Abe is Definitely Worth Watching....Honestly.

No sense in waiting until February 24, might as well give Daniel Day Lewis the Best Actor Oscar now. He was that good as Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's epic, "Lincoln".  I enjoy playing casting director after watching a movie, trying to identify actors who I thought might have been a better fit for a particular role, but I honestly couldn't think of anyone who could have done a better as job as Lincoln than Lewis. Liam Neeson, who had originally been cast in the role before backing out, could have given Lewis a run for his money. But Lewis was nearly flawless. Although, to my knowledge, there is no known video of Abraham Lincoln, Lewis' lumbering, deliberate, soft spoken portrayal of Lincoln appears to be accurate from what historical data there is, and how we've grown to perceive him.

The movie itself, all 2 1/2 hours of it, is a history lesson that focuses on the first four months of 1865, during which time an intense struggle is occuring, both publicly and privately, on whether or not to pass the 13the constitutional amendment to abolish slavery.  In what is something reminiscent of the liberal vs conservative battles going on today in the United States political scene, the fight of the amendment featured the "anti-amendment" Democrats vs. "pro-amendment" Republicans.

In early January, 1865, just days before being sworn in for his 2nd term as President, Lincoln announces to his cabinet that he wants the House of Representatives to pass the amendment by the last day of January....a mere three weeks away. The 13th amendment had passed the Republican majority Senate the prior year, but was facing severe opposition in the Democratic majority House. Twenty votes short of what is needed to pass, Secretary of State William Henry Seward (played nicely by one of my favorite character actors, David Straitharn), hatches a plot to win over a number of specifically identified lame duck Democratic House members using a trio of "operatives". Not sure how historically accurate it is, but how these Democrats are specifically identified is a particularly interesting part of the movie.

While this covert plot is underway, Lincoln has another possible stumbling block to deal with.....the Civil War.  Hoping to use the 13th amendment as leverage to end the Civil War, efforts to end the war begin to intensify two weeks prior to the end of January, which puts Lincoln in a quandary:  if the war ends prior to the House vote, the amendment would all but fail.  But if he let's the war continue, thousands of lives could be lost in battle (including that of his recently enlisted son, Robert).  In the interest of not giving away any more of the plot, I'll stop there.  But it is a conflict that Lincoln intensely struggles with.  Thanks to great acting by Lewis, you can really sense the conflict Lincoln must have gone through, and the battle he must have had with his conscience.

After the Civil War/13th Amendment issue is resolved, the movie ends following Lincoln's assassination on April 15, 1865, just six days after the South surrendered, all but ending the Civil War.  The ending provided a nice, moving tribute to Lincoln, but I would have actually ended the movie a few minutes earlier.  Just prior to leaving for his ill-fated trip to the theater, Lincoln is shown meeting with his cabinet in the White House, during which time his aide walks in and reminds the President that the first lady is waiting for him outside in their "Presidential" carriage.  The aide doesn't say to where, but we find out soon enough. Lincoln is then shown, from behind and in slow motion, walking out of the White House. Powerfully shot by Spielberg, it obvious it was the last time Lincoln would set foot in his presidential home. As a result, and because that scene was so powerful, I would have ended the movie there, then flash some text on the screen explaining that Lincoln was assassinated later that night at Ford Theater, etc. I think it would have been a more moving, impactful ending. But that's just me! 

OK, now for more knit-picking.  Although the sets and locations used in the movie for the most part did make me feel I was in the mid 1800's, the actors did not. To me, most of them looked like 21st century actors dressed up like 19th century Americans. They didn't come off as authentic to me, and I'm not really sure why. Maybe filming it in black-and-white would have helped. I don't know.  And I'm still trying to figure out how W.N.. Bilbo (hilariously played by a plump James Spader) and his two fellow operatives were able to run right into the White House and directly into a conference room where President Lincoln was working without confronting a single soul!  Security was weak that day, evidently. All minor stuff. 

