The 83rd Academy Awards

    

Oscar season is one of my favorite times of the year.  There’s something about the event that just welcomes debate and opinion.  For whatever reason, the Oscars are the only award ceremony that holds any credibility anymore.  As much as I will complain about how the Academy is just a bunch of old men who refuse to recognize anything that attempts to be creative and function outside the box, they are able to do so and still remain relevant.  The Grammys can’t say that.  The Emmys can’t say that.  I don’t know that the Tonys ever could.  Maybe film is just more timeless.  Or maybe what makes a film good hasn’t changed much over the years.  I’m not really sure; I just know that although I don’t always agree with who gets the awards, there is an argument there.  So with that said let’s start the arguments.  Here’s my breakdown of the 83^rd Academy Awards…

Best Documentary Feature

Nominations:  Exit Through The Gift Shop, Gasland, Inside Job, Restrepo, Waste Land

My Pick: Exit Through The Gift Shop

Who I Think Will Win:  Restrepo

I covered a lot of this in my Top 5 Documentaries of 2010 list.  But, given another day to think about things, I feel like I gave Restrepo the shaft in that post.  It should have appeared on there somewhere, if not in the top 5, at least in the honorable mentions.  What makes Restrepo so good is that it is a true documentary.  The filmmakers turned on the cameras and presented to the audience what it was like serving in Afghanistan.  There is no bias or politics present at all.  In a day and age where most documentaries are just propaganda films this was very refreshing.  Still, I loved Exit Through The Gift Shop.  It might be one of my Top 5 favorite movies all year.  So I give my Oscar to Exit, but I think the Academy will be giving theirs to Restrepo, which doesn’t offend me at all.

Best Director

            Nominations:  Darren Aronofsky, David O. Russell, Tom Hooper, David Fincher, Joel and Ethan Coen

            My Pick:  Joel and Ethan Coen

            Who I Think Will Win:  David Fincher

            This is a tough call for me because I love Fincher.  He’s got eight director credits and only one of them is less then above average, Alien 3, which I’m willing to give him a pass on since it was his first movie.  I think the man is a genius and I really liked Social Network.  Going in, I felt like the plot was out of his wheelhouse, but after watching it that couldn’t have been further from the truth.  He did a great job getting the best out of the actor’s performances and kept the movie fast paced and intriguing, when it could have easily become dull.  Unfortunately he ran up against another Coen brother gem.  True Grit wasn’t one of my favorite movies of the year, but I can’t take away from how wonderfully these two can tell a story.  Their subtle use of humor, their deep understanding of character, their amazing control of tone all comes together beautifully.  This movie in anyone else’s hands would not have been half as good and because of that I think they deserve the award.  As far as the Academy goes, I think they are going to hand it to Fincher.  I have a feeling they are going to give The King’s Speech the Best Picture nod and then hand this award to Fincher as a consolation prize.

Best Actress in a Supporting Role

            Nominations:  Amy Adams, Helena Bonham Carter, Melissa Leo, Hailee Steinfeld, Jacki Weaver

            My Pick:  Jacki Weaver

            Who I Think Will Win: Melissa Leo

            This is a loaded category this year.  There are lots of great performances, but also a few questions.  Question one is, how the hell is Hailee Steinfeld considered a supporting actress?  True Grit is about her character.  She’s in every scene.  It doesn’t make any sense and is kind of unfair to the other nominees, not to mention shorting the young actress of the full credit she deserves.  Question two and three are, why is there all this hype about Amy Adams and Melissa Leo?  I don’t get it at all.  I didn’t feel Amy Adams made any impact on The Fighter at all and put in a very pedestrian performance.  I feel like any actress in Hollywood could have jumped into that role and you wouldn’t have noticed.  If I was responsible for the nominations I would have left Amy Adams out and put in Mila Kunis.  Kunis was great in Black Swan and deserves some recognition for it.  I would have also made Hailee Steinfeld a Best Actress nominee and put in Chloe Moretz from Kick-Ass in this category.  I think Moretz being left out has a lot to do with timing.  This summer her performance was all anybody was talking about, but by the time award season came around it seems that everyone forgot.  Melissa Leo, although I wasn’t crazy about her performance, makes a little more sense, but compare her conniving somewhat evil mother to Jacki Weaver’s and there is no contest.  Very few people, I’m sure, saw Animal Kingdom, an amazing film out of Australia, so they missed what is by far one of the best and creepiest performances of the year.  Jacki Weaver was brilliant  In my mind there is no doubt the award should go to Weaver, but all the press and momentum is with Leo, so I think the Academy will hand it to her.

Best Actor in a Supporting Role

            Nominations:  Christian Bale, John Hawkes, Jeremy Renner, Mark Ruffalo, Geoffrey Rush.

            My Pick:  Christian Bale

            Who I Think Will Win:  Christian Bale

            We don’t have to spend a lot of time on this one.  Christian Bale was amazing and should get the award.  I’ve struggled trying to figure out what everyone else found so amazing about The Fighter, but with this performance I totally agree.  I would love to see John Hawkes win, I thought he was great in Winter’s Bone, and I’ve loved him in pretty much everything he’s done, he deserves the recognition, but I just don’t see anyway Bale doesn’t win the prize.  The problem I have in this category is Mark Ruffalo.  I like the guy and the work he does, but there is no way its award worth.  Mark Ruffalo plays Mark Ruffalo in everything he does and there was nothing about this performance that was any different then any other performance he’s put in.  Matt Damon should have been nominated instead for his work in True Grit.

Best Actress

            Nominations:  Annette Bening, Nicole Kidman, Jennifer Lawrence, Natalie Portman, Michelle Williams

            My Pick:  Natalie Portman

            Who I Think Will Win:  Natalie Portman

            Let’s start with the bad.  Annette Bening being nominated is the biggest example of Academy politics in with this year’s awards.  Part of me wouldn’t be surprised if she wins in one of those life time achievement moves the Academy is so fond of.  There was nothing special about her performance at all.  If I was going to pick a performance from The Kids Are All Right to highlight it would have been Julianne Moore.  I don’t understand the hype around the movie at all, let alone Bening’s performance in it.  That being said, I see this as a two horse race.  Both Jennifer Lawrence and Natalie Portman were fantastic in their roles and both are worthy of an award.  Because Portman has been around longer and is more familiar with the voters, I give her the edge.

