Reger Rant - Controvery Edition 8/10/12

I decided today to take on some controversial topics to stir this blog up a little.  Enjoy!

- Can all of the Espn talking heads stop throwing admiration and adulation on Andy Reid for going to work 3 days following his son's death?  I can't think of a more heartless, gutless reaction to such a tragedy.  Even if he doesn't give a shit, he needs to be home to support the mother (his wife) who just lost her first born son and his other kids who just lost their older brother.  Reid always put coaching ahead of his family.  Even when his kids were busy becoming drug addicts, he barely noticed.  Hey fat fuck, how many of your kids' signature events did you miss over the years? How many times did your players needs come first ahead of your family's needs? 

I'm not saying that coaching a football team in the NFL is easy, but if you are going to spend almost all of your waking hours becoming a mediocre at best coach, then don't have kids!!!!! It is not fair to them.  It is not fair to your wife.  I wish somebody would just call a spade a spade.  Reid is a shitty dad and probably almost feels relief that one of his "embarrassing" kids is gone.  He is not being strong, he is being feeble and weak by going back to coaching so soon. 

- Why do I get a feeling when I watch Barrack Obama's campaign commercials that he sometimes forgets that he IS the incumbant president?  I have only seen one ad (the equal pay for equal work) that actually talks about his accomplishments in office.  All I see are his plans for the next 4 years and his ridiculous rips of Romney.  You would think that such an ambassador of hope and change would be talking about that, but he doesn't.  We are talking about a man who had Democratic control over the House and Senate during his first 2 years in office.  All I hear from the left are 2 things " he inherited the worst economic crisis since the 1940's blah blah blah" and " the tea partiers won't let him do anything now that they have control of the house blah blah blah".  At the end of the day, leaders are judged on their accomplishments, not how many excuses they can make.  When Obama took office, yes, our country was in a bad place, but here we are 4 years later and we are no better off at all.  The unployment rate has been over 8% real and 15% adjusted for every month of his presidency and our debt has risen by over 4 trillion at the same time.  That is what he should be judged on. 

-  The summer olympics have been outstanding so far except for one small thing......THE FACT THAT EVERY NEWS OUTLET THINKS IT IS BREAKING A STORY WHEN AN EVENT HAPPENS AND FEELS THE NEED TO REPORT IT AND BLAST IT AT THE EXPENSE OF PEOPLE WHO WANT TO WATCH THE SHOW IN PRIMETIME!  I get it.  There is a 5 hour delay and many of the events are shown on tape delay.  What is wrong with simply putting a spoiler alert tab to click on your website if people want to see the results.  I intentially avoid espn, si, yahoo, and any other sports related website and actually changed my homepage in hopes that I can actually avoid knowing who won an event.  It drives me nuts.  Even the radio does it.

- I think the NFL needs to stand its ground when it comes to the bountygate penalties.  Even though the commissioner might get deposed.  It would set a very clear precedent if they cave and start reducing the penalties.  Either you have evidence or you don't.  If you do, great, bring it on.  The NFL has way deeper pockets than Jonathon Vilma and can easily squash any future litigation by winning and bankrupting the ring leader of this disgusting mess.  If they don't have evidence, look out.  They are fucked.  Settling tells me that there is a lot of interpretation and inuendo in these punishments and very little proof.

- I don't think there has ever been a show on television that I have started out so high on and have dropped so low on as quickly as the HBO show "The Newsroom".  I thought it was curious that such a flaming liberal like Alan Sorkin would write a show about a Republican newscaster.  The first 2 episodes were riveting and well written.  Jeff Daniel's speech at the beginning of episode 1 was stunning.  I was hooked.  Then, starting in episode 3, Sorkin started rearing his ugly liberal head.  Daniels became so liberal (while at the same time always mentioning that he is a "registered Republican") that I thought that POS Bill Maher morphed into his brain.  This combined with the 2 longest running captain obvious subplots in television history (Jim and Maggie will hook up and Will and Mackenzie will get back together), while at the same time inexplicably ignoring the sex appeal of one of the hottest women on the planet (Olivia Munn) make this show almost unwatchable.

- Isn't the point of the 1st amendment to give people the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression?  If that is the basis of our country, then why do people flip out so much when somebody doesn't share their own opinion?  I'm talking about this whole nonsense brewing about Chick fil a.  Let me make this clear.  I believe that people have the right to their own opinions.  That is a right that I take very seriously.  You don't have to have the same opinion as me and I can think you are crazy, but I will fight for your right to think that way regardless.  Just as you have the freedom to support a stance on gay marriage, another person also has the freedom to think that a marriage should be between a man and a woman, as the bible very clearly states.  I personally believe in both rights, but it doesn't seem like the supporters of gay marriage think that people should have the right to think any other way besides the way that they think.    

The Expendables 2

Big guns, big muscles, big explosions . . . catch phrase. We are all very familiar with the prototypical action hero formula defined by forefathers Stallone, Willis and Schwarzenegger. So familiar that near the end of the ‘90s, audiences decided to in fact, not be back. The appetite for action had not dissipated, just evolved. Films like “The Matrix,” 1999, and “Kill Bill Volumes 1 and 2” (2003, 2004) ignited the craving for more sophisticated story telling alongside the daily recommended serving of “beat ‘em up, kill ‘em up.” So when co-patriarch Sylvester Stallone decided to prove that the “old republic” still had what it took to draw in the crowds with “The Expendables,” in 2010, some people slighted its box office success as capitalizing on the mere curiosity of fans to experience a heavy artillery version of “Ocean’s Eleven.” Two years, $100 million and a “The Expendables 2” later, it seems that there may be a much more powerful and underlying factor in play whenever these craftsmen of cliches unite.

Barney Ross (Sylvester Stallone, “The Expendables”) and his all-star team of mercenaries must make good on a debt payable to Mr. Church (Bruce Willis, “Red”) in the form of what should’ve been a very manageable mission. But “shockingly” things do not go as planned when Ross and company are ambushed by Vilain (Jean-Claude Van Damme, “JCVD”), the most unsubtly named bad guy in movie history, redirecting the motley crew toward a crusade of revenge.

In true over-the-top sequel fashion, writers Sylvester Stallone and Richard Wenk (“The Mechanic”) dialed up the already conspicuous and parody boarding dialogue to levels that forge catch phrases out of even mundane conversations. Another possibly deliberate byproduct of this Bizarro version of “The Magnificent Seven” is that bad acting can be just as contagious as good acting. Usually these guys are in films where the supporting cast is composed of more classically trained actors that can sometimes make the star’s own performance look superior, à la Stallone in “Rocky.” But when these action heroes have only each other to rely on, there is an evident and comical caveman regression of skills, infecting even a legitimately good actor like Bruce Willis. Though, on the flip side of this flip side, an actor like Jason Statham ("Killer Elite"), whose been permanently sentenced in the court of public opinion as nothing more than an extreme action star, comes across like Laurence Olivier in comparison. At least Statham could deliver lines that didn’t sound like they had just been freshly “sharpied” on a cue card.

