Baseball

Last week, I wrote about the NFL Films' show, 'America's Game', and said, "If you've never seen it, and you like football, you're missing out." Well, that goes double for Ken Burns' documentary, 'Baseball'. If you're a baseball fan, it's mandatory viewing. It's definitely the best documentary on baseball -- the history of record for the sport, really -- it might be the best documentary ever, period. Granted, it's 18 freakin' hours long (and about to get longer).

It airs on the MLB Network, one inning a week (the first covering the invention of the game and its history prior to 1900, each successive one covering a decade (2nd inning = 1900-1910, 3rd inning = 1910-1920, etc.). Tonight, I'm watching the 5th inning, about the 1940's, which might be the best one them all. Ted Williams and .406 (and the triple crown), Joe DiMaggio and the hit streak, World War II, Jackie Robinson and the color barrier, etc. The episode begins with a scene from a World War II movie where one group of soldiers overseas tests another with questions about what a "Texas Leaguer" is, and how the Brooklyn Dodgers did the previous season.

The next bit, just before the opening credits, which are always accompanied by a different rendition of the Star-Spangled Banner, really resonated with me. Baseball historian Robert Creamer describes a moment when in the army, he was listening to a World Series game, and a sargeant blew cigar smoke in his direction, and the smell took him back to Polo Grounds: "It smelled of cigar smoke, it smelled of urine, it smelled of stale popcorn. But it was my place." It's not often you hear an educated man of letters speak nostalgically about the smell of urine, but I could really relate to it. It's sort of like I feel about Candlestick Park -- it was windy, cold, ill-suited fro baseball, and the seats were too far from the field. But it was mine, and I miss it sometimes.

I think this might be representative of a larger truth about life: If you hate something hard enough, and long enough, you're bound to miss it once it's gone.

Random List: 10 Best TV Shows of 2008

Okay, here they are , my long-awaited Top 10 list of the best shows in '08:

1. The Wire -- Goodnight, sweet television drama. What more can I say about this show that hasn't already been said? If you watched it, you already know how good it is, and don't need to listen to me. If you didn't watch it, then you're a moron. But a lucky moron -- you still have the chance to see each and every show for the very first time. I advise strongly for you to do so.

2. 30 Rock -- The funniest show of TV got funnier in '08. It features everybody's favorite Emmy winner Tina Fey, and added flashy guest stars just about every week, but it was the regular supporting characters which usually stole the show. Limited to small rules, Tracy Morgan, Alec Baldwin, Jack McBrayer, and Jane Krakowski are all still among the best comedic performers anywhere on TV.

3. Dexter -- Already a great show, Dexter ramped up it's quality even further in '08. It started with a careless Dexter killing an honest man, ands with him cleaning up the streets from a monster he made. The Addition of Jimmy Smits as Dexter's partner in crime was a master-stroke, and allowed the show to stretch its limits. Dexter found himself playing good cop for once, showing us he does know the difference between the bad guys, and the really bad guys.

4. Breaking Bad -- The best new show on TV in '08. It starts with an almost unbelievable premise -- a husband, father, and high school science teacher becomes a meth cooker -- and explains how believable, and real it can really be. It's also cool, and dramatic, and very, very funny. Also: well-acted -- Bryan Cranston already won an Emmy for lead actor.

5. Mad Men -- The first season showed us it was one of the best shows on TV. The second season showed us it has a chance to be one of the best shows ever. It took until the second season for creator Matthew Weiner to really show that meandering, mysterious storytelling that made his alma mater, The Sopranos', such a masterpiece. I can't wait for season three.

6. The Shield -- For most of the show, it was a sleazy good time, a fun ride through the bad part of town, punctuated by tense, surreal moments of high drama. In its final season, it was all tension. By the end, there wasn't a drop of fun to be had for miles. But that was how it had to be. Laughing and joking while breaking laws and making enemies, as Vic Mackey did, can't last forever. The show opened with Vic enjoying a friendly barbecue with his team before ganging up with one to kill another. We knew then he was bad, but he charmed us -- and everybody else -- for a good while. In the end, there was no more fooling, but Vic, the ultimate survivor, was still around.

7. The Closer -- The best procedural on TV. All others above on this list have to entertain, but are not forced to play by the restrictive rules of having to be framed by a crime -- it starts with a murder, and ends with an arrest almost without fail. But all the characters are so real and entertaining -- especially Deputy Chief Brenda Lee Johnson -- and the dialogue is so well-written, it never feels like a cookie-cutter, as so many others do.

8. House -- The show got back to regular business -- set cast, no more "competition" -- and never missed a beat. The subplot with House's best friend Wilson giving up on their friendship was a welcome change from Wilson usual uber-patience with him. The supporting characters have all taken a back seat as most of the personal storylines revolve around House, but that's probably for the best.

9. Lost -- Every time I think I'm out, they pull me back in. There's simply been too much time, energy and attention devoted to this show for me to not care about what happens. I've been doubting they will ever come up with an over-arching story which will explain away everything that's happened so far, but I'm still enjoying the ride.

10. Friday Night Lights -- This season's best episode may have been the first of 2009 -- and there's still next week's season finale to go -- but the groundwork was laid in '08 when the show's third season found the same groove they had in the first. In was major bounce-back year for the show, which went of the tracks in season two by trying to sex up the show too much in an attempt to raise mediocre ratings. In doing so, they lost their positive word-of-mouth from fans and critics, and were essentially cancelled by NBC. But DirecTV swept in to save the day, airing the show on their Channel 101. The season was such a success, NBC wants them back -- they'll be airing all of season three starting in two weeks.

TV Review: 'Leverage'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

[Before we start, a quick site update: I know I said my 'Revolutionary Road' review was up next, and it is -- among my movie reviews. But first I caught up on all the back episodes of this new TNT show in the last few days, so I thought I'd throw up a review of that first. But, while I may throw up a Link Dump or some random videos over the holiday, I promise my next "real" post will be my review of 'Revolutionary Road' after Christmas. Okay, that's it -- carry on.]

