Roddick: ´Wawrinka deserved to win, but without injury Nadal would have made it´

[TT]

Andy Roddick: ´Wawrinka deserved to win, but without injury Nadal would
have made it´

Former World No.1 and winner of the 2003 US Open, Andy Roddick - who
know works as a commentator for Fox Sports - expressed his thoughts
about the 2014 Australian Open Men's tournament. First on the list,
Stanislas Wawrinka's victory: "I don't thin anyone expected him to win.,
but he deserved it. He beat Djokovic in the quarters, who was almost
unbeatable in Melbourne since 2008, then Berdych who is a great player.
In the final I personally think that without the back injury Nadal would
have won, but Wawrinka did what he had to do and played great. Before
the match I predicted Nadal to be the winner, if they'd asked me the
same question today, I'd answer it the same way".

About Rafael Nadal's injury: "I don't think it is anything serious. He
decided to finish the match, which was a nice sign of respect for
Wawrinka, who could enjoy the actual moment of the victory. Despite that
I think Nadal is going to be 100% ready for the French Open. If Rafa can
reach 17 Grand Slam titles? I think it'll all depend on his physical
condition. To win in Melbourne would have made it easier to achieve, but
I think he can win the next two Roland Garros. If he doesn't have
injuries over the next two years, he can manage to break the record".

About Roger Federer's comeback: "He played a great first set against
Rafael Nadal, and he played great all match facing Murray. I haven't
seen him in such good form for at least two years. If he can win another
Slam? I don't know, but if he can play like this I would be very
interested to see what he could do at Wimbledon".

And finally, a thought about Na Li's victory: "she plays unbelievable
tennis, but what I really like about her is her off-court self. She
always manages to be funny and friendly"

http://www.tennisworldusa.org/Andy-Roddick-Wawrinka-deserved-to-win-but-without-injury-articolo15976.html

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 30.1.2014 20:43, TT wrote:
> Andy Roddick: ´Wawrinka deserved to win, but without injury Nadal would
> have made it´

Yep. Maybe the wifebeater did deserve this.

> In the final I personally think that without the back injury Nadal would
> have won

Yup.

> Before
> the match I predicted Nadal to be the winner, if they'd asked me the
> same question today, I'd answer it the same way".

Yup.

> He
> decided to finish the match, which was a nice sign of respect for
> Wawrinka, who could enjoy the actual moment of the victory.

Yup. It was a bitter moment, but Rafa handled it with grace and dignity.

> About Roger Federer's comeback: "He played a great first set against
> Rafael Nadal, and he played great all match facing Murray. I haven't
> seen him in such good form for at least two years.

He's a much better player than he was against you, Rod. A bigger pussy
though.

Good points. Refreshing to read honest opinions from someone who knows
what he's talking about.

--
"Got no time for jibba jabba"

[PeteWasLucky]

Thanks Andy

[trr]

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 1:41:29 PM UTC-7, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
> On 30.1.2014 20:43, TT wrote:
>
> > Andy Roddick: ´Wawrinka deserved to win, but without injury Nadal would
>
> > have made it´
>
>
>
> Yep. Maybe the wifebeater did deserve this.
>

Stan's a wifebeater?

> > In the final I personally think that without the back injury Nadal would
>
> > have won
>
>
>
> Yup.

Nadal would have won even with the blister.

> > Before
>
> > the match I predicted Nadal to be the winner, if they'd asked me the
>
> > same question today, I'd answer it the same way".
>
>
>
> Yup.

Roddick knows.

> > He
>
> > decided to finish the match, which was a nice sign of respect for
>
> > Wawrinka, who could enjoy the actual moment of the victory.
>
>
>
> Yup. It was a bitter moment, but Rafa handled it with grace and dignity.
>

He sure did, unlike when a slobbering Federer
was beaten yet again. Nadal had to console Federer
and distract from Nadal's win.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 6:13:05 AM UTC+7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
> Thanks Andy

Yes, when one needs a shrewd tennis analyst, Roddick is the "go to" guy. So glad he cleared this up.

[Fednatic]

He must have an alterior motive. Like a better h2h against Rafa than
Fed?

[Court_1]

Roddick is no less qualified to state his opinion than any of the other tennis "analysts" out there. He did win a slam, over 30 ATP titles and stay in the top ten for ten years.

In this case he is likely speaking the truth; Nadal was playing uncharacteristically and a healthy Nadal probably would have won the match. Suck it up and admit it instead of seeping Nadal hatred through every pore!

[John Liang]

The thing to remember is any analysis that contain would've essentially means nada, zero, nothing. He would have won does not means he won and that is end of the story. Tennis record does not contain any woulda, shoulda and coulda type result.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:36:52 PM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> Roddick is no less qualified to state his opinion than any of the other tennis "analysts" out there. He did win a slam, over 30 ATP titles and stay in the top ten for ten years.
>
>
>
> In this case he is likely speaking the truth; Nadal was playing uncharacteristically and a healthy Nadal probably would have won the match. Suck it up and admit it instead of seeping Nadal hatred through every pore!

Roddick is a bonehead who is lucky to have even one slam, but in this case, I don't really care whether Roddick said it, Sampras, or Laver. It is silly speculation.

Obviously the #1 seed is favored to win against someone like Wawrinka, but then again, so was the #2 seed. Wawrinka played a great tournament, and came out with a clear strategy against Nadal that he was executing from the outset. As for Nadal, tennis was only one of the games he was playing out there. Hell, if he hadn't done his possum act where he supposedly could barely move (but only for a while), maybe Wawrinka wouldn't have gotten distracted and "would have" won in straight sets.

Sure Roddick has the "right" to express his opinion, but what's the point? He doesn't know what might have happened in a different scenario any more than anyone else, and it is disrespectful to the ACTUAL champion to make such statements.

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 31 januari 2014 08:55:47 UTC+1 schreef Gracchus:

Couldn't agree more. But what Roddick implicitly implies here is that Rafa actually deserved to get injured, which is disrespectful and maybe a little cruel to the runner-up. Then again, Andy has every right to express his opinions.

[Whisper]

I don't recall you defending Del Potro in this fashion after he beat Fed
in USO final. How come?

[kaennorsing]

Op vrijdag 31 januari 2014 14:32:39 UTC+1 schreef Whisper:

Did Fed act like he was injured in that final and take away from Delpo's immaculate performance. Answer: no, but Rafa did in hindsight claim injury for the round before, where he got whacked by Potro; 2, 2 and 2. What else is new?

[Gracchus]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:35:14 PM UTC+7, kaennorsing wrote:
> Op vrijdag 31 januari 2014 14:32:39 UTC+1 schreef Whisper:

> > I don't recall you defending Del Potro in this fashion after he beat Fed
>
> >
>
> > in USO final. How come?
>
>
>
> Did Fed act like he was injured in that final and take away from Delpo's immaculate performance. Answer: no, but Rafa did in hindsight claim injury for the round before, where he got whacked by Potro; 2, 2 and 2. What else is new?

