"Away We Go" Movie Review

We take a pause this week with the current crop of new releases to check out the indie flick, Away We Go ( R). In film John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph star as a couple in their thirties who are searching for the best place to start their family with their yet unborn child. During their journey they encounter a host of other families with different perspectives on raising families. Sam Mendes directs.

Ryan: If one's looking for a break from the noise that's mostly coming out of cineplexes then I would recommend seeing the film, Away We Go. It's a bit cliché to label indie films as normally being smart but this film is genius compared to many of the films that we have unfortunately covered this summer. Away We Go is a fulfilling movie told in a tidy manner. One generally empathizes with the main characters in the film and the movie is very relatable, especially with moviegoers of our generation.

Andy: Director Sam Mendes may never achieve at the level of his directorial debut, American Beauty, but it is easy to argue that he hasn’t made a bad movie. Away We Go continues this trend. While the movie may not be for everyone, it certainly speaks to people in their 20s and 30s. The fact that 30-something hipster icon Dave Eggers co wrote the script only adds to the appeal. This is by no means a perfect movie, but it speaks very clearly to the timeless, existential dilemma that many people early in adulthood face: what am I going to do with my life?

Ryan: Sam Mendes' last film was another take on marriage and relationships—Revolutionary Road. Away We Go is a stark contrast in terms of drama and tone from that film and it's gut-wrenching story. But they are both well-crafted films and it's worth highlighting Mendes ability to look at marriage from different angles and perspectives. Away We Go is not as heavy as Revolutionary Road but it explores similar themes in a different but just as effective manner. I'm not breaking ice here declaring Mendes to be a talented filmmaker but his films tend to fly under the radar at times and that shouldn't be the case.

Andy: Away We Go is an Indie romantic comedy that works primarily because of the charming nature of the two leads. While both Krasinski and Rudolph’s characters are a bit odd, they seem like eccentric friends that you wish you had. The result is that in spite of some of the movie’s other shortcomings, you care and root for these characters.

Ryan: Maya Rudolph and John Krasinski have entertained plenty of people on TV but both of them have yet to establish successful film careers. Making this movie is definitely a step in the right direction. I would argue that neither give breakthrough performances but they do put forth solid performances. They play their characters right down the middle as they were intended to be played. Consequently their characters (and performances) stand out because most of the other supporting roles are--by design--more absurd.

Andy: As Ryan alluded tool, many of the characters that Krasinski and Rudolph encounter on their cross-country trek seem a little over the top, and that may rub some moviegoers the wrong way. The film is structured in a very episodic way, and there is no question that some of the episodes work a little better than others. I would be willing to bet that which episodes work and which don’t varies from person to person. It makes the movie a little uneven, but it still works more often than it doesn’t.

Away We Go is a pleasant alternative to many of duds released this summer.
Final grade: B+.

All-Time Fantasy Baseball Team

I was listening to one of ESPN's Fantasy Baseball Podcasts the other day and an interesting (at least to me) subject was brought up. An emailer had started a conversation by stating that Rickey Henderson's 1985 season was one of the greatest fantasy seasons ever...at least during the fantasy era (early '80's to the present). The hosts debated it for awhile and mentioned some other seasons but they eventually moved on.

Well I didn't.

My goal initially was to come up with the greatest fantasy seasons ever by position. (Assuming that it would be a roto league with the standard 5 x 5 categories--runs, home runs, RBI's, stolen bases, batting average, wins, strikeouts, ERA, WHIP and saves and the standard positions...plus two utility spots) Clearly I was going to limit my range to those seasons within the designated fantasy era...one, it makes some sense to have seasons that coincide when people actually played fantasy baseball and second, it's gets too complicated to reconcile some of the eras of baseball history to the modern era...ie the deadball era pitchers would dominate the pitching slots.

As I dove into this endeavor I realized that this was going to be no easy task. For example...when evaluating Barry Bonds which season does one put more stock in...his 73 home run season or the season where he went 40-40 (40+ home runs and steals). It became evident to me that I had to refine my purpose. Instead of just listing the best fantasy seasons per position I would come up with the best fantasy seasons in terms of fielding the best fantasy team possible. I believe that this approach lends itself to more debate and more strategy when coming up with a team.

