In case you missed it Saturday night, Serena Williams lost in the semifinals of the US Open to Kim Clijsters.
The 6-4, 7-5, match should have been remembered for Clijsters taking one more step toward her comeback. The woman took off 2 1/2 years and will be the first mother to win a grand slam since Evonne Goolagong Cawley (sweet name) won Wimbledon in 1980. Instead, the match will be remembered for Williams' immature, curse-filled temper tantrum.
Williams was serving at 15-30, 5-6 in the second set, when she the line judge called Williams for a foot fault. It was Williams' second serve, so she lost the point. That's when Williams went off. She marched toward the line judge dropping numerous f-bombs and appeared to say that she would shove the f-ing ball down the line judge's throat or up her ass. Neither sounds pleasant.
Somehow that inital blow up didn't lead to a penalty, and it looked as if Williams would let it go and serve the next point. Williams wasn't done, though, and she started yelling again. As a result, the line judge ran over to the chair umpire, and Williams was forced to forfeit the point to end the match. It was Williams' second penalty. She broke her racket after losing the first set. Another mature action.
How could Williams argue so much about a foot fault? When a player is serving, they aren't looking at their feet. The line judge's only job in this case is to make sure the player does not step on or over the line. I have to think the line judge got it right. Just because it's the semifinals of a major doesn't mean judges should turn a blind eye to infractions.
When tournament officials asked the line judge what happened, the television audience could hear Williams save "I didn't say I'd kill you!" Now, I didn't hear Williams say those exact words, but something tells me that if you shove a tennis ball down someone's throat, they will probably die.
In the post match press conference, Williams actually claimed she didn't threaten the line judge, which is a lie. Maybe it was an idle threat, but she did scream she would do bad things to the line judge. Williams also refused to issue an apology for her actions. If you saw the press conference, you know Williams thinks she was the victim.
The world's No. 2 player even went so far as to say she didn't think the line judge new the rules, and that the penalty would end the match. News flash, Serena, the line judge probably knows the rules, you just think you're above them.
If you want to act like a child, go for it, but be prepared to accept the consequences.
Life's Been Good - Joe Walsh
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Federer's streak
For those of you not familiar with tennis, Roger Federer has advanced to his 22nd consecutive Grand Slam semifinal. In case you're not sure how good that really is, the next best streak is 10 by Ivan Lendl.
In a sport where it is so easy to lose focus for a few minutes, Federer has never wavered in the first week and a half of a grand slam in the past 5 1/2 years. That statistic, along with his men's record of 15 grand slam singles titles, is more than enough proof to say he is the best ever to play the game.
No one player has ever dominated tennis, or any sport (sorry Tiger) like Federer.
Tennis' grand slams are on three different surfaces: clay, grass and hardcourts. Playing on different surfaces allows for certain players to be specialists. Spaniards are known for being the best clay court players in the world, while big servers have historically dominated Wimbledon's grass courts. Federer has found success on all surfaces.
The French Open and the red clay of Roland Garos was Federer's last obstacle in cementing is place in history with a career Grand Slam. Federer's critics like to say he is weak on clay, and that his victory at the French this year is less impressive because Rafael Nadal was hurt. And they are wrong.
Federer has been to four consecutive finals and five straight semifinals at Roland Garos. He has consistantly been the second best clay court player during this time. His only problem is that he goes up against the greatest clay court player to ever set foot on the court in Nadal. While it's true Federer didn't have to beat Nadal for the title this year, he did have to play great tennis for seven matches. He also rallied in several of those matches when lesser players would have folded.
The other critique of Federer that is popular is that he isn't facing the same level of competition as Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe to name a few. This is unfair. When you have a player as dominant as Federer, you don't really know how good the rest of the competition is.
Bear with me here. Andy Roddick has only won one grand slam despite being in five finals. He faced Federer in the other four. Who knows how many titles Roddick would have if it weren't for Federer. Then we would not be talking about how disappointing Roddick's career has been, but rather how he was one of the great American players of all time.
Nadal would also have several more titles if Federer was not there to stop him. So to say that his competition is not the same as what Sampras, Borg and Agassi had can't be an criticism. Perhaps Federer is just so much better, he makes others look bad.
Look back at some old footgae of McEnroe and Borg. Their form would be laughed at today, but because of technology it was how the game had to be played back then. To try and compare them to Federer and say they were better and had more competition is impossible to prove considering the technology and other changes in the game.
