Tuesday, September 29, 2009

Top Five Shortstop!!

As listed in my previous blog, I don’t consider Ernie Banks to be a shortstop. The majority of his career was actually spent as a first sacker. Also I am leaving off Arod because it seems he is going to go in as a third-baseman, not as a shortstop.

5. Ozzie Smith- Ozzie Smith is not an offensive force, but he didn’t contribute some with the stick in his career. He eventually became a respectable average guy and a pretty decent on base guy as well. He also had 580 career stolen bases to only 148 times caught. That’s a pretty good number. However, Ozzie is not here because of his batting prowess. He is here because he is, by any statistical analysis you choose to employ, the single greatest and most valuable defensive player of all time. At a position where defense is important that counts for a lot.

4. Derek Jeter- With all apologies to Cal Ripken Jr., he isn’t going to make my top five. This is a bit of a surprise to me, as much as it is to the people who know me. First of all Jeter isn’t done. He may actually go into the number 3 spot, even though he has actually been a pretty terrible defensive player for most of his career. He has finally learned to be an average to slightly above average shortstop the last couple of years. No bones about it, his Gold Gloves are a travesty and anybody who thinks that they aren’t should be ashamed. That being said, Jeter is still one of the exception shortstops of all time. To this date he has amassed 2742 hits, and put up slash numbers of .317/.388/.459. And he is a gamer, and a leader, which although not heavily waited, is important. He has the personality that Arod should have, but doesn’t. All in all, I feel confident in putting him in my top 5.

3. Joe Cronin- This may be a controversial pick as well, but he was a damn good player. First of all Cronin was a great fielder. Absolutely superb, and one of the best ever. But no only could he field the ball, he could hit it as well. His percentage numbers are a very solid, .301/.390/.468. These are very, very good, particularly for a short stop, and even rarer for a shortstop who can field his position.

2. Arky Vaughn- The proud owner of the best season by a shortstop not named Honus Wagner. This guy could hit, this guy could field, and frankly I am just a sucker for players with career OBP’s over .400. His slash numbers are .318/.406/.453. His 1935 season was truly amazing. In that particular season he hit .381/.491/.607. That’s an absolutely sick season.

1. Honus Wagner- This is pretty much a given, and beyond debate. Hans Wagner is the greatest shortstop of all time, bottom line, end of story. 7 time batting champion and the best defender of his time. His career numbers are .327/.391/.466. This doesn’t look all that impressive but given the average season of his time he was leaps and bounds better than everyone else. Putting up a near 1.000 ops, which he did often, was a near super human feat in early baseball. And according to his peers he was far and away the most feared hitter in the National League.

Cal Ripken Jr.- Cal Ripken Jr. is, of course, one of the great players in baseball history. However, I have a hard time putting him in the top 5. Sure he had the games streak, and that is one of the most impressive records in baseball, but that in itself does not make you the best player at your position. His career OPS is .788. Frankly this is just a bit low to put him in, even counting that he played in an offensively repressed era. Defensively he was very very good, but not great. I have no qualms putting him in the Hall of Fame, and among baseball’s greats, but he doesn’t crack the top five.

Here come the 1950's Hall of Fame blog Part 6!!

Alrighty boys and girls, I know it’s been a long time since my last installment into the wonderful world of the Baseball Hall of Fame, but here we are the 1950’s.

1959- Zack Wheat

Zach Wheat- Yes- Zach Wheat is fairly marginal as far as Hall of Famers go, but I do think he is a Hall of Famer. His slash numbers are .317/.367/.450, which aren’t spectacular, but are very good. He accumulated 2884 hits, 1248 RBI, and 1289 Runs. He was known as a quality defensive outfielder and was considered one of the best players in baseball by his peers.

1957- Sam Crawford

Sam Crawford-Yes- Sam Crawford is nearly and identical player to Zach Wheat with the exception that he was one of the great defensive outfielders of his generation. His percentage numbers are .309/.362/.452. He gets extra points for playing Right Field next to Cobb for several years without killing him. Overall, it is basically the same thing as Wheat. A few more hits, a few more Runs, and quite a few more RBI’s.

1956-Hank Greenberg, Joe Cronin

Hank Greenberg- Yes- Normally I don’t go for the short career guys, but you know what there are seldom guys who have been truly this great. .313/.412/.605. Yep folks that’s a career 1.017 OPS. That’s pretty damn good.

