I had an interesting moment yesterday. I was in the car, heading towards the freeway and listening to sports talk radio. Just then the host--the inimitable Damon Bruce--broke in on taking calls to tell his listeners that the 49ers were "on the clock" in the NFL draft's second round. Bruce made a few speculating comments about whom the 49ers might pick. I, alone in my car, spoke up to no one in particular, "What about that kid from Nevada? The quarterback...Kaepernick."
The words were hardly out of my mouth when the station broke in with a live feed from the draft. Former 49er Dwight Clark--he of "The Catch"--came to the podium and announced the 49ers' selection: none other than quarterback Colin Kaepernick out of Nevada.
That moment held a lot of "cool factor." The coincidental timing, my prediction being spot on, the fact that Bruce had not mentioned Kaepernick himself in his speculation...that all made for a fine moment. But there may be a bigger, long-term impact in that moment that bodes well for long-suffering 49er fans, because I think the team made a great choice.
I'm not a big college football fan, though I have indulged in the occasional game or two recently, whenever I had nothing else to watch or a particular match-up intrigued me. Last season's Boise State vs. Nevada game was just such an occasion, and I watched the whole game. I saw an overtime thriller for my troubles, one of the most exciting college football games I've ever seen, and Kaepernick was a big part of the hubbub.
The kid showed a huge upside in that game. And the fact that the 49ers, who have been bedeviled by quarterback play ranging from wildly inconsistent to downright awful in recent years, were able to draft Kaepernick may mean the end of their problems and the beginning of much brighter days ahead. I'm reminded of the mid-'80s, when the Philadelphia Eagles drafted Randall Cunningham out of UNLV in the second round--another mobile, strong-armed quarterback out of the Silver State, who quickly came into the game and set the Eagles on a course for the playoffs for years to come.
So mark it here and now: I predict that the 49ers have finally turned the corner with the selection of Kaepernick. Alex Smith will probably start the season under center for San Francisco again, to the groans of many in the Bay Area, but by mid-season those days will be past. And a once proud franchise will start making the push back to respectability--and beyond--by the end of the 2011 season.
(And yes--there will be a season. Don't get hysterical about the lockout; there's too much money at stake for everyone to see it all go down the drain.)
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Monday, April 25, 2011
Reel Reviews -- E
Easy A (+) -- I didn't want to like this movie. Early returns showed a flick that was way too clever and full of itself; the all-too-pretty setting and characters screamed "Disney movie," and all that entails; and the device of a webcast narration looked a little too self-consciously modern and present-day. But it all turned out for the best, paying off with a very sharp, funny and ultimately charming work. This one earns its good grade. Posted 1/5/12.
Easy Rider (+) -- Actually not as good as the obscuring haze of time makes it out to be. But definitely worth a look as one of the defining works of its time. And more movies should have characters discussing the nature of life and society in them, as Jack Nicholson so memorably does here.
Edward Scissorhands (+) -- And now you know my secret shame: it took me this long to get around to watching one of Tim Burton's best movies. What's to be said? It's like looking back at the moment when Johnny Depp really became a star, when Winona Ryder was still the next great thing. Mostly, it's just a wonderful movie, a modest fable about an outcast and how he stays that way, despite a brief interlude of acceptance. Whether you want hope or despair, you can find equal doses here, and you'll enjoy what you get to the fullest. Posted 4/25/05.
Elizabeth (+) -- One of those cool costume period pieces. Good work by Cate Blanchett as the titular monarch; exceptionally good work by Geoffrey Rush as her cagey counselor.
Ella Enchanted (~) -- In a nutshell, uneven. Anne Hathaway acquits herself nicely, even showing a strong singing voice, and the movie remains solid when it focuses on her Ella and the girl's unusual magical condition. But there's too much straying into bland low-romantic plot, and the warmed over 'Shrek' shenanigans don't add much to the proceedings. Worth it, if you really dig fantasy for kids. Posted 12/28/05.
Elysium (+) -- Solid sci-fi action movie. This one bears some familial resemblance to District 9 (by the same director), in that it depicts a circumstance of massive inequality, but this time we’re the underprivileged aliens; I guess the lessons of the last few years really have hit home. I’m not sure there’s anything profound here--it’s just a good action flick with a decent story that keeps moving along, keeps the viewer engaged, and comes to a satisfying conclusion. (And no set up for a sequel, something that’s rare with today’s sci-fi films. Perhaps that approach leads to better results? Hollywood take note…) Posted 4/27/14.
Ender’s Game (~) -- I guess some folks thought this was going to be really big. For that to happen, it would have had to have been really good--and it’s not. Which isn’t to say it’s bad; the movie works on its own level, it’s entertaining and well-paced, most of what you see is visually impressive. There’s just something missing, a deficit that keeps this flick from making that jump into the stratosphere of big-time sci-fi hit. Perhaps it's too intellectual at its core; that might work in a book--this film is famously based upon a book--but a blockbuster action movie needs a little more "duh" in it. Maybe. You can still get a couple of decent hours out of watching it; it's just not "all that." Posted 8/20/14.
Enemy At The Gates (+) -- Good cast, pretty good story, and you could hardly find a more dramatic setting than the battle of Stalingrad in 1942. Effective work by Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, the ever-reliable Joseph Finnes, and--with particularly stalwart distinction--Ed Harris. And by the way, if you've got a thing for seeing folks getting shot in the eye, this is your flick. Posted 8/3/02.
Enemy Of The State (+) -- Surprisingly good. Lots of fun, and perhaps the first movie where Will Smith really made a case for himself as a true movie star.
Enigma (+) -- You start off watching this flick, and you think you may have made a mistake. The lead-in is flat, there's a little too much Britishness...and then, amazingly enough, it kicks in, and "engrossing" is the word that springs to mind. Ultimately you get a tight, entertaining drama for your two hours. One distracting note: Dougray Scott spends the entire movie looking like he's been mugged by pipe-wielding bikers; hardly classic leading man material. Posted 11/26/03.
Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room (+) -- A film about monsters, plain and simple, one that will make you angry all over again. The filmmakers provide a comprehensive review of the crime of the early century, the scumbags who perpetrated it, and the damage it did. Watch this documentary, then remember it the next time some asshole starts telling tales about the "miracle of the marketplace." Posted 5/17/07.
Erin Brockovich (+) -- The better of director Soderbergh's two award-nominated movies from 2000. Julia Roberts is compelling as Brockovich, and Albert Finney is a hoot as her boss. And if the movie's accusations against PG&E are even close to true, then the bastards should stay bankrupt forever.
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (+) -- More mind-bending fun from the word processor of writer Charlie Kaufman. This one is not as heavy on the goofy humor as, say, Being John Malkovich; Eternal Sunshine is moodier, more contemplative, more interested in delving into the feelings of the leads (expertly played by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet). You laugh, but you get to experience other emotions as well. If you enjoyed Kaufman's other trips inside various heads, you'll like this one too. Posted 5/31/04.
Europa, Europa (+) -- A film about a Polish Jewish kid who escapes the camps by posing as a non-Jew during World War II. A bit long, but it holds the attention most of the way through.
Evelyn (+) -- I saw a broken family, lots of drinking, and occasional fighting. And I thought, "Yep...they're Irish." Beyond that, it's becoming painfully clear that the whole 007 thing is getting in the way of Pierce Brosnan having a fine movie career. This is better than any of his Bond movies, and more significant, given its topic (a father fights for custody of his children in 1950s Ireland). There are a few weak points--some telegraphed storytelling, and some predictable and shameless suspense-making--but you find it forgiveable. Posted 3/9/04.
Ever After (+) -- A nice revision of Cinderella. Still probably Drew Barrymore's best movie.
Evil Dead 2 (~) -- As a straightforward horror flick, this would just be another bad movie. But the genius stroke of remaking the original (a low key success in its own right) as a horror-comedy--with wry, almost peverse humor and a gleeful use of gore--elevates these proceedings considerably. Posted 9/18/07.
The Expendables (~) -- Sure, it's stupid. Borderline retarded in many places. Long stretches of the film sound as though someone spent many hours taping random conversations in bars at 1:30 in the morning, then transcribed the recordings into a script. And there are plenty of "what the fuck is going on?" moments throughout. So why no outright pan? Because it delivers what it promises--plenty of satisfying "blow shit up" moments, and there are just a few touches of decent direction here and there. Stallone does know how to make a movie; he just doesn't always put that knowledge to good use. In this case, as long as you don't pay for it, he probably did just enough. Posted 4/25/11.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (~) -- What an odd, uneven, sometimes downright off-putting film. Given the story’s context (September 11 and its aftermath), it would be hard not to touch a few emotional cores with such a tale; however, that advantage is generally squandered in this movie. The difficulty comes from trying to root for a kid who not only seems to have had severe mental problems even before tragedy struck, but is also something of a consistent jerk. Given that the kid’s the center of the story, that flawed character may very well prove fatal to this film’s chances with the viewer. It’s a competently made movie, at least, so I can’t see a reason to completely condemn it--but I see little reason to recommend it, either. Posted 6/28/13.
Easy Rider (+) -- Actually not as good as the obscuring haze of time makes it out to be. But definitely worth a look as one of the defining works of its time. And more movies should have characters discussing the nature of life and society in them, as Jack Nicholson so memorably does here.
Edward Scissorhands (+) -- And now you know my secret shame: it took me this long to get around to watching one of Tim Burton's best movies. What's to be said? It's like looking back at the moment when Johnny Depp really became a star, when Winona Ryder was still the next great thing. Mostly, it's just a wonderful movie, a modest fable about an outcast and how he stays that way, despite a brief interlude of acceptance. Whether you want hope or despair, you can find equal doses here, and you'll enjoy what you get to the fullest. Posted 4/25/05.
Elizabeth (+) -- One of those cool costume period pieces. Good work by Cate Blanchett as the titular monarch; exceptionally good work by Geoffrey Rush as her cagey counselor.
Ella Enchanted (~) -- In a nutshell, uneven. Anne Hathaway acquits herself nicely, even showing a strong singing voice, and the movie remains solid when it focuses on her Ella and the girl's unusual magical condition. But there's too much straying into bland low-romantic plot, and the warmed over 'Shrek' shenanigans don't add much to the proceedings. Worth it, if you really dig fantasy for kids. Posted 12/28/05.
Elysium (+) -- Solid sci-fi action movie. This one bears some familial resemblance to District 9 (by the same director), in that it depicts a circumstance of massive inequality, but this time we’re the underprivileged aliens; I guess the lessons of the last few years really have hit home. I’m not sure there’s anything profound here--it’s just a good action flick with a decent story that keeps moving along, keeps the viewer engaged, and comes to a satisfying conclusion. (And no set up for a sequel, something that’s rare with today’s sci-fi films. Perhaps that approach leads to better results? Hollywood take note…) Posted 4/27/14.
Ender’s Game (~) -- I guess some folks thought this was going to be really big. For that to happen, it would have had to have been really good--and it’s not. Which isn’t to say it’s bad; the movie works on its own level, it’s entertaining and well-paced, most of what you see is visually impressive. There’s just something missing, a deficit that keeps this flick from making that jump into the stratosphere of big-time sci-fi hit. Perhaps it's too intellectual at its core; that might work in a book--this film is famously based upon a book--but a blockbuster action movie needs a little more "duh" in it. Maybe. You can still get a couple of decent hours out of watching it; it's just not "all that." Posted 8/20/14.
