Scarface is overrated. There, I said it. It’s out of the way. Now we can move on.
Okay, let me clarify. Scarface is very, very good. Al Pacino is very, very good in it. Tony Montana is a very great character and Pacino plays him to perfection. However, in no way do I think it’s his best role.
In fact, it barely cracks my top five.
Before I get into my Al Pacino ranking system, let me once again clarify and say that Al Pacino as Tony Montana is better than most actors in most roles they do. In fact, I’d go so far as to say it’s one of the best characters of all time. It’s just hard to consider it “the greatest movie ever” as so many people have dubbed it. Or, if not the “greatest” movie then at least the “coolest.”
So, okay, if Scarface and Tony Montana is #5, who are the top four?
#4 – Ricky Roma (Glengarry Glen Ross). As one of the stars in one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time, Ricky Roma is, in my eyes, cooler than Tony Montana. Maybe it’s partially because I don’t have a stigma against this movie like I (unfortunately) do against Scarface, or maybe it’s because most people I know haven’t seen Glengarry. Whatever the reason, Ricky Roma is cooler.
#3 – Michael Corleone (The Godfather series). It’s hard to top the central character in what may be the greatest movie ever made, but I feel Pacino’s done it to himself twice. Michael Corleone has a self-control and a frightening demeanor that Tony Montana doesn’t have. I’m not saying he’s better here because he’s not frenzied (because that’s what makes Montana so great), but it’s just a better role. I think.
#2 – Frank Serpico (Serpico). When it’s Pacino against the world, I’ll take Pacino. (That is, of course, that we’re talking about vintage Pacino and not his newer crap.) With that said, in a world full of crooked cops, Pacino’s role as Officer Frank Serpico, the honest cop, wins out here.
#1 – Sonny Wortzik (Dog Day Afternoon). Without a doubt, this is number one in my eyes. It’s such a perfect role. I know this movie has great critical acclaim, but it doesn’t have the widespread cult / popular credit that movies like Scarface or the Godfather have, and that’s a shame.
So that’s the list. All five roles are fantastic and he plays each to perfection. I just wish that before someone were to say that Tony Montana is the coolest character ever, they brushed up on their Pacino. Maybe that way they’d see how wrong they were.
4.14.2009
4.12.2009
How Does Nicolas Cage Keep Getting Work?
This is truly a question I wonder every time I see a new trailer coming out with Cage in it. He’s really… not a good actor, and I really wonder why people keep getting him to star in their movies.
He just acts so hard in every role that he plays that it’s hard to take him seriously in anything he does. His concentration and intensity brings comedy to roles that shouldn’t be funny, which consequently takes away from the situation he’s in. Also, he continually chooses the worst movies to act in. Next and Knowing… need I say more?
To be honest, I haven’t seen Knowing, and I may never actually see it. I really loved director Alex Proyas’s Dark City, so I think this movie could have potential. However, with Cage in the leading role, it’d take a lot for me to sit down and watch it. Next, on the other hand, is another story. I guess it was “cool” to most people, but I didn’t enjoy it. It was… whatever. Nothing exciting.
There are roles that Cage has played that I’ve enjoyed him in. Four, to be exact. (Maybe five, but I’m still not sure if I like Raising Arizona, so I’ll exclude that for now. Consider it an Honorable Mention in the Nic Cage Career Achievement section.) Here are those four movies / roles:
1. Wild at Heart – Cage was good in this, but I didn’t watch it for him. I watched it because it’s a David Lynch movie. I’ve only seen this movie once (and it was a little over a year ago), so I don’t know if I actually liked Cage in the role or just didn’t hate him. I guess either way, I win because, really, I don’t have to deal with a subpar performance.
2. Adaptation. – Again, it’s not a movie I watched for Cage (it was a Charlie Kaufman masterpiece). He’s lovable in this role (which is great!) mostly because he kind of makes fun of himself throughout. He’s also not acting really hard and is more relaxed, which is a relief. (As a side note, Cage plays two roles in the movie, which adds into the lovable nature and self-deprecation of his roles.)
3. Matchstick Men – Again, I’ve only seen it once (and it was months before I saw Wild at Heart, so to say I really remember the role would be kind of a lie). However, the movie is enjoyable and I don’t remember thinking at any time, ‘Hey it’s Nic Cage up to his old shenanigans again.’ Which is a good thing.
4. Grindhouse (more specifically, Werewolf Women of the S.S.) – BEST. ROLE. His five second cameo in the trailer was the best five seconds of his acting career. If this movie was made, and if he played Fu Manchu as well throughout as he did in the trailer, he would become likeable in my book. Too bad it’ll probably never get made.
He just acts so hard in every role that he plays that it’s hard to take him seriously in anything he does. His concentration and intensity brings comedy to roles that shouldn’t be funny, which consequently takes away from the situation he’s in. Also, he continually chooses the worst movies to act in. Next and Knowing… need I say more?
To be honest, I haven’t seen Knowing, and I may never actually see it. I really loved director Alex Proyas’s Dark City, so I think this movie could have potential. However, with Cage in the leading role, it’d take a lot for me to sit down and watch it. Next, on the other hand, is another story. I guess it was “cool” to most people, but I didn’t enjoy it. It was… whatever. Nothing exciting.
