Thursday, January 14, 2010

#034 - Top 200 Movies of the Decade (150-126)


To check out #200-176, click here.

To check out #175-151, click here.

I feel obligated to issue an apology to lots of people. Ever since this list started, I've been getting a lot of questions, "Is such-and-such going to be on your list?" and inevitably, when I answer, "No," the reaction is usually one of disappointment (and in the rare case, scorn). This is an inexact science. And it's not impressive enough to be called an "art". I've seen... let me see 685 movies from the first decade of the 21st century. A decent amount of them were garbage. A handful were extraordinary. But most of them were middle of the road. The kind of movies I enjoyed once or possibly twice, but they left me with little long-lasting impression save for a couple one-liners or a memorable scene. That's just the nature of movies, or anything really. You might have an iTunes library of 3000 songs. But you don't LOVE all of them. You might really like 200, you might kind of hate 200, and the rest are just pretty solid songs that have their time and place--but if you were forced to eliminate them like in a desert island scenario, they just wouldn't make the cut. So I apologize if you're not thrilled with my list. I can bet that if I was reading lists that my friends put together, I'd disagree on a bunch as well. But the one thing I don't want is for people to think that they're somehow lesser people for liking movies I didn't particularly like. Just because I'm really into movies doesn't mean I'm a certified measuring stick. I feel like I've given this impression off to a lot of people, and I don't like it. I don't really want to be an elitist when it comes to these things. I'd just rather be the guy who you turn to when you can't remember the name of the guy who directed Zodiac or the woman who played Harry's mom in Requiem for a Dream. Don't let me opinions become judgments. Please.

Now let's continue:

150. Burn After Reading (Coen Brothers, 2008) - In a way, this was the Coens' "let's ease it down" project after the epic effort that was No Country for Old Men. An Oscar puts a lot of pressure on people to produce a repeat, especially for artists who spent a lot of their careers operating beneath radar. And let's face it--while the general public might know and appreciate their films (especially hits like Fargo and The Big Lebowski), there's also a good chance that they didn't even know they were made by the same people. The Coens don't lord over their films like an obnoxious presence (a la Spike Lee or Michael Bay) and they aren't (weren't) popular enough to be used for marketing (Tarantino or Spielberg), so their name just kind of got lost in the shuffle, until the Oscar. While their speeches might have been lifeless and dreary, their films are anything but, and I think that's the kind of statement they were making with Burn After Reading. They made a fun movie that kept everyone's attention that wasn't bound to sweep year-end awards, but was still totally worthwhile and executed with a more skillful hand than your average film school grad director. Brad Pitt was great, losing himself in a character who isn't Brad Pitt, and John Malkovich was hysterical. Nothing wrong here.

149. Jarhead (Sam Mendes, 2005) - On the opposite end of the spectrum as far as intent is concerned, I think Mendes fell in to the trap of gunning for Oscar after American Beauty killed as much as it did. At first glance, Jarhead was lined up to take home awards and really wow people, and I believe it fell quite short--but luckily enough it was aiming so high that it was still a really good movie. I liked Jake Gyllenhaal in this one, I think some of his fellow soldiers were a little bit cartoonish, but he was easy to identify with, at least for me, trying to put myself in his shoes. It's an interesting take on the war genre--instead of being told a story of soldiers on the front lines in nonstop action (like Saving Private Ryan or Letters From Iwo Jima), it's a more psychological story of young men who have sacrificed everything to travel to Kuwait, but who end up operating as little more than clean up, never really being able to fulfill their desires as soldiers.

148. The Brothers Bloom (Rian Johnson, 2008) - Rian Johnson was a pretty hot name after Brick, and he followed it up with a more fanciful and whimsical story of two brothers who make a living as con artists, but who do it with a very extraordinary flare. Adrien Brody is kind of stuck in a rut of playing brooding oddballs, and he wasn't especially terrific to me in this one, but I liked Mark Ruffalo as the older brother, protective of the younger Bloom even when he doesn't appear to be. The plot moves along very crisply, there are a lot of odds and ends in the story (as it is about con men who aim to make a grand tale out of everything) but little of it is wasteful. Rachel Weisz is engaging though not entirely believable as the clueless millionaire Penelope Stamp, and it's her inclusion that really gets the movie off and running. Johnson successfully proved that he is very talented and did not just catch lightning in a bottle with Brick.

