Sports: 2014 NBA Playoffs & Finals

2014 NBA Playoffs & Finals

By no conscious planning, I didn't follow the NBA regular season very much this year.  By the time the Playoffs were close to starting, my appetite for basketball had increased significantly (partially whetted by March Madness).  Thanks to my having access to DVR again (and thus being able to watch a game in ~1 hour as opposed to 2.5-3 hours), I was able to watch maybe 75% of the games in the Playoffs.  So here is a brief recap of each round, followed by a look (some short, some long) at each team.

First Round:
Having followed the regular season only sparsely, I didn't know what to expect as much as usual - but then the round ended up being different than even the "experts" predicted.  Amazingly, both #1 seeds (Indiana and San Antonio) were pushed to seven-game series:  the Spurs caught off guard by a surprisingly good Mavs team, and the Pacers continuing to be wildly inconsistent during a prolonged slump.  Beyond that, there were two excellent Western Conference series, with favorites Oklahoma City and L.A. Clippers barely surviving the dangerous but not-quite-there Memphis and Golden State, respectively.  The East was much less interesting; although Brooklyn-Toronto went to seven games, it was not that entertaining.

Second Round:
With so many competitive and/or surprising first round results, the second round seemed like it could be even better.  Due to match ups, though, it was actually less interesting.  Miami took care of the ridiculously high-paid but elderly Nets without trouble, and the Spurs gave the Blazers a shellacking they won't soon forget.  The other two series were better.  Oklahoma City-L.A. Clippers had some excellent games in fact, with several late-game comebacks.  The Thunder arguably got lucky to win, but the Durant-Westbrook duo stepped up their games.  Indiana-Washington had some good games - and some real stinkers.  The Wizards showed that they are a team to watch, but the Pacers' defense eventually figured them out.

Third Round:
Despite all the earlier unpredictability, both conferences' #1 and #2 seeds ended up vying for spots in the Finals.  Miami-Indiana was a rematch from last year, but this time the Pacers actually took a big step backwards thanks to Hibbert's implosion and even worse (!) team offense.  Indiana put up a fight - and it helps that the Heat are simply a good matchup for them - but they wilted in an utterly humiliating game 6.  Spurs-Thunder was a rematch from two years ago.  San Antonio caught a break with Ibaka missing the first two games, and they took advantage by winning those big.  Ibaka's return seemed to turn the tide, as OKC won the next two.  But the Spurs refused to go down this time, and they pulled out the series in an overtime game 6.

Finals:
Here it was:  the rematch so many of us wanted after last year's absolutely brilliant Finals.  The Heat came in to this cruising, only having lost a total of three games in the Playoffs.  The Spurs lost that many in their first round alone, and had quite a challenge getting through OKC, too.  Many, myself included, felt a little like the Spurs, a little older and just creeping back to the Finals, might get smashed by a well-rested Heat team that was still in its prime.  WRONG.

The Spurs may have gotten "lucky" in game one when the A/C went out, ultimately leading to LeBron James cramping up and missing the last seven minutes of the game.  Miami had had a small but consistent lead throughout until that point - but with James gone, the Spurs finally improved their play and ran away with it in the last few minutes.  The Spurs could and should have also won game 2, which they led with under two minutes remaining.  Reminiscent of last year's game 6 collapse, though, they gave it away - and Spurs fans everywhere said "uh-oh".

Turns out, we didn't need to worry.  The series went to Miami, and the Spurs simply produced the single greatest shooting performance in a half in NBA Finals history.  Having experience in guarding big leads from their Portland series, San Antonio bent but didn't break in the second half.  Just about everyone expected another Miami bounce back, but the Spurs took it to them from the start in game 4, building a 19 point halftime lead, which only grew from there.  Going back to San Antonio, the Heat made a big push in the first quarter, building a big lead - but Spurs reasserted their dominance, and Miami seemed to be out of gas.  By halftime, the Spurs already had the lead, and it was a cakewalk from there.  To my surprise and great pleasure, the Spurs not only avenged last year's Finals loss, but did so in emphatic fashion.


Teams

16.  Charlotte:  Yeah, they got swept by Miami.  But most of the games were reasonably close, despite the Bobcats playing without star Al Jefferson much of the time.  Kemba Walker really impressed me, matching skill to a high confidence level.  If this team can develop some of their young players more, maybe turning Walker into a star, they can actually become a challenger in the East.

15.  Chicago:  This team plays together so well, and plays such hard defense... but they just don't have enough talent or scoring.  Will the return of Derrick Rose be able to change that?  Can he return to stardom after missing two full seasons?  Can he stay healthy?  Those are the biggest questions; while the Bulls have a resilient group, I have to think they're near the breaking point.

14.  Houston:  No disrespect to Portland, but the Rockets had no business losing in the first round.  They have two of the league's biggest stars (Harden and Howard) and a capable supporting cast led by new-to-me Chandler Parsons.  On the other hand, I'm not sure if their stars have the leadership and mental toughness to take this team the distance.  Howard in particular is just a giant cry baby now, and Harden is very up-and-down.  This team desperately needs a no-nonsense veteran or two.

13.  Atlanta:  I didn't really see much of their series against Atlanta.  They seemed to play really hard, though (a welcome change from the deplorable Josh Smith-Joe Johnson teams).  Teague has always really impressed me, and he would be a fantastic addition for a contender.  I don't really see a lot of potential in this squad, though.

12.  Toronto:  Another series I didn't see a lot of.  To be honest, even the games that I did watch and that they won, I don't know how they did.  It seems like a pretty ragtag group, but they did somehow get the #3 seed.  I would be shocked if they got that high again, though.

