Valhalla Rising take 2 (the real first time) / No. 152 (B)

On December 5th, 2010, I started to watch this movie.  Apparently I didn't get too far, because I don't remember most of it.  I also sort of remember falling asleep and being totally bored out of my mind, followed by me hating on it the next day and telling friends not to waste their time.  However, last Tuesday I listed to the Mondo Movie podcast in which they reviewed Valhalla Rising.  I believe it was an old show from around 2010.  One where they also they reviewed Solomon Kain, another movie to add to the queue as it sounds quite good.  After listening, and because I'm a sucker, I was sparked to give it another go around and see what this "magic" is all about.  The guys on the podcast also mentioned how they can understand the movie might not fit well for everyone.  How it might be boring to some, but that this was okay.  However, they then proceeded to rave about the mystical beauty (or something) and how amazing of a film it was.  Discussing the landscape, story line, etc. - how it all worked so well together.  Just enough of a push to make this guy want to give it a 2nd try almost 2 years later.  Also in this episode of Mondo Movie podcast, they had a listener question for "movies you hated the first time and liked after subsequent viewings".  Quite a good topic and I wish I had them all written down so I could watch a few.  Anyway, as you'll see below, Valhalla Rising did just that for me.

Let's start by saying Mads Mikkelsen is by far one of the best actors ever.  Watching him play Tonny in Pusher was amazing.  He's becoming my new Vincent Cassel.  Unless he starts doing stuff like Driving Mrs. Daisy 2 or some kind of sell out nanny movie like Vin did, I will see everything each of them have ever done (Mads and Vincent).  Small goal for me for the remaining years in my life.

This movie was broken into 6 parts.  Here is my initial reaction after watching part 1 for the 2nd time:

"Holy effing shit, holy effing shit, holy effing shit.  Watch this again man!  To anyone that has ever seen parts of this, and/or tried it but thought it was just okay.  WATCH IT AGAIN.  This might be one of my favorite movies EVER!!!!!  Mads mothertooting Mikkelsen!!!"

Okay, I can admit it's not THAT great.  It is no Braveheart.  But that was my actual reaction and, after all it is very good.  Part 1 is very much full-out action.  Down and dirty, dark and beautiful - all at the same time.  Some crazy wicked death scenes, which is why I was swearing above.  Just a reminder for those who didn't remember....but the neck scene, the intestines scene, and the head scene were super fierce and intense.  I do think that the neck scene might be one of the best film deaths ever.  No lie.  Mads puts mad passion into it.  Push play and see for yourself.

Valhalla Rising is slow, drawn out, poetic, and totally awesome all in one.  But the feel you get when you ACTUALLY WATCH and don't fall asleep is a good cinema feel.  You really get to know Mads' character.  I swear he (One Eye) could kill a predator without issue.  While trying to wrap my fingers around what to say from a plot standpoint, I decided to read some reviews on-line.  I saw this one and had to add it.  It's from a Netflix (c) viewer who got 99 out of 100 "helpfuls".  I agree with all except for the last part about the acting.  I thought the acting was very well done.  There wasn't much talking at all and when they did talk, it wasn't horrible in anyway.  Apparently not to this guy's review below.  That is except for the annoying fact that I needed to have the remote in my hand for the ENTIRE film.  Some scenes would need to be on volume 44 just to hear what they were saying, and then next thing you know *BLAMMO* - something crazy happens and I need to quickly turn it down to about 25 so that I don't wake the entire neighborhood.  But alas, I agree with just about everything else he wrote here:

To be sure, Valhalla Rising is not an easy film. It relies on atmosphere and demands a great deal of interpretation from its viewers. This being said, the film is well worth the effort. Visually, Rising is spectacular and the soundtrack builds intensity even when you are at a complete loss as to what is happening. Many have critiqued the lack of a plot, however, this is, in my opinion, the genius of the film. By simply presenting a vision of violent realism, Refn underscores the fact that narrative is something we impose on events. Life only makes sense retrospectively as we shape it into narrative form. Thus, Rising forces us to interpret its events, to shape a narrative to make sense of a brutal and disorienting reality (and one can interpret Rising in many ways). In this regard, I am surprised more reviewers have not noted the seeming connection to Herzog. I do not know Refns views on or connection to Herzog, but this film makes much use of atmospheric techniques similar to Herzogs controversial style. Valhalla Rising seems to be, at some level, a more gruesome, less witty version of Aguirre, The Wrath of God. Rising is inferior to Herzogs work in only one regard, the absolutely atrocious acting. The delivery of the few lines is painfully strained and ultimately distracting (and for some reason, Refn seems to feel compelled to beat us over the head with the Christian crusades are bad; Nordic mythological redemption theme. Im sorry, but after the fourth or so scene in which a crusader dramatically paused and claimed the land for Christ, I sighed and thought, Okay, I get it already.). Ultimately, Valhalla rising is a moody meditation of violence and meaning that repays multiple viewings.

