NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Damn you, Apple! My favorite music site, Lala.com, is getting shut down. Apple bought it in December and now they're closing it, supposedly because they're going to expand their Itunes. It may not be a coincidence that Steve Jobs is supposedly making some sort of announcement at the Worldwide Developers Conference on June 1st, one day after Lala is shuttered. Maybe they're announcing their own site or are expanding Itunes somehow. Hopefully, they'll have also have a way to embed songs because, as of now, The Tryout and Song of the Day are dead. The enabling feature is gone so it'll be The Futureheads and pearl jam's Present Tense from here on out.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:01 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Seriously, if you want to know what the new "Nightmare on Elm Street" is like, just watch the original film on fast forward. That's basically what the film is like. It's actually kind of astonishing. Most bad films move too fast that they have to rely on character archetypes; Elm Street goes so fast, they can't even set up those cliches.

Thankfully, I wasn't alone. I went to the midnight showing because I knew that it would be a raucous crowd and it would probably give me the best chance of enjoying the experience, if not the film itself. And once the lights went down, I wasn't disappointed. The mood was set perfectly by the trailer for Pirahna 3D and the beginning of the movie had a lot of people laughing at bad dialogue or giggling after a shock scare. But then there was more bad dialogue and even more shock scares. And that was it. By the middle of the film, the laughs had been replaced by yawns. As the lights came up at the end of the movie, the anticipation turned to grumbling. One girl couldn't believe how bad it was. Another guy wondered aloud about the test screenings. "I know they had to reshoot half of the beginning but how bad must have it been to be worst than this?!"

And you can't blame nostalgia either. This movie isn't creepy at all. Director Samuel Bader's "Smells Like Teen Spirit" video is creepier than this film. Also, the film lives off of the nostalgia. It gives you glimpses of classic scenes (like the friend in the body bag) but then blows by it to get to the next Remember This moment. The talk of Freddy's character being more fleshed out is kind of BS. They do make more of a deal about his past (and they show what happened rather than just talking about it) but everything goes by so quickly that it's not like it registers.

What's even more annoying about this is that there was a good film in there. And I don't mean because of the old version, I mean there were some interesting moments (like the person video blogging about his night terrors and you see him slowly wearing down) that could have been great to set up the film. Instead, the first half of the film is one nightmare after another. There was as much time spent in dreamland as there was in reality. Which brings us to the next problem, everyone just kept falling asleep. One of the reason that there was no tension was because people just nodded off left and right. And then they brought in the whole micronaps cop out which meant people didn't even need to really be asleep to be asleep. There was just an utter lack of basic storytelling and horror film structure in this movie.

I think the biggest mistake the film made was that they seemed to go into it thinking that since people already knew who Freddy was, they should bother making what was going on a mystery. But that is the part that makes it creepy. And even if the audience already knows, watching the kids struggle with it is half of the movie. In this film, it was almost an afterthought.

In the end, the most unsettling part of the film was when the hot girl was looking through a box labeled first grade and the year on the box was 1996.

For my spoiler heavy redux, read on

Oh, and I don't think I need to type this but, obviously, I wouldn't recommend this film

First off, I have to agree with the guys over at The Playlist Nation. If I was remaking this remake (or writing the sequel), I'd dump Samuel Bayer and get Tarsem Singh. Tarsem showed in "The Cell" and "The Fall" that he's a visually stunning director and he is exactly what this film needed.

Next up, you have to tackle the main story. Yes, the who is Freddy? angle is kind of pointless because it's a remake and everyone in the audience already knows who Freddy is and why he's killing people. (And the new shit about his past didn't really change that.) What I probably would have gone for was, instead of a whodunnit, make it a whosgonnagetit. Have the main character know pretty early on what's happening but make her struggle to convince others. The underlying theme could be about conformity; nobody wants to admit that they're like the weird girl.

There was a moment when Kyle Gallner's character mentioned that coma was permanent sleep. I was thinking it might have been interesting if one of the mother or a big sister was in a coma and she was protecting the main character from Freddy. Basically, the main character had a way to combat Freddy but people needed to open up to her and listen to her so they could coordinate. Maybe her best friend always calls her before she goes to bed so they can both enter dreamland together.

But other kids keep dying, people refuse to admit to the main girl that they are having visions of Freddy, and just when a few of them finally fess up... the parents pull the plug on the comatose sister. Now the kids have to fend for themselves. If it's a remake, they fight to stay away and then figure out that pulling Freddy out of the nightmare world is the way to kill him. In a sequel, they'd have to look for another way to get rid of him and work towards that goal.

In this film, the first goal was to figure out how everyone knew each other (although they don't try that hard to put it together) and once they stumble upon the answer, everyone's dead except the final two. And then the pulling him out is just kind of a half-assed plan. It was just bad.

Basically, that's what I'm getting at. This film? It was just bad.

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

The clip below is long but it's the EPITOME of everything that is wrong with political discourse right now. The issue at hand is the immigration bill and Maddow decides that the best way to get to the truth about the bill is to look at the group that was behind it. And now look at the group but look at some problematic connections that it and some of its employees have had in the past. Sometimes WAY in the past. A quarter century in the past.

Now this isn't to say that a little history on groups isn't important but I'd personally like to judge groups on what they've done and not necessarily who they've run with. I think Maddow's attack is as pointless as Fox News bringing up William Ayers and Van Jones as evidence that President Obama is anti-American. I was literally talking to the TV during the interview, getting annoyed that Maddow wouldn't discuss the actual bill or discuss things that the actual group FAIR had done in the past. In fact, Rachel said that they posted some reading about the group on their blog but all I could find was the same age old facts that she brought up on the show.