There are roles that Cage has played that I’ve enjoyed him in. Four, to be exact. (Maybe five, but I’m still not sure if I like Raising Arizona, so I’ll exclude that for now. Consider it an Honorable Mention in the Nic Cage Career Achievement section.) Here are those four movies / roles:
1. Wild at Heart – Cage was good in this, but I didn’t watch it for him. I watched it because it’s a David Lynch movie. I’ve only seen this movie once (and it was a little over a year ago), so I don’t know if I actually liked Cage in the role or just didn’t hate him. I guess either way, I win because, really, I don’t have to deal with a subpar performance.
2. Adaptation. – Again, it’s not a movie I watched for Cage (it was a Charlie Kaufman masterpiece). He’s lovable in this role (which is great!) mostly because he kind of makes fun of himself throughout. He’s also not acting really hard and is more relaxed, which is a relief. (As a side note, Cage plays two roles in the movie, which adds into the lovable nature and self-deprecation of his roles.)
3. Matchstick Men – Again, I’ve only seen it once (and it was months before I saw Wild at Heart, so to say I really remember the role would be kind of a lie). However, the movie is enjoyable and I don’t remember thinking at any time, ‘Hey it’s Nic Cage up to his old shenanigans again.’ Which is a good thing.
4. Grindhouse (more specifically, Werewolf Women of the S.S.) – BEST. ROLE. His five second cameo in the trailer was the best five seconds of his acting career. If this movie was made, and if he played Fu Manchu as well throughout as he did in the trailer, he would become likeable in my book. Too bad it’ll probably never get made.
4.10.2009
Offensive explosion propels Ramapo to 15-8 victory over Montclair State
I had a blog entry I was going to do, but I forget what it was. Instead, I'm just posting my coverage of Ramapo's Baseball game this past Sunday.
In what could best be described as a total team effort, Ramapo’s Baseball team knocked off Montclair State 15-8 in the first game of Saturday’s doubleheader. The win pushed the team’s record to 10-8 overall with a 3-2 record in the conference.
“It’s exactly what we’re preaching about,” said Head Coach Rich Martin, “a team effort. What’s happened is we’ve been using 12, 15 guys a game. We’ve been using a lot of pinch hitters, a lot of guys defensively in the back of the game. It’s absolutely been a team effort, no question about it.”
Things got off to a rocky start for Ramapo. Starter Matt Jenisch got in trouble early, giving up a leadoff single to Jay Bionde to start the game. After Bionde stole second, Scott Evangelist hit a deep home run to left-center field, giving Montclair an early 2-0 lead. The Red Hawks’ #3 hitter, Kevin Bond, got on base after an error by shortstop Rob Dimperio, and their cleanup hitter, leftfielder Ed Kloepping, walked to put two on with nobody out.
Jenisch settled down, though, striking out Michael Boggi and getting Jason Lopez to ground out. With two outs and runners on second and third, Jenisch sealed the deal by getting Matt Hartwick to strike out looking and end the inning.
The Roadrunners responded quickly in the bottom half of the first. A Gino Gallagher single was followed by a Joey Cacchiola walk. An RBI single by Peter Sita brought the score to 2-1, and an error by Montclair’s Michael Kaminski allowed Cacchiola and Sita to score and give Ramapo the 3-2 lead.
Ramapo struck again in the bottom of the second, after Dave Deredita and Gallagher scored on a two-run triple by Cacchiola. Cacchiola scored two batters later on an RBI groundout by Mike Manges.
Jenisch faltered again in the top of the third. After striking out Kloepping to start the inning, he walked Boggi and gave up singles to Lopez and Hartwick, which brought the Red Hawks to within 6-3. Coach Martin replaced the struggling Jenisch with reliever Tim Hannes. After Hannes gave up an RBI single to make the score 6-4, he got a 1-4-3 double play to end the inning and prevent further damage.
Ramapo scored yet again in the bottom of the third. With Tim Gaven on first, Dimperio tripled him home and then scored on an overthrow, extending Ramapo’s lead to 8-4.
Montclair brought the score to 8-5 after a RBI single by Boggi plated Bionde. Hannes calmed down and finished the inning without further damage. He came back to strike out Hartwick in the fifth and got another double play to end the inning, then followed that up with two more strikeouts in the sixth.
In the bottom of the fifth, Ramapo scored again, this time on yet another miscue out of Montclair’s second base spot. After Gaven and Deredita got on base, Gallagher hit a groundball to second that the second baseman couldn’t handle cleanly. Gaven’s run put Ramapo ahead 9-5.
Hannes walked the first two batters of the seventh, which prompted Martin to replace him with John Guagliardo. Guagliardo absolutely dominated Montclair’s 6-7-8 hitters, getting two strikeouts and a groundout to keep the lead intact.
The eighth wasn’t as easy for Guagliardo. Evangelist came up yet again with a runner on base and gave an encore to his opening-inning act by hitting another home run to nearly the exact same spot in left-center field. The two-run shot, Evangelist’s second of the day and fourth of the year, brought Montclair to within two runs at 9-7.
That was as close as the Red Hawks would come, though. Ramapo broke open the game in the bottom of the eighth with six runs. After a leadoff walk by Gallagher, Cacchiola tried to bunt him over but reached base after a throwing error by Montclair pitcher Scott Shan. Sita picked up another RBI after driving Gallagher in with a single, and Manges loaded the bases after being hit by a pitch. Joseph Della Serra, who had replaced Jimenez earlier in the game, ripped a two-run single to left field. Della Serra’s hit was followed up two batters later as Dimperio drove in Manges to extend the lead to 15-7.
