Jonathan Papelbon has drawn more comparisons to Roger Clemens than any other prospect in the Red Sox farm system in more than 15 years.  I’m excited.  You’re excited.  Hell anybody who’s looked at the kid can see the similarities.  Tall, hulking, intimidating figure that throws fireballs without fear.  He’s a gunslinger in the image of the Rocket, Schilling and Beckett.  I love his emotion and his mentality.  But, let’s be honest about our new closer; he’s got A LOT to prove.

Sure he’s 4-4 in Save Oppurtunities. He’s strucken out 5 batters in 5.0IP.  He’s allowed one hit in those 5 innings.  I love it as much as you.  But lest us not forget the makeup of our young lad.  Yes he’s a fireballer with a dominating fastball and above average splitter.  What some people don’t know is that he has at least three other pitches.  Papelbon can throw a changeup, curveball and slider.  He rarely throws any of these pitches and reportedly turned in his changeup for the nastier splitter.  But we’re talking about a guy who clearly throws 70% if not more fastballs.  Sure it’s 97mph and it may be fine to close with that stuff, but with a guy like that, who’s projected to be in the rotation, he needs to fine tune his other pitches.

Curt Schilling throws 80% fastballs at the relatively same velocity.  But what Schilling can do is throw all of his other pitches: slider, curveball, changeup, cutter and splitter with command. Papelbon has good control.  As it has been explained to me the difference between the two is that command of a strike zone means any pitch, any time, anywhere.  Control is the ability to throw the pitch for a strike.  Vastly different issues in terms of pitching.

I could be wrong.  Papelbon may pan out and be the next great RHP for the Red Sox.  But all I’m saying is, let’s hope he turns out more like Derek Lowe: going from great closer to great starter.  And of course lets hope he can be consistent unlike Derek Lowe.  Let’s not fill up too quick on Papelbon before he get’s pitch #3.  Then I’ll start speaking in terms of “Rocketbon”.

I dedicate so much time on this site talking about movies and baseball that I digress to mention the other teams that exist in Boston.  Herego, the Boston Celtics.  Let me express that the Celtics are a team that could have probably made the playoffs.  They have veteran leadership and a good young core.  Rivers is a good coach, no matter what way you cut it.  He’s whipped a group of young guys into viable players.  Paul Pierce is perhaps playing the best basketball of his career and second and third year guys are stepping it up (i.e. Delonte West, Kendrick Perkins and Tony Allen).

Youth is unharnessed energy while age is conditioned energy.  Teaching new dogs new tricks is as hard as teaching old dogs older tricks.  Rivers has had his hands full with the team this season.  Tony Allen’s shenannigans with his girlfriend, Orien Greene’s mis-behavior and as of late the Raef Lafrentz dispute.  He’s also had to build his starting 5 without Al Jefferson and Wally Sczerbiak as of late.  The Celtics are virtually out of the playoff’s and should be giving their younger guys a shot at some valuable late season games.  Maybe that means cutting Pierce and Lafrentz’s minutes.  Gerald Green can only get better with time, experience and tutoring.  Call this his internship.

On to the Celtics draft, which appears to be X-Mas every year for all Celtics fans as Danny Ainge has made steals in the last 2.  In 2004 drafting Al Jefferson, Delonte West and Tony Allen he made instant impacts on the team for the following year.  West has become a conditioned PG, Jefferson has very good post presence but lacks rebounding ethics and Allen is pure energy, athleticism;so much so that he can be problematic.  In 2005, the Celtics acquire Gerald Green, considered the steal of the draft as well as Ryan Gomes and Orien Green; Gomes considered a solid, hard working player.  The core is there and their leader is present.

