Review: True Grit

Plot: After Mattie's Ross's (Hailee Steinfeld) father is shot by the drifter Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), Ross hires drunken U.S. Marshall Reuben "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) to bring the outlaw to justice. Accompanied by cocksure Texas Ranger La Boeuf (Matt Damon) the three set out into Choctaw territory in pursuit of Chaney and the gang leader "Lucky" Ned Pepper (Barry Pepper.)

Review: Joel and Ethan Cohen's 2010 incarnation of True Grit, based on the 1968 novel by Charles Portis, is a strong if slightly flawed western. Less a remake of the 1969 classic starring John Wayne, this latest version of True Grit follows the novel closer.

The tone and mood of the film is driven by Mattie Ross and not by Bridges character as might be expected. To be sure the audience get its fair share of Cogburn, but Mattie is the driving force here and the Cohen's could not have picked a finer young actress. Fourteen year old Steinfeld is simply captivating as the young Mattie Ross and holds her own against Bridges. The scene where Ross is trying to stop Cogburn from leaving the courthouse is particularly memorable. Ross brings a fiery and tenacious spirit to the part of Mattie that is incredibly nuanced and far superior to Kim Darby's original portrayal. Her Academy Award nomination is almost assured. The tragedy would be if she didn't win. I haven't seen a performance this good by such a young actress since Anna Paquin in The Piano.

Bridges I believe will also get another Oscar nomination. Aside from occasionally being unintelligible (which to be fair makes up the character) Bridges's performance is nearly flawless. At times cantankerous and rude, Bridges's Rooster also comes across as caring philosophical. He's constantly amusing as well. The back and forth play between the lawyer and Cogburn at the beginning of the film is witty and hilarious at the same time. Rarely has the distinction between lawman and lawyer been evidenced on screen. Even his look is more grizzled, dirty, and authentic than Wayne's was in the 1969 original.

Damon is servicable as La Boeuf, though his performance is dwarfed by the strong roles of Steinfeld and Bridges. Although to be fair Damon had nowhere to go but up considering the original role was played by Glen "Like a Rhinestone Cowboy" Campbell. Still he didn't seem to fit the role of a Texas Ranger at times and got into scrapes that Cogburn had to get him out of more often than not. Damon's character is not particularly likable or memorable.

What also detracts from the film was the inclusion of several unnecessary and bizarre scenes. The two that stand out the most are where Bear Grit (Ed Corbin) shows up in an awkward scene offering Mattie and Rooster medical attention. Additionally the scene where La Boeuf spanks Mattie is a definite WTF moment.

As talented an actor as Josh Brolin is, I hated him in this film. He played Chaney as a buffoon and reminded me more of Mongo from Blazing Saddles than anything else. I fault the Cohen brothers for that one. I don't believe they should have allowed Brolin to portray Chaney in that manner. It made moments of the film come across as Raising Arizona rather than possessing the seriousness of No Country for Old Men. ( Brolin's performances is indicative of a key flaw in the film. True Grit at times was too lighthearted for a western.) Thankfully, Brolin was balanced out slightly by the fine acting of Barry Pepper. His role as "Lucky" Ned Pepper was fantastic. Unfortunately, he was severely underutilized and had little screen time.

The Cohen's went very far to make True Grit appear like an authentic western. The costumes are impeccable and Roger Deakins's cinematography is top rate. Some of the mountain shots are the finest I've ever seen. His capture of the final shootout is also quite memorable. Longtime collaborator Carter Burwell also presents a beautiful score that complements True Grit's austere qualities.

While True Grit isn't quite the high caliber film you might expect from the Cohen brothers, it is a good western. It's just not the great western I was anticipating. Still there are plenty of excellent acting performances, action, and scenery to make this film worth the price of admission.

My rating: 8/10

JAOR: Gran Torino

Plot: Walt Kowalski (Clint Eastwood) is a retired Ford factory worker and Korean War veteran living in a suburb of Detroit. Cantankerous and racist, Walt's ideology is suddenly challenged when the Vang Lor family of Hmong descent moves next door. When Thao (Bee Vang) attempts to steal Walt's 1972 Gran Torino, Walt develops an unlikely and meaningful relationship with the young teen.

