Wednesday, September 9, 2009

Kobe's Place

Well, I suppose I was right about one detail regarding the NBA finals. The Orlando Magic did indeed determine the winner. As soon as I saw the match up, I believed that ultimately if Orlando shot threes with the effectiveness they did against Boston and Cleveland, they'd win the title in six or seven games. But their shooting cooled off, their stars were outplayed (Hedo Turkoglu is about to become the most overpaid player in professional sports), and they forgot to guard Trevor Ariza and Derek Fisher. This, combined with those infamous missed Dwight Howard free throws cost them at least two wins in this series. But while I'm not thrilled to see the Lakers win #15, I'm not gonna rip them. They played really, really well, as Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom rebounded from poor finals showings in 2008. Gasol got tougher and Odom became a defensive beast. Fisher is now an indisputable fixture on my top 10 list of role players anyone should want on their contending team. I still don't like Phil Jackson very much, although it's pretty much impossible to argue his record at this point. His psychological "coach-by-observing" approach seems to work. His team was always prepared and kept their cool in all situations. He's basically Terry Francona with an unhealthy cloud of arrogance hovering over his head that makes me want to break his glasses with my fist.

And then there's Kobe Bryant, the superstar many claimed was no longer the league's best. Like many, I decided Lebron James had passed him somewhere around the midway point of the 2008 regular season. My opinion appeared confirmed by Cleveland's early round dominance combined with L.A.'s struggle to eliminate the injury-plagued Houston Rockets. As a player, I've been a Kobe fan for a long time and there's still nobody I'd rather watch live. I suppose the best compliment I can give him now is he's renewed my indecisiveness over who's truly the league's best. A 4th title puts him in rare company and he dominated the finals with a remarkably efficient stat line (32 pts, 5 rebs, 7 asts) that was eerily similar to Michael Jordan's playoff numbers. Additional comparison: Kobe's hanging, body distorting, fading bank shot over Howard last night was maybe as defining a play as MJ's hand-switch in the '91 finals. (Kobe's wasn't as aesthetically pleasing, but it was more difficult). All season long I thought Lebron had basically been a 1-man team with an overrated supporting cast, so it becomes a bit tougher to judge his season in hindsight. He deserved his MVP and if I had to choose him or Kobe for the next three years I'd still choose Lebron. But he's got a long way to go before he catches Kobe historically.

In fairness, I can't honestly evaluate the greats of decades ago. Other than stats and rings in the history books, how can I really place guys like Russell, Chamberlain, Robertson, West, Pettit, Cousy, Barry, Gervin, Havlicek, Baylor, Reed, M.Malone, Jabbar, & Dr.J? Even with rivals Larry Bird and Magic Johnson, I remember stories and highlights more than live games, having been too young to watch each until well past his prime. Thus, I'll rank only players who’s professional careers began after I was born (1981 draft and beyond). Being that most players don't hit their peaks until five or six years into their careers, I'm content to call this the top 12 players of the last quarter century. This will also give Kobe a fair shake since few if any basketball historians would dare place him on par with either Magic or Bird, whether his body of work warranted that praise or not.

Honorable Mention; with every list there's always close calls and tough choices to make. The top 5 were actually incredibly easy to separate from the rest of the pack. Spots 6-12 were far more challenging, as was keeping the next group to 25 (I easily could’ve done a top 40, but at some point the list becomes cheapened. Here are those who missed the cut and how I'd rank them from lowest to highest . . .

Note: Several really good players were limited by spending so much time on the DL throughout their careers (i.e. Chris Webber, Grant Hill, Kevin Johnson, Alonzo Mourning, Chris Mullin, & Tracy McGrady, among others).

25. Tim Hardaway
24. Vince Carter (his stats surprised me)
23. Steve Nash
22. Dirk Nowitzki
21. Gary Payton
20. Dominique Wilkens
19. Dwayne Wade
18. Paul Pierce (I'm slightly biased, but it's not a big stretch)
17. Jason Kidd
16. Clyde Drexler
15. Patrick Ewing
14. John Stockton
13. Scottie Pippen

Pippen was the single toughest omission overall. He won 6 titles as MJ's sidekick and was inarguably the best defensive wing player of his generation. But while he put up strong numbers he was never dominant enough to win on his own. This fact represents either his most telling trait or makes him the ultimate victim of circumstance. Either way this ambiguity keeps him out of the top 12.

The Physical Freaks:

12. Allen Iverson: I kept looking for excuses to keep him off the list, but kept returning to his stats and durability (considering the hits he’s taken). AI is not only the most culturally relevant player since MJ, he’s also become the most dominant offensive little man in the sport’s history. The former MVP and 10-time All-Star has averaged better than 27 points, 6 assists, and 2 steals a game for his career, and carried a weak 76er squad all the way to the finals on his back. Few guards ever created more havoc in the open court. And not since Nate Archibald in 1973 had any small guard won a scoring title. Iverson ended up winning 4 of them.

11. David Robinson: In many ways the anti-Iverson, Robinson selflessly kept his mouth shut and went about his business while maintaining a reputation as the league’s ultimate professional. He won a pair of rings once Duncan joined him in San Antonio, but Robinson’s most impressive years came earlier before sacrificing his stats. Possibly the most athletic big man ever, the Admiral was a yearly top 10 mainstay in points, rebounds, blocks, and steals (at 7’1”) and was equally dominant on both ends of the floor. He’s also one of only two players in history to win both a scoring title and a defensive player of year award in his career. The other? Michael Jordan.

10. Charles Barkley: Never winning a ring makes it a little tougher to defend Sir Charles than anyone else on the list (his closest opportunity came in 1993, when his Phoenix Suns lost to MJ’s Bulls in six). He suffered injury problems, occasional weight issues, and several public relations disasters. But for roughly a decade beginning in 1986, he was the league’s most entertaining and at times dangerous offensive player. Despite being only 6’4”, he was built like a bowling ball and destroyed opponents on the glass, around the paint, and on the fast break. The former MVP was also the best player on the 1992 Dream Team, a collection of the world’s best players, which included Jordan.

9. Lebron James: In many respects he already warrants higher placement. But with only seven seasons under his belt (and no rings as of yet), this seemed about right for the youngest star on the list. Not much to say really, except that nobody on this list has made my jaw drop as frequently as King James. He was so good this year (and nearly averaged a triple-double in the playoffs) that he tricked analysts into overestimating his teammates and coaching staff. Lebron has no ceiling and could wind up passing them all. Only health and motivation could hold him back, because he’s already unguardable at 24.

The 2nd Tier:

8. Kevin Garnett: Arguably the best defensive big man of his generation (and the game’s best help defender by a mile), Garnett is also the league’s most self-sacrificing superstar. With his work ethic, size, and versatility, there’s really no precedent for KG. He can shoot over anyone, has perfected the mid-range game, passes like a guard, and rebounds better than all but a handful of centers. The Big Ticket has strong numbers, but his stats don’t come close to telling the story. I really didn’t know how good he was until he joined the Celtics and transformed the team's entire style of play, including that of captain Paul Pierce. He leads by example (and occasionally with his mouth) like Bird once did. Another title would vault him to the brink of the top 5.

7. Karl Malone: I had to swallow my pride a little with the Mailman, who’s undoubtedly the most boring superstar ever to appear in a video game. His personality limited broader appeal to the masses and he never won a title (though he came really close twice). But his numbers astound. The most durable power forward of all-time (he missed 5 games in his first 13 seasons!); the 2-time MVP was also the best offensive player to ever play his position. He’s 2nd all-time to Jabbar in total points and minutes, ranks 6th among all rebounders, tops the list for free throws made and attempted, and even places 10th in steals! He was undoubtedly aided by playing with Stockton all those years, but the relationship was co-dependent and you don’t earn 11 consecutive All-NBA 1st team selections on luck.

6. Isiah Thomas: Forget that he's the only player in the top 12 without an (regular season) MVP to his name. Forget his gross incompetence as a coach, general manager, C.B.A. owner, television commentator, and sexual harasser. While his post-playing days now rival O.J. Simpson for potential mockery, ‘Zeke’ remains the most explosive point guard ever to lace up a pair of Nikes. Drafted in 1981, he’s the oldest player on the list and the only superstar here to lead his team to a title in the era of Bird/Magic/MJ (and he did it twice!). From 1982-'93, Thomas made 12 straight All-star appearances. A great passer who could beat anyone off the dribble, he is probably the finest ball handler in N.B.A. history. He had ice in his veins and was unflappable with the game on the line. Like KG, Thomas’s on-court play was more indicative of his legacy than his career totals.

The Top 5:

As stated earlier, distinguishing this group was relatively easy. They were all multiple championship winners, the best at their positions during their primes, and dominant across all aspects of the sport. But choosing the correct spot for Mr. Bryant was a ridiculous ordeal. He's the closest thing we've seen to Jordan, but can't quite match him. Does that make him #2 or keep him several notches below? With 4 titles to his credit he's equaled the two dominant big men of his generation, but he shared 3 titles with one of them. Let's get to it . . . . .

5. Hakeem Olajuwon: In terms of talent, Dream probably ranks ahead of even Duncan, but he won half as many titles (2). Still, one must compare each player with his competition. Once Jordan hit his peak, nobody else won period. But when MJ vacated his throne to pursue baseball in the mid-90s, it was Olajuwon who separated himself from his fellow superstars. Hakeem was the best passing and rebounding center of his era, and owned the best post moves in N.B.A. history among all players. He ranks 8th all-time in steals (the next center on the list ranks 42nd) and was the best shot blocker since Bill Russell. He leads this category by such an overwhelming amount that the leader among active players (Shaq) would need another 1,200 blocks to catch him. Olajuwon dominated with dignity and regularity.

4. Kobe Bryant: A 5th title would change things, but I’m content to place Kobe at #4 for now. He’s the smoothest and most fearless player in the league, and has a bigger chip on his shoulder than MJ did. Nobody scares opponents more with the game clock winding down. An occasionally brilliant passer, he’s perhaps the game’s best 1-on-1 wing defender, and arguably it’s most accomplished post-player (as a guard!). When he’s ‘on,’ opponents might as well take a bathroom break, because there’s no stopping him. But the “chicken and egg” effect of dominating the NBA with Shaq hurts him as at did Malone & Stockton (the latter of whom couldn't even crack the top 12). I suspect without Shaq, Kobe’s stats would look even better, but he’d have at least 2 fewer rings. Either way there are few professional athletes I have more respect for, ass-hole or not.

