RIP Eartha Kitt

I can't say that I knew a lot about Kitt's well-rounded career but she did make a sexy Catwoman in the 1960's Batman TV show.

Although it's pretty impressive that at one point in Kitt's career, Orson Welles declared (I'm sure with a glass of brandy in his hand) that she was "most exciting woman in the world."

I'll toast to that.

More Zach madness...

Enjoy...

Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis by Between Two Ferns

Imperial Stormtrooper apologist

Heads up to Bop for bringing up this image at the Christmas party last Saturday.

"Those were the droids I was looking for."

Top Five Christmas Songs

Here's my top five Christmas tunes...

5. "We Three Kings of Oriental" by The Beach Boys

This is one of my favorite Christmas hymns and I really like The Beach Boys version as it almost has an air of mysticism to it. Really...how can one beat the angelic harmonies of The Beach Boys.

4. "O Come All Ye Faithful" by Elvis Presley

This is my favorite religious Christmas song and Elvis's version has a majestic quality that fits the song.

3. "Christmas (Baby Please Come Home)" by U2

I know U2 is just covering this song...but they completely own it.

2. "Happy X-mas (War is Over)" by John Lennon

Not many contemporary artists have written memorable original Christmas songs...but John Lennon did. And it's truly a classic.

1. "Santa Claus is Coming to Town" by Bruce Springsteen

Santa Claus is Coming to Town isn't my favorite Christmas song but Springsteen's rendition of it is. The Boss proves that even Christmas carols can rock.

Between Two Ferns

Late World with Zach was truly ahead of its time.

Here is Zach's latest comedic shenanigans from the website, Funny or Die.

Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis by Between Two Ferns

Best Picture talk

With my love of movies, I always follow closely which movies will get nominated for Oscars—particularly for Best Picture. With the possibility of The Dark Knight getting a Best Picture nomination (it would be justifiable so) I’ve taken even more interest into the speculating process.

I believe at this point there’s six strong contenders—Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon, The Dark Knight and Revolutionary Road.

Many year-end critics lists have been coming out so the race is definitely taking shape.

Milk, The Dark Knight, Benjamin Button, Frost/Nixon and WALL-E all made AFI’s list of the top ten movies of 2008.

Milk has won the Southeastern, San Fransicso and New York Critics Circle award for Best Picture.

Benjamin Button as won the St. Louis Film Critics Award.

Slumdog Millionaire has taken home the San Diego, Boston (tie), Washington DC Critics Circle Award for Best Pictures and was named Best Picture by the National Board of Review.

The Dark Knight has won the Austin Film Critics Award for Best Picture and finished runner up with the LA Film Critics Association.

Interestingly enough WALL-E won top honors with the LA Circle and tied Slumdog Millionaire with the Boston Critics.

Unfortunately for WALL-E, I believe its fortune is going to be relegated to the category of Best Animated Film. I don’t think that’s fair because the movie is Best Picture material but I’m afraid that’s going to be the case. But it’s definitely a dark horse candidate.

Now why is Revolutionary Road still in the discussion…I believe that’s it’s still in the discussion because it scored some major nominations at the Golden Globes (Best Picture, Actor & Actress). But one might need to take that with a grain of salt because…as I have mentioned before…the Golden Globes tend to lean towards star power so nominating Leonardo DiCaprio would help fill that need (look…they nominated Tom Cruise as well). Plus sometimes the Golden Globes are just zippy so it’s hard to put a lot of stock into their decisions although it has been better lately.

At this point I would put Milk and Slumdog Millionaire as locks for Best Picture. It appears to me that the following four films… The Dark Knight, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Revolutionary Road and Frost/Nixon are fighting for the final three spots. Although I do see WALL-E as the top dark horse candidate. The next tier of possibilities would be Doubt (strong cast), The Wrestler (the Mickey Rourke comeback) and Rachel Getting Married (female bloggers love t his movie) and maybe Gran Torino (because the Academy loves Clint Eastwood).

My five to be the Best Picture nominees as of right now would be Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Dark Knight.

"Milk" Movie Review

With the holiday season in full swing we find ourselves inundated with Oscar-worthy films, making the end of year push for recognition. This week we decided to watch Milk (R), the Harvey Milk biopic starring Sean Penn, James Franco, and Josh Brolin. The film follows the political career of Milk, who became the first openly gay person elected to major political office when he won a city supervisor election in 1977 San Francisco. Gus Van Sant directs.

Ryan: With solid performances and expert directing, Milk is an extremely well-crafted movie. It didn’t blow me away but it’ll be in the conversation for Best Picture come Oscar time. Van Sant has fashioned a movie that’s not only historic but relevant as well. I value the fact that the movie doesn’t express its story with a specific agenda in mind. It presents the facts impartially and argues rightly that discrimination (especially with some of the homophobic legislation in the 1970's) in American is simply unacceptable.

Andy: As is usually the case when he is in a movie, Sean Penn carries Milk along the whole way, and the movie is only as strong as his performance. In this case, the movie is very strong. It is absolutely no secret that Penn is one of (if not the) best actors of his generation, and Milk is another feather in his acting cap. His performance is real, moving, and full of an energy that makes Harvey Milk seem like a guy you would want on your side. When the announcements come out for best actor nominations, it will be very hard to imagine Penn not making the list.

Ryan: Sean Penn is no stranger to the Oscars and he’ll be familiar with them again. He has delivered some stellar performances in his illustrious acting career and here with Milk he delivers another worthy performance. He portrays Milk as a real person and not as a caricature or savior. Penn is leading the way but the rest of the cast performs admirable as well. Franco and Brolin finish off their strong years with noteworthy performances and Hirsh continues to show that he’s one of the best young talents in today’s Hollywood.

Andy: Brolin has had an amazing run starting with last year’s No Country for Old Men. He does a remarkable job of being the understated political foil to Penn’s Milk. He is nowhere near as flashy in Milk as he was in W, but his performance is even-keeled and subtle in a way that many actors have a hard time pulling off. As for Franco, he continues his remarkably versatile career. He has carved out a niche as a high quality supporting player in spite of his leading-man abilities and looks. It is still likely that someday he will break big, but for now he seems happy doing what he is doing.

