Review: Shooter

Shooter is a poor man's Bourne Identity. There is no other way to say it. At times, Shooter can be very entertaining. Too often though, the film is brought down by cliched scene after cliched scene. Movies with preposterous plots can often be fun to watch, and indeed the Bourne movies are good examples of this. The plot, however, must be infused with solid storytelling and some kind of character arc if the movie is to stand a chance of being worthwhile. Director Antoine Fuqua (Training Day, King Arthur) is so intent on making its action sequences work (and they do work more often than not) that he forgets what is the main purpose of any film: to tell a story.

There isn't much of a story in Shooter that we haven't seen or watched a million times before, and Fuqua does nothing to make it different or unique. The difference, I guess, is that this time the hero, Bob Lee Swagger (Mark Wahlberg), is a sniper. Swagger, you see, is the best sniper in the world. He worked for the government in this role with his best buddy Donnie Fenn (Lane Garrison) as his spotter. When Fenn is killed during an "unofficial" mission, Swagger quits his job and goes into seclusion. Two years later, give or take, Col. Isaac Johnson (Danny Glover) visits Swagger at his log cabin home in the mountains of Wyoming. You see, the president is going to be the target of an assassination attempt by a sniper at one of his speaking engagements some time in the next week. Only Swagger can stop it, because Swagger is the best sniper in the world, and he would know how to do assassinate the president, and where it would be done. If the plot sounds preposterously preposterous to begin with, you would be correct. Swagger, who is well trained in counter-intel but can't smell a set-up coming from a mile away (if there was a legitimate assassination threat to the president, would he be allowed to go to public speaking engagements? I think not), reluctantly agrees to help Johnson stop the would-be assassin. Of course, as everyone who has watched a preview knows, it is a set-up. Swagger is shot, almost killed, and framed to make it look as though he was the man who assassinated the archbishop. No that isn't a typo. The archbishop was in fact the one who was assassinated (for reasons I'm still not exactly clear of). It has something to do with mass graves in some African nation. But you see where this is going.

Shooter is cliche after cliche after cliche. Following the cliched set-up, there is the obligatory "evade the cops" sequence. Swagger retreats to the house of Sarah Fenn (Kate Mara), the widow of his best buddy, where, despite the fact that Swagger is all over the news depicted as the assassin, he convinces her within 90 seconds to let him in. Oh, I smell another cliche. Yep, it's the "pick up the phone and call 911 when the hero is busy, then change your mind and hang up" scene. Of course, there are a couple of Mark Wahlberg shirtless scenes. Fortunately, Fuqua wasn't tasteless enough to turn the Swagger-Mara relationship into a romantic one. Hooking up with your dead best friend's wife, now that just ain't right.

There are plenty of more cliches in this film, including the nosy young FBI agent Nick Memphis (Mark Wahlberg). He smells a cover-up, and does everything he can to find out the truth, regardless of what his superiors tell him. If you are picturing Jack Bauer right now...don't. Picture someone who is the opposite of Jack Bauer. Picture a complete wimp who doesn't look or act like he could hurt a high school sophomore. Now picture him as an FBI agent. Doesn't work, does it? Neither does much else in Shooter.

Shooter does get some things right. The action sequences are all entertaining to some degree, although there are cliches abound even there (slow motion walk away from a gian explosion, anyone?). Mark Wahlberg, to his credit, is very fun to watch in a role even as one-dimensional as this. Wahlberg, as he showed in the far superior film The Departed, is very good at playing a kick ass, take names, ask questions later kind of guy. He does it very well in this film, and most scenes that include Wahlberg and a gun work.

Danny Glover, on the other hand, is horrible to watch in this film. It's pretty clear he's not trying and he doesn't really give a damn. At times, his voice is so muffled it's very difficult to hear what he is saying. Glover was just here for the money, which I'm sure he must have figured out pretty quickly after reading the script. As good as he was in Dreamgirls, Glover is equally bad here.

