Let me start with this weekend's choices: it was Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Johnny Depp or Widows, aka Ocean's 8 with guns and violence.
We chose the Beasts.
Several things caused this: we had seen the first movie (you don't need to have seen it to make no sense of this one), I think we rather like Eddie Redmayne, and we had seen the previews and ads so often for Widows that we were tired of it and its premise without seeing it. And there's this: Viola Davis is a good, maybe great, actress, but she really doesn't inspire "I gotta see her" like say last month someone said "I gotta see Bradley Cooper." And, no, that wasn't me. :)
The Beasts got a 37% of something like it from Rotten Tomatoes from the critics. We knew this and went anyway. But any review of the movie has to tell you that figuring out what goes on is a thing here -- we spent several minutes on the road home from the cinema wondering if one main character lived, died, or went to the dark side. We're still not wholly sure. It goes like that.
But Redmayne is winning as the shy and animalphile Newt Scamander (who makes these names up? Oh, you do know that this is a Harry Potter send-off, written by JK Rowlings, right?) who is good with the eyes down, under the terrible side-bangs hairdo, thing and good with the CGI animals, with his winning smile. You believe Newt is better with monstrous beasts -- a line used a couple times in the movie -- than with people.
The CGI is great, too. I don't know what many of the things in the movie are supposed to be (I neither read the book the first movie was based on or remember much of the last movie), but they are fantastic onscreen. It's hard not to like the recreation of Groot the Younger, the something-like-a-playtpus thing or the much, much larger tiger-dragon thing. Fun stuff.
And then there's Depp. As the bad guy, Grimelwald, he's okay. Like his other campy creation, Captain Jack Sparrow, this one seems the right amount of over-the-top for what now seems to be his wheelhouse. Spiky blonde hair, one fake eye, ghoulish coloring... Subtlety, if ever his thing, is now not his thing.
One of Grimelwald's crimes seems to be that he stares longingly into Jude Law's eyes...or Jude Law's younger self's eyes. Yes, there's a moment that has homosexual elements that has the twitterverse twittering. BFD. (Law is underused here as Albus Dumbledore, the grandfatherly hero of the Potter saga, as his younger self. It is 1927.)
Probably a couple people in secondary roles deserve mentioning -- Dan Fogler as Jacob brings a light-hearted charm as Newt's muggle sidekick, and Katherine Waterston as Tina, one of the good guys, and Newt's love interest (well, one of them, we are thinking it is also Lita, but...the plot twists) is the right kind of not comic. And flourishes a wand with esprit.
In all, it's fun. It's not Oscar bait. But it was #1 this weekend at the box office, by A LOT, so it's that kind of light-hearted entertainment -- as long as you don't ponder the darkness of the ending. Captain Jack, errr, Grimenwald, has a whole troop of supporters who were junior Hitler costumes (this is 1927) and, having said that joining him (he IS the bad guy) will prevent WWII, well, things end.
But we're ignoring that, you should see it. It'd be a good Thanksgiving weekend's light entertainment. To go with the turkey and Oscar bait.
Sunday, November 18, 2018
Sunday, November 11, 2018
Caught in the Spider's Web
This week's installment of our fall movie reviews is the newest installment of Stieg Larsson's Millenium series, The Girl in the Spider's Web.
But first, a word on previews: why do theatres think we should get half a dozen, or more, previews? Twenty plus minutes of something that's not the movie you came to see. And, in the case of Spider's Web, not much that snared you in. It was an odd mix of previews -- some action, some tending towards art films (I'm still trying to figure out where Widows falls, after seeing the preview quadzillion times).
Maybe the most interesting part of Spider's Web is the casting of Claire Foy, most famous as Queen Elizabeth in The Crown, as Lisbeth Salander.
Foy is good in the role; the Swedish accent she uses works well enough.