3. Shaquille O'neal: In many respects the Diesel is simply a bigger version of Barkley; stronger and more dominant, with an even larger personality and an equally suspect work ethic. But Shaq had distinguished himself with longevity and rings to match his considerable stats (averages of roughly 25 ppg, 11 reb, 2 blocks, & 58% from the field for his career). It’s amazing he’s still even remotely productive given the physical beating he’s taken since his rookie season in ’93. In his prime, O’neal was simply awesome, and there wasn’t a front court on Earth that could handle him. Shaq commanded double-coverage at all times and was a crunch time threat because of his passing ability, though his free-throw shooting was a considerable liability. His skill level and success rate are so close to my runner-up choice that I could’ve flipped a coin for positioning. But despite 4 rings and trips to 6 finals (which included back-to-back-to-back Finals MVP awards), he’s never had to do it alone. In fact it’s debatable whether he was even the best player on three of those teams (1995 Orl, 2004 LA, and 2006 Mia). Throw in a well-covered up but still prevalent “me-first” attitude that now leads him to his 5th team since entering the league, and I feel justified knocking him a notch below #2. That said, should he follow Lebron to a 5th ring in 2009, I won’t hesitate to swap places.

2. Tim Duncan: Nearly matches Malone and Webber in the battle of superstars who can suck all potential enjoyment from an hour playing “N.B.A. Live” in any year. However, Duncan has never played to fill a highlight reel. Despite the recent Celtic resurgence, I still wonder how many titles we might have won by now had the ping-pong balls gone our way back in ’97. Like Shaq, Duncan’s considerable regular season averages were even better in the playoffs. He didn’t score quite as much or dominate to the same extent in the paint, but he rebounded, passed, and defended just a bit better, and had a more polished offensive game, despite his own troubles at the line (though Shaq was far worse). Most importantly, Duncan’s finals record is flawless and his matching 4 wins came despite 5 fewer years in the league. His leadership or status as his team’s best player has never come into question (Robinson had been an aging star on the 1st team, Tony Parker an emerging star on the most recent one) and I’d argue he’s won more with less surrounding talent than any superstar of my lifetime. Though he now shows signs of aging, he’s always been both clutch and durable, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he adds another ring or two by the time he’s done.

1. Michael Jordan: No room for argument, unless Kobe wins two more.

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Michael Jackson Shocks the World

As human beings, our reactions shock us. It's rare that a celebrity death elicits a response we didn't know was inside us. But after hearing confirmed reports of Michael Jackson's death at age fifty tonight, I'm stuck in a state of melancholy. Few events cause me to stop everything and write. Of course I know all about the criminal allegations, the mysterious Neverland Ranch, the psychological issues, that odd high-pitched laugh and his constantly evolving skin color. But I'm honestly not thinking about any of that. Jokes I would've expected to come easily and in rapid succession are absent. Michael Jackson is dead!

It almost seems too unbelievable to be true. You know you're a big deal when your death relegates Farrah Fawcett's to footnote status (and between the two of them I didn't think T would ever be able to stop the water works). But Jackson transcended stardom. In many ways he was a larger-than-life figure to the point that upon hearing early reports of his cardiac arrest, I thought it to be hoax. Would anyone be all that surprised if we found out two weeks from now that the King of Pop was in fact perfectly fine, and used his clout to create a media tidal-wave to promote his big summer comeback tour? It's a ridiculous theory, but doesn't MJ seem like the one celebrity who could've conceivably pulled that off? Michael had after all been a star since 1966, when he was lead singer for the Jackson 5 at age eight! And despite his latter years being marked by tabloid rumors and punch lines, just four hours after tickets for his latest tour went on sale, he'd sold an astonishing 75,000 of them. You simply can't fake that kind of talent.

I'm not even a Michael Jackson fan. During most of the 90s I thought he was a freak based on stories I'd heard and pictures I'd seen. I was too young to experience the "Thriller" craze in the early 80s, as well as his patented moonwalk, and white glove. I was never all that crazy about pop music anyway. But if you asked me to name a dozen Michael Jackson songs, I could do it in thirty seconds easy. Hell, I could probably give you a complete verse or two from "Billy Jean," "I Want You Back," or "Black or White." Is there anyone alive between the ages of ten and sixty who doesn't know "Bad," "Rock With You," "ABC," "Beat It," or "Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough?" He had one of the most distinctive singing voices of all time and greatly influenced fashion and pop culture in America. His music crossed over to every ethnic and racial group, which is why he stood alone as a pop artist. In truth, I can't think of a single athlete, comic, or movie star as well-known around the world as Jackson. And within his profession, perhaps only Elvis Presley and The Beatles made longer-lasting impacts.

I'm amazed and saddened by this tragic story. While I would never invite Jackson to come over and baby-sit (Dammit! I was so close), I nonetheless felt compelled to briefly acknowledge a man who for all his shortcomings, had a gift we may never see again in our lifetimes. Within minutes of the story breaking, thousands seemed to be posting messages on YouTube while watching Jackson's music videos, another hugely significant piece of his legacy (MJ was as responsible as anyone for the success of MTV and all videos that followed). And as I listened to "Heal the World," all outside thoughts seemed to disappear. As an artist, Michael Jackson really was one of a kind.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

The NBA Discovers Parity

Mark the date, May 30th 2009, the day when the NBA escaped predictability. Of the three major professional American sports (I don’t think anyone counts hockey anymore), basketball has long been the one with the least drama regarding which teams would end each respective season on top. This is primarily due to the NBA being a star driven league more than the others. Baseball and football simply have too many players, too many important positions on the field, and too high of a luck factor (in how a single play can affect the outcome of a game or season) for any one player to emerge the predominant factor in a team’s success. Don’t believe me? Next time you’re in Vegas, try to accurately predict every NFL playoff team for the upcoming season. If you get better than 8 out of 12, I’ll happily relinquish the keys to my car.

Throughout its history the best players in the NBA have won, a trend even more pronounced in recent decades. In fact during the past thirty years only one team has emerged victorious without the services of a top 3 player (the 2004 Detroit Pistons). This trend allows fans to see the best of the best compete for the top prize, but it also makes the general outcome seem routine, which is part of the reason so many prefer college basketball to the pro game. We usually can predict every playoff team by early December, so when I pondered creating a pool for the 2009NBA playoffs, I realized any attempt would be futile. Nearly every bracket would ultimately look the same, unless as fate would have it, some genius had the foresight to pit Orlando against the Lakers.

Nobody who matters wanted this match up. Certainly not David Stern, who must’ve had a near heart attack when he realized the potential for a Magic/Nuggets finals existed not so long ago. He surely had been salivating over the all-but -guaranteed Lakers/Cavaliers finals when he saw the playoff breakdown in late April. At worst, Kevin Garnett makes a full recovery and basketball fans get round two of the Celtics/Lakers. At best he gets to promote Kobe Bryant vs. Lebron James, a heavyweight battle of the league’s preeminent players, which despite the aforementioned history of star battles, seldom happens. The last time the NBA finals boasted the league’s two best players was 1984 when Larry Bird’s Celtics faced Magic Johnson’s Lakers, and I’m not 100% convinced Magic was even there yet (his best years were still to come). But in 2009, there was no debate that Kobe and Lebron were better than everybody else. One brief observation: by year’s end I suspect 75% of fans (and 95% outside of California) had arrived at the conclusion that Lebron was the better player, but he will be watching Kobe and the finals on television. Just food for thought . . .

The presence of Orlando in the finals may also be somewhat disappointing to Kobe, who surely would’ve relished the challenge of going toe-to-toe with King James for seven games. But although that dream match up will have to wait, the pressure is squarely on the Lakers. They are considered the strong favorite nationally (a mistake) and as Bill Simmons wrote recently, Kobe’s legacy hangs in the balance. He will never have a better opportunity to win a title without Shaq than he does right now. Last year the media wave from Los Angeles somehow propelled the Lakers into the position of favorite over the Celtics, who were undoubtedly the better and hungrier team. (see my Nostradamus-like post before last year’s finals: http://mygirlfriendssleeping.blogspot.com/2008/06/17-reasons-celtics-will-beat-lakers.html). In 2009 however, L.A. has no excuses. If they don’t perform at the top of their game, they will lose to a young, overachieving Magic team that plays without a care in the world. This lattermost personality trait is Orlando’s greatest weapon.

The pressure of being favored has never affected them during this playoff run, because it hasn’t existed. True, some people did predict they’d defeat an injury depleted Celtics squad in round two, but just as many predicted advancement for the defending champs despite their limitations. Orlando kept pushing back, especially when they were considered finished (see game six of that series). They kept shooting threes, kept rebounding, kept running, kept defending, and continued treating every game like a pickup contest. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what the deciding game of that series looked like. But even after securing a spot in the Eastern Conference finals, few thought they’d compete with the Cavs, despite beating them twice during the regular season. Cleveland hadn’t been tested at all throughout the first two rounds, was dominating the competition, and had the most spectacular player on the planet leading the charge. Only Charles Barkley had the courage to predict a Magic victory, and he was proven right.

The Magic onslaught (and conference finals as a whole) was so intriguing that even T began watching games while I was working late at the store, feeding me updates by way of text. She learned a lot about the sport with each successive game, although her game and player terminology stills needs some work. On one occasion with only seconds to go in the Nuggets/Lakers series, she proclaimed “Carmelo Anthony sounds like a Soprano’s character.” During another contest, she asked me what a ‘mystery throw’ was. I explained that the proper pronunciation was ‘missed free throw.’ She also agreed that Stan Van Gundy certainly does not look like a basketball coach. She figured his name was Vinny and remarked how he looked like he should work in a pizza parlor. I challenge anyone to contest that description. I think T’s now as excited as I am for game one tonight, which is awesome, because we won’t need to flip back and forth to “Jon and Kate Plus 8.”

