Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 8 "Made to Suffer"

 

Looking back on the first half of season three of Walking Dead, it's hard not to be impressed.  The first round of episodes comes to a close with "Made to Suffer", the latest in a string of very solid outings from Walking Dead.  Looking back on these first eight episodes, there were only a couple of  in the middle of the season that failed to impress.  Everything else has been very strong, and if the trend continues, we could be looking at the first season of Walking Dead in which the number of good, exciting episodes substantially outweighs the bad or boring ones.

Walking Dead has long been a show whose popularity and cultural footprint eclipses the actual quality of the show.  It's been like the Friends of genre television.  As critically acclaimed and beloved as a show like Mad Men has been, a poorly-rated episode of Walking Dead averages three to four times as many viewers as the adventures of Don Draper. Walking Dead has benefited from a few factors in amassing it's incredibly success.  First is the built-in audience that has carried over from the highly-regarded graphic novel.  Second is that the pilot episode was one of the best ever for a television show of this sort, and the creators have been quite adept at sprinkling in quality episodes each season to keep people hooked since Days Gone Bye.  Third is that everyone is in love with post-apocalyptic fiction, and particularly the concept of a zombie-related apocalypse (the so-called "zombie boom").

For all those reasons, Walking Dead has largely been a show that is better in concept than in execution.  Sure, for zombie-philes, the zombie action and effects have always been top-notch, but the characters, story, and dialogue have often been hit-or-miss to say the least.  But credit must be given where credit is due, and the makers of this show are obviously interested in listening to what the fans want.  Everyone complained about the farm from season two, and the characters soon abandoned it, literally blowing it all to hell in the process.  Next, whiny, extraneous characters no one liked were either killed off (Lori) or underwent a character transformation (Carl).  In addition, Walking Dead on the whole has featured more action, more direction, and less forced philosophizing in season three. All welcomes changes.  

The evolution of the show in a positive direction is once again on display in "Made to Suffer".  Most of the episode consists of a tense and well-directed shootout in Woodbury.  Numerous characters encounter situations that encourage or demonstrate growth (Carl, the Dixon brothers).  And of course, we end on a fantastic cliffhanger that will likely remain in the back of our minds until the show returns in February (!).  Also, The Governor finally loses that eye (in a battle with Michonne that is about as cringe-worthy as anything this show has produced thus far).

Tyreese, a beloved character from the graphic novel, also makes his first appearance.  Such a vital figure in the comic, it was always a little strange that he hasn't been incorporated into the series yet, and while I'm glad to see him make his debut, the timing couldn't have been much worse.  When the character of Oscar became a regular member of Rick's crew in the same episode that T-Dog bit the dust, I joked that Walking Dead could only handle one significant male black cast member at a time, and, as if laughing in the face of my accusations, the creators of the showed opted once again to kill off Oscar in the exact same episode that Tyreese makes his debut. 

I'd like to think that that was all simply coincidence, but it is a somewhat disturbing trend I hope will be rectified by the showrunners of Walking Dead in the future.  It is great, though, to once again see Chad Coleman (formerly of The Wire) back on the small screen in a major role as Tyreese.  It will be a little difficult for me not to see him as Dennis "Cutty" Wise, but I hope that Tyreese/Cutty can teach Carl a few things in the boxing ring.  So with that I reluctantly bid a temporary farewell to Walkimg Dead.  The show has managed to win me over completely this season in spite of myself, and I've likely never found the wait between episodes of The Walking Dead so unbearable as I will the wait until "The Suicide King" in February.

For Pop, Restgate about players, not politics

 

On November 29, 2012, the controversy that has come to be known as “Restgate” was born when Coach Gregg Popovich of the San Antonio Spurs chose not to play four of his starters (Tim Duncan, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, an Danny Green) in a nationally televised game against the defending champion Miami Heat.  Popovich elected to rest those players, whose average is 32 years old, because the Spurs were at the time slogging through one of the roughest stretches of schedule they will face this season (the Heat game was the last of a six game road trip, and fourth game in five nights for the Spurs).  The logic being that if he rests those aging star players now, they will be fresher for the stretch runs of the regular season and the playoffs.  This is not the first time Popovich has employed this strategy.  In fact, he has become notorious for it. 

Late last season, with his team trying to hold off the Oklahoma City Thunder in a battle for the top seed in the Western Conference, Coach Popovich left his big three of Parker, Duncan, and Ginobili out of a game against Utah.  In the final game of the regular season last year against Golden State, not only where the aforementioned big three nowhere to be found, but Popovich didn’t bother showing up either.  There are countless other examples through the years of this strategy being employed by the Spurs (and other teams, as well). 

And the league has never punished anyone for these “transgressions”.  In fact, just last season NBA deputy commissioner (and eventual successor to current commissioner Davis Stern) Adam Silver commented, "The strategic resting of particular players on particular nights is within the discretion of the teams…and Gregg Popovich in particular is probably the last coach that I would second-guess."  Nonetheless, an apparently enraged David Stern, after referring to the November incident as “unacceptable” and a “disservice to the league and the fans”, threatened the Spurs with “substantial sanctions”, which ended up being a $250,000 fine. 

Nearly a month removed from “Restgate”, a lot has been written about what happened from nearly every angle.  Everyone seems to have an opinion about who was “right” or who was “wrong”.  Some people think that David Stern is power-hungry or vindictive, and overreached his bounds in fining the Spurs.  Others say that the NBA is a business, and Popovich was rightfully fined for potentially costing the league money.  Certainly, a substantial case can be made for both sides.  I personally think that neither individual was truly “wrong” in this debacle.  Both were simply acting in the best interests of the organization that they represent (the San Antonio Spurs for Popovich, and the NBA for David Stern).

