Archives for 2012

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows

2012/01/01 By staze

Sequels, seemingly, rarely live up to their former incarnations. Series like The Matrix, Ghostbusters, and Die Hard, all took the originality, and fun of the first, and hardly lived up to their mandate with the second movie. Sometimes, though, like Terminator, they take on the ideas of the first, and build something as good, or better. Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows falls more toward the latter, than the former, being a very good follow up to the first movie.

The action is well spaced, and seldom drags (like some other action movies can). My wife, a consummate hater of most action movies (to the point that she really dislikes the new Batman movies… I know, right?), actually enjoys both the first, and now the second Sherlock Holmes. The only actor that was slightly awkward from the first movie was quickly “dispatched” in this movie.

Robert Downey Jr. does a wonderful job as Sherlock Holmes for the same reason he does so well as Tony Stark… he has a certain boyish arrogance about him. I’ve heard in real life he’s an extremely down to earth, humble, enjoyable guy, but he plays the part SO well at this point, it’s hard to tell. And the combination of him and Jude Law makes for an extremely good combo (may not Clooney/Pitt, but close). But, I digress. The movie flows much as the first, and like the first, it tends to drag JUST a bit about 3/4th of the way through the movie. Classical story tellers would probably say this is normal as it’s the “calm” before the climax, and that may be the reason for it in this case. It’s only noticeable while it’s going on, and once that drag is over, you’ve soon forgotten about it. And like the first, the viewer is left wondering what exactly is going to happen from scene to scene, and by the end of the movie, things wrap up nicely. Short of the first Mission Impossible, there has seldom been a action/mystery that has been quite so “ahhhh” at the end.

All and all, a solid movie, that’s well worth the price of admission, and will definitely be, like the first, something I purchase on DVD and watch many a time. The biggest question in my mind is, how will they live up to this, and the previous movie, in the third. But, I have the same concern about The Dark Knight Rises.

[xrr rating=4.75/5]

The Muppets

2012/01/01 By staze

Seeing The Muppets a few weeks back was truly a trip back to my childhood, with a nice modern aspect. But, let’s start at the beginning.

First, is the Toy Story “Short” that prefixed the movie. In a word, wonderful. In fact, the short was nearly worth the price of admission all on it’s own. It was humorous, cute, and all and all, enjoyable. I guess there was another Toy Story short before Cars 2, but as a fellow reviewer said here, “No interest” (Cars is probably my least favorite Pixar movie).

So to the movie, The Muppets. It was extremely enjoyable. Funny, cute, and a great trip back to the glory days of the muppets. The story is told from a “Muppet” who was raised in a normal family, who loved the Muppets, and gets a chance to travel to Hollywood to see Muppet Studios, etc. The story progresses from there, and we see the far distant Muppets rejoined for a story that ends up smelling a bit like UHF (telethon to raise enough money to save the station, only without Michael Richards), and the story ends up being “Be true to yourself, or be there for someone else”. Singing is there (and presented much like it was in Enchanted, there it seems perfectly natural, but people are aware they are singing), as is the concept that the Muppets are perfectly normal. Some might argue that the story was overly silly, but I think it struck a great cord of honesty to Jim’s Muppets, and what the Muppets may become in this new generation. It’s been at least a decade since the Muppets were relevant. Honestly, it’s about time they showed back up.

I’d highly recommend the movie, and fully intend to go see it again either in the normal theater, or the cheap theater in a month or two.

[xrr rating=5/5]

NCAA cartel? really?

2012/01/01 By staze

An often vocal, of nearly everything UO, posted on his site today about how the NCAA is a cabal, and works to enforce a student athlete population to work for free, and live on 1 year scholarships, etc. The story has been covered in several other locations as well, and there seems to be a very conspicuous missing piece of thought: “fairness”.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I think the NCAA probably WOULD work to pay the players if they thought it would be fair. Working for a university with deep athletics pockets, I imagine it would probably benefit us to be able to pay our athletes, and give them longer scholarships. But our neighbors to the north would probably be crying foul all the way to the NCAA. Think the days of Norte Dame football are done? Let them pay their athletes and see how fast they return to being a power house. By limiting what schools can give their athletes, the NCAA levels the playing field and allows public schools to really compete with the private ones.

Yes, the NCAA would limit it to a $2000 stipend, and the number of scholarships. But I would argue once this starts, we’d end up like professional sports.

It’s actually MORE amazing that the man that runs UO Matters didn’t realize that doing something like this would put even MORE pressure on the academic side of a university if the athletics departments are suddenly on the hook for paying athletes, or giving them longer scholarships, etc.

Do I think it’s right that student athletes work for “free”? No. But I do think it’s one of the only ways to make things fair, and prevent situations where a “University” becomes an “Athletics University”. Just imagine what Phoenix University, or something like them, could do with the ability to attract players with money, scholarships, etc.

« Previous Page