Maddog's Musings

"Greensberg" Movie Review

2010-03-31T10:25:00.001-04:00

Greenberg (R ) is writer/ director Noah Baumbach's lasted indie drama. Ben Stiller stars as the title character who is just coming off of a mid-life crisis mental breakdown. With a change of scenery in mind, Stiller's Greenberg moves from New York City to LA to house-sit his brother's house and consequently starts to establish a relationship with his brother's personal assistant (Greta Gerwig).

Ryan: With a less than stellar slate of spring films, Greenberg is the diamond in the rough. For those looking for a substantive alternative to most of the mindless films jamming up the local cineplexes, Greenberg is definitely worth checking out. It's a solid movie. With noteworthy performances by the two leads and a relevant screenplay, Greenberg is the type of indie drama that's not only entertaining to watch but that also leaves a lasting impression.

Andy: Most people have not heard of the movie Greenberg, and it is not playing on very many screens, but in many ways it is the ideal spring film. Very soon the studios are going to start rolling out their big-budget shots at the title of summer hit (it starts in April now!), but the springtime is reserved for smaller, usually much lower quality films. Writer / director Noah Baumbach takes all the key elements of indie cinema and reminds us why the formula works, creating a movie that is funny, sad, awkward, and charming all at once.

Ryan: It should be pointed out, as a lot has been made of this fact, that this isn't the typical Ben Stiller part. Make no mistake about it, this is a dramatic role. But contrary to popular thought, Stiller has been effective in some non-comedic roles. From Reality Bits to Zero Effect and Permanent Midnight, Stiller has demonstrated that he can handle more “serious” work. But with all that said, there's no question that Stiller's performance in Greenberg is hands down his best dramatic work (he makes an unlikable character likable) and enhances his repertoire as an actor.

Andy: Stiller is simply outstanding in this film. He takes a character who is defined by his selfishness and inability to think of others and somehow makes him likable enough to support a love story. This is a difficult role to play, and Stiller pulls it off without a single misstep. His characters is only funny when he’s trying not to be, a departure for what most people expect of Stiller, but he shows that he has the chops to pursue serious rolls if he wants them. Of course, he’s unlikely to see a big payday from doing work like this, but it’s still good to know he can do it.

Ryan: Not to be outdone by Stiller's performance is that of Greta Gerwig's. Gerwig is a relative newcomer so I would classify her part as a breakthrough performance. What's remarkable about her performance is how unconventional it is. I don't use that term unconventional to mean quirky and weird. More to the point her performance is unconventional in how good she is in the film. Compared to other standard dramatic leads by more seasoned actresses, Gerwig's performance in the film shows an authenticity that is lacking from standard Hollywood fare produced by her contemporaries. I hope this performance is not forgotten when award season comes around.

Andy: I would agree with that assessment completely. Gerwig never seems like a character in a movie; she seems real. When she makes decisions that make her life more complicated, we feel bad for her because of how valid it is for her character to make those decisions. A performance this accurate and nuanced will surly gain her enough notice that we will see her showing up in more and more films over the next couple of years.

Greenberg is a charming indie drama that works well from start to finish. Final grade: B+.

"The Philadelphia Story" Move Review

2010-03-17T10:28:00.002-04:00

In this column we almost exclusively concentrate on new releases in the theater. But the cinematic experience does not have to be limited to new releases.

The Artcraft Theatre in Franklin, IN on a bi-monthly basis, shows classic films on the weekend. This past Saturday they showed one of the greatest films of all time, The Philadelphia Story (1940). We thought this would be a good time to highlight a film that modern audiences might not be completely familiar with.

In The Philadelphia Story, Katherine Hepburn stars as a rich socialite on the eve of her second marriage. Her ex (Cary Grant) shows up unannounced with a magazine writer (James Stewart) and photographer (Ruth Hussey). Needless-to-say the weekend does not go as planned.

Ryan: The mantra, they don't make' em like they used to, gets thrown around a lot. I even use it myself even though I don't totally agree with it all the time. But when it comes to romantic comedies it's completely justified. The romantic comedy genre is a breeding ground of mediocrity in today’s Hollywood so it's completely refreshing to watch a film that best capitulates how good a romantic comedy can be. The Philadelphia Story has a lot going for it (obviously) but one of the most remarkable things about the film is its timelessness. The movie is seventy years old but resonates in a more believable manner than most contemporary love stories.

Andy: It’s hard not to talk about the cast when thinking of The Philadelphia Story. A few years back, the American Film Institute counted down the top stars of all time. Grant and Steward were both placed in the top 3 on the male side, while Katherine Hepburn was in the top spot on the female list. So this movie boasts three of the biggest stars ever, and they are all in top form. Add to the mix Academy Award nominee Ruth Hussey and a recognizable and talented supporting cast, and the movie is worth watching just to see the actors work. But there is so much more going on than just those amazing performances that makes The Philadelphia Story one of the best movies ever made.

Ryan: From the impeccable screenplay to the polished direction, The Philadelphia Story is the very definition of a classic golden age Hollywood production. But there's no doubt that the definitive highlight of the film are performances by the three leads. Here's a film with three of the greatest film stars of all time delivering arguable their best most well-rounded performances. It's not each one's most famous performance. But the interaction and interplay between Hepburn, Grant and Stewart is iconic and that's what makes the movie so memorable and completely watchable to this day.

Andy: The Philadelphia Story is based on a play by the same name, and is generally credited with reviving Katherine Hepburn’s floundering career. The script is expertly written, with the complexity of the relationships building and building until the deadline of the impending wedding finally arrives. The Philadelphia Story is instantly likeable, but it somehow gets better and better over the course of its 112 minutes.

The Philadelphia Story is probably as close to perfect as a romantic comedy can get, earning it an A+.

For those that want a break from current new releases or for those that just want to enjoy a classic movie on the big screen, the Artcraft's schedule can be viewed at their website, http://www.historicartcrafttheatre.org/home.html.

"Alice in Wonderland" Movie Review

2010-03-10T10:31:00.002-05:00

Tim Burton's latest cinematic endeavor is Alice in Wonderland (PG-13). Inspired by Lewis Carroll's classic tales, Burton's Alice centers on a teenage Alice (Mia Wasikowska) that falls down the rabbit hole. Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway and Crispin Glover costar in the film.

Andy: Time Burton has the distinction of being one of the most acclaimed directors in Hollywood who rare makes a great movie. I really enjoyed Big Fish, but that was all the way back in 2003. And before that I’d have to go back to 1996’s Mars Attacks to find something truly interesting in his catalogue. Alice in Wonderland continues with the trend of Burton’s underperforming. It’s okay, but there is nothing particularly exciting about this movie.

Ryan: Tim Burton adapting Alice in Wonderland, in theory, seems like a good idea. The fantastical elements of the story would seem to fit the quirky imagination of Burton's cinematic sensibility. For the first twenty or so minutes Burton did a solid job of sitting up the situation of a more adult Alice rebelling against her Victorian environment. But once in Wonderland the movie becomes one giant bore. I realize that calling the movie boring is not cutting edge criticism but the bottom line is that the movie fails to generate any thrills whatsoever.

Andy: Considering the fact that it is taking place in “Wonderland,” and things are supposed to be getting curiouser and curiouser, I think I it is fair to call this movie boring. Even in 3D it lacked the edge that you would expect the Tim Burton adaptation of an already surreal piece of literature to be. I’ve claimed in the past that Burton’s movies have started to feel like what someone would expect a Tim Burton movie to be, and there is certainly something stale and lacking that lingers over much of this film.

Ryan: In a lot of ways—through no fault of its own—Alice in Wonderland is a victim of its own historical significance. In the past several years the cinematic landscape has been dominated by fantasy films involving a child (or young adult) who discovers a world within a world and in some capacity ends up saving it. While I respect Burton for wanting to take the movie in a different direction the result bares out that he was unable to produce a film that's any different from the handful of movies that have been released in the past couple of years. Alice in Wonderland should not be presented in a generic fashion but that's what happened.

Andy: The performances were merely adequate for the talent involved. The cast is a who’s who of Hollywood, and they all seem to be doing an uninspired archetype of characters they’ve played in the past. Johnny Depp is pretty good, but it’s nothing we haven’t seen from him before. The relative newcomer in the group, Mia Wasikowska, does a pretty nice job in the title role, and the Cheshire cat was very entertaining. Beyond that, the execution of this movie falls short.

Ryan: The only noteworthy highlight of the film is Mia Wasikowska's performance of Alice. I'll concede that it's not a complete shout-out breakthrough performance but it was definitely strong enough to confidently say that she does have a bright future in Hollywood. In a film with very little personality Wasikowska delivers a performance worthy of the “Alice” character.

Alice in Wonderland fails to live up to expectations, earning a mediocre C.

"An Education" movie review

2010-02-10T09:38:00.001-05:00

Nominated for three Academy Awards (including Best Picture), An Education (PG-13) tells the coming of age story of a teenage girl (Carey Mulligan) in early 1960’s England. The movie, based on a memoir by Lynn Barber, is directed by Lone Scherfig with a screenplay brought to life by British author, Nick Hornby. Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina, Dominic Cooper and Rosamund Pike costar in the film.

Andy: Writer Nick Hornby has never put his name on a movie that wasn’t good (High Fidelity, About a Boy), and while this isn’t the best movie he’s been associated with, it is easy to understand why it’s the first to earn him an Oscar nomination. An Education is a consistently engaging period piece, filled with characters that are realistic, entertaining, and flawed. Most impressive is that he’s taken a story line that should be entirely creepy (a man in his 30s courting a 16-year-old girl) and made it seem both plausible and almost acceptable.

Ryan: An Education is a solid film. With strong performances by the cast, including a breakthrough one by Mulligan and an insightful screenplay by Hornby, An Education soars above most movies of this variety. Although set around the suburbs of 1960’s London, the movie feels fresh with its strong characters that feel modern along with its examination of the timeless theme of young love.

Andy: The bottom line is that this movie doesn’t work without an authentic and charming performance from Carey Mulligan in the lead role. Aside from playing a teenager completely convincingly (Mulligan is 24), she carries the movie along, setting the tone of almost every scene. Her performance is well worth her Oscar nomination. She plays the character as an ordinary person, with subtlety and nuance and emotional depth. Unfortunately, the Academy doesn’t often go for subtlety and nuance, so she has little chance of winning the Oscar in spite of giving the most complete performance I saw from 2009.

Ryan: In a year of very few breakout performances it’s refreshing to see relative newcomer Carey Mulligan deliver a magnificent performance. Unfortunately her odds of winning are not good (actually 27-4) due to the Sandra Bullock and Meryl Streep forces but in my book she should be the favorite. For whatever reason The Academy shies away from rewarding performances that they might deem “light.” But make no mistake, Mulligan excels in creating an authentic character that is beautiful, smart and impressionable that moviegoers can also relate to.

Andy: An Education is a very good movie, but it has a couple of noticeable flaws. As amazingly slick as Peter Sarsgaard’s performance is, Hornby sends him out of the picture with haste, and the entire ending feels a bit rushed. In many ways the hasty conclusion belittles the gravity of what has happened to Mulligan’s character, and makes it a little harder to take some of the repercussions of what transpires in the movie seriously. Perhaps director Lone Scherfig’s goal wasn’t to seem “important,” but it was an odd tone to strike at the end of an otherwise well executed movie.

Ryan: An Education didn’t garner any other acting nominations but it’s difficult to understand how Peter Sarsgaard was ignored. Sarsgaard is one of the best character actors of his generation and his performance in this film ranks as one of his best efforts. Sarsgaard's worldly portrayal is the perfect foil to the innocence of Mulligan's character and the success of the movie hinges on their interaction. Needless to say both of them rise to the occasion.

An Education is a very good movie with some worthy performances. Final grade: B+.

Movie Review "Crazy Heart"

2010-01-27T15:21:00.002-05:00

Still catching up on the award bait from last year, this week we’re taking a look at the Jeff Bridges vehicle, Crazy Heart (R). In the film Bridges plays a washed-up country and western music star (Bad Blake) who’s trying to recapture the fame of his past. Maggie Gyllenhaal costars as an aspiring journalist who falls in love with the troubled balladeer. Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall also costar in the film. Scott Cooper directs.

Ryan: Maybe it’s not completely fair but in some circles Crazy Heart is being sold as this year’s The Wrestler. Ultimately that’s a smart (The Wrestler was one of the best films of 2008) and accurate depiction (as it follows the template of that film of a “has-been” star trying to recapture fame while putting his life back together). But to me that’s where the similarities end. The Wrestler was a great film whereas Crazy Heart is simply a pretty good movie.

Andy: While certainly not as good as The Wrestler, Crazy Heart does work artistically in the same way that film did. It very convincingly shows Bridges’s Bad Blake as a decaying star on the verge of either an unlikely comeback or a predictable breakdown. There are two major differences here, with the first being that Blake is indeed bad. His character is much more despicable than The Wrestler, even if he does carry around a convincing amount of country charm. The second is that the focus on country music allows for some pretty solid old-style Nashville tunes, a significant advantage that makes up for some of the movie’s shortcomings.

Ryan: The biggest strength of the movie is the actual music used in the movie and the presentation of that music. There’s clearly an authenticity with regard to the music that enhances Crazy Heart. Not only do the actors (Bridges and Farrell) perform most of the music in the movie but the original songs in the film are smoothly integrated into the (fictional) story of Bad Blake. When it comes down to it, the theme song to Crazy Heart (written and performed by Ryan Bingham) will get nominated and probably (should) win an Oscar for Best Song.

Andy: Having solid original music is a must for a movie like this, and Crazy Heart does a great job. There are some country classics mixed in with the flawlessly executed originals, which were used with surprising restraint by director Scott Cooper. Ryan’s right about “Crazy Heart” being the obvious choice for the Oscar, but for my money “Fallin’ & Flyin’” is the essential track.

Ryan: Speaking of the Oscars, Jeff Bridges is a lock for an Oscar nod for Best Actor. He’s already won a Golden Globe and Screen Actors Guild award so consequently there’s no question that he’s the odds on favorite to win his first Oscar. While it’s hard to believe that Bridges has never won an Oscar, I found his performance good but not transcendent (although much of that could be attributed to the made-for-TV-esque material that he's working with). No question, Bridges looks, acts and sounds like a genuine country music singer and he delivers a noteworthy performance. I’m just not sold on him being the front-runner when looking at his competition (Clooney, Firth and Renner). Ultimately, it was a good performance that lifted the movie to above average. Final grade: C+.

Andy: I found Bridges performance to be the most convincing I’ve seen this year. He makes your root for a character that should be unlikable, and carries a bunch of great songs around with him for good measure. The film itself may not be a revelation, but it is well executed on just about every level. If this is made-for-TV movie material, then I should start watching more made-for-TV movies. Bridges, Gyllenhaal, the music, and the directing are all top notch, earning Crazy Heart a B+.

MLB Lineup of the '90's

2010-01-26T14:17:00.001-05:00

Last night on the MLB Network I was watching Prime 9. It’s a countdown show of various topics like—the best managers of all-time or the top clutch hitters of all-time. Needless to say I love watching this show.

Last night’s show was selecting the all ‘80’s team. It was as followed. . .

1B: Don Mattingly
2B: Ryne Sandburg
3B: Mike Schmdit
SS: Cal Ripken
LF: Rickey Henderson
CF: Dale Murphy
RF: Dwight Evans
C: Gary Carter
P: Jack Morris

Definitely not a bad team with 5 hall of famers (Sandburg, Schmidt, Carter, Ripken and Henderson). It’s hard to argue with Mattingly and Murphy as well. They had fantastic season in the ‘80’s (three MVP’s between them). Evans was a bit of surprise but when one looks at his production during that time frame than it becomes apparent that he was consistently a good player during the ‘80’s. Jack Morris gets this nod I think simply because he won the most games during the decade but he never won a Cy Young so I’m not convinced that he was the best choice. There was just no other obvious choice. The great pitchers of the ‘70’s (Ryan, Palmer, Seaver, Carlton) couldn’t carry their success throughout the whole decade and the next generation of pitchers (Gooden, Hershiser and then Clemens and Maddux) didn’t pitch enough in the decade to trump Morris’s production throughout the decade.

But anyway it got me thinking on what the team of the ‘90’s would be. Granted it’s an arbitrary timeframe and that does pose some questions that I’ll get into.
After some thought it’s as follows. . .

First Baseman

Frank Thomas
Average Season: .319 (BA)/ .440 (OBP)/ .575 (SLG)/ 103 (runs)/ 33 (HR)/ 112 (RBI) 169 OPS+
This was close-- with Jeff Bagwell involved in the discussion but Thomas gets the nod because his number are (slightly) better than Bagwell’s and he did win one more MVP award.

Second Baseman

Roberto Alomar
Average season: .308/ .382/ .400. . .95 (runs)/ 14 (HR)/ 73 (RBI)/ 31 (SB). 125 OPS+
This was a toss up with Biggio but I went with Alomar simply because he was better defensively.

Third Baseman

Chipper Jones
Average season: .301/ .394/ .529. . .108 (runs)/ 31 (HR)/ 105 (RBI)/ 17 (SB) 137 OPS+
Jones only played five seasons in the ‘90’s (he did win the ’99 MVP) but there really wasn’t much competition. Like I said earlier this is an arbitrary time frame and there just wasn’t anyone else to look at. So consequently playing five years is my cut off for a player’s qualifications to be considered.

Shortstop

Barry Larkin
Average Season: .303/ .388/ .466. . .83 (runs)/ 14 (HR)/ 64 (RBI)/ 27 (SB) 126 OPS+

Not much debate here. Larkin was hands down the best SS of any league throughout the duration of the ‘90’s.

Left Field

Barry Bonds
Average Season: .302/ .434/ .602. . .109 (runs)/ 36 (HR)/ 108 (RBI)/ 34 (SB) 179 OPS+
If you buy Game of Shadows than you know that Bonds didn’t start juicing until after the ’98 season so we have 90% of the decade in which Bonds was clean. And that’s the great tragedy of Bonds. . .he was already an elite player before he crossed the line.

Center Field

Ken Griffey Jr.
Average Season: .302/ .384/ .581. . .100 (runs)/ 38 (HR)/ 109 (RBI)/ 15 (SB) 152 OPS+
Not much of a debate here.

Right Field:

Larry Walker
Average Season: .313/ .390/ .571. . .88 (runs)/ 26 (HR)/ 85 (RBI)/ 18 (SB)/ 142 OPS+
Injuries affected his season averages but it’s still solid enough across the board (did win MVP in ’97). His power and defense bumps him over Tony Gwynn, who garnered strong consideration with a .344 batting average for the decade.

Catcher

Mike Piazza
Average Season: .330/ .393/ .580. . .87 (runs)/ 24 (HR)/ 109 (RBI) 157 OPS+.
Pudge was better defensively but Piazza’s offensive numbers dwarf him and the rest of the competition.

Pitcher

Greg Maddux
Average Season: 18-9/ 176 (K)/ 1.06 (WHIP)/ 2.54 (ERA)/ 162 ERA+

Pedro had an argument but Maddux threw 1,000+ more innings than Pedro and still had a lower ERA. Plus, winning 4 Cy Youngs in a row surely doesn’t hurt.

"A Single Man" movie review

2010-01-20T08:50:00.001-05:00

With award season in full swing, we continue to look at the top performances of 2009. This week, we watched A Single Man (R). Colin Firth stars as a mourning English professor in 1950s California who is contemplating his life after the untimely death of his lover. Julianne Moore costars and American fashion designer Tom Ford makes is directorial debut.

Ryan: A Single Man is one of Hollywood's more fruitful offerings of the year. It's a complex character study involving a day in the life of one man's existential dilemma in trying to still find meaning in a world where his lover has unexpectedly died. Further complicating the situation is the character's sexuality and more specifically how he's unable to fully be himself in a society that is unwilling (or not ready) to accept an openly gay man. All-in-all A Single Man would be a worthy film to garner a Best Picture nomination and I think it's definitely a real possibility that it will.

Andy: A Single Man has flown under the radar, mostly (and deservedly) receiving credit for Colin Firth’s intricate and emotive performance. The film itself is also very well crafted, but it is hard not to shine the focus on Firth. Simply put, there is no film with out his tortured characterization of George. One of the most memorable aspects of Firth’s turn here is that for most of the film he is a man trying to hold it together in public, and we see him subtly losing for much of the film. Watching an actor walk that thin line over the course of the movie is truly a treat when it is done well, as it is here.

Ryan: Saying this film is a Colin Firth vehicle is slightly disingenuous to a movie of this ilk. Normally that term is used for more genre-specific films and not indie dramas. But if one thinks of that term in meaning a movie that best showcases the talent of a specific actor then by all mean this is a vehicle for Firth. Unquestionable he rises to the challenge. This is one of the best performances of the year and I will be shocked if he isn't rewarded with an Oscar nomination (which would be his first). He completely sells his performance of a desperate, conflicted man trying to overcome the tragic loss of his companion.

Andy: A Single Man is not the easiest film to watch, as it is very dramatic and intense. Julianne Moore’s character is able to provide a little light-hearted empathy, but for the most part, this is a movie about a cheerless time in one man’s life, and the film acts accordingly. As we see Firth’s character become more and more unraveled, the emotional depth becomes greater and greater. The very end of the film may strike an odd tone for some, but watching this character play out is fairly fascinating no matter how you feel about the conclusion.

Ryan: Although he's a successful fashion designer, Tom Ford is a rookie in the world of cinema. But make no mistake about it his debut is one of the year's more interesting films and he definitely demonstrates that he has a lot of promise as a filmmaker. Yes he's overly concerned with the look of the film (the furniture, the clothes, etc.) and there's no doubt that the style of the movie is very important to Ford. But this isn't a film that's all style. If anything the movie's style creates a thriving environment for the actors—especially Firth—to give all-around authentic performances.

Andy: There is no question that this movie establishes Ford was a very promising new director. At times his visual affect becomes a little too obvious. But the fact that a director is playing with lighting and composition is not necessarily a bad thing, it’s just not something I want to be noticing when I should be paying attention to the story. If Ford continues to make films and hones is craft, he could make some truly brilliant films.

A Single Man is a good movie highlighted by a great performance. Final grade: B+.

"Precious. . ." Movie Review

2009-12-19T08:03:00.002-05:00

With our best-of-the-decade list concluded we are now going to concentrate on potential Oscar hopefuls. First up is the dramatic film Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire ( R). In the film an impoverished pregnant teenage girl (Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe) seeks a way out of her dead end existence of living with her hateful mother (Mo'Nique) in Harlem in the late '80's. Paula Patton, Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz co-star in the film. Lee Daniels directs.

