Don’t get me wrong, no one bleeds blood as Cougar blue as mine. But just because I love the team doesn’t mean I blindly believe they will win every game — that would just make me ignorant (or a Ute fan). Experience is knowledge, and I’ve experienced too many overtime losses, tournament no-shows and blown calls to believe in the Cougars as hard as I pull for them.

So when I picked San Diego State to beat our men’s basketball team at home last night, much of it was the eternal pessimism speaking. But more than that, I really didn’t think we had the team to beat them. San Diego State has size, athleticism, and is defensively minded. While I thought we had a great player in Jimmer Fredette, I also felt our team was too flawed to really compete with talent of that caliber. BYU is small, has trouble rebounding, and has absolutely no depth — or so I thought. In other words, I thought we had a great player, not a great team.

The story after last night’s win was — and will continue to be — Jimmer Fredette. He had 43 points in an amazing offensive performance. We’ve seen Jimmer do this before, and while it was awe-inspiring, don’t be fooled — the win was a team effort. As I sat watching the game, I was incredibly impressed by what I saw — not by Fredette (who was certainly impressive), but by the other Cougars on the floor.

Now, the rest of the team was horrible offensively, especially Jackson Emery who, after hitting almost every three-pointer in warm-ups, couldn’t even come close in the game. Brandon Davies was the lone stand-out other then Fredette, showing off his impressive arsenal of low-post moves (including a shot utilizing his left hand, which I previously believed to be a prosthetic) and notching 14 big points.

It was not the team’s offense that impressed me, but their tough defense and determination. The Aztecs actually hit shots when they were open. The problem was they weren’t open very often. While SDSU’s Kawhi Leonard had 22 points in the game, he worked hard for every single bucket as freshman Kyle Collinsworth (with a significant disadvantage at height, weight and athleticism) played excellent defense on him. The rest of the team was equally impressive, forcing 12 turnovers and blocking 9 shots.

Rebounding-wise, the team fought hard for every single board. Any time there was a lose ball, guys like Emery, Charles Abouo and Noah Hartsock were diving on the ground fighting for it. Bench players like James Anderson and Abouo were huge as they locked down their defensive assignments, getting a combined 5 blocks and 7 big rebounds between the two of them.

If before the game you had told me it would be a physical, defensive game, I would have put my life savings on the Aztecs to win — and I would have lost.

What we saw last night was not the product of superior talent, but superior coaching, toughness and heart. Coach Dave Rose has to take the credit for mentally preparing his team to grind it out with the No. 4 team in the country.

In many ways, what we saw last night was the team reflecting the heart of its coach. As a player on Houston’s Phi Slamma Jamma team, Rose was able to earn playing time not through superior ability, but through his hard work and hustle. As he took the head coaching position at BYU, the team was coming off a 9-21 season, and interest in Cougar basketball was at an all-time low.

He is now 147-41 as BYU’s head coach and has made BYU into a perennial Top 25 (now Top 10) team. Then there was the pancreatic cancer he fought off just a year and a half ago, a dreadful disease that has a 5 percent survival rate. If anything, what we saw last night from the Cougars was a team embodying the best qualities of a beloved coach and team motivator. The team was able to channel that into an impressive on-the-court performance.

As I’ve said before, coming into last night’s game I believed we had a great player and a great coach. But as I left the game, I realized we may indeed have a great team. The team (other than Jimmer) had a horrible night offensively — and still won the game by 13. Jackson Emery won’t go 0-5 from three again. The team won’t likely shoot that bad again. (And if they do, there’s always Jimmer to bail them out.) If the team can continue to play at this level defensively, they’re going to win a lot of games and scare a lot of teams.

This BYU team has the best player in college basketball. It has a great coach. It has confidence. And, more than anything, it has heart. After last night, this team truly believes it can win every game — and after years of pessimism, I believe too. Go Cougars.

You can stream the podcast by simply clicking on the link below, or you can download it to your computer by right-clicking the link and selecting “Save Link As” from the menu.

Listen to: Rhombus Podcast 035 — The PB&J Report (2011.01.25)

Historically the first two weekends of the NFL playoffs are two of my favorite weekends of the year (topped by wild card Saturday — is there a reason this isn’t a national holiday yet?). This year didn’t break that trend as last weekend saw the Jets, Seahawks, Packers and Ravens all win, arguably all upsets except maybe the Ravens. Part of what makes the NFL so exciting is the parity, and at no time is this more apparent than during the playoffs.

