I was reading the other day on the A.V. Club website and came across an interesting debate among its writers. Instead of debating their guilty pleasures, they were debating their guilty displeasures. They describe a guilty displeasure (whether a film, a book or etc.) as "respected parts of the cultural canon that we've tried, often at great length, but have just been unable to get into to the same degree as our fellow cultural commentators." That basically a guilty displeasure is something that is considered worthwhile, from an artistic standpoint, and that by it's nature one should or would have thought they be in to.
In mind of that...here are some of my guilty displeasures.
Neil Young. I respect Young as a iconic rocker and I really like some of his songs (Cinnamon Girl & Keep on Rocking in the Free World) but I've just never been head over heels with his music. And it's not from a lack of trying. At some point in college I purchased Harvest (generally considered to be one of his strongest albums) but I just never got into it. In fact I looked for the album this morning and couldn't find it. Sadly I wasn't too heart broken over it. It's not that I think his music is bad. It's more to the point that it hasn't done anything for me. Additionally...I've been into almost every iconic classic rocker from the '60's and '70's but Young's music alludes me.
Woody Allen. Allen is one of the most prolific filmmakers of our time. And to be fair I've only seen a handful of his movies. But that's the thing, I have no desire to watch his movies. I don't really have a compelling reason why (after all I did think that Annie Hall was a pretty good film). For whatever reason it's just not happening for me. I love movies but when I hear that Woody Allen has a new film coming out...I have no reaction--either positive or negative. I feel that I should like Allen's films because he and along with many of his films are so well respected but I'm just so indifferent about them.
The Graduate. I find myself slowly railing against the Baby Boomer generation and there's no better representation of that than the 1967 film, The Graduate. Let me preface this and say that The Graduate is a very good film with some fine transcendent performances. And I understand the cultural significance of the movie. But the cultural impact of the movie has overshadowed the film itself and the reality that the movie is not what people make it out to be. It's considered one of the best American films of all-time (as it routinely places high on critic's lists) and I don't believe that to be the case. It's a film that captured a moment in time but I don't believe that it has aged all that well. I find the film to self-important and it takes itself way too seriously.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
"Slumdog Millionaire" Movie Review
Next up in our line of Best Picture nominees is Slumdog Millionaire (R). Director Danny Boyle guides us through the slums of the Indian city of Mumbai, as a teen explains why he knew all the answers to questions while a contestant on “Who Wants to be a Millionaire.” Dev Patel and Freida Pinto star.
Ryan: It's hard to dislike a film like Slumdog Millionaire. Its feel-good rags-to-riches love story is what quintessential Hollywood films are all about. Throw in the exotic quality of the movie taking place in India and one has an atypical makeup for a Best Picture contender. While other Oscar nominees left me scratching my head, the nominations for Slumdog Millionaire—especially for Best Picture—are indeed justified. Slumdog Millionaire is not only one of the most enjoyable films of the year but one of the best films of the year.
Andy: I have yet to encounter anyone who has seen this film that did not like it. While the film is not perfect, there really aren’t any weaknesses. It is intriguing, uplifting, and intellectual while also supplying plenty of action and suspense. Combining so many elements frequently makes a movie seem like a jumbled mess, but Slumdog flows smoothly, taking the audience on an unexpected journey that is as fun as it is rewarding.
Ryan: Describing this movie to someone who hasn't heard of it is somewhat challenging. The movie with it's “Who Want to be a Millionaire” plot point seems quite ridiculous. But trust me when I say this—the movie works. Danny Boyle does a fantastic job in making a movie that never lets up. The movie is very traditional at its heart but Boyle, with his frantic shooting and camera work, ratchets up the tension and emotion. This in effect heightens everything that occurs in the movie and makes it feel modern and fresh.
Andy: There has been a great deal of hoopla surrounding various aspects of this movie, but frequently left on the short end of the praise is the cast. Dev Patel is perfect in the leading role, his innocent exterior only occasionally fiving way to the passion and pain that we see his character has endured. Supporting characters Anil Kapoor and Freida Pinto add reliably real performances, as do the children who play the young versions of the main characters. The movie is sweeping and cinematic in scope, but none of that would work without the solid performance of the ensemble cast.
