Movies: The Social Network Review

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: The Social Network is a film based on the origins of Facebook, and the highs and lows for its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. It's a very well-made film with strong dialogue and good performances, especially from Eisenberg (Zuckerberg). While it does cast Zuckerberg as something of a villain in the story, he is still a character with whom you can sympathize, due partly to that strong performance. Facebook itself is basically just a device for the plot here; it's about the characters, and it does that exceptionally well.


Boy, I haven't had a movie review in awhile! Usually I see a lot more movies in theaters, but I started my blog just as the slow part of the movie season hit (late summer/early fall). The Social Network was directed by David Fincher, and Wikipedia calls it a "drama," so that's what I'll go with. There seems to be a lot of debate about exactly how accurate this film is, which is at least based on the origins of the uber-popular web site Facebook (duh). To be honest, I'm not too concerned about its accuracy, and that certainly won't play a part in my review. Either way, it's an excellent drama, and now for some reasons why.

When the movie starts, don't be surprised if you feel like the projectionist (is that still the term?) made a mistake and started you in the middle. Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg), future founder of Facebook, is having a very rapid conversation/argument with his girlfriend at a bar. Once you get settled down, the scene, and the next 15 minutes or so, serves as a nice background to the story, namely Harvard (side note: if that really is anything like Harvard, boy am I glad I didn't go there). Zuckerberg is a computer nerd who doesn't fit in with Harvard's social fabric, but he is a genius. After getting dumped by his girlfriend, he lashes out in revenge on the whole campus in a mean but pretty clever prank.

This prank gets him noticed by three other students (two of whom are twins), who come to him with the idea, basically, for Facebook (specifically, "MySpace with exclusivity"). Zuckerberg passes this idea off as his own to his friend Eduardo (Garfield). Eduardo gives him start-up money, and becomes the young Facebook CFO. The web site soon spreads far beyond Harvard, as Zuckerberg keeps putting off the other three students. At some point, Eduardo and Mark meet Sean Parker (Timberlake), founder of Napster (though I can't remember why). Anyway, Sean schmoozes Mark, who is impressed with Sean's savvy and, well, social connections. Eduardo, though, is suspicious and wants to play it safe with Facebook.

Without going into too much more detail, Sean eventually gets Mark on his side at a crucial moment (Frodo-Sam-Gollum anyone?), and Mark gains immense wealth through Sean's help but also loses his one true friend in the process. Throughout the film, scenes go back in forth between this narrative and two separate legal battles (Mark vs. three Harvard guys, Mark vs. Eduardo), where Zuckerberg actually gets most of his dialogue.

The Social Network is very well cast, an essential thing for such a character-driven film. Eisenberg is perhaps the best as Zuckerberg; he just disappears into the character. He portrays Zuckerberg as a fast-talking, very intelligent young man; perhaps most impressively, he shows Zuckerberg's complete ignorance of his own lack of social skills at times, while at others being painfully aware of it. Timberlake also does an excellent job in his role, although I think it's at least partly due to Brad Pitt-itis (cast in a role where he acts like himself). He manages to steal the role of villain in this film away from Zuckerberg, for me at least. Garfield is pretty good as Eduardo, and has some of the funniest parts of the film. Armie Hammer as the Harvard twins also does a great job; again, he has some of the funnier parts, too.

Since this isn't an action or comedy, I can't really focus on either of those two aspects here, but I'll throw out a few more things. The dialogue is very good; the screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin, writer for "The West Wing", which is a good reason why. Again, Zuckerberg has most of the best lines, but there are some other highlights too, such as from his ex-girlfriend, and from the president of Harvard talking to the twins. I really like that the film goes back and forth between the legal stuff and the narrative; other than simply keeping both parts fresh, it's a good way to play with the chronology and the audience's understanding of the events. And finally, while the film pretty much asserts that Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook and then betrayed his friend, I actually felt kind of bad for the guy by the end. I won't give it away, but one of the lawyers has the perfect line to sum him up at the end.

***

The Social Network is certainly one of the best movies I've seen this year, but I'm not sure it's the kind of film that's going to stay with me. It's an extremely well-executed movie; I have no complaints there (or at least none that stand out to me). Zuckerberg himself is certainly the main draw of the film, as he should be, and everything and everyone revolves around him. The film also has a good sense of humor, which is a must (especially in a film like this that could be too depressing without it). On the other hand, while I'm sympathetic for Mark, I can't empathize with him. His friendship with Eduardo seems flimsy throughout; thus, Eduardo's anguish at being betrayed almost veers more toward anger simply at the material loss. But, it's still a very impressive film that I would recommend to anyone.

Music: Beatles For Sale (The Beatles)

Beatles Album #4: Beatles For Sale

Beatles For Sale was the last album the Beatles released in 1964, capping off the year in which they conquered America. The Beatles, of course, had continued to develop musically, and they also met Bob Dylan for the first time in August of 1964. Many say that this album begins to show that Dylan influence, and the songs are certainly much less purely optimistic or at least innocent as they used to be. I think this one ranks just above Please Please Me in my ranking of Beatles albums so far. It doesn't contain as many of the truly classic Beatles tunes as their first album, but it is overall simply a stronger album (again, they were just improving all the time).

