Monday, January 7, 2019

Director Title Belt, Vol 2: '80s & '90s

If you need to know how this works, check out Vol. 1. For sake of words, I'll launch right in.

1980

"Raging Bull" Martin Scorsese

Critical success (95% fresh) street drama "Raging Bull" earned Scorsese an Oscar nomination and a BAFTA nomination. Also got Robert De Niro his 2nd Oscar. An auto-bid as the other heavy hitters laid eggs (De Palma's "Dressed to Kill") or just took the year off.

A notable exclusion, you may notice, is Stanley Kubrick's "The Shining." While I find the film riveting and genius, it earned a Razzie nomination for worse Director and was therefore disqualified.

TITLE BELT: Martin Scorsese (2)

1981

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" Steven Spielberg
"Thief" Michael Mann
"Escape to New York" John Carpenter
"Das Boot" Wolfgang Petersen

Good group of flicks here. 

Petersen's Sub-movie was one of the originals of the genre (a favorite genre of mine) and received rave reviews to the tune of 98% fresh. It also earned Petersen 2 Oscar nominations and a BAFTA nom. 

Michael Mann's debut received a nomination at Cannes and is 96% fresh. 

Carpenter gave us the first installment of the Snake Plissken sagas, which received a Saturn nomination and is 86% fresh.

None of these films made very much money.

Spielberg teamed up with Lucas (doing the writing) and created Indiana Jones. Star Wars put Harrison Ford on the map, Raiders made him an unparalleled superstar. Spielberg received an Oscar nom, a Globe nom, and won a Saturn while the film made $248 million. Also registering at 95% fresh, Raiders was a phenomenon and only the beginning for Spielberg.

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg (3)

1982

"Gandhi" Richard Attenborough
"Diner" Barry Levinson
"Blade Runner" Ridley Scott
"The King of Comedy" Martin Scorsese
"E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" Steven Spielberg


Levinson had some writing credits, even earning an Oscar nom for the '79 screenplay "...and justice for all." but finally made his directing debut with "Diner" which is 92% fresh and earned an Oscar nomination as well.

Scorsese teamed up with De Niro again but also cast Jerry Lewis in the offbeat, dark film which can only be genre-fied as "Scorsesean." Nobody saw it ($3 million to date) but it's 91% fresh and got him BAFTA and Cannes nominations.

Sir Ridley hit on his 3rd feature in a row with "Blade Runner" which capitalized on Harrison Ford's soaring stardom. The Sci-fi cult-hit is 90% fresh and received a Saturn nomination.

Sweeping the awards was esteemed-actor-turned-director Richard Attenborough's biopic of Mahatma Gandhi starring Ben Kingsley. It won 2 Oscars for Attenborough, 1 Globe, 2 BAFTAs, and he was awarded a lifetime-achievement BAFTA at the same time. It's currently 85% fresh and topped out at a fairly average $53 million.

Above them all stands a little alien. E.T. is one of the few movies to achieve all 3 of the advanced versions of the criteria. It made a staggering $435 million (translates to $1.25 billion, 4th all-time), it's 98% fresh (you just don't see anything higher than 98%), and Spielberg was nominated for 2 Oscars, 1 Globe, 2 BAFTAs, and a Saturn.

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg (4)

1983

no hits

The big movies of the year were "Return of the Jedi" which was a one-hit wonder for Richard Marquand. "Never Say Never Again" which saw Empire director Irvin Kershner try his hand at Bond rather unsuccessfully. And "Scarface", which was De Palma's best chance at the Belt but it was nominated for a Razzie and missed the cut elsewhere as well.

So, Spielberg gets to hold on.

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg (5)

1984

"Spinal Tap" Rob Reiner
"Splash" Ron Howard
"The Terminator" James Cameron
"Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" Steven Spielberg

When I considered Rob Reiner for Belt contention I never would have guessed this film would make the cut. The zany mockumentary starring Christopher Guest is a well-deserved 95% fresh.

Ron Howard (after starring in the earlier hit American Graffiti) had made his directorial debut in '77 with the panned "Grand Theft Auto" and then had much more success in '82 with "Night Shift" but not quite enough to make the cut at 90% fresh. Finally, with "Splash" he received a Saturn nomination and was again accepted critically at 92% fresh.

"The Terminator" was James Cameron's second film, his first "Piranha II: The Spawning" surprisingly failing miserably (6% rotten). For Terminator, Cameron was nominated for two Saturns winning one and it currently sits as the only feature film considered for the Belt at 100% certified fresh.

Spielberg somehow managed to churn out another blockbuster, his third in four years, with the Indiana Jones sequel. Not as beloved as the first, it still is 85% fresh, received a Saturn nomination, and made $197 million. 

A strong case can be made for Spielberg, his film made more money, and he's the current belt holder three years running. However, Terminator spawned a multi-billion dollar franchise and is the 100% freshest. 

TITLE BELT: James Cameron

1985

"After Hours" Martin Scorsese
"The Color Purple" Steven Spielberg
"Back to the Future" Robert Zemeckis

Notable one-hit wonder Ivan Reitman's "Ghostbusters"

Scorsese, always making a splash at Cannes, gets two nominations with one win with the bizarre comedy of errors. 88% fresh.

Spielberg turns his sights onto an Alice Walker novel about racial tension and identity. The film is nominated for a staggering 11 Oscars, one of which is for his directing. He also received a Globe nomination and the film is 85% fresh.

Robert Zemeckis had enjoyed middling success with his first three features but the time-bending sci-fi starring Christopher Lloyd and Michael J Fox was a major hit. At 96% fresh, the first of the trilogy made $211 million and earned Zemeckis five major award nominations. 

Another tough call. Zemeckis' film was a blockbuster and launched a trilogy but Spielberg's was adored by the Academy and demonstrated Spielberg's ability to not only do "fun" but also important work.

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg (6)

1986

"Stand By Me" Rob Reiner
"Aliens" James Cameron

Reiner's Stephen King adaptation met good reviews, is 91% fresh, and got a Globe nomination.

Cameron hit critical gold again. The sequel to Sir Ridley Scott's "Alien" is one of the rare occasions the second may out-do the first. Witty, gritty, and oh so cool; Sigourney Weaver reprises her role flawlessly. Two Saturn wins and a nearly perfect 99% fresh rating make this a slam dunk year.

Notable exclusion, Tony Scott's "Top Gun" which simply isn't respected by the critics at 54% fresh and completely ignored by the awards.

TITLE BELT: James Cameron (2)

1987

"Cry Freedom" Richard Attenborough
"Full Metal Jacket" Stanley Kubrick
"The Princess Bride" Rob Reiner
"Good Morning, Vietnam" Barry Levinson

A young Denzel and a peak Kevin Kline star in Attenborough's racially tense South African drama. At 82% fresh and with a Globe and two BAFTA nominations it comfortably achieves hit status.

After a seven-year hiatus, Stanley Kubrick came back with a bang. The sardonic and biting Vietnam War film earned him an Oscar nomination and sits at 93% fresh. 

Superstar comedian Robin William starred in Barry Levinson's take on the War, a shade different than Kubrick's. 90% fresh, Good Morning also made $124 million. 

One of the greatest comedies ever conceived, with a peak Carey Elwes, impassioned performances by Mandy Patinkin and Robin Wright, the unforgettable 6-fingered Christopher Guest, and the performance of Andre the Giant's life sits at 97% fresh. Unfortunately, comedies are spurned by award academies and "The Princess Bride" only made $31 million. 

This is a tough call, "Princess Bride" is obviously close to my heart but only barely making hit status puts it out of reach of the Belt. "Cry Freedom" received the most award recognition but made hardly any money and is the least critically appreciated. 