Joe Cronin-Yes- Joe Cronin is actually in my top five greatest shortstops of all time. His slash numbers are a very, very solid .301/.390/.468. He was an amazingly good defender, one of the best. As far as shortstops there are very few who can combine his defensive prowess with the ability to hit both for a decent average and with some pop. His .857 OPS ranks very high amongst shortstops.

1955-Dazzy Vance, Ray Schalk, Ted Lyons, Gabby Hartnett, Joe DiMaggio, Home Run Baker.

Dazzy Vance-Maybe- Dazzy Vance is a tough person to rate. I put a lot of weight towards how their peers viewed them in their playing days. Dazzy Vance was always considered one of, if not the best by the hitters he faced. There is no question that he was tough to hit, and his 1924 season is one of the greatest of all time. He also led the National League in K’s 7 years running. However, other than his 3 great seasons, he wasn’t all that good and he didn’t pitch for very long. He has a career 3.24, which would have been a lot higher is his ERA hadn’t been ridiculously low in his 3 great seasons. In the rest of his seasons he was only average or a little above or below. He only had 197 wins to 140 losses. He does have 2045 career K’s, which given the strikeout rates of players in his day, is very impressive. Its equivalent of about 3200 k’s now. All in all it’s a tough case to judge, so I am putting it at maybe, but I think I am inclined to leave him out.

Ray Schalk-No- This pick is one of the ones that gets the most attention as being a farce. This is because his career slash numbers are .253/.340/.316. That is the lowest batting average of any player in the Hall of Fame. His OBP is actually pretty remarkable considering how little of a threat he was with the stick. What’s even worse than his batting average is his putrid .316 slugging average. He was a good defensive player, a great one even. But he is not the greatest defensive catcher off all time. Maybe not even in the top five greatest. He was an excellent base stealer for a catcher and he did have some speed, but its not enough to get him into the Hall of Fame.

Ted Lyons-No- As far as I can tell, Ted Lyons isn’t really all that good a player. He had a career 260-230 record, for a less than stellar .531 winning percentage. His career high in k’s for a season was 74, for a career total of 1073. I am not a big fan of pitchers that walk more than the strikeout and Lyon’s did that for his career. His career ERA of 3.67 is not really indicative of him having a Hall of Fame career.

Gabby Hartnett-Yes- Gabby Hartnett was an excellent catcher. He was great defensively with a rocket arm, and he could hit. He could hit very well. His percentage numbers are .297/.370/.489. That gives him a very solid .858 OPS. His cumulative numbers are lacking, of course, but with catchers especially you have to make an exception for that. Due to the nature of their profession they are always going to have less games played than other positions.

Joe DiMaggio-Yes- Three time MVP, great defensive centerfielder, and a great hitter. His career OPS of .977 make him a HOF lock. A curious thing about DiMaggio, he was known as a very speedy player but his career high in SB’s was 6. In fact he only had 30 career stolen bases. I know it wasn’t a stolen base era, and that he was a middle of the order type hitter, but you would think he would have gotten at least twice that accidently.

Home Run Baker-Yes- Mr. Frank Baker was known as Home Run Baker because of his ability to knock the ball out of the park. Of course 12 was his career high and he only hit 96 in his career. His career slash number are .307/.363/.442. Given the time period in which he played he was a legitimate big time slugger. He was considered by his peers to be the best third basemen in the game. His 12 home runs were also a record until Babe Ruth broke it. He is a Hall of Famer without question.

1954-Bill Terry, Rabbit Maranville, Bill Dickey

Bill Terry-Yes- I am not a huge Bill Terry fan. His .401 average is incredibly over rated and should not be considered with the same reverence as the other .400+ hitters. Basically anything offensive that was done in 1930 shouldn’t really count. Outside of that he was a very good player. His career .341 average is extremely impressive and he had a little bit of pop in his bat as well.

Rabbit Maranville-No- He got in because he was a media riot. His numbers certainly don’t verify Hall of Fame status. His career OPS of .658 is unimpressive to say the least. He was not that exceptional a fielder to make up for the poor average. I am really not sure why he is in the Hall of Fame to be honest.

Bill Dickey-Yes- Mr. Dickey grew up in Kensett, Arkansas, which is a little town that is basically a part of Searcy. After he finished his career he moved back to Arkansas until his death in Little Rock in 1993. Most people rate Yogi Berra as the greatest Yankee catcher of all time, but my vote goes to Bill Dickey. He was a man that was well liked and a leader on his team. He was a smarter player than Yogi, he was a much better defender and had a rocket arm. And in my opinion he was much more consistent hitter. He put up a nice career .313 batting average, with a .382 OBP, and .486 SLG. He is a no doubter as a Hall of Famer, and one of the greatest catchers of all time.

