Halfway Home

Which I guess means you're standing on second. While the All-Star Game is the celebrated halfway point of the baseball season, last night's Reds-Phillies game was the 81st game on the Reds schedule, making it the actual halfway point. And what a way to end the first half.

22-1.

Damn.

22-1. 10 runs in the first, Cueto records a total of 2 outs, and Paul Janish comes in to pitch the top of the eighth. Paul Janish, of the backup shortstop variety, came into pitch. That's how well things went last night. You can't even make the "its an Eagles-Bengals" score joke because you can't score "1" in football (although if anyone could figure out a way, I'd put my money on the Bengals).

I can't say it was all bad, though. Cole Hamels, Jimmy Rollins, and Shane Victorino are all on fantasy teams I manage, so it helped me have a good night. Now, reality always trumps fantasy for me, but if the Reds are going to lose, they might as well lose big to guys that are on my fantasy team. And from what I've read, I think athletes would rather lose 1-22 than 0-1. The latter is a tight game where one hit here or a different bounce there could decide the game. When you're down 0-10 at the end of the first, about 38.5 things have to all go your way just to make it close. Some nights its not your night, and last night was definitely one of those nights.

So where does that leave the Reds at the midpoint of the season? They're 40-41, in fourth place in the NL Central, and 3.5 games out of first. Yeah for mediocrity. Back in January, I predicted that the Reds would finish the year just over .500, and I think they're right on track for that. When Votto went on the DL, the offense suffered mightly, and its still struggling to get back on track. The starters have been hit or miss with the addition of some injuries. And the bullpen has been statisitically the best in the majors so far, but there's no way they continue to pitch at that level through September. So they're pretty much right where I thought they'd be. I expect the starting pitching to get better (Volquez will get healthy, and Homer Bailey pitched brilliantly his last time out before Albert Pujols made the case for getting walked with the bases loaded), and once Votto gets back into the groove, the offense should even out. They're a .500 team, and I don't expect them to make a major move before the trade deadline, so I don't expect them to get any better. I do still think they can finish the year with a winning record, which would be good for morale, but I don't see them contending for anything. But given how the team's been the past few years, I'll take the moral victory this year.

Heat, Circa 1933

And the 2009 Magical Mystery Movie Tour continues, this week stopping at Batman vs. Captain Jack Sparrow, otherwise known as Public Enemies.

Now, I had high hopes for this film. Really high hopes. And I while thought it was good, I didn't think it was great. Johnny Depp was great as John Dillinger (nice to see him play a "normal" person; his first since, what, Finding Neverland?), but I think that could be due to the fact that Dillinger is the character that was given any depth. Everyone else just felt kinda flat and 1-dimensional. It may be unfair, but I can't help but compare this movie to Heat, Michael Mann's other bank-heist epic. There, he fully explored the characters on both sides of the story (Pacino's cop and De Niro's robber). I get that Public Enemies is a film about John Dillinger and not the people chasing him, but because of that, you don't feel anything for Christian Bale's Melvin Purvis, the FBI agent tasked with taking down Dillinger. I didn't feel like there was a character there, and thus their one scene together (aside from the ending, when Dillinger is gunned down; its a famous moment in history, so no spoiler alert for you!) is really dissapointing Of course it didn't have the gravity of the Pacino-De Niro diner scene, but it could have. Depp and Bale are two of the finest actors working today (in my opinion), and their one scene could've been great. But it wasn't because Bale's character didn't have any. All the early press focused on Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in the same movie, but then the movie got finished, and it was just Depp. I have to wonder now if that's why all the recent ads for Public Enemies have focused solely on Depp with nary a whisper of Bale (I mean, he's only the God-damn Batman!).

But it was just Melvin Purvis that seemed flat; it was everyone not named "John Dillinger." In addition to Purvis, I wish they could have spent a little more time developing the other guys in Dillinger's crew. A big point in the movie was highlighting how loyal Dillinger was to his people, but without really knowing any of them, it was hard to connect with.

