2006/PG-13/Drama
Another "based on actual events" movie that somehow misses the lesson that ought to have been learned by the main character. Chris Gardner is struggling to make ends meet selling a medical device into which he invested his family's life savings. His wife is stressed as she works two shifts to earn the bulk of their income and still care for their son. Chris decides to try to get a job as a stock broker. Of course, that means starting out with a non-paying internship.
As this movie dragged on it became less of a drama and more of a mellow drama. It was as though we were watching the beginning of Job unfold before us. His wife leaves, he can't pay his rent, he misses major appointments, he losses key pieces of equipment, the IRS takes all of his money, he gets evicted, etc, etc, etc. Not only did it get tiring, but it became depressing.
I understand that this film was designed to be a rags to riches story. I understand that it was through perseverance and wit that this man rose from the wreckage of his life. I kind of even like the message that this movie puts forth about how anyone can be successful if you actually try and don't make excuses for why you can't do it.
However, what irks me about this movie is that the way he obtained his success was through irresponsibility. His wife was working double shifts while he was ogling corvettes. She was missing work to pick up their son while he was struggling to sell what turned out to be a terrible investment.
Not only that, but the entire movie is about the pursuit of happiness. His wife pursues it by leaving. His son's pursuit is by being with his dad. His pursuit of happiness seems to be the pursuit of money. If it were for stability, he could have gotten a paying job during the week and tried to sell his contraptions on the weekends (which he does while interning and going without pay). If it's love, he has the love of his son, and he could have worked to keep the love of his wife.
In the end, all of the things that he did: not taking a real job, not working to save his marriage, not ensuring that his son had a stable place to live, not being responsible enough to keep his car; they were acceptable because he made it. I was willing to give the filmmakers the benefit of the doubt until the final "epilogue" was written on the screen. It left no doubt, the emphasis of the movie was on the money.
I think the most difficult part about this movie is that Will Smith and his son Jayden put forth fantastic performances. Their frustration, struggle, and moments of love and levity are so true and real that we experience those events right along side of them. If the movie were more poorly acted, it might have been easier to watch.
I knew what the movie was about and yet it still depressed me. The acting was good, the message and emotional after taste was terrible. From here on out I shall refer to this movie as "The Pursuit of Crappyness":
0.5 out of 5 stars.
Friday, May 02, 2008
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Review: 21
2008/PG-13/Drama
21 is the exciting story of six MIT students who live the life many of us wish we could experience: They lead common and, to most, mundane lives during the week, and on the weekends they fly off to Vegas where they fleece the casinos for hundreds of thousands of dollars by playing Blackjack. How do they do it? Their brilliant MIT professor has a practically fool-proof way of counting cards. While this is not illegal, it is very discouraged in Vegas. So much so that if you are caught, you might be counting your teeth at the end of the night to see how many you still have.
While it sounds like something only a seasoned screenwriter could concoct, this film is based on real life. I saw the documentary a few years ago and the movie is surprisingly true to the actual events. Of course, they took some dramatic liberties in an effort to make the conclusion more exciting and, unfortunately, more "American."
You see, we seem to have trouble ingesting a story where the hero doesn't end up on top in the end. And because of that, 21 becomes yet another time when Hollywood falls short of actually saying something meaningful.
We can trace theater's roots back to ancient Greece where the art form was even more part of the culture than movies are today. Theater for the Greeks was an avenue to self-betterment, it was the ancient "self help" section. Their heroes had some tragic flaw that nearly always lead to their demise (hence "Greek Tragedy"). The audience was expected to recognize the flaw and purge it from themselves. Theater was a type of catharsis.
Several times in the past few years, Hollywood has had golden opportunities to follow in the footsteps of their Greek forefathers. And every time they have succumbed to the whims of the "movies-are-only-for-entertainment" Americans and ignored the lesson that ought to be learned from the very story they have told.
The main character's greed drives him to the point where he loses everything. Truth be told, up until the final 2 minutes of the film, I thought that the makers of 21 were finally going to allow their viewers to fully experience a Greek Tragedy. What looked like certain success was going to end in complete failure because of his greed. But no, they wave a little magic wand and rescue him causing him to end the movie rich and me to leave the theater disappointed, yet again.
The technical side of the movie was very good. All of the performances were enjoyable with one notable exception (Aaron Yoo was unnecessary and never made his character very compelling). You can never go wrong with Kevin Spacey who plays the very intense "I'm-your-friend-until-you-screw-up" MIT professor. Jim Sturgess morphs well between the weekday book worm and the weekend high roller. And you can't cast any better villain than Laurence Fishburne. Especially if it's a villain you want people to eventually like. Even the dramatic liberties were well thought out, with the exception of the very end of the film.
Just like The Perfect Storm, 21 forgoes making society better in favor of watering down the ending of their picture.
The ending was so disappointing that even though the rest of the movie was enjoyable, it still only warrants:
2 out of 5 stars
21 is the exciting story of six MIT students who live the life many of us wish we could experience: They lead common and, to most, mundane lives during the week, and on the weekends they fly off to Vegas where they fleece the casinos for hundreds of thousands of dollars by playing Blackjack. How do they do it? Their brilliant MIT professor has a practically fool-proof way of counting cards. While this is not illegal, it is very discouraged in Vegas. So much so that if you are caught, you might be counting your teeth at the end of the night to see how many you still have.
While it sounds like something only a seasoned screenwriter could concoct, this film is based on real life. I saw the documentary a few years ago and the movie is surprisingly true to the actual events. Of course, they took some dramatic liberties in an effort to make the conclusion more exciting and, unfortunately, more "American."
You see, we seem to have trouble ingesting a story where the hero doesn't end up on top in the end. And because of that, 21 becomes yet another time when Hollywood falls short of actually saying something meaningful.
We can trace theater's roots back to ancient Greece where the art form was even more part of the culture than movies are today. Theater for the Greeks was an avenue to self-betterment, it was the ancient "self help" section. Their heroes had some tragic flaw that nearly always lead to their demise (hence "Greek Tragedy"). The audience was expected to recognize the flaw and purge it from themselves. Theater was a type of catharsis.
Several times in the past few years, Hollywood has had golden opportunities to follow in the footsteps of their Greek forefathers. And every time they have succumbed to the whims of the "movies-are-only-for-entertainment" Americans and ignored the lesson that ought to be learned from the very story they have told.
The main character's greed drives him to the point where he loses everything. Truth be told, up until the final 2 minutes of the film, I thought that the makers of 21 were finally going to allow their viewers to fully experience a Greek Tragedy. What looked like certain success was going to end in complete failure because of his greed. But no, they wave a little magic wand and rescue him causing him to end the movie rich and me to leave the theater disappointed, yet again.
The technical side of the movie was very good. All of the performances were enjoyable with one notable exception (Aaron Yoo was unnecessary and never made his character very compelling). You can never go wrong with Kevin Spacey who plays the very intense "I'm-your-friend-until-you-screw-up" MIT professor. Jim Sturgess morphs well between the weekday book worm and the weekend high roller. And you can't cast any better villain than Laurence Fishburne. Especially if it's a villain you want people to eventually like. Even the dramatic liberties were well thought out, with the exception of the very end of the film.
Just like The Perfect Storm, 21 forgoes making society better in favor of watering down the ending of their picture.
The ending was so disappointing that even though the rest of the movie was enjoyable, it still only warrants:
2 out of 5 stars
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
A New Curse Reversed?
When I first heard that a construction worker had buried a Red Sox jersey in the concrete beneath the visitors locker room in the new Yankee Stadium, I thought it was a hoax. However, yesterday I saw footage of two workers jackhammering into the floor so that they might remove the jersey. The story was true. It appeared that an attempted "curse" was avoided. (Why the construction worker who planted the jersey blabbed, I'll never know. It would have been so much more interesting as an "Urban Legend" 5 years from now when the Yankees were wallowing in a perpetual 2nd place.)
In an unrelated story, David Ortiz has been mired in a terrible batting slump. Until yesterday he had gone 1 for his last 29 at bats and his average for the season was .070 (3 for 43)! Well below the Mendoza line.
But wait, are these two stories unrelated? When the jersey that had be exhumed from the floor of Yankee Stadium was displayed for the myriad of news cameras it turned out to be #34 David Ortiz. What happened the day after his jersey was freed from it's concrete prison? David Ortiz goes 2 for 5 and increases his batting average by 50%!
I think the construction worker ended up cursing the wrong party! I guess Hank was right when he said "it's never good to be in concrete in New York!" I'm thrilled that the Yankees did the dirty work in removing David's jersey so that he can be back on track for another MVP caliber season! Go Sox!
In an unrelated story, David Ortiz has been mired in a terrible batting slump. Until yesterday he had gone 1 for his last 29 at bats and his average for the season was .070 (3 for 43)! Well below the Mendoza line.
But wait, are these two stories unrelated? When the jersey that had be exhumed from the floor of Yankee Stadium was displayed for the myriad of news cameras it turned out to be #34 David Ortiz. What happened the day after his jersey was freed from it's concrete prison? David Ortiz goes 2 for 5 and increases his batting average by 50%!
I think the construction worker ended up cursing the wrong party! I guess Hank was right when he said "it's never good to be in concrete in New York!" I'm thrilled that the Yankees did the dirty work in removing David's jersey so that he can be back on track for another MVP caliber season! Go Sox!
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Touchy Subjects?
Inevitably, when some time has passed between posts, the one that finally breaks the silence has a few different topics on which I'd like to comment. In order to encourage my readers to finish, I think I'll arrange the subjects from least controversial to most.
The Olympics I'm having difficulty finding words that express how annoyed and saddened I am at the conduct of the protesters in regards to the Olympic Torch. I understand their anger at China. I get their desire to see change in Tibet. I can't even begin to comprehend what they are hoping to accomplish as they attack the torch bearer. Here is an athlete, usually from their home country, whose life accomplishments are being honored with the privilege of being selected to carry the Olympic Torch (A symbol of peace, sportsmanship, and international camaraderie) for a few miles and these hooligans are threatening the runner and trying to extinguish the torch. I'd say that the actions of the protesters warrant the dousing of the Olympic Torch. These people are in no way displaying a desire for peace, sportsmanship or international camaraderie. Basically, they are attacking their neighbor in the hopes of attracting the attention of the king. Foolish, pointless, ignorant.