Well said. This is just one of Whisp's grasping at straws goofy comments...as if he'd remember my remarks from four years ago in the first place. The two matches aren't comparable in any way.

In the 2009 USO, Federer was cruising along when his level dropped and Del Potro's rose. Fed played safe hoping Del Potro would collapse under the pressure but instead he won the match. Therefore he deserved to be champion.

This AO was a far different situation. Nadal used injury gamesmanship in an attempt to steal a match he was losing. It is a low tactic he's used numerous times in the past with considerable success. Thank God Stan held on and closed the sneak out.

[ca1houn]

Guess what now Stan a slam winner let hope he wont be a one slam wonder like Andy Roddick

[Shakes]

Fair point, and something I agree with. But if it had been Fed, would
you have said the same thing ? :-)

[Court_1]

That is true, at the end of the day Stan won a slam but who genuinely thinks that he would have won a slam if Nadal were not injured? Whether we like it or not the injury issue is there and Stan's win is a question mark. He brought up the elephant in the room and was honest about it, nothing wrong with that.

[guypers]

Moron, Stan would have won 62 62 63 wihout injury, asspicker was fukked, cheating piece of shite?

[Court_1]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:55:47 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Roddick is a bonehead

True, I never liked him but he is entitled to speak his opinion.

> It is silly speculation.

No, it is not. He stated what every rational tennis fan is thinking.

> Obviously the #1 seed is favored to win against someone like Wawrinka, but then again, so was the #2 seed. Wawrinka played a great tournament, and came out with a clear strategy against Nadal that he was executing from the outset.

A clear strategy against an obviously not 100% Nadal. Yippee!

> Sure Roddick has the "right" to express his opinion, but what's the point? He doesn't know what might have happened in a different scenario any more than anyone else, and it is disrespectful to the ACTUAL champion to make such statements.

The point is Roddick is one of the only people who is honest enough to say what so many other analysts are probably afraid to say. I am sure Wawrinka is happy as a clam that he won a slam any way he could get it. I really don't think he gives a hoot what Roddick or other people may say about it. Wawrinka knows he is lucky to have won a slam and probably won't win another.

[John Liang]

Yes, I would say the same thing. Unlike your friend whisper I never count some mid match score as a close win.

[arahim]

Isn't this coulda woulda?

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:39 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:55:47 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>
>
>
> > Roddick is a bonehead
>
>
>
> True, I never liked him but he is entitled to speak his opinion.

I know that you love saying this, but it is a meaningless statement in a discussion unless you are speaking to someone who has proposed having the third party incarcerated for expressing his opinion. Pretending for a moment that entitlement to free speech is a universal right, I will state for the record that he is free to say what he wants just as I am free to give my view of his opinion and you are free to rebut it.

> A clear strategy against an obviously not 100% Nadal. Yippee!

If we start dismissing matches won against not 100% higher champions, we'd end up with a long list of unworthy players, including a lot of slam winners. The bottom line is, two players were fit enough to take the court and both finished the match. One was able to do what he needed to and the other wasn't. It goes without saying that if you look strictly at their head-to-head and respective achievements, then Nadal is the better player and Wawrinka beating him in a slam is aberrant unless the the future proves otherwise. And so what? I don't see Nadal's trumped-up "injury" as any different than a player rendered vulnerable by an exhausting semifinal or one just having a day where they can't hit the side of a barn. As I said recently about Serena and all her "less that 100% excuses," give the fans some credit. If it's true, they will already know it.

> The point is Roddick is one of the only people who is honest enough to say what so many other analysts are probably afraid to say. I am sure Wawrinka is happy as a clam that he won a slam any way he could get it. I really don't think he gives a hoot what Roddick or other people may say about it. Wawrinka knows he is lucky to have won a slam and probably won't win another.

It doesn't particularly matter whether Wawrinka cares what Roddick thinks. Freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility of discretion. I can tell a woman that her favorite party dress makes her look fat and be telling the truth, but I'd still be a classless jerk for doing it...in my humble...OPINION!

[Garvin Yee]

On 1/31/2014 11:32 AM, Court_1 wrote:

> The point is Roddick is one of the only people who is honest enough to say what so many other analysts are probably afraid to say. I am sure Wawrinka is happy as a clam that he won a slam any way he could get it. I really don't think he gives a hoot what Roddick or other people may say about it. Wawrinka knows he is lucky to have won a slam and probably won't win another.
>

I'm not so sure about that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislas_Wawrinka

His work with Magnus Norman is obviously paying off....that has
nothing to do with luck. More like hard work and dedication and
correct strategy.

He's the #3 now....who knows what else he could win? If anything,
this AO has shown us anyone can be on fire for two weeks, and destroy
the opposition.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/34735015@N03/sets/72157623566520134/show/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/garvin-yee.html

[Gracchus]

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:18:33 AM UTC+7, Garvin Yee wrote:

> He's the #3 now....who knows what else he could win? If anything,
>
> this AO has shown us anyone can be on fire for two weeks, and destroy
>
> the opposition.

Yes, as Court 1 is conveniently overlooking, Wawrinka didn't just drift into the final by accident. He took out both the #1 AND the #2 seed--the same guy C1 thought would win the tournament and had the edge over Nadal at the AO.

[Garvin Yee]

It amuses me how many people make sports predictions, and
emphatically proclaim they "know" they are right. No one has a
crystal ball. Everyone "knew" Nadal would win this one, but it
didn't happen.

It's not luck Stan made it to his first Slam semi-final
last year, and it's not luck he's holding the AO trophy now: It
doesn't matter if you believe Nadal was over-hyping an injury...Stan
was still beating him fair and square.

Now would be a good time to ask the actual tennis players
here: Does anyone know specifically what Magnus Norman has done
with Stan strategically? It sure as hell is working!

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 1.2.2014 4:00, Gracchus wrote:
>
> It doesn't particularly matter whether Wawrinka cares what Roddick
> thinks. Freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility of
> discretion.

Lame. Discretion might apply to cases like Roddick calling Wrinka an
asshole out of the blue. However, Andy says nothing that is not
warranted. He says

1) Wrinka deserved his title.
2) Without the injury Rafa had won
3) I predicted Rafa would win and would make the same prediction again.

There is nothing here that is not justified by a 12-0 record.

[Gracchus]

I agree regarding #1 and #3, but not #2. Nothing wrong with making a prediction based on ranking and past results, but IMO there is something wrong with making a "would have" assertion when Roddick doesn't know to what extent Rafa was or wasn't injured.

