RobertR

I'm going to review the study myself before I have too many comments, but a few thoughts. 1. Can a pitcher make it to the big leagues if he falls apart mentally whenever a basestealer gets on base? I think the obvious answer to that is no. Therefore, I'd suggest that we're looking at more subtle forms of effects. That doesn't mean they're not real, but I doubt you'll be able to say "A great basestealer increases offense by 50%." To me, a 5% increase is significant. If the Brewers could improve their offense by 5%, they're definite wild card contenders. Considering the fact that there really aren't that many players that are true basestealing threats, probably 1 or 2 per team, I think you can see why you're not going to see clearcut answers. 2. Defensive positioning and throwing from the stretch obviously has some impact. You have to be real slow for the defense not to try to hold the runner on. Even catchers get held on in the NL when there's a threat that the pitcher will bunt him over. You can argue over what the impact is, but it does exist and benefits a lot of hitters regardless of the speed of the runner on first. 3. Hitters are human beings too. Some hitters probably consider the runner at first a distraction. Hitters will sometimes swing at a pitch that isn't good to hit in an effort to protect the baserunner. I think it's just as much a mistake to say that "all hitters love to bat with a basestealing threat on first" as it is to say "all pitchers get rattled with a basestealing threat on first". 4. I hope that the study is adjusted for which hand a pitcher throws with. Whatever the size of the effect is, I can't imagine it being equal for lefties and righties. 5. If you're going to single out exceptional basestealers, shouldn't you also try to account for pitchers with exceptional, average, or subpar moves to first? 6. Pitchers are human beings and they don't all react the same way. Some actually have been accused of bearing down and concentrating more with a man on first. 7. The catcher matters too. How do you account for Henry Blanco vs. Mike Piazza behind the plate in the study? 8. Game situation matters. Remember Davey Lopes getting into a hissy fit over Rickey Henderson stealing a base when the Padres were up by like 5 after 7 innings? If the game isn't particularly close and one run is not that significant, then any mental effect of speed should be minimized. 9. The hitter matters. I doubt Juan Pierre will make Neifi Perez any better of a hitter. Nor do I imagine Ichiro would make Pujols or Bonds any better than they already are. I can't imagine that you can take all those variables into account and come up with a really significant sample size. The standard deviation of a study like this one, that can't possibly account for all the variables, probably engulfs the size of the effect. I'll go read the study, but although I tend to agree with the basic assumption "The effect is probably small among players that are the best in the world physically and mentally" I'm skeptical that this study actually proves it. Robert

