Another week, another lack of great new music. Although I did find a pretty great new music site, /Hear Ya. There's a lot of downloads and indie music to be perused. I don't have a lot of time so I just went through their best albums of 2011 and stumbled across Middle Brother. So without further (or, any, really) ado, here's Middle Brother.

In other Tryout news, Stray Dog posted up a live version of their song "Drunk" which I'll post here. Right now, I'm thinking Drunk is a strong candidate for my best of 2011 list.

[Zaokret uživo] Stray Dogg - Drunk from Zaokret on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:08 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The worst thing to do when you're planning what to do on a Saturday night is to try to take a quick nap because that almost always leads to you oversleeping and waking up at 11:30 or so and not wanting to get up and do much of anything. But that's what I did last night and so my Saturday night plans turned into me laying in bed and checking out TV's two new fairy tale shows, "Grimm" and "Once Upon a Time".

I started off with "Grimm", which was probably good for "Once Upon a Time" because the former severely lowered my expectations for the latter. I'd say that "Grimm" should be on SyFy but, honestly, SyFy has better shows than this. The show opened with a scare that got me to jump but after that, it was pretty bad. The writing was painful at times and the actors didn't do much of anything to help out matters. Most problematic David Giuntoli, who reminded me of a bland and charmless Bradley Cooper. This might not be a huge issue but the show kept ending scenes on Giuntoli turning and giving a look that I'm sure was supposed to convey an emotion of some sort but it really looked like he was just turning and staring off into space. The photo to the left is essentially his one look off into the distance.

The show also doesn't seem to have a tone yet. There's a definite "They Live" vibe to the premise and the writing and acting aren't good and one of the key characters/scenes in the pilot is an inch away from devolving into full camp but the show doesn't go for it. It strives to be a modern X-Files but fails miserably and, at times, seems more like a satire than an actual show. The show tries to present a "What if Grimm's fairytales were real..." but they fail miserably in establishing the real world so it comes off as "What if Grimm's fairytales existed in phony TV land..."

And finally, the show already has the "Terminator: Salvation" problem of, "If the bad guys goal is to kill certain people, why don't they just kill them when they have the chance?" The final scene of the show is almost laughable in its execution and basically cements the fact that the only way this show is going to work is if they play up the camp value. And I don't mean modern meta-camp, I mean the old school let's just go balls to the wall because nobody's buying this shit as real approach.

So next up was "Once Upon a Time" and I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised by this one. Pilots are always tough and this show had a doozy of a plot to set up but they did a great job with it. My one fear is that this seems like a show that could make for a great mini-series or a strong one of two season show but, if it does well, it could definitely turn into the kind of situation where they have an end in sight but then stretch out the storyline to get as many episodes as possible and, in doing so, water down the quality of the show.

I'm very interested in seeing where this goes in episode 2. They promise that the final battle will begin soon but I'm really not sure how the battle is going to go down. This show also could have the "Terminator: Salvation" issue but, so far, it's set in a fantastical enough world that they could find an easy way around it.

I also watched another episode of Prime Suspect and it did nothing to change my opinion that they should have just hired Maria Bello for Law & Order and rejiggered the format a little bit to freshen it up. There's nothing particularly wrong with the show but it's a standard procedural and is somewhat cold. NBC tried to fix this up by ditching the plain white font on a black background title card and giving the show a full opening intro package but that doesn't really change it up enough. They also changed Bello's fellow cops from being openly and aggressively upset about having a female cop in their house to more accepting but still ball-busting and I think they should focus on that more and ditch the whole family storyline. There a pretty good show to be made here (and an even better show if they stuck closer to the original BBC "Prime Suspect") but given the direction in which they've already headed and the lagging ratings, we'll probably never see it.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:34 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm a fan of noir and when I saw the trailer for The Big Bang, I thought it seemed like it could be worth a look. The film came and went in theaters (I think, I don't remember it ever really being out) and now it's on Netflix Instant. The cast is fairly interesting with Antonio Banderas, Delroy Lindo, William Fichtner, Bill Duke, Sam Elliot, Snoop Dog, and James Van Der Beek but the interest dies there. I've tried to watch this three times and, on the bright side, it's helped me go to sleep for three nights. When I checked back in last night to see where I had left off, I was stunned to find out that I wasn't even halfway through the movie.

So why am I writing a mini-review if I haven't seen the whole film? I'd like to say that it's so I can warn people not to waste the hour that I have but, really, there's a far pervier reason. Autumn Reeser (The O.C., Entourage) appears in the film and has perhaps the nerdiest sex scene in film history. It's also pretty damn hot. Here's a link to the very nerdy, very NSFW scene.
Enjoy.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:44 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Week 7 of the NFL season was an INSANELY frustrating week for me. First off, my lock of the week Green Bay scored to put themselves over the line but then couldn't find a way to prevent Christian Ponder from marching down the field and scoring a late touchdown and prevent the Pack from covering.

But all was not lost, the Steelers were my #2 bet and they won and heading into Monday night, I still had my two teasers alive and the Packers game was the only game that I missed on my $5 10 team parlay. I was a little annoyed because, if the Pack had covered, I'd be a win away from making $1250 on a five dollar bet but even with that one loss, I could win $125 dollars (which would cover my Packers bet and put $25 bucks in my pocket) if the Ravens could just handle the lowly Jaguars.

Well, we all know how that worked out. The final kick in the groin was when the Ravens didn't get the onsides kick. I could not afford a Jacksonville score or else my one last hope, my 10 point teaser, would be ruined. I needed the Ravens to either stop the Jags cold or just let them run out the rest of the clock. And, of course, they let the Jags get into field goal range and THEN decided to stop them, leading to a field goal which killed my last bet.

