The Worlds Ombudsman se gusta el boxeo.
I am tired of the casual, unchallenged references by people that "boxing is in a decline." You can find such references to boxing's death on blogs and mainstream sites alike, and almost always it is accompanied by no statistics or even explanation: Boxing is in a decline, everyone knows it, and mixed martial arts (MMA) is so much more popular.
First - its not - boxing is by far still the more popular sport and is quite healthy. And second, there may be no sport with as many intriguing but under-publicized characters as there are in boxing.
Boxing is popular. Last month's Mosely-Margarito fight brought nearly 21,000 fans to the Staples Center in LA - the largest crowd to see any sporting event in the building's history (and this is the building where the Lakers play their home games). Boxing matches regularly get well over 1 million PPV buys (including a record of 2.4 million) while MMA's largest ever is 1.3 million. What about remuneration? Margarito and Mosely made $2.3 million and $1 million respectively for the aforementioned fight (although keep in mind that De La Hoya has made $45 million off of his fight with Floyd Mayweather). By comparison, the recent George St. Pierre - BJ Penn MMA fight paid those fighters $600,000 and $125,000 respectively. In 2008, Floyd Mayweather Jr. was the fourth highest paid athlete in the US - between Lebron James and Kobe Bryant.
And that is just in the US. Around the world, boxing is thriving. In Mexico, boxing regularly gets better TV audiences than soccer -- and as for live audiences in that country - 136,000 people saw Julio Cesar Chavez fight Greg Haugen in 1993, one of the largest crowds in history, for any sport. In the UK, Ricky Hatton drew 55,000 to Manchester Stadium for his fight with Juan Lazcano and believes that he will be able to break 136,000 given the right venue. Meanwhile, Manny Pacquaio is quite literally the Michael Jordan of the Philippines.
In addition to being the best sport to pre-game to on a Saturday night, boxing also has some incredible storylines. Many of these story lines are routinely ignored by the mainstream US media, which is the driving force behind the claim that boxing is declining. Refuse to cover enough stories, and maybe the prophecy will be self-fulfilling. But not yet.
Here are 5 boxers that have intriguing stories... if the press were doing its job, all but Miranda would be household names in this country in the same way that Lebron James, Tom Brady and Derrick Jeter are.
1) The Ageless Bernard Hopkins. The Philadelphia native was sentenced to prison by his 18th birthday for countless muggings and burglaries. Upon leaving, he told the skeptical warden "I ain't coming back." After deciding that boxing would be his salvation, he had his first fight in 1988...and lost. Twenty years later, he is considered one of boxing's all-time greats. This past October, at age 43, as many boxing pundits were predicting his retirement, Hopkins shocked the world when he upset 26 year old previously undefeated middleweight champion Kelly Pavlik. How can you not love this? The only age gap that surprised me more was today when I learned that my girl Mandy Moore is engaged to Bryan Adams. Weird.
2) The Columbian Slumdog Millionaire, Edison Miranda. Miranda was abandoned by his mother at one month old and essentially grew up as a street child in Buenaventura, eating stray cats and stealing to survive. At age 9 he was able to save enough money to search for and locate his mother in the countryside, only to have her reject him again. Back in the city, he began boxing at a local gym because they would let him sleep there. Fast forward 10 years -he's making six figures to knock people out of the ring. Speaking of rings, at least Freida Pinto is still available - go to hell Bryan Adams.
3) Manny Pacquaio, The People's Champ. The Pacman rose from poverty to be widely considered the pound-for-pound best fighter in the world as well as easily the most widely recognized celebrity in the Philippines. Pacquiao has funded countless medical clinics, schools and infrastructure work in poor areas in the Phillipines, including at one point coming back from a fight and actually handing out money to thousands of people in a poor neighborhood. So popular is Pacman, that he has already acted in movies, starred in a video game, appeared on a postage stamp and run for congress. In December he moved up significantly in weight to fight Oscar De La Hoya. Most experts predicted an easy win for the bigger De La Hoya, instead it was one of the most surprisingly one-sided fights in recent memory, as Pacquaio utterly dominated the fight, likely ending De La Hoya's career. Pacquaio is scheduled to fight Ricky Hatton in May. There have been no discussions, to my knowledge, about a future fight with the other People's Champ, Paul Wall. Paul Wall, incidentally, is the jeweler behind Mandy's engagement grill. Fact.
