As a law student, I'm used to having to figure out who should win and lose hypothetical cases. With these skills, I figured I'd attempt to take on some TV shows and movies that seem to resemble legal battles, in name at least.
Kramer vs. Kramer:
One of the authentic legal battles on the list, everyone knows this story - neglected stay-at-home mother leaves husband and son to find herself, husband rearranges his priorities to put his son first, mother comes back with a vengeance to take back her son in what becomes a heated custody battle.
Winner: Kramer - started off with an easy one - you can figure this one out without even seeing the movie
Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever:
Consistently appearing on lists of the worst movies ever, including the lowest Rotten Tomatoes ranking ever of 1.5831% fresh, the film (can it really be called a "film?") stars Antonio Banderas ("Ecks") and Lucy Liu ("Sever") as government agents who first believe they are each other's enemies, but soon learn the greater threat is megalomaniac agent Robert Grant, who is now married to Ecks' ex-wife, and who is portrayed by Gregg Henry, best known for his roles as villains in Payback and Body Double.
Winner: Nobody
G vs. E:
A USA original series that aired during the 1999-2000 season, it starred Clayton Bohner, best known as the boyfriend of the main character in Just One of the Guys, Richard Brooks, who cut his legal teeth as the first ADA on Law & Order, and Marshall Bell, best remembered as Martian resistance leader Kuato from Total Recall. The three play members of "The Corps," or part of God's police force on earth - who fight two types of enemies - "Faustians" - who are ordinary mortals who have made deals with the devil, and "Morlocks," which wikipedia describes as "ground troops for the dark side."
Winner: G, barely, in each episode, over E
The People vs. Larry Flynt:
Misleading in its title which implies it is a criminal case, part of the movie is actually based on the real first amendment case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, in which Jerry Falwell sued Hustler for libel for this fake advertisement, which Hustler successfully won on parody grounds (I have to include some real law here somewhere.) Aside for this, it goes through the trials and tribulations of Larry Flynt's outside-the-box life.
Winner: The Harrelson family - Woody got an Academy Award nomination for his work as Flynt, Brett Harrelson got to appear in a movie of quality higher than From Dusk Til Dawn 2: Texas Blood Money.
(By the way...did you know Woody Harrelson's father was a freelance hitman?)
Kenny vs. Spenny
Kenneth "Kenny" Joel Hotz and Spencer "Spenny" Nolan Rice are two Canadians who battle each other in various competitions, such as "Who can stay awake the longest?," "Who makes the most convincing woman?," and "Who can win a court case?", the winner of which gets to assign a "humiliation" to the loser in this twice Gemini-award nominated series. The series is apparently noted for the distinct methods each of the two go about when competing - Kenny looks for ways to cheat, while Spenny is commited to the ethical guidelines of the contest. The most impressive thing about it's wikipedia entry is not simply the list of what the contest is each time and who wins, but the margin of victory, the description of how Kenny cheats, and the humiliation that follows. Someone really loves this show.
Winner: Canada, for somehow getting Americans to watch their TV shows (or at least put them on American TV) for the first time since Degrassi: The Next Generation.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Monday, November 26, 2007
How I Met Your Mother
Okay, here goes - I recently watched Seasons 1 and 2, and here's my take - there's a bunch of good things about, and some not so good things, so I'll kind of start and work my way from there...
First thing, I hate the gimmick. (For those who don't yet know, the premise is that the main character Ted Moseby, is telling the story from 25 years in the future to his kids, about how he met his wife (their mother) and the zany adventures on the way). It's a stupid gimmick and any impact it has on the show is negative - in the first few episodes, though less so later on, the beginning and or end contain Ted's future kids sitting on the couch and making dumb comments, about how boring their dad's story is, and during the show Bob Sagat (future Ted's voice (not sure why he would sound all that different in the future)) makes occasionally unhelpful and unfunny comments about what will happen in the future (for example, at Marshall's law school party, two kids are making fools of themselves, and future ted comments that one is a Supreme Court Justice, and one is Attorney General, or something like that - maybe a good effort, but incredibly unfunny and unnecessary. In addition, this puts a pointless onus on the comedy show to have to work around eventually finding his mother and doesn't even allow us to think that pretty much any girl he meets will eventually be the mother, otherwise, the tenor of the show would have to change.
Second, and if you actually like the show, hold on, and eventually I will say some nice things about it, but I hate the narration and the moralizing tone - this is not a problem only with this show, it happens all the time, but this is the show I'm reviewing - the narration is constantly used to teach the audience little life lessons - which I can't stand - I'm watching a sitcom, to laugh, to be amused, and fine, I have even no problem with things that are heartwarming, but I certainly am not watching to learn little tips and hints about life from TV characters. Aside from the moralizing, the narration is just unfunny - filled with times when future Ted tries to give his kids quirky explanations about life. One example of this is a first season episode where future Ted repeats over and over ad nauseum that nothing good happens after 2 AM, which aside from being kind of stupid, just doesn't work. Another time, in a second season episode, on their way to Marshall's bachelor party, future Ted attempts to point out that there are certain types of people at every bachelor party - unlike the strict moralizing it's not as if this could never be funny - it's just not.
Even if they wanted to tell moral lessons, which I disapprove of anyway, narration is the lazy man's way of doing it - the show should display it with the actions of the characters and the story - the narration shouldn't be necessary to impart it.
This all said, it's a cute, traditional sitcom - it has funny parts, and most of all it has Barney, Neil Patrick Harris, who single-handedly makes the show watchable, and dare I saw, sometimes enjoyable - he is a quintessential "TV" character - but a good one - and his many catch phrases (various incarnations of high fives, legendary) and memorable quotes could easily become worth parts of the lexicon. I know that I've said a lot more bad about it than good, and that it sounds like I should hate it, but it's really just the bad things to me are so obviously, and really jump out, and could easily be changed to improve it. Really, overall - it's as a I said, a "cute" show - it doesn't try to be anything huge, and it's not - the characters are likable, the actors display good chemistry, and forgetting the narration - many of the jokes do work - for example, a second season episode features a slap bet between Marshall and Barney, in which the winner gets to slap the loser, with varying penalties for premature slapping (watch it if this entirely unclear) and Robin's music video from her brief time as a Canadian teen pop singer - both segments which are hilarious.
It's far from my favorite comedy, but it's good enough for me to watch, which honestly is saying something in and of itself. There are parts that are really funny and fun to watch - if they had just created this with some of the parameters of "new sitcoms" (Arrested Development, Office, among others) such as lack of laugh track, lack of moralizing, it would be just as funny and probably gain a quick point and a half on my scale.
How I Met Your Mother, Seasons 1/2 - 6.3
Okay, here goes - I recently watched Seasons 1 and 2, and here's my take - there's a bunch of good things about, and some not so good things, so I'll kind of start and work my way from there...
