2011: The Year in Film: "The Descendants" Review

Only a solid week late with this review, too. Go me! So it's a miniature Brenner family tradition that we see a movie Christmas eve. Despite my pushing for "Hugo", the 3D scared away the elders, so we settled on the safe choice of an award-baiting George Clooney's collaboration with Alexander Payne. I had (rather) affectionately been referring to this one as "white people problems" due to the setting and subject matter (Hawaii, rich people, really?), but there's no denying the talent of Mr. Clooney, and who doesn't like "Sideways"?, so here we are. It's one of the appeals of film, I suppose, that the setting can psychologically have so much bearing on your viewing experience. During "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", for instance, I found myself somewhat chilled by the frigid and harsh conditions. During this one, despite seeing it on a 30 degree NW Ohio day, I felt the need to thrown on linen pants and boat shoes, and the setting really is a character all its own.

Movies come in all shapes and sizes, and there's certainly something to be said for the family dramedy, an American institution in and of itself. This flick focuses on a man, Matt King, who happens to be heir (along with his numerous cousins) to the largest untouched part of Hawaii due to an inheritance from the royal family and his two daughters, Scottie and Alex as they deal with the aftermath of a horrible accident involving his wife and their mother. Due to the Rule Against Perpetuities (law school shout out) the trust that has governed the land grant for more than a century is due to expire, and Matt as sole trustee has the final say over what will be done with the pristine coastline worth hundreds of millions.

So let me say that going into this one I was very, very skeptical. Not that I doubted the talent of the people involved, quite the contrary actually, just that I wasn't sure how much dramatic heft a bunch of rich people could possibly pack. And for the first 30 minutes or so, I was convinced that my cynical snarkiness would win the day.. with all of this talk about "land sales" and "boating accidents" and traipsing about law offices and wealthy Honolulu neighborhoods I was prepared to write this one off as one of the root causes of the "Occupy Honolulu" movement. But as the entirety of what this particular family was facing began to set in and the utter humanity of the characters shone through the high-dollar veneer, my cynicism began to fade and that handsome bastard Clooney charmed the pants off of me the way he has countless cocktail waitresses and starlets for the better part of two decades now.



A flick like this simply can't work without a cast that's at once likable and believable. Movie stars can't simply waltz around acting movie-starry if you're going to pull off a small, human drama. Clooney, as the narrator/protagonist, deserves all the hype. He's likable, charming, flawed, funny and above all human as a dad, husband and trustee who's simply in over his head. I've ragged on Clooney for always playing Clooney in the past, and there's a lot of that here, but he brings a certain weariness and vulnerability to the role that really makes Matt a likable and utterly human "hero". The kids are the real stars of this flick though. Amara Miller, who plays 10 year old Scottie, is funny, quirky and most of all completely convincing as a kid reconnecting with dad. Shailene Woodley brings a worldliness (is that a word?) to the elder daughter, forced to grow up far too fast by circumstances, and acting out as a result. You really believe that these people are a family, and that's crucial. Alex's "friend", Sid, is a treat and provides much-needed comic relief in parts.

This is a sweet little flick, at times funny, sad, charming and moving, but it tells a completely human story that just happens to take place in paradise. Is it #richpeopleproblems? Sure, but sometimes people are people, man. These are people with flaws but also charms, and sometimes tough times are just what we need to bring us together.

7.8/10. A good indie family dramedy that ends strong after some early struggles.

2011: The Year in Film: "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" Review

Wow. I suck guys. More than a month with no posts? Well, I saw this one a healthy week ago and intended on getting it up right away but damn things like "Holidays" and "responsibilities" got in the way and RUINED EVERYTHING. But here I am, and for all outward appearances, one could reasonably conclude that I'm a groupie for these stories, I've read all three books, seen the Swedish flicks, and now here I am seeing the American version. Steig Larsson's "millenium trilogy" has more or less swept the world, but I promise I don't like the story THAT much. With that being said, I don't know that there's been a better combination of director and material than David Fincher and Steig Larsson's novels. The books are bleak, twisted, violent and dark, and Fincher often flashes a nihilistic, gritty, violent streak in his work. While Fincher is undoubtedly a strong director with a striking visual style and unquestionable artistic skill, his flicks are often hit or miss for me, missing as often as not for a variety of reasons. We have Alien3 (miss, but not his fault), Se7en (hit), The Game (hit-ish), Fight Club (hit), Panic Room (miss), Zodiac (miss-ish), The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (miss) and The Social Network (hit) - so Fincher is 4-4 going into this one. This is no easy task, making this flick. The books are widely beloved, and the Swedish flicks are strong to quite strong, the first installment especially, and probably better cast, at least upon first glance. So let's review this thing, shall we?

These books are popular for a reason, especially this first installment, combining the brutal violence of a crime drama with computer hacking technobabble, political and family intrigue and a healthy dose of sex. In addition, the titular "girl" with said tattoo, Lisbeth Salander, is a unique and compelling protagonist. She's somewhere on the spectrum with a past of emotional, physical and sexual abuse and manipulation, but is also an uber badass, so it combines to create some sort of hacker antiheroine who you can't help but find yourself drawn to. The other protagonist, Mikael Blomkvist, is basically a fantasy version of the author of the series. He's a crusading journalist who brings down whole institutions through his quest for truth and justice, and who all the ladies can't help but bed. It's infantile when it comes down to it, but it's all in good fun.

So here's the set-up, Blomkvist has just been found guilty in a libel trial in Sweden for certain unprovable allegations made against a titan of Swedish industry. His magazine is floundering and he finds himself broke and facing the prospect of jail time. He is approached by a mysterious potential employer, an aging Swedish patriarch whose family owns one of the largest firms in the country, and who finds himself obsessed by a haunting and peculiar mystery that is now more than 40 years old. Meanwhile, Salander uses her hacking skills to be the star investigator at a security firm, while she faces difficulty (to say the least) with her state appointed guardian (she was declared insane as a youth after a horrible act of violence that will be elaborated on in later installments). Eventually Blomkvist seeks help investigating his murder mystery, and is led to Salander, who did a very thorough investigation on him for his new employers. The two join forces, and that, folks, is the basic skeletal outline of your story.

Fincher and the screenwriters made a very good decision in choosing to keep the story set in Sweden. It very easily could have been bastardized and transplanted to the US for American audiences, but this is one case where the setting and rather unique nuances of the Swedish climate and past enrich and assist with the action of the story. When it's boiled down, this story is basically your classic Agatha Christie-style murder mystery dressed up for our modern day and age, and the harsh, dark, cold climate and characters only add to the sense of tension and dread. This flick looks great.. and that's always been Fincher's strong suit, but he certainly does not disappoint here. Most of the flick was shot on location in Sweden, and the sense of pervading cold and isolation is really enhanced through Fincher's visuals and the often haunting and dark score (Fincher brought back NIN's Trent Reznor for another collaboration after last year's Social Network).

But when it comes down to it, this is a flick and a story drawn by characters. A disproportionate amount of time is spent watching characters obsess over books or diaries or pictures or computer screen, and the actors have to be compelling for that to work, or else it ends up looking preposterous. I must admit I had reservations on both main characters, for a number of reasons. First, Blomkvist is a journalist who never displays overly physical characteristics and as a matter of fact is overwhelmed a number of times throughout the books. In addition, he's a 40-something journalist. Daniel Craig is James Bond.. and he's absolutely jacked. I don't think bookish journalists have 10-packs. So I was concerned that Craig wouldn't be able to tone down his machismo for the role. Likewise, Mara, in her first major role, had to slip on some major shoes here, and do a lot of the heavy lifting without much dialogue. It didn't help that the actors who played the characters in the Swedish flicks were damn great. But, both were very, very good and completely demolished all of my concerns, especially Rooney Mara. She brings a smoldering rage and determination to the character, completely making you forget that she's actually an adorable little heiress. Craig dials down the confidence and masculinity enough to make the whole thing believable. I felt like he should have gained 20 lbs and put on a paunch just to add to the authenticity but oh well. Chris Plummer is great as Henrik Vanger and (Swedish!) Stellan Skarsgard is very good as the current President of Vanger industries.


All in all, this flick worked for me. It's often rather intense (one scene of violence in particular), dark and twisted, making it right up Fincher's alley. Fincher's visuals give the flick an often haunting quality, which fit the subject matter beautifully. The cast doesn't get overwhelmed by the intricacies of the plot or the showy visuals, and you never forget that these characters are people first and foremost, with fears and relationships. Even having read the book and seen the Swedish version, I thoroughly enjoyed this one.. I'd think that having NO familiarity with the story and the characters would probably make it even better.

8.5/10

Childish Gambino: Camp Review

So music criticism is a new endeavor for this blog, but like Mr. Glover himself, I'm multi-talented, so let's give it a shot. If you've hung out with me at all in 2011, you've probably been annoyed by me raving about Childish Gambino to anyone who would listen, but the dude is insanely talented, and brings a certain brilliance to his music that, quite frankly, is too good to be missed. If you don't know, Childish Gambino is the rap name used by Donald Glover, who plays Troy on Community, wrote for '30 Rock' during the best years of that show, who was the star of the "Derrick" comedy group (they made the "Bro Rape" video of youtube fame), and who is a successful standup comedian. As he tells it, he typed his name into a "Wu-Tang Name Generator" site while in college, and has used the name Childish Gambino ever since. He's been putting out original music and remixes for several years now, up to this point for free on his site: www.iamdonald.com, while he flirted with various record labels and become more and more of a legitimate musician. Since September '09, he's put out several full-length mix-tapes/albums and an EP, and each one has steadily improved. In Summer 2011, Glover signed with Glassnote records, and "Camp" was released on 11/15/11.

