All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

Rating: 8.5/10

Starring: Felix Kammerer, Albrecht Schuch and Daniel Bruhl

Rated R for graphic war violence, blood, gore, and language

 

War. What is it good for?

That question, famously asked over and over throughout Edwin Starr’s anti-Vietnam anthem “War”, has reverberated throughout human history. Many movies and television series have posed the question, only occasionally offering some answer (freedom, redemption, etc…). But seldom has the question “what is the value of war” been asked more urgently than in the searing All Quiet on the Western Front, a new film in wide release on Netflix.

A German-made production, All Quiet is the third major film adaptation of the 1928 Erich Maria Remarque novel whose gritty, somber tone and inglorious subject matter caused it to be banned by the Nazis as they pulled their country up from the literal and figurative ashes of World War 1. Like contemporary war epics Platoon, Saving Private Ryan, We Were Soldiers and 1917, All Quiet on the Western Front shows in stark, brutal terms what front-line combat really is. Unlike some of those movies, All Quiet depicts how ideals such as glory, valor and patriotism become meaningless to those on the front lines almost immediately. Indeed, within the first 15 minutes of All Quiet, one can sense the sad sentiment expressed in Starr’s first verse”:

 War, I despise

‘Cause it means destruction of innocent lives

War means tears to thousands of mothers’ eyes

When their sons go off to fight

And lose their lives

By 1917, “The Great War” had been raging for three years, and history shows that precious little had been (or would be) achieved in the mud and trenches of France’s Western Front. Those futile facts are unknown to German teen Paul Baumer (Felix Kammerer), a well-educated young man full of patriotic fervor whose parents oppose the idea of him signing up to fight. Paul ultimately forges his parents’ signatures and joins the army alongside his best friends, thrilled by officers’ rousing speeches filled with stirring slogans (“for the Kaiser, God, and the Fatherland”) and promises of victory. The gleam of these fantastic sentiments vanishes, however, about as soon as Paul and his friends are dropped in the trenches, sloshing through freezing mud and cowering amidst artillery barrages. While there is camaraderie to be found within the company, Paul also finds gnawing hunger, the abject terror of engagements with the enemy, and the fading hope that he will ever see home again, or that he'll be the same if he gets there.

Occasionally interrupting this grim tableau is the quiet journey of German politician Matthias Ertzberger (Daniel Bruhl), who, horrified by the mounting, endless loss of life (the film’s stunning prologue is a fierce reminder of the cheap disposability of life in the war machine), is sent to negotiate a ceasefire with the Allied Powers. Contrasting Ertzberger’s desperate peace-seeking mission is the iron-hearted approach of Western Front commander General Friedrichs (Devid Striesow), who sees the ceasefire on the horizon but has no intention of seeing his mighty Fatherland end the war meekly.

As was surely intended, these parallel story threads convey the cavernous and inescapable gulf between the men making the war, and those fighting it. While high-minded statesmen consider history, legacy and the greatness of their homelands’ reputation, soldiers on the front lines scramble for masks amidst deadly gas attacks, steal from local farms to keep from starving, and watch their comrades – the only people who could relate to their experiences – die in muck and puddles of their own blood. The scenes with Ertzberger and Friedrichs are not showy or preachy, but All Quiet’s viewers will be so shaken by the punishing battle scenes that they will understand the ultimatum all too plainly—make peace, shelve pride, or millions of human beings with families, souls, and dreams will succumb to bullets, flames, gas, or the horrifying specter of being crushed by a tank.

I was astonished to learn that Felix Kammerer is making his film debut as Paul Baumer; his haunted visage proves a seamless portal into this darkest and most desperate of worlds. One sequence, in which Paul fatally stabs a Frenchman who goes on to live several minutes longer than Paul (or we) would expect, while Paul rides a grueling rollercoaster of emotions, from fury to angst and gut-wrenching remorse, is absolutely shattering. Supporting Kammerer is a cast short on noticeable names but high on humanity, with Aaron Hilmer playing a wisecracker who becomes another shrieking, desperate boy amidst the shells, and Bruhl expertly depicting the nearly silent struggle of a peacekeeper weighing stubborn national pride against desire for the war’s end.

My complaints are few. The movie is maybe 20 minutes too long, with a few suspense-building takes in particular padding the length unnecessarily. And, while the actors do the aforementioned admirable job, I doubt the characters will resonate, as those in Platoon and Private Ryan have.

These are quibbles. What one will remember about All Quiet is the nightmarish intensity of the battle scenes, the image of Kammerer’s wide eyes peering through a mud-and-grime-encrusted face, and the Oscar nominations the film could receive in a few months’ time (it’s Germany’s entrant for Best Foreign Language Film, but warrants consideration for the directing, screenplay, and technical awards as well). There’s also the ominous three-note chime that defines the musical score, chilling every time. And there’s the grimness of the war concept, shone in its bleak, ugly frankness, underlining the awfulness of our history and the heartbreaking reality that war rages in our world today, in the Ukraine and elsewhere.

Yes, some armed conflicts throughout history have freed people and nations from oppression; others have defeated evils great and small. But what the newest adaptation of All Quiet on the Western Front suggests in shouts, screams, and whispers across two-plus-hours is the very answer Starr gave, again and again, in his timeless anthem:

 War! What is it good for?

 Absolutely nothing.

 

All Quiet on the Western Front (2022)

Directed by Edward Berger

Screenplay by Edward Berger, Lesley Patterson, and Ian Stokell

Based on the novel “All Quiet on the Western Front” by Erich Maria Remarque

Length: 2 hours, 28 minutes

Rated R

“War” by Edwin Starr was released in 1970 by Columbia Records

NORWAY: FIVE DAYS OF LOVE, THUNDER, and DISBELIEF

NORWAY: Five Days of Love, Thunder, and Disbelief

Last Thursday, July 7, 2022, Norway’s Women’s National Soccer Team played its first match of the Women’s 2022 European Championship. A talented all-star squad featuring women who play for the best teams in England and Spain shone in a comprehensive 4-1 win over Northern Ireland, at the same time kicking off a short but interesting whirlwind saga I won’t forget for some time. One that included a movie, a deliriously-giddy (if farfetched) bit of vacation planning, and one of the most unbelievable sporting events I’ve ever watched.

The first thing you need to know is that Norway’s Women’s Soccer Team holds a special place in my heart. I have been watching soccer hardcore since the Summer of 2019, the same summer the last Women’s World Cup was played. I’d never watched any women’s soccer before, let alone a major event, but, with my burgeoning interest in “the beautiful game”, I became transfixed. That summer, the U.S. Women’s National Team would roll to a second consecutive World Cup win, making headlines mostly for an almost disturbing 13-0 mauling of Thailand in their opening round match, but the team that really caught my eye was Norway.

