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.

Movie Review - Sin City

  Sin City (2005)

Director: Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino

Starring: Jessica Alba, Devon Aoki, Alexis Bledel

With the recent development surroundings Sin City 2, and the realization that a sequel to the original 2005 movie will actually happen, it seemed like a good time to revisit Sin City.  Sin City came out in when I was 19 years old, one year removed from high school, and going through a serious Quentin Tarantino phase (maybe I still am?).  Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, True Romance, those movies were my crack at the time.  I devoured all things Tarantino.  Of course, Sin City isn't a Tarantino movie strictly speaking, but it is directed by long time Tarantino cohort Robert Rodriguez, and Tarantino gets a "guest director" credit, which was more than good enough for me.  So Sin City is a movie that I looked forward to quite for some time.  I remember having a Sin City desktop background on my computer for several months before the release of the movie, which prompted many a friend or relative to ask me what the heck the movie was about.  The concept of a (mostly) black and white movie (six whole years before The Artist, people!) was enough to pique the interest of many.

As a dedicated Tarantino fan and wannabe film expert (how little has changed since those days), I decided to my do my homework by checking out the Frank Miller graphic novels the movie is based on.  I've always had an interesting relationship with comic books.  I love comics, and I've always wanted to get into them, but that world always seemed so overwhelming.  There are so many comics, and so much back story and continuity surrounding everything that it's hard for a beginner to know where to start.  There's also the financial side of things.  As a man who spent a great deal of my youth sacrificing all my pocket money to the Magic: The Gathering gods, I'm wary of picking up new hobbies that could lead down the treacherous slope known as "collecting" anything.  Nonetheless, I like to be somewhat aware of what is going on in the world of comic books, and I will occasionally pick up and read something based on a recommendation or something I see somewhere on the web that piques my interest.

Even with my fairly rudimentary knowledge of comic books, though, I was aware of the legendary Frank Miller, and had even read Dark Knight Returns.  The Sin City books really grabbed me from the beginning.  Obviously, the art was striking.  The world of Sin City was so massive and detailed, and there were tons of memorable, cool characters.  There was also plenty of nudity and violence to sate a young mind such as mine at the time.  I also loved how, as opposed to one continuous, ongoing story, each novel was like a capsule taking place at different times, and with characters that we know well from before often having lesser roles or cameos in other stories.  It made Sin City seem so real.  After reading and enjoying those books, I wasn't convinced a really good movie version was even possible.

It seems the ever-curmudgeonly Frank Miller found the right man for the job in Robert Rodriguez, though.  Rodriguez apparently expressed a desire to make the movie more of a "translation" than an adaptation.  He certainly accomplished that goal.  Sin City is often a shot-for-shot recreation of scenes from the graphic novel.  In that way, Sin City is more of a forerunner to a movie like Zack Snyder's The Watchmen than the Dark Knight movies.  Sin City and Watchmen are interested in putting what you see in the comics directly on to the screen, whereas Dark Knight kind of vaguely takes the characters and concepts from the comic books, and uses them to create an entirely new thing without adhering to any one particular storyline from the comic books.

There are certainly arguments to be made for both styles, but I think that movies like Sin City and Watchmen have a very definite "ceiling" simply because of the way they are made.  Those two movies are probably not as good as Dark Knight Rises, or X-Men: First Class (arguably the two best comic book movies), simply because they lack the "soul" of those movies, so to speak.  Dark Knight director Christopher Nolan is like a master improvisor, taking a previously known piece of work and mutating it into something perhaps even more special than the original, just in a different way.  By contrast, Sin City is like a great, technically perfect cover version of a well-known song.  Sure, it's great for what it is, but we're left wondering what could have been had the artist taken some liberties, exposed himself to some risk.  Unfortunately, Miller probably never would have allowed Rodrigeuz to touch Sin City in the first place had he not agreed to this incredibly faithful adaptation, so it was a bit of a catch-22 situation to begin with.