4) Ricky Hatton, the Everyman. Hatton, a fighter from Manchester, England, has a band of soccer-turned-boxing hooligans who follow him all over the world, drunkenly singing, pounding drums and blowing horns. Sometimes they show up at events having nothing to do with boxing and do this. Hatton, himself, is just as amusing. Accused of drinking and eating too much between fights, Hatton regularly shows up for weigh ins (and even matches) wearing a fat suit and calling himself Ricky Fatton. For reasons known only to him, he calls himself an honorary Mexican and wears a sombrero when entering the ring while Blue Moon, the Manchester City song, plays on the loudspeakers. Also, he is nasty - 45 wins with only one loss (to Floyd Mayweather). Speaking of nasty, I'm still having trouble stomaching the Mandy Moore - Ryan Cabrera news. Cabrera's twin brother, Steelers place kicker Jeff Reed, is reportedly handling bachelor party duties.
5) Pretty Boy Floyd Mayweather. One of the best boxers ever and one of the most polarizing figures in all of sports, Mayweather is undefeated, untied and technically retired. But his love of money and royal treatment lead most pundits to believe that he'll be back, probably to fight Manny Pacquaio, if Pacman can beat Hatton. How much does Floyd love money? Here's him counting sweaty packets of money he keeps in a drawer and putting them in a big duffel bag, just because. My favorite part is that at one point Floyd, apparently worried that a viewer may have just tuned in and become confused and disoriented by what he or she was seeing, helpfully says "Thats seven hundred thousand... in a bag." And that's exactly what you're seeing...just bringing everyone up to speed. Is this jewels in a satchel? Is this travellers cheques in a box? Is this gold bullion in a rucksack? What is this I'm seeing? No no no...this is seven hundred thousand...in a bag. From Dancing With The Stars, to bizarre outings with 50 cent (you'll notice Ryan Cabrera mc-ing in that clip -- come ON Mandy) Mayweather loves attention and will likely be fighting soon - stay tuned.
In conclusion, I challenge any singer on the current Billboard Adult/Contemporary Top 40 to a slap fight. You hear me Jason Mraz?
Showing posts with label Ombudsman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ombudsman. Show all posts
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
The City Ombudsman: Less Tamarama Interruptions, Please!
After referencing Tila Tequila and Lady Gaga recently, I thought it was time to get back to serious issues like The City.
Lets talk about loyalty and double standards. A few weeks ago Adam made late night kissing with some girl who was not his girlfriend Allie. What followed? Two episodes of tears and gnashing of teeth...Whitney and Erin and Allie were all about the angry talk and using terms like "liar" and "cheater" and "guy who wears clownishly enormous v-necks to Tenjune." The last one wasn't actually said but is no less true. And MTV, for their part, used clips and angles that made Adam look like a creep. It was frankly surprising that there wasn't grainy footage of him pulling up to a lower east side elementary school in a van and offering kids snow cones before peeling out when he realized the camera was on him. But fine, you shouldn't cheat and lie.
However, over the last two episodes, Erin has been cheating on her long distance boyfriend with one "JR." I'm not sure what MTV is trying to imply when they show JR waking up at Erin's apartment and struggling to put on his youth medium Affliction tee shirt, but if one reads between the lines, I think they're suggesting that Erin and JR are doing more than just kissing. And by that I mean having relations. But is there condemnation? Is Erin shown cackling maniacally as she necks with JR with a quick cut to her Canadian boyfriend crying as All Out of Love plays? No. Instead she is treated with incredulous giggles from her girlfriends who want to know how she feels and what she wants. MTV makes her out to be sort of a lovable party girl who has this difficult boy situation! And the episode ends with her talking to JR and crying.
So to recap, Adam cheats on Allie, Allie cries. Erin cheats on her boyfriend, Erin cries. What? How can this be! While Adam's and Erin's situations aren't identical, the bottom line is: both cheated! However, one person is being treated like he did something wrong by cheating, and the other person is being treated as if they have just found themselves in a difficult situation and the cheating is just an unfortunate by-product. Unfair.
Do you know whats also unfair? My having to sit through two performances by Jay's Bananarama cover band and not getting to hear Venus.