There isn't much else to say about the other actors in Shooter. Watching Pena act is a horror film unto itself. I really don't understand why he was cast for his role. It just didn't work at all. Elias Koteas, one of the great "his face looks familiar but what's his name again?" guys of cinema, is solid as enforcer Jack Payne. Mara has a nothing role, so there is no real reason to comment on her acting. Ned Beatty does an excellent job of playing a corrupt senator from Montana.

Shooter is a film that at times can be quite entertaining. However, as a whole, Shooter simply misses the mark. I would feel bad about using a cliche to end my review, but in a film with character names like "Bob Lee Swagger," "Nick Memphis," and "Jack Payne," I feel I have the right to end my review however I would like.

Great Sports Figures: Bill Russell

Bill Russell is the greatest winner in the history of major American team sports. Period. There is no debate about it. In thirteen professional seasons, Russell led his Celtics to 11 NBA Championships (including two as a player-coach). A dominant defender and rebounder (a dominant blocker as well, although statistics for blocked shots were not kept during his playing career) and a more than capable scorer, Russell was at the center (literally and figuratively) of the great Celtics dynasty of the late 50s and 60s. After legendary Celtics coach Red Auerbach retired following the 1965-66 season (in which the Celtics won their 8th consecutive title), Russell was handed the reigns to the team, thus becoming the first black coach of a major sports team. Russell was just as successful winning as a coach (at least in Boston), leading the Celtics to two more championships in three seasons before retiring himself following the 1968-69 season.

Russell stood at 6 feet, 9 inches and weighed 215 lbs.
Only average height for a center in the 60s, Russell would be dwarfed by many of the centers of the modern era (Shaquille O'Neal, for example, is 7'1" and well over 300 lbs). What Russell lacked in size he more than made up for with tenacious defense and an incredible wing span. Born on February 12, 1934 in Monroe, Louisiana, Russell attended college at the University of San Francisco. It was there that his basketball ability gained national attention. In Russell's three seasons at San Francisco, he averaged 20.7 points and 20.3 rebounds, exceptional numbers even in that time period, while shooting 52% from the field.

Red Auerbach wanted badly to have Russell on the Celtics, for he knew that Russell was the key to unlocking the championship door for his team. The St. Louis (now Atlanta) Hawks picked Russell 2nd overall in the 1956 NBA draft. Auerbach, in what was considered a bold move at the time, traded all-star center and future HOFer Ed Macauley to the Hawks in return for Russell. The 1956 draft would indeed be the beginning of the Celtics dynasty, as Auerbach selected Tommy Heinsohn just 4 picks after Russell, then selected K.C. Jones in round 2. Both Heinsohn and Jones (as well as Macauley) are possible "great players" subjects in the future. Russell, Heinsohn, and Jones along with Bill Sharman and Bob Cousy, would form the core of the first teams of the Celtic dynasty.

Russell was a dominating force from the first moment he stepped on an NBA court. Russell made it resoundingly clear on which end of the court he would dominate most: defense. Though most stats were not recorded during Russell's era, rebounds certainly were. Russell averaged an incredible 19.6 rebounds per game in his rookie season. He would average a solid 14.7 points per game as well, despite the fact that he wasn't the first scoring option (or second for that matter) on the team. In fact, that would be Russell's philosophy his entire career: dominate on defense, let the other guys do it offense, then if they can't get it done dominate on offense as well. Of course, the "other guys" on Russell's teams were usually a bunch of future hall of famers, so they could get it done pretty well most nights.

Russell's defensive dominance would only grow as the years went on. For 10 consecutive years beginning in 1957-58, Russell would average over 20 rebounds per game: 22.7, 23.0, 24.0, 23.9, 23.6, 23.6, 24.7, 24.1, 22.8, and 21.0 respectively. Russell would tail off in his final two seasons to a "paltry" 18.6 and 19.3 rebounds per game.

