Fail is...Ian's NFL Predictions

Well, now...

I know I made complete predictions last week, in the pride and glory of my heart. But I failed on nearly all of my picks, so I'm doing things differently this time. I'm just going to pick this week's games. Then, if I fail, I won't feel QUITE so bad.

NFC

Dallas Cowboys at Minnesota Vikings

I hate both teams in this game with a passion, and I pretty much hate them equally. Furthermore, the more I've researched them and thought about them, they're pretty equal. I think Minnesota may have the edge in terms of pure talent and ability--Percy Harvin, the Offensive ROY, is a Viking, and you can never count out Favre. That defense, too, is a monster. But on the other side, you have the Cowboys, who made a liar out of me last week, with all the momentum in the world (including two straight, meaningful wins over a bitter rival). Grading on talent, too, the 'Boys are no slouch--Miles Austin has huge-play ability, and it seems Romo may have exorcised his December-January demons. In the end, I think it'll come down to the location; the Vikings are at home, and their home is loud. As much as I hate to say this (and I know I'll draw the unmitigated ire of all my Cowboys-fan friends for picking against Dallas two straight weeks), I think Minnesota wins this.

Vikings 21, Cowboys 13

Arizona Cardinals at New Orleans Saints

Another tough one here, and I'm beginning to reconsider. The Cards get this air of invincibility every now and then, and I'm starting to detect whiffs of that. I mean, the way last week's game ended? Yeah...

This one may come down to defense, or lack thereof. The way Warner picked apart the vaunted Green Bay defense, I think it'll take a miracle for New Orleans' D to hold the Cards. The thing is, the Arizona D was pretty bad last week too, and the Saints have been an explosive scoring team. I actually think we'll get our second NFC score-fest of the playoffs this week in this game, with the slightly less horrible Cards D being the X-factor here and making the one stop needed to keep Arizona ahead.

Cardinals 38, Saints 31

AFC

Baltimore Ravens at Indianapolis Colts

Now, this one I didn't expect. I did not think the Pats would drop last week's game, and I fail because of that. I don't know that much about Baltimore, but I think they'll find themselves overmatched in this contest. I was wrong about their drive--they may have stumbled into the playoffs, but they sure as heck want to stay alive. They'll put up a fight, but Joe Flacco isn't quite there yet. It'll be Flacco (214 ypg) vs. Indy's 14th-ranked pass D (212 ypg) and Manning (282 ypg) vs. Baltimore's 8th-ranked pass D (207 ypg). I think Manning is more able to stretch Baltimore than Flacco is to stretch Indianapolis. This one will be interesting, especially if Ray Rice gets going against Indy's bad run D, but I think this one goes to the Colts.

Colts 28, Ravens 17

New York Jets at San Diego Chargers

The only matchup I got right last week was Bengals-Jets. I picked the Jets, and I was right. And, wonder of wonders, I'm not second-guessing my prediction of last week--Chargers win. One thing I didn't really take into account was the bye week, which may not be very good for San Diego momentum. I think the Chargers will be rusty early, but sharpen it up later on in the game and win this one convincingly.

Chargers 21, Jets 10

Here's hoping I don't go 1-3 again this week. That would be really sad.

Long live retrieval of one's good name!

Alexey Pajitnov and Trailers All Up In Here

What's this? Two entries from Yours Truly in one day? Can such things be?

(As a matter of fact, Can Such Things Be? was the title of a collection of Ambrose Bierce's horror stories, and it was published in 1893.

Yeah. I know some stuff. Yeah.)

Now that I've captured your attention, all you nondescript, nonexistent nonentities who are not reading my blog, allow me to indulge in a brief paean to Alexey Pajitnov, who is possibly one of the greatest minds of our generation. Mad props to anyone who actually knows who Pajitnov is without googling him or otherwise cheating.

Now, movie trailers. First, The Book of Eli releases...tonight, actually, and I probably WON'T go see it, because critics are really divided. I don't know; I just don't know. But that's not the focus of this section of Teh Blog; the focus of this section is one of the TV spots that's currently airing for Book of Eli. Apparently some brilliant reviewer decided to portmanteau a few cliches and came up with the amazing "This movie will rock your soul". Not "This movie will wrench your soul" or "This movie will rock your world" or even "This movie will rock your socks." No, our fearless reviewer (who some fearless online research proves to be one Jake Hamilton) decides to create his own cliche. But it's a silly cliche. For the record, folks--leave the cliche-composing to the pros. Here's the trailer (I'm experimenting with embedding.)