#151 Argento's "Deep Red" (B+)

Yeah Goblin!  Fantastic as always.  Are these guys dead?  Are they doing any further work?  I believe I have ~3 songs from this film on my iPod (nope, I bought the entire soundtrack apparently), and all tracks are just superb.  Honestly they do scary - almost chilling work.  Their sound aids the scene so much with the help of their eerie sounds.  The world either needs more Goblin, or another Goblin like band to come along and do horror films.

Well now, on with the movie discussion.  I was impressed.  Finally, Dario Argento has performed well again.  As you see, for me, the last few I have watched have been a bit clunky.  But Profondo Rosso (Italian name for Deep Red) certainly surprised me.  I had heard it was good but always assumed it would be just okay, since other of his work has unimpressed.  I would have to watch Suspiria again to see which I liked better, but definitely both are among the tops in his library.  Of course there was the ketchupy looking blood and a lot of dramatic glass shattering (as he loves to do)...but there also was a lot of action.  It wasn't slow moving and the plot continued to progress so I was engaged.  Versus a lot of the other 70's horror that I've watched.  So good job to you Dario.

Now I'd like to paste a ton of pictures from this movie.  First scenes I particularly liked from within the film:

Last, I'd like to discuss what is going on with the movie posters and/or DVD sleeves for this movie.  I realize the movie had many layers and a ton of oddness ensued, thus there are numerous avenues that could be taken when creating a still to represent the film, however check these out.  Seems to me that these could almost all pass for different films altogether.

Ex Drummer #150 (B+)

Let's see.  How do I go about discussing this movie?

Part of me understands the view the director is portraying.  And part of me wants to say, what he hell was the point?  That second part of me now has an answer however, as I've had some time to ponder what I've just witnessed.  I slept on it and actually completely changed my thoughts and my rating.  My rating changed from a C, to a B-, and finally to a B+ the more I waited and thought.  All in a few hours worth of Koen Mortier's journey placed gently on and inside my skull.

It was definitely cool with the way they filmed this with a constant twist of the camera.  With the one dude and his upside down view of the world....and the reverse filming throughout the beginning of the movie....all coupled with effects like the slowed down scene during the concert.  A scene that becomes a pivotal turning point as the start of the madness for some and the slip back to reality for others.  All mixed with a very dark landscape, filled with filth and trash.  A seemingly everyday life for this bunch.  But seriously, was the point of the movie just to show a bunch of guys who punch things, butt-f4ck things, and mess with their friend's parents?  (A la Bam, only substitute mid-PA and quads for a foreign city outskirts and bicycles).  No, that wasn't the point.  But from a high up view this is what this movie could seem.  Thus I give a shout out to the director for being able to lay that footwork down in the background of the film for the entire ride.

But rather, the main emphasis for this movie was to show the gut of society in the punk sector.  A punch in the gut of that society more like it.  Where everyone was mad at each other, mad at the world, and everyone got dumped and puked on in the end.  Everyone that is but the guy who already had it all.  The guy who was just dipping his toe back into the punk ocean for a few months because he could.  An ex-drummer literally, who gives a new band and chance and thus takes a quick relapse into an old but well known world.  Filled with new misfits from his past, yet he can back out and go to his loft and talk politics with his buddies on his cordless phone whenever he wants.  And when the shizz hits the fan, he can and does escape it all and goes back to his newer stable life, stepping out of the belly of his old punk days.  He had become better than all of this to a degree, and ultimately he was alive to show it.

If there was other points to this movie that I am missing please let me know.  I think I'm just beginning to learn a bit about pondering a movie and finding out what it means.  What the director is trying to portray.  As you see, I really flipped on this one.  Starting off about to rip it a new one and to complain that I had no idea what the director wanted out of the film, then changing my opinion and realizing some of the message that was given, all while laying a comfy footing of a punk life lived by many.

