Gone Baby Gone

I took awhile before sitting down to write this review because it's a difficult one to write. The story is too complex to dissect in full: it's about a drug-addicted, neglectful mother, whose daughter (Amanda) is kidnapped. A private investigator, Patrick Kenzie (Casey Affleck) is hired due to his inside knowledge of the Boston neighbourhood. Chief Doyle (Morgan Freeman) lost a young daughter of his own and is dedicated to persevere on the issue of missing children. After Patrick stumbles upon inside information, he is drawn more and more into mystery and corruption, as he constantly tries to make the honourable decision.

The movie blurs the lines between right and wrong. Patrick is constantly taking risks to find Amanda: he offers an under the table exchange with a drug lord, and he seeks to uncover the truth behind corrupt cops - typical vigilante stuff. But in his final decision, Patrick goes up against his notions of love and sacrifice for the state. (spoilers) He discovers that Chief Doyle had Amanda all along, and he is forced to decide on whether to expose Chief Doyle for the selfish kidnapper that he is. His wife claims she will hate him for returning the girl because despite it being the "right" thing to do, the mother was a no-good, lying, drug-addict. Patrick believes that the mother will change, and that he owes it to Amanda who, when she grows up, would have her real identity. In the end, Patrick realizes his mistake, as the mother does not show signs of change, opting to sleep around on dates while leaving her 8-year-old daughter at home unattended. Despite Chief Doyle's delusional motives for kidnapping the girl (to fill a void in his life for his own lost daughter), you really get the sense that he's a good person that wanted to save her from a bad home. In a way, everyone loses - Patrick loses his partner, Chief Doyle goes to jail, Remy (a corrupt police officer played by Ed Harris) dies, and the girl is left with a loser of a mother. The movie delivers strong emotions to masterfully emphasize its point. (spoilers end)

Casey Affleck, Morgan Freeman, Michelle Monaghan, and Ed Harris were all superb in Gone Baby Gone. Casey's acting resume is much better than Ben Affleck's is, but Ben did a great job in his directorial debut. This movie is a lock to be nominated for Best Picture, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it won.

Famous Puppet Death Scenes

First a note on the Distillery District, home to the Young Centre for the Performing Arts. I've never been to this part of town, and I consider it a hidden gem, as it was new to me. It had brick roads and Industrial Gothic style buildings, saved from earlier industrial use. There are galleries, bakeries and cafe shops galore. It's a very nice neighbourhood to hang out in.

Famous Puppet Death Scenes is gaining notoriety and is traveling internationally. The show is exactly what it sounds like; it truly captures what the Theatre of the Absurd is all about. The influences of Edward Gorey were highly apparent. The skits were at times funny, in a quirky, black comedy type of way. But there was also imaginative scenes that perplexed the mind - a tendency in which the topic of death is inclined to do. There is a video on you tube, but it does not do justice to the charm and craftiness of the show. The puppets themselves were detailed, and their expressions and gestures were able to say so much. Famous Puppet Death Scenes was a very good show, and merits 4 stars based on its originality and creativity alone.

Shortstop Options in 2008

(featured on www.bluejayway.ca)

The Blue Jays failures in 2007 can be summed up to one aspect of the game: offence. While much of the offence can be blamed on injuries, teams have to prepare knowing that injuries are a part of the game and affect every team. While some people reflect on 2006 as being a great offensive year and what the “real” Blue Jays are like, I should point out that they still finished 7th in the AL in runs scored per game, and that was even with great years from Molina, Overbay, Glaus, Wells, Rios, Zaun, Hinske, Catalanatto, and even Hillenbrand. Everybody and their dog had a career year in 2006. Going into 2008, there is offensive potential at every position except for shortstop. John McDonald is a great defensive shortstop, but as a team the Jays had a .598 OPS out of the shortstop position, compared to an average OPS of .758 for starters (2006). That's a whopping difference of .160 OPS points. McDonald had a .612 OPS this year (and .595 career), which would slot in 3rd last amongst qualifiers (in 161st place, beating out Jason Kendall and Nick Punto). I’m as much a John McDonald fan as the next guy, but I don’t see this team making the playoffs with him as the starting shortstop. JP has said he’ll stand pat this winter, but I think he is bluffing, and is going to make a splashy move, which will most likely be an improvement at shortstop. So, with 2008 looking rosy as ever, with some great pitching and healthy hitting, let’s see what is available (* denotes free agent in 2008):

Top 10:

1) Tomohiro Nioka*: He is not technically a free agent until next year, but he could be posted and perhaps had for Akinori Iwamura money (around 3/$12 million), which is great for a shortstop. He hit .295/.346/.457 with 20 homers and 83 RBIs last year, and is 31 years old. As a basis of comparison, Iwamura hit .311/.389/.544 in his last year in Japan at 27, and ended up with a .770 OPS in his first year in the major leagues.

