For once, November has actually gone quite well for Newcastle United.
The last few seasons have almost been derailed by poor November's. Last season saw a cataclysmic loss of form in November that saw the rug pulled from under the feet of what had seemed to be a reasonable mid-table campaign, while two seasons back, no wins in November was an ultimate contributor to the sacking of Chris Hughton. Even in the 5th place campaign of 2011-12, the team only managed one win in the Bonfire Night month.
So far, three wins in three is a promising November. Equally impressive was the calibre of the opponents for two of these wins, with the team seeing off both Chelsea and Spurs in impressive and committed team displays.
But arguably as important as those three points were three points over Norwich City, which is an important step towards potential consistency given the season has already yielded defeats to Hull City (at home) and Sunderland.
Three points against teams that are likelier to be towards the bottom end of the Premier League are important if you want to stick ahead of them.
Last season the three teams that finished below Newcastle in the Premier League all got at least three points off the Toon Army, while only three teams in the bottom half failed to get a win off Newcastle last season (QPR, Villa and Norwich). Form like this is an indication things will not go in any way well.
What's interesting is the similarity between the two campaigns, with surprisingly similar statistics. 19 goals conceded ahead of the last game of November is similar to the 18 conceded so far this season.
A more clinical eye for goal - 18 to last season's 13 - has helped out. The only real hammering so far this season was the defeat by Manchester City, with the other defeats all being by a one goal margin.
Indeed, the statistics are surprisingly close between last season and the current one. It just so happens to be the month where divergence occurs. Last November saw the season begin to go downhill, with a run of miserable defeats against West Ham, Swansea, Southampton and Stoke turning a reasonable if underwhelming campaign into a relegation battle.
Part of the change in luck was due to Newcastle's horrifically poor luck with injuries. The only key players not to get long term injuries last season were the out-of-form Cheick Tiote, Jonas Gutierrez and Papiss Cisse, and Demba Ba before his move to Chelsea.
But it also appears as though Pardew now has a tactic that works. It also is interesting that the formation works best when previous key options like Hatem Ben Arfa and Cisse are out of the team, with the three wins all seeing the team begin without all of them.
Last season, it seemed Pardew struggled to figure out the right system to place his team into. The similarity of Cisse and Ba meant a partnership between the two was unlikely, while Pardew never seemed to figure out what to do with Ben Arfa.
Evidently, he still doesn't, given HBA now largely occupies a bench role. Not a bad impact sub to have given his major contributions already this season in victories over Fulham and Aston Villa, but still a sub.
Yoann Gouffran is now employed, and to good effect on the left flank as a cover for the surging runs of Davide Santon. But the Frenchman is turning into a key player, with goals against Chelsea and Norwich and an assist at Spurs.
Its questionable if Moussa Sissoko is really a right-winger but for now he seems to have a decent go in the position. Meanwhile, up-top is one Loic Remy, and the French firecracker striker is in top form right now.
Eight goals means Remy is currently behind only Sergio Aguero and Liverpool's Suarez-Sturridge pairing in the scoring charts. The important of the loan signing from QPR cannot be overestimated - Gouffran with 4 and 2 each for Ben Arfa and Yohan Cabaye is the nearest to the player.
It is up to the riding the summer transfer madhouse and the alleged Director of Football to secure his permanent place, but for now his goals are proving a valuable contribution.
Tim Krul is also returning in some valuable displays, which is also much needed after a few poor performances in 2012-13 (something he was not alone for).
His magnificent display pretty much kept Spurs out at White Hart Lane, and vital stops have also yielded further points.
With players and tactics lining up in good harmony, it means that a good consistent run has emerged since the awful derby defeat.
The aim of the game now is to continue something approaching consistency. Further three points against West Bromwich Albion will be a good starting point on this road. The odds however are good for once, with WBA having thrown away victories late on against Chelsea and Villa recently, although a Peter Odemwingie-inspired victory in 2011 means nothing can be taken for granted.
But it appears as though the Toon Army might be approaching something involving consistency and sanity for once. Let us pray it continues...
Friday, 29 November 2013
Wednesday, 27 November 2013
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - Film Review
*CAUTION: This contains a variety of spoilers for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. People that wish to see it but haven't already shouldn't read ahead if they do not want to spoil it.*
Its safe to say anticipation has been building up for the adaptation of the second book in the Hunger Games franchise.
The advertising campaign has certainly been relentless, with the bow, arrow and face of heroine Katinss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) poking out of buses, giant billboards, television commercials, online advert spaces and baffling promo tie-ins with Subway sandwiches for most of the last few weeks. But this has spun the brand recognition following the huge success that was the original movie, which has given the original a franchise to build on.
The first film was slightly toned down from the relentlessly brutal novel about a future North American nation called Panem, where the kids from its 12 districts are sent into an arena to fight until the death, and for their rulers' amusement in the titular Hunger Games. But it was still a gripping and unsettling piece of film that delivered a superb adaptation of the book.
Three Hunger Games books were written by Suzanne Collins, and the cast involved in this project are already making preparations to film the first part of final level Mockingjay, which will see the film released in exactly one year's time.
But to get there of course, this is the important step towards there. We begin this a few months after the end of the original Hunger Games film, which sees Katinss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) back home in District 12 after surviving the Games in the first film.
They only survived by pulling a trick with nightlock berries and taking advantage of a soft touch game controller that refused to allow them both to die. But although the citizens of the Capitol enjoyed the show, the Capitol's leaders did not so much - no previous Hunger Games has ended with twin victors, and this defiance of the rules of the games has inspired dissatisfied revolutionaries in the districts of Panem.
President Snow of the Capitol (Donald Sutherland) personally visits Katniss to inform her that this cannot lead to revolution and civil war, and so she and Peeta must convince him that they actually are lovers rather than using it as a skit to win the games.
The aim to convince has been faltered by a loss of contact between the two victors, while Katniss seems torn between her fellow victory Peeta and her best friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth). This film certainly gives more light on the "Gale or Peeta" debate fans of the first film seemed to dementedly chew over, which is a change given that the first film given that it - by and large - opted to overlook it for the most part.
Like the first film, the opening few scenes are in the forest with Katniss and Gale. But the thematic shift is indicated from the off, with the scenes in the eerily impressive frost and snow.
The frostiness between Katniss and Peeta has to be shoved aside because, as previously noted, President Snow wants them to convince as lovers and the avenue for this is on the Victory Tour, where they have to go for a parade around the nation. This tour gives an immediate insight to the problem, as an off-key speech leads to executions and a full blown riot after the District 11 natives attempted to show solidarity with the victors.
It all leads to a staged-marriage - if you're going to be in a stage marriage for life, might as well start now - and then a full-blown parade at the President's Mansion, with an opulent feast and vomiting drinks to clear full stomachs - something that disgusts natives of the malnourished District 12.