Can someone tell me, was there a point like this to that Sid and Nancy movie?  Because all I saw was them getting wasted everyday and that's pretty much it.  Was there more to it?  If so, I'll give it another go around.  Justin, can you answer this for me as you seem to like it and own the criterion collection?

By the way and for the record, I would purchase and listen to this soundtrack.  The concert scene had many good songs that I enjoyed and would chill to.  Not for most, but is a yes for me.  Also I've had this since April 14 and pushed play approximately 6-7 times before finally trudging through.  And it was worth it.

Here's two pictures of Big Dick, one of the supporting characters in the film, and some of his antics.  In the second picture - he's inside a vagina.  Basically by posting this, I am showing a quick snapshot of some of the visuals that were throughout this movie:

Parents / no.149 (B-)

Well the disc sleeve doesn't help this one out much.  I've seen this movie many times in my searches, and always totally ignore it mostly because it looks like it is going to be another Microwave Massacre or something.

But today I was listening to the Mondo Movie guys on the way to work, one of their shows from 2010, and they briefly talked about Parents due to a viewer email question.  They mentioned that they had seen it and it was quite good, and probably impossible to get on DVD nowadays....etc.  But I remembered Netflix (c) having this flick, at least I thought so.  I checked and was right.  So all day, I sat and pondered about my next movie to watch.  This one kept popping into my mind.  I mean, it is Randy Quaid after all in a movie about canabalistic parents.  How could that not win?

So about the movie.  It was good.  I definitely enjoyed it.  There wasn't too much gore or crazy over the top stuff.  Pretty low budget as you could imagine.  But the acting was decent and the plot was cool.  I do warn however it's one of those plot builders, so it's a bit slow but still a good movie.  Again that cover art doesn't really do it justice.  It makes it look super cheesy and very campy.  I didn't really think it was campy at all.  Randy Quaid isn't too evil, but just enough to make him frightening.  The main character is actually the little boy who is the son of the parents on that VHS sleeve up there.  He seems to barely be phased by anything actually.  In the end almost everyone dies.  The end.

no. 148 / Don't Look Now (1973) (C-)

I can honestly say, I didn't need to see that much of Donald Sutherland's naked body.  For those that wonder, there were many buttocks shots and lots of pubes.  Not necessary and this didn't add to the plot in one way, shape or form.  Alright, moving on...

There is good acting in this recommended piece (I believe per Mondo movie guys), but it sure is taking some time to get moving.  I say this with about 50 minutes remaining.  Let me push play again and see if it gets better.

Oh, man this is an odd scene.  The blind psychic sister person with marble eyes is rubbing her breasts together and yelling "yes!  yes!" while trying to summon information from the past.  Very odd.  Very disturbing.  Plain weird.

Classic line from Sutherland about 1 hour in...and really for no reason at all unless the director has a sense of humor.  I didn't realize they had senses of humor in movies from the 70's.....but anyway you hear a toilet flush and Donald comes out of the b-room and says something I frequently say around my house, "I wouldn't go in there for a couple of minutes if I were you."  BOOOOOOOM....classic!  So funny.

Wait....who was in the water just then?  I'm confused.  Was that his wife?  If so, why is he not flipping out?  Now Sutherland has spent the last 15 minutes of the movie looking for his wife that he thought boarded a plane.  I hope this ends up making sense by the time the movie ends.

Also, for the record, I think Venice looks like a nice place to visit.  I know they say that it's trashy and not the best for vacations anymore, but even with broken down buildings and some trash here and there, it still looks pretty nice overall.  Sort of majestic looking.

What are they constantly drawing sketches of?  Why did he close that gate?  OH GOD!  Holy shit...what the fu*k was that????  Woah.  I literally just jumped.  Didn't expect that in this movie.  Man....need to calm down for a sec.  But, I'm not sure I can recommend this movie.  Quite honestly, this was your typical 70's thriller where 1.5 hours or more go by and there is just plot building up, all for one final scene.  Sort of like Tenebre or Rosemary's Baby.

Cronos #147 (A)

"We're open all night"

I give it a solid A.  It's one to be proud of when discussing obscure movies with other movie lovers.  If you haven't seen it yet, then I'm the winner in this equation - do yourself a favor and go rent it.