Russell became a better scorer as well. Traditionally, it is thought that Russell's best scoring year came during the 1961-62 season, when he averaged a career-high 18.9 ppg. A closer look at the numbers, however, show that he was just as effective a scorer as early as the 1957-58 season. Russell averaged 16.6 ppg that season, but he also played far fewer minutes (38.3 mpg compared with 45.2 mpg during the 61-62 season). On a "points per 40 minutes" scale, Russell actually averaged more points in 57-58 than he did in 61-62: 17.3 to 16.7.

Russell was not a great passer early in his career, averaging only 1.8 assists per game in his rookie season. He became a far better passer as his career went on, however, and by the end of his career he was one of the best passing centers in the history of the NBA. Russell averaged 5.8 apg during the 1966-67 season, a very high rate for a center in any era.

Russell, for his career, averaged 15.1 points, 22.5 rebounds, and 4.3 assists per game, while averaging an incredibly high 42.3 minutes per game and shooting 44% from the field (a high number at that time). Most importantly though, he led his team to 11 NBA championships in 13 seasons.

Think about that...11 championships in 13 season. Think of the most modern sports dynasties: The Yankees of the 90s, the Bulls of the 90s, and the Patriots of...well...right now. The Yankees won 4 world championships in 5 years between 1996-2000. But guess what, they haven't won one since and they have only made it back to the World Series twice. The Chicago Bulls are the only modern dynasty you can legitimately compare to the Celtics, as Michael Jordan led them to 6 championships in 8 years. Many will argue that had Jordan not briefly retired following the 1992-1993 season, the Bulls would have won 8 straight titles. I happen to agree. But Russell's Celtics did win 8 straight titles - then after their streak was broken they won two more (not to mention the one title they won two years before the streak of 8 began). There is no way in hell Jordan's teams would have done that. Tom Brady's Patriots team won three Super Bowls in the span of four years (2001-2004), which is impressive, but once again, nowhere near the Celtics dynasty.

What I am getting at is this: Bill Russell was the most important piece of the puzzle and the on court leader of the greatest team ever assembled. For that reason and that reason alone, throwing statistics completely out of the equation, Russell deserves to be recognized as the one of the greatest sports figures of all-time.

But, just for fun, let me throw some final stats at you:

*12-time all-star (aka every season after his rookie year)
*5-time most valuable player (only MJ has received more)
*4-time rebounding champ (he finished 2nd six other times to Wilt Chamberlain, the greatest statistical player in NBA history)
*3 All-NBA First Teams (8 All-NBA second teams, once again thanks to "Wilt the Stilt")
*Made the inaugural All-Defense 1st team in his final season
*Finished in the top 10 in assists per game 5 times
*Became the first black coach to lead a team to a major American sports championship

Oh yeah, and he won 11 NBA championships in 13 seasons.

Review: Reign Over Me

What an inconsistent yet ultimately powerful film this is. Mike Binder's Reign Over Me attempts to reach the levels of One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest with its story of friendship, internal pain, and most importantly mental illness. While it doesn't quite reach that plateau, Reign Over Me still manages to be emotionally moving and, as of March 26, is one of the best movies of 2007.

Make no mistake about it, Reign Over Me is first and foremost about one man's mental illness, stemming from the tragic loss of his family. Charlie Fineman (Adam Sandler) was a successful dentist with a wife, three daughters, a poodle, and a damn good life. That ended on September 11, when the plane his family was on flew into one of the twin towers. Now Charlie lives a reclusive life, subsists on chinese food and barq's root beer, and keeps himself busy with his album collection, the drums, his motor scooter and headphones, and a video game called "Shadow of the Colossus." He never drinks (assumedly because if he drinks, he will not be able to resist thinking about his family) and has no friends. Charlie spends his life pretending not to remember the past while attempting to forget.