Been a long time. Open Water An effective low budget horror movie. A couple with a troubled marriage go on vacation and get accidentally left behind in the middle of the ocean after a scuba diving trip. Then the sharks come out. I don't think the characters are interesting enough for the movie to be considered any more than good. And the ending is a bit too intellectually pat for me. That said, it's a good premise and the fact that they get real sharks close in with the actors gives it a reality that's hard to argue with. Millions A terrific if overlooked film from this year. A warm Christmas story by Danny Boyle, the director of Trainspotting and 28 Days later. Really. Two young boys, whose mother has died recently, find a bag full of stolen pounds right before Christmas. With the complications being that Britain is about to turn over to the Euro on New Years and the criminals are looking for it. The older boy just wants to spend it and the younger boy, who sees saints, btw, wants to give it away to the needy and finds it harder to do than he thought. This is a movie that's smart and heartfelt and that features terrific performances, particularly from the two kids. Danny Boyle is one of the more interesting directors working and this is a movie that really shows the range he's capable of. Boudu Saved From Drowning To truly appreciate this film you have to take into account the time period and understand the word "bourgeois". A middle class bookstore owner saves a bum from drowning in the river and takes him in. The bum then upsets his life including his affair with the downstairs made. The premise of the movie has allowed it to be remade as Down and Out in Beverly Hills and as an episode of The Flintstones, iirc. That said, it's primarily a comedy of manners and customs and as customs change over time the original movie has become dated. It's easy to appreciate the movie for it's time, but the Marx Brothers were basically doing the same thing in America with Duck Soup and A Night at the Opera and the still hold up great. Still, that's not to say that it isn't still funny, only that it's dated, unlike Jean Renoir's other movies of the period The Grand Illusion and Rules of the Game. BTW, there's a nice little feature on the DVD that goes over the geography of the area and why it's important to understand for the satire of the movie to really work. Batman Begins I saw it in the theater at a preview screening and saw it again recently. I like the fact that the film had its own sense of identity as far as structure, focus and aesthetic. I've said before that I'm a fan of Burton's movies, which to me evoke the earliest Kane/Finger "weird creature of the night" stories, along with Englehart/Rogers, Miller's The Dark Knight Returns, and, aesthetically, The Killing Joke. Nolan's Batman, otoh, evokes O'Neil/Adams, Loeb and Sale's The Long Halloween, and Miller and Mazzuchelli's Batman: Year One. I find a lot of merit in both approaches. That said, I found the latest movie to be slightly underwritten, Cillian Murphy does wonders with the Scarecrow who's lacking in purpose other than to be a villain, and the third act falls heavily into action formula. And I think the action climax contradicts the themes it was trying to get across. That and I think you can get quite a drinking game out of variations of the words "fear", "terror", "justice" and "corruption". That said, the first two acts are terrific and Christian Bale was a terrific choice to be Batman. In fact, with the exception of Katie Holmes, it is a superior cast. Spirited Away I see that this is on TCM tonight. I saw it on DVD a few weeks ago, part of my program to get through IMDB's Top 100 list with Downfall, American History X, Crash, and The Great Dictator to go. This is a fantasy movie and a coming of age story focusing on a teenage girl Chihiro who is moving with her parents from the city to the country. And she's a bit of a spoiled brat. But they wander off the right road and right into a fantasy world of spirits. There's more to the plot, but what really makes the movie work is the amazing visuals of the movie. The movie creates it's own world and is every bit as amazing as anything created by Disney or Pixar. The story is also find if a little bit formula. It might help my appreciation if I was more familiar with Japanese folklore as well. Still, not much to complain about, although I dislike the english dubbing of the main character. A lot of lines came across as whiney and shouted to me. Good movie, but way overrated as a Top 100 film. House of Flying Daggers We probably only get the best of the best of these wire aided martial arts epics and this is another good one. Gorgeous to look at with a love story that mostly works. That said, the ending doesn't work at all with story logic being sacrified in favor of visuals. An apparently dead character gets covered with about 8 inches of snow and then gets up again when it's convenient to the plot. They simply had no way to resolve the ending satisfactorly, imo. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is still the best of this wave of movies. And I'd place Kung Fu Hustle above it too. I did like it better than Hero since I think there was an emotional core to the film and I didn't have to deal with nationalistic messages but more universal love vs. duty messages. Jeeves and Wooster - Season 1 Got this for Christmas. I've seen a few episodes and my wife hadn't even heard of it. So we popped it in and have been watching them regularly. Hugh Laurie is quite a ways away from House in this serious portraying Bertie Wooster, an upper class total twit, to very amusing results. And Stephen Fry is Jeeves is his unflappable and always correct valet Jeeves (and the source for title of AskJeeves.com). Based on P.G. Wodehouse's stories, these are witty short stories brought to life where the foolishness of the upper class in the early 20th century is brought to life. Fantastic Four Thoroughly mediocre, if that. Michael Chicklis was good as The Thing and the Human Torch was frequently fun, although one note, but there's not much else there for character or acting. Not much to the plot either. And the special effects weren't that special. Still, there were some nice character moments, mostly involving Chicklis, it wasn't too long, and it didn't take itself too seriously. O.k. time waster, but you can do much better. Robert

I've generally seen a ratio of 1.2 to 1.3 like the article concludes. One problem with the article though, Depodestra never claimed that OBP is 3 times as valuable as SLG. Depodestra claimed that the marginal value of OBP is worth 3 times as much as the marginal value of SLG. Basically Depodestra was saying that if you have a baseline level player of .330 OBP and .400 SLG that a .340 OBP/.400 SLG player would be worth as much as a .330 OBP/.430 SLG player. Now, I'd like to see that hypothesis tested myself. But the article in question doesn't do it. I believe that it's likely true since OBP and SLG tend to be on different scales, there are more .500 sluggers than .400 OBP players, but that article was testing something else. And that's partly Michael Lewis's fault for not explaining it properly. Robert

