Re: KHL Financial Crisis (Admirals Roundtable)

"The KHL Financial Crisis" - Admirals Roundtable

Aside from possibly seeing more Russian in (or back in) the AHL and NHL next season, other national leagues may well benefit from the addition of former KHL players, especially those not considered as strong as the top leagues in Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic. I can see the
German and Swiss leagues benefitting the most from this. Consequently, this would likely lead to more players from those leagues ending up over here as well, which could do a lot to strengthen the ECHL; especially after taking the risk of absorbing the Central Hockey League.

Gordie Howe Hat-Trick

I remember reading that Gordie Howe himself never had a "Gordie Howe hat-trick". Is this true or a myth? (Or possibly unable to confirm due to lack of detailed stats?)

Even if Howe did score a goal and an assist and get into a fight in the a single game, I feel a more appropriate definition for a G.H.H. would be a goal, assist and elbow. Penalty needed for historical proof, but he likely got away with more than he was punished for.

Howe was a master with the elbow. To paraphrase Denzel Washington in Training Day: "Dusty Rhodes and The Rock ain't got shit on Gordie!"

Anyhoo...

NHL video review, or lack thereof

In the aftermath of a blatantly obvious non-penalty and this part of the November 1, 2014 "Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down" TSN column by Dave Hodge ...


Hodge: Thumbs up to Kings' Sutter, down to NHL video review

... My thumb is down to the NHL for its stubborn failure to include some
sort of coach's challenge in its video review process. Two things that
happened this week made it even harder for the NHL to avoid the
inevitable. In Washington on Wednesday, Detroit's Luke Glendening was
penalized for goalie interference and a Detroit goal was wiped out. The
goal should have counted because Glendening was completely innocent on a
play that saw Caps goalie Braden Holtby fall down. It was as simple as
that and a second look based on a coach's challenge would have lasted
five seconds. ...

My comment on NHL video review/"coach's" challenge" for penalties is awaiting moderation at the moment ...

On Bad Language/Cursing/Foul Language/Profanity

How much a person curses, and what words they use, depends very much on the people they hang around with (much more so than what movies or shows they watch). Even someone who doesn't curse often, after a couple of hours of playing cards with a group of people of varied familiarity (for example), can find themselves suddenly a little looser with their words for a time afterwards. But that usually passes quickly if card night isn't a very regular occurrence.

People also tend to be programmed through experience not to use certain words when in certain situations; and also tend to use certain words they wouldn't otherwise use when in times of stress. These are things I take into consideration when watching a movie. (Or when meeting someone for the first time. I won't judge someone's character simply because of a colorful vocabulary. Some of the most eloquent people in the world have turned out to be the most evil).

(This, however, does not excuse the use of foul language in films for the wrong reasons, like adding "grit" to a movie; or excuse bad script-writing and/or acting where such language comes off forced and ends up taking viewers out of the film.

Anyhoo...

Film Review - Avalanche Sharks [2013]

Seeing this film with only 2 stars on IMDb made me sad. Sure, this isn't a film that most will mention in the same breath as most big-budget wide-releases, but this film was, unlike too many of those films, truly enjoyable from beginning to end!

The film-makers and actors knew their limitations - technical and personal - and with tongues planted firmly in cheek, gave viewers a more than competent production that kept my attention at the way through and left me more that satisfied when over.

The script, direction and acting were decent all-around, and I can't recall any specific scene in the film that suddenly took me out of the story. Nothing seemed forced and nobody seemed to be trying to go above their means.

While the CGI special-effects are what they are - CGI - the film-makers smartly decided to limit its use, with the effects either ending abruptly or the scenes cutting away quickly. Most of these scenes are shark attacks after all, which would naturally be quick and abrupt.

Some people have problems with films not explaining enough about certain things. In this case, viewers are given two possibilities as to the origins of the titular sharks. But, do we really need everything to be explained to us (especially in a movie like this) to enjoy a film?

Questions can lead to debate after all and, in my opinion, can add extra layers to a film. And this is a film that most would not expect to have much substance to begin with. (The last big-budget film I saw at the cinema left me with nothing to think about when it was over. Duh...)

I really liked how they framed the beginning and end of the film. Original, funny, and a nice change of pace from most films. This production truly impressed me, and I look forward to what all the people involved bring to movie lovers in the future.

Give this film a chance. Don't go into it expecting anything in particular (my advice for seeing any film - big or small) and you'll likely find yourself pleasantly surprised by how much more FUN you'll have.

P.S. Apparently, Brooke Hogan was up for a role in this film but had to step away for some reason or another. I don't want to sound harsh, but I'm glad she wasn't involved, because I can't help but think she may have stuck out like a sore thumb acting-wise compared to the subdued but competent performances by most of the cast. Sorry, Brooke... :^/