Movie Reviewed - Clash of the Titans (2010)

I never saw the original Clash of the Titans. I thought about getting it first from Netflix as I did with The Crazies and Dawn of the Dead, but for whatever reason, I ended up just getting the new one. Maybe at some point I'll go back and check out the original, but probably not anytime soon. I wasn't exactly wowed by the reboot.

The plot follows the myth of Perseus. I'm sure liberties were taken, but not knowing the original story, any discrepancies are incapable of bothering me. Which is kind of nice, having seen how people lost their shit when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep in the second Lord of the Rings film. The basic story is that Perseus is the half-human son of Zeus, he and other gods make various decisions regarding the mortal realm, monsters get involved...you know, standard mythology.

The special effects were pretty impressive, resulting in some very entertaining battle scenes with the aforementioned monsters. Perseus' traveling party also has some interesting members, which make the adventure more fun.

But the effects don't overtake the weakness of story or tepid acting in Clash of the Titans. While the action scenes are intense and fun, you simply do not care at all about the characters or their hardships. I think part of this comes from the innate difficulty of creating tension when a character may or may not be immortal. The fear of death is what makes a lot of stories engaging, and you're not really sure how mortal the half-son of a god is. Great acting could trump that (see Gandalf in Lord of the Rings), but there's no Ian McKellen in this film.

As I said, normally I watch the original movie before the remake, and that lets me feel comfortable watching the newer movie later, on the assumption that it'll at least be a little more watchable from a special effects standpoint. That's the circumstance with The Crazies, (though I actually enjoyed the original of that movie as well). So I don't expect to be watching the original Clash of the Titans any time soon.

Of course, that won't stop me buying that rum and..."Releasing the Kraken!"

The Last Word: I feel like the movie tried to get by on a few quotable moments and some dynamite effects, which happens all too frequently these days. The effects were fine, and the quotes were okay, but such things do not make a great film.

Movie Reviewed - For Your Consideration

Some of Christopher Guest's work is masterful. Best In Show was a great story about a lot of really compelling characters, portrayed perfectly. A Mighty Wind had a lot of that same magic. This Is Spinal Tap was decent, though didn't have the impact on me that it did for many others. So it stood to reason that I'd enjoy For Your Consideration, which features a lot of the same cast (Catherine O'Hara, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, John Michael Higgins).

Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way.

For Your Consideration is a movie about a movie, which might make some of my description confusing. Anyways, the film is called Home for Purim, and it features a few lesser-known actors. Some way or another (it's never fully explored), a bit of Oscar buzz is generated about one of the leads, then another, then another. FYC follows the actors, the director, and other ancillary characters as the movie is tweaked, then completely altered, filmed, and reviewed. Their reactions are stereotypically Hollywood-ish, taking the whispers of awards and running with them, as far and as fast as possible.

Watching actors portraying "actors" acting like actors should have been an easy road to humor, but mostly it comes across as frustrating or disappointing. Honestly, the movie makes you wonder if the on-screen talent in the real world is just as shallow and jealous, and ultimately clueless. We all hear nice stories about Tom Hanks or Kiefer Sutherland, but who knows if they're accurate. Certainly we're at least willing to believe that a lot of Hollywood stars are more like the guys from Entourage and less like the guys from The Lonely Island.

Guest is well-known for having some looseness with his scripts, and sometimes that creates some gems, as I mentioned at the outset of this review. Honestly, A Mighty Wind and Best In Show are two really, really funny movies. For Your Consideration, though, shows you the risk you run when you allow actors to improvise dialogue. It can get messy, and unfocused, and if it's not funny, you just have a crummy movie.

The Last Word: Go watch the other two movies I mentioned. For Your Consideration is a pass.

Movie Reviewed - The Winning Season

I'm kind of a sucker for Sam Rockwell. He seems to do so well in every role he has, and does especially well when his character is some kind of sinner. Choke was strange, but entertaining. People will look at the lineup for Matchstick Men and deride it because of Nicolas Cage, but Sam Rockwell does fantastically well, and actually, Cage does a very good job as well. The Green Mile was fantastic all around, and Rockwell was as good as anybody.

As I've done with several other actors, I went through Netflix's instantly available movies and added anything that looked interesting and had Rockwell, and The Winning Season was on the list. So, even though my brother chided me for watching it instead of Iron Man 2 (which I've also seen in the meantime), I decided to kill some time one afternoon at work and watch this film.

The basic story is pretty straightforward: Sam Rockwell is a drunk who used to play basketball. An old friend offers him a job coaching the girl's team at his old high school. Once you get past the ludicrous idea that a girl's varsity team would have an independent coach, the plot carries alright. Rockwell does a great job of portraying a guy who you could believe has a good heart, but is buried under the demons of his past.

The progression of the movie is predictable, but sometimes that just means that you get a standard feeling of satisfaction at each turn. Early troubles, moment of clarity, small successes, obstacles, overcoming them, new and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, redemption, etc etc. It's completely unsurprising, but it's pretty well-written and very well-acted, so I wasn't bothered by that. Though, truthfully, I'm not someone who gets bothered by predictability very often.

