Let us consider some of the things that make us happy. And when I say "us", I mean "me".
The only professional football team I cheer for is the New Orleans Saints. There are other teams I enjoy watching, the Colts currently topping the list. But the Saints, as I wrote briefly here, are like the pro football version of my unconscious (whatever that means). Much of the time I don't really pay attention to what's really going on, though it has a big effect on how I view the rest of the world. The Saints are my default setting. The Saints have never been very good. It took 35 years to win one playoff game (by comparison, both the Jaguars and Panthers made the conference championship game in their 2nd year). Cheering for them leads to a sort of resigned hopelessness. Good things never happen to us. Why bother getting too excited?
Last year the Saints went to Green Bay when the Packers were 0-3 and got hammered 52-3. Every time they have a chance to show the world what they're made of, they do. And it turns out to be some soft, gooey, gelatin-like substance that can't block or tackle. Which brings us to Monday Night Football.
Let's put aside the emotional aspect for a second. I thought the Saints had zero chance of winning. Atlanta had run the ball amazingly well, and stopping it hasn't really been the Saints' strength. Atlanta's defense would also be the best the Saints had faced so far. Somebody at work said that he would be pulling for the Saints, and he thought that a lot of others would be, too. I understood the position. Struggling city, underdog team, feel-good story. My response: Don't bother. Really. Please. It's very nice, but you'll only end up being disappointed, and you'll wonder why you ever bothered. Now for the emotions.
Before the game, I kept trying to imagine what it was like inside the Superdome. Pregame concert, intros, kickoff, all that. I couldn't imagine what the noise level was going to be like. When the Saints blocked a punt and scored a TD on the first possession of the game, I almost started crying. If I had been there, I probably would have. I spent the rest of the game in front of the TV waiting for the other shoe to drop. Surely this couldn't continue. Surely we couldn't keep playing this well. Something had to go wrong. Somebody kept a tight grip on that shoe, because the Saints played pretty well all game long. Good enough to win 23-3 and go 3-0 to start the season.
I think someone kidnapped all the Saints players and replaced them with guys who play good defense and execute well on offense.
Does this make me happy? Yes. Due to past experience, it's a tenuous sort of happiness, but you have to enjoy it while you can.
What else was I going to talk about? Oh yes, Couples and TV Shows. At the end of last season, Lorelai gave Luke an ultimatum on their marriage, and Luke balked at it. Last night's season premiere only widened the rift. This does NOT make me happy. I like them together. I watch when they're together. When I see old episodes of Lorelai dating someone else, it ticks me off. They should get her and Luke married as soon as possible so they can be happy. More importantly, so I can be happy.
I know why the writers do things like this. They love to drag things out. Increase the drama. See how long they can go until they can't stall any longer. Personally, I see it as laziness and lack of creativity. It's like they think they won't be able to find new storylines if the main characters are happy. Plus, they made Logan look good last night, and that really pisses me off. I hope he gets hit by a bus.
Contrast this with Bones. I want Booth and Brennan together. Now. Tonight's episode presented a perfect opportunity to drive them apart and put off them getting together. For a while I thought that's exactly what would happen. But the writers found a quick and easy way to resolve the conflict, and now they're closer than they were before. Of course, they ended it with something else that could be a problem, but we'll worry about that next week. My guess? I think Bones has a shorter shelf life on TV than Gilmore Girls, and the writers know it, so they want to get Bones and Booth together in a relatively short period of time. Whatever the reason, I love their chemistry and am happy with the current pace of their relationship. It makes me happy.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Monday, September 18, 2006
16 wasn't quite good enough
I thought I'd take this opportunity to review what I got right and wrong about this past weekend in college football's matchups of top 25 teams.
I didn't see a whole lot of the Michigan/Notre Dame game, but every time I turned it on, Michigan had scored again. I thought they could win if they pounded away with Mike Hart and kept their defense off the field. I didn't imagine that their defense would have so much success beating up the ND offense and coming up with big plays. All they did was go out and hammer Notre Dame by 26 on the road, with pretty much everybody playing great all over the place. Hail to the victors.
The Nebraska/USC game went pretty much like I thought. USC just has too many good players at every position for Nebraska to match up against. Their defense jumped all over the short passing game and the offense picked on the Husker secondary. It was really a more dominating performance than the 28-10 score would indicate.
Florida beat Tennessee 21-20 on the road, using a pretty balanced attack on offense and what may be the best Gator defense in ten years. Florida's good. Stupid Florida.
I thought Miami's defense would be too good for Louisville. I was dead wrong. Miami looked like garbage from one end to the other. Louisville stomped them 31-7.
I had Oregon with the edge over Oklahoma, but the Sooner did quite a bit better than I thought they would. I wasn't sure they could put up 24 on Oregon, and they went for 33. One too few, as it turns out. Oregon was the beneficiary of a "controversial" call that gave them the ball on an onside kick, when it looked like replay showed that an Oregon player touched it before it went ten yards. Even after review, they got the call wrong. I put the c-word in quotes because this is a word that writers use when they don't want to harp on how officiating blatantly cost one team the game. They think it diminishes the majesty of the sport and calls into question the legitimacy of the results. I don't like the constant griping from fans that the refs are out to get "our team" either. But let's not sugarcoat it by using a word like "controversial". The word is "wrong" or "bad". It was a BAD CALL.
I didn't see a single play of Texas Tech/TCU, but the Horned Frog defense must be pretty good to hold TT to three points. Good for them.
Remember when I said to never trust Clemson? Unranked and coming off a loss to BC, they turn around and beat Florida state in Tallahassee. Can't trust 'em at all.
The game of the day, of course, was LSU/Auburn. Both defenses are very good. I think LSU's is better, but Auburn was able to make LSU one-dimensional by totally shutting down the run. Auburn's offense put together one good drive in the third quarter, and that was enough. LSU's defense got lit up last year by Kenny Irons. This time he had 70. Brandon Cox had 110 yards passing. LSU was able to extend the no-TD streak to 16 quarters, which is terrific. I won't say that LSU will win the rest of their games, but as long as they carry this defense with them, they can beat anybody, anywhere. It's really amazing. Overall, the game consisted of two teams knocking the crap out of each other. At one point or another, every guy who stepped on the field got rocked.
I disagree with Ivan Maisel's statement that it was the kind of game that "set football back 40 years", even though he was trying to pay a compliment. The implication is that the game was sloppy, which it wasn't. There was only one turnover, and only 85 yards of penalties. The game was a well-played one in spite of the low score. I have a hard time imagining that this game was more damaging to college football than one where the defensive line gets blown off the ball, the linebackers don't fill or tackle, and the secondary lets receivers run unencumbered.
Through three games, LSU's defense has allowed 13 points. The next two opponents are Tulane and Mississippi State. There's a real chance that after five games, LSU could be allowing 2.6 points a game. Yowza.
I didn't see a whole lot of the Michigan/Notre Dame game, but every time I turned it on, Michigan had scored again. I thought they could win if they pounded away with Mike Hart and kept their defense off the field. I didn't imagine that their defense would have so much success beating up the ND offense and coming up with big plays. All they did was go out and hammer Notre Dame by 26 on the road, with pretty much everybody playing great all over the place. Hail to the victors.
The Nebraska/USC game went pretty much like I thought. USC just has too many good players at every position for Nebraska to match up against. Their defense jumped all over the short passing game and the offense picked on the Husker secondary. It was really a more dominating performance than the 28-10 score would indicate.
Florida beat Tennessee 21-20 on the road, using a pretty balanced attack on offense and what may be the best Gator defense in ten years. Florida's good. Stupid Florida.
I thought Miami's defense would be too good for Louisville. I was dead wrong. Miami looked like garbage from one end to the other. Louisville stomped them 31-7.
I had Oregon with the edge over Oklahoma, but the Sooner did quite a bit better than I thought they would. I wasn't sure they could put up 24 on Oregon, and they went for 33. One too few, as it turns out. Oregon was the beneficiary of a "controversial" call that gave them the ball on an onside kick, when it looked like replay showed that an Oregon player touched it before it went ten yards. Even after review, they got the call wrong. I put the c-word in quotes because this is a word that writers use when they don't want to harp on how officiating blatantly cost one team the game. They think it diminishes the majesty of the sport and calls into question the legitimacy of the results. I don't like the constant griping from fans that the refs are out to get "our team" either. But let's not sugarcoat it by using a word like "controversial". The word is "wrong" or "bad". It was a BAD CALL.
I didn't see a single play of Texas Tech/TCU, but the Horned Frog defense must be pretty good to hold TT to three points. Good for them.
Remember when I said to never trust Clemson? Unranked and coming off a loss to BC, they turn around and beat Florida state in Tallahassee. Can't trust 'em at all.
The game of the day, of course, was LSU/Auburn. Both defenses are very good. I think LSU's is better, but Auburn was able to make LSU one-dimensional by totally shutting down the run. Auburn's offense put together one good drive in the third quarter, and that was enough. LSU's defense got lit up last year by Kenny Irons. This time he had 70. Brandon Cox had 110 yards passing. LSU was able to extend the no-TD streak to 16 quarters, which is terrific. I won't say that LSU will win the rest of their games, but as long as they carry this defense with them, they can beat anybody, anywhere. It's really amazing. Overall, the game consisted of two teams knocking the crap out of each other. At one point or another, every guy who stepped on the field got rocked.