Even with all its inherent flaws, intentional or not, “The Expendables 2” does manage to incorporate a higher quality story than the original with the additions of Chuck Norris (“The Delta Force”), Liam Hemsworth (“The Hunger Games") and Jean-Claude Van Damme, who all legitimately contributed more value to the film than just an additional name on the posters. Director Simon West (“The Mechanic”) should actually be commended for using every piece of the ensemble cast to its fullest potential and keeping happy what must have been the largest collection of egos since the ’85 Chicago Bears.

The popular opinion that the story, script and acting in the first film were not even up to par with some of the cast member’s individual cinematic flops, truly solidified it as a pure novelty act without a solid mandate for a sequel. However, the concept of just throwing a gaggle of legendary and modern action stars together and yelling “action,” did not fade away as it should have. Even detractors of the film yearned for a second attempt. Not for the unrelenting action sequences, not for the discharge of a small country’s entire arsenal and certainly not for the original plot. Evidently, the mere close proximity of these genre giants to one another is something that has yet to jade audiences. Until then, they’ll be back!

Story: 5.5
Acting: 4.0
Writing: 5.5
Captivation: 7.5
Replay Value: 7.5

Total = 6.0 out of 10

The Amazing Spider-Man

Batman's fit perfectly, the X-Men's rejuvenated them and Superman will try to exchange his without the receipt in 2013, but now it’s Spider-Man’s turn to try on a brand new pair of reboots. But beside Sony Pictures, who wanted it? No doubt that the final installment in the Sam Raimi trilogy was indefensible, but his first two chapters were more than adequate and 2002’s “Spider-Man” is the gateway film for the modern super hero boom in Hollywood today. However, playing Mephisto’s advocate, 0.0 people were clamoring for another Batman movie after the release of the title whose name George Clooney dares not speak, and from those ashes rose what’s poised to be the greatest super hero trilogy of all time. Perhaps though, that is the overwhelmingly enticing and ironic web that trapped the creators of “The Amazing Spider-Man.”

Peter Parker (Andrew Garfield, “The Social Network”) is a genius high school student, gets bit by a radioactive spider. . . yada, yada, he now has the proportionate powers of a spider, we’re all very impressed.

Never before has such a successful trilogy been rebooted so quickly. The Raimi Spidey films are in the top 40 all-time box office grosses worldwide. And the original “Spider-Man” from 2002 has barely had enough time to work its way into the DVD bargain bin at Wal-Mart. So anyone who says “Amazing” should be critiqued without a direct comparison to its predecessor is not only being unrealistic, but also inflammatory. Placing aside all the rhetoric from cast and crew about how this version is telling the “untold” story of the web slinger, it’s unmistakable that director Marc Webb (“500 Days of Summer”) is trying to “Batman Begins” the franchise. So was he successful? The short answer is “No.” By the time Joel Schumacher completed his coup d’état of Batman in 1997, it had actually only been 8 years since Tim Burton’s character defining classic, but the glaring contrast is that Batman had regressed back to the camp-filled Adam West serial of the ‘60’s and the triumphant translation of Raimi’s silver screen wall crawler is still fresh in the minds of “geek nation.” Added to that, the unprecedented achievement of Marvel’s recent films leading up to “The Avengers,” which utilize a high gloss, shiny, backlit template, and it makes a darker, more reality rooted attempt at Spider-Man seem all the more dispensable.

Even if Webb could somehow magically erase all the preconceived opinions of another set of Spider-Man films, it’s futile to conceal that he’s simply not as proficient with this type of material as Raimi. “The Amazing Spider-Man” does have a few much improved special effects, especially in the gravity and weight of the character as Spidey swings through the city, but the staggered flow of the storytelling and the underutilization of integral characters shorten the strides that this incarnation of Marvel’s flagship character can achieve. Webb allocates such a high percentage of the first half of the film on Peter’s metamorphosis into Spider-Man, something that could have been taken care of in an opening credits sequence; by the middle of the second act all the supplementary story arcs enter “ludicrous speed.” And perhaps the most neglected character of them all is the city of New York itself. New York is just as much of a super power to Spider-Man as his strength, agility or Spidey sense, and how he relates to its citizens has been an eternal struggle in Peter’s psyche.

The subpar directing is certainly no reflection on its over-achieving cast. Andrew Garfield is more than a moderate improvement over Tobey Maguire (“Spider-Man,” 2002). Not that he’s a superior actor; both are well versed at their craft. However, Garfield manages to tune in the perfect frequency of shy awkwardness in Peter Parker without the oddness inserted by Maguire, which was not entirely misplaced due to most real-life genius' exhibition of odd personality traits. But in terms of a truer 1:1 match to the source material, Garfield excels both in physical and behavioral prowess.

After three movies starring Kirsten Dunst (“Spider-Man,” 2002) in the female lead, Emma Stone (“Crazy, Stupid, Love”) improves the outlook of the film just by showing up. But attendance is a severe understatement of Stone’s talents. Finally a love interest that’s actually interesting. The writing is nothing spectacular, but she has the ability to deliver lines with intelligent and attractive undertones, making the viewer believe she is actually smart, not just playing it and waiting for Spider-Man to reappear on screen.

With the exception of Denis Leary (“Rescue Me”) as Captain Stacy, who turned out to be much more than a fill-in-the-blank character, the other supporting cast members including what’s suppose to be the all-important villain of the film, The Lizard/Dr. Curt Conners (Rhys Ifans, “Anonymous”), either fall severely flat or are undervalued. The Lizard is merely a mix tape of previous “big bads” from other films, most notably Dr. Octopus/Dr. Otto Octavius from “Spider-Man 2,” 2004. And casting highly decorated actors like Sally Field as Aunt May and Martin Sheen as Uncle Ben in such diminutive roles is nothing more than an embarrassment of riches exemplifying the film’s $230 million budget.

For every facet “The Amazing Spider-Man” improves upon the former series, it leaves another behind in the dark. Instead of having Peter Parker take off his mask in every scene just so the audience can take a gander at Andrew Garfield’s pretty face, Marc Webb should’ve been maximizing his star’s performance of what is the most genuine Peter Parker/Spider-Man to ever be portrayed in a live-action production. All is not lost though for this future trilogy if Webb or another director can realize the full potential of the superior cast they have to work with, they should be able to steal back some of the cache from the "Avengers" films and elevate this new series to a height that places Spider-Man back atop the Marvel Universe.

Story: 6.5
Acting: 8.5
Writing: 6.0
Captivation: 7.5
Replay Value: 7.0

Total = 7.1 out of 10

That's My Boy

Staying true to one’s craft may be more important in comedy than any other type of performance art. A comedian must walk the never-ending stage between appeasing their core audience and evolving their material to stay relevant. It would not be an egregious statement to say that Adam Sandler has completely and utterly ignored that concept. Although the "Jerry Lewis" of our time has definitely branched out of his comfort zone with serious and even critically acclaimed roles in “Punch Drunk Love,” “Spanglish” and “Reign Over Me,” the silly meat and inane potatoes that elevated Sandler to superstardom have been in recent danger of turning old and moldy.