I laughed more than a couple times at the film, and Emma Roberts is cute in a "man I wish I was still in high school" kind of way...as she so often is. And Sam Rockwell is very good, as he so often is. I'm glad I watched it...about as glad as I am that I watched Iron Man 2.

The Last Word: I don't know if I'd say it's a must-watch, but if you're bored and in mixed company, you could do a lot worse.

Movie Reviewed - Fanboys

Let's start with this: I love Star Wars. I know that it's got its flaws, and that a lot of people hated episodes 1, 2, and 3. But my dad watched Star Wars about a dozen times in the theater, and my whole family caught on to the fever. The Star Wars universe has produced some great stuff, like Star Wars - Pod Racer for Nintendo 64 and Knights of the Old Republic for Xbox. This movie, though, doesn't register quite so high on the list.

The plot of the movie is kind of questionable. By that, I mean that I was actually finding myself questioning parts of the plot. Like, "Really? I don't buy that." The basic story is that a few friends who've grown apart over the years are brought back together when one of them finds that he's got terminal cancer. The whole group loves Star Wars, and since Episode One won't come out until after the friend's expected demise, they resolve to break into George Lucas' home to steal the film and watch it while he's still around.

Here's the thing. This movie had all the makings of being really, really good. Anytime you have nerds creating a self-deprecating piece of media, you've got a chance at something fantastic (see: Internet). And they got kind of a fantastic lineup of supporting cast/cameos. William Shatner, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Seth Rogen, Danny Trejo, Danny McBride, Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes, Craig Anderson, and Will Forte all make an appearance at some point, and they all do pretty well. Oh, and Kristen Bell is walking around the whole time, looking awesome like she does.

So where did it go wrong? Well, the lead cast was actually pretty weak. Even Kristen Bell, as smokin' ass hot as she is, can't really carry a movie. The four main guys are all relative no-names, and none of them is some diamond in the rough that ends up blowing you away with his performance, like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Superbad. Furthermore, as I said before, the story doesn't really engage you as well as you'd like, and it seemed like a conglomeration of scenes, rather than a fluid film.

In the end, I wish the movie had been better than it was. So many worthwhile contributors went in on the movie, you'd like to believe that they could put together something impressive. Especially when you're adding in the various Star Wars references that a guy like me can appreciate, it's a damn shame this wasn't a more well-made movie.

The Last Word: It had its moments, but mostly Fanboys was a disappointment, for how good it could have been.

Movie Reviewed - Big Fan

Maybe I think Patton Oswalt is funnier than he is. I recently watched a brief stand-up clip of his, and while I chuckled a couple times, I didn't have any laugh-out-loud moments. But somewhere in my head, I have it that he's some kind of comic genius. I know a friend of mine has relayed a few jokes of his, and he re-tells them better than Oswalt delivers them himself, so I'm sure that's part of it. Thankfully though, watching Big Fan has helped me to view him a little more objectively.

The story follows Oswalt's character Paul, a deadbeat toll booth operator who's a tremendous New York Giants fan. He's a typical fanatic, owning lots of memorabilia and calling in to late night radio shows to give his take on his favorite team. One fateful night, he has an unpleasant encounter with his favorite player, and Paul has to figure out how to react to an internal crisis. He's got friends, family, a detective, and reporters who try to get him to do one thing or another, but in the end he resolves his situation in his own way.

Oswalt is certainly believable as a kind of loser, living with his mother and being cynical and snarky towards his lawyer brother, and anyone else who isn't either a sports celebrity or in the same dregs as himself. And really, while the film doesn't boast a particularly impressive lineup of actors (Michael Rapaport is the only other big name here), everyone seems very real. It's movies like this one that make you wonder how much of our assessments of people's acting ability is related to their attractiveness. Like, is Natalie Portman a good actress, or do I just want to take her home with me?

In the end, though, the solid acting doesn't make up for a mostly uninteresting story and a script that doesn't make you care about any of the characters. Maybe their soulless interactions are part of what make them realistic, but if real life were that interesting, I wouldn't watch movies. I'm looking for something more when I watch a movie, and it just wasn't there in Big Fan.

The Last Word: I don't think I'd recommend it, but I couldn't say it was a total waste of time. Definitely not a contender for my "Movie of the Year" list, though.

Dancing

Dear October 2011 weddings,



I plan to be able to step on the dance floor and not look completely white when we meet. See you then.



Cordially,

-Joe

Movie Reviewed - No Strings Attached

You might be shocked to find out that No Strings Attached is one of only three movies I've seen in the theater this year (the others being Super 8 and the final Harry Potter movie). Less shocked when I tell you I saw it with a girl. The thing is...it might have been the best of the three (we can get together and talk about how disappointed we were in the final Harry Potter movie some other time).



The movie stars Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, and the premise is simple enough to ascertain: they want to bang, no strings attached. Or at least, things start that way. It wouldn't be a movie if it worked out, so obviously someone starts getting, well, attached. Then there's romance and sweet moments and humor. I mean, it's a romantic comedy, you basically know what it is before you start watching it.



