I know Tom Brady broke Manning's single season touchdown record last Saturday night and I know that finishing the season with a perfect record is an unbelivable feat...I know all of this. But the Tom Brady slurping is excessivley wearing me out. Brady might have broke Manning's record but his regular season was not better...on par perhaps...but not better than Manning's.
In 2004 Manning passed for 49 TD's...threw 10 interceptions. His completion percentage was 67.6%. He passed for 4,557 yards with an average of 9.2 yards per completion. He finished the season with a QB rating of 121.1 (the best ever).
In 2007 Brady passed for 50 TD's...threw 8 interceptions. His completion percentage was 68.9%. He passed for 4,806 yards with an average of 8.3 yards per completion. He finished the season with a QB rating of 117.2.
Pretty comparable. It is worth noting that in 2004 Manning threw for 49 TD's in only 497 attempts...while Brady threw 50 TD's in 578 attempts. It is also worth pointing out that Manning played all 16 games but only played in the first quarter of the final week while Brady played all of his team's final game.
Granted...in 2004 Manning played 10 games in a dome (eight in the RCA dome...with one in Detroit and one in Houston). That does give Manning a big edge with him playing well over half his games in temperature-controlled environments. Brady only played one game in a dome (that was in Indy).
But another interesting aspect of comparing their two seasons is their respected divisions. The AFC East in 2007 was one of the worst divisions in the NFL. The other three teams (Miami, Buffalo, and the NY Jets) finished with a 12-36 record (.250 winning percentage). In 2004 the AFC South's other three teams (Jacksonville, Tenessee and Houston) finished with a 21-27 record (.440 winning percentage). Bascially the Patriots had 6 games against very inferior competition while the Colts had 6 division games against competitive teams.
In essence what I'm saying is that Brady '07 season is not superior to that of Manning's. It was just as good as Manning's '04 campaign.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Best of 2007's music (or something like that)
Here's my top 50 (in alphabetical order) memorable songs of 2007 ipod playlist. The list is a combination of best songs of the year with my favorite songs of the year. It's an amalgamation of the two ideas. But I have bold-faced what I think are the 10 best songs of the year. I realize that technically some of the songs were released in 2006...ie Read My Mind...but some songs weren't released as singles until 2007... again...Ready My Mind.
Here it is...
Arcade Fire, “Keep the Car Running”
Arcade Fire, “Intervention”
Arctic Monkeys, “Fluorescent Adolescent”
Black Kids, “I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfried How to Dance With You”
Blitzer Trapper, “Country Caravan”
Bright Eyes, “Four Winds”
Bruce Springsteen, “Livin' In the Future”
Bruce Springsteen, “Gypsy Biker”
Bruce Springsteen, “Girls In Their Summer Clothes”
Bruce Springsteen, “Long Walk Home”
Camera Obscura, “If Looks Could Kill”
Cold War Kids, “Hang Me Up to Dry”
Common, “Drivin' Me Wild”
Feist, “1234”
Ghostface Killal (feat. Trife), “Be Easy”
Green Day, “Working Class Hero”
The Hives, “Tick Tick Boom”
The Hold Steady, “Stuck Between Stations”
Interpol, “Heinrich Maneuver”
Jay-Z, “Roc Boys (And The Winner Is)
Josh Ritter, “To the Dogs or Whoever”
Justin Timberlake, “Summer Love”
Kanye West, “Stronger”
The Killers, “Bling (Confession of a King)
The Killers, “Read My Mind”
The Killers, “Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town”
LCD Soundsystem, “All My Friends (Franz Ferdinand Version)
Lyle Lovette, “Up in Indiana”
Modest Mouse, “Dashboard”
Modest Mouse, “Missed the Boat”
Nelly Furtado, “Say it Right”
The New Pornographers, “Myraid Harbour”
Nikki Blonsky, Zac Efron, etc, “You Can't Stop the Beat”
Paul McCartney, “Dance Tonight”
Peter Bjorn and John, “Young Folks”
Rooney, “When Did Your Heart Go Missing?”
Ryan Adams, “Goodnight Rose”
Ryan Adams, “Two”
Ryan Adams, “Halloweenhead”
Ryan Adams, “Down in Hole”
Ryan Adams, “This is Is” (Cardinals Version)
Schooner, “Carrboro”
The Shins, “Australia”
The Shins, “Phantom Limb”
Sondre Lerche, “Say it All”
Spoon, “The Underdog”
T.I. Featuring Wyclef Jean, “You Know What It Is”
The White Stripes, “Icky Thump”
Wilco, “Hate it Here”
1990's, “See You at the Lights”
Here it is...
Arcade Fire, “Keep the Car Running”
Arcade Fire, “Intervention”
Arctic Monkeys, “Fluorescent Adolescent”
Black Kids, “I'm Not Gonna Teach Your Boyfried How to Dance With You”
Blitzer Trapper, “Country Caravan”
Bright Eyes, “Four Winds”
Bruce Springsteen, “Livin' In the Future”
Bruce Springsteen, “Gypsy Biker”
Bruce Springsteen, “Girls In Their Summer Clothes”
Bruce Springsteen, “Long Walk Home”
Camera Obscura, “If Looks Could Kill”
Cold War Kids, “Hang Me Up to Dry”
Common, “Drivin' Me Wild”
Feist, “1234”
Ghostface Killal (feat. Trife), “Be Easy”
Green Day, “Working Class Hero”
The Hives, “Tick Tick Boom”
The Hold Steady, “Stuck Between Stations”
Interpol, “Heinrich Maneuver”
Jay-Z, “Roc Boys (And The Winner Is)
Josh Ritter, “To the Dogs or Whoever”
Justin Timberlake, “Summer Love”
Kanye West, “Stronger”
The Killers, “Bling (Confession of a King)
The Killers, “Read My Mind”
The Killers, “Ruby, Don't Take Your Love to Town”
LCD Soundsystem, “All My Friends (Franz Ferdinand Version)
Lyle Lovette, “Up in Indiana”
Modest Mouse, “Dashboard”
Modest Mouse, “Missed the Boat”
Nelly Furtado, “Say it Right”
The New Pornographers, “Myraid Harbour”
Nikki Blonsky, Zac Efron, etc, “You Can't Stop the Beat”
Paul McCartney, “Dance Tonight”
Peter Bjorn and John, “Young Folks”
Rooney, “When Did Your Heart Go Missing?”
Ryan Adams, “Goodnight Rose”
Ryan Adams, “Two”
Ryan Adams, “Halloweenhead”
Ryan Adams, “Down in Hole”
Ryan Adams, “This is Is” (Cardinals Version)
Schooner, “Carrboro”
The Shins, “Australia”
The Shins, “Phantom Limb”
Sondre Lerche, “Say it All”
Spoon, “The Underdog”
T.I. Featuring Wyclef Jean, “You Know What It Is”
The White Stripes, “Icky Thump”
Wilco, “Hate it Here”
1990's, “See You at the Lights”
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
Padres sign Prior
Via espn.com...
By Buster Olney
ESPN The Magazine
Mark Prior, cut loose by the Cubs earlier this month, has agreed to terms with the San Diego Padres.
Prior receives a one-year major league deal with a $1 million base salary. The contract, which doesn't include an option, contains incentive clauses that could take the total value of the deal to over $3 million.
An announcement is expected to come sometime Wednesday.
Prior, 27, last pitched in the big leagues in 2006, and had shoulder surgery in April of 2007.
The second overall pick in the 2001 draft, Prior went 18-6 for the Cubs in 2003 before experiencing a series of physical problems. He was born in San Diego and lives in San Diego County, and the Padres' hope is that he is able to join a rotation that already includes Jake Peavy, Chris Young, Greg Maddux and Randy Wolf.
He has been throwing on flat ground, and to date, has been free of pain since his surgery.
Prior's lifetime record in the big leagues is 42-29, with a 3.51 ERA.
Ryan here--Not a bad move. Chances are he won't pitch at all but if he does contribute (especially towards the end of the season--maybe during a post season run) than it won't be a bad move--that is assuming he pitches effetively. In terms of baseball economics...1 million dollars is a pretty cheap investment. Maybe being in his home town will motivate Prior to get it together. Honestly...I'm not sure what really is wrong with him half the time.
By Buster Olney
ESPN The Magazine
Mark Prior, cut loose by the Cubs earlier this month, has agreed to terms with the San Diego Padres.
Prior receives a one-year major league deal with a $1 million base salary. The contract, which doesn't include an option, contains incentive clauses that could take the total value of the deal to over $3 million.
An announcement is expected to come sometime Wednesday.
Prior, 27, last pitched in the big leagues in 2006, and had shoulder surgery in April of 2007.
The second overall pick in the 2001 draft, Prior went 18-6 for the Cubs in 2003 before experiencing a series of physical problems. He was born in San Diego and lives in San Diego County, and the Padres' hope is that he is able to join a rotation that already includes Jake Peavy, Chris Young, Greg Maddux and Randy Wolf.
He has been throwing on flat ground, and to date, has been free of pain since his surgery.
Prior's lifetime record in the big leagues is 42-29, with a 3.51 ERA.
Ryan here--Not a bad move. Chances are he won't pitch at all but if he does contribute (especially towards the end of the season--maybe during a post season run) than it won't be a bad move--that is assuming he pitches effetively. In terms of baseball economics...1 million dollars is a pretty cheap investment. Maybe being in his home town will motivate Prior to get it together. Honestly...I'm not sure what really is wrong with him half the time.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Hardrock, Coco, and Joe
My sister found this.
This is without a doubt the greatest Christmas animated short of all-time.
For those not aware the Bozo Show (on WGN) always played this short during Christmas time. For whatever reason...my sister and I always had to watch it. It was tradition.
It brings back some fun memories.
Best Picture candidates
Twice these week...I have laid awake a night trying to come up with what the Academy members will choose for the Best Picture category. I know...that's pretty dorky...but when I have trouble sleeping I seem to only get to sleep by talking to myself (not literally) to sleep. Of note...these aren't what I think the five best movies are of 2007...just what I think will score the nominations.
Here's my take.
I say No Country For Old Men and Atonement are virtual locks. No Country has already scored some prestigious Critics Circle's awards and Atonement lead the Golden Globe in nominations.
I think Juno has a 50% shot of landing a nod. It could be this year's Little Miss Sunshine. It was Roger Ebert's number one film and Richard Roeper and AO Scott raved about on "At the Movies."
Generally there's at least one movie that get nominated that is a box-office success. These moves fit (or might fit) this profile...American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's War or Sweeney Todd. War and Todd open this weekend so it is to early to tell how these moves register with the public. Maybe the real X-factor in this category is Ratatouille. I now there's a seprate category for animation now but it was one of the best films of the year. There's a 25% chance that one of these films gets nominated.
If one assumes that only one of those three gets nominated (and that certainly doesn't have to be the case) than there's one more spot open. It will be filled by another critical darling such as Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood, The Savages or I'm Not There. There's a 10-15% chance that one of these movies earns a nomination.
On a personal note...I'm holding out a 5% chance that 3:10 to Yuma gets a nomination. The more I think about...the more I just love that movie. But unfortunately I don't think it will earn a nomination although I think it was Best Picture material.
My prediction as of December 22 for the Best Picture Nominees is...
No Country For Old Men
Atonement
Juno
Charlie Wilson's War
Michael Clayton
Here's my take.
I say No Country For Old Men and Atonement are virtual locks. No Country has already scored some prestigious Critics Circle's awards and Atonement lead the Golden Globe in nominations.
I think Juno has a 50% shot of landing a nod. It could be this year's Little Miss Sunshine. It was Roger Ebert's number one film and Richard Roeper and AO Scott raved about on "At the Movies."
Generally there's at least one movie that get nominated that is a box-office success. These moves fit (or might fit) this profile...American Gangster, Charlie Wilson's War or Sweeney Todd. War and Todd open this weekend so it is to early to tell how these moves register with the public. Maybe the real X-factor in this category is Ratatouille. I now there's a seprate category for animation now but it was one of the best films of the year. There's a 25% chance that one of these films gets nominated.
If one assumes that only one of those three gets nominated (and that certainly doesn't have to be the case) than there's one more spot open. It will be filled by another critical darling such as Michael Clayton, There Will Be Blood, The Savages or I'm Not There. There's a 10-15% chance that one of these movies earns a nomination.
On a personal note...I'm holding out a 5% chance that 3:10 to Yuma gets a nomination. The more I think about...the more I just love that movie. But unfortunately I don't think it will earn a nomination although I think it was Best Picture material.
My prediction as of December 22 for the Best Picture Nominees is...
No Country For Old Men
Atonement
Juno
Charlie Wilson's War
Michael Clayton
Friday, December 21, 2007
This Never gets old
I know this is a year old but damn...is it still funny. No question one of the best SNL sketches of all time.
Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
"I Am Legend" movie review
This week we watched the box-office dominating Will Smith vehicle, I Am Legend (PG-13). Smith plays a man who seems to be the last person on Earth after a plague in 2009 kills 90 % of the population and turns the rest into zombie-like, vampiric non-humans. Music video veteran Francis Lawrence directs.
Andy: I should probably start off by saying that I actually enjoyed this movie, and I understand why most people would as well. But the more I thought about it, the more it became clear that this movie was much, much better when it was set in London , directed by Danny Boyle, and called 28 Days Later. The only real upgrade is that you've got one of the biggest movie stars in the world playing the lead. He does it well, too. Acting without other actors for the majority of a movie is something I would have never believed Will Smith could have pulled off as recently as a few years ago, but he does it very easily here.
