The one thing you can say about Takers is that it doesn't shy away from being a complete rip-off. The big heist in the film is inspired by the Italian Job. And how can I be sure about that? Because when T.I.'s character first brings it up, he says, "Let's go Italian Job on that ass." The one problem is that while the set-up of the heist is from Italian Job, the coolest part of that film - the mini-cooper chase, isn't in there. Instead it's just people running around and in one of the bigger chase scenes, I couldn't help but laugh at how Chris Brown's character kept doing all this crazy parkour shit but the guys chasing him managed to keep up with him simply by, you know, running. There's also an odd moment in which everyone gets upset that one of the Takers shot a cop. Mind you, this moment came right after they had just killed a handful of security guards in a daytime shootout in the middle of the street. The film sets itself up as silly fairly early (with a headscratching, "that was lucky" escape) but the film tries to play itself as somewhat realistic so the silly stuff stands out.

The film tries to give its characters some depth but it doesn't really add all that much. It just kind of seemed like they were trying to fit in all of the heist movie plot points and didn't every really get any of them right. In the end, it just feels like a shoddy straight-to-DVD fake sequels to Heat or The Italian Job. I didn't mind the film about halfway through but that's also because I thought the film was 3/4's of the way through and didn't realize how much more I had to watch. The last half of the movie dragged and by the end of it I was completely unimpressed and barely entertained. Unless you absolutely love any and every heist movie, I can't recommend "Takers".

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:39 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The quality isn't great and it might be taken down at any moment but here's the teaser trailer for David Fincher's The Girl with the Dragon Tatoo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:36 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

NPR has posted up Eddie Vedder's latest solo venture, "Ukelele Songs" and like his other albums, I think the songs are nice seeds of songs but I'd much rather hear what the full band might have done. For instance, tracks like "Can't Keep" and "Without You" seem like they are melodies that Stone Gossard could have helped expand and turn into fuller songs. Also, I always have preferred Vedder's belting it out to his warbling, softer approach. Maybe his voice can't take it anymore but I'd like to think he could at least bring it out during a few recording sessions so we could have singles that are throwbacks to early PJ albums, even if he wouldn't be able to duplicate it in concert.
I haven't listened to the entire album but from what I've heard, it's probably something I won't bother buying. It's not bad but it's just not something that I think I'll ever find myself thinking, "You know what, I really want to listen to Ukelele Songs right now." It strikes me as the kind of album that you buy, listen to twice, and then forget you even own.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:01 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Last night I found myself in the odd position of defending P!nk. I was somewhat surprised that people didn't like her last album, Funhouse. "Please Don't Leave Me" and "Bad Influence" are solid songs although my favorite track was "Could've Had Everything" that I don't think ever was released as a single. It might not be the best pop album but I didn't expect the hatred that people have for the ol' Pinkster. Maybe it was changing the i in her name to an exclamation point. Who knows. Either way, I know have her music in my head this morning.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:30 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

This is how I basically feel when trying to get up in the mornings.

Thanks for Videogum.com for posting this.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The AV Club over at The Onion is doing something very cool (which apparently they've done before but I missed it.) They made up a list of songs for bands to cover and they invite different bands to come in and pick one of the songs. Below is Of Montreal's cover of "Fell in Love with a Girl" by the White Stripes. It's an interesting list of songs from Toto's "Africa" to Danzig's "Mother". You can also check out season 1's covers over at Youtube or Hulu.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:23 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Still trying to get over a fever so here's a little Peggy Lee.

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

Project Get My Shit Together got off to a rough start this morning with the snooze alarm winning out over exercise so it only makes sense that Soul Coughing's Lazybones be my song of the morning.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:50 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

FilmStage posted up this trailer from "Take Shelter", a Sundance favorite. While I'm usually wary of festival movies, I have to say that I have no doubt that this movie will help further Michael Shannon's reputation as the creepiest actor in the world. One look from the guy can make your skin crawl.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I always make the "Pardon me guys..." reference whenever I almost bump into someone and it just makes the moment more awkward since nobody seems to remember this little Milk spot from back in the day. Growing up, my brother would often throw his shoulder into me randomly and say, "Pardon me guys" from this commercial. I doubt I can really make this a meme but in case you ever see me and I say this, now you know the reference.