Best Actor

            Nominations:  Javier Bardem, Jeff Bridges, Jesse Eisenberg, Colin Firth, James Franco

            My Pick: James Franco

            Who I Think Will Win:  Colin Firth

            Full discloser, Biutiful is the one major movie I have not seen, so anything I say here does not weigh in Bardem’s performance because I didn’t see it.

            This category brings up one of my biggest problems with the Academy awards.  They always reward actors who play real people or people with some type of disorder or, like this year, both.  I argue that these performances are not as worth as one would think.  I think a good actor is someone who can create a character that has depth and is able to hold an audience’s attention.  When portraying a person everyone is already familiar with or that has some type of disorder you aren’t creating anything, you’re just mimicking.  I am much more impressed with an actor that can take a normal person that a writer created off the page and give them life and make them intriguing.  Colin Firth had a crutch he could lean on, a speech impediment.  Jesse Eisenberg didn’t have to make up an interesting persona, he just had to watch video of the already interesting Mark Zuckerberg.  To me, the hands down winner in this category is James Franco.  Yes, I know he was playing a real person, but he did something else that doesn’t seem to get enough credit with the Academy, he kept an audience entertained for an hour and a half with no one else to play off of.  The majority of 127 Hours is Franco trapped in a canyon all alone and the movie is not dull for one second.  That is a great performance.  The only performance I can think of that compares was Tom Hanks in Castaway, another one that was not celebrated by the Academy.  So, if you look back on history and figure in how the Academy tends to vote and which way the press momentum is going, Colin Firth is pretty much a shoe-in, but I still have my fingers crossed that Franco can pull it out.

Best Picture

            Nominations:  Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The Kids Are All Right, The King’s Speech, 127 Hours, The Social Network, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter’s Bone

            My Pick:  127 Hours

            Who I Think Will Win:  The King’s Speech

            Let’s start with who doesn’t belong in this group.  As I mentioned above, The Kids Are All Right is just not an award worth movie.  It was entertaining and totally worth seeing, but nothing about it screamed award worthy.  I felt that the performances were overrated and there was nothing special about the writing or directing.  Also, you may have gathered from my writings about the other categories that I am not big on The Fighter.  I didn’t see what everyone loved about it.  It was an OK movie that had a few great moments and one great performance but was otherwise flat.  In the place of these two movies I would have nominated Animal Kingdom and Scott Pilgrim Vs The World.  Animal Kingdom is an Australian film about a young kid who is forced to live with his criminal uncles after his mom dies.  It is a great movie that got no press here in the States.  If you haven’t seen it, put it in your Netflix queue now.  Scott Pilgrim is exactly the type of movie the new ten nomination format was supposed to help promote.  It is creative, funny, well written, well acted and totally different then anything the Academy has recognized before.  We should be promoting filmmakers like Edgar Wright to make more creative interesting films not the same old thing like The Kids Are All Right and The Fighter and The King’s Speech.

            Yes, I know The King’s Speech is everyone’s favorite movie this year and I like it as well, but one can’t deny that there is nothing different about the film.  It uses the same old formula and adds in some great acting to make it award worthy.  I can’t imagine it not winning Best Picture; it has everything the Academy seems to vote for and a ton of press behind it.  My pick is 127 Hours for many of the reasons I’ve already talked about.  I am extremely impressed by any movie that can keep me entertained for hours with limited setting and limited cast.  One of my all time favorite movies is Lifeboat, a little known Hitchcock film that takes place solely on a lifeboat in the middle of the ocean.  Add themes like the triumph of the human spirit and the overcoming of one’s ego to a great acting performance and wonderful directing and you have a fantastic movie worthy of a Best Picture nod.

Top 5: 2010 Documentaries

     Today's Oscar themed list is Top 5 Documentaries.  Once again, I haven't gotten a chance to see all the nominated films so the list probably isn't as researched as it should be, but oh well.  I've seen Exit Through The Gift Shop and Restrepo and Gasland is next in my queue, so hopefully I will get to it before the awards.  Anyway, here's my favorites from 2010...

5.  Casino Jack And The United States Of Money
     This movie tells the story of Jack Abramoff and all the super corrupt dealing he had.  Pretty interesting stuff.  It was well told and covered all sides issues.  The film makers were able to get interviews from most of the people involved like ex-Congressman Bob Ney.  Its a must see if you are interested in the inside dealings in Washington.

4.  The Tillman Story
     As the title suggests, the documentary tells the story of Pat Tillman, safety for the Arizona Cardinals who quit pro football to enlist in the army.  For those of you who didn't know, Tillman ended up dieing in Iraq and this is where the movie spends most of its time.  The movie is interesting and important not so much because of Tillman but for showcasing how corrupt our military truly is.  The movie tries to shine a light on the insular nature of the military and to what extent they will go to shut civilians out.  The movie is a scary warning to what an unchecked army can become.

3.  Art Of The Steal
     I'm not sure how bias this documentary about the biggest private collection of art in the United States, the Barnes Collection, actually is, but that doesn't take away from its entertainment value.  The way the movie presents the information, it seems to be very clear what Mr. Barnes wanted down with his collection, so the movie becomes a tragic telling of the long journey city politicians took to take it over.  The movie does a great job of making you both long to see the collection and hate the greedy politicians who ignored the will of a dead man.  Even if you aren't a huge art fan this is a great movie about unchecked power and the uselessness of a will.

2.  The Lottery
     I talked about this is my Top 5 Oscar Snub list.  I'm not sure why Waiting For Superman got all the press.  This documentary on charter schools and our failing public school systems was far superior.  It does a better job of presenting the issues and isn't afraid to show all sides of the arguments.  Even though it takes an obvious side, it's much less of a propaganda film and much more of a documentary of issues we are facing educating in poorer neighborhoods.

1.  Exit Through The Gift Shop
     In all honesty, I'm not so sure I would call this a documentary.  When the movie comes to a close, one isn't sure if everything seen was real or if Exit is as much a documentary as Spinal Tap.  But, the Academy calls it a documentary, so I include it in this list.  I can't really give justice to how much I enjoyed this film.  I was talking about it weeks after seeing it.  Very informative, very funny, absolutely mind boggling.  It's everything a good movie should be and a little more.  There are as many questions to be asked at movie's end then there are questions answered during, the biggest being, What is real?  One point the movie makes perfectly clear, people will spend tons of money just to be considered cool.

