Colin Cowherd...

ESPN Radio show host, Colin Cowherd, needs a smack upside the head, followed by some honest insults to put him in his place. He hosts the daily program, The Herd. Why people would herd after him, I haven't the slightest idea.

Here's a man (kind of) who often refers to himself as the smartest man in radio, frequently cuts callers off who don't agree with his perspective on an issue, and says things in reference to callers like, "I get callers that may believe they've thought up something profound while thinking about it for 30 seconds at their desk. Meanwhile, I prepare for this two hours every day. This is my job. Therefore, I'm right, you're wrong. Get over it."

The show is not truly "news" oriented. It's not like a history professor is the host and gives factually-based lectures on the civil war. No. It's an opinion-oriented show. You know what they say about opinions. Also, there are typically facts to back up any and every opinion. Support the death penalty? Against it? I can guarantee you that there are "facts" from different sources to support your belief. So, Colin prepares his "spin zone" on a daily basis. So what? That makes him right and everybody else wrong? If he was to claim that the capital of Kansas is Topeka and callers stated otherwise, then yes, he'd have reason to complain and reason to say, "Hey, I'm right on this one and here are my sources." But, that's not the case. He usually comes forward with his own personal gripes toward the likes of Michigan head football coach, Lloyd Carr and Atlanta Falcons' quarterback, Michael Vick, amongst others. While I agreed that Michigan didn't deserve a rematch with Ohio State in this past year's title game, I also didn't agree with the Lloyd Carr bashing session. Carr has run a very successful program in Ann Arbor. Just because he didn't agree to appear on the Carr-bashing show with Cowherd, doesn't mean Cowherd should insult the guy time and time again. Even though there are some inside sources (actual journalists) who've claimed that Michael Vick's seemingly "far-fetched" story concerning the water bottle incident has been consistent from the day it happened (yeah, they actually spoke to him about it), Cowherd went off on the star quarterback, how he should just "shut up", and how the quarterback's story now completely contradicts that from what he said directly following the incident.

Maybe Colin should be the one shutting up. If he was Socrates giving a history lecture directly out of a textbook, then okay, slam your very own listeners and callers as much as you'd like for their false statements, but he's no Socrates and he's doing anything but giving an accurate history lesson to his students. He's just letting his opinions be known, ranting, and not bashing away from a biased spin zone. Based on all of this (and then some), he should not cut his callers off, claim that he's Mr. Know-It-All and they're Mr. (or Mrs.)-Know-It-Nothings. They know and don't know just as much as Cowherd himself. That name does seem pretty fitting, though, doesn't it? For Colin is very much a "Cowherd" in regard to facing views different than his own.

Thank You, Houston Texans

Let it be known for the record that I am an Atlanta Falcons fan and let it also be known that I was in the minority a year ago, when I said that Houston did not make an idiotic move by drafting NC State defensive end Mario Williams first in the NFL Draft over the highly regarded Reggie Bush of USC. My reasoning was simple, Houston's biggest needs were on the lines, so for them, Williams was an excellent choice.

Alright, so I TRIED to defend the Texans, but I think those days are now over. The leaders of this franchise must have IQs minuscule in comparison to that of Forrest Gump. Yesterday, the Houston Texans swapped 1st round draft picks with the Atlanta Falcons (moving down from 10 to 8) and gave up two 2nd round picks to Atlanta (one this year and one next) for back-up quarterback Matt Schaub. As a Falcons fan, I was very content with that move. Those are grand presents to receive for a back-up quarterback. Atlanta needs help on their offensive line, at defensive end, at safety, and potentially at one of the cornerback positions and at receiver. So, the more draft picks, the better. But, Houston looks even stupider after their move today.

