I decided to combine these two reviews, since A) they're about the same story, and B) who wants to read two different reviews for basically the same thing? So here we go.
For anyone who's been living under a rock for the past few years, Twilight is a story about a girl, Isabella Swan, who meets and falls in love with a vampire, Edward Cullen. You know, typical high school love story.
Actually, kind of, yes. The main characters are regularly overwhelmed with emotion, a very "high school" reaction to meeting a cute boy or a pretty girl. The explanation is that there's something special about Bella, her blood in particular, that makes her irresistible to Edward (and very appealing to other vampires as well). Which, okay, I mean, regular human dudes all want to get drunk with Minka Kelly, and regular human ladies all want Tom Brady to take them to the dance. So the concept of an innate attractiveness isn't so far-fetched.
The story is totally and completely a love story, which means that it's not going to appeal to everyone in every mood. When you're not of the right mind going in, the intensely strong emotions, teenage angst, and the countless obstacles to a "happy ending" can be frustrating, or downright depressing. But in the proper context of your own mind, it's an appealing story with some interesting, if fairly one-dimensional, characters.
As is often the case, the book offers a much deeper look at the inner workings of each character. You get to experience Bella's initial frustration, then watch as it slides over to curiosity, then grows to romance, and finally to...well, I don't want to call it "love," because it's something different from that. I don't believe that "love" can develop as quickly as things progress in this story. Something more like infatuation is what develops between Edward and Bella. But their devotion to each other is something that can only develop over time, and the movie just doesn't take long enough to show how it blossomed.
My other main qualm with the movie is that it occasionally features bizarre cinematography that I can only classify as "artsy." It's the kind of stuff that turned The New World into my least favorite movie of all time. I'm sure it was an attempt to set itself apart from other young adult books converted into movies (read: Harry Potter), but I've never been one to care much for nonstandard filming techniques or attempts at artistry using light layers or unique shuttering or whatever else movie people would call the stuff that they did. I just know that there were a few moments when I found myself colossally bored while the director explored different ways to film Robert Pattinson and the state of Washington. We get it, he's handsome, and the Pacific northwest is dreary.
That being said, as a guy (and one who's in a constant state of disillusionment when it comes to romance), some of the book dragged a bit. I get that the content was necessary to illustrate how deeply Bella was falling for Edward, but I wish the author had managed to have it manifest in a little more activity. Not action necessarily, just, something.
All in all, I'd rate the two equal when compared with other similar media. They were both solid, not the best, but entertaining.
The Last Word: I know I'm sort of behind the times, so my recommendation mostly falls on ears that already made their decision regarding the book and movie, so the most I could offer is, if you've seen/read one, but not the other, go for it. You'll enjoy it.
Friday, October 7, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Clash of the Titans (2010)
I never saw the original Clash of the Titans. I thought about getting it first from Netflix as I did with The Crazies and Dawn of the Dead, but for whatever reason, I ended up just getting the new one. Maybe at some point I'll go back and check out the original, but probably not anytime soon. I wasn't exactly wowed by the reboot.
The plot follows the myth of Perseus. I'm sure liberties were taken, but not knowing the original story, any discrepancies are incapable of bothering me. Which is kind of nice, having seen how people lost their shit when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep in the second Lord of the Rings film. The basic story is that Perseus is the half-human son of Zeus, he and other gods make various decisions regarding the mortal realm, monsters get involved...you know, standard mythology.
The special effects were pretty impressive, resulting in some very entertaining battle scenes with the aforementioned monsters. Perseus' traveling party also has some interesting members, which make the adventure more fun.
But the effects don't overtake the weakness of story or tepid acting in Clash of the Titans. While the action scenes are intense and fun, you simply do not care at all about the characters or their hardships. I think part of this comes from the innate difficulty of creating tension when a character may or may not be immortal. The fear of death is what makes a lot of stories engaging, and you're not really sure how mortal the half-son of a god is. Great acting could trump that (see Gandalf in Lord of the Rings), but there's no Ian McKellen in this film.
As I said, normally I watch the original movie before the remake, and that lets me feel comfortable watching the newer movie later, on the assumption that it'll at least be a little more watchable from a special effects standpoint. That's the circumstance with The Crazies, (though I actually enjoyed the original of that movie as well). So I don't expect to be watching the original Clash of the Titans any time soon.
Of course, that won't stop me buying that rum and..."Releasing the Kraken!"
The Last Word: I feel like the movie tried to get by on a few quotable moments and some dynamite effects, which happens all too frequently these days. The effects were fine, and the quotes were okay, but such things do not make a great film.
The plot follows the myth of Perseus. I'm sure liberties were taken, but not knowing the original story, any discrepancies are incapable of bothering me. Which is kind of nice, having seen how people lost their shit when the elves showed up at Helm's Deep in the second Lord of the Rings film. The basic story is that Perseus is the half-human son of Zeus, he and other gods make various decisions regarding the mortal realm, monsters get involved...you know, standard mythology.
The special effects were pretty impressive, resulting in some very entertaining battle scenes with the aforementioned monsters. Perseus' traveling party also has some interesting members, which make the adventure more fun.
But the effects don't overtake the weakness of story or tepid acting in Clash of the Titans. While the action scenes are intense and fun, you simply do not care at all about the characters or their hardships. I think part of this comes from the innate difficulty of creating tension when a character may or may not be immortal. The fear of death is what makes a lot of stories engaging, and you're not really sure how mortal the half-son of a god is. Great acting could trump that (see Gandalf in Lord of the Rings), but there's no Ian McKellen in this film.
As I said, normally I watch the original movie before the remake, and that lets me feel comfortable watching the newer movie later, on the assumption that it'll at least be a little more watchable from a special effects standpoint. That's the circumstance with The Crazies, (though I actually enjoyed the original of that movie as well). So I don't expect to be watching the original Clash of the Titans any time soon.
Of course, that won't stop me buying that rum and..."Releasing the Kraken!"
The Last Word: I feel like the movie tried to get by on a few quotable moments and some dynamite effects, which happens all too frequently these days. The effects were fine, and the quotes were okay, but such things do not make a great film.
Saturday, September 24, 2011
Movie Reviewed - For Your Consideration
Some of Christopher Guest's work is masterful. Best In Show was a great story about a lot of really compelling characters, portrayed perfectly. A Mighty Wind had a lot of that same magic. This Is Spinal Tap was decent, though didn't have the impact on me that it did for many others. So it stood to reason that I'd enjoy For Your Consideration, which features a lot of the same cast (Catherine O'Hara, Fred Willard, Eugene Levy, John Michael Higgins).
Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way.
For Your Consideration is a movie about a movie, which might make some of my description confusing. Anyways, the film is called Home for Purim, and it features a few lesser-known actors. Some way or another (it's never fully explored), a bit of Oscar buzz is generated about one of the leads, then another, then another. FYC follows the actors, the director, and other ancillary characters as the movie is tweaked, then completely altered, filmed, and reviewed. Their reactions are stereotypically Hollywood-ish, taking the whispers of awards and running with them, as far and as fast as possible.
Watching actors portraying "actors" acting like actors should have been an easy road to humor, but mostly it comes across as frustrating or disappointing. Honestly, the movie makes you wonder if the on-screen talent in the real world is just as shallow and jealous, and ultimately clueless. We all hear nice stories about Tom Hanks or Kiefer Sutherland, but who knows if they're accurate. Certainly we're at least willing to believe that a lot of Hollywood stars are more like the guys from Entourage and less like the guys from The Lonely Island.
Guest is well-known for having some looseness with his scripts, and sometimes that creates some gems, as I mentioned at the outset of this review. Honestly, A Mighty Wind and Best In Show are two really, really funny movies. For Your Consideration, though, shows you the risk you run when you allow actors to improvise dialogue. It can get messy, and unfocused, and if it's not funny, you just have a crummy movie.
The Last Word: Go watch the other two movies I mentioned. For Your Consideration is a pass.
Unfortunately, it didn't happen that way.
For Your Consideration is a movie about a movie, which might make some of my description confusing. Anyways, the film is called Home for Purim, and it features a few lesser-known actors. Some way or another (it's never fully explored), a bit of Oscar buzz is generated about one of the leads, then another, then another. FYC follows the actors, the director, and other ancillary characters as the movie is tweaked, then completely altered, filmed, and reviewed. Their reactions are stereotypically Hollywood-ish, taking the whispers of awards and running with them, as far and as fast as possible.
Watching actors portraying "actors" acting like actors should have been an easy road to humor, but mostly it comes across as frustrating or disappointing. Honestly, the movie makes you wonder if the on-screen talent in the real world is just as shallow and jealous, and ultimately clueless. We all hear nice stories about Tom Hanks or Kiefer Sutherland, but who knows if they're accurate. Certainly we're at least willing to believe that a lot of Hollywood stars are more like the guys from Entourage and less like the guys from The Lonely Island.
Guest is well-known for having some looseness with his scripts, and sometimes that creates some gems, as I mentioned at the outset of this review. Honestly, A Mighty Wind and Best In Show are two really, really funny movies. For Your Consideration, though, shows you the risk you run when you allow actors to improvise dialogue. It can get messy, and unfocused, and if it's not funny, you just have a crummy movie.
The Last Word: Go watch the other two movies I mentioned. For Your Consideration is a pass.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Movie Reviewed - The Winning Season
I'm kind of a sucker for Sam Rockwell. He seems to do so well in every role he has, and does especially well when his character is some kind of sinner. Choke was strange, but entertaining. People will look at the lineup for Matchstick Men and deride it because of Nicolas Cage, but Sam Rockwell does fantastically well, and actually, Cage does a very good job as well. The Green Mile was fantastic all around, and Rockwell was as good as anybody.
As I've done with several other actors, I went through Netflix's instantly available movies and added anything that looked interesting and had Rockwell, and The Winning Season was on the list. So, even though my brother chided me for watching it instead of Iron Man 2 (which I've also seen in the meantime), I decided to kill some time one afternoon at work and watch this film.
The basic story is pretty straightforward: Sam Rockwell is a drunk who used to play basketball. An old friend offers him a job coaching the girl's team at his old high school. Once you get past the ludicrous idea that a girl's varsity team would have an independent coach, the plot carries alright. Rockwell does a great job of portraying a guy who you could believe has a good heart, but is buried under the demons of his past.
The progression of the movie is predictable, but sometimes that just means that you get a standard feeling of satisfaction at each turn. Early troubles, moment of clarity, small successes, obstacles, overcoming them, new and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, redemption, etc etc. It's completely unsurprising, but it's pretty well-written and very well-acted, so I wasn't bothered by that. Though, truthfully, I'm not someone who gets bothered by predictability very often.
I laughed more than a couple times at the film, and Emma Roberts is cute in a "man I wish I was still in high school" kind of way...as she so often is. And Sam Rockwell is very good, as he so often is. I'm glad I watched it...about as glad as I am that I watched Iron Man 2.
The Last Word: I don't know if I'd say it's a must-watch, but if you're bored and in mixed company, you could do a lot worse.
As I've done with several other actors, I went through Netflix's instantly available movies and added anything that looked interesting and had Rockwell, and The Winning Season was on the list. So, even though my brother chided me for watching it instead of Iron Man 2 (which I've also seen in the meantime), I decided to kill some time one afternoon at work and watch this film.
The basic story is pretty straightforward: Sam Rockwell is a drunk who used to play basketball. An old friend offers him a job coaching the girl's team at his old high school. Once you get past the ludicrous idea that a girl's varsity team would have an independent coach, the plot carries alright. Rockwell does a great job of portraying a guy who you could believe has a good heart, but is buried under the demons of his past.
The progression of the movie is predictable, but sometimes that just means that you get a standard feeling of satisfaction at each turn. Early troubles, moment of clarity, small successes, obstacles, overcoming them, new and seemingly insurmountable obstacles, redemption, etc etc. It's completely unsurprising, but it's pretty well-written and very well-acted, so I wasn't bothered by that. Though, truthfully, I'm not someone who gets bothered by predictability very often.
I laughed more than a couple times at the film, and Emma Roberts is cute in a "man I wish I was still in high school" kind of way...as she so often is. And Sam Rockwell is very good, as he so often is. I'm glad I watched it...about as glad as I am that I watched Iron Man 2.
The Last Word: I don't know if I'd say it's a must-watch, but if you're bored and in mixed company, you could do a lot worse.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Fanboys
Let's start with this: I love Star Wars. I know that it's got its flaws, and that a lot of people hated episodes 1, 2, and 3. But my dad watched Star Wars about a dozen times in the theater, and my whole family caught on to the fever. The Star Wars universe has produced some great stuff, like Star Wars - Pod Racer for Nintendo 64 and Knights of the Old Republic for Xbox. This movie, though, doesn't register quite so high on the list.
The plot of the movie is kind of questionable. By that, I mean that I was actually finding myself questioning parts of the plot. Like, "Really? I don't buy that." The basic story is that a few friends who've grown apart over the years are brought back together when one of them finds that he's got terminal cancer. The whole group loves Star Wars, and since Episode One won't come out until after the friend's expected demise, they resolve to break into George Lucas' home to steal the film and watch it while he's still around.
Here's the thing. This movie had all the makings of being really, really good. Anytime you have nerds creating a self-deprecating piece of media, you've got a chance at something fantastic (see: Internet). And they got kind of a fantastic lineup of supporting cast/cameos. William Shatner, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Seth Rogen, Danny Trejo, Danny McBride, Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes, Craig Anderson, and Will Forte all make an appearance at some point, and they all do pretty well. Oh, and Kristen Bell is walking around the whole time, looking awesome like she does.
