As a fan of Sherlock Holmes, I'm honestly not sure where to begin when describing the problems with "Elementary", CBS's Sherlock in New York show. I could talk about the show being bland on every level, with a slow pace, dark lighting, almost zero soundtrack. I could lead in by pointing out that this bland approach makes the great Sherlock Holmes seem like a less interesting version of "The Mentalist". But that makes me want to discuss how the show is a straight procedural with no hook besides the fact that the lead is the one and only Sherlock Holmes. Although, in this case, the one and only Sherlock Holmes doesn't come off as all that great; yes, he makes a few great deductions but he's wrong in a couple of instances and, in the end, Lucy Liu's Dr. Watson ends up being the one who solves the case and has the upper hand in the relationship as well. Besides the name and a few tid bits (like his drug use and powers of deduction), the character could just as well be a junky, flawed version of "The Mentalist" and have nothing to do with Holmes. Yet, at the same time, the show's appeal seems to rely completely on people knowing and caring about Sherlock Holmes (if you don't know much about Holmes, the big act out line of dialogue at the end of act one would be even more underwhelming than it already was).

The best thing "Elementary" has going for it is that Thursday at 10pm is a surprisingly weak time period with only "Scandal" and "Rock Center with Brian Williams" going up against it. Also, it follows the equally bland "Person of Interest" on CBS so it's not like there will be a big charisma drop when the clock strikes 10. If ABC really wants to salvage "Last Resort" which got so-so ratings and great reviews (although I didn't think it was that good), they should move it away from 8pm and to the more logical 10pm time period. I think it will do far better away from the inexplicably juggernauts of "Big Bang Theory" and "Two and a Half Men".

Bottom line, there no reason to check in on "Elementary". If you're a Holmes fan and dying for a fix, the first two seasons of BBC's modern day Holmes show "Sherlock" is on Netflix Instant. The show is quite good; there are six "episodes" which are really more like TV movies since they run almost two hours long each. While that format helps establish the show in season 1, it becomes a bit of a problem in season 2 when it wants to follow a longer arc. Whereas most US networks have too many episodes, this is a case in which the show could have used more to better tells its tale. Still, it's worth checking out and much more worthy than CBS's drab version of Sherlock Holmes.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:59 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I know some people will be amazed by the #1 ranking for "Looper". How could I put this film, which is very good but just misses out on greatness, above "Avengers"?! You have to remember that, while I thought "Avengers" was a lot of fun, I also thought it was very flawed and featured a ton of ridiculous moments that, had the characters not been heroes we knew and loved, would have been savaged by critics and filmgoers alike. It was a fun time but it wasn't a well written movie.

"Looper", on the other hand, seemed pretty much flawless to me. The ending felt a bit rushed and kept the film from achieving greatness but beyond that, it was a very good flick. Part of me feels like this is the film that M. Night Shymalan should have been trying to make instead of wasting his time on one upping his twist endings and doing whatever he thought he was doing with "The Happening". I don't want to say much about "Looper" because I think it's better experienced with more of a blank slate. I will say that the film doesn't reach the levels of Bruce Willis's previous films like "The Sixth Sense", "12 Monkeys" but it might be on the same level as the underrated "Unbreakable" (although, don't worry, the ending isn't as rushed as that film's slates explaining how that film ends.)

On a side note, Rian Johnson did a number of things that I've wanted to do with scripts (most notably, the hero's journey being horrific) but he also introduced the film to the audience at my Arclight showing, something I've always wanted to do if I had a film. (For those non-Angelenos, every showing at Arclight cinemas starts with the usher doing a little spiel about the film, asking for cell phones to be turned off, etc. Johnson showed up at the midnight showing and delivered the little spiel for the crowd.)

In the end, I don't know... There was so much that I really liked about the movie but something kept me from truly loving it. Again, I definitely recommend checking it out but expect really good, not great (although, lately, really good is pretty damn great when compared to the other films out there.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:30 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

The season of disappointing premieres continues as CBS's "Vegas" came off as an uneven, poorly edited mashup of "Casino" and "Walker: Texas Ranger". The show has a rather clunky set-up that it never quite overcomes. I could see future episodes being a little better but the pilot never really came together and, most importantly, it did a terrible job at introducing the unholy alliance between Dennis Quaid's Sheriff and Michael Chiklis's mobster. Instead, we got a run of the mill conflict between the new criminal in town and the old school rancher. What was also disappointing was that the show lacked any real insight into the casino business, something you'd think Nicholas Pileggi, the screenwriter of Goodfellas, Casino, and American Gangster, would have definitely brought to the table. The lack of interesting Vegas tidbits is also troubling because the cop procedural elements of the show are run of the mill.

As for the acting, again, it's pretty standard procedural performances. Nobody elevates the genre or adds a new wrinkle that we haven't seen before. Honestly, not to be crude, but the most noticeable thing about the actors was Carrie Ann-Moss's breasts. Part of me wonders if the plan is for Quaid to die at the end of season 1 or 2 and then the show gets handed off to Jason O'Mara, another one of those actors that Hollywood refuses to give up on until they put him in a hit show.

I gave the much worse (but much better looking) "Revolution" a second chance before tapping out (the series wins the award for earliest filler episode. Two episode in and they're already dragging ass. That show is another example of a show that would have a better chance of being good with a shorter episode order) so I'll probably watch episode 2 of "Vegas" eventually. The key word being "eventually"; I'm in no rush to see where this one is headed.

On a side note, I watched the premiere of "Castle" and I really hope that they are done with the arc about Beckett's mom and the people after Kate. Those episodes never work as well as the straight procedural eps. Also, they didn't do much besides some easy, silly gags with Castle and Beckett being together so hopefully they'll be able to milk some more out of that eventually. "Castle" is one of my favorite shows but part of me feels like it's on a decline. I really wish they had switched it up completely and made Castle and Beckett private detectives ala The Thin Man because that is the kind of thing that could breathe new life into a series. The problem with two leads hooking up is that where once there was flirtation/will they or won't they, there is now nagging/how will they make this work?. And the former is far more entertaining than the latter.

I'm still waiting on "Nashville" but beyond that, I think that this will be one of the more disappointing TV seasons in recent memory. I'm not sure any of these shows will make much of a dent in the pop culture or the ratings. "Revolution" is doing well but I'd be willing to bet that if it gets a second season and they put it on its own night, without "The Voice" as a lead-in, the ratings will plummet.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I noticed that I had a lot of football posts and that they'd kind of taken over my blog, much like the pigskin has taken over my life. Since I'm trying to change that and refocus on, you know, the reason I came out to Hollywood, I'm going to consolidate the football thoughts into one post. So click Continue Reading if you want to check out how I'm going to lose my money this week.

A second brutal day left me about $750 bucks in the red so this might be my last week if I don't turn things around. I've gone the complete opposite direction from my previous bets and have made a number of smaller bets. That's not always the smartest option since more bets gives you more chances to be wrong but given how my big bets have gone, it's time to change things up.

The Bets
$100 10 point Teaser: Ravens -2, Falcons +2.5, Texans -2
$50 6 point Teaser: Falcons -1.5, Titans +18
$50 6 point Teaser: Ravens -6, Cardinals 0
$50 10 point Teaser: Broncos +3.5, Redskins +13, Packers +2.5
$25 6 point Teaser: 49ers +2, Ravens -6, Cardinals 0, Falcons -1.5, Texans -6
$25 10 point Teaser: Broncos +3.5, Saints 17.5, Titans +22
$25 10 point Teaser: Chargers +10, Giants +12. Seahawks +7
$35 49ers -4
$30 Cardinals -6
$25 Seahawks -3
$25 Packers -7.5
$25 Ravens -12
$25 Cowboys -3.5
$5 Progressive Parlay: Niners -4, Cowboys -3.5, Bengals -2.5, Ravens -12, Cardinals -6, Patriots -4, Redskins +3, Packers -7.5, Seahawks -3
$5 Progressive Parlay: 49ers -4, Cowboys -3.5, Ravens -12, Cardinals -6, Patriots -4, Packers -7.5

The other thing that I've been doing is Flames and Lames vs. Brad Evans. I'm doing OK there. Nothing great.

