This week I went with an older track by Puff Daddy, as he was known back then (the track came out in 1997). You may know him as P. Diddy or Diddy. Either way, some (including him) claim he invented the “Remix”. An example of a “Remix” is taking the beat of Sting’s “Every Breath You Take”, which features the line “I’ll be watching you”, and turning it into a single called “I’ll be missing you”. Today’s Floetry features Notorious B.I.G. No major intro needed for this MC except to say that he and Diddy were great friends, people still consider him one of the greatest MCs ever, and they call him everything from The Notorious to B.I.G. to Biggie Smalls.
Floetry:
Yo, the sun dont shine forever
But as long as its here then we might as well shine together
Better now than never, business before pleasure
P-diddy and the fam, who you know do it better?
Yeah right, no matter what, we air tight
So when you hear somethin, make sure you hear it right…
Taken from Victory by Puff Daddy featuring The Notorious B.I.G.
Friday, August 03, 2007
NFL Hall of Fame
What I am about to discuss here does fly somewhat in the face of what I wrote yesterday, but the caveat here is that the Hall of Fame celebrates individuals after they retire and not in the middle of a pennant race. The annual National Football League Hall of Fame Inductions take place this Saturday in Canton, Ohio. This year, a class of 6 people are entering the Hall, including one of my all-time favorite players (no it is not Michael Irvin). Unfortunately, I only had the privilege of watching 3 of the 6 play, but I am sure I would have enjoyed their outstanding play as well. Onto the three guys I grew up watching.
First and foremost, my man Bruce Matthews, offensive lineman for my beloved Houston Oilers. In his nineteen year playing career, he was a steady force and you always knew Warren Moon would be protected if Bruce had anything to say about it. According to his biography, he played in more games than any positional player in NFL history. He was a perennial all-star and was always one of the good guys in the NFL. He was one of the reasons the run and shoot was so successful.
Next, Thurman Thomas, runningback for the Buffalo Bills. Most importantly, he, Jim Kelly and Andre Reed triggered the Bills to four straight Super Bowls (once of them was complete bs because they should never have beaten the Oilers in the playoff game because Don Beebe was out of bounds before he caught that touchdown pass and it should've been a penalty and the Oilers should've been in the Super Bowl that year and I wouldn't have had to suffer the fact that it was wasn't until the Oilers left Houston that they finally made the Super Bowl). Thomas was one of the elite running backs in the 1990s along with Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders. As mentioned on Mike and Mike in the Morning, he was catalyst behind the concept of all-purpose yards as he was a receiving machine, along with his phenomenal running ability. He was a great one to watch and hopefully we will be seeing Andre Reed in the Hall sooner rather than later.
Finally, Michael Irvin, former wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys and current loud mouth on ESPN. He was the prototypical University of Miami Hurricane football player, brash, but had the skill set to back it up. I really enjoyed watching him play, though I have never been much of a Cowboys fan (Oilers all the way!!), especially in his epic battles with San Francisco. There were a few things you could count on the 90s and one of those was that the Cowboys and Niners would be meeting in the NFC playoffs. When the announcement was first made that Irvin was voted into the Hall, there were lots of questions about whether his selection was deserved and some even went so far as to argue that the fact he works for ESPN vaulted him into consideration. My opinion is that he deserves to be there and am happy that he is. Now, with him getting in, there is no reason why Art Monk and Andre Reed do not belong right up there with him.
And while we're at it, let's get Ray Guy and Derrick Thomas in there as well.
First and foremost, my man Bruce Matthews, offensive lineman for my beloved Houston Oilers. In his nineteen year playing career, he was a steady force and you always knew Warren Moon would be protected if Bruce had anything to say about it. According to his biography, he played in more games than any positional player in NFL history. He was a perennial all-star and was always one of the good guys in the NFL. He was one of the reasons the run and shoot was so successful.
