Gotham Stakes: A week out (or Beginning the Derby Trail)

To start: last year my betting sidekick, known from here as JG, and I got the itch and travelled to Long Island for both the Gotham Stakes (the first week in March) and the Wood Memorial (the first week in April).

It's one week till this year's running of the Gotham, which is advertised as a Grade 3 stakes for 3-year-olds, with a $400,000 purse.  Good check if you can get it.  Last year, Hanson, supposedly not named after the singing group, though I had JG believing it to be true, won before a ninth place finish at the Derby.

Let me start with next week's prep with this: today the weather forecast looks the best it has all week -- 46 and cloudy.  It's been as low as 40 and with some precip in some predictions.  It's not an overly warm forecast.

The race isn't looking that "hot" either, with the early call on entries making Overanalyze the highest rated horse on the chart.  The colt out Dixie Union, won the Remsen, and Horse Racing Nation has as an 8.03.  The next rated likely starter is Elnaewi, sired by Street Sense, at 6.07.  Let's hope a couple of the "possibles" on the list, like Vyjack (the recent Jerome winner) get into the field.

No, for those of you scoring at home, it might not be the Derby prep that today's Fountain of Youth @ Gulfstream is -- with Violence, He's Had Enough, Speak Logistics, Sr. Quisqueyano, Joshua's Comprise, Orb, Majestic Hussar, and Sky Captain, it boasts that many horses with a higher HRN score than Vyjack.

But we aren't in Florida.  We are in the mid-Atlantic and the Gotham is the race this month if you are following the Derby trail.

As any good tracker-goer knows, it's not just about the day's big stakes race.  At the Big A (as Aqueduct seems to be known, or I'll make it up here), the Saturday 10-race card includes the wonderful exotic bet of the Pick 6 and the even more intriguing, if less lucrative, Grand Slam (starting in race 6).  There are also 50 cent pick 3's and 4's along the way.

As we all know, a Pick 6 on a day like Gotham day at the Big A is worth some dough (as is the superfecta in a race like the Gotham).  So JG and I will be trying to find a way to win that cash -- as will some tens of thousands of others.  Which race and horse do you use as anchors?  How deep do you go in a race, say the Gotham (#9 on the card, usually)?  Is Overanalyze good enough to anchor your card and then work the other 5?

Great questions.  Of course, if Overanalyze is the key -- and we won't know till we see the full card on say Thursday -- you know it lowers the payoff.  It takes no genius to pick the highest rated horse in a stakes field.   If it's a long shot, like the local running Clawback, who's won twice in a row at the Big A at 6 furlongs, then the pool gets to be even more worth desiring.

Look for blogs this week working through both the Gotham picks (hey, why not take a crack at the Superfecta?) and the Pick 6 and Grand Slams for day.

And good luck bettin' the Fountain of Youth.  It's time to start smellin' the roses.

Bracketology 2: Minnesota? Iowa? "The Big Six"

Definition:  Dbrolaw (pronounced da-bro'-law):  Eastern European for an IU (Hoosier) fan.

That's for Google.

It's been a week since I began Bracketology for this BBall season.

In the week, Duke lost (to Maryland, who we were watching on the Bubble), but so did Florida (who might be next into Top Seed).

So, this week let's keep it simple: it's still IU (Dbrolaw!), Miami, Louisville & Duke.

On the other end: Maryland helped with win over Duke, but the experts still have them out.  Virginia (who really isn't nearly as "local") lost narrowly to Duke, which didn't help.

We've added two Philly schools, LaSalle and Villanova, to our watch list.  I doubt Villy can make it, but...see later on Minnesota.  LaSalle is #4 in A10 & hasn't made tourney in 20 years.  ESPN has them an 11 seed this week.  Go Explorers!  Explore away.

Now, to my point last week about 7 Big Ten teams making it: Iowa crushed #7 Minnesota over the weekend.  Then Ohio St. crushed them last night.  Maybe Iowa steps up to #7 (they have nearly the exact record), but it's unlikely, as I said last week, anyone from bottom half can win enough games against Top 6 (IU, Mich, MSt, OSU, Wisc & Illinois) to stay off the Bubble.

