Monday Night Quarterbacking: What the Heck Happened?

I guess that 3-0 start for the Bears was too good to be true. Sadly, Bad Jay showed up again and the Bears just disintegrated against the Lions. The Lions for goodness sake! Weren't we supposed to be dominating the NFC North this year?

 The Bears were bad in all ways this past Sunday. Jay Cutler threw two interceptions, the defensive line could not stop Reggie Bush, and the Lions just made the Bears look stupid all Sunday. It was clear that the Bears were not going to go undefeated this year, but it was so utterly total that this loss might be a template for other teams to beat the Bears.

As mentioned previously, Jay Cutler was back to his old self. His throwing motion got worse as the Bears predicament went further south, a problem that was supposed to be fixed by Trestman. Cutler had been dominant in the fourth quarter in the past three weeks, but there was none of that. So what happened? My hypothesis is that the Lions knew this is still Jay Cutler and they took advantage of his mental instability.

And the Bears offense couldn't do anything either! Aside from a Matt Forte run, the Bears mostly had to settle for field goals for much of the game. Oh, and did I mention they were 1-13 on third down conversions? They only third down they had the entire game was with :48 left in the game. Yeah, you're not going to win if you can't convert on third down.

Of course, the defense is not blameless at all her, either. The Lions shredded the Bears defensive line, which was hurting with Henry Melton out for the season and Pat Tillman not 100%. The Lions had 16 plays where they gained 10 or more yards against the Bears. Reggie Bush had 139 yards on 18 carry attempts. Looking at the replay, he made the defense look like idiots.

The worst part is this comes a week before the high-power Saints offense comes to town. The Bears defense will have to watch the game tape, shame themselves and come back. Now granted, they did force a few fumbles (a number of which they could not recover) and they held Calvin Johnson. Also, this bad defense only showed up in the first half. The rest of the game, they were able to contain Bush.

So what happened? The Lions took advantage of the Bears' hiccups, that's what. Cutler picked a bad week to go back to Bad Jay and the Lions made him pay. The defense was still recovering from Henry Melton's injury and the Lions found the gaping holes. Trestman will have his work cut out for him. He'll have to figure out a way to get Jay to drop the "Bad Jay" persona and become the Pro Bowl Quarterback we all know he can be.

There is significant work that will need to be done before Week 5. The Bears offense needs to step up and recover from bad play pretty quickly, or else this will be another year of disappointment. However, before things get worse, I might as well point something out: The Bears are still 3-1. But this game has exposed the Bears flaws. They must be fixed and fast.

I Want to Travel

Okay, so the subject of this blog post should be obvious. Right now, I'm not sure whether or not I can, but I have my sights set on getting out of my situation and going somewhere, either in the country or out of the country. Right now, my preference would be to leave the country. Part of it is because I want to broaden my horizons, the other part is because I'm getting a little tired of being stuck in my current situation.

If I were to choose where to go, I would go to Europe. I really like watching Rick Steves' travel show and it gives me a chance to look at far-away places. Out of the places in Europe I would like to go, it would have to be Ireland, Britain, France and Germany. Ireland because it's my ancestral homeland, Britain partly because of football (where you use your foot), its own sights, France because it's well, France, and Germany because there's something about that place. I can't really explain.

Okay, so enough about where I want to go. I need to get out of my lousy situation and bad. I have sort of a wanderlust now, but because I'm not sure if I can afford to go, I'm stuck. I want to go and see other places. I want to see Niagara Falls again, maybe go to the Hockey Hall of Fame in Toronto, go to Cooperstown, see Boston, etc, etc, etc.

Sadly, I'm stuck in my situation and it doesn't look like I'm going anywhere any time soon, unless something happens. Although I did take a trip up to Wisconsin in June, and aside from the part of the trip I spent in Milwaukee, I felt very underwhelmed with the trip. I guess I could find a way to make my trips better. I found the town I visited to be very dull and I had a rough time with the public transportation. These lessons should be obvious for a future trip.

Until then, I'm stuck in my situation and putting my characters in far-off locales. It sucks, but It's all I can do for now.

White Sox 2013: What Went Wrong?

