American Idol: 10 Ladies Left

Once again I miss the beginning of American Idol, but this time I only miss the intro of the first singer, Katharine. I was able to watch most of the performance though. I should also point out that my reviews (all except for Katharine) are written right before, while and immediately after each performance.

Anyways on to the ladies:

Katharine - Below Average. Almost bad. The judges had it right. I'm giving her credit for last week's better performance though.

Kinnik - Average. One thing mediocre idol contestants do is pick an upbeat but vocally simple song. You get people dancing and it makes your performance look good. Well, that's what Kinnik did this week. (Maybe to make up for the tough song she picked last week) She wasn't bad, but Simon said it perfectly when he said it just didn't stand out.

Lisa - Good. I have to agree with Randy... she was good but she didn't shine. I think it was better than her performance last week. Oh and I think, Lisa sounds like Paula Abdul when she talks

Melissa - Above average. Started out average but finished off better. Definitely better than last week. Another time I agree with Randy... and in the process disagree with Simon.

Heather - Below average. Picked a song because it had never been sung on AI... that's just not a good idea. (I wrote this before she started singing) Yet another girl who did better than last week, but remember i rated her at "Bad" last week. Plus she picked a song someone has already done better.... and Paula just pointed that out.

Brenna - Bad. She is this years Mikalah, someone who got through because of her personality (makes for "good tv"). But, Mikalah had some humility about herself... Brenna probably did her best, and that's why she thinks she did well. Too bad her best is bad.

Paris - Below average. Picked a bad song. Has a potentially good voice but not for pop and not for this song. I just don't seem to agree with the judges on her.

Ayla - Above average. Started off pitchy but finished strong. I entirely agree that she comes off a bit "mechanical" like Simon said.

Kellie - Below average. There is something weird about Kellie... as Cindy put's it "She's definitely haming it up." Is that "innocence" for real? Anyways she again did that weird squat thing I talked about last week and this time the judges told her to stop. (good for them) Oh and there was a part during her performance, I think she tripped up band a bit. Anyways I don't agree with Randy about it being a "hot one." In fact I totally agree with Simon: rough vocally, but the "Calamari" bit will get her votes.

Mandisa - Very good. A tough beginning and she started off roughly, but hit it well when she started belting it. (I promise I wrote that before Randy said anything) Doesn't transition well from the soft to loud. I still like her voice the best and I'm probably grading her based on that.

Oh and so things make more sense here are the rankings of my grades (from best to worst): Excellent, Great, Very Good, Good, Above average, Slightly above average, Average, Slightly below average, below average, not good, bad, very bad, terrible. The "average", "slightly above average" and "slightly below average" rankings are all close and are simply meant to differentiate between average performances.

Finally, I have to disagree with Simon when he said that you have to stand out. I think that, at this point of the competition, there are still enough contestants that you can "coast." In essence, you don't need to stand out, you just need to not suck. Of course the danger is, if no one else sucks, you're in danger of leaving.

My rankings for this weeks (this time best to worst): Mandisa, Lisa, Ayla, Melissa, Kinnik, Paris, Kellie, Heather, Katharine, and Brenna.

But I'm not kicking off the bottom two because I think Katharine should get credit for her better performance from last week (plus she has a better voice). So in my world Heather and Brenna would be going home. Like last week, Melissa and Kinnik should still be in danger.

Bravo and Project Runway

In the past few years I have grown a liking for the Bravo network. Maybe it's because I'm getting old... anyhoo.

I've alway stopped to catch at least a few minutes of "Inside the Actor's Studio" because, although he's strange, James Lipton does his homework when interviewing people. More recently though, I've liked watching Celebrity Poker Showdown, Celebrity Autobiography: In Their Own Words and Being Bobby Brown. What I never saw coming was me being so into Project Runway.

I got into it midway through this, the second, season. The first episode I remember watching was the end of the Sasha Cohen outfit episode in which Emmett was eliminated and Zulema won. But the beginning of the next episode totally hooked me. Zulema, as the winner of the previous challenge, had her pick of the models (ie. she could switch her model for any of the other models). So, straight out of Zoolander, she decides to have "walk-off." The models walk and she ends up stealing Nick's model, which of course doesn't sit well with... well, pretty much everyone. In the end karma does it's job because Zulema ends up being eliminated in that challenge.

Anyways, the season finale is coming up on March 8th and Bravo is having a "Project Runway Marathon." So, I'll probably tape the first few episodes I missed. But for now here are my thoughts about the remaining three designers.