Flames (Overall 13 - 12 Evans: 22 - 17) QB: Joe Flacco: Cleveland is still without Joe Haden and hasn't been able to stop anyone.
QB: Alex Smith: Smith is coming off of a disappointing game but the Jets should be ripe for the picking now that Darrelle Revis is out for the year.
RB: Cedric Benson: Can the Saints stop anyone? I'd have to think that the Packers, pissed off by having a win stolen from them by the refs, are on fire in this one and Benson will get a TD.
RB: Jacquizz Rodgers: The Panthers can't stop anyone and Rodgers, not Michael Turner, should be the one who breaks some long plays. If he can't, then I think it might be time to start looking at Rodgers as Jerious Norwood 2.0.
WR: Brandon LaFell: LaFell let me down this week but I think he'll bounce back in this one. The Panthers will probably have to throw to keep up with Atlanta and I think they'll focus on keeping Steve Smith locked down.
WR: Donald Jones: Another WR who let me down, I think Jones will get his fair share of targets against the Patriots.
WR: Anquan Boldin: I don't really love any of my WR picks but I think Boldin's gotta get into the end zone one of these days, right?
TE: Fred Davis: He showed signs of life last week and should be getting back into starting lineups, sooner than later.
DEF: Arizona: The swarming Cardinals defense against Ryan Tannehill and a banged up Reggie Bush? Seems like a nice mix for 'Zona.

Lames (11- 12 overall; Evans 13 - 17)
QB: Matt Ryan: There isn't really a QB out there that I would pick against but I think the Falcons might try to hammer the Panthers with the run. I expect this game to be over quickly and the ball is handed to Michael Turner and Jacquizz Rodgers for most of the night.
RB: DeMarco Murray: I have Murray in a bunch of leagues and am not happy about his matchup or by the state of the Cowboys offense right now.
RB: Trent Richardson: Baltimore defense is tough and will likely be more than happy to force Brandon Wheeden to throw.
WR: Brandon Marshall: I think the Cowboys secondary will let anyone else beat them but Marshall.
WR: Marques Colston: I've never been a huge fan of Colston and he seems like a good bet to disappear since he could be facing Charles Woodson for most of the game.
WR: Dez Bryant: Dez is due for a breakout game. I just don't think it'll be this week.
TE: Brandon Pettigrew: Most of the TEs are good bets so I'm gonna go with him in what's basically a shot in the dark.
DEF: NY Jets: Yes, the Niners have to fly cross country for the game but I think they'll be focused after the Minny loss and I think the Jets offense is going to struggle, leaving the Niners offense in good field position for most of the day.

Posted by SoulHonky at 05:29 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

This morning, Roger Simon at Politico posted a joke piece that said that Paul Ryan's new nickname for Mitt Romney is "The Stench". Now, I'll admit that when I read the piece I wasn't sure if it was fact or fiction but the article was so odd that I kind of dismissed it out of hand. Apparently, many liberal pundits didn't share my hesitation about/disinterest in the piece as Laurence O'Donnell, DailyKos, Gawker, and Paul Krugman all ran with the articles and reported it as news. Krugman has since gone back to his blog post and used the strikeout font option and he added a comment, "OK, the word is that this was really clumsy satire." Gawker also has updated their post and question Roger Simon's grasp of satire. But isn't the bigger issue here the clumsy journalism going on here?"

This is an example of my pet peeve with modern journalism and why I hate when people blame the internet for the problems. The problem isn't the internet. The problem is that people like O'Donnell and Krugman and the ilk don't actually do what they are supposed to and check on stories before running with them. Nowadays, "journalists" like to just take anything from the internet and report on it. If it has been posted somewhere else, they act like it's fair game to report. Nevermind calling the Romney/Ryan campaign for comment, one call to Roger Simon could have helped prevent the embarrassment and false reporting.

Roger Simon's article was pretty stupid. But the fact that some people reported it as real is even stupider and I hope (but doubt) they'll learn a lesson from this.

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

The truth behind the assault on the US embassy in Libya continue to unravel but more and more it seems like the attack was an organized attack by terrorists and not an unruly mob incited by a random YouTube movie. What's odd about the reaction to this truth is that conservatives and liberals seem to be embracing the wrong version of the story.

Conservatives are hammering away at President Obama for continuing to keep alive the idea that the attack was provoked by the video. This is a little strange to me because, when the news first broke, conservatives were citing this attack as an example of the "Arab Spring" not panning out and that the people of the Middle East should not be getting our aid. Given their first reaction, you'd think that they would want the video to have caused the unrest. Sean Hannity was besides himself that supposed fellow conservative John McCain was still defending Libya but it seems that McCain has been proven correct and that this was an attack by a terror cell and didn't necessarily reflect the will of the people. (And the people fighting against the armed militias would strengthen the argument that we need to help the Libyan people.)

Conversely, it seems odd that President Obama hasn't embraced the new truth as a sign for why we need to keep helping the people of the Middle East and not be swayed by the acts of terrorists who want to get America out of their land so they can take over power. Yes, this approach would cause some to question whether or not we should remove most, if not all troops from the area, like the President has planned but it seems better to have people question that plan rather than questioning whether we should be helping the people at all.

In the end, I just continue to be confused by the messaging of this political campaign (and of most of Obama's Presidency.) Whether or not the words are being distorted or not, the "You didn't build that", "bumps in the road", "not a laundry list", etc., it seems like neither the President nor the candidate really seem to choose their words like a person who will hold an office where everyone hands onto your every word and one wrong comment could start a firestorm.
Washington's dirty little secret used to be that the politicians were somewhat out of touch and the people behind them were the ones who were really pulling the strings but now it seems like the people behind the scenes are as dim as the people they're positioning.

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

Like "Go On", "The Mob Doctor" feels like a show that could have been better had it been on cable and given a harder edge. Allow Jordana Spiro's lead character be a true anti-hero ala Nurse Jackie or Raylan Givens from "Justified". Instead, we get a brash introduction to the character, who then comes off as a bit of a softee, but cold to her mother, a bit aloof in her relationship, and finally ends up making a decision to which she has no solution and literally is running to someone to help her (even though, realistically, I'm not sure how much help he'd give or for how long his help would protect her.) The problem with the show isn't that it's two dramas - medical and mafia, it's that the show forced far too many issues into the pilot. Spiro's character has mob troubles, family troubles, love troubles, work troubles, and seems fairly incapable of juggling them. This isn't a case of a strong character with an Achilles heel, it's a person who is treated like she's on the top of her game when she's really a complete disaster. Now that might be an interesting show - this women who is seemingly a pillar of strength but is actually falling apart - but, by the end of the first hour, the show seems like its still trying to act like she is a pillar of strength who just has a lot on her plate.

On one hand, I think it's a shame that this show is likely to fail miserably because it will make networks less likely to attempt genre-bending show but, on the other hand, networks probably aren't the ones who should be attempting genre-bending shows because they can barely get the straight-forward genre shows right.
In the end, "The Mob Doctor" is a great idea with a good cast that doesn't have great characters and has below-average execution. And sadly, the soapy elements don't seem like they'll be strong enough to carry it with a specific audience ala Scandal or Revenge. The premise alone makes me think that it could right itself but given the first hour, I'm not sure they'll figure it out in time to prevent cancellation. However, I'd definitely put this on my remake list since I think it could be a quality movie or series if done differently.

Posted by SoulHonky at 01:15 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

While "Arbitrage" is a competently made film, I couldn't help but feel a sense of deja vu while watching it. The movie is good but there is nothing new in it and I felt like I had seen the story a dozen times before. What was perhaps most disappointing was that I was hoping that it would just focus on the financial angle - Gere's Bernie Madoff Ponzi scheme slowly unraveling - but instead it includes a car accident angle that is poorly established (we never see Gere drinking or doing drugs, which would make it more than just an accident) and makes the film more about self-survival than a more insightful look into how the Madoff's of the world work.

The film is currently available On Demand or on Amazon for a 6.99 rental so if you're at home and want to check out a decent movie, I'd recommend it. It's nothing new but it's effective. I'd probably recommend checking out "Sherlock" on Netflix Instant (Series 2 is now available alongside Series 1).

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:33 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I have to be honest, I had no idea what "fracking" was until I watched the eerily terrifying documentary "GasLand". The doc, which showed how the chemicals used to get natural gas out of the ground can lead to poisoning the land and turning water flammable, was incredibly convincing but, like most documentaries, it didn't reach a huge audience.
Enter Matt Damon and Gus Van Sant.
What seems to separate this film from most message movies is that it seems to have a strong story as the backbone. Whereas some films like Fast Food Nation lose their way because they never hone in on one story, "Promised Land" seems to have remembered that the message is the conflict and their needs to be more to the film than just that. I was a fan of the trailer and hope that the film can deliver on its promise (and get the word out on the problems with fracking.)

