#031 - Top 200 Movies of the Decade (175-151)

To check out numbers 176-200, go here.

I hope everyone had a good Christmas. My Christmas gifts this year included a Criterion Collection edition of Bottle Rocket, with new hand-drawn cover art (a la The Savages). Speaking of The Savages, I'd like to direct your attention to a short post on the best movie posters of the decade, at the following link:

http://www.theauteurs.com/notebook/posts/1327

I don't necessarily agree or disagree with anything they list there. Most of them are pretty solid. But it does seem like an egregious oversight to leave any Joker-related Dark Knight posters off that list.

And in honor of Bottle Rocket, Wes Anderson's first feature, today's portion will include Anderson's first appearance on the countdown.

Let's continue:

175. The Station Agent (Thomas McCarthy, 2003) - A lot of people might say McCarthy's follow up, The Visitor, was better than this, but I haven't seen it. And this is the only movie I've ever seen not to exploit little people, but rather to pose them sympathetically. Peter Dinklage is pretty superb, you try to overlook his physical traits and say, "Hey, this is a normal guy, trying to live a normal life." It's a very well-made film, with a good story by someone who has a fantastic grasp on human relationships.

174. Things We Lost in the Fire (Susanne Bier, 2007) - A movie that clearly sets out to destroy your emotional balance. There are lots of swings in the storyline, ups and downs, where you both cheer for and are sickened by Benicio del Toro's character, a recovering junkie who moves in with his best friend's widow and children. It's a plot designed to make you angry, and it does, only not without tip-toeing along the line between moving and wretched. Grave and not flashy, but very worthwhile. Halle Berry seems to be getting the hang of "broken woman".

173. Star Trek (J.J. Abrams, 2009) - Just the opposite of the previous movie, Star Trek is a completely box office-driven summer spectacle. Chris Pine is spot on as the new Kirk, and Zachary Quinto is characteristically weird as Spock, but it's the full-boil action and sharp dialogue that made this movie entertaining. I'm not particularly a Star Trek fan, but it was good, just so long as they don't beat it to death with a series of fifteen installments.

172. Kinsey (Bill Condon, 2004) - The subject himself made this movie interesting, and surprisingly enough, I find it's been the role most comfortable for Liam Neeson to play. He's a natural. But it's strong performances by Laura Linney and Chris O'Donnell that I think carry this movie from "watchable" to "good". Odd to be saying that about O'Donnell at this point in his career, but I think he should embrace the task of serviceable support, since he never really caught on as a lead.

171. Monsters, Inc. (Peter Docter, 2001) - I think of all the top animated hits of the decade, I think Monsters, Inc. might be the one adults are most embarrassed to admit liking. Possibly because a featured character is a young girl named "Boo". But the cast here is dynamic. I love Goodman and Crystal, and their analogs on screen pop with chemistry. It may not provide the one-liners of Shrek or the visual beauty of Wall-E, but it's a darned fun movie to watch.

170. Seven Pounds (Gabriele Muccino, 2008) - Will Smith and Muccino, back in the act. I'm not even going to list The Pursuit of Happyness here, so it's a nod to the duo that their follow-up effort is improved. Even though this movie might have cheated a little with emotions, I still found it to be compelling and well-done. I remember it having a terrific trailer, and even though it didn't get a lot of critical acclaim, I wasn't disappointed with it at all.

169. High Fidelity (Stephen Frears, 2000) - What better movie to appear on this list than a movie about lists? It's weird to me that a movie written and directed by Englishmen could be so American at heart--a coming of age story about a thirtysomething and his pitfalls in love and his love of rock music. I'm a big John Cusack fan. I think he's solid. And this movie is entertaining and easy to identify with. My favorite Nick Hornby adaptation to date.

168. Broken Flowers (Jim Jarmusch, 2005) - This is Bill Murray in the jaded stage of his career, as I mentioned before with Lost in Translation (#201). And I think he's right on point. He matches well with Jarmusch, a man whose writing has always been sharp and melancholy. Maybe it wasn't the critical success it seemed destined to be, but I thought it was amusing and thoughtful, with particularly entertaining performances by Jeffrey Wright and Mark Webber.

167. Unknown White Male (Rupert Murray, 2005) - Controversial. Period. I believe this is the first documentary on my countdown, though the "document" part of it could be argued, I suppose. It's a story about a guy living in New York who wakes up one day on the subway and has his memory just wiped clean. He doesn't know his name or where he is or what he's doing with his life--and his friend decides to make a documentary about it. Really compelling, but some of the things are so unbelievable it's hard to throw yourself behind the story 100%. Maybe it's a fake, maybe it isn't, but I know that after I got done watching it, I went straight to Google and started looking up as much as I can. It works. It works damned well.

166. Charlie Wilson's War (Mike Nichols, 2007) - An all-star cast including Tom Hanks and director Mike Nichols, and yet, after the initial splash this movie made, it sort of faded away with ease. But Aaron Sorkin's return to the big screen after 10 years of television was really solid. I think timing-wise it was terrific, and even though it wasn't a secret to anybody, relating the Iran/Afghanistan situation to modern day was really enlightening to me, somebody who didn't live through it the first time around. Hanks is a little odd, not his greatest performance. But Philip Seymour Hoffman is absolutely fantastic, proving that he's one of the best in character roles.

165. Old School (Todd Phillips, 2003) - This was the movie that started it all when it comes to the decade of Frat Pack comedies. And I think it still stands up to the rest, because it has both a solid number of laughs and a well-crafted story to keep the momentum rolling between the high points. Unfortunately it was Luke Wilson's last hurrah, it seems, which is a shame because I always liked him. But you know you've already incorporated so many of these lines into your dialect that you probably forget where they came from. He gonna do one!

164. X Men (Bryan Singer, 2000) - A decade that was smothered with comic book movies might never have been if not for this one. It was modern, it was sleek, it was exciting, it was everything that a superhero movie should have been, and the incorporation of the mutants into today's society made it accessible and fresh. As a whole it might have been more flawed than some of the films to follow it, but you have to give credit to the predecessor, and X Men was a definite winner. Just look at Hugh Jackman's career, and try to imagine what it would be without this break.

163. Monster (Patty Jenkins, 2003) - I have a negative bias towards this movie, but that shouldn't take away from how successful it was. Charlize Theron was fascinating, but all of the incredible press she received from this film I thought was a little bit misdirected--her acting was good, but not world-class, she just happened to have a good make up artist. Still, the movie receives plenty of bonus points for the originality of the story (true or not) and the movie-making conventions it socked in the face.

162. A Scanner Darkly (Richard Linklater, 2006) - Linklater has essentially become the master of dialogue, with Before Sunset and Before Sunrise, and now has crowned himself master of rotoscope with this Philip K. Dick adaptation. This film was immensely intriguing from the first preview, and while it didn't hit as many peaks as I would have liked it to, it was still an inventive take on the grisly story. To do it well in live action would have required too much CGI. I give Linklater a lot of credit for releasing an adult-themed animation, definitely the best angle for his interpretation.

161. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter and Spring (Bom yeoreum gaeul gyeoul guerigo bom) (Ki-duk Kim, 2003) - About as tranquil a movie as you can get. Its direction is like a slow interpretive dance, telling the story of a young Korean boy who learns at the feet of a Buddhist monk at a floating temple. It is breathtaking and precise, the kind of movie that leads to a lot of introspection, and leaves you with a lot of respect for the life that the old monk chooses to lead. Certainly not flashy, but a higher level art form.

160. Gone Baby Gone (Ben Affleck, 2007) - It's a surprise to me that I'm ranking a Ben Affleck-directed movie, but alas, here it is. His choice of Casey as the lead, while obvious, was the right one--I personally think Casey is the superior actor, much more relatable to viewers. Again based on a Dennis Lehane novel, this was a pretty natural follow up to Mystic River. Similar themes, similar Boston locations, similar accents. And like Mystic River, it was a gripping story with strong characters, and in this case it was bolstered by Morgan Freeman and a fantastic turn by Amy Ryan as the drug-addicted mess of a mother.

159. Coffee and Cigarettes (Jim Jarmusch, 2003) - Nearly back-to-back appearances by Jarmusch on the countdown, Coffee and Cigarettes is a series of black and white vignettes revolving around the titular cafe items that took some 17 years to put together. My personal favorite scenes include The RZA, The GZA and Bill Murray; Jack and Meg White; and the fantastically funny piece with Alfred Molina and Steve Coogan. If you haven't seen this movie at all, it's worth a view, particularly because you don't even have to watch the whole movie at once, since the scenes are only a few minutes long.

158. Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Peter Jackson, 2001) - Yes, it might set the stage for one of the most successful movie trilogies of all time. But it's almost as if they know they have you hooked for the entire ride, so they put little effort into making the first one exciting. Lots of people count this one as their favorite, don't include me in that group. It's beautifully shot and outlines a flood of character arcs, but unfortunately the snooze factor puts it at the bottom of the trio.

157. Hotel Rwanda (Terry George, 2004) - Don Cheadle's chance to shine. He had gone for years as a hailed supporting actor, always turning in strong performances, and Hotel Rwanda gave him the opportunity to lead in a very politically relevant film about the massacres in Rwanda. Unfortunately I don't think it had the gravity that they wanted it to have, perhaps because it seemed to be shot in a detached way, unlike the gritty realism a lot of third world-set films have adopted.

156. The Ring (Gore Verbinski, 2002) - I don't see a lot of horror movies. I much prefer thrillers (like Seven), but I took the bait and saw The Ring on Halloween night when it opened. I don't care what you say, The Ring was the definitive horror movie of the decade, and even set the stage for the slew of creepy kid stories that followed it (the single most abused theme in modern horror). I was scared, for sure, but also impressed. Verbinski does not dedicate himself solely to horror (he did the Pirates movies) and his ability to produce coldly chilling images went a long way in this one.

