CPTN HNDSM

One book closes...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:54:31 GMT

...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:47:40 GMT

...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:44:59 GMT

...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:43:20 GMT

...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:38:09 GMT

...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:34:15 GMT

...

Mon, 15 Oct 2007 06:20:43 GMT

http://flamingwheelofslicedbread.blogspot.com/

Didja See? The Darjeeling Limited

Wed, 10 Oct 2007 05:34:26 GMT

Wes Anderson exemplifies the auteur movie director. He makes strongly aesthetic movies which make the most out of what is a seemingly thin plot. From a petty crime caper in "Bottle Rocket" to a high school misfit in "Rushmore" to a dysfunctional family of geniuses in "Royal Tennenbaums" (probably my favorite movie this decade), he's been able to spin magic out of the sparseness of regular time.

However his last effort "Life Aquatic" was a disaster. The movie didn't make something out of sparseness, it simply was sparse. The only thing which kept the plot of the movie lurching along was the search for the jaguar shark. Failing all else, he still had an endpoint to work toward and the movie more or less does.

"The Darjeeling Limited" lacks even an endpoint toward which to work. Not enough time is spent with why and how the three main characters arrived on the train metaphorically. We're told they are brothers whose father has just died and then set on our way watching their often confusing inaction. It's even pretty early in the movie when Anderson abandons the framing device of the train trip. The film just wanders from spot to spot without any real aim or direction.

Which is something that falls on the director, especially one who is as completely involved as an auteur director like Wes Anderson. He has fallen off and his regular spirit is missing from this movie and his last. Not coincidentally this swoon has also corresponded with Anderson co-writing with someone other than Owen Wilson. As much as they might hate to admit it, each of them could really use each other right now.

Quick Rating
4 - See It on a Dare

Pennant Race - The Arizona Diamondbacks

Mon, 01 Oct 2007 22:50:50 GMT

The Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball (PTB) states a teams winning percentage should be predicted by the percentage of runs they score of the total runs in their games. Well, I’m looking at the final standings for the year and, according to the PTB, the Diamondbacks shouldn’t have even been a .500 team instead of the best record in the National League. Their Expected Winning Percentage was .493 meaning they should’ve had about 79 wins.

The things which usually sway actual results against PTB results is teams don’t score the same proportion of the total runs in every game. Specifically blowouts and 1-run games skew the results. A W is a W no matter how many runs you put on the board.

Out of their 32 1-run wins this year, half of them came against teams which finished the year above .500 and half of them came against teams which finished under .500. Nothing is really telling there except they were just as successful winning close games against all kinds of teams. Similarly, 9 of their 20 1-run loses came against teams which finished above .500 and 11 came against teams which finished below .500.

The only two things which pop out is the D’backs were 9-4 against teams with a better winning percentage than the Cubs, their first round opponent, and went 2-0 against the same Cubs in 1-run games. I don’t know what to make of that. It may mean the D’backs are good at closing against good teams.

Then you consider blowout games. (For the purpose of this “study”, a blowout is a game won or lost by more than 4 runs.) In blowouts loses, the D’backs lost 26 games by a total of 194 runs. In blowout wins, the D’backs won 20 games by 132 runs. Thus their expected winning percentage in blowouts was .404 against their actual .434 winning percentage in blowouts.

Plus they weren’t very sporting in who they blew out. Of the 20 games they beat the opposition by better than 5 runs, only 8 were against teams better than .500 and only 4 were against teams better than the Cubs. Turnabout is fair play though because 17 of their 26 blowout losses came against teams with better than .500 records including 12 against teams with better records than the Cubs.

Additionally they were blownout one game a piece by Tampa Bay, Baltimore, Florida, San Francisco, Cincinnati and Houston and twice by Pittsburgh. In other words, they were blownout at least once by seven of the ten worst teams in baseball and they didn’t even play two of them, Kansas City and the White Sox. Thankfully Washington showed mercy on them.

My conclusion is this. If the Diamondbacks keep their games against the Cubs close, they can and probably will win. That ability to close in tight games is essential to their success. By the same token, they can get beat very badly regardless of whether or not their opposition is as good as them. This entire series will come down to whether the Cubs can jump out early and set the pace or if the Diamondbacks hang around and are able to close at the end of the game.

Me In A Canoe

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 02:37:16 GMT

My friend Matt Reedy took this picture of me this July on our two hour canoe paddle at our friend Molly's cabin in Upper Michigan.

Pennant Race - Whose Twins Jersey Do You Wear?

