Not bad, not bad.

I was thrilled to see the Packers take home the trophy - and in a score remarkably close to my predicted 28-24. That's right, folks, I'm perfectly attuned to the execution of these NFL games. I'm like a football savant.

I can't find an official prop result list, so I just ran them all by hand as best I could. My bets did pretty well: I won 16 out of 22 bets, for a total winnings of $333.67. Which is not that much for investing (an imaginary) $2500 on the game. I learned a lot about gambling from this one.

First of all, almost everything went my way except for my prediction that Hines Ward would be bottled up and Heath Miller would hit the holes left by the Packers defense over the middle (it was the other way around). That cost me a quick $500.

I also wagered $100 on each of the "automatic" wagers - no punt hits the scoreboard, no overtime, no 2-point conversion, and no safety. I won 3 of 4 for a total winnings of.. -$74.25. The odds on the automatic bids weren't good enough to keep me afloat for the one loss. I'll learn to skip those in the future.

All the money I made was on the bets I made on the props with positive money lines. I made $300 on Rodgers winning the MVP (+150) and $125 on the Gatorade being orange (+250). Those were the only positive money lines I picked, too, so everything else was just a giant battle to pull even. And this was on a Super Bowl I totally nailed. Gambling's harder than it looks.

Still, this was tons of fun, so I might do this again sometime.

Super Bowl Prop Bets

I've always been fascinated by sports betting, but other than March Madness pools or my one trip to Vegas, I've never indulged that curiousity. Gambling can be a cruel friend, and I don't have a lot of cash to throw around.

That said, I like having a rooting interest in things, and I've always wanted the experience of sorting through the options and finding places where you think you might have a leg up on the system. Gambling sites are fascinating to browse through on big games like this. So I thought, why not make my own imaginary bets and track and see what kind of money I'd make? Like a fantasy gambling league. Even if the game tomorrow's a dud, I'll still have lots to root for.

Now, I've no desire to bet on the outcome of the Super Bowl itself - I think it's currently Packers favored by two and a half, and while I like the Packers in this game, it's not a bet that makes my heart pump at all. What makes me excited? Prop bets, where you can bet on actions within the game. Let's jump in.

Quick gambling tip: after each bet, I'm going to put down the money line. It's easy to translate if you know how. If something is labeled positively (+220, say), that means that if you lay down $100 on it, you stand to win $220. If something is labeled negatively (-220, say), you'd have to lay down $220 in order to win a $100. Simple enough?

We'll start off with my fictional gambling pot of $2500.

PRE-GAME

I like Christina Aguilera to sing the Star-Spangled Banner OVER 1 minute and 54 seconds (-240) and to hold the word "brave" for over six seconds (-160). When she's done it before, that's about how long she's gone for, but this is the Super Bowl, and national television, and I think she's gives it her all on this one.
Bet: $50 on each.

(Total Pot: $2400)

GAME

I don't think any punt will hit the scoreboard (-1200). Bet: $100

I don't think they'll be a 2-point conversion (-600). Bet: $100

I don't think they'll be a safety (-1200). Bet: $100

I don't think the game goes into overtime (-1100). Bet: $100

(Total Pot: $2000)

On the PACKERS, I like:

I think the Packers punt on their first possession (-150) Bet: $100

John Kuhn to get over 5.5 rushing yards (-135). Bet: $100

James Starks to NOT get a touchdown (-220). Bet: $200

I think Aaron Rodgers throws more than 1.5 touchdown passes (-240). Bet: $200

I think Greg Jennings does NOT make a one-handed catch (-400). Bet: $100

(Total Pot: $1300)

On the STEELERS, I like:

I like the Steelers to punt (-160) on their first possesion. Bet: $100

Heath Miller to get more than 42.5 receiving yards (-130). Bet: $100

I say Mike Wallace does NOT get a rushing attempt (-220). Bet: $100

Hines Ward's longest reception is UNDER 15.5 yards (-115). Bet: $100

His first reception is UNDER 9.5 yards (-115). Bet: $100

He does NOT score a touchdown (-240). Bet: $200

He does NOT make a one-handed catch (-400). Bet: $200

(Total Pot: $400)

Player vs. Player

I like Heath Miller to get more receiving yards than John Kuhn (-27.5) at (-115) Bet: $100

(Total Pot: $300)

Post-Game

I have the defense to dump the Gatorade on the coach (-250) and that the Gatorade will be orange (+250). And I like Aaron Rodgers to win the MVP (+150). Bet: $50 on the first two, and $200 on Rodgers.

(Total Pot: $0)

You're free to grade me as the game goes along, but I'll do a post Sunday night detailing all the imaginary money I've won or lost during the game. If this goes well, I may break this post out again for some of the bigger sporting events of the year. And the Oscars! Think how much more fun this would make my Oscar post.

