Rajon Rondo just submitted one of the greatest playoff games by any Celtic in my lifetime. But before gushing over how awesome he has become (my green screensaver now lists the 3 definitions of what it means to be "Rondo'd") , I’d like to confirm that I was 8 for 8 picking the 1st round of the NBA playoffs. Unfortunately, because I failed to post these predictions prior to tip-off in round 1, you’ll have to take my word for it. There were only two surprises; Atlanta’s difficulty in eliminating Milwaukee minus Andrew Bogut and Bill Simmons’ incomprehensible pick of Miami in 7 games, the most telling example yet of his pitiful transition to lazy Los Angeles fan. I would’ve bet my apartment on the C’s in round 1. Other high and lowlights: Kevin Durant continued to emerge as a force, Dirk Nowitzki cemented his status as the best player incapable of winning a big game, and Brandon Roy is unfortunately turning into Grant Hill before our eyes. Above all, the Cleveland Cavaliers have become the 2001 Lakers, though not with their play but the public perception surrounding them.
They benefit from phantom fouls to such a degree that the David Stern conspiracy theories seem truly justified. They also have the most arrogant fan base ever for a team that frankly hasn’t won anything. They cruised through the league with ease on their way to the NBA’s top record, but that only goes so far. Hell the 1996 Sonics won 64 games. The media has treated this Cavalier squad with a reverence typically accorded to champions. With the best player in the world leading them this isn't a complete shock, undeserved as it is. But I’ll use this forum to repeat myself for the umpteenth time in 2010 . . . this is NOT a great team, but a good one, made very good with the late season acquisition of Antawn Jamison. They have strong shooting and size, but no real point guard. They have the scariest offensive player in the world, but a suspect coach. They defend with intelligence, but lack the requisite intensity to dominate an entire playoff. I think Lebron knows he’s leaving. I have no proof of course, merely a strong hunch. To everyone who claims he (and Dwayne Wade for that matter) is staying put, I ask the obvious: Why would he stay? James hails from Akron, and perhaps he fears the hometown perception should he bolt to the New York area. But I think he possesses a selfish drive that he hides better than say, Kobe Bryant. He wants to be King of the sport’s world and it’s time to move to the world's biggest city. They have the money to surround James with anyone and anything he wants. Cleveland has made a strong effort, but if I’m James I’m leaving. Shaq is not the answer, neither is Mo Williams. A fresh start ensures at least 3 rings, whereas I could see him wasting his prime years for the Cavs. So I’ll go on record, something I should’ve done months ago: If he wins a title in 2010, he will stay. If not, he’s gone. Wade’s choice is much, much easier unless he can’t live without the beach and pulled pork sandwiches. He can challenge Lebron for the next decade with a timely relocation to Chicago. Otherwise he will go down as the best player ever to win but a single title. I offer no exaggeration: Wade IS that good, though few non-basketball lifers would know it.
The 2nd round has been more surprising than the 1st for a few reasons. The Suns have dominated the Spurs for the first time in Steve Nash’s tenure, with a more polished half-court offense and a higher commitment to defense than his previous highlight reel teams. This series also marks the end of the Spurs, whom I’ve never discounted until now. It's officially time for San Antonio to rebuild (think the Celtics circa 1990). Whether they will is another question. The Lakers have also cruised to a 3-0 lead in round 2, leaving a very good Utah team on the verge of summer vacation. It’s tough to fault the Jazz, who have the league’s best point guard-big man tandem in Deron Williams and Carlos Boozer. They’ve never matched up well with the Kobe-led Lakers, but they are one smart trade away from dominating the western conference for the next 5 years (unless Durant goes bonkers).
In the east no team has disappointed more than the Hawks, who would’ve fared better against either Cleveland or Boston. But a hungry Orlando group is crushing them. When Joe Johnson leaves this summer, it will mark a quick end to the Atlanta resurgence. Al Horford deserves better. But Orlando looks awesome and will benefit more than anyone from the likely 7-game series emerging between their competitors. The Magic are playing with purpose and a chip on their shoulder, knowing that television executives everywhere are hoping they fold before the NBA finals. The league’s dream match up would be L.A./Cleveland, allowing a fight between the world’s two best players for the 1st time since 1987, the last time Bird and Magic faced off. The runner-up scenario would be Boston upsetting Cleveland for a rematch from 2008 between the NBA’s top franchises. An Orlando/Phoenix match up would provide some entertainment and a rare opportunity for Nash & Vince Carter to get over the hump, more important for the latter. Plus Dwight Howard vs. Amare Stoudemire is intriguing. But ultimately nobody wants this match up. And if I’m Nash I’m praying Boston doesn’t advance because they have the only point guard left capable of destroying him, which brings us back to Rondo.
The newly anointed best player for the Celtics, Rondo just put together a spectacular Game 4, posting 29 points, 18 rebounds, & 13 assists, one of them a fast break behind-the-back feed to Tony Allen that fooled Lebron right out of the gym. He is the fastest open-court guard since young Jason Kidd and a constantly improving shooter as well. He drew the defense all day long, creating easy buckets for Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen (strong performance), Glen Davis, and especially Tony Allen, who for my money played his best game in a Boston uniform thus far, making timely baskets and smothering James as well as anyone has in months. But this was Rondo’s show and he was so good that he single-handedly offset a virtual no-show by Paul Pierce, who fought foul trouble and only emerged down the stretch of the 4th quarter. But I’m feeling great right now. The Celtics could easily be up 3-1 had they not blown Game 1. Furthermore they are silencing not only their critics, but the shortsighted local and national media who jumped all over the Cleveland bandwagon. I wanted Cleveland in the East semis rather than the conference finals, knowing we'd have more energy at this stage. I predicted a 7-game series when most of the country saw 5. And it wasn’t a merely a case of favoritism for my hometown boys. The bottom line: For the Cavs to win Lebron is going to need to be the best player on the floor every night. The Celtics merely need one of the big 3 to give Rondo a break every now-and-again. And something tells me Pierce is due to drop 35. He’s too proud and too talented not to make his presence felt in this series.
Beef’s crystal ball the rest of the way: A pair of hard-fought road wins (it's that competitive!) in games 5 & 6, with Boston coming through to take game 7 in Cleveland. And if I’m wrong, at least I didn’t abandon ship like the Sport's Guy.
Reel Opinions on Movies
Sunday, May 9, 2010
Thursday, April 1, 2010
April Fools Day: Time to Make it Official
Seriously what a great day! I relayed tales of chance encounters with the most random old acquaintances. I successfully caused my mom to panic by convincing her I sliced my finger open without health insurance. I later drunkenly fooled my dad into believing my fiancé left me. And I developed ingenious plans for convincing several friends that their significant other(s) were pregnant (foiled by the fact that the girls in question can't keep a straight face). I submit April 1st becomes an official holiday, a day in which all Americans are encouraged to not only make fools of friends & family (excluding the elderly of course; we're not trying to cause heart attacks), but also to play hooky to allow time for the most creative pranks available. This really isn't as crazy as it sounds. Lets run-down the list of days which already inexplicably qualify as holidays (or at least draw national attention):
Valentine's Day: A couple of greedy Hallmark executives decided they needed a time other than Christmas & mid-May (graduation month) to pad their commissions. Each year on February 14th, men all over the country collectively smack their foreheads and start searching for dinner reservations & jewelry store coupons.
President's Day: Oh, please. How many people in the history of the world deserve to have their birthdays celebrated? Maybe Larry Bird and the founder of "Dunkin Donuts." That's about it. At least they lumped the presidents together, but still, we only have 365 of these days go around. As for George Washington, he may have been the first, but certainly not the best.
Groundhog Day: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ok I feel better after getting that out. While not a real holiday, the silliest themed day on the calendar deserves special mention. At least it inspired a funny movie. Let’s just move on.
Columbus Day: Well they say the guy discovered America, even though historians question that claim and by many accounts Columbus was a murderer. Still, this might be the best day of the year for college students. First semester is barely underway, yet here comes a 3 day weekend with no religious obligations. Hard not love it, even though I can't support it.
4th of July: By definition a completely legit holiday, but here's the thing. Probably less than 10% of the population cares or thinks about what the day actually represents. It's become an excuse to get out of work, chow down some barbeque, and drink one's self into a coma by four in the afternoon. I wouldn't really have any objection if it ended here, but we also have "Flag Day," which seems just a tad unnecessary don't you think?
National Arbor Day: Ummmm, yah. Trees really don't merit a day when we already have the highly questionable "Earth Day," which basically celebrates the fact that another year passed without our population wiping itself out. This brings me to . . .
New Year's Day: Every nation acknowledges the New Year, but it's about as meaningless a reason for celebration as any. They could just as easily call it "hangover day" or "national recovery day," or since everyone's going to be skipping work anyway, how about changing the date of Labor Day?
Mother & Father's Day: Ok, I won't go there, since every parent in America would answer their child’s question the same way . . . "Every day is kid's day!!!"