Jeez, what a season! And that's not in a good way. It's a good thing Chicago had the Hawks, and will have the Bulls, Bears and Hawks (again) this year, because baseball has been horrendous. The team on the North Side has always been horrendous and thus shall remain irrelevant, so the team on the South Side is the big question. Just what in the world happened!?

While the White Sox did not end with 100 losses, 63-99 is absolutely unacceptable. The problem is not only that they finished with this record, it's how they finished with it. This year was the first year for GM Rick Hahn, who took over for Kenny Williams after the collapse of last year. Hahn didn't really do much in the off-season, and it clearly cost him with this horrible team.

The team's defense is arguably the biggest reason for this team's horrible record. Last year the Sox had the best defense in the Majors, which was arguably a big reason why they led the AL Central for much of the year. Their .9883 fielding percentage and 70 errors were a team record. This year, however, they're ranked 29 in the Bigs with a .980 fielding percentage and 121 errors. You're not going to win very many games of your defense is non-existent..

One bright spot this year was Chris Sale, whose 226 strikeouts was a personal best. Sadly, you're not going to win the Cy Young Award if your defense has more holes than Swiss cheese. Sale finished with an 11-14 record and a 3.07 ERA. Did anyone else see the video of him thrashing the Gatorade cooler?

Oh, but don't think the offense is entirely blameless here. Just like last year, the Sox offense finished second in the Majors, but things fell apart. They had to deal Alex Rios, who despite his billing, did not produce at all during his tenure with the White Sox. The ever-loved Paul Konerko was also invisible, and so was Adam Dunn. They only totaled an average of 3.74 runs per game. The "Hitless Wonders" of 1906 did worse, but the Dead Ball Era made anything possible. It got so bad they had to fire hitting coach Jeff Manto.

So what happens for next year? Well, I think it's obvious: Hahn must spend money. By all accounts, it looks like this might be Paul Konerko's last year on the South Side. He's said he'll retire no later than 2014, but it's not clear whether he'll return. Ventura will certainly return, but who will be back is up in the air after a year like this. My hope is that the Sox find some hitters and fielders both from other teams and within their own farm system. I do not want to see another horrible year, so Hahn better get to work. What do you think the price tag is?

Derrick Rose: Is He Ready?

Getting away from the Hawks and focusing on the other team that shares the United Center, the Bulls have started their training camp and of course, questions about Derrick Rose have once again come up. Rose missed all of last season and drew serious criticism from fans when he was seen playing on the court and yet he did not play a single game, even when they needed him. Naturally, most of this criticism called his dedication into question.

Rose himself said on Bulls media day that he's ready. "The thing that drives me is just winning the championship," he said as quoted by ESPN.com. Rose has said that his refusal to play was because even though he knew he could handle man-on-man coverage, it was the double-team that made him sit out. 

Rose's impact on the court is undeniable. With him, the Bulls were top-seeded in the playoffs in 2012, but there was a mean crash and burn once he injured his knee. He is also the youngest player ever to win the MVP award. Sadly, he has not been able to get over the Conference Finals hurdle. The closest he got was two years ago against the Heat, which the Bulls lost 4-1 after a dominating Game 1.

When asked about the negative criticism, Rose said this, as quoted by ESPN.com: "As a fan, of course I would want my favorite player to be out there. At the same time, the way I look at it, I had to be selfish. ... The thought of me going out and injuring myself again ... I did not want to put myself in that position, and I just tried to stay far away from that and just think everything through and try to stay positive." So his position on the criticism is clear. He understands it, but he's not going to let it get to him. That's a pretty good attitude, if you ask me.

Tom Thibodeau has also responded to the criticism, saying that Rose is loyal to the organization and only sat out because he felt he wasn't 100%. He also mentioned it was owner Jerry Reinsdorf's orders to be cautious about the situation and Thibs followed it as best he could.

Rose has watched the video of his injury at least 20 or 30 times and has said that he should be more balanced now than in the past. From that comment, I'm drawing the conclusion that he thinks he landed wrong, which helped lead to the injury.

What I want to see out of Rose is a better version of his old self. Right now, with the Heat looking for a third-straight NBA title and the Hawks looking like the city's new winter pastime, the Bulls are sitting in an uncomfortable situation. D-Rose will have to play his best and his supporting cast will have to do the same. Do I think he's ready? Yes or no? What do you think?