This isn't to say Stein is the victim. Instead of trying to get the focus back on the bill, he dismissed everything and either lied or played the semantics card. Either that or he blamed the Southern Poverty Law Center for everything.

But back to the main point, if Maddow wanted to really grill Stein, she should have talked to him about the bill because there are a lot of flaws with it. On its face, I don't think the bill is as evil as many people say but it has enough problems that there's no need to bring up stuff from the 70's. I would have liked to hear Stein's response to things like: How are officers supposed to gauge whether a person is potentially an illegal if they aren't supposed to judge by "RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN " as the law states? Won't making state cops do the job of Federal Border Control agents cause a divide between the community and the cops, thereby making the officers' actual duties harder?

There are so many questions that need to be asked about this law and Rachel Maddow asked none of them. Whether or not FAIR has employed or helped fund people with racist ideas doesn't change my opinion of the law. It's a law that, if it wasn't for the controversy, probably would have been ignored by most law enforcement entities. In fact, the Sheriff of Pima county in about two minutes did a better job arguing against the law and pointing out ridiculous flaws (like people can sue if they don't think the cops are enforcing the law well enough.)

In the end, I'm now 100% against this law, not because it's evil but because it's stupid, unnecessary, and doesn't do a damn thing to address the immigration issues in Arizona and the US in general.

On the bright side, kudos to Chris Matthews for actually discussing the law and asking about potential changes that could be made to fix the current situation. After the Maddow bit, it was a breath of fresh air.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:53 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Last year's Challenge didn't go so well so I'm making it easier this time around. Just list what you think the Top 10 grossing movies of the Summer (May to August) will be. The list should be in order with the highest grossing being at #1. This summer is looking like the toughest in recent memory. Last year was pretty easy with The Proposal and The Hangover being the big surprises (and Terminator Salvation being a disappointment).

This year, however, there are a lot of challengers to the throne and while I think that I know what films will be in the top 5, the bottom 5 are a complete crapshoot.

Here's my 10. I'll also give a little snippet as to why I chose them but you don't need to. Just a list of 10 will suffice. For the summer release schedule, check out Box Office Mojo.

EDIT: OK, last edit but I'm bumping Toy Story up to #1.

1. Toy Story 3 - The 3D prices could push it to number one.

2. Iron Man 2 - I actually wouldn't be stunned if it made less than the original (reviews are middling so far) but I still think it's a lock for 250+ and a spot in the top 5.

3. Shrek Forever After - This franchise isn't as strong as it used to be but still strong enough for a top five finish and close to 300 million.

4. Inception - A dark horse for #1 movie of the summer, I'm just not sure that it has enough of a draw for the kids. I'd be stunned if it doesn't break the top 5 but there is a 10% chance that it disappoints.

5. Twilight: Eclipse - I still haven't seen any of these films but I don't see it expanding the fan base much from last time out.

Here's where it gets tricky and I could be 100% wrong on all of these picks.

6. The Last Airbender - Based on a popular series, big effects, kiddie friendly could be the ingredients to get M. Night back into the good graces of the box office.

7. The Karate Kid - I'm more comfortable with this than Airbender because of the built-in audience. The film opens against The A-Team in a retro-off but I think this looks better and has a much bigger draw. I can't imagine many dates going for The A-Team over this.

8. Grown Ups: I have no interest in this film but until Sandler/James don't bring in the dollars, I'm not betting against them.

9. Despicable Me: I really have no idea what this film is but it's animation and that seems to do well. I'm pretty much sure that this is going to be a miss but I'll go with it.

10: The Other Guys: A comedy should be higher on this list and it's a toss-up between this, McGruber, and Get Him To The Greek. But I like the team of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg and it opens at the end of the summer and could have more room to breathe when the releases slow down as the leaves start to fall.

This year's Terminator: Salvation is... The A-Team. Bradley Cooper's star could take a hit when this doesn't live up to expectations. There's just nothing going for this right now. Mediocre trailer, Rated R, opening against Karate Kid. I'm just not seeing it. GI Joe barely cracked the top ten and that had a much stronger fan base.

So who wants to take the challenge?! The winner gets a SoulHonky t-shirt and maybe even a 50 dollar gift card to your local movie theater (if enough people join.) Leave your guesses in the comments section or e-mail me at admin@soulhonky.com.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:29 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Vulture has the short that helped cast Jamie Hector as Marlo Stansfield and got the director Seith Mann a job as a director in season 4 and 5 of "The Wire". A very interesting short.

Part 1

Part 2

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:21 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

After reading it, I'm not so upset about this Arizona immigration law? The bill stipulates that there has to be "lawful contact" which means that it's like a seat belt law; you can't get pulled over for not wearing a seatbelt but if you get pulled over and it's not on, then there's an issue. Also, the bill says that a driver's license clears up any issue for citizens and I can't think of a single time in which I've dealt with police and pretty much not been asked for my driver's license or ID. If you aren't a citizen, you have to have your green card but I thought that was always the case.

The only argument that really makes sense is that its forcing the police force to do what the feds should be taking care of (and might cause a rift between the police and the community it's supposed to be serving) but when the Federal government has fallen down on the job like it has, how can you fault a state for trying to do something?

Sure, some people could argue that cops can pretty much make up anything and call it "lawful contact" (even I've experienced being pulled over for a bogus reason) but if you think this is a legitimate problem then maybe we need to start looking at our police forces and how they work. Then again, the argument could be, "What are the odds of you stumbling upon an illegal alien?" Honestly, I think that this is one of those laws that makes the front pages for a while but after a few months, everyone (including the police) basically forget about it (again, kind of like the seat belt law).