In a season that has been all about parity (even the Patriots, the league’s undisputed best team, got beat by the lowly Browns) most experts came into this week’s games with no clue as to what was going to happen. The Ravens and Steelers were meeting for the third time this season and the wild card Packers seemed to be suddenly gaining popularity against the number one-seeded Falcons. At the beginning of the day, NFL fans had lots of questions — and by the end of the day, we had answers. Here’s the top things we learned from today’s games:

The ghost of Matt Millen still haunts the GMs of the NFL

It’s astounding to me that NFL GMs have yet to figure out the wide receiver position. The Ravens came into the season with three top receivers — check that, three former top wide receivers. Derrick Mason, Anquan Boldin and T.J Houshmandzadeh were all number one receivers at some point in their careers — Mason with the Titans, Boldin with the Cardinals, and T.J. (no way I’m typing that name again) with the Bengals and later the Seahawks. All three were the top receivers on their teams, but for various reasons their former teams cut ties with them and they all landed in Baltimore.

When teams decide to go their separate ways with a wider receiver, it has historically been a bad sign. These same situations seem to happen every year, and yet GMs continue to throw money at these players. Look at Roy Williams in Dallas, Randy Moss in Minnesota or Terrell Owens on every team he’s ever been on (which at this points seems to be approximately half the teams in the NFL).

Today in their game against the Steelers, the Ravens’ receiving core repeatedly dropped passes, costing them scoring opportunities. This was typified by the Ravens’ last offensive play when, trying to drive and tie the game, Joe Flacco threw an almost perfect pass on 4th and 19 to Houshmandzadeh, who had run a deep curl route. Houshmandzadeh was past the first down line when the ball hit him right in the numbers, and then promptly fell through his hands and hit the ground.

Maybe now Ravens’ GM Ozzie Newsome can see why Seattle (who, by the way, isn’t exactly fielding the ’01 Rams receiving core out there) chose to cut him, knowing they would still have to pay him $7 million, rather then have him on their team. Think about that — they paid him 7 million dollars to go away. Sound like a guy you want on your team? Apparently Ozzie Newsome thought it sounded awesome, and for that reason he’ll be watching the AFC championship game on his couch.

Ben Roethlisberger is always a threat to score

Look, I know Big Ben has had his off-field issues — a motorcycle crash, repeated drunkenness, an appearance on Shaq Vs. and the fact that he’s a complete pervert have all greatly hurt his public image. In all that, we may have lost the fact the guy has won two Super Bowls, and is one of the most clutch quarterbacks we’ve seen — maybe ever.

The guy just wins. He’s got that last-minute greatness DNA that Peyton would kill the third Manning brother for. Today, with the game tied and just over two minutes remaining, the Steelers were looking at 3rd and 19 and, if they failed to convert, they would be giving the ball back to the Ravens with enough time remaining to put together a drive and win the game with a field goal.

In this situation most quarterbacks are looking for that pass that just gets them the first down, because the defense is trying to prevent a 20-yard play. Oftentimes quarterbacks will check down to someone on a short route, hoping they can break some tackles and fight for a first down. Not Big Ben. He set himself up in the shotgun, received the ball, took five steps back, calmly looked at his options, and then flung the ball 55 yards down the right sideline. The ball was perfectly on target to a streaking Antonio Brown who caught the ball and stepped out of bounds setting the Steelers up close to the goal for a game-winning touchdown.

If you go back and watch that play again, Roethlisberger throws the ball long before Brown is past the defense — in fact, to anyone else watching it doesn’t even seem clear that Brown will be open. The fact that Roethlisberger was able to anticipate where his receiver would be in that situation, and then throw the ball with such precision 55 yards downfield, is absolutely incredible.

If you haven’t seen the play again, go back and watch it from all the angles. In that situation, I’m not sure there’s another quarterback who makes that throw. The fact is, despite his obvious character flaws, Roethlisberger is a born winner — and if I was a coach I would want him on my team.

Aaron Rodgers has made Green Bay forget about the quarterbacks from the ’60s, ’70s, ’80s, ’90s and ’00s — or, in other words, Brett Favre

I’ve been on the Aaron Rodgers bandwagon for awhile. I had him on my fantasy team last year and was really impressed by the numbers he put up week in and week out. This year I’ve been impressed with his toughness, fighting back from two concussions.

What he did against the Falcons tonight was an absolute clinic. He diced up their secondary with amazing precision, he escaped their rushers with surprising speed and agility, and he led the Packers with all the intangibles you want to see from your starting quarterback. His mechanics, accuracy, arm strength, mobility, reads, leadership and guts were all of the highest caliber.