To his defense, there really is not an abundant distinction between flops like “Jack and Jill” and successes like “Mr. Deeds.” In that way, Sandler is undervalued as one of the most consistent performers in Hollywood. Critics have hated just about every single comedy he’s produced, even all-time classics like “Happy Gilmore.” But Sandler has stayed loyal to his ample and core audience throughout his career, perhaps even to a fault. The factor that may be moving the “relevant” needle away from Sandler is that the young and vivacious audience that skyrocketed him to “comedy god” status in the late ‘90’s, has grown up. Their taste may have changed with age, and the new generation’s funny bones are not easily tickled by punching out a game show host. So what can he do to keep his fans happy, appeal to the contempo “Apatow” crowd, and evolve as a comedian without pulling an “Eddie Murphy?” With his latest film, “That’s My Boy,” Sandler for the first time turns to a restricted rating to help free up his creativity.

In his early teens, Donny Berger (Adam Sandler) was the “victim” of a sexually aggressive teacher, Ms. McGarricle (Eva Amurri Martino, "Californication"). During their consensual escapades, the two are literally caught with their pants down and Berger immediately becomes a hero for his premature conquest. As Ms. McGarricle gets sentenced to 30 years in prison, now pregnant with an adolescent’s child, Berger becomes an 80’s pop icon; his face splashed on the cover of teen magazines and his life the subject of a “Lifetime” style TV movie. After Berger’s “15 minutes” are up, he finds himself broke and estranged from his son, Todd aka, Han Solo Berger (Andy Samberg, "Saturday Night Live"), who has committed his life to escaping everything and anything to do with his infamous father. When Donny is about to go to prison for tax evasion, he finds an opportunity to exploit himself to make some fast cash, but the deal is contingent on him getting Todd involved.

Adam Sandler has appeared in plenty of R-rated films before, he’s even been a producer on a few comedies under the category, but never has Sandler himself starred in one of his consummate Happy Madison productions beyond the edge of PG-13. In “That’s My Boy,” that fact manifests itself like a kid who just learned his first swear word. Practically every joke is an attempt to shock the audience. Some do achieve this goal while others fall flat, very flat, but that’s not something foreign even to Sandler’s most heralded films. The unfortunate byproduct of delving into new R-rated ground is that “That’s My Boy” is going to be compared to higher quality films of the same class. Sandler can definitely go “toe-to-toe” with the best in the business in terms of pure raunchiness, as anyone who’s ever heard his early Grammy-nominated comedy albums can attest. And even though he can get away with some big laughs surrounding a few surgically added heartfelt moments on the PG-13 level, “That’s My Boy” is severely lacking in terms of strong characters and plot points when compared to films of the same ilk.

As usual the cast is flooded with all of the Happy Madison regulars, but recently Sandler has been growing his band of merry men to include many of the current “Saturday Night Live” cast and a few eclectic “what’s he/she doing in this film” choices as well.

Disappointingly, co-star Andy Samberg, who has been so closely compared to Sandler for the similarity of their names and their musical comedy on SNL, largely plays “Abbott” to Sandler’s “Costello” for most of the film. The idea for a film based on the premise in which Sandler and Samberg portray some kind of inappropriate father/son relationship is definitely intriguing, but by Samberg playing the “straight man,” it neuters part of that appeal as he never really gets a chance to showcase his comedy prowess to what is probably the biggest mainstream audience he’s ever had.

There are plenty of laugh-out-loud moments and although it was definitely entertaining to watch Adam Sandler in a no-holds-barred type of comedy setting, “That’s My Boy” culminates as more of a novelty act, depriving fans of the two co-stars the madcap baton-passing story they rightfully deserved.

Story: 5.0
Acting: 5.0
Writing: 6.0
Captivation: 6.0
Replay Value: 6.0

Total = 5.7 out of 10

Reger Rant - 6/7/12

"Celebrate good times, come on" has been played at countless sporting events and gatherings over the years and always brings smiles, joy, and weird dance moves from people.  However, with Tuesday's victory by Scott Walker in the Wisconsin Recall Governor election, that line has never rang so true.

I know a lot of you are thinking "Wisconsin, who cares?", but this goes much deeper than that and hopefully serves as a blueprint and roadmap to our economy rebounding and many of us enjoying the kind of prosperity that has been missing in the past couple of years.

The Issue:  Two years ago, Scott Walker (R) took over as Governor of Wisconsin, a traditionally Democratic state.  He was dealt a very difficult hand.  The state was essentially going bankrupt and there was no end in sight.  They had a debt of $3.7 billion and unemployment was at an all time high.  He immediately sat down and weighed his options.  When he looked at every government program, he came to the same conclusion, that the Labor Unions of the state were milking the tax payers dry and something had to be done to reverse this course or we could not survive.  Public schools were facing the possibility of layoffs, program cuts, and an increase in class sizes.

The Solution:  So Walker stood up and made the tough decision to do what was best for the people of the state of Wisconsin, he stood up to the union thugs and told them that enough was enough.  He took away their right to collective bargaining and he forced teachers and other union workers to contribute to their health insurance and pensions ( quick side note:  The average public school teacher in Wisconsin makes a $60,000 salary and got 100% of their health insurance and pensions paid for by taxpayers prior to Walker's cuts).  Walker's plan called for teachers to contribute 12% of their insurance and 12% toward their pension and froze salary increases for 2 years.  Most, if not all of us contribute a much greater percentage of our health insurance and don't even have pensions.

The aftermath: After these changes were announced, you would have thought that Micheal Vick just took these peoples' family dogs and was heading towards the live wires.  There were massive protests.  There were organized walkouts from school (fyi- this only hurt the children).  There were union leaders (who, by the way, make millions every year and live in huge mansions, while acting like they represent the "common man") busing people from other states to protest, and the Democrats in the House literally left the state and hid out in Illinois, because there is an obscure law that states that a vote couldn't be taken unless the members were within the state borders.  This reaction also triggered recall proceedings, which ended up costing the tax payers over $10 million.

The results:  Since Walker's measures were instituted, just in the past year, the state has been able to erase the entire $3.7 billion deficit and are now functioning at a $150 million surplus.  Not a single teacher has been laid off.  No extracurricular programs have been cut (as a result of this program), and class sizes have remained stable.  As a further result and because tax money could be allocated to other areas, over 30,000 net jobs have been created (that is the jobs created minus the jobs lost, which is the true indicator.  Obama likes to talk about jobs created in the country, but fails to mention jobs lost and unemployment claims).  Unemployment has dropped dramatically and the state's overall outlook is very positive moving forward.