I don't want to sound too negative about Sin City.  This was a movie that I greatly enjoyed when it came out seven years ago, and I still feel largely the same way.  What Rodriguez was able to accomplish with Sin City is truly incredible, particularly from a technical standpoint.  The visual style of the movie is unmistakeable, and just as impressive today as in 2005.  All the visual effects and touches thrown in to make the movie seem more "comic-like" work marvelously.  The movie, much like the graphic novel, is impossibly stylish, and has a serious "cool factor" that persists even to this day.  The brutal and visceral action sequences are, while frequently cringe-worthy, just as frequently breathtaking.  The casting is also magnificent.  The movie is packed with stars, and most of them were obviously the right choice for the role (with the possible exception of the late Michael Clark Duncan).  Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, and Elijah Wood are particular standouts.  Rosario Dawson is also frighteningly sexy as a bloodthirsty prostitute.  Above all, it is clear throughout Sin City the respect that Robert Rodriguez has for the source material, and the care he takes in adapting it for the big screen.  In a world where sloppy adaptations and cash grab-style flops are commonplace, for that he should be commended.

Verdict: 7/10

The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 3 "Walk with Me"

Well, that didn't take long.  Woodbury, its residents, and their story are already a thousand times more interesting than the exploits of Rick and his crew in The Walking Dead.  "Walk with Me" is probably my favorite episode of season three thus far and one of the reasons is simply because we don't see any of the "original" main characters.  A quick glance at Wikipedia confirms that this is the first episode in the series that doen't feature Rick or Lori, and I have to say that fact only contributed to my enjoyment of this episode.  It's safe to say that I'm suffering (and have been since around the middle of season two) from a significant case of Rick and Lori fatigue.  The Walking Dead is an outstanding television show, but strong and or likeable characters has not been it's strength.  Aside from the annoying-ness of television Lori, even characters that were, by most accounts, standouts in the comic book, such as Michonne and Glenn, have failed to gain much traction as intriguing presences on the show.

It's quite a dilemma when a show fails to make you care about characters that you are supposed to like.  But it isn't unheard of.  Lost is a show that I watched and enjoyed for many years without particularly caring for the two characters that were arguably most central to the show, Jack and Kate.  Obviously, the nature of that show helped. There was a huge ensemble cast, and "centric" episodes focusing on different characters. So even though I couldn't care less about Jack or Kate, I always stuck around knowing a great character like Sawyer or Ben would show up and do something awesome.  The Walking Dead would be wise to learn from Lost in that regard, and I think this episode is a great start.

For a show that has been criticized for being dull or slow-moving, switching the action between different places and the perspective of different characters is a great way to introduce another element of intrigue and story development to the show.  Right now, I have no idea who T-Dog is other than the token black guy, and that's embarrassing given how long he has been a central character on The Walking Dead.  Why not pair T-Dog up with another more well-known and liked character like Darryl, and send them off on some mission outside the prison where they encounter some trouble and have to work together to get something done?  The episode will feel fresh, you can develop the character of T-Dog, see two characters who rarely have time together interact, and there is plenty of room for zombie action, as well. Sounds good, eh?

But enough with my shoddy fan fiction and back to "Walk with Me".  This episode manages to overcome the penchant of this show for introducing characters I don't care about. The resident of Woodbury, and in particular The Governor, are the most welcome additions to The Walking Dead in quite some time. The creepy and awkward scientist and the henchmen with the bow and arrow (black Darryl?) are two characters that instantly piqued my interest.  But of course the star of the show is The Governor.

When it became clear that this third season would feature the town of Woodbury, there was a lot of excitement around this memorable character from the comic, and who would play him. David Morrissey seemed like an odd choice, because he doesn't bear much physical resemblance to the comic book character, but I think the creators of The Walking Dead hit a home run in casting him in this role.  This episode works because of Morrissey.  He plays the southern gentleman role flawlessly, but its clear from his nuanced performance that there is something lurking underneath. 

The way Morrissey so naturally alternates between charming and menacing, often times in the same scene, is remarkable.  Because of his great performance, "Walk with Me" has a sense of dread and suspense that builds and builds throughout the episode, finally culminating in the scene where The Governor and his men take out the soldiers near the end. Because of this sense of suspense, of something sinister lurking just below the surface and about to bubble over, "Walk with Me" manages to be intriguing throughout, despite a relative lack of zombie action this week.  Of course, that's what you can do when you have strong actors, and characters.  I'm already dreading going back to the prison next week.