It comes down to two different takes on Vietnam. Kubrick's loud, angry, protest of the concept of American soldiering or Levinson's attempt to fight despair with a laugh. "Good Morning, Vietnam" is the better movie but it's hard to argue with Kubrick being the better director.

TITLE BELT: Stanley Kubrick (3)

1988

"They Live" John Carpenter
"Rain Man" Barry Levinson
"Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" Robert Zemeckis
"Beetlejuice" Tim Burton
"The Last Temptation of Christ" Martin Scorsese

Carpenter, under the pseudonym Frank Armitage, adapted a Ray Nelson short-story about an Alien takeover in his second career hit. A Saturn nomination and 85% fresh signify Carpenter's first hit among three straight years featuring Saturn nominated Sci-Fi films. The best of which is likely '86's "Big Trouble in Little China" even though it missed hit status by two percentage points.

After nearly getting the Belt with Vietnam, Levinson comes back with his most successful and iconic film. "Rain Man" won 4 Oscars including best director for Levinson, best picture, and best actor for star Dustin Hoffman. Levinson also received a Globe nomination for the 89% fresh film which earned a strong $173 million.

Few films have altered the landscape of Hollywood so distinctly as Robert Zemeckis' second hit. Roger Rabbit blended animation and live action in a manner not seen before. While 97% fresh, the single Saturn award and $156 million in receipts undersell the impact of the mystery-comedy mix.

For Martin Scorsese, faith, a devout Catholic faith, in particular, has always been extremely important to his life and work. In '88 he earned an Oscar nom for the 80% fresh telling of the life of Christ, focusing particularly on the temptations in the story.

After debuting with the 87% fresh Pee-Wee Herman comedy in '85, few would like have predicted the career waiting for Tim Burton. Teaming up with Michael Keaton, Burton scored his first hit with the spooky comedy Beetlejuice. Laying the groundwork for his signature dark and bizarre style, B-Juice earned Burton his first Saturn nomination and is 84% fresh.

The battle here comes down, as in previous years, to impact versus immediate success. It also is a convergence of careers going in opposite directions. Levinson will appear two more times in our list while Zemeckis will score hits all the way into the 2000s. Subjectively, and when considering the data, "Rain Man" is the better movie. However, there haven't been many films which challenged the status quo of Hollywood more than Roger Rabbit.


TITLE BELT: Robert Zemeckis

1989

"Lethal Weapon 2" Richard Donner
"When Harry Met Sally" Rob Reiner
"The Abyss" James Cameron
"Batman" Tim Burton
"Parenthood" Ron Howard
"Sex, Lies and a Videotape" Steven Soderbergh
"Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" Steven Spielberg

After the success of the Mel Gibson/Danny Glover buddy cop thriller in '87, audiences came out in force to support its sequel earning Donner his second hit. With $147 million at the gate and 83% fresh it won't quite get him the Belt.

Continuing an impressive run, Reiner's Billy Crystal romcom actually got an Oscar nomination (though not for directing), earned the director Globe and BAFTA noms, and is 90% certified fresh.

Cameron, three years removed from earning a Belt with "Aliens", earned a pair of Saturn nominations and won one with some original material. "The Abyss" is 89% fresh despite pulling in a merely average $54 million.

The success of "Beetlejuice" made Burton one of the most coveted directors in the business. He parlayed that demand into a franchise launching superhero blockbuster. The first film featuring the caped crusader since the '50s. "Batman" reunited Burton with Keaton and made a whopping $251 million, however it was ignored by the award committees and is currently only 72% fresh.

A new face made his hit debut in '89 with "Sex, Lies and a Videotape." Steven Soderbergh has had one of the more interesting careers over the past 20 years. His debut film, SLV, won twice at Cannes and also earned him Oscar, Globe, and BAFTA noms. Along with the other benchmarks and also 96% fresh, Soderbergh will never quite reach the heights of acclaim his debut afforded him. However, he will thankfully make more watchable movies.

Ron Howard found success again after three straight subpar offerings with the Steve Martin comedy "Parenthood." The 2-hour sitcom is 93% fresh and has made precisely $100 million.

A familiar face also returned from what will be his career high hiatus of three years without a hit (a mark he'll match 5x over his unmatched career). Spielberg's third Indiana Jones installment was more respected than Temple of Doom at 88% fresh (over #2's 85%) and actually has made the exact same $127 million at this point, a rare occurrence for 3rd installments over their corresponding sequel.

While Soderbergh's debut hit the most marks, it's a success in large part due to being the director's debut and less to anything particular awe-inspiring with the film itself. Burton's "Batman" made the most money but really isn't that great of a movie. Donner and Spielberg made sequels which owe much of their financial success to their previous installments. Despite loving Ron Howard, I can't give the belt to a Steve Martin sitcom, that just isn't right, however, Cameron's Abyss is hardly better than the other options.

So, what now? Perhaps impact will make the winner clearer. "Lethal Weapon 2" being successful emboldened the industry to churn out three more sequels, a TV show, and is part of Mel Gibson's "Hall of Fame" resume (something I hope to write more about another time). Burton's "Batman" was the first of a trilogy and prior to Nolan's esteemed take was the gold standard on the character.

Burton's slight edge isn't convincing enough. Zemeckis is the current title holder, what was he up to? "Back the Future II" the sequel to his '85 hit made a respectable $118 million but was not critically respected at only 64% fresh missing the mark. While hardly strong enough to earn the Belt on its own, none of the other options are strong enough to take it away.     

TITLE BELT: Robert Zemeckis (2)

The '80s

Belts:
Spielberg (4)
Zemeckis (2)
Cameron (2)

Hits:
Spielberg (5)
Scorsese (4)
Reiner (4)

$$$:
Spielberg ($1.27b)
Levinson ($404)
Zemeckis ($374)

With more than triple the financial success than 2nd place and tops at every conceivable category, the director of the '80s is unquestionably

Steven Spielberg


1990

"The Godfather Part III" Francis Ford Coppola
"Avalon" Barry Levinson
"Home Alone" Chris Columbus
"Goodfellas" Martin Scorsese

Before we look at how the films did, we can all agree Scorsese's "Goodfellas" is one of the greatest single movies ever.

So, how did Scorsese's gangster epic do? While only making $47 million, it stands at 96% fresh and earned him two Oscar noms, two Globe noms, and won 3 BAFTA awards as Scorsese's most awarded film.  

Gangster films were in vogue as Francis Ford Coppola finally completed the Corleone saga. It had been 11 years since Coppola had scored a hit, going 0 for 8 through the 80s. The finale didn't do nearly as well as the other two installments but did earn the director two Oscar and two Globe nominations. Rather famously, star Al Pacino recalled later they "only did it for the money." 

The success of the '80s put Levinson on the radar, and in '90 he scored another hit with an original screenplay about some Polish immigrants. He received a pair of Oscar nominations and a Globe nom and the film is 83% fresh.

Already successful as a screenwriter, Columbus had made his directing debut in the late '80s with moderate response. Most comfortable with family-friendly, comedic work, he struck financial gold with the Christmas-time foil, child-phenom Macauley Culkin. While the John Hughes' screenplay is not exactly critically adored (64% fresh) it made a massive $286 million. 

"Home Alone" may have made an enormous amount of money and launched a pair of sequels but comparing Columbus' directing to Martin Scorsese's is almost laughable.

TITLE BELT: Martin Scorsese (3)

1991

"Bugsy" Barry Levinson
"Terminator 2: Judgement Day" James Cameron
"Thelma & Louse" Ridley Scott

Levinson's career is still going strong today, but he has yet to score another hit beyond his biopic of the father of Las Vegas, Bugsy Siegel. The film won a pair of Oscars, earned Levinson personally two nominations and a Globe nom, and is 85% fresh.