Also...I'm not making exceptions for questionable seasons. I know some of the seasons are suspicious with players using PED's but fantasy baseball is about stats so that's the way I'm going to proceed.

Catcher

Ivan Rodriguez (1999)

.332 AVG/ 35 HR/ 113 RBI/ 25 SB/ 116 runs

This was almost a coin flip with Mike Piazza's 1997 season of .362/40/124/5/104. The number are comparable across the board but I went with Pudge's season because of the steals.

First Baseman

Todd Helton (2000)

.372 AVG/ 42 HR/ 147 RBI/ 5 SB/ 138 runs

This surprised me. In my view there is a plethora of hall of fame worthy (I don't think Helton's there yet) first baseman during this era--Bagwell, Thomas, Thome, McGwire, Delgado and Pujols but none of them can match Helton's 2000 season. McGwire's '98 season is close--
.299/ 70/ 147/ 1/ 130 but Helton's batting average sells it for me. I can make the home runs up elsewhere.

Second Baseman

Roberto Alomar (1999)

.323 AVG/ 24 HR/ 120 RBI/37 SB/ 138 runs

There's been better power seasons, Sandburg in '84 and Soriano in '02 but for an across the board attack one can't beat Alomar's '99 campaign. He's solid in all five stats.

Shortstop

Alex Rodriguez (1998)

Arod is simply ridiculous and I mean that in a positive and negative way.

Look at these three seasons

'96 .358 AVG/ 36 HR/ 123 RBI/ 15 SB/ 141 runs

'98 .310 /42 /124 /46 / 123

'01 .318 /52 /135 /18 /133

I was prepared to go with the '96 season because that batting average is eye opening but then I was going to go with the '01 season because of the power but ultimately I decided on the '98 season because of the all around balance. It's hard to look over a 40-40 season at the SS position. One isn't getting hurt in any stat category.

Third Baseman

Alex Rodriguez (2007)


.314 AVG/ 54 HR/ 156 RBI/ 24 SB/ 143 runs

I probably should have mentioned this earlier but I was going to limit it to where a player can only contribute one season. I thought this would only come into play with the starting rotation or with the outfield spots but then I came to this little dilemma. Since it's a different position I'm making an exception. One can't ignore this season. The home run and RBI total is the highest ever for a third baseman. It's really one of the all time great seasons in MLB history.

But here's the runner up for those not satisfied...Chipper Jones '99 season where he batted...
.319 AVG/ 45 HR/ 110 RBI/ 25 SB/ 116 runs.

Outfield

Rickey Henderson (1985)

.314 AVG/ 24 HR/ 72 RBI/ 80 SB/ 146 runs

I think this season pretty much speaks for itself. The man stole 80 bases and hit 24 home runs...and oh by the way...scored 146 runs.

Larry Walker (1997)

.366 AVG/ 49 HR/ 130 RBI/ 33 SB/ 143 runs

This may be arguably the greatest fantasy season of the fantasy era. It's all there--the power--the speed--the average. Truly a historic season.

Sammy Sosa (2001)

.328 AVG/ 64 HR/ 160 RBI/ 0 SB/ 146 runs

One's definitely taking a hit with the zero steals (come on Sammy) but one can't ignore the other numbers. They're off the chart.

Feeling a little dirty with Sammy's season...a runner-up season would be Griffey's '97 season--
.304 AVG/ 56 HR/ 147 RBI/ 15 SB/ 125 runs


Utility Spots

Barry Bonds (2001)

.328 AVG/ 73 HR/ 137 RBI/ 13 SB/ 129 runs

You knew it was coming. I don't see how one can ignore 73 home runs. The other numbers are very impressive even if the stolen base total is low.

Feeling dirty with this season as well...here's the irony...there's a handful--OK maybe even a half-dozen of seasons prior to the alleged juicing years that are--almost--on par with this season. The one I would take would be his 40-40 season in '96 .308 AVG/ 42 HR/ 129 RBI/ 40 SB/ 122 runs.


