What I'm going to say about the fifth pick in the NBA draft shouldn't come to a shock to anyone since it fits the current theme of the draft. The two best prospects available here are at a position that the team picking doesn't exactly need. Yes, Al-Farouq Aminu and Wesley Johnson are great prospects but I like the Kings' current small forwards, Omri Casspi and Donte Greene. They also have money invested in Andres Nocioni who is also best suited for the 3. Could Aminu and Johnson pan out to be better than all of those guys? Sure, but the Kings have other needs to fill and one person whom they need to fill around.

The Sacramento Kings got their franchise player in last year's draft when they landed Tyreke Evans. 'Reke was the rookie of the year and is a physical beast who runs over opposing point guards. The key for the Kings, IMO is finding a shooting guard who can work off the ball and maybe take over the reins now and then. Given the death of quality shooting guards out there, that's actually a harder role to fill.

So where is the answer? And where might that answer come from? And who will be left for the Warriors to take at #6?

One thing I've learned from looking over NBA rosters and trying to concoct trades is that we are in a dry period when it comes to the shooting guard position. There just aren't that many great shooting guards left and the ones that are out there are getting old. Before the season, I thought Ray Allen would be lucky to get 10 million dollars a year this offseason but the way things are shaping up, someone could be throwing a lot more money than that his way.

The shooting guard position being as weak as it is, the Kings might have to overpay in this deal but I think that the guy they should really look to grab is New Orleans' Marcus Thornton. He's no Eric Snow in terms of playmaking but he was able to handle spot duty at the point this season for the Hornets so I think he should be good enough with 'Reke. But the bigger issue is that he's a guy who can work without the ball. He can fill it up without having to dominate the rock or slow down the offense. He's the perfect guy to feed off of Evans. Also, his defense isn't too shabby.

I think the Kings overpay to make this deal happen and send Jason Thompson and the #5 to the Hornets for Thornton, Julian Wright (for salary purposes_, and the #11. I'd rather move Hawes instead of Thompson but I think the Hornets might demand Jason and I'd be willing to make that move, not only because Thornton is that good of a fit, but because the Kings should be able to find a solid enough big man with the 11th pick.

At #5, the Hornets select Wesley Thornton, an athletic swingman who should love running the court alongside Chris Paul. Honestly, running with Darren Collison will probably be a blast as well. New Orleans is a perfect fit for Thornton because he can focus on defense and filling his role on the offense as opposed to having a lot of pressure on him, like he might have in New Jersey or Minnesota.

The one person who could prevent this deal from happening, however, is Paul George. I'm not really that high on the other small forward prospects but George is the kind of player who should be available at the Hornets' 11th pick and could fill the hole at the SF spot. Still, I think the Hornets go with the deal and get the better prospect in Johnson and add a versatile big in Thompson.

That leaves the Minnesota Timberwolves with Al-Farouq Aminu at #6. Aminu needs to work on his range but with Maggette holding down the fort, the 19 year old can make his name on defense for the first couple of years in the NBA while he works on expanding his perimeter game. He should be a perfect complement to fellow tweener Ryan Gomes in the Wovles second unit. In two years, one would hope that Aminu would be ready to take over the starting spot, which is perfect because Maggette will be an expiring contract by that point.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:55 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Taylor Momsen of "Gossip Girl" fame is in a rock band, Pretty Reckless, and they've released the video for their first single (which was also on the Kick Ass soundtrack. The song is pretty promising and fairly catchy, even if it doesn't exactly build to anything and gets a little bit repetitive. Still, I like it and am very interested in what else the band has up its sleeve.

The Pretty Reckless - Make Me Wanna Die from Rowan Abeelen on Vimeo.

The weirdest part about this video is the reaction to it. A lot of people seem to be a) rooting against Momsen and b) acting like this video is somehow too racy or inappropriate. Mind you, this is a girl whose been playing a virginal yet conniving debutante-in-training on "Gossip Girl", a show that had the then 16 year old Momsen making out with twenty-something Chase Crawford. This video is pretty damned tame when compared to the world of "Gossip Girl".

Obviously, I have no idea who Taylor Momsen is as a person and I hope that she has people around her to steer her clear of the pitfalls of fame but, as for the music, it's pretty good and I'd say she deserves this shot more than a lot of actors-turned-musicians. If the album is as good as this song, Pretty Reckless should be able to go forward and be judged based on merit rather than the past roles of their lead singer.

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

The C's lost an ugly one so I'm going to head back into thinking about the draft to take my mind off that ugly and painful loss.

The strange thing about this draft is that the 1 & 2 picks are kind of like the 3 & 4 slot. At #3, the choice is fairly obvious. #4? Well, there's a guy who SHOULD go there but he mirrors someone who is already on the roster. Instead of Evan Turner v. Andre Iguodala, this time around it's DeMarcus Cousins v. Al Jefferson.

But let's not get ahead of ourselves, with the third pick in the NBA draft, the New Jersey Nets will take Derrick Favors. ESPN's Chad Ford thinks that Philly might go with Favors at #2 but I think that the Nets should probably hope that they take Turner or try to trade up to take Favors (maybe Courtney Lee and #3 for #2?) The thing with Turner in New Jersey is that the Nets are still in the hunt for the grand prize of the offseason, LeBron James and Turner doesn't matchup well with Prince James. Turner also isn't a great fit alongside Devin Harris because, like Andre Iguodala, Harris doesn't have the most consistent jumper in the world. Favors is a better fit because he's still a project and could use two or three years to come into his own. If the Nets sign an older vet like Carlos Boozer, Favors might be coming into his own just as Boozer starts to slow down a bit. Favors also complements Brook Lopez and could give the Nets one of the most imposing frontcourts in the NBA.

So that leaves us with the #4 pick. DeMarcus Cousins is the best prospect left but, as I said, he's kind of like Al Jefferson as both are talented low post scorers with questionable attitudes. Some people have the Wolves going after Syracuse's Wes Johnson but Wes reminds me a bit of the Wolves' Corey Brewer and I'm just not sold on him as anything more than a role player.

So what should the Wolves do?