Ryan: In the past several years Van Sant has spent his time making more intimate albeit smaller productions. There's nothing wrong with that but it's nice to see him succeeding again with a major motion picture. An Oscar nomination for Best Director would not be out of the question either. It seems like bio-pics have been a dime a dozen lately so it's refreshing that Van Sant has produced a movie that feels fresh and energetic. By weaving in actual footage of some of the events depicted in the movie, Van Sant has created a bio-pic that conveys more authenticity than most biographical movies.

Andy: I was surprised to see that Van Sant’s last major release was Finding Forrester (2000). After the huge commercial success of Good Will Hunting, Van Sant is still a very familiar name in Hollywood, but has contented himself with smaller films over the large part of the last decade. Milk is unlikely to be a huge box-office hit, but it does allow one of the better directors out there a chance to shine on a larger stage.

Milk is not a perfect film, but it does everything very well. It seems likely we will be hearing more about this movie when the Oscars come around early next year.

Final grade: A-.

"Wolverine" Trailer

Doesn't look bad...but I can't say that it looks very awesome either.

I do lack Jackman and he does an awesome job playing Wolverine/Logan.

Maybe we'll see the Wolvie's Berserker Attack in this movie.

Saturday Morning Thoughts

Jenny and I had been slacking off a bit with our workouts at the Armory so we decided this morning to go bright and early. Consequently it's 9:00 and we've already had our workout for the day. I feel pretty good.

A few things...

--I got The Dark Knight on DVD...and yes I've watched all the special features and the movie again. Their really aren't any earth shattering special features (no deleted scenes or commentary tracks) but I did like watching the mini-web news episodes from Gotham City News. As for the movie...it still holds up after the fifth viewing. The more I watch it the more impressed I get with Christopher Nolan, the director. With every act in the movie the action successfully builds on one another thus creating an intense (and exciting) rising action. There's a purposeful rebooting of the action during the transitions between the acts thereby creating a new rising in the action and drama. I just love how the movie resolves itself and how it ends. It's just perfect.

--The Golden Globe Awards were announced earlier this week. It's hard to get too worked up either way with the Globes. The awards don't hold any weight but it's normally entertaining watching the show (and not a press conference...like last year's debacle). Initially I was frustrated The Dark Knight only scored one nomination (supporting role for Heath Ledger) but that might not be that bad of an omen when the Oscars are announced. The Golden Globes sometimes have that WTF mentality--like nominating Tom Cruise for best supporting actor for Tropic Thunder. That was a glorified cameo that was amusing but not awesome.

--Speaking of Hollywood...in a bit of surprise...Hugh Jackman will be hosting the Oscars. I was a bit surprised at first but I don't think it's bad move. Most people equate Jackman with his Wolverine screen persona but he's also a song and dance man and he does have experience with hosting...as he hosted the Tonys for a couple of years. He's charismatic guy and I think he'll be fine. He's also a versatile guy...how many people are aware that he has already won an Emmy (for hosting the 58th Tony Awards) and a Tony (best actor from "The Boy From Oz").

"Bolt" Movie Review

We switch things up a bit in this week’s review and take a look at a film that’s been hovering around the top of the box-office for a number of weeks. Bolt (PG) is the latest animated feature film from Disney Pictures and tells the tale of a TV-star canine who truly believes that his TV life is actually his reality. The movie showcases the voicing talents of John Travolta, Miley Cyrus and Susie Essman.

Ryan: As far as animated films goes, Bolt is a pleasant movie-going experience. The film will not only satisfy kids but the adults that accompany them as well. The movie doesn’t have the depth or quite the substance of a Pixar movie (and maybe it’s not fair to compare every new animated release to Pixar) but it’s an entertaining film. The movie is not cutting edge in any facet including the animation but it succeeds as a pleasurable family film.

Andy: The art of making an animated kid’s film for wide release has fairly well been perfected. While not all of them are going to be amazing, it is impressive how few of them are bad. It is pretty safe to say that Bolt will give you exactly what you expect. It is fun to watch, funny at times, and never boring. You cannot really ask for much more out of a children’s movie than that.

Ryan: One aspect of Bolt that kind of surprised me is how well the filmmakers executed the whole dual reality theme. Having a kid-driven film with a story dealing with confusing realities is an idea that might be over a lot of kid's heads. Thankfully the filmmakers handled the story aptly (and cleverly) and the movie is relatively easy to follow even for younger audience members. And I believe that older moviegoers will appreciate how the movie tries to aspire to be more than just a straight-ahead animated tale.

Andy: A nice aspect of Bolt is that it is, in its heart, an action movie. The opening sequence is full of over the top action that takes full advantage of the animated medium to deliver some very fun shots. What’s more, the whole thing is done tongue-in-cheek enough that it doesn’t seem absurd. The action is maintained throughout the rest of the film enough to keep viewers of all ages interested.

Ryan: It seems that nowadays the voicing talents in animated features are almost as important (or more) to the perception of the movie than ever before. Whether or not that's good or bad is a discussion for another time but I tend to think that getting “big names” is not always the best strategy. With Bolt Travolta and Cyrus are the two biggest names and neither of them enhance or distract from the film. Without the question the best voice work is done by Susie Essman as Mittens the cat. She brings a lot of energy to her work (check her out on TV's, Curb Your Enthusiasm) and in Bolt she brings a (albeit toned down) level of sassiness.

Andy: While Bolt does not fail on any level, it fails to achieve a level of superiority that many animated films strive for. That’s fine; it doesn’t seem like Bolt was trying to redefine anything. It fully accomplishes its goal of being a cute, entertaining animated option for the holiday season. It may not be the most memorable cartoon movie to come out this year, but it’s hard to find any real complaints about it, either.

Bolt is an above average animated feature with few surprises and few shortcomings. Final grade: B.