Ryan: Slumdog Millionaire has been raking in the Oscar-precursors and if it ultimately ends up winning Best Picture that won't be much of a surprise. One could argue that the movie doesn't have the weight of traditional Best Picture fare. And I'm also sure that there will be some out there that thinks the movie—especially with it's contemporary cinematography—is more smoke and mirros than substance. Granted Slumdog Millionaire isn't a perfect film but it's a very gratifying one.
Andy: It is hard to imagine a scenario where Slumdog Millionaire does not win best picture. It has just about everything you would want in a best picture contender with very little of the unnecessary self-importance that frequently plagues Oscar movies (I’m looking at you, Benjamin Button!). In many ways Slumdog has the feel of an independent movie in spite of its grandiose scope, and that keeps it grounded enough to maintain its charm in spite of its ambition.
Though not perfect, Slumdog Millionaire is certainly one of the year’s best movies, and it may very well be the best.
Final grade: A-.
The Curious Case of Forrest Gump?
We alluded to this in our movie review...now here's FOD's take...
The Curious Case of Forrest Gump - watch more funny videos
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Watchmen faux news video
Wondering who Dr. Manhattan is? Check out this vintage news clip from 1970.
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Oscar Nominations (thumbs down)
Here's a timeline of my Oscar frustration.
Approx. 8:40 AM (yes I was tuned into ABC's live telecast)
--Heath Ledger is nominated for best supporting actor. That's good. I know it seemed a sure thing but one just never knows.
Approx. 8:45 AM
--I'm frustrated for Christopher Nolan as he is shut out for nominations for the director and adapted screenplay categories. He directs the movie of the year (both a critical and commercial success) and he doesn't score any nominations himself.
Approx. 8:47 AM
--There it is. No nomination for best picture for The Dark Knight. Simply ridiculous. Granted I haven't seen three out of the five nominees--yet--but I do know that The Dark Knight is a better film than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. That just really frustrates me that it didn't get a best picture nomination. Dammit, it deserved it.
Approx. 8:50 AM
--I feel a little better as Chris Connelly informs me that The Dark Knight did receive eight nominations. Which is cool but on the other hand it does frustrate me in that it's good enough to win multiple technical nominations but that doesn't add up to a best picture nomination. I don't get it.
Approx. 9:30 AM
--I'm finally able to get online to see the rest of the nominees. I scroll down to best song and lo and behold see the biggest snub of all--no nomination for Bruce Springsteen's The Wrestler for best song. But even more absurd...there's only three nominations and there can be up to five! WTF! Apparently there were only three Oscar worthy songs. I cannot even comprehend why the Academy can't fill out the category. And then you're trying to tell me that the song isn't even good enough to score a nomination. That's ludicrous.
Noon
--I'm now on my lunch break and I'm still pissed off. Actually I'm more pissed off now than I was a few hours ago. It's beyond reason why the Academy stiffed The Dark Knight...or the Boss...or for that matter WALL-E. The category for best animated feature is ill-advised as it destroys almost any shot of an animated feature earning a best picture nomination. And you know what...I think WALL-E should have been nominated for best picture as well.
Damn I'm angry.
Approx. 8:40 AM (yes I was tuned into ABC's live telecast)
--Heath Ledger is nominated for best supporting actor. That's good. I know it seemed a sure thing but one just never knows.
Approx. 8:45 AM
--I'm frustrated for Christopher Nolan as he is shut out for nominations for the director and adapted screenplay categories. He directs the movie of the year (both a critical and commercial success) and he doesn't score any nominations himself.
Approx. 8:47 AM
--There it is. No nomination for best picture for The Dark Knight. Simply ridiculous. Granted I haven't seen three out of the five nominees--yet--but I do know that The Dark Knight is a better film than The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. That just really frustrates me that it didn't get a best picture nomination. Dammit, it deserved it.
Approx. 8:50 AM
--I feel a little better as Chris Connelly informs me that The Dark Knight did receive eight nominations. Which is cool but on the other hand it does frustrate me in that it's good enough to win multiple technical nominations but that doesn't add up to a best picture nomination. I don't get it.
Approx. 9:30 AM
--I'm finally able to get online to see the rest of the nominees. I scroll down to best song and lo and behold see the biggest snub of all--no nomination for Bruce Springsteen's The Wrestler for best song. But even more absurd...there's only three nominations and there can be up to five! WTF! Apparently there were only three Oscar worthy songs. I cannot even comprehend why the Academy can't fill out the category. And then you're trying to tell me that the song isn't even good enough to score a nomination. That's ludicrous.
