ESPN Likes The Boss

I know I give ESPN a lot of crap but I have to give them props when they deserve it.

This intro is from an 11:00 PM Sportscenter from earlier in the week.

I'm guessing the hosts, John Buccigross and Neil Everett, like Bruce Springsteen.

In the opening sequence they (cleverly) reference a host of Springsteen song titles (My only question...is where was 57 Channels).

The General Joins ESPN

This should be interesting.



Honestly if he can keep the four letter words out of his analysis I don't think Knight will do that bad of a job. Considering the dopes that ESPN has anyway...I almost would rather listen to Knight. I can't wait until Knight has to dissect a "dunk shot."



What I really want to see...is Knight go head to head with Skip Bayless on ESPN 2's First Take. That would be priceless.

Thursday Afternoon thoughts.

I've always treasured my Thursday afternoons (I normally have them off because of the auction) but never more so than now. (Consecutive days without sleeping in--32) I'll be napping it up here in a few minutes but I had some things kicking around my mind.

--Apparently Tom Izzo gets it with regard to the Big Ten Network.

--USA Today has a man crush on Doug Gottlieb. I don't get it.

--I'm finally watching (via Netflix) the latest season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Brilliant. Larry David.

--I still don't know what to make of the entire IU debacle. I've listened to and read so much about it that I'm pretty numb about it. About the actual games...they aren't playing great but they are still winning. This weekend's game at Michigan State will show what this team still has in them.

--The Roger Clemens ordeal is becoming more melodramatic than a Days Of Our Lives episode. I guess the moral of the story is that you shouldn't brag about your wife's breast augmentation.

--This music video by the 1986 Dodgers might be even more ridiculous than the Super Bowl Shuffle.

That's it for now.

Keep it real.

"Vantage Point" movie review

This week we'll be taking a look at the number one film in America, Vantage Point (PG-13). Told from the perspective of five different viewpoints, the movie outlines an attempted assassination of the President of the USA while at a summit in Spain. The movie stars Dennis Quiad, Matthew Fox, Forest Whitaker, Sigourney Weaver and William Hurt.

Ryan: The post-Oscar blues have officially arrived. After rewarding the best of the previous year, we now enter the time of year when the new releases are extremely hit and miss (historically—mostly miss). There's no easy way to say it. Vantage Point is a complete mess. The premise of the movie had potential and the cast was strong enough to produce a quality film. Unfortunately the film is just too completely ridiculous to buy into.

Andy: That pretty much sums it up. The two people who must take responsibility for this muddled movie are director Pete Travis and rookie writer Barry Levy. Levy's script was an intriguing idea that seemed like it never really translated into good writing. Travis monumentally wasted the talent given to him for his silver screen debut.

Ryan: The movie boasts a respectable and recognizable cast. But I don't see any one of these stars putting their respected performances in this film at the top of their resumes. Granted it's mainly not their fault but it would have been relieving if one of them could have gave a performance that might have elevated the movie to the (at the very least) a level of mediocrity.

Andy: The cast is actually pretty amazing, at least on paper. Sigourney Weaver has three Oscar nominations to her credit, while both Whitaker and Hurt have won Oscars for best actor. Quaid is probably a B list leading man, but for an ensemble cast, you really couldn't ask for much more. It's not that these guys weren't trying, it' just that the movie is a little too ridiculous and a little too forced with its gimmicks and storytelling to really be a solid body of work.

Ryan: The first couple of segments of the movie aren't too bad. They set up a film that could be an entertaining action/political drama. Towards the end of the Forest Whitaker character's segment the movie starts to spiral out of control and keeps on descending and descending. Needless to say it never recovers. The film's (attempted) allure of presenting a scene with several different perspectives failed to engage me. In fact it was like watching a football game on TV when they incessantly show a replay to the point where it becomes exhausting. The movie runs for only ninety minutes but it feels a lot longer than that with all of the overlapping of scenes.

