RobertR

I'm going to be away for a bit, so I'm going to clear out a few things. X-Men 3 (or whatever the official title is) There seems to be 3 or 4 plots competing for attention and none of them come off all that well. The main cast members try hard to make sense of the mess and Jackman and McKellan are always reliable, but it pretty much dissolves into a bunch of wirework and CGI loosely strung together by the end with cameo appearances by actors who were obviously busy on other project. It really comes off as a rush job. That's a shame since there are actually some good ideas here, particularly involving "the cure", but everything takes a back seat to the special effects sequences. A Prairie Home Companion To me it's the best comedy of the year, unless you count THE DEPARTED as a black comedy. Robert Altman and Garrison Keillor go surprisingly well together, with the lively ensemble and semi-improvised nature of Altman offsetting some of the more sentimental corn of Keillor (there's probably something here for people that don't like one, but like the other). It's a surprisingly good choice for Altman at this stage of his career with the possibility of this being his last film and death being a constant presence at his age, working to enhance the themes of the piece. To me, Streep and Tomlin as sisters are the highlight of the film. They really play off each other well and the overlapping dialogue sounds natural, even if their accents sound more Minnesotan than they perhaps should be considering that the sisters are supposedly from Oshkosh. Robert

I like VORP for quick and dirty comparisons. For Overbay 36.0 For Fielder 20.7 And, of course, that only measures offense. The gap certainly widens some when defense is measured. Overbay probably was worth about 2 wins more than Fielder this year. Of course, the trade really wasn't Overbay for Fielder, but Overbay for Bush. Bush had a VORP of 32.4 (2.3 hitting + 30.1 pitching). That's a pretty darn even trade, at least before salary is figured in. Robert

Is Heart of Gold just really a concert movie? I was going to buy it, since I'm a pretty big Neil fan, but if it's really mostly concert stuff, I can go without (especially since it's $35 at my local Barnes & Noble). Yeah, pretty much. There's about 10 to 20 minutes of interviews with band members being driven to the concert that sets the background, but it's just a concert movie after that for the next hour or so. Robert

Bumping this back up. Red Eye My streak of well above average mysteries/thrillers had to come to an end sometime. It starts promising with Cillian Murphy displaying a lot of charm, but all of the performances become very one dimensional once the plane takes off and Murphy reveals precisely what he's up to. And the ending is fairly silly. By the end, the only thing that I found of interest was Wes Craven's familiar trope of a victimized woman striking back against her attacker. He's done that better before, though. Neil Young: Heart of Gold Jonathan Demme directed my favorite concert film, Stop Making Sense. Neil Young is one of my favorite performers. Therefore, this was right up my alley. Filmed shortly after Neil Young recovered from a brain aneurysm it features a performance of his Prairie Wind suite which was written when he didn't know if he was going to survive. As such, there's a lot of looking back and summing up in the songs. This was the concert debut of those songs, shortly before the album hit, in Nashville, at the former home of the Grand Olde Opry, whose history plays a role in at least one song. Since there's only about 50 minutes of songs, the concert is filled out by selections from Harvest, Comes A Time, and Harvest Moon, as well as "The Old Laughing Lady". Beyond that, Neil has his wife, his friends/musicians who he's played with for over 30 years off and on, and Emmylou Harris on stage and it's a really tight set. In fact, I think the DVD sounds better than the CD. Beyond that, Jonathan Demme really creates a remarkable presentation. This is expertly edited and shot, there's no sign of camermen walking around in the background and little for audience shots, and Demme catches all kinds of interesting little actions, smiles and looks, which brings you inside the performers' circle to an extent. It will never win it, but I think a convincing argument could be made for considering the editing Oscar material. Obviously, you have to be at least a marginal fan of Neil Young to appreciate the movie. But, it's one of the best concert films I've ever seen. Serenity I liked the Firefly tv show and wish it had lasted longer. But at least the movie spinning out of it features a relatively good story and sums up the themes that the show was aiming for. I don't think it's a great movie by any stretch, just a reasonably effective one with good character moments, a sense of humor, and a point beyond empty spectacle. It feels a bit on the cheap side at times, particularly in a hovercraft chase at the beginning, but that's the weakest special effects sequence of the movie, so it's better there than at the climax. It's definitely less an ensemble piece than the tv show, with Nathan Fillion and Summer Glau getting the most focus. Nathan Fillion is better and more interesting than he was in the tv show, as something of a Han Solo type. OTOH, I didn't find Summer Glau or her character River particularly interesting at all. As a director, I think Joss Whedon still has things to work on. He's a good writer, but his visual eye probably isn't what it needs to be for a science fiction director. He's still miles and miles ahead of Kevin Smith though. Still, as a director I get the feeling that he's channeling scenes he's seen before rather than creating his own. Robert

