Benjamin Grimm

When I saw the category, and before I clicked on the link, two movies immediately popped into my head: Humphrey Bogart saying good-bye to Ingrid Bergman in Casablanca and Charlton Heston discovering the Statue of Liberty in Planet of the Apes. Bogie made the list, Heston didn't.

Oops! Fixed.

30 David Wright 29 Carlos Beltran 28 José Reyes 27 Oliver Perez 26 John Maine 25 Tom Glavine 24 Carlos Delgado 23 Orlando Hernandez 22 Moises Alou 21 Aaron Heilman 20 Billy Wagner 19 Shawn Green 18 Paul Lo Duca 17 Jorge Sosa 16 Luis Castillo 15 Lastings Milledge 14 Pedro Feliciano 13 Ramon Castro 12 Ruben Gotay 11 Damion Easley 10 Endy Chavez 9 Marlon Anderson 8 Carlos Gomez 7 Joe Smith 6 Pedro Martinez 5 José Valentin 4 Scott Schoeneweis 3 Guillermo Mota 2 Aaron Sele 1 Mike Pelfrey

Well, then maybe Easley has too many points. That doesn't mean that Wagner has too few. I'm not putting Wagner down in any way. I just see him as a supporting player (because of his role) and can't see him as one of the top ten most important players on the team.

I know that some saves are more difficult than others, but many of them are not all that difficult. And I don't believe that the ninth inning closer faces tougher hitters than any other pitchers. The opposing team can be at any point in their lineup when he comes into the game. They could be at 3-4-5 or at 7-8-9. And the available pinch hitters in the ninth inning may or may not be dangerous. I don't like, and don't agree with, the whole role of the modern day closer. Does Wagner contribute to wins? Sure he does. But not nearly as much as the guys who score or drive in runs or the guys who pitch six, seven, or eight innings. Bullpens are important. If you add up the Schaefer points of Wagner, Heilman, Feliciano, Smith, Schoeneweis, Mota, Sele, and Sosa (excluding his starts) you'll get a total that shows how important the bullpen is. But the way things are today, I can't argue that any one individual should be that highly ranked.

Because all they're contributing is a lack of failure. They're asked to get three outs without giving up two runs.

I agree, G. I'm not sure that Schaefer is gypping the closer as much as it's exposing that it's not such a role that gets credited with more importance than it deserves. Their only job, really, is to not screw up. It was different when they'd truly be "firemen," coming in to a game to get their team out of a jam. How many times this year did Billy Wagner enter a game with runners on base? If it was more than twice I'd be surprised. If it was zero I wouldn't be surprised at all.

When this came out, Seth Rogen was a guest with Letterman. He told a story about his preparation for the love scene with Katherine Heigl. He decided to use a line that he had heard that Sean Connery used to use: "I apologize if I get aroused... And I apologize if I don't." From Connery it was a charming line. From Rogen, it wasn't. The response he got was, "Why would I want you to get aroused???"

That would be fine, too. (Would you include Bucky Barnes?)

Marvel is also planning to start tying their movies together. Avengers is in the works, but expected to follow Iron Man and Thor and, I think, Captain America. I think it's an okay idea. Part of the fun of the Marvel Universe is how it all overlaps. Movie audiences need to be eased into that, however. Launching them into a full-blown Marvel Universe would require too much suspension of disbelief. (Imagine working all those different origins into one film.) DC has the advantage that their heroes are more familiar. They may be able to get away with introducing Flash and Green Lantern and Aquaman without going into their origins. (Much of the audience already knows who they are.) But seeing a bunch of guys in outlandish costumes sitting around a conference room table waiting for evil to strike will look nutty no matter what. Such a movie would probably be better as a high-end computer animated feature. (Easier to suspend the disbelief.) And I agree with what Edgy said above about superteams like X-Men, FF, and Doom Patrol compared with conglomerate teams like Justice League, Avengers, and Defenders. And one more thing: I want an Invaders movie!