Les Miserables (1998)

Okay, so I reviewed the 2012 adaptation of the musical version of "Les Miserables" (available here: http://deechanceyblog.blogspot.com/2013/09/movie-review-les-miserables-2012.html). But what you might not know is that there was another big-time film adaptation of Victor Hugo's 1862 novel. Released in 1998, this version is different, to say the least. How different, you might ask? First and biggest reason: it's not a musical.

Wait, you mean there was a "Les Mis" adaptation that's not a musical!? Why, yes there is! In fact, most of the movie adaptations are not musicals. Said musical only debuted in the 1980s. This particular adaptation stars Liam Neeson, already an Oscar winner for his role in "Schindler's List" and one year away from becoming known as Qui-Gon Jinn, plays Jean Valjean. Aside from him is Geoffrey Rush, five years from becoming better known as Hector Barbossa in the "Pirates" movies, playing Inspector Javert.

Directed by Billie August, this is more of a condensed, SparkNotes version of a 1,000+ page novel affectionately known as "The Brick". Instead of all the subplots, it streamlines the plot to focus on Valjean and Javert's adversarial relationship. Valjean is released from prison before the movie even starts and, in a bit of a departure from the musical, Valjean hits the priest he robs! In a way, this makes his redemption much more heavy-hitting. The rest of the movie zips past, but sometimes you don't even notice because it goes at a relatively slow pace.

In fact, compared to the 2012 film (and by extension, the musical), this one is quiet and... well, subtle. I mean, it's Liam Neeson. Do we have to go over his acting? No, we don't. Even when he's being restrained he's still doing a fantastic job. The court scene where he confesses that he's escaped convict Jean Valjean is far more powerful in this film than in the 2012 movie. We see the man accused of being Valjean humiliated by the court and then we cheer when Valjean confesses.

As for Javert, Rush also does a heck of a job, and yes, he's even better than Russell Crowe! Looking at Rush's Javert, there's a sort of restrained madness and obsession with catching Valjean, although he's shown to be doing other things. Right after Valjean confesses himself, Javert goes from calm disappointment to mad fury as he screams "I KNEW IT!!!"

Also along with them are Uma Thurman, who does a heck of a job as Fantine. Sadly, her performance would be overshadowed by Anne Hathaway in 2012. Claire Danes plays Cosette, who actually manages to outplay Amanda Seyfried! Yes, Claire Danes, with her wide eyes and blank expressions, outplays Amanda Seyfield! How? She has a personality, that's why! Sure, she's a hormonal teenager, but she's pretty rebellious and stands up for herself.

The rest of the cast is more downplayed. The Thenardiers only make a cameo, there's no Eponine and Enjolras's role is greatly diminished. Hans Matheson plays Marius, who takes a more active role in the June Rebellion, this time being the leader of Les Amis de l'ABC. I kinda like this Marius, since he's a pretty passionate guy.

But even though it's a SparkNotes version, I found there to be a bit of an expansion of the plot compared to the 2012 movie. Without all the bit players, we see just how Valjean was able to get out of the town he was mayor of, how he and Cosette got into Paris, and yes, Cosette and Marius courting. It also doesn't go much into the politics behind the Rebellion, but does explain why Les Amis revolted on the day of Lamarque's funeral.

Unlike the 2012 film where it's very stylized, grimy, filmed rather wonkily, all up in your face and kind of weird, this one is more like a production on Masterpiece Theatre. The period piece aspect is more pronounced, although it's not as dirty as the 2012 movie (I say dirty as in, there's a lot of much and grime in the 2012 movie). Also, whereas the 2012 movie goes right for the gut with the emotions, this one is more subdued. Although that doesn't mean that it won't hit you hard when it needs to.

So like I said, I kind of liked this movie. But it's not perfect. It's a shame one of the greatest novels of our time has yet to see a truly great adaptation, but then again, the book itself is so difficult to adapt. It didn't have the same emotional impact that the 2012 movie had, it did what it had to do. This version is, at least as far as I see it, an introduction to the novel for people who want to read it. It's essentially saying, "here's the gist of the novel". The 2012 movie and musical on the other hand, they're their own things. The acting is phenomenal, the pacing is actually pretty good and the characters are all really good. The sad part is, it's not great. But, I'll let you decide what you think.

Can the Hawks Repeat?