Glover is an impressive and honest lyricist, blending pop-culture references with layered metaphors and personal reflections and the silly with the heartfelt. His verses run the gamut from clowning around to heartfelt questions on race, love and loneliness. It doesn't take very long to realize that this is one very smart, funny, sensitive dude. There are persistent themes: zero to hero, not being "black" enough, being picked on and called "gay" that pop up again and again, and are explored with a nuance, self-awareness and wit that frankly, isn't very common in hip hop. There are a lot of dick jokes and sophomoric humor that he winkingly acknowledges as just having fun. There's a sense of play throughout that offsets the more serious fare. As an artist, he manages to be serious enough to be taken seriously while keeping the whole thing fun. That's what successful comedians do, and that quality is successfully brought to his music as well.

The album has a definite arc to it, starting with the introspective "Outside", and building into more "party" tracks that are "Firefly" and "Bonfire" before offering the almost painful introspective lamentations on love and modern relationships that are "Letter Home" and "Heartbeat". The album closes with a long monologue that's part story about Summer Camp, part explanation for who he is today that has a poignancy and power far beyond a junior high camp story.




It's common to compare Gambino to either Drake or Kanye West, and superficially, that seems fair, although it's not quite apt. Drake is an actor turned rapper who sings his own hooks, and Kanye is a suburban raised kid who produces his own beats. Gambino is much less chained to hip-hop convention - which is a welcome relief. Does he talk about women and partying? Absolutely.. but the entire thing comes with a wink and a certain self-deprecating outsider's take. Where Kanye is blustering faux swagger and cockiness, Gambino is often a painfully self-aware glimpse into something deeper. Drake is the more polished performer, but is also much more grounded in hip-hop convention. It seems to me that Gambino might be delivering on what Kanye seemed to promise back with "College Dropout", that of taking hip-hop outside of the greater culture and bringing it to a more relatable level. I've read more than one review that compared this albumb to "College Dropout", but to me, the Kanye album that it's most similar to is "Graduation", and I think that's simply because of Gambino's experience and relative polish he's gotten while self-producing his music. He emerges not so much as a new artist but as a young artist. Still developing, but mature enough to have a voice. Where "College Dropout" didn't have a cohesive narrative as much as it had some very strong tracks, this one really rewards listening to the album in its entirety.

I can say right now that "Camp" is either my favorite or second favorite album of the year. It and Bon Iver will have to fight it out. I'm extremely excited to see where Childish Gambino goes as an artist - I think it's clear that if he chooses to put his mind to it, he can be a force in hip-hop. If you can't tell from this post in its entirety, I have a serious mancrush on Donald Glover and find his music to be extremely relatable and legitimately great in levels beyond "Hey, the dude from Community is rapping".

Check out this album, you won't regret it. 9/10

2011: The Year in Film: "J. Edgar" Review

It's fascinating to me how much of what makes up our world is due to historical happenstance, the influence of a particular man (or woman) or set of circumstances that happened to be in a certain place at a certain time. So much of our society and its rules and institutions seems to have been fated or inevitable, when in fact it's the result of a determined person or lucky coincidence that happened to have the foresight or good fortune to rise to an occasion or exploit an opening. One of the individuals who had an outsized impact on American society, our worldview and our institutions over the past century was longtime (we're talking 40+ years) FBI director J. Edgar Hoover. In fact, I'd be prepared to make an argument that he's one of the 10 or so people MOST responsible for shaping what we, as a nation and society are today. So, needless to say, a flick about his life starring one of the best actors working today, in Leonardo DiCaprio by one of the most important directors working, in Clint Eastwood, becomes a must-see.

This film has gotten mixed reviews.. most recognize its achievement while finding the narrative lacking. Most of all, I respect its ambition. I question whether another director could get a project like this green-lit. It's not quite a biopic, not quite a history of the FBI and not quite a historical drama a la say "The King's Speech". What it is, most of all, it seems to me, is a study of who Hoover WAS, why he was important, and what that means to us today. Through the lens of important events in his life and important events in the history of the FBI, we evaluate the rise and fall of an American icon and institution, a strange little man who built a monolith from scratch and whose legacy continues to resonate today. The film is framed as Hoover dictates a book to various FBI agents and outlines the start of his career, focusing on crucial points, like the Lindbergh baby case, the war on crime and the red scares of the early 1920s and the 1950s. The narrative skips from the past to the 1960's, where Hoover as an old man, has private files on every important person in the country and is, some say, the most powerful man in the nation. The narrative is extremely effective at points - doing a great job attempting to explain what made Hoover tick, for example, and fails at others - for instance, the story surrounding Hoover's illegal surveillance in the 1960's is less clear.

A flick like this is dependent entirely on the cast. It takes place in backrooms and offices and without actors capable of carrying the load, would completely collapse under its own weight. DiCaprio is great as J. Edgar. Simply great. He brings the perfect mix of eccentricity, paranoia, confidence and unease to a complicated, strange and yet powerful man. Judi Dench is great as well as Hoover's domineering mother, who had an undue influence on her son for the entirety of her life. Armie Hammer (who played the Winklevii in the Social Network..) is great as Hoover's #2 man, confidant, lifelong companion, probable lover and conscience, Clyde Tolson. Naomi Watts is more than adequate as Hoover's other lifelong companion, his personal secretary and keeper of his files, Helen Gandy. This flick is completely full of "those guys".. as basically every character is a man, and an Eastwood film attracts known actors. (For example - Jeffrey Donovan, the star of "Burn Notice", plays Robert Kennedy)



In showing, rather than telling and preaching, this film puts the right twist on Hoover's outsized legend. Everyone knows he was rumored to wear women's clothing, but this film doesn't focus on his strange personal habits, his modernization of law enforcement or his mistakes, focusing instead on what made the man tick, in an effort to understand what made the FBI what it is today. I appreciate that ambition.. and while that effort wasn't perfectly executed, the effort to document the meteoric rise and degeneration into paranoia of an icon is the sort of effort that just isn't made too often in Hollywood. For that, I applaud everyone involved, as Hoover's is a story that needs telling, particularly in our modern age of an omnipotent Federal government. This man is responsible for Federal Law Enforcement (FBI, DEA, ATF, you name it) as we know it, and his sweeping vision and ambition is responsible in large part for so many things.

Is the film perfect? No. But it is well-acted, often tragic and surprisingly touching in parts, and there's a lot more that works than there is that doesn't. So come for the acting, stay for the commentary on who we are and how we got here. If there's one outsized criticism from me, it's that the lighting in the film is HORRIBLE - it's not black and white, but every scene seems to take place at dusk/twilight, even when the scenes are in the middle of the day. It's rather distracting.

With that being said, this film does a lot more right than it does wrong - and the ambition alone is enough to add a point. 8/10.

Mailbag, Part II: Son of Mailbag.

Ok, so it looks like we're quarterly on the mailbag.. that's not necessarily a bad thing. Need to build the readership up, yo.

The Brenner Bag II

J.D.: The political junkie in me wants you to do something on the senate bill 5 referendum...
Well - I have mixed feelings on it. Obviously the referendum failed, which is undoubtedly a good thing, and I don't know that it was ever really in doubt. Here's the mistake the Republicans are making right now, and they're the same mistakes the Dems are going to make the next time they cruise to huge victories: they mistake victory with a mandate. In a two-party system it's not like there are a lot of choices. 99% of the time when one side wins it's because the other side has spent the last __ years screwing up. The vast majority of the country doesn't care about the rhetoric and mostly nonsensical concepts being thrown around in party conventions, they just want to live their lives in as much comfort as possible. The party that realizes this first will have the most long-term success. Kasich mistook his victory for an approval of his policies.. which was a huge mistake. Ohio is a blue collar state, built on the auto and steel industries. Whatever the problems with public unions (of which there are many), Ohio isn't going to strike a blow against middle class workers, not in a time of relative hardship. You may be asking what the problems are with public unions - well, first, the fundamental reason for unions existing is to force a higher % of business revenue to flow to employees at the expense of management. In the case of public employees, "management" is the state, so you're costing taxpayers money. Also, when you strike you aren't hurting a businessowner, you're hurting the taxpayers and society. Add to this two other things. One, that Government employees already have additional administrative and Constitutional protections not afforded to private employees in the absence of unions. Two is the fundamental flaw of all Unions, that in the absence of a perfect way of assessing employee performance they protect seniority above all, ensuring that older employees are the highest paid, which then provides incentive for older employees to stay on in order to earn as much money as possible. Older employees making the most money does two things: 1.) makes your organization less productive, 2.) cuts manpower, because a glut of older, high paid employees represent a greater cost than a greater number of younger, low paid employees would. In jobs like Police and Fire Fighter that are tailored to young people in many respects, this becomes a problem. BUT THAT ALL GOT TOO SERIOUS. I have cops and teachers in my family so I'm glad it passed, especially because Kasich is a twit, but there are problems with the Public Union system that will need to be addressed sooner rather than later.