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

After last week's disaster, I went from being up $500 bucks to down somewhere around $236. Pretty awful. I screwed up this week and had another magic bullet game that could rip through almost all of my bets. I'll be watching the Lions vs. Titans very closely as I need the Lions to, ideally, win by 5 or more. It seems obvious but, then again, so did the Patriots beating the Cardinals and we all see how that went. On the bright side, Matthew Stafford hasn't been sharp and the Lions defense has been hounded by the press so I don't see them heading out on the road and resting on their hype in the same way that it seemed like the Patriots kicked up at home and thought their jersey alone could win the game.

So let's go Lions! and here are the rest of the bets for this week.

$25 Saints -9 over Chiefs
$25 Steelers -4.5 over Raiders
$30 Lions -4 over Titans
$95 Lions -3

$75 6 point teaser: 49ers -1, Lions +3, Steelers +1
$59.35 4 Team Teaser: Lions +2, Cowboys -1, 49ers -1.5, Saints -3
$50 6 Point Teaser: Saints -3, Lions +3, Bears -2
$50 6 Point Teaser: 49ers -1.5, Cowboys -2 $50 Parlay: Lions -3, Packers -3.5, Steelers -5
$40 2 Team Parlay To Win: Saints, Lions
$5 Progressive Parlay: Vikings +7.5, Bills -3, Cowboys -7, Saints -9, Eagles -4, Falcons +3, Giants -1., Lions -3, Packers -3.5, Bears -8, Steelers -5, Texans -1.5
$5 Progressive Parlay: 49ers -7.5, Cowboys -7, Saints -9, Falcons +3, Lions -3, Packers -3.5, Steelers -5, Texans -1.5
$5 Progressive Parlay: 49ers -7, Bills -3, Saints -9, Giants -1.5, Lions -3, Packers -3.5, Bears -8, Steelers -5

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

The latest stab in the dark at new music is Two Gallants. I don't know much about them but they have a kind of Trampled By Turtles meets rocking Modest Mouse vibe to them. "My Love Won't Wait" is a pretty great track and is available for free download over at the bands website. While I liked the band's sound, I just can never tell which bands are going to break out. I think they'll fall into the Trampled By Turtles, Old Crow Medicine Show, Port O'Brien group of good folksy rock bands that can't break out of their genre.

Listen to the whole album for free over at Rolling Stone.
Here's the trailer for their album.

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Evans keeps taking some gimmes, highlighting Michael Bush this week, so I've countered with a few of my own. Also, I'm going to count all of his picks because it takes too long for me to go back to his articles and check on his main writeups. But I'll be picking more Flames and Lames as a result. My Flames were about average last week but my Lames were noteworthy as many of them put up all-world numbers. Anyway, here are my picks for this week.

Flames (Overall 9 - 7 Evans: 14 - 12)
QB: Jay Cutler: Cutler comes off like a punk and a bully and the Rams are just the kind of team that he will look to beat up. The Bears were embarrassed on Thursday night, I think they right the ship this week. WR: Torrey Smith: He's due for a deep TD and the Pats seem like they're ripe for the picking. I'd play Boldin as well. The Patriots have yet to face a team with more than one legit weapon.
WR: Brandon LaFell: I still don't trust the Giants secondary and I think they'll be focused on slowing down Steve Smith. WR: Brian Hartline: Davone Bess was supposed to be the PPR sleeper in Miami but Hartline is the one racking up the point in South Beach. RB: Michael Bush: It'll be interesting to see if the Bears feature him more in the passing game but either way, he should be able to, once again, put up points when the man in front of him goes down.
RB: Donald Brown: I saw a few runs of his last weekend and liked what I saw. He's going to break a few nice runs eventually and I think this could be the week.
TE: Martellus Bennett: The man that is making me regret taking Antonio Gates (and trading for him in one league), I'd have picked him up after week 1. Week 2 was more of the same and I think he gets a good amount of targets it what will likely be another shootout for the Giants.
WR/RB:Dexter McCluster: It's a tough matchup so I think Cassell is going to have to go to his safety man in the slot.
DEF: Buffalo: Last week was the Buffalo defense I was expecting. I'm prepared for more goodness from them this week.

Lames
(6- 9 overall; Evans 7 - 13) QB: Peyton Manning: Didn't look sharp against Atlanta and Houston's defense is better. WR: Larry Fitzgerald: He struggled when Kolb was at the helm last year and the offense actually seems worse this year.
WR: Vincent Jackson: I'm still not in love with Josh Freeman who missed too many easy passes and I think Dallas will be primed and ready after an embarrassing loss. I think we see Week 1 Dallas D this week, which is not good news for the Bucs.
WR: Brandon Lloyd: I wouldn't bench Lloyd but he's clearly not on the same page as Brady, I don't know if the Pats will give Tom a lot of time to set up the deep ball this week, and Hernandez's injury may have opened a door for Wes Welker to get back into Brady's crosshairs (and Mr. Giselle definitely gets locked in to his favorite receivers which could hurt Lloyd.) RB: Darren McFadden: The new offensive coordinator changed the blocking scheme back to the approach that McFadden struggled with earlier in his career. It seems like he's struggling once again. The only saving grace is his receiving and I think the Steelers will be focused on shutting him down.
RB: Frank Gore: This is a game in which I think Gore's limited carries hurts him. Minnesota's run defense is still strong and I think we'll see Kendall Hunter get more work.
TE: Jermichael Finley: As usual, I like all of the TE's who are starting so the weekly roll of the die will go on Finley. Hopefully, I won't be as wrong as I was on Vernon Davis last week.
W/R: Matt Forte: This one's a gimme. Forte is out but still starting in 66% of leagues so I'll take the freebie.
DEF:New England: I think Baltimore unleashes everything they have this week. The Pats defense has looked OK at times but they haven't faced an offense as well-rounded as Baltimore's yet. Ray Rice is no Chris Johnson and Beanie Wells while Flacco is much better than Kolb or Locker.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:41 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

In an absolutely brutal week, I lost all my bets, pretty much got all of my Flames/Lames wrong, and saw by betting total go from the black to the red. On the bright side, the one fantasy league that I managed to win a game in this week is my main league so I've got that going for me. My Fantasy Must List is a disaster right now, the guys I avoided had huge games (as did a few of my potential regrets) but on the bright side, I did do well on the sleepers and I picked three suicide pool entries and only one was the Pats (the other two were Houston and NYG) so I'm still alive.
But, man, this was one ugly weekend on the football front.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:35 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The Short of It: I wanted to like "Last Resort" and won't give up on it after the surprisingly bland first hour but it was a forgettable pilot, which is a problem since the show will likely struggle to find its footing in an already packed Thursday night time slot.

And now The Long of It (Beware: Spoilers Below)
It was surprising to me when I found out that veteran TV and film director Martin Campbell helmed the pilot of "Last Resort" because nothing in the pilot was very filmic and much of it felt like a Movie of the Week. Maybe Campbell's recent big budget features have ruined his ability to shoot on a smaller budget but the pilot of "Last Resort" featured many shots that were simply stagnant, the set-ups were almost always as basic as could be, and at no point did a pilot feel alive at all (despite having a story that seemed like Crimson Tide meets The Rock.) Adding to the framing issues, the lighting and look of the show was far too glossy and while part of me wants to say that maybe things will get better once they are out of the submarine, it's not like the opening scenes on the island or in DC were any better.

Unfortunately, the visuals weren't the only issues with the pilot. None of the cast, aside of Andre Braugher, really made much of an impression. Scott Speedman, Brittany Snow, and Daisy Betts came off about as vanilla as their names. Robert Patrick seemed too tired to even bother chewing the scenery. The two best roles in the show were the young Navy SEAL and the overlord of the island but neither of those actors really nailed their lines. The Navy SEAL, especially, turned a couple of moments that could have been golden and, instead, just made me appreciate the anti-hero turn of Josh Holloway in "Lost". And I don't know who is voicing the mystery man on the phone but they might as well have just gotten Siri to do it. There's a difference between cool and emotionless and wooden and lifeless. The disembodied voice wasn't alone however as most of the performances felt restrained, middling, and just not up to the intensity of the situation. Even one of my Hollywood crushes, Autumn Reeser couldn't escape unscathed as she struggled with some laughably cliched scenes and ridiculous dialogue. (Oh, and note that I used the actors' names here because, besides Braugher's Chaplin, I have no idea what any of the characters' names are.)

