"Brevity is... wit."

A condition unlike any other

2009-04-06T22:50:00.000-07:00

Not a good time for my mental health: March Madness lends itself to Carolina blues. I suppose I should congratulate the Tar Heels, much as it pains me. None of their tournament opponents could put together 40 minutes of good play against them, and they all had bad nights when it came to outside shooting. That's more than a coincidence; that's good... defense? Apparently.

UNC didn't need to show greatness to win it all, which makes them a very frustrating kind of champion. But they were excellent in one facet: the ability to wear the other team down. (In this regard, they remind me of Wisconsin. Except Carolina uses a speedy pace and a variety of scoring options, while the Badgers suck the life out of the game with their awfulness. They're the Toby Flenderson of hoops.)

Sure, the Heels managed to avoid having to play Syracuse, Pittsburgh, Connecticut, and Louisville in the Year of the Big East, but their path still wasn't easy. Super athletic LSU? Gonzaga's pro-ready starters? Blake Griffin and Oklahoma? Villanova, faster, better at rebounding, and with a V for Vendetta? A rematch in Detroit against Michigan State, which was essentially a road game? They earned it.

After my prognostication skills peaked a year ago, I fell, and fell hard. For the 2009 Final Four, I predicted Michigan State correctly, but was off on Texas and UCLA, and was way off on champion Notre Dame (which made the NIT Final Four, but couldn't even win that). It's a somewhat pointless guessing game -- coaches may leave, recruits may go elsewhere, and you can't know for sure which players will declare for the draft, transfer, or get injured. But hey, it's my guessing game.

Even with Ed Davis saying he'll return, the Heels will leave the top tier and rebuild next year, which is good news for everyone else. Duke may top an even weaker ACC, but I still don't see them as Final Four caliber. So who will ascend to the NCAA's lame default city of Indianapolis in 2010? One year in advance, I'm calling it: Syracuse, Ohio State, Kansas, and Purdue.

Next year's champ is... the Syracuse Orange. The citrus industry rejoices. Jonny "Quest" Flynn makes headbands stylish again. Eric "Thug Life" Devendorf endears himself to a skeptical nation. And coach Jim "In the Zone" Boeheim proves he can win a title without Carmelo Anthony.

The All-NewsRadio team

2009-03-19T00:01:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the NCAA tournament! The year's best 2 days of sports are today and tomorrow. Enjoy it if/while you can.

To celebrate, I'm following up 2007's All-Simpsons Team and 2008's All-Hogwarts Team with a new pop culture tribute: The All-NewsRadio Team.

I thought of it a few months ago while watching a Marquette game. Too bad one of my co-captains later had a season-ending injury, but he still deserves this honor.

Granted, it's kind of a small team this year. Then again, the TV show had a small cast, and Beth didn't even have a last name!

CO-CAPTAINS
Jerel "Bill" McNeal, Marquette
Dominic "Jimmy" James, Marquette

REST OF TEAM
Calvin "Matthew" Brock, Illinois
Joe Krabbenhoft "Garrelli," Wisconsin
Austin "Johnny" Johnson, Oklahoma
Dwight "Max" Lewis, USC
Mike "Dave" Nelson, North Dakota State

COACH
Sean "Lisa" Miller, Xavier

And don't forget Catherine Duke. That's a whole team right there.

The NCAA double dip (2009)

2009-03-18T22:19:00.000-07:00

This is an annual post: see also 2006, 2007, 2008.

Which college is most likely to have both their men's and women's teams advance to the Final Four? There are 26 such candidates this year (compare to 20 in 2006, 23 in 2007, and 22 in 2008), but numbers don't quite tell the whole story. Of those 26, only two -- East Tennessee State and Virginia Commonwealth -- are mid-major programs. The rest are from BCS or BCS-adjacent conferences.

In my opinion, there is a tie for first place, because I picked two schools to make both Final Fours this year.

1. Louisville. Men are a #1 seed; women are a #3 seed. Both teams have been a bit overshadowed all season; I say it's their time. The men are certainly peaking when it counts the most, and their region's path is very navigable. The women may have to upset Baylor and Maryland if they want to match the feat.

1. Oklahoma. Men #2; women #1. Courtney Paris said she would forfeit her scholarship if the Sooners didn't win the title. Tall order, considering that Connecticut is undefeated and unchallenged. But anyone who supports the downfall of the Huskies is aces in my book. Speaking of...

3. Connecticut. Men #1; women #1. A pair of top seeds, and a prohibitive favorite on the women's side. But I'm not seeing the men winning the regional final against Memphis or Missouri. And I'm staying true to my year-in-advance pick of California, who would face the UConn women in the 3rd round.

4. Duke. Men #2; women #1. Put it this way: the women could face 8 seed Michigan State in East Lansing, and 2 seed Stanford in Berkeley. And maybe Tennessee in between. Hard to imagine, but the men may have the easier path. So why did I pick only the women to get there? Contrarian tendencies, I guess.

5. Pittsburgh. Men #1; women #4. In a season where the Big East reigned supreme in men's hoops, I wonder if the conference will make an equivalent dent in both tournaments when all is said and done. I don't know much about the women's team, but I'm expecting good things from the men.

The other 19 schools are Arizona State, California, Florida State, Gonzaga, LSU, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Mississippi State, North Carolina, Ohio State, Purdue, Temple, Tennessee, Texas, Texas A&M, Utah, Villanova, and Xavier.

Still kind of a Baldwin

2009-03-16T22:42:00.000-07:00

I saw an advanced screening of I Love You, Man about a month ago. I probably should have written this review back then and saved it until now. But no, I gotta work off memory; the problem is that it's kind of cute, but forgettable. I remember thinking that its greatest strength is also its weakness: it coasts, perhaps too heavily, on the charm of actor Paul Rudd.

In the 1995 movie Clueless, his character was described as "kind of a Baldwin," back when the Baldwin acting brothers were still popular, thin, and attractive. Those days are gone, but in a way, Paul Rudd is a lot like the Alec Baldwin of today: a zany comic actor unafraid to make a buffoon of himself. Prime example: the recent Vanity Fair funnyman photo shoot, where he nails Tom Ford.

As for the movie, the premise is nice. Rudd plays a character who's recently engaged, and that creates an unusual problem: he needs a best man, and he has no male friends. For whatever reason, he's never made it a priority. So he follows the advice of his family and puts himself out there on the market for a hetero buddy. It's harder than he realizes, until he meets one guy (Jason Segel) for which the friendship forms organically. Complications arise as he ends up wanting to spend more time with his new guy friend than with his fiancée (Rashida Jones).