R.L. Discuss the pros and cons of compelling professional referees and officials to conduct press conferences after games.
Well, I'm torn on this one, because officials do sometimes have an outsized impact on the events they're officiating and are not held responsible in the way other participants are, but at the same time, they're human beings. Human beings who happen to do their jobs exceptionally well, to the extent that they aren't noticeable 99% of the time. Now, if you happened to catch my State of Sports post, you know that I'm bitter about ESPN's turd in punch bowl effect on the whole sporting endeavor. Well, given that, and the resulting seriousness with which everyone takes sports nowadays, subjecting officials to press conferences would only fan the fires. Officials are humans, humans make mistakes. We need to stop pretending that games designed for children are science. I blame betting and 24/7 coverage. That being said, a shit ref will make me want to punch the earth.. but your average mouth-breather running around 12 beers deep on gameday can't handle the responsibility of understanding that people aren't perfect, and that just might impact the outcome of a game every now and again.


N.D. If Brady Hoke was a hot dog, would he eat himself?
Does anyone else smell frosting? Brady Hoke is the worst, seriously the worst. He would absolutely eat himself, probably when his stomach started growling at 10:02 AM on the first day after his hotdog transformation took place, the glutton. There has been a precipitous drop in the number of Chinese buffets in the Ann Arbor/Ypsilanti area since he rolled into town. They operate on a business model that simply doesn't account for one man consuming 3 entire trays of sweet and sour chicken. Mmm.. breading. But here's all you need to know about Brady Hoke that makes him the worst: like everything better than mediocre to have ever come from M*chigan, he's from Ohio (Charles Woodson, Desmond Howard, Bo Schembechler.. I could go on, believe me). He's from the Dayton area and attended Ball St. University. M*chigan was his 5th assistant coaching job, starting in 1995 (in his 13th year of coaching..)... and yet somehow he's a M*chigan man. He also claims that he grew up rooting for M*chigan in the Woody Hayes era in Dayton, Ohio. Approximately 80 miles from Columbus and more than 200 from Ann Arbor. If that's true.. he's a piece of shit. People that grew up in Ohio and root for M*chigan come in 3 colors.. only one of these colors doesn't result in you being a scumbag. If you have a legitimate connection to scUM, fine. The other two are contrarian douches and people who were front running in the 90's when M*chigan owned the rivalry. Both unacceptable breeds of humanity. Root for old money douches, but recognize that you're the worst. If you're just a regular Ohioan who never attended scUM, what the shit are you doing rooting for M*chigan? That's a lot like rooting for China in the Olympics. Here's why you shouldn't root for M*chigan: 1.) the school is made up of old money establishment pricks who drive luxury cars, are subtly racist and are absolutely elitist. 2.) You aren't from the state of Michigan. If you're going to be contrarian just b/c you're the kind of kid who HAS to be different, like a school that's not full of assholes in boat shoes. Michigan State, Cincinnati, Penn State are (well, were) all options. 3.) You're FROM OHIO. Ohioans have things like pride and loyalty which is what separates us from bullshit locales like everywhere on the East Coast and M*chigan. There are many levels of contrarianism that stop well short of outright treachery. To make a long story short, if your name is Brady Hoke and your BMI and blood pressure cause the team of medical professionals somehow keeping your blood from instantly turning to the consistency of refridgerated maple syrup to recommend immediate hospitalization at every checkup, you grew up in the Dayton area and your dad PLAYED FOR WOODY HAYES and you rooted for Michigan? That tells me everything I need to know about you. Other than you probably snore very loudly and have to wear a back brace around the house, you're a disloyal piece of shit. Modern-day torrie. He should be tarred and feathered and run out of town on a rail.


R.L. Could one modern American Marine Expeditionary Unit (2200 men) defeat the Roman Empire during the reign of Augustus? They're all geared up. But think of them as time travelers. So no satellites (i.e. no GPS) and some reasonable limit on the amount of ammunition and fuel.
This one required some research (), but my answer is an unequivocal and resounding "YES", and here's why. A Marine EU includes an amphibious assault ship, a helicopter squadron, and multiple armored vehicles, including tanks. The only challenge woulde be: could the American force reach Rome before they ran out of resources? Obviously, military equipment requires a LOT of fuel, so your tanks and armored vehicles are only going to be good for a limited period of time. Honestly, they'd probably be more valuable as stationary firing platforms and the limited fuel could be used for more fuel efficient vehicles like humvees. It honestly wouldn't matter if you were in a tank or a jeep, the Romans would have no counter for a metal vehicle. Here are my top 3 reasons that the American Marine Corps force wins and winds up installing their Colonel as Augustus: 1.) firearms and high explosives. At the first battle, the Romans would be unaware of the American technological superiority and line up in their traditional battle formations only to be utterly wiped out. So the question would be: how devastating would this defeat be? Would the Romans be so shaken by the utter destruction of their front line forces that they'd be unable to recover? The size of the Roman empire at the time of Augustus (27 BC-14 AD) is known to have been between 25-30 legions at any given time. A legion consisted of 5,000 Roman citizen soldiers, with a comparable number of auxiliaries (light troops and supporting personnel). So total, we're talking about an empire-wide fighting force of effectively 125-150,000 men. However, one must remember that we're talking about an empire that stretches from Germany to Spain to Egypt to Syria, and the Legions were stationed at garrisons along the borders, so the Romans were never sending the entirety of their military into battle at any given time. Forces of 5-10 legions would join for extended campaigns, either to subdue border threats or aggressively conquer more territory. So we can realistically say that the Romans mustering a force of 20-30,000 men for the initial confrontation is well within reason. At this early stage, the Marine EU would still have fuel, aircraft and missiles at their disposal, and would completely slaughter the initial Roman force. One must note several things about ancient combat: 1.) they almost never fought to the last man. What happened typically is one side would gain the upper hand and the other would rout and flee the field, resulting in far more troops taken prisoner than actually killed - it's hard to kill tens of thousands of men with swords and spears after all. 2.) The armies tended to be entirely dependent on their commander - kill or capture the General/Counsul/Emperor, and the army falls into disarray. 3.) Everyone hates everyone. The Romans were respected because of their strength. With defeat would have come uprising and the Americans would have found thousands of new allies as groups opposed to Rome sought to regain their sovereignty. With that being said, the most likely scenario is this: 1.) Marines crush initial Roman army, driving the Romans into disarray. 2.) While the Romans regroup, adjusting their tactics (abandoning battle lines, etc), the Marines make a mad dash for Rome while they still have ammunition and fuel remaining. 3.) Marines reach and take Rome, capturing the Emperor and command structure and effectively decapitating the Roman state. 4.) Marines use their armaments to turn the fields outside of Rome into a killing ground for any army bold enough to approach, and instill their Colonel as Emperor. 5.) Romans, respecting strength and prowess, accept the new status quo.
- So long story short, yes, a Marine EU could defeat Rome. History has shown us that small numbers of technologically superior troops (Conquistators are the best example) can crush vastly numerically superior troops by means of their improved tactics and technology. This situation would be no different.


L.H. I want an Adam Benner "c'mon man" circa R Bar christmas 2008
This is a Fotown inside joke - biggest "C'mon man" on the planet right now has to go out to Joe Paterno. Joe, we all know you're 900 years old and you're defending a grail somewhere as your eternal duty, but c'mon man.. you're embarrassing. You've been "coaching" by sitting in a press box WITH NO HEADSET ON for the past 3 years and letting a known diddler hang out in your facilities? The only way you can save face, Joe, is by letting the world know that you're old as shit and have no idea what's going on. C'mon, Joe. And Gaert Hansen.


You are given access to a very limited time machine. It can take you to any place in the world of your choosing but you will arrive at 12am on Sept 11 2001.

What do you do to stop 9/11? Do you even do anything? Assume that your life is in jeopardy, that is to say risks taken in 2001 will have consequences when you jump back to the present (which will occur at 12am on 9/12/2001). In fact all of your actions will have consequences in 2011, you will return to a world that is different depending on what actions you've taken (except no one will know if you choose to do nothing or know if you privately attempt to head off some hijackers, etc.) Can you convince the then-lazy Feds to listen to you? How? Please also take care to evaluate the in-the-moment consequences of your actions i.e. if you somehow stop the planes in NY there is a greater likelihood the PA plane makes it to DC, etc. The only caveat is you may not interact with your 2001 self. No words of advice, bet large the Sox to win the WS after game 5 of the ALCS in 2004. Lay 10k on Barack Obama becoming president in early 06, don't put your junk in many of the places you did, etc. No Back to the Future 2 action. Your options are limited to choosing to try and stop 9/11, choosing to not interfere with fate, or choosing to head back for a 12 hour vacation on the worst day in most of our lifetimes. Note, Scarjo was already famous for Ghost World, you still wouldn't have a chance. She was also 17. All kinds of reasons for not bothering to use the time machine for Scarjo-related pursuits.

Let's assume a budget of 2k and a 2001-technology working cell phone for your endeavors.

The world is counting on you.

