A friend on Facebook said that he was going to put together his list of best movies of last year, and it was then that I realized that I hadn’t done the same, and since I do like lists, better late than never.
It was a good year for film in my opinion – especially for a comic book fan who has three movies on my list, but not just comic geek films, but fine films for more than just the comic lover in me. (I must admit that I have not been able to see “Zero Dark Thirty” yet.) Let’s go…
10. The Amazing Spider-Man – what began as a completely unnecessary reboot to a film series whose first movie premiered only 10 years before, TASM altered the origin slightly and brought the “missing mother and father” angle that has always been part of the Spider-Man mythos firmly to the forefront. Andrew Garfield made a geeky Peter Parker and the omnipresent Emma Stone was good as Gwen Stacy. I was surprised at how much I liked this film, and I like it better than the first Tobey McGuire Spider-Man film
9. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – I am not a fan of Tolkien’s books, but I am a huge fan of Peter Jackson’s “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, and so, with Jackson at the helm again – what could go wrong? Well, nothing did.
8. The Dark Knight Rises – Christopher Nolen ended his trilogy with a film so bleak and unrelenting that the film was almost painful to watch at times. That said – it was well done, but it would have been higher except there were no redeeming characters in the films at all: not Batman, not Alfred, not Commissioner Gordon – they were all unpleasant.
7. Django Unchained – I already posted a long review of this film, suffice it to say, I am a Tarantino fan and I loved it.
6. Argo – I was able to see this at the Toronto International Film Festival, and it was a very gripping thriller about the CIA plan to get 6 Americans out of Iran in 1979 by pulling together a make believe science fiction film. Ben Affleck has gotten well deserved accolades for his direction (although not from the Motion Picture Academy). However, “Oscar” did nominate Alan Arkin for Best Supporting Actor playing the Hollywood producer behind the phony movie. Nice dichotomy of tension and humor.
5. The Gatekeepers – overlooked by the Oscars, this documentary that I also saw at TIFF, was a great, controversial film. Directed by Droh Moreh, this is the story of the Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security organization through the interviews of six men who headed the organization from the 1967 war to 2011. As I wrote here last September “The film would be interesting just in discussing the wins and losses that the Shin Bet experienced over the years, but the film had a bigger agenda. All six men have dealt with the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, and all agree that Israel should 1) negotiate with any group to bring about peace; and 2) and more controversial – the hard line right wing in the country that reneged on the Oslo Agreement and now has 220,000 Jewish settlers in the region, is the biggest hindrance to peace. The Palestinians have a right to their own country and Israel is an occupying force, a state that is detrimental to the country in terms of costs in money and people, and in international goodwill.”
4. Marvel’s The Avengers – the ultimate comic movie. Director Josh Whedon gave the comics guys all they could want in bringing Thor, Iron Man, the Hulk, Captain America, Hawkeye, Nick Fury and the Black Widow together for the ultimate fight. But he added humor, realistic characterization (as “realistic” as you could have in this case), and a story that made bringing the super heroes together plausible (again, as plausible as one would have in one of these movies).
3. Prometheus – it wasn’t the highest grossing film, now will you find it on many other Top 10 lists, but I thoroughly enjoyed Ridley Scott’s return to science fiction and the universe he helped create in the first “Alien.” It was a prequel to “Alien,” but it was also intelligent science fiction with characters who were more than just cannon fodder for the effects/monsters. Just writing about it makes me want to watch it again. Maybe over the weekend.
2. Skyfall – the best James Bond film since Sean Connery retired his license to kill, Skyfall filled in all of Bond’s backstory for the next millennium. Daniel Craig once again shows that no matter what he looks like (not like the Fleming ideal), he may have been born to play 007 like Connery. Dame Judi Dench and Javier Bardiem were both excellent as “M” and the creepiest, most memorable Bond villain in a very long time.
1. Lincoln – Steven Spielberg’s film may have not been completely accurate concerning the 16th President’s feelings on slaves and equality, but this was a film where Spielberg’s usual annoying crowd pandering antics were absent. To make a film where the “action” was predominantly words and arguments was tough and Spielberg took a situation where we knew the outcome and made it suspenseful. Of course, it didn’t hurt to have Tommy Lee Jones in one important role, and of course, the great Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role. Mr. Day-Lewis turned Lincoln from a statue or a saint in a history book and turned him into a flesh and blood person. A truly great performance.