What a crazy game. And btw... I won the trivia question. Got myself a bat and a DVD. Who played in the most world series games in the 1960s? That was you? I was the guy sitting two rows behind you on the aisle that knew about Maris playing with the Cardinals. Section 211, Row 14, Seat 1. Small world.

I knew Mulholland Drive would raise some eyebrows. I still stand by it. It's easily the movie this decade that I think about the most. (Of course, sometimes that thinking only amounts to "Naomi Watts and Laura Haring are incredibly hot in Mulholland Drive".) Heck, the tagline is even relevant "A Love Story In The City Of Dreams". 95% is probably soluble, but I agree that remaining 5% is unlikely to ever be put together. That doesn't mean I can't try.to figure it out. David Lynch has his faults as a storyteller, but I'll take one Blue Velvet over all of the competently told stories without a unique point of view. Nobody like Lynch to stir strong feelings. And that's part of the reason why I enjoy him. I don't think I've ever seen a more polarizing director. Robert

I'll put out my top ten list, so far. Probably to some derision, but what the heck. 1. City of God 2. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind 3. Mulholland Drive (yeah, I'm a Lynch groupie) 4. Before Sunset 5. The Incredibles 6. Black Hawk Down 7. Downfall 8. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 9. Murderball 10. American Splendor Honorable Mention: Y Tu Mama Tambien, Gosford Park, Sideways, & Amelie. O.K. and Shaun of the Dead. Give me another day and I'd probably revise it totally and throw on a half dozen other films I forgot about. Robert

Hmm, top ten of this decade is an interesting question. I'm going to have to think on that some, although off hand I'd probably go with City of God as #1. Has anyone gone out and bought the new version of The Seven Samurai yet? I feel my resolve crumbling by the second the more I read about it. Robert

"You've helped this office out before." "No, I gave you Jerr to see him eaten, not to see you fed." "Fine. And very well put." "Accelerated English, Mrs. Kasprzyk." "Tough teacher?" "Tough but fair." Brick may very well be my favorite movie I've seen this year. At least of recent vintage. I'll look into Ping Pong. I've got a long qeue though, so it will be a while. Robert

It's been awhile, so... The Constant Gardener I never would have associated the director of City of God as a John le Carre' fan. It's a very unlikely pairing, but it works surprisingly well and really brings out the modern day paranoia of le Carre's work. The editing is such that you have to pay attention, and that works well with this story. It also doesn't hurt that the editors know when to back off the quick cutting style as in one scene where Ralph Fiennes receives some very bad news. The cast is first rate. Rachel Weisz and Ralph Fiennes especially.Although there's not a bad performance in the film. This film stands up well against the best picture nominees of last year. I suppose I should mention that there's some political commentary in the film about big pharmaceutical corporations and exploitation in Africa. It doesn't bother me since a thriller needs a bad guy, and it's certainly not like there's never been exploitation in Africa and we all live in a utopia. Still, I just look at this as a specific story with a specific villain, and not a general indictment of everyone. Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang I love Raymond Chandler style mysteries. Apparently Shane Black does too as he mixes a Chandler-style mystery, complete with chapter titles referencing Chandler's books, with his 1980s action/buddy movie roots with a bit of meta-plot of Adaptation stirred in. It's light and very funny, with a funny variation of Shane Black's trademarked "hero gets tortured sequence", clever references, puns, and visual gags. And it's good evidence of why Robert Downey Jr. kept getting second (and third) chances to resurrect his career. He's very good in this movie. Val Kilmer, who has been known to steal a scene or two, really can't keep up with him. Brick It's worth repeating, but I really love Raymond Chandler (and Dashiell Hammett) style mysteries. Smart talking detectives, byzantine plots, femme fatales, women from the hero's past, tough thugs, eccentric crime bosses, the hero getting the snot beat out of him every other scene, etc. Take all of that (including the dialogue) and transport that to a 21st century high school and you have Brick. Needless to say, I'm the target audience for this type of film. In many ways, this is like a modern dress adaptation of Shakespeare. For some, the fact that it relentlessly refuses to budge from the dialogue and style of a 1940s detective movie is just going to be frustrating. But that's the whole point, to take an old story and style and show what makes it vital in a different setting. As far as I can tell, this is the first feature that Rian Johnson has written and directed. I certainly think the he has a long future in the industry. What's really impressive is that he gives the film a distinct look, with deep shadows and silhouettes echoing noir, obviously without a lot of money. And he gets good performances out of the whole cast, although I'd never had suspected that Joseph Gordon-Levitt (from Third Rock From the Sun) could carry a movie and do it well. Robert

