'Putting your Patience to the Test'

And so the leadoff track "Machu Picchu" from the fourth album of New York throwback garage-rockers The Strokes opens with this query about the listener's ability to tolerate anything that can be classified as 'annoying.'

Personally, I find it annoying that I had to wait five-plus years for a new album from probably my favorite band on the planet right now.

I find it even more annoying that the reaction to Strokes Album No. 4, 'Angles,' has been so mixed. Overall, probably lukewarm rather than 'scorching hot.' Sure, there are a lot of folks praising the record, happier than Charlie Sheen at a Brazilian brothel that there's new material from Julian Casablancas and crew for the first time since 2006. I guess I was approaching the new record with a bit more guarded optimism - until I heard the first single "Under the Cover of Darkness."


 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwxcQvB_vcQ


Alright, now that's what I'm talking about! The Strokes are back! A bouncy, head-bopping pop rocker replete with those signature high-pitched Strokes guitar riffs, slamming rhythm section and powerful, spot-on Julian vocals. Classic Strokes, right up there with songs like "Last Night" and "Reptilia" in the band's garage/arena rock hall of fame.

Then I heard the rest of the record. And like many, I was taken aback for a moment. Didn't quite know what to think. Not a lot of tracks stood out.

And then, I embarked on listen number two from start to finish. Then number three. After the fifth complete listen, it felt like I had been listening to it for months - and I mean that in a good way. It also doesn't hurt when it's a fast, clean record - about 35-40 minutes total. This hallmark brevity defined the Strokes' style on their first two records, the eponymous smash debut "Is This it?" (2001), and the similarly themed and styled follow-up "Room on Fire" (2003). Of course, 2006's "First Impressions of Earth" saw the band embark into ambitious new territory, and I'll be the first to admit that to date that's their toughest record to get through. But there are still some great songs to be found there.

Most hardcore 'Strokers' (I didn't come up with this name for them, I swear) know the rest ... the next five years saw all but one of the band members record their own solo/side project releases separately, allowing them to flex their creative chops since not having had the opportunity to do so in the Casablancas-heavy songwriting world that is The Strokes.

Cue the more balanced group songwriting and creatively contributory effort that led to 'Angles.' Although many reviewers are calling it 'jumbled,' 'disconnected,' 'taking stabs at Radiohead on some tracks,' and so forth, not only do I personally like it enough to not skip through any songs, but I find it encouraging and unsurprising that the group continues to explore new musical territory.

Okay - let's consider this. If The Strokes just did a 2011 redux of "Is This It?" there would be a lot of fans that would love it, but there would be a whole other segment of fans and critics decrying the group for 'playing it safe' and 'failing to mature musically and stylistically.' If you're one of the five band members, it's hard not to feel like "I Can't Win" (to borrow the name of the 3-minute catchy firestorm that closes the "Room on Fire" album).

Maybe I'm just drowning in the Strokes Kool-Aid, but I usually end up liking everything this band does. Sure, they could have trimmed away some of the fat on "First Impressions," but I'm probably one of the only people who actually still gets amped up at moments like when the little-known deep album cut "15 Minutes" transitions from its methodical, waltz-like first half into the uptempo, razor-sharp speed-rock riffing second half. And this is a song the band has probably only ever performed like three times live.

So anyway, the new album is too concise for me to nitpick or say that I'm bored by it. Sure, some tracks are stronger than others, like on any album. But none of the songs provoke an inner thought monologue along the lines of "Jeez, why did they put this song on the album. Next!"

And their live performances leading up to tomorrow's sold-out Madison Square Garden show have been typically enthralling. On the first Saturday in March, they bounced through "Under the Cover of Darkness" and then showed a more subdued but still musically inspiring side with "Life is Simple in the Moonlight" on Saturday Night Live. A couple weeks later on Letterman, they absolutely killed it with "Taken for a Fool," an absolutely infectious track that sounds amazing live. Finally, on Jimmy Fallon last night, they plowed through the unusual, post-modern sounding "You're So Right," a polarizing song choice in that it's basically either loved or hated. Me? Yeah, you guessed it. Loved it.

Any live Strokes show from 5 to 10 years ago consisted of these guys looking bored with life in general on stage, always a stark contrast to the high-energy, sonically pleasing brand of loud, memorable rock they pounded out flawlessly. Here in 2011, they are still doing that, but slowly incorporating new elements into their stage show. They're able to replicate sounds on stage that don't seem possible without some sort of sample machine or other weird instrumentation. Sometimes live, they actually sound better than they do on record, a total rarity but amazing nonetheless.

There are no limits for The Strokes when they're fully focused. The problem seems to be for them to find that focus with any sort of consistent regularity. They had it in the early part of the aughts decade, but the hiatus after the "Room on Fire" tour seemed to be the beginning of tougher times.

Word on the street is that Julian literally mailed in his vocal tracks for the recording process of "Angles" - as in sent audio files of his vocals over email - instead of jamming in the same recording studio as the rest of the band. According to interviews, this was by design. Casablancas felt he needed to remove himself from the rest of the group so that their own creative identity could fluorish. Sounds good in theory, but the end result didn't make the rest of the band happy. Guitarist Nick Valensi was quoted as saying that he "wouldn't do another album like this, without the singer there."

There's also the somewhat well-documented drug problems of guitarist Albert Hammond Jr., supposedly behind him now, and his subsequent recovery difficulties while trying to record the album.

Add on top of that the resentment that undoubtedly festered and lingered from the group being "Julian's band with the other 4 dudes riding shotgun and just slinging their instruments on stage," and add in a healthy dose of "We're supposed to be back together recording as a group for the first time in 5 years but our singer can't stand to be in the same room with us and one of our guitarists almost OD'd" - and it's a miracle they were even able to crap out an album that's anything beyond average.

Well the good news is that the limited number of performances the band delivered last year was met with fever-pitch intensity from the crowds, and by all accounts, the Strokes have never sounded better live. So there is that. There was also Valensi or bassist Nikolai Fraiture (can't remember which) recently indicating that the band was going to be hitting the studio again possibly as early as sometime in April to begin working on new material. They've got limited tour dates this year, so road-work shouldn't be too much of a hindrance in making more new music.

Hopefully they get it figured out and continue to save rock music. There are far too few bands like them these days.

A quick breadown of the tracks on Angles (overall, I give it about an 82 percent out of 100):

1) Machu Picchu - a mid-tempo, slinky number with gratifying chord changes and a classically catchy, guitar-driven, hum-along chorus. Solid opener.

2) Under the Cover of Darkness - As previously stated, the album's crown jewel. Catchy as all get-out, and a definitive modern indie-rock anthem. Strokes are at their best with songs like this.

3) Two Kinds of Happiness - Straight out of 1982 with the somewhat muted production, synth soundscapes, and Julian's best Ric Ocasek impression. But the chorus is a harrowing cacophony of sound with lightning-fast lead-guitar stabs (that's gotta be Albert, right?)

4) You're So Right - Talk about taking risks. This is not the sound you expect out of the Strokes. Some have called it the weakest song on the album. It strays into new territory for sure with its spare, uncompromising sound. Experimental, unique, but not radio-friendly or a perfect 'first introduction' to The Strokes.

5) Taken for a Fool - I love it more every time I hear it. A fast-moving gem that sticks in your head for days. Guitars are crisp and clear with descending chord changes, and a slamming rhythm track keeps it moving along. The chorus soars and sings, and its lyrics are priceless ("And I don't need anyone with me right now / Monday-Tuesday is my weekend").

6) Games - They went a little nuts with the synth on this one. I actually like the verse better than the chorus, with the spare-sounding bass and Julian's singing. One of the less-memorable tracks.

7) Call me Back - A tense yet soft ballad that turns optimistic and satisfying in the chorus. No percussion here, just clean-tone guitar and Julian's vocals, with a touch of keyboard effects to enhance certain moments. Really like this one.

8) Gratisfaction - Easily the most rollicking, jolly uptempo, sing-along banger on the album after "Under the Cover." This will be a crowd favorite at live shows without a doubt. If the whole album sounded like this song and "Under the Cover," everyone would right now be hailing The Strokes as rock's saviors of 2011.

9) Metabolism - Lumbering mid-tempo track, kind of depressing. Sounds like a leftover from the "First Impressions" recording sessions. Some nice chord/vocal dynamic changes in the middle section though.

10) Life is Simple in the Moonlight - I'm beginning to really appreciate the Strokes more when they do songs like this. Reflective, pensive, not a rocker but not quite a ballad either. Just a great song, and the chorus climaxes beautifully with "Don't Try to Stop us! Get out of our Way!"

Never Fear, Green Beer is Here

Happy Drunken Irish Holiday, bitches.

Let the good times ROLL!

Whose idea was it that this holiday should turn the streets of midtown Manhattan into an idiot parade? So just to clarify, we have the REAL parade that happens on Fifth Avenue, with the bagpipes and people actually wanting to celebrate Irish heritage to a certain degree. Then we have said Idiot Parade, which basically occurs on the side streets and much of the rest of regional Manhattan, replete with unoriginal, moronic 18-to-23 year olds wearing every item of clothing in the ugliest shade of deep green ever created.