2) Alexei Ramirez: Ramirez is a 26 year old player from Cuba who also might be worth the risk financially. He went 6-16 in the WBC, has played in the Olympics, led his team with 20 homers last year, and is considered one of the top Cuban players around. For more information and a video, see: http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=597

3) Jack Wilson (trade): he might be the best option to get without paying too much in talent or money. He is still quite valuable as he had a .790 OPS this year (.690 career) with a .983 fielding percentage, edging out McDonald’s .982. The Pirates might be desperate to get that $14 million/2 year contract off their hands, but if they threw in some money, this would be an improvement.

4) Orlando Cabrera* (trade): of the next 3 big name possibilities, he is the most likely. There are tons of options for the Angels at SS/3B next year, from Brandon Wood, to Chone Figgins, Maicer Izturis, Erick Aybar, and Sean Rodriguez. Cabrera had a .742 OPS and a slick .983 fielding percentage last year, and is due about $9 million. Really, any of these players are trade options: Maicer Izturis is interesting, as he has a .724 careers OPS and has experience at 3b, a definite plus with Glaus’ creaky legs at 3b.

5) Rafael Furcal* (trade): also in his last year, and is due $13 million. His speed would go nicely at the top of the Blue Jays lineup. The prospect pushing him out, Chin-Lung Hu, might also be trade bait, as he won the MVP at the futures game and had an .871 OPS between AA and AAA this year as a 23 year old. We all know how reluctant the Dodgers are to play prospects. It would be a heist if some relievers could net Lu.

6) Edgar Renteria* (trade): he has a nice $11 million option in 2009, and with how shrewd the Braves are with prospects, I don’t see this as a viable trade possibility. They have Yunel Escobar that could take over, or could also be trade bait in a swap for one of the Jays young pitchers.

7) Felipe Lopez*: either him or Cristian Guzman* is a non-tender candidate, but Lopez’s bat has declined badly over the last two years, and he has poor defence. Angel Berroa* is in the same boat, as he may be released by the Royals, and despite hitting .300/.364/.433 in AAA this year, has a poor glove.

8) Ronny Cedeno (trade): he is known to have a great glove, and has had a .959 OPS last year in AAA, and a .921 OPS in AAA in 2005, but has been a disappointment at the ML level, and is thought to amount to a light-hitting shortstop. Only Ryan Theriot is blocking him and the Cubs may need him for their own shortstop problems.

9) Clint Barmes (trade): he is blocked in Colorado, mainly by Tulowitzki, Ian Stewart, and Kaz Matsui, but had a nice year in AAA (.815 OPS). It might not take a lot to get him in a trade but he’s a bit of a wild card.

10) Others: David Eckstein - he’ll be 33, and his bat has .100 OPS points over McDonald's, but his defence is slipping (20 errors this year), and he might not be worth the dollars he’ll command in free agency. Juan Uribe*, who will probably be retained by the White Sox for $5 million, is basically John McDonald plus 20 homers a year. And Jeff Keppinger of the Reds might not be a bad trade option, as the 27 year old has an .806 OPS at the major league level and .794 career minor league OPS. He played mostly 2b in the minors, but had a .989 fielding percentage at shortstop filling in for Alex Gonzalez.

World Series Preview

The Red Sox vs. Rockies World Series is primed to be an epic series. The Rockies are playing the role of the classic underdog with a $50 million payroll (ranked 25th in MLB), while the Red Sox are supported with a much nicer $150 million payroll (ranked 2nd in MLB). These teams met in the regular season with the Rockies taking the series 2-1 (including a 7-1 win over Josh Beckett), which nicely sums up how the Rockies are well-suited to battle an American League style team. As a die hard Jays fan, I whole-heartedly want the Rockies to win. They have only reached the playoffs once in their 15 year existence and have never made the World Series. What is more is that they have a history of a good attendance record (especially for a consistently underachieving, low payroll team), partly added by a beautiful park.