Ryan: I'm not the biggest Will Smith fan but it is hard to argue against his star quality. He can successfully carry not only action movies but romantic comedies (Hitch) and dramas (The Pursuit of Happyness) as well. No doubt about it, his specialty is definitely in the sci-fi/action flick genre. I Am Legend is one of his better action pictures mainly because it is not dependent on the action. I Am Legend is a very nuanced sci-fi movie. There is as much attention paid to the details of the story as there are to the ingredients of the several action scenes. In some ways I Am Legend is an ideal sci-fi flick because it has a good balance of action and traditional sci-fi themes.
Andy: Will Smith' performance is just about the only thing this movie has going for it. Luckily, almost every scene has Smith, so the movie ends up being pretty entertaining and captivating. There is a degree of paranoia that is played up by Smith being the only person in the city, and scenes of him walking cautiously around or driving way too fast feel like something terrible is about to happen (and of course, something terrible is about to happen). That terrible thing is zombie people who only come out at night, and that' where the movie starts getting kind of dumb. When the film allows Smith to carry it, it is pretty good, but toward the end there is too much other stuff going on and it doesn't work out very well.
Ryan: Smith's range as an actor is limited but that's not necessarily a bad thing. Plenty of Hollywood icons (Wayne, Eastwood and McQueen) have proven that they can still be major stars without being Lawrence Olivier. With I Am Legend, Smith demonstrates (yet again) that he is a box-office star. With the recent demise of Tom Cruise's popularity, Will Smith is now Hollywood 's only legitimate box-office star; whereas his name on the marquee will bring moviegoers to the theatre. That might not be good news for Hollywood but it is definitely good news for Smith. What is good news for Hollywood is that the opening weekend for I Am Legend (77+ million) was the largest December opening in history.
Andy: I don't know why, when you have a star as popular and able as Will Smith, performing at the height of his craft, you would allow your film to deteriorate into a CGI-laden fiasco that looks like the opening montage to a Resident Evil video game. Perhaps I'm overstating things a bit, but this movie was pretty good in spite of its minor-league 28 Days Later status until the zombies started showing up. When they scream, for some reason their heads elongate to unnatural proportions, hammering home to the viewer the fact that this is a cartoon zombie, not a real person. I should have been tipped off early in the movie when there was a scene with some really fake looking lions that things were going to take a turn for the worse, but I didn't think it would get quite as silly as it did. The lack of originality, bad effects, and unsatisfactory ending aren't able to overcome Smith's positive performance. Final grade: C-.
Ryan: My biggest issue with the movie was with some of the special effects. I say some because the special effects showing a deserted Manhattan were phenomenal. Somebody should win an award for that. What they shouldn't win an award for are the CGI zombies. I don't know if the special effects budget was used up on making Manhattan a wasteland but the CGI zombie creatures were some of the cheesiest special effects that I have seen in awhile. The creatures are a significant part to the story so the fact that they look so campy does bring the movie down a notch. Final grade: B.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Monday Night Thougths on the Colts
I'm really not sure if I can deal with ESPN anymore.
No doubt about it...the Jacksonville Jaguars had a big win yesterday over the Pittsburgh Steelers...a game that was in Pittsburgh. Now ESPN is hyping up Jacksonville as a team that could derail the Invincible Patriots. (Which is possible...and to be honest...I hope they do beat the Patriots if they ever do play each other.) But I'm so sick of ESPN guiding coverage instead of reporting. It's almost like they get a certain notion and then send a memo to all their on-air employees to build the story. I'm sick of it.
Even on PTI...Michael Wilbon, who I normally respect, said he now ranks Jacksonville as the number two team in the NFL. Needless to say...even Kornheiser was in disbelief and remarked...what about Indy...who has already beaten them...not once...but twice. Wilbon was emphatic in that Jacksonville would now beat Indy and even stumbled around ranting that somehow Jacksonville got robbed in their last showdown in Indianapolis. Apparently Wilbon is drinking the same crazy lemonade that Jacksonville head coach, Jack Del Rio, is drinking. In that he always thinks his team gets robbed when they play Indy. Memo to Del Rio and to Wilbon...the Colts are better than the Jaguars...even with the injuries...how many times do they have to demonstrate it. It is ridiculous. Enough with that.
Speaking of the Colts...a debate is already starting on how the Colts should proceed with these next two games now that the number 2 seed (and first round bye) is locked up. Everybody remembers in 2005 when the Colts had everything locked up...rested their starters the last two weeks of the season...and subsequently lost their first playoff game to the Steelers (in a game that drove me to break several lawn chairs). But there's no question that a lot of players are going to need rest (Mathis, Brock, Bethea, Diem...and who knows about Harrison). I think the Colts will keep the pedal (relatively speaking) to the floor on offense. It is very important for our offense to keep in rhythm and to more importantly give Manning more time to get more in tune with Gonzalez (who is looking like a stud) and that other wide receiver whose last name starts with an A (he had a few nice catches as well). Defensively, they might approach it a little different. The nature of the Colts defense is relatively simple (variations of the cover 2) so a defensive player is going to have a littler easier of a time acclimating themselves back into the game (plus being on defense is more reactionary). So I look for the guys on defense that need rest...to get it. They will be fine for the playoffs.
On the other hand...maybe the Colts just lost that 2005 playoff game because of the death of Tony Dungy's son. I don't think there's any question... that tragedy played a part in the Colts lackluster performance.
There is something to be said for entering the playoffs playing meaningful games. Last year the Colts had no bye...no home-field advantage (at least in the Baltimore game) and we won the Super Bowl.
What I'm saying is that there is no definite road map for post season success. But I do think it is in the Colts best interest not to completely rest everybody. The offense has to stay sharp and they can only do that but going out there and playing. But on the other hand you don't want to take unnecessary risks. It's a fine line to walk but I trust Dungy.
No doubt about it...the Jacksonville Jaguars had a big win yesterday over the Pittsburgh Steelers...a game that was in Pittsburgh. Now ESPN is hyping up Jacksonville as a team that could derail the Invincible Patriots. (Which is possible...and to be honest...I hope they do beat the Patriots if they ever do play each other.) But I'm so sick of ESPN guiding coverage instead of reporting. It's almost like they get a certain notion and then send a memo to all their on-air employees to build the story. I'm sick of it.
Even on PTI...Michael Wilbon, who I normally respect, said he now ranks Jacksonville as the number two team in the NFL. Needless to say...even Kornheiser was in disbelief and remarked...what about Indy...who has already beaten them...not once...but twice. Wilbon was emphatic in that Jacksonville would now beat Indy and even stumbled around ranting that somehow Jacksonville got robbed in their last showdown in Indianapolis. Apparently Wilbon is drinking the same crazy lemonade that Jacksonville head coach, Jack Del Rio, is drinking. In that he always thinks his team gets robbed when they play Indy. Memo to Del Rio and to Wilbon...the Colts are better than the Jaguars...even with the injuries...how many times do they have to demonstrate it. It is ridiculous. Enough with that.
Speaking of the Colts...a debate is already starting on how the Colts should proceed with these next two games now that the number 2 seed (and first round bye) is locked up. Everybody remembers in 2005 when the Colts had everything locked up...rested their starters the last two weeks of the season...and subsequently lost their first playoff game to the Steelers (in a game that drove me to break several lawn chairs). But there's no question that a lot of players are going to need rest (Mathis, Brock, Bethea, Diem...and who knows about Harrison). I think the Colts will keep the pedal (relatively speaking) to the floor on offense. It is very important for our offense to keep in rhythm and to more importantly give Manning more time to get more in tune with Gonzalez (who is looking like a stud) and that other wide receiver whose last name starts with an A (he had a few nice catches as well). Defensively, they might approach it a little different. The nature of the Colts defense is relatively simple (variations of the cover 2) so a defensive player is going to have a littler easier of a time acclimating themselves back into the game (plus being on defense is more reactionary). So I look for the guys on defense that need rest...to get it. They will be fine for the playoffs.
On the other hand...maybe the Colts just lost that 2005 playoff game because of the death of Tony Dungy's son. I don't think there's any question... that tragedy played a part in the Colts lackluster performance.
There is something to be said for entering the playoffs playing meaningful games. Last year the Colts had no bye...no home-field advantage (at least in the Baltimore game) and we won the Super Bowl.
What I'm saying is that there is no definite road map for post season success. But I do think it is in the Colts best interest not to completely rest everybody. The offense has to stay sharp and they can only do that but going out there and playing. But on the other hand you don't want to take unnecessary risks. It's a fine line to walk but I trust Dungy.
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Mitchell Report
I'm a few days tardy on reporting on this but the long awaited Mitchell Report--about steroid use in baseball--was released on Thursday.
By now those that care...and maybe those that don't...know the gist of it.
While hardly being a comprehensive report on steroid use in baseball it does provide a slice of what has happened during the steroid era. In my book it's not going to effect how much I like baseball or care about it. Really all it does is just put the era into a context that most fans had already done. The meat of the report was the naming of names. Mitchell does come up with some smart recommendations but its the names that is driving the media coverage and dialog among fans.
The biggest name on the list...is that of Roger Clemens. I've suspected for years...and I remember Holman and I having a long chat about this at Richey's bachelor party a few years ago that we wouldn't be surprised that if at some point Clemens was linked to steroids. (He was just doing things that were Bonds-esque...things that shouldn't be possible given one's age--like Clemens having an ERA of 1.87 at the age of 42) I find it quite amusing because I have never liked or respected Clemens. As my dad would say...he's just a big dork. I couldn't agree more. What I like about it the best...is that this makes Greg Maddux, the true best pitcher of this era, look even better. Those guys are always one-two when talking about the greatest pitcher of this era. Not anymore...Maddux is number one (although he always has been in my book).
Looking at Clemens's career and when the documented steroid use happened...it's pretty clear in my book that he was juicing. (For example in the 1998 season Clemens while on the Blue Jays started the season 6-6 with a 3.27 ERA...starting juicing...than went 14-0 with a 2.29 ERA) The evidence against him is very damaging in the report. That's fine with me...as the can join the other dopes (Rose...Bonds) in the hall of shame.
Like I said before the report is hardly comprehensive. Eighty or so names...overly roughly a ten year period...is not that many names considering all the players that have played during that era. There were some omissions that were surprising. No Sammy...he was only mentioned that he was sent a questionnaire. No Brett Boone. No Javy Lopez. There are a lot of names missing of players that I've (and many other fans) have had questions about. So be it...that's the nature of this era. The Mitchell Report really didn't shed any new light on the era (besides adding more names) but it should have a positive lasting legacy if many of the recommendations are put into action.
By now those that care...and maybe those that don't...know the gist of it.
While hardly being a comprehensive report on steroid use in baseball it does provide a slice of what has happened during the steroid era. In my book it's not going to effect how much I like baseball or care about it. Really all it does is just put the era into a context that most fans had already done. The meat of the report was the naming of names. Mitchell does come up with some smart recommendations but its the names that is driving the media coverage and dialog among fans.
The biggest name on the list...is that of Roger Clemens. I've suspected for years...and I remember Holman and I having a long chat about this at Richey's bachelor party a few years ago that we wouldn't be surprised that if at some point Clemens was linked to steroids. (He was just doing things that were Bonds-esque...things that shouldn't be possible given one's age--like Clemens having an ERA of 1.87 at the age of 42) I find it quite amusing because I have never liked or respected Clemens. As my dad would say...he's just a big dork. I couldn't agree more. What I like about it the best...is that this makes Greg Maddux, the true best pitcher of this era, look even better. Those guys are always one-two when talking about the greatest pitcher of this era. Not anymore...Maddux is number one (although he always has been in my book).
Looking at Clemens's career and when the documented steroid use happened...it's pretty clear in my book that he was juicing. (For example in the 1998 season Clemens while on the Blue Jays started the season 6-6 with a 3.27 ERA...starting juicing...than went 14-0 with a 2.29 ERA) The evidence against him is very damaging in the report. That's fine with me...as the can join the other dopes (Rose...Bonds) in the hall of shame.
Like I said before the report is hardly comprehensive. Eighty or so names...overly roughly a ten year period...is not that many names considering all the players that have played during that era. There were some omissions that were surprising. No Sammy...he was only mentioned that he was sent a questionnaire. No Brett Boone. No Javy Lopez. There are a lot of names missing of players that I've (and many other fans) have had questions about. So be it...that's the nature of this era. The Mitchell Report really didn't shed any new light on the era (besides adding more names) but it should have a positive lasting legacy if many of the recommendations are put into action.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Fukudome Chooses Cubs
Japanese outfielder Kosuke Fukudome has decided to play major league baseball with the Cubs. Apparently it was between the Cubs and Padres, which is not a bad deal for me. The Padres probably needed him more, since their offense needs all the help they can get, but Fukudome, considered an on-base guy with some power, will fit nicely in the lineup in front of Lee and Ramirez for the Cubbies.
Here's an article via Yahoo Sports detailing the specifics of the deal...
Here's an article via Yahoo Sports detailing the specifics of the deal...
CHICAGO (AP) -- Japanese outfielder Kosuke Fukudome and the Chicago Cubs reached a preliminary agreement Tuesday on a $48 million, four-year contract.
The deal is subject to a physical, according to a person familiar with the negotiations who spoke on condition of anonymity because no announcement had been made. The agreement could be finalized as early as Wednesday.
Fukudome was considered one of the best outfielders in Japanese baseball. The 30-year-old slugger was a key member of the Japan team that won the inaugural World Baseball Classic in March 2006.
He had surgery on his right elbow in August and sat out the Japan Series, but has 192 homers and a .305 batting average over nine seasons with the Chunichi Dragons, who won their first championship in 53 years on Nov. 2.
After becoming a free agent, Fukudome drew interest from the Cubs, San Diego Padres and White Sox.
He is expected to play right field for the Cubs, who traded outfielder Jacque Jones to Detroit this offseason and declined their contract option on veteran Cliff Floyd.
