If you are the kind of person who wishes they'd cut the story out of action movies or go to zombie flicks just to see how the undead are killed or basically if you just like violence, go see The Raid: Redemption right now.
If you need story, characters, dialogue, subtext, romance, or pretty much anything else besides violence in your movies, then, well, yeah, you're going to be disappointed.

But, my lord, the violence.

I was going to describe this movie as stylistic gratuitous violence but if the only really reason for a movies existence is to show fighting, then can the violence be considered gratuitous? This movie has some of the best fight scenes I've seen in some time and I really hope that Zack Snyder, Timur Bekmambetov, and the other prominent stylish action directors out there see this film and realize that things don't need to be in slow motion to be amazing. In fact, most times, it's better. The shock and immediate, "Oh man, I want to see that again!" trumps slow motion any day of the week in my book.

Beyond that, well, there really isn't much to say. This is the kind of film that many older film critics probably feared would be coming. It's straight violence. The cinematography is great although it's aim is too look cool. There's really nothing being said with the choices, but, again, the film isn't saying anything at all.

So that's it. If you like action films or like violence, you NEED to go see this film. But if you like a little more, I mean the tiniest inkling of a hint of something more, then this film doesn't have much to offer. I thought I was in the latter category but man, it was an intense 104 minutes (I'd say it's 80 minutes of action, 24 minutes of story/set-up) and I'd love to know how they pulled off most of the fight scenes.

Posted by SoulHonky at 12:29 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

This is pretty crazy to me but apparently this is how they close the Pakistan/India border every single night. I'm starting to think they should do something like that for WeHo and Hollywood or something.

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

Tanking isn't a problem. It's the solution.

Like clockwork, this is the time of year when NBA writers, having exhausted all of their anecdotes and with little more to say before playoff time rolls around, start chirping about the problem if tanking. The clamor is usually sparked by some bad team having just made a salary dump trade, or another team talking about shutting down their nicked-up star player, and a couple other teams struggling to add to their already woeful win total and seemingly just playing out the string. All of a sudden, the guys who in a few months will be boasting about which prospects will change the course of these franchises, will be bemoaning the fact that these hapless franchises are getting rewarded for losing.
But let me tell you something that nobody likes to admit. And let me say it as a guy who's lived through both successful and unsuccessful tanking attempts...

Tanking isn't a problem, it's the solution.

Talk to most 30-something Celtics fans and they'll probably sing the praises of tanking. And it's not just because we got the Big Three and an NBA title out of our latest tanking attempt, it's because Boston fans lived through the hopelessness of trying to compete without tanking. As bad as the ML Carr tank year was and as ugly as 2006 and 2007 got, those years were cakewalks for fans compared to the Post Big-Three Era when the Celtics tried to maintain relevance with signings like Dominique WIlkins, Pervis Ellison, Xavier McDaniel, Blue Edwards, and Dana Barros. Yes, it's tough when your team is so bad that you spend more time focusing on draft prospects than upcoming games but it's better than when your team is mired in mediocrity and there's no hope of escaping a mediocre future.
(Note: Some people think the solution to this is an inverse lottery where the teams that just miss the playoffs get the best odds but does it really make more sense to reward teams like Phoenix and Milwaukee who spend poorly over teams like New Orleans that are clearing out their cap? Is rewarding mediocrity really better than allowing teams admit their mistakes and take a step back to right their ships?)

Now I know that the quick response to my Celtics example will be to blame the Celtics' management for signing has-beens and never-wases instead of acquiring good players but that ignores the fact that it is nearly impossible for most teams to sign impact players. If the NBA draft is a crap shoot, the free agent market is just crap. Look at the predicament that the current Celtics find themselves in. If they don't get Deron Williams (and that's looking unlikely), what options do they have? They can re-sign Kevin Garnett and Ray Allen and continue their slow descent into irrelevance. But if Allen leaves (as Jackie MacMullen seems to think he will), what other options do they have? Trading a pick for Kevin Martin's expiring deal? Signing OJ Mayo? There's simply not a lot out there that will brighten the Celtics' already bleak chances.
Things get worse if KG retires or heads elsewhere. Big men are routinely overpaid because the NBA free agent market is set by the stupidest person around. The market value for a lazy, waste of space like Kwame Brown is 7 million dollars, not because that's what he's worth but because that's what someone will pay him. Trying to be a smart GM and stay above the fray just lands you where Danny Ainge has ended up, having to scavenge the likes of Jermaine O'Neal and Chris Wilcox for a year and hope that you can find a bargain next year.