Interviews have made much of this movie and its being shot during the beginnings of the #MeToo movement. But this isn't that movie -- although it opens with Lisbeth avenging a husband who has clearly beaten his wife, that's all of it. None of the rest of the plot deals with this -- a bit of a red herring.
As with all Larsson vehicles, you have to pay attention to the plot. It is a bit convoluted, somehow working a sister into the plot, after all the other manipulations with computer files and hacking -- standard Lisbeth stuff.
It's entertaining enough. And, as usual in the series, a bit masochistic.
It's also, again typically, a bit far-fetched: we get where we believe in action thrillers that the bad guy can't hit the hero from six feet away with an automatic pistol. Lisbeth survives with just a large graze, somehow.
And somehow survives falling from a second story; a car crash; a gas attack; being sucked tightly into a plastic skin.
Routine stuff.
In the end, it's a pleasant enough movie. If it's to be someone's Oscar bait, I'm not sure whose: maybe the stunt people, though it doesn't begin to compare with Mission: Impossible last summer.
Go see it.
But first, a word on previews: why do theatres think we should get half a dozen, or more, previews? Twenty plus minutes of something that's not the movie you came to see. And, in the case of Spider's Web, not much that snared you in. It was an odd mix of previews -- some action, some tending towards art films (I'm still trying to figure out where Widows falls, after seeing the preview quadzillion times).
Maybe the most interesting part of Spider's Web is the casting of Claire Foy, most famous as Queen Elizabeth in The Crown, as Lisbeth Salander.
Foy is good in the role; the Swedish accent she uses works well enough.
Interviews have made much of this movie and its being shot during the beginnings of the #MeToo movement. But this isn't that movie -- although it opens with Lisbeth avenging a husband who has clearly beaten his wife, that's all of it. None of the rest of the plot deals with this -- a bit of a red herring.
As with all Larsson vehicles, you have to pay attention to the plot. It is a bit convoluted, somehow working a sister into the plot, after all the other manipulations with computer files and hacking -- standard Lisbeth stuff.
It's entertaining enough. And, as usual in the series, a bit masochistic.
It's also, again typically, a bit far-fetched: we get where we believe in action thrillers that the bad guy can't hit the hero from six feet away with an automatic pistol. Lisbeth survives with just a large graze, somehow.
And somehow survives falling from a second story; a car crash; a gas attack; being sucked tightly into a plastic skin.
Routine stuff.
In the end, it's a pleasant enough movie. If it's to be someone's Oscar bait, I'm not sure whose: maybe the stunt people, though it doesn't begin to compare with Mission: Impossible last summer.
Go see it.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Fall Movie Review 3: Sisters Brothers
This movie may be under your radar -- it hasn't been publicized with the same intensity of A Star is Born, or First Man, or now The Widows -- but it's worth seeing.
If you don't know this, Sisters Brothers is a Western, starring Joaquin Phoenix, John C. Reilly, and Jake Gyllenhall.
Phoenix and Reilly are the titular brothers, named Sisters, Charlie and Eli, who, in good Western tradition, are hired killers for a little-seen mobster called the Commodore. One suspects the name is supposed to be a joke, and Charlie tries to make something of it in the film, but it falls dead in the movie version (it's based on a book).
In the opening scene, I suppose in what we are to think is directorial genius, there is a shootout at night, where are you can see is the flare of gunfire. The brothers come out on the good end (shocked face!) and then go off to the Commodore for their next assignment.
This entails a prolonged road trip to find John Morris (Gyllenhall), who is tracking a guy named Warm (played by Riz Ahmed). A Western with a road trip. Shock.
Morris, Warm, and Eli all are rather contemplative cowboys (tho none seems particularly aware of cows), with Morris's thinking signaled by his keeping a diary, which Gyllenhall voices over at times. And his notes to the brothers to let them know where he has followed Warm are overwritten -- "precipitate" being one word that Charlie scoffs at (it's not clear he can read as Reilly's character reads and keeps all the notes).
