Let's see...Brad Pitt, The Cloon and John Malkovich in the newest film by the Coen Brothers.
Should be a winner.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
"Titani" and Tom Crooze
The MTV movie awards are sometime this weekend...but I'm not really concerned about that. But I did come across some pretty funny Ben Stiller-led parodies from past award shows.
Instand Replay
It's only a matter of time before major league baseball has instant replay in some form. Over the past couple of weeks the issue has gained a lot of momentum on the countless homerun calls botched by umpires. Allegledy they are going to try it out in some Independent Arizona league...so who knows when it will (or if it will) get to the majors. But I believe that it will happen at some point in time.
I would say that the idea of instant replay in baseball doesn't sit right with me. Ideally it shouldn't be needed and really hasn't been needed. I'm no baseball purist (I'm not even sure if that term really has a concrete meaning anymore) but the idea of instant replay...in some aspect...runs counter to the feeling of baseball.
But on the other hand I would not be opposed to instant replay for homerun calls. My main reason for this is that...you, the viewer at home...shouldn't no more than the umpires on the field. Of the past several botched homerun calls...you knew within thirty seconds that it was or wasn't a homerun. Whether a ball is a homerun or not is definitely more cut and dry than whether a runner is safe at first or if a certain pitch was a strike or not. That is why I would never be in favor of instant replay in other instances. The fear of MLB is that once you have instant replay for one thing...than it will only be a matter of time before you have it for something else.
I don't buy the argument that instant replay would (in disputed homerun calls) would slow the game down. Most of the time on those calls the umpires waste several minutes arguing with managers (normally from both teams). So I don't think it would slow down the game. Maybe just enlarge the umpiring crew to have a replay specialist that sits in the booth and the problem would be solved.
I'm guessing that umpires are resistant to this happening because in their view that it's some sort of indictment in that they can't do their job properly. But I don't really think it's that. The main reason that some of these calls are not getting called right is due to the kinks of most of these new "retro" designed fields (although two of the calls occurred at Yankee stadium). It's definitely made the umpire's job harder...thus more difficult. Instant replay would solve these problems.
In essence, I'm not a big fan of potentially having instant replay in baseball but I wouldn't be opposed to it with regard to homerun calls.
I would say that the idea of instant replay in baseball doesn't sit right with me. Ideally it shouldn't be needed and really hasn't been needed. I'm no baseball purist (I'm not even sure if that term really has a concrete meaning anymore) but the idea of instant replay...in some aspect...runs counter to the feeling of baseball.
But on the other hand I would not be opposed to instant replay for homerun calls. My main reason for this is that...you, the viewer at home...shouldn't no more than the umpires on the field. Of the past several botched homerun calls...you knew within thirty seconds that it was or wasn't a homerun. Whether a ball is a homerun or not is definitely more cut and dry than whether a runner is safe at first or if a certain pitch was a strike or not. That is why I would never be in favor of instant replay in other instances. The fear of MLB is that once you have instant replay for one thing...than it will only be a matter of time before you have it for something else.
I don't buy the argument that instant replay would (in disputed homerun calls) would slow the game down. Most of the time on those calls the umpires waste several minutes arguing with managers (normally from both teams). So I don't think it would slow down the game. Maybe just enlarge the umpiring crew to have a replay specialist that sits in the booth and the problem would be solved.
I'm guessing that umpires are resistant to this happening because in their view that it's some sort of indictment in that they can't do their job properly. But I don't really think it's that. The main reason that some of these calls are not getting called right is due to the kinks of most of these new "retro" designed fields (although two of the calls occurred at Yankee stadium). It's definitely made the umpire's job harder...thus more difficult. Instant replay would solve these problems.
In essence, I'm not a big fan of potentially having instant replay in baseball but I wouldn't be opposed to it with regard to homerun calls.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
"Step Brothers" movie trailer
Via joblo.com...a Red Band trailer to the Will Ferrell/ John C. Reilly comedic film.