Callie Khouri's Oscar-winning script helped Sir Ridley's "girl's night out" thriller to 84% fresh. Scott himself earned an Oscar nom and a pair of BAFTA noms as well.

Seven years after his inaugural hit, Cameron made the sequel. Like the first, he grabbed a pair of Saturn noms with one victory and was embraced by the critics at 93% fresh. Unlike the first, people came out in droves and T2 made $206 million.

Sci-fi may not be everyone's cup of tea, but the wide-ranging success and cultural impact of T2 are undeniable.

TITLE BELT: James Cameron (3)

1992

"A Few Good Men" Rob Reiner
"The Last of the Mohicans" Michael Mann
"Batman Returns" Tim Burton

Between Tom, Jack, and the classic "You can't handle the truth!" outburst, it's hard to avoid Reiner's military court hit. It earned Reiner an Oscar and Globe nom, is 82% fresh, and made $141 million.

Mann resurfaced, six years since his last movie and eleven since his last hit, with the Daniel-Day Lewis-starring James Fennimore Cooper adaptation. The fantastic movie, if you haven't seen it, is certified fresh at 95%.

Another sequel made hit status when the Burton-Keaton combo worked again. A Saturn nom and 83% fresh reveal the $163 million in receipts aren't purely resting on the popularity of the first film.

In non-hit news, Quentin Tarantino made his 90% certified fresh debut with "Reservoir Dogs" but nobody saw it. John Hughes and Chris Columbus teamed up again for "Home Alone II" although it's 30% rotten and deservedly so. M Night Shyamalan also debuted with a whimper, with the limitedly released "Praying with Anger."

The '92 Belt is another tough one. Mann's epic is, I think, the best film of the three, but both Burton and Reiner deserve their claim. "Batman Returns" is a successful film by my benchmarks, but it is a confused, mess of a movie, so Burton is out. Although my heart is with Reiner, who had a great run of seven hits in ten years (with one more coming), some of the scenes in Mohicans are simply among the best work you'll see.

TITLE BELT: Michael Mann

1993

"Shadowlands" Richard Attenborough
"In the Line of Fire" Wolfgang Petersen
"King of the Hill" Steven Soderbergh
"Heavenly Creatures" Peter Jackson
"The Wedding Banquet" Ang Lee
"Cronos" Guillermo del Toro
"Schindler's List" Steven Spielberg
"Jurassic Park" Steven Spielberg

What a year. It also featured one-hit-wonder "Groundhog Day" by the late Harold Ramis. 

So many words could be written about 1993. Peter Jackson got his first hit with a vampire flick, Attenborough adapted CS Lewis' biography, Ang Lee and del Toro made splashes with their foreign language films, and Petersen and Soderbergh each had their second hits but only for Petersen would it be his last. 

But consider for a moment what Spielberg did in 1993. He managed to arguably reach the peak on both of the mountains he had professionally climbed. On the blockbuster side, his dinosaurs at 91% fresh, earned him a Saturn award, and made an astonishing $402 million. On the more impactful, important side, he won 5 awards personally (2 Oscars, 2 BAFTAs, and a Globe), and brilliantly told the story of a group of Jews who were fortunate enough to be saved from Heydrich's final solution through the efforts of a German businessman. 

No one ever has nor ever will have a year like Spielberg's 1993.

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg (7)

1994

"Forrest Gump" Robert Zemeckis
"True Lies" James Cameron
"Ed Wood" Tim Burton
"Pulp Fiction" Quentin Tarantino

"Run, Forrest, Run!" Is only one of the many quotable moments from the era-spanning best picture-winning superhit. While some critics aren't as big on Gump as others (73% fresh), it did earn Zemeckis both Oscar and Globe wins, two BAFTA noms, and a Saturn nom. Where it really stands out is the massive $330 million at the gate. 

Cameron churned out his fourth hit in a row with another Schwarzenegger collaboration. Combining blockbuster thrills with comedy, Lies won a Saturn and made $146 million.

Tim Burton does a biography, earning a nomination at Cannes for his take on "The Worst Director of All-Time" Ed Wood. One can't help but wonder if Burton felt like he was telling what he saw as his own story. His second collab with Johnny Depp would certainly not be his last. Certified at 92% fresh.

Rather enigmatically, Quentin Tarantino announced to the world he only planned on making ten films. His second feature is arguably his best. "Pulp Fiction" made $108, is 94% fresh, and cleaned up at the awards. QT was nominated for two Oscars, two Globes, two BAFTAs, and one a Cannes. He took home one of each. 

While Burton and Cameron made successful films, the real contest is between Tom Hanks and Samuel L Jackson, between "Life is Like a Box of Chocolates" and "Say 'what' again, I dare you!", between Robin Wright and Uma Thurman. Zemeckis' film is timeless because it is familiar, it shows us things we know and taps into our nostalgia. Any other year, it would carry Z to the Belt. However, Tarantino is a genre unto himself and "Pulp Fiction" is the introduction and the apex of that genre.

TITLE BELT: Quentin Tarantino

1995

"American President" Rob Reiner
"Jumanji" Joe Johnston
"Apollo 13" Ron Howard
"Sense and Sensibility" Ang Lee
"Se7en" David Fincher
"The Usual Suspects" Bryan Singer

Close but no cigar for Tony Scott's "Crimson Tide" a one-hit wonder.

New blood abounds as the decade hits its mid-point. Three directors made their debuts and yet another made his second appearance on the hit list. While the changing of the guard was at hand, Rob Reiner represented the end of the late '80s-early '90s directors with his last hit. Reiner's political rom-com is 91% fresh and earned him a Globe nomination.

Ang Lee had debuted in Spielberg's '93 but made his English-film debut directing Emma Thompson's Jane Austen adaptation. 98% fresh, it earned Lee a Globe nom and two BAFTA noms one of which he won.

Bryan Singer and writer Christopher McQuarrie teamed up for a thriller which is 89% fresh and earned BAFTA and Saturn noms. Interestingly, Singer was also given the President's Saturn, usually a sort of lifetime achievement.

Johnston's Robin Williams' comedy about the living board game earned Johnston a Saturn nomination and made $100 million. At 53% fresh, however, it won't make much noise in the Belt race. A brief look at Johnston's career will leave you wondering how he convinces people to continue financing his films.

David Fincher made his debut on the third installment of the Alien franchise in '92. So if your keeping score at home, Ridley Scott, James Cameron, and David Fincher directed the first three movies. Quite the run. However, it was his second feature, the murder mystery "Se7en" which scored Fincher a hit. A Saturn nom, $100 million, and 81% fresh don't do the film justice. Chilling and dark, Fincher flexed the psych-thriller muscles he'd come to be known for.

The last hit on the list is Ron Howard's third. At 95% fresh, Howard's retelling of the near-disaster in space is possibly his best movie. It also made $174 million and earned him a Globe nomination.

Several good films and some strong direction in the list, but the '95 Belt comes down to Howard and Fincher. I've already said much about "Se7en", so a few words about Apollo. Ed Harris and Tom Hanks deliver excellent performances which the film centers itself around. While the events are immense in and of themselves, it's the people which Howard focuses on. I always finish a viewing of Apollo in awe of how heroic those men were.

Howard's only hit of the '90s is as close a second place finish of any in the whole process. Fincher, however, made himself a must-see director.

TITLE BELT: David Fincher

1996

"Fargo" Coen Brothers

An auto-bid for the Coen Brothers betrays how fantastic a film "Fargo" is. 93% fresh, the film also earned three directing Oscars noms (one win), a Globe nom, and three BAFTA noms.

