Reviewing the Draft: 1993

1993 was a great draft for role players but didn't offer up a great deal of depth. This class featured 7 All Stars but only a couple of perennial All Stars.

1. Golden State - Chris Webber (1): Webber was one of the more complete players in the league for several years. A great scorer, rebounder, and passer, he could also dominate inside or shoot from beyond the arc. He tended to shrink in the biggest games, however.

2. Philly - Sam Cassell (24): Cassell won titles with the Rockets during his first two years and another last season with the Celtics. A bit of an enigma throughout the majority of his career, at times he was a great leader, others a headache, but always a tremendous contender.

3. Orlando - Anfernee Hardaway (3): At 6-7, 200 lbs with great scoring ability and court vision, Penny could have redefined the point guard position. Injuries ruined the final 7 years of his career.

4. Dallas - Nick Van Exel (37): In many ways similar to Cassell, Van Exel was at times a tremendous discipline problem but always left everything he had on the court.

5. Minnesota - Jamal Mashburn (4): Another player who wasn't always a disciplined player, when he was healthy and in shape, Mash could score with the best of them.

6. Washington - Allan Houston (11): The consummate professional, Houston was one of the more feared shooters in the NBA for many years, including once in Miami.

7. Sacramento - Vin Baker (8): Baker was an excellent post player in his early years but weight and alcohol issues plagued him and left him unusable despite an enormous amount of talent.

8. Milwaukee - Lindsey Hunter (10): Certainly not the most talented player in this draft class but an excellent leader who won titles with the Lakers and the Pistons and still serves as a pseudo player-coach in Chicago.

9. Denver - Bryon Russell (45): A defensive minded player who played a significant role on many some great Jazz teams. Possibly more famous for being the guy that was defending Michael Jordan on his final shot with the Bulls.

10. Detroit - Calbert Chaeney (6): One of the greatest college players in NBA history, Chaeney was a fantastic scorer who found work for many years, though usually on bad teams.

11. Detroit - George Lynch (12): Similar to Hunter and Russell, Lynch was an excellent role player who did a little bit of everything on some very good teams.

Honorable Mention

Isaiah Rider (5): Should have been one of the best scorers in the league but instead blew a dozen chances and is currently in jail.

Chris Mills (22): A fine role player for many years, but usually on bad teams.
Ervin Johnson (23): Servicable big men were already becoming scarse by 1993 and Johnson played in the league, almost always as a backup, for many years.

Review for "The Wrestler"

Since I’m not a professional film critic, I often don’t get to see the Award Caliber movies until long after they’ve been reviewed a million times. Most movies that are shooting for Oscars aren’t released until just before the end of the year and many of them don’t go into wide release until the middle of January. This has positive and negative effects. For one thing, if a movie is bad and falls far short of its Oscar goals, I hear it in advance and can avoid wasting my time. But the flip side of that is if a film is getting a lot of critical praise, there’s always a chance that I’m going to expect far too much by the time I get the opportunity to see it. I confess that, going in, I was concerned that “The Wrestler” was going to fall into the latter category.

“The Wrestler” is the story of Randy “The Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke), a former WWF wrestling superstar who’s hanging on to the glory days by the thinnest of threads. Living in a trailer that he can’t always pay the rent for and working as a stocker at a grocery store, Randy is 20 years removed from his prime. His body bears the marks of years and years of abuse. “The Ram” lived fast and loose, snorting coke and injecting insane amounts of steroids while taking a beating each night in the ring. He is broken, bruised, and scarred.

Unlike many of his compatriots, Randy hasn’t given up on The Ring. His weekends are spent competing in the lower levels of “professional” wrestling, fighting up and down the Northeast coast. These matches are often held in veteran’s halls and elementary school gyms and feature alarming violence and equipment. While the fights are planned out ahead of time, the stunts are painful and many of the fights involve very real weapons. One fighter uses a staple gun to subdue and intimidate his opponent. Another litters the mat with barbed wire. Randy himself cuts his forehead with a razorblade to sell a stunt to the crowd. It’s a very brutal, desperate world that “The Ram” finds himself in. Yet the crowds love him and for however short the moment lasts, Randy needs the spotlight.

