News just broke that the Oscars Best Picture race, which has already been expanded to include 10 films, will change their voting rules. They are now using the system that they use for nominating films - putting your fave films in order and then having some equation tally up the points. The problem with this, of course, is that now people can basically vote AGAINST films. In the past, you voted for one film and the film with the most votes won. Now, you can love a film and vote for it but if there's a film that you don't care about, you can put it at ten and almost cancel out a first place vote. This all but spells doom for controversial films because mixed reviews will likely bring the film down while a movie that is a steady top 3 or 4 on the list could ultimately be called the winner.

The nomination process for the Oscars was always screwed up and moving that process to the winner just makes the award show all the more of a sham. I stopped caring about the Oscars a few years ago but this move just makes matters worse. Let's be honest, the Oscars have become more of a fashion show than an actual celebration of the best of that year in film. Especially this decade when foreign films, documentaries, and Pixar should have run away with the awards.

If they finally give Pixar credit, "Up" should get nominated and it might just be able to be near the top of enough lists (and avoid the botton of most) to win the trophy. I also wouldn't be surprised if a well-liked but not loved trifle like "Star Trek" got a boost because of this (if it can get nominated). A film like "Inglorious Basterds" which has a very divided reaction, probably just lost any hope of winning.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nothing takes me out of a movie than when a hero or key character does something incredibly stupid. When a plot is set in motion by a character doing something completely illogical, I just can't follow along. I don't care and most times I feel no sympathy for the heroes. The last episode of "True Blood" featured a couple of these moments and the series "Heroes" basically got all of their tension out of people acting illogically.

What makes matters worse is when the same person who pulled the stupid move to get the protagonists into trouble is also the same person who figures out how to get them out. Maybe it reminds me too much of the workplace in which people are often inexplicably given credit for saving the workplace from a disaster they themselves created but it is something that I find incredibly annoying. I had to stop watching "Heroes" because of it. The supposed Heroes caused at least 75% of their own problems. Watching them clean up their own messes just didn't interest me and when one season was promoted as the heroes fighting off a government plan to round them up, I was rooting for the government. How can you root for people who keep putting the world at risk?

One of the more recent examples of this was in "Fringe". The lead character is kidnapped and almost experimented on, her lover had earlier turned out to be a double-agent, every week she's finding more crazy things happening around her, someone is obviously out to get her, and then her sister and niece come and ask to stay with her and she says it's fine. No problem. She literally had just escaped her captors and then moments later apparently sees no problem whatsoever with her loved ones crashing at her pad. Needless to say, we're supposed to be stunned when the niece immediately find herself in harm's way.

The bottom line is that if the inciting action of a movie is a mistake of some sort, it has to be an honest mistake that most of the audience would have made. If someone does something stupid or completely illogical, it throws off the rest of the film. The foundation of the script is weak and there might not be anything that happens afterwards that can save it. If your character do stupid things, odds are that your movie is going to seem stupid.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm not sure how this move will shake up the Marvel films series but Disney today bought the comic book giant for a whopping 4 billion dollars. Iron Man and Spider-man are currently being produced by other studios so I'm not sure if Disney will try to take those franchises over or if they will gladly sit back and let someone else do the dirty work on them. The move is a coup for both the Disney channel (which might now be able to start airing some superhero stuff that boys will like) and the parks, which can now have Marvel-based rides.

Marvel fans do have some concerns though. Will Disney be as focused on the comic book end of the company? Will the films look to become more family friendly and will many of the smaller characters be condemned to straight-to-DVD films? It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

On a stock level, the Marvel stock shot up 10 bucks today as Disney is offering 50 bucks per share (in cash and Disney stock).

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:41 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Defamer posted Eric Spiegelman's time lapse video of the sky over one of the wildfires burning up Los Angeles.

Time Lapse Test: Station Fire from Eric Spiegelman on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The following clip pretty much epitomizes everything that is wrong with Glenn Beck.

Many blogs have jumped on the spelling error. It's embarrassing but Beck explained it away by pointing out that the word Czars had been on the blackboard earlier in the week and they just forgot it on Thursday. But, to me, the biggest problem is the fact that he seems to notice the problem in the clip (notice that he pauses before saying "H") but decides not to fix it. In typical Beck fashion, he doesn't let the facts get in the way of his rantings, even when he knows that his rant is going to make the mistake even worse (when he said only one letter was missing and that letter was Y). Beck would rather steam ahead with his opinion rather than make sure it is right.

My second issue is his over-the-top vocabulary. Beck claims that he is tired of being a sheep but I really don't recall him ever being sheepish about bashing the Obama Administration. He wasn't sheepish when it was just the Obama campaign. He then says he's going to take the gloves off but really all he's doing is his basic right, presenting another plan or another idea. This isn't some great act of defiance; it's his civic duty.
Some people might complain that the taking the gloves off comment is a violent image and could incite people but it's a common phrase that's used all the time so I think that's going too far. That being said, Beck makes himself out to be some sort of hero for just speaking his mind. The worst part, of course, is "saving our Republic". Obama hasn't been in office for even a year, his big health care plan isn't looking to good right now, how in the world is our Republic being ruined by progressives? It's also a bit troubling to fault progressives for everything that is wrong in America when it was progressives who pretty much powered through every great moment of social change in this country and if it wasn't for progressives, we wouldn't have medicare.

But the biggest problem with Beck is his hypocrisy. What was his plan to save the Republic? He wants his viewers to write their representatives and ask them Beck's five questions to see if they are In or Out and if they are out, then the viewers should vote those people out of office. While Beck keeps telling people to question everything, he doesn't allow any questions of his own beliefs. He doesn't seem to want anyone to question his five issues. He has given his five commandments and those are the guidelines that make one fit to be a member of the US government. If you disagree, you are out, no questions asked.

Nevermind that boiling down issues to yes or no questions is simply ignorant but to demand people question authority and then make yourself an authority and not take or even acknowledge the possibility of questions is the peak of hypocrisy.

Oh, and his five points? Yeah, they are absolutely nonsensical. As the author on the 24ahead.com site explains:

Beck is slightly on the right track, but what he's proposing is never going to have an impact outside his echo chamber. Beck suffers from the same mental problem that most others - especially those on the right-wing - suffer from. They come up with ideas but don't bother thinking through how to actually implement them. They don't think through what could go wrong; they don't plan for contingencies. They seem to think that simply by stating something it will happen. Well, that's wrong. In order to have an impact, you have to have an actual "Point A to Point B" plan. And, part of that plan is to show how the other side is wrong and you have to show that to the supporters of the other side. Simple demagoguery such as that employed by Beck is not going to cut it. If you just want to waste your time on things that aren't going to have an impact, don't let me stop you.

Any keep reading to see the five points yourself (but don't question them, just do what Glenn says.)

So here's Beck's "plan" which is really just a bunch of ideals.

1. I believe in a balanced budget and therefore will vote for a freeze in government spending until that goal is realized.

As the 24ahead site points out, an outright freeze in government spending would topple the United States and possibly the world. Can you imagine if the US just said, "Sorry, not gonna pay for anything until we save up enough cash." 24head guesses that he meant INCREASES but to even just say that is outright ignorant. We're in the middle of one war in Afghanistan and getting out of another one in Iraq. Do you really think that we should just say to the military, "You guys just have to make to with what you have. Don't ask for anything more until we balance this budget."
We definitely need to look on what were spending our money on, if we're getting the most bang from our buck, and how we can curb earmarks and start to focus on making laws that don't have countless random deals stuck to them. But that's a completely different issue than just saying, "Freeze spending."

2. I believe government should not increase the financial burden on its citizenry during difficult economic times therefore I will oppose all tax increases until our economy has rebounded.

Again, this is a childish way of looking at things, especially if you're looking to balance the budget. Just like with spending, there's good spending and wasteful spending. With taxes, there are necessary taxes, good taxes, and excessive taxes. Beck paints them all with the same brush: they're bad.

3. I believe more than four decades of U.S. dependence on foreign oil is a travesty therefore I will support an energy plan that calls for immediately increasing usage of all domestic resources including nuclear energy, natural gas, and coal as necessary.

I think everyone can agree with the first point about foreign oil but I'm really not sure how someone can effectively put into place a new energy bill without spending any money (since Beck's American can't increase spending). Do you really want to get more out of nuclear power but not also raise the level of safety inspections? And how exactly will the US Government convince these companies to stop using oil? And what about cars? Are we looking for alternatively fueled automobiles and, again, why should people give up their gas based cars? Again, like most of his comments, this isn't really a plan but a set of best case scenario goals or ideals. What he doesn't have, however, is an actual real world plan or even hint of an idea on how to make them happen.

4. I believe in the sovereignty and security of our country and therefore will support measures to close our borders except for designated immigration points so we will know who is entering and why and I will vehemently oppose any measure giving another country, the United Nations, or any other entity, power over U.S. citizens.

Yeah, I can't wait to see the fights over which state gets to be the "designated immigration points"? And isn't one of the bigger problems ILLEGAL immigrants? How is this going to fix that unless we build a fence or station soldiers along the border to keep people out. Oh, but we can't do either of those because the government isn't spending any more money so I guess we'll just have to ask for armed volunteers to roam the border. As for the "power over U.S. citizens" line, it's too broad to really address. Does it mean that foreign courts can't hold US citizens accountable for their crimes? Does it mean that no U.S. citizen can be accused of war crimes?

5. I believe the United States of America is the greatest country on earth and therefore will not apologize for policies or actions which have served to free more and feed more people around the world than any other nation on the planet.