Easter: I'll get flamed for this one, but whatever. Over the long Easter weekend, I worked every day and endured some of the unhappiest people I've ever seen. Maybe the pressures of family visits had the entire Akron area on edge, but let’s just say people weren't exactly embracing the spirit of, in theory, one of the most spiritual days on the calendar. Oh, the irony of watching desperate renters fight over our few copies of 'The Passion of the Christ." I guess the kick-off for the weekend is called 'Good Friday' for a reason; an off day for all children and many adults, yet there are few mandatory observances before Sunday church-going. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for children enjoying a day filled with stuffed bunnies, egg hunts, and those heavenly chocolate/peanut-butter concoctions from Reese’s. But for a day when 95% of the country pays homage to their savior literally rising from the grave (a visitor from another planet would think I’m kidding), I think they are taking that sacred book just a touch too seriously.
So now that we've eliminated the aforementioned holidays, let’s see what we’re left with (I feel like George Carlin whittling the 10 commandments down to 2):
Christmas: Too dominant to ever rid of and a fun day for all, even though the reason for its existence becomes lost annually during a maddening commerce-driven 3 weeks.
Thanksgiving: "The" American holiday, featuring family, food, football (talk about alliteration), and the longest of all long weekends.
Martin Luther King Day: I suppose too important to ignore and eliminating it would cause riots by a large, intimidating segment of our population.
Halloween: Without a doubt the best night of the year for kids.
Labor Day: A well-earned day off to halt our collective depression from summer ending.
War Remembrance Days: Too disrespectful to lump them all into a single day, even though Memorial Day has come to represent the group.
Yom Kippur & Passover (both essential for reasons that even the most reformed Jew such as myself can’t forget). But just to show I'm not above pointing the finger at myself, Rosh Hashanah (bizarro New Years), Purim (bizarro Halloween), and Hanukah (bizarro Christmas) are all somewhat debatable. I really shouldn't send this blog to my grandmother.
(Note: How great is the word Bizarro? Is there anything Seinfeld can’t do?)
The bottom line: If we're going to treat so many frivolous days as reasons to celebrate, what's one more? I’d close by saying April Fools, but that would contradict everything I’ve said.
Valentine's Day: A couple of greedy Hallmark executives decided they needed a time other than Christmas & mid-May (graduation month) to pad their commissions. Each year on February 14th, men all over the country collectively smack their foreheads and start searching for dinner reservations & jewelry store coupons.
President's Day: Oh, please. How many people in the history of the world deserve to have their birthdays celebrated? Maybe Larry Bird and the founder of "Dunkin Donuts." That's about it. At least they lumped the presidents together, but still, we only have 365 of these days go around. As for George Washington, he may have been the first, but certainly not the best.
Groundhog Day: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Ok I feel better after getting that out. While not a real holiday, the silliest themed day on the calendar deserves special mention. At least it inspired a funny movie. Let’s just move on.
Columbus Day: Well they say the guy discovered America, even though historians question that claim and by many accounts Columbus was a murderer. Still, this might be the best day of the year for college students. First semester is barely underway, yet here comes a 3 day weekend with no religious obligations. Hard not love it, even though I can't support it.
4th of July: By definition a completely legit holiday, but here's the thing. Probably less than 10% of the population cares or thinks about what the day actually represents. It's become an excuse to get out of work, chow down some barbeque, and drink one's self into a coma by four in the afternoon. I wouldn't really have any objection if it ended here, but we also have "Flag Day," which seems just a tad unnecessary don't you think?
National Arbor Day: Ummmm, yah. Trees really don't merit a day when we already have the highly questionable "Earth Day," which basically celebrates the fact that another year passed without our population wiping itself out. This brings me to . . .
New Year's Day: Every nation acknowledges the New Year, but it's about as meaningless a reason for celebration as any. They could just as easily call it "hangover day" or "national recovery day," or since everyone's going to be skipping work anyway, how about changing the date of Labor Day?
Mother & Father's Day: Ok, I won't go there, since every parent in America would answer their child’s question the same way . . . "Every day is kid's day!!!"
Easter: I'll get flamed for this one, but whatever. Over the long Easter weekend, I worked every day and endured some of the unhappiest people I've ever seen. Maybe the pressures of family visits had the entire Akron area on edge, but let’s just say people weren't exactly embracing the spirit of, in theory, one of the most spiritual days on the calendar. Oh, the irony of watching desperate renters fight over our few copies of 'The Passion of the Christ." I guess the kick-off for the weekend is called 'Good Friday' for a reason; an off day for all children and many adults, yet there are few mandatory observances before Sunday church-going. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for children enjoying a day filled with stuffed bunnies, egg hunts, and those heavenly chocolate/peanut-butter concoctions from Reese’s. But for a day when 95% of the country pays homage to their savior literally rising from the grave (a visitor from another planet would think I’m kidding), I think they are taking that sacred book just a touch too seriously.
So now that we've eliminated the aforementioned holidays, let’s see what we’re left with (I feel like George Carlin whittling the 10 commandments down to 2):
Christmas: Too dominant to ever rid of and a fun day for all, even though the reason for its existence becomes lost annually during a maddening commerce-driven 3 weeks.
Thanksgiving: "The" American holiday, featuring family, food, football (talk about alliteration), and the longest of all long weekends.
Martin Luther King Day: I suppose too important to ignore and eliminating it would cause riots by a large, intimidating segment of our population.
Halloween: Without a doubt the best night of the year for kids.
Labor Day: A well-earned day off to halt our collective depression from summer ending.
War Remembrance Days: Too disrespectful to lump them all into a single day, even though Memorial Day has come to represent the group.
Yom Kippur & Passover (both essential for reasons that even the most reformed Jew such as myself can’t forget). But just to show I'm not above pointing the finger at myself, Rosh Hashanah (bizarro New Years), Purim (bizarro Halloween), and Hanukah (bizarro Christmas) are all somewhat debatable. I really shouldn't send this blog to my grandmother.
(Note: How great is the word Bizarro? Is there anything Seinfeld can’t do?)
The bottom line: If we're going to treat so many frivolous days as reasons to celebrate, what's one more? I’d close by saying April Fools, but that would contradict everything I’ve said.
Monday, March 8, 2010
It's Finally Over: How to Save the Oscar Telecast
Every March I anticipate the most relevant film night of the year and aside from maybe one or two instances, I've ended Sunday disappointed. I'm not even talking about the results, always open for debate. For what it's worth my biggest gripes came involved the writing categories (both Inglourious Basterds & Up in the Air were upset in the original & adapted screenplay groups) and the unexpected domination of The Hurt Locker, a solid, respectable, sometimes exciting film that defeated a handful of better ones. No, I'm here to save the actual telecast, which should be fun but ultimately bores even the most enthusiastic of film buffs. They tried to make things move faster this year, but it still clocked in around 3.5 hours. So here are 5 suggestions that would not only shorten the award fiasco, but make for a smoother, more entertaining show as well.
1) GET RID OF ALL UNNECESSARY PRESENTERS: The most resisted idea on my list is also the most important. Random presenters add almost nothing to the show, serving only to pad the running time by at least 30-45 minutes I'm guessing. "And here to introduce sound mixing is Sigourney Weaver . . ." Who cares? Another problem with the endless introductions, poor quips, and slow walks to the stage is that they limit our enjoyment of the hosts who were hired presumably for a reason. Steve Martin couldn't have been onstage more than 15 minutes last night, but I laugh aloud at least a dozen times when he was. Alec Baldwin looked far less sure of himself, but he improved as the night went on and they had good chemistry. Their exchanges were sharp and well-written and their delivery excellent. Why not simply keep them near the stage all night? They can announce categories much quicker and might even entertain us a little in the process. It seems like a simple idea and I know old school Hollywood types believe it to be a night about the stars, but isn't that what all the red carpet crap is for anyway? At the very least this should be an experiment next year just to see how the show runs. Thus we are left with only the chosen host(s) and specifically chosen presenters who serve some actual purpose, such as the 80s stars who presented the John Hughes tribute.
2) SHORTEN THE ACTING AWARDS: Last year for the first time they had 5 previous Oscar winning actors announce the new winners, filled with lengthy reactions to the nominees' performance and careers. It was nice thought, but it really padded the running time. This year was even worse. The press has already filled hundreds of magazine pages and websites with stories surrounding Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. It must've taken 25 minutes to get through best actor/actress last night which is insane, and leaves the producers short on time and audiences falling asleep. The anti-climactic nature of the best picture announcement with Tom Hanks taking maybe 12 seconds total was ridiculous. Time to return to the old format in which they show a scene from each actor's film and move on.
3) NO MORE SONG AND DANCE NUMBERS: Not everyone will agree with this, but I say leave the singing and dancing to the Grammy's and Tony's. They got this 1/2 right last night, eliminating live performances of the best song nominees, but then contradicted themselves by having strange dancers act out certain films. Their first instinct was correct. And James Taylor's performance was about as out of place as that sort of thing can be. This brings up a huge pet peeve . . .
4) STOP DESTROYING THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: How this is hard is beyond me. In almost all previous years, they have an edited tribute up onscreen representing actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. the academy had lost in each respective year with a carefully chosen piece of music (usually from a film) to accompany it. In back-to-back years now, someone idiotically thought it'd be smart to feature a live performance, a bad idea both in principle and execution. For starters the cameraman never seems to know whether to focus on the musician (WRONG) or the slideshow (DING DING DING), leaving the audience struggling to see parts of the segment. We at home (about 99.999999999999% of the viewers) missed the first 30 seconds or so as well as the end. Furthermore, it confuses the audience response for those actually there in person (when to clap, when not to, etc.) and cheapens the whole experience. And if they act on my earlier ideas from this blog, they wouldn't even have to cut out the dozens of performers (Zelda Rubenstein, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, etc...) who get ignored due to time constraints. I hardly think the memorial tribute is the point of the show to cut seconds or even minutes.