Andy: I will confess to being entertained for segments of the movie. The novelty of the idea was nice for a while, and the situations the film was presenting were sometimes thrilling enough to be adequately suspenseful. Ironically, the movie just didn't fit together well enough to be successful, so it ends up being both boring and awkward; a combination that is hard for a supposed political thriller to overcome.

Vantage Point takes a good idea and a talented cast and grinds it down to mediocrity. There are some good things about it, but not nearly enough to earn it much more than a D+.

Digger Phelps...all worked up.

I'm too mentally exhausted to fully talk about the debacle that is Indiana Basketball but here is a clip from ESPN gameday (from Saturday) that was pretty intense.




Briefly...Jay Bilas is a dope and I don't why Hubert Davis is an analyst.

And while I don't know if I would have benched the players that skipped practice (hard to know exactly what was going on behind the scenes) I do agree with Digger that this mess is Kelvin Sampson's fault.

Mark Millar's "Wanted"

For Valentine's Day, Jenny got me the Wanted trade paperback by Mark Millar with art by JG Jones. (Yes I realize that I have a cool wife). But I've been wanting to read it because the movie is being adapted for silver screen this summer. I saw the trailer and it looked pretty cool. I heard it was based on a graphic novel so I thought I should check it out.


It was a pretty engaging read. It was definitely a lot darker...more adult-orientated than the comics that I normally read. But it was a good read.


The story stars Wesley Gibson...a twenty-something year old in a dead end office job...in a relationship where his girlfriend cheats on him with his best friend...and he also happens to be a hypochondriac. He's pretty much a nowhere man.


But come to find out...his father (who he has never known) turns out to be the world's deadliest assassin. And when he is murdered, Wesley is drafted to take his spot. Who is Wesley drafted by...that would be the fraternity of Super Villains that secretly run the world.


In this self-contained comic book universe (not DC or Marvel) the Super Villains (who teamed up and put their resources together) have not only eliminated all of the Super Heroes but have also completely erased any memory of them as well. The fraternity of Super Villains secretly pull the strings of modern society. When Wesley's father is killed the fraternity drafts him to take his spot. Basically the mini-series plays out Wesley's initiation into this underground world.


Like I was saying it was a pretty hardcore read. This isn't a comic book for kids...by any means. Although this particular universe is unique to itself it does in a lot of instances satirizes the DC comic book universe. Their are several allusions to Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman. And the villains themselves are based on versions of many of Superman and Batman's enemies.


The story works on several levels...as a straight ahead action story...as a satire on DC's world...but also as a satire on the nature of modern comic books. The villain revolution takes place in 1986...and resulted in a grim and gritty world devoid of hope. That date in real life signified a shift in what comics were and have become. That was the year that The WatchmenThe Dark Knight Returns were released. As most people know those two comic books revolutionized the comic book and comic book collecting. One result of that were comic books that were more grim...more gritty...more adult. In essence Millar is cleverly stating a scenario for why that happened or could have happened. I thought that was pretty cool.


It's a clear that the movie...and I've read where Millar seems to be OK with this...is not going to be a literal adaptation of the comic book. From the trailer it is clear that a Super Villain conspiracy has been replaced by an assassin conspiracy. What intrigues me even more is how they are going to play with the Wesley character. He's not a likable character in the story. He's not a hero or even an anti-hero. If anything he's basically a nihilist. It is going to be interesting to see how they interpret the character.


It should be interesting.

Oscar 2008 predictions

The Oscar race hits its apex with the broadcast of The 80th Academy Awards this Sunday night on ABC at 8:00 PM. Heres our take with regard to the six major categories.

Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett (Im Not There); Ruby Dee (American Gangster); Saoirse Ronan (Atonement); Amy Ryan (Gone Baby Gone); Tilda Swinton (Michael Clayton)

Ryan: Besides young Ronan I could see the Oscar going to any of the other four nominees. I could see the Academy voters rewarding Dee (basically for a lifetime of cinematic work) but her actual screen time in American Gangster amounted to less than 5 minutes. Ultimately the first award of the night is going to be won by Amy Ryan for her authentic portrayal of a less-than-classy Boston single mom.