Ryan: On the heels of being nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture for a Drama and the fact that ten movies will be nominated for Best Picture, I feel that it is a safe bet that Precious will be nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. It's the kind of intense indie drama that voters like going for. From the performances to the authenticity of the film it's definitely an Oscar worthy picture. I wasn't taken away with it completely (like a lot of critics have been) but I do recognize that it is an excellent movie.

Andy: Precious is a misnamed, or at least ironically named film. The book upon which it is based is called Push, which is a more accurate representation of what the film does. It grabs hold of you and shoves you into situations you’d rather not see, but somehow know you must acknowledge. This movie unapologetically pushes its audience to confront some of the ugliest issues humans confront (incest, abuse, blind selfishness, and basic failings of our society). What’s remarkable is how magnetic the victimized hero, Clarisse Precious Jones, remains throughout all the hardship we see her endure.

Ryan: All the performances in Precious are top notch including those by relative acting newbies like Mariah Carey and Lenny Kravitz. But there's no question that the two leads in the movie, Sidibe and Mo'Nique completely dominate the film. Mo'Nique has the flashier role but both she and Sidibe give seminal performances. I'm inclined to think that Mo'Nique has a better chance at scoring an Oscar nod simply because her performance is so intensely dramatic. But it is also an effective (and haunting) performance and one that audiences will not soon forget.
Andy: At the heart of what makes Precious work so well is across the board great performances. Gabby Sidibe is an absolute revelation as the title character. In her acting debut she has embodied a character that is complex, mysterious, tragic, and a beautiful ray of humanity in a mostly horrible situation. As her mother and foil, Mo’Nique gives one of the most emotive and threatening performances I’ve ever seen. Both seem likely to get Oscar nominations, and I’d be surprised if Mo’Nique doesn’t end up with the Best Supporting Actress statue. Also giving impressive turns in support are Paula Patton and Mariah Carey.
Ryan: Lee Daniels, the director, does a masterful job in framing the story in a manner that conveys the weighty emotional themes of the movie. His accomplishment is even more remarkable considering how uneasy it is in watching several of the scenes in the movie. But it's also that passion of the story that almost goes too far. Needless so say the trials and tribulations of the lead character, Precious, are almost too much to buy. The unfathomable nature of her burden, while providing the hope of the film, teeters on the edge of absurdity. Nevertheless the film endures this minor shortcoming as one of the year's best.

Andy: Perhaps the biggest flaw with Precious is that it is so intense, from the very first minute until the last, that it is exhausting to watch. That is certainly what director Lee Daniels was attempting, and he achieved it soundly. The problem is that it is very difficult to watch. The fact that it does give an uplifting look at a character that should be completely lost scarcely makes up for the harsh action and implications of the story. However, it is easily one of the most well executed and important movies of the year, and a movie that I strongly recommend.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire resonates long after viewing. Final grade: A-.

Best of the Decade, Part V

2009-12-09T11:07:00.002-05:00

This week we conclude our look at the top films of the decade.

Andy: Number two on my list may come as a surprise to some people. 2003’s Lost in Translation (R) stars Bill Murray as an American actor filming a commercial in Japan. He meets a young American woman (Scarlett Johansson) who is experiencing similar emptiness and isolation. What really makes Lost in Translation stand up after repeated viewings is the way the director Sophia Coppola beautifully shoots the Tokyo landscape. Several of the scenes play out with the haunting soundtrack playing over the electric cityscape as the characters wrestle with their loneliness.

Murray gives what is likely the most powerful performance of his storied career. He brings disillusionment and mendacity to his performance that is still tempered with the decades of humor that are lying just underneath his every word, gesture, and look. For her part, Johansson also gives a performance that she’s spent the last seven years unsuccessfully trying to match. Her outward youthful innocence is betrayed by a much deeper restlessness that makes for a very complex performance. But the real star here is Coppola, who coaxes these amazing performances out while making the setting a crucial character in the story.

Ryan: Rounding in at number two on my list is Paul Thomas Anderson's There Will Be Blood (2000). The movie came in at number three on Andy's list and when he profiled the film he made several key points. One There Will Be Blood is a beautiful film. It's certainly a terrifying beauty but there's no doubt that from a purely aesthetic standpoint There Will Be Blood is one of the most artistically shot films of the decade. Anderson constructs every scene like it's the film's most important scene and that attention to detail sets his movie's apart. Anderson's body of work is top notch but There Will Be Blood clearly shows him at the top of his game.

A second point that Andy alluded to is that There Will Be Blood “does not have much fun about it.” It's not that it's a difficult to film to watch or grasp. But it's a movie with a stark view of human nature. It's not a good-guy versus a bad- guy type film. It's more of a bad guy versus an even worse guy. Paul Dano's character, Eli Sunday is a religious hypocrite and Daniel Day Lewis character, Daniel Plainview, has been seduced by greed. When these two characters interact the results are far from pleasant. Let's just say that the title of the movie is aptly put.

It's impossible to talk about this movie without paying due respect to Daniel Day Lewis. He justifiably earned an Oscar for his performance and I would go even further and argue that it's the best performance of the decade. The power of the performance is that one is still captivated with his character even though he's clearly on a downward spiral into an emotional emptiness. One can't take his eyes off of him. It's a transcendent performance that makes There Will Be Blood a truly memorable film.

Andy: My number one movie of the decade is 2004’s Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (R). One thing that propels this movie to the top of my list is the fact that I have probably seen this movie four times in the past six years, and it continues to get better with each viewing. The complex plot structure, written by Charlie Kaufman, the best screenwriter of the decade, is a key element of the movie’s success. A couple (Jim Cary and Kate Winslet) who have their memories erased after a bad break up. We see the love story in reverse, as the two try to piece together the shadow of memories that exist.

Part of what makes it work is the superb supporting cast that includes Tom Wilkenson, Mark Ruffalo, Kirsten Dunst, and Elijah Wood. All put in great performances, but the real stars here are the leads. Jim Cary has always been vastly underrated as a serious actor, and this is the best performance he’s ever given. Not to be outdone, the best actress of the decade, Kate Winslet, absolutely owns her performance. Director Michael Gondry pieces it all together in a movie that is entertaining, uplifting, tragic, and interesting all at once. For my money, it’s the closest this decade came to movie perfection.

Ryan: In this modern media age when one is a movie lover one can't help but to get geared up for new releases. It's almost always the case that one goes into just about every movie with a certain set of expectations. Unfortunately more times than not those expectations are not entirely met. But every so often a movie meets those expectations and sometimes--in those rare instances--a film will even surpass those conceptualized notions. And when that happens one knows that they have a true gem on their hands. With that said, my number one film of the decade is Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight (2008).

This revelation might not surprise some people. Being a life-long Batman fan certainly does call into question my objectivity. But I feel confident--as a fan and as a critic--to label The Dark Knight as the film of the decade. Nolan's take on Batman (and that includes Batman Begins as well) is the definitive cinematic take of the Caped Crusader. As a Batman aficionado I can positively say that those movies brought to life in the most authentic manner the Batman mythos.

But I can also take a step back from fandom and see why The Dark Knight became such a cultural phenomenon. Not only is it an extremely well made film that is highlighted by the iconic performance of Heath Ledger (as the Joker) but it captured the zeitgeist of the nation upon it's release in the summer of 2008. The themes in The Dark Knight of good versus evil is as timeless as it gets but there was something so contemporary with it's manifestation of the battle that it instinctively struck the right chord with moviegoers. In an uncertain time while facing an unexplainable evil, an incorruptible yet ruthless hero was needed. Batman personified the type of hero that audiences were looking for. In this decade comic book movies dominated cineplexes but the relevant escapism of The Dark Knight propelled it to top of my list.

Now that our lists are complete, we will begin to look at this year’s Oscar hopefuls starting next week.

Best of the Decade, part IV

2009-12-07T12:08:00.002-05:00

This week we move one step closer to our top films of the decade as we check in with our numbers four and three movies.

Ryan: Coming in at number four on my list is Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous (2000) (It was number seven on Andy's list). The semi-autobiographical tale details a young rock journalist profiling (the fictitious) band Stillwater in the 1970's. The film stars Patrick Fugit, Kate Hudson, Billy Cruddup and Jason Lee.

For me the success or failure of most movies depend on this simple maxim—does the film work? In my view Almost Famous is a prime textbook example of when all areas of the filmmaking process work to create a memorable film. From the direction, to the screenwriting, to the acting, to the tone of the film Almost Famous is simply a movie that works. While it's a film of technical brilliance it's also one of those movies that is pure joy to watch over-and-over as well. It's a movie that never gets old watching and every repeated viewing reveals a new wrinkle to the coming-of-age story.

Almost Famous also resonates as a memorable movie for those moviegoers that are music lovers as well. Not only does it document the mid 70's music scene but it parallels the growth and maturity of a rock band with that of a teenage music reporter all the while set to memorable musically inspired scenes. Even the songs that were strictly written for the film (by Peter Frampton, Crowe and his wife, Nancy Wilson) help to solidify the credibility of the movie. There definitely was a concerted effort by Crowe and his company to make an authentic film—not just from a narrative standpoint—but from an emotional standpoint as well.

Andy: My number four is the John Cusack hipster rom-com High Fidelity (Ryan’s number eight). Released back in 2000 just three months into the decade, High Fidelity tapped an indie-mainstream crossover audience that would help carry many films in the subsequent years.

Two things really make this film work. One is the amazing soundtrack, which adequately bounces between cool and comfortable in a way that is a must for a movie that takes place largely inside an independent record store. The other is the superb performance from an ensemble cast that includes great turns by Jack Black, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Joan Cusack, and Tim Robbins among others. Heading the list of performances is John Cusack, giving the best in his well documented career. His self-referential, speaking into the camera narration could have ruined the movie. Instead, it carries the audience along through an ugly break-up that is somehow funny and awkward at the same time. It is not flashy, and it is not grand, but High Fidelity is as near to flawless as date movies got in the past ten years.

Ryan: Number three on my list is another film that Andy included on his list (at number six). Up (2009) tells the fantastic story of an amazing journey involving two polar opposite individuals—78-year-old widow Carl Frederickson and Russel an 8 year-old aspiring Wilderness Explorer.
Initially Up looked like the film that might derail Pixar's wildly successful (both critically and commercially) ascending track record. The simplicity of the title and of the initial look of the movie just didn't spark my interest. But sometimes it's those simple concepts that are executed in beautiful manner that make for the most lasting impact. Up is a wonderful film that's emotionally rich both from a comedic and dramatic standpoint. In fact the montage scene at the beginning of the movie is the most emotionally textured scene of the decade and it's executed in a flawless manner.

I feel very comfortable having Up as three on my list and it resides there on it's own merit but I would be remiss if I didn't find myself looking at that high ranking as a symbol for Pixar's dominance of the decade. Pixar's movies have always been good but in this decade they progressively became great (Finding Nemo and The Incredibles) to artistic works of art (Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up). I only had one Pixar film on my list but there's no question that Ratatouille and WALL-E were knocking at the door. I don't think there's any grand secret to Pixar's success. There will always be a market for great storytelling and Pixar does it better than anyone else in the business.

Andy: Coming in at number three on my list is 2008’s There Will Be Blood. I remember being overwhelmed at the intensity of the movie when I first saw it, with the violent twists, jarring score, and flash-forward ending leaving me almost as unsettled as I was impressed. But upon a second viewing, There Will Be Blood proves to be complex, terrifying, and beautiful. Daniel Day-Lewis gives one of the performances of the decade as Daniel Plainview, a California oil man who will stop at nothing in order to succeed. With each success we see Plainview grow a little more evil. And to watch Day-Lewis make those leaps is to watch an actor at the peak of his craft.
There Will Be Blood is essentially a character study, but it does so much more than follow the life of one man. It can be read as an allegory foreshadowing the darkest side of capitalism in the 20th century, particularly in the field of fossil fuels. It is also technically appealing, with some of the most beautifully crafted shots of the decade, made all the more intriguing by the menacing story they are telling. Much credit goes to P.T. Anderson, whose only other movie of the decade, Punch Drunk Love, is widely underappreciated. There Will Be Blood does not have much fun about it, but it is movie making at just about the highest level that anyone reached this decade, and it is easy to imagine that time will only make it more poignant.

Next week we will finish off our decade review with our number two and number one movies.

Best of Decade, Part III

2009-11-25T11:57:00.002-05:00

This week we continue our look at the films of the decade with numbers 6 and 5 on our lists.

Ryan: When people say they don't make them (movies) like they used to they almost exclusively are referring to the golden age of Hollywood. But that mantra could also be applied to other film eras-- more specifically the anti-hero morality tales of the '70's that helped to define that decade. Michael Clayton (2007), which comes in at number six on my list, plays like one of those classic films from the '70's. In the film George Clooney stars as a “fix-it” lawyer on the cusp of a mental breakdown. He's a broken man who reluctantly gets drawn into a class-action lawsuit against a corporate chemical company but along the way and he's provided the opportunity for moral redemption.

On the surface Michael Clayton is a smart legal thriller but upon repeated viewings it becomes clear--that for what it sets out to be--that it is the most perfectly executed film of the decade. It is technically—from the direction, to the screenplay, to the acting—as flawless of a film that somebody is going to find in this decade. (It only comes in at number six on my list mainly because I just happen to like better the other movies on my list). The film also transcends it's genre by delving into issues of the decade. The tagline of the film, “The Truth Can Be Adjusted,” unfortunately defines much of the national political leadership of this decade and the notion of an evil greedy corporation resonates with the economic uncertainty that has gripped this era. I'll concede that on the literal level Michael Clayton doesn't have the scope of a truly great movie but ultimately it resonates with a perfect blend of timely and classic themes that are executed in a brilliant manner.

Andy: I’m admittedly leaning pretty heavily on the early part of the decade on my list, but one movie I saw this year has resonated strongly enough in the five months since I’ve seen it to check in at number six on my list is Up. The Pixar films dominated the animated scene in the decade. Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, and WALL-E are all outstanding films. Monsters, Inc. and Finding Nemo are already classics, but as the decade has worn on the Pixar films seemed to become as much about making a good, interesting movie as they were about being appealing to kids. They have managed to make sophisticated movies that are about things kids enjoy watching. The culmination of this is the film Up.

Upon watching Up you know after the masterful first fifteen minutes that this is not going to be like an ordinary children’s movie. An almost completely dialogue free trip through the entire life of the unlikely hero, Carl Frederickson, the start of the movie is some of the best story development I’ve ever seen. By the time the movie really gets going, you know everything important to this man. It seems like it should be a cheap literary trick, but it is executed so beautifully that you don’t care, you just want to make sure your watching when things work out for this guy.

Ryan: Number five on my list is a film that made Andy's list a few weeks ago. Sideways (2004), directed by Alexander Payne, details two best friends (Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church) on a bachelor party journey in Southern California wine country. During their venture they come across two single women (Virginia Madsen and Sandra Oh).

On Andy's write up he alludes to the fact that he's not a fan of fine wine but that he was nonetheless completely drawn into the story even though the movie centers around people who love wine. I completely agree with that assessment. I'm not into the wine scene but Sidways is such a well-done film that in the end it doesn't really matter if one is into wine or not.
I was also struck, upon re-watching it, with how generationally specific the film is. The movie is basically about four adults having midlife crises and thus one might assume that the movie might not have that strong of an appeal to a younger audience. But that couldn't be further from the truth. Again this film is such a strong movie (with its themes of finding oneself and finding love) that ultimately it resonates with any audience willing to give it a chance.

Alexander Payne deserves loads of credit for crafting (directing and adapting the screenplay) a film that only gets better with age. It should also be pointed out that Sideways contains four career defining performances for its leads. None of the performances won an Oscar (only Church and Madsen were even nominated) but that does not factor in at all when evaluating these performances. In fact I would say that the performances—especially Giamatti's and Madsen's—are two of the most authentic, heartfelt performances of the decade.

Andy: For my number five film, I’m looking at last year’s The Dark Knight. Repeated viewings have me convinced that it is easily the best film in the Batman franchise. It is also the most lasting film from 2008, highlighting how ridiculous it is that the movie was not even nominated for best picture. Also of note, this is the best film from director Christopher Nolen, who was quite possibly the director of the decade (Momento, Insomnia, Batman Begins, and The Prestige are his other efforts) in spite of never being nominated for best director.

It’s appropriate to talk about how Nolen’s script (co-written with his brother Jonathan) is one of the best action film scripts of the decade. Or how Christian Bale solidified himself as both the definitive Batman and Bruce Wayne. Or even how, in spite of being a movie about a superhero, it felt and still feels culturally relevant. But everyone knows that this movie achieves greatness because of the transcendent and terrifying portrayal of the Joker by Heath Ledger. Even if he had not died before the movie came out, Ledger’s Joker would have likely been the most iconic movie character of the decade. But viewing it with the knowledge that this was the brilliant end to a short and impressive career makes it all the more tragic and compelling. The Dark Knight is a very good movie by any measure, but Ledger’s performance ensures that it will be remembered as a great movie.

"The Men Who State At Goats" Movie Review

2009-11-11T11:26:00.001-05:00

This week we are going back to a new release with The Men Who Stare At Goats (R). Ewan McGregor stars as a reporter researching a secret government program that fosters the creation of psychic warriors during the Iraq war. George Clooney, Jeff Bridges, and Kevin Spacey costar, and Grant Heslov directs.

Ryan: One could easily make the case that George Clooney is the film star of the decade. From crowd pleasers (O Brother Where Art Thou? & The Ocean films) to critical fare (Syriana & Michael Clayton) Clooney has successfully navigated the cinematic spectrum. He's got box-office hits to his name as well as Oscar gold. But he's not been without his misfires (Solaris and The Good German) and regrettably The Men Who Stare at Goats would fall into this category. I wouldn't classify it as a bad film but it leaves a lot to be desired.

Andy: There is no question that The Men Who Stare at Goats is not up to the unreasonably high standards of a movie that George Clooney movie. It is pretty decent, but it seems to be unsure what kind of movie it is supposed to be. The ad campaign made it seem strictly like a ridiculous comedy, but in actuality there are several moments where the film takes itself very seriously. Instead of playing like a dramedy, it comes across as disjointed and lacking focus.

Ryan: By it's nature The Men Who Stare at Goats is a quite an absurd movie but that does make for some humorous moments. At times the film is engaging but unfortunately those scenes of worth are few and far between. The filmmakers are unable to aptly execute the full potential of the film. With an A+ cast and an intriguing premise the recipe for a successful movie was there. But it just doesn't pan out that way. This is just one of those films where the final product doesn't measure up to the parts involved.

Andy: The title of the movie suggests that this is going to be a comedy. Coupled with the fairly hilarious shot of Clooney staring down a goat that was the centerpiece of the ad campaign, it seemed like this was going to be a straight-up farce. It turns out that the scene the title was referring to was supposed to be one of the more serious parts of the movie. Ultimately movie’s funnier scenes work better, but they don’t quite hold the narrative together as well as you’d like it to.

Ryan: There's no doubt that the cast involved was the major selling point for the film. I've already talked up Clooney but it's not challenging talking up Bridges, Spacey or McGregor as well. But while there are flashes of (some) brilliance--for the most part--the performances in the film are of the uninspired variety. Bridges is basically playing a watered down version of The Dude (from The Big Lebowski). Spacey has phoned in most of his performances of this decade and that pattern continues here. And Ewan McGregor as a Midwestern news reporter---just not happening.

Andy: The cast is very recognizable, and they do an okay job. Clooney seems to really enjoy doing comedies, and he is definitely the highlight here. I thought McGregor did an okay job, but there is something a little strange about McGregor making repeated (ironic?) references to Jedi in a movie that isn’t actually about Star Wars. Bridges and Spacey are certainly lackluster, and the rest of the cast is merely adequate.

The Men Who Stare At Goats ends up being an interesting movie, but not quite as good as it seems like it should be. Final grade: C+.

Best of Decade, Part II

2009-11-05T07:14:00.001-05:00

After a look at the calendar, we realized that in order to finish our decade review and look at the Oscar hopefuls at the end of the year, we do not have time for a new release this week. With the films coming out of Hollywood this week a little questionable anyway, we continue our look at the best films of the decade with selections number eight and seven.

Andy: Number eight for me is the 2004 drama Sideways (R). Alexander Payne directed this film based on the well regarded Rex Peterson novel of the same name. Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church are on a bachelor’s week in California’s wine country before Church’s wedding. The two display various modes of irresponsibility, eventually meeting up with two women, played by Viginia Madsen and Sandra Oh.

Sideways is a movie about people who love fine wine, and I don’t love fine wine at all. After watching the movie again recently, I was struck by how much I was able to connect with this movie in spite of so much of the action centering around something I don’t really care about. Part of the appeal is that the movie is beautifully shot by Alexander Payne. The composition is impeccable, with Payne juxtaposing the beautiful rolling vineyards and mountains with the awkwardly authentic used car lot on the highway the main characters walk by each time they visit their favorite wine-tasting restaurant. In addition to the well constructed visuals, the acting is top-notch all the way around. Paul Giamatti did not even receive an Oscar nomination that year, and that is probably one of the biggest oversights of the entire decade. The Academy tried to make up for this by nominating him the following year for his supporting role in the largely forgettable Cinderella Man, but the more difficult and nuanced performance was clearly in Sideways. Virginia Madsen did get a well deserved Oscar nomination. In a key scene about half way through the movie, she explains why she fell in love with wine in the first place, and it is probably one of the best-acted monologues from the past ten years.

Upon first viewing, Sideways does not seem like it is a great movie, but it grows on you. The ridiculousness of the story combined with great directing and acting make it a movie that has virtually no flaws. It is clearly one of the best pieces of filmmaking this decade.

Ryan: High Fidelity (2000) scores the number eight position on my list. In the film John Cusack stars as a snobbish record star owner trying to deal with his messed up love life.

I kept trying to think of reasons to leave High Fidelity (directed by Stephen Frears) off my list. It's a film that I've always really liked and I kept feeling that my subjectivity was trumping my objectivity when evaluating the film. If one considers themselves a music elitist or a habitual list maker or a person who over analyzes every aspect of their life, especially with regard to romantic relationships, then High Fidelity is a movie that hits close to home and consequently it did with me. But upon reviewing it two things struck me. One, it's an extremely well-made film that holds together stronger than (almost) any other romantic-comedy of this era. And secondly, and this is what really sold it for me, High Fidelity succeeds as a swan song for the '90's. It was based on a 1995 Nick Hornby book (of the same name) and was in production and filmed during the late '90's. So subsequently it captures the zeitgeist of the '90's (at least with regard to hipsters) while also tapping into the self-absorbed attitude that permeated throughout the decade. Some movies just have it with regard to reflecting a specific time, place and feeling and High Fidelity definitely delivers on that premise.