Celebrating Diversity in the Great White North with the Minnesota Timberwolves

Among the “big four” professional sports leagues of North America, the NBA is by far the most “black”:  About 78% of players are African American.  However, the majority of NBA fans and pundits are white.  Because of that divide, the subject of race and ethnicity is one that will always be relevant and much discussed in NBA circles.  Unfortunately, most of the talk about the significance of race in the NBA has revolved around the perceived “blackness” of the league and how that might negatively affect business.  Some individuals have concluded that white consumers are less likely to support the NBA because they can’t identify with black athletes, or because they perceive the players as thugs or gangsters.  Buzz Bissinger wrote an article about that very issue for The Daily Beast last year entitled “NBA All-Star Game: White Men Can’t Root” (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/02/17/nba-all-star-game-white-men-cant-root.html).  

Largely because of the opinions held by Mr. Bissinger and others like him, almost every major change the NBA has made to its rules or policies over the years has been scrutinized for potential racial implications.  Recently, the NBA has instituted a strict player dress code, as well as rules to prevent players from entering the league directly out of high school.  Commissioner David Stern has also criticized NBA players/artists like Allen Iverson for using offensive language (such as the n-word) in song lyrics.  All of those actions have been viewed by some as attempts to make the NBA “less black” and thus more appealing to its majority white audience.  The players themselves also seem to be aware of the stigma of being seen as “too black”, and potentially reducing their marketability.  Last year, Oklahoma City Thunder forward Kevin Durant caught some criticism for his so-called “business tattoos” (http://blogs.thescore.com/tbj/2011/07/25/kevin-durants-hidden-tattoos-are-on-purpose/), seemingly an attempt to distance himself somewhat from the hip-hop or black culture in the eyes of the public.

Given how widespread the notion of the NBA being “too black” has been for many years, I was shocked to read on the website of the Star Tribune last month an article penned by Jerry Zgoda and Dennis Brackin which details some criticism the Minnesota Timberwolves have endured for being too white.   The article features quotes from Tyrone Terrell, who is the leader of the African American Leadership in St. Paul, and Ron Edwards, former head of the Minnesota Civil Rights Commission.  Mr. Terrell believes the current Timberwolves roster, which features ten white and five African American players, resembles the “1955 Lakers”, and that the Timberwolves have purposely overloaded the roster with white players in order to sell more tickets.   Edwards goes so far as to describe an experience from last season in which only one black player was on the floor for the Timberwolves as “disturbing”.

Unsurprisingly, David Kahn, General Manager of the team, denies the allegations.  Kahn is quoted in the Star Tribune article as saying “Every decision we've made here has been intended to make the team as good as can be, as quickly as can be”.   The facts would certainly seem to back him up.  Last year, the Timberwolves sported eight black players on the roster.  Nonetheless, they ranked a respectable 15^th in the league in attendance, and managed to sell 90.2 of their seats according to a Sporting News article (http://aol.sportingnews.com/nba/story/2012-10-31/minnesota-timberwolves-white-roster-civil-rights-protest-tyrone-terrell).  Furthermore, the Timberwolves put a great deal of time and effort over the offseason into pursuing Portland swingman Nicolas Batum, a black player from France (although they were ultimately unable to acquire his services).

Obviously, as Kahn stated himself, the Timberwolves have assembled their team based on chemistry and strategy, without regard to race.  The team, despite injuries to two key players in Ricky Rubio and Kevin Love, has jumped out to a 5-3 record thanks largely to the play of talented white players like Andrei Kirilenko, Nikola Pekovic, and Chase Budinger.  The reason so many of those names look funny is that the Minnesota Timberwolves have managed to build a roster featuring an impressive number of international players.  And that’s the irony of the complaints levied by Mr. Terrell and Mr. Edwards.  As an African American myself, I understand the cries among black leaders for more diversity in all walks of life.  It’s important to remember, though, that diversity doesn’t just mean more black people.