Federer has dominated his genereation of tennis like no one before him, and when he retires he will do so as the best to ever play. End of story.
If You Want Blood - AC/DC
In a sport where it is so easy to lose focus for a few minutes, Federer has never wavered in the first week and a half of a grand slam in the past 5 1/2 years. That statistic, along with his men's record of 15 grand slam singles titles, is more than enough proof to say he is the best ever to play the game.
No one player has ever dominated tennis, or any sport (sorry Tiger) like Federer.
Tennis' grand slams are on three different surfaces: clay, grass and hardcourts. Playing on different surfaces allows for certain players to be specialists. Spaniards are known for being the best clay court players in the world, while big servers have historically dominated Wimbledon's grass courts. Federer has found success on all surfaces.
The French Open and the red clay of Roland Garos was Federer's last obstacle in cementing is place in history with a career Grand Slam. Federer's critics like to say he is weak on clay, and that his victory at the French this year is less impressive because Rafael Nadal was hurt. And they are wrong.
Federer has been to four consecutive finals and five straight semifinals at Roland Garos. He has consistantly been the second best clay court player during this time. His only problem is that he goes up against the greatest clay court player to ever set foot on the court in Nadal. While it's true Federer didn't have to beat Nadal for the title this year, he did have to play great tennis for seven matches. He also rallied in several of those matches when lesser players would have folded.
The other critique of Federer that is popular is that he isn't facing the same level of competition as Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Bjorn Borg, Jimmy Connors and John McEnroe to name a few. This is unfair. When you have a player as dominant as Federer, you don't really know how good the rest of the competition is.
Bear with me here. Andy Roddick has only won one grand slam despite being in five finals. He faced Federer in the other four. Who knows how many titles Roddick would have if it weren't for Federer. Then we would not be talking about how disappointing Roddick's career has been, but rather how he was one of the great American players of all time.
Nadal would also have several more titles if Federer was not there to stop him. So to say that his competition is not the same as what Sampras, Borg and Agassi had can't be an criticism. Perhaps Federer is just so much better, he makes others look bad.
Look back at some old footgae of McEnroe and Borg. Their form would be laughed at today, but because of technology it was how the game had to be played back then. To try and compare them to Federer and say they were better and had more competition is impossible to prove considering the technology and other changes in the game.
Federer has dominated his genereation of tennis like no one before him, and when he retires he will do so as the best to ever play. End of story.
If You Want Blood - AC/DC
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Pirates bad, but Phillies worse
The Pittsburgh Pirates lost their 82nd game on Labor Day. It was a significant loss because it ensured that they will finish the season under .500for a record setting 17th consecutive season.
It's not only a baseball record, but an NFL, NHL and NBA record as well. No team has been so bad for 17 consecutive seasons in the history of the big four sports. But look closer at baseball history. This is not the worst stretch for a team, yet.
The Philadelphia Phillies had losing seasons in 30 of 31 seasons between 1918 and 1948. They had streaks of 13 and 16 seasons with losing seasons. In 1929, when they were 78-76 and did not make the playoffs. So is it any different than being a losing season?
Another factor to look at is that during that streak, the Phillies had 12 seasons of 100 losses or more. The Pirates have only had one such season (2001) during the past 17 years. So, yes the Pirates are terrible and have been so for awhile, but until they have 31 losing seasons in 32 years, the Phillies have us topped.
Let's be honest, while Pittsburgh fans would actually get excited about baseball again if the Pirates managed a winning season, it doesn't mean anything if they don't make the playoffs. Ask any team or player, and I guarantee they are not satisfied unless they make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if they have a winning record or not.
Since we're talking about playoffs, the Milwaukee Brewers had a stretch that was worse than the Pirates too. Between 1983 and 2007, the Brewers didn't make the playoffs. That is worse than 17-year playoff drought the Pirates are in.
The Pirates might break both of those records for awful, but they're not there yet.
By the way, Chad Ochocinco thinks the Cincinnati Bengals are going to win 12 games. I'll leave it up to my loyal four readers to describe how stupid that prediction is.
Another by the way. I wrote this before I read Gene Collier's column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Sarah - Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers
It's not only a baseball record, but an NFL, NHL and NBA record as well. No team has been so bad for 17 consecutive seasons in the history of the big four sports. But look closer at baseball history. This is not the worst stretch for a team, yet.