First thing, I hate the gimmick. (For those who don't yet know, the premise is that the main character Ted Moseby, is telling the story from 25 years in the future to his kids, about how he met his wife (their mother) and the zany adventures on the way). It's a stupid gimmick and any impact it has on the show is negative - in the first few episodes, though less so later on, the beginning and or end contain Ted's future kids sitting on the couch and making dumb comments, about how boring their dad's story is, and during the show Bob Sagat (future Ted's voice (not sure why he would sound all that different in the future)) makes occasionally unhelpful and unfunny comments about what will happen in the future (for example, at Marshall's law school party, two kids are making fools of themselves, and future ted comments that one is a Supreme Court Justice, and one is Attorney General, or something like that - maybe a good effort, but incredibly unfunny and unnecessary. In addition, this puts a pointless onus on the comedy show to have to work around eventually finding his mother and doesn't even allow us to think that pretty much any girl he meets will eventually be the mother, otherwise, the tenor of the show would have to change.
Second, and if you actually like the show, hold on, and eventually I will say some nice things about it, but I hate the narration and the moralizing tone - this is not a problem only with this show, it happens all the time, but this is the show I'm reviewing - the narration is constantly used to teach the audience little life lessons - which I can't stand - I'm watching a sitcom, to laugh, to be amused, and fine, I have even no problem with things that are heartwarming, but I certainly am not watching to learn little tips and hints about life from TV characters. Aside from the moralizing, the narration is just unfunny - filled with times when future Ted tries to give his kids quirky explanations about life. One example of this is a first season episode where future Ted repeats over and over ad nauseum that nothing good happens after 2 AM, which aside from being kind of stupid, just doesn't work. Another time, in a second season episode, on their way to Marshall's bachelor party, future Ted attempts to point out that there are certain types of people at every bachelor party - unlike the strict moralizing it's not as if this could never be funny - it's just not.
Even if they wanted to tell moral lessons, which I disapprove of anyway, narration is the lazy man's way of doing it - the show should display it with the actions of the characters and the story - the narration shouldn't be necessary to impart it.
This all said, it's a cute, traditional sitcom - it has funny parts, and most of all it has Barney, Neil Patrick Harris, who single-handedly makes the show watchable, and dare I saw, sometimes enjoyable - he is a quintessential "TV" character - but a good one - and his many catch phrases (various incarnations of high fives, legendary) and memorable quotes could easily become worth parts of the lexicon. I know that I've said a lot more bad about it than good, and that it sounds like I should hate it, but it's really just the bad things to me are so obviously, and really jump out, and could easily be changed to improve it. Really, overall - it's as a I said, a "cute" show - it doesn't try to be anything huge, and it's not - the characters are likable, the actors display good chemistry, and forgetting the narration - many of the jokes do work - for example, a second season episode features a slap bet between Marshall and Barney, in which the winner gets to slap the loser, with varying penalties for premature slapping (watch it if this entirely unclear) and Robin's music video from her brief time as a Canadian teen pop singer - both segments which are hilarious.
It's far from my favorite comedy, but it's good enough for me to watch, which honestly is saying something in and of itself. There are parts that are really funny and fun to watch - if they had just created this with some of the parameters of "new sitcoms" (Arrested Development, Office, among others) such as lack of laugh track, lack of moralizing, it would be just as funny and probably gain a quick point and a half on my scale.
How I Met Your Mother, Seasons 1/2 - 6.3
Monday, November 12, 2007
Okay, I'll admit it. I've been ashamed to blog for a while, as a result of my continuing inability to correctly pick MLB Division Series. All four wrong. Ouch - nobody said picking playoff series was easy, but even 1-3 has a distinctly different look than 0-4.
So, I apologize and beg for forgiveness for my horrible picks. Next year, perhaps I'll attempt to pick them, and simply pick the opposite, and hope karma won't see through it.
Aside from that, we slowly get underway in hockey, NBA, and college basketball; college football nears bowl season, and the NFL hits the halfway point - not my favorite time of the sporting year, but at least there's stuff on.
In Books, I'm almost finished with Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, very much one of the "it" books of 2006 - in which Pollan takes a look at how food makes it from its origins to your table, through the industrial food chain, two types of organic ones, and a hunting-and-foraging one. It's very depressing in that it basically tells us how terrible most of the food that most of us buy is - health-wise for us, for the environment, and for the animals we eat (obviously, they die, but how they live is not perhaps how we'd like to imagine they do before they do die).
However, what I appreciate, is it passes my basic tests for writing a muckraking non-fiction work. First, it's written with a very practical, relatable, and perhaps most importantly non-self-righteous. As silly as it seems, this book would be far less effective if it was written by a vegan or a vegetarian. Even beyond that, Pollan doesn't come off as a food and environmental snob (not too much of one anyway) - he clearly cares for both, perhaps more than many readers, but at the same time doesn't appear to judge the reader for the choices they make, and admits that it's hard for the normal supermarket entrant to know or consider much of this information.
Second, Pollan at least makes some attempt to offer an alternative. Now, the problem here, is that ultimately, in today's world, the alternatives are largely infeasible - first, pasture-fed animals, and local, organic (not in the USDA narrow definition, but in a more holistic sense) grown fruits, vegetables and food, and barring that, which is many areas is simply not possibly, especially cities, farm markets, and CSAs, or "Community Sponsored Agriculture," programs in which farmers pair with community groups who arrange for a share of the vegetables and/or fruits grown at a local farm. While these are not entirely practical for many people - because of cost, availability and other factors, I do appreciate the effort - and as you read you feel like Pollan doesn't expect you to jump off you couch and head down the local farm and inspect their chicken slaughterings; he hopes that you'll rethink about what your food, but seems to understand many of the considerations of modern life.
Okay, I'll try this number rating thing again:
The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan: 8.7
So, I apologize and beg for forgiveness for my horrible picks. Next year, perhaps I'll attempt to pick them, and simply pick the opposite, and hope karma won't see through it.
Aside from that, we slowly get underway in hockey, NBA, and college basketball; college football nears bowl season, and the NFL hits the halfway point - not my favorite time of the sporting year, but at least there's stuff on.
In Books, I'm almost finished with Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael Pollan, very much one of the "it" books of 2006 - in which Pollan takes a look at how food makes it from its origins to your table, through the industrial food chain, two types of organic ones, and a hunting-and-foraging one. It's very depressing in that it basically tells us how terrible most of the food that most of us buy is - health-wise for us, for the environment, and for the animals we eat (obviously, they die, but how they live is not perhaps how we'd like to imagine they do before they do die).
However, what I appreciate, is it passes my basic tests for writing a muckraking non-fiction work. First, it's written with a very practical, relatable, and perhaps most importantly non-self-righteous. As silly as it seems, this book would be far less effective if it was written by a vegan or a vegetarian. Even beyond that, Pollan doesn't come off as a food and environmental snob (not too much of one anyway) - he clearly cares for both, perhaps more than many readers, but at the same time doesn't appear to judge the reader for the choices they make, and admits that it's hard for the normal supermarket entrant to know or consider much of this information.