That segues nicely into my other musing, which concerns the Hotel Gansevoort rooftop. Seriously? Not sure why one of the events had to take place here. I challenge you to find a place in Manhattan that has a lower percentage of Manhattan residents among its patrons. 230 5th in the summer is probably the only serious contender, when during happy hour the area code on the rooftop actually changes from 212 to 516. Hotel Gansevoort, meanwhile, is typically filled with 24 year old suit jacketed, slick haired guys from Hoboken who live with four other roommates. In between buying rounds of Patron shots for unsuspecting FIT first years, these dudes pass the time by blackberrying each other feverishly (mostly about when the other roommates are showing up and whether its time for more Patron). The point is, again, less Meatpacking District please!
So what have we learned today? Sometimes there are apparently double standards for cheating, and B&T loves rooftops.
In conclusion, I'm burning like a silver flame.
Monday, February 2, 2009
Political Ombudsman: Don't Boss Me
Sometimes, people try to tell you what to do.
In this article, a guy named Jonathon Porritt tells people that they shouldn't have more than two kids because any more would overly burden the environment. I have a few angles.
First, the act of telling people, unprovoked, what's best for them is something that should be more widely frowned upon. How much respect, overall, would you say society has for people like Dr. Phil, Ricki Lake and Montell Williams? Probably not much. But these people are giving advice to people asking for it. Porritt is just some guy, uninvited, shouting on the street at whoever will listen and calling families around dinner time. If this were the 19th century, he would be selling elixirs out of a wagon.
Second, Porritt, a man who undoubtedly wore a scarf throughout his interview, can't back up his assertion. Porritt claims that two children should be the maximum allowed because he knows how much carbon people use (a dubious, unchallenged averment). Even if we were to assume that was true - we are still missing steps... like what is the effect of that carbon increase on temperature, and what is the effect of that temperature change on the world? No one knows with any certainty. Doesn't matter to Porritt, who wants to figuratively (perhaps literally - although this would require further research) lie in bed with husbands and wives and have a say in their decision about having children.
Third, a broader point: Throughout history, certain people have used whatever "reasons" are available to them to control the masses. The typical left-right, liberal-conservative lense is not particularly helpful when viewing these attempts at garnering power and control.
Example: Liberal Lucy might read the above article and say "My, this seems a bit extreme but I constantly worry (cry?) about living my life the right way." However, she might view an evangelical politician saying that abortion will send you to hell and think "My choice!" or "Dismantle Patriarchy!" or "Just Dance!" or whatever it is that girls say now. Functionally - what is the difference between the two? Porritt favors forced abortion and the latter favors forced not-having-an-abortion. Either way, someone is dictating what you do with your body, which should leave a bad taste in your mouth. (TWO digression - speaking of bad taste, don't buy Tropicana Light & Healthy Orange Juice Beverage, it's disgusting).
Instead of viewing things as left vs right, the question should be - is this restriction something that seems like it would ordinarily only happen in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany? If intuitively the answer is yes, then the presumption (rebuttable only in situations where the emergency is so immediate and dire that a weighing of the costs and benefits clearly favors such a restriction) should be that the advocate is an idiot, albeit a dangerous one, interested in control above all else. Unless the presumption is rebutted, does it matter if the excuse given is the good of the proletariat, the protection of nationalist interests, getting into heaven or saving the planet?
To be clear, TWO is an environmentalist. I support being smart about the environment, cutting emissions and protecting wildlife. However when the British government begins seriously talking about limiting children and rationing travel, the topic is no longer environmentalism, its control of the masses.
In conclusion, I constantly worry (cry?) about living my life the right way........and celebrate Mandy Moore's entire catalog.
In this article, a guy named Jonathon Porritt tells people that they shouldn't have more than two kids because any more would overly burden the environment. I have a few angles.
First, the act of telling people, unprovoked, what's best for them is something that should be more widely frowned upon. How much respect, overall, would you say society has for people like Dr. Phil, Ricki Lake and Montell Williams? Probably not much. But these people are giving advice to people asking for it. Porritt is just some guy, uninvited, shouting on the street at whoever will listen and calling families around dinner time. If this were the 19th century, he would be selling elixirs out of a wagon.
