I want to start up a friday debate (you can post your answers over at the SoulHonky facebook page). Last week on Twitter and facebook, I asked What is Christian Slater's third best movie (True Romance and Heathers being #1 and #2). The winner of that one was Pump Up the Volume.

For this week, I want to go to a discussion I've had with my friends. I've argued (and I'll say for the sake of argument that I'm a fairly average built American man) that if I had the best offensive line in the NFL and was going against the worst defensive line, I could gain 30 yards in an NFL game. That's not to say much about me but I think the offensive line is an underrated force in football and they can get even a layman like myself some decent yardage. If I can get 20 carries, I just need 1.5 yards per carry which I think a great offensive line can deliver against the league's worst defense.

The best argument against it, so far, is that I'd probably be broken by the first legit tackle that an NFL defender laid on me but I still maintain that I could get 25 - 30 yards in a game.

What say you?

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:07 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Last night, I was ticked off. I wasn't heartbroken but the Red Sox's loss because the team had been so bad in September that they didn't deserve to make the playoffs. Also, kind of like the Japanese beaten the US team in the Women's World Cup Finals, the Tampa Bay Rays were just a better story. That doesn't mean that I still didn't want the Sox to make it and perhaps turn it around in the second season but, after years of being the also-ran, it's hard for me to get TOO broken up when my high priced favorites of a home town squad don't make it as far as they should have.

Still, I was ticked off. And a lot of my ire was aimed at Carl Crawford, the high-priced bust who almost looked like he was trying to help his old team last night. Fast forward almost 24 hours and my view of the situation has completely changed. It might not be fair but two stories really changed everything. Actually, two sets of quotes.

The first quote came from Adrian Gonzalez. When asked about the Red Sox collapse, he blamed God and ESPN.

God didn't have it in the cards for us," he said. "We play too many night games on getaway days and get into places at 4 in the morning," Gonzalez said. "This has been my toughest season physically because of that. We play a lot of night games on Sunday for television and that those things take a lot out of you... The schedule really hurt us. Nobody is really reporting that."

Contrast that with Crawford who said that the collapse was "embarrassing personally" and ""I know what kind of season I had. I know what I did. I have to go back home and live with that. It's going to be a tough offseason for me. I have to come back and prove myself." Now I know that I'm pretty much a godless heathen so I'm biased here but when it comes to reacting to a loss and looking forward to next season, I'd like to think that my squad focuses on proving people wrong and not praying that we're in God's plans next season.

That report bugged me but it really stuck out as an issue when I read Tito Francona's comment about how the season went down.

"There were some things that did concern me," he said. "Teams, normally, as a season progresses, there are events that make you care about each other and (with) this club, it didn't always happen as much as I wanted it to."

The reason that this jumped out at me is because, for years, the Red Sox were described as "25 players, 25 cabs". There was no camaraderie. The ballpark was a workplace; players were coworkers more than teammates. The fact that this team somehow went from the fun bunch that couldn't stop hugging one another to guns for hire is problematic. And maybe I'm jumping the gun here but I have to think that Gonzalez's blame game doesn't fit in to well with some of the blue collar Sox.
The other reason I give the sideways glance to Adrian is that he came from San Diego, a place that has become infamous for its too mellow attitude. A number of players have gone there and been surprised to see how, while the players there might be talented, they don't have that drive or desire that is needed to take it to the next level. So I may be reading into this too much but it could be an issue that whereas Crawford failed to make any noise on the field, Gonzalez failed to click in the clubhouse.

So where do we go from here? I don't really know. Heading into this season, it seemed like Big Papi and Papelbon were on the outs but after Daniel Bard became the Red Sox version of Big Baby Davis (stud reserve for half a season, a liability at the end of the year) and Crawford wasn't looking like someone who could fill Papi's shoes, they both might need to come back. The pitching staff is great on paper but since Clay Buchholz and Dice K seems to be made out of paper and Josh Beckett isn't getting any younger, it doesn't seem like a staff that's built for the post-season. The Sox seem to be in the same spot as the Celtics and Patriots - good enough to be a threat but too flawed to make it happen.