So what do I expect from the finals? I’m not quite sure and that’s part of the pleasure for a change. We all knew Michael Jordan’s Bulls were going to beat whichever inferior Western Conference team emerged throughout the 90s. It was set in stone that Tim Duncan’s Spurs were going to beat any weak Eastern Conference team during their run of four titles in nine years. But this time, there really isn’t any conventional wisdom to fall back on. I’ve seen Orlando get knocked down and come roaring back repeatedly. I’ve seen them shoot Lebron right out of the playoffs (Do you all realize how close that series came to being a sweep for Orlando?) They are decently coached (though SVG is the ultimate Jekyll/Hyde personality of the league; you never know if he’ll be brilliant or horrid), they have very big wing players who can shoot (Rashard Lewis, Hedo Turkoglu, Mickael Pietrus), they have solid point guard play (Rafer Alston & returning starter Jameer Nelson), and the most dominant big man in the league (Dwight Howard, who should he win his 1st title at age 23 immediately leaps to top 5 status if he isn’t there already). By the way it makes me just a little sick that everyone reading this is older than Howard by about five years. I’d kill to be a 6’ 11” black basketball player. I suspect several players on Orlando are just happy to be there, which fits into their whole loose mentality. They seem to take the game as it comes to them. If their shots aren’t falling, they still have Howard to keep them in the game. If their shots are falling, they can’t be beat.

I honestly don’t know what the game plan is if I’m Phil Jackson. Because of Orlando’s shooting prowess, he has no alternative to going single coverage on Howard with Andrew Bynum, who while a big body, isn’t nearly experienced or tough enough to stop him. Amazingly, Kendrick Perkins may now be the only big man in the league with the attitude and body to keep DH under control. Lewis and Turkoglu are going to force Pau Gasol and Lamar Odom to guard them way outside the paint on defense, which puts even more pressure on Laker guards Derek Fisher and Trevor Ariza to prevent Orlando’s little men from penetrating. If I were Phil, I’d start the series with Kobe guarding Turkoglu. Much of the Magic offense runs through the flopping foreigner, who often acts as a point forward for Orlando and if Kobe can keep him 25 feet from the basket and pressure the ball, that will take the Magic out of their rhythm. On offense L.A. must attack Howard every chance they get, since he is prone to early foul trouble. Gasol and Odom are both talented, a common description for the two forwards that I’m starting to believe means soft. Gasol has been really good thus far, but if Howard blocks his first shot attempt, he may regress. Both Laker forwards disappeared in last years’ finals, forcing Kobe to carry the entire load. And if Lebron was unable to beat Orlando with that approach, I doubt Kobe can. If I’m Van Gundy, I’m posting pictures of every Laker player other than Kobe in the locker room and screaming “Don’t let THEM beat us.” If Kobe averages 40 in the series, but Orlando shoots that mark from beyond the arc and dominates the glass, all the individual praise won’t matter.

Home court belongs to L.A., but as was the case during the last two rounds, Orlando doesn’t seem phased playing on the road. Cleveland was supposedly infallible at home and Orlando quickly stole home court advantage. In each of their last two deciding games, they blew out the opposing team. And the ridiculous 2-3-2 format works in Orlando’s favor. If they steal one of the first two in L.A. and then take two at home, they have the chance to end it in game six. It’s a terrible, terrible format that exists primarily due to travel considerations. These are grown men who fly back and forth across the country for 82 games all season long. Do the extra couple of flights really make that much of a difference? In this format the Magic, who are supposedly the team without home court advantage, play three of the 1st five games on their home court. That’s the series folks. Winning one more on the road (and having two cracks at it) if you’re a team with a mentality like Orlando, isn’t all that big an obstacle at all.

The Lakers are good, really good in fact, and have been tested during the playoffs, but it is possible to be overly tested, especially if you’re an older team. I hated that it took L.A. seven games to eliminate the Houston Rockets minus Yao and Tracy McGrady. Denver gave them all they could handle in the Western Conference finals. Both teams had physical, versatile forwards (Ron Artest, Shane Battier, Luis Scola, Carmelo Anthony, Kenyon Martin, Chris Andersen) who gave the Lakers fits. Orlando offers more of the same, but with better shooting and the best rebounder and defensive big man in basketball. And if L.A. struggles to find a consistent rhythm early, I can easily see Kobe going into autopilot shooting mode with his legacy in the balance. I love watching Mr. Bryant, but I’m not sure I’d want to play with him either. Still, I’m not prepared to bet against him, considering Orlando has no single defender to bother him. If this sounds like a cop-out without a real prediction, it is, and it falls right in line with the way the NBA playoffs have played out.

Ok, I obviously can’t close on that note. If this series goes to game seven, I think L.A. holds on, because I don’t see Kobe losing a title that close to his grasp. But I don’t think this one’s getting that far. You heard it here first . . . Orlando in six!

Sunday, May 17, 2009

Depressed

I'm frozen in a state of emotional nothingness, like a guy on the couch after an evening of heroin use. Being that I am completely incapable of rationalizing the Celtics game seven loss at the hands of the Magic, I'll provide you with a short summary that I'll try to edit once I've slept this off for a couple of days.

Hedo Turkoglu is a goat. Not in any derogatory sense. That's simply the first description that crept into my subconscious. He's a scruffy, grotesque, flopping, whining goat look-alike, who hit all his threes (mostly poor shots) in the game that matter most. If Hedo is to be believed, he owed it all to a pre-game pizza meal. What does that tell you about the man’s mental state? He was a 7th man for most of his career, and has inexplicably become an important player at age 30. He's probably on steroids. And every time he tried to draw an inadvertent whistle, he yelped, emitting a peculiarly inhuman noise, much like a goat. I hate him!

Rafer Alston is a crack-head piece of shit. He talks ad nauseam. Like Hedo, he flops too much. He complains to the refs about plays after minutes after the fact. He attacked Eddie House for torching him when his own defense was to blame. His first name isn't even a fucking name. His face makes me want to punch my bathroom mirror. I hate him!

Mickael Pietrus is an arrogant French bastard who doesn't even seem to play within in any sort of team concept. He waits for loose balls and takes wildly untimely three-pointers. Then he scowls. I can't even imagine anyone on Orlando likes him. Doc should’ve had Mikki Moore strangle him during a time-out (at least he would’ve done something of value for the team). I hate him!

Stan Van Gundy is probably too unintentionally hilarious to full out hate, but he can't escape my wrath. He's ugly and fat, with one of the worst mustaches in all of Florida. His best player hates him. He is unofficially Bipolar, criticizing the world one minute and high-fiving his team during a time-out the next (these are grown men, not six-year old kids.) I hate him!

And while were on the subject, Reggie Miller nearly ruined another playoff series with his incoherent blather. I HATE HIM!

I don't hate Dwight Howard, because he's simply too likable and didn't do anything to offend me personally. He's a defensive freak, a rebounding machine, and a pretty unpolished offensive player still capable of dominating a playoff series. A friend wisely pointed out that if all Patrick Ewing could muster out of Howard this season was a jump hook and a ridiculous cross-the-lane heave off the backboard, he can't be much of a coach. I can't really bring myself to hate Rashard Lewis either. He simply posed major match up problems for the Celtics. I can't say I hate anyone on the Celtics roster, although if tomorrow's Boston Globe headline read "Stephon Marbury's car torn to pieces by Copley B-Line train,” I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep.

I love the efforts turned in by Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis. Davis became (sadly) our best interior scorer, while delivering the funniest post-game shove of a little kid on record. Meanwhile Perk went toe-to-toe with the best center in the world, and more than held his own. Scal brought energy, House brought attitude, and Doc brought positive thinking. Allen brought greatness in spurts, the gaps between them sometimes lasting days. Rondo became a superstar, but lost some luster against inferior opposition verses Orlando. (I suspect both he and Allen may have been playing hurt, which will undoubtedly come out some time in June). Another worry with Rondo . . . I could see him becoming a player who plays both up and down to the level of his competition, which makes him both our greatest asset and potentially biggest liability. Meanwhile, Pierce had a few nice games, but seemed to make as many mistakes as anyone else on the court. He also looked tired; a word I didn't realize was in his vocabulary.

It's disappointing to lose, especially when things could've been so different. Maybe last season’s good fortune had to end, at least temporarily. But I maintain the loss of Kevin Garnett was the most affecting NBA injury of the last decade. If he was healthy (in addition to Leon Powe), I have no doubt we'd have swept Chicago, and taken Orlando in five, setting up a powerhouse match up against the Cavaliers in the Eastern Conference finals. If Orlando lost Howard, they might've lost to the Sixers in Round 1. Denver without Chauncey Billups might not have made the playoffs. The Lakers minus Kobe would've lost in Round 2. And the Cavs without Lebron would struggle to win the N.I.T. KG was essential to everything we did well, especially on the defensive end. Without him the Celtics looked far more like a group of individuals than a complete team.

But they played exceedingly hard. They didn't take a night off. It just seems at the moment that they (gulp) lost to a better team. It happens. I only pray this loss had more to do with injury than age. Sure, they were fatigued. How could they not be after 15 playoff games (I’m counting all those Round 1 overtimes as another game)? But if years of accumulated bumps and bruises are to be blamed for slowing Pierce, Allen, and Garnett, then it may be time for Danny Ainge to go back to the drawing board, to at least see what's out there. Maybe that Howard fellow is on the trading block.

(One final note: Anyone else think the most interesting man in the world from the Dos Equis commercials would be a perfect replacement for Lucky as the Celtic's team mascot? "I don't generally watch basketball. But when I do, I root for the Celtics.")

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

A Summer at the Movies, 2009

It’s almost the start of another summer movie season, which seems to commence earlier with each passing year. The box-office explosion kicks off this Friday, May 1st with the opening of Wolverine, and won’t let up until August. Kenny "The Jet" Smith and Charles Barkley have helped fuel the collective appetite of sports fans with a hilarious TNT commercial in which they debate what the latter would do if blessed with Wolverine's claws (Kenny correctly surmises he'd rip open packages of twinkies in bulk). Unfortunately the 2009 release schedule seems particularly uninspired, from lame brain comedies to sequels nobody seemed to be asking for. I can’t remember another summer when I knew ahead of time I’d be skipping so many tent poles, the “can’t-miss” offerings each studio wants you to believe will destroy the competition.