Second, Porritt, a man who undoubtedly wore a scarf throughout his interview, can't back up his assertion. Porritt claims that two children should be the maximum allowed because he knows how much carbon people use (a dubious, unchallenged averment). Even if we were to assume that was true - we are still missing steps... like what is the effect of that carbon increase on temperature, and what is the effect of that temperature change on the world? No one knows with any certainty. Doesn't matter to Porritt, who wants to figuratively (perhaps literally - although this would require further research) lie in bed with husbands and wives and have a say in their decision about having children.
Third, a broader point: Throughout history, certain people have used whatever "reasons" are available to them to control the masses. The typical left-right, liberal-conservative lense is not particularly helpful when viewing these attempts at garnering power and control.
Example: Liberal Lucy might read the above article and say "My, this seems a bit extreme but I constantly worry (cry?) about living my life the right way." However, she might view an evangelical politician saying that abortion will send you to hell and think "My choice!" or "Dismantle Patriarchy!" or "Just Dance!" or whatever it is that girls say now. Functionally - what is the difference between the two? Porritt favors forced abortion and the latter favors forced not-having-an-abortion. Either way, someone is dictating what you do with your body, which should leave a bad taste in your mouth. (TWO digression - speaking of bad taste, don't buy Tropicana Light & Healthy Orange Juice Beverage, it's disgusting).
Instead of viewing things as left vs right, the question should be - is this restriction something that seems like it would ordinarily only happen in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany? If intuitively the answer is yes, then the presumption (rebuttable only in situations where the emergency is so immediate and dire that a weighing of the costs and benefits clearly favors such a restriction) should be that the advocate is an idiot, albeit a dangerous one, interested in control above all else. Unless the presumption is rebutted, does it matter if the excuse given is the good of the proletariat, the protection of nationalist interests, getting into heaven or saving the planet?
To be clear, TWO is an environmentalist. I support being smart about the environment, cutting emissions and protecting wildlife. However when the British government begins seriously talking about limiting children and rationing travel, the topic is no longer environmentalism, its control of the masses.
In conclusion, I constantly worry (cry?) about living my life the right way........and celebrate Mandy Moore's entire catalog.
Monday, January 26, 2009
ESPN Ombudsman: And the ESPY goes to Bill Simmons!
ESPN.com has no control over Bill Simmons - can it get worse?
Roughly 5 years ago, Bill Simmons, a man with literally no sports background, started writing ESPN columns from the "fan's point of view." Basically, his early columns were just his own humorous reactions and opinions on sports and related pop-culture. As these were well received, we got longer columns where Bill propounded inane theories and unburdened himself of various private musings and thoughts. Further validated by his growing readership and inferring that the public was fascinated with the minutia of his life, readers were introduced to his father, his wife and his college buddies, who would be quoted, at times extensively, in his columns. By 2006, a very self-confident Bill, who I will say again is a man with no sports background, got into public feuds with various NBA general managers. When, in 2008, he held out against ESPN's editing -essentially refusing to write - ESPN must have realized they'd created a monster. A guy who writes about himself (something that can't really be replicated) and who has the power to call the shots over the editors and higher-ups.
So what do you get when you combine a bizarre fascination with one's self, a validating group of readers, and the self-confidence that no one will edit what you write? You get the following - an article by Bill Simmons entirely about his dead dog. Now look, I had a dog that died, and I loved that dog. But if someone asked...IF someone asked...I would probably briefly mention his name, what kind of dog, when I had it and maybe one funny thing he used to do. One paragraph max. Bill Simmons, apropos of nothing, gives us 25 paragraphs about his dead dog. On a sports website. What could be more hubristic? What were the editors doing? And most importantly - what comes next? I have 5 column titles & ideas:
1) Good Night Neosporin. Wearing a McHale jersey, Bill bloodies his hand trying to dunk on an 8 and a half foot rim and must treat it with neosporin in order to avoid infection and scarring. Bill tells the story of being bullied in middle school and how he would eat some of the neosporin used to treat cuts and scrapes from these little tussles. 10,000 words later, Bill brings the story full circle and eats a little neosporin as he treats his hand
2) How 'Bout Them Apples? Bill podcasts from the grocery store and opens up to listeners about some problems he's had selecting fresh produce, his lactose intolerance and something he used to do with heated up banana peels in college.