Sports Illustrated seems to think so. Of course, among sports fans, the blessings of Sports Illustrated magazine is a curse in disguise. But, perhaps the Blackhawks might have what it takes to repeat as Stanley Cup champions this coming season.

The Hawks still have their major players from last year; Kane and Toews, Andrew Shaw, Corey Crawford, Patrick Sharp, Bryan Bickell, Seabrook & Keith, Michal Handzus, Brandon Saad, Johnny Oduya and the others. However, the Hawks have given up Viktor Stalberg, Dave Bolland, Michal Frolik and Ray Emery to deal with the NHL salary cap. We know the core of talent can certainly perform and win, but it's the guys around them who will have to step it up.

Brandon Pirri is one of the guys vying for a spot on the final regular season roster. Pirri was the American Hockey League's top scorer for the Hawks' farm team Rockford Icehogs last year. Currently he is nursing a lower-body injury that might, if things go wrong, would keep him off the team. But Pirri should get his chance after the season he had last year. The guy can't be denied a chance at the NHL for much longer even if he has to remain on injured reserve.

One name who's been surprising for the moment is Joakim Nordstrom, whom the Tribune quotes as being surprised himself. He's shown strong two-way skills, penalty killing and chemistry with fellow Swede Marcus Kruger. I want to see him on the roster, as well. The other Scandinavian who came into camp, Teuvo Teravainen, will sadly return to Finland for the season, even though he's shown he's got incredible talent. If you ask me, it's a waste. I hope he'll be brought back to the states from his Finnish club Jokerit some time during the season.

What will benefit the Hawks is the new NHL realignment. To put it short, Detroit is gone and the Hawks won't have much competition in their new Central Division. That could play into their hands for a good record. And since it helps for the Hawks to get away from the UC at around the start of the season, the training camp in South Bend might turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

So, do the Hawks have what it takes to repeat? Here's the thing: The NHL is unpredictable. The Hawks could win a second-straight President's Trophy and get swept out of the playoffs. Right now, it's hard to tell, and since I never make predictions, I'm not going to do that. What I will say is that I expect the Hawks to have a successful season and make the playoffs. Sure, everyone is gunning for them, but it looks to be another fun season at the UC.

Movie Review: Les Miserables 2012

Okay, I know I write a lot about superheroes and hockey players, but I'll make a little confession: I saw the 2012 "Les Miserables" movie. First, a little background. "Les Miserables", first published in 1862, is considered one of the greatest literary works of all time. Centering around a convict-turned-Samaritan named Jean Valjean, Victor Hugo's novel about the societal ills of 19th-century France has become a timeless piece of literature, the themes it addresses are still relevant today.

Then, in the 80s, somebody came up with the bright idea of turning this 1,000+ page Brick into a two-and-a-half-hour musical. What could possibly go wrong? Well, not much, apparently. It's widely considered to be one of the most popular stage shows of all time. And then somebody decided to make a movie based on that musical!

British director Tom Hooper directs this star-studded affair, starring Hugh Jackman (AKA Wolverine), Russell Crowd (Gladiator), Anne Hathaway (Catwoman), Helena Bonham Carter (Bellatrix), Sacha Baron Cohen (Borat) and even Colm Wilkenson (the original Jean Valjean). Oh, and did I mention the actors all sang their lines... LIVE ON SET?

The story follows former convict Jean Valjean, hardened by 19 years in prison, as he struggles to rebuild his life while avoiding the determined Inspector Javert, raising his adopted daughter Cosette and being an all-around nice guy. Oh, and there's a rebellion in Paris going on that looks to change Valjean's life. Oh, and his adopted daughter has fallen for one of the revolutionaries and vice-versa. So yeah, real simple to follow (not).

Okay, here's the thing. This is an adaptation of a musical that is an adaptation of a massive book affectionately known as "The Brick". There are a LOT of characters and a LOT of subplots to be stuffed into this thing along with all the socio-political commentary. At times it works, but at times it doesn't. But the first two acts (Valjean's release from prison and his eventual adoption of Cosette) are a little jumpy. Granted, it settles down eventually, but it sort of costs some character development.