155. Waking Life (Richard Linklater, 2001) - Linklater again, rotoscope again (or should I say first?). Waking Life is a very abstract story about dreams and the perception of reality. It's a movie people like to talk about afterwards, very thought provoking, his attempt at big screen philosophy. The tale is told vignette style, jumping story to story, which keeps the content fresh and doesn't rely too heavily on one facet.

154. In the Valley of Elah (Paul Haggis, 2007) - Haggis is known as the king screenwriter of the day, but he's not too poor of a director (with this and Crash under his belt). One of the many Iraq-war related movies to come out in recent years, it's shouldered by Tommy Lee Jones in a strong and emotional performance. I think the "military coverup" angle is nearing saturation, but at the very least it sets up a decent amount of intrigue and drama, the backbone this story rests upon.

153. The Darjeeling Limited (Wes Anderson, 2007) - It took me a while, but I finally got there. Wes Anderson's first (of several) appearances here is his latest live-action film, featuring Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzmann as three brothers traveling India by train after the death of their father. As he gets older, I think Anderson's movies get more poignant and introspective, but they lose a little bit of the sharp wit and creativity he's made his name on. It's still a good movie, don't get me wrong, but I do believe I was disappointed with it, the first time I think I can so say about one of his films. There's still hope he returns to form (and I have yet to see The Fantastic Mr. Fox).

152. Walk the Line (James Mangold, 2005) - For someone who is, at least to the general public, a relative no-name, James Mangold has made a surprising number of appearances on my list. Joaquin Phoenix was superb, in my estimation, which makes his decision to go insane and quit acting all the more unbelievable. But at least he produced this movie, which I think sensationalizes Johnny Cash's life a little much, nudging it a bit from expository towards entertaining. Phoenix's singing, though, is uncanny.

151. Millions (Danny Boyle, 2004) - Supposedly a fantastical family movie, Millions is actually a smart picture that anyone can appreciate, regardless of age. Seemingly an odd follow-up to 28 Days Later, Millions tells the story of an unpopular and imaginative boy (Alex Etel) who finds an enormous bag full of money while playing near the train tracks outside his family home. The concept is well-devised, situated around the transfer of Pounds to Euros and how the boy and his family play modern-day Robin Hood for a short time. It's a pretty moving story about togetherness, with or without the magical realism of miracles. Well done and hits on a lot of points you might not expect for a "family" film.

Well. There you have them. #175-151. Nothing too sensational, with the exception perhaps of Lord of the Rings. If you haven't seen some of the movies I've listed here and are the least interested, I definitely suggest checking them out.

It's taking me a while to rank these, but hopefully I'll get #150-126 out soon, before the decade really is over.

#030 - Top 200 Movies of the Decade (200-176)

Before I get started, I think I need to clarify a few things.

A) I have not seen every single movie this decade. I haven't even seen Inglorious Basterds. And while Jon might not understand how that's possible, it's true. Other sites out there, other critics, have seen way more movies than I have this decade, and can make a more comprehensive list than I can.

B) As a follow up, I'd like to apologize to Sherlock Holmes, which hasn't come out yet. And Avatar, which I haven't seen (but don't think looks that good anyway). And any other movie that has yet to open that might end up being fantastic. And Amelie, which I still have yet to see (and I know this is considered a crime by many). And Gangs of New York. So if there's a movie that seems like it should be an OBVIOUS addition to the list, but you don't see it, chances are I just haven't seen it yet. Or maybe I have seen it, and I just didn't think it was that great.

C) I haven't seen any Harry Potter movies, so don't get your panties in a bunch if you don't see them here. I also haven't seen any of the new Star Wars movies (I - III).

D) While some awards, like the Golden Globes (and to an extent, the Oscars) don't like to group all different kinds of movies together, I do. So this list does not exclude animated movies, documentaries, foreign movies, or, you know, "comic book movies which don't deserve Oscars". They're all in here. Though I suppose I don't include any shorts. So forgive me for that.

E) I've found it to be exceedingly hard to rank these movies. I built a program to help me out with this task, but that can only go so far. As such, this list is a generalization. Movies that find themselves in certain groups (ie Top 20) do belong in that group. But along the way, given how difficult the challenge is, I might have an instance where I flip flop on say, #123 and #124, and can't decide which I really like better. If you think it's easier than I'm making it out to be, try doing it sometime.

F) I'm open to discussion (argument). In fact, I think that's the whole purpose of doing these lists. To incite argument.

Here goes:

Honorable Mention:

205. Off the Black (James Ponsoldt, 2005)

204. Best In Show (Christopher Guest, 2000)

203. The Shape of Things (Neil LaBute, 2003)

202. Asylum (David Mackenzie, 2005)

201. Venus (Roger Michell, 2006)

200. Radio (Michael Tollin, 2003) - I don't think I've heard of anyone who dislikes this movie. It was a pretty touching story, well done, even if it didn't do anything new. A good family film.

199. Wendy and Lucy (Kelly Reichardt, 2008) - Compared to what some critics thought of this movie, this is a poor ranking for it. I thought it was good, I thought Michelle Williams was believable and strong in this performance, but it wasn't really the epic breakthrough I think many people claimed it was. A quaint little story, but not enough happened for it to really be worth a second view.

198. The History Boys (Nicholas Hytner, 2006) - A good English film adapted from a stage play. Probably a who's who of young British actors, but since we don't live there, they're not all that recognizable. I thought the students' character definitions were too loose, but a terrific performance by the boys' primary teacher, Hector (Richard Griffiths).

197. A Mighty Wind (Christopher Guest, 2003) - Already the second Guest movie to appear here. It was clever and amusing, but for me rarely laugh-out-loud funny. I know some people really love this movie--and his movies in general--but I guess it's just not my totally my thing.

196. Notes on a Scandal (Richard Eyre, 2006) - I have to admit. I actually had this ranked higher, but at the last second, moved it down a little, particularly because I realized that, while well executed and well acted, there wasn't that much memorable about the film (other than Phillip Glass's score). Judi Dench is creepy and sad, Cate Blanchett is solid (but a little bit unbelievable). Well-deserving of it's nominations, but rightly so did not win.

195. Bad Guy (Nabbeun Namja) (Ki-duk Kim, 2001) - Korean movie with a well crafted story, and nicely shot. I had some issues with the main character, a mute and borderline abusive hero/anti-hero, but overall it didn't take away from the concept of the film. Certainly interesting.

194. Rudo y Cursi (Carlos Cuaron, 2008) - First film by Alfonso's brother to make a splash in the US, pairing Gael Garcia Bernal and Diego Luna again, this time as brothers and competing soccer stars. It was obvious that they were lacking in functional soccer choreography, but the on-field action wasn't really the main focus of the story anyway. It was a good character-driven piece that made you feel both sympathy and disdain for the two brothers.

193. Ghost World (Terry Zwigoff, 2000) - This is the weird comic book movie that seems nothing like a comic book that will probably be best known for introducing Scarlett Johansson as a young woman. Buscemi really carries this movie. Unfortunately he's kind of perfect to play a loner, or a bit of a creep.

192. Remember the Titans (Boaz Yakin, 2000) - Denzel Washington's first appearance of many on this countdown. All around good movie, I don't think there are many people out there who would argue with it. I think some people might consider Friday Night Lights to have surpassed in, in terms of a football movie, but I disagree. Maybe the action on the field was more realistic and updated, but I like the story of Titans a lot--even if it seems like a too pleasant imagining of racial relationships in the South at the time.

191. Lost In Translation (Sofia Coppola, 2003) - I think by this rank you can tell I didn't love this movie as much as some other people did. My dad actually walked out of it halfway through (I guess it wasn't his take on a "Bill Murray movie") and I have to believe for a lot of people it didn't match the long-established image of Murray. But I think it did open the door to the new Murray--even drier, angsty, and introspective. And the interaction with the Tokyo landscape was phenomenal.

190. Napoleon Dynamite (Jared Hess, 2004) - Admit it, Napoleon Dynamite was huge when it came out. Everyone was doing the "gosh" thing, asking for chapstick, and saying "Your mom goes to college." It was an oddity for the time, when comedies were trying to up the ante by being raunchier and more exploitative, Dynamite comes along and flips the convention on it's head. It seems like it was written by twelve year olds, and maybe that's why it was so funny--because everyone could appreciate the simplicity of the humor.

189. Mean Creek (Jacob Aaron Estes, 2004) - Uncomfortable. It's hard to watch this movie and not feel uncomfortable the whole way through. You just know bad things are going to happen. And eventually they do. And it seems like one of those easily preventable situations. You want to jump in and tell these kids to stop being so cruel and petty, but in the end, they're kids, and that's what they do. Josh Peck was too perfect for the role of needling fat kid George, and even he probably looks back and feels a little bit sad for himself at that age.

188. Tape (Richard Linklater, 2001) - Linklater has pretty much established himself as the guy who can make movies about people sitting around talking. And Tape is a great example of this. The whole movie takes place inside one room, with only three characters, and you learn so much and feel so much disgust for them throughout the course of the movie that they become real. Ethan Hawke at his sickest and most reprehensible.

187. Ice Age (Chris Wedge, 2002) - Come on. Everyone likes this movie. It's fun, it's funny, and that little squirrel who runs around is pretty much everyone's favorite character. It wasn't ground breaking by any means, but it has a good story that keeps your attention, clever sequences, and nice life lessons for both children and adults. What's not to like?

186. Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (George Clooney, 2002) - Every nice life lesson from Ice Age is probably undone by this movie. About TV producer Chuck Barris's supposed "secret life as a CIA agent", it's vulgar, filthy, and questionable, which of course means it's a great time. Funny and not poorly constructed, Clooney's first directorial feature was memorable. But most of the credit here would go to Charlie Kaufman's writing and Sam Rockwell's spot-on performance.

185. Bread and Roses (Ken Loach, 2000) - I saw this as part of a class which focused on Ken Loach and his experimental realism. It stars Adrien Brody before he was Adrien Brody, and a bunch of no-name Latin American actors as immigrant janitorial workers trying to unionize in a large Los Angeles office building. It is especially notable for a powerful scene between two struggling sisters, arguing over the difficulties they've faced making it in America, and for the strong performances by actors who had little to no previous screen experience. And turns out Brody was pretty solid even as a normal guy, and not an eccentric.

184. Boiler Room (Ben Younger, 2000) - It comes off as a complete vanity piece, with little to no redeeming value, but I really enjoy this movie. I think Giovanni Ribisi is a really polarizing actor--with more people falling on the side of "dislike"--but he seems well-fit for his role as a naive stock broker in a too-good-to-be-true company. The overloaded machismo fits a lot of the name actors, despite their relatively small roles, and in light of recent Ponzi scheme scandals, the concept takes on devilish new layers.

183. For Your Consideration (Christopher Guest, 2006) - Again, another Guest piece. I thought this was the strongest of them, quite amusing and very on-point in regards to the way actors treat potential Oscar consideration. It seemed the most realistic of the mockumentaries, even though it's getting a little difficult to separate all the same recurring actors from their supposed characters.

182. Antwone Fisher (Denzel Washington, 2002) - Hailed as Denzel's directorial debut, and Derek Luke's coming out party. It ended up being one of Denzel's weaker acting jobs, perhaps because he was splitting his time so thin, but Derek Luke was pretty impressive, and the story is sympathetic. Pretty painful scenes when he returns to confront his family.

181. Igby Goes Down (Burr Steers, 2002) - One of the many coming-of-age indie stories throughout the decade that sported a mixed bag of casting decisions and characters who "just want to be normal". It kind of makes you think that writers and artists out there all come from fractured childhoods and just want to be loved and mothered. But at least this one was entertaining. I think a lot of people thought Keiran Culkin was going to explode after this movie, but surprisingly he hasn't been in a whole lot since. Goldblum is enjoyable, as always.

180. House of Sand and Fog (Vadim Perelman, 2003) - This movie came out with a lot of hype, a good cast (Ben Kingsley, Jennifer Connelly), but it kind of got lost in the shuffle after it left theaters, popping back up thanks to Shohreh Aghdashloo's deserved end-of-year kudos. It's a really emotional movie, though in some situations I think they're trying too hard to make it that way. In the end you just find yourself feeling bad for all the characters.

179. District B13 (Banlieue 13) (Pierre Morel, 2004) - A French film that leaned heavily on parkour and the acrobatic martial arts of its actors, one of the very few non-Asian films that used real stunts in an impressive manner. The story was pretty solid, featuring a dystopian future Paris (of the year 2010... something tells me it won't end up looking like this next year) that has closed off District B13 and all its criminals and miscreants. It's pleasantly short enough (84 mins) to keep the action rolling and intensity up without overwhelming you.

178. Anchorman (Adam McKay, 2004) - I found it tough to rank the top comedies of the decade, including Anchorman, which for about six months dominated movie quoting and provided ample rewatchability. Even now the one-liners still work, despite being circulated for five years. Will Ferrell at his odd best, actually playing a character (albeit a relatively thin one) instead of Will-Ferrell-as-obscure-athlete-du-jour.

177. Finding Forrester (Gus Van Sant, 2000) - Look, I'll admit it. It's almost impossible to separate this movie from the now infamous "You're the man now, dog" line that has permeated the internet as ytmnd.com. But I like this movie. It has a kind of bizarre cast--Anna Paquin, Michael Pitt, no-name Rob Brown, Sean Connery, Busta Rhymes--but I like the overachiever storyline and it's interesting to see Connery play a vulnerable old man instead of a ruthless hero like he almost always is. It may have a ridiculously outdated take on urban culture, but it's a good movie. I love the scene where Jamal explains the history of the BMW logo, "but you probably already knew that."

176. The King (James Marsh, 2005) - A peculiar movie that opened to little fanfare starring Gael Garcia Bernal as a decommissioned soldier and William Hurt as his long-lost father, who completely disowns him on sight. The story is a bit twisted, as Elvis (Bernal) tries and tries to win the favor of David (Hurt), alternating between sweet sincere attempts and questionable, sometimes violent outbursts. The role seemed a bit of a challenge for Bernal, and I think he succeeded, though not quite as well as he has in other films. It's a film that's worth seeing, even if you have a hard time accepting the events of the plot.

I'll try to post #175-151 as soon as I can.

Merry Christmas, everyone. Or if you don't celebrate, I'd still like it if you enjoy your day.

#029 - Up In The Air (2009)

Director: Jason Reitman

Writer: Jason Reitman & Sheldon Turner (from a book by Walter Kirn)

Runtime: 109 min.

George Clooney has mastered charm and detachedness. Bruce Wayne, Danny Ocean, Archie Gates, Michael Clayton. They all ran with Clooney's signature suave, the type of guy who you would think has a lot of good friends but not a best friend, has all the women in the world but doesn't love any, and likely doesn't even have any brothers, sisters, or parents that still check in on him. That's his character. He's like a bionic social tiger, preying on the weak, stalking his way to the top of the status ladder without breaking a sweat. He's been doing it for years. So who better to play Ryan Bingham, Up In The Air's leading man, who takes these concepts and turns them into craft. He's a little like T-1000. Incredibly successful, a shapeshifter who can be convincing in any environment, but in the end he's vulnerable to some very simple weaknesses. Oh, and neither is exactly the type to attract friends.

Ryan fires people for a living. He does it well. He's kind, gentle, professional. But his boss (Jason Bateman, who doesn't even attempt a joke, not one) wants to give some of the reins over to snappy little college grad Natalie (Anna Kendrick), who has sort of a modern steamroll approach to firing. Impersonal. Bingham balks. So the highers-up decide that he's going to take her on the road and show her the ropes. And thus, we have a storyline. So Ryan gives her the grand tour, a life which she finds to be more or less pathetic and sad. No friends, no emotions, no love. Her criticism is actually kind of odd, since her character professional is so robotic and rigid, but maybe that's the point. Underneath the other parts of the story, the theme is basic--two characters teaching each other lessons. He teaches her how to be more compassionate and sympathetic in the working world, she teaches him how to open himself up to interpersonal relationships. Which he does, with his fly-by-night, layover-lay of a girlfriend, Alex (Vera Farmiga, about as stunning and charming as she's ever been). After the midway point, the characters take their lessons and apply them, Ryan pursuing love, and Natalie pursuing new career approaches.

I apologize if that sentence was a little sterile or uninspired. I wanted to give a little run through about the storyline of the film, without being too specific or too bland, and without revealing too many details. Really I think the film was well made. The most outstanding parts to me were the interviews, the firings, the short sequences where Ryan and Natalie would sit face-to-face (or computer-to-computer) with the employees and let them go. They were quite touching, seemed to be very much based on empirical observation. And the progression of the story was executed almost flawlessly. It wasn't too fast or too slow, didn't jump around, it was easy to follow from start to finish.

But there's something about the movie that's making me view it, perhaps unfairly, with a negative bias.

It's already mid-December, and the Golden Globe nominees are being announced, and it's struck me during the process of writing this review that, really, this is the best that we have to offer so far? A middle of the road dramedy, well acted and well written that hits on its notes, but doesn't have a ton of re-watchability, and doesn't leave an overwhelming lasting impression (aside from the closing credits song choice--fantastic)? It's disappointing. In years past, we had films like There Will Be Blood have to take a close second to No Country For Old Men in every category, even though in any other year it would have been good enough to win the Oscar. We had films like The Dark Knight not even receive a nomination, because the Academy is too narrow-focused to include such "popcorn fodder" in its prestigious ceremony (oh, my bad, I forgot Christopher Nolan = Michael Bay). Brokeback Mountain didn't win. Babel, The Pianist, Traffic. All runners-up. The Prestige wasn't even nominated (crime of the century--hmm, the Academy just hates Nolan). Neither were Requiem for a Dream, Fight Club, Eternal Sunshine for the Spotless Mind. Recent history is littered with films that were overlooked on Oscar ballots. This year, even though it's not completely over, it seems as if there's no discretion, and every moderately successful film is thrown into the spotlight as a potential Best Picture contender. Was Up in the Air a good movie? Certainly. It was well done, and certainly a step up on the "serious movie" scale for Jason Reitman, who tasted a bit of Oscar seasoning with Juno. But was it the best movie of the year? I don't know. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. But it reinforces the fact that "movie of the year" is intensely subjective, both in taste and time frame. This year was likely hit hard by last year's writer's strike (or at least I can tell myself that to make up for the lack of quality), but that doesn't overshadow the fact that sometimes Best Picture winners come in the back door, instead of fighting their way through the front. Personally, I'll let time be the judge, and not Academy voters who can usually only see as far back as November (except for you, Crash!).

That's not to say I'm discouraging you from seeing this movie. I really did enjoy it, and it had enough funny and emotional parts to satisfy both needs, so do yourself a favor and check it out. But when you're done checking it out, come back and tell me if you think it was truly the year's best--or if you think it could contend with some of those famous snubs I listed above.

