My Amazing Trip To Downton Abbey

During the Golden Globe awards (this year's event was one of the few times I've actually watched them) I noticed several mentions (and nominations) for a PBS show I hadn't heard of before called Downton Abbey. It immediately evoked bad memories of some other English-type films I've seen that I absolutely despised for their incredible depth of complete boredom.

However, I kept hearing good things from some reliable sources and then noticed that the first season (just seven episodes which is quite typical for British shows) is available in HD on Netflix. I decided to give one episode a chance. I'm so glad I did as this is one of the very best TV shows I've ever experienced and an experience is what it is.

The acting is flat-out tremendous which is not a big surprise given some of the major players here. The most famous is Maggie Smith playing the grandmother and she's absolutely terrific. Her daughter-in-law is played by an old favorite of mine--Elizabeth McGovern (who still looks great at 50).

The basic story takes place at an old English estate called, obviously, Downton Abbey. The year is 1912 and the first episode coincides with the sinking of the Titanic which claims two key family members causing a potential financial catastrophe for the main family of the house--the Crawley's. Don't get too concerned about the year as we move from 1912 to 1914 by the end of the first season (again, just seven episodes). Watching back-to-back in Netflix is ever so slightly disconcerting as characters freshly introduced are suddenly acting as if they've been there for years (and have been according to the plot).

The core story involves us in the lives of not only the Crawley family but, even more so, the house staff of the estate including butlers, valets, cooks, maids, helpers and much more. Each one plays a critical role in both the upkeep of the estate and the forward momentum of the plot.

The writing is the best I've encountered and has caused me to literally sit on the edge of my seat at one turn then clapping loudly at another and then smiling so broadly at another that my jaw gets tired. The stories are simply riveting and the dialogue is second-to-none. This show has it all with regard to characterizations. We have Smith playing the perfect turn of the century Matriarch continually obsessed with protocol and her place in the hierarchy, McGovern, as the ever-watchful mother, focused on getting her three daughters prepared for a "proper" marriage, some of the most despicable characters in two of the staff and some genuine angelic-types that I defy anyone to not be enchanted by. You can't help but to become immersed in the inner workings of each and every character.

The Ladies Crawley -- Edith, Mary and Sybil.

The oldest of the three daughters, Mary, is part of the new age and is tired of constantly having to act as a catch for every acceptable male suitor that steps through the door. She yearns to be free but also understands the weight she carries for the family's future success. The middle daughter, Emily, is the forgotten, plain daughter and then there's the youngest daughter, Sybil, who's the wild stallion of the family. The actress that plays her, Jessica Brown Findlay, is quite stunning. She reminds me of a very classy version of Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson mixed into one.

While I suspect the show isn't for everyone it probably would impress most people. Remember, I am not the type to go in for the typical bland, plodding British movies and shows where very little seems to happen. The two worst examples of this were Gosford Park and The Remains Of The Day. This has similarities but only good ones. Everything else about it is entirely unlike those two painful films. The biggest problem with the series is that, in typical British TV fashion, it's over far too quickly. The second season is under way on PBS but now I've missed a few episodes and there's no telling when, or even if, Netflix will get more.

The Eye Of The Beholder

Back in 2005 I decided it was time to join several of my peers and to give LASIK eye surgery a shot. Those I knew that had it done all had exceptional experiences including at Kremer Eye Center, the place I'd decided to go with.

I also decided to pay a premium for the service that included lifetime support in case anything needed to be corrected beyond the initial procedure. That cost nearly doubled the final bill and I wondered if I'd regret it later.

I got the procedure and almost immediately my results differed from the results of my friends. They could see things I couldn't even remotely see. Kremer kept asking me to be patient but as the weeks turned into months it became clear that I was one of the "5%" that it hadn't worked well on. I ended up with pretty heavily impacted vision. I'd have double and triple vision. My vision would change dramatically within a day from okay to horrible and back again. Anything bright was a mess. White text on a black background looked worst of all. Not only was it in triplicate but it was also surrounded by a haze. Night vision was a real complication.

Over time I adjusted and talked with Kremer about adjustments to fix it but they balked saying that newer experience showed that going back in wasn't worth it due to a higher risk of infection. That bugged me as I then wondered what I paid extra for. I decided to wait.

Over the intervening years I adjusted to my new lesser vision. Skiing was more problematic as I couldn't see the minor details in the all-white terrain below me and I believe it may have even contributed to my breaking a leg later. Also, as the years past my vision grew more fuzzy with age. The only plus seemed to be that I staved off reading glasses while everyone else my age seemed to need them.