Andy: It looks like a two person race to me, as well, between Ruby Dee and Amy Ryan. Having not seen I'm Not There yet, I'll decline to comment on Blanchett's performance, but Swinton and Ronan both seem unlikely. I'd probably say that Amy Ryan did the best job among the group, with a performance that sticks with you long after you see it.

Best Supporting Actor: Casey Affleck (The Assassination of Jesse James); Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men); Philip Seymour Hoffman (Charlie Wilsons War); Hal Holbrook (Into the Wild); Tom Wilkinson (Michael Clayton)

Andy: I'm always in the bag for Philip Seymour Hoffman and in a normal year I'd call him the front-runner. The bottom line, however is that Javier Bardem's tranquil demeanor as serial killer (and that accent, and that haircut!) will be too much to overcome, even for an Oscar favorite like Hoffman. Anyone but him winning would be a real surprise.

Ryan: I don't see this category offering any surprises. Bardem has cleaned house winning this award every time he's been nominated in every major Critic's circle or Oscar precursor. Honestly it's hard to even make a case for Bardem not to win. He was just that good in No Country for Old Men.

Best Actress: Cate Blanchett (Elizabeth: The Golden Age); Julie Christie (Away from Her); Marion Cotillard (La Vie En Rose); Laura Linney (The Savages); Ellen Page (Juno)

Ryan: Admittedly Ive completely dropped the ball in this category. The only performance that Ive seen is that of Pages in Juno. Christie and Cotillard are the alleged frontrunners but Im seeing this as the biggest surprise of the night with the young Ellen Page taking home the gold.

Andy: These performances were not very much in the public conscience this year, as I only saw Juno and the Savages. As a long time Laura Linney I'd love to see her get an Oscar, but her performance really wasn't any better than Ellen Page's. It's hard to predict Christie winning when I haven't seen Away from Her, but this feels like the sort of performance that Oscar voters love. If she hadn't won a statue already (Darling, 1966), she'd be lock. As it is, she's still got a really good shot.

Best Actor: George Clooney (Michael Clayton); Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood); Johnny Depp (Sweeney Todd); Tommy Lee Jones (In theValley of Elah); Viggo Mortensen (Eastern Promises)

Ryan: I wouldn't at all have a problem with Clooney winning. He gave the best performance of his career in Micheal Clayton. Unfortunately for Clooney hes up against the unstoppable force known as Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis has swept every major Oscar precursor and theres a reason for that. He simply gave one of the best performances that we've seen this decade. Hence the Oscar will be much deserved.

Andy: There really doesn't seem to be much competition for Day-Lewis this year. Clooney's performance did eclipse his Oscar winning role in Syriana, but he just doesn't have the fire-power to stand up to Daniel Day-Lewis's commanding of a three hour movie. The only other serious competitor may be Johnny Depp, but I wouldn't put his Sweeny Todd in his own top five of performances, so his winning would be a farce.

Best Achievement in Directing: Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood); Joel and Ethan Coen (No Country for Old Men); Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton); Jason Reitman (Juno); Julian Schnabel (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)

Ryan: This is shaping up to be a race between the Coen brothers and P.T. Anderson. I wouldn't have an issue either way with the Coen brothers winning or Anderson winning. Both No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood are truly memorable films. I'm going with the Coen brothers (and I realize this is somewhat of a cop out) simply because they won the Director's Guild Award for achievement in directing. Ninety percent of the time the winner of the DGA wins the Oscar.

Andy: I feel like the brothers Coen are long overdue for an Oscar for directing and this will be their year. Anderson's direction is every bit as good, and it really seems like a toss up. In that case, the advantage goes to the old guys who have never won one. It seems pretty likely that Anderson will get his turn in years to come.

