CheerupSilver
Very Cool!!!
Matrixiole
Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.
AutCuddly
Great movie! If you want to be entertained and have a few good laughs, see this movie. The music is also very good,
Guillelmina
The film's masterful storytelling did its job. The message was clear. No need to overdo.
atlasmb
It has been more than 8 years since a review of this show was posted. In that time, things have changed.Tony Reali is still the host. Some of the old guard still peddle their viewpoints on plasmas 1-4. But my, how things have changed.The original idea was to present a diversity of ideas, from various columnists and sportscasters around the country. Usually featured are writers from Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Miami, Denver, Los Angeles, or Phoenix. They usually cover the professional sports teams in their city. This geographical spread assures that the opinions of "homers" will be balanced by other opinions.In recent years, the show has apparently sought more diversity among its panelists. That is to say they represent a wider representation of the cultural diversity of America, based upon race, gender, and sexual identity. This does not mean there is greater diversity of opinion. In fact, the opposite is true. Not just on this show, but on virtually all shows, we now hear nearly uniform views about issues that are political (and more of them are). Sponsors fear backlash from special interest groups. The network fears the loss of sponsors. The newspapers and television shows that employ the panelists fear negative publicity. As a result, you may get differences of opinion about what is going to happen on the playing field, court, or ice, but when it comes to stories about player behavior, for example, the panelists only differ in the degree of their opinions, falling over each other to condemn what ESPN wants them to condemn. And they toe the "company line" in asserting that all athletes in the news should be regarded as role models (despite Charles Barkley's view).The only other problem I have with the show is that the panelists, like many sports writers elsewhere, tend to advocate for behavior by athletes that makes their jobs easier. This means they like athletes (or coaches) who act erratically, who give fiery opinions, who give "color" to the game by wildly celebrating, by being combative. Personally, I would rather they advocate for good sportsmanship. This means good behavior, respect for your competitors, and a respect for rules of the game.Despite what these talking heads tell us, the athletes are not always right in their battles with team owners. And the sports leagues are not always wrong when their opinions differ from athletes. And sports can be about more than athletes getting as much money as possible in the shortest possible time period. I happen to like most of the panelists on this show. I just wish the debates were not so homogeneous.
BigVanDoucher
Around the Horn gathers four sports columnists from around the country, all from differing backgrounds and beliefs, and has them pontificate on ten different topics current to the sports world.What sets the show apart is that points are doled out based on who makes the better argument. It brings competition to the standard opinion debate talk show, and does it with a very humorous attitude and approach.The interaction amongst the four sports reporters is what gives this show it's undeniable charm. The distinct beliefs held by the writers causes natural, emotional conflicts to erupt and when the competitive aspect is included, a truly unique viewing experience is created.... Also, it has Woody Paige. Paige is the MAN.
metalface101
This could be considered a conspiracy theory, but ever since Woody Paige left the Denver Post for New York and became a regular on Cold Pizza he wins almost ALL the time, and when he doesn't win he's usually in the showdown. I like Woody Paige, but his is not the only opinion around and Tony Reali doesn't understand that. The other panelist's have compelling arguments too, and I enjoy then all. Tim Cowlishaw, Michael Smith, Kevin Blackistone, A.J. Adande are all good too....did I mention Jay Mariotti? The show gets on my nerves anymore with Woody getting special treatment (by that I mean bonus points to keep him in the game). It's almost enough to keep me from watching. Anyone that watches this show keep this in mind and see if I'm wrong.
lilblig7
Around the Horn is a pretty good show on espn. It pits four newspaper writers to try to get as many points as they can by giving good comments about the subject. Bad comments mean they lose points. Good concept but I would rather watch four reporters stay for the whole show, but on this show they get voted off if they don't have enough points. This I don't like. I want to hear their opinions for the whole show. Other than that it's not that bad. The reporters all have their different views and express them different ways. Some are calm and collective and some are yellers and screamers. Another problem I have with this show is that they talk about the same things as Pardon the Interruption does. I would rather watch PTI so when I happen to flip over to Around the Horn I'm spoiled with the headlines.So in conclusion it's a good show but PTI is still much better