This year’s big Memorial Day films include Night at the Museum: Battle for the Smithsonian and Terminator Salvation. The former is a follow-up to one of the worst films of the decade, a supposed family comedy with no laughs, cartoony special effects, and a bored Ben Stiller making faces at blue screens. No thank you. The latter is the 2nd misdirected attempt to reboot a franchise that should’ve ended credibly in 1991 when James Cameron was still directing. T3 remains one of the most disappointing theatergoing experiences of my life and it’s going to take more than Christian Bale to sucker me in again. Another major release is Angels and Demons, a sequel to the lifeless, incoherent 2006 adaptation of The Da Vinci Code, arguably the worst film on the resumes of both Tom Hanks and Ron Howard. May also launches J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek, this summer’s only true wildcard. Die-hard fans are salivating, but this film will need excellent reviews and word-of-mouth to lure those with no interest in the often ridiculed franchise. Count me among the skeptical.

Later months will bring comedies starring Will Ferrell (Land of the Lost), Eddie Murphy (Imagine That), Jack Black & Michael Cera (Year One), The Wayans Brothers (Dance Flick), Adam Sandler & Seth Rogan (Funny People), Will Arnett & Jon Heder (When In Rome), David Hasselhoff (Beverly Hills Ninja 2- NOT JOKING), Bradley Cooper (The Hangover), and Robin Williams (World’s Greatest Dad), as well as estrogen driven counter programming featuring Cameron Diaz (My Sister’s Keeper), Katherine Heigl & Gerald Butler (The Ugly Truth), Sandra Bullock & Ryan Reynolds (The Proposal), Rachel McAdams (The Time Traveler’s Wife), Joseph Gordon-Levitt & Zooey Deschanel (500 Days of Summer), Matthew McConaughey & Jennifer Garner (The Ghosts of Girlfriends Past), and Meryl Streep & Amy Adams (Julie and Julia). Other releases include the heist flick The Brothers Bloom and animated films G-Force and Ice Age 3: Dawn of Dinosaurs, both likely to do very well financially. Finally, what preview would be complete without a mention of G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra? It appears silly beyond words, though the presence of Dennis Quaid in an action film is almost always good for a few unintentional laughs, just not enough to warrant a trip to the theater. Of all the aforementioned films, only two are semi-realistic possibilities: The Proposal, because T already decided we are going, and Land of the Lost, because I’m a total sucker for Ferrell in anything.

Not all is lost though. Here is a list of 10 films I WILL be seeing this summer and why it might be worth your while to join me . . .

10.) Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen – Eh, what can I say? It’s the most critic-proof blockbuster of 2009. While I wasn’t crazy about the original (whose 1st half I enjoyed much more than the mind-numbing final hour), I’m willing to give this series another shot. If nothing else, it’s the one huge release that will play a lot differently in a theater as opposed to on the television screen in my living room. And there’s always the irresistibly sexy, er talented, Megan Fox.

9.) The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard - Since hitting huge with Entourage, fast-talking Jeremy Piven has been pretty selective about taking film roles, so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt in this comedy about a crew who assemble to save a small town car dealership from bankruptcy. It’s directed by the creator of Chappelle’s Show and produced by Ferrell and Adam McKay’s (Anchorman, Talladega Nights) production company.

8.) The Taking of Pelham 123 – Each summer there is generally at least one action film driven more by story, performances, and stunts (think Speed or The Bourne Ultimatum) than flashy CGI visual effects. In this remake, hijackers overtake an NYC subway train and hold its passengers ransom, threatening to kill one person each minute. While not completely original, it comes from the writer of L.A. Confidential, and stars Denzel Washington, John Travolta, and James Gandolfini.

7.) Up – Simply put, Disney Pixar Studios (Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Ratatouille, etc) has yet to make a bad film. The trailers look great, promising humor and the most cutting-edge animation available. Up is the tale of a 78-year-old man and his companions who travel the world in his home, carried along by thousands of balloons overhead. A bonus for this one; it should look amazing in Digital 3D.

6.) X-Men Origins: Wolverine – I am not a comic book fan, nor have I ever read an issue of any superhero graphic novels. But since Marvel brought X-Men to the big screen in 2000, they’ve been one my favorite franchises. Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine is the most intriguing major comic book character outside the world of Batman, and if this delivers the same level of energy, f/x, and fast-paced action of its predecessors, I’ll be satisfied.
Note: Much has been made about the online leak of Wolverine weeks before its release. Honestly, who’d want to watch a fuzzy print of a movie like this on a trailer-size Laptop screen anyway?
Note 2:


5.) Inglourious Basterds – Quentin Tarantino’s newest film follows a group of Jewish-American soldiers on a revenge killing spree throughout Nazi-occupied France during World War II. Brad Pitt leads a cast that also includes Mike Myers. Like the Coen Brothers QT’s films are often hard to define as this one seems a cross between From Dusk Till Dawn, Munich, and The Dirty Dozen. The only reason I don’t rank it higher is because I can’t yet tell if there’s real substance to be found (Pulp Fiction, Jackie Brown) or if it’s merely an excuse for the director to embellish in another highly stylized blood bath (Kill Bill, Death Proof). Time will tell.

4.) Whatever Works – It honestly doesn’t even matter what this one is about. Larry David stars in a Woody Allen movie! Has there ever been a better match between star and writer, from their self-loathing personalities to impeccable comedic timing? For what it’s worth David plays a brilliant, wealthy New Yorker who after a failed suicide attempt moves to Chinatown and meets a younger, far less cerebral southern girl. After six seasons of Curb Your Enthusiasm, I’d pay to see David criticizing strangers from a park bench. Pairing with the best comedy writer of the last forty years is icing on the cake.

3.) Harry Potter and the Half-blood Prince – Unlike the vast majority, I am seeing the HP movies without previously reading the books (I’ve only read the 1st and ½ of the 2nd), so my anticipation is as much driven by curiosity over plot points as expected entertainment value. Though I don’t rewatch the previous Potter films often, they have unexpectedly become required viewing on the big screen, with each chapter a little darker, meaner, and more mature in its themes. In the end I probably wouldn’t call this a truly great franchise, but it is exceedingly dependable, good for several laughs, increasingly stellar special effects, and characters worth caring about. There is yet to be a bad Potter film and with only two to go, I highly doubt this will change.

2.) Bruno – The promos speak for themselves, like the one with a straight-faced, shirtless Bruno holding a black infant in his arms. Sacha Baron Cohen got away with murder in 2006 with his comedy smash Borat, and for a second movie to work he’ll need to push the envelope even further. Playing another of his clueless alter-egos from Da Ali G Show, Cohen’s flaming Austrian Bruno comes to America pretending to be a television reporter and wreaks havoc on an unsuspecting public. Thousands will undoubtedly be offended by Cohen’s brand of humor, which takes none-too-subtle jabs at serious issues in the process. But if the number of major laughs approaches that of Cohen’s last outing, we’re probably looking at the funniest film of 2009.
Note: As of now the film has been tagged with an NC-17 rating, which would be death at the box-office. However, the rating would ensure those who do see it will get the funniest possible version available.

1.) Public Enemies – Few films this summer have more talent in front and behind the camera. In the latest in a string of strong Hollywood crime dramas (The Departed, American Gangster), Johnny Depp stars as Depression-era bank robber and folk hero John Dillinger. Christian Bale costars as Melvin Purvis, the top FBI agent under J. Edgar Hoover, who makes Dillinger his top target. Director Michael Mann has one of the best track records in the business, with such titles as Heat, The Insider, and Collateral to his credit. And after months of corny 1-liners, huge explosions, and a collective indifference towards storytelling, this July release could represent a rare opportunity for adult audiences to think. Reviews and word of mouth will go a long way in determining whether this film will be remembered come next year’s Oscars. Still, if I had only $10 to spend at the movies this summer, I’d save it for Public Enemies.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

A Series to Remember

I don’t know what to expect from game 5. It’s unlikely it can possibly match the drama that’s resulted thus far from the Celtics/Bulls first round contest. Heading into the playoffs I predicted a five-game series, expecting Chicago to steal one at home. After the announcement that Kevin Garnett was likely out for the playoffs, I extended my guess to six games, still undoubtedly in Boston’s favor. But there is now zero chance this series won’t go seven games. In the past I’ve been critical of the NBA adopting a best of seven formula for the first round, as opposed to the best of five format they’d used for years. I think it makes the playoffs too long, drains too much energy from the players with so many games left, and minimizes the potential for upsets (remember Denver defeating top ranked Seattle in 1994?) Selfishly however, I’m now glad that last point generally holds true.

The Celtics are a better basketball team than the Bulls, even without KG and Leon Powe. Yes, the Bulls are missing Luol Deng, but from what I’ve seen of their play this season they are a better club without him. John Salmons plays tougher defense from the small forward spot anyway. Reverse the outcome of two plays in this series (Paul Pierce’s missed free throw at the end of game 1, Ben Gordon’s off-balance three pointer that sent game 4 to a second overtime), and we’d be talking about a Celtic sweep. The importance of those plays can’t be overstated. Boston needed this to be over fast, so they could rest for the second round and a likely match up with Orlando (who is having their own problems with a young Sixers bunch).

The Celtics aren’t a decidedly old basketball team top to bottom, but their best players are. Pierce has shown signs of age in this series, from his shooting to his turnovers to his failures making big defensive stops. Ray Allen has fared better, including some miraculous clutch shooting following game 1. I’m not sure what to make of Pierce right now. On the one hand his marginal outings still represent well-rounded offensive efforts. Add to that the fact that he hasn’t really taken over a single game yet, and I’m optimistic about our chances. But I wonder why he hasn’t yet gone for forty over the smaller, less athletic Kirk Heinrich. If I’m Doc Rivers I’m getting the ball to Pierce early and often tonight, especially in the post where he can overpower the defense or get to the line.

The real difference for Boston thus far has been the play of Rajon Rondo and to a lesser extent Glenn Davis and Kendrick Perkins. The contributions of the latter two have been invaluable, especially Davis, who’s become the most shockingly nimble, round-bellied individual to impact the sport since yours truly back in the
mid-90s. But Rondo is on another planet. He’s averaging a triple-double in the series, has been the leader on both ends of the court, and has actually outplayed Derrick Rose who himself has played sensationally for Chicago. But the Bulls rely more heavily on individual efforts than the Celtics, which is why I correctly predicted Boston would take game 3 easily in Chicago. The Bulls were coming off astounding games from their best players, and unless they were able to match those numbers, they weren’t going to win. They simply don’t have the coaching, veteran leadership, or decided home court advantage to overcome a bad shooting night. But they have had the X-factor in this series, Ben Gordon, who’s making me question any knowledge I thought I possessed regarding ways to win a basketball game.