Last year's Best Picture crop was the equivalent of this year's National League. Someone had to win it, but that doesn't mean I have to be impressed. This year already looks more promising. Robert

It's been awhile. Munich Overall I liked it. It's adult, complex, and gives Spielberg a chance to work with his Hitchock roots. It could stand a tighter edit and most of the characters besides Eric Bana are just there. And Eric Bana himself isn't that interesting as a character. I do think that the political controversy surrounding the movie is overblown. The movie doesn't suggest that all problems would be solved if we just understood and talked with the terrorists. There's a scene where two characters on opposite sides talk and come to no accord at the end, although they do compromise on choice of music (i.e. trivial issues). If not letting trivial issues escalate is a big statement/solution, then I think Spielberg is on safe ground. What Spielberg suggests is that "taking the fight to the terrorists with their own methods" isn't neat, easy, cheap (in money and human life), without complication, and consequence. Or that there's no toll on the conscience of the people carrying out the acts without the color of law. Or that there won't be counter-strikes. Or that there won't be unintended consequences. None of those ideas strike me as particularly farfetched or revoluntionary. He's basically suggesting that there's not some easy "Mission Accomplished" way to solve these conflicts, but that it's going to be a long, ugly struggle. Really, the final shots of the film probably sum it up best. Text notes that the Israeli's basically accomplished their mission of killing the terrorist leaders responsible for Munich. And there's a shot of New York with the Twin Towers in the background suggesting that it didn't end anything. Robert

Here's a clip on YouTube: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsYoWLgtuY One can only hope that the Brewers play the Cubs again with Blanco and scrub backup catcher on the team and Barrett suspended. When do the Cubs go to New York for the inevitable suspension appeal? Robert