147. Finding Nemo (Andrew Stanton, 2003) - On the scale of children's movies that appeal to adults, Finding Nemo skews pretty young. It might lack the action of The Incredibles and the ribald of Shrek, but it's still a fantastic movie, particularly for the recreation of underwater life and the insane number of species portrayed. The voice actors I could take or leave, but the renderings were spectacular and the story was well-crafted. Easy enough for kids to follow, and touching enough for adults to appreciate.

146. Wristcutters: A Love Story (Goran Dukic, 2006) - Based on a story by uber-hailed Israeli author Etgar Keret, Wristcutters takes suicide and purgatory and turns them into a quirky, thoughtful journey (though I know anyone who has ever dealt with these concepts first hand probably wouldn't think that is appropriate--and they wouldn't be wrong). In the movie, everyone who commits suicide is sent to a different afterlife, one that is just like real life, except much more depressing. They can't smile, the landscape is drab, and their lives have no direction--except for Zia (Patrick Fugit) who is on a mission to find his former girlfriend, who had also committed suicide. Along the way he meets and befriends a couple other denizens of this purgatory, each with their own backstory and (sometimes) charming quirks. I think it's the completeness of the world that made me enjoy the movie the most. From a plot standpoint, the arc of the movie is not that original--guy in search of girl meets other girl and falls in love--but the setting and the characters are pretty rich and definitely intriguing. Tip of the hat to Tom Waits, who plays Kneller, an afterlife camp director with mysterious powers.

145. The Hangover (Todd Phillips, 2009) - Todd Phillips has hit a few home runs recently, with Old School and Starsky & Hutch, but none of his films became quite the phenomenon that The Hangover did--and it did so almost immediately. A lot of people would probably admit that Iron Mike's presence in the trailer was a draw--and it was--but the movie ended up being one giant circus act, with scene after scene of absurdity and almost no let up on the gas pedal. Zach Galfianakis plays the one-liner guy (and the fat guy with the funny outfits), Ed Helms plays the guy with the crazy facial expressions, and Bradley Cooper is the straight man. It was undoubtedly the comedy hit of 2009, and most likely due to recency bias, will stand for now as the most loved comedy of the decade.

144. A Serious Man (Coen Brothers, 2009) - I wrote up a review of this film here, and it basically explains how I liked it, but couldn't really explain why. I think of all the Coen films, it probably had the least vibrant story to work with, but still was incredibly effective at eliciting an emotional response, likely due to the shot selection and musical choices. It stands to me as a guidebook for directors on how to make the audience react the way you want them to react--even without the necessary material.

143. JCVD (Mabrouk El Mechri, 2008) - A strong movie starring Jean-Claude Van Damme as a sad (though humanized) version of himself who is mistaken as the perpetrator of a robbery that he's actually a hostage of. It's a very creative story (and occasionally crosses the fourth wall of the audience-actor boundary), telling the tale of a movie star on the down and out while almost simultaneously reinventing his career. Van Damme has long been kind of a robotic and caricatured figure, but this movie definitely presents him in a new light--even if it does suffer from a noticeably poor stage shoot.

142. Lars and the Real Girl (Craig Gillespie, 2007) - I think you sort of have to overlook the ridiculous nature of this movie's plot--that a quiet, lonely man orders a "real doll" from the internet and pretends that the doll is his girlfriend--and look at the interactions between the characters who are actually played by humans. Ryan Gosling is great. Maybe not as great as Half Nelson, but certainly a more dynamic performance than in Stay. And Emily Mortimer carries the movie from start to finish. She's compassionate, strong willed, and bright, and although I think a lot of people might wonder how this even became a real movie (and the silliness of it does come through quite often), there's a very basic theme going on underneath all of the sex doll absurdity: it hurts to be alone in life.

141. The Science of Sleep (Michel Gondry, 2006) - I'm a pretty big fan of Gael Garcia Bernal. He's going to end up with a slew of appearances on this list, partly because he's a good actor, and partly because he's chosen good projects to take part in. In The Science of Sleep, he's pretty childish, though not to a fault, since that is his character. We, as the audience, I think play Charlotte Gainsbourg's character, the level headed affectee of Bernal's antics, and certainly he does quickly vacillate between delightful and annoying. It was Gondry's first effort as writer-director, and it shows a lot of his already established celluloid personality--dream sequences, lo-fi effects, and sound and image distortion. I think his film-as-fantasy style works well here, especially when that fantasy is quickly jerked back into reality, an unfortunate byproduct for dreamers everywhere.