The other completely random reference I often make it "Buddy, I will shoot you in the FACE!" which rarely, if ever, has a context in which it makes sense but it's from a random cop in Reservoir Dogs. Sadly, I couldn't find a video for it so you're spared from that one.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:58 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Hard Fi's "Good for Nothing" was almost this week's Tryout but I didn't really get into the rest of their songs so I decided to hold off on them. But I absolutely love this single and didn't want to wait to post it so I decided to make it today's Morning Music. Also, since I'm trying to get out of a rut, start working out, and get my shit together, it's a decent song to kick that off. (Yeah, lyrically isn't not a great match but it's time to stop being a "good for nothing" and start making something of my Honky ass so I'm going to go with it.

Judging from YouTube comments, it seems like these guys have a bit of a following in the UK and many people don't seem to like the "new direction" they are taking with this song, which is weird to me since it's actually the only song of theirs that I love. Although, I think some of the credit there goes to Rick Rubin. it's tough to make a bad song if you're using the "99 Problems" drum beat.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:13 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm out of the loop when it comes to mainstream music so part of me feels like I must have missed when Plan B broke out here in the States. Plan B is apparently big in Britain, one of their songs have over 13 million hits on Youtube, and they have over 2 million likes on Facebook which is more than other up-and-comers like Mumford and Sons. But I've asked a couple of people and they haven't heard of them and then I found a recent article quoting the singer/rapper as saying that he can't get any radio play in the States because "The black stations feel I'm too white and white stations feel I'm too black"

It'd be a shame if this album didn't hit because it's a pretty great concept album, following the rise of a soul singer who then gets thrown in jail for a crime he didn't commit. At times, the lyrics are a little on the nose and the story telling is fairly literal but it's still a nice piece of work and one that is made all the better by the fact that there's a video for each of the songs, making this one of the first YouTube operas, so to speak.
EDIT: I just noticed that this album apparently dropped in the UK over a year ago so if it hasn't made it over here by now, I'm not sure it ever will.

The songs I'm posting below are songs 3 and 4 from the album (the first two songs are fairly straightforward soul songs that are supposed to establish the main character as an up-and-coming act. These two songs are about the night of the crime and the court case. I can't get enough of "Stay Too Long" but it seems like "She Said" is the bigger hit. (And it is a cooler video.) I think I like "Stay Too Long" a bit more since I can relate to the main idea of the song - staying out when you should call it a night. I hate when the night ends and often look for ways to extend the evening at all costs. Thankfully, no nights have ended like the song but I definitely need to learn to call it quits.

So does Plan B get a Yay or Nay? Voice your opinion over at the SoulHonky page on Facebook.

Oh, and if you like your soul a little more straightforward, I have to once again recommend Fitz and the Tantrums. They seem to be making a push right now but it can't hurt to give them another plug. It's also nice to see former Tryout Foxy Shazam crossing over a bit - they are the band featured in the new Bing ad campaign following fans and the band in Vegas. (If you've watched anything on Hulu recently, you've probably seen the ad pop up.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:26 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Here's the latest video from my man Trey Green. Support Trey! Indie music rules!

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:05 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

In the early scenes of Pirates of the Caribbean, Captain Jack Sparrow learns that someone is impersonating him. It's a fitting start to the movie since this film definitely feels like a lackluster impersonation of the previous movies. Gone from the proceedings are Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley and, sadly, none of the new characters that are introduced fill their void as the heart and driving force of the film. I came into this film thinking that Capt. Jack Sparrow would finally be the main protagonist of the film but he isn't; most of the time he just feels like he's along for the ride. He's but a pawn in a larger game; a game in which the audience has no interest.

While many critics have complained that the film is too complex, I think they are misstating their issue with the film. The plot is fairly straightforward and explained to you in blatant expository scenes. Where the confusion comes is, "Why should I care about any of this?" The goal is the Fountain of Youth and only Blackbeard seems to have a strong need to get there. Everyone else wants to get there because, well, why wouldn't you? It's the fountain of youth! Along the way, we learn that some characters' motivations might not be what they first seemed but, by that point, I was so disengaged from the film that these twists did nothing for me.