5) BACK TO 5 NOMINEES: Ultimately as predicted, having 10 really did nothing except cheapen the actual victory for the night's winner. It's easy to see where the line was drawn (the 5 nominees would've been The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Precious, Up in the Air, & Inglourious Basterds). By the way, was it really necessary to mention the full name and adaptation for Precious every time it came up last night? Boom, there's another 5 minutes saved. I'm a genius. From an advertising standpoint, I understood the 10 nominees, but that's about it. Up was winning animated feature regardless and Bullock won anyway for The Blind Side, so no reason for either in the best picture category when there was no shot for either. And I'm certain A Serious Man, An Education, and District 9 did little to boost ratings.
Maybe I will print this blog and send it to The Academy of Motion Picture & Sciences in Hollywood, signed a concerned movie fan. Maybe an intern with a single brain cell will look up from his morning coffee and proclaim "Hey, this kid's right! These changes will trim the show by a full hour!" Maybe a higher-up will eventually get around to reading it. Maybe I will receive public credit for single-handedly saving the Oscar ceremony. And maybe years down the road when I'm old and gray, they can mess up a special tribute to me by having it presented by Miley Cyrus' daughter. Or better yet, they can forget all about me in the memorial segment, leaving me slapping my forehead from heaven.
1) GET RID OF ALL UNNECESSARY PRESENTERS: The most resisted idea on my list is also the most important. Random presenters add almost nothing to the show, serving only to pad the running time by at least 30-45 minutes I'm guessing. "And here to introduce sound mixing is Sigourney Weaver . . ." Who cares? Another problem with the endless introductions, poor quips, and slow walks to the stage is that they limit our enjoyment of the hosts who were hired presumably for a reason. Steve Martin couldn't have been onstage more than 15 minutes last night, but I laugh aloud at least a dozen times when he was. Alec Baldwin looked far less sure of himself, but he improved as the night went on and they had good chemistry. Their exchanges were sharp and well-written and their delivery excellent. Why not simply keep them near the stage all night? They can announce categories much quicker and might even entertain us a little in the process. It seems like a simple idea and I know old school Hollywood types believe it to be a night about the stars, but isn't that what all the red carpet crap is for anyway? At the very least this should be an experiment next year just to see how the show runs. Thus we are left with only the chosen host(s) and specifically chosen presenters who serve some actual purpose, such as the 80s stars who presented the John Hughes tribute.
2) SHORTEN THE ACTING AWARDS: Last year for the first time they had 5 previous Oscar winning actors announce the new winners, filled with lengthy reactions to the nominees' performance and careers. It was nice thought, but it really padded the running time. This year was even worse. The press has already filled hundreds of magazine pages and websites with stories surrounding Jeff Bridges and Sandra Bullock. It must've taken 25 minutes to get through best actor/actress last night which is insane, and leaves the producers short on time and audiences falling asleep. The anti-climactic nature of the best picture announcement with Tom Hanks taking maybe 12 seconds total was ridiculous. Time to return to the old format in which they show a scene from each actor's film and move on.
3) NO MORE SONG AND DANCE NUMBERS: Not everyone will agree with this, but I say leave the singing and dancing to the Grammy's and Tony's. They got this 1/2 right last night, eliminating live performances of the best song nominees, but then contradicted themselves by having strange dancers act out certain films. Their first instinct was correct. And James Taylor's performance was about as out of place as that sort of thing can be. This brings up a huge pet peeve . . .
4) STOP DESTROYING THE MEMORIAL TRIBUTE: How this is hard is beyond me. In almost all previous years, they have an edited tribute up onscreen representing actors/directors/writers/producers, etc. the academy had lost in each respective year with a carefully chosen piece of music (usually from a film) to accompany it. In back-to-back years now, someone idiotically thought it'd be smart to feature a live performance, a bad idea both in principle and execution. For starters the cameraman never seems to know whether to focus on the musician (WRONG) or the slideshow (DING DING DING), leaving the audience struggling to see parts of the segment. We at home (about 99.999999999999% of the viewers) missed the first 30 seconds or so as well as the end. Furthermore, it confuses the audience response for those actually there in person (when to clap, when not to, etc.) and cheapens the whole experience. And if they act on my earlier ideas from this blog, they wouldn't even have to cut out the dozens of performers (Zelda Rubenstein, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, etc...) who get ignored due to time constraints. I hardly think the memorial tribute is the point of the show to cut seconds or even minutes.
5) BACK TO 5 NOMINEES: Ultimately as predicted, having 10 really did nothing except cheapen the actual victory for the night's winner. It's easy to see where the line was drawn (the 5 nominees would've been The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Precious, Up in the Air, & Inglourious Basterds). By the way, was it really necessary to mention the full name and adaptation for Precious every time it came up last night? Boom, there's another 5 minutes saved. I'm a genius. From an advertising standpoint, I understood the 10 nominees, but that's about it. Up was winning animated feature regardless and Bullock won anyway for The Blind Side, so no reason for either in the best picture category when there was no shot for either. And I'm certain A Serious Man, An Education, and District 9 did little to boost ratings.
Maybe I will print this blog and send it to The Academy of Motion Picture & Sciences in Hollywood, signed a concerned movie fan. Maybe an intern with a single brain cell will look up from his morning coffee and proclaim "Hey, this kid's right! These changes will trim the show by a full hour!" Maybe a higher-up will eventually get around to reading it. Maybe I will receive public credit for single-handedly saving the Oscar ceremony. And maybe years down the road when I'm old and gray, they can mess up a special tribute to me by having it presented by Miley Cyrus' daughter. Or better yet, they can forget all about me in the memorial segment, leaving me slapping my forehead from heaven.
Monday, March 1, 2010
Oscars 2010: What Will, Should, and Should've Won
With less than a week remaining before the big show, it's time to distinguish the contenders from the pretenders. This year's Oscar telecast has promised some changes, first and foremost the expansion of the best picture category to ten nominees in hopes of including more popular hits as a way to increase viewership. This theory, combined with the unexpected runaway success of Avatar, seems to have paid off. People outside the industry are talking about the awards for the first time in years. Whether or not doubling the field of nominees damages the prestige of winning best picture is another matter (I say it does to an extent). I am looking forward to co-hosts Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin, two of the funniest actors in the world, to provide some wit and improvisation for a show that will undoubtedly run too long. I am also anticipating the tribute to John Hughes, whose loss this year is immeasurable to all movie fans who came of age during the 1980s (my personal memorial tribute to 2009 will be posted shortly). But on to the business at hand. Last year I correctly picked 19 of 24 categories, but this year is tougher save for the acting categories. I'm hoping to get about 17 right this time around. In addition to predicting which film will win, I offer which film would be my pick (in major categories), as well as an alternate nominee that was ignored by the academy in most categories.
Briefly, I'll predict the 5 categories in which I've never seen any of the nominated films. These are the categories that killed me last year, so let’s go to the officials for the coin toss . . .
Best Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon
Best Documentary Feature - The Cove
Best Documentary (Short Subject) - Rabbit a la Berlin
Best Short Film (Live Action) - The New Tenants
Best Short Film (Animated) - French Roast
Five more categories that sometimes prove problematic are the unpredictable best song category (didn't see any of the nominees), art direction (which I have only a vague understanding of), and cinematography, sound editing, and sound mixing (in which the criteria seem to change from year to year).
Best Original Song - 'The Weary Kind,' Crazy Heart
Best Art Direction - Avatar
Best Cinematography - The Hurt Locker
Best Sound Editing - Avatar
Best Sound Mixing - Avatar
Quick Note: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is actually nominated for best sound mixing, immediately rendering Michael Bay's fiasco the worst film EVER nominated for an Oscar. This spot should've gone to Michael Mann's highly stylized depression-era gangster flick, Public Enemies.
The next six categories are easier to judge both due to simpler measures and the fact that I've seen enough films to judge adequately. I'll also offer a snub in all remaining categories . . .
Best Animated Feature Film - Up: One of the night's easier picks, I'd vote for it for the 15 minute opening montage alone, one of the best sequences ever committed to an animated feature. Fantastic Mr. Fox is the only possible spoiler here. Actually, this category seems more or less correct, though I did have a soft spot for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (also the year's goofiest title).
Best Costume Design - The Young Victoria: This seems to have all the prerequisites of a winner in this category; Over-the-top dresses (check). British film (check). Hot chick on the film poster (Emily Blunt, double-check).
SNUB: Where the Wild Things Are, which somehow managed the impossible task of recreating the wild monsters from the children's classic down to every minor detail, satisfying the childhood memories of all viewers. I'd pick this to win as well.
Best Makeup - Star Trek: This is probably the film's best shot at a technical win, earned on the basis of Zachary Quinto's Spock and Eric Bana's Nero.
SNUB: District 9, an impressive achievement in its depiction of the slow species transformation of our hero. But I’d still vote Star Trek.
Best Visual Effects - Avatar: Actually this may be the single easiest pick of the night. Avatar not only showcased astonishing visuals, but the immersive experience was like nothing we've seen before, especially in 3D
SNUB: 2012, which was more believable in it's depiction of ocean disaster than all but a few films in history. The film's action centerpiece, an apocalyptic destruction of California, was simply awesome. In any other recent year, this would've been my pick, but Avatar deserves all the technical awards that are coming.