Charlie is a drunk and a mean one. In one scene, he stops puking long enough to help Eli kill 5 guys sent after them. Like many Westerns, especially contemporary ones, the body count here is high.
In the end the foursome ends up together in the midst of the California gold rush and it turns out Warm has an idea of how to identify gold easier. You know if you've ever seen a movie set in the California gold fields that this won't end with them all living rich lives in San Francisco with their golden treasure and the whole thing goes sour quickly -- I won't give more away.
This movie smells like Oscar bait, with Reilly, Phoenix (a perennial Oscar contender), and even Gyllenhall given parts that beg for consideration (it's not quite last year's The Paper where it was like Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep paused in the middle and said "you all need to consider this come Oscar time", but it has that smell to it).
Is it worth seeing? Yes, especially if you like the genre. It's not Phoenix's best performance by any stretch, but Reilly is very good as the downtrodden, sentimental older brother, and Gyllenhall and Ahmed are passable. The unusualness of the story -- the contemplation of the characters, the interchanges between the brothers, and the unusual plot twists (it ends in a place you wouldn't predict if you've ever seen a Western) -- makes it worth seeing and thought-provoking, beyond the death and destruction the brothers leave in their wake.
Next week: no real killer openings (Hunter Killer?)...
If you don't know this, Sisters Brothers is a Western, starring Joaquin Phoenix, John C. Reilly, and Jake Gyllenhall.
Phoenix and Reilly are the titular brothers, named Sisters, Charlie and Eli, who, in good Western tradition, are hired killers for a little-seen mobster called the Commodore. One suspects the name is supposed to be a joke, and Charlie tries to make something of it in the film, but it falls dead in the movie version (it's based on a book).
In the opening scene, I suppose in what we are to think is directorial genius, there is a shootout at night, where are you can see is the flare of gunfire. The brothers come out on the good end (shocked face!) and then go off to the Commodore for their next assignment.
This entails a prolonged road trip to find John Morris (Gyllenhall), who is tracking a guy named Warm (played by Riz Ahmed). A Western with a road trip. Shock.
Morris, Warm, and Eli all are rather contemplative cowboys (tho none seems particularly aware of cows), with Morris's thinking signaled by his keeping a diary, which Gyllenhall voices over at times. And his notes to the brothers to let them know where he has followed Warm are overwritten -- "precipitate" being one word that Charlie scoffs at (it's not clear he can read as Reilly's character reads and keeps all the notes).
Charlie is a drunk and a mean one. In one scene, he stops puking long enough to help Eli kill 5 guys sent after them. Like many Westerns, especially contemporary ones, the body count here is high.
In the end the foursome ends up together in the midst of the California gold rush and it turns out Warm has an idea of how to identify gold easier. You know if you've ever seen a movie set in the California gold fields that this won't end with them all living rich lives in San Francisco with their golden treasure and the whole thing goes sour quickly -- I won't give more away.
This movie smells like Oscar bait, with Reilly, Phoenix (a perennial Oscar contender), and even Gyllenhall given parts that beg for consideration (it's not quite last year's The Paper where it was like Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep paused in the middle and said "you all need to consider this come Oscar time", but it has that smell to it).
Is it worth seeing? Yes, especially if you like the genre. It's not Phoenix's best performance by any stretch, but Reilly is very good as the downtrodden, sentimental older brother, and Gyllenhall and Ahmed are passable. The unusualness of the story -- the contemplation of the characters, the interchanges between the brothers, and the unusual plot twists (it ends in a place you wouldn't predict if you've ever seen a Western) -- makes it worth seeing and thought-provoking, beyond the death and destruction the brothers leave in their wake.
Next week: no real killer openings (Hunter Killer?)...
Monday, October 15, 2018
Fall movie review: First Man
This weekend I saw the latest movie from the Damien Chazelle-Ryan Gosling collaboration, First Man. It's good -- yes, it deserves a Best Picture Nomination (I'll save judgment on whether it should win).