Needing to score eight runs in the ninth to tie, Montclair was only able to muster one; pinch-hitter Adam Bergman doubled home Boggi and chased Guagliardo, who had just gotten a double play, from the game. Martin replaced him with William Schmolze, who stuck out Montclair’s Tim Swift to end the game.
“This was a big win,” said Hannes, who got the win to improve to 2-1. “Our hitters performed, our pitchers performed. It was an all-around good win.”
Despite the win, Hannes didn’t revel in victory. He knew what still lay ahead for the team.
“What’s important, though, is we gotta sweep,” Hannes added. “We gotta take two games today. If we take two games, we’ll be at the top of the NJACs.”
Coach Martin echoed his sentiment.
“The only way to win a doubleheader is to win the first game. We’re happy about that. We’ve struggled winning the second game. We’ve won a couple first games. It’s sort of a situation where you normally split; most teams in the NJAC will normally split. It’s a big deal if we can win a doubleheader. We’re gong to go for it.”
Ramapo could not complete the sweep of the doubleheader, however, falling 8-2 in the second game. The Roadrunners also lost to Stockton on Tuesday, 5-3, which evened their record at 10-10 (3-3 in the NJAC). They will look to rebound Thursday against Rowan at home (3:30). The team will travel to TCNJ on Friday and host Kean on Saturday.
In what could best be described as a total team effort, Ramapo’s Baseball team knocked off Montclair State 15-8 in the first game of Saturday’s doubleheader. The win pushed the team’s record to 10-8 overall with a 3-2 record in the conference.
“It’s exactly what we’re preaching about,” said Head Coach Rich Martin, “a team effort. What’s happened is we’ve been using 12, 15 guys a game. We’ve been using a lot of pinch hitters, a lot of guys defensively in the back of the game. It’s absolutely been a team effort, no question about it.”
Things got off to a rocky start for Ramapo. Starter Matt Jenisch got in trouble early, giving up a leadoff single to Jay Bionde to start the game. After Bionde stole second, Scott Evangelist hit a deep home run to left-center field, giving Montclair an early 2-0 lead. The Red Hawks’ #3 hitter, Kevin Bond, got on base after an error by shortstop Rob Dimperio, and their cleanup hitter, leftfielder Ed Kloepping, walked to put two on with nobody out.
Jenisch settled down, though, striking out Michael Boggi and getting Jason Lopez to ground out. With two outs and runners on second and third, Jenisch sealed the deal by getting Matt Hartwick to strike out looking and end the inning.
The Roadrunners responded quickly in the bottom half of the first. A Gino Gallagher single was followed by a Joey Cacchiola walk. An RBI single by Peter Sita brought the score to 2-1, and an error by Montclair’s Michael Kaminski allowed Cacchiola and Sita to score and give Ramapo the 3-2 lead.
Ramapo struck again in the bottom of the second, after Dave Deredita and Gallagher scored on a two-run triple by Cacchiola. Cacchiola scored two batters later on an RBI groundout by Mike Manges.
Jenisch faltered again in the top of the third. After striking out Kloepping to start the inning, he walked Boggi and gave up singles to Lopez and Hartwick, which brought the Red Hawks to within 6-3. Coach Martin replaced the struggling Jenisch with reliever Tim Hannes. After Hannes gave up an RBI single to make the score 6-4, he got a 1-4-3 double play to end the inning and prevent further damage.
Ramapo scored yet again in the bottom of the third. With Tim Gaven on first, Dimperio tripled him home and then scored on an overthrow, extending Ramapo’s lead to 8-4.
Montclair brought the score to 8-5 after a RBI single by Boggi plated Bionde. Hannes calmed down and finished the inning without further damage. He came back to strike out Hartwick in the fifth and got another double play to end the inning, then followed that up with two more strikeouts in the sixth.
In the bottom of the fifth, Ramapo scored again, this time on yet another miscue out of Montclair’s second base spot. After Gaven and Deredita got on base, Gallagher hit a groundball to second that the second baseman couldn’t handle cleanly. Gaven’s run put Ramapo ahead 9-5.
Hannes walked the first two batters of the seventh, which prompted Martin to replace him with John Guagliardo. Guagliardo absolutely dominated Montclair’s 6-7-8 hitters, getting two strikeouts and a groundout to keep the lead intact.
The eighth wasn’t as easy for Guagliardo. Evangelist came up yet again with a runner on base and gave an encore to his opening-inning act by hitting another home run to nearly the exact same spot in left-center field. The two-run shot, Evangelist’s second of the day and fourth of the year, brought Montclair to within two runs at 9-7.
That was as close as the Red Hawks would come, though. Ramapo broke open the game in the bottom of the eighth with six runs. After a leadoff walk by Gallagher, Cacchiola tried to bunt him over but reached base after a throwing error by Montclair pitcher Scott Shan. Sita picked up another RBI after driving Gallagher in with a single, and Manges loaded the bases after being hit by a pitch. Joseph Della Serra, who had replaced Jimenez earlier in the game, ripped a two-run single to left field. Della Serra’s hit was followed up two batters later as Dimperio drove in Manges to extend the lead to 15-7.