In a league that is nearly 80% African American, a team like the Miami Heat features twelve players that are black, one that is biracial, and two that are white.  All but one are American-born.  By contrast, the Timberwolves may feature ten players that are white, but five of those players were born in countries other than the United States (Pekovic from Yugoslavia, Rubio from Spain, Jose Barea from Puerto Rico, and Kirilenko and Alexey Shved from Russia).  So which team is actually more diverse? I actually admire the Timberwolves for not feeling any pressure to employ more black players just to avoid senseless criticism like this.  The team obviously likes the chemistry and balance they have uncovered with their current, and by coincidence, mostly white, roster.  And their win-loss record thus far has borne out that confidence.

As a black man, I have no problem with the so-called "whiteness" of the Minnesota Timberwolves.  In fact, I feel my heart swell with pride when I watch the Timberwolves play basketball.  Anyone who loves the game of basketball should.  The way that they play the game is simply beautiful.  The motion offense of Coach Rick Adelman has always been a thing to behold when he has the right personnel.  He has found a great mix of such players this year in Minnesota.  And it only adds to the tapestry-like beauty of things that the Minnesota players come from such diverse backgrounds.  Watching the Wolves play reminds me of how amazing the game of basketball can be, and how it has reached across all borders in recent years, uniting people in the process.

Mr. Edwards and Mr. Terrell should be ecstatic, too.  Because a team like the Minnesota Timberwolves does more for diversity in the NBA than a thousand mostly black teams could do.  Not only is this team diverse as hell, they are shattering stereotypes as well.  Any fans of the lazy caricature of white basketball players as un-athletic would be advised to check into forward Chase Budinger:  the kid can fly.  And those who still buy into that outdated notion of Europeans players as soft?  Nikola Pekovic would like a word with you.  Because of teams like the Timberwolves, and the similarly international Toronto Raptors, players all over not just America, but Europe and Asia as well, can look to this team and emulate the playing styles of Budinger and Pekovic just as readily as they can those of African American players like Brandon Roy and Malcolm Lee.  That’s the beauty of the modern, global NBA.  Because whether the Timberwolves are mostly black, or white, European or Asian is irrelevant.  They are a team. And in response to everyone who seeks to make things about anything more than that, particularly where race is concerned, Brandon Roy himself has a simple, yet poignant response in that Tribune article: “It’s just basketball”.

The Unfortunate Jobbing of Mike Brown

A lot of Laker fans were probably upset when they learned that the Los Angeles Lakers had elected to hire Mike D’Antoni as their new head coach instead of Phil Jackson.   I’m not a Lakers fan (I’m the exact opposite, in fact), but I was pretty upset, too.   Actually, I was upset before that announcement even happened.   I started to get angry around November 9, 2012.  You see, that was the day the Lakers fired Mike Brown.  And I was angry because Brown is a hard-working, talented NBA coach who got the shaft.  

 In the 2011-2012 NBA season, Mike Brown coached the Lakers to the playoffs and a very solid 41-25 record in the lockout-shortened season.   Over the offseason, Brown was handed a completely overhauled roster that included the additions of Dwight Howard (who hadn’t played basketball at all in half a year) and Steve Nash, two of the most unique offensive talents in NBA history.  In addition to that upheaval, Brown decided to implement a new offensive system, the Princeton offense.  Obviously, this was a lot to undertake.  And unsurprisingly, the Lakers struggled out of the gate.  It didn’t help that Nash immediately got himself injured.   Under those circumstances, you would expect a team to have patience with their coach and new roster.  And that is exactly what the Lakers seemed to do on the surface:  amidst all the rumors concerning the supposed job jeopardy of Mike Brown, Jim Buss, the executive vice president of the Lakers, came out on November 8, 2012 to say that he had “no problems with Mike Brown at all”, and that he was still very confident in the coach.  Of course, we know that Brown ended up getting axe less than forty-eight hours later.

Putting aside the obvious issues of professionalism and courtesy in firing a man so shortly after giving such a vote of confidence, there are a number of reasons why firing Brown comes across as an entirely asinine move.   Foremost among them is the fact that Brown was given only five games to make his case with an entirely new roster.  Yes, the Lakers went 1 and 4 in those games.    But the teams they lost to (the Mavericks, the Blazers, the Clippers, and the Jazz) all figure to be playoff teams in the ultra-competitive Western Conference.  The Lakers were also dealing with the absence of Nash, and a rusty Howard playing himself into shape. 