So, who wins more the next three weeks?  Villanova in the 8 hole in Big East or Minn/Iowa in Big Ten?  Or does another mid-major team sneak in instead, or someone surprise with a bid off winning a conference tourney?

Finally, a shout out to my "home" team, Valparaiso.  The Crusaders lead the Horizon and need to win it (according to one source) to get a bid.  They are seeded 14 in one ranking...not a lot of room for error.  I'll watch them the next 3 plus weeks, too.

If you are picking pools early, take IU.  As much as I hate to say it.

-- Not Dbrolaw (obviously)

Movie Review: Law, Mara have Side Effects

As discussed before here, it's the season when one struggles to find something to amuse oneself with, between the NFL season, NCAA tournament, and baseball season.

But there are movies.  It is that time of year when Hollywood releases are at least "interesting," if not downright good.  Those of us who pay some attention to the rhythm of releases know that Hollywood puts out the big blockbusters (Iron Man, The Marvel Gang) in the summer, starting before Memorial Day.  After Labor Day, it is "adult movie" time, when the "serious films" that are supposed to garner award nominations.  Then comes November when the artsy blockbusters (think Skyfall, Sherlock Holmes, the Hobbit) come out, with an occasional award hoped for.

After the first of the year is the time when, in a small town like ours, when those smaller films that have garnered award attention arrive and when studios release films that don't fit into those other niches.

Side Effects is just such a film.  Starring Jude Law and Rooney Mara, with a side turn by Catherine Zeta-Jones, it's not exactly the makings of a blockbuster.  Or quite the big splash for awards season.

That doesn't mean it's not a particularly good thriller.  It is.

By the middle of the movie, we wonder about Jude Law's Dr. Jonathan Banks's life and career, and Rooney Mara's Emily Taylor's sanity.  In the hands of Ocean's 11, 12, 13 & Traffic's Steven Soderbergh, it's a taught thriller.

I won't give you spoilers here, but it's well crafted, turning the despair into interest, backed, as my movie companion (and delightful wife) pointed out at the time, with a tension-heightening score, and, finally, a resolution that is unforeseen until deep into the end.

It all pivots on the reappearance of Jones as Dr. Victoria Seibert -- it turns out Victoria does have a secret -- a visual and plot wordplay that adds to the cleverness of the film.  Any experienced film-goer will know someone like Jones, the third-headliner, will have more than just that one scene that seems almost a throwaway at the time, and she's stellar, if not brilliant, as the stodgy, drug prescription-driven psychiatrist who treated Emily before her life fell apart.

Mara has the real scenery-eating role and she chews it appropriately.  You can imagine in other hands it might be more impressive, but maybe there's something profound in the understated approach she has.  Maybe all the anti-depressants she's supposed to be taking are working.

Of course, it's Law's movie.  Although he's not in a scene until Emily has tried to kill herself, he's in almost every scene thereafter.  His compassion shows in his handling of his patient before Emily, then her and he holds onto her as a patient longer than he might because he seems to worry about her edge.  As his life unravels, symbolized lazily by a growth of beard, he does a good "life is unraveling and I've lost control."  Of course, he's had this same look in recent roles -- whether Repo Men or Anna Karenina.  But he's good here -- believable, emotionally vulnerable and excitable, as you'd think someone in his position might be.

So, here's your "between other seasons" treat: see Side Effects.  It's a solid treat of a thriller.

Bracketology: First post (T-5 weeks)

It's time to think college hoops (sorry, D. Eliot, hockey can wait...forever?).

This morning on Mike & Mike, Jay Bilas, MCB commentator extraordinaire, gave his current final four: Indiana, Michigan, Miami & Florida.

I'm okay with IU and Miami -- their seasons make it look like those are good picks.  But Michigan has lost 3 of 4 and they started the season "young," and, although you get all that bromide crap about "they aren't freshmen anymore in March," they really aren't older now relative to their competition than they were.

Florida?  Yup.  As Josh pointed out at today's lunch, they lead the nation in efficiency.  Great stat.  Means nothing.  Duke's RPI is much higher.

I like Duke in Florida's slot.

And I like Louisville in Michigan's.  Someone from the Big East is going a long way in the tournament -- right now I call two Big East teams, minimum, in Elite Eight.

