Tuesday, July 29, 2014

There's "sin" in both of these

This first "Sin" is the red band trailer for Sin City: A Dame to Kill for:

The "Sin" in this second video is that we've waited a number of years and were teased recently by pictures of my Duffster in a bikini on the beach and this is what we get for our patience:

3:24 of that trailer and I'm wondering how many people are going well, I've just seen the entire movie . . . that saved me a few bucks. And my Duffster . . . oh honey, perhaps a little more Taylor Momsen and a little less Debbie Gibson in the next song, okay?


Monday, July 28, 2014

And this is apparently how Wonder Woman looks

gal gadot as wonder woman

Miss Israel 2004 Gal Gadot has been tagged to play Wonder Woman in the upcoming Batman vs. Superman movie. Now I hate to be nit-picky here, but I usually like my amazons to look . . . you know . . . amazonian:

gal gadot
gal gadot

She's beautiful and adorable and looks like she should be playing Robin's girlfriend or something, not an amazon warrior princess from an isolated island. She probably couldn't act her way out of a paper bag, but Khloe Kardashian fits the mold, physically, more than Ms. Gadot. And isn't this movie, or at least the big battle between Batman and Superman, sort of based on The Dark Night Returns by Frank Miller? I don't even remember Wonder Woman being in that book.

oh well

While she may not be my first choice, from strictly a physique standpoint, to play Wonder Woman, Gadot has certainly shown some rarely-seen-in-Hollywood courage by Tweeting her support for Israel. This naturally brought the usual hate-filled blow back from low information anti-Semitic trolls on Twitter. But Gadot hasn't taken the bait or stepped back from supporting her country in their fight against murderous terrorists.
Good for her.

Kendall Jenner sideboob

Cause it's been like 5 minutes since this teenager has showed off the goods in a photoshoot or on Instagram:

kendall jenner sideboob

Well, what do you know

Boston actually won a game yesterday, bookending their seven game road trip with a blow out win in Toronto and Sunday's 3-2 win over the Rays. Of course, they lost the five games in the middle, thus the bookending remark.

The Red Sox won the game on David Ortiz' 3 run homer that naturally brought some griping by the Rays, this time from baby-faced Chris Archer. He of the spaz-tastic celebration after an inning ending strike out or kissing his biceps after a K.

Archer took exception to Papi's bat flip, and echoed David Price's earlier season whine about Ortiz thinking he's bigger than the game. After being pressed on the remarks, Papi said that with only a couple of minutes in the league, maybe Archer should hold off calling out players with a bigger portfolio.

If the Rays played as well as they pissed and moaned about things, they'd be leading the division by now.

Boston is not mathematically out of it yet, but I can't see them winning the division or even getting close enough for a wild card. Don't know what's going on, but they simply aren't swinging the bats. Ask Jake Peavy. Their impotence at the plate cost him his job. Hopefully he'll get another taste of the post season in San Francisco.

I'm getting the feeling that Cherri and Farrell are looking at this season as a lost cost as well. They've got wildly inconsistant Del la Rosa in the rotation and have brought up Alan Webster to fill Peavy's spot. Webster may have gotten the win Sunday, but he's pretty much been shelled every time he's tried to pitch in the bigs since he got to Boston.

And rumor has it that Cherrington is looking to rent out Jon Lester like they used to do with hockey players years ago. Don't see much of that any more, but I can remember teams that were out of the playoffs, sending players to other teams who would pay the guys to play out the season with them and then return to their original teams for the next season. That's sort of the talk on Lester. I can't see it and do not think it's a good idea. Pay the dude what he's worth and get on with things.

Tough to watch this season go down the drain after last year's wonderful run, but that's the way it goes sometimes.


Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Thank you Tony Dungy

Thank you coach, for saying what most of us and 31 other NFL teams were thinking -- that Michael Sam doesn't bring enough football skill to the table to offset the extraneous b.s. that will come from putting him on a team.

Understand, had Sam not made the shameless calculated decision to "out" himself prior to the NFL draft, he would probably be suiting up for an arena football team now. Maybe.

