Oh Keith.

Not only did Keith Olbermann bring back his childish Worst Persons in the World segment but he is using it for petty reasons. He's now attacking Bristol Palin's role as an abstinence spokesperson. First off, as Politico also pointed out, this "news" is extremely old. The video she made with "The Situation" came out a couple of weeks ago and she's been on the abstinence kick for a while now. And while I have questioned Palin's qualifications to be a role model, she theoretically could be a good spokesperson for abstinence BECAUSE of her unwanted pregnancy. To have some virgin up there explaining why people should never have sex isn't as effective as having someone who has had sex and faced the consequences or someone who wants others to learn from their mistakes. It's why Michael Vick can be an effective speaker for animal rights or why Scared Straight can work. (Although, not to go into something I've written about before but I think Palin is one of the of girls who is famous BECAUSE of her unwanted pregnancy, which is the lesson that all too many young women will take from her situation. Palin being upset about her pregnancy seems like Paris Hilton or Kim Kardashian regretting their sex tape.)

But more troubling is the hyperbole. Can you imagine if Sarah Palin compared something as slight as this to 9/11? Olbermann would be the first one on his soapbox lambasting the former Governor for making light of the tragedy or diminishing the importance of the attacks on the Twin Towers.

There literally isn't a single worthwhile piece of news or opinion in Olbermann's piece. He simply doesn't like the Palin's and will make up reasons to attack the entire family. It's yet another example of why MSNBC, if they want to be seen as a credible news source, needs to revamp their entire lineup and get rid of blowhards like Olbermann. And I know that the initial reaction to this is the equally chilish "But Fox does it...", which always strikes me as odd because for all the times that the Left claims that they are better than the right, they also use Fox News as a measuring stick for when they screw up. You can't have it both ways. You can hold yourself in high regard while judging yourself against the lowest standard.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:03 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

In another example of the liberal media showing its bias while also unwittingly helping their opponent, bloggers and many "news sources" made a big to do about Sarah Palin's slip of the tongue of saying that North Korea is our ally. The Left went nuts showing how this was example of how dangerously underqualified Palin is. Now, that may be 100% true but by making what seemed to be or, more importantly, can be passed off as a minor slip of the tongue into a key sign of Palin's weakness, the press has allowed the former Governor and her team to blow off the criticism, point the finger at the media, and later use it to deflect legitimate shortcomings.

Palin's lack of experience and basic knowledge about foreign affairs (and, by some reports, our own history) is a definite issue and one that SHOULD derail any hope she has of running this country. However, by picking on little miscues, the press makes it seem like this flaw is almost a media concoction rather than a very significant and potentially dangerous shortcoming. And we've all seen how good Palin is at shrugging off even the most obvious of attacks so if you're going to come at her on such a serious topic, it needs to be substantial and not a trifle like a possible slip of the tongue.

And while the press is harping over the North Korea comment, they seem to be missing the more problematic Palin move: her attack on Michelle Obama's anti-obesity initiative. Palin recently commented that Obama's initiative is yet another attack against Americans' "god-given rights to choose", a very odd wording since a) God really didn't give the choice of obesity; gluttony and sloth are two of the leading causes of obesity and are also two of the seven deadly sins. (and Saint Gregory, Pope Innocent XI, and Saint Thomas Aquinas all took FAR tougher stances on gluttony than the First Lady has.) and b) she's 100% against the right to choose in terms of abortion or gay marriage or to serve openly in the military, etc.

Palin's argument also focuses on Obama trying to usurp power from the people when, in fact, the initiatives plans (as I know them) seem to focus on HELPING parents. It wants to limit the amount of advertisements for junk food during childrens' shows, it wants to improve the quality of school lunches. It doesn't say that people must pack healthy lunches for their children, rather that the government supplied lunches should be held to a higher nutritional standard. These are things that help our children, our future, and to oppose them seems ridiculous. Instead, it's politics as usual which is a key strike against Palin who, despite her constant need to go after cheap political points, claims to be bringing a new brand of politics to Washington.

This is a clear example of Palin politicizing an issue and trying to make an Us vs. Them argument when it not only doesn't belong but actually could harm the majority. Also, it's yet another example in which the Right has complaints but no solutions. 33% of children in the US are obese. Clearly something is not right and to just promote the status quo isn't a viable option. The people need better nutritional information and parents need help giving their children quality food. All that Sarah Palin has offered are sugar cookies.

In the end, Sarah Palin literally served up the perfect metaphor for her entire existence when she showed up at a Pennsylvania school gathering with sugar cookies. She can be appealing but offers no real value of any sort and is better to avoid or just take in small servings. Her political attacks are similar: cheap, easy, and barely substantive. Sadly, the media is too busy making mountains out of a molehill and giving Palin all the more ammo to complain that she's unduly scrutinized by the media.

Yet again, I'd call out to the liberal media to go back to actual reporting because their attempts at activist journalism do more harm than good.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:37 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The year is almost over and "Best of" lists are starting to come out so I thought I'd get a head start on mine. Obviously, I still don't know about a lot of the albums and movies that are going to come out but the TV season is basically set and no new shows will be coming out any time soon (or I don't think any are premiering before the year is out) so I thought I'd toss out my five favorite shows of the new year. I don't like to say "Best" because it's all subjective. For instance, I wouldn't argue against someone putting "Raising Hope" on the list but it just wasn't my kind of show.

So without further ado, here's the list.

Honorable Mention - Hawaii 5-0: Do I like Hawaii 5-0? Not really. I watched a few episodes and had no second thoughts about deleting it from my queue. That being said, after watching the train wreck that was Law & Order: LA, I have to give the creators of 5-0 some credit. Yes, the show is basically NCIS: Hawaii and offers nothing new but they handle the old formula well and have delivered a watchable show. This hasn't been a very good year for new shows so I think we do need to give some credit for simple competence. It's harder than it looks and they made a show that resonates with a large audience so kudos to them even if I have no interest in the program.

