Here is another instalment of Old vs New, where I compare 2 different wrestlers from the past and present and see who comes across as the overall winner based on 5 factors. Here I compare John Bradshaw Layfield and Alberto Del Rio, these are men who share the similarities of having a gimmick of being arrogant millionares who have fancy transport to the ring. So who's better?the Mexican arristocrat or the Texan/New Yorker arristocrat? Let's find out.
IN RING ABILITY:
These 2 have slightly differing styles. Bradshaw displays brute power moves and brawling, but uses technical skills from time to time. Del Rio however, uses mostly technical moves, mixing in occasional high spots. In my view, niether man has had any outstanding, 10/10 matches in their respective careers, sure Del Rio's only been with WWE a year but he's had plenty of matches with big leagers due to his super push. Bradshaw's style in his later years was seen as sluggish and slow, but Del Rio often doesn't use many moves in his matches and can be seen as repetitive. It's a close call, but I'd award it to JBL due to a larger moveset.
Winner: JBL
MIC SKILLS:
Both men are seen as pretty good on the mic, both can portray their snobbish, holier than thou attitudes perfectly, with a hint of smarmyness underneath. Despite both mens verbal qualities, I think it's obvious who's gonna win. It may seem shallow, but Del Rio's accent often clouds his mic skills, whereas Bradshaw has near flawless announciation and can be easily understood. He's given many great promos during his heel run, especially the one where he goes off on the show he was fired from, unpatriotic fans and Sean Penn.
Winner: JBL
OVERALL IMAGE/APPEARENCE:
For these mens gimmicks of arrisocrats, they need to look the part. For Bradshaw it's easy, he just had to show up like it's another day at Wall Street or Fox News, his large White cowboy hat atop a nice suit gives the impression of J.R from Dallas straight away (who his persona was based on). Del Rio however, seems to outdo Bradshaw in the wardrope department, his suits are more colourful, yet the lack of tie gives Del Rio a more stylish feel, as though he's a sort of playboy. His tights are gold/White, which is not only grabs fans attention, but conveys his arristocrat gimmick. In terms of physique, Bradshaw is seen as flabby, with unflattering man boobs, whereas Del Rio has a great physique and his Latino backround adds to his looks. Due to pure swagger and muscles, Del Rio steals it.
Winner: Del Rio
PERSONAS:
Yes both men have similar personas, but with slight differences. Both men have won Wrestling Observers Gimmick of the year award, but let's see who's is better. Bradshaw is the typical millionare type yes, but there are other factors that add to his persona, such as his Wall Street, yuppie elements (which is what he is in real life), which plays on peoples hatred of corporate greed and it'll get good heat during a recession. Also, Bradshaw has the right-wing, conservative element, which can be rather unpopular in certain areas, this makes a great persona that Bradshaw doesn't have to try too hard to portray and can get good heat. Now Del Rio is the the millionare type, but only has the fact that he's Latino and a belief in destiny to add to it. Granted he adds some fun quirks to the persona, such as driving a different expensive car each week and his personal ring announcer; Ricardo Rodriguez (one of the best things WWE has invented), but in the end, JBL's other traits give him the victory.
Winner: JBL
CROWD REACTION:
It's a difficult one to call, but I'll try. JBL did envoke hatred from the many crowds he performed in, but whilst watching WWE recently, I've noticed that Del Rio gets pretty good hear as well. Also, Del Rio can be seen to have a larger fan base (just ask anyone on Twitter) especially amongst Latinos. Due to the opinions of smarks and IWC braggarts (i'm sounding like Bischoff), Del Rio is the more beloved of the 2 as they don't appreciate Bradshaws style of wrestling.
Winner: Del Rio
Overall Winner by 3-2: JBL
Saturday, 27 August 2011
Saturday, 20 August 2011
Rising To The Occasion
To detract from usual subject matter here at the PittStop, I'm going to annalyse certain aspects of what we know so far about the new Christopher Nolan Batman film in production; 'Dark Knight Rises' and try and see what we can expect from it when it's released in 2012. With so much hype soon to be surrounding this film, let's see what we can make of it.
