2011 Games of the Year #1 - Terraria

There are two things I like in video games: I like making stuff, and I like blowing stuff up. Terraria offers both options in spades, so I like Terraria. A lot, in fact. Enough to net the #1 spot on my games of the year list for 2011.

Terraria is reminiscent of Minecraft, but it's got a few aspects that I think set it apart, positively. First, Terraria has a bit more direction for you. There are feats to accomplish, and rewards for doing so:

• Build a house? You now have somewhere safe from zombies when night falls, and a place for NPCs to hang out.
• Shatter an evil orb? A meteorite may fall from the sky, giving you access to a unique resource to craft better armor and weapons.
• Defeat Skeletron, a floating skeleton head and a pair of bony hands? The tailor is free of his curse, and can offer you his wares.
  

Additionally, Terraria is 2D, rather than Minecraft's 3D nature. Certainly there is value to the 3D system, but adding the third dimension also adds another level of trickiness to the game, and at least in my limited experience, another level of frustration in building. Also, by using a 3rd-person point of view, with a standard mouse cursor, it's much easier to be able to build what you're actually trying to build, without having to constantly mine and place blocks (I cite my crafted version of Air Man as an example).

Finally, and I may get some detractors here, but I think Terraria's just a better-looking game. The graphics are eye-pleasing if simplistic, and everything is crisp and easy to see. It may run on basically Super Nintendo graphics, but the Super Nintendo did alright. I don't remember people ever complaining that Final Fantasy III didn't look good enough.

Terraria's got a nice flavor when played multiplayer, as it adds in that level of panic that all good multiplayer needs. You can work together to take down bosses, and cover each other while harvesting the lands resources. It's also got a PvP option, though I've never used it. But I could see it being fun, in the right circumstances.

More than anything, I like Terraria's potential. The game has received two huge updates since I purchased it last year, and I've read plenty of articles of people talking about their gaming experiences, and sharing their creations. I've really enjoyed what I've seen so far, and I'm excited about how much more it can be.

Oh. And as always...fuck Valentine's Day.

2011 Games of the Year #2 - Dead Island

As someone who's got a history of liking zombie games, I looked forward to Dead Island for a while. From Left 4 Dead to Dead Rising, and through a plethora of lesser games, I've always been on the lookout for another zombie game. Something about killing zombies just feels gratifying, more so than Nazis or wild beasts. It's like I'm doing God's work...

Dead Island is a slightly different kind of game from a lot of the other zombie games out there, though. It draws on two games in particular: Left 4 Dead (obviously) and Borderlands (not so obviously). The basic scenario (zombies overrunning everything) and many of the enemies seem to hearken back to Left 4 Dead. And it definitely induces the same sort of panic when you start getting pummeled by the infected.

But overall, the game is actually more like Borderlands, morphed into a melee-heavy game. You spend a lot of time accumulating gear and doing quests. The missions are fairly straight-forward: kill X zombies, collect Y supplies, escort Z bastard back to base. Yes, there are escort quests, and yes, they suck ass, just as they do in every other game. But the innate universal bullshit of escort quests isn't enough to counter the substantial awesomeness of Dead Island.

One of the cooler facets of the game is the crafting of new weapons. You can take a simple weapon like a baseball bat and add barbed wire or razors, or take a machete and charge it with electricity. You can also create bombs, Molotov cocktails, and ammunition. Guns aren't all that useful in the game, but they have their place. Mostly, though, you're hacking and slashing up close and personal, which gets pretty tense. Especially because you really can't take many hits before you're toast.

Multiplayer is enjoyable, though you'll likely miss out on some of the cutscenes because people click through, or because you're hearing your friend talk shit. Truthfully, though, the story in my experience so far has been fairly blah, so you're not missing much. The negatives of missing plot points are far outweighed by the enjoyment of partnering up with three friends and stomping on zombie skulls.

Though there are ways to improve upon it, Dead Island one of the strongest zombie games out there.

Magic Cards - Crash Man

A friend and I have been tinkering with a freely available Magic Set Editor program, using it to create a for-fun Magic set using Mega Man 2. Above is one of the cooler cards we've created. Yes, I just used "cool" to describe a Magic card based on an old Nintendo game. My nerdity knows no bounds. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch some Star Trek: Voyager.

2011 Games of the Year #3 - Magic 2012

As Anthony put it, "The game so nice you bought it twice!"

Many months ago, Xbox Live had a sale that dropped Magic 2012's price down to $5, and so I jumped on it. I've always been intrigued by Magic: The Gathering, but it's quite a complex system, which makes it a bit intimidating. And when you're a nerd like me, you're easily intimidated. I had bought the previous version, and I found it fun, but frustrating, as it was pretty buggy. Interesting enough that I was willing to give the new version a half a shot, and boy am I glad I did.

The game is...well, it's Magic. But there are a few things that the game does particularly well to bridge the gap between Magic neophyte and total nerd-bomb.

The first thing is the decks. They start you with just two decks to choose from, and they're fairly straight-forward decks. That's not to say they don't have their own intricacies and nuances, they're just a little easier to spot. As you play the game and win matches, you unlock more and more decks, with escalating levels of complexity. So by the time you win the last few decks, you've learned enough to actually be able to use them effectively.

The second bridging factor is the use of "puzzles." The advanced puzzles are mostly exercises in frustration, but the first 6 or 7 are learning tools. They help you learn about some of the more common keywords and activated abilities, and teach you (often through trial and error) how the different cards work together, and how to generate synergies. Some of it can be frustrating, but it's pretty damn gratifying when your plans come together perfectly.

It's got online multiplayer which is entertaining enough, but the most fun I've had playing the game is playing local multiplayer, using the Archenemy feature. Archenemy is a 3 vs. 1 game, where the solo player gets bonus "schemes" that give him a distinct advantage. Only by the three players working together can they defeat the Archenemy, and Nick, Eddie and I have spent several hours working together to try to take down the super-villain.

In Steam's end-of-the-year sale, the PC version of Magic went on a deep enough discount, and enough of my friends purchased it that I grabbed a second copy so that I could play with them. And in fact, I purchased a third copy that I gave to Scooter, so we could play some cross-continent battles. They've come out with three deck packs that offer two new decks apiece, and I've purchased all three for PC, as well as two of the three for 360.

It's a good strategy game that takes some time to get the hang of, but when you do, it's a lot of fun. And the games are short enough that you don't have to play for four hours to feel like you did something. I'm looking at you, World of Warcraft.

2011 Games of the Year #4 - Jolly Rover

There was no way I could've predicted this game making the top five list at the beginning of the year. There was also no way I could've predicted this game making my top five when I actually started playing the game. Jolly Rover wasn't striking off the bat, and it wasn't a particularly long, or challenging, or immersive game. And yet, all those aspects seemed to work together just fine to create a perfectly enjoyable game.

Jolly Rover is a point-and-click adventure game, like the old King's Quest and Police Quest games. Your character is a poor, scrawny little pirate dog, so you can't use brute force or high tech gadgets to accomplish your goals. You have to use your wits, your instincts, and the occasional input from your chirpy little parrot, who gives you clues if you give him a cracker.

Anyways, you move through your mission...quest...thing, meeting characters, getting bullied, and making funny asides. The puzzles are fairly interesting, and the jokes are actually quite witty. As I said, the game isn't an epic, but that actually works in its favor. The humor might run thin over a 14-hour game, but for just a few hours, it stays fresh and fun.

The one half-complaint I have about the game is that you can't lose. I don't mean that you have to start over if you fail; I mean that you literally aren't allowed to do anything that would cost you the game. In this regard, Jolly Rover is more of a cinematic experience than a game. But you definitely don't feel like you're not part of the adventure.

The best thing I can say about Jolly Rover is that it reminded me how much fun I used to have playing point-and-click adventure games. It was a fun, quick experience that I'm glad to have had.