Paul Pierce is the glue to this team.  You could trade him but this team wouldn’t get any better, less it be for someone better.  Rivers and Ainge havent had a true rebuilding year which could get in the way for the Celtics to make a collective run at a title one of these years.  They are integrating players from different systems and running them around Paul Pierce.  The front office needs to understand that the chips you acquire in the draft, if they don’t pan out or an offer presents itself, can be trade tools as well.  A picks value doesn’t just lie in what he could bring the ball club, but what he could get you as well.  Ainge is holding his cards too close to the vest.  If a veteran such as Kevin Garnett or someone else becomes available, the acquiring of said Center may provide the kick the Celtics need.

Let’s get people around Pierce.  Let’s not put all of our money in on these rookies.  Let’s get some veterans on the team and I guarantee you more games will be won.  As this was a brief overview, I thought it should be noted that the Celtics have the potential 8th pick in the draft.  And while there is speculation of who would fall that far, a potential pick for the Celtics could be any of the following:

-Rudy Gay: SF out of UCONN

-Adam Morrison:PF out of Gonzaga (Though he’ll probably go higher)

-Randy Foye: SG out of Villanova

Some sleepers include FLA big man Joakim Noah if scouts have trouble with his strength and LeMarcus Aldridge, although I’m sure he’ll be gone assuming the Celtics get the 8th pick.  Don’t be surprised if Ainge trades up as well. 

For now, they’ll just be a slightly better than .500 team with something to prove.  Hopefully, a team can unite to ignite Celtic Pride in Boston again.  And I hope it’s with The Truth.

“A Film Noir Set in High School“ 

 I was reading Rolling Stone maybe 2 years ago…maybe…can’t really remember.  We’ll say awhile.  Herego, I remember reading article about that years Sundance Film Festival and stumbling upon one of the reviews for a film that the reviewer reviewed(hehe).  The film was a detective story set in high school with a gritty noir tone.  The film was called Brick.

I got mad.  I had the idea to do a similar thing, certainly not the first time the spies of Hollywood have tapped my brain and listened to my subconcious. Either way, I wanted to check the flick out as it sounded really awesome.  Fast forward about, well 2 years, and I stumble upon some movie news on my favorite movie website, Joblo.com.   The site featured a poster review on Brick and some other news as well as a trailer.  I was psyched.  The trailer was awesome and you guys can actually watch it here. It wasn’t coming out wide-release, but was being limited release in some Boston theaters.  I picked my stuff up and went out to check out at Coolidge Corner.

Let me say this: It’s too bad that more movies like this aren’t made.  Like most independent movies, though, I’m sure part of the allure is that most people don’t know about this, so maybe the hidden gem is part of why I liked this movie so much.  I don’t consider myself an elitist, rather an avid movie fan that enjoys good flicks.  But let me say that if every fucking emo/indie/scene kid or whatever segregated alternative group anguished teens are into nowadays start quoting this movie and totally misinterpreting the flick (a la Donnie Darko), that would anger me.  The originality of this film is such a strength that you are captivated at the first rag-tag line.

Ok so I write a lot.  I’m starting my review now.  Brick has some very good preformances by younger actors.  Notably, Joseph Gordon Levitt of 10 Things I Hate About You and 3rd Rock From the Sun as Brendan Frye, the Bogart-esque character plays the part to a T.  The not so clean, but not dirty detective who’s actions aren’t so clean but his hearts pure.  Following him through the flick is the capturing part of this movie.  The other actors do a fine job filling their role, with Laura filling the “dame” perfectly.

It’s an old-style crime drama told through the eyes of high schoolers who walk and talk with jargon straight out of a black and white detective flick.  The lines are part of the coolness of this movie.  You have to love any movie where the hero “breaks teeth and sets things straight”.  The soundtrack was an incredibly surprising effective jazzy mood setting bunch of tracks and it was shot in stylish color noir.

So the downpoints are really slim in my opinion.  It was an independent flick so the audio was a little messed up.  Some lines are spoken so fast you almost don’t catch them.  The tangled web of stories is hard to follow even being riveted by the story.  Some parts you don’t understand; Brendan suddenly developing a dehabilitating cough being an example.  Your not sold on some relationships and chemistry is a little rough in areas.