Needing to score eight runs in the ninth to tie, Montclair was only able to muster one; pinch-hitter Adam Bergman doubled home Boggi and chased Guagliardo, who had just gotten a double play, from the game. Martin replaced him with William Schmolze, who stuck out Montclair’s Tim Swift to end the game.
“This was a big win,” said Hannes, who got the win to improve to 2-1. “Our hitters performed, our pitchers performed. It was an all-around good win.”
Despite the win, Hannes didn’t revel in victory. He knew what still lay ahead for the team.
“What’s important, though, is we gotta sweep,” Hannes added. “We gotta take two games today. If we take two games, we’ll be at the top of the NJACs.”
Coach Martin echoed his sentiment.
“The only way to win a doubleheader is to win the first game. We’re happy about that. We’ve struggled winning the second game. We’ve won a couple first games. It’s sort of a situation where you normally split; most teams in the NJAC will normally split. It’s a big deal if we can win a doubleheader. We’re gong to go for it.”
Ramapo could not complete the sweep of the doubleheader, however, falling 8-2 in the second game. The Roadrunners also lost to Stockton on Tuesday, 5-3, which evened their record at 10-10 (3-3 in the NJAC). They will look to rebound Thursday against Rowan at home (3:30). The team will travel to TCNJ on Friday and host Kean on Saturday.
4.08.2009
20 Movies in 20 Days
Okay, so I’ve made the list of 320 movies to see. My goal when doing these lists is three movies a week, which I think is totally doable. Sometimes at school I fall behind, but I generally am able to make up for it in the summer.
That’s what makes what I’ve done all the more confusing and astounding to myself. In the first 20 days since I’ve started this new list, I’ve watched 20 movies. I figured it was a good time to rank them or something, in terms of how much I like them.
I think it’d be this:
1 Dark City
2 Synecdoche, New York
3 In Bruges
4 Run Lola Run
5 Wall Street
6 The Lives of Others
7 The Wizard of Gore
8 Elephant
9 Gummo
10 Alien
11 Eulogy
12 Videodrome
13 A History of Violence
14 Fear of a Black Hat
15 Waking Life
16 Paprika
17 Jerry Maguire
18 Saved!
19 Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
20 Employee of the Month
What I do when ranking movies like this is basically decide which I’d be most likely to watch again. That’s how I came up with my favorite movies. I thought, ‘If they were all on TV at the same time, what would I put on?’ I’m pretty sure this is how these 20 would be ranked.
Can I keep up my pace? Do you even care? Stay tuned!
That’s what makes what I’ve done all the more confusing and astounding to myself. In the first 20 days since I’ve started this new list, I’ve watched 20 movies. I figured it was a good time to rank them or something, in terms of how much I like them.
I think it’d be this:
1 Dark City
2 Synecdoche, New York
3 In Bruges
4 Run Lola Run
5 Wall Street
6 The Lives of Others
7 The Wizard of Gore
8 Elephant
9 Gummo
10 Alien
11 Eulogy
12 Videodrome
13 A History of Violence
14 Fear of a Black Hat
15 Waking Life
16 Paprika
17 Jerry Maguire
18 Saved!
19 Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist
20 Employee of the Month
What I do when ranking movies like this is basically decide which I’d be most likely to watch again. That’s how I came up with my favorite movies. I thought, ‘If they were all on TV at the same time, what would I put on?’ I’m pretty sure this is how these 20 would be ranked.
Can I keep up my pace? Do you even care? Stay tuned!
4.07.2009
Why Charlie Kaufman is the Best Screenwriter in Hollywood
How many times have you gone to see a movie only to see it resolve in some cheap or cliché way? Maybe everything was just a dream, maybe everything miraculous comes together at the end or maybe all of the characters get exactly what they want.
Annoying, right?
Sure, it’s kind of what people want to see. Not many people enjoy going to the movies to see a depressing ending. That’s what life gives them. Life gives them reality. What people want to see when they go to the movies is fantasy – something that wouldn’t happen but leaves them feeling better about themselves and the world.
But does that mean that scripts have to be boring?
Nope. Just look at what Charlie Kaufman has written. He’s written six movies (four of which I’ve seen – Being John Malkovich; Adaptation.; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; and Synechdoche, New York) and each are wonderfully unique. It’s not even that his story or characters alone are great – he creates this entire world for these people to exist in that I haven’t seen anywhere else.
In Being John Malkovich, the characters find a hole where, if you go through it, you end up inside Malkovich’s brain, seeing what he sees, for like ten minutes. Eternal Sunshine takes place in a time where a company is able to wipe memories from a person’s head, so much of the movie is spent literally within Jim Carrey’s mind. Synechdoche follows Philip Seymour Hoffman as he reconstructs his life in a life-size replica of New York City. (Adaptation. doesn't have anything unique about the world, but it does have Nic Cage (in his best role!) playing two brothers).
Some of what he includes has been done elsewhere, undoubtedly. There’s no way that he could have purely original ideas when you consider how many movies have been made over the years. However, not only does he take these ideas to another level but he also does them better than they’ve been done in the past. There’s a clear evolution of the storyline, which makes perfect sense and unfolds perfectly in each film.
If only more people followed Kaufman’s lead, Hollywood wouldn’t be such a boring place after all.
Annoying, right?