Also, for all the talk about how the draft and getting great lotto odds hasn't helped the black sheep of the NBA, like the Warriors, Kings, or Bobcats, what has really killed them year in and year out is free agency. The Warriors consistently botch contracts. They gave Chris Webber an opt out after one year and Erick Dampier, Andris Biedrins, and David Lee long term, guaranteed contracts that suffocate their ability to build a roster. Lately, every time the Kings get out from under one overpaid, so-so shooting guard, they just go add another. Tankophobes will point to Charlotte and say DJ Augustin, Gerald Henderson, Bismack Biyombo, and Kemba Walker aren't helping but they aren't hurting as much as the 36 million spent on Corey Maggette, Boris Diaw, Ty Thomas, Desagana Diop, and Matt Carroll.
In the end, with the way free agency works, these teams will all be bidding against one another for the honor of overpaying for a roll the dice on Ersan Ilyasova or Jason Thompson. They'll likely spend 8 or 9 million a year for multiple years to hope that these guys can blossom into impact players who can help carry the squad into contention. And the odds of that happening seem to me to be worse than the odds of winning a top pick in the lotto.

So this leads us to the question, if a team like the Celtics can't improve via free agency or trade, should they tank? My answer would be Yes.
But what about the concerns of so many journalists - wouldn't the league be worse off for it?
Of course not!

The reason I feel comfortable with saying of course not is because people rarely consider the positives that come out of teams tanking. Not only does it help a struggling franchise clear out its payroll and start with fresh, young talent but it improves the better teams as well. The Thunder's tanking built their current Western Conference leading squad and helped Boston get their Big Three. The much maligned Pau Gasol trade has helped both the Lakers and Memphis improve their teams. Four years after the Kevin Garnett trade, I think most everyone would rather have the Wolves roster than the Celtics', although the deal helped Boston grab banner 17. And if it wasn't for the NBA owners themselves opting for tanking with picks and prospects over the Rockets/Lakers offer for Chris Paul, Los Angeles wouldn't be Lob City.
If teams didn't tank, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Kobe Bryant, Pau Gasol, and Chris Paul would have wasted more of their prime years stuck on mediocre teams with lousy supporting casts. And their franchises would be worse off for it as they would have been left empty handed when said stars eventually bolted via free agency.
In the end, unless you're one of the few people who's really fired up to see Dwight Howard spend another year in Orlando with Peja, Jameer, and Big Baby, I'm not sure how you can think the results of tanking haven't been a boon for the NBA. To butcher Winston Churchill's line about democracy, Tanking may seem like an odd idea, but it's a better plan that anything else out there.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:18 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Oh yeah. Here's the latest video from friends of the Honky, The Hang. This one's "No Regrets" and it's off of their latest album Playola.

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:26 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

After reading Henry Abbott's article about tanking, I took to Twitter to bring up some issues. First off, I don't think that two years is a long time for a rebuilding process (I think most fans understand that it's a 3-to-5 year process) and also, I thought that tanking was a reasonable move for teams to clear out their rosters and start from scratch. As New York Times writer Howard Beck later wrote, "Sometimes blowing up a mediocre roster is the only way forward. "
Also, it's not like tanking has any guarantees. Look at the Chicago Bulls, they blew up their roster and had top 4 picks from 1999 - 2002, which made them just good enough to avoid having a top 4 pick in 2003, the year of LeBron/Wade/Melo/Bosh. In fact, they were probably heading to another half decade of mediocrity if their 1.7% chance of winning the lottery hadn't come through during the year of current NBA MVP Derrick Rose. (Contrast that to the lucky break of the previous year when Portland Trailblazers' 5% chance of winning the lottery came through... for Greg Oden.)
Finally, I noted that for most teams, the only way to land a superstar is to either win the lottery or have the cap space/expiring contracts to acquire a veteran star. To that, Abbott tweeted, "There is a perfect excuse for only 15 teams to have superstars. There is no excuse for only 15 to have great management."

There are 15 teams with great management? Better yet, what does great management even mean? The easy definition is building a winning team but, honestly, given the way that superstars dominate the league, can wins and losses really tell us who has a good front office and who doesn't?

For me, the obvious answer to that is no. The Chicago Bulls aren't the only ones to have lucked out of mediocrity by landing a superstar lotto pick. In fact, all 8 of the top teams currently have a Top 3 pick on their roster with only the Heat and Lakers having done something besides winning the lotto to acquire them. And in Miami's case, their plan to greatness involved building a team around Dwyane Wade that so bad around that the best play was to let pretty much the entire roster walk away while hoping Wade could lure his friends to South Beach.