11.  Dallas:  Wow, did this team impress me.  I didn't think they would win even one game against San Antonio.  But even though Nowitzki can't carry the offensive load all game every game anymore, they have pieces around him now for a balanced attack - particularly Monta Ellis and Jose Calderon.  I scoffed every time Vince Carter took a three pointer (his game winner was the luckiest shot I've ever seen), but even he made positive contributions.  It also helps that Rick Carlisle seems to be a fantastic coach.  Still, I think the team played to its ceiling against the Spurs, and I don't see them becoming a real threat in the West.

10.  Memphis:  Poor Memphis.  They've played great team basketball with the same core for several years, but just can't get past the elite teams.  Their rivalry with OKC has been amazing, but they simply don't have a Durant or Westbrook to carry them when needed.  It's hard to see where they can make a change to break through, without compromising their stability and defense.  But as long as they're in the playoffs, this is a team worth watching.

9.  Golden State:  They sure gave the rising L.A. Clippers a run for their money.  Their offense is quite a well-oiled machine, and they play with a pace and style that is unlike anything else seen in the NBA right now.  Unfortunately, they just didn't have enough balance with Bogut injured.  Also:  why the hell did they fire Mark Jackson?!?  Admittedly, I didn't like him much as an announcer, but he's done a fantastic job as coach, completely turning the team around (which is still on the rise).

8.  Brooklyn:  So this team was supposed to challenge Miami?  Now, apparently Brooke Lopez was hurt for most of the season, but I don't see much potential here.  Paul Pierce is still OK, but only in reduced minutes.  Garnett is done.  Joe Johnson has improved his offensive efficiency, but Deron Williams needs to be the leader and he has not fulfilled the promise he showed in Utah.  This is an overpaid, overhyped - and aging - team.

7.  Portland:  The Blazers are a team with potential - too bad they're in the West.  In the East, they could already be contending for the Finals.  The loss to the Spurs was humiliating, but not surprising.  Aldridge is a force, but he needs more experience and toughness.  Damian Lillard is an excellent young player, and will probably determine the team's fate. There is a decent supporting cast around these two, ready to perform if the stars align.

6.  Washington:  This team might just have the most potential (in relation to the amount of success they've had thus far).  The starting lineup is fearsome:  Wall, Beal, Ariza, Nene, Gortat.  They need more experience for sure, but they have a deadly combination of youth, athleticism and shooting ability.  They also need to improve on defense, but this is a team that I am eager to watch.

5.  L.A. Clippers:  Despite the franchise's abysmal history (which is an understatement), expectations are already high for the team led by Paul and Griffin.  I admit, I was impressed with Griffin's development as a low-post scorer and to a lesser degree, a defender.  Their supporting cast also seems well defined, with Jordan, Crawford, and even Redick making substantial contributions.  I have to say, I am not a Chris Paul fan.  Something about his demeanor on the court repels me.  Anyway, I definitely know which side I'm on in the West of the Future (LAC vs. OKC).

4.  Indiana:  Wow.  They basically turned into the Hawks of recent years past.  They have a lot of talent and a great defense, but beyond that... they're terrible.  Watching them play offense and completely squander all their strengths is excruciating.  Hibbert basically curled up in a fetal position this year and has yet to emerge from it.  This team disgusted me so much this year that I actually rooted for MIAMI to beat them!!!

3.  Oklahoma City:  Very interesting team here.  Will they finally break through to and win the Finals?  Can they become a dynasty?  One thing's for sure: I'm rooting for Durant.  Beyond his amazing MVP speech, he has such a beautiful offensive game.  When he gets it going, nothing can stop him and it's a sight to behold.  Westbrook, the Robin to his Batman, is unfortunately about the exact opposite.  We know from last year's playoffs that he's essential to the team, but his game is often quite ugly - and his attitude, too.  But this is one of the most fun teams to watch, and I'll be pulling for them.

2.  Miami:  Well, I wasn't expecting that to happen.  The Heat seemed even more dominant this year in the Eastern Conference playoffs, with Wade and Bosh incorporating new, improved elements to their game and Birdman (BTW, hearing Mark Jackson say his name in a serious tone is one of the most hilarious events of a basketball game) shoring up their weaknesses inside.  But then they got to the Finals and everything got exposed.  LeBron's played too many minutes, and was just out of gas.  Wade seems very old and slow.  Bosh is passive and comes up small more often than not.  Mario Chalmers died (wait, he's still alive?).  Their supporting cast has quietly gotten worse and relies on an aging Ray Allen.

Now for the most interesting offseason since The Decision.  LeBron is looking at a team that really isn't a lot different than the one he left in Cleveland.  I've started to wonder whether it's just his luck, or if there's something about his game that molds the team around him.  He's still the best basketball player in the world - but now what will he do?

1.  San Antonio:  Before I talk about the Spurs, I should say that my favorite player when I first started following basketball was Michael Jordan.  He had just come back from retirement, and watching the Bulls get another three peat was the height of my sports fan experience.  Well, watching the Spurs win the championship this year was nearly as good.  Why?

1) The Spurs organization is one of the best in all professional sports, and has quietly and humbly put together perhaps the most successful 15 year span in the last 40 years of sports.  5 championships (plus one other Finals appearance in a loss).  Three Conference Finals berths.  Made the playoffs EVERY single year.  And they did it all with the same core of coach Popovich and all-time great (and all-time under appreciated) Tim Duncan, plus brilliant drafting that netted them Parker, Ginobili, and many others.  They didn't once sign or trade for a superstar from another team (*coughLakersCelticsHeatcough*).