Well, there it is, my favorites for the year. Yes, there are a number of films that the mainstream reviewers also liked, but it is my view of the best. Again, I’m always interested in what you think – feel free to contact me at tonyfed1@yahoo.com with your comments.

I used to hate the Denver Broncos. I know it’s not on the top of the site, but trust me, I never likfed the Broncos. As usual, I hated their fans, who were high altitude rubes. It didn’t help that I always hated John Elway. That came from when he was drafted by the Colts and then refused to play for them. As leverage, he threatened to sign a minor league contract to pitch for the Yankees. Eventually, we all know that Elway got his way like a petulant child and was traded to the Broncos. Since the money would have been about the same and both franchises were equally terrible at that time, it didn’t make any sense, and I hated Elway his entire career. (Much the same argument for why I don’t like Eli Manning.)
But, I’ve always liked Peyton Manning. He has a manner that makes him seem likable, even when he was beating Northwestern in the 1996 Florida Citrus Bowl in college, or when his Colts defeated the Bears in Super Bowl XLI. But you don’t truly know these guys; you just have an impression from interviews, and in Peyton’s case, commercials.
However, I stopped hating the Broncos when they signed Manning. When they had Tim “Holier Than Thou” Tebow, I hated them with full fury, but when they released him and signed Manning, I no longer hated them even though they are run by Elway. I didn’t exactly root for them, but I no longer was unhappy when they won. But Peyton Manning showed over the weekend that he is truly the class act he appears to be.
Saturday, the Broncos lost a very tough AFC Divisional Playoff Game at home to a scrappy Baltimore Ravens team. The Broncos appeared to have the game in hand until a Joe Flacco Hail Mary pass was caught to send the game to overtime. In the second overtime, a Manning pass was intercepted in Bronco territory and the Ravens kicked a field goal to win the game. Manning could have done his post game interview and gone home, but instead, he and his family stuck around for 1½ hours after the game so that he could congratulate Raven linebacker Ray Lewis who is retiring after the season is over.
There was a photographer from the Ravens who took a picture of Lewis and Manning and Manning’s young son playing in the foreground. I don’t believe that this was a photo op, or that it was planned (although in this day and age, one has to be a little cynical), but this was a class thing to do by Peyton Manning. I told people on Facebook that Manning may be the Cal Ripken, Jr. of the NFL. Ripken, baseball’s Iron Man for most games played, is renowned for long autograph sessions with fans, playing the game the right way, and generally being a good person.
So, now, I am a bigger Peyton Manning fan than I was before, and that’s saying something.

For only the second time in four decades and just the eighth time since voting began in 1936, the Baseball Writers of America elected no one to the Baseball Hall of Fame this year. The writers were expected to ignore steroid-tainted stars Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and Sammy Sosa who all appeared on the ballot for the first time ever, but it was a bit surprising that some worthy names didn’t make the cut.
The leading vote getter was Craig Biggio who is 20th on the career hits list with 3,060 hits, topped the 37 candidates with 68.2 percent of the 569 ballots, 39 shy of the 75 percent needed. Biggio was a leadoff man with some pop – 291 career home runs, high of 26 in 2005. Biggio will be enshrined – no player not implicated in the steroid scandal with more than 3,000 hits is in the Hall, and Biggio has 14 more years on the ballot.
Among other first-year eligible players, Mike Piazza received 57.8 percent and Curt Schilling 38.8. I think that Piazza will probably get in eventually, since being a catcher is so difficult and rarer. Schilling will forever be known for playing while bleeding in the World Series (and also going bankrupt), doesn’t really have the career numbers for enshrinement.
I was surprised that last year’s vote leader who didn’t get in was Jack Morris. Morris garnered 385 votes for 67.7 percent. Morris will make his final ballot appearance next year. The Poster Boys for PEDs didn’t fare very well: Bonds received just 36.2 percent of the vote, Clemens 37.6 and Sosa 12.5 percent.
Perhaps that’s what the Baseball Writers were trying to say – some guidelines need to be in place to deal with this era of player. (Personally, I don’t think most sportswriters are bright enough to send such a message – I think it just happened that way.) I, of course have suggested a 6-month amnesty period for every player who played before mandatory drug testing; and then everyone is eligible for HOF voting. However, those who make it have an asterisk on their plaque; that they used PEDs in their career. That way, Bonds and Clemens who deserve to be in the Hall on their careers prior to their apparent use of PEDs get in the Hall where they belong, but their drug use has permanent ramifications. For the likes of Sammy Sosa, Mark McGwire and Rafael Palmeiro, that’s up to the voters to decide as to whether their achievements were wholly drug induced.
Next year, there are three players who don’t appear to have the PED stain on them coming up for voting for the first time: Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, and Frank Thomas. Maddux is a shoe-in and so probably is Glavine. Thomas should be a shoe-in as well. Despite being a very big man (he blocked for Bo Jackson in football while they were both at Auburn), Thomas was arguably the best hitter of his time. No one had a better eye at the plate; no one large or small had more walks in that period.
But the 800 pound gorilla will be lurking next year and every year unless Bud “Head in the Sand” Selig or future commissioners address the issue. And start handing out the asterisks.