As I said, I thought it was a good movie. I think I'd give it a B-. There's some good shootout scenes (again, nothing like the heist scene from Heat, but that's okay) and there are a ton of cameos. It seemed like everyone in this movie was someone you'd recognize (not major names, but someone where you'd look it up on IMDb afterwards and go, "Oh! That guy!"), even the incidental characters that have only minimal screen time.

So there it is, the seventh new movie (I think) I've seen this year. Here are my grades so far:

Watchmen A-
Star Trek A+
X-Men Origins: Wolverine C-
Angels and Demons B-
The Hangover B+
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen C
Public Enemies B-

Happy Fourth of July.

Odd Day

I just got back from watching Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, with the full intention of writing a review here on the blog, only to come home and find out that Michael Jackson died. Nothing against Ed McMahon (who I only know from Star Search; too young for him on The Tonight Show) and Farrah Fawcett (who I only know as someone who was once super hot; too young for Charlie's Angels), but Michael Jackson was bigger than both of them combined. Times thirty. And then some. Its wild. I always thought that he would have one last great comeback moment before he died (think Elvis "Aloha From Hawaii"). Even now, just after his passing, there's talk about how he'll be remembered; will his recent legal troubles/bizzare behavior overshadow his monumental impact on music. I say no way. We got past fat, drug-addicted Elvis, we'll get past Michael's issues. Yeah, so he was borderline functional as a person; he was an absolute musical genius. As ESPN's Matthew Berry (@TheRealTMR) tweeted this evening- Say what you want, but when most people die, they don't have four minutes as good as this:



Couldn't agree more.

(And by the way, Transformers was exactly what you'd expect it to be- giant robots, big explosions, hot chicks, minimal story/plot. Go in with those expectations and you won't be disappointed. Go in expecting anything more and you're a moron.)

Great Years For Movies

I've seen a lot of movies so far this year. Watchmen, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Star Trek, The Hangover, Angels & Demons, just to name a few. Not quite halfway through 2009 and I've probably seen more movies in the theater this year than I did in the past two years combined (and there are still several more to go; I'm looking at you, Transformers, G.I. Joe, Harry Potter, Public Enemies). And while not all of these movies (if any) are destined to be classics (though I've got high hopes for Public Enemies), it did get me to think about the great years in movie releases. I was aided in this inquiry by the current issue of Toyfare magazine (yes, a magazine/price guide for toys, action figures, busts, statues, maquettes, etc.- get over it).

The folks over at Toyfare have proclaimed 1984 to be "the best year in pop culture." Now, I tend to think that's more a function of our distance from 1984 (25 years, for those of you who struggle with math) than it does with that actually happened in 1984, but that's an argument for a different time. I mention the article here because it alerted me to the plethora of great movies that were released in 1984. Check out this list:

The Terminator, Gremlins, This Is Spinal Tap, Ghost Busters, A Nightmare on Elm Street, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Amadeus, Beverly Hills Cop, The Karate Kid, The Natural, Sixteen Candles, Footloose, Purple Rain, The Neverending Story, Red Dawn, Police Academy, Bachelor Party, The Last Starfighter, Revenge of the Nerds

That's pretty damn good, and I'm sure I missed a few. Now, any cinephile will tell you that the greatest year for movies was 1939, and its really hard to argue that. I mean, when your lineup's got Gone With The Wind, The Wizard of Oz, Stagecoach, Gunga Din, Wurthering Heights, and Mr. Smith Goes To Washington; that's like the '27 Yankees. So everyone's battling for second place. Fine. What years stack up after '39? I think 1984 has a strong case. They may not all be "classics" but they are some good movies. Thinking about 1984 lead me to consider 1994, which has also been named a great year for movies. Consider:

Pulp Fiction, The Shawshank Redemption, The Lion King, Hoop Dreams, Heavenly Creatures, Clerks, Forrest Gump, Quiz Show, Nobody's Fool, The Professional, Natural Born Killers, Four Weddings and a Funeral, The Mask, The Crow, Interview With The Vampire, Ed Wood, Reality Bites, Speed (okay, maybe not so much)

Another solid year. Maybe years ending in -4 have something to do with it (1974-The Godfather Part II, Chinatown, The Conversation*, Young Frankenstein, Blazing Saddles, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Lenny; 1964: Dr. Strangelove, Mary Poppins, Goldfinger, My Fair Lady, A Fistful of Dollars). Maybe its just because years ending in -4 puts the difference between then and now on the -5's.