[RaspingDrive]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:00:21 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

************ If we start dismissing matches won against not 100% higher champions, we'd end up with a long list of unworthy players, including a lot of slam winners. The bottom line is, two players were fit enough to take the court and both finished the match. One was able to do what he needed to and the other wasn't. It goes without saying that if you look strictly at their head-to-head and respective achievements, then Nadal is the better player and Wawrinka beating him in a slam is aberrant unless the the future proves otherwise. And so what? I don't see Nadal's trumped-up "injury" as any different than a player rendered vulnerable by an exhausting semifinal or one just having a day where they can't hit the side of a barn. As I said recently about Serena and all her "less that 100% excuses," give the fans some credit. If it's true, they will already know it. *****************

Point *very well* conveyed. Stan is presumably at his career peak and, arguably, likely to fall off later this year, but his AO win was not a fluke, IMO. He had played excellently all along and started very well in the final as well, taking it to Nadal, who was probably surprised that he had a match on his hands and the record, which he might have thought was his (despite all the platitudes he regularly showers in 'favor' of his opponents) for the taking, was slipping away. The injury may have been induced by this discomfiture, who knows? As already pointed out by felangey, there is also the possibility that when at the cusp of achieving some records, Nadal has had some injury or other. He played a great semifinal, but it was just a battle won, not the war for which an adrenalin-depleted Nadal was probably not ready. Shows how difficult it can be to win 7 5-set matches, leave alone multiple of them, and how hard it can be to take advantage of WoO's that present themselves regularly to champions.

[ca1houn]

In 2003 David Nalbandian should have won if he didn't choke and wasn't fat

[Court_1]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:00:21 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 1:32:39 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> It doesn't particularly matter whether Wawrinka cares what Roddick thinks. Freedom of speech carries with it the responsibility of discretion. I can tell a woman that her favorite party dress makes her look fat and be telling the truth, but I'd still be a classless jerk for doing it...in my humble...OPINION!

LOL, that is not the same type of scenario at all and a poor comparison Gracchus!

Here is the bottom line: You despise Nadal and you will look for any excuse to malign him or anybody who remotely praises him whether it be a lowly fan or a past player/now tennis analyst like Roddick. If Federer had been playing Wawrinka in the final and Federer was somehow injured and unable to play 100% enabling Wawrinka to win and Roddick made the comment that under normal circumstances Federer probably would have won, you would not be bitching about Roddick's comment in that scenario! Just admit it and call it a day. If you deny it I won't believe you! :)

[guypers]

Rafa is fukked, curtains! So is Peyton, wtf is going on?

[ca1houn]

Or a helpful friend for not letting her go out again in public wearing the dress

[The Iceberg]

On Friday, 31 January 2014 04:07:13 UTC, Gracchus wrote:
> On Friday, January 31, 2014 6:13:05 AM UTC+7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>
> > Thanks Andy
>
>
>
> Yes, when one needs a shrewd tennis analyst, Roddick is the "go to" guy. So glad he cleared this up.

Roddick is a good guy who just says what most normal people think.

[The Iceberg]

no you wouldn't you still won't admit Nadal won the USO 2013 and had the best 2013.

[The Iceberg]

oh yes, you still maintain the injury was gamesmanship, classic Fedfan. You're very unbiased aren't you, LOLOLOLOLOLLLLLL

[trr]

Federer was lucky, if Nadal didn't have the blister the score
would have been 6-0 6-0 6-0 at AO Nadal vs Federer.

[Gracchus]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 8:09:57 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> Here is the bottom line: You despise Nadal and you will look for any excuse to malign him or anybody who remotely praises him whether it be a lowly fan or a past player/now tennis analyst like Roddick. If Federer had been playing Wawrinka in the final and Federer was somehow injured and unable to play 100% enabling Wawrinka to win and Roddick made the comment that under normal circumstances Federer probably would have won, you would not be bitching about Roddick's comment in that scenario! Just admit it and call it a day. If you deny it I won't believe you! :)

And IF Nadal had been playing "that ape" Djokovic in the final and Djokovic was somehow injured and unable to play 100%, enabling Nadal to win and Roddick made the comment that under normal circumstances Djokovic probably WOULD HAVE won, you would not be defending Roddick's comment in that scenario.

Wow, don't hypothetical certainties make life so much simpler?

[Gracchus]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 5:38:10 PM UTC+7, The Iceberg wrote:

> oh yes, you still maintain the injury was gamesmanship, classic Fedfan. You're very unbiased aren't you, LOLOLOLOLOLLLLLL

What I maintain is that Nadal used gamesmanship to turn a minor injury to his advantage--with some success, though he ultimately still lost the match.

And I've never claimed to be unbiased. We all have at least some bias, though a select few believe they transcend it.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 12:48:12 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> And IF Nadal had been playing "that ape" Djokovic in the final and Djokovic was somehow injured and unable to play 100%, enabling Nadal to win and Roddick made the comment that under normal circumstances Djokovic probably WOULD HAVE won, you would not be defending Roddick's comment in that scenario.
>
>
>
> Wow, don't hypothetical certainties make life so much simpler?

You forgot to say "Serbian ape!" :)

Nah, you have got me all wrong Gracchus. I was expecting Djokovic to win the tournament and if Djokovic were injured in the same way Nadal was I would concede that it would have been a possibility that Djokovic could have won under normal circumstances. The fact that I don't love his cheesy ways does not detract me from understanding the truth that Djokovic is a challenging match-up for Nadal especially on a hardcourt at the AO of all places. I don't let my hatred of a great player blind me to the realities of a match-up such as you apparently do.

Look, there is really nothing to argue about here. The reality is Wawrinka was the last man standing in the final and a win is a win but you would have to be some kind of blind moron to not consider the possibility that Wawrinka's win against a player who has owned him comprehensively in the past and who has pulled out a win even when the first set or all sets have been close, may have been a fluke. You are not even considering that possibility because all you can do is focus in on Nadal's "gamesmanship/injury" theory to denigrate Nadal and build up Wawrinka. You need to pick and choose your battles better. I think Nadal has played the injury card like nobody else in the past but I do not think he did so in the AO final and I think Wawrinka's win, although fair and square, does have a question mark attached to it.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 12:57:17 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> What I maintain is that Nadal used gamesmanship to turn a minor injury to his advantage--with some success, though he ultimately still lost the match.

That is not the question here though. The question is would Wawrinka have still won the entire match if Nadal were not physically hampered in some way? The answer is we don't know for sure, but probably not. To say Nadal was not physically challenged in this match is ridiculous based on the facts. If he were using gamesmanship and the MTO to his advantage he would have come out after the MTO and tried to play lights out tennis, not serve at 20 miles per hour and give up the match in a grand slam final! You need to put your hatred aside in this instance and look at the specific facts. This was not a Rosol at W type match where Nadal played lights out tennis the whole way through and then after the match expected his fans to believe that he was actually "injured."