Following on from this, Snow is unconvinced by their love. With fights and riots ensuing, the devious Snow and his new right-hand man Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) decide to make Katniss' life a misery. Increased suppression of the natives sees Gale getting a heavy lashing from the new Peacekeeper's whips, which leaves Katniss' attempt to be a hero ending in a lash across the cheek and on a final warning.
And all this before the nightmare to follow. Unlike the conventional competition, the 75th Hunger Games will be a super-Hunger Games where existing victors will be sent in. This means Katinss is given a guaranteed return to the venue, and so to is Peeta, who volunteers ahead of their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson).
This leads to a reprise of the first movie's build-up, including the ever perky Ceaser Flickermann (Stanley Tucci) and the impressive stylings of Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), who meets an unjust end for his revolutionary fashions.
Cinna's assault and (almost certain) death doesn't help Katinss' state of mind given its the last thing before she is chucked into the lake that forms the basis of the new jungle arena.
Katniss is certainly an intriguingly complex character. Like in the books, there's a myriad of layers to her character, interchanging confidence, survivalism, protector of her family, complete wreck, vengeful and fearful. This is as much the strength of the novel that it has a compellingly unpredictable protagonist. Its equally impressive that, in Lawrence, the film makers have found an actress capable of conveying these emotions - sometimes even simultaneously.
As well as Lawrence, the first film was aided by a wide-ranging cast that provided the nuts and bolts to the story. The majority remain here, for good measure. Haymitch and Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) again do well in a sort of good cop-bad cop routine as Katinss and Peeta's mentors, while a whirlwind of additional tributes are given room to shine. Leading this are new allies Finnick (Sam Claffin) and Johanna (Jena Malone), who give hint at potential for the enlarged role they are likely to receive in the next film.
Just like the first, it also plays into a range of themes. The first book came from the conundrum of the blurring between war and entertainment on media, the motive of entertainment as a distraction from the humdrum of modern society and the elevation of reality TV stars in the global consciousness. Couple this to the dystopia themes of totalitarianism, suppression and deprivation, and attempts to extinguish the spark of a potential revolution, it continues a uniquely apocalyptic piece that neatly flows and sticks together.
Yet despite its wealth of cast members and themes, it seems determined to show off all of them, and as a result of this the film feels a lot longer than the first one, even accounting for the additional 15 minutes of running time. The novel version of Catching Fire was dominated by a slow burn, which gradually shifted through the gears to an almighty series of fizzes and bangs at the end. Although it retains the key beats of the book and the dark atmosphere, the dark build-up contributes to the feeling of a slower narrative.
Nevertheless, it retains the first book where it is to expand the narrative. These skits give Snow most of his airtime, and also contribute to a few additional joining the dots that the first-person style of the book doesn't fill in.
It runs at times concurrent with when they are thrown in the deep end into the arena, full of mutant monkeys, blood rain, poisonous fog, tidal waves, lightning trees and - of course - Career tributes that want them dead.
Following the navigation of this is a series of revelations that point to a surprise climax and a suspense moment that sets up the finely balanced equilibrium for the final part.
Its not quite the short sharp series of shocks that fuelled the first film but as a continuation, it is a good continuation of that debut and a fine adaptation of the second novel in its own right. It certainly sets up the narrative for the third and final book.
So... same time next year?
4/5
Its safe to say anticipation has been building up for the adaptation of the second book in the Hunger Games franchise.
The advertising campaign has certainly been relentless, with the bow, arrow and face of heroine Katinss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) poking out of buses, giant billboards, television commercials, online advert spaces and baffling promo tie-ins with Subway sandwiches for most of the last few weeks. But this has spun the brand recognition following the huge success that was the original movie, which has given the original a franchise to build on.
The first film was slightly toned down from the relentlessly brutal novel about a future North American nation called Panem, where the kids from its 12 districts are sent into an arena to fight until the death, and for their rulers' amusement in the titular Hunger Games. But it was still a gripping and unsettling piece of film that delivered a superb adaptation of the book.
Three Hunger Games books were written by Suzanne Collins, and the cast involved in this project are already making preparations to film the first part of final level Mockingjay, which will see the film released in exactly one year's time.
But to get there of course, this is the important step towards there. We begin this a few months after the end of the original Hunger Games film, which sees Katinss and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) back home in District 12 after surviving the Games in the first film.
They only survived by pulling a trick with nightlock berries and taking advantage of a soft touch game controller that refused to allow them both to die. But although the citizens of the Capitol enjoyed the show, the Capitol's leaders did not so much - no previous Hunger Games has ended with twin victors, and this defiance of the rules of the games has inspired dissatisfied revolutionaries in the districts of Panem.
President Snow of the Capitol (Donald Sutherland) personally visits Katniss to inform her that this cannot lead to revolution and civil war, and so she and Peeta must convince him that they actually are lovers rather than using it as a skit to win the games.
The aim to convince has been faltered by a loss of contact between the two victors, while Katniss seems torn between her fellow victory Peeta and her best friend Gale (Liam Hemsworth). This film certainly gives more light on the "Gale or Peeta" debate fans of the first film seemed to dementedly chew over, which is a change given that the first film given that it - by and large - opted to overlook it for the most part.
Like the first film, the opening few scenes are in the forest with Katniss and Gale. But the thematic shift is indicated from the off, with the scenes in the eerily impressive frost and snow.
The frostiness between Katniss and Peeta has to be shoved aside because, as previously noted, President Snow wants them to convince as lovers and the avenue for this is on the Victory Tour, where they have to go for a parade around the nation. This tour gives an immediate insight to the problem, as an off-key speech leads to executions and a full blown riot after the District 11 natives attempted to show solidarity with the victors.
It all leads to a staged-marriage - if you're going to be in a stage marriage for life, might as well start now - and then a full-blown parade at the President's Mansion, with an opulent feast and vomiting drinks to clear full stomachs - something that disgusts natives of the malnourished District 12.
Following on from this, Snow is unconvinced by their love. With fights and riots ensuing, the devious Snow and his new right-hand man Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) decide to make Katniss' life a misery. Increased suppression of the natives sees Gale getting a heavy lashing from the new Peacekeeper's whips, which leaves Katniss' attempt to be a hero ending in a lash across the cheek and on a final warning.
And all this before the nightmare to follow. Unlike the conventional competition, the 75th Hunger Games will be a super-Hunger Games where existing victors will be sent in. This means Katinss is given a guaranteed return to the venue, and so to is Peeta, who volunteers ahead of their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson).
This leads to a reprise of the first movie's build-up, including the ever perky Ceaser Flickermann (Stanley Tucci) and the impressive stylings of Cinna (Lenny Kravitz), who meets an unjust end for his revolutionary fashions.