Still, the basics are kept. Valjean is a tormented man, struggling to change his life and become better whilst avoiding the long arm of the law, and Inspector Javert is chasing after him every time he comes across the guy. Those two are basically the characters who drive the story. I'll give Hugh Jackman credit for both acting and singing (more on the singing later) and portraying Valjean's confused psyche rather well both in lyrics and in facial expressions. Crowe, however, as many have pointed out, is... stiff.

Now, this is not that bad. As one Internet reviewer pointed out, Crowe is a rock singer surrounded by Broadway and West End singers, and his usual acting style is pretty stiff already. And Javert is a hard lawman, determined to uphold the law and anyone who breaks it is evil from the moment he commits his crime to the day he dies, no flexibility! So, with this in mind, he actually does a pretty decent job.

Much of the rest of the cast is a little hit-or-miss. Anne Hathaway I agree did a heck of a job as Fantine and there is a good reason she won an Oscar for her role. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thenardiers, two corrupt inn-keepers who abuse Fantine's daughter Cosette while singing a pretty silly song about how they rip off their customers. They're Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter, they always play those types.

As for the rebels, they're certainly memorable. I did like Daniel Huttlestone's rendition of the mischievous 10-year-old Gavroche, who at one points sings both to his friends and the audience about how bad things have been in Paris ever since the first French Revolution. Aside from him, the revolutionary I liked the best was Aaron Tveit as the passionate Enjolras. Eddie Redmayne as Marius was a little on the miss side, but I did like him singing mournfully.

Now then, onto the production. This is a little tricky. Because the actors sing live on set, it can get a little weird. You will hear their voice going flat on occasion but they show the emotions very well. But... that's also because the camera is up in their face about 75% of the time! Look, I know you want to show emotion, but I could see Eddie Redmayne's mustache whiskers for cryin' out loud! I know you want to be intimate, but there is such a thing as too intimate! 

But, it works at times. The "I Dreamed a Dream" scene is where it especially works and you can see Anne Hathaway nail the performance in one take. And yes, it does play on your heartstrings, wonky production aside. There is subtlety, emotion and quiet moments in these movies, just the way a pretty dark and depressing book should be adapted (take notes, Baz Luhrmann!). Yes, I did get a little teary-eyed at moments.

And yes, when you think about it, it does make sense for them to sing live on set. The "Les Miserables" musical is performed almost entirely in song. it would make little sense for the actors to sing their lines in-studio and then come in and try to act. Even the actors have admitted it! 

So what do I think? Well, I think they could have done a little better. The production and cinematography could have been better, but I do think that they were able to fit in as much emotion and social commentary the book held as they could. So basically, I'm split on the movie just like the rest of the critics. If you like it, fine, and if you don't, fine. It's not perfect, but it's not horrible, either. It's just okay.

USA V. Mexico: We are going to Brazil!

Dos a cero! goes the famous US Soccer chant, aimed at our Mexican arch-rivals. The US beat Mexico 2-0 on September 10 at Crew Stadium in Columbus, Ohio, and booked a trip to Brazil 2014 in would could be called a tale of two halves.

It's been 12 years since the first "Dos a cero", a momentous occasion, played out in a frigid Columbus, Ohio night. The US Men's national team beat Mexico's team 2-0, a major victory on their way to qualifying for the 2002 World Cup.

Three more "Dos a cero's", one of which happened in the World Cup, and the US faced Mexico once again on September 10, 2013. The US had an incredible summer, winning 12 straight including the Gold Cup. Mexico... did not. They fired their head coach a day after losing to Honduras in their vaunted Estadio Azteca. They were desperate.

They were in fourth place in the CONCACAF qualification standings.  And here's the thing: Mexico has never won on US soil in World Cup Qualifying in over 40 years, and Columbus is the site of three straight dos a cero matches. It's become about as vaunted in Mexico as Azteca has been for the rest of CONCACAF.

The US had lost not just the game 3-1 against Costa Rica on the previous Friday night, they lost some important players, which included "General" Michael Bradley (a vital member of the US midfield), so there was some nervousness coming in. The USMNT needed a win and either a loss or draw by Panama to clinch a spot in next year's World Cup.

Because they were desperate to salvage their World Cup hopes, the Mexican team came out with a fury. Loaded with talent like Giovanni dos Santos and Javier "Chicharito" Hernandez, they struck first, dominating possession and attacking the US net. Gio Dos Santos was unstoppable on the left wing, making the US midfield look stupid. But the Americans absorbed the pressure and several excellent saves by Timmy Howard kept the score sheet clean in the first half.