So where did it go wrong? Well, the lead cast was actually pretty weak. Even Kristen Bell, as smokin' ass hot as she is, can't really carry a movie. The four main guys are all relative no-names, and none of them is some diamond in the rough that ends up blowing you away with his performance, like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Superbad. Furthermore, as I said before, the story doesn't really engage you as well as you'd like, and it seemed like a conglomeration of scenes, rather than a fluid film.
In the end, I wish the movie had been better than it was. So many worthwhile contributors went in on the movie, you'd like to believe that they could put together something impressive. Especially when you're adding in the various Star Wars references that a guy like me can appreciate, it's a damn shame this wasn't a more well-made movie.
The Last Word: It had its moments, but mostly Fanboys was a disappointment, for how good it could have been.
The plot of the movie is kind of questionable. By that, I mean that I was actually finding myself questioning parts of the plot. Like, "Really? I don't buy that." The basic story is that a few friends who've grown apart over the years are brought back together when one of them finds that he's got terminal cancer. The whole group loves Star Wars, and since Episode One won't come out until after the friend's expected demise, they resolve to break into George Lucas' home to steal the film and watch it while he's still around.
Here's the thing. This movie had all the makings of being really, really good. Anytime you have nerds creating a self-deprecating piece of media, you've got a chance at something fantastic (see: Internet). And they got kind of a fantastic lineup of supporting cast/cameos. William Shatner, Carrie Fisher, Billy Dee Williams, Seth Rogen, Danny Trejo, Danny McBride, Kevin Smith, Jason Mewes, Craig Anderson, and Will Forte all make an appearance at some point, and they all do pretty well. Oh, and Kristen Bell is walking around the whole time, looking awesome like she does.
So where did it go wrong? Well, the lead cast was actually pretty weak. Even Kristen Bell, as smokin' ass hot as she is, can't really carry a movie. The four main guys are all relative no-names, and none of them is some diamond in the rough that ends up blowing you away with his performance, like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Superbad. Furthermore, as I said before, the story doesn't really engage you as well as you'd like, and it seemed like a conglomeration of scenes, rather than a fluid film.
In the end, I wish the movie had been better than it was. So many worthwhile contributors went in on the movie, you'd like to believe that they could put together something impressive. Especially when you're adding in the various Star Wars references that a guy like me can appreciate, it's a damn shame this wasn't a more well-made movie.
The Last Word: It had its moments, but mostly Fanboys was a disappointment, for how good it could have been.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Big Fan
Maybe I think Patton Oswalt is funnier than he is. I recently watched a brief stand-up clip of his, and while I chuckled a couple times, I didn't have any laugh-out-loud moments. But somewhere in my head, I have it that he's some kind of comic genius. I know a friend of mine has relayed a few jokes of his, and he re-tells them better than Oswalt delivers them himself, so I'm sure that's part of it. Thankfully though, watching Big Fan has helped me to view him a little more objectively.
The story follows Oswalt's character Paul, a deadbeat toll booth operator who's a tremendous New York Giants fan. He's a typical fanatic, owning lots of memorabilia and calling in to late night radio shows to give his take on his favorite team. One fateful night, he has an unpleasant encounter with his favorite player, and Paul has to figure out how to react to an internal crisis. He's got friends, family, a detective, and reporters who try to get him to do one thing or another, but in the end he resolves his situation in his own way.
Oswalt is certainly believable as a kind of loser, living with his mother and being cynical and snarky towards his lawyer brother, and anyone else who isn't either a sports celebrity or in the same dregs as himself. And really, while the film doesn't boast a particularly impressive lineup of actors (Michael Rapaport is the only other big name here), everyone seems very real. It's movies like this one that make you wonder how much of our assessments of people's acting ability is related to their attractiveness. Like, is Natalie Portman a good actress, or do I just want to take her home with me?
In the end, though, the solid acting doesn't make up for a mostly uninteresting story and a script that doesn't make you care about any of the characters. Maybe their soulless interactions are part of what make them realistic, but if real life were that interesting, I wouldn't watch movies. I'm looking for something more when I watch a movie, and it just wasn't there in Big Fan.
The Last Word: I don't think I'd recommend it, but I couldn't say it was a total waste of time. Definitely not a contender for my "Movie of the Year" list, though.
The story follows Oswalt's character Paul, a deadbeat toll booth operator who's a tremendous New York Giants fan. He's a typical fanatic, owning lots of memorabilia and calling in to late night radio shows to give his take on his favorite team. One fateful night, he has an unpleasant encounter with his favorite player, and Paul has to figure out how to react to an internal crisis. He's got friends, family, a detective, and reporters who try to get him to do one thing or another, but in the end he resolves his situation in his own way.
Oswalt is certainly believable as a kind of loser, living with his mother and being cynical and snarky towards his lawyer brother, and anyone else who isn't either a sports celebrity or in the same dregs as himself. And really, while the film doesn't boast a particularly impressive lineup of actors (Michael Rapaport is the only other big name here), everyone seems very real. It's movies like this one that make you wonder how much of our assessments of people's acting ability is related to their attractiveness. Like, is Natalie Portman a good actress, or do I just want to take her home with me?
In the end, though, the solid acting doesn't make up for a mostly uninteresting story and a script that doesn't make you care about any of the characters. Maybe their soulless interactions are part of what make them realistic, but if real life were that interesting, I wouldn't watch movies. I'm looking for something more when I watch a movie, and it just wasn't there in Big Fan.
The Last Word: I don't think I'd recommend it, but I couldn't say it was a total waste of time. Definitely not a contender for my "Movie of the Year" list, though.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Dancing
Dear October 2011 weddings,
I plan to be able to step on the dance floor and not look completely white when we meet. See you then.
Cordially,
-Joe
I plan to be able to step on the dance floor and not look completely white when we meet. See you then.
Cordially,
-Joe
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Movie Reviewed - No Strings Attached
You might be shocked to find out that No Strings Attached is one of only three movies I've seen in the theater this year (the others being Super 8 and the final Harry Potter movie). Less shocked when I tell you I saw it with a girl. The thing is...it might have been the best of the three (we can get together and talk about how disappointed we were in the final Harry Potter movie some other time).
The movie stars Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, and the premise is simple enough to ascertain: they want to bang, no strings attached. Or at least, things start that way. It wouldn't be a movie if it worked out, so obviously someone starts getting, well, attached. Then there's romance and sweet moments and humor. I mean, it's a romantic comedy, you basically know what it is before you start watching it.
Part of what made this movie really good was that I didn't have any sort of expectations of it being anything spectacular, precisely because it was a romantic comedy. But Portman and Kutcher are equal parts adorable and hilarious, and the supporting cast is phenomenal. I'd cite specific examples, but to mention everyone who contributes positively would take several more pages than I'm comfortable writing in a single blog. Suffice it to say, all of the ancillary characters serve their purposes beautifully, from comedy to companionship to the necessary frustrations of any film romance.
The one thing that detracts a little bit is that Kutcher doesn't do a great job of convincing the audience that he's weighed down with his emotions. He's romantic, but mostly just in a casual, friendly, funny kind of way. I don't ever feel like he's losing himself in the romance; he's just a willing participant. So when the story has its more poignant moments, they're carried by Portman's character, which isn't a bad thing (more screen time for her is always good), but makes you care a little less about whether or not they get together at the end of the movie.
Kutcher's lack of depth aside, though, this is a very, very funny movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes romantic comedies, or anyone who likes comedies and can at least stomach some romance. I haven't seen Friends With Benefits yet (like I said, three movies in the theater), but my exceptionally positive experience with No Strings Attached has me thinking I'd better find a way to watch it.
The Last Word: Funny, funny, funny. Oh, and Natalie Portman looks GOOD.
The movie stars Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, and the premise is simple enough to ascertain: they want to bang, no strings attached. Or at least, things start that way. It wouldn't be a movie if it worked out, so obviously someone starts getting, well, attached. Then there's romance and sweet moments and humor. I mean, it's a romantic comedy, you basically know what it is before you start watching it.
Part of what made this movie really good was that I didn't have any sort of expectations of it being anything spectacular, precisely because it was a romantic comedy. But Portman and Kutcher are equal parts adorable and hilarious, and the supporting cast is phenomenal. I'd cite specific examples, but to mention everyone who contributes positively would take several more pages than I'm comfortable writing in a single blog. Suffice it to say, all of the ancillary characters serve their purposes beautifully, from comedy to companionship to the necessary frustrations of any film romance.
The one thing that detracts a little bit is that Kutcher doesn't do a great job of convincing the audience that he's weighed down with his emotions. He's romantic, but mostly just in a casual, friendly, funny kind of way. I don't ever feel like he's losing himself in the romance; he's just a willing participant. So when the story has its more poignant moments, they're carried by Portman's character, which isn't a bad thing (more screen time for her is always good), but makes you care a little less about whether or not they get together at the end of the movie.
Kutcher's lack of depth aside, though, this is a very, very funny movie. I'd recommend it to anyone who likes romantic comedies, or anyone who likes comedies and can at least stomach some romance. I haven't seen Friends With Benefits yet (like I said, three movies in the theater), but my exceptionally positive experience with No Strings Attached has me thinking I'd better find a way to watch it.
The Last Word: Funny, funny, funny. Oh, and Natalie Portman looks GOOD.
Monday, August 15, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Rock Star
I remember seeing commercials way back when this movie came out, and thinking it'd be fantastic. I've never really been one to go to the movies much, though, so I never ended up going to see it. Time passed, and someone gave it a fresh and emphatic recommendation when I came across it as an available movie to watch instantly on Netflix. So on a lazy Sunday, I gave it a chance.
It was...fine?
Mark Wahlberg plays Chris, a singer in a tribute band who gets the opportunity of a lifetime when he's extended an offer to join Steel Dragon, the band to which he played tribute. It's a fairly pedestrian story that we've seen a few dozen times: the rise to fame, falling into bad habits, losing touch with loved ones, suffering disappointment, and later finding some level of redemption. There are precious few surprises to be found in this film.
That doesn't make it bad, though. Wahlberg really is quite a good actor, and he again does well in Rock Star. Jennifer Aniston plays Wahlberg's girlfriend/manager, and she does very well at capturing both sides of her character's feelings towards the protagonist: she loves him and helps him harness his talent, but also gets frustrated with his foray into the prototypical "rock star" lifestyle. The secondary characters are useful, but usually a little over the top. It came across a little spoofy, but still entertaining.
It was perfectly fine, and interesting enough to keep my attention for the duration. I don't know how my friend watched it and felt so strongly about it, but that's neither here nor there. The end result was a solid movie, though not spectacular. I don't regret putting the time in to watch it, which is as much as you can hope for out of a random movie.
The Last Word: Fantastic? No. But entertaining enough to kill a couple hours.
It was...fine?
Mark Wahlberg plays Chris, a singer in a tribute band who gets the opportunity of a lifetime when he's extended an offer to join Steel Dragon, the band to which he played tribute. It's a fairly pedestrian story that we've seen a few dozen times: the rise to fame, falling into bad habits, losing touch with loved ones, suffering disappointment, and later finding some level of redemption. There are precious few surprises to be found in this film.
That doesn't make it bad, though. Wahlberg really is quite a good actor, and he again does well in Rock Star. Jennifer Aniston plays Wahlberg's girlfriend/manager, and she does very well at capturing both sides of her character's feelings towards the protagonist: she loves him and helps him harness his talent, but also gets frustrated with his foray into the prototypical "rock star" lifestyle. The secondary characters are useful, but usually a little over the top. It came across a little spoofy, but still entertaining.
It was perfectly fine, and interesting enough to keep my attention for the duration. I don't know how my friend watched it and felt so strongly about it, but that's neither here nor there. The end result was a solid movie, though not spectacular. I don't regret putting the time in to watch it, which is as much as you can hope for out of a random movie.
The Last Word: Fantastic? No. But entertaining enough to kill a couple hours.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Visioneers
Within the first few moments of this movie, I knew it was going to be weird. It's set in a mostly modern but slightly futuristic America, where a particular company holds vast influence over its employees, and in fact most of the country. The company pushes for productivity above all else, telling people that they'll be happy if they're productive.
Zach Galifianakis plays a middle manager named George Washington Winsterhammerman, who comes in to work one day and discovers that one of his employees exploded. Yeah, kaboom. Turns out, he's not the only one, though. There's an epidemic of explosions going across the country. The explosions seem to happen to people who have trouble staying "stable" within the rigidity of the their super-structured lives.
GWW notices that he's experiencing some of the same symptoms that are being reported as precursors to explosion (things like dreaming or over-eating), and he tries his best to quell them, but he finds that he can't overcome these "symptoms," and starts to re-evaluate his whole existence.
It's a difficult movie to describe, because it's kind of funny, but doesn't really make you laugh. And for certain the creators of the movie had some kind of real-life critique in mind, but the metaphor is a little fuzzy. On a vague level, it's obviously about resisting conformity, but it's done in a kooky enough way that you're not sure if that's the actual intention of the film.
Still, Galifianakis is entertaining, and utterly believable, and the rest of the cast is strong and effective as well. And as I said, it does have a good humor to it, despite a lack of real "jokes." And the end, while a little confusing, does leave you with a sense of hope, or happiness, or some other positive feeling that is, as of right now, indescribable.