All-Star slugger Alfonso Soriano returns in left and speedy prospect Felix Pie is expected to take over in center after shuttling between the majors and minors this season. The Cubs hope Fukudome will provide the consistent left-handed bat they seek to go with righties Soriano, Aramis Ramirez and Derrek Lee.
Chicago won the NL Central title last season before being swept by Arizona in the first round of the playoffs.
Fukudome was the 2006 Central League MVP, batting .351 with 31 homers and 104 RBIs. He recently told the Dragons he wouldn't return next season, saying he wanted to move to the major leagues.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
"The Golden Compass" movie review
New Line Cinema's latest foray into the world of fantasy and adventure is The Golden Compass. Based on the book by Phillip Pullman (from his His Dark Materials trilogy), The Golden Compass showcases a parallel world where a little girl (Dakota Blue Richards) becomes entangled in a struggle between a religious-esque organization and the more rebellious factions of its society. The film also stars Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Sam Elliot. Chris Weitz directs.
Andy: The Golden Compass starts out explaining the complexities of the “world” in which it exists. It's not too complicated to follow, even for older kids, but it is not a very exciting way to start a great fantasy / adventure movie. It does have a level of charm, though, with every human walking around with an animal that represents their soul. Ordinarily that much CGI-animal effects (not to mention the animals talk) would turn me completely off, but I thought the device worked well throughout the movie.
Ryan: From warrior bears to spiritual animal sidekicks, the world of The Golden Compass is extremely imaginative. The film from the special effects to the cinematography looks great. For the most part the performances are more than adequate in satisfying a fantasy-driven storyline. But with all that said, The Golden Compass fails to live up to the high quality fantasy films (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia) that audiences are now used too. Ultimately, The Golden Compass is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill fantasy flick.
Ryan: The Golden Compass was number one at the box-office, 25+ million, but it was far from being an impressive opening. Some of that could be attributed to the controversy that somewhat plagued the movie leading up to its opening. Pullman's books are popular in the US (and even more so in England). But there has been some criticism that some elements of the book are anti-Christian. Being aware of that, Weitz adapted a script devoid of many of the religious themes and ideas in the book. Conversely in doing that Weitz alienated the true fans of the series by not producing a faithful adaptation. Consequently the movie ends up being a watered-down version of the book thus turning away the fans but also confusing those new to The Golden Compass universe by presenting an authoritarian religious organization without any context.
Andy: That explains a lot, actually, because the hierarchy of authority in the movie definitely seems to be more important to the plot than the little time they spent explaining it. As with many fantasy movies, there seems to be a bigger, allegorical theme in the works with the Golden Compass, but it never makes itself very clear and ends up seeming pseudo-allegorical at times. This also makes it seem like it's trying too hard to be The Lord of the Rings, as if it has to manufacture a greater symbolic meaning than is actually there.
Ryan: From the very first trailer that I saw for The Golden Compass, it was obvious that New Line Cinema was building it up to be their new Lord of the Rings trilogy. Looking at the underwhelming box-office results (combined with that fact that the film is quite mediocre) this might be the only installment that makes it to the silver screen. Reportedly The Golden Compass cost well over 200 million dollars to produce and market. Prior to the mega success of the Rings Trilogy, some Hollywood insiders had predicted that the Rings movies might bankrupt the studio and that New Line Cinema was making a huge mistake. Ultimately that wasn't the case back then but it looks like it might be now.
Andy: I was pretty impressed with the acting in the movie. Richards could turn into a solid young actress, as she is able to adequately carry the movie. Nicole Kidman was outstanding as the charming- but-untrustworthy villain. Daniel Craig was good if underutilized, and it was fun to see Sam Elliot essentially playing his Stranger character from The Big Lebowski.
The Golden Compass has moments that are pretty good, but the movie doesn't quite hold together well enough to reach the greatness at which it was aiming. Final grade: B-.
Andy: The Golden Compass starts out explaining the complexities of the “world” in which it exists. It's not too complicated to follow, even for older kids, but it is not a very exciting way to start a great fantasy / adventure movie. It does have a level of charm, though, with every human walking around with an animal that represents their soul. Ordinarily that much CGI-animal effects (not to mention the animals talk) would turn me completely off, but I thought the device worked well throughout the movie.
Ryan: From warrior bears to spiritual animal sidekicks, the world of The Golden Compass is extremely imaginative. The film from the special effects to the cinematography looks great. For the most part the performances are more than adequate in satisfying a fantasy-driven storyline. But with all that said, The Golden Compass fails to live up to the high quality fantasy films (Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter and The Chronicles of Narnia) that audiences are now used too. Ultimately, The Golden Compass is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill fantasy flick.
Ryan: The Golden Compass was number one at the box-office, 25+ million, but it was far from being an impressive opening. Some of that could be attributed to the controversy that somewhat plagued the movie leading up to its opening. Pullman's books are popular in the US (and even more so in England). But there has been some criticism that some elements of the book are anti-Christian. Being aware of that, Weitz adapted a script devoid of many of the religious themes and ideas in the book. Conversely in doing that Weitz alienated the true fans of the series by not producing a faithful adaptation. Consequently the movie ends up being a watered-down version of the book thus turning away the fans but also confusing those new to The Golden Compass universe by presenting an authoritarian religious organization without any context.
Andy: That explains a lot, actually, because the hierarchy of authority in the movie definitely seems to be more important to the plot than the little time they spent explaining it. As with many fantasy movies, there seems to be a bigger, allegorical theme in the works with the Golden Compass, but it never makes itself very clear and ends up seeming pseudo-allegorical at times. This also makes it seem like it's trying too hard to be The Lord of the Rings, as if it has to manufacture a greater symbolic meaning than is actually there.
Ryan: From the very first trailer that I saw for The Golden Compass, it was obvious that New Line Cinema was building it up to be their new Lord of the Rings trilogy. Looking at the underwhelming box-office results (combined with that fact that the film is quite mediocre) this might be the only installment that makes it to the silver screen. Reportedly The Golden Compass cost well over 200 million dollars to produce and market. Prior to the mega success of the Rings Trilogy, some Hollywood insiders had predicted that the Rings movies might bankrupt the studio and that New Line Cinema was making a huge mistake. Ultimately that wasn't the case back then but it looks like it might be now.
Andy: I was pretty impressed with the acting in the movie. Richards could turn into a solid young actress, as she is able to adequately carry the movie. Nicole Kidman was outstanding as the charming- but-untrustworthy villain. Daniel Craig was good if underutilized, and it was fun to see Sam Elliot essentially playing his Stranger character from The Big Lebowski.
The Golden Compass has moments that are pretty good, but the movie doesn't quite hold together well enough to reach the greatness at which it was aiming. Final grade: B-.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Candidate Calculator
Not sure who to vote for in the coming presidential race...check out the candidate calculator from vajoe.com.
Not surprising for me...I scored a 95% for Barack Obama.
Not surprising for me...I scored a 95% for Barack Obama.
Saturday, December 8, 2007
House Divided
I know the above picture is a few years old and that there was no bet on this year's game (with it being in Assembly Hall--my wife does have some basketball sense) but I never get tired of looking at that picture. For those not aware IU dominated Kentucky today winning 70-51. Again for those not aware, I'm an IU fan and my wife is a Kentucky fan. It's a house divided. But no question about it...it's a much happier house with an IU win as I don't handle losing as well as my better half.
Go Hoosiers.
"4 Tickets to Christmas"
As many of you know (since she has missed quite a few Colts games) my wife has been extremely busy preparing for the dramatic musical, 4 Tickets to Christmas, at our church (the First Baptist Church). She's in the choir portion of the musical. Here is a brief synopsis of the musical:
What's taken a life of its own are these marathon practice sessions (3 hour sessions every Tuesday and Sunday night) Jenny has had since September. The play has consumed much of her free time, which I'd must admit has been frustrating at times....but nothing that we couldn't deal with. I just don't think I could have handled that.
I must confess that practice makes perfect and the performance that I saw Friday night was excellent. It was a first rate production. I'm proud of her for committing to it and putting forth her best effort (along with the rest of the cast). It was worth it.
Four Tickets to Christmas” takes place in 1905 near Cedar Grove, Indiana on the Richmond family farm. Several generations of the singing Richmond family as well as their hometown Syracuse Family Playhouse singers unexpectedly end up rehearsing a church Christmas program in the family’s barn. The hired hand Luke has special gifts, grandson Nick and grandfather Chester Richmond share a secret, daughter Emma is out of her element since there’s “dirt on a farm”... Despite a giggly piano player and local “talent” the show does go on. Find out about the dreams and aspirations of the Richmonds as they sing their way into your heart.
What's taken a life of its own are these marathon practice sessions (3 hour sessions every Tuesday and Sunday night) Jenny has had since September. The play has consumed much of her free time, which I'd must admit has been frustrating at times....but nothing that we couldn't deal with. I just don't think I could have handled that.
I must confess that practice makes perfect and the performance that I saw Friday night was excellent. It was a first rate production. I'm proud of her for committing to it and putting forth her best effort (along with the rest of the cast). It was worth it.
Friday, December 7, 2007
City Politics
I know most of you probably don't have a large interest in local Greensburg politics and I can't say that I have a large one although that day is coming...I'm sure at some point there will be a day when it will be time to move off the sidelines. Anyway, Jim Cummings, managing editor of the Greensburg Daily News, had an interesting editorial to today's Greensburg Daily News.
I'm not going to get into all of the squabble between the paper and the various city leaders in Greensburg...from what I can tell...there's been a lot of bickering from both parties. What I will comment on...and I agree with Cummings (and he alluded to this) is that the transition from Manus's administration to Herbert's administration (and that includes the City Council as well) is about as contentious as it can get. The feeling around town (and this includes more than my usual sources) is that there is a lot animosity and ill will among (some of) the elected officials that did not get re-elected. Further exacerbating the situation is that their is this perception among many citizens in Greensburg that the transition between administrations is not being handled in a professional manner. Let me make this clear...I'm not assessing blame to either side. What I am saying is that I'm extremely disappointed by it. This is small town government...not Washington DC. I don't know where the small town morals went but they are lacking right now in Greensburg. I don't now if it's an ego thing or not but it's not healthy at all...especially given how fast this town is growing. Don't get me wrong the town is not in political turmoil. I just don't want to see it get anymore fractured than it already is. We'll see what happens. Hopefully things will work out.
I'm not going to get into all of the squabble between the paper and the various city leaders in Greensburg...from what I can tell...there's been a lot of bickering from both parties. What I will comment on...and I agree with Cummings (and he alluded to this) is that the transition from Manus's administration to Herbert's administration (and that includes the City Council as well) is about as contentious as it can get. The feeling around town (and this includes more than my usual sources) is that there is a lot animosity and ill will among (some of) the elected officials that did not get re-elected. Further exacerbating the situation is that their is this perception among many citizens in Greensburg that the transition between administrations is not being handled in a professional manner. Let me make this clear...I'm not assessing blame to either side. What I am saying is that I'm extremely disappointed by it. This is small town government...not Washington DC. I don't know where the small town morals went but they are lacking right now in Greensburg. I don't now if it's an ego thing or not but it's not healthy at all...especially given how fast this town is growing. Don't get me wrong the town is not in political turmoil. I just don't want to see it get anymore fractured than it already is. We'll see what happens. Hopefully things will work out.
Will Ferrell's "Semi-Pro"
One might think that Ferrell's shtick is getting old but he still cracks me up.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
"No Country For Old Men" movie review
With the continued release of uninspired movies at the Cineplex, we continue with our look at Oscar hopefuls. This week is the latest project from Joel and Ethan Cohen, No Country for Old Men (R). Josh Brolin plays an ordinary guy who gets mixed up with Mexican drug dealers and ends up being hunted by a hitman (Javier Bardem). Tommy Lee Jones plays the rural Texas county sheriff who is investigating the case.
Ryan: No Country For Old Men is a really good film. Honestly I found the first two-thirds of the movie great. I'll speak more on that later but want to state that this is the best Coen Brothers' film since O Brother, Where Art Thou? No Country For Old Men is a wonderfully shot movie with precise direction and superb performances. Like the Coen Brothers' best work its a movie where there is so much more going on than what is being presented on the surface. For that reason it's a film that will require multiple viewings to fully grasp what is going on in the story.
Andy: If nothing else, this movie shows that the Coen Brothers are back. I might argue that much under-appreciated The Man Who Wasn't There might be better than this film, but the point is that the Coen's last two movies (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers) were sub par. Many filmmakers tend to get to a point where there relevancy wanes, and it looked like the Coens had arrived there. No Country For Old Men shows that they are still capable of making an outstanding, interesting, and at times, amusing film.
Ryan: The final act of No Country For Old Men prevented it from being a truly remarkable picture. I'm not saying that the final act is a letdown or that it doesn't fit what the movie is saying. In fact thematically the end of the film does make sense. But from a storytelling stand point the end of the movie left me unfulfilled. The movie's plot moves along where one is expecting the three main characters path's to intersect. That doesn't (necessarily) happen. In fact one could argue that the movie's focus takes a dramatic shift during (and after) the climax. Ultimately I found the shift more perplexing than anything else. Like I said before, another viewing of the film might be required to fully see what the Coen Brothers were trying to express.
Andy: There is no question that the end of the movie will prove problematic for many viewers. Just as you are starting to figure out what is happening in this new segment of the movie, it abruptly ends. While I understand Ryan's arguments about it being an unsettling (unneeded, even?) conclusion to the narrative, I must confess that I've been thinking about the ending off and on since I watched the movie. It seems to make some sense after some careful analysis that I'm unable (and unwilling) to articulate here. Ultimately, however, if a movie can keep me thinking about it after I leave the theatre, that's a good thing.
