Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (***)
It's been 19 years since we last saw our whip adept, ophidiophobic, archaeologist on an adventure containing giant rolling stones of death, melting Nazis, heart stealing witch doctors, Alfred Molina, or some combination thereof. When we see Indiana Jones now in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, he's a step or two slower and has a lot more gray hair, but the same basic formula is still in place, as Stephen Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford reunite for one last installment of the franchise. There's still all manner of chase sequences on period accurate vehicles of all sorts, there's still ancient burial sites with deviously clever traps, and there's still villains everywhere trying to cramp Indy's style and claim the treasure for themselves. Yet, the synergy of all these radio serial adventure type elements don't really add up to as good a finished product this time around, although the movie is still certainly an entertaining watch.
The film begins in 1958 with Indy and "Mac", an old acquaintance he's known from World War II being held captive by Russians, who pose as U.S. army personnel and break into Area 51 in the Nevada Desert. They are led by Cate Blanchett, a completely stereotypical Russian villainess (think: "I will crush the American capitalist scum with my superior Russian intellect!", that sort of thing) who specializes in the paranormal and is researching artifacts that can be used for "psychic warfare". I suppose I shouldn't spoil it, but within the military warehouse she finds something of interest to her that ties into the plot later on. Indy meanwhile, uses a distraction to start whipping people like the good old days, and tries to escape, leading to what is probably the best of the myriad chase sequences throughout the movie. Harrison Ford's performance is probably at its best during these early scenes. He's old, he's grumpy, he seems to be sort of worn out of these strange situations he always gets himself into, and it adds up to being very funny.
After this relatively encouraging opening which ends with some of the most preposterous deus ex machinas of all time, we see that Dr. Jones is still a university professor, and so we get a few plot points to get him back out of the classroom. On a train out of town, Jones meets Mutt (Shia LaBueff), a high school drop out greaser and biker mechanic who tells Dr. Jones that one of his colleages, Dr. Oxley or "Ox" has gone missing in South America. Turns out Ox (who is played by John Hurt for some reason even though he doesn't have much to do other than act crazy) has been committed to a sanitarium after he sound a legendary crystal skull that is the source for the movie's subtitle and is the goal of the quest in this iteration. As it turns out, who'd have thunk it, but the same Russians from the movie's first sequence are going after the skull as well because its believed to have psychic powers. Indy and Mutt go tomb raiding and find the skull in its original resting place--Ox had returned it for yet to be revealed reasons--only to find that the Russians are waiting outside for them.
It's once Indy and Mutt head into the jungles of Peru with the Russians that my tolerance for some of the movie's cliches and over-the-top ridiculousness started to waver. I understand that the entire Indiana Jones franchise is based off of old serial adventure stories and indeed that's a big reason why the original trilogy was so fun, but there is a point when your suspension of disbelief is just shot and it's all too much. For me, this was somewhere around the time when Indy and company along with the Russians are riding in a convoy of trucks along the outskirts of the jungle, and monkeys come out of the trees and seemingly instinctively know to go bat shit crazy on the villains and leave the main characters alone completely.
There is more silliness when Marion (played by Karen Allen, as she was in Raiders) pops up in the film, coincidentally also captured by the Russians. There seems to be little point in her being in the movie, except to engage in completely unfunny banter with Indy every once in a while. There are multiple instances of the clichéd "let's have an argument about our relationship even though we're in extreme danger right now" bit that completely fall flat. Beyond that, she never really seems concerned at all about any of what's going on around her during the action sequences. There are times in which Mutt and Indy are literally under fire from a dozen Russian troops and this will be intercut with a shot of Karen Allen with a sort of contended half-smile on her face. I also thought the film had a few two many in-references and moments that were very self-aware of the fact that this was the big long-expected fourth Indiana Jones movie. In particular, there are a lot of moments where Indy is able to get his hat back at the last minute despite losing it while a crazy amount of stuff is happening to him. Sometimes its funny, sometimes its just too clever by half.
Once all these chase sequences are done with and the true nature of the skull, and why Oxley was going nuts, and all the other mysteries in the film are solved, there is a climactic sequence that's very much reminiscent of how Raiders or Last Crusade ended, and yet somehow isn't as satisfying. Maybe it's the heavy and obvious use of CGI, or the fact that the big reveal at the end is in some ways even more ambitious than the "oh shit, Judeo-Christian mythology is real and the Nazis are going to get what's coming to them!" moments from the previous films, but it just doesn't quite add up the way the endings to said films did.
Even with all this going against the movie, I do think it's worth viewing, if perhaps only after it leaves theaters and comes to DVD. While I think the script for this latest iteration was somewhat phoned in, and the action sequences are much more clichéd and uninspired than you would expect from Spielberg, some of the Indy allure is still there. Harrison Ford's performance is very good, and he does a great job of maintaining the quick wit and grittiness that's always been in the character, while making him more world-weary and more of a cynical old man sort. In no way is this movie destined to become a Spielberg classic, but its not a complete disaster.
Monday, June 09, 2008
Sunday, June 08, 2008
[Venture Brothers] The Doctor is Sin
Season 3, Episode 2: The Doctor is Sin
After the Monarch and Dr. Girlfriend-centric season premiere, we get an episode that focuses again on the Venture family themselves first and foremost. We learn that ever since The Monarch stopped arching Dr. Venture, many a villain has attempted to take The Monarch's place only to get their asses handed to them by Brock (who gets a little tired of it after a while). Between this and the fact that the military doesn't seem to think too much of his new inventions (which seem to be mostly his father's old inventions) Rusty finds himself in rut. Enter: Dr. Henry Killinger, who shows his extensive resume and immediately begins to rejuvenate Venture Industries (but at what cost? dun dun dunnnn). Another episode, of which there were several last season, that doesn't really seem to be going anywhere in terms of story at first, but ends up not only having a satisfying conclusion, but is hilarious.
Episode Rating: Like having your own team of non-union, government paid Vench-men
Favorite bits & random thoughts:
-Brock gives pretty much the only appropriate answer to Dr. Venture's question "Am I a good person?": "Eh..." complete with the side-to-side hand wave thing.
-Apparently the magic murder bag actually is a magic murder bag. And a quite effective one at that.
-In the season 2 commentary they claimed that season 3 wouldn't have any Star Wars references. Well, I think in the 2nd episode there's already been one, as Dr. Killinger tells Rusty to enter the odd virtual world that apparently exists inside his bag and he answers Rusty's question of "What's in there" with "Only what you take with you." I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Yoda tells Luke when he goes into the cave and sees the bogus Darth Vader. At any rate, it was funny. If they want to continue to break their commitment to no Star Wars references that's fine with me.
-Dr. Orpheus leaving the building with his European business man costume on, then running in plain sight while taking off his costume and going to put on the next one was just fantastic.
-The Lion King-esque face in the clouds ending: completely random but also fantastic. "You can learn more about it in The Bible"
-The Alchemist is still around, but where's Jefferson Twilight?
After the Monarch and Dr. Girlfriend-centric season premiere, we get an episode that focuses again on the Venture family themselves first and foremost. We learn that ever since The Monarch stopped arching Dr. Venture, many a villain has attempted to take The Monarch's place only to get their asses handed to them by Brock (who gets a little tired of it after a while). Between this and the fact that the military doesn't seem to think too much of his new inventions (which seem to be mostly his father's old inventions) Rusty finds himself in rut. Enter: Dr. Henry Killinger, who shows his extensive resume and immediately begins to rejuvenate Venture Industries (but at what cost? dun dun dunnnn). Another episode, of which there were several last season, that doesn't really seem to be going anywhere in terms of story at first, but ends up not only having a satisfying conclusion, but is hilarious.
Episode Rating: Like having your own team of non-union, government paid Vench-men
Favorite bits & random thoughts:
-Brock gives pretty much the only appropriate answer to Dr. Venture's question "Am I a good person?": "Eh..." complete with the side-to-side hand wave thing.
-Apparently the magic murder bag actually is a magic murder bag. And a quite effective one at that.
-In the season 2 commentary they claimed that season 3 wouldn't have any Star Wars references. Well, I think in the 2nd episode there's already been one, as Dr. Killinger tells Rusty to enter the odd virtual world that apparently exists inside his bag and he answers Rusty's question of "What's in there" with "Only what you take with you." I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Yoda tells Luke when he goes into the cave and sees the bogus Darth Vader. At any rate, it was funny. If they want to continue to break their commitment to no Star Wars references that's fine with me.
-Dr. Orpheus leaving the building with his European business man costume on, then running in plain sight while taking off his costume and going to put on the next one was just fantastic.
-The Lion King-esque face in the clouds ending: completely random but also fantastic. "You can learn more about it in The Bible"
-The Alchemist is still around, but where's Jefferson Twilight?
Iron Man
Iron Man (***1/2)
I'm sort of late to the party on Iron Man, which came out in early May and immediately made tons of money and got tons of hype. Having finally seen it last weekend, I can confirm that the hype was very much justified, and that the movie proves that it is still possible to make a superhero movie that doesn't feel like a cookie-cutter re-branding of another movie, despite how many superhero movies are out there now. It's a very intelligently written movie, and it manages to maintain a certain degree of unpredictability, despite having the core "Guy becomes hero, hero discovers villain, hero beats up villain" plotline that most of these Marvel/DC movies are based around.
The movie begins by introducing us to Tony Stark, who is very much true to his character's portrayal in Marvel comics. He's a genius when it comes to engineering, but he's also a drinker, a womanizer, and in just about every other way someone who lives live with reckless abandon. This is how he's first presented to us as he's riding in a Humvee with U.S. soldiers on his way back from a weapons demonstration for his company, Stark Industries, somewhere in Afghanistan. Things hit a snag for him, to put it mildly, when the convoy of Humvees is the target of an attack and Tony finds himself in the hands of a terrorist organization (a fictional one, whose members are made up of many different nationalities, no doubt to stave off controversy). He has shrapnel lodged in his chest that would've pierced his heart and killed him, were it not for another scientist captured with him who keeps him alive with an electromagnet hooked up to a car battery (I strongly question the validity of the medicine behind all this but whatever, it's a comic book movie). In a cruel twist of fate, Stark realizes that he's being kept alive so he can build the very missile he just demonstrated for the U.S. military for his captors.