Let’s put it this way: Of all the NFL games I’ve seen this year, if I had to pick one game to show a young quarterback to say, “This is the way you play the position,” I think it would be this game against the Falcons.

In his post-season career, Rodgers now has a 10:1 touchdown-to-interception ratio. He beat the Eagles (many experts’ pick to win the NFC) on the road last week, and he beat the number one-seeded Falcons this week. After what we’ve seen the last two seasons and (in particular) this post-season, I think it’s time we officially move him into the “Top Three QBs In The League” discussion. Considering the truly lackluster efforts of Manning, Brees and Vick this post-season, can we say Aaron Rodgers might be the best quarterback not named Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger? Right now, if I had one game to win, I would pick Brady, then Rothelisberger, but after that I’m pretty sure I would take Aaron Rodgers. He’s that good, and a seemingly decent guy to boot.

Rodgers spent three years patiently waiting in the wings for Brett Favre to take his texting talents elsewhere, and then the next three years flying under the radar in Green Bay. Hey Aaron, you’re on everyone’s radar now — pretty soon you may even have Rachel Nichols camping out on your lawn.

You can stream the podcast by simply clicking on the link below, or you can download it to your computer by right-clicking the link and selecting “Save Link As” from the menu.

Listen to: Rhombus Podcast 034 — The PB&J Report (2011.01.11)

The plot of The King’s Speech is fairly straightforward. The Duke of York (played by Colin Firth), or “Bertie” as he is called by his family, is second in line to the British throne. However, he has a speech impediment, a stammer, that prevents him from speaking in public and has made him an object of public mockery. He has given up hope he will ever overcome the impediment, having seen the best speech therapists in Britain. Of course, this shouldn’t cause a problem as Bertie is never expected to take the throne and his public engagements are limited.

His wife (played by Helena Bonham Carter) does not give up hope and takes him to see Lionel Logue (played by Geoffrey Rush), a speech therapist who believes speech impediments are more psychological than mechanical. What follows is fairly predictable — Logue and Bertie become fast friends, we gain insights into the complicated lives of the royal family, and, of course, scandal rocks the nation and Bertie is forced to take the throne as King George VI just as Britain is on the brink of war with Nazi Germany.

Where the film really shines is in its acting, for which it will undoubtedly receive much recognition during this award season. Firth is masterful as King George VI and gives the character multiple layers of depth. On the surface, his use of the speech impediment must have been no easy task, and it is both believable and heartbreaking. Underneath the surface, he manages to portray Bertie as humble and, at the same time, furious over the cards he has been dealt. He portrays Bertie as being very self-aware, aware of his life of luxury, of how ignorant he is of the common man, aware of his role as a symbol of the British nation and of the danger his country is in. At the moment, Firth seems to be the odds-on favorite to win the Oscar this year — and deservedly so.

Of course, Firth is not the only actor being lauded for his role. Geoffrey Rush is also excellent as Lionel Logue, a failed Australian actor turned speech therapist. Rush and Firth have an instant rapport, and the best scenes of the film are when the two are alone on screen. The audience quickly believes in the unlikely friendship, as the two actors work so well together.

The two characters juxtapose each other perfectly — one the royal, one the commoner — while at the same time they share commonalities leading to their friendship. Bertie’s speech impediment has made him something of a disappointment and an outsider, while Logue’s failed acting career and Australian heritage do the same for him. By then end of the film, Rush’s motivations seem clear. He is no longer helping out the king for money, fame, knighthood or King and Country. He is doing it simply to help his friend.

Helena Bonham Carter shows her acting range very well as the late Queen Mother. Known for always portraying more eccentric characters, she comes off as a very sincere woman trying to help her husband. Likewise, Guy Pearce was a perfect choice to play the Prince of Wales, and the actresses who played the young princesses bear an uncanny resemblance to the actual Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret. The only actor who fails to deliver is Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill. While he perfected the Churchillian voice, his look and demeanor lack the gravitas one would expect from Britain’s most famous leader.

While the plot may not thrill, the film is certainly compelling. The tale of a humble king trying to overcome a disability is noble and timeless — something we can all be inspired by. The most poignant scene in the entire film comes when Bertie is viewing some newsreels with his family. A news program displaying what is going on in Nazi Germany comes on, and Hitler is seen giving one of his rousing speeches, sending millions of assembled Germans into a frenzy. Bertie’s daughter Elizabeth (the current Queen) leans over and asks, “What is he saying?” King George, gazing intently at Hitler, responds in his slow, stammering manner: “I don’t know, but he’s certainly saying it well.”