I disagree with Ivan Maisel's statement that it was the kind of game that "set football back 40 years", even though he was trying to pay a compliment. The implication is that the game was sloppy, which it wasn't. There was only one turnover, and only 85 yards of penalties. The game was a well-played one in spite of the low score. I have a hard time imagining that this game was more damaging to college football than one where the defensive line gets blown off the ball, the linebackers don't fill or tackle, and the secondary lets receivers run unencumbered.
Through three games, LSU's defense has allowed 13 points. The next two opponents are Tulane and Mississippi State. There's a real chance that after five games, LSU could be allowing 2.6 points a game. Yowza.
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Here's hoping for 18
This weekend brings us one of the great college football weekends of the last few years, and certainly the biggest of this season. SEVEN games match teams ranked in the top 24 in the country. Had Clemson not lost to BC in double overtime last week, the number would be eight. Lesson: Never trust Clemson.
On the slate:
11Michigan AT 2Notre Dame
19Nebraska AT 4USC
7Florida AT 13Tennessee
17Miami AT 12Louisville
15Oklahoma AT 18Oregon
24Texas Tech AT 20TCU
6 LSU AT 3Auburn
------------------------------
Michigan hasn't been much of a factor nationally the last few years, so they're flying under the radar for a team on the verge of the top ten. They have a very good RB in Mike Hart, but I can't escape the idea that QB Chad Henne and the receivers are underachieving a little. Notre Dame has a great offense being run by Brady Quinn and Charlie Weis, and they can put at least four legitimate weapons at Quinn's disposal on the field at the same time. I thought Penn State had some good success running right at Notre Dame and abandoned it a little too early, and running up the gut is Michigan's strength. If Michigan can pound away and keep their defense off the field, they've got a great shot.
------------------------------
As you might remember, I'm a fan of Nebraska. Tommie Frazier is my favorite college player of all time, Tom Osborne my favorite, coach, and I believe that 1995 Nebraska is the best college team ever. So I would love to see them win at USC, but I just don't think it's going to happen. Nebraska's front seven on defense are outstanding, but the secondary isn't ready for all the different guys who can catch passes for USC. The only hope is for the line to get so much pressure on John David Booty that he never has any time to find them, and USC's offensive line is too good for that to happen. On the other side, Pete Carroll does a good job of bringing pressure from different angles, and I don't think Nebraska's offensive line is good enough to stand up to it. Nebraska can hang with them for a while, but home field and clear edge in depth and talent will win out for USC. I'll be pulling for Nebraska.
------------------------------
Florida and Tennessee match up in the biggest game in the SEC East, probably all year. The winner's game against UGA might come close if UGA is unbeaten. The Effing Gators have looked really good in two blowout wins, and the second year of Urban Meyer's system is going a lot better than the first. They're finding ways to work freshmen Tim Tebow and Percy Harvin into the game, with good results. Especially Harvin.
Quick interruption to talk about women's soccer. Wambach has scored twice in her hometown of Rochester, NY. Natasha Kai and her tattoos just entered the game.
Tennessee is a mystery to a lot of people. After a 5-6 season last year, we didn't know if they would underachieve again or regain top form and challenge for the SEC title. They beat the stuffing out of Cal in Week 1, but maybe Cal was ranked too high (I don't like the term "overrated"). Then they almost lost to Air Force. I hope they beat the hell out of Florida. And that Florida gets hit by a bus.
------------------------------
Who in their right mind would ever think that Louisville would be ranked five spots higher than Miami when they played? Yowza. Louisville lost a marvelous running back when Michael Bush broke his leg in Week 1. Big, strong, fast, he would be a load to handle in any system, but especially with a guy like Bobby Petrino. They missed him a lot when they beat Temple 62-0 last week. So why to I think Miami will win? DefenseDefenseDefenseDefenseDefense. They'll dare Louisville to run it with Bush out, and his replacements will find Miami a lot meaner than Temple. The secondary is one of the best around and will make life tough on Brian Brohm and the receivers. And they're going to be pissed that UL is ranked higher than they are.
------------------------------
Oklahoma beat Oregon in last year's Holiday Bowl, the first time in quite a while it wasn't an offensive shootout, but a tough 17-14 Sooner victory. Oklahoma will have the best player on the field, Adrian Peterson, but I'm not sure they have enough of everything else. The defense has been given fits by UAB and Washington, not exactly USC and Notre Dame. The offense has to go with QB-then-WR-then-QB-again Paul Thompson, who lost to TCU at home last year. Yikes. Oregon is balanced on offense, has a very good RB Jonathan Stewart (averaging more than 7 yards a pop so far), was good enough to beat Fresno State on the road, and have a very strong homefield advantage at Autzen Stadium. West Coast fans hail it as the toughest place in the country. SEC fans scoff at a place with fewer than 42,000 seats (that's a spring practice crowd at Florida), but the noise is supposed to be incredible.
------------------------------
The bottom-feeder of the group, TT/ could end up being a pretty entertaining game. I looked through the TCU roster and didn't recognize a single name, which means absolutely nothing. As I mentioned above, they were good enough to win at Oklahoma last year, and some of that respect has carried over to this year. Nobody pays attention to the Texas Tech roster either, because they think all the numbers are simply products of Mike Leach's system. One roster fact of note: for the first time in a million years, Texas Tech isn't starting a senior at QB. So what Graham Harrell might do in two years could be ridiculous. I don't care who wins.
------------------------------
And of course, the best matchup of the weekend, LSU traveling to the Plains to take on Auburn. LSU won last year 20-17 in overtime, helped greatly by five missed field goals by the Auburn kicker (he went down like a choking dog). Kenny Irons hit the LSU defense up for over 200 yards. Now he and Brandon Cox have another year under their belt, and Courtney Taylor is one of the best receivers in the SEC. Winning at Auburn ain't easy. So why do I feel so good? Good question. One LSU fan commented that this was the most confident he'd seen LSU before such a big game in quite a while, and I think he's right. What's the deal?
The biggest deal to me is how much better JaMarcus Russell looks at quarterback. Yes, ULL and Arizona aren't near the level of Auburn, and yes he's had all day to find receivers. But he just looks so much better and in control of everything.
The second biggest is how quickly the defense appears to have come together after losing All-American caliber DTs Kyle Williams and Claude Wroten, a good and experienced two-way DE Melvin Oliver, and two experienced starting linebackers. A second year under Bo Pelini helps a lot. All they've done this year is outscore opponents 12-6 on their own in two 45-3 wins. No TDs allowed in the last 14 quarters. I'd love to see it reach 18.
Third biggest is Dwayne Bowe, who had Lasik surgery before the Peach Bowl and has looked great since. He has the chance to be a total beast this year.
Big questions for LSU are the running backs and offensive line. The backs are either dinged up or freshmen except for Jacob Hester, who isn't exactly the prototype SEC feature back. He is a good receiver out of the backfield, and has his moments as a runner. If Auburn stuffs the run and pressures Russell, it's going to be a long game for LSU. If they can't stop Kenny Irons with a rebuilt front seven, it'll be even longer.
I have no idea how the game will go, but the last three games for LSU (Peach Bowl plus first two games this season) have been outstanding. Like 130-9 outstanding. I do feel pretty good about that.
USA 3, MEXICO 1.
On the slate:
11Michigan AT 2Notre Dame
19Nebraska AT 4USC
7Florida AT 13Tennessee
17Miami AT 12Louisville
15Oklahoma AT 18Oregon
24Texas Tech AT 20TCU
6 LSU AT 3Auburn
------------------------------
Michigan hasn't been much of a factor nationally the last few years, so they're flying under the radar for a team on the verge of the top ten. They have a very good RB in Mike Hart, but I can't escape the idea that QB Chad Henne and the receivers are underachieving a little. Notre Dame has a great offense being run by Brady Quinn and Charlie Weis, and they can put at least four legitimate weapons at Quinn's disposal on the field at the same time. I thought Penn State had some good success running right at Notre Dame and abandoned it a little too early, and running up the gut is Michigan's strength. If Michigan can pound away and keep their defense off the field, they've got a great shot.
------------------------------
As you might remember, I'm a fan of Nebraska. Tommie Frazier is my favorite college player of all time, Tom Osborne my favorite, coach, and I believe that 1995 Nebraska is the best college team ever. So I would love to see them win at USC, but I just don't think it's going to happen. Nebraska's front seven on defense are outstanding, but the secondary isn't ready for all the different guys who can catch passes for USC. The only hope is for the line to get so much pressure on John David Booty that he never has any time to find them, and USC's offensive line is too good for that to happen. On the other side, Pete Carroll does a good job of bringing pressure from different angles, and I don't think Nebraska's offensive line is good enough to stand up to it. Nebraska can hang with them for a while, but home field and clear edge in depth and talent will win out for USC. I'll be pulling for Nebraska.
------------------------------
Florida and Tennessee match up in the biggest game in the SEC East, probably all year. The winner's game against UGA might come close if UGA is unbeaten. The Effing Gators have looked really good in two blowout wins, and the second year of Urban Meyer's system is going a lot better than the first. They're finding ways to work freshmen Tim Tebow and Percy Harvin into the game, with good results. Especially Harvin.
Quick interruption to talk about women's soccer. Wambach has scored twice in her hometown of Rochester, NY. Natasha Kai and her tattoos just entered the game.
Tennessee is a mystery to a lot of people. After a 5-6 season last year, we didn't know if they would underachieve again or regain top form and challenge for the SEC title. They beat the stuffing out of Cal in Week 1, but maybe Cal was ranked too high (I don't like the term "overrated"). Then they almost lost to Air Force. I hope they beat the hell out of Florida. And that Florida gets hit by a bus.
