A METH-od to his Madness

Sunday, July 17th, marks the return of television's greatest crime drama. And if you consider yourself a fan of episodic TV crime drama, then you are undoubtedly aware that the above reference is to the darkly brilliant and wholly engrossing AMC show "Breaking Bad," a tour de force of desperate characters and unbelievable events that has only gained considerable momentum with the passing of each of its three seasons.

I shouldn't have to break you off with the "spoiler alert" warning if you're already this far in, but let's make it official. If you haven't peeped the manuscript, avert your eyes, because lots of plot points from past episodes need to be revealed here.

First of all, it would be boring and a waste of time for you to read some lengthy fan-boy dissertation about how fantastic this show is, how solid the acting is, or how much it sucks you in and convinces you to root for characters you would rather not piss on if they were set ablaze.

If you're a fan of the show you already know all about what makes BB great, and have your own well-formed (or perhaps not so well-formed) opinions. If you're not a fan of the show and haven't seen it, you're likely either scrolling past this section, or more realistically, muttering to yourself "Who the hell is the Player President and why does he call himself that" while hitting the 'back' button on your web page and looking for someone who you may actually have heard of before.

Either way, I would prefer to delve into something a tad juicier. Perhaps a topic not so easily dissected - much like that first frog in freshman Biology (or something you did in Chemistry - cue Mr. Walter White in ugly smock and safety goggles!)

I would love to explore for a bit, if I may, the much-debated aspect of how the show forces us to consider morality, how easily skewed our sense of right and wrong can become by mitigating circumstances, and perhaps most importantly, whether the show's central character Walter White - portrayed flawlessly these past three seasons by the uber-talented Bryan Cranston - orchestrated his manifestation into "a bad guy."

I use the "quotes" because I'm not entirely sure if I would even classify Mr. White as such, crazy as though that may sound to both casual and hardcore viewers of the show alike.

Pop culture philosopher extraordinaire Chuck Klosterman has constructed an intriguing take on Breaking Bad, comparing it to three other highly acclaimed TV dramas from the past decade (Mad Men, The Sopranos and The Wire). As riveting a read as this is, I find myself to be in at least mild disagreement with the viewpoint that Walter White at some point "changed himself" and decided "to become bad."

I'm not even sure what this means, really. Are we to believe that anyone wakes up one day and consciously wills himself/herself to begin committing morally questionable actions from that point onward? Even if the argument is such that this is a gradual transformation, it seems a questionable theory at best. Behaving "bad" or "good" isn't any more of a choice within us than whatever it is that exists in our brains and causes us to decide we might prefer mozzarella cheese over American, or that we may rather blue over green. It's all hard-wired within us before we can even ponder the question.

When I view Walter White, I see a man who opened a series of doors over the course of the show with a noble initial goal - to provide for his family after what appeared at the time to be his imminent demise. It is this choice, coupled with White's backstory, that has placed him into the position we find him during the gripping conclusion of Season 3 - hastily ordering the murder of an innocent man to save his own hide. (And if you think you wouldn't ever do the same thing if your own ass was on the line, you may not know yourself as well as you think you do).

My point is this -- folks like Walter White who color inside the lines for their whole lives cannot become something they aren't any more so than Marlo Stanfield from The Wire can put on a business suit, hobnob with city officials and stay off the streets. But what they can do is awaken something within themselves they didn't know was there when desperate times call for desperate measures. This isn't so much a reflection of a conscious decision to change as it is letting your body and brain take over naturally to accomplish goals that you see as needing to be realized, without any other option.

To give you a microcosmic example, I've observed behavior in New York City from people who would never otherwise need to exhibit such actions to get ahead, or even 'tread water', just about anywhere else in the country, geographically speaking. But because they are in New York and are subject to the unwritten rules and laws of such a hyper, Type-A mentality and culture, they do what they have to do or else they'll never get anywhere. And I'm not just talking about in the corporate world either. It can be as innocuous as getting the spot you want on a crowded subway car, or using just the right blend of assertiveness and politeness to get a table at the crowded restaurant with amazing food but horrible customer service skills.

Walter White finding out that a terminal disease was about to claim him from a meekly-lived, routine existence was the catalyst to awaken within him that which was always present, but just lying there dormant.