LOCK OF THE WEEK: Part of me thought I should deposit some more money to go big on this one but given my run of luck and the fact that I'm in a two week Lock of the Week losing streak, I just went with a smaller bet on the Lions to take care of business in Denver.
WAGER: $35 Lions -3 over DENVER

LATCH OF THE WEEK: The Giants are starting to get healthy and are coming off of a bye so I think they'll be ready to put the wood to the lowly Dolphins. Miami is a complete mess right now, mentally and physically. I'm not as sold on San Diego as I probably should be to make this bet (and I think the Chiefs are a bit underrated) but I'm still going to go with the Chargers to play angry after blowing last week's game against the Jets and sending Kansas City home with an L. After placing my bets, I'm already feeling bad about the two bets I laid on the Chargers. I probably should have just gone with a straight bet on the Giants.
WAGER: $35 parlay on GIANTS -10 over Dolphins and Chargers -3.5 over CHIEFS

O/U TEASE: While I think the Giants could put up points against Miami, I don't see Miami doing much on offense so I like the Under there. The way that Matt Cassell and Phillip Rivers have been playing and given that the Chargers backs are a bit banged up, I'm going to go with more of a defensive battle in San Diego and go with the Under there as well, although in hindsight, I'm thinking this might be the weak link of my bets. And I think Pittsburgh and NE could be a shoot-out.
WAGER: $25 6.5 Tease on Giants/Dolphins under 50, Chargers/Chiefs Under 50.5, Pats/Steelers Over 45.5

I also did my customary progressive parlay and I did a seven team to win parlay. Let's hope the bad luck streak ends this week or else I might have to just close the sportsbook for the rest of the season.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:14 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

If you want to check out the first real crowd-sourced movie, here it is, available in full all week on YouTube. Enjoy "Life in a Day".

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:37 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

One of the most interesting trends in music is magazines sponsoring redos of classic albums. The reason I say it is "interesting" rather than "best" is because the covers haven't been that great. The latest album to get the cover treatment is U2's Achtung Baby and it has the most impressive list of participants. Nine Inch Nails, Depeche Mode, The Killers, Garbage, Jack White and others take a shot at U2's seminal album.

I've only heard a few of the songs but, sadly, this cover struggles from the same issue: too reverential. What's the point of a cover song if it is just a carbon copy of the original? Living Colour was somewhat famous for their covers because they changed the songs up and added their own identity into them. Nine Inch Nails' Zoo Station kind of does this but it still just feels like a slower version of the original. The Killers' "Ultraviolet (Light My Way)" sounds like they are actually trying to sound like U2. Ditto Depeche Mode's "So Cruel". In the end, the only thing that these songs accomplish is making me want to hear the original album.

But if you want to check it out for yourself, check out the post on Stereogum.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:44 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Since I have no other bands lined up and because I've been addicted to their album, Sleeper Agent will repeat as this week's Tryout (a couple of their songs are on the left; I'd recommend checking them out on Spotify or Youtube.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:32 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

For me, the biggest issue about Lars Von Trier's "Melancholia" is that it deals with the issue of depression but pretty much every character in the movie should be depressed. Kirsten Dunst gives a tremendous performance (Side note: while this has been a crap year for movies, nobody told the actors as this is a year filled with standout performances) as a woman struggling with her emotions but, given her situation, she pretty much should be depressed. Her parents are a mess and make no bones about letting everyone see it, even at their daughter's wedding. Her boss is overbearing and kind of a douche. Her husband-to-be is kind of an oaf. Because of this, the first half of the movie was less a study of depression and more of a situation that would have most sane people would be reaching for the pills.

I felt the film picked up a bit in the second half, which focuses more on Dunst's character's more straight-laced sister. But the fact that the film was split into two halves kind of weakened the overall story. Breaking up the film into two separate part and investigating the sister's essentially individually took away from the film's power. I think if the entire film unfolded during or just after the wedding reception, it would have been a much crisper film.

In the end, I think this film kind of breaks the Too Many Leaps rule. You can ask an audience to take one giant leap with you but when you require them to suspend disbelief a second time, you're asking for trouble.. This film deals with an absolutely insane family AND the fact that a planet that was hidden behind the Sun for all this time might be crashing into the Earth. In fact, the latter is actually the more believable of those two leaps, although for those expecting a sci-fi film, the end of the world element is barely handled and as vague of an apocalypse as I've ever seen (admittedly, I zoned out at moments but it seemed like it should have been a bit more of a topic of conversation. The end of the world was nearby and it seemed like only a couple of people were pre-occupied by it).

The film comes together nicely but I just felt that the journey wasn't worth the destination.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:03 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

If you see one movie this year, it should be "Margin Call". This is a movie that will be shown for decades as the explanation of what went wrong and how the economy collapsed. Yes, it's a bit muted, cold, has zero frills, and the dialogue is far from the Aaron Sorkin snappy chatter that we've grown accustomed to but that's also what makes it work. It's a real world disaster film of our times that succeeds where Contagion and Ides of March failed. It might not be a cinematic masterpiece but it is most likely the definitive film of this era.

In comparison to Contagion and Ides of March, those films each had one fatal flaw. In Contagion, the film followed too many characters. It tried to tackle an epidemic by showing us glimpses of how many people would be affected and that made it seem more like a cinematic lecture of what might happen if a deadly disease broke out. Margin Call is indeed stuffy but it focuses on one firm and one night before the shit hits the fan. It does follow a number of characters but because they are all so closely interconnected the film works as both an explanation of what went down and a character study.
For Ides of March, the main problem was that it slipped into melodrama and that sapped some of the message of the film. Margin Call stays away from melodrama (there was one point where I was very nervous that it was going to get silly) and it also stay away from trying to make a message. Whereas Ides of March always seemed like it was interested in making the audience judge the characters, Margin Call let situations play out and simply allows the characters to make their own calls. It's about as even-handed of a film as I can imagine (especially given that there's pretty much a definite right and wrong when it comes to what happened.)