’Leverage’ is about a band of ex-thieves who band together to run undercover scams to help people who can’t help themselves. Kind of like ’The Equalizer’ meets ’The A-Team’. It sounds okay on paper, but some elements seem to be out of whack.

Firstly, the backgrounds of the team. Their leader, Nathan Ford (Timothy Hutton) is not ex-CIA, but an ex-insurance investigator. I’m sure in this line of work, one could learn many different scams, and shortcuts to getting what you want, but when one old acquaintance bring up a foreign coup he was involved in, you begin to wonder if the writers understand what an insurance investigator actually does.

Also, it’s not entirely clear if (or how) the jobs they do put any money in their pockets. And if they’re doing it purely from a vigilante/charity perspective -- and must spend a ton of money pulling them off -- then should we assume they are all independently wealthy ex-thieves?

Other problems include the uneven nature of the characters, tone and acting. Timothy Hutton is great as Ford, a smart, charming weasel with a heart of gold. He brings his Oscar-winning acting talent, but a low-key approach which be-fits a show that's trying no to take itself too seriously. But the rest of his crew can’t keep up. Honestly, they're like the people left over after all the other shows got to have their pick.

Christian Kane is stiff as Elliot, a tough guy with a nerdy name. He tries to pull off the kind of raspy snarl another Christian (Bale) made famous in Batman, but unlike Bale, the cheesiness factor overcomes the toughness he projects. Both the women in the crew -- Sophie (Gina Bellman) and Parker (Beth Riesgraf) -- are asked to do quite a bit of comedy, which doesn’t fit in with the tone very well. It’s not that the women aren’t up for it -- they are -- it’s that the bits they are asked to perform involve gags so broad that they disrupt the tone of the show and take viewers out of the moment. The worst of these moments come in ’Family Guy’-type unmotivated cutaways and flashback for comedy beats which just aren’t worth all the trouble.

The best part of the crew, besides Hutton, is Aldis Hodge, the wise-talking black guy. Now, I know what you’re thinking: “Wait, the cliched ‘wise-talking black guy”? is a good thing?” Well, not really. But at least they turned him into an anti-cliche -- a computer hacker and information guy, rather than a street smart hood. But he’s still left to make quippy one-liners a la Chris Tucker.

If the comedy could be refined a little -- maybe if creators Chris Downey and John Rodgers just resigned themselves to not trying so hard -- the mixed tones of scams and comedy might work. There’s certainly enough recent history of success in this endeavor -- ’Burn Notice’ and the ’Ocean’s Eleven’ franchise come to mind. But this show isn’t there yet.

It may come in time, especially given Hutton’s good work. But first, the must find a way to raise the rest of the cast’s game to meet Hutton’s, or replace them with those who can. I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if by the end of the first season, or the beginning of the second, another more heralded actor who can match Hutton’s talent is brought in. Probably an actress, maybe an old flame.

Until then, the show is worth watching as light fare only, not to be taken very seriously. Which it seems their network, TNT, already realizes: Their ad campaign for the show includes one spot which quotes a critic who describes the show as “better than the last two ’Ocean’s Eleven’ movies. With that ad, TNT seems to be saying, “Hey, it’s not great TV or anything, but it’s not complete crap.”

I, for one, agree.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Leverage':

CONSIDER

TV Review: 'The Shield' -- Season Seven

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

(Before I begin, two quick notes: 1) As I mentioned in my last post, I have seen the lion-share of the top Oscar contenders coming out this month, and will have several reviews coming right up -- as well as a year-end 10 Best list. But first, I wanted to post my long-promised review of 'The Shield'. Look for the movie reviews to begin in the next day or two -- up first: 'Milk' and 'Benjamin Button'. 2) 'After Further Review...', my recap of the weekend's action in the NFL is up now over at Niners Nation -- you can check it out here.)

The ending of my favorite shows fills me with a strange and unique sensation -- one part breathless anticipation, one part dread. On the one hand, they're finales are long-awaited treats to be enjoyed. On the other, they're like old, dear friends who I'm watching march off to the electric chair, never to be seen again. I don't want them to go, but I can't wait to watch them leave.

That's how it's been with 'The Sopranos', 'The Wire', and a dozen or so great shows before them, and that's how it was with the long-awaited season finale of 'The Shield'. And having to wait nearly 15 months from the end of Season Six to the start of the final season did nothing to change that. Really, viewers have been waiting for closure since the end of Season Five, when Shane Vendrel (Walton Goggins) killed his friend and fellow Strike Team member Curtis "Lem" Lemansky (Kenny Johnson). Season Six was supposed to be the final season, but creator Shawn Ryan found Lem's death presented too much to deal with and still effectively pay off the entire series ("Lem's death sucked all the air out of the room" was a quote I read at the time).

Ryan asked the head honchos at F/X for one more season in order to allow the entire story to play out at a less rushed pace. His request was granted, so Season Six was cut a bit short at 10 episodes. It allowed for the ending to be set up, but never got to the heart of the issue on everyone's mind: What would happen to Vic Mackey (Michael Chiklis), the leader of the Strike Team, and our hero and our villain? He had found out Shane was guilty of his friend's murder, and wanted revenge, but was hamstrung by Shane's blackmail threats and his own fight to keep his badge.

To be frank, Season Six, while more compelling than just about anything else on TV -- the scenes of Shane dealing with his guilt and suicidal thoughts were especially good -- was probably the least entertaining. While long-time fans enjoyed seeing their favorite characters put through the meat-grinder, the episodes didn't have the same action-packed whiplash-inducing pace. Much of the time is spent searching for killer we (and Shane) know they'll never find. But Season Six did what it had to -- set the stage for the final 13 episodes.

Season Seven returns the show to the top of its game. The pace is back to what its lofty standards, and the tension's at an all-time high. Not only is Vic put through his usual paces -- running around town, usually behind the department's back, trying to play one side of the other and back again, looking for any angle. And this time, he faces even tougher challenges -- threats to his life, not to mention those of his wife and children, and his last remaining partner, Ronnie. He faces threats of blackmail and worse from his former best friend, Shane. Vic is also having to watch his back not only on the street, but in the squad house, where the suspicions of his captain and long-time nemesis, Claudette Wyms (C.C.H. Pounder) are forcing his actions further below radar, all while he is told he's just days from losing his badge for good.

