Well it's that time of year. Exams are over. No responsibilities until January (kinda...shout out to the STC swimmers). It's Christmas vacation. Which means one thing: Christmas movies. What up Home Alone (1&2) and Elf. But I think I have a unique set of movies I consider Christmas movies: the 007 movies. I think it goes back to the combination of Spike TV and training trip. See once upon a time, before Spike got obsessed with getting as close to porn on standard cable as possible they used to have their annual 007 days of Christmas. This meant from early morning to late at night it was non-stop James Bond. Couple this with training trip where in between practices were spent as horizontal as possible and Christmas led me to watch a lot of MI6's most suave agent busting up SPECTRE plots and wooing the dames. Slowly Spike began to phase out this gift to America, so what did I do? Just got the box sets for Christmas. I now own every Bond save the most recent (which wasn't impressive, more on that in just a minute). So my last blog of the year (barring a huge sports/TV story), will be dedicated to a completely off the cuff, gut reaction ranking of the Bonds.
I'm going to cause a stir with this one but my dead last is Daniel Craig. Part of that is sample size, Casino Royale was pretty good, especially since it was going back to Bond's first mission as a Double-0 agent. Quantum of Solace was pretty much not a Bond movie. It was like a Tom Cruise action flick, not Bond. Craig is raw and gritty in both movies. Works for Bond on his first mission, because of course he would be clumsy. But there is no evolution between the two films, he's not making Bond into the suave, sophisticated wit he is in the other films. And there is also a total lack of cool gadgets, which is a shame because with technology these days that should be easy (or it could make it hard since nothing seems far-fetched or clever any more). Anywho, I am very disappointed with Craig as Bond, especially after his performance in Layer Cake.
My next worst is going to have to be the man most would put at the bottom, Timothy Dalton. Dalton played a very angry Bond. He almost comes off as an anti-hero at times. It kind of works though, because Bond would get jaded after years of service (especially after what they did to poor Felix!). But the same complaints about Craig are true for Dalton except to a lesser degree. He looks more the part, he's a little smoother, he's got a sharper tongue, and cooler gadgets. It's pretty close since Craig is a better overall actor, but Dalton does slightly better in the role.
The next level up is pretty close as well. Part of this is because they have relatively the same sample size. That being said I'm going to give Pierce Brosnan the edge over George Lazenby. Both have one shining role Goldeneye and On Her Majesty's Secret Service. Goldeneye is pretty much the last true Bond films as far as I'm concerned. It is the last film to use the same textures, plot devices, and characters as the previous ones. Watch Goldeneye then any of the Connery Bond films and you will see what I mean. Brosnan got unlucky that his last three films were plagued by subpar (even for Bond standards) supporting actors, and horrendously shark jumpy plot lines (genetic transformation? Really?). I can't fault him for those movies because he just looks so damn Bond. You never see him sweat. He always has a good one liner handy. And Q gives him great toys. If Brosnan had signed on when he originally was cast people would look at him differently (we also wouldn't know who Timothy Dalton is, thanks a lot Remmington Steele).
Lazenby also does great work in his one lone Bond appearance. OHMSS is a fantastic Bond film. It involves SPECTRE and James actually falling in love. There are great action sequences and a great plot for world domination by our old favorite Ernst Stavro Blofeld centered around brainwashing lovely ladies. It's also the only Bond to break the fourth wall by directly addressing the fact that Lazenby is not Connery.
The last group is the pantheon: Sean Connery and Roger Moore. It really could be a toss up since they did most of the iconic films (even if they are ridiculous ahem Moonraker). Moore was a little wittier, but Connery was much more of the sleeping dragon: a smooth operator who could be violent, powerful and not sorry for any of it when the job needed it. I'm going to give Connery the edge because his first four Bond movies are probably in the top six if not the top four: Dr. No, From Russia With Love, Goldfinger, Thunderball (my personal favorite). He also starred in Kanye West's favorite Diamonds Are Forever (featuring proud Virginian and sausage maestro Jimmy Dean). Moore has some iconic movies: Live and Let Die (Thanks Paul McCartney!), The Man With the Golden Gun, A View to A Kill (with Christopher Walken as a steroid fuel East German genetics project gone wrong), and both films featuring everyone's favorite Jaws: The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker. But Connery is Bond. He was the first, he set the standard. Each Bond had it easier and harder after the Scot. They had it easier because technology could make Bond cooler and the film making process easier (special effects especially). But they had it harder because Connery did so much with less. In most of his films they couldn't even film outside at night because of lighting problems. Yet (almost) everything is believable.
Connery set a high bar and the only one to approach consistently was Roger Moore. Moore is by no means equal to Connery, but he is close. What he lacked as an action star he made up for with his tongue. Moore was much wittier than Connery, even if he wasn't quite a Swiss Army knife like Connery. His talents as an actor were used quite well by the writers and as a result he will sit just beneath Connery in the Bond pantheon.
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Brilliant
I will admit that I watch "Jersey Shore." In fact I haven't missed an episode. It renewed my faith in reality TV. And the creator, SallyAnn Salsano is a genius. Her newest project appears to be even better.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
How is this not the best idea for a reality TV show ever? It's like Mean Girls in real life.
The amount of awkwardness and discomfort will be through the roof. And I will love every minute of it. Think about it. Mothers and daughters fight and that is entertaining. Now add the competing parent syndrome, the uncomfortable "I think I'm the same age as my daughter," and general bitchiness between young women that age and what you have is a napalm of endless unintentional comedy, entertainingly ridiculous drama, and good old fashioned American family dysfunction. I know I will tune it.
Monday, November 14, 2011
My Last Nerve
I am a Washington Redskins fan. It has been mostly a painful experience, but since my first memory of watching pro football was watching the Redskins beat the Bills to win Super Bowl XXVI I have been a fan. I tried very hard to de-fan myself in the early 2000s when the outlook was bleak but I couldn't do it.
Well I am almost at that point now. One move could make me give up the Redskins for good: trading for Peyton Manning. This is the exact type of move that set the Skins back so many times, wasting valuable draft picks to get the immediate impact player, who is past their prime (see. Donovan McNabb, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle-El, Alber Haynesworth, I can keep going but I would run out of page length). But this trade would be devastating.
The Colts would never trade Manning right? Ask Joe Montana about that and he actually won multiple Super Bowls. Since it is no secret the Colts are actively trying to go 0-16 so they can land the top pick you have to assume they want Andrew Luck. With the salary structure, Manning's contract, his age, his health, the smart move for the Colts is to get someone to over-reach for Manning. They could get multiple draft picks and a quality player to fill many of their other holes that Manning was able to paper over.
Why would this be a bad thing for the Redskins? Besides the McNabb experiment as an example I give you this. The Redskins, when healthy this year looked like a decent team. There is no depth in the secondary, or the offensive line, and we still need a quarterback. If we were getting Peyton Manning from 3 years ago maybe this would be an excuse. But we wouldn't. The Redskins would be getting a 36 year old who has had 3 neck surgeries in 2 years. And behind that offensive line, there is no chance he would stay healthy.
The other reason this would be bad is because of the way the new CBA locks rookies into teams for much cheaper than they have in years past. This means the best way to build a team is through the draft. This is one lesson the Redskins have failed at under Snyder. It is why they brought in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan: they know that value comes in the draft because you build depth cheaply. To get Manning the Redskins would have to give up a lot of draft picks, which would set the team back on course to where it had been since 2000 when Snyder took over and began treating it like a fantasy football team.*
*This year's draft especially should have good depth in both the defensive backfield and offensive lines (two gaping holes), and there should be more than one QB (I'd like to see Kellen Moore as Drew Brees 2.0, undersized but smart, accurate, and a winner).
I can't go through that frustration again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results (thank you Albert Einstein). If the Redskins start doing the same thing they used to and expecting it to be different, they are insane to think I can keep rooting for them.
Well I am almost at that point now. One move could make me give up the Redskins for good: trading for Peyton Manning. This is the exact type of move that set the Skins back so many times, wasting valuable draft picks to get the immediate impact player, who is past their prime (see. Donovan McNabb, Bruce Smith, Brandon Lloyd, Antwaan Randle-El, Alber Haynesworth, I can keep going but I would run out of page length). But this trade would be devastating.
The Colts would never trade Manning right? Ask Joe Montana about that and he actually won multiple Super Bowls. Since it is no secret the Colts are actively trying to go 0-16 so they can land the top pick you have to assume they want Andrew Luck. With the salary structure, Manning's contract, his age, his health, the smart move for the Colts is to get someone to over-reach for Manning. They could get multiple draft picks and a quality player to fill many of their other holes that Manning was able to paper over.
Why would this be a bad thing for the Redskins? Besides the McNabb experiment as an example I give you this. The Redskins, when healthy this year looked like a decent team. There is no depth in the secondary, or the offensive line, and we still need a quarterback. If we were getting Peyton Manning from 3 years ago maybe this would be an excuse. But we wouldn't. The Redskins would be getting a 36 year old who has had 3 neck surgeries in 2 years. And behind that offensive line, there is no chance he would stay healthy.
The other reason this would be bad is because of the way the new CBA locks rookies into teams for much cheaper than they have in years past. This means the best way to build a team is through the draft. This is one lesson the Redskins have failed at under Snyder. It is why they brought in Bruce Allen and Mike Shanahan: they know that value comes in the draft because you build depth cheaply. To get Manning the Redskins would have to give up a lot of draft picks, which would set the team back on course to where it had been since 2000 when Snyder took over and began treating it like a fantasy football team.*
*This year's draft especially should have good depth in both the defensive backfield and offensive lines (two gaping holes), and there should be more than one QB (I'd like to see Kellen Moore as Drew Brees 2.0, undersized but smart, accurate, and a winner).
I can't go through that frustration again. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting the same results (thank you Albert Einstein). If the Redskins start doing the same thing they used to and expecting it to be different, they are insane to think I can keep rooting for them.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
Trying to Understand Penn State
Everyone is quick to damn Joe Paterno. This makes no sense to me. Everyone loves Michael Jackson. It was the worst thing to ever happen when he died. His doctor deserved to rot in jail for his part in it. Everyone conveniently forgot that Mr. Jackson was the one touching the kids. Joe Paterno never once laid hands on any of the alleged victims here. In fact I would venture to say he probably doesn't even remember seeing them.
What is hard to stomach is that Joe Paterno was a coach dedicated to the true purpose of college football. His players graduated. His players didn't take money. His program was clean. The entire athletic department had never been found guilty of an NCAA violation. Yet coaches like Lane Kiffin, John Calipari, Nick Saban, Mack Brown they all get to keep their jobs despite putting winning before the rules and even worse academics. Those coaches chew their players up, get what they want out of them, tell them they will go pro so class doesn't matter (even though a majority won't), don't prepare them for life after sports. JoePa not only put his players first, but in doing so he was successful. That is not something you see in college sports today.
Today you win by buying the best junior college QB. You win by having someone take the SAT for your star recruit so he can remain eligible. You win by paying the mortgage of you running back's parents' house. Then you split town when as soon as trouble shows up leaving the school to pay for your crimes. Paterno not only played within the rules, but he did it with steadfast loyalty and success. And how did the Penn State trustees repay him: a phone call telling him he was fired. All as a knee jerk reaction to public misconception.
Judging from 90% of the statuses on Facebook, most people did not know the facts of this story. Most people believed that Joe was standing there watching as his defensive coordinator did unspeakable things to children. That simply is not true. Joe Paterno was told by an graduate assistant of suspicious behavior of a former employee. He did not witness anything. He is not the police. His job is to coach football. He told his superiors the information he was told. Those two men were the ones who failed to act. Those two men were the ones who decided to cover it up. Not Joe Paterno.
