THE GREAT DEBATERS (**3/4) - Starring Denzel Washington, Forest Whitaker, Nate Parker, Jurnee Smollett, Denzel Whitaker, Kimberly Elise and John Heard.
Written by Robert Eisele.
Directed by Denzel Washington.
This was an earnest, well-intentioned, engrossing story about the first debate team from the all-black Wiley College to beat the national champions Harvard. Denzel Washington directs and stars, and he does his job well on both counts.
I figured we were in for some cliches when Denzel's first scene has him standing on his desk. Oh dear, another teacher telling his students to carpe diem. But Denzel's one of our best actors, and he makes his debate professor energetic, quick-witted, sly and forgiveable for an inspiring-teacher plot points we're about to hit.
As the credits rolled, I felt entertained. It had a couple issues. The Wiley team always argued the politically correct point. For welfare. For civil disobedience. For integration. It's the 1930's, and in our 2008 eyes, they're taking the noble, head-nodding, stand-up-one-by-one-and-applaud point. it would have been more challenging to the characters if just once, they could have argued a point they disagreed with. Like real debate teams. And I would have liked it to show the actual debates longer. Each debate is staged like a highlight reel, so we don't get a good feel for what listening to two paragraphs in a row would have been like.
Stand-out of the young cast was Denzel Whitaker (no relation to Washington or Forest). Turns he was the only one of the four-person team based on a real person, despite what the movie's epilogue would leave a viewer to believe. In the real story, there was not a woman on the team and they faced USC, not Harvard. I felt the same deflation I did after learning the truth behind The Hurricane and A Beautfiul Mind. Did you really need to change so much to make it a feel-good movie?
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Lakers over Jazz 3-2
Home court, home court, home court. That's the main story of the second round, and it was a definite factor here. For the Jazz to advance, they have to hold their own in Game 6 and then pull off an upset in L.A. in Game 7. A tall order. Do I think they can do it? Sure. They need Boozer to show up. Deron Williams has been great but there were stretches where it appeared he was going to have to do it all by himself.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
The Jane Austen Book Club - DVD Review
THE JANE AUSTEN BOOK CLUB (***) - Starring Maria Bello, Emily Blunt, Kathy Baker, Amy Brenneman, Hugh Dancy, Maggie Grace, Jimmy Smits, Marc Blucas, Kevin Zegers, Nancy Travis and Lynn Redgrave.
Written & Directed by Robin Swicord.
I've seen Gwyneth Paltrow in Emma, Keira Knightly in Pride & Prejudice, Emma Thompson in Sense & Sensability and Frances O'Connor in Mansfield Park. I also saw the frothy Jane Austen biopic Becoming Jane with Anne Hathaway. I have not, however, ever read a Jane Austen book, and I think my enjoyment of this movie would have been enhanced had I done so.
Five women and a token guy meet once a month to discuss Austen's books in this ensemble chick flick, and when they discuss the characters, they do so like the audience already has intimate knowledge of Austen's works. This wound up being okay, because the cast is warm, the acting's good, and the plot threads all follow their natural course. The movie is like a book you read sitting on your cushioned wicker chair on your porch overlooking the beach, straight out of one of those "celebrate the moments of your life" coffee commercials.
I liked it. It was fine. Chick flicks don't have to be a bad thing. Give me characters to care about and I can be entertained without armies getting slaughtered and CGI robots fighting mid-air. Stand-outs for me were Emily Blunt (very different from her Devil Wears Prada role) as an uptight teacher unhappy in her marriage who starts to fall for a student, and Maria Bello as the ringleader of the group who starts to act a little too much like Austen's Emma. And I even bought Hugh Dancy as a sci-fi geek who likes women and joins the club to expand his horizons.
Did it make me want to read an actual Austen book? I don't know. Maybe. Right now I'm reading Carolyn Jessop's Escape, Cornelia Funke's Inkheart, and I just picked up C.S. Lewis's Prince Caspian again, so maybe down the road... if someone paid me... Sure.
Written & Directed by Robin Swicord.
I've seen Gwyneth Paltrow in Emma, Keira Knightly in Pride & Prejudice, Emma Thompson in Sense & Sensability and Frances O'Connor in Mansfield Park. I also saw the frothy Jane Austen biopic Becoming Jane with Anne Hathaway. I have not, however, ever read a Jane Austen book, and I think my enjoyment of this movie would have been enhanced had I done so.
Five women and a token guy meet once a month to discuss Austen's books in this ensemble chick flick, and when they discuss the characters, they do so like the audience already has intimate knowledge of Austen's works. This wound up being okay, because the cast is warm, the acting's good, and the plot threads all follow their natural course. The movie is like a book you read sitting on your cushioned wicker chair on your porch overlooking the beach, straight out of one of those "celebrate the moments of your life" coffee commercials.
I liked it. It was fine. Chick flicks don't have to be a bad thing. Give me characters to care about and I can be entertained without armies getting slaughtered and CGI robots fighting mid-air. Stand-outs for me were Emily Blunt (very different from her Devil Wears Prada role) as an uptight teacher unhappy in her marriage who starts to fall for a student, and Maria Bello as the ringleader of the group who starts to act a little too much like Austen's Emma. And I even bought Hugh Dancy as a sci-fi geek who likes women and joins the club to expand his horizons.
Did it make me want to read an actual Austen book? I don't know. Maybe. Right now I'm reading Carolyn Jessop's Escape, Cornelia Funke's Inkheart, and I just picked up C.S. Lewis's Prince Caspian again, so maybe down the road... if someone paid me... Sure.
