Uncategorized

RDT Reviews Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Big spoilers here…are you even reading this if you haven’t seen the film. Also, all Star Wars films have to invite comparison to the prequels…because inevitably any discussion of the Star Wars films invites such comparisons.

For years I thought this might have been the weakest Star Wars film of them all. Watching it again though, Return of the Jedi finally gives us the hero we’ve been waiting for in regards to Luke Skywalker and the result is a satisfying conclusion to the original Star Wars trilogy.

We start off right where we left off in Empire Strikes Back, with Luke, Leia, Chewy, Lando, R2 and 3PO heading to Tatooine to save Han Solo from Jabba the Hutt. Return of the Jedi is practically a two part act, with this being the first act. It’s quite an effective act as it establishes that this is now the established, prepared and most importantly confident Jedi Knight Luke Skywalker (despite what Yoda says later) who is ready to take down the Empire. Luke makes pretty quick work of the Hutts (random awesome point, it was cool to see Leia find an opening and take down Jabba herself instead of being rescued). It’s exciting to see Luke as the confident hero as in the previous two installments I wasn’t completely buying it (similar to the popular opinion about Anakin Skywalker becoming Vader in the prequels actually). Here, I buy it. There’s no whining or anything. It is as if the battle and loss to Vader hardened him. I don’t completely buy the path of how he got to this point, but now that he’s here it’s great to see. We tie another loose end as Luke visits Yoda, and Yoda confirms what Vader told Luke about being his father. Overall this is a brilliant first act that I just completely overlooked years ago watching this film.

I do think the film goes slightly downhill the rest of the way. The story is that the Emperor has coming to oversee the creation of the 2nd Death Star. He tells Vader, who unfortunately has been neutered as an amazing bad ass villain here that only together can they convert Luke to the dark side. The Rebels meanwhile have received information about the Death Star that gives them one last shot to destroy the Empire once and for all. Little do they know the Emperor is setting a trap to end the Rebellion once and for all. The second half here breaks up into two parts: Luke’s confrontation with the Emperor and Vader, and the battle on Endor. Before this we get the revelation that Luke and Leia are brother and sister, one of the weakest plot points in the entire saga and something that takes away from Luke a bit. In fact, pretty much everything that happens on Endor is weak and underwhelming (other than “god” C3PO. That was hilarious). The Ewoks taking out the Empire’s best troops takes a huge suspension of disbelief to get behind and I can’t do it, even if the Ewoks are supposed to be warriors. Just compare this conclusion to A New Hope’s and you’ll realize the seriousness is just gone.

But Vader and Luke’s confrontation? It’s great. While yes it is disappointing that Vader isn’t the monster he was in Empire, it is at least understandable here. He’s about to do a face turn (turning into a good guy) and the focus of evil needs to be on the Emperor. Since the Emperor is awesome himself, this is still perfectly fine. We finally get that emotion from Luke Skywalker I’ve waiting three films for when Vader threatens to convert his sister to the Dark Side. While I never once believed that Luke was going to turn, the entire sequence is well done.

There’s a lot of good in Return of the Jedi. It was a lot better than I remembered and tied up a lot of the loose ends from the first two films.

Pros:

+Luke Skywalker finally comes into his own and becomes the hero this franchise was sorely missing.

+A fitting conclusion to the saga. The story tied up quite nicely.

+The Emperor is awesome.

+”God” C3PO is awesome.

Cons:

-While the Emperor is awesome, it was disappointing to see Vader as basically a sidekick.

-95% of what happens on Endor is disappointing and underwhelming.

-Ewoks are terrible.

-The Luke-Leia brother-sister relationship was forced and put a value on the love for one another. I’d be more interested in Vader threatening to turn Luke’s friends to the Darkside as opposed to forcing a sibling narrative.

Overall, very good.

Grade: B+

 

Other (DC, Marvel, Disney etc.)

Remembering Wes Craven

If you are looking for a face that isn’t burned or a hockey mask that represents an icon of the 80s slasher genre, look no further than the great Wes Craven. There were three slasher-style horror franchises thoughout the 1980s, but A Nightmare on Elm Street stood out. While Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers hacked and killed anyone in their path, there was more to Freddy Krueger. Wes Craven created a character that killed you in your dreams. It’s a genius concept that helped Nightmare differentiate itself from Halloween and Friday the 13th. It’s one thing to look around the corner and find yourself at the mercy of a psychotic mad man…but it’s another to have no control of your dreams and subsequently be killed in them. Craven’s original Nightmare on Elm Street left many awake at night, and with good reason.

You could stop there and there would still be loyal Wes Craven fans who would praise Nightmare at every moment. But Craven wasn’t done. After Nightmare and Freddy were turned into what seemed to be pure comedy (Nightmare VI: Freddy’s Dead is a tough one to watch) Craven came back with what could be considered the true sequel to the original film: New Nightmare. When Craven turned Freddy to what seemed to be a real person (Freddy’s credited as himself in the credits), he arguably made Freddy the greatest horror icon of all time, surpassing Jason or Myers. Craven still wasn’t done, as the idea of bringing Freddy into “the real world” serves as a prelude to the Scream franchise. Of course, Craven was the director of Scream and saved the dying slasher genre.

It was a sad day on Elm Street for sure when Craven passed a few days ago. We’ll love Craven not for the memories or for the great horror icons he created…but for the fact that he kept everyone awake at night while we hoped that Freddy wasn’t coming for us. RIP Wes Craven.

Pro Wrestling

Brock Lesnar vs. The Undertaker: Five Reasons Why Each Should Win

Despite the fact that their Wrestlemania XXX match did not live up to the hype (well, the match itself didn’t, but the finish absolutely did), tonight’s Brock Lesnar vs. The Undertaker match at Summerslam has given the event a supercard feel. With Jon Stewart hosting (sure beats The Miz from a couple years ago), Stephen Amell in a match and our big name main event, Summerslam feels closer to Wrestlemania than it does to the rest of the WWE Network Special Schedule. Unlike Wrestlemania XXX, were it seemed to be a foregone conclusion that Undertaker was beating Brock (which of course led to the shock value of the finish), this year’s encounter can go either way. Here now are five reasons on why each competitor  should win tonight.

Five Reasons Brock Lesnar Should Win at Summerslam

  1. Brock Lesnar as a main attraction requires him to be an invincible monster.

Interestingly, by the time Taker and Lesnar locked up at Mania XXX, Brock Lesnar has lost most of his appeal as a major attraction. He will still very over, but it wasn’t the same as two years prior when he first showed up and confronted John Cena. He had suffered a couple of losses (to Cena and Triple H) and no one gave him a chance against the legendary Streak. When Lesnar ended the streak…a brilliant booking decision…it put him back in that special attraction slot. WWE smartly booked him to be an unstoppable monster from that point forward. He destroyed Cena. Cena seemingly almost got him back, but Lesnar still left with the title. He beat both Cena and Seth Rollins. He looked like a monster even as Roman Reigns fought him to a draw, and lost his title without being pinned. He destroyed Champ Rollins before Taker returned. All of this gets added to the numerous segments where Lesnar wrecked everyone and everything (like the RAW after Mania). Losing to the Undertaker undoes most of this, and there is still a lot of money left in the Brock Lesnar is a monster story.

  1. Brock Lesnar needs the win more than Undertaker.

With Wrestlemania XXXII on the horizon and WWE looking to break all kinds of attendance records, Brock Lesnar needs to be at the peak of his drawing power. There’s no Streak to conquer in the future to re-establish Lesnar as a special attraction. We can’t be wasting losses on the Undertaker.