Andy: Speaking of films using music to reflect a time period, Almost Famous (2000) cracks my list at number seven. Much like Ryan’s dilemma with High Fidelity, I kept thinking that this movie would not make my final ten, but in a recent viewing of the film it became clear that this is one of the most epic movies of the decade. Cameron Crowe wrote and directed this loosely autobiographical tale of a young rock writer (Patrick Fuget) on assignment for Rolling Stone Magazine. He has to interview a rock star (Billy Crudup) while managing his relationship with a “band-aide” (Kate Hudson), and his mother (Francis McDormand).

What is perhaps most striking about Almost Famous ten years later is the impact it has made on Hollywood as well as on me personally. Cameron Crowe had a pretty rough decade for a director, but he started it off with what I have come to think of as his best movie. There are so many memorable aspects of the movie that it seems almost impossible that it is even from this decade. Stillwater’s (the film’s fictional band) song “Fever Dog” might as well actually be a 70s rock anthem. Catch phrases abound from “It’s all happening,” to “I am a golden god!” The ensemble cast is much more recognizable now than when the movie came out. Zooey Deschenal, Jason Lee, Philip Seymour Hoffman, and Jimmy Fallon have all seen their star rise since this movie came out, and Rainn Wilson (The Office) even makes an appearance. From a personal standpoint, I don’t think any movie from the past ten years has invaded my vernacular quite like Almost Famous, from Jimmy Fallon’s refrain of “respectfully,” to Rolling Stone’s Ben Fong-Torres saying “cray-zee…,” there are things that I say so regularly that it’s hard to believe they came from this film. And if a film stays with me that well, there is no way to keep it off the ten best of the decade.

Ryan: Coming in at number seven on my list is Alfonso Cuaron's dystopian sci-fi thriller, Children of Men (2006). Set in the not so distant future Children of Men (starring Clive Owen and Julianne Moore) imagines a world where women are unable to bear children. Needless-to-say the fabric that holds society together unravels in a world without children and a world without a hope.

Children of Men cracks my list because it's an immensely powerful film. It works not only as a great piece of science fiction--challenging audience members while also entertaining them--but it also reflects current societal problems as well. Throughout the decade it was (mostly) the genre pictures (also think of V for Vendetta and Batman Begins) that best dealt with the challenging philosophical questions of our contemporary society. But it was Children of Men that best processed those fears and questions into a fully realized fable of our times. Cuaron deserves immense praise for crafting a movie that's modern in its storytelling and filming techniques but timeless in its exploration of the human condition. Clive Owen also deserves a lot of credit for the film's success as it takes a special kind of actor to effectively appear in (almost) every scene in the movie.

That’s all for this week. Stay tuned in future weeks for the remainder of our countdown.

Best of the Decade Part I

2009-10-29T08:03:00.003-04:00

With the decade coming to a close we’ve decide to get wistful and each take a look at our ten favorite films of the past 10 years. We will continue to check out some of the new releases, over the next couple of months, but as Hollywood goes into a relative off season, we’ll be counting down our best of the decade, each taking two at a time. This week we each talk about our number ten and nine films.

Ryan: My countdown begins with 2002's About a Boy (PG-13). Directed by Chris and Paul Weitz About a Boy is the modern tale of the unlikely bond between a rich unmotivated bachelor and a geeky heartfelt teenager. What sets About a Boy apart from most of its contemporaries is the movie's pitch perfect tone. It's a film with humor but it's not a comedic farce. It is also a film that deals with some heavy ideas (suicide) but it's not a dark dramatic film. About a Boy captures an authentic slice of life and presents a story with comedy and drama (and everything else in between). The movie is sentimental with it's themes of the importance of a family and the needing of meaningful relationships but it's translated in a manner that the audience can relate too. Additionally, while Hugh Grant never materialized into this era's Cary Grant, he does deliver a strong and winning performance in the movie. In some regard the film does play to his strengths but Grant strikes gold for crafting a character that--despite his negative traits--the audience has no problem rooting for. All in all About a Boy has matured into a modern classic.

Andy: Number ten for me is Knocked Up from 2007. The 2000s were a pretty good time for comedies, with really strong work coming from a few different directions. Will Ferrell had a nice run and some of Ben Stiller’s movies from earlier in the decade were very strong as well. But no one was bigger in the decade that super-producer Jud Apatow. Apatow directed just three movies during the decade, but The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were both elite comedies: the kind that is actually a really well made movie as well. Either of them could have made my list. Both are surprisingly honest looks at the lives of real & believable people, but Knocked Up stands out in my mind for a few reasons. It is a little less gimmicky and feels a little more authentic than most comedies. It’s not afraid to get a little serious, and Katherine Heigle’s fine performance is a testament to the fact that comedy can work very well along side serious acting about serious topics. The writing is simply top-notch, with a father-son scene between Harold Ramis and Seth Rogen being one of the most touching moments in a movie I’ve seen in the last ten years. Ultimately Knocked Up is genuinely funny, very sharply written, and just as importantly, it feels like it covers a topic that had not been done very well in a movie for a long time.

Ryan: Number nine on my list is the James Bond reboot, Casino Royale (2006). What's utterly amazing about Casino Royale is that it shouldn't have worked at all. It bucked the successful formula of the previous (and monetarily successful) Bond flicks and the head scratching decision in casting Daniel Craig seemed like a peculiar decision. But the final product exceeded everyone's expectations. In one iconic swoop Craig became this generation's James Bond. His cool performance laced with coldness and detachment not only captured a part of the Bond mystique that was lacking but it also reflects the roughness and uncertainty of our times. Casino Royale succeeds not just as the best pure action movie of the decade but it enhances the mythology (while also deconstructing it) of the Bond franchise in a completely fathomable manner. Casino Royale didn't reinvent the action flick for this decade but it transcends its peers by being an action movie with a legitimate cinematic bravado.

Andy: My number nine goes all the way back to the year 2000, with Kenneth Lonergan’s You Can Count on Me. I’ve always been a sucker for a good, straight-forward drama, and no movie this decade has done it better than You Can Count on Me. The film flew somewhat under the radar as the rookie effort by playwright Kenneth Lonergan (disappointingly, he hasn’t made another until Margaret comes out later this year). The film centers around the relationship between a sister (Laura Linney) and brother (Mark Ruffalo) in a small town in New York. The relationship is complicated, and the two leads, both perfectly cast and doing the best work of their careers so far, are consumed by the tension around it. It is at times uncomfortable to watch it feels so much like real people living out their tragedies in ordinary and complicated ways, that it becomes both depressing and uplifting at the same time. Lonergan framed some tragic and beautiful scenes, while allowing the script and the performances take center stage. This film works so well that one can only hope the wait for Lonergan’s next film has been worth it.

That’s all for the countdown for now, as we will return with another look at a current movie next week before resuming with numbers eight and seven.

"Where the Wild Things Are" Movie Review

2009-10-20T16:36:00.002-04:00

This week we take a look at the highly anticipated adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s classic children’s book Where the Wild Things Are (PG). Acclaimed writer Dave Eggars worked on the screenplay, while indie-film darling Spike Jonze directs. The story is of a boy, Max, who runs off from home and ends up in an imaginary land where he is the king of a small band of monsters. Catherine Keener and Max Records star in the film, with voice talent being lent by an ensemble headed by James Gandolfini, Forrest Whitaker, Chris Cooper, and Catherine O’Hara.

Ryan: Most of the time when literature is adapted for the big screen the story gets streamlined to fit the standard running time of most feature films. But when the text of a given work is only ten sentences then what one has is the rare case of a work needing expanded to fit the length of a feature film. That's the case with Where the Wild Things Are. Overall Spike Jonze has delivered a faithful adaptation of Sendak's book, while at the same time expanding the universe and themes of the narrative. But with that said I don't see the movie reaching the same classic status of the children's book.

Andy: Turning a short children’s book into a feature-length film can be bad news for lovers of the book (The Cat in the Hat, The Polar Express), but the team assembled for Where the Wild Things Are is just quirky enough to capture the spirit of the book. There are a few big changes (Max runs off instead of being sent to his room), but most of the difference are surprisingly subtle expansions of what happens after Max sails through the days, month, and year. Make no mistake, there is a lot added that was not in the book, but most of it is ambiguous and atmospheric, adding to the overall mood more than the story.

Ryan: Jonze's fleshing out of the story works to make the book into a successful movie but in doing so it also prevents it from being as iconic as the book. I never thought I would say that a ninety-four minute-long movie is too long but that's exactly what I'm going to say. Where the Wild Things Are, the movie, would have been much more of a stronger film if it was around ten to fifteen minutes shorter. Unfortunately the movie gets ever so slightly bogged down at times and it undermines the imaginative spontaneity of the narrative.

Andy: I’ll agree that the movie was a little longer than it needed to be. The middle portion of the movie drags just a bit, which is definitely funny to say about a movie so short. But there’s nothing wrong with a runtime of 88 minutes or so, especially when your source material is children’s literature. The other major complaint that some may have about the movie is its lack of a clear plot. While this didn’t really bother me, as it seemed to keep with the spirit of the book, I can see how it would be troublesome for many people.

Ryan: Although I didn't find Where the Wild Things Are quite as solid as it could have been it's still a better film than most of the movies that are currently playing. Jones has created a fanciful world that looks incredible on screen. His eye for bringing this film alive is commendable. Also hats off to Max Records for bringing the character of Max alive as well. Making the performance of Max work was no easy task as the character itself, under the wrong hands, could have failed to resonate with moveigoers.

Andy: This movie has grown on me in the few days since I first watched it. The more I think about it, the more I like it. When Max begins to interact with the different monsters, the implication seems to be that these different personas are intended to represent his interpretations of people in his life, or perhaps of his own psyche. This makes the movie a bit of a riddle – the type of riddle that gets better the more you think about it.

Where the Wild Things Are may not be for everybody, but its ominous mood and captivating visuals keep with the spirit of the book enough to earn it a B+.

"Couples Retreat" Movie Review

2009-10-15T09:06:00.002-04:00

The latest comedy from Vince Vaughn and company is the romantic comedy, Couples Retreat (PG-13). In the film four couples venture to an all-inclusive resort that specializes in couple therapy. Needless to say hilarity ensues. Rounding out the cast is Kristen Bell, Jason Bateman, Kristin Davis, Malin Ackerman, Faizon Love and John Favreau.

Ryan: It's normally not a good sign when one has to make qualifying statements when describing a movie's value. But that's the case with Couples Retreat. It's just one of those films that if one's in the right mood for then it might satisfy one's tastes. But then again it might not. All in all I found Couples Retreat to be a mediocre rom-com that's entertaining at times but ultimately brings little to the table. I'll defend the film to the point that it is not as bad as many critics were making it out to be but it's certainly far from being a memorable movie as well.

Andy: It is entirely possible that Couples Retreat is the quintessential mediocre romantic comedy. It has four different couples to play around with, while putting them fantastically prefabricated “couples skill building” sessions. What follows is so predictable and cliché-ridden that it is at times tedious. This comes from the writing team that brought you 1996’s Swingers. While that film dealt in clichés as well, it had an urgency and a heart that is sorely lacking in Couples Retreat.

Ryan: What's frustrating about Couples Retreat is that it should have been a better film, especially considering the talent involved. Almost all the main actors involved in the film have had success with either comedies and/or romantic comedies. Consequently one would think that the talent in the movie would produce a strong film. But that's just not the case. The movie is not an outright mess but it lacks polish.

Andy: I agree that there were times where it felt like this could have turned into a much better movie, but it really feels uninspired from the writing right through the performances. It is not horrible. It does have a few pretty good moments. It is a really safe date movie. But it is not interesting, consistent, or funny enough to really be considered a success.

Ryan: Even though this is far from being anyone's best work in the film there were a few laughs in the movie. Vaughn's not on his A-game in the movie but he does deliver a few hits and his banter with Favreau still works. (But make no mistake—this movie is not Swingers or even Made for that matter). The normally solid Bateman doesn't really do a whole lot and it's hard to make any criticism (positive or negative) with the female contingency because they do not have a lot to work with. So what I'm saying is that Vince Vaughn can still make me laugh even in a movie that offers very little else.

Andy: The lack of material for the females does pose a problem as well. The movie is pretty clearly coming from the male point of view, which is fine, but it doesn’t really tell us anything remarkable or new about what it’s like to be a man in a difficult relationship. Instead the movie opts to try to please everyone, and if that’s the goal there should be more depth given to the female characters.

Couples Retreat is a little lazily executed, but could still work as an adequate date movie. Final grade: C-.

Colts Recap Week 5

2009-10-13T19:09:00.002-04:00

Another late night televised game. . .another victory. The Colts worked over the woeful Tennessee Titans on Sunday night, 31-9.

The Good:

Peyton Manning continues his MVP season by throwing for his fourth consecutive 300+ yard game. He is just completely locked in. And when he does make a mistake. . .he then goes out and more than makes up for it. He threw a pick in the first quarter and then went on to complete his next14 passes in that first half. Austin Collie continues to gain favor with Manning and I think it's beginning to look like that when Gonzo comes back (and assuming that he's healthy and ready to play) Garcon is going to be the odd man out or maybe more specifically the fourth wide receiver in the rotation. Contrary to popular belief in the national media Gonzo is more comfortable and has had better games when he's on the outside and not in the slot. But anyway Collie is looking great. Hats off to the defense for shutting the Titans and their running game down. I had thought Chris Johnson was going to have a strong day (as I played him in a few fantasy leagues) but he was held in check and I'll take that. It's beginning to look like the Miami game was just a fluke (and I hope that is the case).

The Bad:

As a Colts fan you've come not to expect much from special teams. Basically. . .don't lose the game. Thankfully that didn't happen on Sunday night but there were some cringe worthy moments. When your punt returner calls for a fair catch it's smart not to bump into him as he's trying to catch the ball. And also for some reason our kick return guys like to run into people instead of missing them. I can't even remember the last time a kick or punt was returned for a touchdown. But as far as I'm concerned I'm satisfied with the return game if they just don't turn the ball over.

The Ugly:

Not really much to say here until I read on Monday evening that Peyton's knee was sore (from a cheap shop from Kyle Vanden Bosch). Obviously that's a cause for alarm especially when it's the knee that he had surgery on last year. But Caldwell and Polian didn't see to concerned about it on Monday and the fact that Manning played the rest of the game is a good sign that there's nothing seriously wrong with it.

It looks like the bye is coming at the right time.

"Zombieland" Movie Review

2009-10-08T09:31:00.002-04:00

This week we watched the zombie apocalypse comedy Zombieland (R), the first major film from director Ruben Fleicher. Jesse Eisenberg plays the film’s narrator, known simply as Columbus, as he attempts to survive the world after a virus turns everyone into zombies. He eventually teams up with three other survivors, played by Woody Harrelson, Abigail Breslen, and Emma Stone.

Ryan: I'll concede that zombie movies, in general, do not do much for me. Needless to say I didn't have high expectations going into watching Zombieland. Sometimes that's not necessarily a bad thing as Zombieland proved to be a quite entertaining flick. It's not a movie for everyone but it does have broader appeal than the typical zombie movie. It's a good balance of humor, action and horror and the result makes for an amusing film.

Andy: I was also very skeptical of Zombieland. Zombie movies have just about reached the overdone level of vampire movies, so even one that intends to be tongue-in-cheek seemed risky. The risk paid off, as Zombieland is good for reasons that have nothing to do with the zombies. It is clever, fun, and somehow comes across as both surprisingly subtle and richly self-indulgent, sometimes in the same scene. Such contradictions seem like they should weigh the movie down, but in Zombieland the rules are a little different.

Ryan: Zombieland is just one of those genre films that simply works. It's absurd but it stays within the confines of it's own rules and agenda. It doesn't try to say more than it needs to and it doesn't aspire to be anything more than a zombie comedy. I give major props to Ruben Fleischer, the director, for crafting a film that satisfies fans of zombie/ horror comedies as well as those other moviegoers that tend to stay away from those types of movies. He's not reinventing the wheel with the movie but his fresh take on the sub-genre is applaudable.

Andy: You have a pretty good idea of what you are getting into within the first five minutes of the movie. Eisenberg’s voiceover begins to explain his basic survival rules, with each rule appearing on the screen as it comes up. Then the opening credits begin with a series of super-slow motion, meticulously detailed scenes of zombies attacking in every-day life. It is the first of a few well-played scenes of decadent slow-motion throughout the movie, with each scene adding to the movie’s high quality aesthetic.

Ryan: Also in Zombieland's favor is its cast and that starts with Woody Harrelson. I was under the false impression that Harrelson doesn't make many movies anymore, but after scanning his resume I would amend that statement by saying that he doesn't make many relevant movies anymore. What I'm saying is that with the right material, Harrelson can deliver memorable performances and consequently one can strike this performance up in Zombieland as being one of his more notable outings.

Andy: Harrelson does lead the way in the cast of four. His performance is perfectly executed tough-guy bravado, but it is nuanced with a tough of depth that is necessary for any truly great performance. The other three players all do an admirable job, but Zombieland goes nowhere without Harrelson.

Zombieland is an unexpectedly fun and well executed movie that easily earns a B+.

Colts game 4 recap

2009-10-07T08:16:00.002-04:00

I had a little different perspective with this game as I attended it with The Big A. With an open roof and great seats it was a perfect day for some football. And the Colts delivered in a big way with a rousing 34-17 win over the Seattle Seahawks.

The Good:

I'm beginning to sound like a broken record but how can one not start with Peyton Manning. This was his fourth consecutive 300 yard passing game and he is simply locked in. He's spreading the ball around. . .and getting comfortable with the new guy's. Pierre Garcon had a couple more big catches and Austin Collie grabbed a highlight worthy touchdown at the end of the first half. The running game again seemed competent and the defense (for the most part) held Seattle in check. I did not expect to see Dwight Freeney on the field (with his strained quad) but not only did he play but he had a sack and a couple more quarterback pressures. I'm not convinced that it was a good idea to play him but I guess if he's capable of playing than one should play him.

The Bad:

Again not much to say here. Special teams allowed Seattle to get an on-side kick (in the fourth quarter) and the defense let the Seattle offense score a few late touchdowns. I wasn't too concerned because it was basically garbage time but if I were to be critical I guess it would be nice to not have a let up at all but that's going to happen.

The (not so) Ugly:

Edgerrin James returned to Indy for the first time since he and the Colts parted ways. Most people realize, including the parties involved, that the decision to release James didn't surprise anyone when it did happen in 2006. I thought it was class act by the Colts organization to publicly recognize--during the game with a video montage--James's contribution to the Colts. I know I was on my feet cheering for James. It was cool that James reciprocated the gesture by acknowledging the crowd and their cheers. As the screen proclaimed, James will one day be in the Colts Ring of Honor (and on a separate subject. . .the Hall of Fame as well).

"The Informant!" Movie Review

2009-09-30T11:40:00.003-04:00

Steven Soderbergh’s latest film is the comical farce, The Informant! (R). Based on actual events, Matt Damon stars as a VP of an agricultural business who creates quite a mess involving his company and the FBI. Melanie Lyndskey, Scott Bakula and Joel McHale co-star in the movie.

Ryan: The Informant is one of those movies that isn’t necessarily going to blow moviegoers away but it is a well-made movie that is genuinely entertaining. It’s a film —and I don’t mean this in a negative way—that has the feel of a made-for-TV-movie so consequently it’s a movie with a low-key sensibility. It isn’t flashy but it’s a well-told story presented in a satisfying manner.

Andy: The made-for-TV-movie comparison is an apt one, but it should be clear that this is done intentionally. Soderbergh is still one of the most talented directors out there, and he definitely gives the film a goofy feel that helps paint our image of Damon’s character. What may turn off some moviegoers is that the movie isn’t consistently laugh-out-loud funny even though it plays like a comedy. That dance between serious subject matter and comedic attitude can leave the audience unsure of how they should feel.

Ryan: Steven Soderbergh has had an interesting career since scoring his Oscar for 2000’s Traffic. Soderbergh has always done his own thing but in this decade he’s made an even more concerted effort to make the kind of films that he wants to make. His efforts have included some misses (Full Frontal and The Good German) but there’s no denying that he’s still one of the more talented filmmakers currently working. If anything, The Informant shows that Soderbergh can take a literal, unconventional story and create a movie that fits the atypical tone of the story and of the characters involved.

Andy: Not surprisingly, Matt Damon does an outstanding job as the goofy, deceptive lead character. Much has been made about his weight gain and mustache for this role, but it’s really all about his earnest mixture of intelligence, ability, and naivety that propels the character and therefore the entire movie. I found the movie interesting and entertaining, but without Damon’s performance it would have been neither of these things.

Ryan: Matt Damon really pulls off an impressive performance in this movie. At the core, the character that Damon plays is quite despicable. But he plays him with such an oblivious charm that one is drawn to him to the degree that one just wants to see what his character will do next. His character does so many asinine things in the film that it’s hard to not keep interested in his next move. Props to Damon for adding a degree of comedy to his resume.

Andy: Another intriguing aspect of the movie is that it is in some ways a period piece. The movie takes place in the mid 1990s, a time that is still fresh in America’s conscience, even though it is now 15 years ago. Seeing the sinister nature of the corporate culture and the flailing attempts of the FBI to get a handle on it are at times amusing, but it also forces us to ask ourselves if any of that has changed in the past 15 years.

The Informant! is a well crafted movie that does not wow the audience, but does adequately entertain. Final grade: B.

Colts Week 3 Recap

2009-09-28T19:42:00.002-04:00

On Sunday night the Colts dominated the Arizona Cardinals defeating them 31-10. It was a slow starting game and it looked like the Cardinals were going to go up 10-0 in the first quarter. . .and then all of sudden it was 21-3 and the Colts were in control.

The Good:

Where does one start. This was the Colts best all around effort to date for the season. The offense sputtered at first (and that was disconcerting) but like I mentioned earlier they got their act together and before one knew it. . .they had an eighteen point lead. Manning was at the top of his game and I liked how they sped up the no-huddle in the second quarter. That really caught Arizona off guard and seemed to get the offense rolling. Reggie Wayne proved once again that he's an elite WR in the league. Dallas was being Dallas. But furthermore. . .It's promising that Garcon is proving to be a player that can make big plays. He did get caught up in the moment but I don't think having a little flair is all that bad. I don't see him going all TO on us.

On the other side of the ball the defense looked entirely better than the previous week. I had thought this, but did not express it to anyone, but I felt that the way Arizona's offense works suits the Colts defense. They don't run the ball (actually worse than we are). Kurt Warner is an immobile QB and they like big pass plays. And the thing about big pass plays is that they take a while to develop and with our pass rush that is something that our defense can exploit. I just thought Freeney and Mathis and company did a superb job of getting in Warner's head, both literally and figuratively. This was a vintage Colts game. Manning and the offense get a big lead and the defense does it's job to get after the quarterback.