Too much safety; not enough freedom
I'm annoyed at Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. right now. He signed a bill into law that raised the age of children required to ride in carseats to eight. Age eight!! When I emailed the sponsor of the bill, Tim Cosgrove, he sent me these stats:
"• In Utah we lost 34 children just between the ages of 5 and 8, whom died in motor vehicle crashes between 2002 and 2006.
• In Utah we had 2,188 children who were severely injured between the ages of 5 and 8, that were injured in a motor vehicle crash whom were not in a booster seat.
• 39 other states and the District of Columbia already have booster seat laws."
To which I responded:
"1. Regarding the first two stats, it does not mention if any of those children were wearing seatbelts.
2. Of those 39 states, how many go up to age 8? Last I heard, age 6 was the highest of any state in the union.
3. I saw an interview with a car-seat lobbyist last year who said if they had their way, children up to age 12 would be in car-seats. Would you support this?
4. What about car-seats and seatbelts on public school busses?
5. To maximize our safety, we could ban all cars. We don't ban all cars because we've decided the risk is worth the convenience. Where is the line between government-enforced safety and personal responsibility? There's no quick way to answer that, but the line seems to keep moving to make our lawbooks thicker and thicker.
I know we wring our hands to keep our kids safe, but really, where does it end? I remember when the carseat law first passed up to age 3 and I remember grumbling when it was raised to 5. 5 is plenty. And I know what it's like to have a child die."
Mr. Cosgrove never responded.
"• In Utah we lost 34 children just between the ages of 5 and 8, whom died in motor vehicle crashes between 2002 and 2006.
• In Utah we had 2,188 children who were severely injured between the ages of 5 and 8, that were injured in a motor vehicle crash whom were not in a booster seat.
• 39 other states and the District of Columbia already have booster seat laws."
To which I responded:
"1. Regarding the first two stats, it does not mention if any of those children were wearing seatbelts.
2. Of those 39 states, how many go up to age 8? Last I heard, age 6 was the highest of any state in the union.
3. I saw an interview with a car-seat lobbyist last year who said if they had their way, children up to age 12 would be in car-seats. Would you support this?
4. What about car-seats and seatbelts on public school busses?
5. To maximize our safety, we could ban all cars. We don't ban all cars because we've decided the risk is worth the convenience. Where is the line between government-enforced safety and personal responsibility? There's no quick way to answer that, but the line seems to keep moving to make our lawbooks thicker and thicker.
I know we wring our hands to keep our kids safe, but really, where does it end? I remember when the carseat law first passed up to age 3 and I remember grumbling when it was raised to 5. 5 is plenty. And I know what it's like to have a child die."
Mr. Cosgrove never responded.
Do vice-presidential picks matter?
Do vice-presidential picks matter? Almost, maybe, not really.
In 1988, George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle. After a couple gaffes, Quayle was easily portrayed as an idiot. Quayle's famous dress-down by Lloyd Bentsen at the vice-presidential debate meant that Bush won despite having Quayle as his VP pick, and even though presidents frequently changed vice-presidents over history (FDR did it more than once), Bush's loyalty to Quayle helped cost him the 92 election. (That, and Ross Perot, and the recession, and...)
In 1992, Bill Clinton was a womanizer who skewed too centrist in the primaries, so he balanced that by picking squeaky-clean liberal Al Gore as his running mate. Alas, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Oh wait, Bush only got 39% and Perot got 17% of the vote. So he won.
In 1996, Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp. That made the GOP base excited for about a week. Then Clinton won 49% to 42%.
In 2000, in a personality year, Al Gore picked the moderate Joseph Lieberman. George W. Bush, the fratboy who was picked because brother Jeb hadn't been governor long enough, needed gravitas and picked Dick Cheney. People may forget how back then, lots of people saw the VP debate and wished the choices were instead Lieberman-Gore and Cheney-Bush. Both VP picks were good for the candidates, but unfortunately for Gore, many Florida voters didn't know how to fill out a voting ballot properly. Among other things.
In 2004, John Kerry picked John Edwards. I guess he felt like he had to, but Edwards didn't even deliver his home state of North Carolina, so it was a useless pick.
In 2008, despite Hillary Clinton's constant goalpost moving, Barack Obama will be the nominee, and he has to figure out what flaws he wants to cover with that VP pick. Does he need to appease the women who feel screwed by Hillary losing? I think making Hillary the VP would be a colossal mistake, and it would only happen if she wanted it. I don't see why she would. My guess is she'd want John McCain to win the election, and then she can run in 2012. If Obama wins, she can't run until 2016, by which time she'll be 69, a little too old. (Look at all the Methuselah jokes about 71-year-old John McCain.) So Obama could pick a female governor, but my guess he'll stick with a white guy. Because America isn't "ready" for Prez AND Vice-Prez to be historic. And it will probably be a Clinton supporter. Top two contender names I'm seeing floated would be Evan Bayh or Ed Rendell. Bayh, sure. Rendell would have to do an about-face on some opinions he's expressed the past few weeks.
Now if Hillary wanted to be VP, I imagine every soldier in the CLinton machine would pressure him to take her. If I was him, I wouldn't want her on the ticket because A.) who would want Bill & Hillary puttering around the White House?, and B.) that Clinton dead-pool list would make me nervous.