Ryan: Like all great directors, the Coen Brothers have that innate ability to bring forth strong performances from their actors. No Country For Old Men is no exception. Tommy Lee Jones, who hasn't starred in a relevant movie in years, puts forth one of his best performances of his career. Javier Bardem, known more for his international work, gives a haunting performance as the film's antagonist. Not as well knows is Josh Brolin but he more than holds his own with the respected cast. I'm not predicting that any one of those performances will get nominated for an Oscar but they are Oscar-worthy.
Andy: The performances in this movie are very solid across the board. Leading the pack is certainly Tommy Lee Jones. I actually think the last couple of years have been pretty good for Jones, with his turn in A Prairie Home Companion being pretty good, and his leading role in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estradas showing great promise. Tellingly, his character here is like an extension of his performance in Burials, only with a little more nuance and a haggard humor that is priceless. Bardem was predictably great, but the real surprise is the largely marginal Josh Brolin playing the lead role of this film with great precision.
No Country For Old Men combines several elements of what makes movies great. It's intriguing, captivating, thought-provoking, and perhaps most importantly, it gives us back some of our greatest American filmmakers. The last 30 minutes or so is a bit puzzling, but generally this is a sharp picture. Final grade: B+.
Ryan: No Country For Old Men is a really good film. Honestly I found the first two-thirds of the movie great. I'll speak more on that later but want to state that this is the best Coen Brothers' film since O Brother, Where Art Thou? No Country For Old Men is a wonderfully shot movie with precise direction and superb performances. Like the Coen Brothers' best work its a movie where there is so much more going on than what is being presented on the surface. For that reason it's a film that will require multiple viewings to fully grasp what is going on in the story.
Andy: If nothing else, this movie shows that the Coen Brothers are back. I might argue that much under-appreciated The Man Who Wasn't There might be better than this film, but the point is that the Coen's last two movies (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers) were sub par. Many filmmakers tend to get to a point where there relevancy wanes, and it looked like the Coens had arrived there. No Country For Old Men shows that they are still capable of making an outstanding, interesting, and at times, amusing film.
Ryan: The final act of No Country For Old Men prevented it from being a truly remarkable picture. I'm not saying that the final act is a letdown or that it doesn't fit what the movie is saying. In fact thematically the end of the film does make sense. But from a storytelling stand point the end of the movie left me unfulfilled. The movie's plot moves along where one is expecting the three main characters path's to intersect. That doesn't (necessarily) happen. In fact one could argue that the movie's focus takes a dramatic shift during (and after) the climax. Ultimately I found the shift more perplexing than anything else. Like I said before, another viewing of the film might be required to fully see what the Coen Brothers were trying to express.
Andy: There is no question that the end of the movie will prove problematic for many viewers. Just as you are starting to figure out what is happening in this new segment of the movie, it abruptly ends. While I understand Ryan's arguments about it being an unsettling (unneeded, even?) conclusion to the narrative, I must confess that I've been thinking about the ending off and on since I watched the movie. It seems to make some sense after some careful analysis that I'm unable (and unwilling) to articulate here. Ultimately, however, if a movie can keep me thinking about it after I leave the theatre, that's a good thing.
Ryan: Like all great directors, the Coen Brothers have that innate ability to bring forth strong performances from their actors. No Country For Old Men is no exception. Tommy Lee Jones, who hasn't starred in a relevant movie in years, puts forth one of his best performances of his career. Javier Bardem, known more for his international work, gives a haunting performance as the film's antagonist. Not as well knows is Josh Brolin but he more than holds his own with the respected cast. I'm not predicting that any one of those performances will get nominated for an Oscar but they are Oscar-worthy.
Andy: The performances in this movie are very solid across the board. Leading the pack is certainly Tommy Lee Jones. I actually think the last couple of years have been pretty good for Jones, with his turn in A Prairie Home Companion being pretty good, and his leading role in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estradas showing great promise. Tellingly, his character here is like an extension of his performance in Burials, only with a little more nuance and a haggard humor that is priceless. Bardem was predictably great, but the real surprise is the largely marginal Josh Brolin playing the lead role of this film with great precision.
No Country For Old Men combines several elements of what makes movies great. It's intriguing, captivating, thought-provoking, and perhaps most importantly, it gives us back some of our greatest American filmmakers. The last 30 minutes or so is a bit puzzling, but generally this is a sharp picture. Final grade: B+.
Believe in Obama
I've been meaning to have a political post for a number of months but hadn't...mainly because of my frustration with the Democratic presidential race. Namely the fact that it appeared that Hillary was going to get the nomination and that it wasn't even going to be contest (that's what frustrated me the most--that it wasn't going to be a true state to state primary race). I'm a Barack guy...I want him to win the nomination. I was just getting more and more frustrated with how his numbers were consitently behind Hillary's and that her nomination was inevitable.
I need to remind myself that it isn't over yet. In fact Obama is currently favored in Iowa. Of course I think this is great news. I'm glad that my fellow democrats are seeing that Obama is best choice for the job and that is electability, in some ways, is better than Hillary's.
Hillary Clinton is too polarizing of a figure and if she's the nominee I'm certainly not convinced that she would win...even against a Republican candidate that at this point...is not going to have a lot of clout even with his own party--that's how fractured the Republicans are right now. I'm convinced because I've heard people say it that some Republican voters (and some of these are die-hard Republicans) would consider voting for Obama. But these people will never...and I mean never vote for Hillary. That is one of the main reasons why I like Obama. He's a uniter...he's a voice of change...I believe he's what this country needs to get back on track. He resonates on all sides of the political spectrum. I just don't see a Hillary nomination (or win) as what this country needs to completely move forward from the debacle of our current administration.
That's it for now as my lunch break is about over...But I'm pretty sure that as the calender turns...my political rants are going to get more and more intense.
I need to remind myself that it isn't over yet. In fact Obama is currently favored in Iowa. Of course I think this is great news. I'm glad that my fellow democrats are seeing that Obama is best choice for the job and that is electability, in some ways, is better than Hillary's.
Hillary Clinton is too polarizing of a figure and if she's the nominee I'm certainly not convinced that she would win...even against a Republican candidate that at this point...is not going to have a lot of clout even with his own party--that's how fractured the Republicans are right now. I'm convinced because I've heard people say it that some Republican voters (and some of these are die-hard Republicans) would consider voting for Obama. But these people will never...and I mean never vote for Hillary. That is one of the main reasons why I like Obama. He's a uniter...he's a voice of change...I believe he's what this country needs to get back on track. He resonates on all sides of the political spectrum. I just don't see a Hillary nomination (or win) as what this country needs to completely move forward from the debacle of our current administration.
That's it for now as my lunch break is about over...But I'm pretty sure that as the calender turns...my political rants are going to get more and more intense.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Bob Sanders had his cake, and he ate it too
More Bob Sanders facts can be found here...via Stampede Blue.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
"New Frontier" press release and images
BURBANK, CA, (November 27, 2007) - Warner Premiere, DC Comics and Warner Bros. Animation are set to release the all-new original movie Justice League: The New Frontier on February 26, 2008 on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc, distributed by Warner Home Video. The original movie will also be available OnDemand and Pay-per-View as well as available for download on February 26, 2008.
Based on the graphic novel by Darwyn Cooke and produced by Michael Goguen and animation legend, Bruce Timm, Justice League: The New Frontier is the epic tale of the founding of the Justice League. The animated film, written by Stan Berkowitz, features an incredible celebrity-laden voice cast including David Boreanaz, Brooke Shields, Lucy Lawless, Neil Patrick Harris, Miguel Ferrer, Kyra Sedgwick, Jeremy Sisto and Kyle MacLachlan and will be available on DVD for $19.98 SRP. There will also be a 2 disc Special Edition DVD available for $24.98 SRP which contains additional bonus features including a documentary about the pathology of the super villain and three bonus episodes from the Justice League animated series selected by Bruce Timm. All the content from the 2-disc Special Edition DVD will be available on HD DVD and Blu-ray Disc.
The New Frontier takes viewers on an action-packed adventure, exploring the origins of the Justice League. DC Comics legends Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are all featured in the film as well as Green Lantern, Martian Manhunter and The Flash - as they band together to form the legendary super team. Strangers at first, these very different heroes must overcome fear and suspicion to forge an alliance against a monster so formidable, even the mighty Superman cannot stop it alone. If they fail, the entire planet will be "cleansed" of humanity.
Justice League: The New Frontier DVD will feature incredible extras including: "Super Heroes United!: The Complete Justice League History"- The documentary is a comprehensive forty seven year Justice League chronology from the inception in the comics to vivid animated renditions. The story is told with a myriad of interviews tracing back the early days of DC Super Hero team ups during the Golden Age, to the Silver Age rendition where the established heroes emerged and beyond. Interviews include Paul Levitz (President of DC Comics), Dan Didio (SVP Executive Editor at DC Comics), Michael Uslan (Historian), Gregory Noveck (SVP Creative Affairs DC Comics), Mark Waid (DC Comics Historian and Writer), Mike Friedrich (Writer JLU), Denny O'Neil (Writer and Editor at DC Comics), Mike Carlin (DC Comics Executive Editor), Stan Lee (Marvel Comics Co-Creator) and Marv Wolfman (Writer of Fantastic Four).
"Sneak Peak: Batman: Gotham Knight" - One part anime, one part Caped Crusader, the result is a glimpse at the world of Eastern anime sensibilities combined with a Western tradition of Batman. A detailed look at the world of Warner Bros Animation, and how they joined forces with the renowned Japanese animators to create the highly anticipated anime film of 2008.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Batman...not dead
Apparently DC Comics has come to their senses with regard to killing off Bruce Wayne and making him a New God...while one of the Robins would take over being Batman.
Via Comic Book Resources (by Rich Johnston)
That was another thing...why would you kill off Batman when The Dark Knight is getting released next summer. Bad Timing...simply...bad idea. Thank goodness it is not happing...not that I was losing any sleep over it...yet.
Via Comic Book Resources (by Rich Johnston)
Oh and Dead Batman/Todd Batman/God Bruce Wayne? So not happening. You can still expect a status-challenging new scenario, still expect Alex Ross covers and designs, still expect some intricately complex yet instantly entertaining Morrisonia, just, expect something else. Did Internet reaction affect this? Not one jot it seems. All decisions are taking place at a much higher level, and Warner Bros. have made their feelings known.
That was another thing...why would you kill off Batman when The Dark Knight is getting released next summer. Bad Timing...simply...bad idea. Thank goodness it is not happing...not that I was losing any sleep over it...yet.
Monday, November 26, 2007
"Bee Movie" movie review
We continue our look at films already in the cineplexes. This week it is the animated adventure, Bee Movie. Produced and co-written by Jerry Seinfeld, Bee Movie tells the tale of a young bee, named Barry, who dreams of life outside the hive. Getting his wish, Barry soon learns that humans are abusing bees to get their honey. So what does Barry do? He sues the human race. Lending their voices to the project are Seinfeld, Renee Zellweger, Matthew Broderick and John Goodman.
Andy: Bee Movie is a strange animated feature. It doesn't seem to be committed to targeting children or adults so it ends up reaching neither very well. It is a cartoon about talking bees and it is rated PG, so it seems like a kids movie. But most of the dialogue and plot seem pointed directly at the adults. The result is that the concept of the film, much like the plot, remains disjointed and unclear throughout the duration of the movie.
Ryan: For the most part, Bee Movie is a pretty entertaining animated feature. The movie is not a Pixar classic but it's better than a majority of animated films that get released. I agree with Andy's sentiment that Bee Movie is not a typical animated movie. A movie like Shrek is geared towards kids but contains many allusions that appeal to adults. Bee Movie has a large number of allusions that appeal to adults but unlike Shrek, Bee Movie's narrative is aimed at adults with a story filled with lawsuits and a trial. A great number of kids will like the movie because it looks great but they are not going to get what the movie is about even on the literal level.
Andy: Animated, anthropomorphized, animal, adventure movies often have an underlying message that allows the movie to be read as an allegory or at the very least an extended metaphor. Reading Bee Movie in this way leads to questionable conclusions. The bees discover that the dominant culture (humans) is taking their product (honey) with little or no compensation. After an attempt to rectify this injustice is made, the entire ecosystem begins to fall apart, and the bees realize that they were happier when they were making honey for the humans. So the lesson here is its okay for a dominant culture to exploit an entire class of workers because that is the natural order of things. In fact, that's what the workers want.
Ryan: The biggest problem with the film's conclusion is how unclear it is. Because of that one could make case for Andy's argument in terms of the film's message. I don't 100% agree with his argument but I do see how one could think that. One could read the film's resolution that has Barry (the bee) and Vanessa (the human florist) in business together as a harmonious balance between bee and human. Whether one thinks that or not, ultimately the loose ends of the plot are not clearly spelled out. Because of that, the movie ends on a choppy note.
Andy: Bee Movie was uneven, disjointed, and had a plot that was not particularly enjoyable to watch. However, there were several moments in the movie that were brilliant, laugh-out-loud funny on the scale of Seinfeld's best television shows. So in spite of its shortcomings elsewhere, Bee Movie is funny enough that it ends up being a pretty decent movie.
Ryan: With Seinfeld's involvement, it is no surprise that Bee Movie has quite a few funny moments. I found myself laughing quite a bit-- more so than with most animated features. The movie is quite heavy with it's dialogue and while I found that enjoyable I don't think many young kids will. Also enhancing the film is the voice work especially that of Zellweger's. In this case she seems to be really into the voice work and does a stupendous job with it.
Bee Movie is not the most consistent animated feature but it is a charming film for both kids and adults. Final grade: B-.