------------------------------
Who in their right mind would ever think that Louisville would be ranked five spots higher than Miami when they played? Yowza. Louisville lost a marvelous running back when Michael Bush broke his leg in Week 1. Big, strong, fast, he would be a load to handle in any system, but especially with a guy like Bobby Petrino. They missed him a lot when they beat Temple 62-0 last week. So why to I think Miami will win? DefenseDefenseDefenseDefenseDefense. They'll dare Louisville to run it with Bush out, and his replacements will find Miami a lot meaner than Temple. The secondary is one of the best around and will make life tough on Brian Brohm and the receivers. And they're going to be pissed that UL is ranked higher than they are.
------------------------------
Oklahoma beat Oregon in last year's Holiday Bowl, the first time in quite a while it wasn't an offensive shootout, but a tough 17-14 Sooner victory. Oklahoma will have the best player on the field, Adrian Peterson, but I'm not sure they have enough of everything else. The defense has been given fits by UAB and Washington, not exactly USC and Notre Dame. The offense has to go with QB-then-WR-then-QB-again Paul Thompson, who lost to TCU at home last year. Yikes. Oregon is balanced on offense, has a very good RB Jonathan Stewart (averaging more than 7 yards a pop so far), was good enough to beat Fresno State on the road, and have a very strong homefield advantage at Autzen Stadium. West Coast fans hail it as the toughest place in the country. SEC fans scoff at a place with fewer than 42,000 seats (that's a spring practice crowd at Florida), but the noise is supposed to be incredible.
------------------------------
The bottom-feeder of the group, TT/ could end up being a pretty entertaining game. I looked through the TCU roster and didn't recognize a single name, which means absolutely nothing. As I mentioned above, they were good enough to win at Oklahoma last year, and some of that respect has carried over to this year. Nobody pays attention to the Texas Tech roster either, because they think all the numbers are simply products of Mike Leach's system. One roster fact of note: for the first time in a million years, Texas Tech isn't starting a senior at QB. So what Graham Harrell might do in two years could be ridiculous. I don't care who wins.
------------------------------
And of course, the best matchup of the weekend, LSU traveling to the Plains to take on Auburn. LSU won last year 20-17 in overtime, helped greatly by five missed field goals by the Auburn kicker (he went down like a choking dog). Kenny Irons hit the LSU defense up for over 200 yards. Now he and Brandon Cox have another year under their belt, and Courtney Taylor is one of the best receivers in the SEC. Winning at Auburn ain't easy. So why do I feel so good? Good question. One LSU fan commented that this was the most confident he'd seen LSU before such a big game in quite a while, and I think he's right. What's the deal?
The biggest deal to me is how much better JaMarcus Russell looks at quarterback. Yes, ULL and Arizona aren't near the level of Auburn, and yes he's had all day to find receivers. But he just looks so much better and in control of everything.
The second biggest is how quickly the defense appears to have come together after losing All-American caliber DTs Kyle Williams and Claude Wroten, a good and experienced two-way DE Melvin Oliver, and two experienced starting linebackers. A second year under Bo Pelini helps a lot. All they've done this year is outscore opponents 12-6 on their own in two 45-3 wins. No TDs allowed in the last 14 quarters. I'd love to see it reach 18.
Third biggest is Dwayne Bowe, who had Lasik surgery before the Peach Bowl and has looked great since. He has the chance to be a total beast this year.
Big questions for LSU are the running backs and offensive line. The backs are either dinged up or freshmen except for Jacob Hester, who isn't exactly the prototype SEC feature back. He is a good receiver out of the backfield, and has his moments as a runner. If Auburn stuffs the run and pressures Russell, it's going to be a long game for LSU. If they can't stop Kenny Irons with a rebuilt front seven, it'll be even longer.
I have no idea how the game will go, but the last three games for LSU (Peach Bowl plus first two games this season) have been outstanding. Like 130-9 outstanding. I do feel pretty good about that.
USA 3, MEXICO 1.
Wednesday, September 06, 2006
Surprise, surprise
It was with rather little expectation that I logged on to a chat on espn.com dealing with football recruiting. I'd submitted a question earlier in the day, but I didn't expect it to get read, since they rarely do. So I was rather excited when I saw that there was a post from Natchitoches, LA. But wait, I use Falls Church, VA when I post (I figure it's more likely to get answered that way). Somebody named Brian was posting from my hometown. Good for him, I thought.
So it was with even greater joy a couple a couple of questions later when I saw my question asked and answered. On the same day, in the same chat, ESPN answered my question and the question of someone from my hometown. What a great world we live in. Simple pleasures are the best, boys and girls.
So it was with even greater joy a couple a couple of questions later when I saw my question asked and answered. On the same day, in the same chat, ESPN answered my question and the question of someone from my hometown. What a great world we live in. Simple pleasures are the best, boys and girls.
LSU/Arizona
This Saturday, the Mighty Tigers will host the Arizona Wildcats. They last met in 2003, when LSU trounced them 59-13 in Tucson. Since then, Arizona has hired Mike Stoops, who has really upgraded the talent level on the team and made them a lot tougher. Browsing a message board or two, the posts seem to break down into four categories:
1) LSU fans who think Arizona stinks. They're a soft PAC-10 team that can't play defense. They've gone 3-7 the last two years. The atmosphere of Tiger Stadium and the humidity will be too much, and LSU will win in a rout.
2) LSU fans who respect Arizona and think they can give the Tigers a good game, but that LSU will still win.
3) Arizona fans who will root hard for their team, but haven't seen enough to think they can go to LSU and win. They hope they don't get blown out.
4) Arizona fans who think that the SEC is overrated, and that LSU will be overlooking them with Auburn coming up on the 16th. They play the "no respect" card. LSU thinks they're slow and aren't ready to play with the big boys. This overconfidence, combined with a great performance by Arizona, will be the Tigers' undoing.
So what do I think? Defense is Arizona's strength. Looking at how they match up with LSU's offense, I think they only spot on the field they have an advantage is when Louis Holmes lines up across from Peter Dyakowski. If Holmes can create havoc in the LSU backfield, Arizona can pick it up everywhere else. Other than that, LSU's interior line is better than Arizona's, their running backs are better than the Wildcat linebackers, and the LSU receivers are better than the Arizona secondary. Arizona hasn't seen anyone quite like JaMarcus Russell, either. I'm not saying he's so much better than the QBs Arizona has faced in the PAC-10, but he presents different challenges.
When Arizona has the ball, they're going to have it rough. Arizona could be starting a walk-on at center. Against a guy like Glenn Dorsey, that means trouble. Arizona's running game was weak against BYU, and LSU is a lot better than BYU. At running back, Arizona lost Mike Bell, who could be starting for the Broncos. Matching up with the speed of the LSU linebackers and the playmaking of Ali Highsmith will be tough. At wideout, Arizona does have a couple of talented players who can stretch the field. They're going to need to come up huge, because LSU's secondary is one of the best in the country, with three senior starters. It has corners who can cover, and safeties who can cover and hit. The leader of the offense is Willie Tuitama, who came on late last year and led them to a thrashing over UCLA, their biggest win of the year. However, he's faced with taking on the combo of defensive coordinator Bo Pelini and All-American safety LaRon Landry, who have a lot more experience and meanness to them than Tuitama does.
Some people who predict a Wildcat victory sometimes point to three things: 1) overconfidence by LSU combined with looking ahead to Auburn the next week; 2) Arizona was a big underdog to UCLA last year, and if they can beat those Bruins, they can beat these Tigers; and 3) the last two years LSU has faced a PAC-10 team, they've barely escaped with a win. They needed missed kicks and over time to beat Oregon State in 2004, and they needed to blocked kicks returned for TDs and a miracle pass and catch to beat Arizona State in 2005.
Point number one is a good one.
Point number two isn't. In terms of "plucky underdog can take down heavy favorite" it's valid. However, last year's Bruins won plenty of games in a shootout, and it was only a matter of time before their lack of defense caught up with them. No one thought it would happen against Arizona, but that's not LSU's dilemma. LSU's defense is much, much better than UCLA's last year or BYU's this year, which held Arizona to 16 points. Also, the game against UCLA was at home, while they play LSU on the road.
Point number three seems okay, but has its problems. Arizona State and Oregon State were both quarterbacked by experienced QBs in a West Coast style offense. More specifically, they had good, athletic tight ends who could catch the ball and make LSU pay for blitzing. I don't see that with Arizona. Period. Also, the other two teams had good offensive lines that could provide time for the QB or holes for the RB. Arizona's is average at best. They could get better with time or play way over their heads, though.
If you're looking for sort of cop-out reasons why the OSU and ASU results were so close when LSU was favored, here are three: 1) Heavy rain wet the field down and negated LSU's speed advantage over OSU. 2) A hurricane moved the game from Baton Rouge to Tempe for ASU. 3) The hurricane also moved LSU's opening game against North Texas back a few weeks, so LSU didn't have a warmup game to work out the kinks. ASU had Temple the previous week.
What do I expect? LSU by 10 or 13 (not covering the spread). Can Arizona win? Of course. Of course, for the SEC pick 'em on a message board, I always pick the favorite to win and cover.
1) LSU fans who think Arizona stinks. They're a soft PAC-10 team that can't play defense. They've gone 3-7 the last two years. The atmosphere of Tiger Stadium and the humidity will be too much, and LSU will win in a rout.
2) LSU fans who respect Arizona and think they can give the Tigers a good game, but that LSU will still win.
3) Arizona fans who will root hard for their team, but haven't seen enough to think they can go to LSU and win. They hope they don't get blown out.