Chloe. Nothing special. I don't particularly like her stuff because it's bland. The challenge I saw her win was a win by default. Everyone tried for something daring (except for Nick... not sure what he was doing) and she played it safe. She complained about not having experience in designing men's clothes and then makes an uninspired generic pinstripe pant and vest combo. As far as I have seen her, she (like Kara who left last week) has coasted by not being interesting but not being hideous either. She just waits for someone else to make something horrible and she's safe for another week.

Santino. Hit or miss... but I like him and when he makes a good piece, I like it alot. Santino might have been helped by his abrasive personality (since it makes for good tv) but at least he tries to be different when it comes to design.

Daniel. One of my favorites (along with Santino and Andrae) who has a good mix of daring and traditional. Should win and would make a much nicer winner then last season's Jay... who I already hate.

American Idol: 24 down to 20

Okay, so I was so confused. I thought they were getting rid of 2 girls and 2 guys and then Idol weirdly went through the ladies and told Becky she was leaving. Then they did the same thing with Bobby. I started thinking they were only getting rid of 2 contestants in all. But then Ryan Seacrest says they're coming back to eliminate another girl... just strange!

It's pretty cruel to at first tell Stevie and Patrick that they are safe and then eliminate them a few minutes later.

But anyways, I'll pat myself on the back for correctly picking the girls who got eliminated.

About the guys, I don't feel so bad about picking the two kids to leave considering I didn't watch their entire songs. But I should have known that the young guys will get votes for being young and cute (the girls don't seem to get that benefit).

I did point out that Patrick was forgettable and that is killer when you have very little else going for you. When it comes to Bobby, I'm guessing the combination of an awkward (but not horrible) performance and not being young or good looking got him eliminated.

Now I'm hoping to actually be able to see the entire guy's night next week to get a better feel of their strengths.

BTW, I still think it's weird to see the just eliminated singer giving their final audition to the world...

American Idol Top 24: The Gentlemen

I got home late tonight, so I missed most of the show. So, I'll only make full comments on the guys I saw:

Elliot Yamin - Great. The first guy I've seen and he is awesome... and the judges think so too. As Randy used to say, this guy can blow.

Bobby Bennett - Slightly below average. Picked a song befitting his name. He sung it too throaty for me though. He tries hard, but comes off awkwardly. A big guy shouldn't move around so spastically. Slow and smooth is the way... Scott Savol knew this, and someone should tell Bobby.

Ace Young - Slightly above average. I don't like how he sings like a hissing cat like John Mayer... so that makes me biased against him. Carries the tune well though and as Simon stated, picked the perfect song for himself. Sorta reminds me Constantine Maroulis but less animated and not as creepy... oh and by far a much better singer.

Taylor Hicks - Above average. I'll be honest, I'm biased toward this guy because I love the Joe Cocker/Van Morrison voice. But he really needs to stay away from the "blue eyed" jazz sound because he can definitely stray into the bland Michael McDonald-land.

Well, I only got to see the rest of the guys from the snippets, so here are my quick thoughts on them:

Although he changed his tune tonight, Randy was right in saying that the men were better than the ladies.

The Bo Bice/Rocker sound (I refuse to call Constantine a rocker because he was a low rent lounge singer with a awful "broadway" sound) has allowed for a few more "rockers" like Ace, Taylor, Bucky Covington and Chris Daughtry.

The guys who should get booted? Probably the two 16 year olds: Kevin Covais and Will Makar. And I thought Will was supposed to be good... Their age, however, might get them enough of a following to save them this week. So I'm thinking the following guys are also in danger: Joe "Sway" Penala was scary with his falsetto; Patrick Hall was forgettable; and David Radford was just weird.

America Idol Top 24: The Ladies

I missed American Idol during "Hollywood week" so this is the first I have seen these women since the auditions. And here is what I think in the order they sang:

Mandisa - Very good. She sang the Heart song about as well as one could expect, especially being first. Deserves to make it into the top 12.

Kellie Pickler - Below average, but nowhere near bad. It's hard to say anything bad about a nice girl with a hard life background. She did a weird squat thing during her song though... she needs performance coaching.

Becky O'Donohue - Very Bad. She has made it this far because of her looks and strong personality. She'll probably make it past this round because of those things.

Ayla Brown - Average. Voice-wise she's all over the place but that's probably because of the song she picked. She didn't transition all that well between the different parts of the song. She has a good voice otherwise. Needs to work on her "like-ability."

Paris Bennett - Average. Picked a tough song, but the judges seemed to like it. Much more of a performer than Ayla Brown. I don't agree with the judges though, because vocally she was only a bit better than Ayla.

