May 23, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (11)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22)
Teixeira’s Options (18)
Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23)
Appropos of nothing (4)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Friday, August 07, 2009
Andrei, you’ve lost another submarine?How do you lose something this big? Twice?
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 1:34pm
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Send Dmitri Young after him - they’re bound to show up in the same all-you-can-eat buffet sooner or later!
Posted 08/07 at 01:45 PM
I had a conversation with some friends about Hunt for Red October recently. I’m told it doesn’t really hold up. The scene where the guy dies and croaks, “I never got to see Montana!” was particularly criticized.
I thought that apart from some obvious hokiness, it was still pretty good.
Posted 08/07 at 02:04 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
I’ll grant you the “Montana” line, but I think it holds up. There are great performances all over that movie—even in small rolls—and that makes up for a lot of faults.
Posted 08/07 at 02:07 PM
My god, that’s an ugly man.
Posted 08/07 at 02:07 PM
They have to want to get off. How do you get a crew to want to get off a submarine?
It still holds up.
Honestly, Fatolo can stay away. Hopefully Peavy will be back at the end of the month as currently projected (wishcasted?) and it will all be moot.
Posted 08/07 at 02:08 PM
Russians don’t take a dump without a plan, son…
Posted 08/07 at 02:09 PM
It holds up, I think, as far as any movie starring Sean Connery as a Russian commander can hold up. Plus, after all these years, we can finally understand why someone casted Alec Baldwin as Jack Ryan (well, I understand now - back then, I had no idea just how cool Baldwin was).
Plus, the movie had Scott Glenn in his prime (Red October, Silence of the Lambs, Silverado). When he’s in the right role, he can add a lot to a movie.
Posted 08/07 at 02:13 PM
Red October holds up quite well. Aside from a few hokey lines (the previously mentioned “Montana,” “This business will get out of hand . . . “), it’s a quality movie. It’s one of the few that, regardless off seeing is countless times, I will stop and watch at least a portion anytime I come across it.
“I know this book.”
Posted 08/07 at 02:24 PM
Jason @ IIATMS said...
I LOVED that movie, buckaroo! Crazy Ivan! Maybe that’s what we can call BFB (Big Fat Bartolo)...crazy ivan
Posted 08/07 at 02:25 PM
Shome thingsh here don’t react well to bulletsh.
Love that movie. I think it holds up, and is certainly much better than any of the other Tom Clancy-based movies.
Posted 08/07 at 02:37 PM
Mike Eller said...
I threw up a little when I saw that picture. His facial hair looks like it belong somewhere else on a man’s body.
Posted 08/07 at 02:44 PM
Alex K said...
That picture is brutal. You should put some type of warning here.
Now my eyes are bleeding, and I have that image burned in my retinas when I close my eyes. Thanks for ruining my weekend…..
Posted 08/07 at 03:05 PM
I love me some Hunt for Red October. Best Clancy-based movie, in my humble opinion. That is one of those movies that I just can’t flip past when I stumble upon it on TV.
Posted 08/07 at 03:37 PM
Thomas matteucci said...
The Cubs are “Red October”, and the White Sox are forever lost trying to catch them in popularity.
The movie “Red October” was a very good movie and a perfect acronym for the White Sox’s angst.
Posted 08/07 at 03:38 PM
Travis M. Nelson said...
I just finished listening to HFRO on disc a few weeks ago. As with the Princess Bride, the Count of Monte Cristo, and every other book turned into a movie, the book was much better.
There’s a lot more info about what’s happening on the surface ships, a lot of back and forth between the American, british and Soviet ships and planes, taunting each other and such. Very tense, and completely ignored by the movie.
Also, in the book, there’s a team of experts who were supposed to act as liason with the defecting sub, but their helicopter crashes due to a metal fatigue failure (something I appreciated quite a bit, as a metallurgist) and Ryan is pressed into service in that role due to the time constraint. That makes a lot more sense than this CIA analyst who speaks no Russian being the first choice to go out there. And he never sets foot on the Dallas (Scott Glenn’s sub) in the book.
Another thing: That “chase scene” where the one sub jumps out of the water while the crew of the RO is watching and cheering - that never happened. They got the crew off and sent back more or less uneventfully and had convinced the Soviets that the Red October had exploded & sunk (using an old US sub as a decoy) and got the whole Russian fleet to go back home.
But one straggler sub stayed behind and made problems for the RO and its two American escort subs, and the Red October winds up T-Boning the Soviet sub and sinking her, without ever firing a torpedo.
And that sailor who stayed behind, spurring Connery to utter that line about being careful what you shoot at? That sailor was a KGB spy with his own back story, and the Kremlin was counting on him as their last hope to destroy the thing. When the decoy sub blows, they think he succeeded. Now doesn’t that make more sense?
With that said, it was still a good movie. One of those I’d watch from any point onward if I’m flipping through the channels and find it on TV.
Posted 08/07 at 03:57 PM
I’ve taken to calling the fake-to-third-fake-to-first move pitchers sometimes do with men on the the corners (which NEVER does ANYTHING) the “crazy Ivan”
Posted 08/07 at 04:30 PM
The Rabbit said...
You’d think you could track him on GPS…or weather radar.
Posted 08/07 at 04:40 PM
Richard Dansky said...
“Hey Sean, we’ve got this movie for you.”
Posted 08/09 at 09:44 PM