The impact:  Because Walker actually won by a higher margin than he was elected by, it shows that most people support these tough decisons that work.  At the same time, it shows that the union strongholds that cripple many other states budgets have been weakened dramatically.  What you are going to see is other states following this blueprint for success and hopefully the federal government as well.  We are on our way back guys.  But it takes great leaders like Scott Walker to get things done.  So, now is the time to celebrate.

Prometheus

Everyone loves a prequel, right? Ok, not everyone, but at the very least they provide fodder for the die-hard fans of some of the most established and loved movie franchises of all time. They also serve to extend and renew a classic film’s relevancy to the next generation while appeasing the appetite of its loyal core by finally answering endlessly debated theories concerning antecedent plot points to the main story. And although the creators of Prometheus protest, perhaps too much, that the film is not a direct prequel to 1979’s epic and groundbreaking Alien, and that Prometheus creates its own new world and grand mythology, it still fails to answer vital questions from either facet.

An alien humanoid being in Earth’s distant past voluntarily ingests a biological black liquid which quickly kills him, breaks down his body and transforms it into what appears to be a new type of DNA that fertilizes the floor of a massive river. Flash forward to the year 2089; archeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, 2009) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green, Devil, 2010) discover cave drawings all over the world depicting the same star constellation. Since the final drawing predates any human ability to map out such a distant star system, they can only conclude that highly advanced beings had once visited Earth and they might actually hold the key to the beginning of the human race. Funded by the Weyland Corporation, the pair joins a crew aboard the vessel Prometheus to visit the mapped locations from the drawings and make contact with our supposed creators.

The notion that Alien was merely a “jumping-off point” for Prometheus is a severe understatement. No matter how much director Ridley Scott (Alien, 1979) and writer Damon Lindelof (Cowboys and Aliens, 2011) assert the notion. This film is deeply rooted in the same universe as Alien and is embeded with much more than just light references, beginning with the film’s homage to the Alien opening title sequence. However the declaration that Prometheus explores brave new ground, separate from Alien, is true as well. Ridley and Lindelof boldly tackle the age-old question, “why are we here?” But it’s only bold if you are actually going to try to answer it. And not only answer it, but create a massively clever sci-fi explanation that fits into the logic of the story’s reality. To tout the beginning of humanity as the centerpiece of the plot and then not come through with some sort of satisfying answer is not only cowardly, but it drowns the film in a flood of disappointment, leaving it up to the audiences’ imaginations or even more infuriating, a contingent prequel-sequel.

A disappointing script is not the only weakness that plagues Prometheus. Director Ridley Scott is no doubt one of the best in the business, but it has been 27 years since Scott has tackled a pure sci-fi project in the director’s chair. And unfortunately it shows. He’s still a master of creating fantastic suspense but the trailers for the film play a much scarier tone than it ever actually reaches. In his defense though, Scott did not have very strong material to work with. The writing comes off as stunningly amateurish and even downright sloppy, citing egregious errors with novice science facts that can be checked with a simple Google search. And even though the characters are doctors and scientists who reside almost 100 years in the future, they emulate the same “scary movie” behavior as the kids from Camp Crystal Lake.

Adhering a bold font on the ineffective dialogue is a very awkward and unfitting score, which couldn’t be farther from the unmistakable instrumentals that helped make Alien a sci-fi masterpiece. Some scenes during the film’s climax take a proverbial ice bath, as the music dulls the intensity level from Alien to Avatar.

To his credit though, in an attempt to give Prometheus a scene to rival that of the iconic “chest buster” from Alien, Scott conducts a masterful symphony of techno-biological horror involving Noomi Rapace’s Elizabeth Shaw. No it won’t be recalled as one of the greatest and shocking moments in the history of film, but it surely will not be filed under “miscellaneous” in audiences’ grey matter anytime soon.

The cast is composed of very solid actors but their characters are products of the extremely shallow script. Noomi Rapace is obviously supposed to be the “Ripley” of the film, following a similar path as Sigourney Weaver’s legendary character from the Alien franchise, but perhaps the casting department hired the wrong “girl with the dragon tattoo.” Even though her actions depict an extremely strong will and vivacious survival mentality, her demeanor and emotion just doesn’t match up. This was perhaps a conscious choice to separate Rapace’s character from Weaver’s, but it simply does not play as genuine in the impossible and horrifying circumstances surrounding Elizabeth Shaw.

Charlize Theron (Meredith Vickers) and Idris Elba (Janek) are definitely attributes to the overall story, but with the two-dimensional material allotted to them, their potential was limited with an extremely low ceiling. Vickers’ secret is completely transparent very early on in the story but Scott still adds in a “big reveal” that will shock absolutely zero audience members with or without an aptitude for sci-fi. And Janek is the good-guy pilot who only cares about the safety of the ship and it’s crew, but perhaps his most important role to the film is that his personality is the most relatable and represents every “common man” back on Earth, connecting the audience to a foreign planet light years away.

Shining through though as usual is Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class, 2011), playing the android David. Fassbender is unequivocally mesmerizing as the incredibly sophisticated robot that serves as the parallel between how the engineers of humanity look at their creations and how we as humans look at ours. It’s unfortunate that this character had to be wasted in this film as Fassbender could easily pull off a feature story surrounding David. In the beginning of the film David is the sole being manning the ship in its 2-year journey across space. The scenes of him just running his daily errands and learning about humanity through movies and language programs are so compelling it’s almost unfortunate that the crew had to wake up at all.

Sci-fi fans will not be completely disappointed with Prometheus. The visuals and effects are outstanding and there are some very awe-inspiring scenes, although they do resonate more on the horror aspect of sci-fi. But if you’re going in to this film as a loyal fan of the Alien franchise, do not expect it to answer many of your big questions and be prepared for a facehugging implantation of new hypotheses to digest.

Story: 6.0
Acting: 6.5
Writing: 5.5
Captivation: 6.5
Replay Value: 6.5

Total = 6.2 out of 10

Reger Rant - 5/16/2012

- So, I have a new problem to report. The pussification of children in America and the long term results of this epidemic. It seems like parents are so into babying their children that they are completely ignoring raising them to be adults (which, by the way, is the main purpose of being a parent in the first place.). Preparing kids for the realities of life has completely gone out the window. I see this every day when I coach baseball. It is pathetic. "No, Johnny is not going to pitch this game because he hasn't been to practice in 2 weeks" "I'm sorry that his feelings are hurt" These are frequent conversations that I have. I actually witnessed this first hand by our other coach last week. We got into it a little with another team and a player said he was going to go after his son. When I was a kid, this would be like adding gasoline to a fire, for me. So what happened? The parent literally wanted us to forfeit the game to protect his son. What a joke. What is going to happen when these pussies hit the real world? What's going to happen when they get rejected by a college or a girl or get into a fight? I'm not advocating cruelty, but a little harmless bullying makes kids tougher. Guess what kids? Not everyone can win. Not everyone gets the job. Not everyone gets good grades. Not everyone makes the same amount of money. Or has whatever job they want. The problem is that, many times, the first time a kid gets told "no" is after they are an adult and they freak out. That's why you see more teen angst and suicides than ever. This trend needs to stop, now. When I tell my kids "no" the answer is "no". I don't care how much of a fit you throw. When I give out a punishment, that is the punishment, no matter what. If somebody hits you, defend yourself and hit him back. If somebody bullies you, ignore it or stand up for yourself. If somebody throws at you in a baseball game, either pound the ball the next time you are up, or hit him back if you are pitching. I know a lot of you guys are either new parents or will be soon. Please help me stop this trend. Your kids will thank you someday, even though they might not like it now, your job is to prepare them for the real world, not be their best friend.