Stevie Scott - Very Bad. She should have stuck to opera. In the great American Idol term: Pitchy. She's also very shy so we'll see if that makes it harder to get votes over another similarly bad singer, Becky.

Brenna Gethers - Bad. Picked a song by an artist (Stevie Wonder) NO ONE should try to re do. (and I wrote that before she started singing) Her singing was breathy and uninspiring. We'll see if the bravado helps her or not.

Heather Cox - Bad. Very stiff when she sings. Reminds me of a beauty pageant contestant. Unfortunately those people are supposed to look like plastic dolls... American Idol's are supposed to be bubbly and full of life. She probably made it through "Hollywood week" on her looks, because her voice was as unispiring as Brenna Gethers, but even worse.

Melissa McGhee - Slightly below average. Picked a song for the wrong reason. ("I absolutely love this song.") She should pick a song that features her voice well. Her voice is too raspy when she's not bolting it. Had some problems, but did better when she relaxed midway through the song.

Lisa Tucker - Average. With all the hype, I thought she would be better. Another pitchy song. Good for a 16 year old, but this isn't "16 and under American Idol." Can definitely be very good in time though. For once, I don't agree with Simon though. The judges seem to be influenced by the yelling and cheering in the audience.

Kinnik Sky - Average. Picked a tough song (one that depends too much on her voice at first) but pulled it off well. Maybe I'm looking too much for something to like because I didn't think Lisa Tucker or Paris Bennett were all that much better.

Katharine McPhee - Good. Another tough song that depends too much on her voice but she pulled it even better then Kinnik. As Randy said "maybe a couple of little spots" but that is nitpicking.

So here are my rankings from worst to best: Becky O'Donohue, Stevie Scott, Heather Cox, Brenna Gethers, Kellie Pickler, Melissa McGhee, Kinnik Sky, Ayla Brown, Lisa Tucker, Paris Bennett, Katharine McPhee, Mandisa.

Which would kick off Becky and Stevie in my world. But I get the feeling Becky's personality and looks might get her votes. In fact looks and personality might also help Heather and Brenna so that makes them plus Kellie, Melissa and Kinnik vulnerable in my view. We'll see how I do.

Oh and finally: does Ryan Seacrest not say "Seacrest Out!" anymore?

Curling and Florida

I like curling. It's an interesting game... but it's not a sport and aren't the olympics supposed to be about sporting events?

Well, let me clear that up. Curling should be called a sport when games like bowling, bocce, shuffleboard and billiards appear in the olympics. The thing is none of those games are olympic games. Even golf isn't an olympic game (according to this site it was part of the 1900 and 1904 games, but even then some competitors didn't even know it was part of the Olympic games).

I wouldn't make such a big issue about it if it weren't for the fact that NBC has featured curling every day. While in Florida last week, everytime I flipped the channels in the morning, the only Olympic coverage I could find was of curling.

And I'm not buying all the "curling is catching on" talk. It's "popular" because NBC is covering it like it's poker. But I can see why: There isn't much else to cover in the morning. The more popular sports and the ones the US excels in (hockey, ice skating, speed skating, alpine skiing, etc.) are shown in primetime. That leaves the sliding events, biathlon, nordic skiing, ski jumping, snowboarding... and curling. Except for maybe snowboarding, no one is gonna watch the rest of those events. All the other ones get pretty repetitive, pretty fast. And unless you know what goes into controlling a sled down a big sheet of ice or shooting at a target after skiing a bunch of miles, you probably won't be able to connect to it. But most of us have been on an ice rink, and most of use have bowled or played shuffleboard.

So NBC is stuck showing the amazingly exciting game of curling to fill all those hours of olympic coverage they planned. And then I get reminded daily that curling isn't a real sport and then you end up reading my rant.

Anyways, here are the pics of the Florida trip over on Flickr.

"It is nowhere written that the American Empire goes on forever."

I highly recommend the documentary film Why We Fight to everyone. I'm not sure I want, or am even able, to say how it affected me. But I can say this: If you see it, and it doesn't in the least make you think twice about the United States and where it is headed... well, congratulations: most people pay good money for treatment and drugs to put them in such a state of aloofness.

I had never heard of Eugene Jarecki, and now I am waiting for Blockbuster to deliver his previous movie The Trials of Henry Kissinger.

off the florida keys...

So we take an extended weekend in Florida and when we get back Dick Cheney is shooting people, not reporting it. Do people still not reconize this as a symptom of what is wrong with this administration?

Anywho, Florida was awesome even though it was uncommonly cold. We planned a snorkeling trip in Biscayne National Park and an overnight canoe trip in the Everglades but it ended up being too cold and too windy, so we ended up doing the touristy things in the Everglades and Biscayne and also drove down to Key West.