Sat, 22 Sep 2007 13:20:09 GMT

This link about what the Twins jersey you own says about you is absolutely spot on and for the record I own and wear a Johan Santana jersey about whom they say the following:

"Johan Santana: Either you have a deep appreciation for excellence, or you think Johan looks cuddly. I've yet to see an exception to this one."

http://www.twinkietown.com/story/2007/9/20/165857/843

No mention of all of the girls who wear Hunter, Jones or Stewart jerseys though.

Didja See? Across the Universe

Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:03:46 GMT

Maybe you have seen the kind of trippy trailer to "Across the Universe", the new Beatles movie musical directed by Julie Taymor and starring Evan Rachel Wood, and thought, "Hmmm, that could be something. I wonder if it will be hokey." At least more hokey than movie musicals are usually.

So you're willing to plunk down your $10 ($20 if you're lucky enough to bring a date), a Friday night and going to the theater near your work to see if it really is something. Two hours later you know it's not anything at all.

Here's the obvious. The songs of The Beatles are great. Even the choice to make it a musical can work because The Beatles catalogue is so diverse and deep. In fact, The Beatles themselves had a successful movie career albeit not in musicals.

It's the execution which is at fault. Taymor et al were unable to come up with a story fitting with The Beatles songs. The story they went with is a disappointment wrapped in nostalgia packed into a missed opportunity. The filmmakers create a weak pastiche of 1960s counterculture and count on the audience to recognize their cues.

In the end, that's all that "Across the Universe" does. It cues up the greatest hits of The Beatles and lets them play with the equivelent of tape hiss in between. The only drama comes from guessing which song will be next.

Quick Review
4 - See It On A Dare

Basketball Fever - Greg Oden

Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:39:06 GMT

I'm reading about this Greg Oden injury and in particular articles which state this proves that Durant should've gone first overall and that the Blazers made a mistake by not picking him. I think those two questions are seperate questions.

"Should the Blazers have picked Kevin Durant?" Yes, in the light of yesterday's events, most definitely. If I offered you two players who were so close to being equal as Oden and Durant except you wouldn't get Oden at full speed until two years from now, the choice is obvious. I'll take Durant, whatever production he gives me over those two years and the ability to coach him for those two years against two years of waiting for Oden to be ready to begin the process. Durant will have an advantage in his development.

However that's not saying "Were the Blazers wrong in picking Oden?" is necessarily a "Yes," as well. I think that's a mistaken assumption, ie "Because the point of the draft is to get the better player and Durant is going to be the better player over the next two years, therefore the Blazers should've picked Durant."

The point of the draft is to get valuable players. Having a higher pick merely gives you a greater probability of getting a valuable player. For example, Darko Milicic is commonly considered a bust because his value was less than those drafted with similar picks. Gilbert Arenas, Carlos Boozer and Michael Redd are considered great values because their values are (much) more than those drafted with similar picks.

A pick's value should be based upon the relationship between the expectations of their production before the draft and once they actually played basketball, not to their relative production to those who were drafted similarly to them. Darko is a bust because he didn't live up to pre-draft hype and not because he's not Carmelo Anthony. Similarily Arenas, Boozer and Redd are exceptional players because they can play basketball well, not because they exceeded the production of Trenton Hassell, Dan Gadzuric and Brian Cardinal.

To focus on Durant is unfair to the Blazers. Owing to having the first pick, they had a 50-50 chance of making the "right" choice and from there it was chance. They caught a bad break but the Blazers will still have a valuable player in two years and there's no fault in that.

Didja See? Kanye West "The Good Life"

Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:45:41 GMT

The new Kanye West album came out on Tuesday. While my review is forthcoming (as well as a concert review of the Flaming Lips concert from last Friday), I wanted to post the video to the third single "The Good Life". It's a song about living well which actually makes you feel like you're living well and it's one of the standout tracks on the album.

I especially wanted to post the video because it's part of a study in contrast. Compare "Good Life" to the Bright Eyes video for "Easy/Lucky/Free".

I'll admit the only similarity is the form of the video is similar with words appearing on screen for both. The study is that two years ago Bright Eyes' "Digital Ash in a Digital Urn", which includes "Easy/Lucky/Free", was my favorite album of the year. Then this year, I'm enjoying a jam about "The Good Life". Make your own inferences at home.

Guess who we're seeing tonight?

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:03:25 GMT

Susie and I are seeing the Flaming Lips in concert tonight at the Aragon Ballroom. I can't wait.

Didja See? The Invasion

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 19:41:22 GMT

Imagine this. You are remaking "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and setting it in contemporary America. The aliens come down from outer space (make sure you exploit the Columbia shuttle explosion to do this) and their goal is to sap the personality out of humanity.

You're sitting down at your desk and thinking who to cast in the lead role. This actress is going to be the character who the audience is going to sympathize with, the one whose individuality being sapped away will engender fear of the audience members' of their own individuality being eliminated.