1. "No Reply" (Lennon/McCartney)
Ah, the Beatles are at it again! Expecting a fast, upbeat rocker to start things off? Not exactly. Instead, the Beatles take the opportunity to display their further musical development. The verses are fairly typical Beatles, with Lennon singing the lead throughout, although a little up and down movement at the end of each verse is a bit of dark hinting. The chorus continues the darkness powerfully, with cymbal crashes and a great harmony from McCartney. Topping things off, Ringo's drumming is fantastic, including some neat rhythms, and the guitar chords, especially at the chorus, are great. Takes a couple listens, but this is a little gem.

2. "I'm A Loser" (Lennon/McCartney)
Musically, this one is a lot closer to some earlier Beatles songs, but of course the lyrics are much different. Again sung in the lead by Lennon, John goes to the lower registers of his vocal range at times, which sounds pretty cool. I really like the verses as sung by John, although the harmony in the chorus isn't my favorite. Paul's bass is the most notable instrumental in this one, bouncing along and giving the song good energy. I'm not a big fan of this one, but I suppose it gives Lennon fanatics material to obsess over his various transformations.

3. "Baby's In Black" (Lennon/McCartney)
Well, the Beatles sure make up for the mediocre harmonies in the last song with this track. The John-Paul harmony, found throughout this bluesy song, is just fantastic. I really like this one, and I think, along with the high quality vocal harmony, everything just fits together well. OK, and I'm also a sucker for that 6/8 or 3/4 rhythm. The instruments stay appropriately subordinate to the vocals here, but they still provide a great underlying tempo and energy. And when they drop out for a few bars except for a drum beat, the toes really get a-tapping (albeit a slow tap). Another gem.

4. "Rock And Roll Music" (Berry)
The Beatles could play some cool new music, but they also still liked the old stuff. This one by rock legend Chuck Berry is quite aptly named, as you can get much closer to the core of the genre than this one. Lennon gives a good vocal here, although it still pales compared to his "Twist and Shout". The instruments help give it great energy, aided by a nifty piano part. It's hard not to like this one at least a little bit if you like rock and roll (which, if you're listening to The Beatles, I imagine you do), but it's also not earth-shattering.

5. "I'll Follow The Sun" (Lennon/McCartney)
Hmmmm. Bit of a let down here. To be honest, up until recently I thought this was another quiet ballad covered by The Beatles - but actually, Paul wrote it. But, he did write it four years earlier, which is why it strangely sounds like some of their earliest material. It's not a *bad* song, but it's significantly weaker than most of the other songs here, and doesn't really fit in with the more mature feel (relatively speaking) of the rest of the album.

6. "Mr. Moonlight" (Johnson)
Fortunately, this one I can blame on another artist for writing. It's just tacky composition. However, I will say that Lennon gives some searing vocals here, particularly in the intro, and the harmonies are pretty cool. But that organ or whatever it is in the middle eight just accentuates the overall tackiness. It's my Dad's least favorite Beatles song, and I can't blame him. On the other hand, as I'll say again, The Beatles just continued to give stronger and more consistent performances on all their tracks, even some of these crappy songs they covered.

7. "Kansas City/Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey" (Leiber, et. al.)
Ah... if listening to the last two songs was like waking up on a cold winter morning and feeling a little stiff, when this one comes on it's like getting into a nice hot shower. Completely turns the direction of the album around with one of the Beatles' strongest covers yet. Sure, a large part of it is that this is simply a better song than "Mr. Moonlight". But man, Paul gives a phenomenal vocal performance here. He was perfectly suited to this song, and shows yet again that he could rip out a rocker just as well as he could a quiet ballad. The Beatles show their usual knack for choosing the right tempo, too, keeping it under control with a blues-tinged beat. The instruments again stomp along steadily, and the vocals, lead and backup let loose in the "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey" section. Probably my favorite on the album.

8. "Eight Days A Week" (Lennon/McCartney)
Now they follow up a fantastic cover with the one song on the album that probably a majority of the public would recognize as one of their classics. It's not my favorite classic, but I like how it keeps the old strains of Beatles rock with added touches of things they'd picked up recently. For example: the fading-in guitar intro is a new, more complex touch for The Beatles, while the basic structure of the verses and chorus are similar to past hits (perhaps a little too similar, which is why it's not one of my favorites). Still, the harmonies are pitch-perfect, the guitar part is minimal but well-suited, and the bass is bouncing along. A classic is a classic.

9. "Words Of Love" (Holly)
More cool harmonies here in this Buddy Holly cover. But it's a considerably different kind of harmony for John and Paul, going to very low pitches, like John did in "I'm A Loser". The high-pitched guitar part is a good counter to that vocal, I suppose, but it plays a little longer than is welcome I think. Plus, there's not a lot else going on, other than hand-clapping. I suppose in light of it being a cover, it's alright, but certainly not one of my favorites on this album.