The Avengers

With the release of Iron Man in 2008, Marvel Studios ignited an unprecedented plan in movie marketing. Instead of simply commissioning another super hero team-up film and inundating the public with commercials, web banners, and billboards, Marvel decided to “double down.” In an effort to separate themselves from other Marvel properties licensed out to 20th Century Fox, such as X-Men and The Fantastic Four, Marvel Studios spotlighted each major character from "The Avengers" in their own feature film. The five films: Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, Thor and Captain America: The First Avenger, all achieved moderate to great success at the box office. But their individual accolades were simply byproducts of their primary function; extremely expensive and well-made commercials to generate unparalleled anticipation for an Ocean’s Eleven-esque super hero extravaganza that could blow the mind of even the most critical of all fan bases. Marvel Studios placed its fate in the $220 million hands of this film, trusting it will serve as the lightning rod for the next round of individual sequels as well as new projects. But first, The Avengers must make the dollars assemble.

Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Hawkeye, Black Widow and The Hulk must unite as a team to fight off the alien invasion attempt by Thor’s adopted brother and the God of Trickery, Loki, and secure the Cosmic Cube before he . . . oh does the synopsis really matter? It’s The Avengers for god sake. Earth’s mightiest heroes come together to save the world, duh. With a built-in audience of this proportion that would’ve purchased tickets before there was even a capital “T” on the script’s title page, it’s the “how,” not the “why” that’s important.

Joss Whedon, revered for his sci-fi television work on Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Angel and Firefly, is the very brave soul who took on the directing and screenplay writing for this incredibly ambitious project. Before Whedon even uttered the word “action” for the first time on set, his biggest challenge would be obvious; allocate ample screen time for all of the characters while simultaneously keeping them relevant to the plot. The X-Men franchise failed in that attempt with major pieces feeling like they were crowbarred into the story like Halle Berry’s Storm and James Marsden’s Cyclops.

Whedon’s result? Well, say all-time great and Hall of Fame baseball player Mickey Mantle hit a ball out of Yankee Stadium, then The Hulk who just happened to be standing right outside eating hot dogs and smashing the cart, jumps up and thunderclaps the ball into outer space, at which time Superman, on a slow crime day, flies by during a “Clean-Up The Orbit” walk-a-thon, catches the ball and flings it into the next galaxy as he very irresponsibly litters across the universe . . . it would still not match the mammoth home run that is the film, The Avengers.

In creating this film, Whedon has reveled his own super powered alter ego. He is simply “The Maestro.” Every character, no really, every character is integral to the story. Much like The Hulk himself, the film’s BMI is 0, it’s pure muscle, not an ounce of fat added or a second wasted. Even unheralded characters like Jeremy Renner’s Hawkeye and Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow are emphasized with paralleled importance and captivation to the main players within the plot. Whedon conducts a master symphony for how to incorporate a large cast into a heightened reality without losing the individual relationships and genuinely humorous moments between the characters.

No one is going to mistake lines from The Avengers with The Shawshank Redemption, however the The Avengers' script carefully walks the tightrope between movie and comic book quality dialogue. The intangible and sometimes corny feeling of a comic book is present when characters like Captain America speak, but the syntax is amped-up to match the grandiose stage of the film.

As important as good dialogue is to a film, a comic book movie is DOA without great fight scenes. The action in The Avengers is the stuff of pure geek dreams with special attention paid to The Hulk. As with every hero team-up in comic book history, the characters are not friends right away, first they must have a misunderstanding and square off against one another. It’s just an old, but necessary tactic in comics so that fans get to see how one hero would do in battle versus another. Kudos to Whedon for keeping that time-honored tradition and having the wherewithal to know that much of what makes a successful comic book film are the things you don’t change.

Of course for the film to even have a prayer at joining the upper echelon of super hero cinema, The Avengers need to battle an exceptional villain. Loki played once again by Tom Hiddleston from Thor, gets to flex his “evil muscle” even more than in the character’s previous film. In one particular stand-out scene, Hiddleston exhibits Loki’s power of breaking down a person’s psyche in such a menacing way that it temporarily revs up the character’s “evil meter” to Joker-like levels, further exemplifying the pain and unraveling Loki continues to deal with himself.

As for the heroes, the chemistry between the big four of Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) and Captain America (Chris Evans) is quite impressive. Fittingly, the mood and conversation is very awkward when they first meet, but by the end of the film it’s as if they’ve known each other for years. Downey’s 1:1 depiction of Tony Stark from the comics is once again unsurpassed, but to spotlight another performance and perhaps the most challenging to convey in all the sci-fi madness is Chris Evans' Captain America/Steve Rodgers. Rodgers not only has to deal with an alien invasion, trusting new teammates and the fate of the world, but he’s also still grieving over the loss of everything he’s ever known from his life in the 1940’s. The introduction of a new and confusing world in 2012 is as alien to him as Loki’s army. Evans is able to incorporate a believable innocence and ignorance for Captain America, galvanizing the team at their most difficult moment and elevating to the levelheaded and courageous leader everyone respects.

Earth’s mightiest heroes were already smashing box office records around the world before Day 1 on US screens. Even more important, this film will earn repeat business that could rival Titanic or Avatar, making it the 12th film to break the billion-dollar mark. That kind of revenue would prove the formula used by Marvel Studios to set up this film is an unmitigated success, green lighting each of the individual Avenger's sequels, scripts for lesser-known characters in Marvel’s gallery and an inevitable counter reaction from rival DC Comics to finally bring "The Justice League" to the big screen.

Story: 8.5
Acting: 8.5
Writing: 8.5
Captivation: 10
Replay Value: 10

Total = 9.1 out of 10



Epilogue: Five Years Later

After "The Avengers 2" and "The Justice League" rake in a combined total $1 Zillion, producers from each studio will be taken by stealth submarine to a secret meeting with director James Cameron at the bottom of the Mariana Trench to negotiate a deal for "The Avengers Vs The Justice League" in Super IMAX 5D Hologram resulting in a paradox that will turn hair white and burn out the eye sockets of every geek in the world, a la what the “burning bush” did to Moses in The Ten Commandments and the Ark of the Covenant to the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark, respectively.

CAN’T WAIT!