#028 - NEXT Cops Out

ESPN the Magazine's NEXT issue has been released. And as soon as I got a good look at the first two candidates, I knew that they had gone soft on their "bold" predictions--the top of the list looks more like NOW than NEXT. Here's a run down:

1. Kevin Durant, F, Oklahoma City Thunder

2. Chris Johnson, RB, Tennessee Titans

3. John Wall, G, Kentucky Wildcats

4. Stephen Strasburg, P, Washington Nationals

5. Melanie Oudin, Women's Tennis

6. Giuseppe Rossi, F, Italy/Villareal

7. Darrelle Revis, CB, New York Jets

8. Ndamukong Suh, DE, Nebraska Cornhuskers

9. Gordon Beckham, SS, Chicago White Sox

10. Bobby Ryan, RW, Anaheim Ducks

11. Jake Locker, QB, Washington Huskies

12. Jason Heyward, OF, Atlanta Braves

13. Australian National Soccer Team

14. Simona De Silvestro, Car Racing

15. JR Celski, Speed Skating

16. Derrick Favors, F, Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets

17. Rory McIlroy, Men's Golf

18. Juan Martin Del Potro, Men's Tennis

19. Ellery Hollingsworth, Snowboarding

20. Arthur Jones, DT, Syracuse Orangemen

20. Chandler Jones, DE, Syracuse Orangemen

20. Jon Jones, MMA

Scanning down the list, certainly there were some names I had never seen before--Rossi, for instance (I may be a little ignorant on soccer, especially individual players), Celski (speed skating, really?) and Hollingsworth (Shaun White is as far as I go). But if there are names you don't recognize, it's likely because they play a sport you don't really care about. If you do care about it, you're likely to know them--and with today's snap judgment media tidal waves, you probably are already sick of hearing how great they will be.

Kevin Durant? Seriously? He's NEXT? Last I checked (which was five seconds ago) he was 4th in the NBA in scoring at 27.7 points per game. And this is not even new. Last year, he averaged 25.3 points per game. And before that, 20.3 as a 19-year old rookie. So what exactly does it mean to be NEXT for him? 40 points a game? He's already in the NBA, against the world's greatest players, and he's damned well holding his own.

The same can be said for Chris Johnson. If you have seen any football this year--or at the least any fantasy football--you know about this guy. Oh, and you knew about him LAST year, when he rushed for 1228 yards and 9 scores in 15 games for a division-winning Titans team. THIS year, he's leading the league in rushing--1396 yards and 9 touchdowns, despite his team's 0-6 start and having to play in games like the 59-0 loss to New England. Steven Jackson is second in the league in rushing with 1120 yards. That's right. 276 yards behind. Through 11 games. Johnson's not just leading the league, he's running circles around it. He has 312 more yards than Adrian Peterson (THE Adrian Peterson) despite 13 less carries--though he certainly could have MORE carries if he didn't always run 80 yards when he touches the ball.

As for Wall? He's been everyone's favorite college cover boy for about a year and a half. Where will he go? (Kentucky) How long will he stay? (One year) Why does he dunk so hard? (The shoes). He's already got the reputation as being "the" guy. So what news is it to announce him as NEXT?

And Darrelle Revis? I think he should be downright offended by his positioning. #7 on this list, even though there have been articles out about him being the best cover corner in the NFL since October? If you're a cornerback, and people say you're the best cornerback, where is there to go from there? I'm confused. (Deion: "The Yankees." Champ: "Offense." Nnamdi: "A real team.") Revis might have been a worthy candidate last year, or maybe two years ago, but at this stage, it's barely even useful to list him there.

I just think they've gotten flat with their coverage. They work all year, scouting, talking to people, interviewing players, coaches, those in the know, trying to find who the coming year's (and years') huge stars are going to be--but most of the time, they cop out. No-brainers. It doesn't do a whole lot to put a guy on the cover with the word "NEXT" underneath him when he's already been on tons of covers. They're not making a whole lot of noise--and even worse, they have no upside to their selections. When people look back on their previous "NEXT" picks, they either look foolish (Kazuo Matsui? I mean, yeah, he's okay... but...) or they were such obvious, beat-you-over-the-head choices that the only likely response is "Yeah but everyone knew that" (LeBron James, Patrick Willis, Dwight Howard). By digging deeper, finding some hidden gems that nobody knows about, you open up a whole bunch of new possibilities--either the players hit it big, which gains instant credibility ("We saw him first") and sheds a little more about what makes him go. Or, the flip side, the athlete crashes and burns, which also leads to a more lasting legacy, in the Brien Taylor or Ryan Leaf mold, with the potential for a one-hour special down the road investigating the failures of these once-promising yearlings. Either way, you're adding a little bit more fuel to the fire than making these easy, hand-delivered picks. Their list might make a little more sense in a wide-purpose publication, like the New York Times, or on 60 Minutes, or an antiquated website like CNNSi. But ESPN should consider its user base, and also the fact that the article is only privy to online Insider subscribers, a set of readers (like myself) who probably check in more than once a year, and have already been inundated with coverage on these athletes.

But I do love me some Kevin Durant, so...

#027 - Brief Interviews With Hideous Men (2009)

Director: John Krasinski

Writer: John Krasinski (from story by David Foster Wallace)

Runtime: 80 min

I have to admit, I've never read anything by David Foster Wallace, which probably puts me a little bit behind the 8 ball on my perception of the movie. But from what I've read, it seems like it was a difficult book to try and make into a movie, seeing as it contained fairly disparate stories from many sources. Well, it turns out, maybe it didn't make for the best movie idea.

I'm a huge fan of John Krasinski, really, I mean it's hard for me to separate the actor from the character Jim Halpert, but from what I've seen, he's a very intelligent guy with a lot of interest across the board in the arts. Thus, his bold attempt to adapt this collection of stories to the big screen. And I applaud the effort, but to be honest, it seems a little bit like he was trying to do too much, trying to be a little too fancy. The first 60 minutes of this short feature are slow and without much pop. The lead actress, Julianne Nicholson (playing Sara Quinn), has perfected the doe-eyed expression, but she hardly does anything in the movie, hardly even speaks. She does a lot of sitting and looking out of windows, she always seems to be caught off guard lost in thought (whenever anyone addresses her, she has to snap out of her own world--"Sorry, what?"). Perhaps that's exactly what she's supposed to do, but it just doesn't make the story very compelling. I knew going into it that the plot of the film (a graduate student interviews men as a result of a breakup) but without that prior knowledge it would have been a little difficult to pick up on it.

Towards the end, the impetus of the story comes to light a little bit, a valiant attempt to redeem itself, as Krasinski himself sits in front of Sara and explains to her the heartbreaking revelation he experienced while cheating on her. As far as movie monologues go, Krasinski turned in a decent one, but the story he tells, while moving, is kind of contradictory and exploitative, and just left me with a bit of an unsettled feeling--like I was missing the point.

I hate to be so negative about a movie, I really do, but after all was said and done I'm not sure I found a lot to take from it. Some of the interviews were charming and interesting, particularly one by an aging African-American man (Frankie Faison) who tells about his workaholic and socially underappreciated father (Malcolm Goodwin). But aside from those vignettes, the main thread of the film was fairly imprecise. It was not a failure, necessarily--a good first feature on the other side of the camera for Krasinski, but it wasn't terrific either. As a side note, Ben Gibbard (of Death Cab and Postal Service fame) makes an appearance as a friend in the film, and while I appreciate the man's many musical talents, he had a really weird on screen presence. I'm not totally excited for his next role.

#026 - Philadelphians Rejoice! Grumble!

I've been tossing around ideas for a new blog post, partially because I feel like it's been a while here and my fans are starving for more. (I kid, I kid--honestly, I don't really think that. I'd rather not be as self-blog-centered as I've started to become.) But it's been tough. What is there to discuss? The new health care bill? Well I for one don't have sixty free years to read it, so I think that's out. The hottest winter fashion trends? Global warming? My own sleep cycle? My constant battle with mice in my apartment (don't get me started)?

I don't know. I don't want to be so completely absorbed to think that anything I write people would have interest in. Especially if it's something that only revolves around me, like how I fold my clothes or which jeans I feel give my figure the biggest boost. So there were a couple topics that seemed completely reasonable to discuss--the World Series, football, SEPTA--and all of them had a pretty distinct focus on Philadelphia for the last week or so, which means I was right in the heat of the action.

REJOICE!

The Phils have made it back to the Series. Congratulations. As has been covered here time and time again, I'm not a Phillies fan. So I'm not really happy, nor really disappointed by these events. They played the Dodgers again, they whipped the Dodgers again, this storyline is getting old. Unfortunately this year I didn't even have the Rays to root for. A Yankees-Phils World Series is testing my gag reflex.

REJOICE!

The Eagles took down the Giants big time in a battle of the top NFC East teams, 40-17. It was such a thorough annihilation that I'm not sure what to take of it--either the Giants suck bad or the Eagles had one of those "put it all together" games. Whether or not you like the Eagles, you have to admit, when they have a "put it all together" game, they're pretty much unbeatable. It's just it seems to happen very infrequently. (But it's the infrequent times that it happens that leads everyone, including sportswriters nationwide, to pencil them in as their "surprise" Super Bowl pick. Until they check the columns and see that everyone has them. Can we stop this please? What about last year's 9-6-1 record has everyone thinking we'll be heading to South Florida this winter?)

All told, solid game. Who cares if I thought the Giants +1 would be a good bet in this game? I'll take it.

GRUMBLE!