Man I love it when and older movie is recommended to me, or I randomly stumble upon it, and then I push play and pure greatness ensues.  I bet there are so many more great movies out there which I just don't know about.  So many I likely can't even begin to put a dent into the thousands dubbed 'worth watching before I die'.  What I want to know is - where are the people congregating who watch these great films and then recommend them to you?  Where can I go to be told: "the following list of movies is awesome and right up your (my) alley"?  Where can I go to find out that there is an obscure recommended movie out there that isn't a blockbuster-hollywood-dud (read movies like Iron Man 2).  I say to those people who watch awesome movies, please tell me about them....those movies that are out there like this, I welcome you.

Is there a book club that exists but really is for nerd movie lovers?  I'm not talking about watching Casablanca and then writing an essay about how awesome it is, I'm talking about getting together and chatting about and also recommending movies like Cronos to others.  But not physically, more like on-line.  Perhaps if Mania.com (c) was better.  I know there are tons of web-sites out there where people give their opinions and recommend their top 10 etc.  That is helpful I suppose, but if there was really just one place that everyone goes.  I guess IMDB (c) could be the place.  I just need to go and navigate there more to find out if it's fantastic and full of great recommendations.  I believe I saw that you can put lists on there and argue if movies were good or not....so, I guess that is the place.  I know I say this all the time, but Mania.com (c) needs to be better.  They don't even go back in time with their articles, discussing oldies but goodies.  I could be their guy.  Hire me and I will review older movies, instead of focusing on the next Avengers movie and discussing what the bad guy from Fast and the Furious part 6 will look like.  One more thought and then I'll stop discussing my issues and get on with the Cronos review.  And that one thought is: maybe it would be cool if eventually people just came to my blog and we could discuss movies here.  It would be fantastic if people would watch a movie just because I reviewed it and recommended it.  And then in the comments section they write their thoughts on my thoughts, and their own thoughts on the piece.  It will happen someday.  In the meantime I will settle for my two or three normal visitors that come here to check out what I'm throwing down.

Sorry about that rant.  I probably should delete those two paragraphs.  Now onto Cronos....I say hella fantasticness if you ask me.  Definitely a well rounded movie versus one that is all out action/horror/suspense.  It had good acting.  Which I am beginning to appreciate more and more, especially after watching movie #146 (Oliver Stone garbage) this weekend.  The main character named Jesus Gris - played by Federico Luppi - was superb.  That's acting at it's best.  The plot was about an antique dealer (Jesus Gris) who finds a device which looks like a bug and apparently once it sinks it's gold arms into you, it can bring you immortality.  A dying older gentleman who lives in a warehouse of sorts has been studying this bug device throughout history and wants it for his own, because he is dying and wants to be immortal.  His nephew (I believe), played by Hellboy, was basically his errand runner throughout the movie and was sticking around to get his hands on the old man's will - but that's not apparent until close to the end.  Basically Hellboy works to help his old-dying uncle get the device.  I don't want to really say much more about this film as I don't want to ruin it.  What an awesome review!  Ha!  In short, just watch it.  It's a Guillermo del Toro epic.  He's quickly becoming one of my favorite directors.  I just need to get my hands on that director's cut of Mimic and I'm all set!  I heard it's the berries even if he didn't have the ending he wanted.

I liked how this took place in the "future", aka 1997...and was released in 1993.  Also Ron Perlman was good in this.  I wanted to take a picture of him trying on different noses, but I was having some issues capturing that madness.  Ok, I'm going to go get some eggplant and then watch Don't Look Now from 1973.

146 / Savages (D+)

Holy hell.  What a bad movie.  Honestly, I had really high hopes going into this.  I mean, it's freaking Oliver Stone.  He waits like 4 years between movies and when he puts one out, he only seems to put out gems.  And even if it was just okay, I would have been fine with that and just chalked it up to being semi-okay and then move on with my life.  But instead, I found myself wondering what the hell these actors and Oliver Stone were thinking?  A quick payday maybe?  Thinking back on the movie, I feel like there really weren't too many expensive 'things' (in movie terms = car chases, explosions, etc.), and really I can only assume the actors salaries were the biggest expense.  I can picture it, Oliver calls up Travolta, and Benicio, and Salma, and says "Hey guys, it's me Oliver.  Do you want to earn a fat paycheck?  It will probably only take like 4 months out of your life, you don't even really have to try...it will be up there with great movies like Edison Force....you in?"  Seriously, what a crock of shit.

