RobertR

I can understand that. But, for me, the injustice and indifference of the universe to Cage's actions made it of a piece with Werner Herzog's filmography. He just channelled his normal pessimism in a new direction. Robert

I haven't seen either, although perhaps I should. Irreversible has never really appealed to me between the subject matter, the structure, and I just get the impression that it really has only one thing to say and is saying it as obviously as possible. OTOH, I hear very good things about Enter the Void. I'll have to add that one to my queue. Robert

Are they writing Community with me specifically in mind? Seriously, a network sitcom doing a My Dinner With Andre homage? I'd have bet big money against that ever happening. Robert

Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans Werner Herzog is perhaps the perfect director to harness Nicolas Cage's craziness. The film, which is sendup/homage to the type of "cop in moral crisis" films that regularly make the rounds. Cage acts every scene like he's hopped up on something different, and it works like gangbusters. All is forgiven Nicolas Cage. Well, almost all. The Kids Are All Right I think I appreciated the message more than I appreciated the actual film. Not that it's a bad film. It's well acted, it has a nice colorful look to it, and it's legitimately funny. But, IMO, it cops out on the resolution in favor of the safe ending. Winter's Bone Bleak is the most appropriate adjective to describe Winter's Bone. It's perhaps a cousin of a noir detective story or a western such as The Searchers where the protagonist must venture into dangerous territory on a mission. The setting, rural Ozarks, and Jennifer Lawrence really set this one apart. Jennifer Lawrence was well deserving of her Oscar nomination. John Hawkes too. The Other Guys The premise, mismatched everyday cops going after Wall Street corruption has a lot of potential that's only occasionally reached. Will Ferrell is definitely better playing an actual character rather than being an endless stream of screaming and non-sequitors though. And Michael Keaton is gold is a supporting role. But, it almost seems like they went in with half a script and were going to rely on ad libbing for the rest. The Social Network I was very impressed with just about everything about The Social Network. The script was sharp, handled talking heads in a sharp, exciting way, and had plenty of ideas. The film was crisply edited, looked sharp, was paced great, and made its point succinctly. The score was great. The acting was across the board excellent. Yeah, it might not have been the "true" story, but it's still a very good story told well. Get Him to the Greek Some funny stuff here amid the debauchery. To me, it felt a bit underwritten and obvious, but I laughed fairly regularly. Red The cast makes this film. Particularly Helen Mirren and Brian Cox. They play against type and class up the film considerably. Bruce Willis doesn't seemed to have aged a day in the last 20 years either. It's too slight to give it a strong recommendation, but it's an enjoyable enough romp for what it is. Easy A This is a film that obviously was written by adults, full of references to classic literature and 80s movies, and I don't buy it as an accurate representation of today's teens. But, it goes the extra mile and is smarter than the average teen comedy. Emma Stone carries the film and it's a really solid performance, albeit I'm not much of a fan of the way the story is framed. She's helped out a lot by the adults in the cast, Patrica Clarkson, Thomas Haden Church, Stanley Tucci, and Lisa Kudrow. Hausu (House) Batxxxx insane. Honestly, I've never seen anything like it. It's like a live action anime, mixed with equal doses of Evil Dead 2 and Suspiria. It's completely baffling to quickly peg, which is both its strength and weakness. Does it work as horror? As comedy? As fairy tale? Heck if I know, it's practically its own genre. Robert

After seeing the NSFW opening monologue for the Independent Spirit Awards, Joel McHale might be a decent choice. Tina Fey and Steve Carrell seem eminently logical as well. If they want the telecast to skew younger, I think it's a multi-year process to get the audience used to it. You have to play to the house as well as to the tv audience. Robert