Does anyone think he took some crazy pills one day to transform himself into somebody that willingly allows young female drug addicts to choke to death on their own vomit with nobody else around to stop it, or the guy who barrels his modest middle-class automobile into a pair of wasteoid drug dealers before planting some liquid steel into their heads to finish the job with the no-doubt-about-it killshot?

Let's look back on just a few examples of some of the more heinous acts Walt has committed, and we will soon realize he only did so out of self-preservation.

1) Putting in a fake call for DEA agent Hank about his wife Marie being involved in an auto accident to throw the investigation off the scent and buy Walt and Jesse more time when they were about to get busted in the RV? Self-preservation.

2) Allowing Jane to choke on her puke? Self-preservation. Remember, she threatened to expose Walt if he and Jesse wouldn't agree to cut her in on their profits, even though she was doing nothing to deserve any of those funds (other than being the subject of Jesse's unwavering love and affection).

3) Barrelling into those lowlifes and then caving in their brains with some hot lead when they were about to waste Jesse? Okay, not completely an act of self-preservation, but you could extrapolate that it actually was just that since Jesse is as important to Walt's current position as anyone else, and he needs him as a No. 2.

4) Phoning Jesse and imploring him to rush over to Gabe's house and "do the deed" is the ultimate act of self-preservation, and it was about as calculated as what you do when a line drive is screaming at your dome. It was the ONLY option for Walt to survive that situation, and he definitely wasn't thinking about it on his way over to the laundry facility to meet up with Hitman Mike, you best believe that shit.

There are certainly other examples. And look, let's not fool ourselves into believing that Walt doesn't make less hasty but still conscious choices that harm others on a daily basis (cooking meth that destroys lives and no doubt causes an untold myriad of individuals to overdose on his intoxicating brand of crystal heaven). But it's much easier to rationalize actions that harm others when the negative consequences and suffering of nameless, faceless individuals isn't presented before us as a direct result of the dark choices that we make. If anyone reading this can honestly say they've never performed an action - whether minor or major - that hurt someone else knowing that nobody could trace it directly back to them, then I can point you to a polygraph waiting impatiently to strike said person with a closed fist of skepticism.

Finally, I've seen others posit that the show builds itself around the concept that the main character, or "protagonist," transforms from a likeable to an unlikeable character, and that to do this is a crazy move on the part of the writers/show creators.

For me, quite the contrary. I think Walt has become more likeable since the show has started. In season one, when we see Walt working a shitty second job in a car wash and being berated by some of his obnoxious students, or when we later find out how he was once such a brilliant, promising scientist who should have made more of himself but was screwed over by more opportunistic "colleagues," we just feel bad for him.

It's with careful examination that we learn that Walt doesn't so much as "become bad" as he decides to stop letting life kick him in the balls time after time when it becomes apparent that the fuse that is his life is about to be snuffed out anyway by a terminal illness.

How can you not root for him when he leg-bombs that dickhead jock making fun of his kid that has Cerebral Palsy? How can you not identify with him when he flips out at the asshole car wash boss and quits in a fit of self-satisfied but somewhat justifiable rage? How could you possibly not want Walt to come out on top against these lowlifes around him who would be selling meth and jacking people up for a high regardless of what was happening around them?

The difference between Walt and someone who is "bad" is that Walt wouldn't fuck with a regular citizen under any circumstance. If you didn't already have it coming, you weren't going to get yours from Walt. Well, unless you become hooked on meth and send yourself into an irreversible downward spiral as a result of your addiction to Walt's blue-powdered candy. But even then, you can't blame your choices or addictions on an individual you never met before. Are we really so naive as to believe that someone else's meth wouldn't be killing people if Walt's product wasn't on the street?

We continue to root for Walt and his morally ambiguous choices not just because Cranston does such a wonderful job at evoking sympathy for his character's plight (that's part of it).

I would like to believe that we continue to root for Walt because he embodies what we all would love to believe is right and just in the world - and that is the story of a man who gets kicked to the ground by a gang of cowardly bitches (i.e. life pushing you around), picked back up, and then kicked back down again for some more abuse before saying "fuck it" and unleashing a holy hell's worth of vengeance on everything around you that's trying to stop your progress.

Breaking Bad is the story of a lot of different things, and a lot of different philosophical and morally debatable questions.