Part of what made this movie really good was that I didn't have any sort of expectations of it being anything spectacular, precisely because it was a romantic comedy. But Portman and Kutcher are equal parts adorable and hilarious, and the supporting cast is phenomenal. I'd cite specific examples, but to mention everyone who contributes positively would take several more pages than I'm comfortable writing in a single blog. Suffice it to say, all of the ancillary characters serve their purposes beautifully, from comedy to companionship to the necessary frustrations of any film romance.



The one thing that detracts a little bit is that Kutcher doesn't do a great job of convincing the audience that he's weighed down with his emotions. He's romantic, but mostly just in a casual, friendly, funny kind of way. I don't ever feel like he's losing himself in the romance; he's just a willing participant. So when the story has its more poignant moments, they're carried by Portman's character, which isn't a bad thing (more screen time for her is always good), but makes you care a little less about whether or not they get together at the end of the movie.



Kutcher's lack of depth aside, though, this is a very, very funny movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes romantic comedies, or anyone who likes comedies and can at least stomach some romance. I haven't seen Friends With Benefits yet (like I said, three movies in the theater), but my exceptionally positive experience with No Strings Attached has me thinking I'd better find a way to watch it.



The Last Word: Funny, funny, funny. Oh, and Natalie Portman looks GOOD.

Movie Reviewed - Rock Star

I remember seeing commercials way back when this movie came out, and thinking it'd be fantastic. I've never really been one to go to the movies much, though, so I never ended up going to see it. Time passed, and someone gave it a fresh and emphatic recommendation when I came across it as an available movie to watch instantly on Netflix. So on a lazy Sunday, I gave it a chance.



It was...fine?



Mark Wahlberg plays Chris, a singer in a tribute band who gets the opportunity of a lifetime when he's extended an offer to join Steel Dragon, the band to which he played tribute. It's a fairly pedestrian story that we've seen a few dozen times: the rise to fame, falling into bad habits, losing touch with loved ones, suffering disappointment, and later finding some level of redemption. There are precious few surprises to be found in this film.



That doesn't make it bad, though. Wahlberg really is quite a good actor, and he again does well in Rock Star. Jennifer Aniston plays Wahlberg's girlfriend/manager, and she does very well at capturing both sides of her character's feelings towards the protagonist: she loves him and helps him harness his talent, but also gets frustrated with his foray into the prototypical "rock star" lifestyle. The secondary characters are useful, but usually a little over the top. It came across a little spoofy, but still entertaining.



It was perfectly fine, and interesting enough to keep my attention for the duration. I don't know how my friend watched it and felt so strongly about it, but that's neither here nor there. The end result was a solid movie, though not spectacular. I don't regret putting the time in to watch it, which is as much as you can hope for out of a random movie.



The Last Word: Fantastic? No. But entertaining enough to kill a couple hours.

Movie Reviewed - Visioneers

Within the first few moments of this movie, I knew it was going to be weird. It's set in a mostly modern but slightly futuristic America, where a particular company holds vast influence over its employees, and in fact most of the country. The company pushes for productivity above all else, telling people that they'll be happy if they're productive.



Zach Galifianakis plays a middle manager named George Washington Winsterhammerman, who comes in to work one day and discovers that one of his employees exploded. Yeah, kaboom. Turns out, he's not the only one, though. There's an epidemic of explosions going across the country. The explosions seem to happen to people who have trouble staying "stable" within the rigidity of the their super-structured lives.



GWW notices that he's experiencing some of the same symptoms that are being reported as precursors to explosion (things like dreaming or over-eating), and he tries his best to quell them, but he finds that he can't overcome these "symptoms," and starts to re-evaluate his whole existence.



It's a difficult movie to describe, because it's kind of funny, but doesn't really make you laugh. And for certain the creators of the movie had some kind of real-life critique in mind, but the metaphor is a little fuzzy. On a vague level, it's obviously about resisting conformity, but it's done in a kooky enough way that you're not sure if that's the actual intention of the film.



Still, Galifianakis is entertaining, and utterly believable, and the rest of the cast is strong and effective as well. And as I said, it does have a good humor to it, despite a lack of real "jokes." And the end, while a little confusing, does leave you with a sense of hope, or happiness, or some other positive feeling that is, as of right now, indescribable.



The Last Word: I don't think I'd go out of my way to watch it, and I'm not at all surprised that it wasn't widely released in theaters, but it's a solid movie for a Tuesday night if you've got nothing better to do.

Book(s) Reviewed - Shadows's Edge and Beyond the Shadows

I learned a little something as I tried to start writing my review of Shadow's Edge; it's tough to create distinction in your discussion of books in the same storyline by the same author. The Night Angel trilogy (which began with The Way of Shadows) has three books, like most trilogies. But the second and third books are just sequential progressions from the same original story. The writing styles are identical, the characters are mostly already developed, and neither can be good (or bad) without the other also being good (or bad).



As it is, they're both pretty good. The original story focused mostly on the main character, Kylar Stern, and while his story was compelling, I think stories do well when you care about many characters, not just one main guy. In that regard, the second book and particularly the third offered a considerable upgrade. I'll now talk about them individually.



