So, Florida Gulf Coast University becomes the first 15-seed to advance to the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament Round of Sixteen. They're the darling, the Cinderella, the proof that little guys can do it too, the antithesis of the BCS....... okay, enough. All of those cliches, as true as some of them are, are still cliches. The thrill of an upset is one of the reasons why millions of people love this tournament, but has that too become cliche in and of itself?
I remember George Mason's improbable run to the Final Four in 2006. It was unlike anything any of us had ever seen, almost movie-like in the way it played out. This was a true mid-major, a team whose games are never televised nationally and never come within sniffing distance of the Top 25. It was a shock to the system, and although the team lost its next game to eventual champion Florida, their journey represented the ultimate idealist belief sports can weave. As a 22-year-old college student, I lapped it up, and I have no regrets over doing so. Five years later, Virginia Commonwealth, out of the same conference no less (CAA) repeated the feat. I wasn't as ecstatic at this point, but still felt some measure of giddiness.
This time, I can't imagine feeling the same way should FGCU make the Final Four. Why not? It's a $#%*#@ 15-seed! It's Never Been Done Before! You could say age and modern-day cynicism has done this to me, and you might be right. But the the nature of the game has changed. The tournament format remains the same, but once NBA Commissioner David Stern implemented an age limit for his league's draft, the die had been cast. The influx of "one-and-done's"-- clear-cut NBA All-star prospects who attend school for one year only because they're forbidden from turning pro sooner-- was eventually going to lead to this; a sea of mediocrity where parity is abundant but greatness is scarce. The Final Four used to be a showcase of future pro stars, but with prospects physically developing at younger ages, most are better served taking the money rather than the collegiate glory. Given the numbers involved, you'd do it and I'd do it.
Check out the field in this tournament. This could be the weakest NBA Draft since 2000, maybe even longer. Among the players talked about as Player of the Year, who's a standout? Kansas' Ben McClemore? Disappeared in the win over UNC. Indiana's Victor Oladipo? Inconsistent. Others are even less certain. Of course, I'd love to be wrong, and by that I mean as wrong as my bracket every year, but I don't see a single future All-Star here.
When I was in college, I knew a young man in my dorm who once said, after an enthralling NCAA tournament day full of upsets, buzzer-beaters, and overtime thrillers, "If you like the NBA better after THAT, you should be burned at the stake." Of course he said that somewhat jokingly, and I laughed, but around 2004, right around the time of the infamous "Malice at the Palace" in Auburn Hills, this was the prevailing ideology: College players work harder and respect the game because they're playing for free, and millionaire pros are arrogant, thuggish, and play too much one-on-one style. I found it curious that mostly white fans were the ones espousing this belief, and even stranger that they were willing to ignore so many of the NBA's greats who shared the same sort of team-first mentality as top-notch college teams did. Suffice it to say I didn't believe it then and I sure as hell don't believe it now.
But the reason I believe college hoops is more popular than the NBA's playoffs is something far different than race, money, or quality of play: the format. Think about it. The NFL, the undisputed most popular sports league in America, operates on a one-game-a-week regular season and single elimination postseason. Do or die. Win or go home. It's the same here. In spite of the fact that a 5 or 7 game series unquestionably proves who the better team is in basketball moreso than a single game would, it's just too much fun this way. The drama is more immediate. Cut out the filler.
This may sound like I'm being hard on the NCAA tournament. I don't mean to be. I'll take it 100 times out of 100 over college football's shameful BCS; the fact that it does give smaller schools a chance to compete on the biggest stage is admirable and democratic. Logistically, it's impossible to lengthen it. But let's recognize it for what it is; a brilliant marketing creation. The format of this tournament, not to mention the brackets and office pools, takes it to heights that no other non-football sport could. I just see that the polish is beginning to fade from all these "Cinderella Stories." They'd be more unique if they didn't materialize every other year.
How the NBA should alter its age limit is another topic for another time. But it's become more obvious, this year in particular, that college hoops appears like glorified minor-league ball. It's a lot of fun, to be sure, and I'm glad my bracket isn't completely busted as of yet, but the seams are showing. This year, I'll still enjoy the Madness. But in the back of my mind are a few things that remain a little maddening.
Monday, March 25, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Review of Oz: The Great and Powerful (CONTAINS SPOILERS)
Note: It's debatable whether you can have spoilers in a prequel, but since the "spoiler" in question is not immediately obvious from the outset, I'll go ahead and include this warning anyway.
On the surface, prequels seem like easy projects to take on and succeed with, especially when the prequel in question is set before a classic like The Wizard of Oz. The universe and characters are established, so it comes down to setting up all the pieces, right? Yes and no. While a prequel is safe and comfortable in the sense that there are no real narrative surprises and a built-in audience is guaranteed, all you have to do is look at George Lucas' Star Wars Episodes I-III to understand how mammoth expectations result in a hangover of disappointment. So give director Sam Raimi credit for crafting a solid prequel that is guaranteed to delight viewers of all ages. It's familiar but still provides plenty of magic.
On the surface, prequels seem like easy projects to take on and succeed with, especially when the prequel in question is set before a classic like The Wizard of Oz. The universe and characters are established, so it comes down to setting up all the pieces, right? Yes and no. While a prequel is safe and comfortable in the sense that there are no real narrative surprises and a built-in audience is guaranteed, all you have to do is look at George Lucas' Star Wars Episodes I-III to understand how mammoth expectations result in a hangover of disappointment. So give director Sam Raimi credit for crafting a solid prequel that is guaranteed to delight viewers of all ages. It's familiar but still provides plenty of magic.