Despite all that, and despite all the criticisms of the Princeton offense, the Lakers boasted the third most efficient offense in the league prior to the firing of Mike Brown.    Contrary to popular belief, the real problem with the Lakers lay less with offense and more with the other side of the ball, where they ranked among the worst ten teams in the league in terms of defensive efficiency.  It’s worth noting that Brown is considered a defensive whiz: over his last five years as a coach in Cleveland, the Cavaliers were on average the seventh best team in the league in terms of defensive efficiency, and never ranked outside the top eleven.   It stands to reason that, given the defensive expertise of their coach, the Lakers would have eventually worked things out on that end, especially as Dwight Howard, arguably the best defender and eraser of defensive mistakes in the entire NBA, rounded into shape.  All that of course, provided Brown had been given more than five games to work things out.

Only five games. That is the most frustrating and shocking part of this entire conversation.  Five games for a former NBA coach of the year, and a man whom the Lakers offered an estimated $18 million contract just a year and a half ago.   It appears the Lakers brass have an attention span as short as that of their fans, which is not a good position for an organization to be in.  Because those some fans may not remember that just two seasons ago, the current world champion Heat where in a situation very similar to the one the Lakers are in now.  They had just made two high profile acquisitions (LeBron James and Chris Bosh), and the coach was a then-unknown former video coordinator named Erik Spoelstra.  Just like this current Lakers team, at first the Heat struggled.  Fifteen games into the 2011 season, the Heat, who had seemed nigh unbeatable prior to the season, were only 8-7.   

Fans and media alike piled atop Spoelstra, claiming that he was overmatched and calling for the instatement of a much bigger name coach, Pat Riley.  Of course, the rest is history.  Later that same November, the Heat rattled off a 12-game winning streak and never looked back on the way to that NBA Finals that season, and an NBA championship the next year.  But here is the important thing:  none of that would have ever happened if Heat owner Mickey Arison had listened to all the lame-brains on Bleacher Report and on talk radio who called for the ousting of Spoelstra.  In the NBA, just like any other sport, the development of chemistry and cohesion takes time and patience.  Spoelstra himself acknowledges that in his first season with the Heat, he had no idea what to do with the Big 3 from a strategic standpoint.  With talents as monumental and unique as Bosh, LeBron, and Wade, he needed time to figure out how to make it work.  The Heat front office gave him that time, and they ultimately reaped the rewards with an NBA title shortly thereafter.  The Lakers would have been wise to learn from that experience.

Instead, they fire Mike Brown and hire…Mike D’Antoni?  Now, this is where my discontent mutates into full blown rage.  I don’t think that Phil Jackson would have necessarily done a better job as coach of the Los Angeles Lakers then Mike Brown.  But I can understand why the Lakers would prefer him as coach.  After all, Jackson has a history in L.A., a history with Kobe Bryant, and above all else, he has eleven championship rings.  His resume speaks for itself.  But D’Antoni?  The same guy who was run out of New York on a rail half a year ago?  The same guy who has never even coached a team to a conference final  (Mike Brown has coached eighty-three career playoff games for a winning percentage of .566, compared to fifty-games for D’Antoni and a .473 winning percentage)?   The Lakers plan to entrust the defensive development of this struggling Lakers team to D’Antoni, a man who was notoriously forced by the New York Knicks to employ Mike Woodson as a “defensive coordinator” because he couldn’t coach that side of the ball himself? 

The decision simply makes no sense.  The Lakers, who have seventeen NBA championship banners in the rafters, simply allowed themselves to be manipulated by fan and media speculation, factors that a franchise of this caliber should be above even acknowledging.  As a result, they made a decision that they will come to regret.  The Lakers may eventually win under D’Antoni, but it will take time.  These things always do.  And the price of it all was the reputation and dignity of a hard-working, self-made man like Mike Brown.  Brown deserved the chance to make this work.  Perhaps the best indicator of all about the unfairness of this firing was the rampant speculation that it fueled concerning who exactly got Brown fired. 