John McCain has a wide open field. He probably needs someone considered more conservative than him, and younger. Shouldn't be too hard. I don't think it'll be any of the men he faced in the primary. Rudy Giulani won one whole delegate. Fred Thompson looks as old as J-Mac. McCain and Romney got personal (McCain saying Romney doesn't stand for anything; Romney saying McCain's Nixonian tactics were "reprehensible"). Mike Huckabee's an absolute joke. For J-Mac, he will likely go with a governor, and the two most likely are Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist. (I've heard Utah's own Jon Huntsman Jr., but he's Mormon and moderate; a problem in some southern swing states).
In 1988, George H.W. Bush picked Dan Quayle. After a couple gaffes, Quayle was easily portrayed as an idiot. Quayle's famous dress-down by Lloyd Bentsen at the vice-presidential debate meant that Bush won despite having Quayle as his VP pick, and even though presidents frequently changed vice-presidents over history (FDR did it more than once), Bush's loyalty to Quayle helped cost him the 92 election. (That, and Ross Perot, and the recession, and...)
In 1992, Bill Clinton was a womanizer who skewed too centrist in the primaries, so he balanced that by picking squeaky-clean liberal Al Gore as his running mate. Alas, Clinton only got 43% of the vote. Oh wait, Bush only got 39% and Perot got 17% of the vote. So he won.
In 1996, Bob Dole picked Jack Kemp. That made the GOP base excited for about a week. Then Clinton won 49% to 42%.
In 2000, in a personality year, Al Gore picked the moderate Joseph Lieberman. George W. Bush, the fratboy who was picked because brother Jeb hadn't been governor long enough, needed gravitas and picked Dick Cheney. People may forget how back then, lots of people saw the VP debate and wished the choices were instead Lieberman-Gore and Cheney-Bush. Both VP picks were good for the candidates, but unfortunately for Gore, many Florida voters didn't know how to fill out a voting ballot properly. Among other things.
In 2004, John Kerry picked John Edwards. I guess he felt like he had to, but Edwards didn't even deliver his home state of North Carolina, so it was a useless pick.
In 2008, despite Hillary Clinton's constant goalpost moving, Barack Obama will be the nominee, and he has to figure out what flaws he wants to cover with that VP pick. Does he need to appease the women who feel screwed by Hillary losing? I think making Hillary the VP would be a colossal mistake, and it would only happen if she wanted it. I don't see why she would. My guess is she'd want John McCain to win the election, and then she can run in 2012. If Obama wins, she can't run until 2016, by which time she'll be 69, a little too old. (Look at all the Methuselah jokes about 71-year-old John McCain.) So Obama could pick a female governor, but my guess he'll stick with a white guy. Because America isn't "ready" for Prez AND Vice-Prez to be historic. And it will probably be a Clinton supporter. Top two contender names I'm seeing floated would be Evan Bayh or Ed Rendell. Bayh, sure. Rendell would have to do an about-face on some opinions he's expressed the past few weeks.
Now if Hillary wanted to be VP, I imagine every soldier in the CLinton machine would pressure him to take her. If I was him, I wouldn't want her on the ticket because A.) who would want Bill & Hillary puttering around the White House?, and B.) that Clinton dead-pool list would make me nervous.
John McCain has a wide open field. He probably needs someone considered more conservative than him, and younger. Shouldn't be too hard. I don't think it'll be any of the men he faced in the primary. Rudy Giulani won one whole delegate. Fred Thompson looks as old as J-Mac. McCain and Romney got personal (McCain saying Romney doesn't stand for anything; Romney saying McCain's Nixonian tactics were "reprehensible"). Mike Huckabee's an absolute joke. For J-Mac, he will likely go with a governor, and the two most likely are Tim Pawlenty or Charlie Crist. (I've heard Utah's own Jon Huntsman Jr., but he's Mormon and moderate; a problem in some southern swing states).
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
First Sunday - DVD Review
FIRST SUNDAY (**) - Starring Ice Cube, Tracy Morgan, Katt Williams, Loretta Devine, Michael Beach, Keith David, Chi McBride and Regina Hall.
Written & Directed by David E. Talbert.
Tracy Morgan may have been on Saturday Night Live, but when it comes to acting, he seems capable of only one character, the dense man-child. I see no difference between him here and on 30 Rock and on most of the SNL skits he ever did. That persona can be funny, but without Tina Fey writing for him, that persona's just tired.
Here he is the buddy to Ice Cube in this conventional, predictable, contrived sitcom of a movie, where two decent guys decide to rob a church. Two decent guys robbing a church? Well, the deck is stacked. Cube's character needs the money to keep his ex-wife from moving out of state with their son; Morgan's character needs the money to pay off some gangsters.
Trouble is, once they get the safe open, the money's already gone. Huh? So they hold the church members hostage until they can figure out who stole the money.
Cube is used to being straight man in comedies. It worked in the Friday movies and the Barbershop movies, and I had no problem with it here. He's never been funny at it, but he's pretty good at keeping a straight face while others try to earn laughs. Any laughs squeezed out of this script were courtesy of Katt Williams as the choir director. His one-liners occasionally worked. For every two groaners, one would work.
You know exactly where the "feel-good" plot is going, so the pleasure should be from the journey, but the journey's a thin ride too, so while I didn't hate it, I see no reason for anyone else to seek it out.
Written & Directed by David E. Talbert.
Tracy Morgan may have been on Saturday Night Live, but when it comes to acting, he seems capable of only one character, the dense man-child. I see no difference between him here and on 30 Rock and on most of the SNL skits he ever did. That persona can be funny, but without Tina Fey writing for him, that persona's just tired.