[bob]

On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 23:36:52 -0800 (PST), Court_1
<Olymp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Thursday, January 30, 2014 11:07:13 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
>> On Friday, January 31, 2014 6:13:05 AM UTC+7, PeteWasLucky wrote:
>>
>> > Thanks Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, when one needs a shrewd tennis analyst, Roddick is the "go to" guy. So glad he cleared this up.
>
>Roddick is no less qualified to state his opinion than any of the other tennis "analysts" out there. He did win a slam, over 30 ATP titles and stay in the top ten for ten years.
>
>In this case he is likely speaking the truth; Nadal was playing uncharacteristically and a healthy Nadal probably would have won the match. Suck it up and admit it instead of seeping Nadal hatred through every pore!

nadal did beat stan previous 12 meetings w/out dropping a set although
the last 2 yrs the scores were narrowing.

bob

[bob]

On Sat, 01 Feb 2014 00:32:39 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

>On 1/31/2014 6:55 PM, Gracchus wrote:

>> On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:36:52 PM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:
>>
>>> Roddick is no less qualified to state his opinion than any of the other tennis "analysts" out there. He did win a slam, over 30 ATP titles and stay in the top ten for ten years.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In this case he is likely speaking the truth; Nadal was playing uncharacteristically and a healthy Nadal probably would have won the match. Suck it up and admit it instead of seeping Nadal hatred through every pore!
>>

>> Roddick is a bonehead who is lucky to have even one slam, but in this case, I don't really care whether Roddick said it, Sampras, or Laver. It is silly speculation.
>>
>> Obviously the #1 seed is favored to win against someone like Wawrinka, but then again, so was the #2 seed. Wawrinka played a great tournament, and came out with a clear strategy against Nadal that he was executing from the outset. As for Nadal, tennis was only one of the games he was playing out there. Hell, if he hadn't done his possum act where he supposedly could barely move (but only for a while), maybe Wawrinka wouldn't have gotten distracted and "would have" won in straight sets.

>>
>> Sure Roddick has the "right" to express his opinion, but what's the point? He doesn't know what might have happened in a different scenario any more than anyone else, and it is disrespectful to the ACTUAL champion to make such statements.
>>
>
>

>I don't recall you defending Del Potro in this fashion after he beat Fed
>in USO final. How come?

i counted delpot's USO win against fed as a fed lapse in
concentration/focus. i also count fed's 1st 7 slam wins as
historically bad competition. fair is fair after all. :-)

bob

[bob]

yeah, i hear a lot of people tell me they "can't lie" and are "too
honest," even "to a fault." then i catch them red handed lying all the
time. there is freedom of speech, and there is tact. but roddick's
opinion is no biggie, this is simply his opinion on the outcome, which
i'm not sure i share. wawrinka played great, and has played well for
over a year now, and he got hot with a good strategy. it worked.

that said, nadal will spank him badly next time they meet, i'd put
money on it.

bob

[bob]

not nearly as simple as hypothetical couldas. :-)

bob

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:21:14 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> Look, there is really nothing to argue about here. The reality is Wawrinka was the last man standing in the final and a win is a win but you would have to be some kind of blind moron to not consider the possibility that Wawrinka's win against a player who has owned him comprehensively in the past and who has pulled out a win even when the first set or all sets have been close, may have been a fluke. You are not even considering that possibility because all you can do is focus in on Nadal's "gamesmanship/injury" theory to denigrate Nadal and build up Wawrinka.

Did you ever see the documentary "The Fog of War"? At one point in it, Robert McNamara says that he took up the habit of answering journalists not with the question he'd been asked, but the question that he WISHED that he'd been asked. That's pretty much what you do in responding to other people's posts. Beginning with the presumption that you are always right and the conceit that you "tell it like it is," you cherry-pick what you want to address and ignore the rest.

Responding to you earlier in the thread, I said: "It goes without saying that if you look strictly at their head-to-head and respective achievements, then Nadal is the better player and Wawrinka beating him in a slam is aberrant unless the the future proves otherwise."

Is there some part of that that doesn't register with you? I guess it's just more convenient to cast me as taking the position that Warwrinka is better than Nadal. Yet another member in your gallery of straw men.

>You need to pick and choose your battles better. I think Nadal has played the injury card like nobody else in the past but I do not think he did so in the AO final and I think Wawrinka's win, although fair and square, does have a question mark attached to it.

As far as Nadal and his "injuries" go, none of us know how much he was or wasn't injured, including Roddick, and *that* was the core of my objection to his comments. As I said in another thread, I'd give any other player the benefit of the doubt on this but not Nadal. And no, not because I'm consumed with hatred for him, but because he HAS played the injury card so much in the past. That's the consequence of "crying wolf."

[Gracchus]

He says that he noticed the injury during the warmup, but when the match started, he looked more like someone getting outplayed than an injured player. Then suddenly he could barely move or serve and looked on the verge of default. Then he was able to serve harder and run wide to hit winners. Yes, I know Wawrinka lost his concentration, but Nadal would not have been able to take that third set if he had still been moving like a turtle. Hard to believe a little massage made that much difference, IMO.

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:38:16 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Did you ever see the documentary "The Fog of War"? At one point in it, Robert McNamara says that he took up the habit of answering journalists not with the question he'd been asked, but the question that he WISHED that he'd been asked. That's pretty much what you do in responding to other people's posts. Beginning with the presumption that you are always right and the conceit that you "tell it like it is," you cherry-pick what you want to address and ignore the rest.
>
>
>
> Responding to you earlier in the thread, I said: "It goes without saying that if you look strictly at their head-to-head and respective achievements, then Nadal is the better player and Wawrinka beating him in a slam is aberrant unless the the future proves otherwise."


> Is there some part of that that doesn't register with you? I guess it's just more convenient to cast me as taking the position that Warwrinka is better than Nadal. Yet another member in your gallery of straw men.

Where did I ever say that you said Wawrinka is better than Nadal? I never said or implied that. I said that you were trying to make the argument that Wawrinka would have won that final no matter whether or not Nadal was injured or not based on the first set and first two games of the second set alone. But the reality is that Wawrinka and Nadal have been involved in very close first set matches or even matches where both sets were close and yet Nadal always prevailed. It is hard to imagine how Nadal would not have turned that match around in a slam final of all things where there were a couple of records for him on the line if he were in fact uninjured unless he is a complete half-wit.

> As far as Nadal and his "injuries" go, none of us know how much he was or wasn't injured, including Roddick, and *that* was the core of my objection to his comments. As I said in another thread, I'd give any other player the benefit of the doubt on this but not Nadal. And no, not because I'm consumed with hatred for him, but because he HAS played the injury card so much in the past. That's the consequence of "crying wolf."

Oh come on Gracchus, you are so consumed by hatred for Nadal it is ridiculous! How many threads have you started on this ng with the intent to ridicule Nadal? You see yourself as better or above TT is with respect to his Federer hatred but in fact you are no better with your own hatred for Nadal. You both have irrational hatreds of tennis players and pretty much everything you say hinges on that.