2011 Games of the Year #5 - Pokemon Pinball Ruby/Sapphire

Way back when I was living at home, we had kind of an unreliable power situation. When weather hit, either heavy thunderstorms or heavy snow, we often lost electricity at the house, and we'd have to either sit around and do nothing or play Kevin's Game Boy. So we'd usually trade off turns on the original Pokemon Pinball.

With a 17-hour train trip down to Disney World at the beginning of 2011, I knew I'd need to be entertained for a while. So I grabbed my own Game Boy Advance and snagged a copy of Pokemon Pinball Ruby/Sapphire to fill the time. And it was worth it.

The game is simple enough; it's pinball. There are two boards, one much more difficult than the other, but both follow the same basic premise. You capture various pokemon, evolve them, run through bonus levels, and so forth. It's really not so much that the game is anything special; it's just a fun, simple game in portable form. Sometimes that's all you need. Good enough for #5 on the list.

No matter what...

...life finds a way. Even in between two meteorites.

Games of the Year - 2011 Eligible List

Last year was a much different year than previous years as far as my video gaming, the big difference being that I really didn't play much in the way of "new" games. Most of my gaming time was spent revisiting games I had played in the past (Mass Effect, Dead Rising 2, Rollercoaster Tycoon, World of Warcraft) or continuing to play multiplayer games that I started playing a year or two before last (Borderlands, League of Legends). This leaves us with a fairly sparse list of eligible games, and a tough decision on which games will make my top five. But hey, that's why they pay me the big bucks, right?

Here's the list of eligible games for my 2011 Game of the Year:

Gameboy Advance
Mega Man Battle Network 3
Pokemon Pinball Ruby/Sapphire

PC
BIT.TRIP.BEAT
Champions Online
DC Universe Online
Dead Island
Half-Life
Jolly Rover
Magicka
Puzzle Pirates
Terraria

Playstation 3
Call of Duty - Black Ops
Demon's Souls

Xbox 360
Dead Rising 2: Case West
Magic 2012

Secret Message in the Sky

What does it mean??

2011 Movies of the Year

Last year was a nice year for me with regards to movies. I watched 47 films over the course of 2011, some of them fantastic, some of them not so good, but all of them added to my deposit of movie knowledge, and if I'm being honest, that's all I really care about: being able to talk to other people about said movies.

There's no point in delaying or discussing this any longer, so let's just get into the list. Top 5 movies I watched in 2011...go!

5. Your Highness - Danny McBride crested quickly after Pineapple Express, but he seems to have already cooled off. I think he's going to (and in fact probably already does) find himself typecast as bone-headed, foul-mouthed, and arrogant. He does it really well, though. And Your Highness is the best combination of comedy and fantasy since The Princess Bride...which basically means it's better than Black Knight. Regardless, it's a fun film with decent action and some good swears and quotable lines.

4. It's Kind of a Funny Story - I'm not one of these people that goes apeshit for everything that Zach Galifianakis touches. In fact, creepy as this is going to sound, Emma Roberts was more of a draw for me in watching this film. Really though, I've just enjoyed most movies about crazy people: Girl Interrupted, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, The Dream Team, A Beautiful Mind, etc. This movie was a lot cuter than most of those, but I liked it a lot all the same. It was fun, sweet, and warm.

3. No Strings Attached - I'll probably take some flack for this pick, but I can't help it. I saw the movie in the theater (making it one of like four movies I saw in the theater last year), and truthfully, I had to pee like the whole time. But also truthfully, I couldn't bring myself to leave the theater, for fear that I'd miss another great joke. My full review is here, so I'll let that tell the whole story, but I can say without a doubt that I laughed more at No Strings Attached than I did at any other movie in 2011.

2. The Muppets - I saw this movie late in 2011...like, December 30th. To give you guys a little background, I loved The Muppet Show when I was a kid. We went to Disney World last week, and even though it's pretty tired and a little outdated, I couldn't help but push us towards going to see The Muppets in 3-D for the umpteenth time, because the Muppets are the most nostalgic piece of television from my childhood. The movie itself was good, though the best jokes were those that poked fun at the movie itself. There were good cameos, fun songs, and a triumph of good over evil. But mostly, it was just really nice to sit and watch my favorite characters from my youth again. I'd be lying if I said I didn't get a little misty-eyed at points.

1. About a Boy - My aunt told me I'd love this movie...about a decade ago. But at that age, I made all sorts of judgments about Hugh Grant, non-action movies, and basically everything on the planet. But after growing up a bit, and after really enjoying some other Nick Hornby works, I decided to give the flick a shot, and it's pretty great. It's not overly negative, but it's realistic, with its fair share of darkness and sorrow. Maybe the most impressive thing about the movie is how genuinely it captures the strange thought processes that a kid can have, especially when presented with trying and serious situations. It's funny in a lot of really great ways, but also boasts a good story. Absolutely deserving of my stamp as Movie of the Year.

Now, as far as 2012 goes. I might have already mentioned this, but I'm not going to review movies as I watch them any longer. I wasn't doing a great job of it as is, and I don't really have enough to say about any particular movie to warrant an entire blog post. I'll still accumulate a list over the year, and I'll start doing this post annually, because it gives me something to do.

And I'll still go to the movies with you. :)

The Year That Will Be...2012

In all likelihood, if you're reading this post, you read my recent post summarizing my 2011. In re-reading it, I noticed that the blog might've come across slightly more negatively than I intended. While 2011 was by no means a rousing success, it certainly had its bright spots. Some I'm happy to talk about, some I'd rather not talk about, and a few I can't really remember. But enough that I should probably look back on the year a little more fondly than I do. And maybe, from a farther vantage point (aka in the future), I will.

But for today, we'll look into the near future, and make plans for 2012. Not concrete plans (though I did cash in on my concrete plans to visit Disney World last week), but a variety of..."intentions." I won't call them resolutions, because I feel like resolutions are either too vague (eat better, exercise more, be less of a racist asshole) or too easily dismissed as impossible after six weeks (see the previous list). I like the word "intentions," because it captures my sentiments. I intend to do these things.

What things, you ask? I'm not telling.

Not now, at least. I have written them down, and I even created a little worksheet for myself to track some of them. But some of them are too personal, and some are irrelevant to most of you. Most of all, though, I've found that I rely far too heavily on other people for my happiness. Involving other people right from the get-go just sets me up for disappointment, when I don't get two dozen emails and comments regarding my list.

But, because I like living in the limelight, I'll give you a little glimpse into my list of intentions. If you're looking for "train a team of guinea pigs to row a tiny boat" though, you may be disappointed.

- I am hoping to get myself back on the fitness train. I had a real nice first half of the year in 2011, but I undid way too much of that good work over the second half. I'm not sure exactly how I'm going to do it, but I'm going to try to find a way to get myself back on that horse.
- Similarly, the first half of last year I spent a lot of time working on creating a board game. I even had a test playthrough of the rough draft. The playthrough was informative, though it ended up with me deciding that the concept had to be split into two different games. My goal this year is to finish one of those games.
- I also want to be more social this year. I have a couple different concepts on how to make that happen which I won't go into, but the general idea is to get out more and do more.

Whether or not I'll be successful at these and my other, private or uninteresting goals remains to be seen, but no matter what, I hope to have an enjoyable and productive 2012, and I wish the same for all of you.

Also I hope the world doesn't end.

Video Game Photobomber

Not even Champions Online is safe from photobombers.

Is Jorge Posada a Hall of Famer?

Joe emailed me late Saturday and posed an intriguing question: "Is Jorge Posada a Hall of Famer?"

This is a pretty good question. My initial thought without looking at anything is "No, Posada was a good player on some great teams, but was never Hall of Fame caliber". But since that was just my gut reaction, I took some time and looked into it.