Shadow's Edge



The second book was exactly what you'd expect out of a second book. We learn much, much more about the ancillary characters who seemed interesting but about whom you didn't learn anything in the original book. We also see Kylar develop from his panicked, nervous youth into a formidable (but still pretty emotionally unstable) adult. And maybe most importantly, we have three villainous "entities" (you'll understand if you read it) developed for us who take us through the remainder of the series.



Like most middle issues, the main characters face considerable hardship and sorrow over the course of this book. The author does a good job of making you a little bit incredulous at what happens. Like, "Hmm, I wonder how they're gonna get out of this...OH. They're not." And though some of the deaths are definitely disappointing, they add a degree of unpredictability to the book, and they're all useful for pushing the story forward.



One thing that struck me as strange, though not necessarily in a bad way, was that this book could've been an ending, rather than a transition. The story culminates in a pair of great battles, and a crucial character is slain. But the story leaves enough unresolved that a third book makes good sense.



Speaking of...



Beyond the Shadows



The most satisfying part of the third book was the three...well, I don't know what you'd call them, but they're these three guys who are all incredibly powerful, and only get minimal exposure in the first two books. They remind me of that Simpsons episode where the Italian mob gets in a fight with the Asian mob, and there's the little guy in the white suit who's just standing there until the Simpsons go inside, and Homer's like, "But the little guy hasn't done anything yet!" Well, the little guys end up pretty damn big when this trilogy comes together.



Kylar Stern ends up being marginalized a little, because the grand scheme is so, well, grand. But he plays his part well, and the book becomes more of an orchestra of events, rather than a trio as the first two play out. Without reading the first two, you'd be completely lost and mostly apathetic about the characters, but with the long buildup, the last quarter of the book is a frenzy of excitement, drama, and emotion.



Overall Thoughts



If I had one complaint, or not so much a complaint but a slight drawback, it's that for the first half of the first book, there's almost no mention of "magic" or anything supernatural. Then you get hints and references, but nothing overwhelming. But by the last book, everything is magically charged, half of the main characters are casting spells, and you get the impression that anybody who isn't magically talented is kind of useless. Things don't necessarily play out that way, but it feels weird when anyone "normal" is able to contribute.



Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with magic. The Harry Potter series is one of my favorites (or rather seven of my favorites), and my movie and video gaming preferences include plenty of spells. I just prefer that magic be more balanced, less powerful, or more costly. It basically ran things after the first book, and that was somewhat frustrating at times.



Overall, though, I enjoyed the series a lot. It wasn't a cathartic experience like Harry Potter or Hunger Games, but it was entertaining, and it helped me get back into a mindset where I want to read books. And what else could you ask for out of a book?



The Last Words: Both books were compelling, and by the third book there were many characters who you really did care about. The second book was a little more depressing, and the third was a little too "epic," but neither to the extent that it wasn't well worth the read.

Terraria Art - Air Man

If you beat him, you get a jetboard.

Washington Caps

With the final free agent signed this morning (Alzner 2 years 2.57 mil) I am really starting to get pumped for next season. While there are still decisions to be made in camp I thought it would be interesting to see what the starting line combinations could be on opening night. Here we go:

LW C RW

Alex Ovechkin Nicklas Backstrom Mike Knuble

Brooks Laich Marcus Johansson Alex Semin

Joel Ward Jeff Halpern Troy Brouwer

Jason Chimera Mattias Sjogren Matt Hendricks

D

Mike Green Roman Hamrlik

John Carlson Karl Alzner

Jeff Schultz Dennis Wideman

I think Jay Beagle and Erskine round out the scratches. While some people might envision things a little different this is how I see the Caps starting out the year.

First Line: Ovi, Backstrom, Knuble.

I think this top line for the pass two years stays intact because of the familiarity. Keeping this line together will provide offense to start the season until other players find their role and learn the system.

Second Line: Laich, Johansson, Semin

This comes down to talent and money. To me if you are paying Laich like a 2nd line center he has to at the least play wing on the 2nd line. Semin is a world class talent when he's on. Finally I think Johansson really matured towards the end of last season. Johansson's speed and ability to handle the puck should allow this line to really contribute.

Third Line: Ward, Halpern, Brouwer

Lots of people see Halpern as a fourth line center and I think that will eventually happen once Sjogren (or Eakin) really step it up and learn the style and speed of the NHL. However I think Halpern with these two wingers provides grit, defense and physicality.

Fourth Line: Chimera, Sjogren, Hendricks

When did you ever see our fourth line contribute goals last year. It didn't happen. I think Chimera paired with either Sjorgren or Eakin's speed will cause a lot of havok from a 4th line. As I said above I see Halpern sliding back to this role if either young guy can make the next step.

D Pairs:

Carlson and Alzner together is a very easy decision. They logged big minutes against top talent. I thought for a while on the other two pairs and decided that Hamrlik was brought in for a reason. That being to give Green a complement combo Dman that can both play D and chip in offense. And that is what Green has become a overall solid D man. I think Schultz will rebound after a terrible year. The mono over the off season seemed to slow him down and leave him weak which (for a guy can struggle with both) caused him to struggle. He will provide stay at home D while Wideman can jump into the rush.