And yes Roddick may not know how injured Nadal was but who cares whether he knows or not. There was nothing wrong with Roddick's statement that he believes that Nadal would have won the match if healthy. That is a reasonable conclusion for any halfway objective person (and I am sorry but you are not objective on this issue, please don't pretend you are.)

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 6:52:25 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> He says that he noticed the injury during the warmup, but when the match started, he looked more like someone getting outplayed than an injured player. Then suddenly he could barely move or serve and looked on the verge of default. Then he was able to serve harder and run wide to hit winners. Yes, I know Wawrinka lost his concentration, but Nadal would not have been able to take that third set if he had still been moving like a turtle. Hard to believe a little massage made that much difference, IMO.

As is the theme in the movie American Hustle, "we see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe." Nowhere is that theme more evident than on this ng. :)

[Gracchus]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:52:28 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> As is the theme in the movie American Hustle, "we see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe." Nowhere is that theme more evident than on this ng. :)

Except for you of course, famous for your cool-headed judgement unclouded by bias or emotion. How proud you must feel when shouting left and right, "Don't be such a spiteful Nadal-hater!" "Don't be such a rabid Federer-hater!" Fair and balanced, just like Fox news.

(I can hear her wheels starting to turn already..."LOL!!! No, NOT just me, Gracchus! There are many unbiased posters here, and if you didn't spend all your energy hating Nadal so much, you'd see it! :) There's Shakes and Patrick and..." [miscellaneous puke continues])

[Court_1]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 8:42:09 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 7:52:28 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:
>
>
>
> > As is the theme in the movie American Hustle, "we see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe." Nowhere is that theme more evident than on this ng. :)
>
>
>
> Except for you of course,

Nope, I include myself in the mix. We all see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe in every area of life--i.e.politics, religion, sports/entertainment, etc. etc.

[drew]

On Monday, February 3, 2014 8:42:09 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> (I can hear her wheels starting to turn already..."LOL!!! No, NOT just me, Gracchus! There are many unbiased posters here, and if you didn't spend all your energy hating Nadal so much, you'd see it! :) There's Shakes and Patrick and..." [miscellaneous puke continues])

Court is argumentative but I don't think she's biased in favour of Federer or Nadal. She just has no respect for any but the top 4 players. Hates male chauvenists like Ferrer (and me) :-)

[drew]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:28:33 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 10:18:33 AM UTC+7, Garvin Yee wrote:
>
>
>
> > He's the #3 now....who knows what else he could win? If anything,
>
> >
>
> > this AO has shown us anyone can be on fire for two weeks, and destroy
>
> >
>
> > the opposition.
>
>
>
> Yes, as Court 1 is conveniently overlooking, Wawrinka didn't just drift into the final by accident. He took out both the #1 AND the #2 seed--the same guy C1 thought would win the tournament and had the edge over Nadal at the AO.

I said during the USO last year that the kind of tennis Stan was playing could win a major....he didn't go all the way then but he was full value this time. He deserves it. He was the best player of the AO by quite a margin.

[drew]

On Friday, January 31, 2014 10:50:34 PM UTC-5, Garvin Yee wrote:
> Now would be a good time to ask the actual tennis players
>
> here: Does anyone know specifically what Magnus Norman has done
>
> with Stan strategically? It sure as hell is working!


Stan still is the guy who has to hit the ball. He's always been a quality player but he's now stringing more good performances together. If Berdych and Tsonga would manage as Stan did, at the right time, either of them could be in a similar position but so far these guys seem to have a dog of a match somewhere between the start and finish of every major they play regardless of how well they start...sort of like Murray before he managed to win the USO.

Shit the bed syndrome.

[Whisper]

I wouldn't go that far. Djoker won the 1st set & was cruising. Looked
like he was going to win easily in 3 or 4 sets.

Full credit to Stan, but he wasn't the best player 'by quite a margin'.
Indeed he was also the huge underdog v Rafa, having never won a set in
12 matches.

[John Liang]

Who is the best player by that 'quite a margin' ? Yes, he was the underdog against Nadal but given how close he was in WTF and how he beat Djokovic he was always expect to win at least 1 set from Nadal.

[Whisper]

I think realistically we were all hoping he would win a set to make a
match of it.

[bob]

saw it last wk, enjoyed it.

bob

[bob]

On Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:37:51 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

after djok, i thought stan would have a letdown. but realistically
he's playing his best tennis this past year, has had closer scores VS
rafa than ever before, pushed djok hard in 2 previous HC slams, and
luckily he caught nadal with a bit of an injury and took it.

i do believe next time they play nadal wins easily.

bob

[bob]

On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 15:38:16 -0800 (PST), Gracchus
<cernu...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 4:21:14 AM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:
>
>> Look, there is really nothing to argue about here. The reality is Wawrinka was the last man standing in the final and a win is a win but you would have to be some kind of blind moron to not consider the possibility that Wawrinka's win against a player who has owned him comprehensively in the past and who has pulled out a win even when the first set or all sets have been close, may have been a fluke. You are not even considering that possibility because all you can do is focus in on Nadal's "gamesmanship/injury" theory to denigrate Nadal and build up Wawrinka.
>
>
>Did you ever see the documentary "The Fog of War"? At one point in it, Robert McNamara says that he took up the habit of answering journalists not with the question he'd been asked, but the question that he WISHED that he'd been asked. That's pretty much what you do in responding to other people's posts. Beginning with the presumption that you are always right and the conceit that you "tell it like it is," you cherry-pick what you want to address and ignore the rest.

i've seen that and also 'hearts and minds' fairly recently again, both
riveting.

>Responding to you earlier in the thread, I said: "It goes without saying that if you look strictly at their head-to-head and respective achievements, then Nadal is the better player and Wawrinka beating him in a slam is aberrant unless the the future proves otherwise."
>Is there some part of that that doesn't register with you? I guess it's just more convenient to cast me as taking the position that Warwrinka is better than Nadal. Yet another member in your gallery of straw men.
>
>
>>You need to pick and choose your battles better. I think Nadal has played the injury card like nobody else in the past but I do not think he did so in the AO final and I think Wawrinka's win, although fair and square, does have a question mark attached to it.
>
>As far as Nadal and his "injuries" go, none of us know how much he was or wasn't injured, including Roddick, and *that* was the core of my objection to his comments. As I said in another thread, I'd give any other player the benefit of the doubt on this but not Nadal. And no, not because I'm consumed with hatred for him, but because he HAS played the injury card so much in the past. That's the consequence of "crying wolf."

bob

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, February 5, 2014 6:23:53 PM UTC-5, bob wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014 16:52:28 -0800 (PST), Court_1

> >As is the theme in the movie American Hustle, "we see what we want to see and believe what we want to believe." Nowhere is that theme more evident than on this ng. :)
>
>
>
> saw it last wk, enjoyed it.

Yes, American Hustle was good wasn't it? I enjoyed it a lot. Great performances by the ensemble cast. I liked it better than Silver Linings Playbook which was the director David O Russell's film from last year.