The Philadelphia Phillies had losing seasons in 30 of 31 seasons between 1918 and 1948. They had streaks of 13 and 16 seasons with losing seasons. In 1929, when they were 78-76 and did not make the playoffs. So is it any different than being a losing season?
Another factor to look at is that during that streak, the Phillies had 12 seasons of 100 losses or more. The Pirates have only had one such season (2001) during the past 17 years. So, yes the Pirates are terrible and have been so for awhile, but until they have 31 losing seasons in 32 years, the Phillies have us topped.
Let's be honest, while Pittsburgh fans would actually get excited about baseball again if the Pirates managed a winning season, it doesn't mean anything if they don't make the playoffs. Ask any team or player, and I guarantee they are not satisfied unless they make the playoffs. It doesn't matter if they have a winning record or not.
Since we're talking about playoffs, the Milwaukee Brewers had a stretch that was worse than the Pirates too. Between 1983 and 2007, the Brewers didn't make the playoffs. That is worse than 17-year playoff drought the Pirates are in.
The Pirates might break both of those records for awful, but they're not there yet.
By the way, Chad Ochocinco thinks the Cincinnati Bengals are going to win 12 games. I'll leave it up to my loyal four readers to describe how stupid that prediction is.
Another by the way. I wrote this before I read Gene Collier's column in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.
Sarah - Buddy Wasisname and the Other Fellers
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Chad Ochocinco
He was on First and 10 this morning debating with Skip Bayless about, well, himself. They were also talking about other prima donna receivers. I had to stop watching because it was a mind numbing conversation.
Ochocinco was his usual immature self, and I found myself in an awkward position. I agreed with Skip! He was calling Ochocinco (do I really need to type that name every time?) and Terrell Owens distractions to their teams. Chad said Bayless had no idea what he was talking about and that he and T.O. are not. He had no reasoning or defense. Just that T.O. wants to win.
No, that is not all T.O., or Chad want. They want to be the center of attention. That's why one of them started a phony reality show and the other changed his name to his number in spanish.
There is no doubting they are awesome talents. The numbers don't lie. But they are not team players. If all they cared about was winning, why is it they have zero Super Bowl rings between them? In the case of T.O., he forced himself off a Super Bowl contender in Philadelphia. Look at his numbers and the Eagles' record when he played for them. He and McNabb were awesome together. But that wasn't good enough for T.O.
As for Chad, he is coming off a terrible year. He said he's not a distraction. Well what about his constant trade demands last season? If he is so great, how come the Bengals have made the playoffs all of one time since he joined the squad? He can't argue that he doesn't get the ball enough. He's had 87 or more receptions in five of the last six seasons.
It's time for receivers to stop worrying about their stats and start worrying about wins. They remind of that annoying kid we all used to play backyard football with. You know, the guy who is constantly whining how open he is. Now these guys usually suck, whereas Chad and T.O. are pro bowl receivers, but I still think the argument stands.
They are not thinking about the type of position the quarterback is in. Maybe he is being rushed, or he is going through is progression and sees another receiver open.
It's not all about you, Chad and T.O.
Waiting - Soulcracker (Good luck finding that one)
Ochocinco was his usual immature self, and I found myself in an awkward position. I agreed with Skip! He was calling Ochocinco (do I really need to type that name every time?) and Terrell Owens distractions to their teams. Chad said Bayless had no idea what he was talking about and that he and T.O. are not. He had no reasoning or defense. Just that T.O. wants to win.
No, that is not all T.O., or Chad want. They want to be the center of attention. That's why one of them started a phony reality show and the other changed his name to his number in spanish.
There is no doubting they are awesome talents. The numbers don't lie. But they are not team players. If all they cared about was winning, why is it they have zero Super Bowl rings between them? In the case of T.O., he forced himself off a Super Bowl contender in Philadelphia. Look at his numbers and the Eagles' record when he played for them. He and McNabb were awesome together. But that wasn't good enough for T.O.
As for Chad, he is coming off a terrible year. He said he's not a distraction. Well what about his constant trade demands last season? If he is so great, how come the Bengals have made the playoffs all of one time since he joined the squad? He can't argue that he doesn't get the ball enough. He's had 87 or more receptions in five of the last six seasons.
