Vic Sage

Does anybody have any info on these relievers: Anderson Garcia Henry Owens Juan Perez and how did they came to be on the 40?

For context, here are some of my personal 5* movies (in alphabetical order): 7 Samurai 12 Angry Men Adventures of Robin Hood All that Jazz Annie Hall Apocalypse Now Atlantic City Beauty and the Beast (French) Ben-Hur Bicycle Thief Blade Runner Casablanca Chinatown Clockwork Orange, A Double Indemnity Dr. Strangelove Duck Soup ET Empire Strikes Back Gallipoli Ghost & Mrs. Muir Godfather II Good, the Bad, and the Ugly Great Escape It’s a Gift It’s a Wonderful Life Jason & the Argonauts Jaws King Kong La Strada Lawrence of Arabia Mad Max 2: Road Warrior Magnificent 7 Maltese Falcon Man who Would be King Modern Times Night of the Living Dead Psycho Producers (original!) Pulp Fiction Quiet Man Raging Bull Raiders of the Lost Ark Rear Window Rules of the Game Searchers Shane Singin in the Rain Some Like it Hot Stairway to Heaven Sullivan’s Travels Sunset Boulevard Sweet Smell of Success Thief of Baghdad Third Man Unforgiven Wild Bunch Wizard of Oz

Philip and Julius Epstein were twin brothers who wrote screenplays together in Hollywood from the `30s thru the `50s, until Phil died in `58. Julius continued writing successfully for another 25 years, his last script the excellent REUBEN, REUBEN in `83. The brothers specialized in crisp romantic comedies. They were brought in to re-write Howard Koch's adaptation of the play EVERYONE COMES TO RICKS. Koch, a great writer, was stronger on the politics and big themes, and the Epsteins were brought in to develop the love story and snappy patter. It is one of the rare examples of writing-by-committee that actually worked, building on the strengths of each of the contributors. This amalgamated script, directly flawlessly by esteemed emigre Michael Curtiz, is usually cited as the quintessential product of the Hollywood system, and as a rebuttal to the Auteur Theory of film. Phillip was Theo's grandfather, and Julius was his uncle.

sutter over gossage seems dubious to me, despite goose's MFY taint. blyleven and rice have some gripe, too, but less so.

4 **** why not 5? I think the consensus around this film has more to do with its role in Welles' artistic martyrdom than its inherent qualities. This was Welles' first film. Coming on the heels of his successful theater and radio career, RKO gave this enfant terribe carte blanche for KANE. Never having made a movie, he studied the films of John Ford, brought in noted cameraman James Wong Howe and writer Joe Mankeiwicz, cast his radio repertory company in all the supporting roles, and went on to create a scathing and barely concealed biopic of one of the most infamous and powerful figures in the world at the time... W.R. Hearst. Hearst then used his vast power to crush the film upon its initial commercial release, rendering it a box office dud. Welles was never given final cut on another studio movie, and spent the rest of his career taking acting jobs (and wine commercials) to pay for his independent projects (usually financed by a cartel of european interests, as tax dodges). His life became a cautionary tale for artists crushed beneath the wheel. It is more than a little ironic that his last unfinished film was based on Don Quixote. And i think KANE's rep has as much to do with scholars and journalists wanting to romanticize Welles' tragic mythos, and wanting to vindicate his career, as it does with the film itself. Don't get me wrong. its a great film. I just think its a bit showy, like a Coen bros film, very aware of itself as "cinema", with a neat bag o tricks... ALL of which had been employed before. Despite reports to the contrary, Neither Welles, Mankiewicz or Howe invented anything here. To be sure, it has brilliant moments... the scene at the dining room table that describes the entire history of the marriage between Kane and his wife in a series of cuts is something that should be in a textbook (it probably is, somewhere). The use of deep focus, the dissolve through the skylight, the hall of mirrors... its all there, in beautiful black & white. However, though KANE is entertaining and occasionally brilliant, I never found it emotionally engaging, and for me that's always the bottom line. LAWRENCE OF ARABIA is emotionally engaging. KANE not so much. LAWRENCE gets 5*, and KANE gets 4*.

terrific movie. submarine movies are usually hard to screw up because of the inherent tension in the scenario... men in confined space, deep below the sea, under pressure (both actual and metaphorical).