But above all else, I like to think that it's the story of a man who was always capable of anything, but behaved like a good citizen until being a good citizen just wasn't cutting it anymore.

Love or hate what Walt is becoming, what you should love is the fact that his "taking shit from people" days are long behind him.

The true brilliance of Breaking Bad is how we can find ourselves hoping that characters like Walt and Jesse can keep this ridiculous streak going. If heading into Season 4 we were supposed to be starting to hate Walt right about now, mission failed. I hate Pollos and Hitman Mike 10 times more than I hate Walt at the moment, and I don't even really hate those guys.

The only way I could hope that Walt actually fails or gets taken down is if he were to start sacrificing the citizenry who have no real place in all this ugliness. That's when someone has lost all control of their faculties (see the story about Pablo Escobar taking down a commercial airliner full of innocent people because he wanted to kill one guy who was found to not even have been ON THE PLANE!).

But who knows, this show is so unbelievably good that maybe even that wouldn't be enough for me to jump off the U.S.S. Walter White.

Shmoke and a Pancake? Blintz and a Blunt?

Then there is no PLEEAASING you.

Dated Austin Powers references aside (2004's "Goldmember" WAS one of the funniest of that franchise), I come to enlighten and amaze you with opinions aplenty.

You may notice a disjointed smattering of seemingly random thoughts and patterns in this space lately, and less frequent updating.

I blame everyone/thing except myself.

But seriously, this entry is going to be like whatever type of artist just throws a bunch of crap at the canvas and lets it all fly. Is that an expressionist? A minimalist? Whatever.

Let us start in the merry land of sport.

FOOTBALL

Well, the most recent news is that as of this past Monday, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the ruling of U.S. District Court (Minnesota) Judge Susan Richard Nelson, who was of the opinion that the lockout should be lifted and league/player negotiations should immediately resume.

The three-judge panel at the appellate level ruled 2-1 in favor of a stay of Judge Nelson's decision, meaning that until the appeals court has further considered and finally ruled on the matter, the lockout is back in place (for now).

In the Monday Morning Quarterback column on si.com, Peter King - who has been covering the NFL for about 30 years now and was around for both of the league's work stoppages in the 1980s - reports that considering talks with others and his own view of the current situation, it's likely that if a deal isn't reached soon the season might not begin until as late as November.

I know we're all sick of the labor aspect of this story and we just want football to proceed on a normal schedule again, but what's at stake here is critical for the future of the league as well as the players. There's talk that the players are pushing for the elimination of the draft, and the possibility that all transactions would be facilitated through either a free-agent signing or team trade basis. In that scenario, each franchise would be worth its own weight in gold, without a collective bargaining agreement or revenue sharing of any kind. It would almost be like how the Yankees have a kajillion dollars, but the Kansas City Royals are expected to be able to compete with teams like N.Y. and Boston with limited funds, resources and difficulty attracting big-time talent or blue chip players.

Could you imagine it? The Dallas Cowboys and Pittsburgh Steelers type franchises would rule the sport, and teams like Cincinnati, Carolina and the like would struggle mightily. Parity would virtually vanish. We'd be back to the late 80s/early 90s era, when Dallas, San Fran, the N.Y. Giants and a few others reigned supreme and the Tampa Bay Buccaneers didn't have a prayer. Not sure this would necessarily be a good thing.

It should be interesting to see how the legality of this could play out. The NFL currently offers such a high-quality, sought-after product, but the future direction of the league's landscape could very well be primarily determined by lawyers in power suits and a couple of very powerful Appellate Court Judges. Here's to hoping the two sides can reach a semi-amiable agreement through mediation, but it hasn't looked so great thus far.

BASKETBALL

What can I say? I love the NBA. (Wow, they should use that as a marketing slogan!)

The Los Angeles Lakers and San Antonio Spurs have been eliminated from the postseason, and the Final Four is down to Chicago vs. Miami for the Eastern Conference crown, and Dallas vs. Oklahoma City for the Western Conference title. I'm just glad there will be a new champion, and like most, I hope it isn't Miami. I'd be fine with any of the other three teams bringing home the hardware.