Not what we expected but still pretty nice. We saw a bobcat in the Everglades and had delicious crepes in Key West (who woulda thunk). Definitely want to get back to Key West though... They like to call themselves "America's Carribean Island" even though they're not in the Carribean and the name ignores the U.S. Virgin Islands. I name implying a cross between New Orleans and the Carribean would be a better term.

We also found an different fast food place down there called Pollo Tropical. They have an awesome curry mustard sauce and a guava BBQ sauce. Definitely digging their stuff.

Well, I'll have pictures up, although the day in key west went without pictures because I forgot to charge my camera...

The new Monday Night Football lineup

The quick verdict on the new Monday Night Football announcing team of Mike Tirico, Joe Theismann and Tony Kornheiser seems to be lukewarm at best. I think it certainly sounds interesting. Tirico is an average and pretty straight forward play-by-play man, a good safe, if not exciting, choice. Theismann adds good insight, but will often lapse into cliched statements like "The team that is going to win is the team that successfully makes the most plays."(I must admit: I'm somewhat biased towards Theismann, since I grew up having him as my ideal quarterback... in fact I used to think all quarterbacks wore number 7.)

What makes me think it should be interesting is Kornheiser. (I think he's done a few Redskins preseason games, but I might be imagining that.) I love PTI and think he certainly deserves a chance. I would actually like to hear Kornheiser with his PTI parter, Michael Wilbon, do color commentary for a few football games games. Anyways, Kornheiser should bring a good comedic angle to the games, without being pretentiously verbose like Dennis Miller.

Either way, I think it's a great idea to not bring over the Sunday night crew, because Mike Patrick, Paul Maguire and Theismann were just not cutting it. Patrick was overtop and the Maguire/Theismann animosity got old and uncomfortable quick. Anyways, I'm looking forward to the new crew.

Super Bowl XL: a win is a win... right?

What a dreadful suckfest that Super Bowl was. The play was terrible, the officiating was worse and the Rolling Stones looked like they were going through the motions. Even the commercials were boring.

I kept hearing about how Pittsburgh was going to play a "smash mouth" style of football. Their offense was going to run Jerome Bettis 15 times for countless yards and their defense would shut down the potent Seahawk defense. Well, Bettis ran 14 times but for a mere 43 yards and the Seahawks defense was stopped by their own ineptness and the officials. When you score 2 of 3 touchdowns on a fortunate call and a trick play, that can't possibly be called "smash mouth."

Beyond that though, the officiating reared its ugly head once again this playoff season. But this time instead of almost losing a game for the Steelers, it gave them the Super Bowl title. Bill Leavey's officiating crew spotted the Steelers a 10 (if not 14) point edge with the questionable offensive pass interference call and the Ben Roethlisberger "touchdown".

First, the pass interference call is a call 9 out of 10 officials don't make. Both players were jostling each other, so as an official you keep that flag in you're back pocket.

The Roethlisberger touchdown, however, was the most egregious. I agree with the Bill Leavey if he claims that there wasn't enough visual evidence to overturn the TD call... my problem was with the official who originally called it a TD. There is NO WAY he could have determined that the football crossed the goal line before Roethlisberger was down. In fact, that official didn't make the call until long after Roethlisberger had been down and had then moved the ball across the goal line. That official should have never called it a TD in the first place.

But, although Mike Holmgren and Seahawk fans have every right to be mad about the officiating, Seattle undoubtedly played horribly. Those missed field goals were long, but they were certainly makeable. And Jerramy Stevens dropped way too many perfectly thrown balls. Even their time management at the end of each half showed their overall ineptness. But in spite of all that, they still out-gained the Steelers in overall yards (396-339) and passing yards (259-158). They even tied them in yards per rush (5.5), and might have out-gained them in rushing yards if they weren't playing from behind most of the game. So I won't unsoundly claim, as Pittsburgh newspapers and fans have, that the Seahawks didn't play well enough to win. The Seahawks did play well enough to win because Pittsburgh didn't exactly play better. They just got the calls which kept the Seahawks from scoring, and which gave them 7 instead of 3 points.

The Steelers were undoubtedly helped to that win. But you really can't blame Pittsburgh and their fans for it. I would be unabashedly celebrating the win if it were the Redskins, just like Steeler fans are celebrating today. Although, deep down I would be questioning why the officials favored us over them... and maybe that win would ring a little hollow if I had some sense of conscious in me.

Mmmm... Football Donuts and the Super Bowl pick.