My sincerest apologies go out to all the Phillies fans. It was a tough break. The Yankees had something of a juggernaut going, even though I think each one of their players is immensely overvalued, they're still well above average and combined to make the best roster in the league. (A payroll that rivaled some national economies didn't hurt--Falkland Islands, scorched! You're next, Saint Kitts and Saint Vincent.) As it is, it's an impressive feat to reach the World Series in consecutive years, and to win one is even more impressive.

The one thing I think all Phillies fans should take home from this series is that they mopped the floor with Yankees fans. You can blame lots of things for this--Yankees seats are absurdly priced, and I would absolutely throw a fit if I was a Yankees fan (then again I'd have no self-respect, so maybe I wouldn't), so it's a little unfair to point the finger at the fans for not showing up. But still. It's the World Series. If you're not excited for it, find a new team. And if you're at the game, make some noise. If people in New York didn't have money to afford these kinds of things, the team wouldn't be the global giant that it is.

(Also, I don't mean to mislead anyone, that "sincerest apologies" thing was just for show. You shouldn't feel sad about finishing #2 out of 30. I have no sympathy.)

GRUMBLE!

SEPTA goes on strike. Oh glorious day! My roommate, Jon, came into my room at 7:30 to announce to me that SEPTA had gone on strike and that I should probably get up earlier so I could get to work on time. Do you think this is what I want to hear when I first open my eyes in the morning? Seriously. What the shit?

I don't really know a whole lot about why they went on strike, but all I've gathered is some bits and pieces here and there. I could go the professional route and actually do the research, but instead I'll just feed you those delicious morsels here and see if anything trickles back to me--

What I've heard is that SEPTA workers (who get paid on average $54,000 a year) are not happy with a couple things: Their pensions haven't gone up, the state isn't issuing them raises this year, and the income they produce is being filtered by the state government into other projects, even ones in other states. That last bit is something I heard on a public service announcement by the union leader while watching television this weekend. He seemed very upset that "their money" was going to "other states". Is that what it is? Really? Because it's going to other states? Or is it just that it's not going into your pocket?

Governor Rendell seemed completely miffed by this whole deal. From what I've heard, the last contract the state offered SEPTA was to include 11 percent wage increases over the next 5 years, but none this year as the economy is clearly faltering. Apparently they walked out on that deal, claiming they wanted a 4-year contract with 2 percent increases annually. So let me get this straight: 11 percent over 5 years or 8 percent over 4 years, and they picked the latter? It'd really be nice to get an explanation on this from the union leaders, you know, so I can learn why I spent an extra hour each day walking to and from work (and to be honest, that was on the SHORTER end of the time cost spectrum for city residents). WHO is getting raises this year? Really? Half the states economies are in the toilet, everyone else is treading water, and instead of being promised a raise next year, they close down all public transit and demand a raise this year? I'm sorry, I know I don't have all the facts in this case, but that just seems completely irresponsible.

On top of it, I'm sure the only ones who are really affected by this are the union chiefs, the guys who sit in the offices all day taking phone calls. The drivers and mechanics getting their hands dirty at 5 AM every morning won't see enough of an increase to make a difference. And I'm sure they'd rather just get back to work as soon as they can to avoid any potential loss--and the ill will they're very likely to receive for the next few weeks as riders come down from their anti-SEPTA tantrums.

Either way, I'm not happy about this. Regional rail lines were up to 3 hours on Friday, when I was trying to get to the suburbs to visit my family. And that's just a one time occurrence. I can only imagine what it was like for people who were trying to do that EVERY day. Unreal.

GRUMBLE!

Everyone and their grandmom were psyched for the showdown Sunday night at home versus the Cowboys. Two teams sitting at 5-2 with the division lead at stake, the Eagles coming off a huge victory over the Giants last week, and Tony Romo's noted big game jinx coming to town.

Then they pooped the bed.

Like I said, the Eagles have those "put it all together" games only once in a while--typically when people aren't expecting much of them. But when they flash their brilliant side, it's likely they'll come back with a less than stellar performance the next week. And not only did they lose to the Cowboys, but they lost to the Cowboys at home. On Sunday Night Football. With the sole division lead at their fingertips.

Last year, in a pretty identical scenario, we spanked the Boys 44-6 and tiptoed into the playoffs at 9-6-1. This year, we looked like we just had some screws loose. Andy Reid challenged two spots of the ball (and admittedly, the second one, the 4th down sneak, looked like highway robbery as Donovan's arm came to rest with the ball in his hand but the refs promptly moved it back 12 inches) and made the decision to kick a field goal with 4:30 left on the clock, down 7 with no timeouts. Down 6, I could almost see the validity of this move (or down 9), but down 7? I just didn't get it. It still put us in need of a touchdown with no way to stop the clock. The Cowboys needed one first down on their ensuing possession to crush our hopes, and two would seal the game. Well, they got their first downs.

Donovan looked imprecise during the game. Not horrible, despite his two picks (one of which definitely wasn't his fault)--just a little bit off. DeSean didn't get involved, and I can't say for certain it was because the defense made a concerted effort to lock him down. It just seemed like we ran no plays. The Cowboys were moving the ball with a running game and short passes, and although they didn't score a lot, they drained the clock, while the Eagles were getting stopped on a bunch of 3rd & shorts, or shooting ourselves in the foot with dropped passes and false starts.

As an interesting side note, though, they announced during the game that as of Sunday, McNabb was the NFL all time leader in interception percentage. The dude just doesn't turn the ball over. And though he threw 2 of them on Sunday, note that the first went directly off of rookie Maclin's hands and floated ten yards before being snagged. Say what you will about McNabb, but I'm just going to chalk up another tally on my own personal "Why I Love McNabb" scoreboard.

REJOICE!

The SEPTA strike ended on Monday, though I wasn't aware of it until after I had already gotten to work, which means I was SOL on the morning subway commute. I had started to grow somewhat fond of the walk. It was refreshing in the morning, when I needed to wake up, and the weather recently hadn't been too bad. However, it made me incredibly hungry by the time I got to work, and going home after the 8-hour day wasn't much fun (plus 40th St. is quite a bit uphill from 19th St.).

After reading an Inquirer synopsis of the agreement, I'm not sure what the union workers gained from the strike. It seems like there's an increase in maximum pension contribution, but again, anything with the word "maximum" probably only affects a small number of SEPTA employees, and I doubt the everyday worker has seen any change in their pay stubs. I have to admit I'm not entirely sold on the concept of unions, and while it might be somewhat naive of me to say that, from my experience there has only been a slew of negatives surrounding them--with very, very few positives to offset them. And really it's hard to blame the workers themselves. They sort of have to take what is handed to them. If the union leaders strike, they strike, if they go back to work, they go back to work. These workers all have bosses in their everyday jobs, and in addition, they're paying out money for someone to manage them. You can criticize my viewpoint on this topic if you want, that'd be fair, but something so far rubs me the wrong way. Maybe if I was in a union, I'd feel differently, but I'd certainly like to do more research into this before I stick my foot in my mouth.

In any event, SEPTA's back, I can take the subway home, I'm left scratching my head a little bit about why it happened in the first place, but now I at least have fare hikes to look forward to in 2010--even though Philadelphia fares are already among the highest in the nation. Hooray!

And, finally, but much less seriously...

GRUMBLE!

The Philadelphia Passion lost its home opener in the Lingerie Football League to the Miami Caliente, 37-26. This right on the heels of a dominating victory over the New York Majesty 40-6 (hmm, sounds familiar). Males might have interest in checking out this gallery, though I, for one, find it shameless.

#025 - A Serious Man (2009)

Director: Joel & Ethan Coen

Writer: Joel & Ethan Coen

Runtime: 105 min.

I have to be honest. I needed a little bit of help with this one. I'm about as big a Coen Brothers fan as there is--I've seen all of their writing/directing credits with the exception of 1985's formerly Sam Raimi-helmed Crimewave and the vignette compilation To Each His Own Cinema--but I wasn't immediately able to pick up on what exactly made this movie so clever or charming. So I took to the reviews. I pulled up Metacritic and browsed, read a few and tried to gauge what the general reaction was to this one. To be blunt, it sounds like a lot of critics thought this film was hilarious but can't really explain why.

Hmm.

Have the Coens so thoroughly outdone themselves year in and year out that now people take for granted the fact that their films are going to be fantastic? I found The Ladykillers to be a bit of a throw away marked by an absurd Tom Hanks spawn and Burn After Reading to be generally goofy but largely unmemorable. Otherwise, look at the list--Fargo, No Country For Old Men, The Big Lebowski, Barton Fink, Raising Arizona--upon presenting these titles to a couple friends of mine, their jaws just dropped continually further: "They did ALL of those?!" I even told them straight out that I didn't particularly know what the story was behind A Serious Man but I knew it was the Coens so I was going anyway. It wasn't the eye-opening experience that seeing No Country For Old Men was, but I certainly wasn't disappointed. Judging from the landscape of professional reviews, however, I'm not so sure if critics aren't just lapping up the Coen Kool-Aid without giving it a second thought.

And I kind of think they know this.

The story centers on Larry Gopnik (renowned theatre actor Michael Stuhlbarg), a college professor whose life seems to be heading right into the crapper. His wife wants a divorce, his children are insufferable brats, and his brother moves in and blankets his house with multiple legal and medical issues. He's even being blackmailed by a physics student and heckled by an anonymous opponent to his tenure review. There are tons of negative things going on, but they are handled in a very realistic and subtle fashion, and Stuhlbarg expertly absorbs them all with a near constant expression of "you've got to be shitting me".