Enemy At The Gates (+) -- Good cast, pretty good story, and you could hardly find a more dramatic setting than the battle of Stalingrad in 1942. Effective work by Jude Law, Rachel Weisz, the ever-reliable Joseph Finnes, and--with particularly stalwart distinction--Ed Harris. And by the way, if you've got a thing for seeing folks getting shot in the eye, this is your flick. Posted 8/3/02.
Enemy Of The State (+) -- Surprisingly good. Lots of fun, and perhaps the first movie where Will Smith really made a case for himself as a true movie star.
Enigma (+) -- You start off watching this flick, and you think you may have made a mistake. The lead-in is flat, there's a little too much Britishness...and then, amazingly enough, it kicks in, and "engrossing" is the word that springs to mind. Ultimately you get a tight, entertaining drama for your two hours. One distracting note: Dougray Scott spends the entire movie looking like he's been mugged by pipe-wielding bikers; hardly classic leading man material. Posted 11/26/03.
Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room (+) -- A film about monsters, plain and simple, one that will make you angry all over again. The filmmakers provide a comprehensive review of the crime of the early century, the scumbags who perpetrated it, and the damage it did. Watch this documentary, then remember it the next time some asshole starts telling tales about the "miracle of the marketplace." Posted 5/17/07.
Erin Brockovich (+) -- The better of director Soderbergh's two award-nominated movies from 2000. Julia Roberts is compelling as Brockovich, and Albert Finney is a hoot as her boss. And if the movie's accusations against PG&E are even close to true, then the bastards should stay bankrupt forever.
Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (+) -- More mind-bending fun from the word processor of writer Charlie Kaufman. This one is not as heavy on the goofy humor as, say, Being John Malkovich; Eternal Sunshine is moodier, more contemplative, more interested in delving into the feelings of the leads (expertly played by Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet). You laugh, but you get to experience other emotions as well. If you enjoyed Kaufman's other trips inside various heads, you'll like this one too. Posted 5/31/04.
Europa, Europa (+) -- A film about a Polish Jewish kid who escapes the camps by posing as a non-Jew during World War II. A bit long, but it holds the attention most of the way through.
Evelyn (+) -- I saw a broken family, lots of drinking, and occasional fighting. And I thought, "Yep...they're Irish." Beyond that, it's becoming painfully clear that the whole 007 thing is getting in the way of Pierce Brosnan having a fine movie career. This is better than any of his Bond movies, and more significant, given its topic (a father fights for custody of his children in 1950s Ireland). There are a few weak points--some telegraphed storytelling, and some predictable and shameless suspense-making--but you find it forgiveable. Posted 3/9/04.
Ever After (+) -- A nice revision of Cinderella. Still probably Drew Barrymore's best movie.
Evil Dead 2 (~) -- As a straightforward horror flick, this would just be another bad movie. But the genius stroke of remaking the original (a low key success in its own right) as a horror-comedy--with wry, almost peverse humor and a gleeful use of gore--elevates these proceedings considerably. Posted 9/18/07.
The Expendables (~) -- Sure, it's stupid. Borderline retarded in many places. Long stretches of the film sound as though someone spent many hours taping random conversations in bars at 1:30 in the morning, then transcribed the recordings into a script. And there are plenty of "what the fuck is going on?" moments throughout. So why no outright pan? Because it delivers what it promises--plenty of satisfying "blow shit up" moments, and there are just a few touches of decent direction here and there. Stallone does know how to make a movie; he just doesn't always put that knowledge to good use. In this case, as long as you don't pay for it, he probably did just enough. Posted 4/25/11.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (~) -- What an odd, uneven, sometimes downright off-putting film. Given the story’s context (September 11 and its aftermath), it would be hard not to touch a few emotional cores with such a tale; however, that advantage is generally squandered in this movie. The difficulty comes from trying to root for a kid who not only seems to have had severe mental problems even before tragedy struck, but is also something of a consistent jerk. Given that the kid’s the center of the story, that flawed character may very well prove fatal to this film’s chances with the viewer. It’s a competently made movie, at least, so I can’t see a reason to completely condemn it--but I see little reason to recommend it, either. Posted 6/28/13.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Recently Read
Fear and Loathing in America: The Brutal Odyssey of an Outlaw Journalist: The Gonzo Letters, Vol. II, 1968-1976
by Hunter S. Thompson
You don't have to be an ether-sniffing fiend to appreciate Fear and Loathing in America. I'm not saying it wouldn't help, but...it would serve as an unnecessary component of the literary experience, and should only be added at the reader's discretion.
This collection of Thompson's correspondence covers the crucial years of the infamous journalist's career: from the bad craziness of 1968, including Thompson's political awakening at the Democratic convention in Chicago that year, to the election year of 1976, when Thompson's prophetic vision of the possibilities of Jimmy Carter's campaign--recognized two years before--finally came to fruition.
For longtime Thompson readers, there are some surprises, but few major revelations. It doesn't come as a shock, considering the personality in question, to learn that some of the Doctor's responses to random fan mail could be as entertaining to read as his correspondence with political and literary heavyweights. More surprising, perhaps, are the troubles Thompson had with his writing, both in trying to follow up his first Hells Angels success--the abortive "American Dream" nonfiction project--and in his attempts to stride beyond his celebrity status in the wake of his greatest success with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Looking back, it's difficult to imagine a writer of Thompson's talent struggling to put words on the page. Yet, again and again, Thompson expresses his frustrations with all the destructive interference that plagued his writing output: his lack of any handle on the American Dream project's greater meaning, the inevitable distractions that went with running for sheriff of Pitkin County back in 1970, and the demands of celebrity in the wake of his outrageous success.
Perhaps the biggest surprise in these pages centers not on Thompson at all, but in the person of Oscar Zeta Acosta, both the legendary "Dr. Gonzo" of Las Vegas fame and the all-too-real Chicano lawyer and activist from Los Angeles. Acosta was a friend and collaborator with Thompson from the late-'60s onward, until disputes over his depiction in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and the potential film rights and clearances scuttled their friendship, not long before Acosta's mysterious disappearance in the mid-'70s. Reading their correspondence, particularly Acosta's letters to Thompson, reveals a much deeper portrait of the man than the Doctor's readers ever got from the Gonzo canon. "Strange Rumblings in Atzlan" gave readers a bare portrait of a thoughtful, dedicated man; the Dr. Gonzo character of Las Vegas, in retrospect, really did border on caricature, if not outright libel. It is disquieting to think, from the vantage of the future, that the falling out may very well have been Thompson's fault. Perhaps. It's only a handful of letters, and they are subject to interpretation, to be sure. But clearly, more went on there than met the eye.
Fear and Loathing in America has its downsides. The book is quite long, covering its eight year period in exhaustive detail, and some inevitable repetition. Thompson, in his correspondence, never hesitated to reiterate himself, and his letters to his editor concerning the American Dream project, composed over the course of three plus years, often tread over the same ground. Also, Thompson's narcissism often held sway; any event in his life was sure to find its way into his letters, again and again, in carbon copy detail. For each individual letter recipient, the story undoubtedly held together as a coherent thread; but for anyone reading those letters collected, an inevitable sense of deja vu creeps into the proceedings.
Finally, despite the interesting tidbits revealed in Fear and Loathing in America, these pages also represent something sad for Thompson fans. Except perhaps for his Rolling Stone obituary for Richard Nixon--a work well worthy of the Gonzo canon--Thompson rarely hit the high notes after the period covered in Fear and Loathing in America. Once The Great Shark Hunt reached bookstore shelves back in the late '70s, Thompson's output consisted of sporadic pieces of uneven work, from then until his eventual suicide. The experienced reader knows, as he reads through Fear and Loathing in America, that he is peering back at a height already ascended, glancing over his shoulder at a mountain that will never be climbed all the way to the top again. That knowledge lends the effort a melancholy air, one that colors the entire effort.
Still, if you are a Thompson fan, you always welcome a chance to read his words, especially pieces that you may not have seen before. There's always a passage or two that calls up the magic once again, words that summon something that few writers have ever been able to conjure. Perhaps the next volume of Thompson's letters will reveal greater insights, and possibly provide better material than the published works of later years. In the mean time, we can console ourselves with what we have: the voice of a great writer that, despite death and time, has not yet been silenced. In Thompson's case, that is enough.
by Hunter S. Thompson
You don't have to be an ether-sniffing fiend to appreciate Fear and Loathing in America. I'm not saying it wouldn't help, but...it would serve as an unnecessary component of the literary experience, and should only be added at the reader's discretion.
 |
| Fear and Loathing in America |
For longtime Thompson readers, there are some surprises, but few major revelations. It doesn't come as a shock, considering the personality in question, to learn that some of the Doctor's responses to random fan mail could be as entertaining to read as his correspondence with political and literary heavyweights. More surprising, perhaps, are the troubles Thompson had with his writing, both in trying to follow up his first Hells Angels success--the abortive "American Dream" nonfiction project--and in his attempts to stride beyond his celebrity status in the wake of his greatest success with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Looking back, it's difficult to imagine a writer of Thompson's talent struggling to put words on the page. Yet, again and again, Thompson expresses his frustrations with all the destructive interference that plagued his writing output: his lack of any handle on the American Dream project's greater meaning, the inevitable distractions that went with running for sheriff of Pitkin County back in 1970, and the demands of celebrity in the wake of his outrageous success.
Perhaps the biggest surprise in these pages centers not on Thompson at all, but in the person of Oscar Zeta Acosta, both the legendary "Dr. Gonzo" of Las Vegas fame and the all-too-real Chicano lawyer and activist from Los Angeles. Acosta was a friend and collaborator with Thompson from the late-'60s onward, until disputes over his depiction in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and the potential film rights and clearances scuttled their friendship, not long before Acosta's mysterious disappearance in the mid-'70s. Reading their correspondence, particularly Acosta's letters to Thompson, reveals a much deeper portrait of the man than the Doctor's readers ever got from the Gonzo canon. "Strange Rumblings in Atzlan" gave readers a bare portrait of a thoughtful, dedicated man; the Dr. Gonzo character of Las Vegas, in retrospect, really did border on caricature, if not outright libel. It is disquieting to think, from the vantage of the future, that the falling out may very well have been Thompson's fault. Perhaps. It's only a handful of letters, and they are subject to interpretation, to be sure. But clearly, more went on there than met the eye.
Fear and Loathing in America has its downsides. The book is quite long, covering its eight year period in exhaustive detail, and some inevitable repetition. Thompson, in his correspondence, never hesitated to reiterate himself, and his letters to his editor concerning the American Dream project, composed over the course of three plus years, often tread over the same ground. Also, Thompson's narcissism often held sway; any event in his life was sure to find its way into his letters, again and again, in carbon copy detail. For each individual letter recipient, the story undoubtedly held together as a coherent thread; but for anyone reading those letters collected, an inevitable sense of deja vu creeps into the proceedings.