5. Dead Set: This is kind of cheating because it's basically a mini-series but I'm still going to count it. I've mentioned it before: London is taken over by zombies and the cast and some of the crew of Big Brother are trapped inside the Big Bro house. The show isn't a comedic as you'd expect although it does have some great moments that satire the reality TV existence. It's also a pretty damn good entry in the zombie genre although its timing isn't great since "Walking Dead" premiered this year. Then again, with Walking Dead doing so well, I wouldn't be stunned to see an American remake of this, even just as a TV movie next Halloween.

4. Boardwalk Empire: Admittedly, the first episodes of this were a chore to watch and I'm starting to side with the people who question whether Steve Buscemi was the best choice for the lead character but it's gaining momentum and is delivering some standout moments and top notch performances. It's definitely not a show for everyone and I'd be absolutely stunned if it made it past season 2 but it's good enough to earn a spot on the list.

3. Luther: Another BBC series that IMO benefits from short season (only six episodes). Admittedly, I've only seen the last few episodes but it's a top notch crime drama. The first part of episode 1 is posted in a post below and the season is available at Amazon or on Netflix. I definitely recommend this show that rivals Justified as my favorite new police drama of the last few years.

2. The Walking Dead: Not to belabor the point but this is another short season show that takes advantage off being able to have a more focused story and not have to water things down in order to make a 22 episode order. This show features some of the best zombie makeup I've ever seen and there are some genuine surprises. This also gets points for making the old slow walking zombies scary again.

1. Terriers: This show gets better every week. Twists and turns and interwoven stories. Great character arcs. Interesting and fresh cases for the PI's to track. This show really has it all. What it also has is a grimy, drab, beaten down feel to it that makes it one of those shows that most average people probably won't want to sit down to after a long day of work. Also, the show didn't really find itself until the third or fourth episode, when it started to become more like a Shawn Ryan (The Shield) type show and less like a Ted Griffin (Ocean's 11) production. He's flying under the radar but Michael Raymond-James should be in discussions for an Emmy or Golden Globe. The entire cast is amazing and should definitely get some award for best ensemble. Walking Dead is great but if I could sacrifice it for a second season of "Terriers", I'd do it in a heartbeat.

If this show does get cancelled, Tim Minear could be taking the grown as Mr. Brilliant But Cancelled. Not that I loved all of these shows but the critics consistently rave about the projects he's linked to as an Executive Producer: Terriers, Firefly, Wonderfalls, Drive, Standoff, etc.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:55 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

"Edge of Darkness" has a tough road to hoe from the very start because it stars controversy lightning rod Mel Gibson. It's hard to see Gibson as anything else but Crazy Ass Mel nowadays and this film doesn't help itself much by barely giving his character any backstory. Making matters worse, the producers moved the original British mini-series and set it in Boston so Mel was doing a Boston accent in the film. And that's what it seemed like, not a guy from Boston but Mel Gibson running around talking like a Masshole.

Now I'll readily admit that the Mel Issue might have ruined the film for me but honestly, there really isn't much film to ruin. The film definitely feels like an adaptation of a longer story. I'm also not surprised to read that the original mini-series was told in a non-linear story because there seems to be a lot missing in this film. And because so much is missing, what is left just feels kind of boring and it plays like a retread of countless other "Vengeful Cop/Father" movies. Also, unlike "Fair Game" which basically revolves around the fact that it's one family vs. the government, this film never really makes that much of an issue. Mel's mad cop just goes from one suspect to the next, no matter who they are.

Also, character-wise, because the film's plot kicks off from the get-go, we never really see Mel's cop "disintegrate", which is how the character's personality is described in write-ups about the mini-series. There are no real stakes. In a film like "Gone Baby Gone", we can see what the obsession over a crime can do to a marriage. The same for "Fair Game". In this film, Gibson's character seems like he's on the outs from the very beginning and just stays there. Even a straight-forward revenge movie like "Man on Fire" has more depth to the character than this film.

In the end, I don't think it matters whether I say to watch this film or not because by halfway through the movie, you'll stop really paying attention. From the reviews, I'd recommend checking out the BBC mini-series and skipping this poorly adapted American rehash. Unless you love pretty much any and every stock cop drama, there's no need to check out "Edge of Darkness".

Or if you want to catch the next BBC series that will (and should) probably get a US remake, check out "Luther", starring Idris Elba, best known as Stringer Bell from "The Wire". I've only seen the last three episode of the six episode first series but it was great and had a few twists that I didn't really see coming. I just checked out the opening of Ep. 1 and it's a pretty great set-up of what the show is like. Here's part 1 of episode 1.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:24 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The problem with Fair Game is the problem with most Iraq War movies; the Americans just aren't the most interesting topic. So far, I'd say that the best productions about the current wars in the Middle East are Jarhead and Generation Kill and they are both about the relationships amongst the troops and their leaders and less about the actual war itself. Once you get into the actual battles, the American side of the story just isn't that compelling.

Case in point, "Fair Game" is about Valerie Plame but there's a b-story about an Iraqi-American woman who heads back to Iraq to get in contact with her brother, a scientist who once worked in Saddam's weapons program before it was taken out in the first Iraq War. That story is the best part of the movie but it's relegated to the b-story and we're somehow supposed to feel more for Plame, which is hard since she lost her career and perhaps her marriage whereas the people in Iraq were losing their lives.