Theo and Tito have their work cut out for them this off-season. Having great players isn't enough. They have to come together as a team and, most importantly, they have to have some gas left in their tanks when the fall comes. If the Sox fell apart like they did this year, I can't imagine that it'll get better with another year of wear and tear on these guys' bodies.

I hope Tom Brady and friends are looking at this because they aren't very far from having their window close on them too. (Although this is more on Belichick who desperately needs to improve the defense next offseason. Time to trade some of those picks for veterans and make a run.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:01 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

One of the shows that I'e really been looking forward to is "Homeland" on Showtime. My first reaction is that Claire Danes kind of feels miscast. Part of me feels like they almost should have swapped out Morena Baccarin and Claire Danes. I get that Danes's character is supposed to be a bit unhinged but I just never bought her in the role. I think the role needed someone being crazy but not so manic. Honestly, after this episode I'm not so bent out of shape about not having Showtime. I wasn't bad but it was disappointing and I'm happy to just wait for the DVD of season 1 instead of investing an hour each week.

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

Got the heads up on this band from Neal Brennan's Twitter account and then noticed them in Entertainment Weekly. They aren't too different from a lot of indie bands and remind a bit of The New Pornographers meets Animal Collective's poppier songs. I can't say that I'm a huge fan of them but they seem like a band that could catch on.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:44 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Thanks to Satie for posting this up. This is the short film that got everything started for Neil Blomkamp. Based off of this short, he got the funding to make District 9 into a feature film.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:46 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

In ten or twenty years, when films from this era are being remade, I think someone needs to really look at Gavin O'Connor's films because he seems to be the king of films that are close to being great but just aren't. "Warrior" is like that; a film that, with a few tweaks, could be a classic and the first great MMA film but it is weighed down by some cheesiness, too many cliches, and a background story that really doesn't add enough and takes away from the main story of the bond between brothers (or lack thereof).

One thing that I will give Gavin O'Connor, however, is that he has an eye for talent. Tom Hardy solidified my belief that he is a potential star and Joel Edgerton did a great job. I'm not sure that he will ever break out but he is a great everyman and has a long career ahead of him. Beyond that, I really like O'Connor's regulars. Frank Grillo is always solid and Maximiliano Hernández is an underrated character actor. He has a small role in Warrior but he was great in Terriers and O'Connor's Pride and Glory and I didn't even recognize him in Thor and the Marvel shorts. Nick Nolte was strong but in a oddly written role.

On a related note, after seeing Drive, I started wondering what the difference between "cliche" and "classic" was. Because while people kind of shit on Warrior for being cliche, they gave Drive a pass despite it being derivative in its story and characters because they were "classic" elements of noir. To a certain extent, those two words are interchangeable, depending on how you bought into the movie. Even within Warrior, there were some part of the story that I could call "classic" sports movie moments but then others which I thought were "cliche." I think critics need to remember that those terms aren't really about the story that is being told but rather HOW the story is being told. In the hands of a hack director, I'm sure Drive would have seemed completely cliche. On the other hand, I think if a stronger director got his or her hands on O'Connor's movies, the flaws might have been fixed.

So I would recommend people check out Warrior but only if they aren't turned off by seeing a boilerplate sports movie that hits the notes you've seen before. There's nothing new in the film but it's an effectively told tale that entertained (it didn't feel at all like 2.5 hours) but didn't achieve greatness.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:11 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Moneyball is a very well executed version of a very flawed story. Nevermind that the story doesn't really have a fairy tale ending but this telling of the story leaves out a LOT of key details. It's an extremely slanted version of the truth; one that is aimed at making sabermetrics and the Billy Beane approach to scouting look almost pristine. Sadly, it's my knowledge of said shortcomings that made me struggle to truly get caught up and really enjoy this film.

So while I am a bit jaded, I have to say that I think there's a very small audience for this movie. I could see some art house aficianados who want to see old guard baseball minds trumped by an Ivy league economics grad reveling in the movie although the main audience is probably above-average baseball fans - the ones who would be interested in the tale of how stats took over baseball but aren't such die-hards that they know the story (both the truth and what Moneyball spins.)