Because the physical demands of the position are orders of magnitude higher than any other position on a baseball field, catchers can really only be compared against themselves. There have been three catchers admitted to the HOF since 1989: Johnny Bench, Carlton Fisk and Gary Carter (not counting the 2006 induction of former Negro Leaguers Biz Mackey and Louis Santop...sorry guys but I've got no point of reference for the Hillsdale Giants in the 1920s). Additionally, there is almost no doubt that Mike Piazza is headed to the Hall of Fame, since his offensive numbers would be good enough to warrant admission regardless of his position (400+ homers and a lifetime .308 batting average) and are better than Bench, Fisk and Carter. So with that in mind, to make Posada's case for the HOF his numbers should be in line with those four guys.

Here are the lifetime stats:

Bench: 389 HR, 1376 RBI, .267/.342/.476 in 8669 PA

Fisk: 376 HR, 1330 RBI, .269/.341/.457 in 9853 PA

Carter: 324 HR, 1225 RBI, .262/.335/.439 in 9019 PA

Piazza: 427 HR, 1335 RBI, .308/.377/.545 in 7745 PA

Posada: 275 HR, 1065 RBI, .273/.374/.474 in 7150 PA

From this comparison, it's easy to see that Posada clearly has the weakest offensive numbers of the bunch. This being a straight up comparison, it doesn't take into account the fact that Posada played in a much more favorable offensive environment (scoring was up approximately half a run per game than when Bench, Fisk and Carter played). By not being able to match the offensive numbers of recent HOF caliber catchers in a much more favorable offensive era, it's really hard to make the case that Posada is in the upper echelon of all time hitting catchers.

Of course as I mentioned at the start, there is more to catching than just hitting. Of the five guys I'm comparing, only Piazza and Posada lack a Gold Glove (Bench has nine, Carter four and Fisk one). While that may be an arbitrary award, it at least gives some idea of whether or not a guy is making a difference in the game defensively, something that can be very difficult to quantify. Something that is less difficult to quantify is career caught stealing percentage where, again, Posada is near the bottom of the list (Bench an unreal 43%, Fisk 34%, Carter 35%, Posada 28% and Piazza 23%). If you want a more "SABRmetric" view of their defensive abilities, only Posada (-2.9) and Piazza (-8.3) have negative lifetime defensive WARs, while Bench (6.5), Fisk (2.6) and Carter (10.0) were all improvements over the "average" defensive catcher. It may not be as clean as the offensive comparison, but by looking at several defensive minded stats and awards we can see that Posada was not a very good defensive catcher and was certainly not in the same class as Bench, Fisk and Carter (and who really cares if Mike Piazza was playing any defense with the way that guy raked).

Jorge Posada had a very good career and was part of four World Series champion teams, but ultimately both offensively and defensively he falls short of the elite receivers of the game. He also doesn't have a pop song named after him (but not at all about him) like Mike Piazza, something I hear the HOF committee puts a premium on.

Movies of the Year - 2011 Eligible List

Back in early 2011, I declared that I'd be reviewing movies for the year, similar to my game reviews. This means that my assessments would be not of movies that were released in 2011, but movies that I saw for the first time in 2011. So while some people's lists will have movies like The Help and X-Men: First Class, my list has Rock Star and Scott Pilgrim vs. The World.

In a week or two, I'll post my top five movies of the year. Look forward to that. I command you.

2011 Eligible Movies
28 Weeks Later
30 Minutes or Less
About a Boy
American Gangster
Any Given Sunday
Battle: Los Angeles
Big Fan
Clash of the Titans (2010)
Dave
Day of the Dead (1985)
Day of the Dead (2008)
Fanboys
For Your Consideration
Gamer
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 2
Highlander
Iron Man 2
It's Kind of a Funny Story
Law Abiding Citizen
No Strings Attached
Paul
Precious
Predator 2
Rampage
Rock Star
Run Ronnie Run!
Safe Men
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Super 8
The Book of Eli
The Crazies (1973)
The Crazies (2010)
The Goods
The Grand
The Men Who Stare At Goats
The Perfect Score
The Winning Season
This is Spinal Tap
Twilight
Twilight - Eclipse
Twilight - New Moon
Underworld: Evolution
Vantage Point
Visioneers
We Are Marshall
Your Highness

The Year That Was...2011

So, 2011 is behind us. For some of us, it was a year of rebirth and renewal, excitement and adventure, accomplishment and...well, doesn't matter, wasn't that for me. Aside from a few invaluable new friends and my little weight loss excursion, 2011 was really just another year gone by for me.

Note: This post will only look back on 2011. My intentions for 2012 will be posted in a future blog.

Looking back inside the scope of the blog, I notice a few things. First, I didn't really do much reviewing of books or TV shows. I didn't review much literature because I really only read a half-dozen books last year. And I didn't review TV shows because it's so rare that you watch the entire run of a TV show that you haven't already seen. I think I watched the full series of three shows last year, and only two of which had I seen for the first time: Dead Like Me and Sports Night. The other was Star Trek: The Next Generation, which was obviously fantastic, but I had mostly already seen.

I did review a fair number of movies. Seventeen, if we're being specific...and there's really no reason not to be, when you have the number. There were movies that I liked a lot that I didn't review. Why? I think because reviewing movies doesn't really speak to me. It's a subjective, arbitrary exercise, and it's tough for me to aggressively analyze and judge a movie, when I'm pretty okay with most movies. I like some more than others, of course. But trying to write up a full blog post about my feelings for a movie never felt right. Something to think about going forward.

I did play some games this year, though, I don't know, I feel like I didn't "accomplish" anything with regards to video games. I played a lot of games I'd already played pretty heavily (NHL '09, Mass Effect, Dead Rising 2, League of Legends), and spent a good deal of time on Terraria, which you can't really beat. I enjoyed all of this time, but there's a certain satisfaction that comes from defeating a game that has a definite endpoint.

The weight loss competition between me and Nick was a definite highlight of the year, not just because I was able to lose some weight, but also because it created mandatory parties every month for six months. It seems like people don't throw parties often enough these days, or maybe I'm just hanging out with the wrong crowd, but I do like parties. I order you all to throw more parties, and invite me.

I'll be posting my brand new Top 5 Movies of the Year post sometime soon, and I'll start the process of examining my year in video games, so look for that series of annual posts as well. Finally, I'll be posting a sort of New Year's Resolutions blog this month, a little less public than a lot of people make their resolutions, and some of my intentions will be kept to myself, but I'll share some of my plans with the four of you who happen upon my blog in the next three months. So, look forward to that.

See ya, 2011.

Movie Reviewed - Any Given Sunday

Sometimes, you go into a movie expecting a lot, and you're left disappointed. Sometimes, you go into a movie not expecting much, and being pleasantly surprised. And sometimes, you go into a movie expecting mediocrity, and you get it. Such was the case with Any Given Sunday, rated a middling 50% on Rotten Tomatoes.

The movie is about a football team (obviously), struggling to make the playoffs as all teams do. They suffer an injury to their starting quarterback, and the film follows the rise and fall of the backup quarterback, played by Jamie Foxx. He starts out nervous and wild, but shows flashes of brilliance, and becomes one of the big stories of the season.

There are ups and downs, crises of character, and the whole gamut of experiences that we so often encounter in Oliver Stone's films. But the thing about trying to make a non-traditional football movie, a football movie about football players, rather than the team, is that most of the time, you get caught. You get caught between exploring the various characters and their trials, and trying to tell the story of a football team. You delve into the players because as a writer, that's where you wanted to go with this movie. But you follow the team because that's what a lot of movie-goers want to see, and, if we're being truthful, football sells.

Don't misunderstand me, though. There are definitely bright spots in the film. Lawrence Taylor actually does a damn good job portraying a half-crazy defensive star whose injuries put his life at risk. And as a Redskins fan, I can completely identify with an up-and-down season with an intrusive owner. Finally, Al Pacino's big speech (a mandatory in all sports movies) is quite good...and not just because it's used in a montage at Caps games.

But there are too many parts that feel like they're trying to say something that just don't go anywhere. There are so many concurrent storylines that it feels like none of them really get fleshed out appropriately. There's a doctor who over-medicates players (and his intern who disagrees with his actions), a linebacker who's trying to get to a performance incentive, the two quarterbacks each with their own set of circumstances, a legendary coach who's time may have passed, a severe owner who inherited the company from her father, assistant coaches, secondary players, and a whole slew of family and friends.