As if staying away from their delicious donuts (i think they spell it doughnuts tho) isn't hard enough, Krispy Kreme is making football shaped and decorated donuts. AND you can get them in team colors... those horrible horrible people. I'm rediculous enough to want them in Skins color.

First, just to clarify one point which I've been making: I don't think the Steelers are a bad team. In fact, I have never thought they were a bad team, the ONLY thing I ever did was questioned their offense. It doesn't detract from them when I said they have been lucky... it's just the truth: they were fortunate to not have to play against Carson Palmer and they were fortunate Nick Harper ran right at Ben Roethlisberger after Jerome Bettis' fumble.

This week they played excellent, probably their best game of the season, AND they were lucky. (Most of the time when team A blows out team b, luck is involved. That's not to say team A couldn't have won otherwise, but luck made a blowout easier.)

The Steelers were helped to a comparatively easy win as Jake Plummer reverted to his usual self. The Broncos had a chance to win it all, if they relied on the run and had Plummer pull a "Trent Dilfer" (throw for 150 yards, one touchdown and NO turnovers). Instead, Jake Plummer pulled a "Jake Plummer" (223 yards, 2 interceptions and 2 fumbles). I guess he was right when, after a win against the Redskins where he threw for 92 yards, he dismissed his performance by saying, "Later in the season, you don't remember how they came, you only remember it's a win." True, they might not remember how that win came, but they will rememeber how this loss came... both in games Plummer let his team down.

So now the Steelers move on to play the Seattle Seahawks. My initial feelings are that I would like Seattle to win, because they haven't won one and the Steelers have won 4. But, my pick is:

Pittsburgh Steeler OVER Seattle Seahawks - This should be a close game but I get the feeling it won't be close in the end (maybe close on the scoreboard but not in reality). The Steelers should take the lead early (7-0), maybe allow a tie in 2nd period (17-17), and hit a field goal going into halftime (20-17). Then they'll come out maybe give up a TD (20-24) early in the 3rd, but make it up with 2 TD in the 3rd and 4th (34-24), and control Seattle's offense for most of the 4th quarter, maybe giving up a field goal... 34-27. Is my entirely unfounded guess.

NFL Conference Championships and the Redskins are done

So after 6 straight weeks, I finally got a Redskins pick right. The Redskins finished their season in a rather familiar way. The defense starts off well while the offense struggles, the defense finally cracks and the offense eventually starts to click but it turns out to be not enough and too late. As cliched as it sounds, it was a microcosm of the season.

I would say it was a disappointing end, but that would detract from a pretty darn good season. Although I thought the Redskins were a 10 win team back in September (In fact, I said: "Now I'm not saying the Redskins are going 11-5 this season, but I seriously don't think 10-6 is out of the question"), I was still surprised when they rattled off 5 wins at the end of the season to get into the playoffs. It was fun to say the least.

So they finished in the top 8 and did better than the Bears and Colts (at least the Skins got 1 playoff win... on the road even) and did about as well as Patriots (but the Redskins didn't get the advantage of a home playoff game). So in my book they're at least the 6th best team in the league. And I don't want to hear any talk about the 120 yards of offense in the win against the Bucs, they were heavily depleted and injured from those grueling 5 straight wins. Plus they weren't playing to rack up points, they were playing to keep a lead.

Which brings me to the addition of Al Saunders to the coaching staff. I'm hesitant because I am a strong believer in the idea of less chefs in the kitchen, but what has me believing is Joe Gibbs. I trust that he can keep everything (and everyone) in check.

Anyways more on that later... now on to the teams that remain in the Super Bowl picture:

Pittsburgh Steelers - First I need to repeat what everyone has already said: The Steelers were royally screwed by the botched instant replay call and had they lost that game, they would have every right to stab someone. Having said that... I still (and I've been saying this all year, just check the link above) question the Steeler's offense. That offense combined with a good/great defense won them the game at Indy, but the Colts were obviously not the same team that won 13 straight. They were the same team that has a history of choking in the playoffs. Plus the week before that, they got "lucky" when Carson Palmer got hurt.

Denver Broncos - The Broncos are another one of those teams that I've questioned all year. Although while I did a Top 10, I usually had them in the top 3 or 4, I still called them "not all that good." (Like when they beat the Redskins, but that was more of a response to how they played against the Skins.) But my misgivings about the Broncos aren't as much as they are about the Steelers.

Carolina Panthers - I'll admit, I have slept on the Panthers all year. I had only seen them play in highlight shows (I don't remember if I saw them in their MNF appearance), so I knew they had Steve Smith but the rest of the team seemed pedestrian. Plus, they were in a division I felt was weak because there was no clear good/great team. In fact, every team seemed just below average. So Tampa Bay and Atlanta proved to be that, but the Panthers have stepped it up. The only thing is that they've been pretty fortunate in these playoffs. The Giants (who should have been a formidable opponent) layed down for them, and then they had to go to play a weak Chicago Bears team from what was, I thought, the worst division in the NFC.