  1. A loss means Lesnar vs. Undertaker III.

A route that WWE should not take is Lesnar-Taker III at Wrestlemania XXXII. But if Lesnar loses here, we probably need a rubber match between the two, and to be honest that’s not the best match possible for Mania. Really, the only Taker match out there that needs to happen is against Sting. Let Lesnar move on. It might be time to throw all the money in the world at The Rock for Lesnar vs. Rock…unless Vince thinks he is getting Stone Cold or HBK.

  1. Brock Lesnar just signed a new WWE contract.

As a result, there is no reason for WWE to not get the maximum out of Lesnar’s drawing power. If WWE resigned Lesnar just to lose to Undertaker and whomever, it’ll be a colossal waste. Someone beating Brock Lesnar will give a huge rub (one that almost went to Roman Reigns). WWE would be smart to maximize that.

  1. It’s not believable that Brock Lesnar would lose to Undertaker.

It would be one thing if this was in his prime Undertaker, but this is old man Undertaker and UFC ass kicker Brock Lesnar. After what happened at Wrestlemania XXX, would anyone buy the Undertaker still pulling the John Wayne and taking down the big bad guy at this point?

Five Reasons The Undertaker Should Win at Summerslam

  1. Undertaker needs momentum for his retirement match at Wrestlemania XXXII.

Like Lesnar, we don’t want to lose the specialness of Undertaker’s draw and character. A lot of that was taken away at Wrestlemania XXX when he lost the Streak. A lot of people didn’t care about Taker beating Bray Wyatt. If he loses again, will anyone really care about him come Wrestlemania XXXII?

  1. Undertaker has never beaten Brock Lesnar in a 1 vs. 1 PPV Match.

Undertaker currently sports a 0-3-1 record against Lesnar in PPV Matches (losses at No Mercy ’02, No Mercy ’03 and Mania XXX. The lone draw was at Unforgiven ’02). To complete his legacy, a win over Lesnar may be necessary.

  1. Undertaker’s Last Non-Wrestlemania PPV win was five and a half years ago.

The last time Undertaker won a PPV match that wasn’t a Wrestlemania? Royal Rumble 2010 against Rey Mysterio. How crazy is that? It’s also been nearly five years since he’s even wrestled on a non-Mania PPV. Wouldn’t it be disappointing for him to lose in his first Summerslam match since 2008?

  1. Undertaker needs to avenge his Wrestlemania XXX loss.

We all remember the aftermath of Taker vs. Lesnar at Mania XXX. Shocked fans. A concussed Undertaker slowly walking to the back. Like Cena when he came back on RAW after Lesnar destroyed him at Summerslam last year (and some kids felt that their hero was still alive), Undertaker’s fans need to see that the Deadman isn’t done. The fans need that closure.

  1. The Undertaker might not be as done as we think.

Raise your hand if you had the Undertaker wrestling at Summerslam this year. Who’s to say we aren’t getting a Survivor Series or Royal Rumble match this year leading up to the retirement match at Wrestlemania XXXII? Hell, who says he’s retiring at Wrestlemania XXXII? He’s “only” 50. Everyone saw how badly he was beat up at Wrestlemania XXX and assumed he was done. Well, when you get concussed, that’s how things go. He looked better at Wrestlemania XXXI against Wyatt. How do we know he doesn’t have five years left of this?

In the end, as much as I love the Undertaker…the smart business decision is to let Brock go over. He’s the big draw. People are going to watch Taker vs. Sting at Wrestlemania XXXII (or Cena, I guess) no matter what happens at Summerslam. Don’t screw up Lesnar again WWE.

Basketball

Top 100 Basketball Players Ever: #70-#61

#70: Adrian Dantley

top100dantley

Resume

NBA Rookie of the Year: (’77)

All-NBA 2nd Team: 2x (’81, ‘84)

All-NBA Rookie 1st Team: (’77)

NBA All-Star: 6x (’80, ’81, ’82, ’84, ’85, ‘86)

NBA Leader Points: 2x (’81, ’84)

NBA Leader PER: 1x (’84)

NBA Win Shares Leader: 1x (’84)

NBA WS/48 Leader: 1x (’84)

NBA Offensive Rating Leader: 2x (’78, ’84)

NBA Offensive Win Shares Leader: 4x (’81, ’82, ’84, ’86)

NBA Top 10 Points: 5x (’80, ’81, ’82, ’84, ’86)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 6x (’78, ’80, ’81, ’82, ’84, ’86)

Career NBA Points: 27th

Career NBA Offensive Rating: 119.8 (8th)

Career NBA Win Shares: 134.2 (30th)

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 66th

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 83rd

It’s easy to look at Dantley’s Advanced Metrics and conclude he’s one of the most underrated players in the history of the game. His Advanced States, especially compared to the player one spot higher than him on this list (and on Slam and Simmons lists as well). Dantley was a great offensive player in an era where offense was rampant. His style wouldn’t translate to today’s game as he was primarily a post-up player at 6’3”. You know how some like to dismiss the 1980s because “everyone was skinny and small”. Well, Dantley would actually be negatively affected by that difference because of the way he played the game.

There’s a second part about Dantley that hurts his ranking considerably. From all accounts he sounds like a bad teammate and someone that coaches and other players just didn’t want on their team. He was traded some five times in his prime (are great players traded that often?) often on 50 cents for the dollar. The Lakers pre-Magic dumped Dantley to Utah for a washed up Spencer Haywood. He’d average more points (28) than Utah had wins that season (24) while the Lakers won the title. Utah would follow with 28 wins the next season and 25 after that. Interestingly in 1983 they would go up to 30 wins…and Dantley only played 22 games that season. It look Dantley’s excellent 1984 season to get Utah to the playoffs finally. Three straight playoff seasons in the 40-45 win range seemed to help Dantley…except Utah sent him away for Kelly Tripucka (a scoring no defense forward) and continued on their 40+ win playoff streak (and better as the Malone-Stockton era began). Dantley got to play for a contender with the Pistons…and then he was traded for Mark Aguirre as he clashed with Isiah. Unsurprisingly, Detroit would win two straight titles. There’s too many negatives here to rank Dantley any higher, but he needs to be given credit for his great offensive numbers.

#69: Alex English

top100english

Resume

All-NBA 2nd Team: 3x (’82, ’83, ‘86)

NBA All-Star: 8x (’82, ’83, ’84, ’85, ’86, ’87, ’88, ‘89)

NBA Leader Points: 2x (’83, ‘86)

NBA Top 10 PER: 3x (’83, ’84, ‘86)

NBA Win Shares Leader: 1x (’84)

NBA Top 10 Offensive Win Shares: 4x (’82, ’83, ’84, ‘86)

Career NBA Points: 17th

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 65th

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 82nd

English was a lot more consistent than Dantley and his teams did better as well. Sure, it’s luck that English had less talent around him, but a big part of that is their attitude and being able to co-exist with their teammates and coaches. English was often part of one of the more potent offensive teams in the league: the 80s Nuggets.

English had a lot more success than Dantley as well, leading the Nuggets to the Western Conference Championship against the Lakers in ’85. In terms of pure statistics, English would be Carmelo Anthony’s end of career projection…although English has done better in the playoffs than Anthony.

