Movie Review - Monster (2003)

Monster (2003)

Director: Patty Jenkins

Starring: Charlize Theron, Christina Ricca, Bruce Dern

Monster is a movie that I've been meaning to see for years (9 years, in fact).  I remember well the buzz that surrounded the movie in 2003.  But despite the not insubstantial amount of hype, I didn't know that much about the movie.  I know it was about a female serial killer.  And I knew that Charlize Theron was ugly in it.  I think I could be forgiven for knowing only those things given how much of the publicity about the film concerned Theron's performance, and her appearance in it.  The stunningly beautiful Theron gained a ton of weight for the role, in addition to wearing lots of makeup and apparently some prosthetic stuff as well.  Theron underwent this transformation in order to better resemble the real-life Aileen Wuornos, the prostitute turned murderer on whose life this film is based.

Movie viewers and critics have a long and storied love affair with movie transformations.  When a well-known actor radically changes his or her physical appearance for a role, people take notice.  The earliest and most well-known example of this to my knowledge is Robert DeNiro packing on the muscle in 1980 to play boxer Jake LaMotta in Raging Bull.  As most movie fans will know, Raging Bull is an all-time classic.  And Robert DeNiro won an Academy Award for Best Actor in that role.  DeNiro was a method actor, and the physical change he endured to play Jake LaMotta was just one part of the pretty exhaustive preparation he did for the role.  Since then, many actors have taken a cue from DeNiro and the other method actors:  Christian Bale in The Machinist and Edward Norton in American History X are two that come to mind.  Theron, for her part, in addition to the obvious change to her physical appearance, apparently spent a great deal time of listening to and observing Wuornos to better capture her spirit on film.  A quick Google search of Wuornos reveals that the resemblance is indeed quite uncanny.

Unfortunately for Monster as a movie, I think Theron's performance somewhat overshadowed the film itself.  The Wikipedia article for Monster states that Theron won 17 awards for her work on Monster(including an Academy Award for Best Actress), but the film itself seems rather short on accolades.  Not that I put much stock in awards, and particularly Academy Awards.  But at that time, when I heard about Theron's performance in the film and what she looked like, I immediately thought: Oscar bait.  I may not care much about Oscars, but many people do, and we all know that actors sometimes take roles in films with thought of getting these awards in mind.   Without having actually seen Monster, I concluded that most of the buzz around the movie was because the oh-so pretty Charlize Theron had suffered through looking less than gorgeous in it.  Now, with 2012 being the Summer of Charlize (Snow White, Prometheus), I decided to revisit Monster.  And I must say, there is nothing gimmicky about Theron's performance.  She is absolutely phenomenal in this movie.  And it's a very good movie, too.

Monster is essentially a modern-day, white trash mash-up of Bonnie and Clyde and  Thelma and Louise, with the violence and lesbian undertones (not really undertones at all, I guess, in this case) turned up to 11.  I was pleased to learn that movie was directed by a woman, Patty Jenkins.  Because it is the story of a woman.  A woman who has been betrayed by society.  Directing this movie was no easy task, I imagine. Perhaps especially for a woman.  Lee is a sometimes sympathetic character, but she is also at times a Monster, just as the title suggests.  The movie walks a fine line between both portrayals.  This movie is certainly feminist at times (female serial killers are just as good as male serial killers!), but it isn't preachy, and more importantly, it isn't coming down on either side of the debate as to whether anything that Lee did was justified.  It's difficult to walk that line indeed, and Monster does a fine job.

It helps that Theron is just damn good.  It was emotionally exhausting for me just to watch her in this movie.  There were so many scenes where she leaves to be leaving it all on the floor, as the adage states;  Completely exposing herself (figuratively and literally speaking) on screen for all to see.  I can't imagine how the actress felt, particularly as she spent the entire time buried under mountains of makeup, prosthetic and excess weight.  Acting beneath all that weight, literal and figurative, Theron is effervescent.  She is almost always on the screen, and she is magnetic in every scene.  She is vulnerable, then arrogant.  Compassionate, then intimidating.  She is a tender lover, and a brutal murderer.  Her performance in this movie absolutely runs the gamut, and she is great at everything. There are scenes in this movie that are nearly impossible to watch for various reasons as a viewer.  Be it because of the awkwardness, or the brutality.  But I never took my eyes away from the screen, and that is a testament to the performance of Theron.

Monster is a very important movie.  It contains a truly transcendent performance by an incredible actor in Theron (and Christina Ricca ain't half bad either next to her in an understated role).  It is a feminist tome in many ways.  But perhaps most importantly, it is a biting and all-too relevant indictment of our society that deserves all of our attention.  The most frightening thing is how many potential Aileen Wuornos' there are out there, and just how our society has given rise to them.  It is a damaged system, inside and out.  This movie begs us to question ourselves, as well as to ask ourselves vital questions.  What is a crime?  What is a victim?  Can actions such as Wuornos' ever truly be justified?  Ultimately, was Wuornos as much a victim as those she murdered?  Or was she just a Monster all along?  We may never know the answer to those questions, but Monster implores us to ask them, and that is a truly necessary thing.

Verdict: 8/10

Messin' with Zlatan: A Farewell to Sweden at Euro 2012

Zlatan doin' what Zlatan do

As sports fans, we tend to develop connections to the players we watch.  I'm no different than others in that regard.  There are players that I love because they play for my favorite team (Tim Duncan, Michael Vick).  There are players that I love because I respect or am entertained by them (Steve Nash, Baron Davis).  There are players that I love for reasons even I can't quite put my finger on (Jozy Altidore, who will probably never be as good as I had hoped).  Then there are players I love for so many reasons I could write an over-long blog post about them!  AC Milan and Sweden striker Zlatan Ibrahimovic is one of those players.  As a 'Merican, and soccer fan, I tend to root for the U.S. or U.S. players.  Unfortunately, at Euro 2012 this presents a problem because there are no U.S teams or players involved.  This hasn't affected my enjoyment of the tournament at all.  Euro 2012 has been extremely entertaining from the beginning.  But sometimes sports feels a little hollow if you aren't rooting for someone.  Thus I found myself in the position of searching for a team to root for.