4) Arizona fans who think that the SEC is overrated, and that LSU will be overlooking them with Auburn coming up on the 16th. They play the "no respect" card. LSU thinks they're slow and aren't ready to play with the big boys. This overconfidence, combined with a great performance by Arizona, will be the Tigers' undoing.
So what do I think? Defense is Arizona's strength. Looking at how they match up with LSU's offense, I think they only spot on the field they have an advantage is when Louis Holmes lines up across from Peter Dyakowski. If Holmes can create havoc in the LSU backfield, Arizona can pick it up everywhere else. Other than that, LSU's interior line is better than Arizona's, their running backs are better than the Wildcat linebackers, and the LSU receivers are better than the Arizona secondary. Arizona hasn't seen anyone quite like JaMarcus Russell, either. I'm not saying he's so much better than the QBs Arizona has faced in the PAC-10, but he presents different challenges.
When Arizona has the ball, they're going to have it rough. Arizona could be starting a walk-on at center. Against a guy like Glenn Dorsey, that means trouble. Arizona's running game was weak against BYU, and LSU is a lot better than BYU. At running back, Arizona lost Mike Bell, who could be starting for the Broncos. Matching up with the speed of the LSU linebackers and the playmaking of Ali Highsmith will be tough. At wideout, Arizona does have a couple of talented players who can stretch the field. They're going to need to come up huge, because LSU's secondary is one of the best in the country, with three senior starters. It has corners who can cover, and safeties who can cover and hit. The leader of the offense is Willie Tuitama, who came on late last year and led them to a thrashing over UCLA, their biggest win of the year. However, he's faced with taking on the combo of defensive coordinator Bo Pelini and All-American safety LaRon Landry, who have a lot more experience and meanness to them than Tuitama does.
Some people who predict a Wildcat victory sometimes point to three things: 1) overconfidence by LSU combined with looking ahead to Auburn the next week; 2) Arizona was a big underdog to UCLA last year, and if they can beat those Bruins, they can beat these Tigers; and 3) the last two years LSU has faced a PAC-10 team, they've barely escaped with a win. They needed missed kicks and over time to beat Oregon State in 2004, and they needed to blocked kicks returned for TDs and a miracle pass and catch to beat Arizona State in 2005.
Point number one is a good one.
Point number two isn't. In terms of "plucky underdog can take down heavy favorite" it's valid. However, last year's Bruins won plenty of games in a shootout, and it was only a matter of time before their lack of defense caught up with them. No one thought it would happen against Arizona, but that's not LSU's dilemma. LSU's defense is much, much better than UCLA's last year or BYU's this year, which held Arizona to 16 points. Also, the game against UCLA was at home, while they play LSU on the road.
Point number three seems okay, but has its problems. Arizona State and Oregon State were both quarterbacked by experienced QBs in a West Coast style offense. More specifically, they had good, athletic tight ends who could catch the ball and make LSU pay for blitzing. I don't see that with Arizona. Period. Also, the other two teams had good offensive lines that could provide time for the QB or holes for the RB. Arizona's is average at best. They could get better with time or play way over their heads, though.
If you're looking for sort of cop-out reasons why the OSU and ASU results were so close when LSU was favored, here are three: 1) Heavy rain wet the field down and negated LSU's speed advantage over OSU. 2) A hurricane moved the game from Baton Rouge to Tempe for ASU. 3) The hurricane also moved LSU's opening game against North Texas back a few weeks, so LSU didn't have a warmup game to work out the kinks. ASU had Temple the previous week.
What do I expect? LSU by 10 or 13 (not covering the spread). Can Arizona win? Of course. Of course, for the SEC pick 'em on a message board, I always pick the favorite to win and cover.
A Great Way to Start the Day
An email was waiting for me this morning that included this link:
"the O'Meara deal has fallen through, according to bankruptcy court files, and a new buyer has stepped forward. Britt Swan , owner of Georgetown nightspots Modern and the Rhino Bar, told us yesterday that he intends to preserve the Sign of the Whale name and its old-school shabby gentility."
I've been to Rhino several times, and it's a darn good place to watch football on Sundays. I don't think SOTW has to become more like it, but it's nice to know it's going to someone whose work I'm already a little familiar with. But most of all, I'm happy that my favorite place within a thousand miles won't be turned into a superfluous Irish pub.
"the O'Meara deal has fallen through, according to bankruptcy court files, and a new buyer has stepped forward. Britt Swan , owner of Georgetown nightspots Modern and the Rhino Bar, told us yesterday that he intends to preserve the Sign of the Whale name and its old-school shabby gentility."
I've been to Rhino several times, and it's a darn good place to watch football on Sundays. I don't think SOTW has to become more like it, but it's nice to know it's going to someone whose work I'm already a little familiar with. But most of all, I'm happy that my favorite place within a thousand miles won't be turned into a superfluous Irish pub.
Sunday, August 27, 2006
The rest of the landscape
A few days a go I talked a little bit about what I was worried and confident about with LSU this season. It was an abbreviated and not-so-good piece, but it's all I really feel like saying, so you're stuck with it.
Now on to some of the other stories.
Ohio State is ranked #1 to start the season because they have great returning talent on offense. Troy Smith at QB is a Heisman contender. Ted Ginn can score from anywhere on the field. They have a good line with a 1,300 yard rusher returning and a top RB recruit coming in. The big question is the defense, which lost nine starters. The counter to this question is another question, "When has Jim Tressel not had a good defense?" Valid point. If they get past Texas early, they can roll the rest of the way (although a lot of people are picking Iowa to beat them).
Texas is loaded with talent across the board, but they don't have Vince Young anymore. They've got the players to win, but they're probably going to be faced with the question if they can win big games without their heart and soul QB. It's very possible that they'll get tagged with the choker label again.
Notre Dame could be like UCLA was last year, winning barnburner shootouts all year long (though I don't think ND's defense will be that bad). What's really going to get them is the schedule. Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue are the first five opponents. They could be 5-0. They could be 2-3 or worse. They'll score a bajillion points (technical term), but they have to avoid giving up a bajillion and one.
USC lost two Heisman winners, their leading touchdown rusher, and a few other guys who went pro. And they're still one of the top five teams in America. The conference schedule is favorable, but they need to avoid being snakebitten early in the year. Playing at Arkansas will be easier since Darren McFadden will be out, and Nebraska goes to L.A. But watch out for the Husker defense.
General consensus holds that LSU and Florida have the most talent in the SEC, but that Auburn is the favorite to win the league because of a favorable schedule and the returning backfield of Brandon Cox and Kenny Irons. Cox should be more consistent under center, and Kenny Irons could emerge as a darkhorse Heisman contender. He tore up LSU last season, and that was with three starters on the defensive line.
You know what? West Virginia almost never gets any big-time recruits, and they don't seem to care. The Mountaineers won the Sugar Bowl last year, and their freshman class is full of average-joe type players. They get tough guys who fit their system, and that seems to work for them. Their game of the year will be at Louisville, and we may see 110 points. The Cardinals aren't slouches, with Brohm and Bush in the backfield.
That's all for now. The fun starts Thursday. I heartily recommend ESPN Gameplan.
Now on to some of the other stories.
Ohio State is ranked #1 to start the season because they have great returning talent on offense. Troy Smith at QB is a Heisman contender. Ted Ginn can score from anywhere on the field. They have a good line with a 1,300 yard rusher returning and a top RB recruit coming in. The big question is the defense, which lost nine starters. The counter to this question is another question, "When has Jim Tressel not had a good defense?" Valid point. If they get past Texas early, they can roll the rest of the way (although a lot of people are picking Iowa to beat them).
Texas is loaded with talent across the board, but they don't have Vince Young anymore. They've got the players to win, but they're probably going to be faced with the question if they can win big games without their heart and soul QB. It's very possible that they'll get tagged with the choker label again.
Notre Dame could be like UCLA was last year, winning barnburner shootouts all year long (though I don't think ND's defense will be that bad). What's really going to get them is the schedule. Georgia Tech, Penn State, Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue are the first five opponents. They could be 5-0. They could be 2-3 or worse. They'll score a bajillion points (technical term), but they have to avoid giving up a bajillion and one.
USC lost two Heisman winners, their leading touchdown rusher, and a few other guys who went pro. And they're still one of the top five teams in America. The conference schedule is favorable, but they need to avoid being snakebitten early in the year. Playing at Arkansas will be easier since Darren McFadden will be out, and Nebraska goes to L.A. But watch out for the Husker defense.
General consensus holds that LSU and Florida have the most talent in the SEC, but that Auburn is the favorite to win the league because of a favorable schedule and the returning backfield of Brandon Cox and Kenny Irons. Cox should be more consistent under center, and Kenny Irons could emerge as a darkhorse Heisman contender. He tore up LSU last season, and that was with three starters on the defensive line.
You know what? West Virginia almost never gets any big-time recruits, and they don't seem to care. The Mountaineers won the Sugar Bowl last year, and their freshman class is full of average-joe type players. They get tough guys who fit their system, and that seems to work for them. Their game of the year will be at Louisville, and we may see 110 points. The Cardinals aren't slouches, with Brohm and Bush in the backfield.
That's all for now. The fun starts Thursday. I heartily recommend ESPN Gameplan.
Snakes on a plane
Last week I went to Ballston to see the 11:45am showing of Snakes on a Plane. I said, "One for Snakes on a Plane.", and immediately thought to myself "I can't believe I just said that."