Best Film Editing - The Hurt Locker: One of the night's tougher races. I could see either Avatar or Inglourious Basterds stealing this one (and the latter would be my pick), but expect a win for Kathryn Bigelow's taut tale of bomb diffusing soldiers. I'd be ok with it.
SNUB(s): Taken, which used the Bourne formula to create some of the most excitingly choreographed fights in years. Crossing Over, the little seen L.A. set drama of interlocking racial stories also warranted recognition.
Best Original Score - Up: A very nice score, though perhaps not up to the best of Disney/Pixar. Avatar could play the role of spoiler, but the nomination for The Hurt Locker is ridiculous here.
SNUB(s): Star Trek is the only 2009 score that I remembered vividly weeks after seeing the film. Its absence invalidates the category. Public Enemies featured a dynamic score while the theme to Where the Wild Things Are perhaps best matched its visuals.
Finally, we've arrived at the night's "Big 8." On to the writers . . .
Best Original Screenplay - Inglourious Basterds: 2009's most audacious, original script by far and since it's unlikely to earn Oscars for the film or its director, this would seem an appropriate place to reward it. However, the growing momentum of The Hurt Locker could steal this one, which would be a shame. Everything I remember about that film involved the dramatic tension and the visual experience. It wouldn't have made a list of my 10 favorite 2009 scripts though. The Messenger, Up, and the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man (consistently interesting, but lacking the vivid characterizations of their best works) round out the group. All should probably be happy just to be nominated.
SNUB(s): (500) Days of Summer & Adventureland, both wonderful romantic comedies filled with wit and 3-dimensional characters. The former used an unorthodox chronological structure to find its emotional core within its main character (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), while the latter balanced humor with a pronounced sense of time and place. Greg Motolla (Superbad) also deserves credit for convincing me that Kristen Stewart is actually a fine actress with the right material.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air: I'd probably be more irritated with a different choice here than in any other category. The script was the film's single greatest asset and provided complex material that not only had something important to say, but gave its three lead actors a number of rich scenes with which to make their mark. I didn't really get In the Loop (maybe it's a British thing, although I loved last year's In Bruges) and District 9's allegorical story was topical, if unspectacular. Nick Hornby always writes well so I assume An Education was strong, while the haunting tale of Precious is probably the runner-up, though still a long shot to Up in the Air's topical story of corporate downsizing.
SNUB: State of Play, which was screwed by an early release date last spring. Probably 2009's best adult thriller, the film was adapted from a complex British miniseries to an intelligent two hour offering with strong characters and few, if any, plot holes.
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'nique, Precious: The comedian has swept every major critic's prize so far, giving me no reason to predict a win for anyone else. She was horrifying as the kind of mother most of us will never have to know, but this wasn't merely a caricature and the film's final scene was a powerhouse. Maggie Gyllenhaal, a surprise nominee for Crazy Heart, and Penelope Cruz are fill-in names because there has to be five nominations (nobody seemed all that thrilled with Nine). Still, Cruz's nomination is impressive considering she won in this same category last year. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick were terrific in Up in the Air, but they will likely split any votes, eliminating the possibility of an upset. Kendrick is the more likely spoiler, though Farmiga would be my personal pick here.
SNUB(s): Zoe Saldana (Avatar), whose performance becomes difficult to judge without knowing exactly where the actor's job ends and the visual component begins. But as are our fiery guide into a dazzling world, Saldana brought energy and intensity to a film that needed both. And as Inglourious Basterds tough, bilingual heroine Shosanna, Melanie Laurent carried much of the film's 2nd half as a Jewish theater owner plotting her own survival in Nazi-occupied France.
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds: "That's a Bingo!" As unbeatable as Mo'nique, Waltz performance was arguably the most impressive of 2009. Alternately menacing and goofy, speaking in multiple dialects, he instantly created my favorite complex movie villain in several years. His competition includes the constantly overlooked Matt Damon (Invictus), veteran great Christopher Plummer (with his first career nom. for The Last Station), and Stanley Tucci, one of the few constant positives in Peter Jackson's messy adaptation of The Lovely Bones. (Tucci was equally impressive opposite Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia). Then there's Woody Harrelson, who enjoyed a career resurgence in 2009, offering memorable supporting work in The Messenger (nominated here), 2012, and most notably Zombieland. As a monster hunting, Twinkie craving, Bill Murray fan, Harrelson's performance in the latter will stand the test of time. It's arguably the funniest thing he's ever done. But Waltz is the easy and deserving pick.
SNUB(s): 2009 featured a surprising number of strong comedic ensembles, from which three performers stood out; I Love You, Man's Jason Segel achieved 3-dimensionality as needy potential best man Sydney Fife; World's Greatest Dad's obnoxious teenager Daryl Sabara managed to steal several scenes away from Robin Williams (also good), & The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis turned heads with his turn as the strangest bachelor buddy in the year's runaway comedy smash. His pre-evening toast and subsequent blood oath was one of 2009's best onscreen moments.
Best Actress - Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side: By most accounts, a strong, solid performance against type for the actress best known for romantic comedies (shades of Julia Roberts' win a decade ago for Erin Brockovich, also based on a true story/character). Momentum seems to be in her corner, the biggest obstacle being the most nominated actor (male or female) of all-time. Meryl Streep submitted another stellar year (also noteworthy for It's Complicated) and seemed to effortlessly become famed chef Julia Child right before our eyes. And yet, I've been more slightly impressed with other roles by Streep in recent years (Adaptation, The Devil Wears Prada, etc...) that didn't win. I suspect she'll eventually win a third Oscar. The other nominees include The Last Station's Helen Mirren (who won this category for The Queen in 2006), An Education's 24 year-old Carey Mulligan, and Precious' abused title character, Gabourey Sidibe. Sidibe's work was heartbreaking and will likely leave the longest lasting impression (and would be my pick). But despite the strong field, this is a two-horse race. Factor in the popularity of last summer's The Proposal (this stuff matters) and it's Bullock's to lose, though should Streep win I wouldn't complain.
SNUB: Maya Rudolph, Away We Go, who for my money gave both the best and more unexpected female performance of 2009. Best known for her work since 2000 on Saturday Night Live, Rudolph brought depth and warmth to her role as Verona, a pregnant illustrator searching for a new home with her significant other Burt (John Krasinski, better than ever) whom she refuses to marry. The pair had great chemistry in the year's most underrated film.
Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: 'The Dude' is due. A few months ago nobody even knew what Crazy Heart was, so the late surge was unexpected in a race previously led by George Clooney for Up in the Air. But all momentum points to Bridges, the respected veteran, whose versatile work over the years has now led to five Oscar nominations. I really need to see this film. Until then my personal pick is Clooney, who gave the best performance of his career and put to rest once and for all any detractors who see him only as a movie star. Unfortunately, he won a supporting Oscar just four years ago for Syriana, so it's going to be a while before he earns another. But on the basis of Michael Clayton and now this, he's heading in the right direction. Morgan Freeman has been one of the best actors alive for decades, but few saw his turn as Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth is supposedly terrific in A Single Man, but fewer people saw that than Invictus. The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner is the final nominee and there are whispers he could upset Bridges. A win for Renner would be shocking and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about his lead work in the no-nonsense war drama. I just didn't find it the least bit memorable and in fact thought the film's better performance was given by costar Anthony Mackie. But "The Dude abides."
SNUB(s): Two names stand out for different reasons. A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg gave one the year's most unique performances as an uptight, socially awkward Jewish professor looking for life's meaning in the Midwest circa 1970. I've never seen a character quite like Stuhlbarg's Larry Gopnik and given the surprising support for the film, he seemed like a possibility. Then there's Robert De Niro, who quietly submitted his best performance in nearly a decade in Everybody's Fine. There seems to be an inescapable stigma surrounding De Niro these days that's he's lost whatever ability he once possessed. Though he's made some questionable script choices in recent years, this wasn't one of them. I can't help thinking had his role as a traveling widower and father of four been played by the likes of Jack Nicholson, audiences would've taken notice. Most critics praised his work, but the film's abysmal box-office obliterated any chance of a nomination.
Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: History is in the air. A win for Bigelow (James Cameron's ex and incidentally much too good looking for him) would represent the first time a female director has ever taken this category. The Hurt Locker was intelligent and intense, two qualities which often don't go together. It also avoided driving a message down the audience's throats, which may be Bigelow's ace-in-the-hole. If she loses it will be to Cameron, who managed to surpass enormous expectations for his epic Avatar, a sound story encompassed by enough technical razzle-dazzle to match a dozen summer event films. A backlash has already begun (as befalls any film that succeeds to this degree), though I can't recall a single person giving negative feedback after experiencing this film on the big screen. Whether Cameron wins or loses (he already has a directing win for Titanic), I have no doubt that Avatar will inspire a following long after Bigelow's film has faded from memory. Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Lee Daniels (Precious), and Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) round out one of the most impressive directing fields in years, with the 'Basterds' auteur delivered his most satisfying entertainment since Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't argue with supporters of any of the five, but my vote would ultimately go to Cameron.