While the Wolves clearly think too much of Al Jefferson (they offered him straight up for Danny Granger; a deal the Pacers turned down immediately), that isn't to say that he doesn't have value. The first deal that I thought of was Tayshaun Prince and the #7 for Jefferson and Ramon Sessions. I didn't think it was too bad but the main problem was that the middle part of the lottery is made up mainly of power forwards and that's the last thing that the Wolves need since they'd be taking Cousins at #4 and already have Kevin Love. Granted, they could take Johnson fourth and then settle on one of the remaining big men but I feel like that's settling for your second and third or fourth choice when the best option was staring you in the face.

However, I think I stumbled upon a better deal for the Wolves. The Golden State Warriors have the #6 pick and a need for a low post threat. Big Al is a better option than anyone out there, even if he doesn't seem like the ideal candidate for the track meet style of hoops that Don Nelson runs. (Then again, if he had Jefferson, maybe Nellie wouldn't have to rely 100% on gimmicks.) The Wolves have a lot of young talent but I think they could get away with offering just Corey Maggette, Kelenna Azubuike, and #6 for Al Jefferson. Yes, Maggette's contract isn't great but he's a scorer and that's what the Wolves need. I'm a huge fan of Azubuike and he should be a nice bench player for the Wolves. As for #6, Minnesota will be able to grab whichever small forward prospect is left, either Johnson or Al-Farouq Aminu.

Before the lottery is even half over, the Wolves will have improved themselves on draft day, boasting a lineup of: Flynn/Sessions, Brewer/'Buike, Maggette/Aminu, Love/Gomes, Cousins/Hollins.

As for the Warriors, if they were smart (which they aren't) they'd jump at the offer that the Memphis Grizzlies' made during the year of OJ Mayo and Hasheem Thabeet for Monta Ellis. Unfortunately for Golden State, that deal might not be on the table still since the Grizzlies might be losing Zach Randolph for some time this year; he was just implicated in a marijuana distribution case. Still, with Steph Curry and either Ellis or Mayo, the Warriors have a nice backcourt and with Jefferson, Andris Biedrins, and Anthony Randolph, they have a promising frontcourt. They can use their MLE or late first round pick to fill the void left by Corey Maggette. Or better yet, they'll get someone who actually plays some defense for a change.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:56 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Blalock's Indie Rock Playlist has a couple new songs from Arcade Fire. One of my favorite newish bands, these guys have an interesting sound that makes even songs that I'm not wild about (like the first single "Suburbs") seem interesting. Granted. the single could grow on me because a lot of their songs take a few listens to really get into. Either way, I definitely recommend the first two albums from Arcade Fire, if you haven't given them a shot yet.

I wanted to embed the player here but couldn't figure it out so here's the link to the site . You should check out the whole site because BIRP has a lot of great stuff, most notably their monthly downloads.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

This is one of the hardest NBA drafts to peg in some time. Players could fall because the teams that should pick them already have a similar player on their roster. The middle of the lottery features pretty much nothing but flawed power forwards and centers and any team needed a backcourt player is going to have to make a reach or trade down. And, most importantly, teams might be hesitant to make big trades because the draft happens a week before free agency begins. Teams with expiring contracts will probably be holding onto them for a sign-and-trade so they'll have to sit out the draft whelling & dealing.

One of the hardest teams to peg is Philly. They should probably just take Evan Turner but Turner is basically a mirror image of Andre Iguodala - ball control shooting guards with shaky perimeter games. They'd love to dump Elton Brand's contract but nobody seems like they're going to bite on that. They could deal Iguodala but they basically shot his trade value to shit this mid-season when they were pretty much looking to dump him for nothing. They can't deal him for Minnesota's pick because Minny doesn't have the expiring contracts to make the deal work. They have some nice young talent and expiring contracts but because Iggy and Brand make so much, it's unlikely that the team would want to take on another big contract. GM Ed Stefanski hasn't been in charge for long and has already painted himself into a corner.

Anyway, I've wasted a lot of time trying to figure out deals for this so I thought, before finishing up my latest mock draft, I'd throw out what I thought the Sixers should look for.

The Sixers have a lot of options but, honestly, I just don't really love any of them. They could look to dump Iggy for an expiring deal and a lotto pick (AK-47 and #9, Tayshaun Prince and #7) but I'm not sure if his trade value is high enough to get these teams to agree to those deals and I'm also not loving the guys available there, especially if it's going to cost the Sixers their best player. Swapping Iguodala out for another player is tough because most guys they could get are just as flawed as the late lotto picks. Iggy for Al Jefferson is intriguing but I'm just not sold on Big Al.

The SIxers can't even really just blow it up because their young guys aren't THAT good. I'm actually a fan of Jrue Holiday, Thad Young, and Marreese Speights but it's not like those are guys that you want to depend on for the future well-being of your franchise. Solid players, yes. But even with someone like Evan Turner, they might not be better than the current Indiana Pacers lineup. The Sixers need a star (or another star if, like me, you're a believer in Iguodala) but they can't really get that until they dump Brand and dumping Brand seems pretty damn difficult. At best, they can swap out Brand for another overpaid stiff but that doesn't really solve anything.

And all of the above issues come to a head when dealing with Sam Dalembert's expiring deal. Sure, expiring contracts are usually a great way to add talent but the Sixers might not want to add a contract if they can't dump Brand and their young guys aren't really good enough to warrant a true star in a deal. Maybe Sam, Thad Young, and Lou Williams in a deal for Vince Carter but, after Vince's performance so far against the Celtics, would you want to give up Thad and Lou Willz for Vince? They might be able to swap out Sam and Elton Brand's contract for a worse deal, like Emeka Okafor's, but I'm not sure what that gets them. I was thinking about Sam, Brand. Speights, and Thad for Okafor and David West but I'm not sure New Orleans would give up West for that. Iggy and Brand for Dalembert and West? Perhaps, but I don't love how Andre fits with that lineup.

So what's the decision? Honestly, I don't know. I've racked my brain over this for a week or so now and still can't come up with anything I like. The deal I settled on was a three team deal with Detroit getting Al Jefferson and Ramon Session, the Wolves getting Iggy and fodder, and the Sixers getting Tayshaun Prince's expiring deal and #7 pick but I think there are countless reasons why that wouldn't happen or why each team would turn it down.

In the end, I think the Sixers will probably just take Derrick Favors but they should probably just take Evan Turner and then see what they can work out later in the offseason. If GM Ed Stefasnki works the phones enough, he should be able to find some deals to make the Sixers better. I'm just not sure he's creative enough to pull it off.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:22 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

It's odd that I should have thoughts on this show because I stopped watching somewhere around the third season. Still, the first season was so good and the questions stuck with me so much that even though I stopped watching it, I kept up with the show in articles, message boards, online recaps to see if I'd ever get the closure I wanted.