3) Go To Hell, Dillan Moskowitz. Bill rips into one Dillan Moskowitz, a fat, slow, disgusting, racist third baseman on his son's tee ball team. Dillan, who incidentally starts over Simmons' son, probably takes creatine and is constantly peeing in his pants (Dillan's not Simmons').
4) Marcia & Tom & Something Else. Take an erotic and troubling journey with Bill as he talks about the two Bradys he thinks about in quiet moments as well as a story about a chance 1993 encounter with Oil Can Boyd in a Dunkin Donuts that begins with excitement and admiration but ends in prurience and shame.
5) Simmons - THE ONIONS! Bill spends 112 paragraphs spread over three weeks to detail his favorite sports daydreams about himself. Included in his opus is a daydream where Bill is the 7 foot tall Celtics center in Game 7 of the NBA Championship, and wins the title at the buzzer by dunking on Kobe Bryant so viciously that everyone in the arena suffers from dizziness and dry mouth, Kobe flies into the 3rd row of seats where several people are seriously hurt and the NBA cancels its 2009-10 season.
In conclusion, LeRoy Jenkins was the backup 3rd basemen on my tee ball team.
Roughly 5 years ago, Bill Simmons, a man with literally no sports background, started writing ESPN columns from the "fan's point of view." Basically, his early columns were just his own humorous reactions and opinions on sports and related pop-culture. As these were well received, we got longer columns where Bill propounded inane theories and unburdened himself of various private musings and thoughts. Further validated by his growing readership and inferring that the public was fascinated with the minutia of his life, readers were introduced to his father, his wife and his college buddies, who would be quoted, at times extensively, in his columns. By 2006, a very self-confident Bill, who I will say again is a man with no sports background, got into public feuds with various NBA general managers. When, in 2008, he held out against ESPN's editing -essentially refusing to write - ESPN must have realized they'd created a monster. A guy who writes about himself (something that can't really be replicated) and who has the power to call the shots over the editors and higher-ups.
So what do you get when you combine a bizarre fascination with one's self, a validating group of readers, and the self-confidence that no one will edit what you write? You get the following - an article by Bill Simmons entirely about his dead dog. Now look, I had a dog that died, and I loved that dog. But if someone asked...IF someone asked...I would probably briefly mention his name, what kind of dog, when I had it and maybe one funny thing he used to do. One paragraph max. Bill Simmons, apropos of nothing, gives us 25 paragraphs about his dead dog. On a sports website. What could be more hubristic? What were the editors doing? And most importantly - what comes next? I have 5 column titles & ideas:
1) Good Night Neosporin. Wearing a McHale jersey, Bill bloodies his hand trying to dunk on an 8 and a half foot rim and must treat it with neosporin in order to avoid infection and scarring. Bill tells the story of being bullied in middle school and how he would eat some of the neosporin used to treat cuts and scrapes from these little tussles. 10,000 words later, Bill brings the story full circle and eats a little neosporin as he treats his hand
2) How 'Bout Them Apples? Bill podcasts from the grocery store and opens up to listeners about some problems he's had selecting fresh produce, his lactose intolerance and something he used to do with heated up banana peels in college.
3) Go To Hell, Dillan Moskowitz. Bill rips into one Dillan Moskowitz, a fat, slow, disgusting, racist third baseman on his son's tee ball team. Dillan, who incidentally starts over Simmons' son, probably takes creatine and is constantly peeing in his pants (Dillan's not Simmons').
4) Marcia & Tom & Something Else. Take an erotic and troubling journey with Bill as he talks about the two Bradys he thinks about in quiet moments as well as a story about a chance 1993 encounter with Oil Can Boyd in a Dunkin Donuts that begins with excitement and admiration but ends in prurience and shame.
5) Simmons - THE ONIONS! Bill spends 112 paragraphs spread over three weeks to detail his favorite sports daydreams about himself. Included in his opus is a daydream where Bill is the 7 foot tall Celtics center in Game 7 of the NBA Championship, and wins the title at the buzzer by dunking on Kobe Bryant so viciously that everyone in the arena suffers from dizziness and dry mouth, Kobe flies into the 3rd row of seats where several people are seriously hurt and the NBA cancels its 2009-10 season.
In conclusion, LeRoy Jenkins was the backup 3rd basemen on my tee ball team.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Social Networking Ombudsman: Were you at Senor Frogs in 1998?