SNUB: J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, though I'm reaching here since the directing nominations were about as on target as they could've been. But Abrams did a hell of a job rebooting the iconic franchise, appeasing older fans while creating an entertainment fast-paced enough for newcomers. It's the only 2009 movie I've seen three times and with each subsequent viewing I become more convinced it's one of the decade's best blockbusters. I've heard directors claim that if they cast a film right they're half-way home. Bull's-eye!
Best Picture - Avatar: Let’s get one thing straight right away. There aren't really ten nominees that can win this award. There are five and they match the nominees in the previous category. The five bonus picks were A Serious Man, Up, The Blind Side, An Education, & District 9. The only one I could see stealing a relevant number of votes is Up, but since that will be rewarded in the animated category, it's no real threat. Precious is a perfectly respectable drama with moments of real power, but it doesn't have nearly enough support to challenge for the top prize. Neither does Inglourious Basterds, which for every ardent supporter who claims it the year's best, there is another who completely dismisses it on the basis of its over-the-top violence and enthusiasm for fictionalizing history. Up in the Air stands the best chance of making this is three-way competition, a throwback to older Hollywood entertainments that depended most on writing and acting. But there's also a widespread belief that an entertainment this breezy is too light for the top prize (see Jerry Maguire, Good Will Hunting, Little Miss Sunshine, etc). This leaves us again with the heavy hitters. I suspect this could be one those rare years where the best picture winner does not match best director. Hollywood loves to reward commerce and large-than-life epics. Avatar happens to be both. It also boasts a "wow" factor unseen in years. Sure, we occasionally marvel at a scene in a movie and ask "How did they do that?" But Avatar sustained that audience response for nearly three hours. The Hurt Locker may win and many are predicting it will. It's a good film, but there are better ones in this category. Should The Hurt Locker take best picture I suspect it will eventually be regarded more in the realm of a Crash or Chicago, films that resonated for a short time and eventually prompted 2nd guessing. I'm actually not sure how I'd vote if given the opportunity. For me Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air stood apart from everything else released in 2009, but I suppose it's a cheat to conclude this endless post without a prediction in the top category. So I'll go with the only one to inspire (as of March 5th) a 2nd viewing; Inglourious Basterds
SNUB: Away We Go, my favorite small film released in 2009. It's harder to find a big omission with ten nominees, which promised something animated (check), a big studio hit or two (check), and a couple of quirky independent films (check). But I did believe the academy would lean towards humor with so much wiggle room. Sam Mendes' truthful dramedy is my favorite film yet from the man behind American Beauty & Road to Perdition.
Now go out there and win your Oscar pool.
Briefly, I'll predict the 5 categories in which I've never seen any of the nominated films. These are the categories that killed me last year, so let’s go to the officials for the coin toss . . .
Best Foreign Language Film - The White Ribbon
Best Documentary Feature - The Cove
Best Documentary (Short Subject) - Rabbit a la Berlin
Best Short Film (Live Action) - The New Tenants
Best Short Film (Animated) - French Roast
Five more categories that sometimes prove problematic are the unpredictable best song category (didn't see any of the nominees), art direction (which I have only a vague understanding of), and cinematography, sound editing, and sound mixing (in which the criteria seem to change from year to year).
Best Original Song - 'The Weary Kind,' Crazy Heart
Best Art Direction - Avatar
Best Cinematography - The Hurt Locker
Best Sound Editing - Avatar
Best Sound Mixing - Avatar
Quick Note: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is actually nominated for best sound mixing, immediately rendering Michael Bay's fiasco the worst film EVER nominated for an Oscar. This spot should've gone to Michael Mann's highly stylized depression-era gangster flick, Public Enemies.
The next six categories are easier to judge both due to simpler measures and the fact that I've seen enough films to judge adequately. I'll also offer a snub in all remaining categories . . .
Best Animated Feature Film - Up: One of the night's easier picks, I'd vote for it for the 15 minute opening montage alone, one of the best sequences ever committed to an animated feature. Fantastic Mr. Fox is the only possible spoiler here. Actually, this category seems more or less correct, though I did have a soft spot for Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (also the year's goofiest title).
Best Costume Design - The Young Victoria: This seems to have all the prerequisites of a winner in this category; Over-the-top dresses (check). British film (check). Hot chick on the film poster (Emily Blunt, double-check).
SNUB: Where the Wild Things Are, which somehow managed the impossible task of recreating the wild monsters from the children's classic down to every minor detail, satisfying the childhood memories of all viewers. I'd pick this to win as well.
Best Makeup - Star Trek: This is probably the film's best shot at a technical win, earned on the basis of Zachary Quinto's Spock and Eric Bana's Nero.
SNUB: District 9, an impressive achievement in its depiction of the slow species transformation of our hero. But I’d still vote Star Trek.
Best Visual Effects - Avatar: Actually this may be the single easiest pick of the night. Avatar not only showcased astonishing visuals, but the immersive experience was like nothing we've seen before, especially in 3D
SNUB: 2012, which was more believable in it's depiction of ocean disaster than all but a few films in history. The film's action centerpiece, an apocalyptic destruction of California, was simply awesome. In any other recent year, this would've been my pick, but Avatar deserves all the technical awards that are coming.
Best Film Editing - The Hurt Locker: One of the night's tougher races. I could see either Avatar or Inglourious Basterds stealing this one (and the latter would be my pick), but expect a win for Kathryn Bigelow's taut tale of bomb diffusing soldiers. I'd be ok with it.
SNUB(s): Taken, which used the Bourne formula to create some of the most excitingly choreographed fights in years. Crossing Over, the little seen L.A. set drama of interlocking racial stories also warranted recognition.
Best Original Score - Up: A very nice score, though perhaps not up to the best of Disney/Pixar. Avatar could play the role of spoiler, but the nomination for The Hurt Locker is ridiculous here.
SNUB(s): Star Trek is the only 2009 score that I remembered vividly weeks after seeing the film. Its absence invalidates the category. Public Enemies featured a dynamic score while the theme to Where the Wild Things Are perhaps best matched its visuals.
Finally, we've arrived at the night's "Big 8." On to the writers . . .
Best Original Screenplay - Inglourious Basterds: 2009's most audacious, original script by far and since it's unlikely to earn Oscars for the film or its director, this would seem an appropriate place to reward it. However, the growing momentum of The Hurt Locker could steal this one, which would be a shame. Everything I remember about that film involved the dramatic tension and the visual experience. It wouldn't have made a list of my 10 favorite 2009 scripts though. The Messenger, Up, and the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man (consistently interesting, but lacking the vivid characterizations of their best works) round out the group. All should probably be happy just to be nominated.
SNUB(s): (500) Days of Summer & Adventureland, both wonderful romantic comedies filled with wit and 3-dimensional characters. The former used an unorthodox chronological structure to find its emotional core within its main character (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), while the latter balanced humor with a pronounced sense of time and place. Greg Motolla (Superbad) also deserves credit for convincing me that Kristen Stewart is actually a fine actress with the right material.
Best Adapted Screenplay - Up in the Air: I'd probably be more irritated with a different choice here than in any other category. The script was the film's single greatest asset and provided complex material that not only had something important to say, but gave its three lead actors a number of rich scenes with which to make their mark. I didn't really get In the Loop (maybe it's a British thing, although I loved last year's In Bruges) and District 9's allegorical story was topical, if unspectacular. Nick Hornby always writes well so I assume An Education was strong, while the haunting tale of Precious is probably the runner-up, though still a long shot to Up in the Air's topical story of corporate downsizing.
SNUB: State of Play, which was screwed by an early release date last spring. Probably 2009's best adult thriller, the film was adapted from a complex British miniseries to an intelligent two hour offering with strong characters and few, if any, plot holes.
Best Supporting Actress - Mo'nique, Precious: The comedian has swept every major critic's prize so far, giving me no reason to predict a win for anyone else. She was horrifying as the kind of mother most of us will never have to know, but this wasn't merely a caricature and the film's final scene was a powerhouse. Maggie Gyllenhaal, a surprise nominee for Crazy Heart, and Penelope Cruz are fill-in names because there has to be five nominations (nobody seemed all that thrilled with Nine). Still, Cruz's nomination is impressive considering she won in this same category last year. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick were terrific in Up in the Air, but they will likely split any votes, eliminating the possibility of an upset. Kendrick is the more likely spoiler, though Farmiga would be my personal pick here.
SNUB(s): Zoe Saldana (Avatar), whose performance becomes difficult to judge without knowing exactly where the actor's job ends and the visual component begins. But as are our fiery guide into a dazzling world, Saldana brought energy and intensity to a film that needed both. And as Inglourious Basterds tough, bilingual heroine Shosanna, Melanie Laurent carried much of the film's 2nd half as a Jewish theater owner plotting her own survival in Nazi-occupied France.
Best Supporting Actor - Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds: "That's a Bingo!" As unbeatable as Mo'nique, Waltz performance was arguably the most impressive of 2009. Alternately menacing and goofy, speaking in multiple dialects, he instantly created my favorite complex movie villain in several years. His competition includes the constantly overlooked Matt Damon (Invictus), veteran great Christopher Plummer (with his first career nom. for The Last Station), and Stanley Tucci, one of the few constant positives in Peter Jackson's messy adaptation of The Lovely Bones. (Tucci was equally impressive opposite Meryl Streep in Julie & Julia). Then there's Woody Harrelson, who enjoyed a career resurgence in 2009, offering memorable supporting work in The Messenger (nominated here), 2012, and most notably Zombieland. As a monster hunting, Twinkie craving, Bill Murray fan, Harrelson's performance in the latter will stand the test of time. It's arguably the funniest thing he's ever done. But Waltz is the easy and deserving pick.