Virginia Tech The state of Virginia has settled for $11 million with most of the families of those hurt or killed during the VT shooting. The settlement was designed to prevent a court battle aimed at determining "if anyone other than the shooter was to blame" for the tragedy of that day. Yes, the families are hurting but is the blame game going to ease that pain? The settlement (thankfully) isn't even $11 million per family, that's a total amount. Is the money going to soothe the wounds? What good does it do for the courts to decide that the school was partially responsible? Or the state? What about your loved one who took no action in the room while the shooter reloaded? If we are going to extend blame to the farthest reaches, let's be thorough. Let's have blame fall on the students who poked fun at him, to his parents who raised him wrong, the government that doesn't allow prayer in schools, the gun maker who manufactured the weapon, the desk maker whose product didn't stop the bullets, where does it end? The agreement is for a lump sum to the families of those who were killed and a promise to pay for all medical expenses for those who were injured. Some of the families have not agreed to the settlement and may still sue. Apparently a cut of $11 million isn't enough. Makes me sick.
What Liberal Media People who claim that there isn't a liberal bias in the news media like to point to Rupert Murdoch as their coup d'état. Apparently, Mr. Murdoch is known to be a staunch conservative and controls many of the parent companies who control what we hear, see, and read when it comes to the news. I thought I'd take a brief moment to list some of the projects that Mr. Murdoch (or his companies) have been involved in the the past few years:
Borat
Boy's Don't Cry
The Day After Tomorrow
Dirt
Family Guy
Fast Food Nation
Fern Gully
In Living Color
Kinsley
Kissing Jessica Stein
Married with Children
Nip/Tuck
Once Upon A Forest
The Shield
The Simpsons
and Thirteen
Looks to me like the only "right" Mr. Murdoch cares about is the "right" to make money. If his principles are so strong as to slant the news to the right, why would he allow these left leaning programs to be produced by his puppets? Just wondering.
The Olympics I'm having difficulty finding words that express how annoyed and saddened I am at the conduct of the protesters in regards to the Olympic Torch. I understand their anger at China. I get their desire to see change in Tibet. I can't even begin to comprehend what they are hoping to accomplish as they attack the torch bearer. Here is an athlete, usually from their home country, whose life accomplishments are being honored with the privilege of being selected to carry the Olympic Torch (A symbol of peace, sportsmanship, and international camaraderie) for a few miles and these hooligans are threatening the runner and trying to extinguish the torch. I'd say that the actions of the protesters warrant the dousing of the Olympic Torch. These people are in no way displaying a desire for peace, sportsmanship or international camaraderie. Basically, they are attacking their neighbor in the hopes of attracting the attention of the king. Foolish, pointless, ignorant.
Virginia Tech The state of Virginia has settled for $11 million with most of the families of those hurt or killed during the VT shooting. The settlement was designed to prevent a court battle aimed at determining "if anyone other than the shooter was to blame" for the tragedy of that day. Yes, the families are hurting but is the blame game going to ease that pain? The settlement (thankfully) isn't even $11 million per family, that's a total amount. Is the money going to soothe the wounds? What good does it do for the courts to decide that the school was partially responsible? Or the state? What about your loved one who took no action in the room while the shooter reloaded? If we are going to extend blame to the farthest reaches, let's be thorough. Let's have blame fall on the students who poked fun at him, to his parents who raised him wrong, the government that doesn't allow prayer in schools, the gun maker who manufactured the weapon, the desk maker whose product didn't stop the bullets, where does it end? The agreement is for a lump sum to the families of those who were killed and a promise to pay for all medical expenses for those who were injured. Some of the families have not agreed to the settlement and may still sue. Apparently a cut of $11 million isn't enough. Makes me sick.
What Liberal Media People who claim that there isn't a liberal bias in the news media like to point to Rupert Murdoch as their coup d'état. Apparently, Mr. Murdoch is known to be a staunch conservative and controls many of the parent companies who control what we hear, see, and read when it comes to the news. I thought I'd take a brief moment to list some of the projects that Mr. Murdoch (or his companies) have been involved in the the past few years:
Borat
Boy's Don't Cry
The Day After Tomorrow
Dirt
Family Guy
Fast Food Nation
Fern Gully
In Living Color
Kinsley
Kissing Jessica Stein
Married with Children
Nip/Tuck
Once Upon A Forest
The Shield
The Simpsons
and Thirteen
Looks to me like the only "right" Mr. Murdoch cares about is the "right" to make money. If his principles are so strong as to slant the news to the right, why would he allow these left leaning programs to be produced by his puppets? Just wondering.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Review: Stardust
2007/PG-13/Fantasy
A momentous occation! Here is the first of (hopefully) many reviews that have been requested by you, my faithful (and not so faithful) readers!
Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The story was engaging and the twists on the "who-will-be-king" story were inventive, particularly the outcome for those that failed in their quest for the crown. It did have the advantage of being based on a book/graphic novel, but the story held up well even in the whittled-down, two-hour version.
Even though his Pre-Potter parallel worlds story borrowed from several movies that preceded it, it did so in a fashion that was more praise than plagerism. The most notable homage was to the classic Princess Bride. The captive who falls in love with her captor, the antaganist desires the girl's death, and the reluctant pirate. Another movie that was painfully parroted in regards to the main message of the film was The 5th Element. Yvaine (Claire Danes), a fallen star, mentions how watching Earth with all of it's hate, wars, and mistreatment, would be unbearable if not for love. This is the same arguement that the 5th Element gives for saving the planet.
The "all-star" supporting cast (Danes, DeNiro, Pheiffer, McKellen, Everett, and O'Toole) allowed them to make an amazing casting choice with the male lead, Tristan. They went with relative unknown Charlie Cox who put forth a great performance. With apparent ease he convinced us he was an ambitious yet socially awkward "Shopboy" in England, (Note: Claire Danes starred in Shopgirl), an out of place lovestruck explorer in the land of Stormhold, and a seasoned couragous man by the end of the film. It was an amazing, yet fully believable transformation that audiences never saw coming.
Unlike most fantasy movies, this picture's story was multi-layered and compelling. A starry-eyed young lover on a quest to retrieve a fallen star to prove his love, two brothers warring to obtain a kingdom-promising gemstone, an ancient witch hoping to be young again, and a long lost mother searching for her son. Throw in some pirates, mix with a touch of magic, splash in some intellegent humor and you have Stardust. The moment that set this movie apart for me was near the end as Yvaine is walking towards the wall and there were four different parties racing to beat her there, all with a different intention.
I do have a few critisisms of the film. The ending was inexplicable for me and seemed to be a bit of a "easy-way-out." I don't understand how Lamia was defeated by the Yvaine's actions (That's me trying really hard not to give too much away). Also, the ending of the movie provided no hope that the kings children wouldn't revert to the actions of his uncles. (there was a deleted scene that spoke to this concern, but did so in a way that needed to be removed from the movie. It should have been rethought rather than just removed). And the Titanic (note: so bad that it doesn't deserve a link) reference on the pirate ship shall be overlooked, forgotten, and ignored.
All in all, this movie should become a modern classic enlisting a following only slightly smaller than that of Princess Bride or Lord of the Rings.
4.5 out of 5 stars
A momentous occation! Here is the first of (hopefully) many reviews that have been requested by you, my faithful (and not so faithful) readers!
Let me start off by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed this film. The story was engaging and the twists on the "who-will-be-king" story were inventive, particularly the outcome for those that failed in their quest for the crown. It did have the advantage of being based on a book/graphic novel, but the story held up well even in the whittled-down, two-hour version.
Even though his Pre-Potter parallel worlds story borrowed from several movies that preceded it, it did so in a fashion that was more praise than plagerism. The most notable homage was to the classic Princess Bride. The captive who falls in love with her captor, the antaganist desires the girl's death, and the reluctant pirate. Another movie that was painfully parroted in regards to the main message of the film was The 5th Element. Yvaine (Claire Danes), a fallen star, mentions how watching Earth with all of it's hate, wars, and mistreatment, would be unbearable if not for love. This is the same arguement that the 5th Element gives for saving the planet.
The "all-star" supporting cast (Danes, DeNiro, Pheiffer, McKellen, Everett, and O'Toole) allowed them to make an amazing casting choice with the male lead, Tristan. They went with relative unknown Charlie Cox who put forth a great performance. With apparent ease he convinced us he was an ambitious yet socially awkward "Shopboy" in England, (Note: Claire Danes starred in Shopgirl), an out of place lovestruck explorer in the land of Stormhold, and a seasoned couragous man by the end of the film. It was an amazing, yet fully believable transformation that audiences never saw coming.
Unlike most fantasy movies, this picture's story was multi-layered and compelling. A starry-eyed young lover on a quest to retrieve a fallen star to prove his love, two brothers warring to obtain a kingdom-promising gemstone, an ancient witch hoping to be young again, and a long lost mother searching for her son. Throw in some pirates, mix with a touch of magic, splash in some intellegent humor and you have Stardust. The moment that set this movie apart for me was near the end as Yvaine is walking towards the wall and there were four different parties racing to beat her there, all with a different intention.
I do have a few critisisms of the film. The ending was inexplicable for me and seemed to be a bit of a "easy-way-out." I don't understand how Lamia was defeated by the Yvaine's actions (That's me trying really hard not to give too much away). Also, the ending of the movie provided no hope that the kings children wouldn't revert to the actions of his uncles. (there was a deleted scene that spoke to this concern, but did so in a way that needed to be removed from the movie. It should have been rethought rather than just removed). And the Titanic (note: so bad that it doesn't deserve a link) reference on the pirate ship shall be overlooked, forgotten, and ignored.
All in all, this movie should become a modern classic enlisting a following only slightly smaller than that of Princess Bride or Lord of the Rings.
4.5 out of 5 stars
Thursday, April 03, 2008
What Did You Say?
There have been a few things said in the past few days that I thought deserved comment.