2) Beating Miami.  I've been rooting against the Heat ever since LeBron and Bosh took the easy way out by joining together with Wade.  I don't dislike any of those players, and the move obviously did not guarantee them a championship every year, but I thought it was a terrible precedent to set and thus wanted it to fail.  Add to that last year's Finals, which was possibly the most amazing championship series/game that I've ever seen.  The Spurs had it won, but a few bad bounces of the ball resulted in a devastating game 6 loss and hard fought end in game 7.  To come back the next year and emphatically prove the superiority of team basketball over star power was glorious to see (OK, and the revenge factor was kinda nice, too).

Michael Jordan is still my favorite player of all time, but I think the Spurs might now be my favorite team.  They represent just about all that is praiseworthy in not just basketball but all sports.  Loyalty.  Hard work.  Team work.  Patience.  Humility.  There's plenty more to say about the Spurs - their past, present, and even future - but I'll leave it at that.  Spurs:  I salute you.  You've set an example that every other team should strive to emulate.

Movies: A Million Ways to Die in the West

Score:  *** out of ***** (C)

Long Story Short:  Funny man Seth MacFarlane returns to the big screen with a Wild West satire, his follow up to 2012's hit, Ted.  Unfortunately, A Million Ways is a flop.  Despite occasional belly laughs and a wildly entertaining part for Neil Patrick Harris, MacFarlane makes a mistake by putting himself as the lead.  Add a terribly boring and cliched story that needed far more/better jokes to save it and we have a model for what MacFarlane should not do next.


I'm on a roll!  Yet another movie review this week, and it's back to comedy.  After this, it will likely be a little while until the next review, based on the upcoming release calendar.  However, the NBA Finals will be finished by next weekend, so expect a recap of the NBA Playoffs/Finals, plus French Open.  People tend to love or hate Seth MacFarlane... I happen to enjoy him and think he's talented - he's not the funniest guy on the planet, but I also think the "offensiveness" of his humor is way overblown.  I also enjoyed his first movie, Ted, quite a bit in spite of it starring the despised Mark Wahlberg, so I wanted to check out his second offering.  A Million Ways to Die in the West was directed by MacFarlane, and stars him along with Charlize Theron, Neil Patrick Harris and Liam Neeson.

Set in 1882, Albert (MacFarlane) is a lowly sheep farmer.  He is smart and realistic about the realities of life on the frontier, life that gets significantly worse when his girlfriend, Louise (Seyfried), dumps him.  Albert thinks it's time to move along from his home town, but his Christian friends Edward (Ribisi) and Ruth (Silverman) persuade him to stay.  Meanwhile, some bad actors move into the area, led by Clinch (Neeson).  He sends his wife, Anna (Theron) to stay in the local town while he pillages the outskirts.

Not knowing her true identity, Albert meets and begins to fall in love with Anna.  Relieved to spend some time with a "good guy" for once, Anna also develops feelings for him.  She begins to teach him the rough-and-tumble skills needed to survive in the West - but will it be enough to save him when Clinch rides into town?

A Million Ways to Die in the West is filled with big names, but uneven performances.  MacFarlane decided to step in front of the camera this time as the lead, farmer Albert.  His character is basically himself narrating, but as a main player:  Albert is easy-going and musing (and amused) as he observes the "idiots" all around him.  The point of the character, to highlight the insanity of life in the Wild West, is the main focus of the comedy and not a bad idea.  But MacFarlane is simply not a very engaging actor, and my attention always went to the other people on screen.  Charlize Theron plays his love interest, Anna, who is basically a walking, talking stereotype.  Don't get me wrong, Theron is as talented an actress as she is gorgeous (the superlative being very), but MacFarlane's use of her is as transparent as it is painful for me to watch (I won't go on that particular rant right now).

The standout in the cast is Neil Patrick Harris, playing the town's rich man.  He is perfectly cast in the role, as Louise's new boyfriend - smug and intelligent to just the right degree, without trying to go any further than that.  He is directly or indirectly responsible for just about all of the funniest parts of the film.  One way that A Million Ways could have dramatically improved would have been to double his screen time.  Liam Neeson has a relatively small role, and it's mostly to cash a fat check.  Ribisi and Silverman are both talented actors, but they share exactly one theme, played over and over.  There are also some cameos, the best by far coming just before the credits in a hilarious tag-on scene.

I've been talking about this more and more in my reviews as it's become clear to me:  while comedies must of course have lots of laughs and hilarious scenes, it is nearly as important for them to handle the non-funny parts well, too.  A Million Ways to Die in the West has some decent humor (although its batting percentage is pretty low), but the story (or "non-funny" parts) drags it into the middle of the desert to starve.  Yes, the film is a parody of the idealization of the Wild West - but did it have to be quite so by-the-numbers?  Actually, it's more accurate to say that it suffers from a staggering number of contemporary film-style cliches.  As many jokes as there are, I was begging for even more because when they stopped, the film becomes deadly dull.  Oh yeah, the jokes.  I generally enjoy MacFarlane's style, but a lot of the attempts are lazy and only mildly amusing.  There are some belly laughs, mostly when they seem to be nonchalant about it (with the exception of one hilariously excruciating and extended "potty" scene starring Harris).

