Sweet, Sweet Fantasy, Baby: Falling from 15th to ... Hey—I won a playoff game!

I've actually been signing into my Yahoo account with the most frequency I've had since the NFL season. The NBA and NHL fantasy leagues I was in this year got updated with about a once-a-week frequency when football concluded, maybe once every two weeks at times when I was busy being, you know, employed. But now that I've got a little more time on my hands during this lull on the job front, I guess I'm allowed to dwell on how I'm spending my time online when not sending out the resumes.

Movie Review: A Serious Man

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. PILING ON THE RIGHT WAY — Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a college physics professor in the flat Minnesota suburbia of 1967. In addition to anonymous poison-pen letters being sent to the tenure committee just before his review, his wife is leaving him for his widower friend, his daughter is stealing money from him for a nose job while his son in turn steals that money from her for the pot he's smoking when he should be studying for his bar mitzvah, and his unemployed brother's sleeping on his couch. One of his neighbors is a gun-nut while another sunbathes in the nude. A student is trying to bribe him and blackmail him while the collections department from the Columbia Record Club is calling, and none of the three different rabbis he consults for guidance seems to offer him the answer he so desperately needs. If you're a fan for how the Coen Brothers turn human suffering into comedy, then A Serious Man comes fully-loaded.
   
2. A REAL CAST OF CHARACTER ACTORS — After finally taking home a Best Picture Oscar for No Country for Old Men, the Coens turn to a cast made up completely absent of any recognizable A-list talent (Richard Kind might be the "biggest" name if you don't count the cameo from Fyvush Finkel) in making the most autobiographical work of their career. The move works in emphasizing the setting, which is also bolstered by the cinematography of longtime collaborator Roger Deakins.
   
3. IT'S STILL DISTINCTLY A COEN BROTHERS MOVIE — Nobody does a series of comic catastrophes quite like the Coens. And while the comparison to the Book of Job is fairly obvious, A Serious Man really serves as one more example of the multiple levels the filmmaking brothers have always been capable of working on with scenes that are suspenseful or funny—or both at the same time.

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. KEEPING IN MIND WHAT I SAID ABOUT A SINGLE MAN, THEN A SERIOUS MAN WOULD BE THE FILM MADE BY THE JEWISH MAN, FOR THE JEWISH MAN — Oy vey. I suppose the heartiest laughs about 1960s suburban Jewishness will come from those who lived it. For the rest of us, the overload of references risks being overkill.
   
2. SOMETHING'S MISSING — In their best work, the Coens could at least get you to connect with their heroes. But A Serious Man leaves the audience feeling more strangely removed than usual, closer than usual to just being the overly gratuitous misanthropy their critics have always accused them of .
   
3. OH, THAT ENDING — I've tried, oh believe me, I've tried to like it. A part of me can see what the intended point might have been (maybe?), but even then, the final credits started rolling too soon and ultimately I'm left to dwell too much on the real absence of a resolution.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Isn't likely to change opinions one already has about the Coen Brothers, but it does breathe new life into Jefferson Airplane's "Somebody to Love."

NCAA Tournament Predictions: To care or not to care?

Again, I'm far from being a real die-hard about any collegiate sport. I mentioned this last year in that lone post I had for the month of March (I'm guessing that "climax to one story" involved me dumping my girlfriend, which I ended up doing in May—and then letting get dragged out until ... it wasn't that great of a story, I guess is the point). I'm not going to repeat myself, but I did wake up early this morning and while checking to see how I was doing in those other fantasy endeavors, I inevitably had to see if I could do better than Obama. I immediately realized how much I hated the idea of ending up with all four top seeds in my Final Four, and so this is my supposed version of "playing it safe." The title for my set of picks, by the way, refers to my all-time favorite NBA player and an odd page that came up when searching for an image of that goofy bastard for my avatar. Whatevs. I like it. Updates will be forthcoming, I assume, but I don't even know who I want to root for.

Another fantasy trophy would be sweet though.

Movie Review: Up

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. PIXAR STILL ENTERTAINS THE ADULTS JUST AS MUCH AS THE KIDS — There's always the time-tested elements that will be guaranteed to appeal to the children, and a story using thousands of balloons to pull an old man's house into the air is certainly no different. But the artistic way that the journey to Paradise Falls is presented feels distinctly modern, yet could appeal just as much to those who appreciate Chaplin as it would those who treasure Miyazaki. What's more, one powerfully effective interlude early in the film gives many of the images throughout added emotional weight, whatever age you are.
   