#68: Bob Mcadoo

top100mcadoo

Resume

NBA MVP: 1x (’75)

NBA Rookie of the Year: (’73)

All-NBA 1st Team: 1x (’75)

All-NBA 2nd Team: 1x (‘74)

All-NBA Rookie 1st Team: (’73)

NBA All-Star: 5x (’74, ’75, ’76, ’77, ‘78)

NBA Leader Points: 3x (’74, ’75, ‘76)

NBA Rebounds Leader: 1x (’75)

NBA Win Shares Leader: 1x (’75)

NBA WS/48 Leader: 1x (’75)

NBA Offensive Win Shares Leader: 2x (’74, ‘75)

NBA Top 10 Points: 5x (’74, ’75, ’76, ’77, ‘78)

NBA Top 10 Rebounds: (’74, ’75, ’76, ’77, ‘78)

NBA Top 10 Blocks: (’74, ’75, ’76)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 4x (’74, ’75, ’76, ‘78)

Role Player for two NBA Champions: (’82 Lakers, ’85 Lakers)

Role Player for one Runner-Up: (’84 Lakers)

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 61st

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 46th

For a three year stretch, Bob McAdoo was the 2nd best player in the league behind Kareem. Interestingly his play fell off after injuries and he was never the same after 1978. McAdoo gets a bit of a bonus over other offense only players for two reasons: his MVP Award and his success as a role player on the Lakers in the 1980s.

McAdoo was simply unlucky. If he was able to play at full strength in the early 1980s he probably would have been a force.

#67: Tom Heinsohn

top100heihnson

Resume

NBA Rookie of the Year: (’57)

All-NBA 2nd Team: 4x (’61, ’62, ’63, ’64)

NBA All-Star: 6x (’57, ’61, ’62, ’63, ’64, ‘65)

NBA Top 10 Points: 1x (’60)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 1x (’62)

NBA Top 10 WS/48: 1x (’62)

NBA Top 10 Defensive Win Shares: 9x (’57, ’58, ’59, ’60, ’61, ’62, ’63, ’64, ‘65)

Either the 3rd or 4th Best Player on Eight Championship Teams: (’57 Celtics, ’59 Celtics, ’60 Celtics, ’61 Celtics, ’62 Celtics, ’63 Celtics, ’64 Celtics, ’65 Celtics)

Either the 3rd or 4th Best Player on one Runner Up: (’58 Celtics)

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 57th

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 68th

One of the primary exhibits in the “Russell played with a billion Hall of Famers” argument. In terms of what Simmons wrote about him, he sounds like this generations Manu Ginobili in regards to being someone who seems to be a great chemistry guy…but once in a while goes against the grain (which is why Pop gets on Manu…and apparently Auerbach got on Heinshon).

I don’t see how I can put him any higher. He was a big part of the Celtics dynasty with a bunch of all NBA 2nd Teams during the reign. Tough call. Russell thinks that he would be better than Bob Pettit if he had his head always in the game (we haven’t reached Pettit on this list yet). That’s pretty high praise, although it’s coming from a teammate. I’ll just go with a very good player that added to a great team and won a lot of titles.

#66: Tiny Archibald

top100archibald

Resume

All-NBA 1st Team: 3x (’73, ’75, ’76)

All-NBA 2nd Team: 2x (’72, ‘81)

NBA All-Star Game MVP: 1x (’81)

NBA All-Star: 6x (’73, ’75, ’76, ’80, ’81, ‘82)

NBA Points Leader: 1x (’73)

NBA Assists Leader: 1x (’73)

Only player to lead NBA in Points and Assists in same season.

NBA Top 3 Points: 4x (’72, ’73 ’75, ’76)

NBA Top 10 Assists: 7x (’71, ’72, ’73, ’75, ’76, ’80, ’81)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 3x (’72, ’73, ’75)

NBA Top 2 Offensive Win Shares: 3x (’72, ’73, ’75)

NBA Top 10 PER: 4x (’72, ’73, ’75, ’76)

NBA Career Assists: 21st

Starter for one Champion: 1981 Celtics

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 60th

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 52nd

Famously known for his 1973 season, where he lead the league in points and assists (and didn’t win MVP). While it’s an amazing feat and definitely notable, Tiny’s Kings were only 36-46 that year. Tiny gets a bonus because, like McAdoo, he was an excellent top player (the prototype for 2008 Chris Paul) early on and then his career went downhill. Only Tiny was still a very good player on his late Celtic years and even snagged an All-Star Game MVP.

His presence mattered a lot for those early 80s Celtic teams. The Celtics in 1982 had an 18 game winning streak that season and looked posed to at least make the Finals for the 2nd straight year. Tiny went down, and so did the Celtics.

#65: Pau Gasol

top100gasol

Resume

NBA Rookie of the Year: (’02)

All-NBA 2nd Team: 2x (’11, ‘15)

All-NBA 3rd Team: 2x (’09, ’10)

All-NBA Rookie 1st Team: (’02)

NBA All-Star Game MVP: 1x (’81)

NBA All-Star: 5x (’06, ’09, ’10, ’11, ‘15)

NBA Top 10 Rebounds: 4x (’09, ’10, ’11, ‘15)

NBA Top 10 Blocks: 3x (’02, ’06, ’15)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 5x (’09, ’10, ’11, ’12, ‘15)

NBA Top 5 WS/48: 3x (’09, ’10, ’11)

NBA Top 10 Offensive Win Shares: 2x (’09, ‘11)

NBA Top 10 Defensive Win Shares: 3x (’06, ’11, ’15)

NBA Top 10 PER: 2x (’07, ‘10)

NBA Career Blocks: 28th

2nd Best Player on Two Champions: 2009 Lakers, 2010 Lakers

2nd Best Player on One Runner Up: 2008 Lakers

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): Not Ranked

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 96th

It’s easy to look at Gasol’s All-NBA Teams and not be impressed. It’s just as easy to forget that he played his entire career in the same league with Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett and Dirk Nowitzki. He was THE reason that the Memphis Grizzlies gained any relevance whatsoever, and was quite unlucky early on in his career as the Grizzlies had a 50-50 shot at the #1 pick in the 2003 draft (LeBron). Gasol and LeBron playing with one another in their early years would have been absolutely ridiculous and is one of the great What-Ifs of all time.

Why is Gasol this high? For one he’s one of the few players who could happily co-exist as Kobe Bryant’s 2nd banana. Gasol thrived in the role and arguably became the top big man in the league from 2009 through 2011 (it’s forgotten now, but Kobe had a slow start in 2010 and everyone stated that Gasol was the best player on the team at that point, as well as a top 5 guy). It should be noted that post-Shaq Kobe never won a playoff series without Gasol. That’s shows Gasol’s importance. And then there is this. When the Lakers got Gasol for “nothing” (Marc Gasol turned out to be pretty good) the entire league, especially Spurs Coach Gregg Popovich started a shitstorm over it. Great coaches like Pop don’t complain unless the player involved is great. And even at that point, he knew Pau Gasol was great.

His 2015 resurgence in Chicago only helped his case. Also helping Gasol is obviously his ridiculous Advanced Metrics during the Laker title runs, as well as the fact that he was a better defensive player than anyone gave him credit for.

#64: Reggie Miller

top100miller

Resume

All-NBA 3rd Team: 3x (’95, ’96, ‘98)

NBA All-Star: 5x (’90, ’95, ’96, ’98, ‘00)

NBA Top 10 Points: 3x (’90, ’91, ’97)

NBA 3PTFG Leader: 2x (’93, ’97)

NBA Offensive Rating Leader: 3x (’91, ’93, ’94)

NBA Top 10 Offensive Rating: 14x (’90, ’91, ’92, ’93, ’94, ’95, ’97, ’98, ’99, ’00, ’01, ’02, ’03, ’04)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 7x (’90, ’91, ’93, ’94, ’95, ’97, ‘98)

NBA Top 10 WS/48: 5x (’91, ’94, ’95, ’97, ‘98)

NBA Top 10 Offensive Win Shares: 11x (’90, ’91, ’92, ’93, ’94, ’95, ’96, ’97, ’98, ’99, ‘00)

NBA Career Points: 18th

NBA Career 3PFG: 2nd

NBA Career Win Shares: 14th

NBA Career WS/48: 45th

NBA Career Offensive Win Shares: 7th

NBA Career Offensive Rating: 2nd

Best Player on One Runner Up: 2000 Pacers

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 63rd

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 54th

Reggie Miller is the perfect example of two things. Number one, he did one thing great (outside shooting that complimented his overall offense) and didn’t try to so anything he couldn’t. That thing was so transcendent that it offset the fact he wasn’t a good defensive player, wasn’t a good passer, or really wasn’t a good much of anything. Since Miller’s three pointer and outside shooting was so great though, he ended up being perhaps the most efficient offensive player in NBA History. This ties into #2. In the 90s, no one was talking about advanced metrics or efficiency. Other than his three point shooting, all of his stats appeared rather pedestrian. His peak year he put up a 24-4-4. For the most part he was a 20-3-3 guy. There’s no surprise that he only made a few all-3rd NBA teams when the league was weaker and only made sporadic All-Star game appearances. If he played today, we’d all be raving about how he might be the one of, if not the best offensive player in the game.