This is just pure ignorance. It's the sign of someone who can't figure out that there's a difference between being the greatest and being perfect. No country is perfect and therefore no country, even the US, should consider themselves above apologies or above having to pay for their mistakes. Some would say that it is the greater man knows when he's done wrong and must repent; they don't see it as a sign of weakness.

Of course, I still have no idea how any of this really help save the Republic. It doesn't solve the health care issue, it doesn't deal with the banking fiasco, it doesn't fix our schools. Beck simply tells people to question the current administration and vote in idealogues who agree with him.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Golden State Warriors' Stephen Jackson wants a trade. He wants to go to a contender. But just last offseason, he signed a lengthy and relatively expensive extension to stay with the Warriors. An extension that makes him a very hard to trade, especially right now since so many teams are saving cap space for the 2010 offseason. Apparently, he doesn't care that the Warriors overpaid to keep him (and he agreed to stay), he wants out.

The Jackson case in one that seems to be plaguing the NBA. Guys will take the money and then suddenly whine that the team that really wasn't that good when they signed the contract isnt' that good. It's annoying for fans because now they have to deal with an unhappy Stephen Jackson. Even worse, Jackson has named five teams he wants to go to as if he's good enough to make those kinds of demands. Now if Stephen really meant it, he could agree to a one dollar buy out of his contract. That way he gets to be a free agent and Golden State isn't stuck with his contract on their salary cap. But he isn't going to do that because that could cost him 15 million dollars.

The biggest problem with this is that it's just one case in an ever-growing problem; a problem that could lead to a strike when the next Collective Bargaining Agreement needs to be negotiated. The issue is guaranteed contract. In football (which doesn't have guaranteed deals), the Warriors could just waive him, not owe him anything, and his contract wouldn't count against their salary cap. The problem with that, however, is that non-guaranteed contracts also allow holdouts, as players can demand a new contract after a great season. In basketball, I think this could be a huge problem so non-guaranteed deals aren't really an option.

I believe that guaranteed contracts are the way to go but what players and GMs/Owners need to realize that the onus in on themselves to make this work. Stephen Jackson commented to Dime Magazine, "At this point, I'm 31 years old. I have four or five years left. I want to be in a situation where I can continually be in the playoffs and get another ring. So that's where my mind is at now." Well, why wasn't his mind there last year when he was 30 years old? Did he really think the Warriors were going to continually be in the playoffs? The team had made the post-season once in the last 14 years and they had just let their captain and best player (Baron Davis) leave via free agency. When Jackson re-signed with the Warriors, he had to have known that this was a team that was going to have to fight to remain mediocre.

This isn't to say that all of the blame is on the players. It's annoying to listen to owners whine about exorbitant salaries when they are the ones who keep offering ridiculous contracts to people. The owners really have nobody to blame for most of these issues but themselves. Stephen Jackson's contract extension was a bad move when the Warriors agreed to it and it's not getting any better. Owners basically want a system that can save them from themselves. Actually hiring competent general managers or spending their money wisely seems like something that is just not possible.

In the end, either Stephen Jackson needs to realize that he made his bed and just needs to lie in it or this situation could get ugly. And not just ugly for the Warriors but for the NBA and their dwindling fan base.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

James Toback's "Tyson" is little more that Mike Tyson in his own words. While that does limit the ability to really look at all sides of issues, it's nonetheless a fairly riveting film. It's always interesting to listen to Tyson speak and the stories he tells about the beginning of his life, from growing up to being mentored by Cus D'Amato are particularly interesting.

As can be expected though, the stories don't seem as poignant once you get to his downfall. Most of the time, he sounds like a guy who recognizes what he did wrong but doesn't seem able to change. He just doesn't seem to realize how his mindset keeps leading him astray. All of the hypocrisies that have brought him down still remain. For all of the times he says that he blames himself, you can see that that is as far as he's willing or able to go. He can blame himself for making mistakes but can't seem to change or really even understand how.

Tyson is one of the better films of the year but it leaves you with an almost unsatisfying feeling of wanting somthing more but knowing that you'll never get.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:08 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Before I start, I'd just like to point out that, yes, I don't have a lot of money invested in the market. Just 5k. But with the way the market has been of late, I'm not sure many people would be willing to invest more than that and personally, that's all I have to invest. It might not be glamorous or high stakes but it's a good place to start.

As for this week, there is still some after hours trading to be done but barring any major shifts, it was a good five days for me. The portfolio improved by 302 dollars. The annoying part, however, was that the stocks that I recently sold also did well so I probably should have held onto them. The biggest mistake was AIG. The stock went up 16 dollars this week. If I had held onto my shares, I would have made $400 dollars on that stock alone. If I had bought one option contract (at the time, I was looking at $34 Jan 10 option), it would have made me $1400. Instead I took my tiny profits and reinvested in Papa John's which made me about 9 dollars, which doesn't even cover the cost to buy a stock on Sharebuilder. Still, I can't feel THAT bad because every analyst out there is completely confused as to why AIG, a company that is still in a lot of trouble, is skyrocketing.

Besides the Woulda Coulda Shoulda, I played it safe and sold a few of my options for a small profit, making just under 150 bucks on those investments. I reinvested in an option on Electro-Optical Science, a company that is awaiting FDA approval for a device that will be able to catch melanomas faster than ever. I bought 25 shares of the stock on August 13th and have made 27% gains so after the stock dropped down a bit, I decided to go in with an option. Reports say that if they get the FDA approval, the stock could double so I think it's a good roll of the dice (even if it does sound very Boiler Room-ish).

As for the rest of the portfolio, I'm thinking about cashing out of Bank of America. I've made just over 50 bucks (17% return) but I'm afraid that the stock has peaked for the time being. It's above Morningstar.com's fair value estimate so it might be time to sell. My Manitowoc Co. option dipped and if it gets back to 2.50, I might just take the small profit and run. In both cases, I'd rather risk losing another AIG than holding onto another Wendy's; that option has lost almost 60% of its value and is up in September so time is not on my side. While the profits for AIG could have been huge, that seems to be more of the exception than the rule. I'll take my singles and doubles rather than going for the home run. In the black, my Citibank option has doubled, Kroger started down but bounced back to show a small profit, and my recent Gannett and Omnitron purchases brought back 17% gains.

Besides Wendy's, my big loser was Ford. The option was up to 1.50 but is now back down to 75 cents. I tested my luck on a cheap stock US Geothermal and that is down 25%. The US Steel (X) roller coaster is on the down sideright now; I should have opted for Caterpillar instead but that stock purchase is a long term deal so it's probably still too early to judge it since X has a higher ceiling.

So as I said, my current lifetime earnings are 302 dollars. It seems like absolutely nothing but it's a nice comeback seeing as my initial stock purchases has me down 400 dollars when I re-started investing a month ago.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:23 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Star Wars Kid, Two Girls One Cup, The "Dramatic Look" hamster, there are a ton of viral videos that have captured people's attention and then been remixed or had spinoffs but I'm not sure if any of them has been as consistently funny as the "Downfall" clips. These clips take a key scene from the film about the fall of HItler and change the subtitles so that Hitler is upset about all sorts of things, from Lamar Odom's contract situation to Tony Romo dumping Jessica Simpson to (below) the reaction to the Avatar trailer.

So what say you? What are your favorite viral videos?

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:14 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Flipping through channels, I made the mistake of stopping at MSNBC. It only took a few minutes for Keith Olbermann to tick me off. He's now making a big deal about the man who said, at a town hall, that he was proud to be a right wing terrorist and that the Representative who was holding the event didn't dress him down for saying it. However, when you watch the clip (which Olbermann showed on the show), I think it's pretty obvious that the guy was reacting to the media's portrayal of the entire right wing as terrorists. He cited things that he did, like go to a tea party website, and basically just left out one phrase, albeit a key phrase: "If that's what liberals want to call a terrorist, THEN I'm proud to be a right wing terrorist."

Unfortunately, Olbermann is too busy vilifying people to try to find the root of the problem. Maybe he could look at what the right is doing and look at what he is doing on his show and figure out that he is doing nothing to help his cause in the slightest. Glenn Beck preaches fear and tells the American people that the government is out to get them. Keith Olbermann says that people who watch Fox News are loons and racists and assorted other insults. And MSNBC is surprised that they can't get ratings. When will the Left learn that you can't win the people over by insulting them? Too often liberals go into a fight selling Hope but once the going gets rough, they just start bitching about how nobody is as smart as them. Only once in a blue moon do you actually get a situation (like Sen. John McCain's reaction to the fiscal crisis) when the Right actually shows that they don't really have a plan.

Whenever people whine about bailouts, nobody ever reminds them that if it wasn't for the bailouts a whole hell of a lot more of their fellow citizens would be out of a job right now. When the Right says that the government wants to take over health care, the Dems need to say that they are just trying to help people protect themselves against the big insurance companies. If Obama really wants to work with Republicans, make them come up with their own bill and to bring something to the table other than vague notions, plans that can't be funded, and ideas that protect everyone except the actual patients.

Needless to say, the whole thing is still frustrating me.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I've lived in Hollywood now for almost ten years and one of the things I like to keep an eye on is which stores on Hollywood Blvd. make it and which are gone in the blink of an eye. Many of the shops and restaurants that were around when I first moved here are gone; the ones that seems to have the best staying power are cheap lingerie stores and "exotic shoe stores".