Andy: Bee Movie is a strange animated feature. It doesn't seem to be committed to targeting children or adults so it ends up reaching neither very well. It is a cartoon about talking bees and it is rated PG, so it seems like a kids movie. But most of the dialogue and plot seem pointed directly at the adults. The result is that the concept of the film, much like the plot, remains disjointed and unclear throughout the duration of the movie.
Ryan: For the most part, Bee Movie is a pretty entertaining animated feature. The movie is not a Pixar classic but it's better than a majority of animated films that get released. I agree with Andy's sentiment that Bee Movie is not a typical animated movie. A movie like Shrek is geared towards kids but contains many allusions that appeal to adults. Bee Movie has a large number of allusions that appeal to adults but unlike Shrek, Bee Movie's narrative is aimed at adults with a story filled with lawsuits and a trial. A great number of kids will like the movie because it looks great but they are not going to get what the movie is about even on the literal level.
Andy: Animated, anthropomorphized, animal, adventure movies often have an underlying message that allows the movie to be read as an allegory or at the very least an extended metaphor. Reading Bee Movie in this way leads to questionable conclusions. The bees discover that the dominant culture (humans) is taking their product (honey) with little or no compensation. After an attempt to rectify this injustice is made, the entire ecosystem begins to fall apart, and the bees realize that they were happier when they were making honey for the humans. So the lesson here is its okay for a dominant culture to exploit an entire class of workers because that is the natural order of things. In fact, that's what the workers want.
Ryan: The biggest problem with the film's conclusion is how unclear it is. Because of that one could make case for Andy's argument in terms of the film's message. I don't 100% agree with his argument but I do see how one could think that. One could read the film's resolution that has Barry (the bee) and Vanessa (the human florist) in business together as a harmonious balance between bee and human. Whether one thinks that or not, ultimately the loose ends of the plot are not clearly spelled out. Because of that, the movie ends on a choppy note.
Andy: Bee Movie was uneven, disjointed, and had a plot that was not particularly enjoyable to watch. However, there were several moments in the movie that were brilliant, laugh-out-loud funny on the scale of Seinfeld's best television shows. So in spite of its shortcomings elsewhere, Bee Movie is funny enough that it ends up being a pretty decent movie.
Ryan: With Seinfeld's involvement, it is no surprise that Bee Movie has quite a few funny moments. I found myself laughing quite a bit-- more so than with most animated features. The movie is quite heavy with it's dialogue and while I found that enjoyable I don't think many young kids will. Also enhancing the film is the voice work especially that of Zellweger's. In this case she seems to be really into the voice work and does a stupendous job with it.
Bee Movie is not the most consistent animated feature but it is a charming film for both kids and adults. Final grade: B-.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Top 25 Albums from the past 25 years.
For those not aware WTTS (92.3) out of Bloomington is a Independently owned radio station. In essence that should make them cool but unfortunately it doesn't (much of the time). I will admit that it is the best station in the Indianapolis area (Doesn't say much for the Indianapolis radio scene). WTTS frustrates a great number of people because the station could be on the cutting edge of the modern rock music scene but they seem to be content to be a mindless mainstream “wuss” rock station.
Several days ago they revealed their list of the top 25 albums from the past 25 years (based on 92.3 VIP listeners). Check out the list and come back for my take.
Commentary below...
1. Legitimately they have nine albums (“Yankee Hotel Foxtrot”, “OK Computer”, “Automatic for the People”, “Purple Rain”, “A Rush of Blood to the Head”, “Graceland”, “Born in the USA”, “Nevermind” and “The Joshua Tree”) on the list that definitely lend credibility to their objective. I haven't been “all about” some of those above mentioned albums but I do respect them or more importantly respect the musical tastes of those people (or critics) that are into them. I will have to say that having a third of the list being legitimate was a pleasant surprise.
2. This is Coug Country so I don't have a problem with him having Scarecrow on the list. I can buy that.
3. The following classic rock albums (Peter Gabriel's “So”, Dire Straits' “Brothers in Arms” and The Police's “Synchronicity”) wouldn't make my list but they aren't bad choices for this particular viewing audience. They could have been a lot worse (Tonic or Collective Soul)
4. “Eric Clapton Unplugged”...I'm sorry but Clapton is arguable the most overrated rock artist of all time. I know personal tragedy is a key theme on the album...and I don't mean to be a dick...but that in itself doesn't automatically make for a great piece of work. It doesn't belong on the list or any list of “best albums.” When rock icons (allegedly) go sappy...the results normally aren't that awesome.
5. Let me see...which artist (or band) have two albums on the list...Springsteen...No. U2...No. REM....No. Nirvana....No. Prince...No. Oh wait...John Mayer and Dave Matthews Band. WTF....let me repeat that WTF!. This is why WTTS stinks so much of the time. I have no idea what about these two artists that is so appealing. Seriously...I don't get it. I guess people are into Dave because his music is “different”...I don't know...I just find it uninspiring and boring to listen to (which is problematic for a song). There's a few John Mayer songs that I don't mind but most of his songs are so “soft-rock” that I just can't handle it.
6. I never know what to make of Pearl Jam. Sometimes I'm into them...and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I think there place in rock and roll history is overrated...and sometimes I think it isn't. I was never into Pearl Jam when they broke so I have no personal history or connection with them. I will definitely say that I don't have a problem with “Ten” being on the list but there is no way that it should be number 2. I do know that.
7. More WTF...Counting Crows, “August and Everything After” at number 3. Wow. That has me at a loss of words.
8. Including such albums by David Gray, Norah Jones and Alanis Morisette isn't to surprising considering that they play these artists incessantly. I don't dislike these artists but they only reinforce the notion of the station being wussy or catering to an audience that likes wuss-rock.
Ultimately, the list isn't half bad. It is hard to argue with “The Joshua Tree” not being number 1. I can buy that. Like I said before about a third of list is quite legit. Of course there were several head-scratching...WTF selections. That is to be expected.
There is one big omission from the list but really the album doesn't fit into WTTS's format. But come on... any list of the best albums from the past 25 years has to include this album.
Several days ago they revealed their list of the top 25 albums from the past 25 years (based on 92.3 VIP listeners). Check out the list and come back for my take.
Commentary below...
1. Legitimately they have nine albums (“Yankee Hotel Foxtrot”, “OK Computer”, “Automatic for the People”, “Purple Rain”, “A Rush of Blood to the Head”, “Graceland”, “Born in the USA”, “Nevermind” and “The Joshua Tree”) on the list that definitely lend credibility to their objective. I haven't been “all about” some of those above mentioned albums but I do respect them or more importantly respect the musical tastes of those people (or critics) that are into them. I will have to say that having a third of the list being legitimate was a pleasant surprise.
2. This is Coug Country so I don't have a problem with him having Scarecrow on the list. I can buy that.
3. The following classic rock albums (Peter Gabriel's “So”, Dire Straits' “Brothers in Arms” and The Police's “Synchronicity”) wouldn't make my list but they aren't bad choices for this particular viewing audience. They could have been a lot worse (Tonic or Collective Soul)
4. “Eric Clapton Unplugged”...I'm sorry but Clapton is arguable the most overrated rock artist of all time. I know personal tragedy is a key theme on the album...and I don't mean to be a dick...but that in itself doesn't automatically make for a great piece of work. It doesn't belong on the list or any list of “best albums.” When rock icons (allegedly) go sappy...the results normally aren't that awesome.
5. Let me see...which artist (or band) have two albums on the list...Springsteen...No. U2...No. REM....No. Nirvana....No. Prince...No. Oh wait...John Mayer and Dave Matthews Band. WTF....let me repeat that WTF!. This is why WTTS stinks so much of the time. I have no idea what about these two artists that is so appealing. Seriously...I don't get it. I guess people are into Dave because his music is “different”...I don't know...I just find it uninspiring and boring to listen to (which is problematic for a song). There's a few John Mayer songs that I don't mind but most of his songs are so “soft-rock” that I just can't handle it.
6. I never know what to make of Pearl Jam. Sometimes I'm into them...and sometimes I'm not. Sometimes I think there place in rock and roll history is overrated...and sometimes I think it isn't. I was never into Pearl Jam when they broke so I have no personal history or connection with them. I will definitely say that I don't have a problem with “Ten” being on the list but there is no way that it should be number 2. I do know that.
7. More WTF...Counting Crows, “August and Everything After” at number 3. Wow. That has me at a loss of words.
8. Including such albums by David Gray, Norah Jones and Alanis Morisette isn't to surprising considering that they play these artists incessantly. I don't dislike these artists but they only reinforce the notion of the station being wussy or catering to an audience that likes wuss-rock.
Ultimately, the list isn't half bad. It is hard to argue with “The Joshua Tree” not being number 1. I can buy that. Like I said before about a third of list is quite legit. Of course there were several head-scratching...WTF selections. That is to be expected.
There is one big omission from the list but really the album doesn't fit into WTTS's format. But come on... any list of the best albums from the past 25 years has to include this album.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
"Walk Hard" red band Trailer
I'll admit when I saw a trailer for Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox story in the theatre a few weeks ago I wasn't overly optimistic that the movie was going to be any good. That was too bad because I really like (and who doesn't) John C. Reilly.
Here's the red band trailer for the movie and things are looking up. I'm still not convinced that it's going to be a comedic gem but there is definitely potential.
Here's the red band trailer for the movie and things are looking up. I'm still not convinced that it's going to be a comedic gem but there is definitely potential.
Moorehead out...Klecko back in!
Via the indystar.com
This is pretty good news. Not to be mean but Moorehead was borderline worthless on offense.
It is good to see Klecko back. He rocks.
Aaron Moorehead's season is over. The Indianapolis Colts placed their veteran wide receiver on the injured reserve list with a back injury.
Moorehead, who's been a backup receiver since signing as an undrafted rookie in 2003, has been bothered by an unspecified back ailment much of the season. That situation was exacerbated in Sunday's win over Kansas City when he was hit in the back while attempting to catch a high pass from quarterback Peyton Manning.
The team filled Moorehead's spot on the active roster by re-signing veteran defensive tackle Dan Klecko. Klecko was waived last week to make room on the active roster for offensive tackle Corey Hilliard.
This is pretty good news. Not to be mean but Moorehead was borderline worthless on offense.
It is good to see Klecko back. He rocks.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
"Lions for Lambs" movie review
This week we take a look at a big movie with quiet box office results so far: Lions For Lambs (PG-13). Robert Redford directs and costars as a college professor who taught two students now serving in Afghanistan. Another plot line shows Meryl Streep as a reporter interviewing a U.S. Senator (Tom Cruise) about the latest foreign policy attempt to win the war on terror.
Ryan: I was surprised at first with how Lions for Lambs has been under performing at the box-office. After all, the movie boasts a cast of legendary stars (Cruise, Streep and Redford). But after seeing the movie I can see why the film has not caught on with an audience. Make no mistake about it, Lions for Lambs is not a bad movie, in fact it is quite engaging at times, but overall the movie is one-sided (to the political left), slightly pretentious and overly preachy. Right away the movie is alienating a conservative audience. Most right-leaning moviegoers are probably going to dismiss the film as liberal propaganda, and while that is not completely accurate, there is some degree of truth to it.
Andy: Dismissing Lions for Lambs as lefty propaganda would be an easy thing to do, but I came away from the movie impressed on a variety of levels. It does seem a bit like its pandering at times (especially in the sequences featuring Redford), but it does not grossly oversimplify the issues as many movies do. It acknowledges the complexities the war on terror and attempts to look at it on three different levels (government, military, citizen). If there is an underlying message, it is that people should be more involved, or at the very least better informed, in the world politics our country is practicing, and it's hard to find fault with that claim.
Ryan: Not only is the movie not going to appeal to conservatives, I don't believe it's going to do much for liberals either. Regrettably the movie is a big let down because it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It adds nothing fresh to our foreign policy discourse. It asks the same old questions and provides no new answers. If this film came out three or four years ago, it would be relevant. But in 2007, it isn't. It's already dated. Considering the talent involved in the film, one would have expected more.
Andy: I wouldn't be so quick to call the film dated, as the number of movies that have come out on these issues using contemporary language and events is actually pretty small, especially from Hollywood. The root of what makes the movie compelling to me is the performance of Tom Cruise. For years Cruise has been playing slick, smooth talking, vaguely likable characters, so it's in some ways surprising that it took him this long to play a politician. His speeches to Meryl Streep about the war on terror are framed by the filmmaker in a way to make us be distrustful of them. But Cruise lays them out logically, passionately, and in a way that a reasonable person would have trouble finding serious fault with. In its failure to seriously answer the question of why we should distrust what he is saying, Lions for Lambs becomes less declarative than it wanted to be, but more complex.
Ryan: Like I said before, there are moments of intrigue in the movie. The film is interconnected with three separate stories and some work better than others. The scenes with Cruise and Streep are the most engrossing and both actors do a superb job with their respected performances. The scene with Redford, as a professor talking to a lackadaisical student, is interesting and provides the real weight of the movie that of getting involved to make a difference. The storyline with the two soldiers is not on the same level of the other two narratives mainly because it is not developed as well as the other two stories.
Overall,though, this is a movie that should have been better than it is. Final grade: C+.
Andy: I'll agree that the story of the two soldiers was in some ways wasted. They are interesting characters portrayed by relatively unknown actors who did a pretty good job (Michael Pena and Derek Luke), but they simply weren't developed enough to hold the weight the film needed them to. It was probably worth having this plot be a little light to avoid the movie pushing much more over two hours, though.
Generally Lions for Lambs only misfires a bit, and is an interesting and entertaining movie. Final grade: B+.