Sjogren vs Eakin:

The reason I went Sjogren over Eakin was for two reasons. First Eakin really struggled at the development camp. I think the incredible about of hockey over the last year has taken its toll on him. I think he will still be run down at camp and not be able to show off the speed and skill that almost got him a spot last year. The other reason for picking Sjogren is simply that he came to the Caps over several other teams. Its possible that his friendship, Johansson, and respect for Backstrom caused him to pick the Caps. However a more likely situation is the Caps told him they would give him every chance to make the team. With a tired Eakin being his competition he will be successful in making the team.

Book Reviewed - Catching Fire

(If you haven't read the first book of the trilogy, The Hunger Games, you shouldn't read this review; things will be given away.)

Catching Fire is the second installment in the Hunger Games series. The first book, you may remember, is one that I spoke glowingly of when I reviewed it about a month ago. Because of how much I liked it, my expectations were sky high for Catching Fire, and honestly, I wasn't even remotely disappointed.

Catching Fire picks up right where The Hunger Games leaves off, with Peeta and Katniss returning to District 12 as victors of the 74th Hunger Games, a brutal contest between youths from around the country, drafted into mortal combat.

Their victory was marred by their methods, though; the Hunger Games always has a single victor, and Katniss' trickery was read by many districts as a sign of rebellion. After an unpleasant meeting with President Snow, she sets her efforts on convincing the country of Panem that her tactic was driven by her overwhelming love for Peeta, rather than defiance. Peeta goes along with this, though he deals with the excruciating truth that Katniss was acting in defiance, while his love for and devotion to her is absolute. Their individual anguishes are born of different pain, but the author makes them similarly palpable.

Part of their victory tour takes them into District 11, the home of Rue and Thresh from their Hunger Games. Their presentation to the crowd, and the emotion of the scene, creates maybe my favorite moment in the entire series. I won't spoil it, but if you've already read it, you'll agree with me when I say...

...CHILLS.

The book strikes me as very much the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, which I guess is how most trilogies work. It continues the original story, and offers a character-building and plot-pushing bridge between the introduction and culmination of the story. It starts much more slowly than The Hunger Games, but finishes with intense and frantic action. I would still say that The Hunger Games is my favorite of the series, but Catching Fire is right there, neck-and-neck.

The Last Word - Listen, I highly recommend the whole series, so it's tough for me to make an individual recommendation on this specific book. But it's great, as entertaining as The Hunger Games. Go. Read it. GO.

Movie Reviewed - We Are Marshall

So if you know me at all, you know I'm a sucker for grief. It's kind of my favorite thing when I'm watching movies or TV. It's not to say that I enjoy seeing other people in pain, of course. It's more that, in movies, I think we all look for opportunities to connect with the characters. And grieving folks are the kind of folks I can connect with.

So, naturally, a movie about an entire town that grieves is something that I'd expect to be able to appreciate plenty. We Are Marshall follows the surviving players and coaches of Marshall University and how they endured through the tragic loss of most of their colleagues, teammates, and friends in a horrific plane crash. Just as much, it's about the town of Huntington, and how it was devastated by the tragedy.

For such a heart-wrenching story, though, the grief of the college and the town just didn't feel real enough. My heart strings are easily plucked, but for most of this movie, they sat idle. I'm not sure if it's because you don't have a chance to get to know the people who die before the crash, or if the movie's intention was to show the triumph of the survivors rather than their pain.

One thing's for sure, though: this movie did not suffer for acting prowess. Matthew McConaughey is brilliant as Jack Lengyel, the enigmatic coach who reached out to the grieving community and pushed the institution and the NCAA to help Marshall play their next season. Kate Mara and Ian McShane play the fiancee and father (respectively) of the team's deceased quarterback, and both perform admirably in relatively minor and layer-less roles.

But the real star of this film is Matthew Fox. He expertly portrays a man torn between his grief over the loss of so many of his dearest friends and his devotion to the game and school where he worked and lived with all of them. Before the very end of the movie, I had We Are Marshall pegged for three stars on Netflix, but Fox's scene in the locker room after the game against Xavier was poignant, emotional, and perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I suggest you don't click here, as I'm sure it doesn't hold the same gravity without having seen the character's anguish. But I just couldn't write this post without linking to the video of it.

The Last Word - It was a good movie that wasn't quite as emotional as I'd hoped, but is brought up a level by Matthew Fox's tremendous performance.

2011 NBA Draft Predictions

Other people like ESPN's Chad Ford rely on insider information to determine which prospect will be drafted by each of the various NBA teams on Thursday night's NBA draft. I use what limited information I have about each player's pro potential, and what I perceive to be each team's needs. Remember 2009, when I inexplicably put DeJuan Blair ahead of Austin Daye? Well, Blair is a solid contributor on a good team, and Daye is a do-nothing forward on a crummy team. So maybe I'm not always wrong.