Obama Plays it Cool

I'm taking a break from all the Greg Maddux hoopla to post a video from last week's SNL.





What the heck...here's another one from last week's episode (this one's a little bit more...how you say...how you say...dirty).

More Greg Maddux love

I'm liking the title...Greatest Living Pitcher.

To check out his press conference and a host of articles on mlb.com click here.

Here's SI's Tom Verducci with a nice piece on the genius of Greg Maddux.

ESPN's Rob Neyer waxes on what more can be said about Maddux and Gene Wojeicchowski writes about everything that Maddux wasn't.

I particularly liked this quote from former Braves President, Stan Kasten...

"He's one of the greatest pitchers ever, and still people don't recognize him. He's like Clark Kent. He puts on those glasses, walks through a mall and people don't recognize him."

"Where have you gone Greg Maddux..."

Well I've been pretty disallusioned by the news of Maddux's impending retirement on Monday. And yes I understand that my entire view of this situation is completely self-centered.

But I've spent so much time, energy, and effort into following his career that I almost feel that there will be a small void in my life now. That assertion is (almost) completely ridiculous but so be it....it is what it is...or it was what it was. Whatever.

Anyway, it was like clockwork...every fifth (or sixth day...depending on off days) Maddux would pitch. And now that's not going to happen. And what I think that I'm going to miss the most...besides watching him pitch...is conversing about Maddux's games with my dad. That was always a big topic of conversation...and something that we both enjoyed. (And yes...Duane's having a hard time dealing with Maddux retiring as well). But it's not like my Dad and I don't have a lot of common...so we'll be all right.

I did declare last year that when Maddux would retire that my baseball focus would shift entirely to the Cubs. I started liking the Cubs again when Maddux went back there...and although he left there in 2006...I still followed the Cubs. And now that Jenny is a fan of the Cubs...I feel good about making that transition. We'll be able to follow (and suffer) with the Cubs together.

But it's definitely not going to be the same...in terms of my passion. It's going to take some time to deal with it and to allow that passion to fester with the Cubbies. Making a conscious decision to follow a sports team doesn't seem to have the same weight of rooting for a team (or player) that one's always liked--for whatever reason (Although I'm pretty sure that Chuck tackled this same question in one of his books and came to the conclusion that it was somewhat more respectable to choose to root for a given team than to root for a team that one grew up with). But anyway...the transition to the Cubs shouldn't be too difficult because baseball is my favorite sport. But for instance I can't say that watching the Cubs is now my number one sports priority (like it was when Maddux was pitching). That number one spot would now be occupied by the Indiana Hoosiers (boy what a year to make that adjustment).

My sports world is definitely in a reshuffling mode.

An end of an era...

Greg Maddux will announce his retiremnt from baseball on Monday Morning.

At this point I can't even put into words how this makes me feel...so here's Buster Olney's take.

"Australia" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the latest from director Baz Luhrmann. Australia (PG-13) stars Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman as an unlikely couple running cattle and helping raise a half white-half Aborigine child in late-1930s northern Australia .

Ryan: Baz Luhrmann doesn't make many movies but when he does they arecertainly noteworthy. His films (Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge!) are truly unique cinematic experiences although they do alienate some moviegoers. Australia , a historic epic, is much more traditional fare for Luhrmann. Unfortunately the creative elements of his previous works are absent with Australia . Australia is not a bad movie. It's just vastly mediocre.

Andy: The term epic is used frequently to describe movies that are long. In reality, however, epics are supposed to be told in an elevated style, and focus on the adventures of a hero. Australia easily checks the box for being long, but picking one of the characters as the epic hero is not so easy. The film jumps from story to story among the three main characters, not resting on one as the clear hero. As for the elevated style, that is certainly debatable. There is a tone of pretension that accompanies trying to be an epic movie, and that is bound to rub some people the wrong way. I’d say the movie falls somewhere in the slightly above average range.

Ryan: The biggest problem with Australia is that it's too ambitious while not being epic enough. What I mean by that is that Australia is basically three movies in one—the driving of the cattle, the transition to life on the ranch and the Japanese bombing of the town of Darwin . Regrettably these three stories don't transition well from one to another and Luhrmann seems unable to nail down exactly what he wants to do with the narrative as the movie greatly meanders in the second act. Further compounding this complication is the lack of excitement and grandiose when it comes to the resolution of the three conflicts. The movie never lives up to its own extravagance.

Andy: As with most long movies, Australia drags at times. It tells a rather succinct tale involving a cattle run that comes to a fairly natural conclusion around halfway through the movie. Had it ended there, it would have been an entertaining Australian-western. But this movie has loftier goals, and it probably ends up being a lesser film because of it. Had it focused on its cattle-drive narrative while still tackling the issue of the lost generations of half-Aborigine children, it likely would have been a better film.

Ryan: While Australia does have its fair share of issues, it is a decent movie to see on the big screen. Luhrmann does an excellent job shooting the movie and he throws in some nice lavish shots for good measure. The two leads, Kidman and Jackman, perform as well as could be expected with the material that they were given and Luhrmann does a decent job showcasing his stars on the silver screen. I also do like the fact that the movie successfully ties in the Aboriginal culture of Australia . Because any movie that is ambitious enough to call itself Australia has to have an Aboriginal presence.

Andy: The performances in Australia are good, but not great. Jackman and Kidman are both very recognizable and capable stars, but they do not display acting chops that are likely to win any awards this year. Neither of them hinder the film from being enjoyable, but great performances could have elevated this movie to greatness.

Australia has its ups and downs, but ultimately falls short of its ambition.

Final grade: B-.

"Kind Eyes"

I'm thrilled Obama won the presidency...but please...nobody buy me the Victory Plate for Christmas.

Roman Holiday

As Jenny and I were winding down with our Thanksgiving celebrations last night we decided to watch the screen classic, Roman Holiday (1953). The film stars Gregory Peck and introduced Aubrey Hepburn to the world. William Wyler (Ben-Hur) directed.