Ryan: I was surprised at first with how Lions for Lambs has been under performing at the box-office. After all, the movie boasts a cast of legendary stars (Cruise, Streep and Redford). But after seeing the movie I can see why the film has not caught on with an audience. Make no mistake about it, Lions for Lambs is not a bad movie, in fact it is quite engaging at times, but overall the movie is one-sided (to the political left), slightly pretentious and overly preachy. Right away the movie is alienating a conservative audience. Most right-leaning moviegoers are probably going to dismiss the film as liberal propaganda, and while that is not completely accurate, there is some degree of truth to it.
Andy: Dismissing Lions for Lambs as lefty propaganda would be an easy thing to do, but I came away from the movie impressed on a variety of levels. It does seem a bit like its pandering at times (especially in the sequences featuring Redford), but it does not grossly oversimplify the issues as many movies do. It acknowledges the complexities the war on terror and attempts to look at it on three different levels (government, military, citizen). If there is an underlying message, it is that people should be more involved, or at the very least better informed, in the world politics our country is practicing, and it's hard to find fault with that claim.
Ryan: Not only is the movie not going to appeal to conservatives, I don't believe it's going to do much for liberals either. Regrettably the movie is a big let down because it doesn't bring anything new to the table. It adds nothing fresh to our foreign policy discourse. It asks the same old questions and provides no new answers. If this film came out three or four years ago, it would be relevant. But in 2007, it isn't. It's already dated. Considering the talent involved in the film, one would have expected more.
Andy: I wouldn't be so quick to call the film dated, as the number of movies that have come out on these issues using contemporary language and events is actually pretty small, especially from Hollywood. The root of what makes the movie compelling to me is the performance of Tom Cruise. For years Cruise has been playing slick, smooth talking, vaguely likable characters, so it's in some ways surprising that it took him this long to play a politician. His speeches to Meryl Streep about the war on terror are framed by the filmmaker in a way to make us be distrustful of them. But Cruise lays them out logically, passionately, and in a way that a reasonable person would have trouble finding serious fault with. In its failure to seriously answer the question of why we should distrust what he is saying, Lions for Lambs becomes less declarative than it wanted to be, but more complex.
Ryan: Like I said before, there are moments of intrigue in the movie. The film is interconnected with three separate stories and some work better than others. The scenes with Cruise and Streep are the most engrossing and both actors do a superb job with their respected performances. The scene with Redford, as a professor talking to a lackadaisical student, is interesting and provides the real weight of the movie that of getting involved to make a difference. The storyline with the two soldiers is not on the same level of the other two narratives mainly because it is not developed as well as the other two stories.
Overall,though, this is a movie that should have been better than it is. Final grade: C+.
Andy: I'll agree that the story of the two soldiers was in some ways wasted. They are interesting characters portrayed by relatively unknown actors who did a pretty good job (Michael Pena and Derek Luke), but they simply weren't developed enough to hold the weight the film needed them to. It was probably worth having this plot be a little light to avoid the movie pushing much more over two hours, though.
Generally Lions for Lambs only misfires a bit, and is an interesting and entertaining movie. Final grade: B+.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Klecko Released by Colts
My wife is upset...the Colts released her favorite Colt, Dan Klecko, today.
Honestly...not much of a surprise (since he rarely plays--even with the rash of injuries)...but he will always be part of Colts history with his touchdown reception in the AFC Championship game last year.
We'll miss you, Klecko.
Honestly...not much of a surprise (since he rarely plays--even with the rash of injuries)...but he will always be part of Colts history with his touchdown reception in the AFC Championship game last year.
We'll miss you, Klecko.
The Death of Batman
That's correct...the internet is abuzz with rumors that next summer DC Comics plans on killing Batman/Bruce Wayne and that either Tim Drake (the current Robin) or Dick Grayson (Nightwing and former Robin) would don the mantle.
There's no question that DC is building towards a "Final Crisis" I haven't been reading a lot of those titles leading up to that event but know that it is happening. In the past couple of years we've had Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis so another Crisis is imminent.
Of course DC Comics has traveled this road before in the mid '90 with the Death of Superman. That was definitely a stunt...but one that was thought out (by the Superman writers and artist) and one that had good storytelling (including the Funeral for a Friend storyline and Return of Superman storyline).
If DC Comics wants to do it...and they have a good story then I can buy it...solely on the condition that Bruce Wayne comes back. Yes this is the Comic Book world where characters come back to life more frequently than they do on daytime Soap Operas. Even the ones that you wouldn't expect to come back (Jason Todd, Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan)...they come back.
I was pretty mad when I read about this last night and declared (and it might not be true) that I might be done with comic books if Bruce Wayne never comes back. I realize that is a bold statement.
It would infuriate me if the original Batman was truly dead...and I would probably break something.
There's no question that DC is building towards a "Final Crisis" I haven't been reading a lot of those titles leading up to that event but know that it is happening. In the past couple of years we've had Identity Crisis and Infinite Crisis so another Crisis is imminent.
Of course DC Comics has traveled this road before in the mid '90 with the Death of Superman. That was definitely a stunt...but one that was thought out (by the Superman writers and artist) and one that had good storytelling (including the Funeral for a Friend storyline and Return of Superman storyline).
If DC Comics wants to do it...and they have a good story then I can buy it...solely on the condition that Bruce Wayne comes back. Yes this is the Comic Book world where characters come back to life more frequently than they do on daytime Soap Operas. Even the ones that you wouldn't expect to come back (Jason Todd, Oliver Queen and Hal Jordan)...they come back.
I was pretty mad when I read about this last night and declared (and it might not be true) that I might be done with comic books if Bruce Wayne never comes back. I realize that is a bold statement.
It would infuriate me if the original Batman was truly dead...and I would probably break something.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
"The Other Boleyn Girl" movie trailer
Click here to see trailer.
Let's see...who would one choose...Natalie Portman or Scarlett Johansson?
Damn that Eric Bana.
Let's see...who would one choose...Natalie Portman or Scarlett Johansson?
Damn that Eric Bana.
"Game of Shadows" update
Hot off the presses...Barry Bonds indicted on perjury and obstruction of justice charges.
Playing baseball is going to be the least of his concerns now.
Playing baseball is going to be the least of his concerns now.
"Maybe we ain't that young anymore..."
Well I turned 30 yesterday...and I can safely say it doesn't feel any different. Not that I was expecting it too...but one never knows. Although I was thinking that it is a big difference that there isn't a number "2" in front of your age. Even if you were in your late 20's...you were sill in your twenties, which is still a sign of being young. Once you turn 30 that's all over. Even the word "thirty" is just so much more harsh sounding than saying that you are twenty-something.
I will say that I don't feel old(er). In fact I pretty much feel and act the same way I've always acted. That might be kind of ridiculous to some people...but I would argue that it's being consistent. I've always thought that I've had a decent maturity-level.
Enough of that psyco-babble.
--Dwight Freeney's season is done...but the Colts season isn't. This team is tough and will still hold onto the number 2 seed in the AFC.
--Padres ace, Jake Peavy, won the NL Cy Young award today...not to surpring considering that he lead the NL in wins, strikeouts and ERA...although he didn't pitch to hot in the one game playoff with the Rockies.
--I'm almost officially done with Sportscenter. They should just rename the show "New England Patriots Hype Machine." They are seriously running a daily segment on the "pursuit of perfection." Please. I don't remember that segment when the Colts started the season 13-0. Total Crap.
I will say that I don't feel old(er). In fact I pretty much feel and act the same way I've always acted. That might be kind of ridiculous to some people...but I would argue that it's being consistent. I've always thought that I've had a decent maturity-level.
Enough of that psyco-babble.
--Dwight Freeney's season is done...but the Colts season isn't. This team is tough and will still hold onto the number 2 seed in the AFC.
--Padres ace, Jake Peavy, won the NL Cy Young award today...not to surpring considering that he lead the NL in wins, strikeouts and ERA...although he didn't pitch to hot in the one game playoff with the Rockies.
--I'm almost officially done with Sportscenter. They should just rename the show "New England Patriots Hype Machine." They are seriously running a daily segment on the "pursuit of perfection." Please. I don't remember that segment when the Colts started the season 13-0. Total Crap.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Game of Shadows
I just finished Game of Shadows (by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams), the book that outlines the BALCO steroid story with regard to Barry Bonds and other athletes. One always here stuff referenced to it so I thought it was time to check it out for myself.
Newsflash...Barry Bonds is not only a surely guy...but he's a cheat. I'm by no means a Bonds-apologist but in some way I was in denial with how rampant his juicing was. I guess I was holding out some degree of hope that maybe he was only doping during the record breaking 2001 season. According to the book..and I buy a large portion of it...Bonds was juicing before that and after.
It seems that still to this day...that a number of people don't buy it (Bonds as a rampant juicer). They claim...well he's never been busted for a positive steroid test. Yes, that is true but...A) there wasn't steroid testing until a few years ago and B) MLB doesn't test for human growth hormone, which Bonds was using.
The most damaging evidence against Bonds is how well the doping cocktails worked (especially) for the track and field stars. This is a popular argument for people in denial about Bonds...they say...steroids don't help a player hit a baseball. With track and field--as opposed to baseball--results can be more definitive because A) it's an individual sport and B) there are way less outside factors that can effect the athletes given performance. It is definitely easier to measure and quantify the results from a race than a baseball game.
--Tim Montgomery went from not being able to qualify for the 2000 Summer Olympics to being (at least temporarily) the world record holder in the 100 meters.
--Michelle Collins went from being almost washed up to setting US (indoor) records in 200-meter fun with help from the The Cream and The Clear
--Look at Marion Jones...her career stalled when it became apparent she wasn't doping.
The bottom line is that the doping drugs from BALCO...the Cream, The clear, HGH, THG...significantly enhances an athletes ability to perform. So it is completely ridiculous to assume that a baseball player is not going to be enhanced from taking the drugs. Even in baseball with other factors influencing a hitter (the pitcher, his protection in the order, the weather) being on the illegal drugs makes one perform better. It's as simple as that.
I've always said that the tragedy of Bonds is that one never knows where the talent stops and the steroids start. Even though one can make a strong argument that Bonds's numbers are tainted...one can't just subtract X number of homeruns from his total to come up with some levelheaded total with regard to how many "genuine" homers he hit. We just have to deal with it.
It's a shame and tragedy (for the baseball records that Bonds has broke) because he was already a hall of fame caliber player.
Newsflash...Barry Bonds is not only a surely guy...but he's a cheat. I'm by no means a Bonds-apologist but in some way I was in denial with how rampant his juicing was. I guess I was holding out some degree of hope that maybe he was only doping during the record breaking 2001 season. According to the book..and I buy a large portion of it...Bonds was juicing before that and after.
It seems that still to this day...that a number of people don't buy it (Bonds as a rampant juicer). They claim...well he's never been busted for a positive steroid test. Yes, that is true but...A) there wasn't steroid testing until a few years ago and B) MLB doesn't test for human growth hormone, which Bonds was using.
The most damaging evidence against Bonds is how well the doping cocktails worked (especially) for the track and field stars. This is a popular argument for people in denial about Bonds...they say...steroids don't help a player hit a baseball. With track and field--as opposed to baseball--results can be more definitive because A) it's an individual sport and B) there are way less outside factors that can effect the athletes given performance. It is definitely easier to measure and quantify the results from a race than a baseball game.
--Tim Montgomery went from not being able to qualify for the 2000 Summer Olympics to being (at least temporarily) the world record holder in the 100 meters.
--Michelle Collins went from being almost washed up to setting US (indoor) records in 200-meter fun with help from the The Cream and The Clear
--Look at Marion Jones...her career stalled when it became apparent she wasn't doping.
The bottom line is that the doping drugs from BALCO...the Cream, The clear, HGH, THG...significantly enhances an athletes ability to perform. So it is completely ridiculous to assume that a baseball player is not going to be enhanced from taking the drugs. Even in baseball with other factors influencing a hitter (the pitcher, his protection in the order, the weather) being on the illegal drugs makes one perform better. It's as simple as that.
I've always said that the tragedy of Bonds is that one never knows where the talent stops and the steroids start. Even though one can make a strong argument that Bonds's numbers are tainted...one can't just subtract X number of homeruns from his total to come up with some levelheaded total with regard to how many "genuine" homers he hit. We just have to deal with it.
It's a shame and tragedy (for the baseball records that Bonds has broke) because he was already a hall of fame caliber player.
"The Darjeeling Limited" movie review
We switch gears this week by taking a look at the indie film, The Darjeeling Limited ( R). Wes Anderson directs this off-beat tale (of comedy and drama) of three estranged brothers trying to rekindle their relationship while on a train ride in India. The film stars Owen Wilson,Adrien Brodey and Jason Schwartzman.
Ryan: I want to preface this review by saying that Wes Anderson has never made a bad or even mediocre film. His films are all way-above average (with some being modern-day classics--Bottle Rocket and Rushmore). But there is a slightly disturbing trend with his films. When he makes a new film it's never quite as good as the previous one. It is not a drastic slope but it is slightly alarming because Anderson is such a talented filmmaker. Thankfully The Darjeeling Limited breaks that trend. It is not Anderson's best work but it is better than his last outing, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.
Andy: I must fully disclose that I am a total sucker for Wes Anderson. I love pretty much all of his movies, so the chance of me going into this one and not liking it was pretty slim. Furthermore, I'd watched the--Part I Hotel Chevalier--on the internet and was blown away. It is able to pack months and months of a relationship's pain and baggage into just a few minutes of film, with almost no dialogue. In many ways, this is Anderson's greatest strength as a filmmaker. He is able to make a scene feel like there is a whole lot more going on than initial appearances indicate. You get the feeling that you know some of these characters' histories, even when it is not clearly presented.
