Guilty Displeasures

I was reading the other day on the A.V. Club website and came across an interesting debate among its writers. Instead of debating their guilty pleasures, they were debating their guilty displeasures. They describe a guilty displeasure (whether a film, a book or etc.) as "respected parts of the cultural canon that we've tried, often at great length, but have just been unable to get into to the same degree as our fellow cultural commentators." That basically a guilty displeasure is something that is considered worthwhile, from an artistic standpoint, and that by it's nature one should or would have thought they be in to.

In mind of that...here are some of my guilty displeasures.

Neil Young. I respect Young as a iconic rocker and I really like some of his songs (Cinnamon Girl & Keep on Rocking in the Free World) but I've just never been head over heels with his music. And it's not from a lack of trying. At some point in college I purchased Harvest (generally considered to be one of his strongest albums) but I just never got into it. In fact I looked for the album this morning and couldn't find it. Sadly I wasn't too heart broken over it. It's not that I think his music is bad. It's more to the point that it hasn't done anything for me. Additionally...I've been into almost every iconic classic rocker from the '60's and '70's but Young's music alludes me.

Woody Allen. Allen is one of the most prolific filmmakers of our time. And to be fair I've only seen a handful of his movies. But that's the thing, I have no desire to watch his movies. I don't really have a compelling reason why (after all I did think that Annie Hall was a pretty good film). For whatever reason it's just not happening for me. I love movies but when I hear that Woody Allen has a new film coming out...I have no reaction--either positive or negative. I feel that I should like Allen's films because he and along with many of his films are so well respected but I'm just so indifferent about them.

The Graduate. I find myself slowly railing against the Baby Boomer generation and there's no better representation of that than the 1967 film, The Graduate. Let me preface this and say that The Graduate is a very good film with some fine transcendent performances. And I understand the cultural significance of the movie. But the cultural impact of the movie has overshadowed the film itself and the reality that the movie is not what people make it out to be. It's considered one of the best American films of all-time (as it routinely places high on critic's lists) and I don't believe that to be the case. It's a film that captured a moment in time but I don't believe that it has aged all that well. I find the film to self-important and it takes itself way too seriously.

"Slumdog Millionaire" Movie Review

Next up in our line of Best Picture nominees is Slumdog Millionaire (R). Director Danny Boyle guides us through the slums of the Indian city of Mumbai, as a teen explains why he knew all the answers to questions while a contestant on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.” Dev Patel and Freida Pinto star.

Ryan: It's hard to dislike a film like Slumdog Millionaire. Its feel-good rags-to-riches love story is what quintessential Hollywood films are all about. Throw in the exotic quality of the movie taking place in India and one has an atypical makeup for a Best Picture contender. While other Oscar nominees left me scratching my head, the nominations for Slumdog Millionaire—especially for Best Picture—are indeed justified. Slumdog Millionaire is not only one of the most enjoyable films of the year but one of the best films of the year.

Andy: I have yet to encounter anyone who has seen this film that did not like it. While the film is not perfect, there really aren’t any weaknesses. It is intriguing, uplifting, and intellectual while also supplying plenty of action and suspense. Combining so many elements frequently makes a movie seem like a jumbled mess, but Slumdog flows smoothly, taking the audience on an unexpected journey that is as fun as it is rewarding.

Ryan: Describing this movie to someone who hasn't heard of it is somewhat challenging. The movie with it's “Who Want to be a Millionaire” plot point seems quite ridiculous. But trust me when I say this—the movie works. Danny Boyle does a fantastic job in making a movie that never lets up. The movie is very traditional at its heart but Boyle, with his frantic shooting and camera work, ratchets up the tension and emotion. This in effect heightens everything that occurs in the movie and makes it feel modern and fresh.

Andy: There has been a great deal of hoopla surrounding various aspects of this movie, but frequently left on the short end of the praise is the cast. Dev Patel is perfect in the leading role, his innocent exterior only occasionally fiving way to the passion and pain that we see his character has endured. Supporting characters Anil Kapoor and Freida Pinto add reliably real performances, as do the children who play the young versions of the main characters. The movie is sweeping and cinematic in scope, but none of that would work without the solid performance of the ensemble cast.