The three-year winless veteran with a completion percentage hovering just above 50% and a 1 : 1 touchdown to interception ratio, Matt Schaub, has just been signed to a 6-year, 48 million dollar contract. How stupid are the Texans? How do they think you win football games? Even if the quickest quarterback in NFL history, Atlanta's own Michael Vick, played in Houston, the man wouldn't be able to scramble enough to give the team much of a chance to win consistently, because of that horrific offensive line. David Carr is not as speedy as Vick, but he has average to above average speed and is quicker than Schaub. He also has a quicker throwing delivery than Matt Schaub. Unless Houston revamps their offensive line immensely, they're going to run into the very same problems with Schaub as they did with Carr. Houston re-signed star wideout Andre Johnson recently and signed veteran tailback Ahman Green. Great. They signed a running back who will be running to retirement not too far down the line and a three-year quarterback who has yet to win an NFL game. Why the stud Johnson re-signed there, I have no idea. Poor guy. The Houston Texans are a joke. What next? Are they going to sign Lawrence Taylor to their club to a 10-year contract worth 90 million dollars? Hey, how about fullback Frank Solich? Wait a minute, there's this middle schooler in the Houston area that scouts are raving about. Can they sign him yet?

But, as an Atlanta Falcons fan, I just have two words for the Texans, thank you. Not only did they give us some value for Schaub before he became a free agent next year, they gave us quite the bang for the buck, so to speak. Atlanta now has access to three of the first 45 draft picks in next month's draft. They could potentially hold on to all three picks or maneuver around the board, because of the picks' flexibility. They could potentially trade their two early second round selections for a mid-first round pick. They could potentially trade all three for the third pick in the draft. Ah, yes, thank you Houston.

As a Falcons fan, I'm undecided on what I want Atlanta to do, because I've got to be honest, I watched Calvin Johnson all throughout college and that guy is amazing! Not only would he give Michael Vick a large target to throw to, but a large target that can stretch the field vertically. Not only that, but Johnson is hard-working and a class act. So, one side of me wants Atlanta to trade up to nab Johnson. BUT, I'm not going to lie here, the Falcons have more gaps to fill than just at receiver. They need help at safety, at end, and on the line, for certain. There's also a chance that Oakland could gain rights to now ex-Houston starting quarterback, David Carr, and they may then select Calvin Johnson with the first choice in the draft. But, if someone else gains the rights to Carr and Atlanta can draft up to the number two spot, then I suggest they do that. If they can't, then I say they just stay put and maybe trade their two second rounders for a mid-first rounder. Because, if Detroit holds on to the two spot, chances are that they'll draft Calvin Johnson, knowing the Lions, and if that's true, Johnson may be cursed. Just kidding. Not even the Lions could curse him.

Ah, I love Texans. We (the Falcons) should make deals with them more often. I wonder if they'd trade a third and fourth round pick for the waterboy. It's possible. We might as well talk to them about it and find out.

March MADness

The first weekend of the NCAA Tournament is done and over with. As always, there were some surprises, some disappointments, and as always, Billy Packer kicking the little guy and hoisting up a platter for the top seeds. As for my comments and observations, here they are.

- I'm undecided on how I feel about the Greg Oden (un)intentional foul. While I'm very much against referees deciding the outcome of a game, especially at the very end, they still have a job to perform. In football, refs should allow the ticky-tack fouls to go late in the game, but if a cornerback tackles a receiver before the ball hits him in the hands, that's obviously pass interference and the ref should throw the flag. Greg Oden violently pushed the Xavier player to the ground, in frustration, knowing that his team had basically just lost the game. This wasn't a typical late game foul to send the other club to the foul line. It was an intentional frustration foul, in knowing that a team had just been ousted from the tournament. While, again, I don't want officials to be the deciders in any sporting event, this foul was a bit too obvious to just ignore and it should've been called. I can understand the officials not wanting to ultimately decide the two teams' fate at the end of the contest, but Greg Oden's immaturity would have been the ultimate decider, not them.

- How 'bout them Runnin' Rebels? I admit, I picked them to beat Wisconsin en route to the Sweet 16, but I doubt many outside of the Las Vegas area predicted that. It made me chuckle in their two games, one against ACC Georgia Tech and then against the Big Ten 2nd seed Wisconsin. Billy Packer spoke biased all game (well, games) long. Instead of praising the Rebs, he usually spoke of how the Yellow Jackets and Badgers weren't playing up to par. Following those comments, he'd then say, "Not to take anything away from the Rebels." Yeah, whatever William. He can never give the "little" guy any credit, can he? What a tool.