It's time for receivers to stop worrying about their stats and start worrying about wins. They remind of that annoying kid we all used to play backyard football with. You know, the guy who is constantly whining how open he is. Now these guys usually suck, whereas Chad and T.O. are pro bowl receivers, but I still think the argument stands.
They are not thinking about the type of position the quarterback is in. Maybe he is being rushed, or he is going through is progression and sees another receiver open.
It's not all about you, Chad and T.O.
Waiting - Soulcracker (Good luck finding that one)
Monday, September 7, 2009
NFL preview
I'm jumping on the bandwagon and going to predict who wins each division and then the Super Bowl in the NFL this season. While I am doing this, I will admit that this has become a problem with sports journalism.
People always want to hear predictions and projections for the season, or each week. When the columnist, reporter or whoever it makes a wrong call, they are ripped into. It also causes readers and viewers to think less of that columnist or reporter, because they couldn't correctly predict what happened. We have all done it. We make fun of these journalists that are supposed to know more than anyone about certain teams, yet here they are making wrong picks, and we feel like we know more about the sport than they do.
I am as guilty as anyone with this idea of thinking I'm better than beat reporters and national columnists. It's easy for us to think we're smarter. We're not on national television or in large circulation papers making predictions. When we're wrong, only a handful of people hear it. When we're right, we let everyone who will listen know that we were right.
If experts, broadcasters and writers stopped making predictions, it would be a good thing. But until then, here are my picks!
AFC East: The Patriots are going to runaway with this division. Their secondary is weak and they don't run the ball well, but the offense is way too explosive for anyone in that division to compete with them. Brady and Moss won't be setting records like they did two seasons ago, but they will do enough to make it to the AFC Championship game.
AFC South: No Dungy? No problem. Peyton Manning will coach the Indianapolis Colts to another division title. Losing Marvin Harrison is going to be a good thing for the Colts. Last year he was not effective. Now Anthony Gonzalez has a chance to shine. His preseason wasn't good, but it's the preseason. No one cares.
The Tennessee Titans will challenge for the division, but I expect a drop this year. Six of their 14 wins last season were by 10 points or less. Subtract the havoc that Albert Haynesworth wreaked on opposing offenses and I think they only win 10 games this season. It will still be enough for a Wild Card.
AFC North: The Steelers are going to win this division again. This is not a homer pick, just the truth. The Bengals and Browns are going to suck again this year, leaving the Ravens and Steelers to fight it out again.
The Steelers will take it because their defense is better, and Ben Roethlisberger is the better quarterback with better weapons. The Steelers also have a soft schedule on paper. Only six of their 16 games are against playoff teams from last year, four of those six are at home and one of them is against the Miami Dolphins in January.
The Steelers will go 13-3 and win the Super Bowl. OK, that last one might be a homer pick, but I really think the AFC comes down to them or the Patriots.
I almost forgot the AFC West because it is so terrible. The San Diego Chargers will win this division. They could probably win it with six wins, but they'll get 11 this season. Which will be more than Oakland Raiders, Kansas City Chiefs and Denver Broncos combine for.
NFC East: The only team I like in this division is the Philadelphia Eagles. The Giants can run the ball well, but I am not confident in Eli Manning and his unproven receivers. I think teams will stack the box and force the Giants to throw. Of course, this could blow up in my face and Domenik Hixon and Hakeem Nicks step up, but I don't think they will.
Meanwhile, the Eagles are good on both sides of the ball. Despite not having a go-to receiver, they make it work with what they have. Brian Westbrook will be great when he plays and Shady McCoy do well enough when Westbrook misses a few games. The Eagles' defense will also be playing their hearts out for the recently deceased Jim Johnson.
The Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys will just be meh this year and will have new head coaches next season.
NFC South: This is the hardest division to pick. There is no dominant team here. It's the Saints turn this year. The offense is just too good to miss the playoffs for a third straight year. Drew Brees might throw for 10,000 yards this year.
The Atlanta Falcons will be solid enough to grab a wild card and the Carolina Panthers might kill Jake Delhomme before the year is through. Seriously, he might just go missing come December.
NFC North: A 39-year-old quarterback with a partially torn rotator cuff is not the answer. Therefore, the Green Bay Packers will take the North this year. Aaron Rodgers has a full season under his belt and is only going to get better this year. Ryan Grant is healthy and had a full camp and the defense should be better. Add all that up and I smell a run at the NFC Championship.