His teams did moderately well considering their best players throughout Miller’s first 11 years were Rik Smits (a quality center who didn’t sniff my Top 100), Jalen Rose (never an All-Star), Mark Jackson (a one-time All Star in the late 80s), Dale Davis (one time All-Star), Antonio Davis (a one time All-Star after his time in Indy) and washed up Chris Mullin. His late 90s/2000 teams were well built despite the lack of star power (Rose, Smits, Dale and Antonio Davis, Jackson at least gave tem depth), but it wasn’t exactly a murderers row. It didn’t matter to Miller as he managed to overachieve in the playoffs year in and year out. In 1995 he ripped the Knicks heart out with his famous 8 points in 9 seconds. He would lead the Pacers to a Game 7 loss against the Penny-Shaq Magic (although he didn’t play well in that Game 7). Miller’s Pacers would make the Conference Finals again in 1998 against MJ’s Bulls. This series is the closest Jordan came to losing in any of his six peak years. Miller hit 43% of his three pointers in a tight seven game series (including a winning three in Game 4) as the Pacers just fell short. Miller’s Pacers would make the Conference Finals again in 1999 and reach the NBA Finals in 2000. He almost led the 2002 Pacers to an upset over the 2002 Nets (the eventual Eastern Conference Champions). For someone without the “superstar resume”, Reggie Miller teams seemed to do pretty well. He wasn’t good enough to be the best guy on a title team, but give him on elite guy in his prime and who knows. Just look how close he got in 1998.

#63: Bill Sharman

top100sharman

Resume

All-NBA 1st Team: 4x (’56, ’57, ’58, ‘59)

All-NBA 2nd Team: 3x (’53, ’55, ‘60)

NBA All-Star: 8x (’53, ’54, ’55, ’56, ’57, ’58, ’59, ‘60)

NBA Top 10 Points: 7x (’53, ’54, ’55, ’56, ’57, ’58, ’59)

NBA Top 10 Assists: 3x (’55, ’56, ‘57)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 4x (’53, ’54, ’56, ‘57)

NBA Top 10 Offensive Win Shares: 5x (’53, ’54, ’55, ’56, ’57)

Career Playoff FT%: 1st

Starter on Four NBA Champions: ’57 Celtics, ’59 Celtics, ’60 Celtics, ’61 Celtics

Starter on One Runner ’58 Celtics

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 53rd

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 70th

One of the tougher calls because his prime was in the 50s and he didn’t start winning until Russell showed up. He’s regarded as the first great shooting guard, and the best in the league until Jerry West showed up.  He was the first guy to really hit above 40% from the field consistently and 90% from the FT line. Being a part of multiple championship teams with his resume and the fact that he was the prototype statistically for shooting guards gets him 63rd. It’s a tough ranking to make, but it has to work for now.

#62: Dave DeBusschere

top100debusschere

Resume

All-NBA 2nd Team: 1x (’69)

NBA All Rookie 1st Team: (’63)

NBA All-Defensive 1st Team: 6x (’69, ’70, ’71, ’72, ’73, ’74)

NBA All-Star: 8x (’66, ’67, ’68, ’70, ’71, ’72, ’73, ’74)

NBA Top 10 Rebounds: 3x (’66, ’67, ’68)

NBA Career Rebounds: 40th

3rd Best Player on Two NBA Champions: ’70 Knicks, ’73 Knicks

3rd Best Player on One Runner ’72 Knicks

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 46th

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 76th

In terms of usefulness to a championship team, he’s a superior, tougher 70s version of 2010s Chris Bosh (and enough to get the nod over him despite the 70s thing). Only made six All-Defensive 1st teams because they didn’t start recording them until 1969. Was regarded as perhaps the toughest guy in his era and was a huge reason the Knicks won two championships in the 70s. Was a bit unlucky as well, as DeBusschere regularly took and made shots that would have given him three points ten years later.

#61: Robert Parish

top100parish

Resume

All-NBA 2nd Team: 1x (’82)

All-NBA 3rd Team: 1x (’89)

NBA All-Star: 9x (’81, ’82, ’83, ’84, ’85, ’86, ’87, ’90, ’91)

NBA Defensive Rating Leader: 1x (’79)

NBA Top 10 Rebounds: 8x (’79, ’82, ’84, ’86, ’87, ’89, ’90, ’91)

NBA Top 5 Blocks: 3x (’79, ’81, ‘82)

NBA Top 10 Win Shares: 3x (’81, ’83, ’84)

NBA Top 10 Defensive Rating: 7x (’78, ’79, ’81, ’82, ’83, ’84, ’86)

NBA Career Points: 26th

NBA Career Rebounds: 7th

NBA Career Blocks: 10th

NBA Career Games Played: 1st

Starter on Three NBA Champions: ’81 Celtics, ’84 Celtics, ’86 Celtics

Bench Player on One NBA Champion: ’97 Bulls

Starter on Two Runner-Ups: ’85 Celtics, ’87 Celtics

Simmons Pyramid Ranking (2010): 59th

Slam Magazine 500 Ranking (2011): 67th

“Chief” was the reliable, solid big man for the 80s Celtics. Parish’s career is tough to rank as well, considering he was always good to very good but never great. He knew his role for the 80s Celtics team and played accordingly. He shot 54% for every Boston season in the 80s. He provided very good defense year in and year out. He also brought it when it counted, coming up with a 23-19 in Game 7 vs. Milwaukee in 1987, and even put up a throwback performance in Game 5 against Indiana with a 21-8.

His consistency was eerie, putting up a 15-9 twelve times in his career, then getting close to that another three times. You could call him the poor man’s Tim Duncan in that respect.

Pro Wrestling

RDT Reviews Summerslam ’99

WWF Summerslam ‘99
August 22, 1999
Minneapolis, MN

There’s an argument to be made that right here, at this point, we were at the highest level the WWF would ever be. RAW Ratings were out of orbit. PPV buys were huge. The WWF was beating down WCW Nitro so badly Eric Bischoff was weeks away from losing his job. Vince McMahon was only a couple of months away from the WWF going public. Some argued that Stone Cold Steve Austin was a level above what Hulk Hogan was in the 80s. Other WWF stars began to transcend wrestling. The Rock was climbing fast toward megastar status. Mick Foley wrote a New York Times Best Seller. To say the WWF was riding high here was an understatement.

But there were some cracks in the armor as well. Stone Cold’s body had slowly begun to betray him. The Undertaker’s knees were going out on him. Foley’s body was pretty much at the point of done.

Would Summerslam ’99 be a continuation of the dominance the WWF had shown over the last year and a half…or would the wheels begin to fall off here?

The Card

We go over a year and a half of The McMahons screwing Stone Cold to explain why Jesse Ventura is our referee tonight.