I really can't recommend this film enough although I do, again, have to warn people that it is cold and a bit stuffy. It's the Wall St. of this era but it doesn't have the flash or more cinematic stories of that film. It pulls the curtain back on The Street and while it tells a story that most people already know, it's still interesting to watch an all-star cast act out the fall of our economy. Because of the lack of flash, it's also a film that will probably garner zero awards buzz but the acting in this is top notch. The performances are not showy at all, they are pitch perfect for the film and you believe each recognizable actor in their role.

I really can't say enough about this movie. And I know a lot of people will probably say that it's cold and too slow and boring but I thought it all worked. You felt like you were there that fateful night.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:36 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Oof. I missed on all of my bets last week. My lock of the week not only didn't cover, they didn't even win the game! Just plain terrible. So, of course, you know that I bet on the Saints again this week.

LOCK OF THE WEEK: The Vikings haven't been good and now they are starting a rookie QB. The Packers, meanwhile, are undefeated and while their defense hasn't been unstoppable, they should be able to run roughshod over this lackluster Minny squad.
WAGER: $100 on Packers -9 over VIKINGS

LATCH OF THE WEEK: This pick has less to do with my faith in the Steelers and EVERYTHING to do with my lack of faith in Kevin Kolb. I'm also not a huge fan of the Cardinals defense so I think that the Steelers should be able to throw the ball deep and win by at least a touchdown. Also, Rashard Mendenhall showed some signs of life recently and I think he keeps it up this week.
WAGER: $50 on Steelers -3.5 over CARDINALS

I also threw together a $5 ten team progressive parlay, a $15 five team 6 point parlay with Kansas City +10.5, Saints -8, Packers -3, Cowboys -6.5, and Ravens -1.5, and an $80 10 team parlay with Saints -4, Packers +1, and Ravens +2.5.

If I pull another 0-fer, I'm going to put my wallet away and stop betting on games this season.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:51 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Similarly, Occupy Wall Street has a point that most everyone (including Tea Partiers) would agree with: there's too much corporate money in the government and our politicians listen to big business instead of the people. In the 99 Percent Declaration, Occupy Wall Street addresses this but then they mess it up with some flawed logic and overreaches.

I don't want to get into it too much but just a few quick issues.
RE: Campaign Finance Reform, it's written that, "We categorically REJECT the concept that money is equal to free speech because if that were so, then only the wealthiest would have a voice.": This issue here is that it assumes that money is the only way to communicate, which obviously it is not, as the Occupy Wall Street protest is proving. They also go onto to write, "...which equates the payment of money by corporations, wealthy individuals and unions to politicians with free speech.": Including wealthy individuals doesn't make sense. You can't demand public funding and then eliminate certain members of the public from taking part.
One of their plans gives the EPA the power to close businesses that pollute. While I can see the argument that the EPA could be like the health board, which can shut down restaurants, but the health board only shuts down that specific place, not every eatery owned by that person or group. The government already regulates certain sites for emissions and what not. It's simply an expansion of power that is an overreach and will cost the movement followers. Also, it's not even connected to the main point. Getting the money out of politics is going to take a ton of work and if the movement is trying to take on other issues like the environment or the military, it's never going to be able to focus and succeed. Whereas the banks that buy our leaders and that got us in this mess are Too Big to Fail, this plan seems Too Big to Succeed.
Like the Tea Party's plan, I'm not sure how realistic this is. I get that we are making more money on taxes here but I still don't see how they're going to reduce the national debt AND enact most of these programs. And finally, they say student loans should be deferred during times of unemployment but why only student loans? Why not home loans? I mean, there's more to lose with a non-deferred home loan than a non-deferred student loan. It's not like they foreclose on your diploma.

Clearly, a lot of thought was put into making the list, not much was made towards making it realistic. I know that there's a saying that you can't have half of a revolution but I think American has proven that is not true. I think Occupy Wall Street needed to limit their scope and really focus on a) getting the corporate money out of politics and b) getting Glass-Stegall back into the books and limiting the size of the banks so that they can't get so big that they can make money on high-risk and arguably fraudulent maneuvers but then hold the economy hostage when things fall apart.

In the end, while I don't disagree with most of what Occupy Wall Street wants, it's simply too grand a plan to work and it's too specific to cross over party lines, which is one of the things that is going to need to happen if real change is ever going to happen. The two party system is built to keep the people fractured and it's working better than ever today and Occupy Wall Street seems to have fallen into the same trap, promoting enough policies that will push the Tea Partiers back. While I like that Occupy Wall Street finally has a set list of demands, I can't say that the list makes me feel any better about the movement actually accomplishing anything.

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:44 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Spike Jonze: Mourir Auprès de Toi on Nowness.com.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:17 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I was struggling with finding new bands and decided to give Entertainment Weekly's suggestion a go and whaddayaknow? Sleeper Agent is an interesting band and after hearing a couple of songs, I decided to buy the album. It's a catchy indie rock album although I have to say that some of their songs definitely see derivative (the pre-chorus to Shuga Cane is basically from the Stones' "Rocks Off") but I'm still a fan. So, without further ago, here they are, this week's Tryout.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:11 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Right Wing blogs have picked up a little bit from Rachel Maddow and Bill Maher and, well, I have to agree that these two are just way off base.

Adding to my dismay is that a lot of tweets from Occupy Wall Streeters, particularly from Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones, seem to be itching for a fight with the cops, as if that's the next level their protest needs to take to really gain some legitimacy. And I hate to break it to the Occupy people and their defenders (which I'd like to be, but I just see too many issues with the movement) but adding violence into the mix isn't going to help anything. Adding a clear voice and, ready the eye rolls from cynics and anarchists, organizing an actual voting bloc is what Occupy needs to do.

What really kills me about Maddow and Maher is that they overlook what I always took as the watershed movement for The Tea Party. The reason that the Republicans now kowtow to the Tea Party is because in the 2010 elections, the Tea Party disrupted the Republican plans by upsetting a number of the party's chosen candidates for nominations. Perhaps the biggest blow was when the Tea Party derailed the Right's best shot at taking out Senate majority leader Harry Reid in Nevada by getting loose cannon Sharon Angle the nomination. The Tea Party rallied to organize and then made a clear statement to conservatives that if they want to get power and/or stay in power, they better be going off of the Tea Party playbook.