This movie was not only 1 hour too long, but just insanely awful to watch.  At one point, Benicio was hammering down on Travolta at his home - trying to get some information out of him or something - it really doesn't matter....anyway Travolta starts talking about Salma's character 'Elena'.  He says by accident (I'd presume), "Lorena" and then quickly catches himself, stutters, and says "Elena" to fix his mishap.  What the hell?  Did they leave that in there on purpose?  Did it seem more real because they had him mess up?  Why and the hell wouldn't they fix that?  It doesn't even make sense to keep this in there, that is if it was done on purpose - and I can't figure out what that purpose would be to be honest.

Another grip about this movie is that the main girl wasn't Amber Heard.  Oh wait, sorry, that's not what I meant to say.  What I meant is that she is narrating throughout the entire movie.  It's pretty annoying.  It's not like they just open the flick with her narrating and then it fades away and stops once the background is developed.  N to the nope, she basically does it throughout.  And at the beginning she says, "just because I'm telling you this story, doesn't mean I'm alive at the end"....and then at the end, she says something like, "remember when I said I might not be alive at the end...blah blah blah"  Why did the feel the need for her to remind us that she said that?  Because we are all basically sleeping and can't think about the movie anymore.....because we are all thinking how much more do we have to endure?  When will this end?  Why didn't I go to Batman?  Yeah, it's pretty much like that.

I asked my friend in the middle of the movie if the one main pot dealer (the one with short hair) was going to be the next Jeremy Renner?  Basically meaning that he would be an actor that would come out of no where and start being in a lot of movies, because he didn't do a totally awful job (even though the plot helped him to look worse).  And my buddy whispers to me that he was the actor that played John Carter, in Disney's (c) epic adventure failure.  As well as some other main roles.  Also the other pot dealer guy (the guy with long hair) was apparently the kid from Kick Ass that wore the green outfit.  Not McLovin', not the girl, and not Mr. Nicolas Cage.

So, the reason this gets a "+" on the D is because the popcorn was good and I got to hang with two of my buddies.  Otherwise, don't let my rating fool you.  This is really a straight D movie.  Sorry if I got your hopes up.  I should have known this was a clunker from the opening scene when they showed footage (via an email to the pot guys) of people being tortured by the gang...and that footage looked about as good as that one time when I went to the theatre in Alabama by myself and watched Fear Dot Com.  Yeah, that bad.  Also I should of had a clue when there were two explosions (I think the only two in the entire film), which were detonated by the two pot guys when they were crossing the border into Mexico, and my buddy looked at me and mentioned how cool that was....and I thought to myself, that looked ridiculous.  Have I mentioned don't see this movie?  Don't even rent it.  She even narrarates during their sex scenes, and you see NOTHING.  Yeah, Amber Heard would have done a better job and immediately made this movie a C+.  :)  Just saying.

Oh man, I totally forgot to beef on the bunch of ex-seals that just "hang around" with pot A and pot B guys.  Their friends are ex-seals, and just escort them around and go on sniper missions with them when they plan to do something risky.  Totally ridiculous.

The Skin I Live In / #145 (A-)

Quite a movie.  Bizarre as expected.  Twisted.....as expected.  The trailer let me know immediately that this one would be a winner.  Basically I had a great time watching this wild ride.  I cannot say much about it though, for fear of ruining the plot.  I can tell you that Antonio Bandandaros is in this flick, and there are subtitles.  Let's see, what else can I say?  The basic gist is that he's some sort of surgeon, he and his friends.  Think...similar to Warhol's Flesh for Frankenstein, kind of.  But a totally different plot basis and no 'off with his head' scenes.  Well, I guess there is one.

I've had this and Ex Drummer at home since March and April respectively.  I figured, it's about hella time that I sit down and watch them.  This is the longest I've not watched an at home flick since the Thing sat on my DVD player for 2 years collecting dust.  LOL.  Ex Drummer is causing some additional issues as I try to finish it.  But at least I finally got through The Skin I Live In and it was well worth it.  Also I was jonesing to see Cronos by Del Toro, so that also partially motivated me to finish those May and April arrivals.

Here's a great scene from the movie where Antonio is getting out his box of multiple shaped dildos:

allstars

Also, hmmmmm.......player helping out another?  Harper and Trout started on the same day and are trying to race to see who is awesomer.  Per me anyway.  I bet Ian was more than willing to rest to give Bryce a shot.  But again, I'm sure Ian would have liked to have been a part of it as well.  So, could be something fishy, could be just one guy needing to rest.  If he didn't play on the last day prior to the break and bang out a homer, I might not be as suspicious of this:

Desmond (oblique) went 2-for-3 with a solo homer in Saturday's win over Colorado.