Ryan: Slumdog Millionaire has been raking in the Oscar-precursors and if it ultimately ends up winning Best Picture that won't be much of a surprise. One could argue that the movie doesn't have the weight of traditional Best Picture fare. And I'm also sure that there will be some out there that thinks the movie—especially with it's contemporary cinematography—is more smoke and mirros than substance. Granted Slumdog Millionaire isn't a perfect film but it's a very gratifying one.

Andy: It is hard to imagine a scenario where Slumdog Millionaire does not win best picture. It has just about everything you would want in a best picture contender with very little of the unnecessary self-importance that frequently plagues Oscar movies (I’m looking at you, Benjamin Button!). In many ways Slumdog has the feel of an independent movie in spite of its grandiose scope, and that keeps it grounded enough to maintain its charm in spite of its ambition.

Though not perfect, Slumdog Millionaire is certainly one of the year’s best movies, and it may very well be the best.

Final grade: A-.

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump?

We alluded to this in our movie review...now here's FOD's take...

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump - watch more funny videos

Watchmen faux news video

Wondering who Dr. Manhattan is? Check out this vintage news clip from 1970.

Oscar Nominations (thumbs down)

Here's a timeline of my Oscar frustration.

Approx. 8:40 AM (yes I was tuned into ABC's live telecast)

--Heath Ledger is nominated for best supporting actor. That's good. I know it seemed a sure thing but one just never knows.

Approx. 8:45 AM

--I'm frustrated for Christopher Nolan as he is shut out for nominations for the director and adapted screenplay categories. He directs the movie of the year (both a critical and commercial success) and he doesn't score any nominations himself.

Approx. 8:47 AM

--There it is. No nomination for best picture for The Dark Knight. Simply ridiculous. Granted I haven't seen three out of the five nominees--yet--but I do know that The Dark Knight is a better film than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. That just really frustrates me that it didn't get a best picture nomination. Dammit, it deserved it.

Approx. 8:50 AM

--I feel a little better as Chris Connelly informs me that The Dark Knight did receive eight nominations. Which is cool but on the other hand it does frustrate me in that it's good enough to win multiple technical nominations but that doesn't add up to a best picture nomination. I don't get it.

Approx. 9:30 AM

--I'm finally able to get online to see the rest of the nominees. I scroll down to best song and lo and behold see the biggest snub of all--no nomination for Bruce Springsteen's The Wrestler for best song. But even more absurd...there's only three nominations and there can be up to five! WTF! Apparently there were only three Oscar worthy songs. I cannot even comprehend why the Academy can't fill out the category. And then you're trying to tell me that the song isn't even good enough to score a nomination. That's ludicrous.

Noon

--I'm now on my lunch break and I'm still pissed off. Actually I'm more pissed off now than I was a few hours ago. It's beyond reason why the Academy stiffed The Dark Knight...or the Boss...or for that matter WALL-E. The category for best animated feature is ill-advised as it destroys almost any shot of an animated feature earning a best picture nomination. And you know what...I think WALL-E should have been nominated for best picture as well.

Damn I'm angry.

Hall of Fame talk

Last Saturday I posted about the newest MLB Hall of Famers (Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice) and talked about next year's class featuring Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez and Roberto Alomar. I stated then and still believe that three out of these four are hall of famers (contrary to the assumption that there won't be any first ballot hall of famers in this 2010 class).

Barry Larkin

He's in and it shouldn't even be a debate. As everyone knows I dislike the Reds, always have--always will. But even I can recognize that Larkin is a hall of famer. Why I feel so strongly about this is that I feel that as a Midwesterner that Larkin is getting disrespected simply because he played in the Midwest--in Cincinnati. If he would have played in New York, Boston or LA there wouldn't be as much uncertainty with his resume. And speaking of that...his resume as a shortstop is pretty solid.