Ventura and Triple H go face to face right away in the back. Ventura lays down the law, and HHH says he’ll break every rule.

We get some Y2J after that with ”Harold” Finkel. Jericho was hilarious in his early WWF days.

Intercontinental Championship and European Championship
D’Lo Brown (Both Champs) vs. Jeff Jarrett

Jarrett comes out with Debra and wow at Debra. Jarrett gets awesome heat when he sends Debra to the back…and then D’Lo brings her back out!

I don’t want to spoil it here, but there’s some really smart booking going on. JR on commentary brings up that Jarrett doesn’t want to win by countout when D’Lo was on the outside…just as Debra was looking to help D’Lo up.

The crowd is super hot for D’Lo. Huge reaction on the running powerbomb.

Jeff Jarrett pins D’Lo Brown to win both titles in 7:28. Debra and Jarrett distract the ref…allowing Mark Henry to run in and betray D’Lo with a guitar shot. Jarrett gets the win…and it turns out Debra, Jarrett and Henry were all on the same page! Jarrett would hand the European title to Henry. Fun opener with a good story and a great crowd! Strange how both men wouldn’t have much of a WWF career left. Jarrett would bolt for WCW in two months…D’Lo sadly accidentally paralyzed Droz, and was never the same.

Michael Cole interviews a wooden Edge and Christian. Of course, both would end up being great on the mic.

Tag Team Turmoil

The winner of this would become the #1 Contender to the Tag Team Title.

Edge and Christian begin against The New Brood…Matt and Jeff Hardy.

Something the Attitude Era did was create stars. Matt and Jeff were outright jobbers until 1999.

Fun start, although the match so far is a bit slow considering the four men in the ring.

Screw the start. Edge spears Jeff Hardy by jumping off the barricade just as Jeff was jumping off the other side. What? Matt comes off the top to the outside with a moonsault for good measure.

Christian pins Matt to eliminate the Hardys…and Mideon and Viscera are next. Can’t we just have the Hardys again?

We last saw Viscera at Summerslam when he was Mabel and in the WWF Title match. Crazy how much changed in four years.

I always thought Vis’s spin kick was awesome.

Viscera accidentally avalanches Mideon, then Edge and Christian double dropkick Vis out. Spear to Mideon, and Edge gets the pin. Prince Albert and Droz are next.

Not much here…Edge gets the Downward Spiral for the win. Acolytes, the favorites, are next.

The Hollys come out early, and Bradshaw takes out Christian with the Clothesline From Hell and we get a heel vs. heel finale. What a disappointing finish. I like both teams, but running it with one face team (E and C) means they needed to get to the end.

The Acolytes win when Faarooq pinned Hardcore Holly in 17:27. The Hollys argue and that leads to the spinebuster. This was fun with Edge and Christian…but after that who really cared?

I’m pretty sure the whole Al Snow think jumped the shark when he started talking to other things other than Head.

Road Dogg here…but it’s Y2J time!

Jericho was crazy over. The crowd goes nuts for the countdown.

Jericho wrote in Undisputed that this was his first great segment…and he’s 100% right. Jericho’s absolutely awesome here.

This would lead to Jericho’s WWF debut match at Smackdown…which was a bit of a let down (as was Jericho up to Survivor Series).

Hardcore Championship
Big Bossman© vs. Al Snow

One of the most creative starts to a match…Al Snow jumps up on the set and dives onto Bossman as soon as he goes through the curtain. Nice!

Road Dogg does an on the scene commentary that’s more annoying than not to be honest.

Bossman just grabs a random guy’s crutch to hit Al Snow. That’s a great heel move.

Match goes all the way across the street into a bar. Have to say, this is pretty fun. Maybe I just haven’t seen one of these in a while.

Al Snow pins Bossman to win the title in 7:25. Bossman takes a shot a Road Dogg and Road Dogg responds with a nightstick shot to Bossman to let Snow win the title. For some reason The Blue Meanie and Stevie Richards attack Snow. Hell if I remember why.

Women’s Championship
Ivory© vs. Tori

I think Tori’s pretty bad as a wrestler, so I don’t have high hopes here.

Eat your heart out Cesaro…Ivory with a big swing!

Ivory retains by pin in 4:11. Some weird finish with a flying sitting drop. Ivory tries to disrobe Tori, but Luna makes the save.

Lion’s Den Match
Ken Shamrock vs. Steve Blackman

While I didn’t realize it then, Shamrock being this far down the card should have been a sign that he wasn’t long for the WWF (this was actually his last PPV match).

The Lion’s Den is a UFC style octagon.

I don’t really like the idea of this match. A No DQ match would have been fine.

Ken Shamrock wins by KO in 9:05. A few Kendo Stick shots take Blackman out and the ref counts him out. I didn’t really like this at all. I don’t even remember what else Blackman did until “Head Cheese” in early 2000. If Shamrock was leaving, he should have put Blackman over.

”Love Her or Leave Her”
Shane McMahon vs. Test

Is Test wins, Shane stays out of Test and Stephanie McMahon’s relationship. If Shane wins, Test and Steph break up. No option for “Steph marries HHH instead though”.

Test opens by taking Shane down with tons of aggression. Where was that during the rest of Test’s career?

The Mean Street Posse get their own couch in the crowd! This matters because Test tosses Shane into all three of them which was a pretty funny spot.

Did Shane just bust out a Sky Twist Press? Holy hell!

I believe this was the debut of the flying Shane elbow off the top through the Announcer’s Desk…and it’s pretty awesome. A perfect hit.

Patterson and Brisco come out and own the Posse. Brisco with an awesome street sign shot!

Test pins Shane McMahon in 12:14. I would have bet money after this one that Test was set for multiple World Titles in his future. Somehow…this was the peak of Test. He only went downhill from here. In retrospect, Shane’s “richest backyard wrestler” shtick probably carried this. Nonetheless, this match was really good. In a lame twist, Shane would ignore this stipulation on Smackdown.

World Tag Team Championship
Kane and X-Pac© vs. Big Show and Undertaker

I never really got into the whole Taker controlling Big Show deal when Show chokeslammed Taker through the ring once, but whatever.

I did enjoy the Kane-X-Pac tag team though, if just for Kane’s character development. It gave him something past being Undertaker’s brother…even though it didn’t completely work and ultimately weakened Kane’s character. At least they took a chance and tried.

Lawler with a great line: “I’ll never forgive that idiot X-Pac for taking this monster and making him a human being.” Not a bad point there.

Kane debuts the “road” jersey here, which is a look he should have went with for the rest of his career honestly.

I think it was obvious at the time that Taker and Show were winning…and I think having the Acolytes win earlier was supposed to give fans the idea Kane and Pac were winning.

One of the bigger surprises of the match is Kane playing face in peril. Match is surprisingly working since we have Big Show, Kane and 1999 Undertaker in here.

Undertaker just turned X-Pac into a wishbone. Ouch.

Undertaker and Big Show win the title in 12:00. Big Show actually gets the chokeslam, but Show does a one foot on the chest cover and Taker is livid when Pac kicks out. Taker shows him how it’s done with a Tombstone. So much better than it had any right to be. Multiple stories worked out here concurrently. X-Pac forced a tag late to try to prove he could hang with the three monsters. Undertaker continues to “teach” the Big Show. Well done all around.

Kiss My Ass Match
The Rock vs. Billy Gunn

Billy Gunn brings a”full-sized” lady for the Rock to kiss on the ass when he loses.

Rock is megaover, of course.

The first half of this is pretty dull. Some fighting down the ramp but nothing really inspiring going on.

It does pick up back in the ring, especially with a nice neckbreaker counter from Gunn.

