This is a new segment I'm starting on this here blog, the idea of Old vs New is to compare two wrestlers (or in this case teams) from different generations to see which one is better. For this I'll be using 5 different criterias; in ring ability, mic skills, overall image/appearence, personas and finally general crowd reactions. These are the things I'll be using to compare Terry and Dory Funk jr and Jeff and Matt Hardy, two brotherly duos who have dominated the tag team and main event scenes in there time, but who's the better tandem? Let's find out.
IN RING ABILITY:
This is a difficult one to choose since both teams have differing styles, The Funks relying on solid technical wrestling mixed with hardcore brawling, while Matt often uses technical wrestling mixed with few high spots, Jeff's offence is a constant barrage of unique, high flying spots, I've rarely seen Jeff use a submission. So this is going to have to go down to overall match quality over the course of each teams careers, while the Hardys have had many great matches with the likes of Edge/Christian, the Dudlys, HHH and CM Punk, there style often shines during stipulation matches such as TLCs, even Matts technical style can seem bland. The Funks however, have had many great matches, and the majority of them have been regular matches, but they've also been able to work many good hardcore style matches, especially Terry. In this round, the Funks win.
Winner: Funks
MIC SKILLS:
To decide this I'd need to look at each individuals skills. Dory jr is decent during interviews but never truely stands out or enthrals audiences, although that may be due to the time he wrestled in, where wrestling was mostly percieved as real and wrestlers were supposed to talk like normal sports people. Terry is on a whole other level from his brother mic work wise, in my Top 10 Talkers blog from a few monthes ago I named Terry as #7, that shows how great he is in that area. Jeff Hardy is actually pretty good on the mic, a smooth North Carolina accent that draws people in, his promos get his point across while also conveying his unique (understatment) personality. Matt's promos are about average, nothing special or captivating, just getting the point across. In the end though I'd have to say The Funks win this due to Terry's phenominal ability on the mic.
Winner: Funks (mostly due to Terry)
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
This doesn't just cover physiques, but also how a wrestler looks due to attire, hair etc. Physique wise Dory jr was rather pudgy, like most wrestlers those days, Terry through the 70s and early 80s did have a similar build, although by the late 80s he seemed to aquire a pretty good physique until it deteriorated due to age. The Hardys have also had a similar problem with their physiques, although they looked somewhat decent in their early years there's problems now. Jeff's waist looks plain, you'd think he doesn't do sit ups at all and his arms aren't the biggest, but Matt in recent years has been sporting a gut that looks like something a wrestler from the 70s would sport, not someone from the days where muscle matters to make yourself believable. General image however, is where the winner is determined, as The Funks have the look of basic southern wrestlers, simple tights but with the occasional cowboy hat or poncho thrown in, and while Terry's wild hair/goatie and mad eyes convey his danger, Dory jr's balding head isn't exactly the ideal image. The Hardy's keep themselves interesting, while Matt's tights aren't the most exuberent of attires, Jeff is colourful enough to make people interested in him, especially with face paint and rainbow hair.
Winner: Hardys (mostly due to Jeff)
PERSONAS:
A persona is the character of the wrestler on-screen, the brotherly duos have similar personas to the their partners (Terry with Dory, Matt with Jeff). The Funks share the same persona of a rough-neck, Texas brawler, although Terry's can be more deranged and violent at times, which gives audiences a good impression that these guys could win any fight. The Hardys both have the personas of being generation X outsiders, who fight against the odds when things look tough. But when you put the eccentric appearence of Jeff aside, their characters seem basic faces, if it weren't for there appearences they wouldn't seem that interesting, while the tough brawlers/psycopath is intriquing enough for me.
Winner: Funks
FAN REACTION:
There's a common thing in wrestling today, you either like the Hardys or you don't, back in 2008/09 crowds would give good pops when Jeff came out and Matt was commonly seen as an underutilized talent. Now in 2011 Jeff is seen as someone who squandered his popularity for drugs and who is unprofessional (showing up at events wasted) and Matt is seen as a chubby lunatic who is full of himself for no reason. Although there are still those who defend the Hardys, the Funks are generally seen in a positive way, as legends who've had great matches and who've benefited the business well.
Winner: Funks
Overall winners by 4-1: Funks.