Well, if Bradford's guaranteed, then Bell is competing against Padilla, Parra, shmoll, wylie and fortunato for that RHed slot. I still think he's got more upside than any of them. as for chavez, redman and diaz: they need to keep one of the LHed CFers, not both. And if Diaz is traded, its because Nady made him expendable and because Diaz has the most trade value of this little group. I'd have preferred they signed Preston Wilson for RF (he's a homeboy! and could've backed up CF), and traded Diaz or Nady as part of a package to upgrade our starting pitching.

]What I fear more is that Tike Redman perhaps having no options, and therefore getting carried over Diaz. That would be unfortunate. couldn't Redman be carried over Chavez? They fulfill the same function: LHed CFer. I'd really like to see Heath Bell get a serious look. If he outpitches Bradford and Padilla (and the other RHed middle guys), he should get the job. pen (6): Wagner Heilman Sanchez Bell RH - Padilla? Bradford? Parra? shmoll? wylie? fortunato? LH - Ring? Oliver? Feliciano? Perisho?

]Sports is a huge racket. It's not a matter of overpaid or underpaid. Somebody's making money. Who should it be? The athletes with the talent and a very short period to exploit it or the suits without the talent but rather a monopoly to leverage talent for their profit, and decades-long careers to exploit it? hear hear! well said, brother Ed.

born in 61. first game that i can remember going to had Matlack pitching in his rookie year, so it was what... 72? first comic purchased? i really can't remember. first ones i remember READING, though, were my brother's FFs... from #30s-#60s.

I refer to is as the "NYC trilogy", because that is how those 3 films have come to be known. While many of his films take place in nyc, few of them are so much ABOUT NYC. The 3 are also consistent in tone, in that they are contemporary romantic comedies rendered with his unique style of neurotic Allen-iation. They are specifically about finding love in this big city, and they are different in tone, form and content from such of his other films which also happen to take place in nyc, like HUSBANDS & WIVES, ALICE, EVERYBODY SAYS... or MANHATTAN MURDER MYSTERY.

Yes, but many of those movies become all-time classics only with the passage of time and the perspective it lends. If one is to do this thing, he or she has to make snap judgements on films that have been recently been released, without the benefit of time, and the perspective it lends, to say nothing of the years of exposure to the winds of critical consensus (and the erosion of original thought that they lend). And if that means you risk over-reacting to a film you saw last night, and you're afraid you'll wake up years from now to find you gave a perfect or near perfect rating to the equivalent of Rocky III, too bad. A life well lived is a life of risk.i could not agree less. i mean, i suppose i could, but its highly unlikely.Edgy and I have discussed this before, without satisfying conclusion.Time, context, perspective... according to Edgy, these lead to an understanding that "erodes original thought"? How about the notion that new information builds on the past to lead to a greater understanding of a subject, not an "erosion" of it?As for this rating procedure, all we have to do "to do this thing" is either rate a movie we've just seen on a purely SUBJECTIVE basis (e.g., "this is one of my favorite films ever! 5 stars!") or attempt to rate it on a more objective basis (e.g., "while i only saw this film yesterday, i realize that it exists in the context of the entire history of film to date, so while i really enjoyed it, upon reflection i can see that its not quite in "Casablanca" territory, so I'll give it 4 stars instead of 5.")The point Elster made is that people are using both bases to rate it, so the result is confusing. Personally, i think you should "do this thing" using whatever criteria you want. Its not a scholarly treatise, its a way of giving consumer information to our fellow CPFers about movies we've seen.That being said, I think "over-reacting" to a film you saw last night is a much more SIGNIFICANT danger to a real understanding and valid evaluation of a movie than viewing it in historical context. If a viewer is rating it without putting it in historical context, then his/her rating is simply a reflection of whatever he/she liked last night... which itself can be a reflection of mood, energy, level of distraction and whatever was eaten for dinner. And why would i care about that? It is the logical fallacy of the new.Contrary to edgy's assertion, "historical context" doesn't mean bending to the will of scholarly consensus. If you've seen CITIZEN KANE and don't like it, fine. that's an expression of preference and needs no further justification. But if you don't think it's a "good movie", that's an objective evaluation, and that's fine, too, but the burden of supporting that assertion is on you, because, for the last half century, people who study film for a living have come to a consensus that its the best movie of all time. That doesn't mean that you couldn't make a compelling argument for it NOT to be deserving of such accolades. (wow, a triple negative!). In fact, many an interesting discussion can be had on that subject, which does not ERODE our understanding of KANE... it augments it. But, like anything else, the more you KNOW about something, the more pursuasive your arguments are likely to be. As for me, when rating films here, my subjective evaluation is informed by my objective understanding of the historical context of the film being rated. You might be rating films as a pure expression of personal preference, regardless of context. If enough people respond, then whatever bases they use, the aggregate numbers should reflect a "consensus" (it rears its evil head once more!) of opinion that others on the CPF might find useful.but be aware that the more 5 star ratings you hand out, the less meaningful they are. This is why a great review by Jeffrey Lyons is entirely meaningless.