Here he is the buddy to Ice Cube in this conventional, predictable, contrived sitcom of a movie, where two decent guys decide to rob a church. Two decent guys robbing a church? Well, the deck is stacked. Cube's character needs the money to keep his ex-wife from moving out of state with their son; Morgan's character needs the money to pay off some gangsters.
Trouble is, once they get the safe open, the money's already gone. Huh? So they hold the church members hostage until they can figure out who stole the money.
Cube is used to being straight man in comedies. It worked in the Friday movies and the Barbershop movies, and I had no problem with it here. He's never been funny at it, but he's pretty good at keeping a straight face while others try to earn laughs. Any laughs squeezed out of this script were courtesy of Katt Williams as the choir director. His one-liners occasionally worked. For every two groaners, one would work.
You know exactly where the "feel-good" plot is going, so the pleasure should be from the journey, but the journey's a thin ride too, so while I didn't hate it, I see no reason for anyone else to seek it out.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Survivor: Fans v. Favorites
Erik passes Season's 1 Dr. Sean as the Dumbest Survivor Ever. Where did they find these alleged Fans? I am very disappointed in these idiots. Joel was an idiot, Jason was an idiot, and then Erik has proven himself to be the biggest idiot of all.
Erik: Dumbest Survivor Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Erik: Dumbest Survivor Ever!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Over Her Dead Body - DVD Review
OVER HER DEAD BODY (*) - Starring Eva Longoria Parker, Paul Rudd, Lake Bell, Jason Biggs, Lindsay Sloane and Stephen Root.
Written & directed by Jeff Lowell.
I don't get what the goal was here. Is Eva Longoria the star? Then why is she such an unlikeable character from beginning to end? I don't know if I can blame her performance. If she's supposed to be a b-word, she delivers. A charmless, charmless b-word.
She plays Kate, a bridezilla who dies on her wedding day. She was supposed to marry Henry (Paul Rudd). A year later, Henry is still bummed, but Kate is so shrewish I can't for the life of me figure out why he wanted to marry her and why he's not over her after a year. His sister takes her to a psychic named Ashley (Boston Legal's Lake Bell) who doubles as a caterer. Ashley starts to fall for Henry, which makes Kate jealous.
One problem I had: why is there no curiosity about the afterlife? Kate has no questions or curiosity at all about what happens to her soul from here. She meets an angel ready to give her info, and Kate has a hissy-fit about her not having wings. Did Kate believe in God before she died? Reincarnation? Existence after death at all?
None of the characters seem to care. Everyone falls in lockstep with the rom-com cliche parade. Henry and Ashley date, Kate's jealous, Kate tortures Ashley, as Ashley is the only one who can see her. How does she do this? By making it sound like Henry is farting when he's not. She has all sorts of powers, but this is the extent of her wit. Another embarrassing aspect of this movie is it occasionally remembers it's a comedy and has its characters do pratfalls and behave in madcap fashion at off-putting times.
Even Paul Rudd, who's earned brotherhood in the Ferrell-Stiller laugh-pack, as well as the Apatow stable, seems almost ashamed to be here, and does his best to earn actual laughs with his line delivery. Alas, even he falls short. The worst movie so far of 2008.
Written & directed by Jeff Lowell.
I don't get what the goal was here. Is Eva Longoria the star? Then why is she such an unlikeable character from beginning to end? I don't know if I can blame her performance. If she's supposed to be a b-word, she delivers. A charmless, charmless b-word.
She plays Kate, a bridezilla who dies on her wedding day. She was supposed to marry Henry (Paul Rudd). A year later, Henry is still bummed, but Kate is so shrewish I can't for the life of me figure out why he wanted to marry her and why he's not over her after a year. His sister takes her to a psychic named Ashley (Boston Legal's Lake Bell) who doubles as a caterer. Ashley starts to fall for Henry, which makes Kate jealous.
One problem I had: why is there no curiosity about the afterlife? Kate has no questions or curiosity at all about what happens to her soul from here. She meets an angel ready to give her info, and Kate has a hissy-fit about her not having wings. Did Kate believe in God before she died? Reincarnation? Existence after death at all?
None of the characters seem to care. Everyone falls in lockstep with the rom-com cliche parade. Henry and Ashley date, Kate's jealous, Kate tortures Ashley, as Ashley is the only one who can see her. How does she do this? By making it sound like Henry is farting when he's not. She has all sorts of powers, but this is the extent of her wit. Another embarrassing aspect of this movie is it occasionally remembers it's a comedy and has its characters do pratfalls and behave in madcap fashion at off-putting times.
Even Paul Rudd, who's earned brotherhood in the Ferrell-Stiller laugh-pack, as well as the Apatow stable, seems almost ashamed to be here, and does his best to earn actual laughs with his line delivery. Alas, even he falls short. The worst movie so far of 2008.
Iron Man - Movie Review
IRON MAN (***1/2) - Starring Robert Downey Jr., Gwyneth Paltrow, Terrence Howard, Jeff Bridges, Leslie Bibb, Shaun Toub and Jon Favreau.
Directed by Jon Favreau.
I don't know much about Iron Man beyond he's a Marvel character, he was in the Avengers, and he's billionaire Tony Stark. I don't have this mental image of what I want Iron Man to be based on my reading of the comics in my youth. I think this is a kick-butt movie whether you're a fan of the comics or not.