So, there's my first post on Bracketology call:  IU (my Purdue roots hate this), Miami, Duke and Louisville.

Let's see how it goes these next weeks.

On the other end, I'm watching the "locals" Temple, Maryland and UVa.  Let's see if they get in.

And I wonder about Minnesota (despite their win tonight) and Illinois, the 6 and 7 out of the Big Ten.  I guess the conference can sustain seven, but I wonder if the math works.  There are a lot of losses in being the 6th or 7th place team in a league, and a lot of room to lose ground to some mid-majors in the next 5 weeks.  And if you are in the 6 and 7 hole for the conference tourney, that means that extra game on Thursday and they might need a win for a quality notch for the committee.  The bottom of the conference isn't strong, so that might not be a problem, but neither looks good enough now to win on Friday.  No quality wins in the conference tourney then doesn't help the cause if the bubble looms.

Let's see where we are next week.  And beyond.  Welcome to bubble watch and I'm NOT Dbrolaw!

The Rabbi's Cat (it's a movie!) & Leaving my Heart in SF

Gentle readers (or otherwise),

I am finishing a nearly weeklong stint in San Francisco, my first trip to the City by the Bay.  I've found it a wonderful city, one I think I'd return to if given the choice (last summer's adventure in Madrid, not so much).  There were lots of good places to eat, it was easy to get around in, we got lucky with the weather (warm and dry, in the low 60s), and much to see (Golden Gate Park and the ocean, where a novice surfer tried to drown near where we were yesterday makes for a good story).

As for today's movie review -- The Rabbi's Cat.  It's a French film, thus subtitled, and animated.  The animation was hand done (at least one hopes so), which adds to the movie's charm.

Critics are giving it a score like 93 on Rotten Tomatoes.

That's high.  Although the cat, who has no name, and, of course, talks (it seems due to eating the family's obnoxious parrot) is sometimes funny, it's not clear what we are to make of all the theologizing in the movie.  Not surprising from a rabbi's cat, one suspects, but there are series of scenes that question god, the nature of Judaism, the nature of Islam, and a whole series of Judeo myths about Africa.  But the movie plays with these, never leaving us with anything but questions...and those from a cat.

It's an amusing use of 90 minutes, and you may leave thinking about the nature of your faith (or your cat's faith -- it's clear from the movie that dogs are faithless), but it's 3 and a half star entertainment, at best, not the 4 stars the Rotten Tomatoes score gives it.

This weekend -- a choice between Parker and Hansel and Gretel. 

About hotels/hotel rooms: What differentiates

Okay, I wouldn't say I travel as much as some road warriors, gone all week all over their territory.  But I'm in a stretch where I'm staying in five different hotels over nine nights -- not the first of these in recent memory -- and I'm getting where I have a thumbnail list of what tells one "quality" hotel from another.  And I think these distinctions are chain wide, so if say one Hilton does X, the next probably will, too.  To save on lawyer fees, I'm not going to name a hotel when I'm giving a negative example; on the positive side, those who like what they see can start sending me checks. :)

Here are my criteria, in no particular order:

1.  Size and thickness of towels.  

I'm now in "advanced middle age," and am not as small as I used to be.  Thus, a towel that does not go all the way around my waist AND have enough room to cinch is...well, an annoyance.  So, yes, size does matter.

The next thing is that nothing is worse than being wet and having a (small) towel that is essentially as thick as toilet paper. If you are thinking you might need a second towel to finish the job, it's not thick enough.  The current Radisson has done well on both.

2. Glasses made of glass.

This one is probably sketchier than the towel rule, but it makes a difference.  Since I reuse my glass, a cup that is clearly "disposable" is suspect.  It is one of those things that distinguishes chains -- it's surprising that chains who want to have a 3 star label and reputation put out these cheesy 10 ounce plastic cups.  This Radisson has glass drinkware.

3. Bed.

Obviously?  I like a firm mattress.  I've just spent the last three night in chain hotels whose beds remind me of marshmallows.  Of course the current Radisson has the sleep comfort bed (you know, where you set the firmness with a control, which we have on 75), which makes it top notch.