The Last Word: I don't think I'd go out of my way to watch it, and I'm not at all surprised that it wasn't widely released in theaters, but it's a solid movie for a Tuesday night if you've got nothing better to do.
Zach Galifianakis plays a middle manager named George Washington Winsterhammerman, who comes in to work one day and discovers that one of his employees exploded. Yeah, kaboom. Turns out, he's not the only one, though. There's an epidemic of explosions going across the country. The explosions seem to happen to people who have trouble staying "stable" within the rigidity of the their super-structured lives.
GWW notices that he's experiencing some of the same symptoms that are being reported as precursors to explosion (things like dreaming or over-eating), and he tries his best to quell them, but he finds that he can't overcome these "symptoms," and starts to re-evaluate his whole existence.
It's a difficult movie to describe, because it's kind of funny, but doesn't really make you laugh. And for certain the creators of the movie had some kind of real-life critique in mind, but the metaphor is a little fuzzy. On a vague level, it's obviously about resisting conformity, but it's done in a kooky enough way that you're not sure if that's the actual intention of the film.
Still, Galifianakis is entertaining, and utterly believable, and the rest of the cast is strong and effective as well. And as I said, it does have a good humor to it, despite a lack of real "jokes." And the end, while a little confusing, does leave you with a sense of hope, or happiness, or some other positive feeling that is, as of right now, indescribable.
The Last Word: I don't think I'd go out of my way to watch it, and I'm not at all surprised that it wasn't widely released in theaters, but it's a solid movie for a Tuesday night if you've got nothing better to do.
Book(s) Reviewed - Shadows's Edge and Beyond the Shadows
I learned a little something as I tried to start writing my review of Shadow's Edge; it's tough to create distinction in your discussion of books in the same storyline by the same author. The Night Angel trilogy (which began with The Way of Shadows) has three books, like most trilogies. But the second and third books are just sequential progressions from the same original story. The writing styles are identical, the characters are mostly already developed, and neither can be good (or bad) without the other also being good (or bad).
As it is, they're both pretty good. The original story focused mostly on the main character, Kylar Stern, and while his story was compelling, I think stories do well when you care about many characters, not just one main guy. In that regard, the second book and particularly the third offered a considerable upgrade. I'll now talk about them individually.
Shadow's Edge
The second book was exactly what you'd expect out of a second book. We learn much, much more about the ancillary characters who seemed interesting but about whom you didn't learn anything in the original book. We also see Kylar develop from his panicked, nervous youth into a formidable (but still pretty emotionally unstable) adult. And maybe most importantly, we have three villainous "entities" (you'll understand if you read it) developed for us who take us through the remainder of the series.
Like most middle issues, the main characters face considerable hardship and sorrow over the course of this book. The author does a good job of making you a little bit incredulous at what happens. Like, "Hmm, I wonder how they're gonna get out of this...OH. They're not." And though some of the deaths are definitely disappointing, they add a degree of unpredictability to the book, and they're all useful for pushing the story forward.
One thing that struck me as strange, though not necessarily in a bad way, was that this book could've been an ending, rather than a transition. The story culminates in a pair of great battles, and a crucial character is slain. But the story leaves enough unresolved that a third book makes good sense.
Speaking of...
Beyond the Shadows
The most satisfying part of the third book was the three...well, I don't know what you'd call them, but they're these three guys who are all incredibly powerful, and only get minimal exposure in the first two books. They remind me of that Simpsons episode where the Italian mob gets in a fight with the Asian mob, and there's the little guy in the white suit who's just standing there until the Simpsons go inside, and Homer's like, "But the little guy hasn't done anything yet!" Well, the little guys end up pretty damn big when this trilogy comes together.
Kylar Stern ends up being marginalized a little, because the grand scheme is so, well, grand. But he plays his part well, and the book becomes more of an orchestra of events, rather than a trio as the first two play out. Without reading the first two, you'd be completely lost and mostly apathetic about the characters, but with the long buildup, the last quarter of the book is a frenzy of excitement, drama, and emotion.
Overall Thoughts
If I had one complaint, or not so much a complaint but a slight drawback, it's that for the first half of the first book, there's almost no mention of "magic" or anything supernatural. Then you get hints and references, but nothing overwhelming. But by the last book, everything is magically charged, half of the main characters are casting spells, and you get the impression that anybody who isn't magically talented is kind of useless. Things don't necessarily play out that way, but it feels weird when anyone "normal" is able to contribute.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with magic. The Harry Potter series is one of my favorites (or rather seven of my favorites), and my movie and video gaming preferences include plenty of spells. I just prefer that magic be more balanced, less powerful, or more costly. It basically ran things after the first book, and that was somewhat frustrating at times.
Overall, though, I enjoyed the series a lot. It wasn't a cathartic experience like Harry Potter or Hunger Games, but it was entertaining, and it helped me get back into a mindset where I want to read books. And what else could you ask for out of a book?
The Last Words: Both books were compelling, and by the third book there were many characters who you really did care about. The second book was a little more depressing, and the third was a little too "epic," but neither to the extent that it wasn't well worth the read.
As it is, they're both pretty good. The original story focused mostly on the main character, Kylar Stern, and while his story was compelling, I think stories do well when you care about many characters, not just one main guy. In that regard, the second book and particularly the third offered a considerable upgrade. I'll now talk about them individually.
Shadow's Edge
The second book was exactly what you'd expect out of a second book. We learn much, much more about the ancillary characters who seemed interesting but about whom you didn't learn anything in the original book. We also see Kylar develop from his panicked, nervous youth into a formidable (but still pretty emotionally unstable) adult. And maybe most importantly, we have three villainous "entities" (you'll understand if you read it) developed for us who take us through the remainder of the series.
Like most middle issues, the main characters face considerable hardship and sorrow over the course of this book. The author does a good job of making you a little bit incredulous at what happens. Like, "Hmm, I wonder how they're gonna get out of this...OH. They're not." And though some of the deaths are definitely disappointing, they add a degree of unpredictability to the book, and they're all useful for pushing the story forward.
One thing that struck me as strange, though not necessarily in a bad way, was that this book could've been an ending, rather than a transition. The story culminates in a pair of great battles, and a crucial character is slain. But the story leaves enough unresolved that a third book makes good sense.
Speaking of...
Beyond the Shadows
The most satisfying part of the third book was the three...well, I don't know what you'd call them, but they're these three guys who are all incredibly powerful, and only get minimal exposure in the first two books. They remind me of that Simpsons episode where the Italian mob gets in a fight with the Asian mob, and there's the little guy in the white suit who's just standing there until the Simpsons go inside, and Homer's like, "But the little guy hasn't done anything yet!" Well, the little guys end up pretty damn big when this trilogy comes together.
Kylar Stern ends up being marginalized a little, because the grand scheme is so, well, grand. But he plays his part well, and the book becomes more of an orchestra of events, rather than a trio as the first two play out. Without reading the first two, you'd be completely lost and mostly apathetic about the characters, but with the long buildup, the last quarter of the book is a frenzy of excitement, drama, and emotion.
Overall Thoughts
If I had one complaint, or not so much a complaint but a slight drawback, it's that for the first half of the first book, there's almost no mention of "magic" or anything supernatural. Then you get hints and references, but nothing overwhelming. But by the last book, everything is magically charged, half of the main characters are casting spells, and you get the impression that anybody who isn't magically talented is kind of useless. Things don't necessarily play out that way, but it feels weird when anyone "normal" is able to contribute.
Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with magic. The Harry Potter series is one of my favorites (or rather seven of my favorites), and my movie and video gaming preferences include plenty of spells. I just prefer that magic be more balanced, less powerful, or more costly. It basically ran things after the first book, and that was somewhat frustrating at times.
Overall, though, I enjoyed the series a lot. It wasn't a cathartic experience like Harry Potter or Hunger Games, but it was entertaining, and it helped me get back into a mindset where I want to read books. And what else could you ask for out of a book?
The Last Words: Both books were compelling, and by the third book there were many characters who you really did care about. The second book was a little more depressing, and the third was a little too "epic," but neither to the extent that it wasn't well worth the read.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
Friday, July 15, 2011
Washington Caps
With the final free agent signed this morning (Alzner 2 years 2.57 mil) I am really starting to get pumped for next season. While there are still decisions to be made in camp I thought it would be interesting to see what the starting line combinations could be on opening night. Here we go:
LW C RW
Alex Ovechkin Nicklas Backstrom Mike Knuble
Brooks Laich Marcus Johansson Alex Semin
Joel Ward Jeff Halpern Troy Brouwer
Jason Chimera Mattias Sjogren Matt Hendricks
D
Mike Green Roman Hamrlik
John Carlson Karl Alzner
Jeff Schultz Dennis Wideman
I think Jay Beagle and Erskine round out the scratches. While some people might envision things a little different this is how I see the Caps starting out the year.
First Line: Ovi, Backstrom, Knuble.
I think this top line for the pass two years stays intact because of the familiarity. Keeping this line together will provide offense to start the season until other players find their role and learn the system.
Second Line: Laich, Johansson, Semin
This comes down to talent and money. To me if you are paying Laich like a 2nd line center he has to at the least play wing on the 2nd line. Semin is a world class talent when he's on. Finally I think Johansson really matured towards the end of last season. Johansson's speed and ability to handle the puck should allow this line to really contribute.
Third Line: Ward, Halpern, Brouwer
Lots of people see Halpern as a fourth line center and I think that will eventually happen once Sjogren (or Eakin) really step it up and learn the style and speed of the NHL. However I think Halpern with these two wingers provides grit, defense and physicality.
Fourth Line: Chimera, Sjogren, Hendricks
When did you ever see our fourth line contribute goals last year. It didn't happen. I think Chimera paired with either Sjorgren or Eakin's speed will cause a lot of havok from a 4th line. As I said above I see Halpern sliding back to this role if either young guy can make the next step.
D Pairs:
Carlson and Alzner together is a very easy decision. They logged big minutes against top talent. I thought for a while on the other two pairs and decided that Hamrlik was brought in for a reason. That being to give Green a complement combo Dman that can both play D and chip in offense. And that is what Green has become a overall solid D man. I think Schultz will rebound after a terrible year. The mono over the off season seemed to slow him down and leave him weak which (for a guy can struggle with both) caused him to struggle. He will provide stay at home D while Wideman can jump into the rush.
Sjogren vs Eakin:
The reason I went Sjogren over Eakin was for two reasons. First Eakin really struggled at the development camp. I think the incredible about of hockey over the last year has taken its toll on him. I think he will still be run down at camp and not be able to show off the speed and skill that almost got him a spot last year. The other reason for picking Sjogren is simply that he came to the Caps over several other teams. Its possible that his friendship, Johansson, and respect for Backstrom caused him to pick the Caps. However a more likely situation is the Caps told him they would give him every chance to make the team. With a tired Eakin being his competition he will be successful in making the team.
Thursday, July 7, 2011
Book Reviewed - Catching Fire
(If you haven't read the first book of the trilogy, The Hunger Games, you shouldn't read this review; things will be given away.)
Catching Fire is the second installment in the Hunger Games series. The first book, you may remember, is one that I spoke glowingly of when I reviewed it about a month ago. Because of how much I liked it, my expectations were sky high for Catching Fire, and honestly, I wasn't even remotely disappointed.
Catching Fire picks up right where The Hunger Games leaves off, with Peeta and Katniss returning to District 12 as victors of the 74th Hunger Games, a brutal contest between youths from around the country, drafted into mortal combat.
Their victory was marred by their methods, though; the Hunger Games always has a single victor, and Katniss' trickery was read by many districts as a sign of rebellion. After an unpleasant meeting with President Snow, she sets her efforts on convincing the country of Panem that her tactic was driven by her overwhelming love for Peeta, rather than defiance. Peeta goes along with this, though he deals with the excruciating truth that Katniss was acting in defiance, while his love for and devotion to her is absolute. Their individual anguishes are born of different pain, but the author makes them similarly palpable.
Part of their victory tour takes them into District 11, the home of Rue and Thresh from their Hunger Games. Their presentation to the crowd, and the emotion of the scene, creates maybe my favorite moment in the entire series. I won't spoil it, but if you've already read it, you'll agree with me when I say...
...CHILLS.
The book strikes me as very much the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, which I guess is how most trilogies work. It continues the original story, and offers a character-building and plot-pushing bridge between the introduction and culmination of the story. It starts much more slowly than The Hunger Games, but finishes with intense and frantic action. I would still say that The Hunger Games is my favorite of the series, but Catching Fire is right there, neck-and-neck.
The Last Word - Listen, I highly recommend the whole series, so it's tough for me to make an individual recommendation on this specific book. But it's great, as entertaining as The Hunger Games. Go. Read it. GO.
Catching Fire is the second installment in the Hunger Games series. The first book, you may remember, is one that I spoke glowingly of when I reviewed it about a month ago. Because of how much I liked it, my expectations were sky high for Catching Fire, and honestly, I wasn't even remotely disappointed.
Catching Fire picks up right where The Hunger Games leaves off, with Peeta and Katniss returning to District 12 as victors of the 74th Hunger Games, a brutal contest between youths from around the country, drafted into mortal combat.
Their victory was marred by their methods, though; the Hunger Games always has a single victor, and Katniss' trickery was read by many districts as a sign of rebellion. After an unpleasant meeting with President Snow, she sets her efforts on convincing the country of Panem that her tactic was driven by her overwhelming love for Peeta, rather than defiance. Peeta goes along with this, though he deals with the excruciating truth that Katniss was acting in defiance, while his love for and devotion to her is absolute. Their individual anguishes are born of different pain, but the author makes them similarly palpable.