1953-Bobby Wallace, Al Simmons, Dizzy Dean, Chief Bender.
Bobby Wallace-No- Bobby Wallace was a whole lot of average over a very long career. He was a career .268 hitter with no power. He managed to rack up 2309 hits but it took him 25 seasons to get them. He didn’t steal bases, he was only a slightly above average fielder, he only batted over .300 once. There is absolutely nothing remarkable about him.

Al Simmons-Yes- Al Simmons is no doubter of a Hall of Famer, but one that flies under most people radar. “Bucket-Foot” Al could flat out hit the baseball. He racked up 2927 hits, ending up just shy of 3000, but we will give him the benefit of the doubt there. His percentage numbers are a more than solid .334/.380/.535 for a career .915 OPS. He tends to get overlooked because he played on team with about seven other Hall of Famers.

Dizzy Dean-Yes- Dizzy gets into the Hall but I don’t know that I would put him in if he hadn’t been a Hall of Fame type broadcaster too. I will give him the benefit of the doubt because he was a great player, and because of his overall contribution to baseball. And because he is just a damn interesting guy. First of all he one 30 games in 1934. He followed that up with 28 wins the next year. The problem is he only has 150 career wins. On the plus side he had a career winning percentage of .644. That’s pretty spectacular.

Chief Bender-Yes- Charles Albert Bender could play some baseball. He had a career 212-127 record for a .625 career winning percentage. Not to shabby, especially when combined with his career 2.46 ERA. He was always considered one of the best pitchers in the league.

1952-Paul Waner, Harry Heilman

Paul Waner-Yes- Big Poison was a much better player than his brother, Little Poison. He put up a career .333 batting average, and unlike his brother he could slug the ball a little and tossed up a career .473 slg to go along with his good batting average. For good measure he tossed in 3152 career hits, 1627 Runs, and 1309 RBI’s.

Harry Heilman-Yes- A guy most people don’t think about, or have even heard of, Harry could flat out rip the ball. He put up a .342 batting average and put up a .410 OBP and a .520 slugging percentage just for good measure. That gives him a career .930 OPS which is pretty stellar. He put up 2660 career hits, 1291 career runs, and 1539 career RBI’s. No question he belongs.

1951-Mel Ott, Jimmie Foxx

Mel Ott-Yes- No doubter. 511 career home runs, with .304/.414/.533. This gives him an outstanding .947 OPS. Mr. Ott was a professional slugger and his numbers show that. He also put up a very respectable 2876 career hit total and had over 1000 career extra base hits. 1859 career runs with 1860 career RBI’s are also very impressive.

Jimmie Foxx-Yes- Another no doubter, Jimmie Foxx goes into the argument as one of the greatest right handed hitters of all time. 534 homers, 1751 runs, 1922 RBI and 1000 extra base hits. His slash numbers are even more impressive .325/.428/.609. There is no question to membership into the Hall of Fame.

Tuesday, September 22, 2009

Ernie Banks a shortstop?

Ok, I get quite a bit of flack from time to time because I don't include Ernie Banks in my top five shortstops list. But there is a logical and sound reason why he isn't on my list of all-time great shortstops. The first reason is his career numbers aren't all that spectacular. However, that is actually not the reason why he doesn't make my list. He doesn't make my list because he didn't spend his entire career as a shortstop. He didn't even spend HALF of his career as a shortstop. Ernie Banks gets publicity as the only shortstop in the 500 club, but frankly, this publicity is 100% not deserved. Not because he didn't hit 500 homers, that's not in question of course, but because he spent more of his career as a first basemen then he did as a shortstop. Here is the breakdown of Ernie Banks career by position:

As a 1st Basemen:
Games played: 1238
PA: 5091
AB: 4658
R: 565
Hits: 1209
2B: 195
3B: 31
HR: 207
RBI: 758
BB: 305
SO: 659
BA: .260
OBP: .308
SLG: .448
OPS: .756
As a Shortstop:
Games Played: 955
PA: 4083
AB: 3670
R: 609
Hits: 1066
2B: 174
3B: 41
HR: 248
RBI: 691
BB: 348
SO: 450
BA: .290
OBP: 353
SLG: .564
OPS: .916
There is no question that Banks was a much better player as a shortstop, but the problem is he stopped being a shortstop by the age of 29. And when he stopped being a shortstop he really stopped being a shortstop, he never played a game there again, and he played until he was 40. He played 140 games or more at shortstop in his career only six seasons, and in a career that lasted 19 seasons I don’t think its fair to identify him with that position. It’s not fair to the other shortstops that legitimately played that position their entire career. Looking at the stats it’s easy to see which position he spent the most time at. He had more at bats, hits, and RBI’s playing first base than he did at short. He did hit more homers at short than he did at 1st but not by a wide margin. He is pretty close to half and half there. So what in the hell do we give him credit as being a shortstop in the 500 club? Especially since he only hit 248 homers as a shortstop. There is no question that he should be associated with first basemen, not with shortstops. This is a situation in which propaganda and media has affected our perception of a player. Ernie Banks was well liked, especially by the writers. They had to press the issue with the shortstop part of his career because he looks like a much better player, a top ten or top five players because of his home run total. If he was compared as a first-basemen he just doesn’t stack up. His numbers probably wouldn’t crack the top 15. Of course this blog doesn’t even go into the fact that for half of his career Banks was actually not a very good player at all, or that when he was a shortstop it was a stretch to say he was average defensively, but I am not denying that he should be a Hall of Famer, just that he should not be considered a shortstop, because that is misleading. This is the reason why Banks is not on my top five list, and this is the reason why he shouldn’t be on ANYBODIES top five list at short. Because he just isn’t a shortstop.

Monday, September 21, 2009

Five best names in baseball history!

I like names and baseball has sure had some good ones. I am not talking nicknames here, this are the actual given names of these guys.

5. Johnny Dickshot- I can't imagine what the origination of this last name is but I certainly wouldn't want to grow up with it. To make matters worse this guys nickname was Ugly. Ugly Dickshot. What a terrible name.

4. Biff Pocoroba- Absolutely a great name.

3. Razor Shines- I love it when the Cardinals play the Mets just because I know that I will get to see Razor Shines send someone homes from third. Its really a great name.

2. Sixto Lezcano- If only this guy actually had six toes.

1. Rusty Peters- Seriously what was this guys mom thinking. That is just a bad idea.

Monday, September 14, 2009

The Flu

I know a thing or two about epidemics. I guess one good thing about focusing on medical history in my M.A. is that I have gotten a good working knowledge about how epidemics work particularly those that are reoccurring epidemics such as influenza. People don’t understand a lot about what is going on with H1N1 virus. To understand the issue and why it is so frightening to a lot of people you have to go back to the Spanish Influenza epidemic from the early part of the 20th century. That epidemic was truly frightening. It had a high fatality rate and the most terrifying thing about it is that it was an indiscriminate killer. Most diseases rarely kill people in the prime of life. They focus on the elderly and the young or those that already have compromised immune systems. The Spanish Flu was not one of these. It killed people just as readily that was in perfect condition as those that were not. People could wake up feeling fine and be dead by night fall. It is theorized, though not definitively confirmed, that the Spanish Influenza was a mutated strain of avian flu. That is where the fear of these avian and swine flu’s are derived from. The fear is that eventually an avian flu will mutate to where it can be spread person to person. Then the fear is that after it does that it can mutate into the incredibly virulent and dangerous form that it has taken in the past. People think that the CDC and WHO are over reacting to these flu strains and that they are no big deal. The people who say this are right to some extent. The H1N1 as it is right now is really no big deal. It’s basically a really bad case of the flu, and unless you have a pre-existing condition then all you have to fear is really feeling like crap for a while. However, the Health Organizations are not over reacting. They have to start implementing protocols now. If they wait until the virus mutates then it will be too late and will be in mass pandemic stage before they can begin to do anything. Only by pre-emptively planning can they hope to do anything if it becomes a major worldwide pandemic. The best thing that can be done for such a situation is for them to begin planning for the worst, and to try and increase the herd immunity to the highest level that it possibly can be. If you don’t plan for the worst then if the worst happens you will be unprepared.

Friday, September 11, 2009

Where were you on 9/11?