Finally, despite the interesting tidbits revealed in Fear and Loathing in America, these pages also represent something sad for Thompson fans. Except perhaps for his Rolling Stone obituary for Richard Nixon--a work well worthy of the Gonzo canon--Thompson rarely hit the high notes after the period covered in Fear and Loathing in America. Once The Great Shark Hunt reached bookstore shelves back in the late '70s, Thompson's output consisted of sporadic pieces of uneven work, from then until his eventual suicide. The experienced reader knows, as he reads through Fear and Loathing in America, that he is peering back at a height already ascended, glancing over his shoulder at a mountain that will never be climbed all the way to the top again. That knowledge lends the effort a melancholy air, one that colors the entire effort.
Still, if you are a Thompson fan, you always welcome a chance to read his words, especially pieces that you may not have seen before. There's always a passage or two that calls up the magic once again, words that summon something that few writers have ever been able to conjure. Perhaps the next volume of Thompson's letters will reveal greater insights, and possibly provide better material than the published works of later years. In the mean time, we can console ourselves with what we have: the voice of a great writer that, despite death and time, has not yet been silenced. In Thompson's case, that is enough.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Reel Reviews -- B
Bad Lieutenant (--) "Lurid" hardly covers it. There's barely a story here--just Harvey Keitel in some mid-career adventures in vile behavior. It's little more than a travelogue of sin and perversity, though the film does include a lot of unintentional comedy in many of the earlier scenes--if you watch it in the right frame of mind. But really, you don't need to watch it at all. Posted 5/31/08.
Bad Santa (+) -- Of such stuff are a curmudgeon's dreams made. In a world where corporate radio stations start playing Christmas carols in mid-November--the better to distract people with schmaltz--we need more works like this. Special props to Billy Bob Thornton for giving a tour-de-force as the scuzzy Santa. It gets a demerit or two for wimping out a bit at the end; otherwise, this would be "Best Of All" material. Posted 12/7/03.
Bamboozled (+) -- Brilliantly done work of satire. The biting, hilarious humor of the beginning gradually dissolves into deepening drama as the principals in the story--the stars and developers of a cynically created "new millennium minstrel show"--are swept toward a tragic ending. Excellent work from Damon Wayans, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Tommy Davidson, Savion Glover and Michael Rappaport (particularly Wayans, in a radical departure from his previous work). Probably Spike Lee's best movie, and just as probably should have been nominated for Best Picture. Posted 9/9/02.
Bandits (+) -- It works. It's not something that will change the world, but you can find worse ways to pass the time. The story holds the attention, Billy Bob Thornton is typically excellent, Bruce Willis is in his best mode (when he doesn't try to do too much), and Cate Blanchett is funnier than you'd think. Posted 5/11/03.
Barcelona (~) -- Relatively well-done. A mildly interesting view of Americans abroad. That's about it.
Barfly (~) -- A "colorful" bit of cinema, to say the least. Loving portraits of life among the down, out, and drunk are few and far between, so I guess it gets points for that. If Bukowski is your idea of a good time, you just might enjoy yourself with this one (and I must admit it has its moments of weird appeal). Others might be less enchanted. Oh, yeah, and Mickey Rourke in the role of a drunken loser? Fit like a glove--but you already knew that. Posted 5/11/05.
Batman Begins (+) -- Not your typical comic book movie--and that's a good thing here. Director Christopher Nolan left the standard issue Batman camp in the vault, choosing instead to play it straight and serious, and the results are damn near spectacular. Everything feels very real: a terrific, entertaining story, well-presented and well-acted by Christian Bale, Michael Caine and others (including a tragic reminder that the now-trainwrecked Katie Holmes had a real career ahead of her). This film owes a lot not just to Frank Miller, but also Nolan's previous work (the very uncampy Memento and Insomnia), and even the '90s movie version of "The Shadow" (though this is a much better work than that). This franchise has been played out before, but if they want to have another go with this team, I'd be up for it. Posted 3/28/07.
The Baxter (+) -- A film with a lot of that "little movie that could" feel to it, with plenty of cuteness, charm, and slightly cynical wit sprinkled within the otherwise standard issue romantic comedy storyline. The nonlinear timeline and voice over narration can be grating, but the cast is likeable (a number of familiar faces, with Michelle Williams leading the way) and the heart of the matter remains sincere. It never quite reaches the highest highs, but the film stays near its peak for most of the running time. Good enough. Posted 3/5/07.
Beasts of the Southern Wild (+) -- First things first: HOLD THE FUCKING CAMERA STILL. Now that that's out of the way...I wanted to hate this film, because of the stupid fuck amateur shakycam bullshit, but that contrivance becomes less of a problem as the movie moves forward. Good thing, too, because the visual settle-down actually lets you focus on the meat of the movie: the deeply compelling relationship between main character Hushpuppy and her father Wink. The girl got all the glory around Oscar time, but I actually found Dwight Henry's work as Wink to be the more riveting performance. Both excellent performances, along with an interesting storytelling vision and a lot of engaging oddness, make this movie worth the effort. (The film is also fairly short, which never hurts the cause.) Posted 6/1/13.
A Beautiful Mind (+) -- I'm nagged by the feeling that they're not being entirely accurate here, but ultimately it matters not--this is an intriguing and well-done story. It's got some suspense, some emotion and--for those with fairly open minds--even some consideration on the question of what is really "real." And, all off-screen personality issues set aside, Russell Crowe is truly a brilliant actor. Posted 12/23/02.
Bedazzled (~) -- Mostly harmless, occasionally funny. It suffers a bit by its being partly based on the preposterous notion that Brendan Fraser is a geek. (And no, I never did see the original, so I can't judge one versus the other.) Posted 10/14/02.
Being Human (--) -- The disjointed, episodic storyline would have been bad enough. But the pretentious, annoying voice over narration really queers the deal. Someone was trying to make a grand statement with this movie. Instead, we're only left with a question: what's the point? Posted 3/13/06.
Being There (+) -- It's almost too subtle; it takes a while to really get into this movie. But the humor is a delight once it gets rolling, and Peter Sellers's performance--a miracle of restraint, given some of the other characters he played in his career--is nothing short of astounding. He left us way too soon. Posted 12/15/02.
Bend It Like Beckham (+) -- The exuberance of this movie could even make me like football (world-style football, that is). There are some quibbles: the plot convolutions get a little too complex--one conflict at a time, please--and there's a little bit of "80's sports movie training montage" disease in a few scenes...but those are quibbles. You can't help but admire the pluck of the young heroines, and the portrayal of the Sikh family never makes the parents out to be the villains--a healthy respect that gives the movie its enjoyable depth. She shoots, she scores. Posted 2/28/04.
Bernie (+) -- An odd little movie, to be sure. I don’t think everyone will find this film to the his or her liking, but there was just enough humor, quirky fun, and good performances to pull this over the top in the end for me. Jack Black and Matthew McConaughey give fine performances in their roles, but the real stars of this movie are the Texas locals who bring a whole Home Depot paint department’s worth of “color” to the screen in the interspersed interview segments. Besides, I can’t really argue too strenuously against a Richard Linklater movie. Yeah, see it--just bring your most open mind to the proceedings. Posted 8/21/13.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (+) -- The strength here lies in the actors and the characters they bring alive for the viewer. Dench, Nighy, and Wilkinson shine as the most compelling members of the very far from home retiree group; the audience’s bond with those three characters serves to pull the movie through to a status almost as lofty as its exalted title. Otherwise, the local cast contributes little to the proceedings, and the vaguely formulaic climax would hardly serve a less accomplished troupe of actors. But the charm and talent win out in the end, both for the characters and the viewers, making the trip ultimately worth the inconveniences. Posted 5/4/13.
The Best Years Of Our Lives (+) -- An extraordinary film, worthy of its Best Picture award. The tripartite storyline examines the plight of returning WWII veterans from all angles, up and down the social, economic, political, and emotional spectrum. Great performances by Dana Andrews, Frederic March and Harold Russell, along with William Wyler's keen direction, make this one a classic that everyone should see. Posted 5/30/05.
Bicentennial Man (+) -- It deserved better reviews than it got upon release. Nice work by Robin Williams as a robot trying to be human.
Big Daddy (--) -- A mean, ugly pile of pigshit.
Big Fish (+) -- Not as good as it should have been, but the bar was set pretty high, so you still get a good movie. The fantasy sequences play much better than the worn-out father-son relationship plot. Credit for the good stuff goes to Ewan McGregor's bright performance and Tim Burton's inventive mind. Posted 1/31/04..
The Big Kahuna (+) -- Your classic "filmed play" kind of movie: tight, focused, to the point, and smartly done. The chief pleasure here is watching Kevin Spacey tear through the material, but there is enough depth and intelligence in the script to present some thought-provoking arguments, too. Nice work. Posted 3/6/05.
Big Night (+) -- Very entertaining. And a must see if you like Italian cuisine.
The Big Sleep (+) -- This movie is muddled and confusing. And the on screen sparks between Bogart and Bacall? I didn't believe a moment of it (ironic, since they were hot for each other off screen). So why do I recommend this movie? Because no one could deliver a line like Bogart. The more I see of him, the more I'm a fan. Posted 4/19/05.
Billy Elliot (+) -- Young English coalminer kid gets the music in him…and enchantment ensues. Alternately uplifting and wrenching, Billy's tale is perfect if you're big on underdog tales. Definitely worth a look.
Birthday Girl (+) -- So, you still think mail-order brides are a good idea? Caveat emptor, baby. Of course, if they all come over looking like Nicole Kidman, the m.o.b. companies might grow to rival GM. As for the movie, it moves briskly, deftly combines comedy and drama, and somehow makes you want to see Ben Chaplin's poor schlub come out on top. So I guess it works. Your marriage to Olga? I make no promises there... Posted 6/19/05.
The Bishop's Wife (+) -- A bit odd in concept: a helpful angel who covets a churchman's wife? That's not exactly canon, but hey, when the angel is Cary Grant, I guess the rules will stretch. Moral twitches aside, the film is at its best when it sticks with being subtle. A dominant low key approach is almost undermined by a few scenes of half-assed screen magic that threaten to drive the proceedings right into silliness. But the story's sincerity ultimately wins the day, making for an entertaining and effecting film experience. Posted 4/21/07.
Black Hawk Down (+) -- A gritty, rough portrait of the "fog of war" and the complexity of modern combat. The actors build believable characters and present a solid look at the detachment of soldiers from policy: of how only the fundamentals of time and place (do it for your buddy) matter to the men on the ground--an interesting theme that thoughtfully resonates even after the film ends. Good to look at and think about. Posted 4/16/09.
Black Swan (+) -- First, the quibble: a little too-much shakey-vision here. Director Aranofsky should be better than that. Perhaps he felt that style was necessary to create the vision he wanted to present. Whatever went into his directorial decisions, DA did craft an atmospherically unique film, something that I must say is unlike any movie I've ever seen. It's a consistently compelling experience, with an ever-building intensity that keeps the viewer riveted to the presentation. It may not be everyone's cup of plié--disturbing imagery, graphic sex, some violence, insanity...and ballet--but the adventurous viewer will most certainly be rewarded. Posted 11/12/11.
Blade (+) -- Wesley Snipes is so wooden there was no need to fight the vampires with a stake. Nevertheless, stylishly done with a pretty good story.
The Blair Witch Project (~) -- So this is what scares people these days? Not really, from this perspective. The loose plot had some truck-sized holes--just follow the damn stream, dumbshits!--but the idea was inventive, and that earns some props.
Blast From The Past (+) -- Cute. Not a whole lot to say beyond that, but in this case, it's enough.
