An Open Letter to Indians GM Chris Antonetti

We shouldn't be in this position. In fact, we should be about ten games out in the division, looking up at the White Sox, Twins, and Tigers, dreaming of April 2012. The date your predecessor, and now team President, told us all to count down to about two years ago. But 2012 came a year early. We're 1.5 games out. We have a different hero every night. Names like Hafner, Santana, Kipnis, and Masterson, are becoming synoymous with older names like Alomar, Thome, Belle, and Nagy. Attendance is up (but not as much as it could be); yet people are waiting for this team to fall apart. Waiting for the Curse of Colavito, or Modell, or LeBron, to kick in.

But this team has too much spark. Too much fight in them to quit so soon. Too much chemistry to listen to the "experts" explain why they aren't contenders. They play hard every night. Whether they're up 1-0, or down 10-2, they try to find a way to win until the game's over.

Which is why you don't break this team up. The motto for the 2011 season has been, "What if?". So here's my question for you: What if this rag-tag team of rookies and not-so-super-stars made it to the playoffs without any help? What if we gave up names like Pomeranz and White for a year-and-a-half rental of a name like Upton, only to have those two names lead a team to consecutive playoff appearances and World Series rings? What if we shocked the world, and in the last series of the regular season, beat those Tigers, and rode that momentum into a playoff run that may not bring us a championship, but respect, and a bit of fear?

This isn't a championship contender team. One power bat and one solid starter is not going to improve this team to that level, either. So, why bother? Why trade away some of the best prospects in the minors for one or two players who would probably only be here until next offseason, or worse, this offseason?

Kosuke Fukudome

You've already traded for Cubs outfielder Kosuke Fukudome. Not the sexiest deal in the world for a team pining for their first pennant since 2007 to make, but it's a decent step. You gave up hardly anything to get him, and, it would be nice to maybe see him in a deal for a Hunter Pence or B.J. Upton.

But the most important reminder here is: making a big splash in the free agent pool with one, or two, players is not going to catapult this team to the top of the AL pennant race. The best thing for this team to do is to keep fighting through this tough stretch. If a deal presents itself that does not involve big name prospects, or even a few solid pieces on the current major league roster, don't pull the trigger just to say you did.

Hold on to Chisenhall. Hold on to White and Pomeranz. Hold on to Kipnis; even Tomlin, McAllister, Weglarz, and Washington. These are names that can be synonymous with those other names we have plastered around the Jake, but only if they're given the right amount of time to grow and flourish. 2011 may not be our year for a championship, but 2012 and on? I like our chances. You should, too.

Goodbye, Harry: The Harry Potter saga ends its decade long film domination in style

There is no denying the impact the Harry Potter brand has had on entertainment culture. Since the release of the first film adaptation back in 2001, the eight Harry Potter films have grossed a combined total of just over $7 billion globally to this point; the sixth film, Half-Blood Prince, made it the highest grossing franchise in history, surpassing Star Wars. With Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2, the saga concludes on a wonderful high, leaving viewers satisfied, saddened, and humbled.
There's no point in describing the plot; at this point in the series, you either know exactly what's going on, or don't care enough to bother with it. I will say that, despite a few inevitable changes from the source material, this, along with Part 1, is arguably the most faithful, and best, adaptation of the series.

I say adaptations because these films are based off of a source material, but they don't seem that way to me; they never have. No, these eight films are more of an interpretation of the source. Harry Potter, since his printed debut way back in fall of 1998 (summer of 1997 for you England folk), has grown into more than just a book series; he's become his own universe. Harry is no longer truly the core of Rowling's creation. He's the starting point, yes, but the series has blossomed into something much bigger, like Star Wars or Star Trek before it. In that sense, the nitpicking that has come with the films on story lines left out, scenes added or changed, are all null, and in a way, nitpicky, in my opinion at least. Are there elements of the book changed or left out with this final installment? Of course there are. But it does not take away from the experience of the films. If you've seen the previous movies, then you will be able to know where the series is going and what the characters are doing, even if you haven't read the books.

One of the series highest points has been its acting, and with the final installment, several people stand out. Alan Rickman and Ralph Fiennes, who have played Professor Snape and Lord Voldemort respectively, have been the best standouts of the series, and both give wonderful performances here. Rickman is able to fully embody Snape, and gives a great interpretation of the character, through the gut-wrenching final moments. Fiennes has reveled in playing Voldemort, making him even more sinister on screen than the character ever was in the novels.