Now a few “why is this news” comments:

• It was confirmed that linebacker Junior Seau who committed suicide last May suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy or CTE. CTE is a degenerative brain disease often associated with repeated blows to the head. This doesn’t make Seau’s story any less sad, but since Dave Duerson and other former players who have and have not committed suicide. have had similar abnormalities consistent with CTE we can’t be surprised.
• The Notre Dame faithful seem to feel betrayed that Head Football coach Brian Kelly interviewed with the NFL Philadelphia Eagles after the Irish lost to Alabama in the BCS Championship Game. As an MU alum who saw former Coach Gary Barnett up for every job at the end of every season, get over yourselves. Even an Irishman at Notre Dame has to look out for himself (and to be fair, it wouldn’t hurt my feelings if someone wanted to talk to Northwestern’s Pat Fitzgerald – it’s part of the game).
• I have to commend Chicago Bear GM Phil Emery – he is interviewing everyone except the man he fired, Lovie Smith, for the right fit as next Head Coach. There are a lot of comments and cartoons that he is interviewing the entire world, but I think just hiring one of the “usual suspects” wouldn’t be right at this point. With so many college coaches successfully making the jump to the pros, plus the coordinators, plus the assistants, the old ways of hiring only people with head coaching experience are over. I especially like that Emery is interviewing special teams coaches too.

The Penn State/Jerry Sandusky scandal goes on. Sandusky’s counsel has filed an appeal that the defense did not get appropriate time to prepare. OK, that is what is expected to happen in the American Criminal Justice System. My question concerns what the State of Pennsylvania is doing.
The State, not the university mind you, is suing the NCAA saying that the organization doesn’t have the authority to punish the football program over the Sandusky affair which was a criminal case. What? Sandusky was protected and allowed to prey on young men under the auspices of the football program, which falls into the NCAA’s jurisdiction. Honestly, the NCAA’s certification does not specify what the organization can address and what it can’t. Perhaps it should? Limitations have only come from litigation – rulings for Jerry Tarkanian against the NCAA basically said that the organization cannot directly penalize coaches, only the school can do that, but the NCAA CAN penalize the school’s athletic program.
One would think that the State of Pennsylvania, in light of the upcoming criminal trials of the school’s ex-president and former athletic director for aiding and abetting Sandusky, especially in light of the loyalty of much of the football team and the fine record the team turned in this year despite the sanctions, it might just let the issues sort themselves out.
But the State of Pennsylvania is engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that got Penn State in trouble in the first place: the football program is more important than the rape of young men. The State wants the NCAA to lighten up on Penn State so that they can return to the ranks of big time college football – postseason appearances, national rankings. Certainly that’s more important than the stain that may never be removed from Happy Valley?

What is going on with female coaches and teachers getting it on with students? Comedians all over the country have always made light of it, especially heterosexual liaisons since it is a common dream of young men to have sex with the hot teacher. But, in the spirit of true equality, homosexual affairs are also starting to turn up.
The first story was a bit of a surprise. Hall of Fame women’s track and field coach Bev Kearney, whose story of recovery from a paralyzing auto accident inspired people around the country, resigned due to an “intimate consensual relationship” with a University of Texas athlete in 2002. A spokesman for the school said that while Ms. Kearney was a good person who was important to the school, she made a “terrible mistake and used unacceptably poor judgment in having this relationship.”
Then, a married South Carolina teacher was arrested last week on suspicions that she had a sexual affair with a 17-year-old student at her home. Kinsley Wentzky, 34, was charged with sexual battery after investigators in the city of Columbia learned that she had allegedly brought a male home with her and had sex with him on several occasions. Ms. Wentzky reportedly knew the boy (a baseball player it appears from published photographs with the young man’s face pixilated) from Dreher High School where she has taught honors English classes for seven years. The alleged assault had been taking place since May, 2012.
I don’t particularly care if two adults, no matter their sex, get into a relationship – that’s generally a good thing, but the teacher/student or coach/athlete relationship is an uneven balance of power and a young person can be easily manipulated by the older, more experienced adult. Not to mention the issue of the trust factor between an authority figure and a kid and with the kid’s parents. It used to be a “wink-wink” kind of thing for a boy to be sleeping with the teacher, but is it really all that funny anymore?

