9 Games Back...Can the Mets Make a Run In the Second Half?

Embed from Getty Images

After jumping out to a four-run lead last night in Seattle, Rafael Montero and the Mets stumbled into a 5-4 deficit when the enigmatic right-handed starter lost command of the strikezone. Montero, who has always combined decent stuff with a highly questionable mental makeup, continues to take one step forward then two steps back. 

On the bright side, Michael Conforto -- in a triumphant return to his home state of Washington -- laced his second home run of the game to tie it at 5 in the 8th. Neil Walker followed with what turned out to be the game-winning RBI single to left, and Curtis Granderson provided insurance with an RBI single down the right field line. In the 9th, Addison Reed nailed down his 19th save of the season. 

So the Mets, who are 7-3 in their last 10 games, are now nine games back of the Rockies for the second National League Wild Card spot. The ultimate question is...after playing outstanding second-half ball the past two seasons, can the Mets make another second-half run this year?

It's OBVIOUSLY a longshot, but let's dissect this question, one consideration at a time:

Roster Moves: Are We Buying or Selling?

1. Lucas Duda to the Rays for RH reliever Drew Smith: The first of the Three Stooges is finally gone. Now we just have to part ways with Granderson and the ringleader, Jose Reyes.

As some of you may recall, I tore Duda to shreds earlier this season because he's the master of padding his stats when his team is up or down by 10 runs. Never gets a hit in a tight game with runners on. How about having 18 homers with only 38 RBI? That tells the entire story, doesn't it? Doesn't drive in runs with anything other than meaningless solo shots. He has a .271 batting average with the bases empty, and .212 with runners on. Last year he hit .206 with runners in scoring position; .212 the year before that. Have fun with that, Tampa fans. 

Embed from Getty Images

As for Smith, scouting reports indicate that he's a hard-thrower with control issues. Statistically, he's whiffed 28 batters in 28.2 innings at A+ Charlotte this year, and 12 in 11.2 innings at Lakeland. He sounds a little bit like a younger version of Daniel Bard, who the Mets signed earlier this year. It's clear that Sandy Alderson and John Ricco are ultimately trying to add velocity to their bullpen, as they are probably tired of Fernando Salas' flat 90 mph fastballs over the center of the plate. 

The verdict: Addition by subtraction. In a very small sample size, the Mets have averaged 6 runs per game without Duda, while scoring just 3 in his final game in the lineup. Removing a rally killer can do wonders for an offense. I don't mind the addition of Smith, but he isn't ready to contribute to the big league club, yet. 

2. Minor leaguers Merandy Gonzalez and Ricardo Cespedes to the Marlins for RH reliever AJ Ramos: As the news was breaking, Steven Summer texted, "Oh no...they traded Cespedes for Ramos!" He wanted to get my blood pressure up, and he wasn't wrong. According to my Mets correspondent Jamie Garland, he likes what he sees from Ricardo Cespedes, too.

So, maybe Ricardo and Gonzalez will both translate into something of value in the future, but in the meantime, Ramos improves the Mets' bullpen for the rest of this and next year. His fastball velocity has steadily declined since entering the majors in 2012, but he's whiffed 47 in just 39.2 innings this season, after 73 in 64 last year. His put-away stuff is still there. 

The verdict: I don't love the deal long-term, but Ramos will help if we want to make a surprise run the remainder of this season. 

3. Promoting SS Amed Rosario from AAA Las Vegas: The rumors are swirling that Rosario is finally on his way up to the bigs, and Mets fans are licking their chops. It's a win-win situation: Rosario, who is hitting .332 this season, enters the lineup while Reyes (.227 with an embarrassing .289 OBP) rides the pine. Permanently. I hope. Ughhhh, they always seem to find a way to keep Reyes in there, anyway. 

Embed from Getty Images

Rosario is widely considered one of the best all-around prospects in baseball, and it's a travesty that shitty Reyes has been playing over him all year. But hey, that's just Mets baseball, isn't it? If you want to have a good laugh, listen to former MLB GM Jim Bowden trash Alderson for this exact reason. 

The verdict: Duh. The only thing I hate more than Reyes is the New England Patriots' organization. 