In conclusion, I do have to play casting director once more.  Tommy Lee Jones was satisfactory but not spectacular playing Representative Thaddeus Stevens (although, based on actual historical photos, he did look a heck of a lot like him), and as a result I would have loved to have seen Al Pacino in that role. Jones had a couple of courthouse scenes where he verbally duked it out with Democratic opponents. Jones was good, but those scenes had "Pacino" written all over them!

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), "Lincoln" is a solid a "4".

The Name is Fall, Skyfall....

Ok, I admit it. The only reason my wife and I saw "Skyfall" recently was because the "Lincoln" showing we wanted to see was sold out, and we didn't want to waste a drive.  And although we would have preferred to see "Lincoln", "Skyfall" turned out to be thoroughly entertaining.

If you read my "The Dark Knight Rises" blog, you'll know how critical to me a villain in an action movie like this needs to be. If they aren't, then the movie risks being a bore....at least to me. Fortunately Raoul Silva, the villain in "Skyfall" fits the bill. Played by Oscar winner Javier Bardem, Silva is an ex-M16 agent who, some years back, had issues with leader "M" (Judi Dench) and is out to get revenge.

Silva is cool as a cucumber yet always on the edge. He's extremely smart, yet creepy, strange, while very unpredictable. And talk about an entrance!  We first meet Silva about to introduce himself to Bond who's tied up in a chair. With a view from behind Bond's shoulder, we see Silva enter from the far side of the room. With the camera stationary, Silva slowly makes his way towards Bond (and the camera) like a snake stalking its victim, verbally toying with him the entire way.

Bond, oh yea, that's right.....this is a James Bond movie! And Daniel Craig's portrayal of an aging, vulnerable James Bond could very well be his best performance of the three he's done so far.  Stepping up to protect "M" from the vengeful Silva, Bond is forced to use his brains as much, if not more, then his brawn in order to stay a step ahead of his brilliant foe. This game of "cat and mouse" extends to the audience, as we as well try and figure who's going to do what next. And that's what makes this movie engaging. Not to mention the occasional surprise to keep us on our toes.  A lot of the credit for this should go to director Sam Mendes, who also helmed the critically acclaimed "American Beauty" and "Revolutionary Road".

Bond isn't alone in battling the dangerous Silva, however. Far from it. In fact, it's safe to say that Bond probably wouldn't have survived hadn't been for the help of fellow agent Eve Moneypenny (yes, the future receptionist for "M", and the same Moneypenny the first Bond, Sean Connery, began flirting with mercilessly back in the sixties), played by Naomie Harris. Not sure if that means this James Bond movie was a prequel to "Dr. No", the Sean Connery Bond movie which started the whole ball of wax in 1962, but that's a debate for another time.  Harris was very good as Bond's sidekick, and was a big factor in the ultimate outcome of the movie. Dench, Ralph Fiennes, and Albert Finney round out the top notch cast.

Finney, the 76-year old five-time Oscar-nominated actor who played the role of Kinkade, the groundskeeper for the Bond family home, was terrific during his few minutes of screen time, but I couldn't help think what a great cameo role that would have been for Sean Connery. At 82, I'm not sure he's even healthy enough to act anymore, but how fun would that have been to see Connery in that role!  If you saw the movie, then you'll know what I mean!

In conclusion, based on my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), "Skyfall" gets a "4". Great "Bond" action, and more importantly, you get to actually use your brain throughout the movie!

"Flight" is Worth the Ticket

The previews were intriguing, the reviews pretty good, I like Denzel Washington, plus I had 3 1/2 hours to kill in Morgan Hill. What does that add up to? A trip to the cinema to see "Flight". About veteran commercial airline pilot Whip Whitaker (Really? That was the best name they could come up with?) whose Orlando to Atlanta flight develops mechanical problems that forces the 102 person airliner into a seemingly unstoppable nose dive. That is until Captain Whitaker decides to try the unthinkable.....invert the airliner with the hopes of leveling it out. I won't tell you what happens after that, except that Captain Whitaker obviously survives, as well as most of the passengers. This makes Whip an instant hero....until the results of the routine blood tests, required of each crew member involved in an incident like this, are released. You guessed it: Whip's blood test results come up positive for alcohol and drugs.

And this is when the heart of the movie really begins.