Seattle Seahawks - I saw the Seahawks and Bears play the Skins back in September, and it was CLEAR the Seahawks were a better team. The Bears defense wasn't as good as people would later say, and the Seahawks offense was about as good as billed. So although, record-wise, they started off bad, I thought they were a good team. (Actually both the Bears and Seahawks fatten up their records on weak opponents, but the Bears had a tougher time of it.)

So here are my picks:

at Denver OVER Pittsburgh - As I said, my misgivings about Denver aren't as big as they are about Pittsburgh. Everyone loves saying that Pittsburgh is the "hottest" team in the NFL because of their 6 game winning streak, but no one says in the next sentence that Denver has their own 5 game winning streak. As I have mentioned Pittsburgh, like the Panthers, have gotten lucky on the road. First Carson Palmer's leg gets broken, along with the Bengals fragile hopes and then the Colts choke away a gift from the NFL refs and then Jerome Bettis.

at Seattle OVER Carolina - I'll say it one more time... the Panthers have gotten lucky in the playoffs. And I don't mean "lucky the other team fumbled" or "lucky they won on a Hail Mary." I mean lucky their opponents haven't been playoff quality, either because of a young QB (Giants) or just not a good team in general (Bears). Seattle didn't exactly inspire me in their win against the Skins, but they moved the ball on a good defense.

Finally, the only thing that scares me about these picks? Oddly the Panthers and Steelers are better road teams then home teams... they were both 5-3 at home and 6-2 (8-2 including the playoffs) on the road. They both had the best road records in the league. But hey, Seattle and Denver were the only teams that went undefeated at home? Sounds like fun to me...

Alexander Ovechkin should win the Hart Trophy

Remember in Rocky IV when Apollo Creed fought Ivan Drago. Drago's first words in the movie were right before they fought. In a thick Russian accent, he said "I will break you." I think they need to play that clip every time they mention Alexander Ovechkin at the MCI Center.

Ovechkin had his first NHL hat trick last night, scoring all of the Capitals goals in a 3-2 overtime win against the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. He now ranks 3rd in goals and 8th in points and leads his team in both categories. Ovechkin could certainly have more assists if he had someone to assist. (There is only one other player with double digit goals: Danius Zubrus with 10).

Nothing against The Kid, Sidney Crosby, but he's not near Ovechkin. The Russian has to have Rookie of the Year (Calder Memorial Trophy) wrapped up. Now, it's just a matter of if Ovechkin deserves the NHL MVP and I, as an unabashed homer, think he does. Unfortunately, unless your team at least makes the playoffs, you probably won't be winning the Hart Trophy. But, I can hope can't I?

Where is the real Brokeback Mountain and a new view of Heath Ledger

I finally saw Brokeback Mountain and got curious as to if it really existed. I looked it up and found that someone had already researched it. To sum it up: It's not real. The author of the short story, Annie Proulx, (who btw seems a little full of herself) says the name is adapted from a place called Break Back Mountain in Wyoming, but the Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) says there aint such a thing. There is, however, a Brokenback Narrows, Creek, and Dam, a Brokenback Mountain near there doesn't seem far-fetched.

About the movie: I liked it. I thought it was a very good movie that, unfortunately, didn't live up to the hype. I had heard good things about it. Things that I was hoping weren't influenced by the controversial topic and the ensuing controversy about the movie (like the canceled screenings in Utah). Those things might have influenced the good reviews but nonetheless I thought it was par for an Ang Lee movie, good but not outstanding.

What did surprise me was the great job done by Heath Ledger. You see, when I first saw Heath Ledger it was in the modern remake of one my favorite Shakespeare plays, "Ten Things I Hate about You." (Which was based on "The Taming of the Shrew") Sadly that remake was an unabashed teen flick and Ledger overplayed it as would be expected. Then he made "The Patriot" and "A Knight's Tale" and did nothing to change my initial perception of him. So last year when I saw the previews to "Cassanova" my thoughts that he was doomed for "Ryan Phillippe" status (perpetual pretty face in teen flicks... no need to act, just look good) were reinforced.

But Ledger totally surprised me. He played the soft spoken but strong willed Ennis Del Mar convincingly. He didn't overdo the macho "I'm not a gay cowboy" angle. He was certainly not one dimensional and gave Ennis those subtle qualities which can make you forget an actor is acting. Not surprisingly, I have a new found respect for him.

