Tim Tebow pulls a Homer against baffled Chiefs.

Controversial Quarterback Tim Tebow once again confounded his critics by leading the Denver Broncos to a road victory despite doing less quantitatively for the team then the placeholder. Supporters claim this lends credence to the idea that Timmy leads his team to victory due to his saintly nature rather then his playing ability.

“Its something to watch” Broncos Offensive Coordinator Mike McCoy admitted after the game. “I haven’t seen many games where a Quarterback wins while completing two passes for less then 100 yards. Actually, I haven’t seen many games where a QB losses while playing like that, they would get pulled after a quarter.”

Head coach John Fox was impressed by the performance, although he may have inadvertently affected Tebow by telling him after the prior weeks Raider win that he would have to complete more then one pass a quarter to win in the future. “Tebow said he could win while completing even less, I didn’t think he was serious until we had gone the entire first half without a completion.” Fox marveled. This improbable win puts the Broncos only one game out of first place in the worst division in football.

The only rational way to win with only 2 completions would be for a QB to only throw the ball 3 or 4 times and rush for well over 100 yards. Yet Tebow confounded that conventional wisdom by rushing for less then 50 yards and throwing 8 times for a remarkable completion rate of 25%. “I knew it would be hard to win with those numbers, but I had faith in God and was rewarded. Anybody can win throwing for 4 touchdowns and 400 yards, but it takes a special team to win like this.”

Kansas City Chief Linebacker Derrick Johnson admitted Tebow's play unnerved the Chiefs defense. “He basically did nothing but hand the ball off, again and again and again. So you have to look up at the scorecard and wonder, how can we be losing to this guy? We are losing to a team that effectively has 10 players, how is that possible?”

“He made us feel useless” commented Safety Donald Washington “You go the entire game without needing to defend a pass, that really wears you down. Practically their entire offense was some guy named Lance Ball. Is that a real name, am I being punked?”

“We lost to basically a good division 2 quarterback” was Coach Todd Haley's only comment.

“He said I was good? Golly!” was the response of the ever unflappable Tebow when told of Haley's assessment. 

Tebow's final numbers included a QB rating of 102.6, which actually exceeded his 69 yards of passing. When asked how this was possible, ESPN editors responded only with “Who's been screwing with this thing?”, referring to the computer responsible for calculating it.

Tebow's impact goes far beyond his numbers though, he helps inspire his teammates to better performance, even the defense. Champ Bailey, widely considered the best single Broncos player, explained it. “We had a decent pocket passer in Kyle Orten with a 1-4 record. Now we switched to basically a running back taking the snaps and occasionally throwing and we are 3-1. That means anyone can be replaced at any time for any reason for any given replacement player. No one is safe, it really puts the fear of God into us. We are playing for our jobs out there.”

Whats next for Tebow? A rematch against the Chargers opens the possibility of winning a game with no completed passes at all, but Tebow might be thinking bigger. “I'm confident enough in my team I think we could win with all my completed passes being interceptions.” Tebow radiated confidence as he ended with “There are no limitations if you put your mind to it.”

“He will have to learn to throw better to get many pics” Chargers Defensive End Tommie Harris noted. “Those throws are usually uncatchable for anyone.”

Perhaps, but Tebow has been full of surprises so far.

The Thing 2011, a prequel to a remake...sorta

Also posted on Stomptokyo under my username Eric454

Given this is era where virtually ever single new movie is either a sequel, remake, or just plain awful, Matthijs van Heijningen's The Thing at least has the novelty of being a prequel to a remake, which is pretty much what qualifies at originality these days. While I don't hold it quite as highly as most people, John Carpenter's 1982 version blended outstanding practical special effects with a chilling atmosphere and pretty good performances from a cast of competent actors headlined by the always awesome Kurt Russell. Having just seen the new movie, I can safely say that...its not bad. It won't make you forget the original...um remake...eh never mind, but it stands fairly well on its own. The biggest problem it has is that while it could have been much worse, it also could have been better.

The Thing starts out with a trio of Norwegians tracking down a signal in the snow. I'll say this for the movie, the non American cast, (Apparently a hodgepodge of European Actors but including at least a few genuine crazy swedes, er Norwegians) give this movie a slightly different feel, and actually some of the most interesting interactions are between the various actors talking to each other in Norwegian. Of course, the makers of this movie want it to make money (Based on the box office, unless this does gangbusters outside the US, that was a epic fail.) so we have to bring in American Paleontologist Kate Lloyd and her two American pilots. I can understand needing to bring in some justification for switching to English, and the language barrier is actually a interesting issue at a couple of points, but less forgivable is that most of the action revolves around Kate and the rest of the science station cast is pushed more or less into the background. It doesn’t help that there are a lot of characters here, and little time to distinguish them. Having said that, Mary Winstead does a good job as the lead, while not implausibly turning into Rambo.