I'm reminded of a quote from a quirky Michael Douglas movie called Wonder Boys:

"...it sort of reads in places like you didn't make any choices. At all."

I think in all work, you have to make decisions to leave things out, to say that this is the story I want to tell, and the only stuff I'm going to include is the stuff that makes this story more complete. The storyline with the team doctor is interesting, but it's utterly useless to the main storyline of the coach, or the secondary storyline of the quarterbacks. I feel like, for as important as teamwork is to football, this movie needed to be a little less about the team.

The Last Word: Fine. It was fine. Worth seeing once, not worth seeing again.

Double Movie Reviewed - The Crazies (1973 & 2010)

How's this for reviewing efficiency? A double review of the original and the remake of The Crazies. Buckle up.

The plot of both movies focuses on a man and woman, a couple who find themselves in a town where people are beginning to act strangely, a result of a crashed plane carrying dangerous chemicals. The government steps in and attempts to first contain, then eliminate the infected people, with brutal results. The couple, along with a small party, move through the city and attempt to escape the madness.

(1973)

The original film, directed by horror legend George Romero, is a fairly typical horror story these days: infection, deaths, hysteria, many many more deaths, and a morbid ending. While predictable, though, the story and the acting are able to carry it enough that it's plenty entertaining.

One of the convenient things about this story concept is that it doesn't demand that the movie create fantastic special effects. In fact, part of what makes the story compelling is its utter realism. You don't have to believe in the living dead or alien invasions or ghosts to be able to buy into the concept of the story. It's simply a town where everyone is losing their minds. Additionally, this non-difference between infected people and regular people is a precipitating factor in one of the turning points late in the movie.

The Last Word: The original flick is definitely enjoyable. It obviously suffers from unexceptional special effects, but it survives that shortcoming to still be an entertaining movie.

(2010)

The remake of Romero's original can best be described as "modern." The basic story is consistent, but the execution is considerably darker, and things turn morbid quickly. It's a fairly predictable adjustment of the old story, incorporating a lot more panic, fear, and bloody, bloody murder. It's got my brother's favorite actor Timothy Olyphant, who I laugh at because his name is from Lord of the Rings.

But seriously, for a remake, this version has a pretty different tone. It's heavy-handed, violent, and gory. That's not to say that it's not enjoyable; it has its place. But in the modern translation, some of the finesse of the original is lost.

The Last Word: A tense, action-packed ride that follows two people through an increasingly unstable world. It's not going to blow your mind, but if you want to just curl up and be frightened, you're in business.

Movie Reviewed - Highlander

There can be only one.

For whatever else you might think of it, Highlander gave us one of the all time great lines in movie history. And there are plenty of reasons to either love or hate Highlander, depending on your ability and/or willingness to suspend reality, and put aside some completely over-the-top acting.

The story is interesting enough, as it attempts to incorporate a medieval fantasy story into modern times. It's clearly written by a young man, but as I've got the maturity level of a pimply 15-year-old, I can appreciate it. Connor McLeod (Christopher Lambert) is a Scottish highlander who discovers that he's one of a select few Immortals, destined to live forever until decapitated by another Immortal, culminating at an epic battle in New York City (I told you, it was clearly written by a young man).

The fight scenes are good. They're not the insane fight scenes that you get in a lot of new movies, but that almost makes them more believable. They're angry and loud, and while they don't give you the "oh shit!" moments that modern action scenes do, they seem to fit into the story perfectly.

The actual story progression is fairly slow, though, and outside of Sean Connery, the acting is gratuitous. While the concept of the story is interesting, the execution of it, particularly the modern portions in New York, are bland and uninspired. I think it'd be better served by spending more time following the many lifetimes of the various Immortals. It's possible that some of the sequels or the subsequent television show go into this, which is why I'll probably end up checking them out at some point.

There are a few well-placed Queen songs in the movie, and the villain is well-cast and, though he's a little much sometimes, well-acted. The love story is a little far-fetched, but in a world with people who live forever, some irrational acts by a woman don't seem so unreasonable. And in the end, you do find yourself rooting for the hero, which is kind of mandatory for any solid action flick. I think it's a film that gets over-appreciated sometimes, under-appreciated other times, and the reality is that it resides somewhere in the middle. Overall, I liked it as a time-killer, and am glad that I finally got around to watching it.

The Last Word: A neat concept along with plenty of Queen songs and some intense swordfights make for a decent enough movie, which is how I'd classify Highlander: decent enough.

Movie Reviews - Lightning Round

I know it's been a while since I posted a review, and I've seen several movies in the meantime. Additionally, the year is coming to an end, and I'd like to have most of these movies reviewed by the end of the year, so you can prepare yourself for my "Movies of the Year" post (which will undoubtedly be dominated by movies that did not come out this year).

So, in order to provide a more complete picture of my film experience this year, I'm going to be going through sort of a "lightning round" of reviews. They'll be a little shorter than usual, but they'll be posted much more frequently. Hopefully I'll get through any movies you were hoping to hear me write about. If, after the first of the year, there are any movies I didn't review that you were really hoping to hear me talk about, by all means, badger me.

The American League MVP

So ends another awards season for Major League Baseball. And whether you were rooting for Hellickson or Hosmer, Halladay or Kershaw, Braun or Kemp, we can all agree that the award winners all had tremendous seasons, and each deserves accolades for their accomplishments.

That being said, neither Justin Verlander nor any other pitcher should ever win an MVP award.

(Yeah, it's gonna be one of those posts. Pull up a chair, get out your angry pencils, and let's do this.)

The fact that they're eligible for the award should not encourage baseball writers to cast their votes for pitchers. A change in the eligibility will never happen, because baseball prefers ambiguity (see: strike zones). But writers need to take it upon themselves to make this one of those dozens of "unwritten rules" in baseball, because plain and simple, pitchers cannot be the league's most valuable player.

I'd imagine I've got at least half of you riled up at this point, thinking that I've got a lot of nerve. And maybe I do. But I've got my reasons.

First, there is some truth to the thinking that pitchers have their award, and hitters only have the MVP award. The Cy Young Award and the Most Valuable Player Award each have long histories that we can look back at and remember some of the great seasons we saw. In 1999, baseball created the Hank Aaron Award, to be awarded to the best hitter in each league. In fact, the award was likely created specifically to allow for the possibility of a pitcher being worthy of an MVP award. You know when you started hearing about the Hank Aaron Award even existing? This year, when people wanted to justify voting for Verlander for MVP. Hank Aaron was a tremendous hitter, but the award is essentially meaningless if nobody knows who's winning them.

Additionally, the Hank Aaron Award incorporates a fan vote component, which makes the award intrinsically flawed. Fans are stupid. Unsurprisingly, the AL award has gone to AL East hitters every year since 2004. And by the way, Hank Aaron spent all of two seasons playing in the American League, hitting .232 with 22 HR and 95 RBI in 222 games. If you're going to perpetuate this farce, you should at least have another name for it in the American League. Babe Ruth, anyone?

But I think the greater argument here is that, quite simply, a pitcher can't come close to the overall impact of a position player, and that includes starting pitchers as well as relievers.

First, let's address the one stat that gets cited often to compare pitchers to hitters: wins above replacement (WAR). The theory behind the statistic is that, over the course of a season, by playing well (or poorly), a player at any position gives his team an adjusted chance at victory when compared to a potential replacement player. The statistic uses a theoretical AAA player as the replacement. The concept of trying to value hitters against pitchers is useful for GMs in salary-planning, and for those MVP votes in which a pitcher earns consideration.