I didn't

And, honestly, I wasn't expecting to. During the first season, I loved the real elements of the show. The part that I could have done without was The Smoke Monster. As it turns out, the entire show was basically about Ol' Smokey. That's not to say that the show made a mistake going that route, just that it took a turn towards towards the sci-fi genre that I wasn't interested in.

What WAS bothersome, however, was how the producers seemed to be annoyed by people wanting answers when they basically went out and campaigned for the questions. The producers tried to cop a plea that where the numbers came from didn't really matter and they compared it to finding out where the force came from in the Star Wars prequels. That's a terrible comparison because The Force was never presented as a mystery. I don't recall a moment in the original trilogy when people actively tried to discover the source of The Force or figure out its meaning. The Force was more like Superman's powers - nobody really cared how it was that he had them or what was so different about Krypton and Earth that cause it; they just wanted to see Supes save the day. The numbers, on the other hand, were constantly discussed on the show, ABC promoted the show using the numbers, and, if that wasn't enough, the producers then kept putting the numbers into the show in random places. The numbers showed up EVERYWHERE. They HAD to be important. Except they weren't.

The bottom line is that the producers figured out a good gimmick that they couldn't find a satisfying reason for so they basically tried to act like people never should have gotten into the gimmick in the first place.

I also found the Walt story intriguing and that thing was filled with unanswered questions. I also find it odd that Michael was deemed to have done wrong and forced to be a ghost on the Island because he killed people to save his son whereas Sun and Jin are allowed to cross over despite the fact that they chose to die with one another and never caring that they were orphaning their newborn child. Granted, I didn't see that episode but, from what I heard of it, it doesn't sound like it was really a heroic choice.

In the end, I have a knee jerk reflex to diss LOST, because I was so frustrated with how it went from a show I loved to a show I didn't want to actually watch but I can't really weight in on it because it just wasn't a show for me. I made the right choice to stop watching it; that doesn't mean that it wasn't good.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:33 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm really overdoing it with the "Meh" titles but that's the feeling I keep having when I leave the theater. "Solitary Man" starring Michael Douglas wasn't a bad film but it certainly wasn't good. The best way to describe it is that it felt like an adaptation of a novel that seemed more focused on hitting all of the plot points in the book and glossed over any depth or feeling. Basically, you just watch a guy who apparently wasn't all that great to start with, make one bad decision after another. There are three or four good premises for movies here but none of them are all that original. I recently saw Daybreakers and loved the premise and wished someone would make a mini-series or one-off TV series of the film. I often feel that way about movies - they have great premises but don't fulfill them. Solitary Man? It never really had the premise to begin with.

If you like Michael Douglas, you'll probably find the film engaging enough. It never really drags even though you've seen it all before (and probably lived through some of it.) 28 Weeks Later's Imogen Poots is the closest thing to a breakout star in the film while Jesse Eisenberg seems like he's digging himself deeper into being typecast. Mary Louise Parker does a nice job in her role and Susan Sarandon is fine (and her cleavage in one scene in particular is so fine it's distracting.)

There was just nothing to hold onto. It was like watching an origin story for Douglas's cad character in "Ghosts of Girlfriend's Past" except it was a melodrama instead of a comedy. I really wanted to like this movie but I just didn't.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:45 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Last Saturday, the headline on The Drudge Report was "Where's the oil?!" Rush Limbaugh was going off about how people were blowing this out of proportion and that we aren't even seeing any dead birds or oil on the shorts.

Today? The headline on Drudge is "Oil Emergency Miami". Suddenly, conservatives are pointing fingers and acting like this is a natural disaster on the same level as Katrina.

Have things gotten that worse? No. Have they found a way to spin it in their favor? There ya go! It's depressing how something this serious can be so jaded by politics. When the oil spill was a stain against off-short drilling, the conservatives downplayed it. Now that the spill can be used as a way to condemn the Obama administration, it's a disaster. The irony, of course, is that the main accusation is that Obama took to long to react to this horrific spill, even though the Right was downplaying the horror of it a week ago.

And like all things in American politics, both sides have a kernel of truth in their arguments. The spill is a disaster. It does show the major risk with off-shore drilling and it also shows that, if the government doesn't regulate companies, they will put profits over public safety. At the same time, the Obama administration hasn't grabbed the bull by the horns and really taken control of this situation. I know that they don't want to take ownership of it but it's better to admit a mistake and fix it quickly than try to avoid guilt by association and then watch things spiral out of control.

I've long held the belief that the two biggest threats to America (and two things that we HAVE to change our approach on) are terrorism and corporations. I'm coming very close to adding "politicians" to that list.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:04 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Right now, I have DirecTV. I love it, especially because they have the exclusive rights to the NFL Sunday Ticket package. But Time Warner might be getting something that could rival that. Slash Film is reporting "Major Hollywood studios are in discussions with Time Warner Cable to offer movies on demand in people’s homes just 30 days after films hit the multiplex. The concept is being called “home theater on demand”, with the idea being that consumers would be offered the recently released movies in High Definition for $20 to $30."

This is a great move for both the studios and the cable company. It gives Time Warner a great marketing tool and a reason for viewers to switch to their service. It's great for the studios because Time Warner will probably pay them a nice chunk of change for the exclusive rights to the service (DirecTV pays over 700 million a year for the NFL package.) It also gives them another revenue stream before DVD's. Also, if it's just 30 days after, the initial marketing for the film can still be effective. Usually when a film hits DVD, the studio needs to roll out an entirely new ad campaign because, by that time, most people have forgotten about the film.

On the other hand, how many films do the studios deliver that people feel they HAVE to see right away? If I was a parent, I'd much rather just convince my kid to wait 30 days and then invite people over to watch the movie at home rather than have to trek the troop out to the theater. While the experience of going to the theater is still a plus for me, a lot of people don't like it. It should be interesting to see how this works out. I think it's a positive for the movie studios.