Suddenly you're struck by it. What you need is a highly-respected, over-35 actress who has won an Oscar that can open a movie on her own. So you start asking around.

Jodi Foster? No, she's doing something else.

Julia Roberts? No, she's semi-retired and raising her kids.

Gwenyth Paltrow? No, she's also semi-retired and raising her kids.

Angelina Jolie? She's making that Daniel Perl movie.

Halle Berry? No, she's making that movie with Bruce Willis.

And the conclusion you come to is "Ahhhh, fonk it. We'll get Nicole Kidman."

Having Nicole Kidman embody personality is like Keith Richards doing a drug PSA. You can write the lines, set-up a camera, film it and show it to other people. Noone ever anywhere is going to believe it for one second. Noone. Ever. Anywhere.

It's as if the executives who make movies decided, "You know 'The Stepford Wives' remake Nicole was in dealt with the same issues, had the same plot device and was a horrible flop. But lightning only has to strike once, right?"

Um, okay. Good luck with that. Let's make sure you bet $80 million ($80 MILLION!!!) on it.

Quick Review

4 - See it on a dare.

(There isn't much to say about "Rush Hour 3", the first movie I saw last night. It was exactly what I expected out of Hollywood's premier martial arts, buddy cop comedy franchise.)

Chances Are I'm Gonna Die

Fri, 31 Aug 2007 17:05:27 GMT

Susie is going home this weekend and with no plans of my own I'm going to undertake an endeavor which will either test the limits of sanity or be the cool salve I need for the time away from my baby.

I think I'm going to spend the weekend at the movie theater. Not sleeping there obviously and trying not to eat there as much as possible. I did this on one previous occassion in Minneapolis when my family was in Arizona for X-mas and all of my friends were tied up in family obligations. I saw four movies at four theaters in one day and then got up the next morning to see a fifth.

So if you need me this weekend, you will find me at the Evanston 18 watching movies and, between films, using the wireless connection to update my blog and post reviews of the movies I'm seeing. I made it most of the way through puberty without a girlfriend by watching a shetload of movies. I think I'll be able to make it through this weekend.

Didja See? Balls of Fury

Thu, 30 Aug 2007 23:06:31 GMT

When I was growing up my brother and I used to enjoy watching spoof movies. From "Hot Shots" to "Hot Shots: Part Deux", we enjoyed the spoof's way of giving us a recognizable object and then twisting it into something which made the original seem silly and meaningless. Derrida would be proud.

Then later in middle school and the beginning of high school, my friend Cliff and I would not drink by doing more enjoyable things including shooting pool in his basement and watching martial arts movies. Steven Segal and Jean-Claude Van Damme were the belles du jours but we also delved into earlier kung fu films including the work of martial arts' James Dean, Bruce Lee.

All of which means this. "Balls of Fury" was meant for people like me to see. If you haven't seen "Enter the Dragon", you'll still get the jokes. But I wonder if they will be as funny as if you have.

See the triumph of "Balls of Fury" is its pacing. The spoof has certain points to hit based on the cliches of the genre it is lampooning. The points are to be recognized, made fun of and then moved on. Nothing will make a movie unfunnier faster than to dwell on one point for too long.

The people behind "Balls of Fury" seem to understand that. The movie is a quick ninety minutes and if the joke being told didn't work, there was another one right behind it. It's never convinced of its cleverness and never becomes smug in its parody. It hits its points, make its fun and moves on.

Quick Review
5 - See It on Video

Book Meme

Thu, 23 Aug 2007 18:27:01 GMT

Awesome! I actually really love this book

You're The Things They Carried!

by Tim O'Brien

Harsh and bitter, you tell it like it is. This usually comes in short,
dramatic spurts of spilling your guts in various ways. You carry a heavy load, and this
has weighed you down with all the horrors that humanity has to offer. Having seen and
done a great deal that you aren't proud of, you have no choice but to walk forward,
trudging slowly through ongoing mud. In the next life, you will come back as a water
buffalo.

Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

Pennant Race - Baseball Jesus Works His Miracles

Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:46:35 GMT

It's really too bad that the Twins are essentially out of the playoff picture because this years Santana might've been extra ridiculous. Wait 'til next year when our rotation is Santana-Boof-Liriano-Garza-Baker.

Basketball Fever - "I Wish I Knew How To Quit You" edition

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 19:00:29 GMT

(scratches arm)

NBA 2K8 (with updated rosters) is released October 2nd
http://www.ebgames.com/product.asp?product%5Fid=281763

(continues scratching arm)

Didja See? Stardust

Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:22:49 GMT

Tonight I was coaxed in to seeing "Stardust" by Luke and Leslie. Normally I'm not a fan of the fantasy genre. I'm more drawn in by the clockmaker-obsessive attention to how things work of sci-fi than the explanation of where everything is descended from in fantasy. Still it was based on a novel by Neil Gaiman, there was a small part for Ricky Gervais and generally it looked like it would be fun.