It's easy to see why the film is a classic. Hepburn (who won the Oscar) and Peck have a genuine chemistry with one another and the storyline of two people falling in love under slightly deceptive circumstance is a standard (and successful) Hollywood storyline. I won't give the ending away, but will say that it is a satisfying ending and one that probably wouldn't happen today.

But moreover it should be noted that Aubrey Hepburn is hands down...the cutest film star of all time. She's not the most beautiful (Grace Kelly) or the sexist (Rita Hayworth) screen icon of all time. But her screen presence...her acting ability...and her charming looks all add up to her being the cutest screen legend of all time.

"Rachel Getting Married" Movie Review

This week we’re taking a look at the indie drama, Rachel Getting Married (R). In the film Anne Hathaway stars as a recovering junkie who gets a weekend leave to attend her older sister’s (Rosemarie DeWitt) wedding at the homestead. Making the transition back to normalcy (even for a few days) proves to be difficult for both Hathaway and the rest of her family. Jonathon Demme directs.

Andy: Rachel Getting Married is a well made, realistic, and very difficult film to watch. The story is centered around Kym (Anne Hathaway) and her myriad issues with drug addiction, intra family relationships, and other demons from her past. Airing all of those issues against the backdrop of her sister’s wedding makes an uncomfortable situation a whole lot more uncomfortable, and at times downright excruciating. It is a testament to the performances and director Jonathan Demme that the audience feels that discomfort throughout.

Ryan: Rachel Getting Married has been getting its fair share of Oscar buzz mainly with Hathaway’s against-type performance. In actuality the film is more than Hathaway’s praise-worthy performance. It’s not quite Best Picture material but it’s still a solid piece of work. Granted there are scenes that drag and the non-structured linear story might frustrate some moviegoers but overall the film plays like a top notch indie picture.

Andy: The key to a movie like this working is that there must be top notch performances. There isn’t a bad one in Rachel Getting Married, but without question the group is led by Hathaway. She exudes selfishness, pain, and vulnerability, but manages to stay likeable for much of the film. It is no surprise that her complex performance is getting Oscar buzz, because performances like this don’t come around very often.

Ryan: Hathaway’s name has been getting tossed around for an Oscar and the acclaim is justified. The strength of her performance is that the audience still cares for her character even though she’s openly obnoxious in the film. A best actress nomination would not be out of the question and well deserved. Another potential nomination (for best supporting actress) might be for DeWitt. Her character is not developed the strongest but she more than holds her own in the heavy scenes with Hathaway.

Andy: For all of the good things about this movie, the story itself does lag a little at times. The marriage of Rachel that is in the title gets a reasonably large portion of the screen time, but you can’t help getting the sense that the wedding is not what this movie is about. So during long stretches of wedding activity, the movie drags a bit. The movie also lacks a truly satisfying conclusion, which bothers my sense of wanting a story to be completed, but probably is appropriate for the character it’s analyzing.

Ryan: Demme’s decision to shoot the film in a non-traditional manner also enhances the movie. The movie is almost exclusively shot with hand-held cameras and almost has a documentary type feel. Moreover the use of the hand-held cameras provides not only for an intimate look but arguable a voyeuristic feel as well. Consequently and by design this makes several scenes in the movie uncomfortable to watch--almost to the point where we, as the audience, feel that we shouldn’t be eavesdropping on the family drama unfolding.

Highlighted with some outstanding performances, with Hathaway leading the way, Rachel Getting Married is an authentic look at a family dealing with its past, present and future. Final grade: B+.

Chinese Democracy

The album, 13 years in the making, is finally available for purchase (even on itunes).

I'm not really expecting it to be good but what the heck...it is new Guns n' Roses (well sort of).

"The Wrestler" trailer

This is certainly a different direction than Darren Aronofsky's last film, The Fountain.

Looks pretty solid...of course The Boss helps that out.

The Moose

Not really sure why baseball pitcher, Mike Mussina's nickname is The Moose...but so be it. But anyway, news broke yesterday that Mussina plans on retiring. So consequently, because I'm a baseball junkie--especially when it comes to a player's chances for the hall of fame--I got lost last night with the website, baseball-reference.com.

My initial reaction upon hearing his retirement was really just a hesitation, which is not a good sign. Normally one shouldn't have to think about whether a player is a hall of famer or not. A hesitation is never a good sign. After thinking on it...while watching PTI...I was leaning towards it being no. He never won a Cy-Young...only won 20 games once (last year)...never won a championship...didn't get to 300 wins. Now I realize some of those things are more important than the others but together they made the case against him.

But after taking a closer look...Mussina should be a hall of famer.

1. His win-loss record is phenomenal. He didn't get to 300 wins...but he finished up 270-153. Now what's impressive about that is his winning percentage of .638. That's tied for 38th best of all-time (with HOF'er, Jim Palmer). That's a better win-loss percentage than some of his contemporaries that are going to be hall of famers (Maddux and Glavine) or close to it (Smoltz and Schilling). Maybe he didn't win twenty games...but he did have several seasons of winning a lot of games...in fact he won over 18 games five times (not counting his 20 win season). I kind of think that the 20 game mark for a starter needs to put in a proper context...in that...with the advent of the 5-man rotation...it's just harder to win 20 games a season.

2. He never won a Cy-Young but he finished sixth or better nine times. He finished second once in '99. While he made not have been the best pitcher for a season he certainly was one of the better pitchers for a number of years. And one of my rule of thumbs for determining whether a player is a hall of famer is whether or not that players was the best, or one of the bests, at his position for a number of seasons. There's no question that Mussina was one of the best pitchers in the AL for many seasons.

3. He again never won an ERA title but he finished sixth or better ten times. His career ERA of 3.68 is solid as is his ERA+ of 123. Considering that he pitched in the AL and in the AL East for his whole career... than having an ERA that respectful is even more impressive.

Mussina certainly didn't have a flashy career but he had a consistently good career and, in my view, that gets him in.