What was most disappointing were a couple of logic flaws in the end and a few moments of either deus ex machina or lucky breaks. In one case, Jack Sparrow loses a key item and then at the end of the scene inexplicably has them again. Yes, I know, he's Captain Jack Sparrow but, in this case, it was just too much. Overall, I liked the film better than the previous sequels (which isn't saying much) but this film was far worse in terms of inventiveness. The previous movies at least offered some memorable fights or set pieces; this film had none. Much like "Thor" the fights seemed to be little more than brute strength and they lacked any sort of cunning. The fights were also just fights; there was little subtext or trickery. I felt like in the other films, the fights were, at times, more of a diversionary tactic; people would win the battle but, in doing so, lose the war. In this one, the fight itself was the thing. There were a couple of moments when it seemed like a very intriguing battle could happen but nothing came of those chances. And with Blackbeard being mostly de-balled by Penelope Cruz's character, there wasn't even a great threat looming over the film. It was, at the same time, joyless and without impending doom.

In the end, I can't recommend this film. If you liked all of the previous Pirates movies, I'm sure there will be enough in this one to make you happy (and you might like it better than 2 and 3). It's not an abomination like Scream 4 but, at the same time, it definitely feels like this ship has run its course and the joy and wonder of the series has been lost.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:42 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I can't say that I'm loving the trailer for "Horrible Bosses" but I will say that it use of music is almost perfect. Guy Ritchie helped make Black Strobe's "I'm a Man" a trailer staple (he used it in Rock'n'Rolla) and "Can't Stop" by the Red Hot Chili Peppers has one of the best opening riffs in recent memory. I think those two songs could make any trailer better. I think even the crappy Bridesmaids trailer could have been salvaged by these two songs. I think might go up there with NIN's "The Mark Has Been Made" (used most effectively in "Man on Fire") and Clint Mansell's Lux Aeterna (which was originally in Requiem for a Dream, then in Lord of the Rings, and countless trailers after that) as the best trailer songs of the early 21st Century.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:42 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Celtics lost in miserable fashion tonight. They threw the ball away. Let it bounce off their fingers. KG disappeared for most of the game. Jeff Green put the finishing touches on a Celtics era that probably cost him tens of millions of dollars. Shaq most likely ended his career in a suit.

So what's next?

This shouldn't come as a surprise since I've never been a huge fan of Rajon Rondo but the first move I'd look at making is trading him. If the C's can somehow move him for Deron Williams or Chris Paul, I think the Celtics have to make that move. Yes, CP3 would be another injury prone player on a team of walking wounded but he's a beast, will fit in defensively, and can add much needed shooting to the Celtics lineup. More importantly, if the Celtics can lock up Paul, they'll have him and Paul Pierce and little else on their ledger in 2012, when Dwight Howard becomes a free agent.

But barring a Rondo move, I'm really not sure what the Celtics can do besides giving it one more college try or blow the whole thing to pieces. If you lose Garnett, you'll have lost the defensive personality of this squad. I don't know how Boston intends to trade Ray Allen and get something of value and also replace his shooting/scoring. I'll be somewhat stunned if Paul Pierce doesn't retire a Celtic. And beyond those three and Rondo, there's not much else. Half the team is unsigned and the other half is fairly untradeable. Of course, this is also the problem with staying the course. The Celtics are likely to lose either Jeff Green or Big Baby and there's not that much out there in free agency to replace them, nevermind fill the bigger void of finding another consistent scorer (ideally, in the post.) Danny Ainge is going to have to work some magic to tread water while the Heat and Bulls will most certainly improve their rosters.

The fact of the matter is that this current Big Three Era is over. Unless they somehow turn back the clock and Rondo learns how to shoot, I'm not sure this team is going to have a real shot at getting out of the East. A rebuild on the fly also looks unlikely unless Ainge can make some insane wheeling and dealing moves that replace the talents of the departed Big Three while also adding to the roster. So unless Boston can somehow manage to move Rondo into Deron or CP3, I think next year will be more of the same, both in terms of the roster and disappointing finish.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:31 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

This is the Big Threes chance to put their mark on the long storied history of Celtics Pride. I hope they watch some of the great Celtics comebacks of the past as well as the Lakers pathetic exit a couple of days ago and come to play and bring the fight back to Boston.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:52 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The internet is great at a lot of things but one thing that it hasn't really managed to do all that well so far is promote a big box office haul for a blog-beloved film. The most famous hype was based around "Snakes on a Plane", a movie that got ridiculous amount of discussion on the ol' internets but nobody actually went out to see it. "Fanboys" was another film that got a big online push but it still got dumped with a tiny release and, from most reviews, wasn't very good. Hollywood's most notorious and arguably powerful blogger Nikke Finke got into the mix with "The Women". She made a big to do about how the film wasn't going to get a big release and how it showed some sort of sexism at work. The film tanked and was listed on many "Worst of..." lists at the end of the year.

