Let's hear it once again for the most predictable reality competition on TV.
Don't get me wrong; I'm a big fan of celebrities on reality shows (Celebrity Apprentice being my favorite). However, this one just doesn't really entertain me.
It shows funny moments doing rehearsals but there are no surprises. When I first read the cast listing, I narrowed it down to the final four and predicted a winner.
Winner: Nicole Scherzinger
2. Evan Lysacek
3. Erin Andrews
4. Chad Ochocinco
I don't consider this an outstanding achievement for myself. It was an easy call. Select the obvious.
Nicole Scherzinger sings and performs choreographed dances for a living. She claimed to not have an edge over the others because this style of dance is different. It is different, but that's still a major advantage.
Evan Lysacek dances on ice and is incredibly athletic, allowing ballroom to come easily.
Erin Andrews looks like a dancer with the tall, slender frame and was paired with the uber-talented Maksim Chmerkovskiy.
Chad Ochocinco is an exceptional athlete and was paired with two-time winner Cheryl Burke.
You can't honestly believe the others had a chance, right?
Shannen Doherty? The bitchy girl from 90210?
Buzz Aldrin? How old is he?
Aiden Turner? Who?
Kate Gosselin? A dumb, unskilled woman who is only famous for having eight kids and making a poor choice of husband?
Jake Pavelka? The lamest Bachelor? (Seems like a nice guy, though)
Pam Anderson? With her boobs? (Though they were a highlight of the season)
Niecy Nash? An out-of-shape comedian? (She did make it further than I expected, so kudos)
I love watching celebrites on TV. But if I'm ever going to watch this show, the cast has to be more competitive.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Who Will Coach LeBron Next Season?
It doesn't matter.
LeBron James is not going to stay in Cleveland or be lured away just because of the team's coach.
It also won't be for money. He's getting a maximum contract wherever he goes (though the amount will be slightly more if he plays for the Cavaliers) in addition to his lucrative endorsement deals with Nike, McDonald's, State Farm, Coca-Cola, etc.
King James (or Prince James if you're a Skip Bayless fan) is either going to play where he has the best chance of winning a championship or because he wants to move to a bigger and better city.
Even though they have failed to reach the NBA Finals the past three seasons, staying in Cleveland is still his best shot at winning a championship.
However, I'm sick of watching this Cavaliers team. I want LeBron to move to New York, Chicago or Miami just for a change. And I think he will.
But whatever he decides to do, it won't be because of the coach. So ESPN can throw around all the Phil Jackson, John Calipari and Mike Krzyzewski rumors they want. But that's not going to explain which jersey LeBron will be sporting next season.
LeBron James is not going to stay in Cleveland or be lured away just because of the team's coach.
It also won't be for money. He's getting a maximum contract wherever he goes (though the amount will be slightly more if he plays for the Cavaliers) in addition to his lucrative endorsement deals with Nike, McDonald's, State Farm, Coca-Cola, etc.
King James (or Prince James if you're a Skip Bayless fan) is either going to play where he has the best chance of winning a championship or because he wants to move to a bigger and better city.
Even though they have failed to reach the NBA Finals the past three seasons, staying in Cleveland is still his best shot at winning a championship.
However, I'm sick of watching this Cavaliers team. I want LeBron to move to New York, Chicago or Miami just for a change. And I think he will.
But whatever he decides to do, it won't be because of the coach. So ESPN can throw around all the Phil Jackson, John Calipari and Mike Krzyzewski rumors they want. But that's not going to explain which jersey LeBron will be sporting next season.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Survivor: Heroes vs. Villains Finale
For the second consecutive season, the best player didn't win.
Of the Final Three, the least deserving, Sandra, walked away with the million dollars and title of Sole Survivor by a vote of 6-3-0.
How can the jury be so bitter? They lost. Get over it. The game was controlled by Russell Hantz, and they all watched him do it. He orchestrated the exits (in order) of Tyson, Rob, Courtney, JT, Amanda, Danielle, Rupert, Colby and Jerri (The girls were responsible for Coach and Candice). He found two hidden immunity idols and had one given to him by JT. He won two individual immunity challenges including the final.
Yet, zero votes from the Final Tribal Council read "Russell."
And somehow Sandra received 6 votes. She was useless in team challenges and pathetic in individual challenges. Her one strategy was to get Russell voted out of the game, which she didn't accomplish. How can All-Stars think she played the best game? She clearly didn't. She only made it to the end because other people dragged her through the mud. She didn't deserve the win.
A case can also be made that Parvati deserved to win. She had a huge target on her back from the beginning. She aligned with the right people and proved clutch in crucial immunity challenges. Plus, she's the ultimate charmer. And incredibly gorgeous. But she did ride along Russell's coattails to a certain extent. If not for his gutsy move to give her two of his immunity idols, she would not have even made it to the merge. She's a player, though, and definitely deserved the win more than Sandra.