Occupy Wall St.? Well, they've seized a few parks. Yes, I know that's understating what's going on but the way that the protesters are handling this, I won't be the least bit surprised if that is all these protests amount to in a few years because not only is the Occupy movement barely organized but it has no agreed up goals. Ask ten Occupy people what they are there for and you'll get seven different answers. Occupy needs to take a page from the Tea Party and come up with their own Contract for America. They need to focus their rallies. Don't just randomly march towards rich people's houses. Stand up for something specific. Fight against the T-Mobile-AT&T merger that will not only limit cell phone plan competition but will also consolidate the net more and give AT&T an even more leverage against the Net Neutrality Act. But most importantly, start raising some money and getting some potential House and Senate candidates to run and at least make some noise in next year's political cycle. Although the way that the Occupy movement is headed, I'm not sure they could agree on a candidate or even a party line. They might be better off taking a page from Hollywood and remaking an idea from the 80's - Monty Brewster's "None of the Above" campaign.

And this is where the resolve of the movement will REALLY be tested. Can they do what the Tea Party did and allow their rivals to gain or stay in power in order to get their point across? Would the Occupiers be willing to basically help a Republican gain the White House in order to send a clear message to the liberals in power? The Tea Party's blind (at times, ignorant) adherence to their ideals allowed them to make this sacrifice. I'm not sure if enough liberals are ready or willing to do that. While it may seem counterintuitive, the sad fact of the matter is that things do indeed have to get even worse to get enough people to see how the system needs to be changed. (The more and more I think about it, the more I'm questioning the bailout. It was our best chance to break up the banks and maybe also move towards breaking up some of these Too Big to Fail (or, from our politicians' viewpoint Too Rich Not to Bend Over For) corporations as well. The fact of the matter is that there's going to be short term pain if there's ever going to be long term solutions to the country's ills.

So while I agree with many of the ideas that Occupy Wall Street is... occupying for (campaign finance, breaking up some of these Too Big to Fail banks and corporations, regulation to make sure that corporations aren't imperiling the public for their own financial gain, etc.), they need to get people to come together and take over the ballot box, not a park bench. And to do that, they need to clarify their message or else I think they'll end up like MacBeth's poor player, "That struts and frets his hour upon the stage, And then is heard no more: it is a tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." In this case, sound and the fury is important and necessary for the good of the country but unless there's more organization and a clear plan, it will all indeed end up signifying nothing.

(And a reminder, I had to turn off comments on the blog due to a programming glitch that was preventing me from posting so if you want to comment on this, head over to the SoulHonky.com Facebook page.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:14 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Note to all theatergoers: Please wait until you get to the car or to someone's home before you start talking about the end of a movie. Don't talk about it near the entrance of the theater where people who haven't yet seen the film will be walking in. Seriously. It's not that hard.

Anyway, Take Shelter is a slow burn of a film about a man struggling with the fact that he may be descending into madness. Again, it's a slow burn so while I would recommend the film, if you're not into slower paced character pieces, you might want to think twice about seeing this. It's not so good that it transcends the genre although the acting is top notch with Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain both delivering subtle yet powerful performances.

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

After a rough start to the season but a bounce back last week, I'm going to put my money where my blog is and start posting up my bets to keep track of how I do with my bets.

LOCK OF THE WEEK: When a line seems too good to be true, you should probably stay away from it. That's advice that I just can't seem to adhere to. So this week, I'm going to bet on the Saints as they go marching into Tampa Bay. The Bucs offense is a bit of a mess and now they're without their leading rusher. Their defense is also in shambles and I could see New Orleans putting a whooping on them.
WAGER: $125 on Saints -4.5 over BUCS

UPSET SPECIAL: I'm 100% on the Curtis Painter Whoo-ride bandwagon and I just don't like this Bengals team. I've watched more of this team that I should have because I have Cedric Benson on my fantasy football team and I am never impressed. Their biggest advantage over the Colts would be Benson vs. the Colts porous run defense but I don't have a ton of faith in Cincy to take advantage of it. Also, you have a number of players in Indianapolis who, with Manning and Addai out, are ready to step out of the spotlight. I wouldn't be surprised it Donald Brown and Delone Carter outplayed Cedric Benson and Bernard Scott and Curtis Painter looked better than Red Dalton.
WAGER: $50 on Colts +270 over BENGALS

TEASER OF THE WEEK: If the Colts don't show up, they could ruin my weekend (well, to a certain extent) as I also have them in my 6 point teaser. +13 for the Colts seem reasonable simply because I can't see the Bengals putting up a ton of points and, while the Cincy defense is highly ranked statistically, I could see Painter and the Colts keeping pace. As for my other picks in this one, I took the PACKERS -8 over the Rams, Saints +.5 over the Bucs, and RAVENS -1.5 over the Texans. I was feeling good about this one (although I'm second guessing it a bit now because of the inclusion of the Colts) and put $75 bucks on it to win $225.

RANDOM I also have 15 bucks thrown on random 10 or 11 team Progressive Parlays and 15 dollars on a 7 team parlay of Colts, Lions, Steelers, Packers, Saints, Ravens, and Bears to win outright.

Obviously, I put a little too much faith into the Colts (I prefer spreading out my bets so one loss doesn't wipe out a number of my parlays). My mistake was not rechecking my bets. I jumped early on the Colts and Saints wager and then today when I set down the other bets, I forgot that I had already laid 50 down on the Colts to win. On the bright side, it gives me a reason to root hard for one of the early games this week.)