I always here people saying "I will never forget where I was on 9/11." That is generally the way it goes with things like this. My mother said she never forgot the moment she heard the JFK has been killed, and my grandfather said he would never forget Pearl Harbor. For my generation this is our defining event, and hopefully, will always remain so. What I was ruminating about today though was why do I, the person who remembers his first year in school about as well as his tenth, remember very little detail about that day? I remember where I was of course, but other than impressions and emotions I really remember very little detail. I remember that I found out in chapel when I was at Harding University. I say my friend Trey Laminack who sat next to me in chapel that year and a ran to catch up with him as we were leaving the dorms. But other than that its quite a haze. We walked into together and immediately I felt something was wrong, the aura of the place, for lack of a better word, was oppressive. I doubt I will ever again in my life feel what its like to be in a room with 4000 other people all of home have just received the most stunning news of their life. I know many of you on my facebook friends list can relate to this, most of you were in chapel that day as well. I do remember that Kimberly was not in chapel, she was running late for chapel and had caught the news coverage before she left and then couldn't make herself leave, so the seat to my right was vacant. But after that I remember nothing about that day until noon. I don't remember what Dr. Burk said that day after Trey and I, who were also late, figured out what was going on. I was in a daze I guess, and from looking at Trey so was he. The next thing I remember was going to Cone at noon, where I was supposed to meet some friends. I remember then that we had to explain it all to Drew Dasher who had just woken up because he had slept in. He hadn't heard any of it. I remember we tried to come up with words that were adequate but we just said, "go in there and turn on the news." I remember that was probably my most vivid memory of the day, watching someone else learn the news when I myself was no longer reeling from it. At no time before then or since then have I felt myself so small, so incapacitated, and so useless before an event. I didn't think there was a situation that could so completely make my brain shut down and panic. That was the situation, and although the feeling didn't last long, that was my honest reaction, and the feeling of that helplessness and shock comes back every time the anniversary rolls around. I can't help but wonder if that was the way I felt in Arkansas how much more terrible was it for those around ground zero.

Thursday, September 10, 2009

Five Most Memorable Movie Bad Guys

I like movie bad guys, they can really make or break a movie. I am not going to list Darth Vader, or Sauron, or Voldemort, or any of the obvious choices. I am going for those with a little more quirky flair.

5. Hans Gruber, Played by Alan Rickman in ""Die Hard and the Sheriff of Nottingham from "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves." I decided to give a tie for this spot to two characters especially since both or these characters were played by the same actor. His character in Robin Hood is an excellent combination of cruel and evil, yet scared and whiney, a perfect portrayol of this particular character. In Die Hard is gives an iconic eighties performance in an iconic movie. Plus he is named for a character from "Our Man Flint" which is funny to me.

4. David Lo Pan,played by James Hong in "Big Trouble In Little China"
This movie is perhaps my favorite movie of all time. Its not the best movie I have ever seen, but it is still my favorite nonetheless. David Lo Pan is an ancient shriveled old man, EXTREMELY ancient and shriveled, who turns into an incorporeal seven foot tall unstoppable mound of magic. He is actually more terrfying as a shriveled old man than he is as a big ass magician.

3. Jean-Baptiste Emanuel Zorg played by Gary Oldman in “The Fifth Element." Has there ever been a quirkier villian? Gentile southern accent in an evil corporate president that wears a plastic plate on his head and walks with a limp. His performance of this character is hilarious and although a bit campy, it fits the tone of the movie perfectly.

2. The Joker played by Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight." Honestly its just the joker in general, not just the Ledger Joker. The joker is a great combination of funny, honest, and completely terrifying. You know when you see him on stage that he is completely insane and that even his brief moments of kindness are scary as hell. Ledger brings the most visceral and real life version of this character that there has ever been.

1. Cruela DeVille from "101 Dalmations." When I saw this movie in theater as a very young child, the fact that she was after the puppies to make a coat out of them AND was actually wearing a puppy skin coat absolutely scared the hell out of me. Not only that her demeanor with the skunk hair and the cigarette holder just add to the menace. To this day I can't see someone using a cigarette holder without instinctively thinking that they are evil.

My Top Five Most Hated Sports Teams

You know people always assume that I hate the Cubs because I am an extreme Cardinals fan. The truth is I don't really hate the Cubs. I don't particularly like their fans, and I think their booing and heckling gets a little old, but hey they can do what they want. They are only hurting themselves anyway, which is why they have some issues getting some free agents to sign there. But the point is I still don't hate the Cubs. As it is its sort of a one sided rivalry anyway. However, there are some sports teams I really do hate. And I have decided to list them here in no particular order from least hated to worst hated.

5. The Dallas Cowboys- I have always hated the Dallas Cowboys. I don't really have a reason, I just hate them. I hate the "America's Team" label and I hate Jerry Jones. They are just a very hateable team. I do root for Felix Jones to do well, but if I could wish for him to have a monster season and them to go 0-16 I would would be ok with that.