It's evident that 90 percent of these people don't live in the city, given their obvious cluelessness as it applies to actions in which New York residents simply do not engage - you know, such as wandering around aimlessly like idiots; asking if the grab-and-go deli/sandwich place has a restroom (because they've been drinking since 9 a.m. and need to relieve themselves); screaming in the middle of the street for no apparent reason, other than the fact that it happens to be the one calendar day each year when people can become fall-down drunk and get a free pass on it; Oh wait, did I mention wandering around aimlessly like idiots? Because there is a LOT of that.

Okay, sure, I know what I sound like. Mr. Grumpy Pants over here, shaking his cane at the young uns' because my lifestyle doesn't allow me to, on a Thursday afternoon no less, dress up like I was just vomited out of the Jolly Green Giant with an upturned 40 in my hand. But I'm pretty sure these people would annoy the crap out of me regardless of my age/employment status, and I consider that a good thing.

So as a general rule, unless you ARE one of these slobbering, loud, green idiots, do NOT come to New York City on St. Patrick's Day, because you will want to strangle anything in sight by the end of the day. Or well in advance of said time.

Now with that out of the way, randomness ensues. Enjoy!

_____________________

The 2010-11 NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament has begun, and I can't remember a season when I've paid as little attention to college hoops as I have this year. I'm just way too into the NBA, which actually has a ton of talent right now, stars with staying power and legitimate identity, and a schedule that allows you to find a thoroughly entertaining game on TV almost any night of the week. The college game is still fun to watch on occasion, but there are very few 'names' this season (experts are predicting one of the weaker NBA draft classes we've seen in a while for June 2011). I didn't even fill out a bracket. It just gets more difficult every year, particularly in seasons like this one where it's wide open, due to lack of said star power.

Also, to turn into Mr. T momentarily (sans mohawk and ebony skin and gold chains and deep voice, of course) I pity the fool who had either Louisville, Penn State or Clemson advancing to the Sweet 16 or beyond in their bracket. This list will grow, of course, as the next two days unfold.

Oh did I mention how much more fun it is to watch the NCAA Tournament when you're not constantly rooting or bracket-checking and can just enjoy the games? Holy World of Difference, Batman.

____________________________

The NFL and the Players Union are now officially locked out, which is about what we all expected. Can't figure out how to divide up that annual $9 billion pie. Bit of a shame. So what's happened now? The Players Union has decertified and filed a federal lawsuit against the league alleging antitrust violations, among other allegations. And the players are urging a boycott of the NFL Draft in late April, meaning that teams would select fresh-out-of-college players who won't be there to come out on stage and shake the hands of the owners who just picked them. Oy. Awwwk-ward!

It's all ugly, and I'm sure we all hope it can get resolved sooner rather than later, but things don't generally move at lightning speed in U.S. Federal District Court. Matters will need to be hashed out there before the two sides can resume negotiations and work out the multitude of unresolved issues that still exist between the league and the players.

Get ready to be a college football fan if you aren't one, because I'll be highly surprised if the 2011 NFL Season kicks off when it's currently slated to do so.

__________________________

Okay, I know this is kind of old news, but Charlie Effing Sheen. My God. What a national treasure. A quote machine if there ever was one. Is this guy for real? Has anybody figured out yet whether it's a put-on? He's either a genius that hasn't received the proper amount of credit for duping everyone, or we're all just blessed by the gift of his unbridled insanity as it plays out on TV cameras and all over the Inter Webs.

Either way, at the end of the day he's quite goddamn brilliant, because people have never paid as much attention to him as they are now. If you're a celebrity, isn't that all you really want anyway? Who ISN'T going to be all over his next move? Nobody.

When you add in the fact that he's uber-rich and lives with a porn star and a 'dancer' - both of whom are clearly copasthetic with this arrangement - one can certainly make an argument that there are people out there who have it worse right now than Mr. Tiger's Blood.

I still think he's a lunatic, and I'd be surprised if he's totally clean (his last drug test was negative, but word on the street about cocaine is that it's out of your system in 2-3 days ... or, um, so I've heard). But we're all chomping at the bit to see what comes next out of this guy, right? Unless, you know, you're only primarily interested in stuff that's actually important.

____________________

Speaking of unimportant - yet hilarious - stuff, please, and I implore you, track down a video clip of Mike "The Situation" Sorrentino 'performing' at Comedy Central's Roast of Donald Trump, which aired this past Tuesday night. Wow, was he atrocious. Within hours of the broadcast, the internet was ablaze with disparaging reviews (rightfully so) and videographic proof of how unfunny is this greasy, tan knucklehead. To appropriately review the event, I figured I should roast The Situation myself. Here goes! (If you're easily offended, please skip!)

* Suicide bombers watched The Situation at the Trump Roast and said "Damn, I can never hope to be as successful as that guy!" Okay, alright, calm down.

* Hey, Situation, look at this guy. I would say he needs to get his dignity back after that performance, but you can't retrieve what was never there in the first place.

* Situation, is that you or did the Friar's Club invite a Jack-o'-Lantern to the Roast of Donald Trump? Goddamn, when you reach for the spray-tan bottle it screams "Enough guy! I'm not meant for this much use on one person! Take it easy!"

* Yo Situation, is it true that BP took the fall for what was really you doing a headstand in the Gulf of Mexico? Jesus Christ, look at that greasy mop! You could shine up an entire Brooks Brothers' footwear department with one-eighth of what's in your hair right now.

* Situation, I would call you dumb, but then the word 'dumb' would immediately file a slander/defamation lawsuit against me. And probably win.

Alright, I've got a ton of 'em, but you get the idea. Watch the vid clip. You will be cringing in both horror and delight, I promise.

_____________________

The original entertainment landscape on TV is a little thin right now, probably at least until Mad Men and Breaking Bad return later this summer, but there's still some decent stuff to check out.

Notably, The Office is about to finish its run with anchor character Michael Scott, played by Steve Carell. I just can't imagine the show without him, even though I want to back-hand him about 50 percent of the time because of the moronic things he says and does. Of course, that's a large part of the charm of his character. It's a great ensemble cast, certainly the show is no one-trick pony. But Carell is the glue that holds it all together. Who becomes the glue when he's gone? Jim? Nah, Jim doesn't feel like a 'glue' guy. A little too smarmy and you get the sense he puts himself above everyone else around him (most of whom are severely flawed in some way). Dwight? No, his character is far too unlikeable, and it wouldn't be believable to suddenly turn him into a bumbling fool with a heart of gold (see 'Carell').

So do they bring someone else in? I've heard all kinds of rumors. John Hodgman (the 'PC' commercial guy; also a Daily Show correspondent). Rhys Darby, a.k.a Murray on Flight of the Conchords. I love him to death, but I don't see him being the right fit. Danny McBride? That's it. Kenny Powers should run 'The Office' as the new Michael Scott. Yes, I know, that wouldn't work either, but Kenny Powers is probably my favorite TV personality right now, fictional or otherwise. Everything he says and does is pure gold.

In related news, Eastbound and Down Season 3 will air later this year on HBO, and it will be the show's final season. I really hope Powers makes it to the majors by the time the final credits roll.

Meanwhile, Parks & Recreation wins the award for 'most improved comedy' since last year at this time. Funny, original, great cast, wonderful chemistry, and it's shaken its reputation as an inferior 'Office' knock-off.

30 Rock is still solid, but it feels like something big needs to happen with the characters. It almost seems like it's just the same zany antics/similarly inane storylines being traded around with different members of the cast. Hoping they shake it up somehow to end this season in the next couple months.

_____________________

Finally, as a teaser for a subject of future discussion in this space, I've heard the new Strokes album, Angles, and it is indeed brilliant. New York's Finest is about to drop a triumphant return to form, and I can't wait to see them kick some ass and take some names yet again at Madison Square Garden on April 1st. No hooks, no gimmicks, just great music. Viva la Strokes! The album drops March 22nd for those interested.

Who's Bringing Home the Little Statues?

The twenty-OH 10 started off kind of weak for movie-films. Things dramatically improved from around April/May onward. Random thoughts, a.k.a. The "Joey T.'s", are below, followed by my impressions of what may transpire at the broadcast of the 83rd Academy Awards.

Also, even though it wasn't necessarily planned this way, I actually ended up having seen all 10 Best Picture nominees. And I can honestly say I've never been more confused about selecting a favorite. That's why they play the game! To use a sports analogy (come on, I'm incapable of not doing so) - will it be "Rock-Chalk-Jayhawk!" or will Butler make it to the NCAA Finals this time? Grab some popcorn (not the kind with the fake-ass liquid butter), sit back and enjoy.

RANDOM ENTERTAINMENT RELATED THOUGHT: The Kardashian family earned $65 million in 2009. I will now engage in vomit-prevention tactics.