Noon
--I'm now on my lunch break and I'm still pissed off. Actually I'm more pissed off now than I was a few hours ago. It's beyond reason why the Academy stiffed The Dark Knight...or the Boss...or for that matter WALL-E. The category for best animated feature is ill-advised as it destroys almost any shot of an animated feature earning a best picture nomination. And you know what...I think WALL-E should have been nominated for best picture as well.
Damn I'm angry.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Hall of Fame talk
Last Saturday I posted about the newest MLB Hall of Famers (Rickey Henderson and Jim Rice) and talked about next year's class featuring Barry Larkin, Fred McGriff, Edgar Martinez and Roberto Alomar. I stated then and still believe that three out of these four are hall of famers (contrary to the assumption that there won't be any first ballot hall of famers in this 2010 class).
Barry Larkin
He's in and it shouldn't even be a debate. As everyone knows I dislike the Reds, always have--always will. But even I can recognize that Larkin is a hall of famer. Why I feel so strongly about this is that I feel that as a Midwesterner that Larkin is getting disrespected simply because he played in the Midwest--in Cincinnati. If he would have played in New York, Boston or LA there wouldn't be as much uncertainty with his resume. And speaking of that...his resume as a shortstop is pretty solid.
--12 time All-Star
--1995 MVP winner
--career stats .295 (batting avg.)/ .371 (OBP)/ .444 (SLG)
--7 good years (OPS+ over 125--25% better than the average player) 1 great year (OPS+ over 150--50% better than the average player)
Let's compare that to his NL peers. According to Jayson Stark's, The Stark Truth, during Larkin's career he routinely outperformed his contemporaries. For example his career OPS (on base plus slugging) was .815. The average OPS of a shortstop in Larkin's day was .678...that's a 20% gap.
Just for the sake of argument let's compare Larkin to Ripken (both were shortstops during roughly the same period).
Ripken's career hitting numbers break this way: .276 (avg)/ .340(OBP)/ .447(SLG) (pretty similar to Larkin's)
And when one considers that Larkin was a better fielder than Ripken then it's not a stretch to put Larkin in Ripken's class...and if that's the case...then he's a no-brainer hall of famer.
Roberto Alomar
He might not get a lot of love because of some behavioral issues (spitting on umpires will cause that) but there's no question that he was one of the best (and the best in the AL) second basemen of his era. There's just no question. He was a 12 time All-Star and his career batting splits are .300 (avg)/ .371 (OBP)/ .443 (SLG).--which are remarkable career splits for a second baseman.
What also could hurt him is that he didn't reach any big milestone (like 3,000 hits) or win an MVP award. But he does have two World Series rings and also ten Gold Gloves.
Another way of looking at it is this...does Alomar's induction weaken the hall of fame or weaken the crop of second basemen in the hall of fame? The answer is a resounding no. For example...Alomar's career OPS (slugging % + on-base %) of .814 ranks him dead square in the middle of the 18 second basemen in the hall of fame.
Edgar Martinez
Before I looked at Edgar's career I thought there was no way that he was a hall of famer. That just shows that perception is not always the best gauge in determining a hall of famer. Bottom line...I didn't realize how great of a ball player (but more specifically hitter) Edgar was in his career. From 1995 to 2001 (his peak years) Edgar's average stats over those seven seasons were--.329 (avg)/ 28 (home runs)/ 110 (RBI's)/ .445 (OBP)/ .574 (SLG). That's solid...hall of fame solid. Furthermore...using the OPS+ as a gauge Edgar had three good seasons (OPS+ between 125-149) and eight great seasons (of an OPS+ over 150). That is incredible. In fact Edgar's career OBS+ is 147-- which is tied with hall of famers--Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt and Willie Stargell and future hall of famers--Vladimir Guerrero and Alex Rodriguez. Those are legendary names...not just borderline hall of famers and future first ballot hall of famers.
Granted he was DH and that isn't going to help. Actually that is going to hurt him a lot. Additionally his career totals are pedestrian--2,200+ hits...309 home runs...1,261 RBI's. Those don't rank very high on the career lists. Although he was a late bloomer--he didn't play a full season until he was 27.