Can you make the case that Paterno should have done more? Yes, of course. It is easy to sit back almost 10 years later and say he made a mistake. And that is where the tragedy is: one mistake brings what should be considered a shining model of how to be a college coach crashing down as some sort of devil. One instance of not doing quite enough is enough to destroy a man's otherwise spotless legacy.
For 46 years Paterno did things the right way. That kind of loyalty and success is unprecedented. I am not saying that he should have kept his job, I am simply saying that he is being treated totally unfairly. If anything his resume earned him the benefit of the doubt to at least be told in person he was getting let go, if not let him finish the season out.
I guess Harvey Dent got it right: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
What is hard to stomach is that Joe Paterno was a coach dedicated to the true purpose of college football. His players graduated. His players didn't take money. His program was clean. The entire athletic department had never been found guilty of an NCAA violation. Yet coaches like Lane Kiffin, John Calipari, Nick Saban, Mack Brown they all get to keep their jobs despite putting winning before the rules and even worse academics. Those coaches chew their players up, get what they want out of them, tell them they will go pro so class doesn't matter (even though a majority won't), don't prepare them for life after sports. JoePa not only put his players first, but in doing so he was successful. That is not something you see in college sports today.
Today you win by buying the best junior college QB. You win by having someone take the SAT for your star recruit so he can remain eligible. You win by paying the mortgage of you running back's parents' house. Then you split town when as soon as trouble shows up leaving the school to pay for your crimes. Paterno not only played within the rules, but he did it with steadfast loyalty and success. And how did the Penn State trustees repay him: a phone call telling him he was fired. All as a knee jerk reaction to public misconception.
Judging from 90% of the statuses on Facebook, most people did not know the facts of this story. Most people believed that Joe was standing there watching as his defensive coordinator did unspeakable things to children. That simply is not true. Joe Paterno was told by an graduate assistant of suspicious behavior of a former employee. He did not witness anything. He is not the police. His job is to coach football. He told his superiors the information he was told. Those two men were the ones who failed to act. Those two men were the ones who decided to cover it up. Not Joe Paterno.
Can you make the case that Paterno should have done more? Yes, of course. It is easy to sit back almost 10 years later and say he made a mistake. And that is where the tragedy is: one mistake brings what should be considered a shining model of how to be a college coach crashing down as some sort of devil. One instance of not doing quite enough is enough to destroy a man's otherwise spotless legacy.
For 46 years Paterno did things the right way. That kind of loyalty and success is unprecedented. I am not saying that he should have kept his job, I am simply saying that he is being treated totally unfairly. If anything his resume earned him the benefit of the doubt to at least be told in person he was getting let go, if not let him finish the season out.
I guess Harvey Dent got it right: you either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Why It is WE
Today on my favorite website (that isn't Facebook), Grantland.com, there was a piece on why saying "we" in reference to a sports team is the dumbest thing ever. The crux of the piece was that unless you are actually attending a college, a Green Bay Packer shareholder, or employed by the team there is no "we." The writer made a point that we as a society don't say "we" when watching a movie, seeing a band, reading a book. He used the Florida Marlins as an example of how little fans mean to sports.
I respectfully don't agree with this approach. The flaw to me is comparing your favorite sports team to a book, a movie, a band. When I go see a movie I know that what is going to happen will happen no matter how much I don't want it to (just tell Joaquin Phoenix you'll be loyal to him Maximus!). Same goes when I read a book, or listen to a band play. I can't influence the outcome. That is not the feeling we get with sports. And there is plenty of evidence to prove that. In the last two Detroit Lion home games Ford Field was so loud the Bears and 49ers combined for 14 false start penalties. No fan influence there. Arsenal vs. FC Barcelona in the Champions league: at the Emirates in North London 2-1 to the home team, in the Nou Camp 4-1 to the home team (Arsenal only getting a goal on an own goal by FCB as they had 0 shots on target). No home field advantage there.
I have been in stadiums, bars, field houses where the crowd is an entity. Seattle and Texas A&M call their crowd the 12th man. Players pick up on the vibe of the fans, the fans pick up on the vibe of the players. There is a give and take, an actually relationship. You cannot tell me that it does not exist because I have been on both sides of it. Fans can provide the energy to lift the team's level of play. Fans can provide the chaos to strike fear, or at the very least poor execution, into the hearts of the opponents. There is an emotional connection between team and fan you don't have in any other area of society. We wear our lucky jerseys (or don't wear unlucky ones in some cases), sit in our lucky seats, pray to whatever god we chose for success of our team; Our days are ruined by a poor performance and completed by a great one. I don't run around screaming for joy when Colin Firth nailed his performance in The King's Speech but I do when Chipper Jones belts a game winning homer.
It is the emotion that makes it We. It is the personal connection between fans, players, owners, towel boys, coaches. It is being a part of something bigger, no matter how small your contribution, that makes sports a WE endeavor. We don't say "Let's Go!" for no reason.
I respectfully don't agree with this approach. The flaw to me is comparing your favorite sports team to a book, a movie, a band. When I go see a movie I know that what is going to happen will happen no matter how much I don't want it to (just tell Joaquin Phoenix you'll be loyal to him Maximus!). Same goes when I read a book, or listen to a band play. I can't influence the outcome. That is not the feeling we get with sports. And there is plenty of evidence to prove that. In the last two Detroit Lion home games Ford Field was so loud the Bears and 49ers combined for 14 false start penalties. No fan influence there. Arsenal vs. FC Barcelona in the Champions league: at the Emirates in North London 2-1 to the home team, in the Nou Camp 4-1 to the home team (Arsenal only getting a goal on an own goal by FCB as they had 0 shots on target). No home field advantage there.
I have been in stadiums, bars, field houses where the crowd is an entity. Seattle and Texas A&M call their crowd the 12th man. Players pick up on the vibe of the fans, the fans pick up on the vibe of the players. There is a give and take, an actually relationship. You cannot tell me that it does not exist because I have been on both sides of it. Fans can provide the energy to lift the team's level of play. Fans can provide the chaos to strike fear, or at the very least poor execution, into the hearts of the opponents. There is an emotional connection between team and fan you don't have in any other area of society. We wear our lucky jerseys (or don't wear unlucky ones in some cases), sit in our lucky seats, pray to whatever god we chose for success of our team; Our days are ruined by a poor performance and completed by a great one. I don't run around screaming for joy when Colin Firth nailed his performance in The King's Speech but I do when Chipper Jones belts a game winning homer.
It is the emotion that makes it We. It is the personal connection between fans, players, owners, towel boys, coaches. It is being a part of something bigger, no matter how small your contribution, that makes sports a WE endeavor. We don't say "Let's Go!" for no reason.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
A Retrospective
Thanks to Netflix I have just powered through the first 3 seasons of critically acclaimed Breaking Bad. All I can say is that I was underwhelmed. I am not saying the show is not good, I quite enjoyed it actually. However, for as much talk as the show gets as being put in the same pantheon as The Wire and Mad Men it completely failed to deliver, and I am biased because Vince Gilligan is a fellow Richmonder.
The one thing the show has going for it is strong characters. Bryan Cranston does an excellent job as high school chemistry teacher slowly turned drug lord. I can see why he has won an Emmy for it. What I can't see is why he has won more than one. His character, while not static, is on a very static path. There is this slow decay, which granted is hard to pull off, but seems once you get the hang of it, it's there. He really only plays three sides: happy, depressed, ruthless. I am failing to see why his performance is considered so much better than Jon Hamm as Don Draper. Draper has dealt with almost the exact same concerns: a secret that threatens life as he knows it, putting on appearances, ruthlessness in the business world. We also get to see what inspires Draper, what moves him, what really makes him tick. I feel like Walter White just is. He is happy he has money for his family, he is depressed his wife left him, he is ruthless in protecting his drug trade. For a show that really seems to be basing itself on character there isn't quite as much exploration as I'd like to see.
The this Breaking Bad really does not have going for it is plot. Constantly I found myself 3 steps ahead of the characters on screen. (SPOILER ALERT) A simple example comes when Walt needs a way to use his drug money on his family without raising eyebrows. A few scenes earlier his son set up a website asking for donations for Walt's cancer treatment. Duh. If I have to connect those dots for you, please watch this show, you'll be shocked by all the twists and turns. Season 2 also had a big fail moment for me when they teased the pink stuffed bear in the pool and the body bags in Walt's driveway all season. Maybe it was because I knew that there were 2 more seasons, but I knew that those two body bags did not contain anyone important. Then the show tried to tie it all together with a Soderbergh-ian moment of (SPOILER ALERT) Walt letting Jane die, which in turn depressed her dad, who Walt met at a bar who happened to be an air traffic controller, who let his depression distract him, which caused a plane crash right above casa de White. Except all of these connections came a few steps before the reveal.
The show really fails as far as suspense. In The Wire anyone could go at any point. (SPOILER ALERT) Brodie and Poot murdered Wallace for crying out loud! I don't get that sense here. Breaking Bad is almost like "Ok so what's going to get them out of it." To me that isn't good story telling (and it reeks of Entourage).
While Breaking Bad is a good show, I would not put it in the same category of The Wire, Mad Men, or even Lost (at least with Lost you literally had no idea what was coming next). It has great acting, but not above and beyond it's AMC counterpart. It is a decent exploration into the human psyche, but again on par with, not better, than Mad Men. And it has average story progression with very limited twists that generally aren't shocking because it becomes an obvious twist before it gets there.
The one thing the show has going for it is strong characters. Bryan Cranston does an excellent job as high school chemistry teacher slowly turned drug lord. I can see why he has won an Emmy for it. What I can't see is why he has won more than one. His character, while not static, is on a very static path. There is this slow decay, which granted is hard to pull off, but seems once you get the hang of it, it's there. He really only plays three sides: happy, depressed, ruthless. I am failing to see why his performance is considered so much better than Jon Hamm as Don Draper. Draper has dealt with almost the exact same concerns: a secret that threatens life as he knows it, putting on appearances, ruthlessness in the business world. We also get to see what inspires Draper, what moves him, what really makes him tick. I feel like Walter White just is. He is happy he has money for his family, he is depressed his wife left him, he is ruthless in protecting his drug trade. For a show that really seems to be basing itself on character there isn't quite as much exploration as I'd like to see.
The this Breaking Bad really does not have going for it is plot. Constantly I found myself 3 steps ahead of the characters on screen. (SPOILER ALERT) A simple example comes when Walt needs a way to use his drug money on his family without raising eyebrows. A few scenes earlier his son set up a website asking for donations for Walt's cancer treatment. Duh. If I have to connect those dots for you, please watch this show, you'll be shocked by all the twists and turns. Season 2 also had a big fail moment for me when they teased the pink stuffed bear in the pool and the body bags in Walt's driveway all season. Maybe it was because I knew that there were 2 more seasons, but I knew that those two body bags did not contain anyone important. Then the show tried to tie it all together with a Soderbergh-ian moment of (SPOILER ALERT) Walt letting Jane die, which in turn depressed her dad, who Walt met at a bar who happened to be an air traffic controller, who let his depression distract him, which caused a plane crash right above casa de White. Except all of these connections came a few steps before the reveal.
The show really fails as far as suspense. In The Wire anyone could go at any point. (SPOILER ALERT) Brodie and Poot murdered Wallace for crying out loud! I don't get that sense here. Breaking Bad is almost like "Ok so what's going to get them out of it." To me that isn't good story telling (and it reeks of Entourage).