- Saturday's games were crazy, weren't they? After a semi-disappointing first two days of action in the tournament, the games on Saturday more than made up for it. The biggest "blow-out" was the evening game between North Carolina and Michigan State, and the final score there was misleading. Michigan State actually led the game with about five minutes to go, before they wore out. Pittsburgh led Virginia Commonwealth by 19 in the second half, before VCU came back to send the game to overtime. Pitt eventually won in the extra frame. Maryland and Butler went back and forth for forty minutes before the Bulldogs pulled out victorious. UCLA and Indiana locked horned in a defensive slugfest, with the Bruins eking out a victory. I already mentioned the Ohio State overtime win over Xavier. Vanderbilt needed two overtimes to beat 3rd seeded Washington State. Georgtown had their hands full with Boston College, until Roy Hibbert took over inside for the Hoyas en route to the win. Finally, Texas A&M and Louisville went back and forth for a full forty minutes, with the largest lead by either side being 6 points, before TAMU won with excellent foul shooting. There wasn't a bad game all day or night. I only hope that the rest of the tournament can be as exciting.

- How about the ACC? The overrated ACC? For some reason or another, they led all conferences going into the tournament with 7 representatives. Let's go down the line for all seven teams and see how they've performed.

Duke- Knocked out in the first round by an 11 seed, VCU. (0-1)
Maryland- Beat 13 seed Davidson in an unconvincing fashion and then fell to 5th seed Butler. (1-2)
Virginia- Beat up on 13 seed Albany in the first round before getting knocked out by 5th seed Tennessee in the second. (2-3)
Virginia Tech- Used a late 12-0 run to rally against Illinois before getting pummeled by Southern Illinois in the round of 32. (3-4)
Boston College- Defeated 10 seed Texas Tech by 9 in the first round before getting pounded on the inside against 2nd seed Georgetown in their loss to Hibbert and the Hoyas. (4-5)
Georgia Tech- lost in the first round to the 7 seed UNLV. (4-6)
North Carolina- Beat 16 seed Eastern Kentucky (were up 48-44 midway in the second half) and then outlasted 9 seed Michigan State. (6-6)

There you have it, the "dominant" and all too "powerful" ACC is an even 6-6 with only one team remaining in the field of 16. The Pac 10 has three left (UCLA, USC, and Oregon). The SEC has three left (Florida, Tennessee, and Vanderbilt). The Big East has two remaining (Georgetown and Pittsburgh). The Big XII has two left (Kansas and Texas A&M). The Big Ten has one left (Ohio State). Conference USA has one remaining (Memphis). The Missouri Valley Conference has one left (Southern Illinois). The Mountain West Conference has one left (UNLV). In comparison to the other major conferences, the ACC is tied with the fewest teams remaining in the Sweet 16, alongside the Big Ten.

- Is it just me or does it feel like Florida is sleepwalking through the tournament thus far? They won the championship last year, returned four of five starters from that team and I just haven't felt the fire and tenacity from the club thus far in this year's tournament. It reminds me of UConn's club from a year ago. Florida is obviously the best, most talented, and most well-rounded club in basketball, but talent alone is not going to win them the title. They may be able to get away with their lack of fire against Butler and maybe even against the winner of UNLV/Oregon, but good luck playing in that manner against Kansas or UCLA in the Final Four. This attitude may be able to get them as far as the Final Four, but if they truly want to repeat their title, they'll have to kick things up a notch.

- The Sweet 16 match-ups are interesting, to say the least. Butler has a solid reputation of not turning the ball over, making the opposition play slow and ugly, and frustrating their opponents in the process. They did that against the usually up-tempo Terrapins of Maryland in the second round. It will be interesting to see if they can do likewise against Florida. For how poor and sloppy the Gators played against the Boilermakers on Sunday, I can't see them playing with such a lack of focus this time around.

Oregon and UNLV will be anything but a slow down Ivy League-style game. Look for fast breaks, multitudes of three point attempts hoisted, and plenty of points scored. I give the Ducks a slight edge, but won't count out the Rebs.

Kansas has looked to be fairly dominant in their two tournament affairs thus far, but did I expect much of a contest from Niagara or even from Kentucky? Not really. Southern Illinois is their next opponent, Bill Self's former club. SIU has a similar reputation as the before-mentioned Butler Bulldogs, in that they are not afraid to slow things down some and tend to force the opposition to play ugly ball for forty minutes. If they're able to control the tempo and hold KU to 60-65 points, then anything's possible. I wouldn't bet on that, but with KU's young line-up, frustration may sneak in on them quicker than most clubs, so anything's possible.