BIGGEST SCREW JOB OF THE 83RD ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS: Christopher Nolan, who directed Inception, was not nominated for Best Director. Either he did something to piss off a whole lot of academy voters, or he did something to piss off a whole lot of academy voters. I cannot fathom any other explanation.

MOST UPLIFTING MOVIE OF 2010: Black Swan! Just kidding, of course. It was Winter's Bone.

BEST BIG SCREEN D-BAG: Ryan Gosling in Blue Valentine. Later in their relationship, not early on. Showing up at Michelle Williams' job drunk with his cheap sunglasses and scary animal sweatshirt really took the cake.

MOVIE THAT MOST EFFECTIVELY REINFORCES NEGATIVE STEREOTYPES ABOUT WOMEN BEING CRAZY AND CATTY: Why none other than Black Swan, of course!

SECOND BIGGEST SCREW JOB OF THE 83RD ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS: The fact that the documentary "Waiting for Superman" didn't get nominated for Best Documentary. It's an informative yet emotional look at what's wrong with the primary and secondary school systems in our country. You might be a little depressed after watching it, but you certainly won't be left wondering why the U.S. has fallen behind so many other developed nations in the world when it comes to educating our children.

FOREIGN FILM THAT MOST UNDESERVEDLY RECEIVED TONS OF CRITICAL ACCLAIM: Animal Kingdom, from Australia. This movie is just straight up frustrating. It's simply got to own the record for movie with the most staggeringly high number of unlikeable, stupid characters.

HOLLYWOOD'S BIGGEST NUT-JOB: I mean, right now it's got to be a toss-up between Charlie Sheen and Mel Gibson. Gibson has the anti-semitism and spousal abuse down pat, but Sheen is like the Nikki Sixx or Ozzy Osbourne of network television. No matter how many hookers, alcohol and blow you put in the room with him, he's always going to come out of it alive.

TEEN CELEBRITY I'M MOST SICK OF HEARING ABOUT: Justin. Effing. Bieber. Can someone PLEASE make this kid go away? I'll donate a freaking vital organ, I promise.

SONG I'M MOST ASHAMED TO ADMIT I CAN'T GET OUT OF MY HEAD: That Miley Cyrus song about "Partying in the U.S.A." I mean, I'm not going to buy it on i-tunes or anything, but if I hear it on the radio or on TV, and I don't have a "chaser" song to instantly get it out of my head, it's stuck in there like month-old gum on the bottom of your desk in 10th Grade Spanish class. I mean, she shouts out Jay-Z in the song at least. Bieber would never do that!

NEVER UNDERSTOOD THE HYPE AWARD: The TV show Friday Night Lights. Granted, I only saw a few episodes in the first season and then dropped it like a hot potato. And believe me, if there's a target audience for anything high school football-related, it's me (ask just about anyone who knows me). But I could never get past the sort of '90210' side of the show, the silly teen dramatics. If you gave me more football and less of that, or at least didn't bathe said dramatics with a nice, glossy sheen, then I may have been a huge fan.

Alright, now on to the show. I'm going to start with a quick blurb about each of the best pic nominees and wrap it all up with brief thoughts on the other major awards. Remember, just because I got it right doesn't mean the Academy will. This right here is the real shizz, bro.

BEST PIC NOMINEES

Black Swan: About as heavy-handed and frightening as a 220-pound, ruler-wielding nun is to a nervous 3rd grader in Catholic School. Director Darren Aronofsky certainly has a style that is all its own, and he does a magnificent job of capturing tension and mood in his films. He's showing us the world through the paranoid, always-spinning mind of the protagonist, a perfectionist ballet dancer (Natalie Portman) who has beaten out several worthy candidates to win the role of the Swan Queen in a re-working of the Tchaikovsky classic "Swan Lake." It's an intriguing character study, and an exercise in separating fantasy from reality. It's also rife with symbolism, yet open to interpretation. It's artful and intense, which you get a feeling Academy voters can appreciate. But it's also somewhat empty, leaving you to wonder what it all meant by the time the end credits are rolling. Fascinating story, but it doesn't feel like a Best Picture winner.

The Fighter: A pulls-no-punches (get it?!) re-telling of the tale of American boxer Mickey Ward, a blue collar fellow from Lowell, Massachusetts, who rose to unlikely prominence in the mid-to-late 1990s through a lot of training, hard work and family drama. As sports flicks go, this is one of the best that's been made in a long time. Christian Bale was unbelievable as the brother of Ward, played by Mark Wahlberg, and Melissa Leo was fantastic as the tough-love matriarch of the family. It's well-acted and entertaining, but plays out a bit more like an independent film (not that there's anything wrong with that). The drawback though is the fact that it didn't resonate as powerfully in the mainstream as many of the other best pic candidates. It's an underdog to win - much like Ward often was as a boxer in real life - but it's not an impossibility.

Inception: This has to be one of the most original, innovative and well-executed suspense/action thrillers to come along in quite some time. Director Christopher Nolan's tour de force about dream control and its impact on reality was a juggernaut during last summer's motion picture season, but it seems to have lost momentum in recent months now that pictures like "True Grit," "The King's Speech" and "The Social Network" are getting the most lip service. It's a shame, because I feel like this movie should be on that "Short List of 2 or 3 most likely to win," but by most accounts, it simply isn't. Hollywood is so much about crappy sequels, remakes and predictable action thrillers these days that you would think a movie like "Inception" would be received as a breath of fresh air that's hard to snuff out. Unfortunately, it seems like most of us have forgotten about it already just because of its premature timing.

The Kids Are All Right: This was a very progressive, seemingly realistic portrayal of a true "modern family." Annette Bening and Julianne Moore play lesbian mothers raising two teenagers (the daughter is soon off for college) in upper-middle class California, and the kids decide to look up their biological father to satisfy their long-held curiosity. What transpires feels very authentic given the circumstances and issues of the characters involved. And we know that the Academy has shown love to films prominently featuring characters with alternative sexual preferences in the past (Sean Penn won Best Actor for his portrayal of gay rights activist Harvey Milk two years ago). But it seems like this movie has three primary elements working against it: 1) The timeliness factor (see "Inception" above); 2) Not enough eyeballs on it, didn't get into enough theaters; 3) It lacks that extra 'bite' or 'punch' to push it past some of the more, um, forceful best pic nominees. Sometimes it's not enough to have a unique story, strong acting and a ton of realism.

The King's Speech: And here we are, folks. We've arrived at the Prohibitive Favorite to win best picture. A classic Oscar-bait film in every sense of the term. It's a period piece, it's got distinguished British actors (Geoffrey Rush, Colin Firth), and best of all, it's based on the true story of King George VI, a leader who struggled to overcome a vicious stammering problem as King of the United Kingdom from 1936 until his death. Firth is fabulous, and Rush is equally convincing as his speech coach, but then we expect nothing less from these two masters at their craft. I can't honestly say I was riveted from beginning to end, but it was a fine film, and many others cut from the same mold have cleaned up at the Academy Awards in years past. But who knows? There are many worthy candidates this year, and quite frankly, this movie winning the big prize is about as predictable as road-side bombs in the Middle East, or sunshine in Southern California. Sometimes voters are discouraged from picking the "easy" or "safe" choice simply to go against the grain. But it's true that this movie fits the classic "best picture" prototype, so don't be amazed if it wins.

127 Hours: This flick is not for the faint of heart. There's a chance that you already know that it's based on the true story of a guy named Aron Ralston, a thrill-seeker who in April of 2003 went alone on a rock climbing/diving excursion in Utah, without telling anyone of his plans, before becoming trapped against a wall when an enormous boulder pins his right arm to the earth. James Franco rocks this role, and makes you forget how difficult it must be to keep the audience engaged when most of the movie is just him and the camera. Director Danny Boyle ("Trainspotting," "Slumdog Millionaire") does a great job here, building the tension wonderfully but never losing the viewer's interest. Again, this film didn't quite get enough attention, and it's a bit too uncompromising and one-dimensional to imagine it taking home the big prize. But it's also fascinating viewing.

The Social Network: And here we have the Facebook Movie. Conventional wisdom says that if anything is going to dethrone "The King's Speech" for Best Pic, it's this. Despite its two-plus hours of running time, it flies by and keeps you engaged from start to finish. Aaron Sorkin compiled an amazing screenplay, and David Fincher is solid, as usual, in a directorial capacity. Jesse Eisenberg is cold, clinical and downright convincing in his portrayal of Facebook creator Mark Zuckerberg, and never has a movie or TV show (or anything else for that matter) come along yet that so powerfully captures the influence that social media has had on all of our lives. The film tells us all sides of the 'lawsuit' story that unfolded after Facebook blew up the world (Zuckerberg was embroiled in two separate civil litigations when he was sued by business partners and/or colleagues who claim to have been cheated out of profits or creator credits as it applies to the empire that is Facebook.com). Simply put, this is a uniquely told, powerful account of an electronic communication tool that epitomizes modern-day interactions for people of all socio-economic classes in every nook and cranny of our country (and other countries), and the man (men?) behind it all. It's hard to imagine why it shouldn't win, dammit, or be on that short-list of prohibitive favorites.