Recommendation: Desmond leads all major league shortstops with 16 homers, and has gone deep five times since June 27. Desmond will skip next week's All-Star Game due to his lingering oblique injury, although he hasn't missed any game action because of the issue.

(Rotowire.com)

Harper has been named to the NL All-Star squad to replace Giancarlo Stanton.

Recommendation: Harper's storybook major league debut continues. He'll be the youngest position player in All-Star Game history, and only the third teenager after Bob Feller and Dwight Gooden.

(Rotowire.com)

Peeping Tom / #144 (C)

From MCMLX

"well, he won't be doing the crossword tonight" - haha!!  classic line.

This movie was labeled as a classic.  Apparently banned at one point and also super controversial.  In people's reviews of the movie, they go on and on about how glorious it is and how artsy it is, etc.  And that the main guy acts so well.  Yeah, I guess he does, but I cannot get past the fact that it was from 1960.  It's just not believable now a days.  I can't even put my mind in that time period to even try to believe in that story.  The end was pretty cool, I guess.  For 1960 I'll give them that, but for people to go on and on about it, raving that it's super great, and saying stuff like it's probably "one of the best horror movies of all time" - c'mon.  Seriously?  It's not even one of the best movies that is an old-acting-and-is-kind-of-hard-to-watch-actually-where-they-don't-really-show-any-of-the-action-and-it-never-sucks-you-in-as-a-viewer movies.  Ha!  I mean, it would have been better if the main guy had a screw coming out of his neck and he acted like a full blown robot.  They should even have scenes where they need to oil him.  And also it would have been better if they would have made it a short story, about 20 minutes long.  I would watch that.  Boom!  Get on it hollywood.  I wouldn't even watch this sequel!  Just FYI.  At least I don't believe I would, not unless the plot changed drastically.  I'd even watch the sequel to Duel, Deathrace 2000, and Papillon - yet be one of the ones saying "the original is better".  So there.

#143 Trick 'r Treat (B+)

Very cool to see Ricky Bobby's wife in a horror movie.  As well as seeing Brian Cox and Anna Paquin - who is very good at acting, seriously, especially when compared to the other girls in her posse - she is just leaps better at showing emotions and playing the character.  Also Dylan Baker - I suppose I know him from Happiness and other minor roles.  I actually thought he was Christopher McDonald the entire movie and then realized at the end that he wasn't.  His role was twisted.

At one point there is a party going on in the movie and they are listrening to "Feels Good" by Toni Tone Tony.  Nice!

Another random fact: I started watching this on January 7th, and then realized it was leaving instant stream and that I better watch it, because it was recommended by someone or a podcast.

My final thought on this flick was that it seemed that everyone was evil, but yet everyone got tracked down and killed.  I believe I need to watch again to verify if that was the case.  The bipedal dogman scene was wicked!

To be clear, I saw Trick 'r Treat (2008) not to be confused with Trick or Treat (1986).   However, Trick or Treat from the mid-80's looks like it could very well be a super win.  Can Ozzy or Gene act?  This might be the funniest thing ever if they did it right.  Awh!  I can't get it.  Darn.  It's not available.  Oh well.  Again, I did not see:

Run down

I just watched a thing of beauty.  I listened to Vin Scully (c) call the Reds versus the Dodgers.  And it is just fantastic.  He just called a run down and in the process, completely busted on the entire league.  Almost a challenge to those who are listening, like the Yankees (meaning the Yankees can do this and they listen).  By 'calling out the whole league', I mean that he said that his only gripe about major leaguers and their skills is their ability to do the run down.  This particular one resulted in a 5 - 2 - 6 - 1 and the play was headed home instead of back towards third.  It was a thing of beauty - Vin's recap and observation that is.  They replayed the play in super slo-mo and from about 3 different angles.  Vin lit it up.  It was so fantastic.  He busted on their initial throw to catcher (down and low, and I think it bounced?), he busted on the catchers throw to the SS (high and outside making the SS have to jump), and then he busted on them because it was the P who got the final out and had to lunge far to his left to even get the tag on the guy.  The play also resulted with the runner on their  way towards home instead of towards third, which is the worst way to have a rundown end.  Towards third is the safer way.