Two issues, though. First, the use of a single statistic to determine value between a starting pitcher and a hitter is always going to have flaws, simply because the roles are so incredibly different. Second, it's apparent that baseball writers are not acknowledging WAR as a make-or-break statistic with regards to MVP votes. Matt Kemp posted a WAR of 10.0 in 2011, the highest since Barry Bonds in 2004. That span includes three different MVP seasons by Albert Pujols. I'm willing to cede that the actual NL MVP, Ryan Braun, has his own viable portfolio, but you'd think that, if we're referring to WAR at all, a guy who has a WAR that's 30% higher than the next closest player would be a shoo-in for the MVP.

(As a reference, Verlander posted an 8.6 WAR; Jose Bautista posted an 8.5.)

We're all quick to admit that wins are one of the most of the most team-dependent statistics on the planet. But if Verlander had, say, 20 wins, rather than his major-league best 24, would this have even been close? (If you're unsure, look at Cliff Lee's 22-3 2008 season, and the fact that he finished 12th in the MVP voting after a season with a similar lack of a front-runner. Or look over at the NL, where Clayton Kershaw posted very similar numbers to Verlander this season, yet also finished 12th in his league's MVP voting). You're wondering if Detroit was that good? They rated third in the majors in batting average, fourth in runs, fourth in on-base, fourth in slugging. They could put up runs with anybody.

So maybe Verlander gets an anecdotal bump in his resume as a result of his no-hitter in early May; it certainly put Verlander front and center. The relative difference in the impact of an everyday player versus a starting pitcher is similarly anecdotal. Obviously starting pitchers have impacts beyond their innings (saving the bullpen, etc). And obviously hitters have impacts beyond their own at-bats (base-running, "protection" for other hitters, etc.). But I think we've got one more piece of the puzzle that pushes starting pitchers out of the discussion: weather.

If there's a rainout, or even more so if a game is postponed, a starting pitcher's rhythm is off, and he likely doesn't come back in the subsequent game. We saw it in the playoffs this year; weather pushed both Verlander and CC Sabathia out of Game 1 after 1.5 IP and limited them each to one full start in a five-game series. Meanwhile, in the same series, Robinson Cano hit .318 and drove in 9 runs, and Delmon Young hit .316 with three home runs. The fact that an act of nature can almost completely negate the potential positive contributions by a starting pitcher for a game, and the fact that they only pitch in 35 games every year, is the last piece of evidence I need.

In the end, I think that a Most Valuable Player in baseball should be the epitome of a baseball player. To me, baseball is defined by the 162 game season, by far the longest in American team sports. It's a grind, and a guy who's able to get up ~150 times and compete at a tremendous level, that's the guy who's the best baseball player. A guy who has to perform 35 times a year, no matter how impressive he is during those 35 times, just doesn't capture the essence of baseball.

The Penn State Sexual Abuse Scandal

I'm probably going to piss off a lot of people with this post, and alienate other people, and maybe get through to a couple as well. But I'm too upset with what I hear from too many people to not talk about this.

By now, most people know the testimony. Former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky is accused of molesting eight different young boys over a 15-year period. Head coach Joe Paterno comes into the picture in 2002, when graduate assistant Mike McQueary observed Sandusky doing something to a young boy in a locker room shower (his grand jury testimony says sodomy, the testimony by Penn State higher-ups says McQueary reported a more vague level of fondling or other sexual contact; either way, up to no good). McQueary spoke to his father, who told him to speak to Paterno, and things went up the ladder, where a decision was made to bar Sandusky from bringing children to the campus.

How many people here are morally culpable? Probably everyone. But there's an order to things, and Paterno is not at the top of the list. How would I sort the villainy? Well, starting here:

Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky
Sandusky

Let's not lose sight of the actual situation. Jerry Sandusky is a sick and deplorable human being. He's far and away the villain here, since, you know, he was the guy who was actually raping children. Everyone else who's at fault (and there are plenty) would've never been put in a position to disappoint if Sandusky just wasn't a monster.

Mike McQueary

McQueary actually witnessed Sandusky in the act of committing one of these crimes, and what did he do? He called his dad and asked him what to do, then called Paterno the next day. McQueary was 28 at the time of the incident. He was a grown-ass man who saw another man raping a child, and did nothing. I can maybe understand being scared; it's an inconceivable thing to see, and in seeing it, you have to think that the perpetrator is capable of anything. So maybe you're too frightened to confront the guy alone. But come on. I'm sure other people were in the building; get a mob together if you're scared. And if nothing else, you call the cops.

The report said that both Sandusky and the victim made eye contact with McQueary at the time of the incident. So that kid saw an adult come across him being assaulted, and the adult walked away, and left him with his assailant. If we're making a list of things that will do severe psychological damage to a child, that's got to be on that list somewhere.

University President Graham Spanier
University Vice President Gary Schultz
Athletic Director Tim Curley

Curley was the person to whom Paterno reported what he heard from McQueary. Curley, along with Schultz, are the two people held legally responsible for their failure to report this incident to law enforcement authorities. They also both face perjury charges for what is believed to be dishonest or incomplete testimony to the grand jury.

Additionally, some combination of these three individuals came up with the response plan for Sandusky's assault, which was to take away his locker room keys and ban him from bringing children onto campus. ESPN's Jay Bilas addressed the toothlessness of this "punishment" perfectly by interpreting the message from Spanier as essentially saying, "Just don't do it here." It indicates an utter disregard for morality, and a complete focus on preserving university image. It's complicit, and disgusting.

Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar

This excerpt is from an ESPN article available here:

Victim 6 is taken into the locker rooms and showers when he is 11 years old. When Victim 6 is dropped off at home, his hair is wet from showering with Sandusky. His mother reports the incident to the university police, who investigate.

Detective Ronald Schreffler testifies that he and State College Police Department Detective Ralph Ralston, with the consent of the mother of Victim 6, eavesdrop on two conversations the mother of Victim 6 has with Sandusky. Sandusky says he has showered with other boys and Victim 6's mother tries to make Sandusky promise never to shower with a boy again but he will not. At the end of the second conversation, after Sandusky is told he cannot see Victim 6 anymore, Schreffler testifies Sandusky says, "I understand. I was wrong. I wish I could get forgiveness. I know I won't get it from you. I wish I were dead."

Jerry Lauro, an investigator with the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, testifies he and Schreffler interviewed Sandusky, and that Sandusky admits showering naked with Victim 6, admits to hugging Victim 6 while in the shower and admits that it was wrong.

The case is closed after then-Centre County District Attorney Ray Gricar decides there will be no criminal charge.

Nice work, counselor. Way to serve and protect.

Head Coach Joe Paterno

Paterno is the face of Penn State, and there's no denying that this happened on his watch. There's also no denying that Paterno was aware of something involving Sandusky; he has admitted as much, and said that he wishes he had done more, in hindsight.

We don't know what Paterno really knew. We know his testimony indicated that he was aware of an incident occurring between Sandusky and a child, and others' testimony corroborates that. We also know that he didn't hear about the incident from McQueary until the day after the event, and he was undoubtedly aware that McQueary apparently didn't think enough of the incident to contact the police at all. What we know now about Sandusky's continued harassment makes the choice obvious, but given the limited information regarding this one incident, and the question marks about the words McQueary actually used to describe the incident, and the fact that Paterno had known Sandusky for thirty-odd years, it's not cut and dry.

Consider your own job. Imagine a subordinate (we're talking about your job, because I have no subordinates to imagine) reported to you that another employee was engaged in a sexually inappropriate act with a child. Your main responsibility is to put that subordinate in touch with the appropriate person at your organization, or if you are the appropriate person, to get in touch with the authorities. After connecting the relevant parties, it's not your business anymore.

Paterno got Curley involved. Curley conducted his investigation (however much of a sham it might have been), came to his conclusions (however blind), and implemented his resolution (however insufficient). We don't know what Paterno was told about this process. It's not inconceivable that he was lied to by Curley and Schultz about the investigation, since those two are already suspected of lying to the grand jury.