I walked into an empty theater, which is always a thrill, but also a bit of a nerve-wracker for me. On one hand, I always think it's pretty neat that the rare occasion arises that one can sit in a room made for hundreds and watch a movie on a large screen all by oneself. On the other hand, it's also a little creepy, with the specter of someone else, someone unknown, being in there without me knowing. A few more people showed up.
The general feeling I heard before seeing it was "a good b-movie" and "bad movie, good experience". That's pretty much accurate, though I don't really think of it as a "b-movie" at all. I see it more as a film that pokes fun at itself and acknowledges that the real reason the audience is there is because the movie is called--hello--"Snakes on a Plane". Someone on the imdb boards pointed out that one of the things that make it work is that everybody plays it straight. There are some b-movie type homages, such as:
--The young mother saying, "My baby! Where's my baby?!" The Simpsons have quoted this one once or twice.
--What I think of as "Monster Vision", where we see the world through the eyes of the snakes, a sort of green blurry haze.
--The most unlikable, stuck-up jerk of a character gets killed in a most enjoyable fashion (hardly unique to b-movies, but pretty much required for them).
There were only seven people in the theater when I saw it. I laughed when it was funny, and maybe a couple of times when it wasn't. I flinched whenever the snakes struck, even though I knew it was coming. I can't help feeling that it would be a lot different experience to see it in a theater full of people familiar with the backstory to the picture. Maybe I'll do that for the sequel.
I walked into an empty theater, which is always a thrill, but also a bit of a nerve-wracker for me. On one hand, I always think it's pretty neat that the rare occasion arises that one can sit in a room made for hundreds and watch a movie on a large screen all by oneself. On the other hand, it's also a little creepy, with the specter of someone else, someone unknown, being in there without me knowing. A few more people showed up.
The general feeling I heard before seeing it was "a good b-movie" and "bad movie, good experience". That's pretty much accurate, though I don't really think of it as a "b-movie" at all. I see it more as a film that pokes fun at itself and acknowledges that the real reason the audience is there is because the movie is called--hello--"Snakes on a Plane". Someone on the imdb boards pointed out that one of the things that make it work is that everybody plays it straight. There are some b-movie type homages, such as:
--The young mother saying, "My baby! Where's my baby?!" The Simpsons have quoted this one once or twice.
--What I think of as "Monster Vision", where we see the world through the eyes of the snakes, a sort of green blurry haze.
--The most unlikable, stuck-up jerk of a character gets killed in a most enjoyable fashion (hardly unique to b-movies, but pretty much required for them).
There were only seven people in the theater when I saw it. I laughed when it was funny, and maybe a couple of times when it wasn't. I flinched whenever the snakes struck, even though I knew it was coming. I can't help feeling that it would be a lot different experience to see it in a theater full of people familiar with the backstory to the picture. Maybe I'll do that for the sequel.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Past vs. Present
Here's a post I made on the LSU board of collegefanatics.com, slightly modified.
Last year the three things that concerned me most were:
QB: Because I wasn't buying into the idea that JR "got it" just yet. All he did was go 10-2, but the defense carried the offense for much of the year. Not worried about it this year because of JR's performance in tough games and Flynn looking good against Miami. Not saying I'm expecting 35 TDs and 3,500 yards, but things look good. (I'm also expecting better QB numbers because of Bowe's eye surgery. For some reason, I have dreams that say, "LASIK = TDs)
RB: I thought Alley's injury was a bigger blow than a lot of people I read. I figured it would lead to Addai wearing down by midseason from overuse, especially if Justin Vincent hadn't returned to freshman form. I cringed every time somebody in the preseason said "We'll be fine." I'll give myself a reluctant pat on the back for this one. It didn't help that the offensive line rarely played up to the level of its talent. Not worried this year because of the freshmen. I'm completely fine with freshmen at RB, since it worked well enough in 2003. Charles Scott will be good if Keiland Williams won't. Even if Broussard isn't fully recovered, Vincent never gets back to where he was, and Hester stinks, I like the position.
DB: Just because we lost two starting corners to the NFL. I guess I needn't have worried, since the D ended up something like 3rd against the pass last year. Should be good again this year. LaRon Landry and Jessie Daniels should be a great safety tandem.
This year, here's what concerns me to start out:
DL: Losing three starters to the NFL really hurts, especially in the way of leadership. Replacements are talented but mostly inexperienced. Dorsey needs to be as good or better than Williams or Wroten for this unit to be a strength. I think there will be the potential for a lot of versatility, moving guys like Ricky Jean-Francois and Charles Alexander inside and outside depending on down and distance.
LB: Luke Sanders never stays healthy, and there's not a lot of depth if (when) he goes down again. Highsmith will be good, maybe great. Beckwith needs to prove he can do it as a full-time starter instead of a sub. Plug in freshmen at RB, okay. Plug in freshmen (Cutrera, Perry, Sheppard, Odom) at LB, not okay.
OL: You knew it was coming, right? I read that Dorsey and Co. gave the line fits in scrimmage, and you don't want that to happen against a DL with one returning starter. Ideally, I'd like to see Black, Arnold, Miller, Helms and one of the Johnsons (Herm if he's ready, Brian if he's not. But BJ seems more like a guard to me than a tackle) This is actually less of a worry for me than the others, and you may remember how down I was on the OL last year. I thought they underperformed most of the season. The dropoff won't be as drastic as it could be. I hope.
I'm sure I'll be talking about LSU and college football a lot more rather soon.
Last year the three things that concerned me most were:
QB: Because I wasn't buying into the idea that JR "got it" just yet. All he did was go 10-2, but the defense carried the offense for much of the year. Not worried about it this year because of JR's performance in tough games and Flynn looking good against Miami. Not saying I'm expecting 35 TDs and 3,500 yards, but things look good. (I'm also expecting better QB numbers because of Bowe's eye surgery. For some reason, I have dreams that say, "LASIK = TDs)
RB: I thought Alley's injury was a bigger blow than a lot of people I read. I figured it would lead to Addai wearing down by midseason from overuse, especially if Justin Vincent hadn't returned to freshman form. I cringed every time somebody in the preseason said "We'll be fine." I'll give myself a reluctant pat on the back for this one. It didn't help that the offensive line rarely played up to the level of its talent. Not worried this year because of the freshmen. I'm completely fine with freshmen at RB, since it worked well enough in 2003. Charles Scott will be good if Keiland Williams won't. Even if Broussard isn't fully recovered, Vincent never gets back to where he was, and Hester stinks, I like the position.
DB: Just because we lost two starting corners to the NFL. I guess I needn't have worried, since the D ended up something like 3rd against the pass last year. Should be good again this year. LaRon Landry and Jessie Daniels should be a great safety tandem.
This year, here's what concerns me to start out:
DL: Losing three starters to the NFL really hurts, especially in the way of leadership. Replacements are talented but mostly inexperienced. Dorsey needs to be as good or better than Williams or Wroten for this unit to be a strength. I think there will be the potential for a lot of versatility, moving guys like Ricky Jean-Francois and Charles Alexander inside and outside depending on down and distance.
LB: Luke Sanders never stays healthy, and there's not a lot of depth if (when) he goes down again. Highsmith will be good, maybe great. Beckwith needs to prove he can do it as a full-time starter instead of a sub. Plug in freshmen at RB, okay. Plug in freshmen (Cutrera, Perry, Sheppard, Odom) at LB, not okay.
OL: You knew it was coming, right? I read that Dorsey and Co. gave the line fits in scrimmage, and you don't want that to happen against a DL with one returning starter. Ideally, I'd like to see Black, Arnold, Miller, Helms and one of the Johnsons (Herm if he's ready, Brian if he's not. But BJ seems more like a guard to me than a tackle) This is actually less of a worry for me than the others, and you may remember how down I was on the OL last year. I thought they underperformed most of the season. The dropoff won't be as drastic as it could be. I hope.
I'm sure I'll be talking about LSU and college football a lot more rather soon.
Sunday, August 20, 2006
Ode to Au Revoir
Unser Schuldbuch sei vernichtet!
ausgesöhnt die ganze Welt!
Brüder- überm Sternenzelt
richtet Gott, wie wir gerichtet.
This was the reaction I had when I read that the Cubs traded Neifi Perez to the Tigers today. Although my thoughts were in English, so it would be:
The account of our misdeeds be destroyed!
Reconciled the entire world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
God judges as we judged.
These are a few of the lines from from Schiller's "Ode to Joy". There's also a bit about "cannibals drink gentleness", but I can't honestly say I was thinking that bit.
You may remember that I mentioned that I think Neifi Perez is the most useless offensive player the Cubs have ever had. It boggles the mind that even with the postseason out of reach, Dusty Baker still put him in the starting lineup, when he had Todd Walker and a promising rookie in Ryan Theriot as alternatives. I was ecstatic that Jim Hendry finally saw the light and traded him, and dumbstruck that the Tigers actually thought he was worth trading for.
"I think he's an ideal guy to plug in for the Tigers as they try to maintain their success," Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said.
If I could, I'd link to a sound file of Mandark's evil laugh, because that's really the only thing that can verbalize the comic insanity of that statement.
"He's a legitimate everyday player and an outstanding utility player," Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski said.
He couldn't even play solitaire every day. He should be banned from all competition. The only outstanding thing about him is his near-unmatched ability at making outs.
The headline on ESPN.com says the Tigers traded for "depth". True. Neifi Perez has more depth than a sinkhole, and outs and errors are attracted to him like he's a black hole.
You want a great stat to tell you how bad a batter Neifi Perez is, how little control of the strike zone he has? In 2004 Barry Bonds walked an insane 232 times, by far a major league record. An average player will take three or four seasons, if not more, to get there. But that's more than Neifi Perez has in eleven seasons.