Here we see the central conflict of the film laid before us. On the one hand is one of the most charismatic men, and one of the most evil, to ever walk upon the earth. On the other, a humble king — noble, yet impeded by disability. By confronting his fears, Bertie becomes the symbol of a nation, a symbol of perseverance, humility and triumph. Even if The King’s Speech doesn’t take home the Oscar for best picture of the year, it will certainly be the most inspiring.

So naturally I am always interested when a new film or television adaptation of the Holmes character comes around. From the old Basil Rathbone films to the Jeremy Brett TV series to the recent Guy Ritchie/Robert Downey Jr. reimagining, I’ve seen and enjoyed dozens of adaptations over the years. When I was in London recently, I began to hear about a new Sherlock Holmes series (simply titled Sherlock) being produced by the BBC that had received rave reviews. My interest was piqued, and upon returning to the States I looked around for how I could see the series. I discovered the show had aired in the U.S. on PBS as part of their masterpiece series, and was available to view online for free through December 27th. I promptly went and watched the entire series and was really surprised by what I saw.

The twist in the story is that Sherlock removes the Holmes story from the Victorian Era and places it in modern day London. The modern day element feels completely natural, and at no point does it seem like they are being modern for the sake of being modern. Much like in the original stories, Sherlock uses whatever tools he has available to him, whether it be text messaging, modern-day forensics or Google.

While Holmes purists may hate the change of time, the fact is the Sherlock Holmes stories were never about the Victorian Era — they were about the characters. By removing Holmes and Watson from the traditional Victorian setting, the show separates itself from more recent adaptations that focused too heavily on the Victorian elements. This allows the show to place a real focus on the characters, giving them the chance to develop over the course of the series.

The acting in Sherlock is top notch. Benedict Cumberbatch (whose previous credits include the Oscar-nominated film Atonement) plays the title character, in what may be the best incarnation of Sherlock Holmes I’ve ever seen. Cumberbatch plays Holmes as a self-described “higher-functioning sociopath,” who’s intellect (and ego) is truly worthy of the Holmes of the literary canon. Watching him on-screen, you really feel like he is that smart — 30 minutes into the first episode, I realized I was just expecting Holmes to always be a step ahead of me.

Cumberbatch’s  performance emphasizes the more anti-social elements of the Holmes character, but not in the way the recent Robert Downey Jr. incarnation did. Downey’s character had an undeniable charisma, and came off as though he was choosing to be anti-social at times. In many way’s Downey’s Holmes was just an extension of Robert Downey Jr. real personality. On the other hand, Cumberbatch’s character does not choose to be anti-social — he simply does not know how to have human interaction. He is the way he is, and in this he becomes much more believable and relatable. He is not larger then life, just smarter than the rest of us.

Martin Freeman plays Dr. John Watson. Freeman has previously appeared with minor roles in a slew of films, including Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and Love Actually. Freeman gives the Watson character a new level of depth as a man trying to deal with post-military life. In Sherlock, Watson isn’t the unintelligent, blundering follower of other incarnations. Instead, he is shown to be a very capable and intelligent (albeit not as intelligent as Holmes) man.

Throughout the series Holmes’ trust in Watson grows and he begins to assign him important and meaningful tasks. Watson does not just tag along, but becomes a proactive player in the stories. Freeman and Cumberbatch have an undeniable chemistry, and their relationship grows and develops naturally over the course of the series. In short, Cumberbatch and Freeman deliver what is the most nuanced portrayal of the Holmes and Watson relationship that I have ever come across.

The writing is another area where the show really stands out, the dialogue is clever and demonstrates a wit rarely seen in American television. By setting the show in the modern environment and combining it with excellent writing, Sherlock feels more exciting than previous adaptations — the show moves quickly from scene to scene with fast-paced dialogue and plots. The series consists of three, 90-minute episodes, all of which are wildly entertaining. At the end of each 90 minutes, I found myself wanting more.

The short of it is, if you like Sherlock Holmes, go check out Sherlock. If you just like good TV, go check out Sherlock. The show may not be available for free online viewing anymore, but it’s certainly worth a few of your hard-earned dollars on Amazon or iTunes.

You can stream the podcast by simply clicking on the link below, or you can download it to your computer by right-clicking the link and selecting “Save Link As” from the menu.