A marginally talented player, Sam is woefully undersized for a defensive end in pro football, and not athletic enough to play linebacker or safety in the bigs. So had he not put the NFL in a position to endure endless bad publicity for not drafting an openly gay player, we wouldn't be even hearing about Sam today.

And make no mistake, it was a calculated decision on Sam's part to put his choice of sexual orientation front and center. From his public statement on his lifestyle choice, to his attempt to wrangle a reality show surrounding his life, to making sure he'd be photographed kissing his partner Oh look, and they're an interracial couple too! How perfect! on national television on draft day, Sam is attempting to make himself the Sandra Fluke of the NFL.

And the backlash against Dungy was so predictable. I meant to write this post last night, but I wanted to see how the Tampa Bay Times would turn on him. It's important to note that the Times sportswriters (and I use that term very loosely) have deified Dungy for his time here with the Buccaneers and his personal grace and Christianity.

Not to disappoint me, local sports ass Tom Jones let Dungy have it. First calling Dungy a hypocrite for supporting players like Michael Vick, Tim Tebow, Johnny Manziel, Keyshawn Johnson and Warren Sapp.

Really Tom?! You're comparing Sam's football abilities with those guys?! What a joke! And in the case of Vick, Johnson and Sapp, their careers were Hall of Fame worthy before any of them had p.r. problems. Johnson and Sapp were bores, and Vick made a mistake and paid the penalty for it. And Tebow?! Yeah, all that bible stuff is sooo controversial! Talk about apples to oranges. But with Jones, this is typical.

Jones then makes the usual lefty move of equating Sam's attempt to play football the same as Jackie Robinson trying to play baseball. Yeah, dumbass . . . because someone's race is exactly the same thing as their choice of sexual orientation. Must be the word "choice" that Jones can't get his head around.

Dungy attempted to qualify his statement after the poo hit the fan, but he didn't back off his original sentiment saying that while Sam deserved a chance to play pro football, he simply wouldn't draft him because of all the distractions the kid would bring with him.

So hang in there coach. There's plenty of us rational people who feel the same as you. Thanks for having the courage to speak the truth.

Holy hypocrisy alert Batman! In Friday's edition of the Times, Jones' article on Buccaneer's training camp was titled "Here's hoping for a boring training camp"


Yeah, the guy who just got done excoriating a Super Bowl winning coach for saying that he tries to limit distractions during training camp is now saying that a distraction-less camp is highly desirable:
"Nothing about the Bucs reporting to camp Thursday was trending on Twitter...Bucs camp is only a few hours old, but its off to a really boring start. That's really good..."

Jones the hypocrite goes on to remind readers that last year's Bucs had a preseason full of distractions that was followed by a season full of losing. And then says that without having the same mess this year, the Bucs "...can concentrate on -- get a load of this -- football on the field."

I don't know what's worse -- thinking Jones is so incredibly ignorant of his own hypocrisy (on this and many other subjects) or that he is deliberately this way and figures he is somehow entitled to spew these contradictory sentiments daily in his columns.

Also interesting today on The Sports Reporters, Mike Lupica attempted to bash Dungy, saying he had set himself up as self appointed conscience of the NFL, and Mitch Albom slapped him down pretty hard on that. Albom and another host went on to mention exactly what I posted in my bit above -- Sam lacks the skill to play in the NFL to begin with and Dungy was saying what everyone else in football was too scared to say. Jemele Hill showed her own religious intolerance when she said it was impossible to separate Dungy's comments from his faith. That's on her though. As Albom said, Dungy did not deny Sam's right to compete only whether his lack of skill was worth the distractions he would bring to the team through his own deliberate attempts to market himself as a famewhoring trailblazer.

And one last thing -- Michael Sam is the antithesis of Arthur Ashe and giving him the award that bears Ashe's name was ridiculous and insulting to Ashe's dignified career and life.