Part of their victory tour takes them into District 11, the home of Rue and Thresh from their Hunger Games. Their presentation to the crowd, and the emotion of the scene, creates maybe my favorite moment in the entire series. I won't spoil it, but if you've already read it, you'll agree with me when I say...
...CHILLS.
The book strikes me as very much the "Empire Strikes Back" of the trilogy, which I guess is how most trilogies work. It continues the original story, and offers a character-building and plot-pushing bridge between the introduction and culmination of the story. It starts much more slowly than The Hunger Games, but finishes with intense and frantic action. I would still say that The Hunger Games is my favorite of the series, but Catching Fire is right there, neck-and-neck.
The Last Word - Listen, I highly recommend the whole series, so it's tough for me to make an individual recommendation on this specific book. But it's great, as entertaining as The Hunger Games. Go. Read it. GO.
Wednesday, July 6, 2011
Movie Reviewed - We Are Marshall
So if you know me at all, you know I'm a sucker for grief. It's kind of my favorite thing when I'm watching movies or TV. It's not to say that I enjoy seeing other people in pain, of course. It's more that, in movies, I think we all look for opportunities to connect with the characters. And grieving folks are the kind of folks I can connect with.
So, naturally, a movie about an entire town that grieves is something that I'd expect to be able to appreciate plenty. We Are Marshall follows the surviving players and coaches of Marshall University and how they endured through the tragic loss of most of their colleagues, teammates, and friends in a horrific plane crash. Just as much, it's about the town of Huntington, and how it was devastated by the tragedy.
For such a heart-wrenching story, though, the grief of the college and the town just didn't feel real enough. My heart strings are easily plucked, but for most of this movie, they sat idle. I'm not sure if it's because you don't have a chance to get to know the people who die before the crash, or if the movie's intention was to show the triumph of the survivors rather than their pain.
One thing's for sure, though: this movie did not suffer for acting prowess. Matthew McConaughey is brilliant as Jack Lengyel, the enigmatic coach who reached out to the grieving community and pushed the institution and the NCAA to help Marshall play their next season. Kate Mara and Ian McShane play the fiancee and father (respectively) of the team's deceased quarterback, and both perform admirably in relatively minor and layer-less roles.
But the real star of this film is Matthew Fox. He expertly portrays a man torn between his grief over the loss of so many of his dearest friends and his devotion to the game and school where he worked and lived with all of them. Before the very end of the movie, I had We Are Marshall pegged for three stars on Netflix, but Fox's scene in the locker room after the game against Xavier was poignant, emotional, and perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I suggest you don't click here, as I'm sure it doesn't hold the same gravity without having seen the character's anguish. But I just couldn't write this post without linking to the video of it.
The Last Word - It was a good movie that wasn't quite as emotional as I'd hoped, but is brought up a level by Matthew Fox's tremendous performance.
So, naturally, a movie about an entire town that grieves is something that I'd expect to be able to appreciate plenty. We Are Marshall follows the surviving players and coaches of Marshall University and how they endured through the tragic loss of most of their colleagues, teammates, and friends in a horrific plane crash. Just as much, it's about the town of Huntington, and how it was devastated by the tragedy.
For such a heart-wrenching story, though, the grief of the college and the town just didn't feel real enough. My heart strings are easily plucked, but for most of this movie, they sat idle. I'm not sure if it's because you don't have a chance to get to know the people who die before the crash, or if the movie's intention was to show the triumph of the survivors rather than their pain.
One thing's for sure, though: this movie did not suffer for acting prowess. Matthew McConaughey is brilliant as Jack Lengyel, the enigmatic coach who reached out to the grieving community and pushed the institution and the NCAA to help Marshall play their next season. Kate Mara and Ian McShane play the fiancee and father (respectively) of the team's deceased quarterback, and both perform admirably in relatively minor and layer-less roles.
But the real star of this film is Matthew Fox. He expertly portrays a man torn between his grief over the loss of so many of his dearest friends and his devotion to the game and school where he worked and lived with all of them. Before the very end of the movie, I had We Are Marshall pegged for three stars on Netflix, but Fox's scene in the locker room after the game against Xavier was poignant, emotional, and perfect. If you haven't seen the movie, I suggest you don't click here, as I'm sure it doesn't hold the same gravity without having seen the character's anguish. But I just couldn't write this post without linking to the video of it.
The Last Word - It was a good movie that wasn't quite as emotional as I'd hoped, but is brought up a level by Matthew Fox's tremendous performance.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
2011 NBA Draft Predictions
Other people like ESPN's Chad Ford rely on insider information to determine which prospect will be drafted by each of the various NBA teams on Thursday night's NBA draft. I use what limited information I have about each player's pro potential, and what I perceive to be each team's needs. Remember 2009, when I inexplicably put DeJuan Blair ahead of Austin Daye? Well, Blair is a solid contributor on a good team, and Daye is a do-nothing forward on a crummy team. So maybe I'm not always wrong.
Anyways, here we go. A wide open draft lottery gets predicted by an amateur...right now:
Good luck to all the teams in the lottery, and here's hoping that the Wizards are a winner on draft night. And also that there are lots of trades. Big ones.
Anyways, here we go. A wide open draft lottery gets predicted by an amateur...right now:
- The Cleveland Cavaliers select Kyrie Irving, guard from Duke University. The Cavs are feinting that they're still considering Derrick Williams at the #1 pick, but I don't buy it unless they work out a deal with the #4 pick. Irving and Williams are neck-and-neck in this draft, but Irving would be harder to replace with the talent I expect to be available at #4.
- The Minnesota Timberwolves select Derrick Williams, forward from the University of Arizona. Even the Timberwolves can't mess this one up, right? Whoever doesn't go #1 is a no-brainer at the second pick, and while Minnesota has made some no-brain picks in the past (drafting Ricky Rubio, then drafting Jonny Flynn, then drafting and trading Ty Lawson), Williams is a lock for #2. It's possible they trade the pick, but Williams will go second, for sure.
- The Utah Jazz select Brandon Knight, guard from the University of Kentucky. When you're consistently a good team, you don't have many opportunities at high draft picks. But they've made the most of their limited opportunities, grabbing superstar Deron Williams with their only top 5 pick since 1982. They're back at the top of the draft with a pick they acquired for Williams, and I think they'll use it on the most similar player to Williams in this draft. Knight is smart, agile, and motivated, and he's a great finisher at the rim. He might not be the next Deron Williams, but he also might be.
- The Cleveland Cavaliers select Jonas Valanciunas, center from Lithuania. I went back and forth on this pick, and this is where the draft really shakes loose, so each of these picks has a huge impact on the next few. Valanciunas is apparently locked in for another year with his Lithuanian team, which people say is scaring teams off. Hogwash, I say. The Cavs are among several teams that love love love the big man, and I think, with two top picks in the draft, they know they've got a couple years before they can expect to compete. So pick the guy you want, and be patient. And send a coach over there to keep him on the right path, basketball and otherwise.
- The Toronto Raptors select Enes Kanter, center from Turkey. I'd like to find a way to have Kanter drop to the Wizards at #6, but realistically he'll go at four or five, and I'll sigh. Anyways, Kanter is a banger with good hands, the kind of guy who can really improve his teammates. His presence, along with the hopeful development of Ed Davis, could allow Andrea Bargnani more freedom to possibly grow into a legitimate star. Good fit.
- The Washington Wizards select Kawhi Leonard, forward from San Diego State University. As I said, I think the Wizards would love to have Kanter as a Robin to John Wall's Batman, and they should explore trading up to get him (especially if they can unload that nightmare Andray Blatche). But if things go as I project, I think Leonard is a nice piece. He's unrefined, and he's still growing into his body, but his intensity is the real deal, and it shows in his defense and rebounding. It does mean the team is still on the lookout for a Robin, though.
- The Sacramento Kings select Jan Vesely, forward from the Czech Republic. The Kings have a sort of patchwork team right now, one without much of an identity. They've got some interesting pieces, particularly Tyreke Evans and DeMarcus Cousins. Vesely should slide in easily, even though he's still unrefined. He can play either forward slot, and has a lot he can do from mid-range offensively. The Heat's big three they ain't, but Evans, Cousins, and Vesely could definitely guide the Kings back into the playoff hunt.
- The Detroit Pistons select Bismack Biyombo, forward from the Congo. Detroit allowed the highest field goal percentage in basketball last year, which is simply unacceptable from the way this franchise has won titles in the past. Biyombo is one of the mysteries of this year's draft, but the physical tools are there to be a defensive force immediately, and a defensive superstar soon enough. There's risk, sure, but there's reward as well.
- The Charlotte Bobcats select Kemba Walker, guard from the University of Connecticut. Charlotte is paltry up front, but two things prompt them taking Walker in my estimation. First, he's the best player on the board by a good margin. Second, the word is that Charlotte would like to get someone who can contribute right away, which jives with my assessment of Michael Jordan's preferences. Which are wholly speculative, of course, but as good a guess as anybody's.
- The Milwaukee Bucks select Alec Burks, guard from the University of Colorado. Apparently the Bucks cooled on Brandon Jennings pretty quickly, as he's now been the subject of trade rumors. I think Burks is a good fit for the team either way. He's a slasher guard who can make his own shot. There are concerns about his ability to hit jumpers, but some good old-fashioned practice should take care of that.
- The Golden State Warriors select Klay Thompson, guard from Washington State University. Golden State's top two scorers from last season were Stephen Curry and Monta Ellis, their starting backcourt. So why would they draft another two guard? Well first, Thompson would be a nice complement to either Curry or Ellis, making both expendable if needed. The Warriors could really use a center, but they're better off trying to get one via trade at this draft position.
- The Utah Jazz select Jimmer Fredette, guard from Brigham Young University. Honestly, when I started putting this together, I thought the Knight pick at #3 would preclude Fredette going to Utah here. But the reality is that Utah's most glaring need is scoring punch, and if Fredette has shown one thing, it's a knack for putting the ball in the bucket. Utah's best move might be to simply go with a small lineup and try to play Suns-style basketball, running and gunning. Could be fun to watch.
- The Phoenix Suns select Tristan Thompson, forward from the University of Texas. Kind of a coup for the Suns to land Thompson, who's more like a top 10 talent in this year's draft. He's a do-everything forward, but in a good Jeff Green way, not a bad Joe Alexander way. He might not project to be a superstar, but I'd be pretty shocked if he wasn't still an effective NBA player in ten years. His character and ability should make him a lifer.
- The Houston Rockets select Nikola Vucevic, center from the University of Southern California. The Rockets are a mess. They have needs basically across the board, and since there's no lightning in a bottle at this point in the draft, I think they'll go with the most projectable guy out there. Vucevic played three years of college ball, improving each year, and becoming a very good scorer and rebounder by his junior season. He's not Dirk, but he's got a good shooting touch and can help any team. It's a start.
Good luck to all the teams in the lottery, and here's hoping that the Wizards are a winner on draft night. And also that there are lots of trades. Big ones.
2011 NBA Draft Preview
I've always held a place in my heart for the NBA draft. Part of it is the hope that comes with adding the very best newly eligible players. Part of it is the fact that NBA draftees are often the most impactful of any of the sports. And part of it, I'm sure, is the fact that the Bullets/Wizards have had lottery picks more often than not over the past twenty years. They're really quite bad.
This year, however, I'm even more interested than usual. Here are a couple thoughts as to why:
This year, however, I'm even more interested than usual. Here are a couple thoughts as to why:
- The Cavaliers' rebuilding. One year removed from losing Lebron James to free agency, the Cavs ended up with the #1 and #4 picks in this year's draft. They have a chance to acquire two potential all-stars in a single night, and that's exciting no matter what team it is.
- The Wizards have the #6 pick. It's early enough that you've got a shot at this draft's top tier talent, but not so early that you're out of the mix right away. Having to watch those first five picks go will be good drama for all thirty-six Wizards fans who watch the draft.
- College players at the top. While Enes Kanter and Jan Vesely will go early, the projected top three picks are all players out of college. I may not have watched much college hoops last year, but these are at least a few names I recognize.
- Trade buzz! There are always plenty of rumors leading up to the NBA draft, but it seems like the buzz is deafening this year. With so many of the early picks seemingly up for trade (the Timberwolves at 2, the Jazz at 3, the Cavaliers at 4, and the Wizards at 6), we're all hopeful for a flurry of activity on draft night. Usually that hope gets dashed by about pick 16, but hey, dare to dream, right?
- It's not the NFL draft. The NFL draft this year was just terrible. I'm interested to see if the NBA draft, which I've loved since I was in middle school, is its own machine, or if they suffer from the same shortcomings.
Friday, June 17, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Run Ronnie Run!
I'm generally a fan of David Cross. He's got a lot of unique comedic ideas, he does a good job on just about every character he plays, and his stand up is intelligent and scathing. In high school, a friend exposed me to Mr. Show (I didn't have HBO), and while a lot of the jokes were a little over my head, I enjoyed the show a lot.
Run Ronnie Run isn't Mr. Show. It definitely has a hint of Mr. Show, a sniff, but not the full flavor. Part of that is to be expected; movies inevitably have to take on a more focused and conventional story arc. Beyond that, though, it seems to just not have the same irreverent tone that defined Mr. Show. Apparently Cross and Bob Odenkirk disavowed the movie, saying that it wasn't true to their vision, and I believe it. But since I'm just a consumer, I'll try to give you an objective take on the film.