Hillary Clinton: "Rocky and I have a lot in common" Rocky, huh? Well, I have to assume that Senator Clinton was referring to Rocky's perseverance and never-quit attitude. Do we remember Rocky? Let me refresh some memories: The main character is a washed up has been who is trying to win against all odds. He risks everything at a shot at the big time. There are those that would say he didn't know when to quit. He uses unconventional tactics proposed by his trainer and despite his tenaciousness, he still loses to the black guy. Hmm, are you sure you're like Rocky? (I could also have mentioned the "Sniper Fire" comment, but this one is much more fun!)
Barack Obama: "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby" Gosh, I have one punishment already and one on the way. Come to think of it, Barack already has two! (Some liberals have attempted to spin this by saying that he wasn't referring to the baby, rather to the unwanted pregnancy. So is the baby different in a wanted vs an unwanted pregnancy? Is there something in the DNA of an unwanted child that makes it soulless? Less human? Disposable? Whether he meant the baby or the pregnancy, it's the same thing.) Can you believe the calloused disregard this man has for human life? An unwanted child is not only a choice, oh no, now it's a punishment! The child isn't even a natural consequence. It's an 18 year "timeout", a lifetime grounding, a cosmic spanking. Is a baby now on par with an STD? How can someone who has an absence of respect for life to this extent run a country? Doesn't his party purport to support the weakest, poorest, and least fortunate among us? Who fits that profile more than an unwanted unborn child? I'm sorry, unwanted punishment...
The NFL (What's a JMO Post with out a little sports?) "For the 08-09 Season, the NFL is doing away with the "Force Out" rule." What's the "Force Out" rule? Here is what the NFL rule book currently states: "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. " Next year, this will not be the case. If the receiver is pushed out or carried out, too bad: Incomplete pass. Typically, the NFL changes rules to increase scoring. This change will do just the opposite. There is at least an average of one touchdown per week awarded due to the force out rule. That's 16 fewer touchdowns and countless drives ended due to this rule. Especially late in the game were the sideline becomes your best friend. Now, he's a turncoat. I expect to see this rule return to it's rightful status for the NFL's 09-10 season. There will be too many complaints by QBs and WRs who lose yards, completions, stats, TDs and even games because the NFL doesn't trust their officials.
(On a side note: While I was searching for links to the direct quotes of the candidates, I had to look no further than the first 3 suggestions on Google to find Hillary's quote. However, even when I input the full quote, I had to search to page 5 on Google before I found a respectible news source that listed this gaffe. Granted, Hillary did her Rocky thing on April 1st, and Obama's statement was March 29th. There's no Obama love or liberal bias in the media though...)
Well, that's what I have to say!
Hillary Clinton: "Rocky and I have a lot in common" Rocky, huh? Well, I have to assume that Senator Clinton was referring to Rocky's perseverance and never-quit attitude. Do we remember Rocky? Let me refresh some memories: The main character is a washed up has been who is trying to win against all odds. He risks everything at a shot at the big time. There are those that would say he didn't know when to quit. He uses unconventional tactics proposed by his trainer and despite his tenaciousness, he still loses to the black guy. Hmm, are you sure you're like Rocky? (I could also have mentioned the "Sniper Fire" comment, but this one is much more fun!)
Barack Obama: "Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby" Gosh, I have one punishment already and one on the way. Come to think of it, Barack already has two! (Some liberals have attempted to spin this by saying that he wasn't referring to the baby, rather to the unwanted pregnancy. So is the baby different in a wanted vs an unwanted pregnancy? Is there something in the DNA of an unwanted child that makes it soulless? Less human? Disposable? Whether he meant the baby or the pregnancy, it's the same thing.) Can you believe the calloused disregard this man has for human life? An unwanted child is not only a choice, oh no, now it's a punishment! The child isn't even a natural consequence. It's an 18 year "timeout", a lifetime grounding, a cosmic spanking. Is a baby now on par with an STD? How can someone who has an absence of respect for life to this extent run a country? Doesn't his party purport to support the weakest, poorest, and least fortunate among us? Who fits that profile more than an unwanted unborn child? I'm sorry, unwanted punishment...
The NFL (What's a JMO Post with out a little sports?) "For the 08-09 Season, the NFL is doing away with the "Force Out" rule." What's the "Force Out" rule? Here is what the NFL rule book currently states: "A forward pass is complete when a receiver clearly possesses the pass and touches the ground with both feet inbounds while in possession of the ball. If a receiver would have landed inbounds with both feet but is carried or pushed out of bounds while maintaining possession of the ball, pass is complete at the out-of-bounds spot. " Next year, this will not be the case. If the receiver is pushed out or carried out, too bad: Incomplete pass. Typically, the NFL changes rules to increase scoring. This change will do just the opposite. There is at least an average of one touchdown per week awarded due to the force out rule. That's 16 fewer touchdowns and countless drives ended due to this rule. Especially late in the game were the sideline becomes your best friend. Now, he's a turncoat. I expect to see this rule return to it's rightful status for the NFL's 09-10 season. There will be too many complaints by QBs and WRs who lose yards, completions, stats, TDs and even games because the NFL doesn't trust their officials.
(On a side note: While I was searching for links to the direct quotes of the candidates, I had to look no further than the first 3 suggestions on Google to find Hillary's quote. However, even when I input the full quote, I had to search to page 5 on Google before I found a respectible news source that listed this gaffe. Granted, Hillary did her Rocky thing on April 1st, and Obama's statement was March 29th. There's no Obama love or liberal bias in the media though...)
Well, that's what I have to say!
Monday, March 31, 2008
Review: The Queen
2006/PG-13/Drama
This movie supposedly chronicles the reactions and emotions that were present in the British government (specifically inside the Prime Minister's office and behind the Royal Family's closed doors) immediately following Princess Diana's death in 1997.
Had I known the plot synopsis prior to ordering this movie, I probably wouldn't have requested it. I, for one, never really understood the Diana worship that permeated both the US and the UK. And, while her death was tragic, it was the "love" of the public that encouraged the paparazzi to hound her which lead directly to her death.
My biggest difficulty with a film such as this as the viewer can be tempted to believe that what they are seeing is exactly what happened. This is the same complaint I have with movies like The Perfect Storm. We simply don't know what happened in the inner chambers of the palace. What we know is what they did and said publicly, the rest is speculation.
Having said that, I didn't particularly believe much of what was portrayed. Prince Charles was a wishy-washy momma's boy who was afraid to express his opinion and supposedly loved Diana very much. He basically spent the whole movie talking about what a great mother she was to her children. Way to be one-dimensional. As I mentioned in my Oscar's post, there is a new equation regarding what gets a little gold statue. While the Queen was a very layered character and mimicked to near perfection, her veiled dislike of the Princess (that translated into a dislike of her subjects who were mourning her passing) that was disguised in the utmost concern for her grandsons was difficult to believe.
The story began very slow. Once the conflict between the Prime Minister, the Queen, and the tabloids was fully established it proved to be too simple to carry the whole movie. The performances of Helen Mirren (Queen Elizabeth) and Michael Sheen (Tony Blair) definitely carried this character driven drama, but were not strong enough to overcome the lack of story.
The Princes were noticeably absent and the Prince Philip was noticeably obnoxious. Overall, the movie had some interesting things to say regarding the disconnect between a Monarch and her subjects, the Monarchy and it's government, and the mindsets of the Royal Family and the modern day governed. This film raises the question "Can a Monarchy survive in the twenty-first century?" and leaves it up to the audience to answer.
2 out of 5 stars
This movie supposedly chronicles the reactions and emotions that were present in the British government (specifically inside the Prime Minister's office and behind the Royal Family's closed doors) immediately following Princess Diana's death in 1997.
Had I known the plot synopsis prior to ordering this movie, I probably wouldn't have requested it. I, for one, never really understood the Diana worship that permeated both the US and the UK. And, while her death was tragic, it was the "love" of the public that encouraged the paparazzi to hound her which lead directly to her death.
My biggest difficulty with a film such as this as the viewer can be tempted to believe that what they are seeing is exactly what happened. This is the same complaint I have with movies like The Perfect Storm. We simply don't know what happened in the inner chambers of the palace. What we know is what they did and said publicly, the rest is speculation.
Having said that, I didn't particularly believe much of what was portrayed. Prince Charles was a wishy-washy momma's boy who was afraid to express his opinion and supposedly loved Diana very much. He basically spent the whole movie talking about what a great mother she was to her children. Way to be one-dimensional. As I mentioned in my Oscar's post, there is a new equation regarding what gets a little gold statue. While the Queen was a very layered character and mimicked to near perfection, her veiled dislike of the Princess (that translated into a dislike of her subjects who were mourning her passing) that was disguised in the utmost concern for her grandsons was difficult to believe.
The story began very slow. Once the conflict between the Prime Minister, the Queen, and the tabloids was fully established it proved to be too simple to carry the whole movie. The performances of Helen Mirren (Queen Elizabeth) and Michael Sheen (Tony Blair) definitely carried this character driven drama, but were not strong enough to overcome the lack of story.
The Princes were noticeably absent and the Prince Philip was noticeably obnoxious. Overall, the movie had some interesting things to say regarding the disconnect between a Monarch and her subjects, the Monarchy and it's government, and the mindsets of the Royal Family and the modern day governed. This film raises the question "Can a Monarchy survive in the twenty-first century?" and leaves it up to the audience to answer.
2 out of 5 stars
Friday, March 28, 2008
Sports Briefs
No, not athlete's underwear, short comments regarding the wide world of sports from your favorite blogger! (Actually, I'm writing them... but close enough)
Baseball: Bye Bye Barry! The San Francisco Giants are removing any and all references to their "beloved" "home run king" for the start of this season. His image is being removed from the left field wall (they can now bring the wall back to its original size, they had to make it larger to fit Barry's noggin on it), there are no references to "#756" (the home run that "broke" Hank Aaron's intact record), and the #25 (Bond's jersey) is not being displayed anywhere in the park. The team plans to put a plaque where home run 756 landed in the stands. I guess the team has figured they've milked the Bondimonium as much as they dare, what, with his perjury charges pending, and all.