Readers,
Please add "World's Ombudsman" as a friend or become a fan of TWO on Facebook.
I can't promise daily, witty status updates but I can promise nightly, glenfiddich fueled, ill advised friend-requests of spring break inamoratas from schools like Eastern Michigan University. Or whatever.
Enjoy the internets.
Love,
The World's Ombudsman
Please add "World's Ombudsman" as a friend or become a fan of TWO on Facebook.
I can't promise daily, witty status updates but I can promise nightly, glenfiddich fueled, ill advised friend-requests of spring break inamoratas from schools like Eastern Michigan University. Or whatever.
Enjoy the internets.
Love,
The World's Ombudsman
Friday, January 16, 2009
Cinema Ombudsman: Gran Torino = Pink Cadillac?
I watched Gran Torino recently. It is not good cinema.
In terms of acting and natural sounding dialogue, I would say it is the worst movie I've seen in a theater since I took an unsuspecting sophomore to see Eraser on an ill-fated 1996 date. The runner-up for best moment in Eraser comes when Arnold Schwarzenegger shoots an alligator that has, through a truly unforeseeable sequence of events, wound up in the middle of a broader shoot out between Arnold and the bad guys, and Arnold says "You're luggage!" It was as if the writers came up with "You're luggage!" first and thought "YAHTZEE! - but now we just need to somehow work an alligator into an action scene..." But the best/worst moment in Eraser, and arguably all of cinematic history, comes when Arnold gets into a shoot out on a plane. Somehow the plane door flies open and Arnold is holding on to the outside of the plane. The outside of the plane! Chairs, bolted to the aircraft's floor, are being sucked out of the plane but Arnold holds on and is dodging bullets. He grasps for a parachute but it is sucked out and flies out of the plane towards earth. What does Arnold do? He makes himself very aerodynamic and, like a human missile, catches up to the parachute in midair and puts it on. What a scene! BUT WAIT....the airplane turns around and hits Arnold! I say again, a fullsize, 747 airplane traveling at speeds that must be presumed to be around 500 mph, hits Arnold Schwarzenegger in midair. Contradicting intuition, Arnold is not immediately killed, but does become annoyingly entangled in his chute. He plummets thousands of feet to earth, where he lands on a car. He is largely unharmed. Don't believe me? Here it is.
Gran Torino was not as ridiculous, but it was close. The plot is unbelievable as it centers around a marauding gang of Asians in Detroit. Please note that Asians account for less than 2% of the population in Detroit. This Asian gang, that Gran Torino would have you believe stalks the Motor City's streets, listens to "gangsta" rap and speaks in "gangsta" lingo. Essentially, they serve as an absurd, thinly-veiled proxy for a black gang. Look, after Eastwood's recent dustup with Spike Lee, I can understand why Eastwood wouldn't want to make a movie reflecting poorly on African Americans. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous to the viewer. If you don't want to worry about offending black people, then don't set your movie in the ghetto of Detroit and have gangs involved - just write about something else. Its like the domestic equivalent of Air Force One or The Peacemaker with terrorist villains who hail from terrorism hotbeds like Moscow and Sarajevo. Don't want to offend Muslims? No problem, but don't forcefeed your audience nonsense. I have Italian relatives who are offended by mob movies, but that doesn't mean I want to see the story of the Gevogelte crime family's reign of dominance over Belgian neighborhoods in Queens. ("Its a Flemish message...it means Pieter Klaus sleeps with the vises"). Alright... let me calm down after all of the humor I just delivered.
There are other problems with the movie. Eastwood's acting is great, but his character is cantankerous to the point of being unintentionally hilarious. The young neighbors he befriends have uneven characters and awkward, unbelievable dialogue. Finally, the preposterously miscast priest provides an uninspired performance and adds little to the movie: If the audience hadn't already picked up on the Christian theme, they certainly did when Eastwood died with his arms spread and feet perfectly together as if he were on a crucifix. With all of the needless talking outloud to himself Eastwood did throughout the movie, I was surprised that he didn't just sit up and say "This is religious symbolism" as the movie ended.