Best Picture: Atonement; Juno; Michael Clayton; No Country for Old Men; There Will Be Blood

Andy: Personally I feel like there are two imposters on this list, and those are Michael Clayton and Atonement. Atonement is completely out of the conversations and will be remembered as an also-ran. Clayton could make a good case, but it just didn't seem like a great movie. Juno is the easiest movie to like of the bunch, and it may win because of it, but the most well made two movies seem clearly to be No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood. This could be a year for a director/ picture split with Blood taking best picture, but I think It's going to go to No Country for Old Men.

Ryan: Although I find Atonement to be hands down the weakest of the Best Picture nominees one could make the case for each of the nominated films to win. If I had a vote it would go for Micheal Clayton. Out of these nominees it was the most complete in terms of being a solid film. But I realize that I'm in the minority and will not at all have a problem when No Country for Old Men wins the Oscar. Its hard not to root for the Coen Brothers and after all No Country for Old Men is a cinematic work of art.

"I drink your milkshake! I drink it up!" (There Will Be Blood-- Movie Review)

I know this is a little tardy but oh well.

We finish up our look at the Best Picture nominees with Paul Thomas Anderson's, There Will Be Blood ( R). The film is the profile of a turn-of-the-century oil prospector (Daniel Day-Lewis) in his subsequent descent into the bottomless hole of greed and power. The movie co-stars Paul Dano, Ciaran Hinds and Kevin J. O'Connor.

Andy: There Will Be Blood is a character study of an evil, greedy man. The story it tells is not particularly remarkable or insightful. We do not necessarily learn anything about the film's protagonists or his motivations. However the film is so skillfully put together and so meticulously acted, that it is the best movie of the year, even if it is not the most enjoyable to watch.

Ryan: I'll say that There Will Be Blood is certainly one of the best movies of the year and that its Best Picture nomination is much deserved. There's no question that There Will Be Blood is a fascinating film that showcases one of the best performances that we have seen in years. It’s a powerful film that resonates long after viewing it. But I'll be remissed if I didn't mention that the movie unfortunately continues the trend of Best Picture nominees with disconcerting climaxes/endings.

Andy: The performances of the actors stand out the most in this movie. Daniel Day-Lewis will likely win the Oscar for his masterful portrayal of oil-man Daniel Plainfield. Lewis is really terrifying and terrifyingly real as the movie's cut-throat anti-hero. Usually when a character is this one-dimensionally evil it comes across as flat on the screen. What makes Day-Lewis's performance so riveting is that he is so believable as a character that should be totally unreal.

Ryan: Not to overlook the other nominees for Best Actor but I would be completely shocked if Daniel Day Lewis doesn’t win the statue. He simply gives about as good as a performance as somebody can humanly give. He’s that good. My only problem with Lewis is that he doesn’t make movies as often as I would like him to because when he’s on screen, he is simply mesmerizing. He doesn’t often get lumped into the discussion for best actor of his generation—probably because he doesn’t make movies on a regular basis—but there’s nobody better.

Andy: There Will Be Blood is the crowning achievement so far in P.T. Anderson's very impressive career. Even though the story is not very straight-forward, it is the most straight forward of Anderson's films. Visually, it is nearly perfect, and as usual, Anderson uses the soundtrack (mostly produced by Radiohead's Johnny Greenwood) to overwhelm the audience. Anderson's movies always seem like art, and this one may be the most artistically pure of the last few years.

Ryan: I’m almost at a loss for words in trying to explain why three out of the five nominees for Best Picture have endings that are problematic (to all varying degrees). While I believe that the conclusion to There Will Be Blood is less perplexing than that of No Country For Old Men and Atonement, there’s no doubt that the way the movie concludes takes away from the rest of the film. My biggest issue with how the movie reconciles is that it feels completely random. It’s almost like the filmmakers decided, “hey we’re at the 130 minute mark. It’s time to tack on the climax and ending.” Needless to say that approach didn't work well for me and I don't think it will completely work for many moviegoers either.