Then back around Halloween I decided to go stop in at Kremer once again to see if time had changed anything. They ran a full battery of tests and told me I did now have an option--PRK or Photorefractive Keratectomy. This differs from LASIK in that in LASIK procedures the main work is done below the surface of the eye while in PRK it's done without having to cut the eye to make a flap and happens on the surface. The down side is a longer recovery period lasting several days to several weeks.

They also warned me that doing this would pretty much mean I'd be forced into reading glasses. At this point I figured I'd already beaten the odds so I really had no issues with that. They then advised me to just try the weaker eye first, my left, and that might result in my being able to avoid reading glasses. The odds there sounded about 50/50.

Earlier this month I gave it a go and went for it. The experience itself was very similar to LASIK except for the part that caused me the biggest trouble. The cutting of the flap puts a lot of pressure on the eye and that caused a fight-or-flight reaction in me the first time around. In this procedure no such process takes place so it's almost painless to go through initially.

They eye is then covered with a medical contact lens to help the area heal evenly and to help keep scar tissue to an absolute minimum. The patient will need to wear that lens 24 hours a day for 3 days to a week or more. In my case I had the procedure on a Friday and the contact was removed on the following Monday. It's a good thing too as the contact lens was driving me crazy by Monday.

Another major difference between the two procedures is that almost immediately after LASIK you notice vastly improved vision. I did too but assumed the anomalies would abate after healing (but didn't). With PRK your eye is, in effect, injured and has to heal. During the interim your vision gets quite bad. Everything was foggy in my left eye and stayed that way for almost a week. Then, slowly but surely things improved. I'm now 10 days out and things are dramatically improved--though not perfect.

My distance vision is much improved and better than before but I still have some double-vision in the left eye  that I don't get the impression is going to improve. I also still need to wait a while for things to settle as the difference between my left and right eyes has now caused the right side to feel worse than before. Reading is also a real exercise as one eye can't see anything and the other can. At the local pharmacy today I tried on a weak pair a standard reading glasses and things instantly improved. Sounds like I might not have avoided that part.

My biggest concern was that the bad vision underneath the lens would combine with the adjustment above and create an even worse situation. That doesn't seem to be the case but I also have come to accept that my vision will never be as good as it was with plain old glasses. If I could go back to them I would. Now it's just a matter of hoping for the best with what I have. Thankfully, for now, things are better than they've been since 2005.

Movie Marathon Day

As 2011 came to a close I found myself seriously behind on my yearly movie count (that is first-run movies I see each year at a theater). In a bid to get the number up to a respectable level I talked my friends into a movie marathon day on Sunday where we managed to stuff in three films back-to-back (to back). Remember that while it's now 2012 I don't do a round-up until I've finished seeing all the 2011 films (which usually takes me into early February).

First up on the marathon was Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. This is the fourth entry in the successful series of films starring Tom Cruise as IMF (Impossible Missions Force) agent Ethan Hunt. I've seen all the others and this one was getting rave reviews with many people calling it the best of the series. I've liked previous entries enough to suggest that the producers of James Bond pay attention as this is really what a Bond film should feel like instead of the ridiculousness that seems to have taken over that crotchety series.

This one is also quite a fun and entertaining roller coaster ride. There's absolutely no surprise that the film is chock full of action sequences and insanely complex special effects and that's a good thing here. The music is also key amping up the intensity at all the right moments. The series' theme song is right up there with the Bond theme for being able to get your motor running the moment you hear its tell-tale notes starting to rise in the background.

The principal actors are all solid with Simon Pegg once again managing to play the comedic role without it being too much. I keep expecting to tire of his approach and yet it hasn't happened yet. Here he delivers great lines nearly ever time he's on screen.

For me, however, I wasn't quite as taken with this installment as many others. First of all it's been a while since the last installment (2006) and I literally didn't recall much of anything regarding where the story left off. It would have been helpful to get a useful redux. As we don't really get that here you're left a bit in the dark as the film progresses. In fact, I'm still at a loss to explain much of the entire opening sequence.

More concerning is the seemingly complete abandonment of physics. The film appears almost allergic to any sense of reality. Yes, this is a movie and I don't expect everything to be accurate (I don't complain about sound in the vacuum of space in sci-fi films for example) but I do expect them to be somewhat within the realm of believability. That simply isn't possible here. Most of the jumps and effects are just beyond belief. The most distracting example of this is a pair of "sticky" electric gloves Ethan wears to scale the tallest building in the world. The idea is that the gloves will adhere to any surface and he can use them to climb the outside of the building. That's all well and good. What's not acceptable is that the gloves only cover his hands and forearms. Think about that for a moment. Any amount of weight placed on them would cause them to simply slide straight off your arm the moment you opened your fingers.