Stark, of course, has other ideas, and creates an early prototype of the Iron Man suit and uses it to escape. He also makes a breakthrough in "arc reactor" technology (no idea if this has a real world equivalent, be it actually functional or theoretical), which he uses to power the electromagnet in his chest without him having to be dragging a car battery along. Upon his return to the U.S. he has a sort of epiphany and decides that Stark Industries, despite being primary a weapons manufacturer, since the weapons keep ending up in the hands of the wrong people. This doesn't go over well with Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), who briefly headed the company after Tony's father died but before Tony was old enough to become CEO himself.
Much of the next section of the film tracks Tony's progress as he designs a new and improved Iron Man suit--without letting Obadiah or the rest of the company know--in the lab in his mansion. He does it with the help of Jarvis, the personality of the super-sophisticated AI that controls his entire house. In a movie in which everything that's not owned by Tony Stark basically resembles our, normal present day world, the fact that Jarvis seems to rival the computer from Star Trek: The Next Generation in intelligence is a little cartoonish, but I can forgive that because a. it's a comic book movie and b. it leads to some extremely funny exchanges between Tony and the various robotic appendages that Jarvis controls. Tony's near obsessive level of devotion to his new project concerns his devoted, if perhaps somewhat overwhelmed at times, assistant, Pepper Potts (Gweneth Paltrow). She doesn't have a huge role, but there are some very good scenes in which we see her doing the best she can to be a companion to the loner that is Tony Stark while not encouraging his more self-destructive habits. Their relationship has some vague sexual tension, but doesn't turn into a hokey love story which at times seem to be a prerequisite for any big Hollywood movie. This, along with the fact that the movie is more about Tony building the suit and taking on the identity of Iron Man than him endlessly fighting random guys as Iron Man makes the movie stand out amongst the cluster**** of big budget superhero movies, and hopefully will influence the myriad superhero movies that are still on the way.
The movie ends with the requisite hero vs. villain confutation, and has the much expected "greed is bad, selfless is good" morality tale woven in, but the movie is well-written enough and the performances by Downey Jr., Bridges, and Paltrow are good enough such that the movie feels like it has something unique to contribute to the genre and isn't just a cookie-cutter duplicate of other movies with a different guy in a different costume. It also sets itself up for sequel in a way that actually makes you believe that a sequel would actually branch out from what the original was, instead of just swapping villains and rehashing mostly the same plot. This is a superhero movie done right.
I'm sort of late to the party on Iron Man, which came out in early May and immediately made tons of money and got tons of hype. Having finally seen it last weekend, I can confirm that the hype was very much justified, and that the movie proves that it is still possible to make a superhero movie that doesn't feel like a cookie-cutter re-branding of another movie, despite how many superhero movies are out there now. It's a very intelligently written movie, and it manages to maintain a certain degree of unpredictability, despite having the core "Guy becomes hero, hero discovers villain, hero beats up villain" plotline that most of these Marvel/DC movies are based around.
The movie begins by introducing us to Tony Stark, who is very much true to his character's portrayal in Marvel comics. He's a genius when it comes to engineering, but he's also a drinker, a womanizer, and in just about every other way someone who lives live with reckless abandon. This is how he's first presented to us as he's riding in a Humvee with U.S. soldiers on his way back from a weapons demonstration for his company, Stark Industries, somewhere in Afghanistan. Things hit a snag for him, to put it mildly, when the convoy of Humvees is the target of an attack and Tony finds himself in the hands of a terrorist organization (a fictional one, whose members are made up of many different nationalities, no doubt to stave off controversy). He has shrapnel lodged in his chest that would've pierced his heart and killed him, were it not for another scientist captured with him who keeps him alive with an electromagnet hooked up to a car battery (I strongly question the validity of the medicine behind all this but whatever, it's a comic book movie). In a cruel twist of fate, Stark realizes that he's being kept alive so he can build the very missile he just demonstrated for the U.S. military for his captors.
Stark, of course, has other ideas, and creates an early prototype of the Iron Man suit and uses it to escape. He also makes a breakthrough in "arc reactor" technology (no idea if this has a real world equivalent, be it actually functional or theoretical), which he uses to power the electromagnet in his chest without him having to be dragging a car battery along. Upon his return to the U.S. he has a sort of epiphany and decides that Stark Industries, despite being primary a weapons manufacturer, since the weapons keep ending up in the hands of the wrong people. This doesn't go over well with Obadiah Stane (Jeff Bridges), who briefly headed the company after Tony's father died but before Tony was old enough to become CEO himself.
Much of the next section of the film tracks Tony's progress as he designs a new and improved Iron Man suit--without letting Obadiah or the rest of the company know--in the lab in his mansion. He does it with the help of Jarvis, the personality of the super-sophisticated AI that controls his entire house. In a movie in which everything that's not owned by Tony Stark basically resembles our, normal present day world, the fact that Jarvis seems to rival the computer from Star Trek: The Next Generation in intelligence is a little cartoonish, but I can forgive that because a. it's a comic book movie and b. it leads to some extremely funny exchanges between Tony and the various robotic appendages that Jarvis controls. Tony's near obsessive level of devotion to his new project concerns his devoted, if perhaps somewhat overwhelmed at times, assistant, Pepper Potts (Gweneth Paltrow). She doesn't have a huge role, but there are some very good scenes in which we see her doing the best she can to be a companion to the loner that is Tony Stark while not encouraging his more self-destructive habits. Their relationship has some vague sexual tension, but doesn't turn into a hokey love story which at times seem to be a prerequisite for any big Hollywood movie. This, along with the fact that the movie is more about Tony building the suit and taking on the identity of Iron Man than him endlessly fighting random guys as Iron Man makes the movie stand out amongst the cluster**** of big budget superhero movies, and hopefully will influence the myriad superhero movies that are still on the way.
The movie ends with the requisite hero vs. villain confutation, and has the much expected "greed is bad, selfless is good" morality tale woven in, but the movie is well-written enough and the performances by Downey Jr., Bridges, and Paltrow are good enough such that the movie feels like it has something unique to contribute to the genre and isn't just a cookie-cutter duplicate of other movies with a different guy in a different costume. It also sets itself up for sequel in a way that actually makes you believe that a sequel would actually branch out from what the original was, instead of just swapping villains and rehashing mostly the same plot. This is a superhero movie done right.
Monday, June 02, 2008
[Venture Brothers] Shadowman 9: In the Cradle of Destiny
Season 3, Episode 1: Shadowman 9: In the Cradle of Destiny
The Venture Bros. is one of my favorite shows currently airing on TV, animated or otherwise, and the almost 2 year wait for season 3 to start has been absolutely brutal. At long last its here, and if the first episode is any indication, co-creators Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer (yeah, those are their actual names) haven't missed a beat. If you've never seen the show it's nigh impossible for it to be fully explained to you, but my attempt at a one sentence summary is this: It's like Johnny Quest on crack. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend checking it out, but in the meantime here's some random thoughts on the season 3 premiere for those already indoctrinated.
Rating: Like two ninjas taped together to form one giant ninja
Favorite bits/quotes: (with aid from The Mantis Eye Experiment)
-The Monarch: Oh man, if that shows up on YouTube- I- I'm serious! What kind of torture is this? Couldn't you just drill my teeth, or shove bamboo under my nails or something.
Councilman: This is not a torture, Mr. Monarch.
Councilman: It is an interrogation!
Councilman: Or a trial of sorts!
Councilman: I always say, it's a crucible.
Councilman: Oh that's way cooler!
-The Henchmen rolling away a giant penny, referencing the one that's always shown in the Bat Cave.
-The Monarch tearing through Dr. Ventures lab with his early, crappy version of the Monarch mobile, pulling a lever up and down while he's driving to make the crudely attached wings on top flap.
-The Monarch: I would have taken him down then if Venture hadn't hired a private army of ex-Navy Seal ninja witches to protect him. Also my memory is a little foggy, but I'm pretty sure he had a fucking tank.
-The Monarch: Wait, wait, did that video have a wipe?
Councilman: Councilman 3 got Adobe Premiere.
Councilman 3: Was it too showy? I thought it would make the scene more lively.
The Venture Bros. is one of my favorite shows currently airing on TV, animated or otherwise, and the almost 2 year wait for season 3 to start has been absolutely brutal. At long last its here, and if the first episode is any indication, co-creators Jackson Publick and Doc Hammer (yeah, those are their actual names) haven't missed a beat. If you've never seen the show it's nigh impossible for it to be fully explained to you, but my attempt at a one sentence summary is this: It's like Johnny Quest on crack. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend checking it out, but in the meantime here's some random thoughts on the season 3 premiere for those already indoctrinated.
Rating: Like two ninjas taped together to form one giant ninja
Favorite bits/quotes: (with aid from The Mantis Eye Experiment)
-The Monarch: Oh man, if that shows up on YouTube- I- I'm serious! What kind of torture is this? Couldn't you just drill my teeth, or shove bamboo under my nails or something.
Councilman: This is not a torture, Mr. Monarch.
Councilman: It is an interrogation!
Councilman: Or a trial of sorts!
Councilman: I always say, it's a crucible.
Councilman: Oh that's way cooler!
-The Henchmen rolling away a giant penny, referencing the one that's always shown in the Bat Cave.
-The Monarch tearing through Dr. Ventures lab with his early, crappy version of the Monarch mobile, pulling a lever up and down while he's driving to make the crudely attached wings on top flap.
-The Monarch: I would have taken him down then if Venture hadn't hired a private army of ex-Navy Seal ninja witches to protect him. Also my memory is a little foggy, but I'm pretty sure he had a fucking tank.
-The Monarch: Wait, wait, did that video have a wipe?
Councilman: Councilman 3 got Adobe Premiere.