140. Borat (Larry Charles, 2006) - Maybe you've had enough of Sacha Baron Cohen by now, and maybe the teenager obsession with Borat has turned you off of it altogether, but I think we all have to admit that this movie was a worldwide event when it premiered. In an entertainment world where all "reality" is staged, I think audiences were crying out for staged reality that REALLY works. Cohen is relentlessly in character, perhaps to criminal ends, and Borat took the mostly UK-centered momentum he had from Ali G and unleashed it on the states. It's offensive and crude and in fifty years they'll look back and say, "How did anyone think this was funny?", but unless you're in a coma, this movie made you laugh out loud at least eight times.

139. Thank You For Smoking (Jason Reitman, 2005) - Movies often times take the style of their lead characters, and I can't think of a more shining example than this--slick, smooth, eye-catching, hip, whatever you want to say. Starting with an attention grabbing title and a surely polarizing theme, Reitman and Aaron Eckhart turn it into a zing-fest. There's polished speech, twisted psychology, and a very fast pace, but in the end, tobacco lobby representative Nick (Eckhart) is undone by what makes him so good in the first place--bravado and access to the industry's biggest secrets. In the end, it's not as much critical of big tobacco as it is of the entire process of policy in this nation. The country is run entirely on appearance instead of substance, perhaps a multi-layered critique Reitman would like to make of his industry.

138. American Splendor (Shari Springer Berman, 2003) - Paul Giamatti's coming out party. He had a lot of bit parts up until this movie, but like a bunch of other actors in recent years (Jamie Foxx, Philip Seymour Hoffman) he found limelight through a biopic. Unlike those guys, his subject was little known, but he still managed to deliver a killer performance. Made by documentary filmmakers, American Splendor has a very lifelike feel to it, and the understated acting lends itself well to that. There's not a lot of glamour here, but a good story.

137. Synechdoche, New York (Charlie Kaufman, 2008) - Given Kaufman's history as a writer (Eternal Sunshine, Adaptation, Being John Malkovich), I was incredibly pumped for his official debut as director. I think what I discovered was that the positive outlooks and vibrancy of the directors he had worked with before (Spike Jonze, Michel Gondry) nicely balanced with the razor sharp but ultimately depressing writing of Kaufman. So in his first opportunity to grab the reigns, a lot more of that sour disposition seemed to come out, and like Nicolas Cage in Adaptation, Philip Seymour Hoffman essentially plays Kaufman, this time as the director (coincidence?) of a stage play. There are so many rich nuggets in the story to overlook this movie, but I had sincerely hoped that it would have ended up much higher on the list than here.

136. Spiderman 2 (Sam Raimi, 2004) - People were huge on Spiderman. Me, not so much. I think Spiderman 2 was easily the best of the series (which I am proclaiming dead, despite reports of a Spiderman 4: Peter's back in high school sequel). Spidey 2 was a darker, more sinister movie than the first, and I think it benefited from that. That's where Raimi's strengths are--not in making glossy popcorn features. There's not a boatload of good acting in this one, but it was, in my opinion, a much stronger turn than the first. Spidey 1 and 3, unfortunately, don't make this list.

135. Solaris (Steven Soderbergh, 2002) - A creepy, vacuous movie remake of Andrei Tarkovsky's 1972 film and Stanislaw Lem's 1961 book. It's very thought-provoking, and emotional for a science fiction film. I'm not sure if Clooney was the right pick for the lead, but he did a pretty good job. Quick synopsis: a widower scientist (Clooney) is sent to a distant planet known for its psychological disturbances, and once there is given an opportunity to reunite with his dead wife. Interesting dynamic, for sure--all he wants in life is to be with her again, but he knows that what he's experiencing is not real, just an illusion. Terrific story, which can be attributed to the original Polish novel, and well-made film, which can be attributed to the cold precision of the camera and Cliff Martinez's fantastic score.

134. Irreversible (Gaspar Noe, 2002) - I waffled on seeing this movie for a long time, after a friend had informed me that it caused him pretty severe emotional pain for a movie. But eventually I sucked it up and watched it. It certainly made an impression. Artistically, it's an okay movie. But it employs reverse chronological narration well (though without the clever tricks of Memento) and utilizes film's expressive medium to deliver very strong, gut-wrenching attacks. I caution you against watching it, not because I think you'll be messed up by it, but just in case you are appalled and come back wondering why I didn't warn you.