Norway won the first match of that tournament that I got to watch in its entirety—Norway vs Nigeria, with the Scandinavians coming out on top 3-0. In that match and others, I noticed one superficial and un-sports-related thing: hey, ladies from Norway are pretty attractive! Later, I watched that team win an epic 1-1 draw, complete with decisive penalty shootout, over Australia in the tournament's Sweet Sixteen. Plus, I realized I liked the idea of Norway because of its Scandinavian/Viking roots; I’ve been a pretty big fan of the Thor movies, after all, and even have a large rubber replica of Thor’s famous hammer, Mjolnir, sitting on my windowsill.

Norway dropped out of the 2019 Women’s World Cup in their next game after that epic Australia win—a tough 3-0 loss to England in the last eight. But I followed a few of the players on Instagram, and, from then on, the whole concept of Norway resonated with me. I even tried a couple of times to write a story set in a Scandinavian-type world, complete with as many of the Norwegian surnames as I could fit in: Reiten, Engen, Mjelde, Minde, Hjelmseth…

So, fast-forward back to last Thursday (Thursday being a term originally derived from “Thor’s Day”-- no really, look it up). As Norway was kicking off its first match of the currently-ongoing European Championship tournament, I started lighting up my best friend with “oo-rah Norway”-type chats. Now, my friend doesn’t particularly care about soccer, but he does have a very strong affinity for Norse mythology. Starting when he began playing Assassin’s Creed: Valhalla in the winter of 2020, he became near-obsessed with Norse and Viking culture. He devoured the History Channel series Vikings, read every book he could find on the subject, ordered blankets, pillows, and coffee mugs emblazoned with ancient Viking symbols, and was delighted a few months ago when I got him a gift of a decorative plate showing an ancient Viking longboat. He even ordered an old Scandinavian dice game, Orlog, which sits prominently in our living room entertainment center—not that we’ve played it.

Anyway, as Norway’s Women’s National Team carved up Northern Ireland, I chatted my roommate up about how awesome and badass Norway is. The next day, as fate (or Internet algorithms) would have it, one of the first videos visible on my YouTube homepage was a travel video, Top 10 Places in Norway by Ryan Shirley. I have a near-manic desire to travel, so I watch a lot of YouTube videos about other countries (including the well-traveled Shirley’s), but I hadn’t watched anything Norway-related, so I don’t know how that video was advertised to me. In any case, I watched it, and was blown away by gorgeous images of mountains, rivers, fjords and little towns right out of a storybook. On a whim, I sent it to my roommate, saying he should watch if he was interested. On another whim, I half-jokingly chatted: Bro, we should go to Norway. His response: I’d be down.

He’d be down ?!?!?!?!

My best friend would actually potentially be interested in going with me on a trip to Norway?!

Well, it set my imagination on fire. I told myself he hadn’t committed to anything, he has a couple of vacations (the Outer Banks, Nashville) planned for the rest of this calendar year and wouldn’t have many paid days off from work available, but I still couldn’t help it: I could go to Norway, and with my best friend! BROOOO TRIIIIIP

I tried to keep it low-key, but I watched a couple of Norway travel videos and about blew apart Google checking the distances between prominent places in the Scandinavian country. There are so many tasty options for a visit. Oslo--the capital. Trondheim--a major hub that was the capital back in the viking days. Tromso—the largest city in northern Norway, well above the Arctic Circle. The Svalbard Islands—one of the northernmost human habitations on the planet, with more polar bears than people. Geirangerfjord—a huge, stunning fjord that ranks #1 in more than one online “Top Places to Visit in Norway” list. Jotenheimen National Park—a national park dominated by snow-capped peaks that derives its name from one of Norse mythology’s Nine Realms (Jotenheim = “Land of the Giants”).

Even in my feverish excitement, there were more than a few obstacles standing in the way of me and a fantasy trip to Norway. Such as—the fact that Norway is a long way from central Virginia, and a flight alone would cost a pretty penny; it’s not an English-speaking country, so I need to really have my ducks in a row before I went; a lot of the tastiest sites are not close together, so there could be the small matter of booking and taking buses or trains multiple times in a trip of any length; and, finally, the not-insignificant fact that my best friend chose not to get the COVID vaccination. I know we are, momentarily, in a world where COVID is no longer the top story and countries and airlines alike appear to be softening their travel restrictions, but, even with some research, I had difficulty confirming whether my friend would be able to fly at all, much less into a country a third of the way around the world, without the vaccine.

Saturday, as all these ideas were swirling, my friend and I went to see Thor: Love and Thunder. I’m far from the MCU’s biggest fan – I haven’t watched half of the DisneyPlus series the company has released, in addition to skipping the most recent Dr. Strange film – but Thor’s fantasy aspects have also been an intriguing addition to the superhero filmography.

I thought Thor: Love and Thunder was pretty good. It was fun, though how “fun” it is may depend on how appreciative one is of the MCU’s near constant attempts at humor. I think it was 2014’s snarky Guardians of the Galaxy that started it—these days, the MCU films can’t seem to go more than 10 seconds without some attempt at humor, be it an innuendo, a pratfall, a quip, some tongue-in-cheek commentary, or something else intended to prompt laughter. While I chuckle at my fair share of these, it does get tiresome, often rendering the dramatic moments less effective than they would be (even characters’ death scenes, if not quickly glossed over, often contain some humorous element). Poor Chris Hemsworth, a hulk of a man who’s also a good dramatic actor when given the opportunity, was reduced for 2/3 of the movie to playing a doofus who is always the dumbest and most out-of-touch person in the room.

Overall, Love and Thunder wasn’t bad. The special effects were first-rate (including a dazzling black-and-white-and-some-color action sequence straight out of Sin City), the film brought back Natalie Portman’s Jane Foster and gave her plenty to do, and gave us one of the MCU’s most intriguing villains, Gorr the God Butcher. The role of this balding, scarred, frothing megalomaniac is one I imagine the actor Christian Bale—a serious actor’s thespian well-known for his intensity and chameleonic devotion to a role—took on with some eagerness, and which he played with considerable relish.  

Nutshell: while Love and Thunder has its moments of high entertainment and may be one of the better Thor movies, there’s a sameness to the glitzy effects, easily-resolved storyline, disposable villain (Bale’s strong performance notwithstanding) and constant attempts at humor that make it just another entry in the MCU's enjoyable-but-cookie-cutter mold.