Cinna's assault and (almost certain) death doesn't help Katinss' state of mind given its the last thing before she is chucked into the lake that forms the basis of the new jungle arena.
Katniss is certainly an intriguingly complex character. Like in the books, there's a myriad of layers to her character, interchanging confidence, survivalism, protector of her family, complete wreck, vengeful and fearful. This is as much the strength of the novel that it has a compellingly unpredictable protagonist. Its equally impressive that, in Lawrence, the film makers have found an actress capable of conveying these emotions - sometimes even simultaneously.
As well as Lawrence, the first film was aided by a wide-ranging cast that provided the nuts and bolts to the story. The majority remain here, for good measure. Haymitch and Effie Trinket (Elizabeth Banks) again do well in a sort of good cop-bad cop routine as Katinss and Peeta's mentors, while a whirlwind of additional tributes are given room to shine. Leading this are new allies Finnick (Sam Claffin) and Johanna (Jena Malone), who give hint at potential for the enlarged role they are likely to receive in the next film.
Just like the first, it also plays into a range of themes. The first book came from the conundrum of the blurring between war and entertainment on media, the motive of entertainment as a distraction from the humdrum of modern society and the elevation of reality TV stars in the global consciousness. Couple this to the dystopia themes of totalitarianism, suppression and deprivation, and attempts to extinguish the spark of a potential revolution, it continues a uniquely apocalyptic piece that neatly flows and sticks together.
Yet despite its wealth of cast members and themes, it seems determined to show off all of them, and as a result of this the film feels a lot longer than the first one, even accounting for the additional 15 minutes of running time. The novel version of Catching Fire was dominated by a slow burn, which gradually shifted through the gears to an almighty series of fizzes and bangs at the end. Although it retains the key beats of the book and the dark atmosphere, the dark build-up contributes to the feeling of a slower narrative.
Nevertheless, it retains the first book where it is to expand the narrative. These skits give Snow most of his airtime, and also contribute to a few additional joining the dots that the first-person style of the book doesn't fill in.
It runs at times concurrent with when they are thrown in the deep end into the arena, full of mutant monkeys, blood rain, poisonous fog, tidal waves, lightning trees and - of course - Career tributes that want them dead.
Following the navigation of this is a series of revelations that point to a surprise climax and a suspense moment that sets up the finely balanced equilibrium for the final part.
Its not quite the short sharp series of shocks that fuelled the first film but as a continuation, it is a good continuation of that debut and a fine adaptation of the second novel in its own right. It certainly sets up the narrative for the third and final book.
So... same time next year?
4/5
Tuesday, 5 November 2013
The Killers: Direct Hits - Album Review
Its fair to say The Killers have had a fairly successful time in the ten years since their first UK shows some ten years or so ago.
Its almost surreal to see the evolution. Way back in September 2003, The Killers were a small band of Las Vegas indie rockers with a handful of tunes, some dreams and aspirations as they landed in England for their first ever shows.
Now, in 2013, they are a stadium-straddling band armed to the teeth with hits. Their return to these shores included a 13 date sell-out UK tour, all sort of headline festival shows and, biggest of all, a sell-out show to over 70,000 at Wembley Stadium.
Yet things did seem easier back in those heady days when Mr. Brightside was the anthem for those in the know rather than the stadium indie crowd. The band are going back on hiatus, with two members clearly tired after the Battle Born World Tour, which has taken the band to length and breadth of the globe several times over.
The band's hiatus was confirmed by Brandon Flowers himself, with the singer announcing he will spend 2014 recording his second solo record - the follow up to 2010's Flamingo.
Its as yet unknown if drummer Ronnie Vannucci will follow up with his own second solo LP, but its likely that these, a live DVD and the memories will tie people over until The Killers' fifth album appears, most likely in 2016.
The Killers have also decided a way to tie things over is to do a greatest hits compilation.
Its debatable how necessary it is - most fans will still have copies of their albums, and all the tunes on here.
For a newcomer, on the other hand, its certainly one hell of a way to introduce yourself. Track One is Mr. Brightside, which remains as pure a pop-rock earworm as it did when it first appeared way back in the 2000s.
Still the hits fall like confetti. Somebody Told Me, Smile Like You Mean It and All These Things That I've Done are delightful confections from Hot Fuss, and then it gives way to the power of Sam's Town-era hits like When You Were Young.
The first real sign of anything resembling a drop is when The Way It Was appears - a reasonable song on record not quite as good as the live version, or as some of its compatriots on the album. But even before then there's the stone-cold brilliance of songs like Human, Spaceman and Runaways to keep things rocking.
But its not the inclusion of this that's the problem, and nor is it the inclusion of two brand new songs that aren't quite the tone-cold knockouts at the front of the disc.
Shot at the Night is certainly a powerful song after repeat listens. It benefits as much from its power hook of a chorus, built up on synthesisers and spindly guitars, but at first the cut doesn't measure up.
The song is produced by M83's Anthony Gonzalez, and there are certainly elements of the M83 mega-hit Midnight City lurking in this song. But it is lacking a certain... something.
Meanwhile, Just Another Girl - the final tune on the normal edition, although three extra songs lurk on a special edition - is a puzzle. An interesting puzzle at that one, mind.
The song is a strangely calibrated tune that crosses various lines between country, rock and pop and its certainly a nice cocktail musically. But lyrically, it really does not go anywhere beyond a full-on straight-up tale, and it doesn't feel quite right.
Anyway, the new ones are decent enough, if not quite the A-list tunes.
But that's not the problem with Direct Hits. The main problem is quite simply the question: "Is it strictly necessary?"
If you have the albums already, you can just download the new songs and have this record already.
Its an impressive documentation of a career that has proceeded at electric pace, but as a necessary must-own for Killers fans, maybe not so much.
Personally, bring on the Battle Born Tour DVD instead.
3.5/5
Its almost surreal to see the evolution. Way back in September 2003, The Killers were a small band of Las Vegas indie rockers with a handful of tunes, some dreams and aspirations as they landed in England for their first ever shows.
Now, in 2013, they are a stadium-straddling band armed to the teeth with hits. Their return to these shores included a 13 date sell-out UK tour, all sort of headline festival shows and, biggest of all, a sell-out show to over 70,000 at Wembley Stadium.
Yet things did seem easier back in those heady days when Mr. Brightside was the anthem for those in the know rather than the stadium indie crowd. The band are going back on hiatus, with two members clearly tired after the Battle Born World Tour, which has taken the band to length and breadth of the globe several times over.
The band's hiatus was confirmed by Brandon Flowers himself, with the singer announcing he will spend 2014 recording his second solo record - the follow up to 2010's Flamingo.