During the next 90 minutes or so, we learn all about Whip's serious drinking problem, and his denial of having one. We watch him continually reject any help offered to him, from his ultra-Christian co-pilot to Nicole, a young female companion he meets during his hospital stay and who's battling a drug problem of her own. We also discover how his drinking ended his marriage and has strained his relationship with his teenage son. To make matters even worse, Whip is facing an impending hearing that could result in manslaughter charges filed against him, due to his condition during the flight. Helping him on that front are old buddy Charlie Anderson (Bruce Greenwood) and lawyer Hugh Lang (Don Cheadle). Despite having his best interest at heart, Whip continually fights them as well.

Well, for a long time, with Whip fighting everyone, it looks like the inevitable is going to happen. Of course I'm not going to spoil it and actually tell you what really does happen, but I will say that the final 30 minutes were exceptionally good, and the movie concluded in a very fulfilling way. At least for me.  That is, except for one scene which I still don't quite understand. How did the security officer standing guard in front of Whip's hotel room the entire night prior to his court hearing not hear the rucus that had to have gone on in the room during the night? That's all I'll say, but if you've seen the movie, you'll now what I mean!

In a nutshell, I really enjoyed the story, and the acting was for the most part top notch, particularly Denzel Washington who should probably receive a Best Actor nod next January. I say for the most part because I thought John Goodman's character as Whip's hippy throwback drug supplier was a bit over the top and cartoonish. The rest of the supporting cast was very good though. I'm a big Don Cheadle fan, so I particularly enjoyed his work as the airliner's attorney.

Oh, and one final meaningless observation about "Flight": it earned it's "R" rating faster than any other movie I can think of off the top of my head.....literally within seconds after the movie started.  Anyhow, just thought that was interesting....

Using my rating system (1= skip it, 2= rent it, 3= worth a matinee, 4= worth full price), I'd definitely give "Flight" a "4". I thoroughly enjoyed it. Definitely more than I was expecting.

 

My Top 10 Favorite TV Dramas

A few weeks ago I posted my top 10 favorite TV sitcoms, so naturally I had to follow that up with my top 10 favorite TV dramas.  The first two are virtually a tie in my mind, but I had to pick one. Again, these are my favorite shows, not what I necessarily consider the best. Here's what I eventually came up with:

1.  The Sopranos-  Talk about drama. Look up the word "drama" in the dictionary and you'll find the Sopranos in the discription (or at least should). Each week was gritty, very violent, and completely engaging. Probably TV's first R-rated show. Although a couple of the final years dropped off a notch in quality, and the series finale somewhat contraversial, the entire run of the show was highly entertaining.  Great acting, top notch writing....and only one Best Drama emmy?  Read on....

2.  West Wing- A close second, and the reason why The Sopranos only won one Best Drama emmy. It's funny, but there was a time when I refused to watch the West Wing because it kept defeating The Sopranos! But when I finally got around to watching it, I was hooked. By that time, the show had come out on DVD, and I was renting them left and right in order to get caught up. Like the Sopranos, a couple of the final seasons were a little weaker, but overall the show provided a fascinating look into the lives and work of the staff of a (ficticious) U.S. President.  Sure, it was based on a democratic White House, but it was written well enough for right-wingers to enjoy.

3.  Rockford Files-  One of my must-see shows in the 70's. Loved the combination of drama and dry humor throughout the show about the weekly cases of private eye Jim Rockford (James Garner). Rockford was an every day, easy to relate guy, which was a big part of the shows appeal.  He would frequently get hit, hurt and cheated on, but he always managed to solve the crime.

4.  Hill Street Blues- Ground breaking, realistic police drama about the goings on of a New York police station.  This show had some of the most memberable characters in TV history (Belker, LaRue, Renko, Furillo, etc). The acting and writing were superb.  The show wasn't shy about killing off it's stars either, which provided some of the most shocking and at the same time emotional episodes on dramatic TV. Probably the first real gritty, violent show on TV. Paved the way for several other shows (NYPD Blue, Law & Order, etc.)