Sure, it’s kind of what people want to see. Not many people enjoy going to the movies to see a depressing ending. That’s what life gives them. Life gives them reality. What people want to see when they go to the movies is fantasy – something that wouldn’t happen but leaves them feeling better about themselves and the world.
But does that mean that scripts have to be boring?
Nope. Just look at what Charlie Kaufman has written. He’s written six movies (four of which I’ve seen – Being John Malkovich; Adaptation.; Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; and Synechdoche, New York) and each are wonderfully unique. It’s not even that his story or characters alone are great – he creates this entire world for these people to exist in that I haven’t seen anywhere else.
In Being John Malkovich, the characters find a hole where, if you go through it, you end up inside Malkovich’s brain, seeing what he sees, for like ten minutes. Eternal Sunshine takes place in a time where a company is able to wipe memories from a person’s head, so much of the movie is spent literally within Jim Carrey’s mind. Synechdoche follows Philip Seymour Hoffman as he reconstructs his life in a life-size replica of New York City. (Adaptation. doesn't have anything unique about the world, but it does have Nic Cage (in his best role!) playing two brothers).
Some of what he includes has been done elsewhere, undoubtedly. There’s no way that he could have purely original ideas when you consider how many movies have been made over the years. However, not only does he take these ideas to another level but he also does them better than they’ve been done in the past. There’s a clear evolution of the storyline, which makes perfect sense and unfolds perfectly in each film.
If only more people followed Kaufman’s lead, Hollywood wouldn’t be such a boring place after all.
4.06.2009
Why Michael Cera is a Punk
Okay, to be fair, I love Arrested Development. It’s one of the funniest and smartest shows I’ve ever seen on television, and Michael Cera was great on it as George Michael Bluth. He was the lovable loser, the guy you couldn’t help but love for his social awkwardness (and cousin awkwardness).
However, my problem with him is what he’s done since. In every role he’s played since then – Evan in Superbad, Paulie Bleeker in Juno and Nick in Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist – he’s been the same character.
Come on, Michael Cera, are you really that big of a one-trick pony? Can’t you expand your horizons?
Maybe he’s constantly typecast into that role. Maybe he’s only getting these acting gigs because casting directors know he can fulfill the roll to a tee. In that case, it’s really not Cera’s fault – it’s Hollywood. However, don’t you think he should be advocating for a more diverse range of roles? I know I would. I’d be afraid that if I didn’t speak up soon, I’d be forever enslaved to that role of the lovable dork.
Though I didn’t like every movie he’s done – I thought Superbad was Superdumb and Nick and Norah was really just mediocre – he’s played his part well in each film he’s done. I’m just upset that it’s the same role, over and over again. I think he can do better.
However, my problem with him is what he’s done since. In every role he’s played since then – Evan in Superbad, Paulie Bleeker in Juno and Nick in Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist – he’s been the same character.
Come on, Michael Cera, are you really that big of a one-trick pony? Can’t you expand your horizons?
Maybe he’s constantly typecast into that role. Maybe he’s only getting these acting gigs because casting directors know he can fulfill the roll to a tee. In that case, it’s really not Cera’s fault – it’s Hollywood. However, don’t you think he should be advocating for a more diverse range of roles? I know I would. I’d be afraid that if I didn’t speak up soon, I’d be forever enslaved to that role of the lovable dork.
Though I didn’t like every movie he’s done – I thought Superbad was Superdumb and Nick and Norah was really just mediocre – he’s played his part well in each film he’s done. I’m just upset that it’s the same role, over and over again. I think he can do better.
4.04.2009
Movie List: Redux
I’ve written on here before about my past movie list (I made up a list of 160 movies to watch). I saw 158 of them (the second and third Lord of the Rings movies still outstanding), so I decided to make a second list. I didn’t know how big to make it. While I was going through the first list, I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 movies ready to go, but I didn’t know how many more I’d end up adding.
I asked a ton of friends what five movies I should see, and I got more responses than I anticipated. As it stands now, the list is at 320. There are alternates (in case I can’t find some), so there is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 330-340 movies on (or near) my list. Here’s the 320.
I thought 320 was a good place to draw the line. Aside from the fact that it’s an insane number of movies, it’s also exactly twice the length of my previous list. (As a side note, what I’m scared about is making my next list… 640?) Anyway, my goal of three movies a week would put the end date somewhere around January 1, 2012. That’s fun.
In the two and a half weeks that I’ve been going through this list, though, I’ve seen 16 movies from the list. At this rate, I’ll finish in a year! Too bad I can’t keep this pace up. The 16 I’ve seen have been a good mix of great movies (Synecdoche New York, In Bruges, Dark City, The Lives of Others, Run Lola Run), good movies (Wall Street, Waking Life) and movies so bad that they’re good (The Wizard of Gore, Fear of a Black Hat).
It’s been a solid start so far, but there’s still quite a ways to go.
I asked a ton of friends what five movies I should see, and I got more responses than I anticipated. As it stands now, the list is at 320. There are alternates (in case I can’t find some), so there is somewhere in the neighborhood of about 330-340 movies on (or near) my list. Here’s the 320.
I thought 320 was a good place to draw the line. Aside from the fact that it’s an insane number of movies, it’s also exactly twice the length of my previous list. (As a side note, what I’m scared about is making my next list… 640?) Anyway, my goal of three movies a week would put the end date somewhere around January 1, 2012. That’s fun.