Rudd and Segel are asked to improvise a bit too much. At first, this is fine, but after a while it gets a little grating. For example, the guys bond in part over their love of the band Rush (a common symptom of men that age), having jam sessions that last all afternoon. When Rudd's character tries to explain it later, he says he was just "slapping the bass," referring to his guitar. He says it a few more times, gesturing like a goofy air musician, and you laugh a little. Then he repeats it in later scenes, maybe 60 times, and it becomes awkward, testy humor. How much more can we endure?

As the trailer suggests, the movie makes good use of Lou Ferrigno as himself, and has a stunning array of comedic supporting actors. You'll recognize almost everybody. And there are some interesting twists and turns. But you may come to the conclusion that it's a bit underwritten.

Sorry to burst your bubble

2009-03-15T14:05:00.000-07:00

One of the consequences of focusing on the top 16 teams is my lessened interest in the so-called bubble; that is, the fine line between schools that make the tournament and schools that don't.

Truth be told, it's hard for me to care. Every year the bubble conversation is the same: with no magic number of wins or steady criteria to separate the haves from the have-nots, it's all just speculation. And while there's one George Mason -- a questionable at-large team in 2006 that proves everyone wrong by making the Final Four -- there are a dozen invitees each year whose appearance and eventual performance are equally blah.

I'd like to think that the NCAA Selection Committee composes a top-secret formula that combines and appropriately weighs all distinguishing factors (schedule strength, opponent strength, conference rank, offensive efficiency, defensive efficiency, etc.) and ranks all 344 teams. Then they take a marker and cross out the 31 teams that get automatic bids for winning their conference tournaments. Then they highlight the top 34 teams left. There's your field. The rest of the time can be spent bickering over how those 65 teams should be seeded.

But I think the process is a lot more abstract, with conference lobbying in play. So really, the Selection Committee opens itself up for the painful criticism from angry commentators who can't understand why their favorite 76 teams didn't all make the tournament. This is a waste of time, and my least favorite part of Selection Sunday. That time should be spent on criticizing the Committee's lousy seeding choices instead.

You can see why I like the 1-4 seeds. How I see it, for the last time this season. Within the hour, the Selection Committee will see it differently (and incorrectly).

Midwest Regional (Indianapolis)
01. Louisville: The Pitt/UConn show has a surprise ending.
08. Michigan State: They did win the Big Ten by 4 games.
09. Kansas: 2008's champion reserves are the starters now.
16. Florida St: Will their ACC breakthrough translate nationally?

East Regional (Boston)
02. North Carolina: Had the best loss of the weekend, I guess.
07. Oklahoma: Gets the edge over Kansas and Missouri.
10. Villanova: Would love some karmic payback against UNC.
15. Arizona State: Coach Herb Sendek knows the Heels well.

South Regional (Memphis)
03. Pittsburgh: Swept UConn before quarterfinal loss to WVU.
06. Duke: Did what had to be done to show they belong.
11. Missouri: Only 3 seed here with a winning streak.
14. Gonzaga: The 3rd conference tourney champ in this subset.

West Regional (Glendale, AZ)
04. Memphis: They dominated with the schedule they were given.
05. Connecticut: 6OT? Okay, this was the best loss of the weekend.
12. Washington: Won Pac-10 outright, decent exit to Sun Devils.
13. Syracuse: Almost 5-0 in five days. Hope there's no letdown.

UPDATE! The NCAA Selection Committee's top 16 teams...

Midwest: Louisville, Michigan State, Kansas, Wake Forest
East: Pittsburgh, Duke, Villanova, Xavier
South: North Carolina, Oklahoma, Syracuse, Gonzaga
West: Connecticut, Memphis, Missouri, Washington

I predicted 14 of 16, including Arizona State and Florida State rather than Xavier and Wake Forest. Just for fun, I also looked at my first prediction from last November; I called 9 of 16. (Though I shouldn't brag: I had Davidson as a 4 seed and Notre Dame winning it all, and neither made the field.)

Sabotage!

2009-03-11T20:14:00.000-07:00

Some bad news: ABC is pulling the plug -- so to speak -- on its version of Life on Mars. It was a little too new to join my favorites of last year, but it's been a compelling bit of escapism these past few months. Pity that its central mystery will have to be wrapped up in the next, and last, three episodes.

Now I'll have to seek out the British version (and its sequel Ashes to Ashes) on BBC America, or maybe DVD. In the meantime, I can think of no better tribute to the show than...

For the record, that's not a Pic-Tac-Toe. Consider it a 9-panel salute to the awesome facial hair of actor Michael Imperioli. He's like the lost Beastie Boy.

Glorified G

2009-03-09T19:07:00.000-07:00

I was bringing in groceries for my sister sometime last weekend, which included a six-pack of Propel lemon-flavored water, from the makers of Gatorade. I decided to make light of the purchase.

"You know how Gatorade changed their name on their bottle labels to G?"
"No, I didn't know that. I've seen the commercials, though."
"It's a good thing you bought some Propel before they did the same thing."

Blue man's group

2009-03-04T03:00:00.000-08:00

What do I need to tell you to avoid seeing Watchmen?

Part of me wants you -- all 34 of you who read this -- to suffer as I have suffered, but there's a time when one has to sacrifice himself for the greater good. I can do this.

A few stats about this 163-minute movie.

1 hr 27 min: first black character appears.
1 hr 44 min: first heroic impulse sighted.
2 hr 04 min: first antagonist introduced.

What the hell was it doing until then? I wish I knew. The plot meanders, setting up a backstory for what needs to be the greatest story ever told in order to make it worthwhile. It isn't. Spanning generations, multiple perspectives, and alternate histories, we learn that there are costumed fighters (many obscured by masks) who control the course of the American way, for better or for worse. From what I can tell, it's mostly about the main characters standing around and looking iconic, rather than heroic. We don't know how or why they form, what each individual brings to the table, or what they have in common. More importantly, we're not really told why they aren't so active anymore.

It seems that director Zack Snyder can't decide whether he's being deep or dark, but mostly I got a strong vibe of pretentiousness. Artfully done, emotionally empty. Maybe this is by design, but you have to try to get the audience to care, even if the characters don't. We were silent, and not necessarily rapt with attention. "Repulsed with attention" might be a better description, considering all the senseless violence, some of it against women. This is a movie that separates the fanboys from everyone else; you'd have an uphill battle convincing me that there's much of anything here that's of general interest.