Football: Speaking of Giants Each year, the winner of the Super Bowl opens the following season with a game to test their strength to see if they are the same team they were just six months earlier. Indianapolis faced off against New Orleans, the team that lost in the NFC Championship game to the Bears. When New England won, their first game was against arch rival Indianapolis. New England also had to face Pittsburgh to start a season following a Super Bowl victory. Tampa Bay played Philadelphia, the team that represented the NFC in the big game that year. Who have the football executives decided the New York Giants should face? Which of the NFL's Powerhouse teams must they square off against? Division rival and best-record-in-the-NFC Cowboys? Nope. AFC runner up Chargers? Wrong. Ok, how about NFC runner up: the Favre-less Packers? No. Ready? The dreaded 9-7 Washington Redskins! Third place in their division! At least they managed to steal a playoff spot from the Vikings who couldn't buy a win at the end of the season. The best part about it... the Giants will still lose.
NCAA Basketball: The Final Four (C) Yet another cultural colloquialism that is becoming more of an epitaph. It looks like the terms "March Madness" and "Final Four" have been copyrighted! Just like Super Bowl, Fenway Park, and "You're Fired" (though The Don failed at his bid to copyright the last one) if these terms are to be used in advertising or marketing of any kind, money must change hands. The Bracket that I filled out this year said "Hoops Hysteria" and another website said "Tourney Time." In fact, I have a jar next to my computer for every time I type Super Bowl, Final Four, or March Madness. Whoops, there goes another $75! Right now I'm in first place with the bracket competition at my former place of employment. However, as I foolishly chose Georgetown to win it all and Pitt to be in the Final Four, I think the best I can do is 3rd. (I did get all four of last nights games right, though.) My best shot at winning is for Wisconsin to beat UNC to go to the finals, play a UCLA team that beat Michigan State to get there, and for Wisconsin to win it all. Go Badgers!
Baseball: Bye Bye Barry! The San Francisco Giants are removing any and all references to their "beloved" "home run king" for the start of this season. His image is being removed from the left field wall (they can now bring the wall back to its original size, they had to make it larger to fit Barry's noggin on it), there are no references to "#756" (the home run that "broke" Hank Aaron's intact record), and the #25 (Bond's jersey) is not being displayed anywhere in the park. The team plans to put a plaque where home run 756 landed in the stands. I guess the team has figured they've milked the Bondimonium as much as they dare, what, with his perjury charges pending, and all.
Football: Speaking of Giants Each year, the winner of the Super Bowl opens the following season with a game to test their strength to see if they are the same team they were just six months earlier. Indianapolis faced off against New Orleans, the team that lost in the NFC Championship game to the Bears. When New England won, their first game was against arch rival Indianapolis. New England also had to face Pittsburgh to start a season following a Super Bowl victory. Tampa Bay played Philadelphia, the team that represented the NFC in the big game that year. Who have the football executives decided the New York Giants should face? Which of the NFL's Powerhouse teams must they square off against? Division rival and best-record-in-the-NFC Cowboys? Nope. AFC runner up Chargers? Wrong. Ok, how about NFC runner up: the Favre-less Packers? No. Ready? The dreaded 9-7 Washington Redskins! Third place in their division! At least they managed to steal a playoff spot from the Vikings who couldn't buy a win at the end of the season. The best part about it... the Giants will still lose.
NCAA Basketball: The Final Four (C) Yet another cultural colloquialism that is becoming more of an epitaph. It looks like the terms "March Madness" and "Final Four" have been copyrighted! Just like Super Bowl, Fenway Park, and "You're Fired" (though The Don failed at his bid to copyright the last one) if these terms are to be used in advertising or marketing of any kind, money must change hands. The Bracket that I filled out this year said "Hoops Hysteria" and another website said "Tourney Time." In fact, I have a jar next to my computer for every time I type Super Bowl, Final Four, or March Madness. Whoops, there goes another $75! Right now I'm in first place with the bracket competition at my former place of employment. However, as I foolishly chose Georgetown to win it all and Pitt to be in the Final Four, I think the best I can do is 3rd. (I did get all four of last nights games right, though.) My best shot at winning is for Wisconsin to beat UNC to go to the finals, play a UCLA team that beat Michigan State to get there, and for Wisconsin to win it all. Go Badgers!
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Religion in Culture?
There have been a few stories that have cropped up in the news recently where religion has permeated the culture and those who follow the religion have made requests for companies and institutions to alter their policies to suit their belief system.
There have been two instances of note, both regarding female Muslims. The more widely reported situation is regarding the workout facility on Harvard's campus that is providing women-only gym times. They've honored a request from a Muslim student group so that the Muslim women can wear clothing that is more appropriate for working out and not feel uncomfortable due to the apparent immodesty of wearing workout clothes around men.
The second, and lesser known, complaint comes out of Britain. Female Muslim doctors are objecting to a more rigorous hand-washing standard. The new requirement is that they wash their hands and arms up to their elbows to prevent the spread of dangerous bacteria. Their view is that this is forcing them to be immodest because they should not be displaying their arms above their wrists. Some women at Birmingham University have said they would change careers rather than comply.
I have two different types of responses to these situations: Specific and broad.
Specific
In regards to the women-only gym time at Harvard, my initial response is to disagree. Even though it's only one gym that has instituted these hours, and even though the times are when the gym is least used, I still don't agree with the decision. It's sexist and there are other solutions. If the women as so concerned with modesty then buy a New Jersey jogging suit and work out with your head covering. Don't like working out with men? Join Curves. If a Christian group was uncomfortable working out with homosexuals, would the gym bend to their wishes? What if a "fat-guy" group wanted a non-women/non-athletic male workout time, would it be granted? What if a Muslim group requested a non-Jewish workout time, where does it end? Truthfully, this isn't really about religious freedom. If your religion requires certain actions that would forbid certain activities, don't try to get the activities changed so you can participate in them. If I'm a devote Catholic and I don't believe in eating meat on Friday, I'm not going to ask them to move the hot dog eating contest to Saturday and I'm not going to ask them to change it to a carrot eating contest. It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs.
The issue in Britain is even worse. Ok, so the guys can workout in another gym or at another time, but these doctors are potentially putting their patients at risk because they don't want to expose their arms. Maybe they should have some women-only arm washing times. However, I fully respect those who have said that they would change professions rather than comply with the regulation. That is the correct course of action. If my work forced me to work Sunday morning, I'd find different work.
Broad
Now, having said all of that, here's the flip side: As a Christian, don't I make similar requests on my culture? Do I really believe that "It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs." I vote Pro-Life, I support films that encourage family values and redemption, I patron establishments that are family friendly. Perhaps the difference is that my actions are all within the bounds of our current culture. I'm not asking culture to change. Rather, I'm changing myself to be counter-cultural (Something we're often encouraging our youth to do. It's no coincidence that our youth group is called "NonCon4mers"). Is it not more radical to for go some of life's "luxuries" because they conflict with your religion than to attempt to force the "luxuries" to cater to your religious convictions? Didn't Chariots of Fire teach us anything?
Well, there's my opinion, what's yours?
There have been two instances of note, both regarding female Muslims. The more widely reported situation is regarding the workout facility on Harvard's campus that is providing women-only gym times. They've honored a request from a Muslim student group so that the Muslim women can wear clothing that is more appropriate for working out and not feel uncomfortable due to the apparent immodesty of wearing workout clothes around men.
The second, and lesser known, complaint comes out of Britain. Female Muslim doctors are objecting to a more rigorous hand-washing standard. The new requirement is that they wash their hands and arms up to their elbows to prevent the spread of dangerous bacteria. Their view is that this is forcing them to be immodest because they should not be displaying their arms above their wrists. Some women at Birmingham University have said they would change careers rather than comply.
I have two different types of responses to these situations: Specific and broad.
Specific
In regards to the women-only gym time at Harvard, my initial response is to disagree. Even though it's only one gym that has instituted these hours, and even though the times are when the gym is least used, I still don't agree with the decision. It's sexist and there are other solutions. If the women as so concerned with modesty then buy a New Jersey jogging suit and work out with your head covering. Don't like working out with men? Join Curves. If a Christian group was uncomfortable working out with homosexuals, would the gym bend to their wishes? What if a "fat-guy" group wanted a non-women/non-athletic male workout time, would it be granted? What if a Muslim group requested a non-Jewish workout time, where does it end? Truthfully, this isn't really about religious freedom. If your religion requires certain actions that would forbid certain activities, don't try to get the activities changed so you can participate in them. If I'm a devote Catholic and I don't believe in eating meat on Friday, I'm not going to ask them to move the hot dog eating contest to Saturday and I'm not going to ask them to change it to a carrot eating contest. It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs.
The issue in Britain is even worse. Ok, so the guys can workout in another gym or at another time, but these doctors are potentially putting their patients at risk because they don't want to expose their arms. Maybe they should have some women-only arm washing times. However, I fully respect those who have said that they would change professions rather than comply with the regulation. That is the correct course of action. If my work forced me to work Sunday morning, I'd find different work.
Broad
Now, having said all of that, here's the flip side: As a Christian, don't I make similar requests on my culture? Do I really believe that "It's not other's responsibility to cater to my religious beliefs." I vote Pro-Life, I support films that encourage family values and redemption, I patron establishments that are family friendly. Perhaps the difference is that my actions are all within the bounds of our current culture. I'm not asking culture to change. Rather, I'm changing myself to be counter-cultural (Something we're often encouraging our youth to do. It's no coincidence that our youth group is called "NonCon4mers"). Is it not more radical to for go some of life's "luxuries" because they conflict with your religion than to attempt to force the "luxuries" to cater to your religious convictions? Didn't Chariots of Fire teach us anything?
Well, there's my opinion, what's yours?
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Beijing Boycott
Boycotting the Olympic Games has been a favorite way for countries to express their displeasure with the host nation. The US boycotted the Munich and Moscow games and Communist countries boycotted the LA Olympics in 1984 in retaliation.
Now a cry arises for all countries who believe in human rights to boycott the 2008 Beijing Games. This is due to the escalating violence in Tibet as those who are protesting for their freedom are being mistreated.
Why is an Olympic boycott seen as the solution? Truthfully, I can think of few actions that would be more unfair and less effective than an Olympic boycott. Here are amateur athletes who dedicate four years of their lives training, preparing, and dreaming for a chance to compete against the rest of the world on the biggest stage and their government decides that they can't go because they have a political beef with the host country.