In the two and a half weeks that I’ve been going through this list, though, I’ve seen 16 movies from the list. At this rate, I’ll finish in a year! Too bad I can’t keep this pace up. The 16 I’ve seen have been a good mix of great movies (Synecdoche New York, In Bruges, Dark City, The Lives of Others, Run Lola Run), good movies (Wall Street, Waking Life) and movies so bad that they’re good (The Wizard of Gore, Fear of a Black Hat).
It’s been a solid start so far, but there’s still quite a ways to go.
The Wizard of Gore
Thank you, Diablo Cody.
As though I didn’t love Juno enough as it is, my roommate and I just finished watching The Wizard of Gore (the movie that’s briefly discussed by Ellen Page and Jason Bateman).
In a word, it was incredible.
Okay, incredible to my roommate and me is very different from what you might think is incredible. That’s understandable. To fully appreciate the mastery that is this movie, you have to love bad movies (and I definitely do). There are so many questions that are unanswered by this movie that many people would probably walk away angry.
I didn’t. I loved it!
The more important thing that this movie did, though, was bring a third fantastic film studio to the forefront of terrible movie culture. My friends and I all already loved Troma (home to Toxic Avenger, Poultrygiest, et al) and York Entertainment (Alien 51 and such), but now we have another: SOMETHING WEIRD VIDEOS.
To call their catalog extensive would be an understatement (You can view a list here.). There are so many movies on that list with such potential that it makes me weep in joy. I just queued up in my Netflix a Something Weird double feature: The Beast that Killed Women / The Monster of Camp Sunshine. Both deal with nudist camps (how are they not involved in more movies?) and crazy creatures that wreak havoc there. I don’t know which one will be better, but I think it’s a safe bet to say that I’m going to love both.
As though I didn’t love Juno enough as it is, my roommate and I just finished watching The Wizard of Gore (the movie that’s briefly discussed by Ellen Page and Jason Bateman).
In a word, it was incredible.
Okay, incredible to my roommate and me is very different from what you might think is incredible. That’s understandable. To fully appreciate the mastery that is this movie, you have to love bad movies (and I definitely do). There are so many questions that are unanswered by this movie that many people would probably walk away angry.
I didn’t. I loved it!
The more important thing that this movie did, though, was bring a third fantastic film studio to the forefront of terrible movie culture. My friends and I all already loved Troma (home to Toxic Avenger, Poultrygiest, et al) and York Entertainment (Alien 51 and such), but now we have another: SOMETHING WEIRD VIDEOS.
To call their catalog extensive would be an understatement (You can view a list here.). There are so many movies on that list with such potential that it makes me weep in joy. I just queued up in my Netflix a Something Weird double feature: The Beast that Killed Women / The Monster of Camp Sunshine. Both deal with nudist camps (how are they not involved in more movies?) and crazy creatures that wreak havoc there. I don’t know which one will be better, but I think it’s a safe bet to say that I’m going to love both.
4.02.2009
Bracketology 101
March Madness brackets do funny things to a person’s head.
For people like me, who know next to nothing about college basketball, the “anyone can win” mentality gives hope that this year could be the year you win your pool. For people who watch college basketball throughout the year, that “insider knowledge” seems like enough to separate you from the rest of the pack and win your pool that way.
Too bad things don’t normally work out like that.
It’s common bracketological theory that you need to pick upsets. Up until last year, that seemed like a safe bet. However, for the first time in history, all four #1 seeds last year made it into the Final Four, which effectively threw that theory out the window.
This year, when it looked as though that was going to happen again – as all #1, #2 and #3 seeds advanced to the Sweet 16, and all four #1 seeds made it to the Elite 8 – Michigan State and Villanova upset their respective #1 seeds (Louisville and Pittsburgh) to advance to the Final Four.
So what is a bracketeer supposed to do? Well, there are a few things that even a novice bracketeer can pick up on. First of all, there are inevitably the “upsets” that really aren’t all that… upsetting. Teams that are seeded #9 or #10 could easily beat their first-round opponents; in fact, two #9 and three #10 seeds advanced to the second round this year.
Then, every year, there are the unexpected upsets – those that see #4 or #5 seeds fall. This year, only one #4 seed fell (Wake Forest lost to Cleveland State) but three #12 teams knocked off #5’s (Arizona beat Washington, Wisconsin beat Florida State and Western Kentucky beat Illinois).
How do you know which of these teams to pick? Well, sometimes, it’s blind luck. Had I done any research at all and found out that Cleveland State was the Vikings, I would have picked them (I’m a Cleveland Cavaliers and Minnesota Vikings fan). It might have looked absurd on my bracket, but I wouldn’t have had the Vikings winning a second-round game. Worst case scenario: Wake Forest’s superiority holds up and they advance, so I hope they get knocked out quickly.
Western Kentucky, as obscure as it sounds, is a very strong basketball school. Last year, WKU knocked off fifth-seeded Drake University in the first round, then advanced to the Sweet 16 by knocking off San Diego, a fellow Cinderella story. This year, led by Orlando Mendez-Valdez and A.J. Slaughter, the team not only beat Wake Forest in the first round but was poised to do the same to #4 Gonzaga, until the Bulldogs hit a go-ahead lay-up with only 0.9 seconds on the clock to eliminate WKU. What’s the moral of this story? If you see Western Kentucky on a bracket in the future, don’t hesitate to pick them – regardless of how much of a long shot they may seem.