And that might be the most disappointing part of the pilot; the script had a few hamfisted moments (which every pilot will have) but the bulk of it was forgettable. (The only parts that weren't completely forgettable were the moments that reminded you of something else like Crimson Tide or The Rock) Now, normally in a pilot, you can blame some of the problems on the fact that the first hour has to establish the world and introduce the characters but after one episode of "Last Resort", I barely know most of the players (who seem like little more than archetypes so far) and the main setting, the island, is an almost complete unknown. One episode down and the heavy lifting in terms of set-up and character introductions still hasn't really been handled. And that's just the A story.
The Washington D.C. subplot seems like it should be a hell of a lot more involved than it is but it feels like you'd need an entire second show to handle the mess there. We just nuked Pakistan. Shadow agents seem to have taken control of our government. The President was about to get impeached and may be acting to save his hide rather than the country. With so much going on, there really can't be any wasted time in the show yet, there we were, spending three or four scenes with Brittany Snow's character who really added nothing. When the fate of the world is at stake, the trials of one guy's wife doesn't really command your attention.

And that might be the biggest challenge moving forward for "Last Resort": how does one add nuance and small moments into a show that is driven by the highest of all stakes. For me, I think the problem of the pilot was that it focused on the Americans. I would have preferred a Rashomon type approach - open on the island and we meet the locals; then we see the sub rise and the troops take over; we spend the rest of the pilot meeting the sub crew and hearing their versions of what went down and why they are on the island. In the end, situations would arise in which islanders would have to choose a side (for instance, having the NATO girl shoot the crew member instead of the female officer or having something happen between the Navy Seal and the crime lord so they are at odds rather than just not liking each other from the jump.) For me, a sense of "What's going on?! Am I on the right side of this?" is far more interesting than "We're on the right side of this and now we're on an island."

As a fan of Shawn Ryan, I'm going to try to keep watching "Last Resort" but I'd feel better about it if it was a mini-series. But, then again, as I noted, the heavy lifting has yet to be done and part of me feels like you could probably just get into the show easier if you just watched episode 2 and let the "Previously On" before the episode tell you the main details of the pilot. I don't think you'll really miss much.

Finally, on the business end of things, I think ABC is kind of blowing it by putting the show at 8pm on Thursday. Nevermind that The X Factor will already be rolling on Fox, The Vampire Diaries has its cult following, 30 Rock fans will be tuning in for the final season, and The Big Bang Theory is still, inexplicably, steamrolling along, but you also have the NFL Thursday night games to deal with. Yes, those games are on the NFL network but you're going to lose a huge chunk of your key male demographic to that regardless. (On the bright side, "Last Resort" premieres against the Ravens vs. the Browns, a game which should be over by the end of the first quarter.) Also, if you're going to put a male-centric type show at 8pm, you better build your whole night around it; instead, ABC is following "Last Resort" with "Grey's Anatomy" and "Scandal". (Then again, it's not like ABC has any other male-skewing type shows to team with "Last Resort".)
In the end, given the time slot, iffy pilot, and most likely expensive budget, I'm not feeling good about "Last Resort" breaking Shawn Ryan's streak of one-and-done's.

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

My slacking has grown beyond writing and working out to also take over my music listening. I haven't been listening to much music lately and haven't even been able to really take in the latest album "For My Parents" from MONO, one of my favorite post-rock bands. So because I have no new music to share, I'll just go off of the Spin magazine e-mail that I get (I've never really read Spin but their e-mail is actually pretty good and has some nice new bands every once in a while.)
I can't say that I'm a fan of Django Django but they are a band that I've been hearing about so I thought I'd give them a shot. Not really my kind of music but I'm sure some people out there will find it up their alley.

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

Current Standing: $527.36 in the black

As I noted earlier, I don't love week 2's action... but that didn't stop me from throwing too much money at it. I also broke from my usual rule of staying away from the Patriots but pretty much all of my wagers rely on them winning this week. Here's the breakdown of the action.

$75 4 Parlay (To Win): Giants, Patriots, Cowboys, Texans
$100 6 Point Teaser: Giants -1.5, Patriots -8
75.24 6 Point Teaser: Giants -3, Patriots -8, Chiefs +9, Texans -1.5
$75 6 Point Teaser: Patriots -8, Chiefs +9, Lions +12.5
$65.70 6 point teaser: Giants -1.5, Patriots -8, Cowboys +3, Texans -2
$60 6 Point Teaser: Lions +13, Bengals -1
$45 6 point teaser: Giants -1.5, Patriots -8, Lions +12.5, Vikings +4.5
$25 Parlay: Giants -9, Patriots -14, Cowboys -3, Texans -7.5, Chiefs +3.5, Vikings -1.5
$70 on Dallas -3 over Seattle
$45 on Chiefs to win over Buffalo
$30 on Patriots -14 over Arizona
$25 on Chiefs +3 over Buffalo
$25 on Saints -3 over Panthers
$5 Progressive Parlay: Bengals -7, Giants -7.5, Patriots -14, Chiefs +3, Cowboys -3, Lions +6.5, Washington -3, Saints -3, Texans 7.5, Vikings 1.5
$5 Progressive Parlay: Falcons -3, Bengals -7, Giants -7.5, Patriots -14, Cowboys -3, Washington -3, Saints -3, Texans -7.5

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:59 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

As noted in the comments section of Brad Evans's Flames and Lames column, Evans uses the stats from early in the week to pick his teams. The problem with that is that on Monday or Tuesday, most people haven't posted up their new lineups yet so guys who had breakouts like Stevan Ridley or CJ Spiller haven't been inserted into the starting lineups yet. At the time of his Flames article, CJ Spiller was at 30% starting and Ridley at 42; now those two are perilously close to the >60% mark as they are now starting in 58% and 56% of leagues, respectively. It's a fun column (which shouldn't take too long to write so it's not like Evans can't wait for today or tomorrow morning to post it) but issues like this (and I believe once he changed his point system to help himself out) makes it a little less reliable. (And it's never really proven to be all that useful.)

Anyway, here are my Flames and Lames for Week 2.

Flames (5 - 2 last week; Evans 6 - 0*)
QB: RGIII: I believe.
QB: Andy Dalton (Shocker Special): Cleveland did alright against Philly but Joe Haden is now out and I think the Bengals can do some damage against this weaker defense.
WR: Donald Jones (SS): Jones (Julio Edition) lit up the Chiefs and The Donald is now the #2 man in Buffalo now that David Nelson is out for the year. With KC's focus being on Stevie Johnson and CJ Spiller, I think Jones could find paydirt and be a nice surprise.
WR: Randall Cobb: The question with Cobb is: Will he get enough targets? With Greg Jennings out, the answer seems to be a resounding Yes.
RB: Stevan RidleyMarshawn Lynch averaged 4 yards per carry against the Cards last week and that was with Arizona not having to worry about Russell Wilson and his band of misfit receivers. I expect Brady and the Pats to make things much easier for Ridley this week.
RB: Alfred Morris: He did yeoman's work in week 1 and is now facing an easier run defense.
SS: Dexter Mccluster: I think Dexter will carve up the Bills' secondary much like Stephen Hill and Jeremy Kerley did.
TE: Dennis Pita (SS): Philly's secondary is strong and their LBs aren't so I think the Ravens' TEs should be able to find space in this one.
DEF: Cincy: This is more of a bet against the Browns offense than anything else.

* I'm only going with Evans's main picks. He picks five people (instead of the seven he asks readers to pick, along with a shocker special) and then a number of other options but I'm going to go with the five he writes about and I might limit my choices to just 5 in the future.)