I think my biggest stumbling block to Pete Rose in the Hall is the self-serving speech he'd give if elected. Imagining that speech makes me ill. Still, I've been to the Hall of Fame. Pete Rose is acknowledged there. No one pretends he didn't exist. They just haven't chosen to give him a special honor. Robert

Perhaps Shoeless Joe did actually play to win. Perhaps not. It's impossible to know what was in his mind. Especially in the age before polygraphs. That said, it's possible that if Shoeless Joe said, "I'm not going to take a dime of your money and me and Buck Weaver are going to do everything in our power to win", the whole conspiracy may have fallen apart. Certainly, Shoeless Joe was complicit in the plot forming in the first place and accepted money as a result. He certainly wasn't an innocent bystander who didn't profit. But, this is another topic, isn't it? Robert

A couple of thoughts. It's still amazing that a Pete Rose thread, for which both sides are basically arguing over a plaque on the wall, can generate so much attention after so long a time. There's a copy of Shoeless Joe's Grand Jury Testimony at www.blackbetsy.com/jjtestimony1920.pdf . I'll call attention to Page 4 where Shoeless Joe admits accepting $5,000 as part of the fix. I understand the concept that wife beating, drunkeness, cheating, etc. are worse societal sins, but the Black Sox scandal almost killed baseball in 1920. That's precisely why baseball took draconian measures so something like that wouldn't happen again. You can add up all of the other scandals, and none of them had much effect on the game. (FWIW, I'm also willing to accept that what Pete Rose did was nowhere on the same level as the Black Sox. The fact that Rose could apply for reinstatement after a year indicates to me that MLB thought so too. The fact that Rose has bungled his chances for reinstatement is Pete's problem, not MLB's.) I dispute that Pete Rose really loves baseball. He loves the competitive aspect of the game and the fame and wealth attached to MLB baseball, but Pete Rose has never shown a shred of interest in any part of baseball outside of MLB baseball. If he wants to contribute to the game of baseball there is little league baseball, high school baseball, college baseball, independent league baseball, and all sorts of academies and videos. And he's not banned from any of them. To me, his lack of action in these areas makes his claims about having a lot to contribute to the game hollow. Robert

Pete Rose isn't in the Hall of Fame for only one reason: Pete Rose. He's blamed everyone but himself for that fact, including Giamatti, Vincent, Dowd and Selig. And he's not done a thing to demonstrate he's remorseful or changed and instead used his confession as a ploy for attention and money. There are plenty of ways that Pete Rose could be an asset to the game of baseball that don't involve MLB, college coaching for instance, and he's consistently not been interested. Rose is a proven liar and his actions haven't changed a bit over the years. It's not like Pete Rose's achievements aren't honored in the Hall of Fame. You visit Cooperstown and you'll see several displays regarding Pete Rose. All you won't see is his plaque on a wall. In essence, the Hall of Fame honors Rose's achievements, but not his character already. Shoeless Joe and the character of others is a side issue. Pete Rose broke a rule with clearly spelled out consequences and now he's paying the price. Now I understand that the Hall of Fame changed their rules after Rose was ruled ineligible, but his beef should be with the rules committee, not with MLB. BTW, I'm not going to debate the Shoeless Joe issue, but he was eligible to be voted in for many years and writers of the period passed on him. Robert

This is a minor petpeeve of mine as well. Just an obvious suggestion, but dropping the "Trade" from the forum section title seems to be the easiest way to go. Just turn it into a "Rumors and Proposals" section. That way you don't have some smart aleck saying "What about waiver acquisitions?" Robert

I suspect that Hardy's projected ABs are down due to his missed 2004 season. BTW, 2005 projections can be found at www.baseballthinkfactory....PSPlus.xls Robert

I'd certainly be happy with that projection for Prince Fielder as a rookie. Toss in 100 more ABs, and we could be looking at 30 HRs in 2006 from first base. Robert

Roco, You may be surprised a bit as the Bruce Willis bit in Sin City is revisitied. Adds quite a bit to the story. Robert