Next, Thurman Thomas, runningback for the Buffalo Bills. Most importantly, he, Jim Kelly and Andre Reed triggered the Bills to four straight Super Bowls (once of them was complete bs because they should never have beaten the Oilers in the playoff game because Don Beebe was out of bounds before he caught that touchdown pass and it should've been a penalty and the Oilers should've been in the Super Bowl that year and I wouldn't have had to suffer the fact that it was wasn't until the Oilers left Houston that they finally made the Super Bowl). Thomas was one of the elite running backs in the 1990s along with Emmitt Smith and Barry Sanders. As mentioned on Mike and Mike in the Morning, he was catalyst behind the concept of all-purpose yards as he was a receiving machine, along with his phenomenal running ability. He was a great one to watch and hopefully we will be seeing Andre Reed in the Hall sooner rather than later.
Finally, Michael Irvin, former wide receiver for the Dallas Cowboys and current loud mouth on ESPN. He was the prototypical University of Miami Hurricane football player, brash, but had the skill set to back it up. I really enjoyed watching him play, though I have never been much of a Cowboys fan (Oilers all the way!!), especially in his epic battles with San Francisco. There were a few things you could count on the 90s and one of those was that the Cowboys and Niners would be meeting in the NFC playoffs. When the announcement was first made that Irvin was voted into the Hall, there were lots of questions about whether his selection was deserved and some even went so far as to argue that the fact he works for ESPN vaulted him into consideration. My opinion is that he deserves to be there and am happy that he is. Now, with him getting in, there is no reason why Art Monk and Andre Reed do not belong right up there with him.
And while we're at it, let's get Ray Guy and Derrick Thomas in there as well.
Thursday, August 02, 2007
Fantastic Day For Hip-Hop
Note: I've been sitting on this story for about 2 weeks now, so apologies to those for which this is old news. When I heard Jigga recently commented on the story, I figured the time was right to blog it up.
According to Jigga, otherwise known as Jay-Z, Hov, etc. etc., September 11th, 2007 is going to be a "Fantastic Day For Hip-Hop". When Jay-Z says or does something, people take notice. Anyway, in about 6 weeks two highly anticipated records arrive in music stores as both Kanye West and 50 Cent drop their new records on the exact same day. Yes, you guessed it, that day will be Tuesday September 11th.
Several tracks from Kanye's new effort have already gotten some strong airplay. Those pre-release singles include "Can't Tell Me Nothing" and "Stronger". On the other hand, 50 pre-released "Straight to the Bank" and "Amusement Park", but neither soared in the charts. "Straight to the Bank" peaked at No. 32 while "Amusement Park" reached No. 121. "I Get Money" recently came out, but that 50 track hasn't broken into the Top 40.
Kanye was first to pick September 11th as the drop day of his record called "Graduation". For those people that remember Kanye's other records, his first one was called, "College Dropout" while the second one came out under the title, "Late Registration". Does that mean that record 4 will be called "Work" or "Masters Degree"?
50's record was supposed to come out back in June, but after the weak response to his pre-released singles, the entire record was sent back to the studios for some adjustments or fine-tuning. 50 and his people then announced his record would come out on September 4th. When they learned Kanye was dropping his on September 11th, 50 changed his drop date for the third time. Maybe 3 times will be a charm in terms of record sales…
Speaking of threesomes, 50's record also has gone by 3 different names. The record will drop as "Curtis". Originally, 50 wanted to call it, "Before I Self-Destruct", since "that could happen" according to 50. Then the name was changed to "Curtis, S.S.K.". Curtis is 50's real first name. "S.S.K." stands for "Sound Scan Killa" which was basically 50's attempt to say that he was going to sell a lot of records (Nielsen SoundScan tracks sales data for singles, albums, and music video products for Billboard and other music industry companies and television channels). After realizing that a weak initial response to his pre-releases might signal weak record sales, the S.S.K. part got removed to prevent major embarrassment.
Many fans of both rappers have circled the 11th of September as a day to hit music stores. Not that either rapper needs more publicity with the many articles already in print about this "duel", but neither Kanye or 50 has done any trash-talking. To the contrary, a couple of weeks ago Kanye did an interview with Hot 97. During the interview, Kanye said that his favorite new song was 50 Cent's "I Get Money".
One has to wonder why 50 would change the release date of his record by one week knowing that Kanye was dropping then too. No known beef exists between the two. The only thing I can remember is that several years back 50 said he disagreed with what Kanye said during the Hurricane Katrina Telethon about George Bush. 50 complimented Bush by saying he was a "gangsta" and that 50 saw some of himself in Bush.