Lames (4 - 3 in Week 1, Evans 1 - 4)
QB: Phillip Rivers: Again, the QBs are a solid bunch but if Rivers couldn't do damage against the Raiders' secondary, I don't have much faith in him against anyone else.
WR: Dwayne Bowe: Cassell's alternate options will be so open that I doubt Bowe even gets that many looks on Sunday.
WR: Wes Welker: I could regret this one but I think the underneath stuff will be handled pretty well by Arizona's defense. I think Brady will do his damage with the deep ball and Welker might find slim pickings once again. Given Evans's point system, this probably isn't a good bet but I'm going to stick with it.
RB: Michael Turner: Is The Burner burned out? KC held him down and Denver is a much stouter unit.
RB: Trent Richardson: I'm going to bet against the rook until he shows me something.
RB: CJ Spiller: For as badly as they were outclassed, the Chiefs defense still managed to hold down Atlanta's running game. I think they'll be happier forcing Ryan Fitzpatrick to throw than they were Matt Ryan.
TE: Vernon Davis: I don't hate any of the TEs this week so I decided to roll with Davis who is hit or miss. I'm betting that he doesn't hit paydirt this week.
DEF: Chicago: I'll always get against a defense facing Green Bay.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:13 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Shawn Ryan has been on a weird losing streak of late. The creator of "The Shield" has followed his breakout show with the underrated "Terriers" and the solid "Chicago Code"; two good shows that never made it past their first season. Ryan's latest show is "Last Resort" about a nuclear sub crew that defies orders and takes over an island, creating their own nation. I've read the pilot script and it was solid and, unlike his past shows, the program is getting a big push from the network. ("Terriers" was doomed from the start thanks to one of the worst ad campaigns in recent memory.) I've yet to watch the pilot but I'll try to check it out tonight and give a full review. Until then, feel free to check out the show and weight in on Facebook or Twitter. (Thanks to Indiewire for posting/tweeting the link to the Yahoo! exclusive.)

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

Now that was a great welcome back to betting season. The Eagles and Lions last second victories helped secure my moneyline parlays and Darren McFadden's countless dumpoff receptions helped me squeak past my opponent in fantasy.
Although, I have to admit that I was about to swear off betting completely after the first halves of the morning games on Sunday. Across the board, my bets looked bad. Atlanta and KC were close. The Lions and Eagles were struggling. Even Chicago wasn't looking that good against Indianapolis. Eventually my teams got their shit together (well, at least to win, if not cover) and at end the day I was plus $527.36 cents.

Fantasy-wise, however, it looks like it could be a long season for me. I was relying on Fred Jackson on a number of my teams and he went down (and I didn't have CJ Spiller on any of said teams.) In my main league, I was the #2 scorer in week 1, and as luck would have it, I played the #1 scorer. In other leagues, Fred Jackson's injury bogged me down as did my plan to wait on QBs (Schaub didn't do much in any of my leagues.) Also, Adrian Peterson proved me wrong; I never should have doubted him and definitely should have nabbed him in the second round of my drafts.
As for the Flames and Lames, I went 3 - 4 with the Lames and 4 - 3 with the Flames. Not terrible but not the start that I wanted.

Week 2 is a pretty ugly week for betting but my early bet so far is: $65.70 6 point teaser (Patriots -8, Giants -1.5, Cowboys +3, Texans -2.) I also put $25 on the Saints -3 over the Panthers but I don't love that bet. Honestly, I probably won't put too much more down this weekend. A lot of tough matchups that I don't love.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:56 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've posted this before but I just heard The Hang perform it this past week and I can't get the chorus out of my head.

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

In one of the most tone deaf moments of a campaign season filled with miscommunications and gaffes from both parties, Mitt Romney made some remarks today that should rival Obama's "You didn't build that" comment. When asked by Fox News's Bret Baier about omitting references to the troops fighting in the Middle East, Romney opened by saying his regret was that the press keeps mentioning it. He then went on to make matters worse and make a comment that I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot of in the coming months.

From top to bottom, this quote is ridiculous. Saying that the speech wasn't a laundry list and that he spoke about things that he thought are important is a ridiculous slight to the troops. He's cited before that he spoke about the troops at his speech at the American Legion but that just looks worse. It's like saying, "Listen, I talked about the troops when I was in front of military people but it just wasn't important enough for me to mention when the audience was all of America."
The next issue, which might be a bigger one for Romney, is not knowing the difference between military and troops. Thinking that they mean the same thing fits in his worldview where workers are disposable assets of the great company/corporation. It is something that can be seized upon by the Left to hammer away that Romney has no empathy (let alone sympathy) for actual people. He thinks corporations are people and acknowledging the troops themselves isn't necessary as long as you reference the military in passing a couple of times.

I know I've been harping on this a bit of late but this is just another case in which a candidate inexplicably comes up with a terrible excuse rather than simply saying it was a mistake and ending the issue right there. Once again, the cover up is worse than the crime as Romney's tone deaf and dismissive answer is far worse than his simple omission. Nevermind what he said, the fact that he said it at all and now gave the Democrats a sound bite to play (it's hard to play an omission in a 30 second spot) that should be very powerful in these last couple months of the campaign. And I'm sure the Left will have no second thoughts about cutting the clip after "You talk about the things that you think are important." After all, that more in context than their beloved "You didn't build that" line.

But beyond the unwillingness to admit a mistake, what's stunned me in this campaign is that somehow the candidates in 2012, the era of social networking and people hanging on every word every second, are so miserable at communicating their ideas, beliefs, arguments. Even President Obama, who can be a moving speaker, has proven to be fairly incapable of wording his arguments (as evidenced by the "You didn't built that" gaffe.) Paul Ryan, knowing that people are focusing on his every word after an RNC speech that even Fox News called "deceiving", decides to just make up a time for his fastest marathon, which is immediately seized upon by the media as yet another lie. For a campaign that, to this point, has not been very heavy on tough interviews and combative questions, there is an amazing number of gaffes. They might be from different parties but they all seem to be part of The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight.

I've never thought that Barack Obama was ready for the Presidency of the United States but, at this point, I just can't see any reason to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. I can't say this is an endorsement of the President since it's really just a vote for the lesser evil.

Where's Monty Brewster when you need him?

Posted by SoulHonky at 02:46 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The "Meh" title pun is back for NBC's new drama "Revolution". The main problem is that the pilot for the show is about as by the numbers and cliched as a show could get while, on top of that, the main premise is anti-science sci-fi: all electricity stops working as do car motors and batteries and backup generators. (Yet a computer program downloaded into a locket can somehow change all of that.) All in all, it's a b movie story turned TV series that seems better suited for a syndicated TV show ala Xena or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World or maybe TNT or TBS. (Especially during one scene that has blood splatter effects that you'd expect from a Youtube video or bad zombie movie.)

As for future episodes, the main storyline seems like it is going to be filled with "Wait, why didn't he just..." moments since it seems a number of people hold a way to turn power back on (enough so that somehow dial-up internet works whenever needed). There could be interesting per episode challenges or the band of not-so-merry wanderers could go into save a village a week type stories but there's nothing in the pilot that draws you back in or makes you really even care. It's kind of like if the pilot of Lost opened up with a more bizarre, illogical event than a plane crash and then they discovered the hatch. The "What does it do?" angle isn't as strong when the world is unreal and the characters aren't established (and, honestly, I'm not sure what more they can establish with the core characters given the lack of... well, anything that they seem to have going for them so far.) It's almost like a show in which the usual side throwaway characters are given the lead. So far, one of the closest things to a character trait is one of the guys having asthma. The show also is begging for comparisons to the superior "Lost" because it's using flashbacks, but so far they don't serve much besides introduce twists that you don't really care about.

On the bright side for the show's potential success, it follows The Voice, which does huge ratings for the Peacock and it's going up against a potentially fading Castle and a rather pedestrian Hawaii 5.0. The 10pm slot on Mondays is for the taking - I'm just not sure this show is up to the challenge of conquering it.

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

One of my favorite new bands from last year was The Joy Formidable. Their new albums is coming out soon and they've released the title track "Wolf's Law" and have now posted a second song from the album, "Cholla". There's a bit of an interview with Zane Lowe and the song starts at 53 seconds. While "Wolf's Law" was more atmospheric and almost Coldplayish, the new single is closer to the sound of their old album, but it feels a bit slicker and a bit more reserved, which is a bit disappointing.

Here's one of my favorite songs from their first album "The Big Roar", which I definitely recommend. And below that is the first song that drew my attention to them (which is, sadly, not on their album.)

Posted by SoulHonky at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

I'm sorry but I can't get into these political conventions. FIrst off, what once were supposed to choose the nominees for President and deliberate the party platform and focus for the next four years, the conventions are now little more than propaganda parties for the people everyone already knows is going to get selected. So many people get fired up about these speeches but that's all they are: speeches. Even the man who wrote the Democratic convention platform called his work "the least-read document in American politics." The fact that there was an actual moment of discord at the Democratic National Convention last night about whether or not to mention God and Jerusalem in the platform was seen as a gaffe when, in fact, that's kind of the whole supposed point of these conventions - to come together, hash out and vote on the platform and who will best serve said ideals.