There's something enjoyable about having adult superheroes. Robert Downey Jr. is past 40; no growing-pains angst / puberty metaphors for him to go through. No, he gets a moment of clarity / mid-life crisis supplied courtesy of Afghan kidnappers. Stark is an agent of death, a weapons manufacturer that reminded me of the Lord of War, that Nicolas Cage movie about an unrepentant arms dealer. Well, Stark gets a Road to Jericho moment when terrorists force him to recreate his latest weapon from spare parts.
Instead of building the missiles he wants, he puts together an Iron Man suit. After he escapes, he perfects his design and becomes a one-man combat machine against those very terrorists who are buying his weapons on the black market.
From the second I heard about it, I thought Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man was a stroke of genius, comparable to Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. Downey's rapid-fire delivery is a joy to listen to, and he's ideal as Stark. We buy him as a playboy billionaire who dips too much into women and booze, because darnit, that's what he did in the 1990's. We buy his redemption and change-of-heart because that's what he's displayed ever since he got out of jail for drug use five years ago.
One sign of a good superhero movie is that I'm not anxious for the red-and-gold suit to show up when it does. I contrast that with the Hulk, the Ang Lee fizzler where it felt like it took forever to get to the Big Green Guy. In Iron Man, the characters are fun enough to watch, particularly Stark, that I had no problem in the movie taking its time to get there.
P.S. Stay until the end of the credits.
Directed by Jon Favreau.
I don't know much about Iron Man beyond he's a Marvel character, he was in the Avengers, and he's billionaire Tony Stark. I don't have this mental image of what I want Iron Man to be based on my reading of the comics in my youth. I think this is a kick-butt movie whether you're a fan of the comics or not.
There's something enjoyable about having adult superheroes. Robert Downey Jr. is past 40; no growing-pains angst / puberty metaphors for him to go through. No, he gets a moment of clarity / mid-life crisis supplied courtesy of Afghan kidnappers. Stark is an agent of death, a weapons manufacturer that reminded me of the Lord of War, that Nicolas Cage movie about an unrepentant arms dealer. Well, Stark gets a Road to Jericho moment when terrorists force him to recreate his latest weapon from spare parts.
Instead of building the missiles he wants, he puts together an Iron Man suit. After he escapes, he perfects his design and becomes a one-man combat machine against those very terrorists who are buying his weapons on the black market.
From the second I heard about it, I thought Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man was a stroke of genius, comparable to Johnny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean. Downey's rapid-fire delivery is a joy to listen to, and he's ideal as Stark. We buy him as a playboy billionaire who dips too much into women and booze, because darnit, that's what he did in the 1990's. We buy his redemption and change-of-heart because that's what he's displayed ever since he got out of jail for drug use five years ago.
One sign of a good superhero movie is that I'm not anxious for the red-and-gold suit to show up when it does. I contrast that with the Hulk, the Ang Lee fizzler where it felt like it took forever to get to the Big Green Guy. In Iron Man, the characters are fun enough to watch, particularly Stark, that I had no problem in the movie taking its time to get there.
P.S. Stay until the end of the credits.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Al Gore cashes in on tragedy
He's made $100 million on his Global Warming tour. Why not exploit tragedy to keep pushing his agenda?
Al Gore blames Myanmar cyclone on global warming
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx
Al Gore blames Myanmar cyclone on global warming
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080506160205.aspx
Monday, May 5, 2008
Movie Stars vs. Franchises
The Hollywood Reporter has an article on how A-List celebrities are seeing their clout drop, as star-driven movies aren't grossing what they used, that more success is coming from the franchise-driven picture. This is true, but the stats they use to make their point of erroneous.
They compare 1987, 1997 and 2007. In 1987, they call Lethal Weapon star-driven when Mel Gibson hadn't proven yet to bankable outside of a Mad max movie, and then they call RoboCop franchise driven when it was the first one and no one knew it was going to spawn sequels.
In 1997, they call Titanic star-driven, when Leonardo DiCaprio had not yet proven to open a picture.
In 2007, they call Wild Hogs a "buzz comedy." Why was this not star-driven, seeing as how it was one of the worst reviewed movies of 2007?
It is true there are very few bankable stars in Hollywood left. I'd say Will Smith is #1, and there are no guarantees after that. There is a difference between a movie star and a celebrity. For all the buzz that George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston, etc. generate, their movies' grosses don't reflect it. Clooney needed Pitt, Matt Damon and a few other big names to make the Ocean's 11 franchise a big-grosser, but outside of that, when looking at Leatherheads, Michael Clayton, Intolerable Cruelty, Syriana, he doesn't hit the home runs, solid as the reviews may be. Brad Pitt (The Assassination of Jesse James) and Angelina Jolie (A Mighty Heart) couldn't make their art-house pics break out. Will Smith, however, made a monster hit out of The Pursuit of Happyness.
Even the unstoppable Toms, Cruise and Hanks, have stumbled recently with Lions for Lambs and Charlie Wilson's War. CWW did okay but it wasn't in the stratosphere of The Da Vinci Code, Cast Away, etc. Maybe they can be blamed on audiences shunning anything having to do with war.
They compare 1987, 1997 and 2007. In 1987, they call Lethal Weapon star-driven when Mel Gibson hadn't proven yet to bankable outside of a Mad max movie, and then they call RoboCop franchise driven when it was the first one and no one knew it was going to spawn sequels.
In 1997, they call Titanic star-driven, when Leonardo DiCaprio had not yet proven to open a picture.