5.  L.A. Law- Another well written, well acted show featuring the daily activity of a Los Angeles Law Firm.  If you like courthouse drama, this is your show. Takes Perry Mason to another level, although it wasn't shy to slip in some pretty funny humor from time-to-time.  Once most of the major stars left the show in the early 90's, the final two seasons were a bit weaker. But overall, a very enjoyable drama that I watched on a regular basis. Now when is it coming out on DVD?

6.  Lou Grant-  This is probably a surprise to some, but this show was actually a two-time best drama emmy winner in 1979-1980. Lou Grant, if you don't know, is actually a character from the old Mary Tyler Moore comedy played by Ed Asner. When the MTM show ended, "Lou Grant" was spunoff as a drama, a bold move in itself. But it worked, as it provided an interesting and and entertaining look into the grinds of a daily newspaper.  It didn't hurt that during that time I was a Journalism major in college, so I automatically had an interest in it! I recently watched some episodes of Lou Grant on Hulu, and still found them entertaining.

7.  NYPD Blue-  Another classic, gritty, violent police show inspired by Hill Street Blues a decade earlier and developed by it's creator, Steven Bochco.  Although based on a New York police station as well, the show was completely different than Hill Street.  This time around, Bochco focused primarily on one cop, Andy Sipowicz (Dennis Franz), and his rotating list of partners (David Caruso, Jimmy Smits, and a few others) throughout the 12 year run of the show.  Predictably, the first few years were better than the last few, but the show did a pretty good job keeping continuity during the entire decade despite the different cast changes. It was particularly interesting to watch the evolution of Sipowicz during that entire time.

8.  LOST-  Although I admit that I didn't really care for the final two seasons of this show, which featured the saga of the survivors of a commercial airline crash on a remote island in the southern Pacific, I really did enjoy the first three.  The first two, in particular, were among the best of any TV drama in television history. It was groundbreaking and unique, as there really hadn't been a dramatical series on TV like it before. A serious Gilligan's Island, I guess you can say.

9.  Emergency!-  Now the surprises begin.  I'm not shamed to admit that this was one my favorite shows in the 70's....I never missed it. I recently watched a few episodes of this on Netflix and have to say I still enjoyed it.  In case you don't know, this was a Jack Webb-produced action/drama based on the day-to-day life of fire station 51, and in particular paramedics Gage and DeSoto. I have heard that many a real life paramedic/fireman credited this show for inspiring them to become a firefighter/paramedic.  My cousin's husband is one of them!

10.  Highway to Heaven-  Ok, either your mouth is wide open right now, or you have fallen off of your computer chair.  Either way, I know you didn't expect to see this on my list. Sappy at times....yes;  occasionally cheesy.....yes.  But I found this show to be one of the most heartwarming ever produced on TV.  The show had heart and nothing but good intentions. Plus it lasted five seasons, so I wasn't the only one to feel that way!

Next 10 (no particular order): Mission Impossible, Picket Fences, Northern Exposure, Perry Mason, Quincy, McMillan & Wife, Police Story, Adam 12, Mad Men, Ellery Queen (anyone remember this?).

So those are my 10 all-time favorite TV dramas. Feel free to chime in with yours and why you chose them!

JW

Our Bay Area Teams Have Been Very Good to Us

Ok, I’m about to date myself.  The recent successes of several local teams, the Giants winning their second World Series in three years, the A’s making the playoffs out of nowhere, the 49ers playing well again and challenging for another Super Bowl, and the Sharks regularly making the playoffs, reminded me of three other “eras” during my lifetime where the local teams excelled and the bay area was the envy of the sporting world.

1971-1976

In case you don’t remember, our east bay teams dominated the sports world during these five years, as the Oakland A’s won five straight Western Division titles and three World Series in a row from 1971-1975; the Golden State Warriors surprised basketball fans by winning the NBA Championship in 1975, followed just a few months later by the Oakland Raiders who captured their first Super Bowl.  Exciting times indeed!  I was in my early to mid teens during that time and remember all of it well. My dad even took me to Game 4 of the 1974 World Series vs. the Dodgers (A’s won 5-2 thanks to Ken Holtzman’s pitching and home run).  In fact, I still have the ticket stub for the game!