And for all of the gushing over President Clinton's speech, I was disappointed to hear that he didn't fess up and face the fact that he helped spark the fiscal malfeasance that led to the recession. I would have love to hear Clinton say that he made a huge mistake when he signed the repeal of The Glass-Steagall and that we need President Obama to fix that mistake. I would have loved to hear him say that President Obama is ready to make up for that error while Mitt Romney wants to take that mistake and run with it and make it even worse. But, alas, conventions are not the time to admit one's own shortcomings but to play up the oppositions (or, in the Republicans case, just lie about them.)

Making matters even more frustrating is watching political commentators and supposed "journalists" cheering and jeering on Twitter. During the RNC, the conservatives were amazed at their speakers while the liberals were unmoved. During the DNC, obviously, the roles have reversed with conservatives snarking away at each speech while liberals act like most of these speakers are saying something that might actually matter in the morning. Honestly, they come off like parents at a pageant - highlighting their own daughter's performance while poo-pooing everything in her competitions. The conventions are basically Conservatives and Tiaras vs. Here Comes Bubba Boo Boo (or Obama Boo Boo but I have a feeling that the President won't match Clinton's speech.) For all of their complaints about the process and the candidates, these journalists and commentators prove that we are getting the candidates we deserve. If the Fourth Estate keeps playing along with this nonsense, why would anyone change?

The bottom line is that if undecided voters are using these conventions to make up their mind, then they are voting for pomp and posturing and not political issues. I mean, honestly, how can there be undecided voters at this point? It's not like anyone is going to say anything newsworthy or make a huge political shift in these speeches. And with money being such an issue for so many Americans, you'd think that the money spent on these events could be put to MUCH better use. Thankfully, there's one more day of preaching to the choir and then it'll be onto the overly staged and coordinated debates that'll do more to show us who is telegenic and a better public speaker than who will be a better President.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:13 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Personally, the betting New Year's Day is the beginning of the NFL season, which would be today. I know many people probably celebrated the holiday last week for the kickoff of the college season but I've never been a huge college fan and don't know enough to bet on it so the NFL is my big ticket item.
I had a bunch of money left over from last year so I decided to let it all ride on a bunch of different bets for week 1 to celebrate the new season. I pretty much am banking on the Falcons to beat the Chiefs and the Texans and Lions to blow out the Dolphins and Rams, respectively. In retrospect, I should have spaced out the bets and not have every bet rely on those teams not getting upset but I got caught up in the new NFL season. Anyway, here's a breakdown of my ridiculous amount of bets.

2 Prop Bets: $100 each on the Falcons and Ravens making the playoffs.
$120 on the Falcons -3 over the Chiefs
$110 on the Lions -9 over the Rams
$110 on the Texans -11 over Miami
$18.50 parlay on Texans -11 & Lions -9
$5 Progressive Parlay: Packers -5.5, Ravens -6, Bills +3, Bears -9, Texans -11, Eagles -8, Falcons -2.5, Patriots -6, Lions -8
$5 Progressive Parlay: Seahawks -3, Saints -9, Lions -8, Patriots -6, Falcons -2.5, Eagles -8, Texans -11, Bears -9, Ravens -6, Packers -5.5
$95 Parlay (to win): Bears, Texans, Eagles, Falcons, Patriots, Lions
$100 parlay (to win): Bears, Texans, Lions
Individual $10 bets: Bears -9, Eagles -8, Bills (to win)
$15 6 point teaser: Bears -3, Texans -5, Eagles -2, Lions -2

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

Oh, Pour me another drink,
And punch me in the face
You can call me Nancy

These are the opening lyrics to Father John Misty's song "Nancy From Now On". I first heard of Father John via OKCupid where a number of cute ladies listed him under favorite music. Needless to say, I felt that I should check this guy out. And even more needless to say, I wondered if maybe said girls were a little too kinky for my tastes upon hearing those opening lyrics.

Father John Misty's music is pretty good but, ultimately, doesn't really draw me in enough. It's what I classify as Radio Music, the kind of song I would be happy to hear when it comes on the radio but wouldn't like enough to actually buy the album. But Mr. Misty seems to be gathering quite the indie following and Metacritic listed his album as one of the best albums of the year so far so I thought I'd put him out there as a Tryout.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:25 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Each year, Brad Evans of Yahoo! Sports does his Flames and Lames column which people love to talk shit about and compare their choices with his own (or not make their own choices and just talk smack, which doesn't seem fair.)

It's a waste that he and Yahoo! haven't turned this into a fantasy game but since they have missed this opportunity for yet another year, I've decided to, at least, post up my Flames and Lames and see how I match up. Personally, I don't think fantasy "experts" are worth more than an average weatherman so I should be able to do an so-so job and still hang. The rules are below. If you want to post your picks to Evans, you can do it via Twitter @YahooNoise, although you have to get them in by midnight on Monday (I'm assuming that's Monday night and not Monday morning, which, technically is midnight on Monday.) if you want to get any love in his Yahoo! column.

Anyway, here are my picks for Flames (Players who are started in under 60% of Yahoo! leagues but will meet the point totals given below). I'll update this when the Lames rules are posted.

QB: Philip Rivers (56% started): With Mathews down and the Raiders secondary out of their depths, Rivers should be able to hoist up the ball a good number of times and put up some points.
RB: Kevin Smith (44% started): This is a risk because Smith could get hurt in the first quarter but the Lions should put this game early and give Smith a good amount of rushing attempts and, most likely, a few attempts at paydirt.
RB: Stevan Ridley (25% started): I expect Ridley to play a bigger role than The Law Firm did last year and he should be able to nail at least one touchdown and get some receptions out of the backfield as well.
WR: Malcom Floyd (23% started): As noted above, the Raiders secondary isn't the greatest and the Chargers running game may be lacking. With Vincent Brown out and Robert Meachem struggling with chemistry with Rivers, Floyd should be a target early and often in this game.
WR: Nate Washington (17% started): I expect the Titans will have to throw to stay in this game and throwing against the Patriots has never been that hard. Also, Nate is Jake Locker's focus in the red zone so he should be good for at least one touchdown this Sunday.
Honorable Mention - Torrey Smith (56% started), Danny Amendola (10% started)
TE: Greg Olsen (21% started): Steve Smith was ailing a bit, which should open things up for Olsen, who has a very nice matchup against Tampa Bay. Brandon LaFell might steal the red zone looks but I think Olsen should be able to get enough catches and yards to pan out.
DEF: Buffalo D (31% started): The Jets are terrible on offense. Buffalo is underrated and improved on defense. They gave Tom Brady hell early in 2011 and I think they'll have a much easier time picking apart the anemic Jets offense.

The Lames are guys who are started in over 50% of Yahoo! league but who will score less points than the above graphic listed. So who do I have?

Posted by SoulHonky at 10:45 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

Well, the summer is over and while a few of the top 10 movies are still making some coin, most of the films have come and gone and there doesn't seem to be much movement in the future. So how did I do? Well, I went 9 for 10 with and, besides overlooking the sure thing of the summer and underselling the power of the Avengers, I was pretty damn good, if I do say so myself.

#1. Marvel's The Avengers - 620 million/ Prediction: #2 - 365 million
OK. Obviously I transposed the first two numbers of my prediction. Anyone believing that? I obviously didn't have enough respect to Joss Whedon and Marvel's assembling heroes.

#2. The Dark Knight Rises - 433 million/ Prediction: #1 - 440 million
#3. The Amazing Spiderman - 259 million/ Prediction: #3 - 265 million
#4. Brave - 232 million/ Prediction: #4 - 230 million
Pardon me as I pat myself on the back for these. I'd be taking home both showcases if this was The Price is Right. Unfortunately, these are followed by the whiff of the year.

#5. Ted - 216 million/ Prediction: NA - NA
In the world of predictions, there are two givens - always pick a 5 - 12 upset in the NCAA tournament and always include some sort of comedy (non-kids movie comedy, that is) in the top 10 of the summer box office. The last time there was a summer top 10 devoid of a comedy was 1995 when Nine Months was the top comedy at just 13th place. I referenced this mistake during my prediction but I didn't have the cajones to pick one of the comedies. Ted takes the place of GI Joe 2, which I didn't necessarily miss on because it got pushed back to next year but still, Ted would have knocked another one of my picks off the top 10 so I just have to stop betting against sure things and pick a comedy next year.