The real injustice of Restgate in my opinion, though, is the way it was portrayed in the media.  To hear many tell it, the entire affair was little more than a Popvich-Stern pissing contest played out on a national scale.  In his well-circulated (and very interesting) article for Yahoo about the subject, Adrian Wojnarowski depicts Restgate as the culmination of a long-running cold war raging between Stern and Popvovich; one that has been escalated over the years by numerous perceived slights on the part of both sides.  Howard Beck takes a similar slant in his piece for the New York Times: he describes Restgate as a “clash of strong-willed men with stubborn priorities” and, on the part of Popovich, a “challenge to Stern…more than a decade in the making”.   

This depiction of Restgate as the clever disguising of a one-on-one battle  between Stern and Popovich is taken even further by Scoop Jackson writing for ESPN.  He describes the situation like this:  “Popovich vs. Stern. More epic than Pacquiao vs. Marquez 4, more compelling than Susan Rice vs. Lindsey Graham. Two of the most powerful men in their respective arenas in the NBA battling to see who has the right to exercise power without pushback or question. One protecting his team, the other protecting the League. A battle to see who has the most juice.”

Maybe all those writers are right.  Maybe the entirety of Restgate amounts to little more than a highly intentional slap to the face of David Stern by Gregg Popovich.  But the quotes Popovich has made in the media paint a different story: the story of a coach whose only interest was protecting his players.  What exactly has Coach Pop had to say about all this controversy?  Only quotes like this: “It has nothing to do with the Miami Heat or TV, or anything…you deal with the schedule as best you can and do the wisest thing for your particular team.”  And this: “My priority is — the basketball team and what’s best for it.” 

Sure, maybe those comments are just lip service. Coach Pop telling the media what he knows they want to hear while inwardly flipping off the Commissioner with a sneer.  But I don’t think that’s the case.  Popovich is a US Air Force Veteran, and two-time NBA Coach of the Year.  He’s renowned around the league as a low-maintenance, hard-working, and honest coach.  To give you an example of the type of guy we’re talking about: when the Heat pulled off their free agent coup of 2010, signing LeBron James and Chris Bosh, Gregg Popovich was the only head coach who personally contacted Pat Riley to congratulate.  The rest of the head coaches and GMs in the league were apparently too busy fuming. 

In other words, Popovich isn’t the type to get carried away by petty grudges. The worst thing about the media handling of Restgate is that he has been portrayed as exactly that type of person. The focus shouldn’t be entirely on the Pop-Stern War and Popovich “getting one over” on the Commissioner. How about the special relationship that Popovich has with his players, and how selfless decisions like the one he made on November 29th have contributed to that? Gary Neal said it best himself after that Heat game: “Coach Pop is the coach of the San Antonio Spurs, and he did what’s best for us.”

Popovich’s resume certainly bears out that confidence.  Not many other coaches could have convinced a player as talented as future hall of famer Manu Ginobili to spend their prime years coming off the bench.  A perennial malcontent like Stephen Jackson whined himself out of Golden State, Charlotte and Milwaukee, but has had nothing but glowing praise for his coach since landing in San Antonio.  Even typically overweight and unmotivated Boris Diaw has thrived under Popovich. 

The success of the Spurs is no secret.  Four championships, and many more finals and conference finals appearances tell the tale.  But the statistic most relevant to this story is this one: sixteen years.  That’s how long Gregg Popovich has been in charge of the Spurs, and that makes him the longest tenured head coach not just in the NBA, but across all major North American sports leagues.  You don’t get to sixteen years without the respect and admiration of your players.  Decisions like the one Popovich made that led to Restgate are a big part of that.  To imply that his motivation in making that decision was simply to piss off the commissioner of the NBA is asinine.  Whatever else Popovich  may have had in mind, his primary motivation was the same one it has always been: he was looking out for his team.  And the goodwill he earned from that action will prove just as instrumental in the future success of the Spurs as any rest his star players may have gotten that night. 

Movie Review - Skyfall

 Skyfall (2012)

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Javier Bardem, Ralph Fiennes

I have an unapologetic man crush on Daniel Craig.  Who can blame me?  The man is handsome, well-spoken, in great shape, and fashionable as hell.  I was never really a huge fan of the Bond movies prior to Casino Royale, but since Craig took over the role I have become a bit of a Bond freak.  No disrespect to Sean Connery, but to me Craig is Bond.  The swagger, cool demeanor, and raw physicality he brings to the role is what makes his portrayal of Bond so special in my opinion. 

Just the fact that this is another Daniel Craig Bond film was enough to get me incredibly excited for Skyfall.  Not even the relative disappointment of Quantum of Solace could dull my anticipation.  In fact, with highly accomplished director Sam Mendes (and heavyweight actors like Javier Bardem and Ralph Fiennes) involved, and the overwhelmingly positive buzz surrounding the movie, I went into the theater with ridiculously high expectations.  Probably the greatest compliment I can give Skyfall is that I was not disappointed.  