SNUB(s): 2009 featured a surprising number of strong comedic ensembles, from which three performers stood out; I Love You, Man's Jason Segel achieved 3-dimensionality as needy potential best man Sydney Fife; World's Greatest Dad's obnoxious teenager Daryl Sabara managed to steal several scenes away from Robin Williams (also good), & The Hangover's Zach Galifianakis turned heads with his turn as the strangest bachelor buddy in the year's runaway comedy smash. His pre-evening toast and subsequent blood oath was one of 2009's best onscreen moments.
Best Actress - Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side: By most accounts, a strong, solid performance against type for the actress best known for romantic comedies (shades of Julia Roberts' win a decade ago for Erin Brockovich, also based on a true story/character). Momentum seems to be in her corner, the biggest obstacle being the most nominated actor (male or female) of all-time. Meryl Streep submitted another stellar year (also noteworthy for It's Complicated) and seemed to effortlessly become famed chef Julia Child right before our eyes. And yet, I've been more slightly impressed with other roles by Streep in recent years (Adaptation, The Devil Wears Prada, etc...) that didn't win. I suspect she'll eventually win a third Oscar. The other nominees include The Last Station's Helen Mirren (who won this category for The Queen in 2006), An Education's 24 year-old Carey Mulligan, and Precious' abused title character, Gabourey Sidibe. Sidibe's work was heartbreaking and will likely leave the longest lasting impression (and would be my pick). But despite the strong field, this is a two-horse race. Factor in the popularity of last summer's The Proposal (this stuff matters) and it's Bullock's to lose, though should Streep win I wouldn't complain.
SNUB: Maya Rudolph, Away We Go, who for my money gave both the best and more unexpected female performance of 2009. Best known for her work since 2000 on Saturday Night Live, Rudolph brought depth and warmth to her role as Verona, a pregnant illustrator searching for a new home with her significant other Burt (John Krasinski, better than ever) whom she refuses to marry. The pair had great chemistry in the year's most underrated film.
Best Actor - Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart: 'The Dude' is due. A few months ago nobody even knew what Crazy Heart was, so the late surge was unexpected in a race previously led by George Clooney for Up in the Air. But all momentum points to Bridges, the respected veteran, whose versatile work over the years has now led to five Oscar nominations. I really need to see this film. Until then my personal pick is Clooney, who gave the best performance of his career and put to rest once and for all any detractors who see him only as a movie star. Unfortunately, he won a supporting Oscar just four years ago for Syriana, so it's going to be a while before he earns another. But on the basis of Michael Clayton and now this, he's heading in the right direction. Morgan Freeman has been one of the best actors alive for decades, but few saw his turn as Nelson Mandela. Colin Firth is supposedly terrific in A Single Man, but fewer people saw that than Invictus. The Hurt Locker's Jeremy Renner is the final nominee and there are whispers he could upset Bridges. A win for Renner would be shocking and disappointing. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing bad about his lead work in the no-nonsense war drama. I just didn't find it the least bit memorable and in fact thought the film's better performance was given by costar Anthony Mackie. But "The Dude abides."
SNUB(s): Two names stand out for different reasons. A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg gave one the year's most unique performances as an uptight, socially awkward Jewish professor looking for life's meaning in the Midwest circa 1970. I've never seen a character quite like Stuhlbarg's Larry Gopnik and given the surprising support for the film, he seemed like a possibility. Then there's Robert De Niro, who quietly submitted his best performance in nearly a decade in Everybody's Fine. There seems to be an inescapable stigma surrounding De Niro these days that's he's lost whatever ability he once possessed. Though he's made some questionable script choices in recent years, this wasn't one of them. I can't help thinking had his role as a traveling widower and father of four been played by the likes of Jack Nicholson, audiences would've taken notice. Most critics praised his work, but the film's abysmal box-office obliterated any chance of a nomination.
Best Director - Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker: History is in the air. A win for Bigelow (James Cameron's ex and incidentally much too good looking for him) would represent the first time a female director has ever taken this category. The Hurt Locker was intelligent and intense, two qualities which often don't go together. It also avoided driving a message down the audience's throats, which may be Bigelow's ace-in-the-hole. If she loses it will be to Cameron, who managed to surpass enormous expectations for his epic Avatar, a sound story encompassed by enough technical razzle-dazzle to match a dozen summer event films. A backlash has already begun (as befalls any film that succeeds to this degree), though I can't recall a single person giving negative feedback after experiencing this film on the big screen. Whether Cameron wins or loses (he already has a directing win for Titanic), I have no doubt that Avatar will inspire a following long after Bigelow's film has faded from memory. Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Lee Daniels (Precious), and Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds) round out one of the most impressive directing fields in years, with the 'Basterds' auteur delivered his most satisfying entertainment since Pulp Fiction. I wouldn't argue with supporters of any of the five, but my vote would ultimately go to Cameron.
SNUB: J.J. Abrams, Star Trek, though I'm reaching here since the directing nominations were about as on target as they could've been. But Abrams did a hell of a job rebooting the iconic franchise, appeasing older fans while creating an entertainment fast-paced enough for newcomers. It's the only 2009 movie I've seen three times and with each subsequent viewing I become more convinced it's one of the decade's best blockbusters. I've heard directors claim that if they cast a film right they're half-way home. Bull's-eye!
Best Picture - Avatar: Let’s get one thing straight right away. There aren't really ten nominees that can win this award. There are five and they match the nominees in the previous category. The five bonus picks were A Serious Man, Up, The Blind Side, An Education, & District 9. The only one I could see stealing a relevant number of votes is Up, but since that will be rewarded in the animated category, it's no real threat. Precious is a perfectly respectable drama with moments of real power, but it doesn't have nearly enough support to challenge for the top prize. Neither does Inglourious Basterds, which for every ardent supporter who claims it the year's best, there is another who completely dismisses it on the basis of its over-the-top violence and enthusiasm for fictionalizing history. Up in the Air stands the best chance of making this is three-way competition, a throwback to older Hollywood entertainments that depended most on writing and acting. But there's also a widespread belief that an entertainment this breezy is too light for the top prize (see Jerry Maguire, Good Will Hunting, Little Miss Sunshine, etc). This leaves us again with the heavy hitters. I suspect this could be one those rare years where the best picture winner does not match best director. Hollywood loves to reward commerce and large-than-life epics. Avatar happens to be both. It also boasts a "wow" factor unseen in years. Sure, we occasionally marvel at a scene in a movie and ask "How did they do that?" But Avatar sustained that audience response for nearly three hours. The Hurt Locker may win and many are predicting it will. It's a good film, but there are better ones in this category. Should The Hurt Locker take best picture I suspect it will eventually be regarded more in the realm of a Crash or Chicago, films that resonated for a short time and eventually prompted 2nd guessing. I'm actually not sure how I'd vote if given the opportunity. For me Avatar, Inglourious Basterds, and Up in the Air stood apart from everything else released in 2009, but I suppose it's a cheat to conclude this endless post without a prediction in the top category. So I'll go with the only one to inspire (as of March 5th) a 2nd viewing; Inglourious Basterds
SNUB: Away We Go, my favorite small film released in 2009. It's harder to find a big omission with ten nominees, which promised something animated (check), a big studio hit or two (check), and a couple of quirky independent films (check). But I did believe the academy would lean towards humor with so much wiggle room. Sam Mendes' truthful dramedy is my favorite film yet from the man behind American Beauty & Road to Perdition.
Now go out there and win your Oscar pool.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
The Internet: Crack for the 21st Century (Part I)
Need proof? I am beginning to write this at 6am. Now this might not seem noteworthy to those who routinely begin their day at this hour, but I haven’t gone to bed yet. Working at a video store certainly doesn’t help. When I close (which I do often) I don’t get home until about 1am. I typically haven’t eaten dinner yet, since my shift starts around 5 or 6pm. My nightly unwinding need is a bit longer than others, as I rarely fall asleep immediately, though I shouldn’t really have to. If the average American gets home from work around 6pm, I imagine he or she is up for at least another 5-6 hours. Basically, my brain and body are on schedule, it’s just a bad schedule that begins when that of others has ended. And unfortunately there isn’t much cause to fix it, at least not now. I’ve tried to get up daily at a reasonable hour, but what’s the point? If I get up at 9am, have breakfast, shower, etc… now what? I don’t have to be at work for 8 hours! I can fill the gap by watching the thousands of free movies at my disposal (Who needs health insurance when I have this perk?). Or I can return to the good old internet which has in my view claimed the term “idiot box” from the television, though for some reason people are reluctant to admit this fact.
Homer Simpson circa 2002, “The internet! That thing’s still around?”