2. THAT MIGHT BE THE BEST SCENE PIXAR HAS EVER DONE — It was essentially impossible for me not to be moved by the incredibly tender way in which the entire story of a marriage is told in less than five minutes. This company's had plenty of other movies with plenty of other similar moments that amaze you at how animation could move you in unexpected ways, and that scene masterfully plugs the audience in by grabbing them right by their hearts. Only people without one could not be.
   
3. I ENDED UP BEING A SUCKER FOR THE TALKING DOGS — Sue me.

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. THE FAMILIAR SHAPE OF THE OLD MAN/YOUNG BOY DYNAMIC — Of course they're going to learn from one another, but the repetitive nature of the young cub scout that finds himself along for the ride, Russell (voiced by Jordan Nagai), really pushes the act to the brink of being unbearably irritating. The film's cantankerous hero, Carl (Ed Asner), also comes with some repetitive mannerisms, and the duo essentially stays within conventional expectations.
   
2. WHAT UNPREDICTABILITY THE FILM DOES OFFER HAS A HIT-OR-MISS QUALITY — Perhaps it's something of a testament to the makers of Up for trying a couple of different directions that offer their share of good and their share of bad, but ultimately the plot seems to be losing its momentum as what precisely Carl's aim is becomes less and less clear.
   
3. THE OVERALL EFFECT FELT MORE CALCULATED THAN NATURAL — The move get its point across well enough, even if the theme gets a little sappy by the conclusion. While I might regard the Toy Story series in regards that make it unreachable in comparison for any future animated film, Up is a nice enough daydream about the greatest adventure being right in front of us. It's just that ultimately the film's originality really feels about as light as one of those balloons.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

While Up doesn't rise above the bar Pixar itself set mighty high some 15 years ago, it's still an admirable effort.

Fantasy Playoffs: At least I'm a participant

I can't remember when or where I promised updates on my forays into fantasy basketball and hockey—seeing how hot I did in fantasy football last year and all (READ: DEAD LAST, 12TH OF 12). But I guess that just goes to prove how right I was about lacking "the fire and the passion" so many others seem to have when it comes to this stuff.

Of course, as opposed to the NFL version where seemingly everybody and their entire family tree participates in fantasy football, I don't have any IRL friends who try either one of the NHL or NBA versions. And considering two of the three leagues I'm in aren't the head-to-head weekly style that makes the fantasy football better parallel the sport a little better, it's hard to focus on a certain night when in the end, it's all going to come down to points. Still, one of the two fantasy hockey leagues I'm in did involve regular week-long head-to-head contests that determined these brackets you see there (my team is the No. 3 seed, the name obviously using hockey terminology as a parable for my relationship status these days). And since I said I'd talk about this stuff, now seems the best time to write this stuff down.

Movie Review: An Education

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. WAS THAT AUDREY HEPBURN? — Not exactly, but that's the obvious comparison director Lone Scherfig is hoping the audience (and critics) will make, not just by memorably filming Carey Mulligan in Paris but generally relying on her young star's charm to do the heavy lifting. That said, An Education still feels light as air and the 22-year-old Mulligan's innocence as a 16-year-old in London is the convincing, essential crux that makes this pre-liberation coming-of-age story work.
   
2. NOT A FALSE NOTE FROM THE REST OF THE CAST EITHER — It's Mulligan's movie, to be sure, but take nothing away from every other actor she shares the screen with. The two men of the film—Peter Sarsgaard as the London hustler that seduces Mulligan's Jenny, and Alfred Molina playing her middle-class father obsessed with sending his daughter to Oxford—give the reliably terrific performances I've come to expect from them. But there's also an extremely good mix of supporting female turns that each add to Jenny's development in different ways: Cara Seymour's quietly caring mother, Rosamund Pike's surprisingly fresh variation of the typical dumb blonde, and Olivia Williams' Miss Stubbs, the English teacher who cautions Jenny on the dangers of dating an older man. And perhaps the grandest of all surprises comes from Emma Thompson's brief appearances as the stern headmistress with a strongly disapproving tone that's deliciously tart. 
   
3. THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT HORNBY — It's based on the memoir of British journalist Lynn Barber, but to me, it's yet another feather in the cap of Nick Hornby—one of the few novelists out there about whom I can usually say I read the book before I saw the movie. I don't think An Education is supposed to resonate with me the same way, say, High Fidelity did when I first read that, but just like that film version or About a Boy, Hornby's scripts have a fine ear for dialogue and a masterful way of incorporating the art and music important to his characters that feels both remarkably sweet and touchingly genuine.

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. CONVENTIONAL ARC FOR A CONVENTIONAL AUDIENCE — There's the usual mistakes a young girl makes in her life and those signs she misses, which I suppose comes with the territory when you're illustrating the way youthful perceptions are changed. An Education, at times, has the feel of making sure it covers every one of those.
   