"Quantum of Solace" Movie Review

This week we take a look at the latest in the long line of James Bond films, Quantum of Solace (PG-13). Daniel Craig returns for his second go round as 007, and Marc Forster takes his first shot at directing the franchise. Olga Kurylenko, Judy Dench, and Jeffrey Wright costar.

Ryan: Quantum of Solace, like this summer's The Dark Knight, is a sequel to a very successful rebooting of a franchise (Casino Royale and Batman Begins, respectively). But unlike The Dark Knight, Quantum of Solace fails to bring the franchise up to that next level. Don't get me wrong. Quantum of Solace is a very entertaining action flick but it's a step back from the high standard that was reset by Casino Royale. Yet, ultimately most Bond fans and other casual moviegoers will be satisfied by the film.

Andy: Casino Royale was a big surprise, partly because it was so much better than the previous Bond films. Quantum of Solace does not have that advantage. It still packs enough punch to be a very good movie action movie, and shouldn’t be faulted too much for not living up to the quality of its predecessor.

Ryan: One of the biggest strengths of Casino Royale is how it simultaneously revived the Bond franchise for a contemporary moviegoing audience while still respecting the formulaic elements of the forty year old series. But regrettably, Quantum of Solace doesn't feel like a Bond film. I'm conflicted in whether that is a good or bad thing. The box-office results (a weekend hall of over 70 million dollars) would indicate that it's a good thing in that they are pulling in new viewers. But for Bond fans the movie might prove to be frustrating at times in that it's almost completely devoid of the allurement of the previous incarnations.

Andy: There’s no question that Solace break with many of the Bond traditions. There are not any spy gadgets, save what you can see on CNN on a nightly basis. Outside of the opening sequence there aren’t really any cool cars. Even on the seduction front this Bond seems preoccupied with other things, just having a token love scene with a token character that wasn’t very necessary for the film in the first place. That said, the movie still works like spy film should. But unlike most Bond films, it doesn’t check all of the 007 boxes.

Ryan: There's no question that Daniel Craig fits the modern Bond (a steely detachment with a lot of rage) that the producers and filmmakers are striving for. And there's also no question that Craig delivers the goods with regard to his cool performance. The only thing that I think needs tinkering with in regards to his performance is that it needs to be less intense. Yes, Bond is an intense character but he's also a suave character. Craig demonstrated in Casino Royale that he could handle that duality. Unfortunately with Quantum of Solace there was no opportunity to showcase his charming side.

Quantum of Solace is an excellent action film, even if it does lack some of the identity of a traditional Bond film. Final grade: B.

A Hoosier talking about the Wildcats and Tar Heels...

In anticipation of tonight's UNC/Kentucky basketball matchup, espn.com had an interesting Sportsnation poll...which is the greater historical program...North Carolina or Kentucky? As of 5:30 the results were a lopsided 61% to 39% in favor of the Tar Heels.

It should be noted that the only thing that these programs have in common (in terms of my view) is that I extremely dislike both of these teams. (And I'm aware that I married somebody who likes the Wildcats). But anyway...I'm an Indiana fan (not much of a surprise there) so it's only naturally to dislike Kentucky. As for UNC...well...I've just never really cared for the ACC or teams like UNC or Duke for that matter.

But anyway...I was just intrigued by the disparity of the poll because I don't think one can argue that UNC is that much more historically significant than Kentucky--in terms of its basketball tradition.

In trying to put bias aside...here are some numbers to look at.

Final Four Appearances:

UCLA, 18

North Carolina, 17

Duke, 14

Kansas, Kentucky 13

Ohio State, 10

IU, Louisville, 8

--UNC definitely has the lead here 17 to 13 respectively.

NCAA Titles:

UCLA, 11

Kentucky, 7

Indiana, 5

North Carolina, 4

Kansas, 4

Duke, 3

Kansas, 3

--But here Kentucky has a sizable advantage 7 to 4.

Here's the all-time leaders in winning percentage

Kentucky .762

North Carolina .733

Kansas .709

Duke .694

Syracuse .685

--This time Kentucky still has the advantage but it's pretty close.

Ultimately my point is that it's pretty even when arguing the greater historical significance between the two programs, UNC and Kentucky. I never really intended to argue for Kentucky but I guess I kind of did. I was just put off with how off-balanced the Sportsnation poll results were. (Although it's pretty clear that Kentucky doesn't have much of a chance against UNC tonight).

But when it comes down to it...if I were ranking the top five programs of all time I would just feel inclined to go by number of titles won...because when it comes down to it...that's what counts. Plus that makes Indiana look good...and ahead of North Carolina.

But I'll tell you what I don't like...is being stuck on five titles. Indiana is over due for a title. Not going to happen this year...but Crean's got it in him to catch Kentucky.

What is a Neti Pot?

I'm glad you asked.



Check this out...

New Watchmen Trailer...

...for your weekend enjoyment.

"Role Models" Movie Review

After a brief hiatus, we're back this week with a new review of the comedic hit, Role Models (R). In the film two slackers of sort (Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott) are sentenced to 150 hours of community service involving being big-brother type role models to two kids (Christopher Mintz-Plasse and Bobb'e J. Thompson). Hilarity ensues.

Ryan: For whatever reason--maybe having no expectations to speak of--Role Models turned out to be a pleasant surprise. This film is very funny. It's even laugh-out-loud funny. Now don't let the fact that kids are in this movie lead one to believe that it's a family flick. Because it isn't. This is an adult-orientated comedy laced with strong language and adult content. But as a Rated-R comedy, it succeeds mightily as a highly entertaining movie.

Andy: Fans of the long-extinct MTV show The State will recognize some familiar faces in here. Many of the people responsible for this movie are veterans of that show, including director David Wain. The subtle humor and attention to detail that made The State so charming are present here, and it makes for a movie that is surprisingly funny. There are several big, goofy moments intended to garner laughs, but there are also several little peripheral jokes that give the movie a feeling of substance.