Whatever money Randy has, he spends on Cassidy, an aging stripper (Marisa Tomei) whose time he craves far more than her services. Cassidy will not allow Randy to get any closer than her other customers but it’s clear that part of her wants to. Randy would probably like to take Cassidy out of the situation she’s in but knows he wouldn’t be able to offer her much. The film takes us through a few months in Randy’s life as he struggles with becoming an average person, his health, and his severely strained relationship with a daughter he left behind.

“The Wrestler” isn’t an easy movie to take in. But some of the best movies in history aren’t easy to watch. Mickey Rourke is brilliant in what is almost a semi-autobiographical role. Director Darren Aronofsky had to fight tooth and nail with the studio to get Rourke in the film but in hindsight there isn’t anyone better suited to play “The Ram.” Rourke has in many ways lived the life of Randy “The Ram” and has the scars to prove it. He destroyed his career with drugs, steroids, and hard living and without this role would almost certainly be un-hirable, a waste of one of the more talented actors in his generation. This is more than his comeback film, this is his legacy, the role which will define his career no matter what great things may come his way in the future.

This film is not about professional wrestling, nor is it truly about Randy “The Ram” Robinson. Rather, it is a film about MAN and his eternal struggles. Everyone knows the man who can’t let go of the past. Whether it’s the former high school quarterback, the guy who’s paid the price for not finishing college, or a professional wrestler far past his prime, this is a familiar story, only highlighted with barbed wire and steroids. How does a man so used to being a superstar adapt to working a deli counter? And what does a man do when a doctor tells him he isn’t physically capable of doing the one thing that he finds affirmation in? These are the types of questions Aranofsky attempts to ask. He simply chooses professional wrestling to be his platform.

My one complaint about this film is the way it has been promoted. “The Wrestler” is being sold as tale of redemption or a comeback story but I think that’s misleading and the critics that have reviewed it so have missed the mark. This isn’t “Rocky Balboa” or any other sports movie in which the hero is getting one last shot at glory. Leading up to the inevitable “Last Big Fight” no one, including Randy, realistically believes that this is his chance to get back into the Big Time. Even if that were to happen and the movie were to end with “The Ram” jumping back into the ring with WWF (or WWE, or whatever it’s called these days), this movie wouldn’t be about that. Randy isn’t so much interested in a comeback as he is in going out on his terms. He wants to be Michael Jordan hitting the championship winning shot for the Bulls, not Patrick Ewing wearing number 6 for the Orlando Magic, barely making it up and down the floor. As he says toward the end of the film, this is where he belongs and he doesn’t want to let anyone or anything force him away from his place in life.

From a humanistic perspective, “The Wrestler” is heartbreaking because despite its over-the-top action, it is shockingly real. Yet despite the fact that there isn’t a traditional happy ending, it is a film that is more than worthwhile for its phenomenal study of LIFE, if not for the spectacular performance of its star.

Grade: A

The Belly Stomach

Ivy Iverson, my soon-to-be niece, is a funny kid. One of the more entertaining things she's prone to doing is the creation of new words. A few months ago she referred to her tummy as her "Belly Stomach." I thought this was hilarious and, always apt to adopt funny words or phrases into my vernacular, I've started saying it. (That's right, I took a bit from a 2 year old. I'm not ashamed.)

This week I've been in San Antonio for Rec Lab, the annual recreation ministers conference. The conference itself has been solid if unspectacular and I definitely can't complain about staying in a Hilton hotel for free (even if they do charge $10/night for wireless internet and $19 for a medium cheese pizza). It's the time that I spend outside of the hotel that's killing me.

You see, dear readers, I am a lifelong, diehard Dallas Mavericks fan. Over the course of my life that fact has caused me as many problems as any other character trait (or flaw, dependent on your point of view) that makes me who I am. For the first 9 years of my Mavs Fan career, the team averaged about 20 wins per season, resulting in numerous taunts from all the bandwagon elementary school kids that surrounded me as they rooted for the Bulls or the Rockets. Then there were a few good years in which the Mavs looked like champions, even coming very close in 2006 before terrible officiating and a choke for the ages got in the way. Since then it's been a rapid plunge down the competitive hill that has brought the team to the point of being irrelevant yet again.

Through all of this the San Antonio Spurs have been the big bully on the block. No matter how much the Mavs achieved, the Spurs (and their obnoxious fans) were there to point out the flaws that inevitably allowed San Antonio to send the Mavs packing. When we finally managed to best the Spurs we went on to choke away the championship in the Finals. I hate the Spurs and with a very few exceptions I hate their fans. And here I am in San Antonio, surrounded by Spurdom.