But did you know that before Edgar won his two batting titles that the last right hander to accomplish that feet in the AL (winning two batting titles) was guess who...Joe DiMaggio.
In essence Edgar has a lot working against him. He was a DH. His career didn't get started until he was 27 and his career numbers don't grab you. And he's Edgar Martinez...and let's be honest...if you aren't in Seattle...you just don't get worked up about Edgar. But I'm convinced that he should be a hall of famer. And I'll go on to say that (and this is assuming that he was clean) that he was the best "natural" all around hitter in the 1990's.
Fred McGriff
This man fell seven home runs short of 500 and it would have been more interesting if he would have gotten to 500 (because that--used to be--the magic number for inclusion). But even if he did...I'm just not convinced that he is a hall of famer. He was a good ball player for a number of years...even helped Maddux and the Braves to the 1995 World Series...but he just doesn't seem to cut it. He doesn't pass the eye test of what one would see as a hall of famer.
I don't know maybe his numbers look more real--again assuming that he was clean but he never finished in the top five in MVP voting. It seemed that he was never considered to be the best (or one of the best) first basemen in baseball when he was playing (There was Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Todd Helton, Mattingly, McGwire, Thome, Palmerio, Delgado, Giambi). Although he did put up some big numbers prior to the inflated era of the mid '90's and beyond. His best years were in the late '80's and early '90's. In fact when I apply the OPS+ test to his career he remarkably had 6 good years and 5 great years. That's pretty darn solid. But it just doesn't ever seem like he was an elite player. Maybe he's a victim of his position and era. There were a lot of good to great first basemen (although some were roided up) during his playing days and it seems that he didn't rise to the top.
I would say at this point that my vote now would be no...but I might need to do some more research.
So there you have it. I would vote without hesitating for Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez.
Sorry Crime Dog.
Barry Larkin
He's in and it shouldn't even be a debate. As everyone knows I dislike the Reds, always have--always will. But even I can recognize that Larkin is a hall of famer. Why I feel so strongly about this is that I feel that as a Midwesterner that Larkin is getting disrespected simply because he played in the Midwest--in Cincinnati. If he would have played in New York, Boston or LA there wouldn't be as much uncertainty with his resume. And speaking of that...his resume as a shortstop is pretty solid.
--12 time All-Star
--1995 MVP winner
--career stats .295 (batting avg.)/ .371 (OBP)/ .444 (SLG)
--7 good years (OPS+ over 125--25% better than the average player) 1 great year (OPS+ over 150--50% better than the average player)
Let's compare that to his NL peers. According to Jayson Stark's, The Stark Truth, during Larkin's career he routinely outperformed his contemporaries. For example his career OPS (on base plus slugging) was .815. The average OPS of a shortstop in Larkin's day was .678...that's a 20% gap.
Just for the sake of argument let's compare Larkin to Ripken (both were shortstops during roughly the same period).
Ripken's career hitting numbers break this way: .276 (avg)/ .340(OBP)/ .447(SLG) (pretty similar to Larkin's)
And when one considers that Larkin was a better fielder than Ripken then it's not a stretch to put Larkin in Ripken's class...and if that's the case...then he's a no-brainer hall of famer.
Roberto Alomar
He might not get a lot of love because of some behavioral issues (spitting on umpires will cause that) but there's no question that he was one of the best (and the best in the AL) second basemen of his era. There's just no question. He was a 12 time All-Star and his career batting splits are .300 (avg)/ .371 (OBP)/ .443 (SLG).--which are remarkable career splits for a second baseman.
What also could hurt him is that he didn't reach any big milestone (like 3,000 hits) or win an MVP award. But he does have two World Series rings and also ten Gold Gloves.
Another way of looking at it is this...does Alomar's induction weaken the hall of fame or weaken the crop of second basemen in the hall of fame? The answer is a resounding no. For example...Alomar's career OPS (slugging % + on-base %) of .814 ranks him dead square in the middle of the 18 second basemen in the hall of fame.
