Snikt!

Let's be clear: Wolverine should be in an R-rated movie. There should be blood, flying limbs, and expletives. He shouldn't have feelings. Alas, that's not what we got with X-Men Origins: Wolverine. That, however, is not necessarily an indictment of this X-Men prequel, which is actually pretty good at what it does, though certainly not the best (har har).

The movie opens confusingly, with a young Logan realizing he, in fact, has bone claws that he can use to gouge people with. There's some thing about a guy not being his father, or whatever, but it is never really mentioned again. What it does serve to do is establish that Wolvie and Sabertooth (played by Liv Schrieber) are brothers. It then moves into a particularly cool montage of the mutant siblings fighting in every American war since 1860 up to Vietnam. After some gruesome displays by Victor (Sabertooth), they are sentenced to be executed by firing squad. And when that doesn't work (you know, the mutant healing factor thing), they are put on a mutant special forces team, led by Colonel Stryker who is sadly not played by Bryan Cox.

If this sounds like a lot of plot, it is. There's a bunch more, but it is all crammed into the first 20 minutes. The rest is your basic revenge story. Once Logan is unwilling to participate in the questionable morals Stryker demands, he leaves the team and becomes a logger in the Canadian Rockies where he, obviously, falls in love. And, just as obviously, Victor ends up killing her, thrusting Logan back into the action.

The best part of the movie is when the adamantium is grafted into Logan's skeleton. It is really only here that he displays the raw, animalistic side of Wolverine. The rest is basically a mish mash of the X-Men movies, complete with detaining mutants and attempting to rob them of their powers. It's been done before, and better. My big issue with the movie was that it didn't feel any different than X-Men 2. Sure, the other X-Men are (mostly) absent, but the tone and style is almost identical.

This may have to do with Hugh Jackman. I like Jackman. Loved The Prestige, he was outstanding in The Fountain. I'm down with Hugh. I just don't think he's the right actor for Wolverine. First, he is not savage or aggressive enough. The man is a Tony Award winning actor who can ballroom dance for God's sake. There are brief moments in the movie when that side comes out, but those are few and far between. The second is, let's face it, Jackman is a Greek god. The man is ripped eight ways to Sunday. They find excuses to have him take his shirt off. That ain't Wolverine. Wolverine is short, scrappy, and stocky. He's supposed to be like an actual wolverine. I can't really think of a big name actor who could play this role, but Jackman just isn't quite right. Really, if this wasn't "Wolverine", I might have enjoyed it even more. Jackman makes Logan his own, which is what you are supposed to do as an actor, but it just doesn't evoke the comic book version of the character.

Two other big problems: Gambit and the special effects. Gambit has always been my favorite X-Man. Cool Cajun accent, awesome powers, wanted to bang Rogue in the tv show. In this, good Lord. The actor is so forgettable I don't even care about going to IMDB to find out his name. He doesn't even have an accent. It's just bad. Worse, though, are some of the special effects. The qaulity varies widely from looking absolutely amazing to not fit for a Sci Fi movie of the week. It is amazing that a blockbuster movie could have such shoddy effects. In a movie like this, that kind of thing really hurts.

If all of this makes it seem like I hated the movie, I'm probably just a bad writer. I really enjoyed it. I would put it second in the X-Men franchise behind X2. It certainly won't win any awards, and there are some serious issues, but overall it's a fun night at the movies. The helicopter chase scene is the best piece of action cinema I have seen since Dark Knight. If Marvel had been willing to break with the X-Men franchise and really do this thing right, I think there was enough here to be amazing. But when you have to make $250 million, it doesn't pay to make Wolvie into a whirlwind of blood and guts. However, If you like comic book movies, it's a must see Bub.

State of Play

The decline of newspapers is an indelible fact of modern American culture. The internet and cable news has essentially forced out the erstwhile ink-stained wretch desperately pecking away at his typewriter trying to make the first edition. You know, someone should make a movie about this. Russell Crowe, you say? Sign me up!

State of Play had the opportunity to be something special. With a great cast at its disposal, it could have been the anti-All the President’s Men, depicting the fall of American newspaper journalism. What we got instead was a relatively interesting political thriller with tantalizing bits of prescience tucked in. The story involves the death of a Congressman’s (Ben Affleck’s) aide and the conspiracy surrounding it. Crowe plays Affleck’s friend and “Washington Globe” reporter assigned to the story. Along with hot blogger Rachel McAdams, the intrepid duo try to hunt down the truth…before it’s too late.