In essence, I am in the Belly Stomach of the Beast.

(By the way, what does that saying even mean? It is usually said to indicate a tough battle that is about to ensue but in reality, if you're in the belly of the beast you've already lost, right?)

Everywhere I go the Spurs follow me. There are Manu Flopinobili jerseys being sold in the gift shop. The Spurs flagship radio station came on in my car. Tim Duncan is on TV advertising Chevy's. At least 5 dozen people passed me today wearing shirts that proclaimed the Spurs champions from one of the many years they won the title. Dick's Sporting Goods had Spurs candy canes for sale. Candy canes!!! Everywhere I turn I am inundated with silver and black. Meanwhile my beloved Mavs are looking worse by the day. And even when the Spurs aren't that much better, they can still play the "We've Won 4 Championships in 9 years" card that I will never be able to hold.

I'm in the Belly Stomach of the Beast, folks, and I cannot wait to bolt out of here tomorrow. One more Tim Duncan commercial may push me over the edge.

My Top 10 Most Anticipated Movies of 2009

Well as usual my Movie Rankings for the year are still to come. I'm hoping to catch “The Wrestler” tomorrow and if I can get to “Benjamin Button” in the next week, I'll feel like I've seen enough movies to make accurate rankings. (If I was a professional critic I could have seen these weeks ago. That's a hint to any potential publishers out there...) Anyway, after some exhaustive research I've put together my Top 10 Most Anticipated Films of 2009.

This is a big deal for me each year. I enjoy looking at the movie calendar and trying to determine what's going to be good and what's going to stink. Last year, 6 of my top 10 anticipated movies made my top 11 in the rankings (so far), 2 were moved to 2009, and 2 were terrible (thanks a lot Indiana Jones!). So, in my own humble opinion, that means I at least know what I'm going to like each year and if you have similar movie tastes, these movies should appeal to you in '09. It looks like 2009 will be a big year for blockbusters but it could be lacking in Award Season films. And as always, my nerdom will be yet again highlighted by those movies that appeal most to me.

10. "Up" – May 29
In all honesty, the plot for this movie doesn’t just blow me away. An old man ties balloons to his chair so he can see the world, or something like that, I don’t really feel like checking IMDB again. But it’s Pixar and for me, if Pixar is attached to a project, I’m in regardless of the content.

9. “Star Trek” – May 8
J.J. Abrams is kind of bugging me with the direction Lost is taking and I’m not sold on the cast. But this is supposed to be a fresh, reinvented take on the classic series and the nerd in me can’t help but be interested.

8. “The Soloist” – April 24
The date keeps changing which is a TERRIBLE sign for a movie that is undoubtedly designed to take a shot at the Oscars. But Robert Downey, Jr. has always been a favorite of mine and his roles in “Iron Man” and “Tropic Thunder” only solidified that this year.

7. “Duplicity” – March 20
Julia Roberts’ potential return to prominence is in the balance with this con movie directed by Tony Gilroy (“Michael Clayton”) and costarring Clive Owen. Julia still has the star power to get me there, no questions asked, and it’ll be interesting to see if that holds true with the rest of the world.

6. “Sherlock Holmes” – November 13
Robert Downey, Jr. plays the title character, supported by Rachel McAdams (another favorite of mine). Added in with the readily available story lines from the classic literature and I don’t really need to know anything else.

5. “Watchmen” – March 6
This will follow in the footsteps of “The Dark Knight,” “300,” and “Sin City” as it comes from a graphic novel that has gained cult status. It’s a very dark take on the world and role of superheroes. I honestly cannot say whether or not this movie is going to be good. There is a very good chance that it will be awful but I’m extremely interested still.

4. “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” – May 11
As a kid (and teenager, and adult) I loved the X-Men. The original trilogy was great but there were still so many questions left unanswered. This will be the first (of many to come, apparently) film to tackle the back stories of these characters and it has an excellent cast.

3. “Terminator Salvation” – May 22
This film demonstrates the power of an amazing lead actor. If Christian Bale wasn’t playing the lead role of John Conner, I wouldn’t be nearly as excited about another “Terminator” movie. I’d be interested, sure, and it might even touch the top 10, but it would be nowhere near number 2. A potentially more serious turn than “Terminator 3” and Bale as the star make this a major draw.