Of course, in true form for modern political debate, when one side goes too far, the opposing side also goes to defend it. Megyn Kelly on Fox News reported how insane it is that Arizona's crime rate is so much larger than New York's, however New York has an incredibly low crime rate for its population, mostly because of New York City. Buffalo's population is 1/32 of New York City but has almost three times more violent crimes. I don't think anyone believes that the reason is the illegal Canadians who keep sneaking in.

This isn't to say that there isn't a major problem going on in Arizona (kidnappings are sky high and it IS the 9th most dangerous state to live in) but misusing statistics just muddies the water.

In the end, this is a legitimate topic which seems to have been hijacked for the sake of politics. The Latino/Chicano vote has become arguably the most important vote for national office and this is a great way for the left to keep hold of it. It's a lousy way to do it, but all's fair is politics. And to be completely honest, I thought cops always had this directive; it didn't strike me as something new.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:59 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I turned on Keith Olbermann for a second last night and he asked his guest whether the Arizona immigration law was a tactic to get Chicano and Latino people to move out of the state. Thankfully, the guest laughed off the suggestion but it's just another example of how MSNBC, and Olbermann especially, can take an issue and turn their legitimate opinion into a laughable conspiracy theory. The funniest/saddest part was that his guest had just made a number of great points and Olbermann responded something like, "You bring up something interesting..." even though Keith ridiculous idea had nothing to do with what his guest had brought up.

It's just frustrating to see legit discussions whittled down to ridiculous talking points or having to watch people defend an argument because of who made it rather than whether it has any merits at all.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:45 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

One of my favorite underappreciated bands is The Futureheads but I can't really complain about people not really warming up to them. I never seem to like their albums when I first listen to them. Their debut album was the most accessible but both of their following albums took a few listens before I really started to like them. In fact, in both cases, I didn't listen to the albums for a few months and then gave them another try and kind of got into them.

In this case, the songs just aren't as driving as their past work. They all seem to be a step slow and lacking real emotion. Not that they are the most emotional group out there but most of these songs just don't seem to have a real oomph behind them. (And yes, that last sentence is why I'm not a music critic.)

Anyway, I definitely recommend that people check out their earlier works (and their song "Meantime" is one of my all-time faves) and see how you like their latest effort, "The Chaos".
Below is the first single (and the best song on the album IMO) The Heartbeat Song.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:53 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

One look at "The Losers" and people realize right away that it's a rip-off of The A-Team. What's most disappointing about it is that it is basically the same quality as the 80's TV show. In fact, I think the studio probably would have been better off just making a film out of a "Burn Notice' or "Leverage" script. (Although, to be fair, "Burn Notice" is usually better than this film.)

The first problem is that the entire film is nonsense. And I don't mean that in a "Live Free or Die Hard" fun nonsense (even though a key moment is kind of taken from that film), I just mean that nothing makes sense. The film opens with a nice scene but after that it just falls apart. When Zoe Saldana's character meets Jeffrey Dean Morgan's leading man, they fight. Why? No reason. And then after fighting they finally speak two lines and everything's cool. I know some people might say, "Woah! Spoiler!" but it's not really spoiling anything. You know how the fight is going to end and you never really know why they are fighting anyway. If they had tweaked it and played it as a parody, it might have worked but they didn't so it was just the first in many random scenes.

On the bright side, the film wasn't boring and there were some good performances. But the direction was pretty shoddy and made me miss Michael Bay who actually knows how to use music and slow motion in his films. Also, there were two horrible CG moments that really took me out of the climatic moments.

For more (including actual SPOILERS), keep reading.

Besides just rewriting the script to be a parody of action films, the first thing I would have done with this film is switch Morgan and Idris Elba. Maybe it's me but Morgan always kind of bothered me in the film whereas I sympathized with Elba. Even when he was turning on his team and selling everyone out, I kind of liked him. I just feel that Morgan would have been better in the turncoat role and Elba could have done more with the tortured soul role.

The stakes also needed to be played off one another better. The final scene made no sense. Max made it seem like he needed The Losers to break in so he could get the money but then it seemed like he was already there anyway so why did he need The Losers at all? Couldn't he have just stolen the money himself and blamed The Losers (who, after all, had just stolen an armored car in the middle of Miami.) But what was more annoying was that the final standoff also made zero sense and what probably should have (or was meant to be) a choice between getting their lives back or saving the world didn't work. I'm not sure why there was a need to take Max alive (like he was going to confess to masterminding everything?) and Morgan's character couldn't just choose NOT to stop the bomb because the bomb was right there. It was like, "You can stop the bomb or choose to take me in and have your word against mine although we'll never get to that point because the bomb will explode and kill all of us". The obvious choice would have been just shoot Max (because there was really no reason to keep him alive and The Losers had the money and the three other snukes as evidence) and I'm not sure why they didn't. And what about those three others snukes? Did they just leave them in the crate?

Midway through the film, I was wondering why the Save the World element wasn't really that strong. We were watching Jason Patric threaten to blow someplace up and start a war and The Losers were still focusing on revenge. Then I realized that they needed that save the world b-story so that The Losers could have actually accomplished something at the end of the day. Because the film ends and they are still apparently outlaws and you'd have to assume that Max was still in good with the CIA, since it was never proven that he was behind everything that nobody knew happened.