Tim Raines (1983)

.298 AVG/ 11 HR/ 71 RBI/ 90 SB/ 133 runs

OK..I had to get a little ridiculous. But here's my reasoning. I have enough power...the lowest HR total on my team is 24. I need steals...and something to make up for Sosa's big fat zero. The batting average isn't going to hurt, although it's the lowest on the team. I probably have enough in the run department but I'm getting the 133 runs as well as the insane stolen base total. Basically my utility spots are taken to the extreme but when they are combined...it makes for a more complete package, which is what I'm going for.


Starting Pitching

Dwight Gooden (1985)

24-4 W-L/ 1.53 ERA/ 0.96 WHIP/ 268 SO

I'm not going to romanticize with the "what might have been" for Gooden but the bottom line is that his '85 season is one of the bests in history. This is a no-doubter.

Greg Maddux (1995)

19-2 W-L/ 1.63 ERA/ 0.81 WHIP/ 181 SO

Maddux's '95 season is historic (back to back sub-2.00 ERA's) and might have been more historic if he didn't miss the 4-5 starts that the work stoppage affected (the season started later). The strikeout total is lower than the rest of the staff but the ridiculous low ERA and WHIP more than make up for it.

Roger Clemens (1997)

21-7 W-L/ 2.05 ERA/ 1.03 WHIP/ 292 SO

I'm not a Clemens fan but I can't ignore this season (he won the AL triple crown-wins, ERA and strikeouts) and for what it's worth Clemens didn't allegedly start juicing until 1998 so it's a season that is hopefully on the up and up.

Pedro Martinez (1999)

23-4 W-L/ 2.07 ERA/ 0.92 WHIP/ 313 SO

His 2000 season is arguable just as good (18-6/1.74/0.73/284 SO) but I went with the 2000 season because of the higher win and strikeout total. Simply dominant as he won the AL pitching triple crown.

Randy Johnson (2001)

21-6 W-L/ 2.49 ERA/ 1.01 WHIP/ 372 SO

He won the NL pitching crown the following year but I went with this year because of the higher strikeout total 372 to 334. The other stat categories are a wash.


Relief Pitching

Trevor Hoffman (1998)

4-2 W-L/ 1.48 ERA/ 86 SO/ 0.85 WHIP/ 53 saves

Hoffman's the all-time saves leader and this season was his best.

Eric Gagne (2003)

2-3 W-L/ 1.20 ERA/ 137 SO/ 0.69 WHIP/ 55 saves

Gagne has since flamed out and he was mentioned in the Mitchell Report but this season was one for the ages for relief pitchers. His strikeout ratio was simply ridiculous...137 K's in 82.1 innings (15.0 K/9 innings).

John Smoltz (2003)

0-2 W-L/ 1.12 ERA/ 73 SO/ 0.87 WHIP/ 45 saves

Interesting that 2003 produced two out of the three best seasons for closers (during this era). Gagne's season overshadowed what Smoltz accomplished this year but one just can't beat that ERA.

Put it on the board.

"Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" movie review

The Harry Potter saga continues with the sixth installment of the series, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (PG). With dark forces swirling at Hogwarts and beyond, Dumbeldore (Michael Gambon) increasingly requests the help of Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) to battle the forces of Lord Voldemort. The regular cast of characters including Emma Watson and Rupert Grint are back for this go around. David Yates directs.

Ryan: The Harry Potter series has in my view always been hit and miss. But there’s no question now that the series is on the right track. I thought the previous film, The Order of the Phoenix, which Yates also directed, was the best of the bunch and I would classify the Half Blood Prince as just as good as that movie. The series is getting progressively more ominous but it remains grounded with characters that the audience still cares about--and after six films that's pretty important.

Andy: Once again I approach the Harry Potter series from the point of view of somebody who has never read the books. I understand the appeal of the series, but I’ve never fallen in love with it. Like many who don’t consider themselves big fans of the franchise, my favorite is the third film, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The last one was solid, but not great, and for the most part I’d agree with Ryan that The Half Blood Prince is about on par as the previous movie.