2. “Public Enemies” – July 1
Theirs is nothing to not like about this movie. Christian Bale, Billy Crudup, and Johnny Depp are some of the most respected actors in the industry and they’re being directed in a historical shoot-em-up by Michael Mann, who happened to do one of the greatest cops versus robbers movies EVER (“Heat”). There’s really not much else to say.

1. “Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince” – July 17
It was my number one most anticipated movie last year and after it’s late move to this year, it’s still number one. Whether you’ve read the books or not and whether you’re a huge nerd or not (I would be a “yes” on both accounts), these movies are just flat out good films. The movies have gotten progressively darker as their subject matter has gotten more serious and this should be no exception.
A few others worth noting:
“Edge of Darkness” – November 11
This is the return of Mel Gibson to the big screen after a 7 or so year hiatus.

“Fanboys” – February 6
The story of five friends who try to steal a copy of “Star Wars: Episode I” back in 1998.

“Green Zone” - TBA
Reunited Paul Greengrass and Matt Damon (the final two “Bourne” movies) is enough for me.

“The Road” – December
This has an extremely intriguing storyline and stars Viggo Mortensen, possibly the best actor in Hollywood to turn out the most unlikeable movies while still performing brilliantly.

“A Serious Man” – October 2I will always, always, always be there anytime the Coen brothers put out a new film. Even when they’re not good movies, they’re still interesting and unique enough to leave me wanting more the next time around.

Reviewing the Draft: 1992

1992 was a year that saw the introduction to the league of one of its all time greats (Shaquille O'neal) and then a lot of rookies who never turned into the players they had potential to be. Very few drafts in recent history have given us so many accomplished college players and yet only a few (5) turned into All Star quality players.

1. Orlando - Shaquille O'neal (1) - Without question one of the most dominating presences the NBA has ever seen.
2. Charlotte - Alonzo Mourning (2) - In any other draft, Zo would have been the number one pick. One of the most intimidating forces in the league for many years.
3. Minnesota - Latrell Sprewell (24) - Choking incident aside, Spree was a fierce competitor and a fantastic player on both ends of the court. Some terrible off court decisions messed with a great career.
4. Dallas - Christian Laettner (3) - Never lived up the expectations that he set for himself at Duke but was still an All Star caliber player for many years and a solid contributor after that.
5. Denver - Robert Horry (11) - The ultimate winner. Horry wasn't particularly great at anything except hitting the big shot time and time again on his way to 8 or 9 championship rings.
6. Washington - PJ Brown (29) - An excellent defender and strong rebounder, Brown was a major contributor on a number of good teams for a long time.
7. Sacramento - Jim Jackson (4) - Jackson's size and incredible passing ability set him apart from the average shooting guard of the day. The injury he suffered in 1995 prevented him from moving the way he once was and essentially turned him into a very good role player.
8. Milwaukee - Tom Gugliotta (6) - Googs became an overnight sensation in Minnesota but after an All Star appearance got overpaid to go to Phoenix and went through numerous injuries that kept him from ever contributing much.
9. Philly - Doug Christie (17) - Say what you will about Christie's mental state, he was an excellent defender and a steady hand on offense while playing on some good teams.
10. Atlanta - Clarence Weatherspon (9) - Far from flashy or sexy, Weatherspoon nonetheless was a solid scorer and rebounder for quite a while on a number of teams.
11. Houston - Walt Williams (7) - In all honesty Williams could have done a lot more. Like Jackson, he had a unique combination of size and passing skill and yet as his career progressed he allowed himself to become a shooter (and a very good one, mind you) rather than a playmaker.

LaPhonso Ellis (5) - Again injuries are to blame. Ellis was a fiery player who could create his own shot but preferred to crash the boards and deliver thunderous dunks.
Jon Barry (21) - An excellent shooter and role player for many years.
Matt Geiger (42) - Never a particularly talented player, Geiger possessed a high basketball IQ and became a very good defender while playing significant roles on good teams.