If you don't know, First Man is the story is Neil Armstrong, and it's about the his walk on the moon. Sort of. It takes almost 2 hours to get there.
Gosling (obviously?) plays Armstrong, who we pick up as a rocket pilot in the early 60s. It's not clear that everyone thinks he's a great pilot.
Since this is biographical, there's no need to worry about spoilers: the Armstrongs lose a daughter, Karen, to a brain tumor, before she's 2ish. As Jane Armstrong says later "we never talked about it."
That's kind of the thing about the movie: Gosling's Armstrong isn't exactly winning a warm and fuzzy award. In fact, lukewarm and furry wouldn't do it.
But there's no doubting both Armstrong's inner strength, his mental acuity, and his cool under fire. At one point he tells Houston and his co-pilot "shut up, I am calculating."
When Buzz Aldrin's character says "I am just saying what you were all thinking," Armstrong's one-beat, two-beat, three-beat later rejoinder is "maybe you shouldn't."
As the movie portrays it, and Wikipedia backs it up, in both the Gemini 8 mission and the trip to the moon, Armstrong did things you have to call amazing. If you don't remember (I vaguely do), Gemini 8 went sour when the capsule started spinning out of control. Armstrong, in the movie with his co-pilot passed out, figured out how to make the necessary correction, eventhough he used some of the fuel for course adjustments back into the atmosphere to do so. They aborted the mission from there, but made it home safely.
On the moon landing, Aldrin isn't sure where they should land, as the proposed spot is too rocky, and Armstrong uses every last bit of fuel to land on the other side of the crater -- now forever Tranquillity base.
I heard much stuff about how the movie could not depict the flag planting on the moon -- "you HAVE to show that." I didn't even notice it was missing. I'm sure someone can explain why it's not there (like it's not important to Armstrong's story).
As to Oscar bait, Gosling is excellent as Armstrong. Deserves an Oscar nod. As you can tell, Armstrong isn't exactly a ball of joy -- Gosling keeps it all bottled up all the time.
Given the cleverness and vividness of some of the shots, especially on the moon, Chazelle probably will get some best director nods. I'm okay with that, but there might be better candidates coming along.
Claire Foy as Mrs. Armstrong? She's almost as tightly wound as Gosling, so sure. It would probably be tough for any actor to be so brittle.
Should you see it? Yes. Both the history, Gosling's portrayal of someone who is a real hero (he and co-pilot should be dead in Gemini 8), and the beauty and inventiveness of some of the cinematography make it worth seeing. Is it better than A Star is Born? If you don't like Bradley Cooper. Lady Gaga, or singing in a movie, definitely.
That's 2 for the fall.
Now...what's opening this weekend?
If you don't know, First Man is the story is Neil Armstrong, and it's about the his walk on the moon. Sort of. It takes almost 2 hours to get there.
Gosling (obviously?) plays Armstrong, who we pick up as a rocket pilot in the early 60s. It's not clear that everyone thinks he's a great pilot.
Since this is biographical, there's no need to worry about spoilers: the Armstrongs lose a daughter, Karen, to a brain tumor, before she's 2ish. As Jane Armstrong says later "we never talked about it."
That's kind of the thing about the movie: Gosling's Armstrong isn't exactly winning a warm and fuzzy award. In fact, lukewarm and furry wouldn't do it.
But there's no doubting both Armstrong's inner strength, his mental acuity, and his cool under fire. At one point he tells Houston and his co-pilot "shut up, I am calculating."
When Buzz Aldrin's character says "I am just saying what you were all thinking," Armstrong's one-beat, two-beat, three-beat later rejoinder is "maybe you shouldn't."
As the movie portrays it, and Wikipedia backs it up, in both the Gemini 8 mission and the trip to the moon, Armstrong did things you have to call amazing. If you don't remember (I vaguely do), Gemini 8 went sour when the capsule started spinning out of control. Armstrong, in the movie with his co-pilot passed out, figured out how to make the necessary correction, eventhough he used some of the fuel for course adjustments back into the atmosphere to do so. They aborted the mission from there, but made it home safely.