Councilman 3: Was it too showy? I thought it would make the scene more lively.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Why I Never Want to See PNC Park Again
I don't think I can name any single stranger thing from the first 50 or so games of the Cubs' season than what's happened on the road against the Pirates. In their first 6 games at PNC park, they've played a total of 71 innings, as 4 games have gone into extra innings. After winning game 1 of the series over last weekend, the Cubs dropped the next two in extras after blowing 1 run leads in the 9th inning of each game. In the Sunday game, Alphonso Soriano lost a ball in the sun attempting to make what would've been the final out. He still hasn't looked 100% baserunning or playing defense.
Making up for the painfulness of the Pirates series, however, was a sweep which the Cubs just completed at the hands of the Dodgers. Every game of the series was close and low scoring, and got good performances from Ryan Dempster, Sean Gallagher, and Carlos Zambrano in their respective starts. The Cubs are now tied with the Devil Rays (!) for the best record in baseball, and are 1st in the NL in ERA, runs, and batting average. Keep up the good work, Cubs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as a side note, I decided to check out Google Analytics, which is a pretty damn cool free tool. For really the first time I can confirm that someone else out there reads this, (besides the people running scripts or whatever they are that keep leaving generic, "I like this site! Check out my site!" comments on some of my posts) as Google found at least 1 visitor from Canada, where I'm pretty sure I do not reside.
Making up for the painfulness of the Pirates series, however, was a sweep which the Cubs just completed at the hands of the Dodgers. Every game of the series was close and low scoring, and got good performances from Ryan Dempster, Sean Gallagher, and Carlos Zambrano in their respective starts. The Cubs are now tied with the Devil Rays (!) for the best record in baseball, and are 1st in the NL in ERA, runs, and batting average. Keep up the good work, Cubs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, as a side note, I decided to check out Google Analytics, which is a pretty damn cool free tool. For really the first time I can confirm that someone else out there reads this, (besides the people running scripts or whatever they are that keep leaving generic, "I like this site! Check out my site!" comments on some of my posts) as Google found at least 1 visitor from Canada, where I'm pretty sure I do not reside.
Friday, May 23, 2008
There Will Be Blood
There Will Be Blood (***1/2)
Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!
There Will be Blood is a film that doesn't pull any punches, and frankly, to work within the same analogy, I think it keeps punching after the ref has already called for the bell. It's a gritty, bleak, nihilistic, character study of a character who seems to literally have no redeeming qualities (besides, perhaps a penchant for coming up with clever witticisms whilst verbally thrashing someone). As this essay from Alternate Takes describes more eloquently then I'll attempt to, even though the movie is a period piece and takes place over the course of almost 30 years, it doesn't really feel like an epic in that it doesn't really seem to have any grand revelations regarding the turn of the century oil industry, save the fact that a lot of people involved in it were extremely greedy. That's not to say that the movie isn't entertaining, because it is, in large part because of what Daniel Day Lewis does with his performance that, deservedly, won him an Oscar.
The film opens in 1898, with the aforementioned protagonist, Daniel Plainview, covered in soot working by himself to mine for gold and silver. The film then jumps four years ahead, where Plainview is now part of a small team working on a single oil derrick. When one of the workers is killed in an accident, Plainview takes his infant son and claims him as his own. This entire sequence probably lasts around 15 minutes and contains no dialogue whatsoever. During these scenes, the movie's score, composed by one of the members of Radiohead, begins with a grating dissonance that will continue throughout music of the film. It's the sort of music I imagine plays in Daniel Plainfield's mind constantly. The surrealist music, combined with the silent characters, and the numerous wide shots of a vast, empty, desert reminded me more of something like 2001 than any other turn of the century period piece.
After the scene in 1902, there is another time skip to 1911, a year in which the film settles in for most of its remainder. Daniel now travels throughout California with his sort-of-adopted son, H.W., giving the same sales pitch, in which he explains that he's not a contractor or a middleman, but has garnered success in the oil business because of his own individual efforts at the oil derricks: "When I say I'm an oil man, you'll agree." One night he is visited by Paul, a young man from a ranch in the middle of nowhere who claims that he's seen oil flowing up to the surface there. Plainview pays Paul for the tip, but not without threatening to do bad things to him if he's lying. Fortunately for Paul, Daniel and H.W. are able to confirm the truth of what he says, which they do by posing as quail hunters passing through the area. Plainview offers to buy the ranch from its old, world-weary owner, who is all to eager to sell the ranch, which produces nothing save a meager offering of potatoes.
A wrench is thrown in Daniel's plans, however, as Eli, son of the ranch owner and twin brother of Paul, announces that he's aware of the oil as well and warns his father of underestimating its value. A temporary truce is reached as Daniel increases his offer for the land, and throws in more money for Eli to use to build a church. Eli is in many ways the opposite of Plainview. Once he founds his church, Eli becomes a fiery faith-healer, while Plainview is an unabashed atheist, at times seemingly because he wishes he were God himself. Eli seems to be always looking for the larger meaning in something, while Plainview's focus is always "how do I make money, and how do I make it quickly?"
There are other events of all sorts as the film goes on that test Daniel's relationship with his son and, sometimes it seems, his very sanity. As time goes on, his business actually continues to blossom, though we never see him relish in his prosperity, instead seeing only his battles with his personal demons. While his emotional outbursts are some of the most overt you'll ever see in a movie, it is often times difficult to pinpoint exactly what makes the character tick. He admits openly that he detests most people, and seems to shy away from any close relationships that aren't for purposes of business, and yet simultaneously seems very concerned with how he is perceived by others.
Watching the character's self-destruction is incredibly gripping to watch because of how well Daniel Day Lewis embodies the character but, as I said before, it sometimes seems hard to tell what Paul Thomas Anderson wants us to take away from it all. At times, Daniel Plainview, a character which has been meticulously constructed to represent the ultimate level of contemptuousness and nihilism, doesn't seem to exist for a specific purpose, but merely seems to exist. Additionally, while I appreciate the bleak tone set by the score, which is often times allowed to take center stage as the characters remain quiet, I think the film requires you to pick up a little too much simply from context clues and brief glimpses. I like a film that's challenging, but not one that just feels like a chore to watch and understand. Like No Country for Old Men, this may be a film that requires more than one viewing to really "get" fully, but as of right now I'm calling this a not fully realized vision. We'll see.
P.S. I drink your mikshake. I drink it up.
Drainage! Drainage, Eli, you boy. Drained dry. I'm so sorry. Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is, that's a straw, you see? You watching?. And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts to drink your milkshake... I... drink... your... milkshake! I drink it up!
There Will be Blood is a film that doesn't pull any punches, and frankly, to work within the same analogy, I think it keeps punching after the ref has already called for the bell. It's a gritty, bleak, nihilistic, character study of a character who seems to literally have no redeeming qualities (besides, perhaps a penchant for coming up with clever witticisms whilst verbally thrashing someone). As this essay from Alternate Takes describes more eloquently then I'll attempt to, even though the movie is a period piece and takes place over the course of almost 30 years, it doesn't really feel like an epic in that it doesn't really seem to have any grand revelations regarding the turn of the century oil industry, save the fact that a lot of people involved in it were extremely greedy. That's not to say that the movie isn't entertaining, because it is, in large part because of what Daniel Day Lewis does with his performance that, deservedly, won him an Oscar.
The film opens in 1898, with the aforementioned protagonist, Daniel Plainview, covered in soot working by himself to mine for gold and silver. The film then jumps four years ahead, where Plainview is now part of a small team working on a single oil derrick. When one of the workers is killed in an accident, Plainview takes his infant son and claims him as his own. This entire sequence probably lasts around 15 minutes and contains no dialogue whatsoever. During these scenes, the movie's score, composed by one of the members of Radiohead, begins with a grating dissonance that will continue throughout music of the film. It's the sort of music I imagine plays in Daniel Plainfield's mind constantly. The surrealist music, combined with the silent characters, and the numerous wide shots of a vast, empty, desert reminded me more of something like 2001 than any other turn of the century period piece.
After the scene in 1902, there is another time skip to 1911, a year in which the film settles in for most of its remainder. Daniel now travels throughout California with his sort-of-adopted son, H.W., giving the same sales pitch, in which he explains that he's not a contractor or a middleman, but has garnered success in the oil business because of his own individual efforts at the oil derricks: "When I say I'm an oil man, you'll agree." One night he is visited by Paul, a young man from a ranch in the middle of nowhere who claims that he's seen oil flowing up to the surface there. Plainview pays Paul for the tip, but not without threatening to do bad things to him if he's lying. Fortunately for Paul, Daniel and H.W. are able to confirm the truth of what he says, which they do by posing as quail hunters passing through the area. Plainview offers to buy the ranch from its old, world-weary owner, who is all to eager to sell the ranch, which produces nothing save a meager offering of potatoes.
A wrench is thrown in Daniel's plans, however, as Eli, son of the ranch owner and twin brother of Paul, announces that he's aware of the oil as well and warns his father of underestimating its value. A temporary truce is reached as Daniel increases his offer for the land, and throws in more money for Eli to use to build a church. Eli is in many ways the opposite of Plainview. Once he founds his church, Eli becomes a fiery faith-healer, while Plainview is an unabashed atheist, at times seemingly because he wishes he were God himself. Eli seems to be always looking for the larger meaning in something, while Plainview's focus is always "how do I make money, and how do I make it quickly?"
There are other events of all sorts as the film goes on that test Daniel's relationship with his son and, sometimes it seems, his very sanity. As time goes on, his business actually continues to blossom, though we never see him relish in his prosperity, instead seeing only his battles with his personal demons. While his emotional outbursts are some of the most overt you'll ever see in a movie, it is often times difficult to pinpoint exactly what makes the character tick. He admits openly that he detests most people, and seems to shy away from any close relationships that aren't for purposes of business, and yet simultaneously seems very concerned with how he is perceived by others.
Watching the character's self-destruction is incredibly gripping to watch because of how well Daniel Day Lewis embodies the character but, as I said before, it sometimes seems hard to tell what Paul Thomas Anderson wants us to take away from it all. At times, Daniel Plainview, a character which has been meticulously constructed to represent the ultimate level of contemptuousness and nihilism, doesn't seem to exist for a specific purpose, but merely seems to exist. Additionally, while I appreciate the bleak tone set by the score, which is often times allowed to take center stage as the characters remain quiet, I think the film requires you to pick up a little too much simply from context clues and brief glimpses. I like a film that's challenging, but not one that just feels like a chore to watch and understand. Like No Country for Old Men, this may be a film that requires more than one viewing to really "get" fully, but as of right now I'm calling this a not fully realized vision. We'll see.