Second, Pollan at least makes some attempt to offer an alternative. Now, the problem here, is that ultimately, in today's world, the alternatives are largely infeasible - first, pasture-fed animals, and local, organic (not in the USDA narrow definition, but in a more holistic sense) grown fruits, vegetables and food, and barring that, which is many areas is simply not possibly, especially cities, farm markets, and CSAs, or "Community Sponsored Agriculture," programs in which farmers pair with community groups who arrange for a share of the vegetables and/or fruits grown at a local farm. While these are not entirely practical for many people - because of cost, availability and other factors, I do appreciate the effort - and as you read you feel like Pollan doesn't expect you to jump off you couch and head down the local farm and inspect their chicken slaughterings; he hopes that you'll rethink about what your food, but seems to understand many of the considerations of modern life.
Okay, I'll try this number rating thing again:
The Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan: 8.7
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
Jimmy Rollins is not the MVP
Okay, let's start with this. First of all, in probably the single most important stat, OBP, especially for someone who is most of the time a leadoff hitter - Jimmy Rollins has a .344. The average in the NL is .334. He only has 10 points higher than the average!
The other most bandied about MVP candidates - David Wright, Prince Fielder, and Matt Holliday, have .416, .395, and .405 respectively, and yes Holliday plays at Coors, but even on the road he has a .374.
Note that no MVP has an OBP that low since Andre Dawson in 1987.
But Rollins is such a slugger from that leadoff spot, right? That surely makes up for his lack of on base percentage. Well, let's look over to his slugging percentage compared with the other candidates -
Rollins - .531
Wright - .546
Fielder - .618
Holliday - .607, though .485 on the road
Rollins' OPS is .875, with what baseballreference.com calls OPS+ of 120 - basically, OPS with a park factor, but you can read more about it on their website, and in addition - it compares with league averages, so it's better at comparing players through different eras.
The last MVP with a lower OPS was Kirk Gibson in 1988 with .860.
The last MVP with a lower OPS+ was Zolio Versalles in 1965 for the Twins with 116.
And no, I don't want to hear all about his defense - yes he does play a plus position, and he should get credit for that - but no, his defense is not above-average for that position - 9th amongst NL shortstops in hardballtimes.com's Revised Zone Rating.
VORP up your alley? Jimmy Rollins is 9th in the NL, below the three other candidates discussed above, Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Cabrera Chipper Jones, and his own teammate Chase Utley - and this accounts for the positional bias.
And I don't want to hear about his RBIs or Runs scored - these are extremely lineup dependent stats, and, yes, when you're a pretty good player (and I never said Rollins wasn't) and you lead off for the most productive team, offensively, in the league, you're probably going to lead the league in runs scored.
Okay, I have more to say, and I should make my full award picks, but first before the first game starts, let me make my playoff picks.
Phillies over Rockies in 4
Dbacks over Cubs in 5
Yankees over Indians in 4
Angels over Red Sox in 5
All right, I'll make the rest of the picks, and then just make new ones, when all of mine are wrong:
Phillies over Dbacks in 6
Angels over Yankees in 7
Angels over Phillies in 5
Okay, let's start with this. First of all, in probably the single most important stat, OBP, especially for someone who is most of the time a leadoff hitter - Jimmy Rollins has a .344. The average in the NL is .334. He only has 10 points higher than the average!
The other most bandied about MVP candidates - David Wright, Prince Fielder, and Matt Holliday, have .416, .395, and .405 respectively, and yes Holliday plays at Coors, but even on the road he has a .374.
Note that no MVP has an OBP that low since Andre Dawson in 1987.
But Rollins is such a slugger from that leadoff spot, right? That surely makes up for his lack of on base percentage. Well, let's look over to his slugging percentage compared with the other candidates -
Rollins - .531
Wright - .546
Fielder - .618
Holliday - .607, though .485 on the road
Rollins' OPS is .875, with what baseballreference.com calls OPS+ of 120 - basically, OPS with a park factor, but you can read more about it on their website, and in addition - it compares with league averages, so it's better at comparing players through different eras.
The last MVP with a lower OPS was Kirk Gibson in 1988 with .860.
The last MVP with a lower OPS+ was Zolio Versalles in 1965 for the Twins with 116.
And no, I don't want to hear all about his defense - yes he does play a plus position, and he should get credit for that - but no, his defense is not above-average for that position - 9th amongst NL shortstops in hardballtimes.com's Revised Zone Rating.
VORP up your alley? Jimmy Rollins is 9th in the NL, below the three other candidates discussed above, Albert Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, Miguel Cabrera Chipper Jones, and his own teammate Chase Utley - and this accounts for the positional bias.
And I don't want to hear about his RBIs or Runs scored - these are extremely lineup dependent stats, and, yes, when you're a pretty good player (and I never said Rollins wasn't) and you lead off for the most productive team, offensively, in the league, you're probably going to lead the league in runs scored.
Okay, I have more to say, and I should make my full award picks, but first before the first game starts, let me make my playoff picks.
Phillies over Rockies in 4
Dbacks over Cubs in 5
Yankees over Indians in 4
Angels over Red Sox in 5
All right, I'll make the rest of the picks, and then just make new ones, when all of mine are wrong:
Phillies over Dbacks in 6
Angels over Yankees in 7
Angels over Phillies in 5
Monday, October 01, 2007
Okay, so Mets are done. Great. Anyway, after today's wild-card playoff between Rockies and Padres, I'll make some playoff picks.
Just a couple of things first - hopefully soon, I will come up with my ideas for what the Mets should do next year, but unlike some others, I think it's not a great idea to overreact - changes need to be made, but most of the core will probably be the same - and that's okay - Cleveland overcame a huge collapse in '05 to finish with the AL's best record this year.
That said, as I like to comment on articles others have been writing, please do not sign Pudge Rodriguez, although a likely HOF-er, he is very old, six-months older in fact than LoDuca, and while his offense has declined notably over the last few years, less often noticed is the fact his defense has declined as well - on a team trying to get younger, there is no reason to spend our money on a declining catcher this old who we hasn't been part of this team.
Also, I'll do award picks, but the one thing I want to note - is if Jimmy Rollins wins MVP, he will be the worst MVP in the recent past - I'll have to look back to find out exactly when - the other big candidates are all fine, but with respect to the quality player Rollins has been, he's no MVP.
Just a couple of things first - hopefully soon, I will come up with my ideas for what the Mets should do next year, but unlike some others, I think it's not a great idea to overreact - changes need to be made, but most of the core will probably be the same - and that's okay - Cleveland overcame a huge collapse in '05 to finish with the AL's best record this year.
That said, as I like to comment on articles others have been writing, please do not sign Pudge Rodriguez, although a likely HOF-er, he is very old, six-months older in fact than LoDuca, and while his offense has declined notably over the last few years, less often noticed is the fact his defense has declined as well - on a team trying to get younger, there is no reason to spend our money on a declining catcher this old who we hasn't been part of this team.
Also, I'll do award picks, but the one thing I want to note - is if Jimmy Rollins wins MVP, he will be the worst MVP in the recent past - I'll have to look back to find out exactly when - the other big candidates are all fine, but with respect to the quality player Rollins has been, he's no MVP.