4. Jacob deGrom, Seth Lugo, Reed, Rene Rivera, Asdrubal Cabrera, Jay Bruce and Granderson have all popped up in trade rumors. Granderson MUST go. deGrom and Bruce MUST stay. The others are inconsequential. 

Going forward, I want to keep the productive Conforto, Yoenis Cespedes, Bruce outfield intact, but I'm not sure Alderson and Ricco feel the same. They probably want to dismiss Bruce because he's played too well. They wanna go all Daniel Murphy on us. 

The Competition

1. The Rockies haven't been to the postseason since 2009. Hoping their inexperience will hinder them in pressure situations down the stretch. 

2. The Diamondbacks haven't been to the postseason since 2011. On the flip side, these droughts have to end eventually. 

3. The Brewers' high-octane offense scares me. Hoping they win the division and the Cubs end up calling it a "lost year."

4. The Cardinals and Pirates always seem to be in contention. They'll be lurking. 

The Injuries

1. Extremely difficult to make up a 9-game deficit without your monstrous ace, Noah Syndergaard. 

2. Extremely difficult to hold small leads in big games without your proven closer, Jeurys Familia. He's often unfairly criticized by shortsighted Mets fans, but the guy saved 51 last season and 43 the year before. He finds ways to get it done. 

Embed from Getty Images

3. Injuries to Matt Harvey, Zack Wheeler and Robert Gsellman have forced Montero and Chris Flexen into roles. On the bright side, Wheeler sucks anyway. Montero will probably end up being just as good, if not better. I still think Harvey can be a decent No. 4 starter in the bigs, while Gsellman should move to a one-inning relief role, permanently. 

The Final Word

The Mets lineup is eventually going to boast Conforto, Bruce, Cespedes, Walker, Rosario and Wilmer Flores at the same time. This could have been possible from the start, but Alderson and Terry Collins were insistent upon bums like Duda, Granderson and Reyes. (Don't get me wrong -- I like Grandy, he's a super nice guy, but he can't play anymore.) In the NL, this club is already 3rd in homers and 6th in runs, so any stretch run will be dependent on mashing the ball, especially considering the injuries to Syndergaard, Familia and Harvey. 

In the end, I give us a 5% chance of reaching the playoffs. That may be more than most. 

But hey, without Lucas Duda, anything can happen...right?

My 200 Favorite Movies: Sorkin's Screenplay Sizzles in "Steve Jobs"

Embed from Getty Images

I usually tackle three reviews at a time on LNB, but this will probably be a long one. When I first saw Steve Jobs in the movie theater with Jen, I was distracted by what appeared to be Aaron Sorkin on hyper-drive. 

Sorkin, who famously wrote A Few Good Men, The West Wing, The Social Network and Moneyball, seemed to be pushing the boundaries of rapid-fire, back-and-forth banter. Steve Jobs (Fassbender), his trusted assistant Joanna Hoffman (Winslet), original partner Steve Wozniak (Rogen), programmer Andy Hertzfeld (Stuhlbarg) and CEO/father figure John Sculley (Daniels) were ping-ponging dialogue so quickly that I could barely keep up with the full scope of the story. So, I came out of the movie feeling like it was somewhere around a 7 out of 10. 

But, like many other greats, Steve Jobs is a film that grows on you with multiple viewings. 

The more I watched the film on HBO On Demand, the more I picked up the beautiful nuances of Sorkin's scorching screenplay. The first time through, I wasn't very familiar with the names Wozniak, Sculley, Hertzfeld, Avie Tevanian (Adam Shapiro) or even Dan Kottke, so quick references slipped past me. Now, having seen it many times, I understand that knowing the key names and their backgrounds allows the viewer to appreciate the spectacular specificity of Sorkin's script. The more you understand about the nuances, the more powerful the central conflicts become. 

And those central conflicts are mesmerizing thanks to an absolutely incredible cast. Steve Jobs doesn't have any superheroes (unless you count Jobs himself), car chases, explosions or shootouts, and it isn't really a plot movie either; it's an actors' showcase, all the way through. In indirect ways, it reminds me of David Mamet's biting Glengarry Glen Ross, a dialogue-driven film that places dynamic performances by Jack Lemmon, Al Pacino, Ed Harris, Alan Arkin, Kevin Spacey and Alec Baldwin above sets, cinematography and style. I suppose the comparison isn't a stretch, as the writing styles of Mamet and Sorkin have often been juxtaposed over the years. 