Pretty good set-up for the Fameasser…but the match goes downhill after that.

Gunn brings in the woman, but Rock counters and Gunn’s face goes in her ass. Great.

The Rock pins Gunn in 10:11. Rock Bottom, People’s Elbow. That goodness that’s over. Match was getting kinda good too. Gunn would be back in the midcard with the Outlaws in a few weeks (and was a good guy for some reason again right after this).

WWF Championship – Jesse Ventura is the Special Referee
Stone Cold Steve Austin© vs. Triple H vs. Mankind

There was a pretty convoluted story to even get to this point that had Chyna as the #1 Contender. Less said the better. I don’t even know storyline wise why Mankind was added either, although backstage there were two possible reasons (I’ll get into that later). According to the video, Mankind won it from Chyna. Works I guess. HHH and Mankind then did the pinning one another at the same time deal (which a variation was used for Summerslam 2000 as well) to get our triple threat.

In case anyone was wondering, Stone Cold was still the most over man in wrestling by far. His pop is nuts.

THe early Austin-Mankind partnership is a nice flashback to their tag title run two years prior.

The story begins…HHH whacks Austin in the knee with a chair.

Mick Foley, nutcase that he is, decides to bust out his somersault crack smash off the apron…and he misses. Jeez Mick.

Ventura refuses to count for HHH after HHH uses a chair. Ventura’s a great ref here. As a bonus, Ventura tosses a middling Shane McMahon, and adds the quote “that was for your old man you bastard!”

Mankind wins the title when he pinned Austin in 16:24. HHH gets the Pedigree, but Mankind knocks him away and hits a Double Arm DDT on Austin for the shocking win! HHH proceeds to destroy Austin’s leg with a steel chair. For all intents and purposes, the HHH Era began right here…and the Stone Cold Era as we knew it was over.

Match was really fun all in all. Mankind’s title win is the result of either one or both of these scenarios: Austin didn’t want to job to HHH and/or Ventura wanted to raise the hand of a face at the end. I believe it’s the latter, especially since Austin goes down to HHH at No Mercy ’99 (and No Way Out 2001). HHH would beat Mankind for the title the very next night.

A really up and down PPV, but I definitely enjoyed the ups. I liked the opener. I liked most of the tag turmoil. Jericho was fun. The Hardcore Title match was fun. Test vs. Shane was very good as was the main event. I didn’t care for Shamrock-Blackman or Rock-Gunn though.

Historically, somehow this PPV is forgotten. It’s crazy because again, this is basically where the HHH Era begins and the Austin Era ends. Sure, Austin would still be in the main event until Survivor Series, and his 2000 comeback was entertaining, but Summerslam 1999 was the end of Stone Cold as THE MAN. From each point forward you could either argue The Rock (who’s late surge stole him many Most Popular Wrestler of the Year Awards) or HHH as the man.

Overall, this was still enjoyable.

Final Grade: B

Basketball

Taking Both Sides of the Coin

Let’s face it, 99% of fans have irrational thoughts in regards to sports. If we didn’t we’d have nothing to really root for. Why should I watch the NFL this season if I don’t think the Jets will be any good as a Jets fan? Why go to Madison Square Garden to watch my Knicks if I think they’ll be terrible? Why would I ever root for a team that I don’t think is going anywhere? Maybe the Jets will make a run at the Superbowl (like they did in 2009). Perhaps the Knicks will score the eighth seed and make the Finals (like they did in 1999). We have Carmelo Anthony, a top five player in the league and unstoppable offensive threat with Phil Jackson behind the scenes. So why not us?

Those last few lines, those are the irrational thoughts. If someone’s telling you Carmelo is a top five player in the NBA right now, there’s something that goes beyond logic in those thoughts (since he’s clearly not). But at least those thoughts are consistent. You might be wrong in making those assumptions, but it’s what you believe as a sports fan, so there’s nothing really wrong with that. You would be hard pressed not to find a sports fan that didn’t have some bias somewhere. The most recent example I’ve seen was on an internet forum. A Minneosta Timberwolves fan had talked up the greatness of Ricky Rubio and thought that when Kevin Garnett returned Minnesota was suddenly going to turn around and win a lot of games. The first part can be debated. The second part was laughable.

The key word is consistent. That Minnesota Timberwolves fan was obviously wrong about Garnett even before Garnett suited up for his first game back, but at least it’s something he believed to be true and wouldn’t go against it unless visual evidence reared its head. The point of this article is to point out those who take both sides of the coin. The one example I saw today involved Geno Smith and his season crippling fight with a Jets teammate. Articles are using titles such as “Jets Season Doomed”. The premise isn’t wrong. The Jets season can be doomed for sure.

The issue is that these same articles and blogs shit on Geno Smith for pretty much every minute of his two season career. So which is it? Does Geno Smith suck (and thus the Jets season was doomed anyway) or was he good enough that his injury doomed the Jets? Despite arguments being made for both, it can’t be both. It’s logically impossible. You can make arguments for one, but when you argue both you’re not making any sense as a sports fan. Let’s call this the “Taking Both Sides of the Coin” Theory.

The greatest example of this (that I can think of in the moment) involves the Miami Heat from “The Decision” to LeBron’s return to Cleveland. The player specifically in question was Chris Bosh. Here were the two sides of the argument.

Side 1: LeBron is a coward in joining Dwyane Wade and Chris Bosh for the Big Three. The Heat are a superteam. It’s not fair. Etc.

Side 2: Chris Bosh sucks. Chris Bosh is overrated.

It is fine to take one of those sides…but so many took both and thus were examples of the “Taking Both Sides of the Coin Theory”. The Heat were a superteam but Chris Bosh sucked? Well which was it?

And yes, I had this same issue come up in the 2015 Finals. In the same breath, I was told how LeBron joined another superteam but Kevin Love sucked. Well…

Which one is it?

Other (DC, Marvel, Disney etc.)

RDT Reviews Mortal Kombat (1995)

Pretty big spoilers here…the film’s been out for 20 years now.

On the surface, Mortal Kombat is not a good film. If you weren’t a fan of the series, you found this to be junk with cool music. But if you were a fan…well…wow. The value of Mortal Kombat lies in what the film is trying to be. It’s not trying to win an Oscar Award. It’s trying to be a film adaptation of the Mortal Kombat video game series. And it’s not a bad one either.

Mortal Kombat has to get some extra credit because of where video game film adaptations were. The Super Mario Bros. Movie  was a disaster. Street Fighter came out a year before Mortal Kombat and was just as bad as Mario Bros. Fans needed something that resembled the games they played on their TVs…or more specifically in this case…the arcade.

More or less, Mortal Kombat gives it to them. The film mostly takes the story of the Mortal Kombat I game with some references to MKII. The fate of the world is decided in Mortal Kombat, a fighting tournament where two people fight until one is dead. Earth’s best warriors (Liu Kang, Sonya Blade and Johnny Cage) must defend Earth against the warriors of Outworld (led by Shang Tsung). Outworld must win ten Mortal Kombats in a row to overtake Earthrealm. They have won nine. Along the way, Earth’s heroes meet supernatural beings, both friend and foe, as they learn about themselves and find the strength to win Mortal Kombat and save the Earth. Yeah, the story is pretty bare bones, but that’s the point. The story of Mortal Kombat isn’t supposed to be complicated.