Sunday, September 16, 2007
Time to make my Emmy picks - don't have a lot of time, so I'll just pick who I think will win, maybe more about who I think should win later. (Only picking the awards I choose to pick)
Outstanding Drama:
The Sopranos
Outstanding Comedy:
The Office
Outstanding Reality Program:
The Amazing Race
Outstanding Variety Music or Comedy Series:
Colbert Report (Okay, I'm admitting I want this to win)
Lead Actor in a Drama:
James Gandolfini
Lead Actor in a Comedy:
Steve Carrell
Lead Actress in a Drama:
Edie Falco
Lead Actress in a Comedy:
America Ferrara
Supporting Actor Drama:
William Shatner
Supporting Actor Comedy:
Jeremy Piven
Supporting Actress Drama:
Lorraine Bracco
Supporting Actress Comedy:
Vanessa Williams
Outstanding Drama:
The Sopranos
Outstanding Comedy:
The Office
Outstanding Reality Program:
The Amazing Race
Outstanding Variety Music or Comedy Series:
Colbert Report (Okay, I'm admitting I want this to win)
Lead Actor in a Drama:
James Gandolfini
Lead Actor in a Comedy:
Steve Carrell
Lead Actress in a Drama:
Edie Falco
Lead Actress in a Comedy:
America Ferrara
Supporting Actor Drama:
William Shatner
Supporting Actor Comedy:
Jeremy Piven
Supporting Actress Drama:
Lorraine Bracco
Supporting Actress Comedy:
Vanessa Williams
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
Friday Night Lights
A few things about Friday Night Lights, which I finished watching recently.
- I appreciate the fact that one of the main characters is a quadriplegic, apart from Joe in Family Guy, and that hardly counts, I feel like we never get to see handicapped characters as main characters in shows, and his recovery process I found very interesting in and of itself – of course, watching it in real time, would be monotonous and boring, but spread over a couple of hours, it becomes fascinating.
- I like the way how each main family of the show is different, both socioeconomically, and in the family structure and personality – in a lot of ways, this is something evident through the show, and it’s kind of a show of representation – each character, while being built upon and deepened gradually, seems to represent a certain type of generic person – the self-obsessed star, the snobbish, sheltered cheerleader, the drunken, dumb fullback. They both represent their types, and build upon them, showing some complexity rather than sticking to the roles that they’re laid out in, yet at the same time making it believable within the character.
- Yes, the show definitely gets corny at times, and features over-the-top game winning scores and sequences in nearly every game, and yes it does take on almost every conceivable stereotypical high school sports issue (a la pro football in ESPN’s Playmakers of a few years back): there is steroids, recruiting violations, tough decisions regarding favorite status to football players, etc
- However, in a strange way – it does a great job with moments that could easily be merely sentimental, and really makes them very powerful – almost all of Coach Taylor’s speeches – while your brain knows that this is often clichéd, Motivational Speaking 101, you still get pulled in by them. In addition, my feeling for the characters made many of the sappy things that they did, worth more than that, because I had grown to know them, and, got to have these moments, as I do in all good dramas, where I have to remind myself that this is just a show, and that Kyle Chandler doesn’t have to worry about losing his job, and that poor Matt Saracen’s grandmother is probably just fine.
- A quick note about the credit sequence – it grew on me over watching the show – I didn’t like it at all at first, and now I kind of like it, but it’s still a little long, could use a little more energy, and would benefit from a few more scenes that showed more in them then just countryside, even though I understand what they’re going for, it’s hard to pay full attention to it every time
- Also something I’ve been strangely focused on in watching TV shows recently: who belongs to be featured in the credits? In FNL, the coach, portrayed by Kyle Chandler and his wife, Connie Britton, are the only two adults featured, while Gaius Charles, Zach Gilford, Minka Kelly, Taylor Kitsch, Adrianne Palicki, Scott Porter, Aimee Teegarden, and Jesse Plemons are featured as kids, a featured cast of 8, which is within normal bounds for a drama. Everyone pretty much features in every episode and deserves their entry into the credits except for maybe Jesse Plemons, who plays the new QB’s best friend, Landry, who is simply absent from some episodes and has very small parts in others. There are a number of different important supporting characters, primarily family members of the featured kids, along with an assistant coach or two, but the only one that really makes any headway into being close to worth of being featured is Brad Leland as Buddy Garrity, the cheerleader’s father, and team’s head booster, along with used car salesman and sleezy adulterer. Garrity is in most episodes, and has some major parts, though still does not deserve credit entry, with only two adults in there anyway. However, his character is one of the most entertaining in the show.
Friday Night Lights, Season 1: 7.4
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Saw "The Bourne Ultimatum" yesterday.
After enjoying the previous two movies in the Bourne series, I was pretty excited to see it - and it certainly continued the trend of being amongst the best in it's genre of action thrillers, probably ranking with the latest Bond movie as the top action movies I've seen in a while (I haven't seen the new Die Hard yet, which I'm also curious about).
The story is nothing new or clever, but it's a classic: the big, bad CIA is hunting down a rogue agent/antihero (in this example, probably don't eve need the "anti") under the guise of protecting national security, but it's really just part of a cover up to protect the people in power. David Straitharn takes over in the Brian Cox role of the key agent villain, and he works with his shady superior Scott Glenn, and has to form an uneasy partnership with Joan Allen, who seems to be taken Jason Bourne's side one too many times for Straithairn's liking. Both, of course, have an army of techies at their disposal to track Bourne and friends, and numerous "assets" to send after people, or enforce such fantastic agency language as the "standing kill order" Straithorne puts out on Jason Bourne.
Aside from all that, what really made the movie was the action sequences, which are enhanced by great camera work. The camera is shaking and unsteady almost the entire movie (a phenomena which I enjoyed, but which drove someone I was at the theater with to leave for a few minutes to get her head straight) There are plenty of crashes and shattered glass - a motorbike chase, a police car chase, a rooftop jumping scene and a fantastic one-on-one unarmed tete-a-tete with Bourne and one of the "assets." Very few slow scenes - a couple of story related ones, but for the most part quality action all around, and a swift-moving fiml. Highly enjoyable.
The Bourne Ultimatum 8.1
After enjoying the previous two movies in the Bourne series, I was pretty excited to see it - and it certainly continued the trend of being amongst the best in it's genre of action thrillers, probably ranking with the latest Bond movie as the top action movies I've seen in a while (I haven't seen the new Die Hard yet, which I'm also curious about).
The story is nothing new or clever, but it's a classic: the big, bad CIA is hunting down a rogue agent/antihero (in this example, probably don't eve need the "anti") under the guise of protecting national security, but it's really just part of a cover up to protect the people in power. David Straitharn takes over in the Brian Cox role of the key agent villain, and he works with his shady superior Scott Glenn, and has to form an uneasy partnership with Joan Allen, who seems to be taken Jason Bourne's side one too many times for Straithairn's liking. Both, of course, have an army of techies at their disposal to track Bourne and friends, and numerous "assets" to send after people, or enforce such fantastic agency language as the "standing kill order" Straithorne puts out on Jason Bourne.