Toy Story 3: If you were to ask my wife, this should win Best Pic. Okay, maybe not, but it was her favorite of the nominees. Actually, I have to admit I hadn't seen either of the first two "Toy Story" pics, but I thoroughly enjoyed this. Beautifully animated and voiced, heart-warming, made for kids, but entertaining for adults as well. What else can you ask for? Don't expect it to beat out all of these other sophisticated, layered, made-for-adults efforts for the Best Pic prize, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to see it win Best Animated Feature Film. I mean, "How to Train Your Dragon" was also decent, but "Toy Story 3" is better.

True Grit: Joel and Ethan Coen have struck again. The directing brothers have made this novel pop to life a second time, 41 years after the original big-screen adaptation featuring John Wayne in the role of rebel law-man Rooster Cogburn. The Coens have really nailed it this time. A classic hallmark of many Coen movies is an off-kilter quirkiness that strays just a bit too left-of-center to truly exhibit mainstream appeal (I personally love their style). However, there's no such odd leanings in this effort. The old-timey language, period appropriate atmospherics and snappy dialogue move the action along beautifully and make it feel like an instant-classic Western pic. Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon carry the film with veteran performances, but the real talk of the town is the gem of a major acting debut by 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld, who I would love to see win Best Supporting Actress. This movie, along with "The Social Network," are the most likely challengers to "The King's Speech" likely claim to the Best Picture trophy. It had the momentum of a Christmas Day release and a lot of buzzworthy praise (Coen Brothers and Bridges at the top of their game, and a breath-of-fresh-air job by a young, rising star). Can't wait to see what rewards this film takes.

Winter's Bone: If you ask me, this was the Best Picture of 2010. But I'm smart enough to know it doesn't stand a Meth-head's chance in a detox facility at winning Best Picture. The subject matter is way too grim, and it probably played on about 7 and-a-half screens total throughout the country. I understand all that, and it makes perfect sense why it won't walk off with the biggest piece of hardware. But just the fact that it's nominated means that the right people are paying attention to the right works of art, at least on occasion. And even though this movie doesn't stand much of a chance at winning the ultimate prize, Jennifer Lawrence does stand a chance of winning Best Actress. This girl was phenomenal, and she's only a few years older than Steinfeld. She delivers a powerful, gut-wrenching performance as a 17-year-old member of a poverty-ridden family (mom is in a constantly catatonic state, dad cooks/sells meth, is on the lam from the law and has put up the family's raggedy house as bond collateral) set against the depressing backdrop of wintertime in the Ozark Mountains of southern Missouri. Lawrence's character, Ree Dolly, has to look after her younger brother and sister while also trying to hunt down her father before either the cops or his enemies do in order to try to save what little she and her family have left (including the roof over their head). It's powerful, affecting material, but many of us would rather not focus on the fact that stories like this are all too real. This movie and "True Grit" are tied for my personal Best Pic of 2010, with "The Social Network" clocking in at a close second.

Best Director is probably a three-way race between Tom Hooper (King's Speech), David Fincher (Social Network) and Joel & Ethan Coen (True Grit). The mechanics involved with a film like True Grit seem like it should give the Coens the edge here, but sometimes it's the subtleties involved with directing seemingly simpler fare such as the other two pics that is more difficult to pull off. If True Grit wins best pic, I'm thinking the Coens get best director, and same goes for a Hooper-King's Speech sweep.

Best Actor, the three way race is essentially Eisenberg (Social Network), Firth (King's Speech) and Franco (127 Hours). Franco was magnetic given the spare elements he had to work with, but Firth and Eisenberg were more transformative with their characters. I think Eisenberg's role was a bit more of a stretch, and he had to create more of an alternate persona than Firth. Although, Firth made the stutter look downright natural, and that can NOT have been easy. Tough call there.

Best Supporting Actor also had three highly worthy candidates - Geoffrey Rush (King's Speech), Christian Bale (The Fighter) and Jeremy Renner (The Town). Rush was typically brilliant, but he just acted like Geoffrey Rush for a couple hours. He didn't push above and beyond any unimaginable limitations. Renner was obscenely good as the short-fused, blue collar Southy criminal in the Charlestown bank robber flick "The Town," but Bale literally kind of became Dicky Eklund (Mickey Ward's older brother). So much so, in fact, that locals in Lowell, Mass., mistook Bale for the REAL Dicky Eklund. Now that's a goddamn good performance. I think you've got to give it to Bale here.

Best Actress is a real close race this year. Michelle Williams may have actually had the most all-around multi-dimensional, emotionally exhausting performance of the five nominees, but unfortunately, her role didn't seem to garner enough attention. The late release date (just weeks before the Academy Awards) didn't help either. It feels like a 3-way race between Annette Bening, Natalie Portman and Jennifer Lawrence. Again, Lawrence's lack of reconigition is going to hurt her. Portman appears to be the favorite, but Bening had more depth. Portman was great at being manic and grating, but Bening displayed just about every emotion imaginable in her role, and did them all exceedingly well. I actually hope she wins if we're talking about it coming down to her vs. Portman.

Best Supporting Actress has to be either Steinfeld (True Grit) or Melissa Leo (The Fighter). Both were phenomenal. To pick who was better is like splitting hairs. You can't do it. So for me, it's got to come down to something else. What's the next best criteria since you could spend all day lobbying effectively for either candidate in the "Better Performance" department? How about degree of difficulty? Steinfeld isn't even old enough to have a learner's permit for driving a car, and she flat out killed it as Maddie Ross. It feels difficult to take it away from Leo just because we happened to have a 14-year-old who was magnificent this year, but that's what feels like the right thing to do. Of course, I wouldn't put it past academy voters to pick Leo and rationalize it by saying "Steinfeld is young and brilliant, she'll have plenty of time to win a major award." But that would be a mistake, because it would be cheating her out of a performance that couldn't have possibly been any better coming from a 14-year-old. Here's hoping that Steinfeld wins.

Cornucopia

Alright peoples. As we all go through post-football season withdrawal, please keep in mind that there's a ton of other exciting stuff happening.

Leave it to El Presidente to entertain the crap out of you, as per usual. The Academy Awards are next Sunday, and I'll definitely have some stuff to say about that later this week.

FOOTBALL

As we all know by now, the Green Bay Packers are Super Bowl XLV champions, the Dallas Cowboys stadium and facilities people did a horrible job, displacing a few hundred fans from their seats just hours before kickoff, and lawsuits/news about all of this has dominated the headlines, garnering almost as much attention as what actually happened in the game.

We all know the drill by now. About 400 fans who paid for $800 seats were admitted into the game, but were told not long before kickoff that their seats weren't up to safety standards. Stadium/league officials attempted to relocate these rightfully cheesed-off individuals (Packer puns aside) by shifting them to standing-room only areas of the stadium, or taking them down to field level where they couldn't see the live action through all of the bodies and commotion, and instead could only watch the game on TVs in their immediate area.

Now, of course, these people have a right to be pissed. However, it seems like the league did everything within reason in attempts to rectify this situation correctly. They offered the affected fans a cash value of three times the ticket's face value (in other words, $2,400), or a trip to next year's Super Bowl with seat accommodations, round trip airfare and hotel on the house. Then, the following day, they upped the ante even beyond that. The affected fans could choose to forgo both of those alternatives and instead opt for a trip to any future Super Bowl of their choosing, with the same aforementioned perks paid for by the league. At that point, what damages are you seeking through your lawsuit? Airfare and hotel are needed in association with your trip, and those will be covered by the league either through reimbursement or during a future trip. But anything you choose to spend beyond that is on you, kiddos. The league is trying to do what's right here. But what would our country be if it wasn't continuously rife with frivolous lawsuits, yes?

Anyhoos, this labor situation also seems quite grim right now. NFL owners and the NFL Players Association have to settle all of their disputes by March 4, or there will most certainly be a lockout of undetermined length. We have a higher probability of seeing Snooki become a rocket scientist, or seeing Lady Gaga make a routine stage entrance, than we do of seeing all of these disagreements worked out by the fourth day of March.

Basically, a cliff notes version of the chief financial disagreement is this: There is an approximately $9 billion total pot that must be divided up between the owners and players. Under the current agreement, the owners devote $1 billion of that $9 billion to themselves before dividing the rest of it up with the players 50/50. The owners want to re-negotiate that division of profits to guarantee themselves $2 billion before splitting the remaining $7 billion with the players. This means the players would get roughly $3.5 billion of the total $9 billion pile. Huh? Just a little over 40 percent for the guys laying their bodies on the line every year? As if most of these owners wouldn't be rich and wealthy beyond the comprehension of most of us even if they DIDN'T own an NFL franchise?