Eventually, I gathered the semblance of a point, but I was too defeated by then to think much of it. As the film was winding down, I didn't really care how it ended, just as long as it ended.

(Author's Note: there's so many embarrassingly bad things about this movie that I chose to leave out of my review, in an attempt to keep it short. I can elaborate in the comments section, should anyone have questions.)

March has arrived

2009-03-01T22:09:00.000-08:00

Selection Sunday is two weeks away, and while the bubble has become more defined, the picture at the top looks no clearer.

East Regional (Boston)
01. Connecticut: Pitt goes for the sweep March 7.
08. Kansas: On a hot streak, and I can't ignore them anymore.
09. Washington: One win away from outright Pac-10 title.
16. Brigham Young: Don't count out the Mountain West.

Midwest Regional (Indianapolis)
02. Pittsburgh: They look uncomfortable with a #1 ranking.
07. Michigan State: Big Ten title all but locked up.
10. Duke: Saved face with that 4-game winning streak.
15. LSU: I guess an SEC team might break through after all.

South Regional (Memphis)
03. Oklahoma: A win at Missouri should cement top seed.
06. Louisville: Might tie UConn for regular season title.
11. Gonzaga: Remember them? They're winning again.
14. Marquette: Loss of Dominic James could cost them 4 seed.

West Regional (Glendale, AZ)
04. North Carolina: Go west, and avoid the Big East's best.
05. Memphis: Like last year, a freshman stud at the point.
12. Villanova: Clear separation behind Big East's top three.
13. Missouri: In the mix, despite that 25-point loss to Kansas.

Also considered: Wake Forest, Utah, Butler, UCLA.

Oscar's most likely (2009)

2009-02-19T21:10:00.000-08:00

For the third straight year I'm aiming my wildly erratic predicting power at the Academy Awards, which are announced Sunday. As I did in 2007 and 2008, I rank the frontrunners in all categories by likelihood of winning. (Well, all feature-length categories; I'm ignoring the short films.) All frontrunners determined by Dave Karger (former classmate namecheck!) of Entertainment Weekly.

I would have seen all 5 Best Picture contenders had The Reader not been nominated. I've had a month to convince myself to go, but the story of a mostly naked, teen-humping, illiterate Nazi concentration camp guard just doesn't interest me, even if she's being played by Kate Winslet.

Update: with the ceremony over, how did the frontrunners do?

1. Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
WINNER!

Seems like more of a sure thing than Javier Bardem was in this category last year. I was tempted not to place it atop on the list because the Academy hasn't voted for a dead actor in a really long time. Then again, I wonder if his chances would be that much worse were he still alive; the competition is noteworthy but not exactly Earth-shattering. There will be karmic retribution against fellow nominee Philip Seymour Hoffman, who beat Ledger as Best Actor 3 years ago.

2. Best Documentary Feature: Man on Wire
WINNER!

In a way, this category pits the two greatest American tragedies of the decade against one another: 9/11 and Hurricane Katrina. But while Trouble the Water deals directly with the immediate fallout and aftermath in New Orleans, Man on Wire is set at the World Trade Center... in 1974. Recalling better days would seem to be a winning approach.

3. Best Editing: Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

Ticked that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture, but The Reader was? Pay close attention to this lineup instead; it's the one you wanted. Many of the year's big films relied heavily on flashbacks, but few worked as seamlessly as Slumdog did. Kudos to the incredible mix of fictional and real footage that went into Milk, and the anatomy of a leg injury sequence of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.

4. Best Makeup: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
WINNER!

Up against The Dark Knight and Hellboy II: The Golden Army, this is the only nominee also in the running for Best Picture. Which gives it a huge advantage. I don't know the techniques involved in transforming Benjamin and Daisy: how much is latex, and how much is CGI? I hope the voters know the difference.

5. Best Costume Design: The Duchess
WINNER!

This category is usually not so predictable, but The Duchess is the only nominee with a corset advantage. Its competition (Australia, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, Revolutionary Road) is surprisingly modern and not out of place in a fashion catalog today. In the event that voters tire of 18th century winners, look for Revolutionary Road to upset.

6. Best Animated Film: WALL-E
WINNER!

I was prepared to rank this frontrunner as high as #1 on this list, but then Kung Fu Panda conquered the Annie Awards last month. That film has a lot of fans who are thrilled with its old-fashioned qualities: hand-drawn animation, movie star voices, lots of dialogue and action. WALL-E rebels against many animation conventions in that regard, but it's also very much a breakthrough for Pixar. It won't go home empty handed.

7. Best Director: Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

I have a feeling that many people, including Academy voters, have no idea what a director does, or know how best to judge direction. I equate directors with general managers in baseball: they don't necessarily instruct the players, or handle the budget, or micromanage every decision. Instead a director controls everything from a distance, letting the cast and crew make many of their own decisions, and making their output adhere to a general vision of how things should go. In that regard, you can guess why Danny Boyle has been winning most of the precursor awards, bringing order to what must have been a chaotic filming process, which crossed barriers of economics, culture, and language.

8. Best Supporting Actress: Penélope Cruz, Vicky Cristina Barcelona
WINNER!

This seemed like much more of a gimme a few months ago. Watching the film, you're convinced that one of Woody Allen's motivations was to showcase Cruz's role. She doesn't have a whole lot of screen time, but she dominates all of her scenes, and is the main subject of conversation among the other characters before she even appears. So her presence is felt throughout. Cruz has since been overshadowed by a bunch of December nominees, but is still the likely winner. According to others, Viola Davis of Doubt has an outside shot.

9. Best Original Screenplay: Dustin Lance Black, Milk
WINNER!

Two forces are at work here. Milk is very much a triumph of acting, editing, and directing. Not so much writing. But Black is becoming that rarest of birds, a screenwriter celebrity, for being a young, talented, and good-looking winner in the awards circuit. He, not Gus Van Sant or Sean Penn, has become the person most associated with this movie, a public face on a political hot button issue that remains relevant, especially in California. And Milk is the only Best Picture nominee in this category. (Despite all that, In Bruges would make a better winner.)

10. Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

Bottom line: it doesn't lead the field in nominations. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button did, and Milk has a better balance/ratio of nominees in the major and technical categories. So it's a favorite, but a very beatable one. Fox Searchlight's non-campaign for this movie (it's been using the same commercial since the film's release in November) is an unusual strategy, but I suppose all the previous awards the film has garnered speak loudly enough. If it does win, it's not without precedent: orphans (Oliver!), Indians (Gandhi), American-free casts (The Last Emperor), and very British productions (Chariots of Fire) could be considered the film's Best Picture spiritual forefathers.