But anyway, this is not a movie review. This is a movie review review. One Peter Travers, a reviewer for Rolling Stone, gave Gran Torino, essentially a Diet Eraser, 3 and one half out of 4 stars. Nearly perfect! And look at the nominations: incredibly, AFI named it one of the best 10 films of 2008. Look, everyone has different opinions, but people in the theater I was in were ready to walk out. How can there be this disconnect?
I believe there are three possibile, non-mutually exclusive, reasons. First, the movie industry is filthy and reviewing films for major publications is a shady business. Studios regularly throw money and gifts at well known reviewers, and this is generally considered acceptable! Only the most overt bribery is frowned upon - for example, actually hiring the film critics on the side and creating an imaginary movie reviewer...apparently those crossed the line. Second, reviewers tend to reward actors they admire or want to succeed, even if the movie they are in is sub-par. A third, less nefarious option, is that even knowledgable reviewers occasionally swing and miss.
Here, I would be shocked if the studio wasn't pushing this movie heavily on critics: without any real say over what Eastwood directs (the link also leads to an accurate, well-written review), the only hope the studios have to make a profit off a terrible movie is to promote it as much as possible. Further, most people - studios, reviewers and movie-goers - like Clint Eastwood, and would like to see him end his career with a good movie. To be clear, am I saying that Peter Travers or AFI are involved in any impropriety? No. However the only other option remaining is that they are just terribly, horribly wrong about Gran Torino.
In conclusion, I was paid $4 an hour to herd pigeons for scenes in In the Line of Fire.
In terms of acting and natural sounding dialogue, I would say it is the worst movie I've seen in a theater since I took an unsuspecting sophomore to see Eraser on an ill-fated 1996 date. The runner-up for best moment in Eraser comes when Arnold Schwarzenegger shoots an alligator that has, through a truly unforeseeable sequence of events, wound up in the middle of a broader shoot out between Arnold and the bad guys, and Arnold says "You're luggage!" It was as if the writers came up with "You're luggage!" first and thought "YAHTZEE! - but now we just need to somehow work an alligator into an action scene..." But the best/worst moment in Eraser, and arguably all of cinematic history, comes when Arnold gets into a shoot out on a plane. Somehow the plane door flies open and Arnold is holding on to the outside of the plane. The outside of the plane! Chairs, bolted to the aircraft's floor, are being sucked out of the plane but Arnold holds on and is dodging bullets. He grasps for a parachute but it is sucked out and flies out of the plane towards earth. What does Arnold do? He makes himself very aerodynamic and, like a human missile, catches up to the parachute in midair and puts it on. What a scene! BUT WAIT....the airplane turns around and hits Arnold! I say again, a fullsize, 747 airplane traveling at speeds that must be presumed to be around 500 mph, hits Arnold Schwarzenegger in midair. Contradicting intuition, Arnold is not immediately killed, but does become annoyingly entangled in his chute. He plummets thousands of feet to earth, where he lands on a car. He is largely unharmed. Don't believe me? Here it is.
Gran Torino was not as ridiculous, but it was close. The plot is unbelievable as it centers around a marauding gang of Asians in Detroit. Please note that Asians account for less than 2% of the population in Detroit. This Asian gang, that Gran Torino would have you believe stalks the Motor City's streets, listens to "gangsta" rap and speaks in "gangsta" lingo. Essentially, they serve as an absurd, thinly-veiled proxy for a black gang. Look, after Eastwood's recent dustup with Spike Lee, I can understand why Eastwood wouldn't want to make a movie reflecting poorly on African Americans. But that doesn't make it any less ridiculous to the viewer. If you don't want to worry about offending black people, then don't set your movie in the ghetto of Detroit and have gangs involved - just write about something else. Its like the domestic equivalent of Air Force One or The Peacemaker with terrorist villains who hail from terrorism hotbeds like Moscow and Sarajevo. Don't want to offend Muslims? No problem, but don't forcefeed your audience nonsense. I have Italian relatives who are offended by mob movies, but that doesn't mean I want to see the story of the Gevogelte crime family's reign of dominance over Belgian neighborhoods in Queens. ("Its a Flemish message...it means Pieter Klaus sleeps with the vises"). Alright... let me calm down after all of the humor I just delivered.