No question about it...the movie's already better than Semi-Pro.
No question about it...the movie's already better than Semi-Pro.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
"Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" movie review
Nineteen years after The Last Crusade, Indiana Jones is finally back in movie houses across the country. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (PG-13) stars Harrison Ford reprising the classic title role. This time Indy is in South America searching for a crystal skull that was sacred to an ancient race of people. The year is 1957, so communists have replaced Nazis as the bad guys. Cate Blanchett, Karen Allen, and Shia LaBeouf costar. Steven Spielberg directs.
Ryan: It's been a long wait and Indiana Jones is back, and while not (quite) better than ever, still pretty darn good. There's something special about seeing Indiana Jones on the big screen and that in and of itself makes for an enjoyable movie going experience. While the movie is more Temple of Doom than Raiders or Last Crusade it still delivers the excitement and captures the essence of the Indiana Jones mythos. Resurrecting a cinematic icon like Indiana Jones after a nineteen-year wait is a tough challenge. But Spielberg and company have delivered--maybe not the slam dunk that most people were looking for--but--a more than suitable (closing ?) chapter to the Indiana Jones narrative.
Andy: The best compliment that can be paid to this film is that it feels like an Indiana Jones movie. Unlike the reborn Star Wars movies of the past decade, Crytal Skull fits in with the other Indiana Jones movies pretty well. It recaptures the spirit of the first three movies, nailing the campy action that made those 80s movies so special. It does not seem quite as magical as the others, but much of that may have to do with the special way in which the original movies aged. This film is not without flaws, but it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t fit into the Indiana Jones tradition nicely.
Ryan: One of the biggest questions surrounding the movie was Harrison Ford's age (65) and how that would effect a seemingly age-less hero. By the end of Ford's first scene that question is easily put to bed. Harrison Ford is not the star that he once was but for this movie he delivers a crowd-pleasing performance. Also delivering a noteworthy performance is Ford's sidekick, LaBeouf. I was about ready to say that I'm not sure what it is about LaBeouf that makes him so enjoyable to see on screen but it's really quite simple. He's just a really gifted actor.
Andy: It seemed like Ford’s age was the main topic of discussion leading up to the release of this film. Make no mistake, this is an old Indiana Jones, but he didn’t seem as old as I expected him to. Maybe the fights are a little slower, and the jumping and diving seems a little creakier, but Indiana Jones was always about attitude, and that hasn’t changed. The dry, everyman one liners tossed in around the action sequences are still there, and there is no question that it is still Indiana Jones. As for the next generation of action stars in the movie, I don’t think there could have been a better choice than Shia LaBeouf. He has already shown great versatility and magnetism, and there is no reason to believe he won’t be a silver screen mainstay for decades to come.
Ryan: While Crystal Skulls explodes with the kind of the action and swashbuckling adventure that audiences want from an Indiana Jones movie, there's no question that the biggest obstacle for most moviegoers will be to accept (or not) the film's plot dealing with the mythology of the crystal skulls. I did accept it mainly because it parallels the film's period (the 1950's) and it continues the theme of there being a supernatural element to the artifact that Indy is after. But on-the-other-hand I can see how a supposed alien (or not) element to the story might not sit will with a lot of Indy fans. Depending on how much one accepts that or not will go a long way in determining whether one likes or dislikes the movie.
Andy: Without spoiling any aspects of the film’s conclusion, I will say that I was initially skeptical about the conclusion of the movie (like most of Spielberg’s work over the last twenty years). It just gets a little out of control. But thinking back to the Nazi’s faces melting at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I realized that the ends of all of the Indiana Jones movies are a bit ridiculous, and this just falls in line with those. I still feel like it is one of the weaker points of the film, but not enough to spoil the overall effect of the movie.
Indiana Jones’s return to theatres is ultimately a triumphant romp through the jungle, well worth seeing for any fans of the franchise. Final grade: B+.
