As for resolutions, I think I'm just going to go with the standard Get in shape, Work harder and longer towards my goals, and, most importantly, just try to be a more upbeat and positive person. A coworker recently told me that she couldn't picture me being a peppy, upbeat person and that kind of stung. I didn't always used to be a curmudgeon and a bit of a grump. So in the New Year, it's going to be about positivity and productivity.

So with that in mind, here's the hastily thrown together New Year's Mix! (Available over at ITunes although I don't know how to embed playlist from there on here since Ping took over.)

1. Hollywood - Angus and Julia Stone: This song gets all of the pessimism of the old year out and ends with a lil' bit of hope.


2. Bye Bye Symphony - Foxy Shazam: Besides the fact that I love the chorus of "Life is a bitch but she's totally doable." The lyrics of this song are pretty great for the new year "Bye Bye Symphony, you were the soundtrack to my life. Bye Bye Symphony, there are no sad songs left to write." Now, obviously that's a bit TOO optimistic since they'll always be a few sad songs on the horizon but I like the sentiment. Also, when I find myself complaining too much (which is far too often), I should remember the line, "But what's the point of moaning; honey, leave that for the ghosts."


3. I Can Do That - The Futureheads: Because even when you're down, you have to remember that you can do it!


4. The Fixer - pearl jam: "If something's gone, I'm gonna fight to get it back again!" This song's pretty much a theme song for positivity.
5. Die Trying - Cee-Loo: The perfect follow-up to The Fixer, "There's no way and there's no how, I can stop now, I'mma die trying..." Adding the productivity to the positivity of this year's resolution.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:22 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Seriously, what is it with modern day athletes and their need to air their every thought to the press. The latest in the growing line of oversharers is Marcin Gortat. After a game in which the Philadelphia 76ers scorched his Suns for 120 points, the newly acquired Gortat sounded off:

"It's just a little bit frustrating when you come in the locker room and people are talking about the offense," Gortat told FanHouse. "That's not the way you're going to win NBA games. I don't know if it's just me, or maybe I'm just different, but I came from a team where everybody's competing and trying to do the stuff that coach is saying. We're just totally changing our rotations, changing our stuff that we set before the game. We're not playing hard enough and I've just got to tell you, there's a lot, a lot of work in front of us."

Now mind you, Gortat was just traded to Phoenix and has been there for ten days and played all of three games for them. I understand that sometimes you need to air your grievances to force people to be accountable but after ten days? He's barely had time to get to know his teammates, let alone start to really work with them to improve their play. Shouldn't he try to work it out in practice for a bit before going off and running his mouth to the media. Maybe the Polish Hammer is thrilled with the Freedom of the Press or something but going to the press at this point is only going to alienate him from his teammates and make it less likely that they are going to listen to him, let alone follow his lead.

Yes, the Suns need a leader on defense but Gortat's chances of being said leader are probably nil now that the first thing he did to establish himself is to talk shit about everyone to the press. While the information is nice and it's good to know that Gortat cares about the defensive end, I'm starting to long for the days when athletes weren't so open with journalists and kept the team issues in-house.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:32 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Well, I still haven't seen "True Grit", "Tron Legacy", "The King's Speech" and many other acclaimed movies so I have to start off by saying that this is a list of what I saw this year and how I felt about them. I'm not necessarily saying that these movies were "The Best" just the ones I liked (or hated) the most.

Favorite Movie: Kick-Ass
I know this isn't the best way to start if I want any credibility but it's the truth. Admittedly, I've been working on a superhero show and there was a sense of relief that the film didn't go where I was going so that added to the enjoyment but I thought it was a very good movie in its own right. Matthew Vaughn is quietly building up a solid resume and if his old pal Guy Ritchie ever tires of Sherlock Holmes, I wouldn't mind seeing Vaughn pick up the mantle. I'm definitely looking forward to his X-Men reboot.

Least Favorite: Catfish
"When in Rome" was a terrible movie but Catfish was a chore to get through, then had a glimmer of hope, but then became an utter disappointment. My main issue with the film is the lack of self-awareness. The catalyst of the whole film is a guy meeting and chatting up a young girl, like 7 years old or something, on the internet and NOTHING is mentioned about how creepy that is. The guy then starts creeping on the older sister of the girl and, again, nothing is ever made out of that. When the guys started to wonder if they girl they met really existed, it was like "Well, you're creeping people out on the internet, what do you expect?" On top of that, I thought the main characters were annoying hipsters so I was already off on the wrong foot.
I don't want to give away the twist so all I'll say is that the film would have been better if it had been completely about the twist and less about the discovery of it. Now, the approach the filmmakers took got the film sold and made it something people would go see so I realize I'm kind of all wet on this but I just think that it would have been a much more interesting film if there was more investigation into the main issue and more introspection into how the guys found themselves where they were.

Most Overrated: The Kids Are Alright
Honestly, I'm not sure that this one should really count since I think there were higher profile films that got too much love but the arguments in favor of The Kids Are Alright are more annoying. The first is the constant chorus of "This would be great even if it wasn't about lesbians." Now, on a certain level, I agree. The film has it's moments. But if it was about a straight couple, more critics would be unimpressed, calling it a mainstreamed, watered down version of "You Can Count on Me". Although, the bigger problem with the "if it wasn't about lesbians" comment is that it would be a completely different movie because many of the jokes centered around the sexuality. I mean, one of the first "jokes" in the trailer is, "But that would hurt moms' feeling."
If not for the lesbian angle, the film would have been about an unlikable family who doesn't seem to like one another and who seem to treat minorities as if they were disposable. (The only two non-white people I really remember were Ruffalo's lover and the gardener who was fired for doing nothing wrong yet it was played as a comical moment.) I don't know. I'm not saying that the movie doesn't have its charms, I mean, it's OK, but its a forgettable movie and hardly the caliber of film that should be getting floated for awards.
Now I will admit 100% that this film suffers from Critic Fatigue. Much like The Hurt Locker last year, this is a decent film that I start to like less because so many people talk about it like it's the best thing since sliced bread. Also, when critics praise it, they sound obnoxious. I don't particularly care of Entertainment Weekly's writers but Owen Gleiberman went a little extra with this one, "...it has a sophistication and ease, a relaxed cosmopolitan flavor of everyday life as an intimate adventure, that makes it feel casually European." It's like he was trying to nail every obnoxious movie critic stereotype in one run-on sentence.
I also wouldn't recommend this film to any conservatives because it's not going to do much for their belief that homosexuality is a choice, since it certainly seems to be one for Julianne Moore's character.
I don't know. Just typing this (as when I typed my initial review) I feel like I'm being too harsh on the film and don't want to make it seem like it's a bad movie; it was a decent movie and that's that.

Amy Ryan Award: Jennifer Lawrence Amy Ryan is the actress out there right now that flies under the radar and seems to become her characters. The first time you see her, you just assume that she is like that person. It's only until you catch her in another film or show that you realize how great her performance was. I have friends from Boston who thought she was a local who got cast in "Gone Baby Gone". It was only until they saw her in "The Wire" or "The Office" that they found out she wasn't.
This year, that happened with me with Jennifer Lawrence who gave an amazing performance in "Winter's Bone". The film has a great ensemble cast but she really inhabits the role and is one of the reasons that the atmospheric film is so successful.

Deja Vu Award: Shutter Island/Inception
Leo? Check
Wifey issues? Check
Questionable sanity? Check
Great supporting casts? Check
Endings that made me think? Check
Beginnings and middles that made me yawn? Check
All in all, I'd have to say that I was disappointed with both Inception and Shutter Island but they had some very strong filmmaking and great performances. Still, I'm not all that interested in sitting through either film for a second viewing.

The Maybe Film Ain't Your Thing Award: Kristen Bell
She needs to call up Judd Apatow and get them to make a short six or seven episode series of the cop show she was on in "Forgetting Sarah Marshall". Granted, I'm biased because I've been trying to write a cop show spoof for years and would love to see one make in on TV but the real issue for Bell is that TV offers better roles for women than films do and I'm just not seeing her find a niche in film. The rom-coms aren't working and she's too far down the pecking order to get a great one. As bad as Heroes was when she was on it, it's one of the better things she's done since Veronica Mars. If she could get a new show and build her brand a little bit more (I mean, yeah she was great in Veronica Mars but not enough people watched that to make her bankable) and then maybe she can take another shot at the big screen.

Worst Movie I Liked: Morning Glory
I know some people would say "Kick-Ass" since I said it was #1 but I'll go to bat for that flick any day. "Morning Glory", on the other hand, is just a movie that tickled me but probably rubs most people the wrong way. I mean, the movie is stupid. The deeper meaning is shallow. The romance is nonexistent. Nothing really makes sense. At All. Still, I was charmed. But I completely understand why other people dislike it and I'm not about to defend it.

Most Infuriating: Salt
Hands down. No movie angered me more that this one. I was let down. I was insulted. I was furious. My blood still starts to boil when discussing this movie. It started off so well and then turned into a parody. It features some of the most laughably stupid moments I've ever seen in a film. When you have the Austin Powers incredibly slow closing door in your film and that isn't even a top five stupid moment, then you've really outdone yourself. What's even more annoying is that part of me wants to go back and watch this again to point out all of the stupidity but I don't want to give this flick any more of my money. The main reason I want to go back is to see if The Worst Moment of the Year really played out the way I remember it. Basically, there's a scene in which the Secret Service are mounting up to protect the President. A non-Secret Service agent who happens to be a double agent walks up to one of the President's body men and asks for a gun. The Secret Service agent opens up a box of weapons and tells the guy that he can't give him a gun because of protocol. The Agent takes a gun out of the box... and then walks away from the box, leaving it wide open for the double agent to pick up a weapon and mow down people. This is "Salt" in a nutshell; every time there was a "How are they going to get out of this?", they just have something ridiculously stupid. The cops catch Salt at one point and put her in a car that's less secure than the average taxi cab. It reminded me of a film my friends made in high school called "Mission Possible", which featured an escape attempt which included the hero telling the damsel in distress to rip the tape off of her mouth and then turn the door knob to free herself. Except that short was intended to be funny.
Also, the movie was rewritten for a woman and they took out a part in which Salt saves her husband because it "castrated the character", according to the director. When you see what they replaced it with... well... this is pretty much an anti-feminist movie. Actually, it's anti-intellect. OK, I'm getting annoyed again so I'll just stop writing about it.

Immediate Remake: Splice
So what movies should immediately be remade? Well, the obvious answer is a franchise flop like "The A-Team" but I want to stay away from those. The film I'll go with is "Splice" and I'd argue that it should be remade as a mini-series or one-off regular series. One of my problems with the film is that it didn't really know what it wanted to be. It switched gears more time than any film I'd seen since "Appaloosa". I think a longer series would give the writers more time to really investigate the different elements of the story and characters. As it was, the film was just kind of there.

Best Trailer: Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
It wasn't so much that the trailer was the most captivating or made me want to go out and see the movie right away but it was one of those trailer that once a person saw it, they knew whether or not they would enjoy the movie. Forget reviews or recommendations. If you think the trailer's OK, check it out. If not, there's nothing to see here.

Next Up:
Actors who I'd like to see more from: Jennifer Lewis, Armie Hammer, Clark Duke, Mila Kunis, Tom Hardy, Joel Edgerton, Garret Dillahunt, John Hawkes, the calmer, quieter Jonah Hill, Mary Elizabeth Winstead

Next!:
Actors I've had my fill of: Mark Wahlberg, Josh Duhamel, Will Arnett, Dax Shepard, Josh Hutcherson, the dudes in Catfish, Scar-Jo, Mel Gibson, Karl Urban

I'll probably have an update some time at the beginning of the new year but this is how I'm feeling as 2010 comes to a close.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm not quite sure how to take this. I never reprint e-mails that I receive but since this one is 90% my own words, I don't see the harm. Today, I got an e-mail for Charles Hurt, a NY Post columnist and he sent me back an e-mail that I had sent him during the 2008 election. He wrote, "Was going through old emails and found this one. I thought you might find it of interest today."

My original e-mail:

You summed up your "Bracelet" article with:
"Here lies the difference between these two men:
Obama will accept defeat if continuing on hurts too much. For McCain, any mission where defeat is an option is a mission not worth fighting in the first place."
So isn't the Iraq war one of those missions McCain wouldn't have wanted to fight? If the goal of the war is to set up a stable democracy in the Middle East, does anyone really believe that Iraq government is going to last if we leave (which is what Iraq's new government is now calling for)? Or that the person that is elected isn't going to turn out to be another Chavez or Morales?
The problem is that this isn't a war anymore, it's an occupation. And we're trying to set up a democracy in a part of the world that won't adhere to the separation of church and state and in which the government usually can't control large portions of the country. How can we know if defeat is an option if we barely even know how to define success?

The original article can be found here. I'm not sure why I would find my original e-mail interesting. The Iraq government is STILL calling for us to leave. Violent militia groups are starting to get their foot in the door, led by anti-American Muqtada al Sadr. The only reason I even want to feign confidence in Iraq is so we can get our soldiers out of there. Does anyone really believe that an anti-American voice won't soon take control of the country once we're out? We're leaving behind a new government but the same lousy economy and arguably even worse public services. I'd say that odds are that we're going to see a backlash much like the mid-term elections except I doubt that the militias will rely on ballots to get their point across. And if liberals thought American conservatives were out there...

I e-mailed Charles back and hopefully I can get some clarification on what I was supposed to take as interesting but I can't say that my fears have been allayed at all.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:16 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

An odd day yesterday at Fox News. Sean Hannity was out and Tucker Carlson took over his show and launched into a pretty extreme comment, saying that Michael Vick should have been executed for what he did to dogs. What made the comment stranger was the fact that it was preceded by Tucker making sure that everyone knew that he was Christian, fallible, and a believer in second chances... just not for dog killers.

So for those of you scoring at home, Tucker Carlson has sinned, believes in Christ, but kind of ignores the whole "He who is without sin cast the first stone" angle when it comes to people who kill dogs. Killing dogs is apparently an abomination yet hunting for sport... well... let's not go there.
What's also odd is that Carlson seemed willing to make an exception if Vick was poor and not some "creepy, overpaid football player", a statement that seems to ignore the fact that Michael Vick WAS poor before he became a creepy, overpaid football player.
But mostly I just think it's odd that the self-described Christian just thinks he can pick and choose which things are forgivable (like, breaking a commandment and lying to a family about how their son died, like the government did with Pat Tillman) and which things aren't.

On the bright side, the panel seemed to have an actual intelligent discussion, led by former golfer Ben Crenshaw, who said what most everyone was thinking - Vick does deserve a second chance but the President probably shouldn't have weighed in on this issue. President Obama just got a few victories under his belt and now he's making trouble for himself over a non-issue that will probably tick off dog owners. It's like Obama's a glutton for punishment who simply can't sleep at night if he didn't do something for people to take a swipe at him about. As was said in the clip above, putting a few more of his thoughts into the unexpressed column could probably save him some grief. And as we've seen, it'll probably be better off for the people he's talking about because the partisan pressure that is often heaped on any and all subjects that he touches rarely helps the issue. (But maybe that's what Obama, who I'm assuming is a Chicago Bears fan, is hoping for. Create a little distraction in time for the playoffs.)

Of course, no matter what I think about Tucker Carlson's stance on the issue, it served its purpose. Carlson's comment is all over the blogosphere and he's become relevant for an instant and that's really all that he was going for. (I'd say there's no such thing as bad publicity but I think Mike Vick has proven there are exceptions to that rule.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:13 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Always on the search for new music, I stumbled onto a very cool website from KEXP in Seattle. Well, to be honest, I originally found their Youtube page and then found their website but still.. They seem like a up north version of KCRW, which isn't a bad thing at all. Anyway, I've added them to the links list to the bottom left. You can listen to the station via live streaming, check out charts and playlists, or peruse their live performances which run the gamut from local bands to bigger names like Florence & the Machine. Below are a few examples of their live shtuff.

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

Very cool timelapse from Michael Black. He shot it over about 21 hours on a Canon DLSR on tripod with remote timer taking a photo once every five minutes.

December 2010 Blizzard Timelapse from Michael Black on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:41 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Talking so much, that is.

A few days ago, LeBron James made news by seeming to advocate contraction in the NBA. His quote was:

"Imagine if you could take Kevin Love off Minnesota and add him to another team and you shrink the [league]," James said Thursday. "Looking at some of the teams that aren't that great, you take Brook Lopez or you take Devin Harris off these teams that aren't that good right now and you add him to a team that could be really good. Not saying let's take New Jersey and let's take Minnesota out of the league. But hey, you guys are not stupid, I'm not stupid, it would be great for the league."

Now, most people took that as an argument in favor of cutting a few teams. The line about not getting rid of New Jersey or Minnesota was received more as "don't take those two specific teams out". One reason it was taken that was is that, if you don't read it that way, then LeBron James's stance would be that there should be some teams in the league that simply don't have any good players left on them. Which would seem pretty stupid.

But just in case you didn't think he was stupid, LeBron cleared it up for you. After the contraction comments became public, there were a number of harsh responses, as one would expect since LeBron's point of view clashes with what the players' union believes and would put about two dozen players out of work. So, of course, LeBron took a page out of the Sarah Palin playbook and blamed the media.

"That's crazy, because I had no idea what the word 'contraction' meant before I saw it on the Internet," James said after the Miami Heat's practice Monday. "I never even mentioned that. That word never even came out of my mouth. I was just saying how the league was back in the '80s and how it could be good again. I never said, 'Let's take some of the teams out.' "

Thankfully, there were apparently no follow up questions because if someone asked, "Wait, what do you mean by 'It could be good again'?" then LeBron would have ended up either supporting contraction again or trying to sell the idea that the league would be better if there were just a handful of teams that flat out had no good talent on them.

There's a saying that, "If you don't stand up for something, you'll fall for everything." An offshoot of that is that if you don't stand for something, you'll end up sounding like an idiot. The fact of the matter is that LeBron James was right; the league would be better off with fewer teams. The league is watered down down. It would be better if it was a smaller league like it was in the 80's. He wasn't saying anything that wasn't common sense.
The problem is that LeBron somehow oblivious to the fact that what he was saying would rile so many people up or that it was one of the worst things he could have said as the NBA and Players Union head to a labor standoff. In trying to backtrack, he just ended up by making himself sound even dumber, not just for the childish "I didn't say that." but also because he literally said he was ignorant to the word "contraction" which, as a commenter on ESPN noted, is odd since he has a kid.

But since I'm getting older and need to settle into my old fogie role, I'm going to blame Twitter. The Twitter Generation just doesn't seem to realize that there can be unexpressed thoughts or ideas that you keep to yourself. While I agree with LeBron James's initial stance on contraction, there was NO WAY he should have shared it with a journalist. No matter what he meant, LBJ should have known that journalists were going to spin it to get the biggest headline. LeBron's been in the public eye for almost a decade, you would think he'd know that by now. If not, someone should get him a copy of Bull Durham as a belated Christmas present.

Just as LeLoosh needs to realize that there's more to playing basketball than going out and having fun, there's more to crafting your image and taking care of the public's perception of you than smiling and talking to everyone. In fact, in both cases, that approach will end up to bite you in the ass. I can't say that I feel bad for LeBron because I'm not a fan but I will say that it is getting somewhat pathetic to see him continually misplay his hand and make himself look so foolish.

(And honestly, I can't really preach too much on this one because if I ever became famous, I'm sure there are some things I've posted on this blog that I probably would wish weren't out there on the public record.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:18 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

When I saw a story on The Huffington Post about Joe Biden calling gay marriage "inevitable", I thought it was a good opportunity to get my solution to this whole debate out there. As I've posted here before, I think that the US government should just get out of the "marriage" business. Repeal DOMA, take marriage rights and rename them civil unions and give all consensual adult couples equal protection under the law. Seems like a simple fix to me. The religious people can get back to actually protecting the sanctity of marriage (which I always felt had more to do with "love, honor" and "til death do us part" than the "man and woman" part) and gays will get their equal rights.

However one thing that I was noticing was that a lot of people were arguing the genetics side of the issue. After writing my bit about civil unions for consensual adult couples, I added that I think the gay gene discussion should be avoided because it takes the debate away from equal rights and into biology. I also added that I myself don't exactly buy the whole gay gene as the be all, end all and think that nurture has as much, if not more, to do with people's sexuality. (Although, especially from a cultural angle, I think "sexuality" is a man made concept.)

I know I shouldn't be surprised by this but I was a bit shocked to see immediate responses to my post and almost all of them were blasting me personally... and it was from liberals because of my take on the gay gene. Now, not only were these responses proving my point about how the genetics issue takes the debate to a place where it need not be and makes people overlook the actual subject of the debate but it showed me that when it comes to matters of faith, many liberals treat science in the way that conservatives treat God.

Now I understand the immediate response from the Left will be that science can be proven while God is a fable or fairy tale and I'm not dismissing all science or lumping it in with religion. What I'm talking about is how there is a great number of people who will leap to embrace the findings of a single study, a study that has gone under none of the academic rigor that is required to truly be considered a viable test, and simply accept it as "fact". People treat these "discoveries" the same way as religious types treat miracles, both groups are striving for answers - one finds it in a unapproachable higher power, the others find it in uncorroborated studies. For instance, articles that pronounce that studies have found "conclusively that sexual orientation in men has a genetic cause" will usually also contain a bit (usually buried in the later passages) that there is no gay gene per se but "probably a handful of genes that work in ways as yet unexplained." Call me a stickler but I don't think someone can say "conclusively" and "cause" when it's followed by "probably" and "unexplained". Again, we're not talking rigorously tested, scientifically proven causality here; it's just faith with a different beneficiary.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the the gay gene is the new "Leaches cure sickness" or cold fusion; I'm saying that even those geneticists who are trying to find the gene openly admit that environmental elements, especially from the womb to early childhood, have a huge impact, possibly even greater than the genetics, which they haven't been able to actually prove exists.

Still, when liberals get a piece of science stuck in their craw, they refuse to give it up. Even if it's beside the point. In terms of the actual gay marriage debate, why bring genetics up? If someone is citing the Bible, all you have to say is that the New Testament forbids interfaith marriage and marriage to atheists - should those couples also not be able to get marriage rights? If someone argues that people CHOOSE to be gay, the response is that nobody does that. We can't explain why people turn out that way but it's most certainly not a choice. Sexual attraction isn't like choosing a diet. You don't need to say any more than that. It's not like they can push for a burden of proof. These are people who believe dinosaurs roamed the Earth with humans, Noah built an ark with two of every animal, and don't think it's weird that the story of Jesus Christ seems like a mash-up of many previous deity stories and myths. Or as Louie C.K. brilliantly portrayed it...

And while I love that bit and I hate to say this, it seems like liberals are often treating scientific studies with the same blind faith. Instead of saying, "It says heaven", they'll argue that "Oh, some researcher in Korea found something in fruit flies." To act like the ability to cite an uncorroborated medical study somehow makes them better than people with faith just strikes me as fairly hypocritical. Also hypocritical is the fact that many of these people act like religious types lower the level of debate and then post one line, dismissive posts that add nothing of any substance.

But really, the lesson of this rant is that I really shouldn't bother wasting time in the comments section of websites. I've been pretty good about avoiding them this year but I probably need to make it a resolution again this year because I still sometimes fall off the wagon and get caught up in a pointless debate with people who often feel like they are beyond having to prove their own point. It's a waste of time. My brother reminded me of a great cartoon which I should really commit to memory.

Anyway, Merry Christmas everyone. Hope you and yours have a great weekend.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:37 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Slash Film posted a pretty interesting bit about the animation process of Gore Verbinski's latest, "Rango". It could be the future of animation, which seems odd since it seems a lot harder than just animating things on their own.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:50 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Forgot to mention Girl Talk's mix/mash-up record "All Day" as one of my faves. While not all of the mash-ups work, the song "Jump on Stage" includes three of the best. Big Boi & Portishead, Ol' Dirty Bastard & radiohead, and the absolutely perfect Beastie Boys & Iggy Pop mash ups are amazing. If the Lust For Life/Hey Ladies was a full song and released as a single, I think it would be one of my favorite songs of the year.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:52 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Apparently I posted up the wrong picks last week since the games listed on the pic that went up didn't match last week's slate. In that case, I'll pretend that the last minute switches I made on a couple of games salvaged my week (like it did for my Yahoo! league where I got 9 right to take the lead.) For the season, I'm now 118 - 99.

I'm like 4 - 9 - 1 or something equally demoralizing when picking the Saints this year and I'll probably screw that one up again since I'm betting on my lack of faith in the Falcons and taking New Orleans +3. The Falcons are sitting pretty atop the NFC while the Saints are fighting for their playoffs lives so you'd think New Orleans would bring their A game. But I've just been completely incapable of pegging which N'Awlins squad will show up.

In a lot of games, I thought the matchups were a toss up and I opted for the underdog and the points. The Titans +5 over Kansas City, the Radiers +3 over Indianapolis, the Seahawks +6 over the Bucs, the Niners +2 over St. Louis (I have a feeling that Sam Bradford might have hit the rookie wall.)

My lock of the week (which is why I probably can't bet on the game right now outside of the perfect parlay) is Houston +3 over the Broncos. I am a bit nervous about the fact that the Broncos will have a some second stringers in Tebow and Lance Ball trying to make a name for themselves and the Texans are disappointed with their season but I have to think that Houston is simply better and should be able to win by 3 or more.

The Pats should be refocused after almost blowing the game against Green Bay so -9 against the Bills should be doable. No Troy Polamalu and potential low scoring game makes me take the Panters +14 against the Steelers. Who knows what the Bengals are up to but the Chargers seem like they are back and I think they should be able to handle Cincy no problem and cover the -7. That game is close to being a lock IMO. Ditto for Dallas vs. Arizona although if Dallas's defense takes the second half off like it did last week, who knows what might happen. I don't see Jacksonville resting like Dallas so I think Washington fails to come with -7. The Bears came off a big win and sealed their division so I could see a let down against the revitalized Jets, who might also rally around their beleaguered coach and his wife. (Although, maybe their into getting kicked while their down.) Philly should trounce Minnesota.

Finally, the NY Giants vs. Green Bay is a tough one but the Giants' problem is that they make too many mistakes and the Packers defense is one that usually won't let teams get away with making mistakes. (I write usually because they dropped like three interceptions last weekend against the Pats.) My one concern about taking the Packers is that the Giants defense could very well knock Rodgers out of the game and I don't think they'll be taking Matty Flynn as lightly as the Pats did. Still I'm going to go with the Packers... for now.

Betting wise, this has been a so-so year and I'm down a little because I always get greedy and add one team too many to my parlays. But it's been a wild year of NFL (and even wilder in terms of fantasy football) and I'm sad that it's coming to an end.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:16 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:21 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

This is kind of badass.

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

I've long been an opponent to the NBA age limit but these tweets (found over at Yahoo's Ball Don't Lie blog ) kind of make me think that maybe there's something to it. For the uninformed, Dorrell Wright entered the NBA before the age limit and came out straight from high school. Jeremy Lin, on the other hand, is a Palo Alto native who graduated from Harvard.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:33 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

For all of LeBron James's talk about just wanting to have fun, I'm sure that Shaq is enjoying himself far more this season in Boston.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:30 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Yesterday, the Huffington Post ran a headline "SHOCKER" as it simply could not believe how high the percentage of people who still believe in creationism was. How high was it? 60%? 70%? Nope.

40%. Down from 47% a decade ago.

The fact that HuffPo was stunned by the 40% number, a number that was lower than the guesses I got when I asked people what they thought the percentage was, shows their disconnect with the American people. And while I'm sure that many people would say that they are glad that they don't connect with the people in this poll (I'm looking at you Bill Maher), the problem is that these are the people that liberals need to convince in order to get most anything done in this democracy.

As we've learned continually in the past, one of the strengths of the Republicans is that they paints themselves as speaking to the people rather than speaking at them, like the Democrats do. The fact that the Huffington Post is so stunned that less than half of Americans believe in creationism and thinks it's worthy of a headline isn't going to help the liberals cause any.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:24 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I usually gauge my most listened to of the year by looking at the Itunes play count on my computer but this year I got a new phone and have used it to listen to music more often so the count is a little off. Also, three albums have really dominated my year (with Foo Fighter's last album being a distant but equally overplayed 4th). Because three albums so dominated my computer this year, I just put the entire albums on the list rather than having a list comprised of about four bands.
I'm a bit surprised by the lack of post-rock (Explosions in the Sky and Mono especiallly) but I have multiple albums from each group and the songs are much longer than the pop/indie tunes so I guess they didn't rack up as many listens.

Anyway, here's the list and I recommend giving all of these bands/songs a listen.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Otis Smith made like a bored SoulHonky on a rainy day, making trades up on the ESPN trade machine or RealGM trade checker. The only difference is that Smith actually runs the Orlando Magic and he pulled the trigger on the trades. All told, the Magic sent out Vince Carter, Rashard Lewis, Marcin Gortat, and Mickeal Pietrus for Hedo Turkoglu, Gilbert Arenas, Jason Richardson, and Earl Clark.

So how they'd do?

My initial reaction is that the Magic did alright. Yes, I really thought they'd go after a big gun with Vince's expiring deal along with Gortat and Bass but I have a feeling that Orlando just didn't have enough to acquire anyone close to the 'Melo/CP3 level or even a Danny Granger-type. So they brought back Hedo to run the offense, replaced Vince Carter with Jason Richardson (which is a step up), and threw in two wild cards. Gilbert Arenas is the main one since he could be a weapon on the court or an utter distraction off of it. The other wild card is Earl Clark, a former lotto talent who has struggled mightily in Phoenix. It should be interesting to see if the new environment can help him get his career on track.

The major issues with the trade are defense and depth but I'm not sure the Magic really took a huge step back. Defensively, Pietrus is the main loss but he was always inconsistent and I'm really not sure if Q Richardson can't replace some, if not most, of what he offered. The Magic are in desperate need of a backup big (unless Daniel Orton is somehow going to be ready for legit NBA minutes.) Should they trade Jameer Nelson? Perhaps but Gortat averaged 16 minutes a game and are you really going to dump your starting PG for a bit player? They need to do something but I could see a smaller deal with Chris Duhon for a backup big as being more likely.

In the end though, this is a move that maintains Orlando's hold on the #3 team in the East and gives them a better chance at pulling an upset (since they won't have to rely on Vince Carter and Rashard Lewis, two guys who rarely, if ever, stepped up when it mattered) but they still are facing long odds to even make the conference championship, let alone make it back to the NBA Finals.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:36 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Depending on what happens with my picks at the end of this year, I'm thinking about joining the Las Vegas Hilton Super Contest next year. It's a $1500 entry fee but you get 10k for coming in tenth. The Sports Guy Bill Simmons is in third place right now and I'd be tied with him (3rd place takes home about 40 grand.)

For this week, I'm really liking the Cowboys -6 over Rex Grossman and Washington and Atlanta -7 over Seattle. I'm feeling confident but not super about the Raiders -7 over Tim Tebow and the Broncos, the Steelers -6 over the reeling Jets, the Saints +1 over the Ravens and the Browns +2 over Cincy. My upset specials appear to be the Lions +6 over Tampa and the Jaguars +5 over Indy. I think both of those teams could win those games outright. The toughest games are the two extremes - the Eagles vs. Giants has playoff implications while fans of the Cardinals and Panthers are more concerned about draft position. I like Mike Vick and the Eagles +3 to take out the banged up Giants while I'm going to go with the Panthers' defense, run game, and the fact that they already beat the Cards in Arizona.
Due to injuries, the Patriots vs. Packers and Bears vs, Vikings are off the board but I'll take the healthier teams in those battles (aka the Pats and Bears).

Last week I was 8 - 8 and fell two games back in my Pick 'Em league. A couple of my "locks" fell through so it wasn't a great week. Hopefully, I can get back to over the .500 hump this week.

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

Today, we saw a great example of how both sides of the extreme media report the news.

It all started with the publishing of a University of Maryland report about misinformation in the 2010 elections. It's conclusion was:

"Misinformation cannot simply be attributed to news sources, but are part of the larger information environment that includes statements by candidates, political ads and so on."

The other fact that it pointed out was that there were many subjects on which Fox viewers were misinformed. Many of them related to TARP and the stimulus package. However, there were also issues on which viewers of MSNBC and public broadcasting (PBS and NPR) were misinformed and those subjects were items in the left wing wheelhouse (for instance, "US Chamber of Commerce was spending money raised from foreign sources to support Republican candidates.") Not surprisingly, on these subjects, Fox News led the way with the LEAST misinformed viewers. Now, there were far more questions that were in the Conservative wheelhouse so it shouldn't be surprising that they had more areas in which viewing Fox News led to misinformation. (On a related note, one troubling element of the study was that not all the questions mentioned in the report were included in the collection of facts and figures at the end; at least, one Left leaning question (when TARP came up for a vote, Democrats were opposed or divided: Fox News, 21%) is missing

In the end, the study seemed to show the obvious: that its better to watch news than to not watch at all, however if you only get your news from one source, you'll end up siding with their position.

Now, the fun part comes when the media got their hands on the report. The NY Times report focused on Fox's failings (but they had a non-partisan headline - " Some Viewers Were Misinformed by TV News") but didn't really analyze the report or do any due diligence (something that, sadly, NOBODY did.) The Huffington Post ran with a story with the headline "Fox News Viewers Are The Most Misinformed", which is not what the report was really concluding at all. It is a perfect example of how the Left attacks things. They are technically correct; if you look at the facts and figures, what they are saying bears out HOWEVER, if you look at the facts and figures, you can see that the study wasn't completely unbiased. The Huffington Post also completely ignored that, when it came to Left leaning questions, it was MSNBC which often led the misinformed. But HuffPo isn't interested in investigative reporting on this; it just wants to score some cheap points on Fox News.

Fox News, as is their usual MO, also didn't seem to do any due diligence and instead resorted to ad hominem attacks, this time against the qualifications of the University of Maryland. A VP at Fox News fired out a statement citing the schools high ranking as a party school and a school where people have to study the least. I was a little surprised that they didn't pick up on the biased questions and launch into their standard "Liberal Media" diatribe but maybe that's because nobody actually read the report yet.

In the end, what the two sides really showed was their shoddy "reporting" and gave us a great example of their knee jerk, cheap and easy journalism that really serves nobody but their followers who have something else to post on Facebook or tweet about. The old term "Fast, Cheap, and Out of Control" is growing more and more appropriate for the crumbling Fourth Estate nowadays.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:30 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Sadly, I've had to turn the comments option off on this blog. I've been inundated by spam (and had only about one real comment a week) and it was slowing down my blog service. So if you want to comment about a post, you can either send me an e-mail at admin@soulhonky.com or comment over at the Facebook page (which you should "like" over on the left there.)

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

Well, here are some trailers that are on the complete opposite spectrum from one another. Or rather, from one to the others.

"The Tree of LIfe" is Terrence Malick's latest film and if there is a major "art house" director out there, it's Malick. His films are most certainly not mainstream by design (as opposed to not mainstream by subject like someone like Harmony Korine.) I have to say, this trailer doesn't exactly woo me.

On the opposite extreme from Malick is "The Fast and the Furious" series. It's amazing that a series that started with what was essentially a shoddy remake of "Point Break" with cars instead of surfboards is about to reach five films. Then again, looking at what else litters the multiplexes of late, maybe it's not so amazing. Still, the fifth film of this one looks as "good" as the rest, which is to say that it will be a fun two hours that you'll probably forget as soon as the lights come up in the theater. Not that there's necessarily anything wrong with that.

And on kind of the opposite extreme of "Fast Five" is "Take Me Home Tonight", yet another rom-com about someone who doesn't know what he wants to be yet stumbles into a love that will, I'm assuming, get him on his path to greatness. I'm pretty tired of these films, and it is one of the reasons that I've been toying with the idea of writing a rom-com called "The Settlers" about people who know what they want and realize that they're never going to get it. It's a tough nut to crack which is why it is still in its idea/premise phase. Part of me thinks it might make a better web series.
Anyway, as for this film, it doesn't look to bad. I'm sure Topher Grace wishes he could graduate from the school boy or recent graduate roles but it also seems like he hasn't aged in the last decade. The trailer isn't bad. It seems like a rainy day rental.

Then there's "Limitless" which seems to be the latest attempt to make Bradley Cooper and Abbie Cornish "bankable" actors. The film looks decent enough but I'm not completely sold on it; the reviews seem like they'll make or break this one.

Finally, there's "I Am Number Four". It seems like another DJ Caruso special. The director of "Disturbia" and "Eagle Eye" seems to be a decent hired gun but he never gets fully realized script and could really use a better producer to help him with story issues. Like "Limitless", not a terrible trailer but nothing that I'm about to run out and go see.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:44 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've long held that a reality TV production company would make a perfect location for an workplace sit-com. It has everything you need: crazy characters, weird situations, inter-office romance, and a surprising amount of free time spent shooting the shit. I tried to write one of my own last year and, like most of my scripts, just let it sit around collecting dust.

I think the script is solid but I didn't hit it out of the park. One of the problems is that it's a little too insidery. And now that I've let it sit around for a year, some of the jokes are now dated (most notably, the Dark Knight references). I haven't gotten back to doing anything with it so I thought I'd just throw it on the ol' blog for people to see, critique, or just ignore.

For people in the industry, the script is a little tough on editors (after all, reality TV is an editor's medium; they make most of the shows what they are.) But for people outside of the reality world, it's an over-the-top but I think legitimate look into how the shows that make America dumber are actually made.

Anyway, I think it's a good start and I've been thinking of maybe shooting the opening of the show (the three pages posted below) on my own but right now I'm not doing anything with it. If you want to check it out, YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE PDF OF THE PILOT SCRIPT HERE. Below are the three first pages. The opening isn't really sit-com style, three jokes a page writing. It's more of a dramedy short but the rest of the episode fits more into sit-com writing. But then, that was another problem with the series; I could never figure out if it was a News Radio type comedy or a completely over the top 30 Rock kinda show.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:41 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I posted the best new show of 2010 a few weeks ago but since then a couple of those shows ended with finales that I didn't exactly love, I saw the full six episodes of "Luther", and I also remembered about a show that I forgot about, and learned that "Dead Set" (which I still HIGHLY recommend) actually came out in 2008. So the updated list is...

5. Boardwalk Empire: The show started to pick up some steam but the ending was forgettable. Still one of the main problems is that the side characters are the most interesting. There's a reason that Lucky Luciano is the more popular movie subject and why the Nucky Thompson (aka Nucky Johnson) story hasn't been told. Although, I can't remember a Abe Rothstein story and his character is pretty compelling so maybe they should make a spinoff about his rise to power. Also, if you're going to make up a character (like Jimmy Darmody) give him a little more life or something more intriguing. All in all, it's a quality show but just not all that fascinating.

4. Walking Dead: I will admit that The Walking Dead suffers from the novelty of a weekly zombie show wearing off just as the overabundance of hype really started coming. The last couple episodes were kind of a chore and I thought the final episode was a miss. It seemed more like a middle episode of the second season and not necessarily a finale. I'll be watching season 2 but I won't be heartbroken if it doesn't come back until next October.

3. Terriers: The fact that the finale got so much love did more to strengthen my belief that more people need to watch "The 25th Hour" then it did make me love Terriers. Don't get me wrong, it's a very good show and had some great moments but the show was better when creator Ted Griffin wasn't in charge. The finale had some of the same issues as the pilot - a gritty show with cute, Ocean's 11 (which Griffin wrote) style dialogue. The performances in the show were top notch, it'll likely go down as a Brilliant But Cancelled tv show, and it is one of the rare shows that I think would have been better off with a longer season. With slower developing overall arcs and more focus on the episodic cases, it would have been easier for people to tune into midway through. By the time the word was getting out about the show, it only had a couple of episodes left and it was nearly impossible for people to tune in and follow everything.

2. Justified: I can't believe that I forgot about this one when I made my first list. All of the mistakes that FX made with Terriers (well, besides the short season), it avoided here. Granted, in some cases, it was dumb luck - the show was supposed to be called less interesting "Lawman" but Steven Seagal's reality show snaked the title out from under them. The show also felt cohesive; the great one liners fit with the characters and the tone of the show. Walton Goggins solidified his place in one of the most underappreciated actors in the game right now. Fresh off of a stellar final season of "The Shield", Goggins turned out another amazing job as Boyd Crowder. I can't wait for this one to come back.

1. Luther: The Idris Elba starrer from the BBC moved to the #1 spot due to a fully realized first season and some stellar first episodes, which I hadn't seen when I made my first list. Ruth Wilson's Alice Crowley is one of the best new characters that I've seen in some time. I'd love another season with her and Luther being a sort of twisted take on the old guy and girl crime solving teams. Their dynamic leaves a lot of options for future seasons. RIght now, I think that it might be more of a miniseries than an actual series but I really hope that the BBC brings it back. If not, FX should immediately buy the rights as it would be a perfect fit for their network.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:27 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Week 14 was a great one for me as only the Ravens and my arch-nemesis the New Orleans Saints sullied by otherwise perfect record. I knocked out a couple parlays and my main game of the week, the Bears vs Lions came through at the end (although the Bears definitely made me sweat it out.).

I'm surprised that the Browns aren't favored against the Bills. Buffalo is terrible against the run and no good against TE's and Peyton Hillis and Ben Watson are pretty damn good. I expect the Jets to come back better than ever. I'm starting to believe in the Bucs and the Falcons so I might lay some money on them as well. I also wagered a small bet on Tennessee to win outright this week. Their defense will be more ornery than usual after last week's poor showing and Chris Johnson against Indy's pathetic run defense should allow the Titans to win the time of possession battle.

But, as always, I have no idea what I'm talking about, really. Anything can happen in the NFL.

Speaking of knowing nothing, I was glad the League kind of took a shot at fantasy "experts" but I wish they were a little harsher. Their seriously isn't an easier job in the world than being a fantasy expert. Really, all it requires is for someone to pay attention. (Although, it seems like most of these experts, especially at Yahoo! aren't great about doing that either.) ESPN has better "experts" but as the League pointed out, you're better off just going with your gut rather than relying on these other no-nothings.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:23 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I have a lot of respect for Aaron Sorkin as a writer but his rant against Sarah Palin in the Huffington Post is yet ANOTHER example of people stepping down to her level and making themselves look silly. Besides calling Palin names like "Cruella", Sorkin also gives conservatives a lightning rod quote, "I'm able to make the distinction with no pangs of hypocrisy even though I get happy every time one of you faux-macho shitheads accidentally shoots another one of you in the face." Cue every conservative pundit saying that Sorkin wants to protect animals but roots for humans to get shot. Also, Sorkin compares Palin to Michael Vick which doesn't really work because Vick's crime was using dogfighting purely for entertainment purposes whereas Palin did seem to take back the animal she shot and make use of it for food. One could argue that the hunting expedition was primarily for sport but then you're arguing intentions rather than actions and it's nearly impossible to show someone what they are doing might be wrong when you start off by lecturing them on their own intentions.

Sadly, Sorkin's screed will get all the hype when the more interesting criticism of Palin and her show comes from where else but Alaska. In the most telling example of her "Talk like one of the people, act like one of the elite" hypocrisy, Palin says that planes are like taxi cabs in Alaska but drops 35,000 dollars on her "taxi cab" to go shoot her dinner. Something most Alaskans don't do, let alone could ever afford. Craig Medred's piece on the reality of Palin's show is a very interesting read and offers insights where Sorkin only offered histrionics.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

President Obama is complaining about the heat that he's getting from Democrats over his tax cut compromise and his defense might have made matters even worse, both for himself and progressives. Politico reports that, when taking about his detractors, the President said:

“We finally get health care for all Americans, something that Democrats have been fighting for a hundred years, but because there was a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple of million people, even though we got health insurance for 30 million people…that somehow that was a sign of weakness and compromise. If that's the standard by which we are measuring success or core principles, then let's face it: We will never get anything done. People will have the satisfaction of having a purist position and no victories for the American people.

Now I do agree with the President about the fact that the purists are always going to be unhappy in the D.C. because they'll never "win"; they'll either get a watered down version of what they want or just lose outright. However, the problem that most people have with Obama is not just his lack of fight but his willingness to just give up completely.

Take for example this latest quote on the public option. When campaigning, Obama mentioned a public or single-payer plan. Then when the public option was dropped, he deemed that it was "just one sliver" of the overall proposal and wasn't THAT big of a deal to lose. He angered a lot of people when he moved the goal posts on that one and he might have just lost them seeing as his latest comment tore down the goal posts altogether. Suddenly, the issue he campaigned on and once considered at least a part of his health care plan is a mere afterthought.

While Obama probably was just thinking about defending himself, he needed to consider the power of his words. If any progressive ever mentions the public option again, conservatives' first response will be Obama's labeling the public option as "a provision in there that they didn't get, that would have affected maybe a couple of million people". It's tough to defend such an overhaul when one of its proponents diminishes its importance like that.

Another reason why it will be hard to support is because there won't be any money to spend on it. While Obama has been in the spotlight, Republicans are sneaking away without many people questioning how this compromise of cuts, cuts, and more cuts jibes with their campaign promise to get the deficit down. The government already needed to cut spending but this almost makes it seem like they'll have to cut spending altogether for a couple years.

The bottom line is that all of the concerns about Obama's readiness for the big chair seem to coming true. For a guy that is supposed to be a great communicator, he is consistently on the losing side of the PR battles. I mean, he was on the side of the people and the Republicans were defending millionaires from like a 5 percent take hike and he still lost. Even worse, he made the tax cuts last two years so he'll have to fight this battle yet again come the 2012 election.

And in the end, President Obama can't blame anyone but himself for the high expectations. He was the one making the promises when he was running. You can't paint yourself as a progressive and then complain when people aren't happy with pragmatism. While President Obama has had his successes in office, he's never been able to shape the political discussion. Rather than seeming like he was on the offensive when he first took office, he often came off more like he was offended that anyone would dare stand up to him. And now that the Dems have been knocked down a peg, he cries bloody murder when the opposition exerts its power. I'm sorry but you can't tell the Republicans that "I won" and basically thumb your nose at their measly existence a couple years ago and then suddenly start calling them "hostage takers" when they get some power and do the same right back at him.

President Obama needs to start owning his moves and really publicizing them when they are successes. Today, everyone is talking about tax cuts when they should be talking about how Citigroup is now wholly public owned and the much-maligned TARP has turned a 12 billion dollar profit. Of course, the President has spent so much time blaming the need for TARP on the previous administration, I'm sure that it's only a matter of time before the conservative spin the success as a heroic going away present from President Bush.

I know that a lot of people think that the Republican Congress will get the blame if things don't turn around but I can't see how that's going to happen. If things don't turn around, then Obama's long term plan hasn't succeeded and the conservatives will hit and every other Dem candidate over the head with that in 2012 . If things do turn around, the Republicans will take the credit. The Republicans in power isn't going to make the PR battle any easier. If the White House couldn't shape the debate when they were dealing with Michael Steele and Sarah Palin's Twitter account, it's not going to get any better when the Republicans have a national stage to work on.

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

If there was ever such a thing as an up-and-going team, it'd be the Portland Trailblazers. I still don't think the team has fulfilled its potential but this might be the last year it really has a chance to do so. Brandon Roy's arthritic knees aren't ever going to get better, Andre Miller and Marcus Camby aren't getting any younger, LaMarcus Aldridge is a poor man's Bosh and we've all seen what Bosh is like when the chips are down. And then there's Greg Oden who is officially the Y2K Sam Bowie (which means he'll have a few productive years somewhere else and then forced into retirement due to injuries.) I still think that this team could make a little noise in the playoffs but the bottom line is that they need to go somewhere fast because time is not on their side.

The Heat are getting hyped again even though they haven't really beaten anybody. The Bucks are a disappointment this year and they don't have any real tests until Wednesday against the Jazz and then near the end of the month when they face Dallas and the Lake Show.

Lost in all of the hype over the Heat is the struggles of Florida's other team. The Magic just lost to a Joe Johnson-less Hawks and have only like two quality wins so far this year. They are also running into a tough lineup with a road trip against Portland, Utah, LA Clips, and Nuggets and then Dallas and San Antonio leading up to their Christmas Day matchup against the Celtics. Orlando is a game and a half up on the Heat right now and I'd be surprised if that wasn't reversed (or even worse) by the time 2011 rolls around.

Amar'e Stoudemire has had his troubles in the NBA but he has to be up there in MVP talks right now. He's proving to be a leader in New York and has the Knicks playing their best basketball in ages. If Kelenna Azubuike can come back anywhere near full strength, he'll only make the Knicks a more dangerous team. Even without him, it looks like they are a fairly safe bet (if Amar'e can stay healthy) to make the playoffs.

If there's one negative in New York right now, it's that their supposed best trade prospect, Anthony Randolph, is back on the bench and last season's fruitless salary dump deal of Jared Jeffiries cost the team future draft picks. Danilo Gallinari also isn't establishing himself to be the star that D'Antoni and Donnie Walsh claimed he was. While many in the press are back on the Donnie Walsh bandwagon because of this year's turnaround and the pick of Landry Fields, let's not forget that this is a team that shot itself in the foot by grabbing The Rooster over Brook Lopez and Eric Gordon and draft Jordan Hill over Brandon Jennings.

The rumors of a Andre Iguodala trade are back but I really can't imagine that the Sixers are going to get anything close to fair value for him right now and the franchise can't just dump him for nothing. Unless someone actually offers up some young talent in return, they should wait to see how the labor discussions pan out before giving Iggy up for nada.

Obviously there will be some movement since the season is only about a quarter over but I'd love to lock in the 3 v. 6 matchups right now. In the West, you have Deron vs. CP3 and the Eastern Playoffs would feature David Stern's wet dream - Miami vs. New York. The rivalry renewed.

The Celtics are now the best team in the NBA and I love this squad more than any Celtics team in recent memory. With a lockout potentially wiping out 2011-12, this could be the last hurrah for Shaq and KG so I think we're going to see them leave it all out on the floor come playoff time. The Lakers are still a force to be reckoned with but I think the hunger and passion will be on Boston's side when they meet up in the Finals this time around.

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

I doubt this show will get into all of the craziness that Von Wafer and Delonte West can bring but it's good to see that the Celtics season of crazy chemistry getting a reality show, even if ESPN's doc is a watered down, poor man's version of HBO's Hard Knocks

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:44 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Hollywood Reporter had a round table with some of the writers of this year's critically acclaimed films earlier and now here is the full hour of the talk with some of this year's top actors. If you don't like feel like watching the full hour, head over to THR.com or Slash Film where they have three short 2 - 3 minute clips, featuring moments like Robert Duvall calling Kubrick "the actor's enemy", Jesse Eisenberg admitting to suggesting which takes should be used in "Adventureland", Ryan Gosling explaining why he was fired from "The Lovely Bones", and Mark Ruffalo explains David Fincher's thinking and why he does so many takes.

This discussion is interesting and it should offer a nice topic for the directors roundtable in the near future.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:00 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

If you've ever wondered what an art house horror movie looks like, go see "Black Swan". But when you go see it, realize that it is an oxymoron. As an art house film, it lacks the subtlety, depth, and grace that the fans of indie films so desire. As a horror film, it is an extremely slow burn, feeling longer than its one hour and fifty minute run time. When it finally reaches it's climax, the film is thrilling but it takes time to get there and doesn't offer the constant scares that many horror fans require nowadays.

All that being said, I found the film to be entertaining. There were some genuine scares and I was completely off balance as we rolled into the final act, not knowing what to expect or what was real. All of the actors were solid but I thought that Vincent Cassell was a scene-stealer. Of course, his role was pretty much right in his wheelhouse so it's not the kind of stretch that Oscar voters reward but he does a great job and pulls off the part with such ease that he never once seems like he's "acting".

As for recommendations, it's a tough call. First off, I'd definitely recommend "127 Hours" over this although I do think that some of the power of "Swan" will be lost if you don't see it in the theater. (Then again, I have to admit that the film did give me a bit of a headache.) If you aren't expecting some deep treatise on the life of an artist and can put up with some obvious symbolism (in fact, some of it is so obvious that it's hard to really call it symbolism) and a couple of cheesy moments and don't mind art house passing and films that are slow burns, then you should check out "Black Swan". It's definitely not a film that I would give a blanket recommendation to but I found it to be one of the better movies of the year.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:53 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I loved these cartoons/videos during the election and am glad to see that they are back. That being said, while it's funny, I don't always agree politically with the sentiment (or, at least, the tone of it) and I don't buy the stat that 92% of Afghanis haven't heard of the 9/11 attacks. I'm sure that they know about the attacks just not the name 9/11 or maybe Twin Towers. It's like if you asked most Americans about what they thought about the Mazdurak, they wouldn't know what you were talking about.

Anyway, check it all out over at Vulture by clicking on the comic below.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:48 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've completely fallen off track when it comes to posting my picks but after last week's stellar performance with 11 right, I'm now back over .500 for the year at 88 - 82 so I'm back. This is a tough week and I went against my initial instinct a couple of times so I'm not entirely confident in these picks but I'm hoping I nailed it and have my fingers crossed for a perfect week.

Looking over my picks, the Bears -4 over the Lions is one of my more confident bets. The Lions have kept things tight this season but the Bears are on a roll and I think they should be able to shut down Detroit.
The games that I changed my picks on were: Dallas +6 over Indy, Oakland +13 over San Diego, Broncos +9 over Kansas City. I think Dallas is going to see the Colts game as one in which they could save some face this season and Felix Jones and Tashard Choice will be out to prove that they belong in their new roles (now that Marion Barber is out.) And what better run defense to prove yourself against than the woeful Colts. I also think DeMarcus Ware and Co. will be licking their chops after seeing Peyton getting rushed so much in the past couple of weeks. I actually think that the Boys could win this one outright. San Diego could beat the pants off of the Raiders but I just feel like now is about the time that the Chargers will get too full of themselves and the Raiders will make one last gasp at relevance this year. I think San Diego wins but I'm going to bet on the Raiders being able to keep it within two touchdowns. The Broncos and Chiefs are two teams that I can't figure out and I know that the Chiefs want revenge after getting trounced by Denver a few weeks ago but I just think the KC defense isn't strong enough to shut down Denver and the Broncos will, at least, make a game of it and could be able to beat the Chiefs.

Other games that I like are the Falcons -3 over Tampa Bay, who I still don't really believe in. St. Louis -3 over Arizona seems like a safe bet. The Giants and Packers lines gave me pause but I'm willing to bet against Washington and Cincy.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:31 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm definitely looking forward to this although it really is just one part of a larger 90's hip hop documentary that needs to be made. I'd love to see a Ken Burns-like treatment to the rise of hip hop, the growth of gangster rap and then the response from groups like Tribe Called Quest, Jungle Brothers, and De La Soul. I hope this film (like my desired doc) goes more into the backstory, the problems with the label, touring, the fall of sampling, and then the phase of the career which De La occassionally complained about (and a complaint featured in Spike Lee's Mo Better Blues) - when a majority of their shows became white people. My main fear is that this documentary, like most hip hop docs, focuses too much on the beefs and in-fighting and not the bigger picture and how the music itself evolved.

Still, this looks pretty interesting.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:55 AM | Permalink | Comments ()