Of course, for right now, I'll just go ahead and focus on not losing all of my imaginary cash on this game right here. Fun fact: Vegas has won money on every Super Bowl in the last ten years except for one. It is - unsurprisingly - Patriots vs. Giants in 2008 (sigh).

Best of luck to your team. See you tomorrow.

9. The Fighter

Speaking of movies about... stuff that I was just totally against in that last review.

The Fighter is a movie about overcoming things. Not that every movie you've ever watched isn't about overcoming things (with the exception of The Big Lebowski, I suppose), but this one is basically only about overcoming things, like addiction and the people who're standing in your way, and all those things that little indie movies love to deal with. Mostly, though, it’s about overcoming your British accent in order to add a Lowell one instead so that everyone will realized that holy crapballs can Christian Bale act. 

I like Mark Wahlberg as much as the next guy, but the guy doesn’t really have a lot of range (though maybe that’s because he’s acting alongside Bale here, who seems to have nothing but range). That said, whenever he’s in a film that fits his blue-collar tough guy routine, there’s no one who can really do what he does (when they first started making “Entourage”, they were looking for a Mark Wahlberg-type for the lead, before finally a casting director said “y’know, there’s not really anyone else out there like Mark. He’s it.”). He’s great here – he hones his body into fighter shape, and lets you track his story almost wordlessly, letting the audience learn everything they need to from his body language. Because he’s a beefier actor, moviegoers have a tendency to box him in (I swear to God, no pun intended) with Stallone and Statham and other actors with very few clubs in their bag, but really he’s a young Bruce Willis – an actor who forces you to read him very carefully even in the midst of an action film. And I love Willis, so that’s quite a compliment.

But really, it’s Christian Bale who deserves the accolades here (and is getting them - he's a lock for an Oscar in a few weeks). I know that Melissa Leo and Amy Adams are both Oscar-nominated, and deservedly so – Leo’s outstanding as Wahlberg’s overly controlling mother, and despite being considerably uglied-up for the role, Adams has never seemed lovelier – but no review could possibly ignore Bale’s performance. In addition to his accent, he lost a scary amount of weight (and hair) in his efforts to transform into Wahlbergs’ meth-head older brother (you'd have to be a Meth-od actor to do it. Ha! I crack me up), but that’s the least of his performance here. For Bale, that’s just the first step into getting into the head of the blustery, sad, lonely Dickie, who lives permanently in the shadow of what he could have been. He’s so tremendous here that it seems shocking that he’s never snagged an Oscar nomination before.

I’ve said a few snide words about David O. Russell getting a directing nomination over Christopher Nolan, but I can't deny that he does great work here. Every one of the actors is pitch-perfect, and the fight scenes are thrillingly realistic. For a movie that must’ve seemed a little boorish at it pitch meeting (a boxer overcomes his overbearing family, no wonder Wahlberg struggled to get this film made for so long), it’s as solid a sports movie as I’ve ever seen.  A couple questionable music choices knock it down a few notches (a fighter training in Lowell, Massachusetts in the mid-nineties has a montage to a Red Hot Chili Peppers song from 2006 feels jarring, especially when you consider how California-specific Chili Peppers songs always feel), but I enjoyed the film so much that when I came home, I pulled out my speed bag gloves and punched the wall for an hour. The film left me feeling incredibly amped, which is exactly the way a sports movie should leave you.

10. Easy A

Speaking of performances by actors lifting a film…

I love a great teen movie for a number of reasons.

First and foremost, they’re always fun. There are honestly just not that many fun movies out there these days. Why do you think everyone went to go see Grown Ups?  That movie was clearly a pile of poop from the get-go, and it made $160 million. There’s just a dearth of movies where no one gets pregnant or deals with their parents’ suicide or is beaten to death in a bathroom with a rusty crowbar. I think about this every year during Oscar season, when everyone is gushing about whichever movie featured the most inspiring someone-overcoming-something this year. Why not have some more hijinks in the theater next year? For chrissakes, even Bride Wars made $60 million at the box office. There’s clearly a market for hijinks. 

How hard can these movies be to create? The new kid befriends the likable outsider, a few pranks are pulled, there’s an encounter with a eccentric principal played by a B-list comedian, followed by a raucous party scene where the bully get the tables turned on him, and the loser ends up with the girl of his dreams just as the sun’s coming up. Roll credits. I’m thinking of a late March release date. And wait, wasn’t that paragraph essentially the whole pitch for Take Me Home Tonight? 