First of all there's probably the most important factor; Director/Writer Christopher Nolan. Due to Nolans presence, the film will be expected to have the usual high quality that follows most Nolan films. With his last 2 Batman films ('Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight') being 5 star classics, and his last film ('Inception') being the best film of 2010, it is presumed that Nolan will be able to make this great. Although, there is always some unpredictability in the world of cinema, with the roll Nolan's been on, you never know when his next adequite (spelling!) will be, all Directors lose it at some point (I.e post 'Pulp Fiction' Tarrentino). It's assured that Nolan will provide the same stunning visuals and cinematography as his other Batman films, but what about the story and plot itself?
What the public at large can tell about 'Dark Knight Rises's plot can be gathered from the ending of 'Dark Knight' and the released characters list. *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of 'Dark Knight' Batman reveals that he has to take the fall for the deceased Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in order for the citizens of Gotham to still have hope and faith (not the sitcom!), thus turning Batman into a fugitive. This provides intrigue for the film as we'll most likely see Batman trying to fight crime and evade the police, which makes for an interesting dynamic. We know that the plot in some way will revolve around battling with villain Bane. We know that Catwoman will be in the film but it is unclear whether she'll be an imediate foe or just being a tease for Batman, as is usual in the comics. It is wondered whether Nolan will follow the plotline of the famous comic where Bane injures Batman, taking him out of commission, I kinda doubt he would, but if so it'd make a great storyline (Hero comeback, Gotham without Batman, realising he's needed etc.).
The cast and characters are another aspect to be annalysed to determine the outcome of the film. Christian Bale is back as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and after an Oscar winning performance in 'The Fighter', he can be expected to give another complex performance on the struggle of the dual life. Gary Oldman's Gordon will this time be a reluctant foe of Batman, it'll interesting to see how the character handles hunting a man he knows is innocent, it's expected of Oldman to deliver another good performance as the Commissoner. The Bane character is something of question, he's supposedly a genetically engineered superhuman, it's difficult to imagine that being portrayed with realism on screen, however, Nolan has a nack for making seemingly absurd things realistic e.g A man who dresses as a bat or entering someones dreams to steal their secrets. The fact that an actor like Tom Hardy, who's given good performances in 'The Take' and 'Inception' is playing Bane, gives the impression that the character will have more depth. It'll be curious to see whether Anne Hathaway can live up to Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman, but the character always has a sense of mischief and anarchy, which suits Nolan's universe well.
In conclusion, whilst there's some doubt that 'Dark Knight Rises' will live up to 'Dark Knight', due to the factors such as the Director, the cast/characters and fixed plot points, I believe that this film has a chance of being great, but if I'm proven wrong, then there'll numurous fanboys who's expectations will be let down, and a Director who's legacy will be tarnished by ending a classic trilogy with an imperfect climax.
First of all there's probably the most important factor; Director/Writer Christopher Nolan. Due to Nolans presence, the film will be expected to have the usual high quality that follows most Nolan films. With his last 2 Batman films ('Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight') being 5 star classics, and his last film ('Inception') being the best film of 2010, it is presumed that Nolan will be able to make this great. Although, there is always some unpredictability in the world of cinema, with the roll Nolan's been on, you never know when his next adequite (spelling!) will be, all Directors lose it at some point (I.e post 'Pulp Fiction' Tarrentino). It's assured that Nolan will provide the same stunning visuals and cinematography as his other Batman films, but what about the story and plot itself?
What the public at large can tell about 'Dark Knight Rises's plot can be gathered from the ending of 'Dark Knight' and the released characters list. *SPOILER ALERT* At the end of 'Dark Knight' Batman reveals that he has to take the fall for the deceased Harvey Dent/Two Face's crimes in order for the citizens of Gotham to still have hope and faith (not the sitcom!), thus turning Batman into a fugitive. This provides intrigue for the film as we'll most likely see Batman trying to fight crime and evade the police, which makes for an interesting dynamic. We know that the plot in some way will revolve around battling with villain Bane. We know that Catwoman will be in the film but it is unclear whether she'll be an imediate foe or just being a tease for Batman, as is usual in the comics. It is wondered whether Nolan will follow the plotline of the famous comic where Bane injures Batman, taking him out of commission, I kinda doubt he would, but if so it'd make a great storyline (Hero comeback, Gotham without Batman, realising he's needed etc.).