When asked whom he thought would win in terms of sales, Kanye basically said he was really excited about being involved with such a big day, and that he would rather compete in something like this and finish number 2 than not be involved at all. Of course, if you know of Kanye West it will come as no surprise that Kanye mentioned elsewhere that he was "ready to take over the world again" with his "Graduation" record.
If I had to pick a winner, I'd go with 50. His fans have no doubt seen or heard about the record/single bashing and I think they're gonna come out in full force to support him. I won't be buying both. I buy very few physical CDs, but I have Kanye's first two in plastic and most likely will be picking up number 3 around the middle of September.
We'll see how it plays out. But, now you know the date. Will you be out there on day 1 or any day for that matter to pick up one of these rapper's records?
According to Jigga, otherwise known as Jay-Z, Hov, etc. etc., September 11th, 2007 is going to be a "Fantastic Day For Hip-Hop". When Jay-Z says or does something, people take notice. Anyway, in about 6 weeks two highly anticipated records arrive in music stores as both Kanye West and 50 Cent drop their new records on the exact same day. Yes, you guessed it, that day will be Tuesday September 11th.
Several tracks from Kanye's new effort have already gotten some strong airplay. Those pre-release singles include "Can't Tell Me Nothing" and "Stronger". On the other hand, 50 pre-released "Straight to the Bank" and "Amusement Park", but neither soared in the charts. "Straight to the Bank" peaked at No. 32 while "Amusement Park" reached No. 121. "I Get Money" recently came out, but that 50 track hasn't broken into the Top 40.
Kanye was first to pick September 11th as the drop day of his record called "Graduation". For those people that remember Kanye's other records, his first one was called, "College Dropout" while the second one came out under the title, "Late Registration". Does that mean that record 4 will be called "Work" or "Masters Degree"?
50's record was supposed to come out back in June, but after the weak response to his pre-released singles, the entire record was sent back to the studios for some adjustments or fine-tuning. 50 and his people then announced his record would come out on September 4th. When they learned Kanye was dropping his on September 11th, 50 changed his drop date for the third time. Maybe 3 times will be a charm in terms of record sales…
Speaking of threesomes, 50's record also has gone by 3 different names. The record will drop as "Curtis". Originally, 50 wanted to call it, "Before I Self-Destruct", since "that could happen" according to 50. Then the name was changed to "Curtis, S.S.K.". Curtis is 50's real first name. "S.S.K." stands for "Sound Scan Killa" which was basically 50's attempt to say that he was going to sell a lot of records (Nielsen SoundScan tracks sales data for singles, albums, and music video products for Billboard and other music industry companies and television channels). After realizing that a weak initial response to his pre-releases might signal weak record sales, the S.S.K. part got removed to prevent major embarrassment.
Many fans of both rappers have circled the 11th of September as a day to hit music stores. Not that either rapper needs more publicity with the many articles already in print about this "duel", but neither Kanye or 50 has done any trash-talking. To the contrary, a couple of weeks ago Kanye did an interview with Hot 97. During the interview, Kanye said that his favorite new song was 50 Cent's "I Get Money".
One has to wonder why 50 would change the release date of his record by one week knowing that Kanye was dropping then too. No known beef exists between the two. The only thing I can remember is that several years back 50 said he disagreed with what Kanye said during the Hurricane Katrina Telethon about George Bush. 50 complimented Bush by saying he was a "gangsta" and that 50 saw some of himself in Bush.
When asked whom he thought would win in terms of sales, Kanye basically said he was really excited about being involved with such a big day, and that he would rather compete in something like this and finish number 2 than not be involved at all. Of course, if you know of Kanye West it will come as no surprise that Kanye mentioned elsewhere that he was "ready to take over the world again" with his "Graduation" record.
If I had to pick a winner, I'd go with 50. His fans have no doubt seen or heard about the record/single bashing and I think they're gonna come out in full force to support him. I won't be buying both. I buy very few physical CDs, but I have Kanye's first two in plastic and most likely will be picking up number 3 around the middle of September.