Edgar Martinez
Before I looked at Edgar's career I thought there was no way that he was a hall of famer. That just shows that perception is not always the best gauge in determining a hall of famer. Bottom line...I didn't realize how great of a ball player (but more specifically hitter) Edgar was in his career. From 1995 to 2001 (his peak years) Edgar's average stats over those seven seasons were--.329 (avg)/ 28 (home runs)/ 110 (RBI's)/ .445 (OBP)/ .574 (SLG). That's solid...hall of fame solid. Furthermore...using the OPS+ as a gauge Edgar had three good seasons (OPS+ between 125-149) and eight great seasons (of an OPS+ over 150). That is incredible. In fact Edgar's career OBS+ is 147-- which is tied with hall of famers--Willie McCovey, Mike Schmidt and Willie Stargell and future hall of famers--Vladimir Guerrero and Alex Rodriguez. Those are legendary names...not just borderline hall of famers and future first ballot hall of famers.
Granted he was DH and that isn't going to help. Actually that is going to hurt him a lot. Additionally his career totals are pedestrian--2,200+ hits...309 home runs...1,261 RBI's. Those don't rank very high on the career lists. Although he was a late bloomer--he didn't play a full season until he was 27.
But did you know that before Edgar won his two batting titles that the last right hander to accomplish that feet in the AL (winning two batting titles) was guess who...Joe DiMaggio.
In essence Edgar has a lot working against him. He was a DH. His career didn't get started until he was 27 and his career numbers don't grab you. And he's Edgar Martinez...and let's be honest...if you aren't in Seattle...you just don't get worked up about Edgar. But I'm convinced that he should be a hall of famer. And I'll go on to say that (and this is assuming that he was clean) that he was the best "natural" all around hitter in the 1990's.
Fred McGriff
This man fell seven home runs short of 500 and it would have been more interesting if he would have gotten to 500 (because that--used to be--the magic number for inclusion). But even if he did...I'm just not convinced that he is a hall of famer. He was a good ball player for a number of years...even helped Maddux and the Braves to the 1995 World Series...but he just doesn't seem to cut it. He doesn't pass the eye test of what one would see as a hall of famer.
I don't know maybe his numbers look more real--again assuming that he was clean but he never finished in the top five in MVP voting. It seemed that he was never considered to be the best (or one of the best) first basemen in baseball when he was playing (There was Frank Thomas, Jeff Bagwell, Todd Helton, Mattingly, McGwire, Thome, Palmerio, Delgado, Giambi). Although he did put up some big numbers prior to the inflated era of the mid '90's and beyond. His best years were in the late '80's and early '90's. In fact when I apply the OPS+ test to his career he remarkably had 6 good years and 5 great years. That's pretty darn solid. But it just doesn't ever seem like he was an elite player. Maybe he's a victim of his position and era. There were a lot of good to great first basemen (although some were roided up) during his playing days and it seems that he didn't rise to the top.
I would say at this point that my vote now would be no...but I might need to do some more research.
So there you have it. I would vote without hesitating for Barry Larkin, Roberto Alomar and Edgar Martinez.
Sorry Crime Dog.
Best Picture Talk II
The Oscars nominations will be announced tomorrow at 8:30 AM. I was originally planning a thorough examination of the contenders but I'm not sure if that is needed. Last month I predicted the following five films would garner a nomination--Milk, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Dark Knight. I'm making one change...I think The Wrestler is going to sneak in there and bump Frost/Nixon from the last spot. I'm not suggesting that one movie is more deserving than the other (especially since I haven't seen Frost/Nixon) but I just think the buzz is building for The Wrestler.
Here's my prediction...
Milk
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
The Dark Knight
The Wrestler
Additionally...I just have to say something about the history that occurred yesterday.
I had a strong feeling of pride and humbleness while watching the festivities on TV...and a I also had a strong feeling of hope that our country is back on the right track. More importantly I take it to heart the call for service that Obama spoke of. Those looking for a way to volunteer can visit The President's USA service website. It doesn't take volunteering for the Peace Corps (although that is admirable) to make a difference. One can still make a difference doing it locally--whether it's giving blood or volunteering at a school.
Here's my prediction...
Milk
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
The Dark Knight
The Wrestler
Additionally...I just have to say something about the history that occurred yesterday.
I had a strong feeling of pride and humbleness while watching the festivities on TV...and a I also had a strong feeling of hope that our country is back on the right track. More importantly I take it to heart the call for service that Obama spoke of. Those looking for a way to volunteer can visit The President's USA service website. It doesn't take volunteering for the Peace Corps (although that is admirable) to make a difference. One can still make a difference doing it locally--whether it's giving blood or volunteering at a school.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)