A note about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. I really believe this film was about 75 percent of the way toward being one of the greatest films ever made. But ultimately it fails from a sense of cinematic excess and director David Fincher's unwise choice to indulge screenwriter Eric Roth's preference for magical realism. So many brilliant moments gone to eventual waste. Had they tightened up the film, dropped the hummingbird, not added the Hurricane Katrina element, and focused more on Benjamin than Daisy at critical moments...

11. Best Visual Effects: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
WINNER!

Despite its problems, the film remains a remarkable visual achievement. You can understand why it took decades to get the basic concept properly made. In the grand intermixing of effects and makeup (see Best Makeup above), Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett are depicted as flawlessly young and believably old. I would have liked to see the title character's reverse aging take more advantage of the actor's earlier career. We see a little bit that reminds us of Seven Years in Tibet -- why not go all the way and depict him in his Seven, Legends of the Fall, and Thelma & Louise periods? A missed opportunity.

12. Best Sound Editing: The Dark Knight
WINNER!

See next category.

13. Best Sound Mixing: The Dark Knight
LOSER! The Oscar goes to... Slumdog Millionaire.

See previous category. (Kidding. I'll never know the difference.) Some movie experts are paying close attention to these categories to see if Slumdog Millionaire will lose any awards. Others wonder if WALL-E (particularly Ben Burtt, sound technician and voice actor) can make some noise against the year's biggest movie.

14. Best Adapted Screenplay: Simon Beaufoy, Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

As I mentioned in my review, this is a remarkable adaptation in that it improves upon its source material in every possible way. Compare to nominees Peter Morgan (Frost/Nixon) and John Patrick Shanley (Doubt), who adapted their own stage plays. Beaufoy is a previous nominee (original screenplay for The Full Monty) but has never won. He'll face some competition from the previously mentioned Eric Roth, but the darkhorse is probably David Hare for The Reader.

15. Best Actress: Kate Winslet, The Reader
WINNER!

Speaking of The Reader, I have mixed feelings about one of my favorite actresses finally winning an Oscar for a movie that I have no interest in seeing. If you pay attention to the angry world of movie award prognosticating, this role exemplifies the worst things about the process: Holocaust bait, category fraud, last minute release, production problems, Harvey Weinstein. I plead ignorance in this category: I've seen none of the nominees, and am not seeking them out.

16. Best Score: A.R. Rahman, Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

If you've seen this movie, what do you remember? Probably not the acting or the dialogue. The visuals and the music come to mind. Rahman gives the film its pulse and energy, both in his songs (two of which are nominated) and his score. But this is a category with more traditional winners, and there are some other good choices. Look for a win by Alexandre Desplat (Benjamin Button) or Thomas Newman (WALL-E, which is even less reliant on dialogue).

17. Best Art Direction: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
WINNER!

It's like a sampler of great looks from different regions and periods. There's Paris, that train station, postwar New Orleans, that hotel, the sea. Possibly the most accomplished of the nominees. The Dark Knight also covers a number of sets, but they're not as memorable.

18. Best Cinematography: Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

Handheld camera work is a vital part of this movie, but I don't know if Academy members are in love with that type of filmmaking. The down and dirty approach gets nominations, not wins (see also Children of Men and City of God). The probable winner is Claudio Miranda for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, or possibly Wally Pfister for The Dark Knight.

19. Best Actor: Sean Penn, Milk
WINNER!

I've actually seen all 5 nominees. Richard Jenkins is solid in The Visitor, but its one Oscar bait scene in the detention center almost rings false. (The restaurant scene would make a much better Oscar clip.) Brad Pitt and Frank Langella are the oddball anchors, more concerned with holding their films together than standing out. This leaves the long-hyped two-man race between two wunderkind actors of the early 1980s, Sean Penn and Mickey Rourke. Penn has the more prestigious film, the biopic role, and current political relevance. Rourke has the comeback factor, no prior wins, and far more charm. Advantage goes to The Wrestler.

20. Best Song: "Jai Ho," Slumdog Millionaire
WINNER!

Some recent winners in this category suggest a trend against the biggest names in performing and songwriting. So this is a reasonable pick. If it does win, it will be the first winner in Hindi. Also, as a historical bookend to Three 6 Mafia's win a few years ago, the message is clear: songs with "Pimp" or "Ho" in the title win Oscars. But there is some in-film competition from "O Saya" (not in Hindi) and Peter Gabriel's "Down to Earth" from WALL-E, which I think will win.

21. Best Foreign Language Film: The Class
LOSER! The Oscar goes to... Departures.

I wish I could be more informed about this race, but from what I can tell, any of three films can win: The Class (France), Waltz with Bashir (Israel), and Departures (Japan). If I had to guess, I'll go for the Israeli animated film. I'm enjoying this new trend of films that cross categories: documentary, animation, foreign language film. It's only a matter of time before the major categories become a true free-for-all.

Re-evaluation

2009-02-13T22:29:00.001-08:00

This feels like a good time to wipe the slate clean and re-evaluate the elite teams in college basketball. It's easy to fall into the bad habit of revising past rankings; poll voters do it every week, as they are lazy and useless.

With the exception of a select few, every team looks beatable at this point because they've in fact been beaten recently. In some cases, soundly.

South Regional (Memphis)
01. Oklahoma: 10-0 in a major conference? They stand alone.
08. Louisville: The victim of Notre Dame's one-game revival.
09. Clemson: Maybe they are a top-tier ACC contender.
16. Illinois: Lone home loss (to Clemson) not so bad.

East Regional (Boston)
02. Connecticut: Last 6 games include 2 clashes with Pitt.
07. Arizona State: Sweep of UCLA may reflect a shift out west.
10. Marquette: Should freefall in final phase of schedule.
15. Utah State: One-loss teams: Sooners, Huskies, and Aggies.

Midwest Regional (Indianapolis)
03. North Carolina: May not look battle-tested until ACC tourney.
06. Michigan State: Worrisome home losses to PSU and NU.
11. Villanova: Should improve in final phase of schedule.
14. Missouri: Steady rise capped by Texas, Kansas wins.

West Regional (Glendale, AZ)
04. Pittsburgh: Best candidate for the last top seed right now.
05. Memphis: Didn't think they'd bounce back so soon.
12. Washington: Tops in Pac-10, but being swept by Cal hurts.
13. Duke: Prognosis clear after UNC loss: severely limited.