--12 time All-Star
--1995 MVP winner
--career stats .295 (batting avg.)/ .371 (OBP)/ .444 (SLG)
--7 good years (OPS+ over 125--25% better than the average player) 1 great year (OPS+ over 150--50% better than the average player)

Let's compare that to his NL peers. According to Jayson Stark's, The Stark Truth, during Larkin's career he routinely outperformed his contemporaries. For example his career OPS (on base plus slugging) was .815. The average OPS of a shortstop in Larkin's day was .678...that's a 20% gap.


Just for the sake of argument let's compare Larkin to Ripken (both were shortstops during roughly the same period).
Ripken's career hitting numbers break this way: .276 (avg)/ .340(OBP)/ .447(SLG) (pretty similar to Larkin's)

And when one considers that Larkin was a better fielder than Ripken then it's not a stretch to put Larkin in Ripken's class...and if that's the case...then he's a no-brainer hall of famer.

Roberto Alomar

He might not get a lot of love because of some behavioral issues (spitting on umpires will cause that) but there's no question that he was one of the best (and the best in the AL) second basemen of his era. There's just no question. He was a 12 time All-Star and his career batting splits are .300 (avg)/ .371 (OBP)/ .443 (SLG).--which are remarkable career splits for a second baseman.

What also could hurt him is that he didn't reach any big milestone (like 3,000 hits) or win an MVP award. But he does have two World Series rings and also ten Gold Gloves.

Another way of looking at it is this...does Alomar's induction weaken the hall of fame or weaken the crop of second basemen in the hall of fame? The answer is a resounding no. For example...Alomar's career OPS (slugging % + on-base %) of .814 ranks him dead square in the middle of the 18 second basemen in the hall of fame.

Edgar Martinez

Before I looked at Edgar's career I thought there was no way that he was a hall of famer. That just shows that perception is not always the best gauge in determining a hall of famer. Bottom line...I didn't realize how great of a ball player (but more specifically hitter) Edgar was in his career. From 1995 to 2001 (his peak years) Edgar's average stats over those seven seasons were--.329 (avg)/ 28 (home runs)/ 110 (RBI's)/ .445 (OBP)/ .574 (SLG). That's solid...hall of fame solid. Furthermore...using the OPS+ as a gauge Edgar had three good seasons (OPS+ between 125-149) and eight great seasons (of an OPS+ over 150). That is incredible. In fact Edgar's career OBS+ is 147-- which is tied with hall of famers--Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt and Willie Stargell and future hall of famers--Vladimir Guerrero and Alex Rodriguez. Those are legendary names...not just borderline hall of famers and future first ballot hall of famers.

Granted he was DH and that isn't going to help. Actually that is going to hurt him a lot. Additionally his career totals are pedestrian--2,200+ hits...309 home runs...1,261 RBI's. Those don't rank very high on the career lists. Although he was a late bloomer--he didn't play a full season until he was 27.

But did you know that before Edgar won his two batting titles that the last right hander to accomplish that feet in the AL (winning two batting titles) was guess who...Joe DiMaggio.

In essence Edgar has a lot working against him. He was a DH. His career didn't get started until he was 27 and his career numbers don't grab you. And he's Edgar Martinez...and let's be honest...if you aren't in Seattle...you just don't get worked up about Edgar. But I'm convinced that he should be a hall of famer. And I'll go on to say that (and this is assuming that he was clean) that he was the best "natural" all around hitter in the 1990's.

Fred McGriff

This man fell seven home runs short of 500 and it would have been more interesting if he would have gotten to 500 (because that--used to be--the magic number for inclusion). But even if he did...I'm just not convinced that he is a hall of famer. He was a good ball player for a number of years...even helped Maddux and the Braves to the 1995 World Series...but he just doesn't seem to cut it. He doesn't pass the eye test of what one would see as a hall of famer.

I don't know maybe his numbers look more real--again assuming that he was clean but he never finished in the top five in MVP voting. It seemed that he was never considered to be the best (or one of the best) first basemen in baseball when he was playing (There was Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Todd Helton, Mattingly, McGwire, Thome, Palmerio, Delgado, Giambi). Although he did put up some big numbers prior to the inflated era of the mid '90's and beyond. His best years were in the late '80's and early '90's. In fact when I apply the OPS+ test to his career he remarkably had 6 good years and 5 great years. That's pretty darn solid. But it just doesn't ever seem like he was an elite player. Maybe he's a victim of his position and era. There were a lot of good to great first basemen (although some were roided up) during his playing days and it seems that he didn't rise to the top.