Sincerely,
JJ Baybrams (the lovechild who would make this story into a film)

Here's my plan: now, keep in mind, I don't know that this would conclusively stop 9/11 for all time, but it would stop 9/11 for the time being. Without researching anything, here's what I know about 9/11 - 22 hijackers hijacked 4 planes that left from Logan Airport in Boston, Dulles Airport in D.C. and Newark airport at around 8 a.m. on the morning of Tuesday, September 11 and crashed around an hour later into a field in Pennsylvania, the Pentagon and the two towers of the World Trade Center. So what I do is use my 2001 Motorola flip phone to call those airports and make bomb threats in a vaguely middle eastern accent, explaining that I am a member of a terrorist organization and that 22 of my compatriots will be hijacking planes and planting bombs today. I make sure to include enough details to make my threat credible while also not being so specific to sound crazy - let's be honest, on Sept 10, 2001, what happened on 9/11 would have sounded crazy. I make these phone calls at around 630 AM, ensuring that the hijackers will be in the airport or very close to the airport and likely will be rounded up in the hysteria following my threat. I say that I am a disgruntled member of the group who decided to not go through with it. Now the FBI and NSA and Jack Bauer will be trying to trace my cell phone, but it's 2001 and they haven't invented crazy surveillence techniques yet.. so I'm probably good for at least a day or two. Given the fact that according to the hypothetical, I only have 12 hours, I should be able to escape FBI notice for the remainder of my stay in 2001. Besides, something tells me they'd have bigger fish to fry once they found 22 foreign nationals who have taken flight lessons and are trying to board planes with no luggage and box cutters on the same day someone has called to tell them four planes are going to be blown up. I'd probably name-drop Mohammed Atta just to make sure it sinks in. In 2001, real-life me was a Senior at Fostoria High School, doing the football thing. At this point it should be about 8 am, so I've got 4 hours and $2000 to play with. What I would try to do at this point is murder Kim Kardashian. She was 21 in 2001, and as yet to unleash her brand of inane whoredom on humanity. The murder of OJ's defense attorney's daughter wouldn't even make the news outside of LA, but it would save us from a toxic presence in the future. With any luck, I would prevent two tragedies in one morning. I think my plan would really stop 9/11 outright, and here's why: in 2001 Al Qaeda was at least marginally on the front burner. '98 Embassy bombings, 2000 USS Cole, etc. By name dropping Al Qaeda and giving a plot that would be recognized as legit once Atta and his compatriots were caught doing what I said they'd be doing (more or less), they'd be investigated and a link to Al Qaeda would be discovered. Given all the planning that went into 9/11 (flight lessons, english lessons, securing visas, buying all of the seats on these planes), at the very least my interference would set them back quite some time. They'd have to find new operatives at the very least. Hopefully the investigation would result in renewed diligence without all of the ridiculous overreaction that was a direct result of 9/11. I was prepared to argue that the emergence of Kim Kardashian has actually been more harmful for American society than 9/11 was, but I am going to back off from that position.


J.C. (Not Jesus) Who were the top five most valuable players in Tecmo Super Bowl (1991) for Nintendo? Please consider the player's overall talent, the player's ability to work within their team's system, and the potential impact on the respective team if the player were to have a season-ending injury. If narrowing it to five is too limiting, please feel free to expand the list as you deem necessary.
If you don't know (and if you don't, I feel sorry for you) Tecmo Super Bowl for the original Nintendo is one of the 3 or 4 pinnacles of all mankind. It remains a high point of video games some two decades after its original release and is beloved by 90% of men aged between 34-25. The game resembles football only tangently, but is still amazing and can still entertain large groups of grown men. So without further ado, the five most valuable players in Tecmo Super Bowl:
5. Lawrence Taylor - LT, long before he was committing statutory rape and being a ridiculous caricature, was being a ridiculous caricature by being a coked up QB killing machine on Sundays and an unstoppable force on Tecmo Super Bowl. Along with Derrick Thomas, he can block Field Goals, TACKLE punters before they punt, and dive for sacks while still able to get up and tackle a receiver 40 yards downfield. Basically, he's a knight from my college football mascot post. Ridiculousness.
4. Christian Okoye - The Nigerian Nightmare was some sort of insane video game creation where he was basically Jim Brown at his peak playing against high school kids. Players would literally bounce off of him and roll out of bounds on the OTHER sideline. So according to the physics of the game, trying and failing to tackle Okoye would result in people flying 30 yards. Is that even possible? The only sure way to tackle him is to run behind him and dive. The back of his knees are his achilles' heel.
3. Derrick Thomas - Basically LT, only (I think) slightly faster, DT could make extra points impossible to make.. which is very awesome. Faster than any offensive player or any other player on the field, it's not uncommon for DT to dive, miss and STILL make a tackle for loss. Oh, and tackling punters before they've kicked goes without saying. It's lucky that the Chiefs suck other than DT and Okoye, because they have some serious man amongst boy status going on with those two.
2. QB Eagles - So since Randall Cunningham played in the short-lived NFL rival USFL, he was not in the NFLPA at the time Tecmo Super Bowl was made, and so his likeness couldn't be licensed out by the league. Therefore, he became known as QB Eagles, a cybernetic killing machine who would result in everyone overrating Michael Vick 15 years down the road. Faster than everyone, with the ability to throw the ball 80 yards in the air, I know people who have won games 28-0 by running one offensive play for an entire quarter by just running around with QB Eagles until the quarter was basically over, and then scoring. It's too bad his team wasn't any good, bc QB Eagles was basically Robocop.
1. Bo Jackson. Sadly for Bo he split the rushing portion of the Raiders playbook with Marcus Allen, so he really only has two running plays. Even with the defense having the ability to coin clip w/in picking Bo's play every time, he's good enough that he can SCORE ON A PICKED PLAY. If you don't understand the significance of this.. get off here and go play some Tecmo Super Bowl. He's got Okoye's power with Sanders' speed and an outrageous ability to pull away from anyone on the game. He might be the best player on any sports video game ever. We had a no Raiders rule.. with good reason.

Honorable mentions: Thurman Thomas, Howie Long, Bruce Smith, Ronnie Lott, Barry Sanders


R.B. Which state likes white "athletes" more, Wisconsin or Massachusetts, discuss.
Ugh. It's not even that loving white athletes is ALL that bad (I mean, it's bad), it's just that underlying the whole thing is a vague racism and sense of exclusion that bothers me. Like, if you don't like an athlete, just don't like them, regardless of their race. But these two spots seem to be especially bad about it. Know who the most popular Packer is? The guy who gets the loudest cheer? Greg Jennings? BJ Raji? Jermichael Finley? James Starks? Nope. John freaking Kuhn. White fullback.. complete interchangable part. HE'S ONE OF US!!! CLAY MATTHEWS LOOKS LIKE THOR!!! Settle down, Wisconsinites. Don't stand up too fast or it could throw your blood pressure into a frenzy. Have you taken a look at UW sports lately? It's 2011.. they are making an active effort to be as ridiculously white as humanly possible. It's like Adolf Rupp is coaching UW Basketball.. every game vs. Michigan State or Ohio State looks like "Glory Road". It's 2011, cut it out, Badger-dom. But there is one fan base that matches the land of rubbing thighs and whole milk for enthusiasm for the caucasian athlete - Bawstun. Welker and Brady and Pedroia and Ellsbury and Papelbon and all the Bruins (who miraculously have American players?) have turned Beantown into a refuge for racist sports fans. Everyone's favorite Celtic? Brian Scalabrine - the 12th man. Big. Red. Asshole. Sounds about right. FAWKIN BEANTOWN HAS FAWKIN WELKAH AND PEDROIAH AND THEY ARE US!!!! I FAWKIN COULDA GROWN UP WITH THOSE GUYS!!!! FAWK NEW YAHHHK!! Larry Bird + Welker/Brady + Pedroia. Ugh. And the diptard known as Bill Simmons only makes it worse. I would rather stab myself in the eye than subject myself to blue collar Bahstun fandom. Here's how ridiculous Boston is: Red Sox players were revealed to have been drinking beer and eating chicken and people acted like it was the story of the century. IT'S BASEBALL!!!! Every baseball player ever is a large 17 year old Peter Pan manchild. It is the single most infantile profession of all time. We're talking about grown men who play videogames and play elementary school pranks on each other. So I'm going to make a ruling on this one. Massachusetts is worse, because they know or should know better. Wisconsin is the kind of racist where they don't know any non-white people so they are just kind of distrustful of anyone they don't know. Massachusetts is the kind of racist where they know people who aren't white... and don't want them coming near their sister. One's worse. You know which one.


*****SPOILER ALERT************
IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHEED BREAKING BAD STOP READING!!! CONSIDER YOURSELF WARNED

J.C. Seeing as we now know that there are only 16 episodes left of Breaking Bad, how do think the series will end? Will Walt end up in jail, six feet under, or unscathed? Will Walt's family and Jesse Pinkman survive? Seeing as Walt's hang-ups with killing/harming others seem to be less of an issue, will any of these people die at his hands? What of the baggage with Pinkman will come back into the picture (i.e. watching his girlfriend choke to death, poisoning Brock)? Fallout from murdering Gus? Please do not feel limited to my inquiries, and take this wherever you see fit.
AMC and Gilligan have said that there are 16 episodes of Breaking Bad remaining.. rumor has it that they will be split into two short seasons (ugh) so we'll get a conclusion in 2013 most likely. With that being said, Breaking Bad has shown a willingness to take the show in unforeseen an interesting directions time and time again and I'm really looking forward to the ride.. but here's my prediction. With Walt unencumbered from Gus but also relatively broke (Skyler gave all of his stash to Beneke), his ego is going to lead him to ramp up cooking again, with Hisenberg popping up bigtime. We know that Hank is obsessed with Hisenberg, and was extremely close to cracking Gus' operation at the close of last season. At the same time, Walt is going to draw the ire of the Cartel (and already has..) especially if he ramps production back up. He's also betrayed Jesse, who has shown a serious temper and willingness to follow through as well as a growing proficiency. Let's not forget that Mike is out there in the wilderness recovering from injuries sustained in Mexico. So here's how I see the series closing: Walt, using the expertise gleaned from working with Gus for so long, becomes a major player in the regional heroin scene. Hank closes in on Hisenberg and so does the cartel. Meanwhile, Mike is making plans for revenge, and reveals to Jesse some of the shady shit that Walt's been up to. The series finale involves a shoot-out between the DEA and Cartel near the warehouse or whatever Hisenberg is using, while Mike and Jesse seek out Walt for revenge. Meanwhile, Walt's cancer is back in a serious way. I think Walt's family lives, but the series closes with Walt and Walt's organization being destroyed by all these outside forces, and basically everyone other than Walt's family being killed in the resulting bloodbath. Very Scarface-esque.