Why not let the athletes decide? If they feel strongly about the situation, they can boycott individually. A better idea might be to find a way to display your feelings during the games. Remember Tommy Smith and John Carlos? The 1968 Olympians who silently lifted their black-gloved fists as a display of solidarity for the civil rights movement? What good would it have done them to have boycotted? How much louder would the athletes who find themselves on the medal podium be holding a "Free Tibet" sign, or displaying the "Free Tibet" emblem, than not competeing at all? I can't think of a better way to show the Chinese government and the world how you feel about the situation in Tibet. "Out of sight out of mind" if we boycott; "Front and center" if we don't.
Thankfully, the United States and the EU have agreed to attend. France showed some of their true colors by saying that it was an economic decision on their part. While that may be true for the other countries, at least they are trying to make it sound like the decision is on behalf of the athletes.
It's the right call. Don't punish the athletes to make a political point. China is punishing Tibet's citizens to make a point, isn't that exactly what we would be trying to stop if we did boycott? There you have it: Just my opinion.
(On a final, mostly off the subject, note: what if Saddam's final act was one of selflessness? Think about it: He kicks out the UN inspectors knowing that the US would invade. If they invade they'd have to rebuild the country. Reports are coming out that the Iraqi economy is much worse than we originally thought. Did Saddam sacrifice himself to trick the US into rebuilding his country? I doubt it, but it's fun to consider.)
Now a cry arises for all countries who believe in human rights to boycott the 2008 Beijing Games. This is due to the escalating violence in Tibet as those who are protesting for their freedom are being mistreated.
Why is an Olympic boycott seen as the solution? Truthfully, I can think of few actions that would be more unfair and less effective than an Olympic boycott. Here are amateur athletes who dedicate four years of their lives training, preparing, and dreaming for a chance to compete against the rest of the world on the biggest stage and their government decides that they can't go because they have a political beef with the host country.
Why not let the athletes decide? If they feel strongly about the situation, they can boycott individually. A better idea might be to find a way to display your feelings during the games. Remember Tommy Smith and John Carlos? The 1968 Olympians who silently lifted their black-gloved fists as a display of solidarity for the civil rights movement? What good would it have done them to have boycotted? How much louder would the athletes who find themselves on the medal podium be holding a "Free Tibet" sign, or displaying the "Free Tibet" emblem, than not competeing at all? I can't think of a better way to show the Chinese government and the world how you feel about the situation in Tibet. "Out of sight out of mind" if we boycott; "Front and center" if we don't.Thankfully, the United States and the EU have agreed to attend. France showed some of their true colors by saying that it was an economic decision on their part. While that may be true for the other countries, at least they are trying to make it sound like the decision is on behalf of the athletes.
It's the right call. Don't punish the athletes to make a political point. China is punishing Tibet's citizens to make a point, isn't that exactly what we would be trying to stop if we did boycott? There you have it: Just my opinion.
(On a final, mostly off the subject, note: what if Saddam's final act was one of selflessness? Think about it: He kicks out the UN inspectors knowing that the US would invade. If they invade they'd have to rebuild the country. Reports are coming out that the Iraqi economy is much worse than we originally thought. Did Saddam sacrifice himself to trick the US into rebuilding his country? I doubt it, but it's fun to consider.)
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
2008's 1st baseball post
Baseball is almost in full swing (get it? "full swing?") and already many things are shaping the coming season. Beckett's back, Dice-K's debuting, Crisp could become a Cub...
But the biggest story is one that many of us may have missed. We don't often pay attention to which agents are representing which players. However, when the agent's name is Scott Boras, we sit up and take notice. Yes, one of Boston's fan favorites has switched agents. Manny Ramirez is now under the secretive umbrella of the Boras Bastion (Battalion?).
Why does this matter? Boras is viewed by players as the best agent in the game and viewed by owners as the most annoying to deal with. Which means that Boras equals Bad news for fans. If you think that baseball players make way too much money and that free agents are bought for much more than market value, you have Scott Boras to thank for much of that.
Most agents will inform the teams interested in a certain player what the going rate is. Not Scott, he makes sure that the GMs who want his players are completely in the dark about what other teams are offering. It's against the rules MLB for GMs to communicate regarding such things. Let us suppose both the Angels and the Astros both want Boras' free agent star pitcher. The Angels really want him, so they offer a higher than market value 4 year $20 million deal. Now, if the Astros knew this they could offer 5 years at $22.5 million. It's a longer contract, but less per year. Now the player has a difficult decision. However, because Scott doesn't let the Astros know what's already on the table, if they really want the pitcher they might offer 5 years $30 million because they feel they can't risk someone under bidding them. Sometimes, Scott has been known to swing a high price for a player that only has one team interested, because they just don't know who else might be making a play.
Good business? Yeah, for the player and his agent. For the fan? No. Scott thrives because there is no salary cap in baseball. (And don't try to tell me the luxury tax is prohibitive. If teams want to spend for a player, they'll pay the tax.) This is why teams with superstars that are on their second or third contracts have to charge $60 for bleacher seats, $35 to park, $9 for a beer, and $6.50 for a hotdog. We, as fans, pay the prices that Scott manages to negotiate for his players. We pay his 10%. We are the victims of his "good business."
Not only that, but he acts as a trainer for his players. Even has even been known to go so far as to request that a pitchers regular pitch count be lowered. No doubt, so that when he hits the free agent market, he isn't out there as damaged goods.
How can one man have so much power? Here are just a few of Scott's clients (and what they made as of opening day 2007 in millions of dollars):
A-Rod...................28
Manny Ramirez........17
Barry Bonds.............15
Carlos Beltran..........14
J D Drew................14
Andruw Jones..........14
Adrian Beltre...........13
Johnny Damon.........13
Magglio Ordonez.......13
Carlos Lee..............12
Pudge Rodriguez.......11
Jason Varitek...........11
Derek Lowe.............10
Greg Maddux...........10
Kevin Millwood.........10
Barry Zito...............10
Mark Teixeira..........9
Kenny Rogers...........8
Jarod Wasburn.........8
Jeff Weaver.............8
Daisuke Matsuzaka.....7
Eric Gagne...............6
Matt Holiday.............4
Xavier Nady..............2
Scott has 2 of the 4 highest paid players in the game. He controls 5 of the top 20 and 11 of the top 50.
Scott Boras is probably the most powerful man in baseball. If you want a superstar, chances are very good you'll need to go through him. And with Manny joining the ranks, they just got a little better.
And baseball just got a little worse.
Here is a very good, fairly unbiased article on Mr. Boras
But the biggest story is one that many of us may have missed. We don't often pay attention to which agents are representing which players. However, when the agent's name is Scott Boras, we sit up and take notice. Yes, one of Boston's fan favorites has switched agents. Manny Ramirez is now under the secretive umbrella of the Boras Bastion (Battalion?).
Why does this matter? Boras is viewed by players as the best agent in the game and viewed by owners as the most annoying to deal with. Which means that Boras equals Bad news for fans. If you think that baseball players make way too much money and that free agents are bought for much more than market value, you have Scott Boras to thank for much of that.
Most agents will inform the teams interested in a certain player what the going rate is. Not Scott, he makes sure that the GMs who want his players are completely in the dark about what other teams are offering. It's against the rules MLB for GMs to communicate regarding such things. Let us suppose both the Angels and the Astros both want Boras' free agent star pitcher. The Angels really want him, so they offer a higher than market value 4 year $20 million deal. Now, if the Astros knew this they could offer 5 years at $22.5 million. It's a longer contract, but less per year. Now the player has a difficult decision. However, because Scott doesn't let the Astros know what's already on the table, if they really want the pitcher they might offer 5 years $30 million because they feel they can't risk someone under bidding them. Sometimes, Scott has been known to swing a high price for a player that only has one team interested, because they just don't know who else might be making a play.
Good business? Yeah, for the player and his agent. For the fan? No. Scott thrives because there is no salary cap in baseball. (And don't try to tell me the luxury tax is prohibitive. If teams want to spend for a player, they'll pay the tax.) This is why teams with superstars that are on their second or third contracts have to charge $60 for bleacher seats, $35 to park, $9 for a beer, and $6.50 for a hotdog. We, as fans, pay the prices that Scott manages to negotiate for his players. We pay his 10%. We are the victims of his "good business."
Not only that, but he acts as a trainer for his players. Even has even been known to go so far as to request that a pitchers regular pitch count be lowered. No doubt, so that when he hits the free agent market, he isn't out there as damaged goods.
How can one man have so much power? Here are just a few of Scott's clients (and what they made as of opening day 2007 in millions of dollars):
A-Rod...................28
Manny Ramirez........17
Barry Bonds.............15
Carlos Beltran..........14
J D Drew................14
Andruw Jones..........14
Adrian Beltre...........13
Johnny Damon.........13
Magglio Ordonez.......13
Carlos Lee..............12
Pudge Rodriguez.......11
Jason Varitek...........11
Derek Lowe.............10
Greg Maddux...........10
Kevin Millwood.........10
Barry Zito...............10
Mark Teixeira..........9
Kenny Rogers...........8
Jarod Wasburn.........8
Jeff Weaver.............8
Daisuke Matsuzaka.....7
Eric Gagne...............6
Matt Holiday.............4
Xavier Nady..............2
Scott has 2 of the 4 highest paid players in the game. He controls 5 of the top 20 and 11 of the top 50.
Scott Boras is probably the most powerful man in baseball. If you want a superstar, chances are very good you'll need to go through him. And with Manny joining the ranks, they just got a little better.
And baseball just got a little worse.
Here is a very good, fairly unbiased article on Mr. Boras
Review: Shattered Glass
2003/PG-13/Drama
The true story of the boy who cried wolf, to the extreme. Shattered Glass tells the story of Steven Glass, a young New Republic "journalist" who fabricated at least part of (if not all of) 27 out of 41 articles that he wrote.
This film is remarkably compelling for a picture where 90% of the action takes place in the office for the magazine. Truth be told, it boarders on thriller as we watch the main character slowly drown in his own lies.