Look, I hate to choose sides over something that is undoubtedly this layered and complex, and I'm sure I don't know all of the details. But whatever those details are, it's a plain and simple fact that the owners want almost two whole thirds of the pie, with the players left to divvy up the rest. Hey owners, if it wasn't you owning these teams, you don't think there are plenty of wealthy-beyond-imagination entrepreneurs out there who might step up to the plate and gladly buy out your commodity? I'm quite sure there are. And yes, there are substitute players (i.e. scabs) who would happily fill in if the starters said "Eff you guys" and stayed on their side of the picket lines ... but of course the obvious difference in that scenario is that the overall quality of the product would be much more noticeably diluted with substitute players than it would with "wet-behind-the-ears" owners. There are a handful of starting NFL players among the best-of-the-best that inspire laughter as it is now (who wants Jay Cutler on their team? I didn't think so). Can you imagine the backups to THOSE guys getting primetime play because the Varsity Team is sitting on the sidelines trying to work out their disputes with these greedy-ass owners?

NFL Players, especially compared to a lot of big-contract NBA and MLB players, are the most modestly-paid of the 'Big 3' professional sports participants. And in most cases, they walk away from their chosen profession with the most significant degree of bodily damage. This is basically for our entertainment, folks. Yeah the players love the game, but if someone devised a way for them to make decent money, not sacrifice any of the sport's popularity but also protect them better as players from the dangers of the game, do you think they would object? Of course not! But we as fans love the violent, jarring, strength-on-strength nature and pedigree of the sport, don't we? I don't know anybody who likes the fact that quarterbacks have to be babied now more than ever in today's version of the NFL.

So we want these guys to get what they want, but we also want to see the vicious hits and punishing nature of football, chalking any disagreement with such a mentality up to a "suck it up, don't be a baby, this is what you signed up for" attitude. Meanwhile, if I or anyone else reading this piece right now attempted even the simple act of getting up from the ground about 150 times over three hours, MINUS the body-crushing hits, we'd be begging for mercy.

And I also don't think it's a huge stretch to say that any of the 32 NFL owners could walk away from their product tomorrow (with varying degrees of regret, of course), and not ever have another financial worry for the rest of their days. Oh and they also wouldn't be a physical trainwreck from years of abuse on the field. Most of these guys were made men before they ever even owned an NFL franchise.

I certainly hope it can all be worked out in such a way that won't cause us to miss any games in the 2011 season, but it doesn't look especially hopeful right now. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that the two sides must come to an agreement on the financial details (i.e. the $9 billion total pot issue) before they can even begin to address other contentious subjects such as extending the regular season from 16 to 18 games, the structuring of rookie contracts (including the percentage of guaranteed money), and an issue that's seemingly minor but is very important before any games can actually be played, free agency concerns and which teams will be called "home" for the individual players to which this applies.

I hope some of you are fans of college football. It might get the highest ratings it's ever had this fall, at least within the first few weeks.

BASKETBALL

For anyone out there who dissents from the notion that the NBA All-Star Game is by far the most enjoyable, exciting and fun-to-watch of the four major sports leagues' all-star games, I would love nothing more than to engage in some spirited, yet civil, debate. If you can't get into the NBA All-Star game with the league's current level of ridiculous, unprecedentedly astounding talent, then you just don't give much of a hoot about pro basketball. Let's put it this way: the outcome of the game doesn't mean anything, unlike the Major League Baseball All-star game - whose winner gets home-field advantage in the World Series - yet the most exciting MLB All-Star Game I've ever seen pales in comparison to even the least memorable NBA All-Star Game that I've watched.

Sunday night's game was a tour de force. Now I realize this has much to do with the atypically electric offensive energy, and the fact that nobody is out there giving it 100 percent on defense in an All-star game. But if you watched at least five minutes of live action in that game last night, you can't tell me that those guys weren't playing hard on a general level, trying to impress and displaying an incredible level of skill and athleticism. It's the most fun brand of basketball you'll ever see. The alley-oops, the effortless-looking dunks, the crazy hustle on both ends of the floor. These guys will rarely get into spells like that during any other game, and I'm including the playoffs, unless you're lucky enough to get a finals matchup between two run-and-gun teams (which never seems to happen anymore). No, the most successful title-winning teams in recent years are the squads that play ball-control, tenacious, half-court, defense-oriented basketball (i.e. San Antonio, Boston, L.A. Lakers).

And for as awful as the Lakers have looked for the last several weeks heading into the All-Star break, Kobe Bryant silenced a lot of doubters with an eye-opening All-Star Game performance in front of the hometown crowd at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, leading the West to a 148-143 victory over the East. Regardless of your personal feelings about him (I don't even want to unravel that ball of wax), that was vintage Kobe right there (37 points, 14 rebounds), just a stone-cold assassin when it comes to scoring the ball.

And for the East, LeBron James notched a triple-double for only the second time in All-Star game history (Michael Jordan is the only other player to have done that).

It will be a fun second half to the season. The Miami Heat have gotten their legs and are now officially the second-best team in the Eastern Conference behind Boston, and have also predictably developed into the villains of the NBA by joining superstar forces in attempts to win a title (LeBron is routinely booed whenever he handles the rock in enemy territory). Meanwhile, from top to bottom, the Western Conference is about as loaded as Andy Reid's plate in a free buffet line. San Antonio looks like the best team right now, but the Lakers are still the champs, Oklahoma City is young and frighteningly good, and the Dallas Mavericks have to get back to the Finals one of these years, right?

As for the never-ending Carmelo Anthony trade talk, I really wish I'd stop hearing the daily "rumor" updates and just get the low-down one day when a trade actually happens. As for Knicks and Nets fans that are hopeful that 'Melo comes their way, sure it would be an improvement in some ways, but it's not necessarily a championship-winning maneuver, at least not right away. Especially for the Knicks, who would have to gut their roster for a guy who is a great scorer and finisher, but isn't a great defender (something the Knicks need more of) and doesn't necessarily bring a disciplined leadership role to a team comprised primarily of younger players.

As for the most exciting young player in the league right now? Far and away, Blake Griffin of the L.A. Clippers. What a phenomenon. He dunked over a car to win the slam dunk competition Saturday night. Really? Really.

Check the technique on that one, dog.

Enjoy, back for Oscar talk later this week.

Super Bowl Pick and Other Gems

Well, based on the last words written in this space as it applies to predicting winners of playoff football games, why should you listen to me about anything, right?

Indeed, I whiffed on both NFL conference championship game picks. Nothing like the 'oh-fer' statistic, as in 'oh-fer-2' on my picks. Let me say this - all week leading up to the Bears-Packers NFC Championship game, I was definitely feeling Green Bay as the winner (as were most). Then, I pulled the switcharoo at the last second, because I just got a funny feeling. You know how that happens sometimes. It just seemed too easy to pick the Packers beating the Bears in a close one, yet that's exactly what happened. Sometimes the obvious pick is the right pick. However, I'm not sure if the result would have turned out the same if:

1) the Bears didn't suck so badly

2) Jay Cutler didn't seemingly give up so easily (Cutler's ineffectiveness was a large contributing factor to point number one. It infected the whole rest of the team like some kind of evil succubus).

Yeah, I know, MCL problems are no fun to deal with. But I just feel like there are certain players, certain QBs especially, that would have had to be literally driven off the field on a stretcher in order to keep them out of a conference championship game. It was also Cutler's body language on the sideline thereafter. Sulking, sullen-looking, standing by himself, staring blankly at the field rather than appearing positive, engaged or helping out his team in ANY way. I'm pretty sure I could have stood there on crutches eyeballing the field and not communicating with anyone around me too. Oh well. I've said in the past Cutler will never be a Super Bowl winning quarterback, and I stand by that statement (until I'm proven wrong).

As for the other game, yeah I was confident about the Jets' chances, but definitely not surprised Pittsburgh won. It's just such a shame New York had such a Godawful first half of football. Even considering that, they still almost pulled out the comeback win. But the more I think about it, why exactly did I think the Jets would beat a model organization like the Steelers for the second time in less than 6 weeks, when that second game is the AFC Championship game AT Heinz Field in Pittsburgh? Probably should have seen that coming. Again - oh well.

So what's likely to happen in Super Bowl XLV, kicking off in about two hours? Good gravy, I've heard this game dissected, put together, disassembled and reassembled five ways 'til Tuesday in the past two weeks. There is no matchup, no strategy, no "This is likely to happen" plot-point that I haven't consumed and digested in some way. But what it so often comes down to in games like these isn't so much about the X's and O's as it is about preparation, team chemistry, and the mental aspect of being at your best performance level. Also minimizing mistakes. It's no secret that the team usually committing fewer penalties and turnovers is often the winning one.

Having put that out there, there are definitely some matchup angles that favor Green Bay over Pittsburgh, and the Packers are about a 3-point favorite in this game, despite their inferior record and No. 6 seed out of the NFC vs. the Steelers' better record and No. 2 seed out of the AFC. It's also been pointed out repeatedly that both of these teams overcame massive injury problems to get here this year. This has to be a Super Bowl matchup record for most number of players injured from start of season until conclusion amongst the two final teams. But younger guys stepped up all around and made names for themselves. Pretty powerful stuff.