Another issue dealt with timing all over the film that was simply too convenient. Storms that start on cue and then perfectly come to a close at the exact movement and tempo of the ending of the action sequence. The aforementioned gloves failing exactly at the final moment of their usefulness, etc.

 
In the end my issues with the film reminded me of my being one of the few people that disliked the original Indiana Jones film for much of the same reason. If you have no such concerns then this is the movie for you. For me it was fun but not anything special.

The next film on the slate was the seemingly-quirky We Bought A Zoo. This movie, starring a somewhat plain Matt Damon wasn't exactly at the top of my list of films to see. The previews really didn't resonate with me and it all just seemed like light family fare aimed primarily at getting sighs from the younger members of the family. I mean, we've not only never seen Damon look this vanilla but the same is true for Scarlett Johansson and that's not easy to do.

What I experienced instead was a wonderful film that's cute, touching, memorable and enjoyable by virtually every possible movie goer. It also sports a really solid sound track that set the atmosphere perfectly for virtually every scene.

There are moments where the film falls down a bit. The zoo inspector (played by venerable character actor John Michael Higgins) is very cartoon-like which is another way to say his character is a bit overdone and the same is nearly true for his arch-enemy, the zoo carpenter, played solidly by Angus MacFadyen (Robert the Bruce from Braveheart). It's also totally predictable and very much feels like a stereo-typical Hollywood affair. In the end its biggest failing is that it's just too bland.

We know there has to be a deeper story here but the film seems too unsure of itself to go there instead opting for the safety of simplicity. I found myself wanting to still see a more adult-specific version of the film replete with all the stresses and realities that surely must have gone with the territory. I suspect the producers just flat-out couldn't come to grips with exactly what this film is. It sticks a toe in each area but then pulls it back as soon as it gets at all warm.

However, even those issues aren't enough to ruin the fun. Thomas Hayden Church as the brother once again provides a character that nearly steals the show. The ending sequences were also so powerful and well done that those alone are worth the effort (I'll never look at a red kite the same again). I doubt there was a dry eye in the house. I'm glad I saw it and would recommend it to most anyone other than those who must have a myriad of explosions to make a film worthwhile.

The last movie on the list was A Dangerous Method. This biopic on the complex relationship between Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Jung's patient/mistress (played by Keira Knightley) looked riveting from the previews. I was sold on the concept from the outset. The film comes from David Cronenberg who knows how to present a highly-disturbing story.

Initially the film was everything I expected. I was fascinated by the interaction between the principal characters and the manner in which they progressed. It's a very dialog-driven film and much of the pay-off comes from cutting remarks, careful motive-based word-play and, finally, direct and often stirring action.

The catch is that it just doesn't sustain the story long enough and begins to fall flat about a third of the way into the film. Once we know the foundation of the three main characters the rest is all just plainly repetitive and, after a period, a bit tedious. The acting is first-rate from almost all involved but it just doesn't change the unsatisfying end effect. It feels typically too "British" and almost insultingly high-brow. It reminded me of the plodding disaster (for me) that was Gosford Park. Lots of endless talking without much of anything really happening. There's an entire sequence of scenes involving the always-reliable Vincent Cassel playing one of Freud's disturbed patients that I still have major issues with. His character is poorly presented and comes and goes so quickly as to leave the viewer wondering what the entire point was.

By the time it came to a close I felt as if I really hadn't gained any useful insight in the real lives of Jung or Freud other than having found out about Jung's mistress of which I knew nothing. I suspect there will be Oscar talk involving Knightley but for me her acting her was actually a bit distracting. Her attempts to capture the mannerisms of someone with deep mental issues at the start of the film were so striking that I later simply could not believe anyone could recover--let alone become a professional colleague. Jung also comes off very poorly here (and nearly incompetent) and I suspect historians would take countless issues with that portrayal.

A group of us made it this long to see the film and after it was over we did talk quite a bit about it. It was clear we wanted to like it but ultimately it just didn't provide enough depth or answers to sustain our interest.

Breaking News! New MiO!

Okay, so it's not the biggest news out there but it was still quite a surprise to me--and a welcome one. Not long ago I wrote up a post about the wonders of MiO Liquid Water Enhancer. Since finding it early last summer I've become not only a big fan but also addicted to the point of trying to add as many converts as possible to it (with some nice successes).

In the intervening months I've been curious as to how the product is faring in the marketplace and if we were going to see some new flavors added to the roster of the existing initial six. Well, word is that MiO is doing incredibly well for Kraft Foods bringing in $100 million in revenue in its first year. I also notice that it's slowly stealing more shelf space from Crystal Light (although that's not really a competing brand as it too is owned by Kraft).