10. "Honey Don't" (Perkins)
Now for Ringo's obligatory song of the album! The Beatles definitely gave him good material for this album, perhaps the best yet (of course, covering Carl Perkins is a good way to do that). This one has a country feel to it, which seemed to be what Ringo liked; at the very least, he did it pretty darn well. I actually really like his vocal in this one. Is it perfect? No, but it doesn't need to be here. Just a nice, laid back song, with instruments that stay in the background, and a couple little guitar solos. You rock on, Ringo!

11. "Every Little Thing" (Lennon/McCartney)
Here's a pretty cool little song. I'll admit up front that the Beatles clearly put less effort into this one than most of the others - at this point, they were still forced into pretty tight deadlines to get their albums out, and I guess this track suffered the consequences. However, this one is saved by some impressive composition from Paul. Plus, the John-Paul harmonies are again working well here (all the more impressive when you consider this one is more standard fare and the aforementioned lack of superior effort), especially in the chorus. Plus, the Beatles found a few instrumental parts that work quite well here, including a deep bass piano part, and even a timpani part from Ringo. Maybe it was considered a throwaway, but I kinda like this one.

12. "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" (Lennon/McCartney)
This one also seems to be kind of average early-Beatles fare early on; typical Lennon verses, standard instrumentals (although much more energetic than in "Every Little Thing"). Which isn't a bad thing, but it seems kind of mediocre at first (except for some nice backing vocal). Then the chorus comes in, and Paul takes off with his harmony with an energy that takes you by surprise. Credit also goes to Lennon (perhaps Paul, too, I don't know) for changing things up with the composition. The instrumentals even seem spurred on by Paul's vocal. Perhaps not my favorite, but it surpasses expectations.

13. "What You're Doing" (Lennon/McCartney)
This is sort of like the "Things We Said" of the album, in that McCartney again shows a spurt of composition development that is a sign of things to come. In fact, the instrumentals and backing vocals almost sound obsolete in this song that seems as if it were meant for Rubber Soul. I really like Paul's vocal here, and like his composition, it shows a maturity pointing to future growth. The guitar part, unfortunately, really sticks out here, and not in a good way. I'm not sure what either John or George was thinking there; the backing vocals are also shockingly anemic. I do like the percussion opening and the piano part here though. If they had worked a little harder on this one, it could have been fantastic; as it is, still one of the album's stronger tracks.

14. "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby" (Perkins)
The Beatles packed a good bit into the final track of the album: it's George's first and only lead vocal on the album, yet the second Carl Perkins cover on the album. I do like the decision to use George and Ringo's less-familiar vocal styles on Perkins' songs. George sings quite well in his lone leading role, and whether or not it was intentional, the echoing effect on the track is neat. The Beatles left their fans to wonder with this as the final track, have they really grown out of their early period of music? Well, maybe not completely yet, but while everyone was still trying to be like the Beatles, they were having enough of holding your hand.

Essentials: "Kansas City/Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey", "Eight Days A Week", "Baby's In Black", "No Reply"
Weak(er) Songs: "I'll Follow The Sun", "Mr. Moonlight", "Words Of Love"

My Rank of The Beatles' Albums So Far:
1. A Hard Day's Night
2. Beatles For Sale
3. Please Please Me
4. With The Beatles

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 5

So, a 9-5 last week ain't too shabby. There continue to be a number of surprises - but that's the parity of the NFL, and part of what makes the league so fun to follow. I was particularly surprised that Atlanta only barely won; St. Louis won in a route (though I did predict them to win); Green Bay's struggle to take down Detroit (ditto for New Orleans over Carolina); Indianapolis losing to lowly Jacksonville (although that was a division game); and Chicago's complete implosion. Now for a new batch of games to guess!

Jacksonville at Buffalo: Jacksonville, 24-14
Theoretically, the Jags' big win over Indy will give them enough of a boost to be half decent, at least for a little while. They'll probably at least use it to pounce on a dismal Buffalo Bills team, with Jones-Drew being the only real offensive weapon in this one.

Tampa Bay at Cincinnati: Tampa Bay, 27-10
Here's one of my first bold upset picks of the year, now that we're a quarter of the way through and have seen all the teams for a few games. The question is: how good is Cincinnati? Losing to the Browns was not a good sign. Palmer actually had a good game, but I'm still skeptical about him. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay had a bye week to think things through after being blown out by Pittsburgh (which I got to watch). They're a young, dynamic team, and I think they'll be ready for the upset here.

Atlanta at Cleveland: Atlanta, 20-13
The Brownies did beat Cincinnati last week - but, as I've said before, division games are a different animal in the NFL. I think Atlanta's struggles last week were a combination of facing an inconsistent 49ers team that does have some considerable talent, and a sign that the team is still not quite ready to seize the division from the defending champs. But, I think they'll take care of business here, ugly or not.

St. Louis at Detroit: St. Louis, 38-35
Wow, perhaps the Rams really are an improved team. They got a monkey off their back beating division rival Seattle, and handily at that. While I'm sure they'll come back to earth hard at some point, Detroit doesn't have the defense to make them pay. I expect a shootout, which should make for an actually entertaining game (or at least I hope, since I'll probably be watching it here in Ann Arbor).