We'll see how it plays out. But, now you know the date. Will you be out there on day 1 or any day for that matter to pick up one of these rapper's records?
Baseball Records and Milestones
I got to thinking about this over the past few days when reading recaps of the games played by the Yankees, Giants and Mets. Each of these teams have a player on the verge of a major individual accomplishment (Bonds' 755th homerun, A-Rod's 500th homerun and Tom Glavine's 300th win), not to mention the other milestones already reached this year including Sammy Sosa's 600th homerun, Frank Thomas' 500th homerun and Craig Biggio's 3,000 hit. I have no idea (shocking, huh?) if there has been a year quite like this in terms of career achievement, but it seems we are being almost inundated by it. The reason I bring this up now is that A-Rod is currently on an 0-21 streak since hitting his 499th home run and Bonds is in a 5-31 slump (with 1 homerun) in his last ten games. Further, Biggio was hitting a paltry .240 or so when he finally reached 3,000. The Giants and the Astros have both basically admitted to catering their entire 2007 seasons to assisting their star player quest for individual glory. I recall a time when the old adage was there is no "I" in team, but apparently Major League Baseball, and more particularly, the media covering such accomplishments (yes, I am guilty in this manner as well with my boy Biggio, but I wanted him to get it as soon as possible so the team could focus on winning and setting itself up for the future by playing some younger guys) have forgotten this important aspect. The Mets and the Yankees are both heavily involved in playoff races, but you would never know by the coverage and the emphasis people like ESPN have been putting on these accomplishments. Would I like to see Bonds' 755th and 756th homeruns on tv? Yes and the sooner the better so we can stop hearing about it. Is getting to 500 homeruns important? Yes, but only if A-Rod continues on to break Bonds' imminent record (in the same vein as the old Monty Python Holy Hand Grenade). But the biggest problem here is that a player like A-Rod appears to be struggling because he is trying to hit that 500th homer instead of just doing what he needs to do to help his team win ballgames (of course, he hasn't been needed that much in the past few days with the Yankees' power explosion). I really don't know what I am trying to prove here, but I just wanted to write out my thoughts on the subject and get yours as well. Are we too caught up in individual records (and as such, too caught up in fantasy sports) that we are willing to sacrifice whole seasons just to get an individual a record (or just a milestone)? I was always taught the team mattered more than the individual players, but times change as have our thoughts on the subject.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Astros at the Trade Deadline
Seeing as how this afternoon was the trade deadline (non-waiver trade deadline, anyway) and the point in the season when fans find out if their favorite team is planning a playoff push or is setting up for the future. As for my beloved Houston Astros, they were somewhat busy over the past week and made moves that will set them up for the future (yes, they would be deemed to be "sellers"). First, the organization has finally decided to get rid of Morgan Ensberg. This was a move that was over a year late. I understand that Ensberg was instrumental in our World Series run in 2005, but he was not the same player in the postseason (or the last season and a half) since he was hit on the wrist at the end of the '05 regular season. Prior to that he was at best an average hitter that showed signs of power. This would be satisfactory if the team did not have the likes of Biggio, Everett, Ausmus and the pitcher spot each hitting no better than .250. In order to jettison Ensberg and not have to rely on Mike Lamb, the Astros traded setup man Dan Wheeler to Tampa for Ty Wigginton. Wigginton is a solid .275 hitter with decent power. He was plagued with inconsistent play earlier in his career, but has been a solid addition to Tampa and I believe he will be pretty good for the Astros. Now, people are mad that they traded Wheeler, but lets be honest here. Wheeler was decent, but he would never be anything more than a middle reliever. He was used as a closer and performed terribly. In fact, he hasn't even been that great when relied on in the 8th inning in a hold situation. The Astros need starting pitching more than anything else, so I am fine with getting rid of Wheeler.