I'd agree that Franco wasn't the sole problem or the underlying problem. The writing was awful and even the pre-shot material didn't have much punch. Anne Hathaway wasn't particularly better, albeit at least she was trying. They were the "young, hip" presenters given nothing that was "young and hip" to work with. Particularly since the theme of the evening was looking back at earlier eras. I don't think anyone could have made that material work in that context. But, it was obvious that they're not live performers with an ability to ad lib and had no feel for the house. It probably didn't help that they're so young that they really can't interact with their peers in the crowd on an equal footing. No doubt that the two of them were set up to fail. Mostly because the producers were trying to turn the Oscars into something they're not, hip and trendy instead of relatively square and classy. The King's Speech being the big winner says quite a bit about what the Oscars are all about, and Hathaway and Franco were about as far away from that as possible. Robert

FWIW, I pretty much agree with every word of this article on James Franco's hosting. http://www.salon.com/entertainment/tv/feature/2011/02/28/oscars_2001_telecast/index.html Robert

My ballot would look pretty similar. Something like: Best Picture -- True Grit Best Director -- The Coens Best Actress, Leading Role -- Natalie Portman, Black Swan Best Actor, Leading Role -- Colin Firth, The King's Speech Best Supporting Actress -- Hailee Steinfeld (albeit she's in the wrong category) Best Supporting Actor -- Christian Bale, The Fighter Best Animated Feature -- Toy Story 3 Best Art Direction -- Inception Best Cinematography -- Black Swan Best Costume Design -- The King's Speech Best Film Editing -- The Social Network (only because Inception didn't get nominated) Best Foreign Language Film -- In a Better World Best Makeup -- The Way Back Best Original Score -- Hans Zimmer / Inception (only because Clint Mansell was ruled ineligible for Black Swan) Best Sound Editing -- Inception Best Sound Mixing -- Inception Best Visual Effects -- Inception Best Adapted Screenplay -- The Social Network Best Original Screenplay -- The King's Speech Robert

My predictions (not necessarily what I think should win). Best Picture -- The King's Speech Best Director -- David Fincher, The Social Network Best Actress, Leading Role -- Natalie Portman, Black Swan Best Actor, Leading Role -- Colin Firth, The King's Speech Best Supporting Actress -- Melissa Leo, The Fighter Best Supporting Actor -- Christian Bale, The Fighter Best Animated Feature -- Toy Story 3 Best Art Direction -- The King's Speech Best Cinematography -- True Grit Best Costume Design -- Alice in Wonderland Best Documentary Feature -- Inside Job Best Documentary Short -- Killing in the Name Best Film Editing -- The King's Speech Best Foreign Language Film -- In a Better World Best Makeup -- The Wolfman Best Original Score -- Alexander Desplat, The King's Speech Best Song -- "If I Rise", 127 Hours Best Animated Short -- The Gruffalo Best Live Action Short -- The Confession Best Sound Editing -- Inception Best Sound Mixing -- Inception Best Visual Effects -- Inception Best Adapted Screenplay -- The Social Network Best Original Screenplay -- The King's Speech Robert

Look at slugging numbers for SS, 2B, CF, and catcher over the years. That's where the change is. And it isn't all PEDs. The success of guys like Yount, Trammell, and Ripken in the early 80s did away with the myth that the only players that could play middle infield were little jack rabbits. Heck, Jim Gantner with his career .671 OPS would probably be out of baseball by his early 30s. In the old days, you could make a mistake to many guys and the worst they could do was a double down the line. No longer. They're all athletes today. Robert

I disagree. Kendall interpreted the question exactly right and gave the honest, if not politically correct, response. Of course any minor leaguer worth his salt hopes to make the team out of Spring Training and doesn't want to get sent down because of service time considerations. If the prospect answers honestly, he gets blowback for not being a team player. Or he can lie and give the cliche' response. Either way, it puts the onus on the prospect instead of management where it belongs. The manner of Kendall's response wasn't proportional to the question, but he probably said what every prospect in a similar situation was thinking. Robert