That being said, the Valerie Plame story is still an absolutely amazing story since it's all about how the government lied to create a war and then tried to shift the focus off of their own lies and onto media circuses like the Valerie Plame discussion. Unfortunately for the film "Fair Game", the story can only carry so much of the film and the characters and emotional elements of the movie just don't work. "Fair Game" was by far the most intriguing yet boring movie of the year. I wouldn't put the blame on the actors though; Sean Penn is great and Naomi Watts gives her best performance in years but there's just a lack of stakes; even the final titles that tell us what happened to everyone doesn't mention the lives lost in Iraq rather it focuses on where Plane, Wilson, and Scooter Libby are today. The film, like the administration, treats our troops and the people of Iraq more as collateral damage than the actual victims of the crime.

The Valerie Plame story is a key moment in modern US History; a story about how someone tried to tell the truth and the government effectively changed the story and got everyone focusing on one woman instead of the lies it had told to get us into war. It's about what was probably the most obvious coverup of our day but it's not about the cost of our coverup or how/why everyone fell for it. "Fair Game" also falls for it though, as I've said, focusing on Plame and not the greater truth that was out there.

Basically, if you talk about the Valerie Plame incident by focusing on Plame, you've already missed the point.

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

The first "Green Hornet" trailer was definitely a disappointment but this latest trailer makes it seem like it could be a fun action film.

Hopefully the same will be said for the second "Green Lantern" trailer because this first one doesn't make me feel very confident about the movie. It starts well with Ryan Reynolds doing his usual Ryan Reynolds thing but the awkward line/line read from Blake Lively starts things on the wrong foot and it doesn't get better than this. If I was going to bet on a movie getting lost in the wild Summer of 2011, right now I might put it on "Green Lantern".

Check that, make this one my bet on a summer misfire. After seeing the trailer for "Cowboys and Aliens", I'm starting to wonder if Summer 2011 isn't going to be another disappointing blockbuster season. Maybe there's more to this but right now I'm just not all that fired up about it and would rather see a Wild West zombie movie than aliens.

Finally, there's the trailer for Duncan Jones's follow-up to "Moon". This one is called "Source Code" and I thought it looked pretty cool although I got nervous when I saw the "Save the Girl" angle pop up at the end of the trailer.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:56 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

This is pretty great and will likely be stuck in your head all day. Fallon seems to be proving the critics wrong and doing a great job with his late night show. And it was nice to see him not break and start laughing when The Boss came out; I feel like a few years ago on SNL, he wouldn't have been able to do that.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:52 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I have to admit that I was skeptical at the start of this trailer since most of the jokes stemmed from simple curse word (although I did definitely laugh at "But what if he buttfucked her.") but by the end of the trailer, I was definitely interested in checking this out. I think having legit action scenes will help this; I've always wanted a return to the 80's cop comedy movies that had some over-the-top humor but then honest-to-goodness action and stakes in them as well. It seems like nowadays people either have action with shoddy comedy or comedy with lousy action and zero tension.

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

MTV might have been trying to make a more serious version of Teen Wolf but the trailer is almost as funny as original film. It looks like a bad straight-to-DVD movie and hits almost all of the genre cliches: underestimating the attack, the best friend who figures it out, the insane sports move that most people seem to think isn't THAT crazy, the expository dialogue, the villain who is "surprisingly" linked to the hero, etc. I'm really not sure what MTV is thinking with this one. Well, I know what they are thinking (trying to get in on the vampire bandwagon) but they are way too far behind and they should realize that this show is just going to come off as what it is: a weak attempt to cash in on a genre that most kids are probably already over. If they aren't willing to invest on something on the level of Vampire Diaries, they should probably not bother.

If MTV wants to remake old shows, they should have tried to jump on Mod Squad or 21 Jumpstreet or maybe go with something like The White Shadow or an Undeclared type show. ABC Family is kind of grabbing the younger set of the 12 - 24 demographic so I'd think they'd want to go for the older end of it. Granted, asking MTV to raise the bar is probably expecting too much but it would be nice to see them trying to produce something that looks better than Undressed with fangs.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:59 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I might lose my "Man" card for having Morning Glory ranked ahead of Unstoppable but they are two films that basically end the way that you know they are going to end but I found the comedy in Morning Glory to be more entertaining than the whole of Unstoppable. That being said, Unstoppable is another entertaining trifle from Tony Scott and the end definitely hits all the right notes. Chris Pine's star should continue to rise as he held his own with Denzel Washington (who was great, as usual.

I know that Tony Scott is a favorite whipping boy of the Hipsters out there but I've usually enjoyed his films for what they are. While the fringe groups prefer their films over-quirky instead of over-caffenated like Scott delivers them, I'm on Team Tony. This time around, there's just not enough going on and you REALLY have to turn your brain off to get into the action. I mean, in some cases, it seemed like Scott blew through the tension because even he knew that people would realize that the trains wasn't going to get stopped that early in the movie. Halfway through the film, I thought that Scott's Taking of Pelham 123 was actually a better train flick but I felt like Unstoppable's ending brought it in a bit better (and Pelham 123's ending was kind of a drag.)

Admittedly, I'm a little fuzzy on Beverly Hills Cop Ii and Days of Thunder but I'm pretty sure that where I'd rank them. Man on Fire vs. Enemy of the State was a tough one and I might go for Man on Fire on certain days but I'll go with State for now. I might actually move Top Gun down but I'll keep it ranked that high for posterity's sake.

In the end, Unstoppable is one of those films that I wouldn't necessarily recommend, rather I'd just ask "Do you think you'd like it?" It's a capable enough move and it hits all the right buttons It's a definite rental and not a bad flick to check out in the theaters but there's really no reason to rush out to see it, especially if you haven't seen 127 Hours yet.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:02 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

-- While I'm happily patting myself on the back about the Heat not fitting together well, Chris Bosh has also shown why I have been dead wrong in my argument that the Bulls are foolish for not trading Joakim Noah for Carmelo Anthony. I was looking around, trying to find a trade of Bosh that could bring in someone who could add some vocal leadership and tenacity to the Heat and there just aren't that many big men that fit the bill. Carmelo Anthony might be the better talent but Noah is the engine that the Bulls need if they want to really make some noise in the playoffs.