When the final season starts, the audience knows Shane is guilty, and so do Vic and Ronnie. But by mid-season, so does the rest of the force, and that changes everything. Soon, Shane is on the run, and Vic must choose to either aid his enemy's escape, or risk his own exposure for any number of crimes upon Shane's capture -- the murder of fellow detective Terry Crowley and the robbery of the "Armenian Money Train" chief among them.

While this plays out, the supporting characters are given the usual subplots, but not paid off if any meaningful way. This is realistic, if not completely satisfying, so I understand and respect the choice. But it would've been nice to see a bit more of a climax for the dogged Holland "Dutch" Wagenbach (Jay Karnes), one of my favorite characters. He has a small payoff, as does Wyms, and also Steve Billings (David Marciano), but others -- officers Danni Sofer (Catherine Dent) and Julien Lowe (Michael Jace) just went on about their business. But such is life -- not everyone has dramatic life moments in concert with those around them.

The big payoffs are reserved for the Strike Team. I won't reveal any spoilers here, but as Shane's escape hits any number of snags along the way, it becomes clear things can't end well for him, which seems only fair. But what about Vic, our heroic villain? Let me just say this: We know he can't get away clean, and we probably don't want him to, but some men just can't die. Especially when he's willing to do anything to stay alive. If there's one thing we've learned about Mackey, it's that he's a survivor. It's more a question of how he lives with the things he's done to stay that way.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'The Shield':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

TV Review: 'Sons of Anarchy' -- Season One

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

It seems most of my reviews here start very much the same way: I talk about how the previews/ads for the show I'm discussing left me lukewarm, and I watched the show with low expectations, only to be happily surprised at how good it is. This dovetails with my experience watching movies all my life -- the lower the expectations, the higher the odds I'll enjoy the experience. But it's not an automatic thing -- I had low expectations for 'My Own Worst Enemy', and I hated the shit out of that.* The same has happened with movies ('Pearl Harbor' and 'Rush Hour 2' are just two of the many movies I knew would suck, but still saw in the theater). Still, it's happened enough that I came up with a rough formula:

(Movie Quality + Ending) / Expectation = Enjoyment

Because I'm aware how much my expectations affect my overall enjoyment, I always try to give a show more time to grow on me, show me one way or the other if my original feeling was well-founded. So, when I first began to enjoy watching 'Sons of Anarchy', which didn't happen until three or four episodes in, I decided not to write a review until I seen a little more. After all, it was a show about a motorcycle gang. That isn't my thing. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen anything featuring a motorcycle gang that I liked in the least. Maybe one is slipping my mind, but I'm pretty sure.

But saying 'SOA' is about a motorcycle gang is like saying 'Mad Men' is about advertising. The headline needs to be the creators -- 'Mad Men' was created by Matthew Weiner, former writer on 'The Sopranos', and 'SOA' was created by Kurt Sutter, former writer on 'The Shield'. Those are pedigrees which demand you at least give the show a fair chance, which is why I stuck with it after I was underwhelmed by the two-hour opening block of the show. But it slowly grew on me, and the final three episodes completely blew me away. In that three and a half hours of TV, the show jumped from an impressive newcomer to one of the best shows on TV. Simultaneously, Sutter rose from a solid TV writer to a a soon-to-be very rich man.

Sutter, who has a background in theater and acting (he appeared as "Margos" the foot-chopper in 'The Shield'), knows how to tell a story. And when a story is well-told, and filled with multi-dimensional characters, it doesn't much matter what world it takes place in. The themes are familiar and relatable: family, friendship, brotherhood, loyalty, financial burdens, etc.

And it helps when the acting is top notch, as it is here. It starts with Charlie Hunnam, who seemed like an odd choice to play the lead, Jackson "Jax" Teller. A British pretty boy as a grizzled biker didn't seem to ring true, but as the show progressed I bought him more and more as the hard-as-nails Jax. Sutter's real-life wife, Katey Segal, play Jax's domineering mother, Gemma to the hilt, and nails it. She's married to Jax's step-dad/gang boss, Clay Morrow, played by the larger (and gruffer) than life, Ron Perlman. Their roles are crucial to the show's success.

Several lesser character's also stand out -- Kim Coates, one of those guys who's been in everything, as Clay's right hand, "Tig"; Ryan Hurst as "Opie", an ex-con trying to juggle a wife and kids with his re-introduction to gang life; and William Lucking, as Opie's dad, one the old-timers in the gang, are just a few in a great ensemble cast full of solid performances. The show has also featured some great guest arcs from the likes of 'The Shield's' Jay Karnes and the always great Ally Walker -- as federal officers with very different motives.

The show follows Jax as he grows from becoming a father, and having to handle extra responsibilities in the gang and in his personal life. All while gaining inspiration from a manuscript left by his deceased father, the former head of the gang. He has to decide between two women in his life who both want him -- an old flame who broke his heart and the mother of his child. He pushes and pulls with Gemma and Clay, who each has the same conflict of interest -- each other. Their involvement with the law -- chiefly, having local police chief Wayne Unser ('Deadwood's' great Dayton Callie) in their pocket -- provides a compelling, and constantly evolving, storyline. The gang politics can bog down a bit, with all of their rivals essentially interchangeable, but there are enough interesting subplots (like a junior member's fledgling romance) to keep you involved at all times.

For awhile I didn't write this review because I wondered if the show would find a groove. When it did, I delayed the review because I thought it might not be able to keep it up. When it did that, I didn't know if it would be able to pay it all off in a satisfying way. It did, and I'm done doubting this show. Now, I'm just impatiently waiting for next season.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment -- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -- I rate 'Sons of Anarchy':

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

* Though I'll probably still be watching the remaining episodes before it's off the air if my wife has anything to say about it. SPOILER: She will.