With a lean 102 minute running time, The Thing moves. There is little of the subtle building of dread that the Carpenter version had. I have no problem with this, this movie needed to go in its own direction and there were already clues from the 1982 movie that the Things assault on the Norwegian camp was a lot less subtle then the US camp (Particularly in the novelization). Indeed, its in its moments of departure from the 1982 version that this movie shines. They find the Thing (And a interstellar spacecraft, which might be a little more of a big deal, technology/cold war wise...) , take the Thing home...The Thing wakes, probably in a bad mode, and almost immediately we have our first good view of it.

I guess its necessary to discuss the special effects of this movie. I find CGI, when used properly, to be a outstanding way of doing things that practical effects just can't do. The key word is properly. For the most part I liked the special effects here. In particular they remember to give the Thing a sense of mass, it doesn’t jump around like it weighs nothing. In addition, while a bit goofy at times generally the forms the Thing takes make a certain degree of sense. Honestly at times in Carpenters movie I thought the thing was doing things just to be icky (like when final things chest opens and a half formed dog sticks out. Cool, but...why is doing that?). Based on reviews I've read I’m in the minority on this, and most people have said the CGI can't compare to the original practical effects. So keep that in mind.

Where the movie does fall down is that at times it really seems like a straight remake instead of a prequel Shots from the original movie are recreated very closely. To a extant this criticism might seem unfair, the nature of the creature and the situation means that there had to be parallels in the plot, but some of these are on the verge of going from a homage to the original film to being pretty lazy retreads.

As a example, this base has flamethrowers. Naturally. Don't all Antarctic bases have them? McMurdo station has a two for one deal apparently. So we get into a pattern. In the 1982 version someone things out, (dead thing, Norris Thing, Palmer thing), Kills someone (Bennings, doc, Windows) and gets burned. Much the same thing happens here. How cool would it have been if they only had guns, thermite charges, axes, kerosene and flares to fight it? That would make a transformed thing much more dangerous, and also would have made the beginning of the 3rd act more plausible. (Spoiler ahead. The only reason the Thing reveals itself at that moment is because he read the script and knew the flame thrower would not work. Just like the original movie, except there MacReady dropped it, giving a plausible reason for its malfunction, and Windows had been established as a pretty incompetent character. And of course The Thing had to reveal itself at that moment anyway.) Likewise, two people under suspicion of being a thing are locked away, but not under guard. This is after the thing demonstrates to everyone its perfectly capable of busting through walls with no problem. Why do they do that? Well, because that’s what they did with Doc in the 1982 version I guess.

(If any of you have seen the 1950's version, the most chilling scene was when they tried to fight it by dousing it with kerosene and setting it on fire, that scene hasn’t aged a day, which honestly I can't say of the rest of the movie. Imagine fighting the shape shifting creature of the later movies this way...)

Slight tangent here, I really wish they would have recreated a scene that was in the 1982 script, but which didn’t make it to the scene largely due to special effects limitations. Originally Childs, MacReady and Bennings chased 3 thing dogs out into the middle of nowhere and had a all out battle with the Things. It was a great scene, it was in the novelization, and something similar would have been awesome here. No such luck.

When the movie diverges from the 1982 version, it works. Kate has to come up with a crude, but very logical and plausible test for the Thing. This can't match the tension of the 1982 test, but its clever, and its interesting in that its a imperfect test. There is a moment or two where someone, possibly a thing, tries to convince another not to trust the Americans, taking advantage of the mixture of nationalities. The two final set pieces are fairly well done, and we finally get to see a bit more of the Things craft.

Incidentally, I think this movie shows a lot of signs of being cut in post production. Usually I dislike overly long movies but this really seems like it needed to be, and originally was, around 2 hours long. I'll be interested to see the DVD when it comes out.

So whats the final verdict? Its not bad. Its not a bunch of stupid 20 somethings that you watch only so they can get slaughtered in some contrived retread pick your slasher film. The movie is respectful of the 1982 film, has decent special effects, competent performances and perhaps I'm damning with faint praise here, but with the bar being set so low these days, or so it seems at times, I'm giving it a modest, half hearted thumbs up.

BTW, stay through the credits, not all the way to the end, but about halfway.


Final thought and a spoiler.


The British guy, he had no fillings, was from Britain, and was NOT a thing? Is this a sly reference to Horror Express (loosely inspired by the original story as well.)
“Monster!? We're British, you know “

First Blog,..of several I hope...

Well, in order to encourage a close friend to blog, I promised I would, and while I've disappointed myself in many regards over the years I still consder myself a man of my word.  At least when I remember...which is not very often because one thing that has been consistent about me is my bad memery, but I digress.

I ran/walked the Devil Dash on Saturday, and I had a blast.  Its always fun to get out in Colorado and just have some fun with friends, which makes it all the more frustrating that I've wasted much of my life not doing that.  Now that I'm at a point where I can appreciate these things, my knees have gotten to the point where I really cant do them every day anymore.  Despite this I did manage a 2nd hike of 9 miles on sunday, so all in all a good weekend.

Overall this summer I hiked 7 14ers, better then my usual year but it should have been 10, I missed the 3 chicago basin peaks by a narrow margin, I really do plan to get them next year.

Since this is a first blog, its awful, but next week I'm going to be better!  I promise.

Nathan