The Bad:

When one hears something pop in their leg, that is not a good sign. And when one is an elite pass rushing defensive end, that's an even worse sign. As of this post, there's no official status update of Dwight Freeney (who left the game with a leg injury) but I think it's safe to say that he's going to miss some time. And there's no easy way to say this. . .but that sucks.

The (not so) Ugly:

The Colts actually had some success running ball. As a team they actually had over a hundred yards rushing. . .126 to be exact. That's definitely a good sign for the offense. . .the offensive line . . .and for Addai and Brown. As one can see that opened up the offense to their full back of tricks.

"Extract" Movie Review

2009-09-23T20:42:00.002-04:00

As Hollywood enters a down period, we take a look at the new Mike Judge film, Extract (R). Jason Bateman stars as an extract factory owner who is having trouble connecting with his wife (Kristin Wiig), so he confides in his bartender friend (Ben Affleck) while lusting after a new temp (Mila Kunis) in his factory.

Ryan: Extract is Mike Judge’s third feature film. His first movie Office Space evolved into a comedic classic while his second movie, Idiocracy left a lot to be desired. Unfortunately Extract is more Idiocracy than Office Space. Regrettably those people hoping for a comedy on the same high level of Office Space are going to be disappointed. At its best Extract is simply a mediocre movie.

Andy: In all fairness, it would do well to remember that Office Space was not very highly regarded until over a year after its original release. That said, it seems unlikely that Extract will ever live up to that level. It is in the same spirit as Office Space, as the scenes inside the factory resonate with anyone who has ever worked in that environment. Unfortunately, those scenes are only scattered throughout the film. That would be fine if the rest of the movie was compelling, but it’s not. The result is a mediocre movie that had potential to make a lasting impact while being legitimately funny.

Ryan: Extract is an uneventful movie. It doesn’t take a lot of analysis to figure out why. It’s boring. It’s a ninety-minute movie that feels like a two and a half hour long marathon. There are a few funny moments but overall the movie fails to generate consistent laughs on any level. It’s not a train wreck of a movie, like this summer’s Year One, but it certainly fails to deliver the laughs and social commentary that Judge has captured in the past with some of his work.

Andy: While there are certainly too many down moments of Extract, I think it’s a little unfair to say that it feels like two and a half hours. The major problem is that none of the characters are dynamic enough to capture the attention of the audience. Bateman’s character is the only one based in reality enough for us to relate to, and he ends up being, literally, too boring to root for. The other characters are extremely ridiculous, which does translate to some laughs, but not enough to make up for the lack of a connection.

Ryan: Extract is also one of those movies that is a missed opportunity. The cast that was assembled for this movie had the chops to deliver a strong comedic film. Unfortunately their talents are wasted. I don't assess much of the blame to the cast members because they didn't have much to work with. But it's also true that nobody rises above the material either. No matter how one looks at it Extract is an all-around lackluster effort.

Andy: Extract has an impressive cast that fails to impress. Ben Affleck seems to be having fun playing his role as a drug obsessed bartender, but his character does little for the movie. Kristen Wiig is solid but underused. The real highlight is, of all people, Gene Simmons, whose turn as a back-of-the-phone-book injury attorney is outstanding. Simmons is quite funny, but his character, by design, is barely in the movie. That leaves a lot of laughter-free time that is hard to overcome.

Extract is a comedy that fails to consistently make the audience laugh. Final grade: C.

Colts recap Week 2

2009-09-22T07:57:00.003-04:00

I was going to do this last week but dropped the ball.

The Colts beat the Dolphins last night on Monday Night Football, 27-23. Needless to say it was a pretty exciting, nail-biting game. With that said. . .here's my good, bad and ugly takes of the game.

The Good:

Peyton Manning. His numbers aren't as sexy as some other quarterbacks this year (Drew Brees) but I'm beating the drum for Manning's MVP case already. He just gets it done. The offense was not without its faults (to many three-outs) but when they had to score they did. It's mind blowing to think that we only had the ball for less than 15 minutes (14:53 to be exact) and not only were in the the game but won the game. It defies logic.

Dallas Clark: Simply one of the best tight ends in the game. That opening play was a thing of beauty.

The Bad:

Three and Outs: The Colts simply cannot live with three and outs. I'm not saying they should score every time they have the ball but they have to at the very least get a first down or too. The bend but don't break defense still seems to be what the Colts are so the offense has to give the defense a break. Additionally. . .it happened last year and I was hoping that it would end this year but the Colts offense sputters at times and that's just not something that the Colts can afford to do if they plan on making a deep playoff run.

The Ugly:

I don't want to rip the defense because the effort was there and they stepped up when they had too (although Miami looked pretty inept at running the two minute drill) but the defense has to do something on third down. Miami was 15 of 21 on third downs. That is simply unacceptable. I know the Colts won the game but that's playing with fire to continue that trend. And it's not just the Colts run defense. I don't know how many times Pennington hit Ted Ginn on third down conversions. The soft coverage is just nauseating to watch. I don't want to get to down on them to much because the defensive unit played so well last week but. . .man. . .somebody needs to make a play on third down.

It's cliche to say but a win is a win. So I'll take it.

Reenactment of Stokley's TD Catch

2009-09-18T22:19:00.000-04:00

"(500) Days of Summer" Movie Review

2009-09-09T18:29:00.002-04:00

We close out the summer movie season with the unconventional indie romance movie, (500) Days of Summer (PG-13). In the film Joseph Gordon-Levitt falls hard for the new girl in the office (Zooey Deschanel). Unfortunately her feelings are not fully reciprocated and they struggle to find common ground with their budding romantic relationship. Marc Webb directs.

Ryan: (500) Days of Summer is a really good movie. It’s not a typical romantic comedy (light-hearted and whimsical) and in fact it’s not really a typical indie romance either (dark and angst ridden). It strikes a suitable balance between those polar opposites and the result is a film that is genuinely entertaining and has a little bit of depth to it as well. (500) Days of Summer is definitely one of the highlights of not only the summer but the year as well.

Andy: One of the aspects of (500) Days of Summer that makes it such an interesting movie is the mixed up narrative structure. Rather than presenting a linear romance, the audience is shown the relationship in all of its different stages right from the beginning. This allows us to focus on how the characters are behaving rather than getting lost in arc of the relationship. It highlights the emotion of individual moments rather than the culmination of their feelings. The technique probably turns off some viewers, but I found it to be an inventive way to have a character study of a guy messing up a relationship.

Ryan: Major props should go out to the director, Marc Webb, for crafting such a delightful movie. The ideas of true love, love at first sight and finding one’s soul mate are as old as storytelling itself. The brilliance with the movie is how it takes these familiar (arguably clichéd notions) and presents them in a way that feels fresh, that feels contemporary and that feels relevant. Further enhancing the story is how Webb chooses to film the movie in a non-linear fashion thus adding a sense of emotional resonance that would have been lacking by telling the story in a traditional straightforward manner.

Andy: Another possible pitfall for viewers is the lack of development of Zooey Deschanel’s character. It is true that she comes across as a little shallow, but that is part of the point. The male version of the relationship is all we are seeing, and that is a self-important and selfish view of the relationship that keeps the audience from ever really getting to know the woman. That ultimately dooms the relationship, and is a major part of the whole point of the movie.

Ryan: (500) Days of Summer provides a breakthrough role for Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Gordan-Levitt plays the part with a believable sense of vulnerability and charm that vividly shows up on screen. It would not be out-of-the-question to add him to the short list with Michael Cera and Jessie Eisenberg as up-and-coming leading men. Not to be out-done is the performance by Zooey Deschanel. The role is tailored made for her but one still has to hit the right notes with the performance. But rest assured, she delivers a credible performance.

Andy: There is no doubt that Gordon-Levitt carries this movie. His character acts despicably for large portions of the movie, yet he has a cool charm that makes him likeable even as we pity the mess he’s made of his relationship. As an actor, he pulls this off in a way that not many young leading men could or would. It is a treat to see him perform here. Deschanel also does a nice job, but so much of her character must be more cute than complex (or at least as we see her through Gordon-Levitt’s eyes) that it’s hard to give her credit beyond knowing the limitations of her character.

(500) Days of Summer is interesting as a romantic comedy that is neither consistently romantic nor comedic, yet it still interesting and entertaining. Final grade: A-.

News Flash. . .The Beatles Rule.

2009-09-06T09:26:00.002-04:00

With the onset of Beatles Rock Band hitting stores in a few days, a varying degree of Beatlemania has once again moved to the forefront.

--Rolling Stone Magazine has interesting take on why The Beatles really broke up.

--And the latest issue of Entertainment Weekly also has The Beatles on the cover and also attempts to rank the 50 Best Beatles tunes of all-time.

So since I love The Beatles (and lists for that matter) that's where this post is going.

It's interesting and telling that EW's list goes all the way to 50 in coming up with the best Beatles songs. That speaks to the quantity and quality of their music. Think about other classic rock bands and their respected catalogs in coming up with a list of their 50 greatest songs. After about 20-25 songs the list becomes interchangeable and negligible. But not with The Beatles.

Just look at the songs that didn't even make their cut. . .Two of Us, The Fool on the Hill, Mother Nature's Son, Fixing a Hole, No Reply, Any Time at All, Things We Said Today, I've Just Seen a Face, Don't Let Me Down, Yes It Is, The Inner Light, Here There and Everywhere, And Your Bird Can Sing, For No One, I'm Looking Through You, It's All Too Much. . .it just goes on and on.

I'm not going to be overly critical of the list because it's tough. I've attempted to come up with my favorite 10. . .20. . .50. . .Beatles songs and it's no easy task. And when it comes to ranking them. . .it becomes even more difficult. I do completely empathize with the writers of the EW article. It's almost too much of an endeavor. It really just makes your brain hurt.

That's why The Beatles are second to none.

"Taking Woodstock" Movie Review

2009-09-02T09:08:00.002-04:00

This week we take a look at director Ang Lee’s film Taking Woodstock (R). Demetri Martin stars as a small town man with big plans for his parents’ motel in 1969 upstate New York. When the opportunity to host the music festival Woodstock presents itself, he takes it. Emile Hirsch and Eugene Levy costar.

Ryan: Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock is an interesting take on a subject most people are familiar with. I give Lee credit (because it was risky) for putting the iconic concert as the backdrop for an intimate look at a coming-of-age story. At the onset Lee does a strong job in setting up the conflict of the main character not only within himself but in dealing with the drama of trying to pull off a concert as ambitious as Woodstock. Unfortunately Taking Woodstock meanders through its second hour and struggles at the end to generate a satisfying conclusion. It's not a bad film but it's certainly not a memorable film either.

Andy: The risk of basing a movie around Woodstock without actually showing any of the concert is a risk that ultimately doesn’t pay off. The film is entirely about Martin’s character and his struggles with his parents and his ambitions. The fact that the concert is an ancillary piece of the story is both awkward and partly responsible for the film’s lacking heart. Something is missing from this movie, and the fact that the concert itself was somewhat ignored has to be considered a factor in that.

Ryan: Again I admire, from a cinematic standpoint, how Lee put the actual concert on the back burner and focused on the struggles of the main character and his family. But with that said, a movie even with Woodstock in the background, still needs the music of the historical concert to be an important factor. The legacy of Woodstock extends far beyond the music but a film with Woodstock in its title needs to have the music as more than just an afterthought. It's almost like the filmmakers went too far in the other direction in stating that this isn't a typical Woodstock-inspired film. Consequently it doesn't work.

Andy: Taking Woodstock is somewhat entertaining, but it is also lacking in many areas. One of thos areas is the performance of the lead, Demetri Martin. I am a pretty big fan of Martin’s television show Important Things. I think it is a brand of comedy that is different from anything else on TV right now, and I was excited to see how he did on the big screen. Unfortunately, he left a lot to be desired. His characters is absolutely central to the success of the movie, and the performance does not have enough gravitas to really bring the audience in.

Ryan: There seems to be a tragic flaw among a great many of today's talented filmmakers. More-often- than-not a good or even great film suffers from a puzzling climax and/or resolution. Taking Woodstock is a prime example of this. The first act and a half is well established but the movie falters in reaching its narrative climax and conclusion. Furthering exacerbating that problem is how the movie stumbles into familiar sixties cliches and narrative sequences. The original premise of the film is not so unique by the end of the picture.

Andy: Ang Lee is a very accomplished director, but he has had misses in the past (2003’s Hulk, for example). This movie is a bit of a departure for Lee, but the exploration did not result in a very high quality movie. Taking Woodstock is not bad, but for the talent involved it seems poorly executed and at times even tedious. I would anticipate Lee bouncing back with something more rich and innovative for his next project.

Taking Woodstock was an interesting idea that turned into a mediocre movie. Final grade: C.

"Inglorious Basterds" movie review

2009-08-26T11:45:00.002-04:00

Quentin Tarantino’s newest feature film is the World War II tale, Inglorious Basterds (R). Brad Pitt stars in the movie as the leader of a rag-tag group of soldiers whose sole mission is to kill Nazis in occupied France. Christoph Waltz, Diane Kruger and Eli Roth co-star in the movie.

Ryan: In this past decade most war movies, but especially WWII, movies have followed the gritty realistic style of Saving Private Ryan. That was fine for awhile but cinematic staleness began to creep into the sub-genre and most WWII films became almost interchangeable (and not in a good way). So it’s very refreshing to see Tarantino breath some new life into the stale genre. Make no mistake about it this is a WWII story filtered through the unique mind of Tarantino. And in my estimation it’s a worthwhile endeavor.

Andy: It’s true that there really haven’t been many movies like this made about WWII. It is a fictional fantasy based around the second world war, and that fictional element allows Tarantino much more freedom. Tarantino has always had a knack for creating unique movies, and doing that with a genre as tired as WWII is truly impressive.

Ryan: If one’s enjoyed Tarantino’s other films then one will relish Inglorious Basterds as well. The movie is vintage Tarantino with its genre meshing style highlighted by dialogue driven scenes. In fact this movie perfectly showcases Tarantino’s skill in crafting scenes. His films do not always have the best flow and that would be my main criticism with this film. But Tarantino is arguably the best director in constructing a dialogue heavy dramatic scene and Inglorious Basterds is littered with memorable scenes.

Andy: Most of his movies take some time to play with language, and this one is no exception. He is very careful to highlight the language differences among the countries involved. The brilliant opening scene includes a German and a Frenchman mutually agreeing to speak in English as a common language. The exchange is amusing because the audience knows that this is being done for our benefit, but we must hear the characters arrive at the conclusion that they should be speaking English on their own. It is this attention to reality in an entirely fiction-based movie that gives Inglorious Basterds much of its charm.

Ryan: Another skill of Tarantino as a director is his ability to illicit strong performances from his cast. I was throughly entertained by Brad Pitt's charming performance as the level-headed southern born Lt. Aldo Raine. It is somewhat difficult to pinpoint exactly why the performance stands out but be rest assured it does. The other noteworthy performance in the film is that of Christoph Waltz and his portrayal of Nazi officer, Col Hans Landa. In a film with many antagonists—both real and fictitious, Waltz's performances stands out as a delicious piece of slimly villanary.

Andy: Brad Pitt was outstanding, as always. His character is certainly the glue that holds the film together. When he is not on screen the movie drags at times. Indeed, the movie’s biggest weakness is that it is a little too long and sometimes feels like it. Ultimately the wait is worth it, as the end is very satisfying.

Inglorious Basterds is entertaining and interesting, but not without flaws. Final grade: B+.

Steppin' it up on Stewart

2009-08-23T17:04:00.003-04:00

I guess I should wax philosophical about the Vine Street Exodus. It's truly been a whirlwind week. The excitement of the house was tampered a bit by some drama/vandalism at the barn but overall it's definitely been a memorable week.

At this point on late Sunday afternoon the house is pretty much in order. The boxes are unpacked. . . the pictures are hung. . .the batcave is in order. . .it's feeling like home. And Jenny and I are very humbled and happy by the whole experience. It's been a four month odyssey (with thankfully not much drama) and we're glad to have finally made the last transition into our new house.

But taking that final load from 129 S. Vine to our new house was somewhat bittersweet. Don't get me wrong, I'm overjoyed to be in our new homestead but leaving Vine Street was a little emotional. I've lived on Vine Street for almost eight years. During that time I had a lot of good times--The Feelin' Fine on Vine mystique was born there. I was roommates with life long friends who are still life long friends--even after living with me and putting up with my shenanigans (like yelling at the TV or breaking patio furniture). Good Times.

But let's call a spade a spade. . .the most important development in my Vine Street history was falling in love with my beautiful wife. So obviously that ranks number in my book.

So with that chapter closed, we're excited to start making new memories on Stewart Street. So if people are in Greensburg feel free to stop by. Jenny and I are ready to entertain visitors.

"District 9" Movie Review

2009-08-20T12:53:00.002-04:00

This week we take a look at the sci-fi movie District 9 (R). This Peter Jackson produced film imagines a world where an alien ship parks itself over Johannesburg, South Africa filled with lethargic, malnourished aliens. Over the course of a couple of decades, the aliens are put into ghettos and routinely descriinated against. Neill Blomkamp directs and Sharlto Copley stars.

Ryan: District 9 is a really good sci-fi flick but it isn't the instant sci-fi classic that it's being made out to be in some circles. The (viral) marketing campaign for the film was brilliant and created a buzz that seemed legit. I don't think the film quite lives up to the buzz but it's certainly a positive alternative to most of the mindless fodder (Transformers 2 and G.I. Joe) being cranked out of Hollywood.

Andy: District 9 is a film that thrives because of the quality of the concept. There have been hundreds of movies turned out about aliens over the years, but few have taken the approach of the aliens as a “humanitarian burden” on Earth. The concept, plus the obvious, yet interesting allegories that accompany it, make District 9 interesting enough to recommend.

Ryan: District 9 stands out because of it's style. The premise for the film is (arguably) quite ridiculous and the movie could have completely fallen apart if it was in the hands of an atypical sci-fi/ action movie director. But under the steady hand of Neill Blomkamp, the director, and Peter Jackson, the producer, the movie distances itself from its contemporaries in a lot of ways by being such a “modern” movie. Whether it's the hyper cutting, the use of hand-held cameras or the non-traditional storytelling techniques, District 9 sucks in the viewer with it's hyper-real style and creates a tense and immediate environment that is thrilling to watch.

Andy: I would argue that ultimately, District 9 comes dangerously close to falling apart at the end. The solid concept of the movie’s plot gives way to a shoot ‘em up, buddy action flick. This is as inexplicable as it is unwanted, as the movie had really set itself up to be something special. Bear in mind that the action sequence is pretty solid as action sequences go, but it is way too long, and seems outside the spirit of the rest of the film.

Ryan: While I believe that District 9 is a movie that should be respected it is not without its shortcomings. The movie runs a little too long and sometimes gets bogged down in its own semantics. While Sharlto Copley was outstanding as the lead, the other performances in the film never rise up to the tension being generated in the movie. But the biggest misstep is the lack of a good villain. A truly transcendent genre picture needs a memorable villain and District 9 fails to produce that.

Andy: The lack of a compelling villain might not have been a problem had they played up the concept of the private security contractor as a corporate villain. Or the film could have focused more on interspecies diplomacy instead of action, and that would have lessened the need for one main bad guy. As it is, the movie’s shortfalls are a little disappointing, but it is still a high quality film.

District 9 is not without flaws, but is still a sci-fi film worthy of a B.

"G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra" Movie Review

2009-08-11T15:50:00.001-04:00

The latest action-figure inspired movie is G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (PG-13). When an arms dealer/manufacturer (Christopher Eccleston) decides to go rogue, an elite special forces unit is called upon to protect the planet. Channing Tatum, Marlon Wayans, Rachel Nichols, Sienna Miller and Dennis Quaid co-star in the movie. Stephen Sommers directs.

Andy: As a child I was a huge fan of both the G.I. Joe action figures and the animated series, so I was initially very excited about the live action blockbuster. Upon seeing the previews for the movie my excitement waned drastically. The good news is that G.I. Joe is not completely bad, as the trailer suggested it might be. Instead its only not good – the standard summer movie fare that is entertaining, but not substantive.

Ryan: Much like Transformers 2 one can check their brain at the door upon watching G.I. Joe. But generally speaking that's really where the similarities stop. Don't get me wrong, G.I. Joe is cinematically ridiculous but it's not ridiculously bad, boring and offensive as Transformers 2. Granted G.I. Joe is the kind of movie where a headache will develop if one stops and thinks about it. The movie makes no sense but for a mindless summer popcorn flick I give it passing marks.

Andy: It is true that the plot of G.I. Joe is basically irrelevant. But in many ways, that suggests that the movie is keeping true to its roots. G.I. Joe was always just a vehicle for ridiculous characters to get into equally ridiculous action sequences. The cartoon also served as propaganda for the U.S. military, which the movie surprisingly (and refreshingly) avoids for the most part. So the fact that G.I. Joe aims low may not be reason enough for many people to watch it, but it does seem to achieve most of its objectives.

Ryan: Barring the needless flashbacks and absurd opening scene I found about two-thirds of the movie to be generally entertaining. The G.I. Joe cartoon was never that serious and I think the filmmakers did a decent enough job in capturing that nuanced tone. There are nuggets thrown into the film that will satisfy fans of the cartoon and action figures and the movie does try to explain (or at least put into a believable context) the possibility of an evil army like Cobra existing. Whether or not one buys that premise will go a long way in determining whether or not one likes or dislikes the flick.

Andy: The flashback sequences definitely are the movies weakest points. We don’t really need fifteen minutes worth of screen time devoted to the origins of peripheral characters, and the fact that we get so many of them, often awkwardly inserted into the movie, significantly detracts from the good things the movie does within the action sequences. Coupled with Channing Tatum’s total lack of gravitas, this is a movie that has major problems in spite of adequate action.

Ryan: Obviously with a movie like this one isn't looking for award winning performances. But with the critical success of genre pictures in the past few years there's no question that the bar's been raised. Disappointingly there are no breakout performances in the movie. If anything the performances in the film that were borderline noteworthy (Wayans and Miller) were counteracted by lackluster performances (Tatum and Eccleston). Again I'm not expecting Oscar caliber work but in movies of this sort a cool noteworthy performance can significantly enhance a film.

G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra is able to live up to ridiculously low expectations to receive a C.

Smoltzy still got it

2009-08-08T09:13:00.003-04:00

Or maybe not.

John Smoltz signed with the Boston Red Sox in the off season and since emerging into the rotation he has been...and this is putting it mildly...not very good. He's been designated for assignment by the Red Sox.

Consequently his career might be over. (and on a separate note...I'm thinking that maybe I'm glad Maddux retired when he did because maybe he just knew that it was time and he wanted to go out on his own terms).

So of course the question is...is Smoltz a hall of famer?

I didn't think there was much debate on this subject but the discussion on Baseball Tonight was far from definite.