In the grand scheme of things, however, I'm still sticking with DirecTV. Personally, if I don't see a film in the theaters, it means that I can wait until it hits DVD. In many cases, it means I can wait until I stumble upon it when it hits cable. NFL Sunday Ticket is still the stronger package because the games are live and there's really no other way to see them. As a Patriots fan in Los Angeles, my options are Sunday Ticket or going to a sports bar at 10am every Sunday (actually, earlier than that if I want to get a good seat.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:07 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

15 minutes into this movie, I regretted going to see it. I should have known better. I'm not a fan of SNL and I don't know why I thought they might make something better than the usual throw 10 stupid jokes out and hope 1 lands approach. If you like SNL, you might like this movie but I thought it was terrible and I'll be surprised if I pay to see a worse movie than this in the theaters this year.

The opening song is probably the best part of the movie. Besides that, I pretty much disliked every aspect of the movie. Oh well.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:55 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

People can talk about the problems the networks are having but this is a key moment from a show that gets tons of ad dollars sunk into it, will be back for a second season, and looks as good as a late night cable sci-fi series from the 90's. (Even worse, this apparently was one of the highlights of the show. Why would you make this scene readily available for people? Well, besides so people can mock it.

On a mildly relate note, if you want to see the trailers for all of next season's new shows, click over the The Live Feed's preview player.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:22 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Every day, I get an e-mail from Salon with headlines of their top stories and the headline "Rachel Maddow demolishes Rand Paul" caught my eye. I clicked on it and was, once again, annoyed by Rachel's insistence on focusing just on her angle and not ever letting it go and maybe focusing on bigger issues. This wasn't just not seeing the forest through the trees. This was being so focused on picking out which tree to discuss, that they ignored the fact that the forest was burning down.

In this case, Maddow is focusing on Rand Paul's comment that he had issues with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because he didn't think that the government should force private businesses to end their racist practices. This is a perfect case of when Maddow annoys me because she has all of the facts on her side but she just keeps hammering away at the same gotcha question, a question that she has to know that no candidate will ever answer. She keeps going at that one question and ignores the core of the debate, which is a crucial discussion in the modern globalized society. She doesn't demolish Paul; she simply keeps poking him in the arm.

The debate that she should have focused on, the one that is more relevant today is about the rights of businesses. Rand Paul believes business owners should have total control over their business but that's ridiculous. The oil spill in the Gulf shows us that the government needs to regulate safety. The economic situation shows that the government needs to keep an eye on private equity firms. Similarly, the government needed to step in and say that racism was not allowed in private businesses; neither in regards to who they serve or who they hire. The color of a person's skin is not a suitable reason to refuse service or employment to someone.

Rand Paul's one comeback was that the government intervening made the private business public and that suddenly people could bring guns in to private bars, clubs, etc. because they have that right to do so in public places. THIS is where Maddow should have demolished Paul. THIS is where she could have really debated him on the issue. Instead she just focused on the race issue and asked about lunch counters.

There are two responses that Maddow could have made. The first, and more "gotcha", is the simple fact that Rand Paul was comparing African-Americans to loaded weapons. Telling a business that they can't refuse service to a minority is not the same as potentially endangering the safety of patrons (which is what booze and bullets would probably do.) This leads to the second point which is that the government regulating in one area doesn't mean that it is taking over the business or about to regulate in every area. The FDA already regulates restaurants and their cleanliness; is Rand Paul against that? Should restaurants be able to be as filthy as they want to be? There was, is, and always will be a limit to how much control private businesses can have. I'm against most of those limits but there are some cases in which regulation is needed and I think it's pretty obvious that racism is one of those issues.

And this is why Rand Paul, the supposed breath of fresh air from the Tea Party, is just like everyone else in Washington - they are so focused on their ideology that they ignore the actual implications of their actions. Standing up for the rights of small businesses is honorable but refusing to step in when they are hurting people and potentially the community is wrong. On the other hand, there is also a bill in Congress over the amount of salt restaurants should be allowed to use in their food; now THAT is the government overreaching.

Rachel Maddow had a chance to call out Rand Paul for focusing too much on politics and not on the actual people. She could have helped shine a light on how ideology is ruining the American political system and how people are blindly agreeing with things that we all consider abhorrent because of a theoretical view. Instead, she couldn't break from her own ideological need. She couldn't change her own focus.

In the interview, Rand Paul kind of complained that he didn't want to focus on the issues in '64 and wanted to discuss the bigger implications. He should be happy that Rachel Maddow didn't comply because then she really would have demolished him.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The much lauded foreign film "The Secret in Their Eyes" contains some absolutely beautiful lines in it, stuff about needing to let go of the past or all you'll wind up with is memories, but beyond that, it's a made-for-TV movie. I really don't know how critics can watch films like this and say that they are the "most compelling crime story" or "most compelling love story". Neither were all that intriguing. In fact, I nearly fell asleep. In a foreign film, critics are impressed when a film hits points from many different genres. In American films, they complain that a film isn't sure what it wanted to be.

The first two examples I had of critics loving foreign language films a bit too much were "A Prophet" and "Mother" but at least those films were decent and I could see how people would fall for them. But besides a couple of very cool shots and some nice dialogue, this film was borderline tedious.

I don't recommend this film at all. In fact, since the best part is the dialogue, I'd recommend just checking out the novel on which it's based instead. That might be a bit more interesting.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:30 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I saw "Get Him to the Greek" yesterday and have to say that the film was fun but flimsy. The spin-off of "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" has none of the heart of Sarah Marshall and seems more like a riff on Superbad's hijinks. The characters are not very strong, their relationships are barely there, and when the film tries to get into any sort of moral or meaningful moments near the end, the film slows down.

That being said, the ride up to that point is funny enough to make the film worthwhile. Most of the laughs come from one liners, since the film doesn't mine too much out of its premise. Most of it is just drunken/drug fueled mayhem. Puffy Combs is probably the funniest character although Rose Byrne is the person you come away talking about. She looks amazing in the film and shows a comedic side that I don't ever remember seeing.

I think the film would have been better had Jonah Hill's character had to rein in Russell Brand's Alduos Snow and then had the tables turned and Snow was the one trying to calm Hill down. Then they could have gotten a better message in there (or they should have just foregone the message and gone straight hijinks up until the end.)

In the end, I give it a low expectations recommendation. Don't go in expecting the funniest movie ever. In fact, it's probably like the drunken escapades in the film - just a fun time that you probably won't remember much of the next day.