Add into all of this that the movie really drags at points and I come away with another film that I can only recommend as a rental. On a side note, however, I would like to see Chris Pratt get a shot at leading man status. He strikes me as the kind of guy who could be the next everyman action star. He's got a likability that could help him in the Willis or Damon type actioners

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:16 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I had to laugh at the start of the trailer since it starts with a subtle version of the Inception BWOOONG but once it got going, I definitely got into the trailer. Ed Harris is looking older and eviler than ever and while I'm not a Sam Worthington fan, he doesn't look too bad in this. Not sure about the casting of Elizabeth Banks either but it could work. Anyway, I'm definitely interested.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:29 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Looking good.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:30 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

A nice song for the morning and a fun video (a throwsback to the underrated film "Falling Down" which seems like a film that could be remade) and bonus points for making what seems to be the riff from Tal Bachman's "She's So High" into a bit of a rocker.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:02 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Pearl Jam Twenty is a love letter to the band. As a fan, I still loved the film and found there to be some real emotion and some laugh out loud moments as well as some stories that I'd never heard before. For those out there hoping for a hard hitting in depth story about the band, you won't really get that here. Perhaps the best example of how those moments are glossed over is the fact that the band's drummer troubles (they've gone through a handful over the years) are covered in a quick, almost jokey three-to-five minute recap. Part of me wanted to here more about it. The influence of Jack Irons, the issues with Dave Abbruzzese, why did each leave, etc. But that's not really the focus of the film. It's about the rise of the band in its first decade and how they avoided the fall during their second ten years. And as that, it's wildly entertaining and, in the end, I didn't mind at all that it wasn't more hard hitting. (Although it would have been nice to hear how recording with Boo Yah Tribe and Cypress Hill for the Judgement Night soundtrack went.)

Here's the trailer.

Interestingly, the opening bit with David Lynch isn't in the movie (although Lynch is referenced and makes a quick little flash cameo. Also, the film gave me a new appreciation of Chris Cornell, who I kind of soured on over the years. The film definitely has me going back to listen to the 90's rock of Soundgarden, Alice in Chains, Temple of the Dog, and Pearl Jam.

I'd definitely recommend the film to any pearl jam fans or anyone who even enjoyed the band during their heyday.

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

I was really rooting for "Drive" but, man, I just didn't like it. It's essentially a hipster action movie: it's quiet, it's sparse, the violence is almost ironically over-the-top, and most people in the mainstream will not like it at all. While many people are heralding the performances, I thought most of them were nothing special. Ryan Gosling gets points for not saying a lot, smiling, and being damn handsome. I honestly wasn't blown away by his performance and thought it was almost too low key and sedate. There was a point in the movie that I felt like I was seeing a horror film from the POV of the killer (which is a cool idea but this film didn't pull it off.) Albert Brooks is good but he's no better than most any noir heavy and I think most of the hype around his performance is that it is Albert Brooks doing a serious role. I don't see any way that he should be nominated for Best Supporting Actor.

The movie was almost comical with the over-the-top violence and muted responses from everyone around it. Maybe that was a choice of some sort but I didn't get it. It's been a while since a critically acclaimed film has fallen with such a thud like this one. I guess my biggest issue is that while I can appreciate a film that is a slow burn, I can't take a film that is cold emotionally and has sparse storytelling. Drive was little more than a genre film made with art house sensibilities. It didn't elevate the genre, it just made a slower moving version of action films. People can say, "They don't make 'em like this anymore" but the fact is that they never made them like this. They were better. If it had come out in the 70s, "Drive" would have been forgotten. Personally, I think it could have been a cool short film or series of web shorts but it felt longer than 100 minutes and I was wholly underwhelmed when it was over.

Looking back, I kind of wish that Carey Mulligan's character didn't like Ryan Gosling's character. If Gosling's going to be creepy, roll with it all the way and make Mulligan not like him (but maybe the kid is intrigued and keeps inviting him into their life.) If Mulligan was really in love with her husband and weirded out by Gosling, it would have added an extra layer that I feel the film needed. Either that or make her slowly realize that Gosling's weird and pull away from him as he falls for her. Their relationship needed a different wrinkle than the typical Quiet Hero/Damsel in Distress approach.