Ryan: The Harry Potter series keeps getting darker and darker but another theme that keeps developing parallel to the good vs. evil narrative is the teen angst of the main characters. Potentially, going down that road could derail the film but it hasn’t and that’s definitely a relief. The filmmakers have done a good job in keeping the melodrama in check and I believe that accurately reflects the tone of the novels (as I'm told).

Andy: While I don’t see anything glaringly wrong with this movie, I will say that I found myself getting very bored at times. This is strange because the dark nature of the movie should lend itself to high suspense, but I still found my mind wondering a bit. Perhaps it’s the over-familiarity of the characters that makes this film less inclined to hold my attention. In any case, if a fantasy story becomes boring, there is potential for a real problem.

Ryan: My biggest issue historically with the Harry Potter franchise has been the epic running times of the films. Thankfully that wasn’t an issue last time around and it’s not an issue this time either. Yates doesn’t have the resume of the some of the other Harry Potter directors (Chris Columbus, Mike Newell, and Alfonso Cuaron) and I’m not sure if Yates “gets” the book any more than the other directors but he’s quite daft in crafting a movie that doesn’t feel like it’s two and half hours long. Accordingly that is much appreciated, helping it earn a B+.

Andy: I do appreciate the scaling back of the length of the Harry Potter movies. I also appreciate the willingness of the franchise to go as dark and gloomy as it has. That said, these movies are not the great films they could be. They still feel derivative of the Lord of the Rings movies, and too much precious film time is still devoted to Quidditch matches. All in all I’d call Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince a little more than adequate, but still not as good as it should be. Final grade: C+.

TV Media

I've been getting pretty frustrated with watching national news. Even CNN, which I watch a lot of, has been wearing me out with it's incessant coverage of Michael Jackson. Yes, it was a big story but it just dominated (or still dominates) their airwaves.

In light of Walter Cronkite's death, I've been thinking about the state of media in today's climate...more specifically with media on TV.

I'm convinced that we'll never see another news personality with the weight of a Walter Cronkite. But that's also not necessarily a bad thing. A journalist with that much power or influence could be ill-advisable. But in some ways I'm envious that we don't have an institution like that that is completely trustworthy.

There's a whole host of problems with modern TV news coverage and I'm not even going to touch on the subject of the news being more entertainment than newsworthy. Instead I'm going to concentrate on two points that are in my view just as dangerous.

1. Filtering. Back in the day--a national news show--was the prime outlet for getting national and international news. Since they were (are) only thirty minutes long there has be a concerted effort to cover the big stories but also the stories that were news worthy. In this day in age of 24-hour cable news shows and with the internet being an endless stream of information the access to news is basically unlimited. And again that's not a bad thing...to have information readily available. That is a good thing for our democracy. But I've been noticing that consequently we've lost that professionalism of journalism to be able to filter the stories that are news worthy or that should be news worthy. For example, one day last month there were several people who came into the auction barn blithering on about how the federal government was going to (and this was like written in stone) tax farm animals for the waste that they produce. Predictably this led to these people to rant and rave about Obama (in an illogical manner) and about this and that...well...I think you get the gist of it. Noise pollution. Anyway, I went home and googled it. I couldn't find anything--at a legitimate news site--that said that this was going to be a reality. I finally found one article...that I regrettable can't find now...that had a quote from an EPA spokesperson basically saying there was absolutely no way that this was going to happen even though that idea had been thrown around in some capacity. Where all this hysteria originated from I'm still not sure. Yes, in the article that I linked from USA Today there was dialog of a cow tax but why that translated into it's going to happen and you can't stop it...I'm not sure. I'm speculating here a bit (but we've all seen this happen before) but what I think happened is that some outlet--either Fox News or a conservative radio show probably mentioned this fact in some capacity and it just snowballed from there. Granted people have their own filter and some use it better than others but it's quite possible that the idea was articulated in a manner that seemed like it was inevitable. So it might not have been their fault at all. In my view it shouldn't have been a story anyway or it should have been presented in a more factual way. The impression I get from reading about the cow tax now is that it was at that time not going to happen and it's not going to happen now. Ultimately sometimes there needs to be a filter on what is news worthy. Not every piece of information or quote is in itself news worthy. But when it's presented on TV or the radio I think people are likely to assume that there is some merit to it when there might not be any.