Anyways, here we go. A wide open draft lottery gets predicted by an amateur...right now:

1. The Cleveland Cavaliers select Kyrie Irving, guard from Duke University. The Cavs are feinting that they're still considering Derrick Williams at the #1 pick, but I don't buy it unless they work out a deal with the #4 pick. Irving and Williams are neck-and-neck in this draft, but Irving would be harder to replace with the talent I expect to be available at #4.
2. The Minnesota Timberwolves select Derrick Williams, forward from the University of Arizona. Even the Timberwolves can't mess this one up, right? Whoever doesn't go #1 is a no-brainer at the second pick, and while Minnesota has made some no-brain picks in the past (drafting Ricky Rubio, then drafting Jonny Flynn, then drafting and trading Ty Lawson), Williams is a lock for #2. It's possible they trade the pick, but Williams will go second, for sure.
3. The Utah Jazz select Brandon Knight, guard from the University of Kentucky. When you're consistently a good team, you don't have many opportunities at high draft picks. But they've made the most of their limited opportunities, grabbing superstar Deron Williams with their only top 5 pick since 1982. They're back at the top of the draft with a pick they acquired for Williams, and I think they'll use it on the most similar player to Williams in this draft. Knight is smart, agile, and motivated, and he's a great finisher at the rim. He might not be the next Deron Williams, but he also might be.
4. The Cleveland Cavaliers select Jonas Valanciunas, center from Lithuania. I went back and forth on this pick, and this is where the draft really shakes loose, so each of these picks has a huge impact on the next few. Valanciunas is apparently locked in for another year with his Lithuanian team, which people say is scaring teams off. Hogwash, I say. The Cavs are among several teams that love love love the big man, and I think, with two top picks in the draft, they know they've got a couple years before they can expect to compete. So pick the guy you want, and be patient. And send a coach over there to keep him on the right path, basketball and otherwise.
5. The Toronto Raptors select Enes Kanter, center from Turkey. I'd like to find a way to have Kanter drop to the Wizards at #6, but realistically he'll go at four or five, and I'll sigh. Anyways, Kanter is a banger with good hands, the kind of guy who can really improve his teammates. His presence, along with the hopeful development of Ed Davis, could allow Andrea Bargnani more freedom to possibly grow into a legitimate star. Good fit.
6. The Washington Wizards select Kawhi Leonard, forward from San Diego State University. As I said, I think the Wizards would love to have Kanter as a Robin to John Wall's Batman, and they should explore trading up to get him (especially if they can unload that nightmare Andray Blatche). But if things go as I project, I think Leonard is a nice piece. He's unrefined, and he's still growing into his body, but his intensity is the real deal, and it shows in his defense and rebounding. It does mean the team is still on the lookout for a Robin, though.
7. The Sacramento Kings select Jan Vesely, forward from the Czech Republic. The Kings have a sort of patchwork team right now, one without much of an identity. They've got some interesting pieces, particularly Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins. Vesely should slide in easily, even though he's still unrefined. He can play either forward slot, and has a lot he can do from mid-range offensively. The Heat's big three they ain't, but Evans, Cousins, and Vesely could definitely guide the Kings back into the playoff hunt.
8. The Detroit Pistons select Bismack Biyombo, forward from the Congo. Detroit allowed the highest field goal percentage in basketball last year, which is simply unacceptable from the way this franchise has won titles in the past. Biyombo is one of the mysteries of this year's draft, but the physical tools are there to be a defensive force immediately, and a defensive superstar soon enough. There's risk, sure, but there's reward as well.
9. The Charlotte Bobcats select Kemba Walker, guard from the University of Connecticut. Charlotte is paltry up front, but two things prompt them taking Walker in my estimation. First, he's the best player on the board by a good margin. Second, the word is that Charlotte would like to get someone who can contribute right away, which jives with my assessment of Michael Jordan's preferences. Which are wholly speculative, of course, but as good a guess as anybody's.
   
10. The Milwaukee Bucks select Alec Burks, guard from the University of Colorado. Apparently the Bucks cooled on Brandon Jennings pretty quickly, as he's now been the subject of trade rumors. I think Burks is a good fit for the team either way. He's a slasher guard who can make his own shot. There are concerns about his ability to hit jumpers, but some good old-fashioned practice should take care of that.
    
11. The Golden State Warriors select Klay Thompson, guard from Washington State University. Golden State's top two scorers from last season were Stephen Curry and Monta Ellis, their starting backcourt. So why would they draft another two guard? Well first, Thompson would be a nice complement to either Curry or Ellis, making both expendable if needed. The Warriors could really use a center, but they're better off trying to get one via trade at this draft position.
12. The Utah Jazz select Jimmer Fredette, guard from Brigham Young University. Honestly, when I started putting this together, I thought the Knight pick at #3 would preclude Fredette going to Utah here. But the reality is that Utah's most glaring need is scoring punch, and if Fredette has shown one thing, it's a knack for putting the ball in the bucket. Utah's best move might be to simply go with a small lineup and try to play Suns-style basketball, running and gunning. Could be fun to watch.
    