In other news, "Independence Day" was Roland Emmerich's one-hit wonder, Soderbergh and Burton had less than stellar outputs, Wes Anderson made a quiet debut, Michael Bay made $134 million with "The Rock", Carpenter got a lifetime Saturn and gave us Snake Plissken round 2, Levinson adapted a controversial bio, and De Palma launched what I completely unbiasedly believe to be the greatest film franchise of all-time with "Mission: Impossible."

None of those made the cut.

TITLE BELT: Coen Brothers

1997

"The Lost World: Jurassic Park" Steven Spielberg
"Boogie Nights" Paul Thomas Anderson
"Mimic" Guillermo del Toro
"Titanic" James Cameron
"Contact" Robert Zemeckis

Shout out to one-hit wonder "Men in Black" by Barry Sonnenfeld.

Spielberg made two movies in '97. I'll never understand how that's possible, but his other film "Amistad" earned a Globe nom, but is only 77% fresh with only $44 million in receipts. His hit garnered a Saturn nom and made a beastly $229 million, but is barely fresh at 54%. (My line is 50%).

Paul Thomas Anderson had debuted the year before to some critical acclaim ("Hard Eight" 83% fresh), but it was "Boogie Nights" which was his first of several hits. 93% fresh, PTA earned an Oscar and a BAFTA nomination.

For the second film in a row, del Toro is able to hit with his "Carpenter-ean" monster film. A Saturn nomination and 91% fresh make him 2 for 2.

Zemeckis hits again for the fourth time with a sci-fi yarn of his own, "Contact" made $101 million and earned a Saturn nomination but had its issues, as 63% fresh will show. Zemeckis was also given the President's Saturn award in '97.

$659 million. Adjusted for inflation, Cameron's epic love story aboard the doomed cargo ship has made an astounding $1.196 billion, good enough for 5th all-time. But it didn't only clean up at the box office, as Cameron won three Oscars, won one of two Globe nominations, and received three BAFTA nominations for the film. 89% fresh and truly iconic, few films have had the impact of "Titanic."

PTA's first hit didn't make any money. Spielberg and Zemeckis were hardly at their best which just makes it easier to give the Belt to the much deserving Cameron.

TITLE BELT: James Cameron (4)

1998

"Saving Private Ryan" Steven Spielberg

It doesn't seem fair for Spielberg to get an auto-bid but let's be honest, nothing was going to beat SPR.

Among those that would have lost, had they been hits were Emmerich's "Godzilla", Tony Scott's "Enemy of the State", Michael Bay's "Armageddon", and the Coen Brothers' "The Big Lebowski."

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg (8)

1999

"The Insider" Michael Mann
"Sleepy Hollow" Tim Burton
"Magnolia" Paul Thomas Anderson
"The Iron Giant" Brad Bird

one-hit wonder "The Sixth Sense" as well, for a personal favorite M Night Shyamalan.

Michael Mann brings some thrills from the nightly news in his adaptation of Investigative Journalist Marie Brenner's story about a whistleblower and Big Tobacco. He earned three Oscar nominations, a pair of Globe nominations, and the film is 96% fresh.

Burton and Depp collaborated for the third time, and once again scored a hit. The Washington Irving adaptation earned Burton a Saturn nomination and made $101 million.

While "Boogie Nights" was hardly a conventional film, PTA really scrambles his audiences in the converging storyline family drama "Magnolia." 83% fresh, he also received an Oscar nom for the work.

Brad Bird began his career as an animator for TV shows such as "The Simpsons" and "King of the Hill." Then later he joined Pixar and has been one of the most powerful creative forces in the industry. In between those two lives, he won a BAFTA for Iron Giant. 96% fresh, the film itself is good but not great, however, it was its success which launched his immensely impactful career.


Iron Giant isn't quite good enough for me to give Bird the Belt, so Michael Mann and his signature thriller takes it home.

TITLE BELT: Michael Mann (2)


The '90s

Belts:
Spielberg (2)
Cameron (2)
Mann (2)

Hits:
Spielberg (4)
Burton (3)
Cameron (3)

$$$:
Spielberg ($1.109b)
Cameron ($1.011b)
Columbus ($890)


The '90s were a good decade for filmmaking and James Cameron was no small part in that success. A perfect 3 for 3 on hits, each of Cameron's movies was and is appreciated by audiences and critics alike. His triple Oscar victory in '97 with "Titanic" is one of the most dominating performances at the esteemed award ceremony in history. All of that is good for a really solid second place.

1993 alone would nearly be enough to carry Spielberg to consecutive decade Belts. Possibly the greatest historical film (Schindler), possibly the greatest war movie (Private Ryan), unquestionably the greatest dinosaur movie (Jurassic), another $200 million from the dino sequel and by the way had two other films in the decade which made money and earned awards just didn't quite make my benchmarks. And so with consecutive decade Belts

Steven Spielberg


Wow, that's a lot of words. Congratulations for making it this far! Next time I'll take it the rest of the way to now.

Friday, January 4, 2019

Film Director Title Belt, Vol. I

Recently, a relative of mine suggested I should take a look at directors in the same manner I've recently been looking at groups of actors. I did a little preliminary checking and decided to take things a slightly different direction. A journalist/blogger/sports media mogul I'm rather fond of uses a concept called the "Title Belt" in articles to tell the history of a particular thing in an engaging and interesting way. The "Title Belt" process sets up comparisons and context for accomplishments in a manner I very much enjoy.

I understand it such: the Title Belt is awarded each year to the ______ who stands above his/her peers in the field in question. It can be held for multiple years consecutively or non-consecutively. It is not simply the "most successful" in any particular category be it financial success, critical success, the volume of output, or the collection of awards earned. Each of those aspects and some simple subjective sense are used to determine the Title Belt holder for a given year. If no one steps up and takes the belt in a given year, the previous year's champ gets to keep it.

As is usually the case, your input is greatly desired. If there's a director that you think deserved a shot at the belt, let me know in the comments.

So, let me set the ground rules for this 3 part series of the Feature Film Director Title Belt. In order to make a claim on the title, you must have produced a hit in the given year. A hit is defined as a full-length feature film which meets one of two criteria:

Either 2 of these 3 benchmarks:
≥1 major award nominations (more on this in a minute)
≥$100 million gross domestic receipts, non-adjusted, per boxofficemojo.com
≥80% fresh critical score on rottentomatoes.com

OR 1 of these 3 more extreme versions of the benchmarks:
≥4 major award nominations
≥$250 million gross domestic receipts, non-adjusted
≥95% fresh critical score

Of the 55 directors I analyzed, there were 714 films over the past 60 years which met these criteria.

The awards I'm considering are the following:

  1. The Academy Awards (Oscars)
  2. The Golden Globes
  3. The British Academy of Film and Television Arts (BAFTAs) 
  4. The Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy and Horror Films (Saturn Awards)
  5. Cannes Film Festival Awards
  6. Razzie Awards. 
A Razzie nomination immediately disqualifies a film from being a hit regardless of any other benchmarks achieved.

Obviously winning an award is better than just being nominated, but this isn't just simply a list of the "Best Director" winners, that would be boring.

I've also eliminated any one-hit wonders. Literally. For a director to hold the Title Belt, he/she must have achieved a hit more than once in their career. I'm also going to arbitrarily start in 1970. Mainly because my knowledge of films prior to 1970 gets pretty fuzzy. Volume 1 will take us through the '70s and then Volume 2 the '80s and '90s, then Volume 3 the rest of the way.

At the end of each Decade, I'll crown a "Director of the Decade" which will be in the same spirit of the Title Belt but won't simply be the director with the most belts. The number in parenthesis is the count of years that director has held the belt.