Jemele Hill wrote a piece for ESPN (applauding Penn State for firing Paterno) that includes the following paragraph:

"For those who continue to cling to the notion that because Paterno fulfilled his legal obligation, he should be allowed to finish this season on his own terms, I pose this question: If that 10-year-old in the showers with Sandusky was your brother, cousin, nephew, friend or neighbor, would you be satisfied with how Paterno handled the situation?"

First, I think we can all agree that if it was your brother, you would want Penn State University brought to the ground. Not metaphorically; literally leveled with dynamite and wrecking balls. And you wouldn't care who was inside. You would just want someone to pay, and the more people who pay, the better. So let's try to appreciate that adding that level of emotion isn't going to result in reasoned discourse.

Second, flip the switch. What if Sandusky was your brother? Your cousin? Your friend? Wouldn't you look for ways, consciously or subconsciously, to convince yourself that the worst isn't true? Wouldn't you want to get your hands off the situation and put it in the hands of people whose responsibility it was to handle these kinds of situations?

American media, particularly sports media, tends to try to look at everything in a vacuum. One of my favorite shows, PTI, consistently asks un-nuanced all-or-nothing questions of its hosts. And maybe the best part of PTI is that Michael Wilbon and especially Tony Kornheiser offer decidedly measured and broad-scope responses to these questions. Taking the whole picture into account shouldn't be so rare.

But as I peruse through Facebook messages, and Twitter posts, and the comments attached to the various articles regarding this horrific story, I find very little in the way of thoughtful discussion. What's more troublesome is that I also haven't found much among those people who are paid to be insightful, like ESPN's Hall.

Another couple quotes from Hall's article:

"There have been 40 counts of felony sex abuse of minors levied against former Paterno assistant Jerry Sandusky, and though I am sickened by what Sandusky is accused of, our judicial system presumes his innocence until he is proved guilty.

But we're free to judge Paterno outside the constricts of the law. A lengthy indictment spells out what he did (or, more disturbing, what he failed to do) and what he knew."

"If Sandusky is proved guilty, he is obviously the worst monster in this sordid horror story. But it isn't a stretch to suggest that Paterno played the role of Dr. Frankenstein. He didn't create the monster, but if Sandusky is guilty, then Paterno is at least partially responsible for the tragedies of every one of the victims assaulted after that unidentified boy in the shower."

Throughout the article, Hall acknowledges that Sandusky's guilt is yet to be determined, and she consistently uses terms like "accused of" and "alleged." Paterno receives the benefit of no such doubt.

My last point here is in response to Hall's last point, and a point that is going to echo in the voice of every sportscaster on the planet, and I'm going to be angry about it every time. She declares that Penn State was courageous for ousting Joe Paterno. Her claim is that today's world sees football coaches as the "final authority" for high profile schools, and it's important that the Penn State board of trustees exercise their authority here.

My final response to that is my own post on a friend's comment on Facebook from last night:

"Everyone's mad. But Paterno leaving the school isn't going to make anyone less angry or hurt or disgusted or shocked. His departure is a front page story for a couple days, then PSU gets to shrink away while other tragedies (and other sports stories) overtake it, and the general public will forget and move on. But a lot of good people who rely on Penn State football for a thousand different reasons are going to suffer. What Sandusky did was damnable and shameful. What's happening to Paterno is just a damn shame."

Haphazard NBA Lockout Comments - October

First and foremost, I don't know anything. I know there are all sorts of arguments and debates, and different sides think different things and bla bla bla. So I'm no expert on the subject. But I did notice something that would indicate that the owners are total liars.

Here are a couple paragraphs from Yahoo's article on the NBA canceling all of November's games, and declaring that it would be impossible to play a full season at this point:

“It’s not practical, possible or prudent to have a full season now,” added Stern, who previously canceled the first two weeks of the season.

And he repeated his warnings that the proposals might now get even harsher as the league tries to make up the hundreds of millions of dollars that will be lost as the lockout drags on.

“We’re going to have to recalculate how bad the damage is,” Stern said. “The next offer will reflect the extraordinary losses that are piling up now.”

Harsh circumstances, and harsh words. And at first glance, sure, you can understand how owners would be upset about all that lost money.

But hold up. Wasn't it part of the NBA's premise for the lockout that the league was losing money simply by operating? And let's be clear here, we're not talking about losing a few grand, or a few hundred grand. The line used in the article is "hundreds of millions of dollars." If the NBA is going to lose that much money by not playing games (AND not paying players to play those games), I think maybe they were pulling in a decent rake from the regular season.

The second part is more obvious: the players are losing their share of that money as well. You can think whatever you want about whether NBA players are "worth" what they're paid, but the fact is that the market has determined that 20 point-per-game guards are worth about $10 million a year, because that's what they make. And while it may behoove NBA players to accept a small pay decrease in order to help grow the league, they're entitled to fight for the right to a share of the pie.

For kicks, I did a little searching and found out how revenue was split in 2008 in other leagues (NBA owners are demanding a 50/50 split).

Percentage of revenue paid to top-level players (not including minor leagues, as of 2008)
NFL - 59%
NBA - 57%
NHL - 56.7%
MLB - 52%

The new NFL collective bargaining agreement actually has the NFL players' share plummeting down to about 48%, but that might be more appropriate based on the draw of individual players in the NFL versus the draw of the franchise itself. Browns fans like the Browns regardless of who's quarterbacking the team. I cite Brady Quinn, Derek Anderson, Charlie Frye, Trent Dilfer, Jeff Garcia, Kelly Holcomb, and Tim Couch, and the fact that Joe Mandi still loves the Browns. Or the nightmare of teams Washington has put on the field, and that the Skins have still boasted the first- or second-highest gross weekly attendance in football every year since 2006 (when apparently ESPN believes people began attending football games).

Anyways, I think it's a fair argument that NBA players are a greater part of the draw for their sport than the individual players are in any other sport. People go out to see Kobe or LeBron or Melo more than they go out to see the Cavaliers, the Knicks, or the Heat. It seems sensible that they'd command a higher share of the revenue, from a very basic standpoint.

I'm sure the issue is much more complex than I'm giving it credit for. But today, like most days, I'm siding with labor.

MLB 2011 Awards

American League

Rookie of the Year - Jeremy Hellickson, Tampa Bay Rays
(13-10, 2.95/1.15, 117 Ks in 189.0 IP)

A case can be made for several other players, including Eric Hosmer and Mark Trumbo, but Hellickson has one number that I think sets him apart. Hellickson had 189 innings in 2011, good for 27th in the AL. Now, 27th isn't all that incredible, but as a rookie, to provide 189 innings for your team is pretty impressive. The fact that Hellickson gave those innings at a 2.95 ERA clip means that he did yeoman work for a playoff team. Well done, sir.

Cy Young - Justin Verlander, Detroit Tigers
(24-5, 2.40/0.92, 250 Ks in 251.0 IP)

It's not close. Jered Weaver, James Shields, and CC Sabathia all had nice seasons, but Verlander led the league in wins, ERA, WHIP, and strikeouts. He was simply the best pitcher in the game, and rightfully earned consideration for the AL MVP award.

MVP - Jose Bautista, Toronto Blue Jays
(.302, 105 R, 43 HR, 103 RBI)

This was my toughest call of all the awards this season. Miguel Cabrera won his first batting title and continued his mastery of major league pitching, but didn't do much that we haven't already seen from him. His teammate Verlander was far and away the best pitcher in the league, but probably needed to hit a magic number like 25 wins to win the MVP. Curtis Granderson was nearly an across-the-board producer, but hit just .262 for the division champion Yankees. Jacoby Ellsbury, Adrian Gonzalez, and Dustin Pedroia were all great, but all played for Boston, so they'll sap votes from each other.