[Random note: John Cazale, aka Fredo Corleone, appeared in all of 5 movies before dying of cancer, The Godfather Part I, The Godfather Part II, The Conversation, Dog Day Afternoon, and The Deer Hunter, and appeared in archival footage in The Godfather Part III. All 6 movies were nominated for Best Picture. Not bad for 6 movies.]

So what about 2004? Which if these, if any, will be remembered as "classics" or "greats" 15 or 20 years from now: The Incredibles, Million Dollar Baby, Sideways, Spider-Man 2, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Ray, Shaun of the Dead, Finding Neverland, The Aviator, Garden State, Crash, Napolean Dynamite, Saw, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgandy?

For me, I might have to go with 1999 as my favorite year (again with the nice, neat time difference). Fight Club, The Matrix, Office Space, The Sixth Sense, American Beauty, American Pie, Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels, 10 Things I Hate About You, Toy Story 2, Three Kings, Galaxy Quest, Being John Malkovich, The Blair Witch Project, Election, The Insider, South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut; now THAT was a good year. Although, I think the fact that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace also came out in 1999 make the year ineligible for competition. No year that saw the release of a Star Wars prequel is qualified to call itself "the greatest year for movies." Damn you, George Lucas.

It's Called "The Internet"

Oh, how far we've come.

What Did You Get On Your SAT's?

Zack Morris got a 1502 (the one piece of Saved By The Bell trivia I know).



That is just weird. Awesome. But weird.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand We're Back

Hopefully.

Maybe.

We'll see.

So, I've been a little lax recently on posting here. I'm going to try and be less lax about doing so in the near future. I'll start by making another movie recommendation- if you want to laugh for an hour and a half, go see The Hangover.

Nothing actually happens in the movie, and yes, the trailers pretty much give you the movie, but it was still funny as hell. Sure, it probably would have been funnier if you didn't already know that Mike Tyson had a cameo, but his scenes are still hysterical. I mean, Mike Tyson singing In The Air Tonight? Never not funny. Supposedly, there's a sequel already in the works. I'm not entirely sure how that's going to work (perhaps the storyline involving Ed Helm's Stu character), but I'm sure it will. Anyway, the movie's a riot. Mindless, juvenile, offensive, yes. But really funny. Go see it.



(Random factoid I discovered while reading up on The Hangover: Zack Galifianakis was offered a role in Into The Wild because Sean Penn saw an earlier movie he had done about 15 times. The movie? Out Cold. See Puddin', you're not only one with love for Out Cold; Sean Penn's seen it 15 times!)

Hank Haney = FAIL

Hank Haney is one of, if not THE, top golf swing coaches in the world. How do I know this? He coached Tiger Woods, and that's enough of an endorsement for me. But it would appear that the guy who could breakdown and rebuild Tiger's swing can't fix Charles Barkley's swing. Exhibit A:



This is from a recent event, AFTER Barkley was showcased on the Golf Channel's The Hank Haney Project. Question- what in God's name would possess someone, anyone, to stand in front of Barkley while on the tee? At that point, you're just asking to get hit, which is exactly what happens in the video. Its good to know that no matter how bad I may be a golf, there's always someone worse, that someone is Charles Barkley.

You Don't Change Horses Mid-Race

Well, unless you're Calvin Borel, I guess.