Here's the trailer (although I'd say about half of the lines/moments in the trailer aren't in the actual movie.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:01 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Ah, the hypocrisy of modern politics is speeding up. It took Karl Rove just around three weeks to change his stance on the Arizona Immigration bill. A couple of days ago, Rove was asked by Greta Van Susteren, why he thinks President Obama came out against the Arizona Immigration Law. HIs answer: "I think it's politics."

That's odd, weeks earlier, Rove said that he wished that Arizona hadn't passed the bill. He said there were "better tools" to use to fight immigration. He also said, "I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill."

But guess who now disagree with Karl Rove about the constitutional problems? You got it. Karl Rove.

Well, look, we've already got a 9th circuit opinion, the circuit in which Arizona -- California with -- the far -- the far left coast, so these are not necessarily mainstream judges -- that already held an officer's allowed to ask someone about his or her immigration status, regardless of whether the officer possessed a reasonable suspicion that the individual is unlawful in the country. So they're allowed to ask... We've got a federal standard that's less than the Arizona standard. So if this law is ill-conceived, the Arizona law, then what is federal law?

Most everyone understands why this Arizona law was passed. And people also agree that the law is problematic and isn't the best way to solve Arizona's issues. The real attack is "Why isn't Obama doing more to patrol the border?" but, obviously, Rove can't argue that because the federal government didn't do enough when he and President Bush were in office. For him to ignore his own dislike of the law and now claim that the President is only against it for "political" reasons seems like the height of hypocrisy.

It honestly seems like Rove's biggest issue is the racial angle getting played up by the President but that seems to be an issue that he skirts around. Most likely, for political reasons. Always better to attack the President on generalities than actually put out a fully formed point of view that might be open to its own debate.

This is nothing new, I guess. But always disappointing.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:10 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Ridley Scott is a great director. Ridley Scott is not a great storyteller. Ridley Scott produces his movies and doesn't give a damn whether you like his storytelling abilities or not.

Therein lies the problem with Ridley Scott.

While Robin Hood is nice to look at, the whole film seems empty. One of the challenges with prequels is that you know how it ends and there needs to be some sort of interesting angle to how we got to where we knew we were going. In Robin Hood, you spend two hours finding out who Robin was and then five minutes on how he became an outlaw. To me, that's the completely opposite of what it should be. I don't need two hours of learning that Robin was a good man and a great leader; I want to know the chicanery and backstabbing deals that turned him from great man to outlaw. And that's barely here.

This film reminds me a little bit of M. Night Shymalan's Unbreakable except, of course, for the fact that, going into the film, we already knew who the characters were and where'd they were to end up. Not only are the films similar in that they rushed through the big moment of truth but they also seem to be first films in trilogies that will never be made. For instance, there is zero reason for the Sheriff of Nottingham in this film except to set him up for the second film. What are the odds that they ever make a second film? I'd say slim-to-none.

And don't get me started about the ending... (spoilers ahead, of course)

The final fight is pointless and, surprisingly for Scott, not very well done. There's a moment with two boats about to collide that was the worst tension building moment in a film I've seen in a long time. And then there's the whole Maid Marian business. First, she runs into the fight with a bunch of kids, like they're going to do something. Then she has to get saved by Robin Hood because, surprise, she gets the snot beaten out of her. Then, with the battle still raging, her and Robin Hood start making out. (Extra awkward points because she's dressed like a dude. Must have been weird for the other guys in the fight to see their leader having a figurative swordfight in the middle of their actual one.)

And then the villain gets his comeuppance... while he's running away. Yeah, I know he was an evil man but since when is shooting a guy in the back (arrow or not) the hero's path to justice.

The bottom line is that there's no reason for a Robin Hood movie to be two and a half hours long. This film isn't a joyless as many people describe it (the merry men offer some moments of levity) but it's just not that interesting. Basically, it's someone telling you a story you already know, building up the introduction of the characters you are already familiar with, and then rushing through the interesting part of the tale.

If you're a Ridley Scott fan, then have at it but, other than that, I can't really recommend this film.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

After the Celtics won the title, I changed the picture at the top of my now defunct hoops blog to a picture of Danny Ferry. I knew that he wouldn't make me look bad and turn the team around (or in his case, get it to the next level.) And Danny didn't let me down.

What Danny Ferry learned this year is the truth in the age old adage: If something seems to good to be true, it probably is.

Ferry's team is built up by a bunch of castoffs. The Bucks wanted to dump Mo Williams. The Suns were looking to dump Shaq. The Wizards just wanted to get rid of Antawn Jamison. Now Danny knows why. Shaq is toast, Mo is sporadic at best, and Jamison is ridiculously soft.

The main difference between Danny Ainge and Danny Ferry is that when it came time to give up something of value to fulfill a plan, Ainge would pull the trigger while Ferry would hope a "better" deal came along. Danny Ainge rolled the dice by making arguably the worst trade in Celtics history (Ratliff/Telfair for Raef/Brandon Roy) in order to get an expiring contract. He gave up the #5 pick to get Ray Allen, a player that many people were ready to write off. Ferry? He wouldn't give up JJ Hickson to get Vince Carter.

If the Cavs want any chance of keeping LeBron James, they have to dump Ferry. Especially now because the team basically has no expiring contracts and it's going to take some risky deals and fancy maneuvering to bring in some legit talent. Honestly, I'm not sure he'll be able to do it (unless Christian Eyenga, the Cavs 2009 draft pick, is a LOT better than the woeful numbers he put up overseas).

Now this isn't to put all the blame on Ferry. LeBron James isn't leading his team like an alpha dog and one of the best examples of it is actually Big Baby Davis.

There were two moments in the game that showed the difference between Kevin Garnett's Celtics and LeBron James's Cavs. The first was when the camera showed Big Baby talking to KG on the bench and KG was just shaking his head know. It was obvious that Baby was a bit annoyed and trying to plead his case but KG was there to set him straight. I don't think we've ever seen a moment like that out of LeBron.

Moments later, after Big Baby screwed up badly, the camera cut to him and you could see him looking at the bench (where KG was jawing) and yelling, "I fucked up! I fucked up! I fucked up!" He was pissed off but, at the same time, you knew damn well that he realized how he messed up and wasn't going to do it again. LeBron James doesn't ever do this. He seems like he wants to be everyone's friend. He needs to get meaner. Why doesn't he? I blame Kobe.