Kansas City at Indianapolis: Indianapolis, 34-27
Here will be another high scoring game, I think. The Colts have trouble stopping the run, and that's just the Chief's specialty. However, the Chiefs can't stop the pass, and that's bad news against Peyton Manning. Indy gets just enough stops to win a surprisingly close game.

Green Bay at Washington: Green Bay, 21-17
Hard to get a good reading on these teams. The Packers have tremendous potential, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot, and losing player after player to injury. The Redskins lose to the Rams, then beat down Philly (yes!!!) Again, though, both teams had division games last week, and I think we'll see the overall strength of Green Bay trump the 'Skins. I think Rodgers will outgun McNabb in a somewhat ugly game.

Chicago at Carolina: Carolina, 13-6
Oh, boy. Todd Collins vs. Jimmy Clausen, anyone? Chicago certainly has the stronger defense, but Carolina at least has threats at RB to offset their passing game. Plus, Collins might be KIA here, if the Bears allow another NINE sacks or more in a single half like they did last week.

Denver at Baltimore: 24-21
This should be a very interesting game. Denver showed that it can hang tough in a close game last week against the Titans, and their passing game is nothing to sneeze at. While the Broncos face a more balanced attack against the Ravens' offense this week, they have shown signs of life. Baltimore might have a let down after their big win over the Steelers. I think it'll be a close one, no matter who wins.

N.Y. Giants at Houston: Houston, 31-27
Is the Giants' pass rush back? Perhaps, but I think last week's performance was more due to the Bears' ineptitude. They also face the problem of Arian Foster, who will make them pay big if they just try to zone in on Schaub. I do have questions about Houston's defense, though, so this could very well be another high scoring game. Houston's offense is just better though.

New Orleans at Arizona: New Orleans, 45-21
The Saints' offense should finally take flight again here, against a miserable Cardinals defense. And if it doesn't, there are big worries for New Orleans' chances at defending the title. Plus, their defense hasn't been great against non-division foes, so how many points they give up to undrafted rookie QB Hall will also be a big indicator.

San Diego at Oakland: San Diego, 31-20
The Chargers seem to be in good form again, following a thrashing of the Cardinals. Rivers is having fun tossing TDs to my fantasy TE Gates, and a healthier RB Mathews should make the offense even more dangerous. Another divisional game, so I doubt it'll be a complete rout.

Tennessee at Dallas: Dallas, 21-20
Time to see if the Dallas running game can get going. Romo has been steady as a rock, but they'll need a balanced attack against the Titans' defense. Speaking of running games, when is Chris Johnson going to start busting out? Every defense is CLEARLY keying on him, almost entirely. So the answer might be, when does Vince Young start making defenses respect the pass? Dallas is known for undisciplined tackling, which could lead to some big plays for Tennessee, thus making it a close one.

Philadelphia at San Francisco: San Francisco, 10-7
To be blunt, I have no idea. I have no idea who will win, let alone the score. My gut says that SF will play a little better at home, and their defense will handle a constantly changing Philly offense thanks to all their QB issues.

Minnesota at NY Jets: 35-14
Brett Favre against his old team! I bet he loves hearing that one. A bad game for the offense to get in gear with Moss, I think the Jets are just going to cream them here. Plus, the Jets get their own star WR back in Holmes, plus Revis returns to haunt Moss again. And the Jets' offense has been humming along just fine without their star receiver.

2010 Picks: 37-25

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 4

Well, I finished 9-7 last week... although, I did pick the Atlanta-New Orleans score EXACTLY, so that makes up for it. As usual, a mixture of surprises, bad luck, and outright bad estimations of team strength. Who would have thought that the only teams remaining undefeated at this point would be Pittsburgh (minus Ben Roethlisberger), Kansas City, and Chicago?!?! Here we go again:

San Francisco at Atlanta: Atlanta, 35-13
I am officially throwing myself off the 49ers bandwagon, head first. They just got shellacked by KC, and so have now played two bad games out of three. Atlanta, meanwhile, just beat the defending champs a week after blowing out an admittedly bad team, after losing in overtime to the 3-0 Steelers. Can we say "blowout"?

Cincinnati at Cleveland: Cincinnati, 13-10
Here's another AFC North bruiser. Cleveland showed a lot more resilience against Baltimore than I thought they were capable of, especially with new RB Peyton Hillis. Cincinnati, meanwhile has two very solid wins after getting blown out by TTSNBN. I expect a defensive battle, mostly due to inept offenses (Carson Palmer looks terrible).

NY Jets at Buffalo: NY Jets, 24-16
With two good games out of three, I'm leaning toward the Jets being contenders rather than pretenders. Their offense has really blossomed after that horrible first game. Buffalo is terrible, although they did give TTSNBN a run for their money last week. But the Jets' defense should ensure that they don't ever really feel threatened, barring special teams disasters.