As for Ensberg, I am disappointed that the Astros were only able to get a player to be named later for him. I really felt like we could have packaged Ensberg and Chris Burke (together with Lidge) for a guy like Miguel Tejada right after the 2005 season when each were at their peak value. Yes, this was a rumored trade. Unfortunately, as many have heard me argue in the past, the biggest fault of Drayton McLane, Gerry Hunsicker and Tim Purpura and the Astros is that they can be too loyal. They had invested so much in Burke as a replacement to Biggio that they lost sight of the fact that he was a second baseman, which is not that pivotal of a position (and one that doesn't require a guy to hit 25-30 homeruns like the outfield or first and third base). So basically, the Astros traded Ensberg and Wheeler (plus cash considerations) for Ty Wigginton and a player to be named later. That is what we call getting the short end of the stick. Granted, Wigginton could turn into the next Ken Caminiti (sans steroids) and be an all-star for many years and the player to be named later could be an amazing talent. We will have to wait and see if Purpura knows what he is doing or if it becomes time for him and Scrap Iron to go.
As for Ensberg, I am disappointed that the Astros were only able to get a player to be named later for him. I really felt like we could have packaged Ensberg and Chris Burke (together with Lidge) for a guy like Miguel Tejada right after the 2005 season when each were at their peak value. Yes, this was a rumored trade. Unfortunately, as many have heard me argue in the past, the biggest fault of Drayton McLane, Gerry Hunsicker and Tim Purpura and the Astros is that they can be too loyal. They had invested so much in Burke as a replacement to Biggio that they lost sight of the fact that he was a second baseman, which is not that pivotal of a position (and one that doesn't require a guy to hit 25-30 homeruns like the outfield or first and third base). So basically, the Astros traded Ensberg and Wheeler (plus cash considerations) for Ty Wigginton and a player to be named later. That is what we call getting the short end of the stick. Granted, Wigginton could turn into the next Ken Caminiti (sans steroids) and be an all-star for many years and the player to be named later could be an amazing talent. We will have to wait and see if Purpura knows what he is doing or if it becomes time for him and Scrap Iron to go.
Captivity
Elisha Cuthbert.
Honestly, that’s the main reason my Viewing Companion (herein referred to as “VC”) and I first considered seeing Captivity. Ms. Cuthbert first came to my attention as Jack Bauer’s daughter on the television show “24”. If you didn’t watch “24” back then, you might know her from films like Old School (recently mentioned on this blog as “Movies You Should Have Seen By Now #3), The Girl Next Door, or House of Wax (a movie where much of the promotional tie-ins focused on Paris Hilton being in the film too).
Not wanting to base my reasons for seeing the movie totally on Ms. Cuthbert and wanting to have some idea what the movie was about, I read several reviews of the film. Reading reviews was a big mistake on my part. This movie contains several twists and turns, and many of the general reviews tried to describe the genre of this movie. Some reviews told me what “sub”-genre this movie fit into and what “sub”-genre it didn’t. Those “sub”-genre reviews killed some of the fun and unexpectedness for me.
Since I respect the readers of this blog, I’m not going to dive into a “sub”-genre description or even go much below the surface of genre description except to say that the movie is a thriller with elements of horror, suspense, torture, and romantic relations. I will mention that this movie seemed similar to Cuthbert’s House of Wax, mainly in terms of some similar plot dynamics (again I respect the reader too much to continue down this road).
Vague enough for you?
The basic plot summary is that Elisha Cuthbert’s character is a very famous cover girl or fashion model (near the beginning of the movie there are some interesting scenes of billboards and other media with Cuthbert’s image on them). Soon into the film, she attends a charity event. At the event she is drugged and abducted.
The rest of this relatively short film (about one and a half hours in total) examines the model’s relationship or interaction (if you can call it that) with her captor and others she encounters in the “dungeon” of sorts she is confined to. Aside from “verbal” interactions, and scenes of eerie shadows and light, there is some gore. I won’t say which characters “contribute” the gore, but it’s definitely not on the gore scale of a Saw or Hostel movie.
If you go in, as my VC and I did, expecting a fun and interesting movie that’s short and relatively to the point, then you’ll probably enjoy Captivity. Since the movie wasn’t some sort of revelation, we didn’t talk much about plot afterwards, and only briefly questioned whether we thought Cuthbert looked better with makeup or without :) . I'll mention that I thought there were some interesting cinematography aspects to the film involving shifts of the camera coupled with a nice play of dark and light or white and black.