But don't take that previous statement to mean that this review will be a love letter to the latest Bond flick.  I've heard a number of people claim that this is greatest Bond movie ever.  I'm no Bond aficionado, but those people are crazy in my opinion.  This isn't even the best Daniel Craig bond movie.  For a while, though, I thought it could be both.  The beginning of Skyfall is pretty much perfect.  The opening sequence, with a (very Bourne-esque) motorbike chase, and an extended fight scene on the roof of a train that reminded me just how much of an ass-kicker Craig's Bond is, was phenomenal.  That is immediately followed up by one of the best opening credits sequence in Bond history, accompanied by the incredible Adele theme song.  

But things go somewhat downhill from there.  Daniel Craig grows a really bad beard, and develops a dependency on alcohol and pills.  Oh, and his shoulder hurts.  Of course, this all fits into the theme of the movie.  You see, this is a very different Bond film because it's the most personal one ever.  For the first time, we see a Bond grappling with his position in the world, and the question of whether he is still fit to do his job, or whether his job is even necessary anymore.  As part of that, the story delves more into the personal history of the character than ever, and we see Bond at his weakest (mentally and physically).  The decision to make that sort of Bond movie is a brave one, and the movie is very effective in that regard.  If you like the concept of a Bond movie as a character study, then you will love Skyfall much more than I did.  

For me, thought, I could have done with a little more of the traditional Bond elements in this movie.  Of course, as with previous Craig-era Bond films, there are no gadgets for the most part.  But much more bothersome than that is the fact that the the scale just seems so small compared to previous films.  The movie starts off in Turkey, and visits China and Macau (both stunning sequences), but, once again, because this is such a personal battle for Bond, a lot of the action takes place in (and underneath) boring old England, and the (actually very good) climactic final showdown actually occurs on a quiet farm in Scotland.

Once again, this is all very brave decision making and effective for what it is, but I couldn't help yearning for the days of globe-hopping, world-saving James Bond.  One of the reasons for this lack of scope is the villain, played by Bardem.  The Spanish actor is predictably brilliant in the role, but the character just left me a little cold.  He was clearly very smart, but never seemed to have an ingenious scheme beyond killing a little old lady with whom he had a pretty bizarre, almost Oedipal fascination.  That does allow M a nice send-off, but all the M-centricity made me wonder exactly who went to see Skyfall for Judi Dench?

Those were my issues with film, but there is a lot of great stuff in Skyfall.  The movie is visually stunning, particularly some of the scenes that take place in China.  And Craig is, of course, perfect.  His fashion is impeccable, and his aura of charm and menace is, as always, irresistible.  The signature Aston Martin is used once again to incredible effect.  For a Bond film that is unconventional in many ways, Skyfall actually introduces a lot of the typical Bond elements to the Craig-verse that had previously been missing: namely the characters of Q and Moneypenny, both of whom were well cast.  The idea of Q as a somewhat snarky, young 21st century tech whiz is perhaps not the most inspired, but it definitely works.  And the chemistry between Craig and Naomie Harris (Moneypenny) is very natural and convincing.  I also have a feeling that Fiennes will fit right in as the new M.

Interestingly enough, Skyfall may be the best movie featuring Bond ever, but I'm not sure it's the best Bond movie, if that makes any sense.  As a study of what might be the result of a man like Bond doing what he does for a living (clearly very Nolan-verse Batman inspired), and the necessity (or lack thereof) of a seemingly antiquated concept like the Cold War spy in modern times, Skyfall is undeniably successful.  But with a Bond movie, there also comes certain expectations.

I hate to appear as the lowest common denominator, but the next Bond movie could do with a few more large-scale action pieces (and yes, explosions, although there are some impressive ones here), not to mention a few more plots for global domination and mustache-twirling from the villain.  I do look forward to seeing where the next director to have a shot at Bond will take this series: will that director continue the narrative of a beat-down, slightly more world-weary and potentially over the hill Bond? Or will Craig be back to Superman in the next movie? Probably a balance somewhere between this movie and the comic book existence of the Brosnan movies, for example, would be best.

Verdict: 7/10

Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 7 "When the Dead Come Knocking"

 

As the first half of the third season of Walking Dead draws to a close, the show is in a good place.  "When the Dead Come Knocking" continues the great momentum established by the previous episode "Hounded" and ratchets up the intensity.  This was an episode that was extremely tense, and provided a very palpable of unease that any show of this nature should try to cultivate.

Some of the most intense sequences involved Milton and Andrea (a rare worthwhile scene involving either of those two), and the journey of Rick and his crew through the walker-infested woods.  Unfortunately, the resolution of that last sequence was a little disappointing.  Michonne stabbing the hermit served a purpose (it showed Rick and company a little about the nature of her character), but the idea that a seemingly deranged man could survive for so long locked up alone in his cabin with a dead dog and surrounded by walkers was more than a little far-fetched.  That part was a little too "deus ex machina" for me, but it was nonetheless overall an effective and scary sequence.

Obviously, though, the most tense and scary parts of this episode were the Merle torture scenes involving Glenn.  The character of Glenn has been an under-used one throughout this series (and he isn't alone), but it was great to see him front and center for this episode.  And Steven Yuen does a good job in what was no doubt a challenging performance.  Seeing Glenn's face so beat up was striking, but I can't help but wonder why Walking Dead didn't show more of the actual punishment that Merle inflicted on him.  I'm not asking for Hostel level torture porn, but I was a little surprised that, given how little this show has shied away from displaying violence or gore, things didn't get a little more graphic. 