SUNDAY MORNING EDIT: Added a couple of bets, $50 6 point teaser on Bills/Giants OVER 44, Pats/Cowboys OVERS 49.5, and Philly/Washington OVER 41. (A little nervous about the Pats but I think it's a solid bet.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:08 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

It's raining. I'm under the weather. Have a lot to work to do. Guess it's time for the Polysics to cheer me up.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:20 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

As a film junkie, this is going to be tough but after yet another key plotline was ruined for me by a film's trailer, I'm finally putting my foot down and avoiding trailers. While studies have shown that many casual film fans actually prefer the trailers that show most everything about the movie (so they know what they're going to see), most film fans hate the new Everything but the Ending format of trailers. Making matters worse for me is that I seem to remember most everything in trailers and if there's any key moments giving away by the trailer, I'm going to remember it. If you're going to see The Ides of March, I recommend skipping the trailer because one of the key goals of the characters is included in the trailer. Granted, how they achieve the goal isn't there but knowing how a certain chase was going to end bothered me and took away from some of the tension of the film.

I'm still torn on whether or not I'll keep posting trailers here. My few loyal readers probably enjoy them and just because I post them doesn't mean I have to watch them but I am already having a hard time keeping myself from watching previews so I may have to quit cold turkey. The weird thing is that this won't affect my movie viewing at all because I usually read up on films and hear the early buzz so my interest is almost always piqued before the trailer even comes out. I can't remember the last time that a movie that I never heard about popped up and I was won over solely by the trailer. Be it The Avengers or the critically acclaimed Martha Marcy May Marlene, these films are on my radar and viewing a four minute preview most likely isn't going to change my mind. Yes, I would lose a few laughs in my life like watching the trailer for Abduction or the laughably spoiler filled trailer for The Double (below) but I think I'll survive.

Anyway, I will always be overly critical of movies but I feel like knowing less about the exact details of these movies will help me enjoy them more, especially comedies where the best gags are often given away in the theater. (This being said, I'll still read up on films because I think you need to know what you're walking into to get into the right mindset for a film. I'm looking at you woman-who-is-suing-Drive-for-not-being-Fast-and-the-Furious.)

So we'll see how this experiment goes and how it affects my viewing pleasure. And as an adieu to previews, here's the aforementioned trailer for "The Double", which is either the most brilliant twist-filled film of all-time or they just showed the ENTIRE film in this trailer.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:15 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I didn't have a band in mind for this week's Tryout so I went with a band that's been on the Blalock Indie Rock Playlist for some time and a group I haven't quite figured out yet. None of the songs really grab me but it's not like they're bad. I just can't really picture them as a breakout band. They seem more like one of those bands that critics champion but never cross over.

Anyway, give them a listen and see how you feel about Yuck.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:14 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Here's an hour long lecture that David Simon at UNC.

Frank Porter Graham Lecture 2011 with David Simon from James M. Johnston Center on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:59 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Washington Post had a great little bit about Kobe Bryant hating, once again, on Kwame Brown. Kwame was the #1 pick who had his confidence utterly shattered by Michael Jordan. Granted, I don't think you can put fault his Airness for Kwame never panning out. Yes, Kwame played with two notoriously tough teammates in MJ and Kobe but he also played with a superstar in Gilbert Arenas who offered to chauffeur Brown to and from off-season workout sessions but Kwame turned him down so while Jordan's constant berating and now-infamous "flaming faggot" comment probably didn't help Kwame, it's not like the former #1 pick was really trying to break out of the funk.

Anyway, Kobe has a good story about Kwame's last game in Los Angeles and it kind of gave a little insight into how broken his psyche was.

For good measure, I'll also include my favorite Kwame rant of all time, obviously from the one and only Screamin' A. Smith. (Granted, in hinsight, the trade wasn't THAT bad since Memphis got Pau's brother Marc who isn't too shabby.)

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

It's tough to talk about the main problem with "Ides of March" without giving it away so let me just first say that I'd recommend checking this film out. It's very well made with some powerhouse acting performances and a strong score.
But the whole thing left me a little bit cold. It was a political drama with a bit of melodrama added in to spice things up but, while that storyline added some great moments, I think that it cut the legs out from under the greater character piece that had been building for the first half of the film. There's the old story about how, in order to make their script for "Good Will Hunting" a more sellable movie, Ben Affleck and Matt Damon wrote in a sub-plot about Will working for NASA and saving the day somehow. William Goldman read the script and told them to dump it and focus on the characters. I wish he had said the same thing to George Clooney and Grant Heslov because I think they would have ended up with a stronger and more poignant movie and one that REALLY could have shed sone light into the problems in Washington.

But let me stop beating around the bush, if you want to read the SPOILER filled breakdown, continue reading.

Now I'll admit that when Stevie walked in and saw Molly's body on the floor, it was an incredibly effective scene. And there were parts surrounding it that worked well but that is because it was a well made film, not necessarily a well structured script. My issue with the suicide is that it took a film about political maneuvering and the subtle choices that can reshape an entire life and pushed it into melodrama. We went from having to make tough choices and dealing with figurative skeletons in the closet to almost literally having a skeleton in the closet. I think the film would have been a stronger character piece and more reflective on the political process if the film ended with Gosling getting fired. It could have shown how talent, brains, skill, what have you doesn't matter in D.C. and how killing the career of someone who could be the best in the business is nothing to the current slate of kingmakers up on the hill.

Personally, I would have rather watched a film about how a hint of idealism could be deadly for even the most talented and popular politico than follow Stevie on a seedy downward spiral. It's like someone took a West Wing script and forced in a Gossip Girl storyline into the last half of the script. I can't argue that the Gossip Girl angle didn't have its positives but I was just disappointed that the film took such a harsh turn. I think the film could have been just as entertaining and more enlightening had they just ended with Stevie getting tricked, his career derailed, and he ends up as a well paid but miserable consultant. As beautiful as Evan Rachel Wood is, I'd rather have seen more backroom dealings than bedroom hanky panky. (And I'd like to check out the play or original script some time because I don't know why they added that she was the DNC Chairman's daughter. What did that fact add to the proceedings?)