i was never a fan of MANHATTAN and HANNAH (the other 2 chapters of the "NYC Trilogy"), though obviously they are 2 of his more acclaimed films. I just find MANHATTAN's pedophilic obsessions too autobiographical for comfort, and HANNAH strikes me as a particularly annoying soap opera. HUSBANDS & WIVES is filled with the most despicable characters in his entire ouevre, and it's even more discomfortingly autobiographical than MANHATTAN. The jumpy hand-held camera work made me want to scream. This one is on my list, along with his musical, of Allen's films that i never ever want to see again.

Yancy and I had the same childhood. twin sons of different mothers, as it were.

Gossage Blyleven I've been on the fence about Rice and Dawson, so i'd vote "no", since fence-sitters don't get the benefit of the doubt.

]He's a submariner should we call him Namor?

]Randolph is not a stupid man, based on what?

PURE IMAGINATION and GOLDEN TICKET are still excellent musical theater songs. I like CHEER UP, CHARLIE, too, but agree that it doesn't move the story forward. My 5-year old does a great rendition, though. Not only Armstrong over Black, but Kong `33 over Kong '05... the whole kit-n-kaboodle.

best movie of the year.hands down.

My personal top 10 (in chronological order): Bananas Sleeper Love & death [when they talk about the "early funny ones", these are the 3 they're talking about] Annie Hall [his most critically acclaimed, and most sophisticated of his neurotic romances] Stardust Memories [a personal fave, Woody's "8 1/2" is not for everybody. A Fellini-esque rumination on his filmmaking career is funny, bizarre, a bit whiny, but moving in spots] Broadway Danny Rose [flat out funny, with a touch of pathos] Radio Days [a sad/funny nostalgic rumination on the radio days of his youth] Crimes & Misdemeanors [perhaps the best film of his career] Bullets Over Broadway [funny insight into Woody's own insecurity about being an "artist"] Mighty Aphrodite [another funny one with real weight] While ZELIG is an interesting experiment, I don't see how you can list it above SLEEPER, which may be his funniest movie ever. As for his awful musical, I've got a scathing review of EVERYONE SAYS I LOVE YOU on IMDB somewhere. I'll post the link if i ever find it. But otherwise our top10s are pretty similar. I'd also want to give an honorable mention to PLAY IT AGAIN, SAM. Though he didn't direct it, it is based on his play, and feels very much like a "woody allen" film, and is terrific... Sort of a blend of ANNIE HALL's landmark neurotic romanticism and PURPLE ROSE's magical realism. other honorable mentions: WHATS UP, TIGERLILY? (there are no words...) TAKE THE MONEY & RUN (primitive, sketchy, but funny) ZELIG DECONSTRUCTING HARRY SWEET AND LOWDOWN HOLLYWOOD ENDING (these 4 are flawed but are still interesting)

after seeing the sanchez-seo deal go down, that Baez deal looks a whole lot less stupid.