The Blind Side (+) -- Cute. Sweet. I'm not sure there's much more to say than that. It's a very personal story, well told and finely presented; a little predictable here and there, but very good for what it is. Not exactly Best Picture material, but you will certainly enjoy spending these two hours. Posted 4/15/11.
Blood Diamond (~) -- Not a bad effort about an important subject, but...there's a spark lacking here, that little bit of something that lifts the ordinary out of the pack and into rarer heights. It's just never really present in this film. Can't blame the cast; they do good work with what they have. It's hard to place a finger on it, but something's missing nevertheless. Oh, yeah, and if you're looking for a movie to cure your elderly relative of his virulent racism...this ain't it. Posted 4/7/09.
Blow (+) -- Surprisingly poignant story about drug dealer George Jung. A movie which intimates--despite abundant evidence around us to the contrary--that crime really doesn't pay. Worth consideration. Posted 6/8/02.
Blue Jasmine (+) -- I think this is a very good movie, but I’m not really sure. These days it’s tough to tell if Woody Allen is achieving something subtly brilliant, or if he’s just wasting our time with nonsense. I suspect the former here, but I’d be willing to listen to arguments for the latter. This film comes across, beginning from the first scene, as an almost clinical examination of a maximally unlikeable character, set (in flashbacks, at least) in the typical Allen setting of the insular world of New York’s extremely rich, with occasional sojourns into working-class San Francisco. The setting and story make you think that some overarching political statement is being made here...but maybe not. It’s really opaque, and hard to tell what the director really thinks of these people, or even if his main character finally gets the comeuppance she deserves. (The ending is so open-ended that anything thereafter is possible). So it’s hard to say about this movie--yet, I’ve already written a long paragraph about it, and am still thinking about it, so it’s a movie that certainly makes an impression, probably through the excellent performances if nothing else. Watch it and judge for yourself. Posted 5/23/14.
Blue Sky (~) -- Tough to go wrong with Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange, but this one comes close. Too turgid for the average viewer.
Boiler Room (~) -- So, what's with the heavy-handed use of the hip-hop soundtrack? A statement, perhaps, that the young white males who dominate this movie are not so different from the 'niggas' in the hood? Yeah, we get it: expensive suits and gold chains don't live so far apart after all. Frankly, that's not exactly an epic statement. And even if it were particularly insightful, the over the top presentation we get here is a turn off; it may be subtle to the filmmakers, but it's something that some of us out here already know. That problem drags down this film, despite a some good moments, and makes it less than it might have been. Posted 2/19/08.
The Book of Eli (~) -- When the surprise twist comes at the end, it is--given all that has gone before it--utterly preposterous, almost to the point of dishonesty on the part of the filmmakers. That flaw almost ruins an otherwise entertaining bit of post-apocalyptic hoo-hah. The presence of two old pros--Denzel and Oldman--who are incapable of giving a bad performance goes a long way towards redeeming the storytelling misdeeds. In sum, it's uneven, but worth a look if you have the time and indulgence. Posted 8/29/11.
Borat (+) -- No, it's not the funniest movie ever made. But it has to rank up there. It's not an entirely original idea--the concept owes a lot to the Festrunk brothers from old SNL days, among others--but it is brilliantly executed here. Sacha Baron Cohen's particular genius seems to be a dogged determination never to break character, plus a great instinct for never letting a gag go too long (a common mistake in comedy). I don't know from offensive, so I won't warn anyone away from this hodgepodge of racial/ethnic humor; movies like this are for real adults anyway. Bottom line: if you have any kind of sense of humor, you will laugh. Posted 11/12/06.
Bounce (+) -- Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age, but I think this one's worth a look. Probably because Gwyneth Paltrow is good enough to lift any movie she's in.
The Bourne Identity (+) -- It's enjoyable, largely based upon the performances of the leads, Matt Damon as the titular badass and Franke Potente as the requisite cutie. The technospy horseshit almost ruins it, but if you keep your eye on the human element, it's worth it. Posted 6/6/03.
The Bourne Supremacy (~) -- It's kind of a shame, really. The first one was pretty good, and this movie could have been so much better than it is. The story is compelling, the action audacious, no expense was spared on production or location...but the direction just plain sucks, mostly because of devotion to the "constantly move the camera around" concept that supposedly makes even static scenes into something active. No, it doesn't, it's just annoying. Hold the camera still, asshole. There's still some good stuff here; you might enjoy it despite the shakyvision direction. Watch it on cable or get it from the library--just don't pay for it. Posted 4/7/09.
Bowfinger (+) -- An overlooked movie. Good cast, funny script, and Eddie Murphy shows just how good an actor he is.
Bowling For Columbine (+) -- Michael Moore's latest work takes on the U.S.A.'s love affair with guns, and shows how it is definitely an abusive relationship. It's less strident than his earlier works, but no less clear in its presentation of the argument or effective in making its point. Moore presents the issue in his inimitable style and lets the reality make its own case, and the case is a devastating indictment of our society. Objective? Not really. Political? Certainly. Brilliant? Without question. Every citizen of this country should watch this movie, then try to justify the hatefulness that lies in our society's core. A "Best Of All" inductee. Posted 12/9/02.
Boys Don't Cry (+) -- Tough to watch, particularly if you have a pathological hatred of rednecks (as I do). But Hilary Swank gives a great performance in a very sad story.
Brassed Off (+) -- Nice little movie about the disintegration of coal mining towns in Britain, and the one ray of hope provided by the miners' amateur orchestra. Hard to find, but worth it.
Brave (+) -- Why isn’t this movie considered racist? Is it only because the over-the-top character portrayals feature blue-eyed people? You may ponder that enigma at your leisure as you watch this one--and you probably should watch it, since this is an effective, well-done work of cinema, one of the better recent efforts to come out of the Pixar mold. While there is a bit of that usual Disney corn pone--the stuff that always threatens to ruin anything released under their banner--the rest of the film is an involving story of family tension, fairy tale fun, and just enough comedy to keep things light. Oh, and don’t you change, Merida--you’re exactly the girl you need to be. Posted 6/20/13.
Braveheart (+) -- Gotta dig all that spectacle. Pretty heavy on the gore, though.
Breaking The Waves (--) -- A little too dreary for my taste. Not badly done, just a rough movie to watch.
Brokeback Mountain (~) -- This movie is totally gay! There, I said it. Of course, it's got lots of gorgeous scenery, beautifully filmed, and you even get to see Anne Hathaway's tits, so what's not to love? Oh, right--the ass pounding. Well, setting aside orientation questions, the film itself has a solid story at its kernel, but feels a little stretched out, possibly an attempt to be "epic." That, plus the slowed down pace, can make this one tough to stay with, though the fine performances of the leads (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) as the conflicted cowboys are themselves worth watching. Probably worth your time, unless you really don't like gay cowboy movies. Posted 4/22/07.
The Brothers Grimm (--) We've come to expect more from Terry Gilliam than this, but here the problems lie mostly with the writing. The story is stupid, sloppy, and nonsensical, and contributes the lion's share in making for a flat and tedious movie. Gilliam's not the only sad sight here; good performances by Matt Damon and especially Heath Ledger were wasted in this effort. Everyone's heart was in the right place, apparently, but that's not always enough. Posted 11/12/06.
Bubba Ho-Tep (+) -- The best things about this movie? Its title and Bruce Campbell. The biggest problems with this movie? The title and Bruce Campbell. That tounge-obviously-in-cheek name, along with the presence of the current King of Camp, makes it hard to know if you're supposed to take this flick at all seriously. Almost certainly the answer to that question is "No," but you are sometimes left to wonder. There are a lot of laughs here--mostly from Campbell's Elvis schtick, though the titular beastie is himself good for a few laughs. The strengths more than make up for the weaknesses (lame set-up, some bland and bad writing, and Ossie Davis's unconvincing performance). Posted 10/18/03.
Bubble Boy (+) -- Strangely appealing. There's plenty of Farrellyesque fun for all here. It's not especially "important," but I must admit, I was laughing a lot at this movie. And I dug the slightly subversive element to the story. Posted 2/26/03.
Buffalo Soldiers (+) -- A strange movie. The story flies well below the radar, never hitting anything like a high note. Yet, it still holds the viewer's attention. A large amount of credit must go to Joaquin Phoenix, whose performance mirrors the story: understated but arresting nonetheless. Phoenix's supply room sharpie holds court throughout the film. It's a pleasure to watch him fleecing his way through an uninspiring Army career, and to watch him bounce back against all efforts to rein him in--all the while giving his character an implied depth that by all rights just shouldn't be there. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. Posted 1/23/06.
But I'm A Cheerleader (--) -- A subject ripe for satire--homo hysteria--but the treatment here isn't nearly smart or biting enough. Most of the jokes fall flat, and only the presence of numerous familiar faces can flag down the viewer's attention. The message of tolerance barely registers; indeed, the ultimate outcome in many ways seems to validate the targeted hysteria. And it all gets lost in too much blandness. Bottom line: this razor needed a much sharper edge. Posted 5/8/06.
Bad Santa (+) -- Of such stuff are a curmudgeon's dreams made. In a world where corporate radio stations start playing Christmas carols in mid-November--the better to distract people with schmaltz--we need more works like this. Special props to Billy Bob Thornton for giving a tour-de-force as the scuzzy Santa. It gets a demerit or two for wimping out a bit at the end; otherwise, this would be "Best Of All" material. Posted 12/7/03.
Bamboozled (+) -- Brilliantly done work of satire. The biting, hilarious humor of the beginning gradually dissolves into deepening drama as the principals in the story--the stars and developers of a cynically created "new millennium minstrel show"--are swept toward a tragic ending. Excellent work from Damon Wayans, Jada Pinkett-Smith, Tommy Davidson, Savion Glover and Michael Rappaport (particularly Wayans, in a radical departure from his previous work). Probably Spike Lee's best movie, and just as probably should have been nominated for Best Picture. Posted 9/9/02.
Bandits (+) -- It works. It's not something that will change the world, but you can find worse ways to pass the time. The story holds the attention, Billy Bob Thornton is typically excellent, Bruce Willis is in his best mode (when he doesn't try to do too much), and Cate Blanchett is funnier than you'd think. Posted 5/11/03.
Barcelona (~) -- Relatively well-done. A mildly interesting view of Americans abroad. That's about it.
Barfly (~) -- A "colorful" bit of cinema, to say the least. Loving portraits of life among the down, out, and drunk are few and far between, so I guess it gets points for that. If Bukowski is your idea of a good time, you just might enjoy yourself with this one (and I must admit it has its moments of weird appeal). Others might be less enchanted. Oh, yeah, and Mickey Rourke in the role of a drunken loser? Fit like a glove--but you already knew that. Posted 5/11/05.
Batman Begins (+) -- Not your typical comic book movie--and that's a good thing here. Director Christopher Nolan left the standard issue Batman camp in the vault, choosing instead to play it straight and serious, and the results are damn near spectacular. Everything feels very real: a terrific, entertaining story, well-presented and well-acted by Christian Bale, Michael Caine and others (including a tragic reminder that the now-trainwrecked Katie Holmes had a real career ahead of her). This film owes a lot not just to Frank Miller, but also Nolan's previous work (the very uncampy Memento and Insomnia), and even the '90s movie version of "The Shadow" (though this is a much better work than that). This franchise has been played out before, but if they want to have another go with this team, I'd be up for it. Posted 3/28/07.