Here’s a tip that seems obvious (and if you’ve read this far, you know this by now): unless you have some great inside tip, always pick the top three seeds in each region to advance – at least in the first round. No #1 has ever fallen to a #16 (though several teams this year came a little too close for comfort), and only four #2 seeds have fallen to a #15 (with the most recent coming in 2001 when Hampton beat Iowa State).
The hardest part of the tournament to predict is when the games really come down to the wire, and a team like #3 Villanova is playing #6 UCLA. Sure, Villanova was a higher seed, but things still seemed close. At times like these, however, you have to look at external factors. Like what? Consider that Villanova was essentially hosting the match (it was played in Philadelphia) and that home-court advantage should be more than enough to propel them to the next round.
What’s great about bracketology, though, is that even if you follow these guidelines, do your research and make educated guesses, things still might not fall into place. That’s what gives March the madness, if you will, and makes the tournament fun for everyone to watch.
For people like me, who know next to nothing about college basketball, the “anyone can win” mentality gives hope that this year could be the year you win your pool. For people who watch college basketball throughout the year, that “insider knowledge” seems like enough to separate you from the rest of the pack and win your pool that way.
Too bad things don’t normally work out like that.
It’s common bracketological theory that you need to pick upsets. Up until last year, that seemed like a safe bet. However, for the first time in history, all four #1 seeds last year made it into the Final Four, which effectively threw that theory out the window.
This year, when it looked as though that was going to happen again – as all #1, #2 and #3 seeds advanced to the Sweet 16, and all four #1 seeds made it to the Elite 8 – Michigan State and Villanova upset their respective #1 seeds (Louisville and Pittsburgh) to advance to the Final Four.
So what is a bracketeer supposed to do? Well, there are a few things that even a novice bracketeer can pick up on. First of all, there are inevitably the “upsets” that really aren’t all that… upsetting. Teams that are seeded #9 or #10 could easily beat their first-round opponents; in fact, two #9 and three #10 seeds advanced to the second round this year.
Then, every year, there are the unexpected upsets – those that see #4 or #5 seeds fall. This year, only one #4 seed fell (Wake Forest lost to Cleveland State) but three #12 teams knocked off #5’s (Arizona beat Washington, Wisconsin beat Florida State and Western Kentucky beat Illinois).
How do you know which of these teams to pick? Well, sometimes, it’s blind luck. Had I done any research at all and found out that Cleveland State was the Vikings, I would have picked them (I’m a Cleveland Cavaliers and Minnesota Vikings fan). It might have looked absurd on my bracket, but I wouldn’t have had the Vikings winning a second-round game. Worst case scenario: Wake Forest’s superiority holds up and they advance, so I hope they get knocked out quickly.
Western Kentucky, as obscure as it sounds, is a very strong basketball school. Last year, WKU knocked off fifth-seeded Drake University in the first round, then advanced to the Sweet 16 by knocking off San Diego, a fellow Cinderella story. This year, led by Orlando Mendez-Valdez and A.J. Slaughter, the team not only beat Wake Forest in the first round but was poised to do the same to #4 Gonzaga, until the Bulldogs hit a go-ahead lay-up with only 0.9 seconds on the clock to eliminate WKU. What’s the moral of this story? If you see Western Kentucky on a bracket in the future, don’t hesitate to pick them – regardless of how much of a long shot they may seem.
Here’s a tip that seems obvious (and if you’ve read this far, you know this by now): unless you have some great inside tip, always pick the top three seeds in each region to advance – at least in the first round. No #1 has ever fallen to a #16 (though several teams this year came a little too close for comfort), and only four #2 seeds have fallen to a #15 (with the most recent coming in 2001 when Hampton beat Iowa State).
The hardest part of the tournament to predict is when the games really come down to the wire, and a team like #3 Villanova is playing #6 UCLA. Sure, Villanova was a higher seed, but things still seemed close. At times like these, however, you have to look at external factors. Like what? Consider that Villanova was essentially hosting the match (it was played in Philadelphia) and that home-court advantage should be more than enough to propel them to the next round.
What’s great about bracketology, though, is that even if you follow these guidelines, do your research and make educated guesses, things still might not fall into place. That’s what gives March the madness, if you will, and makes the tournament fun for everyone to watch.
Breakout MLB Stars
Aside from just being a Yankees fan, I describe myself as a fan of younger talent in Major League Baseball. I really like it when I see a young player (or, better yet, a team full of young players, like the Rays late year) put it all together and show that they belong. Each year, I try to sort of scout out the upcoming young talent in baseball. I want to know who I should be looking for when I watch games, but I also want to know who to draft for my fantasy team.
With that said, here’s a list of players I’m looking forward to catching in this upcoming year. It’s not like anyone on this list won’t be on everyone else’s lists of a similar nature, but the bond these players all share is the fact that they’re all on my fantasy team, which you can view here.
Anyway, without further ado, here we go!
Chris Davis (1B/3B, Texas Rangers) – Davis was one of the guys who flew under the radar for me last year. I ended up with him on my team only because I found out that his seemingly mediocre stats were compiled in only half a season. Stretched out over a whole year, he would have wound up batting .285 with 34 HR and 110 RBI. Not bad.