Seattle at St. Louis: St. Louis, 20-17
These two teams had surprising outcomes last week. Seattle owed its win, though, to not one but TWO kick returns for TDs. Listening on the radio, Rivers seemed to slice and dice their defense late in the game. Rookie Bradford is no Philip Rivers, but he led the Rams to a shocking 30-16 victory over the Redskins. Over the last few years, Seattle has played much better at home than on the road, which is why I'm taking the Rams here.

Denver at Tennessee: Tennessee, 23-14
While Chris Johnson has given me good fantasy numbers for two of three games, quietly he's been struggling on a run-by-run basis. I expect him to break out eventually, but who knows when. Their defense, however, has been one of the best in the league this year. And they'll need a good pass defense against Denver, which inexplicably has been slinging the ball with Kyle Orton putting on his Peyton Manning impression. RB Moreno is out, which means Denver will be even more one dimensional, spelling their doom.

Detroit at Green Bay: Green Bay, 42-21
Poor Detroit. Blew an opportunity to really embarrass Favre and send him and the Vikings to 0-3. Green Bay gift-wrapped their game against Chicago and even provided delivery service. However, I think even if Green Bay has EIGHTEEN penalties again, they'll still win this one.

Baltimore at Pittsburgh: Baltimore, 13-10
This has to be the most violent rivalry in American sports right now. While the Steelers have been playing really well, I think they come back down to earth a little for this one. Unfortunately I think the Ravens are really gonna lock down on my fantasy star Mendenhall and make Batch beat them in the air, which he won't be able to do. Still, Pitt's defense is so good that they should keep the offense within striking distance all game.

Carolina at New Orleans: New Orleans, 38-17
Carolina is looking pretty inept this year. Despite having an explosive RB tandem, they have done virtually nothing on offense, and are starting a rather bewildered rookie at QB. Their defense hasn't been any better, either. I'm confident that New Orleans will adjust after last week's loss, probably more stable on offense now in the second week without Bush. Saints playing at home should enhance this.

Indianapolis at Jacksonville: Indianapolis, 34-13
Jacksonville is looking even worse so far than I thought they would prior to the season. Philly just humiliated them last week. Their reward is a matchup against Peyton and Company. Indy looks right back on track after their first week loss, and I doubt Jacksonville will give them too much of a challenge.

Houston at Oakland: Houston, 30-20
After embarrassing Dallas in the preseason, then starting out 2-0 vs. Dallas' 0-2, Houston sure got a bucket of ice-cold water to the face last week. Not having seen it, I'm not sure how well Dallas' defense played vs. how poorly Houston's offense played (and vice versa). I'm guessing, though, that it was just another stage of growing pains for what eventually should be a strong contender. They should bounce back here.

Washington at Philadelphia: Philadelphia, 35-17
Boy, I really want McNabb to smear Philly in this game. To trade him like that, and to a division rival at that, was just total disrespect for a guy who endured the city's crappy, go-with-the-wind fans and bench-happy coach for over ten years. On the other side, you have Michael Vick, a former dog-fight ring leader who admittedly paid his dues but of whom I'm still suspicious (not to mention very dubious of all his new bandwagon fans). Sadly, I'm afraid Vick's Eagles will probably smash poor McNabb and the Redskins.

Arizona at San Diego: San Diego, 31-10
Are San Diego's typical early season woes over? Although I'm not sure Mathews is back for this one, I think the Chargers will be just fine.

Chicago at NY Giants: Chicago, 24-17
Chicago has now been lucky to win two of its three games. The first, thanks to Calvin Johnson being lazy and not holding onto the ball, and the second due to the Packers' crazy penalty woes. Still, their offense has looked pretty decent, and the same for their defense. Meanwhile, the Giants just look awful. The running game which served as their backbone in the Super Bowl year is long gone, and Eli just isn't good enough to carry the team by himself.

TTSNBN vs. Miami: TTSNBN, x-x
I was quite encouraged to see the Bills manage to pretty much go score-to-score with TTSNBN last week, despite losing. I think TTSNBN's offense is good again this year, but their defense looks suspect. Miami is looking pretty solid this year, but they'll have to play much better defense than they did last week to have a chance to take down TTSNBN.


2010 Picks: 28-20

Music: The Joshua Tree (U2)

Album Review: The Joshua Tree by U2

Joshua Tree, U2's fifth studio album, was released in March 1987 (look at all these great albums released around my birth! ;) I wouldn't say that I'm a U2 aficionado at all; this is pretty much the only album I know very well. I also have their greatest hits album and a few others, and I have to say, I think Joshua Tree is far better than most of their other material. I think Bono is a great vocalist, but the style of most of their music is just not quite my thing. Still good, though. And this album is just fantastic. It's another that I remember from way back in my childhood, so that's one reason, but it still resonates.

1. "Where The Streets Have No Name"
What a way to start. First we have a haunting organ/keyboard introduction, and then the great guitar part comes in to change the tone even as the organ fades out. Bono's vocal is fantastic, and the verses convey a sense of longing that has a neat combination of the haunting from the organ intro as well as the more hopeful tone of the guitar part. The chorus is a perfectly smooth transition from the verses and does a great job of encapsulating those varied moods, just like the chorus should, without going overboard. Bono's intensity builds throughout, the doesn't explode, and the song finally ends with the organ/keyboard again. Fantastic opener.

2. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
Now for my favorite U2 song, and probably one of my top 20 or so favorite songs overall. It's a pretty simple song, and I'd certainly say the opening track is considerably more complex. But the power of this song, I think, is just incredible. The verses are, again, hopeful and yet both reminiscent and regretful as well. It sounds like Bono is praying, but just singing his prayer. And then of course the chorus, which is simply the song's title; Bono's voice rises and holds on the "still," and that combination of regret with hope is at its strongest. The song just keeps powering along throughout; not a lot of variation, but it doesn't need it. This one always gets me at least a little emotional.

3. "With Or Without You"
What can you say? You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better string of three songs on any album. The song starts at a decent pace, with a subdued lyric from Bono bracketed by a prominent bass line on the bottom and high-pitched synthesizers of some kind at the top. After the first verse, Bono's vocal acquires considerably more intensity and the guitars start to break out. Bono's vocal rises like a wave singing the song's title, bringing it up to the crest - and then whoosh - an explosion of energy that will send chills running down your spine even after hearing it dozens of times. And after that, the wave peters out harmlessly on the beach, as the listener recovers and rides it out on some finishing guitar parts. Three for three.

4. "Bullet the Blue Sky"
This song is what I think of when pondering an "average" U2 song. This track is far harsher and less musically smooth than the terrific trio to start the album. Which isn't to say it's a bad song; in fact, I think it's quite creative and has some strengths; but it's also the style of U2 that makes me more of a casual fan of theirs. The song starts with distorted, harsh guitar sounds before going to an equally harsh vocal from Bono. There is a neat bass part hidden beneath it all, and I like the drum part as well. In typical U2 fashion, the singing of the title in the chorus is catchy enough. Probably one of the best U2-style songs.

5. "Running To Stand Still"
The intensity and the volume come way down in this one. When you switch from distorted guitar to piano as the main instrument, that tends to happen. The verses are fine; they are quite reflective in mood, and Bono does a good job in his transition to this style (although I think his voice is a little better suited for the louder stuff). He does have a few nice falsetto parts here. There's even a little harmonica part towards the end. This one won't blow you away, but it's certainly a nice little song.

6. "Red Hill Mining Town"
This one channels the musical style of "Where The Streets Have No Name," with a bit of the intensity of "With Or Without You" - but it doesn't do either nearly as well. Again, though, that's not to say it's bad, simply not amazing. I think the biggest problem is just that - it doesn't seem to have much new to add musically, being a little too derivative of the classic tracks on the album. I do like a couple things about this song in particular, such as the guitar part and the backing vocals that come in during the chorus. Verses and chorus are fine, but really nothing special, at least relative to the rest of the album.

7. "In God's Country"
I think of this song as sort of the more upbeat, happier sibling of "Bullet the Blue Sky". The instrumentals of both songs are pretty active - especially in this one - but the harshness of "Bullet" is completely absent here. The biggest downside to this song, unfortunately, is the chorus, which musically is pretty lazy I think, and not very pretty (which it should have been). The verses are pretty cool, though, and the guitars just continue to drive it forward. Another fine vocal from Bono - a decent song, but kind of mediocre for the album.

8. "Trip Through Your Wires"
Eeek. This one does not appeal to me much at all. It strikes me as a strange sort of combination of U2 rock with American country (harmonica included) and a romantic touch that falls flat on its face. The swing to it almost feels like parody, and the sustained vocals do not suit Bono's abilities at all. I guess the... bass is alright. OK, let's move on.

9. "One Tree Hill"
This is more like it! I consider this sort of the lost classic of the album (or maybe not lost; like I say, I'm not a U2 aficionado, but know it wasn't a hit single). Driving the song forward is a fantastic guitar part, supported by yet another strong bass part. Bono's voice works just as well in this one as it does in the earlier hits, and the verses just mesh perfectly with that sweet guitar. Just like in "Where The Streets", the chorus just fits in perfectly smoothly. The song goes along at a fairly subdued intensity for awhile, but suddenly builds with about a minute left, in a very "With Or Without You" like way. Unlike "Red Hill Mining Town", however, this combination of earlier hits works perfectly. It even ends with an unexpected little a capella rendition of the chorus. Fantastic.

10. "Exit"
Here's kind of a strange one. It takes about a minute for this one to really start. Bono has only a limited vocal in this one, and it's mainly instrumental. It almost seems like just an atmospheric sort of song, but it does a very nice job of creating that atmosphere of forboding. Yet another great bass part is involved, but the guitars do a great job while ceding the starring role to the bass and the drums accompany things very well, too. Cool song, though limited.

11. "Mothers Of The Disappeared"
Good way to end album (in fact, a little tidbit from Wikipedia says that U2 only stipulated the placement of this one and the opening track). It brings back the haunting mood of "Where The Streets", which is appropriate considering the title of the song. The guitar sets the tone with a kind of strange part, but one that is appropriate and contributes to the haunting. There are bits and pieces of some harsher sounding instruments, but they are kept minimal to only supplement the mood. Bono's vocal is restrained but detailed; I think there may be a backing chorus too, but I'm not sure. It's a good finisher to the album, though perhaps not a great standalone track.