***

Well, after a busy first month and a half of the summer movie season, the overall verdict is quite mixed.  There have been three really good films (X-Men: Days of Future Past, Edge of Tomorrow, Neighbors) and three poor ones (Amazing Spider-Man 2, Godzilla, A Million Ways to Die in the West).  All of the films I most anticipated have been released, so it's up to some "unknowns" to tip the balance one way or the other.  A Million Ways to Die in the West was a discouraging experience for me.  I think MacFarlane has the talent and sensibility to do some great things, and I hope he doesn't settle for "lowest common denominator" efforts like this again.  First off, he needs to remove himself from the screen (beyond cameos); he does great voice work, and should continue that.  Also, it feels to me that MacFarlane may have an axe to grind when it comes to modern relationship dynamics - it's  overt in A Million Ways to Die in the West and, now that I think of it, somewhat there in Ted, too.  Look, mining relationship dynamics is great - but MacFarlane is currently doing so in a tiresome way.  Maybe let's focus more on the fart jokes, for now.  Recommandation: if you're a MacFarlane fan, then rent/Netflix it.  Otherwise, skip.

Movies: Edge of Tomorrow

Score:  **** out of ***** (A-)

Long Story Short:  Tom Cruise's latest vehicle sees him as the action star of a sci-fi action film once more - and practice seems to make perfect.  Thanks largely to a genius script and brilliant directing, Edge of Tomorrow ably navigates a time loop story with comprehension, action, and quite a bit of humor.  Cruise is always fun to watch, but he's also met his match here in the ass-kicking Emily Blunt.  Go see it - you won't regret it.


After a string of movie reviews, I finally had an "off" weekend last week with no trips to the theater.  However, I'm making up for it with a rare review coming on the same weekend that the film was released!  Next weekend will likely bring A Million Ways to Die in the West, and I'm not sure after that.  Opinions on Tom Cruise are highly varied, especially after 2005's "Couchgate" and his apparent loss of marbles.  I for one don't care about his personal life, and enjoy watching his films.  He has made a number of very watchable - no classics, but no bombs - action movies in recent years, so with a very intriguing premise, his newest film seemed like a good choice.  Edge of Tomorrow was directed by Doug Liman (Bourne Identity, Mr. and Mrs. Smith) and stars Cruise and Emily Blunt.

To the screenwriters' credit, the plot is both important to the film and manageable to summarize without spoiling.  If you've seen previews, you likely know much of this.  Major Cage is a military PR guy whose face has become familiar to the world as he tries to keep up the spirits of the population - the world (present, perhaps near future) has been invaded by aliens.  However, when he is asked to personally get footage of a major battle, he gets cold feet and finds himself thrown into the thick of the war.  Terrified but helpless, he is soon off to battle and, presumably, his death.

And die he does.  But then something strange happen - he finds himself right back on the military base.  Everything seems to be just the way it was the day before.  Major Cage must find out what's happened to him - and how to save the world, while he's at it.

Edge of Tomorrow has just a few major characters, but they're good ones.  Tom Cruise is, naturally, the main character.  As I already mentioned, I highly enjoy watching him as an actor - he is one of the last remaining, "classic" A-listers and his effort and enthusiasm are always clear.  Tom eventually assumes the mantle of action hero, no surprise - but leading up to that he provides some nice variation from the usual, displaying his underrated comedic sense and even the vulnerability of a "normal" person.  Emily Blunt, with far less screen time despite the next largest role, is every bit as good (or better).  As celebrated war hero Rita, she is the newest action heroine and does her predecessors justice.  She has a few displays/lines of bombast/don't-mess-with-me, but mostly she ably lets her demeanor and physical presence do the talking.  A larger role would have been welcome, but at least she isn't reduced to Cruise's love interest.  There are but a few other notable roles including Bill Paxton (Marvel's Agents of SHIELD, etc.) as a hilarious drill sergeant, and a fun bunch of grunts who go into battle with Cruise (and again, and again...).

Like Oblivion, Cruise's last film, Edge of Tomorrow is a sci-fi action film with a kinda-unique premise and twists to spice things up.  This film faced the challenges of all time loop films (e.g. Groundhog's Day) in choosing what to repeat, what to change, and how to pace it all.  Fortunately, this is one of the film's strengths.  When first introducing "the day", more (potentially boring) detail is required, so Liman and the writers inject it with quite a bit of humor and mystery.  As the loops multiply, they get shorter and shorter (sometimes just a few seconds) as more and more of the story and characterization takes over.  Really brilliant writing and pacing makes for a unique and wildly entertaining time overall.  A comparison I've heard is that of a video game - that may not sound palatable, but it's accurate in the most amusing and fun way possible.  Of course, there's also plenty of action to be found.  The film generally does it well - at its best, showing the brutality, horror, and unpredictability of war.  The aliens themselves are not particularly inspired, but the focus is so much more on everything else that it hardly matters.  And finally, yes, there is a little semi-romance between Cruise and Blunt - but it's minimal, and actually serves to soften the film just a bit in the right way.

***

Edge of Tomorrow is a resounding success, both for Tom Cruise as a star and for the sci-fi action genre.  It is far, far better than Oblivion (which was a decent but forgettable film), and comparable to last year's World War Z - both led by big stars that surprised me with their level of quality, despite being the type of film that is all too often simply a great trailer.  What impressed me most, again, was the way that the time loops were handled.  Keeping the pace at a solid clip while not leaving the audience in the dust; producing chuckles a-plenty while not losing a serious tone; and keeping up the suspension of disbelief (or at least distracting you from it) - bravo!  Now, admittedly, the character development is not Oscar worthy; Cruise and Blunt expectedly become the world's saviors, and little else.  And the climax is a little disappointing in comparison with the (vast majority) rest of the film.  Still, this is a hugely entertaining film.  Do yourself a favor, and treat yourself and some friends to a visit to the theater and see it.