4. Milwaukee Brewers- This is more of a I hate them now situation rather than one of long term despise. I think for the most part they operate in a completely unprofessional manner, and they are a team in a bad need of a veteran leader. Most of this teams problems are because they are led by Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder. They aren't evil guys, but frat boy immature are the words that come to mind.

3. University of Texas- I can't help it, it comes with being a lifelong Hog's fan. Honorable mention in this spot to University of Tennessee for the same reason.

2. The New England Patriots- Tom Brady? An insufferable overrated prick. Bill Belichick, basically a man who makes a farce of the game with his willingness to break the rules. I absolutely LOVED it when the Patriots lost to the Giants in the superbowl. What was great about it is beforehand when Brady got upset at the Giants player who said they wouldn't score more than 21 points. Brady was like "come one, you have got to give us more credit than that." And of course they didn't meet the mark in which he considered a given. I was happy about that for a week.

1. New York Yankees- This is almost a cliche, but alas, its true for many in baseball. I hate the spending. I hate the pretentious we play the game better than you attitude. I hate the fans who call themselves the best fans in the game, but who flee the turnstiles with the speed of the Flash when the team has had losing seasons. I hate Arod and his corporate delivery of cliches and his complete lack of social skills with the press and his teammates. I hate just about every stinking thing about them. I root for them to lose every single game, and when they are in the playoffs I cheer for the other team to kick their ass no matter who they are. This year I kind of want them to make the World Series though, because I would sure the love the Cardinals to have a chance to beat them like a drum in their new ballpark.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Inglourious Basterds Movie Review 10/10

Oh where to start, where to start? This movie, in this moviegoer’s humble opinion, is Quentin Tarantino’s masterpiece to date. I am sure many will argue and say that it is and will always remain Pulp Fiction, and there are even a few who claim that title for Reservoir Dogs. I will still contend that this movie bests all of those. This is what he wants to make, a spaghetti western. If you were to go back and watch, say, Fistful of dollars or the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly you will see the comparison, most noticeably in the slow pacing, cinematic framing, and the intense prominence of dramatic music in the score, which is fantastic. This movie would not be what it is without Tarantino’s use of music, particularly of note is his use of Fur Elise during the opening scene.
First of all this movie uses a little bit of misdirection in its marketing. Not in a bad way I would say, just in way to try and keep a little mystery about it. It is an ensemble cast movie, and even though Brad Pitt is featured heavily in the preview, the movie is not focused primarily on him. He is a major character in the movie, but he gets no more screen time than any of the several other major characters. Like Pulp Fiction, this movie has several different character driven plots going on at the same time. This movie is not an action movie, and the violence, although typically Tarantino intense and gory is not the focus of the movie and is actually pretty sparse. This movie is, first and foremost character and dialogue driven, and folks, it is brilliant. The opening scene sets the pace, with a drawn out suspenseful scene completely driven by character dialogue and pacing, before given into the action. This type of thing seldom affects me, but towards the end of the scene I was sitting towards the edge of my seat. It’s this way for the entirety of the film.
And speaking of the dialogue, this movie almost counts as a foreign language film. If you have issues with subtitles this will be a problem. I didn’t count, but, I would say there is more French and German used than English in this film. However, Tarantino made a very smart move. He cast all foreign language actors to speak the French and German language sections. So all of these scenes are accurate and the accents believable. Other than Pitt probably the most recognizable actor is Diane Kruger from National Treasure 1 and 2. Even she, although you wouldn’t know it from her acting, is a native German speaker and has citizenship in Germany. I am used to subtitles as I watch a lot of foreign language films, and by 20 minutes in I had forgotten the subs and was immersed in the wonderful acting by the French and German speakers. Tarantino also uses this convention where if the point of view character cannot speak the language then the subtitles are not given for what other people are saying. It’s a nice touch of realism.
Brad Pitt does play one of the main and most memorable character and he does a fine job. However, a foreign film veteran named Christoph Waltz really steals the show. His performance, which he gives in three languages, English, French, and German, is fan-freaking-tastic. He is an absolute scene stealer, and is riveting anytime he is on the screen. If he doesn’t at least receive a nomination for Best- Supporting actor it is an injustice. I will say though, this movie overall is very well acted, and he is just the best of what is actually an incredibly stellar cast.
I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. I am aware that its few extremely brutal scenes means that it will not appeal to everyone, but those that could stomach it should see this movie. I also recommend that it be seen in the theater. The cinematography is such that it really is best to appreciate it on the big screen.