With that in mind, I guess it makes sense that the first barber shop to open on this little strip is called Barber Dollz. Their tagline: "It's the TRIM that keeps you COMING back."

I don't know. This just doesn't seem to be a place that I'd want to go to. Not only do I not want my barber shop using looks as one of the main criteria for hiring their staff and I already think barber small talk is awkward enough; I can't imagine that my sporting a woodrow is going to make it any easier.

Of course, this kind of place seems to be trendy. The first time I heard about a sexy barber shop was in, of all places, Salt Lake City. They go a step further and are clad in bikinis.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There are still a few valuable free agents left but most of the offseason moves are in the books and almost all of the big rumors are surrounding lesser teams so I thought it would be a good time to check in on the NBA and see how the teams are stacking up.

Obviously there are five teams at the top, the Lakers and Spurs in the West and the Cavs, Celtics, and Magic in the East. After that, it's pretty wide open with a number of teams looking to make it to the second season this year. Some of them are team trying to rebound from a lost season while a bunch of young squads have their sights set on getting out of the lottery and into the playoffs.

So how does it look right now?

THE ELITE

1. LA Lakers: For the first time in years, the focus in LA won't be on Kobe Bryant. The addition of Ron Artest gives the Lakers are very good player and tough defender but he also is a headcase who breaks plays and could be subtraction by addition. Phil Jackson won't be able to sit back and coach from the seat of his pants this year as Artest could put all of Phil's Zen teachings to the test. Right now, I'm not willing to bet against the Lake Show but they are by no means a sure thing to repeat.

2. Boston Celtics: On the bright side, injuries were what derailed the Celtics' quest to repeat as NBA champs. If KG doesn't go down, they probably get past Orlando and the battle versus the Lakers would have been epic. On the other hand, KG's injury might be a sign of the times and the team is filled with veterans who might also get worn down by a full season. Thankfully, the Celts bolstered their bench with Rasheed Wallace and (supposedly) Marquis Daniels, two guys who can eat some minutes and let the Big Three rest.
Then there's Rajon Rondo. Rumors have been flying about his attitude. It's been a while since I've been torn on a player like Rondo; sometimes I love him, most times I wonder if the Celtics wouldn't be better off selling high while he's still a cheap trade asset. Either way, he'd have to become an capital A Asshole to let his ego derail the Celtics' title chances and I just don't see that happening.

San Antonio Spurs: Richard Jefferson could be the missing piece of the puzzle but it depends on which RJ shows up. When Jefferson came into the league, he was a third wheel who played his role and wasn't afraid to focus on defense. Over the last few years, however, he's become a guy who is more focused on offense and often slacked off on his defensive assignments. If RJ turns back the clock, the Spurs could be tough to beat. But then there's the bigger "IF".
The Spurs biggest problem is health, or lack thereof. This team simply can't stay make it through the season without getting banged up. They have to keep an eye on Manu Ginobili; if he doesn't seem like he's going to make it through the season, they might have to bite the bullet and deal him and his expiring contract for someone that will be in one piece come playoffs time.

4. Orlando Magic: I love the addition of Vince Carter. As good as Hedo was, I think Vince has two or three great years in him. In fact, I liked pretty much all of their offseason moves. The Magic might have a rough start with all of the new pieces but I think they'll still be able to make a strong run towards another Finals.

5. Cleveland Cavaliers: Everyone saw the Cavs getting Shaq as a game changer. And it might be. For the Cavs and LeBron James. Cleveland may have some of the same issues that Phoenix did with the Diesel. He's going to clog up the lane, which could make the team easier to defend. Zydrunas Ilgauskas's ability to knock down jumpers is a much better complement to LeBron than Shaq's girth. In fact, the past approach to the season might be to start Big Z and have Shaq anchor the second unit. The Cavs are a great team but I think all of the teams above them can game plan to beat them in a seven game series.

---

THE GOOD BUT NOT GREAT

6. Denver Nuggets: It will take one or two of the Nuggets' players to make huge strides for them to challenge the elite of the NBA. Unfortunately, I'm not sure we can expect much more improvement from Carmelo Anthony and JR Smith so the Nuggets might have to be content with being the best of the also-rans

Portland Trailblazers: The Blazers have a deep talent pool but to become an elite team, they need to swap some of that depth for a star. I have no problem with how Kevin Pritchard has played his hand so far but if he keeps holding onto all of his cards and doesn't try to make a deadline deal this offseason, I'll probably be off the bandwagon. As for the team itself, Andre Miller is an improvement at the point but he doesn't fix their biggest issue, which is a lack a killer instinct. They absolutely wilted when they were on a big stage last year. Brandon Roy has a bit of a mean streak and Rudy Fernandez might have some tenacity in him, but the rest of the team seems pretty soft.

8. Utah Jazz:: The bottom line is that the Jazz need to trade Carlos Boozer for a swingman that's worth a damn. Until they do that, there's really not much to talk about. They are a good team with a ceiling of home court in the playoffs and a competitive second round loss.

9. New Orleans Hornets: Maybe Emeka Okafor can help his new teammates realize how lucky they are to be playing on a winning team but if that doesn't happen, New Orleans will remain a squad that seems to understand that they are good but not good enough to win it all. I really like Byron Scott but I think he's done about as much as he can with the team and they might be better off with a new coach and a fresh start.

10. Dallas Mavericks: Is the NBA really supposed to be worried about the additions of Shawn Marion, Tim Thomas, and Drew Gooden? I really think that Mark Cuban is testing the loyalty of Dirk Nowitzki because I really don't see any other reason for him to stay in Dallas. The Mavs do have a couple of nice trade chips in Erick Dampier and Josh Howard's expiring contracts that could be used to improve their squad but I really don't know if they'll be able to pull it off. It's not like Donnie Nelson has a history of making great trades.

11. Phoenix Suns: The Shaq experiment failed but what did it really cost them? Shawn Marion? The Suns are still a good team. Of course, they used to be a very good team so even their moderate success isn't all that exciting. The key, of course, is Amar'e Stoudemire. If he can bounce back from his injuries, the Suns are a tough team to beat. Unfortunately, most of the upper echelon teams should be up to the task and able to tough it out.

12. Atlanta Hawks: Atlanta's a solid team but adding Jamal Crawford and a raw guard in rookie Jeff Teague isn't going to make them any better. On the bright side, they at least maintained their squad and should be solid but they didn't make moves to take the next step and the only way for them to go is down. It's also a make-or-break year for Al Horford and, to a lesser extent, Josh Smith. These two are the only hope the team has of improving and, so far, it seems like they are locked into their current level of production.

13. Miami Heat: A lot of people might look at the Michael Beasley situation and think "That won't help matters" but isn't that exactly why someone goes to rehab? To become someone who can be a more useful member of society? If Michael Beasley gets his head on even remotely straight, this team could be very dangerous. I think Mario Chalmers could be a candidate for Most Improved Player and Dwyane Wade is Dwyane Wade. Like many teams, the Heat have an expiring deal (Jermaine O'Neal) that could be used to add the kind of player that could make them an elite team. Will it happen? Right now, I'd say the odds are 35/65 against.

14. Toronto Raptors: Hedo Turkoglu might be a bit overrated as a player right now but I don't think you can underrate the attitude that he brings to a team. The Raptors were a soft team but now they've added Hedo, Jarrett Jack, and Reggie Evans to toughen them up. Andrea Bargnani actually showed signs of being a legit NBA starter last season and Marco Belinelli finally has a shot to live up to his Summer League hype. But it, of course, all comes down to Chris Bosh. If he plays with a chip on his shoulder, this team could end up with home court in the first round of the playoffs. If he doesn't, they could miss out on the playoffs altogether.

15. Philadelphia 76ers: When Philly added Elton Brand, people went gaga over the Sixers. Now that he's coming off of injury, it's like he's a complete non-factor. Yes, the team struggled with him last year but I think new coach Eddie Jordan will game plan with Brand in mind, whereas last year the Sixers just tried to fit him into their running system. Nevermind that the running system should probably be scrapped since this is a team without a starting backcourt. Both Andre Iguodala and Thad Young showed that they are best suited for the SF spot (Thad is now best used as a small ball power forward) which leaves Lou Williams and Willie Green/Jason Kapono as the starting guards. I actually like Lou Williams as a fifth starter (especially if Iggy runs the offense as a point forward) but the shooting guard spot and backup PG (Jrue Holiday will not be ready to run a pro team this year) are major issues.

16. Chicago Bulls: The Bulls are here because of the promise they showed against the Celtics in the playoffs but this is not a team that I would bet money on. They are still relying on Ty Thomas too hold down the PF spot and they need Luol Deng to bounce back from last year's injury and the year before's crappy performance. Unfortunately, I'm not sure how well he fits with the new Derrick Rose Era Bulls. New GM Gar Heard has his work cut out for him and he's responded by doing absolutely nothing this offseason.

---

THE WILD CARDS

17. Washington Wizards: I'm rooting for Gilbert Arenas because he seems like a good guy but I just can't hop on the Wizards bandwagon like a lot of pundits are. People keep citing the additions of Randy Foye and Mike Miller but I'm just not sure how you can get fired up about players who, by all accounts, can't even unseat DeShawn Stevenson from the starting 2-guard spot. Miller was average at best last year and Foye is a volume scorer on a team that doesn't need another volume scorer. What the squad needed was defense and they pretty much completely ignored that half of the game this offseason. A healthy Arenas along with Caron Butler and Antawn Jamison could be dangerous, especially with Flip Saunders as coach but this is a team filled with question marks that wasn't even that great when they were healthy. At their peak, the Gil/Butler/Jamison Wiz won 45 games and lost in the second round. Gil and Jamison (who was not impressive last season) are going to need to turn back the clock if this team is going to live up to the hype.