[Gracchus]

I liked it too. Thought Jennifer Lawrence was hilarious in it and I hope she wins the Oscar, though I bet they'll make the more PC choice of Luputa Nyong'o. I found Silver Linings Playbook annoying on several levels.

[Whisper]

Yes. 1st time I liked Christan Bale in any role - it was a great
performance from him & Oscar-worthy.

J Lawrence was too young for the role & didn't seem believable - getting
a bit tired of her.

[Whisper]

Much better than SLP. I have a new respect for Bale now.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:28:31 PM UTC+7, Whisper wrote:

> J Lawrence was too young for the role & didn't seem believable - getting
>
> a bit tired of her.

Well maybe she's getting tired of you too! Have you thought about THAT?

She was great in the role.
Oscar winner.
Case closed.

[Whisper]

She's way overrated.

You seem the type to jump on any vacuous bandwagon. I can't remember
are you a Fedfucker?

I'd guess yes.

[Whisper]

On 2/6/2014 8:50 PM, Gracchus wrote:

You'd have to be a fruitloop to think a girl that young would have that
role in real life. That makes it silly & unrealistic to me.

Overall the movie was very good & Bale was excellent. Lawrence may
mature into a real actress when she's older, but for now she's just an
extra imo.

[Gracchus]

And you seem like the type to act contrary just for the sake of being an asshole. I can't remember--are you an Aussie?

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:27:55 PM UTC+7, Whisper wrote:

>
> You'd have to be a fruitloop to think a girl that young would have that
>
> role in real life. That makes it silly & unrealistic to me.
>
>
>
> Overall the movie was very good & Bale was excellent. Lawrence may
>
> mature into a real actress when she's older, but for now she's just an
>
> extra imo.

Do you know how old the character was actually supposed to be? Bale and Adams are both 40. I'm guessing were supposed to think that Bale's character married a younger woman and they've been married some years. Lawrence is 23, so yeah, I would think the character is meant to be somewhat younger, but how much--who knows?

I get the impression you think because she's playing a Long Island housewife she's gotto be some hard-bitten middle-aged broad like Edie Falco on "The Sopranos."

I thought she played it well, with great comedic timing. As for Lawrence's career as a whole, I have no strong opinion either way. IMO she did a really good job in "Winter's Bone," her breakthrough, and was solid in the Hunger Games movies. I wasn't impressed with what she did in "Silver Linings Playbook," but as I've said, I didn't like the movie itself at all.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:36:44 PM UTC+7, Gracchus wrote:

>Lawrence is 23, so yeah, I would think the character is meant to be somewhat younger, but how much--who knows?

Oops, meant "somewhat older."

[Whisper]

She just wasn't believable in that role. You can't compare what she did
in that role to Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine. Cate was very
believable while Jen was acting.

I never like Bale until this role, & I'd like to see him win the Oscar
for it.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 3:28:31 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:

> Yes. 1st time I liked Christan Bale in any role - it was a great
>
> performance from him & Oscar-worthy.
>
>
>
> J Lawrence was too young for the role & didn't seem believable - getting
>
> a bit tired of her.

Yes, Christian Bale was excellent in AH. I think Bale's performance was better than Matthew McConaughey's performance in Dallas Buyers Club which most people seem to be raving about and seem to feel will win the Oscar. I did not think the movie Dallas Buyers Club or MM's role were anything special.

As for Jennifer Lawrence, although I preferred the movie AH to Silver Linings Playback, I actually preferred Lawrence's performance in SLB to her performance in AH. I think in AH, the Bale, Adams and Cooper performances were better than J Law's.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 5:36:44 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:
> I wasn't impressed with what she did in "Silver Linings Playbook," but as I've said, I didn't like the movie itself at all.

See, I disagree with you there. I think Lawrence's performance in SLB was one of the best things about the otherwise average movie.

[Whisper]

I agree. Those 3 were excellent. Jen has it in her to put in a great
performance 1 day, but she's too young/raw & tries a bit hard to deserve
all the accolades she's getting, imo. Bale looked like he wasn't trying
at all, yet really commanded every scene. That's a great quality for an
actor.

My wife watched Dallas Buyer's club today & said she loved it, better
than 12 yrs a slave. She said MM deserves the oscar. I'll probably
watch it over the weekend.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:50:43 AM UTC-5, Whisper wrote:

> My wife watched Dallas Buyer's club today & said she loved it, better
>
> than 12 yrs a slave. She said MM deserves the oscar. I'll probably
>
> watch it over the weekend.

Don't get me wrong, DBC was not a bad movie nor was MM's performance but I guess I was expecting more after all of the hype. I think people are raving about MM's performance because of his dramatic weight change (the Academy seems to like that sort of thing.) He plays a Southern redneck hick which is really not that far away from most of his roles or his own real life background. I like McConaughey actually but I just think his role has been overhyped a tad. Bale was better imo. Your mileage may vary.

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 7:03:24 PM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> Don't get me wrong, DBC was not a bad movie nor was MM's performance but I guess I was expecting more after all of the hype. I think people are raving about MM's performance because of his dramatic weight change (the Academy seems to like that sort of thing.) He plays a Southern redneck hick which is really not that far away from most of his roles or his own real life background. I like McConaughey actually but I just think his role has been overhyped a tad. Bale was better imo. Your mileage may vary.

Traditionally I have not liked McConaughey, but I thought he did an excellent job in DBC, as did Bale in AH. Personally I think Bale deserves it more, but don't think it would be a travesty if McConaughey won instead.

You are right that there are certain things the Academy likes...physical transformations, weight changes, playing disabled people, etc. It is stupid but could easily tilt things in McConaughey's favor.

[TT]

Care to elaborate what "AH" and "MM" stand for?

--
"This is not about Federer, this is about how good Nadal is."
- Darren Cahill

[Gracchus]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 6:50:43 PM UTC+7, Whisper wrote:

> My wife watched Dallas Buyer's club today & said she loved it, better
>
> than 12 yrs a slave. She said MM deserves the oscar. I'll probably
>
> watch it over the weekend.

I watched DBC knowing nothing about it in advance. Honestly I probably wouldn't have bothered if I knew it was another AIDS movie. But I was glad afterwards that I took the trouble to watch it.

I thought "12 Years a Slave" wasn't that great, even though I find the story that inspired the movie fascinating. But this another one where the it might get the nod for best picture over "American Hustle"" to be PC. Ever since the Academy snubbed "The Color Purple," they've been on the defensive to prove that they aren't racist.

This means that "Slave" either has to win best picture or a black actor/actress from the movie has to win in their category. If they are going to do something like that though, I'd far prefer if they gave best supporting actor to the guy who played the Somali pirate leader in "Captain Phillips."

[TT]

Ok, figured it out... Matthew Mcconaghey and American Hustle.