I'm on record stating that Smoltz is a first ballot hall of famer.

His career line is W-L 212-152/ ERA 3.32/ WHIP 1.18/ SO 3,044/ Saves 154

His career is unusual because the ladder part was spent with Smoltz being a closer. Consequently he's the only pitcher in MLB history with 200+ wins and 150+ saves.

As a starter Smoltz's seasons were not as consistently good as say Maddux's and Glavine's but he did win a Cy Young in 1996 and had several solid seasons. Now as a closer Smoltz was simply lights out. He basically accumulated the 150+ saves in three seasons, which is simply amazing. In my estimation that puts him in. But if one needs more convincing than just look at his postseason totals. He was money...a W-L of 15-4 with a 2.65 ERA.

He's in.

"Funny People" Movie Review

2009-08-05T15:27:00.002-04:00

This week we take a look at the latest comedy from Judd Apatow, Funny People (R). Adam Sandler stars as a famous comedian who learns he is chronically ill. He then hires a young, ambitious comedian (Seth Rogen) to be his assistant during the final months of his life. Jonah Hill, Jason Schwartzman, Eric Bana, and Leslie Mann costar.

Ryan: In the ad campaign for this movie, Funny People was built up as the “third film” from Judd Apatow. That is definitely a fact but I thought that had a little hint of self-importance attached to it. Regrettably that ever so slight pretentious attitude prevents Funny People from being on par with Apatow's other directed features, The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up. Don't get me wrong, Funny People is worth watching and it's a better movie than most of its competition right now. But, it is also a flawed movie that really should have been better.

Andy: Funny People could be a bit of a misleading title for this movie. It is a movie primarily about dying. The fact that it is seen through the eyes of comedians makes it so that there is a lot that is funny in the film, but the basic subject matter is much dourer than the title suggests. Viewed simply as a comedy, the movie is way too uneven and disappointing. Apatow has always been at his best walking the line between comedy and serious human suffering, but thematically he has gone more for the pain than the humor here.

Ryan: I've heaped a lot of praise on Apatow in the past few years so it's only fair to call him out when it goes the other way. The biggest issue with Funny People is that it aspires to be more than a strong crowd-pleasing comedy. The film seeks to be an epic comedy/drama but it collapses under it's own weight. And while I appreciate the ambition it is the execution that falls short. Not only is the movie too long but it feels like one is watching arguably two different films. This might have been acceptable if not for the fact that the first part of the movie is far superior to the second part of the picture. The unevenness makes for a disappointing movie.

Andy: There is no question that the movie is too long. The final third of the movie is weaker than the rest and it carries on longer than we really need. The subplot with Leslie Mann and Eric Bana receives too much attention when the audience really just wants to see the conclusion of Sandler and Rogen’s relationship. It should be noted, however, that this portion of the film is still quite strong, it just doesn’t fit in with the narrative as well as it could.

Ryan: I give Adam Sandler a lot of credit for taking this part. While the movie is not an autobiographic sketch of Sandler, it also doesn't put successful comedic actors, like him, in the best of light. The film also makes it a point to parody the low-brow movies that Sandler is famous for. But the bottom line is that Sandler put forth a solid performance in a movie that had to hit home more often than not. Furthermore the film's shortcomings are through no fault of his own. In a lot of ways Sandler, along with Rogen, hold the film together as best they can. Final grade: C+.

Andy: Adam Sandler is an underrated actor who has yet to have much success in one of his more serious roles. Here he again is outstanding, playing the funny man with such pain and self-loathing that it is at times as uncomfortable as it is revealing. Essentially every performance in the movie follows suite. These are legitimately funny characters dealing with difficult real life situations. While it may not be as good as Apatow’s other two movies, Funny People’s biggest flaw is that it is too long. And I’m okay with having a bit too much of a good thing. Final grade: B+.

"Away We Go" Movie Review

2009-07-29T17:14:00.002-04:00

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

2009-07-28T13:57:00.007-04:00

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

2009-07-22T13:54:00.002-04:00

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

2009-07-21T14:15:00.004-04:00

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

2009-07-18T08:56:00.002-04:00

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!

2009-07-15T11:38:00.000-04:00

From The Onion. . .

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

"Bruno" Movie Review

2009-07-14T19:34:00.002-04:00

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

2009-07-13T12:18:00.001-04:00

Guilty as charged.

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

"Public Enemies" Movie Review

2009-07-07T16:24:00.002-04:00

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

2009-07-05T20:46:00.004-04:00

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

2009-07-01T13:00:00.002-04:00

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.

"Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" Movie Review

2009-06-30T13:31:00.004-04:00

This week we take a look at one of the summer’s big blockbusters, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (PG-13). Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox return as teenagers teaming up with one group of alien robots (Autobots), to fight another group of alien robots (Decepticons) in a battle for Earth. Michael Bay directs.

Andy: This summer has been very hit and miss with very little middle-of-the-road material. Not surprisingly, you can place Transformers 2 solidly in the miss column. This movie epitomizes why sequels don’t often work. There is virtually no time spent on further developing the characters, the plot is treated like an annoyance that must be overcome in order to show robots blowing stuff up, and most of the jokes are dumber and more offensive than in the first movie. Almost every aspect of the original Transformers movie that was acceptable has been minimized here, and it’s not like the first movie was all that amazing.

Ryan: The first Transformers film was a fun summer movie. In retrospect it wasn't very impressionable but I do remember it being an entertaining spectacle. But I have to agree with everything Andy mentions with regard to the sequel. Besides some cutting-edge special effects (and those even feel watered down) the sequel brings absolutely nothing to the table. This is the worst kind of sequel where everything is repackaged, recycled and remodeled from the original. Bay attempts to the up the ante with regard to the action and drama but the movie completely collapses under it's own bloated weight.

Andy: Unfortunately, the problems with Transformers 2 are not limited to what makes sequels bad. There are two characters, Autobot twins named Skids and Mudflap, who give every indication that the filmmakers are perpetuating negative racial stereotypes. These characters banter with each other in what can only be described as an urban dialect, one of them has a gold tooth (which makes NO sense on a robot / car), and at one point they admit that they cannot read. As if all of this is not offensive enough, the characters are used only for “comic relief,” doing nothing to drive the plot or resolve conflicts. It is not surprising, then, that some critics have evoked the minstrel shows of the late 1800s for a comparison to these characters. At the very least, Michael Bay should acknowledge that perpetuating these stereotypes is irresponsible, and it’s pretty easy to argue that it is overtly racist.

Ryan: The racism concern is a fair question and it's up to each moviegoer to process this how they see fit. I did find it offensive. But what further perplexes me is how Bay and company could produce these characters, Skids and Mudflap, and not see the reds flags. For the most part the Transformer characters in the film have zero personality. Consequently it baffles me in that the filmmakers would purposely spend time developing characters that would be offensive. It's completely misguided. Additionally besides the characters being offensive from a racial standpoint they're also offensive to kids who are going to be watching the movie. I know the film is rated PG-13 but kids are going to go to this movie and the some of the language in the film, especially the gangster talk by these two characters, is inappropriate for most kids.

Andy: Transformers 2 is a ridiculously long movie that does not hold itself together very well at all. A basic mantra of creative writing teachers is “show, don’t tell.” In movie making, you would think that it is even more important to show the plot moving forward, rather than tell it. You would also think that over the course of 2 hours and 30 minutes there would be plenty of time for a story line to play out, but this is not so. On several occasions the plot is simply explained in a thirty second monologue by one of the robots. Having a character explain what is going on saves time for more explosions!

Ryan: Some summer films can be two and half hours long and its acceptable (like last year's The Dark Knight). With Transformers 2 it's not. The movie is mind-numbing and I'm not even sure if that's a strong enough word for it. Another manta I would throw out there is “less is more.” There are so many explosions in this movie that by the end of the film one is numb to it. One's senses are overloaded by the endless action of the film. Normally that's what one wants with a summer action flick but it just becomes noise by the end.

In the summer there's always going to be a market for nonsensical blockbusters but there still has to be something there to grab you. It's just not happening with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Final grade: D+.

10 Best Picture Nominees ??????

2009-06-24T21:45:00.002-04:00

Today, The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced that the Best Picture category will expand from five nominations to ten.

Seriously.

I was pretty taken aback when I heard this news. It's not earth-shattering news but in my world it is noteworthy, to say the least.

And I don't think it is a good idea. One, it waters down the recognition of being a Best Picture nominee. Ten is a lot of movies. There should be some honor in just being a nominee for Best Picture. Now I think that distinction doesn't mean as much as it used too. Getting to that number ten might prove to be problematic in years where it will be hard pressed to argue that there are ten films worthy of being Best Picture. Just look at this year's nominees...I would argue that three of them (Frost/Nixon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Reader) shouldn't have been nominated in the first place.

Second, it's just a cheap attempt to increase ratings...and maybe buzz regarding the ceremony. There's no question that the snubs of The Dark Knight and of WALL-E hurt the telecast in that it didn't draw in those casual viewers. Instead of reviewing and tinkering with the complicated film nomination process they have decided to take the easy way out and to expand the category to include, for example, those movies that were commercial successes. Granted this also opens the door for indie films and foreign films to get nominated as well but those kind of nominations aren't going to increase the hype like say a Dark Knight would have last February.

Instead of trying to deal with the biases (of a lot of academy members) against genre films and comedies the Academy thinks quantity is going to be more important than quality. I really think this is just an over reaction of the Academy blowing it by not nominating The Dark Knight for Best Picture.

Normally with five nominations in the Best Picture category one can ascertain that it's going to come down to two...maybe three movies that could actually win. That just being nominated is award for the other two or three films. Now we are going to have ten movies in the running. Does anybody think that with ten movies that there's a possibility that any of those ten films could actually win? And is it possible that the vote will be so splintered that a film that gains BS momentum (like last year's The Reader) could end up winning Best Picture. I don't mean to sound old and crotchety but I just don't like it. I also don't like their reasoning that just because they did it in the '30's and '40's that it means that it's a good idea. That doesn't make a lot sense to me.

"Year One" Movie Review

2009-06-24T07:59:00.002-04:00

This week we are taking a look at the comedy Year One (PG-13). Jack Black and Michael Cera star as ancient tribesmen who are kicked out of their tribe and end up going on an adventure. Harold Ramis directs.

Ryan: I didn't have high expectations for Year One but I did think that it could be a decent comedy. The idea of Jack Black and Michael Cera doing “their thing” in a pre-historic comedy had potential. But after only ten minutes the act began to wane and by the end of the film it had completely worn out. Simply stated Year One is a bad film. It's not funny. It's not entertaining. In fact it has a couple of scenes that are just down right repulsive to watch. Maybe this idea would have worked as a ten-minute sketch on a comedy show. But as it is this ninety-seven minute comedy is excruciating to sit through.

Andy: There is really no way to sugar coat how bad this movie is. It never took strong hold of a story that anyone was likely to care about, and the characters come across as annoying before they ever even have a chance to be funny. You know going into a movie like this that there is going to be very little in the way of plot, but to fail on being funny as well is virtually unacceptable.

Ryan: Harold Ramis has directed, written or starred in some of the most memorable comedic classics of the past thirty years such as Animal House, Caddyshack, Vacation, Ghostbusters and Groundhog Day. Needless to say Year One is at the opposite end of the spectrum from those above-mentioned movies. Arguably this is Ramis’s biggest cinematic failure. The movie is such a train wreck that it’s unfair to place all the blame on Ramis. But he is the director and the film has absolutely no cinematic vision or direction.

Andy: It is very disappointing to see talent of this level putting out such a questionable movie. Ramis has not been in peak form for a long time now, but I think most people who sit through Year One will be surprised at how inadequate an otherwise proven director can be. Simply put, the movie is a mess, and the director is the primary one to blame.

Ryan: I don’t believe that this movie will hurt the careers of Jack Black or Michael Cera but it’s certainly a hiccup in their respected resumes. Neither of them are in top form but it’s also clear from the material (or lack there of) that they had absolutely nothing to work with. If one’s looking for a summer comedy I recommend going to watch The Hangover again and steering clear of the cinematic debacle that is Year One.

Andy: Remarkably, Year One has a fairly decent comedic cast. Black and Cera are usually fairly trustworthy, but here they are just not entertaining. The supporting cast never really gets it together, either. David Cross can be one of the funniest people around, but he wasn’t even close to it here. Oliver Platt does a decent job, but by the time he shows up, the movie is already way beyond saving.

Year One falls short in just about every imaginable way, earning it a D.

Say it ain't so Sammy Sosa

2009-06-19T12:18:00.005-04:00

I know it's not really earth shattering news that MLB star Sammy Sosa has been linked to steroids but I was not expecting the news the other day. (And yes...Sammy did testify at the famous 2005 Congressional Hearings--mainly because he was name-dropped in Canseco's book) For those unaware his name was leaked from the 2003 steroid tests that were supposed to be confidential. Alex Rodgriguez's name was leaked earlier in the year. Allegedly 104 players tested positive for a performance enhancing drugs in 2003. Consequently that number triggered the mandatory testing thatMLB currently has.

Nevertheless it just got me thinking about baseball...home runs...and steroids. I think most people suspected Sammy of juicing but his name...up until now...was never linked to any steroid probe...person or even the Mitchell Report. It seemed he was steering clear of the steroid drama that had already engulfed his home run peers...namely...Barry Bonds and Mark McGwire. With people not really being shocked that Sammy is an alleged juicer the question on every one's mind (and this is happening to all these great players who are linked with steroids) is Sammy going to get voted into the Baseball Hall of Fame.

My initial guess...is that he won't get in for awhile. A retired player has to wait five years for their name to appear on the ballot. And then they remain on the ballot for 15 years...unless they receive less than 5% of the vote...than there name is dropped. It takes 75% of the vote by the baseball writers of American to gain admission into the hall of fame. Consequently this could be a twenty year dilemma for hall of fame voters and for people who care to argue about stuff like this (which includes me). And the thing is...it's just not going to be Sammy. From Bonds,McGwire, to Palmerio the debate is going to be endless.

For instance...just look at the top single season home run leaders since 1995 (the cut-off is 50)...

Barry Bonds 73 2001
Mark McGwire 70 1998
Sammy Sosa 66 1998
Mark McGwire 65 1999
Sammy Sosa 64 2001
Sammy Sosa 63 1999
Ryan Howard 58 2006
Mark McGwire 58 1997
Luis Gonzalez 57 2001
Alex Rodriguez 57 2002
Ken Griffey Jr 56 1997
Ken Griffey Jr 56 1998
David Ortiz 54 2006
Alex Rodriguez 54 2007
Mark McGwire 52 1996
Alex Rodriguez 52 2001
Jim Thome 52 2002
Andruw Jones 51 2005
Brady Anderson 50 1996
Albert Belle 50 1995
Prince Fielder 50 2007
Sammy Sosa 50 2000
Greg Vaughn 50 1998

I've bold-face every player that has been linked to steroids. Some are admitted steroid users (A-Rod)...some *cough* allegedly unknowingly took steroids (Bonds)...and some failed drug tests (Sosa)...and some just want to talk about the present and not the past (McGwire). Furthermore some of the other name on the list are going to raise some eyebrows as well. I don't like throwing around baseless accusations but Brady Anderson's 50 home run season and Luis Gonzalez 57 home runs are just flat out suspicious. Anderson's next two prodigious home run seasons of his career are 21 and 24. While Gonzalez went from 31 home runs to 57 and then back to 28 and 26 (in a four year span). Again I'm not accusing these two of juicing but it is also hard to look at these numbers in a legit context.

If anything a list like this does enhance the careers of players like Griffey Jr. and Thome. Both of these guys have over 500 home runs (Griffey has over 600) and they have never been tied to steroids in any capacity. I hope their numbers are legit. I really do. Surely some boppers from this era did it on the up and up.

And I do think that the young home run hitters like Howard and Fielder are doing it without the benefit of PED's. I like to think so but I'm also not naive to think that the steroid testing--while certainly cleaning up a large part of the game--is not going to completely eliminate PED's from the game. For example, there's no efficient test for HGH but hopefully there will be soon.

As we process this era I'm trying to remain open minded about what it all means. I'm not of the opinion as of now that just because a player has taken steroids that means that they will never (or should never) make the hall of fame. As of today I just look at each player on a case by case basis.

It was just a dirty era.

"The Hangover" Movie Review

2009-06-17T12:00:00.001-04:00

With Andy being at the National Forensics League National Tournament, I'll be flying solo this week and taking a look at the R-rated comedy The Hangover. In the film four friends (played by Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Justin Bartha and Zach Galifianakis) venture to Las Vegas for a one-night bachelor party. When they wake up the next morning they are missing the groom-to-be (Bartha) and do not remember any of the events of the past night. Todd Phillips directs.

Last summer produced some pretty good comedies (Step Brothers, Tropic Thunder and Pineapple Express) but all of them were lacking a certain element that would have propelled them to the next level. Last week's Land of the Lost got the summer off to a bad start—from a comedic standpoint—but rest assured--The Hangover is legit. It is hands-down one of the funniest films that I've seen in months if not years. The R-rated shenanigans might not be for everybody but if one is looking for a genuine funny film then The Hangover is it. From start to finish the movie is consistently laugh-out-loud funny. The movie delivers the laughs like few films. do.

One reason that the comedy works is due to the perfectly casted cast. The movie is lacking in the big names department but that is definitely not an issue. All four leads successfully play off one another and interact in a way that maximizes the laughs. While the entire cast shines, there's no doubt that the breakout performance in the film is that of Galifianakis'. Galifianakis' character is a bit eccentric (to say the least) but he plays him so straight that he's able to garner laughs in almost every scene that he's in. The other star-making performance in the movie is that Cooper's. Cooper has done some solid supporting work here in recent years but with The Hangover he aptly demonstrates that he can headline a summer box-office hit.

This movie is also a nice rebound for the director, Todd Phillips. For the most part the film has received positive reviews and has become somewhat of a box-office phenomenon by surprisingly finishing first for two weeks in a row. Phillips's last effort was the box-office disappointment, and Jon Heder vehicle, School for Scoundrels. But with The Hangover Phillips has added another comedic gem to his catalog, which already includes Road Trip, Old School and Starsky and Hutch. Out of those three films Old School is considered his best work but I'm here to say that The Hangover is every bit as funny as Old School. The Hangover is an instant comedic classic. This is truly a film that has lived up to its buzz.

As an R-rated comedy The Hangover might not be everybody's cup of tea but for those moviegoers looking for a solid summer comedy than look no further than The Hangover.

Final grade: A-.

The Comfort Wipe. . .

2009-06-11T14:28:00.001-04:00

. . . more like the burl wipe.

Sesquetennial Fever

2009-06-11T12:15:00.002-04:00

Greensburg is turning 150 this year and there's a week long celebration from June 13th through the 20th.

Here's a link to the events...

http://www.greensburg150.com/events.asp

I'm not sure how many of the events that I'm going to be able to attend--since many of them are during day--but if people want something to do and are coming down or up--let me know.

Unfortunately I did not see the Steve Webster Memorial Volley-Tennis tournament on the list of the events.

Zack Morris appears on the Jimmy Fallon Show

2009-06-09T16:17:00.001-04:00

"Land of the Lost" Movie Review

2009-06-09T15:49:00.001-04:00

This week we take a look at the latest Will Ferrell vehicle, Land of the Lost (PG-13). Based on the cult series of the same name from the 70s, the film tells of Dr. Rick Marshall (Ferrell) and two companions (Anna Friel and Danny McBride) who are transported to a parallel universe with dinosaurs and other fantastic creatures. Brad Silberling directs.

Ryan: Land of the Lost is the first dud of the summer. If someone would have been listening to the screening that I attended they might have thought the audience was watching a drama. There was almost no laughter coming from the moviegoers in attendance. I’m afraid to think what the audience thought of the film because for the most part I was the only one snickering at some of the antics in the movie. But the occasional laugh can’t save this film. This is one of Ferrell’s most lackluster efforts.

Andy: I found myself moderately entertained by Land of the Lost. I laughed out loud occasionally, and I was never really bored while watching it. But quite frankly, that is not good enough. What Land of the Lost lacks is a plot that is intriguing and characters that you are likely to care about it. Without those two key elements, a movie has to be pretty consistently funny to get by, and Land of the Lost isn’t.

Ryan: Will Ferrell has made some very funny movies. But his act, and it pains me a little to say this, is wearing a little thin. Last year's Step Brothers was a step back in the right direction but Land of the Lost is going to remind moviegoers of some of his more recent and uneventful fare, Blades of Glory and Semi-Pro. Will Ferrell just doing his shtick in a movie isn't enough for the movie to succeed. Audiences are accustomed to his act so consequently the movie has to excel in the other areas of film making. Land of the Lost does not.

Andy: I think for Land of the Lost to really work it had to be more than just a vehicle for Will Ferrell. At this point, we all know what we are getting from Ferrell, and that just can’t be expected to carry a movie anymore. With the shortcomings in plot, the movie really needed the costars to step up. There were promising moments from Danny McBride, who may have had the best lines in the whole movie, but female lead Anna Friel added virtually nothing to the movie.

Ryan: I think this move will finally slow the need to make films based on Generation X nostalgia. From Thunderbirds to Dukes of Hazzard to Speed Racer the track record of making modern feature films based on shows that kids watched in the seventies (and early eighties) is spotty at best. One, I'm not convinced that there's an audience for some of these movies. And secondly, the film version of these properties almost always alienate the core audience that would pay and go see these movies. A movie like Starsky & Hutch worked because it was the right blend of irony and homage while, for example, Land of the Lost failed because it never established what direction it wanted to go in.

Andy: There is no doubt that this movie goes down as a failed example of Gen-X nostalgia. It will be interesting to see if the same holds true later this summer for G.I. Joe. The bottom line is that Land of the Lost may have been okay in concept, but the movie was executed poorly enough that it ended up looking like a mess. I’m not ready to write Will Ferrell off by any means, but it seems like there was a time fairly recently when he might have been able to carry this film. As it is, it will remain one of the more forgettable movies of the summer.

Land of the Lost is a little short on laughs for a comedy, and offers little else to make up for it. Final grade: D+.

Who's Next

2009-06-04T11:54:00.002-04:00

No this post is not referring to some dumb shenanigans by ESPN.

Instead my question is who is going to be the next MLB pitcher to win 300 games. This question has been bantered about because Randy Johnson is going for his 300th win today. It seems like whenever a pitcher reaches this milestone the inevitable question is who is going to be next. We heard this same talk when Clemens, Maddux and Glavine all reached the plateau. Conventional wisdom would say that there will be somebody who will do it...that Johnson won't be the last.

Well he probably won't be the last but it's going to be awhile before we see another one.