There wasn’t too much in terms of plot that I hadn’t seen in other movies. At the most one could say that this movie was a unique combination of several thriller plot concepts. This particular combination of plot concepts might not have necessarily been seen in one film before but individual elements have definitely been seen in individual films previously. Of course, one element of that combination had to be a romantic component. Such components often seem out of place in movies such as this. The romantic component seems particularly out of place here, where prior to the romantic relationship the main character has been kidnapped, is unsure where she is, is trying to get out of wherever that is, and through recent interactions is unsure what the next minute or second might hold.
On the other hand, there were some things I was left desiring. Mainly, the dialogue and editing could have been better. Some of the dialogue seemed inauthentic in that the director was trying to get to the action and wanted as quick a dialogue segue (even if unrealistic) as possible. Editing could definitely have been tighter. For instance, my VC mentioned how several scenes seemed like they were filmed by an amateur. For example, in a particular scene one could see a “corpse” breathing. The breathing laid the groundwork for yet another potential twist in the story, but ended up being little more than poor acting/editing.
Overall, I’d recommend seeing this movie as long as you are not expecting a new level of filmmaking. If you go in with low expectations, you’ll be pleasantly surprised by Captivity. Go in with average expectations, and you’ll be satisfied. See it for Elisha Cuthbert and you’ll be just fine.
3 out of 5 tequila shots. You know what they say, “1 tequila, 2 tequila, 3 tequila, floor…” Anyway, it may have gotten that 4th shot if I hadn’t expected some of the twists and turns that those reviews generally described…
Honestly, that’s the main reason my Viewing Companion (herein referred to as “VC”) and I first considered seeing Captivity. Ms. Cuthbert first came to my attention as Jack Bauer’s daughter on the television show “24”. If you didn’t watch “24” back then, you might know her from films like Old School (recently mentioned on this blog as “Movies You Should Have Seen By Now #3), The Girl Next Door, or House of Wax (a movie where much of the promotional tie-ins focused on Paris Hilton being in the film too).
Not wanting to base my reasons for seeing the movie totally on Ms. Cuthbert and wanting to have some idea what the movie was about, I read several reviews of the film. Reading reviews was a big mistake on my part. This movie contains several twists and turns, and many of the general reviews tried to describe the genre of this movie. Some reviews told me what “sub”-genre this movie fit into and what “sub”-genre it didn’t. Those “sub”-genre reviews killed some of the fun and unexpectedness for me.
Since I respect the readers of this blog, I’m not going to dive into a “sub”-genre description or even go much below the surface of genre description except to say that the movie is a thriller with elements of horror, suspense, torture, and romantic relations. I will mention that this movie seemed similar to Cuthbert’s House of Wax, mainly in terms of some similar plot dynamics (again I respect the reader too much to continue down this road).
Vague enough for you?
The basic plot summary is that Elisha Cuthbert’s character is a very famous cover girl or fashion model (near the beginning of the movie there are some interesting scenes of billboards and other media with Cuthbert’s image on them). Soon into the film, she attends a charity event. At the event she is drugged and abducted.
The rest of this relatively short film (about one and a half hours in total) examines the model’s relationship or interaction (if you can call it that) with her captor and others she encounters in the “dungeon” of sorts she is confined to. Aside from “verbal” interactions, and scenes of eerie shadows and light, there is some gore. I won’t say which characters “contribute” the gore, but it’s definitely not on the gore scale of a Saw or Hostel movie.
If you go in, as my VC and I did, expecting a fun and interesting movie that’s short and relatively to the point, then you’ll probably enjoy Captivity. Since the movie wasn’t some sort of revelation, we didn’t talk much about plot afterwards, and only briefly questioned whether we thought Cuthbert looked better with makeup or without :) . I'll mention that I thought there were some interesting cinematography aspects to the film involving shifts of the camera coupled with a nice play of dark and light or white and black.