Ryan: Never content in just being a standard director, Anderson elevates things a bit by showing a short film, Hotel Chevalier, before the feature film. The eight-minute short stars Jason Schwartzman and Natalie Portman (as estranged lovers) and ultimately provides an intriguing back-story to some of the events that take place in The Darjeeling Limited. The brilliance of the short film is that it can simultaneously stand on its own merit and also serve as an introduction to the narrative of the feature film. Hats off to Anderson for using a lost art to make the film-going experience more enriching.
Andy: Love him or hate him, Anderson has a definite style to his movies. That is surprisingly rare in American cinema today, so he gets some art-house points just for being unique. But most striking here is how he allows the actors to work their craft. Each of the leads has a striking visual appearance that hints at what the character is actually like. As the brothers banter and argue, themes start to emerge. Brodey is clearly the class of the group from an acting standpoint, but all three of them are able to portray characters that are very likable while being full of contradictions and shortcomings.
Ryan: I don't want to define Anderson's films as simply being quirky but they definitely have their own charm that might be an acquired taste for the casual moveigoer. The Darjeeling Limited showcases the attributes that makes Anderson's film so engaging. One has eccentric characters in unconventional situations. Depending on the strength of the interaction between the characters with regard to their environment is key in determining how successful an Anderson movie is. With The Darjeeling Limited, that storytelling theme is played out in entertaining and engrossing manner.
Andy: Another signature of a Wes Anderson film is the use of the soundtrack. He almost always has a very listenable set of songs that he masterfully incorporates in the movie, and this one is no exception. It's gotten to the point now where it's almost like there is a template he his using. There is frequently a scene of characters walking in slow motion while some British-invasion rock song is playing on the soundtrack. The thing is, that scene is usually one of the coolest in the movie, as it is here with The Kinks “Strangers.”
The Darjeeling Limited may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's visually stunning, well-acted, cohesive piece of work that is well worth taking the chance on watching. Final grade: B+.
Ryan: I want to preface this review by saying that Wes Anderson has never made a bad or even mediocre film. His films are all way-above average (with some being modern-day classics--Bottle Rocket and Rushmore). But there is a slightly disturbing trend with his films. When he makes a new film it's never quite as good as the previous one. It is not a drastic slope but it is slightly alarming because Anderson is such a talented filmmaker. Thankfully The Darjeeling Limited breaks that trend. It is not Anderson's best work but it is better than his last outing, The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.
Andy: I must fully disclose that I am a total sucker for Wes Anderson. I love pretty much all of his movies, so the chance of me going into this one and not liking it was pretty slim. Furthermore, I'd watched the--Part I Hotel Chevalier--on the internet and was blown away. It is able to pack months and months of a relationship's pain and baggage into just a few minutes of film, with almost no dialogue. In many ways, this is Anderson's greatest strength as a filmmaker. He is able to make a scene feel like there is a whole lot more going on than initial appearances indicate. You get the feeling that you know some of these characters' histories, even when it is not clearly presented.
Ryan: Never content in just being a standard director, Anderson elevates things a bit by showing a short film, Hotel Chevalier, before the feature film. The eight-minute short stars Jason Schwartzman and Natalie Portman (as estranged lovers) and ultimately provides an intriguing back-story to some of the events that take place in The Darjeeling Limited. The brilliance of the short film is that it can simultaneously stand on its own merit and also serve as an introduction to the narrative of the feature film. Hats off to Anderson for using a lost art to make the film-going experience more enriching.
Andy: Love him or hate him, Anderson has a definite style to his movies. That is surprisingly rare in American cinema today, so he gets some art-house points just for being unique. But most striking here is how he allows the actors to work their craft. Each of the leads has a striking visual appearance that hints at what the character is actually like. As the brothers banter and argue, themes start to emerge. Brodey is clearly the class of the group from an acting standpoint, but all three of them are able to portray characters that are very likable while being full of contradictions and shortcomings.
Ryan: I don't want to define Anderson's films as simply being quirky but they definitely have their own charm that might be an acquired taste for the casual moveigoer. The Darjeeling Limited showcases the attributes that makes Anderson's film so engaging. One has eccentric characters in unconventional situations. Depending on the strength of the interaction between the characters with regard to their environment is key in determining how successful an Anderson movie is. With The Darjeeling Limited, that storytelling theme is played out in entertaining and engrossing manner.
Andy: Another signature of a Wes Anderson film is the use of the soundtrack. He almost always has a very listenable set of songs that he masterfully incorporates in the movie, and this one is no exception. It's gotten to the point now where it's almost like there is a template he his using. There is frequently a scene of characters walking in slow motion while some British-invasion rock song is playing on the soundtrack. The thing is, that scene is usually one of the coolest in the movie, as it is here with The Kinks “Strangers.”
The Darjeeling Limited may not be everyone's cup of tea, but it's visually stunning, well-acted, cohesive piece of work that is well worth taking the chance on watching. Final grade: B+.
Monday, November 12, 2007
The Monday Blues
I've been stewing about last night's game all day...here's my take.
1. The Earth is still rotating...meaning the season is not lost...talking to some people today...one would have thought that the Colts are no better than the Miami Dolphins. This is still a good team...even with the injuries...this team battles and never quits. They played one of the worst games a team can play and still could (and should have) won.
2. Manning had a horrendous day...no question about that...he was not on his A-game...but dammit he battled and put his team in position to win. The Colts did not lose that game because Manning had 6 picks...no they lost because...
3. OUR SPECIAL TEAM PLAY IS HORRENDOUS. They gave up two touchdowns and Vinatieri missed two field goals. That's unacceptable. I don't know what is wrong with Adam...but he's been struggling all year...missing extra points...missing 29 yard filed goals...that's worse than Vanderjagt. As for the coverage...it's been a problem for a number of years...I don't know how to fix it...but maybe's its time to put Bob Sanders on the unit.
4. Our defense is still great. Even with all the injuries they played their asses off. I realize that San Diego's offense was pretty inept but the Colts D only gave up 10 points (with a lot of those possessions coming on short fields). The defensive scheme...this year...is working.
5. Aaron Moorehead stinks. Wow...this guy killed us. Seriously...LB's Gary Bracket and Clint Sessions have better hands then he does. We need Marvin.
6. Injuries. They continue to mount up...but that's not why we lost the game (see number #3). In fact...a lot of the substitutes (especially on the offensive and defensive line) played really well. At other positions...WR...we have nothing.
It was just so frustrating because...despite how bad we played...we were in position to win the game. It's gut-wrenching. On the other hand...they didn't give up...they played tough...they probably didn't deserve to win the game...but...I don't know. Ultimately I'm still confident in this team...they can be champions again.
1. The Earth is still rotating...meaning the season is not lost...talking to some people today...one would have thought that the Colts are no better than the Miami Dolphins. This is still a good team...even with the injuries...this team battles and never quits. They played one of the worst games a team can play and still could (and should have) won.
2. Manning had a horrendous day...no question about that...he was not on his A-game...but dammit he battled and put his team in position to win. The Colts did not lose that game because Manning had 6 picks...no they lost because...
3. OUR SPECIAL TEAM PLAY IS HORRENDOUS. They gave up two touchdowns and Vinatieri missed two field goals. That's unacceptable. I don't know what is wrong with Adam...but he's been struggling all year...missing extra points...missing 29 yard filed goals...that's worse than Vanderjagt. As for the coverage...it's been a problem for a number of years...I don't know how to fix it...but maybe's its time to put Bob Sanders on the unit.
4. Our defense is still great. Even with all the injuries they played their asses off. I realize that San Diego's offense was pretty inept but the Colts D only gave up 10 points (with a lot of those possessions coming on short fields). The defensive scheme...this year...is working.
5. Aaron Moorehead stinks. Wow...this guy killed us. Seriously...LB's Gary Bracket and Clint Sessions have better hands then he does. We need Marvin.
6. Injuries. They continue to mount up...but that's not why we lost the game (see number #3). In fact...a lot of the substitutes (especially on the offensive and defensive line) played really well. At other positions...WR...we have nothing.
It was just so frustrating because...despite how bad we played...we were in position to win the game. It's gut-wrenching. On the other hand...they didn't give up...they played tough...they probably didn't deserve to win the game...but...I don't know. Ultimately I'm still confident in this team...they can be champions again.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Sunday Morning Rumblings
For my birthday, which is actually on the 14th, Jenny took me to Superhero Museum in downtown Indy. For 5 bucks a person, it's pretty cool. It takes about a half hour to go through and they have some pretty cool stuff. It's really a Superman/Batman museum as about 65% of the exhibits are Superman related and the other 35% is Batman. The highlights of the museum would be the Bat-boat from the 1966 Batman movie and the Batmobile from the 1989 film. That stuff is pretty cool. He also has costumes from the Superman film/TV incarnations--all the way from the 1940's movie serials to Smallville. They even have an autographed Club Zero-esque Michael Rosenbaum shirt. The museum is just filled with a lot of toys, some old, and other collectibles showcasing Superman and Batman. I'll be frank...take away the Batman movie artifacts...I would have to put my personal Batman collection against that of the museum's. All in all it was cool...while we were downtown...Jenny did treat me to lunch at Rock Bottom...and some Circle City Light. (Petty, you would have been able to get in this time)
--For cable subscribers in Indy...still no Big Ten Network. This issue has completely pissed me off to the extent that it's just about fried my brain. I'm holding out hope that something gets done...but if not I might be at Links during some of the IU games that will be on the Big Ten Network. I guess I should just get satellite but in reality I'm very satisfied with my digital cable...so I don't know.
--We officially have new neighbors at 127...haven't met them yet (a guy and girl couple) but to my surprise they have an outside pet dog.
--I hope the Colts rebound this weekend...but I'm weary just because the team is so banged up. Another loss is not going to wreck their season...but I want them to hold on to that number 2 seed in the AFC. Should be Addai time again.
--The Hoosiers kick off their season on Monday night and I think they are going to have a stellar year. They should compete if not win the Big Ten and a run at the Final Four is definitely not out of the question.
--For cable subscribers in Indy...still no Big Ten Network. This issue has completely pissed me off to the extent that it's just about fried my brain. I'm holding out hope that something gets done...but if not I might be at Links during some of the IU games that will be on the Big Ten Network. I guess I should just get satellite but in reality I'm very satisfied with my digital cable...so I don't know.
--We officially have new neighbors at 127...haven't met them yet (a guy and girl couple) but to my surprise they have an outside pet dog.
--I hope the Colts rebound this weekend...but I'm weary just because the team is so banged up. Another loss is not going to wreck their season...but I want them to hold on to that number 2 seed in the AFC. Should be Addai time again.
--The Hoosiers kick off their season on Monday night and I think they are going to have a stellar year. They should compete if not win the Big Ten and a run at the Final Four is definitely not out of the question.
Friday, November 9, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
"Heroes" Season 2 Stuggles
Found this over at ew.com...Heroes creator Tim Kring is apologizing to fans for some of season 2's shortcomings. I have to agree with him on a lot of them...the show really struggled for the first few episodes but does seem to be getting back on track (it didn't help that Jenny and I were about 3 episodes behind...but we are currently caught up).
By Jeff Jensen
On the chilly Monday morning that Hollywood's writers went on strike, Heroes creator Tim Kring called from the streets outside the Hollywood studio where his NBC series is shot. ''Yes, I'm picketing my own show,'' says the 50-year-old writer-producer. ''So surreal.''
But Kring wasn't calling to discuss labor woes — he was calling to explain why Heroes, suffering a creative decline and a 15 percent ratings drop from the same period last year, went from Human Torch hot to Iceman cold. The good news? A turnaround appears to be under way. After weeks of sluggish storytelling, the Nov. 5 episode recaptured some of last season's fanciful energy. We've also seen the next two episodes — and we like them, too. The cliff-hangers are back. Narrative purpose has been discovered. Old favorites like Peter (Milo Ventimiglia) and Horn-Rimmed Glasses (Jack Coleman) take center stage. Even more encouraging: Kring himself is keenly aware that Heroes is broken. Here's his candid critique:
THE PACE IS TOO SLOW ''We assumed the audience wanted season 1 — a buildup of intrigue about these characters and the discovery of their powers. We taught [them] to expect a certain kind of storytelling. They wanted adrenaline. We made a mistake.''
THE WORLD-SAVING STAKES SHOULD HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED SOONER The premonition of nuclear apocalypse created a larger context that unified every story line last season. Kring now sees that Volume 2 (the first 11 episodes of season 2) would have been better served if Peter's vision of viral Armageddon had appeared in the season premiere rather than episode 7. ''We took too long to get to the big-picture story,'' he says.
THE ROOKIES DIDN'T GREET THEMSELVES PROPERLY New Heroes Monica (Dana Davis), Maya (Dania Ramirez), and Alejandro (Shalim Ortiz) ''shouldn't have been introduced in separate story lines that felt unattached to the show. The way we introduced Elle (Kristen Bell) — by weaving her in via Peter's story line — is a more logical way to bring new characters into the show.'' (That said, Kring says a few newbies won't make it beyond this second volume, which wraps Dec. 3.)
HIRO WAS IN JAPAN WAY TOO LONG Hiro's (Masi Oka) time-bending adventure in 17th-century Japan — where he mentored samurai hero Takezo Kensei (David Anders) — finally came to an end on Nov. 5. But Kring says it ''should have [lasted] three episodes. We didn't give the audience enough story to justify the time we allotted it.''
YOUNG LOVE STINKS Kring regrets sticking Claire (Hayden Panettiere) with a super-dud boyfriend and forcing Hiro to moon over a cutesy princess. ''I've seen more convincing romances on TV,'' he admits. ''In retrospect, I don't think romance is a natural fit for us.''