Honestly, aside from work how often do people use the internet for anything productive? It’s certainly more convenient to make travel arrangements and purchase flight than it was 15 years ago. Paying bills is easier, although most people consider this work anyway and I’m personally tired of the question “Want to go green?” That’s about it though. All the information in the world is stored in this ugly off-color rectangle that doesn’t go with anything in your living room. The internet is basically your drug of choice (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or cocaine). Like a casino it never closes and possesses the power to stimulate the mind all night long. At 5:30 this morning, T sluggishly walked out from the bed room, saw me staring at the computer screen with the lights on and simply asked “Really?” And this from someone who recently created an impossible-to-remember facebook code for herself because she was spending entirely too much time on it. The net affects us all, and not necessarily for the better. I wonder how often the average person goes out for a walk anymore. I’d bet anything it’s less than 20 years ago, despite an entire industry now designed around advertising weight-loss programs, which pop up almost as frequently as adds to meet singles in “your” area.
The problem with the internet is it’s an addiction for adults. Kids routinely seem no more or less interested in it than they are with older addictions like video games and TV. But the truth is one can only engage in those activities for so long before tiring of them. Even when I was young (8 or 9) and stayed up for hours upon hours trying to beat Contra or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for NES, at some point I needed a break. How many times can anyone beat the same adventure game before needing a new activity? Not even I can stay glued to the couch for more than a single movie at a time. T and I cancelled cable 8 months ago now, a feat that stunned a good friend of mine who firmly believed I’d give up food before cable. As the meat of winter approaches and we begin to get a little stir-crazy we may turn it back on, though we’ve been generally ok with our decision. But neither of us can fathom cancelling the internet and not just because it’s impractical. We’d go insane, a relative term given the hour of my blogging.
I mentioned briefly the value of the ‘net’ for those who depend on it, namely students and adults who need it for work (though this group is a lot smaller than you think). The 1st group that pops into anyone’s head regarding adults who use the internet are office workers, who tend to use document files and excel spreadsheets for anything productive (both existed before and lack a dependence on the net). I laugh at the fact that every time we see Creed on “The Office” he’s playing snood, but just how far from reality is that? Another good friend of mine once had his computer confiscated at work because he wasn’t being productive.
It is true that many use the internet for research, but while certainly more convenient, it is a little sad that libraries (and books by the way) are becoming more and more obsolete. Anything you could ever want or need to read is available online, a killer of thousands of jobs and entire professions. Even a newspaper as reputable as The Boston Globe could fold, dashing the dreams of thousands of young writers who’d prefer to write in that type of atmosphere. There’s also something unnatural about having one’s morning coffee while banging away on your laptop as opposed to having a hard paper to highlight the day’s news. I don’t like it and I feel really bad for anyone above a certain age who’s worked a certain way their entire life and suddenly has to find a job doing work online because their specific line-of-work no longer exists.
And then there’s email, the single most widely used advent of the internet. Email will never leave. It’d be like eliminating cell-phones at this point. We want to reach people easier and faster, for important and irrelevant matters alike. Could there me a more impersonal way of communicating with people? At least we can keep tabs on that guy from our freshman dorm in college, who was sort of a friend/acquaintance. If we didn’t have email how would we find out what he does for work or if he still keeps in touch with that other random acquaintance? I will say this for email though; it does save us the awkward phone transitions when it’s clear to both parties that a conversation is over but neither knows how to sign off. All of a sudden you get an abundance of unnatural pauses and your usage of the word “anyway” increases by a multiple of five.
I suppose it’s a pretty futile exercise to bash the internet in 2010. My grandkids will some day laugh at me for being one of the remaining few thousand people on the planet who once had to write school papers by hand. I’ll have to explain to them what a post-office is, what the letters VCR stand for, and how my home internet connection could be interrupted by someone using the phone. They’ll turn to their siblings and roll they eyes, as if I’m the old man from “Up.” Nope, I’ve got to pick my battles. I’m sure if I think long and hard I can come up with several positive uses of the internet. Only then will I be able to unlock the mystery of how I spend all these insomniac hours.
Stay tuned for Part II.
Homer Simpson circa 2002, “The internet! That thing’s still around?”
Honestly, aside from work how often do people use the internet for anything productive? It’s certainly more convenient to make travel arrangements and purchase flight than it was 15 years ago. Paying bills is easier, although most people consider this work anyway and I’m personally tired of the question “Want to go green?” That’s about it though. All the information in the world is stored in this ugly off-color rectangle that doesn’t go with anything in your living room. The internet is basically your drug of choice (as opposed to coffee, alcohol, or cocaine). Like a casino it never closes and possesses the power to stimulate the mind all night long. At 5:30 this morning, T sluggishly walked out from the bed room, saw me staring at the computer screen with the lights on and simply asked “Really?” And this from someone who recently created an impossible-to-remember facebook code for herself because she was spending entirely too much time on it. The net affects us all, and not necessarily for the better. I wonder how often the average person goes out for a walk anymore. I’d bet anything it’s less than 20 years ago, despite an entire industry now designed around advertising weight-loss programs, which pop up almost as frequently as adds to meet singles in “your” area.
The problem with the internet is it’s an addiction for adults. Kids routinely seem no more or less interested in it than they are with older addictions like video games and TV. But the truth is one can only engage in those activities for so long before tiring of them. Even when I was young (8 or 9) and stayed up for hours upon hours trying to beat Contra or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for NES, at some point I needed a break. How many times can anyone beat the same adventure game before needing a new activity? Not even I can stay glued to the couch for more than a single movie at a time. T and I cancelled cable 8 months ago now, a feat that stunned a good friend of mine who firmly believed I’d give up food before cable. As the meat of winter approaches and we begin to get a little stir-crazy we may turn it back on, though we’ve been generally ok with our decision. But neither of us can fathom cancelling the internet and not just because it’s impractical. We’d go insane, a relative term given the hour of my blogging.
I mentioned briefly the value of the ‘net’ for those who depend on it, namely students and adults who need it for work (though this group is a lot smaller than you think). The 1st group that pops into anyone’s head regarding adults who use the internet are office workers, who tend to use document files and excel spreadsheets for anything productive (both existed before and lack a dependence on the net). I laugh at the fact that every time we see Creed on “The Office” he’s playing snood, but just how far from reality is that? Another good friend of mine once had his computer confiscated at work because he wasn’t being productive.
It is true that many use the internet for research, but while certainly more convenient, it is a little sad that libraries (and books by the way) are becoming more and more obsolete. Anything you could ever want or need to read is available online, a killer of thousands of jobs and entire professions. Even a newspaper as reputable as The Boston Globe could fold, dashing the dreams of thousands of young writers who’d prefer to write in that type of atmosphere. There’s also something unnatural about having one’s morning coffee while banging away on your laptop as opposed to having a hard paper to highlight the day’s news. I don’t like it and I feel really bad for anyone above a certain age who’s worked a certain way their entire life and suddenly has to find a job doing work online because their specific line-of-work no longer exists.
And then there’s email, the single most widely used advent of the internet. Email will never leave. It’d be like eliminating cell-phones at this point. We want to reach people easier and faster, for important and irrelevant matters alike. Could there me a more impersonal way of communicating with people? At least we can keep tabs on that guy from our freshman dorm in college, who was sort of a friend/acquaintance. If we didn’t have email how would we find out what he does for work or if he still keeps in touch with that other random acquaintance? I will say this for email though; it does save us the awkward phone transitions when it’s clear to both parties that a conversation is over but neither knows how to sign off. All of a sudden you get an abundance of unnatural pauses and your usage of the word “anyway” increases by a multiple of five.
I suppose it’s a pretty futile exercise to bash the internet in 2010. My grandkids will some day laugh at me for being one of the remaining few thousand people on the planet who once had to write school papers by hand. I’ll have to explain to them what a post-office is, what the letters VCR stand for, and how my home internet connection could be interrupted by someone using the phone. They’ll turn to their siblings and roll they eyes, as if I’m the old man from “Up.” Nope, I’ve got to pick my battles. I’m sure if I think long and hard I can come up with several positive uses of the internet. Only then will I be able to unlock the mystery of how I spend all these insomniac hours.
Stay tuned for Part II.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Super Bowl History - A Mixed Bag
I've never been the world's biggest football fan. I don't watch college at all, and I only sometimes watch non-Patriots games. The Saint's involvement in this year's playoffs has been a major source of interest, both because T hails from Slidell, as well as the human interest in something of this magnitude happening for the city of New Orleans. The presence of the game's premiere talent (Peyton Manning) also carries weight. The NFC title game 2 weeks ago was monumental and if we are lucky, this year's Super Bowl will come close. But the games have always been a mixed bag, not just for the contest itself, but for the commercials, the half-time shows, and venues for watching the big one. For every Rams/Titans nail-biter, there is a Bucs/Raiders massacre that is over by the end of the 1st quarter. For every Springsteen dominated half-time, there is a series of creepy baby ads. A brief history then of some highs and lows from my personal viewing history . . .
1991: Buffalo Bills vs. Washington Redskins - The first Super Bowl I remember watching (at 10), I was excited to join a group of friends going to watch at JH's house. They had pizza and multiple TV's. Unfortunately, our host wasn't always the fairest of children and decided to ask each guest who he was rooting for upon entering his front door. Being behind Washington, those fans would gather downstairs in the basement with more space and the largest TV. The unfortunate handful of friends rooting for Buffalo were instructed to march directly to his mother's bedroom to watch in seclusion. I'm not kidding! Not only did I (along with 3 others) have to suffer the indignity of cheering for the eventual losers, we had to do so sitting on the edge of the bed belonging to our friend's mom. Giving in to this arrangement is not my proudest moment.