I have also been a huge fan of each films look and design. David Yates, who has directed each film since Order of the Phoenix, knows the material and the world well, and is able to craft magnificent shots that have gotten more intriguing as he has grown with the series. The set pieces are also of special notice. The films have done a terrific job at creating the entire universe of Harry Potter, and it's easy to see a lot of time has gone into the design and execution not just of the main set pieces like Hogwarts, but also minor ones like the Gringotts Vault and Sirius Black's home.

Bravo, you three.

But the greatest accomplishment the movies have is the growth and maturing of its three leads: Daniel Radcliffe (Harry), Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) and Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) have all grown up right before our eyes, not just as actors, but as people. They've matured so well as both actors and individuals, and it's rare, or downright impossible, that a film series can have so many of the same actors signed on for the same roles for eight movies that have spanned a decade. The work these three have done, along with the other child actors that have accompanied them along the way, are the highlight of the series, and something that will carry these films long into the generations that have yet to be introduced to the Potter saga.

There's no question in my mind that in about 25-30 years, another director will come along and want to remake the Potter films, to introduce them to several new generations. These eight films however, have done a terrific job of not only adapting the pages Rowling has written, but also interpreting them for a wider audience, making them accessible not just to fans of the books, but fans of good cinema as well. I, for one enjoyed the ride, and can't wait to take it again someday soon.

Deathly Hallows 2: B+

Overall Series: B+

Transformers, Bosses, and Professors, Oh My!

Note: I've kind of thrown this post together in a haste. It's not entirely well written, but I wanted to get a few thoughts on each of these films on here in some capacity, before the weekend, when I'll be posting thoughts a few new movies (and franchises, for that matter).

We're in the middle of the summer movie season. We've seen a few good movies and a few that have missed the mark. These past two weekends have seen the release of three different movies that are so completely different in their plots and characters, that I wanted to try my hardest to link them all together in one big review. They are: Horrible Bosses, Larry Crowne, and, Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Two of the three I felt were enjoyable; it's probably not that hard to figure out which one didn't do it for me.

But, let's start out with the positives in each movie, which in the case of these three, are similar: They are all pretty funny. Now, this is of course the big selling point for Horrible Bosses, as it's (surprise!) a comedy. If it ain't funny, it ain't good. Makes sense, right? I wasn't sure about the film going into it. I am a big supporter of Jason Bateman. His career is very reminiscent to me of Paul Rudd. Despite Bateman starring on the hit comedy show Arrested Development, his film career hasn't included any major roles; only supporting characters, albeit in good films like Up in the Air and Juno. Horrible Bosses is really the first time he's allowed to shine in a major role, and he plays the part of overworked, under-appreciated employee Nick Hendricks to near perfection. His scenes opposite a very funny, and very lewd, Kevin Spacey are the films highlights.

Larry Crowne gets its comedy in the form of its supporting characters. While George Takei's small role as one of Larry's professors loses its muster after awhile, he still is able to hit a lot of right notes as a brash, cocky teacher. Plus, the films chemistry between stars Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts is unquestionable. They are really the driving force behind the film, and embrace their characters really well.

Transformers 3 gets comedic props because it actually has some intentionally funny passages of dialogue. But, most of the films dramatic scenes are so ridiculous that I found myself chuckling at their parts as well.

However, each film has its faults. Despite its funny story arch, Horrible Bosses loses some of its muster towards its conclusion, as it gets a little too unrealistic for its own good. Larry Crowne, although a delightful way to spend a few hours, is too formulaic and ends on too perfect of a good note. These are the types of films that we know the ending before we see them, but the fact that Crowne ends with everyone getting exactly what they want AND needed...it's just a little too far fetched for me to be perfectly honest, and brought the film down a notch or two.

And we come to Transformers: Dark of the Moon, the sequel to one of the worst sequels ever. The second Transformers film (Revenge of the Fallen) such a disappointment and total failure that even Michael Bay admitted that he screwed up with the entire thing. I personally enjoyed the first Transformers, and, as I saw the trailer for this third film more and more, I liked it. Not that it gave me hopes for the film, mind you, but I thought the trailer was pretty cool. Unfortunately, the film suffers from a lot of the same problems as two. First off, there's too many damn robots. For most of the action scenes, it's hard to figure out which ones are fighting, and which one actually wins. Considering that Bay's ADD style of filming and editing hasn't changed, it becomes all the more frustrating. On top of that, the characters don't develop any sort of relate-ability to the audience. I kind of equate Bay's Transformer trilogy to a kid playing with his action figures. You smash them together, making cool destruction noises in the process, and, when you're done, set them on the floor and move to something else. That's what Bay does here. The film just stops. There's no coda or conclusion. Not even a line of closure. There's the final battle that takes forever; it ends, and credits roll. After three movies, you'd think there would be more to it than that, no?

Horrible Bosses: B

Larry Crowne: B-

Transformers 3: C