First off, I was one of the few who thought LeBron should have the right to go play wherever he wants after the infamous 'decision.' And I still believe that (even though I, like most, hated HOW he announced it to the world). But I also believe, having watched this Heat team all season, that there isn't anything about them that gets me to want to root for them. It's a calculated, assembly-line, built-for-a-championship team that seems devoid of chemistry or likability, and the same goes for their slick-haired, glitz-and-glamour head coach/Team Prez combo of Erik Spoelstra and Pat Riley. There's nobody who appears as though he's genuinely enjoying his experience out there. Okay, maintain a tough facade, that's fine. But have a few human moments every now and then as well. They're so cold and calculating. I have a feeling the only happy emotions we would see from any of them would come only moments after winning a title, at which point most would have already long decided they wouldn't want to see those moments of joy in the first place.

You know, if LeBron had joined the Bulls, alone, and casually dropped it into a press conference unexpectedly that he was leaving Cleveland, without all the hype and fanfare, I think I would have a much different outlook on the situation. But the body of evidence for what's happened makes things clear. He made a big deal out of being part of a new 'Big 3' in Miami, replete with tons of media attention and the most overdone, ridiculous welcome party for a trio of players with only one championship ring amongst them that has ever been produced (youtube it, you'll see what I mean).

He's still a tremendous talent, with his physical gifts, his power, his speed, and his ability to drop 3-pointers from a standing position seemingly without effort. But he's not a killer (ala Jordan, Kobe), and he doesn't long to take over in big moments. It's Dwayne Wade's team, and we all know it. But Chicago gave the Heat quite a convincing beatdown in Game 1. We'll see what happens tomorrow night in Game 2, but I can easily say I'm rooting for the Bulls. Now that's truly a 'team basketball' type of squad. Derek Rose is clearly the man who makes them go, but their role players know their place, and have no problems with that.

As for the Dallas-OKC series, the Mavs are going to be one tough out. This might finally be their year to get a ring, having come so painfully close in 2006 before allowing a 3-1 series lead to implode into a 4-3 Finals loss at the hands of Miami. They've got a great starting five, a deep bench, and excellent coaching/management. The Thunder are a great story, but if they have enough left in the tank to take out this Dallas team (which swept the Lakers) - especially after OKC fought tooth-and-nail to beat Memphis in seven games in the WC Semifinals - I'll be amazed.

I think we're headed for Dallas vs. Chicago in the finals. At least I hope. If not, it will most likely be Dalls vs. Miami - in which case, I'll certainly be rooting for Mark Cuban, Dirk Nowitzki, Jason Kidd and company.

BASEBALL

I'm not used to rooting for a team that's a favorite (unless it comes to high school football - Go SCA!).

So when it comes to the 2011 Philadelphia Phillies, I'm still a bit gun-shy. Sure they've got R2C2 on the mound, one of the best starting rotations in the majors this year (if not the best) with Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee, Roy Oswalt and Cole Hamels. But it's becoming increasingly clear that they've got little else on which to hang their funky, P-shaped, embroidered caps after 9 up, 9 down.

The offense has been quite anemic with Chase Utley out of the lineup (injury) and Jayson Werth having departed in the offseason. Ryan Howard continues to be all-or-nothing at the plate (don't expect that to change anytime soon). And defensively they're adequate, but not the best in the bigs or anything.

Middle relief and bullpen can use some work, but those areas are far from the worst that the Phightins' have seen.

As we all know, it's a brutally long season, and we're just over halfway through May. So yes, a ton can happen, both good and bad. I just caution anyone who's overly optimistic about this Phillies team to temper that enthusiasm with a healthy dose of reality every now and then. The offense needs to find its rhythm and start clicking. Still, I do recognize it's hard to complain with a division lead and a 10-games-over-.500 winning percentage.

MOVIES

Haven't seen a whole ton lately, but don't miss Bridesmaids. If you've been led to believe it's a chick-flick, stay clear of that propaganda, homey.

It's Judd Apatow and Paul Feig at their finest - raunchy at times, heartfelt at others, but genuine and ultimately, hilarious. Oh and you'll be re-introduced to Wilson Phillips, but in a good way (I promise).

There's actually a bunch of summer flicks I've highlighted that I want to check out over the next couple of months, but in El Presidente's usual style, none of the 'big blockbusters.'

Will keep you posted. You bring in the noise, I'll bring in da funk.