While we disagree slightly on exactly how good There Will Be Blood is, we can both agree that it's a cinematic work of art. Final grade: A-.

"Batman: Gotham Knight" sneak peak

Here's a preview of the Batman anime (direct to DVD) movie that I believe comes out approximately a month before The Dark Knight hits theaters.

It's more awesomeness.

Indy 4 trailer

Awesome.

Bad day for Indiana

What a crappy day yesterday was...with regard to my interest in sports.

1. Kelvin Sampson....he's about as zippy as it gets. For those not aware the NCAA has levied five allegeded major violations against Sampson.

It is just completely unacceptable. I was actually surprised that he wasn't fired yesterday but after reading Pat Forde's and Seth Davis's columns (this morning) on espn.com and si.com (respectively) it was a good idea for IU not to fire Sampson yet. They are just allegations and the process should be played out before a knee-jerk reaction is made. (Although I do think...with the way Sampson's contract was written...IU could have fired him and probably not be in violation of a future unlawful termination lawsuit). I think one of two things should happen. Either Sampson should resign or he should be suspended (as Forde argued). He shouldn't be on the sidelines anymore as coach...I think that much is evident. He has completely made a dirty mess of a proud and respected program. A suspension makes sense to me if he doesn't resign. IU suspends him...waits until the hearing (thus giving the process its due time) and then takes the proper action with whatever verdict the NCAA decides. The entire fiasco just completely angers me.

Further adding to my anger was the actual game last night. IU lost when Wisconsin's Brian Butch banked in a three-pointer with 6 seconds left in the game. Uggggggggggggggg!.

2. The Clemens-McNamee Congressional hearing. Here's another circus. Ultimately I don't think either party came out on top. Whatever people thought going into the hearing is the same of what they thought when the hearing concluded. McNamee is sure not a air-tight witness without his faults but I still think Clemens is in a bad spot. Knoblauch, Pettitte and Clemens's wife...they all confirm McNamee's stories. And to think that Roger had no idea that McNamee injected HGH into his wife without him knowing anything about it...is just completely ludicrous. Come on Roger. I really believe that in Roger's mind (because of his stubbornness and strong will) he thinks he didn't do anything wrong (by taking steroids)...thus he comes across as being somewhat credible at times.

In effect...I don't know if anything more will come about this. I don't think the evidence is overwhelming...either way...to convict one of them of perjury. I think Clemens is in worst shape but the evidence is shaky into actually getting a conviction.

Unfortunately for me and fellow Hoosiers, the most embarrassing moment of the hearing involved Indiana Congressman (5th district), Dan Burton. Boy oh boy...did he come across as a dope. For one it frustrated me that the hearing was basically split on party lines. Bascially the Republicans were in Clemens's corner and most of the Democrats were in McNamee's. This is just another example of the misplaced partisanship in DC. Maybe I'm just being naive but does every issue in Washington DC have to split on party lines. It just infuriates me (and it has nothing to do with what my political leanings are).

It comes as no surprise that Burton was on the Clemens's side. He went after McNamee like a wild man and it was nothing more than classic grandstanding. Yes, he did have some points that McNamee has lied in the past. But to not see the difference between lying for a friend and telling the truth (when you have to) is short-sighted. But my main beef with Burton is for him to be calling out someone else for lying or for being dishonest. This is the same man who had an affair which resulted in him fathering a child. Although it took him 15 years to own up to it. This is the same man who voted against a measure that prevented lawmakers from taking free gifts and trips from lobbyists. It passed the house 430-1. That's just a drop in the bucket for all the dopiness that Burton has done in DC. For more of a read of Burton's shenanigans...click here.

On the other hand I should mention that Indiana's Mark Souder (also on the committee) actually made Indiana proud by having facts straight and keeping an open mind.

3. My next moment of dismay came with this story and its subsequent headline, "Hard to Believe but Maddux Sounds Ready to call it a Career." Thankfully this isn't on the same level as the above two debacles. But I just hope it doesn't turn out to be the case. I'm not ready for Maddux to retire.