P.S. I drink your mikshake. I drink it up.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Keep Rollin' Along
Roughly 1/4 of the way through the season, the Cubs find themselves 10 games over .500 (they were 8 games over .500 for all of 2007), in first place in the NL central, and leading the NL in batting average and on-base percentage. After winning 3 of 4 against a fairly awful Padres team, the Cubs won 2 of 3 over the weekend against another bad (though recently hot) Pirates team. Both series were played at Wrigley. The question then becomes, can the Cubs keep going at this pace (if I do the math right, they're on pace to go 99-63) for the entire season, or is this record a by-product of the fact that they've played 27 of 44 games at home, 9 games against the Pirates, and 6 against the Reds? The series that starts tonight may help to answer that question, as the Cubs head down to Houston to play the Astros. Unlike the Cubs, the Astros have spent the bulk of the first 2 months of the '08 season on the road, and even though they don't appear to be as good as the Cubs on paper, their record is only 2 1/2 games worse. They're read hot at the moment, going 12-4 thus far in May. Lance Berkman is quietly (at least I haven't seen him getting that much national attention) hitting .399 with 16 HRs and 44 RBIs, which puts him extremely close to being the NL leader in all 3 triple crown stats (Chipper Jones' .410 average beats him there). Again though, the Cubs would seem to be clearly better on paper, and so a series win in Houston to assert this fact might go a long way.
Concerns about Alfonso Soriano have quieted lately, as Soriano has hit nearly .400 since coming back, is now tied for the team lead in home runs with 10, and managed to put together a 5-for-5, 2 home run performance in a LOSS on Saturday. While I have been and remain critical of Soriano's patience at the plate and still don't want him leading off, its clear that the negative sentiment piled onto him earlier in the year was overblown.
Kerry Wood picked up his 10th save yesterday, and has now appeared in 22 games, equal to the amount of games he appeared in last year. It's good to see Kerry be able to stay on the field, and be fairly effective at the same time.
Concerns about Alfonso Soriano have quieted lately, as Soriano has hit nearly .400 since coming back, is now tied for the team lead in home runs with 10, and managed to put together a 5-for-5, 2 home run performance in a LOSS on Saturday. While I have been and remain critical of Soriano's patience at the plate and still don't want him leading off, its clear that the negative sentiment piled onto him earlier in the year was overblown.
Kerry Wood picked up his 10th save yesterday, and has now appeared in 22 games, equal to the amount of games he appeared in last year. It's good to see Kerry be able to stay on the field, and be fairly effective at the same time.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Dust off the brooms
After suffering through a 4-9 stretch, the Cubs got themselves right in a big way this weekend with a sweep, and against the Diamondbacks, who hold the best record in the NL, no less. In the process they got good outings from Ted Lilly and Ryan Dempster and a decent outing from Sean Gallagher, who pitched in place of Carlos Zambrano on Sunday because of the rain delayed start. Gallagher will apparently be moved to the rotation in place of Jon Lieber, who got absolutely rocked against the Reds last week, allowing 4 home runs in one inning, and lasting just 2 innings total. I suspect, however, that Rich Hill will be called back up before too long, as he has pitched well in his first 2 starts at AAA. Alfonso Soriano may be starting to heat up again after a 4-for-5 performance on Saturday, a game which also saw Kosuke Fukudome pick up his 2nd homer. Scott Eyre also made his '08 debut in the majors after a bunch of rehab outings, and managed to pick up the win pitching a scoreless inning.
There are a couple of things to still be concerned about. The Cubs are still running themselves out of some innings, notably on Saturday when they had two runners called out at the plate.
In one case, Reed Johnson was tagging up on a fly ball to right and was thrown out by an absolutely perfect throw from Justin Upton. With a lot of right fielders, that probably would've been a good send. Less forgivable was a gaffe by a Aramis Ramirez, who was on third when a ball was hit to short, held up initially, but then tried to make it towards home and was thrown out easily after the put-out was made at first. Failing to commit one way or the other on baserunning plays is something that has gotten the Cubs in trouble on a few occasions in recent years, and Aramis individually has not been known as a fantastic baserunner. It would be nice to see this corrected, but as long Aramis and others are swinging the bat as they are, they'll likely usually make up for it.
After a fantastic start, Reed Johnson has come back to earth somewhat, (though he hit his first home run of the year yesterday in the form of a 2-run shot that tied the game 4-4) and is now hitting .255 with an OPS of .662. Johnson has been playing almost everyday, and I think its time to start playing Felix Pie consistently against rightys and save Johnson for leftys. Pie's stats aren't anything to write home about currently, but he's currently not getting enough at-bats to get better. If Lou doesn't feel comfortable playing him more than he is now, I think he has to be sent back down to AAA where he can start every day. Next up is a 4 game set against the Padres, who have been abysmal as of late, showing almost no offense to speak of. Barring some unforeseen incident, Greg Maddux will start Thursday's game after winning his 350th career game in his last start.
Update:
Okay, the Padres offense is actually worse than I first thought it was. They're last in the league in runs, and by a pretty good margin, as well as last in average, OBP, and slugging.
There are a couple of things to still be concerned about. The Cubs are still running themselves out of some innings, notably on Saturday when they had two runners called out at the plate.
In one case, Reed Johnson was tagging up on a fly ball to right and was thrown out by an absolutely perfect throw from Justin Upton. With a lot of right fielders, that probably would've been a good send. Less forgivable was a gaffe by a Aramis Ramirez, who was on third when a ball was hit to short, held up initially, but then tried to make it towards home and was thrown out easily after the put-out was made at first. Failing to commit one way or the other on baserunning plays is something that has gotten the Cubs in trouble on a few occasions in recent years, and Aramis individually has not been known as a fantastic baserunner. It would be nice to see this corrected, but as long Aramis and others are swinging the bat as they are, they'll likely usually make up for it.
After a fantastic start, Reed Johnson has come back to earth somewhat, (though he hit his first home run of the year yesterday in the form of a 2-run shot that tied the game 4-4) and is now hitting .255 with an OPS of .662. Johnson has been playing almost everyday, and I think its time to start playing Felix Pie consistently against rightys and save Johnson for leftys. Pie's stats aren't anything to write home about currently, but he's currently not getting enough at-bats to get better. If Lou doesn't feel comfortable playing him more than he is now, I think he has to be sent back down to AAA where he can start every day. Next up is a 4 game set against the Padres, who have been abysmal as of late, showing almost no offense to speak of. Barring some unforeseen incident, Greg Maddux will start Thursday's game after winning his 350th career game in his last start.
Update:
Okay, the Padres offense is actually worse than I first thought it was. They're last in the league in runs, and by a pretty good margin, as well as last in average, OBP, and slugging.
| Stat | Cubs | Padres |
|---|---|---|
| Runs | 5.70 | 3.37 |
| Avg | .281 | .231 |
| OBP | .371 | .305 |
| Slg | .438 | .345 |
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Frustration
The Cubs have run into a rough patch, losing 6 of their last 8. What's frustrating is that none of the losses have come by margins of more than 3 runs, whereas the wins were in games with scores of 7-0 and 19-5. Overall on the season, the Cubs have an expected win-loss record of 19-10, 2 games better than in actuality. The Cubs have been getting double-digit hit totals and drawing walks consistently, the difference, for the most part, is that they've been stranding runners on base in their losses.
The big story recently has been the return of Alfonso Soriano, who has not looked comfortable to say the least. Soriano couldn't get to a catchable fly ball in the series finale against the Brewers on Thursday which was part of a 9th inning Kerry Wood blown save, and then badly misplayed two balls in the same inning last night in St. Louis. He was hitless since returning until the 9th inning last night where he hit a game-tying home run off of Jason Isringhausen, which probably at least partially spared him from the wrath of the fans, which was already brewing on the sports radio airwaves after Thursdays game. Bob Brenley, whose criticisms of the team are usually pretty subtle, obviously thought Soriano had no business out there and criticized the team for not giving him some rehab starts in the minors. It'll be interesting to see if he's in the lineup today and if he gets subbed for defense late in the game if the Cubs are leading.
Despite Soriano's game tying home run, the Cubs lost 5-3 in 11 innings. The bullpen had to work 10 1/3 innings itself, as Pinella pulled Rich Hill after just 6 batters, 4 of which he walked. Taking the loss was Chad Fox, who pitched the 10th and 11th in his first appearance since he walked off the field in 2005 and was forced to undergo his 2nd Tommy John's operation. He was called up yesterday in favor of Kevin Hart, who wasn't exactly lights out, but, frankly, is probably better than Fox at this point in his career. Even in the 10th, Fox looked somewhat shaky. It was a 1-2-3 inning, but all three outs were on fairly deep fly balls to center. Fox making it back to the big leagues is a nice story, I guess, but I really don't see what he can do to help the team at this point. I don't know why he's a better option than Neal Cotts, who has a sub-2.00 ERA at AAA right now, and 28 is not going to get much of any benefit from remaining in the minors as far as development goes. Cotts would seem to be the logical option even moreso because the Cubs are currently carrying only left-hander in the form of Sean Marshall, although Scott Eyre is rehabbing as well and may return soon.
Ted Lilly takes the mound this afternoon in St. Louis, and needs to try and pitch deep into the game with a tired bullpen.
Update: So apparently Rich Hill got sent down to AAA and Sean Gallagher brought up.
The big story recently has been the return of Alfonso Soriano, who has not looked comfortable to say the least. Soriano couldn't get to a catchable fly ball in the series finale against the Brewers on Thursday which was part of a 9th inning Kerry Wood blown save, and then badly misplayed two balls in the same inning last night in St. Louis. He was hitless since returning until the 9th inning last night where he hit a game-tying home run off of Jason Isringhausen, which probably at least partially spared him from the wrath of the fans, which was already brewing on the sports radio airwaves after Thursdays game. Bob Brenley, whose criticisms of the team are usually pretty subtle, obviously thought Soriano had no business out there and criticized the team for not giving him some rehab starts in the minors. It'll be interesting to see if he's in the lineup today and if he gets subbed for defense late in the game if the Cubs are leading.