TV

There's always good shit on TV, no surprise. Mad Men has been pushed back to 2012, and we'll also need to wait until then for Season 3 of the brilliant Eastbound & Down.

But we do have Breaking Bad making its return to AMC, likely in July. Season 4 promises to keep raising the bar and upping the ante, but I'm not sure how much better this show can get.

SPOILER ALERT

Will Walt's power play (having Jessie kill Gabe) come back to bite him, or will it guarantee his safety, at least in the immediate future, while earning him respect in the eyes of Gus (aka 'Pollos') for his steel cojones? Will Jessie really need to skip the country now because of his infraction with Gabe, leaving Walt by himself and breaking up everyone's favorite two-man Meth-cook crew? Will Hank ever put two and two together, and what in God's name will happen when/if he does? Will Walt and Skylar get back together? Tons of questions.

Michael Scott is done on The Office, and I was glad they didn't beat us over the head with his departure. It was more understated, and we've already seen that the show will be just fine without him. They've totally mis-used Will Ferrell (bad job by them), but you can't win 'em all.

30 Rock was decent as usual, but it's on summer hiatus, and I have to say Parks & Recreation is killing it. It's improved in leaps and bounds. They've hit on a winning formula, great cast too. Don't eff it up, peeps.

Season 2 of 'Treme' began on HBO a few weeks back, and it's consistently excellent, as it was last season. David Simon and his crew are just spot-on at capturing the local flavor of a given locale when they shoot there, which is the essence of his work at its finest. Post-Hurrican Katrina New Orleans comes to life like nowhere else in this brilliant one-hour show. It's not packed with high drama every second and replete with shootouts galore, but if you can invest intellectually what the show demands to be enjoyed to its fullest, you won't be let down - trust me.

Finally, going into the back catalog of some shit I never seen before, but am glad I'm seeing it now, I present to you the addictive, powerful HBO prison drama 'Oz,' which aired from 1997-2003. This show is INSANE, but in a really good way. In some ways, I want to put it up there with 'The Wire' or 'Breaking Bad' or other similarly fantastic crime-oriented dramas, but some of the hokey, far-from-realistic plot twists and playing out of events hold it back from being among the 2-3 best shows ever of its genre. Not to mention that it's emotionally exhausting to watch (not happy times!). Overall, it is by all accounts though, a fairly accurate portrayal of prison life, except that they pack all the action into each episode rather than fully focusing on all the boring down-time that inundates REAL prison life. A former roommate and current friend of mine who works in corrections used to watch it when it aired back in the late 90s/early 2000s, and I often found him shaking his head in knowing disgust at many of the unpleasant but all too real atrocities the show portrays.

What keeps you coming back for more despite some of the suspension-of-disbelief type shit going on? The characters/casting is unreal. Just great. And the writing/dialogue is pretty damn good. I can overlook some of the more dis-believable aspects of the show because of this. Just finished Season 4 on HBO's nightly reruns, only two seasons and 16 episodes left. Grade A stuff. But if as many people die in real prison every day as they do in a typical epsiode of Oz, we definitely wouldn't have the prison overcrowding problem that we do.

MUSIC

Finally, a quick nod to a great experience that was Jazzfest 2011 in New Orleans a couple weeks ago. The wife and I jetted down and stayed with a friend and his family, and hit up Jazzfest on Saturday 5/7 to eat some amazing local cuisine and check out some banging sounds. The highlights? Trombone Shorty absolutely murdered the Gentilly Stage. I felt bad for The Strokes having to follow that shit up as the headliner, but the Garage Rock Kings from NYC represented well in their own way. At the end of the day, Trombone is a local NOLA musical legend, but the show he put on that day would slay anywhere on the globe. Truly amazing.

I've gotta thank my buddy The Danimal for putting us up and showing us a great time down there. Living in the Big Easy is unlike living anywhere else. And sadly, Strawberry Abita beer is going out of season, but I was lucky enough to enjoy it down there.

Viva la Jazzfest.

Playoffs?! Did you say Playoffs?

Ah yes, as the great Jim Mora Sr. once incredulously intoned to a reporter during a press conference many moons ago.

The postseason to what many are calling one of the more entertaining and notable NBA regular seasons in quite some time has been underway for about a week or so, and holy crow have we got some delicious storylines.