Honorable Mentions:  Blood To Wine, Joan Rivers: A Piece Of Work

Top 5: Oscar Snubs

     

Today’s Oscar Top 5 is Top 5 Oscar Snubs.  5 movies, actors, writers and/or directors that I thought were snub by the Academy or at least the most grievous of the snubs this year…

5.  Matt Damon as Best Supporting Actor

Not that it matters because Christian Bale is winning this one no matter who else was nominated, but Damon put in a much better performance then Mark Ruffalo.  I mean, has anyone ever seen Mark Ruffalo play anyone except Mark Ruffalo.  I like the guy fine and think he’s an enjoyable actor but has anyone ever acused him of having range.  Damon played a character and played that character different and well.

      4.  Mila Kunis as Best Supporting Actress

I know that Amy Adams and Melissa Leo got a lot of buzz for their performances in The Fighter, but I didn’t get it.  I didn’t see anything special about their turns especially when you put them next to Christian Bale.  Mila Kunis, on the other hand, was great.  Natalie Portman and Kunis made Black Swan.  It just wouldn’t have been the same movie if both of these women didn’t bring their A games and that should have been recognized.

3.  Scott Pilgrim Vs The World as Anything

I know it’s not your typical Oscar fair, but it was a great movie.  The Academy needs to use this whole 10 nominations thing to break out of its old fashioned ways and try to recognize new creative films.  Scott Pilgrim was a creative film that worked on many levels.  It was much better then both The Fighter and The Kids Are All Right.  It should have landed somewhere in the list of nominations, if not best picture then best director or art direction or even visual effects, something.  If the Oscars want to go the way of the Grammys keep nominating the films they nominate.  If they want to stay up with the times they need to start recognizing films like this.

2.  Lottery as Best Documentary Feature

All the buzz this year went to Waiting For Superman, which interestingly enough didn’t get a nod either, but this was a far superior doc on the problems with public education in our country.  It came of as less bias, did a better job of explaining some of the more complex issues and was just more compelling.  It deserved some recognition.

      1.  Danny Boyle as Best Director

127 Hours was probably my favorite nominated film this year.  To keep an audience on the edge of their seats for an hour and a half focusing on just one man trapped in one setting is great story telling and that’s exactly what Boyle did.  For my money Franco is the best actor and Boyle is the best director and nobody else is in the discussion.

Honorable Mention: Chris Nolan as Best Director, Justin Timeberlake as Best Supporting Actor

Top 5: Funniest Movies of 2010

     In honor of the Oscars this Sunday, I will run 2010 movie themed Top 5 lists the rest of week, leading up to a Soap Box post on my Oscars thoughts Saturday, such as who I think should win, who I think is going to win, etc.  I will start with the Top 5 Funniest Movies of 2010.  Keep in mind I didn’t see all the movies released in 2010, in fact I missed a few possible candidates for the list like Due Date, Jackass 3d and Burlesque, so the list is less then complete.  But none the less, here are the Top 5 Funniest Movies of 2010 that I saw…

5. Toy Story 3

It’s really hard to go wrong with Pixar.  Granted this installment of the Toy Story saga was heavier on the drama then the previous two, it still brought plenty of funny.  It’s impressive that the writers can keep making these characters still seem so fresh and funny.  Hopefully they keep the streak going with Cars 2 this year.

4. MacGruber

I wasn’t sure how this SNL skit was going to translate into a movie, and either did most of America from the box office numbers, but the answer was damn well.  There were a bunch of fall-off-the-couch funny moments in this flick and, in my opinion, was a much better send up of action movies then the critical darling, Hot Fuzz.  Will Forte doesn’t get enough credit for how funny he is and anyone who didn’t see this movie should check it out.

3. Hot Tub Time Machine

This movie had me hooked the minute I heard the title.  Add John Cusak, Rob Corddry and Craig Robinson to the mix and you pretty much have a sure fire comedy hit.  It was a bit more blue and gross out humor then I expected, but I’m a huge Kevin Smith fan, so that really only enhanced my enjoyment.

2. Kick-Ass

This movie worked on many levels, its humor just being one of them.  It was touching, exciting and a bit graphically violent.  Christopher Mintz-Plasse was as funny as always, but the really surprise was the introduction of Aaron Johnson and, more notable, Chloe Moretz into the comedy world.

1. Scott Pilgrim Vs The World

This was the year of the off-beat non-traditional comic book movie.  Much like Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim was based on a cult comic book and showcased it’s pedigree with an interesting storytelling style.  As action packed as the movie was, I laughed out loud through most of it.  Directed by Edgar Wright, of Shaun Of The Dead fame, this movie perfectly captured the feel of both a comic book and a video game.  Totally original.  Totally hilarious.  A must see movie.