133. Capote (Bennett Miller, 2005) - There was Deep Impact and Armageddon, Dante's Peak and Volcano, Independence Day and Mars Attacks!. And then there was Capote. And Infamous. And Philip Seymour Hoffman and Toby Jones, everyone touting their favorite, which was better, which was more realistic. I, for one, never saw Infamous, as it was released the year after Capote and I was thoroughly satisfied with what I had seen. It was definitely a good movie, carried as much by Hoffman's breakthrough performance as by Clifton Collins and Catherine Keener in support. Somewhat deservedly, Hoffman took home the Oscar for this role (I believe Heath Ledger was better). And deservedly, the film didn't win any other awards, as it was good, but not that good.

132. Southland Tales (Richard Kelly, 2007) - It might take a particular type of person to appreciate my listing of this movie here. That particular type might be insane--let me just run down a quick cast summary: The Rock, Sarah Michelle Gellar, Cheri Oteri, Jon Lovitz, Mandy Moore, Seann William Scott (who, by comparison, kills his role), Booger from Revenge of the Nerds--it's almost mind-boggling to create a cast this outright laughable. But Richard Kelly, acclaimed writer/director of Donnie Darko, did it. And I suppose you could say he took his lumps as a result. I like this movie. I don't know why. I think Justin Timberlake carries it from start to finish, and there are plenty of really spectacular shots in it (along with plenty of odd ones, but that's another story). If you watch it, there's a good chance you won't be able (or WANT) to get through it, but all I can say is that I did, and I really wish it would have been more successful than it was. Something about it makes me think that he did it intentionally, but Kelly, please, next time, if you want to make an apocalyptic movie--try to wrangle yourself a little better cast.

131. I Am Legend (Francis Lawrence, 2007) - Speaking of apocalyptic--I Am Legend is bound to sit in a bin with The Road and The Book of Eli and other end of the world, one many journey movies that happen to make a splash towards the end of this decade. And though I haven't seen those other two yet, I can say I was definitely satisfied with I Am Legend. I like Will Smith when he's able to blend his action, comedic, and dramatic talents together, and he's pretty successful at occupying the screen by himself for half a movie. I Am Legend also features just about the coolest dog in the history of movies, German Shepherd Sam, his sidekick and only companion. I saw the "alternate ending" available on DVD, and trust me, the theatrical release was definitely superior.

130. The Matrix Reloaded (Wachowski Brothers, 2003) - Now that there has been a little bit of time for everyone to digest the Matrix trilogy and the value of it, I think it's becoming much more polarizing, since the "wow" of the effects has kind of faded. I personally think the first Matrix movie is phenomenal, and it stands on its own as a fantastic film, regardless of how revolutionary the special effects and fight sequences were. I think they got in a little over their heads with the two follow ups, flooded the screen with CGI and every imaginable camera angle, and lost touch with the neat story facets from the original. But Reloaded is still an enjoyable ride. It features the Keymaker, perhaps my favorite of all Matrix characters, and a lot of intense action while only lightly tapping into prophecy.

129. Up In The Air (Jason Reitman, 2009) - I wrote a formal review of the film here, so you could check that out if you'd like. A few weeks removed from my viewing, I think my take on it remains--it was a good film, certainly well made all around, but just didn't hit all the buttons that you'd really like a "Best Movie of the Year" to hit. I think awards season is treating it appropriately--a few here and there, but not enough to make it really stand out.

128. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (Coen Brothers, 2000) - From recent to throwback, O Brother has been around long enough at this point that many people consider it a classic, something which I can appreciate but maybe not agree with. Bug-eyed comic George Clooney is not really my favorite, I prefer him as much more subtle, but he's not the be-all-end-all of this movie, and I think Tim Blake Nelson is certainly my favorite part. The blend of comedy, adventure, and bluegrass music is pretty novel, at least for me, and it's no surprise that the genius team of Joel and Ethan Coen was at the helm for it. It's not my favorite of their movies, for sure, but it's still head and shoulders above the typical drudge you find in Hollywood.