Capote Actually, I rented this for my wife who skipped it in the theater. This is a very well acted movie telling the behind the scenes story of the writing of In Cold Blood focussing on Capote making himself part of the story and his relationship with the killers. Phillip Seymour Hoffman has the mannerisms and voice down cold and integrates them into a performance instead of being merely mimickry. Katherine Keener is very good as Harper Lee and the whole cast is above average. This is a fairly bleak movie, visually and in theme. It's very serious in nature with the Capote / Harper Lee relationship providing the only real moments of levity. I don't quite buy the premise that Capote was so broken up with guilt over his role that he never completed another book. That seems too simplistic to me. Still, technically it's a well done movie, it's thoughtful and it makes me want to read Capote's book, so it does it's job. King Kong This is excessive in a way only a director who truly loves the original could make it. Some of the special effects, particularly the dinosaur stampede, are dodgy. And I'll join those who say that the first hour could be trimmed. It's not that it's bad, it's that there's no payoff to the character building moments. I think it's particularly silly to try to draw parallels between Heart of Darkness and the journey in this film. King Kong is merely an adventure story. But for all that's wrong with the film, I was vastly entertained once they got to the island. Peter Jackson indulges his horror film roots to good effect, the attack by the island natives and the bug pit sequences are particularly effective in that matter. Kong's battles are spectacular, particularly the T-Rex sequence. The relationship between Kong and Naomi Watts works. Kong is very expressive and is quite the achievement in special effects. Jack Black and his assistant have a sort of Orson Welles / John Houseman relationship going and performances to match. And there's enough fleshing out of ideas and added ideas to make the remake worthwhile. If the movie was edited tighter and they had spent a bit more time perfecting the special effects, maybe you could argue whether this truly is better than the original. That said, it's a flawed but entertaining film in its own right and well worth renting. March of the Penguins I disagree with the central premise that this is a story about love. And I think the movie is guilty of anthropomorphising the penguins to a ridiculous degree. We've had debates about the truthfulness of documentaries before and this film appears to be a non-political example of how a documentary can distort the truth. That said, the footage that has been acquired is spectacular. The achievement of that should not be overlooked. And I could listen to Morgan Freeman read the phonebook. I really have no complaints about the entertainment qualities of the film. Broken Flowers Jim Jarmusch films are generally hybrid road movies and indirect to their subject matter. If you want a movie with things like clarity and firm resolution, look elsewhere. Broken Flowers is a character study in the guise of a road movie/mystery/comedy. Bill Murray, at his most deadpan, plays an aging bachelor who's young girlfriend has just left him. He goes into a funk and is only spurred out of it by an anonymous letter stating that he has a son from an old relationship who is looking for him. Spurred on by his neighbor, a mystery buff who sets him up with an intinerary and mapquest directions, he sets out cross-country to visit his old girlfriends in a series of uncomfortable encounters.There's a notable cast of ex-girlfriends, Sharon Stone, Frances Conroy, Jessica Lange, and Tilda Swinton, who turn in good performances. This is an open ended movie and the changes in Bill Murray's character are open to debate, although I have my conclusions. Certainly this is more of an art movie than an out and out comedy and expectations should be tuned for that. In Her Shoes Chick flick alert. That said, you can do a lot worse than a chick flick by the director of L.A. Confidential. Curtis Hanson will never be recognized as an elite director because he doesn't appear to have a trademark style. There's really nothing instantly recognizable about his work. That said, he's good with actors, dialogue and characters ring true, and he has solid storytelling instincts. In this movie he gets an actual good performance out of Cameron Diaz, he uses Toni Collette (an underrated actress) to do the heavy lifting, and he knows how to use Shirley Maclaine to good effect. He also manages the sometimes difficult feat of not letting the supporting characters morph into caricatures. Now, there's certainly some manipulative and cliched material in this story. It's most certainly not surprising. Still, it's a good film overall and one I certainly can recommend as a compromise on those nights when one has to compromise with your partner. Match Point This is basically a remake of ideas from Crimes and Misdemeanors. Still, getting out of New York really seems to have sparked something in Woody Allen as this is his most serious and focussed movie in years. It's a thriller without the bells and whistles attached. Failed touring tennis pro strikes up a friendship with a wealthy student and then is introduced to the rich sister, Chloe, who falls for him. Things are going well until he falls for his friend's girlfriend, a struggling American actress, Nola, played by Scarlett Johannsen. Soon things progress to a marriage to Chloe and an affair with Nola with everything headed towards disaster and a contemplation of murder to get out of it. Woody Allen wisely has chosen not to act in this movie and I think the dialogue, without Allen's character tics, is the better off for it. It comes off as natural and yet still distinctly Allen's. Allen particularly does good work with subtlely working class conflict into the story with the pair of outsiders bonding due to an overbearing mother-in-law, the privileged children, and a well meaning but patronizing father-in-law. The fact that noone is a complete caricature and are mostly unconscious of their emotional transgressions, except for the main character, marks this as a more thoughtful movie than the typical thriller. As are the themes of "it's better to be lucky than good" visually demonstrated by the symbolism of a ball, and a later variation, bouncing straight up off a tennis net, and that the conscience is the ultimate punisher. It's no coincidence that the tennis player is shown reading Dostoevsky, who's most famous novel is Crime and Punishment. Not a classic, but a superior Woody Allen film. Again, though, for people interested in a more serious minded, lower key film. Robert