The Baxter (+) -- A film with a lot of that "little movie that could" feel to it, with plenty of cuteness, charm, and slightly cynical wit sprinkled within the otherwise standard issue romantic comedy storyline. The nonlinear timeline and voice over narration can be grating, but the cast is likeable (a number of familiar faces, with Michelle Williams leading the way) and the heart of the matter remains sincere. It never quite reaches the highest highs, but the film stays near its peak for most of the running time. Good enough. Posted 3/5/07.
Beasts of the Southern Wild (+) -- First things first: HOLD THE FUCKING CAMERA STILL. Now that that's out of the way...I wanted to hate this film, because of the stupid fuck amateur shakycam bullshit, but that contrivance becomes less of a problem as the movie moves forward. Good thing, too, because the visual settle-down actually lets you focus on the meat of the movie: the deeply compelling relationship between main character Hushpuppy and her father Wink. The girl got all the glory around Oscar time, but I actually found Dwight Henry's work as Wink to be the more riveting performance. Both excellent performances, along with an interesting storytelling vision and a lot of engaging oddness, make this movie worth the effort. (The film is also fairly short, which never hurts the cause.) Posted 6/1/13.
A Beautiful Mind (+) -- I'm nagged by the feeling that they're not being entirely accurate here, but ultimately it matters not--this is an intriguing and well-done story. It's got some suspense, some emotion and--for those with fairly open minds--even some consideration on the question of what is really "real." And, all off-screen personality issues set aside, Russell Crowe is truly a brilliant actor. Posted 12/23/02.
Bedazzled (~) -- Mostly harmless, occasionally funny. It suffers a bit by its being partly based on the preposterous notion that Brendan Fraser is a geek. (And no, I never did see the original, so I can't judge one versus the other.) Posted 10/14/02.
Being Human (--) -- The disjointed, episodic storyline would have been bad enough. But the pretentious, annoying voice over narration really queers the deal. Someone was trying to make a grand statement with this movie. Instead, we're only left with a question: what's the point? Posted 3/13/06.
Being There (+) -- It's almost too subtle; it takes a while to really get into this movie. But the humor is a delight once it gets rolling, and Peter Sellers's performance--a miracle of restraint, given some of the other characters he played in his career--is nothing short of astounding. He left us way too soon. Posted 12/15/02.
Bend It Like Beckham (+) -- The exuberance of this movie could even make me like football (world-style football, that is). There are some quibbles: the plot convolutions get a little too complex--one conflict at a time, please--and there's a little bit of "80's sports movie training montage" disease in a few scenes...but those are quibbles. You can't help but admire the pluck of the young heroines, and the portrayal of the Sikh family never makes the parents out to be the villains--a healthy respect that gives the movie its enjoyable depth. She shoots, she scores. Posted 2/28/04.
Bernie (+) -- An odd little movie, to be sure. I don’t think everyone will find this film to the his or her liking, but there was just enough humor, quirky fun, and good performances to pull this over the top in the end for me. Jack Black and Matthew McConaughey give fine performances in their roles, but the real stars of this movie are the Texas locals who bring a whole Home Depot paint department’s worth of “color” to the screen in the interspersed interview segments. Besides, I can’t really argue too strenuously against a Richard Linklater movie. Yeah, see it--just bring your most open mind to the proceedings. Posted 8/21/13.
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (+) -- The strength here lies in the actors and the characters they bring alive for the viewer. Dench, Nighy, and Wilkinson shine as the most compelling members of the very far from home retiree group; the audience’s bond with those three characters serves to pull the movie through to a status almost as lofty as its exalted title. Otherwise, the local cast contributes little to the proceedings, and the vaguely formulaic climax would hardly serve a less accomplished troupe of actors. But the charm and talent win out in the end, both for the characters and the viewers, making the trip ultimately worth the inconveniences. Posted 5/4/13.
The Best Years Of Our Lives (+) -- An extraordinary film, worthy of its Best Picture award. The tripartite storyline examines the plight of returning WWII veterans from all angles, up and down the social, economic, political, and emotional spectrum. Great performances by Dana Andrews, Frederic March and Harold Russell, along with William Wyler's keen direction, make this one a classic that everyone should see. Posted 5/30/05.
Bicentennial Man (+) -- It deserved better reviews than it got upon release. Nice work by Robin Williams as a robot trying to be human.
Big Daddy (--) -- A mean, ugly pile of pigshit.
Big Fish (+) -- Not as good as it should have been, but the bar was set pretty high, so you still get a good movie. The fantasy sequences play much better than the worn-out father-son relationship plot. Credit for the good stuff goes to Ewan McGregor's bright performance and Tim Burton's inventive mind. Posted 1/31/04..
The Big Kahuna (+) -- Your classic "filmed play" kind of movie: tight, focused, to the point, and smartly done. The chief pleasure here is watching Kevin Spacey tear through the material, but there is enough depth and intelligence in the script to present some thought-provoking arguments, too. Nice work. Posted 3/6/05.
Big Night (+) -- Very entertaining. And a must see if you like Italian cuisine.
The Big Sleep (+) -- This movie is muddled and confusing. And the on screen sparks between Bogart and Bacall? I didn't believe a moment of it (ironic, since they were hot for each other off screen). So why do I recommend this movie? Because no one could deliver a line like Bogart. The more I see of him, the more I'm a fan. Posted 4/19/05.
Billy Elliot (+) -- Young English coalminer kid gets the music in him…and enchantment ensues. Alternately uplifting and wrenching, Billy's tale is perfect if you're big on underdog tales. Definitely worth a look.
Birthday Girl (+) -- So, you still think mail-order brides are a good idea? Caveat emptor, baby. Of course, if they all come over looking like Nicole Kidman, the m.o.b. companies might grow to rival GM. As for the movie, it moves briskly, deftly combines comedy and drama, and somehow makes you want to see Ben Chaplin's poor schlub come out on top. So I guess it works. Your marriage to Olga? I make no promises there... Posted 6/19/05.
The Bishop's Wife (+) -- A bit odd in concept: a helpful angel who covets a churchman's wife? That's not exactly canon, but hey, when the angel is Cary Grant, I guess the rules will stretch. Moral twitches aside, the film is at its best when it sticks with being subtle. A dominant low key approach is almost undermined by a few scenes of half-assed screen magic that threaten to drive the proceedings right into silliness. But the story's sincerity ultimately wins the day, making for an entertaining and effecting film experience. Posted 4/21/07.
Black Hawk Down (+) -- A gritty, rough portrait of the "fog of war" and the complexity of modern combat. The actors build believable characters and present a solid look at the detachment of soldiers from policy: of how only the fundamentals of time and place (do it for your buddy) matter to the men on the ground--an interesting theme that thoughtfully resonates even after the film ends. Good to look at and think about. Posted 4/16/09.
Black Swan (+) -- First, the quibble: a little too-much shakey-vision here. Director Aranofsky should be better than that. Perhaps he felt that style was necessary to create the vision he wanted to present. Whatever went into his directorial decisions, DA did craft an atmospherically unique film, something that I must say is unlike any movie I've ever seen. It's a consistently compelling experience, with an ever-building intensity that keeps the viewer riveted to the presentation. It may not be everyone's cup of plié--disturbing imagery, graphic sex, some violence, insanity...and ballet--but the adventurous viewer will most certainly be rewarded. Posted 11/12/11.
Blade (+) -- Wesley Snipes is so wooden there was no need to fight the vampires with a stake. Nevertheless, stylishly done with a pretty good story.
The Blair Witch Project (~) -- So this is what scares people these days? Not really, from this perspective. The loose plot had some truck-sized holes--just follow the damn stream, dumbshits!--but the idea was inventive, and that earns some props.
Blast From The Past (+) -- Cute. Not a whole lot to say beyond that, but in this case, it's enough.
The Blind Side (+) -- Cute. Sweet. I'm not sure there's much more to say than that. It's a very personal story, well told and finely presented; a little predictable here and there, but very good for what it is. Not exactly Best Picture material, but you will certainly enjoy spending these two hours. Posted 4/15/11.
Blood Diamond (~) -- Not a bad effort about an important subject, but...there's a spark lacking here, that little bit of something that lifts the ordinary out of the pack and into rarer heights. It's just never really present in this film. Can't blame the cast; they do good work with what they have. It's hard to place a finger on it, but something's missing nevertheless. Oh, yeah, and if you're looking for a movie to cure your elderly relative of his virulent racism...this ain't it. Posted 4/7/09.
Blow (+) -- Surprisingly poignant story about drug dealer George Jung. A movie which intimates--despite abundant evidence around us to the contrary--that crime really doesn't pay. Worth consideration. Posted 6/8/02.
Blue Jasmine (+) -- I think this is a very good movie, but I’m not really sure. These days it’s tough to tell if Woody Allen is achieving something subtly brilliant, or if he’s just wasting our time with nonsense. I suspect the former here, but I’d be willing to listen to arguments for the latter. This film comes across, beginning from the first scene, as an almost clinical examination of a maximally unlikeable character, set (in flashbacks, at least) in the typical Allen setting of the insular world of New York’s extremely rich, with occasional sojourns into working-class San Francisco. The setting and story make you think that some overarching political statement is being made here...but maybe not. It’s really opaque, and hard to tell what the director really thinks of these people, or even if his main character finally gets the comeuppance she deserves. (The ending is so open-ended that anything thereafter is possible). So it’s hard to say about this movie--yet, I’ve already written a long paragraph about it, and am still thinking about it, so it’s a movie that certainly makes an impression, probably through the excellent performances if nothing else. Watch it and judge for yourself. Posted 5/23/14.
Blue Sky (~) -- Tough to go wrong with Tommy Lee Jones and Jessica Lange, but this one comes close. Too turgid for the average viewer.
Boiler Room (~) -- So, what's with the heavy-handed use of the hip-hop soundtrack? A statement, perhaps, that the young white males who dominate this movie are not so different from the 'niggas' in the hood? Yeah, we get it: expensive suits and gold chains don't live so far apart after all. Frankly, that's not exactly an epic statement. And even if it were particularly insightful, the over the top presentation we get here is a turn off; it may be subtle to the filmmakers, but it's something that some of us out here already know. That problem drags down this film, despite a some good moments, and makes it less than it might have been. Posted 2/19/08.
The Book of Eli (~) -- When the surprise twist comes at the end, it is--given all that has gone before it--utterly preposterous, almost to the point of dishonesty on the part of the filmmakers. That flaw almost ruins an otherwise entertaining bit of post-apocalyptic hoo-hah. The presence of two old pros--Denzel and Oldman--who are incapable of giving a bad performance goes a long way towards redeeming the storytelling misdeeds. In sum, it's uneven, but worth a look if you have the time and indulgence. Posted 8/29/11.
Borat (+) -- No, it's not the funniest movie ever made. But it has to rank up there. It's not an entirely original idea--the concept owes a lot to the Festrunk brothers from old SNL days, among others--but it is brilliantly executed here. Sacha Baron Cohen's particular genius seems to be a dogged determination never to break character, plus a great instinct for never letting a gag go too long (a common mistake in comedy). I don't know from offensive, so I won't warn anyone away from this hodgepodge of racial/ethnic humor; movies like this are for real adults anyway. Bottom line: if you have any kind of sense of humor, you will laugh. Posted 11/12/06.