I always liked Gordon (especially at UConn), but for all the wrong reasons. I believed he was fundamentally sound, a reliable passer and shooter who any coach would love. I didn’t realize he was an assassin with balls of steel and a complete disregard for proper shot selection. If he were on my NAA team I would bench him for the sheer volume of stupid shots he’s taken. But I digress . . . he makes them. He’s reminds me of a tougher Rex Chapman with the confidence of Isiah Thomas. He’s scary, and his recent hamstring strain could be the difference in the series. As impressive as is his knack for hitting difficult eighteen-footers, if he has no lift, he becomes a non-factor. Remember the announcers debating whether or not Boston should foul Chicago on their last offensive possession before Gordon drained that fall-away in game 4? If he can’t shoot, there’s no longer a debate. You play it out, rely on your defense, and hope for the best, an opinion I bear regardless because 90% of the time that’s not dropping. It’s like walking the bases loaded with two men on when you’re up three runs in the ninth . . . Why put yourself in a position to lose? If they miraculously tie the game, so be it.

I pray this series is decided on the court. The officiating has caused plenty of complaints on both sides and it’s becoming clear that David Stern must makes some rule changes. The strictly enforced “clear path” rule, involving a defensive player intentionally stopping an opposing breakaway, is the single dumbest rule in sports. It sounds like a JCC rule invented by middle-aged white guys who don’t want to run. What is wrong with preventing the other team from scoring as long as it’s clean? And to the latter point, I am so sick of flagrant fouls being called any time there’s more than a “little” contact. What would happen had Kevin McHale’s famous clothesline of Kurt Rambis occurred in 2009? Would he be suspended for a year? Basketball is a contact sport, always has been, and always should be. The ongoing pussification (spell check couldn’t help me out with that one) of the league is a travesty. But those two rules aside, I love everything about this series.

I love that that Doug Collins made a “Semi-Pro” reference, comparing the oafish, curly headband sporting Brian Scalabrine to Jackie Moon. I love that Chicago boasts two of the five ugliest players in the league in Heinrich and Joaquim Noah, who’s a better player than often given credit for being. I love that this series has one of the league’s great overachievers in ‘Big Baby’ and sad underachievers in Tim Thomas. I love that TB was so fascinated by the site of an obscenity-spewing KG on the bench that she thought it would make for a great reality show. Seriously, can you imagine how insane he’d look behaving the same way in a supermarket? Or how you might react if he showed up on your doorstep for Halloween, staring you down for all your mini-Butterfingers? If he weren’t a great athlete, he’d be institutionalized. I love that TNT made public the news that Reggie Miller now has an email bag, which I will use to berate his play and commentating on a weekly basis. I love that Boston has the rare coaching edge in this series and that Doc has designed successful plays for Ray to get clean looks. I love that Chicago inexplicably doesn’t know when to switch on a pick-and-roll. I love that Rondo and Rose have blossomed into the best young point guards in the conference and will potentially face off against Chris Paul and/or Deron Williams in the NBA finals for the next decade. I love that both teams are loaded with talented players, most of whom I actually like and would want on my team, including Tyrus Thomas who could be a beast this time next year. I love that Bill Simmons’ Celtics columns reach thousands of readers daily, since mine tend to max out around twenty.

Most importantly, I love that the C’s are getting an early round test as tough as the Bulls, who at this point are probably the third best team in the East. They are fearless, athletic, persistent, and are providing the Celtics with little margin for error. If Boston can somehow muster up the strength to finish them off by game
6, that would go a long way towards conserving energy for the inevitable showdown with Lebron in the conference finals. Hopefully by that time, Pierce will be ready to go.

Monday, March 9, 2009

The Real World Just Bent Me Over

What a zany morning! In tough economic times, I figured I'd share what one Monday morning was like for good old Beef. I don't know whether you'll laugh or cry, but either is acceptable.

Realizing there was little food in our apartment on my way home from work late Sunday night, I figured I'd stop off for something cheap and easy. T was busy studying for midterms and wasn't going to have any time to get creative in the kitchen, so I let my eyes gravitate towards the always dependable Burger King. Because I'm living paycheck to paycheck and two days away from my next one, I knew I had under $5.00 to spend (cue laughter). Upon returning home T took a TV break, we giggled through reruns of "The Office," and enjoyed a couple rodeo cheeseburgers on the Attorney General’s recommendation. Not sure why they're called that, but they are amazing! About an hour later while dicking around on the internet, I decided to check my online banking. I bellowed one of my patented "Oh Shits!" upon finding that combined with other pending charges, that innocent BK stop put me $.13 (yes, cents) over my balance. I take this kind of nuisance personally, having a somewhat lengthy history of overcharges, bank visits, and overdraft fees both paid and negotiated. Nothing is worse than paying $35.00 after the fact for a meal that cost $4.00, so I was not about to let this minor inconvenience become the travesty I knew it might should this pending charge go through. I figured to avoid any potential penalty, I'd make sure to be at the bank by 8:30 AM with a small deposit. The only problem was I had no cash on me. T had $5.00 lying around, but stubborn asshole that I am I declined, refusing to involve her in my screw-up. Rather, I declared that I’d figure something out, the calling card of a person with no ideas about how to resolve a situation.

After staying up till 4 AM (being the night owl I am), I awoke sluggishly at 8 AM. I had planned to chat with someone at the bank right when they opened in hopes I might get more sympathy for the timely effort. Unfortunately I forgot to brush my teeth so any goodwill would surely be eliminated by the horror that was my breath. I was stunned to find so many cars zipping by on my way to the bank. My work hours generally involve afternoons and evenings, so I always wonder what's wrong with all these citizens moving with ease at such an ungodly hour. Anyway, as I reached for the Chap Stick in my cup holder, I heard something rattle. Sure enough, hiding under a travel tissue pack was some change, including the most valuable quarter I’d ever seen. I laughed at my good fortune (or misfortune depending on analyzes this ordeal) to find a whopping $.43, enough for an immediate deposit to cover my pestering problem. It seemed as though things were turning around. I pulled right up to the bank door with enthusiasm, but was baffled to find no cars in the parking lot. Then I saw it . . .

Bank Hours: M-F, 9AM-5:30PM.

I felt like Chevy Chase in the first "Vacation" after the talking moose tells him that Wally World is closed. With no electronic animals to smash in the face, I sighed and pulled into a parking space. I was planning on waiting there until 9 AM when I noticed my gas light symbol was suddenly bright red. As if the situation wasn't degrading enough, now my car was announcing it would shut down on me in about twenty minutes if I didn’t pump some gas. Adding to this complication was the freezing weather. At twenty-seven degrees, I couldn't just sit still in my car listening to music without heat. I noticed Starbucks across the street and headed there for a coffee until my half-asleep brain realized I still had no money. Frustrated and cold, I pulled out an older debit card I hardly ever use. I called the automated phone line just to ensure I had enough for a coffee, because I was sure-as-shit not going to overdraw two accounts in less than twelve hours for an item a bum can usually purchase without issue. I was happy to find I had a plethora of money in that account ($3.00 if you must know), though due to that silly 'Keep the Change' program any purchase would round up to the next dollar.

Like a defeated outcast of society, shivering, confused, with old jeans ripped in seventeen places, I wandered into Starbucks, heading straight to the bathroom. Fully expecting some coffeehouse snob to inform me the restroom is for paying customers only, I locked the door behind me. I urinated and splashed cold water on my face, having neglected to do either at home in my mad dash to reach the bank by an opening time I’d remembered incorrectly. At the counter I asked for the cheapest coffee on the menu. I don't involve myself with that 'Venti' crap, since nobody knows what any of it means. $1.65 later, I mixed in my cream and Splenda and had a seat on a chair in backmost corner of the room, engulfing myself in the comfortable, heated atmosphere. Note: While I love how homey the Starbucks interior feels, the fact that you essentially make your own coffee will forever keep it below the magnificent Dunkin Donuts, whose coffee is cheaper and tastes far superior anyway.

I sat sipping in my leather chair for about ten minutes, until the annoyance of a male customer in line forced me to vacate the premises. He was about fifty-five and flirting with the teenaged counter girls, asking mundane questions like "Who's that female golfer who plays with the men in all those tournaments?" When they didn’t answer he continued to prompt them, "Michelle . . . someone. I forget her last name." I thought it would've been really funny to answer aloud for them; fully knowing the customer knew the answer to his own question but couldn't think of any other way to make casual conversation with the cute employees. But this early in the morning, my ingenious ideas often go unexplored.

Coffee in hand, I drove back to the bank, that intrusive red gas light staring me right in the face. I alternated turning the engine on and off every few minutes, calling friends to express what a pathetic individual this chain of events had made me feel like. At five till 9, I ventured into the indoor, locked out area, which I'm pretty sure exists just so bank employees can see you, pretend to check their watch, then laugh while you pace back and forth aimlessly. As they opened, I suffered the indignity of writing $.43 in the ‘cash’ box on my deposit slip. I sheepishly handed it to the teller, who informed me it would go through right away. I was now an astounding $.30 in the black, meaning I could purchase, well nothing. But I felt better, having gone through a major hassle to essentially buy myself insurance in case my account would be overdrawn. Of course every task had been caused by my own irresponsibility, combined with an insatiable desire for a tiny burger comprised of questionable meat, melted cheese, onion rings, and barbeque sauce. With a few hours to kill before work, I drove home, sent some emails, made some calls, sorted through papers, and enjoyed a delicious bowl of Hokus Pokus ('Lucky Charms' for those on welfare) with Lactaid milk (for those unfortunate souls who can't enjoy a slice of pizza without visiting the bathroom.