18. Detroit Pistons: I really don't like much of anything the Pistons have done recently but they have a decent amount of talent and a possible sleeper rookie in DaJuan Summers. I don't like their frontcourt (especially on defense) and I really don't know how well their backcourt pieces work together. They have talent and hopefully they'll have a better attitude then they've had in the past but I really don't see them having much chance of making it out of the first round of the playoffs (if they can even get there).

22. Indiana Pacers:: The Pacers have a fairly underwhelming roster but most of their guys can play and fill their roles and nobody does more with solid but not great talent than Jim O'Brien. If TJ Ford can keep his head on straight, these guys should be able to fill the void if any of the teams ahead of them should falter. I don't think they'll pressure many teams but they'll at least keep them honest.

23. Charlotte Bobcats: If they get Allen Iverson, they could be an interesting team to watch and might have a shot of the playoffs. If they don't get Iverson, they'll be a nice enough team that just isn't actually good enough to escape the lottery. Larry Brown can coach his heart out but this team just doesn't have the horses.

23. OK City Thunder: The Thunder are young and hungry but I'm just not in love with their frontcourt. I think Nenad Krstic is underrated but he's a fifth starter at best while Jeff Green is probably better suited as a sixth man. I think Russell Westbrook will establish him as the leader of this team this season and put to bed any questions about whether he is the point guard of the future. I'd like to see some more growth from Kevin Durant; he has the talent but I'm just not in love with him as a go-to guy. This is a team that is headed in the right direction but they still have a ways to go before they reach their destination.

24. LA Clippers: The Clippers have intriguing talent. They also have a coach who isn't the best at finding ways to get the most out of his intriguing talent. MIke Dunleavy has put together a team that doesn't fit Mike Dunleavy's coaching style. The Clippers could be a surprise team and put it all together but they probably should be happy if Baron Davis improves from last year and helps his trade value. Put a focused Baron Davis on Philly or even Indy and he'll help those teams win. I'm just not sure he'll be able to do that on Dunleavy's Clippers.

---

PLAYING OUT THE STRING

23. Golden State Warriors: Anthony Randolph is the popular pick for Most Improved Player but I'm really not sure how much it is going to help the Warriors. The rudder of this ship is still Monta Ellis and if he can't hold down the point guard, these guys aren't going anywhere. I'm not sold on Stephen Curry and most of the team just seems soft. I almost had these guys as a wild card but I don't think that Don Nelson's run-and-gun style is going to help this team get where it needs to be.

24. NJ Nets: I still can't believe how little they got for Vince Carter but, even still, they have some nice talent that seems to complement each another nicely. I like the Devin Harris/Lee backcourt. Who knows how Terrence Williams will pan out but I think he, Bobby Simmons and Chris Douglas-Roberts (if he can get out of Lawrence Frank's doghouse) should handle the SF spot. Brook Lopez could be an All-Star center in the near future. Tony Battie isn't the ideal PF but he can handle minutes there and hopefully Yi Jianlian will be able to at least prove to be an NBA backup. With their talent and future cap space, they are in the best position of any of the bad teams but alas they still are a pretty bad team.

25. Houston Rockets: The Rockets have lost their best two players but they should be a scrappy squad that outworks a lot of their opponents. I don't think they'll be able to really put together enough wins to make the playoffs but they will make everyone they play earn a victory.

26. Milwaukee Bucks: Keeping Ramon Sessions should help matters but this still seems like a team that doesn't know where it's going. Michael Redd gets his points but he shouldn't be the #1 guy on an NBA team. He might not even be the #2 guy anymore. Andrew Bogut isn't ever going to be a go-to guy and their options at PF are Kurt Thomas, Hakim Warrick, Joe Alexander, and Walter Sharpe. Still, there are some things to watch, namely the maturation of Brandon Jennings and the prospects of Ersan Ilyasova, Jodie Meeks, and Roko Ukic. If this team comes close to the playoffs, Scott Skiles should get Coach of the Year consideration.

27. Memphis Grizzlies: The Grizzlies have an interesting backcourt with Conley, Mayo, and Gay and they could carry the team to some wins but other than that, the pickings are a bit slim. Zach Randolph simply shouldn't start for this squad. He can be a nice guy for the second unit. Darrell Arthur is probably a better fit alongside Marc Gasol. To me, a successful season for Hasheem Thabeet would be if he doesn't get posterized 10 times. The talent here is TERRIBLE but it's not that good and I don't care if these guys are professional, if you play in front of 7000 fans every night, it's going to effect your level of play.

28. NY Knicks: One more year and the 2010 Sweepstakes will finally be here. Unfortunately, I don't think that the Knicks have enough talent on their roster to lure key free agents players to New York. Wilson Chandler is one of the more underrated players in the NBA but the rest of the team is just kind of a mish-mash of players who they took on in order to dump contracts. I don't even think the addition of Ramon Sessions would make much of a difference. On the bright side, the Knicks are probably better off losing because their best chance of adding a second elite free agent is by paring a high lotto pick with Eddy Curry's expiring deal in a sign-and-trade.

29. Minnesota Timberwolves: They have a rookie backcourt and their best player is coming off an injury as is their likely starting small forward. The Wolves have some nice pieces but they are expecting a lot from Jonny Flynn this year and even if he excels, they're relying on a lot of fringe players to make key contributions. Kurt Rambis has his work cut out for him.

30. Sacramento Kings: When the Kings drafted Tyreke Evans, they had to know that they were committing to building around him. He's a supremely talented player who has a lot of flaws and isn't someone you can just throw into any roster and expect success. Hindsight is, of course, 20/20 but John Salmons would be a much better two guard to complement Evans than Kevin Martin. As for the frontcourt, the players aren't bad but they aren't very good and I'm not sure that they are going to get any better. Even worse, with the way that Geoff Petrie's been drafting these last five years, I wouldn't be too excited about the prospects of another lottery pick.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's the new video for Pearl Jam's song, The Fixer. I like the song although the video, directed by noneother than Cameron Crowe is a bit underwhelming. The sub-par green screen work on the screens in the background really bugged me. Still, good song, good enough video, can't wait for the new album.

Edit: After listening to it over and over, the songs really growing on me. It also seems like a song that will kill in concert when everyone's singing along.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"The Liberal Lion" is gone.

Not surprisingly, the comments on Fox News's site bring up his drunk driving accident (one person saying he will be judged by God for the evil he has done while another celebrated one less liberal in the world). TheFoxNation considers Kennedy's passing to be a 2nd story behind "Why is Obama Changing the 9/11 Anniversary?"  (They are apparently offended that Obama's calling for a Day of Service to commemorate the lives that were lost.) We shouldn't deify the guy but I was stunned that not even an hour passed before people immediately ignored the fact that a man has passed away and went back to their side of the fight.  OK, I wasn't stunned. Just saddened. And in all fairness, if W. has been the one who passed away, there'd be some liberal loons embarrassing themselves with their comments as well.

The world in which we live...

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A decent day for music. Imogen Heap is out with a new album which kind of sounds like most of her old stuff. That's not necessarily a bad thing since I like her sound. Alternative band Mew dropped a record that has a couplet as a title. (At least, I think that's a couplet.) Rockers Jet keep on keeping on. I never got into Matisyahu's stuff but he too has some new material out there. If you are into electronic music, Sally Shapiro seems to be getting some solid buzz. The xx is also getting some solid reviews and is one of the top selling albums on the UK alternative music chart.

For the tryout, I decided to go with Arctic Monkeys, a band that came out with the kind of hype that would make you think they were going single-handedly revitalize rock'n'roll. That didn't happen (although their album was quite good). So now they are back with their third album, trying to avoid a slump (aka Sam's Town). Unfortunately, what they might have done is even worse as it seems like a step sideways. The music is different and OK but it's certainly not anything that is going to make people sit up and listen. The fans will like it and the oblivious will remain happily in the dark. It's one of those situations in which the band never wanted all of the attention... and now they probably won't be getting it. But who knows, maybe you'll like it so give it a try and tell me what you think.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

You have to give the producers and writers of Entourage one thing; they shook things up this year. Instead of sticking with the tried and tired formula, they switched it up, giving the side characters their own arcs and making Vince a side character. Unfortunately, it seems like they've gone a little too far with their changes and the show is onto its worst start yet.

So what went wrong?

2. Where's Ari?: A year or so ago, I suggested that the show consider spinning Ari off into his own show. His storylines were becoming more and more unrelated to the Boys from Queens. Now that he is almost completely cut off (since Vince doesn't seem to need help), it's all the more reason to try it. Right now, Ari's completely wasted in pointless mini-arcs. The one major arc he has is the awful Gary Cole storyline. This storyline started off as potentially interesting with Cole looking like he may be a bad influence on Ari but it's since spiraled into the Dom-Zone of annoying story arcs. Meanwhile, the Ari-Lloyd storyline completely disappeared. They can even consistently throw in random sight gags of Lloyd doing menial labor (like in the golf episode). So not only is Ari out of it because Vince isn't doing anything but now he's not even able to really be Ari since we have to see him dealing with Cole's infidelities. It's all pointless, none of it is funny, and it really adds nothing to the show. They should probably dump Cole's character and maybe give Ari a new client, perhaps a young up-and-coming star who could steal some of Vince's thunder (and someone who always listens to Ari's advice so he feels a bit more needed). If not, spin him off into a show about being the king of the Miller Gold Castle. They need to do something because they are wasting Jeremy Piven by having him just sitting in his office, yelling randomly about stories nobody cares about.