Wednesday, 13 July 2011
Monday, 11 July 2011
Review: The Big Lebowski
The famous brotherly Direcing team; Joel and Ethan Coen have always had a flair of humour in their films, but the 1998 feature 'The Big Lebowski' is just pure comedy, in my opinion the best Coen film and the best comedy film. Now why do I think this? Well sit down on that rug, have some in and out burger and find out.
Obviously a major factor in any comedy is the quality of jokes and laugh factor. The humour in Big Lebowski stems mainly from the dialogue, as is common in Coen films, the dialogue is enriched with absurdities and cult lines that any true Lebowski fan can memorise by heart. Even basic phrases such as "Shut the fuck up Donny" or "Johnson?" can be laugh out loud moments (why will revealed in a bit). Another source of humour is the characters showcased, typical Coen films follow the theme of idiocy and madness and especially so here. Every character is portrayed with some sort of dysfunction, such as psycotic bowling/Vietnam obsessionist Walter, bowling king/peodophile Jesus (western pronounciation), tyrant/crook 'Big' Lebowski and of course stoner/layabout The Dude. The characters insanity adds to the films sense of confusion and madness, putting these characters (most likely the Dude) in hilariously profound situations. Overall the omnipresent absurdity and great array of hilarious characters create plenty a laugh in this film.
But what really puts Lebowski over for me is it's artistic level and complicity. The plot follows The Dude; a middle aged stoner in LA as he's mixed up in mistaken identity, kidnapping, crooked businesmen, euro-femminists, German Nihlistic porn stars and so many other. things that a normal man would be blown away by the perplexity. The film takes mild reference from Raymond Chandlers 'Big Sleep', addin noir elements to the comedy. The plot is so complex (as opposed to the majority of comedys) that the audience will have no idea what's going to happen next, adding to the hysteria of when a brash funny moment actually happens. In addition, the vivid fantasy sequences that take place whenever Dude's knocked out via punch or drugging are stylish with a touch of absurd (absurdity all around!), the 'Gutterballs' sequence is quite possibly the most insane yet hilarious moments in the film. In conclusion, 'Big Lebowski' sets itself apart from other comedy films by being intricate and stylish, often using this as part of the comedy factor.
The acting here is great, Jeff Bridges gives the best performance of his career, mixing relaxed, casual with frantic confusion and bitter annoyence. John Goodman as Walter is also the best role of his career, calm and colective serendipity at one moment, then loud and aggressive the next, a character where insanity is brewing just under the surface, something Goodman conveys so well. Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski is pure femminist snob, with a high brow accent, barely changing expressions and mood, tightly wound and afirmative. David Huddlston as the 'Big' Lebowski is domminering yet franticly out of control, Peter Stormare as German porn star/nihlist Karl Hungus gives a decent performance, standing out with a humorour German accent. In conclusion, Bridges and Goodman give the standout performances, and Steve Buscemi as Donny?...Shut the fuck up!
'The Big Lebowski' is a comedy that is appealing in everyway, absurdly (ok last time I use that) poigant dialogue, creativly mad, likable characters, complex plotline and supurb acting. This Is a film that has gained a cult following, including an annual Lebowski fest and even a religion known as Dudeism. Is this one of the, if not the greatest comedy films of all time? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Obviously a major factor in any comedy is the quality of jokes and laugh factor. The humour in Big Lebowski stems mainly from the dialogue, as is common in Coen films, the dialogue is enriched with absurdities and cult lines that any true Lebowski fan can memorise by heart. Even basic phrases such as "Shut the fuck up Donny" or "Johnson?" can be laugh out loud moments (why will revealed in a bit). Another source of humour is the characters showcased, typical Coen films follow the theme of idiocy and madness and especially so here. Every character is portrayed with some sort of dysfunction, such as psycotic bowling/Vietnam obsessionist Walter, bowling king/peodophile Jesus (western pronounciation), tyrant/crook 'Big' Lebowski and of course stoner/layabout The Dude. The characters insanity adds to the films sense of confusion and madness, putting these characters (most likely the Dude) in hilariously profound situations. Overall the omnipresent absurdity and great array of hilarious characters create plenty a laugh in this film.