Review: I have the utmost respect for Clint Eastwood. I think The Outlaw Josey Wales and Unforgiven are two of the best Westerns ever made. Eastwood's contribution to the world of cinema through acting, writing, directing, and even composing is incalculable.

Having said that I think Gran Torino is a horribly overrated movie and certainly not one of Eastwood's best. The story of an old racist curmudgeon who develops a relationship with a teenager of a different race is trite and cliche to say the least.

I had no vested interest in Walt or Thao as characters. They seemed rather one dimensional and uninspired to me. I'm sorry but I don't feel particularly interested in seeing anyone, let along Clint Eastwood, play the bigot next door. Is Gran Torino an attempt at social commentary? If so the words are lost on me. Furthermore Vang's performance as Thao is horrendous. I've seen better acting from Bolo Yeung. (Chong Li from Bloodsport for those who aren't in the know.)

And what is up with Clint Eastwood's voice? I know it has always had that flinty quality to it but man Clint, Christian Bale thinks you are too raspy. Either dial it down a notch or don't talk on screen anymore. And for the love of God don't have your son score your films. His composing leaves something to be desired. Do us all a favor and pick up the phone and call Alan Silvestri or James Horner next time. Both of those guys are still in demand last time I checked. Also the song "Gran Torino" that Eastwood sings in the credits will cause you to bleed profusely from the ears. I guarantee it.

However, this isn't to say that Gran Torino doesn't have its merits. Tom Stern's cinematography is solid. Also I appreciated the editing by Joel Cox and Gary D. Roach.

The problem is that this is supposed to be a drama not a sci-fi action film. The most redeeming features of a Clint Eastwood movie should be the acting, plot, and directing. Unfortunately, none of these three things stand out and that is why, to me anyway, Gran Torino is one of the most overrated films of Clint Eastwood's career.

My rating: 5/10

Kill Indiana Jones?????

Let's face it most people were not pleased with the last Indiana Jones film. Call it too much meddling by George Lucas, call it the alien tact, call it Shia LaBeouf in a pompadour. Whatever the case, for most people Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull left a bad taste in their mouths. Personally I've come to like it even though I wasn't pleased the first time I watched it.

Yet despite all the criticism the movie was the third highest grossing film of 2008 right behind The Dark Knight and Iron Man, and everybody knows that in Hollywood the green always talks. Therefore it is not surprising that a fifth (and presumably final) installment of the Indiana Jones franchise is the works. As to what the movie will be based around no one really knows although the story is being developed.

However, a new development has been brought to light. The movie gossip site ShowbizSpy is reporting that Harrison Ford is pushing for the iconic character to be killed off in the next film.

Say what? Kill Indy?? Surely this is a joke.

Yet the more I thought about it the more I think it might make sense. It would be nice to see Indy go out in a blaze of glory unlike say Captain Kirk did in Star Trek Generations. I could definitely see it being a situation where Indy sacrifices himself to save someone. And after all Harrison Ford is so old at this point he helped build the Temple of Doom. However, a part of me still balks at the idea of killing Indiana Jones. I mean come on it's freakin' Indiana Jones!

While Ford is pushing for it Spielberg is said to be on the fence and (surprise!) Lucas is completely against it. In the end I don't think it will happen. Harrison Ford didn't get his way when he wanted to kill off Han Solo at the end of Return of the Jedi and its not going to happen here. Fear not fans of Indy, this talk of killing off Indiana Jones is just that: talk.

Unless of course Spielberg has Indy die of natural causes on screen which considering Ford's age is entirely possible.

Review: Tron Legacy

Plot: A sequel to 1982's cult classic, Tron: Legacy follows the exploits of Sam Flynn (Garrett Hedlund) the son of Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). Twenty years after Sam's father disappears and leaves Sam the sole heir of his father's electronic empire, Sam is still haunted by his father's mysterious disappearance. When Sam is summoned to his father's old arcade by a page he suddenly finds himself transferred to "The Grid" a computer network populated with people known as "programs." With the portal back to the real world closing it's up to Sam to find his lost father and stop a menace from being unleashed on our world.

Review: It's been over twenty years since I've seen the original Tron and what I remember of it is fairly forgettable. The story was inanely boring and I remember the special effects being terrible. As I grew older I appreciated Tron for the fact that it was a precursor to virtual reality and for movies like The Matrix and The Thirteenth Floor. In many ways it was a movie ahead of its time without the advances in special effects to do it justice.