Well folks, there's the mailbag II. Send questions. I'm going to start keeping a file of them and doing mailbags more often.. but shorter. I gave myself carpel-tunnel typing this beheamoth.

The 2011 NCAA Football Mascot Challenge

So while in Nashville for a bachelor party this past weekend and attending a football game where some sort of bird of prey appeared to attempt to intercept a long field goal in mid-flight, my hungover compatriots and myself launched into a conversation concerning the effectiveness of actual mascots in an NCAA football game. This is an important topic that needs to be expanded upon, and what better place than here, on these esteemed virtual pages?

First, let's set up the rules. Here's the scenario: a college team gets to use their literal mascot for one play per quarter. By literal mascot, I mean not whatever wears a suit on the sideline, but what their mascot literally is. I.e., the Ohio State Buckeyes would get to use a buckeye, the nut, rather than Brutus, the hulking quasi-creepy buckeye-headed weirdo. The Miami Hurricanes get to play one play per quarter 10 on 11 in a Hurricane, but they get the wind. The Alabama Crimson Tide play one play per quarter 10 on 11 in a flood, and so forth. The team gets to use what the mascot actually is, not what they choose to throw in a creepy suit and/or embroider on "official" gear. While most mascots are just pluralized forms of singular objects clearly inferring that they are a group of said items, some mascots actually ARE plural, inferring that each member of the team is actually a group of something. So for the Nevada and NC State Wolfpack, they actually get to have a pack of wolves as their mascot.. up to 11. Theoretically, those two teams could line up with 11 wolves in place of their defense. Or 9 wolves and 2 humans, etc. Additionally, the mascots get to use any abilities or weaponry that naturally come with WHAT they are. I.e., a tiger is able to maul or pounce on someone, warriors get their traditional weapons.. a pirate comes with traditional pirate gear, etc. This being said, the mascots are still bound by the rules of the game. So while a bear or lion may be able to maul and kill a quarterback during the sack, if they hit the quarterback late or eat the quarterback after he's down, those would be penalized. Finally, all mascots, regardless of their beast status, must lineup onsides and wait for the ball to be snapped. With that being said, let's rank the top 10 (.. and bottom 5) FBS football mascots. This ranking is determining which teams would be most helped by the addition of their mascot, and which mascots would be most effective at the game of football. Here goes the dumbest thing ever to be attempted on this blog.

TOP 10

10. Cavaliers (University of Virginia)
Most people believe that Cavaliers are simply pirates by a fancier name. This is not the case. A cavalier in fact was a 17th Century cavalryman and Royalist in the English civil war. Being on horseback and armed with a sword and muzzle loading single shot weapon, they basically hold a man's life in their hands. Cavaliers were reputed for all manner of violence, and could potentially be quite effective on the defensive side of the ball. I'd say the ideal position for a Cavalier would be middle linebacker. Their mobility on horseback would allow for sideline to sideline coverage and their complement of weaponry would allow for effective stopping power. Pros: Armed, mounted, angry, military training. Cons: English (ever seen an English football player? (I mean actual football, smartass)), small (it was the 17th Century, after all), concerned with feats of bravado and chivalry over team play, 450 year old firearms weren't exactly "accurate".

9b. Trojans (USC, Troy)
A trojan warrior would have been a hoplite.. an armored infantryman armed with a short sword, long spear, heavy wooden shield and wearing a helmet, breastplate and shinguards. Hoplite battle was conducted by massing into lines and attempting to break opposing lines by pushing opposing lines until their morale broke and slaughter could commence. This description is not unlike B1G 10 football. Ideally, a Trojan would line up on the defensive line, where his armor, shield and weaponry would allow him to wreck maximum havoc on the offense. Pros: Armed, armored, military training, some acclimation towards using leverage and "field position". Cons: Being from thousands of years ago, they probably weigh 130 lbs and would get absolutely steamrolled, having weapons made of iron, it's uncertain whether said weaponry would be effective against a modern football player.

9b. Spartans (Michigan State, San Jose State)
Insert description of hoplites above, only consider another 500 years of military and technological advances and insert elite navy seal-esque training. Basically, a Spartan was trained for war for the entirety of his life.. bred for it even. Spartan armies numbering in the hundreds regularly routed armies that outnumbered them 5 or 6 to one. So basically everything that's good about a Trojan is good about a Spartan, only more so. Death in battle is the highest honor a Spartan warrior could achieve. Pros: armed, armored, determined, vast amounts of military training, familiarity with pushing and shoving, skilled at armed combat. Cons: probably completely psychotic from a life of brutal "lessons" and institutionalized torture and abuse, at least 2400 year old technology, 2400 year old genetics and nutrition = probably tiny.

8. Seminoles/Fighting Illini/Utes/Chippewas (Florida State, Illinois, Utah, Central Michigan)
I'm just going to group all native American based mascots into one group here. It took basically 400 years for a vastly technologically and numerically superior group (Europeans) to defeat native Americans to the point that they no longer posed a "threat" despite having advances in weapons, tactics, science and having a massive disease outbreak on their side. (hold discussions over what "threat" they may have posed on your own time) That should tell you all you need to know of their military prowess. Effective warriors, survivors and hunters, when armed with firearms and mounted on horseback Native American warriors were a deadly fighting force. Due to the mobility horseback allows, ideally suited for safety or linebacker in a zone coverage scheme, to allow for their advantages in weaponry over regular football players to hold true. Pros: skilled horsemen, trained in warfare and hunting techniques. Cons: undersized, unfamiliar with the game and concepts involved, may play for blood and cost your team penalty yards.

7. Large Herd animals (Texas - Longhorns, South Florida & Buffalo - Bulls, Colorado - Buffalos, Broncos - Boise St, Western Michigan) I took the slightly cop-out approach on this list of grouping together similar mascots in order to generally describe the class or type. So sue me. Large, aggressive herd animals would be virtually unstoppable in the trenches, but their complete lack of any kind of "reason" or ability to distinguish between friend and foe pretty much relegates them to the offensive line. A Buffalo/Bull/Longhorn/Bronco would basically be the best run blocking guard in the history of run blocking guards. A simple run behind a 2000 lb creature would basically guarantee a touchdown, and 4 automatic TDs a game will go a long way towards winning your game. Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee they'll run in the right direction or lead you all the way to the end zone, so there's that to consider. Pros: massive, powerful, angry. Cons: inability to comprehend rules of the sport or distinguish between friend and foe.

6. Knights (UCF, Army - Black Knights, Rutgers - Scarlet Knights)
Knights combine the advantages of being on horseback with being covered from head to toe in steel plate while wielding weapons that were designed to cleave through metal plate, let alone football pads. A fully armorered knight and mount could weigh well over 2000 pounds, and would prove to be completely unstoppable on the football field. There are a number of positions where a knight would excell.. offensive line would be obvious, as well as a linebacker, defensive back or ballcarrier. The advantage of combining an armored beast with an armored warrior means they'd pretty much have their run of the field. I'd say an ideal spot for a knight would be outside linebacker rushing off the edge or offensive guard runblocking straight ahead. Also probably underrated as a safety, the horse's closing speed would be great for covering for teammate's mistakes, and the broadsword would help ensure they don't happen again. Pros: armed, armored, trained, used to charging lines of men. Cons: chivalrous, undersized, all that armor can be unwieldy.

5. Wolfpack (Nevada, NC State)
A wolf in and of itself is pretty badass, but not as badass individually as the mascots above. Wolves are basically big, mean dogs.. they average about 80 lbs, hunt in packs, and are extremely fast, especially over distance. Their size makes them relatively ineffective individually (a wolf, even a large wolf, isn't particularly scary to a 200+ lb man wearing football pads), but in a group of 3-4? Say a defensive backfield? A wolfpack would have unparalleled full field coverage and the ability to blanket an offense. This is the one mascot that is, by very definition, plural, and so these teams get the advantage of having more than one of their featured mascot on their team. So a couple of wolves would really help a squad on the defensive side of the ball. A wolf hunting is not completely unlike a defender tackling.. so serious skill overlap here. Pros: fast, hunt in packs, alpha predators used to taking down larger prey. Cons: undersized, susceptible to play fakes, unable to grasp rules and concepts of the game, overly aggressive.