1996: Green Bay Packers vs. New England Patriots - Excitement filled the air in Boston, especially since no local team had reached its respective sport's final game in a decade. Along with 3 camp friends we drove to a party hosted by Cedar's owner, but the consensus after 30 minutes was we'd rather be elsewhere. I went home and joined my extended family, only to have the air lifted out of the room as Desmond Howard ran back about 14 balls for touchdowns if memory serves (it felt like that many). Quality pepperoni pies from the eternally underrated Newton Centre establishment "Pizza Man" softened the blow, even as our Bledsoe led troops lost 35-14.
2000: Baltimore Ravens vs. New York Giants - Yah, didn't really make it through this one. A college dorm party featuring 2 kegs and a suspect cooked ham ended my night around the 5 minutes mark of the 2nd quarter. I was literally unconscious when I felt my roommate CK poking my sides to move. I stumbled back to my dorm room with a little help from my friends and passed out fully dressed around 8pm. For what it's worth I picked the right game to miss. The Ravens/Giants debacle is perhaps the most lopsided Super Bowl of my lifetime. The night ended up being most memorable for my mom nervously wondering if I was going to die after my roommate telling her I'd fallen asleep at halftime. Bear in mind this was perhaps 1 of 5 nights total in which I fell asleep before 2AM during college. Needless to say, mom was relieved to hear from me the following afternoon.
2001: St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots - A low key year with only a single roommate (one was at the game live), SC and I watched with anticipation as my local boys jumped out to an early lead over the heavily favored Rams offense. We'd decided to chase some leftover codeine pills from my recent wisdom tooth surgery with my favored Coors lite, which did nothing at first, though we were mumbling jibberish after a while. Unfortunately, my dumb-ass also decided to eat an entire carton of chicken lomein, the combined effects of which forced me into the bathroom before U2's exemplary half-time show. I missed the entire 3rd quarter in the deserted Jackson Hall bathroom, returning only to find Kurt Warner and his troops charging back. But Adam Vinateri's dramatic heroics sent me running outside into the snow covered field and cheering triumphantly, soon matched by several Pats fans. It was pretty awesome, and led to a tremendous tee-shirt prize featuring the phrase, "The Silence of the Rams."
2007: New England Patriots vs. New York Giants - Ummm, yeah not much to say. A disastrous end to a brilliant season, in which David Tyree cheated by pouring a bucket of super glue all over the front of his helmet to catch an impossible pass from the Manning who looks slightly retarded. This game received it's own blog, though it was a fun night until the final minute, surrounded by good friends who all contributed to a pot-luck feast. I'm still knocking on wood that our gracious host AM, who took the loss a tad harder than the rest of us, didn't jump off his 10th floor balcony landing on an unsuspecting cab on Causeway St. Given the game result, the highlight of the night surely had to be T's superb baked salami. My mouth is watering just thinking about it.
That just about brings us up to speed. The Patriots won 2 more, besting the Panthers & Eagles by a field goal apiece, cementing their status as the team of the decade. The Colts beat the Bears, bucking the trend that great defense always beats great offense. Janet Jackson flashed her goodies in a blink-and-you-miss-it moment prompting approximately 49 DVR rewinds in my parent's basement. And the Steelers bested Arizona in a 2009 contest that may have been the best of all. But this year it's just T and me (I know I'm supposed to use "I," but I like words that rhyme). We're rooting for New Orleans and for a good game. So far the best commercial by far involved a young black kid smacking an adult across the face as a warning not to touch his Doritos. I laughed aloud and know exactly how he feels. Other early winners involved the Lebron James/Dwight Howard update of the famous Larry Bird/Michael Jordan H.O.R.S.E. contest for McDonalds (with a "Legend" cameo), Betty White getting tackled in a Snickers ad, and the "Casual Friday's" ad for careerbuilder.com featuring employees celebrating in their underwear. Time to make some wings and cheer on a group of 75-year old British rock stars, whom my Dad just proclaimed look so old it might as well be him up there on stage.
"Teenage Wasteland!"
Enjoy the 2nd half.
P.S. T just taught me how to properly sing the "Who dat?" chant. I sound like a fool, but am now one with the culture.
Edit: Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints
Edit #2: A lot of people were itching for Manning to win a 2nd bowl, which would've helped justify their assertion that Manning had surpassed Brady as the great quarterback of his era. Funny how I don't hear a word from any of them today :)
1991: Buffalo Bills vs. Washington Redskins - The first Super Bowl I remember watching (at 10), I was excited to join a group of friends going to watch at JH's house. They had pizza and multiple TV's. Unfortunately, our host wasn't always the fairest of children and decided to ask each guest who he was rooting for upon entering his front door. Being behind Washington, those fans would gather downstairs in the basement with more space and the largest TV. The unfortunate handful of friends rooting for Buffalo were instructed to march directly to his mother's bedroom to watch in seclusion. I'm not kidding! Not only did I (along with 3 others) have to suffer the indignity of cheering for the eventual losers, we had to do so sitting on the edge of the bed belonging to our friend's mom. Giving in to this arrangement is not my proudest moment.
1996: Green Bay Packers vs. New England Patriots - Excitement filled the air in Boston, especially since no local team had reached its respective sport's final game in a decade. Along with 3 camp friends we drove to a party hosted by Cedar's owner, but the consensus after 30 minutes was we'd rather be elsewhere. I went home and joined my extended family, only to have the air lifted out of the room as Desmond Howard ran back about 14 balls for touchdowns if memory serves (it felt like that many). Quality pepperoni pies from the eternally underrated Newton Centre establishment "Pizza Man" softened the blow, even as our Bledsoe led troops lost 35-14.
2000: Baltimore Ravens vs. New York Giants - Yah, didn't really make it through this one. A college dorm party featuring 2 kegs and a suspect cooked ham ended my night around the 5 minutes mark of the 2nd quarter. I was literally unconscious when I felt my roommate CK poking my sides to move. I stumbled back to my dorm room with a little help from my friends and passed out fully dressed around 8pm. For what it's worth I picked the right game to miss. The Ravens/Giants debacle is perhaps the most lopsided Super Bowl of my lifetime. The night ended up being most memorable for my mom nervously wondering if I was going to die after my roommate telling her I'd fallen asleep at halftime. Bear in mind this was perhaps 1 of 5 nights total in which I fell asleep before 2AM during college. Needless to say, mom was relieved to hear from me the following afternoon.
2001: St. Louis Rams vs. New England Patriots - A low key year with only a single roommate (one was at the game live), SC and I watched with anticipation as my local boys jumped out to an early lead over the heavily favored Rams offense. We'd decided to chase some leftover codeine pills from my recent wisdom tooth surgery with my favored Coors lite, which did nothing at first, though we were mumbling jibberish after a while. Unfortunately, my dumb-ass also decided to eat an entire carton of chicken lomein, the combined effects of which forced me into the bathroom before U2's exemplary half-time show. I missed the entire 3rd quarter in the deserted Jackson Hall bathroom, returning only to find Kurt Warner and his troops charging back. But Adam Vinateri's dramatic heroics sent me running outside into the snow covered field and cheering triumphantly, soon matched by several Pats fans. It was pretty awesome, and led to a tremendous tee-shirt prize featuring the phrase, "The Silence of the Rams."
2007: New England Patriots vs. New York Giants - Ummm, yeah not much to say. A disastrous end to a brilliant season, in which David Tyree cheated by pouring a bucket of super glue all over the front of his helmet to catch an impossible pass from the Manning who looks slightly retarded. This game received it's own blog, though it was a fun night until the final minute, surrounded by good friends who all contributed to a pot-luck feast. I'm still knocking on wood that our gracious host AM, who took the loss a tad harder than the rest of us, didn't jump off his 10th floor balcony landing on an unsuspecting cab on Causeway St. Given the game result, the highlight of the night surely had to be T's superb baked salami. My mouth is watering just thinking about it.
That just about brings us up to speed. The Patriots won 2 more, besting the Panthers & Eagles by a field goal apiece, cementing their status as the team of the decade. The Colts beat the Bears, bucking the trend that great defense always beats great offense. Janet Jackson flashed her goodies in a blink-and-you-miss-it moment prompting approximately 49 DVR rewinds in my parent's basement. And the Steelers bested Arizona in a 2009 contest that may have been the best of all. But this year it's just T and me (I know I'm supposed to use "I," but I like words that rhyme). We're rooting for New Orleans and for a good game. So far the best commercial by far involved a young black kid smacking an adult across the face as a warning not to touch his Doritos. I laughed aloud and know exactly how he feels. Other early winners involved the Lebron James/Dwight Howard update of the famous Larry Bird/Michael Jordan H.O.R.S.E. contest for McDonalds (with a "Legend" cameo), Betty White getting tackled in a Snickers ad, and the "Casual Friday's" ad for careerbuilder.com featuring employees celebrating in their underwear. Time to make some wings and cheer on a group of 75-year old British rock stars, whom my Dad just proclaimed look so old it might as well be him up there on stage.
"Teenage Wasteland!"
Enjoy the 2nd half.
P.S. T just taught me how to properly sing the "Who dat?" chant. I sound like a fool, but am now one with the culture.
Edit: Congratulations to the New Orleans Saints
Edit #2: A lot of people were itching for Manning to win a 2nd bowl, which would've helped justify their assertion that Manning had surpassed Brady as the great quarterback of his era. Funny how I don't hear a word from any of them today :)
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)