13. The Phoenix Suns select Tristan Thompson, forward from the University of Texas. Kind of a coup for the Suns to land Thompson, who's more like a top 10 talent in this year's draft. He's a do-everything forward, but in a good Jeff Green way, not a bad Joe Alexander way. He might not project to be a superstar, but I'd be pretty shocked if he wasn't still an effective NBA player in ten years. His character and ability should make him a lifer.
14. The Houston Rockets select Nikola Vucevic, center from the University of Southern California. The Rockets are a mess. They have needs basically across the board, and since there's no lightning in a bottle at this point in the draft, I think they'll go with the most projectable guy out there. Vucevic played three years of college ball, improving each year, and becoming a very good scorer and rebounder by his junior season. He's not Dirk, but he's got a good shooting touch and can help any team. It's a start.

The Wizards pick again at 18, which will probably be the last pick I watch live. The draft is basically a crapshoot after #9 (and Valanciunas could fall back into that area as well), but one guy I'd like to see Washington take with their second pick would be Jeremy Tyler. He's got size, athleticism, and skill, but is utterly lacking in maturity. My dream scenario would have the Wizards acquiring Shane Battier, and letting Battier groom Tyler. But that's probably just that: a dream.

Good luck to all the teams in the lottery, and here's hoping that the Wizards are a winner on draft night. And also that there are lots of trades. Big ones.

2011 NBA Draft Preview

I've always held a place in my heart for the NBA draft. Part of it is the hope that comes with adding the very best newly eligible players. Part of it is the fact that NBA draftees are often the most impactful of any of the sports. And part of it, I'm sure, is the fact that the Bullets/Wizards have had lottery picks more often than not over the past twenty years. They're really quite bad.

This year, however, I'm even more interested than usual. Here are a couple thoughts as to why:

• The Cavaliers' rebuilding. One year removed from losing Lebron James to free agency, the Cavs ended up with the #1 and #4 picks in this year's draft. They have a chance to acquire two potential all-stars in a single night, and that's exciting no matter what team it is.
• The Wizards have the #6 pick. It's early enough that you've got a shot at this draft's top tier talent, but not so early that you're out of the mix right away. Having to watch those first five picks go will be good drama for all thirty-six Wizards fans who watch the draft.
• College players at the top. While Enes Kanter and Jan Vesely will go early, the projected top three picks are all players out of college. I may not have watched much college hoops last year, but these are at least a few names I recognize.
• Trade buzz! There are always plenty of rumors leading up to the NBA draft, but it seems like the buzz is deafening this year. With so many of the early picks seemingly up for trade (the Timberwolves at 2, the Jazz at 3, the Cavaliers at 4, and the Wizards at 6), we're all hopeful for a flurry of activity on draft night. Usually that hope gets dashed by about pick 16, but hey, dare to dream, right?
• It's not the NFL draft. The NFL draft this year was just terrible. I'm interested to see if the NBA draft, which I've loved since I was in middle school, is its own machine, or if they suffer from the same shortcomings.

Look for my lottery mockery later today or tomorrow.

Movie Reviewed - Run Ronnie Run!

I'm generally a fan of David Cross. He's got a lot of unique comedic ideas, he does a good job on just about every character he plays, and his stand up is intelligent and scathing. In high school, a friend exposed me to Mr. Show (I didn't have HBO), and while a lot of the jokes were a little over my head, I enjoyed the show a lot.

Run Ronnie Run isn't Mr. Show. It definitely has a hint of Mr. Show, a sniff, but not the full flavor. Part of that is to be expected; movies inevitably have to take on a more focused and conventional story arc. Beyond that, though, it seems to just not have the same irreverent tone that defined Mr. Show. Apparently Cross and Bob Odenkirk disavowed the movie, saying that it wasn't true to their vision, and I believe it. But since I'm just a consumer, I'll try to give you an objective take on the film.

The basic plotline has Cross's character, Ronnie Dobbs, getting rich and famous for constantly getting drunk and leading police on wild goose chases. It's basically how Cops would be if the criminal was the same guy every week. It's a solid premise; I know this because the Mr. Show skit on which this movie was based was one of their most popular ones, and one of my favorites.

And for all of the downplaying and naysaying done by Cross and Odenkirk, the execution isn't bad. It draws on a lot of our stereotypes about country folk, rednecks if you will. There will be plenty of parts where you feel bad for laughing, but you will laugh. And there are several cameos that hit just right. Jeff Goldblum is fantastic, Laura Kightlinger and Jeff Garlin are very good, Scott Thompson is Scott Thompson, and maybe my favorite, Mandy Patinkin brutally critiques his own singing.

In the end, though, it plays more like a collection of kinda funny but jagged scenes rather than a well-constructed full length film. This can work if the laughs are tremendous, but the laughs are just so-so. That means you're left with what basically amounts to an 86 minute episode of Mad TV. And let me tell you, Mad TV isn't something you want to sink 86 minutes into.

The Last Word - It's got its share of chuckles, and a few laugh out loud moments, but overall, it's not really worth the time you have to put into it unless you're a die-hard Mr. Show fan.

Movie Reviewed - Super 8

Last Friday I ended up going to see Super 8 with a pretty big group of friends. I knew nothing going in, but as an example of their expectations, I asked a friend what it was about, and his response: "It's about awesome." So it's fair to say they expected a great, great movie. I had no such wild expectations, and that may be why I was the only one in the group who didn't leave the theater disappointed.