In a move that recalled the days of childhood and Chicago Bulls fandom, I decided to root for the team that had the player I like.  As it turned out, that team was Sweden.  And that player was Zlatan Ibrahimovic.  I've always had a fascination with Ibrahimovic.  It's a combination of many factors that has inspired this infatuation of mine.  First of all, as Bill Simmons often says, it's hard to underestimate the value of a great name.  And Zlatan Ibrahimovic is one hell of a great name.  It makes me think of a magician, or an Indiana Jones villain, perhaps an evil and vaguely European  demented surgeon of some sort.  Apparently,  Zlatan has trademarked the name 'Zlatan", and I couldn't be happier.  How many other famous Zlatans can there be in the world, after all?

The second thing, I think, is the man's appearance.  To be sure, Zlatan Ibrahimovic is an epic name, and the man himself lives up to it.  He is absolutely enormous.  Watching Sweden and England line up against each other before their match in the group stage, it was almost comical to what degree the 6'5" Ibrahimovic towered over the other players.  Zlatan simply stands out, no matter what he does.  When you turn on a Milan or a Sweden game, it's difficult for your eyes not to be drawn to the enormous man with the slick backed hair and ponytail jogging around on the field.  And the ponytail.  Oh, that ponytail.  I hope it never goes away.  I often describe it to my friends as a Die Hard villain ponytail, and that's exactly what I think it is.  Let's face it, if Ibrahimovic showed up in the next Die Hard film waving an AK-47 at Bruce Willis, no one would bat an eye.  Unless he was wearing his bright yellow Sweden jersey, which would frankly be awesome.

To be sure, Zlatan stands out.  And perhaps because of this, he has been subject to his fair share of criticsm.  He is a great player, yes. And he has played, and played well, for some of the top teams in Europe: Barcelona, Inter, AC Milan.  Just last season he scored a phenomenal 56 goals for Milan.  But Zlatan, for all his potential, has not reached the class of  a Messi or Ronaldo.  Which is all the better.  I don't need, or want, my heroes to be perfect.  It's another reason Michael Vick fascinates me as well.  That fact that Zlatan is so talented, and so physically impressive, yet at times struggles or seems uninspired, is part of what makes him so intriguing.

Ibrahimovic does at times appear to be going through the motions, particularly if he isn't in scoring position.   Have no doubt, Zlatan sees it as his goal to score goals when he is in the game, and he has done plenty of complaining in the past when his team hasn't put him in position to do just that, at least as he sees it.  During Euro 2012 in particular, Zlatan has seemed less than committed at times.  And the results of the matches reflected that.  As a result, Sweden will not be advancing past the group stage.  It's difficult to swallow, especially after a heartbreaking loss to England.  But because of Zlatan Ibrahimovic, Sweden will at least be going home on a high note.  With no chance of advancing, and facing a France team that has won 22 consecutive matches internationally, the Swedish captain vowed to play with pride.  "We're playing for our honour against France," Ibrahimovic declared.  Well, the big man played like it, knocking home an absolute scorcher of a goal in the 54' that was vintage Ibrahimovic and arguably the goal of the tournament.  In the end, Sweden pulled out the win 2-0.

So tomorrow, the Euro 2012 tournament will go on, without Sweden. And it will continue to be incredibly entertaining, I have no doubt.  But the proceedings will be just a little bit drearier due to lack of Zlatan.  Rest easy, my sweet prince.

Now Playing - Lou Reed - Transformer

 

I discovered Lou Reed like a lot of people: through Trainspotting.  'Perfect Day' is featured on the (incredible) soundtrack of that album, and it is a classic song.  After getting into Lou Reed, I found out all about The Velvet Underground.  Between that group and his solo work, Lou Reed has created some truly incredibly music over the past 4 or 5 decades. But Transformer may be his best work of all.

Transformer features at least 3 iconic, absolutely unforgettable songs: the aforementioned 'Perfect Day', as well as "Walk on the Wild Side", and "Satellite of Love".  All 3 songs are unforgivably catchy;  If you listen to this album at any point during your day, you'll inevitably find yourself humming one of them at some point later.  Those songs are amazing, but tracks like "Hangin' Round" and "Andy's Chest" are equally as good.

Transformer was apparently produced by David Bowie, something I didn't know before.  Learning that gave me a new respect for Bowie, a guy who has obviously created his fair share of classic music as a singer as well.  It also made me question what other work Bowie has done as a producer, if any.  Not that the production particularly stands out here anyway.  Lou Reed has one of the most unique and recognizable voices in all of rock music. And he is at the peak of his powers as a lyricist and performer here in 1972.

You could describe the songs found here as "bare" and "sparse" in parts, concepts that fans of The Velvet Underground are no doubt very familiar with.  Most of the time, it's just Reed and his guitar.  But there is a conviction in his voice that is compelling and keeps the album feeling alive.  And the songs can certainly swell and expand at times, as the absolutely epic "Perfect Day" does so well.

Reed and Bowie are classic rock stars, and in the end, Transformer is just great rock music.  As I speak, it's rainy season here in Japan, and I find this album a great pick-me-up during this time.  The songs are well-written, catchy, and will have you humming along with Old Uncle Lou.  I recommend you check this album out.  But don't watch Trainspotting if the plan is to avoid being depressed.

Movie Review - Batman Begins (2005)

 Batman Begins (2005)

Director: Christopher Nolan

Starring: Christian Bale, Michael Caine, Liam Neeson

 

I've seen this movie before.  But with the release of Dark Knight Rises right around the corner, I thought it was a great time to revisit the first Nolan-directed Batman movie.  I haven't seen this movie, which I loved when it first came out, since the release of The Dark Knight.  I know I'm not alone here when I say that I consider Dark Knight to be the greatest superhero movie ever, and one of the best movies of the 00s as well.  So going into this movie I wondered how my feelings about the sequel would color my viewing experience of Batman Begins.  As it turns out, my suspicions were confirmed: The Dark Knight is a far superior movie to Batman Begins.

I would like to begin by saying that The Dark Knight has a few inherent advantages over Batman Begins.  Primarily, it is not an origin story.  Traditionally, the first movie in series' based on comics books suffer from the origin story curse.  This was the case with the first Spider-man movie and the first X-Men movie as well.  The problem is that everyone is so familiar with the mythology of the more iconic comic books that everyone knows exactly what is coming and why in these origin stories.  We know all about Spiderman's Uncle Ben and "With great power comes great responsibility".  We know that Bruce Wayne's parents were killed in a mugging and that he is afraid of bats.  Ideally, these movies could just skip over that part and get straight to the meat of the story.
 