In the end, I think Bautista will benefit from the same factor that will cost Cabrera: being measured against himself. Cabrera has been a regular factor in MVP races, with two 5th place finishes for Florida, and being 4th and 2nd the past two years for the Tigers. He was great, but he posted just the 7th highest home run and RBI totals of his career. On the other side, Bautista's home runs and RBIs fell off, but the real story about him is that he grew into a hitter. He added 42 points to his batting average, and 69 points to his on-base percentage. Despite dropping 11 home runs, his OPS actually went up. Nobody thought Bautista was the real deal; the fact that he might be even better than his number said in 2010 will win him the AL MVP for 2011.

National League

Rookie of the Year - Craig Kimbrel, Atlanta Braves
(4-3, 46 saves, 2.10/1.04, 127 Ks in 77 IP)

Washington Nationals' rookie Danny Espinosa showed plenty of pop and was a fantasy star, but when it comes to real live baseball, it's more important that you help your team win, and Kimbrel was extremely effective in this regard. He tied John Axford for the NL lead in saves, and his averages and strikeout rate indicate that he was as effective a closer as there was in baseball last season. He may have stumbled a little towards the end, but baseball is about the long haul, and Kimbrel shone all season long.

Cy Young - Clayton Kershaw, Los Angeles Dodgers
(21-5, 2.28/0.98, 248 Ks in 233.1 IP)

Like Verlander, Kershaw takes home pitching's triple crown (W, ERA, K), and again like Verlander, I expect Kershaw to win the Cy Young. Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay both had very good seasons as well, but Kershaw was a pinch better, and I think any bonus Lee and Halladay will get from being on a more successful team will be mitigated by the fact that they may take votes from each other. Ian Kennedy tied Kershaw with 21 wins and posted very good averages, but Kershaw is the total package. He'll take it down.

Most Valuable Player - Matt Kemp, Los Angeles Dodgers
(.324, 115 R, 39 HR, 126 RBI, 40 SB)

Kemp was incredible in 2011. He led the NL in runs, home runs, and RBI, and finished tied for second in stolen bases. What makes this even more impressive is his utter lack of support. The Dodgers next two best players in each category combined to total 123 runs, 28 home runs, and 127 runs batted in. Ryan Braun had a magnificent season as well, and if Braun had been able to edge Jose Reyes for the batting title, I might sing a different tune. But as it is, Kemp was a do-everything player for a team that needed a do-everything player just to break .500.

NHL 2011-2012 Preview

I won't lie to you; I'm a new hockey fan. In my life, I've probably watched 250 hockey games, and 200 of them were in the past three years. The vast extent of my knowledge comes from watching Capitals games and playing hockey video games...including NHL Breakaway '98. Granted, there are only like three players still in the NHL from that game, but between Jagr, Pronger, and Brodeur, I get that little historical edge that some of my colleagues lack...

...okay, they have the same edge, it's just fun to remember Breakaway.

Anyways, despite my limited experience as a hockey fan, I'm excited to offer you my preview of this year's NHL season. I'll give you a quick blurb on each team and let you know who I expect to make the playoffs, who I expect to advance in the playoffs, and what players I expect to win a couple of the higher-profile trophies this season.

* indicates predicted playoff team

WESTERN CONFERENCE

Central Division

1. * Nashville Predators - Pekka Rinne is an elite goaltender who gets put into good situations by a great defensive team, led by Shea Weber and Ryan Suter, indisputably the best pairing in hockey (with apologies to Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook). There are again questions as to where the goals will come from, but the questions were there last year, and they found a way to win.
2. * Chicago Blackhawks - The aforementioned Keith and Seabrook are a dynamic duo, but the real bright spot for Chicago is their offensive prowess. Between Jonathan Toews, Patrick Kane, Patrick Sharp, and Marian Hossa, they've got four of the most gifted scorers around. Points, both on the scoreboard and in the standings, should be plentiful.
3. * Detroit Red Wings - Skilled veteran leadership is abundant for the Red Wings, and I believe Pavel Datsyuk is one of the five most talented players in the game. But a tough division and my complete disdain for Jimmy Howard force me to put them third in the division, and 5th or 6th in the conference.
4. * St. Louis Blues - David Backes is one of my favorite players, and I acknowledge that as a factor in my picking the Blues to slide into the playoffs. But they're a talented young team that could get even more talented if David Perron is able to return from a concussion suffered last season. Of course, they'll have to overcome the Jamie Langenbrunner curse that killed the Devils early and ended the Stars' season...
5. Columbus Blue Jackets - Columbus actually had a good offseason, picking up Jeff Carter to center the top line. But they play in an impossibly tough division, and Steve Mason doesn't seem to be the goalie we thought he was two years ago. Here's hoping they can retool and improve, though, so my brother can enjoy playing with them in NHL '13.

Northwest Division

1. * Vancouver Canucks - I really don't like them, but they play in a weak division and they're damn talented. Ryan Kesler is going to miss early time, but the creepy Sedin twins should be able to generate enough offense to overcome his absence, and the whole back end (goalies and defensemen) for the Canucks is full of plus players.
2. Edmonton Oilers - Taylor Hall is just one of a plethora of talented but unproven players on the Oilers, including this year's #1 overall pick, Ryan Nugent-Hopkins, who made the opening roster due to injuries. It's too much to expect them to be a playoff team this season, but they're headed in the right direction...finally.
3. Calgary Flames - The Flames continue to basically be a two-man show, with Jarome Iginla and Mikka Kiprusoff highlighting an otherwise pedestrian squad. Former Capital Scott Hannan signed late in free agency, and you have to wonder how much his value took a hit because of his mistake in the playoffs last year that gave a breakaway goal to Tampa Bay in overtime.
4. Colorado Avalanche - I do believe the Avalanche vastly overpaid for Semyon Varlamov, but there's no denying the guy's talent. And future draft picks are unknown quantities. Varly has a chance to dominate on any given night, regardless of the opponent. And it goes unnoticed sometimes, but Matt Duchene and Paul Stastny actually make the Avs pretty strong down the middle.
5. Minnesota Wild - I wish I could say that the Wild will get back into the playoffs this year, but I just don't see it. They made a couple big trades with the Sharks, getting Devin Setoguchi and Dany Heatley, but they had to give up Martin Havlat and Brent Burns, which to me is mostly a push. The other Niklas Backstrom can be a very good goaltender, but he needs help that he's not going to get.

Pacific Division

1. * San Jose Sharks - I do get a kind of gratification from making "gutsy" calls, but there's simply no picking against the Sharks this year. They were dynamite last year, and they rearranged their team to be a little stronger defensively by adding Brent Burns from Minnesota. The potency is there for San Jose to win it all this year.
2. * Los Angeles Kings - Conventional thinking is that, to be successful come playoff time, your team has to be strong down the middle. That means centers, defensemen, goalie. By adding Mike Richards in the offseason, the Kings have two elite centers (Richards and Anze Kopitar), a great defenseman in Drew Doughty (and a should-be-better guy in Jack Johnson), and one of my favorite goalies in the league, Jonathan Quick. They're geared up for a run.
   
3. * Anaheim Ducks - I really wish they were still called the Mighty Ducks, but I guess that ship has sailed. The Ducks have probably the best single line in hockey, with Ryan Getzlaf, Corey Perry, and Bobby Ryan. Jonas Hiller has good skill, but he gets a ton of shots sent his way because the Ducks can't/won't play defense. They're a fun team to watch, but I don't expect more than another first round exit from them.
4. Dallas Stars - The loss of Brad Richards is a big one, but the front line of Mike Ribeiro, Brenden Morrow, and Loui Eriksson is more potent than it gets credit for. If Sheldon Souray can recapture some of his old magic, and if Kari Lehtonen can be solid in net, Dallas could give Anaheim a run for 3rd in the division and the last playoff spot.
5. Phoenix Coyotes - I'm not of the belief that Ilya Bryzgalov was some elite goaltender who didn't get enough opportunities to succeed by playing in Phoenix. I think he's a nice goalie who had Keith Yandle and a gritty group of forwards in front of him. That being said, I don't feel good at all about Mike Smith or Jason LaBarbera. Yandle, Shane Doan, Daymond Langkow and company are good, but not good enough for anything other than 5th place.
   