We went to a lot of baseball games during that time, actually. My first was in 1971 when the Giants hosted the Cincinnati Reds.  I actually still have the program.  During that season,  I was fortunate to see Giant legends and Hall of Famers Willie Mays, Willie McCovey, Juan Marichal and Gaylord Perry . In fact, 1971 almost became the first “Battle of the Bay” World Series, as both the Giants and A’s won their respective divisions, but lost in their league finals.  The Giants, incidentally, wouldn’t win their division again until 1987.

You may have noticed that I have not mentioned the 49ers.  Although they fielded playoff teams in 1971 and 1972 (knocked out by Dallas both years), they only managed to win an average of 5 games a year from 1973-79….i.e., they weren’t very good.

1980-1984

The bay area ruled the NFL during these four years, as the 49ers and Raiders won four of the five Super Bowls during that time.  The Raiders took home the trophy in 1980 and 1983, while the 49ers came out of nowhere to win in 1981 and then again in 1984.  We were definitely spoiled!  The only thing that was disappointing was that they didn’t meet in the Super Bowl, which should have happened in 1983.  The 49ers were minutes away from upsetting the Washington Redskins before a horrible (I still cringe when I think of it) pass interference penalty against the 49ers which put the Redskins in scoring position for their winning points.  Fortunately the Marcus Allen-led Raiders spanked the Redskins in the Super Bowl.

Due to connections my dad had, I was fortunate to be able to attend several 49er games during this time (and throughout the 80’s). In 1981, I was sitting 12 rows from the field on the 45 yard line behind the Dallas Cowboys bench when the 49ers nipped the Cowboys in the exciting “The Catch” game.  I’ll never forget it.  We were sitting among long time season ticket holders who went bonkers after the Niners won. Tears were flowing everywhere as they celebrated their teams first ever Super Bowl appearance. 

Baseball and Basketball was another story, as the Giants, A’s, and Warriors were pretty much non-factors during the first half of the 1980’s, except for 1981 when “Billy Ball” mania hit the city of Oakland.  The A’s actually won the Western Division that year, only to lose to the mighty Yankees in the League finals.

1987-1990

Teams from both sides of the bay got into the act during this four year period. The Giants won two Western Division titles and appeared with the A’s in the infamous 1989 “Battle of the Bay” World Series, which of course was ruined by the Loma Prieta earthquake.  For the second time in less than twenty years, the A’s played in three straight World Series, but this time only managed to win one. The 49ers were red hot as well, winning back-to-back Super Bowls in 1988 and 1989. For a while 1990 looked like there might be a rematch of the San Francisco and Oakland teams, but this time in football. Just like in 1983, both the 49ers and Raiders made it to their respective championship games, but the NY Giants and Buffalo Bills ended that dream this time around.

Again, I was fortunate enough to attend a couple of 49er games each season during this time, including several playoff games.  I also went to game 3 of the 1988 World Series between the A’s and Dodgers. The A’s won 2-1 for their only win in the series. One of the runs came on a  Mark McGuire rocket.

The Warriors were the only exception during this time period, although they had pretty good teams in 1988 and 1990.  Unfortunately for them, there was a team down in L.A. during that time that featured guys named Jabbar, Magic and Worthy.

Yep, us bay area fans (at least the ones over 50 years old) have been pretty luck when it comes to our sporting teams.  Since 1972, we’ve been able to witness each team (except the Sharks) win a championship, with many winning multiple ones.  Fourteen in 40 years, or one every three years!  In fact, in championship games (World Series, Super Bowls, NBA Championships), the bay area teams are 14-3!   Pretty amazing, if you ask me….

Argo-rific.....

Had some time today, so I went with a good friend to see Ben Affleck's new Argo movie based on the true story of the six Americans who escaped being kidnapped during the 1979 American embassy invasion in Iran by hiding out in a Canadian diplomat's house, and American "escape expert" Tony Mendez (played by Affleck) who helped them escape by having them pose as a Canadian movie production team.  I have to be honest and say I didn't know many of the details of this story, so this in part was a learning experience for me.