Pittsburgh and UCLA may be the antonym to the yet mentioned match-up between North Carolina and USC. Like defense? Like a slowed tempo? Then look no further! This is the game for you! I have to believe that the Bruins will bounce back offensively following their horrendous performance against Indiana, but we'll see.

North Carolina and USC is one of the match-ups I'm most looking forward to. I would not want to play the Trojans right now. However they did it, USC has seemingly found a groove, especially on the offensive end. They dominated Arkansas and Texas from start to finish. The 'Horns were only in the game when the score read 0-0. Carolina almost collapsed against 16 seed Eastern Kentucky and were down after 35 minutes to Michigan State, before their depth paid dividends. I picked North Carolina to win this game, but I'm not so sure anymore. If I had a chance to re-pick this round's contests, I may be more inclined to go with the Trojans.

Vanderbilt and Georgetown presents very different offensive philosophies. Vandy relies on their perimeter shooting and Georgetown likes to pound their opponent in the paint. Because of their more reliable and consistent scoring on the inside, I give the edge to Georgetown, but if Vandy gets hot, you never know.

Ohio State gets a second life (maybe more than that), as they will face off with Tennessee. If the 'Vols can limit Greg Oden on the inside, like Xavier did, then I think they have a decent chance to come out victorious, but I wouldn't bet on it. All I can say is if you like to see teams pop threes, you'll love this one. Whoever is most consistent from the outside in this one will most likely win the contest.

Finally, Memphis takes on Texas A&M in San Antonio. Why don't the Tigers receive much love? They are a two seed. They went unbeaten in conference play this year. They annihilated Kentucky out of conference. Following a 15 and 16 point win in their two conference wins to this point, they've won 23 or 24 straight games, to lead all clubs. This is another contest I'm really looking forward to. Memphis is deep, quick, and loaded. TAMU has a good inside-outside punch between Law and Jones. I really think that Memphis' quickness, chemistry, and depth will pay dividends not only in this game, but potentially in the elite 8 game.

The Big Dance

Is it just me (I know it isn't), but is the ACC always overrated in basketball? Are they always guaranteed to be the top conference in the tournament committee's eyes? Duke had a down year (for them). NC State did as well. Clemson, Georgia Tech, and Florida State had below .500 conference records. Maryland started sluggish, but came on at the end, before losing to doormat Miami (Florida). Virginia and Virginia Tech were the two surprises of the conference. Carolina was solid. Wake Forest is down. In my opinion, the conference ranks as the third best of the majors, next to the Big East and the Pac-10, yet the ACC led all conferences with 7 teams being represented in the dance. Syracuse and West Virginia got snubbed from the Big East conference. Kansas State likewise from the Big XII. Syracuse and Kansas State won 10 games in conference play. Georgia Tech had a below .500 conference record, but made the tourney, for the simple fact they play in the ACC. Arkansas received a similar fate, finishing below .500 in the overrated SEC conference, yet still made the tourney due to their strong conference tournament showing. Well, I'm sure Jim Nantz and Billy Packer are satisfied with the field this year, as only 6 mid-majors were selected as at-large teams. The two bickered last year after 8 mid-majors were selected, one of them being George Mason, who went on to play in the Final Four. So, this year, I'm (as always) pulling for the underdogs (go mid-majors!), rooting against Duke, and come to think of it, rooting against the entire ACC and SEC. Let the chaos ensue! Please!

Deja Vu

Ever been involved with a certain situation that repeats itself and it almost feels like an out of body experience or like you're back to the original predicament? This happened to me last night, in multiple ways.

Back in mid-December, I went out with this gal, whom I thought I shared a mutual attraction with, and she basically walked out on me while I awaited my change from the bill. A couple years ago, I was invited to a party by a gal, whom I thought I shared a mutual attraction with, knew no one else at the shindig, she hardly spoke to me all night, and left before I did. Two separate occasions and two separate gals.