Honorable Mentions:  Date Night, She’s Out Of My League

How I Met Your Mother: Garbage Island

     So it's final, Zoey is not the mother!  The next question is, is the mother going to be revealed at the end of the season?  Or is it going to take more then one season for Ted to get to Punchy's wedding?  Or is it going to be like when we were told that the mother was in Ted's first class and another stalling technique will implemented to delay the revealing?  In all honesty, I think the time has come for us to find out who the mother is.  The show is getting stale and I'm getting tired of all these almost run-ins and delay tactics.  The show could use a shot in the arm and the addition of the mother as a new character could do it.  The show doesn't have to end when she's revealed.  Ted could go on to tell the many stories that had to occur after Ted met her.  As one of my friends says, it used to be called Two Guys, a Girl And a Pizza Place but then they got rid of the pizza place and it became Two Guys And a Girl.  I think I'm read for "How I Lived With Your Mother."
     Other then the revelation that Zoey is not the mother, there was a lot to like about this episode even if it wasn't one of the funnier ones.  The Lily/Marshal sex problems were one.  With one swoop the writers were able to play with a role reversal from the sterotypical marraige while keeping true to the characters we have grown to love.  All we see and hear about in sitcoms or movies or stand-up is how the husband is trying to seduce or talk the reluctant wife into bed.  We all know (or are told) that the wife is the one that holds out sex from the man.  The HIMYM writers turned this on its head and made Lily the one begging for sex and trying to seduce Marshal into making out.  While this is funny because it goes against everything we know about men/female relationships, is also fits into everything we know about Lily and Marshal.  I bought that Lily would find herself in a position where she was sexually frustrated and found the fact that it was a women trying to talk a man into sex funny at the same time.
     I also like the fact that Ted was forced to deal one last time with the Captain.  We're all familiar with having to deal with our significant other's ex.  It's never a comfortable situation.  Add in how creepy the Captain is in the first place, and you have comedy gold.  The situation brought up two other interesting relationship situations, one being there are two sides to every story, the other being everyone ends up being the bad guy at some point.  Ted finds out that Zoey's divorce did not exactley go down the way she told him, that the Captian had a much different version.  Nothing is ever clean or clear in a breakup and this episode did a good job of showing how each participant has their own version of what happened, whether its what they believe or whether it's just more convenient.
     I'm still not on board the Barney relationship.  Some people argue that his desire to have a relationship with the new girl shows growth, but I just feel like it's a retread storyline.  If feels exactly like the Barney/Robin situation all over again.  I think it's lazy writers rehashing a storyline they already used.  Barney already went down this road.  Either he's going to be adverse to it because he's tried before and failed or he will be more open to it because it's a little familiar, not going through all the same steps with a different girl.  Leave Barney single!  We like single Barney.  Give him warmth and sympathy by focusing on his search for his father not another doomed relationship with a girl.
     One last note... I loved the joke at the end when Ted started to tell Wendy the waitress how he met his wife.  Wendy didn't even know what she was getting into and she cut him off.  Or maybe she did know how long winded Ted could be from all those years serving him.  Either way, I love when a show can make fun of itself.

Boston Bruins: Game 52

    

Record: 33-19-7 (first place in division, third in conference)

            Two wins in a row for the Bruins, but in all honesty those were two wins they should have had with no problem.  Both the Islanders and Senators need to be beat if you want to continue to compete at the highest levels of the NHL.  Easy teams should be easy wins.  The real news over the last couple days were the trades Chiarelli pulled off, one for Thomas Kaberle, the Toronto defensemen and one with the Atlanta Thrashers for center Rich Peverley and defensemen Boris Valabik.  Add that to the already acquired Chris Kelly and the Bruins are a much different looking team then they were a week ago.

            The biggest move was the pick up of Kaberle in exchange for Joe Colborne, our 2011 first round pick and a conditional 2012 second round pick.  The conditions of the 2012 pick being either the signing of Kaberle for next year or the Bruins making it to the Stanley Cup finals.  The Bruins needed help on the blue line.  They have a nice group of young defensemen that might blossom into NHL greats, but at the moment they are nothing more then a bunch of number threes.  I love Kampfer, Boychuk and McQuaid, but they just aren’t there yet.  They also lack a good puck moving d-man.  Chara is considered the Bruin’s number one defenseman but he couldn’t keep a beach ball on his stick through center ice, forget about a puck.  Kaberle helps with both those issues, but I’m not sure he’s the answer.  He will be a huge help on the power play and brings some puck movement to the blueline, but his numbers have gone down over the last 5 years and he is in his 12th season in the NHL.  Luckily the cost wasn’t too steep.  Joe Colborne has a big upside, but we’re not really sure yet what he will become in the NHL.  There is a chance he will become a superstar, but with the Bruins depth at the position it is worth the risk.  Since we already have Toronto’s first round pick this year, giving up our pick isn’t much of a loss.  If things play out like they appear to be heading, the Toronto pick will be higher then ours and there is still a chance that the Toronto pick becomes a lottery pick.

            The trade for Peverley and Valabik was mostly a cap clearing move.  We gave up Blake Wheeler and Mark Stuart.  Anyone who has read my Bruins posts knows my feelings on Wheeler.  I won’t miss him at all.  Most nights he was a waste of space on the ice and you never knew what kind of effort you were going to get from him.  I would have rather seen Ryder go, but I doubt there is anyone who would be dumb enough to pick up that contract.  Stuart was a good Bruin and will be missed, but in all honesty, he has been the odd man out of the defense corp. recently.  Valabik is going to Providence.  I doubt he will have any effect on the big team.  Peverley is a great face-off guy, something the Bruins have had problems with this year.  Other then Bergeron, the Bruins don’t really have a go to face-off winner.  Peverley will help with that.

            Over all I think Chiarelli did a great job with these moves.  I would like to see the Bruins pick up another defensemen before the deadline, but I’m not sure the cap space we are dealing with will allow that.

My Soap Box: New York Islanders

    

One of the biggest sport arguments of all time is, “Does fighting belong in the game of hockey?”  Is it a barbaric practice that has nothing to do with playing the game and only appeals to the lowest common denominator or is it a necessary aspect that helps police an already inherently violent sport while adding another level of excitement to the small extremely loyal fan base?  For me there isn’t much doubt, I fall whole heartedly on the later side of the argument.  Fighting in hockey isn’t only fun to watch, but is integral to how the sport is played.  And if you don’t agree, I’ve been known to say, don’t watch.  As much as people complain, I’ve never been at a game where the crowd boos when two goons drop the gloves, I’ve never seen someone get up to get a drink or go the bathroom while two teams are dukeing it out, I’ve never seen someone sit on their hands and bemoan the barbarianism while the ice is littered with shed hockey equipment.

That’s not to say that the sport can’t be exciting without fighting.  It’s a fast paced non-stop type of game when it’s at its best with or without fighting.  That’s also not to say there isn’t a point where a fighting incident can become inappropriate.  There is a point where a player or a team can go to far.  It’s usually these incidents that get picked up by the major media outlets and broadcast over and over giving the sport a worse reputation then is deserved.  It’s usually after these types of incidents that all the anti-fighting people come out of the wood work calling for it to be removed from the game.  And as much I enjoy fighting, I can see their point.  Maybe the game would be better off without fighting, but it would only be better without fighting if the league stands up and becomes more consistent with how it deals with other life threatening actions on the ice like blows to the head, sticks to the face, and various other cheap shots.  The worst of fighting incidents don’t just happen, they build up over time.  They are usually in retaliation to some cheap shot or injury causing play or many cheap shots and injury causing plays. 