Dersu Uzala This was Akira Kurosawa's comeback film in the 70s paving the way for Kagemusha and Ran. Filmed in the Siberian wilderness, it's a marvelous looking film, not that you would expect anything less from Kurosawa. The movie tells the story of an officer leading a surveying expedition in Siberia and the elderly hunter he forms a friendship with as they brave the elements. There's a sequence where the officer and hunter are caught alone and isolated from camp with a winter storm and night rapidly moving in that might have been the basis for a similar scene in The Empire Strikes Back. Turning Kurosawa loose with the raw elements is just unfair to average filmmakers as he knew how to capture the power of nature on film (even when he created it artificially) like few others. This is definitely a good film, although certainly Kurosawa had done better and isn't in the class of his classics. Hitch The cinematic equivalent of a quarter pounder. You pretty much get what you expect and it's competently delivered. Eva Mendes does look fine though. Kung Fu Hustle This was pretty much a complete success at what it was trying to accomplish, a wacky, cartoonish, funny wire-fu movie with elements of silent film and road runner cartoons mixed in. I've often thought that modern kung fu movies are the modern equivalent of the musical and the placement of a movie poster for an Astaire/Rogers movie ("Top Hat" iirc) prominently in the background kind of confirms that the director feels the same way. This basically is a movie where you don't really worry about things like "plot" and "dialogue" and just come to enjoy the characters and spectacle. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Mostly harmless. O.k., I'll say a little more. I read the first book about 20 years ago and found it clever and fun if almost completely plotless. The movie version tries to graft on a plot and character arcs to intermittent success. The opening number with singing dolphins is probably the most successful moment of the film as it just kind of meanders the rest of the way. It's like the book in that respect, but the book fired off jokes at a more rapid pace. The movie is competent, but it just doesn't have the energy level that I think it needs to really work. Batman and Batman Returns (commentaries and selected extras) I enjoy both of these movies and picked up the new special editions. I know some people don't care for Batman Returns but it is my favorite of the modern Batman movies. What can I say, I'm a sucker for Expressionism. Still, I don't wish to talk about the movies, I figure just about everyone has their opinion on them already, but the extras. The Batman disc is pretty much how you should do a special edition. I'd like some deleted scenes (beyond some glimpses in the documentaries), the original teaser trailer (beyond some glimpses) and a new interview with Keaton. Other than that, it's packed with features, the documentaries are well done, and there are some unexpected surprises including a storyboard sequence voiced by Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill. Overall, it's a very well done package. And I liked Tim Burton's commentaries for both films. They're not repetitive and they are informative, even if they are mostly on a conceptual level. You definitely will understand why they made the choices they did after listening to the commentaries. Tim Burton still stammers and loses his thoughts every now and then, but he also passes along a lot of information and sounds pretty candid. The Night Stalker and The Night Strangler Halloween night pickups. The best thing about these two made for tv movies is still Darren McGavin. The conventions of tv and time have probably taken most of the sting out of what may have been scary at the time, but the premises of both stories are still strong. Investigative reporter discovers that recent string of murders may be from a real life vampire / strangler repeating his crimes every 21 years. The Night Strangler might be the better of the two, even though the plot beats are definitely repetitive, using the Seattle underground as atmosphere helps it a lot. OTOH, The Night Strangler has more of a sense of humor, the first thing the vampire does when he returns to his lair is go to the refrigerator where he has bottles of blood stored, and it was the first to use the premise. Night of the Living Dead The original from an el cheapo dvd. Frankly, I think the black and white and graininess is part of the charm. It lends it an authenticity that a slicker production wouldn't have allowed. I don't know if I have anything to add but to say that it is a classic for a reason. The premise is strong, the makeup is good, the acting is adequate and the ending works. I don't know if there's a coherent social commentary in the film or not, but I like the part where they sit around watching tv and use what they hear on tv as justification for their plans, whether they make sense or not. A Very Long Engagement From the director and star of Amelie. The story follows a young woman who tries to determine what happened to her fiance during WWI and is he alive or dead. You have elements of a light romantic drama, a mystery, and a war movie all wrapped up in one good looking, sepia tinted package. There's nothing wrong with a romantic movie that features an exploding zeppelin if you have to compromise with the significant other. If you liked Amelie, you should like this movie as well. It's good looking and has a sense of humor. My one complaint is that it's very derivative of Amelie in some of its storytelling devices and asides and there aren't that many new wrinkles. The best one, is the inconclusive nature of the omens that the protaganist tries to create for herself. Robert