my 2 concerns are that the sudden availability of Boone's "veteran presence" may 1) delay the progress of Anderson Hernandez and Keppinger; and 2) make it easier for Omar to justify (at least in his own mind) making the stupid Matsui/Seo-Baez trade. Money aside, Matsui clearly gives the mets the best chance for meaningful production at 2b of all current candidates, for THIS season. So, if we're moving him AND eating the lion's share of his salary, its a pointless move unless we're getting back a better 2bman (like Lugo). Baez is unexceptional... a glorified Looper. Not that that is a BAD thing, necessarily, but he's just not someone you should overpay for, especially with his expiring deal. I might trade Seo straight up for him, inasmuch as i'm not convinced that Seo is anything more than a #4-#5 starter (not that i think thats a great deal, either), but they apparently want not only Seo and Matsui (+cash!), but a prospect, too! that's NUTS. I might consider Baez + Lugo, for Zambrano or Trax + V.Diaz + Matsui, but no cash and no prospects. Then, we put Heilman in the rotation, Lugo at 2b, and Baez is the primary set-up guy. Platoon Nady in RF with a LHed bat (hopefully one better than Redman) and we're good to go. I'd still prefer an upgrade at the top of our rotation, but maybe Dickshot's ZITO fantasy comes true. Then we're a pennant winner.

And she probably won't like you ugling Ola, either. Whenever i make a list of my top 5 favorite movies, THE PRODUCERS invariably pops into my head. I know the script by heart. Does it "date badly"? Perhaps, but i see it as a time capsule. The laughs are still big, the performances are still towering, the blackness of the satire still cutting, and the heart still beats warmly. Beyond the silliness, THE PRODUCERS is basically a love story about 2 damaged souls who find each other, who need each other, who launch into a doomed adventure together, and who ultimately heal each other. This heart, of course, is what Brooks specifically excised for the Broadway musical, which i detested as a result, and i therefore have no interest in seeing the new movie adaptation. But the original is far and away Brooks' best film, despite those who laud the also excellent YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN. YF is a terrific genre spoof, but as such, it is by definition primarily about other movies. THE PRODUCERS, however, is about our flawed humanity. I also prefer THE TWELVE CHAIRS for the same reason. But those 3 films (and perhaps a 4th... the utterly absurd BLAZING SADDLES) are pretty much the extent of Brooks' greatness. After that, it was a gradual descent into utter irrelevance. Oh sure, some people like HIGH ANXIETY, some SILENT MOVIE, some HISTORY OF THE WORLD, but these are, at best, pale imitations. I've even heard someone once say he liked SPACEBALLS... but mental illness is nothing to laugh at. After that... a freefall into cinematic oblivion. (note: Brooks neither wrote nor directed TO BE OR NOT TO BE, and so should get little credit for its barely servicable quality) Even so, if all he ever did was write and direct THE PRODUCERS, he'd still be credited with making one of the funniest movies ever. That he also wrote for Sid Caesar, created GET SMART and wrote and directed THE TWELVE CHAIRS, YOUNG FRANKENSTEIN and BLAZING SADDLES, as well as being a pretty good comic actor, a fair satirical songwriter and a marvelous talkshow raconteur, puts him in the pantheon of American Comedy, along with Mark Twain, Buster Keaton, SJ Perelman, Groucho, Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor (amongst others). THE PRODUCERS dated? Not great? I think not.

2 more unexceptional RHed middle innings guys for our #4 SPer and one of our few LHed relievers. if they were going to move seo anyway, i'd have just as soon they made the stupid Baez deal. He's better than Sanchez, at least.

i agree that saying "yada yada" was the best pitcher of the 80s (jack morris?) is an arbitrary and misleading argument. However to say that, during the 12-year plateau of a particular player's career, he lead his league in 12 different offensive categories, is not an arbitrary time period. It's the specific era of his playing career. During his peak, he was one of baseball's most dominant hitters and these numbers simply bear that out. I would agree that a more ACCURATE analysis would be to see how many times during EACH of those 12 seasons that he lead the league in what categories (if any). To the extent that seawolv was saying that Rice finished 1st or 2nd in 8 offensive categories in EACH of those 12 seasons, then that is a plenty good argument.