The next five pitchers on the active win's list is

Jamie Moyer, 250 wins (age, 46)
Andy Pettitte, 220 wins (37)
Pedro Martinez, 214 wins (37)
John Smoltz, 210 wins (42)
Tim Wakefield, 184 wins (42)

Moyer, Smoltz and Wakefield are too old to seriously consider. Martinez, who isn't officially retired, but who also is not on a active roster doesn't seem like a real possibility. Out of that group Pettitte might have the best chance but I don't know if I see him pitching another 5-6 years that it would take to reach 300.

So now we look at some pitchers in their prime...

Roy Halladay, 140 wins (32)
Roy Oswalt, 131 wins (31)
Mark Buehrle, 128 wins (30)
CC Sabathia, 122 wins (28)
Johan Satanna, 116 wins (30)
Carlos Zambrana, 99 wins (28)
Josh Beckett, 95 wins (29)
Jake Peavy, 91 wins (28)

This is not good news in reaching the magic number. Not one pitcher is half way there.

For comparison sake here's the win totals for the the last four pitchers to reach 300 wins after the age of 32...

Clemens, 182
Maddux, 202
Glavine, 173
Johnson, 104

Only Randy Johnson fails to hit the half way point at the age of 32. (Johnson was a late bloomer and he had his best years after the age of 34. He also has over 71 wins since turing 40, which is quite remarkable. So in essence he's a freak--and I don't mean that in a bad way. It's just that his career path is unique).

So I guess it is possible for somebody like Sabathia or Santana to reach 300 wins but they are going to have to pitch well into their 40's.

I just think that it is going to be difficult. With the five man rotation pitchers make fewer starts then their predecessors. The debatable reliance on pitch counts also means that pitchers complete fewer games per season thus decreasing their chance for a decision (win or loss). (For example, The Mets bullpen blew seven victories for Santana last year).

The conditions of the modern game create an environment where it is difficult for pitchers to accumulate high win totals (per season and thus career). But the game does go in cycles so it's very conceivable for a pitcher to reach 300 wins for their career. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

"Up" Movie Review

2009-06-03T17:19:00.002-04:00

Pixar’s latest animated feature is the fantasy-adventure film, Up (PG-13). In the film senior citizen Carl Fredricksen attempts to fulfill his late wife's dream by flying their house to Paradise Falls in South America. His journey becomes more interesting when he discovers a stowaway on his porch, namely that of an eight-year old wilderness explorer. The movie stars the voicing talents of Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer and Jordan Nagai.

Ryan: Pixar has always put out quality animated films but in the past few years they’ve outdone themselves with such instant classics as Ratataouille and WALL-E. Add Up to that list. Up is a great film and the current leader for best movie of the summer. Up is a fun, warm and fulfilling movie. It's a fantasy film that's layered with genuine emotional resonance. When people say that they don’t make movies like they used too than it’s apparent that they haven’t been watching the latest films from Pixar, and that includes Up.

Andy: Up does not waste any time establishing itself as a cut above not only the other animated movies that have come out lately, but pretty much anything that has come out of Hollywood lately. The opening fifteen minutes of the film is just about perfect. Without giving too much away, it tells a complete story that is beautiful and tragic at the same time, taking the viewer from wonder, to joy, to sadness, all setting up the rest of the movie perfectly.

Ryan: It’s not like Pixar is reinventing the wheel when it comes to their movies. Most other animated features that get churned out of Hollywood are formulaic features. It’s like—hey we’re twenty minutes into the movie it’s time for a dance sequence. Or hey insert joke here for the adults in the audience. Or hey we’re almost to the climax so we need a flashback so our main character can make the right decision. But Pixar bucks that trend. They know a good story and more importantly they know how to tell it.

Andy: The bottom line is that Pixar films do not set out to be kids’ movies, they set out to be good movies. The fact that they happen to be cartoons and have characters kids can easily relate to makes it so they are marketed towards children. But last year’s WALL-E and now Up both deal with intriguing stories and touch on themes that are vital for people of any age. It is not easy to make a movie that covers so much critical ground while still captivating children, but Up quite clearly does it.

Ryan: There's been some degree of concern, not so much criticism, that Pixar's feature films are inching closer and closer to appealing more toward adults and not kids. I can see that argument but I don't really buy it. If anything Pixar's movies, and I believe that Up accomplishes this, appeal to moviegoers of all ages. The beauty of a movie like Up is that it has a timeless quality where it will always appeal to people of all ages. It's that rare film that crosses all boundaries. It truly is a fantastic movie.

Andy: Up succeeds on just about every level. It supplies lots of laughs for grown-ups and kids. It has several sub-plots that are well thought out and relevant to most audience members. It is meaningful and entertaining. Some moviegoers may be put off by some of the melding of the fantastic with the realistic, but the bottom line is that there really isn’t much to dislike about Up.

Up has clearly set the bar for the rest of the summer’s movies, earning a well deserved A-.

Bad Commerical Saturday

2009-05-30T17:08:00.001-04:00

For obvious reasons...I couldn't resist posting this...

"Night At The Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" Movie Review

2009-05-27T11:10:00.002-04:00

This week we take a look at “Night At the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian,” the sequel to 2006’s highly successful, “Night At the Museum.” Ben Stiller is back as the security guard who deals with the exhibits coming to life, only this time he has the entire Smithsonian collection to deal with. Most of the big names from the first film return, and are joined by Amy Adams and Hank Azaria. Shawn Levy returns to direct.

Ryan: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian is one of those sequels that tries to be bigger and better than the original. As usually is the case—and this movie is no exception—the high aspirations of the sequel fall short of the original. The first Night at the Museum movie wasn’t a groundbreaking movie of any sorts but it was a fantasy-filled fun family film. Regrettably the charm and originality of the first movie is lost in translation for the sequel.

Andy: I somehow managed to make it out of the winter of 2007 without seeing Night At the Museum, so I’ll be looking at the sequel with fresh eyes. Assuming the new film borrows heavily from the first, I can understand what the fuss was about. The endless possibilities for crazy situations based on museum exhibits coming to life is really quite clever, and the film does its best to highlight them. Stiller, as usual, holds the film together with an every guy charm that is a little bit cooler than anyone you actually know.

Ryan: I’ve always been a big Ben Stiller fan and I don’t see that changing but he’s not beyond criticism either. There’s no question that he’s on cruise control with this movie with regard to his performance. While Stiller was going through the motions, his romantic co-star Amy Adams gave hands down the most refreshing performance in the movie. It’s almost like Adams jumped out of a 1930’s screwball comedy with her thoroughly enjoyable portrayal of Amelia Earhart. Her performance was spot on.

Andy: I was quite taken with Amy Adams as Amelia Earhart. Her bright-eyed, fast talking, adventure seeking persona may have been around 80 years , but it’s a character type that doesn’t get used enough in movies today. She adds a feminine touch to the movie while giving it a witty and energetic edge as well. Standing out in an ensemble cast of character actors is difficult, but Adams is able to do it here.

Ryan: Night at the Museum attempts to up the ante by having even more characters and guest appearances from a range of A to B to C list comedic actors. It seems like every scene brings a new character (and even some fictional ones). Ultimately some of the guest appearances work better than others--Stiller’s scene with Jonah Hill comes to mind--but for the most part the movie fails to provide a suitable forum for the comedic actors to work their skills. That proves disappointing especially considering some of the comedic talents involved—Christopher Guest, Ricky Gervais and Robin Williams. Final grade: C-.

Andy: The real star of the movie might be the Smithsonian itself, which has highlights of its collection on display throughout the movie. Furthermore, the movie does a reasonable job of giving a quick history lesson about the museum itself, introducing it to a very large audience of children. I’m not usually a big fan of such gratuitous product placements in movies, but the more people who take advantage of the Smithsonian Museums, the better. The movie itself has its ups and downs, but the museum shines through as a magical place regardless, carrying the movie to a B.

Click it or Ticket

2009-05-20T15:19:00.004-04:00

Two weeks ago, I got a ticket for not having my seat belt on. I was coming back from my lunch break--in my dad's pick up truck--and a state trooper on a motorcycle pulled me over as I was pulling into the auction barn's parking lot. Now I had saw this trooper on his bike while heading west on Main St. The trooper was heading east and we passed each other at the intersection of Main and Franklin.

But anyway...there in the rain, the state trooper issued me a twenty five dollar ticket. It took him three times to scan my license and truck's registration into his portable computer doohickey.

I wasn't to upset about getting the ticket. I was more embarrassed because it was happening in front of the auction barn so all the loafers, other spectators and co-workers saw what was going on.

Even though I wasn't upset over getting the ticket I was a little frustrated. I know one should always wear their seat belt and the fact that I wasn't wearing it--and got busted for it--means that I have to pay the fine. I sometimes have a bad habit of not wearing it in town--especially in my dad's truck and I know better and I know I should wear it. So be it. What frustrated me--as I later learned--is that on this particular day Greensburg was being targeted by a group of state troopers who only task was to enforce the seat belt law. One gets the impression (from a variety of sources) that we don't have enough cops on the state (and local level) but maybe we do have enough if several state troopers can spend a whole day (and really days and weeks when they move on to other towns) pulling people over for not having their seat belt on.

Is there not something better they could be doing with their time? I don't know. I don't want to come across as the typical-dude-that-runs-his-mouth-when-he-gets-caught-doing-something- illegal but on some minuscule level I was a little bit frustrated.

But anyway...I went to pay the ticket today. And in that two week time the Decatur County's clerk's office had not received the citations yet from the officer that issued my ticket. Consequently I didn't have to pay the ticket.

So in essence...I learned my lesson...and I didn't have pay the citation. So maybe I shouldn't be complaining at all.

"Angels & Demons" movie review

2009-05-19T15:30:00.003-04:00

The latest cinematic adaptation of author Dan Brown’s work is the religious thriller, Angles & Demons (PG-13). Tom Hanks once again is prominent symbologist Robert Langdon and this time around he’s investigating several murders and kidnappings at Vatican City that are linked to a secret society. Ron Howard once again directs and Ewan McGregor, Stellan Skarsgard, and Ayelet Zurer costar in the movie.

Andy: I have not read Angels & Demons, or any of Dan Brown’s work. And even though I watched and reviewed The DaVinci Code here, I honestly don’t remember it very well at all. Like a cheap piece of gum, it lost its flavor almost immediately and was quickly forgotten. My first impression of Angels & Demons is that although it has some decent moments, it is not as good as the DaVinci Code, and that is not a good sign.

Ryan: I’ve read Brown’s Angels & Demons and it was a fun read. It doesn’t have the allure of The Da Vinci Code but in a lot of ways it’s just as thrilling as a read. The Da Vinci Code was an immensely successful film—in terms of it’s box-office success (750+ million dollars worldwide)—but it was a film that failed to resonate with many moviegoers. I didn’t think it was too bad of a movie and I don’t think Angels & Demons is too bad of a film either.

Andy: At its best, Angels & Demons is an entertaining, cerebral action flick. For about ninety minutes of the film, Professor Langdon is on the clock. He is frantically running from one historic church to another, solving puzzles, catching up to bad guys, cheating death, and eventually saving lives. This is when the movie is at its best, and it is quite entertaining during this middle segment. The action is solid, the plot is interesting, the suspense is high, and there’s little reason to not enjoy it.

Ryan: Part of the problem with Angels & Demons is the same problem that plagued The Da Vinci Code movie. Brown’s writing is difficult to translate to the silver screen. The allure of his books isn't his prose and consequently that hinders the cinematic translation (although the pacing of Angels & Demons is far superior to that of The Da Vinci Code). Nevertheless the action portrayed in the movie does not measure up to the backdrop of the grandiose themes being unraveled. Some of the charm of the book is lost in the translation to the big screen.

Andy: My biggest problem with Angels & Demons is that it is way too long. At the beginning of the movie we see a small group of scientist harnessing particles of antimatter in thermos-like containers. The whole sequence is ridiculous, and the use of the antimatter in the rest of the movie proves only to remind viewers of how absurd the whole premise is. Furthermore, the movie takes an extra fifteen minutes at the end to add another twist to the plot that is unnecessary and feels tacked on. This is an okay movie, but the beginning and end both miss the mark, significantly weakening the movie in the process.

Ryan: There's been some controversy regarding Angels & Demons and everyone has a right to voice their opinion. The only thing I would say is that Angles & Demons is a work of fiction. It's based on certain historical people, places and ideas but the leaps and connections that Brown develops are not based on hard scholarship. The appeal of the book and movie is that Brown wraps together fact and fiction in a believable manner. He's a storyteller and he's good as what he does. But all-in-all the book as well as the movie is just contemporary historical fiction.

Angels & Demons has some pretty entertaining aspects going for it, but its many flaws hold it to a C+.

Movie Trailer Monday

2009-05-18T20:46:00.003-04:00

I spent a lot of my free time today watching movies trailers.

Here's some of the highlights that I viewed...

Sherlock Holmes

Nine

The Road

Star Trek "Movie Review"

2009-05-13T09:29:00.002-04:00

This week we take a look at one of the first big movies of the summer season, Star Trek (PG-13). J.J. Abrams directs this retooling of the classic franchise, giving an origin story for the crew of the Enterprise. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto lead an ensemble cast.

Ryan: Cinematic reboots have become the “in” thing to do in Hollywood. When they are done right, audiences are rewarded with a Batman Begins or Casino Royale. Much like those other two films, Star Trek is an immensely successful rebooting of a once dormant franchise. The movie has mainstream appeal without losing too much of the allure of the Star Trek universe. For a summer popcorn flick, it has just the right mixture of action, humor and drama. It touches all the right chords that one would expect from a summer tent pole release.

Andy: There is no question that Star Trek is a success. The movie plays out like a summer action flick should. It has plenty of action, a plot that is interesting enough to keep the mind entertained, and it adequately pays homage to the Star Trek films of the past. This is a difficult task for any movie to pull off, particularly one that has legions of fans with high expectations. J.J. Abrams has come through with a movie that easily could have been a flop.

Ryan: I give J.J. Abrams a lot of credit. He's simultaneously revamped the franchise for a new audience while still paying respect to the rich history of the Star Trek universe. As an origin story the audience sees how Star Trek universe develops and moviegoers see how the iconography unfolds. Complimenting the story is a superb cast that not only reinvents the characters for a new crowd but also an audience that is familiar with the protagonists. It is no easy trick to appeal to a rabid fan base while also attempting to bring in a new (and larger) audience but Abrams and his crew prove successful with the endeavor.

Andy: Abrams has had success in most everything he’s done for the past five years, and his forays into movies have been largely successful as well. Star Trek will be a rather large feather in his director’s cap, as it is likely to please most who see it. It is by no means perfect, but it checks most of the boxes that you need for a successful and entertaining summer movie, and it does so without seeming overly contrived.

Ryan: I'm not a Trekkie (or Trekker) so I'm not going to presume if they will appreciate the movie. But while I'm not a Star Trek geek I was a fan of the original series and of The Next Generation. So I do think that one issue fans might have with the new movie is it's lack of depth. Star Trek is known more as cerebral sci-fi than action-adventure sci-fi. For example, the original TV series—while set in the future—nonetheless had stories that explored themes that were relevant for its time. While the new movie is set to become a pop culture landmark it doesn't transcend its straight forwardness.

Andy: For all the entertaining elements of the film, there are missteps. At the risk of revealing a bit a spoiler here, there is an appearance of an original cast member in the movie. I found these segments to be awkward and a bit forced. It is an understandable device, attempting to bridge the gap between the original and the new, but it just didn’t work. Fortunately, the rest of the movie stands up well enough to overcome these few shortcomings.

Star Trek is able to successfully reintroduce the characters to new audiences while properly paying respects to the series’ history. Final grade: B+.

More "Between Two Ferns"...

2009-05-13T07:10:00.001-04:00

...this time with my girl Natalie Portman.

Between Two Ferns With Zach Galifianakis from Between Two Ferns

Motherlover

2009-05-11T20:44:00.003-04:00

Justin Timberlake was the guest on SNL this past week.

Below is the sequel to the "D--- in a Box" musical video.

"X-Men Origins: Wolverine" Movie Review

2009-05-06T19:28:00.001-04:00

X-Men Origins: Wolverine (PG-13) slashed its way into theatres this past weekend, thus ushering in the summer movie season. Set as a prequel to the X-Men trilogy, X-Men Origins details the genesis of Wolverine becomingWolverine. Hugh Jackman is back as Logan and is surrounded by a recognizable cast including Liev Schreiber, Danny Huston, Will i Am and Ryan Reynolds.

Andy: Many people feel that Wolverine is the most interesting character in the entire Marvel Comics Universe. While I’ll leave that debate to people who are more informed on the subject, I think it is safe to say that he is the most popular member of the X-Men. Jackman has a reasonable amount of star-power as well, so there was at least potential for this movie to be pretty good. Unfortunately, that potential was left unfulfilled.

Ryan: Those hoping that “Origins” would ease the medicore taste that X-Men 3 left for a lot of moviegoers are going to again be disappointed. Like X-Men 3, X-Men Origins: Wolverine fails to live up to the stature of the first two X-Men flicks. The movie is watchable and there aren't many dull moments, but there's nothing to get excited about either and that's the main problem with the film. For a big summer spectacle, X-Men Origins: Wolverine lacks punch that one would expect.

Andy: Perhaps the biggest obstacle for the Wolverine movie is the writing. The dialogue is frequently laughable, hindering otherwise quality actors. I’m generally a fan of Live Shreiber, but when your lines include clichés like “Look what the cat dragged in,” it take some serious chops to make the words seem vibrant. I know the argument could be made that dialogue isn’t actually all that important in a summer action film, but the action sequences seemed a little stale as well.

Ryan: Part of the problem with the movie is how it sanitizes the character of Wolverine. Fans of Wolverine want to see him be Wolverine. Basically—and this is putting it bluntly-- they want to see him kick butt—a lot of it. To me, the Wolverine/Logan character doesn't open itself up to the same sort of inner conflict analysis as say a Spider-Man or Batman so it doesn't make sense to me to try to spin the movie that way. The lack of action in the movie greatly surprised me. There's no memorable action moment where one sits back and thinks that was cool.

Andy: At this point, the superhero movie has become something we expect a healthy dose of every summer. To avoid seeming mediocre, a good superhero needs to either excel tremendously in one of the stereotypical areas (action, gadgets, characters), or bring something new to the genre. Wolverine does not even attempt to do either of these, and it feels much like a stale retread for it.

Ryan: The saving grace of the movie is Jackman. The rest of the movie pales in comparison to his portrayal of Wolverine. I'm not going to fault the guy for giving it everything he's got to make the movie successful. The bottom line is that the rest of the movie doesn't measure up to Jackman's performance. That is unfortunate because a Wolverine film with Jackman in the lead really seemed like a can't miss idea. Now we know that is not the case.

X Men Origins: Wolverine is not a terrible movie, but it doesn’t do anything to make itself seem very good either. Final grade: C-.

Cubs retire the number 31

2009-05-05T12:00:00.004-04:00

On Sunday Stuckey and I ventured up to Chicago to catch not only the game but the retiring of the number 31 in Cubs history. For those that aren't aware both Fergeson Jenkins and Greg Maddux wore the number 31 for the Cubs. There was a ceremony before the game to honor these two pitchers--Jenkins is already in the Hall of Fame...Maddux will be in five years.

It was very cool. It was a picture perfect day and one could tell that both players were very humbled by the much deserved honor. Maddux didn't have his "best" seasons with the Cubs but he started his career there...won one Cy Young award...and when he came back he accomplished two major career milestones--his 3,000th strikeout...and winning his 300th game. As Len Kasper stated at the onset of the ceremony, Jenkins and Maddux are two of the best pitchers ever to wear a Chicago Cubs jersey--and there's no debating that.

Here's some snapshots from the ceremony...

"But He Talks Like a Gentlmen"

2009-05-02T09:09:00.002-04:00

Hearing "When You Were Young" live by The Killers at one of their shows is one of the best feeling one can have. That's how good the song is...and how good The Killers perform it.

Jenny and I attended The Killers concert last night at The Murat and we're treated to another outstanding show (we saw them a year and a half ago at Columbus, OH)...but nonetheless...the show was tremendous. I know The Killers--with their going off in different directions with each album--isn't always everyone cup of tea but they do put on a great show. Their frontman, Brandon Flowers, is always a hit especially with the ladies as Jenny has labeled him Mr. Dramatic for all his "enthusiasm" on stage. (Although he wasn't wearing a feather jacket).

Here's the set list for those interested...

Human
This is Your Life
Somebody Told Me
For Reasons Unknown
Joy Ride
I Can't Stay
Bling (Confessions of a King)
Shadowplay (Joy Division Cover)
Smile Like You Mean It
Spaceman
Neon Tiger
A Dustland Fairytale
Sam's Town
Read My Mind
Mr. Brightside
All These Things That I Have Done

Encore:

Bones
Jenny was a Friend of Mind
When You Were Young

"The Soloist" Movie Review

2009-04-28T16:22:00.002-04:00

This week we watched the Jamie Foxx, Robert Downey, Jr. film The Soloist (PG-13). Based on actual events, Downey plays newspaper man Steve Lopez, who befriends a troubled and brilliant former Julliard student (Foxx) now living on the streets of LA. Catherine Keener costars and Joe Wright directs.

Ryan: The Soloist was originally prepped to be released last winter in time to be considered for the Oscars. This isn't too surprising considering that it has all the bait to be an Academy Award contender—past Oscar winner and nominee as the leads, a young up-and-coming director that has already been recognized by the Academy and most importantly it's a biopic. Strangely enough its release got pushed (some would say dumped) into the spring time. When this happens, it is never a good sign. But with that said, The Soloist is not an Oscar worthy film but it is a decent film.

Andy: It was probably wise to hold off on the soloist until now, as it would have certainly been lost in the shuffle last December. But now it is a nice alternative to what’s available in theatres. That said, the Soloist features some big shortfalls and some great moments, making it both intriguing and frustrating at the same time. Ultimately it comes across as a little formulaic, especially in the context of its early Oscar dreams.

Ryan: The biggest shortcoming with The Soloist is its aspirations to be an important, potentially award winning film. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the filmmakers having grandiose ideas but for a film to reach those aspirations the results have to be awe inspiring. With The Soloist that is not the case. Granted there are some heartfelt moments in the film but for the most part the movie lacks dramatic resonance. It's almost like the director, Wright, had a checklist of what makes a movie great and subsequently worked to check everything off that list to include in the film. Needless-to-say this isn't what happened but it feels that way and that significantly hinders the movie.

Andy: Wright showed some signs of being a top-level director with 2007’s Atonement. I didn’t like that film, but much of what Wright did cinematically was worth noting. Unfortunately, that is not what happened here. He had many choices that seemed risky, including musical sequences with just splotches of color on the screen, as well as flashback sequences that seemed awkward at best (Jamie Foxx playing a college-aged Julliard student). But unlike in Atonement, when some of the risky choices worked brilliantly, none of his risks really paid off. What really carries this movie is the performance of the two leads.