Yet while Heroes has finally found some dramatic traction, this second volume is pretty much a wash. The Dec. 3 episode has been retooled to function as a potential season finale — a move inspired by the writers' strike and a desire to give the show ''a clean slate'' when it goes back into production for Volume 3. At that point, Kring wants to craft a rebooted Heroes that can attract new fans and win back those who've tuned out: ''The message is that we've heard the complaints — and we're doing something about it.''
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Greg Maddux, greatest defensive player ever
Well probably not...but he is now the all-time leader with 17 Gold Gloves. He breaks the mark of 16...held by Jim Kaat (Pitcher) and Brooks Robinson (3B).
Here's the story via Yahoo Sports
Here's the story via Yahoo Sports
Padres pitcher Greg Maddux won his record 17th Gold Glove while Boston first baseman Kevin Youkilis earned his first award Tuesday for fielding excellence.
Detroit catcher Ivan Rodriguez won for the 13th time and outfielders Andruw Jones, Ichiro Suzuki and Torii Hunter added to their totals. The Colorado Rockies, who set a major league record for fielding percentage, did not have a winner.
Maddux broke a tie with Baltimore third baseman Brooks Robinson and pitcher Jim Kaat for the most Gold Gloves.
Known for his quick reflexes on the mound even at age 41, Maddux won his first Gold Glove in 1990 with the Chicago Cubs. Since then, the 347-game winner has taken home the honor every year except 2003, when Mike Hampton broke his streak.
"It's cool to win again," Maddux said in a release. "I'm fortunate to still be pitching at this level and honored to be recognized with this prestigious award."
Earlier this week, Maddux and San Diego agreed to a one-year contract for next year.
The Gold Gloves were first awarded in 1957. Managers and coaches vote on players in their own leagues.
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Greensburg's Mayor's Race
The Frank Manus(D) administration is over.
Gary Herbert (R) defeated Manus by a vote of 1679 to 1000.
Gary Herbert (R) defeated Manus by a vote of 1679 to 1000.
"American Gangster" movie review
This week we'll be taking a look at the current #1 movie at the box office, American Gangster. Ridley Scott directs this detective (Russell Crowe) vs. gangster (Denzel Washington) drama, set mostly in New York City during the end of the Vietnam War.
Ryan: It is not everyday that two Hollywood megastars co-star in a major motion picture. The pairing of Washington and Crowe is what makes American Gangster such a must see film. Make no mistake about it: American Gangster is a very good film. It is not a movie that's an instant classic (or even best picture material like last year's The Departed) but it is a film that is tremendously well put together that showcases the talents of two of the best actors of their generation.
Andy: It's true that Crowe and Washington are both big stars, but make no mistake about it. Denzel Washington's presence here is what filled theatres. In spite of his obvious talent as an actor, Russell Crowe has never connected with his audience as a major draw to a movie. Washington, on the other hand, almost always seems to have a strong opening weekend, at least. This movie offers an example of why this may be the case. Crowe and Washington both have outstanding, equally impressive performances. But Washington seems so much cooler doing it than Crowe does. I wish Washington did not so frequently play the tough-as-nails anti-hero, but he sure is good at it.
Ryan: This isn't Washington's or Crowe's best work but they do deliver strong performances. They don't share much screen time together and that might put off some moviegoers. But their respected performances are solid enough that they propel the dual narratives along until they intersect each other. When they do finally meet up on screen it makes for a really cool movie moment. The scene might not have the most dramatic effect that one might want from the pairing of two stars but overall the scene works within the framework of the film.
Andy: I actually would have liked to see Ridley Scott play up the meeting of Crowe and Washington's characters a little bit more. The whole movie is leading us toward their inevitable confrontation, and when it happens it's a little anticlimactic. It would have been fun to watch two actors of this caliber trading chops on screen, but instead we get a bit of a tidy, wrapped up ending. As Ryan said, it does fit the movie pretty well, but it's hard not to wonder what could have been between the two.
Ryan: Like I said before, American Gangster is a fine film but it doesn't have that “something extra” that really grabs you. It's a film that's good enough to end up on many critics' top ten lists but it won't be a film that makes the number one spot. It just lacks that pizzazz that would have made it a great film. It's based on a true story and at times it feels like the movie's pace is more along the lines of a Sixty Minute's news segment as opposed to a drug-trafficking crime thriller. The resolution to the movie is a bit clunky as well as the movie takes an unexpected turn with the two leads that might frustrate some moviegoers. Even with these shortcomings, American Gangster is a finely made entertaining film.
Andy: Good, not great is a fine way of summing this movie up. There aren't that many shortcomings of the film, but nothing jumps out as being particularly overwhelming, either. It may garner a couple of random Oscar nominations, but mostly it's just a good, escapist crime drama. If this is the sort of movie you are into, you won't be disappointed, but no new ground has been broken here.
American Gangster is solidly constructed and well acted. Final grade: B+.
Ryan: It is not everyday that two Hollywood megastars co-star in a major motion picture. The pairing of Washington and Crowe is what makes American Gangster such a must see film. Make no mistake about it: American Gangster is a very good film. It is not a movie that's an instant classic (or even best picture material like last year's The Departed) but it is a film that is tremendously well put together that showcases the talents of two of the best actors of their generation.
Andy: It's true that Crowe and Washington are both big stars, but make no mistake about it. Denzel Washington's presence here is what filled theatres. In spite of his obvious talent as an actor, Russell Crowe has never connected with his audience as a major draw to a movie. Washington, on the other hand, almost always seems to have a strong opening weekend, at least. This movie offers an example of why this may be the case. Crowe and Washington both have outstanding, equally impressive performances. But Washington seems so much cooler doing it than Crowe does. I wish Washington did not so frequently play the tough-as-nails anti-hero, but he sure is good at it.
Ryan: This isn't Washington's or Crowe's best work but they do deliver strong performances. They don't share much screen time together and that might put off some moviegoers. But their respected performances are solid enough that they propel the dual narratives along until they intersect each other. When they do finally meet up on screen it makes for a really cool movie moment. The scene might not have the most dramatic effect that one might want from the pairing of two stars but overall the scene works within the framework of the film.
Andy: I actually would have liked to see Ridley Scott play up the meeting of Crowe and Washington's characters a little bit more. The whole movie is leading us toward their inevitable confrontation, and when it happens it's a little anticlimactic. It would have been fun to watch two actors of this caliber trading chops on screen, but instead we get a bit of a tidy, wrapped up ending. As Ryan said, it does fit the movie pretty well, but it's hard not to wonder what could have been between the two.
Ryan: Like I said before, American Gangster is a fine film but it doesn't have that “something extra” that really grabs you. It's a film that's good enough to end up on many critics' top ten lists but it won't be a film that makes the number one spot. It just lacks that pizzazz that would have made it a great film. It's based on a true story and at times it feels like the movie's pace is more along the lines of a Sixty Minute's news segment as opposed to a drug-trafficking crime thriller. The resolution to the movie is a bit clunky as well as the movie takes an unexpected turn with the two leads that might frustrate some moviegoers. Even with these shortcomings, American Gangster is a finely made entertaining film.
Andy: Good, not great is a fine way of summing this movie up. There aren't that many shortcomings of the film, but nothing jumps out as being particularly overwhelming, either. It may garner a couple of random Oscar nominations, but mostly it's just a good, escapist crime drama. If this is the sort of movie you are into, you won't be disappointed, but no new ground has been broken here.
American Gangster is solidly constructed and well acted. Final grade: B+.
Colts fallout Part II
All right...yes I was pissed on Sunday night. It wasn't until the Shelbyville exit (we watched the game at Reiger's condo in downtown Indy) that I could muster some words together to talk to my wife. (Hats off to her for putting up with my surliness...but she knows the drill...It just takes me some time to process a demoralizing sports lost with one of my teams). Ultimately it was a helluva of a game. It was exciting...it was nailbiting...it lived up to the hype. I don't think the Colts necessarily blew it...maybe gave it away...the Patriots on both ends of the ball made the plays in the fourth quater...and the Colts didn't.
Here are my observations:
1. Not much of a surprise but the Colts and Patriots are the best two teams in the NFL. Most people are aware of that...but this game proved it. It also proved that they are still, I think, evenly matched. The Patriots got us on Sunday but by no means are they utterly superior to us. If we played 10 games we would win half of them.
2. Randy Moss is a stud. When the pass rush faltered in the fourth quarter, it was then that Brady had the time to make the big play...and Moss has got to be the best big player receiver in the NFL. If they play again...I'm not to sure how the Colts will try to stop him...although I don't think Tim Jennings is the answer.
3. The Colts defense is good...I mean Super Bowl good. For 50 minutes they pretty much shut down the best offense in the NFL. They were making plays and getting pressure on Brady (which is the key to slowing them down and also why I think down the road...that the NY Giants might have more than chance to beat them). Unfortunately, due to fatigue or the Patriots making adjustments, the defense just could not hold them for the whole game. That was dishearting because they played their asses off.
4. I'm not saying that the injuries to several of our starters cost us the game but come on...it would have made a big difference...easily a 4 point difference. For the first time, the Colts offense really missed Harrison. The passing game was pretty slow and it is safe to say that with Harrison on the filed...at the very least...it opens more things up for the rest of the guys. The offensive line really missed Tony Ugoh as well especially in the fourth quarter. The line really let down the rest of the offensive in the fourth with the penalties and the lack of protection. And not to call out Charlie Johnson, who did an admirable job, but Ugoh is a stud and he would have made a difference. Maybe the defense would not have stumbled in the fourth quarter if Freddy Keiaho and/or Tyjuan Hagler would have played. Those guys are playmakers and greatly would have added to the defense's depth. I just think if the team was at full strength the result would have been different.
5. I don't buy the notion that the Colts can't win a potential rematch in Foxborough (AFC Championship). With the defense that the Colts have and with the ability to pound the ball with the run, they can win a smash'em up cold weather game. I'm not saying they should win...but they can. Furthermore, a cold weather game might actually effect the Patriots offense more than the Colts. The Pats are basically running the same 3 WR-set offense that the Colts ran in 2004. In a cold weather game with a tough defense (that the Colts have) the Pats' offense is not going to be running at optimum levels. I rather the game be in Indy...no question about that...but it's not a lost cause in New England (after all we have beat them the last two times in Foxborough).
6. I sill hate the Patriots. Tom Brady is great quarterback but he's also a whiny bitch. I remember quite vividly two instances of him whining during the game. (I'm aware that Manning doesn't have the best body language either...but he's better with it now). Bill Belicheck, while being a great football coach, is far from being a classy guy. His post-game handshake with Dungy boarded on being completely ridiculous. As for Teddy Bruschi...I just hate that guy. I'm just not going to say anything more.
Bottom line...the Patriots are a great team but so are the Colts. I hope we get them in the playoffs because we can beat them no matter where the game is going be.
Our next game in San Diego is not going to be an easy game...but I think we will get back on track.
Go Horse!
Here are my observations:
1. Not much of a surprise but the Colts and Patriots are the best two teams in the NFL. Most people are aware of that...but this game proved it. It also proved that they are still, I think, evenly matched. The Patriots got us on Sunday but by no means are they utterly superior to us. If we played 10 games we would win half of them.
2. Randy Moss is a stud. When the pass rush faltered in the fourth quarter, it was then that Brady had the time to make the big play...and Moss has got to be the best big player receiver in the NFL. If they play again...I'm not to sure how the Colts will try to stop him...although I don't think Tim Jennings is the answer.
3. The Colts defense is good...I mean Super Bowl good. For 50 minutes they pretty much shut down the best offense in the NFL. They were making plays and getting pressure on Brady (which is the key to slowing them down and also why I think down the road...that the NY Giants might have more than chance to beat them). Unfortunately, due to fatigue or the Patriots making adjustments, the defense just could not hold them for the whole game. That was dishearting because they played their asses off.
4. I'm not saying that the injuries to several of our starters cost us the game but come on...it would have made a big difference...easily a 4 point difference. For the first time, the Colts offense really missed Harrison. The passing game was pretty slow and it is safe to say that with Harrison on the filed...at the very least...it opens more things up for the rest of the guys. The offensive line really missed Tony Ugoh as well especially in the fourth quarter. The line really let down the rest of the offensive in the fourth with the penalties and the lack of protection. And not to call out Charlie Johnson, who did an admirable job, but Ugoh is a stud and he would have made a difference. Maybe the defense would not have stumbled in the fourth quarter if Freddy Keiaho and/or Tyjuan Hagler would have played. Those guys are playmakers and greatly would have added to the defense's depth. I just think if the team was at full strength the result would have been different.
5. I don't buy the notion that the Colts can't win a potential rematch in Foxborough (AFC Championship). With the defense that the Colts have and with the ability to pound the ball with the run, they can win a smash'em up cold weather game. I'm not saying they should win...but they can. Furthermore, a cold weather game might actually effect the Patriots offense more than the Colts. The Pats are basically running the same 3 WR-set offense that the Colts ran in 2004. In a cold weather game with a tough defense (that the Colts have) the Pats' offense is not going to be running at optimum levels. I rather the game be in Indy...no question about that...but it's not a lost cause in New England (after all we have beat them the last two times in Foxborough).
6. I sill hate the Patriots. Tom Brady is great quarterback but he's also a whiny bitch. I remember quite vividly two instances of him whining during the game. (I'm aware that Manning doesn't have the best body language either...but he's better with it now). Bill Belicheck, while being a great football coach, is far from being a classy guy. His post-game handshake with Dungy boarded on being completely ridiculous. As for Teddy Bruschi...I just hate that guy. I'm just not going to say anything more.
Bottom line...the Patriots are a great team but so are the Colts. I hope we get them in the playoffs because we can beat them no matter where the game is going be.
Our next game in San Diego is not going to be an easy game...but I think we will get back on track.
Go Horse!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)