In 2007, they call Wild Hogs a "buzz comedy." Why was this not star-driven, seeing as how it was one of the worst reviewed movies of 2007?
It is true there are very few bankable stars in Hollywood left. I'd say Will Smith is #1, and there are no guarantees after that. There is a difference between a movie star and a celebrity. For all the buzz that George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Jennifer Aniston, etc. generate, their movies' grosses don't reflect it. Clooney needed Pitt, Matt Damon and a few other big names to make the Ocean's 11 franchise a big-grosser, but outside of that, when looking at Leatherheads, Michael Clayton, Intolerable Cruelty, Syriana, he doesn't hit the home runs, solid as the reviews may be. Brad Pitt (The Assassination of Jesse James) and Angelina Jolie (A Mighty Heart) couldn't make their art-house pics break out. Will Smith, however, made a monster hit out of The Pursuit of Happyness.
Even the unstoppable Toms, Cruise and Hanks, have stumbled recently with Lions for Lambs and Charlie Wilson's War. CWW did okay but it wasn't in the stratosphere of The Da Vinci Code, Cast Away, etc. Maybe they can be blamed on audiences shunning anything having to do with war.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Jazz - Lakers series
Looking ahead to the Jazz - Lakers series.
POINT GUARD
Deron Williams vs. Derek Fisher
These two know each other very well, which means Fisher will have a trick or two up his sleeve when it comes to covering Deron and making his teammates aware of Deron's tendencies. However, Deron is a dynamic dribbler, smart passer, and he's bigger, stronger, younger and healthier than Derek. Derek will draw one or two offensive fouls off Deron in this series, but otherwise I don't see him being able to do much.
Advantage: Jazz
SHOOTING GUARD
Ronnie Brewer vs. Kobe Bryant
One is the NBA MVP, the other is a second-year player. Brewer's one of the best perimeter defenders the Jazz have, and he gets his points from slashing to the basket. Kobe gets his points whenever and whereever he wants, so all Brewer can do is hope to keep Kobe's shooting percentage low.
Advantage: Lakers
SMALL FORWARD
Andrei Kirilenko vs. Vladimir Radmanovic
Neither is known for being consistent offensively, but defensively AK47 is miles better than Vlad. Vlad however is more capable of getting on a hot shooting streak. AK is better at passing and involving his teammates.
Advantage: Jazz
POWER FORWARD
Carlos Boozer vs. Lamar Odom
Boozer is stronger and a better finisher in the paint. Odom is a little more versatile. Boozer's not a great defender, so both will likely put up nice numbers on each other.
Advantage: Jazz
CENTER
Mehmet Okur vs. Pau Gasol
Gasol fits in perfectly to the Laker system. He's a little quicker than Okur and better at post-ups and back-to-the-basket scoring. Okur's a great 3-point shooter and will force Gasol to play out on him, opening up the floor for Boozer. Okur is capable of playing good defense against big men (see Okur on Yao last year) but you never know when he's actually going to do it.
Advantage: Lakers
BENCH
Ronnie Price, Kyle Korver, Matt Harpring & Paul Millsap vs. Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton & DJ Ilunga-Mbenga.
The two deepest benches in the West. Each unit plays very well at home, but the Lakers bench tends to produce better on the road than the Jazz bench does on the road. Farmar allows Fisher to take nice rests on the bench, whereas Price only plays about four minutes a game unless he's doing really well. Korver's a better shooter than Vujacic, although hasn't proven yet in the playoffs. Harpring's stronger but Walton's quicker and has been lights-out from outside. Millsap and Mbenga is a pretty even match-up, and while Mbenga's taller, I'd still give the rebounding edge to Millsap. If it goes to a tenth man, Jarron Collins and Ronny Turiaf are fairly evenly matched. If Bynum comes back, this changes, but...
Advantage: Toss-up
COACH
Jerry Sloan vs. Phil Jackson
Sloan has zero rings; Jackson has nine.
Advantage: Lakers
INTANGIBLES
The Lakers have home-court advantage. The Lakers are one of the few teams that won in Utah this year. The Jazz's offense, which has been stifled by the Rockets' stingy defense, should run a little smoother against the Lakers. You never know if Andrew Bynum can come back and play in this series. You also never know if Fisher's foot or Bryant's pinky might get re-injured. Or Deron's tailbone. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd say David Stern would love to see the Lakers make it to the Finals.
Prediction: Either the Lakers in 7 or the Jazz in 6. In that order.
POINT GUARD
Deron Williams vs. Derek Fisher
These two know each other very well, which means Fisher will have a trick or two up his sleeve when it comes to covering Deron and making his teammates aware of Deron's tendencies. However, Deron is a dynamic dribbler, smart passer, and he's bigger, stronger, younger and healthier than Derek. Derek will draw one or two offensive fouls off Deron in this series, but otherwise I don't see him being able to do much.
Advantage: Jazz
SHOOTING GUARD
Ronnie Brewer vs. Kobe Bryant
One is the NBA MVP, the other is a second-year player. Brewer's one of the best perimeter defenders the Jazz have, and he gets his points from slashing to the basket. Kobe gets his points whenever and whereever he wants, so all Brewer can do is hope to keep Kobe's shooting percentage low.
Advantage: Lakers
SMALL FORWARD
Andrei Kirilenko vs. Vladimir Radmanovic
Neither is known for being consistent offensively, but defensively AK47 is miles better than Vlad. Vlad however is more capable of getting on a hot shooting streak. AK is better at passing and involving his teammates.