Last night, the gal from the first incident, the one involving the walking out on me at a restaurant, invited me to hang out with she and some of her friends at a pub. She was the only one I knew there out of about 11-12 total people, until her roommate showed up a couple hours later. I've met her one other time. This gal and I hardly spoke all night and again, she left before I did. This time, she and her roomie left me there with 9-10 other people whom I'd never met before and who all knew each other fairly well, outside of one other guy. She then called a couple minutes later and apologized for walking out, but claimed she had some things to do. I couldn't hear all of what she said, because it was so loud in there. But, I think she said she was sorry, but had to go to another party, and knew it must be awkward for me. She also thanked me for coming. I then mentioned that it was alright, that'd I'd probably be leaving soon anyway and she sounded disappointed and asked where I was going to go and I commented that I was going to go home.

It was deja vu on more than one level. The predicament brought me back to two years ago, where I went around and gabbed with everyone there, attempted to get to know 10-15 people I had never met before, tried making my famous wise cracks to garner laughs, and attempted to extend the envelope as far as they allowed me to with what material I busted out at random. For the most part, I was successful in doing all that, on both occasions. Two years ago, the gal called me the very next day and sounded almost giddy, stating that she was very impressed at how well I got along with everyone and how I stayed put for a while after she left. It's not like she had been talking to me anyway, so big deal. We stopped talking not long there after. I haven't seen her since then. Then, with the gal from last night and three months ago, I'm curious to know the why's in regard to her doing this twice. I'm not sure which time makes me scratch my head more, the time she walked out on me while I was about to receive change, because she NEEDED to get back to study that very minute or the time she just up and left me (after not talking to me hardly at all) with 9-10 people I had never met before. We hung out just a week ago today. At first, it was she, her roomie, and I, before her roomie had to leave and two of my friends dropped by. That would not have been very cool of me to have just left her with my two friends, who she'd never met before. Maybe that's just me, but I feel that it'd be quite rude for me to do that. At least she called, sure. But, to invite me along, not talk to me, and then to just leave? Not cool, in my opinion. I just sent a very brief e-mail, thanking her for the invite, that I had fun, and that was basically it. I'm curious as to how (or if) she'll respond. I think I've ultimately decided to stop trying to read this gal, because she's so flighty. I don't even know if it'd be possible to carry on a stable friendship with her, because of all this. She may just be one of those who's usually fun to hang around with when she is around, but one can't ever really count on her being around to begin with sort of people. She was very short with me in an e-mail yesterday and didn't sound too pleased. I basically just asked if everything was alright and she went on and on about how I need to breathe, how I mustn't read into things so much, etc. Well, I don't think she has anything to worry about in regard to me reading too deeply into her words and/or actions, because I'm done trying to figure this one out. She hasn't contacted me yet today. Gee, what a surprise.

Extremes

Why is it that so many commoners (ala, not critics) seem to go the hyperbolic route when reviewing films? Rarely do I see some honest and thorough reviews, where a person may score the film 2, 2.5, 3, or 3.5 out of 5 stars. I typically see the reviews at 1, 2, 4, or 5 out of 5 stars. It's either great or horrible. It's either one of the best films ever made or one of the worst ever conducted. The extended use of hyperboles irritates me, for the simple fact that it's not honest. Exaggerators may believe they're being honest, but it's difficult for four different films viewed in a month's span to all be classified as the best film ever created. Professional critics may be just that, critical, but at least, for the most part, they don't consistently go the hyperbole route. They may claim that a film is the best directed movie by such and such since a film they directed in 1984, but rarely will I see such claims that a film is quite possibly the best or the funniest ever. There are many films from which to compare and contrast that one, so just as it's quite the statement to claim a film is the worst ever, the same holds true for the direct opposite.

So, yeah, I saw "The Departed" last night...

I finally got around to seeing the Oscar-winning film, "The Departed," last night. Let me warn everyone that there are spoilers in this blog.

With the film winning Best Picture at the Oscars, with a director like Martin Scorcese, and with a cast that featured the likes of: Leonardo DiCaprio, Matt Damon, Jack Nicholson, Mark Wahlberg, Martin Sheen, and Alec Baldwin, my expectations were rather lofty, to say the least.

To my surprise, the film lived up to the lofty expectations for the first 140 minutes (yes, it's a 2 and a half hour film). The film didn't lag at any point in time. For the first two hours and twenty minutes, it was quite engrossing. But, everything fell apart in the final ten minutes.