And for no other reason than I have the picture, here's the not overly well-endowed Lea Michele somehow managing to slip a nipple out of her bathing suit while on a yacht (is everybody yachting these days?):

lea michele nipple slip

Sunday, July 20, 2014

Movie review -- Under the Skin

I don't usually get to do reviews of movies that are in current release or very recently released, but I caught this on pay-per-view last night and thought I'd give it a go.

The movie opens with what seems to be a overly drawn out obtuse visual and audio sequence. I think it becomes more clear once you get the reveal at the end of the flick, but it gives me a sort of 2001: A Space Odyssey vibe.

Afterwards we see a motorcycle zooming around the highways and streets, the rider wearing that head-to-toe leather and padding outfit that seems more popular in Europe than here in America. He skids to a stop, dismounts and marches determinedly into the brush alongside the road. He quickly returns with the limp body of a girl draped over his shoulder and tosses her into the back of a large white van.

The scene cuts to a vast, feature-less all white space where the girl (dead, we're to assume, I think) is dumped on the floor. An all nude Scarlett Johansson appears and undresses her then puts on the girl's clothing, pausing only to stare at the corpse then pluck a small ant off the body and observe it.

Johansson's character then drives the van (one of those odd, tall & skinny vans we see in Europe) into town and enters a mall and buys some clothes. What she took off the dead girl looked a bit like hooker wear -- ripped stockings, short mini-skirt, etc. Now she's clad in skin-tight jeans, a delicate red top, furry jacket and some killer boots.

Perhaps less not-a-hooker wear than simply not yucky from being on a dead girl lying in the scrub brush.  heh

Suitably attired, Johansson begins driving around trying to pick up guys. Random, but not entirely. I should point out here that we may be 15 minutes into the film and not a word has been spoken yet. Very artsy.

When she does speak, Johansson is affecting a light British accent. The movie is set in Scotland, so the locals . . . well, . . . we here in America get used to a certain accent from Scots, Irish and Brits in movies. Think Sean Connery, Liam Neeson, James McAvoy, Idris Elba, etc. The Scots in this movie, are speaking the real, down home thing. And quite frankly, I couldn't understand a word they said the entire movie. Seriously. When Johansson's character is asking for directions to the M8, the guy's reply was just gibberish to me. And I don't mean that as an insult to Scots, I just couldn't dig through his accent and syntax. At one point he says, "This may be hard to follow." Meaning his directions of course, and I just laughed out loud.

I'm sure the director did this on purpose, but to what end? The movie might as well have been subtitled or dialog-less for me.  weird

Anyway, she finally finds a guy and drives him back to a crappy looking building where they enter. The building is as completely black and empty as it was white and empty in the opening sequence. Johansson backs away from the guy pealing off her clothes while he comes toward her doing the same. She ends up in jeans and a bra while he ends up fully naked. Put off by full frontal male nudity? Yeah, this flick ain't for you, bro.

But the guy keeps walking and slowly sinks into the floor which seems to be some sort of black or deep dark blue, thick viscous liquid. He continues to walk, entranced by Johansson, until he is fully submerged. She then walks back over the same area, now solid, collects her clothes, redresses, and leaves.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

That seems to be Johansson's character's thing -- find random guys, get them back to this place, and sink them in the floor. There is no malice in her character. The "seduction" is little more than her verbally convincing these guys to come with her. In fact, I doubt Johansson speaks more than a page's worth of dialog in the entire movie. The majority of her screen time is spent either staring blankly at whatever's going on around her or donning a fish out of water mildly confused expression.

The beginning two thirds of the movie focuses on her search for guys while driving the van around Scotland. The majority of the van interior scenes are shot from the passenger floorboard angle. And she clicks and unclicks her seatbelt so much, I wondered if there was some hidden meaning there.

At one point we do see one of the guys floating under the floor. He can see upwards, watching Johansson walking out. And he sees another victim floating before him. He watches as the guy seems to lose all his interior organs, bones, etc., eventually becoming simply an empty human skin floating in the emptiness.