We do get all of the iconic Mortal Kombat characters in the film. While some are done justice for sure (say what you want about Christopher Lambert’s Raiden and Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa’s Shang Tsung being overplayed, they both worked brilliantly, especially Tsung. Tagawa was so good he was asked to reprise Tsung in the series Mortal Kombat Legacy in 2013), others aren’t fleshed out at all (Sub-Zero, at one time perhaps the iconic character of Mortal Kombat, has one pretty cool moment and then gets beat down by Raiden and Liu Kang everywhere else). Our heroes range from okay (Robin Shou’s Liu Kang) to insufferable (Johnny Cage), although Bridgette Wilson as Sonya works out well (her character takes a lame turn as a damsel in distress though). I will give a bonus to a small twist in Liu Kang’s character. Kang is pretty much the boring primary protagonist in the games (so much that the game series eventually switched focus to Scorpion as it’s featured fighter, with good results), but here he’s sarcastic and is even skeptical of the Mortal Kombat tournament overall. There’s a scene when he just dumps Cage’s luggage in the river which got a good laugh from me.  Our villains are pretty good overall, especially Tsung and Scorpion (who puts up a much better and cooler fight against Cage than Sub-Zero does against Kang). Goro’s defeat is pretty embarrassing for the character though, but with special effects at the time I’m not sure what else could be done. Bonus points for Reptile’s fight against Liu Kang, which was an iconic moment for my 8 year old self and works really well now. Kano is a bit wasted but serves his purpose, and his Australian accent was used for future games. Princess Kitana is utterly forgettable, and Art Flores just serves as an example to get beat by Goro.

The effects are surprisingly not awful, and even some are pretty cool (Cage’s Shadow Kick and even Goro himself). There’s a few times where it doesn’t work (Tsung’s castle looked terrible) but all in all they didn’t try anything crazy and as a result didn’t do anything terrible and did a few things good.

It’s worth pointing out that this may be the greatest soundtrack for any film ever. No, that’s not an exaggeration at all.

Mortal Kombat gets one big minus though, which is that it was rated PG-13. I get why it was, but considering that the game series was not only the most violent video game series of all time at that point but also led the video games being rated, the film loses some luster for a lack of a R rating. There’s not even one drop of blood! It’s Mortal freakin’ Kombat!

Nonetheless, if you told my older self that this was the film adaptation of Mortal Kombat considering all factors (other video game films, no blood, PG-13) and this was the result, I would have called it a damn miracle.

Pros:

+Most of your favorite Mortal Kombat characters are there.

+Incredible soundtrack.

+Follows the story of the games well.

+Some iconic fights (Cags vs. Scorpion, Reptile vs. Liu Kang)

+Some iconic performances

Cons:

-For non-MK fans, this film had nothing going for it.

-Johnny Cage is insufferable.

-Some iconic characters were wasted.

Grade: B

Other (DC, Marvel, Disney etc.)

RDT Reviews Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)

Big spoilers here…are you even reading this if you haven’t seen the film. Also, all Star Wars films have to invite comparison to the prequels…because inevitably any discussion of the Star Wars films invites such comparisons.

Considering the fact that the original Star Wars was just about the most successful film ever, there was never any doubt that we would get a sequel. Three years after the original, Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back came to the big screen…to surprisingly mixed reviews.

I’m going to get the negative out of the way first. Episode V doesn’t resolve anything. It’s a middle of the plot film and you could basically call Episode V and Episode VI a Part 1 and Part 2 film series. There’s no real beginning and there’s no conclusion at all. You KNOW there’s going to be a sequel just how it plays out. Otherwise you’d have an incomplete story.

Now that we’ve got that out of the way, Empire Strikes Back is awesome. Let’s revisit some of our characters from A New Hope. Luke Skywalker is better this time around. While I still have issues with his character in regards to maturity, he finally shows that emotion that I felt was missing in A New Hope, especially in the latter half of the film. Yes, our hero has to be saved not once but twice this time around, but he does enough to make me think that he at least has the potential to be the one to take down the Empire.

Han Solo and Princess Leia’s romance really comes together here, and Solo and Leia’s journey throughout the film may be some of the best sequences in the series. Han Solo’s “I know” to Leia when she declares her love for him is iconic (and improvised by Harrison Ford!). I might have thought their dialog missed in a New Hope, but it’s on the mark here.

And oh man, while I don’t quite see it for Episode IV (and Episode VI) I understand why Darth Vader is an iconic villain here. With Tarkin gone, Vader is in command and it’s absolutely awesome. Vader shows no mercy (with one exception that’s totally fine) for anyone that fails him. He kill his admirals who make mistakes, leading to a great moment when a newly appointed Admiral gulps in fear when called upon. Just incredible all around. When Vader is the top bad guy to deal with, you feel scared for the Rebels.

The supporting characters are all great this time around. You really believe in the loyalty Chewie has toward Solo. This time around I actually find C-3PO funny (the ridiculous odds he gives out in life or death situations is pretty great, it’s a lot better than saying “we’re doomed” all movie) and R2D2 still has incredible charisma for a robot on wheels that doesn’t even say words. One of the best scenes in the film (and the series) is when R2 opens the blast door for everyone to escape Cloud City. Lando is a new character. He’s the head of Cloud City and like Solo, he’s someone who does what’s best for his interests until eventually realizing he needs to help.

I think what helps Empire is the splitting of Solo, Luke and Leia. In a New Hope Solo at times overshadows Luke. Here, we see Luke’s story and we see Han and Leia’s, and this allows us to really get invested in both sides of the Rebellion (the Rebels themselves, and then the Jedi who need to provide the finishing blow). When both sides come together in the finale, we feel like we have a totally different Luke Skywalker and a totally different Han and Leia. It’s great character development all around. As a bonus, Yoda is pretty awesome as the old Jedi Master who teaches Luke, also giving us another iconic quote (“Do or do not, there is no try”).

There are two big moments at the end of the film, one that I’m all for and one that I don’t like. Obviously Vader being Luke’s father is incredible and a great moment in film overall. No issues there. Leia having a telepathic moment with Luke, foreshadowing their revealed brother-sister relationship I think is one of the weaker parts of the original trilogy. I don’t think it adds anything to the series. Before I believed in Luke and Leia due to their past. Adding a sibling relationship unnecessarily forces them to have a connection with one another despite that they had a strong one already. And it all starts with that telepathic link.

That’s Return of the Jedi’s problem though.

Pros:

+Once again, Han Solo, Chewbacca, R2D2 and Darth Vader are all great characters. This time I also thought Leia and Luke were good to great as well. And let’s not forget Yoda!

+Strongest part of the story for sure. You really understand everyone’s motivations and feelings this time around.

+Can’t stress enough how awesome Darth Vader is here. Just considering Empire Vader you’re looking at one of the greatest film villains of all time.

+The huge reveal regarding Vader and Luke at the end is nothing short of iconic.

Cons:

-Clearly a story with no ending. Basically forced you to see the sequel in three years.

-Just how many times does our hero need to get saved?

I might prefer the prequels, but I have full appreciation for Empire. It’s great.

Grade: A

 

Pro Wrestling

Remembering The Hot Rod and The Dream

In the span of seven weeks, two of the all-time great professional wrestlers had passed away. On June 11th, “The American Dream” Dusty Rhodes passed at the age of 69, then on July 31st we lost “Rowdy” Roddy Piper at age 61. Both Rhodes and Piper were uniquely great. Piper would serve as an early prototype for “Stone Cold” Steve Austin, while Dusty’s style hasn’t been duplicated since (because he was that great at it). Both men showed that it wasn’t just what took place in the ring that mattered, but how you sold the story to the audience on the microphone. I remember more segments and interviews than matches for both, and that’s perfectly okay (each had their share of great matches anyway).

We have two legends here who care about the business. Dusty of course, helped write NXT and helped make that brand as great as it is. Piper would show up from time to time to help put over some of the current storylines. My favorite Piper interview in fact took place in 2010, where he put over the WWE World Championship match at Survivor Series 2010 between Randy Orton and Wade Barrett (where John Cena was the referee). Piper made you feel the moment.

