RobertR

It probably didn't help that apparently there was noone else in his life at the time. It seems like he really was in need of an intervention or someone who wasn't taking heavy medications to supervise his use. For all we know, Deanna Favre saved Brett's life by staging the kind of intervention that Heath Ledger apparently never got. Robert

FWIW, I believe that PECOTA probably underrates Sheets's IP and WARP numbers because it likely can't distinguish the difference between types of injuries. I'm ready to throw up my hands and say don't expect more than 180 IP out of Sheets because he'll hurt something freakishly at some point, but I also distinguish that he doesn't have chronic shoulder and elbow injuries and we shouldn't necessarily expect his IP to decline from its current level. Hint to fantasy leaguers. Robert

A sequel to a now lost topic. I'm of the opinion that with benefit of time we can make better decisions when judging art. But, it's also worth giving credit when people get things right at the time. So, a look back at the Academy Awards with the benefit of time. This time I'm going to cover the 1980s. Maybe 1990 as well since I believe I skipped that last time. So, to start 1980. (I'll list the actual winner first then the rest of the nominees.) Best Picture Ordinary People Raging Bull Coal Miner's Daughter The Elephant Man Tess Other notable films: The Empire Strikes Back, Kagemusha, The Great Santini, Melvin and Howard, The Stunt Man, Airplane!, The Blues Brothers, The Shining My Choice: Raging Bull Thoughts: Raging Bull is widely regarded as one of the best films of the 1980s and this is regarded as one of the biggest misses in Oscar history. So much has been written about Raging Bull that I'm not going to even try to add on except to say that it's a perfect blending of the technical and personal between Scorsese and DeNiro. That said, with the exception of Tess, which looks like a misguided statement in retrospect, the nominated pictures look right. Maybe substitute The Empire Strikes Back for Tess and you'd have a hard time doing better. Good process leading to a bad final decision. Best Actor Robert DeNiro - Raging Bull John Hurt - The Elephant Man Robert Duvall - The Great Santini Peter O'Toole - The Stunt Man Jack Lemmon - Tribute Other notables: Donald Sutherland - Ordinary People, Paul LeMat - Melvin and Howard, Lee Marvin - The Big Red One, Jack Nicholson - The Shining My Choice: Robert DeNiro Thoughts: A good choice by the Academy that's stood the test of time. While once regarded as something of a stunt, within reason, actors are now expected to shed and gain weight as appropriate for a part. And, beyond that, it's a great performance by DeNiro who manifests equal measures of self loathing and ferocity. It's a shame that Peter O'Toole hasn't won an Oscar, but this wasn't the year to award him one out of sentimentality. Overall a good set of nominees as well, although Jack Lemmon could be replaced. Best Actress Sissy Spacek - Coal Miner's Daughter Gena Rowlands - Gloria Mary Tyler Moore - Ordinary People Goldie Hawn - Private Benjamin Ellyn Burstyn - Resurrection Other Notables: Dolly Parton - Nine to Five, Catherine DeNeuve - The Last Metro, Julie Hagerty - Airplane! My Choice: Sissy Spacek Thoughts: Man, that's a weak year. I don't think I've ever even heard of Resurrection before this, although Burstyn is a fine actress. Gloria isn't even considered a particularly good film. I'd probably go with Dolly Parton over Goldie Hawn as well. Still, it's hard in retrospect to see it not coming down to Mary Tyler Moore vs. Sissy Spacek and I think the right choice was made. Best Supporting Actor Timothy Hutton - Ordinary People Joe Pesci - Raging Bull Michael O'Keefe - The Great Santini Judd Hirsch - Ordinary People Jason Robards - Melvin and Howard Other Notables: Lloyd Bridges - Airplane!, Leslie Nielsen - Airplane!, Dabney Coleman - Nine to Five, Rodney Dangerfield - Caddyshack, Terrence Stamp - Superman II, Michael Caine - Dressed to Kill My Choice: Joe Pesci Thoughts: Again, a perfectly reasonable set of nominees. Michael O'Keefe would have looked bad as a winner in retrospect, but any of the other four would have been perfectly reasonable. This is the perfect bookend to Pesci's performance in Goodfellas as he's the one that's put upon in this film. And, yeah, Bridges and Nielsen would have had no chance if nominated, but the degree to which they spoofed their own images deserves recognition, even if only in hindsight. Supporting Actress Mary Steenburgen - Melvin and Howard Diane Scarwid - Inside Moves Eilleen Brennan - Private Benjamin Cathy Moriarty - Raging Bull Eva La Gallienne - Resurrection Other Notables: Debra Winger - Urban Cowboy, Beverly D'Angelo - Coal Miner's Daughter, Aretha Franklin - The Blues Brothers Thoughts: Like Resurrection earlier, I've never even heard of Inside Moves before this. I think the Academy made the right choice here as well. Brennan is good in Private Benjamin, although a bit one note. Cathy Moriarty is good too in Raging Bull, although not up to Pesci and DeNiro. But, I think Steenburgen's performance manages to be more rounded and better than both of them. Again, the nominee field is weak, but there were three legitimate contenders. I don't know if it was a particularly interesting year. There are not a lot of films and performances that I think were missed by the nominating process. The pool of candidates seems really shallow that year. There were two classic comedies in 1980 with Airplane! and The Blues Brothers, and one classic science fiction film, The Empire Strikes Back, so I can understand arguments for their inclusion in Best Picture, although I'd still argue for Raging Bull as the choice. And, Scorsese as director, of course. I do think the Academy can pat themselves on the back for the actor/actress awards though. All of them look understandable in hindsight and I'm certainly going to argue that they're at least vindicated on three of them with time. Robert