It’s pretty ho hum stuff, but some of it has style and the acting is great. The only problem is, I still don’t know what the hell happened. The ending made no sense, and there was a bunch of plot that didn’t really seem to go anywhere or matter. The film also tugged at intriguing threads, especially concerning the importance of selling papers. Helen Mirren, who plays the news editor, continually screams at Crowe for his unwillingness to run with sensational and titillating stories in favor of “real” news. Which, of course, is what newspaper journalism has essentially become. In its losing war against real time cable news and blogging, newspapers are attempting to become the very things that are making them irrelevant.

This, I think, could make a great movie, and would not be unlike Season 5 of The Wire. Unfortunately, State of Play was content to be a decent political thriller. And, in this era of Hollywood taking the easy way out, that should be news to no one.

Riddles in the Dark

This cartoon always freaked me out.

The Hobbit has been a film somewhat shrouded in mystery, with talk of a "bridge" film between it and the LOTR trilogy. This was a prospect that always made me wary, as the idea of making a non-Tolkien work canonical seemed, at best, a dicey proposition. Luckily, director Guillermo del Toro and producer Peter Jackson have decided against that route, instead splitting up The Hobbit into two films. The article says that the White Council and the wanderings of Gandalf (which are not discussed in the book) were originally meant to form the second film, but will now be weaved throughout the story.

I couldn't be happier with this development. I always felt as though The Hobbit was more than what one movie could provide, but also somewhat less than two, if that makes any sense. I think interspersing the concurrent Gandalf storyline will work far better as part of a greater work and will necessarily have to take fewer literary chances than a stand alone film. Not that my excitement level could really be any higher for films coming out in 2011 and 2012, but this is great news.

Valued Customers

What should be a moment of great joy in my life has become one of despair. Despair in knowing that Peter Jackson will eventually make, like, 10 grand off me. The Lord of the Rings is being released on Blu-Ray sometime this year, but the release will be (wait for it) the theatrical cut! Not that I have some sort of hatred towards the movies I saw in the theater, but the extended editions are far superior. This is, of course, all rumor at this point, as no official announcement has been made to that end, but it's obviously true. Why release what everyone wants when you can release it at a later date, and after us HD-starved LOTR fanboys have already bought the theatrical cut? It's just good business.

Snark aside, it is good business. They know their customer. Does anyone really think that I won't go out and buy this the day it comes out, and then buy the extended editions the day they come out? Of course not. Then, I'll have four different copies of the same movie! Who wouldn't want that?

Six Days in Fallujah

War is as fundamental to video games as plumbers who can jump really high. Without war, what the hell would we play? Space marines, Roman centurions, and American GI's are featured prominently in the vast majority of games that are released. Movies and television also make good and profitable use of war. I'd be willing to bet that World War II has won more Oscars than any three other events combined. We sure do love us some war. In most cases, I actually think this is OK. What real harm can come from winning an inter stellar war in Halo or leading your legions against Carthaginian barbarians? I think that changes a bit, though, when the recent past is portrayed, particularly in video games. While playing through D-Day is thrilling, it's also a real event that our grandfathers took part in. For them, there was no save point, no reset button, and watching digital representations of American soldiers gunned down on a virtual Normandy beach is always a little chilling and off-putting.

This phenomenon is even more apparent when talking about a war that is currently underway. Konami is planning to release a game called Six Days in Fallujah, which follows American troops through the worst days of the Iraq war. The company is attempting to make a sort of game documentary, but at the same time says they want to show "the horrors of war in a game that is also entertaining." This, to me, is completely incongruous. I don't think anyone would argue that war is in any way entertaining. Certainly not Iraq, where American soldiers are still dying.

Iraq is, in many ways, our generation's Vietnam. While it does not have the same impact on our daily lives and we aren't getting drafted, it has shown us that America's mere presence in a war does not automatically mean victory. It is a war with unclear objectives and no definitive end in sight. Years after we supposedly "won", American soldiers and Iraqi civilians die regularly. To make Iraq "entertainment", especially while we are still there, is immediately distasteful to me. While there are games about Vietnam, I've never played one and have no desire to, and I think I would always feel the same way about Iraq.

I do, however, play games and enjoy films about World War II. It certainly has something to do with WWII being further in the past, but it also seems like America's last "pure" war. We were attacked, we knew our enemy, and the forces of evil were advancing throughout Europe. It is almost mythic in its stark good guy/bad guy lines. Iraq simply is not. The murky morality and frankly unjust nature of pre-emptive war against a country that had not attacked us does not make for "entertainment." It is simply a tragedy.

Final Predictions

Sorry, NL. Better luck next year.