Specific to Sorkin's cast, I feel Michael Fassbender was robbed of Best Actor at the Oscars, as Leonardo DiCaprio picked up what appeared to be a career achievement award for his gritty work in The Revenant. 

Fassbender, who burst into the limelight with supporting roles in successful films like 300, Inglourious Basterds and Prometheus, is one of the most gifted screen actors in the world right now. In Basterds -- one of my all-time favorite movies -- he doesn't enter the frame until Operation Kino, and yet he feels like a lead to me. His versatility, charm and pure skill hit you right between the eyes as he bites down on Quentin Tarantino's juicy dialogue. He has the magical magnetism of a true movie star, and he's apparently a really nice guy, too. 

In Steve Jobs, Fassbender is tasked with a famously impossible personality, and he delivers with an intelligent, lively and complicated interpretation of one of the wealthiest and most influential people of the last two centuries. Jobs was a notorious asshole, but his passion, ingenuity and relentlessness pushed Apple to become the dominant juggernaut that it is today. You'd be hard pressed to find a single person who hasn't purchased an iPod, iPhone or iPad at some point in their lives.

In Sorkin and director Danny Boyle's (Slumdog Millionaire, 127 Hours) interpretation of Jobs' legend, he is defined by his power struggles with those closest to him, from his professional colleagues (namely Wozniak and Sculley) to his scatterbrained ex-girlfriend Chrisann Brennan (an effectively shrill Katherine Waterston) and neglected daughter Lisa, who is well played by three different young actresses: Makenzie Moss, Ripley Sobo and Perla Haney-Jardine. 

I think Steve Jobs is at its best when its title character is jousting with "Woz" and thundering away at Sculley. Rogen, one of my absolute favorite personalities in Hollywood, more than holds his own in a serious role alongside very serious actors like Fassbender, Winslet and Stuhlbarg. In particular, he hits home when he implores Jobs that "it's not binary; you can be decent and gifted at the same time." 

Embed from Getty Images

I also enjoy the way he delivers, "We go back, so don't talk to me like I'm other people. I'm the only one that knows that this guy here is someone you invented. I'm standing by you because that perfect cube -- that does nothing -- is about to become the single biggest failure in the history of personal computing." Ouch. 

Daniels, who developed his mastery of Sorkin's cadence and rhythm on HBO's The Newsroom, is pitch-perfect as Sculley, Apple's first legitimate CEO. His dynamics with Jobs are multi-layered: Jobs handpicked Sculley away from Pepsi, the two became very close -- to the point where Daniels' character even refers to himself as a "father figure" -- but Jobs is fully committed the Mac, whereas Sculley prefers the company's only moneymaker, the Apple II. Jobs looks 15 or 20 years ahead, while Sculley looks directly at the proof of the present. We begin to realize that they are destined for a break-up.

All aspects considered, Steve Jobs is a surprisingly exhilarating film. At its core, its a movie about people conversing prior to computer product launches. Doesn't sound like much, right? But Sorkin, Fassbender, Winslet, Daniels, Rogen and Boyle somehow make it stimulating, intense and hypnotic. 

It doesn't quite match The Social Network (which I score as a 10/10) because David Fincher's visual style is far more interesting than Boyle's and Trent Reznor's score surpasses Daniel Pemberton's, but Steve Jobs is a difficult movie to knock for anyone who likes sharp dialogue, fantastic performances and interesting real-life figures. 

Watch it...more than once.

** FRO'S RATING:  9.5 out of 10 **

LNB's Updated Rankings:

1. Steve Jobs (9.5/10)

2. A Perfect Murder (9/10)

3. Bad Moms (9/10)

4. The Revenant (8.5/10)

5. The Shallows (7.5/10)

6. The Night Before (7/10)

7. 10 Cloverfield Lane (7/10)

8. The Walk (7/10)

9. Joy (5.5/10)
10. The Program (3/10)
11. Mother's Day (2/10)
12. Rings (1.5/10)

Reviews to Come...