1970

No hits

The most famous films made in 1970 were "The Aristocrats", "The Conformist", "El Topo", and "M*A*S*H" none of which were directed by someone eligible for my version of the Title Belt.

However, the '60s were dominated by a particular director who put out several hits including "2001: A Space Odyssey" ('68), "Dr. Strangelove or: How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb" ('64), "Lolita" ('62), and "Spartacus" ('60). His name was Stanley Kubrick and he'll have the belt moving into the decade.

TITLE BELT: Stanley Kubrick

1971

"A Clockwork Orange" Stanley Kubrick

An automatic bid for Kubrick, his dystopian psych-horror received 6 award nominations and currently rates 89% fresh on tomatoes.

TITLE BELT: Stanley Kubrick (2)

1972

"The Godfather" Francis Ford Coppola

Coppola takes the belt without much question. The gangster epic won 3 of it's 4 major award nominations, pulled in $135 million (which adjusts to over $400) and is 98% fresh.

TITLE BELT: Francis Ford Coppola

1973

"Mean Streets" Martin Scorsese
"American Graffiti" George Lucas

Our first competition! Scorsese had debuted in '67 but hadn't scored too well on either his first film, "Who's That Knocking at My Door" or his second "Boxcar Bertha" ('72). "Mean Streets", however, is a critical darling sitting at 96% fresh according to the tomatoes.

Lucas made his debut in '71 with the critical success "THX 1138" but didn't score a hit until Graffiti. Sitting pretty at 96% fresh, the nostalgic high-school flick was nominated for 5 Oscars (2 for Lucas) and a Globe while making $115 million.

TITLE BELT: George Lucas

1974

"Godfather Part II" Francis Ford Coppola
"The Conversation" Francis Ford Coppola
"The Sugarland Express" Steven Spielberg
"Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore" Martin Scorsese

Coppola gets an easy win with one of only a very few multi-hit years. The much-anticipated Corleone family sequel won Coppola 3 Oscars and got him two more Globe nominations. It also sits at 97% fresh. However, his most successful film critically (at 98% fresh) was actually "The Conversation" for which he also received a whopping 8 major award nominations, including a double-win at Cannes.

Spielberg's first feature film is already a hit with many, many more to come. The thriller took home a couple nominations and a win at Cannes and is 91% fresh. Scorsese' title garnered a pair of nominations and is 88% fresh.

TITLE BELT: Francis Ford Coppola (2)

1975

"Barry Lyndon" Stanley Kubrick
"Jaws" Steven Spielberg

Kubrick is back with a 5 award-nominated, limited-release analysis of depravity and the human condition. Tomatoes has it 94% fresh. 

However, Spielberg's second feature is 97% fresh, got nominated for a Globe and a BAFTA and made an extraordinary $260 million. In adjusted numbers its one of 8 movies to eclipse a billion dollars. (Spielberg has another on that exclusive list).

TITLE BELT: Steven Spielberg

1976

"Taxi Driver" Martin Scorsese
"Assault on Precinct 13" John Carpenter

Scorsese delivered his most critically acclaimed film with a typical tough, gritty street thriller he's the master of. Sitting at 98% fresh, "Taxi Driver" got Scorsese a BAFTA nom and a win a Cannes.

John Carpenter had already received a Saturn award for his debut "Dark Star" in '74 which missed the cut by a single percentage point. Precinct 13, a story of unlikely alliances in the face of Carpenter-style extreme violence and mayhem, however, is beloved at 98% fresh.

TITLE BELT: Martin Scorsese

1977

"Close Encounters of a Third Kind" Steven Spielberg
"Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope" George Lucas
"The Duellists" Ridley Scott

The answer is clear, but let's look at the competitors anyway.

Spielberg's sci-fi epic, starring his friend from "Jaws" fame Richard Dreyfuss, pulled in 7 directing award nominations, won a Saturn, earned $136 million and is 96% fresh. Earned Spielberg his most award nominations.

Scott's debut got two nominations at Cannes and won one and is 92% fresh. This movie looks awesome and I need to get my hands on it.

The runaway winner sits at 93% fresh (which just proves 7% of critics are morons), won a pair of Saturns, got a Globe nom, and got the only 2 Oscar nominations in the Star Wars franchise to date. Its true victory rests in the enormous $461 million domestic gross receipts which in adjusted numbers is 2nd all-time at a staggering $1.57 billion. 

TITLE BELT: George Lucas (2)

1978

"Halloween" John Carpenter
"Superman" Richard Donner

The big hitters from the early '70s took a year off and some new blood got a shot at the belt. 

Donner's fourth feature was one of the original superhero blockbusters. It took in a respectable $134 million, a Saturn nomination, and is 94% fresh (with a great soundtrack).

Much like Lucas in '77, Carpenter launched what has become one of the longest running "franchises" in Hollywood history. "Halloween" was the first of 11 films in the Michael Myers saga. Serial killer horror films are not generally well-received, however, Carpenter's launching pad is a certified fresh 95%.

The cultural impact of Carpenter's film trumps the blockbuster.

TITLE BELT: John Carpenter

1979

"Apocalypse Now" Francis Ford Coppola
"Alien" Ridley Scott

Sir Ridley's 2nd feature launched a franchise of its own, with 7 films out and 2 more in production. "Alien" won Scott a Saturn and is at 97% fresh.

Coppola's 4th feature film, and incidentally 4th hit of the decade, is his most awarded film, getting him 3 Oscar nominations, winning 2 Globes, winning one of two BAFTA noms, and winning twice at Cannes. Sitting at 96% fresh, the Vietnam epic signaled the peak of Coppola's run.

In this case, while the Alien franchise keeps making films and making money, I can't overlook the 9 award nominations for Coppola and Apocalypse.

TITLE BELT: Francis Ford Coppola (3)


The '70s

Belts:
Coppola (3)
Lucas (2)
Kubrick (2)

Hits:
Coppola (4)
Spielberg (3)
Scorsese (3)

Award Noms:
Coppola (26)
Spielberg (11)
Kubrick (11)

$$$:
Lucas ($576)
Spielberg ($435)
Coppola ($270)


I think the data is pretty clear, the "Director of the Decade" for the 1970s is

Francis Ford Coppola


tune in next time for the '80s and '90s

Friday, March 23, 2018

A frank extemporaneous discussion on the nature of knowledge as it pertains to professionalism in Art

My brothers and I occasionally get the itch to match wits on a topic which we are aware we disagree on. In most cases, said discussions are as much about one-upping each other as they are about convincing the other of our position, but iron sharpens iron whether it's in battle or in the blacksmith's tent.

Recently, as an employee of an institution of higher learning, I discovered that the highest attainable degree in the field of Art general is a Masters Degree of Fine Arts. No Doctorate currently exists in this field. So, I made a proposition as you will read below and a no holds barred, claws out debate began...

*minor editing and grammatically correction but no editorializing

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Lance: 
Also, fairly random tidbit, but I found it philosophically curious. The highest possible credential some[one] in the Art field can attain is a Master of Fine Arts with an Art focus (and apparently this is a devastatingly difficult degree). I believe this is due to the fact that Art is purely subjective, that is there is no objective standard by which to measure someone's expertise in making Art. The other Fine Arts (music, drama, literature) have object measurements and systems by which to determine someone's level of attainment, and therefore Doctorates can be earned.
Clint:
Huh interesting

Shane:
False, art is not subjective

Clint:
[Micheal eating popcorn gif] 

Lance:
What then would be the objective standard by which it would be measured?

Clint:
Shane, if you could end this smug retort with something hardcore that'd be nice.



Answer: God. Get your head out of your butt, it's not a hat.


