Connect with us

Entertainment

Review: 'The Golf 100' isn't so much a pecking order of greatest players. It's an index of lively profiles

Published

on

Review: 'The Golf 100' isn't so much a pecking order of greatest players. It's an index of lively profiles

From John McDermott’s fragile psyche to the sustained excellence of Jack Nicklaus and Tiger Woods — or Woods and Nicklaus; no spoiler here on who’s No. 1 — this countdown of the top golfers is less a list than an index of insightful, lively profiles rife with anecdotes centered on their most joyous and miserable moments.

“The Golf 100: A spirited ranking of the greatest players of all time” is the 16th title by author Michael Arkush, most of them from the sports realm including New York Times bestsellers “The Last Season” with Phil Jackson and “The Big Fight” with Sugar Ray Leonard. This one is all Arkush and displays his storytelling — some sweet, some savory, a few bitter — in bite-size pieces.

He includes greats from the early 20th century. He includes greats from other countries. He includes women. Why? Because their stories are compelling, even if ranking them became messy.

So, yes, there are 100 in all, spread over 366 pages.

Lists of the greatest golfers aren’t a novel conceit. GolfDay published one a year ago. Golf Digest has its own. Folks have concocted lists on Reddit. Bleacher Report took a swing. There is even the website thealltimegreatestgolfers.com.

Advertisement

Times sportswriter Houston Mitchell got more than 12,000 readers to respond in 2009 to a poll ranking golfers. The top five are among Arkush’s top 10, although not remotely in the same order.

Most rankings are based on point systems, assigning weighted numbers to categories such as total tournaments won, top-10 finishes, player of the year awards, career longevity and performance in the four majors — the U.S. Open, Masters, British Open and PGA Championship.

Arkush prioritized the majors, writing in the forward that they “feature the strongest fields and, more often than not, are staged on the most demanding courses. When history is on the line.”

Still, Arkush allowed himself license after covering professional golf for 30 years (he was an entertainment reporter for The Times from 1988 to 1995). Once the numbers were tabulated, he shuffled the deck by employing subjective criteria such as a golfer’s impact or contributions to the sport.

“I was similar to a juror who, despite a stern warning from the judge not to let evidence deemed inadmissible be a factor in the verdict, couldn’t help its affecting his thinking in one way or another,” Arkush wrote.

Advertisement

An example is his inclusion of Francis Ouimet, a name unfamiliar to all but the most serious golf history buffs. He won the 1913 U.S. Open at the tender age of 20 over Harry Vardon, a British golf titan credited with inventing the modern grip and swing. Bobby Jones, the epitome of class, came along next, and the pendulum soon swung to the U.S. side of the Atlantic.

Like so many writers, Arkush was loath to let numbers get in the way of a good yarn, beginning with ranking McDermott at No. 100. The cheeky son of a mailman became the first American to win the U.S. Open in 1911 — at age 19 — one year after he finished second to Scottish immigrant Alex Smith, telling him as they exited the course, “I’ll get you next year, you big tramp.”

McDermott’s penchant for popping off soon got him in trouble, and that was followed by a steep fall. He embarrassed the more genteel of his countrymen by bragging about his Open victories in the presence of Vardon. Then he was saved by a lifeboat after being a victim of a shipwreck. Then he lost a fortune in the stock market. Then he was committed to a sanitarium in 1916 and was never the same.

Arkush concludes the profile describing a chance meeting between an elderly McDermott and a gracious Arnold Palmer that provides a poignant connection between the infancy of professional golf in America and its elevation in stature to the “Arnie’s Army” level by 1970.

Only 99 to go.

Advertisement

The list includes 15 women, trailblazers and champions such as Mickey Wright, whose 82 Tour victories included 13 majors and whose swing was lauded as the best of anyone regardless of gender by no less than Ben Hogan.

Pioneers of the sport, firmly planted in the wellspring of 19th-century Scotland, are given their due. While the Union and Confederate armies were preparing for war across the pond, Willie Park Jr. and Old Tom Morris exuded geniality and competence on the green, dominating the British Open from its inception in 1860 through more than a decade.

Old Morris passed on his mashie niblick — an early term for a seven iron — to his equally talented son, Young Tom Morris, who won the British Open four times from 1868 to 1872. They are the only father-son combo among the 100.

Americans began to hold their own by the 1920s, and professional golf has increased in popularity as a spectator sport to this day. It’s also an endeavor that nearly anyone can try and many become passionate about.

One hundred is a somewhat arbitrary number to cap excellence, impact and irresistible storytelling. It’s plenty for Arkush to mine, though, and relate the history of golf through the very best golfers.

Advertisement

As for the thorny task of comparing golfers across generations and even centuries, Arkush leans on the wisdom of Jones, whose words can be extrapolated fairly to include women as well as men:

“I think we must agree that all a man can do is beat the people who are around at the same time he is. He cannot win from those who came before any more than he can from those who may come afterward.”

Movie Reviews

Movie Review | Sentimental Value

Published

on

Movie Review | Sentimental Value

A man and a woman facing each other

Sentimental Value (Photo – Neon)

Full of clear northern light and personal crisis, Sentimental Value felt almost like a throwback film for me. It explores emotions not as an adjunct to the main, action-driven plot but as the very subject of the movie itself.