I’d give it a 7 out of 10.

So, while the newest Thor movie has little to do Norway or even Norse Mythology (outside of the constant mentions of Mjolnir and Asgard and callbacks to Loki, Odin, and Valhalla), watching it while considering a trip to Norway definitely gave me a little chill.

Post-movie, I was left mulling over the possibilities of a Norway trip, while also remaining befuddled (despite constant research) as to whether my friend could even get on a plane out of the US given his vaccination status.

Well, about mid-morning today, Monday, my friend approached me and told me he would pass “for now” on a Norway trip. He said the last few days had “planted the seed”, but he had a busy fall ahead of him, with limited free vacation time, and said that if he was to go to Norway, he would want to “really go” (a sentiment I appreciate). I wasn’t surprised by his decision and, frankly, it saved me some hand-wringing and pressurized planning.

Norway’s on the list, though. And now at least I have a framework for what I’d want to base a trip around!

Lastly, this afternoon, Norway’s Women’s National Team had their 2^nd game of the 2022 European Championship, against England. This was widely predicted to be a must-watch affair, with a large crowd cheering on tournament hosts England, who had some questions to be answered after squeaking out a1-0 win over Austria in their tournament opener. Given the talent Norway boosted and the class they’d showed against Northern Ireland, it was thought that this could-be classic encounter, a too-close-to-call clash and possibly a preview of how things could go for two of the tournaments betting favorites.

Then England scored six goals in the first half.

You may know this: soccer is a low-scoring game. The field is big, the ball is small, the nets are protected by goalies, not a lot of goals are scored.

Sometimes, when two teams of relatively equal talent are involved, there are few or no goals. And yes, outside of winner-take-all tournament games, it is possible for a 90-minute soccer game to end 0-0. 

So, six goals in one half by one team is almost unheard of. If a team scores three goals in a half and the other scores none, it’s generally thought that the losing team is on life support. Four goals pretty much means you’ve lost. Five, yeah, there are a couple of famous soccer games in recent years where a team was up 5-0 in the first half (one game where a team had lost a man to a red card and played with a numerical disadvantage, and then there was Brazil’s meltdown on home soil in the 2014 World Cup semis).

But six?!

As big of a sports fan as I am, I’ve seen plenty of ridiculously one-sided blowouts. From NCAA Tournament Round of 64 affairs where blue chip teams like Duke and Kentucky play “small school squads” that are just happy to be there, to the Seattle Seahawks full-bore mauling of Peyton Manning's Broncos in the 2013 Super Bowl, to that UFC pay-per-view 3 summers ago where Jorge Masival knocked out Ben Askren with a flying knee to the face about 5 seconds in…I’ve seen some blowouts. 

I’ve seen some blowouts. But those are usually in matches that clearly lopsided going in (for instance, no one thought Thailand was going to lay a finger on Team USA back in 2019, and they didn’t). Or there’s some other major development early, like one team loses a player to a red card so one team has a numerical advantage—a big difference in a game with such a large field.

But this was nuts.

I guess England were favored going into the game, since it’s soccer and it’s England and they were playing in front of a large crowd in England. But they’d only won their first game 1-0, and Norway had won theirs 4-1. This was supposed to be a stiff test. And England destroyed them; they beat them like they weren’t there! England’s attackers raced through defense that offered no more resistance than T-shirts hanging on a clothesline. Every time they hit a ball into the box, it was a goal! It was already a 3-0, can-you-believe-this scoreline, then England scored three goals in seven minutes near the end of the half! The Norwegian players looked so shocked, so overwhelmed, that they looked like they barely knew they were playing in a game.

And, for me, this guy who had rooted for them in 2019 and who had, for a short time, been plotting a trip to their country, this was bad. In many of the blowouts I mentioned, I was either a casual fan or didn’t care about the outcome. This time, I cared, and I can’t remember if I’ve ever actually watched a more shocking, awful performance by a team I was rooting for. I really can’t.

Norway were better in the second half. They didn’t come back. They didn’t make it close. They didn’t score any goals. But—hey!—at least they only gave up two goals in the second half; they only lost 8-0 when there was a real question whether they were going to get humiliated by double digits in soccer.

It was a record-breaking performance. Delirium and delight for England, with their biggest-ever win in a European Championship tournament, and abject dismay for Norway, their worst-ever loss. This is a team full of star players, who have won the European Championship twice before (England have won it exactly 0 times).

During this game, I went on a wild emotional journey. From optimistic to tense to disappointed to really disappointed to shocked, awed, horrified, disbelieving, dismayed and darkly, darkly amused (I swore so many times I’m not proud of it, and I joked with myself on more than one occasion that Norway could sense that I wasn’t going to visit their country soon after all, and it had taken the wind out of their sails).

All that said--and I know this is said a lot in sports--but it’s only one game. No really, it is. England qualified for the Elite Eight, the knockout stage of this tournament, by virtue of winning the game and thus capturing key points in a points-based value system I don’t have time to explain right now. Norway are left reeling (and probably crying themselves to sleep tonight), but they aren’t out of it. They have one game left to qualify for the Elite Eight, for which a lot of people had them penciled in—this Friday, they’ll have to beat Austria. And they have to win. A tie can sometimes be rewarding in soccer, but Norway just got beaten so badly, their only chance to move forward is to win.

So, to answer Jim Carrey’s famous question so you’re tellin’ me there’s a chance, yes, there is a chance.

Just as there is a chance that, one day, I will go to Norway. A strong chance. My fiancée and I are both keen, imaginative travelers, Europe is one of our main destinations, and my friend said this whole experience had “planted the seed”, didn’t he?

One day, I’ll go to Norway. A land formerly of vikings. A place where the concepts of Thor, Asgard, and Valhalla originated.  A place where you can see the Northern Lights. A place where, in places, the sun never goes down. A place where, in places, polar bears outnumber humans. A place of mountains, of fjords, of unique, exciting cities and storybook little towns. A place where they love soccer.

A place with another language, a unique cultural identity, some beautiful scenery, and where a guy like me could one day have a vacation out of his wildest dreams.

The World Cup -- A Look Back...and Ahead

 World Cup 2022--It's Getting Real

I was a fresh college graduate in the summer of 2010, sending out career applications and facing adult life, when the FIFA World Cup came along. At that time, I didn’t watch soccer. I didn’t play it, either. But my love for sports and interest in other cultures and languages drew me into watching that summer, and it had a tremendous impact on me. The packed stadiums, spine-tingling anthems, sudden-death games and monumental goals captured my imagination, all the way to the championship match where Spain defeated the Netherlands in overtime.