Lance:

Nice, I’m sure Academia can measure someone’s artistic skill by the Supreme Being of the Universe who chose to not provide any template or evidence of what “good” Art is (and don’t say Nature, you Platonist) and is in fact self-admittedly invisible and has been seen by no man. Therefore, how does someone who has never been seen and has never directly provided examples serve as an objective standard for Art?


Shane:

There are 3 general possibilities for how a person might come to know anything. 1) intuition - we just know it 2) empiricism - we've experienced it to be true 3) rationalism - we can deduce it's truthfulness. 

So the question at hand has to be filtered through the framework of knowledge itself. Do we know beauty because we somehow intuitively recognize it? Because we've experienced phenomena which we have come to describe as beautiful? Or do we have a pre-existing understanding of the category of beauty intrinsically and deduce phenomena as beauty as we experience it? 

1) if A, then beauty is subjective or it's objective depending what one decides to know to be true. In which case no conclusion is reached because one has no grounds to dismiss or accept any phenomena as beautiful. 

2) if B, then Beauty is subjective but so is all data entirely. In fact, if we come to know things only by experiencing them in the world then we can never really know anything at all because the potential for falsifying information always exists. 

3) if C, then beauty as an absolute must exist, and be revealed to individuals. Then it would be objective and dependent on the source of beauty for expression in the world. 

Historically Calvinists have believed that category 3 best describes reality. Beauty (and all things of any worth or value) are sourced in God. Therefore because the source of beauty, truth or goodness is God, then It exists eternally and objectively. But whether it is objective or not is pointless if one can not experience it or does not have the faculties to recognize it. However the imago Dei, historically, has been recognized as man's divinely ordained means of experiencing what is True, Good and Beautiful in the world. On these grounds, beauty is objective. It exists regardless of human experience and it's source is God's nature, the prime reality. 

Take that for data!
Clint:

So using that framework can you honestly tell me which is the better song? “Let it Be” by the Beatles or “Twerk it like Miley” by Brandon Beal?

Shane:
Plato has a passage on this very question but I don't think you'd have the stomach for the answer.
Lance:

Counterpoint: Both B and C can exist simultaneously, due to the fact the imago Dei has been shrouded by the fall. True Beauty (capital ”B”) exists in the person and mind of God. Those who he chooses to reveal it to have the experiential knowledge of it and therefore “know” Beauty. However, in the fallen and non-illumined state, there is only experience and no inspiration. So as you say, nothing can be known for sure apart from a source of authority, I would think that honest Calvinists would realize to allow for fallen man to appreciate Beauty in the proper sense would be akin to a Dead Man tasting a meal. 

Game, Set, Match
Shane:


Both B and C cannot exist simultaneously as they are two mutually exclusive ways of describing reality. Obviously, we all experience things every day and we all make deductions, that's why these ideas have resonated with people for a millennia but the question is "how do we know" so 1) does our experience of what we come to describe as beautiful lead us to conceive of a category which we call beautiful? Or 2) do we have a pre-existing category for beautiful in our minds that allows us to recognize beauty when we experience it in the world? 

Certainly, the fall has marred our deductive abilities and our ability to recognize God in the world. But the question is not, can man fully experience beauty, the question is, is beauty objective? Does beauty exist eternally, timelessly and regardless of one's personal opinion? The answer, of course, is yes, it is objective because we only recognize beauty in as much as the imago Dei in us redeems our experience of beauty in the world. We only recognize beauty in the world because beauty and all good things, are sourced directly in God's nature, and God's nature is by definition objective.

Furthermore, you basically admit this in your response, you said in a fallen world "it's only experience, no inspiration" you're essentially saying that since man is sinful and marred by wickedness that we cannot know anything unless it is revealed by God. This is certainly true, but just because all of our knowledge is dependent on God does not mean our knowledge is not real. As a corollary, all human life is dependent on God. As a core level, we believe that God is holding all things together. Does that mean human existence is not "real" because it is not independent? No, it's reality is actually supported by its dependence on God. Furthermore, direct special revelation is not the only way God has chosen to reveal knowledge to humanity. The Imago Dei and plays a key role in our knowing. There is a reason that there are only 6 sentence types in all the languages of the world, that even a cannibal wouldn't eat its mother, and that Asians love sunrises too. All men have a knowledge of God that they suppress.
Lance:

Ah, but does similarity necessitate objective standard or merely proximity? The world is not so big and not so old as to suggest that 6 language types speak to a "form" of language. It merely is a result of a single source and our current framework by which we understand communication and particularly in the field of linguistics, patterned aural communication. There are sciences of "language" which don't fit your 6 categories, Cymantics for one, animal communications for another. In these and other cases, our relative framework by which we describe "language" and more topically to this debate "communication" is a collection of observations continually adapting to the next stimulus. There are wave particles being received by our long-range satellites that don't match any before observed phenomenon, due to their patterns they fit into some of the accepted definitions of language, so some hypothesize it is a communication from a distant source. As such our understanding of language will need to change in order to accept this new phenomenon. Does this mean our current understanding of language is incorrect or correct? Art is a language, or poignantly described as, the language without words, and therefore is dependent on the same relatively established rubric of its proximal authority. Platonism only worked when everyone anybody knew existed was a white, Greek-speaking, toga-wearing, Hellenist living in the Peloponnesian peninsula. I'm gonna need a source on the cannibals because I'm pretty sure they eat their mothers, in fact, Mark Ritchie records such events in his sociology of the Yammamoa people "Spirit of the Rainforest." (how ya like them apples?) 
So, to circle back to the original proposition. To bestow a doctorate in a field in the current academic system, it must be established that the individual has a mastery of a particular objective standard. Art History is a possibly attained doctorate, as is Art Restoration, Art Education, even particular defined forms of Art such as Cubism or Expressionism. However, Art general has no defined objective standard, tomorrow something never seen before will be Art for no reason beyond us as a society agree it is.
Shane:

I would merely point out that if what you attempt to assert in your first paragraph is true, then metaphysical knowledge is by definition impossible and therefore all "knowledge" is merely speculation. But I don't need to prove that because Derrida already did. 

The beauty of your position, of course, is that all one has to do who is not defending a framework but rather trying to poke holes in everyone else's is to find one seeming contradiction because the burden of proof lies with me. However even if I can't defend every assertion I make, it doesn't mean your framework is more plausible and in fact, if your framework leads to existential impossibilities logically then it is self-defeating. For instance, the claim that knowledge is merely observation over time, which defeats itself because in the very definition it denies the possibility of knowledge. 

That being said, communication and language theory are not 1 for 1 corollaries. Furthermore, the fact that we can recognize something as "language" and not "desk" or "cause and effect" and not "cup" means that metaphysical categories exist which we can recognize universally. The only way to explain this I a supreme being, and I happen to have a candidate who would fit that role rather well.
So for a doctorate in Art, we are recognizing that a person had mastered the tradition, history, philosophy, technical ability, etc which has historically captured what resonates most deeply in humanity in terms of art.
Lance:
And there is no Doctorate of Art so your last paragraph is a hypothetical.

Shane:
Ya, but there's no doctorate in dumbuttery but you manage to get it, so my point stands.
[ba dum tssh gif] 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional reading on the topic of the Master of Fine Arts vs a Doctor of Philosophy can be found here.

So, what do you think?

Sunday, February 19, 2017

HOF Chances - The 2017 Retirees



Did this last year, enjoyed it, so I'm doing it again. Last time it all fit in a Facebook post, albeit a long one, but this time I decided to dwell a little longer on each candidate. Here is a list of MLB players that have announced retirement and my projection of their HOF chances.