Sentimental Value
Directed by Joachim Trier – 2025
Reviewed by Garrett Rowlan

The film stars Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav Borg, a 70-year-old director who returns to Oslo to stir up interest in a film he wants to make, while health and financing in an era dominated by bean counters still allow it. He hopes to film at the family house and cast his daughter Nora, a renowned stage actress in her own right, as the lead. However, Nora struggles with intense stage fright and other personal issues. She rejects the role, disdaining the father who abandoned the family when he left her and her sister Agnes as children. In response, Gustav lures a “name” American actress, Rachel Keys (Elle Fanning), to play the part.

Sentimental Value, written by director Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt, delves into sibling dynamics, the healing power of art, and how family trauma can be passed down through generations. Yet the film also has moments of sly humor, such as when the often oblivious Gustav gives his nine-year-old grandson a birthday DVD copy of Gaspar Noé’s dreaded Irreversible, something intense and highly inappropriate.

For me, the film harkens back to the works of Ingmar Bergman. The three sisters (with Elle Fanning playing a kind of surrogate sister) reminded me of the three siblings in Bergman’s 1972 Cries and Whispers. In another sequence, the shot composition of Gustav and his two daughters, their faces blending, recalls the iconic fusion of Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson’s faces in Persona.

Advertisement

It’s the acting that truly carries the film. Special mention goes to Renate Reinsve, who portrays the troubled yet talented Nora, and Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav, an actor unafraid to take on unlikable characters (I still remember him shooting a dog in the original Insomnia). In both cases, the subtle play of emotions—especially when those emotions are constrained—across the actors’ faces is a joy to watch. Elle Fanning and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (who plays Agnes, the other sister with her own set of issues) are both excellent.

It’s hardly a Christmas movie, but more deeply, it’s a winter film, full of emotions set in a cold climate.

> Playing at Landmark Pasadena Playhouse, Laemmle Glendale, and AMC The Americana at Brand 18.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Appreciation: Rob Reiner’s humanity was a signature of his TV work, in front of and behind the camera

Published

on

Appreciation: Rob Reiner’s humanity was a signature of his TV work, in front of and behind the camera

Rob Reiner was a movie director who began as an actor who wanted to direct movies. The bridge between these careers was “This Is Spinal Tap” in 1984, his first proper film, in which he also acted. His original inclination, based on the music documentaries he had studied, had been not to appear onscreen, but he decided there was practical value in greeting the audience with a face familiar from eight seasons of “All in the Family” as Archie Bunker’s left-wing son-in-law, Michael “Meathead” Stivic.

Reiner’s television career began at 21, partnered with Steve Martin, writing for “The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour.” As an actor, his early years were characterized by the small parts and guest shots that describe the early career of many performers we come to know well. He played multiple characters on episodes of “That Girl” and “Gomer Pyle, USMC,” a delivery boy on “Batman,” and appeared on “The Andy Griffith Show” and “Room 222.” His last such role, in 1971, the same year “All in the Family” premiered, was on “The Partridge Family” as a tender-hearted, poetry-writing, tattooed biker who becomes attached to Susan Dey‘s character and somewhat improbably takes her to a school dance. It’s a performance that prefigures the tenderness and humanity that would become a signature of his work as a writer, director and performer — and, seemingly, a person.

On “All in the Family,” in his jeans and work shirt, with a drooping mustache that seemed to accentuate a note of sadness, Reiner largely played the straight man, an irritant to Carroll O’Connor’s Archie Bunker, teeing up the issue-oriented dialectic. Once in a while he’d be given a broad comic meal to chew, as when wife Gloria (Sally Struthers) goes into labor while they’re out for dinner, and he accelerates into classic expectant-father sitcom panic. But minus the “Meathead” material, “All in the Family” is as much a social drama as it is a comedy, with Mike and Gloria struggling with money, living with her parents, new parenthood, and a relationship that blows hot and cold until it finally blows out for good. He’s not a Comic Creation, like Archie or Edith with their malaprops and mispronunciations, or even Gloria, but his importance to the storytelling was certified by two supporting actor Emmys.

Rob Reiner, Sally Struthers, Caroll O’Connor and Jean Stapleton in a scene from Norman Lear’s television series “All in the Family.”

(Bettmann Archive via Getty Image)

Advertisement

What Reiner carried from “Family” into his later appearances was a sort of bigness. He could seem loud — and loudness is something Norman Lear’s shows reveled in — even when he’s speaking quietly. Physically he occupied a lot of space, more as time went on, and beginning perhaps with “Spinal Tap,” in which he played director Marty DiBergi, he transformed tonally into a sort of gentle Jewish Buddha. In the 2020 miniseries “Hollywood,” Ryan Murphy’s alternate history of the 1930s picture business, the studio head he plays is not the desk-banger of cliche, but he is a man with an appetite. (“Get me some brisket and some of those cheesy potatoes and a lemon meringue pie,” he tells a commissary waiter — against doctor’s orders, having just emerged from a heart attack-induced coma. “One meal’s not going to kill me.”) He’s the boss, but, in a scene as lovely as it is historically unlikely, he allows his wife (Patti LuPone), who has been running things during his absence, to also be the boss.