I would say at this point that my vote now would be no...but I might need to do some more research.

So there you have it. I would vote without hesitating for Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez.

Sorry Crime Dog.

Best Picture Talk II

The Oscars nominations will be announced tomorrow at 8:30 AM. I was originally planning a thorough examination of the contenders but I'm not sure if that is needed. Last month I predicted the following five films would garner a nomination--Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Dark Knight. I'm making one change...I think The Wrestler is going to sneak in there and bump Frost/Nixon from the last spot. I'm not suggesting that one movie is more deserving than the other (especially since I haven't seen Frost/Nixon) but I just think the buzz is building for The Wrestler.

Here's my prediction...

Milk
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
The Dark Knight
The Wrestler


Additionally...I just have to say something about the history that occurred yesterday.

I had a strong feeling of pride and humbleness while watching the festivities on TV...and a I also had a strong feeling of hope that our country is back on the right track. More importantly I take it to heart the call for service that Obama spoke of. Those looking for a way to volunteer can visit The President's USA service website. It doesn't take volunteering for the Peace Corps (although that is admirable) to make a difference. One can still make a difference doing it locally--whether it's giving blood or volunteering at a school.

"The Wrestler" movie review

We continue looking at Oscar hopefuls this week with Darren Aronofsky’s, The Wrestler (R). Mickey Rourke stars as Randy “The Ram” Robinson a once popular wrestler whose time in the ring has passed. While still trying to wrestle in smaller circuits, “The Ram” struggles not only with his career but with the few relationships in his life. Marisa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood costar.

Andy: In case you haven’t already heard, Mickey Rourke is amazing in this movie. He carries the movie from beginning to end, lumbering through the narrative with a combination of broken down humanity and bravado that is rarely seen in movies. The juxtaposition of his extremely physical performance with both subtle and overtly dramatic scenes is nothing short of remarkable.

Ryan: Most of the buzz surrounding The Wrestler starts and ends with Mickey Rourke’s transcendent performance. Don’t get me wrong it’s a fantastic performance. Here’s what isn’t being said. The Wrestler is one of the best films of the year. It’s not being talked about as a best picture contender but it should be. The Wrestler is a brilliant film. It’s a movie that leaves you emotionally drained yet satisfied.

Andy: The Wrestler is a very high quality movie. I have not heard anyone claiming otherwise, but the astonishingly high quality performance of Rourke overshadows how solid the movie is. Director Darren Aronofski completely redeems himself after the failure of 2006’s ambitious The Fountain. The Wrestler is a completely different movie, tackling the harsh realities of the fantasy world of professional wrestling. Watching Roark’s deconstruction of Randy “The Ram” Robinson over the course of film makes the film powerfully moving.

Ryan: Mickey Rourke has already scored the Golden Globe award for Best Actor and an Oscar nomination is certain to be around the corner. The only thing that could work against Rourke’s performance is ascertaining how much of his performance is acting or how much is it Rourke playing himself. But even with that said, there’s no question that Rourke’s performance is one of the best’s of the year. His authentic portrayal of a washed-up wrestler is layered with an emotional resonance that just isn’t seen in most films.

Andy: Not to be short changed here both Evan Rachel Wood and (especially) Marisa Tomei put forth some very fine supporting performances. Both actresses did not have a whole lot of substance to work with, as the best chops were reserved for Rourke’s character, but both made their characters meaningful and complex as a backdrop for The Ram’s descent.

Ryan: Whether one is a fan or not of professional wrestling is not important in appreciating this film. Yes, the movie is about wrestling but it's about so much more than that. It's about finding value and self-worth in life. It's about taking chances in opening oneself up to others. The Wrestler is a slice of life and Aronofsky does a skillful job in showcasing the ups and downs—the happiness and sadness—that all people go through and struggle with as they travel through life.

The Wrestler is a great achievement for Mickey Rourke and Darren Aronofsky for making an intense and nuanced film that hits the emotional buttons hard.