Was it Kobe Bryant? Magic Johnson? Owner Jerry Buss himself?  The fact that people even asked those questions says a lot.  Bad coaches don’t need anyone to “get them fired”.  When Vinny Del Negro is canned by the Clippers at some point this season or next, no one will question who “got him fired”.  We’ve seen Vinny Del Negro work, and we know what he is capable of.  He doesn’t deserve the job.  Simple as that. Mike Brown didn’t deserve what he got on November 9th.  And I doubt Brown will spend much time crying over the situation himself.  He will still collect a cool $10 million from the Lakers even after being fired.  And, of course, Brown isn’t the first coach in the NBA to be wrongfully let go.  But that doesn’t mean it’s OK.  Because this isn’t my job, or your job.  This is the NBA.  And I want to believe that this is one of the few places in the world where the most skilled individuals get the job, and get to keep it or lose it based on their own merit.  That regardless of name recognition, or past accomplishments, or of connections, everyone will get a fair shake and the cream will rise to the top.  Unfortunately for us, though, and for Mike Brown, he didn’t get a fair shake.  Not even a little. And today the NBA is a little sadder place for that very fact.

The Walking Dead - Season 3, Episode 2 "Sick"

Welp, farewall to long hair guy, Tiny (what do you know, a big guy named Tiny, very creative there writers of Walking Dead), and another prisoner whose name I never got around to memorizing.  I have to say that I expected the prisoners to stick around and pester Rick and crew for at least a few more episodes, but it never pays to get too attached to side characters on this show, and they've gone and done it again.  It is worth mentioning, though, that at least two of those prisoners are still kicking around in the prison somewhere, which means they will no doubt re-surface at a pivotal moment later this season.

"Sick", which is our second consecutive four-letter episode title starting with 's', is a very different episode from "Seed". This second episode offers a lot less action, and a lot less zombie killing. But it does manage to squeeze in some of that stuff, which is a good sign, given that the "slow" episodes of season two all too often featured very little to no action at all.  I dare say most people tune into this show for kind of that stuff, so good to see the creators fitting it in.  Fortunately, this episode is never as boring as the worst of the infamous farm episodes from last season.

For a show as pulpy and silly as The Walking Dead, the show manages to ask some tough questions of it's audience.  Over the course of three seasons, we have seen Rick evolve from a law-abiding man who would avoid murder at any cost to a cold-hearted killer who do anything to protect his group.  The moment when Rick takes out the first prisoner was absolutely chilling given what we know about him and his history.  There was a time when any one watching The Walking Dead would have stated unequivocally that Rick Grimes was a good man.  Given recent developments, though, that question has gotten a lot tougher.  And not just where it concerns Rick, but everyone in the group.  Are the things that they do justified?  Is Rick still a good man?  Is it even possibly anymore to be a good man in the world of Walking Dead?

Because of our previous attachments to these characters, we root for them, and want them to survive just as much as Rick does.  But think about it from the perspective of the prisoners they encounter: they have been locked away and forsaken by society.  The prison where they live is the place they have come to call home by necessity.  But when society comes crashing down, all of a sudden the hell they have been forced to live in becomes a pretty desirable location.  Ironically, the outcasts momentarily find themselves in an advantageous position, only to be pushed out and rendered powerless yet again.  The question is whether they deserved the place to begin with.  It's a pretty interesting conundrum, and The Walking Dead excels at creating those kind of scenarios.  I'm looking forward to seeing what depths the "good man" Rick and his crew will continue have to continue to sink to ensure their survival. 

So the action is good, and the episode clicks thematically.  But as always with this show, "Sick" is not without it's shortcomings.  Foremost among them is the continued presence of Lori, and the completely uninteresting marital strife storyline that accompanies her appearance.  Unfortunately, Lori has been such a cloying and frustrating character throughout Walking Dead that I really couldn't care less if her and Rick get together or not.  It does add an element of complexity to the show that Rick is (presumably) fighting so hard for a family that may or may not even really be a family anymore, but Lori is so annoying that I would rather the Walkers chomp her to bits than see the resolution of this storyline.  The character of Carl is equally off-putting.  He is actually making himself useful this season, but we saw the beginnings in this episode of a potential "Carl is rebelling" storyline, which does not bode well.  Also missing this week was Michonne.  The Carol side plot in this episode was harmless enough, but I don't think anyone would have complained too much if they had cut those elements to shed more light on Michonne, and what she and Andrea are up to.