More than anything, after the movie was over, while trying to collect my thoughts, I kept looping through one specific concept: Here's a movie where the Coens grab us by the collar and say, "We're going to mess with your head, and make you feel what we want you to feel." They were flexing their filmmaking muscles. And not just for you to "ooo" and "aah" over, but rather for you to be pulled along for the ride and whipped in any direction they so choose. One review I saw made a strange claim that it was a comedy film that was shot and scored as if it was horror. Strange, that is, until after I saw the movie, at which point I decided, "Holy crap they're right." With lots of angled close-ups and slow camera movement, and slow, deliberate motions by the actors, they created a really tense atmosphere even though the story was easily one that they could have made into a slapstick comedy. It seemed like a forceful hand--"We know how to make you feel dread, so we'll make you feel dread." As far as I'm concerned, it worked to a T. There was something ominous sort of bubbling along underneath the storyline, I felt uncomfortable, I felt like the story was going to rip apart at its seams and spiral out of control. But instead of spiraling, it was more of a merry-go-round, slowly bobbing its way around and around, coming to enough points of equilibrium to make you think that there was going to be a final resolution (or--look away!--a happy ending).

The movie definitely puts the Coen Brothers' strong grasp of suburban society on full display, maybe even more so than any of their previous films (though Fargo and Raising Arizona were quite sharp). Usually, I feel like their stories involve characters or actions that are quite out of the ordinary, and maybe that's what some people dislike about this movie--that nothing spectacular is going on, that we can all identify with his life and sympathize with him without being tickled by voyeurism of the extravagant. I was particularly fond of Larry's interactions with Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed), the man for whom his wife has chosen to leave. Just watching him being forced to sit down and talk about the logistics of a separation and remarriage gave me a bit of a burning sensation in my chest, sympathizing with Larry. It's funny, but cruel, and as one event snowballed into another, I really found myself adopting that same "you've got to be shitting me" look.

In all, it probably wasn't one of their most memorable films. I doubt it'll produce a strong cult following or ignite a recital of one-liners, but it served as a very good cinematic exercise for the already phenomenally accomplished brothers. They re-worked their strongest muscles and even made time for a few new ones. And I, like a lot of Coen fans, have full faith that they KNOW exactly what they're doing, so while it likely won't end up on any Oscar radar, it stands as another example of how talented (and dark humored) they are as filmmakers.

#024 - Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

Director: Spike Jonze

Writer: Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers

Runtime: 101 min

In almost every review for this film, critics point out the concept that this is indeed NOT a children's movie. Drawn from one of the most memorable children's books of all time, there was an expectation that it would be a fun-filled romp that parents would love as much as their kids. Actually, it ended up being a movie made entirely for ADULTS, which just happened to be based on a children's book.

I was impressed with the movie, I really was. I had enormous expectations for it, and while it didn't necessarily surpass any of them, I think it was a really touching film with a story everyone can relate to, even if it strayed thematically from the story's basis. It didn't hit every high point I think it wanted to hit, and it certainly wasn't as well-structured as previous Jonze efforts Adaptation and Being John Malkovich (but you can argue his screenwriter for those films was simply superior). What it ended up being was a powerful display of imagination, terrific costume and CGI design, and an emotionally driven story that simplifies to the struggle of being an individual.

As far as things that were hands-down fantastic, I think it's worthwhile to right off the bat applaud the animatronic and computer-generated work of the Wild Things themselves. I think they were as close to being drawn from the collective childhood imagination as possible--not just for Max himself in the movie, but for all of us in the audience who grew up on this book and certainly crafted our own images of the creatures long ago. They were part human and part alien, playful yet emotional, and just smart enough to be useful characters without blurring the line of, "How does a child imagine such sophisticated creatures?" (Which would have been a big problem for me, since I know they're supposed to be within Max's imagination.) And the voice cast for the Wild Things was stellar--James Gandolfini, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Paul Dano, Chris Cooper. I doubt anyone could really take issue with the execution of the creatures, which is why this version might hold up as a all-time great children's movie. I also think the soundtrack, which was recorded by Karen O (of the Yeah Yeah Yeahs) and Carter Burwell (frequent Jonze and Coen Brothers collaborator), was awesome. It was just art house enough to capture the attention of twentysomethings and the Village set, but poppy and lighthearted enough to hold favor with parents and their children. And last, I want to tip my cap to the cinematography by Lance Acord (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation., and Lost In Translation). The visual flow was not at all in the vein of typical PG films, with far too many hand-held shots, closeups and muted colors, but as an adult I thought the photography was exquisite. Lots of producers these days have jumped onto the concept of hand-held cameras (see The Office and Slumdog Millionaire) for the implied level of realism it brings to the screen. Fixed cameras and wide angles would have made it feel like a soap opera or an episode of Barney, but getting up close to Max's face and trailing close behind him on point of view shots helps to bring the viewer into Max's world, and it helps to push the level of character identification that already existed.

From a story perspective, Where the Wild Things Are was not at all intended for children. Even the obvious nods to youth, like dirt clod wars and toy villages with figurine citizens, seemed to be crafted from the viewpoint of an adult looking back, rather than a boy looking forward. And the common throughline of familial tension is clearly intended for adults, since we can see Max's pain and feel it ourselves, whereas kids might be able to recognize the emotions, but not really understand why they're important to be shown in a movie. I think in a lot of ways, this film was Jonze's ode to the loss of childhood, it just happened to be framed in the story of Sendak's children's classic. I don't really find fault with this, I just think it's very likely that some viewers will go to the theater intending on seeing a retelling of their favorite childhood story, but will instead be treated to an almost painful journey of the sadness in isolation (and sad, sad giant monster eyes).

After the movie, I remarked that although I have never read any of Dave Eggers's work, I could see a lot of similarities in tone between Wild Things and Away We Go, though, when asked to explain why, I didn't have much of an answer. I suppose I wouldn't be a very worthwhile movie reviewer if I couldn't explain that kind of thing, so I thought about it, and the one phrase that kept bouncing around in my head was this: "the burden of being". I think both films are very existential in their reflection, and both revolve highly around family. The characters seem to be grasping at this idea of happiness as if it were an attainable possession, as if it were a gift they could treat themselves to forever if they could only harness it in the right way. For the Wild Things in this film, their happiness is represented by their king--in this case, Max--who promises to make everything okay and to keep out the sadness. Of course, Max is just a projection of their own inner flaws (though Jonze does tend to beat us over the head a little by revealing their flaws, often) and it takes them the course of the film to realize what all the audience realized from minute one--that their happiness is their unity, and sticking together is the only way to combat the sadness. This is quite similar, I feel, to Away We Go, when Burt and Verona undertook this journey to find a home (the Wild Things undertake a mission of BUILDING a home!) as a blanket desire to induce happiness, security, and comfort, when everything they needed was right under their noses the whole time. Maybe I'm being too general here, but at least these comparisons sort of support my claim about the movies being similarly themed. And both movies actually vacillated pretty quickly between high points and low points--this may not necessarily be Eggers's fault, but it was something I noticed that applied to both. The (surprisingly rare) moments of pure "fun" in Where the Wild Things Are often immediately disintegrated into tension, with the characters ending up crying, pouting, or walking away in disgust. Which is why I feel like I keep tracing back to the concept of "burden of being"--despite the fact that all everyone wants is to pursue these moments of unadulterated joy, I think what the filmmakers are trying to express is that we don't really NEED that joy. It's an outlet, a vice, it's not "real", and what we REALLY need is that safety net of family and loved ones to catch us when we come down off those highs. It's a pretty simple concept, but as far as film "messages" go, I don't think it's an awful one.

Overall, I'd say hit up this movie--even though I don't think my opinion is going to sway you, since it's a pretty notable movie and I'm sure most people have made up their minds on whether they want to see it. But I liked it, even though it was a pretty sad movie and overall kind of left me feeling glum. I just think that's sort of the intention of the filmmakers. So, well played, Spike. Well played.

#023 - Lessons Learned

Some would argue that this was an exciting, eventful sports weekend. Others might say it sucked beyond all comprehension. Me? Well, I'm far more "others" than "some".

Saturday's college football featured three notable turds--the Oklahoma-Texas "Red River Rivalry", Florida's ho-hum performance and late-game referee bailout, and Ohio State's steaming, fly-filled pile of dung versus Purdue. After a catastrophic performance last weekend, I vowed I would not bet college football anymore this year. Well, that turned out to be a lie. I bet it lightly, taking baby steps back into the ring, and won 3 of the 4 wagers I placed for a modest gain. And by modest, I mean, about enough to cover one meal and one drink at Ruth's Chris.

*Interesting snippet about Purdue that I noticed this morning: Drew Brees of the Saints is 5-0 this year. Kyle Orton of the Broncos is 5-0 this year. I'm sure much has been made of their Boilermaker connection and undefeatedness. But the one that most people probably didn't pick up on--former PU quarterback Curtis Painter is currently the backup to the Colts' Peyton Manning, who also sits at 5-0 for the year. And this weekend Purdue pulls off an upset of Ohio State in practically dominant fashion? Something is going on here.

Naturally, college football was just a tiny appetizer in preparation for Sunday. I pulled out very few stops with my... ahem... "friendly stakes". And of course, it was a total shitstorm. Very little reading, analyzing, or researching could have prepared ANYONE for certain events--such as:

Or, you know:

Unhappy face.

If my net return from the day were to show up on SEC filings, it would be the kind to be displayed (in parentheses). Or possibly in red ink. It was not good, friends. It was not terrible, either, as I took advantage of some early games, like the Chiefs cover and victory, the Texans cover, the Panthers victory (which Jake Delhomme made far, FAR harder than it need be--I stand by my Jeff Garcia claim. Come on, John Fox, I know you have it in you.), the Ravens cover, the plethora of points in the Saints game, and the fact that the Chiefs and Redskins was going to be one of the most horrendous displays of offense since... well, Week 5 (Hey, Derek Anderson! You won 6-3! What are you going to do next?).