The second doodad I want to be excited about is the first trailer for the A-Team movie. Now, let me go on record as saying that I am NOT an A-Team fan. I don't dislike the show--I just never got into it. Thus, I won't be horrified if they butcher the source material--not as horrified as I was prepared to be about Sherlock Holmes, at least. So here's the trailer.




I like the part where the VO is almost the same as the TV show's intro sequence. Heh heh heh. I may actually go see it--the operative word there being "may".

That is all for now, flocks. Long live pontification! And also, pontificators!

In Praise of Ambrose Bierce

This will be a brief 'un.

Very, very brief.

But I've been reading a lot of Ambrose Bierce recently. He's not very well-known--he's like a lesser-known Stephen Crane. But he did some really good stuff--like O. Henry with teeth. Funny how the War Between the States prompted so much amazing literature.

But so here's a link to one of Bierce's stories that's super-amazing. Enjoy.

Long live brief 'uns!

Lamentations, A Thought, and My Inconstancy

This is a three-parter, folks.

Folks?

Right.

LAMENTATIONS: The Packers lost. I am a Packers fan. Therefore, I lament. Now, the referees were definitely failing, including missing some pretty blatant fouls by Arizona. But there were some no-calls on Green Bay as well, and I don't like making excuses, so I don't think the refs were to blame for the Green Bay loss. Green Bay was to blame for the Green Bay loss. This wasn't a streaky Cardinals team hitting a hot streak--Arizona didn't win the game, Green Bay lost it. The Packers' constant miscommunications on defense made Kurt Warner look amazing. The defense was rattled, or psyched themselves out, or was nervous in the big game, or...something. Whatever happened, the Arizona Cardinals can thank the Packers for handing them a game which they probably wouldn't have won otherwise.

A THOUGHT: What if there were a ban--something copyrightish or something--on referencing or even being influenced by any recorded creative work? What if people were forced to be truly (*gasp*) creative on their own? No remakes or reboots in the film world; no covers in the music world; no visual influence in the realm of visual arts; no fanfics in literature...an appealing thought, is it not?

MY INCONSTANCY: is that I went to see Sherlock Holmes. Yes, I did. Even after that scathing review I wrote way back when...see? Toldja I was inconstant! Oops, I feel some Shakespeare coming on.

This is Balthasar's song from Much Ado About Nothing, II.3.60-75:
Sigh no more, ladies, sigh no more;
Men were deceivers ever;
One foot in sea and one on shore,
To one thing constant never;
Then sigh not so,
But let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny;
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into Hey nonny, nonny.

Sing no more ditties, sing no moe,
Or dumps so dull and heavey;
The fraud of men was ever so,
Since summer first was leavy.
Then sigh not so,
But let them go,
And be you blithe and bonny,
Converting all your sounds of woe
Into Hey, nonny, nonny.

There. I'm doing better. Anyway...where was I? Oh yes, my inconstancy. I went to see Sherlock Holmes, and I was entertained. I shouldn't have gone, because Guy Ritchie does that to me—his films entertain me. I didn't walk out of the theatre, though perhaps I should have, the travesties committed on Holmes' character were so blatant. But that belongs in my synopsis.

Which is here: Sherlock Holmes is the most complete, most expensive, most culturally acceptable entry in the steampunk sub-subgenre that I have yet encountered. As an interpretation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's groundbreaking detective works, the film fails, except for in one regard: the story would have been acceptable to Conan Doyle. I'm going to turn over a new leaf here and not be a spoiler, so I'll just say that the formula, narrative and thematically narrative, is one which Conan Doyle utilized repeatedly in some of his later Holmes stories. I will not discuss the characters, except to say that I thought Rachel McAdams as Irene Adler was not as bad as I expected. I'd heard horrible reviews of her, and--while she was certainly not the Adler I envisioned--she was convincing in the role. Holmes' relative modern-ness (Tony Stark Goes To 1890's England was the alternate title I composed for the film, back in July) I will not address, because nothing needs be said about it. Downey, Jr. is not Sherlock Holmes--that sums it up. Jude Law does a passable job as Dr. John Watson, Mark Strong's villain is a bit flat but nevertheless intriguing, and Lestrade (Eddie Marsan) is excellent indeed. Cinematographically, it's steampunk, but it works. There's my analysis.