Since my initial use I've found that I prefer bouncing from one flavor to another fairly equally (the least favorite so far has been Sweet Tea which isn't a big surprise as I don't like any "sweet" iced teas out there to begin with).

What I didn't quite expect was what's apparently coming next. While making a quick stop for milk at a local grocery store I passed by an end cap that sported three new entries into the MiO family. I first noticed a standard looking package with a new Orange Tangerine flavor. Then next to it were a couple clearly different variants called MiO Energy. These come in black containers (in contrast to their traditional silver packaging). On closer inspection all three variations brought something novel to the party besides their taste.

The orange entry is boosted with B3, B6 and B12 vitamins. The Energy variants came in two flavors--Black Cherry and Green Thunder (which is apple-like). Both of these are clearly designed to try to elbow their way into the territory previously opened up by the various 5-hour energy drink-type products that can now be found at the registers of virtually every convenience store in the country. They do this by infusing these products with 60 milligrams of caffeine per serving (8 ounces). To put that into perspective, a Red Bull (8.3 ounces) has 77 milligrams while a can of Coca Cola (12 ounces) has 34 milligrams.

I immediately tried the Black Cherry Energy flavor and it was fantastic. I've never cared one bit for Red Bull and I've missed the energy boost I got from iced tea. In a bid to drop weight I'd given up drinking my beloved Arizona iced tea (which I was buying by the case).

The orange flavor was also interesting. Upon filling my glass I immediately thought of the old favorite Tang which was hugely popular when I was a kid. It gained fame as the drink astronauts drank in space. Both the smell and the taste only validated my guess as it seems like virtually the same thing but not quite as potent (probably not a bad thing). The amount of each vitamin boost only amounts to 10% of your recommended daily intake and while that may seem small to some the point is that you should be drinking several glasses of water a day. Plus, I wasn't getting any extra amounts of this before so it's all a plus.

There are only two negatives. First, now the main six flavors seem barren by comparison. I'd like to see vitamins added to each of the other flavors to give them the added benefit to my health and the caffeine kick is nice but if I want that I'm limited to just two flavors for now. I almost wish they had a flavorless caffeine bottle that I could just add with any other flavor but, of course, that's not all that convenient.

Second, I'm a bit concerned that these may all be test products. Why? None of them are mentioned on the website other than in their Tweets section. In fact, their own FAQ includes a statement about how none of their products contains caffeine. Very odd. Either these are test products or their marketing department has dropped the ball.

Regardless, for those of us who are now addicted, we've got a new problem to contend with--which of the nine products do we choose each time we fill a glass of water?

A Spielberg Weekend

This weekend I managed to see two Steven Spielberg movies and that usually is a recipe for a great movie-going weekend. Sadly, that wasn't the reality.

First up was War Horse. This is a bit of a strange film in that the star of the film is the horse and in a way that's unlike most other movies. Animals in the title role are almost always not really the prime catalyst with respect to moving the plot along. Here the horse is the center of the universe and we get introduced to its various owners along most of its life. Those characters, while essential to the plot, come and go so quickly that it's pretty hard not to focus on the horse itself.

The film has been receiving fairly solid reviews and I can see why but for many viewers those comments simply won't result in an entertaining experience. The film looks absolutely beautiful. The cinematography was stunning. Spielberg certainly knows how to get the best look for any shot and that's evident here. The music is also well done and that's no surprise given that it's done by multi-Oscar-winning musical director John Williams (and frequent Spielberg movie partner).

However, that's about all there is to say that's really memorable about the film. It runs 2 hours and 26 minutes but it felt so much longer. The main problem is that given the quick changes of ownership and settings we can never really get to care about all but one or two other characters in the film. Since the main character is an actual horse and not some fictional animated animal it also is hard to really connect. We never really get the feeling that the horse is doing anything more than just simply experiencing everything around it in extremely basic horse-like fashion. A gun goes boom--the horse runs.

The biggest problem of all is in the final ending sequence. It's so ludicrously unbelievable that I felt like I'd wasted the entire 150 minutes. In the earliest parts of the film I was thinking this could be a tear-jerking classic but that fell away after the first 15 minutes or so. The end result is a film so dwarfed by countless other animal films that its hard to even suggest you catch it on cable.

The next film was The Adventures Of Tintin. This is a film I really didn't have much interest in as I knew nothing of the history of the character (it was a hugely popular European comic book during much of the 20th century).