I like using BA/OBP/SLG along with OPS myself. OBP, SLG and OPS gives you plenty of quantitative detail about a player and in the macro view that is most important. But adding BA gives you qualitative information about what type of hitter a player is. I think we'd all agree there's quite a bit of difference between a .250/.350/.400 hitter and a .333/.350/.400 hitter. They might have similar overall value, but you'd ideally use them differently tactically. I will say that I find AB*OBP*SLG very useful when doing calculations by myself. It is a "back of the envelope" type thing and imperfect as it does underestimate the value of guys who can steal bases at a high success rate. And, I'd point out that BA is present as a component of OBP and SLG and also implicitly affects ABs. A player or team with a higher BA and the same OBP will have more ABs than a team that relies on the walk more. Robert

I fully agree with the Overbay was average, although he certainly gets credit for playing time and staying healthy. Roto-wise, you would have done a lot better getting him instead of Thome. As for Lee, I agree that he was fairly average, OPS-wise, but he played a lot and fit exactly what the Brewers wanted out of the position, hence the RBIs. Certainly he was the best option to hit cleanup on the Brewers. He's certainly not irreplaceable at his salary, but it was predictable that he'd produce at least as well as he did. There was very little risk involved with Lee, which is certainly worth something. Did the Brewers overspend a bit on Lee? Probably, but they certainly made it up elsewhere and I've seen studies suggesting that only Cleveland was more efficient at spending money. As for the Roto-analysis, OPS is a odd choice to be using for analysis. I would think a calculated value and then choosing the median would be much more useful to determine who was average for that purpose. Robert

I was surprised that Maddux was pulled too, but I figured Dusty was saving him for a chance to go for win #15 on short rest. That's the only logical explanation I can think of, anyways, although applying logic to a Baker decision is always a dicey proposition. Prior and Wood could have used that kind of consideration in previous years. Robert

I'd vote Santo in, although I don't feel that strongly about it. My reasoning basically falls along these lines. Third basemen are underrepresented in the Hall, I believe they have the fewest representatives. Santo is clearly the most qualified of the eligible third base candidates. Ergo: Santo deserves to be in the Hall. That same reasoning is why I'm reluctant to vote for first basemen and corner outfielders unless I think they did something special or unique. Robert

There's an argument to be made that Tim Raines, in his prime, may have been the greatest leadoff hitter in NL history. Unfortunately, people didn't really notice his best years because he played in Montreal and Rickey Henderson was establishing his case as the greatest leadoff man of all time. Robert