By chance, Alan Johnson (Don Cheadle), Charlie's old college roommate, runs into him on the street (with his scooter and headphones of course). Charlie is so out of touch with reality that he doesn't even remember Alan at first. Alan takes Charlie for some coffee, they get to talking, and eventually they go back to Charlie's apartment and Alan begins to see how messed up Charlie really is. This doesn't stop Alan from playing "Shadow of the Colossus" until all hours of the night though, nor does it stop him from jamming with Charlie in his music room. For Alan, Charlie's life is an escape from the doldrums of his own life. Alan is, like Charlie was, a successful dentist with a loving family. However, his life is unbearably boring, and he feels as if he has no freedom to just "do guy things." His wife (Jada Pinkett Smith) loves him very much, but happens to be controlling. In Charlie, Alan finds a kind of release that he enjoys very much, and so he intentionally overlooks the very obviously reality that Charlie is mentally ill and needs some sort of help.

As the movie progresses, Alan suffers a tragedy of his own, realizes that Charlie needs help and seeks it from a colleague of his (Liv Tyler), and Charlie reaches a breaking point, ultimately attempting to kill himself. This all leads to an unfulfilling conclusion, in which Charlie, who is clearly not even close to being in a stable state of mind, is not only allowed to continue living his life (rather than go to a mental institution for one year), he is allowed to live by himself. I am sorry if I am being too much of a cynic, but it seems as if a guy who tries to kill himself and goes wacko even at the mention of his family might need more help than a good friend can give him.

There are other inconsistencies to be sure. Donna Remar (Saffron Burrows) was an almost entirely unnecessary character and I couldn't help but feel that she was initially thrown in as a joke, one that Binder couldn't figure out how to get rid of so he just kept her in as a character. The attempt to relate her tragedy to Charlie's tragedy was embarassing and almost insulting. Yes, adultery is a horrible thing, but compared with the death of one's entire family?

For as many problems as Reign Over Me has, there are just as many good things. The acting, for one, is incredible. Don Cheadle is one of the 10 best actors working today. Period. There is no way you could convince me otherwise. Take a look at what he has done recently: The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Crash, Hotel Rwanda, After the Sunset, the Ocean movies, and now Reign Over Me. Watch each of these films: not one of his characters is anywhere near similar. Cheadle can act with his body, with his eyes, in a way that very few others can. He can be funny, he can be noble, he can be angry, he can be simple...Cheadle is one of those rare breed of actors who can play any role and fit into it seemlessly.

Adam Sandler isn't on par with Bill Murray or Robin Williams on the list of comics who can play serious roles, or Jim Carrey for that matter, but he is clearly growing into a solid actor and his performance in Reign Over Me ranks with Punch Drunk Love as his best. The one thing Sandler can do as well as any actor working today is play someone in pain. Roger Ebert first mentioned this in his review of Happy Gilmore: "Happy Gilmore tells the story of a violent sociopath." Another remark from Ebert on Sandler, in his review of Punch Drunk Love: "The Sandler characters are almost oppressively nice, like needy puppies, and yet they conceal a masked hostility to society, a passive-aggressive need to go against the flow, a gift for offending others while in the very process of being ingratiating." This is Adam Sandler, and he embodies Charlie Fineman, finding a way to relate to Fineman's pain in a way that is too real to be "acting" in the conventional sense. It is eerie to watch Sandler in some of the film's more depressing sequences.

Certain moments in this film are so moving that people around me were brought to tears, and while Reign Over Me didn't affect me to that degree, I was still touched. Reign Over Me does not consistently hold its power. There are certain scenes, such as the scene with the judge (Donald Sutherland), that completely break the film's spell. It was a very bad decision to cast Sutherland, as he is too well known for such a small role and instead of watching the scene too many will be busy saying to the person next to them "hey that's Donald Sutherland!" As a whole though, this film works. There are many moments of comedic genius (the scene in front of the movie theater in particular) and many more moments of sadness. The film is beautifully shot, presenting a side of New York City that most people don't see. Mike Binder had a vision for this film that a more talented writer and director could have brought to life far more vividly. I couldn't imagine what a cinematic master like Ken Loach would have brought to this story. Reign Over Me is still a great film, one of the best of the year so far, but it is not the masterpiece it most certainly had the potential to be.