Score: 4.5 out of 5. The first three songs along are practically worth giving this song its score, but the rest is also at least decent, with some highs and lows as usual. It seems like I'm giving out great scores left and right... but I can't diminish any of these classics! And this one deserves to be right there with the others.

Essentials: "Where The Streets Have No Name", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "With Or Without You", "One Tree Hill"
Weak(er) Songs: "Trip Through Your Wires", "In God's Country"

Politics: A Lesson From Luke

First, I have to admit that this blog is becoming more and more entertainment-centered... which I hope is OK. For the last few weeks, I've tended to be either too depressed by the news to report it, or haven't bothered to for one reason or another. Perhaps my patterns will change, but for now, it appears the bulk of posts will be movies, music or sports. However, this is something I really wanted to post about...

Last week in church (First Presbyterian in Ann Arbor), the minister's sermon was about Luke 15:11-32. Now, I'd heard this verse before, of course, but in our current political environment, it really struck me. Basically, in case you don't want to read the linked verses (it's really short, though, so you should), a man has two sons, the younger of whom wishes to be given his inheritance immediately. He goes off on his own and squanders this, and along with outside events he is forced into servitude. He returns to his father in shame and intends to work as a hired hand. However, the father instead rejoices at his son's return, and throws a big party for him. The older brother gets word of this and is pissed off, complaining that he had worked diligently and faithfully all his life and yet had not been so celebrated. His father replies that the celebration is in order because the young son had "died" but was born again now.

Essentially, the minister's message in his sermon was that we have a little bit of both sons in all of us. There is the young son, who desires material and physical pleasure, is selfish and wasteful, and eventually is completely at the mercy of others. Then there is the old son, who works hard consistently and dutifully, but also scorns any who do not live up their standards and resents those who get a "free ride"; self-righteous, in other words.

Can't we say the same for Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals? Right now, I think both sides are feeling quite strongly that they are the older son. Conservatives say, look at all this spending on health care, pork-projects, and government spending in general; now we are running a huge deficit when (excuse the expression) good ol' folks like us are fiscally responsible. Liberals say, look at what conservative policies have gotten us: lack of corporate regulation has led to spiraling health care costs, a decaying environment and a world financial crisis; we have been railing against this for years to deaf ears.

And now we have the problems of BOTH younger sons: a huge national debt and deficit, as well as huge and growing threats to the environment, health care, and the economy, among others. So old son conservative blames young son Democrat, and old son liberal blames young son conservative. Where does this get us? Republicans are filibustering every damn little (let alone big) thing the Democrats propose (even things they would normally support), and liberals liken Fox News and others to Soviets brainwashing of what they perceive as backwards, cruel rural Americans. I repeat, where does this get us?

Where it gets us is farther and farther apart from each other, even as our problems expand simultaneously with that separation. Democrats try to squeeze in as much of their agenda as possible, fearing a Republican return but hoping to solve the nation's problems, which now has Republicans horrified that things are changing so quickly and thus getting more and more extreme in their own rhetoric.

But we are ALL Americans here in the United States, as big of a cliche as that is. Politicians say "the American people want a fiscally responsible government" and "the people want adequate health care for all". But there are hard choices to be made. You want fiscally responsible government? Are you prepared to throw the poor and elderly to the wolves? Are you prepared to let the infrastructure of the nation continue to decay to the point of crisis (and so on)? Or, do you want first-rate health care for all? Are you prepared for future, unknown consequences of the national debt, that your children and grandchildren may inherit?

There is always a give-and-take in politics, always a downside for each positive government action (or inaction). But now, with what I think Americans are correctly perceiving as a critical time for our nation on so many issues, we are perhaps further than ever away from seeing the other side's point of view. And these many younger and older sons, selfish and self-righteous alike, have no wise father figure in real life that can set it straight, calm the tension.

So my message to America's politicians: put aside your self-righteousness and work with your younger brother, because he's an American, too. And America needs you to do it NOW.

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 3

Ah, that's more like it! 11-5 isn't too shabby. Plus, I got a few of the scores pretty damn close. I think that after this week, we should have a critical mass of evidence on which to judge most of the teams in the NFL; for now, things could still be a bit shaky.

Tennessee at NY Giants: Tennessee, 20-14
Chris Johnson mad. Chris John SMASH!!! At least I hope he does, for the sake of my fantasy team. The Giants couldn't even stop the Colts' run game, which bodes very poorly for them. Eli can sling it better than the Steelers' 4th stringer, but the Titans still have a good D. The Giants seem a far cry from their Super Bowl-winning squad.

Pittsburgh at Tampa Bay: Pittsburgh, 13-6
The Steel Curtain has once again dropped across the NFL landscape. It is not an easy task to do to Chris Johnson what the Steelers did. Tampa Bay is also undefeated, though their opponents weren't as good. With both teams sporting good or better defenses and mediocre or worse offenses, expect a low-scoring affair; in fact, I wouldn't be surprised to see both teams in single digits.