The movie was preceded by with considerable fanfare, but minimal explanation in the previews and trailers, which might be why I knew nothing going in. Because of this, however, the movie had to do a better job than most establishing its story early on, and it really didn't. While the story was interesting and very realistic, it took a while to figure out what direction the movie was going.

The other confused part of the movie was that it seemed to be unsure whether it wanted to be a thriller movie about aliens or a heart-warming movie about high schoolers. It did a decent job of both, but an exceptional job of neither. Honestly, I would've liked to have seen the movie split into two different movies with more focused styles. While neither would've been an all-time great movie, they would've both been enjoyable, and maybe more enjoyable than this original film.

But I'm being harder on the movie than my heart will let me. It may have been a little messy, but the two lead young actors in Super 8 (Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning) both did fantastic jobs, save for one scene towards the end of the movie where Courtney looked too much like a young actor, and not an actor who happened to be young. The supporting cast was solid and believable. And the effects were good, of course. J.J. Abrams isn't going to put forth anything but the best effects.

So even though my cohorts were disappointed, I found Super 8 to be an entertaining foray into science fiction. My initial thoughts after seeing the movie, and what's apparently been a common thought among moviegoers, is that the movie was an attempt to fuse E.T. with Cloverfield to create an exciting, thrilling, emotionally satisfying, all-time great movie for the whole family. And maybe that movie exists. But it's not Super 8.

The Last Word - It was a bold idea, and to make a legendary movie you have to be bold. The execution wasn't there, and while I thought it was entertaining, I don't know if I'd recommend spending $12/person to go see it.

Game Reviews, A New Book

I started playing Demon's Souls last night. Despite my brother's warnings, it was actually even more frustrating than I had expected. I must have died 25 times on the very first level. But when I finally beat the first boss, there was definitely a strong sense of accomplishment, which I assume is what they were going for.

I wanted to explain something here, though. I won't be reviewing video games as I "finish" them. Part of the reason is that it's difficult to say when you "finish" a lot of games. I beat Dead Rising 2 a while ago, but I still play it, and not even to get to things I haven't done. I've done pretty much everything there is to do; I just still like killing zombies. So declaring a game to be "completed" is kind of a vague thing.

The other, more important reason is that I'd prefer to leave the reviews for my annual Top 5 Video Games of the Year list. I expect that I'll do annual Top 5 lists for movies and books as well, but I'm okay with reviewing them as they come. BUT, incorporating the Top 5 lists is the main reason I pulled my ratings from the reviews I've already done. I want a little drama in the Top 5's.

Finally, I finished Twilight the other day, so I need a new book to read. I have a few to choose from, but I'm going to let you, the fans, decide. So I've posted a poll that will let you cast your vote for my next book. Shadow's Edge is the sequel to The Way of Shadows, which I reviewed here. Pawn of Prophecy is the first book in a five book epic fantasy series, which comes highly recommended. And New Moon I'm sure you're all familiar with as the second book in the Twilight series.

Choose wisely.

Book Reviewed - The Hunger Games

My first exposure to The Hunger Games was on my trip to Disney World this January, though I didn't realize it for months. My sister-in-law was reading the third book in the series (and reacting strongly, nearly shouting at it). I thought it was funny, but didn't think much of it. Historically, there hasn't been much overlap between the books I read and the books that girls read.

Then another friend strongly recommended the series, and my sister-in-law let me know that it was the same series that she had read at Disney World, so I decided to give it a shot. And let me tell you, I was utterly blown away.

Right from the beginning, Suzanne Collins did an amazing job of quickly and effectively painting the desperation of the world of the main character, Katniss Everdeen. If you're unfamiliar with the plot, she finds herself drafted into a horrible contest: The Hunger Games, a fight to the death among several children selected at random from across the country. The story follows her journey from being thrust into the contest, to meeting her competitors and allies, and through the immeasurable tension and panic of the fighting in the arena.

Though the book was recommended to me by a pair of girls (cootie condition unknown), the story doesn't strike me as girly at all. The main character is a strong female, but the story is tragic, violent, and unromantic.

The supporting characters are perfectly framed to their purposes in the book. Allies are sympathetic and supportive in their own various ways, while rivals are competitive and aggressive. Maybe the most impressive accomplishment of this author, though, is that despite their sometimes brief introductions, and the fact that most of them come up in the context of the Hunger Games competition, every competitor in the Hunger Games is decidedly human. While they're strikingly villainous, they're always presented in such a way that you could potentially see a decent person driven to their various acts of barbarism, through the madness and brutality of the competition.

I can't really say enough about how much I loved this book. I would recommend it to literally everybody. One potential stumbling block is that I know that violence among youths is something that some readers will have trouble getting past. The only thing I'll say is that it has to be that way. If the contest were between adults, it wouldn't be as tragic and as barbaric, and the story wouldn't be so completely engrossing. I suppose I'd understand if someone wasn't comfortable with the concept, but I'd still recommend the book.

The Last Word - Incredible. The best book I've read in a long time.