Speaking of graphic, I had a little issue with the scenes between The Governor and Maggie in this episode.  It seems that since I praised the character of The Governor so much in his first appearance, I've only criticized him since, and unfortunately that trend has to continue this week.  When it comes down to it, I want The Governor to be more nasty, or at least show more of that side of himself.  One of things that Robert Kirkman has always said is that The Governor represents what the character of Rick could have become had he made different choices. Well, so far in the television version of Walking Dead, I don't see much distinction between The Governor and Rick at all; they both are simply making very tough decisions in the name of doing what they see as right.  The Governor hasn't really done anything more evil than Rick has at this point.  

Maybe that is intentional and the television show wants to go a more subtle route in it's portrayal of The Governor.  I don't have a problem with that, but I do prefer my villains a little more villain-y.  At this point, Merle is a more convincing and threatening villain than The Governor, which is no good if The Governor is expected to be the Big Bad.  The scene with Maggie was a perfect illustration of my point: when The Governor orders her to take off her shirt, it was an incredibly frightening moment.  I thought we might finally get a glimpse of a more sadistic Governor.  In the end though, he just came off as a bit of a creeper.  If Maggie had actually undergone some sort of more physical trauma in that scene, it would have established The Governor as a true villain, while giving the character of Maggie (one of the most boring on this show, and that's saying something) something to do.  Instead, it all just seemed like a pretty ham fisted attempt to get Lauren Cohan topless.

Overall though, the good in this episode certainly outweighed the bad.  Even the sentimental moments were solid (the reunion between Maggie and Glenn, and everyone and Carol).  In addition, this episode ends with the promise that the first half of season three will not end with a whimper.  Things could be headed for full-scale war.  And several characters on the show (Darryl and Andrea chief among them) will have some very serious decisions to make in the near future about where their allegiances lie.  That should make for great television.

Movie Review - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Director: Peter Jackson

Starring: Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage

The time has come for Hobbit to take it's rightful place in the ranks of my personal all-time movie disappointments.  I've thought for a long time that things would end this way, but the optimist in me never could give up hope until I saw the movie with my very own eyes (regardless of how many negative reviews I read and heard).  Now that I've seen it, though, Hobbit instantly becomes one of the major entries on that list of disappointments.

First place on that list will forever belong Star Wars: Episode I.  In 1999, I was a 13 year old who had seen all the Star Wars movies and heard endlessly from people older than me about the incredible influence the original trilogy had had on their lives.  With Episode I through III, I envisioned that my generation could have finally a  Star Wars to call our own.  Of course, we all know how that turned out.  Episode II and Episode III aren't bad movies in my opinion, but Episode I certainly is, and none of them are good enough to carry the Star Wars name.

Ironically, the same year Episode I came out to my great disappointment, a little movie called The Matrix utterly floored me.  At the time, being a less cynical youth, I never dreamed that there would be a sequel to The Matrix.  So when they announced that there would be two sequels, a trilogy, I could barely contain my excitement.  Could The Matrix actually be Star Wars for my generation?  I was hopeful.  Then I saw The Matrix Reloaded.  And I suffered the second biggest movie-related disappointment of my life.  In hindsight, Reloaded isn't as bad as I, and many others, thought it was at the time (although some of the effects look much worse now), but the third movie, Matrix Revolutions, was awful, and the entire ordeal only served to harm the legacy of the first Matrix movie, which I actually think has become underrated in the intervening years.

But all that was fine, because I did eventually get my generation's Star Wars, in the form of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.  It helped that the timing was perfect.  The movies came out annually from 2001-2003, coinciding with my first three years of high school.  I was becoming a young adult at the time, finding myself, making new friends, and becoming enamored with movies.  And Lord of the Rings was everything I could have wanted: epic, whimsical, fantastic.  Those qualities, coupled with incredible effects, acting, and music, made those movies instant classics.

The idea of a movie version of The Hobbit has been floating around a long time, and it made perfect sense given the success of the first three movies.  If you had told me in 2003 that Peter Jackson was making a Hobbit movie, I would have forked over the admission free right then and there.  But in the years between Return of the King and Hobbit, my enthusiasm for the project lessened.  Peter Jackson was either doing nothing or making forgettable movies like King Kong and Lovely Bones.  I begin to think maybe he was a one-hit wonder, and questioned whether he was the right guy for Hobbit.  So when Guillermo del Toro was floated as a name to potentially take the reigns as director, I got excited.  I thought a new director with a different vision might be a good idea for Hobbit.

Unfortunately, that fell through.  And Jackson was back in the saddle.  Still, I convinced myself, it might be good.  Jackson did seem to have a special connection with the LOTR universe, and that might mean he could recapture the magic of the original movies.  Then it was announced that The Hobbit would be split into three movies.  One book?  Into three movies? That was when I lost all hope.  That was when I realized the studio was more concerned with their pocket book, and Jackson with his ego, then making a decent movie.

And the result is The Hobbit.  I can honestly say today that I feel a fraction of the anguish that fans of the original Star Wars felt when they saw Episode I for the first time.  Watching this pale imitation of something so beloved to me lurch across the screen for three hours was truly painful.  In fact, the only thing this movie succeed in doing was to make me want to watch Lord of the Rings.  I have a laundry list of complaints a mile long about The Hobbit, but first I will give credit where credit is due: the special effects are still amazing (I did not see the 48 fps version, which apparently suffered in that area), and Martin Freeman is very good as Bilbo.  OK, I think that does it for the positive stuff.