But what really puts Lebowski over for me is it's artistic level and complicity. The plot follows The Dude; a middle aged stoner in LA as he's mixed up in mistaken identity, kidnapping, crooked businesmen, euro-femminists, German Nihlistic porn stars and so many other. things that a normal man would be blown away by the perplexity. The film takes mild reference from Raymond Chandlers 'Big Sleep', addin noir elements to the comedy. The plot is so complex (as opposed to the majority of comedys) that the audience will have no idea what's going to happen next, adding to the hysteria of when a brash funny moment actually happens. In addition, the vivid fantasy sequences that take place whenever Dude's knocked out via punch or drugging are stylish with a touch of absurd (absurdity all around!), the 'Gutterballs' sequence is quite possibly the most insane yet hilarious moments in the film. In conclusion, 'Big Lebowski' sets itself apart from other comedy films by being intricate and stylish, often using this as part of the comedy factor.
The acting here is great, Jeff Bridges gives the best performance of his career, mixing relaxed, casual with frantic confusion and bitter annoyence. John Goodman as Walter is also the best role of his career, calm and colective serendipity at one moment, then loud and aggressive the next, a character where insanity is brewing just under the surface, something Goodman conveys so well. Julianne Moore as Maude Lebowski is pure femminist snob, with a high brow accent, barely changing expressions and mood, tightly wound and afirmative. David Huddlston as the 'Big' Lebowski is domminering yet franticly out of control, Peter Stormare as German porn star/nihlist Karl Hungus gives a decent performance, standing out with a humorour German accent. In conclusion, Bridges and Goodman give the standout performances, and Steve Buscemi as Donny?...Shut the fuck up!
'The Big Lebowski' is a comedy that is appealing in everyway, absurdly (ok last time I use that) poigant dialogue, creativly mad, likable characters, complex plotline and supurb acting. This Is a film that has gained a cult following, including an annual Lebowski fest and even a religion known as Dudeism. Is this one of the, if not the greatest comedy films of all time? Does the Pope shit in the woods?
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Friday Night Fights
After the amazing shoot promo by CM Punk on this weeks RAW, several people have been praising the episode through numerous blogs, tweets and video reviews. However, I feel like taking a look at how WWEs other show; Smackdown fares in comparison. Most days I've always thought of Smackdown as the superior show, it puts more emphisis on in ring work and I feel that Michael 'P.S' Hayes is a decent head writer. So let's take a look at how the Smack was layed down in Pheonix.
We started the show with Randy Orton vs Mark Henry. This match didn't have that great a flow to it, Orton did his best to keep this from being a usual Henry bore-fest. The finish saw both men on the outside and Big Show's music hitting, which distracted Henry and allowed Orton to hit an RKO on the floor and get a countout win. This was just about decent a match, but the segment afterwards was suprisingly better. This saw Henry destroy the technical area and man handle the guy that runs it. This is something that I don't think has been done before and was fun to watch.
Also early on we saw backstage segments with Christian and Teddy Long, Christian did well in these, portraying himself as a whiney heel, desperate for a title shot, the recent turn has benefited Christian greatly.
Next we had Daniel Bryan vs Ted Dibiase, despite me missing the first 3 minutes due to other stuff, this was a pretty good match, as is the usual with Bryan. I've thought that the move to Smackdown was a good thing for Bryan as it emphisises his wrestling aspect. The match ended with Bryan giving Dibiase a front face lock which I thought was strange, I don't mind him using a non-finisher but did it have to be something so minor? Maybe Bryan should've won with a wrist hold?
After that...things got a bit wierd, WWE style. We saw an interview with Rajin Sighn, explainig that the reason Jinder Mahal has control over the Great Khali is because Mahal is married to their sister and will divorce if Khali doesn't follow him. This is a strange, pointless storyline that seems more out of a bollywood soap, surely a better excuse could have been thought up?
Then we got back to what Smackdown does best; wrestling, with Christian vs Sin Cara. The match wasn't as good as the Cara/Bourne match from RAW, there was a bit of a clash in styles due to Christian's age but overall it was a good match. Cara did his usual insane spots and Christian played the reluctant heel well.
After that was a short 'From the vault' match with R-Truth vs Dolph Ziggler, they could've done without this match as it was too short to make an impact.
Next in the present day, we got Ezekiel Jackson vs Cody Rhodes. Jackson is bad to watch, same old moves with little flair. Rhodes kept things enjoyable with the way he sold powermoves (like flying half way across the ring after a hip toss), Rhodes winning was the best thing that could happen here, other than Cody throwing acid in Jackson's face to disfigure him, now that's something Cody should add to his gimmick!
We then had another Johnny Curtis segment, I like these, they remind me of early 90s WWF vignettes such as Mr Perfect's. I thought that this weeks metaphor promo wasn't as good or funny as the previous ones, this week had Curtis 'painting himself into a corner'.