Unless you really like art house fare, I'd stay away from this one. I didn't hate it and it didn't really do anything wrong but it did nothing right, seemed to think a slow pace and hyper-violence were enough of a risk to take, and I never cared about it for an instant. But to end off on a positive note, I did like the soundtrack.

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

"Contagion" feels like a film that was written by someone who saw "Outbreak" and thought, "That's not what would really happen!" so they wrote a truer account of what would go down if there really was a global epidemic. The problem is that, for as silly as some moments might have been in "Outbreak", the fiction makes for a more interesting movie. While Steven Soderbergh did a great job directing the film and the performances were strong across the board, the film felt to me more like a case study of what would happen and less like a movie. Michael O'Sullivan of the Washington Post probably said it best when he wrote, "Plays less like a conventional medical thriller - think "Outbreak" - than like a dramatic reading of a "Nova" episode, performed by Hollywood's elite."

The next paragraph is a little spoilerish so you might want to skip it but it doesn't really change that much.
One of the moments that I considered true to life but unnecessary in the narrative form is the race to find out where the virus came from. Now, "Outbreak" went crazy with this angle and basically made finding the source the key to saving the day. In "Contagion", they spend a decent chunk of time in the beginning scouring surveillance footage, trying to find where the outbreak began but then they just move away from it. They know pretty much from the jump what caused the outbreak (an unholy but not in that way meeting of bat and pig) and, after a while, they just kind of stop looking for the cause. (Oddly enough, they also only look into humans and never follow the trail of the food at the ground zero casino. You'd think that, if they knew it came from pig and bat, they'd have seen if there was anywhere a pig or bat might have been connected to the casino.) The film ends by showing us exactly how the epidemic started but by that point, it's pointless. It satisfies the audiences curiosity but it's literally anti-climatic.

BACK TO NON-SPOILERS FROM HERE ON OUT

I think the main issue was that there were so many storylines that each character's journey though the horror that would be an epidemic is told in fast forward. I know I've said this before but this film would have been much better served as a mini-series or even a one off full 20 episode order. For all of Soderbergh's experimenting with distribution methods and storytelling, it's too bad that he didn't attack this storyline with similar out of the box thinking and tried to really delve deeply into each character and various different angles of the story.

"Contagion" is a well made piece but I was never all that engaged and I felt oddly removed from the proceedings. The whole thing just kind of felt muted to me. It's a rental.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:12 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:43 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I know I harp on this all the time and Hollywood studios claim that people actually like trailers like this (or, rather, the general audience likes them while film fans hate them) but, seriously, why would you go see this movie after this trailer? Are you really going to pay 12 dollars just to see what happens in the last two minutes (which, I think, is the only part of the film not shown here.)

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

A day behind on the ol' Tryout so here's another one from the backup options. I stumbled upon Other Lives when this live performance was posted up by the great indie radio station KEXP. I definitely recommend liking KEXP on Facebook so you can get more live performances and updates on up and coming bands. I also included the single "For 12" from their new album.

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

Trying to wake up and get excited for one last work day, I can't shake this song from my head. I hadn't heard it until it was used in the trailer for the upcoming Jon Jones/Rampage Jackson UFC fight but I love the beat and there are some great lyrics. At first I thought it was a TV on the Radio song but it's Saul Williams.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:46 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Marvel is making some short web films to help promote and explain "The Avengers". The first one is called "The Consultant" and helps start to explain how The Hulk becomes part of the team. The short is chock full of in jokes, almost to the point where I'm starting to worry about "The Avengers" and whether the tone might be a bit too comic. Joss Whedon usually does a good job balancing jokes and action though so I'm going to chalk these up as more comic because they are shorts and didn't have the budget to actually shoot action scenes.
So here it is - The Consultant.

And let me also take this time to complain, once again, about 30 second web ads. When watching videos that are often around 3 minutes long, it's kind of ridiculous to have ads that run half a minute. It's not like these ads can't say what they want in 15 ticks. Just a little pet peeve of mine.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:01 AM | Permalink | Comments ()