Reviewing the Draft: 1991

I started doing this last year but haven't posted one in quite a while. I love the NBA draft. In many ways it is probably my favorite sporting event all season. In keeping with that love, one of my favorite things about the draft is looking back and playing the "what could have been" game for the first few picks. Every year there will be a dozen or so picks that make absolutely no sense and it seems everyone in America understands this except the GM picking. And of course there are a number of picks that surprise everyone. What I have here is the first 11 picks from the 1991 draft and what, in hindsight, the order of the draft would be like now based on production and longevity.

The 1991 draft wasn't a particularly strong draft. While it did produce several solid, career role players on good teams (like Rick Fox and Luc Longley), only 7 players from this class made an All Star appearance and only one (Mutombo) made numerous appearances. It should be noted, however, that the first pick (Larry Johnson) could have potentially been a generation-defing player had it not been for serious injuries that turned him from the power player he once was into a jumpshooter.

1. Charlotte - Dikembe Mutombo (originally picked #4): One of the all time great defensive centers and 18 years later, the only pick still playing in the NBA.
2. New Jersey - Larry Johnson (1): Injuries ruined the career of Larry who could have been a position redefining player. Still, he made the transition from power player to finesse player and had some incredibly productive years.
3. Sacramento - Terrell Brandon (11): An All Star multiple times and named the NBA's Best Point Guard at one point by Sports Illustrated.
4. Denver - Steve Smith (5): Made an All Star appearance and served as a very important second or third option on some good teams.
5. Miami - Kenny Anderson (2): Never lived up to expectations but made an All Star appearance in 1995 and was a solid player for a very long time.
6. Dallas - Dale Davis (13): A strong, imposive force in the paint for a very long time, particularly on the defensive end.
7. Minnesota - Stacey Augmon (9): Augmon wasn't great at anything but he was good at a lot of things. "The Plasticman" had a long career as a journeyman.
8. Denver - Billy Owens (3): Owens was doomed from the start. A good player with a knack for scoring was asked to be a franchise player in Golden State and couldn't measure up. Weight issues abounded as well.
9. Atlanta - Luc Longley (7): Longley one three titles with Jordan in Chicago and played his role, limited as it was, very well for many years.
10. Orlando - Rick Fox (24): Fox wasn't much for stats but he was the ultimate role player on 3 Laker title teams.
11. Cleveland - Greg Anthony (12): Never a great player or a stats guy, Anthony was a strong backup throughout his career, partiularly for some good Portland teams in the mid 90s.

Honorable mention:
Bobby Phills (45): Phills was coming into his prime before his untimely death during a racing accident.
Erick Murdock (21): Had some of the fastest hands I've ever seen in the NBA but never got much of an opportunity to play big minutes.
Chris Gatling (16): Made an All Star appearance in 97 with the Mavericks but was mostly a shooter off the bench for the majority of his career.

Review for "Slumdog Millionaire"

It always drives me crazy when a human, be they movie critic or just a lay movie lover like myself, discredits a film by citing the “already been done” clause. Meaning, if the movie resembles another film in writing, acting, directing, storyline, cinematography, music, catering crew, or anything else, it is essentially worthless should the reviewer decide to deem it so. I myself fall into the trap from time to time but at least in most of these cases I follow up the “already been done” clause with the “and it was awful the first time” clause.

The truth is, after 100 something years of major motion pictures, just about everything has been covered. Every movie is borrowing something in some way from some movie from the past. The better movies twist the ground which has already been covered or offer fresh perspectives. But just because a given topic has already been covered doesn’t mean it can’t be covered again. It’s all entertainment. So what if one movie of today borrows from a movie of the 70s? The truth is, the latter movie probably borrowed from a movie of the 60s and that one a movie of the 40s and that one a book from the 19th century.

I say all that to say this: when a movie comes along that IS truly unique, it sticks out. In a sense the film emblazons itself on your memory and you never quite let go of it. A filmmaker that can come up with this unique concept is ahead of the game because it will be favorably compared to any movie that resembles it for the next 30 years. “Slumdog Millionaire” is that movie.

“Slumdog” follows the life of Jamal Malik, a boy who comes from the worst part of India. The footage of life in these slums is sobering and far worse than anything you will ever see in the States. The tiny box homes covered with tin roofs are literally stacked on top of each other and the squalor is painfully obvious in every way. Jamal has come within one correct answer of winning 20 million rupees on the Indian version of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” but is now in custody of the Mumbai police on suspicion of cheating to get to this point. After torture, the investigator goes over each question with Jamal and asks him to explain how he knew the answer. Each question results in a flashback to a period of Jamal’s life as a “slumdog” and brings together a snapshot of his life through ten different stories.