On the moon landing, Aldrin isn't sure where they should land, as the proposed spot is too rocky, and Armstrong uses every last bit of fuel to land on the other side of the crater -- now forever Tranquillity base.
I heard much stuff about how the movie could not depict the flag planting on the moon -- "you HAVE to show that." I didn't even notice it was missing. I'm sure someone can explain why it's not there (like it's not important to Armstrong's story).
As to Oscar bait, Gosling is excellent as Armstrong. Deserves an Oscar nod. As you can tell, Armstrong isn't exactly a ball of joy -- Gosling keeps it all bottled up all the time.
Given the cleverness and vividness of some of the shots, especially on the moon, Chazelle probably will get some best director nods. I'm okay with that, but there might be better candidates coming along.
Claire Foy as Mrs. Armstrong? She's almost as tightly wound as Gosling, so sure. It would probably be tough for any actor to be so brittle.
Should you see it? Yes. Both the history, Gosling's portrayal of someone who is a real hero (he and co-pilot should be dead in Gemini 8), and the beauty and inventiveness of some of the cinematography make it worth seeing. Is it better than A Star is Born? If you don't like Bradley Cooper. Lady Gaga, or singing in a movie, definitely.
That's 2 for the fall.
Now...what's opening this weekend?
Fall Movie Reviews: A Star is Born
Okay, it's that time of year when the "Oscar bait" (as my daughter calls it) is rolled out by the studios and "grown up" movies are coming out. So, since it seems I will probably be going to the movies regularly in the next few weeks (I've been twice in the last week), I thought I'd put some of my views of the movies down on blog (and share via Twitter -- and fwd to THE Dbrolaw, to annoy him :)).
First up is the Bradley Cooper joint A Star is Born.
I have to start with this admission: I was not thrilled to go see this. I know the story. I'm not in love with Bradley Cooper (ICYMI :)) & even the previews looked...okay, let's say "hokie."
It's a hokie kind of story. Bring kleenexes.
Let's make sure we all know that this is the fourth remake of this story: in the 30s with Janet Gaynor, in the 50s with Julie Garland (there are several allusions to her and that movie in this one), and in the 70s with Barbara Streisand. And Kris Kristofferson, who played, not too far out of type, the alcohol-soaked, nearly over-the-hill male lead.
So, this is old news.
I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper and Lady Gaga's performances. Cooper is quite good as Jack; he's weather-beaten, vaguely sweaty and dirty, like the not-neat drunk he is in the movie, and he does a good job of getting us into his pain in the movie.
I'm not sure Gaga can act. I'm just saying. But the best parts of the movie, period, are when she's on stage singing, from her opening reveal in the drag bar to her scenes using her big voice in the fake concert scenes. She's enthralling then. A lot less so when she's trying to be...whatever she's trying to be with Jack.
The movie seems long. At 2 hours, 16 minutes, it's not a short comedy. I looked at my watch repeatedly. This is probably because I know the story: it's not going to end well. They meet, he likes her, he gets her career going, she becomes a star (thus the title), he doesn't know how to handle her fame and his deterioration, and...I'll leave it this way on this version: shit happens.
And I'll say this: the songs aren't good. Gaga can perform the hell out of them, but if I listened to the lyrics I was like "that's the dumbest metaphor I've heard in a long time."
So, should you go see it? If you have one movie to see this weekend, no. Unless you HAVE to see Gaga and/or Brad. But if you are a regular movie goer, yes.
As to the Oscar bait question: yes, Gaga and Cooper deserve nominations.
One down. More to come.
First up is the Bradley Cooper joint A Star is Born.
I have to start with this admission: I was not thrilled to go see this. I know the story. I'm not in love with Bradley Cooper (ICYMI :)) & even the previews looked...okay, let's say "hokie."