Although I didn't realize it last night...I think this was the one tidbit that was bothering me more than the other two. I was sure in a funk last night. But I do feel better today.

Keep on Rollin'

Barack Obama continued his winning ways by sweeping Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC last night. He nows holds the delegate lead.

Up next is the Wisconsin and Hawaii contests where he is expected to win as well. Hopefully this momentum will start to sway the Superdelegates his way and also give him a lift in the March 4 contests of Ohio and Texas.

I have my yard signs ordered.

"Change we can believe in"

"I hate your rotten guts! "

I had to laugh out loud when I saw this magazine cover.




The entire Bucket List phenomenon...and yes it is a phenomenon in Greensburg...just completely escapes me. I know Andy and I spent one whole evening making fun of the trailer...much to the chagrin of Andy's mom. I just had no interest in watching the movie...but I sure get asked about...just about on a daily basis. To me the movie looked completely sappy...and it was doing nothing more than pandering to aging baby-boomers.

Uggggggggg.

SI Swimsuit Issue

The latest Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue hit newsstands today. I've always been a pretty big fan of the swimsuit issue and at one point it was goal of mine to collect every issue. I never reached that goal but I do have several issues (although I'm not exactly sure where they are). Anyway...I know there was a time...and maybe it's true for some people today...that the swimsuit issue was controversially. I think that time has passed especially when looking at other men's magazines like Maxim, FHM, Playboy or Penthouse. If anything the swimsuit issue is "wholesome" men's magazine entertainment. I found this article on slate.com that I think sums up...at least how I feel about the swimsuit issue. Basically SI's swimsuit issue has gone as far as its going to go...which regard to the amount of skin that they are going to show. Because of that, the swimsuit issue has to have the appearance of still being relevant or risque. But the fact is...that it really isn't controversially anymore. But that's all right with most people because it allows the swimsuit issue to still have a mass apeal and thus demand.

In honor of the latest issue being release...here's my top ten SI models of all-time.

10. Stacey Williams
Never graced a cover but appeared in several issues in the 1990's.


9. Niki Taylor
Again...never graced a cover but appeared in several issues in the late '90's.


8. Kathy Ireland
Appeared on three covers...1989, 1992, 1994. I'm assuming she is still Justin Brewer's favorite model of all time.


7. Stephanie Seymour
Again...Stephanie never appeared on the cover. But she was at one time married to Axle Rose. That has absolutely nothing to do with discussion but I just wanted to mention it.


6. Ashley Montana (Richardson)
She appeared on the 1991 cover.


5. Vendela Kirsebom
Vendela appeared on 1993 cover and had a small part in Batman & Robin.


4. Heidi Klum
Heidie has appeared on one cover (1998)


3. Cheryl Tiegs
She has appeared on three covers 1970, 1975, 1983. In my eyes...the original MILF of my adolescence.


2. Elle McPherson
Has appeared on the most swimsuit covers of all-time with 5, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1994, 2006.
Of note she also had a small part in Batman & Robin.


1. Marisa Miller
Marisa's is this year's cover model.

Lunch Break

I haven't had change to blog much...especially over the weekend. Starting last week I (finally) started taking auctioneer classes. I have to take 80 hours from a licensed instructor and then pass the test in Indianapolis that will be in March. Needless to say my weekends have been shot. The classes are 8 hours long (on Saturday and Sundagy) and they are in North Vernon. Consequently I haven't had a lot of free time. But it has been a valuable learning experience...and I do enjoy it.



A few things that I have been on my mind...



It was a good weekend for Obama. He swept the weekend primaries and caucuses and is in good shape to come out on top with regard to the "Potomac Primary" on Tuesday. I encourage everyone to visit Obama's website and sign up to the my.barackobama network. With this network you will be able to get into contact with other citizens in your area. I started one for Greensburg/Decatur County residents.