Affleck the director did a great job on several fronts.  The cinematography was fantastic as the integration of old archive footage in Iran with newly shot footage was flawless. The shot of an elderly Iranian woman in her chador eating fried chicken at an Iranian KFC (who would have known?) was priceless and good for a laugh. He also did a nice job replicating the terror and uncertainty the six escapees must have gone through while hiding out not knowing if the Iranians knew they existed, while also knowing they would probably be killed if they did and were caught. In the scenes when Affleck the actor was driving through Tehran in an old beat up VW van, or walking amongst the angry Iranian people in a busy downtown area, you could actually relate to the tension and fear the real Tony Mendez must have felt. This tension was nicely broken up by the scenes in Hollywood where a veteran movie producer (played by Alan Arkin) and a special effects expert (played by John Goodman) helped Tony Mendez hatch his cover plot of a Canadian movie production team doing advance scouting for possible filming locations in Iran.  

The supporting case, in addition to Arkin and Goodman, included Bryan Cranston as a CIA director and Kyle Chandler as President Carter's Chief-of-Staff (and dead ringer to) Hamilton Jordan. Both were top notch.  The actors who played the various Iranian leads throughout the film were excellent. In fact, the entire cast was dead on.  During the closing credits, side by side shots of the six real escapees were shown alongside the actors who portrayed them in the movie. The resemblances of each were uncanny.

So that's about as far into the plot I'll go, because I don't want to spoil it for those who haven't seen it yet. However, I do have a couple of gripes. The movie did state up front that it was "based on a true story", which means the writers and film makers every so often took the liberty to add a scene which may not have actually have happened in order to liven up the plot.  In this movie, many of these fictional additions were so obvious, that I'm pretty sure I could pick out quite a few of them.  Not to give away anything, but I have a pretty good feeling that much of what happened at the end of the movie during the airport sequence was heavily altered to add some obvious drama.  As an example, the escapees manage to make it to their gate and board an old rickety bus that will take them to their awaiting airplane. Simultaneously, and unbeknownst to them, the Iranian militia are moving through the airport to try and stop them. Time is of the essence. As soon as they board the bus and attempt to drive off.....yes, you guessed it.....the bus driver is unable to shift gears in the bus.  For several agonizing seconds, the bus driver grinds the gears until it finally lodges into first gear, and he drives away as the militia reaches their gate.  "Hollywood drama", as I like to call it.  Sure, it added to the suspense, but how many dozens of times have you seen that in a movie? And there are several other instances of this type of "Hollywood drama" that, unfortunately, effected my enjoyment of the movie some.

However, there are many more positive aspects to the movie than negative, and as a result I would definitely recommend it.  Based on my rating system of 1 (skip it), 2 (rent it), 3 (worth matinee price) or 4 (worth full movie price), I'd give it a 3. The newspapers recently mentioned Argo as a possible Oscar contender this year. I'm not sure about that. As of now, I don't think I'd have a problem putting it in a top 10 list for the year, but I don't think it's worthy of being the best movie of the year. To me, it was an enjoyable, entertaining slightly above average dramatic action film.  But not much more than that.

The "Amazing A's" are back....

It was inevitable. My wife and I were at the Monterey Aquarium today, and Oakland Athletic hats were prominent.  The "A's", in case you haven't heard, were on the brink of wrapping up a season for the ages by sweeping the reigning two-time American League champion Texas Rangers and capturing their first division title in several years. Yes, the bandwagoners, or fair weather fans, were back. These are so called "fans" who only show their support when a team is winning. Boo on them....

Anyhow, regardless of what kind of A's fan you are, there is a good reason to celebrate....and scratch your head.  Of the 14 teams that make up the American League, including the budget-heavy LA/Anaheim Angels and New York Yankees, as well as the aforementioned Rangers, the A's were 13th in batting average (.238) going into the final game of season, 12th in hits (1,298), 10th in runs scored (698), and were 1st in strikeouts with an all-time franchise high 1,372. On defense, they committed the 3rd most errors (111) and had the 3rd worst team fielding percentage (.982). (Scratching your head yet?) Despite all of that, they supported the best record in the MAJORS since the All-Star break, or the hypothetical mid-point of the season, with a 51-25 record.  They were .500 before that (43-43)! 