The cast and characters are another aspect to be annalysed to determine the outcome of the film. Christian Bale is back as Bruce Wayne/Batman, and after an Oscar winning performance in 'The Fighter', he can be expected to give another complex performance on the struggle of the dual life. Gary Oldman's Gordon will this time be a reluctant foe of Batman, it'll interesting to see how the character handles hunting a man he knows is innocent, it's expected of Oldman to deliver another good performance as the Commissoner. The Bane character is something of question, he's supposedly a genetically engineered superhuman, it's difficult to imagine that being portrayed with realism on screen, however, Nolan has a nack for making seemingly absurd things realistic e.g A man who dresses as a bat or entering someones dreams to steal their secrets. The fact that an actor like Tom Hardy, who's given good performances in 'The Take' and 'Inception' is playing Bane, gives the impression that the character will have more depth. It'll be curious to see whether Anne Hathaway can live up to Michelle Pfeiffer's portrayal of Catwoman, but the character always has a sense of mischief and anarchy, which suits Nolan's universe well.
In conclusion, whilst there's some doubt that 'Dark Knight Rises' will live up to 'Dark Knight', due to the factors such as the Director, the cast/characters and fixed plot points, I believe that this film has a chance of being great, but if I'm proven wrong, then there'll numurous fanboys who's expectations will be let down, and a Director who's legacy will be tarnished by ending a classic trilogy with an imperfect climax.
Monday, 15 August 2011
Summertime (Diesel) Blues
After a lengthy absence, I'm here to review last nights Summerslam 2011, to be honest I was looking foreward to this event very much, with a double main event consisting of 3 tallented wrestlers (and Cena but can turn it up as seen last month) and 2 captivating storylines. Expectations were high, did the event live up to the hype? In my book it kinda did, the event left many satisfied and asking questions due to 2 big shockers in the main event (read on!). So sit back and read about the biggest party of the summer that wasn't held by Charlie Sheen.
1. Miz/Alberto Del Rio/R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio/John Morrison/Kofi Kingston
This was a basic opener, but a decent way to kick off the show, with each man getting their stuff in and the return of Miz's Awesome foam (God I love that). Despite Del Rio getting little action (read on!) it kept me entertained and ready for the next match.
Score: 6.5/10
After this, we saw a funny backstage moment with CM Punk and Stephenie Mcmahon in which she asked for a handshake but Punk rebufed; 'I know where those hands have been'
2. Sheamus vs Mark Henry
Well it wasn't exactly a classic but it was good for a Henry match. Sheamus looked strong which shows WWE want to make him a prominant face. The slow pace got little out of the crowd until the finish, which had Henry send Sheamus back first into the ring post, them crashing through the barricade (a spot that earned this match an extra 0.5) and Henry winning by countout which prolonges their fued.
Score: 5.5/10
After this was the Cee Lo Green performance, I skipped through most of this, but saw parts in which Cee Lo looked like he was wearing a binliner, trying to get the crowd to sing along but there was silence and a few Cenation kids doing the mashed potato.
3. Kelly Kelly vs Beth Pheonix
In truth I skipped this match, but for those who havn't seen, I dare you to watch the PPV just for this match...go on...do it!
Score: N/A
4. Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett
This was a pretty good match (it's Bryan, no shit!), featuring Bryan's technical soundness and captivating manouvers. Barrett put on a good show with brutal moves such as a boot through the ropes and a Nigel McGuiness esq clothesline. This match went back and forth near the end but saw Barrett win, which although keeps his status clean, does little for Bryan's, who's supposedly gonna main event wrestlemania.