One of these incidents happened last Friday when the New York Islanders decided they had enough of the Pittsburgh Penguins and started running around the rink trying to hurt anyone in a black and gold jersey.  Over the next couple of days, everyone in sports media had chimed in and the verdict was that the Islanders had stepped over the line.  Even old school hockey people were crying foul.  The Islanders were a black mark on the NHL.  While I can’t say that I didn’t cringe during the game’s biggest brawl, I also can’t say that I agree with what everyone else is saying.  This didn’t come out of the blue, the Islanders didn’t just decide that since they can’t win games they might as well beat the crap out of other teams.  There is a history.  And if anyone is to blame for what happened on the ice, I think it’s the NHL front office that seems to pick and choose what players and what teams to punish based on who they like instead of the actual on ice happenings.

I can’t argue that it’s poor sportsmanship that the Islanders brought up the biggest fighter on their minor league team, Michael Haley for the game and him getting into three fights.  I can’t argue that Matt Martin’s sucker punch on Maxim Talbot was cowardly and cheap.  I can’t argue that Trevor Gillies actions that lead to the third period brawl were totally uncalled for and dangerous.  Everyone who attacked those issues is absolutely right.  But attacking those issues and saying fighting thusly doesn’t belong in the game is attacking the symptom and not the cause of the problem.

Let’s take a closer look at what led to the Islander’s third period rampage.  It really all started when the two teams met on February 2 and the Penguins Max Talbot laid out Blake Comeau with a dirty hit.  It wasn’t one of the much talked about blows to the head, but Talbot came rushing from behind and took Comeau out.  Of course there was no penalty called.  It could have been hitting from behind, it could have been charging, but the refs didn’t call anything.  Then all hell breaks loose in the third when Matt Cooke, arguably the dirtiest player in hockey, takes out Islander goalie DiPietro.  Did DiPietro go out of his way to get in Cooke’s way?  Yes, but Cooke had plenty of time to avoid him.  In fact his first instinct is to skate around him and you can see the moment he decides, no, I’m going to take him out, changes his direction and lays his hip into DiPietro.  DiPietro then ends up going toe to toe with Penguins goalie Brent Johnson and gets dropped with one punch.  If you continue to watch the TV coverage you see Johnson skate over to the Penguins bench where the players are laughing and patting Johnson on the back.  This all leads to last Friday.  The first fight starts when a Penguin launches off the ice to hit an Islander (no penalty called on the hit) and the second when a Penguin keeps at the Islander until he says ok.  It’s not until this point that the Islanders loose their cool.

In my eyes what happened was the Penguins were taking liberties with the Islanders.  The on ice officials didn’t do anything about it.  The NHL didn’t do anything about it.  The Penguins were taking cheap shots, picking fights, and laughing the whole time.  How would you react?  When you don’t feel like justice is being served you tend to take justice into your own hands.  That’s what the Islanders did.  I can’t fault a team that the NHL officials don’t care to protect deciding to stand up and say you’re not going to treat us like that anymore.  The secret to fixing the fighting problem in hockey isn’t punishing the fighters; it’s making their jobs pointless.  The problem isn’t players trying to protect their teammates, it’s the NHL and owners like the once great Mario Lemieux allowing and paying players like Matt Cooke to continue to go out and intentionally hurt others.

We all know the names, Matt Cooke, Steve Avery, Steve Ott, Dale Hunter, Ulf Samuelsson, Claude Lemieux; all guys that are or were known for being dirty, all guys who are or were know for playing reckless and hurting other players, all players who have or did have long careers.  If the NHL doesn’t want the black eyes that come along with the incidents like Friday night, how about making it safer on the ice, how about getting players like this off the ice.  The league needs to start to punish these types of players with some consistency and not let players on certain teams off easy.  Why is it if you play for the Bruins or Islanders and breath wrong on another player you get suspended, but if you play for the Penguins or Flyers you get to do whatever you want?  If Mario Lemieux is so worried about dirty play, how about not giving a pay check to the dirtiest player in the game?  As long as the owners continue to give contracts to players like Cooke and Avery there will always need to be goons and there will always be incidents like Friday.  Let’s, for once, use the incident to fix the problem, to shine the light on dirty players who are allowed to run around free throughout the league and not on the reaction to their behavior.  Let’s address the problem and not the symptoms.

Book Review: One Day

     It’s hard to remember, when reading a book, that you can’t truly judge a piece of art until you take in the whole thing.  This comes easy with a painting or a sculpture that you can take in with one look or with a poem or a song that you can take in over a couple short minutes.  A book is a different beast.  Most of us spend days, if not weeks and months, with one book and one can’t really take in the book as a whole piece of art until they read that last word at the end of that last sentence at the bottom of that last page.  In this day and age of instant Facebook updates and spontaneous tweets it has become damn near impossible for any of us to hold off our opinions for five minutes forget about the few days it takes to plow through a novel, especially for those of us who look to critique everything.  I find myself starting to write my book reviews in my head after reading just a few pages and this just isn’t fair to the author and the piece of art they have created.  Would it be fair to look at only half of Starry Night to determine its place in art history?  Would you be totally just in saying “Maneater” by Hall and Oates is a terrible song if you only listened to the first verse?

            I ran into this problem recently while reading One Day by David Nicholls.  After the first few chapters I was already preparing what I was going to write about it.  And then everything changed.  The story took a turn I wasn’t ready for and story suddenly took on a much more profound meaning.  In all honesty, most of what I was going to write before still rings true.  You may not be able to judge a painting as a whole from only seeing half of it, but you can make judgments about things like brush stroke and color combinations.  You can hear a few seconds of a poem and make judgments about word choice.  My first impression of One Day was it was a Nick Hornby novel mixed with the movie When Harry Met Sally.  To be fair to Mr. Nicholls, I’m a huge Hornby fan and my comparison of this novel to his work may just have more to do with the fact that they are both British then a repeating of style.  I haven’t spent enough time reading modern British literature to make that distinction.  One thing I am sure of is the characters felt extremely stereotypical.  Dexter, the male protagonist, was your typical male playboy who is too involved with his image and party lifestyle to admit to himself or others that Emma is the perfect girl for him.  Emma, the female protagonist, was your typical strong female who is lacking the self-esteem to feel she deserves a good looking boyfriend and a fruitful career.  Although the interplay with the two was well written and at times very funny, I didn’t feel like I was reading anything new.  I’ve spent time with these characters before and felt I knew where the story was going, which is probably why I was so surprised with how it ended.