Russell Hantz was once again robbed of the title and million dollars. I understand the jury was upset, but how can they let personal emotions cloud the judgment of the best player? It can create a flaw in the game. I read host Jeff Probst's blog earlier this season and even he admitted that was one thing he disliked: the game is in the hands of people that may not make the best decision. And that's what happened. He received only 2 out of 18 votes at the Final Tribal Council of the last two seasons.
He dominated the game twice but came up empty. It's not fair. But that's Survivor.
Outwit. Outplay. Outlast. Congratulations to Sandra on becoming the first two-time winner.
Of the Final Three, the least deserving, Sandra, walked away with the million dollars and title of Sole Survivor by a vote of 6-3-0.
How can the jury be so bitter? They lost. Get over it. The game was controlled by Russell Hantz, and they all watched him do it. He orchestrated the exits (in order) of Tyson, Rob, Courtney, JT, Amanda, Danielle, Rupert, Colby and Jerri (The girls were responsible for Coach and Candice). He found two hidden immunity idols and had one given to him by JT. He won two individual immunity challenges including the final.
Yet, zero votes from the Final Tribal Council read "Russell."
And somehow Sandra received 6 votes. She was useless in team challenges and pathetic in individual challenges. Her one strategy was to get Russell voted out of the game, which she didn't accomplish. How can All-Stars think she played the best game? She clearly didn't. She only made it to the end because other people dragged her through the mud. She didn't deserve the win.
A case can also be made that Parvati deserved to win. She had a huge target on her back from the beginning. She aligned with the right people and proved clutch in crucial immunity challenges. Plus, she's the ultimate charmer. And incredibly gorgeous. But she did ride along Russell's coattails to a certain extent. If not for his gutsy move to give her two of his immunity idols, she would not have even made it to the merge. She's a player, though, and definitely deserved the win more than Sandra.
Russell Hantz was once again robbed of the title and million dollars. I understand the jury was upset, but how can they let personal emotions cloud the judgment of the best player? It can create a flaw in the game. I read host Jeff Probst's blog earlier this season and even he admitted that was one thing he disliked: the game is in the hands of people that may not make the best decision. And that's what happened. He received only 2 out of 18 votes at the Final Tribal Council of the last two seasons.
He dominated the game twice but came up empty. It's not fair. But that's Survivor.
Outwit. Outplay. Outlast. Congratulations to Sandra on becoming the first two-time winner.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
Movie Review: Iron Man 2
The latest superhero sequel, Iron Man 2, was released yesterday, and it is exactly what you expect. It is highly entertaining but isn't quite as good as the 2008 original.
Robert Downey, Jr. returns as the film's protagonist, Tony Stark: a role that could not be more perfectly cast. He is a great fit for the witty, over-the-top narcissist and delivers another brilliant performance.
While RDJ was a bright spot, there were a couple things that disappointed.
Mickey Rourke was heavily underutilized as the main villain. He disappeared for what seemed like half the movie and returned in a somewhat anti-climactic ending. For someone who turned in a career-best Oscar-nominated performance in "The Wrestler" just two years ago, he should have been a much bigger part of the plot. I didn't expect Rourke's Ivan Vanko to be as memorable as Heath Ledger's Joker, but unfortunately for all other comic book films "The Dark Knight" is the new standard. And this is far inferior.
Another weak character was Sam Rockwell as Stark Industries' rival Justin Hammer. The role was poorly written and acted, and at least some of that blame should be placed on director Jon Favreau. Rockwell is a good actor. But not in this film.
The story is jumbled and poorly executed but not enough to make it much less enjoyable. It is somewhat similar to 2009's "Transformers" sequel in that it has high entertainment value but lower quality. But that probably won't bother anyone who will see this in theaters.
And who doesn't like watching Scarlett Johansson kick ass?
Grade: B-
Robert Downey, Jr. returns as the film's protagonist, Tony Stark: a role that could not be more perfectly cast. He is a great fit for the witty, over-the-top narcissist and delivers another brilliant performance.
While RDJ was a bright spot, there were a couple things that disappointed.
Mickey Rourke was heavily underutilized as the main villain. He disappeared for what seemed like half the movie and returned in a somewhat anti-climactic ending. For someone who turned in a career-best Oscar-nominated performance in "The Wrestler" just two years ago, he should have been a much bigger part of the plot. I didn't expect Rourke's Ivan Vanko to be as memorable as Heath Ledger's Joker, but unfortunately for all other comic book films "The Dark Knight" is the new standard. And this is far inferior.
Another weak character was Sam Rockwell as Stark Industries' rival Justin Hammer. The role was poorly written and acted, and at least some of that blame should be placed on director Jon Favreau. Rockwell is a good actor. But not in this film.
The story is jumbled and poorly executed but not enough to make it much less enjoyable. It is somewhat similar to 2009's "Transformers" sequel in that it has high entertainment value but lower quality. But that probably won't bother anyone who will see this in theaters.
And who doesn't like watching Scarlett Johansson kick ass?
Grade: B-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)