Reger Rants - 4/6/2012

Sorry guys. I know its been a couple of weeks since my last rant and I know you guys fiend for this like a junkie in the alley waiting for a score.
Here we go.....

- With more and more coming out daily about the Saints and their bounties, I want to puke. No punishment is enough for that fuckhead Williams. It is real easy for a guy on the sidelines to offer up bounties, while putting himself at no risk. Does he not realize that these guys have families? Enough injuries happen in football by accident. This guy needs to be banned for life. Oh, and the "I didn't know" card that Payton is playing is complete BS. Sean Payton is involved in everything that goes on with the team. He knew and looked the other way. He should be banned as well.

- The method that Kentucky used to win the National Championship is not good for anyone. Not the players, not college basketball, not the NBA. So why is it allowed? I don't blame Calipari either. He has simply created a model that works within the confines of the rules. It is a lot better than the model he used to use at UMASS and Memphis, which is outspend the other schools with booster money.

- Not that it wasn't obvious before, but Barry O is in full campaigning mode, at the expense of the American people. The comments that he made on tape that he couldn't do anything until after the election and things would "free up" are deplorable. I thought his job was to run the country, not run elections. I don't know how much more of this I can take. The economy is terrible, we are weak with pretty much all of the foreign countries, especially China, gas is skyrocketting out of control, and Barry is off studying college basketball.

- For those of you who know me well, you should be aware that I have very conservative views (small government, low taxes, ect), however, I actually feel very strongly about one liberal view, and that is gun control. I personally believe that guns should be banned and stiff penalties instituted (like min. 10 years Federal Prison)if you are found with a gun. People who hide behind the 2nd Amendment are idiots. If you read it, the 2nd amendment referes to the right to bear arms in order to form a local militia, in order to defend yourself against the overthrowing of the government. It is an outdated law and doesn't even apply to anything in the present day. It was adopted at a time when the country was brand new and the founding fathers were worried about an uprising. It has nothing to do with hunting animals, or shooting young black kids. I have never shot a gun and have never had a moment where I even thought "if only I had a gun"

- Speaking of gun control, the fact that George Zimmerman is not in jail is a huge black mark on Sanford. Even if the kid attacked him, that does not give you the right to kill him. Especially after you had been chasing him. What would you think if some guy was running after you, chasing you while you were minding my own business? This needs to be resolved before more crime occurs.

American Reunion

Every generation since the late ‘70's has one or two quintessential raunchy coming-of-age films, which for a sweeping group of adolescent boys, represents their premier viewing of bare breasts in a major motion picture. The tail-end Baby Boomers have Animal House, the "Gen X’ers" have the most abundant selection including Revenge of the Nerds and Porky’s, and the most current Internet Generation has been bestowed the resurgence of the R-rated comedy as a whole. That leaves Generation Y, who had to suffer through the barren Mad Max-like wastelands of the late ‘80’s and early ‘90’s, so desperate for some tom foolery that their only solace was the 1-5am endless loop on HBO of mindless "boobfests," including the likes of Ski School. But before the clock could strike midnight on the 20th century, the seemingly hopeless search for “Gen Y’s” lewd champion ended up being as easy as pie.

It’s been 13 years, two sequels and a multitude of straight-to-DVD supplements since the term “MILF” has been engrained into the lexicon of pop culture vernacular. And yes, films with richer content and exponentially better writing have been produced since 1999’s American Pie, but it seems that film was the beneficiary of just the right tone at just the right time on its way to becoming a classic. An influx of films in the late ‘80's in which studios where more concerned with a sexy poster than a quality script, caused the raunchy comedy bubble to burst. Kids growing up in the ‘90’s were left without a forbidden fruit to call their own. Enter a bunch of good-looking unknown actors, gratuitous nudity and a famous pie incident to conquer the era.

For the first time since the original, the entire cast is back for what seems to be the send-off for the franchise, American Reunion. A fourth sequel can be a franchise’s hero or its goat depending on the subsequent chapters. In this case, American Pie 2 and American Wedding, although successful at the box office, are never going to be included in any “best of all time” lists. Shrewdly, original writer/producer Adam Herz brought in some current kings of “ha ha,” in the form of Harold & Kumar writer/directors Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, to ensure the swan song for his franchise appeases its loyal and aging audience who have now long since been jadedly beaten into an Apatow-laden comedy coma.

The familiar cast fits back into the personas that jump-started their careers like a favorite old t-shirt or pair of jeans that are still presentable but just a tad less comfortable than you remember. Especially Alyson Hannigan (Michelle) and Seann William Scott (Stifler) who have gone on to enjoy the most success of their American Pie cast mates, although both were able to install just the right amount of maturation and regression respectively needed in their old characters to bring them up to date.

Perhaps the biggest and only true triumph this chapter has over the inception film of the series is the heralded spotlight of one of it’s most undervalued assets, the great Eugene Levy as Jim’s Dad. In the infinite gallery of television and movie dads, Jim’s Dad is easily one of, if not the greatest of all time. His consummate understanding and patience mixed in with an aura of awkwardness so thick you couldn’t cut it with a chainsaw, creates the embodiment of the perfectly flawed father figure that would go to no ends to help his son. Levy’s ability to be hilarious while reciting lines like stereo instructions just further proves his hall of fame caliber talent among even today’s popular comic actors.

On a pure comedic basis, American Reunion might actually be a stronger film than the franchise original, but the script as a whole absolutely lags behind. Most notably, the story stalls in the second act to a point where some may start to get inklings that this reunion might end up being a flop, but the third act manages to rev the story into high gear. So much so, that it seemed like the film needed several successive endings to wind down all the plot points.

It’s not crucial though for this film to outdo American Pie, its triumph lies in the ability to induce the same feelings of nostalgia one would experience at their actual high-school reunion. In this sense American Reunion is actually quite realistic. Some things are unexpected, some remain exactly the same and you are temporarily transported to a very specific point in your life, conjuring up memories of the trials and tribulations you were going through which, at the time, seemed oh so important.



Story: 6.5
Acting: 7.0
Writing: 7.5
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 7.5

Total = 7.1 out of 10

Jeff Who Lives at Home

Amidst the barrage of comic book/action-adventure films, high dramas, outrageous comedies and who-done-it thrillers at the box office, it’s healthy to take in a hearty pallet cleanser once in a while to remind yourself that day-to-day life can be worthy enough to print out a few screenplay pages as well.

Much like Will Ferrell accomplished with Everything Must Go, Jason Segal takes his no-holds-barred humor down a notch and focuses in on an “everyman” type of story. Jeff Who Lives at Home is one of the most self-explanatory titles a film has ever donned. Yes it’s about a grown man who still lives at home with his now widowed mother. And yes, he’s the stereotypical pothead with a life compass on the fritz, sitting in the basement and supplementing his TV viewing with bong hits. However, unlike most burnouts, Jeff has very big expectations. Not for himself but for life around him. Jeff believes that everything is somehow connected in the universe and he’s waiting for a sign to explain his destiny. His older brother and mother of course, have the textbook approach of discarding Jeff’s mantra as nonsense and branding him as lazy. But one afternoon when Jeff receives a call from a wrong number asking for someone named Kevin, he immediately thinks it’s a sign from the universe, leading him on a journey to find meaning in the mundane activities of suburban life.