And one final related note, I've been thinking about making next year's New Year's Resolution to be to avoid trailer altogether and this film cemented it. One of the key conflicts of the movie, getting the endorsement of Jeffrey Wright's character, was given away in the trailer. I have to admit that I had that in my head the entire time and I have to think that it hurt how I viewed the film. And when it comes down to it, trailers rarely, if ever, alter my thinking of a film. I read up about movies online, my anticipation is almost always already built up by the subject, cast, director, etc. I can't remember the last time that there was a movie that I knew about that I went to see based on liking the trailer. I've already stopped trying to watch the additional footage that studios release before films come out. I know that I want to see "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo" so there's really no need for me to watch any of the extra footage that is being thrown at me. It really can't do anything positive for me.
I really think that if I read a little less about movies, watch as few trailers as possible and avoid any and all additional pre-release clips, I'll like more films because the more you know, the less surprises there are. A great example of this is Pineapple Express which I LOVED. But I saw it at a preview screening so the ads and trailers didn't ruin any of the gags for me. When James Franco's foot got caught in the windshield, I was on the floor because I didn't see it coming at all. Had I seen the film when it was finally released, that moment would have been diminished, if not killed, because it was in the ads.

In fact, forget New Year's. I'm making that resolution right now. Yes, it'll kill my site a little bit since I post a lot of trailers but I think we'll all be better off without them.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:27 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

This post includes spoilers for both Ides of March and Drive. It details how Ryan Gosling's three movies this year actually could work together as an intriguing trilogy. Obviously, not everything fits but I think it works pretty damn well. If you've seen the movies and want to read a little yarn of mine, continue on.

I have to say that I wasn't a huge fan of "Drive" and one of the main reason was because, ironically, I had no idea what the Driver's drive was. The nameless anti-hero was a blank slate yet somehow Carey Mulligan's character was almost instantly in love with him and, even stranger, him to her. Why did this psychopath fall for her? I mean, yeah, she looks like Carey Mulligan but I felt like there needed to be more. There needed to be... The Ides of March.

As "Ides of March" wraps up, you can see Gosling's turn to the anti-heroic, psychopath and I could imagine him, after this first film of the trilogy fades to black, running away from politics and from the bullshit he has become. Not only is he helping someone he no longer believes in win but he's actually making the once-straight shooter into a fully flawed politician. As he told Molly, one mistake is all it takes and Stevie helped open the flood gates of corruption and let the dirty water drag Governor Morris away. So what does he do? Where does he go?

He trades the city of fake real heroes for the city of real fake heroes. He leaves the heavy lifting of politics for the behind-the-scenes danger of Hollywood and becomes a stunt man. Hiding from his past life in front of the cameras, he lives anonymously. He's just The Driver. And so as to not make the mistake he made before, he doesn't tie himself to a man that he believes in and who he thinks could win it all and make a difference; he ties himself to a born loser who is going nowhere fast.
To supplement his income, he goes from helping those who promise to help others but are only worried about their own self-interest, he works with honest-to-God criminals. And like with politicians, he might not be the person who actually does the deed but he'll help them get away clean. Still, he is haunted by Molly and what happened with her.

And THAT is why, when he sees Carey Mulligan's character in the supermarket with the son that Molly never had, he's drawn to her. He wants to help her. He wants to make up for his past mistake. He even goes so far to help her husband. Where once he took a straight man and pushed him to be crooked, he's now helping a dirty man go clean. When that blows up, when he once again fails, the anger that was hinted at in "Ides of March" comes out full force. He lashes out at the criminals in the way he wished he could have lashed out at the people that did him wrong in "Ides". Once again, he cleans up the mess and then leaves town. Carey Mulligans's character and her son are safe and he knows that he can never be the man that they deserve or need him to be. He's a bit of a monster. As the Scorpion says, it's in his nature.

Or so he thinks.

Because what happens next is that, not wanting to leave the city of LA, he heads to a place where Mullgian's working class character would never find him - the posh lounges and clubs of Los Angeles. Having been burnt twice, he foregoes all attachments and focuses on meaningless pleasures. He's an empty suit having empty sex. Until one day he sees himself looking at a man who is also lost after having invested his heart and soul into a relationship that turned out to be a lie. He wants to take the man under his wing and teach him how to live without the fear of getting hurt but in turn, he learns a life lesson of his own... in a little movie called "Crazy, Stupid, Love".

Needless to say, these don't work perfectly but I do think that the characters that Gosling have played to fit in to a decent enough emotional arc. He goes from being married to the job to finding love. He goes from the game of politics that will leave you jaded to the game of love that can leave you blissful. He allows himself to be overtaken by his inner demons but he battles them off and leaves the dark emptiness behind. And they all live happily ever after. Well, not Carey Mulligan's character who is still kind of slumming it but our boy Gosling comes out on top.

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Found this on Gizmodo. Put this on full screen HD and enjoy some amazing timelapses.

Landscapes: Volume Two from Dustin Farrell on Vimeo.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:06 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

One of my favorite new bands in the one and only Foxy Shazam. I only knew a couple of their songs when I went to see them play The Troubadour and I was blown away by their performance. Frontman Eric Nally is one of the funnier lead singers out there. Granted, he's a bit out there at times, like when he announced that Rob Zombie had died and then challenged everyone to google and see that he was telling the truth when clearly, he wasn't.
I took a listen to their new song and while I took one time through to really connect with it, I haven't been able to stop listening to it. Their first album "Introducing" is a very good effort but I think their self-titled second album is top notch. There really isn't a bad song on it and it looks like their new album might be building on that success.

You can go to facebook and download their new single "I Like It". It's free so what do you have to lose?