Much to my complete surprise the film grabbed hold of me from the very first frames. Its look demands attention and should blow away most anyone that sees it. I've simply never seen animation look this good. While we saw it in 3D the 3D elements weren't all that necessary or impressive so the impact was surely the same in the standard version. Every inanimate object looked entirely real. The main characters didn't and, in fact, suffered from the same odd disconnect as other efforts where the humans looked almost real but not quite. However, I then realized that this seemed to be mainly limited to only the core characters. Other people walking around looked entirely true-to-life as they didn't need to convey the comic-like exaggerations of the main characters.

Some of the special effects were also noteworthy as they were among the very best I've seen in either an animated or live action movie. By the end of the film I realized that this effort had completely made the case that Hollywood, via animation, is now able to effectively digitize and present any story they want without animation creating a problem with realism. There's no doubt in my mind that within the next few years we're going to see something entirely different as a result of the evolution of the industry. Perhaps now it's time to see a new Humphrey Bogart film or Harrison Ford acting alongside a young Katharine Hepburn.

That's for a future movie to ponder. For now the issue is this film and, sadly, there's nothing else of any import to convey. This one ran 1 hour 47 minutes but felt easily much longer than War Horse. The story was uninteresting and downright plodding in several places. There are some laughs here and there but nothing sustainable. There are also a few times where you're not entirely sure what's going on. By the end we had one member of our group that fell asleep half-way through and another that nearly did so.

Suffice to say that I didn't think it could be possible to see two new Spielberg films in a single weekend and have the end result be that both of them were a bores. Now I've seen everything--and maybe that's the problem. However, I think it's not me but Spielberg. His last great movie was five years ago now and I wonder if perhaps he's simply running out of great ideas. I hope not.

A Great Showing For The Artist

Earlier this year I noticed a bit of buzz regarding an upcoming movie that sounded intriguing but also extremely risky. The film--The Artist--is quite novel in that it's a silent movie. Yep, in 2011 a film studio decided to take a chance on a quirky, fairly risky venture and shoot a complete silent film. It's not entirely as risky as one might think because the movie itself isn't just a standard silent movie but is essentially a silent movie about silent movies and that makes all the difference.

My main concern with the film was that it would just be presented as a gimmick and wouldn't really work as a feature-length film. Instead it works wonderfully. It's clear that every scene was thought out from the standpoint of how it would be viewed from this new perspective. The producers clearly understood that a huge number of viewers (and potential viewers) would not be able to simply forget that this is a silent movie. Instead they work that into the effort at every turn. The opening credits are presented much like films of the era--basic and muted. Even the effects used feel perfectly thought out. Key scenes that are supposed to be of actual films include slightly foggy edges and everything's presented in standard old-style 4:3 resolution (no wide-screen here just like then). There's no cheap graininess to convey age as it's all supposed to be new.

Every shot looks flawless and it's amazing how simply black-and-white shots take locations of today and perfectly make them appear as if they're from the 1920's and 1930's. I also couldn't help notice how essential the musical score was here. It makes you realize just how essential music must have been earlier on in film making's history. It also didn't escape my attention as to how quiet everyone had to be as you didn't have a lot of continually loud noises to cover up the audience. You also had no choice but to keep your attention glued to the screen to make sure you knew what was going on and that helped to reduce (but of course not totally eliminate) cell phone use.

The story itself isn't perfect but it's wonderfully engaging, touching and paced. You'll laugh heartily in spots and tear up in others. Also noteworthy is both a mid-film sequence that I really worried might destroy the film (instead it was spot-on) and a pitch-perfect ending sequence that really brings it all home.

The cast is also worth mentioning. The stars are mainly unknown to American audiences and that's both by design and essential to the telling of this story. Beyond them the film treats us with stars that seem also carefully selected to evoke an earlier age including Penelope Ann Miller, John Goodman, Ed Lauter, James Cromwell and even Malcolm McDowell. Most have smaller parts but each is critical to the story in their own way and so their selections here do wonders.

The best thing I can say about this experiment is that I'd like to see more silent films and that's no small praise. The catch is that, as noted, it's one thing to make a silent movie about silent movies (more or less) and another thing to make a great silent film entirely in its own right.

A Twist On Fantasy Football

When it comes to board gaming I've been at it a long time. The same is true for my sports-based gaming. I go back to card-based sports gaming including old classics like APBA Baseball, Cadaco's All-Star Baseball, Strat-O-Matic Baseball, Sports Illustrated's Statis Pro Baseball and several others covering basketball, auto racing, boxing and more (including some of my own designs). Then in 1985 all of that changed when I read a story in Games magazine outlining a brand new concept then called Rotisserie League Baseball.