It's been awhile, for various reasons, since I posted here so some catching up is in order. Sin City Or perhaps, Frank Miller's Sin City is the more accurate title. This is the most faithful and literal adaptation of a comic book to date, and I think it's mostly successful. I had read all of the stories adapted long before the movie and was a big fan of Frank Miller's over the top, hyper stylized storytelling featuring more black ink than you can imagine, even if the stories were fun but derivative of Mickey Spillane. The strongest part of Sin City has always been Frank Miller's images and I think that's where the movie is most successful also. It's an amazing looking movie, primarily black and white with splashes of color, with shots taken directly from Frank Miller's pages. However, the literalness of the adaptation sometimes holds the movie back from really soaring. Comic books and movies are different mediums and what works on the page doesn't necessarily work on the screen. The acting is also inconsistent, Mickey Rourke's segment, being the best in terms of acting, while The Big Fat Kill is wildly inconsistent among the largest cast of characters. Also some of Robert Rodriguez's choices bothered me, particularly in the portrayal of violence. Sin City has always been over the top in terms of violence and the amount of punishment the protagonist can take, but things like Mickey Rourke doing backflips after being hit by a car struck me as being in videogame land. Still, when it's good it's very good and when it's bad, it's still interesting to look at. And Carla Gugino and Jaimie King are a real treat for the eyes. The extras are a real disappointment though and if you want to buy it, it's probably worth waiting for the deluxe edition that's promised around Christmas. The Terminal While not being outright bad, this is probably the most disappointing film I've seen in a while. It's obvious that Spielberg wanted to tell an immigrant's tale and found a potentially intriguing premise, but never got much beyond the premise and landing Tom Hanks. Creating a fictional country is the first key mistake of the film as it raises more questions than it answers. Followed by the silly notion that a translator wouldn't be brought in as soon as possible, instead we have "comic" scenes of people trying to communicate with Hanks' character for no real purpose. Toss in a villain who behaves badly for no real reason, a strained "America as mall" metaphor, and Catherine Zeta Jones being given one of the most ill conceived characters I've seen in a long time and the movie just doesn't hold up to any critical eye. That said, there are parts that work. Hanks does a good job. The film is well shot. Hanks' character playing Cupid works better than you would expect. And the revelation of why Hanks came to America is reasonably effective. They don't save the film, but they make it watchable and not a complete burn. The Hound of the Baskervilles BBC production from about 1984 starring Jeremy Brett as Sherlock Holmes and Edward Hardwicke as Dr. Watson. Brett's Holmes stories were noted for their faithfulness and this is no exception. Hound... is the best longer Holmes' story and this adaptation captures the strength of the novel and particularly the atmospheric setting of the Moors. The only faults I'd give this adaptation is that a little too much attention is given to goings on at the post office, which robs the story of one of it's chief surprises, and the hound itself is a bit underwhelming. The Last Vampyre Another BBC Holmes adaptation starring Brett and Hardwicke, this one is circa 1994. Holmes investigates the goings on of an apparent vampire in Sussex with the production playing up atmosphere and a suggestion of the supernatural. The solution is a little obvious and the acting by the supporting characters a bit underwhelming, but it's effective enough if not anywhere near the best this group has produced. Jeremy Brett is obviously ill during this production which derives the character of his trademark nervous energy and kind of casts a pall over the proceedings. Madadayo Akira Kurosawa's last film. Translated the title means "Not Yet". This movie tells the story of a revered professor and his retirement years starting during WWII. The professor is bombed out of his home, takes up residence in a shack, has a new home built for him after the war, becomes heartbroken over the loss of a cat, and eventually recovers to live out a full life with the help of his former students. And every year a birthday party is held to honor the professor in which he is asked the question "Not yet?" and answers Madadayo (Not Yet!). It walks a borderline between comic and sentimental and certainly is one of Kurosawa's lesser movies. That's not to say that it isn't without interest, only that it's primarily of interest to fans of Kurosawa and certainly isn't a movie I'd recommend to a first time viewer of Kurosawa. Sanshiro Sugata From omega to alpha, Kurosawa's first film. Also known as Judo Saga. The movie tells the story of the title character involved in a rivalry between the established teaching of jujitsu and the new offshoot judo and how he grows and learns respect for life and others. Not an amazingly original story but one that still holds up pretty well. While no classic, the film does contain hints of the director that was to come. It opens on an effective tracking shot, has a nicely shot martial arts showdown in Act 1 on the edge of the water, and ends with a duel on a blustery mountain top which seems to be a precursor to nature let loose at the climax of The Seven Samurai. And, for a film shot in 1943 during the height of WWII, it's remarkably free of propaganda and basically just tells the historical story that it aimed for. Robert