Detour/Link Dump

In case you missed this post, and came here looking for my weekly NFL picks, please head on over to NinersNation.com, where you can check out the first edition of my weekly Friday column, "ANY GIVEN FRIDAY" here. I've beefed up the game previews a bit, and tried to add a few more laughs, but it's still a work-in-progress, so any constructive criticism is more than welcome.

The big college game this weekend is clearly #2 Texas Tech at #5 Oklahoma. Tech is trying to complete their Cinderella-like regular season run and make it to the Big 12 Championship Game with shot at the National Title. Oklahoma, meanwhile, will be trying to upset their championship dreams, returning the favor for last year, when the Red Raiders did the same thing to them. For more on this epic tilt, check out Pat Forde's column on ESPN.com. My pick: Oklahoma 70, Texas Tech 69 -- the Sooners win when Tech scores to apparently send the game to OT, only Mike Leach elects to go for two instead, and the try fails (I'm only half-kidding).

A few more links to get you through the weekend:

--A new HBO biopic on legendary comic Sam Kinison is in production, and there a great story on it over at FilmDrunk.com which not only gives a rundown on the project, and a good-sized early clip, but also some excellent commentary on why the hell the producers would choose the sickly-sweet Tom Shadyac to direct a project that should anything but.

--Another link by way of Film Drunk, takes us to HolyTaco.com, where they have an amusing graphic article titled "If TV Shows Had Truthful Titles".

--I've seen a lot of crazy names in my life, but I don't know that I've ever seen one quite as crazy as this.

--Entertainment lovers should check out sister sites The Reel Addict and The TV Addict.

--Lovers of sports and making fun of sports, and especially making fun of announcers, should check out Awful Announcing.

UPDATE

Let's stop and re-evaluate a bit, shall we? Some things have changed, and when that happens, it's nice to take stock of things. Here's a little Q & A to get you caught up.

Q: So, what's changed?

A: Well, for starters, I've just agreed to turn that weekly post at Niners Nation I wrote about earlier into a bi-weekly post. Starting this week, I'll have one post on Friday mornings previewing the weekend's games in the NFL, and another on Monday morning reviewing the weekend action. I'm excited about this opportunity to reach a larger audience, but it will of course mean I have to post a little less over here.

Q: What does that mean for this site?

A: Hopefully, not much. Of course, since both my Monday and Friday football columns will be running elsewhere, they won't be here -- that means no more "For Who? For What?" or "Theoretical Gambling" -- but I will still write short posts that day to at least link to those posts. I'm also going to still try to post once a weekday over here, it's just unlikely that those posts will include my thoughts on sports -- at least not until after football season. I may have the occasional post about a baseball acquisition (today, the Giants signed former Reds reliever Jeremy Affeldt, and I might write something about that shortly, for instance), or random rant about something which doesn't fit into my football pieces, but most of what you'll find here will be related to my personal life, the entertainment world, or both.

Q: Do you have a preview of what exactly is to come for this site?

A: I'm glad you asked that, made-up person. As soon as I'm done answering this question, I'm going to do a quick update on the TV shows I've reviewed up to this point, and in the coming weeks I plan to see several Oscar bait movies to review. I'll also be turning my attention to established TV shows. Up until this point, I've only been reviewing old shows, but I want to review the latest seasons of some of my favorite shows to take a look at how they rate against their previous work.

TV UPDATE

Before I get to updating my reviews, I want to update my Top 10 Shows On TV list, even though I just wrote it last week. After catching up on the last couple episodes of 'Dexter', I need to ammend those rankings to raise it up at least one slot, and maybe more. Right no, they are peaking, with the current storyline one of its most compelling. I'm shocked to be saying this, but Jimmy Smits is the best thing that's ever happened to that show.

In TV, things can also change quickly. When you review a movie, you don't have to worry that the movie might change after your review, turning you into a liar. TV shows, on the other hand, can start off shakily, then turn it around and become very good with a few key changes. Other shows can have a terrific pilot and back it up with a couple good shows before completely crapping the bed. Therefore, I thought it would be a good idea to go back and revisit the TV reviews I've done so far, which can all be found here.

LIFE ON MARS: This was very recent, and I haven't seen another episode, so my CONSIDER grade still stands.

ELEVENTH HOUR: I've seen a couple more episodes of this, but not much has changed. Still CONSIDER.

MY OWN WORST ENEMY: After giving it a PASS, I've seen one more episode (against my will), and there's been no change. I wouldn't hold my breath on it either -- it's been cancelled by NBC.

THE LIFE & TIMES OF TIM: I gave this a HIGHLY RECOMMEND, but while the show is still pretty good, it's become a bit spottier. Because of this recent inconsistency, I'm lowering my grade slightly to RECOMMEND.

FRINGE: Things are looking up a bit for 'Fringe' recently, as the last few episodes have shown it to be finding its own voice a little better. As with a lot of shows, the increased airtime has allowed the characters to become more three-dimensional, and thus the interplay between them is more compelling. They've also had some really cool bits on fringe science of late. Because of this improvement, I'm going to bump by original CONSIDER grade up to RECOMMEND territory.

TRUE BLOOD: Since I gave 'True Blood' a RECOMMEND grade, the show has stalled out a bit. I still like it, but I can see how somehow might say the characters are stagnating a bit as they run over familiar territory. I was prepared to drop their current grade until I saw the last episode, which I thought was better than the last few. I'm going to keep the original grade for now.

THE MENTALIST: The steadiest show on this list. You could argue that's because it's a predictable CBS procedural, and that might have some truth to it, but I like it, so I'll praise its consistency. Still RECOMMEND.

Random List: Top 10 Shows On TV

This is not a year-end list, judging shows on only the most recent season. This is a list of the very best shows currently on TV. That means shows like ‘The Wire’, which could’ve (and should’ve) won an Emmy for their final season in 2008, it is not currently on the air so it’s ineligible. It also means shows get some credit for work done in the past -– if they’ve elicited enough interest in their narratives over previous seasons to make up for any weaknesses in their current episodes.