The acting was solid all around, as was the directing, and the dialogue. There were some slight goofs here and there, like when Matt Damon's girlfriend has a box full of pictures at his place when she's getting ready to move in and then not long after, Leonardo DiCaprio places up the same picture we had seen at Damon's place, on his girlfriend's wall. In one shot, DiCaprio's arm cast had been beaten off and in the next scene (at the same residence), part of it is back on again. This happens a few times. They were rather microscopic in terms of significance, but there were enough of these small goofs to irritate the avid movie fan after a while.

(spoiler alert)

For 140 minutes, I would give the film a solid 8.5 to 9 stars out of a possible 10. But, the ending drops it down some for me. Scorcese and the cast have the viewers (me, in this case) engrossed for 140 minutes and the ending does anything but leave a satisfied taste in one's mouth. It actually played like more of a cat-and-mouse (rat, in this case) suspense thriller for almost two and a half hours, only to end in a Shakespearean fashion, where everyone kills each other. Everything was set up for a solid finish, but Scorcese and company went with the easy way out in this film.

DiCaprio knew he was in trouble, so he gave Damon's "girlfriend" an envelope with evidence against Damon and his involvement with being Nicholson's inside spy informant. Leo said if he died, for her to give that to the proper authority. Leo arrests Damon, takes him down an elevator shaft and when they reach the floor and the door opens, DiCaprio is shot and killed. Another cop on the seen is then shot and killed. They both fell victim to another inside informant. After this man uncuffs Damon, Damon shoots and kills him. So, Damon will go back to the office. His gilfriend/ex-girlfriend/mother of his child (maybe Leo's) gave the envelope to the proper authority, Damon will be arrested, and all the facts will then be known, right? No, not even close. Damon steps into his apartment room and there awaiting him is Mark Wahlberg, who shoots and kills Damon. That's it. That's the ending. I was on the edge of my seat for 140 minutes and then had to shake my head in disbelief (almost laughter) for the final ten.

I have not seen the other films that were up for Best Picture (outside of "Little Miss Sunshine" and I'll watch "Babel" tonight). If the movie had just ended after 140 minutes, I may have been disappointed that it left the viewers hanging, but there would not have been any component to the film that I could've pointed to and said, "That wasn't well done. That was sloppy." I also may have said that it should be a potential Best Picture candidate (and winner). But, with the final ten minutes, I noticed some poor editing and a horrific anti-climactic ending. With that, I can't say I agree with it winning the Best Picture honors. Just like I felt with the Oscar-award winning film, "Mystic River," the final few minutes of this film undid the superior filmmaking that led up to that point and dismantled what could have been labeled as a magnificent work in filmmaking.

Without the ending, I score the film an 8.5 or 9 out of 10. With the ending, I have to give it a 6.5 out of a possible 10. I can't dismiss the terrific cast, the direction, the suspenseful build up, but I also can't ignore the dreadful ending.

Bah-humbug to Birthdays

I "celebrated" my 26th birthday on Wednesday, February 28th. The age that I'm celebrating doesn't bother me anymore. I just get bummed on my birthday anymore because of the memories. The day used to be a celebration. It used to be full of life and entertainment. But, anymore, it's nothing but a few people saying the two magical words and being off with their plans as I'm off with mine.

There were days where I bowled with friends, other times when we played this game called spaceball. Following the games would be cake-eating and present opening-time. Following that, there'd be a sleep over, usually, where kids would be kids, laughs and fun would be had, from the time school ended until my friends had to return home the next day.

Being 26, there can't be any car pool sessions following school, where all the kids can be picked up by parents who helped orchestrate the party. There can't be any after-school activities that all can attend. It's just a day like any other anymore. I might receive a couple phone calls, a couple e-mails, an instant message or two, a comment on myspace, everyone wishing me Happy Birthday. The folks and other family members may send me some cards and money. The family and I may have dinner and dessert, but after that? There's nothing. Most everyone is busy. Birthdays aren't seen as days to celebrate anymore as days to hide from, as we edge closer to the big 3-0.

I guess I just don't see things in that manner. It should be a day to celebrate, regardless of the number. We're acknowledging the day we were born and celebrating that birth. Why hide from that? Why be shameful? Depressed?