The Minnesota Vikings will get a wild card, though. Not so much because of Brett Favre, but more so because the defense and running game. Adrian Peterson is a freak and will carry that team. The Vikings will run the ball a lot more and take the ball out of Favre's hand. But teams will still have too much respect for him to stack the box. Favre will still cost them two games, though.
NFC West: Why do teams out west stink so much? Seriously, only one team in this division is going to have a winning record. The Arizona Cardinals will win this division with 10 wins. No matter who is quarterback, this team is going to have a great offense and will be fun to watch. Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin is the best receiver tandem in the league, and this division is just bad.
The Seattle Seahawks did get T.J. Houshmandzadeh (didn't even need to look up the spelling!) but their offensive line is in shambles. Their best lineman, Walter Jones, had knee surgery is late August and will miss at least four games. He could be out all year. Matt Hasselbeck will be under constant pressure and they won't get eight wins.
The San Francisco 49ers are OK, but they still don't have a quarterback that can lead you to the playoffs.
So there you have it. The Steelers, Patriots, Chargers, Colts, Titans, Ravens, Eagles, Saints, Packers, Cardinals, Vikings and Falcons will make the playoffs. The Steelers will then beat the Packers in the Super Bowl.
We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off - Jermaine Stewart
People always want to hear predictions and projections for the season, or each week. When the columnist, reporter or whoever it makes a wrong call, they are ripped into. It also causes readers and viewers to think less of that columnist or reporter, because they couldn't correctly predict what happened. We have all done it. We make fun of these journalists that are supposed to know more than anyone about certain teams, yet here they are making wrong picks, and we feel like we know more about the sport than they do.
I am as guilty as anyone with this idea of thinking I'm better than beat reporters and national columnists. It's easy for us to think we're smarter. We're not on national television or in large circulation papers making predictions. When we're wrong, only a handful of people hear it. When we're right, we let everyone who will listen know that we were right.
If experts, broadcasters and writers stopped making predictions, it would be a good thing. But until then, here are my picks!
AFC East: The Patriots are going to runaway with this division. Their secondary is weak and they don't run the ball well, but the offense is way too explosive for anyone in that division to compete with them. Brady and Moss won't be setting records like they did two seasons ago, but they will do enough to make it to the AFC Championship game.
AFC South: No Dungy? No problem. Peyton Manning will coach the Indianapolis Colts to another division title. Losing Marvin Harrison is going to be a good thing for the Colts. Last year he was not effective. Now Anthony Gonzalez has a chance to shine. His preseason wasn't good, but it's the preseason. No one cares.
The Tennessee Titans will challenge for the division, but I expect a drop this year. Six of their 14 wins last season were by 10 points or less. Subtract the havoc that Albert Haynesworth wreaked on opposing offenses and I think they only win 10 games this season. It will still be enough for a Wild Card.
AFC North: The Steelers are going to win this division again. This is not a homer pick, just the truth. The Bengals and Browns are going to suck again this year, leaving the Ravens and Steelers to fight it out again.
The Steelers will take it because their defense is better, and Ben Roethlisberger is the better quarterback with better weapons. The Steelers also have a soft schedule on paper. Only six of their 16 games are against playoff teams from last year, four of those six are at home and one of them is against the Miami Dolphins in January.
The Steelers will go 13-3 and win the Super Bowl. OK, that last one might be a homer pick, but I really think the AFC comes down to them or the Patriots.
I almost forgot the AFC West because it is so terrible. The San Diego Chargers will win this division. They could probably win it with six wins, but they'll get 11 this season. Which will be more than Oakland Raiders, Kansas City Chiefs and Denver Broncos combine for.
NFC East: The only team I like in this division is the Philadelphia Eagles. The Giants can run the ball well, but I am not confident in Eli Manning and his unproven receivers. I think teams will stack the box and force the Giants to throw. Of course, this could blow up in my face and Domenik Hixon and Hakeem Nicks step up, but I don't think they will.
Meanwhile, the Eagles are good on both sides of the ball. Despite not having a go-to receiver, they make it work with what they have. Brian Westbrook will be great when he plays and Shady McCoy do well enough when Westbrook misses a few games. The Eagles' defense will also be playing their hearts out for the recently deceased Jim Johnson.