So why is Green Bay favored? And why do I agree that they are probably going to win? (By the way, I do). Well, it does sound counter-intuitive. The Steelers have won two Super Bowls in the previous five seasons before this one. They have 6 Super Bowl titles, more than any other team. They are generally the standard to which a franchise should aspire from the ownership committee, to the GM, on down to the coaching staff and players they draft (Ben Roethlisberger's character issues aside, of course). Green Bay has its own storied history, as we all know.

But the wave of momentum the Packers have been riding for weeks now just seems unstoppable. Meanwhile, Pittsburgh let both Baltimore and the Jets hang around in those games, never feeling as though it was salted away until the final ticks ran off the clock. When you look at what the Packers did in the playoffs, they only seemed to get better with each passing performance, although their dominant win over the Falcons in Atlanta might have been their best game. It never felt as though they were in danger of losing any of those games, perhaps with the exception of the too-close-for-comfort 21-16 win in Philadelphia to open the playoffs (Michael Vick's last-second desperation pass intended for Riley Cooper in the end zone was picked off by Tramon Williams).

And because this game is in Dallas, indoors, don't think Green Bay won't utilize its athletes and speed like crazy on that fast track. They're kind of built like a '99 Rams type of team, but had to play a lot of their late season games in cold weather that neutralized that dynamic to a considerable degree. Overall they seem faster and more athletic than Pittsburgh, and that very well could show through in this indoor stadium.

Finally, when it comes to the matchups, it's been widely reported that stalwart Steelers' rookie center Maurkice Pouncey, the glue that has helped hold together a shaky Pittsburgh offensive line all season, will sit this game out due to an ankle injury. Of all the positions on the offensive line, this is one of the most detrimental ones to have disrupted in a game of this magnitude. I'm not saying Pittsburgh is doomed because of this, but it certainly won't make things easy on them. Green Bay defensive lineman B.J. Raji will be setting up a tent and camping gear in that Steeler backfield today. He'll be getting more penetration than Peter North. Okay, come on now, this is a family show.

What I'm getting at is the fact that Pittsburgh's offensive line troubles will only be highlighted by the late fill-in at the center position, and Green Bay's defense will try to do whatever it can to take advantage of this. The Packers need to keep Steelers QB Roethlisberger inside the pocket as well, as he's proven to be dangerous when he gets into the open field either running for a first down or throwing on the run. As much as he doesn't get credit for it, Big Ben is a playmaker when, as a defense, you give him time to be one.

On the other side of the ball, Pittsburgh's run defense is stellar, having given up 100-plus yards in a game only a handful of times this year. But their pass defense is a bit more vulnerable. This is precisely why Aaron Rodgers needs to have an awesome performance if Green Bay is going to have a real shot at winning.

Likely a close game, but I'm going with the Cheese-heads in a tight one. If the Steelers were to prevail with their big-game experience and Big Ben's "always-finds-a-way-to-win" intangibles, I don't think any of us will be shocked. But the Packers feel like a team of destiny, to be sure. As viewers, it's likely that WE won't feel like losers, which is perhaps most important of all.

It'll all unfold soon enough. And then we'll wait until March 4th to confirm what many of us believe is going to happen (the inevitable lockout) - causing us to hold our breath anxiously until just days before next season is supposed to begin (at which time the owners and players will hopefully find a solution to their current financial dispute).

Enjoy the commercials and Black Eyed Peas halftime show (I'm pretty sure I won't enjoy either). Can we get Jay-Z for a halftime show one in the not-too-distant future? Maybe for the New Jersey Super Bowl in a few years.

----------

A MOVIE THAT KIND OF PISSED ME OFF

It almost pains me to devote any space to this, but I saw a movie last night called "Animal Kingdom" and it just sort of annoyed the crap out of me. When I did some research after seeing it and found out that it's received all sorts of critical adulation and high user ratings on both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB, it pissed me off even more.

It's an Australian crime film that hasn't had a whole lot of attention state-side, but Jacki Weaver has scored a 'Best Supporting Actress' Oscar nomination for her performance in it (she definitely won't win), and the flick came highly recommended through one of my wife's co-workers, so we decided to check it out via Netflix.

If you're prepared to be thoroughly unimpressed, disbelieving at a lot of what goes on and questioning things like "when the hell is this movie supposed to be taking place" then check it out. But if you're expecting it to be on the same level as such outstanding genre-similar pictures from 2010 such as "Winter's Bone" or "The Town" - which a lot of "Animal Kingdom's" supporters claim are inferior to this movie on IMDB message boards - then prepare to be super let down.

The movie had a distinct, unique flavor and kept you wanting to know how it was all going to turn out by virtue of the heavily lopsided "sympathetic protagonist vs. several really mean antagonists" dynamic. However, I can also say with certainty that it did quite poorly at explaining many important aspects that would have been helpful to know, such as:

* The family depicted in the film is based - loosely, as it turns out - on a notoriously bad-ass crime family from Melbourne in the 1980s known as the Pettingills. Google them for details, but these were NOT nice people. And that would have been fine if the movie made it clear in any way, shape or form that the Pettingill family had any sort of influence in the making of this movie. But nowhere was that to be found. I only found it out myself by some post-movie watching internet searching to find out the general consensus on this mediocre work that has somehow piled up a boatload of critical acclaim.

There are other examples, but very few I can get into without giving away some stuff via spoilers. Just trust me when I say that a lot of elements go unexplained, and many scenes that should receive more in-depth exploration (or ANY exploration at all) were not given the proper treatment. And the acting was decent by some, mediocre by others and even weak by a few. Character development was also weak. You had good people or bad people, with very little in between and no character subtlety. That always bugs the crap out of me. Almost every character in this movie is unlikeable in some way, and completely stupid to boot. If this is based on real cops-and-robbers events in Australia in the 1980s, I'm happy as a pig in shit that I wasn't living in Melbourne, Australia in the 1980s. Either that, or it's a poor translation.

Finally, the movie is based on events that happened in the 80s but is set in present day, which makes for many confusing moments. There are cultural elements of the 80s stamped all over the film (cheesy mustaches, Air Supply videos on ancient-looking TV sets, and the apparent ability for law enforcement officials to get away cleanly with unprovoked murder in crowded, public areas in broad daylight), but it's clear from the cell phones, newer-model cars and occasional LCD TVs that it's taking place within the last few years.

Overall, if you want to watch something that's dumb in many ways, yet has elements and potential of being a slick, smartly executed crime flick if many aspects were handled differently, then you should absolutely watch this movie. Mostly, if you want to be pissed off and annoyed at everyone that makes an appearance in a film (plus the writers and director), also absolutely watch this movie.

Oh and there's no elements of humor either. Way too heavy-handed and serious. Come on people, there's humor in everything, even the most dire of situations. Some works of art could take themselves a little less seriously.

That's about all I have to say about "Animal Kingdom." Also, many of its supporters hail it as one of the best, brightest Australian crime flicks ever, which is roughly akin to me saying that the last episode of American Idol with the brand new judges cast was the best episode of American Idol with the brand new judges cast ever. In other words, the bar was set kind of low to begin with.

It's intriguing and an experience all its own to be sure. If you feel like you've seen all the Oscar-worthy flicks that you care to and don't know what to turn to next, go ahead and give this a shot. You'll definitely come away with an opinion, for sure.

----------

FOOD FOR HIP HOP THOUGHT

Last time in this space, I wowed you with a Grandmaster Flash remix, a 7-plus minute marathon of early 80s, instrumental, turntable wizardry. I sincerely hope you enjoyed.

I want to give you all some more listening pleasure as it applies to some true, timeless, classic hip hop. And when I say timeless, I mean the type of track that's going to pop whether it's 1989, 1995 or 2011.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfKMIdoJL0

This video, my friends, is a link to a 1995 Radio Freestyle by Jay-Z (right before he blew up and started taking over the hip hop world) and Big L, one of the greatest of all time that nobody knows about because of his tragic murder in February of 1999. He was 24 years old, and by the accounts of many true hip hop heads, one of the absolute best lyricists and microphone controllers ever. Born and raised in Harlem, he could straight up battle rhyme with the best of them. His wordplay and metaphors are sick, nasty, vicious. Just listen to the freestyle and see if you don't agree.

Perhaps best of all, Big L kind of slays Jay on this track, and I say that as someone with the utmost respect for the Jigga Man. But Big L had already been rapping on records for about 3-4 years when this freestyle dropped, while Jay was still honing his style, and was still far from his peak as an MC. As for L, '95 up until the day of his untimely slaying was his time to shine. His 1995 LP "Lifestyles of da Poor and Dangerous" is an underground classic. His 1998 follow-up "The Big Picture" was still strong, but the debut is held in higher regard. He has unreleased tracks and freestyles all over the internet though, and he's all heavy on the "Diggin' in the Crates" artists' tracks from the early 90s (Lord Finesse, Fat Joe, Diamond D, O.C., Showbiz and AG, etc).