The basic plotline has Cross's character, Ronnie Dobbs, getting rich and famous for constantly getting drunk and leading police on wild goose chases. It's basically how Cops would be if the criminal was the same guy every week. It's a solid premise; I know this because the Mr. Show skit on which this movie was based was one of their most popular ones, and one of my favorites.
And for all of the downplaying and naysaying done by Cross and Odenkirk, the execution isn't bad. It draws on a lot of our stereotypes about country folk, rednecks if you will. There will be plenty of parts where you feel bad for laughing, but you will laugh. And there are several cameos that hit just right. Jeff Goldblum is fantastic, Laura Kightlinger and Jeff Garlin are very good, Scott Thompson is Scott Thompson, and maybe my favorite, Mandy Patinkin brutally critiques his own singing.
In the end, though, it plays more like a collection of kinda funny but jagged scenes rather than a well-constructed full length film. This can work if the laughs are tremendous, but the laughs are just so-so. That means you're left with what basically amounts to an 86 minute episode of Mad TV. And let me tell you, Mad TV isn't something you want to sink 86 minutes into.
The Last Word - It's got its share of chuckles, and a few laugh out loud moments, but overall, it's not really worth the time you have to put into it unless you're a die-hard Mr. Show fan.
Run Ronnie Run isn't Mr. Show. It definitely has a hint of Mr. Show, a sniff, but not the full flavor. Part of that is to be expected; movies inevitably have to take on a more focused and conventional story arc. Beyond that, though, it seems to just not have the same irreverent tone that defined Mr. Show. Apparently Cross and Bob Odenkirk disavowed the movie, saying that it wasn't true to their vision, and I believe it. But since I'm just a consumer, I'll try to give you an objective take on the film.
The basic plotline has Cross's character, Ronnie Dobbs, getting rich and famous for constantly getting drunk and leading police on wild goose chases. It's basically how Cops would be if the criminal was the same guy every week. It's a solid premise; I know this because the Mr. Show skit on which this movie was based was one of their most popular ones, and one of my favorites.
And for all of the downplaying and naysaying done by Cross and Odenkirk, the execution isn't bad. It draws on a lot of our stereotypes about country folk, rednecks if you will. There will be plenty of parts where you feel bad for laughing, but you will laugh. And there are several cameos that hit just right. Jeff Goldblum is fantastic, Laura Kightlinger and Jeff Garlin are very good, Scott Thompson is Scott Thompson, and maybe my favorite, Mandy Patinkin brutally critiques his own singing.
In the end, though, it plays more like a collection of kinda funny but jagged scenes rather than a well-constructed full length film. This can work if the laughs are tremendous, but the laughs are just so-so. That means you're left with what basically amounts to an 86 minute episode of Mad TV. And let me tell you, Mad TV isn't something you want to sink 86 minutes into.
The Last Word - It's got its share of chuckles, and a few laugh out loud moments, but overall, it's not really worth the time you have to put into it unless you're a die-hard Mr. Show fan.
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Movie Reviewed - Super 8
Last Friday I ended up going to see Super 8 with a pretty big group of friends. I knew nothing going in, but as an example of their expectations, I asked a friend what it was about, and his response: "It's about awesome." So it's fair to say they expected a great, great movie. I had no such wild expectations, and that may be why I was the only one in the group who didn't leave the theater disappointed.
The movie was preceded by with considerable fanfare, but minimal explanation in the previews and trailers, which might be why I knew nothing going in. Because of this, however, the movie had to do a better job than most establishing its story early on, and it really didn't. While the story was interesting and very realistic, it took a while to figure out what direction the movie was going.
The other confused part of the movie was that it seemed to be unsure whether it wanted to be a thriller movie about aliens or a heart-warming movie about high schoolers. It did a decent job of both, but an exceptional job of neither. Honestly, I would've liked to have seen the movie split into two different movies with more focused styles. While neither would've been an all-time great movie, they would've both been enjoyable, and maybe more enjoyable than this original film.
But I'm being harder on the movie than my heart will let me. It may have been a little messy, but the two lead young actors in Super 8 (Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning) both did fantastic jobs, save for one scene towards the end of the movie where Courtney looked too much like a young actor, and not an actor who happened to be young. The supporting cast was solid and believable. And the effects were good, of course. J.J. Abrams isn't going to put forth anything but the best effects.
So even though my cohorts were disappointed, I found Super 8 to be an entertaining foray into science fiction. My initial thoughts after seeing the movie, and what's apparently been a common thought among moviegoers, is that the movie was an attempt to fuse E.T. with Cloverfield to create an exciting, thrilling, emotionally satisfying, all-time great movie for the whole family. And maybe that movie exists. But it's not Super 8.
The Last Word - It was a bold idea, and to make a legendary movie you have to be bold. The execution wasn't there, and while I thought it was entertaining, I don't know if I'd recommend spending $12/person to go see it.
The movie was preceded by with considerable fanfare, but minimal explanation in the previews and trailers, which might be why I knew nothing going in. Because of this, however, the movie had to do a better job than most establishing its story early on, and it really didn't. While the story was interesting and very realistic, it took a while to figure out what direction the movie was going.
The other confused part of the movie was that it seemed to be unsure whether it wanted to be a thriller movie about aliens or a heart-warming movie about high schoolers. It did a decent job of both, but an exceptional job of neither. Honestly, I would've liked to have seen the movie split into two different movies with more focused styles. While neither would've been an all-time great movie, they would've both been enjoyable, and maybe more enjoyable than this original film.
But I'm being harder on the movie than my heart will let me. It may have been a little messy, but the two lead young actors in Super 8 (Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning) both did fantastic jobs, save for one scene towards the end of the movie where Courtney looked too much like a young actor, and not an actor who happened to be young. The supporting cast was solid and believable. And the effects were good, of course. J.J. Abrams isn't going to put forth anything but the best effects.
So even though my cohorts were disappointed, I found Super 8 to be an entertaining foray into science fiction. My initial thoughts after seeing the movie, and what's apparently been a common thought among moviegoers, is that the movie was an attempt to fuse E.T. with Cloverfield to create an exciting, thrilling, emotionally satisfying, all-time great movie for the whole family. And maybe that movie exists. But it's not Super 8.
The Last Word - It was a bold idea, and to make a legendary movie you have to be bold. The execution wasn't there, and while I thought it was entertaining, I don't know if I'd recommend spending $12/person to go see it.
Game Reviews, A New Book
I started playing Demon's Souls last night. Despite my brother's warnings, it was actually even more frustrating than I had expected. I must have died 25 times on the very first level. But when I finally beat the first boss, there was definitely a strong sense of accomplishment, which I assume is what they were going for.
I wanted to explain something here, though. I won't be reviewing video games as I "finish" them. Part of the reason is that it's difficult to say when you "finish" a lot of games. I beat Dead Rising 2 a while ago, but I still play it, and not even to get to things I haven't done. I've done pretty much everything there is to do; I just still like killing zombies. So declaring a game to be "completed" is kind of a vague thing.
The other, more important reason is that I'd prefer to leave the reviews for my annual Top 5 Video Games of the Year list. I expect that I'll do annual Top 5 lists for movies and books as well, but I'm okay with reviewing them as they come. BUT, incorporating the Top 5 lists is the main reason I pulled my ratings from the reviews I've already done. I want a little drama in the Top 5's.
Finally, I finished Twilight the other day, so I need a new book to read. I have a few to choose from, but I'm going to let you, the fans, decide. So I've posted a poll that will let you cast your vote for my next book. Shadow's Edge is the sequel to The Way of Shadows, which I reviewed here. Pawn of Prophecy is the first book in a five book epic fantasy series, which comes highly recommended. And New Moon I'm sure you're all familiar with as the second book in the Twilight series.
Choose wisely.
I wanted to explain something here, though. I won't be reviewing video games as I "finish" them. Part of the reason is that it's difficult to say when you "finish" a lot of games. I beat Dead Rising 2 a while ago, but I still play it, and not even to get to things I haven't done. I've done pretty much everything there is to do; I just still like killing zombies. So declaring a game to be "completed" is kind of a vague thing.
The other, more important reason is that I'd prefer to leave the reviews for my annual Top 5 Video Games of the Year list. I expect that I'll do annual Top 5 lists for movies and books as well, but I'm okay with reviewing them as they come. BUT, incorporating the Top 5 lists is the main reason I pulled my ratings from the reviews I've already done. I want a little drama in the Top 5's.
Finally, I finished Twilight the other day, so I need a new book to read. I have a few to choose from, but I'm going to let you, the fans, decide. So I've posted a poll that will let you cast your vote for my next book. Shadow's Edge is the sequel to The Way of Shadows, which I reviewed here. Pawn of Prophecy is the first book in a five book epic fantasy series, which comes highly recommended. And New Moon I'm sure you're all familiar with as the second book in the Twilight series.
Choose wisely.
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Book Reviewed - The Hunger Games
My first exposure to The Hunger Games was on my trip to Disney World this January, though I didn't realize it for months. My sister-in-law was reading the third book in the series (and reacting strongly, nearly shouting at it). I thought it was funny, but didn't think much of it. Historically, there hasn't been much overlap between the books I read and the books that girls read.
Then another friend strongly recommended the series, and my sister-in-law let me know that it was the same series that she had read at Disney World, so I decided to give it a shot. And let me tell you, I was utterly blown away.
Right from the beginning, Suzanne Collins did an amazing job of quickly and effectively painting the desperation of the world of the main character, Katniss Everdeen. If you're unfamiliar with the plot, she finds herself drafted into a horrible contest: The Hunger Games, a fight to the death among several children selected at random from across the country. The story follows her journey from being thrust into the contest, to meeting her competitors and allies, and through the immeasurable tension and panic of the fighting in the arena.
Though the book was recommended to me by a pair of girls (cootie condition unknown), the story doesn't strike me as girly at all. The main character is a strong female, but the story is tragic, violent, and unromantic.
The supporting characters are perfectly framed to their purposes in the book. Allies are sympathetic and supportive in their own various ways, while rivals are competitive and aggressive. Maybe the most impressive accomplishment of this author, though, is that despite their sometimes brief introductions, and the fact that most of them come up in the context of the Hunger Games competition, every competitor in the Hunger Games is decidedly human. While they're strikingly villainous, they're always presented in such a way that you could potentially see a decent person driven to their various acts of barbarism, through the madness and brutality of the competition.
I can't really say enough about how much I loved this book. I would recommend it to literally everybody. One potential stumbling block is that I know that violence among youths is something that some readers will have trouble getting past. The only thing I'll say is that it has to be that way. If the contest were between adults, it wouldn't be as tragic and as barbaric, and the story wouldn't be so completely engrossing. I suppose I'd understand if someone wasn't comfortable with the concept, but I'd still recommend the book.
The Last Word - Incredible. The best book I've read in a long time.
Then another friend strongly recommended the series, and my sister-in-law let me know that it was the same series that she had read at Disney World, so I decided to give it a shot. And let me tell you, I was utterly blown away.
Right from the beginning, Suzanne Collins did an amazing job of quickly and effectively painting the desperation of the world of the main character, Katniss Everdeen. If you're unfamiliar with the plot, she finds herself drafted into a horrible contest: The Hunger Games, a fight to the death among several children selected at random from across the country. The story follows her journey from being thrust into the contest, to meeting her competitors and allies, and through the immeasurable tension and panic of the fighting in the arena.
Though the book was recommended to me by a pair of girls (cootie condition unknown), the story doesn't strike me as girly at all. The main character is a strong female, but the story is tragic, violent, and unromantic.
The supporting characters are perfectly framed to their purposes in the book. Allies are sympathetic and supportive in their own various ways, while rivals are competitive and aggressive. Maybe the most impressive accomplishment of this author, though, is that despite their sometimes brief introductions, and the fact that most of them come up in the context of the Hunger Games competition, every competitor in the Hunger Games is decidedly human. While they're strikingly villainous, they're always presented in such a way that you could potentially see a decent person driven to their various acts of barbarism, through the madness and brutality of the competition.
I can't really say enough about how much I loved this book. I would recommend it to literally everybody. One potential stumbling block is that I know that violence among youths is something that some readers will have trouble getting past. The only thing I'll say is that it has to be that way. If the contest were between adults, it wouldn't be as tragic and as barbaric, and the story wouldn't be so completely engrossing. I suppose I'd understand if someone wasn't comfortable with the concept, but I'd still recommend the book.
The Last Word - Incredible. The best book I've read in a long time.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Thrashers to Winnipeg; Detroit to the East?
As has been rumored for months (years?), the Atlanta Thrashers have been sold, and will be moving to Winnipeg, giving them their first NHL team since 1996. I haven't been a true hockey fan long enough to offer much in the way of "How will this team do in Winnipeg?" or "Will the NHL ever return to Atlanta?" What I can talk about, however, is realignment.
As a sports fan, realignment is in my blood. Some of you may remember a time when the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West?* A time before wild cards and Central divisions? With expansion in all four major sports over the past few decades, we've seen countless adjustments and realignments, and with the Thrashers moving way, way north, we've got another one coming.
So how will it shake out? The NHL has basically committed to the new Winnipeg franchise being moved to the Western conference, and they've suggested three teams as possibly moving to the East to replace the old Thrashers: the Columbus Blue Jackets, the Detroit Red Wings, or the Nashville Predators.
First things first, I don't see the Red Wings going East. Ever since the Western Conference came into existence in 1993, Detroit has been one of the staples of the conference, a powerhouse that's won four Stanley Cups, made the finals two other times, and qualified for the playoffs every single year. Additionally, Chicago is the only other member of the Original Six in the Western Conference.