Oh, one more thing. It seems that some are assigning homosexual overtones to the Holmes/Watson relationship (including Mr. Robert Downey, Jr., himself). I was concerned about this, too, because it would be a VERY serious character departure from the canon--Holmes is a depressingly sour misogynist AND misanthropist, and Watson is speculated to have had as many as five wives. After seeing Sherlock Holmes, I don't believe that Holmes/Watson is meant to be
homosexual--homoerotic, perhaps, but not homosexual. The men are both exceedingly straight, and while there are moments which could be construed as homosexual by someone looking to "twist the facts to fit their theories", the scenes, when viewed in the context of the entire movie, color more richly the unique pre-"bromance" relationship which Holmes and Watson share—in the film and in the source material. They appreciate each other's abilities--they even feel friendship or camaraderie for each other--but, in true British fashion, won't say anything, because that would be peculiar. This leads to interesting scenes like the one where they're sitting side-by-side on the bed, not saying much, but each obviously appreciating the other's important role in all of their work to that point. It's easy to see how that scene could be construed by a biased or a sloppy observer to be homosexual, but I think that the most that can be objectively assumed is accidental homoerotic overtones.

So that's all from me. I must retire to weep over the fall of the Packers.

Long live three-parters!

Football Predictions, and Other Conformities to the Norm

So...heh.

Well, to start off...I didn't exactly Watch a lot of pro football this year. I got a bit distracted part-way through the season and started doing a lot more theatre, etc. Nevertheless, here are my predictions for the NFL postseason. Some of you nonexistent readers may ask why I presume so, to make predictions without knowing what I'm talking about. To you, imaginaria, I say this: LOOK AT THE NAME OF MY BLOG!

Anyway...

Here's a nice bracket for you. I will now break down said bracket, going weekend by weekend.

(Everyone always starts with the AFC, maybe because they've been more successful recently. I'm going to start with the NFC, because it's more interesting to me.)


Wild Card Round

The National Football Conference

Philadelphia Eagles (11-5) at Dallas Cowboys (11-5), Saturday, January 9, 8 pm ET

Philadelphia 21, Dallas 17--The Eagles prove that the shutout was a hiccup, nothing more, but Dallas nearly rallies to win it.

Green Bay Packers (11-5) at Arizona Cardinals (10-6), Sunday, January 10, 4.40 pm ET

Green Bay 28, Arizona 10--The Packers continue to peak at the right time; Woodson's injury doesn't slow him, and Arizona's streaky offense looks lost.

The American Football Conference

New York Jets (9-7) at Cincinnati Bengals (10-6), Saturday, January 9, 4.30 pm ET

New York 21, Cincinnati 13--New York surprises the Bengals for the second time in two weeks and ends their dubious Cinderella story.

Baltimore Ravens (9-7) at New England Patriots (10-6), Sunday, January 10, 1 pm ET

New England 24, Baltimore 14--Wes Welker's injury slows the Patriots, but it doesn't stop them. Baltimore plays from behind the entire game.


Divisional Round

The National Football Conference

Philadelphia Eagles (12-5) at New Orleans Saints (13-3), Saturday, January 16

New Orleans 31, Philadelphia 28--New Orleans struggles defensively, but Philadelphia's rally is the one that falls short this time.

Green Bay Packers (12-5) at Minnesota Vikings (12-4), Sunday, January 17

Green Bay 23, Minnesota 21--In a rivalry that only seems to get hotter as time passes, Green Bay avenges two regular-season losses in dramatic fashion, with a field goal as time expires.

The American Football Conference

New York Jets (10-7) at San Diego Chargers (13-3), Saturday, January 16

San Diego 31, New York 7--In the first true blowout of the playoffs, San Diego runs roughshod over the outclassed Jets, dominating on both sides of the ball.

New England Patriots (11-6) at Indianapolis Colts (14-2), Sunday, January 17

Indianapolis 24, New England 20--Indianapolis plays from ahead for most of the game, but the Colts' weakness against the run keeps New England in the game.


Championship Round

The National Football Conference Championship

Green Bay Packers (13-5) at New Orleans Saints (14-3), Sunday, January 24

New Orleans 21, Green Bay 16--New Orleans finally clicks again, and Green Bay's offense can't get it together. Green Bay has to settle for field goals on three trips inside the red zone, and their offensive line can't protect Rodgers. New Orleans' offense overpowers Woodson and the Packer defense, and reminds everyone why the Saints started 13-0.

The American Football Conference Championship

San Diego Chargers (14-3) at Indianapolis Colts (15-2), Sunday, January 24

San Diego 34, Indianapolis 28--San Diego continues its hot streak, winning its 13th straight and surprising the Colts. The two worst rushing teams in the league combine for a pass-happy score-fest, but San Diego scores last in a back-and-forth affair with little defensive ability displayed.