Advantage: Jazz
POWER FORWARD
Carlos Boozer vs. Lamar Odom
Boozer is stronger and a better finisher in the paint. Odom is a little more versatile. Boozer's not a great defender, so both will likely put up nice numbers on each other.
Advantage: Jazz
CENTER
Mehmet Okur vs. Pau Gasol
Gasol fits in perfectly to the Laker system. He's a little quicker than Okur and better at post-ups and back-to-the-basket scoring. Okur's a great 3-point shooter and will force Gasol to play out on him, opening up the floor for Boozer. Okur is capable of playing good defense against big men (see Okur on Yao last year) but you never know when he's actually going to do it.
Advantage: Lakers
BENCH
Ronnie Price, Kyle Korver, Matt Harpring & Paul Millsap vs. Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton & DJ Ilunga-Mbenga.
The two deepest benches in the West. Each unit plays very well at home, but the Lakers bench tends to produce better on the road than the Jazz bench does on the road. Farmar allows Fisher to take nice rests on the bench, whereas Price only plays about four minutes a game unless he's doing really well. Korver's a better shooter than Vujacic, although hasn't proven yet in the playoffs. Harpring's stronger but Walton's quicker and has been lights-out from outside. Millsap and Mbenga is a pretty even match-up, and while Mbenga's taller, I'd still give the rebounding edge to Millsap. If it goes to a tenth man, Jarron Collins and Ronny Turiaf are fairly evenly matched. If Bynum comes back, this changes, but...
Advantage: Toss-up
COACH
Jerry Sloan vs. Phil Jackson
Sloan has zero rings; Jackson has nine.
Advantage: Lakers
INTANGIBLES
The Lakers have home-court advantage. The Lakers are one of the few teams that won in Utah this year. The Jazz's offense, which has been stifled by the Rockets' stingy defense, should run a little smoother against the Lakers. You never know if Andrew Bynum can come back and play in this series. You also never know if Fisher's foot or Bryant's pinky might get re-injured. Or Deron's tailbone. Were I a conspiracy theorist, I'd say David Stern would love to see the Lakers make it to the Finals.
Prediction: Either the Lakers in 7 or the Jazz in 6. In that order.
Hornets - Spurs series
Looking ahead to the Hornets - Spurs series.
POINT GUARD
Chris Paul vs. Tony Parker
CP3 has been outstanding in the playoffs, but so has Tony Parker. Paul yanked the torch out of Jason Kidd's hand, and Parker yanked it out of Steve Nash's hand. They're roughly the same size. As good as Paul is, I have a hard time counting out Parker.
Advantage: Toss-up
SHOOTING GUARD
Morris Peterson vs. Michael Finley
I know Michael Finley's the starter, but it really doesn't matter what the line-up says. Manu comes in after about five minutes of clock and plays the bulk of the minutes, and this year the Spurs Big 3 have produced like nobody's business. Finley splits time between the 2 and 3 with Manu. Strictly between Peterson and Finley, it's pretty close.
Advantage: Toss-up
SMALL FORWARD
Peja Stoyakovic vs. Bruce Bowen
Peja's been resurrected in New Orleans, and while Bowen is still a good defender, he's not as fast as he used to be, nor is his 3-point shot there as often as it used to be.
Advantage: Hornets
POWER FORWARD
David West vs. Tim Duncan
West became an All-Star this year, and he's really good at shooting over his man and moving without the ball. But Tim Duncan is arguably the best power forward to ever play the game.
Advantage: Spurs
CENTER
Tyson Chandler vs. Fabricio Oberto
Chandler is a tremendous defender and great at catching alley-oop passes from Parker. Oberto is a seven-footer than can take up space and set screens.
Advantage: Hornets
BENCH
Jannero Pargo, Bonzi Wells, Julian Wright & Hilton Armstrong vs. Manu Ginobili, Brent Barry, Jacque Vaughn & Kurt Thomas.
The Spurs bench ain't what it used to be, but since Ginobili's on it, it's the best bench in the playoffs.
Advantage: Spurs
COACH
Byron Scott vs. Gregg Popovich
I'm seeing a trend here with the Western coaches still in the playoffs. They've all been to the NBA Finals before. Scott's been great with this team, but Pops has four rings.
Advantage: Spurs
INTANGIBLES
The Hornets play fearless and have home court advantage. The Spurs have won four of the last nine championships and know how to close out close games. Were I conspiracy theorist, I'd say David Stern would love to see the Hornets face the Lakers in the Western Conference finals, but it's always dangerous to count out the Spurs. Then again, they only win their championships in odd-numbered years.
Prediction: The Spurs in 6 or the Hornets in 7. In that order.
POINT GUARD
Chris Paul vs. Tony Parker
CP3 has been outstanding in the playoffs, but so has Tony Parker. Paul yanked the torch out of Jason Kidd's hand, and Parker yanked it out of Steve Nash's hand. They're roughly the same size. As good as Paul is, I have a hard time counting out Parker.
Advantage: Toss-up
SHOOTING GUARD
Morris Peterson vs. Michael Finley
I know Michael Finley's the starter, but it really doesn't matter what the line-up says. Manu comes in after about five minutes of clock and plays the bulk of the minutes, and this year the Spurs Big 3 have produced like nobody's business. Finley splits time between the 2 and 3 with Manu. Strictly between Peterson and Finley, it's pretty close.
Advantage: Toss-up
SMALL FORWARD
Peja Stoyakovic vs. Bruce Bowen
Peja's been resurrected in New Orleans, and while Bowen is still a good defender, he's not as fast as he used to be, nor is his 3-point shot there as often as it used to be.