Movies: X-Men: Days of Future Past

Score:  ****1/2 out of ***** (A)

Long Story Short:  The director the first two X-Men films, Bryan Singer, returns for a film that unites his old cast with the franchise's new faces (McAvoy, Lawrence, Fassbender, etc.).  Overcoming the challenges of a huge cast and plot-heavy time travel aspect, Singer delivers an outstanding film by framing those bombastic elements largely within the personal experiences of a handful of the key players.  You'll laugh as hard or harder in this one, and you'll be as wowed or better by the action - and then the effortless passing of the X torch will take your breath away, culminating in one of the most satisfying endings in recent memory.


Fourth weekend of the summer, and fourth movie review of the summer!  Today it's back to the superhero genre, and there are yet more films coming up that I am likely to see and review.  X-Men: Days of Future Past was an obvious choice for me, if not one I anticipated especially eagerly.  I have enjoyed all of the previous X-Men films (even the mediocre X-Men 3 and the poor Wolverine origins film from 2009).  Still, the combination of the old and new casts gave me a little pause, since each cast is quite full by itself and too many characters can lead to a messy film.  But I was pleased to see an excellent Rotten Tomatoes score (92% now), so any reservations were ignored.  X-Men: Days of Future Past was directed by Bryan Singer (who directed the first two X-Men films) and stars Hugh Jackman, Jennifer Lawrence, James McAvoy, Patrick Stewart, and MANY more.

This film has both an exceptionally complicated (to explain in writing) plot, and one that I especially want to avoid certain spoilers.  So here's a very basic outline.  There are two time periods involved - one for each cast, of course.  The "older" cast is in a future dystopia, and they (Professor X, Magneto, Storm, Kitty Pryde, etc.) have sent Wolverine (Jackman) back to 1973 where the "younger" cast awaits unsuspectingly.  Wolverine's mission is to prevent a particular event from occurring in order to avoid the catastrophic future from ever happening.  In order to do so, he must bring together some old frenemies and battle other, new ones.

The cast, as I said, is quite huge.  Fortunately, they do a terrific job together.  Hugh Jackman as Wolverine is essentially the lead, with the most screen time and appearance in both time periods.  He continues to be dynamite in the role; see my review of The Wolverine for further explanation.  Even as the lead here, he selflessly cedes the focus to various characters when they need to carry a scene.  Next up is arguable, but I would say James McAvoy as the young Charles/Professor X.  He brings the same feel to Charles that he developed in First Class:  a moodier, more sharp-tongued version than Stewart's mellow elder, but one with an equally fierce concern for his mutant family and the welfare of their relations with humanity.  Jennifer Lawrence is third as Raven/Mystique.  Perhaps she could have used a tiny bit more screen time, but she makes great use of what she gets.  Really, I think this is a perfect role for her:  a very strong, independent woman who is torn between Charles and Erik, both personally and philosophically.  I've read some snide remarks about "what the heck is she still doing in a comic book film", but she is great in it and the character has more than enough depth for her to continue to explore.

Michael Fassbender gets the shortest end of the stick in the cast, in terms of how his character could have contributed.  Fassbender, like McAvoy, jumps right back in where he left off in First Class, and has improved on the already great chemistry between the two rivals.  You can feel the rage and power radiating from his usually restrained demeanor, and his intense gaze reveals all.  Patrick Stewart is the only one of the "old" cast with a substantial part, and he is still the steady moral rock on which the franchise rests soundly.  Really, it was a very prudent decision to have the vast majority of the film focus on the "new" cast (more on that later).  Peter Dinklage is the only significant new face as the semi-villainous Trask.  I won't say much about his role but, just like he is as Game of Thrones' Tyrion, Dinklage is always a pleasure to watch with his dry humor and sharp, subtle wit.

As everyone in the superhero industry is either getting rebooted or teamed up in a super party, Days of Future Past seemed to be the X-Men franchise's play for megabucks.  Which it basically is - however, just like The Avengers, this film succeeds spectacularly (albeit in far different ways).  The franchise had a unique opportunity to combine casts, since 2011's First Class wasn't a reboot so much as a prequel.  Still, the use of time travel was inevitable to tie the casts together - and fortunately, the ageless Wolverine provided the needed link.  As with many time travel plots, this one is fairly complex.  The way it unfolds and is explained is, on the whole, remarkably elegant and simple, however.  Largely this is because the focus is really on characters, relationships and moral questions instead of the mechanics.  Once again, brilliant:  the three aforementioned elements are exactly where this franchise has shone brightest in its best moments, and the subtle way that the torch is passed to the new generation in this regard is both effortless and breathtaking.

Oh, and there's supposed to be action in the film, yes?  For a blockbuster effort like this, it is pretty restrained actually, and makes everything count.  This applies to the chilling, stunning violence inflicted on the future-times X-Men (sorry for the spoiler) that makes the audience feel the extent of the potential catastrophe.  On the other hand, there is an ingenious set piece involving a new mutant that uses his powers and a 70s song to absolutely hilarious and memorable effect.  The finale goes perhaps a touch overboard with the effects, but it is still a sight to see (and also not the main focus - again, it's the characters).  Days of Future Past also carries on its predecessors' sense of humor quite well; no "wink wink" humor (thankfully), and added masterfully in the appropriate moments.