1. The Shield -- The whole reason behind this list. The show is almost over, and criminally underrated, so I wanted to have this last chance to sing its praises. The ballad of Vic Mackey may be reaching its conclusion, but it’s certainly not slowing down any. Instead, it’s doing just what it’s always has -– careening toward disaster, like a car with no brakes. Will Michael Chiklis’s Vic get arrested? Killed? If so, by who? (There are too many good candidates to name them all.) Whatever happens, it will be captivating, pulse-pounding, and unpredictable -– on ’The Shield’, it always is.

2. 30 Rock -- When it comes to lists, I normally rate dramas higher than comedies. I don’t know why, maybe it’s because I get more into the stories dramas offer up. Comedies are so based on contrived situations, the characters never really changing or growing in any way. ‘30 Rock’ is really no different -– well, except for the fact that it’s really, really good. The fantastic Tina Fey makes the show (both writing and acting), but the stellar supporting cast (Alex Baldwin, Tracey Morgan, Jack McBrayer) often steals the show.

3. The Closer -- The best procedural on TV barely edges out the best serialized dramas based on both it’s great ensemble cast centered around Kyra Sedgwick’s Deputy Chief Brenda Lee Johnson and her quirky genius, and its commendable consistency. Not only do they stage a mysterious crime filled with interesting characters each week, but they also manage to move along personal plotlines with aplomb –- and without the usual sticking-out-like-a-sore-thumb transitions.

4. Breaking Bad -- The best new show on TV in 2008 made it all the way into the top 5 (and ahead of fellow AMC serial, ’Mad Men’) on its breathtaking premise –- a high school chemistry teacher who finds out he’s got cancer becomes a meth cooker to pay those extra bills. The show’s already been recognized with Emmy nominations -– including a win for lead actor Bryan Cranston –- and I think it’s got a strong future in store with creator Mike Gilligan (a former X-Files’ writer) at the helm.

5. Mad Men -- The best new show of 2007 started the ball rolling at AMC, which is beginning to look like HBO did almost a decade ago. With two of the best shows on TV on their slate, AMC may become the place to go for off-beat writers who tell idiosyncratic stories. That describes creator Matthew Weiner (a former ’Sopranos’ scribe) who HBO let slip away, as well as Gilligan -- many of Weiner’s storylines in ’Mad Men’ echo the anything-can-happen tone and feel of ’The Sopranos’. With characters this interesting, and an era so ripe for commentary, I have a feeling ’Mad Men’ is just getting started.

6. The Office -- Still going strong, ’The Office’, has fallen into a rhythm like many good sports teams do: They know they’re good, so they may coast for awhile, but they’re still better than everyone else, and they can turn it on whenever they need to.

7. Dexter -- This could easily be higher on the list based on its current season, when writers made the wise decision to give Dexter a partner in crime (played by Jimmy Smits). Seeing Dexter play his murderous feelings off of someone else’s is reinvigorating for the show, and reminds of the end of the first season, when he battled his brother.

8. House -- Like ’The Office’, this show has found it’s groove, and never produces a bad episode. They also manage to keep both the medical case and the personal lives of its characters fresh. House’s antics never get old, and Hugh Laurie’s performance is never anything short of note-perfect.

9. Lost -- I’ve lost a lot of interest in the show since the first couple of seasons, but as it nears the end, I’m still interested in finding out what answers the show can deliver. It’s currently not as good as a few shows on the “Honorable mention” list, maybe even all of them, but like a mystery novel I’m almost done with, I’ve put in too much time to give up now.

10. Curb Your Enthusiasm – This deserves to be higher, but I’m penalizing it for taking the better part of two years off. Still, I haven’t forgotten the show’s unique blend of both dry and broad humor, or the eminently watchable Larry David.

Honorable mention: Sons of Anarchy, Life, Damages, Friday Night Lights, CSI.

Weekend Link Dump

-- Searching for the perfect gag gift for a buddy? Need to make a gesture for someone who's done you a favor? Pissed off your girlfriend, and need a way to make her laugh? Then I've got the perfect site for you. Show your loved ones you give a shit, by giving them a shit. That's right -- I shit you not.

-- I find this story funny, sad, frustrating, and several other conflicting emotions. How two old friends from high school couldn't figure out a way to share that kind of money when it literally appears from nowhere both boggles my mind and strikes me as typical at the same time.

-- This just might be the best link I ever provide: If you can think of a TV show from the 80's, then I can almost guarantee you can find a video of intro to that show here. It's a great time-waster. Seriously, I just wasted like 45 minutes on it just while typing out this blurb. I found these old favorites from my childhood:





And this forgotten relic:



Not to mention, this cheesey gem:



The only negative thing I can say about it is the intro clip for 'Manimal' has been taken down due to copyright infringement.

-- And finally, as we head toward the holidays, I decided to dig up this oldie but goodie:

TV Review: 'My Own Worst Enemy'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or just click here.

In ’My Own Worst Enemy’, Christian Slater plays two men –- a family man and super spy. That makes ’Enemy’ feel like two shows -– a family man drama and spy action thriller. That might be fun, except for one thing: Both shows are mediocre. And two mediocre shows do not equal one good one.

The concept could be solid: A man discovers he has two distinct personalities -– one a super spy, the other an ordinary husband and father from the suburbs. Not only has the government figured out a way to give him these personalities, they can switch it on and off whenever they want. Or at least, they can until it malfunctions early in the pilot episode, and begins to come and go at random times with very little warning (but just enough time for either personality to leave a quick video message to the other with vital information/instructions, conveniently enough).

But there's glaring flaw, and not a hard one to identify: Why? Why is it so vital to have a super spy who can double as a family man? If the agent half is so adept at a life of spying, why does he need such an elaborate cover, complete with a wife and kids who's lives are endangered simply by virtue of who their father really is? Is screwing with the lives of innocent women and children just so their agent will have a safe place to crash really the best way the government can come up with to disguise its agents?

The parts which do work – the plot keeps moving, it’s action-packed (though cheesey), and it has a pretty solid ensemble cast –- reminds of ’Prison Break’, only not as juicy. The general rule of thumb is, the cheesier the tone and the more over the top the acting, he further the line can be pushed. Over at the always adventurous FOX, shows like ’Prison Break’ and '24' maximize this rule. This should've been instructive to the minds behind the show -- especially when taking into consideration what '24' did for Slater's contemporary, Keifer Sutherland, when he was in need of a similar career resurgence/re-imagining. But at NBC, where vanilla meets cheese, the storylines don’t ever push the boundaries. That has damaged the milquetoast ’Heroes’, and it does the same to ’Enemy’.