127. John Q (Nick Cassavetes, 2002) - This was in the midst of what was a really solid stretch of movies for Denzel Washington, including The Hurricane and Training Day, and though it certainly wasn't the most acclaimed of performances by him, I think it might be the most underrated. Superficially, this is a pretty basic studio get together that should make some bank at the box office, but along the way I think they stumbled across a good movie that a lot of people can identify with. Like Dog Day Afternoon, John Q takes a simple person and turns him in to a criminal to help the ones he loves--in this case, John's son who collapses from an oversized heart and can't afford surgery. James Woods and Anne Heche play pretty stellar villains in this, and though the suspense is (at best) tepid, I have very fond memories of first seeing this movie in the theaters, and over time it hasn't gotten any less enjoyable.

126. Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg, 2007) - Lots of people, myself included, had huge hopes for Cronenberg's follow up to A History of Violence, and once again teaming up with Viggo Mortensen (a trend--repeat director/actor pair--that I am kind of getting tired of) and this time featuring Naomi Watts, Eastern Promises has a lot of potential. It turned out to be a pretty wicked film, pulling no punches in terms of intensity (though falling short of A History) and touting a well-conceived story. Unfortunately, my main issue with this movie was that it pulled the plug way too soon--I thought there was still about 20 minutes to go, and boom, it ended. Still, maybe that was a good thing, as it didn't oversaturate you and left you wanting a little bit more. Plus, a naked knife fight. I mean, come on!


And with that, I must disappear.

Friday, January 8, 2010

#033 - Worst Bowl Season Ever?


No question mark. Let's make that one official. I'm not a guru on college bowl season--the fact that there are 34 of them and teams like Minnesota and Marshall and Southern Miss play in them makes it tough to follow. Almost none of them matter to anyone but the schools' athletic directors and coaches on the hot seat, but they get aired on TV, there's tons of hype, and everything eventually leads to a highly-questionable and rarely-entertaining finale: the BCS Championship.

The problems with the BCS itself are numerous and I don't even feel like spouting them off. Every college football fan with BCS beef carries around the same notecard of talking points and reasons why it's total baloney. But this year the BCS took "stinkfest" to a new low.

Just take a look, for a moment, at the results:

1. Rose Bowl - Year in and year out, there is something unimpressive about Ohio State. They win lots of games, they are always highly ranked, but they give off vibes about being unable to beat the elite teams. I never want to see Ohio State in anything. They pooped the bed against Florida. They pooped the bed against LSU. They played the ho-humest of all ho-hums against Texas last year (broken-hearted Texas), and then lost to baby genius Matt Barkley and USC this year. On the flip side, Oregon was the hot pick, with the hot offense, the hot headed running back, and the team that is bound for glory and scoring records next season. I think they came into it as the more enjoyable team, but this game was a yawner. Oregon never gained any traction and lost pretty handily. I think most people, by this time next year, will be asking, "Wait, who played in the Rose Bowl last year?"

2. Sugar Bowl - Florida's talent level: 98. Cincinnati's talent level: 72. Sad, sad rout.

3. Fiesta Bowl - Outside of the fact that this game was low-scoring (despite feature such high-octane offenses), this was the only game that could really keep my interest, probably because I was most intrigued by the teams. But my main gripe is the set-up. I think the BCS blew some chances here, to make things more interesting. Florida is the team that people wanted to play (if they couldn't play in the championship game). Florida is the top of the totem pole. Give either Boise or TCU the shot to play them. I know, in a way, since they were both undefeated it would have been tough to pick, so playing them against each other is a fair solution... but it would only have an effect if it was a playoff system. I believe the BCS didn't want another upset. And some argue "they got better competition this way". Maybe. Maybe not. I'm not saying play these two teams against Iowa or Georgia Tech. But one of them should have gotten the chance at Florida. Probably TCU, as the best non-automatic qualifier. Then Boise would play Iowa (which was the other non-automatic qualifier). And Georgia Tech should have played Cincinnati, since they both won their conferences. All that aside, this game really didn't live up to it's hype. And I think underneath all the manufactured hoopla (generally there's a lot of hoopla involved) BOTH teams probably felt a little sad about the missed opportunity to knock out a big dog.

4. Orange Bowl - Georgia Tech. Iowa. This game couldn't have any less charisma if Bill Belichick did the color commentary. Who even won? (Iowa, I'm pretty sure.)