#6. Madagascar 3 - 214 million/ Prediction: #10 - 150 million
I should have listened more closely to my friend's little girl. The only reason I put this film on the list was because of how my friend's daughter reacted to seeing the billboard, although I did give some of the credit to the reaction to the fact that she was on a sugar high from eating ice cream. In the end, Madagascar easily pushed past my prediction.

#7. Men in Black 3 - 178 million/ Prediction: #6 - 190 million
#8. Ice Age: Continental Drift - 156 million/ Prediction: #7 - 175 million
#9. Snow White & The Huntsman- 155 million/ Prediction: #8 - 168 million
My guesses here were a bit off but acceptable, in my opinion. Snow White gets the most credit for making as much money as it did because the movie was bland and uninteresting. And after those three, we come to #10 and a movie I whiffed on pretty badly and it is a week full of bachelorette parties away from getting knocked out of the Top 10 by the other surprise of the summer, Magic Mike (113 million).

#10. Prometheus - 126 million/ Prediction: #3 - 198 million
Needless to say, word of mouth destroyed any hopes that this film had of making it close to the 200 million dollar barrier that I predicted. Yes, I do know that there were people out there who enjoyed the film and yes, the visual were very impressive but, as I noted before, it was a movie that was supposed to make you think, except if you thought about the film for a second, nothing the characters did really made much sense. Just an all around disappointing effort and, remarkably, that is reflected in the underwhelming box office. It wasn't the bomb of the summer but "Prmetheus" has to be the all around champ when it comes to disappointments of the summer.

As for my other predictions, I hit the softball out of the park when I predicted that Battleship would be the domestic bomb of the summer. My misplaced movie of the summer was "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" which limped to just a 35 million dollar box office. While I would like to take credit for a great call on that one, I'm not sure if a later release would have helped it much. It seems like the kind of film that was pretty much destined to land DOA at the box office.

In the end, I'm pretty pleased with myself for these predictions although I'm unhappy with Hollywood for the lack of quality of the films that I saw this summer. For two straight years, we've been promised huge summers and come away with mostly lackluster fare.
So how does next year look? The summer kicks off with Iron Man 3 and Star Trek 2 and then the first faceoff of the summer - The Hangover 3 vs. Fast and the Furious 6. June opens with Will Smith trying to salvage M. Night Shymalan's box office graces in After Earth, Brad Pitt battling zombies in the much maligned World War Z, and Pixar's Monsters are back in Monsters University. Also back for more are Superman in Man of Steel and Kick-Ass in Kick-Ass 2. July gives us Despicable Me 2, The Long Ranger, Grown Ups 2, Guillermo Del Toro's much hyped Pacific Rim, Ryan Reynolds hoping to regain his spot as a box office prospect in R.I.P.D, and (finally) The Wolverine. The Summer of 2013 limps to a close with sequels to Red, 300, the Smurfs, the reboot of Robocop, and two intriguing projects in The Mortal Instruments and 2 Guns starring Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:20 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

An interesting film about the rise of digital cinema and the last gasp of celluloid film is now in theaters and available on VOD, ITunes, and Amazon. The film is called "Side By Side" and, out of all people, the narrator is Keanu Reeves. While I enjoyed the film and see it as a very interesting primer to the debate and something that anyone who is interested in filmmaking should check out, I couldn't help but be a bit disappointed. First off, while Reeves does a decent enough job interviewing, there's very little pushback. He doesn't kiss ass and shy away from tougher questions but he just puts forth an opposing idea and lets the interviewee run with their response. The film would have gained some energy from having some of the staunch advocates of film (like Chris Nolan and his go-to DP Wally Pfister) discussing the forms with the George Lucas or Robert Rodriguez's of the world.

The other thing that that bothered me a bit was that it didn't pay much, if any, attention to story. At one point, a CGI artist (I think it was) talked about how the spectacle has to be bigger each year. Films have to outdo themselves with bigger effects. Personally, I believe that this line of thinking is the ruin of film. FIlms don't need to be bigger, they need to be better. Fittingly, while the line about "It needs to be bigger" was being said, there was a shot from the new Wrath of the Titans, a movie that didn't make it's budget back domestically and, more importantly, was immediately forgettable. (I actually had to look up whether it had come out yet.) Pouring salt into the wound was Lorenzo Di Bonaventura bemoaning how things might be worse because of digital and effects. Mind you, this is the man who produced the Transformers films, GI Joe, and Salt (one of the dumbest films of the decade). It's like if Nero was staring off into space, wondering aloud, "Someone should do something about this fire."
With filmmaking becoming easier and easier, Hollywood has chosen bigger effects over the best stories. (Conversely, some of the best filmmakers choose smaller stories than trying to make the best films that will appeal to the most people.) But, honestly, that's my own issue and isn't the focus of the film. It would make for an interesting subject for a sequel though.

Here's an outtake from the interview with David Fincher movie that includes an interesting lesson for fledgling directors.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:19 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

Here is the xx's new album in its entirety for your listening pleasure (and a kind of cool sharing map/visualizer to look at). Thanks to All Tomorrow Music for posting this on Facebook.

Posted by SoulHonky at 03:51 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

The NFL is back which means that Sundays are now useless in terms of getting anything accomplished and fantasy football is in full swing. After paring down my leagues last year, I found myself with a few offers to join new league and now I'm in six leagues. That's just too many (especially since you're usually rooting for guys in one league and against them in another) but what can I say, I love to draft fantasy teams and play with trades.

I didn't get time to write up a list of predictions so instead here's are some lists of guys who I need to succeed in order to win this year, guys I passed over, guys I already kind of regret passing/dealing, and then a squad of sleepers (many of whom are probably available on the waiver wire in a number of leagues.

The Must 6: These are the five guys that I'm heavily invested in this year.
1. Matt Schaub (Texans): My strategy this year was to load up on backs early, then hit TE and WR and then go after QBs. With so many quality QBs near the end of the draft, I thought I could build the best team and still have a decent QB. Schaub was my go to guy if Matt Ryan didn't fall. In one league, I actually drafted two defenses before my QBs (Schaub in the 13th round, Andrew Luck in the 15th, Russell Wilson in the 16th.) But the bottom line is that if Schaub doesn't pan out to have a big year (which he could since the Texans play an easy schedule), it'll be tough for me to win it all.
2. DeMarco Murray (Cowboys): I have to admit that I'm not a huge fan of Murray and I wouldn't be surprised if Felix Jones made a little bit of a comeback this season. But since I got stuck with the #8 pickor worse in most of my drafts, Murray was usually the best back remaining for my pick. The three guys I've pegged as lead backs for my squads are Murray, Matt Forte, and/or Darren McFadden but I feel like I know what I can get from the latter two (how long I can get it from DMC before he gets hurt is the question there; but I plan on riding him for the first few weeks and trading him before his yearly injury.) Murray is the wild card. If he can prove to be the beast that he was before getting hurt, my fantasy year will be a pleasant one. If he turns out to be a flash in the pan or loses carries to Felix Jones, it's going to be an uphill climb to the playoffs.
3. Antonio Gates (Chargers): I can't stand the San Diego Chargers but for some reason I draft Antonio Gates every year. Apparently, I just like having the usually steady results that Gates can give although, even though he is healthy right now, I expect Philip Rivers will air mail some crossing patterns that will get my man lit up. Still, I just can't quit him. I think I just like yelling, "GATES!" whenever I see that he scored. I was heading into drafts planning on waiting on TE and grabbing Greg Olsen in the late rounds but the 5th or 6th round would swing around and Gates would be there and I couldn't help myself.
4. Torrey Smith (Ravens): Torrey Smith was one of those sleepers who, by the time the last couple drafts rolled around, everyone was aware of and he was actually going far earlier than I expected. Now while I still think that Smith is going to have a breakout season, it kind of defeats the purpose when you reach to draft a sleeper. Anyway, I still have Smith in a few leagues and I'm relying on him to put up big numbers.
5. Fred Jackson (Bills): I love loading up on running backs and Jackson was routinely available in the third round. Yes, he's on the wrong side of 30 and coming off of a broken leg but he was a beast when healthy last year and plays a fairly run friendly schedule. Jackson is the Flex Factor for many of my teams; the guy that will put me over the top. Hopefully.
6. Houston Defense: I have them in almost every league. Love their schedule. They survived without the injury prone Mario Williams before so I don't think his high tailing it to Buffalo will make that much of a difference.
Honorable Mention to Josh Freeman and Russell Wilson: Relying on Matt Schaub is a risk because he isn't exactly an iron man. Behind him on most of my squads, I have Freeman and Wilson. Josh is supposed to have a comeback season (going into drafts I was very skeptical about that but now I guess I have to be a believer) and I bought the hype of Wilson but am now a little nervous about it. (And to a lesser extent, Jamaal Charles returning to form wouldn't hurt since I have him on a couple teams)