On Tuesday my direct deposit came through with flying colors and as it turns out, one of my previous charges still would've been pending. One could look at my morning on March 9th and think it'd all been a big waste of time, being I wouldn't have received a penalty anyway. Or a 'glass is half-full' thinking individual might think I did what I had to do, just in case. Of course a rich individual wouldn't have thought twice about incurring an overdraft balance, because it wouldn't bother them nor would they be in a situation to let it happen.

The moral of the story . . . Money is no object when it comes to one's stomach :)

Friday, February 20, 2009

Oscar Predictions 2009

There’s nothing like waiting until the last minute for a new blog entry, though with regard to this one I have an excuse. If I am to provide the most dependable Oscar predictions on Earth, I really need to see most of the films nominated, a commitment that generally takes me to the final available weekend. I would advise you to use my expert picks in your office pool, though in reality that’s a crock tagline originated by magazines. Honestly, does anyone work in an office that has an oscar pool? Who’s that close with their co-workers that they organize a company-wide competition for anything other than the NCAA tournament? It just doesn’t happen, because if it did I’d have found that job a long time ago.

The Oscars don’t provoke the same level of debate or interest they once did, particularly since there seems to be a new award show every Sunday from Jan. 1st to the end of March. Additionally, many publicly argue that campaigning now has more to do with the nominees than film quality. How else to explain the best picture inclusion of “The Reader?” Still, the academy awards are a must-see event for serious moviegoers. In a departure from the hit-and-miss comic hosts of years past, this year’s responsibility falls upon the only undeniably gay member of the X-Men, Hugh Jackman. My personal pick would’ve been Charles Barkley, who hilariously announced his picks on “Inside the NBA” this week using his uniquely irreverent assuredness.

The only guarantee this year (other than WALL-E) will be the inevitable, mostly disastrous red carpet filled with women who spent thousands of dollars on dresses and makeup that turn them into creatures unworthy of an endangered species list. I don’t know what it is about this night in particular, but more often than not the parade of fancy outfits and styles make me wonder if the stars stopped for a quick glance in the mirror before leaving the house. At least Kate Winslet always looks good.

Anyway, here are my picks for what will win and should win. I’ll start with the minor categories so you won’t stop reading halfway through.


Categories I Know NOTHING About . . .

Live Action Short Film & Animated Short Film: Since I’ve never heard of any of the nominees, I’ll go with the funniest sounding titles; “The Pig,” in the former and “Oktapodi” in the latter.

Documentary & Documentary Short Subject: The only documentary I’ve heard anything about was “Man on Wire,” so let’s go with that. For short subject, “Smile Pinki” sounds too amusing to ignore.

Foreign Film: Isn’t this category the reason they have awards shows in other countries? In Switzerland they don’t honor the best American film do they? Anyway my money’s on “Waltz With Bashir,” because again it’s the one title I’ve heard of, not to mention it comes from Israel. An Oscar win would give the people something new to talk about on Shabbat, rather than the usual “can you pass the challah?”

Costume Design: Seems simple enough, but the inclusion of “Milk” suggests I don’t understand what they’re looking for. Didn’t everyone in that film wear a faded, tight tee shirt? Anyway, Keira Knightley wears something really tall and wacky-looking on the DVD cover for “The Duchess,” so that’s good enough for me.

Art Direction: Again, I’m not exactly certain of the criteria, though I have a vague understanding. Because it’s unlikely to win anything else, I’ll predict a win for “Changeling,” though in this category I wouldn’t be surprised to see any of the nominees win.

Sound Mixing & Sound Editing: Being that nobody knows the difference between the two, I’ll consider it a win even if I mix them up. Let’s go with “The Dark Knight” for one and “WALL-E” for the other. Academy members will look to reward the year’s best blockbusters with technical awards like these.

Original Song: Having seen the nominees only once, it’s tough to recall a random song from each film. I would’ve predicted Bruce Springsteen had he been nominated for “The Wrestler” but now I’m confused. I’ll go with ‘Jai Ho’ from “Slumdog Millionaire.”

Original Score: Again, tough to remember without multiple viewings. I recall liking the music from “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” but I suspect a win here for “Slumdog Millionaire,” whose music was a key part of the film’s identity.


Categories I Know SOMETHING About . . .

Visual Effects: This one could go to “The Dark Knight,” but expect a win for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” for the ‘Wow’ factor in several scenes, such as one where Brad Pitt’s character walks across a stage as an infant sized old man. I have no idea how they did that.

Make-Up: I’m pretty confident this will also go to “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” for a credible job capturing stars Pitt and Cate Blanchett at every imaginable age. Both were nearly unrecognizable as elderly characters.

Editing: More often than not this category matches with best picture, but all five nominees are really strong. Expect another win for “Slumdog Millionaire” for effectively merging Jamal’s past stories with the present.

Cinematography: A very tough call, this one could go to either the aforementioned “Slumdog Millionaire” or “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (writing that full title is starting to piss me off), but I predict a win for “The Dark Knight” for its dark atmospheric Gotham City. Still, this category is very much up for grabs.

Animated Feature: The biggest lock of the night; pick “WALL-E.” You can bet your children on this one.

Original Screenplay: Among the toughest categories to predict, because there is no standout. My pick would be “In Bruges,” a dialogue-driven violent comedy that was among the most surprising films of 2008. But I suspect the academy will reward “Milk,” in one of the few categories it has a real shot. It’s not a groundbreaking script, but it’s very efficient and takes no wrong turns. “WALL-E” is a possible spoiler, but I just don’t see the academy handing a writing award to an animated film.

Adapted Screenplay: My personal pick is “Frost/Nixon,” which unjustly doesn’t seem to have the widespread support of other top contenders. I found it completely engrossing, but won’t be disappointed when “Slumdog Millionaire” takes the prize. I can’t imagine ever writing such a detailed, complex story that despite the massive scope of events, somehow never seems contrived. It’s continually clever and never loses site of its characters.

Supporting Actress: This is the one primary category I wasn’t able to give it’s proper due having missed “Doubt,” which was awarded four acting nominations, two in this category (for Amy Adams and reported scene stealer Viola Davis). Taraji P. Henson gave a sweet performance in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” but I’m not even certain she was that film’s top supporting actress. Marisa Tomei would be my pick for “The Wrestler” had she not won an Oscar years ago for “My Cousin Vinny.” Unfortunately, that kind of thing factors into the academy’s decision process. I suspect the “Doubt” actresses will split their votes, leading to a win for Penelope Cruz for her work in Woody Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.” Regrettably, I missed this one as well.

Supporting Actor: I don’t see any way Heath Ledger loses this for his work as the Joker in “The Dark Knight.” Sometimes people are ambivalent about voting for deceased actors, but in this case no other nominee has the steam to overcome him. If forced to pick an upset it’d be Josh Brolin for “Milk,” mainly because some consider the actor overdue for some kind of recognition, but like Henson (above), I don’t know if he’s even the best supporting performance in that film. Robert Downey Jr. was nominated for a fun, but silly performance in “Tropic Thunder,” and Michael Shannon’s nomination for “Revolutionary Road” was his award. The always excellent Phillip Seymour Hoffman won an Oscar three years ago and won’t win here. Bet the house on Ledger.


The Heavyweight Categories . . .

Actress: Let’s go by process of elimination here. Angelina Jolie was terrific in “Changeling,” but she’s got no chance. The lukewarm reception to the film and disappointing box-office did her in. Neither does critical favorite Melissa Leo for “Frozen River.” Anne Hathaway gave a breakthrough prestige performance in “Rachel Getting Married,” but some will view this as the first of several nominations down the road. That leaves Oscar favorite Meryl Streep for “Doubt,” and the actress many consider her heir apparent, Kate Winslet, nominated for her work in “The Reader.” The most nominated actor of all-time, Streep has two previous wins and some critics felt this was not among her finest work. Winslet contrastingly was by far the best part of her film, giving a multi-faceted performance that elevated the material. In addition to being long overdue, many felt she should’ve been nominated for “Revolutionary Road,” and will reward her for a strong year. It’s close, but Winslet’s the pick.

Actor: I missed seeing “The Visitor,” but in truth first time nominee Richard Jenkins has little chance in an unusually competitive field. Similarly, Pitt’s thoughtful work in “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is probably the least likely win from that film’s leading thirteen nominations. Frank Langella gave a powerhouse performance as former President Richard Nixon in “Frost/Nixon,” but he’s generally seen as the 3rd place finisher here. Still, the leading contenders have detractors. Sean Penn was magnificent as the title character in “Milk and is a deserved favorite to win. But the gay theme may turn off older voters (see “Brokeback Mountain”) and Penn won this award just five years ago for “Mystic River.” Mickey Rourke’s personal story is the best of the bunch and his work in “The Wrestler” was as poignant and memorable as any 2008 performance. But he’s not exactly an eloquent speaker and the academy may not want to reward the reputable bad boy who turned his back on serious acting for years. Langella is a respected veteran with no flaws here, but his fellow actors picked Penn at the SAG awards, while Rourke took this prize at the Golden Globes. Make your own guess here, but I’ll go with Penn for “Milk.”

(Note: Clint Eastwood’s “Gran Torino” snub was a shock to me. This performance, combined with his work in “Million Dollar Baby” represents his finest dramatic work ever. It’s also emblematic of the unique, hard-edged tough guy persona he created decades ago. He’s also funny as hell and probably should be there ahead of Pitt).

Director: For anyone still reading, I’ve finally come to the top awards. “The Reader” director Stephen Daldry seems to have benefited most by Harvey Weinstein’s over-the-top campaign promotion for the film. Daldry is respected, now having been nominated in this category for his first three films (an amazing feat) along with “Billy Elliot” and “The Hours,” though ironically I’m not sure he’s truly warranted any of them. But he won’t win this, nor will Ron Howard, with his second directing nomination for “Frost/Nixon.” His was a professional job, as he creatively merged fact with fiction in a riveting account of an old event that felt new. But the film never really caught on with the public and he seems destined to be an also-ran. Similarly, “Milk’s” Gus Van Sant has a previous directing nomination and a sensational film that didn’t turn into the hit some thought it might. Both Howard and Van Sant were more solid than fancy, a good strategy for strong, sustained filmmaking, but not necessarily for winning awards. David Fincher is the wild card. He’s long been a critical favorite and it’s his first time here. But for every smashing review for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button,” there was another who called it an overlong “Forrest Gump” clone (I was not among those.) It was an ambitious project, very well made and featuring a lot of technical wizardry, but it’s not Fincher’s year. The award will likely go to Danny Boyle. Another first time nominee, his “Slumdog Millionaire” has been a word of mouth hit, a feel good story, and an epic tale of courage and tragedy. It’s also set in a country the film community hardly ever sees and certainly never like this, so expect Hollywood to reward themselves for venturing out and acknowledging Mr. Boyle, a worthy winner.