I don't even care who the Cubs got in return. They could have traded him for Hassan Nasrallah, and I'd have stood up and cheered.
ausgesöhnt die ganze Welt!
Brüder- überm Sternenzelt
richtet Gott, wie wir gerichtet.
This was the reaction I had when I read that the Cubs traded Neifi Perez to the Tigers today. Although my thoughts were in English, so it would be:
The account of our misdeeds be destroyed!
Reconciled the entire world!
Brothers, above the starry canopy
God judges as we judged.
These are a few of the lines from from Schiller's "Ode to Joy". There's also a bit about "cannibals drink gentleness", but I can't honestly say I was thinking that bit.
You may remember that I mentioned that I think Neifi Perez is the most useless offensive player the Cubs have ever had. It boggles the mind that even with the postseason out of reach, Dusty Baker still put him in the starting lineup, when he had Todd Walker and a promising rookie in Ryan Theriot as alternatives. I was ecstatic that Jim Hendry finally saw the light and traded him, and dumbstruck that the Tigers actually thought he was worth trading for.
"I think he's an ideal guy to plug in for the Tigers as they try to maintain their success," Cubs general manager Jim Hendry said.
If I could, I'd link to a sound file of Mandark's evil laugh, because that's really the only thing that can verbalize the comic insanity of that statement.
"He's a legitimate everyday player and an outstanding utility player," Tigers general manager Dave Dombrowski said.
He couldn't even play solitaire every day. He should be banned from all competition. The only outstanding thing about him is his near-unmatched ability at making outs.
The headline on ESPN.com says the Tigers traded for "depth". True. Neifi Perez has more depth than a sinkhole, and outs and errors are attracted to him like he's a black hole.
You want a great stat to tell you how bad a batter Neifi Perez is, how little control of the strike zone he has? In 2004 Barry Bonds walked an insane 232 times, by far a major league record. An average player will take three or four seasons, if not more, to get there. But that's more than Neifi Perez has in eleven seasons.
I don't even care who the Cubs got in return. They could have traded him for Hassan Nasrallah, and I'd have stood up and cheered.
Snakes on Jack Benny
Continuing with my current strategy of watching some (but not all) of the AFI top 100 comedies, alternating them with MST3K episodes. I'm not reviewing any MST3K, because there's no point. They're all funny, and not a lot separates one from the other, except maybe This Island Earth, which is great. On to Mr. Benny.
To Be or Not to Be is a comedy made in 1942 and set in 1939 Poland, right before the Germans invade. Jack Benny and his wife, Carole Lombard, are actors in a theater company. Robert Stack is an unbelievable 23 years old, making me say, "Robert Stack used to be 23?" All three of them are good, and so is everybody else. It's a comedy with a serious backdrop (as if you couldn't tell when I mentioned the NAZIS). Everybody plays it straight except for Benny, who plays Jack Benny. In other cases you could call it a drawback, but I think it works very well. He never lets the movie drag you down. He conversely seems to lament his life when things are going well, and revel in the challenges when things get tough.
I laughed a lot more than I thought I would, which is always a pleasant feeling.
To Be or Not to Be is a comedy made in 1942 and set in 1939 Poland, right before the Germans invade. Jack Benny and his wife, Carole Lombard, are actors in a theater company. Robert Stack is an unbelievable 23 years old, making me say, "Robert Stack used to be 23?" All three of them are good, and so is everybody else. It's a comedy with a serious backdrop (as if you couldn't tell when I mentioned the NAZIS). Everybody plays it straight except for Benny, who plays Jack Benny. In other cases you could call it a drawback, but I think it works very well. He never lets the movie drag you down. He conversely seems to lament his life when things are going well, and revel in the challenges when things get tough.
I laughed a lot more than I thought I would, which is always a pleasant feeling.
Snakes on Peter Sellers
I watched Being There a little while ago, and I thought it was really enjoyable and fun to watch. Sellers plays a simple-minded man who only cares about gardening and watching TV. Events put him in a position to influence a wealthy businessman's last days, the President's economic policy, and the passions of Shirley MacLaine.
Chance the Gardener becomes Chauncey Gardner, and he responds to just about every situation with comments about either gardening or television. Everything he says happens to correspond in some analogical way to the subject at hand (especially gardening and economics). The big thing I'll take away from the movie is how everyone talking to him sort of turns him into a mirror of themselves. They all assume that he's just like them. The black kids on the street believe he works for a rival gang. The dying rich man thinks he's a businessman trying to make a living who's being haggled by lawyers. The Russian ambassador thinks he speaks Russian. The gay guy thinks he's gay. Everyone who speaks to him receives either confirmation of their own world view, or the "enlightenment" that comes from speaking to an oracle. I think the latter also happens whenever someone simultaneously stops listening to their voice and starts listening to the words. Then they realize what it is that they've been thinking and saying, and gain a new perspective. "Chauncey" brings this out in a lot of people.
Peter Sellers was nominated for Best Actor, and Melvyn Douglas won for Best Supporting. Good movie, fun, poignant at times, and worth your time.
One more note: The disco version of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" and the way they worked it into Chance leaving the house for the first time was very clever.
Chance the Gardener becomes Chauncey Gardner, and he responds to just about every situation with comments about either gardening or television. Everything he says happens to correspond in some analogical way to the subject at hand (especially gardening and economics). The big thing I'll take away from the movie is how everyone talking to him sort of turns him into a mirror of themselves. They all assume that he's just like them. The black kids on the street believe he works for a rival gang. The dying rich man thinks he's a businessman trying to make a living who's being haggled by lawyers. The Russian ambassador thinks he speaks Russian. The gay guy thinks he's gay. Everyone who speaks to him receives either confirmation of their own world view, or the "enlightenment" that comes from speaking to an oracle. I think the latter also happens whenever someone simultaneously stops listening to their voice and starts listening to the words. Then they realize what it is that they've been thinking and saying, and gain a new perspective. "Chauncey" brings this out in a lot of people.
Peter Sellers was nominated for Best Actor, and Melvyn Douglas won for Best Supporting. Good movie, fun, poignant at times, and worth your time.
One more note: The disco version of "Also Sprach Zarathustra" and the way they worked it into Chance leaving the house for the first time was very clever.
Wednesday, August 16, 2006
Are you pondering what I'm pondering?
I was chatting with someone at work about Hezbollah/Israel today, after having previously discussed "Pinky and the Brain". It led to the following IM:
Nasrallah: Come, Hezbollah, we must prepare for tomorrow.
Hezbollah: What are we doing tomorrow, Nasrallah?
Nasrallah: The same thing we do every day, Hezbollah--try to destroy Israel!
So I figured that there must be lots of cases where you could insert "Hezbollah" in place of "Pinky". Let's see how it turned out, shall we?
The Brain: This is the earth. And this is Hezbollah. You can tell the difference quite easily. One is a lump of inert matter hurtling blindly through the void. The other... is the earth.
Hezbollah: Egad. You astound me, Brain. The Brain: That's a simple task, Hezbollah.
The Brain: No, Hezbollah. Never use two drops of the formula. It would cause a reaction on the molecular level that is completely unpredictable. Hezbollah: Oh, I hate it when that happens. Narf.
[that one's a little freaky]
The Brain: Hezbollah, there are times when I feel i'm bearing my soul to a tube of caulk. Hezbollah: Yum! Caulk!
The Brain: Hezbollah, you give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "counter-intelligence".
Nasrallah: Hurry up, Hezbollah, If we don't get to Carley Simon's house I'll never know if that song was about me.
[that one doesn't really have anything to do with Nasrallah or Hezbollah, but I thought it was quirky enough to put in.
And those are just the "Pinky and the Brain" possibilities. Holler if you think of others.
Nasrallah: Come, Hezbollah, we must prepare for tomorrow.
Hezbollah: What are we doing tomorrow, Nasrallah?
Nasrallah: The same thing we do every day, Hezbollah--try to destroy Israel!
So I figured that there must be lots of cases where you could insert "Hezbollah" in place of "Pinky". Let's see how it turned out, shall we?
The Brain: This is the earth. And this is Hezbollah. You can tell the difference quite easily. One is a lump of inert matter hurtling blindly through the void. The other... is the earth.
Hezbollah: Egad. You astound me, Brain. The Brain: That's a simple task, Hezbollah.
The Brain: No, Hezbollah. Never use two drops of the formula. It would cause a reaction on the molecular level that is completely unpredictable. Hezbollah: Oh, I hate it when that happens. Narf.
[that one's a little freaky]
The Brain: Hezbollah, there are times when I feel i'm bearing my soul to a tube of caulk. Hezbollah: Yum! Caulk!
The Brain: Hezbollah, you give a whole new meaning to the phrase, "counter-intelligence".
Nasrallah: Hurry up, Hezbollah, If we don't get to Carley Simon's house I'll never know if that song was about me.
[that one doesn't really have anything to do with Nasrallah or Hezbollah, but I thought it was quirky enough to put in.
And those are just the "Pinky and the Brain" possibilities. Holler if you think of others.
#20 on the field, #1 in your hearts
And when I say "your hearts", I mean "my heart".
I have been greatly remiss in not mentioning that ESPN had an article on Abby Wambach a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure I've mentioned that Wambach is #1 on the Scotty Williams Big Board. A telling quote:
"Abby has scored more goals in a shorter time than Mia did," United States coach Greg Ryan said. "If Abby was playing in 1991 to 1996, the number of goals she would have had by now is astronomical. She's done it in a much more difficult environment. The opposition is much better."