There wasn’t too much in terms of plot that I hadn’t seen in other movies. At the most one could say that this movie was a unique combination of several thriller plot concepts. This particular combination of plot concepts might not have necessarily been seen in one film before but individual elements have definitely been seen in individual films previously. Of course, one element of that combination had to be a romantic component. Such components often seem out of place in movies such as this. The romantic component seems particularly out of place here, where prior to the romantic relationship the main character has been kidnapped, is unsure where she is, is trying to get out of wherever that is, and through recent interactions is unsure what the next minute or second might hold.
On the other hand, there were some things I was left desiring. Mainly, the dialogue and editing could have been better. Some of the dialogue seemed inauthentic in that the director was trying to get to the action and wanted as quick a dialogue segue (even if unrealistic) as possible. Editing could definitely have been tighter. For instance, my VC mentioned how several scenes seemed like they were filmed by an amateur. For example, in a particular scene one could see a “corpse” breathing. The breathing laid the groundwork for yet another potential twist in the story, but ended up being little more than poor acting/editing.
Overall, I’d recommend seeing this movie as long as you are not expecting a new level of filmmaking. If you go in with low expectations, you’ll be pleasantly surprised by Captivity. Go in with average expectations, and you’ll be satisfied. See it for Elisha Cuthbert and you’ll be just fine.
3 out of 5 tequila shots. You know what they say, “1 tequila, 2 tequila, 3 tequila, floor…” Anyway, it may have gotten that 4th shot if I hadn’t expected some of the twists and turns that those reviews generally described…
WSOP - Part II
The following is Part II of the Yellow Knight's epic journey to the World Series of Poker.
So what does $10k get you at the World Series of Poker? It gets you a chair, a stack of chips with no monetary value, and a elevated sense of hope that you will become a millionaire in a week and a half. Conversations at the table ranged from how much money is expected to be paid, and to which celebrities they have seen so far.
Without going into details of my poker playing, lets just say that however well you play, ultimately it comes down to is luck. I definitely felt I played very well, but to win a large tournament like that comes down to how the cards fall into play. At one point during my two day play, I had a very comfortable sized stack, but I had to accumulate or inflation will catch up with me. I lost on my second day of play with an unfortunate matchup with someone who caught his miracle card on the river.
Placing in an event like that out of the money makes you wonder what you could of done with $10K. Although I didn't really put that money out of my own pocket, it would of been nice to have spent some of it. Ultimately it was an investment into an opportunity to possibly make a six to seven figure payout, but I will never see any of that unfortunately.
So after losing an major poker event like that, what does one do? I went out and had a nice steak dinner, went to walk around the other casinos to see if anything was going, and I played a little poker in the casino tables. I decided not to stay any longer as I would be tempted to play more poker than I had intended. So I flew out the very next morning and came back to Texas.
Would I do it all over again? Maybe, depending on how good a year it has been for me. But it was an amazing experience nonetheless to part of something that huge. My goal is to just make enough to get me through grad school. Anyways, enough about me. I'm going to get back to work now.
So what does $10k get you at the World Series of Poker? It gets you a chair, a stack of chips with no monetary value, and a elevated sense of hope that you will become a millionaire in a week and a half. Conversations at the table ranged from how much money is expected to be paid, and to which celebrities they have seen so far.
Without going into details of my poker playing, lets just say that however well you play, ultimately it comes down to is luck. I definitely felt I played very well, but to win a large tournament like that comes down to how the cards fall into play. At one point during my two day play, I had a very comfortable sized stack, but I had to accumulate or inflation will catch up with me. I lost on my second day of play with an unfortunate matchup with someone who caught his miracle card on the river.
Placing in an event like that out of the money makes you wonder what you could of done with $10K. Although I didn't really put that money out of my own pocket, it would of been nice to have spent some of it. Ultimately it was an investment into an opportunity to possibly make a six to seven figure payout, but I will never see any of that unfortunately.
So after losing an major poker event like that, what does one do? I went out and had a nice steak dinner, went to walk around the other casinos to see if anything was going, and I played a little poker in the casino tables. I decided not to stay any longer as I would be tempted to play more poker than I had intended. So I flew out the very next morning and came back to Texas.