Ryan: It's been a long wait and Indiana Jones is back, and while not (quite) better than ever, still pretty darn good. There's something special about seeing Indiana Jones on the big screen and that in and of itself makes for an enjoyable movie going experience. While the movie is more Temple of Doom than Raiders or Last Crusade it still delivers the excitement and captures the essence of the Indiana Jones mythos. Resurrecting a cinematic icon like Indiana Jones after a nineteen-year wait is a tough challenge. But Spielberg and company have delivered--maybe not the slam dunk that most people were looking for--but--a more than suitable (closing ?) chapter to the Indiana Jones narrative.
Andy: The best compliment that can be paid to this film is that it feels like an Indiana Jones movie. Unlike the reborn Star Wars movies of the past decade, Crytal Skull fits in with the other Indiana Jones movies pretty well. It recaptures the spirit of the first three movies, nailing the campy action that made those 80s movies so special. It does not seem quite as magical as the others, but much of that may have to do with the special way in which the original movies aged. This film is not without flaws, but it’s hard to argue that it doesn’t fit into the Indiana Jones tradition nicely.
Ryan: One of the biggest questions surrounding the movie was Harrison Ford's age (65) and how that would effect a seemingly age-less hero. By the end of Ford's first scene that question is easily put to bed. Harrison Ford is not the star that he once was but for this movie he delivers a crowd-pleasing performance. Also delivering a noteworthy performance is Ford's sidekick, LaBeouf. I was about ready to say that I'm not sure what it is about LaBeouf that makes him so enjoyable to see on screen but it's really quite simple. He's just a really gifted actor.
Andy: It seemed like Ford’s age was the main topic of discussion leading up to the release of this film. Make no mistake, this is an old Indiana Jones, but he didn’t seem as old as I expected him to. Maybe the fights are a little slower, and the jumping and diving seems a little creakier, but Indiana Jones was always about attitude, and that hasn’t changed. The dry, everyman one liners tossed in around the action sequences are still there, and there is no question that it is still Indiana Jones. As for the next generation of action stars in the movie, I don’t think there could have been a better choice than Shia LaBeouf. He has already shown great versatility and magnetism, and there is no reason to believe he won’t be a silver screen mainstay for decades to come.
Ryan: While Crystal Skulls explodes with the kind of the action and swashbuckling adventure that audiences want from an Indiana Jones movie, there's no question that the biggest obstacle for most moviegoers will be to accept (or not) the film's plot dealing with the mythology of the crystal skulls. I did accept it mainly because it parallels the film's period (the 1950's) and it continues the theme of there being a supernatural element to the artifact that Indy is after. But on-the-other-hand I can see how a supposed alien (or not) element to the story might not sit will with a lot of Indy fans. Depending on how much one accepts that or not will go a long way in determining whether one likes or dislikes the movie.
Andy: Without spoiling any aspects of the film’s conclusion, I will say that I was initially skeptical about the conclusion of the movie (like most of Spielberg’s work over the last twenty years). It just gets a little out of control. But thinking back to the Nazi’s faces melting at the end of Raiders of the Lost Ark, I realized that the ends of all of the Indiana Jones movies are a bit ridiculous, and this just falls in line with those. I still feel like it is one of the weaker points of the film, but not enough to spoil the overall effect of the movie.
Indiana Jones’s return to theatres is ultimately a triumphant romp through the jungle, well worth seeing for any fans of the franchise. Final grade: B+.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
2008 Presidential Election
I've went ahead and forecasted the November 2008 Presidential Election. Not sure why I felt the need to do this but oh well.
I'm assuming Obama is the democratic nominee. Never smart to make assumptions in politics but at this point he should be the nominee (winning delegates is what it's about). The way I look at it..if Obama does not indeed become the nominee than something screwy happened and I don't even want to think about something like that happening.