The NHL may like to say that they've got great parity, and they definitely have a strong salary cap system, but moving Detroit to the East would swing the balance of power (and hockey history) pretty heavily. So I think that will prevent them from getting realigned.
That leaves Columbus and Nashville. Both franchises are fairly new (Nashville started play in 1998, Columbus in 2000), and neither has had a great deal of success. Nashville won their first playoff series just this year, while Columbus has never actually won a playoff game. Geographically, both are far enough east that they would logically fit into the Eastern Conference, and neither has any tremendous history that would be lost with a realignment.
If Nashville were the team of choice, the move would be pretty easy, actually. They would slide right into Atlanta's old spot in the Southeast division, and would immediately contend with Washington and Tampa Bay for the top spot in the division. And their defense-first mentality would add another layer to a heavily offensive division.
Columbus coming to the East might complicate things a bit. They could still fit into the Southeast, but that wouldn't jive with geographical logic. Working from a purely geographical standpoint, we'd move Philadelphia into the Southeast, and Columbus would take their place in the Atlantic, joining Pittsburgh, New Jersey, and the two New York teams.
My expectation, and my preference, would be for Nashville to move to the Southeast. Not only does it make the most sense geographically, but I like the idea of Washington having to face a stout defensive team like Nashville six times a year. Obviously teams change over time, but in the short term, I think it'd help these Caps to continue to grow as a team.
*The Braves are the only team in baseball to win a division crown in both the East and West divisions; the Brewers are the only other team to play in both an East and a West, but they never won the West (where they started as the Seattle Pilots).
As a sports fan, realignment is in my blood. Some of you may remember a time when the Atlanta Braves were in the NL West?* A time before wild cards and Central divisions? With expansion in all four major sports over the past few decades, we've seen countless adjustments and realignments, and with the Thrashers moving way, way north, we've got another one coming.
So how will it shake out? The NHL has basically committed to the new Winnipeg franchise being moved to the Western conference, and they've suggested three teams as possibly moving to the East to replace the old Thrashers: the Columbus Blue Jackets, the Detroit Red Wings, or the Nashville Predators.
First things first, I don't see the Red Wings going East. Ever since the Western Conference came into existence in 1993, Detroit has been one of the staples of the conference, a powerhouse that's won four Stanley Cups, made the finals two other times, and qualified for the playoffs every single year. Additionally, Chicago is the only other member of the Original Six in the Western Conference.
The NHL may like to say that they've got great parity, and they definitely have a strong salary cap system, but moving Detroit to the East would swing the balance of power (and hockey history) pretty heavily. So I think that will prevent them from getting realigned.
That leaves Columbus and Nashville. Both franchises are fairly new (Nashville started play in 1998, Columbus in 2000), and neither has had a great deal of success. Nashville won their first playoff series just this year, while Columbus has never actually won a playoff game. Geographically, both are far enough east that they would logically fit into the Eastern Conference, and neither has any tremendous history that would be lost with a realignment.
If Nashville were the team of choice, the move would be pretty easy, actually. They would slide right into Atlanta's old spot in the Southeast division, and would immediately contend with Washington and Tampa Bay for the top spot in the division. And their defense-first mentality would add another layer to a heavily offensive division.
Columbus coming to the East might complicate things a bit. They could still fit into the Southeast, but that wouldn't jive with geographical logic. Working from a purely geographical standpoint, we'd move Philadelphia into the Southeast, and Columbus would take their place in the Atlantic, joining Pittsburgh, New Jersey, and the two New York teams.
My expectation, and my preference, would be for Nashville to move to the Southeast. Not only does it make the most sense geographically, but I like the idea of Washington having to face a stout defensive team like Nashville six times a year. Obviously teams change over time, but in the short term, I think it'd help these Caps to continue to grow as a team.
*The Braves are the only team in baseball to win a division crown in both the East and West divisions; the Brewers are the only other team to play in both an East and a West, but they never won the West (where they started as the Seattle Pilots).
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Book Reviewed - The Way of Shadows
My cousin Nick gave me this book a year ago, maybe longer, but I only recently got around to reading it. I was on a roll after storming through the Hunger Games trilogy, and I had the book handy, so I read it.
It's a story about a young street rat named Azoth who, through a few traumatic experiences, finds himself apprenticed to an assassin. He grows up, learns the trade, and in the end, plays a large part in an attempted coup of his home city. I don't want to give too much of the story away, but suffice it to say, he makes a few friends and a ton of enemies.
The framework of the book is interesting. It skips around at the beginning, touching on a myriad of characters and checking in with several different storylines that are unattached and seem and unrelated, but you can start to see things take shape about halfway through. And at the culminating event of the book, pretty much everyone is there. The different paths draw together nicely, and having them split up is a worthwhile exercise to get to know all the different players.
The one problem I had with the book is that, with the sheer volume of characters, more effort could have been done to flesh them out, to give the reader an easier time keeping track. I constantly found myself having to backtrack to determine which guy had said what line, because they hadn't been distinguished enough in my mind, or the last chapter about them had taken place so long ago that I forgotten. For a couple characters, I think their stories may have been intentionally left vague, and perhaps they'll be resolved in future books (it's a trilogy...as most books seem to be these days). But for others, like some who don't survive the book, it'd be nice to have a little more in the way of individualization.
All together, though, I was happy with the intricacy of the story. The main character is mostly likeable, with a few shortcomings that make him human. There's a lot of death, but enough people are left alive that you have some compelling characters still around going forward. So maybe, just maybe, I'll read the next book.
The Last Word - Not exceptional, but entertaining and encouraging. I'm looking forward to reading the other two books.
It's a story about a young street rat named Azoth who, through a few traumatic experiences, finds himself apprenticed to an assassin. He grows up, learns the trade, and in the end, plays a large part in an attempted coup of his home city. I don't want to give too much of the story away, but suffice it to say, he makes a few friends and a ton of enemies.
The framework of the book is interesting. It skips around at the beginning, touching on a myriad of characters and checking in with several different storylines that are unattached and seem and unrelated, but you can start to see things take shape about halfway through. And at the culminating event of the book, pretty much everyone is there. The different paths draw together nicely, and having them split up is a worthwhile exercise to get to know all the different players.
The one problem I had with the book is that, with the sheer volume of characters, more effort could have been done to flesh them out, to give the reader an easier time keeping track. I constantly found myself having to backtrack to determine which guy had said what line, because they hadn't been distinguished enough in my mind, or the last chapter about them had taken place so long ago that I forgotten. For a couple characters, I think their stories may have been intentionally left vague, and perhaps they'll be resolved in future books (it's a trilogy...as most books seem to be these days). But for others, like some who don't survive the book, it'd be nice to have a little more in the way of individualization.
All together, though, I was happy with the intricacy of the story. The main character is mostly likeable, with a few shortcomings that make him human. There's a lot of death, but enough people are left alive that you have some compelling characters still around going forward. So maybe, just maybe, I'll read the next book.
The Last Word - Not exceptional, but entertaining and encouraging. I'm looking forward to reading the other two books.
Monday, May 30, 2011
Playlists
So in thinking about the Playlists feature, and in talking to Chip about it, I'm sort of seeing that I was setting it up for failure on a few different levels.
First, on a very basic level, "walking music" isn't really something that people can grasp, because most people don't walk just for exercise. They have people walking with them, or they are walking a dog, or pushing a stroller, so they've got other things to be concerned with while walking. And while it's true that I'd like to incorporate more jogging into my walks, the majority of my walks are spent, well, walking.
I was able to find some solid walking music, but that's more from my own conceptions about walking, not from some base standard of "good walking music." That one Primitive Radio Gods song is an example, in case you were wondering what I'm talking about. But I'm not asking for any more assistance on walking music.
I'm also not going to just offer a wide open "give me some songs" anymore. While I'm obviously interested in hearing all sorts of musical suggestions, leaving it so wide open I think makes it a little tough for people to feel comfortable responding. And that's all I really care about, making you folks feel comfortable tossing in a response or five.
I haven't completely resolved how I'm going to change the format of Playlists, and it might not even be called Playlists anymore. But at some point, we'll get it going. Stay tuned.
Please stay tuned.
First, on a very basic level, "walking music" isn't really something that people can grasp, because most people don't walk just for exercise. They have people walking with them, or they are walking a dog, or pushing a stroller, so they've got other things to be concerned with while walking. And while it's true that I'd like to incorporate more jogging into my walks, the majority of my walks are spent, well, walking.
I was able to find some solid walking music, but that's more from my own conceptions about walking, not from some base standard of "good walking music." That one Primitive Radio Gods song is an example, in case you were wondering what I'm talking about. But I'm not asking for any more assistance on walking music.
I'm also not going to just offer a wide open "give me some songs" anymore. While I'm obviously interested in hearing all sorts of musical suggestions, leaving it so wide open I think makes it a little tough for people to feel comfortable responding. And that's all I really care about, making you folks feel comfortable tossing in a response or five.
I haven't completely resolved how I'm going to change the format of Playlists, and it might not even be called Playlists anymore. But at some point, we'll get it going. Stay tuned.
Please stay tuned.
Sunday, May 29, 2011
Zombie Games
If you've hung out with me, or if you've read some of my previous posts, you know I've got a special place in my heart for a good zombie video game. I'm also a big fan of the sandbox-style games like Grand Theft Auto and Morrowind that give you some flexibility and independence when it comes to game progression. So naturally, Dead Rising is among my favorite classic Xbox 360 games, and I've quickly embraced its sequels.
Well, there's another sequel coming, and I think I might be more excited about this one than any of the other stuff. It's called Dead Rising 2: Off The Record, and it's referred to as a "re-imagination" of Dead Rising 2 if the original game's Frank West were the protagonist, rather than Chuck Greene. This means that a lot of the same characters will be brought back from the original Dead Rising 2, but indications are that there'll be plenty of new characters as well, and new challenges to face.
At least as important is that Capcom has specifically indicated that they've been working on reducing the load times in the game, which was really the only complaint I had about it. The fact that they've mentioned it specifically means that they're willing to be held accountable for fixing it, and that's encouraging.
But that's not the only exciting game coming soon on the zombie front. I think everybody on the planet has seen this trailer for a game in development called Dead Island, and rightfully so. It's pretty creative, and the basis for the game is interesting enough on its own to generate a lot of hits. But now we've got an actual gameplay video out, and we can begin to see how this game is taking shape. And it definitely looks good.
It's a good time to want to smash zombies.
Well, there's another sequel coming, and I think I might be more excited about this one than any of the other stuff. It's called Dead Rising 2: Off The Record, and it's referred to as a "re-imagination" of Dead Rising 2 if the original game's Frank West were the protagonist, rather than Chuck Greene. This means that a lot of the same characters will be brought back from the original Dead Rising 2, but indications are that there'll be plenty of new characters as well, and new challenges to face.
At least as important is that Capcom has specifically indicated that they've been working on reducing the load times in the game, which was really the only complaint I had about it. The fact that they've mentioned it specifically means that they're willing to be held accountable for fixing it, and that's encouraging.
But that's not the only exciting game coming soon on the zombie front. I think everybody on the planet has seen this trailer for a game in development called Dead Island, and rightfully so. It's pretty creative, and the basis for the game is interesting enough on its own to generate a lot of hits. But now we've got an actual gameplay video out, and we can begin to see how this game is taking shape. And it definitely looks good.
It's a good time to want to smash zombies.
Wednesday, May 25, 2011
Playlists - Walking
Another new "feature" I want to start running here is what I'm going to simply call Playlists. I've always been a big fan of making CDs and playlists, but I'm starting to realize that there's a lot of music I just don't know. But maybe you folks can help me out.
Part of this process will involve me generating the playlist on Grooveshark and posting it for you guys to check out and critique. INTERACTIVITY!
Our first playlist is actually going to be pretty challenging, because there isn't really a conventional feel for "walking music." What I'm thinking is zone-out kind of music, but songs that still have a strong beat. Maybe some jam bands like Allman Brothers Band or Dave Matthews Band? Right now I've got a couple Arcade Fire albums and an album by a band called Bonobo on my mp3 player; both seem to work pretty well.
I appeal to you, Internet. Offer your wisdom.
Part of this process will involve me generating the playlist on Grooveshark and posting it for you guys to check out and critique. INTERACTIVITY!
Our first playlist is actually going to be pretty challenging, because there isn't really a conventional feel for "walking music." What I'm thinking is zone-out kind of music, but songs that still have a strong beat. Maybe some jam bands like Allman Brothers Band or Dave Matthews Band? Right now I've got a couple Arcade Fire albums and an album by a band called Bonobo on my mp3 player; both seem to work pretty well.
I appeal to you, Internet. Offer your wisdom.
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
TV Reviewed - Dead Like Me
So I was over at Eddie and Rachel's house a few weeks ago, and Rachel and I were looking for a show to watch from Netflix's instant options. She had seen an episode of Dead Like Me and said it was decent, so we flipped on the first episode. Turns out the first episode was a double episode, so it took way longer than we thought it would, but it was interesting enough for me to give the show a shot.
After having watched both seasons, all 29 episodes, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about the show.
The basic premise of the show is this: when people die, grim reapers help them "move on." Grim reapers are people who have died, but whose time on earth was extended to serve this role. The show follows a small team of reapers, with the main focus on a brand new (so recently deceased) reaper, Georgia, and how she handles the transition from living to dead, along with her new job.