It was with mild optimism that I entered the world of Tron again on Friday in IMAX 3D.

I was presently surprised at the result. Tron: Legacy is the film its predecessor wished it could have been. Once we enter the world of Tron, the first half hour is a visual feast. Luminous highways, disc battles, and light cycle races abound. You could almost feel the energy crackling off the screen. Furthermore, the CGI that went into making Jeff Bridges look younger was quite impressive. Several times I forgot that CLU 2 (the main antagonist and bearing the likeness of Bridges) was actually a CGI creation. The visual element is the thing that carries Tron: Legacy and saves it from becoming a sci-fi schlock fest.

The acting itself was fairly pedestrian but then again you have to look at the source material. After all this is Tron not The Tempest. Hedlund is the strongest of the bunch and plays the role of reluctant leader and distant son well. Olivia Wilde, sporting a sexy new black hairdo, is decent as Quorra, the innocent ISO, a program that created itself--think of Genesis in the cyber world. Weakest however is Bridges. His performance as CLU 2 and Kevin Flynn feels like a snow job. Bridges seemed more like he was phoning in this role for a paycheck.

I have to give credit to Joseph Kosinski, Tron: Legacy's director. It's not easy to craft a sequel to a beloved cult classic but I think he did a strong job creating a cohesive and fast paced narrative. The sad thing is that he had to work with such a poor script by writers Sean Bailey, Jeffery Silver, and Steven Lisberger. Some things were just obvious rip-offs from other films. One shot of the tower at the center of the Tron city looked like it was right out of Blade Runner and a gun shootout towards the end of the movie was a clear theft of the Star Wars dogfight post Death Star escape. And I don't even want to get into the character Castor (Michael Sheen). His character of a David Bowie-like bar-owner is ridiculous and unnecessary.

However, what was not ridiculous was Legacy's music, which was done by the group Daft Punk, who also make a cameo in the film. The duo's electronic musical riffs and techno flair added a nice touch to the world of Tron. The music seemed right at home.

Obviously this film will have its detractors from both fans of the original and newcomers. Critics have largely lambasted the film and it only has a 49% approval rating on rottentomatoes. However I think that's a little harsher than necessary. Overall, I think fans of the original will be pleased by Tron: Legacy and so will most newcomers to the film.

My rating: 7/10

DITRC: The Natural

Plot: Roy Hobbs (Robert Redford) is an amazingly gifted baseball player until a horrific incident derails a promising career. Years later an aging Hobbs decides to give it one last shot at the majors and joins the lowly New York Knights led by manager Pop Fisher (Wilford Brimley). As Hobbs starts hitting, the Knights suddenly start winning. However fame, an unscrupulous owner, and Hobbs's own past threaten to unravel his career and the Knights stellar season.

Review: The Natural is hands down my favorite sports movie of all time. Nothing even comes close. Whenever I hear the name Robert Redford, I don't think of The Sting, or Ordinary People. I think of his role as Roy Hobbs.

In the twenty six years since its release, The Natural has become one of the most beloved sports movies of all time. However, that was not the case when it first came out. Many people were outraged at the drastic changes made to Bernard Malamud's original novel. But while Malamud's novel focuses on the failure of American innocence, director Barry Levinson's film concentrates on the fable of success. Critics John Simon and Roger Ebert were particular brutal calling The Natural "the ultimate triumph of semi-doltish purity" and "idolatry on the part of Robert Redford" respectively.

I couldn't disagree more. In fact I'm on the side of sports writer Bill Simmons who said, "Any 'Best Sports Movies' list that doesn't feature either Hoosiers or The Natural as the number one pick doesn't count."

However, in a sense Ebert is on to something when he talks about "idolatry." The Natural is the first baseball film that really explores the idea of baseball player as myth. Hobbs in many ways is the archetype of the American baseball hero, someone whose accomplishments on the field are just awe inspiring. It is no wonder therefore that Redford copied his swing after the greatest hitter ever, Ted Williams. He even wore Teddy Ballgame's number as an homage to the Red Sox left fielder.

Any sports movie (or any movie for that matter) needs to have four cohesive ingredients: story, acting, tone, and score. The Natural's story is the essence of America because it revolves around a comeback. Who doesn't love a story about a guy who has been through hard times but somehow finds a way to turn it around? That's why we love come back stories like Bo Jackson or Rick Ankiel. It is an essential part of what it means to be human.