Much like the classic, Oz features a prologue set in Kansas that effectively sets up the story. Oscar "Oz" Diggs (James Franco) is a struggling magician travelling with the Baum Bros. circus who has plenty of luck with women but not as much when it comes to drawing crowds. One day, after escaping in a hot air balloon from an angry strongman performer, Oz is caught in a tornado, knocked out, and wakes up in the mystical land which bears his name. There, he is greeted by the good witch Theodora (Mila Kunis), who believes he represents the fulfillment of a prophecy and wishes to rule at his side. She escorts Oz to Emerald City, where he meets Theodora's sister, Evanora (Rachel Weisz). In order to claim the throne and all the riches he desires, however, he must travel into the Dark Forest and kill the Wicked Witch. Along with his flying monkey companion, Finley (Zach Braff), whom he saves from a lion, Oz sets off on the quest, but when the so-called "Wicked Witch" turns out to be Glinda the Good Witch (Michelle Williams), the nature of his mission is turned on its head.
Obviously, with production values having advanced light years since The Wizard of Oz debuted in 1939, it comes as no surprise that this Oz is a visual feast. The sets and special effects are state-of-the-art, but enough of the familar visual trademarks are retained to make this unmistakably an Oz adventure. The Emerald City, the Yellow Brick road, and the munchkins are back, and Raimi has a little fun with the movie's aspect ratio (4:3 in the Kansas scenes, uber-wide 2.35:1 for the rest of the movie). In addition, actors play dual roles, including Braff, Williams, and Joey King as a wheelchair-bound girl in the prologue and as a china doll who represents the narrative's emotional core. Raimi nails the perfect mix of nostalgia and modern spectacle.
James Franco proves an inspired choice for the wizard. He sells the character's transformation from egotistical to caring, and credit the screenwriters for slowly developing this arc over the course of the movie's 2 hour, 10 minute running time instead of having that sudden "reversal of philosophy" moment. Two of the three witches are well-cast. The mistake is Mila Kunis. Although she's fine in early scenes, the character's eventual transformation into the Wicked Witch of the West is laughable at best. I'm not sure how many people involved in this movie are fans of Family Guy, but Kunis' take on this green-skinned villain is far, far too reminiscent of Meg whenever a guy rejects her. This one colossal miscasting isn't enough to wreck the film, but it suffers noticeably whenever she's on screen. Fortunately, most of this is compensated by Williams and Weisz, who are charismatic and fetching, and they have a satisfying stand-off during the movie's climax.
On balance, Oz offers solid entertainment. There's plenty of witty dialogue (much of it from Finley), genuine emotion, and a fantastic sense of creativity during the climax, which reveals a lot about the main character and his ability to wow a crowd when he puts forth the proper effort. The March release is a smart one; this whimsical tale might not be able to stand toe-to-toe with the more action-oriented summer blockbusters, but early in the year, it's a welcome diversion. Depending on overall performance, this could be a franchise starter. L. Frank Baum wrote fourteen total tales of Oz, so there's plenty of material for use. I for one would welcome it.
Rating: * * * (out of * * * *)
Obviously, with production values having advanced light years since The Wizard of Oz debuted in 1939, it comes as no surprise that this Oz is a visual feast. The sets and special effects are state-of-the-art, but enough of the familar visual trademarks are retained to make this unmistakably an Oz adventure. The Emerald City, the Yellow Brick road, and the munchkins are back, and Raimi has a little fun with the movie's aspect ratio (4:3 in the Kansas scenes, uber-wide 2.35:1 for the rest of the movie). In addition, actors play dual roles, including Braff, Williams, and Joey King as a wheelchair-bound girl in the prologue and as a china doll who represents the narrative's emotional core. Raimi nails the perfect mix of nostalgia and modern spectacle.
James Franco proves an inspired choice for the wizard. He sells the character's transformation from egotistical to caring, and credit the screenwriters for slowly developing this arc over the course of the movie's 2 hour, 10 minute running time instead of having that sudden "reversal of philosophy" moment. Two of the three witches are well-cast. The mistake is Mila Kunis. Although she's fine in early scenes, the character's eventual transformation into the Wicked Witch of the West is laughable at best. I'm not sure how many people involved in this movie are fans of Family Guy, but Kunis' take on this green-skinned villain is far, far too reminiscent of Meg whenever a guy rejects her. This one colossal miscasting isn't enough to wreck the film, but it suffers noticeably whenever she's on screen. Fortunately, most of this is compensated by Williams and Weisz, who are charismatic and fetching, and they have a satisfying stand-off during the movie's climax.
On balance, Oz offers solid entertainment. There's plenty of witty dialogue (much of it from Finley), genuine emotion, and a fantastic sense of creativity during the climax, which reveals a lot about the main character and his ability to wow a crowd when he puts forth the proper effort. The March release is a smart one; this whimsical tale might not be able to stand toe-to-toe with the more action-oriented summer blockbusters, but early in the year, it's a welcome diversion. Depending on overall performance, this could be a franchise starter. L. Frank Baum wrote fourteen total tales of Oz, so there's plenty of material for use. I for one would welcome it.
Rating: * * * (out of * * * *)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)