For all of that, this movie kicked my ass.  I loved it and I loved it’s originality.  A movie that I could watch over and over again.  Maybe that’s because I was a group of few who saw it.  But look…If I was Rian Johnson, I would want me to spread the word, so I’m doing it.  But please…don’t Donnie Darko,Brick.  I want this director to be praised and to profit off of this, but not sell fucking T-Shirts at Hot Topic.  Overall, this movie get’s 9 Bones out of 10 for sheer vision, coolness and misses the 10 for the little issues. 

RATING:

 “Think we’re different?”   ”Yeah we’re gay, remember?”

I watched Brokeback Mountain the other week with my roomate and his girlfriend.  Let me iron this out; I wasn’t giving it the 100% attention, but I like to call it a solid 80%.  Perhaps thats why I’m bitter…but I think I have a point.

For the most part, the movie was well made.  The filming and settings were very beautiful and definetely set a good tone.  The acting was superb, although I didn’t see the greatness of Ledger that everyone was talking about.  He did good, but I wasn’t blown away.  Ang Lee made a good movie regardless.

Now heres my problem with the movie…Every customer I talk to at Blockbuster about this movie has the discussion with me about how it’s so touching and sad and yada yada.  Albeit, the story is sad.  But let me pose this…IF you did the same movie with a male-female relationship, would it be the same movie?  Would everyone be making a big deal out of a female-male coincidental relationship that isn’t allowed?  I understand that the whole “gay” thing is what makes the tragedy, but should that be allowance for it’s popularity? Is it’s success just based on a cultural uncomfort?  Is that why this movie is so “great”?

There isn’t anything new about this movie.  Ang Lee uses the same cinematic methods in his earlier work, specifically The Ice Storm.  The whole gay-cowboy thing can be chalked up in Midnight Cowboy  and slightly Urban Cowboy.  What I’m posing is that the movie, albeit legitmately good and tragic, is blown into this huge deal because the main characters are gay.  Would I have liked it more if it was a heterosexual relationship? Probably not.  More relatable maybe, but still just kind of a dull narrative about lost loves who can never be together.  Been there, done that.

Yeah so the movie is “gay” and they “sleep together”.  It’s uncomfortable.  That’s the only reason it’s effective.  But if you strip it down (I swear to god no pun intended), it is a very done story.  This narrative isn’t new.  It’s a new spin on an old concept.  It isn’t original; it’s different in how it makes us feel uncomfortable about the relationship.

Look, go see it if you want, I’m not saying don’t do it.  But the movie isn’t that big of a deal.  The whole buzz was generated because it’s “gay”, not for any other reason. It’s an old story with this new twist; not a milestone of film-making regardless of its cultural context. Crash deservedly won Best Picture because of the originality of its vision; this was an untold story through the eyes of everyday events. Brokeback spurned itself off an old theme, and dragged it around because being “gay” made it suddenly original. The Academy got it right this year.

Brokeback Mountain is a solid movie.  For all aspects of film-making, this movie is good in almost all categories.  But it isn’t a milestone; it isn’t original; it’s an old story with new dressing.

So I go to the theater and for the first time in awhile there seems to be a growing amount of decent flicks coming out.  Me and Katie decided on V For Vendetta and while waiting to go into the theater, I decided to peak my head into the theater to see if it was empty.  Au contraire, or to my contrary and horrible luck, it was playing the most important frame in the movie the moment I put my head in the door.  That kind of wrecked it for me.  Herego, however, we shall procceed… 

V For Vendetta is as bit cool as it is thought provoking.  Natalie Portman plays a cool-ass chick who finds herself in the middle of a revolution lead by one man named V.  Being a victim of her oppressive government, she is torn between the man V who saved her and just playing along.  OF COURSE we all know where she goes, but her journey is every bit enthralling as the expected outcome.  V is voiced by the “guy involved in every huge movie trilogy” Hugo Weaving of Agent Smith fame.  His voice is as sharp as his knives and his lines just as delicate and deadly.  Strong preformances from both leads as well as adequate secondary casting works here.