We’ve got the villainous Miami Heat looking like (unfortunately) one of two solid favorites in the Eastern Conference. We’ve still got LeBron getting booed every time he touches the ball in enemy territory. We’ve got the Boston Celtics having swept the beloved underdog New York Knicks out of their first postseason appearance in seven years (sorry New York. It’s an improvement over recent seasons’ results, but there’s still a lot of work to do). We’ve got a possible first-round bouncing of Orlando in the works (Hawks lead that series 3-1!). We’ve got a strong possibility that either the L.A. Lakers or San Antonio Spurs (God willing – how about both?!) might be shown the door to an early summer vacation before Round 2 tips off.

And there’s even a decent chance that Dirk Nowitzki and his ugly mug will be booted in Round 1 since Dallas is tied with Portland 2-2 as the series shifts back to The Lone Star State for Game 5. I’m definitely rooting for the Blazers in that series simply because I can’t take the HD closeups of Nowitzki anymore. If you have children, and you want to frighten the hell out of them, forget about scary movies or threatening to take away their PS3’s or Xbox’s. Simply strap them down for a couple hours whenever Dallas’ next game is on the tube, and they’ll be horrified for days to come after staring at Dirk for about 160 minutes.

And without further ado, check the rhyme technique.

EASTERN CONFERENCE


(1) Chicago Bulls lead (8) Indiana Pacers 3-1

Derek Rose is the all-but unanimous pick for the 2010-11 MVP in an era of unprecedentedly diverse talent for the league. He’s the youngest and most dangerous floor general out there, and his team actually has a shot to go to the finals this year. It’s likely going to come down to an epic Eastern Conference Finals series between Chicago and Miami, but it would be unwise to count out the defending Eastern Conference champion Boston Celtics, whose first-round sweep of the Knicks wasn’t so much a testament to the Cs’ play as it was a showcase for N.Y.’s postseason shortcomings. Either way, believe it or not Indiana has challenged Chicago in a way that few thought they would be capable through these first four games. They’ve all been close, and the Pacers could have won a couple that the Bulls pulled out in the end. Defensively, Indiana is deceptively effective. They’ve got youth and they contain Chicago’s offensive weapons reasonably well in the half-court game, but it’s damn hard to bottle up Mr. Rose permanently. Nice effort by the Pacers thus far, but it’s quite likely that Chicago will take Game 5 at home Tuesday night. Keep an eye on D-Rose though, as he came up a bit gimpy in Game 4 and wore a protective boot to practice during one of Chicago’s recent off-days. By all accounts he’ll be ready to go in Game 5.

(2) Miami Heat lead (7) Philadelphia 76ers 3-1

As a Philadelphia fan, of course I would love to have seen a better showing from the Sixers, an early-season playoff longshot that began 3-13 before later righting the ship under the inimitable Doug Collins, a man whose coaching carousel activity over the years would make a circus performer dizzy. But you know what? Winning Game 4 at home and prolonging the agony, er um, extending the series (that’s it!) is a positive for which this young team can … you know what, forget it. They’re getting smoked in Game 5 at Miami. And it’s not a reverse jinx, I truly believe it, I tell you. Look, Philly doesn’t have the schemes, the athletes or the playoff experience to oust this Heat team, but if Miami goes cold in the shooting department, anything is possible. But I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by predicting that the Heat will take Game 5 in South Beach and most likely end up playing Boston in Round 2. And that series will be a fight to the finish. If it goes any less than 6 games I’ll be shocked. Philly has some nice building blocks for the future. Evan Turner is a great young player, and Spencer Hawes has actually held his own at times in the low post against the likes of Joel Anthony, Chris Bosh and LBJ (not the toughest task, I realize). Lou Williams, Jrue Holliday and Elton Brand have all provided sparks at times. But we all know how this one is going to turn out.