While Breaking Bad is a good show, I would not put it in the same category of The Wire, Mad Men, or even Lost (at least with Lost you literally had no idea what was coming next). It has great acting, but not above and beyond it's AMC counterpart. It is a decent exploration into the human psyche, but again on par with, not better, than Mad Men. And it has average story progression with very limited twists that generally aren't shocking because it becomes an obvious twist before it gets there.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Jabber Jaw: "Door to Door"
One of the funniest shows on TV is ABC's Modern Family. This week I've asked my good friend AW to talk about this week's episode "Door to Door." So let's give her a warm welcome and get talking about some TV. Overall I found the episode heavy on jokes, light on plot. There is nothing wrong with this at all, in fact it worked really well tonight. I didn't care if Manny sold wrapping paper, Gloria found the dog, Claire got her sign, or if Phil and Luke could get the ball back in the net. What worked was the interactions between the characters. It's always great seeing Jay be a dad to Manny, the two divas (Cam and Gloria) on a mission, and Phil and Luke do anything. Claire, eh I could do without the pissy, crazy Claire; it's been done so much she's just annoying (although it was toned down tonight). What are your overall thoughts AW?
AW: I appreciate this opportunity, Matt. I’m a big fan of the blog. Or, am I? Let me just start off with a little self disclosure:
1. Modern Family is my second favorite television show, hands down. It is bookended by crime dramas, followed by a never-ending satire about how a winey New Yorker meets the love of his life (Matt, I think you’re familiar).
2. I’m not going to lie about how I like to spend my Wednesday nights: couch, roommate, puppy, chocolate, and wine. So please take up any problems you have with me or this post with my friend, Merlot.
Saying that, I hope I can give this week’s Modern Family a fair assessment. First, I totally agree with you on Claire: been there, done that, signed a petition. Like what I did with that? We’ve seen her get mad at neighbors, chastise the carpool lady and now with the traffic commission? It’s played out. You know what I love? Claire and Mitchell. The brother/sister repertoire needs to make a comeback, no?
Speaking of chemistry, you can tell the writers are really trying to play up the actors who work well together: Phil/Luke (in my opinion, they could start their own sitcom), Haley/Alex, Jay/Manny, Gloria/Cam. All genius pairs, but it didn’t quite fit together for me this episode. All in all, it wasn’t my favorite. I’m really rooting for it, but something just is off this season.
MTA: I agree. We are four episodes in and we haven't really had an episode that stands out. I think this week was much better than last week and the opener on location in Jackson Hole, but about on par with "When Good Kids Go Bad." Interesting that like that episode this one featured Jay/Manny, a Cam-Mitchell fight (which is treading dangerously close to insufferable/ overdone Claire territory), and Claire at her worst. Maybe we have to hate Claire to enjoy everyone else?
Where this season has excelled though is it's use of Luke. He is no longer this clueless kid who runs through a screen and wonders what happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbSRRTax8w). He was already my favorite character and this new combination of carefree-ness, creativity, deceptive intelligence, and (selective) self-awareness has actually made him funnier. And I think that he Phil's personalities feed off each other so well (not to mention Ty Burrell and Nolan Gould have phenomenal chemistry). Give me more of that team please.
What's working for you this season? You made a great point that more Mitchell/Claire could entertain us without hating Mrs. Dunphy. What else would you like to see more of?
AW: agree with the Cam/Mitchell bouts. Although they are far more entertaining than "The Claire," I'm ready for something new. I think the adoption will either take care of or continue to drag this theme out. Crossing my fingers for the former.
What is working for me? The one-liners. The show has always capitalized on these in the one-on-one interviews, but they've done a good job stringing them through the dialogue this season. A big pat-on-the-back to the writers for some phenomenal puns (which I believe are the highest form of intelligence). Phil's Blindside "offensive line" comeback had me in tears laughing.
What would I like to see more of? The whole family together. The one-on-one relationships are great and I can't wait to see those continue to develop, but comedic genius happens when they all get together. Dinner parties almost become battle royales of who has the best story of the episode. These family get-togethers also help tie the plot together. Bringing me to the next point ...
The writers need to set up the plot earlier and stick to 2-3 main story-lines. We were halfway though the episode when I finally had a grip on what was going on. My rule of thumb: the story should develop before the first commercial break. And finally, more Phil. This might be personal because I have deep feelings for that weird quirky man. But he absolutely kills it.
Speaking of one-liners, what was your favorite this episode?
MTA: I agree with you on the moving the plots faster. Like you by the first commercial break I didn't really know what anyone was going for. And you are also spot on with the one-liners although I would expand that to more of the isolated jokes. Concussed Phil might have been the funniest thing on TV that didn't happen in a bar in Philadelphia in a long time. My favorite one liner last night was Luke's how many moms it takes to change a light bulb, not for the joke, but how it shows that subtle I'm-smarter-than-I-let-on quality Luke rocks like a champ, and the "Sucker!" ending.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on getting the whole family together. You are right that the comedic value is very high, but so is the degree of difficulty. And I think the writers know this. There have been a few whole family plots where there is just too much going on for anything to really click. When they are battling for the best plot yes it works, but sometimes no plot is strong enough and everything falls flat (cf. "Dude Ranch").
What actually really disappointed me last night was how the writers kept hinting they would finally string some episodes together with Gloria losing the dog. There was a loose connection because we know she hates it, but I was hoping that it would lead to a confrontation where Jay suspected her of doing it on purpose (like Gloria's Rat Shovel). It was saved with Cam's gayest Stanley Kowalski ever finding the dog with a 10 year old Blanche, but still lost opportunity. Also good nod to Alex still skyping with Gino the Ginny BF from the premiere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUhOvJOVetg).
AW: Yes. First, I would like to address the video referenced at the end of your email. What is this and where did you find it. Really? I mean, really?
Second, I'm going to disagree with your disagreement with getting the whole family together. How absolutely perfect was it last season when they all gathered for Jay's birthday? Granted, it was the season finale, but sweet Jesus that was smart. However, you are right (as much as that pains me to say) about the Dude Ranch. It did not work, except for Dylan, who came out of nowhere and finally made a legitimate contribution. But that is neither here nor there since that is clearly not the focus this week. Do you think he will come back? I think Phil, Luke and Dylan could make a really good story line soon.
And I am going to have to agree with you on Luke's quote, not for the content but for the delivery. Who cast him? Sir/Madam, you deserve a raise.
And I agree with you once again on Cam's "Stellaaaaa!" I wanted to like it so much, but it was forced. I found myself feeling sorry for him and desperately wanting him to put his shirt back on. They could have done a lot more with the Gloria and Stella rivalry but it fell flat. Move on.
One last thing. I would like to extend an honorable mention to Phil's Austrailan accent.
MTA: Gino the Ginny is a throwback to college, pre-Jersey Shore when Gino, My New Haircut (and the equally funny my new syrup) made the rounds on the frat email chain (or was it the swim team? I can't ever remember).
I'm not saying that the whole family together doesn't work; I'm saying if it's going to be done it has to be done right. You are totally right on last season's finale, pure genius. I'm always cautiously optimistic with those episodes. When it works it works fantastically, when it fails it is probably the lowest the show can go (which would be very high for many shows).
I think that about wraps up with this week's Modern Family. AW, I want to thank you; you've done great in your first at-bat here on the blog. I know the reader(s?) will appreciate a fresh voice and perspective. Hope to do this again soon.
AW: I appreciate this opportunity, Matt. I’m a big fan of the blog. Or, am I? Let me just start off with a little self disclosure:
1. Modern Family is my second favorite television show, hands down. It is bookended by crime dramas, followed by a never-ending satire about how a winey New Yorker meets the love of his life (Matt, I think you’re familiar).
2. I’m not going to lie about how I like to spend my Wednesday nights: couch, roommate, puppy, chocolate, and wine. So please take up any problems you have with me or this post with my friend, Merlot.
Saying that, I hope I can give this week’s Modern Family a fair assessment. First, I totally agree with you on Claire: been there, done that, signed a petition. Like what I did with that? We’ve seen her get mad at neighbors, chastise the carpool lady and now with the traffic commission? It’s played out. You know what I love? Claire and Mitchell. The brother/sister repertoire needs to make a comeback, no?
Speaking of chemistry, you can tell the writers are really trying to play up the actors who work well together: Phil/Luke (in my opinion, they could start their own sitcom), Haley/Alex, Jay/Manny, Gloria/Cam. All genius pairs, but it didn’t quite fit together for me this episode. All in all, it wasn’t my favorite. I’m really rooting for it, but something just is off this season.
MTA: I agree. We are four episodes in and we haven't really had an episode that stands out. I think this week was much better than last week and the opener on location in Jackson Hole, but about on par with "When Good Kids Go Bad." Interesting that like that episode this one featured Jay/Manny, a Cam-Mitchell fight (which is treading dangerously close to insufferable/ overdone Claire territory), and Claire at her worst. Maybe we have to hate Claire to enjoy everyone else?
Where this season has excelled though is it's use of Luke. He is no longer this clueless kid who runs through a screen and wonders what happened (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbSRRTax8w). He was already my favorite character and this new combination of carefree-ness, creativity, deceptive intelligence, and (selective) self-awareness has actually made him funnier. And I think that he Phil's personalities feed off each other so well (not to mention Ty Burrell and Nolan Gould have phenomenal chemistry). Give me more of that team please.
What's working for you this season? You made a great point that more Mitchell/Claire could entertain us without hating Mrs. Dunphy. What else would you like to see more of?
AW: agree with the Cam/Mitchell bouts. Although they are far more entertaining than "The Claire," I'm ready for something new. I think the adoption will either take care of or continue to drag this theme out. Crossing my fingers for the former.
What is working for me? The one-liners. The show has always capitalized on these in the one-on-one interviews, but they've done a good job stringing them through the dialogue this season. A big pat-on-the-back to the writers for some phenomenal puns (which I believe are the highest form of intelligence). Phil's Blindside "offensive line" comeback had me in tears laughing.
What would I like to see more of? The whole family together. The one-on-one relationships are great and I can't wait to see those continue to develop, but comedic genius happens when they all get together. Dinner parties almost become battle royales of who has the best story of the episode. These family get-togethers also help tie the plot together. Bringing me to the next point ...
The writers need to set up the plot earlier and stick to 2-3 main story-lines. We were halfway though the episode when I finally had a grip on what was going on. My rule of thumb: the story should develop before the first commercial break. And finally, more Phil. This might be personal because I have deep feelings for that weird quirky man. But he absolutely kills it.
Speaking of one-liners, what was your favorite this episode?
MTA: I agree with you on the moving the plots faster. Like you by the first commercial break I didn't really know what anyone was going for. And you are also spot on with the one-liners although I would expand that to more of the isolated jokes. Concussed Phil might have been the funniest thing on TV that didn't happen in a bar in Philadelphia in a long time. My favorite one liner last night was Luke's how many moms it takes to change a light bulb, not for the joke, but how it shows that subtle I'm-smarter-than-I-let-on quality Luke rocks like a champ, and the "Sucker!" ending.
I'm going to have to disagree with you on getting the whole family together. You are right that the comedic value is very high, but so is the degree of difficulty. And I think the writers know this. There have been a few whole family plots where there is just too much going on for anything to really click. When they are battling for the best plot yes it works, but sometimes no plot is strong enough and everything falls flat (cf. "Dude Ranch").