***

X-Men: Days of Future Past has claimed the spot as my favorite film of the year so far.  Now, before I go on, let me stress that it is a completely different experience depending on your having seen the previous films (at least X-Men 1-3 and First Class; the Wolverine solo outings are optional).  I'm really not sure how good it would be without having seen those first (still very good, I imagine), though probably pretty damn confusing.  If you have seen those films, though:  oh, my.  Thrown back into the franchise with a whole set of faces he hadn't worked with before - not to mention the high degree of difficulty with so many (nearly too many) famous actors to deploy and a complex time travel plot - Singer absolutely hits a grand slam.  The solution was ingeniously simple:  even though it was the biggest, most ambitious film yet, he treated it essentially just like the first two he did.  By that I mean: focus on the characters (mostly Wolverine, Charles (McAvoy) and Raven, and a slightly larger ring of secondary characters - Erik (Fassbender), Charles (Stewart), Trask, etc.  Some, especially fans of the comic book, will be pissed that many have essentially cameos, but it was absolutely the right choice).  Focus on the franchise theme, with a twist (how do the mutants deal with the fact that they are different from humans, which results in constant tension - you'll just have to watch it for the twist!).  Focus on the stakes (to relationships, as well as to the world overall which this film does even better than any of the others).  Add in brilliantly executed humor and action, and you have a winner.  Now, I am stopping just short of giving this an "A+" yet because, looking back on it, there are just a few too many plot holes (most of which I passed right over in the theater because the focus is squarely on the characters, action, humor, etc.).  In a final thought, Days of Future Past pulls off the trick of providing a satisfying conclusion for the franchise while offering potential for further adventures (which I know there will be).  So, to conclude this long review:  make sure you've seen X-Men 1-3 and First Class, then go out to enjoy this phenomenal film.

Movies: Godzilla

Score:  *** out of ***** (C)

Long Story Short:  Summer's "biggest" film (if we're measuring by size of the film's star) comes out in the form of an updated classic, Godzilla.  Despite very promising previews, this film is a disaster, and I don't mean the genre.  A suspenseful intro with interesting characters quickly dissolves into a senseless, even dull chase/disaster film with too many boring humans and not enough monster mayhem (until there's too much).  Skip.


May keeps bringing more big movies to the theater, and so far I'm keeping pace!  I'm back to action with this one and, if I get to see the films I'd like to for the rest of the month, there will be more action and comedy to follow.  I'm not a particular fan of Godzilla - in fact, I've never seen any of the originals (saw the 1998 version but don't even remember it).  However, a trailer made it look quite promising as a disaster film, along with Breaking Bad's great Bryan Cranston.  Godzilla, the 2014 update, was directed by Gareth Edwards and stars Cranston, Aaron-Taylor Johnson and Ken Watanabe.

Starting off in 1999, a team of scientists is called to a quarry in the Philippines where a massive skeleton is found deep underground, along with two mysterious cocoon-like structures.  At the same time, in Japan, Joe Brody (Cranston) works at a nuclear facility and a seismic event causes a catastrophe that leaves him with a deep personal scar.  Flash forward to 2014, and Joe relentlessly pursues the source of the 1999 disaster.  His son, Ford (Johnson) comes to Japan to get him out of trouble for snooping around.  In exploring the wreckage of their former hometown, the two stumble upon a shocking operation.

The 1999 event was no "natural disaster", as Joe and Ford discover a new world.  And just in time, because that event is about to repeat itself, and this time there's going to be much more trouble.  A small group, including the scientists from the Philippines, help in the race against time - but can mankind do anything to stop the impending doom?

Godzilla features an impressive cast that is given an increasingly awful script to work with.  Bryan Cranston plays the traumatized, conspiracy-theory father, Joe.  Spoiler alert: despite his prominent role in advertisements, he's only in about the first 30 minutes or so.  He does a great job with much of the set up at the beginning of the film, then gets handed crap (which he delivers as well as possible) near the end of his time.  After that, Aaron Taylor-Johnson takes the lead's reins as Joe's son.  Like Cranston, Aaron does good work with some of his early scenes (a warm-hearted protector), but his role crumbles into dullness and cliche as the film goes along.  His wife is played by Elizabeth Olsen, a role that is so meaningless it should have been scrapped entirely.  Ken Watanabe is intriguing as a scientist, Dr. Serizawa, and doesn't get enough screen time for his part to be ruined.  There are more stars with small roles, none of them particularly notable (Sally Hawkins, David Straitharn).

On those cheerful notes about the cast, what about the rest of the film?  Godzilla represents an interesting, perhaps unique, challenge as a modern film.  It has a huge and loyal following, back to the days when Godzilla was a man in a monster suit - but today, technical wizardry can make just about anything look real at the click of a button.  Old Godzilla films featured fun, epic throw downs between giant monsters, while today's films tend more toward ominous themes directly related to present challenges (terrorism, climate change, etc.).  This film tries to have it all.  It is sparing, in a modern way, with its use of monsters:  Godzilla doesn't really show up until about halfway through.  Yet by the end, we have mayhem on a truly immense (I would say ridiculous) scale.  Godzilla has an interesting, suspenseful introduction, but this unspools rather quickly into bland "how do we kill the monster?" talk which proceeds as expected.