(3) Boston Celtics def. (6) New York Knicks 4-0

This is not last year’s Boston team. The departure of Kendrick Perkins has completely changed the identity of Doc Rivers’ crew. And don’t be deceived by the Knicks sweep. Sure it’s a positive outcome, but the Knicks were simply not prepared to contend in these playoffs. Chauncey Billups got hurt, Amar’e Stoudamire wasn’t 100 percent healthy for the whole series, and the Knicks had few (or no) other adequate options for scoring the ball consistently and repeatedly outside of Carmelo Anthony. And let’s not even get started on the defensive end. Lots of work to do there. Somebody pointed out earlier this year how interesting a choice it was for Mike D’Antoni to be coaching New York. After all, he’s a run-and-gun, offensive-minded guy coaching a franchise whose hallmark traits are toughness, defense and a slower-paced, half-court brand of basketball. All of these are contributing factors in the Knicks’ early playoff exit. But they made it for the first time in seven years. There is once again optimism about basketball in New York, and there should be because it’s a basketball town. I hope they can continue to improve and generate excitement, because the league is much better off when the Knicks are relevant. Now as for Boston, they still have a great nucleus in place. But they’re not as ferocious in the low post as they once were. Perk is gone, Shaq is still hurt (and washed up), which means that Big Baby, Kevin Garnett and Jermaine O’Neal are your superstar big men on your Title Run. Good luck Boston fans, because I think you’ll need it. The Heat matchup in Round 2 will be very intriguing because Miami has its own low-post deficiencies as well, so we could see a neutralizing effect there. Rajon Rondo, Ray Allen and Paul Pierce will need to be successful for the C’s to keep winning, because eventually their weaknesses under the basket are going to be exposed. Most of all, Boston needs to regain their swagger and overall intimidating presence to stay alive. Half the reason they made it all the way to Game 7 in the Finals last year as a No. 4 seed is because they believed they could do it and they just straight muscled their way there.

(5) Atlanta Hawks lead (4) Orlando Magic 3-1

This is by far the most surprising result so far in the Eastern Conference Playoffs. Not even because of the seeding, but because of how deep Orlando’s playoff runs have been the past three seasons. Also because Orlando blasted the Hawks with a first-round sweep last year, and all of those games were heavily in the Magic’s favor. But as with the Boston-New York series, Atlanta’s success is just as much a function of Orlando’s shortcomings as it is due to the Hawks’ level of play. The Magic are shooting about 40 percent from the floor through the first four games. And nobody besides Dwight Howard is bringing the offensive firepower. If other Magic players don’t step up, they’re going home early this year. The Hawks, however, can improve in a few areas as well. They have a tendency to lose focus and not put games away when they’ve got a commanding lead. Oh and they also shot 12-for-20 from the foul line in their Game 4 win. True, Joe Johnson nailed four key free throws in the closing minutes for the victory, but a better performance at the charity stripe throughout the game may have guaranteed that it wouldn’t be so close at the end. Look for the Hawks to move on and likely match up with Chicago in Round 2.

WESTERN CONFERENCE

(8) Memphis Grizzlies lead (1) San Antonio Spurs 2-1

That’s right – no misprint. Oh and of course the next game is in Memphis. Boy will that be a pivotal Game 4. If the Grizz can somehow take a 3-1 series lead with Game 5 heading back to San Antonio, who knows what the H might happen. I know I’m probably sounding a little overzealous at the thought of an early departure for Tim Duncan and company, but I, like many, am basically tired of them, so please let me engage in my wishful thinking. But really, watching the Spurs play is sometimes like watching paint dry. The end result is what you want, but observing the journey is painful. Memphis, on the other hand, is young, fast and a tad more exciting. And they obviously have the confidence of knowing that they belong on the same court with the Spurs. Beale Street in Memphis will be rocking for Game 4. If San Antonio evens the series, they regain home court advantage. I don’t imagine they would lose the series if they can square it up with a Game 4 victory in Memphis. But if the Grizzlies can somehow go up 3-1, then they’re at least guaranteed a chance to close it out at home in Game 6 (assuming a Game 5 San Antonio home win), and at that point anything is possible. Zach Randolph has to continue to be a force in the paint, and outside shooters like Sam Young and O.J. Mayo need to keep doing their thing as well. But let’s not also forget that the Spurs’ version of the Big 3 – Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Duncan – along with the best coach that nobody talks about (Greg Popovich) have done this a million times, and are probably hiding all kinds of tricks up their collective sleeve that they’ll only break out during desperate times. Can’t wait to see how this series plays out.