What actually really disappointed me last night was how the writers kept hinting they would finally string some episodes together with Gloria losing the dog. There was a loose connection because we know she hates it, but I was hoping that it would lead to a confrontation where Jay suspected her of doing it on purpose (like Gloria's Rat Shovel). It was saved with Cam's gayest Stanley Kowalski ever finding the dog with a 10 year old Blanche, but still lost opportunity. Also good nod to Alex still skyping with Gino the Ginny BF from the premiere (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUhOvJOVetg).
AW: Yes. First, I would like to address the video referenced at the end of your email. What is this and where did you find it. Really? I mean, really?
Second, I'm going to disagree with your disagreement with getting the whole family together. How absolutely perfect was it last season when they all gathered for Jay's birthday? Granted, it was the season finale, but sweet Jesus that was smart. However, you are right (as much as that pains me to say) about the Dude Ranch. It did not work, except for Dylan, who came out of nowhere and finally made a legitimate contribution. But that is neither here nor there since that is clearly not the focus this week. Do you think he will come back? I think Phil, Luke and Dylan could make a really good story line soon.
And I am going to have to agree with you on Luke's quote, not for the content but for the delivery. Who cast him? Sir/Madam, you deserve a raise.
And I agree with you once again on Cam's "Stellaaaaa!" I wanted to like it so much, but it was forced. I found myself feeling sorry for him and desperately wanting him to put his shirt back on. They could have done a lot more with the Gloria and Stella rivalry but it fell flat. Move on.
One last thing. I would like to extend an honorable mention to Phil's Austrailan accent.
MTA: Gino the Ginny is a throwback to college, pre-Jersey Shore when Gino, My New Haircut (and the equally funny my new syrup) made the rounds on the frat email chain (or was it the swim team? I can't ever remember).
I'm not saying that the whole family together doesn't work; I'm saying if it's going to be done it has to be done right. You are totally right on last season's finale, pure genius. I'm always cautiously optimistic with those episodes. When it works it works fantastically, when it fails it is probably the lowest the show can go (which would be very high for many shows).
I think that about wraps up with this week's Modern Family. AW, I want to thank you; you've done great in your first at-bat here on the blog. I know the reader(s?) will appreciate a fresh voice and perspective. Hope to do this again soon.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
And We're Back
It is the TV version of Christmas (or is it Hanukah?): Premiere week. So I am going to give my thoughts on two old favorites and two new ones.
The first favorite: How I Met Your Mother. Last year was eh: some great episodes, some not funny at all episodes. We wasted a lot of time with Zoey who was neither funny, fun, interesting, nor the mother. However, we did find out where Ted finally meets the mother and that Barney will in fact get married. Monday’s double feature premiere was not exactly pantheon material but it was entertaining and a good start to what hopefully will be a solid year for the show. It was great seeing Jason Segel actually get to be Jason Segel between taking shots for two at Punchy’s wedding and beating an old college friend (played by Sunny alum Jimmi Simpson aka Liam McPoyle) in everyone’s favorite Edward 40 hands. I’m also interested to seem how the intricacies of the Barney, Nora, Robin triangle works out. Clearly Bays and Carter want us to think that both are in the running to be Barney’s wife. Here’s hoping that they don’t drag that mystery out like they have at times with who is the mother; if it is coming soon great, if not please keep it out of sight/ out of mind. We also had three returns with Ted: great chemistry between Josh Radnor and Cobie Smulders (Ted and Robin), Ted’s incredible douchiness (played surprisingly entertainingly with the magazine cover at the newsstand), and finally the big bombshell: Victoria. I don’t know how I feel about this; my gut reaction was “not another non-mother relationship that isn’t interesting.” But then I thought: there is a lot of unfinished business between Ted and Victoria, Radnor and Ashley Williams do work well together (can’t say the same Jennifer Morrison aka Zoey), Ted is in kind of a dark place as far as given up on the “the one concept.” Victoria could be a great relationship to put Ted one step closer to the ever-elusive Mother.
Now for the two new shows. I’m guessing the success of Bridesmaids had ripple effects in TV (no not Melissa McCarthy getting an Emmy for it even though the show she “won” it for is mediocre at best). Both CBS and Fox have rolled out female centered comedies that have potential. 2 Broke Girls debuted Monday and I have to say I was not impressed. Kat Dennings was Kat Dennings, who is hilarious, intelligent and witty in her role for the most part. Beth Behrs’ Caroline kind of fell flat. Half of the episode she was a clueless spoiled brat. The second half she showed she is actually very deserving of a degree from Wharton Business School. Hopefully the writers pick the latter approach because it will be nice to see a smarter-than-she-holds-herself-out-to-be character. I am ambivalent on the goal of a cupcake shop; it could be a great plot engine, but it very well could get in the way by narrowing the focus to the point of no options but to drag out one long quest, and CBS already has one of those. We didn’t see enough of any other characters to think of them as anything more than trite clichés, so there is some work to be done. That being said, the show will probably get a few more than my usual three episodes of proof to make the rotation.
Tuesday night brought Fox’s version with The New Girl starring the charming Zooey Deschanel. Again, a lot of potential, but not much that went well in the pilot. The Dirty Dancing thing barely worked out well. The hysterical crying while watching it was too much for sure, but at the end when the guys serenaded her in the restaurant was a nice moment. I’m also not crazy about the singing to herself all the time. I love, love, love Deschanel’s voice (watch Elf and tell me the girl can’t croon), but the weird theme songs not only did not showcase it, but felt forced and awkward. I understand that the whole point of her character is to be awkward, but this just didn’t seem to fit. Deschanel is very charismatic on screen and it is interesting and entertaining to see her not as some untouchable mega-babe, but as a delightfully nerdy (she dropped a Gandalf AND a Smeagol reference) goof. The roommates did not show me much besides a great alternative to a swear jar (a douche jar!). Like 2 Broke Girls there is tons of potential that just needs some time to work the kinks out. More than 3 episodes for this one too.
Lastly, there is Emmy award winning Modern Family. It is hard for me to write about Modern Family because there doesn’t seem to be a steaming narrative. Each episode seems to be its own capsule easily digested individually. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this approach. As long as the show stays clever and poignant towards family dynamics it will remain entertaining. Tonight had great jokes, like Dylan thinking Claire was hitting on him, or Phil flirting in the grocery store. There were great plots: Alex’s first kiss, Mitch trying to be manly, Manny under pressure. There were great sub-plots: the attic, firecrackers. There were great gags/ one-liners (Gloria’s ears, Phil’s “only we can touch our women when they don’t want us to”). There were a few things I didn’t like. First, possibly as a result of the individual serving quality, the Phil trying to win Jay’s approval has already been done and supposedly resolved. Second, the Claire doing something crazy to prove she was right is a cliché sitcom trope that didn’t work even if there was the “where did you get it from” piece. And thirdly, I am getting a little weary of Mitchell thinking Cam wrong only for him to be the one in the wrong. I feel like they’ve done it at least once and this time, while mildly amusing, this joke has diminishing returns. Overall though, it was everything it has been the last two years, which rightfully won it many Emmys.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Hold On Let Me Swallow Some Blood Capsules
It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia had its season premiere last night and it was business as usual for the dumbest, most self-centered gang on TV. There was nothing particularly noteworthy about last night's episode, but it was so good to see the gang back together (it even appears to have added a new member).
Sunny benefits from what I call the hang-out factor: sometimes it's just good to hang out with Mac, Dennis, Charlie, Sweet Dee, and Frank. It means the show has to be incredibly bad for the episode to not be worth watching and can get away with a lot of stuff that doesn't work (The Hangover 2 had this quality in my mind which is why I wasn't disappointed). Last night there was nothing incredibly funny like the gang merging the ideas or Charlie's Musical. But there were some very good laughs. Mac gained 50lbs which he thinks is muscle. Dennis' "diet" almost kills him. Frank's hair. Charlie projectile vomiting fake blood all over his/Frank's date while attempting to pose as a millionaire. Dee becoming a foot hooker for "Tiger Woods" (played by serial sports impersonator and Cliff Huxtable's favorite son-in-law).
There were a few things that didn't quite work, namely Dennis' sudden urge to do crack again. It didn't really add anything to the humor of him realizing why Mac was smart for carrying around a garbage bag of Mexican food. At first I didn't quite get why the hooker was in the episode, but it quickly became clear she was the lynch pin for almost every subplot and it led to a very Sunny ending of just tossing her into the hall because it was too much of an inconvenience to call the ambulance.
Overall, a very solid episode that is on par with just about any average Sunny episode and a great re-introduction of the gang for another season of their usual idiocracy.
Sunny benefits from what I call the hang-out factor: sometimes it's just good to hang out with Mac, Dennis, Charlie, Sweet Dee, and Frank. It means the show has to be incredibly bad for the episode to not be worth watching and can get away with a lot of stuff that doesn't work (The Hangover 2 had this quality in my mind which is why I wasn't disappointed). Last night there was nothing incredibly funny like the gang merging the ideas or Charlie's Musical. But there were some very good laughs. Mac gained 50lbs which he thinks is muscle. Dennis' "diet" almost kills him. Frank's hair. Charlie projectile vomiting fake blood all over his/Frank's date while attempting to pose as a millionaire. Dee becoming a foot hooker for "Tiger Woods" (played by serial sports impersonator and Cliff Huxtable's favorite son-in-law).
There were a few things that didn't quite work, namely Dennis' sudden urge to do crack again. It didn't really add anything to the humor of him realizing why Mac was smart for carrying around a garbage bag of Mexican food. At first I didn't quite get why the hooker was in the episode, but it quickly became clear she was the lynch pin for almost every subplot and it led to a very Sunny ending of just tossing her into the hall because it was too much of an inconvenience to call the ambulance.
Overall, a very solid episode that is on par with just about any average Sunny episode and a great re-introduction of the gang for another season of their usual idiocracy.
Monday, September 5, 2011
WTF
found here
SPOILER ALERT: Entourage just got even more ridiculous. Of course Vince bought Turtle's tequila stock. Nothing bad ever happens and when it looks like it is, easy solution. Instead of interesting us with how Turtle scrapes up the money for the space for Don Pepe's we get the simple Vince saved the day yet again explanation. Yawn.
Now Sloane is pregnant? Seriously? Are you trying to use a kid to make us care about E, or Sloane, or E's whining about Sloane? Someone really forgot to tell them no one likes Eric, and the only reason we tolerate Sloane is because she is hot. This is not a couple we care about, so unless this leads to Malcolm McDowell dusting off the old black bowler, white suit and cane (see A Clockwork Orange) and following through on his threat to kill E so that the last scene of the show is his funeral please just conveniently forget this for next week's finale.
Why waste time on a couple that clearly has no business together and not on the one relationship we wanted to see: Ari and Mrs. Ari. For years the show has pushed that underneath it all Ari is a family man. He finally came to the realization this week that all he was doing to make the best for them actually was driving them away. Yet it seems like too little too late. I find it hard to believe that something that has received so little serious attention this past week will be fully flushed out in the one episode left. It's sad really because I was rooting for Ari, as he has been the only character that has remained interesting/ entertaining/ not annoying as hell through the show's entire run.
Tuesday, August 30, 2011
Get What You Pay For
That seems to be the model for this year's young EPL season. Now I don't claim to be a English Premiere League expert. I also am not a huge fan as far as watching; as many of you know I'm more of a FC Barcelona La Liga fan. But somehow I convinced Comcast to give us Fox Soccer Channel for free. And Saturday morning, hungover, it is great watching.