While the entire cast, from Slater on down, seems to be on the same over-the-top page, the writers seem to be stuck in second gear in terms of plot-twists, curveballs, and juicy moments. In short, it’s not pleasurable enough to be a guilty pleasure. There are too many mundane family arguments -- like the wife of Henry, the accountant angry at him for spending $2,000 on a dress for his young daughter, when it was actually super spy Edward’s doing – and what action there is does not make up for the family banalities.

The writing staff (led by creator Jason Smilovich) may not shoulder the blame for the tameness of the show -- often the tone of a show has a lot to do with the studio producing it. Studio notes are mandatory if a show wants to be treated well -– given a good time slot, promoted well, shown patience if early ratings don’t take off. As mentioned earlier, NBC’s current management, doesn’t have a great track record for pushing the envelope, so it’s not very hard to connect the dots.

Slater’s performance is certainly good enough, but comes off badly because the show doesn’t match his intensity. Similarly out of place are Mike O’Malley, as Raymond, Edward’s super spy colleague/handler, and Alfre Woodard, as their superior, Mavis Heller. Only Henry’s wife, Angie, played by Madchen Amick feels the right tone for the show. But again, that says more about the show than it does the actors.

’My Own Worst Enemy’ has a chance to be a good show, but it isn’t yet, and there isn’t any indication the artistic direction behind the show is capable of the kind of change it needs.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’My Own Worst Enemy’:

PASS*

* Of course, this doesn't mean I won't have to watch it. My wife likes the show, and I don't have the heart to tell her how wrong she is, so I'll be watching it with her (probably while I'm doing something else -- like writing some future blog post).

TV Review: 'The Life & Times of Tim'

This is the part where I act like an authority on entertainment, and criticize the work of professionals who are, without exception, more successful than I in the industry in which we both work. Some people would say this is proof I have "balls", or "chutzpah" in Jewspeak. Others would say it's proof I'm a "douchebag". To catch up on any old reviews, you can find the link on the right hand side of the page, or click here.

One of the more pleasant surprises of the fall TV schedule is HBO’s new animated comedy, ‘The Life & Times of Tim’. It’s been sometime since either HBO has introduced a good half-hour comedy (some would say since ‘Entourage’ premiered in 2004, others would say the streak goes all the way back to the debut of ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ in 2000), or anyone has presented a quality animated show for adults (the last one, FOX’s ‘Family Guy’ first premiered in 1999), but both streaks appear to be over.

HBO has tried several half-hour sitcoms for adults in recent years -– ‘The Mind of the Married Man’ and ‘Lucky Louie’ immediately come to mind. While I’m fan of both of the creators of those shows -– Mike Binder and Louie C.K., respectively -– they ultimately failed for the same reason: It’s hard to root for paunchy middle-aged married men who just want to get laid. Sure, we can identify with them (at least, I know I can), but it’s a little depressing. The comedy falls a bit flat, not because it’s doesn’t seem real, but because it does seem real. “Real” works great when it’s ‘Seinfeld’ and you’re discussing harmless social quirks between friends, co-workers, and romantic interests. But “real” is decidedly less fun when the happiness of the protagonist’s wives and children are at stake, and he doesn't seem to care.

That’s right where animation comes in. Nobody cares when ‘Family Guy’s’ Peter Griffin or ‘The Simpsons’’ Homer Simpson does something horribly hurtful to their family because they’re not just cartoonish, they're cartoons. Tim is too, and while the similarities don’t end there -– Tim also shows bad judgment and a penchant for embarrassing those close to him -– Tim is closer to ‘Curb’s' misanthropic Larry David than he is to his animated ancestors. Like David, the humor surrounding him usually comes more from awkward, uncomfortable social moments than it does from broad physical comedy.

This formula is introduced in the first segment of the series pilot (each half-hour show is divided into two 10 minute-ish plots), “Angry Unpaid Hooker”*, when Tim’s girlfriend, Amy (voiced by MJ Otto), arrives home with her parents to find Tim with, well...



Tim’s calm refusal to admit he’s done anything wrong, and the logic he uses to try to explain away a situation which defies any kind of explaining away, is a staple of 'Tim'. This, we quickly learn, is not a show going for just the easy laugh –- like ‘Curb’, ‘The Larry Sanders Show’ and ‘The Office’, they want us to suffer with Tim for every agonizing (and humorous) moment possible.

The best examples come when Tim is asked by his un-named Boss (voiced by Peter Giles, the best supporting character introduced thus far) for typically bizarre favors, as he does in the following two clips:





Tim reacts to these ridiculous plans with the same kind of shock and disbelief that we might, yet still agrees to them, and we kind of understand it. In his world, in seems to work somehow. Rather than frustrated by his idiocy, we're happy to cringe as Tim and his boss try to carry off this horribly flawed plan. Sometimes, it's his own fault, but often, it isn’t even Tim who shows the worst judgment. It’s those around him -- like, say, the priest friend who buys beer for kids and has sex with hookers -- and Tim’s just hanging on for the ride.

It’s this kind of diversity of humor which appears to give ‘The Life & Times of Tim’ more legs than the typical bull-in-a-china-shop-type shows like, say, CBS’s new sitcom, ‘Worst Week’, which I find enjoyable, but clearly has a one-note tone, which could easily grow old quickly. Staying power is not something one might expect from a show which got its genesis from an animated short, but Dildarian’s voice (his writing “voice”, not the actual voice he uses to give Tim his stuttering, neuroses-laden, Gary Shandling-esque persona) seems to lend itself to the new trend of “uncomfortable comedy” that's made stars out of Steve Carrell, Ricky Gervais, and to some extent, Michael Cera.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’The Life & Times of Tim’:

HIGHLY RECOMMEND

*This segment was originally an animated short by Dildarian, which was bought by HBO, and now serves as the show's introduction.