And now we have "Bridesmaids", a film that films sites and twitterers are going crazy about. Now the first and most obvious difference between this film and most of the others is that people have actually seen this film. Some people had seen "Fanboys" but I still felt like that was, fittingly, more of a vocal minority movement of fanboys promoting that film. With "Bridesmaids", however, the hype is coming from all angles. There are blogs on HuffPost calling for people to go see it in the name of all that is good for women in Hollywood. Film sites can't stop writing about how amazing the film is. Comedian Neal Brennan joked on Twitter: "According to the Internet,"Bridesmaids" box office performance is the most important issue for women since Roe v. Wade."

Normally, I would probably buy into the hype hook, line, and sinker but there's one glaring issues with "Bridesmaids" - the trailers suck. Yes, some of the later ones have gotten better but I honestly can't remember a movie that seems to have been served worse by its trailers than this one. Bloggers SWEAR that the film is better than the promos look. They say that it has far more heart that you'd expect. Producer Judd Apatow confessed via Twitter, "I hope men will go see bridesmaids. It works well for them. Hard to tell from the ads I know. Hopefully word will get out." (Although it's odd that Judd considers men to be "them". Is he not one of us?)

So how will this work out? For the opening weekend, my prediction is that it won't go well. "Thor" has a solid word of mouth campaign behind it and almost all of the people who've been excited about Bridesmaids have already seen it (and I'm not sure how many are going to go back to see it again.) "Jumping the Broom" also seemed to get a little boost on Sunday (mostly from Mother's Day viewings) but that might have garnered enough word of mouth to steal some of the target audience. Reviews are strong but I think the trailers have scared away enough people that the film's success is going to have to be long term. The problem with relying on a slow build is that this summer is packed and films like Pirates of the Caribbean, Kung Fu Panda 2, The Hangover 2, X-Men: The First Class are coming out soon and the noise from their promotions might just drown out "Bridesmaids".

As for me, I must confess that the trailers have turned me off almost completely and if I see anything this weekend, it'll most likely be "Everything Must Go". Personally, I think every studio head with a questionable sell should have their head checked if they didn't move it to August, where almost nothing is opening. Well, besides likely bomb of the year Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

But it should be interesting. I think anything bigger than 20 million this weekend and the internet gets a lion's share of the credit for those extra millions. I'd be stunned if "Bridesmaids" tanked (I mean, if "Something Borrowed" can make 13 million, "Bridesmaids" has to be good for at least 20, no?) but I will also be surprised if the opening weekend makes the people trumpeting the film happy. I doubt that it will make Hollywood execs sit up and notice all of the talented actresses out there just waiting for a feature nor will it give studios any less pause when it comes to a female-centric cast. If anything, I could see many people in power seeing even a surprising opening for the film and giving Judd Apatow a lot of the credit (or they may want female-led movies that have poop and fart jokes in them ala the trailers for this one.)

In the end, I really doubt that "Bridesmaids" will do much to help boost the festival/internet crowd's standing in terms of promoting box office success. Not to say that people were wrong (although the festival crowd has led me astray more than a few times before) and that "Bridesmaids" isn't a solid film but I think the trailers and studio's marketing combined with the competition might have dug the film too big of a whole to get out of.

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

I'm not going to say that a movie about boxing robots looks BAD per se but it definitely seems like this movie would have been better off if targeted more towards kids and I have NO idea why they would already be thinking sequel to a risky proposition like this. "Real Steel" is essentially Rock 'em Sock 'em Robots: The Movie but instead of going the Spielberg route about a boy and his robot and gearing it towards kids, this trailer makes it seem like they thought people would want to see a down and out Hugh Jackman trying to relive his glory days through Adam The Robot.