In the wake of a 13-3 thrashing of the North London teams by the teams from Manchester I want to devote a brief analysis of what seems to be happening right now in English football: money talks. This is not new. The big clubs always rise to the top (with some exceptions, see Leeds United). Spain is dominated by Barca and Real Madrid because those two have more money (although recent purchase of Malaga by a wealthy Arab could make things interesting). Italy the two teams from Milan have consistently held the Scudetto.
England has had in recent years the "Big Four:" Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal. They got this monicker because they dominated the Champions League spots from the EPL. But in recent years these 4 have had a little trouble holding on to those 4 spots. Two seasons ago, when Liverpool hadn't spent much money, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City pushed them down the table and Spurs nicked the final Champions League spot. Since then Manchester City has spent, spent, and spent some more trying to create a team with the fluidity and flexibility of Barcelona. Last year it was City who captured that 4th spot, just beating out Tottenham. This weekend City destroyed Spurs 5-1 at Tottenham. It's not that Spurs haven't bought plays, but they have tried to under bid many on the same players that City signed (like Sergio Aguero). And boy did it show.
Similar story with the Manchester United's 8-2 demolishing of Arsenal. Both managers believe in developing talent. But the difference is that Sir Alex Ferguson is not afraid to not only change tactics, but also buy experienced talent for Man U when he knows there is a weakness. Wenger unfortunately believes that he can buy young and develop. He consistently buys inexperienced players who he can mold to his system. Maybe one day the excuse of "we're building" will come true, but I believe that if you're good enough, you're old enough.
The question remains what about Chelsea and Liverpool? Both teams have been consistently spending money on talent. Chelsea has the problem of inconsistency at the helm. I count 6 managers in 4 years. But despite that they have been in the top 3 each year (even winning one title) and have looked good thus far under youngster Andre Villas-Boas. Liverpool has also had managerial issues, but they also had ownership problems. They have those settled, have purchased smartly and have looked sharp thus far.
The lesson of the young season seems to be tight purse strings= bare trophy cabinet.
In the wake of a 13-3 thrashing of the North London teams by the teams from Manchester I want to devote a brief analysis of what seems to be happening right now in English football: money talks. This is not new. The big clubs always rise to the top (with some exceptions, see Leeds United). Spain is dominated by Barca and Real Madrid because those two have more money (although recent purchase of Malaga by a wealthy Arab could make things interesting). Italy the two teams from Milan have consistently held the Scudetto.
England has had in recent years the "Big Four:" Manchester United, Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal. They got this monicker because they dominated the Champions League spots from the EPL. But in recent years these 4 have had a little trouble holding on to those 4 spots. Two seasons ago, when Liverpool hadn't spent much money, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City pushed them down the table and Spurs nicked the final Champions League spot. Since then Manchester City has spent, spent, and spent some more trying to create a team with the fluidity and flexibility of Barcelona. Last year it was City who captured that 4th spot, just beating out Tottenham. This weekend City destroyed Spurs 5-1 at Tottenham. It's not that Spurs haven't bought plays, but they have tried to under bid many on the same players that City signed (like Sergio Aguero). And boy did it show.
Similar story with the Manchester United's 8-2 demolishing of Arsenal. Both managers believe in developing talent. But the difference is that Sir Alex Ferguson is not afraid to not only change tactics, but also buy experienced talent for Man U when he knows there is a weakness. Wenger unfortunately believes that he can buy young and develop. He consistently buys inexperienced players who he can mold to his system. Maybe one day the excuse of "we're building" will come true, but I believe that if you're good enough, you're old enough.
The question remains what about Chelsea and Liverpool? Both teams have been consistently spending money on talent. Chelsea has the problem of inconsistency at the helm. I count 6 managers in 4 years. But despite that they have been in the top 3 each year (even winning one title) and have looked good thus far under youngster Andre Villas-Boas. Liverpool has also had managerial issues, but they also had ownership problems. They have those settled, have purchased smartly and have looked sharp thus far.
The lesson of the young season seems to be tight purse strings= bare trophy cabinet.
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Mixed Debut
Last night marked the debut on new US Men's National Team head coach Jurgen Klinsmann in a friendly (exhibition) against rival Mexico. After 10 days on the job, the man who has been touted as the savior of US soccer had to face a team that had embarrassed us a little over 6 weeks ago in the Gold Cup final and the only other soccer power in CONCACAF. It was definitely going to be a tough task.
As the match grew closer, pundits tried to bring expectations down a bit. Both Alexi Lalas and Taylor Twellman said on ESPN's pregame coverage that it was not so much the result but the style that mattered. This was the first sign that we had taken a step forward as a footballing nation. Under Bradley style was sacrificed for results. Now that is not something to complain about; Bradley took US soccer to the top of a World Cup group; he took the team to a new level of respect internationally. However, his short sighted approach and his lack of tactical flexibility had taken the team as far as it was going to go. This year's Gold Cup was an example of that: we had one way to play and it was to defend in numbers and hopefully get a goal on the counter-attack. Unfortunately, because Bradley had taken every match one at a time this meant our defense consisted of players who had a few too many caps and way too few. Mexico tore this to shreds. So, last night's match would be a great barometer on how Klinsmann's style would hold up and change the side. The result didn't matter because he had 10 days and 3 practices to put in his system.
The first half the style was not there. Many of the players starting were stalwarts under Bradley and the same Bradley problems plagued the team. We could not keep possession for long spells, and when they did it was just outside of our own 18 yard box, not on the Mexican side of the halfway line. It was almost impossible to get the ball forward because there was no link. Just like under Bradley our lone striker was useless because no one could get the ball into the final third by doing anything but hoofing a long pass up there and hoping he could fend of 3 defenders. As a result the halftime whistle blew with 0 shots on goal for the US. While the goal conceded could be chalked up to bad luck, the team was lucky to not be down more than 1. Mexico deserved the lead.
The second half was much more promising. It started the same as the first half: Mexico possessing, probing, looking the most likely to score. Then Klinsmann went to his bench. He brought on two players Bradley either completely failed to utilize (Brek Shea) or used poorly (Juan Agudelo who was always either a lone striker or alone on a wing under Bradley). These two proved to be crucial in implementing Klinsmann's style onto the game. Immediately the squad began pinging the ball around with series of one touch passes. The triangle game was there. The US kept possession; we kept it well into Mexico's half. After that we took control of the game and it began to look like a goal for Sam's Army was inevitable. And that goal did come. It was a beautiful move of short passes and individual skill that led to Shea teeing up Robbie Rogers with a snappy cross along the ground for an unmarked shot from 2 yards out to a wide open goal. Ironically Rogers came on for son of the former coach, Michael Bradley. Is this a sign or a coincidence?
Michael has been a great player and there is certainly a role for him as more of a midfield enforcer, but he symbolizes his father's game plan: defend then long ball. Klinsmann wants to play more like Spain than a mid-table Premiere league squad. The question was do we have the players who can play that style. Last night answered that partly: you have to be able to play like that if you want a spot in Klinsmann's team. Obviously, one game is no judge of how the Klinsmann era will play out. However, last night's second half showed we can play like he wants us to for spells, but we have a long way to go. He's only been on the job for 11 days and there are two more good tests coming up for the German in the next month or so. Those two games will be more telling, but the attitude is certainly right: he wants players to fit his style, not the other way around. That style is what is needed for the next level of success (see Spain, FC Barcelona).
As the match grew closer, pundits tried to bring expectations down a bit. Both Alexi Lalas and Taylor Twellman said on ESPN's pregame coverage that it was not so much the result but the style that mattered. This was the first sign that we had taken a step forward as a footballing nation. Under Bradley style was sacrificed for results. Now that is not something to complain about; Bradley took US soccer to the top of a World Cup group; he took the team to a new level of respect internationally. However, his short sighted approach and his lack of tactical flexibility had taken the team as far as it was going to go. This year's Gold Cup was an example of that: we had one way to play and it was to defend in numbers and hopefully get a goal on the counter-attack. Unfortunately, because Bradley had taken every match one at a time this meant our defense consisted of players who had a few too many caps and way too few. Mexico tore this to shreds. So, last night's match would be a great barometer on how Klinsmann's style would hold up and change the side. The result didn't matter because he had 10 days and 3 practices to put in his system.
The first half the style was not there. Many of the players starting were stalwarts under Bradley and the same Bradley problems plagued the team. We could not keep possession for long spells, and when they did it was just outside of our own 18 yard box, not on the Mexican side of the halfway line. It was almost impossible to get the ball forward because there was no link. Just like under Bradley our lone striker was useless because no one could get the ball into the final third by doing anything but hoofing a long pass up there and hoping he could fend of 3 defenders. As a result the halftime whistle blew with 0 shots on goal for the US. While the goal conceded could be chalked up to bad luck, the team was lucky to not be down more than 1. Mexico deserved the lead.
The second half was much more promising. It started the same as the first half: Mexico possessing, probing, looking the most likely to score. Then Klinsmann went to his bench. He brought on two players Bradley either completely failed to utilize (Brek Shea) or used poorly (Juan Agudelo who was always either a lone striker or alone on a wing under Bradley). These two proved to be crucial in implementing Klinsmann's style onto the game. Immediately the squad began pinging the ball around with series of one touch passes. The triangle game was there. The US kept possession; we kept it well into Mexico's half. After that we took control of the game and it began to look like a goal for Sam's Army was inevitable. And that goal did come. It was a beautiful move of short passes and individual skill that led to Shea teeing up Robbie Rogers with a snappy cross along the ground for an unmarked shot from 2 yards out to a wide open goal. Ironically Rogers came on for son of the former coach, Michael Bradley. Is this a sign or a coincidence?
Michael has been a great player and there is certainly a role for him as more of a midfield enforcer, but he symbolizes his father's game plan: defend then long ball. Klinsmann wants to play more like Spain than a mid-table Premiere league squad. The question was do we have the players who can play that style. Last night answered that partly: you have to be able to play like that if you want a spot in Klinsmann's team. Obviously, one game is no judge of how the Klinsmann era will play out. However, last night's second half showed we can play like he wants us to for spells, but we have a long way to go. He's only been on the job for 11 days and there are two more good tests coming up for the German in the next month or so. Those two games will be more telling, but the attitude is certainly right: he wants players to fit his style, not the other way around. That style is what is needed for the next level of success (see Spain, FC Barcelona).
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
A Year and Change Later
I love Lost. That is not a surprise. It is easily my favorite show of all time: the characters, the intricate plot, the mythology, the Star Wars references! I think in the past few years we have really come to see exactly how special the show is after many attempts to recreate it have fallen flat (See Flash Forward , The Event).
I got the entire Lost series for Christmas this year and have slowly made my way through all six seasons. This blog entry is going to be a retrospective of the whole series, but through the lens of the finale (read my original review here)
I got the entire Lost series for Christmas this year and have slowly made my way through all six seasons. This blog entry is going to be a retrospective of the whole series, but through the lens of the finale (read my original review here)
"This is a place that you... that you all made together so that you could find one another. The most important part of your life was the time that you spent with these people on that island. That's why all of you are here. Nobody does it alone, Jack. You needed all of them, and they needed you"- Christian Shephard
That quote summarizes the entire series, and at the same time still makes me get a little misty eyed. To me this quote reflects the true nature of the show. It was never about the polar bear, or why they had to push the button, or what the Dharma Initiative was doing there. It was about those people and how such an ordeal, such a brush with the supernatural, shapes them, molds them, brings out their true identity, makes them a complete person. As Jacob said in the finale: none of them came from a happy life. But all of the characters became better people. Jack learned he doesn't have to fix everything. Kate stopped running by becoming an adoptive mother. Locke became the leader he wanted to be. Hurley learned he was not some fat loser, but a loveable, caring, guy who can command people's respect. Sun and Jin realized just how perfect for each other they really are. Sawyer became more than a ruthless, selfish con-man.