The Washington Redskins and Dallas Cowboys will just be meh this year and will have new head coaches next season.
NFC South: This is the hardest division to pick. There is no dominant team here. It's the Saints turn this year. The offense is just too good to miss the playoffs for a third straight year. Drew Brees might throw for 10,000 yards this year.
The Atlanta Falcons will be solid enough to grab a wild card and the Carolina Panthers might kill Jake Delhomme before the year is through. Seriously, he might just go missing come December.
NFC North: A 39-year-old quarterback with a partially torn rotator cuff is not the answer. Therefore, the Green Bay Packers will take the North this year. Aaron Rodgers has a full season under his belt and is only going to get better this year. Ryan Grant is healthy and had a full camp and the defense should be better. Add all that up and I smell a run at the NFC Championship.
The Minnesota Vikings will get a wild card, though. Not so much because of Brett Favre, but more so because the defense and running game. Adrian Peterson is a freak and will carry that team. The Vikings will run the ball a lot more and take the ball out of Favre's hand. But teams will still have too much respect for him to stack the box. Favre will still cost them two games, though.
NFC West: Why do teams out west stink so much? Seriously, only one team in this division is going to have a winning record. The Arizona Cardinals will win this division with 10 wins. No matter who is quarterback, this team is going to have a great offense and will be fun to watch. Larry Fitzgerald and Anquan Boldin is the best receiver tandem in the league, and this division is just bad.
The Seattle Seahawks did get T.J. Houshmandzadeh (didn't even need to look up the spelling!) but their offensive line is in shambles. Their best lineman, Walter Jones, had knee surgery is late August and will miss at least four games. He could be out all year. Matt Hasselbeck will be under constant pressure and they won't get eight wins.
The San Francisco 49ers are OK, but they still don't have a quarterback that can lead you to the playoffs.
So there you have it. The Steelers, Patriots, Chargers, Colts, Titans, Ravens, Eagles, Saints, Packers, Cardinals, Vikings and Falcons will make the playoffs. The Steelers will then beat the Packers in the Super Bowl.
We Don't Have to Take Our Clothes Off - Jermaine Stewart
Thursday, September 3, 2009
"24" in a nutshell
I've had friends tell me for years how amazing "24" is. How Jack Bauer is the greatest person and biggest bad ass in the world. This fanaticism turned me off of the show and I never watched -- until now.
The show is definitely intense, with every episode ending with a cliffhanger that makes you need to watch the next one. Through three seasons, I think I can fairly rate the show. The short story would be it's like crack, or any other addictive drug. It's not good, the acting is pretty laughable at times, but it's addictive and hard to quit.
So rather than give an in depth review of the first three seasons, (they're on to eight, so I have a ways to go) I figured I'd give you some observations. I just love lists too much to resist.
The show is definitely intense, with every episode ending with a cliffhanger that makes you need to watch the next one. Through three seasons, I think I can fairly rate the show. The short story would be it's like crack, or any other addictive drug. It's not good, the acting is pretty laughable at times, but it's addictive and hard to quit.
So rather than give an in depth review of the first three seasons, (they're on to eight, so I have a ways to go) I figured I'd give you some observations. I just love lists too much to resist.
- Don't get attached to any character not named Jack Bauer. They will disappear without explanation when the next season comes around. Or they will die.
- The main agency in the show is the Los Angeles Counter Terrorist Unit. They are tasked with saving the day every season, yet they have the worst security ever. Any bad guy owns them.
- CTU is also constantly infiltrated by bad guys, or the bad guys get to agents. You'd expect them to be a little harder to find. On the other hand, they are not the CIA.
- How there still is an L.A. branch of CTU is beyond me. In the three seasons I've seen, the agents die by the score. I'd say for every bad guy taken out, there are five CTU agents dying.
- The show hates women. They're either very dumb, or get the crap beat out of them, and/or are killed.
- You will want Kim Bauer to die or go off to college. Her good looks only go so far before her annoying character and bad acting bother you.
- Harrison Ford would be the greatest Jack Bauer. Even at age 70.
- You'll be on the edge of your seat waiting for the President to try and sell you car insurance.
- Lou Diamond Phillips is awesome.
- The whole 24 hours in real time is a neat idea, but it hurts the show. They really stretch out the seasons to fill their 24 show requirement.