Unfortunately, for Mexico, that opening flurry would not last them, especially when the second half began. The USMNT made some necessary adjustments to the midfield and defense, putting in Michael Parkhurst to solidify the midfield.

It only took four minutes for the USMNT to score in the second half. It was a brilliantly set-up corner kick and forward Eddie Johnson used his height to his advantage to put the ball in the back of the net with a brilliant header. It was pretty obvious that the Mexican chances were dead at this point. It was only solidified when Mix Diskerud executed an excellent throw-in that missed Clint Dempsey's foot, but hit the foot of Mexico's sworn enemy Landon Donovan.

Dos a cero.

In the long run, this was unexpected. At times, it looked like the US would not even qualify for the World Cup. Just before the famous "SnowClasico" in Denver, The Sporting News ran an article about discontent in the US camp, questioning head coach Jurgen Klinsmann's tactics and philosophy. This came off a disastrous 2-1 loss at Honduras. And of course, the US had just lost 3-1 to Costa Rica just before the Mexico game.

But Klinsmann's showed why he's one of the best coaches the US has ever had. Sure, there's been a few slip-ups, every one's gonna have a slip-up! But what he did was he learned from his mistakes and made the right changes, both tactically and in personnel.

The Mexicans may have had the better individual players, but the Americans had the best team. They played like a well-oiled machine, stopping whatever weapon the Mexican team threw at them. Midfielder Jermaine Jones was lost and confused against Costa Rica last Friday, but he was solid, shutting down the Mexican midfield on Tuesday. And while there were questions about the defense, they more than held their own and once again held the supposed best striker in CONCACAF, Chicharito, scoreless against the US.

There will be questions about the US in the coming days and months, but right now, the hard part is over. They only have two games left in qualifying, which are essentially a formality. I expect they'll play well, since first place in the Hex will be at stake. But right now, it's time to party because, We are going to Brazil,
We are going to Brazil!
We are going,
We are going,
We are going to Brazil!

Things I Don't Like: Unnecessary Conflict

Sometimes when I'm watching a movie or TV show, I'll find myself begging the characters not to do anything incredibly stupid. And then I find them doing something incredibly stupid. It just grates on me so much when you see characters who one moment are incredibly smart, but another second cause drama that's completely unnecessary.

Now, we're human. And we're gonna make stupid decisions every now and then. But some of these stupid moments and unnecessary drama can make anyone go "WHAT AN IDIOT!!!" To be fair and honest, I can't think of specific examples. But moments like a jealous lover plotting to off a would-be rival during an emergency can get on my nerves. It's like these characters have no idea what kind of fiction they're in.

This is always the fault of the writers. Sometimes it can be because the author was lazy, forgetting to really foreshadow or set up the drama in the first place. Other times, it's just bad decisions. The lover offing a rival? That's a bad decision on both of their parts. These conflicts have to have a reason to them. You can't just use these conflicts and say, "but it's conflict!" It won't work!

The situation of a lover offing a rival during an emergency can work like this: if the lover is like the Glenn Close character in "Fatal Attraction" and they find that an emergency is the best time to off them. Not because they "had to". It won't make sense at all.

Necessary conflict and drama is a big part of fiction. It's usually one person vs. another person or it can be a group of people vs a group of people, etc, etc. You can't have fiction without necessary drama or conflict. In order to turn an unnecessary conflict or stupid decision work, it has to make sense. Is it within the personality of this particular character? Then it works!

At the same time, a writer can excuse this type of behavior by explaining that yes, people do make bad decisions. But at least make the characters realize they've royally screwed up instead of having them remain totally blind to their failure!

Oh, and another thing, not only can it derail a character, it can derail a plot. When you're engrossed in a plot, you want things to go well. When a character makes a stupid decision that derails the plot, it's not going to go over well.

Your characters are not stupid, and neither are the viewers/readers. Treat both of them with a degree of respect and you'll go very far. If you're going to have personal conflict, it cannot be made by genre blind idiots unaware of what kind of work they're in. I cannot stress this enough, but there has to be a reason for the drama. If it's totally unnecessary, it's not that the audience doesn't get it. You're just a bad writer.