2. Blurring of fact and opinion. As I've read over the past few days, this notion drove Cronkite crazy. There are a host of TV shows on cable TV (and this includes Fox, CNN and MSNBC) that are a complete blurring of fact and opinion of news and gossip of speculation and spin. Granted a lot of people know these shows are opinion based. But they are presented as a traditional news show (like Cronkite's CBS's Evening News Show) in terms of format and topics. But they don't give the viewer objective concrete news. They give news but it's almost always manipulated in some manner to fit the hosts' perspective or what the audience expects them to think. I find it very frustrating even when watching the shows that fit into my political thought process. That's why I've been watching a lot of my news on Public Television. Yes, it's as dry as what one would expect but it delivers the news in professional and objective manner. And when there are opinions they are well thought-out and do not regress into a shouting match, which also drives me crazy with some of the other cable news shows.

Ultimately it's very dangerous for our democracy where news is being manipulated or not being covered in an objective manner. Freedom of the press is a pillar of our democracy but I think it's being tainted in a big way by people with their own agendas.

Braves Honor Greg Maddux

The Braves retired Maddux's number last night. Unfortunately I was not able to venture down to Atlanta to see the ceremony (Atlanta is a little further away than Chicago).

Anyhow here's a short video from a luncheon (before the game was played) where he was formally inducted into the Braves hall of fame. It also contains another classic Chipper Jones story about Maddux.



Here's some photos from the pre-game festivities...

Taco Bell has gone Green!

From The Onion. . .



Taco Bell's New Green Menu Takes No Ingredients From Nature

"Bruno" Movie Review

This week we take a look at Bruno (R), the newest comedy from Sacha Baron Cohen, the man behind 2006’s Borat. Bruno is an Austrian fashionista who comes to the United States in an attempt to become famous. Hilarity ensues.

Ryan: I've been a big fan of Sacha Baron Cohen ever since his comedy show first appeared on HBO. The show was brilliant and hysterically funny. The Borat film of a few years ago was basically an extension of the show and not surprisingly the film turned out to be an instant comedic classic. Unfortunately the same fate does not await Bruno. Granted Bruno contains many laughs and at times insightful moments of satire. But ultimately the film is uneven with its tone and with its comedy and it falls short of Cohen's other work.

Andy: It’s hard to avoid comparing Borat and Bruno, but it is really no comparison at all. Borat was a much better film, maintained a degree of social commentary, and was generally funnier than Bruno. Bruno seems to go to great lengths to be more shocking than Borat was. On occasion that works quite well, but too many of the shocking sequences are trying too hard to be offensive rather than interesting or clever.

Ryan: When the film Bruno is working, it’s cutting edge humor. There are several laugh-out-loud scenes that also work on another level as biting social commentary. Regrettably there are not enough of these scenes. For whatever reason with this film, Cohen wants to push the envelope of taste more than telling jokes. Borat had its one infamous shocking scene but Bruno is littered with them. The scenes that are in question are just there to shock the audience and as a result devalue the film from cutting edge comedy to a sour mix of raunchiness and lewdness.

Andy: Out of fairness to Cohen, it must have been much more difficult to find people who did not know who he was or what he was doing after the success of Borat. Especially during segments of the film where he is in L.A., it’s hard to imagine that very many “connected” Hollywood players would not know him. Many of the scenes feel like they are staged, which makes the whole movie seem too forced.

Ryan: I say this from time-to-time but I think it's very applicable here. Bruno is not for everybody. Even if one is a fan of R-rated comedies this film still might not be your cup of tea. I don't get offended very often while watching a movie, and for better or worse, I wasn't offended while watching Bruno but I'm certain most moviegoers will find something distasteful about the film. In a lot of ways that's Cohen's intention—to make moviegoers uncomfortable with his brand of comedy. So just be forewarned that this is a rated R comedy for a multitude of reasons.