Its as yet unknown if drummer Ronnie Vannucci will follow up with his own second solo LP, but its likely that these, a live DVD and the memories will tie people over until The Killers' fifth album appears, most likely in 2016.
The Killers have also decided a way to tie things over is to do a greatest hits compilation.
Its debatable how necessary it is - most fans will still have copies of their albums, and all the tunes on here.
For a newcomer, on the other hand, its certainly one hell of a way to introduce yourself. Track One is Mr. Brightside, which remains as pure a pop-rock earworm as it did when it first appeared way back in the 2000s.
Still the hits fall like confetti. Somebody Told Me, Smile Like You Mean It and All These Things That I've Done are delightful confections from Hot Fuss, and then it gives way to the power of Sam's Town-era hits like When You Were Young.
The first real sign of anything resembling a drop is when The Way It Was appears - a reasonable song on record not quite as good as the live version, or as some of its compatriots on the album. But even before then there's the stone-cold brilliance of songs like Human, Spaceman and Runaways to keep things rocking.
But its not the inclusion of this that's the problem, and nor is it the inclusion of two brand new songs that aren't quite the tone-cold knockouts at the front of the disc.
Shot at the Night is certainly a powerful song after repeat listens. It benefits as much from its power hook of a chorus, built up on synthesisers and spindly guitars, but at first the cut doesn't measure up.
The song is produced by M83's Anthony Gonzalez, and there are certainly elements of the M83 mega-hit Midnight City lurking in this song. But it is lacking a certain... something.
Meanwhile, Just Another Girl - the final tune on the normal edition, although three extra songs lurk on a special edition - is a puzzle. An interesting puzzle at that one, mind.
The song is a strangely calibrated tune that crosses various lines between country, rock and pop and its certainly a nice cocktail musically. But lyrically, it really does not go anywhere beyond a full-on straight-up tale, and it doesn't feel quite right.
Anyway, the new ones are decent enough, if not quite the A-list tunes.
But that's not the problem with Direct Hits. The main problem is quite simply the question: "Is it strictly necessary?"
If you have the albums already, you can just download the new songs and have this record already.
Its an impressive documentation of a career that has proceeded at electric pace, but as a necessary must-own for Killers fans, maybe not so much.
Personally, bring on the Battle Born Tour DVD instead.
3.5/5
Wednesday, 30 October 2013
Thor: The Dark World - Film Review
*CAUTION: The following review contains spoilers of Thor: The Dark World. If you have yet to see the film and wish to do so, either proceed with caution or avoid reading.*
Comic book fans have always argued about the merits of Marvel and DC Comics, but in recent years, Marvel's film structure has given it an advantage in that world.
Beyond Batman, DC seem to struggle. Green Lantern was an absolute disaster, while Superman hasn't set the world alight with his two recent reboots and now needs Batman to enliven the upcoming sequel to Man of Steel.
While there is time to improve, Marvel has stolen a march. Commercially, the intertwined structure of individual Avengers movies leading into the central group films has created an entire world that people will be entranced to see.
2013 seems set to see a Marvel-Disney production again top the highest grossing films list, with Iron Man 3 in the lead.
The group are well into Phase Two, on how they attempt to follow up 2012's superhero bunfight Avengers Assemble.
Now comes the test - do they have more to their locker than Iron Man and superhero combo films?
The original Thor was a reasonable film, which saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) fight it out in the one New Mexico town yet to be visited by Roswell conspiracy theorists and Breaking Bad fans.
The sequel could work as a reasonable enough continuation to this without the story arc of the Avengers in the middle.
It certainly continues with the central Thor-v-Loki dynamic. Not that this is a bad thing - both are highly accomplished actors that play to their character's respective strengths, and Loki certainly remains a delightfully loose cannon.
Some critics weren't impressed additional Loki scenes were inserted, but there's worse things that could derail this film.
One of the problems is its happiness to hop between genres. At various points it could be a superhero-based rom-com between Thor and Jane Foster, at others standard superhero, while also throwing in sci-fi, fantasy, Norse literature, comedy, tragedy and a hell of a lot of other genres, and it is an odd one to try and make them stick.
One of the problems this film has is the intense amount of jargon, which can be confusion even for those following the thread through the various media. The start sees us introduced to the Dark Elves, the Aether and the battle at the last cosmic alignment of the Nine Realms.
To cut a long story short, the Dark Elves, led by Malakith (Christopher Eccleston), tried to use the Aether to bring the universe back to darkness, but was quashed in battle by the Asgardians and a troupe of them duly fled into suspended animation until the reactivation of the indestructible Aether.
As is seemingly custom with films like this, there are further spouts of information throughout the production. Though tiring, they do provide a funny moment when Stan Lee plays crochity grandpa at the scientist proud of his monologue. Plus they do ultimately explain the purpose I guess.
After the intro, we're introduced back to Loki, who is in trouble for his antics during the Avengers and is duly sent to the dungeons, while Thor goes darting off elsewhere to go win a battle he arrived late for.
Yet Thor is restless for his date for a reunion with Jane, who is trying the dating game with Richard (Chris O'Dowd) in London.
But there's a few interruptions to this date, when her colleagues point her to a strange scenario elsewhere in an industrial area of the city where the laws of physics appear to have gone on hiatus.
This leads to the main plot of the film, where we find the realms overlapping and Jane inadvertently crosses over to the specific area of the realm where the Aether has been stored for around 5,000 years.
The Aether's activation possesses her, which is evident when a concerned Thor - who hasn't called Jane in the 2 years since the original, hence a double slap in the face - arrives to see the Aether expel a black and red cloud from Jane outward to some Metropolitan Police officers.
Thor brings Jane back to Asgard so they can figure out what the hell is going on, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of (eventually) attracting the Dark Elves to Asgard, and with one of their number escaping the dungeons, the end result is not a pretty sight.
This leads to the covert and treasonous escape to the original dark world, an initial showdown there, a further escape back to London and then a further showdown in London.
The showdown sees the usual CGI thing of buildings going boom. Although London is spared the fate it got in GI Joe Retribution where the megaweapon flattened it, there is still pieces of destruction.
Greenwich Maritime Observatory gets the main spotlight of destruction - some leylines things meant the borough is the epicentre of the realms colliding.
But there's other scenes around the city, some of which standard, such as cars landing on the roof of St. Pauls' Cathedral, while some is amusing - Thor and Malekief sliding down the side of the Gherkin is quite something.
Of the most interesting - and hilarious - sequences seeing Thor land on the platform at Charing Cross tube station, and having to get the Northern Line back to the battle, with a woman even apologising for bumping into Thor on the train.
It would have been a typically British superhero movie if the universe had ended due to delays on the Tube.