Now on to all the things I hated.  As other reviews of Hobbit have helpfully pointed out, most of the problems of this movie stem from it being over-long.  The decision to stretch The Hobbit (which has a much less dense story than any of the three Lord of the Rings books) into three movies is a curious one; the decision to make each of those movies three hours long is just an asinine one.  There are too many scenes where nothing is happening that drag on forever, too many "huh? what?"-inspiring interludes that contribute nothing (hello rock giants)!  Additionally, Hobbit is undoubtedly one of the most repetitive movies in recent memory.  There should be a drinking time for every time the characters are running from a threat, with a wide shot showing their progress.  And every time the characters are in trouble only for salvation to come from an unlikely source (complete with epic music, of course).

The movie is at it's embarrassing worst when it tries to ape the original Lord of the Rings movies, and it suffers from a serious identity crisis throughout.  The Hobbit book is far more whimsical and lighthearted than Lord of the Rings, but Jackson tries too often to  shoehorn in some of the epic, dark grandiose of those movies, and it just doesn't work.  And how about the utterly forgettable characters?  As I mentioned before, Freeman is good, but remember Lord of the Rings?  Those movies launched the careers of Viggo Mortensen and Orlando Bloom, and featured countless other memorable characters who shared a number of now classic, unforgettable scenes.  I can't even name one dwarf in this movie.  And Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Elijah Wood, they are all just kind of there.  Everyone is going through the motions.  This movie doesn't 1/10 the heart of the original movies.

Perhaps the greatest insult I can give to The Hobbit is that I'm pretty sure I won't see the next movie in the theaters.  In fact, the thought of a sequel coming out next year, and then another the year after that, is just depressing.  The first movie was the decapitation, and the second and third movies will be the inevitable parading of the disembodied head around town square.  Watching The Hobbit for me was akin to watching a three hour funeral.  Just knowing that Peter Jackson and New Line Cinema are raiding my childhood is good enough. I don't need to sit back and watch them do it, too.

Verdict: 5/10

Reggie Evans article for The Good Point

http://thegoodpoint.com/2012/12/reggie-evans-flopping/

Movie Review - Elf

  Elf (2003)

Director: Jon Favreau

Starring: Will Ferrell, Bob Newhart, Ed Asner

Watching Elf, one thing struck me: the whole "Will Ferrell being Will Ferrell" shtick, while still funny, isn't nearly as fresh or as charming in 2012 as it was in 2003.  I guess it shouldn't be surprising that watching Will Ferrell play in traffic or eat used gum was funner nine years ago; after all, Elf came out well before the collective Will Ferrell fatigue we all suffered as a result of the deluge of like-minded movies starring the comedian that hit from 2004 to 2008.  In a way, Will Ferrell is the 21st century Adam Sandler: an SNL alum with a very specific, largely family-friendly brand of comedy that made him an enormous star over a relatively short period of time. I think that Ferrell is funnier than Sandler (not saying much), but the comparison is interesting.  Where the career of Ferrell has differed from Sandler has been his willingness to branch out and take on more diverse roles (something Sandler admittedly did with Punch Drunk Love, but that was much later in his career).  Bewitched, Stranger than Fiction, and Eastbound & Down were all attempts by Ferrell to take on roles distinguishing himself from those that made him famous in movies like Anchorman, Talladega Nights, and Step Brothers. 

But Elf was released in 2003, and at that point Ferrell was a rising star whose biggest movie was still Old School. Anchorman was a year away.  But Ferrell was coming off a lengthy run as the consensus funniest and most respected cast member on Saturday Night Live: the Kristen Wiig of his era.  I don't know how many would have predicted it at the time, but Elf was an enormous hit.  In fact, I was shocked to learn how big of a hit this movie actually was.  Filmed on a budget of $33 million, Elf earned $220 million.  Surprisingly, that makes it the second highest grossing Will Ferrell movie ever after Wedding Crashers.  Perhaps the most surprising part about that success is that there hasn't been a sequel.  According to IMDb, it hasn't happened because Ferrell turned it down, but I doubt we are out of the woods on that one yet.

Of course a sequel wouldn't be the wost thing where Elf is concerned; the movie is just as charming as I remembered, especially when you're conveniently watching it around this time of year.  Ferrell is of course the ultimate buffoon, and he is masterful at conveying the child-like wonder and naivete of Buddy.  A lot of other actors in this role would just come off as a jerk, or as pandering: Ferrell plays it just right, and he's charming as hell.  Zooey Deschanel is predictably cute as a button, and James Caan has some really hilarious moments as the grumpy Dad (I like to imagine that Sonny actually survived in Godfather, moved to New York, and thirty years later  experienced the events of this movie; of course that's how I imagine every James Caan role).  There are also tons of cameos from various comedy icons and notables celebrities, and none of them, not even Ed Asner and Bob Newhart, seem like they're slumming it.  Amy Sedaris also has a minor role, and Andy Richter and Kyle Gass are absolutely hilarious in their brief appearances.  Peter Dinklage also pops up in Elf, and my suspicions were confirmed: I will never see him in a movie again without thinking of Tyrion Lannister from Game of Thrones.