The Natural also has the added advantage of having a fantastic ensemble cast. At the forefront of course is Hobbs who at 48 years old was able to convince the audience he was a twenty year old youth just by changing his clothes and hair. Not an easy thing to do. Hobbs's quiet grace and passion to be the best ever in the game shines through just as clearly as the shame of his past. Robert Duvall is excellent as the smarmy sportswriter digging into Hobbs's past who, with the flick of his typewriter, can make anyone into a goat or a hero. The Natural does an excellent job of exploring the constant give and take between athlete and sportswriter. Glenn Close, in an Academy Award nominated role, steals the show as Iris Gaines, Hobbs's former girlfriend. Her elegance and connection to Roy's past serves as a reminder to Redford's character about how important it is to hold true to your roots.

Without question my favorite performance of the film comes from Wilford Brimley. Many people today only know Brimley as the Liberty Mutual guy who has a distinct pronunciation of the word diabetes. However, he'll always be manager Pop Fisher to me. Brimley delivers a funny, gruff, and endearing performance. His relationship to Roy is just as important as Iris's, maybe even more so. I tell you I still get chills every time I see the scene towards the end of the movie where Hobbs tells Fisher that his Dad always wanted him to be a baseball player. Fisher responds, "Well you're better than any one I ever had. And you're the best goddamn hitter I ever saw. Suit up."

I mentioned earlier how The Natural focuses a lot on the baseball player as mythology and the tone of the film reflects that. Director Barry Levinson does an excellent job of creating that sense of electricity and excitement that baseball gives little boys and grown men alike. It's even set in the 1930s which many consider to be the golden age of baseball. Everything seems larger than life, from the sweeping cornfields of Roy's hometown to the majesty of Wrigley Field. Watching the final scenes of The Natural in many ways is like being at baseball game. I still get wrapped up in the intensity of the crowd when Hobbs steps up for that final at bat. Randy Newman's score is epic and sweeping which fits perfectly with the grand scale tone of The Natural.

The Natural uses baseball as a metaphor for the struggles all human beings go through. At the same time it also represents the pure beauty of the game, the passion of those who play it, and the fans who come to cheer them on. Perhaps that is why so many years later it remains a classic. It's also why The Natural remains my all-time favorite sports movie to this day.

My rating: 10/10

Movie Releases in December

*Note all releases are for both DVD and Blu-Ray unless otherwise specified
December 4th: Eclipse

December 7th: Inception, Shrek Forever After, Lost in Translation (Blu-Ray only), Shrek: The Whole Story, Fox 75 Anniversary Movie Editions (DVD only), Cronos, Videodrome (Blu-Ray only), Law and Order Season 8 (DVD only), Boy Meets World Season 4 (DVD only), The Year of Getting to Know Us, Hugh Hefner: Publicist, Activist, and Rebel (DVD only), Barry Munday, Rush Hour (Blu-Ray only), The Big Hit (Blu-Ray only), ESPN Films 30 for 30 set (DVD only)

December 12th: Married with Children Complete Series (DVD only)

December 14th: The A-Team, The Other Guys, Despicable Me, Nanny McPhee Returns, MicMacs, Exit Through the Gift Shop (DVD only), Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work, Mother and Child, America Lost and Found (DVD only), Hard Boiled (Blu-Ray only), Vampire Circus (Blu-Ray only), True Grit (1969 version Blu-Ray only), 24 season 8, 24 series (DVD only)

December 17th: The Town, Legend of the Guardians

December 21st: Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Salt, Step Up 3D, Devil, Easy A, Family Guy Star Wars Trilogy (Blu-Ray only), Family Guy: It's a Trap!, Caprica Season 1.5 (DVD only), Futurama Vol. 5, The Secret Life of the American Teenager Vol. 5 (DVD only), The Heavy (DVD only), MegaShark vs. Crocosaurus (DVD only), Amateur Porn Star Killer Trilogy (DVD only), The Films of Rita Hayworth (DVD only)

December 28th: The American, Resident Evil: Afterlife, And Soon the Darkness, Twelve, Legendary (DVD only), Legacy (DVD only), Boiler Maker, Cyborg Conquest (DVD only), A Charlie Brown Valentine (DVD only), Battlestar Galactica: Razor (Blu-Ray only), The United States of Tara season 2 (DVD only), Archer Season 1 (DVD only), Jersey Shore Season 2 (DVD only)