Even with all of these problems, the film could have been better but it was just so poorly made. I know Roger Ebert lauded Sylvain White's direction but I have no idea why. That film featured some of the worst slo-mo walking scenes in a while and even the interesting music choices were just gimmicks. Don't Stop Believing was funny at first but then was pointless. It's like they thought, "It'd be funny to use this song for an action scene" and then didn't go any farther than that. And the CG shots of Zoe shooting the rockets (another scene that made no sense) and the plane crashing were Youtube/Funny or Die levels of special effects.

There's just no reason to invest the time on this film

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:08 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I stumbled upon the site News in Film when looking up the whole, sordid history of Ridley Scott's Robin Hood and they have a great breakdown of the nonsense. It's stories like this that make you realize why writers aren't particularly fond of their treatment in Hollywood.

The basic rundown of the story is this:

- Universal buys the script "Nottingham", a revisionist tale in which The Sheriff of Nottingham is the good guy.
- Russell Crowe signs on, even though he's apparently not interested in making the script.
- Ridley Scott signs on even though he thinks the script is "terrible".
- Scott and Crowe make a standard origin story and openly bash the original script, even taking issue with the title.

This story strikes me as particularly insane because the main players (Crowe and Scott) never seemed to actually like any element of the script besides Robin Hood. I know that there are examples of directors taking a premise of a script and completely rewriting it (like "Hancock" or "Three Kings") but this seems rather exceptional because it's not like the subject was one that Crowe and Scott couldn't have just done themselves. Maybe they just thought that this film had momentum and would be easier to change than to actually start their own project from scratch. Also, the studio would pay for the re-writes so it wasn't like Scott would have to commission a script on his own.

On the bright side, the original writers got paid seven figures but having your screenplay get thrown away and then bashed has to hurt.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:15 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

As I was flipping through the channels yesterday, I stopped on Bill O'Reilly's show and Dick Morris was discussing what he'd tell Barack Obama to do. And while I instinctively hate most of what Morris was saying, I actually found myself agreeing with one part of his argument. Of course, that actually just made me angrier at Morris.

During the health care debate, I ticked off some people I worked with because I said that I thought we should try to regulate the insurance companies before going full steam ahead into universal health care. I rarely heard this as a fully formed argument from the Right, which always bothered me. Yes, now and then, when forced to answer, they'd bring up other ideas instead of socialized medicine but those ideas often revolved around giving doctors or insurance companies more power or less responsibility.

What Morris said yesterday made sense. He mentioned that Obama could have passed health care reform easily. He said the financial reform bill could go through if he pulled away a few of the big government elements. It almost looked like Morris was actually trying to work with the President and CREATE something rather than just heckling from the cheap seats.

And this is the most depressing part of our current political situation. The Republicans and conservatives like Morris have realized that actually working with their rivals or actually putting forth compromises gets them nothing. Sure, it might help the USA but it doesn't serve their own agenda. From Day 1 of the Obama administration, Republicans have been focused on winning the 2010 elections. To act like they've been try to govern is laughable. They just bash the current proposals and play the fear card as often as they can.

That goes doubly for Morris who can't answer a single question without plugging whatever new fear mongering book he has out. I don't think Morris ever made such a calm, rational argument about compromise during the health care debate. Now that it's over, he treats the words that he wouldn't dare utter like they were the common sense approach.

Which they would have been

Anywhere but Washington

Sadly, "compromise" in Washington doesn't mean groups meet halfway. It means one side sticks to their extreme agenda but throws a bone and lets in a couple elements of the other sides agenda (and often, the opposing agenda isn't even about the subject at hand. It'll be an amendment about something completely different like gun control.) And the media just makes matters worse; whenever there is a story, they just run to the extremes and cheerlead rather than actually looking at the problem at hand.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:31 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The less you know about the documentary "Exit Through The Gift Shop", the better off you probably are. I will tell you that the movie is getting great reviews (82% at Metacritic, 95% at Rotten Tomatoes) and is about the street art movement. It's only 87 minutes and has an film school feel to it but it's definitely a thought provoking flick.

For a certain kind of "spoilers", continue reading

The problem with reading the reviews on this film is that they give away the whole twist. And, in this case, the twist is that there isn't one. The film is simultaneously a confession and an extension of the con. Whereas Shutter Island kept twisting and turning until you weren't sure what was going on, this film plays it straightforward and if you don't look any further, you might not figure out the joke.

Or, just like the American media, you won't be able to see the elephant in the room because you're too focused on the elephant in the room.

The story of Mr. Brainwash has to be seen to be disbelieved. I'm sure the reaction from people in the art world might be more of shock than amusement when they start to realize that the story (and art) they bought was far-fetched. Or rather, that they bought art because of the story of the artist behind it rather than the meaning that was put into it.

Of course, the film was done well enough that even if you kind of know it's a prank heading into it, you are still drawn in and enjoy the ride and, in the end, kind of hope that it is all true. Unlike a film likes Orson Welles' "F is for Fake", this film separates itself by extending the earlier prank rather than outing itself. In fact, letting people slowly catch on to the joke might be the smartest move of all. Welles' film was met with harsh reaction in America and letting people down easy might be the smarter way to unveil the ruse. Also, if people still fall for it, they can only blame themselves for not figuring it out earlier.

All in all, this is an enjoyable film that is even more interesting when you start wondering who is having the most fun - the audience or the filmmakers.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:19 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

It seems like bloggers all over the net are trying to figure out why Kick-Ass didn't open as well as many people expected. After the great reception that it got at Comic-Com and all of the internet hype, people thought this film could be a big hit. When it failed to open with more than pedestrian numbers, people started throwing out all sorts of different ideas of why the film didn't do well. What they overlook is the obvious answer - the internet is a vocal minority.