And thus, a love affair was born…

By 2014, I was living on my own, and I feasted on the World Cup. I watched every game I could (even at work), and dragged my best friend to Buffalo Wild Wings to spend an afternoon watching the finale in which Germany beat Argentina.

In 2018, that best friend and I were roommates, and, once again, I was obsessed, watching at every opportunity. I even hosted a watch party at our apartment that Sunday morning when France beat Croatia to win the Cup.

Heck, the following summer, I was invested as I had ever been in the big tournament—only, this time, it was the Women’s World Cup.

To be clear, I didn’t watch soccer at any point during the nine years I just chronicled…except during the World Cup. That changed a few months after USA’s powerful women’s team defeated the Netherlands in July ’19 to hoist the Cup; I caught an English Premier League game on TV by chance, started watching regularly, and it has since become one of my top sports interests—right up there with futbol americano and March Madness. These days, I could tell you almost as much about the Premier League or La Liga as I could about the NFL. 

Soccer – called “football” by most of the world – is a world unto itself, an all-consuming passion in which teenagers become adored professionals and poor kids from third-world countries end up multi-millionaires in places where they don’t even speak the language. It’s a world in which white-collar Japanese businessmen, penniless African orphans, middle-aged pub-going Brits, and college girls all recognize and celebrate one thing above all:

 

GOOOOOOOAAAAAALLLLLLL

 

The World Cup comes around every four years (the women’s comes the year after the men’s in each cycle). World Cup 2022 is going to be held in Qatar—in the winter, no doubt to avoid brain-blistering summer temperatures in that region. Countries around the world have spent months gathering their most talented natural born sons – who can play for professional “club teams”, like Manchester United or LA Galaxy, anywhere in the world – and going through qualifying tournaments around the globe.

The tournament starts with eight groups containing four teams apiece. The teams in the group will all play each other, with the top two teams from each group advancing into the knockout stage of 16—in other words, a “Sweet Sixteen”. Then it will progress to eight, four, two, and, finally, one.

The group stage is where the journey to the Cup begins, though, and the qualified teams were arranged into groups yesterday. (Unfortunately, COVID and the Russia/Ukraine conflict have prevented a few final spots being filled. **Please continue to pray for the Ukraine. It’s all most of can do, but I believe that it matters.**)

World Cup 2022 is 233 days away, with the first matches set to be played on November 21. That’ll be the holiday season, yes, but I, for one, will be checking scores and catching games whenever I can. Until then, all I have are these groups, and all I can do is imagine how things will play out once the first ball is kicked…

 

GROUP A

Qatar, Ecuador, Senegal, Netherlands

Netherlands and Senegal are the favorites to advance, the former finishing second and third in 2010 and 2014, respectively, and the latter having recently been crowned champions of Africa. Ecuador could push them – smaller South American countries have had charmed runs in the tournament before – and Qatar, in its first-ever World Cup, could get a boost from the huge turnout it should have in its home country. 

 

GROUP B

England, Islamic Republic of Iran, United States of America, TBD (Wales, Scotland, or Ukraine)

England should be favorite. I mean, it’s England and “football”! Plus, England reached the semifinals of the last World Cup and came achingly close to winning this past summer’s European championship (EUROs). The US Men’s National Team (USMNT) missed the 2018 tournament, but has bounced back with a promising young team boasting several world stars. Iran has proven a tough out in these tournaments before, not to mention they’re neighbors with Qatar, so its every game should be packed. Finally, the Russia/Ukraine war has prevented the final round of qualifying from reaching its conclusion. In June we should know who the fourth team will be. Wales and Scotland have recent tournament experience and would set up all-UK battles with England, and if it’s Ukraine—how could you not root for them?

 

GROUP C

Argentina, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Poland

Argentina won the South American championship this past summer, plus it could be global superstar Lionel Messi’s last hurrah. A traditional heavyweight, Argentina will be expected to top the group. Poland boasts another one of the world’s biggest stars—goal-scorer extraordinaire Robert Lewandowski. Mexico traditionally makes it out of the group stage, setting up what could be a fascinating battle for second. Saudi Arabia shouldn’t be discounted, considering this is its second-straight World Cup and it’s close enough to home that Saudi fans should be able to pour in.

GROUP D

France, Denmark, Tunisia, TBD (Australia, Peru, or United Arab Emirates) 

France won the World Cup in 2018. It’ll be keen to hang onto the trophy—and to save some face after a disappointing EUROs. It’ll be interesting to see whether the highly-touted French can charge deep into the tournament as expected. It’ll have to contend with Denmark, which reached the EURO semifinals as a celebrated underdog. These two are the clear favorites—it’ll be interesting to see whether Tunisia or any of the teams vying for the fourth place spot can challenge them.

 

GROUP E

Spain, Germany, Japan, TBD (Costa Rica or New Zealand)

Germany has won the World Cup four times, but is coming off an awful showing in 2018 and an underwhelming EUROs. If they play anything like their historical selves, though, the Germans could win the group and go a long way. Spain, Cup winner in 2010, was one of the surprise teams of the EUROs last summer, charging to the semifinals with a team of exciting up-and-comers. Japan has the capacity to surprise—it nearly made a deep run four years ago before a last-second loss to Belgium. Either Costa Rica or New Zealand will have a chance in this group—when last seen in the World Cup, Costa Rica was predicted to finish last in the group…and ended up in the quarterfinals! This group looks like two teams penciled into the next round, but you can never tell.

GROUP F

Belgium, Canada, Morocco, Croatia 

Croatia and Belgium are heavy hitters, the two finishing second and third in the 2018 tournament, respectively. Both are loaded with stars who play in Europe’s top proving grounds. Canada hasn’t played in the World Cup since 1986, but it’s back with a young team full of exciting talent. And Morocco made its way back to the World Cup from a very competitive North African region. This group looks like Experience vs. Youth, Known vs. Unknown, and it will be very competitive.

 

GROUP G

Brazil, Serbia, Switzerland, Cameroon

Brazil is the only country that has featured in all 22 World Cups, and has won it the most times—five. It’s favored to do so again, so failure to get out of the group would be unthinkable. Switzerland is coming off a charmed run in the EUROs, so they’ll be full of confidence, but it won’t come easy, as it has a dicey history with Serbia in big tournaments. Cameroon is a traditional African powerhouse who will have its say as well. Three teams fighting for second—or so it would seem…

 

GROUP H

Portugal, Ghana, Uruguay, Korea Republic

This group has everyone talking. Portugal is packed with stars, led by the great Cristiano Ronaldo. Uruguay has won the tournament twice and features several household names. Korea stunned Germany at the last World Cup and is led by one of the Premier League’s finest goalscorers. Ghana are a traditional heavyweight, and it’ll be extra motivated given that it lost one of the most famous games in World Cup history to Uruguay back in overtime in 2010. This is gonna be the popcorn group, folks. Enjoy!