5. BCS Championship Game - Arguably. Colt McCoy went down like four seconds into regulation. And Alabama won, surprise surprise, forcing five turnovers against a freshman quarterback who got some serious licks in against UTEP and Louisiana-Monroe this season. Maybe you can say that a national championship contender should have a deeper roster, sure, but let's be real, Texas's offense struggled this year, and Colt McCoy to Jordan Shipley was the only thing that produced any real points all season, outside of Hunter Lawrence. The Longhorns were winning with McCoy. And Gilbert may end up being good and he showed some flashes in cutting the deficit to 24-21, but he was born in 1991. Think about that for a second. 1991? I was already smoking a pack a day by then. That makes him a contemporary of Miley Cyrus, and he's supposed to be ready to deliver in a pinch on college football's biggest stage? Sigh. I know injuries happen and they can ruin a national championship at any point, but if I was an Alabama fan, I wouldn't even be satisfied with this result. "Yay, we just beat a freshman quarterback after the Heisman finalist played a handful of snaps." It's deflating all around. I know a playoff wouldn't fix Texas's problem, sure. They lost, if it was a playoff they would still have lost. But at least a plus one gives us the opportunity to see what might be a completely scintillating (or completely stink-bombing) matchup between the two teams left standing--Boise and Bama. (And hopefully Kellen Moore wouldn't stub his toe on the first drive.)

I, for one, would love to see two teams with complete rosters playing full-throttle when the crystal's on the line.

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

#032 - NFL Regular Season Recap


If you're waiting for the next batch of top movies from the 2000s, then I'm sorry, I'm working on it, but putting one ahead of another at this stage is like splitting hairs with other hairs. But at the same time, I love you, because it means you actually care about what I'm writing here. And let that be the last time I show any emotions here. This is a place for business!

And business we shall discuss.

17 weeks ago, I was much more excited about the upcoming 17 weeks than I am right now. It's sad to see the regular season go, and as pumped as I am about the playoffs, it hurts me just a bit that it'll be another 35 weeks until the 2010 season gets underway, and a whole new rollercoaster ride begins.

None of this stuff might interest you, and you might find it a little bit self-serving, but I'm kind of proud of my performance in football-related activities this season, so you can either take it for what it's worth, or you can close the page and look up "Evil Baby" on YouTube.


Section 1: Fantasy

Everyone's favorite uber-nerd activity. Fantasy Football. Okay, so millions of people play it, including females, and it's becoming less and less nerdy (but in a way, less and less hip) since they always have segments on fantasy advice every night on SportsCenter.

This year, I played in one fantasy league. It was maybe my lowest total ever. I usually participate in a few public leagues to go along with a league with friends, but this year I was a little bit behind the ball and bailed on the publics. What was left? One ESPN.com custom league with 11 other people, only about half of whom I actually know. But people boasted pretty superb knowledge of the game, and though some guys' rooting affiliations came through glaringly during the draft, it turned out to be a pretty decent league.

When the dust settled at the end of the year, The Mad Stork, my team (named after legendary 6' 9" Raider linebacker Ted Hendricks) was the champion after a 6-team, 3-week playoff. I started the year questionably, with some draft picks (Darren McFadden, Calvin Johnson, Anquan Boldin) struggling mightily with performance or injury. After falling to 2-3 and eventually to 4-4, my guys put it together thanks to a key late season pickup of Jamaal Charles and the season-long domination of DeSean Jackson, finishing 8-5, just barely slipping into the playoffs as the 6 seed. But I put up three straight 100+ point games in the playoffs en route to victory, and team depth proved to be the deciding factor. In the championship round, I started only 1 (Anquan Boldin) of my first 4 draft picks (the others being DeAngelo Williams, Calvin Johnson, and Darren McFadden) but I got solid performances out of just about everyone, even though nobody finished with more than 20 points. Then, of course, a week after the season ends, Jamaal Charles decides to run for 260 yards and 2 touchdowns against the Broncos, just for good measure.


Section 2: Confidence Pool

I took part in a season-long confidence pool with 10 of my close friends this year (one of whom I have never met), the first time I've ever done so, and it turned out to be a highly enjoyable experience--one which helps make the games more interesting and builds harmless rivalries.

The concept of a confidence pool, for anyone who doesn't know, is this: each week, you pick the winners of all the games (usually 16, but 14 or 13 during bye weeks) and write them down. Then, you take the numbers 1-16 (or 3-16 during a bye week, depending on the number of games played) and assign each potential winner that many points. You put the highest number of points on the game you're most confident about (like the Colts over the Rams) and the least on the game that's the biggest toss up (like Ravens-Steelers). Then as the games go by, you add up all your points and highest point total wins for the week.