But, unfortunately, there a couple of problems with that.  One is that adapting a comic book story is a pretty serious undertaking for a lot reasons, not the least of which being that you have to deal with the fans of the source material.  As we all know, there are some pretty rabid comic book fans out there:  ones who will complain about the slightest liberty taken with their beloved hero, or the smallest adjustment to the story from the comic they know so well.  In glossing over or simply skipping an origin story in the first movie of a comic book franchise, the filmmakers risk seriously offending those fans who they are counting on to provide a big part of the box office receipts.  

The other problem in skipping an origin story is that these origin stories are, while often cliched and familiar, usually pretty vital parts of the story in terms of the motivation and character development that they provide.  The reason that Spiderman and Batman became heroes, and the type of heroes that they did become, is because of the experiences portrayed in those first movies.  If you don't show that in the movie, you risk having a very one-dimensional protagonist.  It's pretty ridiculous that the main character in Batman Begins dresses like a bat and jumps around on rooftops at night fighting crime.  But within the flow of the story, and given the way that things developed form the point Bruce Wayne's parents are killed, it kind of makes sense.  If the audience, no matter how familiar they may already be with the character of Batman, was suddenly thrown into the world where this character exists, with no explanation, it would be a little jarring.

And Nolan does an incredible job of creating a world where a character like this can exist.  The concept of Batman and other superheroes is inherently ridiculous, but Nolan's movies come the closest to making a world like this seem real.  The suit that Batman wears, all of his gadgets and even his car, all seem so plausible.  Every item is explained well, and nothing is so crazy that the audience doesn't think this type of military tech might actually exist somewhere.  Especially in a place like the Gotham City that Nolan creates.  In Batman Begins, the city of Gotham is practically a character itself.  Obviously, the city could, and does, represent any major city anywhere, but the darkness, grittiness, and despair of the city are very apparent throughout the film, and make for a very unique Gotham.

In fact, all the characters in this movie are solid.  The cast is truly impressive: Christian Bale, Gary Oldman, Cillian Murphy, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman among others.  Caine especially is the standout, and just pitch-perfect as a cockney Alfred.  Unfortunately, however, the movie does suffer here in comparison to The Dark Knight.  There is simply no character as strong as the Joker, or even Harvey Dent.   Cillian Murphy is fine, but never intimidating.  He gets easily dispatched by Katie Holmes' character in the end.  Liam Neeson is great, but his role is limited.  He does a fine job in the training scenes in the beginning (which are just amazing in general:  ninja training with Batman somewhere deep in the Himalayan mountains? Yes please.  Nolan really knew his target audience with that one), but then disappears completely until the last act of the movie.  I really enjoyed the concept of the League of Shadows as this organization that has existed throughout time tearing down corrupt civilizations, and the contrast between Ra's al-Ghul's philosophy and that of Bruce Wayne and his father was well-realized, but he just wasn't on the screen enough to make him a threatening villain.  Which is a disservice to a fine actor like Neeson.

The problem is once again tied to the nature of the movie.  There's just too much to get to.  The movies has to show Batman's childhood.   It has to show his training and eventual showdown with the League of Shadows and Ra's al-Ghul.  At the time same, there are side stories galore:  the Scarecrow, Carmine Falcon, Bruce's battle for control of his company, his struggle with playing the playboy role, gaining the trust of Detective Gordon, etc.  All these are fine and well-done for the most part, though any one could have been given less time or cut entirely in my opinion.  But the real stinker of the bunch is the love story.  Katie Holmes is serviceable as Rachel Dawes but I just found the whole plot unnecessary.  Yes, it does humanize Bruce Wayne somewhat.  And it gives him something to lose. But my counter is this: Bruce Wayne has no real iconic love interest in the comics.  He has no Lois Lane.  He has no Mary Jane Watson or Gwen Stacy.  Bruce is a loner.  Fans don't really care who he is dating.  And there is no great chemistry between Bale and Holmes.  So why not eliminate the character altogether?  The movie is already far too long.  I couldn't help but wonder how much more I would have it if every scene involving Dawes had just been cut, thus making the movie shorter.  Or if those scenes were given to Liam Neeson and the League of Shadows instead.

This may well have been a great way to include more action in the movie.  More fighting sequences would have been great, because many of those scenes left me unimpressed.  Some of the training sequence scenes were quite good, but when Batman got down and dirty on the streets of Gotham, for all his ninja training, the fights just weren't very interesting.  I found the scenes where he was moving in darkness, dropping down suddenly and whisking thugs off into the darkness to be the most compelling by far.  And Nolan clearly has a gift for direction car chases, as shown in The Dark Knight and Inception.  The chase scene in Batman Begins was easily thrilling, and easily the best action sequence in the movie.  It even delivered some nice laughs, something that was rather rare in this film otherwise.

In the end, Batman Begins is a very good movie.  It is Batman done right.  All the elements Batman fans have always wanted from a Batman movie are here.  The darkness, the grittiness, the realism.  Batman is a true badass in this movie, just as his fans would want.  Unfortunately, The Dark Knight came along a few years later and showed us how to do a Batman movie even better than this one.  The villains in that movie are compelling and menacing.  Freed from the constraints of an origin story, it doesn't drag and seem over-long the way this one does.  However, given the restraints of the origin story, Nolan does a fine job here.  And perhaps more importantly, he laid the foundations for a potentially legendary series of movies that will hopefully conclude with another classic film in July 2012.

Verdict: 7/10

Spurs, 99 - Thunder, 107 - Reflections

Spurs Gone Fishin'

In the infamous words of Ron Burgundy: Boy, that escalated quickly.  A few weeks ago, the Spurs were seemingly invincible.  Then the series started, and they were in total control.  Then, after Game 3, the Spurs were scrambling for answers.   Unfortunately for them, they never really found them.  The same problems that plagued the the Spurs throughout their first 3 losses in this series continued to do so in this decisive Game 6.  Tony Parker was contained by the active defense of the Thunder (after the 1st quarter anyway).  The Spurs were unable to stop the Thunder, and Kevin Durant, in particular.  The Spurs' role players continued to inhabit the back of the milk carton instead of the court where they belonged (with the VERY notable exception of my Game 6 hero, Stephen Jackson).  All this added up to a disappointing Game 6 loss for the Spurs, and what is sure to be an uncertain off-season.


The game started off great.  I really thought the Spurs were finally responding to the challenge the young Thunder had given them.  Tony Parker was slicing and dicing the Thunder defense as he had in the first two games of the season.  The Spurs were burying threes on seemingly every possession.  They closed the quarter with a 34-20 lead.  Unfortunately, this lead was little more than a smokescreen.