It's a hokie kind of story. Bring kleenexes.
Let's make sure we all know that this is the fourth remake of this story: in the 30s with Janet Gaynor, in the 50s with Julie Garland (there are several allusions to her and that movie in this one), and in the 70s with Barbara Streisand. And Kris Kristofferson, who played, not too far out of type, the alcohol-soaked, nearly over-the-hill male lead.
So, this is old news.
I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper and Lady Gaga's performances. Cooper is quite good as Jack; he's weather-beaten, vaguely sweaty and dirty, like the not-neat drunk he is in the movie, and he does a good job of getting us into his pain in the movie.
I'm not sure Gaga can act. I'm just saying. But the best parts of the movie, period, are when she's on stage singing, from her opening reveal in the drag bar to her scenes using her big voice in the fake concert scenes. She's enthralling then. A lot less so when she's trying to be...whatever she's trying to be with Jack.
The movie seems long. At 2 hours, 16 minutes, it's not a short comedy. I looked at my watch repeatedly. This is probably because I know the story: it's not going to end well. They meet, he likes her, he gets her career going, she becomes a star (thus the title), he doesn't know how to handle her fame and his deterioration, and...I'll leave it this way on this version: shit happens.
And I'll say this: the songs aren't good. Gaga can perform the hell out of them, but if I listened to the lyrics I was like "that's the dumbest metaphor I've heard in a long time."
So, should you go see it? If you have one movie to see this weekend, no. Unless you HAVE to see Gaga and/or Brad. But if you are a regular movie goer, yes.
As to the Oscar bait question: yes, Gaga and Cooper deserve nominations.
One down. More to come.
Thursday, March 8, 2018
5-12 411
Before Thursday's games: Diagnosed with a variation of flu, so I've got cabin fever and have watched too many games the last week (Big Ten tourney, did I really watch WCC semis? play-in games...and spent too much time watching OU-Ok State last night [OU doesn't act like they want to win]), and decided to look into which of these "bubble teams" can win a game or two next week (in March Madness).
So, using Joe Lunardi's bracket, let me walk you through some of these possible games:
First, it's become "a thing" that someone wins a play-in game (I mean "round 1," sorry NCAA) and then wins the next game. Last year it was USC. Lunardi has OU playing Arizona St (say "no defense") and Louisville playing UCLA. UCLA has the elements to win in March -- a good guard (Halliday), a big (Welsch), and a coach (Alford). Yes, I know Alford has never quite hit it big, and last year I thought he was a liability when they were a sexy pick to make the Final 4, but he'll be the better coach in these two games.
They would play TCU. I like the Bruins to win that game. Ka-boom!
In the 5-12 matchups -- 12's have won at least one game going back forever (not in 2015, but that's the outlier). Here are Lunardi's matchups (as of today):
Florida-New Mexico St.
Clemson-Louisiana
Ohio St-Loyola Chicago
West Virginia-Middle Tennessee.
First, I look at these and they look more like 7-10s...I can see all 4 winning. New Mexico St is a sexy mid-major pick; Loyola has a senior dominated team; so does Middle Tennessee, who won a game last year, and has a guard (Potts), a big (King), and a coach (Alexander).
The most likely upset there is probably the Blue Raiders over West Virginia. The Mountaineers are up and down -- the buzz is that if you can beat their press and/or shut them down some, they become ineffective in a slow, grind it game. Middle Tennessee can do that. (On the other hand, I picked WVU to go to F4 on Obvious Brothers podcast (soundcloud.com/obviousbrothers) two weeks ago).
And, BTWs, I don't know a thing about "Louisiana." But I don't trust Clemson, who I think is very overrated -- I have seen no one pick them to win their first game in ACC (v. Boston College, the 12 seed). I might pick against them just because next week.