It should be very interesting to see how this film does because, as it is now, it seems like a film kids won't be interested in and that most adults would probably skip. (Thanks to Rope of Silicon for the trailer.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:09 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

It isn't a great sign when you come out of a movie like Thor and the thing you liked best was the comic relief moments. The latest Marvel film is mediocre yet entertaining. It offers absolutely nothing new in terms of plot or character, and the action scenes almost seem more perfunctory than exciting. The film most certainly plays it safe and doesn't try to break any new ground but I'm not sure you can blame them; after all, this is a movie about a god-like hero and half of it takes place on another planet. I'm not sure this film could have gone for edgy or a more intricate plot and still explained all of the background and rules of the Asgard and the nine realms.

Still, while it may be understandable why the film needed to have a basic plot and simple characters, you can't just dismiss the problem of the film having a textbook, screenwriting 101 plot and one dimensional characters. Also, because the script had to establish so much in terms of backstory, the actual hurdles that the characters had to face weren't really developed. Whereas other films would try to set up an achilles heel that the heroes must find in order to overcome the unbeatable forces that stand in their way, this film's fights have nothing more than brute force.

As I was leaving the movie, I was trying to figure out whether I would really put Thor at #1, over Fast Five. But then I realized that despite the fact that half the movie took place in space, had a sword in the stone-like element with a magic hammer, and had Frost Giants and rainbow bridges, "Thor" was still more believable than the latest Fast and the Furious movie.

But what's probably the biggest story is that Thor is kind of a forgettable movie that won't be the smash hit that Iron Man was yet the villain in the film is somewhat confirmed as the villain in The Avengers. It seems like a risk to have the tentpole movie be based around a villain from a movie that not everyone will have seen but, then again, most of the Avenger-related films so far have had forgettable villains so maybe they'll be able to overcome the weaker villain by focusing on the inter-personal conflicts within the Avengers.

But back to "Thor", from what I've heard, the 3D isn't much in the film and I definitely wouldn't recommend dropping more money on an average film but if you have nothing better to do this weekend, "Thor" isn't the worst way of spending a couple of hours. There are a ton of better ways to spend your time but, sadly, I haven't found any better at the local multiplex so far this year.

Oh, and if you want to see Monster Paws' Isaac Kappy with his thespian hat on, he has a great little cameo in Thor as a pet shop clerk.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:36 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Late Morning Music, chatting away the day, just lazy. Good day for some Cowboy Junkies' "Suns Comes Up, It's Tuesday Morning". (Although the extended "tha-at" where it used to say "go through all that shit again." through me off for a moment.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:58 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Not to pick on The Atlantic but they had a blog on their site yesterday that a number people posted on Facebook that was kind of jaw dropping. The article in question was Megan McArdle's piece about the birth of a fake quotation. In it, she discussed how Facebook and Twitter helped a false MLK quotation become maintream in mere minutes. But there were two glaring problems with the piece. First off, the article was a piece about a problem with quickly disseminated information yet when it came time to do some research for her own piece, McArdle wrote that she did "a quick Google search." I wasn't sure if it was hypocritical or ironic that her response to a questionable fast-spreading quote was to do a questionable quick search. Secondly, McArdle's hasty "research" also failed to research from where the quote sprang.
What happened was a young lady wrote her own thought, "I mourn the loss of thousands of precious lives, but I will not rejoice in the death of one, not even an enemy" and followed it with an MLK quote. Then someone mistakenly moved the quotation marks and included the young lady's own thoughts as part of the MLK quote. And finally someone else just deleted the actual MLK quote part of it and posted the young lady's original thought as MLK's words. That is what McArdle saw on her Twitter feed. And that's the quote that McArdle questioned.

What happened then is something that is all too common in modern media and modern communication - someone made a hasty comment and that was followed by equally hasty response and then most people just ended up arguing about the quotes, both real and false, along with McArdle's accusations. I credit McArdle for later writing up a longer piece that fully explained the birth of the fake quote but why didn't she do that to begin with? Her response was less a real look at fake quotes and more of a humble defense of her earlier post. And while I'm sure she could give the "It's just a blog post; just my opinion", the problem is that when that opinion comes from The Atlantic, people are going to take it as more than just opinion. People posted her original piece as if it was a clear dismissal of the quote. The proliferation of blogs on sites of major mags shouldn't be that responsibility or quality of journalism should diminish.