The 5 I Avoided: Here are five guys I avoided like the plague and don't feel bad about it one bit.
1. Trent Richardson (Browns): I'm sorry but I'm just not buying on an already injured rookie who is on what will likely be one of the worst offenses in the league. And a quarter of his games come against Pittsburgh and Baltimore.
2. Reggie Bush (Dolphins): Bush was a bit of a surprise last year, which, in itself, is surprising since he was hyped as the next big thing when he came out of college. But defenses will be able to game plan for him this year and they'll most likely look to shut him down and invite rookie QB Ryan Tannehill to air it out. Bush is at best a #3 or #4 back and I'm happy that my fantasy fate doesn't rest on his shoulders.
3. AJ Green (Bengals): I don't mind Green as a player but I just can't see how teams don't focus on shutting him down this season. The Bengals running game isn't exactly dangerous. There's receiving corps isn't that great. And they play in a tough division and have an ugly fantasy playoff schedule. I'm not going to go so far and say that there will definitely be a sophomore slump for Green but, when it came to my teams, I didn't want to bet on him even matching last year's stats.
4. Beanie Wells/Ryan Williams (Cardinals) : Because these guys kept falling in drafts, I really wanted to like them (I even got Williams at the end of my fantasy auction) but I foresee shared carries, nice overall numbers but middling per game production, and, worst of all, neither of them have much fantasy trade value. Whenever these guys made it to the top of my queue, I was already stocked up with running backs and happy that I didn't have to put my faith in either of them.
5. Adrian Peterson (Vikings): My problem with Peterson is that he's going to start off with a lower amount of carries than usual and then, once he starts getting his old share of the workload, he runs into a tough fantasy playoff schedule. I was hoping that other people would have the same misgivings that I did about AP and he'd fall to me in the third round but it never happened.
Honorable Mention: Jonathan Stewart (Panthers): I had Stewart in one league and couldn't get rid of him fast enough. The problem is that he's already sharing carries with DeAngelo Williams, losing TD carries to Cam Newton, and now has to deal with Mike Tolbert also getting some looks. Oh, and he is already injured. I dealt him with a quickness and never looked back.

The 5 Potential Regrets: Guys I missed on or traded and am having second thoughts.
1. Hakeem Nicks (Giants): I had Nicks in a league and traded him for, you guessed it, Antonio Gates. Not a very smart trade but I needed a TE and I always feel like you can get WRs along the way, either by trade or someone emerging (ala Victor Cruz.) Also, Nicks's foot injury keeps flaring up and I wanted no part of that. Since the deal, I've made some moves (I've already traded half of my roster in that league) and have Andre Johnson, Miles Austin, and Torrey Smith so I'm feeling OK.
2. Mike Wallace (Steelers): Mike Wallace seemed to decline once Antonio Brown made his presence felt and I wasn't sure if that would continue or if Brown would mean less double coverage for Wallace and more opportunities. He missed some pre-season because of a holdout but I doubt that will bother him too much. Still, when I managed to get Fred Jackson for Wallace and James Stewart (and a throw-in of Robert Turbin who I picked up off of the FA wire minutes beforehand), I was happy to land a top back.
3. Michael Turner (Falcons): Fantasy experts can't get enough of saying that Turner is done. The problem is that a lot of them said the same thing last year and Turner had another solid season. On opt of that, I usually passed on Turner because I'd just used three picks on RBs and part of me wonders if I had used a pick on a WR and then gotten Turner, my teams might be stronger.
4. RGIII (Washington): Robert Griffin the 3rd seemed to fall in a lot of drafts and after wanting to roll the dice on Cam Newton but opting against it last year, I wanted to take a flyer on him as my backup (or starter since I waited for QB in my leagues) but I couldn't pull the trigger.
5. Willis McGahee (Broncos): McGahee, like Turner, was available later than I had imagined but, by that point, I was loaded up on backs and needed to get some receivers. Again, part of me thinks that I either should have taken McGahee and tried to trade or had more foresight and gone with the WR early and then filled up the running backs corps with later round guys like Willis. Then again, Willis is an old man and who knows if he can take another season of a full workload?

The Sleeper Squad
QB: Joe Flacco: Ravens opening up passing attack.
QB: Russell Wilson: Confident rookie
RB: Stevan Ridley: Better than The Law Firm
RB: Michael Bush: He and Forte could be a rich man's Mathews/Tolbert. Both worthy of weekly plays.
RB: Jonathan Dwyer: Might steal the starting job in Pittsburgh until Mendenhall returns.
WR: Brandon LaFell: #2 in Carolina, big target, could be #1 in Steve Smith's goes down.
WR: Danny Amendola: Poor man's Welkah should put up PPR numbers.
WR: Malcom Floyd: Another big target, #1 WR in San Diego to start season.
TE: Greg Olsen: Another top target for Cam Newton.
DEF: Buffalo: Much improved in the offseason; four games against Miami and NY Jets.

Posted by SoulHonky at 08:21 AM | Permalink | Comments ()

"The Mindy Project" is a mix of the cute overload of "The New Girl", the lost self-obsession childishness of "Girls", and the love triangle that nobody cares about of "The Newsroom". Needless to say, I probably won't watch another episode after the pilot (which is now available on Hulu.) Not that it's all bad; the show does have it's fair share of funny jokes but it's incredibly slight. The story in the pilot is barely there, the characters are beyond thin, and (where it really veers away from "Girls") it doesn't seem to have anything to say or have any great scenes to hang its hat on. I wasn't a fan of "Girls" (or any of the shows that I compared "The Mindy Project" to) but, for all of its weakness, Lena Dunham's show always had at least one standout scene and seemed to have some sort of legit conflict. "The Mindy Project" is nothing more than A Woman Trying to Find Love.

"The Mindy Project" also made me miss the days of the multi-cam sitcom. While I will admit that we needed a break from the standard sit-com because the quality had gotten watered down, I fear that the same thing is happening now with the single cam sit-com. When single-cam sit-coms started, it was a great way to broaden the scope of the shows, allow for more locations or flashbacks, etc. But where once we saw an expansion of opportunity, we're now dealing with a lack of focus. Shows are now all over the place while, at the same time, not really bringing much of anything to the table. Looking at The Mindy Project, most of the show could be cut down to take place in a couple locations in the hospital and it also could be one act. Many of the opening scenes could be cut out completely and just referenced and the focus of the half hour could be on one story (most likely, getting over her ex-boyfriend.) Similarly, Matthew Perry's new single cam comedy "Go On" is essentially a worse version of the similar "Dear John" from years ago starring Judd Hirsch. While that wasn't a great show, it was much better than the similarly unfocused and all over the place "Go On".

In the end, "The Mindy Project", like "Go On", is a one-and-done for me. Yes, pilots are often the worst episodes of a TV series but in these cases, the premises and main characters don't have enough going for them that makes me want to continue on their journey.

Posted by SoulHonky at 09:50 PM | Permalink | Comments ()

I've been on a bit of a blogging hiatus since work and writing have been taking up a lot of time but I'm getting my shit together this September (kicking off with my first physical in about four years) and I thought I'd start a new Saturday post, In My Head. It'll feature songs that have been stuck in my head during the week or right now. I've been having Dinosaur Feathers' "Fantasy Memorial" in my head every since I unearthed it amongst the hundreds of songs that I've gotten from Blaylock's Indie Rock Playlist over the years. This song actually was on BIRP! in 2010 (March, to be exact) but I guess I never got around to listening to it. A catchy little ditty.
The album version of the song is below and under that is a cool acoustic version.

Posted by SoulHonky at 06:18 PM | Permalink | Comments ()