1B Mark Teixeira - 75% chance

Switch hitting power hitter who also featured a really nice glove at 1B. Tex had a pretty extended peak, hit 40 HRs once, 35+ 3 other times and only <13 once in an injury shortened 2013 over his 14 year career. Finished with 409 bombs and 2 short of 1300 RBIs. He finished 5th in ROY voting for Texas in '03 then got consecutive Silver Sluggers overlapping consecutive Gold Gloves. Then was the keystone of one of the worst trades in Major League history when the Braves sent SS Elvis Andrus, SP Matt Harrison, RPs Neftali Feliz and Beau Jones and C Jarrod Saltalamacchia to Texas for him. Lasted 108 games between '07 and '08 for Atlanta during the proud franchises true nadir. He hit .358 for LA after being flipped from Atlanta in '08 and then got paid. The Yankees gave him an astounding $180 million over 8 years coming out to an AAV of 22.5 million. His 1st 3 seasons in New York were awesome, including the '09 World Series, followed by 5 injury plagued and generally disappointing years. His detractors will point his sub .270 BA, and the glut of amazing talents at his position in the Hall already. I don't think I'd vote for him, simply because he wasn't the best at his position throughout his career, evidenced by only garnering 3 All-Star selections. But I wouldn't complain if he was elected.

1B Prince Fielder - 60%

Son of masher Cecil Fielder. Prince had a much brighter but shorter shine than Teixeira. His glorious peak, 2007-09, he mashed 50-34-46 HRs, drove in 119-102-141, was a All-Star twice, won a Silver Slugger and finished 3rd-20th-4th in MVP voting. Got MVP votes 2 more times, went to a total of 6 All-Star games in his 12 years, and won 2 more Silver Sluggers. Finished with 319 bombs and an impressive .283 BA. A neck injury ended his career at age 32, or he may have reached the 400 and possibly even 500 homer marks. I would vote for him, because of how dominant he was as both a power hitter and hitting for average. He also had one of the greatest showings in the Home Run derby I've ever seen.

C AJ Pierzynski - 18%

Anthony John Pierzynski. You either hated him, or you really hated him. 19 years in the league, including long stretches with Minnesota and the White Sox. World Series champ with Chicago, All-Star twice, and got some MVP votes in '06 when they won the Series. He hit 188 dingers, topping out at 27. Never drove in more that 77 runs, never hit better than .312 with a career .280 BA. But he logged 16,335.1 innings in over 2000 games at Catcher and really was actually a pretty cool guy. I'm afraid his lack of a peak, and even among catchers his counting stats don't quite pull him into the elite level. Quite an impressive career though.

C David Ross - 0%

Mythical being or baseball player? Ross toiled in obscurity until finding an unlikely home as a backup in Atlanta and developed a bit of a cult fan following. After hitting a playoff homer one pitch after being granted a very late timeout, the legend of Grandpa Rossy began to take shape. In 2013 he helped Boston to its 3rd title since the curse and then joined the Cubs. The rest is history.

C/1B JP Arencibia - 0%

Despite showing some legit pop (20 dingers twice, 80 over 6 years), JP was a below average Catcher defensively and finished with a career .212 BA.

DH/1B David Ortiz - 100%

What a career. 20 seasons. 541 homers. 1768 RBIs. 2472 hits. 632(!) doubles. A .552 SLG% which he held over .600 for 4 years straight at one point. After struggling to get ABs as a bad 1B in Minnesota he was released. Boston decided to try him at DH. He proceeded to hit 23 or more HRs for 14 straight seasons including a 54 HR year, 2 more 40+, and 4 more 35+ including HIS LAST THREE. That's right, as 40 year old man, he crushed 38 bombs, 48 doubles (which led the league and is his career high) and reached his 3rd highest RBI total 127 (148, 137). Dude was as close to Ruth as we may ever see again at the plate. He crossed the mythical 1.000 OPS for a season mark 4 times, including HIS LAST YEAR and finished with a breathtaking .931. 10 All-Star games, 5 Top-5 MVP finishes, with 2 other years getting votes, and 7 Silver Sluggers. More importantly to Red Sox fans, he led 3 World Series teams including the Bambino breaking 2004 team, won the '04 ALCS MVP, '13 WS MVP and, as Yankees fans can attest, seemed to always get that big hit. If you don't think DHs belong in the Hall, and you just read that list of accomplishments and haven't changed your mind, trade in your credentials - you don't get to vote.

RP Randy Choate - 0%

A LOOGY in every sense. Choate got some big outs for some good teams over his 15 seasons. Managed to log 7 Saves and finished with a 16-14 record.

RP Javier Lopez - 0%

While Choate was killing lefties in St Louis and Arizona. Lopez was Bochy's favorite lefty during the Giants recent dynastic run.

RP Matt Thornton - 0%

Hard throwing righty. Got some chances to establish himself as a closer with mixed but mostly negative results. Had claim to "best setup man" for better part of two seasons at one point.

SP CJ Wilson - 0%

Straight Edge Racer was an oddball lefty with some strong years pitching for the AL West juggernaut Rangers of consecutive World Series failures and their rival Angels. Wilson was wild and ultimately his lack of command ended his effectiveness. I believe he holds the record for most walks in a playoff game.

SP Josh Johnson - 0%

Johnson is yet another story of unrealized potential. Nasty sinkerballer with the Marlins, injuries decimated the latter parts of his career. Part of the massive Marlins-Blue Jays blockbuster which included Mark Buehrle, Jose Reyes, Emilio Bonifacio, John Buck, Yunel Escobar, Adeiny Hechavarria, Henderson Alvarez, Justin Nicolino, Jake Marisnick, Jeff Mathis, and Anthony DeSclafani.

SS/3B Alex Rodriguez - 99%

I put 99% because Barry Freaking Bonds is not in yet, and A-Rod is the infielder version of Bonds. He is the rare case of a player that can legitimately lay claim to be the greatest ever. He played 22 years for 3 franchises, Seattle, Texas, and the New York Yankees. He set records for all 3 that will stand for long periods of time. He’s got more black ink (league leading stats) than the rest of this list combined (which includes Ortiz). Led the league in HRs 5x, RBIs 2x, Runs 5x, Hits 1x, 2Bs 1x, BA 1x, SLG 4x, OPS 2x, Total Bases 4x. Went to 14 All-Star games, Won 3 MVP awards, got votes 11 other times, including 2 runner ups, 10 Silver Sluggers and 2 Gold Gloves. Won a World Series with the Yankees in 2009, where he absolutely raked through the first two rounds. His counting stats are just as ridiculous. 3115 hits (20th all time), 5.23 MVP shares (percentage of votes during career, which is 10th all time), 696 HRs (4th all time), 2,086 RBIs (3rd all time), he’s also 8th in Runs, 6th in Total Bases, and 6th in XBH. 500+ 2Bs, 300+ SBs, a .930 OPS and 6 staggering seasons over 1.000 OPS. On top of all that, he was a plus defender at short and until his hip broke down transitioned flawlessly to 3B. Of course, he’s also tested positive for steroids and admitted to using while in Texas so there’s that. The Rangers gave him a record 10 yr, $252 million deal. Then he was traded to New York, received $36 million in deferred money, and signed another record 10 yr, $275 million deal. According to SI he will have made $317+ million from New York alone, with a mind numbing $448 million over the course of his career. The discussion is not whether or not ARod is a HOFer, it is simply whether or not he’s better than Honus Wagner. I think he is, but its closer than you might think.

OF/1B Nick Swisher - .005%

He’ll probably be in the West Virginia State High School Association Hall of Fame. Swish sported the well-earned “Most Punchable Face in the League” nickname due to his unapologetic Bro-ness. Despite that, I have to say he was a pretty awesome guy and a dang good ballplayer. 