In actuality, in that first quarter, the Spurs didn't really play any better than they had in Games 3, 4 or 5.  The only difference was that they were hot from 3.  They just couldn't miss.  And as every basketball fan knows, that type of shooting is unsustainable for 4 quarters.  And, to give credit to the Thunder and their fans, they never lost hope that they could come back no matter how far they fell behind.  Even when the Thunder were down 15, the roar of the Thunder crowd was deafening.  I truly believe that were the Thunder or their fans a less confident team, the Spurs would have won this game.  When a team jumps out to a lead like the Spurs did in the 1st quarter, there are many arenas in the league where the fans would start to stir uncomfortably before falling quiet.  The shoulders of the players would slump, and they would reason "Well, there's always Game 7" before packing it in.  Well, the Thunder didn't do that.  They continued to play with confidence.  And sure enough, the Spurs started to miss (well, everyone except Captain Jack).  The Thunder started to give Tony the jump shot, which he gladly took, and while it fell in the 1st quarter, the well dried up in the 2nd half.

Then in the 2nd half, as he has so many times this series, Kevin Durant went to work.  And from there, the result was academic.  Our lead, seemingly so insurmountable, dissipated at an unbelievable rate.  As has been the case throughout this series, we couldn't stop the Thunder.  And we were incapable of outscoring them as well.  With the Spurs, if the ball isn't flying around the perimeter and finding the open man then we simply can't score effectively.  We resorted to isolation basketball, which is fine if someone other than Gary Neal is doing the isolating.  Unfortunately, whenever Tony got the ball, he was content to shoot a jumper rather than drive to the basket.  For his part, Timmy scored on a few post moves down low in the clutch, but he can't be expected to do that every possession.  Manu, as part of his continued up and down postseason, was largely nowhere to be seen during all this, although he was robbed of a phenomenal potential 3-point play on a questionable charge call (one of many).

Speaking of those questionable calls: I won't spend too long complaining about officiating.  I hate when NBA teams and fans blame losses on blown calls, which I will not do here, but I think I would be remiss if I didn't mention that there were some very questionable whistles late in the game, mostly by the Spurs' old friend Joey Crawford.  I know it's ironic for me to say this as a Ginobili fan, but the sight of the Thunder players flopping so liberally during this game was somewhat jarring, especially because I didn't think they needed to do that in order to win.  Stepping in front of a charge is one thing, but flopping on screens and jump shots as James Harden and Derek Fisher did on some of their more egregious flop is another thing entirely.  I'm a big fan of James Harden, one reason being his similarity in many ways to Manu, but I hope this is one aspect he will remove from his game as he continues to mature.  Anyway, flops by these players led to 2 or 3 unjustified charge calls in this game, but that is neither here nor there.  The Spurs had 3 games to figure this Thunder team out and put up some kind of a fight, and we failed to do so, so we deserved to lose.  It's that simple.

I will say, however, that Joey Crawford's technical on Stephen Jackson was so bad it warrants some kind of review by the league, especially given Crawford's history with the Spurs.  I was very proud of Stephen Jackson for his performance in this Game 6.  Not only did he have a huge game (23 points on ONLY 3s, which he hit 6 of 7), but Stephen was one of the few Spurs who I felt played with a chip on his shoulder in this game.  He wasn't afraid to take the big shot, and he made several.  He was jawing a little bit with the Thunder players, but within reason.  And he refused to back down.  For him to get called on that technical for practically no reason was an injustice.  It contributes to his reputation as a troublemaker when, in this particular game, he was anything but.  Unlike some of our other players, he was a fighter in Game 6.  I was let down by Parker in this regard, who didn't take this series over the way I believe he was capable.  Overall, Duncan had a fine series he should be proud of, particularly on the defensive end, but his hesitancy on jump shots at several key points during this game and the series was not what I expected from him, either.  If Duncan is scared to take the big shot, what are guys like Danny Green supposed to think? In general, I'm so frustrated that weren't able to win at least one more game after the Thunder turned up the intensity in Game 3.  The young team punched us in the mouth, and we did not respond with the intensity of a team that has a championship pedigree such as ours.

In particular, Green and our "young" crop of players simply failed to show in this series.  Maybe that's Pop's fault for not giving Splitter, Blair, Green, etc. a chance.  But I tend to disagree with that sentiment.  After all, Kawhi Leonard is the least seasoned player on the team, and he was out there in key moments, making plays.  Because of the age of two of our most important cogs, Duncan and Ginobili, and because of the lack of effectiveness of our young players in the playoffs, the Spurs future is less than certain than usual after this playoff loss.  Of course, Ginobili and Parker will be back.  And there is no reason to expect Parker won't have another spectacular regular season.  It is expected that Duncan will come back for 2 more years at the least.  After that the Spurs have no 1st round draft pick as a result of the Jackson trade, but a few players stashed overseas who could potentially come over to help.

Unfortunately for the Spurs, however, their biggest problem isn't in-house.  Their biggest problem resides in Oklahoma City.  The Thunder are a great team.  Not a good team, a great one.  And they are young.  That means they are only going to get better.  While our older players continue to regress.  Obviously, Splitter, Leonard and others could and should improve, as well.  But no young player on our roster has the potential to be as good as Durant or Westbrook.  And those two will have Finals experience and potentially a championship to their credit next year.  Sure, the Spurs will have the benefit of an 82 game regular season next year, but fatigue and injuries were not the issue for once this season.  It was a question of talent.  We can't match the Thunder in that regard.  And I can't see a way that we realistically will ever be able to.  Our only options are to hope that one or more of our younger players can develop into a better player than I can now envision happening, or that injuries or contract issues limit hamper the Thunder in some way.  Or I suppose we could naively have faith that our system is good enough overcome our talent deficiency, but it sure didn't happen in this series.  Thus, I think we have good reason to believe that we have likely just squandered the Spurs last great chance to win a title in the Duncan era.

Optimistically speaking, though, the Spurs' run is far from "over".  They will be back next season.  And they will win 50 or more games.  Parker will have a great season.  And it's difficult to complain about the plight of the Spurs in a league where forever middling teams like the Clippers, Warriors, Bucks, etc. exist.  We have had an incredible run of success over the last decade, unparalleled in the major North American sports.  And it ain't over yet.  See you next season.