Elf has become somewhat of a modern holiday classic, and deservedly so.  It contains just the right amount of sentiment without becoming sappy, it stars genuinely funny people who are funny in it, and it never aspires to be anything more than it is.  Also, perhaps most importantly of all, Will Ferrell has enough charisma to keep it all chugging along smoothly. What more can you ask for?  Director Jon Favreau deserves a lot of credit for all this too: he's actually one of the more underrated directors in recent memory.  Sure, he has some flops on his resume, but a lot of directors would kill to say they were responsible for movies half as entertaining as Iron Man and Elf.  So this Christmas, if you are looking for a relatively recent holiday-themed movie that you can watch with anyone in your family, and won't offend your sense of good taste, you can't do much better than Elf.

Verdict: 6/10

Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 6 "Hounded"

"Hounded" proved to be just the slump buster I was hoping for from Walking Dead after a string of mediocre episodes like "Say the Word".  In fact, this episode was a fine example of just how good Walking Dead can be when at it's best.  One area where the show has struggled throughout it's run is pacing.  The show always seems to pump the brakes at the most inopportune moments, slowing things down for largely superfluous scenes mostly devoted to "character development" or "farming 101".  Of course, the problem with that is that Walking Dead has always featured a disproportionate number of characters who are unlikeable to begin with, and most scenes involving them and what apparently passes for character development to the creators of the show has usually been awkward, forced, or just plain uninteresting.

"Hounded" by comparison is lean and well-paced.  Most of the characters we don't care about (Andrea, Carl) stay out of the way, and the ones we do care about (Rick) are usually doing something interesting.  The episode has that nice sense of forward movement and frenetic energy that the best episodes of Walking Dead all have.  And, thankfully, the heretofore completely disparate Woodbury and prison storylines of the show have actually made some progress in coming together.  Yes, six whole episodes into season three, Rick finally met Michonne (although they still have no dialogue; that will have to wait for episode seven)!  And a member of the prison crew other than Andrea finds out that Merle is alive (something the audience rightfully assumed from the moment Rick and crew discovered that disembodied hand on the roof back in season one)!

Speaking of Merle, I would like to take a moment to praise the work of Michael Rooker, not just in Walking Dead, but in general.  Rooker is one of the most consistently entertaining and under-praised character actors in movies today, and his work as Merle is typically great (although he is admittedly to some degree just playing himself, as he often does).  "Hounded" featured plenty of Merle being Merle, and other characters had great moments as well: Darryl reunited with Carol.  Michonne, who became immediately awesome upon escaping the vortex of suck that is Andrea, took out a slew of gun-toting henchman all by her lonesome.  And T-Dog was still dead. 

Unfortunately though, The Governor really had nothing to do in this episode other than sleep with Andrea (just the latest character on the show to enjoy Shane's sloppy seconds).  To say that The Governor has been a hit or miss character this season would be an understatement, particularly given how eagerly awaited his appearance on the show was.  It's like he, and the writers, can't really figure out the balance of sincerity, deception, charm, and menace that he should be displaying at any given time; the problem is so severe that he comes off like a completely different character in different episodes (and not in a good way, but rather in a schizophrenic one).  The show (and perhaps actor David Morrissey) would be wise to take cues from Rooker, who does a masterful job of portraying Merle as a charming backwoods neighbor one moment, and sadistic, manipulative killer in the next.

It's usually a good sign for Walking Dead when Rick has a good episode, and this was a good Rick episode.  The scenes with him on the phone were actually quite good and impressively acted, although the end result (the calls were a manifestation of his id, or guilt or whatever) was predictable.  The scene where he finally embraces his newborn child, and the ending one with Michonne were also quite good.  Ultimately, "Hounded" was a fine episode, and gives the show some much needed momentum heading into the likely cliffhanger that will end the first half of season three.  Now that things are getting exciting again, I can only hope that The Walking Dead will maintain this energy going into future episodes, rather than squander it as they have in the past.

The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 5 "Say the Word"

After a great start to the season, "Say the Word" continues the recent trend of mediocre Walking Dead episodes.  It seems that the "mid-season slump" has become a tradition of sorts for Walking Dead, and season 3 has been no exception thus far.

So what went wrong in this episode?  Well, like "Killer Within" before it, the lack of forward movement storyline-wise is disconcerting, particularly where the issue of Woodbury is concerned.  It's hard to believe that it was only a few episodes ago that the residents of Woodbury and The Governor where first introduced, and I sang the praises of each at length.  At the time, it seemed like the town of Woodbury would be a breath of fresh air within the often stagnant Walking Dead universe, and that The Governor would be a rich and compelling character.  Well, the Walking Dead has a way of wearing out the welcome of certain characters and settings, and they've gone and done it again here.  The Woodbury storyline is advancing at a banana slug-esque pace, and The Governor has just been boring recently.

Even the big "reveal" near the end of this episode (that The Governor and his people are staging mock gladiatorial bouts in walker-lined arenas) failed to impress me.  Sure, it's kind of a messed up , but we've seen plenty of messed up stuff over the course of this show, and The Governor's explanation of the situation actually kind of made sense.  Andrea has never been one of my favorite characters on the show (possibly because she has only one facial expression), and I thought she came off as preachy and reactionary during that sequence.  I've been waiting a while for some terrible secret of Woodbury to be revealed, and while I think there is more yet to come, I'm afraid that Walking Dead is falling into the old familiar trap of waiting too long to show it's hand; however impressive that hand may be.  Instead of all this boring exposition about the nature of the town, I would love to see some actual progression in the way of merging the Woodbury storyline with that of Rick and his crew, and soon.