Aside from all that, what really made the movie was the action sequences, which are enhanced by great camera work. The camera is shaking and unsteady almost the entire movie (a phenomena which I enjoyed, but which drove someone I was at the theater with to leave for a few minutes to get her head straight) There are plenty of crashes and shattered glass - a motorbike chase, a police car chase, a rooftop jumping scene and a fantastic one-on-one unarmed tete-a-tete with Bourne and one of the "assets." Very few slow scenes - a couple of story related ones, but for the most part quality action all around, and a swift-moving fiml. Highly enjoyable.
The Bourne Ultimatum 8.1
Monday, August 06, 2007
Saw "For Your Consideration" the other day. I'm of two minds about the whole Christopher Guest parody movies - on one hand, each is in a lot of ways a rehash of the last, and I never find myself laughing out loud a whole bunch - in addition, sometimes the patheticness (definitely not a word) of the characters just makes it difficult to watch, and unlike the British "The Office" (except for it's most unwatchable moments), not all that funny. A lot of times the movies try to be too cute, and in addition to unwatchable, the characters are just obnoxious.
On the other hand, each of the movies have at least a few great scenes, and with twenty or so characters in each, you're bound to hit on a few good ones in each movie - particularly Fred Willard who is always a highlight. They're also short and to the point which I appreciate, and the don't dilly-dally - there's some bad jokes and scenes they don't work - but there's no filler scenes that just don't even attempt to make jokes, I can watch it at least once to at least see the highlights.
Going from that, I was actually pleasantly surprised by "For Your Consideration." The movie recieved far less critical praise than these Christopher Guest movies often do; perhaps a symptom of people tiring of the concept. However, while pretty much everything I described above was present in these movies, the positives for the most part outweighted the negatives. I was quite incorrect in what I had thought the movie was about - in my mind, it was about a group of people who had filmed a small art-house type picture trying to sell it at a film festival and gain critical acclaim and the hijinks that would accompany that. However, the movie is really a hodgepodge of first, filming bits of the movie, with of course interviews of the cast members, followed by the business talk involving the release of the movie, and leading into Oscar Buzz for the film, interrupted several times by an Entertainment Tonight-like show hosted by Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. Again, as mentioned above Fred Willard was a highlight. For some reason I found Harry Shearer's voice amusing, but I think that's because it just reminded me of Kent Brockman. Catherine O'Hara plays one of the leads on the film, whose ego gets a boost from the initial buzz, and Parker Posey plays the other female star - one of the best bits of the film involves Posey performing her one-woman show "No Penis Intended."
There's pretty much it. Certainly not a great movie, probably not even a very good one, but an enjoyable, fun movie.
"For Your Consideration" 6.7
On the other hand, each of the movies have at least a few great scenes, and with twenty or so characters in each, you're bound to hit on a few good ones in each movie - particularly Fred Willard who is always a highlight. They're also short and to the point which I appreciate, and the don't dilly-dally - there's some bad jokes and scenes they don't work - but there's no filler scenes that just don't even attempt to make jokes, I can watch it at least once to at least see the highlights.
Going from that, I was actually pleasantly surprised by "For Your Consideration." The movie recieved far less critical praise than these Christopher Guest movies often do; perhaps a symptom of people tiring of the concept. However, while pretty much everything I described above was present in these movies, the positives for the most part outweighted the negatives. I was quite incorrect in what I had thought the movie was about - in my mind, it was about a group of people who had filmed a small art-house type picture trying to sell it at a film festival and gain critical acclaim and the hijinks that would accompany that. However, the movie is really a hodgepodge of first, filming bits of the movie, with of course interviews of the cast members, followed by the business talk involving the release of the movie, and leading into Oscar Buzz for the film, interrupted several times by an Entertainment Tonight-like show hosted by Fred Willard and Jane Lynch. Again, as mentioned above Fred Willard was a highlight. For some reason I found Harry Shearer's voice amusing, but I think that's because it just reminded me of Kent Brockman. Catherine O'Hara plays one of the leads on the film, whose ego gets a boost from the initial buzz, and Parker Posey plays the other female star - one of the best bits of the film involves Posey performing her one-woman show "No Penis Intended."
There's pretty much it. Certainly not a great movie, probably not even a very good one, but an enjoyable, fun movie.
"For Your Consideration" 6.7
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Finally got to knocking some more movies down - a pair of Richard Linklater 2006 flicks (let's see if you can guess which two!) - Fast Food Nation and A Scanner Darkly.
I was particularly interested in seeing Fast Food Nation because I read the book a few years ago, and moreso because the book is non-fiction - sort of an investigative look at the fast food industry, all the way up the supply chain, from the conditions at the restaurants themselves, to the meat packing plants, to the ranches that supply the cattle and poulty, and I was interested to see how Linklater, with collaboration, would turn that into an interesting fictional account.
The movie succeeded on the level of a political polemic - it succeeded in showing the evils of the fast food restaurants, but it was far less successful as entertainment, because pamphleteering was pretty much all it appeared to be.
There were three central storylines - one about Greg Kinnear as a marketing executive exploring claims of shit in the beef, and backing down from his willingness to challenge authority when he realizes his job might be at steak, one about some Mexican border crossers trying to make it working at a meat packing plant, and another about a high school girl working at a local "Mickey's" franchise, the fictional fast food restaurant concoted for the movie purposes. The high school girl plot pretty much involves her hearing various people tell her why fast food is bad. The most interesting plot is probably that of the immigrants, that has a real sort of tragic arc to it.
Anyway, if you're a receptive audience, you might at least like the information, and the idea is very interesting, but somewhere along the way it just doesn't quite work.
I'm going to start attempting to rate movies on a scale of 1-10 (with decimals) and I may have to adjust later when I get to tons of movies, but we'll try
6.0 for Fast Food Nation
Next, A Scanner Darkly. Based on a Philip K Dick story, A Scanner Darkly tells the convoluted story (in rotoscope animation, no less) of a man who as a cop goes undercover to try to dig up information on a dealer of a debilitating drug, "Substance D" that has overwhelmed the country. However, as the movie continues, the cop gets so addicted on the substance himself, that he separates the persona of himself as cop, wearing a "scramble suit" which doesn't allow even his own immediate superiors to realize who he is, and his persona as drug addict. It all slowly comes tumbling down as it turns out he was simply a pawn in a plan to make him a deadbeat addict enough that New Path, a company posing as rehab clinic, will take him to their fields where cops suspect Substance D is grown, and maybe that he will remember his training enough to bring back some of his sanity and find some evidence.
I found this to be a lot more interesting than the first - rotoscope actually works really well to create this sort of creepy paranoid environment where you're not quite sure what's real and what's not, and the movie, while not always making perfect sense, made enough to keep me from getting confused. In addition, a couple of scenes featuring the paranoid conversations between characters voiced by Woody Harrelson, Robert Downey Jr., and Keanu Reeves were great.
Rating: 7.3
I was particularly interested in seeing Fast Food Nation because I read the book a few years ago, and moreso because the book is non-fiction - sort of an investigative look at the fast food industry, all the way up the supply chain, from the conditions at the restaurants themselves, to the meat packing plants, to the ranches that supply the cattle and poulty, and I was interested to see how Linklater, with collaboration, would turn that into an interesting fictional account.