Thunder, 108 - Spurs, 103 - Reflections

I didn't have to think about a Spurs loss for two months. Now I've had to deal with three in a week.  It's had a pronounced effect on my psyche.  To watch the collapse of this Spurs team has been heartbreaking.  Offensively, we got exactly what we wanted all year.  We walked all over mediocre teams in the first two rounds of the playoffs.  Starting in Game 3, the Thunder, who have been a mediocre defensive team all year, dialed up the pressure to a new level.  And the Spurs have failed to respond not once, but twice.

I blame Tony Parker and I blame the role players.  Tony Parker was handed the keys to the Spurs offense this season.  Everything has went through him, and the offense hummed along like an efficient machine.  Now, the Thunder have successfully taken him out of this series.  Thabo Sefolosha is a great defender, but do you think Derrick Rose would let Thabo Sefolosha shut him down for 3 games?  Do you think Chris Paul or even Deron Williams would let Thabo Sefolosha take them out of 3 consecutive games?  Tony has gotten the MVP recognition all season. Now he has to play like it.  You need a superstar to win in this league.  It's more apparent than ever.  Durant is showing it.  Over in the East, LeBron and Rondo are showing it.  The Spurs so-called superstar has shown us nothing since the outcome of this series was thrown in doubt.  At this stage of his career, Duncan is what he is.  He can no longer dominate a series.  But he is a warrior, and he played like one in Game 5.  The Thunder had their monstrous runs when he was off the floor.  Manu Ginobili responded in Game 5 as well.  He put on the Superman cape.  But Manu can't do it alone.

That brings me to the role players.  Those vaunted Spurs role players.  The guys who got all the pub all season for sliding into the Spurs system and playing mistake-free basketball.  In reality, they've been feeding off the teat off Tony Parker all year.  The screen and roll is no longer an effective tool in this series. And as the effectiveness of Parker has diminished, so has that of Gary Neal and Danny Green.  I would throw Kawhi Leonard into that mix as well, but he has done a fine job on Durant defensively, and hit some pretty big shots in this series.  Stephen Jackson, predictably, is the only Spurs role player playing with cajones, or a sense of pride.  Gary Neal and Danny Green have to find a way to be effective.

This is it.  If we lose, we fail to capture another championship in what is likely to be our last, best chance in the Duncan era.  We can afford no no-shows.  Every member of the big three must show up.  Not two out of the three, which is what we've had all series.  Neal, Green, and Leonard have to show up. Some combination of Tiago Splitter, Matt Bonner, and DeJuan Blair has to show up.  We must be firing on every single cylinder in order to beat this Thunder offense.  We played a hell of a game, and the Thunder showed why having the three best and youngest players in the series is an advantage.  Not just Durant, but Harden, and even Westbrook, who has otherwise struggled in this series, hit daggers.  In order to combat that kind of offensive firepower, everybody has to be contributing.  Once again, no no-shows.  And Timmy: Next time, take the damn 3!

Go Spurs Go!

Now Playing - Killer Mike - R.A.P. Music

Killer Mike has been one of the most unappreciated rap artists out there for a while now.  He broke into the business as a protege of Big Boi from OutKast, and appeared on a few hit songs as a guest ("The Whole World", "Never Scared"), as well as making a few hits of his own ("A.D.I.D.A.S", "My Chrome").  However, in recent years he has dropped out of the commercial limelight for the most.  That's too bad, because his last 3 entries in the "Pledge" series (I Pledge Allegiance to the Grind, I Pledge Allegiance to the Grind II, and PL3DGE), have all been fantastic albums.  Killer Mike has adopted a persona that is very much his own, and has one of the most unique voices in hip-hop.  His music is very conscious, very political, and at times very controversial.  But he stills raps plenty for the Jeezy crowd, fitting in plenty of references to drugs, women, and guns. 

Killer Mike always raps with passion and intensity, and a sincerity somewhat rare in rap music these days.  Mike is clearly a complicated dude, with diverse concerns and interests, something that comes through in his music.  However, he still manages to make fun rap music that you can blast in your system, all while keeping everything sounding unified from a musical standpoint.  Every aspect of the Killer Mike aesthetic is on display in R.A.P. Music, and Mike is in peak form rapping over beats provided by production legend El-P.  The album has a very tight and unified feel.  And every track goes hard. Mike forgoes guest appearances for the most on R.A.P. Music; it's just him rapping his face off over banging beats. And practically every track is a monster.  I can't recommend this album enough. Whether you want to listen to something that makes you think, or you want a soundtrack to blast as loudly as humanly possible all summer, R.A.P. Music does the trick.

More things my students made for me

My feet are too big to fit into the indoor slippers they have at my schools, so my students often volunteer to make me shoes.  These were made from cardboard and duct tape by the nice students and teachers at one of my kindergartens:

 

Next, this is a postcard one of my students made from a milk carton.  He used a real flower.  It smells nice.  He told me to send it to my Mom in America.

Spurs, 103 - Thunder, 109 - Reflections

K.D. races for the prize

In the infamous words of Kanye West, "It was all good just a week ago".  And the Spurs (and Spurs fans) were most certainly feeling themselves.  Well, not anymore.  All we can feel now is the floor dropping out from underneath us.  And this one really hurt.  It hurt because it was so eminently winnable.  That Game 3 loss was almost expected.  I don't think anyone really thought the Spurs could sweep the Thunder.  But drop one in OKC, before closing out the series in 5 in S.A.?  That seemed doable, likely even.  Now, all of a sudden, the Spurs are groping for answers, and it feels like we'll need a bit of luck to even win this series at all.

And this game was just so winnable.  Despite the Spurs' customary second quarter collapse, the game was very much within reach as late as the 4th quarter, thanks to the Thunder choking up a 15-point lead in the second half.  We had contained Russell Westbrook throughout the game, as has been the case all series.  Kevin Durant was only 2-4 for in the first half, for just 10 points.  The Thunder lead had been shrunk to 4 points.  It seemed we could escape OKC with at least one win despite another less-than-stellar performance from Tony Parker (12 points on 5-15 shooting).  Then, of course, as any sports fan with an internet connection or a television in America knows, that rascally bandit Kevin Durant did it again.