How can that possibly happen you ask?

Well, since this is my blog, I'd like to offer two possibilities. The first, and most important, is pitching. The A's posted a team ERA of 3.50, which was 2nd lowest in the American League. Opposing hitters only averaged .246 against A's pitching, scored 608 runs, and hit 193 home runs (all 2nd lowest in the league). They were 4th in wins (92) and 4th lowest in walks allowed (457).  In short, batters had a hard time getting on base via a hit or walk against A's pitching, let alone scoring runs.

Secondly, I strongly believe in the good team chemistry = fun = confidence = momentum theory. Ok, it's a theory I made up, but after playing in various team sports from my early 20's to my early 40's, I've experienced being on teams that weren't the most talented out there, teams without a "super star", but teams that outplayed opponents better than we were. Teams like this require contributions from everyone.  And when that happens, a team chemistry starts to form. Once that takes root, confidence starts to build and before you know it, momemtum takes over. And that, in part, is what I think happened to the A's.  The team formed a bond somewhere in June, clutch hitting became contagious (they had a league leading 14 walk-off wins), they began to enjoy playing every day (in fact couldn't wait), garnered confidence, and before they knew it, won 51 of their last 75 games.  That, great pitching.....and of course a little good fortune.

The "Amazing A's"....a reference to the Oakland A's teams of the early 70's who won three world series in a row.  Both teams featured blue collar, everyday, hard working guys.  The only difference is the 2012 team supports goatees rather than moustaches.

Remember the 2012 A's, because they very well may be remembered as the ultimate "fairy tale" team in a season for the ages.
  

My Top 10 Favorite TV Sitcoms

Thought this would be a good conversation starter!  Everyone has their personal favorite comedy shows (sitcoms), but have you ever ranked them?  I sat down and tried ranking my top 10 recently, and actually listed the top four very quickly, as to me, they stand out from the rest.  I found the 5th-10th spots a little tougher to place. Coming up with the shows wasn't a problem, but ranking them was a bit difficult.  Again, these are my favorite shows, not what I necessarily consider the best. Here's what I eventually came up with:

1.  I Love Lucy-  To me, this is the show that started sitcoms as we know it. And it still holds it own. Love the California and Europe trips!  Always thought Desi Arnaz was underrated as a sitcom actor. You never hear his name when the all-time best sitcom actors are mentioned. He was hilarious, and a vital piece to the success of I Love Lucy.

2.  Seinfeld-  A close second.  For most sitcoms, a single episode will usually feature one memorable storyline. But it wasn't unusual for a single Seinfeld episode to feature two or three unforgettable storylines.  And it consistently did this for nine seasons!  That's what you call great writing.

3.  Get Smart-  I'm probably in the minority here, but this is still one of most hilarious shows ever on TV.  James Bond meets Inspector Clouseau.  Mel Brooks, Carl Reiner and Buck Henry were a great writing team. And I particularly liked Hymie the robot!

4.  All in the Family-  Ground breaking, brave comedy.  Very well written.  There weren't very many sitcoms where I laughed and was moved to the point of tears in the same episode.  Happened more than once in All in the Family.

5.  The Larry Sanders Show-  Very funny, well written parody of late night television (in front of and behind the camera), particularly in the early to late 90's when the show was on and the Carson/Letterman/Leno drama was at it's peak. The casting was dead on, in particular with Garry Shandling, Jeffrey Tambor and Rip Torn. .

6.  Barney Miller-  Hilarious spoof on every day life in a New York police precinct, sprinkled with some pretty decent drama. Hal Linden makes the whole thing work as the Captain of the station. As the "straight man" of the group, Linden frequently sets the table for all of the humor in the show.

7.  The Odd Couple-  Terrific small screen version of the Broadway play. The chemistry between Jack Klugman and Tony Randall is as good as it gets.  Their banter plus the great writing makes for episode after episode of laughs.

8.  Arrested Development-  This show wins the award for the darkest comedy on my list! Only lasting three seasons, this Ron Howard-created (and narrarated) show about a disfunctional family is quite different than the other comedies listed as you'll either love it or hate it. There's no inbetween!