            The thing that makes this novel readable right from the get go is its very original structure.  As the title suggests, each chapter is one day of the year in the lives of the protagonists, June 15.  Each chapter leaves one year of back-story the reader needs to be caught up on.  If anything else, this structure keeps you reading as you try to figure out what happened over the course of the year.  How did the characters get from there to here?  If the chapter starts with Dexter, you want to read to find out where Emma is.  If is starts with Emma, vise versa for Dex.  The fact that the characters themselves feel so cliché is trumped by a structure that pulls you through the plot.  But it’s not until the end that the structure makes complete sense, that it goes from an interesting gimmick to an artistic statement. 

            One Day is not a great novel, but it is a very enjoyable read.  It won’t take you long to get through.  The writing is funny and moving and the structure makes you want to keep reading.  But what I took away most from the novel was the reminder to be patient with my reading.  Let the artist paint the whole picture before you judge its merit.  The novelist sometimes needs 300 pages to complete the picture, so judgment should be reserved until all 300 are read.

Top 5: Hockey Brawls

     I want to do a post on my reaction to last Friday's Islander/Penguin brawl and the media firestorm that followed, I just need to find the time to do it right.  Until then here is my Top 5 Best Hockey Brawls of all time...

5. Montreal v Philadelphia May 11th 1989 www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcM2rawzAkI&feature=related
      This was one of the more memorable events from my youth.  Ron Hextal charging Chris Chelios and the brawl that followed.  Ron Hextal was one of the craziest players to ever strap on the goalie pads and this was one of his finest moments.  I also love that Patrick Roy showed how much of a wimp he was by standing on the other side of the ice yelling at Ron Hextal while he was being held back by the linesman

4.  Bruins v Rangers December 24th 1979 www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ef1YVXM9IU
     I didn't see this when it happened, I wasn't even 3 yet, but I've heard stories about it my whole life.  One of the more iconic events in hockey history.  The fight really wasn't that big on the ice, but suddenly Terry O'Reilly jumps into the stands and all hell breaks loose.  My favorite moments are Mike Millbury beating the fan with his own shoe and Bruins announcer Fred Cusak's understated comment, "This is no good for the game"

3.  Detroit v Colorado March 26th 1997 www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOCXfu_mWyY&feature=related
     I could have picked a couple between these two teams.  But this is the best as far as I'm concerned.  I was calling Claude Lemieux  "The Turtle" way back when he was playing in Montreal.  It was nice to see his tactics never changed.  Patrick Roy also shows in this one he's less of a wimp when Ron Hextal isn't on the other side of the ice.

2. Boston v Montreal November 20th 1986 www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhqUl13ltJ4
     Another classic hockey moment.  The biggest rival in hockey.  After the original brawl is over, Chris Nilan takes a swing at the Bruins bench on his way off the ice causing another brawl to start that spills into the dressing room.  Greatest moment is when Bruins coach Terry O'Reilly decides to relive his playing days and goes face to face with Mike McPhee.

1.  Montreal v Quebec April 20th 1984 www.youtube.com/watch?v=veX55rLYAgQ&feature=fvwrel
     This one happened over two periods.  The first half started at the end of the second period and came to a sudden end when Louie Slegr knocks out Jean Hamel with one of the greatest knockout punches of all time.  The fight picked up again when the two teams stepped back on the ice for the 3rd period when all the players who were kicked out of the game decided they didn't want to leave.  What makes this fight even crazier is it happened during Game 6 of the Adams Division Finals.  Rarely do you see any fighting in a playoff game forget about two periods of brawling.  It's easy to say these two teams really hated each other!

How I Met Your Mother: Desperation Day

     I'm sure some people feel I've been to hard on HIMYM on this blog.  After all, its a sitcom not Shakespeare.  Its supposed to make us laugh not change the world and critiquing every plot point just holds it up to a standard a goofy comedy isn't trying to meet in the first place.  But one of the reasons I fell in love with HIMYM was its attention to detail.  Each episode seemed to build on what the previous had established and we were given strong characters with a deep history.  Much of the humor was based on this history and not stereotypical caricatures like other sitcoms.  Jokes were written to fit the established situations not situations written to make the jokes.  But here we are in season 6 and the history seems to be becoming to deep for the writers to keep up.  It is a common problem with long running sitcoms.  Watch the first season of Friends and then watch season 9.  Each character became a ridiculous cartoon caricature of the more real character they started as.  Joey started as a believable dumb guy that we were all familiar with, he ended as an incredible stupid character who acted in a way no really person would.  I had faith that the HIMYM writers would avoid this problem.  They were too clever with their writing to let this happen.  But I'm now starting to think I was wrong.
     I bring this up because for the second or third time this season HIMYM threw away what has already been established to make a character fit into a situation instead of the other way around.  "Desperation Day" could have been a great episode, but due to some poor plotting decisions was just OK.  The revelation that Marshal was hiding in Minnesota and reverting back to childish behavior in response to his father's death was a great move.  It was both touching and funny.  It gave us an opportunity to both feel for Marshal's loss and laugh at his ridiculous behavior.  But where the HIMYM writers went wrong was with Ted.  I can only suppose that they wanted Ted to end up in Minnesota to help resolve Marshal's story, but by doing so they ignored everything we know about Ted.  From the very first episode it has been established that Ted jumps into relationships too fast and reestablished as recently as "Say Cheese" from last season.  One could say the whole show is based on the premise that Ted jumps into relationships, constantly searching for "The One."  That being the case, why would Ted suddenly run to Minnesota because he felt his relationship with Zoey was moving too fast?  I have no problem with character growth and there are certainly events during the course of the show that could push Ted into being reluctant to jump in like he once did, but none of that was mentioned or established in the episode.  We were just supposed to except that Ted, for no explained reason, would suddenly part from 6 years of behavior and run from commitment.  It didn't work and was just lazy writing from a group of writers that hasn't been historically lazy.
      To make the decision even worse, the writers had a better option staring them right in the face.  Another character that the writers have been dropping the ball on of late is Barney. We started the season off with Barney finding out that his real father was out there and since have been dropped various hints that he is struggling with the fact that father wasn't present as he grew up or even still present today.  What better foil to Marshal?  We have two characters coming from different starting points trying to deal with a lack of a father figure as adults.  This episode would have been so much better if it dealt with the very parallel stories and maybe the two could have helped each other to resolution.  The door is still open for such an episode to happen.  And I honestly hope that the HIMYM writers have it in the pipeline, but now would have been a perfect time for it.
     I also have a problem with what looks like another Barney girlfriend.  Didn't we learn from the Barney/Robin relationship that Barney works best without a girlfriend?  Barney is at his funniest single and putting him in a relationship just kills the character.  Maybe the writers feel it makes him more sympathetic, but I think that would be better accomplished by better exploring his search for his father.  The fact of the matter is Robin is the perfect match for Barney.  They both want the same thing from life, they compliment each other perfectly.  If that didn't work, any other hook up is going to feel like second best.  It's hard to look back and say the decision was wrong, hindsight is always 20/20, but they never should have put the two together in the first place.  They should have hinted at how good the two are for each other, given the two all those special moments, but never put them together until it is reveled at the show's conclusion that they are together now.  The pay off would have been so much better.
     All in all, HIMYM used to be must see TV, a show I couldn't wait to watch each week, but is quickly becoming merely pleasant and mildly entertaining, just a normal run of the mill sitcom. And that makes me a little sad.