3. Girls, Girls, Girlzzzzzz: The ladies of Entourage are only interesting if they are naked or involved in a bigger storyline. (And honestly, the nudity is getting more and more gratuitous. But I'll take it.) Case in point, most of the Turtle/Jamie Lynn stories are tedious however once you get her involved somewhere else, like in Drama's career, she suddenly has a purpose. It's always been like this. Kristen (E's ex in season 1) was annoying but Emily was interesting because she kind of caused friction with E and Ari. Anna Faris affected Vince's situation and Silo. Sloan... honestly, I can't even remember what Sloan did. Something with her dad. Ashley has been probably the worst because her storyline was a lot like Kristen's, she added nothing to the other stories, and she was just kind of annoying, like a teenager. Hopefully, Kate Mara's character (E's new assistant) will add some spice to the storylines and fit in well. 

4. Follow Through: The worst part about the show having so much filler is that you know it's probably never going to pop up again. The gun storyline was lame and pretty much ended this episode. Why waste our time with it; why not go straight to the Security Team storyline? Why bother with Vince taking driving lessons? Vince saying on national TV that he bribed his driving instructor? Vince making a sex tape? Is ANY of this going to come back? Probably not. If these storylines are going to be completely one-and-done, they need to be funny. This season's simply haven't been. The Turtle stories, especially, have been lame sit-com level situations.

5. The Life: One of the draws of the show was that it showed the Hollywood life. Now it's showing the life of a settled down actor (well, somewhat settled down) and there's nothing there. They eat at the same places. They go golfing. Vince doesn't even need to flirt anymore, girls come to him. Even worse, they come to him... and then go to their rooms. In the past, they'd pick him up and head to hang out with Dennis Hopper or some weed guru played by Val Kilmer. The show is slowly becoming a workplace sit-com (and a drab one at that). The direction they're going, Vince will have a baby this time next season.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:19 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I'm probably the last person who should be blogging about food since I have one of the worst diets out there and am overweight but hey, that makes me like most Americans so maybe it's time to speak to the People!

Anyway, I've been trying to eat better but I ate like crap at my last job and often went to Wendy's and I decided to have a little cheat day yesterday and check out Mickey D's latest menu offering. How did they fare?

The Wendy's new chicken wings were a major disappointment. The wings tasted like lousy chicken fingers that were dipped in sub-par sauces. If you are really dying for Asian chicken wings or buffalo wings, you're better off just getting McNuggets and dipping them in store bought sauces. Wendy's still has THE best fast food chicken sandwich with their spicy chicken sandwich but I can't see these new wings lasting on the menu for very long.

McDonald's, on the other hand, has hit a home run. The Angus Third Pounder is probably the best thing on their menu besides their addictive McNuggets. I got the Swiss and Mushroom burger (HOLD THE MAYO!) and it was like something you get from an actual restaurant. I am definitely a fan. Unfortunately, I'm also trying to get in shape so it's a forbidden love for now.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Since I post reviews of movies, I think it's important that I also mention my pet peeves or things that are required for me to like a movie. In some cases, of course, personal taste/interests make me like a film more than I probably should. Case in point, I loved Watchmen but a lot of that had to do with the fact that it hit on things that I am interested in. I could absolutely see why others would find the film to be a complete bore. Anyway, I thought I'd start compiling a list of the things that I basically need to enjoy a movie.

As a savvy/jaded filmgoer, I go into a movie pretty much knowing one thing: the main character is not going to die and if by some crazy twist, he/she does die, it's not going to be until the final scene or so. For that reason, I really don't get that fired up or nervous about a scene in which the only threat is to the main character's life. If I'm sitting in a theater and we're 40 minutes into a film, I know that the lead character isn't going to die and any threat to his/her life isn't that daunting. If the conclusion is obvious, there isn't any tension.
Now, there are three ways around this issue.

1."How" Not "If": There's one movie this summer that is supposedly a white knuckle thriller but all of the action scenes only focused on IF the main character would make it. Since you know he isn't going to die midway through the film, I was just never on the edge of my seat. The fact of the matter is that for a scene to really work for me personally, the focus needs to be on HOW the person is going to survive not IF he is going to live.
James Bond is the king of this. Everyone knows that Bond isn't going to die, but he always has some suave move or cool gadget to help him get out of his scrapes. Whenever Jason Bourne was in trouble, you didn't think "Is this the end of Jason Bourne?", you sat up and wondered, "How's he going to fight his way out of this one?!" Die Hard is another example of this. While survival was obviously the main goal, getting the attention of the police and finding a way to end the hostage situation were equally important goals. Even if you realized that Bruce Willis wasn't going to catch a bullet midway through the movie, it's interesting to watch the bad guys (and sometimes the good guys) thwart his plans to save the day.

2. The Predator Ensemble:: Just because the lead character isn't going to die doesn't mean that everyone has to live. You often can get around a lead character's inevitable escapes by adding side characters who may or may not make it. I can still follow the main character's heroics but then worry about the supporting cast's safety. This is why horror films are scary; there are usually a bevy of supporting actors, all of whom could eat it at any second. Scenes in which the lead is getting threatened are usually the least frightening of the film. You're just watching a chase that you know is going to end with the good guy/girl getting away.
Other great examples of this are Predator, Alien, Aliens, and Band of Brothers. I hate to include Band of Brothers because it's a true story and real lives were lost but it's basically the best example of how films should be written.
That being said, you have to establish these supporting characters early on and get the audience to care about them. You can't have the characters who die be nobodies ala Star Trek's infamous Red Shirts. Also, you can't do the Lost: Season 2 trick of just adding new characters and then killing them off. It barely worked in a TV series and it definitely doesn't work in films. Unfortunately, this is happening more and more often in films and it's getting to the point that whenever you see a new character pop up (especially if it's a known actor), you can be pretty sure that they are going to get popped in the near future.
Then, of course, there's the cardinal sin that "Heroes" has committed: Death is Not Forever. So many people have died and come back in that show that nobody cares if somebody dies because they realize that they are probably just going to come back.

3. Kill The Hero: This rarely happens and I'm not sure if I can remember the last time I've seen it but killing the leading man is always an option, especially in an ensemble film. Now I don't mean the now cliche "Scream" trick of putting a famous face in the beginning of the film and killing her to make people think anyone is at risk. By now, people get that gimmick already. But it really seems like it is about time for a leading man to get it in a movie and then have the supporting members have to step up and save the day.

Long story short, if the main driving element of a film is "Will the good guys win?!" or "Will the hero survive?!", I'm going to be bored to tears. Everyone knows the day is going to be saved, HOW the day is saved is what is entertaining.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:03 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Before his fight on Saturday night, Paulie Malignaggi said that the deck was stacked against him. He was fighting a Texan fighter in Houston, a city known for controversial decisions against out-of-towners. He claimed that two of the judges, Raul Caiz and Gale Van Hoy were biased especially biased. It also didn't help that he was fighting on a Golden Boy promotion and wasn't the Golden Boy sponsored fighter.

After the fight, all of Paulie's worst fears came true. Not only did he lose a close fight but one of the judge, Van Hoy, had an absolutely ridiculous lopsided score to the fight in Diaz's favor. HBO's Harold Lederman, on the other hand, had the fight in Malignaggi's favor. After hearing the decision. Paulie Malignaggi probably didn't do the smartest thing in the world; he spoke from his heart. His very pissed off heart.

He didn't calm down any in the locker room, giving this interview in which he said that Van Hoy "bent me over and fucked me" and said that fights like this are the reason that nobody watches boxing.

In an attempt to save face, Oscar De La Hoya said that he disagree with the lopsided scorecard (and pointed out that it wasn't the only one of the night) but the damage was done. I'm also not sure if that that was going to help out Paulie's cause with the promotional company after he basically said Golden Boy were cheaters.

But in case his post fight tirades weren't enough, Paulie updated his Facebook page with: "HOUSTON HAS A PROBLEM, AND ITS CALLED CHEATING. FUCK GOLDEN BOY FUCK THE JUDGES FUCK EVERYONE FOR TAKING SOMETHING FROM AN ITALIAN ONCE AGAIN."

You have to feel for Paulie Malignaggi but you also have to wonder if his mouth isn't giving him as much trouble as his opponents

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Another up and down week for the portSoulio but I ended up 20 bucks so it's fine. The major mistake I made was cashing out of my AIG stocks. I was up 20 bucks and wasn't feeling very confident in the stock so I sold it. Then the stock skyrocketed and I basically cost myself 110 dollars. Well, actually 90 bucks; the money from the AIG sale went into Papa John's stock and that went up 20 bucks.

Right now my biggest losers are my Wendy's $5 Sep option (I knew I was in trouble when Jim Cramer suggested buying the stock days after I had purchased it) and my Hasbo $25 Jan option. The Wendy's one is a bigger concern because the deadline is coming up and the stock hasn't really been doing that much. 

Another mild mistake was selling Caterpillar and putting the money into more US Steel. Not a huge difference; CAT went up three percent while US Steel (symbol: X) went up 2. 

On the bright side, I finally listened to the right people for once. Whenever I've bought a stock on a suggestion or from my research, the stock has collapsed. But Omniture Inc. went up this week and, at last, I made some money on a company that i didn't really have first hand knowledge of. 