EDIT: Just found it on Soundcloud so I can embed it here. Hope you like it, you like it. A Lot. (Although, now that I think about it, it's probably better to say that it's a 21st century "Fat Bottomed Girls" since Foxy can, at times, sound so much like Queen.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 04:48 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The trailer for Young Adult is out and while it does seem to be a lot better than Jennifer's Body, it does seem a little... off. Obviously the trailer is just a few cherry picked moments but I don't think there can be many more jokes about Charlize Theron's aloofness to her flame's marriage; that horse is pretty beaten up by the end of the trailer (although I did really like the last line.) And if it is just a straight albeit dark comedy, I'm not sure there's really enough to go with here. Theron's character comes off in the trailer as just too far gone for anyone to really relate to her. But, according to the AV Club, writer Diablo Cody promised a more "serious" film so maybe there's more than meets the eye. And since it's a very interesting premise and I've been a fan of director Jason Reitman's previous films (Juno, Thank You for Smoking, and Up in the Air) so I won't just the film by its trailer.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

For all of the singing shows that have popped up over the last few years, I'm really surprised that a Battle of the Bands type show hasn't popped up. There have been some shows that are close but I can't recall an honest-to-goodness rock'n'roll battle of the bands. I think it would be a good way to get up-and-coming bands some publicity and it could prove to be an interesting creative endeavor as well.

The way that I'd pop some creativity into it is that I'd give each band time to perform three songs. The first song would be their own. The second song would be a cover song, chosen by the fans. To make it an interactive experience, the fans can vote for what song they want to hear the people to play the following week. So the polling would end on Sunday and the band would have to arrange a cover by showtime (I assume it's a Friday or Saturday night show.) Not only does this add an interesting way to judge the bands (who covers it the best, whose cover is most original, etc.) but it gives potential footage for little packages to play during the show. We'd watch the band collaborate, perhaps we see some tension in the band as they write the song or as things aren't coming together as the performance draws near. For the third song, I'd do something similar: fans can send in stories, photos, videos, etc. and one is chosen at random and it has to be the inspiration for a song. They'd have to write the song and explain what they were thinking, how the fan photo/story inspired them.

Now, two songs in a week might be daunting but I think the challenge adds to the show and, most importantly, gets the fans involved. Besides being part of the process (voting on the cover song, supplying the inspiration for the song), the fact that the fans would know beforehand what song and muse had been chosen could add some intrigue to the upcoming show. Every Thursday, updates on how the bands are progressing could be posted on the web.
As for the winner, that could be kept as somewhat of a surprise as well. The winner could either be announced on the web (fairly anticlimatic) or we wouldn't know who the winner is until the following week. That might be hard to pull off in the Twitter age so maybe we just have judges who pick the winner, although that kind of kills the interactive element. Announcing the winner would be the toughest part but I kind of like keeping the tension until the following week.

I'm not sure if we bring back the winner the next week or make it more tournament style but I kind of like the idea of a returning "champion". Time wise though, I think it would have to be three songs by two bands or two songs by three bands. Six songs around four minutes each eats up 24 minutes of show time, which leaves about 19 minutes for the rest of the show (comments from judges, packages about the bands preparing, interviews with the bands, etc.)
And while the competition element might turn some people off, I'm sure the creative element would interest some people and we might be able to get together a supergroup show or mini-season for charity.

At the end of the season, the winners can go on a small tour or maybe they open up for a big name band (that would explain the judges although it could backfire if the most popular band doesn't fit their genre.) Clearly, I haven't worked out all of the kinks of this show but it seems like something that should be doable. You could even do different versions for different channels. A rock version for Spike, an indie one for IFC, etc. I doubt this show will be a ratings monster but it should be cheap and fairly easy to do and, at the very least, it seems like a great idea for web content for a music magazine like Spin or Rolling Stone. In fact, it might be easier to do as web content. I just think it's a no brainer of an idea and am puzzled as to why it hasn't been tried yet.

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

Rachael Yamagata is one of those singers who I thought was bigger than she really was. I loved her major label debut "Happenstance" and, while it took me a few listens to connect to her second album, "Elephants..." has a number of great songs. But while I thought she had crossed over, apparently she hadn't as she is no longer on the major label and is now self-publishing her latest album (which she helped finance via the site Pledge Music, where you can still pick up her album for 10 bucks. SUPPORT INDIE MUSIC.) Anyway, Yamagata's voice is amazing and she's got a kind of brusque beauty that I would have made her the total package but it seems like this is another case of a talent inexplicably not finding an audience. (One of my other favorite bands, The Futureheads, also didn't take to the major label business, although they seemed to want out more than the label necessarily wanted to get rid of them.)

Anyway, do yourselves a favor and pick up Yamagata's albums. I haven't listened to all of the new one so I'll post up three of my favorite songs from each of her albums. The first is from her latest album, followed by a live version of a more uptempo song from "Elephants..." and finally my favorite song of all off of "Happenstance". That one, called "Under My Skin" is a staple of SoulHonky mix CD's. (Although "Letter Read" is a close second when it comes to fave songs/mix staples.)

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

I've been trying life without cable so I haven't been up on TV but I have managed to catch a few shows that are available via the web. So far, nothing new has really wowed me. A few of the shows were OK but nothing really grabbed me and made me want to tune in each week. That being said, Luther (BBC America) started off nicely and might be moving up to the #1 slot in my favorite TV shows. (#1 is Justified) If you haven't checked out "Luther", do it already. I think I've written about it multiple times on this blog by now and it's available on Netflix instant.
"Castle" has started off alright. The fallout from Beckett's almost getting assassinated and her ongoing desire to find who killed her mother led to a rather dark beginning to the season but it's settled nicely. At some point, I feel like Castle and Beckett just have to get together because the show seems like it is getting repetitive and the two trying to live together might add a nice new angle to explore.
"Archer" finished up a three episode arc that was as good as usual. I don't watch a lot of comedies on TV so "Archer" is almost the default #1, taking over for "30 Rock" which I felt kind of stumbled last season.
I gave "Body of Proof" one more shot because I like Dana Delaney and enjoy procedurals but there's just not enough there. It's kind of a poor man's House (if House had to quit being a doctor and become a medical examiner.) It's not a bad show but there's just not enough to distinguish it from everything else out there.

As for the new shows that I've checked out...