Hope you enjoy, and look up some more Big L tracks if you like the East Coast battle rapping style of the 90s. The lyrical content is rough stuff, but it's an honest expression of his background and youthful experiences. I'm usually the first to de-cry gangster posturing if it's not done artfully or with any sort of flair or style, but Big L can kill microphones with or without curse words and tales of violence, believe that.

Prediction ... PAIN!

These NFL conference championship games today are going to be straight up bone-crunching, raw displays of power. In the freezing cold. Apparently, this thing happens in January where really cold air permeates much of the northern portions of the United States, and we have some particularly brutal pockets of said cold air going on this weekend. Not so much fun if you're attending one of these games live (or even worse, playing in them), but much more so if you're watching from the comfort of home (me!).

Fellow football lovers, let's relish these last three games of the 2010-11 campaign. We might not see any more for quite some time after this, what with the gloomy presence of a possible lockout casting a depressingly uncertain pall over the proceedings of the NFL's postseason. Let's not focus too much on the labor-dispute saga -- certainly not while the games are on -- but it's hard to forget about it completely. How the draft might be affected is also uncertain, particularly as it applies to rookie contracts. April of 2011 might be the last chance for players out of college to ink deals that give them a lot of cheddar guaranteed up-front before proving that they deserved the big bucks all along. Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to some sort of language or structuring of rookie contracts that filters out gradually larger chunks of cash based on better-than-expected, rookie-year, on-the-field results, but it would probably be a little too nebulous or difficult to enforce this.

Anyway, on to the picks.

NFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME - NO. 6 SEED GREEN BAY PACKERS (12-6) AT NO. 2 SEED CHICAGO BEARS (12-5)

Last week: Green Bay throttled the top-seeded Falcons in Atlanta, surprising more than a few followers. Chicago stormed out to a dominant lead over the visiting Seattle Seahawks before letting their foot off the gas pedal toward the end, making the final score a bit misleading. Those who watched closely weren't fooled - Chicago was loads better than Seattle last weekend.

Keys to the Game: These two squads are fierce divisional rivals and two of the long-standing, storied franchises in NFL history. There is certainly no love lost between them even during their regular-season matchups, and the stakes can't possibly get any higher than this for a Bears/Packers playoff meeting (the right to go to the Super Bowl).

The teams split their regular season meetings, with Chicago winning 20-17 at Soldier Field early on in the season, and Green Bay prevailing 10-3 in a Week 17, "win-to-get-in" Lambeau Field clash.

To say that today's game will likely be a close call, especially when you throw in the single-digit wind chill temperatures expected for the 2 p.m. local time kickoff, would be a severe understatement.

A productive passing game is infinitely more difficult to pull off in frigid conditions, which may negate the fact that GB's Aaron Rodgers seems to have a slight edge over the Bears' Jay Cutler at the quarterback position. Both offenses struggled to get a whole lot done in that week 17 meeting, but turnovers and penalties were also part of that equation. Needless to say, whichever team commits more of such bone-headed infractions today will likely walk off Soldier Field as the loser.

Assuming the passing games will be slow-going, establishing an efficient ground game will be ever important. Or perhaps we'll see more of a West Coast offense type of passing game - lots of screens and over-the-middle short stuff. Expect both defenses to throw lots of looks at each QB to disrupt the offense's rhythm and timing.

Should the game unfold with stubborn yardage via passing attacks, it would seem that the Bears have more high-profile weapons out of the backfield (Matt Forte, or even some gadget-type plays with Devin Hester) than does Green Bay, which has worked miracles out of its injury situation this year. James Starks probably didn't even expect he'd be as significant for the Pack as he has in the playoffs this year.

The coaching matchup seems to be kind of a wash. Neither Mike McCarthy nor Lovie Smith stands out as a high-profile genius, but at least Lovie went to a Super Bowl with this franchise four years ago.

The Pick: It's hard to pick against Green Bay. Damn difficult. They were a preseason Super Bowl favorite, they took their lumps with injuries, but then they still managed to finish 10-6 and come out on top in a must-win game to sneak into the playoffs. They did this with a patchwork gathering of non-superstars and a gutsy QB named Aaron Rodgers, who by all accounts is probably one of the potential future superstars in this league. The idea that they are in the NFC Championship game is a little nuts.

The 2010 Chicago Bears, on the other hand, are that team that doesn't have the same flash or story behind them. They're the squad that nobody (me included) has wanted to admit might actually be a Super Bowl contender. They don't seem like they should be this good, but they are. They present matchup problems offensively for even the most tested of defenses, and defensively they have looked really solid lately.

Even though I'd love nothing more than seeing a Jets-Packers Super Bowl, I think Chicago is coming out on top in this one. Look, the Packers have been an incredible story this year. And if they had stayed healthy all season I would probably be picking them in this game (come to think of it, had they stayed healthy all season this game would probably be at Lambeau Field and not in Chicago).

But the Bears were just beaten by this team a few weeks ago, and you know they can't like the fact that they are considered an underdog at home against a No. 6 seed. It's kind of insulting really. I think they're going to come out loaded to the teeth. I think Israel Idonije and Julius Peppers are going to be unstoppable beasts on the defensive line, and that Aaron Rodgers will be running for his life most of this game. I think Chicago's 'D' might turn in a performance for the ages. And I think Chicago's offense is going to surprise a lot of folks in how multi-dimensional it can actually be.

And let's not forget the obvious advantage the Bears have on special teams (Hester, anyone?)

It will be an incredible fight, but I think Chicago wants this bad, and playing at home will be the edge that they need to push them to that other level. Chicago in a close one, probably a 3-point game.

AFC CHAMPIONSHIP GAME - NO. 6 NEW YORK JETS (13-5) AT NO. 2 SEED PITTSBURGH STEELERS (13-4)

Last week: The Jets took down the top-seeded, favorite-to-win-it-all, big bad New England Patriots, IN FOXBORO mind you, 28-21. They just played better, plain and simple. The defense was incredible. And they were pissed. They backed up all that trash-talking, which is good for them, because otherwise they'd be eating a ton of crow right now. The Steelers beat up on their divisional kid brother, the Baltimore Ravens, 31-24 in a close one at Heinz Field. The Steelers and Ravens don't know how to play a game with each other that's not intensely even. Baltimore's last chance ran out when a fourth-down pass to T.J. Houshmanzadeh hit him in the chest and bounced out of his arms around midfield with under a minute remaining.

Keys to the Game: The Jets knocked off the Steelers 22-17 at Heinz Field on Dec. 19. The key play was a late-game safety by New York's Jason Taylor that provided a five-point cushion, meaning that Pittsburgh needed a touchdown on their last drive instead of a game-tying field goal.

Jets head coach Rex Ryan basically just needs to duplicate today what he did in that game. Although it certainly won't be that simple. Pittsburgh likely watched the game tape countless times over the past 7 days to study what went wrong so that they can correct it.

The Steelers' offense vs. The Jets' vaunted defense is the premiere matchup for this game. New York stalwart defensive back Darrelle Revis will likely be matched up on the Steelers' best big-play receiver -- Mike Wallace -- and Antonio Cromartie will likely lock up against Hines Ward. This will be an incredibly physical battle. This game will likely come down to what the younger Pittsburgh receivers - Antonio Brown and Emmanuelle Sanders - can do against the Jets' lesser pass defenders. Can the Jets' defensive front (guys like Shaun Ellis) get enough pressure on Ben Roethlisberger when they'll be outnumbered, much the way they did against Tom Brady last Sunday? It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. The linebackers and corners/safeties will likely be in pass coverage on almost every play, since this tactic worked so well against New England. They may have to change up that strategy though if it doesn't work out personnel-wise against the Steelers.

On the other side of the ball, can Mark Sanchez become the first quarterback ever to win five road playoff games in a career, in just his second year in the NFL? Yes, that would be insane. But it's not impossible. The Steelers always have a great defense, but Troy Polamalu, the guy that takes them to another level, hasn't looked the same since coming back from injury. Pittsburgh's D is vulnerable in spots, and the Jets have to do a great job at finding those. Sanchez will need to have a big game offensively if the Jets are going to win, considering that P'burgh has only allowed 100-plus rushing yards twice this season. The Jets will have to be very inventive with their offensive play-calling, because you can't win if you don't score.

Something tells me the Jets' offense is going to have a tough time sustaining drives and staying out on the field. I'm expecting a Time of Possession breakdown that heavily favors the Steelers. This worked out for the Jets last weekend though. New England had the ball way more than the Jets did, but we all know how that played out.

The Pick: The Steelers are a model organization, all the way around. They have six Super Bowls, more than any other franchise, and they have a veteran, but still relatively young, QB who has two Super Bowls under his belt already. They have a ferocious defense, great coaching, and they're tough to beat at home.

So naturally, I'm picking the New York Football Jets.

Hear me out. The Jets just have that intangible quality this year that can't quite be explained. It's more than their flashy ways, their trash-talking head coach and players, their frathouse mentality, their 'us-against-the-world' swagger. That's all part of it. But beyond that, they always seem to find a way to win when it's absolutely necessary. They're not scared of playing on the road - they've already shown they can do that successfully (just look at the past two seasons). There's also the fact that they beat this team already on this field. Sure that usually works against the team that won the first time in the rematch, but it's different with this Jets team. You can feel it. They're not scared or fazed by anything.