One final note: I've read many reviews stating that this film exploits 9/11. That is wrong, plain and simple. There is no exploitation in this film. In fact, 9/11 is only brought up two or three times at most. I had a problem with Reign Over Me using 9/11, but not because it exploited the tragedy. My problem was that it was used so little, that there was no point in bringing it up at all. Any plane crash would have sufficed, so it just annoyed me a little that Binder decided to use 9/11 when any kind of tragedy would have done just as well. If you want to say that is exploitation, fine. I just consider it a bad choice by an average director attempting to tell a great story.

Great Sports Figures: Babe Ruth

How could I write the first installment of my "great sports figures" series on anyone else? I considered Muhammad Ali and Michael Jordan, but there was really only one choice. It would be blasphemous to choose anyone else. While Ali and Jordan are both surely more internationally renowned (they are probably more well known in the U.S. at this point too), no one has truly transcended sports the way that Babe Ruth has. Ruth died 58 years ago last August 16. He played his last game over 71 years ago. He played his first game 92 years ago. It is remarkable that so many generations have passed, yet I would guess that he is still one of the 5 most well known sports figures in the United States. No single sports figure embodies the ethos of American sporting culture, of the need to raise athletes to legendary, even mythological status, as much as George Herman "Babe" Ruth. Ruth was our Achilles, our King Arthur. He was Paul Bunyan brought to life. He was "The Great Bambino," "The Sultan of Swat," "The Colossus of Clout." One season, he hit more home runs than any other team in the entire league. He also happened to begin his career as a pitcher.

Ruth debuted for the Boston Red Sox as a pitcher on July 11, 1914. At the time he was 19 years old. Ruth only pitched in 4 games in 1914, but by 1915 he was a feature member of the Red Sox' rotation. In 32 games pitched (including 28 starts), Ruth won 18 games while losing only 8. He threw 16 complete games and his ERA (runs allowed per 9 innings) of 2.44 was 14% above the league average. Ruth's 18 wins were good enough for 9th best in the league, while his win-loss percentage of .692 was 4th best. Ruth also allowed the 2nd fewest hits in the league per 9 innings, just 6.86 and his 4.63 strikeouts per nine innings was 8th best. 1915 was also the season in which people would first begin to notice Ruth's hitting ability, though the extent of it was not discovered for years to come. In just 92 at bats, Ruth would hit 4 home runs, good enough for 9th best in a league where Braggo Roth won the home run title with 7 over 384 at bats. Ruth would hit 5 home runs over the 1916 and 1917 seasons, but it would not be until 1918 that people would fully begin to realize his greatness.

1916 was Ruth's best season as a pitcher. He pitched in 44 of the team's 154 games, starting 41 of them. Winning 23 games while losing just 12, Ruth led the league with an ERA of just 1.75, 58% above the league average. Ruth won the 3rd most games in the league and had the 5th best win-loss percentage (.657). He also had the 5th best WHIP (walks+hits per 9 innings) and allowed only 6.40 hits per 9 innings, the best in the league. Ruth's 323 2/3 innings pitched and 170 strikeouts were both 3rd best in the league, whiile his 41 games started and 9 shutouts both led the league. According to Bill James' revolutionary Win Shares method (too difficult to attempt to explain), Ruth was the second best pitcher in the American League and the third best pitcher in all of baseball in 1916, behind only the hall of famers Pete Alexander and Walter Johnson.

I wanted to give a fairly in depth analysis of Ruth's first couple of seasons in the league as a pitcher, because so few realize how good he was. I promise I won't do this for every season, as he played until the mid 1930s.