A match between Kane and Wade Barrett took place next and even thought it was good, there's something that bugs me. The fact that this is probably the only match that even slightly built up to the Money in the Bank match, only few of the partisipants were seen tonight and they were only announced briefly via a ppv screen shot. How am I supposed to care about this match if it's barely promoted?
The final segment of the night was a contract signing between Orton and Christian, both men did the usual trash talking with Orton being the machismo badass and Christian being a great heel, saying lines such as; "you know you can't beat me" even though Orton's beaten him 3 times. But the interesting part came when Sheamus returned after a 2 week absence after Orton punted him in the head (Jericho's punted; he's been off for 10 monthes?) and beat up both Orton and Christian, then tore up the contract. I think this is great as it leaves so many questions; is the match nullified? Was that just a taunt? Will Sheamus join the match?
All in all I though that Smackdown was good but not the best that it could be, which is a shame after the cracking RAW this week, but we'll see how things transpire next week.
We started the show with Randy Orton vs Mark Henry. This match didn't have that great a flow to it, Orton did his best to keep this from being a usual Henry bore-fest. The finish saw both men on the outside and Big Show's music hitting, which distracted Henry and allowed Orton to hit an RKO on the floor and get a countout win. This was just about decent a match, but the segment afterwards was suprisingly better. This saw Henry destroy the technical area and man handle the guy that runs it. This is something that I don't think has been done before and was fun to watch.
Also early on we saw backstage segments with Christian and Teddy Long, Christian did well in these, portraying himself as a whiney heel, desperate for a title shot, the recent turn has benefited Christian greatly.
Next we had Daniel Bryan vs Ted Dibiase, despite me missing the first 3 minutes due to other stuff, this was a pretty good match, as is the usual with Bryan. I've thought that the move to Smackdown was a good thing for Bryan as it emphisises his wrestling aspect. The match ended with Bryan giving Dibiase a front face lock which I thought was strange, I don't mind him using a non-finisher but did it have to be something so minor? Maybe Bryan should've won with a wrist hold?
After that...things got a bit wierd, WWE style. We saw an interview with Rajin Sighn, explainig that the reason Jinder Mahal has control over the Great Khali is because Mahal is married to their sister and will divorce if Khali doesn't follow him. This is a strange, pointless storyline that seems more out of a bollywood soap, surely a better excuse could have been thought up?
Then we got back to what Smackdown does best; wrestling, with Christian vs Sin Cara. The match wasn't as good as the Cara/Bourne match from RAW, there was a bit of a clash in styles due to Christian's age but overall it was a good match. Cara did his usual insane spots and Christian played the reluctant heel well.
After that was a short 'From the vault' match with R-Truth vs Dolph Ziggler, they could've done without this match as it was too short to make an impact.
Next in the present day, we got Ezekiel Jackson vs Cody Rhodes. Jackson is bad to watch, same old moves with little flair. Rhodes kept things enjoyable with the way he sold powermoves (like flying half way across the ring after a hip toss), Rhodes winning was the best thing that could happen here, other than Cody throwing acid in Jackson's face to disfigure him, now that's something Cody should add to his gimmick!
We then had another Johnny Curtis segment, I like these, they remind me of early 90s WWF vignettes such as Mr Perfect's. I thought that this weeks metaphor promo wasn't as good or funny as the previous ones, this week had Curtis 'painting himself into a corner'.
A match between Kane and Wade Barrett took place next and even thought it was good, there's something that bugs me. The fact that this is probably the only match that even slightly built up to the Money in the Bank match, only few of the partisipants were seen tonight and they were only announced briefly via a ppv screen shot. How am I supposed to care about this match if it's barely promoted?
The final segment of the night was a contract signing between Orton and Christian, both men did the usual trash talking with Orton being the machismo badass and Christian being a great heel, saying lines such as; "you know you can't beat me" even though Orton's beaten him 3 times. But the interesting part came when Sheamus returned after a 2 week absence after Orton punted him in the head (Jericho's punted; he's been off for 10 monthes?) and beat up both Orton and Christian, then tore up the contract. I think this is great as it leaves so many questions; is the match nullified? Was that just a taunt? Will Sheamus join the match?
All in all I though that Smackdown was good but not the best that it could be, which is a shame after the cracking RAW this week, but we'll see how things transpire next week.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)