4. Bears (UCLA - Bruins, Baylor - Bears, Cal - Golden Bears)
So bears are bears, right? They are giant raccoons basically. Powerful, fast (even the largest bears can outsprint humans in short distances), more or less unstoppable and massive, bears are basically your prototypical defensive linemen. Fun little known fact: over short distances, bears are nearly as fast as Tigers and Lions. Yeah, think about that for a second. Would you rather have a giant human being who tops out at 350 lbs and benches 500 or so pounds or a bear who tops out at 1,000 lbs, can run a 3.5 40 and if he could be trained to bench could probably bench 900+ lbs? Yeah, I thought so. So for one play per quarter, those teams lucky enough to have a bear as a mascot would have an amazing version of Ndamukong Suh, utterly unblockable and the ultimate disruptive force on the defensive line. Bears are rather trainable as far as wild beasts go, and could surely be trained to attack a certain color or design, particularly if honey or peanut butter was offered as a reward. So basically, teams lucky enough to have a bear would have the benefit of the Tecmo Super Bowl "Jerry Ball trick" and be unable to run a play. Pros: massive, powerful, aggressive, unblockable. Cons: wild beast, not familiar or able to become familiar with the rules, might rampage and kill 10+, easily bribed with high calorie or sweet foods.

3. Birds of Prey (Falcons - BGSU, Air Force, Eagles/Golden Eagles - Eastern Michigan, Southern Miss, Redhawks - Miami University)
Note: Despite popular conception and depiction, "Jayhawks" are not birds, rather, "Jayhawker" was a term for pro-free state militias in the 1850's during "Bleeding Kansas" and generally became applied to Kansas residents in general. Birds may not be the most imposing creatures on the planet (although an Eagle with an 8 foot wingspan diving at your face would be really scary), but closer examination reveals a skill-set ideally suited for the game of football, and here's why: birds that are agile enough in flight to catch other birds could certainly be trained to catch a football. Hence, we're talking about utterly unstoppable wide receivers, kick/punt returners and the secret weapon: blocking field goals. Line up a falcon at wide receiver and give your team 4 free touchdowns. The difficult part of course would be training the bird to fly over the end zone line before going out of bounds, but falcons at least are capable of being trained. The opposing team would have no recourse to this aerial assault unless they possessed their own birds or a mascot with firearms. Yes, only another mascot can possibly counter this mascot. That's the kind of thing that gets you in the top 3. Pros: can fly to impressive heights at blinding speed, can intercept objects (read: a football) mid-flight. Cons: unable to comprehend rules, the vastness of their natural range means they'd be susceptible to going out of bounds and wasting their play.

2. Tigers (Auburn, LSU, Clemson, Missouri, Memphis)
A male tiger can weigh in excess of 600 lbs, run at nearly 40 miles an hour, and kill a fully grown human with one strike. You may look at a Tiger and see a fearsome creature, indeed, one of the only that hunts man for sport. I look at a Tiger and see the most fearsome pass rusher imaginable. DeMarcus Ware on wild animal rage and every steroid you've ever heard of. Stronger, faster, quicker and deadlier than any human, a Tiger rushing off the edge would decimate an opposing passing attack.. likely resulting in serious injury from a single play. Film of a tiger hunting is virtually indistinguishable from defensive football play, a tiger would be an absolute natural at OLB or DE. Quick enough to get around the edge, fast enough to close, powerful enough to overwhelm any blocker. I think Bill Parcells just creamed the shorts he has pulled up over his FUPA. Pros: strong, big, fast, aggressive, skill set that fits well with defensive play. Cons: deadly, aggressive, inability to comprehend rules, may hurt own teammates.

1. Dragons (UAB)
Note: follow up research has revealed that UAB are actually the "Blazers", but since no one knows what that means and I thought they were dragons and I want to write about dragons, I'm going to proceed anyway. So a dragon is, of course, a mythological beast that never actually existed. However, as commonly depicted, a dragon is a gigantic beast (often depicted as able to consume horses more or less whole) capable of flight, with armored scales and capable of breathing fire. So let's get this straight: a giant reptile that breathes fire, is very aggressive and is capable of stomping out groupe of humans with little to no effort? Um.. sounds like the most badass mascot ever. A dragon could play defense 1 on 11 and prevail. Also, this is the single mascot that can pretty much own every other mascot with very little effort. Have you seen that shitty McConaughey/Bale movie? Yeah.. dragons are basically unstoppable. That's how you earn the top spot. Pros: huge, aggressive, fire breathing, capable of flight. Cons: incapable of learning rules and team play, may eat everyone in the stadium or start a firestorm that destroys the stadium. Caution required.

The Bottom 5
This inglorious list is a group of schools that for a littany of reasons likely lost to history chose to name their sports teams after a bunch of nonsensical, unintimidating items. Sadly for them, when the contest of the mascots opens up, they will find themselves at a severe disadvantage. To keep it fair, I'm going to stick to the mascots that are actually quantifiable things. I.e., sorry North Texas, but no one knows what the "mean green" is/means. This goes for you too, Stanford. Your mascot is nonsense.. so you don't count.


5. Ducks (Oregon)
A duck? Really? The meanest duck in the world gives no quantifiable advantage to a football team. They quack and waddle around. They fly, but not particularly gracefully. Their purpose seems to be obnoxious and inspire clown ass cartoon characters. Needless to say, lining up a duck in lieu of a football player puts your team at a serious disadvantage.

4. Cardinals (Louisville, Ball State)
Have you ever seen a cardinal? What do they weigh? 3 ounces? Unlike Ducks, they are at least small flyers, but a songbird tweeting around and looking handsome isn't intimidating anyone or helping anyone in any way. I can think of one thing they could do to help the team: sacrifice their life by flying directly into the path of a hail-mary pass or field goal. So kudos, Cards, in death you could potentially positively impact the outcome of a football game.

3. Horned Frogs (TCU)
A horned frog is a little toad with some horns/thorny protusions sticking out of it. That's it. It's not big, it's not mean, it's not even poisonous. Its defense is: get this: standing still to avoid detection. Certain species can also secrete blood from its tear ducts. Man, the Tigers might want to be careful, there's a 3 ounce toad hopping around. If your mascot can be inadvertantly crushed by an opponent, you know your mascot just isn't cutting it. Your only hope, TCU, is that you run into an opponent with an amphibian phobia.

2. Buckeyes
A buckeye is a tree (in the Chestnut family) that has a nut that's round and poisonous. And also about the size of a quarter. But it's not poisonous in the "drop dead" way. It's poisonous in the "go to the hospital and get your stomach pumped 15 hours later" way. Basically, the only way a buckeye could be helpful is with a well-aimed throw to the eye or by forcing an opponent to eat one, which would maybe make his stomach hurt by the second half. Great mascot, OSU.

1. Orange
Syracuse was once the Orangemen, who historically were supporters of William of Orange, who took the English throne in 1688 and became William III. Well, some dumbass somewhere decided that was offensive, and they have since become simply the orange. Yes, an orange. A fruit, approximately baseball sized, and rather tasty. Regardless of its agricultural worth, its football worth is approximately 1 X 0. Maybe an opponent could step on an orange and slip. That could help. If your mascot is as likely to nourish your opponent as destroy it, you have the worst mascot.

Honorable mention: Hoosiers/Sooners/Tar Heels/Jayhawks/Aggies and every other mascot that simply represents a regular person.

Well, there's your mascot challenge folks. Feel free to disagree, but I don't know how you could.

2011: The Year in Film: "In Time" Review

In Time When done properly, Science Fiction can be a powerful tool with which to comment on the real world. When done through allegory and the symbolism of a simplified and more extreme world, fantastical fiction can paint injustice and happenstance in our own world in a clarified and glaring light. The sci fi subgenre of the dystopian world does this as well as any. In the tradition of Orwell's 1984, a glimpse of a nightmarish future can comment on current affairs better than the vast majority of more "realistic" fiction. Writer/director Andrew Niccol is no stranger to this tradition, having made the very underrated "Gattaca" (check it out if you haven't seen it) and also written "The Truman Show". Into this tradition steps "In Time", a film that seeks to comment on discrepancies in wealth, society's obsession with youth and humanity's obsession with immortality through the lens of a dystopian future.

So how is it, right? Well, first, the concept is a great one. In the near future (they never say exactly when, but clearly this has been going on for a while), through genetic engineering, everyone lives to 25, and from that point gets 1 year to live. "Time" has replaced money as the currency of choice, and while rich people live more or less forever, the poor scrap for minutes and hours, often dying extremely young. The population is separated into "zones" that are distinguished by their relative wealth or poverty, only of course, "wealth" is actually time. Good guy Will (Timberlake) who slaves away in a dead end job just to make it from day-to-day has a chance encounter with a drunken rich man who's decided he wants out, and chances onto a whole lot of extra "time". This catches the attention of the "time police" who are out to make sure that the system stays stable and time stays in the right hands. Will decides to take matters into his own hands and challenge the system, butting up against some very powerful people.



The concept allows for the cast to all be young and beautiful. Since no one ages past 25, all adults look exactly the same age, whether they're 28 or 105. As a result, the cast is all more or less the same age, and this results in some interesting interactions. The cast is solid, featuring lots of young, pretty people, and the film is very sleek and stylized, with everything shaped in some sort of neo classical high tech retro vibe. (If that makes sense) The settings and concepts and designs are reminiscent of other dystopian works, from Equilibrium and The Hunger Games series to 1984.