Is she Mia's equal right now? I don't think so. But scoring at a faster pace than the world's alltime leader and drawing comparisons to Michelle Akers at the same time is a hell of a start.
I have been greatly remiss in not mentioning that ESPN had an article on Abby Wambach a couple of weeks ago. I'm sure I've mentioned that Wambach is #1 on the Scotty Williams Big Board. A telling quote:
"Abby has scored more goals in a shorter time than Mia did," United States coach Greg Ryan said. "If Abby was playing in 1991 to 1996, the number of goals she would have had by now is astronomical. She's done it in a much more difficult environment. The opposition is much better."
Is she Mia's equal right now? I don't think so. But scoring at a faster pace than the world's alltime leader and drawing comparisons to Michelle Akers at the same time is a hell of a start.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Archives
I paid a visit to the National Archives today, since I read they were putting on an "Eyewitness to History" exhibit. Documents and recordings from some of the more memorable events in US history. Three that stood out:
The giant photo of the standoff in the road between John Lewis's student protest group and Georgia police. The police are advancing from the left in gas masks and riot gear, carrying clubs. Lewis and his group are standing on the right, waiting and defiant. They're about to get the crap beat out of them. In the space between the two groups, about 40 or 50 feet away, you can see 15 or 20 white men in overcoats and fedora-type hats, waiting, watching and some taking pictures. It's a really amazing and moving photograph. The bystanders reminded me of some of the photos I've seen of lynchings from the 50's and 60's. You see the lower half of the victim hanging from a tree, and a bunch of high school age kids there just milling around. Boys in slacks and clean shirts, girls in poodle skirts. Like it's the most natural thing in the world to be where they are, doing what they're doing. It's the casualness of the whole thing that gives me chills.
The next thing was the audio recording of the Hindenburg disaster. The raw emotion in Herbert Morrison's voice is indescribable. Here's the text:
---------------------------------------------------
It's practically standing still now. They've dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship, and it has been taken ahold of down on the field by a number of men. It's starting to rain again; the rain had, er, slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it, er, just enough to keep it from…
It's burst into flames! It's burst into flames and it's falling, it's crashing. … Get out of the way, get out of the way! Get this, Charlie, get this, Charlie! It's burning and it's crashing! It's crashing, terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please! It's burning, bursting into flames and it's falling on the mooring mast, and all the folks between. Oh, this is terrible. This is the, one of the worst catastrophes in the world! Oh, my Jesus! … Oh, four to five hundred feet into the sky. It's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen, it's smoke and it's flames, now, and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers screaming around here! I told you, I cannot talk to people ... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen.
Listen, folks, I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because this was the... the worst thing I've ever witnessed.
---------------------------------------------------
I also went through the Public Vault area, and they had an exhibit on immigrants and their paperwork upon entering the country. Scientists, actors, parents of famous people. I'd never seen Yul Brynner with hair before. The paperwork includes the person's race and nationality. A Chinese guy's race was given as "Oriential", and Einstein's was "Hebrew".
I stood in line to see the Declaration and Constitution again. I asked the guard at the Constitution (because he's supposed to know everything about it), if anybody ever asked why some of the s's look like f's. "Oh yeah, I get that question all the time." I got my hopes up. "It's because they had a different style of writing back at that time." And my hopes were dashed. I was hoping that he's say something about the eszett, which is sort of a double s in German. In cursive it looks like a fancy f. So I'd always figured that it carried over to English since English is a Germanic language. A word like "Congress" would have the eszett in place of the first s. But since the security guard didn't say anything about it, I may be wrong. Tragic.
The giant photo of the standoff in the road between John Lewis's student protest group and Georgia police. The police are advancing from the left in gas masks and riot gear, carrying clubs. Lewis and his group are standing on the right, waiting and defiant. They're about to get the crap beat out of them. In the space between the two groups, about 40 or 50 feet away, you can see 15 or 20 white men in overcoats and fedora-type hats, waiting, watching and some taking pictures. It's a really amazing and moving photograph. The bystanders reminded me of some of the photos I've seen of lynchings from the 50's and 60's. You see the lower half of the victim hanging from a tree, and a bunch of high school age kids there just milling around. Boys in slacks and clean shirts, girls in poodle skirts. Like it's the most natural thing in the world to be where they are, doing what they're doing. It's the casualness of the whole thing that gives me chills.
The next thing was the audio recording of the Hindenburg disaster. The raw emotion in Herbert Morrison's voice is indescribable. Here's the text:
---------------------------------------------------
It's practically standing still now. They've dropped ropes out of the nose of the ship, and it has been taken ahold of down on the field by a number of men. It's starting to rain again; the rain had, er, slacked up a little bit. The back motors of the ship are just holding it, er, just enough to keep it from…
It's burst into flames! It's burst into flames and it's falling, it's crashing. … Get out of the way, get out of the way! Get this, Charlie, get this, Charlie! It's burning and it's crashing! It's crashing, terrible! Oh, my! Get out of the way, please! It's burning, bursting into flames and it's falling on the mooring mast, and all the folks between. Oh, this is terrible. This is the, one of the worst catastrophes in the world! Oh, my Jesus! … Oh, four to five hundred feet into the sky. It's a terrific crash, ladies and gentlemen, it's smoke and it's flames, now, and the frame is crashing to the ground, not quite to the mooring mast. Oh, the humanity, and all the passengers screaming around here! I told you, I cannot talk to people ... I can't talk, ladies and gentlemen.
Listen, folks, I'm gonna have to stop for a minute because this was the... the worst thing I've ever witnessed.
---------------------------------------------------
I also went through the Public Vault area, and they had an exhibit on immigrants and their paperwork upon entering the country. Scientists, actors, parents of famous people. I'd never seen Yul Brynner with hair before. The paperwork includes the person's race and nationality. A Chinese guy's race was given as "Oriential", and Einstein's was "Hebrew".
I stood in line to see the Declaration and Constitution again. I asked the guard at the Constitution (because he's supposed to know everything about it), if anybody ever asked why some of the s's look like f's. "Oh yeah, I get that question all the time." I got my hopes up. "It's because they had a different style of writing back at that time." And my hopes were dashed. I was hoping that he's say something about the eszett, which is sort of a double s in German. In cursive it looks like a fancy f. So I'd always figured that it carried over to English since English is a Germanic language. A word like "Congress" would have the eszett in place of the first s. But since the security guard didn't say anything about it, I may be wrong. Tragic.
Superman Returns
Considering that this is a movie about the greatest superhero known to man, I thought it actually flew under the radar during the buildup. And with Pirates opening the following week, I perhaps people forgot about it rather quickly. But I thought it was pretty good.
Brandon Routh is the new Superman, and he looks good. Good-looking, but not strikingly so, same as Christopher Reeve. His Clark Kent is still a bit unsure of himself, but he's not as fidgety as the previous iteration. Kate Bosworth is the new Lois Lane, and dark hair is probably the only thing she has in common with Margot Kidder. I think her Lois is a bit more composed and in control than before, but she's aggressive and feisty like Lois is supposed to be. Kevin Spacey was a good Lex Luthor, but I can't shake the feeling that a dozen other actors could have pulled off the same performance. I could be wrong. He's just as grandstanding, but his humor is more subdued. Gene Hackman had a bit more showmanship to his Luthor.
The only major critique I have would be that I didn't really feel a lot of suspense or danger. He's Superman, for crying out loud. He's going to save the day, and come out pretty much unharmed in the end. Not anybody's fault, but it's just the nature of the adventures of Superman, I guess.
There were some homages to the originals, like Superman telling Lois she shouldn't smoke, or him taking her heavenward for a duo flight.
The special effects are good, but this should be the last time I ever mention such a thing when reviewing a movie, because there's really no excuse for a big-budget movie not to have good special effects these days. I like the way it was shot overall. My favorite visual shot was Superman holding the globe that sits atop the Daily Planet over his head, like Atlas holding the heavens and earth upon his shoulders. Symbolically bearing the weight of the world, as it's "first and greatest super-hero", as the IMDB plot outline says.
Brandon Routh is the new Superman, and he looks good. Good-looking, but not strikingly so, same as Christopher Reeve. His Clark Kent is still a bit unsure of himself, but he's not as fidgety as the previous iteration. Kate Bosworth is the new Lois Lane, and dark hair is probably the only thing she has in common with Margot Kidder. I think her Lois is a bit more composed and in control than before, but she's aggressive and feisty like Lois is supposed to be. Kevin Spacey was a good Lex Luthor, but I can't shake the feeling that a dozen other actors could have pulled off the same performance. I could be wrong. He's just as grandstanding, but his humor is more subdued. Gene Hackman had a bit more showmanship to his Luthor.
The only major critique I have would be that I didn't really feel a lot of suspense or danger. He's Superman, for crying out loud. He's going to save the day, and come out pretty much unharmed in the end. Not anybody's fault, but it's just the nature of the adventures of Superman, I guess.
There were some homages to the originals, like Superman telling Lois she shouldn't smoke, or him taking her heavenward for a duo flight.
The special effects are good, but this should be the last time I ever mention such a thing when reviewing a movie, because there's really no excuse for a big-budget movie not to have good special effects these days. I like the way it was shot overall. My favorite visual shot was Superman holding the globe that sits atop the Daily Planet over his head, like Atlas holding the heavens and earth upon his shoulders. Symbolically bearing the weight of the world, as it's "first and greatest super-hero", as the IMDB plot outline says.
Sunday, July 30, 2006
A bit less of everything...