 

Alas, World Cup 2022 doesn’t get underway until November 21. But, even though it’ll be the height of winter and the holiday season, I can’t wait until they let the games begin.

ZACK SNYDER'S JUSTICE LEAGUE

Zack Snyder’s Justice League (2021)

Rating: 7.5/10

Starring: Ben Affleck, Gal Gadot, Jason Momoa, Ezra Miller, Ray Fisher, Henry Cavill, Jeremy Irons, Amy Adams, Joe Morton, J.K. Simmons, Diane Lane and Connie Nielsen, featuring Ciaran Hinds as the voice of Steppenwolf and Ray Porter as the voice of Darkseid

RATED R for intense action and destruction, language, and gore

 

By now, we all know the story: Marvel (later known as Disney’s MCU) hit the jackpot when they started teaming up the superhero leads from all their blockbusters films, reaching levels of cultural and box office influence usually reserved for the likes of Star Wars.

DC, which boasts its own treasure trove of beloved comic book heroes and villains, was in a hurry to catch up.

 2013’s Superman film Man of Steel was divisive. The 2016 follow-up Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice gave us a solid Batfleck and some cool action, but that was in the midst of a ponderous 2.5 hour slog. Both were directed by Zack Snyder, whose dour moods and drawn-out run times had some wondering if he was the right man for the job.

 In 2017, Patty Jenkins’ Wonder Woman, a surer, more uplifting take on one principle character, reached worldwide acclaim and major box office success.

Still, with The Avengers shredding box office records, DC rushed their version of a big team-up, Justice League, into production, with Snyder at the helm. But he had to leave the project after his daughter, Autumn, sadly took her own life. Joss Whedon, writer and director of the first two Avengers films, was brought in to patch things up.

Burdened by everything from Whedon and Snyder’s differing styles as filmmakers to Henry Cavill’s CGI-ed mouth (by the time reshoots began, the actor had moved on to a contractually-mustachioed role in 2018’s Mission Impossible: Fallout), Justice League stumbled into theaters as a crammed, underwhelming and ultimately forgettable release (which I gave a 5.5 out of 10 on this blog).

Amidst this massive disappointment, DC limped on, eventually gaining some traction with 2019’s colorful Shazam!, the smash hit Aquaman, and 2020’s Harley Quinn: Birds of Prey. But then, the long-anticipated Wonder Woman 1984 left fans divided upon its late 2020 release.

Then, finally, after years of rumors that Zack Snyder had filmed a version of the movie that was very different from what ultimately came to theaters, Snyder gathered his old footage and released Zack Snyder’s Justice League, a 4 hour, 2 minute monolith currently on HBO Max that showcases his original vision for the project.

The gist is still the same. The world is in mourning following the death of Superman (Cavill, whose demise came at the end of Batman v Superman). Unsettled by a doomsday proclamation given by an imprisoned Lex Luthor (Jesse Eisenberg), Bruce Wayne (Affleck) has kept in close contact with Diana Prince (Gal Gadot), while also monitoring the activities of uniquely-gifted individuals like the super-quick Barry Allen (Ezra Miller) and ocean-dwelling tough guy Arthur Curry (Jason Momoa). When a nasty inter-dimensional baddie named Steppenwolf (voiced by Ciaran Hinds) comes to earth with an army at his back, seeking three all-powerful relics called “Mother Boxes”, Bruce reaches out to his “team”. Lingering nearby is the mysterious Cyborg (Ray Fisher), whose enhanced sensibilities enable him to unpack any data and analyze any situation.

Turns out, Steppenwolf is just the beginning—he seeks to level Earth so that his interstellar overlord, Darkseid (voice of Ray Porter) can find some rumored cosmic force that will help him conquer all worlds. If Steppenwolf can gather the Mother Boxes and fuse them together, the (short) countdown to Earth’s destruction will be on, as will Darkseid’s desired conquest of the universe. Bruce and his “super friends” are ready and willing to fight, but facing foes and weapons from other dimensions, they realize they need another ally, one with strength and abilities beyond this Earth: Superman.

It should be noted that Zack Snyder’s Justice League is not just a longer version of the same film (unlike, say, the director’s Extended and Super Cut versions of his 2009 DC venture, Watchmen). While this movie follows the same basic plot beats, I’d say 80 percent of the footage is actually different. Most of Whedon’s jokes have been yanked, every scene has been expanded, supporting characters who had/have yet to appear in their own films (Cyborg and the Flash) have been fleshed out, and DC’s Big Bad, Darkseid, makes an appearance.

The biggest bonus of this new version – and there are many pluses, from a better-looking Steppenwolf to a more palatable color scheme – is the increased development of Cyborg. Reduced to a brooding presence and a few punch-lines in the original release, Cyborg here gets major character treatment, the movie exploring the car accident that mangled him, his increasing awareness of his superhuman abilities, and his strained relationship with his scientist father (Joe Morton). Given this depth, Cyborg morphs from a barely-there outsider to arguably the handiest and most central member of the team—at least until a rejuvenated Superman shows up. In fact, each “major supporting” character – Miller’s Flash, Momoa’s Aquaman, even Amy Adams’ Lois Lane – gets more time to breathe in this version.

This movie isn’t perfect. Snyder’s love of slo-mo means that there’s probably 20 minutes they could have cut off, not to mention more would-be ending scenes than The Return of the King. 

It’s also perhaps inevitable that Zack Snyder's Justice League feels strained and out-of-time. It’s weird seeing Arthur Curry playing rebel-without-a-cause after he claimed the Antlantean throne in the memorably-entertaining Aquaman, it’s awkward watching Amber Heart as Curry’s love interest Mera knowing the offscreen drama that recently got her recast, and there’s an air of melancholy witnessing Affleck and Cavill in roles they have already exited. This movie feels like it could have been the start of something, but, with the recasting, the subsequent standalones that furthered the timeline, and the notion that The Batman (with Robert Pattinson under the cape and cowl) is on the horizon, it has already been passed by.

Still, with a mix of small character moments, key flashbacks, exciting team-ups, colorful visits to Themyscira and Atlantis, and great action, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is a strong and full vision, a much worthier outing for DC’s greatest heroes and something more capable of contending with the Avengers films.