Despite Soriano's game tying home run, the Cubs lost 5-3 in 11 innings. The bullpen had to work 10 1/3 innings itself, as Pinella pulled Rich Hill after just 6 batters, 4 of which he walked. Taking the loss was Chad Fox, who pitched the 10th and 11th in his first appearance since he walked off the field in 2005 and was forced to undergo his 2nd Tommy John's operation. He was called up yesterday in favor of Kevin Hart, who wasn't exactly lights out, but, frankly, is probably better than Fox at this point in his career. Even in the 10th, Fox looked somewhat shaky. It was a 1-2-3 inning, but all three outs were on fairly deep fly balls to center. Fox making it back to the big leagues is a nice story, I guess, but I really don't see what he can do to help the team at this point. I don't know why he's a better option than Neal Cotts, who has a sub-2.00 ERA at AAA right now, and 28 is not going to get much of any benefit from remaining in the minors as far as development goes. Cotts would seem to be the logical option even moreso because the Cubs are currently carrying only left-hander in the form of Sean Marshall, although Scott Eyre is rehabbing as well and may return soon.
Ted Lilly takes the mound this afternoon in St. Louis, and needs to try and pitch deep into the game with a tired bullpen.
Update: So apparently Rich Hill got sent down to AAA and Sean Gallagher brought up.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Win Some, Lose Some
The Cubs won 3 more in a row after my last post to get to 15-6. That start is the best since 1907 or something like that for the Cubs. Along the way they also had a streak of winning 4 games in a row by 6 runs or more, which is the first time they've done that since 18-something (can't even remember what year it was according to Len Kasper). So dropping the next two to the Rockies and Nationals in close games certainly is not cause for panic, but wow, have they been frustrating nonetheless. Both games saw the Cubs strand a ton of runners. They didn't ground into many double plays or strike out a lot, they just didn't seem to get the timely hit as they have so often early on. Last night the Nationals won in walkoff fashion on a home-run by catcher Will Nieves off of Bob Howry. It was Nieves's first career home run on a ball that he reached way out of the zone to get and pulled it down the right field line. I have no idea what's going on with Howry. He's not looking comfortable at all right now. Howry's performance is one thing that worries me at the moment, as I don't think Wuertz or Hart could really excel in a set-up role, and I really don't want Carlos Marmol's arm to fall off from throwing 30 pitches a night. As I said though, it's only a 2 game skid at the moment, and with Carlos Zambrano facing a fairly awful Nationals offense tonight, you would certainly figure the odds to be in the Cubs' favor.
Monday, April 21, 2008
White Flag Time
Things have been going pretty well for the Cubs. They're currently sitting pretty at 12-6 after sweeping the Pirates for the second time this year, and are now in 1st place in the NL Central and a half game ahead of the Cardinals. This marks a huge shift from the way the Cubs started last year, when they were a mere 7-11 after their first 18 games and didn't get to 12 wins until May 2nd. They've also scored 28 more runs, drawn 31 more walks, and hit 7 more home runs in the first 18 games of this season as compared to last season. All of that is good enough for 1st in the NL in both average and OBP (all this is according to baseball-reference.com, as usual) The last couple of series against the Reds and Pirates have been particularly good for the Cubs' offense, as they've scored 9+ runs in 4 of the 6 games, despite Alphonso Soriano being played on the DL after the first game against the Reds.
Some people might be quick to dismiss the early success, because it's been mostly against bad teams (the Cubs have played the Brewers and Phillies, but are just 2-4 against them), but Cubs sweeps have been pretty rare in recent years against any team, and already sweeping the Pirates twice this year is extremely encouraging to me.
I was in attendance for the game on Wednesday against the Reds. I didn't get there until the game was already in the 3rd inning because I didn't leave until 6:00 and I-88 was packed and Josh Fogg was already being pulled from the game. Cubs ended up winning 12-3 on a gorgeous night. It was good times.
Update (4/22 ~2:00ish)
The Cubs kept the winning streak going last night, beating the Mets 7-1, getting 5 of their runs in the 8th inning, capitalizing off of a Jose Reyes error which began the inning. After loading the bases with no outs, Mark DeRosa struck out, and Geovany Soto popped out, seemingly setting up a huge wasted opportunity that were oh so common during the Dusty Baker era. But, lo and behond, Ronny Cedeno worked an at-bat that was something like 9 or 10 pitches before finally punching a single up the middle, then Felix Pie hit a 3-run pinch-hit home run. When things are going right, they're going right. Cedeno and Pie were two guys who weren't even guaranteed to be on the roster at the start of the year. Right now as I'm posting the Cubs are wrapping up the brief 2-game set with an afternoon game. Ted Lilly retired the first 9 guys in order, but has run into trouble in the 4th. It might end up being a repeat of his last start, where he looked much improved from the outset but then got roughed up the second time through the order. Let's hope not. 0-0 score for now...
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Let's not play two, but play a really long one
I was visiting people I know who are still at college last weekend, so again I've left this idle for a few days. Basically, the Cubs swept the Pirates in an odd series that had 36 innings in 3 games, and then narrowly avoided a sweep at the hands of the Phillies, putting them at 7-5. Their hitting has still be fairly good, with Derrek Lee mostly notably on a tear, but the pitching has been very inconsistent. Ted Lilly has yet to last 5 innings in a start and doesn't look like the same guy as in 2007 thus far. The bullpen has struggled as well, especially Bob Howry. It doesn't help that, as I alluded to, they've had to pitch a ton of innings. 4 of the Cubs' first 12 games have gone into extra innings. Random fact of the day (courtesy of the super cool Play Index feature at Baseball Reference): the most extra inning games the Cubs have played in a season is 23 in 1992. Right now they're on pace for 54. A lot of the games thus far have had some very bizarre moments, and a lot o them-- certainly the 4 extra inning games-- could've had a different result with the change of only one or two plays. As such, it's hard to really get a read on the team thus far.
One thing I will say thus far that I think could potentially get the Cubs in a lot of trouble is Lou Pinella's penchant for announcing a batter, knowing the opposing manager will change pitchers to make it lefty-lefty or righty-righty, then pulling him back and announcing another batter who hits with the opposite hand. This effectively wastes the first batter in said sequence, since you're technically "in the game" as soon as you're announced. With the extra innings games early on, this has led to the Cubs running out of position players on more than one occasion, and as such, the likes of Carlos Zambrano have been batting in key situations. A notable example was Sunday, where in the 10th inning against the Phillies, there were runners on 1st and 2nd with 1 out with Zambrano hitting because the bench was already empty. Zambrano grounded to short, and it should have been an inning ending double-play, but Chase Utley made a horrible throw to first and the go-ahead run ended up scoring. While the Cubs ended up getting a break in that case, in about 99 out of 100 times, that play is going to be a double play, and while Zambrano is certainly a good hitter by pitcher standards, he's not who you want batting in a tie game late.
I get the mentality Lou is using: if you have your best hitter batting in the 7th or 8th, or whenever it is, there's a better chance that he can give you lead and you can close the game out in 9 innings and not have to worry about anything coming afterward. I feel however, that its more worth it to keep a hitter in the batter's box in a lefty-lefty or righty-righty situation-- even though he may be hitting like .250 vs. leftys as opposed to .280 vs. righties or vice vera-- than have a pitcher taking goofy looking hacks at the ball later on. There's probably a way to prove or disprove this statistically, but I'm not going to exert the effort to try and find out.
Cubs play the Reds (reunion with Dusty!) later on tonight at Wrigley.
One thing I will say thus far that I think could potentially get the Cubs in a lot of trouble is Lou Pinella's penchant for announcing a batter, knowing the opposing manager will change pitchers to make it lefty-lefty or righty-righty, then pulling him back and announcing another batter who hits with the opposite hand. This effectively wastes the first batter in said sequence, since you're technically "in the game" as soon as you're announced. With the extra innings games early on, this has led to the Cubs running out of position players on more than one occasion, and as such, the likes of Carlos Zambrano have been batting in key situations. A notable example was Sunday, where in the 10th inning against the Phillies, there were runners on 1st and 2nd with 1 out with Zambrano hitting because the bench was already empty. Zambrano grounded to short, and it should have been an inning ending double-play, but Chase Utley made a horrible throw to first and the go-ahead run ended up scoring. While the Cubs ended up getting a break in that case, in about 99 out of 100 times, that play is going to be a double play, and while Zambrano is certainly a good hitter by pitcher standards, he's not who you want batting in a tie game late.
I get the mentality Lou is using: if you have your best hitter batting in the 7th or 8th, or whenever it is, there's a better chance that he can give you lead and you can close the game out in 9 innings and not have to worry about anything coming afterward. I feel however, that its more worth it to keep a hitter in the batter's box in a lefty-lefty or righty-righty situation-- even though he may be hitting like .250 vs. leftys as opposed to .280 vs. righties or vice vera-- than have a pitcher taking goofy looking hacks at the ball later on. There's probably a way to prove or disprove this statistically, but I'm not going to exert the effort to try and find out.
Cubs play the Reds (reunion with Dusty!) later on tonight at Wrigley.
Monday, April 07, 2008
Back to .500
Game 4: Astros 4, Cubs 3
Game 5: Cubs 9, Astros 7
Game 6: Cubs 3, Astros 2
Well, it didn't take long for me to lag behind on this, not that that should surprise me. Basically, long story short, the Cubs looked a little bit more like the team they should be (and I can legitimately say "looked" because I was actually able to watch some of the Saturday and Sunday games), taking 2 of 3 from the Astros. The Cubs, who hit a surprisingly few number of homers last year up until the stretch run in September, have wasted no time going deep this year, hitting 8 in their first 6 games. Derrek Lee leads the way with 3, and seems to have put his quiet spring behind him. Carlos Zambrano got his first win yesterday, lasting 7 cramp-free innings giving up just two runs. Meanwhile, Kerry Wood picked up his 3rd save and hasn't allowed a run since he got lit up in his first outing. The Cubs haven't been striking out much at all thus far, and managed to get through a Roy Oswalt start in which they scored 5 runs off of him without striking out at all. This is an encouraging sign and is certainly a sharp departure from the days of Dusty Baker.