2. WAIT A MINUTE—THIS WASN'T DIRECTED BY ROMAN POLANSKI? — Sarsgaard's David is, what, more than twice the age of Mulligan's Jenny? And yet An Education indeed feels as though it flatly ignores the basic creepiness of the whole thing, almost as if the film doesn't want to risk making David even the least bit loathsome.
   
3. THAT'S REALLY NEAT — The final half-hour of the movie proceeds to clean just about every aspect of Jenny's life without much issue—other than somewhat reversing its tone and feeling a tad bit preachy.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

Carey Mulligan is radiant enough to make another story of first love sparkle despite the occasional plot blemish.

Oscar Predictions: Plus one?

I was unable to finish posting all my movie reviews of the Oscar-nominated films (ended up seeing eight of the 10 Best Picture nominees) before the telecast tonight, but it's something of a moot point since I have not added my theoretical "ballot" indicating who I felt should win in some number of years. Maybe next year, folks. Or just later this year. We'll see.

Last year marked the first time that I scored my Oscar picks in a descending order of confidence fashion similar to how the pool works for the NFL season. Of course, I've only had two years worth of picks up here on BMC (presumably got drunk and forgot to post the other two years), but last year's score of 293 268 (18 out of 24) was an improvement from the 248 (17 out of 24) I earned in 2006. So if we're to believe my improvement stays consistent, I'll get 19 out of 24 right this year.

Ebert has said he "can't remember a year when it seemed easier to predict the Oscars" (1993, perhaps?), so I imagine that my picks for the "big eight" are pretty much what everybody else has. But I wouldn't call all eight of those locks and even then, that still leaves 16 other categories:

Movie Review: District 9

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. THIS IS SCIENCE FICTION DONE RIGHT — And let's get this out of the way right from the start: I'm typically the least likely to get enthused about any sort of sci-fi flick. But it was easy to see why Peter Jackson produced District 9—and why so many people I run into think he directed it. But it's actually 29-year-old Neill Blomkamp directing his first feature here, effectively using limited special effects in the "splat-stick" style reminiscent of Jackson's earlier films. In comparison to the humans-as-enemy angle James Cameron reheated and served up for Avatar, Blomkamp's method feels fresh and unique.
   
2. THE UNEXPECTED SOCIAL COMMENTARY — Blomkamp, who was born in South Africa, stages District 9 such that his giant alien spaceship docks not over the typical New York or D.C. location, but right over Johannesburg. And without ever feeling preachy or heavy-handed, the film's TV news style and resettlement of its aliens touches on apartheid and xenophobia issues that added unexpected complexity.
   
3. CAN I PICK ON CLOVERFIELD AGAIN? — Because here's another handheld attempt at sci-fi, but done with far more skill and with characters I actually liked. As Wikus van der Merwe, the cowardly son-in-law to the head of the film's evil corporation, Sharlto Copley is nothing short of revelatory in turning his character into a hero.
   

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. "MULTINATIONAL UNITED"? — Was this really the best name they could come up with for the giant evil corporation? Such obviousness seems better suited for the audience of, say, Wall-E. Or maybe even the Starship Troopers crowd that felt that Paul Verhoeven effort was something wittier than it actually was.
   
2. BECOMES SOMETHING OF A BUDDY FLICK TOWARD THE END — The alien Wikus has a couple of rather coincidental run-ins with is named Christopher Johnson (Jason Cope). Christopher has a young son too and the film's third act essentially sends the trio into fairly standard shoot-out action.
   
3. COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN — I guess 20 years is a long time for a spaceship to be having engine trouble, but it still seems like too short of a span to have the aliens and humans having so little trouble understanding one another's language.
   

25 WORDS OR LESS:

I'd consider it to be the highest possible praise when I say that I would be interested if there is indeed a sequel.

The Bulls' Third Quarter: The waiting is the hardest part

I'll give the Bulls one decent-looking coin for this latest quarter, seeing as they did do, you know, something before the trade deadline. The moves of John Salmons and Tyrus Thomas weren't front page-type deals, but Ken Berger of CBS Sports did place the Bulls among his deadline winners for clearing the cap space they needed to in order to get at least one of those big free agents everybody will be clamoring for this coming summer. I'm keeping the two other dirty looking quarters though, because with just over 20 games to go now in this year's campaign—and just like I was feeling during the last quarter's end—I'm still not expecting anything more from this particular squad beyond the first round.

Shortly after that last write-up about the Bulls, the team had a minor notable accomplishment when they became the first team to win five consecutive road games against teams with winning records at the end of January.