(2) Los Angeles Lakers and (7) New Orleans Hornets tied at 2-2

Chris Paul put on a one-man clinic in Game 4 in New Orleans last night, notching a triple-double and turning in one of the best playoff performances his franchise has ever seen. The value that exists in a player as good as Paul is immeasurable, because eventually defenders on the opposing team just collapse on the superstar and leave open other guys just waiting for their own opportunity. If Paul isn’t the league’s best all-around point guard (even better than Rose), then I haven’t written an overly long blog entry that’s making you currently wish you had the last 10-15 minutes of your life back (you mean you made it this far and you’re still reading?! You like me! You really, really like me!). And by the way, I’ll do you one better. As strong as the Hornets have looked with ‘Who the hell are these guys’ types of players like Jarrett Jack, Carl Landry, Marco Belinelli and Emeka Okafor playing way over their heads in the absence of injured big man David West, I’m still not picking against the Lakers. Not only do I think they’re going to win this series, but I unfortunately think they still probably have the best chance in the Western Conference to make the Finals. Don’t be fooled by their apparent vulnerability. They’re not going away any time soon. And Kobe’s ankle isn’t really hurt that badly, despite how grim it looked in the closing minutes of Game 4. He’ll be back with a vengeance for Game 5 in L.A. You see, for New Orleans to have a real shot at winning this series, Chris Paul is going to need to maintain his current level of play in every remaining game. As amazing as he is, I just don’t know if it’s realistic to expect that. I think L.A. wins Game 5 and closes it out either in 6 or 7, depending on how much pride the Hornets have left for Game 6.

(3) Dallas Mavericks and (6) Portland Trailblazers tied at 2-2

What can I say about Dirk Nowitzki that hasn’t already been said about trolls that live under bridges? Okay, sorry, I had to get that out of the way first. Despite the scowl that’s permanently affixed to Dirk’s face, his Dallas Mavericks have fooled us all into thinking that things will be different for Dallas this year. No early-round playoff exit in 2011, no sirree. These Mavs are deep off the bench, Jason Kidd is playing as if he were really about 10 years younger, and Dallas has the ability to turn up the defensive pressure when it matters most. So why did they drop Games 3 and 4 then after bolting out to an impressive 2-0 series lead against a highly talented young Portland team? Because the Rose Garden has been a House of Horrors for Dallas, that’s why. Do the research and see how they’ve performed there in recent years, playoffs or not. It hasn’t been pretty. The Mavs just may have to win this one in 7 games. Of all the first-round series, this is probably the toughest to call. I feel that it could literally go either way. Dallas is known for their premature playoff collapses, but Portland is inexperienced in big moments despite their collection of highly-skilled players. Something tells me Dallas won’t lose at home and might end up pulling this one out in 7 games, leaving them vulnerable against a second-round opponent that’s likely to be better-rested. But who knows – maybe it’s just about matchups and nobody will give Dallas the same fight that Portland has the rest of the way. The heart says Portland, but the head says Dallas. I like the Mavs in 7.


(4) Oklahoma City leads (5) Denver 3-0

This is a fascinating series. Coming into the playoffs, many thought it had the potential to be the best first-round matchup in the west, if not both conferences. But instead, it’s the most lopsided in the West. Just confirms that you never can tell. Great storylines going on here. Denver has played way better since dumping Carmelo for New York and inheriting about 30 percent of the Knicks’ 2010-11 roster (including sharpshooter Danilo Gallinari). They’ve got a nice blend of youth and experience, and they’re an intimidating presence with their toughness, physicality and 50 kajillion body/facial tattoos. Oklahoma City though, outside of the Bulls, is definitely the most intriguing young team in the NBA. If anybody can dump the old guard from out West (Spurs/Lakers) and advance to the finals this year, it’s the OKC Thunder. They’ve got scoring for days (Kevin Durant, Russell Westbrook, James Harden, and now, Kendrick Perkins), and if you’ve watched them this year you know they are no slouch on defense (start remembering names like Serge Ibaka and Thabo Sefalosha – difficult though they may be to spell and pronounce). Denver has fought the good fight, but when the Thunder is rolling they’re tough to stop. The Nuggets can prevent the sweep with a victory at home tonight in Game 4, but it would simply be delaying the inevitable. The Thunder are moving on. Oh and they’re the only team to have won 2 games against the Lakers last year throughout the Western Conference Playoffs, so they know how to attack Kobe and company. Would absolutely love to see a Lakers-Thunder rematch this year.

'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.