Kansas City has nothing worth acquiring that's on the block. Tampa Bay is a lot more interesting. Orvella seems like an interesting idea to fill in the bullpen. Seattle, Florida, Washington and Pittsburgh are other candidates at the moment. Still, I wouldn't expect anything before the deadline. Robert

You have got to be freakin' kidding me. Matheny? So much for an easy victory. Robert

That's pretty much the best Brewer lineup possible, isn't it? Robert

As I recall, Randa had put up huge numbers against Doug Davis which may be part of the reason for the order Tracy put out. I'd like to see the sample size on those "huge" numbers. Especially since at the end of the day, it's ultimately just an old Joe Randa that's hitting. Robert

I'll be curious to see if the Pirates are sensible and start Craig Wilson vs. a lefty or if Tracy is stubborn and keeps Burnitz in the lineup. Joe Randa as a #5 hitter certainly was an unexpected present from the Pirates yesterday. Bay might be the only hitter in yesterday's lineup who's an above average hitter against lefties. Robert

New stuff. The Aristocrats A documentary by Penn and Teller in which a bunch of comics sit around and tell various versions of a filthy joke, each giving it their own unique spin. It does do a good job of pointing out that how a joke is told is often more important than the joke itself. Not all of the versions worked for me and definitely not for the prudish. The Great Dictator Charlie Chaplin takes on Hitler. With great success. Really, this movie is a showcase for just how talented Chaplin was, even when he wanted to be both funny and serious at the same time. A justified classic. Paulette Goddard and the other supporting cast members don't add much, Goddard is little more than a pretty face, but Chaplin is sublime. Downfall I watched it right after The Great Dictator, primarily since I've decided to finish off IMDB's top 100. I'm at 99 out of 100 now. This is very much the tonal opposite of Chaplin showing the final days of Hitler's government in the Berlin bunker in great detail and bleakness. Well acted, it's somewhat disturbing to find yourself feeling some sense of pity for people who are renowned, and even take pride within the movie, of their lack of pity. Murderball Great documentary. Especially as it establishes that these quadroplegics are regular people with all of the flaws that entails. Funny, exciting, and moving. This is the type of film ESPN should be doing instead of the junk that they've been making. Leave it to MTV Films to distribute a better sports movie than ESPN. Good Night, and Good Luck I'm up to 4 out of 5 Best Picture nominees now. I've no major gripes with this movie. It showcases Murrow vs. McCarthy in good detail, it's well acted and doesn't turn the characters into saints, it points out some of the hypocrisies of network news, and it also points out what network news has lost. It's no coincidence that Clooney shows Murrow engaging in vapid celebrity interviews for ratings and chafing at it. That said, McCarthy is an easy target and Clooney does neglect that tv news was behind newspapers in that respect. It probably would have been a better movie, although a less dramatic one, focussing more on the evolution of tv news and less on the Murrow/McCarthy conflict. Eyes Without a Face A 1960(?) French horror film that my brother-in-law brought over partly as a result of the storyline being similar to recent news about face transplants in France. A doctor kidnaps and steals the faces of young women in order to replace the ruined face of his daughter, whom the doctor is responsible for injuring in a car accident. There's really not much more to the plot than that, right up to the final end, but the film works on almost a dreamlike level. The film plays to me like a cross between Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast and the Hammer films of the 50s. There's an extended, and squirm enducing, surgery scene of the doctor removing a face, mostly on camera. And there are a lot of moody shots of the daughter wandering around the villa in a mask. But, like I said, not much in the way of plot and some may find it slow moving. Robert

Given Capuano's pick off move, I suspect he's always going to have a LOB% above what is to be expected. It will probably come down some, but that's definitely an X-factor in his favor. Robert