4. Pillows.

The best thing, maybe, about the Hilton chain is that they give you a selection of pillows.  I like mine flat (goes with the firm of the mattress).  Big, foamy pillows give me a neck crick.  That's not a good memory to take away from a hotel.  Give me a choice.

5. Wifi ease.

I can't tell you how many times I've spent lots of minutes, sometimes more & on the phone, trying to get Wifi access that I'm promised.  I would claim that this about work, which I obviously travel for, but I think it's more about reproducing home conditions, where the wifi works well and constantly.  How hard is it for a multi-billion dollar conglomerate to simulate that?  But it's amazing how often passwords don't work, signals give out, or the sign in page doesn't pop up.

6.  TV & channels

It's been a long time since I was in a room that didn't have like a 40" HD TV.  But you'd be amazed at how often your choice of channels is limited -- far less than my cable company's basic package.  The other night I wanted to watch *Justified* on FX and !!! the hotel didn't offer that station.  Not like Fx is the 3rd Big Ten Network channel or something.  You know how frustrating it can be to know the show and channel you want, be stuck in your room so you can watch it, and then...zip zip nada.

There's my list.  Maybe I'll refine it someday.  But now I'm on vacation and I can almost hear the sea lions calling me.

Jack Reacher & Golden Globes

So, I saw two movies this weekend.  Zero Dark Thirty (see earlier blog) and then Jack Reacher.

Warning: we saw Reacher rather than seeing Gangster Squad.  This was due to the poor rating for Gangster on RottenTomatoes (33%) -- where Reacher got a 61.

I don't know about RottenTomatoes's 33 but they were about right on Reacher.

I've not read the books the movie is based on, so have no axe to grind about how well they match up to the movie version, or whether Tom Cruise ought to be playing Reacher.  Shrug.

But, as a Pennsylvanian, I found the heavy use of Pittsburgh interesting.  The crime that starts the movie and brings Reacher (Cruise) out of hiding takes place on the river in front of PNC Park --  a pretty iconic piece of scenery.

Cruise is pretty believable as the terse, insular, tough Reacher.  He doesn't give much away about what's he thinking, even to his charming "partner" (Rosamund Pike, who fortunately gets lots of screen time).  He beats the hell out of groups of guys trying to beat him, which is okay because it's clear they are amateurs who have never actually fought anyone who knows what he/she is doing, and Reacher clearly does.  It's not about size.

Robert Duvall, as he often does, steals the show as a gun range operator.  He's a real highlight.

Werner Herzog is wasted as Zek, the criminal leader.  Not enough scenes, not enough lines.

It's not great art, but it's solidly done.  It's good -- not "I'd see it twice" good (see later paragraph) -- but good enough that if you go expecting a decent whodunit with an attractive co-star and some shoot 'em up, then you'll be good.  If you want high art, go see Les Mis.

Speaking of Les Mis, it won the Golden Globe last night for best comedy or musical.  I'm no fan of musicals, so I can't call this a travesty.  But I'd have voted for either Moonrise Kingdom or Silver Linings over it.

I felt better about Argo winning the Drama GG over Zero Dark, though my vote would have gone to Lincoln.  

Which brings us to the question: how do I determine such things?

Given some bit of thought, I realize that one rule of thumb is whether or not I want to see a movie again.  I hope someone puts me out of my misery rather than seeing Les Mis again (I saw it once for love).

Likewise, I found Zero Dark tedious.  Cut it down about 45 minutes...

Argo was good, enjoyable, solid.  I wouldn't hate seeing it again, but I wouldn't see a point.

I'd see Lincoln again.  Not that I was overwhelmed by it the first time, but there was stuff in it that you feel like seeing it again would make you re-see the movie.  The first time you focus a lot on Daniel Day Lewis, who you can't believe can be so Lincoln.

I didn't think a lot of Anna Karenina, the whole plot about the ethics of adultery and love is just...well, it's not that palatable.  But the things that were done by Tom Stoppard and Joe Wright were clever, and said something with the stagecraft (double entendre intended) that spoke to what was going on in Tolstoy's book and the motif of the story.

So, there you have it.  Rah rah Lincoln, Moonrise and Silver Linings.  And I hope someone knocks me out before I have to see Les Mis again.