TV Review: 'Fringe'

Two TV reviews in two days? That's just the kind of guy I am -- an unpredictable bad boy who plays by his own rules, and doesn't take shit from anybody, especially The Man. To catch upon any old reviews, you can find a link to the right hand side if you scroll down slightly, or by clicking here.

J.J. Abrams now exists more as a concept than a man. A brand name. After creating/producing smash hits ’Alias’ and ’Lost’ in 2001 and 2004 respectively, he’s produced couple of duds (’Six Degrees’ and ’What About Brian?’) but still seems to have as much juice in the industry as ever -– his producing and directing slates are full of high profile projects. His name carries a weight than can not be diminished by a failure or two. We should all be so fortunate.

Abrams's success with ’Mission: Impossible 3’, written by his former ’Alias’ scribes Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, has opened up the door for more big budget movie franchises -– he’s directing the next ’Star Trek’ installment, due in 2009 (also written by Kurtzman and Orci). But that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have time on his schedule to create/produce another TV series, and with ’Lost’ still nabbing high ratings four years into its run, network execs are only too happy to sign him on to deliver another sci-fi series.

Re-enter Orci and Kurtzman, suddenly one of the most prolific writing teams in the industry, and you have what seems to be a match made in heaven. Unfortunately, their new endeavor, ’Fringe’, while entertaining by today’s primetime network standards, is not nearly as original as one might expect given the creative team behind it.

Maybe it’s all the time Orci, Kurtzman and Abrams have put into working on sequels, but ’Fringe’ feels familiar. Specifically, it borrows liberally from the ’X-Files’, mining the same territory (unexplained phenomena), and employing both a similar over-arching storyline (both mysterious conspiracies involving the government, post-modern technology, and possibly aliens*) and dynamic between the male and female leads (a tough, dedicated serious woman and a brilliant but wacky, wise-cracking man). Hell, it’s even on the same network (FOX).

Playing the more central, Dana Scully-esque role, and playing it well, is Anna Torv. While her performance is strong, she’s clearly outshone by Joshua Jackson, of ’Dawson’s Creek’ infamy, playing the Fox Mulder-type. The fact that I can even remember the actual character names after seeing several episodes should tell you how unremarkable their individual characters are. They even have a bald and fierce boss a la Assistant Director Skinner ’X-Files’, played by Lance Reddick (Cedric Daniels on ’The Wire’).

Easing at least a bit away from the mold, ’Fringe’ employs a third lead – Walter (the father of Joshua Jackson’s character), a renowned, if disgraced, scientist with a lifetime of experience working of nefarious government projects researching “Pseudo-Science”. This departure is one of the few elements of the show which feels fresh, so it’s probably no coincidence Walter’s character -- and John Noble’s portrayal of him –- is the highlight of the show. His oddball, absent-minded professor persona adds just enough humor to keep the show light amid its mostly dark subject matter.

Besides the government conspiracy – which includes re-animation, postmortem interrogations, and alike – is supported by week-to-week storylines which allows each episode to play out like a procedural. This is another trait passed on by ’X-Files’, as is the “Monster of the Week” tone the weekly storylines often have (Recent episode ‘Power Hungry’, featuring a man who caused electrical disturbances with his emotional outbursts, felt especially familiar). Not bad, just derivative.

But as Truffaut or Goddard once said (I can never keep them straight), “In your country, you say, ‘Steal’. In mine, we say ‘Homage’." Or, more appropriately, “If you’re going to steal, steal from the best.” The creators of ’Fringe’ manage to at least accomplish that.

With all the hype FOX threw behind it, and the talents involved in it, expectations may have been part of the issue with 'Fringe'. That said, it still has room to grow and evolve, and I'm not canceling my Season Pass.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’Fringe’:

CONSIDER


* I don’t know what the hell that bald guy is, but he ain’t human.

TV Review: ‘True Blood’

Before watching it, my feelings toward the new HBO drama, ’True Blood’, were similar to the last show I reviewed, ’The Mentalist’. That is to say, I had serious reservations. But this prejudice was much more mysterious. After all, the show’s creator is Alan Ball, the mind behind ’American Beauty’ and ‘Six Feet Under’ -- one of the better recent series on TV.

I’m such a huge fan of Ball's work, I actually get a little starstruck when I see him walking on Runyon Canyon (I live a mile or so away, and go five times a week, shine or shine). This is significant because I see many celebrities on the canyon, but the experience is so well-worn by now -- 11+ years after moving to LA, and having been through several moments like these -- that this occurrence rarely gets me excited any more. (Besides, it's usually somebody decidedly unexciting, and often untalented, like, say, Dane Cook.)

The problem I had came not from distrust of Ball’s skill (not to be confused with ball skills), but from genre –- I’m just not a vampire guy. Never have been. They don’t spook me, they don’t intrigue me, they don’t interest me. But neither was I interested in the behind the scenes machinations in a family mortuary –- before I met the Fisher family from Ball’s superb ’Six Feet Under’, that is. But that's what talented writer’s do –- make you care about the lives of people you’ve just met. And since Ball has already proven so adept at bringing life to the dead in his previous HBO Series, it seems poetic that he bring it to the un-dead in his new one.

’True Blood’ has a few of the typical vampire staples – you know, legends, and blood-sucking, and all that plas-ma (sorry) -– and it’s youthful energy is nothing new (’Buffy, The Vampire Slayer’), but it also has a kind of post-modern feel that’s new to the genre. It doesn’t take place in Transylvania, or Everytown, USA, where vampires appear to prey upon humans. It’s set in the not-too-distant-future -- or maybe an alternate present -- in Louisiana, in a world where vampires and humans live together in not quite harmony (it’s a little like racial tension). And though it’s based on a series of books -– The Sookie Stackhouse Novels by Charlaine Harris, now a staff writer on the show -- it still has the trademark Ball dialogue, along with his signature dark humor and sexual adventures.