 

2012 Rookies and Social Media

http://thegoodpoint.com/2012/11/nba-social-media-awards/

Movie Review - Groundhog Day

  Groundhog Day (1993)

Director: Harold Ramis

Starring: Bill Murray, Andie MacDowell, Chris Elliott

See, romantic comedies can be good.  A movie can be light-hearted, fun, and appeal to both sexes while still being interesting.  Groundhog Day is a testament to that fact.  The 80s and 90s had tons of great  romantic comedies, but they unfortunately seem to have gone the way of the dinosaur recently.  I guess one problem is that not every movie can be directed by a comedic genius like Harold Ramis, and star arguably the most charismatic comedy comedy actor ever in Bill Murray.

But what every movie can do is try things that are new or interesting.  The story of boy meets girl is maybe the most classic (and thus over-used) in all of fiction.  But there is a reason for that: audiences will never tire of it as long as it's well-done.  And Groundhog Day is very well done.  For a movie so simple and so sweet on the surface, Groundhog Day is actually pretty high-concept.  The idea of a man reliving the same day over and over again could just as easily be fodder for an episode of The X-Files or The Twilight Zone as a 90s romantic comedy.  In a way, Groundhog Day is a science fiction movie masquerading as a lighthearted comedy.  The genius part, though, is that it includes just enough of those elements to keep things interesting while still being accessible to a mainstream audience. 

The movie does tackle some pretty heavy stuff, though.  A lot of movies that have a conceit like this one wouldn't really take the time to flesh it out and really thoroughly explore the subject matter the way Groundhog Day does.  A more recent movie like Good Luck Chuck is built around a pretty out there concept that could have actually been really interesting, but fails to deliver on that promise the way Groundhog Day does.  Instead of really delving into what would happen if a guy had the power to make women find true love by sleeping with them, the movie became just another forgettable, one-note romantic comedy.  Part of that is because Dane Cook is no Bill Murray, but a bigger part is that the movie never goes beyond the surface level, never strives to become as a much a character study as a comedy the way Groundhog  Day does.  It is that process that gives Groundhog Day such a heart.  Every step that Phil goes through, we believe it.  Every progression makes sense.  And because we undergo that process together with Phil, we actually want him to break the cycle and get the girl.

As I mentioned before, the success of this movie is largely due to the charm of Bill Murray. Murray is truly at the peak of his powers here in terms of the first stage of his career.  Watching this movie now, with the knowledge of Lost in Translation and Wes Anderson-era Bill Murray in my head, it is amazing to note the transformation that Murray has undergone as an actor.  Murray of today may be a more a diverse and respected dramatic actor, but only 1993 Bill Murray could have pulled off this performance in Groundhog Day.  In recent years, Murray has moved ever further into the area of the dry and occasionally curmudgeonly, but here he has just enough heart and kindness to make us cheer for him.  It takes a truly special actor to be as big a jerk as Murray as in this movie and have the audience still cheer for him anyway.  And Murray pulls it off splendidly.

The other star of the movie, other than the tremendous writing, is the supporting cast.  Unsurprisingly, Chris Elliott is subtly hilarious in a limited role.  And Stephen Tobolowsky, despite basically giving the same performance over and over again, steals nearly ever scene he is in.  The townspeople are all also generally note perfect, and really give life to the town of Punxsutawney, so much that I felt like I had lived there for all those days right alongside Phil.  Andie MacDowell is a relative weak spot, however.  She is certainly pretty, but lacks any real charisma, and it's hard to imagine exactly why Phil wanted to be with her so badly in the first place.  But that is a small complaint.  As a timeless, for-all-ages classic comedy that may actually make you think a little, it's hard to beat Groundhog Day.

Verdict: 8/10