Would I do it all over again? Maybe, depending on how good a year it has been for me. But it was an amazing experience nonetheless to part of something that huge. My goal is to just make enough to get me through grad school. Anyways, enough about me. I'm going to get back to work now.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Movies You Should Have Seen By Now #4
Citizen Kane
There is a reason why the American Film Institute continually ranks this as the #1 movie of all time. Simply put, this is a technical masterpiece and what every film should aspire to be. The film follows the rise of Charles Foster Kane (based loosely on William Randolph Hearst) through a series of flashbacks by a reporter attempting to ascertain what was the meaning of Kane's final word before he died "Rosebud". Orso Welles was a visionary and movies today would not be the same without the influence of Citizen Kane. The way Welles set up his shots, the lighting, everything was stunning even by today's standards. This is a two hour movie that feels like it is longer than that, but if you have any interest in movies, this is a must-see.
There is a reason why the American Film Institute continually ranks this as the #1 movie of all time. Simply put, this is a technical masterpiece and what every film should aspire to be. The film follows the rise of Charles Foster Kane (based loosely on William Randolph Hearst) through a series of flashbacks by a reporter attempting to ascertain what was the meaning of Kane's final word before he died "Rosebud". Orso Welles was a visionary and movies today would not be the same without the influence of Citizen Kane. The way Welles set up his shots, the lighting, everything was stunning even by today's standards. This is a two hour movie that feels like it is longer than that, but if you have any interest in movies, this is a must-see.
The Simpsons Movie - movie review
I went and saw the Simpsons Movie on Saturday evening and I still am not sure how to review it. The parameters for doing so are as uneven as the show has been over the last 10 years. Should I judge it on its own merits and not compare it to the show? If I do compare it to the show, do I look at the entire 18 years of it, the last 10, or the show at its peak (seasons 3-9, with the peak in my expert opinion coming in Season 8 (1996-97) - Kang and Kodos as Clinton and Dole, Hank Scorpio, Homer as a boxer, Rodney Dangerfield guesting, Bart working at a brothel, Flanders nervous breakdown, Homer's spiritual quest, Homer seeing an alien, Rex Banner and prohibition and way too many other great episodes)?
Was it a good movie? Absolutely. I was laughing my ass off at many of the jokes. The writers came up with an interesting story and filled it with plenty of jokes. The biggest problem I had was the "what-ifs". What if they made the movie ten years ago? What if Phil Hartman was still alive to voice some of the most classic characters (Troy McClure, Lionel Hutz and Lyle Lanley the monorail salesman)? What if they brought Conan O'Brien back as a writer? The other major question was where were Sideshow Bob and Sideshow Mel? I read one review that had a comment that really rang true (apologies to whoever wrote it that I am not giving you proper credit), that it seemed the writers, producers and the director played it too safe. One of the greatest things about the South Park movie was that Trey Parker and Matt Stone saw the line and jumped clear over it, by turning it into quite possibly the greatest movie-musical of all time. This movie played like a good episode of the show and compared to the last 10 years, possibly the best of the lot. However, when one considers what could have been back in the show's heyday, it is simply enjoyable and watchable.
5 out of 6 beers - namely because it exceeded the low expectations established by the last 10 years, but it couldn't quite meet the high expectations of the show at its peak.
Was it a good movie? Absolutely. I was laughing my ass off at many of the jokes. The writers came up with an interesting story and filled it with plenty of jokes. The biggest problem I had was the "what-ifs". What if they made the movie ten years ago? What if Phil Hartman was still alive to voice some of the most classic characters (Troy McClure, Lionel Hutz and Lyle Lanley the monorail salesman)? What if they brought Conan O'Brien back as a writer? The other major question was where were Sideshow Bob and Sideshow Mel? I read one review that had a comment that really rang true (apologies to whoever wrote it that I am not giving you proper credit), that it seemed the writers, producers and the director played it too safe. One of the greatest things about the South Park movie was that Trey Parker and Matt Stone saw the line and jumped clear over it, by turning it into quite possibly the greatest movie-musical of all time. This movie played like a good episode of the show and compared to the last 10 years, possibly the best of the lot. However, when one considers what could have been back in the show's heyday, it is simply enjoyable and watchable.
5 out of 6 beers - namely because it exceeded the low expectations established by the last 10 years, but it couldn't quite meet the high expectations of the show at its peak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