I’m not going to say another word about the content of the film. Because this is such a unique film it should be experienced by the viewer with the minimal amount of information possible going in. It is a refreshing and sobering piece that should be a “must-see” for any movie lover.

The acting, done by an entirely Indian cast, is phenomenal. From Dev Patel who plays the role of Jamal as a young man, to the work of game show host Anil Kapoor (think an Indian Regis Philbin), the actors display the type of discipline and dedication to the profession that is sometimes lacking in Hollywood. Even the children who play the youngest versions of Jamal and his brother are engaging, talented, and endearing while giving the kind of work that most directors would kill to have from their American child actors. Despite the spectacular filmmaking it has produced over the last few years, Bollywood (the Indian film industry) has been fairly unsuccessful in its attempts to breakthrough into the consciousness of the mainstream public. “Slumdog” is, in a sense, a proclamation of arrival. If the public won’t come to Bollywood, perhaps Bollywood will just come to us.

Danny Boyle, one of the most underrated and brilliant directors in Hollywood today, has crafted a magnificent film that manages to touch just about every emotion within the spectrum. It is funny at times, touching at others, poignant for a moment and then heartbreaking, but thoroughly entertaining and genuine throughout. Boyle made a name for himself in the early 90s with “Trainspotting” and became a big name with 2002’s “28 Days Later” but has never quite gotten the respect he deserves until now. This is his masterpiece, his shining moment. And if the success of his film brings new audiences to his work the whole of “Movieland” has been bettered.

“Slumdog” is not for the faint of heart. There are some tough, gruesome scenes and this movie is, after all, primarily about the life of abject poverty in a foreign country. But the viewer who can handle a few hard moments will be rewarded with an extremely good and genuinely powerful film that is sure to be copied a hundred times over the next 30 years.

Grade: A+

Review for "Marley and Me"

Let me preface this by telling you I am one of the biggest babies in America. There were four or five major male influences in my life growing up and all of them were big babies so I really didn’t stand a chance. I’m apt to cry during all of the appropriate guy (aka war and sports) movies, such as the final scene of “Saving Private Ryan” and the moment that Mike Winchell narrowly misses the end zone at the end of “Friday Night Lights.” But beyond these themes, the one thing that is guaranteed to force me to cry is that of a person and his/her dog.

I read John Grogan’s “Marley and Me” last year, some time after it had already reached “Bestseller” status on just about every list imaginable. Sitting in an airport, I begrudgingly pulled this book from my collection of reading material and began reading to pass the time of my seven hour layover. Six hours later the book was finished and the people sitting around me must have been wondering if I had some sort of emotional disorder due to all the ridiculous weeping I had done. I looked like death to be sure. Mothers were shooing their children away from me and a hobo, sensing I might be in distress, offered me a sip of his whiskey (I made that last part up).

I’m typically a bit skeptical of the movie based on a book. This is true partially because if it’s popular enough to spawn a book it’s too popular for me to handle and partially because if I actually like the book, the movie usually falls short. So when I heard that “Marley and Me” was being turned into a major motion picture I was somewhat short of optimistic. The additions of Owen Wilson and Jennifer Aniston, as well as my natural curiosity concerning how well the book could be translated to screen eventually won me over.

“Marley and Me” is the story of a young couple (Owen and Aniston), their careers, their children, and the dog that comes along for the ride. As the story begins, the Grogans have just moved to Miami. One is a reporter, the other a columnist for rival newspapers. In order to keep Jennifer’s (Aniston) maternal instinct at bay, the un-ready-for-parenthood John (Owen) buys her a yellow lab, a runt puppy named Marley who turns out to be the “world’s worst dog.”

Marley is a pain, a nuisance, a hassle to deal with. He destroys the garage when a thunderstorm rolls in. He eats the couch cushions. He humps legs. He swallows a brand new necklace, resulting in the inevitable Poop Exploration known all too well to dog lovers everywhere. Marley disrupts a dog obedience class. He tries to climb out a car window. He causes mayhem in a variety of ways only believable because they did in fact actually happen.

