Watch out for those German youth

Blow your vuvuzela! The U.S. is done, but the World Cup isn't dead

If, before the World Cup started, you’d told me that on June 27th the U.S. would be in the same position as England, France, and Italy, I would’ve given a mighty blast on my vuvuzela.

Oh well. At least we aren’t suffering the same torments of national self-loathing as our partners in elimination. We did just about as well as you could have reasonably expected before the games began. It’s true, however, that we had started to dream bigger dreams. The semifinals were in reach. All we had to do was beat Ghana and Uruguay. Not exactly a piece of tres leches, but doable.

Except, of course, that Ghana was the same team that showed us the door in 2006, and on Saturday it did so in a manner that was strikingly similar. In the 22nd minute of the 2006 game, Ghana defender Haminu Draman descended on a timidly dribbling Claudio Reyna like a lion falling upon a lesser animal, took the ball away in a majestic display of power, leaving Reyna crumbled on the ground, and flicked in the first goal. The U.S. came back to equalize, but it was clear that our guys couldn’t match the Ghanaians’ power.

This weekend was déjà vu all over again. The game had scarcely started when Kevin-Prince Boateng yanked (no pun intended) the ball from former Dynamo Ricardo Clark and scored a power goal of his own. (Clark had an unhappy tournament, as he allowed seventh-minute goals in two different games.) And the Black Stars winning goal in overtime came when Asamoah Gyan, looking like a bull running through the streets of Pamplona, fended off the suddenly very puny looking Carlos Bocanegra and smashed one past keeper Tim Howard — who frankly didn’t live up to his pre-tournament hype.

Having watched Ghana tiptoe their way through a losing effort against Germany, I was taken aback by their display of power and aggression against the U.S. I’d like to see how they celebrated over at the Ghana House.

Speaking of Germany, the young Teutons were the revelations of the weekend. After a lifetime of watching World War II movies in which all Germans look like they’re going to grow up to be Erich von Stroheim, it was hard for me to grasp that the young men flying with the greatest of ease through the dazed looking Brits were in fact Deutsches.

Of the European nations who have previously won a World Cup, only Germany seems to be producing exciting young talent. I wonder what the difference is between their approach and that of Italy, France and England?

Like U.S.-Ghana, Mexico-Argentina was a replay of 2006. The script didn’t change much for that pair either. The previous game was something of a classic, decided in overtime by one of the best goals I’ve ever seen (by Maxi Rodriguez). This year’s game got off to a fiery start. The Orange Bar crowd was roaring and slamming tequilas as the teams traded long breakaways and displays of dribbling and one-touch passing.

But, unlike Argentina, Mexico was not able to maneuver the ball in front of the goal, and generally had to settle for long-distance kicks — some of which came very close to going in.

El Tri lost its composure after the refs allowed a goal made by the clearly offside Carlos Tevez to stand, and they never really regained it. This game was a study in the fine line between being a good team and a great one.

Mexico displayed the elements for international success, which I believe will one day come for them, but they still can’t put it all together. Maybe they need a coach like Diego Maradona, who for me is the single best story of the tournament, and the main reason I’m now pulling for Argentina.

Friday’s semifinal between Germany and Argentina (another rematch from 2006) has the makings of a free-flowing classic.

Ghana, in the meantime, will try to muscle Uruguay, who slogged through the rain to defeat a very game and capable South Korea in Saturday’s early game. That was the least interesting match of the weekend, though it did feature a star performance by the young striker Luis Suárez. His second goal, a curling shot that he bent out of the mud and right into the inner half of the far goalpost, was the most purely beautiful play of the tournament so far.

unspecified

Movie Review

Fun final act isn't enough to make Clayface DC's next great movie

Tom Rhys Harries and Naomi Ackie in Clayface

Photo by Parisa Taghizadeh

Tom Rhys Harries and Naomi Ackie are patient and doctor in Clayface.

The history of DC Comics in movies has been hit-and-miss, especially when it comes to anything not directly involving Batman or Superman. Over the years, films have been headlined by heroes like Catwoman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, Shazam, the Flash, and more, and while some succeeded, none left a lasting mark on moviegoers’ imaginations.

Much like they did with Joker, the powers-that-be behind DC Studios productions are trying to entice viewers with a no-holds-barred story in Clayface. Matt Hagen (Tom Rhys Harries) is an A-list movie actor with both critical and commercial appeal. Unfortunately, a night of celebration for his recent Oscar nomination leads to him sleeping with Theresa (Ruby Sear), the girlfriend of Markos Szabo (David Dencik), a prominent mobster in Gotham City. Markos then enacts revenge by taking a razor to Matt’s face.

Desperate to find a way to look like his old self again, Matt seeks out Dr. Caitlyn Corr (Naomi Ackie), who’s conducting cutting-edge nanotechnology research that can heal any kind of damage. While the solution works on Matt, it also has the side effect of his body doing unintended things, even morphing into those with whom he comes into contact. After initially struggling with his new body, Matt decides to use his powers to enact revenge on those who’ve done him wrong.

Directed by James Watkins (Speak No Evil) and written by Mike Flanagan (The Life of Chuck) and Hossein Amini, the film is only intermittently entertaining as it tries to sell its ridiculous premise. Right from the start, it seems like the filmmakers have been given a limited budget, as everything from the sets to the CGI to the stilted dialogue feels cheap. For a film coming from a major studio, the whole thing comes off as schlocky and undercooked.

Watkins and his team try to make up for that shoddiness by delivering R-rated thrills like nudity and body horror, but those elements can only distract for so long. Much of the film is spent dealing with Matt’s trauma, and the downbeat nature of his body issues combined with very little action makes the movie not very fun to watch. The film also tries to make hay with more than a doctor-patient bond between Caitlyn — who has a boyfriend on the police force — and Matt, but like the most of the film, it never connects.

It’s not until the final third of the movie that the filmmakers land on the tone they should have been using the whole time. Matt’s ability to transform himself, while illogical and confounding, provides multiple over-the-top, funny moments and some legitimately creative kills. Instead of taking forever to set up Matt/Clayface’s origin story, Watkins and his team should have just cut to the chase and let him loose to see what the character could truly do.

This is the first big role for Welsh actor Harries, and while he’s not exactly magnetic, he proves himself worthy of the lead role. Ackie is also fine, but after several years of trying to advance up the Hollywood ladder, she may be running out of time to show she’s a star. The supporting cast has a couple of familiar faces, but it’s mostly lesser-known actors who do nothing to indicate they deserve bigger showcases.

It’s difficult to imagine any non-DC Comics fans having a strong attachment to the character of Clayface, and the film fails to make the case that he should be a continuing character. The poor quality of almost everything that appears on screen is indicative of the kind of effort and money that was put into the film, and sometimes you really do get what you pay for.

---

Clayface opens in theaters on October 23.

movies film clayface