Also considered: Florida State, Xavier, Wake Forest, Ohio State.

First ever poll!

2009-02-10T00:46:00.000-08:00

The most popular and divisive* issue of Sports Illustrated arrives in newsstands this week. Yep, the swimsuit issue. So I must ask:

* It's not really all that divisive, but for some reason there are people who write letters to SI complaining about the swimsuit issue and threatening to cancel their subscriptions. It's a long history of idiocy that's as old as, well, the swimsuit issue. It's annual; don't they know it's coming? I find it funny.

Peter Sellers was cremated.

2009-02-03T15:47:00.000-08:00

So if anyone complains that The Pink Panther 2 is the latest nail in the coffin of the original Inspector Clouseau, you can correct them.

I was not looking forward to screening this sequel. I remember very little of Steve Martin's first outing in this series, aside from the accent coach/"hamburger" scene -- which was horrible, then strangely funny and compulsively rewatchable. Then there's the title: films in the Pink Panther series have reached double digits, and many have interesting names. Are MGM and Columbia really so lazy as to slap a "2" on it? Color me disappointed.

But I'll admit that the new film delivers on some levels. The inspector still can't pronounce American food and is detested by his superiors, but the plot allows for some bloated (but welcome) casting. It's debatable whether Andy Garcia, Lily Tomlin, Jeremy Irons, Alfred Molina, and TMBWITW Aishwarya Rai Bachchan are actually slumming, considering the likely international box office.

A long-retired thief named The Tornado has resurfaced to steal priceless artifacts in multiple countries, and Clouseau is assigned to a crime-solving dream team. Mishaps ensue, Clouseau is discredited, Clouseau rebounds. The story is nothing special, but it does give Andy Garcia the opportunity to play a light role as Clouseau's professional and romantic rival. I also liked the development of Jean Reno's character, the fully capable officer who's still respectful and deferent to Clouseau.

I am less enthusiastic about Steve Martin, who was similarly uninspiring in last weekend's Saturday Night Live. As a comedy actor, he's not really trying anymore. Wanting to believe the best about him, I think his best work ahead is probably away from the camera, maybe in writing or music. This movie and any future installments are strictly about getting paid. Judging from the positive response of the parents and kids in the audience -- and the good money a PG-rated movie can bring in these days -- it's going to be a big paycheck.

Zebra pattern

2009-02-01T22:55:00.000-08:00

Homer Simpson: I’m not a bad guy. I work hard and I love my kids, So why should I spend half my Sunday hearing about how I’m going to hell?

God: Hmm, you’ve got a point there. You know, sometimes even I’d rather be watching football. Does St. Louis still have a team?

Homer Simpson: No, they moved to Phoenix.

Congratulations to the Arizona Cardinals for outperforming the Pittsburgh Steelers in Super Bowl XLIII -- for all but about two plays. At first I wasn't picking sides, but they kind of won me over by making gutsy plays in the second half, despite getting screwed repeatedly (almost comically) by the referees.

Whatever your bias, you have to admit that the zebras took over that game, holding the Tampa crowd and the national audience in suspense several times tonight. I was convinced that one of the men in black and white would win the MVP, at least until Santonio Holmes distinguished himself at the very end.

Time will tell if the Cards can build off their surprise success next season, or if their NFC championship was an anomaly. The Falcons and Panthers, for example, got there in the past and haven't really come close since. In the NFL, it's difficult to forge a new dynasty.

I don't dislike the Steelers. It's hard to root against Mike Tomlin. He's no elder statesman, like his mentor Tony Dungy -- he's reached the peak of his profession at age 36. A win like this could have some positive sociological consequences: if there's any chance he'll make life a little easier for African-American coaches at the college level, so much the better. If Hollywood ever makes a biopic, Omar Epps is ready to play the lead.

Finally: the Super Bowl commercials. I liked the premise of the Cars.com ad. A few others were cute, but forgettable. The rest of them were a waste of time and money. Are the advertising agencies even trying anymore? Did they lay off all the creative people? Where have you gone, Don Draper?

What happened to Notre Dame?

2009-01-30T18:35:00.000-08:00

As I've often mentioned, I picked Notre Dame to win the 2009 NCAA Tournament. I thought they had the experience and toughness to win the formidable Big East, receive a favorable seed, and then storm their way in and through the Final Four in Detroit.

The season is far from over, but with a record of 12-7 (3-5 in the Big East) and a 4-game skid, the Fighting Irish don't look like they have enough fight in them. If anything, they remind me of short-staffed Duke squads of past seasons, without the overachieving conference play. Their exceptional starters can only get them so far. I hold out hope that they can make a late-season run, but I've already prepared myself to be very, very wrong.

West Regional (Glendale, AZ)
01. Oklahoma: Stories of the season? Big East, ACC, them.
08. Xavier: Maybe they're 2 seed material after all.
09. Marquette: Flying high, but they'll level off soon.
16. Clemson: Probably won't crack ACC's top 3.

South Regional (Memphis)
02. Wake Forest: Now 2-0 along the Tobacco Road.
07. Pittsburgh: A little vulnerable after the Nova loss.
10. Texas: Admit it. You've forgotten about them too.
15. Purdue: Squeaking in on strength of last 5 games.

East Regional (Boston)
03. Connecticut: And now the hard part of their schedule.
06. North Carolina: Comeback vs. FSU both classic and annoying.
11. Villanova: More than just guards and a well-dressed coach.
14. Memphis: Again in the Conference USA driver's seat.

Midwest Regional (Indianapolis)
04. Louisville: Always athletic, now significantly more cohesive.
05. Duke: Even the legendary 1992 squad lost in Winston-Salem.
12. Michigan State: Suddenly the Big Ten looks competitive.
13. Butler: Newish coach and players, same outstanding result.

Also considered: Gonzaga, Providence, UCLA, West Virginia.

Failed pickup lines in Hogwarts

2009-01-26T07:00:00.000-08:00

Seven seems to be the magic number:

"I could introduce you to Dobby, if you're interested."
"Expelliarmus, baby. You can't resist Severus Snape."
"On the Marauder's Map, I have a really big... icon."
"Here, sample my stash of -- oh wait, that's gillyweed."
"Accio seduction music!"
"Ooh, the Head Girl of Hufflepuff. You must be good at [censored]."
"So tell me... is there a Mr. McGonagall?"