K.D. exploded in the 4th quarter, scoring 15 of the Thunder's finals 20 points, including 13 in a row at one point.  He ended the game with a scorching 36 points on 13 of 20 shooting, 26 of which were scored in the second half.  In addition, not content to hurt us with just his scoring, the Thunder's superstar also dished out 8 assists.  Many, many of those were timely passes to his big men, who were just excellent last night.  In fact, The Thunder frontline had perhaps their finest game of the playoffs. while the backcourt struggled (Westbrook, Thabo Sefolosha, James Harden and Derek Fisher were a combined 9-of-33 shooting).  Kendrick Perkins, Nick Collison, and Serge Ibaka fed off the passing of Durant in the first half, combining for 33 points on 15-of-18 shooting.  And Ibaka, Ibaka.  The big man from the Congo quite literally had a perfect game, shooting 11 for 11 to score 26 points.  Quite uncharacteristically for the normal close range specialist Ibaka, many of those points were scored on jump shots in the 15-foot range.  Perkins and Collison were both quite accurate with that shot in Game 3 as well.  Of course, this was made less challenging by the amount of airspace that the Spurs frontcourt defenders afforded them.  Tim Duncan and co. challenged the Thunder big men to make that shot all night and they complied quite willingly.

But clearly, Durant will be the talk of this game, and rightfully so.  Watching Durant carve up our helpless defense was an awesome sight, and unfortunately a not altogether unfamiliar one for Spurs fans.  Durant is in a rare class as a scorer in this league: the player so preternaturally gifted offensively that, when he is going, can essentially score whenever he wants from wherever he wants with seeming ease, regardless of how he is defended.  The man was simply built to score.  As a Spurs fan, I've witnessed Dirk Nowitzki go off in similar fashion countless times.  Last year, our playoffs ended in part because Zach Randolph (who, admittedly, lacks the range of long distance bombers like Dirk and K.D. but is a scoring machine nonetheless) had an extended run of games just like this against us.  When a player that good gets into that kind of zone, there is simply nothing you can do.  Kawhi Leonard, who has been truly impressive during this series, did about as good a job on Durant as anyone could, short perhaps of an indestructible robot designed specifically for the purpose of guarding Kevin Durant.  In regards to the nights that Durant and Ibaka had, there isn't much we can do other than simply hope it doesn't happen again.

What we can do (or hope to do) is fix our broken offense.  It is quite clear to me that we cannot stop the Oklahoma City Thunder.  They are simply too deep and too talented, and the Spurs too limited defensively (I'm looking at you, Tiago Splitter),  although we have done an admirable job on Westbrook in this series, holding him to around 15 points per game on roughly 32% shooting.  But then again, I'm not sure how much of that is the Spurs doing, and how much is simply the mercurial guard going through a bit of a cold streak (oh God, if that is the case I hope it continues).  Anyway, we have to outscore the Thunder to beat them, which is exactly what we did in the first two games of the series.  But how can we get back to that?  The key lies in our two ball handlers and creators, Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili.  

The Spurs free flowing offense has had a wrench thrown into it by OKC.  They stuck Sefolosha on Parker.  They are switching pick and rolls, and making life difficult for our big man screeners, particularly Splitter.  The Thunder have been so disciplined defensively these last two games.  They aren't scrambling, and thus the Spurs can't take advantage of rotations the way they have all year.  The clear response is that we have to go to isolation basketball.  We do, after all, have two players who presumably excel at it in Parker and Ginobili.  Ginobili in particular must be more aggressive in attacking the basket and attempting to create his own offense.  He is our Kevin Durant (not at all in terms of their style of play, but simply in the fact that he can take over a game offensively, and be the straw that the stirs the drink, so to speak, for the entire Spurs offense).  Ginobili was solid in Game 4 (despite fouling out? how often does that happen for him?), but our team is struggling now, and this is when our stars should take over, despite the Spurs usual team-first approach.  That's what Durant did in Game 3, and look where it got the Thunder.  Thus, I'm sorry Manu, but 7 shots simply isn't going to cut it, though you were your usual efficient self with 57% shooting.  Anyway, if those two (Parker and Ginobili) can beat their man off the dribble, get into the paint and draw the defense in a bit, guys like Danny Green (completely M.I.A. recently), Matt Bonner, and Gary Neal can get the open 3-point looks that they are accustomed to and simply have not been getting the last two games as the Thunder perimeter defenders have been able to stay home on them all game long.

Lastly, I will address Blairgate.  Dejuan Blair, who has been little more than an expensive bench ornament in these playoffs, made a cameo at the end of the Game 3 blowout, and made some waves with his energy and hustle, as he is wont to do.  He popped in again in Game 4, and contributed to a big Spurs run in the 3rd quarter.  He also seemed to flummox the Thunder a bit in the pick and roll, and was his general active, disruptive self all over the court.  All this, coupled with Splitter's relative (OK, total) lack of effectiveness in this series has some calling for Coach Pop to dust off Blair and give him some meaningful minutes in Game 5.  I agree that Blair has earned himself some more minutes, but I don't think it will be a cure all in this situation.  After all, plugging Blair in for Splitter and Bonner solves some problems, but it opens up just as many.  Blair still can't rebound (defensive rebounds), still is undersized, still can't stretch the floor.  I think that, thinking not just about this series but the Finals as well (should we get there), Splitter is our best option at the 4.  Ideally, Splitter would just play better.  I think he can do the things Blair does, albeit with perhaps 75% the effectiveness. But that should be good enough, given the myriad things he can do that Blair can't (be tall).  And cutting his minutes would only serve to hinder his confidence, something that seems to be an issue with the big man to begin with.  Tiago is key; we need him, and we need him to play better.  So give him a chance people!

Now, all eyes turn to Game 5.  Hopefully some home cooking will be enough to get the Spurs back on track. 

Miyajima - 6/3/2012

Miyajima is an island that is home to Itsukushima Shrine, and by far the most famous tourist spot in Hiroshima Prefecture, perhaps in the Chugoku region.  It's home to the iconic "floating" red torii seen above.  Unfortunately, on this particular day in June the torii itself was under construction so I wasn't able to get a great shot of it.  The picture above is from a previous visit. 

Anyway, because Itsukushima is so famous and I've been in Japan nearly 5 years now, I have been there several times in the past.  I think this was my 5th or 6th visit.  But the area is really beautiful and it's pretty close to where I live, so I don't mind going there, especially with first-time visitors, as was the case this time.  Here are some pictures that I took on my visit this time.

This is the ferry that carried us to the island

One of the very, very many wild deer that inhabit the area

The deer are usually hungry and will eat anything, especially any food you happen to be carrying

One of the many food vendors in the area.  This one is offering some yakitori.