So jockey Calvin Borel bailed on riding Kentucky Derby winner Mine That Bird in the Preakness in favor of riding the filly Rachel Alexandra. It was the first time in history that a jockey had done this, and, given that its been over 80 years since a filly won the Preakness, it seemed like a crazy move. But with Rachel Alexandra's win at Pimlico today, it looks like he made the right choice. A few thoughts about this:

1)Rachel Alexandra has to be entered in the Belmont. If that happens, I have no doubt that she'd be the favorite. Let's say that happens and Calvin Borel rides her to another victory; how is Borel celebrated? He'd be a Triple Crown winning jockey without a Triple Crown winning horse; as far as I know, that's never happened before. Would it be like Tiger winning all four majors in a row, but not doing it in the same calander year? Would it recognized and remembered the same as other Triple Crown wins? My gut tells me no, since we tend to only remember the horse, and not the rider. Which is too bad, because if Borel can win the Triple Crown riding different horses, it would be pretty amazing. Maybe he should ride a different horse althogther for the Belmont, just to try and nail the point home.

2)Mine That Bird finished second at the Preakness today, which I guess suggests that he wasn't a fluke two weeks ago at the Derby. A much like he did in the Derby, he started last in the field before charging all the way up to the front, eventually only losing by something like 3/4 length. In fact, given a little more time, I think Mine That Bird would have run her down and won. The Belmont is a 1 1/2 mile track, considerably longer than the Preakness's 1 3/16 mile. If they go head-to-head again in the Belmont, I think I'd put my money on Mine That Bird. The extra length gives him the edge.

3)Finally, its usually a bad thing for horse racing when there isn't a horse running for the Triple Crown, but I actually think that this situation is good for the sport. You've still got Calvin Borel's Triple Crown quest, which is intriguing in its uniquness, plus the Mine That Bird-Rachel Alexandra rematch. Its all about giving the viewers something worth watching, and the Belmont will have plenty of that.

To Boldy Go...

Go see Star Trek. Seriously, go see it. Its really good, really fun, and you don't need any prior Star Trek knowledge to enjoy it. Sure, some knowledge helps, but its definitely not required. J.J. Abrams and crew did, in my opinion, did a masterful job of a)introducing the characters, b)acknowledging the existing story canon, and c)establishing a new story arc that all viewers could follow and get behind. Earlier, I said that everyone should go see Watchmen, and while I still stand by that, I think that Star Trek is a far better "you'll enjoy this even if you nothing about the source material" movie.

Without spoiling it, I'll just say that the plot of the movie guards itself from criticism about changes to the Star Trek canon. Sure, it makes for a kinda weak plot, but plot clearly wasn't the point of the movie; the point was to set up the characters and the universe in which they operate so they can tell more substantial stories later in the sequels (and judging by the early box office numbers, I think a sequel's inevitable, if one hasn't already been announced; if it holds at #1 against Angels and Demons this week, I bet they announce TWO more movies). And the characters and character interactions were by far the best parts of the movie. I thought the cast did a great job of embodying the essence of the characters they were playing without resorting to imitations of the original actors. You could see how these characters could logically (sorry) progress into the characters of old. The scene of Kirk as a kid going on a joyride (the one you see in the trailer) was unnecessary, but there's also a scene of Spock as a kid that's just awesome. The action scenes were nice and flashy, but the character scenes were what I found the most interesting.

There were also plenty of Easter eggs planted throughout the movie to satisfy the hardcore Trekkies (or Trekkers, as I guess, from the video below, that's the correct term now). Nearly all the iconic lines from the old show were fit into the script, and every time one was uttered, it drew praise from the audience I was in. Kirk hooking up with the green-skinned alien-girl was a nod to a classic Star Trek episode. I've also read that was a tribble sitting on the desk when we first meet Scotty (I didn't catch this; guess I'll have to see it again). And, much like it was done in Casino Royale for James Bond, you don't hear the iconic Star Trek theme until the end of the movie, implying that its only at that point that they've become "the crew of the Starship Enterpise."

So go see it, you won't be disappointed. Also, watch this clip from last Saturday's Weekend Update on SNL; you won't be disappointed but it, either:



Live long and prosper.