One of the best movies you've never seen, SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS, is on Turner Classic Movies tonight. I'd bet there's less than a half dozen people on this board that have seen it. Robert

It's supposed to be a surprise that a projection system may do better with established major leaguers than with minor leaguers making the transition to the majors? And that the system may have some conservative factors built in to take into account that some players may have down years? Believe it or not, some Brewers are going to have down years. And some are going to exceed their projections. The fact that of the starters only Jason Kendall projects to be below average for his position, should be seen as a positive. As well as the fact that there are no sub-.320 OBPs projected for the starters. Yeah, I'll take the overs on Fielder, Weeks, Braun, and Hart, but I'd also take the unders on Dillon, Gross, and Cameron. The system will likely balance out. Robert

I found the idea that Naomi still had some life in her a lot more believable than that she would instantly drop dead from a knife wound to the back. I don't know that the way it played out was very believable, but I could buy the concept. I also appreciate it that even in the end they're painting those on the boat with shades of gray. I suspect that Desmond will not be part of the "Oceanic 6" by definition. He might have made it back to the mainland, but he'd be considered something else, so no point in considering him when trying to guess the other three. Or any of the Others for that matter. (FWIW, I'm guessing Desmond will get off the island and stay off happily living with Penny. Paralleling Odysseus and Penelope.) I thought the reactions to Charlie's death were all well handled. I presume that the people coming to the island are the real Dharma group. They haven't strung out their return too long compared to the long build up with The Others. Naomi didn't appear that long ago and we're apparently meeting their leader next episode. Robert

1. Phillies 2. Diamondbacks 3. Mets 4. Brewers 5. Cubs 6. Rockies I think all the playoff teams are going to come out of this group. 7. Dodgers 8. Padres 9. Braves 10. Reds Possibly dark horse contenders, but I think they're all going to fall short. Barring some major moves. 11. Astros 12. Cardinals 13. Nationals 14. Pirates I don't see these teams being very good. Probably all finish in the 70-80 win range. Not awful, but not serious contenders. 15. Marlins 16. Giants These two are going to get destroyed by the rest of their division. At least the Marlins are cheap and young. Robert

I'm thinking of restarting the "retro-Oscars" topic I did last year, this time for the 80s. Good idea or bad? Robert

Yeah, "stars and scrubs" is a good strategy especially since the "scrubs" in a 10 team league should be pretty decent. I think it's also a good strategy if you don't have much experience in an auction as it gets you to spend all your money. Almost nothing is worse than leaving significant money on the table at the end of the auction. Who knows, sometimes the scrubs really blossom too. There's a lot of guys out there in keeper leagues with a cheap Carlos Pena this year. Robert

Yeah, you're at a disadvantage and you're probably not going to win. But the auction is still a lot of fun and if you can figure out inflation correctly, you might have a better handle on value than a lot of people. A couple of ill advised inflation spurred splurges by the top contenders and it will even out some. The fact that it's a keeper league also gives you an incentive to play different types of strategies, some short term, some long term. Two things that can always be cashed in at the deadline are closers and a base stealing specialist like Juan Pierre or Jose Reyes. If you don't think you can win or finish in the money, I'd put those type of players on my radar as must haves. Robert