Timberlake can actually carry a flick, which I wasn't sure about, so good for him. He's strong but not great in the lead role, which is more or less your typical action hero role, strong guy of few words but heart of gold kind of thing. Olivia Wilde plays Timberlake's mother and is strong in her limited role. Cillian Murphy plays the "time keeper" who becomes obsessed with bringing fugitive Will to justice. Amanda Seyfried plays a wealthy heiress/hostage turned comrade in arms and Vincent (Pete from Mad Men) Kartheiser plays a wealthy magnate and Seyfried's father. Murphy is a highlight, for sure, and really jumps into his role with a lot of enthusiasm.

This film is good, but only good. The acting is solid, and I love the premise, but after a strong start it sort of devolves into your standard action flick. Maybe I'm doing the flick a disservice by expecting more than an action chase flick, but coming from the strong tradition of science fiction social commentary, I was hoping for less screeching tires and more thoughtful observation. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it would have been fun to see them do more with the premise. In addition, some of the characters could have used some more characterization and at a certain point the allegory simply became too heavy handed. I enjoyed it, had a good time, and it certainly looks great, including all the pretty people, but it could have been much more.

Good (and certainly a lot of fun), but not great. 6.8/10.

The State of Sports (SoS) 2011.

So, sports. People love 'em.. literally can't get enough. Where religion once was the opiate of the masses, the twin harbingers of mouth breathing: big advertising and mass media have turned sports into black tar heroin. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy sports, a lot, but the whole thing lacks perspective.. and it's sort of ruining the whole enterprise for me. Let's examine what's going on here.

First, ESPN brought 24/7 sports coverage to the world.. which is about 21 more hours than any sport or sports deserve. Second, coming along with this 24/7 coverage was a need to fill ALL of those hours.. and it's much easier to fill hours upon hours of down time if you're taking everything DEATHLY SERIOUS. The quest for a championship, something that once held some regional significance, but mostly as a source of pride and bragging rights, now is on a level with religion or politics or national identity as an identifying source of meaning for far too many people. Sports are games. They're played by little kids and grown men alike, and meant to be fun first and foremost. By becoming (like everything else), massively financed and marketed so that big time college and professional sports are multi-billion dollar industries, sports managed to achieve some gravitas that isn't inherent or even appropriate to what they actually are. By pulling an identity from a group of people that literally consider you a consumer or a dollar sign or signs, you're dealing with a totally one-ended relationship. You (as a fan) will never get anything other than manufactured fulfillment out of all of your time, effort and energy. I'm wholly comfortable with that and have come to terms with the implications, but the reality is that in a one-sided relationship, in order to feel that you're getting some sort of payoff for your passion, you've got to become more intense yourself in order to mask the complete lack of any reciprocity. So that's why we are where we are: where athletes/coaches who leave or screw up or are perceived to cost a team _________, are treated like actual bad people. See: Bartman, Steve. Buckner, Bill. Norwood, Scott. (that one hurt to type) Hamby, Ryan. (a college kid) And that's fine, to a certain extent.. but the key word is perspective. No one should ever get a death threat or have to move or fear for their safety from a game. Ever.

On another level, everything has taken on a preposterous sense of importance. There's no humor to anything.. everything is treated as if it's life or death. Are we playing football or in Iraq? Let's be real. When Jim Schwartz and Jim Harbough nearly came to blows at the conclusion of the Lions/49ers game last weekend you'd have thought President Obama swung at David Cameron. They're football coaches guys, come on. Football is basically one long legal fight where people try to run from other people who openly want to hurt them. Two coaches almost fought after the game? How is that an indictment of anything, anywhere? They're men, not stoic heroes. Boston Red Sox pitchers may or may not have drank beer, eaten fried chicken (?) and played video games during games that they weren't playing in. From the media reaction, you'd have thought they were in the back room shooting heroin and running a dogfighting ring. They're professional baseball players in their 20's and early 30's. They aren't CEOs. This is baseball.. players used to smoke in the dugout. Babe Ruth ate 6 hot dogs a game, Doc Ellis threw a no-hitter on LSD, David Wells threw a perfect game with a "raging hangover" (his words). Unless they're pitching that game, who cares what they're doing? What are they supposed to be doing? Icing their arms and charting pitches on their day off? It's a game.. and most of all, it's their job. A game that too many people have taken far too seriously for far too long. YOU taking it seriously doesn't make it serious. No matter how many blogs you read, talking heads you listen to or games you attend, no one on that field will ever care what you think or feel. Ever. And the sooner you realize that, the more enjoyment you'll get from the whole thing. I like sports, I like movies, I like TV, I like music.. none of those things define me and I know damn well that no one involved in any of those things cares one bit about me. Am I going about it the right way? I don't know.. but I'd rather be me than screaming "Who Dey" and blind drunk after the Bengals give false hope every few years.

Stop taking it so seriously, world... you're coming pretty damn close to ruining the whole thing. ESPN is a giant turd in the punch bowl of life. Sports are fun.. please remember that.

2011: The Year in Film: "Ides of March" Review

The Ides of March So, since the last time we spoke, I went ahead and turned 28.. and I'm strangely comfortable with that. Here's why: when you're 28 you're unquestionably an adult.. hopefully with your shit together. But on the other hand, you're still young enough that you can do things like... sleep on a friend's couch all weekend and get black-out drunk without bringing too much of society's ire down on you. You're still a young person... but you have money. Unless you did dumb things like "buy a house", "make babies" or the like, that is.

Based on a play, this movie was all over the local Cincinnati news in early 2011.. any conversation with a female resulted in a story of seeing Gosling or Clooney at some bar or hotel. From what I could tell, they shot approx. 80% of it in the greater Cincinnati area.. so, go Cinci. Oh, and Miami U gets to be featured in the first 5 minutes.. so that's legit. As I mentioned earlier, this one is based on a play, and you can definitely tell.. there are plenty of monologues and intimate settings with two or three people in a small room. Clooney wrote, directed, and stars in this one, and brought together an absolutely stacked cast... one could say it absolutely pays to be as well-liked and connected as Clooney is. Ryan Gosling, Paul Giamatti, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jeffrey Wright and Marisa Tomei join Clooney in this drama about an ambitious and idealistic governor who seeks to gain the Democratic Presidential nomination.

The American political process is often referred to as a "sausage factory".. i.e., something that you don't really want to know how it's made because it's complicated, disgusting, and it's generally better to just enjoy and marvel at the final product rather than delve into the backroom promises, handshakes, compromises and devil's bargains that go into the finished product. Let's just say that there's a reason all of these bills are thousands of pages long: you do not want to know what's in there.. because it's mostly ridiculous items thrown into unrelated bills in order to pander to some congressman from Wyoming or Montana or god knows where. Most of you know this, or I hope you do. Well, actually getting elected to national office is no different. By the time a candidate makes it through a year of Primary battles and a general election, there have been so many compromises, backroom deals and promises that what once was the candidate's message has been utterly gutted by the realities of what it actually takes to get elected. The Primary cycle is especially messy.. with each state having differing rules and delegates and what not.

So in the week or so leading up to the Ohio Democratic Primary (which is on March 15, hence the title) in a world where Barack Obama evidently doesn't exist, Pennsylvania Governor Mike Morris, a charming, idealistic politician with some radical ideas on how to move the nation forward finds himself locked in a tough and increasingly dirty Primary battle. Idealistic young media man Stephen Meyers (Gosling), a rising star in the political scene, works on Morris' campaign, where duplicitous tactics and a campaign that's becoming more and more complex really reveal how on the campaign trail idealism takes a back seat to realism as the realities of what it takes to get elected sets in. Scandal, backstabbing and compromise take place behind closed doors as Political staffers and opportunistic politicians seek to gain a seat at the table. Power corrupts is a cliche.. but there's a lot of truth to it.. and around a Presidential hopeful, there's a lot of power to go around. People are lobbying for Cabinet spots, campaign workers are lobbying for what they hope will be high-profile and lucrative jobs in the future administration, and the Candidate himself is hearing a lot of different things from a lot of different people. In short, it's virtually impossible for someone to emerge from the long, messy process without some bruising and scuffing. This is a cynical, bleak film that says a lot about what the American Political Process is actually about. The business of winning has very little to do with the business of governing, and those best equipped to win are almost never those most equipped to rule.



All of that being said, this is a wonderfully done film. It looks great, and all of the actors involved bring their "A" game. Clooney is magnetic on screen, as he almost always is, and the film's weakest stretch comes during the 30 minutes or so that he's largely absent from the scene. Giamatti and Hoffman, are, as always, great. These are two of the top 5 character actors in all of Hollywood and they are both utterly believable and wonderfully bleak as opposing campaign managers, trying to stay ahead of their competition. Gosling, as the young, wide-eyed up and comer, makes a transformation throughout the film from idealist to cynic when the sausage maker is revealed to him in all its glory.. and he does a great job with a role that's written for the stage.. so there are lots of solitary moments and the role requires an emotional complexity that most young actors are incapable of. Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood are strong as an NYT reporter and young intern, respectfully. Across the board, the acting is the strength of this film.. and you'd expect nothing less from an accomplished actor behind the camera.