The movie succeeded on the level of a political polemic - it succeeded in showing the evils of the fast food restaurants, but it was far less successful as entertainment, because pamphleteering was pretty much all it appeared to be.
There were three central storylines - one about Greg Kinnear as a marketing executive exploring claims of shit in the beef, and backing down from his willingness to challenge authority when he realizes his job might be at steak, one about some Mexican border crossers trying to make it working at a meat packing plant, and another about a high school girl working at a local "Mickey's" franchise, the fictional fast food restaurant concoted for the movie purposes. The high school girl plot pretty much involves her hearing various people tell her why fast food is bad. The most interesting plot is probably that of the immigrants, that has a real sort of tragic arc to it.
Anyway, if you're a receptive audience, you might at least like the information, and the idea is very interesting, but somewhere along the way it just doesn't quite work.
I'm going to start attempting to rate movies on a scale of 1-10 (with decimals) and I may have to adjust later when I get to tons of movies, but we'll try
6.0 for Fast Food Nation
Next, A Scanner Darkly. Based on a Philip K Dick story, A Scanner Darkly tells the convoluted story (in rotoscope animation, no less) of a man who as a cop goes undercover to try to dig up information on a dealer of a debilitating drug, "Substance D" that has overwhelmed the country. However, as the movie continues, the cop gets so addicted on the substance himself, that he separates the persona of himself as cop, wearing a "scramble suit" which doesn't allow even his own immediate superiors to realize who he is, and his persona as drug addict. It all slowly comes tumbling down as it turns out he was simply a pawn in a plan to make him a deadbeat addict enough that New Path, a company posing as rehab clinic, will take him to their fields where cops suspect Substance D is grown, and maybe that he will remember his training enough to bring back some of his sanity and find some evidence.
I found this to be a lot more interesting than the first - rotoscope actually works really well to create this sort of creepy paranoid environment where you're not quite sure what's real and what's not, and the movie, while not always making perfect sense, made enough to keep me from getting confused. In addition, a couple of scenes featuring the paranoid conversations between characters voiced by Woody Harrelson, Robert Downey Jr., and Keanu Reeves were great.
Rating: 7.3
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Just saw "The Machinist" - very strange movie...I'll let people know right now they shouldn't read further if they're worried about anything being ruined, because I'm not sure what I'm going to say...
Anyway, Christain Bale plays a guy with some majorly paranoid delusions, who hasn't slept in a year and seems like he hasn't ate in about that time either, that seem to grow and grow - at first, for a short time, you think that everything you see is actually happening (since that's what normally goes on in movies) and then you slowly realize that more and more of it is in his head - and figuring out which parts exactly are in his head, and why because the crux. It joins the long line of movies which star a fictional character - which could be the subject of a list - everything from Bogus to Secret Window from a couple of years ago and many more likely more obvious ones I'm not thinking of right now.
They pretty much explain exactly what happened and why Christian Bale is going crazy in the last five minutes, which is semi-satisfying, but leaves a small amount desired of cloture - but, hey, at least he can sleep again, and maybe put back some of those lost pounds.
Alas, next on my queue - Fast Food Nation and A Scanner Darkly - we'll see how those turn out.
Anyway, Christain Bale plays a guy with some majorly paranoid delusions, who hasn't slept in a year and seems like he hasn't ate in about that time either, that seem to grow and grow - at first, for a short time, you think that everything you see is actually happening (since that's what normally goes on in movies) and then you slowly realize that more and more of it is in his head - and figuring out which parts exactly are in his head, and why because the crux. It joins the long line of movies which star a fictional character - which could be the subject of a list - everything from Bogus to Secret Window from a couple of years ago and many more likely more obvious ones I'm not thinking of right now.
They pretty much explain exactly what happened and why Christian Bale is going crazy in the last five minutes, which is semi-satisfying, but leaves a small amount desired of cloture - but, hey, at least he can sleep again, and maybe put back some of those lost pounds.
Alas, next on my queue - Fast Food Nation and A Scanner Darkly - we'll see how those turn out.
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
Okay, let's try to start blogging more - a gradual goal, as making this post, establishes blogging more.
Saw a couple of cult movies in the past week I had never seen before, The Warriors and Escape from
In addition, while Kurt Russell pretty much starts his ascent up the hollywood ladder (to the great heights of "Soldier" and "3000 Miles to Graceland," Escape from
Overall, a very solid movie. Solid '80s synth music in the background, a ludicrous chandelier car driving by Issac Hayes (I finally get an incredibly random "Duke of New York" reference in Aqua Teen Hunger Force) and coliseum combat involving a club with a spike on it. Moves along fairly quickly, Russell growls more than he actually talks, and it's essentially the basis for the Metal Gear Solid series.
The Warriors was also a movie made largely by the premise – New York in the future/past is dominated by gangs – when one gang leader tries to unite them all in the North Bronx, he is assassinated – the real assassins frame one gang, The Warriors, and the Warriors have to attempt to get to their home and safe ground in Coney Island, while clearing their name, while every other gang is out for them. The lead actor, Michael Beck is something of a two-movie wonder – his turn in this must have inspired the producers of Xanadu to pick him up as the lead, and his turn in Xanadu must have inspired producers everywhere to never place him in a lead again. David Patrick Kelly, who plays the sadistic true assassin, and beckons the title group with one of the movies two most famous line (“Warriors, come out and play,” with a huge emphasis and a bit of whining on the “play”), is something of a character actor who finds himself all over the place, recently, as President Truman, in the movie I saw immediately proceeding “The Warriors,” “Flags of Our Fathers.” James Remar, who plays a Warrior, but rival to Michael Beck’s Swan, is seen here and there as a villain, such as in “48 Hours” and now co-stars in Showtime’s “Dexter” a show I hear good things about and mean to get around to watching. Strangest in my mind was Lynn Thigpen as the radio DJ, best known for her role as the Chief in the kids game show “Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego?”
I enjoyed the warriors a good deal as well – there are some solid fights which some particularly strange gangs – most notably the Baseball Furies – a group of bat wielding nuts that wear face paint. While less gruff than Snake from “Escape from
Next out is The Machinist, where I look forward to seeing a deathly ill Christian Bale.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Okay, as many of you reading this may know, I was chosen and qualified along with two other members of my team to participate in VH1's 2007 World Series of Pop Culture. That taping was this past week. For better or worse, I can not reveal how that went, but you'll find out in July when it airs.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must move on to some new TV, movie, music and book projects. Here's where I stand at this moment.
Movies - man, there's so much I want to see - I plan on seeing the Prestige today, and I'd eventually like to see what I've heard is it's lesser cousin, The Illusionist. Of what's out now, I'd most like to see The 300. I'd like to see the past two Best Picture Academy Award winners Crash and The Departed. I'd like to knock down some more directors' work with ones like Mean Streets and Cape Fear for Martin Scorsese, and about 30 more films for Woody Allen. I'd like to watch some very cult classic late '80s and '90s movies like Heathers and Clueless. And I'd finally like to get back on watching all the Bond films over again, even the ones I've seen.
That should keep me busy for a while.