I'd agree that 2010 doesn't stack up as an all time great year. Not the worst of recent vintage, but I'd certainly put the films of 2007 a notch above this group, at least. Among others. I don't think there are any A + movies nominated for Best Picture, although I think most fall in the A - to B + range. Perhaps it says something that I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm pretty sure that if the question is "What movie will people be watching in 20 years?" then the answer is Toy Story 3. I'm sure that Inception, True Grit, The Social Network, Black Swan, and The King's Speech will enjoy long shelf lives as well, but there's no question to me of what will be the most watched over the years, although it's partly because the first two films in the series are already classics. Anyways, my ranking of the movies nominated, excluding 127 Hours and The Fighter. True Grit - In refusing to be revisionist and playing against their own tendencies for irony, the Coens' have crafted a Western that I think can stand besides the classics of the genre. By reframing the story around it's rightful protagonist, they've created an identity of its own. This is Hailee Steinfeld's movie, while the original is John Wayne's movie. When people talk about direction, their often talking about flashy camera moves and editing, but the most important director's choice, and least obvious, was choosing Hailee Steinfeld out of scores of other teenagers auditioning. The Social Network - To me, it's obvious that Fincher and Sorkin were channeling Citizen Kane as much as trying to make a modern film. Guy gets to the top of the heap, ruins friendships and relationships along the way, and at the end still pines for the thing he can't have back. It's also surprisingly brisk for a film where much of it consists of people talking to each other face to face (ironic, by the way). Inception - An exhilirating action film with ideas. Admittedly I think the subtext, which uses dreams as a metaphor for filmmaking, is ultimately more interesting than the text. And I don't think it manages to say anything meaningful about dreams which makes it a flawed metaphor. But, I was captivated by the world that was created and filmmaking. It's high concept that works. The King's Speech - Firth, Rush, and Bonham-Carter are all terrific. The film has true wit. The screenplay is a marvel of dialogue and structure. It looks good too. There's not much to knock about it, except that the ending is never in doubt. Black Swan - Natalie Portman delivers the performance of the year. It looks great. It sounds great. It's about as subtle as a load of bricks and has lots of unrestrained flash, but it still works. Winter's Bone - Bleak is the first word that comes to mind. It really captures its setting and characters. I think it's also nicely balanced between its bleakness of subject matter, but with a sense of perserverance and loyalty being rewarded. Toy Story 3 - The least of the Toy Story films, which isn't really an insult. But I don't think it really has much new to say between the setup and third act (although Michael Keaton goes a long ways making the middle still worthwhile). The bookends of the film are great and the act of the toys about to face their mortality is a great payoff to all three films as we see the depth of their bonds in action, not in speech. Still, of the movies mentioned so far, I draw the line just above this as where I start making the cutoff between "not my choice, but worthy" and "mistake". The Kids Are All Right - Benning, Moore, and Ruffalo are terrific. It is genuinely funny and complicated. It makes a worthy social statement. But it avoids all of the messy problems it creates for itself by putting a big bow on the ending. The rest of the movies stick the landing, this one misses. Robert