Ryan: Much of the comedic success of the film comes from the two leads, Rudd and William Scott. In the film it looks as if the director, David Wain, just told his two leading men to just go out there and do their “thing.” Sometimes that works and sometimes it doesn't. With Role Models, it succeeds and it succeeds very well. Rudd and William Scott garner many laughs and have a good rapport with one another. Obviously acting is more complicated than really just playing yourselves, but whether or not Rudd and William Scott are doing any heavy lifting is ultimately inconsequential as they both deliver solid performances.

Andy: Sean William Scott has carved out a nice career since he emerged on the scene as Stifler in 1999’s American Pie. Remarkably, I don’t think he’s done anything except grow a little older in that time. He’s essentially playing the same character only not in high school. The fact that this still works when used properly is remarkable. A large part of that is how well he works as a foil to Paul Rudd’s likeable everyman. As Ryan mentioned, Rudd is also doing what he almost always does. Even though it is more versatile than Sean William Scott’s shtick, it’s still nothing new. It just happens to work really well in this movie.

Ryan: Another interesting aspect of Role Models is how it does have some degree of sincerity to it. While it isn't a Judd Apatow production, it does have that combination of crudeness with heart. The film does not quite have the resonance of a lot of Apatow's films but it is definitely an above- average comedy. In a year where a lot of comedies didn't live up to their billing, Role Models definitely stands out. Granted it probably doesn't have the makings of an instant comedic classic but it's undeniable one of the funnier films of the year.

Andy: Role Models, like many of the more successful comedies of the past few years, attempts to balance crass and realistic language with an underlying humanity for its absurd characters. The film culminates with a fake medieval battle in a park staged by a group of fantasy-fic fans. While the movie takes repeated cheap shots at these characters, it is able to make fun of them while still showing them as real and valuable people. The result is a movie that ends up feeling more authentic than I think it actually is.

Role Models is nothing new, but it strikes the balance between absurd humor and a touch of heart that has proven a successful comedic formula in recent years.

Final grade: B.

Monday Night Thoughts

I know...I know...it's been awhile since I've posted. I think in some way I have...not so much the post-election blues (...Obama did win...) but a difficulty in coming to terms that the election is over. At times it seemed that it consumed my free time. I just have to process that it's over and that it's time to move on and see how my President is going to govern.

--If anybody is interested in seeing specifically (by precinct) how Decatur County voted...click here. I'm pleased to say that Decatur County had a +11 point swing from 2004 to 2008 with regard to the Democratic Candidate (26% to 37%). Hard work (and a slumping economy...and a desire for change...and a reason to believe in government...and a better candidate--sorry Kerry) does pay off.

--Changing gears here...not a good day for Wonder Woman fans in terms of a (good) major motion picture being developed...click here and here.

--I hope everybody got to see the the Colts-Steelers game yesterday. It was one of the best games of the year...and the Colts did win. They seem to be getting on a roll...let's hope it continues.

--Speaking of football...be sure to check out next Sunday Night's Football game on NBC.

--It looks like Inauguration Day is going to rock more so than I thought.

Yes We Can!

History is made.

I'm happy, proud, excited, tired, drained and most important...optimistic.



History is made here too...and unfortunately an end of an era might be at hand as well.

I'll talk more on both these issues in the next few days. It's a lot to digest.

This is It

The Polls are open here in Indiana.

I was planning on giving a thorough breakdown of my election day prediction but I'm just going to simplify it at this point.

This is not the most logical or rationale argument but it's how I'm going to look at it. If Decatur County goes 40-60 for Obama (and remember that it went 30-70 for Kerry in '04) than I believe that's a sign that Obama will win Indiana and if he wins Indiana than I believe he's going to win the election.

But again Obama can lose Indiana and still win the election but that's the angle I'm looking at.

Let's do it.

"Angels and Demons" teaser trailer

I'm not a Dan Brown fanatic but I did enjoy reading The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons. In fact I thought Angels and Demons was a better read.

Consequently The Da Vinci Code film left a lot to be desired. I'm hoping the adaptation for Angels and Demons will be better. And from looking at the teaser, hopefully that will be the case. At least Tom Hanks's hair looks less out of control and I believe that was Ewan McGregor in the trailer. So that's cool.

Christopher Nolan Interview

I know it's not surprising at all at this point...but Christopher Nolan just gets it...with regard to Batman.

The LA Times has a fascinating...click here... three part interview with Nolan. I highly recommend it for you bat-(or Nolan) fans out there.

Movie Review "Pride and Glory"

New in theatres this week was Pride and Glory (R), a police drama starring Ed Norton and Colin Farrell. Both play cops engaged in an investigation into the death of four police officers at the hands of Latino drug dealers. Jon Voight costars and Gavin O’Connor directs.

Andy: Pride and Glory is a mess of a movie. The plot, which unfolds slowly and predictably, never really does anything to take hold of the audience’s attention. The coarse language intended to lend realism to the movie frequently seems awkward and forced. Subplots that add little to the movie take up valuable screen time, stretching the runtime to a tedious 125 minutes.

Ryan: Price and Glory is the type of the film that doesn't have a lot going for it. For one, the subject matter, police corruption in New York City , is a tired and bland storyline. Unfortunately Pride and Glory feels like a movie (and not a good one) that one has already seen before. Further exacerbating the situation is the fact that the film was supposed to come out some twelve months ago. I saw a trailer for this movie over a year ago and when it takes this long for a film to be packaged together than that's never a good sign. And it shows with the final product.

Andy: I’ve long been a fan of Edward Norton, and there is no doubt that he is the highlight of this movie. But being the highlight in this film means he is merely adequate. His character mainly benefits from being the only one who is not seriously flawed, though he lacks the nuance and depth required for an audience to really connect with him. Voight and Farrell both give lacking performances, making Norton’s look a little better than it probably is.