They have constructed their team the way any mid-market fan boy would admire: through the farm system approach, having their farm system widely seen as the second-best one behind only the Devil Rays to begin the year. And the team is full of homegrown products, led by future perennial all star and rookie Troy Tulowitzki, who has a great bat (24 hrs, .291 ave, 57 walks) and gold glove defence to back it up. They also have long-time and very underrated Todd Helton, who has played for only the Rockies since he was 23 in 1997, and put up one of the quietest .928 OPS seasons ever. What's more is that this truly seems like destiny's team. The Red Sox are lauded for the miraculous 3-0 come back in the 2004 ALCS, but the Rockies have gone 21-1, including winning 13 of their last 14 regular season games against potential playoff teams, and becoming only the second team to go 7-0 to start the postseason ever (tied with the 1976 Reds). Whether the 9 day layoff will rest them up or make them cold (like the Tigers last year), we will see - it's too hard to predict - but the Rockies are definitely the hotter team right now.

Offensively, these teams are about even. The Red Sox scored 867 runs in the regular season, while the Rockies scored 860, both very good offensive totals. However, the Red Sox are going to be without their DH for 3 games of the series, and they are struggling with their own issue of whether to put in Youklis or Ortiz at 1b under the NL rules. It is a tough question, as Ortiz has a much better bat, but Youklis has been scorching hot this postseason (he's batting .500/.576/.929!!! in 28 at bats) and likely has better defence at 1b. The Red Sox and Rockies are also home to two of the most intriguing parks in baseball. The Rockies have an extreme hitters park, as the lower gravity and drier air causes balls to be hit farther; and the further fences ensures a more spacious outfield for hits to fall into (although recent humidors have dampened the effects). Questions have always been on Rockies hitters whether they are as good in other parks, as many of them have extreme home/road splits. As a team, the Rockies hit an .852 OPS at home this year, and a .731 OPS away (.121 diff), whereas the Red Sox hit a less extreme .844 OPS at home and .768 OPS away (.76 diff). What complicates things is the Red Sox enigmatic park: it is hitter friendly but suppresses homeruns. The green monster greatly reduces homeruns hit, but the short right field porch may increase them. As well, there are many nooks and crannies for balls to get caught in, and they can bounce off the green monster to increase the number of hits. It is going to be interesting to see how these teams adapt to playing in such different parks; but as a whole these are very close offences and an edge cannot really be given to either team.

The Rockies are faced with a similarly tough question on the pitching front. Bring back Aaron Cook, one of the Rockies better pitchers, but who hasn't pitched since August 10th, or stay with Franklin Morales, a highly regarded prospect and flame throwing lefty. Both could do well or implode, one is rusty and the other inexperienced. Personally, I think Morales is a better pitcher and has a better chance of being dominant, whereas you never know what you're going to get with a returning from injury pitcher. The match-ups should look something like this:

Beckett vs. Francis

Schilling vs. Jimenez

Matsuzaka vs. Morales/Cook

Wakefield vs. Fogg

Defensively, these are both good teams, with the Red Sox tallying 81 errors in the regular season, versus the Rockies record-breaking 68 errors (they set the ML record in fielding percentage with 0.98925%, edging out, ironically, the 2006 Red Sox with a 0.98910%). The Rockies and Red Sox both have good bullpens, led by relief aces Papelbon and Okajima, versus Fuentes and Corpas. But the starting pitching looks definitely in favour of the Red Sox. The team ERA's favours the Red Sox by 3.87 vs. 4.32, however, in a short 7 game series that seems to have less importance. Furthermore, aside from one of the game's most clutch pitchers in Josh Beckett, the difference is not as big as it initially appears with the following matchups - and the Rockies already pounded Beckett this year to the tune of 6 earned runs in 5 innings. Not to say that that will happen again, but all in all I think this series is going to go 7 games, and the Rockies are going to win it, becoming the 8th new team in 8 years to win a World Series. This is going to be an exciting series, with two evenly matched teams that have it all: speed, defence, offence and pitching.

30 Days of Night

As a basis of comparison I will talk about Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles, which ushered in the modern vampire, as her books are one of the most widely read fiction books ever, and to this day (they were written from the 70's to the 2000's) do not appear dated one bit. They span the creation of vampires from Ancient Egypt to the present day when Lestat becomes an MTV rock star. Her vampires are chosen for their beauty, and they are capable of feelings of love and morality. Rice's vampires are the sort that you would want to be: they can be very much human, like Louis who is very capable of love and is very aware of his conscience. And they can have super strength and senses, like the "brat prince" Lestat, who is powerful and in need of vanity and excitement. They are immortal, unless sunlight or fire maybe kill them (if their ashes are scattered after that). Stakes and crosses, in the words of Louis, are "bullshit." And even only a select few live long periods of time, as the rest are "all too human" and succumb to existential dead-ends and find their way to death. These vampires are seductive, and reason and love.