As for the rest of the playoff contenders, the Sixers and Hawks were essentially built by general managers who've been unceremoniously dumped In fact, most of what Atlanta's Rick Sund's done is re-sign the guys the Billy Knight stumbled upon while blindly fumbling through the lottery for a decade to contracts worth so much money that he can't add anyone else to the roster. New York has used all of its big city influence and 75 million dollars to build an 8th seed starring two guys who Knicks fans would love to get rid of. Denver traded their star small forward for, essentially, two good small forwards and Masai Ujiri is being hailed for his ability to not get worse (which is what Kevin O'Connor's also managed to do in Utah but I think more time this century spent in the lottery than in the second round of the playoffs isn't anything to crow about.) Chris Wallace was notoriously bad during his days in Boston but has managed to cobble together a winner in Memphis, although his draft day blunderings have helped the Thunder get even better (Thabeet over Harden, trading up to get OJ Mayo and not have to "settle" for Russell Westbrook even though Mayo would have fallen to him at 5 anyway. And that's being generous, the other way to look at it is that he traded Kevin Love for OJ Mayo.)
And then there's Danny Ainge. Bill Simmons recently wrote that Danny Ainge hasn't made a good move in four years. Even if that's fair (although his article wasn't) does that mean he's no longer a good GM? Does it matter than in those four years, his Celtics have more playoff wins than the Spurs and their genius GM RC Buford, who has done a great job reloading the Spurs bench despite only having late picks and limited funds to do so?

Looking at the losers only confuses things even more as Henry Abbott's poster boy for bad management was Geoff Petrie, the former two time Exec of the Year who built a contender out of two guys in Vlade Divac and Chris Webber who, when they first got to Sacramento, wanted nothing to do with the cowtown. Another two time Exec of the Year winner, Bryan Colangelo, is sullying his image by overpaying for mediocre players and drafting athletes who can't get the team out of the lottery. And let's not forget Joe Dumars, the one time genius behind the Pistons surprise title who is now best known for overpaying Ben Gordon and drafting Darko Milicic.

So what gives?

The bottom line is that while great scouting ability like that of OK City's Sam Presti or the Spurs' RC Buford is helpful (remember, the aforementioned Bulls 2008 pick could have been used on Michael Beasley) and the ability to identify good risk (Wallace acquiring Zach Randolph's expiring contract for nothing) over bad risk (Larry Riley and Colangelo spending big money for long term contracts like David Lee and Andrea Bargnani) is crucial, the main difference between the good GMs and the bad ones is little more than dumb luck.
And it's not just in terms of the lottery, Danny Ainge's pursuit of a veteran superstar was a well crafted plan that wouldn't have been as good if luck hadn't intervened. First off, there were rumors that Ainge almost traded all of his assets for Allen Iverson before KG ever became available, which wouldn't have ended well for Danny. But even if those rumors aren't true, it's a fact that KG rejected the initial deal to Boston and that's what forced Ainge to look at Ray Allen. If Ainge got what he initially wanted, the Celtics would have had just Garnett and Paul Pierce and that probably wouldn't have been enough to win it all. If Garnett hadn't rejected the deal, or had Sam Presti not decided to rebuild from scratch and shop Ray Allen for a lotto pick, who knows what would have happened? Ainge's grand plan might have just ended in mediocrity. Would that have been "great management"? Probably not to most Celtics fans who were used to success being measured in banners.

And on that note, pretty much every GM who would be considered "great" has, at one time or another, tanked. RC Buford, Sam Presti, Danny Ainge, Kevin O'Connor, you name a great GM, I'll name a guy who let his team bottom out. The only team to be built without a complete collapse is the Los Angeles Lakers although I'm sure if you talk to Kobe Bryant about his years with Smush Parker and Kwame Brown, he'll say it felt like tanking. (And, it should be noted, that key piece Andrew Bynum came from the year Phil Jackson took a vacation and the Lakers missed the playoffs. Oh, and the time they missed the playoffs before that, they got Kobe Bryant.)

On the other hand, perhaps the most risk averse GM in the NBA, and a guy who has made a lot of great little moves to keep his team fighting for the playoffs rather than praying for the top pick, is Daryl Morey. But his team is arguably no better today than it was when he took over and is most certainly worse off in the record book, so is he a good GM or a bad one? Honestly, I'd say that he's still ranked as incomplete but how long can Morey go, rotating assets and prospects while treading in the waters of mediocrity, before he has to either force a move to be great or take a step back to get a better shot at a top prospect? (So far, luck hasn't been on his side when it comes to trades as Colangelo was too dumb to make a Bosh trade with him and Stern nixed his Gasol deal.) Right now, it's easy to see that Morey knows basketball but it remains to be seen whether he knows how to deal with his fellow general managers or how to build a contending team, which, after all, is the main job of a front office.