A couple of continued causes for concern, though, are Bob Howry, who looked bad again on Saturday pitching in the 8th, and had to be taken down in favor of Carlos Marmol, who seems to be headed towards another year where he pitches a ton of innings out of the pen. Also, Alphonso Soriano continues to struggle, hitting just 2-for-26 thus far, although he hit a solo home run yesterday.
Friday: W - W. Wright (1-0) L - Lieber (0-1) S - Valverde (1)
Saturday: W - Hart (1-0) L - Oswalt (0-2) S - Wood (2)
Sunday: W - Zambrano (0-1) L - Villarreal (0-2) S - Wood (3)
Next up: Cubs go on their first road trip of the year, as they face the Pirates in their home opener Monday.
Game 5: Cubs 9, Astros 7
Game 6: Cubs 3, Astros 2
Well, it didn't take long for me to lag behind on this, not that that should surprise me. Basically, long story short, the Cubs looked a little bit more like the team they should be (and I can legitimately say "looked" because I was actually able to watch some of the Saturday and Sunday games), taking 2 of 3 from the Astros. The Cubs, who hit a surprisingly few number of homers last year up until the stretch run in September, have wasted no time going deep this year, hitting 8 in their first 6 games. Derrek Lee leads the way with 3, and seems to have put his quiet spring behind him. Carlos Zambrano got his first win yesterday, lasting 7 cramp-free innings giving up just two runs. Meanwhile, Kerry Wood picked up his 3rd save and hasn't allowed a run since he got lit up in his first outing. The Cubs haven't been striking out much at all thus far, and managed to get through a Roy Oswalt start in which they scored 5 runs off of him without striking out at all. This is an encouraging sign and is certainly a sharp departure from the days of Dusty Baker.
A couple of continued causes for concern, though, are Bob Howry, who looked bad again on Saturday pitching in the 8th, and had to be taken down in favor of Carlos Marmol, who seems to be headed towards another year where he pitches a ton of innings out of the pen. Also, Alphonso Soriano continues to struggle, hitting just 2-for-26 thus far, although he hit a solo home run yesterday.
Friday: W - W. Wright (1-0) L - Lieber (0-1) S - Valverde (1)
Saturday: W - Hart (1-0) L - Oswalt (0-2) S - Wood (2)
Sunday: W - Zambrano (0-1) L - Villarreal (0-2) S - Wood (3)
Next up: Cubs go on their first road trip of the year, as they face the Pirates in their home opener Monday.
Friday, April 04, 2008
One in the win column
Game 3: Cubs 6, Brewers 3
The Cubs prevented an opening series sweep yesterday, as they jumped all over Dave Bush, who was kind of all over the place for the Brewers. Ryan Dempster made his first start since 2005, and had a rocky start but improved as he went along, getting the win and giving up 2 runs over 6 IP with only one of them earned. The unearned run came from a bad throw from Kosuke Fukudome trying to made a throw home and completely missing Geovany Soto. Hard to be angry at Fukudome for this though, as he had another very good day at the plate, picking up his 2nd double of the year and drawing 2 more walks. It seems to see a lot of pitches in every plate appearance, and thus far it looks like he's worth every bit of the money the Cubs threw at him. The Cubs start a weekend series with the Astros later today. Kerry Wood came on and recovered from his awful outing in the opener, getting his first save of the year. I'll be much more worried if the Cubs drop two of three to the Astros than the Brewers.
W - Dempster (1-0) L - Bush (0-1) S - Wood (1)
The Cubs prevented an opening series sweep yesterday, as they jumped all over Dave Bush, who was kind of all over the place for the Brewers. Ryan Dempster made his first start since 2005, and had a rocky start but improved as he went along, getting the win and giving up 2 runs over 6 IP with only one of them earned. The unearned run came from a bad throw from Kosuke Fukudome trying to made a throw home and completely missing Geovany Soto. Hard to be angry at Fukudome for this though, as he had another very good day at the plate, picking up his 2nd double of the year and drawing 2 more walks. It seems to see a lot of pitches in every plate appearance, and thus far it looks like he's worth every bit of the money the Cubs threw at him. The Cubs start a weekend series with the Astros later today. Kerry Wood came on and recovered from his awful outing in the opener, getting his first save of the year. I'll be much more worried if the Cubs drop two of three to the Astros than the Brewers.
W - Dempster (1-0) L - Bush (0-1) S - Wood (1)
Wednesday, April 02, 2008
Try not to panic
Game 2: Brewers 8, Cubs 2
For whatever reason, a lot of people got really worked up, partly because of what was being said on TV and in the papers, about the fact that this is the 100th year since Cubs last won the World Series, as if the arbitrary milestone somehow increases their chances of winning this year. These people are probably on a ledge right now after the Cubs dropped to 0-2 in another mediocre game on offense. Two games does not a season make, however. Alphonso Soriano is not going to remain 0-for-the-season for much longer, nor is Aramis Ramirez. Losing the first two games to the team that will likely be your only serious rival for first place in the division is frustrating, but things will most certainly balance themselves out in the near future. Jeff Suppan held the Cubs to two runs over 6 1/3 innings, but only had 2 strikeouts along the way, so it's not like the Cubs couldn't make contact.
The Cubs got some baserunners today, finishing with 8 hits and 3 walks, but again couldn't get any home except by way of the home run (this time it was solo home runs by Derrek Lee and Geovany Soto). They made some gaffes along the way, namely a botched hit and run with Aramis Ramirez that wound up being a strike-em-out, throw-em-out double play. That's something that has been a problem in recent years and hopefully will get corrected. Ted Lilly's line looked pretty ugly, being charged with 4 runs in 4 2/3 innings, but wasn't really that bad. He allowed 5 hits and hit a batter, but didn't walk anyone. He only threw 70-some pitches so was apparently on a very short leash. Tomorrow will be another afternoon game (and thus another game I can't watch, rrrrrr...) with Ryan Dempster's return to the rotation.
W - Suppan (1-0) L - Lilly (0-1)
For whatever reason, a lot of people got really worked up, partly because of what was being said on TV and in the papers, about the fact that this is the 100th year since Cubs last won the World Series, as if the arbitrary milestone somehow increases their chances of winning this year. These people are probably on a ledge right now after the Cubs dropped to 0-2 in another mediocre game on offense. Two games does not a season make, however. Alphonso Soriano is not going to remain 0-for-the-season for much longer, nor is Aramis Ramirez. Losing the first two games to the team that will likely be your only serious rival for first place in the division is frustrating, but things will most certainly balance themselves out in the near future. Jeff Suppan held the Cubs to two runs over 6 1/3 innings, but only had 2 strikeouts along the way, so it's not like the Cubs couldn't make contact.
The Cubs got some baserunners today, finishing with 8 hits and 3 walks, but again couldn't get any home except by way of the home run (this time it was solo home runs by Derrek Lee and Geovany Soto). They made some gaffes along the way, namely a botched hit and run with Aramis Ramirez that wound up being a strike-em-out, throw-em-out double play. That's something that has been a problem in recent years and hopefully will get corrected. Ted Lilly's line looked pretty ugly, being charged with 4 runs in 4 2/3 innings, but wasn't really that bad. He allowed 5 hits and hit a batter, but didn't walk anyone. He only threw 70-some pitches so was apparently on a very short leash. Tomorrow will be another afternoon game (and thus another game I can't watch, rrrrrr...) with Ryan Dempster's return to the rotation.
W - Suppan (1-0) L - Lilly (0-1)
Monday, March 31, 2008
161-1 still possible
Game 1: Brewers 4, Cubs 3 (10 innings)
I'm sure a lot of Cubs fans are ready to jump off a bridge after a heartbreaking 10-inning loss to the Brewers on an Opening Day that, given the weather, almost didn't happen. I was at work, so I could only follow the game online (another unfortunate reality of post-college life) and I still haven't seen the highlights yet, which is frustrating because, even though the outcome wasn't what I was looking for it was a pretty exciting game.
Being opening day, each team had their ace on the mound to start and neither one would allow a run. Ben Sheets went 6 1/3 IP, giving up only two hits (both of which by Kosuke Fukudome; more on him later) and two walks. Apparently they had him on a pitch count for his first count because he left after 99 despite being so dominant. Carlos Zambrano has had a recent history of being awful in his first start of the year, but not so today. He went 6 2/3 IP allowing only 3 hits and 1 walk with 5 Ks in a surprisingly efficient 89 pitches. However, he left after a (successful) pick-off play at second where his forearm cramped up after the throw. Zambrano's seemingly chronic cramping problem was the subject of much discussion next year, and the fact that it happened on opening day this year on a mild, rainy day (its been theorized that his cramps step from dehydration) isn't a good sign at all. At the same time, while he was in the game, he was excellent and didn't get mired in 30+ pitch innings as he's been known to do, especially in early season games.
Carlos Marmol relieved Zambrano and pretty much picked up where he left off last year, pitching an inning and a third of perfect baseball. With the game still scoreless in the top of the 9th, enter: Kerry Wood. As I posted in my preseason threads, I've felt that Marmol, despite his youth, is the best man for the job. Well, my point was backed up today as Wood gave up three runs in the 9th to put the Cubs down. Obviously, this is only one game, and I'm sure Wood will have more than a few successful outing this year, but I still think Marmol is going to wind up being the closer by some time in May.