^I like to read reviews, but I generally read many of them after the fact. Or for movies I don't have any interest in seeing, initially, to see if I may be missing something. And, usually only from a select few critics. Of course, I'm also part of a club where we see previews of upcoming films without knowing what the films are until we arrive at the theater. In general, I try to avoid reviews that basically are "plot synopsis" and a conclusion "It ruled/sux!1!!!". Those are worthless. A good critic should be able to get across the premise and dig into analysis without having to dip heavily into spoilers. Granted, there are some films it's hard to do that with, I just saw the Italian film The Double Hour which relies heavily on a narrative conceit which makes it difficult to discuss the film without spoilers, but for the most part you're probably already going to have a good idea going in. (I have to admit though that I loved it when Tarantino played with my knowledge of history for a spectacular surprise in Inglorious Basterds.) For the most part, I'm looking for a reviewer that can do three things 1) write well (a rarer ability than you'd think), 2) present a consistent p.o.v./taste, and 3) display an ability to analyze. And, of course, I want honesty from a critic. Critic's aren't paid to watch movies, they're paid to write well about movies and offer solid analysis. Ebert's pretty much been my go to guy because of those factors, although he's not as sharp as he used to be. Whether I agree or disagree is something I usually don't worry about too much, a good writer can write a pan that will make me interested and a positive review that communicates enough that I know I won't like it. I was listening to a recent podcast which panned DePalma's Sisters, but still made the film sound interesting and engaging, albeit completely over-the-top, for example. I think it's also good to acknowledge the source. Most critics are generalists, they write for a broad swath of readers and cover everything from the latest gory horror film to the newest cutesy romantic comedy. But it's worth noting where you're interest lies. If you're a Bostonian interested in the upcoming movie about Boston, like The Town, then absolutely a Boston critic probably has more to say. I'm sure people on this board will get more out of what to expect about the Moneyball movie from people on this board than the average critic who may not even be interested in baseball or sabrmetrics. A website like Batman on Film probably has more to say about the upcoming Batman film than the local critic. A horror fan probably is better off reading the reviews from Fangoria or Horror Movie a Day than the local critic. In a certain sense, it's up to you to know your own tastes and interests to find the critic that best fulfills your needs. I do think sites like Rotten Tomatoes are useful, although I think it's a bit too simplistic to break things down into a simple number. A "Fresh" movie might be one that 80% of the critics think is basically a C + film. A "Rotten" movie could be something like "Blue Velvet" that half think is brilliant, A+ material, and half loathe. And, certain movies really are critic proof. You either laugh at a comedy or you don't. A horror film either frightens you or it doesn't. A melodrama works your emotions or it doesn't. All the analysis in the world, no matter how well written or reasoned, can simply be rendered moot by a visceral reaction or lack of one. Which is the long way to telling you, there's no real foolproof way to select a critic. It's about as scientific as scouting a prospect. I do hope to see The Fighter before Sunday. Certainly it's a movie I'm interested in and it does represent a sizable number of nominations. And, it's probably an easier sell to my wife than 127 Hours, which is the perfect example of how spoilers matter and don't matter. Robert

They're coming up Sunday, and I'm sure we'll all have our complaints about the show (runs too long, speeches were boring, comedy wasn't funny, overproduced musical numbers, and "how did that win?") but it's still generally an interesting discussion. And we can play Nostradamus. Frankly, I thought it was a pretty crummy year until September rolled around. At least from mainstream Hollywood, there were plenty of good independents and foreign films, but I have a lot good to say about September onwards. Audiences responded too. Would anybody have predicted that True Grit, The King's Speech, and Black Swan would all make over $100 million domestic? And The Social Network and The Fighter are right in the $85 to $100 million range. Combined with Toy Story 3 and Inception and it's a very populist field of nominees. The Kids Are All Right was a reasonable art house hit as well, although I think it works better as a social statement than as a film, although I do think it's well acted and entertaining. I've seen 8 of the 10 nominees, I haven't seen The Fighter or 127 Hours, and I certainly think it's a pretty solid group of nominees. There's plenty to quibble about, yeah the lack of Inception in editing and directing is glaring, the usual arcane rule decisions i.e. Clint Mansell not being eligible for Black Swan, the usual headscratching in the foreign films and documentary categories, and politicing (in what world is Hailee Steinfeld a Supporting Actress?), but the actual nominees are for the most part very good. There's no Crash among the nominees and some actual races this year. Just to throw it out there, most overlooked movie of the year, S. Korea's Madeo (Mother) and Hye-ja Kim's performance. I'm sure Katulu will chime in on the Documentaries as well. I'll get to some predictions before the end of the week, but anybody else have any thoughts? Robert

I mentioned it earlier, but a list and synopsis of each of Heinlein's juvenile science fiction books can be found at http://www.severing.nu/juvie.htm . I suspect Al would enjoy The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein as well. Robert

I really liked those books as well at that age. Definitely ones to look out for. Robert