Bottom Line

In a time when blockbusters tend to be short, snappy, and action-packed, Zack Snyder’s Justice League is the rare comic book movie that takes its time, incorporating key character flashbacks, imaginative fantasy sequences, and an army of supporting players into a project that feels whole and inspired, and generates the overall feeling of depth and closure more commonly found in a TV miniseries. The characters are stronger, the effects are better, and the team-up (and inevitable triumph) feels more earned. Thank you, Zack Snyder.

 

ZACK SNYDER’S JUSTICE LEAGUE (2021)

Directed by Zack Snyder

Screenplay by Chris Terrio

Story by Zack Snyder, Chris Terrio and Will Beall

Superman created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster

Batman crated by Bob Kane and Bill Finger

Wonder Woman created by William Moultom Marston

Justice League of America created by Gardner Fox

Fourth World created by Jack Kirby

Length: 242 minutes (4 hrs. 2 minutes)

Rated R

'Force Awakens' and 'Fury Road' - Five Years Later

I’ve had a lot of great experiences seeing movies in theaters, but my trip to see Star Wars: Episode 7: The Force Awakens on December 17, 2015, that film's opening night, will always rank as one of the best.

I went with a group of eight friends, all of whom had bought tickets months before (on the first day tickets became available for the eagerly-anticipated Episode 7). We got in line outside the theater hours before they started seating, and we weren’t the only ones. The mall lobby was swamped by thousands of people waiting for more than a dozen different showtimes. With all those people packed together, it was hot and a little nerve-wracking, but it was also deliciously, irresistibly exciting. There was a buzz in the air. My friends and I wore brand new Force Awakens shirts we had bought strictly for that occasion, plenty of people around us were in costume, and a few individuals in full Stormtrooper get-up wandered about serving as picture fodder for waiting fans, who beckoned them by the dozens.

I’ll never forget the excited cheer that went up when theater employees opened the doors to start seating my showtime, the 7:00. People not even in line for that showing shouted and clapped, just because it meant they were that much closer to seeing the Movie of the Moment. People in other lines were beaming and high-fiving me as my line proceeded toward the doors, and then into the theater. We all just couldn’t wait. And then, once the moment arrived, and the previews ended, it was spine-tingling delight. People clapped and cheered when the green Lucasfilm logo crept onto the screen, and a roar went up when the large yellow STAR WARS title appeared, accompanied by the familiar theater-shaking BUM, BUH-BUH-BUM of John Williams’ iconic score. It was dreamland.

This high-level, maximum-excitement experience was in marked contrast to my trip to see Mad Max: Fury Road seven months earlier, on May 16, 2015. Fury Road wasn’t shown in the mall’s largest theater, but one with about a quarter of the capacity. This was no packed opening night premiere, either; I saw a half-full Saturday matinee with two of my friends. We were excited, because the movie had received excellent reviews on Rottentomatoes, but the most memorable thing about the build-up to the movie starting was that my friend Christina and I kept whispering back and forth during the previews, prompting the guy sitting in front of us to turn around and say “Are you guys gonna talk the whole time?” And the movie itself? Well, it didn’t generate any impromptu ovations the way a Star Wars movie does, but it was, undeniably, a spectacle.

I saw both of those movies back in 2015, when I wrote more regularly on this blog. At that time, I gave Mad Max a grade of B+, admitting that it was a thrilling action-packed spectacle, but added that it was seriously weird, what with its disfigured villains, manic, body-painted soldiers, strange-accented mutters, and acid-trip flashbacks (not to mention its heavy reliance on the use of breast milk).

When I saw The Force Awakens, I didn’t write my review until I had seen it a second time (on the Saturday after that Thursday night premiere). I hadn’t been as blown away by the movie as some of my friends, but I still gave it an A-, deeming it worthy of praise for its high energy, strong characters, classic Han/Chewie banter, and some tremendous action sequences (that epic topsy-turvy shot of the Millennium Falcon in flight, the lightsaber fight in the snow between Fin, Rey, and Kylo Ren). I would ultimately see the movie in theaters again, this time with family, and I remember being slightly put-out when my Dad, a Star Wars fan going back to 1977, didn’t offer much praise when it was over.

I had no idea how much things would change with time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I didn’t see Mad Max: Fury Road again until it came out on Blu-Ray. I wasn’t convinced it was a great movie until I had seen it about four times. By then, I was more accustomed to the movie’s inherent weirdness (“WITNESS MEEEEEEE!”), and had started to appreciate the true artistry fitted in amidst the high-octane action. With those repeat viewings, it became my then-#3 ranked movie of 2015. Meanwhile, my enthusiasm for The Force Awakens quickly cooled, and I ranked it #7 that year.

As you no doubt know if you’re reading this, The Force Awakens, and Star Wars as a whole, has become a non-stop topic of discussion (aka relentless Twitter feuds). It didn’t take long for the discussions to materialize, either. Amidst the initial excitement over the release of the first big-screen Star Wars adventure since 2005’s Revenge of the Sith, some quibbled that The Force Awakens, while paying appropriate respect to some of the saga’s classic tropes and characters, relied too heavily on nostalgia for its appeal, to the point that it was actually a thinly-veiled remake of the original 1977 Star Wars. It wasn’t hard to see the logic in that argument, either. Consider:

Poor desert orphan dressed in white gets caught up in a galactic civil war when they stumble across a droid containing information needed by a band of rebels who are resisting a domineering, high-tech, fascist institution. Said orphan is soon revealed to be strong with the Force, which puts them at odds with a black-costumed, mask-wearing villain, one who utilizes the Dark Side of the Force to serve a craggy-faced Overlord; said masked villain also struggles with the burden of serving evil due to certain familial connections. The evil institution blows up whole planets with a giant, spherical laser weapon while our heroes bounce around the galaxy on the Millennium Falcon, but eventually they reach the rebels’ base and plan an attack in which they must fly X-Wings through a trench and blow up a certain component of the imperial weapon in order to make the whole structure combust.

Yep. While Force Awakens’ writer/director J.J. Abrams was obviously a fan of Star Wars, his nods and send-ups to the classic films were such obvious parallels that some thought it slightly ridiculous, let alone unoriginal. Frankly, this was hard to deny. I maintain that Force Awakens is a well-made film, but, overall, it does adhere very closely to the New Hope template. That being said, the movie had some compelling characters and, right after it came out, many pointed out that Disney could still deviate from the template in following films and give us something different.

Welp, Force Awakens’ follow-up, The Last Jedi, did give us something different (which may be putting it mildly), and, when Abrams returned for The Rise of Skywalker, he attempted to right the ship largely by resolving the central hero-villain conflict in a manner strikingly similar to the climax of The Return of the Jedi. The division over whether any of the new trilogy films was “good” has resulted in Star Wars becoming a complicated and sometimes toxic topic of conversation.