Those early gains ended abruptly, though. The main culprit for the losses is certainly the Eagles. I might violate many of the textbook rules for sports betting week to week, but one of the ones that I try to avoid (and failed miserably to do this week) was putting too many eggs in one basket. My basket for this week was the Eagles. And they spoiled rotten pretty quickly, with little run defense, little run offense, an inability to convert third downs or get to the red zone, and JaMarcus Russell's finest hour since the Tampa game we hold in our hearts so dear.

Aside from the invaluable lesson re-learned about not banking too much on one team, there were a number of other things I took from the week that I hope to remember from here on out (though, will admittedly probably ignore).

1. Never Overestimate a Rookie Quarterback -- Yes, Mark Sanchez has been terrific so far this year. And nobody can argue that it was his fault they lost last Monday night to the Dolphins. Ronnie Brown and the wildcat just ripped the Jets' defense to shreds. But he's still a rookie. And the lumps will come. And like yesterday, they will sometimes (and hopefully not often) come in the form of 5 interceptions. Credit to the Jets' defense for keeping that game close--well, let's be real, credit the Bills' pathetic offense. Sanchez's quarterback rating for the game was 8.3. Which would be an impressive IMDb rating or earthquake, but this scale goes to 158.3, not 10. After a 3-0 start, the Jets are now 3-3. Which makes sense. This was a .500 team with Brett Favre this year, and coming into it, I thought they were about a .500 team with Sanchez, if not a little worse. He's been better than expected, but I doubt I will see many more -10 point lines for the Jets as the season goes on.

2. When There's Weather, Advantage to the Team That's Used to It -- Sure, the Titans have played in snow before. And as late as last year, their smashmouth, defense-oriented style of football would have been perfect for the snow. But snow in Foxboro? That's Tom Brady territory. That's Bill Belichick territory. They've been there, they've done that all before, and when you can chuck up 300 yards and 5 scores in the first half of a game on a snow-covered field, that's a good way of saying, "You're not on our level." The Titans can't really stop anyone in perfect conditions, but I think once both teams came out of the tunnel and the game started, there wasn't much question about who was going to win. (-9.5 was a very fair spread for that game, don't let the result fool you.) Same goes for rain in Seattle and mudslides in Pittsburgh.

1b./2b. When a Player Publicly States He's Never Played in the Cold, It's a Bad Sign -- I missed this this week, but during the Jets' broadcast the announcers couldn't help but harp on Mark Sanchez's candid remarks that he's never played in sub-50 degree temperature. Game conditions at the Meadowlands weren't nightmarish, but they were bitter and windy, not good for a guy fresh out of USC who probably wears sweatshirts when it's 75 outside.

3. 14 Points is Still a Shitload to Cover in the NFL -- This is professional football. I have been a little misled so far this season by the dominance of favorites. Easy covers by the Eagles and the Giants last week despite 15- and 16- point spreads capped a 5-week run where the favorites cleaned house on Vegas. This week saw three 14-point spreads for the Eagles, Packers, and Steelers (who went 1-2) and three 10-point spreads for the Jaguars, Jets, and Patriots (who went 1-2). In college, 10- and 14- point spreads for big favorites are easily covered. For one, there is an inherent different in competition. Power programs get to select the cream of the crop. They spend millions of dollars on the best players, the best technology, and the best equipment (wait did I say "best players"--I didn't mean that, NCAA, I promise). There aren't practice squad players on the Steelers who could whoop the pants off of the Panthers' regulars. If there were, they'd be on another team, starting and getting paid for it. And on top of it, college has style points. Winning big is a factor. In the NFL, a team is just as happy with a 1 point win as it is a 30 point one. If anything, I think coaches would prefer the former, as it would keep the team more focused, and hard-earned wins are more valuable than cakewalks. As the Browns showed, even teams that have no business being in the stadium can still cover big spreads, as opposing defenses don't really care about being more than two scores up as the clock expires. Even for games that you know in your heart are locks, spreads bigger than 7 get dicey.

4. Never Underestimate a Cross Country Trip -- Being professional athletes, who get paid millions of dollars to do this dozens of times a year, you would think traveling a couple thousand miles to play a game wouldn't have much an effect. Well, you would also think that people would understand that buying handguns almost exclusively leads to tragedy and almost never to heroism. But apparently they keep selling them, and teams keep putting up stinkers after traveling cross country. Whatever preconceived notions I have about that trip, I must put them aside and realize the empirical evidence that shows it takes a toll on players' bodies and minds. The Jaguars squeaked by the Rams in a sad performance just a week after traveling to Seattle and getting their asses handed to them. The Eagles got stomped on by the Raiders after traveling from Philly to Oakland. As with all "rules", this one doesn't hold for every example, and should be taken on a case by case basis, but I think there's enough evidence to suggest it plays a factor.

5. It's Not Wrong to Bet on Your Rooting Interest -- Despite the public perception, I don't really think it's that wrong to bet on your rooting interest. I think most of the time, the problem is, you let your biases blind you, and you fail to see the potential traps of the game. I still believe the Eagles were a good bet this weekend, and even though it's likely I was biased towards them from the start, I don't think it was wrong to bet on them. The Raiders had shown absolutely no ability to play offense, they were without Darren McFadden, they were without Nnamdi Asomugha, and the Eagles seemed to be clicking with McNabb back at the helm. Maybe 14 points was strong for them, but I still would have been far more confident betting the Eagles than Oakland in this game. And taking adjusted lines on the Birds in this game was even more of a lock. This was just an NFL upset, plain and simple, one team played better than it had before, one team played worse than it had before. And how the game affected me is totally separate from how I feel about betting it. Most people say, "You don't want to feel even worse if they lose." I felt like crap after the Eagles lost, but not because I made a mistake gambling. I still thought it was the right play from my perspective, but being a fan it hurt to see the team execute so poorly and come home with a loss to an inferior opponent.

The important thing to remember is that Sunday is only six days away. And I'm sure I'll get right back up on that pony again, hopefully with better results.

#022 - The Informant! (2009)

Director: Steven Soderbergh

Writer: Scott Z. Burns

Runtime: 108 min

I want to get something out of the way.

Yes. Matt Damon put on a lot of weight for this role. And he went from being GQ sexy to DQ frumpy. Let's applaud the commitment, he really dove into his role, for my money, he disappeared into the role--it became sort of like, "Hey, that guy looks like Matt Damon... in a weird way." Just like Charlize Theron before him, critics and audiences everywhere will give him kudos on what a remarkable transformation he went through. But I don't think just putting on some weight and sporting a wicked mustache should earn anyone a round of applause. Damon was good in this movie, not astounding or anything, but good, and the acting should speak for itself, not the body type.

I made the analogy after the movie that it was sort of like seeing a film where the first half is about a jewel thief, showing how he makes his intricate scores, building and showcasing his craft, and the second half is him standing trial for murder. (FYI: That is NOT the plot of this movie. Just being careful.) Why put so much effort into one thing if it's just going to morph into another? I know this movie was based on real events, so there's not a whole lot they can do about it. And in Mark Whitacre's (Damon) story, the two events are much more intertwined, but only in passing comments. I typically expect better from Soderbergh. Usually, I feel his efforts are to show us parts of the story that we didn't even KNOW were parts of the story. But in this case, it feels like they jumped on board with the fast moving train of this comedic portrait they had developed, got Damon all good and fattened up for the character, and then 2/3 of the way through, went, "Holy crap, we're going to have to finagle this ending in here somehow."

That doesn't mean there wasn't anything to like about this movie. It was certainly clever at times, it made me laugh, but sort of in that Burn After Reading-"this is so ridiculous"-chuckle type way. Not in a "this scene is truly hilarious" type way. And the costume designers and set designers absolutely NAILED 1992. Whitacre's ties were unfathomable. I give them all the credit in the world for that, it truly felt like the world I knew as a 7 year old kid. The main problem I have is that it was jumbled. It didn't flow from start to finish. I wasn't sure if I should root for Whitacre or against him. I mostly just identified with the FBI Agents who were assigned his case. And I can't tell if that was the objective. I felt sorry for Whitacre as the story went along, but I didn't FEEL sorry. I wasn't happy for him at any moment, I wasn't sad for him at any moment. And I think it was partially because the typical arc of storyline--the hero's quest--wasn't fully revealed. He was on a quest for something, but kept leaving bits and pieces of it out, until eventually, they all scattered on the floor. I know that was part of what made this case so special--that Whitacre obsessively and continuously lied to EVERYONE, even after he had supposedly turned up his palms--but I think it could have progressed better.

Lots of people were really excited for this movie, myself included. They had a catchy marketing strategy with the 90s retro and the ridiculous Fat Damon shots and the exclamation point. But it just didn't feel like a home run to me. My friend James saw the movie with me, and he loved it, so don't think that my viewpoint is the only one. And Roger Ebert interestingly gave it a glowing A+ review, though from reading it I can't tell why, except that he thinks it was funny. It was worth seeing, but I don't think it'll be talked about in the way that they were hoping it would. And if Soderbergh puts forth another Ocean's 12-level effort like this again, some people are going to start to wonder about his renowned status as a world-class filmmaker.

#021 - Why I'm a Bandwagon

To clarify something, I'm a Mariners fan. They're these guys:

(And not these guys.)

Still, a lot of people wonder how that is. Or why that is. Or why I'm not a fan of the Phillies, even though they won the World Series last year, aren't I excited about the "WORLD PH&&&IN' CHAMPS!"? Come on, I'd have to be heartless not to, right?