Final grade: A-.

Professional Wrestlers talking about "The Wrestler"

Here's a couple of short videos of some wrestling greats talking about "The Wrestler" and wrestling in general.

Dominated

Bub's Burgers and Ice Cream is a eatery in downtown Carmel. They are famous for their "Big Ugly" burger which is a 22 oz hamburger (pre-cooked weight). If you finish it off, they put your picture on the wall.

I (along with Jenny and Andy & Elizabeth) went their last night...and needless to say...my picture is now on the wall.

That's right I ate a one pound burger.

Admittingly before I saw the burger in front of me I was slightly hesitant that I was going to be able to finish it. But after seeing it in front of me...it became evident that I was mistaken. Because it was never in doubt after that. In fact I finished off my burger before Andy finished his half-pound burger. That's called Maddux'ing it up.

Congrats to Rickey and Rice

Earlier in the week Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice were announced as the newest inductees into the MLB Hall of Fame. Richey was a no-brainer (all time leader in steals, runs scored...second in walks). He's hands down the greatest leadoff hitter of all time.

As I've said before I'm not sold on Jim Rice's candidacy but I'm not going to take anything away from him. He was a good player...I'm just not convinced he is a hall of famer.

I found this article and think that's it goes a long way in seeing the absurdity that happens sometimes with hall of fame voting. It's a breakdown between the careers of Jack Morris (who garners a fair share of support) and David Cone (who didn't even get 5% of the vote on his first year on the ballot). I do agree with the headline that neither are hall worthy.

Looking ahead to next year's ballot...Roberto Alomar, Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff and Edgar Martinez all will be eligible. I've read this several places... that none of these candidates will make it their first year being on the ballots...whereas the way I'm seeing it...three out of these four candidates are Hall worthy.

But more on that later.

More Snuggie madness...

Fox NFL robot irriates Conan (and me as well)

Check it out...

More Colts Talk

Jim Caldwell was introduced as the new Colts coach yesterday and I’m optimistic that he’s the right man for the job. Whether it’s fair or not, he is being labeled as a Tony Dungy clone (soft spoken…man of faith…a professional) and while I think that is just a convenient way of looking at….the bottom line is…what’s wrong with that? If Caldwell continues the culture of winning that Dungy established than I’m fine with that. Yes the one and done playoff failures are unsatisfying but Dungy established a winning tradition that Indianapolis desperately needed. We needed a culture of success and Dungy brought that. If Caldwell continues that—and along the way wins a Super Bowl—I’ll be fine with that.

I mentioned this a couple of posts ago…the unfortunate phenomenon of the one and done Colts playoff failures. I was having a hard time digesting it but this past weekend (three of the four home-field teams losing) is proving one thing—as parity increases in the NFL…the success of predictability of who is going to win decreases. Basically the NFL playoffs are becoming a crapshoot where one can throw home-field advantage and a team’s record out the window. A wild card team has one the Super Bowl the past three years. Also in the past three years, half of the teams (2 out of 4) with home field advantage have lost their first playoff game (which is at home). This year it was three.

I’m not bringing this up as an excuse for why the Colts have had their share of one and done postseason missteps but it does—in some way—make it easier to look at the playoffs as a big crapshoot where anyone can win. The modern day NFL (with salary caps and unbalanced scheduling) favors turn over among teams so in that regard it’s pretty amazing how consistent the Colts have been. It would have been nice if that translated to more post season success but it is what it is.

"Doubt" Movie Review

This week we continue to look at Oscar hopefuls by watching Doubt (PG-13), writer/direct Sean Patrick Shanley’s study of alleged abuse in a catholic middle school in the sixties. The all-star cast includes Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, and Viola Davis.

Andy: Doubt is based on Shanley’s play of the same name, and it feels very much like a play, even on the silver screen. The film is very dialogue driven, with very little variation in location. Because of the lack of cinematic elements, the film allows the actors and the content to shine. The themes the movie addresses (religion, abuse, teacher relationships with parents and students) are intense and complex. At the very least, Doubt does a wonderful job of stimulating thought and discussion on these topics.