It's been awhile. Hotel Rwanda Yes, it basically plays like an African Schindler's List. That's not a bad thing. Don Cheadle is excellent in the movie and the incidents depicted in the movie are horrifying and have the ring of truth. Nick Nolte's performance didn't work for me at all though and was one of the hindrances to the movie. There is obviously some political commentary in the film with some mixed results. There are a couple of speeches and lines that don't work as anything but political commentary, even if they are accurate. The UN peacekeepers were ineffective. The "west" did ignore modern day genocide, although France and Belgium come off much worse than the US, IMO. Those points are accurate, although a defter touch would have worked better. Still, overall a very good, if somewhat heavyhanded film. Before Sunrise This is a movie I've been intending to see for awhile. While it's not the greatest movie that I've ever seen, it very neatly achieves all of the goals it sets for itself. It's basically a film of conversations, but the conversations are interesting, they're filmed in Vienna which anyone who has seen The Third Man will tell you is a great setting, the takes are long and relaxed, and Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy have great chemistry together. It's an out and out romantic movie that you won't be embarrassed to see. Before Sunset The sequel to Before Sunrise finding the characters meeting again, this time in Paris. Things, other than the romantic spark between the two characters, have changed for the characters as they've had successes and disappointments and that adds a level of complexity that the younger characters didn't have. IMO, while it probably isn't as "perfect" as the original film, it's overall a better film. Again you have the long takes and conversations set against great looking backdrops, but there's a sense of urgency and drama to the conversations, and of things unspoken, that is missing from the first movie. It all leads up to the last two lines of dialogue, which is a perfect capper to the film. More movies should have great ending lines. These are Richard Linklater's two best films. And time has only made Julie Delpy more attractive. Constantine Flying my geek flag, I was reading Swamp Thing when John Constantine made his debut about 20 years ago. And I read about the first 100 issues of John Constantine, Hellblazer, so I'm very familiar with the character. The movie, frankly, is a terrible adaptation. Changing Constantine from a blonde Englishman to a dark haired American is the least of the changes. Other than a couple of plot points, the lung cancer plotline comes directly from "Dangerous Habits", and visual touches, if you changed the names of the characters you wouldn't be able to recognize the source material. That said, aside from the question of faithfulness, is it a good movie? I think, taken on its own merits, that it's average. It's definitely a good looking movie and the cast, even Keanu Reeves, are all acceptable or better, although the supporting actors are better and more interesting than the two leads. Tilda Swinton in particular is an inspired casting choice. And, although it's directed by a music video director, it's edited in a very straightforward and well thought out manner. The problem is that the story just isn't very interesting and stripping Constantine of just about everything that makes him difficult and interesting turns the character arc into a cookie cutter redemption story. Interestingly, to me, is that I don't think I've seen a big budget movie this much into Catholic dogma and symbolism in quite a while. That's probably the most unique thing about the production. Robert

What was ulterior about their motives? I fully agree that County Stadium was treated disgracefully in the last few years. I understand that pouring in lots of money would have been a waste, but keeping it clean and maintained, especially the scoreboard, is the least that taxpayers and paying customers should have expected. I've seen comic book shops that were cleaner. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif That said, it probably cost the Seligs more by keeping people away from the ballpark than it would have cost to maintain it, but that was typical of management at the time, penny wise and pound foolish. Robert

Thanks for the compliment. I enjoy writing these little reviews. Too bad we lost practically the whole thread. Robert

Bumping this up. Ocean's Twelve This is a mess. I think that's part of the point and I'm sure they had a lot of fun filming it, but considering I didn't get to spend the Summer partying in Europe while shooting a movie, I expect something a little more. Like a plot that makes sense. It's well shot, the settings are interesting, and there are some fun bits, but it doesn't add up to anything. The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou If you liked Rushmore and The Royal Tennebaums, you should get something out of this. If you didn't you definitely won't like this one. The Life Aquatic is even more introverted than those two films and without some of the spark. OTOH, it's also more idiosyncratic sometimes playing like Buckaroo Banzai going through a mid-life crisis and full of clever little character bits. Willem Defoe, Bud Cort, and Jeff Goldblum all shine in smaller parts and Bill Murray is perhaps at his most deadpan. I also loved the gunfight that they tossed in for the "Rescuing the Bond Company Stooge" portion as being so absurd in its intended amateurishness. Mixed bag, but something I'd recommend, although I'm sure some will hate it. The Age of Innocence O.k., I only watched it on TCM. I'm convinced that it's Scorsese's most underrated film. Well, this or After Hours. Scorsese was obviously partly inspired by Barry Lyndon, but the story brings out a different side of him. One who has purposefully slowed down and concentrated on the setting and acting. I think the shot of Pfeiffer on the wharf with the sailboat and lighthouse is one of my favorites of all time. Of course, it helps that I have a thing for Michelle Pfeiffer and Winona Ryder. National Treasure In many ways this is simply not a good picture. The plot is dopey and filled with holes, the characters are underwritten, and the dialogue is forgettable at best. So, why did I watch the thing with a big smile on my face? Let's go to the premise. Nice guy historian (modern day Indiana Jones) follows clues to historic treasure by visiting handsomely photographed historical landmarks while dodging bad guys. They had me at hello. This simply isn't a good movie. But, it is a likable movie. The action isn't too over the top, it's not edited for those who need Ritalin, the good guys are likable, the bad guys aren't, and it doesn't take itself too seriously. It's been compared to The Da Vinci Code and I'll lay a small wager that National Treasue will end up being a lot more fun than the inevitable movie version. Closer Intellectually this is a good movie. It's well acted by the whole cast, even Julia Roberts is decent although she is the weak link, it's consistent in tone, it has good dialogue, it has some interesting ideas, and it's well photographed. So why didn't I care for it? Probably because it's simply not a film first but a filmed play. Even if I didn't know it going in, you can obviously tell it's based on a play based on how dialogue heavy it is and how it is structured. Put these people on a bare stage and have them interact for 2 hours and you have an intimate struggle. Put them in gorgeous locales that they barely interact with and shoot them from multiple camera angles and the claustrophobic focus is gone. The title is "closer" after all. Robert