Score: 7.5/10
5. Christian vs Randy Orton
I hope this is the last match for these 2, they've had an amazing series but there's only so many times you can go to the well (I'm sounding like Booker-T!). This was a great match with many good hardcore spots that were built up to and payed off well, it would be difficult for me to type them all. Let's just say Kendo sticks, tables, chairs, trashcans, announce tables and steel steps were all used and used well. The highlight of the match though was the finish, which saw Christian go for a turning crossbody but get RKO'd on the steel steps (somewhat shades of their 1st match).
Score: 9/10
6. CM Punk vs John Cena
This didn't exactly live up to their match of the year at Money in the Bank, but this was still pretty damn good. We started off with good methodical technical wrestling, building up to spot after spot. Just like their other match, every move had an impact. Cena turned it up again, giving one of his best performances ( he gave the best dropkick he's ever given). The attmosphere was nothing like Chicago but the crowd were 50/50 and electric. HHH suprisingly didn't take up much of the spotlight apart from one spot where he stopped a possible count-out and threw both men back in the ring. Punk won again via GTS, HHH counted, not noticing that Cena had his foot on the rope, which is one of the things that leaves questions (read on!).
Score: 9/10
After the match came 2 major shockers that made the night and became trending topics on Twitter. First Kevin Nash came through the crowd and Jackknifed Punk after the match, this asks why did he do this? Will he be on RAW? Will he wrestle again? And the biggest shock of all...Alberto Del Rio cashed in Money in the Bank, winning the WWE championship. How will Punk react? How will Cena react? How will the Del Rio/Rey match on RAW go? All these questions ensure people tuning into RAW to find out.
With 2 great main events and many possible storylines created and a shocking return, Summerslam was a great PPV and worth watching.
1. Miz/Alberto Del Rio/R-Truth vs Rey Mysterio/John Morrison/Kofi Kingston
This was a basic opener, but a decent way to kick off the show, with each man getting their stuff in and the return of Miz's Awesome foam (God I love that). Despite Del Rio getting little action (read on!) it kept me entertained and ready for the next match.
Score: 6.5/10
After this, we saw a funny backstage moment with CM Punk and Stephenie Mcmahon in which she asked for a handshake but Punk rebufed; 'I know where those hands have been'
2. Sheamus vs Mark Henry
Well it wasn't exactly a classic but it was good for a Henry match. Sheamus looked strong which shows WWE want to make him a prominant face. The slow pace got little out of the crowd until the finish, which had Henry send Sheamus back first into the ring post, them crashing through the barricade (a spot that earned this match an extra 0.5) and Henry winning by countout which prolonges their fued.
Score: 5.5/10
After this was the Cee Lo Green performance, I skipped through most of this, but saw parts in which Cee Lo looked like he was wearing a binliner, trying to get the crowd to sing along but there was silence and a few Cenation kids doing the mashed potato.
3. Kelly Kelly vs Beth Pheonix
In truth I skipped this match, but for those who havn't seen, I dare you to watch the PPV just for this match...go on...do it!
Score: N/A
4. Daniel Bryan vs Wade Barrett
This was a pretty good match (it's Bryan, no shit!), featuring Bryan's technical soundness and captivating manouvers. Barrett put on a good show with brutal moves such as a boot through the ropes and a Nigel McGuiness esq clothesline. This match went back and forth near the end but saw Barrett win, which although keeps his status clean, does little for Bryan's, who's supposedly gonna main event wrestlemania.
Score: 7.5/10
5. Christian vs Randy Orton
I hope this is the last match for these 2, they've had an amazing series but there's only so many times you can go to the well (I'm sounding like Booker-T!). This was a great match with many good hardcore spots that were built up to and payed off well, it would be difficult for me to type them all. Let's just say Kendo sticks, tables, chairs, trashcans, announce tables and steel steps were all used and used well. The highlight of the match though was the finish, which saw Christian go for a turning crossbody but get RKO'd on the steel steps (somewhat shades of their 1st match).