***

I really had high hopes for Godzilla.  The trailer presented what seemed to be a fairly realistic version of the classic as a disaster film, featuring top-flight acting talent led by Bryan Cranston.  Talk about false advertising (even more misleading than last year's Now You See Me).  All the problems basically come down to the film wanting to have it all, as described earlier.  The film has such a promising start, but they don't stick to the intelligence, suspense, and interesting human elements that it offered.  If they wanted to have the monster mash that it ends up as, then fine:  but if so, then a much more silly (there are so many opportunities for humor!), much less serious attitude needed to be taken throughout.  As it is, a neat set-up and characterization gets flushed down the toilet, and the "serious" scenes of the massive devastation caused by the monsters (hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people killed) are superseded by an unaffecting "family" element.  The only reason that this gets a "C" is that it's fairly entertaining in some spots despite being a pretty bad film (like last year's Kick Ass 2 - also starring Aaron Taylor-Johnson!).  If you're going to see this, it should be in the theater - but it's also not worth the money.  So, if you have a decent-sized screen at home, go rent/Netflix a similar but superior film:  Pacific Rim.  Godzilla has finally met his match - Hollywood executives and their writers!

Movies: Neighbors

Score:  **** out of ***** (B+)

Long Story Short:  Neighbors, the latest vehicle of star Seth Rogen, is positioned as one of the comedies of the summer.  While many recent such films have disappointed, this one lives up to its billing.  The cast fits into their roles quite well - even more from a dramatic than comedic stance.  But while the story offers much more than its contemporaries', it's also pretty darn funny and entertaining.  Well recommended, particularly for groups of friends.


Well, it's two movie reviews in consecutive weekends!  Hopefully I'll be able to keep this up, now that we're fully in summer movie season.  The NBA playoffs are also in full swing and the French Open is coming up soon, so there will likely be one or more sports posts, too.  Having seen my second superhero film of the year last weekend, I was pleased to switch genres to comedy this time.  Although I'm a fan of Seth Rogen, his recent movies have disappointed me.  Still, Neighbors got good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and the premise looked fun.  Neighbors was directed by Nicholas Stoller (Forgetting Sarah Marshall) and stars Seth Rogen, Zac Efron, Rose Byrne and Dave Franco.

The plot of Neighbors, as you might imagine, is not tremendously complicated.  And since I don't want to give too much away, here is just a brief summary.  Mac (Rogen) and Kelly (Byrne) are a young couple with a new baby daughter.  Although they long for the fun of earlier times, family life has put those days seemingly out of reach.  To compound their frustrations, the couple gets a new next-door neighbor:  a fraternity from a local university.  As Mac and Kelly try to provide a safe, quiet place to grow up for their daughter, they go to war with Delta Psi and their leaders, Teddy (Efron) and Pete (Franco).

Neighbors has an interesting cast, one that does the "serious" parts as well or better than the comedic.  Seth Rogen as Mac is the film's co-lead, the exasperated, former-partier father.  Rogen has a unique style that, while sometimes off-putting, works well enough here.  You can see him as a young father who pines for his party days yet genuinely wants to develop his family life.  As in other films, he's typically funniest as the object of jokes rather than the producer, and his trademark long-winded, overly "realistic" back-and-forths are starting to get stale.  Rose Byrne is quite good as Mac's wife, Kelly.  She pulls off the strange, commendable feat of being a secondary character yet very distinct and valuable to both story and humor.  Rather than just being the stereotypical mother representing only the "responsible adult" view, she also has a realistic desire for fun and freedom.  Her humor flows naturally, as expected from an actress more familiar in dramatic roles.

I'm not too familiar with Zac Efron, of High School Musical fame, who plays co-lead, fraternity top dog Teddy.  So, coming in with only popular opinions in mind, I was pretty impressed.  The role fit him to a "T".  He is by no means a great comedic actor, but he provides a very fun, charismatic presence.  He mixes the asshole and the brotherly love components well, and displays genuine vulnerability alongside his arrogant fraternity personality.  Dave Franco as Pete does pretty well, too. I've seen him in few roles, but have to say that he's a repellant presence on screen for me, whether or not that's fair.  But again, he's ideally suited to the role he plays, a stereotype like Efron's yet one that is also equally nuanced.  Franco has even less comedic sense than Efron, but that didn't surprise me.

Two things have really dragged down a lot of recent comedies, in my opinion:  pathetic and/or overly large dramatic components, and lack of true belly laughs.  Neighbors manages to turn the first of those problems into an actual strength, and makes progress on the second.  The setup was ripe for boring stereotypes:  a young family that wants to be serious yet gets dragged into old hooliganism, and the hidden social drama behind a hard-partying frat.  But both of these elements are handled quite well in this film.  They are played out with very smartly written dialogue and scenes, some with humor and some without.  And it pulls off a fine balancing act in not overwhelming nor being overwhelmed by the parallel comedic craziness.  Neighbors is also quite funny, which is obviously the most important thing.  The main thrust of the humor is an old-standby with a new twist:  frats behaving badly/hazing, with ordinary family life in close proximity.  Strangely, none of the actors are stand-outs here, but the situations and scenes are often brilliantly composed (especially the final showdown).  Rogen naturally pulls in a good bit of his usual shtick, which is becoming less and less funny (to me at least), but it's kept to a reasonable minimum and is not the primary style, fortunately.

***

Neighbors gives me hope for the short-term future of comedy films, in addition to being enjoyable itself.  Too many recent comedies have been severe letdowns, from last year's wildly overrated This Is the End to the Anchorman 2 bellyflop.  I often find comedies the hardest to grade, and this one was a little tricky, too.  I think "B+" is about right.  It's entertaining and pretty well-paced throughout, with above average humor and way above average dramatic backdrop.  Still, it couldn't quite punch through to the hilarity of, say, last year's The Heat, and none of the cast comes close to the presence of a Ferrell, Wiig, or similar comic.  That said, while it may not reach the "A" range for comedies, Neighbors is a very good time at the theater, especially with friends.  Keep in mind, of course, the type of humor you'll find here.  If vulgar humor, particularly sexual in nature, offends you, stay away (though I've seen far worse). But you could probably figure that out.  Enjoy!