The vampires of 30 Days of Night are of a much different breed. These are nasty things. They screech like crows, scratch like cats, and seem to have no inherent reason in the excessive killing that they do. You do not want to be one of them. They do not seem to think, but they use weapons and normal fighting techniques. At times the 30 Days vampires looked very cool, all messed up and bloodied. But there was a consistency lacking, where you felt Larry the guy with donuts was just off screen, and the acting in the gestures often did not hold up. Yes there were some iconic images (like the one at the end of the trailer just before the title), but for all of these there were clumsily acted vampires. As well, while some looked absolutely disfigured, the leader looked like a lawyer who had a long night (but had enough time to get a buzz cut in the morning). At times they looked too much like normal people. Story-wise, they did a good job setting up the movie with a lot of intimate, close-up shots of the human characters, in all parts of town. Much of the rest of the movie was tense, while the audience waited for the next encounter. And by the time the ending rolls along, you can truly sense the graphic novel influence on the movie.

All in all, this is not a groundbreaking movie as far as vampire movies go, but it definitely stands out as worth-seeing if you like the vampire genre. I give it 3.5 stars out of 5.

Dexter

Dexter is a brilliant show that is a cut above standard TV shows on every level. The production is well-done, from the creepy solo violin theme, to the acting, the story, the dark humour, as well as incorporating crime drama into the show. But the show goes even deeper, looking intensely into the psyche of Dexter, and what it means to be a moral killer. Is there such a thing?

The first insight into killing the show explores is that of nature versus nurture. Dexter experiences events early in his life that trigger natural genetic urges to kill - but he is raised by a good cop to release these urges in a constructive way, by killing only bad people and knowing how to not get caught. By the end of the first season Dexter has a choice to release his inner killer, to be free and not confined by ideas of 'goodness', or stay to the code with which he was raised. (spoiler) Dexter chooses to stay good, by not killing his 'fake' sister through adoption, but instead killing his murderous blood brother. He sacrifices a brother that he could truly connect with, for a sister that he is close to caring about (if he could). (end spoiler)

The second insight is the issue of whether it is right to kill people at all, ever. A pre-law friend I was talking to said how she hated the show because it tells people that killing is good. But these aren't innocent people - they are evil people, and some people have done such bad things that a Biblical eye-for-an-eye form of justice would be embraced by the families of victims and the rest of society. As well, there are numerous incidences where Dexter has a chance to prevent someone from dying, in which he becomes a sort of avenger. For example, a gang leader named Little Chino murders people who give information about his gang, and Dexter was able to 'intervene' before a child was next. This also happened in the most recent episode where a car salesman was zeroing in on a new single female friend to rape and kill.

Dexter proclaims that he cannot really care about anyone in this world and has no feelings, the typical symptoms of a psychopath. But the show repeatedly shows evidence to the contrary. He constantly makes sacrifices to be closer to his girlfriend Rita. He has an awareness of morality, to help the good and kill the bad. And he reflects on the death of his mother with great sorrow and angst. The closest Dexter is to being mentally unhealthy is having multiple personalities, because it seems the only time when he's cold and calculating is when he's about to kill. It's strange because Dexter fits the bill as a moral killer - most people seem to think he's good (about 85% according to the promo site that asks if he is good/evil), yet if he lived in real society there would be a need to categorize him as mentally unhealthy.

Welcome to my site

I am not going to do this blog to achieve external accolades (except for money and women; women flock to unemployed bloggers, right?). Instead I hope to just synthesize a bit about the tremendous amount of media I take in, from movies to shows to books. I'll also throw in the occasional internet meme that I find hilarious. For me the highest form of accomplishment in these media is when there is meaning underneath the entertaining surface - and that is what I'd like to talk about.

My first official movie "review" will be on Friday, a movie I've been waiting awhile to see called "30 Days of Night," about a bunch of vampires that realize Alaska is a good vacation spot where the sun goes down for 30 days. I love vampire movies and books, and recently have been reading Anne Rice's Vampire Chronicles - which kicks ass by the way - so hopefully that will be a good basis of comparison.

By the way, the site's title comes from the logical fallacy that a proposition is true because many or all people believe it, or argumentum ad populum. Be individual, think for yourself.

As well, a note on my rating system. I generally give decent movies 3.5 stars out of 5. Four stars is a benchmark that I give out often to very good movies. Three is mediocre, while 2.5 or below is probably not worth seeing. Five stars is rare, but it means that the show or movie was great on all levels.

Edit: If you haven't discovered it by now, I am also using this site to type a lot about my interest in baseball. So it serves a dual function, and should be pretty evenly balanced - if you don't like baseball, skip over those parts and read on for the media-related entries.