Alex Gordon (3B, Kansas City Royals) – Gordon’s one of the guys in the majors with the most talent and the least production. He’s the kind of guy who seemingly makes this type of list annually, as each year is going to be his inevitable breakout season. It’ll come… at some point. 2009? Sure, why not?
Jay Bruce (OF, Cincinnati Reds) – I’m not really sure why, but I call him “the great American hope.” I think it might have something to do with the skepticism everyone has as far as power hitters and home run numbers go. If the current batch of players are all lumped together in one tainted bundle, Bruce is the guy who will lead the next group out of the abyss. Last year’s 21 home runs was a great start.
Billy Butler (DH, Kansas City Royals) – For someone who’s supposed to have one of the best eyes in baseball, a .275 and 11 home runs just isn’t going to cut it. However, the dude has been raking this Spring Training, hitting .395 with 4 home runs in 73 at-bats. I’ll take that.
Matt Wieters (C, Baltimore Orioles) – He’s this year’s best bet to follow in the footsteps of Ryan Braun and Evan Longoria as the mid-May call-up who instantly proves he belongs. Wieters is really the best thing the Orioles have going, so it’s only a matter of time before he gets his due.
Matt LaPorta (1B/OF, Cleveland Indians) – The last I’ve heard, it isn’t even a sure thing that LaPorta is going to make the Indians’ major league roster this year. However, if he does, from what I’ve heard, he’ll be a fun one to watch. He’s probably the guy on this list I know the least about, but supposedly he has Joe Mauer-like hitting abilities… with power. That’s scary.
Max Scherzer (P, Arizona Diamondbacks) – Last year, I had great hopes for Scherzer. My one friend and I were set to watch each of his starts for the Diamondbacks. After being called up mid-season, he strikes out something like 7 guys in 4 1/3 innings in his first appearance. We were psyched. But then he fails to stick in the rotation and he gets hurt. What a lame way to end the year. Here’s to a better 2009, Max!
David Price (P, Tampa Bay Rays) – Everyone got a taste of what he could do by watching him in the playoffs last year. Though he’s currently in the Rays’ minor league system, he’ll be up soon enough and will wow fans yet again. That’s one thing I hate about baseball – the stupid clause that guarantees a player more money if he is called up before a certain date. That’s really the only reason he’s in the minors right now. The kid can play. Call him up. Don’t be cheap, Tampa.
With that said, here’s a list of players I’m looking forward to catching in this upcoming year. It’s not like anyone on this list won’t be on everyone else’s lists of a similar nature, but the bond these players all share is the fact that they’re all on my fantasy team, which you can view here.
Anyway, without further ado, here we go!
Chris Davis (1B/3B, Texas Rangers) – Davis was one of the guys who flew under the radar for me last year. I ended up with him on my team only because I found out that his seemingly mediocre stats were compiled in only half a season. Stretched out over a whole year, he would have wound up batting .285 with 34 HR and 110 RBI. Not bad.
Alex Gordon (3B, Kansas City Royals) – Gordon’s one of the guys in the majors with the most talent and the least production. He’s the kind of guy who seemingly makes this type of list annually, as each year is going to be his inevitable breakout season. It’ll come… at some point. 2009? Sure, why not?
Jay Bruce (OF, Cincinnati Reds) – I’m not really sure why, but I call him “the great American hope.” I think it might have something to do with the skepticism everyone has as far as power hitters and home run numbers go. If the current batch of players are all lumped together in one tainted bundle, Bruce is the guy who will lead the next group out of the abyss. Last year’s 21 home runs was a great start.
Billy Butler (DH, Kansas City Royals) – For someone who’s supposed to have one of the best eyes in baseball, a .275 and 11 home runs just isn’t going to cut it. However, the dude has been raking this Spring Training, hitting .395 with 4 home runs in 73 at-bats. I’ll take that.
Matt Wieters (C, Baltimore Orioles) – He’s this year’s best bet to follow in the footsteps of Ryan Braun and Evan Longoria as the mid-May call-up who instantly proves he belongs. Wieters is really the best thing the Orioles have going, so it’s only a matter of time before he gets his due.
Matt LaPorta (1B/OF, Cleveland Indians) – The last I’ve heard, it isn’t even a sure thing that LaPorta is going to make the Indians’ major league roster this year. However, if he does, from what I’ve heard, he’ll be a fun one to watch. He’s probably the guy on this list I know the least about, but supposedly he has Joe Mauer-like hitting abilities… with power. That’s scary.
Max Scherzer (P, Arizona Diamondbacks) – Last year, I had great hopes for Scherzer. My one friend and I were set to watch each of his starts for the Diamondbacks. After being called up mid-season, he strikes out something like 7 guys in 4 1/3 innings in his first appearance. We were psyched. But then he fails to stick in the rotation and he gets hurt. What a lame way to end the year. Here’s to a better 2009, Max!
David Price (P, Tampa Bay Rays) – Everyone got a taste of what he could do by watching him in the playoffs last year. Though he’s currently in the Rays’ minor league system, he’ll be up soon enough and will wow fans yet again. That’s one thing I hate about baseball – the stupid clause that guarantees a player more money if he is called up before a certain date. That’s really the only reason he’s in the minors right now. The kid can play. Call him up. Don’t be cheap, Tampa.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)