Mad Max: Fury Road, on the other hand, has enjoyed a pretty straightforward reputation. While it was no Star Wars-level smash, it was still a surprise hit with a $153 million domestic gross. More impressively, it became the rare action film to make a serious splash at year-end award ceremonies, receiving 10 Academy Award nominations, including nods for Best Picture of the Year and Best Director (George Miller). It did not win either of those major prizes, but captured 6 Oscars for its impeccable aesthetic and technical work. It is still regarded by most cinema enthusiasts as something of a modern classic, one of the standout films of the 2010s (if not the 21^st century as a whole). Rumors persist that the film will have at least one sequel.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why am I talking about these movies that have nothing in common except the fact that they came out the same year? Well, last night, I was in the mood to watch a Star Wars movie, and my roommate had been wanting to re-watch Mad Max. So we made a double feature of it, first watching The Force Awakens and then Fury Road. And it was interesting to see how I perceived each movie now, over five years after the release of the latter and about 4.5 years since the former kicked off a new era in the Galaxy, Far, Far Away.

Watching The Force Awakens in 2020 is a bittersweet experience. It’s true that it is very derivative of A New Hope, but, in the moment, while watching the film, I think that the characters are acted and written well-enough that you don’t really notice the “unoriginality”. It’s a fast-paced film with fun character interaction, a number of laughs, and some eye-catching visuals (the sweeping first reveal of Poe Dameron’s X-Wing, the aforementioned up-is-down shot of the Millennium Falcon soaring over the Jakku desert, clashing red and blue lightsabers gleaming in the eyes of Rey and Kylo Ren during their third-act duel). In the end, the movie is entertaining (albeit with a draggy middle section) and reasonably compelling.

That said, it’s hard to watch the movie now without having a pang at the realization that little of what is onscreen ultimately paid off. As has become well-known, J.J. Abrams was initially, vocally, on board for just one Star Wars film, and Disney pushed it out apparently without having pre-established arcs (or any plan at all) for the following films. Thus, Rian Johnson went his own way with 2017's The Last Jedi, infuriating a number of fans, resulting in Abrams being recalled to try to patch things up with Rise of Skywalker. The end result is that the film that started it all feels like a half-baked shell of a movie, full of questions and talking points that either weren’t answered or were answered--but in eyebrow-raising ways. This included:

-Supreme Leader Snoke, who it turned out was created in a bottle in a lab, made to act as a surrogate for a mysteriously (i.e. poorly explained) resurrected Emperor Palpatine

-Alien Maz Kannata remains a mystery, as does the means by which she obtained Luke Skywalker’s original lightsaber

-Some early sparks between Rey and Fin, who do a lot of bickering, hand-holding, and hugging, went nowhere, as they barely spent any screen time together again (the oft-shipped Finn/Poe coupling similarly never materialized)

-Luke Skywalker, so memorably handed his lightsaber in a vivid moment at Force Awakens’ end, ultimately chucked it away, only to later backpedal on this cynical stance in order to encourage Rey to step up to the plate

-Rey’s parentage was revealed to be nothing, only to later be re-revealed as very important!

-Intriguing villains General Hux and Captain Phasma became barely-there afterthoughts

-The Luke/Kylo Ren fallout was never resolved

And on and on we could go.

Ultimately, judging The Force Awakens on its own merits, today, I would give it a grade of 7 out of 10 (or, if I were using my old letter-grade scale, a B). Like I said, it’s an entertaining (if fairly unoriginal) film that boasts some likable characters, impressive visuals, and fun action.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mad Max: Fury Road lies on the other end of the spectrum. Compared to Force Awakens, it’s simple narratively (a chase ensues, and then goes back the other way!), but it is such a uniquely-crafted piece of cinema that, not only is it a very good movie, but I find new things to appreciate about it every time I watch it. These “things” range from how certain colors pop even in the movie's brown, orange, and blue-tinted scenes, how much of the film happens (or could have happened) without dialogue, and what the wives’ whispered slang-y commentary means, to just how electrifying the score is. It’s a marvel of a movie—so basic yet meaningful in its story, and so intensely, breathlessly depicted. A barely-recognizable Charlize Theron is a force of nature as the gritty Furiosa, sacrificing reputation, life and limb to try and save the warlord’s captive wives. Vehicles are torn to pieces and explode, bodies are crushed, and two painted “war boys” get to enjoy mesmerizing, vivid onscreen deaths (“WITNESS MEEEEEE”).

It’s a unique and magnificent movie, enough that, when, in January, I made a ranked list of my top movies of the 2010s, Fury Road was my #3, behind only Skyfall and The Martian. Today, I would give Fury Road a grade of A+, or 9.5 out of 10 (maybe more of a 9.8). It’s striking, it's engaging, and it’s a spasmodic surge of energy into what has become a pretty conventional and unexciting cinema landscape.

So, which movie would I most willingly watch again some time soon? I like Star Wars, and it’s a little easier to just put on, but, nah, “I wanna die historic on the Fury Road.”

"American Pharoah Makes His Run For Glory"

Yesterday, since there are no sports on, I decided I am going to start pepping myself up by reminiscing on some of my favorite sports-watching memories. So here is DAY TWO

"American Pharoah Makes His Run For Glory..."

Almost five full years ago, I was home, spending a sleepy Saturday in the apartment I lived in by myself. Most of my friends were either working or attending the wedding of a coworker who later become my supervisor (hi Joy!). Slightly bored, I decided to do something different for lunch, so I went to T.G.I. Friday's. Like I usually do when I go by myself, I sat at the bar. I don't drink, but when you sit at the bar, you get your food faster, you can usually enjoy some conversation with the bar tender or fellow bar patrons, and you can watch the TVs, which typically cover sports. That day, while there was some coverage of baseball, basketball, and NASCAR, I noticed that the majority of live coverage was in anticipation of that afternoon's Belmont Stakes, one of the Big Three American horse races.

I know next to nothing about horses, and horse-racing. I had horseback riding lessons once a week for about six months when I was eleven, I saw "Seabiscuit", I wrote an article on my alma mater's equestrian team once for a journalism class, and I have a vague memory of watching the Kentucky Derby once with my dad, and that's it.

But the hype that day was not just that there was a horse race, but that there was a chance one of the horses could win the racing Triple Crown, having already captured the Preakness and the Derby that year. No horse had won the Triple Crown since the great Secretariat in 1973. The horse in question was American Pharoah, and yes, the name did have that unique spelling of the word "pharoah".