Bounce (+) -- Maybe I'm getting soft in my old age, but I think this one's worth a look. Probably because Gwyneth Paltrow is good enough to lift any movie she's in.
The Bourne Identity (+) -- It's enjoyable, largely based upon the performances of the leads, Matt Damon as the titular badass and Franke Potente as the requisite cutie. The technospy horseshit almost ruins it, but if you keep your eye on the human element, it's worth it. Posted 6/6/03.
The Bourne Supremacy (~) -- It's kind of a shame, really. The first one was pretty good, and this movie could have been so much better than it is. The story is compelling, the action audacious, no expense was spared on production or location...but the direction just plain sucks, mostly because of devotion to the "constantly move the camera around" concept that supposedly makes even static scenes into something active. No, it doesn't, it's just annoying. Hold the camera still, asshole. There's still some good stuff here; you might enjoy it despite the shakyvision direction. Watch it on cable or get it from the library--just don't pay for it. Posted 4/7/09.
Bowfinger (+) -- An overlooked movie. Good cast, funny script, and Eddie Murphy shows just how good an actor he is.
Bowling For Columbine (+) -- Michael Moore's latest work takes on the U.S.A.'s love affair with guns, and shows how it is definitely an abusive relationship. It's less strident than his earlier works, but no less clear in its presentation of the argument or effective in making its point. Moore presents the issue in his inimitable style and lets the reality make its own case, and the case is a devastating indictment of our society. Objective? Not really. Political? Certainly. Brilliant? Without question. Every citizen of this country should watch this movie, then try to justify the hatefulness that lies in our society's core. A "Best Of All" inductee. Posted 12/9/02.
Boys Don't Cry (+) -- Tough to watch, particularly if you have a pathological hatred of rednecks (as I do). But Hilary Swank gives a great performance in a very sad story.
Brassed Off (+) -- Nice little movie about the disintegration of coal mining towns in Britain, and the one ray of hope provided by the miners' amateur orchestra. Hard to find, but worth it.
Brave (+) -- Why isn’t this movie considered racist? Is it only because the over-the-top character portrayals feature blue-eyed people? You may ponder that enigma at your leisure as you watch this one--and you probably should watch it, since this is an effective, well-done work of cinema, one of the better recent efforts to come out of the Pixar mold. While there is a bit of that usual Disney corn pone--the stuff that always threatens to ruin anything released under their banner--the rest of the film is an involving story of family tension, fairy tale fun, and just enough comedy to keep things light. Oh, and don’t you change, Merida--you’re exactly the girl you need to be. Posted 6/20/13.
Braveheart (+) -- Gotta dig all that spectacle. Pretty heavy on the gore, though.
Breaking The Waves (--) -- A little too dreary for my taste. Not badly done, just a rough movie to watch.
Brokeback Mountain (~) -- This movie is totally gay! There, I said it. Of course, it's got lots of gorgeous scenery, beautifully filmed, and you even get to see Anne Hathaway's tits, so what's not to love? Oh, right--the ass pounding. Well, setting aside orientation questions, the film itself has a solid story at its kernel, but feels a little stretched out, possibly an attempt to be "epic." That, plus the slowed down pace, can make this one tough to stay with, though the fine performances of the leads (Ledger and Gyllenhaal) as the conflicted cowboys are themselves worth watching. Probably worth your time, unless you really don't like gay cowboy movies. Posted 4/22/07.
The Brothers Grimm (--) We've come to expect more from Terry Gilliam than this, but here the problems lie mostly with the writing. The story is stupid, sloppy, and nonsensical, and contributes the lion's share in making for a flat and tedious movie. Gilliam's not the only sad sight here; good performances by Matt Damon and especially Heath Ledger were wasted in this effort. Everyone's heart was in the right place, apparently, but that's not always enough. Posted 11/12/06.
Bubba Ho-Tep (+) -- The best things about this movie? Its title and Bruce Campbell. The biggest problems with this movie? The title and Bruce Campbell. That tounge-obviously-in-cheek name, along with the presence of the current King of Camp, makes it hard to know if you're supposed to take this flick at all seriously. Almost certainly the answer to that question is "No," but you are sometimes left to wonder. There are a lot of laughs here--mostly from Campbell's Elvis schtick, though the titular beastie is himself good for a few laughs. The strengths more than make up for the weaknesses (lame set-up, some bland and bad writing, and Ossie Davis's unconvincing performance). Posted 10/18/03.
Bubble Boy (+) -- Strangely appealing. There's plenty of Farrellyesque fun for all here. It's not especially "important," but I must admit, I was laughing a lot at this movie. And I dug the slightly subversive element to the story. Posted 2/26/03.
Buffalo Soldiers (+) -- A strange movie. The story flies well below the radar, never hitting anything like a high note. Yet, it still holds the viewer's attention. A large amount of credit must go to Joaquin Phoenix, whose performance mirrors the story: understated but arresting nonetheless. Phoenix's supply room sharpie holds court throughout the film. It's a pleasure to watch him fleecing his way through an uninspiring Army career, and to watch him bounce back against all efforts to rein him in--all the while giving his character an implied depth that by all rights just shouldn't be there. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. Posted 1/23/06.
But I'm A Cheerleader (--) -- A subject ripe for satire--homo hysteria--but the treatment here isn't nearly smart or biting enough. Most of the jokes fall flat, and only the presence of numerous familiar faces can flag down the viewer's attention. The message of tolerance barely registers; indeed, the ultimate outcome in many ways seems to validate the targeted hysteria. And it all gets lost in too much blandness. Bottom line: this razor needed a much sharper edge. Posted 5/8/06.
Sunday, April 17, 2011
Incredible Shrinking Me
I should have posted this yesterday, but I'm miserable dealing with an ear infection, and I'm not much good for anything right now. Anyway, before going to the doctor yesterday I weighed myself: 294.5 pounds on the home scale. It's a digital scale, which are notoriously inaccurate, but in the doctor's office I tipped the scale at 297.5--fully clothed with shoes, etc. (vs. the naked just out of the shower weigh in at home). This confirmed the general accuracy of that 294.5 reading.
The significance of this is, my weight has not been this low since at least 2005, and probably more like late 2004. This is a substantial breakthrough, after a Winter of mostly static lack of movement. If the next couple of months go accordingly, I may soon see the happier side of 290.
Now if I can only get a damn job...
The significance of this is, my weight has not been this low since at least 2005, and probably more like late 2004. This is a substantial breakthrough, after a Winter of mostly static lack of movement. If the next couple of months go accordingly, I may soon see the happier side of 290.
Now if I can only get a damn job...
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Read All About It
I have started a new self-publishing venture, a sister project to this blog that goes by the name MalchatsMedia, utilizing the forum of the Scribd website. I have now posted the first of my efforts, the humorous essay My Visit To Lotteryville, to my documents feed. You can read the work yourself by visiting my corner of Scribd: go to www.scribd.com/malchatsmedia to see the piece. You can either read it online, or download the PDF to read it at your leisure. Give it a look if you get the chance.
Recently Read
In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks
by Adam Carolla
I approached this book with a lot of caution. As it turns out, that caution was merited.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of Adam Carolla, having listened to his radio and podcast work since the late '90s. Carolla is a funny guy, and no one in the field of comedy can quite match the accomplishments of his unique oeuvre. But he has famously declared himself an enemy of the written word, and profoundly lazy to boot. Mix those ingredients together, and you can only expect a book by that same man to be something of a disappointment.
That said, In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks is a decidedly mixed bag. As a long-time listener, I am more than familiar with many of his "greatest hits"--subjects that the Ace Man brings up again and again, a penchant for repetition that is part single-mindedness, part radio production habit. Anyone who has heard Carolla rant on perennial subjects will expect this book to rehash many of those tirades, and that expectation is met spot on. They're funny rants, mostly, but we've heard them all before. There is very little new territory covered here, and intelligent long-time followers will have trouble avoiding the feeling that they were suckered into shelling out hard earned cash for content they've already heard ad nauseum.
I avoided that pitfall by checking the book out from the library. Score one for me.
Beyond the "old hat" problem, In Fifty Years... also stands as a notorious example of self-fulfilling prophecy, and perhaps as a monument to everything that is wrong with the publishing industry.
Addressing the former, as noted above Carolla is notoriously not a fan of literature, having even gone so far as to refer to himself as illiterate. Given that starting point, it comes as no surprise that reading In Fifty Years... can be a trial for anyone who is a fan of the written word. True to the man's spoken words, the text stands as a forest of bad grammar, bad usage, poor word choice, faulty syntax, even a misspelling or two. The botched writing almost serves as a badge of authenticity; you'd expect a book Carolla wrote on his own to be this poorly written.
Except that he didn't write it on his own; Carolla has expressed copious thanks on his podcast to his associate Mike Lynch, who was so important to the production of Adam's book that, as the acknowledgements section states, the book "would never have become reality without his involvement." One suspects, on that very sound evidence, that Lynch did a lot of the heavy lifting as far as writing this book goes (and bears some of the blame for the stylistic problems). Oddly though, Lynch does not get a co-author credit here. There isn't even an "Adam Carolla (large type) with Mike Lynch (small type)" credit--just a slice of gratitude in the acknowledgements. That ungracious lack of full credit where it's due seems beneath the good guy reputation that Carolla has maintained throughout his media career.
Of course, there is an explanation for that implied slight: this book was contracted to be written because Adam Carolla is a...I almost want to gag just from typing the word..."celebrity." He has been a fixture on TV and radio for years. He is a "star" whom many have seen dancing on a very popular competition show. He has built a broad audience with his very successful podcast. Simply put, In Fifty Years... reached the printing press solely because the name on the front cover was a ready-made marketing point. Whether or not the famous author's collaborator got any credit was irrelevant right from the start. Only the celebrity factor, and how that could be used to market a book, mattered to the publisher.
That, of course, points towards that second problem noted above: what's wrong with the publishing industry. And that problem is an exclusive interest in books that will sell themselves through name recognition to an already existing market--the quality of the product is aggressively irrelevant.
One might expect an Adam Carolla book to be poorly written. But in fact, the book is not just poorly written, but poorly edited--or perhaps not edited at all. Many of the textual inadequacies of In Fifty Years... could have been easily rectified with a minor amount of careful and attentive editing. Clearly, the text as it stands shows that that did not happen. Doubtless, if the publisher were asked, the lack of editing would be explained away with the lame excuse about not wanting to dilute the author's natural voice, of wanting to retain as much as possible Carolla's speaking style in the written word.
But that bullshit just doesn't fly. Moving from audio show to written work means moving from medium to medium, a shift designed to reach a new audience. And that new audience will be, for the most part, unfamiliar with the Ace Man's idiosyncratic voice. Longtime listeners forgive Ace's verbal deficiencies. But a new audience of readers, meeting Carolla's work for the first time, will contain many who will see these poorly written pages and simply conclude that the Ace Man is an idiot. Carolla himself probably has no problem with the book's lack of editing, but a little careful revision would have served to make him look better in the readers' eyes. The author will lose some of his potential new audience, people who could have added major numbers to his listenership, because they will make a dismissive judgment about him based on that lack of careful editing.