Many shops are selling trinkets.  This one is selling shamoji (rice paddles), a famous product of Miyajima.

Another famous product of Miyajima, anago (salt-water eel).

The most famous product of Hiroshima, oysters.  Not pictured: the equally delicious fried variety.

When the tide is slow, people scrounge the beach for shells.

Inside the shrine.  On this day there was some kind of martial arts demonstration going on.

Sword fighting! The kind of thing everybody wants to see when they come to Japan.

This was the car that would carry us to the top of Mt. Misen via ropeway.

The view from high up inside the car.  Nothing but trees.

The view from the top of Misen.  Apparently, on a clear day you can see Shikoku!

It was a fun trip to Miyajima, as always.  I hope you enjoyed the pictures.

My Student's Artistic Renditions of Me

 

 What I apparently look like to two Japanese 6th grade students!

Movie Review - Drive (2011)

  Drive (2011)

Director: Nicolas Winding Refn

Starring: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston

I'm late to the party, I know.  It has been more than half a year since Drive dominated the pop culture zeitgeist.  And half a year seems like forever in 2012.  There have been a thousand memes to come and go since the whole Ryan Gosling "Hey, girl" thing was born.  For a while there, Drive was on the tip of everyone's tongue.  It dominated the discussions of message boards and twitters and podcasts related to movies. 

As Oscar hype inevitably and painstakingly began to ramp up, the movie was often mentioned in the same breath as The Artist and The Descendants, true heavy-hitters in terms of Oscar contention (the movie eventually only garnered an award for Sound Editing, although it picked up a boatload of other awards at other more minor festivals).  Eventually, the hype over the movie grew to a fever pitch, and then slowly faded away, as all things do, but I've continued to look forward to it.  And now, in June of 2012, I can finally say that Drive has come to my corner of the world, and I have seen it.  And it was truly awesome.

Perhaps seeing this movie at least 3 months after anyone else who had any interest in seeing it has aready seen it offered some benefit.  I went into the movie surprisingly (to myself) expectation free.  Although the movie was well-regarded, there were enough people who had expressed a dislike for it that I had tempered my expectations.  In addition, I had, only semi-intentionally, done a fairly impressive job of avoiding not only spoilers about this movie, but plot details in general.  I really had no idea what the hell it was about. 

I knew Ryan Gosling was in it, there were cameos from a bunch of cool people, and Gosling's character wore a cool jacket.  That was it.  Before the movie started, a friend of mine (who is much less interested in movies than I and had never even heard of it), asked me what kind of movie it was.  After briefly hesitating, I offered helpfully (I hoped), "Action?".  That seemed to placate my friend, and in hindsight it was certainly an accurate response, but at the time, I really didn't know the answer to the question myself.  Sure, it may be an action movie, but is it arty?  Is it an action spectacle like the Fast and Furious films? Is it funny? Is it dark?  I really had no idea.  After having seen the movie, I can confidently answer that it is all of the above.  And more.  In fact, it's everything!

Perhaps the greatest compliment that I can give Drive, and I was thinking this constantly throughout the movie, is that it is one of the truly unpredictable films I have ever seen.  Most movies follow a formula, and you can predict exactly what will happen in the end by at least the halfway point of the movie.  Of course, some would say that getting there is the thing.  And that isn't untrue.  Formulas are an important part of film-making.  And Drive certainly follows a formula as well. The problem (actually not a problem) is that it keeps changing the formula.  Pulling the rug out from underneath the audience in the greatest way. 

In the beginning, I thought Drive was a heist film.  A cooler, more stylish version of The Transporter.  Then I thought it was a love story.  Then I was sure it was a love story, but at the same time a character study of a man living two lives.  But then, it's a racing movie?  Or is it a Mafia flick?  It even had shades of a horror film (during the scene where Gosling stalks the mafioso on the beach while wearing the mask, I genuinely expected the Halloween theme music to cue up at any moment). 

In the end, I finally thought I had my answer.  Drive is a perfect reflection of our mash-up culture.  It's the movie version of the The Grey Album (dated reference I know, sorry).  It isn't trying to be anything.  It's just telling a story with no regard for genre or formulas.  And the result is glorious.  Finally, I realized one more thing (and I'm going to go a little geeky here):  It's a really awesome Grand Theft Auto movie.

The first time I thought of Grand Theft Auto was literally less than 10 minutes into the movie, following the incredibly tense and awesomely constructed opening sequence.  As the 80s sounding synth pop cued up, and the camera began to sweep over the city landscape at night, and the word Drive appeared on the screen in a retro-looking pastel font, I immediately thought "Vice City".  Instead of Drive, the title may as well have read "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City 2: Drive", which is just a little clunkier and more awkward than just "Drive", so I forgive them for this oversight in naming. 

The movie itself is easily imagined as an episode of GTA.  The characters, so over-the-top and at times cliched (tell me you can't imagine Nino as an antagonist in a GTA game?).  The encounters:  when Gosling meets the hood in the park, it is so akin to one of those "getting your mission from a contact" cut scenes in GTA that I chuckled to myself.  And when the pawn shop heist went awry, and Gosling peeled out of the parking lot with Christina Hendricks (in pants so tight they defy physics) in tow, I could just picture the text appearing at the bottom of the screen, updating your mission parameters (get back to the motel! and lose your wanted level!).  The GTA games offer a plethora of missions, often vastly different from each other.  You have to take girls on a date.  You have to win vehicle races.  You have to assassinate people.  It's all part of one continuous narrative, but furthering the story means accomplishing some pretty diverse goals.  Drive had the same feel.  And it was extremely well done.

In closing, I would just like to praise Refn, a Dutch director who was previously unknown for the most part.  I have a feeling that is about to change (or it already has, actually).  Refn will be directing some big budget Hollywood movies in the neat future, and rightfully so.  Drive was not an easy movie to pull off, and he did it with flying colors.  The movie is just impossibly cool and stylish.  The soundtrack is phenomenal (though far from subtle, in the case of standout track 'A Real Hero').  There were so many standout moments for reasons ranging from pure bad-assery (elevator stomp, every scene Albert Brooks appeared in) to sweetness (the adorable scene where Gosling takes his girlfriend and her son for a drive). 