Ryan: I think it should be pointed out that although Doubt centers on an alleged case of abuse the movie is really not about the specifics of that alleged action. More to the point, the movie centers on a power struggle between a nun and priest and deals with issues of faith involving certainty and doubt. The movie showcases some remarkable performances and it’s those performances that make Doubt worth watching. The movie is nothing cinematically special but it’s a solid piece of work.

Andy: Doubt is really highlighted the performances of the actors involved. Streep is a consummate professional, and she is in top form in this movie. I take issue with some of her choices (especially the very end of the film), but there is no denying that she is likely to get nominated for yet another Oscar here. Similarly, Philip Seymour Hoffman is his reliably remarkable self, balancing affability with a hint of creepiness.


Ryan: The movie itself falls short in being Best Picture material but it contains several Oscar worthy performances. The scenes between Streep and Hoffman are reason enough to watch the movie as they are both in stride with regard to their performances. I would say that they are both locks for a nomination. I was also impressed with both Amy Adams and Viola Davis and I believe one of them will score a nomination for Best Supporting Actress.

Andy: The supporting acting is every bit as strong in Doubt as the leads are, with both Amy Adams and Viola Davis doing an outstanding job. Davis’s performance may be the most impressive, as she only has one scene, but completely steals it from Meryl Streep. With four performances at such high quality, it is hard to imagine Doubt not having multiple Oscar nominations.


Ryan: One would think that a film with four Oscar worthy performances would be a slam dunk of a film but Doubt has its issues. Like I said before, cinematically, the movie doesn't showcase anything that sets it apart from the stage version. Sometimes plays just work better as plays. But even with that said Doubt resonates as an intimate yet intense look at the question of ascertaining truth based more on faith than on facts.

Doubt features several performances that carry it to a respectable B+.

Tony Dungy to retire

Word is coming out that Tony Dungy will announce his retirement from coaching the Colts at a 5:00 press conference.

I tip my hat to Tony Dungy. I know there's been a fair share of playoff failures (and more on this later) but he delivered a Super Bowl in 2006 and he also brought a level of consistency and excellence to a franchise that was going nowhere (and had been going nowhere).

He's a hall of fame football coach but more importantly his impact stretches beyond his football accomplishments. Not to anoint him to sainthood or anything but there's a lot of dopes in the sporting world...and it was refreshing and inspiring to see Dungy do things the "right" way.

Another look at "Gone Baby Gone"

The other night Jenny watched for the first (and I for a second) time the Ben Affleck directed, Gone Baby Gone. I really liked the movie when I watched it last year and I thought it was one of the better films of the year.

By the way one probably shouldn’t read any further if you haven’t seen the movie.

But anyway the film’s ending is still intriguing to me. Those that have seen the movie know what I’m talking about…that basically Casey Affleck’s character had to make a difficult choice regarding what to do with the kidnapped girl.

I think it’s clear—and the movie does (I believe) ultimately take this position-- that Affleck’s character made the “right” choice. You can’t condone people of authority kidnapping a little girl because she has a questionable mother (played by Amy Ryan). And that’s not even factoring in the murders that were committed to cover up the crime. Basically the ends don’t justify the means with regard to what Morgan Freeman and his cronies (Ed Harris and Co.) attempted.

But I do thinks it’s intriguing to look at it from the other angle. More to the point I would argue (and maybe I’m being more Devil’s Advocate than anything) that I’m not entirely convinced that Affleck’s decision was completely selfless and/or was he really putting the girl’s best interest first?

Why I’m questioning Affleck’s motivation is two-fold. One he says (and I’m summarizing here) that he couldn’t live with himself if later on his life he would admit to the kidnapped girl (Amanda) that he did nothing when he had the opportunity to return her to her rightful mother. It seems to me that one reason he’s choosing to do what he does is to satisfy his own future guilt. In that regard, it doesn’t seem to me that Affleck is making his decision solely on what is best for the girl. He’s factoring in his own desires (even though they might seem to be admirable).