This was something amazing. Card-based games were always stuck in the past as they're all based on, at best, the previous year's statistics. Plus, there was always the issue of players who only played a few games in real life that season but did well. When their cards came out of course they had insanely inflated stats that would then throw a major wrench into the realism of our leagues. In the end the older games, while wonderful in their own way, were inherently predictable.

Roto-leagues (as they later were called) started springing up soon after and morphed into the phenomenon we know today as fantasy sports leagues. These felt so much more like the real deal and required an actual level of scouting, instincts, being able to respond to real injuries and more. However, fantasy football never held any allure for me as it was always handicapped by only being able to present a subset of player positions. How does one statistically account for an offensive lineman's abilities?

I became aware of a game being designed by an accounting guru that looked to be something a bit different. He already had a number of other games including a pretty interesting horse racing game. The big issue with his designs had been approachability. The games are generally very numbers-heavy and interface-light. When one of my other hobbies waned I decided to give his football game a shot.

The Main Deep Route Team Screen

It's called Deep Route and it's unlike anything else I've ever encountered.  The main difference between this game and anything else is that it's all built around fictional players. At first that seemed like a huge turn-off. Who can get excited about football players you've never heard of and, in fact, don't even exist?

The game itself is broken up in several different types and levels of leagues. There are dozens of them. Some play games nearly every day of the week while others play much less. The one I chose plays two games a week (and that's one of the least active leagues available) and it goes on all year. Our games are held every Tuesday and Saturday. Also, different leagues play by different rules regarding salaries, injuries and so forth. You choose the flavor and involvement level you want and see if there's a league opening (many leagues are totally booked). If there is and you see a team you're interested in you take over as its owner. Oh, you also have complete control over your teams' location, name, logo, uniforms and more. While none of that impacts play it lets you feel more connected to the team.

Part of the Firebirds Roster

The core game is free to play though there are value-added pay features that may or may not increase your chances of winning. For example, you can buy points to apply to various things like scrimmages to test your team against others (even in other leagues) or the use of intermediate play calling options or advanced playbooks. None of it is very expensive. It's all here. Also, when I say playbooks, I mean complete sets of plays that you can design entirely from scratch if you so desire.

In my setup I have offensive playbooks that dictate very specific player substitutions so that I have both a run-oriented setup (with lots of run-blocking linemen) and a pass-oriented setup where the emphasis is, of course, more on pass blocking and catching.

NFL rules are mainly followed with a few minor exceptions and you determine your depth chart, roster make-up and type of offensive and defensive play calling that fits your style. Everything then comes down to the schedule. There's a free agent signing period, a detailed draft, four pre-seasons games, final cuts and then a full 16-game schedule and playoffs culminating in a championship game. As noted, depending on the frequency some leagues may play quite a few seasons in a single year. My own league plays an entire cycle in about two months and thus we play six seasons in every year--and remember, this is considered a slow league.

The real meat of the game is in its player management design. Every player is laden with a bevvy of statistics that can boggle the mind and each position brings its own twist. Height and weight matter (differently for each position). Age matters. Additionally there are 34 main stats rated for both potential and realized skills for a total of 68. Like real life much potential is never realized and as you age that potential diminishes. There's also endless debate between owners in every league about the impact of each stat for each position and what makes for the best players in each position. No one is truly sure of the "secret sauce" underneath it all. Stats are also saved from season to season and there's a full league history of every player who ever existed and what they did.

The Roster Moves Page (including salary info)

Games get played in the middle of the night during what are called "spin" periods. You'll wake up after the latest spin with the choice to just see the outcome, watch the game in a play-by-play mode or other variations. You don't actually have any input during the playing of the game. All your work is done beforehand so once the game starts it's all computer AI from there until it's over.

The unknown nature of the underpinnings can be entirely fascinating. For example, on the team I took over I kept looking at one defensive end that hadn't really done anything special previously in his career. He'd been a backup and then a starter at Left Defensive End. To underscore how realistic things can get every position is unique even when you think it might not matter. There are two defensive ends in football--one on the right side of the defensive line and one on the left. Here that distinction's critical. The left defensive end is generally pass-rushing the quarterback from the side a right-handed quarterback can easily see and thus LDE's get far fewer opportunities to sack the quarterback than do Right Defensive Ends (who rush from the quarterback's "blind side"). An RDE thus needs a different skill set than an LDE. Your RDE should be more agile and more easily able to shed the blocker in front of him. This LDE of mine, named Chris Blackburn, looked like he had all the tools to be a solid RDE, so, against his history I started him there. The result? He ended up leading the league in sacks and was a top finisher in the Most Valuable Player voting at the end of the season. I couldn't help but smile every time he nailed the opposing quarterback. Now I've got a real dilemma because I drafted what looks to be an even better RDE last season that I played as a linebacker for his first year (during which he got faster and bigger). He led my team in tackles and was a major force in several games so now I may actually move Blackburn back to his old position in favor of the younger player. As they're not actual people no one's left to complain though I still feel oddly disloyal for this virtual slight.