TV - Two weeks ago, I finally finished the year-and-a-half quest of watching Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. An excellent endeavor, though the final season, was far from the best of the series. One of my next projects will thus be to finish up the Buffyverse by getting my hands on some Angel DVDs and cracking through those. Probably my top priority is catching up on Veronica Mars, the first two episodes which I saw a couple weeks ago, which seems like a couple months ago, but I think remember them well enough. Also waiting on deck are two comedies I'd like to catch up, My Name is Earl and How I Met Your Mother, and maybe I'll start giving 30 Rock a chance, as I've heard pretty good things for the most part.
Music - This is where I may be falling the farthest behind, but there's a few things at least I'm looking out for. New Maximo Park and Fountains of Wayne albums should be arriving soon, and I'm looking forward to both of these. In addition, I've heard rave reviews of the Pipettes, so that's the group I plan on checking out next. I'm going to have to keep searching for some new hot bands and albums as well as digging back to find some lost classics from days of yore.
Books - I have pretty much not picked up my book in about two weeks. The book I'm "reading" now is a history of the Punic Wars, and it's been fascinating so far and I plan on actually getting moving on it again. My second book in line is Julian Barnes' "Arthur & George" which I don't know all too much about except that Arthur is I think Arthur Conan Doyle and the George is someone probably famous whose first name is George.
Well, here's where I stand. And oh, yeah, I suppose I have school to worry about at some point. If anyone has any suggestions for media to munch on (not literally, unless it's some sort of edible book, which I would welcome), let me know.
There comes a time in every man's life when he must move on to some new TV, movie, music and book projects. Here's where I stand at this moment.
Movies - man, there's so much I want to see - I plan on seeing the Prestige today, and I'd eventually like to see what I've heard is it's lesser cousin, The Illusionist. Of what's out now, I'd most like to see The 300. I'd like to see the past two Best Picture Academy Award winners Crash and The Departed. I'd like to knock down some more directors' work with ones like Mean Streets and Cape Fear for Martin Scorsese, and about 30 more films for Woody Allen. I'd like to watch some very cult classic late '80s and '90s movies like Heathers and Clueless. And I'd finally like to get back on watching all the Bond films over again, even the ones I've seen.
That should keep me busy for a while.
TV - Two weeks ago, I finally finished the year-and-a-half quest of watching Buffy, the Vampire Slayer. An excellent endeavor, though the final season, was far from the best of the series. One of my next projects will thus be to finish up the Buffyverse by getting my hands on some Angel DVDs and cracking through those. Probably my top priority is catching up on Veronica Mars, the first two episodes which I saw a couple weeks ago, which seems like a couple months ago, but I think remember them well enough. Also waiting on deck are two comedies I'd like to catch up, My Name is Earl and How I Met Your Mother, and maybe I'll start giving 30 Rock a chance, as I've heard pretty good things for the most part.
Music - This is where I may be falling the farthest behind, but there's a few things at least I'm looking out for. New Maximo Park and Fountains of Wayne albums should be arriving soon, and I'm looking forward to both of these. In addition, I've heard rave reviews of the Pipettes, so that's the group I plan on checking out next. I'm going to have to keep searching for some new hot bands and albums as well as digging back to find some lost classics from days of yore.
Books - I have pretty much not picked up my book in about two weeks. The book I'm "reading" now is a history of the Punic Wars, and it's been fascinating so far and I plan on actually getting moving on it again. My second book in line is Julian Barnes' "Arthur & George" which I don't know all too much about except that Arthur is I think Arthur Conan Doyle and the George is someone probably famous whose first name is George.
Well, here's where I stand. And oh, yeah, I suppose I have school to worry about at some point. If anyone has any suggestions for media to munch on (not literally, unless it's some sort of edible book, which I would welcome), let me know.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Well, all I seem to post about these days is predictions, so why should this be any exception?
I suppose I'll pick some Oscar races, for better or for worse.
Best Picture:
Strike Little Miss Sunshine - too small of a movie, a comedy and a little too quirky for Oscar
The Queen - I think this is a little bit too quaint and foreign, and Helen Mirren near definitely winning the Best Actress is not enough
Letters from Iwo Jima - this is a possibility, but I don't see a film entirely spoken in Japanese winning - lots of critical fanfare, but not enough commercially I don't think for this to take off, though I wouldn't rule it out entirely - Oscars love Clint of late
That leaves I think the biggest two contenders, Babel and the Departed
Both have a decent shot - Babel winning the Golden Globe, though that's not necessarily worth all that much -
My deciding factor will be that since I think Martin Scorsese will get his long awaited Academy Award, and the Best Picture is more often than not linked with Best Director.
The choice: The Departed
Best Director:
I feel like the Academy Awards have been waiting for a chance to finally make up for past wrongs and hand Marty his statue. I was a bit surprised that they passed him up on Gangs of New York, and then again with The Aviator. Third time (in the 2000s) I think will be the charm. His biggest competitor is Clint, but they let him win last time he faced off against Scorsese, I think they'll even the score.
Best Actor/Actress:
These are the easiest categories to predict - as long as I go with the prevailing logic, and I will - Helen Mirren for The Queen and Forest Whitaker for Last King of Scotland.
I could go on a long explanation about how much Oscar loves portrayals of real people, or how these particular performances fit the mold - but the heapings of praise and awards these two have recieved nearly unanomously so far should be more than enough.
Best Supporting Actress:
I'm going to take Jennifer Hudson - people loved her.
Okay, I've gotta go, quick picks (less words than the last one even - well, maybe not that few)
Best Supporting Actor:
I have no fucking clue - I'll take Mark Wahlberg, becuase I love his recent output.
Original Screenplay:
Babel
Adopted Screenplay:
The Departed
Okay, we'll see how I do.
I suppose I'll pick some Oscar races, for better or for worse.
Best Picture:
Strike Little Miss Sunshine - too small of a movie, a comedy and a little too quirky for Oscar
The Queen - I think this is a little bit too quaint and foreign, and Helen Mirren near definitely winning the Best Actress is not enough
Letters from Iwo Jima - this is a possibility, but I don't see a film entirely spoken in Japanese winning - lots of critical fanfare, but not enough commercially I don't think for this to take off, though I wouldn't rule it out entirely - Oscars love Clint of late
That leaves I think the biggest two contenders, Babel and the Departed
Both have a decent shot - Babel winning the Golden Globe, though that's not necessarily worth all that much -
My deciding factor will be that since I think Martin Scorsese will get his long awaited Academy Award, and the Best Picture is more often than not linked with Best Director.
The choice: The Departed
Best Director:
I feel like the Academy Awards have been waiting for a chance to finally make up for past wrongs and hand Marty his statue. I was a bit surprised that they passed him up on Gangs of New York, and then again with The Aviator. Third time (in the 2000s) I think will be the charm. His biggest competitor is Clint, but they let him win last time he faced off against Scorsese, I think they'll even the score.
Best Actor/Actress:
These are the easiest categories to predict - as long as I go with the prevailing logic, and I will - Helen Mirren for The Queen and Forest Whitaker for Last King of Scotland.
I could go on a long explanation about how much Oscar loves portrayals of real people, or how these particular performances fit the mold - but the heapings of praise and awards these two have recieved nearly unanomously so far should be more than enough.