DITRC Review: Scrooged

Plot: Frank Cross (Bill Murray) is a cynical television executive whose focus on his career cost him his true love Claire (Karen Allen). In the midst of planning a live broadcast of Charles Dickens' A Christmas Carol, Cross is visited by the ghost of his former boss Lew Hayward (John Forsythe) who tells Frank he will be visited by three ghosts. But will the ghosts of Christmas Past (David Johansen), Christmas Present (Carol Kane), and Christmas Yet to Come (Robert Hammond) be able to change Frank's ways and make him see the true meaning of Christmas?

Review: At first glance Scrooged seems like the umpteenth re-imagining of Charles Dickens' story, but somehow Director Richard Donner (The Omen, Superman, Lethal Weapon) is able to turn Scrooged into a hilarious and touching 20th century take on the 19th century classic.

The key reason is not surprisingly the comedic performance of Bill Murray. Murray is at his sarcastic one-liner best in Scrooged, delivering lines with the impeccable timing we've all come to expect from the gifted actor. From the opening dissection of his excec team's Christmas promotional commercials, to hilarious interactions with The Ghost of Christmas Present, to one of the better one liners ever caught on screen in a restaurant, Murray carries Scrooged like the fat man in the red suit carrying a sack of toys.

Furthermore, Scrooged is loaded with a ton of talent in small roles. Robert Mitchum takes a hilarious turn as Preston Rhinelander, Frank's boss who thinks shows for dogs and cats are the wave of the future. Jamie Farr and Buddy Hackett make appearances as Marley and Scrooge. Even Robert Goulet, Lee Majors, and Mary Lou Retton find their way on screen.

However, the two best supporting roles in this film are Bobcat Goldthwait as Eliot Laudermilk (the ostensible Bob Crachet in Scrooged) and Karen Allen as Claire, Frank's lost love. I remember the first time I saw Eliot tell Frank that Frank's advertisement for Scrooge "looked like the Manson Family Christmas Special." I nearly fell off my chair laughing. And Karen Allen is simply lovely as Claire. Not only does she look great, her performance creates strong emotional resonance and her chemistry with Bill Murray is impeccable.

Now some might find Frank's speech at the end of Scrooged a little preachy and heavy handed. I can see that. But I also thought it was remarkably fresh and sincere. It's one thing for an actor to read lines off a script. It's quite another for an actor to make the audience believe what he's saying. Bill Murray pulls it off.

So if you're looking for a Christmas movie equally as funny as National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation or A Christmas Story this season, I highly recommend Scrooged.

My rating: 8/10

JAOR Review: Lost In Translation

Plot: Bill Murray plays Bob Harris, an aging movie star filming a series of whisky commercials in Tokyo. Suffering from a mid-life crisis and a passionless twenty-five year marriage, Harris meets Charlotte (Scarlett Johnansson) in the hotel bar. Left to brood in the hotel by her celebrity photographer husband John, (Giovanni Ribis) the considerably younger Charlotte has begun to question her life as well. Together the two begin an unlikely relationship.

Review: Bill Murray hands down is one of the best comedic actors of the last thirty years. His roles as Dr Peter Venkman in Ghostbusters, Phil Connors in Groundhog Day, and Herman Blume in Rushmore are as memorable as they are hilarious. I'll even admit that all three of those roles (including others) have had their share of dramatic moments. I'll also even admit that Murray's role in Lost in Translation is probably one of the best of his career.

Having said that, even Murray's performance can't save Lost in Translation from being one of the most boring films of all time. Granted the film opens with a closeup of Johnansson's exquisitely fine posterior, but after that it is all downhill. I can't for the life of me understand why a film that is the movie equivalent of a Zanax/Nyquil induced afternoon received so much run. Director/Writer Sofia Coppola's homage to afternoon naps has the pacing of a 90 year old man with a walker. Even the lighting is dim and uninviting, as if Coppola is asking the audience to fall asleep.

One of the fundamental ingredients to a compelling movie is that things actually have to happen. NOTHING HAPPENS IN THIS MOVIE. Or rather things do happen, they just aren't very interesting. Bob and Charlotte's relationship as they examine the culture of Japan and the differences in their own generations makes for precisely zero memorable moments. One begins to wonder why the two have a relationship at all.