The Hobbit probably is a good idea for a young reader as well, although the rest of Tolkein's books are better held off on. Robert

Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes stories might be a little advanced, but would seem to fit his interests. The Graveyard Book is a good recommendation. Michael Chabon's Summerland probably would fit as well. There are about a dozen well regarded Robert Heinlein juvenile science-fiction books out there. Robert

I think there's something to that idea. At least combined with the clubhouse turmoil of last year. It's one thing to have a bad year in terms of team performance. Piling a bad team performance on top of absolutely embarrassing off the field stuff is a tough combination for any organization worried about their public image. Robert

Day the Earth Stood Still called to see what was up. Brain cramp on my part. Absolutely essential. Robert

A couple of clarifications/thoughts. 1. Yes I'm referring to the original versions of Invasion of the Body Snatchers and Cat People. Cat People probably isn't in the public consciousness as much of some others, but the Lewton/Tourneur aesthetic forms an important part of horror filmmaking even to today. 2. It's well worth watching Robocop as a social satire in addition to an action film. American consumerism (in regards to gas guzzlers), television sitcom catch phrases, corporate greed and irresponsibility, and privatization are all targets for the film. Yeah, we don't have cyborgs and robots, but Robocop is still pretty spot on in regards to predicting the future. 3. I thought about Aliens, but in the end regarded it more successful as an action-adventure film than as a science fiction film. Alien works as horror, but it also works at creating an alien world and life form with a unique life cycle. Aliens kind of turns the creatures into space ants which I think undercuts it as a science-fiction film. YMMV of course. I'd agree that Terminator / Terminator 2 are well worth considering. 4. Wrath of Khan is well worth including due to Star Trek's influence on pop culture and science fiction. Forbidden Planet covers it to an extent as kind of proto-Star Trek, but I wouldn't argue against the inclusion of Khan. 5. I kind of think that Children of Men is just not popular/influential enough to merit inclusion as an essential, terrific as it is. Same with Sunshine. Back to the Future as sf-comedy seems like it has a stronger case. 6. I agree with the inclusion of Poltergeist, bringing the ghost story to modern suburbia, and The Shining. I like Scream, but I think you have to be familiar with many of the conventions of the genre before you can truly enjoy its meta-spin. In addition to The Exorcist, which I mentioned up topic, I kind of think The Thing, Evil Dead II, and Texas Chainsaw Massacre among others, the original The Haunting for instance, deserve consideration, but those are more hard core/cult than the mainstream essentials I mentioned prior. 7. It's probably too soon for serious discussion of Inglorious Basterds and The Hurt Locker. Or True Grit in relation to westerns. Maybe you could include Black Swan in the conversation of "Essential Ballet Films" but in general I think you need time. 8. I think calling The Thin Red Line "arthouse war film" is exactly correct. Which cuts both ways as to how essential it is. It's certainly not a typical example of the genre. Robert