Kick-Ass could gain some traction with word of mouth and should grow to be a cult classic once it hits DVD but if you just look at the basics of the film, it's obviously not a blockbuster. It's an R-rated film aimed at adults that is teen-centric. That almost doesn't make sense but there it is.

This is the reason that this film was financed and produced outside of the Hollywood studio system. One studio wanted to make the characters older while another wanted to tone down the violence and go for more of a PG-13 rating. The producers stuck with the original vision, which is commendable, but they also had to realize that they were limiting their marketplace by doing so.

Sadly, it seems that people ignored these facts when they heard the first reactions from the blogs and Comic-conners. You know, the people who went gaga over "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" and "Fanboys". People got caught up in the moment, just as they did with "Snakes on a Plane" and "Hot Tub Time Machine" which also didn't see the online chatter translate to box office success. (Meanwhile, they seem absolutely stunned when people turn out for non-blogger approved fare like The Blind Side, The Proposal, or Paul Blart: Mall Cop.

In the end, Kick-Ass was a movie that was made in spite of the mass audience. It dared to fly in the face of convention and while there may be something admirable about that, it also puts it behind the 8-ball in terms of the marketplace. To see a film like Kick-Ass stay true to its original aim but then judge it by the conventional metrics is a recipe for disappointment.

Matthew Vaughn is a talented filmmaker but I think it's time to recognize that, like his buddy Guy Ritchie, he's a niche filmmaker. I'd love to see him get a known commodity and talented lead actor like Ritchie did with Sherlock Holmes because I think he'd knock it out of the park. But leave him to his own devices and lesser known projects and he'll deliver interesting movies with limited commercial appeal.

There isn't some big secret to it nor is this a sign of things to come, it's just how it is.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:02 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

One of my favorite rap groups growing up was Gang Starr and Keithy E aka Guru was the MC alongside DJ Premier. Sadly, it seems as though Keith has passed away after a year long battle with cancer. His Jazzmatazz records were always underappreciated by the masses and Gang Starr has had some absolute classic material that seems like it could fall by the wayside because of their lack of crossover success. This isn't to say they were strictly underground but they never really blew up like I thought they would. One song that definitely is sliding into oblivion is "Check the Technique" even though I think it is the epitome of hip hop. Tight rhymes driven by a simple beat. The world has lost one of the best MC's ever.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:18 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've been getting into more folk rock with a countryish feel to it. I think that's how someone would describe a group like Trampled By Turtles but I'm not quite sure. I'm also not quite sure how often I'll listen to it after this initial interest but right now, the music is intriguing me even though I can't say I absolutely love it.

I haven't been updating the blog or keeping up with music of late but I hope to break out of my extreme laziness this week and start actually doing something with my life. And before you get too excited, "do something" just means something other than laying on the couch watching reruns of Bones. I'm hoping to check out "Exit Through the Gift Shop" (trailer below) and, of course, start writing more.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:22 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I really liked Kick Ass. Yes, it's got a possibly disturbing mix of violence and comedy (mostly involving an 11 year old girl) and if you don't like the main character or the ever-present voice over the film could drag (because I liked it and I still felt it seemed longer than just two hours) but I really enjoyed the film and thought it hit the dark comedy notes almost perfectly.

Matthew Vaughn is one of the more under-the-radar directors out there. I wouldn't call him underrated because I don't think his earlier films are "great" but both Layer Cake and Stardust were solid, entertaining flicks. Despite his distracting snaggletooth, Mark Strong is also becoming a favorite, as is Clark Duke although I fear that his style could get old after a while. I'd like to see him get a shot at a leading role but I think he might be best off as the friend/supporting cast member.

As for this year's films that I've seen, Kick-Ass is definitely #1. After that, it was a bunch of films that I didn't really enjoy but could respect. On the bright side, there wasn't a movie that I didn't like. "Hot Tub Time Machine" is at the bottom of my list but I thought it was OK. Something about the tone of it just didn't click with me and I thought it focused too much on the rather thin story and should have gone for more laughs instead.

The List so far is: 1. Kick Ass
--- 2. Shutter Island
3. A Prophet
4. Mother
5. Green Zone
6. The Crazies
7. Youth in Revolt
8. Hot Tub Time Machine

I'm looking to check out "Death at a Funeral" next as well as the American education system documentary "The Cartel" as well. The latter isn't out everywhere but is about to open in LA.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:42 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Let me just start with a cliff notes version of what's been going on in the cable newsiverse.

Sen. Tom Coburn made a bad argument about Fox News.
Bill O'Reilly responded with a misguided answer
Time, Media Matters, and MSNBC responded, pointing out O'Reilly's mistake.
O'Reilly finally made the legit point that he should have made before but then tried to act like that made up for his earlier overstatement.

It all started when Sen. Coburn, making a very valid argument about the mean-spirited and misleading tone of news political discourse today, used Fox News arguing that people would go to jail if they didn't pay for health care as an example of Fox's mean-spiritedness. Now, that point doesn't really work because there was a time when it did seem like not buying healthy insurance could lead someone down a road (if they didn't pay their fine for not having health insurance) to jail. Fox yelled about it more than others but other news organizations discussed the issue.

Sadly, in a great example of how Fox News often gives misleading arguments, Bill O'Reilly made the outlandish claim that he had done research and found that NOBODY had EVER said those things on Fox News. This, of course, is ridiculous. People had not only said it on the network but they'd said it on O'Reilly's own show. But this is what cable news has devolved too. Too often, a network will get a fact and then, instead of making the good argument, will go overboard in defense of their agenda. It's why I find Olbermann had to watch. Half the time I agree with him but then he'll take the discussion into some weird tangent. (The go-to tangent right now for Dems is racism.)