Based on the first episode, I'd put it somewhere between the two extremes. The first episode was well acted, but I didn't particularly find the overall plotline that engaging. And, obviously, the dialogue is going to be a very important part of this series and right now I'd peg it merely at "pretty good". Still, I'm interested in seeing the other patients. And I'm particularly interested in seeing Gabriel Byrne and Dianne Wiest pair off. I have a feeling that Friday is going to easily be the most interesting night. Robert

Even as a kid I thought Alvin & the Chipmunks was really awful, so it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the property. Maybe I was being unduly harsh about a movie I haven't seen, but I think I'm on at least as solid of ground as saying Meet the Spartans looks awful. Maybe on occasion I'm guilty of elitism, but I recall saying nice things about 300(!), Ratatouille, and Harry Potter this year, big mainstream hits all. I don't consider Black Book (a Paul Verhoeven film) or Hot Fuzz particularly high brow either, and those were two of my favorites of the year. I'll probably have some very nice things to say about the new Bourne movie once I watch it on DVD too. And I don't think I was that harsh on Transformers, Spider-Man 3, and POTC3. I recall my main criticism of Live Free or Die Hard was that I thought it strayed a bit far from "blue collar cop in over his head" into generic action movie/superhero territory. But I watched all of them with an open mind and saw three in a theater. And you're not going to run into a bigger Batman fanboy than me. Edit: But hey, we can all drift into bad habits. I think we can all agree that box office isn't necessarily indicative of quality, but I understand the idea of film just taking you away for 2 hours. One of my favorite movies, Sullivan's Travels, makes a great point about that as well. I'll take better care to avoid the ad hominem. Robert

I don't think Rambo's creators are particularly concerned. $18 million is likely enough to put it on a pace for $50 million domestic. And the Rambo/Stallone brand name is probably sufficient for at least the much overseas. Couple that with an excuse for a Rambo 4 movie DVD set and it's probably an overall winner financially. As far as box office goes, just look at the grosses for Alvin & The Chipmunks. That's enough to shake anyone's confidence in the taste of the moviegoing audience. Robert

I've been rolling TWBB around in my head for a couple of days now, and I'll agree that No Country For Old Men is the better overall movie. Daniel Day-Lewis is ridiculously good though and it is a great performance. Maybe his greatest. After thinking it over, I think TWBB is a little lopsided in favor of the Daniel Plainview vs. Eli Sunday conflict while ideally it should be more balanced with the Daniel and H.W. storyline. Then again, DDL vs. the various actors that would portray H.W., including a rather good child actor, and the handicaps they would work with is like sending a pitbull up against a toy poodle. Paul Dano is at least able to hold his own. Still, I think the idea of contrasting the story of Daniel Plainview and Eli Sunday with the story of H.W. and Mary Sunday is instructive. And, helps turn the film from merely one of pure archetypes into more of a character study. I'll agree though that it's not a particularly complex plot. And if you're waiting for twists and turns, you're not going to get many. It's definitely travelling in the realm where allegory and symbolism, the central conflict involves a corrupt capitalist vs. a corrupt preacher, DDL's final insults in one scene literally fall upon deaf ears, are as important, if not moreso, than plot. I consider it something of a spiritual brother to CITIZEN KANE, especially in its ending scenes, in its scope and purpose, but without a lot of the whiz bang technical breakthroughs.But it is a finely crafted movie from its acting, dialogue, cinematography, and score in its own right. Robert

I saw THERE WILL BE BLOOD tonight. Great movie. They'll probably get pounded to death and everyone will be sick of them in a few months, but right now I can't get enough of Daniel Day-Lewis's glorious line readings of "DDDrrraaaiiiinnnaaagggeee!" and "I DRINK your milkshake!". Robert

I don't believe in curses. But, if I did, I'd truly believe that Terry Gilliam is cursed. Robert

I do think we should wait for more information. It's quite possible that since Ledger reportedly had trouble sleeping that it was no more than an accidental overdose. Other explanations are possible of course, drug abuse and suicide, but we don't need to rush to judgement. Edit: And yes I may have been guilty of judging too early above as well. Robert

I'm struck that while his professional life seemed in great shape, his role as The Joker should have made him a household name, his personal life must have been a real mess. That fact that he was no longer with his child and ex- certainly takes on added significance now. Robert

Martin Scorsese's Val Lewton biography on TCM tonight and the surrounding marathon of Val Lewton films looks to be easily the best bet for quality television tonight. Robert