Saying that, its not exactly a revolutionary superhero movie but that was par for the course. Its not setting out to change the way we think of films - its simply to entertain and to build the Marvel Film universe. For that, it does, and provides us another invitation to see these ever entertaining characters.
It's a good enough addition to the cannon for Marvel's increasing repertoire and its a decent continuation of the story so far. But it just so happens not to be the greatest installment so far - its merely serving its function to mildly entertain, and it does just enough for that.
Still, all this will be forgotten if Avengers: Age Of Ultron turns out to be a stonker...
3.5/5
Comic book fans have always argued about the merits of Marvel and DC Comics, but in recent years, Marvel's film structure has given it an advantage in that world.
Beyond Batman, DC seem to struggle. Green Lantern was an absolute disaster, while Superman hasn't set the world alight with his two recent reboots and now needs Batman to enliven the upcoming sequel to Man of Steel.
While there is time to improve, Marvel has stolen a march. Commercially, the intertwined structure of individual Avengers movies leading into the central group films has created an entire world that people will be entranced to see.
2013 seems set to see a Marvel-Disney production again top the highest grossing films list, with Iron Man 3 in the lead.
The group are well into Phase Two, on how they attempt to follow up 2012's superhero bunfight Avengers Assemble.
Now comes the test - do they have more to their locker than Iron Man and superhero combo films?
The original Thor was a reasonable film, which saw Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and Loki (Tom Hiddleston) fight it out in the one New Mexico town yet to be visited by Roswell conspiracy theorists and Breaking Bad fans.
The sequel could work as a reasonable enough continuation to this without the story arc of the Avengers in the middle.
It certainly continues with the central Thor-v-Loki dynamic. Not that this is a bad thing - both are highly accomplished actors that play to their character's respective strengths, and Loki certainly remains a delightfully loose cannon.
Some critics weren't impressed additional Loki scenes were inserted, but there's worse things that could derail this film.
One of the problems is its happiness to hop between genres. At various points it could be a superhero-based rom-com between Thor and Jane Foster, at others standard superhero, while also throwing in sci-fi, fantasy, Norse literature, comedy, tragedy and a hell of a lot of other genres, and it is an odd one to try and make them stick.
One of the problems this film has is the intense amount of jargon, which can be confusion even for those following the thread through the various media. The start sees us introduced to the Dark Elves, the Aether and the battle at the last cosmic alignment of the Nine Realms.
To cut a long story short, the Dark Elves, led by Malakith (Christopher Eccleston), tried to use the Aether to bring the universe back to darkness, but was quashed in battle by the Asgardians and a troupe of them duly fled into suspended animation until the reactivation of the indestructible Aether.
As is seemingly custom with films like this, there are further spouts of information throughout the production. Though tiring, they do provide a funny moment when Stan Lee plays crochity grandpa at the scientist proud of his monologue. Plus they do ultimately explain the purpose I guess.
After the intro, we're introduced back to Loki, who is in trouble for his antics during the Avengers and is duly sent to the dungeons, while Thor goes darting off elsewhere to go win a battle he arrived late for.
Yet Thor is restless for his date for a reunion with Jane, who is trying the dating game with Richard (Chris O'Dowd) in London.
But there's a few interruptions to this date, when her colleagues point her to a strange scenario elsewhere in an industrial area of the city where the laws of physics appear to have gone on hiatus.
This leads to the main plot of the film, where we find the realms overlapping and Jane inadvertently crosses over to the specific area of the realm where the Aether has been stored for around 5,000 years.
The Aether's activation possesses her, which is evident when a concerned Thor - who hasn't called Jane in the 2 years since the original, hence a double slap in the face - arrives to see the Aether expel a black and red cloud from Jane outward to some Metropolitan Police officers.
Thor brings Jane back to Asgard so they can figure out what the hell is going on, but it has the unfortunate side-effect of (eventually) attracting the Dark Elves to Asgard, and with one of their number escaping the dungeons, the end result is not a pretty sight.
This leads to the covert and treasonous escape to the original dark world, an initial showdown there, a further escape back to London and then a further showdown in London.
The showdown sees the usual CGI thing of buildings going boom. Although London is spared the fate it got in GI Joe Retribution where the megaweapon flattened it, there is still pieces of destruction.
Greenwich Maritime Observatory gets the main spotlight of destruction - some leylines things meant the borough is the epicentre of the realms colliding.
But there's other scenes around the city, some of which standard, such as cars landing on the roof of St. Pauls' Cathedral, while some is amusing - Thor and Malekief sliding down the side of the Gherkin is quite something.
Of the most interesting - and hilarious - sequences seeing Thor land on the platform at Charing Cross tube station, and having to get the Northern Line back to the battle, with a woman even apologising for bumping into Thor on the train.
It would have been a typically British superhero movie if the universe had ended due to delays on the Tube.
Saying that, its not exactly a revolutionary superhero movie but that was par for the course. Its not setting out to change the way we think of films - its simply to entertain and to build the Marvel Film universe. For that, it does, and provides us another invitation to see these ever entertaining characters.
It's a good enough addition to the cannon for Marvel's increasing repertoire and its a decent continuation of the story so far. But it just so happens not to be the greatest installment so far - its merely serving its function to mildly entertain, and it does just enough for that.
Still, all this will be forgotten if Avengers: Age Of Ultron turns out to be a stonker...
3.5/5
Thursday, 10 October 2013
South Park: World War Zimmerman Review
How do you comment on a controversial and far-reaching issue?
Comedians often get it in the neck when they take on sensitive issues and are perceived of not taking them seriously, although humour can nevertheless be the right way to take on the issue as it can help raise awareness.
Tackling these issues can also make a reputation. Over the years, South Park has cultivated a reputation as a go-to programme for raising points about serious issues by way of humour.
World War Zimmerman is an interesting case in point. Referencing the astounding acquittal by Florida of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin and crossing it with hit-and-miss blockbuster World War Z is, at face value, either misguided or asking for trouble. This comes before comments that South Park was late to the Zimmerman discussion that followed his acquittal in early July.
Yet South Park possesses one weapon that can make such an unholy fusion workable - Eric Theodore Cartman.
Cartman is a strange and wild nexus in which to view the world. He is also possibly one of television's only characters to whom the idea of people angry at the Zimmerman verdict can legitimately replace the zombies to his Brad Pitt in World War Z is not only plausible but justifiable for his anger.
Cartman in this is basically a similar mindset to 24 hour news channels. The channels seemed so certain the verdict would incite riots and in this he is creating these spaces using the film reference as a starting point, to impressive effect.
It's particularly amusing when Cartman is on full-blown WWZ referencing, starting with a cutesy-wutesy family all talking in Cartman's voice and right down to a straight lift of the opening scene where angry people try and riot against him, before forming the full on mountain similar to the zombie mountain scenes in the film.