Well, I guess I am heartless. I love the Mariners. I always have. They've been pretty much my only baseball love, even though I don't live in Seattle, and I've never even BEEN to Seattle. A conversation with a co-worker yesterday turned into a debate about my fanhood (which can very easily be taken as a debate about manhood) and he very firmly opposed my viewpoint. There's a simple reason why I love them, and then a little bit more complicated reason. But taking both into account, I actually think how I align myself with sports teams is completely appropriate, even though I doubt anyone else would agree.

On one hand, I can see the value of "I live here, I root here". When you're a kid, you're growing up with one team (or two or three or four, or if you live in New York, seven) that plays on TV every night. One stadium to go to with your family. One set of headlines in the newspapers in the morning. Being a fan of where you're from is the accepted practice. Everyone can understand it, nobody would judge it. But personally I don't feel that's the "best" way to do it. I live in Philadelphia, where the most stubborn, passionate fans in the country live, but I want to be honest about something here--also some of the worst. Thousands of people on the street decked in Phils 2008 gear will tell you they lived and died by the team every year. But there are statistics that show that they didn't. And on top of it, there's experience that shows that they didn't.

I want to rewind to April 2009, and while I'm not going to dig very hard to find a good link, here's what I'm talking about. Pat Burrell is one of two local athletes who most turn me off to the idea of being a "home teamer". When he returned to the city after his release last off season, you would have thought it was William Penn himself coming home to roost. He was showered with applause, tears, loving tributes, cries of "It won't be the same!" and "We'll always love you!" But I'm a pretty observant sports fan. And "always love you" is the FURTHEST thing from the truth when it comes to Pat Burrell's career in Philadelphia. Here's a guy who was heckled by the home fans out in his perch in left field. Here's a guy whose name preceded the word "sucks" more than anyone I can remember (as long as you don't consider "Dallas" a name). Here's a guy for whom people would jokingly pencil in a K on the scoresheet before he saw a pitch. The Phillies talked about trading him, and I'd be willing to bet that only about 1 in 10 fans would have opposed it. He drew walks, but nobody was impressed with his homers, his RBI, his batting average, his fielding, his speed. The guy was simply not well liked. He was never the golden boy that Rollins is. Never the face of the franchise. Never a Subway spokesman like Howard. Never ever guy's AND girl's dream like Chase. And yet, the team puts together a solid run (completely forgetting the TORRID backlash from the loss to the Rockies the year earlier) and walks home last year with the World Series Championship after defeating the talented but less experienced Rays. All the sudden, Pat the Bat is a national hero. An icon. He deserves his own statue. A graceful champion, the embodiment of the team. Nobody ever claimed Philadelphia fans weren't fickle.

If anything, I'd like to tip my cap to Burrell for putting up with the fans for that long. Winning heals all wounds, but I'm sick of Phillies fans out there talking about how much you loved Pat Burrell. Look, I can't point the finger at each and everyone one of you and claim you were guilty. But I was here, for all of it, for the three years that everyone was excited about this up and coming first overall pick, and for the six years that everyone was waiting for him to become a league-leading slugger and griped about his .250 average and 120+ strikeouts. Don't kid yourselves. You may have a new fondness for him now, especially that he played on the Series winner, and that he left, and that he's nearing retirement. He did more than most people gave him credit for, but he was not well-liked, and he did always carry a bit of an underachiever tag (being the #1 pick and all). The same can be said for Charlie Manuel. Lots of people were disgusted with him. Lots of people questioned why the team was keeping around a man who could barely walk the dugout steps or form a complete sentence. It took Brad Lidge about two months to go from hero to assassination target. A few weeks ago I heard talk from some people who were claiming Cole Hamels was "done". People are very peculiar with their fanhood.

Would I be considered a "die-hard" Eagles fan if I was one of the brilliant gentleman at the 1999 NFL Draft who booed the team's decision to pass on Ricky Williams, the record-breaking running back from Texas? Or if I booed the team's decision to sign McNabb to a long term deal, to give him the reigns after his injury led to Jeff Garcia's resurgence with the team? I love Donovan McNabb. Other than his mom, I might be the only one left. What else does the guy have to do to prove he's one of the six best quarterbacks in the league. His record as a starter in the NFL is 84-45 (65%, and 9-6 in the playoffs). By comparison, Peyton Manning is 122-59 (67.4%, and 7-8 in the playoffs). What is everyone missing? Really, everyone who's been calling for a regime change the past five years, who do you want? Peyton Manning? Tom Brady? The list of NFL quarterbacks who have been more successful than McNabb is incredibly short. And the list of AVAILABLE NFL quarterbacks who have been more successful than McNabb... well. If McNabb does manage to bring home a Super Bowl to Philadelphia in the next couple seasons, I hope he stands up there at the championship podium, with all the fans screaming out, "We love you Donovan! We believed in you the whole time! We knew you'd do it!"--well, I honestly hope he smiles that million-dollar smile of his, holds his middle finger up to the crowd and says, "No you f-ing didn't."

All of this has just kind of disgusted me. Some of my closest friends and family members are Phillies fans, and they like to rib me about, "How many games did your team win last year?" "Oh when's the last time the Mariners won a World Series?" But since I've been old enough to pay attention, Philadelphia fans have done far more bad mouthing their teams than they have praising. The same can easily be said for Yankees fans, though I don't really want to go there, because I have far too many biases against the Yankees to control myself. But year in and year out they call for A-Rod's head, even though before his steroid allegations, he might have been a unanimous first-ballot Hall of Famer (Rickey Henderson was not unanimous). And I can understand the concept of appreciating what you have, because if you do remember, Alex Rodriguez was actually ON the Mariners. Regardless of "my" team's performance, I base my fanhood on something that some people might find hard to comprehend--I actually LIKE the teams that I like.

The simple explanation for my love of the M's is this--I was 8, 9 years old. There wasn't an 8 year old in the country during 1993 that didn't love Ken Griffey Junior. He was everywhere, just about the coolest guy you could even imagine, and he was one hell of a baseball player. (Actually I believe kids at the time were split between Griffey and Bonds, damn am I glad I landed on Junior.) Then in 1995, the M's managed one of baseball's greatest late-season comebacks by tying the Angels for the AL West division crown and sending the teams to a one-game playoff for the right to face the Yankees. (Note: Randy Johnson's 18-2 record is no typo.) The Divisional Round series versus the Yanks was one of the greatest of the 90s, if not one of the greatest of all time. Five games. Two that went into extra innings. (Special kudos to Jim Leyritz for catching 15 innings in the rain and ending it with a walk-off homer in Game 2.) Griffey belted five homers in the five game series. The M's fell down 2-0 before winning the final three at the Kingdome to take it. And two of the greatest Mariners of all time, Griffey and Edgar Martinez, combined to seal the series victory with my single favorite play in baseball history: The Double. Just reading all this probably doesn't do any justice to the events, since I know how much emotion is welling up in me just thinking about it.

*EDIT: Video of "The Double", courtesty of MLB.com. You know you want to watch.

The Mariners lost the next round to the Indians and haven't really sniffed the same level of playoff success since. That doesn't mean I don't still love them. I wear my navy and teal proudly, even when they finish with the worst record in the AL, and even though when I tell people I'm not from Seattle, they just look at me confused. I don't think being a fan is all about success. Successful teams are interesting. I root every year for LeBron and the Cavs, and they have thus far failed me, but instead of being considered a bandwagon, I'd rather just be considered an admirer. I'm disappointed when they lose, but I don't really live or die by them. I see LeBron as an underdog in his quest for "Greatest Ever", and ultimately, as a basketball fan you have to side with either him or Kobe (and for countless reasons which I could get into at another time, I pick LeBron). I also like the Suns, as their style and Steve Nash's worldliness are catchy. And of course there's the low-lying, slow-burning love for the Thunder that's developing, because they've assembled quite the talented cast (and because at 6'5" 175 I share a body type and playing style with Kevin Durant--6'9" 210). But it's been quite some time since I had the same fire for an NBA team as I do for the Eagles or Mariners (or Maryland basketball!). Too many players changing teams too often, and too many enormous egos complicating things.

I don't consider myself a bandwagon and I honestly don't think most other people would. But I don't really subscribe to the theory that states you should root for where you're from. Too often, this familiarity has bred contempt for me. I'm not particularly a hockey fan, but I've noticed that every year, Flyers fans talk about this being "the year" for the team, they've signed all the newest over-the-hill castoffs from across the league for twice their market value, and this will be the year they finally get it done. I wish they wouldn't get themselves so excited. It doesn't take a genius to see that this is the way all Flyers fans get every year, why would they expect this year to be any different? (See: Chicago Cubs.) And I like the Phillies as a team--well, certain players, like Chase Utley--but some of the aforementioned qualms with the fan base has been what's really driven me from rooting for them for the past 15 years. I stick by the Eagles, not really because they're from Philadelphia, but because as a team I truly find them enjoyable to watch. The rest of the fanbase continues to test my patience weekly, but I choose to ignore their jeers and applaud all of the great moments they provide.

Sports to me is about identity and excitement. When you feel a kinship for a certain team or player, their successes and their failures can directly influence you. And while I don't have a particular set of rules that decrees which teams I root for, the one thing that unites all of them is that they've provided enough excitement and enough positives to outweigh any of the negatives, or else I just wouldn't see the point in caring about them. As a fan, I want teams that I already LIKE to succeed, as opposed to wanting to like teams that I know are succeeding. I may have only really experienced one championship in all of my sports fan career (the 2002 NCAA title for the Terps), but it was an incredible treat for that reason.