Overall, I'm almost even for my lifetime of investing. Finally, I've just about wiped the losses of my initial investment venture off the books. The stock market is still like gambling at this point and there really isn't a company that I'm sold on sticking with for the long term. Citibank (C) has made me some money but that place could collapse at any second, it seems. True, the government probably won't let it go under but the stock could take a shellacking.

I don't think I'm going to put any more money in the market. I'll just play with what I have in there (and I might take some of it out before the next "adjustment" rocks the market). 

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I really didn't like "Inglorious Basterds" and it's probably my own damn fault. I went in hoping that Tarantino would turn back the clock but instead he's just made another b-movie. (EDIT: The more I think about it, the less I blame myself. This was just a bad movie. I can see people appreciating it as a collection of scenes but it was a terrible movie.)

Even more disappointing was that the usual Tarantino strengths were wasted (except for his ability to get great performances from his actors; they carried the film). In other films, the verbosity of the characters was fun and gave you insight into who each person was. What they said was interesting and what it said about themselves was crucial. In "Basterds", it seemed like it was just there because it sounded cool. I guess you could credit Tarantino for creating an oxymoron, the self-indulgent homage, but I wouldn't make that leap.  

The film felt like two or three movies thrown together with the character development and depth cut out and only the violence (and set-up to violence) left in. You could cut out most scenes without changing the film and most of the film has little to do with the actual main plot.

To enjoy "Inglorious Basterds", you have to go in expecting nothing. It's a fantastical b-movie with neither heart nor soul, without point or purpose. Enjoy the performances, most of which are superb. Let the scenes wash over you; don't expect much to stick with you and don't worry too much about remembering anything because Tarantino doesn't leave anything to recollection - almost every time there's a moment that refers to an earlier scene, the audience is shown a snipped of said scene.

The best comparison I could make is imagine "Burn After Reading" except with the stories broken up into separate chapters and not nearly as connected and the film is stretched on for another 50 minutes. The biggest difference, though, is that the Coen Brothers often have tongue firmly in cheek while Tarantino's wagging his tongue, waiting excitedly for the next gory moment.

But what might have bothered me was that the film almost seemed to wink at its inappropriateness but then went right on with its faults, as if Tarantino was the biggest basterd of them all.

Continue Reading for the spoiler laden response.

Near the end of "Basterds", we see the Germans cackling and cheering at a film of a Nazi shooting down Americans. In my head, I was thinking that this was a good statement about what the audience around me was doing. Yes, the Nazis were basically the epitome of evil but what the Basterds were doing wasn't any better. They were doing the devil's work but towards a good end. 

But in a fashion that also suits the American view of war/torture, Tarantino seemed to acknowledge the hypocrisy but then didn't care about it and just went on with the hypocrisy. It was almost a "But we're the good guys so fuck it." approach.  Now I'd love to think that Tarantino was pulling a similar stunt that Michael Haneke did with "Funny Games", a film that's intention was to drive people from the theater. (The director basically said that if you enjoyed the movie, you need help.) I just don't think that was Tarantino's aim. in fact, it was the opposite. He simply made a violent revenge fantasy.

The film could have had an interesting climax if Shoshana's vengeance against Landa butted heads with the Basterd's trying to end the war but instead of something that kind of examined vengeance, it was Nazis bad/good guys good even when they act bad, ending in a climax that was, quite literally, overkill. Even if the film was going for nothing profound, it failed because it set up the Shoshana/Landa face-off amazingly well in the first scene, did a nice job of bringing it back up in the middle of the films... and then did absolutely nothing with it. Shoshana's story went from deeply personal to just a broad Nazi-hater who apparently wasn't concerned about whether or not Landa was even in the theater.

Like most vengeful acts, this film was empty, hollow, gives only a brief respite, and is probably better to avoid.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In a somewhat shocking move, Paramount Pictures has moved the latest Scorsece/DiCaprio film from October to February 2010. Getting pushed to the beginning of the year is usually a bad sign for a film since the first third of the calendar has been seen as a dumping ground for unwanted films. It also seems a bit odd since the film seems like a horror/thriller and you'd think releasing the film around Halloween would make more sense than premiering it around Valentine's Day. Then again, the most shocking thing might have been seeing Scorsece's name pop up as director of what seems to be a fairly standard and pulpy horror flick

According to Nikki Finke of Deadlinehollywooddaily.com, the decision was a financial one. “Paramount told the filmmakers it doesn’t have the financing in 2009 to spend the $50M to $60M necessary to market a big awards pic like this.” Looking at their upcoming schedule, it seems like they don't have the money to promote anything. They don't have another major film coming out this year. The only films they are involved with are smaller films from Paramount Vantage and "The Lovely Bones" with Dreamworks.

That being said, one man's loss could be another man's gain. Right now, the main Oscar contender for Paramount seems to be... "Star Trek". I don't think it should be even considered but with the Best Picture field expanding to ten nominations and Paramount not really having anything else besides "The Lovely Bones" to champion, the Trek reboot might be in line for some extra love from the studio. It would also be a wise investment since it would help promote the future films of the franchise. (On the other hand, if they don't have money for Marty, are they really going to spend it on JJ Abrams?)

Finally, I wouldn't be shocked if this move prompted a couple of other shifts. The weekend of October 2nd is now pretty bare, with the Toy Story 1 & 2 in 3D being the only films getting a wide release. It would probably be wise for "Couples Retreat" or "Whip It" to move back a week so that they could have the weekend to themselves or The Weinstein's could move "The Road" up a few weeks so it's not battling against two other thrillers and "Where the Wild Things Are". (UPDATE: It took just a couple of days for Drew Barrymore's "Whip It" and the latest zombie movie "Zombieland" to move up a week to October 2nd.

Should be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Don't really love what I have going on right now but I'm trying to shake things up around here.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I sold my AIG stock yesterday when it was in the black, fearing that the stock could tumble at any time. Then today, it goes up over 5 dollars a share. Very frustrating.

Lesson Learned: Go with Stop Loss sale orders rather than just selling the stock outright.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:37 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When some readers of Entertainment Weekly open their magazines next month, they will discover characters from US television programmes speaking to them from a wafer-thin video screen built into the page.

Should be interesting to see how this works. This could very well be the way to save magazines, especially entertainment ones that could get the jump on trailer premieres and could also show their interviews with big stars. I'm honestly surprised that a porn mag wasn't the first to do this but you have to think that Playboy will be looking into it to help save itself.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:15 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thanks for Rob Carroll for putting me onto this. Here's a soap opera, shot gorilla style, at the Burbank Ikea, during store hours. I'm not sure if this idea came before (500) Days of Summer or was inspired by it but either way, it's funny to see them use the different set-ups in Ikea in their little webisodes.

IKEA Heights from DaveAOK on Vimeo.

Ikea Heights (Episode #2) from DaveAOK on Vimeo.

Ikea Heights (Episode #3) from DaveAOK on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a new video from Trey Green, a friend from high school. You can become a fan of his Facebook.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know a lot of people loved Barney Frank talking down do the woman who thought Obama was a Nazi but I'm really not sure how it helps matters. The fact of the matter is that too many people believe what that woman said is true or somewhat close to the truth. Telling her that she's a waste of time isn't going to do anything to open her eyes or help convince other likeminded inviduals. It also doesn't do much to fight against the idea that Democrats think they're better than the common person.

While I despised his tone and approach, MSNBC's Laurence O'Donnell had a good response; he asked the protester if they were in favor of eliminating social security and Medicare. Unfortunately, his tone and constant talking over of his guest basically ruined the actual point he was trying to make but it was a good thought, at least. As much as it might pain people, they need to try to engage their critics, no matter how dumb they may turn out to be. Frank and all politicians need to embrace the idea of "There's no such thing as a stupid question." Now, if people refuse to listen to the answer or even contemplate the opposing stance THEN it's pointless to talk to them but to just respond immediately with a dismissive crack doesn't help anyone.

Not that the Right is any better. They also just spew talking points rather than debate, look to vilify their opponents rather than work towards a compromise. Someone on the Right needs to take the high road and start talking up their actual ideas, like tort reform.

If Washington isn't careful, the one thing that is going to come out of this health care debate is a general dislike of the government and both parties. While Republicans are enjoying the botch job by The White House, they aren't doing anything to make themselves stand out. They're basically cheering as the Dems sink to their level. Health Care will be a topic of strength for independent candidates.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's a song from Wintersleep that's pretty cool. The embed is from The Sixty One, an interesting music site. Listeners vote on songs and they move up and down the rankings. It's a good place to catch new music and old songs that you might have missed.

Also, I just bought the new album from The Cave Singers. It's a nice little folksy album. A little bit like David Gray meets Iron & Wine. Not sure if it's going to get a full fledged SoulHonky recommendation but so far I'm liking it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The debut album from The XX isn't on lala.com so I couldn't embed it but it seems like it might be worth checking out. With that album out, I decided to go with Mutemath as this week's tryout. They seem like Phoenix, if that group was from the French Quarter instead of France. It should be interesting to see how this album does and if Twilightmania will help it at all. The first single "Spotlight" was on the Twilight soundtrack so maybe they were able to grab some new fans off of that. We shall see.

I'm not in love with the album but it's a solid listen. I'm torn on whether I should just buy The XX album. The song snippets on ITunes sound alright but I've been led astray by that before (e.g, Burial). I might just hold off.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Fired Up! was by no means a good movie. It was pretty much a complete rip-off of Wedding Crashers, the story was completely by the numbers, and the characters were almost too one dimensional to even be cliche. That being said, it was a funny flick.