The Island was there to make these people whole and that is what the finale and the series was all about. The sideways universe was a microcosm for the entire show. When the characters had the big "reveal" in the sideways universe it was because they found that piece from the island that made them the good human beings they were meant to be. Charlie had a substance abuse problem until Claire and Aaron came along, in both the real world and the sideways world. Penny's love gave Desmond the motivation to make something out of his life in both timelines.
My thoughts on the finale itself have not changed watching it again after a year+ later. My thoughts on the series haven't changed much either. Watching it in a much more compressed time frame does make me believe that they knew what they were doing from the start. I saw a lot more connections and a lot more recurring themes that maybe did not have significance the first time around. And if that isn't proof there was a final destination in mind from the beginning then this certainly is:
Monday, July 25, 2011
Entour-fail
I have a history of being disappointed with Entourage. Last night's final season premiere is no different. Per usual nothing bad really happened (almost). Vince had a coke problem but avoided jail time and apparently became an even bigger star by going to rehab. Drama's show is doing great. Turtle is selling tequila (which you can buy!) and is still dating the very gorgeous Alex. Even Billy Walsh is having a great time.
While many like it that nothing bad ever happens, I believe it is a total failure of hammering home the message of the show. When I watch it I see the creative team saying: friends stick together through the thick and thin; friendship is the most important thing. Yet nothing on this show has tested their friendship. The closest we've seen to characters being pulled in opposite directions is when Vince thought Medellin was good and E didn't. This was the first time friendship and work mixed. And it showed Vince had a surprisingly un-aware perspective on what makes a good movie. They are trying to resurrect this storyline it seems for the final season, but the stakes aren't nearly as high and it doesn't feel nearly as organic. For some reason Vince is mad a E for mixing work and friendship (I guess because he tried to stop his friend from doing coke because it hurt his professional image?). But the big idea out of last night's episode was writing a made-for-TV movie about miners no one has ever heard of and a dog. Seems like the exact same receipe for Medellin except Vince (who has shown little interest in the movie making process until now and little to believe he has the discerning eye needed to be a director) will direct instead of Billy, who like him or not has only had one flop. This does not seem too interesting, especially since we know a) Vince has Airwalker to fall back on b) casted star Drama has Johnny's Bananas to fall back on and c) no one has ever hurt their reputation on a made -for-TV movie.
There are two characters who seem to have bad things happening. E's engagement with Sloane ended because he wouldn't sign a pre-nup. First of all: good for him. Second: either way I don't care. He can get back with Sloane that's great. He can not. That's great too. The series has always tried to paint E as some sort of hopeless romantic who deserves some sort of happy ending. I don't see it. He is just a power-hungry, just as manipulative, just as ruthless as everyone else in the business (he threw his fiance's godfather out of his own management firm!). He also has always been a terrible boyfriend: work always came first, which is why Sloane dumped him in the first place. Most of his relationship misery is self-inflicted, so while it would be nice to see him break the self-sabotaging cycle, it's not something I am particularly invested in.
This leads me to the one, the only storyline I care about: Ari. Yes, Ari is the ultimate in ruthless, manipulative, and deceitful. Add in a serious anger problem. But there is one thing Ari is that you really have to respect: a family man. You can tell that his wife and kids mean the world to him. The hurt in his eyes when Mrs. Ari told him she was seeing someone else was a true emotion (which this show has deftly stayed away from mainly due to the talent, or lack there of). I am really rooting for the Gold family to get back together. It may end up with Ari walking away from the business, but that is a sacrifice I would love the show to make if it really is about sticking together.
Also, it really hurts the show that Scott Caan has quickly become not only the second best actor, but the second most interesting character. I just can't wait to see what quirky stuff he is going to do next.
All that being said: I've seen 7 seasons already; I'll be sticking around for the last 7 episodes.
While many like it that nothing bad ever happens, I believe it is a total failure of hammering home the message of the show. When I watch it I see the creative team saying: friends stick together through the thick and thin; friendship is the most important thing. Yet nothing on this show has tested their friendship. The closest we've seen to characters being pulled in opposite directions is when Vince thought Medellin was good and E didn't. This was the first time friendship and work mixed. And it showed Vince had a surprisingly un-aware perspective on what makes a good movie. They are trying to resurrect this storyline it seems for the final season, but the stakes aren't nearly as high and it doesn't feel nearly as organic. For some reason Vince is mad a E for mixing work and friendship (I guess because he tried to stop his friend from doing coke because it hurt his professional image?). But the big idea out of last night's episode was writing a made-for-TV movie about miners no one has ever heard of and a dog. Seems like the exact same receipe for Medellin except Vince (who has shown little interest in the movie making process until now and little to believe he has the discerning eye needed to be a director) will direct instead of Billy, who like him or not has only had one flop. This does not seem too interesting, especially since we know a) Vince has Airwalker to fall back on b) casted star Drama has Johnny's Bananas to fall back on and c) no one has ever hurt their reputation on a made -for-TV movie.
There are two characters who seem to have bad things happening. E's engagement with Sloane ended because he wouldn't sign a pre-nup. First of all: good for him. Second: either way I don't care. He can get back with Sloane that's great. He can not. That's great too. The series has always tried to paint E as some sort of hopeless romantic who deserves some sort of happy ending. I don't see it. He is just a power-hungry, just as manipulative, just as ruthless as everyone else in the business (he threw his fiance's godfather out of his own management firm!). He also has always been a terrible boyfriend: work always came first, which is why Sloane dumped him in the first place. Most of his relationship misery is self-inflicted, so while it would be nice to see him break the self-sabotaging cycle, it's not something I am particularly invested in.
This leads me to the one, the only storyline I care about: Ari. Yes, Ari is the ultimate in ruthless, manipulative, and deceitful. Add in a serious anger problem. But there is one thing Ari is that you really have to respect: a family man. You can tell that his wife and kids mean the world to him. The hurt in his eyes when Mrs. Ari told him she was seeing someone else was a true emotion (which this show has deftly stayed away from mainly due to the talent, or lack there of). I am really rooting for the Gold family to get back together. It may end up with Ari walking away from the business, but that is a sacrifice I would love the show to make if it really is about sticking together.
Also, it really hurts the show that Scott Caan has quickly become not only the second best actor, but the second most interesting character. I just can't wait to see what quirky stuff he is going to do next.
All that being said: I've seen 7 seasons already; I'll be sticking around for the last 7 episodes.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
In Defense of "Treme"
A lot of people have recently bashed HBO's latest David Simon series "Treme" as a plotless, plodding project designed to keep the creator of the greatest series ever, "The Wire," happy (See Pappademas). I can see where the drama focused on the recovery of New Orleans after Katrina would seem that way. But the people who believe that just don't get it.
Simon and company do an excellent job of art imitating life in every project and "Treme" is no exception. In fact I would argue the show takes that message to heart as it shows the recovery of a devastated city. Life is not full of plot twists and fake-out endings; life moves along at it's own pace. And for a community of musicians, chefs, lawyers, teachers, etc. in a city that is slowly picking itself up off the canvas that pace is not going to be any different.
Many will argue that you don't watch a show to see a pace of life you live every day because let's face it, most of us live boring, uneventful lives. But by taking what feels like a much more life-like pace the writers of "Treme" are able to expose much more human moments. The problem is that you really have to know the characters and know the story to really feel the full force of those moments. You have to know how passionate Davis is about music and all the frustrations he has felt with the limitations of his talent to appreciate his final performance with yet another band he started that outgrew him. It's these little very, very human moments that make this series more than just some way to placate the great David Simon.
I can understand the frustration of those who thought that this would be "The Wire: New Orleans." But I am certainly glad it isn't. "The Wire" was great, don't get me wrong. But so often was there a feeling of hopelessness, a feeling of evil always winning, of the corruptibility of man that it was a very dark series. "Treme" has those moments no doubt: suicides, drug addiction, murder, rape, political corruption, government ineptitude/indifference, police cover-up/laziness, but the series does not hinge upon those things like "The Wire" did. It chooses to focus much more on the strength of the community and the positive moments, like a father and son finally coming to appreciate what each one does for a living and creating something great together.
Simon and company do an excellent job of art imitating life in every project and "Treme" is no exception. In fact I would argue the show takes that message to heart as it shows the recovery of a devastated city. Life is not full of plot twists and fake-out endings; life moves along at it's own pace. And for a community of musicians, chefs, lawyers, teachers, etc. in a city that is slowly picking itself up off the canvas that pace is not going to be any different.
Many will argue that you don't watch a show to see a pace of life you live every day because let's face it, most of us live boring, uneventful lives. But by taking what feels like a much more life-like pace the writers of "Treme" are able to expose much more human moments. The problem is that you really have to know the characters and know the story to really feel the full force of those moments. You have to know how passionate Davis is about music and all the frustrations he has felt with the limitations of his talent to appreciate his final performance with yet another band he started that outgrew him. It's these little very, very human moments that make this series more than just some way to placate the great David Simon.
I can understand the frustration of those who thought that this would be "The Wire: New Orleans." But I am certainly glad it isn't. "The Wire" was great, don't get me wrong. But so often was there a feeling of hopelessness, a feeling of evil always winning, of the corruptibility of man that it was a very dark series. "Treme" has those moments no doubt: suicides, drug addiction, murder, rape, political corruption, government ineptitude/indifference, police cover-up/laziness, but the series does not hinge upon those things like "The Wire" did. It chooses to focus much more on the strength of the community and the positive moments, like a father and son finally coming to appreciate what each one does for a living and creating something great together.
I can also understand the frustration of all the musical and cultural interludes. But again I say to them: that's the point. New Orleans is a very culturally rich city, and music and food top that list. Simon wants us to really absorb the culture. That's why every week we get to hear Antoine Batiste play a few gigs, or Annie T sit in with some famous musicians. It is why so much gets done in restaurants whether it be Nelson's business deals or Janette's life as a chef in general. I have never been to New Orleans but this show does such a great job of portraying the culture I feel like I have about as much of a sense of the city as someone could ever hope to without actually going there (it probably helps that I love music in general as well as many of the acts that have shown up on the show).
I would strongly recommend the show to anyone, especially someone who enjoys live music. But my recommendation would always be start from the beginning and focus on the characters not the plot. "Treme" is a marvelous study of people in a tough, tough situation.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Random Thoughts
- HBO please stop trying to make the final season of Entourage seem so serious, it is not making me want to watch it. This show has been pretty bad for a few seasons now, but like so many I have spent so much time with the characters I can't stop watching. My first thoughts about the new season is that it would be similar to The Office where the destination at the end of the season would give it direction and allow it to re-find those qualities we loved it for. Maybe it will. But I remembered that outside of Jeremy Piven the talent level is so vastly inferior to The Office that it would be a stretch. Here's hoping the Adrian Grenier learns how to act/care, E stops being a whiny little man, Turtle finds something to do with his life beyond smoking weed 5 times a day, and Drama stops being mad at the world. They left last season with some potential interesting storylines (namely the return of Billy Walsh as a clean cartoonist trying to make Drama a cartoon star, the state of Ari's Marriage, and Vince's arrest), but recent history seems to point to the show dealing with these problems in a deus ex machina way (see Vince quitting the business only to be offered the role of Nick Carroway by Scorsese [which was an even more ridiculous plot line that one flop would turn an actor toxic to the point of quitting]).