I think that LeBron has seen all the shit Kobe gets and how a lot of people don't like him and he believes that is the reason Kobe's never gotten to be as big as Michael. Obviously, this is speculation on my part but it seems to me that LeBron would rather be loved than feared because it's better for his brand. The thing he's missing out is that you HAVE to be feared in order to win. Michael Jordan had a great image but behind the scenes, many of his teammates didn't exactly care for him. He was absolutely brutal with his trash talk. If you think his opponents got it bad, his teammates got it worse.

He called Will Perdue "Will Vanderbilt" because "he doesn't deserve to be named after a Big Ten school."
Michael to Horace Grant: "You're an idiot. You've screwed up every play we ever ran. You're too stupid to even remember the plays. We ought to get rid of you."
During a game, he yelled to his coach about teammate Scotty Hopson, ""Your boy doesn't want to play. I'm tired of bailing his ass out."
"It's a hell of a lot easier to make Earl Monroe look good than it is Brad Sellers."

And perhaps the quote that LeBron needs to take to heart the most...
"I want to prove the critics wrong...I want to see some serious moves from management, which I really haven't seen that much of yet, and I want to see more serious attitudes from my teammates this year when it comes to the playoffs. In the past, it's been more or less a joking thing, sort of a 'Well, we're here, so let's have a good time.'"..........

The question is: will LeBron ever become this type of personality? Part of me thinks he won't. He'll be like Paul Pierce, a talented player but one who needs an alpha dog like Antoine Walker or Kevin Garnett to really take the reins of the team and be the vocal leader.

If that's the case, the next question is: who is out there that can play that role for LeBron? And that's a tough answer. Chris Bosh showed signs of life when he was frustrated this year but I'm not sure he's got that fire. Amar'e certainly isn't that guy. Neither is Dirk. If you look at the team vying for James's services (Chicago, New York, New Jersey, etc.) None of them have it. The one guy who I think could fill that role is Dwyane Wade and I don't think LeBron is going to be willing to go to Miami, to Wade's team, in order to win his ring. That's not what Global Icons do.

LeBron's mind is likely going to be made up for him. If Cleveland doesn't fire Mike Brown and Danny Ferry, there's no reason to go back. If New York can't get another legit free agent to sign, that's dead. If Chicago can't move Luol Deng for a great power forward or shooting guard, I'd cross that off the list. What New Jersey does with their lotto pick could determine their fate.

It's going to be an interesting summer in the NBA. But if the Cleveland Cavaliers don't fire Mike Brown and Danny Ferry, it's likely to be a long, depressing season.

As for where I think LeBron will end up. I think the people of New Jersey are gonna be singing, "Woke up this morning, got myself LeBron."

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:38 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

After game 5, I asked the posters over at Okayplayer.com what LeBron's new nickname should be if they lost. Here's what we came up with.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:56 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

No hoops today so I thought I'd toss up the first mock lottery (which is kind of a waste since we don't know the order of the draft) but I can't sleep. So here's my first crack at it. It features a couple of big trades and one reach.

1.New Jersey Nets: John Wall - The next trick is to move Devin Harris. I think Josh Smith or Michael Beasley could be options. Maybe Harris and Yi for Smith and the #24 pick? There should be a lot of options and with this draft being pretty poor for point guards after Wall, the Nets should be in a seller's market.

2. Minnesota Timberwolves: Evan Turner - A perfect fit for the Wolves. He should be their leading man in the backcourt and take pressure off of Jonny Flynn while allowing Corey Brewer to settle into his niche and not force him to create his own offense so much. The only way this isn't Turner is if they move Al Jefferson for a shooting guard and decide to go with Derrick Favors alongside Kevin Love.

3. Sacramento Kings: DeMarcus Cousins - The Kings rolled the dice on the talented but troubled Tyreke Evans last year and hit a home run so they try to do the same with Cousins this season. Derrick Favors is a solid option as well, especially if you're trying to add some defensive presence around 'Reke but Cousins is simply too talented to pass up.

4. Golden State Warriors: Derrick Favors - He should be a defensive force and I think that a Favors, Anthony Randolph, and Steph Curry trio has some incredible upside. The downside, of course, is that Randolph should have emerged already and Favors is a bit of a project. Still, I think he's the best option for the Warriors at this point, although they might want to try to make a deal to swap picks with the Kings so they can grab Cousins instead.

5. Washington Wizards: Greg Monroe - If Al-Farouq Aminu proves that he can play PF in the pros, I take him here. But if I was the Wizards, I would do what the Knicks haven't been doing and customizing a team for my free agent target. For the Wizards, that man is hometown hero Carmelo Anthony. I like the Andray Blatche/Greg Monroe frontcourt and think another top pick or signing could help land 'Melo. (Then again, they may also want to consider selling high on Blatche if they dont' think he'll ever really put it together in the attitude department.)

6. Dallas Mavericks (via 76ers): Wesley Johnson - I'm not completely sold on this one but I think the Sixers are desperate to start over and, quite frankly, the remaining prospects aren't so appealing that I wouldn't sacrifice the pick to dump a big contract. And the Sixers dump two in this deal - the Mavs acquire Andre Iguodala, Elton Brand, and the #6 pick for Erick Dampier's non-guaranteed money and Caron Butler's expiring deal. It's a lot to give up but the Sixers were already talking about giving away Iggy just to dump one year of Sam Dalembert's contract. If they could dump the three years of Brand, it'll cost more. Mark Cuban can eat a salary like Brand, who, even now, would probably be the best post player that Dirk's played with in years. Wes Johnson serves as a sixth man and could play alongside Iggy at times.

7. Detroit Pistons: Cole Aldrich The Pistons are in a similar predicament to the Sixers but their guys have more talent. I think they could make a deal without the pick, perhaps building the Pistons That Could Have Been in Denver with Rip Hamilton and Ben Gordon to the Nuggets for Kenyon Martin and JR Smith. (Although the Nuggets might not take that much salary either way, or would need a PF) I doubt anything would get worked out by draft night so I think The 'Stones fill a spot of need and add a low post big man in Aldrich.

8. Los Angeles Clippers: Al-Farouq Aminu - He's a small forward who will add some defense to the proceedings in L.A. He seems like a perfect fit for the Clippers.

9. Utah Jazz: Donatas Motiejunas - I'm sure the Jazz would love to deal this but I'm not sure what's out there for them. They're finally almost out from under Andrei Kirilenko's monster deal and I'm not sure if they want to swap it out for another questionable deal like Luol Deng. If they can't swing a deal for a small forward, they end up opting for Mehmet Okur's eventual replacement.