Which leads me back to Abbott's, "There is a perfect excuse for only 15 teams to have superstars. There is no excuse for only 15 to have great management." I would argue that in most cases, it is the superstar who makes the management great, and not vice versa. (Gar Forman won Executive of the Year last year and his main moves were overpaying Carlos Boozer and Kyle Korver and refusing to trade Omer Asik and/or Taj Gibson for a much needed shooting guard.) And more often than not, the superstar landed where he is due to little more than the way some ping pong balls bounced.

Don't get me wrong, there are a LOT of terrible general managers in the NBA. But I think that there isn't such a clear line between them and the good ones, rather each GM is standing in an ever-changing gray area. The key to being a great general manager is, when opportunity knocks, you rush to the door and let it in. That's no small feat (many a GM has fallen in love with their prospects or misidentified key draft picks) but, in the end, the reason opportunity knocked almost always has more to do with luck than skill.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:21 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'd like to bemoan this whole new movement of releasing teasers for the release of trailer but I have to admit that this one for "Total Recall", despite starring the always suspect Jessica Biel and Colin Farrell, looks pretty damn good. Also looking pretty damn good is Kate Beckinsale.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:44 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've been trying to break free from my posting rut but still can't seem to find any new music so I'm going to go with a Pearl Jam connection. Star Anna has recently worked with PJ guitarist Mike McCready so here are a couple of songs. I know, not much of a post but it's a step in the right direction, right? And I will add that these guys might be the best PJ-related group to come around since Brad.

Posted by SoulHonky at 07:54 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

It's kind of silly to put forward a mock lottery at this juncture because, well, we don't know where teams are picking nor do we know which players will declare for the draft but NCAA tourney time always gets me thinking about the draft so I thought I'd throw together a first stab at how the NBA drafts first 14 picks might shake out.

1. Charlotte Bobcats: Anthony Davis - Anthony Davis is the consensus overall #1 pick but if there's one team that he probably hopes doesn't win the lottery, it's Charlotte. The Bobcats haven't been around long but they're making a real push to be the worst franchise in the league. Beyond that, the team is a wreck personnel-wise and not a great fit for Davis right now. Because Bismack Biyombo is fairly useless offensively at this point, the Bobs might expect more offense from Davis, something he's not quite ready to deliver at this stage of his development. Also, Kemba Walker seems like he may take over the PG duties and he's more of a shoot-first kind of player than someone who'll set up Davis for easy looks like he's been getting at UK. Regardless, if the #1 pick goes to Charlotte, then so by the grace of Michael Jordan shall go Anthony Davis.

2. New Orleans Hornets: Michael Kidd-Gilchrist - Kidd-Gilchrist seems like exactly the kind of player that you'd want to add to a young, rebuilding squad. He seems to be a good leader, thinks defense first, and is aggressive but not selfish on offense. Basically, if Ron Artest was sane, he might be MGK, and a sane Ron Artest is a very dangerous weapon and a great piece to build around.

3. *Atlanta Hawks: Cody Zeller - I'm not saying that this is what the Hawks and Wizards should do but when you look at the GMs in charge of Atlanta and Washington, it makes the trade of Rashard Lewis, Jordan Crawford and the #3 pick for Joe Johnson seem like a sure thing. Ernie Grunfeld and the Wizards can't seem to ever get enough of trading young for old, expensive and on the brink of being washed up while Rick Sund is the man who helped the Sonics lose Seattle (and then vice versa), thanks to what I can only imagine is a height fetish that led him to draft Robert Swift, Saer Sene, Johan Petro amongst other underwhelming bigs. (Well, Swift might have been good had it not been for injuries but still...)
Also, the fact of the matter is that the WIzards can't keep losing while the Hawks can't keep staying a middling playoff team any longer. So Grunfeld hopes that Johnson can team with John Wall and Nene to get the Wizards back to the playoffs, while Sund adds a true center so Al Horford can move to his desired power forward spot and it also clears three years, 68 million off of the Hawks' future payroll (just in time to make a run at hometown hero Dwight Howard.)