Of course, perhaps Carolla and his publishers have no concern about growing his audience. In that case, In Fifty Years..., with its repetitive rehash of old radio rants, serves as little more than a swindle designed to preach to the already sewn up choir--and to get them to shell out money for content they've already heard over and over again.
That, then, is the dilemma delivered by In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks. What is the intention with this book? To reach new audiences? If so, the poor quality of the text undermines that goal. Or is the goal to fleece the suckers? In that case, the book will probably succeed on those terms, and the quality of the writing is irrelevant. But if so, that bodes ill for any future literary efforts by the Ace Man. A true American Genius, Abraham Lincoln, knew that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Adam Carolla should keep that in mind as he prepares this volume's sequel--make it good, and make it new material, or the returns will diminish in a big way. In that latter case, whether or not we all turn into chicks, in fifty years few people will be paying much attention to the works of the Ace Man.
by Adam Carolla
I approached this book with a lot of caution. As it turns out, that caution was merited.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of Adam Carolla, having listened to his radio and podcast work since the late '90s. Carolla is a funny guy, and no one in the field of comedy can quite match the accomplishments of his unique oeuvre. But he has famously declared himself an enemy of the written word, and profoundly lazy to boot. Mix those ingredients together, and you can only expect a book by that same man to be something of a disappointment.
That said, In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks is a decidedly mixed bag. As a long-time listener, I am more than familiar with many of his "greatest hits"--subjects that the Ace Man brings up again and again, a penchant for repetition that is part single-mindedness, part radio production habit. Anyone who has heard Carolla rant on perennial subjects will expect this book to rehash many of those tirades, and that expectation is met spot on. They're funny rants, mostly, but we've heard them all before. There is very little new territory covered here, and intelligent long-time followers will have trouble avoiding the feeling that they were suckered into shelling out hard earned cash for content they've already heard ad nauseum.
I avoided that pitfall by checking the book out from the library. Score one for me.
Beyond the "old hat" problem, In Fifty Years... also stands as a notorious example of self-fulfilling prophecy, and perhaps as a monument to everything that is wrong with the publishing industry.
Addressing the former, as noted above Carolla is notoriously not a fan of literature, having even gone so far as to refer to himself as illiterate. Given that starting point, it comes as no surprise that reading In Fifty Years... can be a trial for anyone who is a fan of the written word. True to the man's spoken words, the text stands as a forest of bad grammar, bad usage, poor word choice, faulty syntax, even a misspelling or two. The botched writing almost serves as a badge of authenticity; you'd expect a book Carolla wrote on his own to be this poorly written.
Except that he didn't write it on his own; Carolla has expressed copious thanks on his podcast to his associate Mike Lynch, who was so important to the production of Adam's book that, as the acknowledgements section states, the book "would never have become reality without his involvement." One suspects, on that very sound evidence, that Lynch did a lot of the heavy lifting as far as writing this book goes (and bears some of the blame for the stylistic problems). Oddly though, Lynch does not get a co-author credit here. There isn't even an "Adam Carolla (large type) with Mike Lynch (small type)" credit--just a slice of gratitude in the acknowledgements. That ungracious lack of full credit where it's due seems beneath the good guy reputation that Carolla has maintained throughout his media career.
Of course, there is an explanation for that implied slight: this book was contracted to be written because Adam Carolla is a...I almost want to gag just from typing the word..."celebrity." He has been a fixture on TV and radio for years. He is a "star" whom many have seen dancing on a very popular competition show. He has built a broad audience with his very successful podcast. Simply put, In Fifty Years... reached the printing press solely because the name on the front cover was a ready-made marketing point. Whether or not the famous author's collaborator got any credit was irrelevant right from the start. Only the celebrity factor, and how that could be used to market a book, mattered to the publisher.
That, of course, points towards that second problem noted above: what's wrong with the publishing industry. And that problem is an exclusive interest in books that will sell themselves through name recognition to an already existing market--the quality of the product is aggressively irrelevant.
One might expect an Adam Carolla book to be poorly written. But in fact, the book is not just poorly written, but poorly edited--or perhaps not edited at all. Many of the textual inadequacies of In Fifty Years... could have been easily rectified with a minor amount of careful and attentive editing. Clearly, the text as it stands shows that that did not happen. Doubtless, if the publisher were asked, the lack of editing would be explained away with the lame excuse about not wanting to dilute the author's natural voice, of wanting to retain as much as possible Carolla's speaking style in the written word.
But that bullshit just doesn't fly. Moving from audio show to written work means moving from medium to medium, a shift designed to reach a new audience. And that new audience will be, for the most part, unfamiliar with the Ace Man's idiosyncratic voice. Longtime listeners forgive Ace's verbal deficiencies. But a new audience of readers, meeting Carolla's work for the first time, will contain many who will see these poorly written pages and simply conclude that the Ace Man is an idiot. Carolla himself probably has no problem with the book's lack of editing, but a little careful revision would have served to make him look better in the readers' eyes. The author will lose some of his potential new audience, people who could have added major numbers to his listenership, because they will make a dismissive judgment about him based on that lack of careful editing.
Of course, perhaps Carolla and his publishers have no concern about growing his audience. In that case, In Fifty Years..., with its repetitive rehash of old radio rants, serves as little more than a swindle designed to preach to the already sewn up choir--and to get them to shell out money for content they've already heard over and over again.
That, then, is the dilemma delivered by In Fifty Years We'll All Be Chicks. What is the intention with this book? To reach new audiences? If so, the poor quality of the text undermines that goal. Or is the goal to fleece the suckers? In that case, the book will probably succeed on those terms, and the quality of the writing is irrelevant. But if so, that bodes ill for any future literary efforts by the Ace Man. A true American Genius, Abraham Lincoln, knew that you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Adam Carolla should keep that in mind as he prepares this volume's sequel--make it good, and make it new material, or the returns will diminish in a big way. In that latter case, whether or not we all turn into chicks, in fifty years few people will be paying much attention to the works of the Ace Man.
Monday, April 4, 2011
Baseball 2011
Here we go: better late than never, I take another stab at predicting who will do what in Major League Baseball for an entire season.
Dedicated readers of this space will remember that last year's predictions were fairly hit and miss, and included some wild predictions vis-a-vis the expected final records of some teams, particularly those teams expected to finish at the top of their divisions. I made a minor adjustment to my formula, reeled in the number of factors I take into account when analyzing the teams' strengths and weakness, and overall tried to make things simpler. It seems to have worked, for the most part: most of the predicted division winners have "reasonable" records, though there are a couple of exceptions as noted below. All the rest of the teams went through the ringer and came out with records that look about right, given the teams in question. Of course, only October will tell how successful these predictions have been.
So without further ado, here are this season's predictions:
NOTES:
AL WEST: Back to the future: the Angels rebound and come up big again to win the division. I know there are rotation problems, but I expect them to hammer them out soon enough, probably with a trade or call-up (or two), and the rest of the team's strengths will carry the days. The Rangers still have a lot of bats, to be sure, but I still don't trust their pitching, again. This year marks the fall back. The Mariners will make strides, perhaps baby strides, but forward strides nevertheless, as they come back from last year's disaster. The big problem in the division is the A's, who have a lot of expectations on them, but then again, so did Seattle last year. Chances they live up to those expectations? Not great, unless ALL of their starting pitchers step up and post double digit win totals combined with perfect health. Otherwise, Oakland will see a disappointing step back.
AL CENTRAL: The AL's answer to the cockroach, the Twins, look like the favorites here. There's no killing them, even when injuries strike, and the odds are strong that better health is in the northern air. The Tigers seem to be running in place; same cast, same strengths and weaknesses, about the same results. I fully expected the White Sox to be the pick here, but the starting rotation shows surprising weakness, and I don't think the strong lineup will cut it. Back to the drawing board, again, for the Royals, now post-Greinke. Sad to see a team with such a proud history reduced to this, but at least they're not Pittsburgh. The Indians? Yeesh. The less said the better.
AL EAST: And here are the oddballs. I noted earlier that last year's predictions saw some inordinately good records come out of the forecasting machine. That problem has mostly been corrected, but here, the Red Sox and the Yankees both show over 100 win totals. Is there still a problem, or is this just an anomaly caused by statistical strangeness? Maybe a little from column A, maybe a little from column B--and maybe the third factor is, these teams really are that good. Both are truly loaded, and I expect at least one of them to actually exceed 100 wins for the season. It says here Boston comes out on top, but I won't be surprised if New York makes a change mid-season that shakes up the order. Again, I expect the Rays to be the junior partner--a good team that just doesn't have quite enough. They won the division last year in a surprise, but their first round playoff ouster seemed about right for them. They don't get so far this year. Maybe the Blue Jays think there's an exchange rate between here and Canada for ERA, and that that plus all the big bats will cover up the holes in the rotation. No such luck, hosers. Everyone's very intrigued by Buck Showalter's effect on the Orioles. It will take more than a baseball Svengali to make up for the fact that Baltimore has virtually no pitching. The crash will come, sooner rather than later.
NL WEST: Surprising strength from the Giants. Surprising because, as many seem to have forgotten in the wake of their championship, SF only got into the playoffs because of San Diego's collapse. Two more losses, and the Giants would have been watching at home. That said, they are well positioned because of their rotation to make it back to the postseason, though there are some roster questions that still need to be answered (the outfield, mainly). Again, I'm expecting more of the Dodgers than most people. They won't blow people away, as I predicted last year, but the situation is growing more stable by the day, and that bodes well for their performance over the course of the season. There are still a lot of good pieces in place there. The Diamondbacks lead the rest of a relatively weak field; they're improving, but not in leaps and bounds. Colorado still has lots of thunder in the lineup, but I still don't see enough pitching past Jimenez to make a big difference--as usual with that team. And the Rockies are prone to following up good years with bad years. The crash will come hard in San Diego, I think, although I don't feel comfortable about their record--the Padres could surprise again under Bud Black's wildly effective leadership. I have them in last place, but I won't be surprised if they find some magic juice again and creep up the standings.
NL CENTRAL: The usual hodgepodge of "almost, not quite" teams. That means the Brewers get placed in first almost by default; they don't make believers out of anybody, but I think the two AL recruits in the rotation, Greinke and Marcum, will pay big dividends by the end of the season. More hand-wringing on the north side for the Cubs--they'll probably be in first place until late in the season, when the cruelty of baseball will once again kick them in the collective groins. That seems to be already happening with the Cardinals: the Pujols situation, Wainwright's injury, and now Holliday is mourning his lost appendix. That and more agony will lead to a middle of the road season. At least the beer sales will be big, as always. The Astros are perking up. A bit--nothing major yet, but they are recovering from last year's disastrous start and have the nose pointed upward (though this year has not gotten off well, as of this posting). You'll think I'm crazy, but I see the Reds falling hard. I didn't really believe in them much last year, and when they went out quietly in the first round last October, I think they found their level. And I'm always leery of "out of nowhere" guys like Votto--there's little chance he can do it again. Their only hope is that Dusty Baker's forceful personality just won't let a slide happen. At least Cincinnati has that hope--the Pirates are consigned to some sort of sporting Hell. How can a professional franchise go this long without any--and I mean ANY--pitching? Seriously, someone should go to jail for this kind of bad management.