In-Progress Game Screen

The game isn't without its problems. As I noted, it's not the prettiest game out there. It's mainly a bunch of text so it requires a good amount of imagination (though watching games is much like watching real play-by-play games on ESPN) and the site design is often not only bland but also uninspired and less than optimal. Sometimes it's even buggy in places. Probably the biggest issue is simply its sheer depth. This game simulates--well--an astounding amount of the real game and that means there's so much to digest here that it will simply overwhelm the vast majority of typical gamers out there. The interface only exacerbates this situation.

However, the developers are constantly there looking to improve all the aspects of the game and the main elements are alive and well. Plus the community is thriving and engaging. Rivalries over which leagues are the most competitive spring up and several people own many teams in different leagues all at the same time.

My concern about fictional players is mainly gone. I now care more about my own aging QB--Dennis French--and his possible future replacement that I just drafted--James Stringfellow--than I do about any actual pro players. The only down side I find is that I can't easily stay connected to players on other teams like you can with NFL players who are on TV or in the news continually. Other owners seem to have no such problem so it might just be my newness to the game.

I took over my team in the final weeks of one season and had my first full season from October to December. My team finished that first partial season as a wild-card team and I won my first play-off game only to get crushed in the next game. In my first full season my team got off to a great start, then faltered in the middle before finishing on a tear to win my division. The playoffs ended the same with a win and then a loss. During the season I lost three major players to serious injury and learned a treasure trove of information about how the game actually works. It's all quite addicting once you get the hang of it. I really recommend it wholeheartedly, but with the caveat that it's not for those without patience.

Bill O'Reilly, The Umbrella and the Protester.

An altercation happened near the White House between Bill O'Reilly and an Occupy protester that approached him while Bill was on his way to the White House. Word of it got out so O'Reilly opened his TV show with his version of what happened. You can get the video for yourself on several sites including FoxNation or Media Matters (I include the Media Matters link as those on Fox tend to disappear). This clip includes two full segments but you only need to see the first part for the context:



Bill takes a couple minutes to explain his version of the story. In it he describes an "out of control" protester that ran up to him and his assistant, screaming and how he had no choice but to defend himself from this crazed anarchist with the only means he had (due to lax Washington laws according to O'Reilly) with his umbrella. As an example of how bad things are he played a clip of protesters disrupting a Chris Christie speech with coordinated shouts from the back. He closed by saying that had the guy identified himself everything would have been different and re-emphasizing that running at someone in the dark screaming is a threatening situation.

The interesting part is that he never bothered to show the video of the event:



Watch the video. Almost nothing of what O'Reilly described to his audience is portrayed here. First of all, the person approaching O'Reilly does not appear to be running. Nor does he appear to be screaming. Nor do we ever see any hint of the assistant O'Reilly claims to have been helping to protect while the altercation is taking place. He also seems anything but startled. After several totally quiet steps O'Reilly clearly takes his umbrella and purposely reaches outward several feet to poke the protester and to continue to push him away with it. O'Reilly says, "Oh, hey, sorry about that" as if it was entirely an accident.

In O'Reilly's version of events he used every possible tactic to spin a complete and utter lie about what transpired. He sets the tone by using the words "runs up", "screaming", "startled", "armed", "out of control". He makes it sound like a crazed lunatic was descending upon him while he had to heroically defend the life of his assistant and himself from potential harm. None of it happened and the fact that O'Reilly declined to play the actual video of the situation speaks volumes. The only people who would side with O'Reilly here are those who are inherently fearful of people in general--and that makes up a pretty good chunk of extreme Republicans. He said, "I was lucky last night. I'm sure the guy wanted me to hit him." HE was lucky? The only physical contact that occurred here was by Bill O'Reilly towards the protester.

O'Reilly goes on to explain that, just as he predicted on previous shows, bad things were going to happen because the protesters are becoming increasingly aggressive. In other words, he did nothing here. They're aggressive now and they attacked him. This from the guy that sends producers out all over the country doing the exact same thing to countless others. The amazing part about this hypocrisy is that he then spends then entire second segment asking why there isn't a law against the very thing he's guilty of.