Score: 9/10
6. CM Punk vs John Cena
This didn't exactly live up to their match of the year at Money in the Bank, but this was still pretty damn good. We started off with good methodical technical wrestling, building up to spot after spot. Just like their other match, every move had an impact. Cena turned it up again, giving one of his best performances ( he gave the best dropkick he's ever given). The attmosphere was nothing like Chicago but the crowd were 50/50 and electric. HHH suprisingly didn't take up much of the spotlight apart from one spot where he stopped a possible count-out and threw both men back in the ring. Punk won again via GTS, HHH counted, not noticing that Cena had his foot on the rope, which is one of the things that leaves questions (read on!).
Score: 9/10
After the match came 2 major shockers that made the night and became trending topics on Twitter. First Kevin Nash came through the crowd and Jackknifed Punk after the match, this asks why did he do this? Will he be on RAW? Will he wrestle again? And the biggest shock of all...Alberto Del Rio cashed in Money in the Bank, winning the WWE championship. How will Punk react? How will Cena react? How will the Del Rio/Rey match on RAW go? All these questions ensure people tuning into RAW to find out.
With 2 great main events and many possible storylines created and a shocking return, Summerslam was a great PPV and worth watching.
Saturday, 6 August 2011
Developing The Laughter
From late 2003 to early 2006 a humble little sitcom known as Arrested Development ran on tv, the show only ran for 3 series due to lacklusture ratings ('why are we appealing to this idiot demographic'). Despite this the show gained a cult following of loyal fans, praise from numerous critics and several Emmy award wins. This was due to the unique presentation and pedantic zannyness of the show, so let me tell you the story of a wealthy family, and the one son who had to keep them all together, it's Arrested Development.
As opposed to most of my blogs, this is going to be a mixed opionated review, so I'll start with the overall positives of the show. The show follows the wealthy Bluth family, who've come into trouble due to the patriarc's imbezlment (I'm not the best speller) and treason charges. At it's core the show depicts a dysfunctional family comming together through hardships, what sets this apart from a cliche' indie film is the frank, surealist humour that is showcased frequently. The jokes are silly, yet not too broad to appeal to a large demographic, take for example Franklin the black puppet, the cavalcade of chicken dances, Henry Winkler jumping the shark and many many more. The humour of the show can also resemble a sort of social commentary, poking holes in such things as the Iraq war, the patriot act and Enron. The episodes are also intricatly structured with plot twists round the corner, if you want an idea of an average episode, think Frasier meets Scrubs. Overall the humour and structure makes almost every episode (wait til later) worthy of a half an hour (or 20 minutes if you watch it online).
Series 1-2 were great showcases of the shows brilliance, series 3 however, is what causes the mixed nature of this review. Despite a few good episodes and jokes (Tobias being an analist/therapist=analrapist) the series falls flat due to the re-use of worn out jokes, sitcom cliche's which derives from the shows originality and worst of all...the 5 part Rita saga, which sees the Main character unwittingly court a retarded British woman, this not only in bad taste but again reverts to cliche'd tricks that'd be used by the likes of Family Guy and South Park but with less wit and managable plot. By the end you're glad no new series were made if this was the direction the show was going in.
One of the great attributes this show has, along with most sitcoms, is a great cast and characters, of which there are many, all the main cast fit into their role perfectly. Jason Bateman as responsible nice guy Michael is a great straight man, being the perfect foil for his families madness while showcasing a bit of smuggness. Will Arnet's magician GOB (George Oscar Bluth II) is my personal favourite character, a selfish, arrogant, narcisistic loser, what we all love and Arnet delivers each line with great comic timing. Portia De Rossi's Lindsay is the vien, lazy, sexually frustrated princess who embodies the attitude of many spoiled heiresses. Tony Hale as Buster, the neurotic man-child is a mix of patheticness and gusto that makes whatever he does greatly amusing. David Cross is the closeted, oblivious never-nude Tobias who has some of the best lines in the series which are double entendres. Michael Cera as George Michael is the sweetest teen you could meet, full of shyness, concussion and lusty feelings for his cousin; Maybe played by Alia Shawcut who is full of mischief and rebellion towards her parents. Jessica Walter's Lucille is the ultimate snide, bitch mother, manipulating her children and fostering their dysfunctions. And Jeffrey Tambor as George sr (also doubles as his twin, pothead Oscar) has some fun moments in prison and on the lamb. When these great characters interacat in complex situations it provides comedy gold.