I thought Bale was pretty good in AH... although I didn't think the film
being worth the hype really. I'd give best picture to 12 years as a
slave, from couple nominees I've seen.

And I do agree about Owen Wilson, discussed in Woody Allen thread... a
great choice for romantic lead? I don't think so...

[TT]

6.2.2014 12:36, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> and was solid in the Hunger Games movies.

Really disappointed in 2nd hunger games... It was imo really bad and
liking the first one made it even worse.

Dictatorship in future society, people starve. How original. Horrible
acting and the movie didn't even have a real ending.

Currently it seems fashionable making a trilogy where 2nd part does not
fair as a stand alone movie... it's like watching a soap opera except
the next part will be next year instead of next week.

Which trilogy started this trend? Perhaps Empire Strikes Back is to
blame, although I thought it can be seen as decent stand alone piece -
don't have to necessarily watch ROJ after it...

[TT]

6.2.2014 19:36, TT kirjoitti:
> Dictatorship in future society, people starve. How original. Horrible
> acting and the movie didn't even have a real ending.
>
> Currently it seems fashionable making a trilogy where 2nd part does not
> fair as a stand alone movie... it's like watching a soap opera except
> the next part will be next year instead of next week.

And one of the cast died before the 3rd part...

[TT]

6.2.2014 19:17, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> This means that "Slave" either has to win best picture or a black actor/actress from the movie has to win in their category.

If they did, I wouldn't say that the best actor/ress award wasn't
deserved. Since they were good.

As was the Somali pirate and Hanks...

[bob]

i thought jennifer lawrence was the best role in the movie, when she
was having a blast washing dishes thinking her "husband" was being
killed. i can relate. :-) lol.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 19:28:31 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

i like her and the director seems to like her and bradley cooper. i
thought bale was oscar worthy. imagine batman coming in like that.
whew.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 21:25:45 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

i liked lawrence in silver linings and american hustle. i'm neutral
toward the hunger games as i saw the 1st movie and didn't read the
books, so don't care heavily either way.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 22:30:29 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

now i'm gonna watch blue jasmine this wk.

bob

[bob]

On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 22:50:43 +1100, Whisper <beav...@ozemail.net.au>
wrote:

i saw dallas buyers club last month; i'm picking matthew mcconaughey
for the oscar nod a touch over bale, though both were oscar worthy.
one fat, one skinny - instant nomimantions.

bob

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:06:41 PM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Traditionally I have not liked McConaughey, but I thought he did an excellent job in DBC, as did Bale in AH. Personally I think Bale deserves it more, but don't think it would be a travesty if McConaughey won instead.

I like McConaughey (he is certainly easy on the eyes) and I think when they don't have him playing a redneck in every role he does a good job and can do drama or comedy. He was good in EDtv and A Time to Kill and his five minute role in The Wolf of Wall Street was probably one of the best things about the movie.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:24:45 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> I thought Bale was pretty good in AH... although I didn't think the film
>
> being worth the hype really. I'd give best picture to 12 years as a
>
> slave, from couple nominees I've seen.

I have not seen 12 Years a Slave yet. Out of the best picture nominations I have seen American Hustle, DBC, Gravity, Her and the Wolf of Wall Street so far.

From what I have been reading, the Oscar for best picture will probably be between 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle and Gravity.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:40:39 PM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> I like McConaughey (he is certainly easy on the eyes) and I think when they don't have him playing a redneck in every role he does a good job and can do drama or comedy. He was good in EDtv and A Time to Kill and his five minute role in The Wolf of Wall Street was probably one of the best things about the movie.

"A Time to Kill" was a big part of the reason I used to dislike McConaughey. Seemed like Grisham wrote a story for people too stupid to understand "To Kill a Mockingbird," and McConaughey was channeling Paul Newman to the point of caricature.

But later on I saw McConaughey in things like "Amistad" (where I didn't even recognize him at first) and gained new respect for him.

Incidentally, I think John Grisham is a cookie-cutter writer and don't like any of the movies adapted from his novels. "The Firm" was passable.

[Gracchus]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 1:48:32 PM UTC+7, Court_1 wrote:

> I have not seen 12 Years a Slave yet. Out of the best picture nominations I have seen American Hustle, DBC, Gravity, Her and the Wolf of Wall Street so far.

Haven't seen "Her" yet, but I will soon. I'm not sure I can stand watching "The Wolf of Wall Street" and see Goudahead Dicaprio grandstand for two hours.

[TT]

7.2.2014 8:48, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:24:45 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>
>> I thought Bale was pretty good in AH... although I didn't think the film
>>
>> being worth the hype really. I'd give best picture to 12 years as a
>>
>> slave, from couple nominees I've seen.
>
> I have not seen 12 Years a Slave yet. Out of the best picture nominations I have seen American Hustle, DBC, Gravity, Her and the Wolf of Wall Street so far.
>

I've seen 12 years, american hustle, gravity and her... I've watched
rather many 2013 films, 65 in total (I blame torrents). Interestingly
I've rated only ONE as 8+... Gravity, and that's mostly because of
special effects, technical details and Bullock, the plot itself was
rather elementary... and science often questionable. Yet getting rid of
Clooney is always a bonus, no matter how big the plothole is. :-P

I don't know, maybe I've watched a lot of bad films or maybe 2013 just
wasn't that great a movie year. Or perhaps I'm harder to impress nowadays...

You judge it yourself, full list of 2013 films that I've seen:

8 Gravity
7 12 Years a Slave
7 All Is Lost
7 Ender's Game
7 Last Vegas
7 Lone Survivor
7 Riddick
7 The Conjuring
7 Escape Plan
7 Captain Phillips
7 Prisoners
7 2 Guns
7 Pacific Rim
7 Hummingbird
7 Elysium
7 Adore
7 Oblivion
7 The Purge
7 Phantom
7 Side Effects
6 Thor: The Dark World
6 The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
6 American Hustle
6 Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa
6 About Time
6 Runner Runner
6 R.I.P.D.
6 Insidious: Chapter 2
6 The Family
6 Man of Steel
6 The Heat
6 Man of Tai Chi
6 World War Z
6 We're the Millers
6 Star Trek Into Darkness
6 The Wolverine
6 Europa Report
6 Olympus Has Fallen
6 Parker
6 Identity Thief
6 Iron Man Three
6 Mama
6 The Host
5 Her
5 The Last Days on Mars
5 Red 2
5 Escape from Planet Earth
5 After Earth
5 The Frozen Ground
5 Now You See Me
5 A Good Day to Die Hard
5 Dark Skies
4 Welcome to the Jungle
4 The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
4 Percy Jackson: Sea of Monsters
4 The Colony
4 Assault on Wall Street
4 The Call
4 Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
3 Paranoia
3 Bounty Killer
3 Oz the Great and Powerful
3 Odd Thomas
2 The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones
2 Kick-Ass 2

On average I've rated 22% of all films as 8+, so 1/65 is pretty damn
poor for 2013. But I don't despair - As per every year, there's still
time to get unimpressed by few Oscar nominees more. Maybe I'll watch
that AIDS film next, Dallas Buyers club...