So, on a day in which the Cubs who weren't Fukudome were being no-hit going into the bottom of the 9th, it looked like a shutout was pretty much inevitable with the oft-injured, but one dominant Eric Gagne in to close. But then something crazy happened. Derrek Lee led off with a single, then Aramis Ramirez drew a 4 pitch walk. Up comes the new guy, Kosuke Fukudome, already 2-for-2 with a walk, who promptly hit a 3-run homer to tie the game. So Fukudome finished having reached base all 4 times (he did get picked off once) and was a triple away from the cycle. Not a bad first day on the job. Felix Pie tried to keep the 9th going with a single, but Mike Fontenot wasn't able to drive him home. Then, alas, the Brewers scored their 4th run on a sac fly in the 10th off of Bob Howry, and then David Riske worked a 1-2-3 bottom half to end the game. Frustrating game to say the least. Zambrano and Marmol were at their absolute best while they were in though, so hopefully the poor offensive output from everyone who isn't Fukudome was a one game aberration. There have been years in which the Cubs have been horrible offensive when they've scored like 16 runs on opening day, so who really knows. Off day tomorrow, then the Brew crew again on Wednesday.
W - Gagne (1-0) L - Howry (0-1) S - Riske (1)
I'm sure a lot of Cubs fans are ready to jump off a bridge after a heartbreaking 10-inning loss to the Brewers on an Opening Day that, given the weather, almost didn't happen. I was at work, so I could only follow the game online (another unfortunate reality of post-college life) and I still haven't seen the highlights yet, which is frustrating because, even though the outcome wasn't what I was looking for it was a pretty exciting game.
Being opening day, each team had their ace on the mound to start and neither one would allow a run. Ben Sheets went 6 1/3 IP, giving up only two hits (both of which by Kosuke Fukudome; more on him later) and two walks. Apparently they had him on a pitch count for his first count because he left after 99 despite being so dominant. Carlos Zambrano has had a recent history of being awful in his first start of the year, but not so today. He went 6 2/3 IP allowing only 3 hits and 1 walk with 5 Ks in a surprisingly efficient 89 pitches. However, he left after a (successful) pick-off play at second where his forearm cramped up after the throw. Zambrano's seemingly chronic cramping problem was the subject of much discussion next year, and the fact that it happened on opening day this year on a mild, rainy day (its been theorized that his cramps step from dehydration) isn't a good sign at all. At the same time, while he was in the game, he was excellent and didn't get mired in 30+ pitch innings as he's been known to do, especially in early season games.
Carlos Marmol relieved Zambrano and pretty much picked up where he left off last year, pitching an inning and a third of perfect baseball. With the game still scoreless in the top of the 9th, enter: Kerry Wood. As I posted in my preseason threads, I've felt that Marmol, despite his youth, is the best man for the job. Well, my point was backed up today as Wood gave up three runs in the 9th to put the Cubs down. Obviously, this is only one game, and I'm sure Wood will have more than a few successful outing this year, but I still think Marmol is going to wind up being the closer by some time in May.
So, on a day in which the Cubs who weren't Fukudome were being no-hit going into the bottom of the 9th, it looked like a shutout was pretty much inevitable with the oft-injured, but one dominant Eric Gagne in to close. But then something crazy happened. Derrek Lee led off with a single, then Aramis Ramirez drew a 4 pitch walk. Up comes the new guy, Kosuke Fukudome, already 2-for-2 with a walk, who promptly hit a 3-run homer to tie the game. So Fukudome finished having reached base all 4 times (he did get picked off once) and was a triple away from the cycle. Not a bad first day on the job. Felix Pie tried to keep the 9th going with a single, but Mike Fontenot wasn't able to drive him home. Then, alas, the Brewers scored their 4th run on a sac fly in the 10th off of Bob Howry, and then David Riske worked a 1-2-3 bottom half to end the game. Frustrating game to say the least. Zambrano and Marmol were at their absolute best while they were in though, so hopefully the poor offensive output from everyone who isn't Fukudome was a one game aberration. There have been years in which the Cubs have been horrible offensive when they've scored like 16 runs on opening day, so who really knows. Off day tomorrow, then the Brew crew again on Wednesday.
W - Gagne (1-0) L - Howry (0-1) S - Riske (1)
Thursday, March 27, 2008
No Country for Old Men
No Country for Old Men (****)
Without question, No Country for Old Men is a movie that you need to see more than once to really understand. I was able to discern enough on my first time watching it to know that I really liked it, but I will certainly have to go back and watch it at least one more time to fully grasp everything that the Coen brothers put into the film. Hearing from other people who have seen it, I'm not alone. The film has a lot of subtleties that are easy to miss, and doesn't hold your hand with a lot of exposition explaining everything there is to know. Even if you don't want to feel like you have to study the intricacies of every scene, however, No Country for Old Men is still a tremendously exciting movie, and the reasons why it gets so much praise aren't hard to see at all.
First and foremost, this film is a huge departure from their previous films with both serious and funny elements like O Brother Where Art Thou? and The Big Lebowski. This movie is very dark and very muted and much more grounded in reality than the lighter side of Coen brothers movies. It sticks very close to the book on which its based, (so I'm told) and a lot of the film's dialog is lifted from it.
...
I put this off for way too long to remember what else I was going to write, but basically cliff's notes: its a very solemn, and subtle movie with a classic "unknown is more frightening than the known" type of villain that I think needs to be seen more than once to really appreciate.
Top 10 list for last year has been updated
Without question, No Country for Old Men is a movie that you need to see more than once to really understand. I was able to discern enough on my first time watching it to know that I really liked it, but I will certainly have to go back and watch it at least one more time to fully grasp everything that the Coen brothers put into the film. Hearing from other people who have seen it, I'm not alone. The film has a lot of subtleties that are easy to miss, and doesn't hold your hand with a lot of exposition explaining everything there is to know. Even if you don't want to feel like you have to study the intricacies of every scene, however, No Country for Old Men is still a tremendously exciting movie, and the reasons why it gets so much praise aren't hard to see at all.
First and foremost, this film is a huge departure from their previous films with both serious and funny elements like O Brother Where Art Thou? and The Big Lebowski. This movie is very dark and very muted and much more grounded in reality than the lighter side of Coen brothers movies. It sticks very close to the book on which its based, (so I'm told) and a lot of the film's dialog is lifted from it.
...
I put this off for way too long to remember what else I was going to write, but basically cliff's notes: its a very solemn, and subtle movie with a classic "unknown is more frightening than the known" type of villain that I think needs to be seen more than once to really appreciate.
Top 10 list for last year has been updated
Monday, March 17, 2008
The Darjeeling Limited
The Darjeeling Limited (***)
I kind of feel like I'm going to look back at this review at some point and wish I scored it higher, because Wes Anderson movies seem to grow on me the more I see them, but then again, who knows? The Darjeeling Limited is, indeed, the most recent film from auteur Wes Anderson, and unmistakably so. Anderson wastes no time reminding everyone of his off-beat style from the very beginning of the film, by actually beginning with a 10-15 minute "short film", dubbed "Hotel Chevalier", which is only later made clear to be in the continuity with the "main" Darjeeling Limited film. The short film is somewhat bizarre, introducing us to Jason Schwartzman's character Jack Whitman living in a surreal looking hotel room when he is suddenly visited by his once girlfriend, played by Natalie Portman. This scene/film/whatever runs for 13 minutes, contains almost no dialog, and adds almost nothing that I can discern to the main film that makes it worth it. I appreciate Wes Anderson's off-beat style, but in this case the whole venture of this short film is just awkward and detracts from the rest of the movie more than benefits it.
After the "Hotel Chevalier" segment, The Darjeeling Limited itself begins and quickly establishes that its less avant-garde and easier to digest than the aforementioned opening. At the same, it still is unmistakably Wes Anderson. The film's title refers to the train of the same name on which the three main characters spend much of the movie. Like the Belefonte, Steve Zissou's ship from The Life Aquatic, the Darjeeling seems sort of otherworldly in its design, and takes on a life of its own as Anderson pans from room to room. The central characters in the story are the Whitman brothers-- Francis, Peter, and Jack-- played by Owen Wilson, Adrian Brody, and Jason Schwartzman respectively. The relationship between the three brothers has been strained ever since the death of their father, and a trip on the Darjeeling through India is Francis's plan to reconcile the brothers, hoping they'll have some sort of spiritual revelation along the way. Each of the brothers seems to possess a fatal flaw: Francis is too controlling (orders for his two brothers in the dinner car), Peter is clingy (wears his father's glasses - with his father's prescription in them), while Jack writes passive-agressive stories with fictional characters who obviously aren't entirely fictional and seems to want to bang anything that moves.
The brothers go through some amount of reconciliation throughout the film, but like most of Wes Anderson's movies, the ending is somewhat muted, and the film seems to be more about how all the characters get to the ending. In The Life Aquatic, this was in the form of a voyage to kill a jaguar shark complete with claymated ocean scenes and a preposterous battle with modern day pirates. I actually liked the over-the-top surrealness of Life Aquatic (most professional critics seemed lukewarm at best about it), but I found myself liking Darjeeling Limited as well. Even though the train itself seems to come directly from the oddest corner of Wes Anderson's mind, some of the starkest scenes take place off of the train out in the vastness of actual rural India. The film is of the same sort-of comedy, sort-of drama, hard to place mold of his other films, though more towards the serious side than Royal Tennenbaums or Life Aquatic (that's not to say that there aren't a few laugh out loud moments because there are). The film is quieter on the whole, and seems to be itself a sort of meditation in the same vein that the characters within the film are trying to find. I'm not sure if it led me to any great personal revelation though.
The biggest flaw in the movie is one in all his films-- one which seems to turn off a lot of people completely, while I can deal with it, though nevertheless acknowledge it-- namely, that Anderson seems to be too eager to make the film as off-beat as possible. I already mentioned the biggest example of this: the strange short film before "the real film" that is in the same continuity but doesn't have the same tone whatsoever. But throughout the film there's examples of dialog between characters where one character will ask a question, and the other will give a response that doesn't seem to be applicable to the question at all. Sometimes, it's for humorous effect, but a lot of the time its merely distracting, and its hard to take the emotion in the film as serious as it should be taken when characters don't seem to interact like actual people. There are other examples of this same basic idea, like Owen Wilson's character, whose head is wrapped in an absurd amount of bandages and keeps losing teeth throughout the movie because of a motorcycle accident. It seems at first like its supposed to be funny, but later on there are hints that Owen Wilson's character may be suicidal, and suddenly its hard to determine how you're really supposed to feel.