Advantage: Hornets
POWER FORWARD
David West vs. Tim Duncan
West became an All-Star this year, and he's really good at shooting over his man and moving without the ball. But Tim Duncan is arguably the best power forward to ever play the game.
Advantage: Spurs
CENTER
Tyson Chandler vs. Fabricio Oberto
Chandler is a tremendous defender and great at catching alley-oop passes from Parker. Oberto is a seven-footer than can take up space and set screens.
Advantage: Hornets
BENCH
Jannero Pargo, Bonzi Wells, Julian Wright & Hilton Armstrong vs. Manu Ginobili, Brent Barry, Jacque Vaughn & Kurt Thomas.
The Spurs bench ain't what it used to be, but since Ginobili's on it, it's the best bench in the playoffs.
Advantage: Spurs
COACH
Byron Scott vs. Gregg Popovich
I'm seeing a trend here with the Western coaches still in the playoffs. They've all been to the NBA Finals before. Scott's been great with this team, but Pops has four rings.
Advantage: Spurs
INTANGIBLES
The Hornets play fearless and have home court advantage. The Spurs have won four of the last nine championships and know how to close out close games. Were I conspiracy theorist, I'd say David Stern would love to see the Hornets face the Lakers in the Western Conference finals, but it's always dangerous to count out the Spurs. Then again, they only win their championships in odd-numbered years.
Prediction: The Spurs in 6 or the Hornets in 7. In that order.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Bill O'Reilly - Hillary Clinton interview
O'Reilly's sit-down with Clinton was the most substantive, issue-oriented interview I've seen all year. I think every other reporter who's ever been given one-on-one access to a presidential candidate can learn from it. He had a relaxed, respectful manner. He engaged her, he reworded questions if she tried to dodge, but if she wriggled after the same question three times, he moved on. Meanwhile, she put forth actual plans and policies. Whether or not anyone who watches agrees with them, they now have specifics in front of them on what she plans to do.
He's hyping his John McCain interview; I'll be interested to see if he can match what he did this week.
He's hyping his John McCain interview; I'll be interested to see if he can match what he did this week.
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Mike D'Antoni leaves Suns?
ESPN is reporting that Mike D'Antoni is stepping down as Phoenix Suns head coach. This would be disastrous for them. While Nash and Shaq being old, I see the Suns going the way of the Kings. Wow, a Western powerhouse bites the dust.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Carolyn Jessop's Escape
I've started reading this book by an ex-FLDS member. You see her give the ex-FLDS view every time there's a new development in the Texas case. It's very disturbing how they view the world and how they treat their children. They waterboarded babies.
That said, I'm still not sure how I feel about all 400-something kids being removed. Seems like an overreach, but they HAVE found several legitimate cases of abuse there.
That said, I'm still not sure how I feel about all 400-something kids being removed. Seems like an overreach, but they HAVE found several legitimate cases of abuse there.
Suns fans can be mad
No players from the Celtics-Hawks altercation will be suspended. Excuse me? Kevin Garnett pushed a referee! Last time Jerry Sloan did that he was suspended SEVEN games! Kendrick Perkins got off the bench and set foot on the court. Last year, David Stern was letter of the law in handing the Spurs-Suns series to the Spurs by suspending Amare Stoudamire and Brois Diaw when they got off the bench after Robert Horry hipchecked Steve Nash into the scorers' table. I would follow Tim legler's logic that the NBA is just following common sense this year, but there was no announcement at any point this year they were going to follow common sense. All we heard from Stern last year was "Letter of the law, letter of the law." Now we get common sense? I think it's great for Celtic fans, and I think it's a stupid rule to begin with, but it's a giant double standard to not suspend KG and Perkins. You think they'd still not be suspended if Celtics were up 3-1 instead of being tied at 2-2?
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
NBA Playoff Observations
- Kudos to Luis Scola for not crying when he was called for his foul on Andrei Kirilenko. Yes, Andrei waving his arms after he was pushed helped draw attention to the foul, but the call was made very clearly before Bobby Jackson shot the 3, so for Rick Adelman and Tracy McGrady to bellyache that the "flop" negated three points, well, it's disingenuous at best.
- It's easy to hate the Lakers, but it's also easy to admire their second unit. Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton, DJ Mbenga, all of them play with speed and earnestness, and the bench of the Lakers is going to be key for them.
- If the Mavericks had known they were going to get the Hornets in the first round, would they have still traded away Devin Harris, one of the best defensive point guards in the NBA, for Jason Kidd, whose best days are behind him?
- The Nuggets will likely get swept, maybe go five games, and have another first-round exit. Can this team stand pat? Is George Karl's job safe? The Nugs need a real point guard. They had one in Andre Miller, but that's water under the bridge.
- It's easy to hate the Lakers, but it's also easy to admire their second unit. Jordan Farmar, Sasha Vujacic, Luke Walton, DJ Mbenga, all of them play with speed and earnestness, and the bench of the Lakers is going to be key for them.
- If the Mavericks had known they were going to get the Hornets in the first round, would they have still traded away Devin Harris, one of the best defensive point guards in the NBA, for Jason Kidd, whose best days are behind him?
- The Nuggets will likely get swept, maybe go five games, and have another first-round exit. Can this team stand pat? Is George Karl's job safe? The Nugs need a real point guard. They had one in Andre Miller, but that's water under the bridge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)