Time to bump this up again. THINGS CHANGE One of David Mamet's rare forays into comedy. In the classic sense as well. This movie is essentially a relationship movie between Joe Mantegna and Don Ameche about perceptions instead of reality, but it's fun, it makes sense, and it holds up well over time. And, of course, it has Mamet's trademark dialogue, which is always worth the price of admission. It's also fun to play "spot the future stars" game with older films. Including Bill Macy and Felicity Huffman in small, cameo roles. CINDERELLA MAN Ron Howard seems to have settled into a niche of making inspirational movies based on real people. And I don't have a problem with that. Not everyone should try to be Scorsese. In many ways, I think Cinderella Man is a superior film to A Beautiful Mind where I think Howard missed the point and turned it into a "love conquers all" story. Russell Crowe gives his usual strong performance and looks believable as a boxer. The boxing scenes, which are surprisingly extensive, are well staged. Paul Giamatti is, of course, a strength. And the film does a good job of establishing time and place. There are a couple of faults to the film. Renee Zellwegger doesn't rise above the "long suffering wife" cliche'. And Max Baer is more a caricature than a real person. Still, it's a good movie that's well worth a rental. THE 40-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN It's a rare sex comedy that isn't mean spirited and/or dumb. The 40-Year-Old Virgin isn't exactly high brow, but it's certainly a smarter, more good natured movie than expected. What really sets it apart is attention paid to dialogue, character, and detail. The fact that it managed to get its "collectable" details right is evidence of care that was taken in crafting the movie. There are also no real villains in the film as the film takes care to paint even the more minor characters as people instead of caricatures. Really, this movie was more deserving of an Original Screenplay Oscar than Crash. The ensemble cast does good work across the board. Steve Carrell is obviously the high point, but there are no weak links. Well deserving of its success. WEDDING CRASHERS In many ways, this is the opposite of The 40-Year-Old Virgin. It's crass and characterization is almost non-existent above the most basic level. Still, it's pretty funny for the first two thirds until it runs out of gas for the mandatory "love on the rocks" segment before the happy ending. If you like Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, this is a fine showcase for them, particularly Vaughn, as the premise plays to their strengths as performers and gives them plenty to do. Unfortunately, the people they have to play off aren't nearly as interesting, including a criminally underused Christopher Walken. CRASH It won Best Picture last night. I have mixed feelings about the movie, although I will say that I think the acting ensemble is very good and carries it over some very rough patches. And themes of examining race conflict are still resonant. Too bad it's about as subtle as a brick and I don't think the plot ever really ties together. I also didn't find much of interest in the craftmanship of the movie, although the editing was obviously important. Some of the vignettes work, the underlying theme is at least of interest, and the acting is good throughout, so I'd recommend it, although I think there are plenty of better movies from 2005. Let me also give a shoutout to the recent adaptation of Bleak House that was on PBS recently. It's not perfect, but it's a pretty solid adaptation of Dickens's classic novel, well acted, and well shot. Some of the minor characters aren't done justice and the transitions are sometimes annoyingly shot, but the changes to the novel are certainly understandable and it's hard to imagine a much better adaptation. Robert

Thinking about it some more, I'd like to see this comparison of data. Score within 3 runs. #2 hitter, 1 out, #1 hitter on first base vs. #2 hitter, 1 out, pitcher on first base You'll probably need several years worth of data to come to any conclusions, but I tend to think that the study presented is more complicated than it needs to be. Robert

I think that's exactly right. Or certainly, it makes it impossible to calculate with the degree of precision necessary to say that it's worth "point something" a game. The fact that "disruption" isn't worth 20 or 30 runs a year should be obvious just by looking at simple run creation formulas vs. the actual runs scored. You don't need a complicated study to prove that. The mistake isn't necessarily the conclusion, but it's trying to quantify it to 1% accuracy given all the other variables that play a part. Robert

I looked over the study and, as I suspected, the standard deviation is such that it's impossible to say with any precision what the effect of "disruption" is. The author suggests that the effect for an elite basestealer is 5 or less runs per year simply due to disruption. I'm willing to buy that, but I'd argue that 5 runs is not insignificant. Half a win or a win caused by the mere presence of a "disruptor" on first base has value. The value of a win is something like $2 million on the FA market. So, Furcal may not have been quite as overpaid as we initially suspected. Robert