"Unforgettable": Need I say it? Forgettable. I will admit that part of me was hoping that this wouldn't do great because one of the characters in the superhero pilot that I'm writing has a similar power (although, in my pilot, the woman has perfect muscle memory as well so if you teach her once, she'll always remember how to do it). But one of the reasons that I had that power be one person in a team of superheroes is because I don't think that that ability is strong enough to build an entire show around. For instance, the younger star of USA's "Suits" has a similar super-memory but there's much more to the show than that. His super-memory helps him out of jams but it isn't the basis of the entire show. In "Unforgettable", the use of her memory in the pilot was weak and I'm not sure how they're going to be able to work it in week after week. Is the final hook of most episodes really going to be her realizing that there's something that she remembered that she hadn't noticed before? Something she forgot to remember? I don't know. I'm sure the CBS viewers will like it (although is CBS really just cribbing off of USA. First "The Mentalist" rips off "Psych" and now this show is like "Suits"?)

Alphas: Speaking of superpowers, I didn't love the pilot of Alphas but I heard good word of mouth about the show so I decided to check it out. This was a summer show so it's already finished it's run and while I still didn't love it (I wasn't a fan of most of the main characters), the series comes together well and it almost feels like an unofficial prequel to the X-Men movies (not surprisingly since one of the creators also wrote the X-Men movie.) It's definitely something to check out on a rainy day but it's not good enough that I think that it will gain a huge audience for season 2. Luckily, the show is on SyFy (after getting passed on by NBC and ABC) and that seems like a perfect place for it. It won't need to get great ratings and the lower expectations will allow them to go places that a network probably wouldn't have the patience for.

Prime Suspect: I checked out the first two episodes of the Maria Bello vehicle and it was just too black and white. The hurdles that the main character faces are just that - hurdles. There's no gray area, no moral dilemma. The bad guys are pretty bad. The good guys are solid people. The personal conflict is Bello Good, Others Bad. Honestly, the closest thing to a internal dilemma is whether or not Bello's character will quit smoking (Which makes this show a far cry from the BBC show that it's based off of.) All that being said, the show is better than I expected (the ads annoyed me) but they probably would have been better off just sticking Bello on Law & Order to breathe some life into that franchise rather than putting out this watered down version of Helen Mirren's BBC show. It's not a show that necessarily deserve to get cancelled but unless they revamp the main character and give her stronger inner demons there's really no reason to continue on with the show.

Revenge: I've always liked the idea of one off shows and this seems like it's Harper's Island meets Gossip Girl. This show is a loose, campy, modern day version of the Count of Monte Cristo but the main problem with it is that I'm not sure why I should watch. You can't really watch for the revenge plots because the "attacks" are absurd so it's not like they are clever or worth tuning in for. The person who gets it seems to be a new character so, unlike Harper's Island, it's not like you wait to see which character is going to get knocked off each week and revenge is not a dish best served to strangers (well, strangers to the audience, at least.) Emily Van Camp is nice enough but is kind of the typical bland blonde that Hollywood tries to sell to everyone for a year or two and then moves on to the next blonde. I might give it one more episode, if I'm bored, but odds are that I'm done. In short, it's a show that basically has to improve or get campier to even qualify as a guilty pleasure.

New Girl: I couldn't make it through the pilot. I really couldn't stand it and it made me completely sick of Zooey Deschanel. Career-wise, I really don't get this move. She's typecasting herself. Nauseatingly so. LIfe-wise, I get why she'd do it - good money and easier schedule but man, she annoyed the piss out of me in this one.

Pan Am: I liked this one although the storylines are all over the place and it's going to be kind of tough to keep them all going. Still, it was good enough and I'd say that I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes but the 2nd episode aired and I didn't care to tune in at all so it might just skate on by without me ever watching it again.

Homeland: I seem to be alone in not liking the pilot but I found Claire Danes to be distracting and I didn't think any of the "twists' were all that surprising. And, in the end, I just don't feel like watching a show with two leads that I really don't care about. Morena Baccarin getting nekkid does make the prospect a bit more appealing but I'm not all that interested in following up on this one.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:50 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

For all of the comebacks and crazy games in the NFL yesterday, one of the more memorable moments of the day, for me at least, was the somewhat meandering but definitely emotional "Fired Up" monologue by Jimmy Johnson on Fox's pre-game show. It definitely helps put things in perspective, not just for football coaches but for all of our lives.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

50/50 is the kind of movie that's never going to really make a ton of money. I could see it gaining a following on DVD (or home download or whatever the next generation of home viewing will be referred to) and I could see it being labeled as an overlooked gem in the future. The problem is two fold. First off, it's a very good movie but it's not really great. In fact, it's almost like it doesn't attempt to be great. I've read that the writer (who was basing it on his own history with cancer) and Seth Rogen didn't want it to get too sappy but if you keep from toeing that line, you also give up on getting at the heart of the issue. The second problem, and the one that will doom its box office chances, is that it's a kind of uplifting movie for the jaded generation. Even with hipster heart throb Joseph Gordon-Levitt in there, it's tough to get the younger audience, especially the younger male audience, to go to a tear-jerker about cancer. It's like a less emotional Brian's Song except instead of football, the two leads work at NPR together. You just aren't getting a ton of people to leave their houses to go see that.

But they should. It's a quality movie and, besides one quibble* (see the spoiler by clicking continue reading), it hit all the right notes. The performances were strong, with Anjelica Huston stealing the show in her few scenes. I'd definitely recommend checking it out in the theaters but since I don't think many people will heed that advice, at least do yourself a favor and save it in your Netflix queues (or Quikster queues, I guess I should say now.)

If there is a breakout from this movie, it might be Liars, whose song The Other Side of Mt. Heart Attack is used perfectly.

SPOILERS BELOW

And on a random side note, Bryce Dallas Howard is great (and looks great) but she really needs to get herself into a non-bitchy role or she's going to find herself typecast. I think she has the kind of every woman good looks to be a breakout star but she has to show a bit more of a sense of humor or some relate-a-bility if she's ever going to be a lead actress.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:11 PM | Permalink | Comments ()