The fact that the movie was able to drastically change gears so often and so effectively is a testament to it's strong writing and directing.  Acting-wise, obviously Albert Brooks was a standout.  His character was downright chilling.  Ron Perlman is always great, and the concept of his character (a Jewish gangster who is a wanna-be Italian) was very funny.  Bryan Cranston was great in his brief role.  And what a cool and somewhat jarring surprise to see him playing a character other than Walter White at this point (hurry back Breaking Bad!).  Carey Mulligan was sufficiently charming as the love interest, and the young actor who played her son didn't make me cringe at any point, which is always a plus for child actors. 

Gosling, surprisingly, was not given much to do.  He didn't have a lot of dialogue, which was maybe for the best, as the lines he did have failed to intimidate.  But, mostly his job was to look handsome, which I assume comes naturally to him, and he did a fine job at.  His is also a decent-sized guy, which added some weight (har har) to his ass-kicking scenes.  But the true star of this movie was the "look" so to speak, the style.  That faux-80s retro vibe.  The cinematography was a triumph.  I look forward to what Refn will create next.  And I wouldn't be too upset if it was a Grand Theft Auto movie.

  

 Verdict: 8/10

Spurs, 82 - Thunder, 102 - Reflections

The Swedes are coming!

 

This was bound to happen.  No streak lasts forever, and the Spurs heretofore dominating 20 game winning streak came to a resounding end in Game 3 of the Western Conference Finals in Oklahoma City.  That the Spurs lost is somewhat unsurprising.  The Thunder are too talented to allow themselves to be swept out of the playoffs against any team, no matter how good, and they are an outstanding team at home.  In fact, they have yet to lose at home in these playoffs.  It's perhaps easy to write this game off.  Reason that the Spurs simply collapsed under the pressure of maintaining their own standard of excellence, and that sweeping the Thunder was a pipe dream anyway.  But the margin of victory here, 20 points, suggests that there may be cause for worry, and that this game is worthy of closer examination.

So what went wrong?  Well, to begin with, the Thunder are a young, deep, and very talented team.  And their backs were against the wall going into this game.  They played like it.  Secondly, the OKC home crowd brought an incredible level of energy to the game, and the Thunder responded in kind.  They were the aggressor from the beginning, leaping out to an 8-0 lead to begin the first quarter.  The Spurs did bounce back and take the lead 24-22 as the first quarter drew to a close, despite turning the ball over 7 times (a testament to the aggressive defense of the Thunder).  Unfortunately, that 24 points was the most that the Spurs would muster in a quarter all night.

Kudos to Coach Scott Brooks who, after enduring seemingly unending criticism throughout this series thus far for reasons ranging from his substitution patterns to his lack of in-game and between-game adjustments, made at least two major adjustments for this game that truly proved to be difference-makers.  Most notably, he assigned Thabo Sefolosha, arguably the Thunder's best perimeter defender, the task of checking Thunder killer and Spurs MVP Tony Parker.  And he played the Swedish swingman big minutes (36), something he had been hesitant to do to this point in the series (Sefolosha had only logged 15 minutes in Game 2).  This is a change that many observers had been really calling for, and though some may argue it was too little too late in terms of changing the outcome of this series, it played big dividends in Game 3.  Sefolosha put up impressive numbers (19 points, 6 rebounds, 6 steals, 4 threes, and a block), but more importantly he significantly hampered the offense of Tony Parker with his length and pesky defense.  Parker shot the ball well, but only totaled 16 points (as opposed to the 34 he had scored in Game 2), and turned the ball over 5 times.  And more importantly, he didn't have his way with the Thunder defense as he had done to this point in the series, particularly on the Spurs patented screen-and-roll plays.  Sefolosha, an incredibly active defender, constantly jumped over screens and stuck his hands in the play, frustrating Parker and the Spurs.

No doubt, the screen-and-roll is the Spurs bread and butter, and the Thunder were significantly improved over previous games in terms of defending it, which leads to the second notable adjustment made by Coach Brooks: the Thunder switched everything on screens.  This is opposed to hedging on those screens as had been their previous strategy.  And it worked fabulously.  It put a lot of pressure on the Thunder defenders, particularly the bigs, to show and recover, but they responded well, perhaps spurred on by the relentless energy of their home crowd.  This lack of success in the pick-and-roll game led to a lot of isolation plays outside the paint for the Spurs, something which is not their strength, and it showed.  Big men Serge Ibaka and Kendrick Perkins also did a fine job turning the Spurs away by blocking their shots (3 apiece) when they did manage to come into the paint.  One presumed upside of all this switching is the mismatches that the Spurs should see in the post, but alas, post scoring has been and remains a weakness of the Spurs since the days when the Admiral David Robinson sailed the seas of the SBC Center, and the Spurs bigs were unable to respond.  Tim Duncan, who has not shot well in this series, missed 10 of 15 shots, and Tiago Splitter was similarly ineffective, scoring no points and attempting no fields in 12 quiet minutes.  In addition to all this scoring that the Spurs were failing to do, they also managed to turn the ball over 21 times, never a good sign.  

Offensively, the Thunder did what they have been doing all series.  They scored often and easily, garnering an impressive offensive rating of 115.7.  In fact, throughout this series, The Thunder have scored 108.6 points per 100 possessions, a very good number.  The dirty little secret of this series has been that the Spurs have not guarded particularly effectively, instead preferring to outscore their opponent, and in this game, with the Spurs finally able to contain the Spurs free-flowing offense, that strategy finally caught up with the silver and black.  On the plus side, Lil Wayne now apparently a Spurs fan.

So what to take away from all this?  Well, the sky is fortunately not falling (not yet anyway).  The Thunder did what a good team should do, they made adjustments and played with pride.  The Spurs have long been considered a great team, and thus should be equipped to do the same.  It helps that they have one of the great coaches in the league in Gregg Popovich.  Coach Pop and his staff had most of the meaningless 4th quarter to ruminate on why they lost and how to respond, something I expect them to do in an effective fashion.  This is the first time the Spurs have found themselves against a wall in nearly two whole months, and it's time for Coach Pop to earn that Coach of the Year Trophy.  Similarly, Tony Parker has received nothing but praise over the last few weeks, and anointed as the Spurs' best player.  He must rise to the challenge as well.  Hopefully the Spurs will respond to this challenge with renewed vigor and focus, something that has never been much of a problem for then, anyway.

In closing, congratulations to Tim Duncan for taking over the all-time lead in playoff blocks.  Duncan couldn't do much of anything else in Game 3, but he did manage to block 5 shots, and now has blocked 478 shots during his career in the playoffs.  What an incredible career.  And no signs of stopping.

#GoSpursGo