What this film had going for it was some great chemistry between the two leads, Nicholas D'Agosto & Eric Christian Olsen and a pretty healthy pace that helped the film from ever really lagging. It did a decent job of avoiding the dreaded last third meltdown that many hurts a lot of films like this (and almost killed Wedding Crashers). I'm not sure if most of the lines were improvised but if they weren't, screenwriter Freedom Jones should be on the top of many studios speed dial when it comes to punching up comedic dialogue. In fact, the writers for Entourage should hire this guy immediately to help give some new life to Johnny Drama and Turtle's back-and-forth.

Those good feelings aside, let's not forget that this movie isn't all that good and if you don't like your humor to be the slightly wittier banter of the typical locker room then you should stay away from this. Very little humor comes from the actual situations, it's almost 100% goofy repartee. I think it's safe to say that if you don't get into the movie after the first 10 or 15 minutes, you can turn it off because it's just more of the same for the rest of the movie.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Abilify has been talked about on CNN, Bill Maher, and other news shows. Now that I've seen the ad for it, I can't believe that people aren't talking more about it. This is the craziest thing I've seen in a while. The ad is 30 second long; the disclaimer is 45 seconds. And it's one of the scariest disclaimers I've seen in some time; the kicker being that when the guy says Abilify worked for him, the title pops up "Results May Vary".

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:33 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I know I might lose some credibility with the X Chromosome Clan but I really liked "Julie and Julia", more than I did "District 9". Though the film isn't flawless and is very slight and basically a pure confection, I found it thoroughly enjoyable and a fun time at the theater. (Although I have to admit to being kinda in love with Amy Adams so I probably would have enjoyed watching her sitting and reading a cookbook to herself.)

Meryl Streep is amazing as Julia Child. The thing that sets her apart from all other actors alive is that she always disappears into her roles. She is arguably the greatest living actor because you rarely see her at all. She doesn't make a show of her own performance and that's what makes her so watchable. As much as I adore Adams, Streep is just on a different level.

All that being said, there's really no reason to see this film in the theater. It's a nice film but it's nothing that you have to rush out and see. If you want to see a fun movie, it might be the best thing out right now but, again, it's not the kind of film that you can't just wait for on video. Of course, there is the argument that people should support these films so more of them are made and so studios don't just churn out drivel like GI Joe. So if you want to strike a blow for warm-hearted, likable films, go see it. If you gave at the office, then just toss it on your Netflix queue.

There is one more thing, though. While I liked the film for the light diversion that it was, there was a big issue with the ending (spoilers ahead).

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

After an up and down week, my stock portfolio came out up five dollars for the week. My latest purchases didn't fare all that well but the options that I have on Bank of America and Citigroup saved the day. And yes, it's probably not a good thing when your life jacket is two failing banks. Then again, a couple of prominent investors bought long into Bank of America (BAC) so things could be looking up.

For my lifetime, I'm still down about a thousand bucks, more than half of that loss stemming from my initial foray into the market. A few years ago, I bought 500 dollars worth of 5 stocks that basically became worth little more than 5 dollars in 5 minutes. 

I'm pretty happy with what I have right now but I may try to dump a couple of options this week. We shall see.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

For me, District Nine was like the anti-Watchmen. I loved Watchmen but fully understand why some people might absolutely despise it. Watching District 9, I could see how people would enjoy it but I just never got into it. Part of the problem was the pacing of the first half or two-thirds of the movie. To me, it really felt like a short film that had been stretched into a feature length flick. I also found the documentary style of the beginning of the film to be fairly distracting and I don't really think that it was utilized that effectively. Once the action starts, the film is a well made but fairly standard action movie. The protagonists/antagonists are flipped a bit so it doesn't feel tired but there were a couple moments that are obviously cliche.

The one distressing thing about the film, however, is the fact that it's a film about apartheid but the hero is white and the main Africans in the film are the evil, voodoo believing Nigerians.  While the film's heart might have been in the right place, its execution simply helped promote the worst stereotypes of the African people.

Anyway, I thought the movie was interesting enough and think that most people will like it a lot more than I did so I'd recommend checking it out. Or you can just watch the six minute short that was the jumping off point for the film.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Armond White has become notorious as kind of the Skip Bayless of film criticism; he's a contrarian who finds pseudo-intellectual ways to defend trash and then turns around and trashes everything else. Recently, Roger Ebert tried to defend him but it took a day or so for his readers to point out how bad White really is. Ebert ended up labeling White a smart, insightful troll.

I never really paid attention to White's reviews but I read his take on GI Joe and it's one of the worst reviews I've ever read in my life. I can see defending GI Joe as mindless, escapist fun (although I'd disagree) but White tries to raise it up and act like it actually has something to say. Even worse, he's just plain wrong on a couple of things.

In a parenthetical aside, White writes, "Christopher Eccleston and Sienna Miller, whose British accents add to their villainy". Really? Because Eccleston's Destro had a Scottish accent and, while I can't really remember it, I'm not sure Miller even had much of an accent, nor should she have since I assumed that she was supposed to be an American. If not, I'm not sure how her boyfriend was the All-American Duke and her brother was also an American soldier. Even if she did have an accent, it wasn't nearly as strong as that of Adewale Akinnouye-Agbaje's Heavy Duty, one of the key members of GI Joe. 

That's a simple mistake but the part that really made me laugh out loud was his take on the acting. Now maybe White was meaning to be sarcastic here but, if so, he didn't do a great job of it.

As for acting, operatives Tatum and Wayans look great in their special Accelerator suits, surging through the air, tumbling and weaving in dreamlike acrobatics to gladden the wide-eyed part of your aesthetic sensibility. Like race cars approaching Mach speed, they dodge missile plumes, then zoom toward the soon-to-be-legendary Eiffel Tower sequence. Maybe it’s revenge for Franco-snobbery after 9/11. Perhaps it’s also decadent exercise of CGI license (carrying an inherent warning about technological excess), but like the aircraft carrier and Great Pyramid sequences of Transformers 2: Wow.

So basically, "As for acting, the CGI was great." Again, maybe he was being sarcastic but it really comes off as if he's trying to argue that the film was saying something with its overabundance of CGI. I'm sure he'd use this same line of thinking to defend the fact that a surprising amount of the CGI was poorly done.

Armond White is practically indefensible. At first glance of the list of his likes and dislikes, I thought that perhaps he was more voice of the people shrouded in intellectual gobbledygook. Unfortunately, he shakes off the "Man of the People" crown by disliking every Pixar film, both Iron Man and Dark Knight, and The Hangover.

I think Armond White simply takes the contrarian view in order to be able to try to argue a certain belief. If a film is somehow related to a point of view he holds but doesn't really take a stand on, then he can say whatever he wants. He can yammer on about his personal opinion and will mistake that for liking a film. He reminds me of a friend who likes bad films because he gets to read into them and extract lessons and insights that aren't actually there. He sees films more as a creative thinking process. It's almost like he enjoys talking about films more than actually watching them. If a film is vapid, it gives room for any sort of interpretation. Any insight a film actually brings to the table just gets in the way and is discarded as "preachy".

And this is the worst part about Armond White. He doesn't seem to judge films on their own merits, rather his ratings are based on what he can add, what arguments he can conjure. Now, doing this every so often can be fun but when it's the very core of your film criticism, you become a "troll" to your peers and completely useless to your readers because they really can't trust your take on the films themselves.

In the end, Armond White should review individual films. He might be able to write an interesting criticism of a group of films or a movement in modern cinema but as for reviewing films on their own merits (nevermind guide people to films they should or shouldn't see), he's useless.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The movies don't seem to be getting any better this year. At this rate, Drag Me to Hell and The Hangover could have great shots at one of the ten Oscar Best Picture nominations (and, although I haven't seen it, I find it hard to believe that they could keep Up out of the race).

I broke down and saw GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra and it was as bad as expected. They tried to accomplish way too much with way too many characters in way too little time seeing as there was only probably 30 minutes of character driven scenes in between all of the action set pieces. The action scenes weren't even all that impressive. It's one of those films that makes you respect what Michael Bay brings to the table in terms of directing action. The film marked the first time in a decade or so that I actually walked out of a movie to go to the bathroom. (And no, it's not because I usually pee where I'm sitting).

Now I'm sure some people will argue that 9 year olds will like it but really all that means is that it wasn't slow paced and had a lot of explosions. There were no characters to really get into. Bumblebee was more relatable than anyone in this film. The whole 1 degree of separation storyline was also lame and one key unveiling was the epitome of lame. In the end, it's a film you can miss altogether.

As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt's other summer movie, 500 Days of Summer is an infinitely better film but it really wasn't all that great. It's a solid rom-com but the timeline gimmick gets old and the film feels a lot longer than its 90 minutes. I think one of the keys to a story that jumps back and forth in time is whether or not it's all that good if you recut it and let it play out linearly.  In this case, it really isn't. Most of the jokes stem from smash cuts. The narration added a lot and there's one stellar scene involving split-screen but other than that, it just wasn't that great. Granted, in this year, that still nets you a top 5 spot (so far, given the few movies I've seen).

I'd recommend the film but would also recommend that you go in with lowered expecations. I'd say it's on par with a film like "Mumford" (which Zooey Deschanel was also in) but I think I actually liked Mumford more. It's a film that I can't see many people not liking but it's also one that I could see most people forgetting about quickly. 