2006 NFL Playoffs: Divisional Playoffs

First a few thoughts about my stupendous 1-3 record for last week. Yes I suck, but allow me to make up some excuses.

I'm fairly certain the Steelers wouldn't be chanting "We Dey!" had Carson Palmer not gotten hurt. And it wasn't just his arm... that team tried hard to convince themselves that they could win without Palmer, but once they hit some adversity they folded.

I'll admit, I slept on the Panthers. But I'm still not buying them. I think they were somewhat lucky in walloping the Giants. Tiki Barber wasn't seeing the holes he had been getting all year, and Eli Manning withered in his first playoff game. I can only hope that the Skins win and they get as fortunate against the Bears. Then the Redskins would be in Carolina for the NFC Championship. Unfortunately, my picks might reflect this hope in the reverse karma way...

Now about those chances here are two lists. First, Things I don't like the Redskins' chances on Saturday:

• The fact that the Redskins barely beat the Seahawks at FedEx Field back in October. The Skins got their revenge on Tampa, we'll see about the Seahawks...
  
• The Redskins aren't all that good on the road. Although, including last week, they are a somewhat respectable 5-4, two were come from behind 4th quarter wins (Philly and Dallas). They had problems finishing off comebacks in Denver, Kansas City and Tampa.
  
• Probably the most important point: Home teams in the divisional rounds win about 80% of the time.
  

Things I like about the Redskins' chances on Saturday:

• The Redskins barely won that game at FedEx and when you barely win, you should treat it like a loss and feel lucky. You should seriously rethink your plan and innovate. Fortunately, Gregg Williams is more than capable of this. His defense seems to do well when it has an opportunity to adjust. The Redskins did much better in their second games against the Cowboys and Giants and, in fact, they're 4-0 in rematch games.
  
• The Seahawks are overrated. They played 5 teams with winning records: losing 2 of those games (to Jacksonville and the Redskins); winning 2 games that were handed to them against Dallas and New York (both in Seattle) when Dallas' Drew Bledsoe threw a last minute interception and New York's Jay Feely missed 3 makeable field goals. And they beat a Colts team that had nothing to play for and sat their best players for most of the game.
  
• Although everyone is pointing out that the Seahawks are 8-0 at home here is a list of those opponents: Atlanta, Arizona, Houston, Dallas, St. Louis, NY Giants, San Francisco, and Indianapolis. Aside from Dallas, NY and Indy (which I just discussed) the other teams were a combined 25-55.
  
• The Skins might not have been good on the road, but the past two weeks they have come from behind and held on to leads in must win situations. Two things they were having problems with early in the mid-season.
  
• It seems like NO ONE thinks the Skins have a chance.
  

And finally to the picks:

at Seattle OVER Redskins - I can't change my tune now can I?

at Denver OVER New England - I want to be among those that think New England shouldn't be picked against, but I can't bring myself to think that. Denver is a good team especially at home. New England has been a good playoff team, but they've had most of those games at home. Anyways this is my iffy game. I'm just not sure.

at Indianapolis OVER Pittsburgh - This is my non-iffy game. I'm am too sure about this one. First, Indy beat Pittsburgh well back in November. Plus, Pittsburgh got fortunate against the Bengals. Finally, remember how I haven't been convinced by Pittsburgh all year?

at Chicago OVER Carolina - Carolina's wins against Atlanta and New York are making people believe they are the team that deserved to be on the cover of Sports Illustrated as that magazine's pick to win the Super Bowl at the beginning of the season. Well, I pretty sure they played in the NFC South, and had losses to New Orleans, Miami (when they were still iffy), and Tampa and Dallas (at home). That last loss? A 13-3 loss at home to the Bears.

Restaurant Week Winter 2006

It's that time of year again where things have slowed down... and Restaurant Week is here once again.

If you're not familiar with it, just click on the link. In essence, swank restaurants around the city offer pretty good full course meals at a fixed price: Lunch for $20.06 and Dinner for $30.06. Considering how much the places normally run, it's a pretty good deal.

Redskins: sweet revenge

In case you didn't already know (since it's been repeated incessantly all week) the last time the Redskins were in they playoffs they lost to Tampa Bay 14-13, missing a field goal for the win on a bad snap. The last time the Redskins played in Tampa Bay, they lost 36-35 on a 2-point conversion that wasn't. Yeah... that was a nice win. Ugly, as everyone seems to want to point out, but a win nonetheless.

And now I am worried, because the Redskins got lucky to beat the Seahawks back in September. It would definitely give the Seahawks incentive, but I'm hoping that, since few people are giving the Redskins a chance, it will give them some incentive. We can only hope...