-If you haven't gotten into Game of Thrones I give it my full backing. I have never nor plan to read the some 6000 pages written/to be written by George R. R. Martin which serve as the basis for the show. After 2 episodes I was skeptical I would keep with it due to the vast expanse of the universe and all the complex relationships the show was having trouble explaining while keeping the plot moving. However, I watched the third episode (I always give shows at least three episodes) and I was hooked. The acting is phenomenal, aided by the fact that we have had little experience with most of the actors and actresses in other projects. The no-names work because it doesn't really distract you from the characters and the world they live in. Think about the Harry Potter series, when you watch that then watch another movie, say Love Actually and half the cast is the same you keep expecting Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman to end their marriage, don their Hogwarts robes and settle their differences with their wands. It also helps that the actors do not define the show giving it much more freedom to dispose of characters; it would be tough to have Lost with out Dr. Jack Shepard (as the creators wanted to kill off the show's most notable star, Matthew Fox, episode 1), but Game of Thrones does not have that quality about it.
- The U.S. Men's National Soccer Team is in trouble. Don't expect the next World Cup to go as well as this past one. The team looked weak in this year's Gold Cup, despite making the finals. The defense was a huge question mark and outside of Clint Dempsey the attack lacked any real threat. The worst part is the best performers at the Gold Cup will be in their 30s in 2014, many of them leading the line for their 3rd cup. Ask Italy how that worked out for them. We also won't play much together outside of qualification. Missing out of the 2013 Confederations Cup really hurts. If you remember it was the Confederations Cup where we beat Spain and went 2 up on Brazil. This gave the team a lot of confidence and familiarity with each other, the atmosphere and the venues for the World Cup the following year. Next go round the team will need to have a lot of new blood that won't have that experience. It looks like a repeat of 2006 could be in the books.
-If you haven't gotten into Game of Thrones I give it my full backing. I have never nor plan to read the some 6000 pages written/to be written by George R. R. Martin which serve as the basis for the show. After 2 episodes I was skeptical I would keep with it due to the vast expanse of the universe and all the complex relationships the show was having trouble explaining while keeping the plot moving. However, I watched the third episode (I always give shows at least three episodes) and I was hooked. The acting is phenomenal, aided by the fact that we have had little experience with most of the actors and actresses in other projects. The no-names work because it doesn't really distract you from the characters and the world they live in. Think about the Harry Potter series, when you watch that then watch another movie, say Love Actually and half the cast is the same you keep expecting Emma Thompson and Alan Rickman to end their marriage, don their Hogwarts robes and settle their differences with their wands. It also helps that the actors do not define the show giving it much more freedom to dispose of characters; it would be tough to have Lost with out Dr. Jack Shepard (as the creators wanted to kill off the show's most notable star, Matthew Fox, episode 1), but Game of Thrones does not have that quality about it.
- The U.S. Men's National Soccer Team is in trouble. Don't expect the next World Cup to go as well as this past one. The team looked weak in this year's Gold Cup, despite making the finals. The defense was a huge question mark and outside of Clint Dempsey the attack lacked any real threat. The worst part is the best performers at the Gold Cup will be in their 30s in 2014, many of them leading the line for their 3rd cup. Ask Italy how that worked out for them. We also won't play much together outside of qualification. Missing out of the 2013 Confederations Cup really hurts. If you remember it was the Confederations Cup where we beat Spain and went 2 up on Brazil. This gave the team a lot of confidence and familiarity with each other, the atmosphere and the venues for the World Cup the following year. Next go round the team will need to have a lot of new blood that won't have that experience. It looks like a repeat of 2006 could be in the books.
Friday, June 10, 2011
Thanks For Renting The Crown...
...Michael will have it back now. In the most highly anticipated season of his career since he broke into the league in 2003 Lebron James has shown us what he truly is: a guy who just wants to be liked by all and make good looking video clips. He betrayed his hometown to go play with his buddies in a city known more for its night clubs than it's sports clubs (sorry Dolphins, your years of mediocrity have doomed you). He put himself squarely in the hot seat the moment he bragged how he, Dwayne Wade, and Chris Bosh were going to win 10 championships together at what I assume was a KISS concert hijacked by two superstars and their awkward bird-looking friend. It is going to be hard for Lebron to re-define his legacy after the events of the last 12 months, even if they win the title this year or make good on his 10 ring promise.
The first flag was The Decision/The Celebration. The fallout was immediate. Charles Barkley put it best when he said that he, nor Michael, nor Magic, nor Bird, nor any of the pantheon greats would have sold out to go play on another superstar's team. America responded how it almost always does when a team brings in a bunch of superstars: disgust. Before the first ball was even tipped the Heat became the team everyone wanted to beat. Often the reigning champ is the one who gets everyone's best shot, which is why repeating is such a hard thing, but Miami put that bullseye on its back and didn't even have a ring to show for it.
Lebron has been called King James since he enter the national consciousness as a high school phenom. One would expect a king to respond to the pressure and criticism with a performance that made the world notice. If he was truly a pantheon great NBA player this season was the one to show it. He did not.
The first few weeks of the season he was genuinely rattled and confused at why everyone hated him. This did not surprise me at all. Despite growing up just outside of Cleveland Lebron was and still is a Yankees and Cowboys fan, teams that are known for paying for a bunch of stars and consequently teams most Americans do not like. What was surprising is how someone so image conscious could not see what was wrong with making an hour long prime time spectacle, or a fan introduction complete with laser lights, fog machine, and video displays. One thing was clear: Lebron was hurt that people did not like him any more and it affected his play. This is not the response of a great.
Even after the shaky start, his in-season performance was not that of one that put the world on notice. He was constantly deferring to Wade. He was the one you wanted to have the ball in the crunch, if you rooted for the opponent and it was a close game; he was horrendous in the big moments.
Lebron and the Heat eventually put it together and finished the year as the number two seed in the Eastern Conference. They had an easy first round of a 76ers team that is about two years away from really competing. Second round brought Lebron's long-time nemesis: the Celtics. He played great. It helped that Danny Ainge forgot that his team hadn't been beaten when everyone was healthy, they had an unshakable swagger, and that Shaq was all but finished and consequently traded Kendrick Perkins, the most underrated glue guy it would seem in history. It also helped the officials allowed Dwayne Wade to maul Rajon Rondo, someone the Heat could not guard, right out of the series.
Then came the Eastern Conference finals. Lebron was deadly. He was hitting all the big shots. Clutch threes, impossible twos, getting to the foul line. He finally looked like killer we always wanted him to be.
Enter the Dallas Mavericks in the NBA Finals. This is where he would finally be anointed. If Lebron is truly a great he will show it on the biggest stage. Game 1 looked pretty good, not great: 24 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists. The telling thing was the minutes: 45. That is not a very efficient game.
Then came Game 2. The Heat had a 15 point lead with seven and a half minutes left. He celebrated a Dwayne Wade three pointer. The Heat blew the lead and lost. What was much more alarming was how little impact Lebron had on the game. He scored 20, pulled in 8 and helped out on 4. Wade was the man in the game: 36-3-6. Lebron deferred to him. Lebron did nothing to stem the Mavs ferocious comeback. Since then it has been all downhill for the so called King.
Games 3 and 5 were statistically good, both scored 17 points and in Game 5 he piled on 10 rebounds and assists. Again that was in 45 minutes. The average NBA player scores close to 19 points in 45 minutes. If Lebron is to be a great player he has to better than just below average. Game 4 was an unmitigated disaster: 8 points and at times I wasn't even sure he was on the floor.
The worst part about all of this is his attitude on the court. He can say in tweets and in front of the cameras about how it's now or never, and the team's back is against the wall, and it's the most important game of his career. His lips say that, his body says otherwise. He has no confidence. He doesn't want it to be his team. He has clearly given the reigns to Wade. Even in Game 5 when Wade went out hurt Lebron was passive. None of these are things a great will do. A great puts his body on the line for a championship. A great will bleed for the ring. A great does whatever it takes. There is only one great playing in Miami and that is Wade.
So, it is time for us to retire the nickname King James. These last 12 months we have learned that Lebron is not the great player we wanted him to be. He is not the second coming of His Airness. He is simply the most talented player ever who just wants to have fun, play with his friends, be loved by all, and be the subject of many highlight reel dunks and creative celebrations.
The first flag was The Decision/The Celebration. The fallout was immediate. Charles Barkley put it best when he said that he, nor Michael, nor Magic, nor Bird, nor any of the pantheon greats would have sold out to go play on another superstar's team. America responded how it almost always does when a team brings in a bunch of superstars: disgust. Before the first ball was even tipped the Heat became the team everyone wanted to beat. Often the reigning champ is the one who gets everyone's best shot, which is why repeating is such a hard thing, but Miami put that bullseye on its back and didn't even have a ring to show for it.
Lebron has been called King James since he enter the national consciousness as a high school phenom. One would expect a king to respond to the pressure and criticism with a performance that made the world notice. If he was truly a pantheon great NBA player this season was the one to show it. He did not.
The first few weeks of the season he was genuinely rattled and confused at why everyone hated him. This did not surprise me at all. Despite growing up just outside of Cleveland Lebron was and still is a Yankees and Cowboys fan, teams that are known for paying for a bunch of stars and consequently teams most Americans do not like. What was surprising is how someone so image conscious could not see what was wrong with making an hour long prime time spectacle, or a fan introduction complete with laser lights, fog machine, and video displays. One thing was clear: Lebron was hurt that people did not like him any more and it affected his play. This is not the response of a great.
Even after the shaky start, his in-season performance was not that of one that put the world on notice. He was constantly deferring to Wade. He was the one you wanted to have the ball in the crunch, if you rooted for the opponent and it was a close game; he was horrendous in the big moments.
Lebron and the Heat eventually put it together and finished the year as the number two seed in the Eastern Conference. They had an easy first round of a 76ers team that is about two years away from really competing. Second round brought Lebron's long-time nemesis: the Celtics. He played great. It helped that Danny Ainge forgot that his team hadn't been beaten when everyone was healthy, they had an unshakable swagger, and that Shaq was all but finished and consequently traded Kendrick Perkins, the most underrated glue guy it would seem in history. It also helped the officials allowed Dwayne Wade to maul Rajon Rondo, someone the Heat could not guard, right out of the series.
Then came the Eastern Conference finals. Lebron was deadly. He was hitting all the big shots. Clutch threes, impossible twos, getting to the foul line. He finally looked like killer we always wanted him to be.
Enter the Dallas Mavericks in the NBA Finals. This is where he would finally be anointed. If Lebron is truly a great he will show it on the biggest stage. Game 1 looked pretty good, not great: 24 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists. The telling thing was the minutes: 45. That is not a very efficient game.
Then came Game 2. The Heat had a 15 point lead with seven and a half minutes left. He celebrated a Dwayne Wade three pointer. The Heat blew the lead and lost. What was much more alarming was how little impact Lebron had on the game. He scored 20, pulled in 8 and helped out on 4. Wade was the man in the game: 36-3-6. Lebron deferred to him. Lebron did nothing to stem the Mavs ferocious comeback. Since then it has been all downhill for the so called King.
Games 3 and 5 were statistically good, both scored 17 points and in Game 5 he piled on 10 rebounds and assists. Again that was in 45 minutes. The average NBA player scores close to 19 points in 45 minutes. If Lebron is to be a great player he has to better than just below average. Game 4 was an unmitigated disaster: 8 points and at times I wasn't even sure he was on the floor.