Things continue in this fashion until Johansson picks up a dude with what looks to be Neurofibromatosis (the Elephant Man disease). Watching her entice this poor guy into coming back with her, via the promise of being with a woman for the first time, was uncomfortable to me. Perhaps part of why it was in the film. But after sinking him in the floor, something goes wrong. Johansson stops on her way out and sees . . . something, about herself in a mirror. We see the guy running naked out the front door and into the scrub brush towards some houses. The motorcycle guy comes racing into the neighborhood and catches the little guy climbing through a fence, stuffs him into the trunk of a stolen car, then races off.

Whatever happened with the little guy knocks Johansson's charcter off kilter. She begins to wander aimlessly, eventually abandoning her van and simply walking down one road after another. Various little events occur to make us wonder what's up with her. She tries to eat a bit of cake and throws it up. Tries to have sex with a kind stranger, doesn't work. And all the while, her motorcycle guardian (partner, whatever) now has two others helping him and they're zooming around the highways searching for her.

The movie ends as Johansson's character is wandering through a 2000 acre managed woods and is attacked by a pervy type and rape is attempted. We get the big reveal here, right before the movie ends.

The film is writen and directed by Jonathan Glazer from a novel by Michael Faber. I don't know if Glazer is supposed to be considered a visionary or auteur or what, but I wasn't bowled over by this flick. There is no drama or mystery here and frankly, I wonder if anyone would bother to watch the movie if it didn't have the novelty of Scarlett Johansson fully nude in it. That's what drove me to it.

And a word about that. I've posted before about Johansson and the crazy fawning over her by magazines, blogs, etc. I've always loved her unconventional beauty -- her face is astounding. But I've not ever found her body to be that jaw dropping. She has a short waisted look (that's what we called it in the old days) that makes her look dumpy, even when she isn't really. She's curvy and has some meat on her bones, and that ain't a bad thing. She's got an impressive booty that allows her to rock the hell out of a tight skirt or jeans and you'll see in the images below, she looks really good. Just not in profile. Something about the way she is shaped, it doesn't flatter her to be photographed from the side.

All in all, I'm not overwhelmed by this movie. There are a lot of questions -- Why only men? Why is the room white for the dead girl but black for men? What is the purpose for her character? What is the motorcycle guy's connection to Johansson's character? I guess it makes good water cooler talk, but is there supposed to be a deeper meaning here? I don't know. My conclusion -- I wouldn't advise someone to spend $5 on a pay-per-view. If it comes on regular cable, I'd say watch it for yourself and puzzle along with me. But basically . . . meh.

Here's some screen caps of Miss Scarlett naked. I did what I could to clean them up, but the quality isn't fabulous:

scarlett johansson nude in under the skin
scarlett johansson nude in under the skin
scarlett johansson nude in under the skin
scarlett johansson nude in under the skin

Did you find this review helpful? Check out my other reviews for my thoughts on the flicks and the occasional gallery of hotness that accompanies them:

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Looking good sweetheart

Lindsay Lohan edition:

lindsay lohan looking sloppy fat on a yacht

I took some crap from a commenter after a post about Lindsay Lohan where I said that maybe she should hit the gym a little more often in lieu of hitting the clubs. These pics surfaced this weekend of Linds on a yacht with her little sister (that's her ass getting the wedgy) and she looks worse than when I did the previous post.

lindsay lohan looking sloppy fat on a yacht

I mean, this gal is only 28 years old. She doesn't have to hold down a day-to-day job. Has enough money to do whatever she wants, and this is how she looks? She's an actress. Part of her hire-ability is how she looks. I remember after watching The Canyons telling a co-worker how horrible she looked in that movie. Sloppy body, no muscle tone . . . like Jennifer Love Hewitt, Lindsay's living off her impressive chest and ignoring how the rest of her is falling into disrepair. She already has a reputation as difficult to work with. If her looks tail off too far, even the novelty of having her in a film isn't going to get her employed. She'll have to live off Photoshopped modeling jobs, if she can get those. Pretty sad state of affairs for someone who was once so highly touted as an up-and-coming star actress.

lindsay lohan looking sloppy fat on a yacht