- Jack Bauer's character is loosly based on the life of a friend of mine we'll call Levi. Levi just doesn't know it yet.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Summer movie reviews
Seeing as today is the start of Fall, I decided to give everyone a review of the summer movies I saw. There will also be some that I did not see. For some reason, movies that came out in May were considered summer movies, so Wolverine and Star Trek will be reviewed.
Also, I enjoy movies, but I am not that hard to please. You will never hear me talk about cinematography or that kind of stuff. So this is a simple review. I either liked it or I didn't.
Wolverine - C-: Gambit and Deadpool (the correct Deadpool) are not in this movie very much. Just like in X-Men: The Last Stand, the makers of the film just tried to put in as many mutants as they could to draw people to the movie. It worked.
I went expecting Gambit to have a large role, and Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was perfect casting. Instead I got 10 minutes of those two combined, lots of action and a storyline that didn't make a lot of sense. While I was fine with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's subpar plot, Wolverine just annoyed me. It wasn't accurate, and even the great action scenes couldn't rescue it.
Star Trek - B: I'm not a big Star Trek guy, but this was a fun movie. Special effects were cool, acting was surprisingly good and the story made sense. It's weird seeing a movie with Harold in it, but no Kumar. And then to see Harold being a expert, weird lightsabre-esque swordsman was even more surprising.
Loved that Leonard Nemoy made an appearance and think this was a good reboot for the franchise.
The Hangover - B+: Really funny. Not on Old School or Slackers level (yes, I said Slackers. Deal with it), but it was very enjoyable. Zach Galifinakis steals the show and reminds us all how cool it is to be in a wolf pack.
It probably would have been an A- if not for my inexplicable hatred for Bradley Cooper. Don't ask me why I hate him, I just told you it's inexplicable and I have no reason I can think of. Something in my subconscious just hates on the man.
Public Enemies - B-: It wasn't bad. It just wasn't anything special either. I'd take the Untouchables over it any day of the week. Johnny Depp did a good job as John Dillinger, but his was the only noteworthy performance. Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover was cool, but he just wasn't in the movie enough.
Christian Bale as Melvin Pervis was interesting. I saw it with Swan, who had read up on all these people, and the potrayal of Pervis was very inaccurate he said. In the movie, Bale was a one man, crime fighting, gangster killing machine. Early in the movie he kills Pretty Boy Floyd (who was in the movie for all of two minutes), when that never happened. There was also the multiple kills he had near the end of the movie that never happened in real life.
It kind of makes you wonder if Bale had some rewrites so he could look more badass. I was half expecting him to show up in his Batman costume at one point.
The Orphan - Did not see: I remember this movie coming out a long time ago when it was called The Omen. Why pay to see it again?
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - A: Loved it. What is more fun than seeing giant robots from outer space blowing each other, and everything around them, sky high? I can't think of anything other than Keira Knightley.
Sure the story is kind of weak and there are no Oscar performances here, but this is Transformers people. You don't see it for either of those two things. You see it to escape for two hours, enjoy a lot of special effects, debate if Megen Fox is hot or just slutty, some quirky lines and to see robots fighting. Optimus Prime is amazing in this one because he went from getting his ass handed to him by Megatron in the first one, to taking on several Decepticons, including Megatron, all at once. He also talks more smack than Miami Dolphins' Joey Porter. It's hilarious.
Try and ignore the twins Autobots that appear to be terrible steretypes. I actually felt dirty for laughing at them a few times.
G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra - Did not see: Remember that inexplicable hatred for Bradley Cooper I have? It goes double for Channing Tatum. I'll probably rent it at some point because I have an inexplicable love for Dennis Quaid. I'm still trying to figure out what accent he was shooting for in Dragonheart.
The Ugly Truth - F: I have a beautiful girlfriend whom I love very much. So there are occasions that she wants to see some pretty awful looking romantic comedies, and I get to go with her. That is how this occurred.
It was the worst movie I have seen in theaters since Daredevil. Usually there will be a few scenes in Rom-Coms that make me at least giggle. Didn't happen here. Everything was predicatable, not funny and lame. The Orphan had to have been better. And why does Gerard Butler only speak with one side of his mouth? It's like the David Beckham effect and I can't stand it.
G-Force - Did not see: But I laugh every time I see the trailer where the mice chant, "Poop in his hand! Poop in his hand!"
The Final Destination - Did not see: Why are they still making these? And is there really that much going on under an escalator?
if I missed one, please feel free to give your own review.