Obviously, I'm not big into horse racing, but I like sports, especially if there's a chance to see some fun/cool history, and I knew the race wouldn't last long. Better yet, it was on NBC, one of the two channels my TV antenna picked up with regularity in my apartment. So I left T.G.I.F, went home, and turned on coverage. I didn't REALLY care, but I thought, why not, I'll root for American Pharoah.

The race started! And American Pharoah was not in the lead. Immediately, the commentators began to mutter amongst themselves, because this was the big storyline they had been prepped to cover. But that Pharoah gained quickly, squeaking past others to take a short lead over the early leader, a horse called Frosted. But his lead grew. And grew. And grew.

Apart from the final result, the race is best known for Larry Collmus's enthusiastic, thrilling live commentary of the race's closing moments:
"And they're into the stretch, and American Pharoah makes his run for glory as they come into the final furlong! Frosted is second, with 1/8th of a mile to go! American Pharoah's got a two-length lead! Frosted is ALL OUT at the 16th pole, and HERE IT IS!!! The 37-year wait is over! American Pharoah is FINALLY THE ONE! AMERICAN PHAROAH HAS WON THE TRIPLE CROOOOOWN!!!!"

Almost five years later, listening to that commentary STILL gives me chills, and often brings tears to my eyes. The Belmont bleachers were full of people jumping up and down, screaming and hugging, because they'd seen something historic. Pharoah's elderly trainer Bob Baffert and his family dissolved into tears in their section of the stands. Jockey Victor Espinoza punched the air in delight as Pharoah surged across the finish line in full stride and looked ready for another go. Meanwhile, I was in my apartment jumping around, full of adrenaline, HYPED, because I had not only seen great sport, but I had seen history.

This still stands out as one of the most unique sports-watching experiences of my life. Not something I normally watch, I didn't even know it was happening until a few hours before, but it was instantly historic, with an instant-classic call, and the mental image of that strong, beautiful horse charging across the finish line amidst adoring applause is one that never fails to warm my heart.

"The Greatest Comeback In Postseason Baseball History"

The recent Unpopular Opinion Game on Facebook reminded me that a lot of people don't care for watching sports. While I have a difficult time understanding and relating to that, we all like what we like. That said, I mean it when I say nearly three weeks without any major sports (with no reprieve in sight!) has been difficult. For a lot of us, if we can't go out, can't hang out with people, can't go anywhere, we're used to at least having a "big game" to watch, especially this time of year.

So, I'm going to start, once per day, posting something about my all-time favorite sports-watching experiences, and I would invite my sports-fan friends to do the same. Instead of being sad/bored without sports on now, let's reminisce and celebrate what sports have brought to our lives.

For me, there is and probably always will be one sporting event that stands above all others. That is the 2004 American League Championship Series, in which the Boston Red Sox became the first team in MLB history to win a best-of-seven postseason series after trailing 3 games to 0.

I didn't watch a lot of baseball in the early 2000s. I had stopped collected cards and my Orioles were terrible, so why bother? Moreover, those were the years in which I got big into movies, so my mind was occupied with other things.

PLUS, where baseball was concerned, the New York Yankees were annoyingly good. They had the most money, had won 4 of the previous 7 World Series, and were packed to the brim with highly-paid stars you claimed to hate but really just wanted on your team (Derek Jeter, Mariano Rivera, A-Rod, Hideki Matsui, Gary Sheffield, Jorge Posada, etc...). So it was little surprise when I heard on ESPN one morning that they were well on their way to another World Series, up 3-0 on the good-but-not-AS-good Boston Red Sox. BUT THEN....

Okay, to be honest, I didn't actually watch any of the series until it was 3-1, after the Red Sox got one back on a 12th-inning walkoff home run by David Ortiz in Game 4. That was the game with Dave Roberts' famous 9th-inning steal against Mariano Rivera, which led to the Sox tying the game when they were two outs from being eliminated and sending the Yanks to the Series.

But, MAN, I tell you what. I watched EVERY PITCH of the final three games, including the 14-inning, almost 6-hour Game 5 in Boston, a nerve-shredding thriller that ended when David Ortiz did it again, fouling off six pitches in a row before hitting a bloop single to center field that scored Johnny Damon for another walk-off win.

Game 6 was another classic. That was the game with Curt Schilling's bloody sock (he pitched six full innings on a severed ankle tendon) and the two calls that the umpires initially got wrong, but, after convening, changed their minds and got right. First, that Boston second baseman Mark Bellhorn had hit a shot into left field that actually went into the stands for a home run...it didn't bounce off the wall for a double like they originally thought. Secondly, A FRAUD Alex Rodriguez ABSOLUTELY slapped the ball out of the glove of Boston pitcher Bronson Arroyo on his way to first, leading to the Yankees tying the game late. This was correctly ruled interference, A-Rod was out, and the Yankees had a run taken off the board. Ultimately, the Sox won a nailbiter when the Yankees left the bases loaded in the bottom of the ninth.

Game 7 turned out to be a bit of anticlimax (though any non-Yankee fans were NOT complaining). Ortiz hit a two-run homer in the first inning. A couple batters later, Johnny Damon hit a grand slam to make it 6-0, and the Red Sox ultimately won the game 10-3. Sounds like a blowout, and it was...but I still remember the 7th inning, when the Red Sox brought in Pedro Martinez in relief, and the Yankees staged a mini-rally, grabbing three quick runs to give the Yankees and their fans hope. The "WHO'S YOUR DAD-DY!!??!" chants from the New York crowd were audible from the TV. (I remember I got really annoyed and anxious during this part of the game. I made some sharp comment to my Mom, at which time she left to watch the game elsewhere with my dad. My older sister blamed for me being mean and chasing her off, though my Mom has since claimed this was not why she left the room, haha.) But, ultimately, it was only a mini-rally, and the Red Sox won.

It was historic in so many ways. The Red Sox became the first baseball team ever to erase an 0-3 deficit and win a best-of-seven series. The Yankees became the ultimate chokers, the first team to ever LOSE a series after taking that kind of advantage. The Red Sox won the pennant, then went on to sweep the Cardinals in the World Series to end the "Curse of the Bambino", ending an 86-year championship drought that supposedly started because they traded a promising young player named George Herman Ruth to the Yankees after failing to recognize his potential.

Oh, and THIS then-high school junior won $3 bucks in a bet with his New York-native teacher, who had been sure the Yankees would win. :D

I don't watch as much baseball as I used to. But the 2004 ALCS ALWAYS stands out as one of the most epic and memorable sports-watching experiences I've ever had.