Secondly, its clear-- by the way the movie ended--that Affleck is going to have a presence in Amanda’s life. I don’t think that is a bad thing—especially considering how ridiculous Amanda’s mother is. But again is he being slightly self-serving by inserting himself into Amanda’s life? What exactly is his motive? Is it to just be a positive presence in Amanda’s life or is he satisfying some need in himself to be her hero…or her father-like figure. Surely in some way he recognizes that Ryan is not a great mother so in some small regard he’s slightly similar to Freeman’s character in that they both see the need for themselves to intervene for Amanda’s behalf. Granted it’s not to the same level of ridiculousness…but there are some few parallels. Basically if Affleck sees himself of some sort of guardian for Amanda than that surely factored in his decision to do what he did…and thus it’s arguable that he put his own desires into the decision. Again…was his choice completely selfless and solely based on Amanda’s best interest?

It doesn’t take much of a leap to assume (and it is an assumption) that Amanda would have a better (at least more secure and caring) home with the characters played by Morgan Freeman and his wife than with her own mother. Of course this was also the position shared by Affleck’s girlfriend in the movie (played by Michelle Monaghan). If the movie existed in more of a vacuum (where all the crazy stuff didn’t happen) than I believe it would have been a harder decision for Affleck to make and it would have been more difficult to buy that the girl is truly better off with her biological mother than with her potential “adopted” parents. We do authorize the state to make those calls (removing kids from their parents) but we frown on it (and justifiable so) when individuals take it upon themselves to do it.

The existential dilemma that faces Affleck’s character is just so intriguing. I just find it fascinating in examining the motives behind his decision. And I'm not really sure if his decision had to be selfless but in examining his decision one can see that his choice did factor in some of his own wishes and thoughts.

But anyway...that's all for now.

"Watchmen" Japanese trailer

Here's the Japanese trailer for the Watchmen movie. It has snippets of a few scenes not seen in the American version.

Now let's just hope that Warner Bros and Fox can work their issues out because I don't want the film to get delayed from it's March opening.

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" Movie Review

After a brief hiatus thanks to the holidays we are back with a new review. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (PG-13) stars Brad Pitt as the title character who inexplicably ages backwards. Needless to say drama ensues. Cate Blanchett and Julia Ormond co-star and David Fincher directs.

Ryan: Although The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is getting tremendous best picture buzz it’s not best picture material. The movie boasts some of the best special effects that one will ever see in film but the bottom line is that it’s only a good film and not a great film. There are several really well executed scenes and the performances by the two leads are noteworthy. But the movie has several flaws that prevent it from being an instant classic.

Andy: Benjamin Button has the feel of on Oscar movie. It has a sweeping, epic narrative (and runtime), it has big name actors playing life-long roles. It has historic qualities coupled with intensely personal themes. The story is even based off a work of one of America ’s most beloved authors, F. Scott Fitzgerald. Unfortunately having the ingredients for an Oscar doesn’t mean that it deserves consideration. Even though it has some very strong points, Benjamin Button should not be considered a Best Picture contender.

Ryan: If the movie wasn’t written by the guy who wrote Forrest Gump, Eric Roth, then there might have been a strong plagiarizing case taking shape. The movies are eerily similar—an atypical leading man journeying through life during extraordinary moments while meeting some memorable characters. This might not have been that big of an issue but the unoriginal narrative shoots down an otherwise wholly original idea (of a man aging backwards).

Andy: The 20^th century victory lap the film takes us on is probably the root of what is wrong with this movie. Scenes of WWII, and New York City in the 50s make Benjamin Button seem as if it’s trying too hard. The complexity of Benjamin’s situation and what he must endure with the eccentric people he meets would be plenty to carry the movie along, but in an attempt to be more epic (or self important) the movie has done itself a disservice, diminishing an interesting story and some very good performances.

Ryan: Pitt and Blanchett’s names are also getting tossed around for Oscar nominations and they might come to fruition although I’m not sure if they would be justified. They are both really good in the movie but they don’t give transcendent performances. Although I do think that what holds them back is some uninspired writing. Further compounding the issue is how Fincher is unable to establish a believable lifelong chemistry between the two characters. The audience is shown that these two characters love each other but one never sees why these two characters would fall in love in the first place.