Variations and contributions are welcome. Try not to get too dirty.

The great Internet meltdown of '09

2009-01-22T16:08:00.000-08:00

I watched the Oscar nominations this morning on CNN's online video feed, without volume, and noticed something was awry when the picture of Kate Winslet was not from Revolutionary Road. Soon we discovered that The Reader took the place many felt belonged to The Dark Knight, and the Internet... broke. Popular prediction sites like Awards Daily and In Contention were overloaded. News sites (even CNN) weren't putting up a story. Most embarrassingly, the Academy's own site did not post a full list of nominees for nearly 45 minutes. For movie fans who treat this like their Christmas morning -- or, say, the people in technical categories who might like to know if they were nominated -- it was a shocking display of failure.

And I'm not even talking about Oscar's choices. (Yet.) I managed to avoid the swarm of Bat-fans who crashed message boards in useless venting or protest, likely shouting expletives at an awards body who refused to budge. Why so serious, indeed. I haven't seen The Reader, and may only do so if I submit to completist tendencies and try to see all five nominees. So I won't join the chorus of naysayers who criticize what they do not know. I'm an abstainer, not a complainer.

Conference calling

2009-01-16T15:57:00.000-08:00

People seem to forget this every season, but a team's in-conference play matters. North Carolina (and some overzealous pundits) got an early comeuppance from Boston College, and then another from Wake Forest. Another, less publicized example: Arkansas. They crashed the party a bit with home wins over Oklahoma and Texas, but opened SEC play with losses to Ole Miss and Mississippi State.

When I picked my year-in-advance Final Four, I had no idea they'd play each other in the regular season. Texas lost to Notre Dame and Michigan State, but beat UCLA. And the Fighting Irish will visit the Bruins next month.

This weekend's slate includes Wake Forest-Clemson, Pittsburgh-Louisville, Arizona State-UCLA, Illinois-Michigan State, Notre Dame-Syracuse, and Duke-Georgetown. Special weekend? Nope. Just college basketball.

East Regional (Boston)
01. Pittsburgh: So this is what they're like when healthy.
08. North Carolina: Great? Let's see .500 in ACC first.
09. Louisville: Will home advantage work against Pitt?
16. Texas: Missed 2 of every 3 shots against OU.

South Regional (Memphis)
02. Wake Forest: Team of next year may not have to wait.
07. Georgetown: Should win a title within next 5 years.
10. Michigan State: Beat Illini and create some distance.
15. Notre Dame: St. John's loss threatens top-tier status.

Midwest Regional (Indianapolis)
03. Clemson: Can make a huge statement at home vs. Wake.
06. Connecticut: Has a month to warm up for Pitt.
11. Xavier: Should hover around 3 seed all season.
14. Baylor: Wake loss is looking better and better.

West Regional (Glendale, AZ)
04. Oklahoma: Beat Texas. Blake Griffin > Sam Bradford.
05. Duke: Not entirely convinced. Waiting-and-seeing.
12. UCLA: Each Pac-10 loss should cost them a seed.
13. Minnesota: Winning at Wisconsin still means a lot.

Also considered: Syracuse, Arkansas, Butler, Marquette.

The tip of the iceberg

2009-01-15T23:22:00.000-08:00

I screened Revolutionary Road this week, somewhat reluctantly after being spoiled Monday by one of those vanity cards from TV showrunner Chuck Lorre. (He sums up 10 films currently in the mix as Oscar bait. If you want to go fresh-of-mind into this movie, Gran Torino, or Rachel Getting Married, then DON'T click here.)

I expected a slow and methodical deterioration of a marriage, but the actual pace is a bit more brisk. The opening scenes juxtapose an optimistic past with a pessimistic present (1955), where both Frank Wheeler (Leo!) and wife April (Kate!) have soured on the reality of their sedate surroundings. But that's about all they have in common. Even in their most blissful moments, one spouse is only buying into the argument or vision of the other, so they're never at harmony. Then, when disagreement sets in, things get ugly. And depressing.

As a straightforward depiction of marital strife in the Eisenhower era, the film does not work. It looks like it should, but it just doesn't. So I decided to view it instead as a two-character psychological drama, where everyone else is a figment of their imagination, and it started to make more sense to me. The couple have children who are rarely present. Frank's coworkers (including Dylan Baker and Jay O. Sanders) seem to be whispering in his ear, reinforcing his attachment to socioeconomic conventions. Their realtor (Kathy Bates) is a less a character than a silly reminder of suburban propriety. To the film's credit, it has just enough of these oddities to make me wonder if that approach is intended.

I should mention the most unusual element of Revolutionary Road: the once-institutionalized academic son of the realtor, who pops up in two scenes as pure id, a verbal force of nature. As played by Michael Shannon, it's easy to say that he steals the movie. He's free to speak his (frayed) mind, and does so with more bluntness than possibly any character in the recent history of cinema. His perspective is so far removed as to seem anachronistic. He serves as the centerpiece of a film that veers away from the strange and into the positively mental.

For your consideration?

2009-01-12T23:28:00.000-08:00

Given this time of year, with all the movie awards shows, I would expect to see a lot more TV, online, and print ads touting the various high-profile examples of Oscar bait. I've noticed less such marketing now than in previous years -- not a complaint -- and what I AM seeing is a lot different. For example...

1. Where is the war film? Short answer: there is none. Long answer: do you like war films told from a European perspective? Because then there's Valkyrie, The Reader, and Defiance. None are really breaking through right now. I find it interesting that the nearly 3-hour The Curious Case of Benjamin Button depicts maybe two war-oriented scenes, and both are used in the trailer. Ladies and gentlemen, here is your war film.

2. Where is the All-American film? Maybe Revolutionary Road will make some noise -- 1960s suburbia sounds pretty American -- but until then, what are our choices? Slumdog Millionaire is set abroad, with no stateside actors. Benjamin Button mostly takes place in New Orleans, but advertises more global themes. Frost/Nixon addresses the Presidency, but (as I understand it) from an antagonistic perspective. Over in Gotham, homegrown Harvey Dent is being overshadowed by a Brit as Batman and an Aussie as Joker. This leaves the red, white, and blue iconography of Milk, which seems to wave the Stars and Stripes alongside the rainbow flag. In the age of Obama, what could be more American than a tribute to another community organizer?