Best Supporting Actress:
I'm going to take Jennifer Hudson - people loved her.
Okay, I've gotta go, quick picks (less words than the last one even - well, maybe not that few)
Best Supporting Actor:
I have no fucking clue - I'll take Mark Wahlberg, becuase I love his recent output.
Original Screenplay:
Babel
Adopted Screenplay:
The Departed
Okay, we'll see how I do.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
First, how about a good prediction out of my for the Super Bowl? I know I was impresed with myself. I didn't predict it. Well, I predicted the game, but I didn't predict my prediction being fairly accurate. So I'm 1 for 2, but that's a number I can live with.
From the stupid things out of peoples' mouths category, I read that our good friend Rush Limbaugh said this piece of drivel:
"And before we go to the break here, folks, I've got to get something off my chest. You know, the game was the game. And the game was what it was. But I - I can't handle any more press criticism of Rex Grossman. They're writing his name W-R-E-C-K-S. They're just ... worst quarterback ever to play in the Super Bowl. And it's been like this since the Green Bay game -- actually since the Arizona game, a little crescendo of it in the Green Bay game, the last game of the season for the Bears. And it's just unrelenting! It's just -- they're focusing on this guy like they don't focus on anybody!
"And I tell you, I know what it is. The media, the sports media, has got social concerns that they are first and foremost interested in, and they're dumping on this guy -- Rex Grossman -- for one reason, folks, and that's because he is a white quarterback.'
I really don't even have anything to add. This just speaks for itself. Now every person reading this blog I guarentee already feels the same way as I do about Mr. Limbaugh - but this should just give more reason to the people who haven't tuned him in lately.Baseball:
Now, I'm no nostalgia craving old timer who thinks every little thing ought be like it was in the old days. And I understand that in today's sport, people change teams - it's just a fact of life. Here and there we can have the Craig Biggios of the world, but for the most part, at best there will be Tom Glavine's who play for years and years on one team but then when they get old, have to go somewhere else to find someone interested in paying them.
That said, it's always nice when you have a chance to keep around a guy who can still help you out and who is willing to accept a reduced payday.
This could apply to a lot of people, and really in any sport, but probably more in baseball, where former starters, can still if they want, often be useful bench players.
In particular though, I refer to the case of Bernie Williams. Now, I'm no Yankee fan, so know my bias ahead of time. And I understand Bernie is old, and he is not as good as Abreu or Matsui or as promising as Cabrera. But there is one answer to why anyone has a right to say that Bernie deserves a place somewhere on the roster. The fact that the Yankees have made the moronic move of guarenteeing Doug Mientkiewicz a major league contract. Besides signing someone whose name is unspellable, the Yankees have signed someone who simply, sucks. Sure, he's better than Jason Giambi on first base, but hell, a Jason Giambi bobblehead is better than Jason Giambi on first base. Now, of course, I don't really give too much of a shit, I'm not a Yankee fan, and I have no right to speak for them. But I'll try anyway. If I was, I'd sure rather have a guy who poured his heart and soul into the team for 15 years and won four world championships than a guy who had just over 100 at bats for the Red Sox all 2004 season and attempted to steal the world series ball from a baseball mad city salivating for a championship like a couple of pit bulls starved for over 80 years without food.
Hell, I mean, I was sentimental about losing Cliff Floyd, and he'd only been on the Mets for four seasons, and maybe played for a total of three. (Though who knows when the Mets are going to have another shot at a player named Cornelius?)
But it just seems worth considering every once in a while keeping a player who can still be useful
over a player who can still be useless.
Sunday, February 04, 2007
With the bye week, there is not a single thing about the Super Bowl that can be said that hasn't been said yet. That said, I'll at least take a stab at a prediction. Colts 27, Bears 14. There it goes, if it's half as good as my baseball predictions, the Patriots will return in win the Super Bowl somehow.
Thursday, February 01, 2007
All right, me blogging is back - somehow fighting off laziness at least temporarily. I will dare I say, attempt to do this more often, but let's see it before I believe it.
Firstly, I'd like to complain about the moronic reaction to a number of Aqua Teen Hunger Force advertisements in Boston.
Here are a couple of links with the story:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/advertising-campaign-causes-terror-scare/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/index.html
I can't believe they're threatening Turner and the creators of the advertisement. Beyond being absolutely moronic, it is scary that the people protecting this country, and that city from terrorists could not identify an ad from a bomb, especially an ad for a fairly popular TV show. Had one eighteen year old male been shown this, all of the concern over this potential threat would have ended immediately.
So this shows to things - first of all, how incompetent the people who ran this thing are, and how irresponsible they are in trying to put the blame on Turner. Take responsibility, idiots, for you screwing up for thinking an advertisement - not a "hoax" as many are reporting, was a bomb - and not being able to figure it out before over a million dollars. These have been in 10 cities and no other city freaked out. They're in public places and not causing a disruption. Imagine seeing a giant Lite Brite and shutting down a couple of bridges over it. That's pretty much what happened.
Here's some more.
"
More later.
Firstly, I'd like to complain about the moronic reaction to a number of Aqua Teen Hunger Force advertisements in Boston.
Here are a couple of links with the story:
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/01/31/advertising-campaign-causes-terror-scare/
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/31/boston.bombscare/index.html
I can't believe they're threatening Turner and the creators of the advertisement. Beyond being absolutely moronic, it is scary that the people protecting this country, and that city from terrorists could not identify an ad from a bomb, especially an ad for a fairly popular TV show. Had one eighteen year old male been shown this, all of the concern over this potential threat would have ended immediately.
So this shows to things - first of all, how incompetent the people who ran this thing are, and how irresponsible they are in trying to put the blame on Turner. Take responsibility, idiots, for you screwing up for thinking an advertisement - not a "hoax" as many are reporting, was a bomb - and not being able to figure it out before over a million dollars. These have been in 10 cities and no other city freaked out. They're in public places and not causing a disruption. Imagine seeing a giant Lite Brite and shutting down a couple of bridges over it. That's pretty much what happened.
Here's some more.
"
The second thing it shows is of course how out of touch with pop culture the people in charge are. Pretty sad, frankly, You don't have to like Aqua Teen Hunger Force. But someone in the entire fucking government should know what it is.A furious Boston Mayor Thomas M. Menino vowed yesterday to throw the book at the masterminds behind a guerrilla marketing campaign gone amok that plunged the city into bomb-scare pandemonium and blew nearly $1 million in police overtime and other costs.
As city and state attorneys laid groundwork for criminal charges and lawsuits, cops seized 27-year-old Arlington multimedia artist Peter Berdovsky, who posted film on his Web site boasting that he and friends planted the battery-wired devices, and Sean Stevens, 28, of Charlestown. Both were jailed overnight on charges of placing a hoax device and disorderly conduct.
"This is outrageous activity to get publicity for a failing show," said Menino, referring to the battery-operated light-up ads for the Cartoon Network's "Aqua Teen Hunger Force," which sparked at least nine bomb scares in Boston, Cambridge and Somerville."
More later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)