Ryan: While Wright struggled with the film's structure he was able to elicit solid performances by the two leads. Downey Jr. is on a role (Zodiac, Iron Man and Tropic Thunder) and he continues his strong work here by delivering a noteworthy performance. Foxx also does an admirable job in making Nathaniel Ayers more than just a sympathetic character. The audience is clearly pulling for the guy but Foxx makes him a more well-rounded character than just another cinematic caricature. There's no question that it is the performances by Downey Jr. and Foxx that makes The Soloist a watchable film.

Andy: Downey Jr. and Foxx are both at the top of their game. Foxx has the beefier role, while Downey’s was probably more difficult to play. Both of them do what they have to do in order to give their characters depth, and it is their relationship that carries the film along. Fortunately, watching two of the best in the game practicing their craft keeps The Soloist worth watching.

The Soloist has many flaws, but the performances carry it to a B-.

NFL draft, the aftermath

2009-04-27T19:57:00.003-04:00

I know...I know...back to back posts on the NFL draft...how exciting. But I was pretty satisfied with what the Colts did this weekend.

The taking of a RB in the first round was receiving a lot of scrutiny today (thank you Indy sports talk radio) but I think taking Donald Brown was a solid movie.

One...the rushing attack last season was non existent. A lot of that can be placed on an offensive line that was often injured (Saturday, Lilja & Diem--who didn't play all year) and inexperienced with rookies. Nonetheless we were second to last in rushing and in the playoffs we were unable to pick up a key third and two that might have sealed the game. So clearly something was needed to improve on that. This doesn't mean that Addai is out or on his way out...all it means is that now we have two solid running backs. Since the current NFL seems to be a two back league than it makes sense to have two solid RB's. As Polian mentioned...this movies also helps Addai in that it extends his career as he doesn't have to carry the load himself. I was pretty hard on Addai last year because it looked at times that he didn't know what was going on but maybe this will also give him a little kick to the pants that he needs to step it up, which I think he is capable of. Plus...running back is the one position where a rooking can come right in and contribute. With the Colts being a perennial playoff team, than it is a must that a first round pick has to contribute from day one.

Second...they addressed the need for a defensive tackle in round 2 (Fili Mioala) and in round 4 with Terrance Taylor. Mioala was a great pick in round 2 and he might start from the get go. And Taylor provides depth at a position where they needed a lot of depth. I was somewhat surprised that they didn't address the DT problem in round one but when you look at the totality of the draft than it makes sense why they took a RB in round one.

I also liked the Austin Collie--WR pick. It sounds like this guy is will be a prototypical slot receiver. The assumption going into the draft was that we needed a replacement for Harrison. Well here's the thing...we already have his replacement...it's Reggie Wayne. And Wayne's replacement...that's Anthony Gonzalez. For some reason everybody thinks that Gonzalez is predetermined to be a slot WR--maybe because he's white and he reminds everyone of Brandon Stokely but the fact remains that Gonzo prefers to be on the outside and when he's been on the outside he's been very productive--like when Marvin was hurt two years ago. Clearly the thought was to draft a slot guy and Collie fits the bill.

And we also drafted Curtis Painter so that should make the boiler boys happy.

I promise this is the last post about the NFL draft.

NFL Draft = Absurdity

2009-04-22T08:47:00.002-04:00

It's that time of year that completely drives me crazy...the NFL draft. For those not aware the NFL draft is this weekend. I figure most sports fans know this since ESPN has been up-chucking over themselves for the past several months. Go figure...the ridiculousness continues to build this week as the draft inches closer and closer.

I realize that the NFL draft has become an event...really almost on par to anything else the NFL does (except for the Super Bowl--but sometimes I'm not sure) and maybe my problem with the draft is not so much the draft itself but what it has become. It isn't just ESPN (but they have the monopoly on sports so they are going to get much of the blame) it's just the incessant coverage by the sports media. The "analysis" and endless discussion of the what team X is going to do or where player Y is going to go just drives me crazy. What's the point of predicting the draft when there's absolutely no reflection (or consequence) to the endless banter and conversation. I never hear how draft gurus (like Mel Kiper or Todd McShay) actually do with their predictions. And furthermore nobody and I mean nobody knows how well these specific draft picks are going to perform. That's the complete lunacy about it. It's all speculation. That's it. It's nauseating. Sometimes I think it isn't even newsworthy.

But with all that said here's my prediction on the Colts first round pick (yes..who the Colts pick is the only thing I care about with regard to the draft)...

I'm still convinced that the Colts are going to take a wide receiver in the first round. Bill Polian's track record in first round is drafting offensive skill players and I think that will continue here. But I'm not sure who they are going to take. I would take Percy Harvin (Florida). His explosiveness would help out in the kicking game--which we never have and also provide us with a deep threat--that is lacking in our offense. But Harvin has some drama surrounding him so instead they might take Hakeem Nicks (UNC), Brian Robiskie (Ohio State), Kenny Britt (Rutgers) or Darrius Heyward-Bey (Maryland).

But...if Peria Jerry (Mississippi) or Evander Hood (Missouri)--both defensive tackles--are still on the board than--I think--it would be hard to pass up drafting one of these skilled defensive tackles. I think every Colts fan knows that we need help at defensive tackle.

Here's what I think the Colts might do. If Hood and Jerry are off the board than they will draft a WR...if one of them is left ( I don't think both of them will be) than I think they will select one of them and then maybe trade up in the second round and draft Robiskie (because I think taking him in the first round is a stretch).

With apologizes to Kiper...that's my draft analysis.

"State of Play" Movie Review

2009-04-21T15:42:00.002-04:00

This week we'll be taking a look at the investigative reporter/political thriller, State of Play (PG-13). Russel Crowe stars as an investigative newspaper reporter who along with gossip blogger Rachel McAdams attempt to piece together the mystery surrounding the tragic death of a Washington aide. Ben Affleck, Robin Wright Penn, Hellen Mirren and Jason Bateman round out the cast. Kevin Macdonald directs.

Ryan: State of Play harkens back to the those investigative journalist movies of the '70's where the protagonist(s) attempt to unravel a vast conspiracy that threatens some part of the American fabric. Viewed in that context State of Play succeeds as a modern day political thriller. It's a relatively smart film that's well-acted and well-paced. The movie doesn't attempt to say more than it should and that helps it in being a plausible film.

Andy: I enjoyed this film much more than I expected to. The film takes what seems like it is going to be a ridiculous and messy conspiracy piece but makes it just believable enough to keep the audience involved. It remains character-driven enough to seem realistic, but does not skimp on scenes of suspense and intrigue. Director Kevin Macdonald deserves much of the credit for holding the movie together. This should not be too much of a surprise, as Macdonald previously honed his craft directing 2006’s “The Last King of Scotland.”

Ryan: State of Play follows the pattern of journalistic thrillers in that the story is constantly twisting and turning and there are plenty of curve balls thrown in to keep the audience guessing. The strategy works to a point but also undermines the film's narrative. Don't get me wrong, the movie does not unravel but it comes awfully close to teetering over the edge into ludicrousness. What helps to ground the movie, for the most part, is the film's well-regarded cast. Leading the way is Crowe. As opposed to some of his other movies it actually looks like he is having a good time with this one and that's refreshing.

Andy: I thought the plot held itself up fairly well until the end. The screenwriters got a little greedy and threw in perhaps one twist too many. The result is that the movie that was otherwise solid leaves a bit of a bad taste in the audience’s mouth. Fortunately, as Ryan mentioned, the cast is so strong that it is able to overcome most of the other shortcomings. Crowe is the star here, but Affleck carries his star-power well, and McAdams is adequately charming in the female lead. And when you can have Academy Award winner Helen Mirren in a small role and nominee Viola Davis is a bit part, you know you have a solid cast. Also worth mentioning is Jason Bateman, who appears to be having a blast in his cameo.

Ryan: There's a subplot in State of Play where the (fictional) newspaper that Crowe is employed at is being purchased by a global multi-media corporation. There are several snippets of dialogue—mainly between Crowe and Mirren—on the state of the newspaper industry. Not surprisingly the take in the film reflects the current decline of the newspaper industry in the United States. There's no doubt that the movie is arguing that if the newspaper business becomes extinct (or less relevant) then we as a society will lose an important cog in our democratic process. In a lot of ways the film plays as a swan song to the significance of the newspaper business.

Andy: The newspaper aspect of the story gives the movie a balance from the corporate conspiracy that helps keep it afloat as well. The dichotomy between Crowe’s grizzled reporter and McAdams’s bright-eyed blogger works well, allowing the film to comment on several social issues without seeming awkward.

State of Play is a more than adequate thriller that is able to overcome some of its shortcomings to earn a B.

Lindsay Lohan's eHarmony Profile

2009-04-18T08:54:00.001-04:00

This video is more amusing than outright funny but I do respect Lohan for making fun of herself.

Lindsay Lohan's eHarmony Profile from Lindsay Lohan

Influential Films

2009-04-15T17:19:00.003-04:00

Turner Classic Movies recently unveiled their list of the 15 most influential films of all time.

This is from their website...

1. THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915)

The Hollywood blockbuster was born in 1915. During a time when it seemed as if Europe had the monopoly on the feature film, D.W. Griffith struck out to make an epic that would help define American cinema. All of the technical developments he had helped create came together to maximum effect, teaching future directors, from Sergei Eisenstein to David Lean to James Cameron, how to combine detailed narrative with the sweep of history. At the same time, The Birth of a Nation is one of the greatest outrages in film history. Part of a campaign against interracial marriage, the film introduced many of the destructive stereotypes of black men and women that were perpetuated by Hollywood for decades. Its glorification of the Ku Klux Klan triggered riots in some cities -- and helped the organization's membership campaigns as it revived in strength following the Leo Frank lynching. The protests put the then young NAACP on the map, while the film also inspired the early work of African-American filmmakers like Oscar Micheaux. Even today, The Birth of a Nation provides one of the most vivid examples of film's power to inflame and propagandize.

2. BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN (1925)

Spoofed, referenced and copied in dozens of films, the “Odessa Steps” sequence from BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN may be the most influential scene in film history. Drawing on the montages in D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation and Intolerance, Sergei Eisenstein created mini-narratives, repeated shots of specific characters and groups, to humanize his story. His technique is so convincing most viewers think that the scene reflects an actual historical event (it's an amalgam of several attacks on the actual protesters). Filmmakers ever since have used the same tools to give personal meaning to epic scenes. And everybody from Woody Allen (Bananas) to Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather) has borrowed details from it for their own films. Eisenstein’s greatest legacy was to demonstrate to future filmmakers how to use montage to promote an agenda. Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels was so impressed by this Soviet film, that he encouraged using their techniques to terrible effect in anti-Semitic movies. The Germans also banned the film, as did censors in England, France and Spain. In capitalist Hollywood, film moguls showed it to employees to teach them how to edit, even though they would have fired anyone trying to mirror Eisenstein's revolutionary message.

3. METROPOLIS (1927)

Arguably the most influential science fiction film ever made, Metropolis has inspired everything from video games to rock videos to comic books. Its futuristic sets helped spread the popularity of art deco, while the gadget-filled lab of mad scientist Rotwang has become a sci-fi staple. Eugene Schufftan's special effects work set new standards for the craft. And Gottfried Huppertz' original music, with leitmotifs for key characters and themes, was one of the first modern motion picture scores. Beyond its technical and design influences, Metropolis virtually invented the genre of dystopian science fiction on screen: the creation of bleak visions of a future still afflicted with contemporary problems has become the heart of numerous films. The plot, created by director Fritz Lang and his screenwriter-wife Thea von Harbou, revolves around class struggle, anticipating decades of dangerous visions in the struggle to define humanity. The film's dehumanized laborers are the spiritual ancestors of the affectless astronauts in 2001: A Space Odyssey as much as the villainous, sexy Robot Maria would give birth to the runaway replicants in Blade Runner and the tragically human Cylons of Battlestar Galactica.

4. 42ND STREET (1933)

Although the form had helped launch the talkies, by 1933, musicals were box office poison. Too many numbers shot as if on stage, shoehorned into contrived plots had driven off audiences. Visionary producer Darryl F. Zanuck had the idea for a backstage story that would capture the effect of the Depression on hard-working chorus girls. And he was smart enough to put Busby Berkeley in charge of the dance routines. His dizzying geometric patterns and dazzling camera movements revitalized the genre and saved Warner Bros. from bankruptcy. 42nd Street’s success would lead to two decades of great movie musicals. It also became the yardstick against which all backstage musicals would be measured, providing plot elements for later films starring Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers, Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland, Doris Day and even Twiggy (in The Boyfriend).

5. IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT (1934)

When Clark Gable removed his shirt to reveal a bare chest, undershirt sales plummeted around the country, and bus travel rose in popularity. Such was the impact of this surprise hit. More important to director Frank Capra, the film nobody wanted to star in (after being turned down by several actresses, he had to offer Claudette Colbert twice her usual salary) established him as a major filmmaker and elevated Columbia Pictures from Poverty Row status to major film studio. When It Happened One Night became the first comedy to win a Best Picture Oscar® and the first film to sweep the five top awards, Hollywood started taking comedy more seriously. With its rapid banter and outrageous comic situations, It Happened One Night became the prototype for the screwball comedies that flourished through the '30s. And it made the road trip sexy, as When Harry Met Sally and The Sure Thing would prove again in later years. Its influence even reached the world of animation, where the fast-talking masher who comes on to Colbert and Gable's rapid delivery of one-liners while eating a carrot provided inspiration for Bugs Bunny.

6. SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS (1937)

Without Snow White, there would be no Pixar. No Snow White, no anime, no Shrek, no Cartoon Network. It's as simple as that. "Disney's Folly" was the name most Hollywood insiders gave Walt Disney's dream of producing the U.S.' first animated feature. Of course, nobody in Hollywood could have realized what a perfectionist Disney was. With convincing human animation, creative character design for the seven dwarfs, Technicolor and the use of a multiplane camera to create the illusion of depth, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs didn't just look better than any previous Disney film. It looked better than most major studio productions. Little wonder it would become the U.S.' top grossing film until Gone With the Wind supplanted it two years later. But there was a price for success. For better or worse, Snow White set U.S. animation in pursuit of a more realistic look for decades to come. For Walt Disney, that meant a string of triumphs, as he personally produced 18 more animated features, including such classics as Dumbo and Bambi. For more surrealistic animators like Max Fleischer and Ub Iwerks, it meant adapting to the new style. Iwerks, who had created Mickey Mouse, eventually returned to Disney to work on integrating animation with live-action footage on Song of the South and other films.

7. GONE WITH THE WIND (1939)

If one film epitomizes the Hollywood blockbuster, it's Gone With the Wind. Made in Hollywood's annus mirabilis, 1939, it remains the most popular film of a sterling crop. Not only has it sold more tickets than any other American made film, but with its box-office adjusted for inflation, it remains the highest-grossing film of all time. Something in the tale of the Southern belle fighting to save her beloved Tara has struck a chord for generations of audiences, from the U.S. of World War II to post-war Europe to Japan in the '80s. Scarlett O' Hara has inspired a legion fiery females caught in the sweep of history, like Nicole Kidman in Cold Mountain and Kate Winslet in Titanic. Gone With the Wind is the definitive producer's film. David O. Selznick defied conventional wisdom to purchase the rights to Margaret Mitchell's novel, personally supervised every detail of the film and spearheaded three years of publicity to raise public interest to a fever pitch. He spent the rest of his life trying -- and failing -- to top it. And decades of Hollywood blockbusters have drawn on his work to create and sell romantic dreams writ large on the screen.

8. STAGECOACH (1939)

Stagecoach would not only herald the birth of an American icon, John Wayne, but also the revival of one of the Hollywood's greatest genres. 1939 was marked by a number of A-budget Westerns. But it was Stagecoach that coupled depth of character with hard-riding action to remind audiences that the winning of the West was more than just popcorn fodder. In the hands of a great director, it could reflect the dreams and conflicts behind the building of a nation. Director John Ford created a film that did just that, crafting a legendary tale of the battle to tame a frontier represented by both rampaging Apaches and Wayne's untamed Ringo Kid. And, along the way, he discovered his perfect location: the majestic Monument Valley. The failure of Raoul Walsh’s The Big Trail in 1930 had relegated its leading man, Wayne, and the Western genre to poverty row. Almost a decade later, Ford couldn't get a single major studio to finance Stagecoach, eventually turning to independent producer Walter Wanger, who didn't want to cast Wayne. The film's unexpected success influenced not just the rise of the Western, but filmmakers of every genre. While shooting Citizen Kane, Orson Welles screened Ford's classic over 40 times to learn how to put a film together. Ultimately, Stagecoach would set the mold for the Western genre, re-telling the American myth over and over again in the coming decades.

9. CITIZEN KANE (1941)

When Orson Welles arrived at RKO Pictures to make his first feature film, he crowed, "This is the biggest electric train set a boy ever had!" It could have been the battle cry for generations of enfants terribles. Welles' (nearly) total control of Citizen Kane paved the way for a director-centric cinema that has produced some of the screen's greatest achievements and worst excesses. Gregg Toland's deep-focus photography and the use of directional sound and overlapping dialogue made Citizen Kane the first film to let the audience see and hear as they did in the real world. And the fragmented story-telling -- with Charles Foster Kane's life presented as a mosaic of different viewpoints-- left viewers to put the pieces together like one of Susan Alexander Kane's giant jigsaw puzzles. It was a technique that would influence numerous other films, from Francis Ford Coppola's The Godfather, Part II to Quentin Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. Welles' playful eye brought together unconventional filmmaking techniques that would raise him to uncharted terrain as a director with a freedom he would never again enjoy.

10. THE BICYCLE THIEF (1947)

The movies returned to the streets, where they had begun in the pioneering works of the Lumieres and D.W. Griffith, with this 1949 masterpiece. Shot on real locations in Rome with a factory worker in the leading role, The Bicycle Thief was among several post-war Italian films that provided an alternative to Hollywood's big-budget studio productions. Although not the first Neorealist film -- that honor goes to Roberto Rossellini's Open City -- it is the most famous and most accessible of the movement, thanks largely to director Vittorio De Sica's skill at directing actors and his ability to create moving images that seem totally unplanned. If the director's cinema traces its roots to Orson Welles' Citizen Kane, then the impetus for the modern realistic film lies in De Sica's masterpiece. Beyond his influence on European directors like Michelangelo Antonioni and Ingmar Bergman, his work would inspire the rise of independent film in America, from unsung heroes like Ruth Orkin and Morris Engel in the '50s to Cassavetes in the ‘60s.

11. RASHOMON (1950)

Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon added a new word to the dictionary, one that was used to describe any situation prompting conflicting interpretations. Kurosawa had trouble producing the film, given its unconventional narrative that depicted conflicting versions of the same two crimes. His studio was reluctant to fund the project and the Japanese government considered it too far outside the mainstream to represent their country at the Venice Film Festival. Yet, his groundbreaking film ultimately put Japanese cinema on the international map. Kurosawa's editing techniques (the film has twice as many shots as the average feature), gave it a sensual power that attracted audiences to the emotionally charged story. The director filmed directly into the sun for the first time in film history, a pioneering move that created dramatic lens flares. He also created beautiful outdoor images, shot by reflecting sunlight in a mirror borrowed from the costume department. Kurosawa transcended the challenges of a low-budget and censorship to create a new cinematic world that would inspire filmmakers like George Lucas and Martin Scorsese.

12. THE SEARCHERS (1956)

Almost 20 years after he revitalized the genre with Stagecoach, director John Ford pointed the Western in a new, revisionist direction. Although far from a total reevaluation of the winning of the West, The Searchers offers one of the screen's first attempts to depict the racism underlying U.S.-Native relations. Ford views the problem from both sides, showing how both John Wayne's obsessed Indian hunter Ethan Edwards and the equally obsessed Comanche chief, Scar, have been shaped by violent acts of the past. The conflict between these two victims of Manifest Destiny turns the film from Western into a revenge tragedy set against the impassive, timeless vistas of Monument Valley. One of the most influential of all Westerns, the film inspired David Lean's landscapes in Lawrence of Arabia, several shots in George Lucas' Star Wars films and the final shoot out in Martin Scorsese's Taxi Driver. Buddy Holly based one of his biggest hits on Wayne's catchphrase, "That'll be the day." And Wayne, who considered Ethan his best performance and The Searchers his best film, named a son after the character.

13. BREATHLESS (1959)

Drawing on B-crime thrillers to create a chic nihilism, critic-turned-filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard not only defined the French New Wave, but also used his theory of “the cinema of reinvention” to change the look of film. With jarring quick cuts between scenes, jump cuts within them and long takes filled with dizzying camera movements, he made movies with a rough cinematic technique that was even reflected in his scripts. "Don't use the brakes," Jean-Paul Belmondo orders at one moment in Breathless. "Cars are made to go, not to stop!" By the end of the '60s, younger directors like Arthur Penn and Francis Ford Coppola were mining Godard's movies and imitating their distinctive style. And the film's anti-establishment attitude became a mainstay for a whole cinema of alienation in films like Bonnie and Clyde, Easy Rider and Five Easy Pieces.

14. PSYCHO (1960)

Following several big-budget, color productions like North by Northwest and Vertigo, Alfred Hitchcock found inspiration in the low-budget black-and-white horror films of the day. Psycho ended up re-defining the genre, throwing the audience off-guard with major surprises, like killing off its biggest star, Janet Leigh, a third of the way into the movie. Hitch also pushed other boundaries: showing a flushing toilet on-screen (the first time in a Hollywood film), introducing the word "transvestite" to U.S. movie houses and, in the classic shower scene, making the audience think they had witnessed more violence than was actually shown on screen. But his perversity went way beyond that. By making viewers identify first with a petty crook, then with a cross-dressing serial killer, the master of suspense showed just how far a master director could go in making the medium -- and the audience -- his own. Before long, the filmmakers that Hitchcock had imitated started imitating him. The psycho killer became a horror film staple, leading to the slasher flicks that arrived with Halloween and Friday the 13th. The lasting influence of Psycho was also apparent in Wes Craven’s Scream trilogy, as the director opened each film with the murder of a “name” actress in the first act.