I'll follow up. The Trouble With Harry Watched this again for the first time in about 20 years. It's one of Hitchcock's few dabbles into straight out comedy. Overall I ended up feeling that history is exactly right about this movie, it's entertaining enough but not to be confused with Hitchcock's many masterpieces. It's notable on a number of levels. This is Hitchcock's first film with composer Bernard Herman and it's a really strong score. It's also the debut of Shirley Maclaine and she comes off well too. And it's a very good looking film which captures the time and also has an authentic and colorful outdoor feel to it, even when they did transfer shooting indoors. The problem though is that it's very slight. There's really only one joke, nobody is particularly worked up about Harry being dead, and the action principally consists of burying, unburying, and reburying Harry. There's a good gag or two there but not enough to compare to the really superior comedies of the time. And John Forsythe as the male lead simply isn't interesting or charismatic enough to make up for the comedy shortfalls. Superbad Yeah, I don't get what the big deal is about this movie either. I liked Michael Cera and the adventures of McLovin (illogical as they proved to be), but that's enough to make it a tolerable rental not some instant classic. Particularly since beyond Jonah Hill, everybody else in the movie was basically a cipher. Particularly the love interests of the movie, the coda was an insult to any claims of reality. Maybe I've gotten old, but the only true note that was struck was the friendship of the main characters and the strain of going off to different colleges. Once I watched this Thursday night. Although vastly different in style the two movies that I was reminded of were SUNRISE: A SONG OF TWO HUMANS and BEFORE SUNRISE and I didn't consider it inferior to either. It's a really simple formula, boy meets girl, they fall for each other, and they push each other to get their lives in order, but the two leads are terrific (especially for non-actors), the low budget digital cinematography works to give it a very realistic setting without artifice, and the songs that really tell the story are great. Sometimes simple stories are the best. I hate to use the term "perfect" but I can't imagine how you could change a single thing about the movie to make it better without spoiling what works so well in the first place. Robert

It really comes down to how much credit you give him for being a human guinea pig. I think most people would agree that he falls behind Blyleven and even Morris, despite the win total. You can still make an argument for him based on strictly his baseball career, but he'd be a below average / borderline candidate at best. If he didn't have something beyond the field going for him we wouldn't be having this discussion. That said, I'm giving him a lot of credit for forcing the issue and being a human guinea pig. That's why he'd get my vote. At the very least, when he falls out of player eligibility, he should be inducted, along with Yoakim and Jobe, as Baseball Pioneers. I think that's the biggest no brainer of all since they did change the game and make it better. Robert

If the choice is between Hall (3B) + Gwynn (CF) vs. Hall (CF) + Blalock (3B) I don't know how you can possibly argue that the latter isn't potentially much more dynamic offensively. It's not even close. Gwynn's ZIPS projection is .260/.325/.328. Here's the 2007 NL Averages 3B .280/.346/.456 CF .273/.336/.426 Gwynn's still significantly below average even with a .040 adjustment for CF. Robert

A few more Yojimbo Always one of my favorites. I love Kurosawa's deconstruction of the western and gangster genre. Darkly comic, Toshiro Mifune literally saves a town from a continuing feud by killing just about everyone in it. Where the one act of charity almost proves to be his undoing. Flawless cinematography, a terrific pace, great, lightning fast action, and a memorable showdown, sword vs. pistol at high noon, it's a classic. And, maybe directly responsible for Clint Eastwood's career (and perhaps Letters from Iwo Jima). Transformers I admit to being perplexed by just what to say about this movie. What can you say about a movie that aims low, but hits it's marks? The special effects are good, the action is comprehensible for once in a Michael Bay film, and Shia LeBeouf goes above and beyond by actually acting engaged with the material. That said, there's nothing beneath the the surface here and giant robots fighting with each other. I suppose it's as good as a Transformers movie was likely to be, take of that what you will. Less than 48 hours after watching Transformers I watched a preview screening of The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, which is one of the best films of the year.The perfect antidote for a movie lacking in substance. Robert

The design certainly looks nice, although the practicality of the roof may be an issue. I also like that they're not going with a faux retro design. A retractable roof on a retro design is an oxymoron. Everyone says that the current stadium is a dump and I believe it from what I've seen on television. That said, funding may be a problem for this. Of the two, the Marlins need a new stadium a lot more than Tampa does. Robert

I think the Brewers likely could have found someone on the waiver wire or Rule 5 that's as likely to be as effective as Mota. He's below average, not young, not likely to improve, and has steroid strikes against him. Greg Aquino is likely to be just as effective. Frankly, it smells like a deal where Melvin wanted to avoid the embarrassment of basically trading Doug Davis for Claudio Vargas. That said, I think both sides "lost" this deal. I can see Mets fans turning on Estrada even faster than Brewers fans. Robert