I assume that the Pixar films have the Disney taint? Too bad. When it comes to TV cartoon theme songs, some favorites of mine include "Underdog" and "Magilla Gorilla."

X-Men 3 was on HBO the other day and I TiVoed it. Just this afternoon I burned it to DVD for my son and, to verify that the whole movie made it onto the disk, I skipped ahead to the very end. After the credits finish rolling, there's one additional scene. It's very brief, but it's a man in a hospital bed and Moira McTaggert is in the room. She's reading a chart or something, and the man in the bed croaks, "Moira?" And she turns to him and says, "Charles?" And THAT'S the end of the movie. All this time I thought that they had killed off Professor X.

14 syllables is nothing, compared to what Borat's movie had.

She'll be 56 in a few weeks... http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000261/

Yeah, she still looks terrific. And I got an unexpected kick out of seeing Harrison Ford, at his current age, in his old Indy outfit. I still dress like I did twenty years ago, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised that Indiana Jones does too.

I don't know much of anything about the Ultimates, but I think it's strange and annoying that Marvel has two versions of all of their characters. Twice as much potential merchandise to sell, I guess.

If they follow the comics too closely the movies will only appeal to the comic book fans, and they won't make as much money. If they don't make the movie, then they won't make any money. The reason they make these movies isn't to make comic fans' dreams come true, it's to make money. I understand why Galactus couldn't be a giant man in a purple metal skirt and became a cloud instead. And I also understand why Iron Man's origins won't be set in Viet Nam during the war. Some departures are acceptable. The key thing is to be true to the characters and the spirit of the original. They changed the origin of the Fantastic Four, and I can accept that. They changed the personality of Doctor Doom, and that sucked. But you can't be a strict fundamentalist with these things. (Or, in my opinion, with anything, really.)

I don't think it's worth getting pissed off about. I would have preferred a white Kingpin, and a white Alicia, and a white Nick Fury, because I like to see these movies as true to the comics as possible. But the movies take so many liberties with their story telling that the race of a few characters ranks way down on the list. Anyway, if it makes you feel any better, I hear that Matt Damon is going to play Luke Cage.

Must have been 2005. In 1985 there was no such thing as "netbuzz." The Internet probably had about a dozen users.

In retrospect, one of the most surprising things about that movie is that there was never a sequel. My guess is that Spielberg resisted. I'm sure the studio would have loved to do an ET 2. I don't remember if there were ever even any rumors about another ET movie.

I guess I was 19 when it came out, and I thought it was great. I watched it for the second time about 16 years later, when my son was a toddler. It didn't do much for me. I suppose my heartstrings don't get tugged the same way that they once did. I probably would have given it 4.5 stars then, maybe 2.5 now. I don't know if I should split the difference and vote 3.5, or go with my first (and dated) impression, or my current opinion. Such a difficult situation!

The Gettysburg Address was considered a dud right after Lincoln delivered it.

I agree with that. A work that is acclaimed in its time is certainly a credit to the artist who created it, but it has to stand the test of time to be considered a "classic." Toy Story is a great example. I think it's a terrific movie, and I think it will hold up over time. But in 1995 its cutting edge computer animation was part of what dazzled the viewers. Watching it twelve years later, we're no so longer impressed or distracted by the technology, and we can see the great characters and story-telling.

Vic, which are the five you haven't seen?

Which comedies would you add? Looking through the list quickly, I spotted 12 comedies: 22. "Some Like It Hot" (1959) 26. "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" (1939) 35. "Annie Hall" (1977) 46. "It Happened One Night" (1934) 54. "MASH" (1970) 60. "Duck Soup" (1933) 69. "Tootsie" (1982) 78. "Modern Times" (1936) 80. "The Apartment" (1960) 85. "A Night at the Opera" (1935) 88. "Bringing Up Baby" (1938) 99. "Toy Story" (1995) If I were to add some comedies to the list I might include Young Frankenstein and The Out-of-Towners (the original one with Jack Lemmon and Sandy Dennis). I'm also partial to Woody Allen's Take the Money and Run.