4. *Sacramento Kings: Andre Drummond - I don't blame Kings fans for hating what I'm about to type. A) I'm a fan of Tyreke Evans and B) if I had to put my money on anyone being a bust in this draft, I'd wager on Drummond. But there are also two reasons why a trade of Tyreke Evans for #4 pick Andre Drummond should happen for the Kings: A) the Kings have quite simply been a better team when Evans and his ball-dominating ways are on the sidelines and B) if anyone is going to teach Drummond how to use his freakish physical tools, it's Sacramento's newly hired big man coach Clifford Ray, who helped mentor Dwight Howard and turned Kendrick Perkins into a legit starter. The bottom line is that the team isn't going anywhere with Evans so if they are going to roll the dice on someone, it's just as good for it to be Drummond, who could form a dominant frontcourt with DeMarcus Cousins, as it would be with 'Reke.
As for the Blazers (who, between the time this pick is made and the trade is announced will probably be shitting themselves seeing as they just got out of the Oden Experience and have fellow big man bust Hasheem Thabeet on their roster), it's a risky move but Evans is a special talent and fills a need. I also think he and fellow Memphis alum Elliott Williams could mesh into a pretty good, young backcourt.

5.Toronto Raptors: Harrison Barnes - Harrison Barnes is a perfect fit for a team that's currently build upon the shakiest of foundations (the problematic DeRozan, Davis, & Bargnani and the absentee Valanciunas). And one way or another, Barnes will be the next Vince Carter, either as a super talented scorer or a guy who lacks killer instinct and never makes the most of his potential. Even if it is the latter, Barnes's shooting alone should come in handy up north.

6. *Atlanta Hawks: Bradley Beal - After dispensing with Joe Johnson, the Hawks' next move is to placate Josh Smith's trade demand and ship him and the #20 pick to Detroit for Ben Gordon and #6 draft pick Bradley Beal. Gordon should help replace the bench scoring punch that the Hawks lost when Jamal Crawford flew the coop and the Eric Gordon-esque Beal should settle in as the shooting guard of the future in ATL.
As for the Pistons, Smith should be a nice complement to Greg Monroe in the frontcourt and he gives them an exciting player that could energize the fan base. Yes, drafting a kid like Thomas Robinson is a decent option but I think Robinson might fall a bit if he doesn't measure out to be as tall as 6'8 and I also think Joe Dumars won't want to wait on another youngster; he needs to get the Pistons moving in the right direction if he wants to hold onto his job.

7.*Boston Celtics: Thomas Robinson - The Celtics rebuild their frontcourt in one fell swoop by offering Rajon Rondo for a re-signed Jason Thompson and #7 Thomas Robinson. Ideally, Doc and Danny and The Truth can talk KG into giving it one more run; with KG back and the promising Robinson on the horizon, the Celtics could become more intriguing to free agent PG Deron Williams.
As for the Sacramento, it's a win-win as Rondo is arguably the best point guard in franchise history, is a known commodity who will help draw in fans, and should help make the rest of the young Kings better. (Note: I'm sure many people will say this isn't great value for Rajon and you're probably right. I've always undervalued him in trades but I'm not sure how great his value is right now. I think a young, improving big man and a lotto pick (be it Thompson and #6 or Gortat and #13 is probably want Danny Ainge is looking at when it comes to offers for Rajon.)

8. Cleveland Cavaliers: Austin Rivers - Rivers has been falling in most mock drafts but he fills a need for the Cavs and I still think that he could fulfill his potential. And there aren't many duos out there who could help Austin Rivers reach said potential like Kyrie Irving and Byron Scott. Having a great young PG like Irving running the show will make it easier for Rivers to fall in line with the offense and, if he doesn't, Byron Scott will always be there with a stern reminder of where Rivers needs to be.

9. Utah Jazz: James McAdoo - The last thing the Jazz really need is another big man but this is too early for either Kendall Marshall or Damian Lillard (both of whom might fall to their later lotto pick) so rather than reach for need, the Jazz draft a kid who might be a top 3 pick next year if he stays in school.

10. Portland Trailblazers: Jared Sullinger - A couple of years ago, the Blazers made a play for Paul Millsap to team with LaMarcus Aldridge so I don't think they'll be scared away should Sullinger measure up a little shorter than he's currently listed. The Blazers head into the future with an intriguing core of Sullinger, Aldridge, Nic Batum, Wes Matthews/Williams, and Tyreke Evans.

11. Milwaukee Bucks: Meyers Leonard - Perry Jones is a consideration but I don't see any way that he doesn't immediately take residence in Scott Skiles's doghouse. Tyler Zeller is not a consideration here because I don't see the Bucks investing in a big man with an injury history. Leonard, however, seems like a good fit. His skills work well with the pick-and-roll which I could see him running all day with both Brandon Jennings and Monta Ellis and he should be a solid defensive big man, making Scott Skiles happy. He might not be ready from day 1 but my guess is that he should be able to contribute around the time casual Bucks fans figure out that his name isn't Leonard Meyers.

12. New Orleans Hornets: Perry Jones - It might make more sense for the Hornets to grab a point guard here but there's something about a Kidd-Gilchrist/Jones forward tandem that I find too intriguing to pass up.