All in all, while the performances are strong and the film really strives to reveal what happens behind the scenes at a major campaign (and Clooney would know), the plot at a point takes a leap for the somewhat ridiculous. I understand that scandals absolutely happen and the truth is likely shocking... but the places that this film goes seem needlessly over the top. That being said, as a parable of sorts and commentary on the realities of the American Political process.. absolutely worthwhile. Great, great performances by some of the strongest actors working today.

7.5/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "50/50" Review

So I don't know if there's any legitimacy to this theory of mine or not, but I just came up with it tonight, so hear me out. My theory, simply, is that there are two kinds of narratives. There are "stories", i.e., things that actually happened or feel like they did, and there are "tales", i.e., something more based in allegory, metaphor, legend, archetype or the like. And one's not necessarily better than the other.. each narrative technique has a time and a place, and each can be damn effective when done well. This flick is a "story", plain and simple. TV producer and friend to Seth Rogen Will Reiser wrote the screenplay based on his own experience with rare spinal cancer and this flick has the feel of authenticity to it. Not the sort of authenticity where it's like "this is what cancer is like"... rather, the sort of authenticity where you know this is what HIS cancer WAS like. And there's something powerful about that. Is it THE definitive film on grief and illness and coping? Absolutely not.. but what it is is a very human and intimate look into the mind, experience, reactions and emotions of one very small group of people. So based on that, on with the review.

So Adam is a young man in Seattle Washington, all is seemingly well with his world. He's got a beautiful girlfriend who's keeping stuff at his place.. he has an entertaining friend, an interesting job, etc., etc. Lingering back pain drives him to the Dr., where an MRI reveals a large mass that turns out to be a malignant tumor. World. Rocked. Needless to say, the diagnosis of a rare and serious form of cancer turns his world upside down. He undergoes chemotherapy, sees a therapist at the hospital, and struggles to deal with the seriousness of what the diagnosis actually means.

This is an odd little film. It feels like an indie movie + Seth Rogen and Bryce Dallas Howard, but it's not. It's sad and melancholy and sweet and funny and depressing and uplifting in turns. I laughed out loud more than once and teared up more than once.. not your everyday combination. This is an intimate film.. 90% of which takes place either in a hospital or either Adam or Kyle (Rogen's) places and has about 8 characters that actually matter.

As a quick aside, I don't quite know what to make of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as an actor. He clearly displays fine range and can be very, very good in spots. He has a great screen presence and more than adequate emotional range. At the same time, however, and I don't know if this is due to his choice of roles or what, but he's always playing these melancholy, excessively quirky straight laced indie dudes. Is that him in real life? Even in Inception he played a sort of frumpy straight-laced grump. There's no real difference so to speak of between his character here and his character in "500 Days of Summer".

With that being said, this is a film that will succeed or fail based entirely on the strength of its cast. Joseph Gordon Levitt is very good approaching perfect in this role. He basically effortless displays the emotional and physical roller coaster that is dealing with a life-threatening illness. There are two scenes in particular, the night before and day of a major operation, that are poignant, touching, raw and powerful. I can take or leave Seth Rogen most of the time.. but his schtick works in this one. He's the jokester, gross pig of a best friend who also has an underlying sensitivity and humanity to him.. and it works, very well. Bryce Dallas Howard plays Rachael, Adam's girlfriend who turns out to be unable to handle the intensity of the whole cancer thing. She's an awful person and reminds me of certain characters from my past. You know, selfish and emotionally stunted and needy. That being said, she's extremely beautiful. Stunning even. Anna Kendrick plays Katherine, Adam's young therapist at the hospital, who is sweet and awkward and utterly believable. Phillip Baker Hall plays a patient at Adam's chemotherapy sessions who develops a bond and is very warm and believable as an elderly cancer patient. Angelica Houston plays Adam's mother.. and does a lot more with her role than she by rights should. She comes off as convincing and loving and completely authentic.


This is a very good film. It's genuinely touching while also quite funny. The direction is understated and the actors are given plenty of room with which to work. You really get the impression that these are people with a wide range of emotions and motivations rather than a stock set of characteristics that are generally written into comedies of all stripes. As I mentioned above.. I laughed, I teared up, I cared. I'm about 99% sure that's exactly what this flick set out to do.

8/10.

2011: The Year in Film: "Moneyball" Review

Moneyball Before we review this badboy, let's have a brief discussion about theater etiquette. Where did people learn that it's ok to carry on a full-volume conversation in a theater? It seems that theater behavior is pretty fundamental.. they remind you on the screen prior to the start of the movie for christ's sake. Like, how self-absorbed are you that you really aren't even whispering? What the hell? The most annoying thing people do (listen up, ladies) is ask questions mid-movie. Let me let you in on a little secret: ALL WILL BE REVEALED. Seriously, something fun about books, and movies, and TV shows is that they tend to explain things in time. I can guarantee one of two things: either the very thing you are asking will be explained, probably in short order, or the movie you're watching is full of holes and a piece of shit. Questions like "who's that?", "what's he doing", etc. are so incredibly stupid. If it isn't already painfully clear, either explicitly or through context, it's about to be made explicitly clear. If you're unable to interpret the clear signals given to you by people who tell stories for a living, either you're stupid or the movie you're watching is. Either way: DON'T ASK QUESTIONS DURING THE FUCKING MOVIE. It is getting to the point where I am considering bringing some sort of shank to the theater. A woman probably aged between 55 and 70 was seated directly behind me and asking pretty basic questions at full volume. Literally no effort to whisper whatsoever. If you don't know what baseball free-agency is.. 45 minutes into a movie that you paid and everyone else paid $10 to get into is probably not the time to familiarize yourself with an extremely elementary concept that would probably be best solved BEFORE SEEING A BASEBALL MOVIE. The whole concept of whatever that woman was up to is so damn stupid to me that it hurts my brain. But anyway, ON WITH THE REVIEW.

So "Moneyball" is based on a book of the same name by Michael Lewis that chronicled Billy Beane, the GM of the Oakland A's then and now, and his push of a computerized, sabermetric approach to building a major league baseball team. I love baseball, I love science, and I love statistics and the new sabermetric approach to baseball and sports in general, so I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't read the book, despite it being recommended to me literally 10+ times. However, I am familiar with the story and people involved, so I was excited to see this one. Bennett Miller, best known for directing "Capote" is at the helm, and Aaron Sorkin co-wrote the screenplay, adapting Lewis' book.

It is 2001, and the Oakland A's, fresh off a 100+ win season and disappointing playoff loss, find that they've lost their three best players (Jason Giambi, Johnny Damon and Jason Isringhausen) to free-agency and are facing the difficult prospect of rebuilding on a serious budget. At the time, the Oakland A's had a payroll of less than $40 million while the New York Yankees (among others) had a payroll of around $140 million. (In case you're curious, this situation has only become worse over time) Beane, frustrated at the situation he's facing, decides that a new approach is required to help his team compete. After meeting a young staffer for the Cleveland Indians (sad face) who is using an innovative computer program to evaluate talent and maximize value, Beane brings the staffer to Oakland as Assistant GM, and the two overhaul the team based on statistical analysis rather than "look" and "tools" and the traditional things valued by old-school baseball scouts.

I know, it sounds boring. But Aaron Sorkin wrote it... and he's an amazing, amazing screenwriter. Did you like "the Social Network"? Yeah, he did that. Among many, many other things. Sure, on the surface it's about baseball, but really this film is about science and rationality and change challenging tradition and the old guard. There was, and continues to be in some circles (cough, Joe Morgan, cough) substantial resistance and even hostility to the "moneyball" approach... but make no mistake, sabermetrics are now used to at least some extent by just about every baseball franchise and are spreading to other sports. Billy Beane and co. were first. By mixing in baseball action with drama and scenes fleshing out Billy Beane, the film manages to rise above its somewhat limited synopsis to become part biopic, part social commentary, part sports movie and part documentary.

Brad Pitt stars as Billy Beane.. and this flick would have succeeded or failed based just about entirely on his performance. He does not disappoint. His version of Beane is intense, standoffish and a whole lot of a prick, but also very likable. Considering that probably 1/3rd of the movie is Beane by himself or with one other person being intense, a strong Beane is an absolute requirement. Jonah Hill makes a foray into the serious as the fictional (his character is in fact a combination of a couple of different assistants to Beane) Peter Brand, a Yale-educated computer whiz who never played baseball at any level. Phillip Seymour Hoffman is virtually unrecognizable as the pudgy, priggish Manager of the A's who is skeptical of Beane's new approach. Chris "Andy from Parks and Rec" Pratt makes a foray into the serious as Moneyball wet dream exemplar Scott Hatteberg. Once I got over "holy shit, that's Andy!" mode, he was very good and brought an "aw schucks" charm to the role. The supporting players are all very good and believable, but make no mistake, this is Pitt's film.. and he more than rises to the challenge.



The screenplay is tight and brings, through the use of flashbacks, some context and depth to the proceedings so it's not just simply a straightforward telling of the A's 2002 season. The dialogue is crisp and often funny, the characters feel very human, and by framing the film as a contest between underdog outsiders vs. good old boy traditionalism, the film transcends sports and has a lot to say about society in general. I really liked this movie.. it's top 3 for the year.

8.5/10. See "Moneyball" if you like baseball, if you liked "The Social Network", or if you're in the mood to see something made for grownups and demonstrates the growing potential of film. If they can turn "Moneyball" and Bill James' sabermetrics into a movie, I'm excited to see what's coming.