One thing I don't understand is why do the Brewers need 3 guys that can play 3B? The Brewers are one of the few teams going with just 4 outfielders, why not call up Hart? It's late enough in the season that the "Super 2" issue shouldn't be a problem. After the All Star break, I think the Brewers need to seriously consider bringing up Hart and finding a utility infielder that can play SS so that they can send down Hardy. I can't imagine Hart getting any less playing time than Hardy given the current situation, so why not see if he can continue hitting at the MLB level?

We'll see if this topic gets straightened out. A few recent DVDs. The commentary track of Sideways. There are three basic types of commentary tracks, the scholarly informative ones of which The Seven Samurai includes an excellent track, the performance ones, see This is Spinal Tap, and the "two guys just shooting the breeze" variety of which Sideways is an excellent example of. Pretty funny stuff, with some information tossed in occassionally, from Paul Giamatti and Thomas Hayden Church. I'm going to have to add "bejugged" to my vocabulary as a result. The Importance of Being Earnest (2002) Decent enough but nowhere near as funny as it should have been focussing too much on the romance elements. Practically all the lines are there, but they're not given space to breathe and feel rushed over. Colin Firth is also totally wrong for his part, IMO. A Jason Alexander type would have been much better. I hear the older one is much better and it's a standby in live theater, so I'd recommend those options before this movie. Meet the Fockers. I don't use this phrase often but "meh" seems to be entirely appropriate. Hoffman and Streisand, who I don't believe I've ever seen so stereotypically Jewish, have some energy and pretty much all of the good parts and at least keep it watchable. The rest is just a tired rehash of the first movie and DeNiro looks bored. F For Fake. Now this movie got me excited. It's a documentary/essay on hoaxes featuring footage about an art forger, El Myr, and the journalist that exposed him and then turned around and created his own hoax with a faked autobiography of Howard Hughes. Orson Welles inserts himself into the story, runs off on some trains of thought, talks about his experience with War of the Worlds, and then, in a deft display of editing and filmmaking, pulls off his own hoax like a skilled magician. Also, despite his promise to "not lie for an hour" he certainly does some, boldly enlisting Joseph Cotten to claim that Citizen Kane was originally going to be based on Howard Hughes and pulling out every sort of editing trick in the book. Peter Bogdanovich's introduction provides some good background to set the context. Also, some nice gratuitous nudity. Team America: World Police It's not anything great, but I laughed. I think it's most successful as a parody of emptyheaded Jerry Bruckheimer action films. They have that formula down to a science. As a political commentary, I think it's mostly a miss, with the "xx location is xx miles from America" probably being the commentary with the most teeth. Michael Moore is fat really isn't much better than a school yard taunt and the jibes at other celebrities aren't a whole lot more sophisticated, even if they deserve it. I did like the songs quite a bit though. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes Produced for British television and shown on PBS and, I believe, still occasionally showing up on A&E. Starring Jeremy Brett as Holmes, these are probably the definitive adaptations of Conan Doyle's stories. Extremely faithful with Brett playing the part with a ton of nervous energy and a sharp tongue. Brett's portrayal is my favorite. Well worth seeing if you have the chance. Robert

I like Teahen, but I think he's likely only to be a Randa type. And, after all, you can always trade players. You can never go wrong with drafting the "best player available" regardless of position. Robert