As opposed to Thanksgiving, where I'm used to celebrating the holiday with just my folks and brother and have no memory to look back on and cherish, birthdays are different for me. They used to be days I shared with all those close to me and with each and every passing year, it feels that those times and those individuals are slipping away from me. All birthdays are anymore, it seems, are days to add one more tally mark to the annual scoreboard with no celebration to acknowledge that day even existed. It's become a day just like any other and it shouldn't be such. Hopefully that trend alters next year.

Quite the Movie Critic

I was browsing Amazon.com the other day, checking out some movie deals you won't find many places. While doing this, I browsed some reviews of the flicks I was browsing and came across one schmuck I couldn't believe. I had to rub my eyes, not believing what I read. I actually popped some popcorn and read some more of his ludicrous reviews, because I found them to be rather humorous.

Remember the silly movie, "Spaced Invaders"? Those vertically-challenged aliens falling down in some Illinois town on Halloween night and parents getting them mixed up with the kids being dressed as aliens? Yeah, it was no drama, no psychological thriller, no murder mystery. It was a goofy comedy. This guy gave it a very low rating and claimed that it's a horror film and should not be viewed by children. A horror film? What else can be classified as a horror film? "Batteries Not Included"? "Short Circuit"? "E.T."? Yeah, they rank right up there with "The Exorcist" and "Carrie".

He gave "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" a very low grade, while admitting that he'd never actually seen the film. He was grading it on the film's reputation and what he'd heard.

This dimwit believes the re-make of "Psycho" is better than the original Hitchcock version. He also gave "Casablanca" a low grade for the simple fact that it's a black-and-white film, giving the reasoning that since our lives are in color, why shouldn't the movies be shown in a similar portrayal? He also complained about these black bars at the top and bottom of the screen in the film and felt it was ripping customers off, since their screen was not "full." Yeah, that's called the widescreen version, buddy. That's how it's displayed in theaters. More is actually shown in the widescreen than in the full screen version.

It's not like this kid was 6 and a newbie at reviewing cinema. I believe he was/is around my age, so, mid 20's.

He also complained about the classic film, "Gone With the Wind". Why? Was it too long? Did the widescreen bars tamper with the overall quality of the film? No. This kid said that 99% of the film was great, but gave it a 2 star out of a possible 5 for the simple fact that Clark Gable said the word "damn" at the end of the film. No, I'm not kidding. One "damn" and the film gets downgraded from a 5-star classic to a 2-star below-average film.

The mobster classic series, "The Godfather," he didn't care much for, because I guess it encourages like-minded criminals to be successful in their illegal activities.

He made similar complaints on films such as "Animal House" and "Old School" and how it celebrates the college partying lifestyle.

"Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory" was basically labeled by this guy as a Satanic tool used to steer kids away from the right path.

"The Three Stooges"? Way too violent...

"Chinatown"'s film title confused him, so he marked his moving grade down a bit.

He thought "The Blair Witch Project" was one of the scariest films ever made, until he found out it was fake and now he's angry! Do I think "Borat" is 100% genuine? No, but I still find the film funny. I'm not going to mark it down, because of its overall genuity. I'll grade the film on its entertainment value.

The deusch used the "Pirates of the Caribbean" ride at Disneyland as a tool to grade the film.

He graded the Police Academy films very poorly, because they're not accurate. These are not true stories. These are not films based off true stories. They're fictional films intended to make the audience laugh. They were not made with the intention to inspire. Give me a break.

Again, he complained about those ugly bars at the top and bottom of the screen in "Lawrence of Arabia". It ruined the film, because it took half the screen away!

He complained about the "Lord of the Rings" series and how author Tolkein was working too closely with the films, even though the guy died in 1973.

Classic films? "Baby Geniuses," "D.A.R.Y.L.," and "Mac and Me".

He sure knows his stuff, doesn't he? The funniest part is that he is an aspiring writer, screenwriter, and stand-up comedian. You know what? I'd pay to see a stand-up performance of his.

Heck, I'd love to see him involved with film. "So, why do we need these black bars? Why? It ruins the picture!" Reading that guy's reviews is ruining my brain. Well, those reviews inspired me. I'm off to watch "Animal House."