Burning Down the House - Talking Heads
Also, I enjoy movies, but I am not that hard to please. You will never hear me talk about cinematography or that kind of stuff. So this is a simple review. I either liked it or I didn't.
Wolverine - C-: Gambit and Deadpool (the correct Deadpool) are not in this movie very much. Just like in X-Men: The Last Stand, the makers of the film just tried to put in as many mutants as they could to draw people to the movie. It worked.
I went expecting Gambit to have a large role, and Ryan Reynolds as Deadpool was perfect casting. Instead I got 10 minutes of those two combined, lots of action and a storyline that didn't make a lot of sense. While I was fine with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen's subpar plot, Wolverine just annoyed me. It wasn't accurate, and even the great action scenes couldn't rescue it.
Star Trek - B: I'm not a big Star Trek guy, but this was a fun movie. Special effects were cool, acting was surprisingly good and the story made sense. It's weird seeing a movie with Harold in it, but no Kumar. And then to see Harold being a expert, weird lightsabre-esque swordsman was even more surprising.
Loved that Leonard Nemoy made an appearance and think this was a good reboot for the franchise.
The Hangover - B+: Really funny. Not on Old School or Slackers level (yes, I said Slackers. Deal with it), but it was very enjoyable. Zach Galifinakis steals the show and reminds us all how cool it is to be in a wolf pack.
It probably would have been an A- if not for my inexplicable hatred for Bradley Cooper. Don't ask me why I hate him, I just told you it's inexplicable and I have no reason I can think of. Something in my subconscious just hates on the man.
Public Enemies - B-: It wasn't bad. It just wasn't anything special either. I'd take the Untouchables over it any day of the week. Johnny Depp did a good job as John Dillinger, but his was the only noteworthy performance. Billy Crudup as J. Edgar Hoover was cool, but he just wasn't in the movie enough.
Christian Bale as Melvin Pervis was interesting. I saw it with Swan, who had read up on all these people, and the potrayal of Pervis was very inaccurate he said. In the movie, Bale was a one man, crime fighting, gangster killing machine. Early in the movie he kills Pretty Boy Floyd (who was in the movie for all of two minutes), when that never happened. There was also the multiple kills he had near the end of the movie that never happened in real life.
It kind of makes you wonder if Bale had some rewrites so he could look more badass. I was half expecting him to show up in his Batman costume at one point.
The Orphan - Did not see: I remember this movie coming out a long time ago when it was called The Omen. Why pay to see it again?
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen - A: Loved it. What is more fun than seeing giant robots from outer space blowing each other, and everything around them, sky high? I can't think of anything other than Keira Knightley.
Sure the story is kind of weak and there are no Oscar performances here, but this is Transformers people. You don't see it for either of those two things. You see it to escape for two hours, enjoy a lot of special effects, debate if Megen Fox is hot or just slutty, some quirky lines and to see robots fighting. Optimus Prime is amazing in this one because he went from getting his ass handed to him by Megatron in the first one, to taking on several Decepticons, including Megatron, all at once. He also talks more smack than Miami Dolphins' Joey Porter. It's hilarious.
Try and ignore the twins Autobots that appear to be terrible steretypes. I actually felt dirty for laughing at them a few times.
G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra - Did not see: Remember that inexplicable hatred for Bradley Cooper I have? It goes double for Channing Tatum. I'll probably rent it at some point because I have an inexplicable love for Dennis Quaid. I'm still trying to figure out what accent he was shooting for in Dragonheart.
The Ugly Truth - F: I have a beautiful girlfriend whom I love very much. So there are occasions that she wants to see some pretty awful looking romantic comedies, and I get to go with her. That is how this occurred.
It was the worst movie I have seen in theaters since Daredevil. Usually there will be a few scenes in Rom-Coms that make me at least giggle. Didn't happen here. Everything was predicatable, not funny and lame. The Orphan had to have been better. And why does Gerard Butler only speak with one side of his mouth? It's like the David Beckham effect and I can't stand it.
G-Force - Did not see: But I laugh every time I see the trailer where the mice chant, "Poop in his hand! Poop in his hand!"
The Final Destination - Did not see: Why are they still making these? And is there really that much going on under an escalator?
if I missed one, please feel free to give your own review.
Burning Down the House - Talking Heads
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)