What’s more, these movies are always hugely rewatchable. I don’t know how many times I’ve watched Can’t Hardly Wait, Fast Times at Ridgemont High, Dazed and Confused, Mean Girls (judge not!), etc. More movies should be so easy to keep coming back to. Will I ever watch 127 Hours again? Or True Grit? Or even The King’s Speech? Being frivolous doesn’t mean it’s not lasting.

But then I stop and think about how many of these movies – such as the ones in the opening paragraph – are just awful, and how easy it is for these movies to dissolve into lame sight gags and camera-mugging. That’s not the case here, though.

Emma Stone is a delight in this movie. She’s somehow just as perfectly convincing as the dorky outsider as she is as the untouchable girl in Superbad. There’s something very grounded about her that comes through in every line read, that makes it seem totally realistic that Jonah Hill or Jesse Eisenberg or whoever could end up with her despite all physical evidence to the contrary. She’s bright and exuberant and effortlessly funny here, but it doesn’t hurt that her supporting cast is so strong.

I’ll skip over the appearances of Cam Gigandet, Aly Michalka and Amanda Bynes, because everyone else is so good that I’m able to pretend that those actors never existed. There are strong performances by Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Penn Badgley, and Dan Byrd, all of whom are given roles that require both humor and gravity, which all four of them amply supply. But the trophy has to go to Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as Stone’s parents, who are so in tune with each others comedic rhythm that it feels almost as if the camera’s just been left on and is picking up their natural chemistry. If someone wants to make a TV show where these two can snark affectionately at each other every week, I will watch the hell out of that. Oh, here’s a clip. 

In summary (I’m trying to end this review like a high school essay. Didn’t know if that was coming across. I’m thinking of copying sentences of the first paragraph and pasting them here), more hijinks!  And more Tucci and Clarkson. And less pregnancy-suicide-beatings and more whipped cream-themed food fights and mascots getting hurled into pools and such.  I think these are all things all of us can get behind.

11. True Grit

Speaking of misleading trailers…

I know, I know, I didn’t mention the (mostly minor) trailer issues in The Other Guys, but I certainly will mention them here, because on True Grit, those issues mattered.

The Coen Brothers are famous for their propensity for telling stories in an unconventional fashion. Considering how hard studios push you towards the middle, until every studio film is perfectly cookie-cutter, it’s astonishing how far they’ve been able to stray from the norm. And if sometimes I’m not totally on board (I know I’m a contrarian, but I had very mixed feelings about how No Country For Old Men was structured), the highlights are strong enough that I’m willing to accept that when you take filmmaking risks, the results are sometimes uncomfortable for the average moviegoer.

That’s not nearly the case here – True Grit’s plot is exceptionally well laid-out – but in the Coen Brothers’ efforts to make the film’s story fit neatly into a trailer, it misleads the audience into thinking that the end of the movie is actually the middle, and gives away most of the climax. Boo. And don’t try telling me that I can’t blame the Coens for how a trailer was edited, as if they didn’t have control of that. These are the people who edit their own movies under a fake name. They’re gonna know how that trailer’s went together.

And weirdly, I feel like no one but me noticed. Part of the problem with the Coen Brothers is that whenever they land a hit like this one, critics and film buffs are reluctant to criticize any element of the story since someone will immediately retort, “but you see, that was the whole point of the film,” and then they’ll look like a dunderhead.

But the truth is, True Grit, like No Country For Old Men before it, ends with a whimper and not a bang (all right, all right, there’s a lot of guns involves, so technically it does kind of end with a bang). And truth be told, I wasn’t watching the screen for parts of it, because there were snakes involved.  But there’s a number of ways to turn a story on its head, and their way never seems to make the viewer go “Ooooh.” Instead, we just go “Oh.”

The Coen Brothers are the Andy Reid of filmmakers. There’s no one better than them, up until the two-minute drill, and then they lose everything good that brought them to that point.

It’s a shame, because the movie that precedes the unremarkable ending is a very good one. Jeff Bridges is excellent and perfectly incoherent as Rooster Cogburn (no one could say he was aping John Wayne’s performance, because that was about as un-Waynian as it gets) and Hailee Steinfeld is much better actress at 13 than some people pulling in $5 million a picture (don’t make me call you out, Robert Pattinson. You know who you are). The gold star goes to Matt Damon, however, who I continue to maintain is considerably underrated as an actor, even as a movie star (go back and watch his roles in The Bourne Supremacy and The Informant! back-to-back. Then, try to name any actor who could pull off both roles as convincingly). He’s just as good here as he is in everything.

True Grit is worth seeing (especially if you’ve skipped the trailer), and deserving of all the Oscar love it’s getting, but maybe that’s more an indicator of the excellence of performance by its stars than a sign-off on the movie as a whole.