Listen to: Rhombus Podcast 032 — The PB&J Report (2010.12.17)

Over the past few weeks, England has been torn apart and sharply divided by political unrest. Prime Minister David Cameron’s aggressively conservative budget cuts and attempts to reduce the country’s deficit have led to thousands of students protesting (sometimes violently) throughout the streets of London. However, this past Thursday, the country stopped its political infighting to unite against a common enemy, one more dreadful to the English then even the prospect of tax hikes — Sepp Blatter.

For those of you who don’t know, Sepp Blatter is the president of FIFA, the international governing body of soccer and the organization responsible for hosting the world’s premier sporting event, the World Cup. This week, the organization voted on which countries would have the privilege of hosting the 2018 and 2022 cups. England sent a delegation to lobby for the 2018 cup that included Prince William and David Beckham. The Unites States sent a similar delegation to fight for the right to host the 2022 cup, a delegation that included Morgan Freeman and former president Bill Clinton. Both England and the Unites States were the favorites to win their respective bids. Then the news hit Thursday that neither country had been successful — and that Russia had won the 2018 bid and some place called Qatar had won the 2022 bid.

Even before the vote and announcement, allegations of vote fixing began to arise. The politics of how FIFA chooses these event locations is messy at best. FIFA’s 24-man executive committee votes on the proposed sites in a multi-round format. However, allegations of committee members selling their votes caused FIFA to suspend two members of the committee, leaving only 22. During each round of voting, the country with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated until one country holds a majority. Russia won a majority in the first round of voting and was immediately selected. It took 4 rounds for Qatar to win the bid, and it beat out the Unites States in the fourth round of voting 14-8.

Whether or not the vote was fixed is up for debate — and with Vladimir Putin involved anything is possible. What is clear, though, is that there are serious flaws in this election system. FIFA is an organization compromised of over 208 countries, yet only 22 have a voice in selecting the site for the World Cup. Not only is this an unfair system, but it makes it far too easy for vote-fixing to occur, as only a few committee members need to be bought off before a majority is held. Furthermore, Blatter’s personal preference appears to hold too much sway over the committee, as it was common knowledge before the voting that he supported Russia and Qatar’s bid. FIFA needs to review its selection process and work out a system that is fair and less susceptible to fraud.

But the choices have been made and now the world has to deal with them. In some ways, Russia is not an illogical choice to host the cup. England will always love soccer, whether or not it hosts the World Cup. However, Russia hosting the cup will boost the soccer infrastructure in the country by creating new facilities and stadiums. It will help FIFA tap into the country’s vast talent pool and will help establish FIFA as a media entity. Politically, the move shows confidence in the former Soviet Union, and this cup will mark the first time the World Cup will be hosted by an Eastern European country.

However, having the cup in Qatar is, in short, a big mistake. The country has a population of just over 1.6 million people, no soccer stadiums big enough to host a World Cup game, and in late June (the time of year the cup normally starts) boasts an average temperature of 104 degrees Fahrenheit. The country does not at the moment have enough hotel space, any public forms of transportation, or an airport big enough to support the huge influx of foreign visitors that will invade the country during the month long tournament.

Furthermore, concerns have arisen as to what the effect of having 400,000 drunken foreign visitors will be to a country that is still a relatively closed-off Islamic nation. Politically, the move may make sense — the entire Arab world (and all of its oil money) was behind the bid to host the cup in Qatar — as it will mark the first time an Arab nation will host a World Cup. In the long term, Blatter is hoping the 2022 cup will open up further opportunities for FIFA in the Middle East.

Nevertheless, the Unites States should not have been forgotten in the equation. There are over 300 million people in the Unites States, most of which is still an untapped soccer market. The sport’s popularity is growing by leaps and bounds, MLS attendance and TV ratings continue to rise, and the U.S. national team continues to be successful in trying to establish itself as one of the elite national teams. The country’s premier sports leagues, the NBA and NFL, are both set to go into lockouts and there will be a huge opportunity for soccer to fill the void they leave. By having the Unites States host the cup, FIFA would boost enthusiasm and investment in soccer in America.

FIFA passed on a real opportunity to give the Unites States Soccer Federation the final weapon it needed in its attempt to cement soccer as a premier sport in America. Blatter and his cronies decided to take a huge risk with Qatar, instead of what was a sure return on investment in America. In 2022, the future of international soccer will still be in the United States — unfortunately, the soccer world will be melting in the hot sun of Qatar, still trying to find a hotel room.

The years of anticipation, the long queues for tickets, drooling over the latest trailer, gossiping about Emma Watson’s new haircut, the promise that this one is, indeed, the most “epic” of them all — and finally the eventual disappointment that it just wasn’t as good as the book.