Super Bowl XLIV

San Diego Chargers (15-3) vs. New Orleans Saints (15-3), Sunday, February 7

San Diego 38, New Orleans 21--The score is deceptive; this is San Diego's game all the way. The Chargers continue their hot streak and decimate an off-balance Saints defense. New Orleans scores twice in the 4th quarter, but it's too little, too late, as San Diego wins their first Super Bowl.

So...there it is. We'll see how terribly wrong I end up being...

Long live predictions!

I've Never Seen Anything Like It: ItP's Review of Avatar, Part II

Sorry to keep y'all waiting for so long (I feel like it's been a long time. What? Nobody reads this thing? Well, then, it's an exercise in enunciation, and I need that. And if I feel like it's been a long time, then...well...). Anyway.

If I were more hip I'd have made this a three-part series, discussing in turn The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly parts of Avatar. But I'm not more hip, and so I lumped the Bad and the Ugly together in a wonderful concoction of Win and Joy. To read said concoction...look lower down on this blog.

Some of you imaginary readers might think, based on some of my statements in the first part of this review, that I didn't enjoy Avatar or that I scorned it. (Actually, I sorta did scorn it, but more on that later.) The fact of the matter is that I did enjoy Avatar; I enjoyed it very much, in fact. Partly because it is beautiful; partly because it engaged me. Let me elucidate.

Avatar is hands-down the most beautiful film I've ever seen. Much has been made of its aesthetic, technological brilliance; I must add my voice to the clamor. I guess the film to which I can most compare it is The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Both Avatar and RotK specifically rely on visuals to communicate; both feature well-rounded subcreations, and a feature of good cinematic subcreation is the reliance on aesthetic to fill in the otherworldliness.

As I sat in the theatre watching Avatar's forests and mountains rush towards me in glorious Technicolor, my mind kept flitting to the vistas of Fangorn Forest and the Misty Mountains that Peter Jackson flung at us in 2003. What set Avatar apart, though, was the attention to detail. Whereas Jackson's subcreation served the plot, Cameron's subcreation was served by the plot.

All the attention which has been paid to Cameron's aesthetic attack is worthy of note, in my opinion: perhaps it goes to show what was more important to Cameron. I've heard from reliable sources that he waited 5 years to make Avatar, just because the 3D technology wasn't ready (and yes, I am too lazy to use the Interweb to go verify that). I propose, without any support for my opinion in the least, that Cameron is more in love with Pandora than with what happened there.

Example: the helicopter-lizards. There isa beautiful section during the training of Jakesully (as Na'vi) in which we get a closeup of a red-glowing lizardish thing which also slightly resembles a seahorse. Then Jakesully comes in to touch it, and it starts flying around, but not with wings--with a helicopter-style motion. Oh, and the wings are glowing, so all you can see of them is this disc of reddish-yellow light. It's super-amazing: and it doesn't affect the plot in the least. They show up a few more times, but have no impact whatsoever on the plot of the film.

So they're gratuitous, and that's the whole story. Cameron is more interested in building a memorable setting than building a memorable story. Not that the story fails, in the least. For despite its regrettably derivative elements, Avatar draws you in. You know what's going to happen; you know that the day will be saved, because...well, you've seen it all before. But you want to see it again, because it works with this unreal setting. Perhaps, even, the predictability of the storyline throws Pandora's surreality into sharper relief: it makes the weird seem even weirder.

Now, I mentioned that I scorned the story, a little. I did: and my previous entry will prove this. But Avatar is an experience, and I was caught up. I've intentionally veered away from talking about the 3D element, but it's vital to understanding what makes this film magical. I can't describe it; it's, again, part of that experience, and as I've mentioned before, Cameron's decision to wait for the 3D technology was very, very wise.

My recommendation? See it, and allow yourself to get caught up in it. It's sort of a miracle that I actually enjoyed it, given my skepticism, but I did enjoy it. As a film, I give it 4/10; as a mind-blowing, HOLY-CRAP-THIS-IS-AWESOME, I-can't-believe-that-just-happened-but-it-did experience, it earns 8/10.

See Avatar, and see it in 3D. You won't regret it.

Long live being of two minds!

An Overabundance of Cliches: ItP's Review of Avatar, Part I

I went to see Avatar last night, on a whim. I saw it in 3D, which was...good. Very good. The movie was made to be seen in 3D, and it showed. But more on that later. For the record, I will be spoiling in this miniseries, so...be aware of that.