-- On the other hand, arguing the Darko Milicic brings the same elements to the Wolves is ridiculous. I get that Kevin Love has had knee injuries in the past and hasn't always had the cleanest bill of health but in the three games that he's played over 30 minutes this season, he's gotten: 22/9, 23/24, and 31/31. David Kahn can cite Darko's size and defense all he wants but there's simply no way that one of the biggest busts in NBA history should be averaging almost as many minutes a game as Love. Darko's defense is inconsistent and as for tenacity, well, he wanted to leave the NBA for Europe last year and explained his decision to stay to Fanhouse, "Minnesota came over and gave me a chance to play, so I said, 'I'm going to stay. Why not?'" In the pantheon of bad signs, "Why not?" ranks up there with "I'm in it for the money."
Once Jonny Flynn gets healthy, the Wolves should go with: Love, Michael Beasley, Wes Johnson, Corey Brewer, and Flynn as their starting lineup. Yes, it's a flawed lineup but this team is going nowhere so the smartest move would be to throw the best talent out there and see if they can play together.

-- Back to the Heat, the 25 year old LeBron James complaining about too many minutes NINE GAMES into the season is laughable. If you ever want a sign of LeBron weak will, it's the fact that he's talking about wanting to play LESS against his arch-rival. After a loss, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Larry Bird, Isiah Thomas, etc. would have wanted to run it back right away so they could immediately avenge their loss. They wouldn't complain about being on the court too much in a losing effort.
LeBron just looks sillier when you see that guy who is over a decade older (Ray Allen) played about as many minutes as him in the game and that in Utah's four game double-digit comeback win streak, the key players on the Jazz are logging big minutes, with Deron Williams leading the way with: 54, 43, 42, and 39 minutes in the games. Also, mind you, LeBron has as many games over 40 minutes this season (4) as he does under 35. While I'm sure LeBron would argue back that the wear-and-tear explains the fact that the Heat are 0 - 4 when he plays 40+ minutes, I'd argue the reason is that those were four of the best teams the Heat have played so far (Boston twice, New Orleans, and Utah). The only legit team Miami has beaten this year is Orlando. Their other wins have come against Minnesota, Philly, New Jersey (twice). I'm sure Coach Spo will be able to limit James's minutes against their upcoming schedule as they don't have a top notch matchup until November 24th against Orlando and then the 27th against Dallas. LeBron should EXPECT to play 40+ minutes in those games. not complain about the team needing him on the floor.

-- While Chris Bosh is getting the most pub, the worst signing of the year still has to be Joe Johnson. The Hawks ran out to a 6 - 0 start but, like the Heat, they were beating bad teams; their best win being against the Grizzlies. They also remind me of a poor man's version of the 'Sheed/Steve Smith Blazers, a team that never found a lead they couldn't blow in the 4th quarter. Johnson's contract hogties the franchise financially which is a major problem since they need a new PG, a starting center so they can move Al Horford to PF, and add more talent to their bench. Rumors are already swirling around Josh Smith but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Joe Johnson found himself on the trade block at the trade deadline.

-- One team that I could see making a run at Joe is Orlando. I mean, the Magic have to realize that they will only go as far as the Jameer Nelson/Vince Carter backcourt takes them, don't they? (Although, I still think a deal between Atlanta and Golden St. makes the most sense.)

-- One of the more pleasant surprises of the year has been Marquis Daniels's return to form. He was a major disappointment last season and I didn't understand why the C's re-signed him but Danny Ainge, yet again, proved that he had a better handle on the Celtics than I do.

-- The best thing to happen to the Clippers this season is Baron Davis pulling a Baron Davis and showing up out of shape and banged up. Eric Bledsoe has been given the reins and shown that he belongs. It also allows Eric Gordon to take on the lead dog role and lets Bledsoe, Gordon, and Blake Griffin to grow together.

-- Speaking on bad veteran presences, if the Wizards know what is good for them, and by "them" I mean their franchise and by "their franchise" I mean John Wall, they will do everything in their power to move their talented headcases (aka 80% of their roster) and get some sane human beings on their team. Wall's supporting cast should be called the Tea Party: a ton of potential, they can make a lot of noise, but usually just look stupid and incompetent. And I think most rational people are nervous about what kind of influence they may have on the future.

-- The win against the Lakers was nice but it's only going to continue to delude the Nuggets that 'Melo might re-sign with them. At this point, I think the odds on "Anthony stays in Denver" are even with "Anthony returns to Syracuse".

-- The Raptors are now truly a team that reflects Canada: I know they're there but I really don't care.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:02 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The interview between Jon Stewart and Rachel Maddow highlighted both of their current problems. Stewart, who rose to fame by taking it to people like Tucker Carlson and Paul Begala, has suddenly begun pussyfooting around the blame game and, in this case, seemed like he was more concerned about not stepping on Maddow's toes than actually getting a point across. He was apparently under the weather and it seemed like it as he stumbled over his words, struggled to make his points, and fell over himself to make sure Maddow knew that she wasn't who he was necessarily talking about when he made his comments. In the end, he made one general point (we should be focusing on the political corruption and not the politics of pettiness) and one smaller point about what the cable channels focus on (Juan Williams being a top story on cable and a small story in newspapers.) These were solid points but Stewart seemed either too sick to make them or too unwilling to upset Maddow to make it.

Meanwhile, Maddow showed EXACTLY why she was who he was talking about. She never seemed to ever listen and think about what Stewart was saying, instead she would just immediately launch into a defense of herself or her station. At one point, she claimed that MSNBC's decision to put on more outright liberals was more about courage than competition with Fox. She stated that her attacks about George W. Bush and WMDs were always about "This isn't good for the country" when that is hardly the point that I ever got from her. The most annoying example, and one she seems focused on, is George W. Bush's new book and how he mentioned that Saddam Hussein was "pursuing" weapons of mass destruction. Maddow finds this to be a shocking 180 since we all know that Saddam didn't have any WMDs. Look at this report about it. It's basically 7 minutes of Maddow saying that Bush was wrong about WMD's. It's 7 minutes rambling on about one old point and then the most frustrating part happens - she falls into the trap.

Maddow claims that it's obvious that Saddam wasn't "pursuing" WMD's. And with that one comment, the Right has all they need. Because there have been reports about Saddam weighing deals for nukes, it's pretty much a known fact that one of his dreams was to have a nuclear Iraq. Jon Stewart pointed out in his interview with Maddow, this is just a game of semantics and that not tangibly having something doesn't mean that someone is not pursuing said thing. A point that was basically lost on Maddow as she just scrambled to repeat her same point over and over.

What Rachel doesn't seem to get is that now Fox will have a great clip of her to show. They'll get to ask questions like, "Does Rachel really think that Hussein wasn't trying to get WMDs? How can she state so firmly that a nuclear Iraq wasn't one of his goals." By spending seven minutes blathering on about how George W. Bush seems to be backtracking, Maddow accomplished nothing and instead went from being in an argument she already won to an argument she'll probably lose.
And to go back to her earlier defense, her entire issue with this isn't that George W. Bush is making the world a worse place, it's just that George W. Bush is lying again and let's all waste our time complaining about a man who isn't President anymore trying to making himself look better. I'm sorry but with everything going on in the world, to think that a Presidential memoir and book tour is newsworthy seems misguided, if not just petty.

It's just another example of the liberals falling for the Right's wordplay. The Left gets to say that they were right about Iraq not having weapons of mass destruction and that the administration misused information to lead our country down this path but now Maddow is falling for the semantics, picking up on the word "pursue" and the discussion shifts to, "Oh, you don't think Saddam ever wanted to get his hands on nukes or WMDs?!" or "You don't think the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power?" These are much better arguments for the Republicans and ones that I really doubt that most Liberals want to be on the other end of.

In the end (and obviously, this is a generalization), the bottom line is that the Right doesn't fight fair and the Left doesn't fight well. Fox warps the truth to fit their agenda; MSNBC takes the facts that back up their agenda and sell them in a most unappealing way. We've seen it with taxes, health care, you name it. And I agree with Jon Stewart's main point that if MSNBC or another news agency focused on uncovering corruption or god forbid break any other type of actual news, they'd be doing better in the ratings. Jumping into the Left/Right nonsense clearly isn't getting MSNBC any closer in the ratings game so they should try another approach.

My pitch would be a show called "Yesterday's News". You take a story from a day before or sometime earlier in the week and start off the show by looking at how people covered it. Then you have a discussion on what was missed, what was glossed over and misreported. That's the first segment or two. Then you spend the rest of the show really looking at the issue, discussing both sides and trying to uncover the truth or, in some cases, come up with the best possible solutions or, at least, an approach to how to find said solution. I think it could draw people in with the He Said/She Said but then transition into honest to goodness hard news coverage. I think it could be a very interesting show and a real success.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:13 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Hollywood Reporter posts the entire one hour Writer's Roundtable discussion with Aaron Sorkin, Simon Beaufoy, Michael Arndt, John Wells, Todd Phillips and David Lindsay-Abaire sit down for our Awards Watch Roundtable. As Vulture pointed out, the discussion about the WGA is particularly odd since Sorkin and Phillips rip up the WGA right in front of Wells, who is the President of the WGA West.

Todd Phillips's comment on Mike Tyson and Mel Gibson was odd. He mentions addiction and his empathy for people struggling with that but that kind of ignores the whole, you know, racist, anti-semitic, sexist comments he made. I think we've all said things we regret when drunk but Mel took that too an ENTIRELY different level. To just pass it off as addiction seems to gloss over the main issue people have with Mel.

Aaron Sorkin also makes a great point about how, if he had ever portrayed a Republican like Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle, he would have been destroyed by the right wing for making them seem like caricatures. On the other hand, it's very interesting that the writer of such a liberal show takes such a conservative stance on the union.

All in all, it's a great discussion to listen to.

And no, I don't know who the random guy sitting in the foreground next to Aaron Sorkin is.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

"Morning Glory" is the epitome of a nice, low expectations movie. Before going to see the film, I read reviews and they dismissed the movie because of it's lousy handling of entertainment vs. media and didn't really delve into the mindset of a working girl. And, to be fair, the movie pretty much fails on both counts. And I'm usually a plot and character guy and will admit that the film is kind of middling on both.

That being said, the movie just charms the pants off of you.

The film is written by the same scribe who adapted "The Devil Wears Prada" and the films are strikingly similar. "Morning Glory" is kind of the screwball, poor man's version of Prada. While Harrison Ford is great, he's no Meryl Streep. The relationship stuff on all fronts doesn't work nearly as well. But McAdams and her co-stars make it work by amping up the silliness in their characters. The films kind of mirror their subject; "Prada" is about the more serious fashion industry and "Morning Glory" is as lightweight as a morning TV talk show. If you go in expecting Broadcast News or Devil Wears Prada, you'll probably be a bit disappointed. It's a fun film which is why I have it ranked alongside Easy A and Scott Pilgrim for this year. It's fluff. If you don't like fluff, then don't see it.

Now I have to admit to being a huge fan of Rachel McAdams and I think she dances the fine line of being a person and a character. I'm also a fan of Amy Adams but too often I feel like Adams crosses this line and it's hard to relate to her characters. Even at her most screwball, there's a winsome charm to McAdams and she is comfortable to let slapstick moments play without overselling them with facial expressions.

You have to go into this film expecting nothing more than a charming, lightweight, silly film. The film touches on some subjects like the role of media and the struggle to juggle relationships and work but those bits are rushed and not the meat of the film. The film does struggle a little bit at the start of the third act but it comes together nicely and makes for a nice evening at the movies.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:44 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

OK, so the smoke has cleared from the big dust-up in Washington and not much seems to have changed. Obama still thinks he's on the right track, the Republicans still are screaming about cuts, and already the new blood seems to be fitting right in (Rand Paul is no longer opposed to earmarks; he just wants more transparency.)

So with it being no business, just nonsense as usual in Washington, what can be done to change things up? How can we make some headway? Well, I think I have a few compromises that could work out for everyone. Most importantly, I think Obama needs to play his ultimate goals as bluffs. Basically, go in strong for one thing but then give it up in order to get the basics that he wants. For instance, he needed to know that the public option wasn't going to fly so he should have pushed that but then have been able to play it better in order to cement what he really wanted. Instead, he pushed so hard for it than, in the end, it was like he was wilting and giving it up just so that he could pass anything.

So what should be the main goals for the next two years?

Bush Tax Cuts: I would try to make the tax cut permanent but with a recession-era opt-in clause for the government to be able to nudge up taxes for the wealthy. In other words, the cuts remain for everyone but if Congress feels the need for more funds (as in today's economy) then they can bump up the tax rate for those people/businesses making over two million dollars by 3% or so for three years. I think this works for everyone. The middle class keeps their money, the rich can afford the extra 3%, and the short term raise gives the Capitol some capital but is only temporary so they need to make some significant cuts in order to have a balanced budget. I also think that three years is key because you don't want it to be two years or else then it's going to be another election of "Dems want to raise your taxes!".

Obamacare: I'd say it was a valiant effort but, honestly, it wasn't. So let's just strip down Obamacare to the essentials that we all can agree on. Well, most of them. One element that I think will have to go (and that the Dems can use in their defense in a couple of years) is Pre-Existing Conditions. If you aren't going to have everyone sign up and there be some stipends from the government for poorer people to get insurance, then the burden is going to be too great for insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions. What you'll have are a lot of people holding out until they get sick and THEN getting insurance. However, most of the other Patient Protections in the bill should be kept. I think most people can agree with them.

If the Dems give that up, the Republicans have to put aside their dream of people being able to shop for prescriptions or insurance across state lines. That would be an utter disaster for the consumer and I think we'd see a MAJOR drop in the quality of health care. We'd see even stronger national companies, a rise in call centers vs. actual reps, and more hoops for the sick to jump through in order to get their medicine. The idea that the consumers will win if big business is given more reach and power is nonsense.

Civil Unions: I've been beating this drum for a while now but let's end the madness, dump the Defense of Marriage Act, and change marriage laws to civil unions and let all couples of consenting adults take part in them. If someone wants to file taxes with their partner, visit them in a hospital, share insurance coverage, they're covered equally. If someone wants to get "married", they have to go talk to their priest, rabbi, etc. Not only does this make sure that all Americans are treated equally but it could bring about a spiritual awakening. If the religious types do their job, they'll stop rubber stamping any and all marriages and make sure people are truly down till death do them part. Marriage can stop being a legal institution and go back to being a spiritual promise.

Cap and Trade: Obama really needs to handle this like he should have handled health care. The White House should push Cap and Trade but also know that they'd be willing to give it up if they can get the other environment concessions that they need. This, of course, would have been easier when they had the House and the Senate but I still think that the White House could use Cap and Trade as a bluff and get a legitimate environmental bill out there. If they do anything with C&T (which I'm not sure they should) just make it a trial run with utilities. If Obama pushes for Cap and Trade for all businesses and new houses, he'll be a one term President and probably won't get any of his green proposals.

Enough with the Earmarks: I don't agree with everything in Eric Cantor's 22 page missive about how to fix the House but I do agree that earmarks have to go. I've always felt that bills should be as simple as possible and people should simply vote on individual earmarks as they come. However, (and this is something that I think Rand Paul always knew but also knew wouldn't win him an election) the odds of earmarks and dealmaking in Washington disappearing will almost certainly never happen. And Paul's idea that they should come more from committees is kind of a waste. The committee will just rubber stamp the addition anyway. This is probably a non-starter for both parties but maybe they can make a nominal change to keep people happy.

Cantor also mentioned that he wanted more committee work and more oversight but I'd probably go with less committee work (I'd rather have more open debate and less closed door conversations) in return for there being more oversight. But then again, this is not an area in which I'm completely confident with my knowledge of the subject so I'd pass on this for now.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:27 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Danny Boyle's done it again. While I wouldn't say that his latest film, 127 Hours is his best and it didn't give me the immediate rush that Slumdog Millionaire did (but I have a feeling this one might age better), he's made a great film and one of the best movies of the year.

The film is probably better if you know less about it so all I'll say is that it's a true story about an action junkie who gets his arm stuck under a rock in a canyon and is trapped. He had a video camera with him so he was able to record his days stuck in the canyon with nobody around but him and his memories. I'd definitely recommend checking this one out.

If you want to know more about the film, click continue reading below but there will be spoilers.

On the other end of the spectrum is "City Island", which I caught on DVD. This movie hits my biggest pet peeve - conflict arising from unnecessary communication breakdowns. In this case, a prison guard discovers that the son he abandoned before he was born is in his jail and has to stay there if no family claims him. So Andy Garcia's prison guard character takes in the young man... but doesn't tell him that he is his father. He also doesn't tell his wife, with whom he's having huge problems, that the kid is his son (even though he says that he's wanted to tell her but couldn't find the right time.) In this case, bringing the kid home isn't "the right time"; no, it's better just to randomly bring some strange convict into the home.

The film, billed as a comedy, is one inexplicable miscommunication after another. The film feels like it's trying to be a Shakespearean farce set in the Bronx but it fails on most every level. (I'd say that some SPOILERS are coming but, honestly, if you don't see them coming from the very beginning then... well... I don't know what to tell you.) In a well-planned story, the lies are told for a reason and have to be maintained or something could be lost. In this case, the lies are just making a bad situation worse but when the lies are finally revealed... they're just back to their original bad situation. The ending reminded me of Baby Boy, an unearned happy ending that isn't really happy at all; it's just a momentary beat of happiness before the real world knocks them back down to where they were. It's a simplistic story that critics seemed to embrace; I found the movie to be a boring, frustrating chore. Honestly, I think most critics liked it because the film is basically the most positive spin on a midlife crisis that I've ever seen. Andy Garcia's character is chasing his dream of being an actor and I think a lot of the critics, wannabe writers most of whom never made it but would love to make it happen, probably felt like if Garcia's character could make it, so could they.
On the bright side, Alan Arkin has a nice little bit role and I always love Emily Mortimer (even though her character seemed fairly ridiculous.)

So while I think everyone should check out 127 Hours, I'd only recommend City Island to people who are trying to justify their midlife crisis and give them hope that their dreams might come true and make the rest of their life better off.

SPOILERS BELOW

127 Hours is essentially "It's Not A Wonderful Life". Instead of having an angel showing him everything positive that he's done, Aron Ralston's memory lead him to realize that while he's been "living life to the fullest", he has created for himself an empty life that is devoid of other human connections outside of himself.

Early in the film, I was skeptical of James Franco and Boyle. Some of the camera gimmicks seemed like just that, gimmicks. When Ralston was drinking the water, I thought that the view inside the straw was unnecessary. Of course, Boyle proved me wrong by paying that bit off perfectly. What could have been just a gimmick turned out to be a perfect set up for the groan worthy urine drinking moment.

Franco also did well. I still don't know if I love him as a leading man and part of me thinks he's kind of the male version of Hilary Swank - put him in the right role and he'll knock it out of the park; put him outside of his wheelhouse and he won't look good at all.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

So last week was an absolute disaster for me, getting just two games right. My main two picks this week are the Jets -4 over the Lions and the Patriots -4.5 over the Browns. I also put smaller bets on the Giants -7 over Seattle, Bears -3 over Bills, Ravens -5 over Dolphins. I also made some smaller teaser and parlay bets so hopefully those will land and I'll get back some of my money from last week.

Here are my perfect parlay picks for Week 9

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

I always love when there's a Hollywood Premise Battle - when two almost identical films hit the theaters and we get to see which take does better. The biggest one I can remember recently was Armageddon vs. the now forgotten Deep Impact and recently there were dueling Mall Cop movies with Paul Blart and Observe & Report. So which Friends Hook Up But Promise Not to Fall in Love movie will succeed? Who knows why they happen? Blart and Report were just a case of coincidence. Other times,I feel like execs like a premise of a project but not the actual project itself so they pass and start their own... only to have the project they passed on land at another studio. (In this case, perhaps one studio saw the short for No Strings Attached and started developing a similar movie while another actually bought the rights to No Strings Attached.) In this case, I could just see this as coincidence since my guess is that there are probably around 1000 hook up with a friend scripts floating around Hollywood and even more in collegiate screenwriting classes. Not to mention that just last year there was an indie film called "Friends (with Benefits)". In fact, there were probably a few indie flicks out there with this premise. But I digress...

Here's "Friends with Benefits":

Here's No Strings Attached

I've been down on Ashton Kutcher's film career but I didn't mind him in this trailer. I think he's best off when playing a goof ball. I don't mind him in those roles but find him to be completely unlikeable when he tries to act smooth ala Killers or Spread. I'll also take Natalie Portman over Mila Kunis (but would gladly take them both in Black Swan) and prefer the angle of having the guy being the one who starts to fall in love. Although I would have gone a step further and had one of the friends support him, exclaiming that he's got a great girl and needs to lock that down. I mean, seriously, how many 30 year old guys date someone as beautiful as Natalie Portman and seemingly as cool and successful as her character is yet their friends are like, "Dude, you should totally keep playing the field." Also, I'd just prefer a comedy in which the friends weren't so stereotypical - the desperate-for-love girlfriend, the chauvinist guy.

In terms of directors, Ivan Reitman is the comedic heavyweight here but it's been 17 years since he's made a movie that I've liked and his only two movies this century were Evolution and My Super Ex-Girlfriend. Will Gluck, on the other hand, wrote and directed Friends with Benefits and he is coming off two of my favorite recent guilty pleasures: Fired Up! and Easy A. (On a related note, while I don't have a problem with it, it seems like the new cliche is the Super Cool/With It parents. It worked well in Gluck's Easy A but I'm afraid that it might start to wear thin. It's also interesting to see Patricia Clarkson consistently letting it loose, as if she had been waiting to do more comedy and SNL's "Mother Lover" suddenly opened new doors for her.)

Honestly, it's a tough call but right now, I'm going to side with Gluck and roll with Friends with Benefits although No Strings Attached is nipping at its heels. Granted, they both seem like rentals or movies I wouldn't catch until they land on HBO but you never know...

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:55 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

A nice response to the misguided, ridiculous LeBron ad. Although it cut out one of my least favorite bits - "Should I not listen to my friends? They're my friends." Way to stick up for peer pressure! Again, I have no problem with LeBron leaving Cleveland; I have a problem with the way he handled it. He has finally admitted that he would do it differently but this ad highlights way too many of his "I'm the victim!" attitudes and his inability to see that sometimes you shouldn't necessarily listen to your friends or do what gets you the most visibility.

On a related note, it's interesting to see that people are quickly jumping off of the Chris Bosh bandwagon and realizing that Bosh might not have been the piece that the team needed. Spending a max contract on Bosh when what they needed was a defender and rebounder in the paint was the wrong move. Maybe they needed it to happen to get LeBron there but I think the best move for the Heat would be to trade him. Obviously, it won't happen this year; you have to give the Superfriends at least one season together but if they could move Bosh for a lesser PF and a PG, the Heat would have less outright talent but be a better fit.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:12 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Here's the new SoulMix, featuring three songs from my latest addiction, Foxy Shazam. (And a get well soon to the lead singer Eric who got hurt during his last show.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:28 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

OK, the Left really needs to smarten up. Everyone seems to be clamoring about the Debt Ceiling and how the Republicans, most notably the Tea Partiers, are going to bring down the world economy by not voting to raise it. Let's be real here; everyone, even Rand Paul, knows how important it is to keep the US from defaulting and I'm sure that the Republicans are already figuring out who can vote for it to make sure it passes while having the more troubled candidates vote against it and save face.

More importantly, the way the Republicans are handling the question is infinitely better than the Left. The Left is screaming that it has to be raised. The Republicans are saying, "Well, let's see if we can't cut the budget first and see if we can't avoid having to raise it." Now, this is obviously not going to happen fast enough and isn't a legitimate answer but Lefties like Laurence O'Donnell are too busy being besides themselves to point that out. Instead, they are painting the Right as the responsible and patient party. Chris Matthews looked like a crazed man when asking Rep. Eric Cantor about this last night. It was embarrassing. For all the talk of what the Dems need to do, MSNBC's talking heads need to realize that they're tone, attitude, and approach is only making things harder. (One obvious difference is how Fox News had their news reporters host election night while MSNBC stuck with their partisan pundits.

I really feel like the Right is going to run the table early and set it up for a knockout blow in 2012. Part of me is in denial because they don't have a great candidate but I just watched Sharon Angle almost become a Senator and Rick Scott become the Governor of Florida so anything is possible.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:37 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Laurence O'Donnell and Sarah Palin bring up two elements of politics that I always despise.

On O'Donnell's end, he basically predicted the end of the world because he thinks Rand Paul is going to filibuster the vote to raise the deficit ceiling. If that doesn't happen, the US defaults on their debts and the world economy falls apart. O'Donnell was incensed by this idea and would have seemed furious if he didn't seem so pleased with himself for thinking of it. My problem is: where was this earlier? Not that I watch everything O'Donnell says but if this was such a big issue, why wasn't he pushing for people to ask Rand Paul or his supporters where they stand on it? It played to me like he was keeping this in his back pocket so he'd have something to rail against when the Republicans gained power. It's just frustrating.

On the other hand, Sarah Palin almost had me throwing my remote at the TV. When asked if people are going to have to work together, Palin said (paraphrasing here), Of course people will have to compromise. We'll tell the Democrats that the train is leaving and it's not heading in there direction so they better get on or be left behind. How in the world does that equal compromise, co-operation, or working together?
Thankfully, Dana Perino later brought in some common sense, saying that President Obama is going to need to lead and usher in a new era of co-operation when he gives his address tomorrow. If he "eats some humble pie" and says that people need to start compromising, it could help lead both parties to listen to one another. The question was then asked if Obama had it in him and that wasn't answered. I'm kind of nervous about it. The attitude of the White House has been pretty haughty and I'm not sure if the President is going to be willing to just give up his agenda. Should be interesting to see.

While Fox was giddy and MSNBC was pissed off (and borderline disrespectful), CNN seemed calm and on point but they once again lost the presentation battle. Their experts were thrown together in what looked like the Jetson's kitchen table or something. It looked more like a focus group of random people rather than a group of experts. It also didn't help that the makeup was awful (even on my non-HD TV) and James Carville looked like he was about to fall asleep. They also went with the handheld feel which made me wonder when the Cloverfield monster was going to attack.

As for winners and losers, I think Sarah Palin and Barack Obama kind of won for losing. For Palin, a majority of her candidates won and the media won't have Christine O'Donnell and Sharon Angle to kick around anymore. Had either of those two won, it might have been rough on Palin since their brand of crazy would be linked with Palin. On the other hand, the new governor of Florida is a man who made money by buying hospitals and downsizing them and he might be just what Obamacare needs. The fact that Scott has a hand in redistricting is a problem for Obama but I think when Scott starts putting his agenda into action, it's going to show people why Obamacare was pushed through better than anything that has come out of the White House in the last two years. In general, the Republicans now have a voice in government but I don't think that they have anything to say and a lot of their issues are going to put people off (especially on health care where bigger, cross-state insurance companies will only make matters worse and many Republicans favor ditching Medicare which people like.)

Of course, if they were smart, the Republicans will just look to tread water, don't try to change healthcare yet and get a two year extension on the Bush Tax Breaks so they can have the tax cuts to promise in 2012.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:54 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

As good as the pilot "Walking Dead" was, I stumbled upon the mini-series "Dead Set" on IFC and I liked that better. Now it does make it easier to like something when you can see the whole thing in one sitting as opposed to just watching the pilot but "Dead Set" was a great zombie story. It's got some funny moments but definitely isn't a comedy but it's about a zombie outbreak in London during eviction day on Big Brother. The cast and some of the crew take refuge in Big Brother house and try to figure out how to survive. The thing I like about it over "Walking Dead" is that the reality TV angle kind of adds a fresh take on the zombie genre. "Walking Dead" was really well done but there was a faint "Been there, done that" element to it (Especially the opening which reminded me a lot of "28 Days Later")
Below is Episode 1 of "Dead Set".

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