I'm theorizing that it's going to be another close election (as of May 24, 2008). This is frustrating but just the reality. I don't think the electorate is as divided as in the past...especially four years ago but the prolonged democratic primary...I think...has hurt Obama in as much as it's going to be quite a challenge to bridge the schism in the democratic party.
With that said...I believe McCain has these states in hand (based on the past several presidential elections)...Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and West Virginia.
I think Obama has these states...California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and Hawaii.
Current electorate count...McCain 174...Obama 187 (270 is needed to win)
These following states will be battleground states. I've put the 2004 winner in parenthesis. Nevada (Bush), Colorado (Bush), New Mexico (Bush), Iowa (Bush), Minnesota (Kerry), Wisconsin (Kerry), Michigan (Kerry), Ohio (Bush), Pennsylvania (Kerry), Virginia (Bush), Florida (Bush), Georgia (Bush), Missouri (Bush), New Hampshire (Kerry).
In states that Bush carried, I believe that McCain will end up winning Nevada, Colorado and Ohio.
In states that Kerry won, I believe that Obama will win Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
I do believe that Obama can change red states into blue states. I think he will win New Mexico (the Bill Richardson effect), Iowa and Virginia.
Unfortunately McCain will end up carrying Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (they really like him there).
If that all happens than the current count is McCain 233 and Obama 249.
In my estimation it's going to come down to Florida, Georgia and Missouri. Florida has 27 electorates, Georgia has 15 and Missouri has 11.
Basically Obama will win the nomination if he wins all three of those states...but probably more realistic he would either have to carry just Florida or both Georgia and Missouri.
Regrettably, Bush carried all three of those states in 2004 so Obama will have his work cut out for him...but he's more than capable of getting it done.
In the end I see him winning Missouri and Georgia (but losing Florida) for a final tally of Obama--275 to McCain's 260.
Yes We Can!....but it's going to be close.
I'm assuming Obama is the democratic nominee. Never smart to make assumptions in politics but at this point he should be the nominee (winning delegates is what it's about). The way I look at it..if Obama does not indeed become the nominee than something screwy happened and I don't even want to think about something like that happening.
I'm theorizing that it's going to be another close election (as of May 24, 2008). This is frustrating but just the reality. I don't think the electorate is as divided as in the past...especially four years ago but the prolonged democratic primary...I think...has hurt Obama in as much as it's going to be quite a challenge to bridge the schism in the democratic party.
With that said...I believe McCain has these states in hand (based on the past several presidential elections)...Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Alaska, Mississippi, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina and West Virginia.
I think Obama has these states...California, Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Vermont, Maine and Hawaii.
Current electorate count...McCain 174...Obama 187 (270 is needed to win)
These following states will be battleground states. I've put the 2004 winner in parenthesis. Nevada (Bush), Colorado (Bush), New Mexico (Bush), Iowa (Bush), Minnesota (Kerry), Wisconsin (Kerry), Michigan (Kerry), Ohio (Bush), Pennsylvania (Kerry), Virginia (Bush), Florida (Bush), Georgia (Bush), Missouri (Bush), New Hampshire (Kerry).
In states that Bush carried, I believe that McCain will end up winning Nevada, Colorado and Ohio.
In states that Kerry won, I believe that Obama will win Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan.
I do believe that Obama can change red states into blue states. I think he will win New Mexico (the Bill Richardson effect), Iowa and Virginia.
Unfortunately McCain will end up carrying Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (they really like him there).
If that all happens than the current count is McCain 233 and Obama 249.
In my estimation it's going to come down to Florida, Georgia and Missouri. Florida has 27 electorates, Georgia has 15 and Missouri has 11.
Basically Obama will win the nomination if he wins all three of those states...but probably more realistic he would either have to carry just Florida or both Georgia and Missouri.
Regrettably, Bush carried all three of those states in 2004 so Obama will have his work cut out for him...but he's more than capable of getting it done.
In the end I see him winning Missouri and Georgia (but losing Florida) for a final tally of Obama--275 to McCain's 260.
Yes We Can!....but it's going to be close.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)