Catching up... The Blind Side It's an effective melodrama that takes the easy way out on some tough questions. There are no real surprises, but it delivers what it promises. And Sandra Bullock is good. I don't know about Academy Award winning actress good, but good nonetheless. Alice in Wonderland Terrible. I'm a Tim Burton fan but it's tougher after this film. It may very well be his worst film. The script is terrible. It's a mechanical Alice needs to grow a spine, so that she can face off in a LotR inspired final fight scene? Really? There are bits that work here and there, the Cheshire Cat mostly, but the flashback scene to the young Alice visiting Wonderland is the movie I want to see, not this one. Avoid. Night Train to Munich Early WWII thriller with some characters carrying over from Hitchcock's The Lady Vanishes. And a pretty fine final set piece. Not an all time classic, but still good fun. Iron Man 2 There's stuff that works. Robert Downey Jr. is still fun, although he comes dangerously close to glib at times. The special effects are good. But there's little weight to anything, and the story feels both too busy and underdeveloped at the same time. Haxan: Witchcraft Through the Ages A great silent film. Kind of a documentary/essay/horror film all wrapped up into one. Interesting for it's content, exploring the historical belief in witches and what the real source may have been, as well as its style. Night of the Demon I haven't seen Jacques Tourneour's classic in a long time. And while it's not quite as scary as I remembered it, it's still a very fine movie. Intelligent, scary, full of atmosphere, and some really good acting. Particularly by Niall MacGinnis. Plague of the Zombies The missing link between traditional zombie films like I Walked with a Zombie and Romero's film. From Hammer. It looks good, has some fine acting, and some really striking imagery. The villain is kind of a non-entity which brings it down a tad, but overall it's a very solid movie. A Single Man One of the better movies of 2010. I definitely liked it better than the other British awards contender of last year, An Education. It's a little obvious and it probably overuses the color fading/brightening effects, but Colin Firth is terrific and moving in the lead. Julianne Moore is terrific too. Sherlock That had me at John Watson, Afghan war vet. And kept me through some real clever updating and fine writing that was much more in tune with the spirit of Conan-Doyle's stories than the Robert Downey Jr. movie which sacrificed the detective element in favor of action-adventure set pieces. The modern setting really helps it get out of the shadow of Jeremy Brett. My only real complaint is that it's too short at only 3 episodes. Well, and the 2nd episode kind of suffers from uninteresting villains. Can't wait to see the resolution to the cliffhanger. The Red Shoes Watched it in preparation for Black Swan. Gorgeous movie with obvious parallels to Aronofsky's terrific movie. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World There are lots of things I thought were clever, exciting, well thought out, funny, etc. Still, it's a movie I more admire than like. The two leads don't have any chemistry. And they're more involved in the idea of a relationship than a real relationship, which lowers the emotional investment and stakes substantially. Why should anyone care if Scott is dealing with his girlfriend's baggage of ex's if their relationship feels hollow in the first place? It doesn't help that Winstead's character Ramona is a cipher (and a second rate Clementine played by a much inferior actress to Kate Winslet) who Scott falls in "love" with because the plot demands it. There's a lot of geek love out there for this, but I just don't see it in the actual text of the film. Robert ------------------------ Continued from: viewtopic.php?p=648495#p648495 Original Lead: viewtopic.php?f=67&t=2361

Zduriencik wasn't helped at all by the utter chaos in the clubhouse. Much of it centering around Griffey and Wakamatsu's very public spat. It's one thing to be bad on the field. Sometimes you can't control that. But there's really no excuse for the rest of that stuff that afflicted the Mariners last year. And, it's worth remembering that other than the Cliff Lee deal, pretty much everything blew up in Zduriencik's face. The Milton Bradley deal flopped with Bradley putting up a .643 OPS. Kotchman was terrible. Jack Wilson was terrible. Griffey wasn't just a clubhouse problem but was terrible at the plate. Branyan had one of his injury plagued years. Ichiro and his .754 OPS was the only regular with an OPS above .700. They were historically awful offensively last year. Historically awful. When you put an offense together that terrible, it's very legitimate to ask how good you can possibly be assembling a roster. I don't know how 2010 can't be seen as a setback for that organization. Robert

I agree completely, which is why I put City Lights on my "essentials" list. Especially in regards to that great ending. While I'm at it, I'll throw out another genre list of what I'd expect someone who says "I'm a fan of xx movies" to at least be familiar with. Essential Thrillers M The Third Man North by Northwest Rear Window The Manchurian Candidate Jaws The Silence of the Lambs Obviously nothing really obscure there, but that's not the point. Robert

I don't necessarily disagree that "The General" isn't Keaton's funniest. But, the stunts are flat out amazing. Which makes it a must see in my list. (For that matter I think The Gold Rush is funnier than City Lights.) And, certainly, if you have watched many silents it's on the short list. I probably also should have put The Exorcist on the horror short list. Probably The Sixth Sense as well. Robert