The idea is interesting enough, and both the writers and actors do a fair job of executing it. The main character is a little whiny, but she's 18; that's a pretty whiny age. In season one, the show does a good job of balancing the day-to-day reaps with Georgia's growth as a reaper and her surviving family's hardships at dealing with the loss. As someone who's dealt with loss, I found a lot of relate-able scenarios, and the characters seem very real and very natural in this regard.
But for all of the positives of season one, season two seems to just be lost. The story is all over the place, and for 90% of the show, the episodes don't seem to need to be in any particular order. There are occasionally spots where the story endures for an episode or two, and the surviving family has a progression of events, but mostly the stories just don't seem very intertwined. By the end of season two, I was really just watching the show because I knew I was almost finished. And that's not good.
While I liked the first season enough, I can't put my name on a recommendation. It was just too fragmented in season two, and the individual stories weren't compelling enough to compensate.
The Last Word - You might like the first half of it, but if you watch it, prepare for some disappointment later on.
After having watched both seasons, all 29 episodes, I'm still not entirely sure how I feel about the show.
The basic premise of the show is this: when people die, grim reapers help them "move on." Grim reapers are people who have died, but whose time on earth was extended to serve this role. The show follows a small team of reapers, with the main focus on a brand new (so recently deceased) reaper, Georgia, and how she handles the transition from living to dead, along with her new job.
The idea is interesting enough, and both the writers and actors do a fair job of executing it. The main character is a little whiny, but she's 18; that's a pretty whiny age. In season one, the show does a good job of balancing the day-to-day reaps with Georgia's growth as a reaper and her surviving family's hardships at dealing with the loss. As someone who's dealt with loss, I found a lot of relate-able scenarios, and the characters seem very real and very natural in this regard.
But for all of the positives of season one, season two seems to just be lost. The story is all over the place, and for 90% of the show, the episodes don't seem to need to be in any particular order. There are occasionally spots where the story endures for an episode or two, and the surviving family has a progression of events, but mostly the stories just don't seem very intertwined. By the end of season two, I was really just watching the show because I knew I was almost finished. And that's not good.
While I liked the first season enough, I can't put my name on a recommendation. It was just too fragmented in season two, and the individual stories weren't compelling enough to compensate.
The Last Word - You might like the first half of it, but if you watch it, prepare for some disappointment later on.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Movie Reviewed - 28 Weeks Later
I'm a fan of a good zombie movie. However, 28 Weeks Later (and its predecessor 28 Days Later) are not zombie movies, because the "monsters" in the movie are not zombies. They're "infected," people with normal human capabilities but whose minds are overthrown, utterly consumed with rage towards everyone and everything.
In the original (a very well put together film), we saw London ravaged by the disease, and learned that all of Great Britain was virtually leveled by the infected. The sequel moves us forward several months, after it's believed that the disease has been eradicated. The United States military is sent in to reclaim the country, and eventually civilians are permitted to re-settle. Of course, something goes wrong, and the disease breaks out again.
The main difference for me between Days and Weeks is that Days was fresh, creative, and had some interesting characters, while Weeks was simply a re-hash of the original story. Perhaps the most distinct representation of this was the CONSTANT use of the main theme song from the original film. The song has a haunting tone and was one of the things that really made the original movie, but it just feels trite in the sequel.
One of the mechanisms that these movies (and many other modern horrors/thrillers) rely on is the idea that while monsters are scary, humans can be just as scary. The first few times, it was compelling. But after a hundred different scenarios where good guys turn bad, it becomes too predictable. And I think the writing gets a little lazy; you don't get the buildup of frustration, anxiety, and hopelessness that might actually prompt the panic that would precipitate a "turn." And to be honest, the concept that the military are so easily prone to villainy is getting a little old.
People love putting numbers on opinions, so let's move on to a rating. I've talked previously about how I don't love a 5 star scale, because in that scale, 3 stars equates to "I have no opinion on this movie." Three stars is dead center, and doesn't offer a recommendation, which is fine for your own ratings, but useless when you're trying to offer advice to others.
So, I'm going to go with a 10-point scale, ten points being reserved for elite films (High Fidelity, The Shawshank Redemption, etc), and one point being reserved for the most utterly awful films (Meet the Spartans). It gives us plenty of room to differentiate between good films, very good films, and great films, and it's an even number, so there's no dead-center number that means nothing. Anything six or above, I recommend, anything five or below, I don't.
So, back to this movie. It took a little while to get going, but the story was entertaining enough in the context of being a basic thriller. I didn't think much of the script, and the characters are mostly bland, but the actors do well enough to keep your attention. As long as you're willing to accept a few obviously inaccurate situations (like why wasn't the wife under constant military supervision? the husband can just wander in?), it's a tense, aggressive, and enjoyable movie. But if you didn't like the first one, there's no way this one is going to do it for you.
The Last Word - I endorse it, but barely.
In the original (a very well put together film), we saw London ravaged by the disease, and learned that all of Great Britain was virtually leveled by the infected. The sequel moves us forward several months, after it's believed that the disease has been eradicated. The United States military is sent in to reclaim the country, and eventually civilians are permitted to re-settle. Of course, something goes wrong, and the disease breaks out again.
The main difference for me between Days and Weeks is that Days was fresh, creative, and had some interesting characters, while Weeks was simply a re-hash of the original story. Perhaps the most distinct representation of this was the CONSTANT use of the main theme song from the original film. The song has a haunting tone and was one of the things that really made the original movie, but it just feels trite in the sequel.
One of the mechanisms that these movies (and many other modern horrors/thrillers) rely on is the idea that while monsters are scary, humans can be just as scary. The first few times, it was compelling. But after a hundred different scenarios where good guys turn bad, it becomes too predictable. And I think the writing gets a little lazy; you don't get the buildup of frustration, anxiety, and hopelessness that might actually prompt the panic that would precipitate a "turn." And to be honest, the concept that the military are so easily prone to villainy is getting a little old.
People love putting numbers on opinions, so let's move on to a rating. I've talked previously about how I don't love a 5 star scale, because in that scale, 3 stars equates to "I have no opinion on this movie." Three stars is dead center, and doesn't offer a recommendation, which is fine for your own ratings, but useless when you're trying to offer advice to others.
So, I'm going to go with a 10-point scale, ten points being reserved for elite films (High Fidelity, The Shawshank Redemption, etc), and one point being reserved for the most utterly awful films (Meet the Spartans). It gives us plenty of room to differentiate between good films, very good films, and great films, and it's an even number, so there's no dead-center number that means nothing. Anything six or above, I recommend, anything five or below, I don't.
So, back to this movie. It took a little while to get going, but the story was entertaining enough in the context of being a basic thriller. I didn't think much of the script, and the characters are mostly bland, but the actors do well enough to keep your attention. As long as you're willing to accept a few obviously inaccurate situations (like why wasn't the wife under constant military supervision? the husband can just wander in?), it's a tense, aggressive, and enjoyable movie. But if you didn't like the first one, there's no way this one is going to do it for you.
The Last Word - I endorse it, but barely.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
What are you doing?
Remember those old Budweiser commercials, the "Wazzup" ones? And then remember the follow up they did with white guys and an Indian guy saying "What are you doing?" That was pretty funny.
Anyways, you might have noticed that I've reworked the layout a little bit, and added a new section on the right entitled "Currently..." It's basically a collection of the things I do when I get home from work. Not entirely, obviously. I still eat and sleep and walk and watch sports. And in fact, I watch a lot more TV than is notated there, but it's mostly new TV (Parks and Recreation, House, Kitchen Nightmares, etc). The TV shows in this section are the shows that have either already run their course and I'm watching after the fact, or are still on, but I'm catching up on.
What's in it for you, you ask? Well, on the off chance you're someone I ever actually see in person, you'll have some insight into potential topics of conversation. For example, "Hey Joe, I read you're playing some game called Magicka. Are you like 100% nerd, or are there a few strands of manliness somewhere in there?" See? Fun!
But seriously, we can talk about books or movies or games.
Additionally, I'll be posting a review of every movie and show I watch from here forward. Well, okay, not every movie and show. I'm not going to review Jurassic Park or Zombieland or The Office every time I watch them on Netflix (we're at I think 9 times for Zombieland...and many more than that for Jurassic Park). But every movie and show I watch for the first time, you can count on a review. And I just watched 28 Weeks Later for the first time today, so you can look forward to my thoughts on that film.
Sneak preview: not as good as the first one.
Anyways, you might have noticed that I've reworked the layout a little bit, and added a new section on the right entitled "Currently..." It's basically a collection of the things I do when I get home from work. Not entirely, obviously. I still eat and sleep and walk and watch sports. And in fact, I watch a lot more TV than is notated there, but it's mostly new TV (Parks and Recreation, House, Kitchen Nightmares, etc). The TV shows in this section are the shows that have either already run their course and I'm watching after the fact, or are still on, but I'm catching up on.
What's in it for you, you ask? Well, on the off chance you're someone I ever actually see in person, you'll have some insight into potential topics of conversation. For example, "Hey Joe, I read you're playing some game called Magicka. Are you like 100% nerd, or are there a few strands of manliness somewhere in there?" See? Fun!
But seriously, we can talk about books or movies or games.
Additionally, I'll be posting a review of every movie and show I watch from here forward. Well, okay, not every movie and show. I'm not going to review Jurassic Park or Zombieland or The Office every time I watch them on Netflix (we're at I think 9 times for Zombieland...and many more than that for Jurassic Park). But every movie and show I watch for the first time, you can count on a review. And I just watched 28 Weeks Later for the first time today, so you can look forward to my thoughts on that film.
Sneak preview: not as good as the first one.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Pizza
Listen. I like pizza. If you've spent any time with me at mealtime over the past few years, you know that I have a slight tendency to default to pizza. It's a decent enough meal with plenty of potential variety, it's pretty clean most of the time, and most people like it.
The problem is, pizza isn't very diet-friendly. Well, that's not fair to pizza. Pizza, like almost any food, can be diet-friendly when enjoyed in moderation. But most of the time that you eat pizza, you get a whole pie, and eat several slices, and boom, 1400 calories. Since I'm on a diet, that's a "bad" idea.
Enter Boboli. I bought a couple crusts the other day, and the calorie numbers look manageable. I made a "white" pizza the other day, the whole pizza was 1080 calories. It had shredded Parmesan cheese, butter, garlic salt, oregano, sliced onions, and sliced red pepper. I know I can actually save a few calories by switching to a lower calorie version of cheese, maybe get the whole thing down to a thousand. And this is for the bigger crust, I think 10 or 12 inches. They've also got personal size ones, which obviously make for an even more calorie-friendly meal.
So I'm reaching out to you folks. Let's figure out some pizzas I can make. Give them names, if you like. But we're looking to make them fairly healthy, so I can keep on my weight-loss train. Lean meats are good, we can work with most cheeses, and I'm open to vegetables and fruits...except mushrooms and olives. Those are a no go fo sho.
Here, I'll start it off (please note that I have not tried these pizzas; they're just ideas. And yours can be as well):
The Jerry's Cheesesteak Pizza
The problem is, pizza isn't very diet-friendly. Well, that's not fair to pizza. Pizza, like almost any food, can be diet-friendly when enjoyed in moderation. But most of the time that you eat pizza, you get a whole pie, and eat several slices, and boom, 1400 calories. Since I'm on a diet, that's a "bad" idea.
Enter Boboli. I bought a couple crusts the other day, and the calorie numbers look manageable. I made a "white" pizza the other day, the whole pizza was 1080 calories. It had shredded Parmesan cheese, butter, garlic salt, oregano, sliced onions, and sliced red pepper. I know I can actually save a few calories by switching to a lower calorie version of cheese, maybe get the whole thing down to a thousand. And this is for the bigger crust, I think 10 or 12 inches. They've also got personal size ones, which obviously make for an even more calorie-friendly meal.
So I'm reaching out to you folks. Let's figure out some pizzas I can make. Give them names, if you like. But we're looking to make them fairly healthy, so I can keep on my weight-loss train. Lean meats are good, we can work with most cheeses, and I'm open to vegetables and fruits...except mushrooms and olives. Those are a no go fo sho.
Here, I'll start it off (please note that I have not tried these pizzas; they're just ideas. And yours can be as well):
The Jerry's Cheesesteak Pizza
- Roast beef or sliced steak
- Provolone cheese
- Onions
- Green peppers
- Onions
- Light ranch dressing
- Taco seasoning
- Mozzarella cheese
Interactivity / Twitter?
Let me be the first to say that I have trouble getting what the big draw is for Twitter. It's like if you took Facebook and stripped away everything interesting and just had the status updates. No pictures, no videos, not even any long statuses that actually give you information. Just quick-hitters, like "Going to the mall to get my nails done" or "Let's go Cavs! Two of the top four picks!"
Are these invalid ideas? No, of course not. But it's like an entire website devoted to smalltalk. Are we so starved for human interaction that we'll settle for an occasional impersonal text from celebrities, or cousins, or strangers?
Well, yes, probably. As some of you may know, I run a little sports blog called Joe and Joe Sports, and I've set up a Twitter account for it. I don't post regularly (on either), so the synergy between the two is negligible, but with the recent explosion of smart phones, I know that social media is becoming a quick way to "check up" on people, both friends and strangers. And if you want to grow your web presence, it's definitely useful to employ multiple vehicles.