Cincinnati at Carolina: Cincinnati, 24-13
The Bungles bounced back well against division rivals Baltimore, with their defense looking good. Carolina, conversely, is looking pretty miserable, getting embarrassed by Tampa Bay. I think this will be decided simply by Cincinnati having a much better defense, and if they can contain DeAngelo Williams, they shouldn't have much trouble winning here.

Cleveland at Baltimore: Baltimore, 27-10
Can the Ravens' offense finally get into gear? They showed great promise coming into this season, with a young stud RB (Ray Rice), a rising QB with more experience (Flacco), and a new proven, Pro Bowl WR (Boldin). But they have done very little thus far. The Browns should provide some breathing room, though, while Cleveland offers little offensive firepower of their own (Seneca Wallace?!?!?).

Dallas at Houston: Houston, 31-27
Yee-haw, get ready for a good ol' fashioned Texas rodeo!!! *end bad impression* Seriously, though, I expect a lot of offense here. Houston has even more firepower than Dallas, but Dallas also has a better defense, so it should be somewhat close. In theory, Dallas will play with desperation in this one, but they rarely do what you expect them to.

San Francisco at Kansas City: San Francisco, 23-17
Well, San Francisco showed a lot of improvement over their horrible week 1 performance in taking New Orleans to the wire last week... but who will show up this week for them? Kansas City is 2-0, but one win was in a monsoon, and the other against the Browns. Plus, for some insane reason, they refuse to use by far their most talented player (Jamaal Charles) in any significant amount (also infuriating, since he's on my fantasy team). Here's my hope: 49ers jump on them, KC can't do anything with their current washed-up RB, then FINALLY turn to Charles, who can't quite get them the win.

Detroit at Minnesota: Minnesota, 24-20
If not now, when? If the Vikings lose this game, I wouldn't be surprised to see Favre on a plane back to Mississippi within hours. The Lions boast an offense that's more impressive than one might imagine, but Minnesota has got to know that it must win this game. Probably more pressure on Minny in this one than on any other team in any other game this week.

Buffalo at TTSNBN: TTSNBN, x-x
This will probably be a route, but I will definitely ROFLMAO if Buffalo somehow pulls it out.

Atlanta at New Orleans: Atlanta, 27-24
Boy, this is a tough one to pick. New Orleans just figures out how to win games *end NFL announcer/analyst impression*, but they don't exactly look dominant yet. Without Reggie Bush, they lose a versatile option in an offense that thrives on versatility. Division rival Atlanta just showed some dominance itself in dismantling Arizona, and they seem to have a great balance of offense and defense, run and pass, etc. Close one, but Atlanta has more weaponry right now.

Washington at St. Louis: Washington, 24-14
This is exactly the kind of game that the 'Skins were great at losing in the past, with their crappy QBs and crappy coaches. However, now with Shanahan and McNabb, proven winners, I expect no such let down. Bradford may give the Rams hope for the future, but they don't have enough offensive weapons and their defense stinks.

Philadelphia at Jacksonville: Philadelphia, 30-21
Ick, I'm not a fan of these two underperforming teams. Jacksonville used to thrive on hustle and making the most of what they had, but now they're a hopeless wanderer that's somehow in danger of moving to another city or shutting down thanks to lack of fan support. And Philly? Let's kick out our longtime QB who has kept us competitive for years and years, and then when Vick plays well for one half plus a game vs. Detroit, let's overreact and crown him the new best QB. Right. Good luck, you two teams.

Oakland at Arizona: Oakland, 10-9
Ugh, can we say crapfest? If this was the only game on TV, I think I'd get a head start on my chores, instead.

San Diego at Seattle: San Diego, 28-9
Phew, Denver assured me that I was right in thinking Seattle was a crappy team with their demolition of the 'Hawks last week. Of course, San Diego isn't the best in the league either, and may face offensive difficulties later if Mathews is out for long, and they can't get another good receiver. But it shouldn't matter in this one.

Indianapolis at Denver: Indianapolis, 31-17
I expect the Colts to continue playing like they did last week, especially with reports of injury problems in Denver's secondary. I am curious to see how the Colts will do against the better teams in the league; they amazingly seem capable of rotating weapons around Manning and a good pass rush, and it seems to always work. Will that continue? For this game, yes.

NY Jets at Miami: Miami, 13-10
Wow, talk about polar opposite performances from the Jets. Fortunately they saved their good game for TTSNBN. Miami, though, is looking pretty impressive under the radar down south (perhaps LeBron's gigantic ego is blocking it?), with a solid defense and a just-good-enough offense. Miami's strength in running should matchup well against the Jets' defense, which does better against the pass with DL Kris Jenkins out again.

Green Bay at Chicago: Green Bay, 30-21
Dang, pretty impressive what Chicago did to Dallas last week. The Packers are gonna give Cutler some hits he'll remember, though, and the Packers' offense is a well-oiled machine that doesn't shoot itself in the foot like the Cowboys' offense does.