Andy: The fact is that Bruno has taken the R-rating to where it has not been before. Sometimes it is shocking (and that is the point), but often it is simply trying to make the audience cringe. What made Borat such a fascinating movie was that all of the jokes and awkward situations seemed to be serving a larger theme. Bruno spends too much time simply trying to be scandalous, and even though there are some brilliant moments, the movie is weaker because of it.

Bruno has flashes of greatness, but often stumbles for a final grade of B-.

Moving-Quoting Task Force

Guilty as charged.





EMBED-Bruno Movie-Quoting Task Force - Watch more free videos

"Public Enemies" Movie Review

Michael Mann's latest action movie is the gangster film, Public Enemies ( R). The movie documents the 13-month crime spree of John Dillinger, Public Enemy #1, and the efforts by the FBI to thwart his bank-robbing habits. Johnny Depp stars as the infamous Hoosier bank robber and he is joined in the film by Christian Bale, Marion Cotillard and Billy Crudup.

Ryan: From Heat to Collateral, Michael Mann has produced some crime thriller gems over his career. One can add Public Enemies to that list. Public Enemies is a well-crafted film that's one of the summer's best. The brilliance of the movie is that it has the feel of an old-fashioned Hollywood tale meshed with the modern visual flair of Mann's direction. The story unfolds in a meticulous manner but feels contemporary with its action. I wouldn't classify it as a great film (yet) but it's a solid flick.

Andy: While I like Michael Mann’s movies, I think one could argue that he consistently makes films that fall into the good-not-great category. The Insider and Ali are both very interesting, well executed movies, but I would have trouble calling them “great.” Public Enemies once again falls into that category. I enjoyed it, there were not obvious flaws (other than Mann’s penchant for going well over two hours), but three months from now I don’t think I’ll be telling people they should definitely see it.

Ryan: I get the impression that Public Enemies, despite its technical brilliance, might not resonate with some moviegoers. In this day in age when it comes to telling crime stories people don't just want the story, they want the “why” as well. If one is looking to this movie to shed some light on why John Dillinger did the things that he did, then those people are going to be disappointed with Public Enemies. The film isn't a character study or a psychological analysis of Dillinger. In that light some people would argue that the movie has no (or little) weight. All I would say to that is with regard to this movie--and this is true of many of Mann's films--the style is the substance.

Andy: I’ve also heard some criticism about Public Enemies not being a good summer movie. Biopics are for the winter, action should reign in the warmer months. But Mann’s unwillingness to turn Public Enemies into a character study of Dillinger keep it from being a typical biopic. I personally would like movies such as this to spend some time on the motives of those involved, but by neglecting to do so, Mann has embraced the “summer movie spectacle” aspect of Dillinger’s tale. And at the very least, I have to respect him for it.

Ryan: Being that Public Enemies is a straight-ahead movie the performances in the film are of the one- note variety but it's a heck of a note. All three leads give charismatic performances. At the forefront is Depp who plays Dillinger with a calm coolness instead of the over-the-topness that normally defines the genre. That definitely works to the film's benefit. Additionally Bale's performance is layered with an authentic intensity and Colliard's natural beauty radiates on screen.

Andy: While I find myself a little less enthusiastic than Ryan, there is no question that Public Enemies is one of the stronger movies to hit theatres this summer. As is always the case when he’s involved, Johnny Depp’s performance is at the forefront of what makes Public Enemies work. His cocksure attitude and steady demeanor exudes a confidence that makes Dillinger’s larger than life persona seem real and possible. For that reason alone the film is both entertaining and interesting.

In spite of some differing opinions, Public Enemies has a lot going for it, especially during a weak summer movie season. Final grade: B+.

Batman '89

Here's an interesting article about the impact on movies that the original (not counting the Adam West version) Batman film had.

It was released twenty years ago this summer (kind of hard to believe. . .as that makes me feel a little bit old).

Oh well.

Chuck on Jacko

I know most people are probably tired of hearing about the death of Michael Jackson but Chuck Klosterman was the guest on The BS Report with Bill Simmonds and the delved into the subject of Jackson's impact on pop culture. The two part podcast can be accessed here.