Other episode notes...
     - Marshpillow needs to be a new character
     - loved Marshal's grow by telling Ted "we're men now... leave the crust on!"
     - I was going to point out that Ted and Marshal were playing the original Nintendo when Marshal claims to have Super Mario Cart which was a Super Nintendo game and then rip the writers for not realizing this, but then I remembered how annoyed I get at people who do that.  I know what the joke was, I'm not going to get caught up on details the writers should have checked up on.

From My Queue: Waiting For Superman

Waiting For Superman: 2 out of 5 stars

             

            writers: Davis Guggenheim, Billy Kimball

            director: Davis Guggenheim

            The problem with most documentaries is that they only showcase one side of an issue.  The filmmaker usually has an agenda and even if he/she throws in the other side of the issue, it isn’t given the time or weight it deserves.  Michael Moore is famous for leaving out facts or quickly dismissing things that would hurt his point.  The fact is most documentaries are propaganda pieces and not the well researched even sided pieces of journalism they claim to be.  Although “Waiting For Superman” falls into this propaganda category, it does have some important things to say about education in this country.

            The biggest piece of propaganda in the movie is the anti-teacher union stance it pushes for most of the two hour running time.  As much as I agree that the teacher unions need to be broken up or at least give in, it would have been nice to hear what actual public school teachers have to say on the topic.  There were a few quick comments from union reps, but there was no time given to a defense of their stance.  Some may say there is no defense, and again, I tend to side with this thought, but to be a truly even handed film we needed to hear from the teachers.  They have reasons for wanting to keep tenure and what ever else the union provides them.  It would have been nice to hear that argument.

                        One of the solutions to the education problem suggested by the movie is Charter Schools.  Although some Charter Schools have been successful in bridging the performance gap there was one problem I had with the movie’s trumpeting of the Charter School and really what I see as a major flaw in the movie as a whole.  I admit they do mention that there are more failing Charter Schools then successful ones but it never addresses the difference between kids or school systems where the parents support the educators versus those where the parents don’t care.  The movie parades these children with very supportive parents in front of us and asks how can we be letting them down.  It hails Charter Schools as the answer to the question how do we get poor communities educated but fails to point out that all they have done is pull out the kids with parents that care and put them in a place where they aren’t distracted by the kids who aren’t that lucky.  Anyone who has spent a few days in a school could tell you there is a huge difference between children whose parents are present and active in their lives and who support the teacher’s attempts to educate their kids and children whose parents look at school as a day care.  If a teacher disciplines a child but that discipline isn’t backed up at home, that child is going to continue to act up and the more that child acts the harder its going to be for that teacher to teach the children who are open to learning.  Just the fact that the parents in the movie are willing to take the time to try to get there kid into another school, to take the time to register and go down to the lottery, separates them from many of the parents in these problem schools.  The first step in fixing the school system is getting the parents take part in the process or totally separate the absent parent kids from the present parent kids.

            I really feel “Waiting For Superman” is a must see documentary.  It makes important points and at the very least starts a discussion about what we need desperately to happen in this county.  But I can’t help but conclude that it fails as a journalistic piece of film.  It is quite obvious that the film makers have an agenda and ultimately this hurts the message of the film.  It becomes more propaganda then documentary.  The important thing to do is look through the propaganda and pull out the things that are valid and worth discussing.

Boston Bruins: Game 47

Record: 31-16-7 (first place in division, third place in conference)
   
     The rivalry is back!  Last night's game brought back the days of Chris Nilan swinging at the Bruin's bench on his way off the ice causing a brawl down into the locker rooms that enticed coach Terry O'Reilly to join in.  It was up tempo hard nose hockey right from the opening face off.  The score was a little out of hand, the defense and goaltending a little sloppy, but it didn't take away from the enjoyment.  If the last two weeks have proven anything its that this team has heart.  Gone is last year's team that couldn't find it in themselves to defend their teammates and put a little hurting on the cheap shoting Penguins.  The Bruins lead the league in fighting majors, ahead of, surprise, surprise, the Pittsburgh Penguins.  The message has to be out, don't mess with this team, don't take liberties with them, or you will pay the price.  It's awesome to see old time hockey being played in Boston again.
     It's been a while since I've written about this team and a lot has happened.  Jordan Caron has been sent down to the minors and then brought back up.  Marc Savard has come back from concussion problems and then had his season ended with concussion problems.  Nathan Horton has disappeared.  Brad Marchand has emerged.  With all the change, somethings have stayed the same.  Michael Ryder and Blake Wheeler need to go and Tim Thomas is the team MVP.  I have no problem admitting when I'm wrong and my early opinions of Horton and Marchand were wrong.  After a quick start Horton has proven to put out more lack luster performances then not.  Hopefully his five point game last night will signify a reemergence of the player we saw early on, but it is going to take more then one game to make this the case.  If this team is going to make a run at the cup they need the Horton we saw last night and not the one we've been watching the last few months.  Marchand has gone in the other direction.  His move from the "Merlot Line" to the second line between Patrice Bergeron and Mark Recchi has jump started his offensive production.  I wasn't sure that he had the skills to be an offensive force in the NHL but boy was I wrong.  It is looking like Marchand could turn out to be a better skilled Randy Burridge, a solid scorer who plays physical on both sides of the ice, the type of guy every hockey team needs.