10. New Jersey Nets (via Pacers): Ed Davis - The Pacers give up the #10 pick and Mike Dunleavy's expiring contract for Devin Harris and Yi Jianlian. If they drive a hard bargain, they could also grab the #27 pick but when has GM Larry Bird ever done that? The Nets complete an almost perfect draft, grabbing two great young prospects to team with Brook Lopez, Terrence Williams, and Courtney Lee. I might actually consider waiting a year before spending the cap space to see if they can't grab one more top prospect.

11. New Orleans Hornets: Paul George If someone is dumb enough to take Emeka Okafor's awful contract off of their hands, the Hornets should give up this pick and say thank you very much. I just don't think that that team exists. If they use the pick, they should try to figure out which small forward is the best: Paul George, Damion James, Gordon Hayward, etc. Basically, they should look for a young version of what James Posey never was for them. Right now, I'd go for George.

12. Memphis Grizzlies: Xavier Henry - I think the Grizzlies go through with their OJ Mayo/Hasheem Thabeet for Monta Ellis deal. I'm not a huge fan of it for Memphis but it's not awful. Henry steps in at the shooting guard spot and should be a great fit since he can shoot the ball and that's what the Grizz need, someone to feed off of Ellis, Randolph, and Rudy Gay (should they re-sign him).

13. Toronto Raptors: Patrick Patterson - The Raptors are stuck with Hedo Turkoglu and Andrea Bargnani for a while now so they might as well draft a guy who makes sense alongside them. Granted, they'll probably look for a defensive minded big like Hassan Whiteside but I think that Patterson is the best player available and, while he wouldn't ever replace Chris Bosh, he could be a better fit given the roster the Raptors have.

14. Houston Rockets: Hassan Whiteside - With Brooks, Martin, Ariza, Scola, and Ming, the Rockets are set with a team that I don't think will ever go anywhere. Their biggest need is probably a backup big man since Yao is always banged up. Daniel Orton is a bigger body but Whiteside has the upside (although late lotto bigs almost never seem to live up to their upside.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:56 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I wasn't sure about this film but this trailer has gotten me excited about it. In a related note, it's weird how one small role can affect an actor's career but after seeing Emily Blunt in "Charlie Wilson's War", I'll never again question whether or not she's sexy.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The National is the latest best band that you've never heard of, according to most music reviewers. They have a different sound that takes a moment to get used to but they are pretty good. I'm not sure that I'm ever going to become a huge fan of them but they are a solid group. Here's the latest single.

Speaking of groups with singers with low voices, the Crash Test Dummies are back with their first new album in like a decade. I know, you liked Mmm Mmm Mmm so much that you couldn't wait for this latest record. The songs on the album are... capable. I've only listened to the first few songs but they all start off promising and then kind of don't go anywhere. Kind of like the band's career.

Jack White's side project, The Dead Weather, has a new album out and I've never really been a fan so it's hard for me to weigh in on whether it's good or not. On the other hand, I was a big fan of Keane and they seem to be making a cash grab with their last couple albums and coming up empty. In fact, I think all they've done is push their fans away.

Two albums that I haven't listened to yet are the new ones from Broken Social Scene and The Hold Steady but both seem to be popular. They could be a future tryout but I feel like I've listened to both bands before and neither really grabbed me.

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

The main problem with Iron Man 2 was that it was only half Iron Man. The other half, I'd guess you'd call it Avengers prologue pt. 1, really didn't fit and took away from the overall story. We spend the first part of the movie meeting Whiplash and then the villain essentially disappears until the final act. While Sam Rockwell's Justin Hammer character was entertaining, he was kind of an impotent villain because he wasn't really a threat besides the fact that he'd assist Whiplash. In fact, the storyline isn't too far from the Superman 2 storyline with Lux Luthor helping out Zod and his two cronies, except Zod was a much better villain.

The biggest problem with the Iron Man films has been the lack of a great villain. The power source for Iron Man's suit seemed like a bigger threat than anyone else for most of the film. And, like the power source, the threat was pretty much just to Tony Stark. Whiplash's drones were just after Stark. I guess we're supposed to believe that somehow nobody got hurt in the crossfire (or maybe we're just not supposed to care) but the world has yet to really face much peril in these films. And the importance of Tony Stark isn't THAT great because apparently anyone like Rhodey can hop in the suit and control it with little to no problem.

This film also had the same episodic issue that took me out A Prophet. Tony Stark never really seeemed overwhelmed in the film. Whiplash came and was caught. Then Tony was a drunk. Then Tony worked on his element. He discovered what he needed to and then was off to fight Whiplash. It was all too convenient. There never really seemed to be an overlap of any two problems. When Stark was at his worst, his enemies were at their quietest. Not having a secret identity takes away on possible juggling act so the writers probably should have tried to find another way to have Tony Stark struggling with multiple issues at once.

Sadly, when they should have been doing that, they were spending their time forging forward with the Avengers story. And that didn't really help anything. It gave an early deus ex machina solution to Tony's problem and allowed for one action scene that, fittingly, turned out to be pointless.

In the end, the movie was fine but forgettable. And that just puts more pressure on the following Marvel films because I'm not sure that the Iron Man coattails are going to be able to carry the Avengers movie. If Captain America and Thor disappoint, it could hurt the big 2012 release. It also should be interesting to see what kind of drop IM2 has. Robin Hood is coming out this next week and I'm not sure that the word of mouth on Iron Man is going to bring in a big second weekend audience. It won't make the huge 72% drop that the lousy Nightmare on Elm Street did but I could see 55 - 65%.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:27 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

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

CNN has an article out asking, "Is social media killing film critics?"
Do a certain extent you can say yes but the bigger issue is, like all species pushed to the brink of extinction, was that they didn't adapt.

Most film critics really offer nothing more than their opinion on whether they liked a film or not. in the internet age, that's just not enough. You can get that anywhere. So what did these reviewers do? Nothing. They just kept on reviewing films and then were stunned when their publications didn't need them anymore. Roger Ebert is the best known critic out there and one reason for that is because he a) actually does research and his reviews offer more insight to a film (so much so that, even though I almost never agree with him, I'll check out his reviews after I see a film) and b) he actually interacts with the people. On his site, he often responds to the comments/message board section. How many other critics did that?