Andy: Pitt gives a very solid performance, helped along by great make-up and special effects work. The main distraction from his acting is in the second third of the movie where he goes from being an interesting character that we’ve been following for an hour to simply being Brad Pitt. Perhaps it wouldn’t be as distracting if the film didn’t proceed to milk his movie star looks for all they are worth during this sequence. It is unfortunate, because an otherwise noteworthy performance is weakened because it.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a pretty good movie that fails to live up to its potential. Just because it is not as Oscar-worthy as expected does not mean it is not still pretty good.

Final grade: B.

Blue Sunday

Another Colts season came to an abrupt end last night when the San Diego Charges beat the Colts 23-17 in overtime.

Uggg.

I've been pining over the lost all day and basically I still have no clear cut reason why we keep having these early exits from the playoffs. It's been said before and I think it's worth repeating as it's becoming more and more true that Indianapolis Colts are like the Atlanta Braves of the 1990's. The Braves consistently made the playoffs winning fourteen division titles in a row. But they only won one World Series--in 1995. I rooted for most of those teams (Maddux played for the Braves from 1993 to 2003) and I can tell you that not only did it suck from year to year but it became inexplicable why the just couldn't win another title.

I don't really see that labeling this version of the Colts as the Braves as an outright negative thing because that devalues the regular season success (and consistency) that the Braves (and Colts) have/are achieving. But it just defies logic why a team can have so much regular season success but (almost) fail year after year to close the deal.

Another thing that nauseates me the most is how every armchair quarterback is going to have their reason for the latest playoff debacle. Dungy's not fiery enough...the players don't play with emotion...Manning chokes...they can't run the ball (which I would argue is pretty much why they didn't win the game this year)...and so on.

It was hard to process all those Braves disasters but it almost numbed you after so long. It's not that they were cursed--where crazy shit was actually happening--it just seemed like the Braves had to play perfect to win and the other team didn't...and they would still win. For example...in the 2000 NLDS they couldn't even beat the Cardinal's Rick Ankiel and his five wild pitches.

For whatever reason it seems like the Colts have to play perfect football to win but they other team doesn't. Look at last night's game...LT doesn't hardly play...the Charges have two costly turnovers (we have none)...and we still lose. I hate to say...that maybe it just wasn't meant to be...and that seems like a pretty lousy excuse...but it does help me to process the loss a little easier.

I don't know...I'm just going to quit rambling because I don't really know if I'm making sense or not or if that I can accurately come up with some sort of reason why the Colts can't get it done.

Well...I'll just turn my attention to IU basketball...although I really don't see that helping.

Top Tunes of 2008

For the past several years...even before we were dating...I've made a "Best of..." CD mix for Jenny.

After working it out...here's this year's track list. Now I just need to acquire some blank CD's, which sounds so old-fashioned.

1. The Hold Steady, "Constructive Summer"
2. Rihanna, "Distubia"
3. Blitzen Trapper, "Furr"
4. The Ting Tings, "Shut Up and Let Me Go"
5. Mates of State, "The Re-Arranger"
6. The Killers, "Spaceman"
7. Ryan Adams, "Fix It"
8. Vampire Weekend, "M79"
9. The Gaslight Anthem, "The '59 Sound"
10. The Submarines, "You, Me, and the Bourgeoisie"
11. Panic At the Disco, "Nine In the Afternoon"
12. Jay-Z & T.I., "Swagga Like Us (featuring Kanye West and Lil Wayne)
13. Black Kids, "Look at Me (When I Rock Wichoo)
14. R.E.M., "Supernatural Superserious"
15. MGMT, "Time to Pretend"
16. The Fireman, "Sing the Changes"
17. Titus Andronicus, "Titus Andronicus"
18. The Walkmen, "In the New Year"
19. Vampire Weekend, "A-Punk"
20. Coldplay, "Viva la Vida"
21. Oasis, "I'm Outta Time"
22. Bruce Springsteen, "The Wrestler"

--I've bold faced my five favorite songs on the year.

--For what it's worth I would vote for Vampire Weekend's self-titled CD as the album of the year.