The worst part about all of this is his attitude on the court. He can say in tweets and in front of the cameras about how it's now or never, and the team's back is against the wall, and it's the most important game of his career. His lips say that, his body says otherwise. He has no confidence. He doesn't want it to be his team. He has clearly given the reigns to Wade. Even in Game 5 when Wade went out hurt Lebron was passive. None of these are things a great will do. A great puts his body on the line for a championship. A great will bleed for the ring. A great does whatever it takes. There is only one great playing in Miami and that is Wade.
So, it is time for us to retire the nickname King James. These last 12 months we have learned that Lebron is not the great player we wanted him to be. He is not the second coming of His Airness. He is simply the most talented player ever who just wants to have fun, play with his friends, be loved by all, and be the subject of many highlight reel dunks and creative celebrations.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Amazing Turnaround
Many, many weeks ago I wrote about how bad The Office had gotten. It was disjointed, inconsistent, full of stories we didn't care about with characters in roles that didn't really interest or entertain. It got to the point where I doubted the show could survive without Steve Carell. That changed quickly.
The Michael Scott Farewell Tour ended with a bang. Almost as soon as Holly returned to Scranton (allowing the writers to drop the whole Andy/Gabe/Erin love triangle no one cared about) did the show not only dramatically increase in hilarity, but also it became more focused. The writers had to get from point A to point B which drove the main plot lines forward, often dragging all the secondary plots with them. As a result the comedy and overall feeling of satisfaction with each episode returned to levels we were used to.
What also helped was the use of secondary characters (i.e. the not Jim, Pam, Michael, Dwight). I already mentioned shoving the Andy/Erin/Gabe mess away. We got to see Andy in goofier bro-mode which, if you've seen the Hangover, Ed Helms shines in. We got to see much more of Daryl, Angela, Meredith, Creed, Ryan, and Kelly. We even got some great moments from Oscar, Erin, Stanley, and Phyllis. But I think it was Kevin and Creed who stole a lot of the great lines (it was as if the writers stumbled upon my post). Brian Baumgartner often had me laughing hysterically most notably in "PDA" where he delivered gems such as "Let me finish! I like it (Holly and Michael's PDA) because it makes me horny," and when Dwight has listed everyone who has had sex in the office and Kevin has added himself to the list someone asked him with whom his reply: "She goes to another school." Creed really shone the second half of the year, especially once he was made boss. It forced Pam back into her role of saboteur of the boss's ill-conceived plans, except this boss was even more clueless.
It was also really great to see Jim pull a long-con prank on Dwight that was in no way mean spirited, we haven't seen that in a while.
Finally, as sad as it was, Michael Scott's farewell to Scranton was really well done. The final episode especially highlighted just how deep and three dimensional the character really became. One minute he was totally aware of how stupid Oscar thinks he is, the next he was awkwardly telling Kevin to stop being fat. We got to see how the office really had become the family he never had, but now no longer needs. I can't praise the show enough for giving Michael the happy ending he deserved (even if it meant a horribly awkward, pointless, and distracting Will Ferrell extended cameo).
I hope the show can maintain the momentum it had leading up to the goodbye, or if the writers will fall back into a direction-less hit-or-miss style that took over the proceeding season and a half.
The Michael Scott Farewell Tour ended with a bang. Almost as soon as Holly returned to Scranton (allowing the writers to drop the whole Andy/Gabe/Erin love triangle no one cared about) did the show not only dramatically increase in hilarity, but also it became more focused. The writers had to get from point A to point B which drove the main plot lines forward, often dragging all the secondary plots with them. As a result the comedy and overall feeling of satisfaction with each episode returned to levels we were used to.
What also helped was the use of secondary characters (i.e. the not Jim, Pam, Michael, Dwight). I already mentioned shoving the Andy/Erin/Gabe mess away. We got to see Andy in goofier bro-mode which, if you've seen the Hangover, Ed Helms shines in. We got to see much more of Daryl, Angela, Meredith, Creed, Ryan, and Kelly. We even got some great moments from Oscar, Erin, Stanley, and Phyllis. But I think it was Kevin and Creed who stole a lot of the great lines (it was as if the writers stumbled upon my post). Brian Baumgartner often had me laughing hysterically most notably in "PDA" where he delivered gems such as "Let me finish! I like it (Holly and Michael's PDA) because it makes me horny," and when Dwight has listed everyone who has had sex in the office and Kevin has added himself to the list someone asked him with whom his reply: "She goes to another school." Creed really shone the second half of the year, especially once he was made boss. It forced Pam back into her role of saboteur of the boss's ill-conceived plans, except this boss was even more clueless.
It was also really great to see Jim pull a long-con prank on Dwight that was in no way mean spirited, we haven't seen that in a while.
Finally, as sad as it was, Michael Scott's farewell to Scranton was really well done. The final episode especially highlighted just how deep and three dimensional the character really became. One minute he was totally aware of how stupid Oscar thinks he is, the next he was awkwardly telling Kevin to stop being fat. We got to see how the office really had become the family he never had, but now no longer needs. I can't praise the show enough for giving Michael the happy ending he deserved (even if it meant a horribly awkward, pointless, and distracting Will Ferrell extended cameo).
I hope the show can maintain the momentum it had leading up to the goodbye, or if the writers will fall back into a direction-less hit-or-miss style that took over the proceeding season and a half.
Monday, February 21, 2011
The Bad Guy
Tonight's How I Met Your Mother was like most college-based comedies: pretty funny start, but before you know it the it's almost over and you have barely laughed. In all the episode was not the worst they've ever done but certainly nowhere near the best.
I thought we were in for a good episode with the first scene after the credits. The great Peanuts reference with Barney only hear "wah-wah-wah" whenever a woman tells him she doesn't want drinks (or anyone giving him advice) was great use of Barney's more cartoonish side that NPH plays so well. And unlike a lot of the outlandish Barney gags they have used recently this one did not seem forced at all.
I also really like Wendy taking a shot at Ted's inability to tell a meeting story in a timely manner. However, it did draw my attention to the fact we don't seem to be much closer to meeting the mother and we're wasting our time with Zoey, a relationship that doesn't seem valuable in regards to advancing the plot of the show (even Victoria was relevant in that she made Robin realize she liked Ted). And since the chemistry between Josh Radnor and Jennifer Morrison just isn't there it also didn't sit well that they admitted that Zoey was not the mother, which we pretty much knew, and that we have a messy break-up coming up (which probably won't work because I was not too invested in the relationship from the start unlike the break-up with Robin or Stella).
After this great start all the only a few things we left that I really liked. The first was the Barney-Robin-Nora plot. The writers scripted, and NPH played, Barney's reaction to actually liking a girl perfectly. Like the "wah-wah's" the Barney's adamant denial and childish attempts to prove to Robin he doesn't like Nora were organic and entertaining. I also like how they are moving Barney back toward a relationship. Barney on the prowl is great (cue Predator sounds) but if Nora turns out to be a true girlfriend it will be a nice change of pace. I am very interested to see how Barney would handle a relationship that isn't with Robin, who is almost a female analogue.
Like the episode as a whole I thought the Captain-Ted plot started strongly. I loved the throwback joke of angry eyes, smiling mouth. I was also intrigued by the irony that he was so upset about Zoey leaving the Captain for the man the Captain was finding solace in. However I quickly was turned off by the whole good guy in Ted's version, bad guy in someone else's. They did that last season with the "Wedding Bride" episode.
The Marshall-Lilly plot was pretty weak. It was kind of funny that Lilly couldn't keep her hands off Marshall while he was on his diatribe in the bar, but the Lilly is a nympho joke can only be done so many times. I realize Marshall is at a very tough time in his life: he just lost his dad and he and Lilly are trying to have a baby, but his renewed interest in the NRDC seems out of nowhere. Only a few episodes ago he told Lilly he really liked working at GNB and wanted to work there for a long time. I can imagine that losing your dad suddenly and at a relatively young age can be earth-shattering, but the writers did not do a great job of conveying that being the underlying cause for the sudden 180. And also, the Marshall as the bad guy didn't work at all; it was forced in there to try to tie 2 of the 3 plots together.
Other thoughts:
- No idea why we had to see Wendy the Waitress in 10 years to get this story.
- It was really bizarre seeing the part of the bar where the camera usually is. I thought they gave up on that early on. They used it well if they were trying highlight that things weren't normal with Barney though. All in all, keep that to the minimum though, the show has an unusually large amount of sets for a sit-com so variety is there; don't mess with the stock scenes.
- As I said earlier: We've known Zoey isn't the mother, the writers have now made it official. Please stop teasing us with the real meeting: do it soon or put it out of our minds.
I thought we were in for a good episode with the first scene after the credits. The great Peanuts reference with Barney only hear "wah-wah-wah" whenever a woman tells him she doesn't want drinks (or anyone giving him advice) was great use of Barney's more cartoonish side that NPH plays so well. And unlike a lot of the outlandish Barney gags they have used recently this one did not seem forced at all.
I also really like Wendy taking a shot at Ted's inability to tell a meeting story in a timely manner. However, it did draw my attention to the fact we don't seem to be much closer to meeting the mother and we're wasting our time with Zoey, a relationship that doesn't seem valuable in regards to advancing the plot of the show (even Victoria was relevant in that she made Robin realize she liked Ted). And since the chemistry between Josh Radnor and Jennifer Morrison just isn't there it also didn't sit well that they admitted that Zoey was not the mother, which we pretty much knew, and that we have a messy break-up coming up (which probably won't work because I was not too invested in the relationship from the start unlike the break-up with Robin or Stella).
After this great start all the only a few things we left that I really liked. The first was the Barney-Robin-Nora plot. The writers scripted, and NPH played, Barney's reaction to actually liking a girl perfectly. Like the "wah-wah's" the Barney's adamant denial and childish attempts to prove to Robin he doesn't like Nora were organic and entertaining. I also like how they are moving Barney back toward a relationship. Barney on the prowl is great (cue Predator sounds) but if Nora turns out to be a true girlfriend it will be a nice change of pace. I am very interested to see how Barney would handle a relationship that isn't with Robin, who is almost a female analogue.
Like the episode as a whole I thought the Captain-Ted plot started strongly. I loved the throwback joke of angry eyes, smiling mouth. I was also intrigued by the irony that he was so upset about Zoey leaving the Captain for the man the Captain was finding solace in. However I quickly was turned off by the whole good guy in Ted's version, bad guy in someone else's. They did that last season with the "Wedding Bride" episode.
The Marshall-Lilly plot was pretty weak. It was kind of funny that Lilly couldn't keep her hands off Marshall while he was on his diatribe in the bar, but the Lilly is a nympho joke can only be done so many times. I realize Marshall is at a very tough time in his life: he just lost his dad and he and Lilly are trying to have a baby, but his renewed interest in the NRDC seems out of nowhere. Only a few episodes ago he told Lilly he really liked working at GNB and wanted to work there for a long time. I can imagine that losing your dad suddenly and at a relatively young age can be earth-shattering, but the writers did not do a great job of conveying that being the underlying cause for the sudden 180. And also, the Marshall as the bad guy didn't work at all; it was forced in there to try to tie 2 of the 3 plots together.
Other thoughts:
- No idea why we had to see Wendy the Waitress in 10 years to get this story.
- It was really bizarre seeing the part of the bar where the camera usually is. I thought they gave up on that early on. They used it well if they were trying highlight that things weren't normal with Barney though. All in all, keep that to the minimum though, the show has an unusually large amount of sets for a sit-com so variety is there; don't mess with the stock scenes.
- As I said earlier: We've known Zoey isn't the mother, the writers have now made it official. Please stop teasing us with the real meeting: do it soon or put it out of our minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