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

So far, the stock game hasn't been great. It's kind of a two steps up, three steps back proposition and I've made a few stupid purchases that bit me in the ass. Still, I'm doing OK and a lot of my long options seem to be looking like solid buys. I've cooled on the options buying a little bit but it is a good way to get in on high priced stocks without having to risk a ton.

I recently looked to cut some losses and reap some profits (while the getting was... halfway decent) so I have about 900 bucks to spend. I'll wait to see how the markets open but right now I'm looking at:

Kroger (KR): The grocery store corporation, owner of my neighboring Ralphs. Right now, I'm planning on buying one contract (100 shares) of the Jan 2010 $20 option at $2.35.
GE: General Electric's stock has plummeted and I have to believe that it's going to go up. Right now it's at just 14 dollars. NBC can't get any worse but, then again, I'm not a fan of Universal's future releases. And that's just the entertainment arm of the company. I might hold off on this one but right now I'm thinking about getting 10 or 20 shares.
Electro-Optical Sciences (MELA): OK, I'm breaking the rule about only buy what you know but this company is popular on all of the sites I use to research (famous last words) and is working towards a better melanoma test. I could be scared off of this stock tomorrow morning but right now, I'm thinking about grabbing 150 bucks worth of the stock (priced around 7 bucks right now).
US Geothermal Inc (HTM): I'm obviously not sticking to the buy what you know concept. But this green energy company seems like it's doing alright and it's cheap, just 1.59 per share. I'm thinking about 50 or 100 shares.

Of course, all of this could change by tomorrow morning and I might buy McDonalds or something but for now, this is the game plan. Then again, I might just look into bonds or just move it back into my savings account (which is probably the smartest move).

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:49 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

While it's always fun to mock some of the self-involved egomaniacs in Washington (or Alaska), the tone that the health care debate has taken is doing this country a disservice. While pundits and politicians hammer away a catchphrases like "death panel" or "socialism", nobody seems to be actually talking about the policy, what it needs to do, and (more importantly) what else needs to be done to fix the health care issue in America.

These Town Halls are usually filled with people who don't know the whole story yelling at people who haven't even figured out exactly what story they want to tell. The current health care plan being floated around includes no tort reform, something which most people agree needs to happen. Critics of the plan have no real counter-solution. Most people agree that we need to do something about health care but nobody has a real plan.

It's time that we get leaders in the fields of medical, health care, and public policy together to actually discuss what's going on and try to find out a solution that will keep the most people happy. If that means we end up taking just a step or two in the right direction rather than going 100% into one groups idea of a "solution", so be it.

Health care in America needs to be fixed and these town halls and the current national debate isn't going to get us anywhere.

Although that bring me to another point, liberals really need to get off of the "racism" angle. Bill Maher looked absolutely ridiculous when he tried to boil Obama's opposition down to the fact that they don't like black people. Not only is that kind of attack dismissive and condescending but, even if it's true, it doesn't help. I don't think I've ever heard of a time when someone was called racist and suddenly realized the error of their ways. If anything, it will just make people more defensive.

The worst part about the media today is that everyone seems so quick to choose sides that they overlook what's actually going on. They hit the talking points and hammer away at their opponents' arguments but rarely, if ever, do they actually look at the subject at hand and discuss it on its merits.

Sadly, the media is in need of reform as much as the health care industry is.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you have 7 minutes to spare, check this out to find out what happens when your girlfriend doesn't remember that you left for two weeks on a backpacking trip in Europe.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Finale.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Still struggling to find some great new music.

The Answering Machine is the latest up-beat Brit-pop band but there's something about the lead singers voice that just doesn't do it for me. I think it could grow on me and there are a few cool songs but I am going to give them a pass for now.

Telekinesis put out a solid album but not something that most people would probably rush out to buy. Cassettes Won't Listen is also background music but it's the kind that you zone out on but suddenly notice that there's a catchy groove playing (even if some songs sound like Nintendo background music or what Timbaland would sound like if he was white).

Kate Earl's EP is catchy enough but she definitely helps cement Lily Allen as one of the more influential artists of this young century. The amount of young female artists who mimic her is pretty stunning. Granted, it might just be that labels are looking for soundalikes but still, the influence on the market is undeniable.

In the end, I'll go with Blind Pilot's debut. It's a nice little album that could grow on me. Or maybe not

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:59 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Here's part 1 of a spoof that some people I know put together. Keep an eye out for the one and only James Ferris as "West Hollywood"

While I'm at it, here's another Funny or Die video. A star-studded cast for a GI Joe parody.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is from Julian Plenti, the side project of Interpol's lead singer Paul Banks. If you like Interpol then you'll probably like this because it sounds a lot like Interpol. I've never really quite understood why people do side projects that just sound like their original band but, hey, I guess it's better than when someone branches out for a new sound that is pretty terrible. Score one for the status quo.

If you like this, click below to check out the whole album.

EDIT: After listening to a few songs, I can see why Banks broke out for this album. The DNA of Interpol is definitely there but it's still a departure from your standard Interpol songs.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A number of sites are bashing ESPN for their new policty on Twitter but it really is the only logical thing to do. ESPN sent out new guidelines that said their talents' sports related tweets would have to be OK'd by an immediate supervisor and that people needed to remember that they were always representing ESPN so they shouldn't tweet something they wouldn't say on the air. For example, Mark Schlereth's twitter argument with Chad Ochocinco does nothing to help Schlereth's reputation as an expert.

Of course, the person who made the most out of this was Ric Bucher but he's also probably the reason that the rule came down. For months now, Bucher has been self-publishing rumors and opinion without even a nod to ESPN. He was basically giving away info for free and he himself had threatened to stop tweeting because other sites were picking up his tweets and passing them off as their own rumors.

For a quick comparison on how someone working in the business should tweet, look at Adrian Wojnarowski from Yahoo! Sports. First off, his name is YahooSportsNBA or something like that. His profile has a link to Yahoo! sports. Every time he posts a big rumor, he follows it up later with a link to the full story at Yahoo!

Bucher has a nice little Ric Bucher logo and, at a quick glance, not a single mention of ESPN on his page. Going back a month of tweets (almost all sports related), he didn't post a single link to ESPN. I'm sorry but if someone working for ANY website, big or small, was doing this, the same thing would have happened. Hell, even Ashton Kutcher recently went on Conan and whined about Twitter not showing him any love (or money) for everything he's done on the site.

And this is one of the main reasons that I think Twitter is a bit of a fad. People can't really make money off of it, except as something that helps promote their articles. It's basically just a low rent RSS feed. 

If I knew anything about programming, I'd try to put together a Home Page program that would put together selected RSS feeds so it looked a bit like The Huffington Post or The Daily Beast.

But now I'm rambling. The basic point is that ESPN is protecting their investment and making sure that their employees aren't essentially leaking the information that they should be posting on the actual ESPN site.  

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:22 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Flickchart is a new site that helps you rank your movies through head-to-head comparisons. The site picks two films at random and asks you which you liked better. After a while (and it's easy to be on the site for a long time), your top 20 starts to shape up. It also brings up some interesting questions like: Ghostbusters or Back To the Future, Pulp Fiction or Reservoir Dogs, The Shadow or The Happening, etc.

The site is still beta-testing but you can join by using LifeHacker's link. 

I'm not completely happy with my Top 20 but right now (after a ridiculous 4651 rankings battles between 1378 films, it reads:

1. Citizen Kane
2. The Godfather
3. The Wizard of Oz
4. The Usual Suspects
5. The Godfather Pt. 2
6. Saving Private Ryan
7. The Princess Bride
8. L.A. Confidential
9. Field of Dreams
10. Raiders of the Lost Ark
11. Memento
12. Se7en
13. A Few Good Men
14. Braveheart
15. Casablanca
16. E.T. The Extra...
17. It's a Wonderful Life
18. Trainspotting
19. On the Waterfront
20. Schindler's List

I go back and forth the most on "It's a Wonderful Life" and "E.T." I'm surprised that "City of God" isn't up there.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:24 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

My first venture into stock was terrible but my latest purchases have been doing pretty well. Ford (F) has gone up 47% since I bought in, making me 95 dollars. Bank of America (BAC) has made me 40 bucks (up 21%) and IMAX (IMAX) has been up and down but I'm at an 11% profit, a robust 11 dollars.

The biggest change in my extremely modest portfolio, however, is that I've now started investing in stock options. Instead of buying the actual stock, you buy the option to buy 100 shares of a stock at a certain price. The option prices seem to be more volatile than stocks but they also get your bigger gains, faster. For example, I bought 200 dollars of Ford stock in May. As I noted before, I've watched my shares increase in value by 47%. On Friday, I paid 200 dollars for an option contract of 8 dollars on Ford that expires in December. It's already up 39% and I've made 85 bucks. The downside, of course, is that things drop in value just as quickly. I bought an option on CVS and it dropped 20% of its value in one day. I also bought Hasbro and Sprint options which have lost some money but altogether I'm up over 100 bucks in this past week.

Right now, I think I'm going to hold onto everything I have but the next stock option I might invest in is US Steel. I was scared off because they showed a loss and are expected to show another next quarter but before the crash, it was trading at 150 and now it's at 42 dollars. It's up over 2 bucks today so I'm going to wait to see if it dips down before buying it but it seems like a pretty good bet. I'm still not sure if I'm going to buy it but I'm keeping an eye on it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:07 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)