(M.I.A. Christopher Nolan, another long overdue filmmaker who I thought might sneak into the group even if “The Dark Knight” was ignored for best picture. He deserves recognition for crafting the smartest blockbuster in years and for getting his all-star cast to treat every scene as drama. I suspect some couldn’t bring themselves beyond seeing it as comic book material, but if “Gladiator” and “Lord of the Rings” can win best picture, I don’t see why “The Dark Knight” couldn’t have been nominated here. The amazing thing is Nolan’s film was better received critically and commercially than Fincher’s, making him seem a logical choice for director).

Picture: I probably could’ve combined this and the director’s category, because the nominees match up perfectly and I don’t see much changing here. For the most part they did a good job in this category, minus “The Reader” which is decent, but simply doesn’t measure up to the rest. Better nominees would’ve included the aforementioned “The Dark Knight,” “The Wrestler,” “Gran Torino,” or “WALL-E,” not to mention “Body of Lies,” “Changeling,” and “In Bruges.” “The Reader” won’t win; neither will “Frost/Nixon” (too small and political) and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” (too big with a mixed reception). The one legitimate spoiler could be “Milk,” which was exceedingly well shot, written, and acted. It’s about an important subject and felt very relevant despite taking place nearly thirty years ago. But have all the voters even seen it? If “Brokeback Mountain” couldn’t defeat “Crash,” as the presumed favorite, I don’t see “Milk” gaining enough steam here as an underdog. Thus, your 2008 best picture goes to . (Envelope please) . . . . . Slumdog Millionaire,” an admirable choice who’s reputation will undoubtedly suffer over time as a result of this win. But that’s for bitter internet dwellers to decide.

Enjoy and Good Luck

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Super Sunday and January News

Super Sunday is finally here. The big game follows a hectic recent period for news. It’s been nearly two weeks since Obama’s inauguration, which was actually pretty interesting to watch on DVR (fast-forwarding proved useful). I admittedly hadn’t felt compelled to watch it live, despite the excitement stirred by a bunch of people (most of whom nobody’s ever heard of) walking in a straight line for hours on end. For me the real story occurred when he had won the election, though I certainly understand why it was historic to so many thousands. But honestly, did we need to see Obama dance at six different balls? If I were him I’d be pissed off. He gave an inspiring, eloquent speech, provoking goose bumps with multiple promises, while hitting Bush with a few none-too-subtle jabs. His reward: Being filmed eating lunch and dancing in circles for cameras well passed a point when the average human’s heels would’ve buckled. I wouldn’t ever want to be president, especially if they’d make me swear in twice after a single verbal slip-up. If they’d made Bush repeat every statement he messed up, Obama’s big day would’ve been pushed to 2049. That was the low point of the day, though it was nearly off-set by the sight of Cheney rolling around in that wheelchair. For a while I figured one of his hunting buddies had decided to get revenge.

One thing that struck me these last few weeks about Obama is the extent to which he has become a genuine cross-over celebrity. He’s on the covers of magazines coming to my home (trust me, they have nothing to do with politics) and he’s been asked about everything from the songs on his iPod, to his favorite movies, to his ideas for an NCAA football playoff system. By all accounts he seems a pretty cool guy, which is going to make it really tough for the writers at SNL, the Daily Show, and the Late Night crews over the next several years (Having Bush in office for eight years had been a performance booster to comedy writers everywhere, just as steroids might enhance the quality of an athlete’s performance . . . Now we’ll have to see if they can still deliver). Still, Obama lay low on my radar compared to some other events in January. With the Ohio weather continuing to build toward my upcoming suicide attempt, I’ve been watching a lot of TV in my sweatpants when not working. Here’s a quick recap:

The 5th season premiere of “Lost” was easily the most anticipated television event in years and for the most part it delivered. Although I don’t know that the creators delivered on their promise of offering more answers than questions this year. The first episode flashed back and forward multiple times (picture “Back to the Future” if all the writers were on crack) and introduced more new characters to what is already the biggest cast on television. Still, I can’t get enough of it, as opposed to “American Idol,” which is finally becoming a bit long in the tooth. Hiring a 4th judge (the ridiculously hot Kara DioGuardi) was a smart move, but there haven’t been any surprises so far. Hopefully Hollywood week will prove more compelling.

The Screen Actors Guild award show was solid, featuring an amusing James Earl Jones tribute and the always anticipated “In Memoriam” montage. Predictably, Paul Newman drew the largest reaction in an unusually star-studded tribute. Major wins for Sean Penn (“Milk”) and Meryl Streep (“Doubt”) makes Oscar predictions more difficult than usual (my picks are on hold until I’ve seen the last few on my list). Those nominations were announced three days earlier, with the biggest snubs going to Clint Eastwood (“Gran Torino”) and “The Dark Knight.” I had a strong hunch the latter would get left out of the best picture and director categories, despite being remarkably qualified as compelling drama. While the show isn’t in and of itself about ratings, they’ve been declining rapidly over the last few years, especially in the wake of independent films dominating the major categories. Nominating a deserving candidate that just happens to be the biggest blockbuster in a dozen years would’ve increased awareness, viewership, and general acceptance. Since the mid-90s, the only two telecasts that didn’t stink it up in the Nielsen ratings featured “Titanic” and “Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. You do the math.

In a development that’s relieved me of substantial stress, the Celtics have stormed back since the Cleveland annihilation a few weeks ago. They’ve won eleven straight and appear to have snapped out of their funk, making the idea of bringing in Stephon Marbury even more ludicrous. With the team reestablishing itself, the all-star snub of Ray Allen is a bit hard to fathom. Statistically he’s been the most proficient off-guard in the NBA and has arguably been the best player for Boston this year. Unfortunately, being selfless has proven a fault in this regard and the coaches should’ve known better. Voting three members of the Orlando Magic on to the team is absurd and points only to their surprising record. Dwight Howard should be their only representative. Out west I’m still not sure how Carmelo Anthony got left off the team, but he and Ray can go shoot eighteen holes and relax during the upcoming long weekend. For the record, I’m switching one of my finals picks. The Celtics will still be there, but I now see them facing the Spurs, which could result in a series so well played they could record and sell the DVD as an instructional video on fundamentals. Should the Green repeat however, they’ll be doing so without Lucky, who got the axe earlier this week. I thought I’d jump for joy the day the C’s parted ways with that trampoline jumping would-be leprechaun, but for some reason I feel bad for the guy.

Meanwhile the Red Sox continue to show their wisdom when it comes to signing valued commodities. This off-season they added John Smoltz, Brad Penny, and Rocco Baldelli, all of whom could make an impact. They also retained Kevin Youkilis, Dustin Pedroia, Jonathan Papelbon, and captain Jason Varitek, making them favorites to reach the World Series in 2009. In related news, Jim Rice finally made the Hall of Fame on his 15th and final try. I’m really glad he’s in, but what in the world changed about his production from his first year of eligibility to this one? Did he get better? It’s a completely subjective vote that’s only going to become more controversial as more of the 90s power hitters become eligible. That reminds me; the funniest thing I read all week was that Mark McGwire’s baby brother Jay ratted him out publicly for his using steroids, in a book no less. There’s nothing like family huh? Anyway, I know it’s beating a dead horse, but I still can’t get over how good Boston sports have had it recently. Even the Patriots finished a strong season at 11-5 after losing the best player in football! Had they made the playoffs I suspect they’d have won a game or two, but probably fallen short of the Super Bowl, which now airs in four hours. Why do I cut these things so close?

I didn’t pick either Pittsburgh or Arizona to make the Super Bowl at the start of the playoffs, though both my picks (Baltimore and Philadelphia) made the conference championship games, meaning I did better than most prognosticators in that regard. The Steelers are the favorites and rightly so. They were arguably the best team in the NFL all year led by a brutal defense and one of the leagues toughest Quarterbacks. They don’t make many mistakes and are tough as nails. Arizona’s march towards the big game for the first time in their history has been stunning (though Tampa Bay’s World Series appearance was still far more improbable; those ESPN.com poll results are sillier than ever). I much prefer watching the Cardinals than Steelers, and am glad they emerged from the NFC, as opposed to the New York Giants who still suck  Their offense is explosive and should they score first or at any time hit reach a ten-fourteen point lead, I don’t think Pittsburgh will come back. However, I don’t really see that happening, as much as I’d like to rub a loss into Steeler fans (who are at least as annoying as us Mass-Holes). History has shown time and time again that a great defense beats a great offense. Remember all those experts picking the Raiders against Tampa in 2002? How about the Ravens defense smothering NY in 2000? Or the underdog Pats defeating the Rams in 2001? True, the Colts did escape Chicago in 2006, but that’s because any random cashier from your local supermarket would’ve been an improvement for the Bears at Quarterback. They didn’t give themselves a realistic chance.

As spoiled as I’ve become watching the Patriots semi-annual trips to the big dance, I’m looking forward to tonight’s match up. The Cards have the most exciting receiving core in the league and Kurt Warner’s play has made for a great comeback story. In a way it’s a relief not having any feelings personally invested in the outcome. T and I will be making a pizza, munching on Doritos, and having a few drinks before inevitably switching to coffee around 9pm. Around the midway point in the 2nd quarter I suspect she’ll find her way to the computer, while I become giddy about the upcoming Bruce Springsteen halftime show. He probably only is allowed the time for three-four songs; I’m guessing “The Rising, “Glory Days,” and “Born to Run” for a close, with something off his new album mixed in. He’ll probably make at least one brief political statement (which I usually scoff at), but The Boss is among maybe five celebrities who I’m willing to let get away with anything. Actually, the most interesting news from the Super Bowl thus far is that as of Thursday they hadn’t sold out all their ad spots. Everyone knows the economy is terrible but this got my attention, as this is the single biggest promotion evening of the year for several companies both old and new. Super Bowl commercials have disappointed the last several years, so if even three are memorable I’ll consider it a solid night.