We live in a FIRST! society where people would rather risk not being right if it means not being first. McArdle could have waited to post her story but it wouldn't have been as topical. I've written before how I'd love to start a news show/site called "Yesterday's News" where the anchors/writers can step back from the initial run of a story and truly examine it (and also examine the way the story was covered and how it was shaped.) I believe this type of show or site, which would probably focus on one or two stories a day so it could have a legit in-depth look would be amazing because it could get to the truth or acknowledge the debates at the core of the news. It also could show how the news teams are spinning each story to fit their own agendas or worldview (or just stumbling over the truth in their haste to get the story out there.)

Obviously, EVERY station should do that before running a story but that's gone now. Journalism has become a race in which everyone is consumed. It seems like very few people in the news realize that immediacy is often the enemy of quality. Megan McArdle could have taken the MLK mistake and crafted a very interesting article on how fake news spreads like wildfire but instead she just became part of the problem. She spit out a blog post that required an update and then a separate post to explain what the heck happened. It seems that McArdle wanted to get ahead of the debunking curve rather than get the debunking right.

It all goes back to the age old adage about the three elements of work, "There's three options: cheap, fast, and good - you can only choose two of them." Now, the meaning of the quote is to say that if you want something fast and good, it won't be cheap. Or cheap and good, it won't be fast. But in today's media landscape, it seems all too many people are gladly opting for fast and cheap and not caring if it's all that good.
(Mind you, this isn't to say that McArdle isn't a good writer overall, but in this one case, she put the cart before the horse and while she was clarifying her earlier, quick remarks, she watched an intriguing article ride on by.)

And, of course, I have to acknowledge my own hypocrisy since this entire site is blogs written in spare time and just kind of jotted down but, then again, I'm just throwing out a random blog and I'm not passing myself off as a journalist working for an esteemed publication.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:38 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've posted this one before but I really love this song, so here's some music for a rainy morning in DC

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

So I've been banned from commenting on The Atlantic's website. It's kind of astonishing to me that it happened but apparently they don't take too kindly to people disagreeing with them over there. Of course, I already know what their response would be to that - Ta-Nehishi Coates (and some of his fellow commenters) like to break out the "Well, if you had read my article..." strawman, with which they both disregard any point and rationalize their disrespect the poster in question (in this case, me.) In one case, they deleted a comment I made which directly cited a previous posters comment. There was nothing rude, malicious, or ignorant about it. It just pointed out why I responded the way I did and why the poster was contradicting herself. Apparently, that was the last straw. With no warning, I was banned.

I've written both Coates and the Atlantic to ask why I was banned but have gotten no response. Not too surprising since it was one of the first times I went to the site and I'm not a subscriber or anything but it's very disappointing to see this kind of quick trigger.

The post that got me banned is right here. I'm not saying that I was posting irrefutable truths there but I think my point was pretty clear and for all the talk of me not reading or showing respect, I feel like I was the one who was using being treated shabbily or wasn't given a fair shake. Oh well. Who needs them.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:21 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Here's the first glimpse of PJ20, Cameron Crowe's documentary on pearl jam. The bit here about Pearl Jam originally being named "Mookie Blaylock" isn't exactly new news (their first album was reportedly named "Ten" because that was Mookie's number) but it's kind of fun seeing the pre-fame guys chilling on the way to a show although part of me fears that Crowe, who seems to be a good friend of the band, is going to make more of a travelogue than a documentary about the band. It should be interesting to see if they get into the dark times or if it focuses more on the fun. I'm a huge pearl jam fan but, In terms of music docs, I'm less interested in this than I am the Kings of Leon doc and the Tribe Called Quest film that has been getting great reviews after its film festival premiere.

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

I'm kind of torn on I'm From Barcelona. I liked their first album because the sound was different but it was an album that had catchy-ish songs that just seemed to miss that one hook or break that made the songs stick in your brain. The latest single, Battleships, is a step away from sticky. A good song that I enjoy listening to but I forgot it as soon as it ended. What do you think?