I've also been working on dissecting the Roger Clemens report that according to his side...shows statistical data that proves Clemens didn't use steroids...simply because his numbers are comparable to his peers and other past players. Needless to say...I don't really buy it.

Friday Night Satire

I couldn't resist posting this video.

"Yes We Can"

Arguable the results of Super Tuesday (on the Democrat side) were a draw. But with a few days to actually tally up the results, it is not a stretch to say that Obama really came out on top. He won the most states...14 to her 8 and according to the AP and NBC news Obama came out on top of the delegate count by the slimmest of margins (although exact numbers still aren't set on stone).


But even better news came on Wednesday when the Clinton campaign revealed that Hillary had loaned 5 million dollars to the campaign. Not a good sign. Whereas Obama has been a fund-raising machine.



I don't think the tide has turned. I still think they are neck and neck. But if Obama can continue to gain momentum by winning this weekend and then by winning the "Potamac Primary" on next Tuesday then I think he will be in position to win Ohio, which I think will put (although not by the delegate count) on top.

"Atonement" movie review

This week we'll be taking a look at the Best Picture nominee, Atonement ( R). Based on the novel by Ian McEwan, the historical period-piece tells the story of a love affair gone tragic because of a false accusation. The movie stars Keira Knightley, James McAvoy and Saoirse Ronan. Joe Wright directs.

Ryan: I see why Atonement received an Oscar nomination for best picture. From it's story of a fateful love affair in the backdrop of war to the impeccable look of the the movie, it's a film that has that quintessential Hollywood feel that moviegoers easily fall in love with. But I don't think it's a great movie. It's a really good film that has a lot going for it but it has a tragic flaw that prevents it from being a legitimate best picture candidate. I would be very surprised if it took home the award for best picture.

Andy: After watching Atonement, like with what Ryan said, I'm not at all surprised that it was nominated for Best Picture. It is the kind of movie that gets Oscar's attention; it's epic, tragic, well acted, well shot, and it's a period piece with great costumes. That said, the movie as a whole did not hold up as well for me as the other nominated films in the category. It is a fine movie with several (already mentioned) strengths, but by the end it did not feel like as complete of a work as it could have.

Ryan: There's no question that my biggest issue with Atonement is the film's climax and finale. At the very least, the movie's ending will polarize most moviegoers. Needless to say and without giving away too much, the movie takes a drastic shift in terms of the movie's time frame to resolve the narrative. It didn't work for me for a variety of reasons. One, it was all exposition—no action at all. Second, it was manipulative in a manner that is not fair to the audience. Not only does one not see it coming but when it comes it's just completely out of left field.

Andy: I did have some problems with this movie that are hard to overlook. Parts of the movie move at a pretty slow (or perhaps just boring) pace. The scenes featuring the Briony character are definitely weaker than others, and there are a lot of those scenes. And perhaps most disappointing of all, the ending is a cheap trick that minimizes the other accomplishments of the film. I don't want to give anything away, but most people are either going to love or hate the ending. I, obviously, fall into the latter category.

Ryan: Like I said earlier there are plenty of good things about Atonement. James McAvoy continues to impress and it looks like it is only a matter of time before he breaks through and becomes a bonafide Hollywood star. The movie's look is first rate hence the Oscar nominations (best achievement in Art Direction, Costumes and Cinematography) that are justified. Speaking of cinematography, Atonement has one of the best tracking shots that I've ever seen in a movie and it is hands-down the best scene of the year. In one five-and-half minute scene the filmmakers were able to take a small scale love story and make it truly epic.

Andy: Atonement has a couple of major strengths. First and foremost is the potential of director Joe Wright. In just his second feature film, Wright has (mostly) pulled off a sprawling, tumultuous story that, if nothing else, looks great on screen. The highlight of the movie for me as well is a lengthy, continuous tracking shot of soldiers at Dunkirk that is one of the best scenes I've ever seen in a movie. Add on James McAvoy's outstanding performance, which largely carries the movie, and it is easy to understand why people have fallen in love with this film.