Zero Dark Thirty

Untraceable

The Wonder Boys

Jackie Brown

Mean Streets

Nerve

The Hateful Eight

The Seven Five

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

How to Be Single

Basquiat

Deadpool

Ratatouille

The Spectacular Now
The Visit
Loving
In Bruges
Nocturnal Animals
War Dogs
And more...

Late-Night Boredom Reviews: The Program, Rings and Mother's Day

Embed from Getty Images

Looking at my early rankings (bottom of post) for Late-Night Boredom ("LNB") Reviews, I noticed that I've been pretty generous thus far. A few of those who know me best -- Jimmy Kelly, Sam Ytuarte and Andrew Meyer -- feel as if I'm becoming lenient in my old age, so Volume III is going to be dedicated to three awful movies. Let's get to it...

THE PROGRAM (1993)

Embed from Getty Images

I had high hopes for this one, coming as a long-time recommendation by Steven Summer (though he only watches about two movies per year) with David S. Ward at the helm, who famously directed the first two films of the Major League franchise. If I ever finish my Favorite 115 Movies of All Time post -- I've been chipping away at it for about a year and a half now -- you'll surely be seeing both Major League I and II in there. 

Alas, The Program failed to deliver on my expectations. The film was horribly edited by the combo of Kimberly Ray (White Men Can't Jump, Dude, Where's My Car?) and Paul Seydor (Tin Cup, The Island) resulting in extremely thin storylines, particularly in regards to the primary romances and screen time of head coach Sam Winters (an underused James Caan). 

The casting by Lynn Stalmaster (Weekend At Bernie's, Battlefield Earth) was also a disaster. A film about a college football team led by a handful of eclectic characters has to have a charismatic starting quarterback. What good is a sports movie without magnetic star players? We know what Charlie Sheen did for Major League, and Jamie Foxx for Any Given Sunday, but The Program falls flat on its face with Craig Sheffer calling the signals as Heisman hopeful Joe Kane. 

Who? Yeah, Craig Sheffer, the star of Turbulence 3: Heavy Metal and Dracula II: Ascension. This guy has so little charisma they could have substituted a long, wooden plank and no one would have noticed the difference. That means his "romance" with Camille (Kristy Swanson, who at the time was considered an up-and-comer) falls completely flat, and we can't even understand why his teammates rally around him. 

Omar Epps (flashy running back Darnell Jefferson) and Halle Berry (Autumn) fare a bit better in their attempt at romance, but we still don't care if they end up together. In general, Epps is an entertaining performer, but on the whole, the primary characters of The Program are cardboard cutouts. 

The football scenes are fine if unspectacular, and Duane Davis (as the doomed Alvin Mack) and Andrew Bryniarski (as the roided up Steve Lattimer) bring energy to their supporting roles as maniacal defensive players. Those two wackos save The Program from a 1 or 2 rating, but all aspects considered, it's a mess of a sports movie. 

** JOHNNY FRO'S RATING:  3 out of 10 **

RINGS (2017)

Embed from Getty Images

Most of us hate seemingly-endless exposition, right? Rings tries to open with a high-energy hook -- which turns out to have little to do with anything else -- but even that feels like a half-assed attempt at entertainment. After the opening plane scene, Rings takes about 45 minutes to go anywhere, and when it finally gets to where it wants to go, we definitely don't care. At all. Not even a little. That goes for the story and the characters. 

Matilda Anna Ingrid Lutz (seriously? That's how she wants her name listed on IMDb?) and Alex Roe are the "stars" of this poor excuse for a film, and that pretty much says it all. I'm not going to place ALL of the blame on the actors because this is a horribly written screenplay by the trio of David Loucka, Jacob Estes and Akiva Goldsman, but Lutz and Roe do nothing to get us invested in their characters. 

Rings seems like it was a doomed project from the start, but sometimes strong performances can cover up some of a film's potentially-fatal flaws. Think of what Meryl Streep did for a vanilla movie like The Devil Wears Prada or Forest Whitaker in The Last King of Scotland. Sometimes performances ARE the movie. Take away a lead who is fully committed to their role and the entire film collapses on itself. Well, if you took Lutz and Roe away, Rings might actually improve. Who knows. 