But my potential enjoyment of the movie was really about one thing. One man really.

Know what I was expecting out of Keith Richards in "Pirates 3"? Fonk yes, I should've known it would take a professional.

The dead prince brothers are hilarious, Claire Danes was able to act even without eyebrows and yet my enjoyment did end up coming from the one man I thought it would. Thank you Mr. De Niro. You really are the best.

Quick Review
7 - See It Saturday

The New Dramatic Chipmunk

Tue, 07 Aug 2007 21:08:46 GMT

Okay, maybe not. But enjoy none the less.

Basketball Fever - A "KG To Boston" Primer For Non-Fans

Wed, 01 Aug 2007 02:47:32 GMT

Today the Minnesota Timberwolves sent their star player Kevin Garnett to the Boston Celtics for five players and two draft picks. If you recognize the name "Sebastian Telfair", you know why and probably have been watching your computer vigilantly over the last two days. If you don't, this primer is for you.

Kevin Garnett is one of the top five players in the NBA in both talent and results. He will surely be elected to the basketball Hall of Fame as soon as he retires and will be remembered as one of the 50 greatest players of all-time. Simply put he will likely be the greatest player to play for the Timberwolves ever. He's also the most highly compensated basketball player ever. This upcoming season alone he will make more than $25 million dollars.

This is a problem because the NBA has a salary cap. Each team is allowed to spend approximately $55 million dollars on their roster with a few exceptions. The idea is this will keep teams in bigger markets from gaining an unfair advantage by simply outspending teams from smaller markets like teams do in baseball. It's lead to a competitive equality which has allowed the team from the 29th largest metropolitan area in the US to win four of the last seven league championships.

However it leads to a little math problem. When you're allowed to spend $55 million dollars on twelve players and one of those players accounts for almost half of that total, you aren't going to be able to field a very good remaining roster. You really only have two options. Either you can draft talented players because those players salaries are fixed at a very low level or you can sign players already on your team to new contracts because you are allowed to go over the salary cap to keep them on your team. Unfortunately the Timberwolves have not done very well with either. In fact, they found a new way to screw up both.

Before the 1998 season, they signed a decent but not great basketball player named Joe Smith to a below market value contract by promising they would sign him to a much higher contract once they were allowed to exceed the salary cap because he was on their roster. The powers that be found out about this and made an example out of the Timberwolves. The NBA took away five of the Timberwolves draft picks over the following years and disallowed Smith's contract.

Because of this the Timberwolves were not able to restock the supporting cast around Kevin with cheap young players like an NBA team usually would. Since we're still a small market team in a cold climate, the free agents who we were able to sign and then resign were not the best the league had to offer. So we've had almost ten years of the team being good because Kevin was on it and not great because it was really only Kevin. Even this has started to slip as Kevin has gotten older and able to do less and less.

That's why it all came to a head. Kevin was able to void his contract after this next season is over and sign with whomever he wanted. If he did that, the Timberwolves would have nothing to show for it. So, after giving it one last go last season and ending up tied for the 6th worst record in the league, it came time to trade our only piece worth having: Kevin Garnett.

Which we did today. For four young players with the fixed rate contracts, one veteran whose enormous contract expires after next season and two draft picks. To pair with our four young players who are on fixed rate contracts. And start thinking about the future. When maybe some mix of those ten young players (the eight we already have plus the two players we'll draft in the future) will turn into a winning team.

Didja See? The Simpsons Movie

Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:22:14 GMT

There were a lot of doubts about "The Simpsons Movie."

"It'll be a glorified episode," some said.

"All of the best jokes have been told," said others.

There were even a few who said, "You know, 'The Simpsons' isn't really that funny."

I said, "No, voices in my head. I will see the movie and I will laugh."

Tonight Susie and I saw the movie and we did laugh. There were a few gags which were ruined by the multiple trailers I saw over the last year. On the whole, the movie was something which they couldn't do on television. It wasn't a failure of the television show which has always had a good handle on scope and being adventurous in its story-telling. The movie was successful because it embraces its essence.

Everyone will see the "The Simpsons Movie." Instead of asking your friends, "Did you see 'The Simpsons' episode where..." you will be able to say, "Remember in 'The Simpsons Movie' when..." It will be a shared moment in the same way the entire series has been for the last 18 years. That gravity is something which only the movie will have.

Quick Review
7 - See It Saturday