The little things on his way through his nutty journey are amusing, whether its Butters beatboxing, Cartman going "this is a Tesla? Fuck... alright hit your prissy pedal!" or his inexplicable ability to cause multiple plane crashes.
The central rivalry between him and Token is the main driving force and is grounded, essentially in something in-keeping with Cartman's alarmingly racist character. But it is impressive after his first plane crash where he tells the pilot what he's doing and the pilot thinks "what?" moments before he ends up dying.
Its all highly dodgy but nevertheless amusing.
Nevertheless, this is not the most convincing that South Park has tackled political issues, albeit still better than the sadly underwhelming take on the NSA a few weeks back.
The offensive nature of the whole shebang is scarcely believable and an insight it maybe into some people's psyche, it just doesn't feel as convincing a moment of satire. It more or less feels like a typical adventure into Cartman's ever reaching psyche.
Its also a strange point it raises when Zimmerman is enlisted to try and kill Token for the US government before accidentally shooting Cartman in black face, which leads to Zimmerman being sentenced to the electric chair.
Then, to rub in the sense of envelope pushing a little more, Cartman fully enacts the Zimmerman thing by saying Token encroached on his space and that justified shooting him. Luckily, Token is not murdered - it would cost a good character so I'm glad they didn't
The heart of the Zimmerman matter is that the Neighbourhood Watch man admitted chasing and shooting a black teenager armed with nothing more dangerous than a bag of Skittles. At face value, this should be a jail sentence, and the ethical conundrums largely tries to avoid the simple fact that he killed him, which in most places would go for murder regardless of any self-defence or SBH laws.
The conclusion that "if he had shot a white boy he would've fried" is one left-leaning media has taken, although the conclusion a black guy shooting a white would've fried has done the more vocal rounds.
But the re-enactment of the same case using Cartman and Token is an oddly fitting conclusion, as is Mr. Mackay just saying both had blame. At the end of it, in this way, Cartman shot Token and the idea Token can have any wrongs is ridiculous.
Yet people have nevertheless opted to continue the argument, with various references to the real case.
Some people will hate this episode because of the timing. After all, it is less than three months since Zimmerman's trial reached its verdict, although I have seen commenters saying it has come out "too late".
The politics of such an episode will also cause a split, as not everybody will share the viewpoint - this is a natural element of political programming.
As a piece of entertainment, its typical of the season so far - some stuff lands very well, some is just bizarre - albeit not as much as the cable company's nipple obsession last week - and some doesn't work.
Its an amusing and solid 22 minutes but the laughs come mainly from the little things and the "Wow... they're doing this/that?!?" factor rather than any insightful truth that nobody had figured out before.
3.5/5
Comedians often get it in the neck when they take on sensitive issues and are perceived of not taking them seriously, although humour can nevertheless be the right way to take on the issue as it can help raise awareness.
Tackling these issues can also make a reputation. Over the years, South Park has cultivated a reputation as a go-to programme for raising points about serious issues by way of humour.
World War Zimmerman is an interesting case in point. Referencing the astounding acquittal by Florida of George Zimmerman for the murder of Trayvon Martin and crossing it with hit-and-miss blockbuster World War Z is, at face value, either misguided or asking for trouble. This comes before comments that South Park was late to the Zimmerman discussion that followed his acquittal in early July.
Yet South Park possesses one weapon that can make such an unholy fusion workable - Eric Theodore Cartman.
Cartman is a strange and wild nexus in which to view the world. He is also possibly one of television's only characters to whom the idea of people angry at the Zimmerman verdict can legitimately replace the zombies to his Brad Pitt in World War Z is not only plausible but justifiable for his anger.
Cartman in this is basically a similar mindset to 24 hour news channels. The channels seemed so certain the verdict would incite riots and in this he is creating these spaces using the film reference as a starting point, to impressive effect.
It's particularly amusing when Cartman is on full-blown WWZ referencing, starting with a cutesy-wutesy family all talking in Cartman's voice and right down to a straight lift of the opening scene where angry people try and riot against him, before forming the full on mountain similar to the zombie mountain scenes in the film.
The little things on his way through his nutty journey are amusing, whether its Butters beatboxing, Cartman going "this is a Tesla? Fuck... alright hit your prissy pedal!" or his inexplicable ability to cause multiple plane crashes.
The central rivalry between him and Token is the main driving force and is grounded, essentially in something in-keeping with Cartman's alarmingly racist character. But it is impressive after his first plane crash where he tells the pilot what he's doing and the pilot thinks "what?" moments before he ends up dying.
Its all highly dodgy but nevertheless amusing.
Nevertheless, this is not the most convincing that South Park has tackled political issues, albeit still better than the sadly underwhelming take on the NSA a few weeks back.
The offensive nature of the whole shebang is scarcely believable and an insight it maybe into some people's psyche, it just doesn't feel as convincing a moment of satire. It more or less feels like a typical adventure into Cartman's ever reaching psyche.
Its also a strange point it raises when Zimmerman is enlisted to try and kill Token for the US government before accidentally shooting Cartman in black face, which leads to Zimmerman being sentenced to the electric chair.
Then, to rub in the sense of envelope pushing a little more, Cartman fully enacts the Zimmerman thing by saying Token encroached on his space and that justified shooting him. Luckily, Token is not murdered - it would cost a good character so I'm glad they didn't
The heart of the Zimmerman matter is that the Neighbourhood Watch man admitted chasing and shooting a black teenager armed with nothing more dangerous than a bag of Skittles. At face value, this should be a jail sentence, and the ethical conundrums largely tries to avoid the simple fact that he killed him, which in most places would go for murder regardless of any self-defence or SBH laws.
The conclusion that "if he had shot a white boy he would've fried" is one left-leaning media has taken, although the conclusion a black guy shooting a white would've fried has done the more vocal rounds.
But the re-enactment of the same case using Cartman and Token is an oddly fitting conclusion, as is Mr. Mackay just saying both had blame. At the end of it, in this way, Cartman shot Token and the idea Token can have any wrongs is ridiculous.
Yet people have nevertheless opted to continue the argument, with various references to the real case.
Some people will hate this episode because of the timing. After all, it is less than three months since Zimmerman's trial reached its verdict, although I have seen commenters saying it has come out "too late".
The politics of such an episode will also cause a split, as not everybody will share the viewpoint - this is a natural element of political programming.
As a piece of entertainment, its typical of the season so far - some stuff lands very well, some is just bizarre - albeit not as much as the cable company's nipple obsession last week - and some doesn't work.
Its an amusing and solid 22 minutes but the laughs come mainly from the little things and the "Wow... they're doing this/that?!?" factor rather than any insightful truth that nobody had figured out before.