So what are Rick and company up to this week?  Well, the death of Lori has driven Rick insane, and he goes on a one-man walker killing rampage that was actually pretty bad-ass.  That isn't the freshest or most subtle development in the history of The Walking Dead, but it is the most interesting Rick has been in ages, and it provided some very cool zombie slaying action, so I won't complain too much about that.  Other than that, though, nothing of note really happens.  Darryl and Maggie go on a side mission that further establishes Darryl as a stand-up guy (something we already know well at this point), but failed to be very exciting or accomplish much of anything else otherwise.  And the episode ends with Rick picking up a ringing telephone.  In theory, the final scene of "Say the Word" could lead to somewhere interesting, but I'm more than a little worried that the next scene will reveal the ringing telephone as a "Crazy Rick" hallucination.  At this point in season 3 of Walking Dead, there have been as many very good episodes as so-so ones.  We can only hope that the next episode, "Hounded", tips the scales back in a positive manner.

The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 4 "Killer Within"

 

"Killer Within" was a great episode of Walking Dead if you like shocking moments.  For that reason, I have a feeling this episode will be one of the most remembered of this season. And though I understand why that's case, this was actually arguably the weakest episode of season 3 so far.  That's because there was too much Lori and Carl, and the story doesn't move forward one inch.  Maybe that's intentional because the creators of the show wanted to really focus on the deaths of Lori and T-Dog, but I think the show could have benefited from a little more story progression in "Killer Within".

As far as the deaths themselves go, I give the creators credit for sending Lori out on a high note.  She wasn't a character that I cared much for, and I can't say I'm terribly unhappy to see her go, but her death was suitably heroic and moving.  Andrew Lincoln's reaction to Lori's death was also genuinely affecting and probably the highlight of his season as an actor thus far.  I wish I could write such a glowing review where the death of T-Dog is concerned, but there isn't much positive I can find to say about the way IronE Singleton left The Walking Dead.

On the other hand, T-Dog has been arguably the most under-utilized character in the series thus far, and a guy we know virtually nothing about, so maybe it's fitting that his death was such a side note in this episode.  Actually, because T-Dog had an uncharacteristic amount of dialogue and character development in this episode, I could see the writing on the wall well before the first zombie chomped into his collarbone.  It's the old Lost principle.  As soon as a character we don't usually hear much from is getting showcased, you can kiss their grits goodbye.  It's truly sad that the creators of the show waited until his last episode to give T-Dog some depth as a character.

I learned in this episode that T-Dog is a religious man, and I learned from the Wikipedia entry on "Killer Within" that he is apparently a former football player.  Would it have killed the show runners to focus on some of those aspects of his character before this episode? It's also a disappointing and entirely untimely that they killed off T-Dog in the same episode that another black guy joins the main crew.  And the new guy, Oscar, happens to be a large, bald, black gentleman (just like T-Dog).  Clearly the creators of The Walking Dead have a type when it comes to casting their token black guy roles.  I'm sure that when Vincent Ward showed up on set the first time, Mr. Singleton could already determine that his head was on the chopping block.

Elsewhere in Woodbury, Michonne is still suspicious, and Andrea is still being charmed by The Governor.  This is one of those situations that arises so often in television shows: so many problems could be solved if the characters would just talk to each other.  Michonne has reservations about Woodbury, and as we know, the girl is right.  But the thing is, her concerns aren't just a hunch; she's figured stuff out.  She saw the bullet holes in the cars that The Governor and his crew stole after they killed the soldiers.  Why doesn't she just explain this situation to Andrea instead of vaguely saying she doesn't like The Governor or Woodbury with no concrete information as to why?  The Governor, too, was largely disappointing in this episode.  I found David Morrissey's performance in the previous episode nuanced and subtle, but he has too many obvious "evil glare when Andrea isn't looking" moments in "The Killer Within" for my tastes.

This episode was certainly exciting, but overall, I would classify it as the first misstep of season 3.  The good news is that the events of this episode will have some major fallout, and the stage is set for exciting developments in future seasons.  Hopefully starting next week Walking Dead will get back on track by following the great standard set by previous episodes like "Walk with Me".

Gun for Hire: The Ascendance of Jamal Crawford

One of the most intriguing stories of this young season has been the success of the Los Angeles Clippers.   As a team that was projected by many to struggle to attain home court advantage in the playoffs, the Clippers are currently sitting atop the Western Conference standings.  Perhaps more surprising than the results, though, has been the ways the Clippers are getting it done.   Sure, the usual suspects, All-Stars Blake Griffin and Chris Paul, are playing well.  But perpetually raw prospect DeAndre Jordan has taken enough of a step forward that Paul recently labeled him team MVP on Twitter.  And the man leading the Clippers in scoring isn’t Paul or Griffin.  In fact, it’s a player who wasn’t on the team last year, and hasn’t even started a game for the Clippers this season.  His name is Jamal Crawford.

The fact that Crawford leads the team in scoring is no great surprise.  After all, when “JCrossover” comes into the game, he has one job and one job only: get buckets.  And Crawford’s certainly been very good at that throughout his 12 year career.  But it is shocking just how prolific a scorer Crawford has been this year, and how well he has been shooting the ball.  Crawford currently ranks 14^th in the league in scoring at 19.7 points per game (with a scintillating .496 field percentage), and he has played the least minutes per game of any player in the top 15 at 28.2.  In fact, no other player on the list plays less than 34 minutes a game.  Currently, Kobe Bryant leads the league in scoring at 26.4 PPG.  But his per 36 minute scoring average is 26.2, while Crawford’s is 25.1.  Clearly, Crawford is in the same class as Bryant, Kevin Durant, and LeBron James as an elite scorer in the league.