A modern Greek tragedy, we see the flaw in the character, we see how it destroyed his life (to a point) and hopefully remove it from our own. Not only that, but it allows us to have a brief glimpse into the mind of a pathological liar. We feel the betrayal of being lied to; We feel the disgust over the repetition of it; And yet, we sense the panic, we feel the walls closing in, and we get it. We understand Steven for a brief, disturbing moment.
The performances in this piece are fantastic (with one notable exception) which, with a movie that is nearly entirely interior, is completely necessary. Peter Sarsgaard won many well-deserved film festival awards for his work. Hank Azaria shows his range with a great non-comedic effort. Chloe Sevigny is both believable and empathetic as a heavily duped co-worker. Even Steve Zahn managed to create a non-zanny, realistic headhunter out for blood, but in a strangely likable way. Hayden Christensen, once again, manages to destroy a great role. Half hearted emotion and tired revisions of the same facial expressions harken back to the destruction of Anakin Skywalker. What Hayden needs to do is lose his quirky annoying manner of speaking. Oh yes, and take some acting lessons.
Another requirement of a character driven film is the music. Too big and the movie is trying to be something it's not; too small and it becomes too documentary-esque. This film got it just right.
The cinematography was astonishing considering the confines and repetition of the sets and all this proves a great debut for director Billy Ray. Amazingly, it avoids the feel of the two-headed monster, biggest first-director flaw "written and directed by." I've probably allowed him to slip by this distinction due to the brilliance, poignancy, and vision of the last few shots of the movie. To say more would remove the need for any readers to view the movie. However, while Billy Ray was able to prevent this movie from feeling like a "W&DB," it still could have been better if he'd handed his baby off to another director.
As this story was experienced by reporters, it is very well documented and much of the screenplay is verbatim from recorded conversations, notes from reporters, and articles from the time of the narrative.
Something is holding this movie back from being a great film. It could be the simplicity of the story-line, the phenomenally poor performance by the title character, or perhaps some intangible "W&DB" flaws that lie just below the surface. Whatever the reason, this film (while compelling, interesting, and true) only warrants:
3.5 out of 5 stars.
The true story of the boy who cried wolf, to the extreme. Shattered Glass tells the story of Steven Glass, a young New Republic "journalist" who fabricated at least part of (if not all of) 27 out of 41 articles that he wrote.
This film is remarkably compelling for a picture where 90% of the action takes place in the office for the magazine. Truth be told, it boarders on thriller as we watch the main character slowly drown in his own lies.
A modern Greek tragedy, we see the flaw in the character, we see how it destroyed his life (to a point) and hopefully remove it from our own. Not only that, but it allows us to have a brief glimpse into the mind of a pathological liar. We feel the betrayal of being lied to; We feel the disgust over the repetition of it; And yet, we sense the panic, we feel the walls closing in, and we get it. We understand Steven for a brief, disturbing moment.
The performances in this piece are fantastic (with one notable exception) which, with a movie that is nearly entirely interior, is completely necessary. Peter Sarsgaard won many well-deserved film festival awards for his work. Hank Azaria shows his range with a great non-comedic effort. Chloe Sevigny is both believable and empathetic as a heavily duped co-worker. Even Steve Zahn managed to create a non-zanny, realistic headhunter out for blood, but in a strangely likable way. Hayden Christensen, once again, manages to destroy a great role. Half hearted emotion and tired revisions of the same facial expressions harken back to the destruction of Anakin Skywalker. What Hayden needs to do is lose his quirky annoying manner of speaking. Oh yes, and take some acting lessons.
Another requirement of a character driven film is the music. Too big and the movie is trying to be something it's not; too small and it becomes too documentary-esque. This film got it just right.
The cinematography was astonishing considering the confines and repetition of the sets and all this proves a great debut for director Billy Ray. Amazingly, it avoids the feel of the two-headed monster, biggest first-director flaw "written and directed by." I've probably allowed him to slip by this distinction due to the brilliance, poignancy, and vision of the last few shots of the movie. To say more would remove the need for any readers to view the movie. However, while Billy Ray was able to prevent this movie from feeling like a "W&DB," it still could have been better if he'd handed his baby off to another director.
As this story was experienced by reporters, it is very well documented and much of the screenplay is verbatim from recorded conversations, notes from reporters, and articles from the time of the narrative.
Something is holding this movie back from being a great film. It could be the simplicity of the story-line, the phenomenally poor performance by the title character, or perhaps some intangible "W&DB" flaws that lie just below the surface. Whatever the reason, this film (while compelling, interesting, and true) only warrants:
3.5 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Review: Shopgirl
2005/R/Romance
The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.
Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.
Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?
The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.
To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.
Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.
2 out of 5 stars.
The Q of H once suggested for one of our long car rides that it might be fun to listen to a book on tape [or rather CD... look, I'm dating myself (which is a rather funny phrase by itself... I digress)]. Shopgirl was one of the books that we listened to and I was interested to see how the somewhat compelling story would translate onto film. The verdict? Not well.
Steve Martin wrote both the book and the screenplay, which means that the movie was very loyal to the story in the novella. However, because the book needed to be whittled down to fit in the confines of film, the motion picture was lacking when compared to the book.
Not fair to compare the movie to the book? Ok, I'll take the movie at face value. The question that kept ringing in my ears as I watching this movie was: Why tell this story? A lonely, twentysomething, girl from VT in LA searching for love, finally finding something that resembles it in the person of a 50 year old man, only to learn that it never was love. She has, on one hand, boy of her own age who is inept and broke; and on the other, a wealthy, divorced, older man who showers her with attention and gifts. She falls in love with the older man and eventually realizes that he doesn't, and never did, love her. During the course of their romance, the young man has become just that: a young man. He returns and they fall in love. Again... why was this story told?
The last line of the movie is regarding the older suitor and how he thought it strange that he felt a loss when she left him; especially seeing as he had done his best to keep her at arms distance. Reflecting on how he treated her the omniscient narrator states: "Only then does he realize that wanting part of her and not all of her had hurt them both and how he cannot justify his actions except that... well... it was life." It was life? Pphhhpht. That's almost as much of a cop-out as the incoherent whisper at the end of Lost in Translation. As though it was ok because it was life.
To go back to being unfair, the book has them remaining friends and assuming more of a father/daughter or uncle/niece relationship, something both of them lacked. The movie was unable to include this. Also, there was a secondary character who was devious and disliked in the book that Mr Martin tried to squeeze into the movie. The problem was that, while in the novella she definitely affected the plot, in the movie she was pointless and looked like an excuse to have a girl in lingerie.
Overall the movie was well shot and acted. There were some lines that even Steve Martin couldn't make work even though he wrote them. I wouldn't suggest cancelling anything to see this picture, but it isn't terrible either.
2 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Review: This Film Is Not Yet Rated
2006/Not rated (though would be NC-17 if it were)/Documentary
This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.
It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.
I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.
Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.
He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.
There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!
All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.
My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.
1 out of 5 stars.
This film was marketed as a documentary that took a look at the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) secretive rating system. It was supposed to be an expose, unveiling favoritism and inconsistency in the ratings given by the MPAA.
It was actually a whiny attack by a man who basically wants to see more sex in movies (allow more people under 18 to view it) and attempted to undermine the MPAA by slapping an undue "censor" moniker upon it.
I had just watched the G-rated "Chicken Little." This movie was, at that the very least, PG and had no business being viewed by "all audiences." This is what I was thinking when I read that Kirby Dick (Director) felt that there was favoritism in the rating system. Does Disney get a G rating because they asked for it while "The Simpson's Movie" gets stuck with a PG-13? Does one director get special treatment over another? These were the types of secrets I was hoping to discover.
Alas, what I got was an embittered man with an axe to grind upset that some movies receive the NC-17 rating while others get an R. His complaint was that it's primarily Indy films that get the NC-17, while studio pics get the R. Is this really a worthy discussion? Truth be told, I agreed with him in a round-about sort of way. One of his arguments was that sexually explicit movies get the NC-17 but really violent movies don't. His solution was to stop rating the quasi-porns as NC-17. Mine is to properly rate the violent movies.
He did have some good points regarding the rating system. Why is it so secretive? Why aren't there some common guidelines? Why is it, in the appeals process, you can't reference another picture that got a different rating but had similar or worse footage? Like him, I have no answer for these questions and think that they deserve a second look.
There was one part where he contradicted himself and lost nearly all of his credibility with me: He was partially campaigning for a set of standards and rules that filmmakers could follow so they could have a better idea of the rating they would receive. But at the same time, he was complaining about when the MPAA first started their regulations (this was before there was a rating system, they simply had hard and fast rules to which the studios had to adhere). So, on the one hand he wanted guidelines, and on the other when they existed, according to him, they were bad. I think he's forgotten that the time when the regulations were in place is referred to as the Golden Age of Hollywood because they put out so many great movies!
All in all, his contention that the MPAA rating system is censorship was completely baseless. Not only is it a voluntary rating but it's now en vogue to have the "unrated" version (which only means the MPAA raters didn't see the footage, it doesn't mean it's NC-17 material.) He managed to learn the identities of all of the "super secret" raters and the people who do the appeals process and they still weren't able to censor his movie.
My final thoughts: Don't bother wasting your time on this movie. I'm a little sorry that I did, but at least I can save some from making the same mistake.
1 out of 5 stars.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Oscar Reactions
Why do I still care? Supposedly, my life aspirations no longer include holding up the golden idol named after a former winner's uncle. I no longer want to answer the question "who are you wearing" (truth be told, when I admitted to wanting to be at least an Oscar nominee, I didn't want to answer that question then either...) So, why do I still care? I don't know, but I do...
What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.
I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.
But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.
One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.
I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?
Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.
What annoys me slightly more is that I have lost my Oscar ballot. I know that I got 15 correct, missing on some majors and hitting on some lucky guesses. I hit on the first 5 before I started missing on some of the latter categories.
I'm most upset because I timed the amount of time wasted by having the presenters walk to the podium after being introduced. I had documented the amount of time that we spent watching people walk. And it didn't even include the time taken for the winners to get from their seats to the stage! I was amazed at how much time could have been cut.
But alas, I have lost my ballot. I've lost my notes, my thoughts, my victories and my losses. I suppose this post was basically unnecessary, but I told everyone that it was coming.