Ryan: Although Andy and I are both Ed Norton fans and his involvement in the movie was the sole reason in watching the film, Norton with all his incredible acting ability cannot save the movie. Certainly this is not Norton's best work but considering the sub-par material he was working with he still puts forth a credible performance. What is frustrating is seeing Norton in a less than stellar movie. The fact is that Norton doesn't make a lot of movies so when one gets the chance to see him one would hope that he's in a movie that's on par with his talent. This is not the case with Pride and Glory.

Andy: Director Gavin O’Connor tries to spice up the movie with some “interesting” shots, but at best this just serves to distract the audience from the blind ally that the plot is running down. At worst it looks pretentious set against an already lacking movie. Pride and Glory may not be the worst film of 2008, but it is likely to be one of the most forgettable.

Ryan: If Pride and Glory would have been just a gritty police family drama than it might have—and maybe I’m being too optimistic—might have been a tolerable film. Regrettable the drama in the film is trumped by some ridiculous scenes—one in particular—that had me in udder disbelief. Having a character act out in a way that is so completely absurd is not proper character development on any level.

Pride and Glory would have had a better fate if it would have stayed on the shelf.

Final grade: D.

We Voted Too...

In continuing a theme here...Jenny and I voted over the weekend here in Greensburg.

The astonishing thing is that almost 900 people in the Decatur County have already voted. I believe that's a good sign for Obama.

Early voting continues until November 3.

Do it Indiana

Pollster actually has Obama with a tenth of a point lead in Indiana.

Here's a short clip about Indiana being a battleground state from the CBS Evening News.



Watch CBS Videos Online

Food for Thought

Everybody realizes that for the first time in many years, Indiana's in play with respect to the presidential election. Andy and Elizabeth posted just the other day about some good news for Obama supporters in Indiana...one can check that out here.

I just wanted to put forward some (Indiana and Decatur County) numbers so we can compare them on election night.

In the 2000 election in Indiana Bush defeated Gore 1,245,836 votes to 901,980 (56.7% to 41.0%). In Decatur County... Bush garnered 6,115 votes to Gore's 2,899 (68% to 32%). The voter turnout in Indiana was 55% and in Decatur County the turnout was 58%.

In the 2004 election in Indiana Bush defeated Kerry 1,479,438 votes to 969,011 (59.9% to 39.3%). In Decatur County...Bush garnered 7,499 votes to Kerry's 2,621 (74% to 26%). The voter turnout in Indiana was 58% and in Decatur County the turnout was 66%.

Here's some thoughts...

Within Decatur County there has been a positive response to Obama...much more positing than I would have ever guessed but I'm realistic in my thinking that he's not going to win Decatur County. A turnaround like that is pretty hard to fathom. But a realistic goal is to narrow that margin...(maybe a 60-40 margin). And if that margin narrows in every county and Obama wins big in Marion, Lake & Monroe county than he does have a shot at winning Indiana (which hasn't voted for a Democrat since LBJ in 1964).

Secondly, as this article makes mention, the voter turnout in Indiana has been abysmal. (Although Decatur County has been higher than the state average). A large reason for this is the safe assumption that Indiana always goes Red...so unfortunately a number of people just don't bother voting. Consequently the candidates ignore Indiana because of that.

It's different this year and I believe that because of that Indiana is going to have a high--maybe even record breaking--turnout. The fact that the state is in play and that the candidates are showing up to campaign is leading to a lot of excitement. I think there's no question that a high turnout will help Obama as a lot of new voters will vote for him...plus his operation has made it a point to get those voters that haven't been voting...well...to vote.

I'm very curious to see how it plays out in Decatur County and Indiana. I maintain that on election night...if Indiana isn't called by 6:30 (like it normally is) than that's a good sign that Obama is going to have a good night.

New Watchmen footage

Here's some new Watchmen footage that aired during the 2008 Scream (?) Awards.

"W." Movie Review

Oliver Stone's latest project is the biopic W. (PG-13). As the titles suggests Stone profiles the life and presidency of our current president, George W. Bush. Josh Brolin stars as President Bush and he is joined by Elizabeth Banks, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright and James Cromwell.

Ryan: From the onset I wasn't sure what to make of this movie. The conservative movie-going audience is going dismiss the film simply because liberal-minded Stone is directing the movie. From the other side it seems to me that those moviegoers just want to move on from the Bush years. Ultimately, I was perplexed in what type of audience they were aiming at. After watching the movie, I'm not really sure if that question is answered. Nonetheless, W. is an engaging film that is significantly strengthened by the superb performance by Josh Brolin.

Andy: Stone’s purpose seems to be to shed light on, and remind viewers of the kind of president George W. Bush is perceived to be. What is remarkable and somewhat surprising is the empathy with which Bush is portrayed. Some of the most revered aspects of President Bush (his complete confidence, his religious conviction) are on display as strengths every bit as much as (and probably more than) they are criticized in the film. Regardless of your feelings about him as a president, W. makes Bush seem like a real, believable guy, which is a testament to Brolin’s brilliant performance.

Ryan: If there was truly one reason to watch the movie, it's Josh Brolin's multi-layered performance of President Bush. Make no mistake about it, the presentation of President Bush is much more sympathetic in the movie than people are going to expect. One reason for this is Brolin's authentic portrayal. In a role that could have been nothing more than a caricature, Brolin showcases the President as a real person. I appreciate this because it's that everyman quality of President Bush that attracts people to him but that trait rarely comes through in public settings. Whether that trait qualifies him to be a successful president is still up for debate.

Andy: Brolin is certainly the star, and it is not unreasonable to think of him as an early Oscar contender for his performance. It is very easy to watch the film and simply see a private side of George W. Bush without thinking about the fact that it is Josh Brolin playing Bush. That is the goal of most actors, and Brolin nailed it here. Also noteworthy for their performances are Richard Dreyfuss as for his creepy, sneering Dick Cheney, and Toby Jones for his determined Karl Rove.

Ryan: While Brolin's performance is top-rate the rest of the film struggles to find itself. Stone is insistent on driving home the father-son relationship in terms of Junior winning Senior's approval but Stone's over-simplified take reeks of psych 101. From a narrative standpoint, the film jumps around intermediately without much direction. Thirdly, it's hard to write a satisfying ending and conclusion when the subject matter is still ongoing. Ultimately the film fails to shed any new light on President Bush's life and presidency.