Marley becomes notorious as John transitions from full time reporter to part time columnist and finds it hard to write about anything but the world’s worst dog. As Marley’s exploits become more outrageous, John’s column becomes more popular and soon he finds himself with a daily column. At the same time, his family is going from a young couple with dreams to a family of five (plus a monstrous dog) while his closest friend Sebastian, the eternal bachelor, travels the world writing the pieces John wishes he could. A prevailing theme within this film is the sacrifices both John and Jennifer make as they realize the importance of family over that of career.

“Marley and Me” follows the path of the Grogans for some fifteen years and truly captures the essence of real life. There’s very little sugarcoating here, though the film manages to keep its “family movie” tag. Both of the main characters go through ups and downs, both separately and together. They experience the issues that come with trying to start a family and then trying to manage the family you did start. Through it all their lives are shadowed by the ever-present Marley and the shenanigans he pulls along the way.

Director David Frankel does a wonderful job of allowing the movie to be about the dog without allowing the dog to become the all-encompassing focus of the movie. Too often a Family Pet movie falls into the trap of ignoring the human characters and forcing emotion upon the viewer. Not so with “Marley.” Marley is very much a part of the family rather than having the family revolve around him. This seems simple enough and yet I can scarcely remember a movie that manages to show family life with the dog as well as this one. You never forget that this movie is about a dog and his family but what we have here is enough strong material to support a good movie even without the dog. That is a rare quality. In addition, Wilson and Aniston, along with Eric Dane (Sebastian) and Alan Arkin (editor Arnie Klein) are near perfect casting choices and all deliver strong performances. But make no mistake, the true stars are all the dogs who take turns as Marley in his various times of life.

I’d like to tell you I held it together, manned up, and didn’t shed a tear during the inevitable end of this film. But the truth is I was lucky to make it half way through before the sniffles began. It has never ceased to amaze me the impact that a terrible dog can have on one’s life, whether it is over the course of fifteen years or that of a two hour movie. “Marley” sums up what it’s like to have a dog as part of one’s family, even if he is the “world’s worst dog.”

Grade: A

How to Mix the Mavs Part III: Deciding What to Do

It's been almost two months since the last installment of "How to Fix the Mavs" and a lot has taken place. The team played incredibly well without Josh Howard, Dirk has forced his way into the MVP race, Jason Terry may be headed to the All Star game, and what was a 2 and 7 record has now turned into 19 and 12 and just a hair out of second place in the West. The players have adjusted pretty well to Coach Carlisle's style and things are looking significantly better than they were two months ago.

The question is, is that a good thing? There's no worse place to be in the world of sports than stuck in the middle. Obviously a good team can be content to contend for a title. And a bad team, as awful as they may be, can always rely on the opportunity to rebuild. But a team that's somewhere in the middle is in a bad way. Cut bait and start over and you alienate your fan base and perhaps whatever players you decide to keep around. Hold on too long and you set your franchise back three to five years when you could have been improving. The middle of the pack is a tough place to be.

I believe this is the situation in which Mark Cuban finds his Mavericks right now. The run that they’ve been on lately, winning 17 of 22 games, has been impressive. Dirk is playing as well as he’s ever played and Jason Kidd looks fantastic, not to mention the surprise emergence of Jason Terry that has taken place over the last month. Right now there might not be three guards in the entire NBA who are playing as good perimeter offense as The Jet. However, for the most part, they haven’t been playing against stellar competition. With the exception of the Christmas Day win at Portland, the Mavs haven’t beaten any of the better teams in the league. They’ve stayed close, hung tight with the Spurs and the Lakers and played a decent game against Utah with the chips stacked against them, but ultimately fell short in each contest. To me they appear to be a team that is better than about 20 to 22 teams in the league, but not good enough to take out the other 8 to 10 teams. They are the Best of the Rest, so to speak, after the Celtics, Lakers, Cavs, and Spurs of the world. That means they aren’t true contenders for a title and quite possibly aren’t really capable of advancing past the first round in the playoffs.

The next six weeks are going to be incredibly important for this team. In fact, I think it’s safe to say that the decisions made in this time period will determine the path of the franchise, for better or worse, for the next five or ten years. Mark Cuban and the ever-more-useless Donnie Nelson have to be extremely realistic and pragmatic in their approach to what to do with this team and the players on the roster. No stones can be left unturned in their search for how to best equip this team both for the now and the future. There are four ways to look at this team and ways to act accordingly.