9.  M*A*S*H-  Not much to say about this all-time classic. It's probably lower on my list then other lists, but it has to be on it.  The most impressive thing about this show to me is how it survived not one, but three major casting changes in it's first five years without skipping a beat.  Great casting, great writing, great acting!

10.  Friends-  Probably a contraversial inclusion, but I can't help by laugh whenever I catch an episode. The show was on almost 10 years, with the quality of the writing remaining strong nearly the entire time. There are other long running comedies where they can't be said.

Next 10 (no particular order):  Cheers, The Dick Van Dyke Show, Curb Your Enthusiasm, Mary Tyler Moore Show, Happy Days, The Munsters, Frasier, The Office (BBC), The Monkees, Green Acres (yes, Green Acres!).

So those are my 10 all-time sitcoms. Feel free to chime in with yours and why you chose them!

JW

The Dark Knight Rises......barely

I know, "The Dark Knight Rises" has been out for a while now, and it may be a little late for a review, but Amy and I didn't get around to seeing it until fairly recently. Regardless, I thought I'd still discuss it while it's still somewhat fresh in my head!

Personally, if a super hero movie is going to keep my attention, the villian has to be equally, if not more, interesting than the hero.  That's why I consider the X-Men movies (particularly the first two), perhaps my favorite super hero movies.  Magneto was a fantastic villian (being played by Ian McKellan didn't hurt) who was equally as intelligent as his foe, Professor X. Watching them try and out think and out do each other was a real treat (good writing doesn't hurt either).  As far as villians go, though, Heath Ledger as the Joker in "The Dark Knight" was perhaps the best villian yet portrayed on screen.  Ledger's Joker wasn't just an over-the-top kooky clown character, but a very disturbed, angry, psychopathic human being who's parental physical abuse as a child drove him over the edge, and continues to haunt him. I remember watching him and thinking this really could happen to someone.  Unfortunately, the deadly shooting incident in Colorado during the premiere of "The Dark Knight Rises" in July showed that perhaps it did.

And that brings me to "The Dark Knight Rises".  It's villan, Bane, didn't do much for me. He was basically just an over-muscular thug. I didn't find him interesting at all.  That, unfortunately, really effected my view of the movie.  But it wasn't the only thing.  Where were Batman's brains in this movie?  The majority of the time he was reacting with his heart rather than wits.  Why in the world would you attack someone in a hand-to-hand battle who you know was as skilled (or more) than you were? Let alone twice as big!  And not once, but twice?  Getting the tar kicked out of him the first time didn't seem to register anything in the ole Bat-brain.  Didn't he have any Bat-goodies in his utility belt that would have done the job from a distance?  Catwoman finally figured that out towards the end of the movie!  To me, Batman was portrayed as being much weaker than in the previous two movies, which was disappointing.

Speaking about the end of the movie, that little plot twist involving the Miranda character was a little lame. A very hollywood thing to do. I couldn't help but roll my eyes when it happened.  I was disappointed that the talented Christopher Nolan would resort to something like that. His plot twists are usually more subtle. The very ending was confusing to me as well. I understand that Bruce Wayne faked his death and was retired in the little Italian village Alfred had always dreamed about, but is Robin replacing Batman as Gotham City's chief crimefighter?  Is Robin becoming the next Batman?   Didn't get it.

I did like some things in the movie though. I thought they did a great job portraying Catwoman and her complex relationship with Batman. Gary Oldman was solid as Commissioner Gordon again.  Morgan Freeman held his own.  And Joseph Gordon-Levitt was actually very good. I particularly liked the cameos from Liam Neeson and Cillian Murphy (both appeared in "Batman Begins").

Anyhow, that's how I felt after leaving the movie theater. Feel free to share your views and opinions on the movie if you'd like, or discuss what your all-time favorite super hero movies are and why.

JW

Scripture to Ponder: Hebrews 13:2

Hebrews 13:2- "Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it."

This has always been one of my favorite scriptures, and one that stayed with me since I first began reading the bible some years ago.

What does this scripture mean to you?