...is how I would describe the second Pirates of the Caribbean movie. The acting wasn't as good, the writing wasn't as good, Johnny Depp wasn't as bizarre, Keira Knightley wasn't as pretty, etc. It was okay. I knew it wasn't as good as the first one going in, but that's okay.
When you have a movie with special effects like the first one, it's almost a given that the makers will feel they have a duty to outdo themselves in that regard for the sequel. This is no exception. Undead warriors from the first are replaced by sea creature men in the second. Even when I tried to pay attention to them, I didn't really notice.
Deadwood is on, and it's just so damn good. Last weeks episode had two great speeches. One when Merrick was reading Bullock's letter to the murdered Cornishman's family, and the second when Blazanov raged against Hearst's having his foreign workers murdered. Good stuff.
I recently watched Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, which was the basis for the sitcom Alice, something I hadn't known before. Mostly because I had no idea what the movie was about in the first place. But once I saw Vic Tayback working the kitchen, it flashed into my head. I really liked that TV show.
I also watched A Night at the Opera, a Marx Brothers movie from 1935. Fantastic. The talent that each of those guys possessed is really extraordinary. Chico playing the piano might be my favorite scene.
When you have a movie with special effects like the first one, it's almost a given that the makers will feel they have a duty to outdo themselves in that regard for the sequel. This is no exception. Undead warriors from the first are replaced by sea creature men in the second. Even when I tried to pay attention to them, I didn't really notice.
Deadwood is on, and it's just so damn good. Last weeks episode had two great speeches. One when Merrick was reading Bullock's letter to the murdered Cornishman's family, and the second when Blazanov raged against Hearst's having his foreign workers murdered. Good stuff.
I recently watched Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore, which was the basis for the sitcom Alice, something I hadn't known before. Mostly because I had no idea what the movie was about in the first place. But once I saw Vic Tayback working the kitchen, it flashed into my head. I really liked that TV show.
I also watched A Night at the Opera, a Marx Brothers movie from 1935. Fantastic. The talent that each of those guys possessed is really extraordinary. Chico playing the piano might be my favorite scene.
Sunday, July 23, 2006
All My Teams
It's a rare day when my favorite teams in two different sports play on the same day. Cubs, Saints, LSU, USA. Not necessarily in that order. But since the Cubs just ended a weekend series in DC, and the US Women beat Ireland 5-0 this afternoon, it got me to thinking about why I cheer for the teams I do.
The Cubs are in my DNA. They're in my bones and my skin and my hair and all those things. I didn't choose them any more than I chose my fingernails or kneecaps. If I didn't love the Cubs, I wouldn't be me. The fact that they never win is irrelevant.
I did choose LSU and the Saints. It may have been an easy choice based on the fact that they're from Louisiana, but it was still a choice.
"USA" is a rather specific category. My favorite national team is the US Women's soccer team. I started following them umpteen years ago when I read about this 14 year old girl playing at the international level. It was American soccer, and we were actually good. So a championship team in the sport that I played was really appealing. They became my brain and my heart. They play with passion and desire and love for each other. Out of all the teams I call mine, they're the most fun to cheer for.
They say that in "The Tempest", Caliban represents the unconscious mind. The inner anger and uncontrolled passion of men. This is what LSU and the Saints are. The wildest emotions and rages are present, especially at the college level. Getting to scream at the TV when things go well or badly is a great stress reliever. It's also a good way to be pissed off for an entire week if your team loses.
The Cubs are in my DNA. They're in my bones and my skin and my hair and all those things. I didn't choose them any more than I chose my fingernails or kneecaps. If I didn't love the Cubs, I wouldn't be me. The fact that they never win is irrelevant.
I did choose LSU and the Saints. It may have been an easy choice based on the fact that they're from Louisiana, but it was still a choice.
"USA" is a rather specific category. My favorite national team is the US Women's soccer team. I started following them umpteen years ago when I read about this 14 year old girl playing at the international level. It was American soccer, and we were actually good. So a championship team in the sport that I played was really appealing. They became my brain and my heart. They play with passion and desire and love for each other. Out of all the teams I call mine, they're the most fun to cheer for.
They say that in "The Tempest", Caliban represents the unconscious mind. The inner anger and uncontrolled passion of men. This is what LSU and the Saints are. The wildest emotions and rages are present, especially at the college level. Getting to scream at the TV when things go well or badly is a great stress reliever. It's also a good way to be pissed off for an entire week if your team loses.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
It's a Beautiful Day for Baseball
Here are the good things about going to see the Cubs play the Nationals today:
1) I get to see the Cubs.
2) It's hot outside, but I'm in the shade.
3) Aramis Ramirez hit two more home runs, which gives him four in the last two games. All really hammered.
4) Seeing LSU alum Todd Walker in person. I last saw him hit a grand slam in Alex Box Stadium in the College World Series.
5) Singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" in the 7th inning stretch and hearing thousands of Cubs fans drown out the Nats fans with "root, root, root for the CUBBIES"
Here are the bad things:
1) Seeing Neifi Perez take the field in person. I'm pretty sure he's the most useless offensive player the Cubs have ever had.
2) Watching Phil Nevin start over Matt Murton.
3) Watching the Cubs lose.
4) Watching Alex Escobar beat the Cubs for the second game in a row. Alex. Escobar.
1) I get to see the Cubs.
2) It's hot outside, but I'm in the shade.
3) Aramis Ramirez hit two more home runs, which gives him four in the last two games. All really hammered.
4) Seeing LSU alum Todd Walker in person. I last saw him hit a grand slam in Alex Box Stadium in the College World Series.
5) Singing "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" in the 7th inning stretch and hearing thousands of Cubs fans drown out the Nats fans with "root, root, root for the CUBBIES"
Here are the bad things:
1) Seeing Neifi Perez take the field in person. I'm pretty sure he's the most useless offensive player the Cubs have ever had.
2) Watching Phil Nevin start over Matt Murton.
3) Watching the Cubs lose.
4) Watching Alex Escobar beat the Cubs for the second game in a row. Alex. Escobar.
Friday, July 14, 2006
Just Try to Ignore the Fact That They're Nazis
I watched Cabaret recently, which was okay. I was expecting a bit more. The thing I remember most is the song "Tomorrow Belongs to Me". In the movie, it is sung in a picnic setting, started off by a member of the Hitler Youth and joined in by most of the crowd. At first you just see the kid's face, and he's the picture-perfect young Aryan man. Then you see the brown shirt and the armband and the uniform and get the full picture. But the song is great. It starts out going on about nature and the trees and the rivers and "the blossom embraces the bee". Then it goes into "Arise, arise!" and "Fatherland, fatherland, send us the sign" type stuff. But it sounds fantastic. So if you can ignore the fact that all this is a prelude to the rise of Hitler and everything that came with it*, it's really good.
*Note: You can't really ignore it.
I've gone through a lot of movies recently, probably too many to do a post on each one. So I'll run through some of them real quick.
Tom Jones: boring except for maybe the last twenty minutes.
The Greatest Show on Earth: Not bad. Charlton Heston is good. Shows a lot of the circus acts and what it takes to put the show on.
Out of Africa: Really good. Depressing, but good. Meryl Streep and Robert Redford are good. Streep nominated for Best Actress.
Oliver!: A little dull for me. Picked up towards the end. But the song about buying roses was a great one.
Three Days of the Condor: A good thriller. Redford and Dunaway go well together. I may have mentioned before that I was very pleasantly surprised by Dunaway when I watched Bonnie and Clyde and Chinatown. She's good in this one too. And let me just say this about Redford: he's always good. Even if the movie is crap, Redford is good.
Capote: Just finished it tonight. I don't care too much about the story, but if you ever see old footage of Truman Capote and then watch Philip Seymour Hoffman, you'll be mightily impressed (same thing with Denzel Washington in Malcolm X. He was robbed of an Oscar that year by Al Pacino in the utterly wretched Scent of a Woman. Can't stand that movie).
Watching True Grit right now, then it's Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. And then the fun begins, with four episodes of MST3K on the way.
To finish, I'll check to see if my good friend Geneva Marney is still paying attention. Hey Neva, if you've got a movie recommendation or two, send them my way.
*Note: You can't really ignore it.
I've gone through a lot of movies recently, probably too many to do a post on each one. So I'll run through some of them real quick.
Tom Jones: boring except for maybe the last twenty minutes.
The Greatest Show on Earth: Not bad. Charlton Heston is good. Shows a lot of the circus acts and what it takes to put the show on.
Out of Africa: Really good. Depressing, but good. Meryl Streep and Robert Redford are good. Streep nominated for Best Actress.
Oliver!: A little dull for me. Picked up towards the end. But the song about buying roses was a great one.
Three Days of the Condor: A good thriller. Redford and Dunaway go well together. I may have mentioned before that I was very pleasantly surprised by Dunaway when I watched Bonnie and Clyde and Chinatown. She's good in this one too. And let me just say this about Redford: he's always good. Even if the movie is crap, Redford is good.
Capote: Just finished it tonight. I don't care too much about the story, but if you ever see old footage of Truman Capote and then watch Philip Seymour Hoffman, you'll be mightily impressed (same thing with Denzel Washington in Malcolm X. He was robbed of an Oscar that year by Al Pacino in the utterly wretched Scent of a Woman. Can't stand that movie).
Watching True Grit right now, then it's Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore. And then the fun begins, with four episodes of MST3K on the way.
To finish, I'll check to see if my good friend Geneva Marney is still paying attention. Hey Neva, if you've got a movie recommendation or two, send them my way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)