Of course, MSNBC pounced all over O'Reilly's gaffe and reported it. But as is the way of modern media, they ignored that actual point being discussed. There was barely a mention of Coburn's main point about how we'd be better off if we toned down the rhetoric and name calling and got to honest discussions about policy and the role of government. In fact, not only did they ignore it but the host of The Ed Show immediately went down the wrong path. Almost directly after the O'Reilly bit, Ed threw to commercial by promising a story about "Caribou Barbie". I mean, c'mon. This is supposed to be a news station? I"m no fan of Sarah Palin and would actively campaign against her if she came any closer to the White House than she did before but the former Governor deserves more respect than "Caribou Barbie". And even if someone doesn't agree with that, I'd like to think that the TV show or network would have more respect for themselves than to resort to name calling.

Anyway, to make matters even worse, Bill O'Reilly responded to everyone who pointed out that he was wrong by saying... he wasn't wrong. Today, he finally brought up the somewhat legit response to Coburn (that when Fox was reporting jail for no health care, it was currently in the bill) but refused to admit that he had misspoken. He said that he was right and then said, "NOBODY at Fox News had reported INNACCURATELY". Sorry Bill, but there's a big difference between "EVER" and "INNACCURATELY" and it's hard to get on a pedestal and preach about dishonesty in media when you can't even admit your own mistakes. (And, as the Huffington Post pointed out, even this isn't entirely true since two of the comments were made after this provision had been removed.)

Sadly, lost in all of this is the discussion that NEEDS to be happening and that is about the current tone in American political discourse. Michelle Bachman has said she wants people "armed and dangerous" to "fight" against Obama's policies. Name calling is prevalent on both sides of the aisle. It's a sad day in American politics and it seems like nobody is willing to step up to the plate and take responsibility. Oh sure, they are ready to point out other people's mistakes but it's really time for someone to stand up, admit their own flaws, and make a pledge to work for solutions rather than elections.

Unfortunately, that seems like a time that will never come and it looks like the high road will be a lonely trail for years to come. But for my part, as little as it may be, I'm going to try to be more open-minded and less mean-spirited in my discussions of politics.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Since I'm unemployed, I'm often very bored during the day and I actually found myself deciding to tune in to see what Glenn Beck had to rant about. It didn't take long for Beck to annoy me enough to make me turn off the TV. In this case, it was the absolute ridiculous use of a John Winthrop quote to defend Beck's cost cutting moves.

The thing that really got me was that the quote seemed more like a call to socialism than anything else. Beck sang the praises of Winthrop's City on the Hill speech but can you imagine if President Obama ever said something like this:

"To doe justly, to love mercy, to walke humbly with our god, for this end, wee must be knitt together in this worke as one man, wee must entertaine each other in brotherly affeccion... Wee must delight in eache other, make others condicions our owne rejoyce together, mourne together, labour, and suffer together...but if our heartes shall turne away soe that wee will not obey, but shall be seduced and worshipp other gods our pleasures, and proffitts, and serve them, it is propounded unto us this day, wee shall surely perishe out of the good land whether wee passe over this vast sea to possesse it; therefore lett us choose life... And cleaveing to him, for hee is our life, and our prosperity."

Call me crazy, but someone saying that we should suffer together and rejoice together and treat everyone like brothers and make others problems our own all the while not getting caught up in our own personal profits and pleasures seems a bit like a socialist to me. Never mind that while Beck is crying about no handouts, Winthrop thought that it was the duty of the rich to take care of the poor. "The care of the public must oversway all private respects by which not only conscience but mere civil policy doth bind us."

Usually Beck cherrypicks bits and pieces of quotes to fit his view but in this case, it almost seems like he has a complete misreading of the quote (and one that I still don't understand) in order to further his rant.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:51 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm a fan of post-rock and I want to actually try writing more so I invested in the new album from Red Sparowes. So far, it's good but there's something that just keeps it from being an album I love. Maybe a few more listens will help it out but right now it's in the good, not great category. I'm not upset that I bought it but I probably won't be itching to listen to it any time.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:43 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

In another example of the "Foreign films get a pass" argument, I give you "Mother". Now don't get me wrong, although it's too slow paced for my taste, it's a decent movie. What I don't understand however is the RAVE reviews it has gotten when it is very much a been there, done that type story and most of the story isn't much better than a languidly paced episode of Law & Order.

The film concerns a mother who is trying to prove that her mentally challenged son is innocent of murder. The boy's mental issue is basically a Memento-like memory issue - he doesn't have the greatest short term memory. While the main actress gives a great performance, most of the other characters are kind of forgettable. I'll get more into it below (WITH SPOILERS) but I'd say that this film is probably a rental.

SPOILERS BELOW

About midway through the film, I started to think about "Primal Fear" and I was sadly not mistaken. Then the ending was a borderline rip-off of "Oldboy". I guess that if you don't know those two films or if they didn't come to mind, you might really enjoy the film. I didn't.

Another issue was that I never really liked the Mother. I was really put off by the scene in which her son sleeps with her and grabs her breast. I feel like critics see something like that and think it is edgy. I just think it's unnecessary and doesn't add anything to the film or the characters. The whole time I was watching a woman who probably wasn't the greatest mother chase down leads and, in the end, it turns out that it was basically her shitty parenting that led to all of this. I guess it gets points for making you sympathize with this woman a bit but I just never really find that to be that laudable. "Das Boot" is interesting because it makes you root for Nazis but that isn't what makes it a great film.