EASTERN CONFERENCE

Atlantic Division

1. * Pittsburgh Penguins - From a personal standpoint, I really don't like the Penguins. But from an objective, "how well is this team going to do this season," you really can't like them enough...assuming they're healthy. Sidney Crosby is obviously one of the most electric players in the game, and as soon as he's back on the ice, Pittsburgh will have three top flight centers. They showed they can win without Crosby last year; with him, they're a powerhouse.
2. * New York Rangers - The story for the Rangers always starts with Henrik Lundqvist, perhaps the best goalie in the world. New York has built their team around supporting him, surrounding him with shot-blocking defensemen and gritty forwards. Adding Brad Richards to partner with Marian Gaborik should make their top line a lot more productive, and while they still won't blow anybody out of the building, they shouldn't need to.
3. * Philadelphia Flyers - I think the Flyers overall did a pretty poor job in the offseason, but that's from a completely chemistry-immune standpoint. We all heard that Richards and Carter were locker room problems, so I can't argue their departures completely, but there's no question that the talent level in Philly is lower than it was a year ago. Their only hope can be that Bryzgalov solves their goaltending question.
4. New Jersey Devils - I really wanted to predict the Devils to leapfrog the Flyers and get into the playoffs. I truly believe last year was an aberration, and that they'll be a better and more explosive team than in 2010-2011. But they traded Dave Steckel to the Maple Leafs just before the beginning of the season. Mark my words: they'll rue the day.
5. New York Islanders - The Isles should actually be improved this year, with more developing talent on board, and John Taveres seemingly coming into his own. But they're still soft at goalie with Rick "Glass Jaw" DiPietro and the unproven Al Montoya splitting time. Growing pains are likely, but a fast maturation is possible.
   

Northeast Division

1. * Buffalo Sabres - So, initially I had the Sabres out of the playoffs altogether in my preview. But I knew they were in it last year, so I figured I'd better give due diligence. Good thing. While I think Ville Leino was overpaid, Thomas Vanek and a healthy Derek Roy give the Sabres a stronger front line than they had last season. To say nothing of the fact that Christian Erhoff should dramatically improve their blue line offense. And we all know who Buffalo's goalie is.
2. * Boston Bruins - Last year's Stanley Cup champions figure to be back in the playoffs, despite the long season they played. Tim Thomas and Tukka Rask are a great 1-2 punch that give the Bruins every chance to win, every night. Zdeno Chara leads a very strong defensive corps, and though the forwards aren't superstars, they showed last year that they can plant the puck when they need to.
3. Toronto Maple Leafs - The aforementioned acquisition of Steckel probably doesn't merit this, but that was my deciding factor between Toronto and Montreal at #3 in the Northeast. Phil Kessel is a great scorer, and Dion Phaneuf is a dynamic defenseman. If youngster James Reimer can take the next step in his development in goal, the Maple Leafs could surprise some people.
4. Montreal Canadiens - I hate the Canadiens, for obvious reasons. But unlike the Penguins, I can feel comfortable projecting a mediocre finish for Montreal. I've never thought much of Carey Price, and I actually think P.K. Subban is overrated. They've got solid veterans all over the lineup, highlighted by Mike Cammalleri, Tomas Plekanec, and Brian Gionta, but I just don't see a scary team when I look at their depth chart.
5. Ottawa Senators - Speaking of unimpressive depth charts...jeez. Granted, if Jason Spezza and Daniel Alfredsson can turn back the clock a couple years, they'd have a couple of legit 80-point threats. But clocks don't normally work that way. Erik Karlsson is a nice young defenseman, but the depth is suspect, and having Craig Anderson as the starter in net has to terrify Ottawa fans.
   

Southeast Division

1. * Washington Capitals - The Caps have won the Southeast four straight seasons, and there's no reason to think they won't do it again. An active offseason has them reshuffling their lineup, but there's still a lot of skill across the board. Most of all, they boast perhaps the best top 6 D-men in hockey, with Mike Green, Roman Hamrlik, John Carlson, Karl Alzner, Dennis Wideman, and Jeff Schultz. I'll tell you this, though: if the Caps don't at least get to the Conference Finals this year, there's just no way Bruce Boudrou survives next offseason.
2. * Tampa Bay Lightning - Tampa was one of the big stories during last year's playoffs, winning three straight to oust the Penguins, then sweeping the top-seeded Caps in the conference semifinals. Most of the team returns, and their offense has still got a trio of superstars in Martin St. Louis, Steven Stamkos, and Vincent Lecavalier. I don't see them getting the same insane performance out of Dwayne Roloson this season, though, so I see them as more of a 6 or 7 seed.
3. * Winnipeg Jets - Why not, right? Last year's Thrashers might not have scared anybody, but you know the Jets will draw a crowd every night, and there's more skill on this team than you might expect. Andrew Ladd and Evander Kane are very solid and very young, and Dustin Byfuglien might be the most exciting player in the division, because anything can happen when he's on the ice. Ondrej Pavelec showed flashes of dominance at times last year, so why not a storybook run to the playoffs (before being crushed by the Penguins)?
4. Carolina Hurricanes - They still have a fabulous center in Eric Staal, a workhorse goalie in Cam Ward, and a budding star in Jeff Skinner. But while Tomas Kaberle was a nice acquisition, their lineup still feels thin. And I mean, come on. There's a limit to how many Ruutu's I can project into the playoffs...it's zero.
5. Florida Panthers - The Panthers have already outperformed my expectations, as I didn't think they'd win a game. Truthfully, though, it's a ragtag bunch that could have some really good nights. Jose Theodore has been unimpressive in the past few years, but he's still got some fight left in him. Stephen Weiss, Tomas Kopecky, Kris Versteeg, Scottie Upshall, and former Capital Tomas Fleischmann all have decent scoring touch, and Ed Jovanovski and Brian Campbell, while overpaid, both have some upside. Still...I don't see a ton of wins going their way down south.
   

Eastern Conference Finals
Pittsburgh Penguins over Washington Capitals

Western Conference Finals
San Jose Sharks over Chicago Blackhawks

Stanley Cup Finals
San Jose Sharks over Pittsburgh Penguins

Hart Trophy
Winner - Ryan Getzlaf, Anaheim Ducks
Finalist - Sidney Crosby, Pittsburgh Penguins
Finalist - Zach Parise, New Jersey Devils

Vezina Trophy
Winner - Henrik Lundqvist, New York Rangers
Finalist - Jonathan Quick, Los Angeles Kings
Finalist - Antti Niemi, San Jose Sharks

Norris Trophy
Winner - Shea Weber, Nashville Predators
Finalist - Brent Burns, San Jose Sharks
Finalist - Dustin Byfuglien, Winnipeg Jets

What's This? What's This?

Not unlike Jack Skellington, I find myself confused with the feelings I have tonight. The NBA just announced that they've canceled the first two weeks of the regular season, and most expectations are that more games will be canceled before all is said and done.

Inexplicably, after a decade of not caring about the NBA, I find myself saddened to hear this news. Last season was perhaps the NBA's best in just as long a time, with the Dallas Mavericks upsetting the Miami Heat in the NBA Finals, but even before that, the entire playoffs were incredibly competitive and entertaining. The second act of Miami's dream team held an opportunity for all sports fans to root for or against a "super-team." Between Kobe's Lakers, the old Big 3 in Boston, the Derrick Rose Show in Chicago, a Knicks team that has a full season of Carmelo and Amare, and a burgeoning elite team in Oklahoma City, there were plenty of teams set in the path of the Heat and Mavericks.

Not even mentioning the Wizards' potentially growing team, there was plenty to look forward to with this year's basketball season. I won't lie and say that I'm not kind of excited about the NHL's opportunity to pull in some of the NBA's disillusioned fans, but it's a damn shame that the NBA is wasting this chance to build on the best product they've offered in years.

Figure it out, guys. Nobody benefits from games being canceled.

Book and Movie Reviewed - Twilight

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.