Even with all the off-beat stuff in Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums, and Life Aquatic, I "got" those movies more than I did this one, I think. Even though Darjeeling seems more grounded in reality, his previous movies seemed to resonate more with me for some reason. Still, there are some enjoyable scenes that use the backdrop of India beautifully, and the performances by each of the three brothers are quite good. There are many worse ways to spend an hour and a half
I kind of feel like I'm going to look back at this review at some point and wish I scored it higher, because Wes Anderson movies seem to grow on me the more I see them, but then again, who knows? The Darjeeling Limited is, indeed, the most recent film from auteur Wes Anderson, and unmistakably so. Anderson wastes no time reminding everyone of his off-beat style from the very beginning of the film, by actually beginning with a 10-15 minute "short film", dubbed "Hotel Chevalier", which is only later made clear to be in the continuity with the "main" Darjeeling Limited film. The short film is somewhat bizarre, introducing us to Jason Schwartzman's character Jack Whitman living in a surreal looking hotel room when he is suddenly visited by his once girlfriend, played by Natalie Portman. This scene/film/whatever runs for 13 minutes, contains almost no dialog, and adds almost nothing that I can discern to the main film that makes it worth it. I appreciate Wes Anderson's off-beat style, but in this case the whole venture of this short film is just awkward and detracts from the rest of the movie more than benefits it.
After the "Hotel Chevalier" segment, The Darjeeling Limited itself begins and quickly establishes that its less avant-garde and easier to digest than the aforementioned opening. At the same, it still is unmistakably Wes Anderson. The film's title refers to the train of the same name on which the three main characters spend much of the movie. Like the Belefonte, Steve Zissou's ship from The Life Aquatic, the Darjeeling seems sort of otherworldly in its design, and takes on a life of its own as Anderson pans from room to room. The central characters in the story are the Whitman brothers-- Francis, Peter, and Jack-- played by Owen Wilson, Adrian Brody, and Jason Schwartzman respectively. The relationship between the three brothers has been strained ever since the death of their father, and a trip on the Darjeeling through India is Francis's plan to reconcile the brothers, hoping they'll have some sort of spiritual revelation along the way. Each of the brothers seems to possess a fatal flaw: Francis is too controlling (orders for his two brothers in the dinner car), Peter is clingy (wears his father's glasses - with his father's prescription in them), while Jack writes passive-agressive stories with fictional characters who obviously aren't entirely fictional and seems to want to bang anything that moves.
The brothers go through some amount of reconciliation throughout the film, but like most of Wes Anderson's movies, the ending is somewhat muted, and the film seems to be more about how all the characters get to the ending. In The Life Aquatic, this was in the form of a voyage to kill a jaguar shark complete with claymated ocean scenes and a preposterous battle with modern day pirates. I actually liked the over-the-top surrealness of Life Aquatic (most professional critics seemed lukewarm at best about it), but I found myself liking Darjeeling Limited as well. Even though the train itself seems to come directly from the oddest corner of Wes Anderson's mind, some of the starkest scenes take place off of the train out in the vastness of actual rural India. The film is of the same sort-of comedy, sort-of drama, hard to place mold of his other films, though more towards the serious side than Royal Tennenbaums or Life Aquatic (that's not to say that there aren't a few laugh out loud moments because there are). The film is quieter on the whole, and seems to be itself a sort of meditation in the same vein that the characters within the film are trying to find. I'm not sure if it led me to any great personal revelation though.
The biggest flaw in the movie is one in all his films-- one which seems to turn off a lot of people completely, while I can deal with it, though nevertheless acknowledge it-- namely, that Anderson seems to be too eager to make the film as off-beat as possible. I already mentioned the biggest example of this: the strange short film before "the real film" that is in the same continuity but doesn't have the same tone whatsoever. But throughout the film there's examples of dialog between characters where one character will ask a question, and the other will give a response that doesn't seem to be applicable to the question at all. Sometimes, it's for humorous effect, but a lot of the time its merely distracting, and its hard to take the emotion in the film as serious as it should be taken when characters don't seem to interact like actual people. There are other examples of this same basic idea, like Owen Wilson's character, whose head is wrapped in an absurd amount of bandages and keeps losing teeth throughout the movie because of a motorcycle accident. It seems at first like its supposed to be funny, but later on there are hints that Owen Wilson's character may be suicidal, and suddenly its hard to determine how you're really supposed to feel.
Even with all the off-beat stuff in Rushmore, Royal Tennenbaums, and Life Aquatic, I "got" those movies more than I did this one, I think. Even though Darjeeling seems more grounded in reality, his previous movies seemed to resonate more with me for some reason. Still, there are some enjoyable scenes that use the backdrop of India beautifully, and the performances by each of the three brothers are quite good. There are many worse ways to spend an hour and a half
Friday, March 14, 2008
CUBS: Spring Update 3
Jason Marquis pitched 4 innings yesterday, giving up no runs on 2 hits and 2 walks. This is his second consecutive good start, and it certainly looks like he's going to be in the rotation. As I said in my first post about this year's Cubs, I wasn't a huge fan of Marquis last year, so I dunno how I feel about that. His ERA in '07 wasn't that bad, but a lot of his good starts were towards the front of the season, and towards the end of the season he didn't seem to be able to get much past hitters. The last time I played baseball was coach pitch, but just observing on TV, it seems like he pitched worse last year than his ERA indicated. His ERA of over 6.00 the year before that with the Cardinals goes a long way to backing me up on that, methinks.
The Cubs made a round of cuts a few days ago and are now down to something like 42 players. Shingo Takatsu was among them, not surprisingly, as he got roughed up in several of his spring outings. He says he still wants to play in the states if given another opportunity, but he's not getting any younger and I really don't see it happening. I think it would be a futile effort on his part. Apparnetly, the Cubs are leaning towards a 12 man pitching staff, which I certainly advocate as every time the Cubs have tried to go to an 11 man staff since I've followed baseball closely everything has seemed to immediately go to hell. Also, according to Len Kasper the last time I saw the Cubs on TV, the Cubs are considering starting the year with Scott Eyre as their only left-hander. Carmen Pignatiello has yet to give up a run in 4 1/3 IP, which would seem to warrant a look, but we'll see.
One other note that I just heard while going to lunch on The Score, apparently the Cubs are now offering a package of Ronnie Cedeno, Donald Veal, Sean Gallagher, and someone else whose name escapes me for Brian Roberts. I suppose I'd be okay with that. It's giving up some young pitching, but Roberts would look great at 2nd base for the Cubs, and the Cubs are in a "win now" mode all the way.
Closer race update:
Carlos Marmol: 6 IP, 0.00 ERA, 1/1 Sv
Kerry Wood: 5 IP, 5.40 ERA
Bob Howry: 5.1 IP, 11.81 ERA
I said at the beginning of the year that I'd like to see Marmol get a chance, and the numbers seem to be in my favor to this point. ^^
Derrek Lee is now hitting .107 with 0 home runs for the spring, which is discouraging, but there's still another 2 weeks before opening day so we'll see what happens.
Next update: Probably after there's another round of cuts and battles for the last few roster spots start to manifest themselves.
The Cubs made a round of cuts a few days ago and are now down to something like 42 players. Shingo Takatsu was among them, not surprisingly, as he got roughed up in several of his spring outings. He says he still wants to play in the states if given another opportunity, but he's not getting any younger and I really don't see it happening. I think it would be a futile effort on his part. Apparnetly, the Cubs are leaning towards a 12 man pitching staff, which I certainly advocate as every time the Cubs have tried to go to an 11 man staff since I've followed baseball closely everything has seemed to immediately go to hell. Also, according to Len Kasper the last time I saw the Cubs on TV, the Cubs are considering starting the year with Scott Eyre as their only left-hander. Carmen Pignatiello has yet to give up a run in 4 1/3 IP, which would seem to warrant a look, but we'll see.
One other note that I just heard while going to lunch on The Score, apparently the Cubs are now offering a package of Ronnie Cedeno, Donald Veal, Sean Gallagher, and someone else whose name escapes me for Brian Roberts. I suppose I'd be okay with that. It's giving up some young pitching, but Roberts would look great at 2nd base for the Cubs, and the Cubs are in a "win now" mode all the way.
Closer race update:
Carlos Marmol: 6 IP, 0.00 ERA, 1/1 Sv
Kerry Wood: 5 IP, 5.40 ERA
Bob Howry: 5.1 IP, 11.81 ERA
I said at the beginning of the year that I'd like to see Marmol get a chance, and the numbers seem to be in my favor to this point. ^^
Derrek Lee is now hitting .107 with 0 home runs for the spring, which is discouraging, but there's still another 2 weeks before opening day so we'll see what happens.
Next update: Probably after there's another round of cuts and battles for the last few roster spots start to manifest themselves.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
CUBS: Spring Update 2
(Updated Sunday)
The Cubs played two split-squad games yesterday, winning the game in which most of the probable starters for the regular season played with Jon Lieber on the mound, and losing a game with mostly reserves (Daryle Ward was hitting clean-up) with Sean Marshall starting. Lieber was excellent, pitching 4 shutout innings allowing just 2 hits and no walks. Earlier in the week, Sean Marshall pitched 3 shutout innings himself. Today, Ryan Dempster went 4 innings allowing 1 run vs. the Royals. The Cubs put up 20+ hits against the Royals' pitching staff. Daryle Ward went 4-for-4 and Felix Pie had 3 hits of his own. Cubs look pretty good right now.
The Cubs played two split-squad games yesterday, winning the game in which most of the probable starters for the regular season played with Jon Lieber on the mound, and losing a game with mostly reserves (Daryle Ward was hitting clean-up) with Sean Marshall starting. Lieber was excellent, pitching 4 shutout innings allowing just 2 hits and no walks. Earlier in the week, Sean Marshall pitched 3 shutout innings himself. Today, Ryan Dempster went 4 innings allowing 1 run vs. the Royals. The Cubs put up 20+ hits against the Royals' pitching staff. Daryle Ward went 4-for-4 and Felix Pie had 3 hits of his own. Cubs look pretty good right now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)