NL East
Phillies
Braves
Mets
Marlins
Nationals

NL Central
Cubs
Cardinals
Reds
Brewers
Astros
Pirates

NL West
Dodgers
Diamonbacks
Giants
Rockies

AL MVP: Grady Sizemore, Indians
AL Rookie of the Year: Matt Wieters, Orioles
AL Cy Young: Francisco Liriano, Twins

NL MVP: Manny Ramirez, Dodgers
NL Rookie of the Year: Cameron Maybin, Marlins
NL Cy Young: Tim Lincecum, Giants

AL Wild Card: Yankees
NL Wild Card: Cardinals

NLCS: Dodgers over Cubs
ALCS: Yankees over Red Sox

World Series: Dodgers over Yankees in 6 games

American League Preview

You asked for it. You demanded it. Here it is. The rest of the American League preview. Due to the lateness of said preview, it has been completed at the last minute and at great expense.

AL Central

The Indians get back to the top of the division, barely edging out the hard charging Twins. This division is very deep should be even more competitive than the East.

1. Indians
2. Twins
3. White Sox
4. Tigers
5. Royals

Best Player: Grady Sizemore, CF, Indians. It feels like Sizemore has been around forever, but only has four complete seasons under his belt. At 26, he is already one of the 10 best players in the American League, but this is really the year he makes the leap. The only thing keeping him from truly taking off is a fairly low BA/OBP, but going 30/30 kind of makes up for that.

Honorable mention: Miguel Cabrera, 1B, Tigers

Biggest Comeback: The Indians. After going to the ALCS in 2007 and losing in 7 games, the Indians seemed like a team on the rise. Last year, the bottom fell out, with injuries and awful performances causing them to finish right at .500. Even if guys like Cliff Lee take a small step back, with Victor Martinez and Travis Hafner healthy again, the offense should be dynamic enough to win the division.

Honorable mention: Justin Verlander, SP, Tigers

Biggest Disapointment: Alexei Ramirez, 2B/SS, White Sox. Ramirez had a very nice rookie campaign, drawing comparisons to Alfonso Soriano. The natural assumption, then, is that he will continue on an upward trend this season. However, some of his underlying numbers show cause for concern. He only walked 18 times in 138 games, which does not bode well for his stolen base numbers. He's got good upside, but don't expect a ton of improvement.

Dishonorable mention: Cliff Lee, SP, Indians.

Bold Prediction: Alex Gordon will make the All Star team. Gordon was one of the most highly touted prospects, well, ever when he was drafted in 2005 by the Royals. In two big league seasons, though, he has been mediocre at best, and almost all the hype that surrounded him has disappeared. He's still only 25 though, and the skills are still there. I think he will hit 25 homers and bat .290 and will show the absurdity of judging players after only a couple of years in the bigs.

Honorable mention: Francisco Liriano will win the AL Cy Young.


AL West

The West is once again the Angels' division to lose, but they will come back to the pack this year a bit. The rest of the division simply doesn't have enough pitching, but watch out for the Rangers in a year or two.

1. Angels
2. A's
3. Rangers
4. Mariners

Best Player: Josh Hamilton, CF, Rangers. Count me among those on the Hamilton bandwagon. He has one of the best stories in sports and as much talent as anyone in baseball. His numbers declined in the second half last year, but 2008 was really his first full big league season. I think he will figure out how to maintain production over the long haul and hit around 40 homers with 130-140 RBI's.

Honorable Mention: Matt Holiday, LF, A's

Biggest Comeback: Ichiro, CF, Mariners. Seattle was bad last year, both in the standings and in the clubhouse. Rumors surfaced that Ichrio was basically an asshole that no one liked. While it's not clear that this specifically impacted his play, he had the worst year of his MLB career. I think this was an aberation, and he will get back to his career numbers.

Honorable mention: Erik Bedard, SP, Mariners

Biggest Disapointment: Chris Davis, 1B, Rangers. Davis came out of nowhere to hit 17 homers in less than 300 at bats last year, and everyone seems to think he is a 35 homer lock. While the power may be legitimate, he is another who strikes out a lot and doesn't walk. While he could be a big time player down the road, I think a sophomore slump is fairly likely.

Dishonorable mention: Vladimir Guerrero, RF, Angels (getting old, not running, etc.)

Bold Prediction: Vlad will hit under .300 for the first time in his career. I hate bagging on Vlad, but it looks to me like his decline is coming mighty quick. Last season was his first year of playing more than 140 games in which he hit fewer than 30 homers and did not drive in 100 runs. He was only 5-8 in stolen base attempts, and his walks declined and strikeouts rose dramatically. Vlad used to be the most interesting player in the game, but I think he is about to become just slightly above average.

Honorable mention: Jason Giambi returns to Oakland and hits 35 homers.