Meanwhile, from my view, I saw a complete other play going on and didn't even see what Vin saw (until the replay).  I saw the Dodgers using their smarts to advance runners.  I saw a perfectly executed play by their 3 runners - Juan Rivera, some guy #47 named Cruz (Luis Cruz), and Mark Ellis.  With the two latter base runners advancing to 2nd and 3rd as the first runner got tug out at home, delaying just enough time to get everyone where they needed to be yet get the inevitable out.

Here's the "play by play", minus Vin:

Also I just heard that Verlander has 60 games in a row of pitching at least 6 innings.  Carlton was better, the record is 69.  I don't know if this is okay, but I'm going to say what I just heard...."he's his own closer" - care of the MLB Network (c).  It's the 8th and he just threw pitch 86 with 2 outs already.  JJ had 60 by the end of the 2nd tonight.  Verlander is efficient.

Snow White and the Huntsman / 142 (B+)

I'm starting to like Kristin Stewart a bit, but I'm confused if she was cast right for this movie.  I guess I'm not sure of a younger star who could pull off this role though, where grit and athleticism is a must.  So, perhaps they did a good job putting her in there - it's just still a bit hard for me to believe that she would be able to throw on some chain mail and lead a giant army into battle.  Perhaps if they let her stay in the back, on the top of a hill, just watching the battle instead of being on the front line - then I might have liked her role and that scene better.

Anyway, Charlize Theron was good in her role.  This marks the second time in a few weeks I've gone to the theatre and seen her play a villain of sorts on the big screen.  And the Huntsman was good too, but I found myself asking why didn't they cast a bigger actor for his role?  That is until my buddies told me he was Thor, so I guess then they did a good job putting him in there, for as you see, fantasy stories are actually better to me when I don't recognize the people (yet for some reason I wondered why he wasn't a huge star??  I guess I'm mixing up my thoughts here.....Big star, or unknown?  But really, Viggo or Orlando would have been awesome).  In the end it was like he was an unknown, but still a big star.  So looking back it will be grand, like when Russell Crowe started his career off.  Now looking back at his first few movies it's kind of cool to see him in there.  For the reverse thought, where famous people ruin a movie - that would be like when Sigourney Weaver was cast in Avatar, and you see a blue skinny Sigourney avatar likeness-creation, yeah....like that.  Would have been better if she wasn't in that movie to me.  Not sure what I'm talking about anymore so I'll move on.

So without ruining the plot, I have to mention a part of the movie that had me scratching my head.  In the beginning of the movie Kristin Stewart (Snow White) was a small child.  The kingdom is overtaken by a horde of bad guys lead by Charlize, and Kristin was thrust into the far away castle wing not to be seen by her old groupies for years.  When she was young, she had a best friend, a small boy of the same age who loved her and also looked after her, well as good as a 10 year old can.  There is a really important scene when the castle is being taken over, and the boy is on the outside of the castle riding away on horseback with the remaining clansmen, while Snow White is being taken back inside the castle by the evil doers.  The boy looks back, yells her name.....tells his Dad he's going to bravely go back for her, but cannot for as you see, he's just 10.  Flash forward like 7 or 9 years, and guess what, she's still alive!  When the boy, now a man, finds out....he shits bricks and becomes a warrior on a mission to find her.  He looks high and low, and under rocks, to find his lost princess.  But when he gets there....Thor is already there.  He reconnects with her at night, in the crazy mysterious forest.  His words when he finds her are, "It's me....Ben" or whatever his name is, I cannot remember.  That night, they camp with the dwarves and Thor.  The next morning, still no dialog other than, "It's me....Ben" said the night before.  So I'm thinking to myself...did he reconnect with her yet?  Are they going to skip this part of the plot????  Now it's the next afternoon and they are hiking and marching through rivers and forests as they proceed on their mission.  I'd say, probably about 14 hours had elapsed since they reunited.  And finally, he says to her, "blah blah I thought you were dead, had I known, blah blah....I love you....whatever".  Why in the hell wouldn't they make them embrace and discuss the past 9 years immediately after getting out of the crazy forest and out of danger?  Like perhaps, at the campfire?  Odd....fail I would say for the guy who wrote this piece.

Lastly, congrats to Nick Frost for volunteering to play a role of one of the dwarves.  I'm not quite sure how they did that, but it was cool.  I wish he played a bigger role honestly.  He was always one of the ones in the background, with very little presence.  Yet, it was cool to see him and hear his quick jokes throughout, here and there.