This film is as heartfelt as its main character. In reality Jason Segal comes off as a truly genuine, caring person who wears his heart on his sleeve, and that extends to most of his characters. He has a talent for crowbarring in comedic moments even when dealing with less than optimum circumstances. Directors/writers Jay and Mark Duplass (Cyrus) keep an intentional slow pace for the story, paralleling real life and the decision making process of Jeff. They were however, very prudent to offset the crawling tone with a briefer than usual runtime of 83 minutes.

Supporting characters include Ed Helms (The Office, The Hangover) as Pat, Jeff’s brother who pretends he has life figured out like a $100 question on Celebrity Jeopardy, and Susan Sarandon (Bull Durham), yes “the” Susan Sarandon as Jeff’s mother Sharon. This is a great role for Sarandon as she gets to demonstrate to a new generation that she is very much more than a background character in a series of SNL Digital Shorts or a guest star on 30 Rock. Sharon is a well-thawed-out character that’s not just regulated to being the disappointed mother and constantly yelling at Jeff to “get a job.” She, like Jeff, like Pat, and like every other human being on the planet, is looking for some meaning to her life as she begins to come to terms with her own mortality. These characters are essential to the overall story arc and add a real sense of charm to the possibility that the title character, who supposedly a lost soul, might actually have his priorities more aligned than everyone else, even unbeknownst to himself.

Films like Jeff Who Lives at Home are very important to the balance of mainstream filmmaking. And even though it will generate only a dime bag’s worth at the box office, it’s a credit to big stars like Segal that they take the time to produce a story that deals with everyday life and reinforces the notion that people don’t always need to escape into a book or a movie for enlightenment. It might only be a wrong number away.



Story: 7.5
Acting: 8.0
Writing: 7.0
Captivation: 7.0
Replay Value: 6.5

Total = 7.2 out of 10

21 Jump Street

Remakes, revamps, and adaptations . . . we love them, we hate them. We cheer their initial inceptions and then pan the final execution while uttering, “They should’ve left well enough alone.” Perhaps the most scrutinized and difficult transition to accomplish in this genre is the old TV show into a movie trick. Sometimes it works like a big Vegas stage show, à la The A-Team and Mission Impossible. But far too often it plays out like an off-the-strip dinner theater, nods to Miami Vice, The Beverley Hillbillies, Wild Wild West, The Saint, S.W.A.T., Lost in Space, the agony goes on and on.

While performing such a dangerous trick, there is no shame in using somewhat of a safety net. And when dealing with an over 20-year-old intellectual property that in retrospect was pretty dopey to being with, the best way to hedge your bet is to vaporize every last particle of respect or dignity the property had left and warp it into an off-the-wall comedy. That’s the technique used by co-writer/actor Jonah Hill in his movie adaptation of the popular late 80’s, early 90’s teen angst cop drama, 21 Jump Street.

Newbie officers Schmidt (Jonah Hill, Moneyball) and Jenko (Channing Tatum, The Vow) are overzealous bicycle cops looking to make a big wave in their department. When their antics land them in the captains office one too many times, they are exiled to a special police division that’s trying to dust the cobwebs off an old undercover program. Known as "Jump Street," youthful looking officers are planted in surrounding high schools as students, trying to infiltrate and take down a new designer drug ring.

Much like The Brady Bunch films, the decision to completely mock the old television program and make this a pure comedy was really the only viable choice. Even the simple notion of 21 Jump Street transitioning into a feature film is laughable. However with comedy you can’t just throw out a concept and hope it sticks to the wall. Comedy remains the most difficult genre in which to succeed, and requires very skillful writers and actors who understand the symphony of good timing. 21 Jump Street excels in both of those facets and cleverly shines a light on just how far the pendulum has swung in the high school hierarchy over the last decade.

Hill brings his patented nervous-energy deadpan humor, which continues to work brilliantly for his demeanor. But the surprise is the comic stylings of one Channing Tatum. Yes, the guy from Fighting and G.I. Joe whose main talent is deride as an expressionless heap of muscles, has considerable comedy chops. Tatum actually flexed his funny bone in the much-maligned Ron Howard comedy The Dilemma, but being able to play off and even hold his own with Jonah Hill should silence many of his critics. Tatum brings an honest sense of humanity to Jenko, the stereotypical popular jock now removed from his high school glory days, just trying to find his niche in life like everyone else.

The supporting cast and some featured cameos do much more than simply splash a famous face on the screen for the shock value. They all have memorable, laugh-out-loud moments and are not just there to set up the jokes for the main characters.

21 Jump Street is a masterpiece of mock, using a television series premise that took itself way too seriously, to achieve a hilarious film that does not hesitate for a second to pull any punches.

And who knows, if it’s a success at the box office, here’s to green lighting 90210: The Motionless-Hair Picture.



Story: 7.5
Acting: 8.0
Writing: 8.5
Captivation: 7.5
Replay Value: 8.5


Total = 8.0 out of 10

A Thousand Words

Modern-day America is not known for championing people who rest on their laurels. We live in a “what have you done for me lately” type of society. However, there are some entertainers whose pioneer works are so vintage, so defining in their genre, that those laurels have molded into the most comfortable Craftmatic Adjustable memory foam Tempur-Pedic Sealy Simmons Beautyrest mattress in the world.

Sorry Mr. Murphy, it’s time for your wake-up call.

Eddie Murphy is easily one of the greatest comic actors of all time. He has performed in and even helped write a handful of iconic comedies. And even though Murphy has stayed relevant in Hollywood for over 30 years, and at age 50 looks like he’s 35, he has not churned out a memorable comedic picture since 1992’s The Distinguished Gentlemen or a great one since 1988’s Coming to America. Disappointingly, I will not need A Thousand Words to tell you this streak remains intact.

Jack McCall (Murphy) is a fast-talking, wheeling and dealing literary agent who only reads the first and last five pages of the books he gets published. His off-hands approach to being a new father is placing stress on his family as his first priority continues to be his career. When his overconfidence steers him into trying his patented deal-closing techniques on a new age religious guru to obtain the rights to represent his first book, he accidentally cuts his hand on a spiritual tree on the guru’s property. McCall then inexplicably finds the tree to literally pop up in his backyard. It becomes obvious that McCall and the tree are now connected as every word he speaks results in a single leaf falling from the branches. The guru explains to McCall that when there are no leaves left on the tree, that he will probably die. McCall’s is now consumed with figuring out exactly what he needs to change in his life to stop the leaves from falling while simultaneously tending to his daily obligations without his preeminent talent, speaking.