3. Where is The Dark Knight? Ever since its DVD release in December, the publicity has kind of halted. Part of the problem is that the face of the film (and most of its precursor awards) belongs to an actor who is no longer alive. But it's more than that. Aside from a brief glimpse of Gary Oldman in ads for the recently released The Unborn, you're not seeing much of the rest of the cast. Strange that Christian Bale, Morgan Freeman, Michael Caine, Aaron Eckhart, and Maggie Gyllenhaal have nothing new to promote. Really, the only cast member getting any TV exposure these days is this guy from the Wendy's ads. (Pictured, left.)

I expect this all to change in a few weekends, after the Oscar nominations are announced, but for now it's an interesting lull.

In the MMIX

2009-01-01T00:01:00.000-08:00

Children of the popcorn

2008-12-31T18:10:00.000-08:00

With general scheduling/interest/economy issues, any free time was a little harder to come by in 2008, as you can tell from my movie viewing habits. (Compare to last year, when I saw 56 films ahead of time. This year I could create an equally sizable section for advanced screenings that I skipped or lacked time to see.)

Free advanced screenings (18): Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins, The Other Boleyn Girl, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, 88 Minutes, Baby Mama, Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay, Deal, Iron Man, Young@Heart, Son of Rambow, Wanted, Space Chimps, Pineapple Express, Tropic Thunder, Zack and Miri Make a Porno, Valkyrie, Slumdog Millionaire, Revolutionary Road

Saw in theater upon release (15): 21, Sex and the City, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, Wall-E, The X-Files: I Want to Believe, The Dark Knight, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, W., Get Smart, Australia, Quantum of Solace, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Wrestler, Frost/Nixon, Milk

Waited until DVD/Cable (32): 27 Dresses, Untraceable, Rambo, Jumper, My Blueberry Nights, Cassandra's Dream, Vantage Point, Fool's Gold, In Bruges, The Spiderwick Chronicles, Charlie Bartlett, Be Kind Rewind, Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day, Semi-Pro, The Bank Job, College Road Trip, Tyler Perry's Meet the Browns, Smart People, Leatherheads, Speed Racer, Mad Money, Hancock, Kung Fu Panda, First Sunday, Mamma Mia!, The Incredible Hulk, The Longshots, Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About His Father, Burn After Reading, Righteous Kill, The Visitor, Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist

I haven't yet succumbed to paying for Movies on Demand from my cable provider, but by December I could not ignore the ubiquity of Redbox. The local library system is still my (free) DVD source of choice, but those $1 nightly rentals filled in a few blanks.

And now my annual list of irreverent superlatives.

Best Example of My Alienation from Younger Audiences

I don't think I saw a violent, allegedly edgy film this year that was geared toward physical and mental teenagers. Must have been one of the screenings I skipped.* So I'll say Jumper, which was neither bloody nor nihilistic, but was nonetheless incredibly stupid. Those who were suspicious of Hayden Christensen from the Star Wars series may confirm their doubts confirmed here; he's very wooden and shows neither range nor appeal. There's an elaborate mythology and franchise potential -- both are ultimately squandered, but I wonder if a good film could have been made at all. Another poor paycheck choice by Samuel L. Jackson.

*Edited to add: Oh wait. Totally forgot about Wanted. Both violent and allegedly edgy. Maybe the first poor paycheck choice for Morgan Freeman.

Style Over Substance Award

The easy answer is Speed Racer. Despite its likely massive FX budget, the most interesting visual element was putting the four eyes of Christina Ricci and Susan Sarandon in the same movie. Wasn't all bad, though: it didn't pretend to be about anything, and has a select group of understanding fans.

Substance Over Style Award

I don't think I saw a film this year that was otherwise strong but felt underproduced, like it could have have benefited from a bigger budget. In Bruges, Young@Heart, and Son of Rambow look as they should in their respective charming ways. I do think that Be Kind Rewind tried a little too hard to look authentically cheap, so there you go.

Best Eye Candy, Female

Vicky Cristina Barcelona is all about the eye candy, with its cast and sumptuous setting; who knew Woody Allen had such an affinity for the pretty? Fans of Scarlett Johansson and Penélope Cruz won't be disappointed, but my preferences and fond memories of the film gravitate toward Rebecca Hall (previously mentioned here). She was stunning to watch, in both senses of that word, as the sensible girl who can't help but be drawn in to that tangled web of multiparty relationship drama.

Best Eye Candy, Male

I never understood the cult of Colin Farrell, but I'll mention him here because his work in Cassandra's Dream and In Bruges finally makes the hype worthwhile. He can be an appealing leading man when he plays troubled, vulnerable, and moral characters -- like a next-gen Mel Gibson, back when we liked Mel Gibson. I don't know if he'll find that in mainstream movies, but as long as he picks projects that stretch his acting muscles, I'll remain interested.

Strangest Credit

"Directed by Fred Durst." From The Longshots, which was fine.

Unfortunate Trend of the Year

Studios are crazier than ever about developing, expanding, or reviving film franchises. On its face, nothing is wrong with that, but a lamentable by-product has emerged: the unnecessary film. Familiar (if not beloved) characters get dusted off and returned to the marketplace with stories that never needed to be told. What's worse is that the approach has succeeded: The Incredible Hulk, Indiana Jones 4, and Sex and the City all did well in the box office, inviting talk of even more unnecessary continuations. Not faring as well were second installments of The X-Files and Harold & Kumar, and a fourth Rambo.

Not all these films are bad -- I enjoyed some elements of Hulk, and I think history will treat The X-Files more kindly -- but they did not exist out of any need to satisfy audience demand. You can even see something similar among Oscar contenders, where Frost/Nixon re-enacts a recorded time in history, Doubt tries to expand a good stage idea beyond the stage, and Milk gives dramatic treatment to a subject covered definitively in a documentary.

Love Story of the Year

WALL-E by a mile. Either watch it or take my word for it. The film is flawed in some other respects -- it's probably the 4th best Pixar creation, by my estimation -- but the central relationship is pitch perfect, requiring neither analysis nor further commentary.

Buddy Comedy of the Year

This one's also easy: Miss Pettigrew Lives for a Day. (There's no rule stating a buddy comedy has to be about guys.) Strange that a period film has such a "you go, girl" attitude, but you buy into it quickly with such nimble comedic performances from Frances McDormand and Amy Adams. The latter seems to be channeling (mocking?) Nicole Kidman in her Moulin Rouge! days, and opposite Lee Pace's own variation of Ewan McGregor, the similarities are amusing. Strong supporting turns from Shirley Henderson and Ciarán Hinds and an effective prewar European backdrop make it quite an experience.