Anyways, where was I going with this? Right, interactivity. I'd like to have a little more of it on here. Now, it'd be easier for you all to chime in if I posted more often, I'll grant you that. So here's the deal. I'm going to post more often (promise), and you're going to respond more often.
Not gonna wait for you to agree. That's how we do it in sales; we presume agreement and move right on to the details.
I've got a few ideas for how to generate some back and forth. Look for the first one later today.
LOOK FOR IT.
Are these invalid ideas? No, of course not. But it's like an entire website devoted to smalltalk. Are we so starved for human interaction that we'll settle for an occasional impersonal text from celebrities, or cousins, or strangers?
Well, yes, probably. As some of you may know, I run a little sports blog called Joe and Joe Sports, and I've set up a Twitter account for it. I don't post regularly (on either), so the synergy between the two is negligible, but with the recent explosion of smart phones, I know that social media is becoming a quick way to "check up" on people, both friends and strangers. And if you want to grow your web presence, it's definitely useful to employ multiple vehicles.
Anyways, where was I going with this? Right, interactivity. I'd like to have a little more of it on here. Now, it'd be easier for you all to chime in if I posted more often, I'll grant you that. So here's the deal. I'm going to post more often (promise), and you're going to respond more often.
Not gonna wait for you to agree. That's how we do it in sales; we presume agreement and move right on to the details.
I've got a few ideas for how to generate some back and forth. Look for the first one later today.
LOOK FOR IT.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Baseball Essay
A few weeks ago, I sent in an application to MLB.com for some dream job offer they had. I apparently had waited too long, and there was a second part to the application that I didn't have time for, but I wrote an essay they asked for. Below is that essay. The prompt was "Talk about why you like baseball."
I went to my first baseball game when I was 7 years old. My aunt and uncle had just gotten married, and didn't yet have any children, so they invited me and my cousin to come with them to see our hometown Orioles play host to the Tigers. This was during the Orioles' historically awful 1988 season, but I didn't know enough about baseball to realize that when I saw them win the game, I was seeing a rarity.
I think it's fair to say that I was hooked right away. Seeing a baseball field live for the first time was tremendous, and I still get goose bumps every time I walk out from the concourse into a stadium. There’s no greener grass than outfield grass. But the most distinct memory I have from the game was when Jack Morris was pulled for a reliever, the song "Hit the Road Jack" came on the loudspeaker. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world that they had found this song that perfectly fit the game scenario, and sang along loudly, as only a 7-year-old can.
As I've grown, while I still appreciate the beauty of a baseball field, the thing I find most striking about a baseball game is the intensity of each pitch. More than any other team sport, baseball gives you the direct confrontation of two wills, pitcher versus hitter. In a close game, the tension of each pitch is almost magical. Fifteen seconds of plotting and planning by the pitcher and catcher, the deep breath, and then everything crescendos into that one moment when the hitter starts to offer at the pitch. For that split-second, literally anything can happen.
I guess maybe that’s why I like baseball so much: possibility. At the beginning of every season, we remind ourselves that, hey, the Marlins have a couple World Series rings. And, remember back in 1991 when the Twins and Braves both went worst-to-first to meet in the Fall Classic? On April 1st, every team has a shot. You don’t get that same feeling in football, or even basketball, despite the fact that more than half of the NBA makes the playoffs.
One last thing about baseball that I think sets it apart from the other team sports is its ability to withstand its fantasy counterpart. I’ve played pretty much every fantasy sport out there, but baseball is the only sport that, for me, has remained interesting to me in both the real game and the fantasy game. If anything, fantasy baseball has made me a more broad baseball fan. I knew about Ryan Braun before he’d ever played a game. The case was the same with Clayton Kershaw, Evan Longoria, and Tim Lincecum. Seeing these super-prospects turn into major league superstars gives them a story in my mind; I’ve watched them from the beginning.
PS: I know the ending is a little abrupt; they had a word limit, and I was right up against it.
I went to my first baseball game when I was 7 years old. My aunt and uncle had just gotten married, and didn't yet have any children, so they invited me and my cousin to come with them to see our hometown Orioles play host to the Tigers. This was during the Orioles' historically awful 1988 season, but I didn't know enough about baseball to realize that when I saw them win the game, I was seeing a rarity.
I think it's fair to say that I was hooked right away. Seeing a baseball field live for the first time was tremendous, and I still get goose bumps every time I walk out from the concourse into a stadium. There’s no greener grass than outfield grass. But the most distinct memory I have from the game was when Jack Morris was pulled for a reliever, the song "Hit the Road Jack" came on the loudspeaker. I thought it was the coolest thing in the world that they had found this song that perfectly fit the game scenario, and sang along loudly, as only a 7-year-old can.
As I've grown, while I still appreciate the beauty of a baseball field, the thing I find most striking about a baseball game is the intensity of each pitch. More than any other team sport, baseball gives you the direct confrontation of two wills, pitcher versus hitter. In a close game, the tension of each pitch is almost magical. Fifteen seconds of plotting and planning by the pitcher and catcher, the deep breath, and then everything crescendos into that one moment when the hitter starts to offer at the pitch. For that split-second, literally anything can happen.
I guess maybe that’s why I like baseball so much: possibility. At the beginning of every season, we remind ourselves that, hey, the Marlins have a couple World Series rings. And, remember back in 1991 when the Twins and Braves both went worst-to-first to meet in the Fall Classic? On April 1st, every team has a shot. You don’t get that same feeling in football, or even basketball, despite the fact that more than half of the NBA makes the playoffs.
One last thing about baseball that I think sets it apart from the other team sports is its ability to withstand its fantasy counterpart. I’ve played pretty much every fantasy sport out there, but baseball is the only sport that, for me, has remained interesting to me in both the real game and the fantasy game. If anything, fantasy baseball has made me a more broad baseball fan. I knew about Ryan Braun before he’d ever played a game. The case was the same with Clayton Kershaw, Evan Longoria, and Tim Lincecum. Seeing these super-prospects turn into major league superstars gives them a story in my mind; I’ve watched them from the beginning.
PS: I know the ending is a little abrupt; they had a word limit, and I was right up against it.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Caps 2011-2012
(Some of us woke up feeling like this picture this morning) I know what some of you are thinking, "What about a break down of round 2 Eddie". My response to that would be the Caps were swept in four games. What else do you want to know?
Ok... I was impressed with Nevy's ability to keep the Caps in the first three games. I also was impressed with how composed he was after not once, not twice, but three times goals were deflected in off his own players or bad bounces off Tampa's players. Nevy can't clear the crease that falls to the Caps D. On the negative side I was unimpressed with Bruce's ability to adapt to another playoff series. Some blame needs to fall on the players but this is becoming a pattern. Also is it just me or were the Caps never in the middle of the offensive zone. Every time they would dump it in and struggle along the boards. We needed to find a way to get the puck in the slot. This seems to be a constant theme with this team.
With that said I thought it might take some of the sting out of last night to look at the very bright future the Caps have:
Cap numbers from CapGeek.com
2011-12 Payroll: 50,896,795
2011-12 Cap Space: 8,503,203
As a side note the NHL signed a larger TV deal with NBC. This should lead to more revenue. Even with a struggling economy I think we will see an increase in the Salary Cap next year.
What we have for next year:
Goalie:
Michal Neuvirth is signed through the next two years at 1.1 million.
He was great in the first round and while he struggled at times vs Tampa I felt very confident with him in between the pipes. I can remember at least 5-7 times thinking for sure Tampa had scored only to see Nevy come up with a huge save.
Holtby is also signed for two more years at 677,000.
Defense:
Mike Green, Dennis Wideman, Tom Poti, Jeff Schultz, John Erskine, John Carlson and Tyler Sloan are signed through next year. The total cap hit for these players is around 17.7 mil.
The change to a defensive mindset seemed to work as the Caps enjoyed one of their best defensive seasons in team history. I think this group of defensemen give the Caps the ability to skate three d-pairs with both a defensive and offensive d-man. The Caps blue line struggled to provide offensive numbers this year. I do not see that continuing to be a problem. Carlson should continue to get better and better. Wideman and Green provide two great puck moving defensemen.
Forwards:
Ovechkin, Backstrom, Semin, Knuble, Fehr, Chimera, Johansson, Hendricks, King, and Beagle are all signed through next season.
This is where I see the biggest changes coming next season but that is for a later section. The change to a defensive mindset may have kept the puck out of our goal but the Caps struggled to score this season. I believe the Caps were shutout an incredible ten times last season. There is too much talent on this team to have that happen. Johansson continued to make large strides this season. This is a 20 year old kid who is still getting used to the North American rink and speed and style of the NHL. I look for him to continue to get better and better.
Who is currently unsigned:
Scott Hannan: Is it just me or does Hannan never smile. Don't get me wrong I really liked his play throughout the season. Hannan's calling card is smart, solid, defense first play. Maybe not so much during the OT in Game 2 vs Tampa but everyone makes mistakes. At the moment we have seven defensemen signed for next year. I would love to bring Hannan back next season. But with such a logjam already and a large price tag (Hannan made 4.5 mil last year) I think Hannan finds a new home next year.
Karl Alzner: I think my wife, Rachel, thinks Alzner is my "one". "One" being the one famous person I could sleep with and not get in trouble. That is not the case but Alzner is far and away my favorite hockey player. He's a RFA which will allow the Caps to sign him for less than he would as a UFA. That said I still think he will get a decent increase from his 1.67 mil. If I had one wish for George McPhee it would be to sign Alzer and Carlson long term. This pairing impressed time and time again against the opponents top line. And don't forget these two are 21 (Carlson) and 22 (Alzner). Oh and it's Kate Beckinsale for those wondering.
Brooks Laich: This is probably the toughest call of the off season for GMGM. Brooks Laich is an old school hockey player and a class act. He has a balance of skill, toughness, and sandpaper that make him very attractive in the Free Agent market. And from women tell me he's also very attractive and not to mention he just seems like a really good guy. (Ex. Stopping to change a tire after game 7 last year) I know Brooks has been a huge supporter of Bruce over the years. We'll see how that situation affects his possible return to the Caps. I would try to sign Brooks. I think he seems like a great Locker room guy. However there is a limit and in the salary cap league you have be careful.
Jason Arnott: Jason Arnott seemed to spark the Caps after his arrival however he did not seem to do the same after a late season injury. Was that a result of not being a 100%, an older player wearing down, or just an overall bad offensive post season for the Caps? I'm not sure. If I were the Caps I would be open to brining Arnott back but only for a small one year contract.
Marco Sturm: Marco never really seemed to make a mark for this Caps team. I thought he actually played better in the Tampa series but still had little effect on the games. He's still working back from a major knee injury. But I did not see enough from him to justify investing.
Boyd Gordon: Remember David Steckel? Yes Joey I know you remember and while we are on the subject the candles burning and picture collage is a little weird. Well for the rest of you normal fans you might not. Boyd stepped in after Steckel's departure and was great as the 4th line center and top PK man. I think Boyd is an important FA for the Caps to sign.
Matt Bradley: Ah good old Professor Bradley... you have been a solid 4th line forward for years now. We had some good memories. However 1 million for an aging 4th line forward seems steep. I think its important for the Caps to give some young guys some time. As a result I'd let Bradley walk. I just think its time to move on.
Semyon Varlamov: Varly has been great when he has been healthy. However that has been a major problem for this young Russian net minder. I think Varly has the athletic ability to be a dynamic goaltender that teams can lean for stretches. With that said, I have no idea how salary works for goalies. Just last year Chicago let go of Stanley Cup winning goalie. I would bring Varly back if its not too costly. However with Holtby and Nevy signed for two years you wonder how GMGM deals with this. Is this the time when one of these three is dealt?
Coaching situation:
What to do with Bruce:
Let me preface this by saying I'm not a hockey expert. I'm a fan. There are much smarter hockey people out there and I'm glad they are making this call and not me. With that said I think a change will be made. I look at the roster and there doesn't seem to be a ton of room to make changes. Maybe you try to move Semin but you're probably selling low after these playoffs.
Why make a change:
I just find myself confused watching this team. Last year we play offensive, up-tempo hockey lead in goal and power play %. However we struggle to keep pucks out of our goal. This year we switch to a defense first mentality. We are towards the top in GAA and PK. However we are shut out 10 time over 82 games. Where is the balance? Between the two years there is very little change in the roster. People this year continued to say we need a complete game or effort from these Caps. That has been the case for two years now. We seem unable to play aggressive and smart hockey at the same time. The ability to be both a top offense one year and top defensive team another tells me this team has talent. Everyone can see that. The inability to do both tells me that there is something wrong with the scheme and game plan. I have been a huge Bruce fan for years. After last year I was the first to say he needs to stay. However professional sports is a what have you done for me lately business. Bruce has had control of a tremendousness amount of talent here for three years now. Each time the team has come up way short of expectations.
Overall Thoughts:
I'm not sure what will happen over the next four months. The one thing I do know is I'm a Caps fan. That is not going to change. If you don't like the drops and let downs get off the train. No one is stopping you. However I'm confident I'll see you back next year wearing your Caps jersey and saying you never stopped believing. Hockey is a great game where anything can happen. Enjoy it. We have one of the best players in the world with an incredible roster of players. Our time will come.
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
-
When I think about why I'm making this blog post, I'm reminded of a memorable quote from my all-time favorite show, The West Wing : ...
-
I've had very little nice to say about LaVar Arrington since about three years into his tenure as a Washington Redskin. He was a disapp...
-
Some of these aren't the best cards you can hope to open, and some of them are. But most decidedly, these are my favorite cards to play ...