1. This team is a player away from being a legit title contender:
If you subscribe to this theory, you buy into the impressive work the Mavs have done over the last 22 games and believe that their strong play will continue. The team as is probably lands in the 4th or 5th playoff spot and has a chance to make a run if they peak at the right time. What the team needs is to add a piece or two that will really push them over the top.

It’s a good season to be in this position, if in fact this is where the Mavs truly are. There are a lot of teams who are trying to get rid of their overpriced Second Wheels, like Corey Maggette and Gerald Wallace, and will likely take 30 cents on the dollar. If you’re willing to commit to overpaying a role player because what he does is what you need, there’s a pretty decent market. Should Cuban decide this is where the position the team is in, there are any number of players that could be acquired that could/should push the Mavs back into the true contenders.

2. This team needs to make a major move to make themselves contenders:
If you subscribe to this theory then you must agree that the Mavs have to trade one or more of the team’s Big Three (Dirk, Josh, Kidd). These are the only three players on the roster that could bring something significant enough in return as to push the team over the edge. Realistically, trading Kidd probably wouldn’t bring back enough to make the trade worthwhile. Trading a superstar like Dirk almost NEVER works out for a franchise losing the player. Just ask Toronto how they like the Vince Carter trade or New Orleans how the Baron Davis trade worked out. In the NBA, trading a superstar is usually the last option.

That leaves Josh Howard. In my opinion, the Mavs are a better team without Josh on the floor. The ball moves better, the team as a whole takes better shots, and the IQ of the team goes up. It’s not that Howard is a bad player or even a bad guy, off court issues aside. It’s that he doesn’t compliment the team very well. Josh needs to be on a team that has either a low post player who scores easy buckets with his back to the basket or another swingman who gets his points by slashing. Trading Josh is the logical move to make if this is the theory the Mavs opt to believe in.

3. This team needs to rebuild right now
If you subscribe to this theory you believe the Mavs need to make a handful of moves now and start the rebuilding process immediately. Josh Howard could be moved for several lesser pieces, maybe a draft pick. You could sell Jason Terry at an all time high right now with the way he’s playing. Jason Kidd is still a top 10 point guard with an expiring contract to boot, a great trading chip for a number of teams. Even Erick Dampier could provide a lot of help to a contending team that needs front court depth. Perhaps it actually is time to trade Dirk and start over.

Should the Mavs buy into this theory, these moves have to be made NOW. Cuban must strike while the iron is hot with Terry, move Josh Howard immediately, and use Kidd before his contract expires in the off season. If you make a lot of moves in a short amount of time, you are likely to add some pieces that can pay off in a year or two.

4. This team needs to cut salary and be ready for the feeding frenzy in 2010:
If you subscribe to this theory you’re conceding that the Mavs as constructed cannot win a title and the players here do not hold enough value to bring in quality players to rebuild with. In 2010 Lebron James, Chris Bosh, Dwyane Wade, Carmelo Anthony, Amare Stoudemire and several others have the opportunity to become free agents. Just about any team that doesn’t legitimately feel they can win a title in the next two years is doing everything they can to become players in the free agent market that summer. This is going to leave a number of teams very unhappy, especially considering that each of these player’s current teams will be able to offer considerably more money than any other franchise.

But if this is the path Cuban feels the Mavs should take, it means the team will be almost completely and totally gutted. Kidd, Howard, Terry, Dampier, and a host of others will be moved for next to nothing except expiring contracts and even Dirk might be subject to trades, though I suspect Cuban would hold on to Dirk to team with whichever young superstar the team signs in 2010. This is a risky way to approach the next couple of years. Tanking games is a tough sell for fans and players alike. And in the end if you can’t convince Lebron or Wade to sign on for less than they can get at home, you’re in serious trouble. But it’s an option nonetheless.

I’m not completely sure which theory I subscribe to, though I have to say I’m falling somewhere between 1 and 2. I think Josh needs to be traded in order for this team to progress but I don’t want to see him given away. If a deal can be struck to add a couple of quality young players and a pick in exchange for Josh, I’d be all over it and I’d be searching out the teams who are trying to cut salary to see if I could grab a quality swingman or big man for cheap. Regardless of what happens, this is a critical time in Mavericks history and the moves made (or not made) will have a tremendous impact for years to come.