It's also quite disturbing that he got a former detective to come on to corroborate his view and to go so far as to say, of a video they dismiss as edited, that it clearly shows the protester running up behind O'Reilly and yelling out questions. Again they try to suggest that all of this would have been different if the protester stated his name before proceeding. Yeah, right. None of this would have occurred if it started with, "Mr. O'Reilly, I'm Branden Lane. Did you just come from the Newt Gingrich fund raiser?" The detective even calls O'Reilly a victim.

Most disgusting is that later he equated his experience with that of John Lennon. “I’m thinking of John Lennon here. Poor John Lennon is signing an autograph and all of a sudden he is dead.”

O'Reilly says, "I don't want the guy arrested. That would have made me look like a bully and an idiot."

Too late.

Unsung News of the Week

• Windows with an on/off switch: a new technology dynamically changes whether windows allow heat to pass through or not, while not impacting the light let in.
• Free singing telegrams through the end of this year from Western Union! (with a new technological twist)
• Follow-up to the Murder of Mosquitoes: "Genetic Genocide" details the risks and ethical quandaries in easy layman-speak.
• UN envoy berates the US for not protecting its Occupy Wall Street protesters, comparing the situation to the Arab Spring. "Using the same lens placed on the Occupy movement to look at, say, the protest in Egypt, Verheyden-Hilliard said, observers would have focused on such issues as 'Did the people in Tahrir Square have a permit?'"
• Not news, but neat nonetheless: The Nutrition Source for trustworthy information from Harvard's School of Public Health

The Descendents Of Hugo

There's been a lot of Oscar talk surrounding George Clooney and his latest film, The Descendents. Clooney's always been a solid actor and has tried again and again to break into the top tier of actors only to not quite make it. Frankly, I've always felt it's been the sex symbol curse. Many other actors have fallen prey to this one. Now that he's looking a bit older and more dignified perhaps he'll get the credit he's due.

The film is a very broad effort that's witty, touching, cute and even appropriately funny (but not uproarious which would be out of place here). It's the kind of story you love to see in a movie. It's almost like a dream in ways. There are serious moments and then they turn a bit surreal (as in a serious scene where Clooney suddenly starts running and you wonder if the guy has ever been told how to run given the awkwardness displayed). It's the kind of story you want to go on and on. It's neither too long or too short--I just wish it wouldn't end and there's a difference.

Clooney is, as billed, perfect for the role in every way. However, he's far from alone here. His two daughters are also wonderfully effective and noteworthy. Even the wife--who spends the entire film in a coma--looks to have mastered the act of never moving even a single muscle while looking exactly as you'd expect someone in a coma to look.

There's also a nice surprise performance from Beau Bridges who's needed a good platform for some time.

One negative was the continual nagging feeling I got that something was missing and then I realized the part that was missing was the soundtrack. It really doesn't have much more than some background Hawaiian fare that doesn't really do much of anything. I couldn't help but think that the effort would have gone to another stratosphere with a killer soundtrack in the same way The Graduate was elevated by the likes of Simon and Garfunkel.

In the end it feels very much like one of the better films I've seen all year and I'll be surprised if it doesn't get some play for the gold statue.

Before I get to the next film I wanted to interrupt and talk about the amazing preview we saw prior. It was for a remake of Titanic. At first I was thinking, "Really?" Then I saw the 3D views (as that's the whole point of the remake) and my jaw dropped. It was stunning--absolutely stunning. The ship became huge. The effect more pronounced. I haven't been this excited about a preview since The Adjustment Bureau (and hoping this turns out far better than that).

The film we actually showed up to see was Hugo in 3D which explains the 3D previews. I've had a bit of a love-hate relationship with director Martin Scorsese's films over the years. I tend to find lots of things I simply don't like about many of the films he's known for. Sometimes you just don't connect with someone else's vision. As a result I really have to be wowed by a Scorsese preview to bother. Hugo did just that.

The film was perfectly suited for 3D with incredibly perfect imagery at every turn. Clearly the developers were thinking 3D from the outset. It's one of the rare cases where I can't imagine seeing it any other way.

The acting was also top-notch with a really noteworthy performance from the usually-quirky Sasha Baron Cohen. Here he manages to play "the bad guy" while winning us over feeling sorry for his lot in life. I'm also a big fan of Ben Kingsley who is, as always, spot-on as the main target of the story.

The effects are also quite wondrous beyond the 3D shots including some pretty stunning sound effects. I was actually afraid that this would be a bunch of overdone fantastical elements tossed together and called a story but it's not. It's so much more. It's actually, and quite unexpectedly, a beautiful homage to film making.

By the end everyone was touched even though the journey didn't feel quite as timely as it should have. Things in the beginning really take a while to get going and even slows down a bit more in the middle before stealing your heart and inner child away with a brilliant closing act.