Andy: One of the issues holding this film down is that with the overwhelming nature of the presidential campaign, now does not feel like the time for retrospection on an era that is technically still happening. Most of Bush’ s second term is left out of the movie, leaving it with a contemporary but not relevant feel that may have been avoided if this movie came out six months from now. The bottom line is that many Americans from both ends of the political spectrum are trying to forget about Bush as president, and releasing a sprawling biopic about him feels out of synch at this juncture.

W. offers some great performances and some interesting takes, but ultimately feels a little lacking in this intense political season. Final grade: B-.

Price is Right

A few months ago some of us here in our sector ventured to an Indianapolis Indians-Durham Bulls game. That game featured supposed prospect, David Price, of the Bulls. His performance in that game wasn't memorable but his performance last night certainly was.

To be fair... I fall asleep (although Jenny stayed up) watching game seven of the ALCS so I didn't see it live but after watching the highlights it's clear to see that Price was dealing.

But anyway...I just find it cool and noteworthy that we saw him pitch this year in the minors and now fast forward to a game seven of the ALCS and there he is closing the door to the defending champs, Boston Red Sox.

Pretty crazy.

Hey Goat

The follow up to last week's SNL skit, Mark Wahlberg Talks To Animals.

Scary Friends

Here's a humorous political video for the weekend.

I find this relevant because it shows the absurdity of a lot of the political attacks that are coming from both sides (but mainly from the McCain side...since they did decide to go negative).

See more funny videos at Funny or Die

End of an era?

I know most people weren't into the Dodger/Phillies series. But with Greg still in the playoffs my attention is...was... squarely focused there. Although he's been relegated to bullpen duty, I still have strong desire to see him and thus the team succeed.

Well that's all over. The Phillies defeated the Dodgers last night 5-1. I know most people were probably watching the debate (and seeing John McCain about to blow a gasket) but there I was watching the Dodgers poop away the series.

The game took on more prominence when Maddux actually got into the game. The Dodger's starter, Chad Billingsley, struggled yet again. Maddux pitched a 1-2-3 fourth but ran into trouble in the fifth. He was about to get out of it (without allowing any runs) when he induced the Phillies, Pat Burrel into an inning-ending double play. But the Dodgers's shortstop, Rafeal Furcal, booted it and then threw widely to the plate allowing Chase Utley to score. Yes, Furcal had two errors on one play. But that wasn't the end of Furcal's follies. Two batters later, he errored again this time on a routine throw to first base. He had three errors in one inning...allowing two runs to score. Needless to say, I was infuriated and lashing out to the TV (much to Jenny's chagrin).

The game took on an added edge with the fact that it might have been Maddux's last game. He's very non-committal when talking about his plans for next year. He'll be a free agent once the season is over. I just didn't want him to go out in that fashion. He did battle through the inning in a professional fashion and everybody watching the game knew the runs were a result of Furcal's blunders but still one would have liked to see him go out in a more worthwhile manner. (Of course it's not all all surprising that it's basically going unreported...that might have been his last game).

Ultimately I'm just not ready to deal with baseball with him playing. That's probably weird on one (maybe more) level(s) but it's the truth. I've invested so much time and energy following his career that when he does retire there will be a void in my life.

I'm not ready to face that just quite yet.

Public Service Announcement

Maybe this will sway some of the undecided voters out there...but probably not.

See more Hayden Panettiere videos at Funny or Die

"Body of Lies" Movie Review

This week we watched the new spy thriller Body of Lies (R). Ridley Scott directs Leonardo DiCaprio as a CIA operative taking on terrorist cells across the middle east while constantly in contact with his boss in Langley (Russel Crowe).

Andy: Body of Lies is a standard spy flick that happens to deal with scenarios that seem frighteningly real. That level of reality agitates more than it educates, but if you look at this as simply an espionage film, it works fairly well. It has all the standard intrigue and action that you’d expect out of a movie like this. It is largely uninventive and predictable, but it still holds together pretty well.

Ryan: Contemporary spy thrillers continue to underperform and Body of Lies is no exception. While the movie itself is actually more entertaining that I expected it to be, it still lacks that something extra (and compelling) that prevents it from rising above its peers. Looking at it as purely a piece of entertainment, Body of Lies succeeds but it falters when it tries to make sense of current American intrigue in the Middle East.

Andy: Not surprisingly, both Crowe and DiCaprio do an outstanding job. Crowe is doing his pompous-guy-in-charge routine that, while nothing new, is still a solid piece of acting. DiCaprio proves once again that he is not only a very talented actor, but that he can be an action star, too, if he needs to be.

Ryan: There’s no question that the combination of Crowe and DiCaprio makes Body of Lies worth watching. Although neither one is at the very top of their game, they both put forth—as Andy alluded too--very credible performances. Seeing them interact on screen is a cinematic delight and certainly adds to the watchability of the picture. They share several scenes together but it would have been nice to see them share more screen time together.

Andy: Body of Lies is entertaining, but it would not be unreasonable to expect more out of such a talented group of people. The movie runs a little long and has a couple of false conclusions that left me with a worse taste for the film that it probably deserves. For about an hour and forty minutes it is a fairly compelling thriller, but the end is not particularly exciting and the movie is a little worse off because of it.

Ryan: I completely agree with Andy that considering the involvement of Crowe and DiCaprio with director, Ridley Scott, Body of Lies had the making of a great film. Unfortunately it has several shortcomings that limit it. The film runs long and what exacerbates that is how the story intermediately jumps around. Secondly the romantic sub-plot, while crucial to the story, is never completely developed to justify the actions of some of the main characters. Thirdly, the resolution of the film is not only less than thrilling but also predictable.

Anchored by the performances of Crowe and DiCaprio, Body of Lies is a serviceable spy thriller. Final grade: B-.