Lost in Translation also failed to make me care one iota for either one of these characters. How does Copolla expect anyone to feel sympathy for two people who are massively wealthy but don't like where they are in life? Boo-freakin-hoo. Unlike Crazy Heart, which was actually able to put an new and interesting spin on the life of an alcoholic country singer, Lost in Translation's story about Bob's mid-life crisis comes across as trite and cliche. Even Charlotte and Bob's tearful goodbye, where they predictably go back to their old lives, has as much emotional resonance as grasshoppers mating, which is to say none.

Lost in Translation is an appropriate title for this film because I have no clue what it was trying to convey. Whatever it was I'm sure it wasn't the Japanese word for interesting. Copolla's film in the end feels less like a cinematic masterpiece and more like three week old sushi: it stinks and is hard to look at. Take my advice, you'd be better off passing on this film and watching Murray's Osmosis Jones. At least that movie has cartoons.

My rating: 5/10

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Pt 1

Plot: In the penultimate edition in the Harry Potter film series, Harry (Daniel Radcliffe), Ron (Rupert Grint), and Hermione (Emma Watson) find themselves away from Hogwarts Academy on a quest to destroy the deadly horcruxes. With Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) and the rest of his Death Eaters in hot pursuit, it's up to Harry and his friends find a way to defeat the Dark Lord and his minions.

Review: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I is easily the best in the series since Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. While the last few films in the Potter series have been entertaining, they never seemed to recapture the excitement and spirit of the first three films. Until now.

Director David Yates has crafted an excellent and gripping first installment of the final chapter in the Harry Potter legacy. At times heartrending and always engrossing, the film focuses more on relationships rather than spectacle.

To be sure Hallows has plenty of exciting moments. Visual effects supervisor Tim Burke has done another fantastic job bringing the magical world of Harry Potter alive. Harry's initial escape from his Aunt and Uncle's house (with the assistance of the Order of of the Phoenix) is particularly exciting and sets the tone for the rest of the film, as Harry and his friends seem to jump from one potential lethal moment to another. Harry, Ron, and Hermione's rescue of the horcrux locket from the Ministry of Magic will wow the audience.

As I said however, the most important part of this installment is the relationships, particularly between Herminone, Harry, and Ron. Emotion rather than magic rules the day. As the trio of heroes are dogged at every step, forced into the wilderness and on the run, it allows for Radcliffe, Watson, and Grint to shine dramatically. We get to see the three characters away from Hogwarts, truly being forced to grow up before our eyes. If the dramatic scenes in Hallows are any indication, all three actors have a strong cinema future outside of the Harry Potter universe.

Hallows in many ways is a commentary about the sacrifices friendship sometimes requires. These sacrifices manifest themselves emotionally (the spell Hermione casts to erase her parents memories for protection) or physically (Ron's near mortal wounds after the assault on the Ministry of Magic). This makes Hallows as a film a much more cathartic experience than you might expect.

Many have complained (myself included) about the final installment being split up into two parts. Outwardly Hollywood execs have said that there are too many plot points to keep it in one film. However really it's about money. Thankfully, in a very rare Hollywood moment, these two things don't end up being mutually exclusive. The inclusion of all the various plot points didn't drag the film down and will please fans of the Harry Potter books. (And the accountants at Warner Brothers.) The ending of Hallows feels very natural and is comparable to the end of The Empire Strikes Back in mood and tone. It evoked a sense of anticipation for the next film. If part two is anything like part one there are going to be some extremely pleased muggles out there. I know July 15, 2011 can't come quick enough for me.

My rating: 9/10

Captain? Leader? Not Lately Jetes

My friend Mike says that whipped frosting is far superior to butter cream. What the hell does this have to do with the Derek Jeter contract situation you ask? Everything, because like Mike and I tell each other constantly, "You're entitled to your opinion...even though it's wrong."

Like my friend Mike and his stance on the finer culinary qualities of whipped frosting over butter cream, Derek Jeter's position on his intrinsic monetary value is wrong.

Moreover, it's inaccurate and borderline delusional.