One thing I've noticed as the Oscars mature, is that my old equation (white actor plays crazy/retarded actor = wins Oscar) has been replaced! There is a new equation in town and I think it's batting 1.000 since it's appearance a few years ago. It is (any actor portrays living or recently passed real person (still in the collective cultural conscience) = wins Oscar. Best actress this year (Vie en Rose), last year (The Queen), supporting actress (Reese Witherspoon as Johnny Cash's wife), Jamie Foxx (Ray), Phoenix was nominated for Walk the Line, Blanchet was nominated for Elizabeth. Peter's Entertainment was visionary when they tried to get Will Smith an Oscar for his portrayal of Ali, but they were a few years too early.
I'll conclude with the following thoughts: This Oscar had what will go down as a most memorable all time moment: After the commercial they had the girl who won the award for best original song for Once come back out so she could say her piece, and it wasn't a litany of thank yous. She actually had something intelligent to say. Juno was the over-hyped movie of the year. And how could I have picked against Daniel Day Lewis?
Oh well, maybe I won't care as much next year. hopefully.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Let's Talk Film
This is quite the momentous announcement! Our good friends in Japan have given us a fantastic Annibirthmas gift: A year of Netflix!
Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.
Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."
This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"
Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!
(Seriously, I am so excited!)
Now that we have unlimited access to all the movies we could ever want to see there will be far more movie reviews appearing on this blog.
Here's where you come in: I've often had people say to me, "Hey, what did you think of this movie?" Or "Oh, there was a movie I was hoping you'd seen so we could discuss it, but now I forgot what it was!" And even the occasional, "Could you explain this movie to me..."
This post will be a permanent link for you to recommend movies to us. Movies that you think that we will enjoy. Movies you want to hear my thoughts on. Movies that made you go "huh?!"
Start recommending and I'll start reviewing!
(Seriously, I am so excited!)
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Voting Booth, Volume III
Ok, so my Oscar reactions are coming shortly but I have to take a few minutes to weigh in on the current election climate; particularly on the Democratic side of the ring.
What I am seeing from the Clinton and Obama campaigns is exactly what terrifies me about the prospect of a President. Any President. I'm not going to discuss their platforms. I'm not going to talk about their healthcare plans. I'm not going to mention any of their political view, votes, or visions. I'm getting ahead of myself...
I've talked about it before: The President that I want is a person (see, I refrained from saying "man" even though I would have meant it generically)... a person who feels called to lead. One who begrudgingly takes the position of leadership because the citizens are begging them to. I want a George Washington, who twice retired from public office before finally being able to retire to Mount Vernon. I want a Caesar Augustus, who thrice refused to return as Caesar before he could ignore his fellow Romans' pleas no longer. I want Thomas Jefferson, who basically said that his name would be on the ballot and vote for him if you wanted to, otherwise, he'd be more than happy to stay at Monticello.
I do not see any of these people from the left side of the aisle. What I am seeing in our Democratic candidates is a hunger, a drive, a desire, an incomparable yearning for the power of the White House. I see two similar candidates attempting to destroy each other because they both want the title so badly. These aren't people who are concerned about the status of their platforms. They share so many of the same ideas that it doesn't matter which one of them is elected: Healthcare would be a huge topic; the war would be altered; minimum wage would change... These are two people whose primary goal is the advancement of themselves, not their country.
Compare this to Mitt Romney: He threw in the towel (to continue the boxing metaphor) because he wanted the Republican Candidate to be able to focus on a national campaign, rather than spend time and money attempting to sway like-minded voters. Here is a man who would rather see another Republican in office over someone who holds political views that differ from his own.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are causing irreparable damage to each other as they attempt to claw their way to the nomination. Every sound-bite, every photograph, every stab, jab, and upper cut is ammunition that the Republicans can use again during the national campaign.
It's not the office of power that frightens me. It is the person who so strongly and blatantly desires that power who does. I want a candidate, a President, who's first concern is for the country, not one who's first concern is for themselves.
This is why I fear, yes fear, a Clinton or Obama Presidency. It is not their spoken plans, policies, or platforms. It is that characteristic that recklessly drives them to ceaselessly strive for the Oval Office, letting no one stand in their way. That need for power that knows no satisfaction.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this. It's possible that what I'm seeing as a desire for power is, in fact, simply a desire for posterity. If either were to win, they would be first in their respective uniqueness: First Woman, First African American. (Of course, the insatiable desire to have your name in the history books is not much of a step from the lust for power...) Or, perhaps once one is nominated and has the full support of their party all of this will change. But it won't remove it entirely. This episode will still remain, regardless of what type of national campaign they run. Right now, it's what I see, and it's just my opinion.
What I am seeing from the Clinton and Obama campaigns is exactly what terrifies me about the prospect of a President. Any President. I'm not going to discuss their platforms. I'm not going to talk about their healthcare plans. I'm not going to mention any of their political view, votes, or visions. I'm getting ahead of myself...
I've talked about it before: The President that I want is a person (see, I refrained from saying "man" even though I would have meant it generically)... a person who feels called to lead. One who begrudgingly takes the position of leadership because the citizens are begging them to. I want a George Washington, who twice retired from public office before finally being able to retire to Mount Vernon. I want a Caesar Augustus, who thrice refused to return as Caesar before he could ignore his fellow Romans' pleas no longer. I want Thomas Jefferson, who basically said that his name would be on the ballot and vote for him if you wanted to, otherwise, he'd be more than happy to stay at Monticello.
I do not see any of these people from the left side of the aisle. What I am seeing in our Democratic candidates is a hunger, a drive, a desire, an incomparable yearning for the power of the White House. I see two similar candidates attempting to destroy each other because they both want the title so badly. These aren't people who are concerned about the status of their platforms. They share so many of the same ideas that it doesn't matter which one of them is elected: Healthcare would be a huge topic; the war would be altered; minimum wage would change... These are two people whose primary goal is the advancement of themselves, not their country.
Compare this to Mitt Romney: He threw in the towel (to continue the boxing metaphor) because he wanted the Republican Candidate to be able to focus on a national campaign, rather than spend time and money attempting to sway like-minded voters. Here is a man who would rather see another Republican in office over someone who holds political views that differ from his own.
The Democrats, meanwhile, are causing irreparable damage to each other as they attempt to claw their way to the nomination. Every sound-bite, every photograph, every stab, jab, and upper cut is ammunition that the Republicans can use again during the national campaign.
It's not the office of power that frightens me. It is the person who so strongly and blatantly desires that power who does. I want a candidate, a President, who's first concern is for the country, not one who's first concern is for themselves.
This is why I fear, yes fear, a Clinton or Obama Presidency. It is not their spoken plans, policies, or platforms. It is that characteristic that recklessly drives them to ceaselessly strive for the Oval Office, letting no one stand in their way. That need for power that knows no satisfaction.
Of course, I could be wrong in all of this. It's possible that what I'm seeing as a desire for power is, in fact, simply a desire for posterity. If either were to win, they would be first in their respective uniqueness: First Woman, First African American. (Of course, the insatiable desire to have your name in the history books is not much of a step from the lust for power...) Or, perhaps once one is nominated and has the full support of their party all of this will change. But it won't remove it entirely. This episode will still remain, regardless of what type of national campaign they run. Right now, it's what I see, and it's just my opinion.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
35 Seconds
The more I think about it, the more I realize just how close the Patriots came to "perfection." They were in the lead until the last 35 seconds of the 4th quarter. 35 seconds. They were one muffed interception short, one unmade holding call short, one ball on a helmet short of 19-0. 35 seconds! Read this paragraph 2 & 1/2 times. That's about 35 seconds.
The jury is still out on if that thought is comforting, or more crushing than before.
After reviewing the play that is still seeking a name (currently called The Play, The Play To Be Named Later, The Great Escape, and Immaculate Reception II) the more I am convinced that the egregious no-call was not the non-sack, rather it was the no call on the two offensive linemen holding and one blocking in the back. Those calls are not usually made when the offense happens as the QB is tackled, however, as soon as Eli "escaped" the flags should have flown. If all of the penalties could be assessed at once, it would have been 3 and 40. Of course, this is not possible, but they still would have faced 3rd and 15 rather than making Super Bowl history.
For those of you who think that I'm just being bitter when it comes to my gripes about the officiating. Consider this: NFL.com had a segment called "Official Review." In this 5 to 8 minute video clip the NFL.com reporter grills the VP of NFL officials regarding questionable or obscure calls made that week. They even continued this during the post season. Why is it that the cowards at NFL.com (run by the NFL, mind you) decided that they would not have him explain the questionable calls during Super Bowl XLII? Could it be because the biggest question mark leads directly to a Giants victory?
There is a Super Bowl "curse" that many may not be aware of: 7 of the last 9 losers of the Super Bowl failed to even make it to the playoffs the following year. A few of them ended up finishing dead last in their division. I predict a dramatic reversal of this curse. Not only will the loser of the Super Bowl make it to the playoffs and return to the Big Game. But I also predict that it will be the winner of this year's NFL Championship game that will fail to make next year's post season. (Especially if the Redskins are able to weasel Chad Johnson away from the Bengals) You heard it here first: we will not see Eli and the Giants in the playoffs next year.
Here are the last nine Super Bowl losers. Which teams managed to claw their way back to the post season the year after their loss?
Bears XLI
Seahawks XL
Eagles XXXIX
Panthers XXXVIII
Raiders XXXVII
Rams XXXVI
Giants XXXV
Titans XXXIV
Falcons XXXIII
One record that was set this year by the Patriots will continue to notch additional tallies: Consecutive regular season wins spanning multiple seasons. They surpassed their own record of 18 this year having won the last three games of 2006 and all of 2007. If they have a decent winning streak to open 2008 this will be a record that will stand for a long long time!
Now, having said all of that: Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow! Bring on the baseball!
Go Red Sox!
The jury is still out on if that thought is comforting, or more crushing than before.