All in all, this just isn't my type of movie. I often have a hard time with slow paced thrillers. More often than not, I think that that is an oxymoron. If you're going to have a slower pace, the characters and their interactions better be strong and I just wasn't buying them in this film. The bit about the mother trying to kill the son when he was five came out of right field. It was an interesting touch but one that I didn't think really affected anything. I just don't think it's quality screenwriting when you can have a bomb like that that can be easily cut from the script and not change anything.

In the end, I think an American remake (should there be one) should have a stronger mother character. Maybe someone who fought tooth and nail to get to the middle class but then it is those same principles that lead her son to murder. I don't know, I'd have to put more thought in it but I think this premise could make for an interesting American story, especially in this time of conservatives with blind anger.

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

Got these from Slash Film. A short from Ridley Scott's protege and a film about old school video game characters attacking New York.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:33 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Masters is about to kick off and Tiger is about to play golf for the first time since I can remember so what does he do? He goes and makes a ridiculous ad for Nike that brings up his marital problems. Even worse, he takes the voice of his deceased father and seemingly tries to spin it like all of this was a learning experience. I'm sorry but people who act like that ad was the father scolding or admonishing Tiger are full of it. If I completely screwed up my life and all my dad said was, "Well, I hope you learned your lesson." I'd be thrilled.

This ad was distasteful and disingenuous. So much for learning about not being selfish and thinking about others. It shows that many of the critics were right: Tiger is about Tiger. I know, it's a dog eat dog world but the Masters is just kicking off and the Tiger sideshow was going to be bad enough. Now it's going to be insane. Tiger can't ever say that he wishes people would stop talking about it because he just made it the lead story in the news cycle.

I've long been on the "I don't care about Tiger unless he's playing golf" but I honestly think he deserves all of the shabby treatment he got from the press before and probably deserves more of it now. And it's coming since the latest revelation is that he had sex with his neighbor's daughter. I have no sympathy for him anymore.

And, of course, despite the ad asking what Tiger learned, it's clear that he learned nothing. I really doubt that this ad is going to make his wife happy.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:58 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Thanks to The Playlist for posting this.

Logorama from Marc Altshuler - Human Music on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:11 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Most American remakes of foreign films aren't that good. The main reason is that Hollywood often waters down the original film but I think another reason that people don't like these films is because there is an aura around watching a film in a foreign language. I'm not sure what it is; maybe having to read the subtitles helps take our minds off of focusing too much on the film itself. But, whatever it is, foreign films seem to get a pass IMO.

Case in point is A Prophet. If this film was in English, I think the episodic nature of the plot would be more obvious, the lack of many actual failures that the hero faces would jump out, and a few ridiculous scenes would be jarring. The lead character has a lot of "tough" decisions but he always makes the "easy answer." I don't want to get more spoilery but "A Prophet" is a film that I wouldn't recommend unless someone has a track record of liking foreign films. If you usually don't like those films, you should avoid this.

My biggest problem with "A Prophet" was a couple of scenes. The deer crossing moment and the assassination shootout in which our hero somehow manages to pull off the killing (or pull off as much as he wants) by just strolling up to the car. Why was this such a big plan when all it took was one guy with a gun to kill everyone? And how did the targets unload their clips into the front seat and not hit the guy at all? And then they just sat in the backseat chilling? Who does that? Now most films have these flawed moments but most films don't pass themselves off as a raw telling of the rise of a criminal mind. These scenes can work in a film like "The Hurt Locker" because it's a rather dumb action movie. In a film like this or "The Green Zone", these questions have to be asked because the films are supposed to be realistic.

My other issue was that everything came to easily to our hero. Most everything was like the assassination; he half-assed his way into a success. He screws up the first assignment by pulling out the razor at the wrong time but still successfully gets it done. Everything in the movie was like that; he didn't really win because he was smarter; everyone else just was dumber.

Now you can explain some of the issues away but I feel like, in most cases, seeing these things go down would be more interesting. Luciani's story, for instance, was the more intriguing one. He was barely holding onto power, his best asset was someone he consistently shit on and wasn't his blood, and as the movie went on, he needed the main guy more than the main guy needed him. He turned on his own blood and had to rely on the non-Corsican and that ended up biting him in the ass.

The movie this reminded me of was "There Will Be Blood" except the relationship between Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano was much more interesting and interwoven than the one between Luciani and the main guy in "A Prophet". In "A Prophet", Luciani just kept losing power and the main guy (I think it's also a bad sign when I have no idea what the protagonists name was) would just stumble upon another issue that would help him gain power. Daniel Day-Lewis's Plainview actively took power; in "A Prophet" power was for the taking and, in most cases, it was like the protagonist just had to show up to get it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:19 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I haven't listened to the whole album yet but this week's tryout is going to be the debut from Sigur Ros's lead singer, Jonsi. I've heard a few songs and am not sold on the album. Seems less like something I'd listen to and more like a soundtrack for commercials. Still, I like SIgur Ros enough to give the album a shot.

In other news, it's been a while since I've seen a trailer try to piggyback on another film's success like "The Solitary Man" does. The Playlist posted the trailer and I was struck by the appearance of the VO guy from (500) Days of Summer. Then, almost on cue, he launches into the "This isn't a story... This is the story..." lines. This lifting aside, the trailer looks like something we've seen before. It might be more interesting seeing this film about a woman. Usually women are given the "I was a housewife, now I want to live" treatment but it would be nice to see the other side of that.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:39 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I decided to try out the new Dominos pizza this weekend and let me just say that if you ever wanted garlic break pizza, you might like it. Personally, I found the pizza to be awful and I almost threw it away. Apparently, I wasn't the only sucker to fall for the ad campaign as the new recipe has helped double Dominos' sales although it does seem like most online reviewers seem to like the new crust and prefer this new pizza. I'm happy they like it but I don't think there's any way that this compares to Papa Johns, nevermind a local pizza place (which are almost always better than the chains).