3.5/5
Wednesday, 9 October 2013
How Hard Can Spoiler Evasion Be?
The spoiler is one of those most irritating and annoying things.
It's always the same scene - you're halfway through something you're loving and then someone who has either already seen it or just Googled what happens imparts to you a huge development you had not forseen.
One of the more recent visualisations came in The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon told Leonard various spoilers from Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, which he was reading for the first time at the time. This duly leads to Leonard moving out to live with Penny, who imparts another similarly big spoiler.
Some people argued "why Harry Potter?" but using a more recent spoiler would have undoubtedly pissed some people off. Not that it worked as a number of people apparently wrote to the US network CBS complaining they were spoiled the end of the book/film. This was accentuated by a spoiler of The Walking Dead, which was also added at the end of a then-recent episode.
Film buffs seem to accept spoilers as a part of life but how hard is it to avoid them?
It's a strange psychological bent at the best of times. The desire to know for some - i.e. me - means that when you are aware there's something big on the horizon of media you are enjoying, you want to jump to the end.
This is something that can be felt at the moment. The highly anticipated finale of US television drama Breaking Bad was aired last Sunday, with a climactic finale. For those on time.
Personally, I had first heard of Breaking Bad when the first season was reviewed in music magazine Q in late 2009/early 2010, but found the premise amusing and confusing. A few weeks ago, I bought season one on a limb and loved it. I'm now at the start of season four and one thing that does impress is that, each time it appears to exhaust a certain plot point, it creates newer, bolder horizons.
But with the access to sites discussing and disseminating what happened, it is easier than ever to stumble across spoilers and ruin the big finale for yourself.
In a way, its also easy to find out what happens in the immediate future. Part of this is down to hearsay - people have said the current season four is the season's biggest season.
This is, in one respect, an evolution of the spoilering process. In the old days, if you wanted to spoil things, you would either ask someone who had seen it what had gone done or stumbled across a stranger. The scene in the Simpsons where Homer loudly shouts "I can't believe Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's dad" in front of a queue waiting to see The Empire Strikes Back for the first time is probably similar to what happened to a fair amount of people in cinemas up and down the land until the invention of the internet.
Nowadays, with one click, you can find a website with synopsis, analysis and comment on every last detail of every episode. This has already yielded spoilers for seasons of Breaking Bad as I progressed through the various seasons of the show, although so far this clicking finger hasn't strayed onto the big finale. Yet.
Not for want of trying. The eagerness to discover information extends to a temptation to go foraging for information, which would be a stupid move because it would undermine viewing time and the point in wanting to view episodes.
There's always a desire amongst people to gain knowledge of information and wanting to know as much as you can about any given subject.
This however has to be controlled because sometimes, it can be a good idea to keep things in suspense for some things. In the case of films and TV programmes, that would be a good thing because it helps the feeling you are legitimately watching something new rather than re-treading a road everyone else has long explored.
It's always the same scene - you're halfway through something you're loving and then someone who has either already seen it or just Googled what happens imparts to you a huge development you had not forseen.
One of the more recent visualisations came in The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon told Leonard various spoilers from Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, which he was reading for the first time at the time. This duly leads to Leonard moving out to live with Penny, who imparts another similarly big spoiler.
Some people argued "why Harry Potter?" but using a more recent spoiler would have undoubtedly pissed some people off. Not that it worked as a number of people apparently wrote to the US network CBS complaining they were spoiled the end of the book/film. This was accentuated by a spoiler of The Walking Dead, which was also added at the end of a then-recent episode.
Film buffs seem to accept spoilers as a part of life but how hard is it to avoid them?
It's a strange psychological bent at the best of times. The desire to know for some - i.e. me - means that when you are aware there's something big on the horizon of media you are enjoying, you want to jump to the end.
This is something that can be felt at the moment. The highly anticipated finale of US television drama Breaking Bad was aired last Sunday, with a climactic finale. For those on time.
Personally, I had first heard of Breaking Bad when the first season was reviewed in music magazine Q in late 2009/early 2010, but found the premise amusing and confusing. A few weeks ago, I bought season one on a limb and loved it. I'm now at the start of season four and one thing that does impress is that, each time it appears to exhaust a certain plot point, it creates newer, bolder horizons.
But with the access to sites discussing and disseminating what happened, it is easier than ever to stumble across spoilers and ruin the big finale for yourself.
In a way, its also easy to find out what happens in the immediate future. Part of this is down to hearsay - people have said the current season four is the season's biggest season.
This is, in one respect, an evolution of the spoilering process. In the old days, if you wanted to spoil things, you would either ask someone who had seen it what had gone done or stumbled across a stranger. The scene in the Simpsons where Homer loudly shouts "I can't believe Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's dad" in front of a queue waiting to see The Empire Strikes Back for the first time is probably similar to what happened to a fair amount of people in cinemas up and down the land until the invention of the internet.
Nowadays, with one click, you can find a website with synopsis, analysis and comment on every last detail of every episode. This has already yielded spoilers for seasons of Breaking Bad as I progressed through the various seasons of the show, although so far this clicking finger hasn't strayed onto the big finale. Yet.
Not for want of trying. The eagerness to discover information extends to a temptation to go foraging for information, which would be a stupid move because it would undermine viewing time and the point in wanting to view episodes.
There's always a desire amongst people to gain knowledge of information and wanting to know as much as you can about any given subject.
This however has to be controlled because sometimes, it can be a good idea to keep things in suspense for some things. In the case of films and TV programmes, that would be a good thing because it helps the feeling you are legitimately watching something new rather than re-treading a road everyone else has long explored.
Friday, 4 October 2013
So Much For Cautious Optimism...
So... yes... cautious optimism for Newcastle United. Whoever thought that would happen?
Three weeks ago, a victory for Newcastle at Aston Villa that saw the club deliver an impressive performance to see off the Birmingham side. One of the club's most solid defensive performances was allied to an impressively concise attacking display.
Granted, it was helped by a terrible Villa display that rarely had the fizz of their other displays - most notably their recent victory over Manchester City - but it looked as if Newcastle had turned a corner.
What happened next has followed a depressingly familiar pattern.
Yet another home defeat by Hull City was followed up with by a desperately poor showing in the first half at Everton. Sadly, an improved second half display was not able to yield a comeback victory, but people who were at the game said it wouldn't have been a deserved result in any case.
It all appears to have led to yet more doom and gloom for black and white stripe wearers. The usual conspiracy theories JFK - Joe Fucking Kinnear - is about to return are back, as are other rumours. Chief among them was the surprise rumour Alan Pardew had attempted to resign after the Everton game, although these were denied.
It seemed unlikely Pardew - one of football's proudest men - would walk away. But after the testing mess of 2012-13, this season had to go a lot better.