Top 5: TV Shows Cancelled Before Their Time

     Thanks to all the snow in the northeast, I have found myself with tons of free time.  Which means I should be able to get back to a regular schedule with this thing.  I'll start with a Top 5 list I eluded to in a previous post, Top 5 Shows Cancelled Before Their Time, in honor of Terriers, which was much to good of a show to be taken off the air after one season.  I decided to limit the list to shows that only lasted one season or broadcast under 20 episodes.  I would have liked to include shows like Ed (which lasted 4 seasons) or Pushing Daisies (which lasted 2) or Veronica Mars (which lasted 3) but the real point of the list was to honor shows that I felt ripped off by not getting to spend more time with.  That's not to say I wasn't devastated when Ed was taking off the air or that I wouldn't have wanted to spend 9 seasons watching Veronica Mars solve crime, but when all was said and done I had spent enough time with these characters to enjoy what I was given.  The shows on this list weren't given that chance...

5.  Firefly (14 episodes)
          I'm not as big a fan of this show as some, and the movie that followed really didn't do much for me, but there was something extremely interesting about the shows premise that Fox just didn't give a chance to develop.  Nobody had really explored the idea of a space western and it seemed like a great idea for television.  It had a good cast, Nathan Fillion as the lead, Adam Baldwin as the gun happy disagreeable second, and bad television sc-fi all-star Morena Baccarin as a beautiful whore and was created by Joss Whedon, of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Angel.  The network gets the blame for this one not working, forcing Whedon to air the episodes out of order and not giving him the chance to develop the characters that would have made this show pop.

4.  Terriers (13 episodes)
          I've documented my love of this show on this blog, so to write much here about it seems repetitive.  Donal Logue and Michael Raymond-James were amazing and I really feel cheated out of spending time with two of the best television characters ever.  Some people want to blame the lack of success on poor promotion by the network and a title that didn't really tell anyone what the show was about.  The fact of the matter was the ratings were just so horrible there was no way it was going to get a second season.  So, we all end up losing.

3.  Andy Richter Controls The Universe (19 episodes)
          The show technically ran for two seasons, but only aired 19 episodes and functioned both seasons as mid-year replacements.  Andy Richter has been a part of a few television bombs that deserved better fates, but this was by far the best.  The wacky off-beat comedy had me in stitches on a regular basis.  The cast was made up of mostly people that are still unfamiliar other then Andy and Paget Brewster, who was hilarious.  Again, Fox never really gave this show a chance, putting it on mid-season with little or no promotion.  It was a sitcom that was ahead of its time and because of that wasn't given a chance to be a success.

2.  Undeclared (17 episodes)
          Not the show that put Judd Apatow on the map, but his second big failure before hitting it big time on the big screen.  I cherish my DVD collection of these 17 episodes and at the same time, get angry every time I watch them that I wasn't given more.  An absolutely hilarious look at college life.  And even though it had its ridiculous moments, it was a much more realistic take then most college comedies.  Apatow was able to nail and skewer what going to college was like.  The cast was made up of Jay Baruchel, who has been in many of Apatow's movies, Carla Gallo, Charlie Hunnam, who is now the lead in Sons Of Anarchy, Monica Keena, Seth Rogan, Jason Segal, Kyle Gass, of Tenacious D.  One of my favorite shows of all time, even though there are only 17 episodes to watch.

1.  Freaks and Geeks (18 episodes)
          The show that did put Apatow on the map, as well as a whole cast of others.  The amount of talent involved in this failed television show is staggering.  You should all know who Judd Apatow, writer and co-creator of the show, is.  He went on to make The 40 Year-Old Virgin, Funny People, and Knocked Up, amongst others.  Seth Rogan, star of Knocked Up and Pineapple Express, writer of Superbad, was in it.  Jason Segal, star of How I Met Your Mother and the writer and star of the upcoming Muppet movie.  Linda Cardellini, Velma from the Scooby-Doo movies and spent a stint on ER.  Martin Starr, Samm Levine, Busy Phillips, who all have cult followings.  Oh yeah, and this guy named James Franco, who you might have heard a thing or two about recently.  The show was funny, it had heart, it was wonderfully written, it was amazingly acted.  If it had gotten the chance it would have gone down as one of the greatest shows ever.  But for whatever reason it didn't pull in the ratings and was cancelled after one season.

Honorable Mentions:  The Ben Stiller Show (13 episodes), October Road (19 episodes), Clone High (13 episodes), Rubicon (13 episodes), Adventures of Brisco County Jr. (25 episodes)

How I Met Your Mother: Oh, Honey

     I have to get this out of the way right off the bat.  In the grand scheme of things this seems like a minor problem, but it is the premise that kicks off the episode's whole story line.  Who buys ketchup in glass bottles?  Do they even still make ketchup in glass bottles?  I don't think I've seen a glass ketchup bottle outside of a restaurant in 10 years.  I find it very hard to believe that Robin and Ted would have had a glass ketchup bottle in their kitchen.  You would think the writers could have come up with a way to kick off the story line with an event that would actually happen in 2011.  But again, in the grand scheme of things, I guess this is a minor point.
     The episode as a whole was very middle of the road.  There was nothing offensive (other then a glass ketchup bottle), there were a few laughs (but not as many as I would like), and the over all story line was pushed forward in a creative way (even though it felt a little sappy).  I really enjoyed how the episode played out, the structure being set up by one of the first lines of the episode, "the longer he [Marshal] stayed there the more it was like he never left Minnesota."  As sappy as the Ted/Zoey hook up was, I couldn't help but feel the writers were making fun of the situation by having it play out like a teenage drama.  The only thing missing from Marshal's experiences with the phone was a conference call with one party not knowing the other was listening.  The funnier ending of the episode would have been Marshal being on the phone with Ted and deciding to call Zoey and ask her if she liked Ted.
     Obviously, Zoey's divorce opens the door for her being the mother.  I still don't think that will be the case.  Again, because we know her name, the kids would already know that was their Mom and the idea that this is Ted telling his kids the story of their parents meeting would be over.  So, unless Zoey is forced for some reason to change her name, she's not it.  I am interested in where this relationship goes though.