Movies: The Amazing Spider-Man 2

Score:  *** out of ***** (C)

Long Story Short:  Like superheroes, just because the first effort of a strong franchise fails doesn't mean he/she/it won't get up and return better than ever.  Not the case for this "Amazing" Spider-Man franchise.  The sequel isn't a carbon copy of the first, at least, but for every improvement there are two more problems that pop up.  Plot, supporting characters, ending - you name it.  Please go see Captain America 2 instead (even if it's for a second time).


I should stop making predictions about when and which movies I'm going to see, because I've been doing it quite badly this year.  I hope to see a number of movies in May, though.  It's not looking like the most exciting summer movie season, but there are several films that look promising.  The first weekend always offers one of the biggest releases, and this year it's The Amazing Spider-Man 2.  I was pretty underwhelmed by the first one (you can read my review), but since I love these superhero movies and this is a tentpole release, I thought, why not?  The Amazing Spider-Man 2 was directed by Marc Webb (returned from the first) and stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Jamie Foxx.

The movie opens with a flashback to Peter Parker's parents' final days:  Mr. Parker, a prominent scientist, is on the run and manages to erase mysterious data before his end.  In the present, Peter Parker (Garfield) is graduating along with girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Stone) while fighting crime as Spider-Man.  Tormented by his promise to Stacy's deceased father, Parker decides he must leave Stacy.  Meanwhile, at OsCorp (owned by Parker's childhood friend, and where Stacy works), a lonely worker named Max (Foxx) is involved in an accident - much like what turned Parker into Spider-Man, just with different creatures.  And while Parker struggles to get past Stacy and look into his parents' past, his friend Harry Osborn (of OsCorp) returns to see his dying father.

Parker is soon confronted with dilemmas from two of the people closest to him.  Stacy announces a major change that will permanently change their relationship, and Harry seeks out Spider-Man to find a solution for his family malady.  Oh, and Max isn't handling his powers quite as well as Parker.  When it all comes together, Parker faces his greatest challenge yet - both to Peter the boy and to Spider-Man the hero.

The core of Spider-Man 2's cast - Garfield and Stone - remains from the first, and several new faces join the mix.  Garfield, unfortunately, does not display significant improvement from the first film.  It's clear that he's a talented actor, but not experienced enough yet to overcome the disaster handed to him by the screenwriters.  In some scenes, he even reminded me of Hayden Christensen's Anakin Skywalker.  Stone does a superior job working with a crappy script, and is one of the film's highlights.  Emma is charming and funny, but an equally strong and independent woman as well (without forcing it, which is sometimes a pitfall for the role).

Jamie Foxx as Max - and alter ego "Electro" - is ostensibly the main new character, but he really doesn't get that much screen time.  Which is OK, because Max is a one-note, somewhat irritating character, and Electro is given an extremely vague "conflict" that goes nowhere.  Wasted talent.  Dane DeHaan has a bigger role as Harry Osborn, Peter's friend.  Well, actually, they don't really seem to be very good friends.  On one hand, this could be accidental realism (the two had been apart for years) - but Harry is such an asshole that I'm not sure why Peter continues to hang out with him.  Dane plays the entitled, whiny, slimy heir pretty well, but he's not fun to watch.  Paul Giamatti's presence was marketed more than his actual role deserved, and if you're partly going just to see him, forget about it.

Now that the origin is done (again), we can finally get to the good stuff with this sequel!  Right?  It's true - Parker and Stacy's relationship is developed, and Spider-Man is swinging from the very start.  Unfortunately, the Parker-Stacy relationship often makes the film feel YA in all the wrong ways.  There are some good moments between the two, but also some quite bad ones that are forced and/or out of character.  Some of the action is pretty good, and overall considerably better than the previous film's.  Particularly in some early scenes with Electro, there is fantastic CGI and the beginnings of the presence of a real threat.  However, there is quite a long stretch in the middle where Spidey is entirely absent, and the finale battle is so over the top it's numbing (except for the very last minute or so, which I won't spoil here).  This Spider-Man isn't as funny as the first, but the soundtrack is more distinctive - Electro has a bass-heavy feel from Hans Zimmer, and I believe Pharrell Williams and others helped out with some nice pop music.

***

The big question this time:  does Amazing Spider-Man 2 improve on the tepid start to the franchise?  The answer:  it's one step forward, but two steps back.  First, the step forward.  At least the sequel isn't bogged down by the origins story, and a lot of the action is much improved.  Plus, it's overall a more entertaining film with a slightly improved style.  But director Webb still hasn't learned to make a tonally coherent superhero film.  Sometimes it's the gag-worthy YA, as previously mentioned; sometimes (not often enough, IMO) it's just silly fun; sometimes it's serious "with great power comes great responsibility".  The script is poor and the plot meandering, generic, and disengaging.  The editing is a little better up until the end - which turns out not to be the end, and the extension is painful and unnecessary.  This franchise is by far the worst major superhero franchise going right now.  To Webb and Garfield:  I gave you a second change, and you failed.  Next time (sequels are planned for 2016 and 2018!!!), I'm staying home.  Probably.