NL EAST: Now we're talking: the Phillies have the look of a dominant club, and they're only going to be better once Utley gets back into the swing of things. Barring multiple major injuries, they should be the class of the league again. Only the Braves can wreck Philadelphia's train. Atlanta is loaded, to be sure, in the lineup and the rotation; they're just one step behind the Phillies, and by the end the records will bear that out. Further south, they won't wind up winning anything, but no one is going to be happy playing the Marlins. That's a tough team with good arms and a few heavy bats in the order; they will make life unpleasant for a lot of teams before succumbing to the inevitable in the end. I love to take cruel pleasure in the pain of the Mets, so don't be surprised by my predicted record for them--I see little hope that they'll overcome their problems to make much of a move this year. Maybe down the line. And despite my pick for a fifth place showing, the Nationals really are getting better. I just don't think it will show up in the standings until next year. One more year in the basement, then brighter days ahead.
POSTSEASON
So what's it all come to at the end? I think we're looking at Giants vs. Braves again in the NLDS, along with Phillies vs. Brewers. We've seen both those acts before in recent years; the Phils will dispose of Milwaukee once again, but this time I see the Braves taking out the Giants. Just a luck of the draw thing. That sets up what could be a real war in the NLCS, Phillies vs. Braves. I expect the Phillies to hold serve and come through, probably in 6 or 7 games.
Over in the AL, I see Red Sox vs. Twins in the ALDS, with Angels vs. Yankees on the under card. For once, the plucky Twins will not have to face their playoff nemesis New York in the first round; unfortunately, it won't matter--Red Sox move on. The other series depends on Hank Steinbrenner's wallet--to wit, if the Yankees pick up another live arm for the rotation mid-season, maybe they'll have enough to get past the Angels. But I can't think of a difference maker who will be available then. My guess is the Yanks come up short at the trading deadline, then it costs them in the playoffs. So the ALCS looks like Red Sox vs. Angels. This will be a more difficult series than a first glance would tell, but I suspect Boston will prevail, probably in 5 but maybe six games.
At last, we come to the World Series: Boston vs. Philadelphia. No "disappointments" like last year--this will be a meeting of two acknowledged heavyweights, with plenty of drama and back and forth play. Everything in the book says the Red Sox get a slight edge in just about every category, yet...I'm willing to play the homer card, and I suspect that Boston is due to embark on another 86 years of torment. It says here that it starts this fall: Phillies in 6, possibly 7. Selah.
Dedicated readers of this space will remember that last year's predictions were fairly hit and miss, and included some wild predictions vis-a-vis the expected final records of some teams, particularly those teams expected to finish at the top of their divisions. I made a minor adjustment to my formula, reeled in the number of factors I take into account when analyzing the teams' strengths and weakness, and overall tried to make things simpler. It seems to have worked, for the most part: most of the predicted division winners have "reasonable" records, though there are a couple of exceptions as noted below. All the rest of the teams went through the ringer and came out with records that look about right, given the teams in question. Of course, only October will tell how successful these predictions have been.
So without further ado, here are this season's predictions:
AMERICAN LEAGUE
WEST
1. 97-65 Los Angeles Angels
2. 80-82 Texas Rangers
3. 79-83 Seattle Mariners
4. 78-84 Oakland Athletics
CENTRAL
1. 91-71 Minnesota Twins
2. 89-73 Detroit Tigers
3. 83-79 Chicago White Sox
4. 67-95 Kansas City Royals
5. 64-98 Cleveland Indians
EAST
1. 105-57 Boston Red Sox
2. 101-61 New York Yankees
3. 87-75 Tampa Bay Rays
4. 74-88 Toronto Blue Jays
5. 68-94 Baltimore Orioles
NATIONAL LEAGUE
WEST
1. 86-74 San Francisco Giants
2. 83-79 Los Angeles Dodgers
3. 77-85 Arizona Diamondbacks
4. 74-88 Colorado Rockies
5. 72-90 San Diego Padres
CENTRAL
1. 85-77 Milwaukee Brewers
2. 84-78 Chicago Cubs
3. 82-80 St. Louis Cardinals
4. 77-85 Houston Astros
5. 74-88 Cincinnati Reds
6. 63-99 Pittsburgh Pirates
EAST
1. 99-63 Philadelphia Phillies
2. 96-66 Atlanta Braves
3. 86-76 Florida Marlins
4. 74-88 New York Mets
5. 66-96 Washington Nationals
NOTES:
AL WEST: Back to the future: the Angels rebound and come up big again to win the division. I know there are rotation problems, but I expect them to hammer them out soon enough, probably with a trade or call-up (or two), and the rest of the team's strengths will carry the days. The Rangers still have a lot of bats, to be sure, but I still don't trust their pitching, again. This year marks the fall back. The Mariners will make strides, perhaps baby strides, but forward strides nevertheless, as they come back from last year's disaster. The big problem in the division is the A's, who have a lot of expectations on them, but then again, so did Seattle last year. Chances they live up to those expectations? Not great, unless ALL of their starting pitchers step up and post double digit win totals combined with perfect health. Otherwise, Oakland will see a disappointing step back.
AL CENTRAL: The AL's answer to the cockroach, the Twins, look like the favorites here. There's no killing them, even when injuries strike, and the odds are strong that better health is in the northern air. The Tigers seem to be running in place; same cast, same strengths and weaknesses, about the same results. I fully expected the White Sox to be the pick here, but the starting rotation shows surprising weakness, and I don't think the strong lineup will cut it. Back to the drawing board, again, for the Royals, now post-Greinke. Sad to see a team with such a proud history reduced to this, but at least they're not Pittsburgh. The Indians? Yeesh. The less said the better.
AL EAST: And here are the oddballs. I noted earlier that last year's predictions saw some inordinately good records come out of the forecasting machine. That problem has mostly been corrected, but here, the Red Sox and the Yankees both show over 100 win totals. Is there still a problem, or is this just an anomaly caused by statistical strangeness? Maybe a little from column A, maybe a little from column B--and maybe the third factor is, these teams really are that good. Both are truly loaded, and I expect at least one of them to actually exceed 100 wins for the season. It says here Boston comes out on top, but I won't be surprised if New York makes a change mid-season that shakes up the order. Again, I expect the Rays to be the junior partner--a good team that just doesn't have quite enough. They won the division last year in a surprise, but their first round playoff ouster seemed about right for them. They don't get so far this year. Maybe the Blue Jays think there's an exchange rate between here and Canada for ERA, and that that plus all the big bats will cover up the holes in the rotation. No such luck, hosers. Everyone's very intrigued by Buck Showalter's effect on the Orioles. It will take more than a baseball Svengali to make up for the fact that Baltimore has virtually no pitching. The crash will come, sooner rather than later.
NL WEST: Surprising strength from the Giants. Surprising because, as many seem to have forgotten in the wake of their championship, SF only got into the playoffs because of San Diego's collapse. Two more losses, and the Giants would have been watching at home. That said, they are well positioned because of their rotation to make it back to the postseason, though there are some roster questions that still need to be answered (the outfield, mainly). Again, I'm expecting more of the Dodgers than most people. They won't blow people away, as I predicted last year, but the situation is growing more stable by the day, and that bodes well for their performance over the course of the season. There are still a lot of good pieces in place there. The Diamondbacks lead the rest of a relatively weak field; they're improving, but not in leaps and bounds. Colorado still has lots of thunder in the lineup, but I still don't see enough pitching past Jimenez to make a big difference--as usual with that team. And the Rockies are prone to following up good years with bad years. The crash will come hard in San Diego, I think, although I don't feel comfortable about their record--the Padres could surprise again under Bud Black's wildly effective leadership. I have them in last place, but I won't be surprised if they find some magic juice again and creep up the standings.
NL CENTRAL: The usual hodgepodge of "almost, not quite" teams. That means the Brewers get placed in first almost by default; they don't make believers out of anybody, but I think the two AL recruits in the rotation, Greinke and Marcum, will pay big dividends by the end of the season. More hand-wringing on the north side for the Cubs--they'll probably be in first place until late in the season, when the cruelty of baseball will once again kick them in the collective groins. That seems to be already happening with the Cardinals: the Pujols situation, Wainwright's injury, and now Holliday is mourning his lost appendix. That and more agony will lead to a middle of the road season. At least the beer sales will be big, as always. The Astros are perking up. A bit--nothing major yet, but they are recovering from last year's disastrous start and have the nose pointed upward (though this year has not gotten off well, as of this posting). You'll think I'm crazy, but I see the Reds falling hard. I didn't really believe in them much last year, and when they went out quietly in the first round last October, I think they found their level. And I'm always leery of "out of nowhere" guys like Votto--there's little chance he can do it again. Their only hope is that Dusty Baker's forceful personality just won't let a slide happen. At least Cincinnati has that hope--the Pirates are consigned to some sort of sporting Hell. How can a professional franchise go this long without any--and I mean ANY--pitching? Seriously, someone should go to jail for this kind of bad management.
NL EAST: Now we're talking: the Phillies have the look of a dominant club, and they're only going to be better once Utley gets back into the swing of things. Barring multiple major injuries, they should be the class of the league again. Only the Braves can wreck Philadelphia's train. Atlanta is loaded, to be sure, in the lineup and the rotation; they're just one step behind the Phillies, and by the end the records will bear that out. Further south, they won't wind up winning anything, but no one is going to be happy playing the Marlins. That's a tough team with good arms and a few heavy bats in the order; they will make life unpleasant for a lot of teams before succumbing to the inevitable in the end. I love to take cruel pleasure in the pain of the Mets, so don't be surprised by my predicted record for them--I see little hope that they'll overcome their problems to make much of a move this year. Maybe down the line. And despite my pick for a fifth place showing, the Nationals really are getting better. I just don't think it will show up in the standings until next year. One more year in the basement, then brighter days ahead.
POSTSEASON
So what's it all come to at the end? I think we're looking at Giants vs. Braves again in the NLDS, along with Phillies vs. Brewers. We've seen both those acts before in recent years; the Phils will dispose of Milwaukee once again, but this time I see the Braves taking out the Giants. Just a luck of the draw thing. That sets up what could be a real war in the NLCS, Phillies vs. Braves. I expect the Phillies to hold serve and come through, probably in 6 or 7 games.
Over in the AL, I see Red Sox vs. Twins in the ALDS, with Angels vs. Yankees on the under card. For once, the plucky Twins will not have to face their playoff nemesis New York in the first round; unfortunately, it won't matter--Red Sox move on. The other series depends on Hank Steinbrenner's wallet--to wit, if the Yankees pick up another live arm for the rotation mid-season, maybe they'll have enough to get past the Angels. But I can't think of a difference maker who will be available then. My guess is the Yanks come up short at the trading deadline, then it costs them in the playoffs. So the ALCS looks like Red Sox vs. Angels. This will be a more difficult series than a first glance would tell, but I suspect Boston will prevail, probably in 5 but maybe six games.
At last, we come to the World Series: Boston vs. Philadelphia. No "disappointments" like last year--this will be a meeting of two acknowledged heavyweights, with plenty of drama and back and forth play. Everything in the book says the Red Sox get a slight edge in just about every category, yet...I'm willing to play the homer card, and I suspect that Boston is due to embark on another 86 years of torment. It says here that it starts this fall: Phillies in 6, possibly 7. Selah.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