Our pool was a $40 entry fee, $20 to the winner of each week, $60 to the cumulative winner at the end of the season, $30 to cumulative second place, and $10 to cumulative last place. Unfortunately, I only took home one weekly win during the year, in week 5, when Seattle, Atlanta and Cleveland carried me to victory. However, I kept within striking distance of the yearly championship every week, finishing the season with the 10 straight strong weekly performances: 4th, 5th, 2nd, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd. Sure, the 2nd places were all quite frustrating, each time I was only a game away from another $20, but eventually I took the overall lead in Week 16 and did well enough Week 17 to secure the season long victory. I had a 174-82 record, which is pretty solid, but not spectacular, as I've seen that the leaders in ESPN.com's Pick'em Straight Up had win totals in the 190s.

Still, I was pretty proud of that win, especially after dealing with the frustration of constantly falling short.


Section 3: ESPN.com's Pigskin Pick'em (Against the Spread)

I got an invite from my friend Mike to participate in the ESPN.com spread pool, which is actually the first time I had ever done it (previously he had invited me to do a pool at his office, which I performed atrociously in). We started out with 8 people in the pool, most of whom were repeat participants from the fantasy league, but after a couple weeks only 4 of us still bothered to enter our picks.

I started out fairly well and was in second place early on, but eventually grabbed the lead about mid-season and didn't look back. As nice as it would have been to put up 12- and 13-point weeks, they were always incredibly hard to achieve and I kept my goal set at going at least .500 each week--which I was able to accomplish fairly consistently, usually scoring an 8 or a 9. Eventually I started to get interest in my site-wide ranking, checking my score each week against the top players in the entire ESPN.com Pigskin Pick'em game, trying to climb a little higher each Sunday. In the end, I finished with 146 points, which translates to a 146-110 record (57%, just good enough by Vegas standards) and my overall ranking was #250--though that was a little disappointing because I had jumped up to #95 before the Bengals got destroyed by the Jets in the season's final game. I've estimated that there were about 200,000 users participating in the game, as ESPN pegged my percentile at 99.8%, a number that I was pretty pleased with.


Section 4: Sportsbook.com's Perfect Parlay

The "Perfect Parlay" (details here) is a pool, quite similar to the ESPN.com pool, where you pick 16 games against the spread every week in hopes of nailing all 16 right and winning $100,000. This was the third year I've participated, though the last two years I had slip-ups where I would forget to turn in picks for a week or two, which completely kills all chances at finishing with a top ranking. This year I was determined to at least turn in picks every week, and I did succeed, and it turned out positively for me.

My goal in years past has been to get into the top 100, which is a list they display every week for the top 100 cumulative entries. I had never succeeded until about Week 13 this year, when I finally broke through after hovering in the 200-300 range for a while. It was nice to see my name up there, though I knew I had no realistic shot at first place, and when all was said and done, I finished with 144 points, in 30th place. Unlike ESPN.com's, I don't have any specific ranking that judges how many people are in the pool, but based on where I finished during weeks that were quite poor, I'd say there were about 4000 people in the pool. Again, I'm pretty pleased with that finish, 30th out of 4000, though admittedly 144 points out of a possible 272 is not that great. One of the differences between ESPN and Sportsbook is that ESPN only uses spreads with half-points (-1.5, -2.5, -7.5) and Sportsbook doesn't necessarily care either way (which can result in pushes/ties). This leads to different spreads on different games, and with the potential for ties (which basically count as a loss on Sportsbook), I ended up doing quite better percentage-wise on ESPN (57%) as compared to Sportsbook (53%).


Section 5: Fiscal

Unfortunately, those successes aside, it wasn't the best year for me on the books. Perhaps I played too conservatively, only betting certain games and not going for a more even distribution, or perhaps I was too greedy, playing too many parlays and teasers. Either way, I ended up just below even, which is a shame, but considering the number of bets I placed over the season, it's pretty good to end up breaking even. And honestly, a decent amount of the final loss I had could be attributed to college football games, which I don't follow as closely and was much less successful on. I know, however, that to deserve any respect, the success that I have to have in these ventures needs to be here, rather than in items that don't carry any weight.