Anyway, here are a couple other tunes from I'm From Barcelona's previous album. It's tough to say this about a group that features 29 members but it does seem that something is missing.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:47 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm trying to see if I can't make a lil' dough off of this blog. The ad to the right doesn't seem to be making me much of anything so I was hoping that maybe all out begging and pleading could do the trick. So, please, click on a link or two below right now (and, in the future, try to give the ad on the right a quick click) so I can see how much money I might make. I doubt it would be much but it's also nice to know how many people actually read this thing and have the kindness in their heart to frustrate themselves for a second with a pop up ad so I can make half a penny (or whatever a click pays these days.)

As the great Bartles & James once said, "Thank you for your support."

If no ad appears above, be a doll and click the ad to the right, won't you? Gracias.

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

Fast Five is what it is. A lot has been made of the latest film's genre change from street racing to a heist movie, but that's not entirely right. First off, the original film was about a hijacking ring so there was always a thievery element to the films. Secondly, heist films IMO always have an element of planning and cat-and-mouse and while they toy with that element in this film, the film is so poorly written that none of the heist elements that they set up really ever pan out. There's a prolonged training sequence that is never fully explained and then completely disappears. This film, with more guns and wild shoot 'em ups, amps up the testosterone but it's still a Fast and the Furious movie at its core.

The big change in the movie is that it pulled a Die Hard - it took a film that at least pretended to be based in reality and turned it into a film based in a world where you can easily defy the laws of physics. If the first Fast and the Furious included two cars pulling a bank vault down the highway, people would have laughed and said it ruined the movie. In Fast Five, it's par for the course. The film opens with the crew breaking Dom out of a prison transport bus; their plan of attack is perhaps the dumbest jailbreak ever, includes a laughable post-event news reporter wild line of "Amazingly nobody was hurt", and away we go.

So yes, the film is silly, poorly scripted, and laughably over-the-top... but that's not necessarily a bad thing. The sappy emotional moments are mercifully short and the film over all delivers what you'd expect - high octane thrills and some crazy chase scenes. As I said in the beginning, it is what it is. If you liked the earlier Fast movies, then you'll enjoy the fifth film. If you didn't like those films or had no interest in them, don't bother. There's nothing here that will change your mind. It revels in the lunacy of the action genre; it makes no effort to transcend it.

While I'm sure that many people will bemoan the fact that the movie grossed almost 90 million dollars in its opening weekend, I can't get upset because it's a film that does stupid right. It's entertaining. It delivers what it promises. I have more of a problem with films that can't get stupid right (like GI Joe) or films that promise more but deliver even less than stupid (Salt or Terminator Salvation). Maybe it's because I'm a child of the 80's but I believe that there's a place for brain dead action films. Fast Five is a forgettable one that can't even come up with a single memorable one liner but it was an entertaining enough diversion for two hours and while I can't say that I'm exactly eagerly awaiting the sixth installment, the fact of the matter is that I will definitely go see it when it comes out.

On a related note, I would like to point out the new color coded film rank (on the right). A friend asked why I had Source Code as my #1 film of the year when I wasn't a huge fan of it. It was number 1 because it was the film I enjoyed the most so far this year but that doesn't mean that I was a fan. This is why I now have the stop light colored entries in the list. Somewhat obvious but red means stop, yellow means proceed with caution, and green means go. As you can see, there will be different shades of green, yellow, and red (since there's always some gray area in film recommendations.) And if a movie is capital very good, it'll get listed in the Best of the 10's list (also over to the right). But I also should remind readers that while I try to do my best to post recommendations of who would like a film in my blog posts, the Film Rank is 100% based on what I liked. There will be movies that I know aren't very good that make it near the top (ala last year's "Morning Glory") and critically acclaimed films that are near the bottom.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:07 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

This week's Tryout comes from Tamalewood and should be taking over the world some time soon. These guys are so good that band member Isaac Kappy was even able to breathe life into the otherwise abysmal "Terminator Salvation" with a little cameo in the beginning of the flick. Also, how many rockstars have been able to make a waitress vomit from the smell of a fart? True story. Seriously, Kappy is sick out of every orifice. So support the friends of the Honky and pick up their album and like them on Facebook.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:45 AM | Permalink | Comments ()