Now, about the other bubble teams:
Finally, a plug: if you are wanting a podcast hoops analysis, my go-to is @STheSPodcast or blogtalkradio.com/sthespodcast . -- Gus and Mike are, as they say, college BB narcoleptics (they are doing almost an hour pod every day this week!) -- Mike has down 4 mock brackets already! check them out if you want good info and just mostly no BS analysis from studious fans.
So, using Joe Lunardi's bracket, let me walk you through some of these possible games:
First, it's become "a thing" that someone wins a play-in game (I mean "round 1," sorry NCAA) and then wins the next game. Last year it was USC. Lunardi has OU playing Arizona St (say "no defense") and Louisville playing UCLA. UCLA has the elements to win in March -- a good guard (Halliday), a big (Welsch), and a coach (Alford). Yes, I know Alford has never quite hit it big, and last year I thought he was a liability when they were a sexy pick to make the Final 4, but he'll be the better coach in these two games.
They would play TCU. I like the Bruins to win that game. Ka-boom!
In the 5-12 matchups -- 12's have won at least one game going back forever (not in 2015, but that's the outlier). Here are Lunardi's matchups (as of today):
Florida-New Mexico St.
Clemson-Louisiana
Ohio St-Loyola Chicago
West Virginia-Middle Tennessee.
First, I look at these and they look more like 7-10s...I can see all 4 winning. New Mexico St is a sexy mid-major pick; Loyola has a senior dominated team; so does Middle Tennessee, who won a game last year, and has a guard (Potts), a big (King), and a coach (Alexander).
The most likely upset there is probably the Blue Raiders over West Virginia. The Mountaineers are up and down -- the buzz is that if you can beat their press and/or shut them down some, they become ineffective in a slow, grind it game. Middle Tennessee can do that. (On the other hand, I picked WVU to go to F4 on Obvious Brothers podcast (soundcloud.com/obviousbrothers) two weeks ago).
And, BTWs, I don't know a thing about "Louisiana." But I don't trust Clemson, who I think is very overrated -- I have seen no one pick them to win their first game in ACC (v. Boston College, the 12 seed). I might pick against them just because next week.
Now, about the other bubble teams:
- OU has a lot of talent, but having watched them play the last few weeks, Trae Young thinks he's better than he is, the team doesn't make the simple plays (they missed two alley oops on fast breaks against OSU last night), and they play lots of torro defense. One bracket today has them an 8! (pick whoever is the 9 in that game) -- but they have a lot of "quadrant 1" wins, so will probably make the field.
- Ok St has less talent, but the Smith kid can play -- if he can stay in (fouled out last night against OU in a sloppy, not heady, performance). They might beat Kansas tonight in BXII tourney (KU lost their big yday), so they might be a hot pick for the first round (Lunardi has them in First Four out now).
- Notre Dame looks like Colson and 4 banjos. Don't think they belong. Lots of bad losses (IU, Ball State at home WITH Colson)...
- Syracuse...just no. The problem is they have the strength of schedule the committee loves. But they don't look like a team that can win. They lost to Notre Dame. And UNC burned them like toast last night.
- Alabama has a lot of talent, but needs to win tonight v. A&M. Without that, their losing streak (5) might kill them, tho committee no longer looks at "Last 10." They might win the right matchup next week, including being the hot pick out of the play-in game.
- Arizona State is like OU, resting on early season wins. At Xavier and Kansas. Were #2 in the country. I got a Sun Devils shirt when there in October, a KoD! But losing to Colorado in opening round of Pac-12 (the conference of Champions!) doesn't help. A play-in game with OU or Ok State would be fun, though. Watchable.
Finally, a plug: if you are wanting a podcast hoops analysis, my go-to is @STheSPodcast or blogtalkradio.com/sthespodcast . -- Gus and Mike are, as they say, college BB narcoleptics (they are doing almost an hour pod every day this week!) -- Mike has down 4 mock brackets already! check them out if you want good info and just mostly no BS analysis from studious fans.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)