It also has a bit of a chick-flick angle -- centering around lead Sookie Stackhouse (a blond Anna Paquin) and her will-they-or-won’t-they vampire beau Bill (Stephen Moyer) which would seem to appeal to a broader female audience (my wife, as a focus group of one, would certainly attest*), while not completely alienating the meathead male demo. It’s got blood, sex (mostly involving Sookie’s brother Jason (Ryan Kwanten), and violence, but mixes it with drama, romance, and emotion.

I used to assume any new show on HBO, especially a hour-long drama, would be great. After ’The Wire’, ’The Sopranos’, ’Six Feet Under’, 'Deadwood', et al., they had me at “hello”. But since those shows have ended, and after several recent misfires -- all coinciding with a management shuffle at the top -- I'm much less confident. And I’m not alone. They could really use a success right now. Lucky for them, I think they have one.

'True Blood' isn't 'Six Feet Under'. It has a tendency to go a little crazy with the visual effects at times, and it can border on the overly dramatic as it revels in its own Southern Gothic charm. But that strikes me more as a matter of personal taste than a flaw, especially given its genre, and the writing and performances more than make up for any small missteps.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ’True Blood’:

RECOMMEND


* The best modern test for how much you like a show is how long after it arrives on your TiVo do you watch it. The best honor you can give a show is to never have it on your TiVo -- as soon as you're far enough in to avoid watching commercials, you watch. My wife has this reaction to 'True Blood' -- the show airs on Sunday night, and it's rarely still around to see Monday morning.

TV Review: ‘The Mentalist’

There might not be another new show premiering this fall which I was more biased against before ever seeing than ‘The Mentalist’. Okay, that’s not technically true -- I was sure, absolutely certain, I would hate the ‘Knight Rider’ re-boot before ever watching a minute (and that’s all I ever watched). But that doesn’t really count, as I was unlucky enough to see last season’s made-for-TV movie updating the 80’s series that prompted the launch of the weekly series, and quickly realized that either NBC head honcho Ben Silverman was smoking crack when he green-lit the project, or his body just naturally produces crack all on its own. So I actually had reasons to dislike ’Knight Rider’ -- I had no such excuse for my bias against ‘The Mentalist’. It was just good, old-fashioned prejudice.

Sure, I may have experienced some trepidation caused by the fact CBS seems much more committed to advancing Simon Baker’s TV career than their viewers are. Previously, the Australian-born Baker was the lead in CBS crime drama ’The Guardian’ from 2001-2004, then starred alongside Ray Liotta and Virginia Madsen in the short-lived CBS crime drama ‘Smith’ in 2006-07. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t harbor any ill will toward Baker. In fact, I have very little feeling about him at all. Maybe that’s why I had a hard time understanding why the casting folks at CBS were so enamored.

I may have also had something against the generic quality ’The Mentalist’ seemingly had, judging from the commercials. Its title follows the revolution of blandness that threatens to engulf all of primetime network TV, especially the world of procedurals, double-especially at CBS, where formulaic procedurals go to reproduce. And the idea (or “hook” in Industry-speak*) -- that the show’s lead would somehow divine the truth behind mysteries simply by observing his subjects closely -- seemed to borrow liberally from other popular shows (’House’ and ’Psych’ to name a couple of personal favorites).

The title and premise of the show aren’t the only things which lead an experienced viewer to the opinion the show may be a bit derivative. Upon watching the first episode, yet another trademark device is revealed -- there’s the female partner to provide a little sexual tension, the quirky “team” of experts (requisite wise-cracking dude, big lovable lug, hot chick who’s also really smart, etc. -– at least they don’t have a hacker…yet).

Lastly, ’The Mentalist’ has the character twist which was once the domain of feature films, but is quickly becoming de rigeur among primetime dramas –- the horrible, scarring incident in the protagonist’s past which drives his/her motivations (and as bonus, provides the carrot-on-the-stick device the show’s writers can use to lead viewers through a season-long, possibly series-long arc –- for instance, ’The X-Files’ milked much of its nine seasons and one of its two movies out of the mystery behind the kidnap of Mulder’s sister). In this case, we learn in flashback that his wife and child were murdered by a serial killer as revenge for Baker’s character’s disrespect. This has caused him to make a major life change –- catching criminals, not profiting off them -– in hopes of someday capturing his family’s killer. Sounds like a recipe for a season finale, no?

Gathering all these facts into a neat little pile, it seemed the ceiling of ’The Mentalist’ was no higher than "guilty pleasure". But here’s the thing: with all these marks against it, all these obstacles to overcome, ’The Mentalist’ succeeds. It succeeds right from the opening scene, which pretends to be a typical teaser -- introducing a new case shrouded in mystery, before slamming the door on the viewers expectations by solving the case in its infancy and punctuating it a shocking conclusion. It succeeds on the strength of Baker’s character –- not just his performance (though that is very good), but also on the way the part is (wait for it) written. It succeeds on the lead character’s slightly off-putting demeanor and raw honesty (again, not un-like Hugh Laurie’s House) but also its patient, somewhat meandering pace, and philosophical tone.

The latter reminds one of NBC’s ’Life’**, which seems to serve as either an inspiration to ‘The Mentalist’ or at least a distant relative. Both shows have a strong, idiosyncratic lead with a dark past played by a foreign-born actor (as does, yet again, ’House’ -- the trend is your friend), both have the sexy female partner (the underrated and over-freckled Robin Tunney in this case), the quirky team, and just a touch of –- dare I say it? -– soul.

While ‘The Mentalist’ is not quite on the level of ’Life’, it has just enough personality/philosophy/humanity to raise it above the average procedural, and to keep those of us who prefer to think of ourselves as intelligent from losing self-respect for watching it. That’s enough to take the “guilty” right out of “guilty pleasure”.

Using the age-old Hollywood scale of judgment –- HIGHLY RECOMMEND/RECOMMEND/CONSIDER/PASS (circle one) -– I rate ‘The Mentalist’:

RECOMMEND


*”Industrese?”
**This is one of the best shows on network TV, but Silverman moved it to the Friday night slot where good shows go to die, like he does with every decent show he gets his smug little hands on (see: 'Friday Night Lights') -- so better watch it now before it's cancelled due to poor ratings.