But reason A is probably the biggest issue. When people could get opinions anywhere they wanted, the film critic had to dig deeper. At the very least, they had to punch up their writing styles. Bill Simmons is the most popular sports writer in the U.S. right now and he's little more than an education fan. Pauline Kael and Ebert's stars rose based on their barbs. Siskel and Ebert worked so well because the two men would argue so much; the later hosts acted like people would really just tune in for their opinions.

Earlier I used the term "reviewer" because that's all most "critics" were. They rarely added more insight and almost never would write an in-depth article about the state of the movies as a whole.

Is social media killing film critics? No, it's killing the film critics who get paid to just sit around and review films. That position was a luxury, one that pretty much any cub reporter on the payroll could do. While film reporters are dying, film websites are on the rise, many of them gaining in prominence. The reason isn't just because they are on the internet, it's because they offer more than opinion, have personalities, and, often, make for entertaining reading. Too many film critics out there who lost their jobs couldn't change to keep up with the new marketplace.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:11 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

So Sports Illustrated has an article on Big Ben Roethlisberger and it says that maybe the sexual assault and overall jackass behavior isn't his fault. They are saying that he might have frontal lobe damage from concussions and the motorcycle accident he got in.

I have two major issues with this article. First off, you can't help but wonder why the white guy getting in trouble gets to cop the "It's not me, it's my lobe." defense. Are you saying none of the black players who've acted in socially unacceptable ways have never gotten a concussion? This reminds me of how uppity white parents react to children failing at school - black kids don't pay attention and are lazy and will probably end up on drugs, their sweet young thing has ADD and needs to be prescribed drugs.
The second issue is that nowhere in the article does the author suggest that maybe Big Ben, the guy with a mental problem so bad that it has turned him into a sexual predator, should consider retiring. Not once. Instead it blames his entourage. No, seriously.

"If doctors conclude that Roethlisberger's behavior is the result of brain injury, the treatment, Grafman says, is to manage his environment and keep him out of precarious social situations, a difficult task at which his bodyguards/woman-wranglers fared exceedingly poorly."

This article is absolutely stunning. I don't doubt that the concussions haven't helped Ben any but the guy comes off as your typical pampered athlete. Should we blame Brett Favre's prima donna "Should I stay or should I go?" act on head injuries? Did Michael Strahan agree to look like Jared's boyfriend in Subway commercials because of too many concussions?

This is the new prejudice that permeates too much of the sports media. People don't call out black players as much as they'll make excuses for white ones. A black man that acts like Ben is wrong and needs to take responsibility for his actions; Ben does it because he's got an ailment and it's not his fault. And you know what, it might not even be as obvious as that. It's just that nobody ever seemed to think of writing an article like this (or putting it on the front of CNNSI) when a black guy was getting in trouble.

Just something to consider. But I have had a couple concussions in my life so what do I know?

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:45 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'll readily admit two things about LeBron James - the first is that I don't know him and he could be a great guy, the second is that he is annoys the piss out of me and seems to think that if he seems like a Favre-like narcissist.

The latest example is that LeBron James is getting his third MRI on his elbow. I have NEVER seen a star athlete, in the middle of the playoffs, work so hard to prove that he's injured. Most superstars try to avoid MRI's because they don't want the trainers to shut them down. Not LeBron. I'm sure he's hurting but what is the point of these MRIs? If something structural comes up, is he really going to sit out for a week? Does he think that they may find something that has a miracle cure for it?

LeBron James always seems to be hoarding attention and focusing on crafting his image. It's like he sees Kobe (and Brandon Roy) fighting off injuries and wants to get in on it. A bone bruise isn't enough; he has to be overcoming a legit injury. As great as Jordan was at creating his brand, I don't feel like it ever really affected his play or directed his actions on the court.

The Cavs are lucky that they aren't down 0 - 2 to the Celtics right now (and my prediction that the Magic are going to the Finals is looking better and better) and LeBron can't use his elbow as an excuse. He just looked out of it in the last game and his half-assed play only makes the Celtics gameplan even better since their M.O. is to let the star get their points but shut down everyone else.

I predicted that the Celtics would win the series and I'm sticking to that (even though I think there's a good chance they lose Game 3). I don't trust Mo Williams and Antawn Jamison and think that the better front court options (Z, Hickson, Varejao) are going to lose too many minutes to Jamison and Shaq. On the bright side, if LeBron loses, I hope he re-signs (or bolts town) quickly so we don't have to suffer through a summer of him eating up the attention of people trying to sign him.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:51 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:42 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I don't watch "Lost" but if you do and haven't seen the last episode, this has spoilers.

Is it me or is Lost a right wing conspiracy? Look at everyone who dies on that show. Let's see, Boone died after falling from the NIGERIAN plane (symbolic of those nigerian e-mails? Don't FALL for them!). Shannon was shot by Ana-Lucia who was then gunned down. The other woman shot? Libby! Short for Liberals? Hmmmm. Charlie the foreign rock star died as did Mr. Eko, the religious black man. The only other black guy didn't seem to ever know where his kid was and then, correct me if I'm wrong, sold out a bunch of white people for his own personal gain. Our latino couple (criminals, of course) are buried alive, perhaps showing how the right wing really wants to solve the immigration problem. The man with multiple wives and with a girl's name (Leslie) mishandled sticks (of dynamite) and died - read any double entendre into that. The woman Regina tried to take the place of a man and couldn't handle it - putting chains on herself and committing suicide.

Now either the Smoke Monster is trying out for an Arizona area police department and Hurley needs to watch his back or maybe I'm just up too late and looking for ways to make fun of this show.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:41 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

WIth Lala.com being down, I can't post albums anymore but that doesn't mean I can't stop recommending some bands. The New Pornographers have a new record out and this indie supergroup is definitely worth a listen. Most people think to seem that "Challengers" was a step up but from what I heard of it, I preferred their previous songs. But I just bought "Together" (the new album) and "Challengers" so maybe it will grow on me. Anyway, they are one of my favorite bands of the 2000's and below are a few of their songs (including their new single "Your Hangs (Together)". I'd definitely recommend checking them out.

And speaking of new music, Pitchfork has Trent Reznor's latest project, How to Destroy Angels' first song. I have to agree with one of the comments - hearing a female voice instead of Trent's is a bit odd. Also, it's missing the emotion (usually anguish) of Trent's voice. At the very least, it's still good background music.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:28 PM | Permalink | Comments ()