Despite it's short run, the show has stood the test of time due to it's mixture of silly and clever jokes (analrapist!), great actors in perfect characters, unique presentation with hand held camera shots and use of stock footage, intricate storylines (for series 1-2) and an overall heart of family unity despite the sheer madness. My advice to you would be to watch series 1-2 and revel in the genius, but avoid series 3 to stop the show being ruined for you, or as GOB would say; 'Cirsumvent it!'
As opposed to most of my blogs, this is going to be a mixed opionated review, so I'll start with the overall positives of the show. The show follows the wealthy Bluth family, who've come into trouble due to the patriarc's imbezlment (I'm not the best speller) and treason charges. At it's core the show depicts a dysfunctional family comming together through hardships, what sets this apart from a cliche' indie film is the frank, surealist humour that is showcased frequently. The jokes are silly, yet not too broad to appeal to a large demographic, take for example Franklin the black puppet, the cavalcade of chicken dances, Henry Winkler jumping the shark and many many more. The humour of the show can also resemble a sort of social commentary, poking holes in such things as the Iraq war, the patriot act and Enron. The episodes are also intricatly structured with plot twists round the corner, if you want an idea of an average episode, think Frasier meets Scrubs. Overall the humour and structure makes almost every episode (wait til later) worthy of a half an hour (or 20 minutes if you watch it online).
Series 1-2 were great showcases of the shows brilliance, series 3 however, is what causes the mixed nature of this review. Despite a few good episodes and jokes (Tobias being an analist/therapist=analrapist) the series falls flat due to the re-use of worn out jokes, sitcom cliche's which derives from the shows originality and worst of all...the 5 part Rita saga, which sees the Main character unwittingly court a retarded British woman, this not only in bad taste but again reverts to cliche'd tricks that'd be used by the likes of Family Guy and South Park but with less wit and managable plot. By the end you're glad no new series were made if this was the direction the show was going in.
One of the great attributes this show has, along with most sitcoms, is a great cast and characters, of which there are many, all the main cast fit into their role perfectly. Jason Bateman as responsible nice guy Michael is a great straight man, being the perfect foil for his families madness while showcasing a bit of smuggness. Will Arnet's magician GOB (George Oscar Bluth II) is my personal favourite character, a selfish, arrogant, narcisistic loser, what we all love and Arnet delivers each line with great comic timing. Portia De Rossi's Lindsay is the vien, lazy, sexually frustrated princess who embodies the attitude of many spoiled heiresses. Tony Hale as Buster, the neurotic man-child is a mix of patheticness and gusto that makes whatever he does greatly amusing. David Cross is the closeted, oblivious never-nude Tobias who has some of the best lines in the series which are double entendres. Michael Cera as George Michael is the sweetest teen you could meet, full of shyness, concussion and lusty feelings for his cousin; Maybe played by Alia Shawcut who is full of mischief and rebellion towards her parents. Jessica Walter's Lucille is the ultimate snide, bitch mother, manipulating her children and fostering their dysfunctions. And Jeffrey Tambor as George sr (also doubles as his twin, pothead Oscar) has some fun moments in prison and on the lamb. When these great characters interacat in complex situations it provides comedy gold.
Despite it's short run, the show has stood the test of time due to it's mixture of silly and clever jokes (analrapist!), great actors in perfect characters, unique presentation with hand held camera shots and use of stock footage, intricate storylines (for series 1-2) and an overall heart of family unity despite the sheer madness. My advice to you would be to watch series 1-2 and revel in the genius, but avoid series 3 to stop the show being ruined for you, or as GOB would say; 'Cirsumvent it!'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)