While on break, I wanted to see a number of movies, and I got to the two I most wanted to see: Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” (“DU”) and Judd Apatow’s “This is 40.” I have always been a Tarantino fan, so the latest film was highest on the list. I don’t generally like today’s gross out comedies, so I have avoided Apatow’s films, but since 40 features my friend, musician Graham Parker, I definitely wanted to see it.
DU, like all of Tarantino’s films, is a bawdy, violent, mish mash of pulp films, pop culture references, and bold dialogue. Like his last film, “Inglorious Basterds,” it is a revenge fantasy – “Basterds” told an alternate history of Jews able to get revenge on Hitler and the rest of the Nazi hierarchy in World War II; DU is a story of slavery and revenge by one tough black man. As one would expect, it’s depiction of slavery and African-Americans has caused lots of controversy.
There are three main points I would like to address here: the use of the n-word throughout DU; the disrespecting of black people in the movie; and the comment by Richard Roeper that Tarantino’s appearance in the film was unnecessary and jarring.
Spike Lee is boycotting the film because of its use of the n-word numerous times. I hate the word as much as any black man, but the film takes place in 1858, at which time, the word would have been thrown about everywhere, even by black people. I didn’t find it offensive – it was the speech of the time period. In short, I would like to tell Spike Lee that he no longer is the voice of black people in and about cinema, so, he should see the movie before he opens his mouth. Or, even better, do another great film instead of sitting at courtside at NBA games and bitching about everyone else’s films.
Any depiction of slavery leads some black people to attack the film automatically. First, let it be said that Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington are two smart people and actors (especially Ms. Washington); I can’t see them playing demeaning stereotypes. It should also be said that all of the performances are excellent. Mr. Foxx and Ms. Washington were very good. The biggest surprise was Tarantino regular Samuel L. Jackson playing the “house n—–.” It was not a positive part, and in fact, he ends up being the main villain of the piece, and in this, Jackson was excellent, and I liked that it showed black people taking advantage of other slaves for their own betterment. Now, was this a documentary designed to educate people about slavery? No; it is an entertainment, and as such, was a rousing success.
Finally, we have Roeper, whose only claim to being a film reviewer was in playing second fiddle to Roger Ebert and proving how much better a reviewer Ebert was, has complained about Tarantino playing an leader of a group of Australian men who takes the captured Django to a mine to spend the rest of his life in hard labor. Why did they have to be Australian? Who knows? Does it really matter? Their portion of the film is relatively short as Django tricks them into setting him free. The only thing that I noticed was that Quentin has eaten well over the years – he’s a big ole Tarantino now.
I would like to take a moment to discuss the other actors for a moment. Christoph Waltz, who won a Best Supporting Acting Oscar for “Basterds” was just as excellent in DU as Dr. King Schultz, a dentist turned bounty hunter who at first buys Django to help him hunt down three murderers, but eventually becomes Django’s helper and friend. Their relationship made the film for me. Leonardo DiCaprio looked like he was have a grand time as the villainous plantation owner. Finally, it was good to see Don Johnson in a small role. Tarantino’s films have been notorious for using former household names in his movies: John Travolta in “Pulp Fiction” Sonny Chiba in “Kill Bill Part 1” and Pam Grier and Robert Forster in “Jackie Brown.” The former “Miami Vice” star wasn’t as great as the earlier performances, but the whole segment when he leads a band of Klansmen riding to ambush the bounty hunters, but they can see because of the poor eye holes on the bags on their heads is priceless (and Jonah Hill as “Rider #2” is hilarious).
The film is long and there is a lot of talking, especially when the hunters come to Candyland plantation in an attempt to free Django’s wife, but it helps to build tension, and the gore soaked conclusion.
I loved it.