[TT]

7.2.2014 11:40, Gracchus kirjoitti:
> "The Wolf of Wall Street" and see Goudahead Dicaprio grandstand for two hours.

I tried it for 5 minutes...

Appears like some kind of metamorphosis of Wall Street and some mob
movies... and tries too much. Guess I'll have to watch that some day,
before the oscars...

[Gracchus]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 5:35:25 PM UTC+7, TT wrote:

> I've seen 12 years, american hustle, gravity and her... I've watched
>
> rather many 2013 films, 65 in total (I blame torrents). Interestingly
>
> I've rated only ONE as 8+... Gravity, and that's mostly because of
>
> special effects, technical details and Bullock, the plot itself was
>
> rather elementary... and science often questionable. Yet getting rid of
>
> Clooney is always a bonus, no matter how big the plothole is. :-P
>
>
>
> I don't know, maybe I've watched a lot of bad films or maybe 2013 just
>
> wasn't that great a movie year. Or perhaps I'm harder to impress nowadays...
>
>
>
> You judge it yourself, full list of 2013 films that I've seen:

I saw 10 of those on your list. Another few I plan to see, and some from the titles alone I don't think I'd want to see. "Ender's Game" was a real disappointment. They sucked the intelligence from the book and left an empty shell. Even the production values were really sloppy. With "Oz the Great and Powerful," I really liked the concept of an Oz prequel, but it collapsed into predictability about halfway through. Saw "The Wolverine" just the other day and enjoyed it for what it was. "Riddick" was fun just for Diesel doing his thing.

[TT]

Yeah, Riddick didn't disappoint for what I expected... Still a bit tough
time rating that genre an 8, unless it's really brilliant. I had two
complaints about it though:
1. It was a bit too much a rehash of Pitch Black.
2. Once again we have to wait the next film to see the outcome.

But still, damn that Riddick is one cool mofo. :)

[Court_1]

I agree with you about Grisham books/movies--legal thrillers for dummies BUT the one Grisham book that was made into a movie that I liked was A Time to Kill. It was not a bad legal thriller and the story was heart-wrenching. I also liked MM, Sandra Bullock and Samuel Jackson in that movie.

[Court_1]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 4:40:03 AM UTC-5, Gracchus wrote:

> Haven't seen "Her" yet

It is an odd one! Not your average love story, let me put it that way! ;)

>I'm not sure I can stand watching "The Wolf of Wall Street" and see Goudahead Dicaprio grandstand for two hours.

I don't want to give too much away but the story could have been told in an hour rather than the three hours it took Scorsese to tell the story. It was shall I say,rather redundant storytelling.

[Court_1]

LMAO! Holy crap TT, that is a lot of movies! The only ones I have seen so far from your list are Gravity, Prisoners, The Purge, Her, Side Effects, American Hustle, Mama,The Call and Dark Skies.

The Purge was horrible, I don't know how you have rated that a 7! From your list of films I have seen I would say American Hustle is the best and I would rate it an 8. Gravity was pretty good for what it was. I agree the script had some holes but the survival aspect/message of the movie was good and Bullock was good. I enjoyed Side Effects and would probably rate it a 7.5.

[TT]

7.2.2014 14:57, Court_1 kirjoitti:
> LMAO! Holy crap TT, that is a lot of movies!

Yup, roughly one per week. Now of course that list didn't include older
than 2013 films so the amount is probably twice that...

Then again I hardly watch or follow any series, or reality shows etc.

> The only ones I have seen so far from your list are Gravity, Prisoners, The Purge, Her, Side Effects, American Hustle, Mama,The Call and Dark Skies.
>
> The Purge was horrible, I don't know how you have rated that a 7!

I can see how someone would say that. I thought it was rather novel
concept which is hard to find these days. Oh and revenge in the end was
rather blood thirst satisfying. I do agree that it's kind of B movie though.

> From your list of films I have seen I would say American Hustle is the best and I would rate it an 8. Gravity was pretty good for what it was. I agree the script had some holes but the survival aspect/message of the movie was good and Bullock was good. I enjoyed Side Effects and would probably rate it a 7.5.

Side effects was good. Also I think I might increase my rating for
Oblivion the next time I see it, it's my kind of science fiction.

"All is lost" with Redford was also pretty good, should have been Oscar
nominee... Ok, I looked it up, nominated for sound editing only.

I don't see what's all the fuss with American Hustle... it was imo a run
of the mill "caper" movie done in modern style, trying to come off a bit
smarter than it really is. It's hardly The Sting...

[heyg...@gmail.com]

I wasn't a big fan of All is Lost or Gravity. It would have been best if Sandra had crashed into Redford's boat and killed them both. ;-)

[bob]

On Fri, 07 Feb 2014 12:35:25 +0200, TT <as...@dprk.kp> wrote:

>7.2.2014 8:48, Court_1 kirjoitti:
>> On Thursday, February 6, 2014 12:24:45 PM UTC-5, TT wrote:
>>
>>> I thought Bale was pretty good in AH... although I didn't think the film
>>>
>>> being worth the hype really. I'd give best picture to 12 years as a
>>>
>>> slave, from couple nominees I've seen.
>>
>> I have not seen 12 Years a Slave yet. Out of the best picture nominations I have seen American Hustle, DBC, Gravity, Her and the Wolf of Wall Street so far.
>>
>
>I've seen 12 years, american hustle, gravity and her... I've watched
>rather many 2013 films, 65 in total (I blame torrents). Interestingly
>I've rated only ONE as 8+... Gravity, and that's mostly because of
>special effects, technical details and Bullock, the plot itself was
>rather elementary... and science often questionable. Yet getting rid of
>Clooney is always a bonus, no matter how big the plothole is. :-P
>
>I don't know, maybe I've watched a lot of bad films or maybe 2013 just
>wasn't that great a movie year. Or perhaps I'm harder to impress nowadays...
>
>You judge it yourself, full list of 2013 films that I've seen:

normally i'm on board with your movie reviews, but i cannot give
gravity higher than a 6. i thought sandra bullock was miscast and
after working 15yrs where they launch rockets and used to launch the
space shuttle, i didn't find anything "new ground" about it. i thought
clooney was good in his brief role. the rest of the list, yeah.

[Court_1]

On Friday, February 7, 2014 9:28:43 AM UTC-5, TT wrote:

> I don't see what's all the fuss with American Hustle... it was imo a run
>
> of the mill "caper" movie done in modern style, trying to come off a bit
>
> smarter than it really is. It's hardly The Sting...

You are missing the point. The movie at its core is less a caper movie than it is a character study about flawed people pretending to be something they are not in order to pursue the American dream at all costs. In that sense, the movie excelled far beyond a run of the mill caper movie like the Sting.