15. STAR WARS (1977)

A long time ago, in a Hollywood far away, movies only made their money from ticket sales. With Star Wars, however, new markets opened up for merchandising-- not just of toys-- but novels, comics, television series and eventually video games. Adding to what would become known as the "Star Wars Expanded Universe" were a series of sequels and prequels more tightly connected than in other franchises. Over the course of 28 years, George Lucas created a six-part serial that has grown into the epic tragedy of Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader. Star Wars did more than create expanded economic opportunities. At a time when science fiction was relegated mostly to low-budget productions, Lucas' created a multi-million dollar sci-fi epic based on the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials of his youth. The use of sophisticated special effects would have a lasting effect on future big-budget epics of all genres. His childhood obsessions helped a new generation of filmmakers, the movie nerds, dominate the screen. For Lucas, Star Wars was the chance to do his favorites right. His vision of a lived-in universe (he deliberately gave sets and props a used look) inspired later, more serious works like the Alien films and Blade Runner.

This is a pretty solid list. It was limited to fifteen because TCM is celebrating it's fifteenth anniversary. Unfortunately there isn't a lot of room on this list. Actually there's only four films (Rashomon, The Bicycle Thief, 42nd Street and Battleship Potemkin) on the list that I haven't seen. Although I have seen the famous "Odessa Steps" scene in Battleship Potemkin. So I feel pretty good about that.

I think my only issue with it is having two John Ford westerns on the list (It's a little redundant). I can buy Stagecoach but including The Searchers is stretching it. Don't get me wrong The Searchers is a great film and I think it is a better film than Stagecoach but I don't believe that it was more influential (especially for its time) than Stagecoach.

If I were to add one film to the list (thus subtracting Stagecoach), it would be Toy Story. Pixar ushered in a revolution in animation--both from a technical aspect and from a storytelling aspect. Toy Story is not Pixar's best film but is the one that put Pixar on the map and got the ball rolling.

To read more critiques click here and here.

"Monsters vs. Aliens" Movie Review

2009-04-15T11:22:00.001-04:00

This week we look at the animated film Monsters vs. Aliens. A largely recognizable cast of voice talent performs in the film, led by Reese Witherspoon, Seth Rogen, Hugh Laurie, and Will Arnett. Rainne Wilson voices an alien set on taking over the Earth, when a group of monsters being held by the government are set loose on the aliens. Rob Letterman and Conrad Vernon direct.

Ryan: Monsters vs. Aliens continues DreamWorks Animation streak of producing financially viable animated features. Barring the first Shrek movie and last year's Kung Fu Panda, DreamWorks animated movies are generally not on the same level, at least artistically speaking, as Pixar's films. But nonetheless DreamWorks movies continue to be moneymakers at the Box-Office and for the most part they are entertaining films. Monsters vs. Aliens isn't anything to brag about but it's a more than suitable animated feature that will surely entertain most kids and some adults as well.

Andy: Monsters vs. Aliens is definitely a second-tier animated feature. That is not to say that it is bad, but it does not have the edge that the best of the animated movies have. It introduces goofy characters that are entertaining to watch and puts them in obligatorily goofy situations. The problem seems to be that in spite of being entertaining, the movie doesn’t feel like it has anything to say.

Ryan: As the title suggests Monsters vs. Aliens is exactly what it is—a straight ahead action cartoon—geared towards kids-- involving monsters fighting off an alien invasion of Earth. The movie exists on one level as opposed to some other recent more well-rounded animated features (WALL-E—for example). Generally speaking there's nothing wrong with this approach when it's done in an entertaining and creative manner. More often than not Monsters vs. Aliens succeeds as an engaging and slightly imaginative animated spectacle.

Andy: I can appreciate the idea of a movie just being an animated spectacle, but the comparison to last year’s WALL-E is inevitable (even if it is an unfair). To its credit, Monsters vs. Aliens does not reach for anything grand, it only tries to be an entertaining flick. But the lack of substance makes the movie drag at times, especially in the middle section. The simple, straight-forward plot could have been more inventively designed, not only for the adults in the audience, but the children as well.

Ryan: One thing about Monsters vs. Aliens that I did admire was making a female character the lead. Ginormica, the 40-foot woman (voiced by Witherspoon) is for all intensive purposes the main character in the movie. The filmmakers along with Witherspoon's voicing work do an excellent job in creating a strong female character that girls (and boys) can look up to. It's just rare when a female character is the lead in an animated movie and more rare when it's done right.

Andy: The more I think about it, the more I have a bit of a problem with the female lead character. First of all, she’s drawn as a Barbie-doll, with completely unnaturally proportions (aside from the obvious 40-foot aspect), and stumbles through the first half of the film with a childish naiveté that would be completely frustrating in a live-action film. By the time she learns the obvious lessons about valuing herself, the film has already objectified her in a way that is hard to get around. The scene where she originally grows to forty feet, stretching her dress to the max, bursting out of her garter belt is particularly troubling.

All told, Monsters vs. Aliens is entertaining enough, but lacks the depth to be a truly great animated feature.

Final grade: B-.

Saved by the *&%$ Bell

2009-04-14T20:00:00.002-04:00

Behold, the magic power of the well placed beep.

"When we destroy nature, we diminish ourselves."

2009-04-10T17:43:00.003-04:00

Thanks to my Hanover alumni wife we had the opportunity to see environmentalist/lawyer Robert Kennedy Jr. speak at Hanover College on Wednesday night.

It was a mesmerizing experience.

For well over an hour he spoke passionately and reasonable about environmental policies in The United States.

For those that have seen him on TV and what-knot...most people are aware that he is somewhat of a shaky (yet confident) speaker and at the onset of his presentation that was true. But by the end of his speech...he was in complete control delivering a powerful and resonating message. (That was also true of the way his father delivered speeches as well). Overall Kennedy's speech was a very informative and passionate plea that The United States can have a environmental policy that not only protects the environment but have a policy that strengthens (and not diminishes) the economy.

Kennedy went to great length to dispel the rumor that having a strong and sensible environmental policy is not economically friendly. He made several arguments when new technology was deemed ridiculous (for example...personal PC's in the '80's) and then eventually lead to a revolution (information in this case). Kennedy believes this is possible with energy. He also argued that our dependence on big oil companies--which is significantly assisted by our federal government is anti-capitalist and anti-free market and that it perpetuates an environment where original and creative thought is not rewarded...that basically the individual entrepreneurship spirit that has driven this county is not being appreciated (or even looked at in some cases).

I also liked how Kennedy seemed to tailor his speech to his audience. I'm sure some of that was by design but he spoke of hunting and fishing and how hunters and fishermen became some of the first modern day environmentalists in our country. Not all environmentalists fit the generic label of being left wing nut job tree-huggers Like I said before he spoke of free-markets and that's always going to set well with a southern Indiana audience. But he also spoke of the spiritual aspect of nature...not the worshiping of nature but expressing the historical and present-day notions of people finding God through nature...or how nature reflects God's design.

I was just very impressed by his overall message. I'm sure there are two sides to some of the points he was making but his message was well thought out and well presented.

I think we have to get past the notion that caring for nature is not in our best interest because it is in out best interest. Additionally...and not to make this a political issue...but it is in our best interest to find common ground and have an energy policy that is forward thinking.

The 10.31 Project

2009-04-07T20:04:00.003-04:00

Thank you Stephen Colbert for demonstrating just how wacky and ridiculous Glen Beck (of Fox News) is.

The Colbert Report

Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c

The 10.31 Project

comedycentral.com

Colbert Report Full Episodes

Political Humor

NASA Name Contest

"Adventureland" Movie Review

2009-04-07T15:03:00.002-04:00

This week we'll be taking a look at the dramedy, Adventureland ( R). Jesse Eisenberg stars as a recent college graduate whose summer plans fall apart resulting in him going back to his home town of Pittsburgh to work at the aptly named amusement park, Adventureland. Kristen Stewert, Bill Hader, Kristen Wiig and Ryan Reynolds co-star in the film. Greg Mottola directs.

Andy: Adventureland is a rare treat for this time of year, an authentic, quirky romantic comedy. The ad campaign surrounding the movie made it seem like a throw away comedy. While it is not a particularly deep movie, it does have a great deal of heart, and that carries it a long way. Greg Mottola has created a film that has a personality that is easy to fall for.

Ryan: Adventureland is directed by Mottola and he earned fame a few years by directing the hit comedy Superbad. Upon seeing the trailer for Adventureland my first reaction was to think that this was basically going to be Superbad but based in the '80's. That isn't the case but that's alright. Whether or not one was a fan of Superbad is negligible because Adventureland is a different kind of movie. It's a well executed coming-of-age story that is just as much drama as comedy. But it's a good mix of both ingredients and that perfect blend propels it to be a successful film.

Andy: One of the more appealing aspects of Adventurland is how the film balances itself between childhood and adulthood. In many ways the characters seem like unruly high-schoolers, an effect enhanced by the lead actors legitimately being the ages they are portraying. They are young adults, just out of college but not yet prepared or able to enter the “real world” work-force. The carefree partying coupled with the disappointment and desperation of becoming adult adds validity to Adventureland that helps it stand up.

Ryan: Mottola—who based much of the story on his own experiences—does an outstanding job not letting the comedy or drama go to either extreme. Consequently the film's narrative is tight and that makes for an authentic story that moviegoers can relate to. Furthermore I appreciate how Mottola sets the film in 1987 but doesn't keep reminding the audience that the movie is set in the '80's by having overt and ridiculous references. That subtly allows the movie to be relevant to its time but also express more universal ideas of love, friendship and self-worth.

Andy: At the core of the movie’s success is the performance of Jesse Eisenberg. As the movie’s main character, he is in almost every scene, and he pulls it off very well. Eisenberg was more than adequate in 2005’s “The Squid and the Whale,” and he expands on that performance here. He plays an awkward but charming young man who seems to feel all the little triumphs and failures of a summer job. Coupled with the adorable and vulnerable turn by Kristen Stewart, Adventureland boasts some solid, young talent.

Ryan: Also contributing to the movie's success are the two lead performances by Eisenberg and Stewert. Eisenberg, who some might remember from The Squid and The Whale, again delivers a quirky yet confident performance that shows that he can carry a movie of this magnitude. Most people will know Stewert from her being in the ubiquitous Twilight film. (I haven't seen that movie so I did not recognize her). Nonetheless I might be one step closer to watching that film (but probably not) because I was impressed with Stewert's performance. Her character was pretty messed up but she handled the part in a realistic fashion that showed a lot of strength.

Adventureland is a slightly unconventional film that charms its way to a solid B+.

NFL Mock Draft

2009-04-06T16:28:00.000-04:00

The greatest mock draft ever...

2009 MLB Predictions

2009-04-06T12:49:00.003-04:00

For what it's worth here are my predictions for the upcoming baseball season. I'm hesitant to do this because my predictions last year were very forgettable (and I'm not even going to link them).

Let's get to it...

National League

NL East: New York Mets (they have improved where they needed to...and their stars are in their prime)

NL Central: Chicago Cubs (they are still loaded...plus there's no other team in the division that I feel that are on their level)

NL West: Los Angles Dodgers (they have starting pitching concern but Manny makes that lineup the real deal)

NL Wild Card: Philadelphia Phillies (if Hammels isn't right...than maybe I don't see them winning the Wild Card but they are going to score a lot of runs regardless so I'll stick to it)

Dodgers over Phillies
Cubs over Mets

Dodgers over Cubs

American League

AL East: New York Yankees (I know it's generic but Sabathia and Teixeria are solid additions)

AL Central: Minnesota Twins (I don't know how they do it but they just get it done seemingly year after year)

AL West: Los Angles Angels (they definitely have pitching concerns but so does almost everyone else in that division)

AL Wild Card: Tampa Rays (they are young, athletic and hungry for a title--that's a recipe for success)

Yankees over Angles
Rays over Twins

Rays over Yankees

World Series match up...Dodgers vs. Rays...and I'm going with the Rays.

NL MVP: Manny Ramirez
AL MVP: Mark Texieria

NL Cy Young: Johan Santana
AL Cy Young: Francisco Liriano

"Bruno" red band trailer

2009-04-03T12:17:00.002-04:00

Be advised...this is a R-rated trailer.

But it's so worth it.

House Divided

2009-04-01T10:41:00.003-04:00

Last night the Big Ten Network aired the '81 NCAA championship game between Indiana and North Carolina. Of course Indiana won (63-50)...mainly thanks to the effort of Isiah Thomas.

But nonetheless that got me thinking...what if that match-up happened again...and more specifically how would that effect a marriage (hypothetically speaking) of a couple where one person is an Indiana fan and the other is a North Carolina fan.

As I was talking to Jenny about this I naturally brought up the scenario where what if Indiana ever played Kentucky (her favorite school) in the NCAA title game. Of course she was like..it's just a game...there wouldn't be any issues.

Needless to say I had a different reaction. I declared that we couldn't watch the game together ( I don't think I could watch that potential match up with any Kentucky fan) and if IU lost I would probably need several days (maybe a week) to get over it. It's not like I couldn't be around her...more like she just couldn't bring up Kentucky winning.

But if IU won than we wouldn't have any problems and I would (eventually) drive her crazy with constant talk of IU winning.

I realize that this is completely irrational and that it is nothing more than a double-standard...but that's just the reality of how I would handle it.

The chances of that specific match up occurring is rare and ultimately that is probably a good thing (but not in terms of Indiana reaching the finals of the tournament...because that is always a good thing).

"Duplicity" Movie Review

2009-03-31T18:55:00.001-04:00

Ryan here and this week I’ll be taking a look at the Julia Roberts/Clive Owen vehicle, Duplicity (PG-13). In the film Roberts and Owen star as a couple of ex-spies who are now employed at competing multi-conglomerate corporations. Upon the revealing of a new groundbreaking product, Roberts and Owen mastermind a plan to scam the payoff for themselves. Rounding out the cast is Tom Wilkinson and Paul Giamatti.

Duplicity is directed by Tony Gilroy and I was a big fan of his directorial debut, Michael Clayton. I thought it was one of the better films of the past several years. Duplicity is a a slight departure from “Clayton.” Duplicity is a thriller but it’s more of a light-hearted thriller somewhat in the vein of Stanley Donen’s classic film, Charade. Overall Duplicity is not on the same level of Michael Clayton (or Charade for that matter) but it’s not a bad film. It’s a slightly above average film--and for the most part that’s quite acceptable at this time of year. As most moviegoers are aware the spring time is not when the studios role out their best material.

Gilroy's is a fan of non-linear storytelling and it served him well with “Clayton.” But with Duplicity the results are mixed. Initially the flashbacks that are developed in the narrative do add to the second-guessing of the plot, which Gilory is trying to establish. After all the movie is called Duplicity so I understand the need to keep the audience guessing. Unfortunately the film comes to its conclusion through a flashback that detracts from the pull of the story. It would have been acceptable if the clues would have led to this particular climax but when looking back on the film there's not much there that one could have pieced together to figure out exactly what was going on. The final “gotcha” moment completes the story but not in a fulfilling way. But overall Gilory's pacing of the story does suceed in amping the tension to an otherwise dull concept.

Another strength that Gilory has is the ability to bring out solid performances by his main players. Much of what makes Duplicity a watchable film are the performances by Roberts and Owen. Both of their roles are roles that demand a certain amount of charm and screen presence and they both deliver sexy alluring performances. They have good chemistry together and that allows them to continually play off of each other to the degree that the audience is not sure whether to trust their relationship. That conflict is necessary in a movie like this.

Also adding to the film are the performances by Giamatti and Wilkinson. They don't have a lot of screen time and their characters are more stereotypes than fleshed out roles but they give solid performances. I guess that shouldn't be to surprising considering that they almost always deliver solid work but it is always a joy seeing them on screen especially when they can purposely “ham” it up.

In essence Duplicity is a pretty good film. It is geared for adults and as an adult feature it succeeds more than fails.

Final grade: B-.

I don't know Curt Schilling...

2009-03-25T16:27:00.007-04:00

MLB pitcher Curt Schilling announced his retirement earlier in the week. (And don't even get me started on how much time ESPN devoted to this as opposed to how much time they spent on Maddux's retirement).

But anyway...the debate with Schilling is whether he is Hall of Fame worthy.

And to be honest...I've been on the fence (which as I've said before is not a good sign). But after doing some research...I would vote no. And here's one reason why.

Let's do a little exercise here...

Pitcher A...

innings pitched: 3,130
career win-loss: 204-150 (.576 winning %)
career ERA: 3.48

Won one career Cy-Young.

post season innings pitched: 132
post season win-loss: 8-3
post season ERA: 2.59

Won NLCS, World Series & ALCS MVP

Here's pitcher B...

innings pitched: 3,261
career win-loss: 216-146 (.597 winning %)
career ERA: 3.46

Never won a Cy-Young

post season innings pitched: 133
post season win-loss: 11-2
post season ERA: 2.23

Won NLCS & World Series MVP

Now if you looked at these pitchers what would one conclude? That basically pitcher A & B are very similar...almost the same. Interestingly enough pitcher A only survived on the hall of fame ballot for two years...never getting more than 11.2% of the vote.

Who's who...pitcher A is Orel Hershiser and pitcher B is Curt Schilling.

I'm not sure how one reconciles the difference. Granted Schilling did have more good to-great years (roughly 9-5) but the bottom line is that there's not much cumulative difference between them, other than the fact that Schilling played for the Red Sox...and ESPN loves the Red Sox...so in effect we are going to be hearing this debate for years. And don't under estimate playing on the Red Sox. Jim Rice made the cut this year and that was highly questionable.

Because to me...one can only take the post season success so far. Look at David Cone...he won 5 World Series rings...was 8-3 in the post season...plus he won a Cy Young award and had a higher career winning percentage (194 to 126--.606) than Schilling. But what' s the big difference between Cone and Schilling's candidacy...oh yeah...Schilling had the bloody sock game.

I'm not taking anything away from Schilling's post season success...because it's remarkable but I don't think it puts him over the hump in terms of getting in the hall. His body of work...his cumulative numbers during the regular season falls short.

To me Schilling is in that class of pitchers like Cone, Hershiser...and maybe even Dave Stewert, Jack Morris, Dwight Gooden and Kevin Brown. These are pitchers who had solid careers...and some of them even had enormous post season success (like Cone, Gibson and Hershisher)...but that doesn't mean they are hall worthy.

The problem with Schilling is consistency. He just wasn't consistently good to great for an extended amount of time...and that's big for me and determining one's chances for gaining admittance. One just can't have flashes of brilliance...it has to be sustained.

"I Love You, Man" movie review

2009-03-24T13:08:00.002-04:00

This week I'll be looking at the romantic comedy, I Love You, Man ( R). In the film Paul Rudd stars as a recently engaged man who doesn't happen to have any close male buddies. In search of a best man for his wedding Rudd crosses the paths with the eccentric character played by Jason Segal. Rashida Jones, Jamie Pressely, John Favreau and Andy Samburg costar in the film.

I Love You, Man is an enjoyable romantic comedy. This isn't a Judd Apatow production but it definitely shows his influence. The movie is a balanced meshing of the crude (language-wise) with the sincere. The movie lacks being consistently funny but there are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments. Overall the film is quite entertaining and will satisfy moviegoers of both genders. Yes, this is a good date film. It's not quite on the same level as last spring's romantic comedy hit, Forgetting Sarah Marshall but it's definitely one of the better films playing at local movie theaters.

In a lot of ways the movie is more “bromantic comedy” than romantic comedy. The film is about the Rudd and Jones character getting married but more-to-the point the film's focus is on Rudd and Segal's budding friendship. Some moviegoers might be turned off by a film that actually showcases two dudes forming a lasting friendship but don't be. I say this a lot about movies that I think are good—and it's simply that—I Love You Man works. It succeeds at being a humorous and at times a genuine romantic comedy. The ingredients in the film come to a fruition and produce a winning film.

There's no doubt that much of the film's success comes from the cast. Entertainment Weekly recently proclaimed Paul Rudd to be “the most lovable movie star on the planet”—and it's hard to argue that point. My respect for Rudd has increased steadily over the years. He's not the funniest comedic actor. He's not the most charismatic leading man but he is the most likable—I don't think there's any question about that. It doesn't matter how good or bad a film is. Rudd always enhances it. It's good to see him getting more leading parts because it allows him to more thoroughly demonstrate his everyman charm. The chemistry between him and Jones and him and Segal ground the film in plausible reality. Speaking of Segal, he continues to show that he can be a movie star as well as a TV star. He has an “interesting” screen presence in this movie but for the most part he succeeds in bringing to life a character that could have just been a caricature. This is Rashida Jones's first big break in a major motion picture and she definitely has the look and skill to establish a successful film career. Also stealing every scene they are in are Jamie Pressly and John Favreau. They play the stereotypical married couple that hates each other but their scenes are extremely funny.

I Love You, Man doesn't really suffer from any glaring weaknesses. What might hurt the film is what expectations people might have going into it. The movie is somewhere in between chick flick romantic comedies and rated-R Apatow romantic comedies. But the bottom line is that male and female moviegoers will both enjoy the film. I Love You, Man is a solid spring flick.

Final grade: B+.

"Year One" trailer

2009-03-21T08:32:00.001-04:00

This movie looks pretty goofy but it still looks funny. It's pretty much Jack Black and Michael Cena doing their thing.

'Year One' Theatrical Trailer @ Yahoo! Video

Bracket Madness

2009-03-18T21:00:00.002-04:00

It's that time of year where everyone fills out their brackets for the NCAA tournament. I don't think there's any question that the NCAA tournament is the best sporting event out there. I love filling out the brackets and watching the games. The suspense from day to day and week to week is unparalleled in the sporting world.

But it does stink when one's team (in this case--Indiana) is not in the field. Hence filling out the bracket just isn't quite as fun when The Hoosiers aren't playing. Even in years when it was a stretch for them to make the final four...I always held out hope for them to make a run. So consequently it is not quite as fullfilling filling out the bracket when one's favorite team is absent.

For what it is worth...I've got Louisville, Memphis, Pittsburgh and Gonzaga in the Final Four...with Memphis winning. I'm not to excited are confident in these predictions. I mean I have Memphis winning...how great is that?

The time of year also breeds another phenomenon...that of other brackets and tournaments for random things. For those that might be disillusioned with the NCAA bracket there are several alternatives.

Of course there's always a "hot women" bracket...thanks Q95.
Marisa Miller vs. Erin Andrews in the finale is quite a toss up.

If music is your thing...here's a classic rock bracket. My final four was Baba O'Reilly, Born to Run, All Along the Watchtower and A Day in the Life. Born to Run topped A Day in the Life in the finals...tough match up though. Although the seeding in this tournament defies logic...Turn the Page a #2 seed...Hotel California, Bohemian Rhapsody and Back in Black were #1 seeds (Stairway to Heaven was the other #1 seed...I can accept that...but I don't get most of the other ones).

Here's another one that I came across...it's the Tournament of Bad...put together by 670 The Score out of Chicago. It's a pretty funny bracket. My final four was Octomon, Rod Blagojevich, Dane Cook and heartburn. Dane Cook was victorious over Octomon. (In your face heartburn).

I'm sure there's more out there...those are just the ones that I've come across.