I think they'll win the key matchups and do enough defensively to basically shut Pittsburgh down. In fact, I'm expecting the Jets' D to be the hero today, come up with a few big turnovers to set up shop for New York with decent field position and a few relatively easy scores. I don't think the Jets can drive the ball down the field consistently all night long against that Steelers defense. But I have a feeling the Jets' D is going to come up huge and help get the win for this team, just like it did last week against New England.

Remember, the Jets have taken down Peyton Manning and Tom Brady in back-to-back weeks, on the road. Roethlisberger and the Steelers are next - and they've already won that battle this year. They just need to keep doing what they've been doing. On the other hand, the Steelers' run of success can't continue forever. They've got to lose one of these big games. Today seems like just as good a day as any.

Another extremely close one, but I think the Jets get it done.

Jets-Bears Super Bowl. My God. If I'm actually right, I'll be shocked.

A Variety of Cool Stuff

What's up playas and playettes?

Been heavy on the sports stuff lately (especially the American football, as the kids like to call it), so I thought I'd mix things up with a cornucopia of other stuff that's either awesome, or laughably stupid in some way (new season of Jersey Shore anyone?) NFC/AFC Championship game picks forthcoming tomorrow before 3 p.m. kickoff of the first game (Green Bay Packers at Chicago Bears). EL Presidente won't leave you hanging, don't worry.

GOLDEN GLOBES

Word on the street is this guy pissed off some important people at the Golden Globes last weekend.

So much so, in fact, that he apparently won't be invited back to host.

Okay, so Ricky Gervais said some inflammatory stuff. He was on the anti-establishment tip. Not drinking the Kool Aid. It seems kind of obvious he wants to up his profile and continue to push boundaries as a comedian and general celebrity personality. It's hard to imagine this as anything other than a calculated career move. Whether it actually helps him or not remains to be seen, but if there's even a hint of truth to anything he said, I give him credit for setting his fazers on stun and calling people out. Hey if nothing else, it was entertaining.

As for the actual winners? Sometimes the folks who score the hardware are a decent indicator of what might happen at the Oscars, but that's not always the case. I agree with many of the choices, but like usual, you could make an argument for others who lost out but still gave great performances.

Highlights for me (and by highlights, I mean the selections I agree with most vehemently) include:

-- Christian Bale scoring Best Supporting Actor for "The Fighter." I could not believe it was a professional actor playing a character rather than a real guy off the streets of Lowell, Mass.

-- "Boardwalk Empire" winning Best TV Series Drama -- solid show, although I'm a little surprised Steve Buscemi won best lead actor in a drama series over both Jon Hamm (Mad Men) and Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad). I mean, he's adequate in his role as Nucky Thompson, but I've never felt so inspired by him that I just had to start up a conversation about his performance.

-- Aaron Sorkin winning "Best Screenplay in a Motion Picture" for The Social Network -- great flick, and an essential story in our current age of social media addiction and up-to-the-minute updates about virtually everything.

-- Natalie Portman winning "Best Actress in a Motion Picture Drama" for her performance in Black Swan. It's not easy to play a character who is both disengaged from most of those around her and also emotionally disturbed all at once, but she did it convincingly, and she had you rooting for her to come out on top even if she wasn't the most likable protagonist ever. If a bat-shit crazy Barbara Hershey was your mother in a cramped Manhattan apartment for several years, you'd be a kick in the ass away from a stint at Bellevue yourself.

It will be interesting to see what happens at The Oscars. Generally speaking, my favorite flicks from 2010 (or at least the ones that stand out most right now) are The Social Network, The Town (brilliant cops-and-robbers stuff, wonderfully done, very unique and entertaining), Black Swan (a total mind-hump), True Grit (fantastic Coen Brothers remake of the 1969 John Wayne classic western) and Winter's Bone, which unfortunately will likely get the least amount of attention at the Academy Awards.

It came out too long ago (last April), had a limited theaters release and admittedly features bleak, depressing subject matter. But it's a jarring story about how the other half lives with a watershed performance by a promising young actress named Jennifer Lawrence. You should check it out, but you should also do so only when planning a happy activity immediately afterward. I mean, there just aren't that many feel-good movies about poverty-level, meth-addicted people and a teenage kid looking after most of her family while drug-dealing, fugitive dad has put the house up for bond collateral. It's worth it to see this though, trust me. Would I ever steer you in the wrong direction? Certainly not intentionally!

KENNY POWERS

Probably my favorite comedy right now, on network TV, cable TV or damn near anywhere, is an absurd, uproarious tour de force known as Eastbound and Down, and it airs on HBO. There's a very good chance you know it, or also enjoy it, which is good because it is goddamn comedic gold, this much I promise you.

The series focuses on Kenny Powers, a washed-up major league pitcher who has been derailed by drugs and alcohol, and also untimely injury. Season one opens with Kenny needing to figure out what comes next in life after his career as a pro baseball player takes a nose-dive, so he ends up crashing with his brother's family in Shelby, North Carolina. That's enough for set-up, but practically everything that happens in this show is laugh-out-loud funny anyway.

What's best about it though? That's tough to say. The obviously idiotic situations that ensue are definitely part of it, but for me, it's got to be the atrociously vulgar yet hilarious dialogue and Powers' complete lack of cooth and decency. Somehow though, you love his character, vile though he sometimes is as a person. Danny McBride completely kills it as Kenny Powers.

The underrated ingredient that makes the show really enjoyable though? That would be a guy named Steve Little, who plays the incredibly nerdy and overconfident yet somewhat self-aware Stevie Janowski, a schlubby dude in Shelby who idolizes Kenny and begs on as his sidekick when Powers rolls into town in Season one.

There have been two seasons of EB&D so far, but it's an extremely manageable 14 total episodes at 30 minutes each. It's totally worth the commitment. You'll plow through them in no time. It's easy, guilt-free, feel-good viewing, and you'll always feel better about yourself when you watch what most of what these mopes go through. Isn't that the point of a good comedy? Anyway, you can catch it on HBO On Demand or through re-runs that they occasionally air. If you don't get HBO, Netflix it.

A SAD 'SITUATION'

Can we just have Jersey Shore taken off the air already? It's a joke at this point, right? Are these situations really real? Is the show not completely manufactured? Do Snooki and The Situation really have multi-million dollar book deals? It's times like these when I need to shoot myself. Not fatally, you know, but a non-lethal bullet would be a nice reminder that people who have NO business being well-paid OR famous are occasionally rewarded with both.

At this point, the only fun for me in a show like Jersey Shore is trying to figure out if these people are for real. Is this really who they are 24/7? Sadly, I think the answer is 'yes.' Nobody can act THAT well. I suppose there's something refreshing about that, right? They're just being themselves, take them or leave them. Nothing wrong with that, right? Certainly not. And if you want to waste hours of your life and basically just become dumber, you can watch them 'just be themselves' for hours on end on MTV!

But the show is somewhat of a trainwreck in the sense that you just can't turn the dial once you stumble upon it. There's no going back. You become transfixed. Don't fall into this trap. Sadly, my wife has a few times already, and I swear to all that is good and just in this world that neither of us is any better for it.

HIP HOP TIP DU JOUR

Since I fashioned my creative namesake after the one and only Notorious B.I.G. -- (moment of silence for his hip hop greatness) ... and .... there. Thank you. -- I'm going to try to begin making it a semi-regular occurrence in this space to drop some true blue hip hop knowledge on those that care to receive it, ya dig?

As an art form, hip hop is one of the more revolutionary and fascinating cultural movements of the past 40 years (the roots of what inspired it go back way farther than that). As is known by many of us who once cared for, and still do, great works in this art form, it's clear that the culture has changed in such a way that the life force and impact this music once had isn't the same these days. But it will never truly be dead. We will always have what made it what it was in the first place.

To that end, I'd like to share with ya'll a prime example of some dope sounds I've been grooving on lately. Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9aG3xc9IZw

This, constituents, is a perfect example of what laid the groundwork, the foundation, for hip hop music to explode into the universally adored musical movement it has become. This is Grandmaster Flash, one of the original and truly transcendent hip hop figures ever, getting busy on the one's and two's as only he can, taking some dope old 70s sounds and chopping them up for sonic wonderment. Keep in mind all he had were his hands, some black wax circles and a couple basic turntables, as this was clearly back in the day.

Yes, it's not studio-polished, and yes the beat chops slightly out of rhythm here and there. But that's precisely what makes this so enigmatic. Considering what GMF did with what he had to work with, this is like somehow turning a packet of Hot Pockets into gourmet dining.

Hope you enjoy. This one is a 7-minute instrumental beatdown, but put it on in the background while you're doing your taxes, or wasting time on facebook, or looking up Snooki's latest arrest. Next time I'll break you off with something on the lyrical tip.

Peace.