Instead of A Thousand Words, this film should have been titled “A Thousand Clichés,” because there might actually be that many in there. Murphy’s character of McCall as the fast-talking, slick agent, who can talk anyone into anything, is a prime example. Although if anyone is awarded a pass on driving that kind of character into the ground, it’s definitely Eddie Murphy as he is the architect of that brand of comedy. In fact, that’s exactly what Murphy’s fans have been clamoring for ever since the end of the 1980’s. Unfortunately though, like many of Murphy’s recent films, only teeny tiny morsels of his inner Axel Foley seem to shine through.

In the same ilk of films like Liar Liar, What Women Want, and any of the “body switch” movies, the protagonist has lost his focus on what’s really important in life, instead spending too much time at work and other selfish endeavors. Then, usually by accident, something supernatural happens to force the main character to change their perspective on the world. Once the character has learned the all-important lesson, things go back to normal.

This has become a very overplayed theme in movies but that’s not to say it’s inherently defective. There’s nothing wrong with following a steadfast formula, as long as the execution is exceptional. Regrettably, A Thousand Words just goes through the motions of this blueprint, without presenting any original wrinkles. The only saving grace of the film for unwavering Murphy fans is the “flash paper” moments when the “real” Eddie emerges.


Story: 5.5
Acting: 5.5
Writing: 6.0
Captivation: 6.0
Replay Value: 6.0

Total = 5.8 out of 10

Reger Rants - 3/2/2012

Ok, so I only have 1 topic this time, but its content and my anger associated with it exceeds any other Reger Rant. I have probably seen about 50 TV reports and articles involving Mr. Ryan Braun's overturned suspension in the last 2 weeks. Every single one of them (without exception) took the stance (if an opinion was given) that Braun did in fact take steroids and got off on a technicality. Not once have I heard even the slightest incling of what is probably the truth. We will get to that in a minute. But first let's cover what we do know.

- On October 1st, Braun submitted a urine sample to Dino Laurenzi and his son.

- From the time that Braun submitted this test there was a 44 hour gap before the sample was sent to the Lab in Montreal.

- Ryan Braun has been tested 27 other times for performance enhancing drugs including 3 previous times during the 2011 season.

- All 27 test produced a negative result.

- Braun's failed sample pruduced a testosterone level more than 4 x the legal limit by MLB standards.

- Braun's failed sample represented, by far, the highest amount of testosterone ever recorded by MLB since they started their testing procedure.

- During the 44 hour gap, Dino claimed that the sample was in his basement.

- Ryan Braun is currently 28 years old

- Ryan Braun has been in the Major Leagues since 2007.

- Ryan Braun's HR and RBI totals by year - 2007- 34 and 97; 2008- 37 and 106; 2009- 32 and 114; 2010- 25 and 103; and 2011- 33 and 111.

- Dino Laurenzi is a life long Chicago Cubs fan (according to his facebook page) living in Wisconsin.

- The Chicago Cubs have one of the most loyal and rabid fan bases.

- The Chicago Cubs are the Brewers' main rival and play in the same division.

- Most Cubs fans dispise the Brewers.

- The Chicago Cubs have not won a World Series since 1908.

- Ryan Braun, according to his contract, must be weighed weekly. His weight did not fluctuate significantly at all during the season.

- It is a known fact that one of the by products of taking steroids is weight gain.

- After being informed (before the 44 hour window was known) of the positive test, Braun immediately submitted another sample that was clean.

So, what happened? Basically it comes down to one of two things. Either Braun took steroids and got away with it on a technicality or a life long Cubs fan with a background in sports science and lab testing or a person associated with him tampered with or tainted the sample. To me the second theory makes a million times more sense. Look at the facts!!! Not one thing points to the theory that Braun was on steroids. Not one!!! He did not get bigger. His power numbers did not go up. Every single time he was ever tested in the past, he passed. The test results came up ridiculously high comparitively speaking (1 doctor interviewed said that there had only been a few times in his life that he had seen a testosterone inbalance so extreme and in each case it was a hard core roid head weight lifter).

My theory is that we had a hard core Cubs fan who hated the Brewers (anybody who has ever met a Cubs fan knows how passionately they hate the Brewers). It would be the equivalent of a die hard Red Sox fan collecting a sample from Alex Rodriguez right after he won a playoff game. He just watched as the Brew Crew beat the D-backs and was pissed. Braun had 3 hits that day. He went home with this sample and started thinking about it. Because of his lab experience and experience as a collector. He knew, not only how to tamper with the sample, but also how to reseal the package so nobody would notice. On Saturday he called a connection to synthetic testosterone or knew how to produce it based on his lab experience and injected it into Braun's sample. His intention was probably to put enough in as to trigger a positive result, but ended up puting too much in triggering the extreme positive result. Why is this so hard to believe?

I hate the media

Reger Rant - 2/10/2012

- Now that we are knee deep into the Presidential primaries, one thing remains clear, Mitt Romney gives the Republicans the best chance at unseating Obama for the White House and restoring order to our country. So why, under this obvious assumption are Republicans not banding together for this cause? Why do we let people like Newt and Santorum stick around? It makes no sense to me. Even if a guy is not your favorite, pick the most winnable. We can't go another 4 years like the last 4.

- I won't go back over my thoughts on Eli, but I can't help but play the "what if" game with the Packers. We would have killed the weak ass Pats in the Super bowl.

- Speaking of Super Bowl, I personally feel like Gronkowski and Light are fucking idiots for partying and dancing around after their team lost. No expannation is acceptable to me. Many fans out there put their heart and sole into your team and you let them down. Even if you don't give a shit, don't show it in public. Gronkowski could barely move during the game and he is jumping around after? Its called humility. There is a time and a place to celebrate the season and your accomplishments. Right after the game is not it.

- I think Orlando needs to keep Dwight Howard and let him walk after the season. This forcing your way out of cities and dictating where you will play bullshit has to go. Other teams know that the Magic are backed into a corner and are low balling them. I say play him 48 minutes per game and ride him until he drops. Then, after the season, make him take the $30 million less that other teams can offer and live with that.

- Why is it that cable TV shows are about a million times better than network shows? You would think that the networks have the most money and could offer more loot than cable stations. Try finding better shows than Breaking Bad, Shameless, Game of Thrones, and Boardwalk Empire on network TV and you will fall short. The only exception is the brilliant "Revenge". But that is the exception.

- When was the last time a great new band came out? I'm talking about one that uses guitars and drums (as opposed to computers and drum machines). Music today is either puppy dogs and ice cream rock (see Fray, The), pussy rap, or pop. There has to be new talented, original rock bands out there somewhere. We need you now!

- Finally, this blog has seen far better days. It works the best when we have many contributors. Don't be a pussy. If you have an opinion, let it be heard. I guess it is all well and good to have myself and broko go back and forth on things, but I would rather have more people involved. There have been many times where people have told me "I agree with you, but didn't to post anything" . Don't hold back. I'm pretty sure your opinions can't be more left than Koko or more right than me.