The NFL Playoff picks

I don't know what to do. Back when I decided to pick against the Redskins for the rest of the season, I really didn't think they were going to make the playoffs. I BADLY wanted them to make it, I just thought they wouldn't. Now, I almost feel obliged to pick against them again for consistency, for karma... for whatever! Anyways, here are my picks for this weekend's playoff games:

at Tampa Bay OVER Washington - That hurts... I don't really want to say anything more about this game aside from I seriously hope to go 7-4 in the playoffs.

at New England OVER Jacksonville - I spent the entire season talking about how I liked the Jaguars even though they played a soft schedule. Now they're in the playoffs having played ONE significant opponent since mid-october, and they lost that game to the Colts. Before that they had wins against quality teams like Seattle, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh, but those were almost 3 months ago. So I'm believing the New England hype even though they've only beaten two good (playoff) teams all year. ATS I would undoubtedly go with Jacksonville though.

at NY Giants OVER Carolina - I don't trust Eli Manning. And I especially don't trust him in his first playoff game. I just don't trust the Panthers even more... you know they're in the NFC South and all. True they probably got screwed by the refs against the Cowboys two weeks ago, but it should never have come to that, especially at home and when it counted.

at Cincinnati OVER Pittsburgh - I hate this pick for many reasons. For one, the Bengals go into this game following back to back regular season ending losses to Buffalo and Kansas City. They had already wrapped up the division, but they were still playing for a first round bye. So it's not like they just shut it down, like the Colts. Also they lost the last time they played the Steelers at home (It almost seems like home field isn't much of an advantage to them). But I'm going with them because of the following: First, remember how I haven't like the Steelers all year? Second, everyone is loving the Steelers because of their 4 game winning streak going in, but they've only had to play one good team (Chicago) in that span. And the last game before that streak? A home loss to Cincinnati... but that also makes me think they're looking for revenge. See now why I hate this pick?

Experimental Music: Longest Concert, ever.

I've always wanted to consider myself open-minded about most things. It really bothers me when supposedly enlightened people (Marilyn vos Savant and her equating Picasso's work to the Emperor's New Clothes always comes to mind) are quick to dismiss things they apparently don't understand. That's not to say I think of myself as "enlightened"... anyways back to the point.

So Nearing 5 years into the world's longest lasting concert, the second chord will sound soon. (just click the link if that doesn't make senses) Now I don't want to dismiss it as a gimmick, but it sure does sound like one. I wouldn't say it isn't art, but when you're notable because you're making the Guiness Book of World Records you really have to question your artistic integrity. If I wanted to make a 1000 by 1000 ft painting/mural would that make me "experimental?" I guess so, but then I don't think being called "experimental" when it comes to art is a good thing.

Peter Jackson and King Kong

I have seen two Peter Jackson movies and I am steadily growing a dislike for his work. I saw the first Lord of the Rings movie and I, unlike apparently everyone else in the world, did not look forward to watching the rest of the series. I thought the story and cinematography were excellent. But I thought the plotline was lethargic and some themes were too repetitive.

I just saw King Kong and I can say the same things about it. The movie started out promising, but it was too long. Now I don't want to ruin the movie for anyone, so I'll just explain some film ideas and explain in broad terms how King Kong failed. (I'll try not to give anything away.)

First, what most people are talking about: the movie is too long. Now there is nothing inately wrong with a 3 hour movie and in fact there are a bunch of good 3 hour movies (Lawrence of Arabia comes to mind). The problem is that it could easily be shorter, considering how long some scenes are and how many times you see a similar reaction or occurence. Jackson tries to add too many elements to the movie and in the process leaves holes in the story. If he explained everything the movie could easily be 4 or 5 hours long.

Second, and this might give something away, but I don't need to see Kong's "tender side" over and over again. I get it, the gorilla is kind when not attacked. And every "tender moment" doesn't need to be interrupted by gun shots or other kinds of attacks.

Third, and this a "rule" that all of hollywood has been breaking for awhile: just because you can do something (with special effects, etc.) it doesn't mean you SHOULD do it. I don't think I'm ruining anything when I say, there is much more special effects than the Gorilla and T-Rex that you see in the preview. And that's not exactly a good thing.

Anyways, I guess when you get down to it, I think Jackson needs a better editor. I understand that most Lord of the Ring fans appreciate the trilogy because it is fairly true to the books. But King Kong has no basis for such an extensive rendering. It seemed like he was given free reign, after (and during) the success of the Rings trilogy and now King Kong is monstrous (pun intended) production.