But lest us not forget, the Wachowski brothers behind this flick.  It seems like these guys have a lot to say about the way the world is, and thats pretty noble unto itself.  Here they produce a movie thats as much about the current state of the world as it is about the possible future.  The movie scared me a bit in that way.  My favorite scenes were all pretty much in the end;a knife/gun fight and a city wide march with an artful twist.

The director, James McTiegue, did a good job making this artistic and the story held me throughout.  I found the dialogue exciting as well and the relationships were actually one’s I cared about between the characters.  Portman does her best to show dimension to her character and shows why she is one of the best.  Totally a good preformance.

I give this 8 Bones out of 10 Bones, only because of a long run time and corny dialogue scenes, specifically the end.  Check it out.

RATING:

        OR          

Sunday nights could easily be considered the best night on T.V.  Lots of people are interested in Desperate Housewives and The Sopranos are clearly the family everyone wants to be apart of.  The new Sunday night fad is now the show coming after Housewives; Grey’s Anatomy. I saw the preview for the show and remembered being vaguely interested in what the show could bring.  The first episode was cool and from there I’ve been a fan. 

Fast forward a few months when the Grey’s Anatomy bandwagon finally gets rolling.  (Let me iron this out quick: This is not about how I saw “this show first” or anything pretentious and stupid like that.  This is revolving around the title of the post.  But read on…follow me.)  I got annoyed with Grey’s in that the storylines, as far as the characters went got kind of…whiney.  I absolutely loved the episode where Karev kissed Izzie and was totally rocking the whole Meredith-McDreamy deal(I sound like such a chick trying not to be a chick).  But damn it, I dug the show.  It was cool.  The brief hiatus turned me off, I got tired of the show for some reason and I know that reason. It tries to be Scrubs.

Scrubs is the best comedy on television today.  You can make your cases for anything, but Scrubs is an underappreciated show on a bad network(NBC).  Scrubs combines the type of humor thats random, unique, heartwarming, chuckle-worthy and generally quirky.  It’s a medical comedy with heavier undertones as it’s underlying.  The relationships between the doctors, specifically Dorian and Elliot, are incredibly involving and nowhere near cliched.  Not that Grey’s doesn’t have unique relationships, but the similarities ring true.  Follow me here…

Watch the first few episodes of Grey’s and on occasions you will hear Cynthia call George “Bambi”, the same name Carla calls J.D. in Scrubs.  Notice George;the goofy, messy brown haired, loveable doctor.  Notice J.D.; the goofy, messy brown haired, loveable doctor.  Notice Bailey; the coarse, scathing mean doctor, that’s mean to teach the interns a lesson but really likes them and feels for them.  Notice Cox; the coarse, scathing mean doctor, thats mean to teach the interns a lesson but really likes them and feels for them.

The soundtrack are popular, alternative bands in Grey’s.  Scrubs has a popular alternative soundtrack.  This isn’t to say that every show with popular alternative soundtracks are Scrubs or Grey’s Anatomy but I’m clearly showing things here.  Grey’s Anatomy is narrated by the main character.  Scrubs is narrated by the main character.  The similarities are there.

This isn’t to say that they’re both not good shows on their own.  Scrubs aired a recent episode in which they took a jab at Grey’s and a well deserved jab at that.  I notice the similarities in the show and just get aggrevated when people believe Grey’s to be a far superior show.  Scrubs has been running for upwards of 4 seasons and have brought new stories and popular characters whereas Grey’s run could be limited.

Give credit where credit’s due Shonda Rhimes.  Scrubs helped you figure out your show.  I don’t know what she could do to give it credit except pull away from the safety net of the established medical dramedy show.  This is a topic that got to me because of ignorant video store customers arguing with me about Grey’s originality.  While Grey’s has a good ensemble and good characters, a particular edgy character being Karev, it is a mild copy of Scrubs.