Bryant, Durant, and James are obviously known commodities in the NBA; we know exactly what they are capable of.  But how does a guy like Crawford become one of the top scorers in the league?  Well, he shoots three-pointers.  A lot of them.  Despite playing so little minutes, Crawford ranks in the top 20 in the three-point attempts, a list that Bryan, Durant and James do not make an appearance on.  When Crawford comes into the game, he parks himself at the three-point line and makes little secret about his nefarious intentions.  The Clippers occasionally run him around screens, but he actually gets most of his attempts from spot up opportunities.  Crawford has an innate ability to create space with his dribble, a quick release, good height to get his shot off (6’5”), and a rainbow arc to his jump shot that would make fellow gunner Stephen Jackson jealous.  He also has a nifty floater in the lane on those occasions when he gets to the basket.  In addition, Crawford is also excellent at drawing contact from defenders, meaning he shoots a lot of free throws (about five a game), and actually lead the league in free throw shooting last year at .927 (he is nearly as good this year at .920).  In short, Jamal Crawford is a scoring machine.

Despite all that though, there’s been little pressure on Clippers coach Vinny Del Negro to move Crawford into the starting lineup, even with the struggles of the incumbent at shooting guard, Willie Green, who sports a lousy 8.8 Player Efficiency Rating (PER) on the season (Crawford’s is 22.6).  That’s because Crawford has become one of the preeminent sixth men in the league, and most people, including Crawford himself, seem to agree that Crawford is best suited for that role.  Crawford has been a journeyman throughout his career, playing for six different teams since being drafted 8^th overall by the Chicago Bulls in the 2000 draft.  The first eight years of his career, Crawford was mostly a starter for various teams, and often played as much point guard as shooting guard due to his great ball handling skills.

The University of Michigan product developed for a reputation for scoring a lot (of course), but also for his wicked crossovers and big shots in clutch situations.  Over the years, Crawford has generated as many YouTube-worthy highlights as any player who can’t dunk in NBA history.  Among his most memorable crossover victims have been Kirk Hinrich, Dwyane Wade, and Ray Allen (twice!).  Crawford has also hit his fair share of game winning shots.  Along the way, he became the fourth player in NBA history to score 50 or more points with three different teams (the Bulls, Knicks, and Warriors), putting himself in the company of all-time greats Wilt Chamberlain, Moses Malone, and Bernard King.  And Crawford, who gets to the free line a lot for a jump shooter, also holds the NBA records for four-point players in a career, and in a game.  Not bad for a guy who claims he never practiced shooting until this past off season (http://articles.latimes.com/2012/oct/18/sports/la-sp-elliott-clippers-20121019).

Despite all those accomplishments though, it wasn’t until 2009, his first season with the Atlanta Hawks, that Crawford truly had his breakout.  For the first time ever, Crawford didn’t start a game during the regular season.   That season, playing for a contending team for the first time in his career and freed from the constraints of having to be a playmaker, when Crawford came into the game, he was free to focus on doing what he does best: scoring.  He responded with the best season of his NBA career to that point, earning a Player Efficiency Rating of 18 and per 36 minutes scoring average of nearly 21.  Those numbers were good enough back then to earn Crawford the Sixth Man of the Year Award.  Given that his statistics this season far exceed those of that 2009 campaign, Crawford would seem to be a shoo-in to win that award again, and possibly capture his first All-Star berth as well, particularly if the Clippers keep winning.

Crawford’s play has certainly earned him the respect of his peers.  When he became a free agent in 2011, and was available again this past off season, teams practically fell all over themselves to acquire his services.  Portland forward Lamarcus Aldridge openly campaigned for his services on Twitter last year.  And when Crawford became a free agent after last year, at least six teams competed for his services, despite the fact that he was coming off a down season with Portland.  And Crawford doesn’t just get respect in NBA circles; he gets it in his hometown, too.  Seattle, Washington is underrated as far as NBA hotbeds go, and Crawford is arguably the best player to come out of that area.  Brandon Roy, Nate Robinson, Isaiah Thomas, Terrence Williams, and Tony Wroten are just some of the guys who call Seattle home, and they all seem to look up to and draw inspiration from Crawford, who won a state championship with Ranier High School in 1998, as a “big brother” type.  Crawford hosts the Jamal Crawford Summer Pro-Am League in the area every summer, and he has a court named after him in Washington that his Jamal Crawford Foundation donated $50,000 to refurbish. 

The career arc of Jamal Crawford has certainly been an interesting one.  He has gone from highly regarded prospect out of college, to overpaid gunner for bad teams, to underappreciated scoring maestro off the bench for contenders.  The fact that Crawford has changed teams so frequently has probably prevented him from gaining the mainstream recognition he deserves.  But you get the feeling that his peers certainly appreciate Crawford and all that he does.  If the NBA were gym class, and the players were picking among themselves for a game of five on five, Crawford would probably be one of the first guys off the board.  Fellow Seattleite Brandon Roy was sometimes called The Natural, but the nickname could just as easily apply to Crawford.  He’s one of those players that never seem to be trying too hard despite all the amazing things that they do.  Putting the ball in the basket just seems to come as naturally to him as walking.  And despite that placid demeanor and below the rim game, you always get the feeling that Jamal Crawford is a highlight waiting to happen.  This suddenly elite Clippers team will certainly be hoping there are many more highlights to come.