Johnny Galecki is CLEARLY the standout of this abnormally tepid "horror" flick, though his character (Gabriel) isn't written with much clarity. What are his intentions, exactly? Regardless, Galecki plays his silly role with a sort of sinister detachment. He's definitely the most interesting thing on the screen 1 hour and 42 minutes of nothingness. 

Jen, the soon-to-be Mrs. Frascella, has gotten me into horror movies in the past few years, and I appreciate that because superhero flicks and ridiculous franchises have taken our movie industry hostage. I can't take anymore flying mutants, car chases or explosions. I was always afraid of scary movies growing up, so it's nice to discover a new genre. I've been pleasantly surprised by films like The Cabin in the Woods, Paranormal Activity, Sinister and Ouija: Origin of Evil, but Rings isn't suspenseful, scary or interesting. It's a total dud. 

I like some of the film's concluding reveal sequence, so I'll give it a half-point for that. I don't have to bother saying don't waste your time, but...don't waste your time. 

** JOHNNY FRO'S RATING:  1.5 out of 10 **

MOTHER'S DAY (2016)

Embed from Getty Images

As I begin my review of this atrocity, my mind immediately jumps to A Few Good Men. Yes, Mother's Day is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, while A Few Good Men is one of my all-time favorites, but I promise there is a connection. 

When "The Apostle" Lt. Jonathan Kendrick (a seething Kiefer Sutherland) is on the stand, he sugarcoats the lackluster performance of Pfc. William Santiago (Michael DeLorenzo), who dies in the opening scene of the film. When Lt. Daniel Kaffee (the incomparably charismatic Tom Cruise) asks why he contradicted the details of his written report, Kendrick responds, "I did not see the need to trample on a man's grave."

With that in mind, director Garry Marshall died in July of 2016 of complications from pneumonia after a stroke. He was best known for rom-com hits like Overboard, The Princess Diaries and of course, his masterpiece Pretty Woman. So, I don't want to trample on a man's grave, but I also have to be honest:

Mother's Day is an overlong, under-plotted, disjointed failure of a film. This on the heels of Valentine's Day and New Year's Eve, Marshall's preceding commercial holiday movies jam-packed with recognizable names and faces. Valentine's Day was bearable, New Year's Eve was horrendous and Mother's Day is even worse than that. 

Jen and I decided to watch it one lazy evening because, well, how can you screw up a movie with Julia Roberts, Jennifer Aniston and Kate Hudson? Give them the tiniest shred of decent material and Roberts will mesmerize, Aniston will charm and Hudson will entertain. None of that happens in Mother's Day. The script from Anya Kochoff, Matthew Walker and Tom Hines is THAT bad. Unfunny, disorganized and incoherent. The direction isn't any better. 

As an aside, I was watching Scrubs yesterday and marveling at Sarah Chalke's (Dr. Elliot Reid) sneakily seductive acting style. I didn't particularly care for the way her character was written on How I Met Your Mother -- one of my favorite all-time shows -- but her acting was again high-caliber. So when I looked her up on IMDb to see what she's been up to lately, I COMPLETELY FORGOT that she was in Mother's Day. 

A movie that wastes a deep talent pool is rarely, if ever, a good one. 

** FRO'S RATING:  2 out of 10 **

LNB's Updated Rankings:

1. A Perfect Murder (9/10)

2. Bad Moms (9/10)

3. The Revenant (8.5/10)

4. The Shallows (7.5/10)

5. The Night Before (7/10)

6. 10 Cloverfield Lane (7/10)

7. The Walk (7/10)

8. Joy (5.5/10)
9. The Program (3/10)
10. Mother's Day (2/10)
11. Rings (1.5/10)

Reviews to Come...

Steve Jobs

Untraceable

The Wonder Boys

Jackie Brown

Mean Streets

Nerve

The Hateful Eight

The Seven Five

Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates

How to Be Single

Basquiat

Deadpool

Ratatouille

The Spectacular Now
The Visit
Loving
In Bruges
Nocturnal Animals
War Dogs
And more...