Oh yeah, that’s not déjà vu. We really have already done this six times over the past decade.

Friday marked the release of the latest of the Harry Potter films, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1. (By the way, I feel like there had to have been a better way to differentiate between the two instead of part one and part two. Like chapter 1 and chapter 2 perhaps? This was a book after all.) After seeing it I find myself with a familiar set of mixed emotions.

Being a longtime fan of the Harry Potter series, I of course relish seeing characters I love so deeply being brought to life on the screen. This is, however, a double-edged sword. When the movie departs from the stories and characters that I love, I only find myself asking in disappointment, “Was there really no other way?”

(Spoiler alert for everything that follows.)

First off, let me say that Deathly Hallows is a beautifully shot movie. From the dark moors of the north country to the brightly crowded streets of London’s Piccadilly Circus, Britain comes to life in a way that these films have yet to capture. The cinematography is a step up from anything seen yet in the series.

The effects are also as good as they’ve been, especially when we meet our old friend Dobby the house-elf. It is readily apparent the forward leaps CGI has taken in the last decade. The completely computer generated character comes to life in a much more realistic way then he did 8 years ago when he first appeared in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets.

Where Deathly Hallows really excels though is in doing what its source material did so excellently — bringing all the characters back and taking us on a nostalgic ride through the Potter universe so many have come to love. Memorable characters like the aforementioned Dobby, Kreacher, Mad-Eye Moody, the Weasley and Malfoy families, Fleur Delacour, Olivander the wandmaker, Dolores Umbridge, Rita Skeeter, Griphook the Goblin and more come back to us for the last time. One has to applaud the ability of the filmmakers to keep all the actors interested in returning to minor roles some of them began playing nearly ten years ago.

Where the movie fails though is in, of course, the adaptation and what the filmmakers chose to include and exclude. One of the most important elements of the original book is Harry Potter’s relationship with the now-dead Albus Dumbledore, in which the new biography by Rita Skeeter plays a central role. In the film, they begin to approach this subject in the beginning, then seem to abandon it halfway through. Apparently it was more important that we see three minutes of Harry and Hermione awkwardly dancing and having some kind of moment (what exactly was the point of that?) then spending three minutes to elaborate on the crucial situation with Dumbledore. I can’t help but feel that this will cheapen the ultimate emotional climax of the entire series, which hinges on Harry’s ability to trust Dumbledore even though he feels he constantly lied to him.

The film has some spectacular action sequences — the infiltration and subsequent escape from the Ministry of Magic really stands out. However, the character interactions seem to suffer. Much of the chemistry between the three principle actors seems to be missing from the film, and they really have very little dialog between them as there are long stretches of silence.

The fact that most of the excellent adult cast is absent for much of the film really hurts the movie as we realize that “the trio” really aren’t that great on their own. They need the likes of Michael Gambon, Jason Isaacs, Maggie Smith, Helena Bonham Carter, and the incomparable Alan Rickman around to really get the scenes going.

The other huge flaw in the film is its pacing. Much of this comes from the filmmakers trying to arbitrarily find a good stopping point for a story that isn’t supposed to stop. In reality, they stopped the film in what is about as good a place as possible. However, it makes the film feel like a series of action and chase sequences connected by teenage angst that just ends without ever really climaxing. The group’s escape from the Malfoy mansion is well done, but it isn’t really any more exciting then any of the other half-dozen escapes they perform throughout the film.

In the end, one leaves the theater feeling like they’ve seen a really great, really long trailer for a fantastic film they have to wait another six months to see.

Of course, if you like Harry Potter, you’re going to go and probably already have gone to see the film. In reality, I enjoyed it just like I have all the other Potter films, but it is not without its flaws. Is it the best of the series? No. Does it serve to get you really excited for the next part? Absolutely.

It’s hard not to chalk up the film’s flaws to the fact that it is part one of a two-part film. It feels almost like being at the warm-up for an NBA game. It’s really fun to watch the players joke around, practice their prettiest dunks, take ridiculously long threes, and throw some chalk up in the air. There’s an unmistakable excitement in the air, for sure — but, in the end, it’s always better once the game starts, people play defense, and everything’s for real.

Next June, when it really counts, expect Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 to show us something really spectacular.

You can stream the podcast by simply clicking on the link below, or you can download it to your computer by right-clicking the link and selecting “Save Link As” from the menu.

Listen to: Rhombus Podcast 021 — The PB&J Report (2010.08.19)