I knew little about Avatar's plot when I went to see it, but I had heard it was unimaginative, derivative, and cliche. Unfortunately, all of those descriptors are correct regarding the plot, and not just the plot: characterization, themes, and message all are things I've seen before. Perhaps I should have entitled this entry "So Many Cliches--So Little Time". Either way, there was nothing content-wise I hadn't seen before.

Briefly: apparently this film is quite like Disney's Atlantis: The Lost Empire. I haven't seen Atlantis, but I'm told that the similarities are striking--a life-force to which all of the natives are connected, a protagonist who struggles with priorities and ends up going native, etc.

First, the plot: much has been said about how derivative it is, so I won't begin on that. I must point out, however, the repeated deus ex machina, which did enforce the characterization but also got a little bit old. For instance, the shuttle being hit at the exact moment necessary and in the exact fashion required to keep the mining explosive from sliding off the ramp; the amazing way the shuttle listed off away from the sacred tree-area; the super-awesome return of Sully at the EXACT moment that the blue chick was about to be knifed by the scarred guy; and, most blatantly, the divine intervention of Eywa, sending out the hammerhead rhinos and the pterodactyls to kick the crap out of the Evil White Men. The last is such an obvious and literal deus ex machina that Cameron must have known--he must have realized just how blatant the device is, and he must have decided to cut his losses and go with the deus ex machina.

Characterization was better, but still not top-notch. Here's the problem: the characters were good--well-rounded and interesting--but they were stereotypes. Jake Sully is what I call a "chocolate" Marine: his outside is hard and solid, and then there's a soft, gooey center that's so, so sweet. Jake's choices could be the blueprint for the cliche (there's that word again) "going native". He's a tough-guy who realizes that he's been on the wrong side all this time, etc. For another like him, watch Soldier with Kurt Russell--same sort of premise.

Grace Augustine--good performance from Sigourney Weaver, by the way--is scarcely more original. She falls into another stereotype, one she's played all her life: the smart scientist who can also kick a little butt and just happens to be female. The emphasis in her character this time is on her formidable intellect, and also her scientific morality. Again, she's well-developed and interesting; but we've seen her before. To see another like Augustine, check out any National Geographic film about Africa or South America; there's sure to be an Augustine-like character somewhere in there.

The Scarred Dude--who imdb tells me is named Miles Quaritch--is another stereotyped specimen. Stephen Lang, in another one of his amazing performances (the man can't be stopped), plays the Angry/Bloodthirsty Drill Sergeant Type Who Ends Up With Too Much Power But It's Too Late. He brings as much as he can to the role, but once again, he's just so stereotypical it's almost funny. Another incidence of Miles Quaritch's character is Jacob Keyes, in Halo: Combat Evolved, only Keyes is good and Quaritch is bad.

(Tolja I'd be a spoiler.)

So we've been over plot and characterization. All that remains is themes/message, and I will try very hard to be objective here. Because, frankly, the film's themes and message really made me uncomfortable; I found myself "rooting for" the side I thought maybe I shouldn't be "rooting for". Anyway: the main theme of the film is the conflict between natural and artificial, with natural being Good and artificial being Bad--which is, like almost everything else content-related in Avatar, a major cliche. Everything else thematically revolves around this and branches out from it: the idea of divine providence v. human planning, skepticism v. belief, morality and responsibility, etc. And Cameron has no doubts about the message he's trying to send to his viewers: appreciation for nature, simplicity, and traditionalism are good and desirable, while utilitarianism, skepticism, and the bottom dollar are bad things. While this is true, Cameron commits the fallacy of sweeping generalization (here I go, losing my objectivity); basically, his film argues that since some humans are obsessed with materialistic aims, all humans are obsessed with materialistic aims. Avatar's message is not so much "humans, stop being base" as "humans, stop being human". Sully's final redemption is not making humanity human again; it's escapist--he stops being human in order to be saved.

So that's what I didn't like about the film. Plot- and character-wise, Avatar turns up no new ground. Thematically, it's a poorly-constructed hippie acid trip. As regards moral--well, if James Cameron believes what he says in Avatar, he's one depressed guy, because while the technology to produce this film may exist, the avatar technology is still a long way off.

Later today I'll post another entry, detailing what I liked about the film. Believe it or not, there's a lot that I liked. I'll also include in that entry my rating of the film, and whether or not I recommend it.

Long live cliffhangers!