Honorary Brevity Award

A lot of press was devoted to comeback king Robert Downey, Jr. and his remarkable year of output: Iron Man, a cameo in The Incredible Hulk, Tropic Thunder, and delayed Oscar bait The Soloist. He's worthy, especially given his checkered past, but I find it odd that people leave out a movie that was released in February 2008: Charlie Bartlett. It's listed in the IMDb as a 2007 film -- another delay, I'd imagine -- but it deserves to be mentioned among the actor's recent accomplishments. Because it was among the more enjoyable films I saw this year, and it clocks in at a speedy 97 minutes, I'm giving it some much needed attention now.

Downey plays a supporting role here; he's the well-meaning but flawed principal of a high school that's been taken over by the title character (Anton Yelchin), a clique-defying intelligent rebel. I understand the Ferris Bueller comparisons in retrospect, but this movie is less of a broad comedy and more of an indie curiosity with some mild mainstream aspirations. It's offbeat, well written, and ultimately the kind of film you're glad wasn't all that popular.

I recommend it as a pleasant DVD discovery: if you have the means, watch it as a double feature with 1999's Mumford. Go in chronological order. Both tackle similar themes, and both feature the always welcome actress Hope Davis.

(For those curious, 88 Minutes was both an awful movie and a misnomer. It was 108 minutes.)

The "Angel" alumni association

2008-12-29T19:00:00.000-08:00

Over the years I've mostly ignored Joss Whedon TV shows: Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel, Firefly. Probably my fault more than his, and maybe I'll come around. As it happens, former cast members of Angel have infiltrated the current TV landscape, and I can't help but notice. Part of Whedon's grand design? My favorite shows of 2008 seem to support that conclusion. (Descriptions of Angel characters below are woefully inadequate, but hey, I never watched the show.)

1. Dexter (Showtime). We start with Julie Benz, who played some centuries-old vampiress named Darla. She graduated to something more conventional: the initially chaste, then emotionally available girlfriend of Michael C. Hall's differently-wired title character. While this choice seems like a bit of a cheat -- I saw all three seasons of the show this year -- the 3rd season alone puts this at the top of the list. Shocking and darkly hilarious.

2. Chuck (NBC). Adam Baldwin appeared at the very end of Angel. Then he did Firefly, a few episodes of which I've seen. He plays a similar form of hard-nosed soldier in Chuck, a show that's remained ever so nimble in its second season, even as the plots dig a little deeper beyond the quirky premise. It's the most consistently funny show on network TV.

3. Mad Men (AMC). Back then Vincent Kartheiser was Connor, son of Angel. Now he's Pete Campbell, slowly developing a soul as he eyes advancement in the advertising world. I've grown to accept him as a counterpoint to the almost-too-fascinating Don Draper (Jon Hamm). Critics say this second season has been all about the women, but I disagree. (The rapturous Christina Hendricks is a notable exception, anchoring tiny but heartbreaking subplots.)

4. Leverage (TNT). I don't know where Christian Kane's role of Lindsey McDonald fit in the Whedonverse, but I find him mildly amusing -- long hair and all -- in this new revenge caper show that's more like The A-Team than Ocean's Eleven. Socially responsible, yet light and breezy. Timothy Hutton may be the biggest name of the bunch, but Beth Riesgraf is the breakout. Interesting that Jason Lee's baby mama chose a show with a similar karmic angle.

5. Bones (FOX). Finally we have Angel himself, David Boreanaz. For years I mocked him for trying to pass himself off as young, when he's older than dirt. But he's settled into a nice vibe on this show, as part of a cast that went from good to great when Dr. Sweets (John Francis Daley) became a regular. Last season was crackerjack fun, and this season has delivered more of the same.

The best of the rest: Supernatural finally gave each lead a purpose and a grand mythology; we'll see where it takes us, but this is the one TV show most ready for a big screen treatment. Psych remains the medium's best buddy comedy, and (unlike many other good shows) has great taste in women. The Big Bang Theory is a mediocre offering with one fantastic performance by Jim Parsons, who's more critical to his show than Hugh Laurie is to House. Speaking of which, House has bounced back nicely from its annual serious event, and the semi-regular PI is the best non-doctor character yet. Finally, Pushing Daisies kicked off season 2 by expanding Kristen Chenoweth's role, a risky but wise creative decision. If only people were watching.

Kings of Noel

2008-12-25T13:28:00.000-08:00

La Triviata

2008-12-17T16:50:00.000-08:00

I hadn't heard of Slumdog Millionaire until a few months ago, when it garnered attention in the Toronto Film Festival. A heavily hyped film set in India? About an unlikely game show contestant who can answer tough trivia questions because of the tougher experiences in his life? This sounded familiar.

About three years ago I came across a novel entitled Q & A on the new release shelf in the local library. As is the fate of so many impulse selections, I started reading it but didn't get very far. Great premise, bad execution. At the time I failed to notice this statement on the book jacket: Q & A "is being translated into eighteen languages and is due to be made into a film."

After seeing an advanced screening of the movie, I forced myself to try the book again. The results are clear: Slumdog Millionaire improves upon its source material in almost every possible way. Better and clearer protagonist (Dev Patel), a better interrogating character (Irrfan Khan), more meaningful stakes, and flashback vignettes that are much more plausible. Credit screenwriter Simon Beaufoy (The Full Monty) for preserving the premise but creating a stronger, more unifying vision -- and, though I hate to admit this, a much needed Western touch.

Not that native influences aren't present. For example, I liked how the game show host (Anil Kapoor) talked in the Hindi equivalent of Spanglish, a language hybrid where English sentences were infused with homegrown slang and suffixes. That's totally realistic. I may have been the only one in the audience who fully understood him, but no one else was complaining. I also appreciated the music, a mix of pulsing instrumentation and Bollywood pop; there's a train sequence that finally made me understand what M.I.A.'s "Paper Planes" was all about.

Director Danny Boyle also made Trainspotting, and I bring this up because he manages to top his worst-toilet-in-Scotland scene, with appalling but humorous results here. His film is uncompromising and at times not easy to watch. There's violence depicted, some of it against children, and other dark themes that only seem surprising when you're a safe distance away from the setting.

If you haven't heard too much about this movie, you must be wondering what the big deal is, and why reactions have been so divisive. I found it rewarding, and liked it tremendously, but I think you should be prepared. Yes, it's a crowd-pleaser, but it's not for every crowd.

Should Brevity have a swimsuit edition?
	No!
	Hell no!

Courtesy of Pollcode.com