Short version: they took source material that I thought would be completely unwatchable as a movie, and turned it into a movie.

Seriously. A movie about how the Oakland A’s general manager used unconventional thinking and statistics to build a winning baseball team for the 2002 season. ‘Statistics’ and ‘Baseball’ are not words that you build a dramatic movie around. I enjoyed the movie, but I wasn’t captivated by it. I feel like I enjoyed it because I am nerd enough to have enjoyed the book, and I feel like it probably has some appeal to more casual baseball/sports fans.

I do also generally enjoy Brad Pitt.

The performances were fine. Pitt was good, Philip Seymour Hoffman actually looked quite a bit like Art Howe (although he just sounded like himself), and Jonah Hill was also good. And that’s pretty much it. It was well written, and it told the story of a baseball season.

wadE and I agreed on the word ‘underwhelmed’. It’s a nice, watchable movie. Great for Netflix/Redbox prices, and a good movie for baseball/sports fans and/or people who just want to watch Brad Pitt look good for 2 hours. I’m not sure how it got an Oscar nomination for anything, let alone Best Supporting Actor In a Role about a Nerd with barely 20 lines in the whole movie. (What? It was just Best Supporting Actor? Huh.)

So, yeah. Moneyball. I suspect you already have an idea about whether or not you’re interested in seeing it, and I’m here to tell you that whatever you’ve already decided, you’re right. Stick to your guns.

Catching up on some sports-related web browsing, and I see the following link headline from yesterday’s “football” game:

Marshall catches 4 TDs; AFC wins Pro Bowl

Upon reading this, my brain had the following discussion with itself:

Wilber Marshall? . . . No, that makes no sense. Hm . . .

Leonard Marshall! . . . No, same problem there.

Defeated, I had to click on the link to find out that it was Brandon Marshall who did the thing with the ball in the game I didn’t watch or care about. But at least I was slightly amused by that point.

The short version: numerous good points don’t overcome a bad ending.

(But backing up, a quick intro. We’re gonna try this thing. I posted this on The Facebook this morning, that I want to make Thursday night “Movie Night”. Hopefully I’m either gonna see something in theater, or start working through my backlog of Netflixes. Even more hopefully, I’m gonna write up reviews. We’ll see how this goes…)

Layer Cake (2004), starring Daniel Craig, and featuring quite a good ensemble cast, including two members of The Order of the Phoenix (Dumbledore and Shacklebolt, if you must know). Jokes aside, Michael Gambon was good in his role, and Tom Hardy is the other ‘known’ name, although his role was smaller. And Sienna Miller was, of course, gorgeous (but that was pretty much all she had to do in this one, was look gorgeous).

Pretty straight forward Brit Crime/Gangster/Suspense movie. Well written for the most part, well paced, plenty of twists and turns in the plot, but not confusingly so. Fairly easy to keep everyone straight, which is good in an ensemble cast while characters are dying and you’re trying to keep factions and loyalties straight, etc, so on and so forth.

I enjoyed it, right up until the last 30 seconds, which were absolutely pointless. I didn’t see any of the original marketing for this film, but it wouldn’t surprise me if they teased it with the SHOCKING twist at the end. I thought it was uninspired, and honestly unnecessary.

I guess overall I do recommend seeing this if you’re in the mood for something in the Snatch/Lock Stock vein. Just keep your expectations low.

My favorite local newspaper has always been the Minneapolis Star & Tribune. While I have never subscribed to the “Strib”, I have read its website nearly every single day over the past 10+ years.

Apparently the days of “free loading” are over.
Read the rest of this entry »

In case you weren’t aware, the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts starting giving out the “Mark Twain Prize for American Humor” in 1998. The intent of the prize is honor an individual who has made a significant contribution to American humor.
Read the rest of this entry »

In case you haven’t heard, some madman shot and killed 32 people at Va. Tech before killing himself.

Too soon for the sarcastic intro?

Anyway, shortly after hearing this I am reading a news article and the president is quoted, to be fair it was a spokesman, saying “The president believes that there is a right for people to bear arms, but that all laws must be followed”.

Wow…a horrific massacre (and I use that word in the truest sense, not the sensational sense that is being used in the media) has just occured, and the president has the gall/balls to use this as a political plug for defense of a narrow interpretation of the second amendment?

Bravo Mr. Bush, just when I thought I couldn’t think any less of you… bravo!

The unblinking eye now turns to the most beloved pasttime in the country, whose fault is this! Because someone must be held responsible, and it can’t be the poor depressed selfish idiot who actually killed these people.

The culprit must be:
– Virginia Tech: for not doing more… not locking down a campus with tens of thousands of students and faculty… or not having better security… not committing the kid to a mental hospital after he wrote some graphic plays… or some such nonsense.
– Video Games: not for any particular reason besides the fact that violent video games are a punching bag for every ignorant soccer mom and nascar dad to blame for any senseless murders
– Pharmaceuticals: it must be the anti-depression drugs (and if he wasn’t taking any, then of course he should have been on drugs)

The list goes on. But what happened here? A seriously depressed kid went out and bought a couple of handguns and killed a bunch of people. How could this have been prevented? There are two key pieces to that statement. Depressed Kid. Bought Handguns.

Well, someone could have diagnosed him and gotten help for him. But when a kid stays on the fringes and the only interaction he gets is from his English Prof., who reports the disturbing behavior, what can be done? You can’t force someone to see a psychologist.

The other opportunity for prevention was the easy access to handguns. We all know what a complicated and emotionally charged issue gun control is, but who is against a ban of handguns? Rifles would still be available for hunting. There is no rational necessary need for easy access to handguns in our society. There is nothing legal that necessitates the “need” for a handgun over a rifle.

The good news, the debate over the Second Amendment will continue. The bad news is that the same unrealistic arguments (on both sides) will be used and no meaningful change will occur.