For what it’s worth, the Super Bowl already should have come and gone. That two week layover is still a dumb idea and tends to kill momentum. I’d be curious to see a ratings comparison for years in which the game has been telecast one week versus two weeks following the conference title games to see if there’s any difference. As the average viewer, I really see no other argument for postponing it. I lose interest between the end of the college football season and the bowl games (following a month break), I hate when television shows try to comeback after months of repeats . . . hype only works with limitations. The Super Bowl is a strong enough event to overcome a relatively short break, but it shouldn’t have to. Nobody needs an extra week of reporters and columnists repeating arguments they had seven days earlier.

In the end though I suppose it’s all about the outcome, so let me rub my crystal ball. This will be the final score, so put all your money down on what I’m about to tell you. I’m thinking . . . . . . I see Madden making at least thirty-four statements that make no sense . . . . . . This is hard . . . . . . I see a lot of Budweiser ads that will come too late to stop me from buying Coors . . . . . . It should be close . . . . . . No blow-outs tonight for sure . . . . . . I watched “Wanted” last night. It’s the most unapologetically violent, brainless, entertaining summer action movie in years . . . . . . Man, so many factors to consider . . . . . . Shit, I need to take out the trash . . . . . . I see lots of hollering and shoving following insignificant plays holding no bearing on the score from players you’ll never hear from again . . . . . . I need to get to the gym . . . . . . I got it!

Pittsburgh Steelers - 27
Arizona Cardinals – 21

Remember to stay tuned for an hour long episode of “The Office” after the game (you’d think I work for NBC’s advertising team). The game always has the potential to become a snoozer. But Michael Scott would never let that happen.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

The Most Fraudulent Cliche in Sports

You hear it during postgame interviews following any big win. The reporter corners the hometown hero, who answers mindless babble regarding working hard and stepping up to a challenge, before inevitably thanking his team’s fans. Ironically every player, regardless of location or the team to which he is affiliated announces his fans are the best in the league. However, certain rules immediately disqualify a fan base from being the best; Are they knowledgeable about the sport? Did they care about the team when they were bad? Do they have a legitimate rooting interest in their success beyond a fun night out at the arena?

I've been pondering these questions after attending Friday nights Cavaliers/Celtics game in Cleveland, a circled date on the calendar for any true basketball fan. Regrettably for yours truly, the Celtics played like donkeys with the exception of Kevin Garnett, who never seemed to stop working. But Paul Pierce and Ray Allen looked lethargic from start to finish, Rajon Rondo was inconsistent, and Doc Rivers couldn't find a single unit with any rhythm. We gave ourselves no shot to win as Cleveland out worked, out shot, and out defended us (inexcusable) for four straight quarters. Lebron James also had ‘that’ look in his eyes all night. You could see he wasn't going to let the Cavs lose as he subsequently dominated every aspect of the game. But enough reminiscing about the on court play. If I immerse myself deeply into how and why Boston has been playing so poorly the last couple of weeks, this entry will be twenty-five pages long. So let’s get back to my real concern, which involves the Cleveland fans. I realize there is no way to convince readers that I am capable of a neutral opinion on what follows, so you'll just have to take my word as fact (TB can vouch for everything I'm about to report, for what it's worth).

The Cleveland crowd, for lack of a better word, sucked. Throughout the first half, the sold out stadium was so quiet you could actually hear a pin drop. I at one point turned to TB to ask why we could hear conversations taking place ten rows away. Talk about a lifeless crowd. This was the biggest professional sporting event the city of Cleveland has seen since last year's playoffs, and the excitement was virtually nonexistent. I started texting friends in disbelief. Even when the Celtics went 15-67 during the dreadful 1996 season, the crowds were louder than this. The only energy in the building developed as a result of silly jumbotron prompts that had nothing to do with the Cavs! At random moments throughout the game, it flashed the logos of the Pittsburgh Steelers, Michigan Wolverines, and even the Boston Red Sox, all of which elicited sustained boos from the crowd. Apparently the magnitude of the game itself wasn't enough to get them caring, though not to worry. After I’d all but given up on them, the building exploded midway through the third with a rousing chorus of "Cha Lu Pa!" The crowd roared in unison and it took a full minute to figure out what they were suddenly screaming with enthusiasm. Over and over and over, chants of "Cha Lu Pa" echoed from one side of the stadium to the other. Nothing like Taco Bell to pump up twenty thousand fair weather fans.

During the fourth quarter the indifferent crowd finally came alive, although by that time the Cavs were up twenty, the outcome no longer in doubt. A "Boston sucks" chant suddenly echoed through the rafters from out of nowhere, though I suppose I expected it from this group of dispirited morons, who depended on a highlighted plus/minus score differential on the scoreboard to help identify how many points they were winning by. Seriously, a plus/minus digital score? Can they not add in Cleveland? I've never seen that before. While their eventual win brought the season series to a tie (1-1), the C’s are still the defending champions, and our city has amassed a plethora of recent championships. The last title won by this shitty city was for the Browns (1964), before the Super Bowl even existed! The fact that Cleveland broke into this disheartening chant made me chuckle. It's like the Rolling Stones being criticized by a wannabe startup band with no songs of note.

To highlight a few positives, Quicken Loans Arena was physically impressive. Newer and larger than the TD Banknorth Garden, it also boasted better entertainment value, at least throughout the concourse. They offered a free sign making booth, fun for both kids and obnoxious adults. With an option like this, frustrated fathers can escape dragging awkward cardboard cutouts featuring humorless lines like "We Rule" all the way from home. A team of young talented dancers occupied a space by the escalator and even encouraged fans to match their hip moves (sadly the only person we saw try was a middle-aged white guy). Additionally, the ‘Q’ provided an electronic basketball shooting game where you could challenge an opponent to see who could score more points in thirty seconds. The pretzels sold were in the shape of giant Q's, not exactly ingenious, but fun none the less. And offering Cold Stone Creamery products is always a smart move. The prices were more or less inline with Boston sporting events, though the beer was slightly cheaper. Lastly and most bizarrly they gave out a free deck of cards to every fan, causing me to wonder if they somehow knew I'd be writing this article.

Unfortunately the in-game entertainment was poor, very poor. Despite a cool opening fire blast and a funny montage showing famous Bostonians wearing simulated Cavs gear (including the stars of Cheers, Damon & Affleck, Bird & McHale, etc...), they were pretty stingy with alternative entertainment, including the lack of any halftime activities. Does this happen anywhere else? Young kids sat there with nothing to look at for sixteen minutes other than the two ball boys shooting lay-ups. The ‘Q’ didn't offer any fan money shot. They did replicate the slingshot shirt throw and parachute drop, though the latter didn't reach fans in the seats most deserving (i.e. the balcony). Rather the majority of them dropped into the laps of the affluent families occupying the lower level $200 seats. TB was quick to point out that the Cleveland uniforms didn't match, a fact, although they were wearing old school jerseys on this evening. The P.A. system was another failure, until the previously mentioned chalupa chants. At one point they played "Sweet Caroline" so softly I wondered if the goal was to taunt the few Boston fans who could hardly hear it, but they weren't that clever. Hearing that Sox anthem in a stadium where nobody sang along was perhaps the most depressing experience of 2009 thus far. The extended movie montages (a typical highlight for me) were few and far between, and the Cavs cheerleaders rarely took the court. Most disappointing was their team mascot Moondog, who brought no personality and his dunks were pedestrian at best. He actually made me long for Lucky, the C’s infuriating mascot who I regularly rip for being annoying.

It must be said that parking was much more accessible and cheaper ($15) than for Boston sporting events. Although with the weather being typically hideous for Ohio, our drive home was somewhat horrifying. Upon exiting the ‘Q’ a few obnoxious Cleveland fans began yelling for Celtic's fans to "suck their . . . . .,” a classy move if ever there was one. A young man from Columbus who sat next to us during the game had even remarked how “ghetto” the Cleveland masses were. A fellow Boston fan we spoke to actually informed us of his intent to register an official complaint over how disgusting the crowd had acted towards visiting fans. While I don't tend to take this stuff personally, I do find it telling that there were no taunts prior to tip-off or throughout the early stages of the game. While having a few pregame drinks at “Harry Buffalo,” a seemingly popular sport's bar across from the ‘Q’, we'd received a couple of stares from Cleveland fans, but not much conversation. I expected more having been showing off my official KG tank top and Celtic's hat. TB wore a green Celtics shirt, and the best any fan could come up with was a lifeless "so not cool" to me on my way to the bathroom. Where was the ridicule earlier in the evening? Doesn't Cleveland have any pride? I guess being so accustomed to losing, they don't pile it on until after registering a worthwhile victory, an achievement so rare they don't know how to act accordingly when they do win.

When all was said and done, the biggest cheers inside the ‘Q’ may have actually been for Ben Wallace, the most generously supported bad player in sports. The stadium went nuts when he hit a free throw in the final minutes, another rare event I gathered. Sure they cheered for the lovable Anderson Varejao (Cleveland’s answer to Brian Scalabrine). They went bonkers for the Chalupas and of course Lebron, who was awesome. But these were brief, isolated moments occupying perhaps thirty minutes of a game that ran almost three hours. One of my friends said the building sounded loud on TV, which makes me wonder how good ESPN's sound system must be to stage that kind of electricity. The energy during the fourth quarter was in my view completely nullified by the prolonged dead patches that marked the first three.

Fortunately, I wasn’t subjected to King James referencing the league’s ‘best fans’ in his postgame interview. If he had he'd have been lying, like so many athletes probably feel compelled to do. When he inevitably bolts for New York in 2010, he'll instantly know the kind of worthwhile fan base he's been missing all these years. Roughly 80% of the merchandise offered at the ‘Q’ concession stands consisted of tee shirts reading "Witness," a reference to the Nike sponsored ads for Lebron. Sadly for the Cleveland folks, they have little else to latch on to. And once their local hero abandons this despondent franchise, they will resort back to the indifferent demeanor that seems to characterize the entire city. While my beloved Celtics lost in disappointing fashion on this snowy evening, I left Cleveland with a sense of pride, taking solace in knowing where I come from and who I have the opportunity to support.