Perhaps it could have been a good idea to strengthen a weak defence. After conceding a club-record number of goals in a Premier League season, an extra full back was a requirement. This was exacerbated by the departures of Danny Simpson and James Perch, while Ryan Taylor's season long injury thins the numbers further.
Instead, the only legitimate options are many people's pick for the two weakest links. Mathieu Debuchy and Davide Santon are the two full backs but both attack way more than they defend, which often leaves the flanks excessively exposed to counter attacks.
Debuchy in particular has copped criticism, with his poor positioning exposed for two of Hull's three goals in the recent defeat and his defending generally seen as the weakest link. Fans have largely been on a downer following after he conceded a few penalties after signing
But at least he showed some signs of improvement at Goodison Park, with analysis showing him as one of the few Newcastle players to play anything approaching well in the game.
The defender copping the most flack was Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa, who in the space of a year has gone from being captain of the French champions in the UEFA Champions League to being part of a defence barely capable of avoiding the Championship.
Amazingly, it took Mike Williamson to stabilise the defence for the second half. Williamson was a big punching bag for fans last season after a catalogue of belief-defying blunders, but a commanding aerial performance from the Portsmouth defender hinted he might not be finished yet.
It raises questions after the club's defence has continued where it left off. Although it has managed two Premier League clean sheets - more than this stage last season, and more than table toppers Arsenal - the potential for catastrophic failure remains high.
Fans just don't know what, if anything, is the best combination. Each combination of the four centre backs (Fabricio Coloccini and Steven Taylor, as well as Williamson and Yanga-Mbiwa) seems to have one good game followed by at least four bad ones.
Although the team improved, it wasn't enough for what would've been an unlikely comeback.
As a result, a lot of improvement has to be done. But the fixture list is hardly ideal for such a moment, with games against Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs all coming up. And this is before a Capital One Cup tie against Manchester City and the possibility of Chris Hughton's remodelled Norwich City nicking a victory at St. James'.
But its the Tyne-Wear Derby on October 27th that promises to decide much of the team's direction for the campaign. Derbies have previously dictated momentum for the Toon, with the 1-0 victory in August 2011 at the Stadium of Light arguably the foundation for the unbeaten run at the start of the 2011-12 season.
Conversely, the humiliation against the Black Cats in April has seen the team in an almost-universal downhill direction since. Only 3 wins in 11 Premier League matches since that dark day is a terrible return, although Sunderland's record of just 1 win in the post-Derby time period makes for equally grim record.
At this rate, this game could well decide which team is in for a painful struggle. Although form and logic seems to suggest the Toon should win against a Sunderland team devoid of inspiration and luck, we cannot count chickens.
Its a brutal and testing time for Magpies fans. Victory at Cardiff on Saturday - a harder ask than it looks, as Manchester City found out - is essential ahead of this run or else it could be a long and tough autumn for Magpies fans.
Three weeks ago, a victory for Newcastle at Aston Villa that saw the club deliver an impressive performance to see off the Birmingham side. One of the club's most solid defensive performances was allied to an impressively concise attacking display.
Granted, it was helped by a terrible Villa display that rarely had the fizz of their other displays - most notably their recent victory over Manchester City - but it looked as if Newcastle had turned a corner.
What happened next has followed a depressingly familiar pattern.
Yet another home defeat by Hull City was followed up with by a desperately poor showing in the first half at Everton. Sadly, an improved second half display was not able to yield a comeback victory, but people who were at the game said it wouldn't have been a deserved result in any case.
It all appears to have led to yet more doom and gloom for black and white stripe wearers. The usual conspiracy theories JFK - Joe Fucking Kinnear - is about to return are back, as are other rumours. Chief among them was the surprise rumour Alan Pardew had attempted to resign after the Everton game, although these were denied.
It seemed unlikely Pardew - one of football's proudest men - would walk away. But after the testing mess of 2012-13, this season had to go a lot better.
Perhaps it could have been a good idea to strengthen a weak defence. After conceding a club-record number of goals in a Premier League season, an extra full back was a requirement. This was exacerbated by the departures of Danny Simpson and James Perch, while Ryan Taylor's season long injury thins the numbers further.
Instead, the only legitimate options are many people's pick for the two weakest links. Mathieu Debuchy and Davide Santon are the two full backs but both attack way more than they defend, which often leaves the flanks excessively exposed to counter attacks.
Debuchy in particular has copped criticism, with his poor positioning exposed for two of Hull's three goals in the recent defeat and his defending generally seen as the weakest link. Fans have largely been on a downer following after he conceded a few penalties after signing
But at least he showed some signs of improvement at Goodison Park, with analysis showing him as one of the few Newcastle players to play anything approaching well in the game.
The defender copping the most flack was Mapou Yanga-Mbiwa, who in the space of a year has gone from being captain of the French champions in the UEFA Champions League to being part of a defence barely capable of avoiding the Championship.
Amazingly, it took Mike Williamson to stabilise the defence for the second half. Williamson was a big punching bag for fans last season after a catalogue of belief-defying blunders, but a commanding aerial performance from the Portsmouth defender hinted he might not be finished yet.
It raises questions after the club's defence has continued where it left off. Although it has managed two Premier League clean sheets - more than this stage last season, and more than table toppers Arsenal - the potential for catastrophic failure remains high.
Fans just don't know what, if anything, is the best combination. Each combination of the four centre backs (Fabricio Coloccini and Steven Taylor, as well as Williamson and Yanga-Mbiwa) seems to have one good game followed by at least four bad ones.
Although the team improved, it wasn't enough for what would've been an unlikely comeback.
As a result, a lot of improvement has to be done. But the fixture list is hardly ideal for such a moment, with games against Liverpool, Chelsea and Spurs all coming up. And this is before a Capital One Cup tie against Manchester City and the possibility of Chris Hughton's remodelled Norwich City nicking a victory at St. James'.
But its the Tyne-Wear Derby on October 27th that promises to decide much of the team's direction for the campaign. Derbies have previously dictated momentum for the Toon, with the 1-0 victory in August 2011 at the Stadium of Light arguably the foundation for the unbeaten run at the start of the 2011-12 season.
Conversely, the humiliation against the Black Cats in April has seen the team in an almost-universal downhill direction since. Only 3 wins in 11 Premier League matches since that dark day is a terrible return, although Sunderland's record of just 1 win in the post-Derby time period makes for equally grim record.
At this rate, this game could well decide which team is in for a painful struggle. Although form and logic seems to suggest the Toon should win against a Sunderland team devoid of inspiration and luck, we cannot count chickens.
Its a brutal and testing time for Magpies fans. Victory at Cardiff on Saturday - a harder ask than it looks, as Manchester City found out - is essential ahead of this run or else it could be a long and tough autumn for Magpies fans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)