Reiner left “All in the Family” in 1978, after its eighth season to explore life outside Michael Stivic. (In 1976, while still starring on “Family,” he tested those waters, appearing on an episode of “The Rockford Files” as a narcissistic third-rate football player.) “Free Country,” which he co-created with frequent writing partner Phil Mishkin, about a family of Lithuanian immigrants in the early 1900s, aired five episodes that summer. The same year, ABC broadcast the Reiner-Mishkin-penned TV movie “More Than Friends” (available on Apple TV) in which Reiner co-starred with then-wife Penny Marshall. Directed by James Burrows, whose dance card would fill up with “Taxi,” “Cheers” and “3rd Rock From the Sun,” it’s in some respects a dry run for Reiner’s “When Harry Met Sally…,” tracking a not-quite-romantic but ultimately destined relationship across time.

Future Spinal Tap lead singer Michael McKean appears there as a protest singer, while the 1982 CBS TV movie “Million Dollar Infield,” written again with Mishkin, features Reiner alongside future Spinal Tap lead guitarist Christopher Guest and bassist Harry Shearer; it’s a story of baseball, families and therapy. Co-star Bruno Kirby the year before had co-written and starred in Reiner’s directorial debut, “Tommy Rispoli: A Man and His Music,” a short film that aired on the long-gone subscription service On TV as part of the “Likely Stories” anthology. Kirby’s character, a Frank Sinatra-loving limo driver (driving Reiner as himself), found its way into “This Is Spinal Tap,” though here he is the center of a Reineresque love story.

After “Spinal Tap,” as Reiner’s directing career went from strength to strength, he continued to act in other people’s pictures (“Sleepless in Seattle,” “Primary Colors,” “Bullets Over Broadway” and “The Wolf of Wall Street,” to name but a few) and some of his his own, up to this year’s “Spinal Tap II: The End Continues.” On television, he mostly played himself, which is to say versions of himself, on shows including “It’s Garry Shandling’s Show,” “Curb Your Enthusiasm” and, of all things, “Hannah Montana,” with a few notable exceptions.

Advertisement
A bald man in a brown blazer standing next to a woman in glasses and an orange top looking at a woman, seen from behind.

Rob Reiner and Jamie Lee Curtis play the divorced parents of Jess (Zooey Deschanel) in Fox’s “New Girl.”

(Ray Mickshaw / Fox)

The most notable of these, to my mind, is “New Girl,” in which Reiner appeared in 10 episodes threaded through five of the series’ seven seasons, as Bob Day, the father of Zooey Deschanel’s Jess. Jamie Lee Curtis, married to Guest in the real world, played his ex-wife, Joan, with Kaitlin Olson as his new, much younger partner, Ashley, who had been in high school with Jess. He’s positively delightful here, whether being overprotective of Deschanel or suffering her ministrations, dancing around Curtis, or fencing with Jake Johnson’s Nick. Improvisational rhythms characterize his performance, whether he’s sticking to the script or not. Most recently, he recurred in the fourth season of “The Bear,” which has also featured Curtis, mentoring sandwich genius Ebraheim (Edwin Lee Gibson); their scenes feel very much like what taking a meeting with Reiner might be like.

Coincidentally, I have had Reiner in my ear over the past couple of weeks, listening to the audiobook version of “A Fine Line: Between Stupid and Clever,” which he narrates with contributions from McKean, Shearer and Guest. A story of friendship and creativity and ridiculousness, all around a wonderful thing that grew bigger over the years, Reiner’s happy reading throws this tragedy into sharper relief. I have a DVD on the way, though I don’t know when I’ll be up to watching it. I only know I will.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

No More Time – Review | Pandemic Indie Thriller | Heaven of Horror

Published

on

No More Time – Review | Pandemic Indie Thriller | Heaven of Horror

Where is the dog?

You can call me one-track-minded or say that I focus on the wrong things, but do not include an element that I am then expected to forget. Especially if that “element” is an animal – and a dog, even.

In No More Time, we meet a couple, and it takes quite some time before we suddenly see that they have a dog with them. It appears in a scene suddenly, because their sweet little dog has a purpose: A “meet-cute” with a girl who wants to pet their dog.

After that, the dog is rarely in the movie or mentioned. Sure, we see it in the background once or twice, but when something strange (or noisy) happens, it’s never around. This completely ruins the illusion for me. Part of the brilliance of having an animal with you during an apocalyptic event is that it can help you.

And yet, in No More Time, this is never truly utilized. It feels like a strange afterthought for that one scene with the girl to work, but as a dog lover, I am now invested in the dog. Not unlike in I Am Legend or Darryl’s dog in The Walking Dead. As such, this completely ruined the overall experience for me.

If it were just me, I could (sort of) live with it. But there’s a reason why an entire website is named after people demanding to know whether the dog dies, before they’ll decide if they’ll watch a movie.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending