This week's Tryout is the UK band The Joy Formidable. I'm a big fan of the new single Greyhounds in the Slips but I'm kind of torn on whether or not I should by their first album. Their new one doesn't hit the US until March so I might just hold out for that one since their first album seems like one of those records that I would get, enjoy, and then never listen to ever again. Not that the groups sound the same but when I started listening to more Joy Formidable songs, it just made me wants to listen to Tegan and Sarah. Still, I'm a fan of this song and it'll probably make an appearance on the February SoulMix, which I should have ready some time this week.

Here's another one of their tunes.

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

Any discussion about whether "The Mechanic" is worth watching has to start off with the fact that the movie is absolutely terrible. The film kicks off with a laughable continuity error in which Jason Statham jumps out of a pool and is then bone dry, and it's all downhill from there. In fact, they actually repeat the same continuity mistake later in the film but take it a step further with Jason Statham actually being IN the water but his head is still not wet at all. It should be a character piece but there's really nothing there. Ben Foster does a solid job but his character is one dimensional. As for Statham, after an absolutely gratuitous sex scene with a hooker, we are given a glimpse into the hero's humanity - he tells the ho his real name! Obviously, this is a man we should all be rooting for.
Simon West appears at times to be trying to ape Tony Scott and European or indie directors at the same time. He adds scenes that don't seem to have any real point to them and shoots/edits them as if he's a crackhead with ADD. Near the start of the third act, I started to feel bad about the terrible reviews that I gave "Salt"; at least that movie was, for all of its absurd plotholes, actually put together competently. "The Mechanic" seems like a rough cut.

However, "The Mechanic" is more enjoyable than "Salt" and it's because, whereas Angelia Jolie's film started off great and then disappointingly went off the rails completely, this film starts off as a trainwreck and then just manages to become a bigger and bigger disaster. It reminded me a bit of So Bad It's Kinda Good "Law Abiding Citizen" although that film has one plotline and has some creative moments. "The Mechanic" is unfocused and the violence leans more on coincidence than creativity. But I think fans of gratuitous violence who liked "Law Abiding Citizen" won't be too let down by "The Mechanic". If you can't turn off your brain or have any expectations when you go to see an action film, you'll probably want to walk out. Again, it's not a good movie. It has some good moments, two funny jokes, and a good performance by Ben Foster but the film is ridiculous and takes itself seriously.

I actually think "The Mechanic" is a decent drink-and-shoot-the-shit-with-your-friends-while-you-laugh-at how-bad-the-movie-is rental but you have to go in knowing that it is a terribly stupid movie. I'd actually recommend "Law Abiding Citizen" over this though since that is more laughably insane whereas the attempt "The Mechanic" tries to be a legit film and just fails miserably at doing so.

On a related note, I just watched the Ebert Presents At The Movies review of this film and I can now officially write those two critics off. It's one thing to say that this movie is dumb fun but the praise that they heap on it makes it seem like they are paid to promote it. To say that this is a solid action movie basically means you have zero expectations for the genre. What's even more astonishing is that the kid Ignatiy Vishnevetsky claimed, "CBS Films is on the right track." Mind you, the four films CBS Films has made are: The Mechanic. Faster, The Back-Up Plan, and Extraordinary Measure. All four were panned and tanked and when Faster flopped, CBS Films dumped their COO. There's having a weird taste in movies and then there's just being completely tone deaf. Young Ignatiy is quite obviously the latter.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:46 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I knew my abortion blog post was going to miss something and, sure enough, recent reports are surfacing on how a new abortion bill also includes a provision that muddies the waters of "What is a rape?"* The term in their bill for allowable abortions is "forcible rape" which, some people argue, would only include rapes in which a person is held down against their will. Victims of incest seems like it would automatically be nixed from the list as could women who were drugged and raped (since nobody had to hold them down...)

I know that Pro-Lifers don't want anyone to get abortions but isn't redefining rape a rather obvious step too far? Qualifying which rapes really matter seems like a disgusting discussion and I'd have more respect for these politicians if they just came out and said that rape as a whole wouldn't be a reason for an abortion. (I know, I know, be careful what you wish for...) Sometimes there just isn't room for compromise and I think that this is a perfect example. When a political discussion starts going down the road of "When is rape not rape?" then it's pretty clear to me that we're headed in the wrong direction.

*And no, Mother Jones is hardly an unbiased news source and they fail to mention that a Democrat co-sponsored the bill but the central facts of the reporting seem to be on the up and up. Rep. Lipinski, the Democrat who supported the bill, later came forward and said that the altering of the definition of rape wasn't his intention and that the language could be fixed when debate on the floor of the House went forward. Although I do find it odd to co-sponsor a bill that has the problematic language that this one has and then later say, "Well, we can fix that if it's a problem."

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

With the Right to Choose seemingly going back up for debate, I find myself struggling with my own position on the matter. The biggest issue for me is that, besides rape, incest, and health of the mother, I can completely see the argument that abortion is wrong and tantamount to murder. The way I see it, if a woman was even two months pregnant and someone caused her bodily harm that led to a miscarriage, I think a murder or manslaughter charge doesn't seem out of the question. I can't envision anyone patting the lady on the back and saying, "Hey, don't get too worked up. It's not like it was viable."

On top of that, I also have an issue with "The Right to Choose". I agree women should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies and if they are impregnated by rape then they should be able to abort the child but in the case of a standard unwanted pregnancy, the woman already made her choice when she had sex. She chose to take part in an activity that has life changing consequences; it doesn't exactly seem fair that she can just do away with said consequence and end an unborn baby's life as a kind of mulligan.

But all that being said, I'm still Pro-Choice. And while most advocates don't want to say this, the bottom line is that sometimes it's just better if these kids aren't born. While Pro Life advocates claim that a potential great person might be getting aborted, you can also argue that we're eliminating highly probable bad parents and point out that crime rates drop when abortion is legalized. Yeah, it's harsh and maybe I'm jaded after 11 years of working in reality television but a little self-prescribed population control doesn't seem so bad to me.

Still, I'm all for a ban of late term abortions, maybe even moving into the end of what would be called mid-term. I'm also opposed to using public funds to pay for abortions however I am NOT in favor of stripping insurance companies of tax breaks if they cover abortions. Basically, I'm in favor of enforcing the law we already have in place in the Hyde/Stupek-Pitts amendment. While I don't think the government should spend money on abortions, I also don't think it should punish companies that offer them.

In the end, though, I think the biggest issue isn't about abortion as much as it is about the ridiculous amount of money and energy that is put into fighting about abortion. My dream is that after the election in 2012, both sides of the abortion issue agree to put a moratorium on spending and divert all of their funds and tell their supporters to instead donate their money to organizations that help our families and improve the state of care and education of our youth. Instead of fighting to ban abortion, why improve the world so perhaps people would actually want to welcome their child into and wouldn't be scared that they wouldn't be able to provide for a little one. Don't ban a woman's choice on abortion; help her so that maybe she will choose life.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:20 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm a big fan of Iron & Wine and was pleasantly surprised by their last album, where Sam Beam expanded his sonic palette and came away with some great music. The new album again sees Beam spreading his wings but with far less success. On many songs, it seemed like that he didn't clean up the actual songwriting and hoped that the increased instrumentalization would cover up the song's flaws. (And no, I'm not sure that instrumentalization is a word.) And in kind of an odd twist, because the album is experimenting with new instruments, all of the compositions sound simpler than even Iron & WIne's past solely acoustic performances. Whereas the last album had a new direction, it sounded like a band that was both competent and confident in its direction; on Kiss Me Clean, it sounds like Beam only knows the basics and hasn't mastered the genres/instruments and the compositions have been limited because of this.

The album reminds me a bit of Counting Crows' This Desert Lift in which the band kind of went for the simpler Joni Mitchell type sound, which took away from the strengths of their compositions. Iron & Wine has seemed to stumble in the same direction and delivered an album which right now I'm not very fond of. Now, music can always grow on you but I just don't see this album as one of those; it seems entirely forgettable.

On a side note, I'm planning on doing some kind of list ala the Best Movies of the Year for music but I'm not sure if it's going to be a list of Essential Albums or just a playlist of best songs of the year. I don't like ranking music because I feel like it's harder to say one song is better than the other because os much of what I want to hear is based on my mood but I'd like to get some kind of compilation going. I'd think about it more but I probably shouldn't be late for work so I'll try to put something together tonight.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:31 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

...but the new Cold War Kids song seems like they're trying to channel their inner Kings of Leon.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:58 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

So here's the question, if contracts were no object and you were building a team out of the players who are 25 and under in the NBA, who would you draft first? What would your draft board look like? Here's my take on the Top 25 under 25.

1. Dwight Howard: Franchise big men are few and far between so I think you have to put Superman Jr. at the top of the list.
2. Chris Paul : Even though quality young point guards are abundant in this new generation, I'd still go with CP3 as my #2 pick. He's a true 1A star who can be the best player AND the motor that drives his team; I'm not sure the same can be said for most other players on this list (or in this entire league even.)
3. Blake Griffin: Am I going overboard by putting Blake over Kevin Durant? Possibly but one thing is for certain, Blake Griffin's going to get a team more highlights and put more asses in the seat and in this economy, I think that has to count for something. As for on the court, I like Blake's attitude a bit more than Durant and like that he's one of the few young power forward in the league that seems to be willing to mix it up down low a bit rather than just hoist jumpers. And as many others have said, his energy is so contagious that its even brought Baron Davis back from the dead.
4. Kevin Durant: My 1A comment in the Chris Paul write-up was indeed aimed at Durant. While Kevin Durant is a scoring machine, I still believe that the engine that runs the Thunder is Russell Westbrook. Durant reminds me a bit of Paul Pierce; a guy who is definitely the best player on the team but isn't necessarily the lead dog. I can understand putting Durant as high as two and probably wouldn't ever put him before four but if I was building a team, I'd opt for Dewey, CP3, and Blake first.
5. Derrick Rose: Celtics fans might hate me for this but, yes, Derrick Rose is the best young point guard in the NBA. I love Rondo but his absolute lack of a shot troubles me. Yes, Rose's inconsistent defense is also bothersome but I have more faith in Rose improving that weakness than Rondo ever being able to knock down the jumper as well as Rose, who in spite of having limited but expanding range has a pretty nice mid-range J.

This is where I think things really start to get tricky, and I'll probably look back at this in a month and hate some of my rankings but if the draft was today, I'd go...

6. Rajon Rondo: If anyone wants to say that this is a homer pick, well, yeah, it might be. But for all of the complaints that Rondo has the luxury of playing with three (and now four) Hall of Famers, the flipside of that is if he might be allowed to do more and have more impact himself on a team like OK City.
7. Russell Westbrook: Russell seems a bit like Rondo-lite but, y'know, there are worse things to be. I think he's a players that will continue to get better and will always be in the conversation with the best PG's in the league but for some reason, I just see him as always being a shade below the elite.
8. Al Horford: Because of the depth of the young PG field, I could see moving Horford up a bit but there's just something that just seems to be missing with Al. If Durant is a 1B star, Horford is like Kevin Garnett a 2A type - someone who might not be the best player on the team but is the leader and motivator.
9. Stephen Curry: As much as I like the Monta/Curry tandem, I don't think Curry will ever be as good as he could be since he'll be playing off ball more often alongside Monta. On another team, I think he might be garnering All-Star buzz but he's stuck in a role on Golden State. It's a role he still fill quite nicely but it's hard to be as consistent as he could be as a true PG on another squad.
10. Eric Gordon: To me, Gordon is where you get to the guys who are clear second stars. That's not to say that he isn't a very good player and a potential All-Star talent but I don't think a team with him as the #1 option is going to be anything more than a 2nd round playoff squad. He reminds me a bit of Joe Johnson; Johnson and Horford can make a little noise in the playoffs but they'll never be able to beat the elite squads. If Blake Griffin doesn't pan out to the lofty expectations I'm already holding him to, the Clippers could very well be Atlanta West.
11. Brandon Jennings: Jennings has his flaws but he's also 21 and seems to have a great attitude and work ethic and that helps him out here. If I'm stuck with the #12 pick, I'd rather grab a floor general with tons of upside in Jennings than someone like Rudy Gay or Brook Lopez.
12. John Wall:: Not to sound like a grumpy sports talk radio host but there's just something about Wall's showboating that irks me. While Brandon Jennings definitely has a style to him, Wall's flash seems to be a bigger part of his actual attitude. It also doesn't help that he's currently on the biggest group of knuckleheads in the NBA as the Wizards might as well call themselves the 13 Stooges. On the bright side, Rashard Lewis is known for his work ethic so maybe some of it could wear off on Wall. But, then again, I could see Wall being like, "Wait? Aren't the fool who cried on draft night because you went 2nd round? Later." and then dougieing off into the sunset.
13. Monta Ellis: Ellis is another guy who gets a bump up for being fun to watch. He's also really improved his game over the years and calmed down and I truly feel like he's a leader right now. The reason I have him below Westbrook is because he's still a bit of a shooting guard in a point guards body and, for all of his improvements, he'll never be a true PG. I originally had him higher but the 'tweener factor made me reconsider and move him done a bit.
14. Brook Lopez: I think Lopez had been extremely disappointing this year and he may be a really good #3 option more than anything else but he's a legit big man and those are hard to find these days.
15. Andrew Bynum: Honestly, if this really was a draft, I could see me second guessing myself out of his pick because of Bynum's injury history but the bottom line is that he can score in the post and defend and the Lakers don't utilize him nearly as much as they could (and possibly should). I'm really not sold on this but his size and potential are too hard to pass up.
16. Tyreke Evans: If I had made this list at this point last year, 'Reke would be a lot higher. But he hasn't improved a ton this year and the more I watch him, the more I see him as a guy that you really have to build around and it takes very specific players to build around him. Also, the attitude questions are somewhat severe with him. He's a freak of nature who definitely would be happy to land at this late in the draft but I just feel like building a winner around the players above him would be an easier task.
17. LaMarcus Aldridge: Aldridge is basically a poor man's Bosh and I think we've all seen the problem with being the actual Bosh so it's tough to rank him much higher than this. On the other hand, he's keeping a MASH unit in Portland afloat and has stepped up his game a bit so I think it's nearly impossible to move him any lower either.
18. Joakim Noah: Noah is an old school hustle player who you hate to play against but love if he's wearing your team's uniform. It's taken a while for me to embrace his game but he's a solid player who can have an impact on the game without ever touching the ball on offense. I could see him being ranked as high as 13 but I'm still slow to come around to embracing his game and, well, he doesn't wear my team's uniform so I kind of hate him so I'll rank him here.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:49 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Here's Destroyer's new video. Pretty great. The song feels almost like a hipster Sade or something.

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

When I first read about Roger Ebert's new At the Movies show, I wasn't as interested in the show itself as I was the website. Movies websites still haven't been able to evolve much and I was hoping that Ebert's site would be a mix of news, premieres, reviews, etc. Sadly, it's not. All it is is a site for a show that really nobody is going to be that interested in.

The fact of the matter is that watching two unknown critics give their opinion about a film just isn't worth watching anymore. I can go to Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes and read dozens of opinions from different critics. The original At the Movies also was worth watching because it had clips from the movies, clips that I probably haven't seen. Now, movie clips and trailers are all over the place. And worst of all, the discussions between the two critics are so staged that there's nothing real about it. It's barely a discussion and you don't feel any of the passion that you felt when Ebert or Siskel was defending a film.

For the site to be successful, it needed to be a mix of everything. First off, it needed daily news updates so there would be a reason to check every day. It also could have embeded new trailers or had posted fresh interviews with filmmakers (which I believe the show desperately needs.) And call me crazy, but I'd LOVE to see a review show where the people actually talk about the film with someone who made it. Rather than have two critics discussing what they didn't like about The Company Man, have them talk to writer-director John Wells about it. Let's hear the filmmakers defend their work and also explain what they were going for and who they were targeting.

And the last part is key and it's why I dislike most movie "reviews". If you're going to talk about a movie in 2 minute snippets and sound bytes then you should just own up to the fact that you are reviewing a movie and not being a critic. And since all you're doing is a review, the key position that needs to be addressed is: who would like this film? Now, I know it's hard to pigeonhole people but I feel like it's more helpful to say, "If you liked Judd Apatow's brand of humor, this will be up your alley" than to just weigh in with "It didn't work for me."

I don't know. There's a great film site just waiting to be made and maybe I should just stop wasting my time here and try to put it together but there's so much more that could be done, especially with more and more access being granted to actors and filmmakers and with there simply being more things to share. There are so many short films; one of the critics could champion one each week and embed it on the site. Share the advertising on the video with the filmmakers and it will be a way for the short to make money and for the filmmaker to gain exposure.

As for the critics themselves, they didn't wow me. The young kid (and yes, I could go back and find out their names but it's late and I'm should be working on my own stuff right now and not blogging) seems to go out of his way to find the good in movies, which is a great trait as a person but not that good when people are trying to figure out if a movie with worth their 15 bucks. The lady hated everything so I kind of related to her better but her comment of "The Company Man" being "TV" seemed dated. Overall, television today has better writing on it today than film does. Or at least I think so and I'd rather listen to the two critics discuss that tangent than just repeat over and over why they didn't like the film for two minutes.

The day of Thumbs Up and Thumbs Down is over. I'd recommend that the new approach maybe be ranking the movies that came out this week. Say which movie you would recommend people see first, second, third, etc. or to whom you'd recommend them. Allow the discussion to be more than just "Here's movie A, here's what I think. Now Movie B, how about that one, and as for Movie C." It needs to be more of a talk show than a review show if it's going to work.
And as for the site, build it up. Get some news on there. Team up with Slash Film or another blog to get some constant new material up there. Add more to watch. More to discuss. Get a message board. Yes, I know the site just launched but after one visit, I doubt that I'll be back so it is kind of a now or never proposition.

At the Movies turns out to be just another Hollywood remake, when what was needed was a completely revamping of the approach.

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

This week's Tryout doesn't have songs that necessarily stick in your brain but they are nice to listen to. Family of the Year kind of reminds me of the Boy Least Likely To or I'm From Barcelona. I don't know too much about them but I do know that I like their sound and thought they were deserving of a SoulHonky shoutout. So here's this week's Tryout chugjug as well as a vid of a live performance.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:09 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

It's never a good sign when one of the first jokes in a show is the done to death set-up of the hero talking bad about a person, the person being behind them, and the hero saying, "She's right behind me, isn't she." It's an even worse sign when that gimmick is one of the funnier bits of the show.

USA's latest show "Fairly Legal" stars one of my favorite actresses, Sarah Shahi who was last seen on "Life". That NBC show had a great first season and then fell off; "Fairly Legal" seems to have skipped straight to the fall off. Besides Shahi, it's hard to really point out much good in the show. The premise, following a mediator as she tries to help save her recently deceased father's law firm, isn't that strong. The cases and scenarios are weak. In the pilot, they also tried to add a kind of Law and Order twist but it played more as an nonsensical deus ex machina. But perhaps that most troubling aspect of the show is the visual style. At times you feel like you're watching a music video, other times a long form commercial, and then sometimes the writing and pointless camera moves/rack focus just make it feel like a student film. The show often cuts to hand held cameras, especially in active moments, but those moments are usually supposed to be comical so they don't mesh - it's feel like a slapstick comedy directed by someone aping Michael Mann. Director Bronwen Hughes's style worked well in the underrated Forces of Nature but it is just distracting in this. (Although it's hard to blame the style for bring distracting since the writing isn't engaging to begin with.)

And, as always, I have to note that pilot episodes are tough and they are often the worst episode of a series but I'm just not sure if this show has room to grow. In fact, it would probably be better off as a half hour show; the stories could be more focused and the show definitely felt loose and could use some major tightening.

Also, it should be noted that I don't seem to be a fan of USA's brand. I was a huge fan of Psych and Burn Notice but the most recent shows haven't really worked for me. I had a little run of interest in White Collar but I feel like watching one season of it is enough. Royal Pains and Covert Affairs did nothing for me but at least they felt like decent shows. "Fairly Legal" just feels like a miss. If you like USA's brand, maybe it'll work for you better than it did me but I really can't imagine it being must see TV for anybody else. Hopefully Shahi's next project will be the one to make her a star.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:33 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I told myself not to bet on weekend NBA games because they always seem to have odd results but I didn't listen and ended up with some lousy results yesterday. Hopefully, I can make things up with the NFL Conference Championship games.

Earlier in the week I did a two team parlay for $10 bucks on the Packers and Steelers. I've also put $50 individually on the Packers -3.5 and the Steelers -3.5 and a 10 spot on the Under 38.5 in the Jets game. I did alright with the prop betting last weekend so I'm going to go with: $10 on Rashard Mendenhall Under 73.5 rushing yards, $15 on LDT Over 18.5 receiving yards, $10 Under 19.5 completions for Mark Sanchez, $10 on OVER 3 receptions for Emmanuel Sanders, $10 under 70.5 rushing yards from Matt Forte, $10 on under 50.5 yards rushing for James Starks, $25 on Aaron Rodgers over 1.5 TD passes.

Will I make back some of my losses or will it be death by a thousand little bets?

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:50 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

When I first read the synopsis of "Brotherhood", I rolled my eyes a little bit. It seemed like a movie that had done before and a script that is written at least 100 times every year in film schools - a fraternity initiation goes wrong and all hell breaks loose. But this trailer definitely got me interested in the film. Unfortunately, now that I'm in DC, I'm worried that I won't get a chance to check it out. It comes out on February 18th in limited release. Of all of the changes that I've had to make moving out from LA, the biggest impact might just be the access to smaller films like this one.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:40 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I was talking to people last night who hadn't seen these two Eddie Izzard bits, made all the more funny when played out by Legos, so I thought I'd post them up.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:59 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:47 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Yesterday, Robert Bentley, the newly elected Governor of Alabama, ruffled some feathers when he spoke out and said, "So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother." The blogs and Facebook posts lit up but that didn't seem to be the whole story.

For starters, Bentley made this comment in church, not in his inaugural address. Now I know nearly nothing about the man but this seems like the poorly worded statement from an evangelical and not some sign of a biased public official. In his inauguration address, Bentley made many references to religion but seemed to have a very Christian message of equality, stating, "I am no longer the Republican candidate for governor. I am the governor of all of Alabama — Democrat, Republican and independent, young and old, black and white, rich and poor." He cited Martin Luther King Jr. and also made a comment about "our Jewish brethren", a citation that would seem to completely contradict his own "not my brother" statement.

Also, I think Bentley should be lauded if he keeps his campaign promise, which he brought up in his speech, "I will not accept a paycheck until we reach a level of defined full employment." While everyone was so busy bashing the guy, nobody noticed that he actually might be a bit of a role model in some ways.

In the end, I think Bentley made a poorly worded statement at the Church, one that people can try to use to define him but really all they're trying to do is attack the man's party rather than address his actual beliefs. Obviously, this statement should be a red flag and people should keep an eye on him but I feel like, in today's media climate, we've thrown out any sense of caution and just throw people into the fire at the first hint of trouble.

-----

Also, yesterday, Liberia's former dictator Charles Taylor's attorney compared Taylor to George W. Bush and Tony Blair, which made me wonder if people in Africa get e-mails from helpless, wealthy Americans/Brits who just need an account number so they can sneak their savings out of the country.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:25 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

What if you could see dead people...
And they were all a bunch of assholes.

That's the tagline for this week's Short I'll Never Shoot, which is actually the opening pages of a script that I could never get a handle on. "The Lost Angels" is a kind of satirical cop show that would kind of make fun of the modern day cop drama, much like Sledgehammer! mocked the crime dramas of the 80's. It wouldn't be as spoof heavy as Naked Gun's predecessor Police Squad but I think it's about time for a legit cop comedy (copedy?)

Anyway, the show followed Monroe, a young detective who can see ghosts and has battled to make it up the ranks (and have a normal life) in spite of the dead people constantly messing with her. Her real partner is a kind of spoof of David Caruso's C.S.I. Miami character but she actually gets help from Chen, Jim Teddy's old partner who was killed in the line of duty but promised Teddy's father that he would always look out for Jim. The last major recurring character is Bernie, a mysterious ghost who, for reasons unknown, has a bone to pick with Monroe and tries to make her life miserable any chance he gets.

The pages here actually aren't the opening pages of the script; they're the backstory of Monroe - how she got her powers, how they've influenced her life, and how she ended up as a cop.

I think it's a pretty good first page and I like the opening as a whole but I could never get it to come together as a script. If you want to read the rest of Monroe's backstory (7 pages total), click continue reading and enjoy.
As always, feedback is welcomed and appreciated. Just head over to the SoulHonky.com page on Facebook to leave your comments.

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

The vacuum that was created by the self-destruction of LeBron James's image/humility/brain left a vacuum in the NBA and it has been filled by Blake Griffin. Derrick Rose is playing some great basketball but there is nobody that is going to catch the eye of the casual fan like Griffin. The league needed a new ambassador and Blake seems like the man for the job.

Honestly, if you don't like watching Blake Griffin play then I'm not sure you should watch basketball. No, the kid isn't perfect. He needs to keep improving his defense and there's a very real chance that he, like most every talented big man of this generation, falls in love with the jump shot and doesn't improve his post game, but for right now, he's an absolute beast and he's helping the Clippers win ballgames (which is a feat that most mortal players would be too afraid to even attempt.) Perhaps the most impressive feat, though, is that he's apparently lit a fire under Baron Davis's ass and the man who still might go down as one of the biggest wastes of talent in NBA history is looking like he actually likes playing the game again.

It's also nice to see a player tweeting little inspirational messages like, ""U have to put in millions of tiny efforts that nobody sees or appreciates b4 u achieve anything worthwhile." time to get better!" or "'The most dangerous thing today is yesterdays success' back 2 work.. love my teammates... we all know we got each others backs!" Granted, he's a rookie and once he stacks up the millions he start making himself look like an ass or complain about people hustling too much (ala Chris Bosh, whose done a lot to solidify his place as the softest player in the league) but for now, it's fun to watch Blake working hard.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:47 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

More and more people calling this weekend the "MLK holiday". We're hearing the first murmurs of advertisers urging people to go out and shop this weekend. That can only mean one thing; the day marked to memorialize the life and lessons of Martin Luther King Jr. is becoming just another marketable holiday. I was joking on Facebook about it and my friend Trevor came up with some tag lines that we'll probably hear in the near future like: "MLK = Must Love Kohl's" or "I have a dream... of a blowout sale!" or "McDonald's fries are 'Free at last, free at last' with a purchase of a Big Mac, they're 'free at last!'"

While this seems insane, consider the fact that Abraham Lincoln was also assassinated and nobody bats and eyelash when we see him in ads schilling for a local tire company. People are a more respectful about Veteran's Day but I think part of the reason is because there are always more veterans and there is no break in the connection of the event like there is with MLK Day or Presidents Day.

And while part of me thinks that maybe it is a good thing; maybe we've come far enough along that MLK's dream has brought closer to fulfillment that we can step away a bit, I quickly realize that that's ridiculous. Race relations are still a major issue in America. True, it's not as bad as the 60's but it's not as good as you'd hope 50 years later. More importantly, Dr. King's general message of pacifism and understanding has been overshadowed and, judging from the current political tone and recent violent outbursts, simply lost.

In today's society, we desperately need to be reminded of MLK's message and, honestly, one day out of the year might not be enough. To paraphrase a quote from Jesse Jackson, we need Dr. King's presences more than we need a day off to shop for presents. Hopefully the focus of MLK day can be restored but, sadly, I don't see it happening. I'll give it five to ten years before this weekend is just another long weekend, the meaning of which most people can't remember or don't care to even really try to understand.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:53 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Not all of these are real but it's still a crazy compilation to watch. Over 8 minutes of lucky, life saving breaks that happened in 2010.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:49 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

This week's Tryout is Wye Oak , a band from around my new neck of the woods, Baltimore. The song is off their new album which isn't coming out until March. It's a pretty haunting song and it really jumped out at me when I heard it on the most recent Blalock's Indie Rock Playlist. Enjoy!

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

Now that I've settled a bit in my new digs and with the Patriots freeing up my Sundays for the rest of the year, it's time to get back on the ol' schedule and get on with the New Year. Again, the resolutions are positivity, productivity, and focus. Focus being the key. Too often I get focused on silly things and let them get to me (and that usually means posts filled with negativity that eat up too much time and kill my overall productivity.) Because of that, I'm adding a resolution to try to post about Sarah Palin and LeBron James as little as possible this year. Neither add much to my life besides being roots of frustration and fodder for rants and I can do without that. Similarly, the cable news channels are off my grid. Who needs them?

I'm also going to do something I meant to do ten years ago and that's keep a running tab of what I think the best movies of the decade are. It'll be over to the right, under the Best of the Year list. Obviously, time will shade some of my picks (as it already has) so the list will always be changing but I think it will be interesting to keep the running count rather than just looking back in ten years and trying to remember how a certain movie moved you or try to rank the films at one time. For now, I'm going with ten films since I feel like after #10, the films get to be good but not very good, let alone great.

So here's to a fresh start; the haze of the new home and new year are over; time to get crackin'!

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:36 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I recently moved across the country and started a new job so things have been busy. SoulHonky.com will be back up and at 'em on Monday.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:25 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

So I ended the year with a solid 132 - 117 record picking games but I often missed the parlay so the bets didn't fetch me much money (if I was in the black at all.) Anyway, now the games REALLY mean something and it's time to make the bold predictions about who is going to advance. And bold is the right word since I'm calling it that all four road teams will win.

AFC WILD CAR
b>New York Jets over Indianapolis Colts: It's tough to pick Mark Sanchez over Peyton Manning but there are just too many matchups that go work in Jets' favor. I know that the Colts' run defense has improved but I don't think it's going to be enough to stop LDT and Shonn Greene. Meanwhile, the Colts' best option on offense, the Manning-to-Wayne connection, might be left stranded on Revis Island. While I'm no fan of the Jets and think that their record was boosted by beating a lot of bad teams, I think the Colts aren't the same Colts that we're used to and Rex Ryan and Co. are going to be able to put something together to get back to the 2nd round.

Baltimore Ravens over Kansas City Chiefs: Well, it was fun while it lasted KC but I can't see the surprising run making it to the next round. Yes, the Ravens have a nasty habit of not really showing up and their secondary is shaky but it's going to take Matt Cassell taking his game to the next level to get past the Ravens and I still question whether he can lead them there. The Ravens just need to make sure to strike first and force the Chiefs to play from behind. If they do that, I just don't see the Chiefs being able to orchestrate a comeback to save their season.

NFC WILD CARNew Orleans Saints over Seattle Seahawks: The Vegas oddsmakers made this a tough one, spotting the Seahawks +10.5, which is a lot given that the weather might not be great and the Saints are now without their two big running backs. Can Julius Jones turn back the clock? Can Reggie Bush stay healthy? I think the Saints should be able to take home the W but I'm less confident about a double digit win. In the end, it's yet another Saints matchup that I'll probably get wrong so you should probably bet against the Saints -10.5 because that who I'm betting on.

Green Bay at Philadelphia: I felt more confident about this one before the Packers were shut down by the Chicago Bears defense and a lot depends on the weather but right now, I think the Packers defense can slow down the Philly offense while Philly's banged up secondary could find themselves in for a long day. The biggest difference between the two defenses, which both have similar attacking styles, is that Philly has to throw the kitchen sink at opponents in order to make up difficiencies whereas the Packers can throw different looks and blitzes out there because they have the talent to pull off the many schemes. And while Vick will be the story, all of the pressure is on Aaron Rodgers, a guy who is still living in the shadow of Brett Favre and doesn't want to have another first round knockout on his resume and another summer of hearing questions about whether or not he can win the big games.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm sure Peter Weir's latest movie will look amazing but when the key lines in the trailer are, "We Walk" and "Just keep walking" and seemingly 80% of the shots are of, you know, people hoofin' it, I can't help but question whether or not I'm actually all that interested in it. Then again, one of my favorite movies was based around a guy who was literally stuck between a rock and a hard place so I shouldn't be so quick to judge.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:54 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The latest Short I'll Never Shoot (aka S.I.N.S.) is actually the first page of a script I'll probably never flesh out. It's called "The Settlers" and instead of falling in love, it's about being in a relationship. Most likely, it would focus on a group of friends: a single guy, a lesbian couple, a married couple, and a couple who are considering tying the knot. The last group are featured in this opening page.

I have some random ideas for scenes so I might just post them here every now and then but I haven't figured out a way to make it come together as a single script. I was thinking about making it a web series but I'd want to get a bunch of microscripts together before I commit to it. By microscript, I mean just short 1 - 4 page ditties. I think that when a web series or online video hits the 4 minute mark, it loses a lot of views. When most people are sent a video, they are only willing to commit to a couple minutes. Three minutes seems like a commitment. Four minutes usually meets with an "I'll watch that shit later." A "later" that usually never comes.

The same could be said for blog posts that stretch past three paragraphs so I better wrap this up. WIthout further ado, here's the opening salvo of "The Settlers".

P.S. know the format of the script might not be exact (you're not necessarily supposed to bold the headings in film scripts) but I feel like it makes it easier to read so I did it for the blog.

EDIT: Re-reading it this morning, I get that it helps if there's something to really hit home that the two people we are seeing are together (hence the picture of them together behind Julie) but I have no idea why they'd have a picture of themselves hanging in the bathroom. I must have summoned my inner network exec when I made that note to myself.

As always, feedback is welcome; head over to the Facebook page to weigh in, if you feel like it. (Link to FB page is over in the right corner.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:09 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I think everything is back and better than ever. E-mail or comment on Facebook if there are issues. Or if you have a blog that you want to be listed in the Netborhood or have suggestions for a video of the moment, quote of the moment, or The Tryout.

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

In trying to update my quote of the day, I mistakenly erased the entire template that makes up soulhonky.com. So I'm going to have to go back to this old template (and old links and recommendations and what not) until I get home from work today. I tried to update the Film Rank but clearly that's not working so well so we'll all have to enjoy the retro SoulHonky look for the day and I'll try to get it back to normal (although I do like some of things I'd done with this template) by tomorrow.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Whenever people list their ten favorite movies of the year, I always feel like there are a couple of films that you just know aren't going to age well while there are other overlooked movies that you know will probably grow in popularity as the years go by. So I thought it would be interesting to see what people thought were the 10 essential movies from a decade ago. (Since I had to turn off the comments on my page, you can comment on this over at the soulhonky.com facebook page.

To start out, I'm going to wimp out a bit and leave two spots of my top ten open. The reason is because there were four movies that, from what I've heard, probably should make the list but I STILL haven't gotten around to seeing them. The four I've ignored are: Yi Yi, Dancer in the Dark, Best in Show, and Before Night Falls. I'm sure there are a few others that I've missed but those were the ones that have been on my radar but never on my TV.

Next up is what I probably should have started with and that's the definition of "Essential". And for the sake of discussion, I'd say that there is no strict definition; points can be given for originality, breakthroughs, sheer quality of filmmaking, plain and simple entertainment value, or the influence it had on the future landscape of cinema. For instance, an argument could be made for "X-Men" as one of the essential movies of the year because its surprise success helped many other superhero films get the greenlight and/or bigger budgets. Now, I wouldn't put it on my list but I think that's a legit argument for why it could be considered.
One thing that should be noted is that I'm going off of US release dates in terms of year so something like Amores Perros, which came out in 2000 elsewhere but 2001 in the US, isn't eligible.

So, without further ado, my ten Essesntial Movies of 2000

So which movies do you think are The Essentials of 2000? To take a look at what came out that year, check out the list over at The Numbers.

And for another reference, Ebert and Roeper's Top Tens were (in order):
Roeper: Crouching Tiger, Traffic, The Claim, The Contender, Wonder Boys, Finding Forrester***, You Can Count on Me*, Sunshine**, Cast Away, Almost Famous
Ebert: Almost Famous, Wonder Boys, You Can Count on Me, Traffic, George Washington**, The Cell, High Fidelity*, Pollock, Crouching Tiger, Requiem for a Dream
* These two films came VERY close to my list.
** Haven't seen these.
*** If there were essential quotables, "You're the man now, dog!" would definitely make the list.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:05 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Usually I just post up The Tryout over to the left but the problem with that is that when I change to a new group, the past week's Tryout disappears forever. So to save the new music for posterity, I'm bringing back the Tryout post. I know, I know, you're welcome.

Anyway, this week's Tryout is the unsigned band Walk the Moon and their single "Anna Sun". Their bio from their MySpace page is:

Walk the Moon are from Ohio. Their moms are cute and batty and their dads are big and strong. While singing a capella in college, listening to a lot of Talking Heads, and chasing down degrees in Music Theory, Walk the Moon formed out of a love for creative pop songs and exuberant live performances and safari animals. In 2008 Walk the Moon’s debut EP “The Anthem” stirred up attention from the likes of CityBeat Magazine and FOX News and even took them to London, UK; there they played a week of shows at the London City Showcase as the only band from North America to be selected by Sonicbids for the spot. Since then, led by singer/synth-player Nicholas Petricca, Walk has continued to make noise around the US, named by New York City’s historic Arlene’s Grocery one of their “Best Bands of 2009” and by promoters at NYC's Highline Ballroom "one of the best young bands [they] have seen in a long time".

I'm definitely a fan of the song but I do think that the band would have been best served (in terms of radio play) by paring it down to a tighter three minutes. Not that the song feels too long but I always feel like it's better to leave people wanting more when it comes to pop songs and most of them should venture past the four minute mark. Still, regardless of that perceived pecadillo, I could see this song getting heavy rotation for the rest of the month and making the SoulHonky January SoulMix.

To mix things up from the posted video to the left, here's an amazing acoustic version of "Anna Sun" that immediately makes me reconsider my "no longer than 4 minutes" comment above. (Although I do maintain that if they released a version that ended at the 3:04 mark, it would become a pop radio staple.)

Oh, and to save one more for posterity, the final Tryout of 2010 was The Head and the Heart.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:29 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I know that my resolution is to be more positive so I'll start off by saying, at least this article makes it seem like our brand of crazy isn't quite as bad it could be. Hungary's extreme right makes our T.E.A. Party seem like, well, a tea party.

On January 1—the same day Hungary assumes the six-month, rotating presidency of the European Union—a media law, passed by the Parliament on December 21, goes into effect, essentially reinstating state censorship in Hungary. - The Nation

Fidesz then seized control of private pensions, hacked back the powers of a supreme court that might have checked its supremacy and established a media council, which can impose large fines on broadcasters and print and online publishers for such fuzzily worded crimes as "offending human dignity." - The Guardian

On top of that, Hungary's far right group Jobbik ran "an explicitly anti-Roma and anti-Semitic campaign", and the alleged neo-facists won 47 seats in the 388 seat parliament.

The bigger lesson out of all of this (again, trying to make this productive per my resolution) is that we have to be careful of simplicity, especially in our own ideals and desires. The United States' goal of spreading democracy around the globe has clearly not been the rousing success that we hoped it would have been. Besides Kim Jong Il, most of our biggest rivals are democratically elected leaders (Chavez, Morales, Ahmadinejad) and most of them, like democratically elected Vladimir Putin, have strong-armed their way into taking much of the power in their countries.

While it might be hard for many Americans to support a lack of freedom, a rich upperclass ruling the struggling people, and a Kingdom, how many people really want to side against our ever shady allies in the ruling class of Saudi Arabia and give the power to the people? Does anyone really think that would be better for America? If ever there was an example of "Be careful what you wish for because you might just get it.", the spread of Democracy might be it.

Sadly, it seems like our news media has become little more than simplistic takes on important topics. While the left wing always points at the right for its myopia, it's not like liberals are any better. The focus is always on winning the argument rather than discussing the issue so we rarely see the whole picture and compromise seems to be on the decline. Usually that ends with people arguing over side topics and not making any progress towards helping anyone out.

So while, most importantly, we all need to keep an eye on Hungary and make sure the political movement doesn't turn into human rights violations, on a more personal level, I think an addition to my New Year's resolutions and just the way I (and I believe most everyone) should approach the world is to avoid the easy answer, the simple solutions, the hasty generalizations. As the saying goes, "The plain and simple truth is rarely plain and never simple." We all must try to gauge every argument from our opponents' point of view. The road to hell is paved with good intentions because not enough people will play Devil's Advocate.

Which reminds me, another one of my resolutions needs to be to not ramble on so much. So I'll end this here.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:46 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm not going to be able to comment too much about Blue Valentine because to discuss my main issues with the movie would spoil it so if you haven't seen the movie, just know that the performances are amazing, the direction is stellar, it has one of the worst/best jokes of the year,co-stars a ridiculously adorable little girl, and it's definitely worth a rental, if not a trip to the theater.

As for my rankings, it may seem odd to have it lumped in with three light comedies but I feel like all four movies are films that revolve around relationships and the film didn't really nail the heart (or lack thereof) of the main relationship.

So why was I left a bit cold by the whole thing?

SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT

My main issue with the film is that the premise seem to be Dean's initial take on women: (to paraphrase) men fall in love, women settle down. While Dean was venturing into a world he never expected to be a part of, Cindy is trying to escape her predicament. That's all fine and good but then I feel like the movie is more about Dean falling into the trap. As it is presented, we see the beginning and end of a relationship and (going by my reading of it) the middle didn't really matter. No matter what Dean did, Cindy was always going to realize that she wasn't in love and wanted to try something else. And, to me, that's just not fulfilling.

But even if Dean's comment isn't the driving force behind the movie, I still feel like we were given the spark and the tail end of the relationship; moments which are usually more determined and that don't get changed (or have any hope of changing) by the hero's choices. Cindy is all but out of the relationship. Dean doesn't realize how he's already pushed her away. To me, it would be more interesting to see Dean not realizing that he IS pushing her away while she struggles to maintain a love that never actually existed in the first place. A moment when she realizes that her boss wants her to come with him because he wants her physically, not for her job qualifications, should have been a huge moment but I feel like it was muted (partly because the way her boss's true intentions came out were so blatant and fairly unrealistic IMO). It wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back; the camel's back was already broken. It was more like the piece of straw that made the camel not want to go on with the broke back anymore.

So in the end, the film is less a portrait of a marriage and more a snapshot of the birth and death of a relationship. It was a slice of life piece. And, as that, it is stellar. But I was just hoping to see more of the characters and really get to know them and see them struggle to stand rather than simply tuning in as they're falling (be it, in love or flat on their face.)

The film had amazing performances but the film just didn't come together for me. It's still one of the better films of the year but there just wasn't enough for it to be a truly great movie.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:25 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

For the New Year, I brought back the "Bet of the Day" over to the right although I have to work on my timing of it. I made today's bet of the day last night, before all of the NBA lines were up and there are now better bets out there. Still, I'll stick with my guns and see how I do with one bet a day for the whole year. Also, I should keep a closer eye on my betting budget to see how much money I'm losing or making (if any.)

As for Week 17 in the NFL, it's a better's nightmare. You never know who is playing, what happens in the early games could change the philosophy or attitude of the later games, and it's hard for the average fan to know if teams are going to play to help their coach (the Vikings and Leslie Frazier) or not get too fired up for another year of the status quo (I'm looking at the Giants and the Chargers.)

A perfect example of the problem of Week 17 is the Jets. They have nothing to play for but they also need to snap out of a funk so who knows how they are going to approach the game. Mark Sanchez is banged up but he's also struggled when given a lot of rest between games so they could go either way. With so much left up to indecision and the Bills playing hard all season, I'm going to go with them.

In most cases where teams that have things locked up are going against struggling squads, I go with the struggling team. In most cases, I think the worse teams are going to approach the game as a chance to put a cherry on top of the shit sundae that was their 2010-11 campaign. For that reason, I like the Bills, Raiders, and Dolphins. In terms of struggling vs. struggling teams, I look at the smaller things.
- I think the Vikings want to help Leslie Frazier and could step up their game once again to assist Joe Webb so I'm taking them.
- The Chargers have too much pride to go out like complete chumps. Even if they come out sluggish, I could see Tim Tebow waking the sleeping giant and the defense will do their best to shut him up.
- The 49ers are free of Mike Singletary so I could see them going out and winning one for themselves. - I don't think either the Redskins or Giants will be playing to save their coaches job so I'll take the Giants who have a glimmer of hope and are simply the better team. Although with Eli Manning and Rex Grossman at QB, I think the over on interceptions might be a good bet.

As for the teams that have something to play for, I REALLY want to take the Titans. I think Indy has been reading the press clippings about their improved run defense while Chris Johnson is upset that he wasn't named to the Pro Bowl and he and his linemen might want to make a statement. The problem, however, is that the Titans have just sucked this year. I don't know why I still have confidence in them so while I might throw five bucks on them in a separate bet, I don't think I can pick them in my perfect parlay.
The one team that I could see losing is Jacksonville because they are banged up and by the time they play, their fate could already be sealed. The Ravens -10 is a tough one but I have a feeling that they are coming together at the right time and could make a run in the playoffs. Also, the defense is probably going to try to show that Peyton Hillis's big game against them earlier in the season was a fluke. I hate the -14 for the Falcons, especially since the Panthers might be pumped to let John Fox leave with a win, but the Falcons want the opening bye and homefield throughout and, let's face it, what the players want hasn't determined a Panthers game all season. John Fox isn't getting let go as much as he's getting a reprieve.

Finally, the Bears/Packers is a tough one because we don't know yet if the Bears will have anything to play for by the time the opening kickoff rolls around. Although I'm STILL not buying the Bears and think the Packers, even with all of their injuries, are a better team.

Oh yeah, I took the Saints. But that just means they'll probably blow it since I haven't been able to peg them all season.

On a side note, can you imagine if there were two more weeks to go in the NFL regular season? I know the owners want their money but the players probably can't take another two weeks of punishment to their body's and I'm not sure most fans could really go for another two weeks of regular season (and their livers might not be able to take it.) If the owners want to add two games, I'd almost prefer adding four teams and a round to the playoffs and having a kind of play-in game while allowing the division winners and top wild card squads a week's rest. Of course, the best teams would have two weeks off in that case, and I'm not sure how many guys would want that long of a layoff and that isn't as good revenue-wise as having EVERYONE have two more games but I think it's better than an 18 game season.
In terms of the NFL season, more is not more. I don't think that I'd love the league more with two extra games. Not only because there will be more dinged up players by playoff time but because it lessens the important of each game (which is one of the best parts of the NFL as opposed to MLB, NBA, and NHL. To paraphrase from the Bad News Bars, "Let them NOT play."

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

"True Grit" solidified the Coen Brothers' place near the top of my favorite screenwriters list. They have mastered the slyly funny quip and the back-and-forth in this film almost seemed like the Brothers were trying to beat Aaron Sorkin at his own game.

But while the dialogue was great and the performances were strong, I kind of agree with the people who question why exactly the Coen Brothers decided to remake this book/movie. There's not really much there. It's a fairly basic revenge story, with the twist being that the bloodthirsty party is a 14 year old girl. The film kind of felt like Something ventured, Nothing gained. If I hadn't have known better, I would have thought that this film was, fittingly, a hired gun film for the Coens; the kind of film that they do for a studio so that they could then do whatever picture they wanted. But apparently this was there idea. Off the top of my head, it's the most mainstream, straightforward movie they've ever made.

In the end, while I enjoyed the film, I didn't find there to be that much to love and would recommend just waiting for it to come out on DVD. With so much Oscar bait out there, I'd recommend checking out 127 Hours in the theaters, renting Winter's Bone, or catching Exit Through the Gift Shop on Netflix instant.

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