Early reports (and even recent reports) suggest that Jeter and his Kool-Aid drinking agent Casey Close proposed a whopping six year $150 million dollar deal to the Yankees. For a 36 year old short stop with diminishing skills? That's like asking Stephanie Meyer to write good fiction. Both proposals are preposterous and have no basis in reality.

Funnier still? Close called the Yankees original offer of 3 years and $45 million dollars "baffling." No what's baffling is that the Yankees would deign to offer a 36 year old short stop that kind of contract when his batting average and on base percentage (.270 and .340 respectively) were career lows, whose walks, home runs, and hits all dropped while his strikeouts increased. The likelihood of Jeter getting that kind of contract anywhere else is about as likely as Glenn Beck going Christmas carolling with Barak Obama this year. Close and Jeter shouldn't be baffled by the Yankees offer, they should be THANKFUL.

Close's comment becomes even more ridiculous when you look at the fact that over his career the Yankees have paid Jeter close to $200 million dollars. Add to that the proposed contract and Jeter would be the highest paid player in the history of baseball! To misquote Dave Chappelle, "YOU'RE ALREADY RICH BEAATCH!" In light of this fact, each successive statement from the Jeter camp sounds greedier by the minute.

The persistent argument of course is that Jeter possesses intangibles and leadership abilities that are valuable. To some extent I think that is true. However, one of the main qualities in a leader is an ability to make sacrifices...even financial ones. (Bear in mind I use "sacrifice" in a very loose sense. $45 million is not a sacrifice.) The Yankees need money to sign Cliff Lee (hopefully) and solidify their bullpen. If the Captain is all about winning championships why is he balking over the Yankees' more than reasonable offer?

One reason? Contract envy, and by that I mean Alex Rodriguez's contract. The bulk of his almost $200 deal with the Yankees is yet to be paid. Jeter thinks "Hey if I'm the face of the Yankees shouldn't I get paid as much as this posturing, two-timing, ex-juicing, prima donna, ass-clown?" In a word: NO. The Yankees made a bad contract decision when they decided to sign A-Rod to his current contract. With the little Steinbrenners and Brian Cashman becoming fiscally conservative why in the world would they want to saddle themselves with another horrific contract?

I firmly believe that Jeter thinks he's bigger than the Yankees. He's not a very good student of history then. Just ask my favorite all-time Yankee Bernie Williams. After the 2006 season when it was obvious Williams's best years were behind him, Williams wanted a guaranteed roster spot. The Yankees offered him a chance to come to spring training as a non-roster invitee. In this league even if you were a cornerstone of a dynasty it's "what have ya done for me lately?"

Need further proof? Check these Yankee historical facts out:

1934--Babe Ruth's final year with the Yankees he hit .288 with 22 home runs and 84 RBI and 104 walks. Not bad considering his age. However, when he asked to be the Yankees manager they offered him Newark. It was a logical move considering he was a beer guzzling, cigar smoking, food furnace that liked to bang hookers six at a time. He asked for his release and got it. Why? Because the Yankees recognized that his skills were diminishing. The proof: 1935 with the Boston Braves he had six HR, 12 RBI and batted .181.

1978--The Yankees coming off a world series championship the year before also happened to have the reigning AL Cy Young award winner, reliever Sparky Lyle. What do they do? They go out and sign future hall of fame closer Goose Gossage. Also Billy Martin as the manager of the 1977 championship team is fired after constant bickering with his boss owner George Steinbrenner.

1981--Albeit in a strike shortened season Reggie Jackson, Mr. October himself, hit a pathetic .237 with an OBP of .330 and only 15 HR. The Yankees decided not to resign him and aside from a resurgent 1982 season where he hit 39 HRs, Jackson never hit the 100RBI mark again and his batting average never got higher than .275 in a season.

2007--Despite 12 straight post season appearances, four world series titles, 6 pennants, and coming off a 95 win season the Yankees weren't prepared to offer Joe Torre more than a 1 year deal. So sorry Joe you've got to go.

The point I'm making here Jetes is that you are expendable. The Yankees do not put anybody above the franchise. Yes the Yankees and the fans would miss you. But you know what? Odds are we would still make the playoffs, and Derek or no Derek, that's what the fans are ultimately going to respond to--winning.

So Derek please do us all a favor and put down the Gillette Fusion Razor, get in your old man Ford, use your Discover Card to buy a pen, and drive over to Yankee stadium and sign the deal.