Then they came home and lost to the Clippers.

The Bulls currently sit one game over .500 at 31-30 and occupy the seventh seed, which would earn them an opening round date with the Magic—a team they beat the first time they played them this season in Chicago, then got thumped by 20 points the next time Orlando came to town and have one more date in Florida next week. Of course, the Bulls are going to be in the midst of five teams fighting it out for four spots and 11 of their remaining 21 are against teams with winning records—three of those other 10 games being against teams currently at .500.

Since there's really no good idea of when we're getting that crazy bastard Joakim back from the plantar fasciitis thing, the only thing I'm quite confident I can expect in the coming weeks will be repeated nonsense about how making or missing the playoffs will have some sort of effect on whether free agents want to sign with Chicago. That, of course, is utter nonsense.

As long as the checks clear and the contract's valid, I think if the Bulls are able to outbid everybody else on at least one of those guys that keeps getting mentioned, they'll land the big name they're seeking this off-season. There's been hopes they can pick up two big names, but that's going to take a bit more wheeling and dealing than I really believe GarPax can pull off when considering the bidding war they'll be in.

If nothing else, I can just slap on my 3D glasses and watch how the whole thing plays out. Or I can keep watching this:

Movie Review: Paranormal Activity

THREE THINGS I LIKED:

1. I DON'T KNOW IF I'D CALL THAT ACTING, BUT GREAT RACK ANYWAY — The term "mockumentary" seems more appropriate for comedies, but Paranormal Activity is the latest low-budget creeper that's presented as being amateur home video footage. Part of taking that approach typically involves finding no-name actors to fill the parts, and if the leading man was supposed to be a douchebag, then fine casting was done with Micah Sloat (as himself, of course). It's the San Diego house of Katie Featherston (also as herself) that's the setting for movie and, well, at least I know I'm not alone in admitting what I found most memorable about that performance. Sue me.
2. LESS IS MORE — Director Oren Peli reportedly shot the flick for around $11,000, so Paranormal doesn't resort to excessive gore or special-effects. As a result, Peli manages to effectively squeeze suspense from the simplest signs, be it a door creaking opened and closed while the couple sleeps. Of course, the whole thing begins to feel like a tedious exercise where we're most invested in the scenes in which the couple is asleep while the daylight hours are really just often throwaway filler (a particular Ouija-board sequence earned more laughs from me than shivers).
   
3. DOES THE FOUND-FOOTAGE THING BETTER THAN CLOVERFIELD ... — I'll leave it to the reader to decide if that really counts as a compliment.

THREE THINGS I DIDN'T:

1. ... BUT IT'S STILL MILES AWAY FROM BEING THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT — And that's supposed to be a slam. It's impossible not to make the comparison, of course, because that was precisely the word-of-mouth success story the brains behind Paranormal wanted to mimic. The limited release push was certainly there, but it's all style and no substance—and even the style ain't all that mind-blowing. I had been well aware of the hype surrounding Blair Witch before it hit theaters more than a decade ago and reached a fever pitch that ultimately led to the unfair backlash against it (of course it didn't live up to the expectations for those who were among the last to see it). It's ironic that the same people who criticized that 1999 film for "not being scary" were also the ones unspeakably terrified by Paranormal—which essentially does the exact same thing, only nowhere near as well.
2. IT'S BAD WHEN I'M HOPING FOR A CHARACTER TO DIE, RIGHT? — If we can shove the accompanying hype that seems to influence every viewer's opinion to the side, the reason Blair Witch still remains the best of the "found footage" bunch was the strength of the film's characters and performances. Heather Donahue's infamous runny-nosed video apology ended up being relentlessly lampooned, but most every other low-budget digital effort since has lacked the power of that on-camera confession. Just as I went through Cloverfield without a single character I cared about, related to, or even genuinely wanted to see survive until the final reel, I found myself often hoping for a particular grizzly death for Katie's day-trader boyfriend, Micah. His character could have just as easily been named "plot device" since he's consistently projecting some macho image about being in control even as he can't explain what is occurring in his video footage. I believe Roger Ebert coined a term in his movie glossary for this kind of stuff.
3. MY DISAPPOINTMENT WITH THE ENDING LINGERED WITH ME FAR MORE THAN ANY FEAR — It's a haunted house film. Nothing more, nothing less. There's familiar tricks here that got the girl I was watching the movie with to squeeze my arm a little bit or whatever, but after the movie was over, pretty much nothing about it stayed with me.

25 WORDS OR LESS:

The most memorable part of Paranormal Activity will ultimately be how well the film was marketed, not anything it contained.