There are other problems with the movie. Eastwood's acting is great, but his character is cantankerous to the point of being unintentionally hilarious. The young neighbors he befriends have uneven characters and awkward, unbelievable dialogue. Finally, the preposterously miscast priest provides an uninspired performance and adds little to the movie: If the audience hadn't already picked up on the Christian theme, they certainly did when Eastwood died with his arms spread and feet perfectly together as if he were on a crucifix. With all of the needless talking outloud to himself Eastwood did throughout the movie, I was surprised that he didn't just sit up and say "This is religious symbolism" as the movie ended.
But anyway, this is not a movie review. This is a movie review review. One Peter Travers, a reviewer for Rolling Stone, gave Gran Torino, essentially a Diet Eraser, 3 and one half out of 4 stars. Nearly perfect! And look at the nominations: incredibly, AFI named it one of the best 10 films of 2008. Look, everyone has different opinions, but people in the theater I was in were ready to walk out. How can there be this disconnect?
I believe there are three possibile, non-mutually exclusive, reasons. First, the movie industry is filthy and reviewing films for major publications is a shady business. Studios regularly throw money and gifts at well known reviewers, and this is generally considered acceptable! Only the most overt bribery is frowned upon - for example, actually hiring the film critics on the side and creating an imaginary movie reviewer...apparently those crossed the line. Second, reviewers tend to reward actors they admire or want to succeed, even if the movie they are in is sub-par. A third, less nefarious option, is that even knowledgable reviewers occasionally swing and miss.
Here, I would be shocked if the studio wasn't pushing this movie heavily on critics: without any real say over what Eastwood directs (the link also leads to an accurate, well-written review), the only hope the studios have to make a profit off a terrible movie is to promote it as much as possible. Further, most people - studios, reviewers and movie-goers - like Clint Eastwood, and would like to see him end his career with a good movie. To be clear, am I saying that Peter Travers or AFI are involved in any impropriety? No. However the only other option remaining is that they are just terribly, horribly wrong about Gran Torino.
In conclusion, I was paid $4 an hour to herd pigeons for scenes in In the Line of Fire.
Monday, January 5, 2009
Sportsguy Ombusdman: Colts All The Way!
Bill Simmons asks is 11-0 in the playoffs possible? The answer is a resounding YES! But not if you don’t understand the sport. The sports guy does not. At least his column isn’t well thought out.
Now, anyone could have gone 2-2 in their picks on wildcard weekend - the issue is not the results. The issue is the process. To avoid the tedious and time-consuming effort needed to watch games, study film and learn about personnel, Bill has devised a set of "rules" he calls the Playoff Manifesto.
We need not go into all of the rules one by one, since they clearly aren’t any more effective than flipping coins. I will mention, as a starting point, that any set of rules – whether they be for investing, for relationships, for sports – whatever...any set of rules that has a built in George-Costanza-Do-The-Opposite-Of-What-You-Initially-Think Rule should be immediately discarded.
What we can get into is – why have these rules? Why say things like “** New rule: If you're taking a warm-weather team in a cold-weather road game, you'd better have a really, REALLY good reason. Like, "Half the guys on the home team are battling mononucleosis."” Really? What about
Why claim, as Bill does, that the last 5 games matter more than the overall body of a team’s work? According to the Manifesto, NFL teams can’t just turn it on. “Doesn’t happen.” Simmons says, like a grizzled old coach. You would never know he’s relying entirely on the experience of several gritty co-ed flag football seasons in
Quite simply – a manifesto replaces the need for actual evaluation of the teams. Bill proudly doesn’t understand coverages, blitzing, linebacker play, blocking schemes, receiver routes, or quarterback reads, so it stands to reason that he wouldn’t have any idea what matchups might be exploited in a given game. There is no insightful football knowledge here, and I think Bill would admit as much.
However, we must take this one step further. I understand that a detailed, technical analysis is not for everyone and some sports fans aren’t interested a Ron Jaworski style breakdown. But the Manifesto rules are either so obvious (Don’t pick the team with the crappy quarterback on the road, which is basically one step removed from advising – “Don’t pick the team most likely to lose!”) or are so ill-conceived that they don’t pass even the lightest due diligence (the warm weather vs cold weather teams, last five games etc etc).
To recap, there’s no in depth evaluation, and the more fan-friendly discourse isn’t well thought out. So what are we left with?
In conclusion, Bill Simmons could never cover me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)