After reviewing the play that is still seeking a name (currently called The Play, The Play To Be Named Later, The Great Escape, and Immaculate Reception II) the more I am convinced that the egregious no-call was not the non-sack, rather it was the no call on the two offensive linemen holding and one blocking in the back. Those calls are not usually made when the offense happens as the QB is tackled, however, as soon as Eli "escaped" the flags should have flown. If all of the penalties could be assessed at once, it would have been 3 and 40. Of course, this is not possible, but they still would have faced 3rd and 15 rather than making Super Bowl history.
For those of you who think that I'm just being bitter when it comes to my gripes about the officiating. Consider this: NFL.com had a segment called "Official Review." In this 5 to 8 minute video clip the NFL.com reporter grills the VP of NFL officials regarding questionable or obscure calls made that week. They even continued this during the post season. Why is it that the cowards at NFL.com (run by the NFL, mind you) decided that they would not have him explain the questionable calls during Super Bowl XLII? Could it be because the biggest question mark leads directly to a Giants victory?
There is a Super Bowl "curse" that many may not be aware of: 7 of the last 9 losers of the Super Bowl failed to even make it to the playoffs the following year. A few of them ended up finishing dead last in their division. I predict a dramatic reversal of this curse. Not only will the loser of the Super Bowl make it to the playoffs and return to the Big Game. But I also predict that it will be the winner of this year's NFL Championship game that will fail to make next year's post season. (Especially if the Redskins are able to weasel Chad Johnson away from the Bengals) You heard it here first: we will not see Eli and the Giants in the playoffs next year.
Here are the last nine Super Bowl losers. Which teams managed to claw their way back to the post season the year after their loss?
Seahawks XL
Eagles XXXIX
Panthers XXXVIII
Raiders XXXVII
Rams XXXVI
Giants XXXV
Titans XXXIV
Falcons XXXIII
One record that was set this year by the Patriots will continue to notch additional tallies: Consecutive regular season wins spanning multiple seasons. They surpassed their own record of 18 this year having won the last three games of 2006 and all of 2007. If they have a decent winning streak to open 2008 this will be a record that will stand for a long long time!
Now, having said all of that: Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow! Bring on the baseball!
Go Red Sox!
Monday, February 04, 2008
18 - 1
Why, oh why, did they print this book? The cover says that it's for information only, but both Target and Walmart have been carrying it for 2 weeks, now.
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
Why, oh why, did he wear this sweatshirt, when all we know him in is this one?
Why didn't we execute the quick passes, short passes that elevated us over the Chargers and makes people think that Peyton is a QB phenom?
Why didn't we attempt the 47 yard field goal?
There were many missed opportunities. The Patriots had three chances to put the game away if their defensive backs could have hung onto the ball. It seems to me that Brady's ankle must have been bothering him. His inability to be accurate down the field was glaringly obvious and completely removed the deep threat. The injury to Kevin Faulk was also a huge detriment to the Patriots. It's hard to win when someone that many picked to be MVP is no longer in the game.
And we can't ignore the amazing play of the Giant's Defensive line. The Patriots are nutorious for not only being able to stop the front four, but picking off blitzers as well. They did neither in this game.
That all being said, how can I comment on a football game without mentioning the men in black & white? I'm going to offer a critique of three questionable calls; all of which had an affect on the outcome of the game. I'll list them from most obvious to least.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants driving. Toomer runs down the left sideline. The ball is somewhat under-thrown. Toomer puts his hand on the face mask of the cornerback, extends his arm, pushing the defensive back out of the way. He cut to the sideline and made the catch. Call on the field: reception. Correct call: Offensive pass interference. Result of the play: 1st down on NE 19, rather than 3rd and 20 on NY's 28.
2nd Quarter: 3-7, Patriots. Giants have the ball. Eli muffs a hand-off to Bradshaw on NY 33 yard line! The ball falls and the Patriots fall on it. The Patriot who fell on the ball is the only man within 3 feet of it. He lays on it for a few seconds and then Bradshaw rolls him over and takes the ball from him while he is on the ground. Call on the field: Giants recovered the fumble. Correct call: Down by contact, Patriot's ball, short field. This would have been a fantastic opportunity for the Patriots to go up by two scores. It was denied because, for some reason, referees like to see who comes away with the ball. Rather than call the person with the ball down by contact. (Of course, if every play were refereed the way a fumble is, then you could strip the ball from a running back while he's on the bottom of the pile and, as long as you come away with it, it's your ball.) This is not a reviewable play.
4th Quarter: 14-10 Patriots. Giants driving. 3rd and 5 from the NYG 44 yrd line. Well out of Field Goal range. Manning scrambles. Grabbed by several Patriot defensive lineman. He escapes and throws the ball 32 yards to Tyree keeping the drive alive. Call on the field: Completion. 1st down. Correct call: Sack, forward progress ended. 4th down. The Rules clearly state "Officials are to blow the play dead as soon as the quarterback is clearly in the grasp and control of any tackler, and his safety is in jeopardy." They never should have allowed him to continue the play. This is the single biggest blown call of the game.
That being said, I will not go as far as some who claim that the NFL did not want the Patriots to go 19-0. Had that been the case, the last team they would have orchestrated them playing would have been the New York Giants.
It is unfortunate that the better team did not win this game. Man for man, position for position, the Patriots are, without a doubt, the better team. How can anyone claim that a team that is 10-6 is the best team in the NFL, when there were three teams that went 13-3, two that went 11-5, and one that managed 16-0? And let's also consider the strength of their schedules. The Giants were 1-5 against teams with a winning record. All of their opponents had a combined winning percentage of .515. Their 10 wins came against teams that had a winning percentage of .375! The Giants played 6 games against teams that went to the playoffs. They lost 5 of them and were out-scored 137-188 through the course of all six. The Patriots also played 6 playoff bound teams (avg winning percentage: .688) and defeated them by a margain of 234-116.
I have a solution that would make it more likely the team that emerges triumphant from the NFL playoffs would be the best team of the season. Here's my idea (Hear me out before you start hating it.): When teams face off in the playoffs, the team with the better record starts the game with points. The points they get at the beginning of the game would be equal to the number of games they are over their opponent. A match-up of a 13-3 team vs a 10-6 team would provide the 13-3 team 3 points at kickoff. Not insurmountable, but recognizes that one team played better all year, compared to another team that might have struggled, snuck into the playoffs and finally started clicking. With this scoring system, the 2000-2001 Patriots would not have won the Super Bowl.
It's amazing that people were asking "Is this the greatest football team ever?" Comparing them to the Cowboys of the 90s, 49ers of the 80s, Steelers of the 70s, and Packers of the 60's. Yet, as soon as the Patriots fell to the Giants, this discussion ended. Why? The '72 Dolphins are not on this list. No team listed above ever went 16-0 (or 14-0 for that matter, or 12-0 in the strike shortened season). No team has ever defeated 8 of the 11 other playoff teams in one season! No team has score more points, recorded more touchdowns, spread the touchdowns among as many players, had more net points, or won as many games in the regular season (to name a few attributes of the 2007 Patriots.) I'm not declaring this team the greatest ever. But the discussion should still be open.
I'm still recovering from the only loss the Patriots experienced this season. I've been tossing around the conundrum of would I rather they went 15-1 and won it all? Or is it better that they've gone 16-0, but lost in the Big Game? As crushing as the defeat in the Super Bowl was, and as notorious as it will become, the 2007 Patriots are the only team to win 16 consecutive regular season games, the only team to win 18 consecutive games in the same season, and the only team to win 19 consecutive regular season games over the course of two seasons (and counting. They won the last 3 of 2006, all 16 of 2008, and can keep their streak alive in the beginning of 2008.) I was asked if Brady got hurt while trying to beat the Giants the first time if it would have been worth it. My answer: Yes. An unbeaten season is an amazing feat. The Super Bowl is a tournament, and as any NCAA 8th seed will tell you: upsets happen in tournaments. Upsets happen on the football field. And I think it will be a long long time before we see another team hit 16-0!
Go Patriots!
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Forget Change!
ATHF: A year ago, we were admonished to
and we must not. Seven cities were the victims of this heartless advertising campaign and only one (Boston) had the courage enough to freak out beyond reason. Bostonians can rest assured; should another rogue company attempt to advertise in their city, the vile perpetrators will be arrested and heavily fined.
Also, let this serve as a warning to any and all moon beings that think they can come here and terrorize us with their funny little movies, and inventive PR. We will have none of it.
I, for one, will never forget!
The Election: I have a question for a few of the people running for President. Namely, the people whose major talking point is "Changing Washington." I've heard this sentiment primarily from two different sources: Hillary and Barrak. (McCain also fits the next qualifications for answering this question, but I haven't heard the "change" mantra from him...) Now, both of these people are Senators. Which means they are both in Washington. So here's my question:
What, exactly, would be changing about Washington if one of them were to simply move their office?
Besides, of course, the person who would take their place in the Senate. Sounds to me like these two people are encouraging everyone to vote for someone not currently in Washington. A current or former Governor, perhaps? A retired Senator? A non-political candidate? I'm not really sure, but I can tell you this: I'm fairly certain I'm going to be taking their advice and voting for someone who will actually change the face of Washington, not just move their stuff.
and we must not. Seven cities were the victims of this heartless advertising campaign and only one (Boston) had the courage enough to freak out beyond reason. Bostonians can rest assured; should another rogue company attempt to advertise in their city, the vile perpetrators will be arrested and heavily fined.
Also, let this serve as a warning to any and all moon beings that think they can come here and terrorize us with their funny little movies, and inventive PR. We will have none of it.
I, for one, will never forget!
The Election: I have a question for a few of the people running for President. Namely, the people whose major talking point is "Changing Washington." I've heard this sentiment primarily from two different sources: Hillary and Barrak. (McCain also fits the next qualifications for answering this question, but I haven't heard the "change" mantra from him...) Now, both of these people are Senators. Which means they are both in Washington. So here's my question:
What, exactly, would be changing about Washington if one of them were to simply move their office?
Besides, of course, the person who would take their place in the Senate. Sounds to me like these two people are encouraging everyone to vote for someone not currently in Washington. A current or former Governor, perhaps? A retired Senator? A non-political candidate? I'm not really sure, but I can tell you this: I'm fairly certain I'm going to be taking their advice and voting for someone who will actually change the face of Washington, not just move their stuff.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)