Atonement is the weakest Best Picture contender but it is still a solid, well-made film. Final grade: B.

The General

There's absolutely nothing new that I can add to the subject of Bob Knight. To say that he's a polarizing figure is a vast understatement. Take for instance...with him resigning. The people/media pundits that don't like Knight are saying that he quit on his team...that here's another example of him wanting respect but not giving any...that it's just another example of him being completely self-absorbed. And then the Knight-apologists are taking him for his word...that he was tired...that the fire was gone...that he wants Pat to coach sooner than later. The way I see it is that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I'm at neither extreme when it comes to Knight...and that's probably the smallest contingency. I'm not going to get into his accomplishes but the bottom light is that he was one of best coaches in NCAA history. In my estimation he's only behind John Wooden. When it comes to simply X's and O's...he's the best ever. The guy knows basketball. And as an IU fan I appreciated everything Knight did on the court.

BUT...and there's always a but with Knight...he had a tragic flaw in him that bordered on self-destruction. Just like with his accomplishes, I'm not going to get into the list (and it's long) of his zippiness (and that's putting it mildly). As an IU fan...I can say that his act...while humorous at first became sad in the end. A grown man of his stature just shouldn't act like that.

What intrigues me the most about hearing all this Knight talk is pinpointing exactly when Knight let his anger (and other negative attributes) take control. It's my belief that it started to happen after IU lost in the final four in 1992 to Duke (and coach K). After that, Knight regrouped...earned a number one seed but lost to Kansas in the Elite Eight. I don't think that Knight or IU...for that matter...ever recovered. That was by far his best group that didn't win a national title. If Knight would have won the title in '92 or '93 it would have fit his cycle of winning a title...taking 5-6 years to regroup and then win again. Except this time...they didn't win. I don't think Knight ever got over that. The disappointment of those two years just wore him down. He just lost something and whatever replaced it was not good. Although I didn't realize it at the time...whatever affected Knight...affected the program. Looking back on it...one can see that IU after '93 was just not the IU of old under Knight. Those were certainly not the glory days.

In essence both notions...both sides of the coin can be true...that Knight was a helluva of a coach and that more times than not he was a complete ass about it. I don't see the point in getting worked up one way or the other in either defending Knight or railing against him. Because boiling Knight down to either extreme is inaccurate.

18-1

It's a cliché...but as Chuck Klosterman likes to say--there's a reason they are clichés because they happen to be true...but on any given Sunday anything can happen. And last night the New York Giants defeated the New England Patriots in one of the biggest upsets in Super Bowl history.

Needless to say...it was awesome. If the Patriots were eventually going to lose in the Super Bowl...it couldn't have been any sweeter than for them to lose to a Manning on a game winning drive. I absolutely loved it. I knew the Patriots were in trouble as they ran onto the field to Black Sabbath's Crazy Train...I say this because that is Chipper Jones's theme song when he comes to the plate. Just not a good sign...considering the Braves's post season futility (except in 1995).

I will have to say that back in November following the Patriots defeat of the Colts I said that, "(The Colts) 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." Now obviously the Giants didn't beat them in the regular season but when it really mattered...the Giants stepped up.

I'm left thinking that's it is such a fine line between being the greatest team ever and being a footnote in history. If the Patriots would have won...even if it would have been by one point...they would have been regarded as the best team ever (by most people and media pundits). But now that they didn't win the Super Bowl...they are just a team that lost the Super Bowl. All that regular season stuff...it doesn't mean anything now.

Apple + Obama

I thought this was a perfect time (with the Super Bowl and Super Tuesday coming up) to post this video.

I'm quite sure this isn't an official Obama video...but I liked it anyway (although I don't buy Hillary or the Clinton machine as a Big Brother-esque type of force)

I thought I should also mention that Hulk Hogan has officially endorsed Obama...First the Kennedy's and now Hulk Hogan...I believe Bruce is right around the corner.