero genre.