Saturday, December 31, 2016

2016 Movies in Review

I saw many movies over the past year, but only 12 of them were actually released in 2016 and those will be the focus of this list. I will spoil the films to some degree, though I won't be writing full-length reviews.

Of course, a particular film, which is the latest addition to the greatest Sci-Fi saga in history, will be soon viewed but not in the year of release due to various reasons. As I've said to many people in person, if you spoil that film to me I will find you, and I will Liam Neeson you.

What follows are the 12 films of 2016 that I watched in the reverse order of my preference.





















12 - London Has Fallen
Director: Babak Najafi
Stars: Gerard Butler, Aaron Eckhart, Morgan Freeman

Synopsis: Sequel to Olympus Has Fallen, this action redux was enjoyable despite predictability and ridiculousness. Gerard Butler adequately fills the roll Schwarzenegger and Stallone developed and is only slightly less one-dimensional than those two. Plenty of explosions and machine guns, plenty of poking fun at itself, little to no re-watch value.

Reflective Rating: 3/10
Twitter Rating: 5/10 
For those of you who don't follow me on Twitter, I typically tweet out a 10-scale rating within a few hours of completing a movie. Keep in mind, these tweets are in-the-moment and I don't always do them.












11 - Pete's Dragon
Director: David Lowery
Stars: Bryce Dallas Howard, Robert Redford, Karl Urban

Synopsis: Boring. Couldn't keep the kids' attention which really makes me wonder why we sat through it. I think BDH is an underrated actress and she was quite good but otherwise a forgettable Disney afterthought.

Reflective Rating: 4/10
Twitter Rating: N/A













10 - The Jungle Book
Director: Jon Favreau
Stars: Bill Murray, Idris Elba, Lupita Nyong'o, Ben Kingsley, Scarlett Johansson, Christopher Walken, Garry Shandling

Synopsis: Same old story. Breathtakingly beautiful CGI. Expected more from the A++ cast though Walken's performance as King Louis was great. It also struggled to keep the attention of my toddlers and its been a pretty solid year for movies so it comes in at 10th.

Reflective Rating: 6/10
Twitter Rating: N/A












9 - Hail, Caesar!
Director: Coen Brothers
Stars: Josh Brolin, George Clooney, Alden Ehrenreich, Scarlett Johansson, Channing Tatum, Ralph Viennes, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, Jonah Hill

Synopsis: I'm not sure how to describe this movie. A week in the life of a 50s Hollywood executive, but not any normal week. Tatum's turn as a Gene Kelly-type is particularly puzzling yet delightful. The film as a whole was a bit disappointing and lacked the perfection of other Coen Bros material. (I think Fargo may be one of the greatest representations of north-Midwestern culture ever filmed) It still was full of memorable and hilarious scenes.

Reflective Rating: 7/10
Twitter Rating: 6/10










8 - Zootopia
Director: Byron Howard
Stars: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Idris Elba, JK Simmons


Synopsis: A clever Disney spin on the challenges of multiculturalism. A highly charged political film starring talking animals. Bateman is so good and the overarching themes of the film are important and well communicated. Unfortunately the concluding song left a terrible taste in my mouth due to its lameness and Shakira-ness.


Reflective Rating: 7/10
Twitter Rating: 6/10














7 - Star Trek Beyond
Director: Justin Lin
Stars: Chris Pine, Zoe Saldana, Zachary Quinto, Idris Elba (busy year!), Ben Kinglsey, Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, John Cho, Anton Yelchin

Synopsis: Meh. The villains of the reboot series have been so disappointing and Elba's was no different. I don't count Cumberbatch's Khan because of the ambiguity of the character in case you'd just shouted his name. Here's hoping they come up with some ridiculous reason for Pine's crew to encounter the Borg and resurrect this once hopeful but ultimately kind of lame series. On a bright note, Zachary Quinto was born to play Spock, every bit as much as Leonard Nimoy was, rest his soul.

Reflective Rating: 7/10
Twitter Rating: N/A












6 - Deadpool
Director: Tim Miller
Stars: Ryan Reynolds, TJ Miller, Ed Skrein, Morena Baccarin

Synopsis: Truer to the comic than was expected. Certainly a funny movie, but not one a kid should watch (and my mother would chime in "or an adult!" and she'd probably be right.)

Reflective Rating: 7/10
Twitter Rating: N/A














5 - Finding Dory
Director: Andrew Stanton
Stars: Ellen DeGeneres, Kaitlin Olson, Albert Brooks, Ed O'Neill, Idris Elba

Synopsis: Sequel to the fantastic Finding Nemo, this movie felt slower. Likely because it all took place in the same general area, and the audience doesn't suffer from Dory's memory loss. An enjoyable film and hopefully closure for the Nemo universe.

Reflective Rating: 7/10
Twitter Rating: N/A











4 - The Angry Birds Movie
Director: Clay Kaytis
Stars: Jason Sudeikis, Josh Gad, Bill Hader, Danny McBride, Maya Rudolph, Peter Dinklage, Sean Penn, Keegan-Michael Key

Synopsis: Surprisingly good. Admittedly, pretty dumb but what do you expect from a movie spawned from a phone app starring Sudeikis? I also think Josh Gad has a nearly limitless potential, but I kind of want him to stick to stupid sidekick characters cuz he nails them.

Reflective Rating: 7/10
Twitter Rating: N/A











3 - Kung Fu Panda 3
Director: Alessandro Carloni
Stars: Jack Black, Bryan Cranston, JK Simmons, Dustin Hoffman, Angelina Jolie, Jackie Chan, Lucy Liu, Seth Rogen, David Cross, Kate Hudson

Synopsis: I love the original KFP and enjoyed but wasn't thrilled with part 2. I figured the characters would live out their usefulness in mini-series' and holiday specials. Then this awesome movie came out. Simmons was the best animated villain of the series and maybe ever (seriously, his theme music alone is boss). Black and the A+ ensemble of voices managed to produce even more original laughs and I'd actually entertain a 4th. Ok, maybe not, but this was a good flick.

Reflective Rating: 8/10
Twitter Rating: N/A











2 - Anthropoid
Director: Sean Ellis
Stars: Jamie Dornan, Cillian Murphy, Charlotte Le Bon

Synopsis: I'll not say much, because this film flew under the radar a bit and I'm guessing not as many have seen it. I will say however, its one of the best war films I've ever seen. It slides in nicely along side Saving Private Ryan, A Bridge Too Far, Enemy At the Gates, and the Band of Brothers series telling the story of the heroes of WWII. I also really enjoy Cillian Murphy's work and look forward to his appearance in Nolan's upcoming WWII film Dunkirk (my most anticipated of the new year).

Reflective Rating: 10/10
Twitter Rating: 9/10












1 - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them
Director: David Yates
Stars: Eddie Redmayne, Katherine Waterson, Colin Farrell, Don Fogler, Ezra Miller,


Synopsis: The only movie I hit the theater for this calendar year. I'll watch every single one of these they decide to make, and likely love them all. Redmayne and Farrell were both excellent additions to the Harry Potter universe. It fits snugly with the other HP films, particularly the feel of 5, 6, and the 7s.

Reflective Rating: 10/10
Twitter Rating: N/A (I guess I didn't do a whole lot of these this year).








The other movies I watched this year and Twitter rated but weren't released in 2016 were:
The Giver 9/10
The Revenant 8/10
Spectre (James Bond) 7/10
The Big Short 10/10
The Martian 7/10
Bridge of Spies 8/10
Goosebumps 4/10
Sicario 7/10
Love and Mercy 8/10


Have a Happy New Year and thanks for reading.