On the bright side, I'm trying to get my diet back in order and having Dominos as the last pizza on my palette will definitely make it easier to eat healthier meals.

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

I tried watching the pilot for the new Jerry Bruckheimer production "Miami Medical" and I didn't make it past the first half hour. While I know that I should probably try to give the show a pass because it's a pilot, I couldn't even convince myself of that because the first 30 minutes gave me nothing but noise and random surgical procedures.

The beginning of the show has a crash that is reminiscent to the controversial PSA's for seat belts (I think) and then Andre Braugher's character inexplicably loses it and walks off mid-surgery and strips his clothes off. Of course, since we only have seen Braugher for about three minutes before that, when he leaves, you're most likely going to laugh or wonder what the hell is going on. And since it's a fast-paced trauma show, the closest thing you're going to come to an answer is some expository dialogue about how trauma docs often lose it. It's probably the most ham-handed way I've ever seen a show try to prove that their doctors are in a pressure cooker and have to be a special breed to handle the job. Because the focus is on action, these little moments are completely wasted because we don't know who anyone is and most certainly don't care about them. We actually spend more time with the couple in the opening car crash than anyone in the trauma center. (The writers of this show should have just ripped off the opening of "The West Wing")

The show did well enough in the ratings (7.6) so it could survive for a few more episodes but I expect it to drop a bit (although, it doesn't have much competition at 10pm on Friday so maybe not.) Either way, I won't be watching.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:43 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

While I wasn't blogging, I went on a betting win streak. I should end this betting season up almost a grand (unless something goes wrong during the NBA playoffs.) I don't bet on baseball and hockey so this will probably be it until football season starts up. Until then, my gambling will be just the passing game of poker and the stock market.

Sadly, it also seems like it is nearing the end of my TV watching season as well. No new shows have caught my interest. I still am a big fan of Castle and 30 Rock (although it's taken a step back this season) but other than that, there's nothing. Justified started off well but the more episodes that pass, the more I think that they should have just made it into a movie. How to Make It In America was one of the most pointless shows I've ever seen in my life. It was two people slacking off, complaining as they have zero idea of how to make it in their desired field, and then getting lucky at the end. It's not funny. It's not interesting. It's only ten or so episodes and I gave up before this season was even over.

Gossip Girl, The Mentalist, and Leverage battle it out for the laziest writing awards with one show (Gossip Girl) being laughably formulaic and the other two never really having their cunning stars actually do anything, they just always just end up with the solution. Those shows are like the scene in Mission Impossible 3 in which Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) explains how impossible breaking into a place will be... and then it cuts to them escaping. They build up this amazing break in scene and then don't show it. The Mentalist also commits the most typical sin of TV crime shows; the inexplicable confession. One reason I liked Law and Order was that if often showed what it took to break a suspect down. In The Mentalist or in the latest CSI, people just get shown one piece of evidence and then decide to confess. Yes, I know the person breaking makes for a better resolution but it always rings out as false to me. Granted, The Mentalist and CSI are super-popular shows so I shouldn't get hung up on it in my own writing but, still, it annoys me as a viewer.

OK, I'm just rambling but I'm trying to get into a habit of blogging every morning and sometimes it means you'll have to deal with pointless posts like this one.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:27 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

OK, I'm unemployed again and have decided not to pursue any of the romantic possibilities I stumbled upon last weekend so that means more time for blogging. Unfortunately, the April SoulMix is going to be delayed because Lala didn't have two of the first four songs I wanted to use (Pearl Jam's "The Fixer" and Marina and the Diamonds "Are You Satisfied?" so I decided to start over. Hopefully I'll find some new music in the near future to add to the mix.

And no, this isn't an April Fool's joke. I'm not a fan of April Fool's Day. The one good thing about the day is that it makes people read the news with the same eye for bullshit that they should probably use every day. Today they KNOW that one or more stories in their favorite paper or on their best blogs is bullshit and they read with a cautious eye. It's how you should read every story, especially in the laughably jaded modern media.

As for the aforementioned possible paramours, one issue with meeting people while you're drunk is that you might just forget who they are until you get a text from them. I went all creepy uncle on the texters and did a reverse phone look-up and then checked them out on facebook/myspace so I could see if I remember what they look like. The names didn't make things clearer and the pictures weren't much help either. That combined with the fact that I had to stalk them to just realize they existed made me vote against calling them back. I'll just pat myself on the back for getting three girls to call me back the next day and move on.

As for writing, I've been ridiculously lazy and STILL need to finish the superhero pilot I'm working on. After that, I'll either work on episode two or look for something different. "Best Apocalypse Ever" has run its course, although I haven't really thought about it much. I considered rewriting the short I made my senior year at Syracuse; a kid finds out that he's actually been in the witness protection program for his entire life and his girlfriend (to whom he wants to propose) is the daughter of the guy that his dad ratted on and sent to jail. I was thinking about maybe trying to shoot it but I may just try to make it an episode of the superhero series.

Anyway, this is a month to get off my ass and do something while I have the free time so we'll see how it goes. And in honor of getting back to work, click "Continue reading" for the return of the Unprocrastinator!

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:04 AM | Permalink | Comments ()