I’m just going to post some pics or videos of my favorite Dusty and Piper moments. Two legends gone way too soon. But right now I imagine Dusty’s still doing the booking, perhaps putting together a triple threat with Warrior, Savage and Piper up in heaven. Maybe he’s putting himself in the ring as well. Just be sure that Dusty and Piper will sell the match up there on the mic like they always did, and always will.

These are in no particular order.

Dusty beats Flair in their famous 1986 Cage Match for the NWA World Title.

Every great good guy needs a great bad guy: Piper enters MSG at the first Wrestlemania.

An iconic quote from Piper in They Live…

“Hard Times”

Piper subs in for Bret Hart…and wins the IC Title.

Piper makes Bret Hart into a superstar.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2gs2s7

Polka dots might have been to embarrass him…but of course, Dusty got over anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_d0bYWK5SA

My first taste of Piper as a kid, and he sure looked bad ass.

Dusty has the hardcore ECW crowd eating from the palm of his hand.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KI7pBvA8g7Q

Piper faces off with Stone Cold.

The Dream has one more fight in him.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2wum6l_great-american-bash-2007-randy-orton-vs-dusty-rhodes_sport

My favorite Piper promo…”don’t spit in my face”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yiNtjBQFSE

Dusty helps his sons become two of the biggest faces in the company.

Defiant to the end, Piper stands up to Brock Lesnar.

https://youtu.be/1Bm9gayoLvk?t=93

Thank you Roddy Piper. Thank you Dusty Rhodes.

 

Other (DC, Marvel, Disney etc.)

RDT Reviews Pixels (2015)

Probably big spoilers here…although I will try not to make it too bad

The lead up to Pixels was a roller coaster. When Patrick Jean made the short film Pixels in 2010, it was downright awesome. Old school video games attacking the world? That’s money waiting to be printed. As a result we have a feature film in 2015 of the same name. When I first saw the trailer for Pixels I was agog. The potential was limitless. If this movie succeeded, and really, the idea sells itself, this could open doors to perhaps distributers looking monetize video game franchises into film. What video game fan doesn’t want to see a Nintendo Cinematic Universe? The trailer even looked awesome. We just needed Pixels to succeed. It just had one obstacle: Adam Sandler.

Now I haven’t completely followed Sandler’s career and the last thing I remember seeing him in was 2006’s Click, which I recall enjoying at the time. But critics and movie goers have had enough of Sandler. More recently, Jack and Jill, starring Sandler, was regarded as one of the worst films of all time (I haven’t seen it). So everyone was over Sandler at this point. As the reviews for Pixels came in (the drop of the roller coaster) I feared the worst. 18% on Rotten Tomatoes.  Critically panned everywhere. Calls for Adam Sandler to retire. Nintendo tweeted that fans should go see Pixels and got tons of negative responses. I felt like I needed to see Pixels, mainly because I’m a video gamer.

Truth be told…Pixels gets a bad rap. Don’t get me wrong, there’s some bad (even awful) stuff here…but there was definitely some good as well.

Let’s talk about Sandler’s Sam Brenner. First question: if you were told an actor had to play an underachieving middle aged electronics installer in a film that doesn’t take itself remotely seriously who would you pick? Sandler right? So at least he fits the part. His shtick is tired for sure. Some of his jokes downright missed. But he does occasionally get a good line in and I don’t think he’s terrible at all. He’s just there. If you’re sick of Sandler at this point you probably hate him here. That’s fine.

Kevin James’ President Will Cooper also isn’t great, pretty much because they went with the stupid president path which just dates the film since George W. Bush hasn’t been in office for seven years. But…I will say that I think they also were making fun of potential Presidential candidate Chris Christie here, which again, is merely okay.

For the most part, Peter Dinklage’s Eddie Plant is played so over the top it’s great. Definitely the best character in the film.

Josh Gad’s Ludlow is very hit or miss. It’s more miss, but he does have his moments.

Michelle Monaghan in reviews was referred as one of the bright spots of the film, but her Violet Van Patten wasn’t anything special.

So let’s get to the plot. Back in 1982 there was an Arcade Game contest to which Plant defeated Brenner in the finals where Donkey Kong was played. It was said that the footage from the tournament would be sent to outer space so that life forms perhaps could see intelligence from Earth. Before you claim how ridiculous that idea is, you find a way for aliens to send video games to attack Earth and let me know how much sense it makes. It should be noted that this entire opening sequence is pretty awesome and captures what playing games in arcades was like. We get to the present time where Brenner is hired to install a TV and PS4 for a kid, and they get into a discussion about games and patterns. For some reason the kid goes into his mother’s personal life, and in one of the weaker moments of the film Sandler and the mother, Van Patten, share a moment drinking in a closet. It doesn’t work at all.

We see the first attack on the Island of Guam…by Galaga. It’s a bit of a shame that Galaga isn’t part of the climax later (I think Galaga and Centipede should have been switched) but it’s still pretty cool. The President makes a call to his Colonel, who we find out is Van Patten, and his best friend who happens to be great at video games, Brenner. While there’s another really weak joke attempt during this sequence, Cooper confirms what he thought…that Galaga attacked Guam. Brenner happens to find Ludlow, who’s a conspiracy nut, and Ludlow shows Brenner old 80s footage that’s doctored with alien voices that warns of the next attack. Cooper ignores this, as he believes the press would further laugh at him. Arkanoid attacks India (there’s a scene during this that I thought was at first stupid…but then I laughed realizing if this actually were to happen someone would probably do this…you’ll have to see for yourself), which is another cool sequence. The video games warn the U.S.: they are down 2-0 and if the Video Games get up 3-0, Earth will be destroyed.

From that point it’s up to Brenner and Ludlow to train the military to learn how to fight any classic arcade game…monster (?). But when the time comes, the military is overwhelmed by Centipede before Brenner and Ludlow take over and win. I was surprised at this, as reviews stated that it made no sense that the characters good at the games would actually do the fighting. But, here, the military tried and couldn’t keep up with the patterns…so I can actually by the idea of the gamers coming in and taking over.

We find out what happened to Eddie Plant and he has some funny and not so funny demands in exchange for his help (funny one: no more taxes). His character would provide an interesting twist later in the film that I won’t spoil here. We move onto the Pac-Man battle, which is a pretty awesome sequence and definitely the high point of the film. It logically doesn’t make sense (because Brenner is good at patterns…but he’s the ghost and Pac-Man has no pattern). Of course eventually we get to the finale, which the trailer pretty much gave away. The Donkey Kong sequence is pretty great too though.

Pixels tells a pretty solid story considering the premise, and all of the video games look absolutely great. Some of the running gags do have a pretty good payoff (Ludlow’s dream love, for example), but some aren’t just bad, they’re terrible. I’ll give this one away but for some reason we have Q*Bert peeing himself after being afraid, which was just unnecessary and not funny at all. Most of the comedy misses, and like in this case, misses badly.

But it’s not an 18% film. Definitely better than that. Maybe it’s a straight nostalgia money grab. But at least it pays respect to the great games involved.

 

Pros:

+The video game attackers look incredible, and each scene is awesome.

+Peter Dinklage is the only character that’s funny more often than not.

+Some funny gags.

+Story is better than it has any right to be.

+Opening sequence of the film is well done.

Cons:

-Some really unfunny gags.

-Sandler and James’s time has past.

-Love story is uninspiring and clichéd.

-Can’t stress enough about the unfunny stuff.

-An unfortunate waste of a great idea.

We probably aren’t getting the Nintendo Cinematic Universe out of this unfortunately. But I did have a good time watching, and I guess that’s what counts.

Grade: C+