Ruth won 24 more games in 1917, finishing with an ERA of just 2.01, 28% above the league average. According to the win shares formula, Ruth was the third best pitcher in the American League in 1917 and the fourth best overall.

1918 was the year that Ruth transitioned from pitcher to hitter. Though he still pitched enough to win 13 games , and his 2.22 ERA was 21% above the league average, he was far more effective for the Red Sox as a hitter. In just 317 at bats, Ruth led the league with 11 home runs, a huge amount in the dead ball era (which would soon be over). Ruth's combined effectiveness as pitcher and as a hitter made him, for the first of what would be many times, the best player in the major leagues according to the win shares formula.

1919 would be Ruth's last in a Red Sox uniform. Now a full time left fielder (as well as an occasional pitcher), Ruth officially ended the dead ball era, hitting 29 home runs in 432 at bats, setting the record for home runs in a season.

Ruth would set the league record for home runs in a season on three more occasions: 1920 (54), 1921 (59), and 1927, when he became the first player ever to hit 60 home runs in a season. By the time Ruth retired in 1935, he would have 714 home runs, far and away the most of any player at the time. Ruth's teammate Lou Gehrig (377) and Jimmie Foxx (302), number two and three on the all-time home run list as of 1935, combined for fewer career home runs than Ruth.

While Ruth is best known for hitting home runs, he was far more than just a home run hitter. Ruth was hands down the greatest to ever play the game - it is almost inarguable. 72 years after he retired, Ruth is 10th all-time in career batting average (.342), 2nd all-time in on base percentage (.474), 1st all-time in slugging percentage (.690) and OPS (1.164), 3rd in runs scored (2174), 5th in total bases (5793), 3rd in home runs (714), 2nd in RBI (2217), 3rd in walks (2062), 1st in runs created (2757), 4th in extra base hits (1356), and 9th in times on base (4978). Add in his career as a pitcher, in which he won 94 games, losing only 46, while leading the league in ERA once, and Ruth is clearly the greatest baseball player of all-time.

The Red Sox of the 1910s were the Yankees of the 1920s (as well as the 30s, 50s, 60s, 90s, and 00s). In three of the six years Ruth played for the Sox, they won the World Series (1915, 1916, and 1918). After Red Sox owner Harry Frazee, who was losing money with his team, sold Ruth to the Yankees, the Sox didn't win another World Series until 2004. The Yankees, in that same span, won 26 World Series. Ruth transcended the game to such an extent that he even had a curse named after him.

The Beginning

Soon I will post the first of what will be many installments focusing on the great players of the NBA, NFL, and MLB, as well as great tennis players, golfers and boxers. My goal here is to present elite athletes in their respective sports in a way that illuminates their remarkable abilities to an average sports fan (or even someone who isn't a sports fan).

I think it is important to note that very few athletes truly transcend their sport into what could be called, I suppose, the stuff of legend. I am not sure yet if I want to write about these athletes, or if I want to write about equally (or close to it) great athletes who, for one reason or another, never achieved that transcendence. In essence, I don't know if I want to write about the Charles Barkley's of the world or the Vern Mikkelsen's. I'm sure I will figure it out as I go along.

If you are here, then I'm sure you've noticed that my blog site URL is "sportsandcinema". My true love is sports, but cinema (and theatre in general) is not far behind. I hope to post reviews of films, as well as thoughts on cinema in general from time to time, once or twice a week maybe. More often I will post my thoughts on sports (as well as the great athletes installments), but I will try to give cinema its "just due". Maybe for fun, my first review will be of "Rocky" or "Hoosiers" or "Raging Bull".

Maybe a lot of people will wind up reading this. Chances are no one will. That doesn't bother me, since I am doing this for two reasons:

1. I find it fun to research sports figures and I love to write.
2. I find myself perpetually bored.

With that I will go and watch the replay of the Mavs-Pistons game on ESPN...in HD!!!! (hmm, maybe that will be the subject of my first post...nah.)