Hello again everyone. I've been absent this week, despite planning to write several reviews and an opinion piece or two. But it's not my fault. Really it's not. The culprit is the extended edition of The Return of the King that came into my possession last Tuesday. Clocking in at over 4 hours in length (4 hours 10 minutes to be precise), it's a film that almost consumes a day to watch. Of course, I couldn't just watch it straight off the bat. I had to finish up The Two Towers, which I had started the night before. And then, after watching the film (and the two easter eggs hidden on the first two discs), there were two more discs of extras just sitting and begging me to watch them. And I just can't bring myself to disappoint LotR extras. So over the course of the next three days I watched them all (except for the Weta Digital feature, which would just lead to me thinking about how shots weren't really happening). So over the last week I've watched somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12 hours of LotR footage. And that's a lot.
I can't really give you an extensive extended RotK review, mostly because I don't feel it'd be very helpful. Because, you see, I love The Lord of the Rings. The books are some of the best I've ever read, and Peter Jackson's adeptation was done with more precision and passion than I could have thought possible. So any review I give you of the movie is going to be massively tainted. But I will say this: I loved the theatrical RotK, moreso than the first two theatrical films. The extended footage is good, and it makes the movie better, mostly because you get closure with Saruman, as well as more of, well, everything. But there's one thing that really bothered me, which is that (stop reading if you want to avoid spoilers) the Lord of the Nazgul, in his confrontation with Gandalf in Minas Tirith, breaks Gandalf's staff. The Witchking is not that strong, damnit!
"I thought Fangorn was dangerous." [Gimli]
"Dangerous!" cried Gandalf. "And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord."
"The Dark Lord has Nine. But we have One, mightier than they: the White Rider." [Aragorn]
"You cannot enter here," said Gandalf, and the huge shadow halted. "Go back to the abyss prepared for you! Go Back! Fall into the nothingness that awaits you and you Master. Go!"
I guess I could make up plausible reasons for having Gandalf not being as strong as the Witchking (like the necessity of reigning in Gandalf's strength a little bit while showing the rise of Aragorn's character), but it still bothers me. Eventually I'll get past it, but right now, it bugs me. But other than this, this movie has some of my favorite moments in the trilogy. The lighting of the Beacons is an excellent example of a scene that's barely in the book, but works so well on film that you want to stand up and cheer. The Battle of the Pelennor Fields is fantastic, and the Paths of the Dead sequence is greatly improved by the added footage. To say I recommend this movie would be an understatement.
If you want to get a sense of just how hard it was to get these movies done, watch the extras on all three extended editions. These appendices have become the gold standard for DVD extras. They take you into every aspect of making the movie, which allows you to appreciate the work and massive attention to detail (much of which you can't even see) that people put into these films. They document the making of probably the most ambitious film project in history from writing to scouting locations to creating the props to the actors to postproduction. If you're at all a LotR fan, or if you're interested in movies at all, you should watch these extras. If you're not sure you'll like them, I suggest watching the "Filming the Lord of the Rings" documentaries, which contain mostly cast interviews and funny anecdotes of what went on while filming. If you like that, move on to another, but be careful you don't spend three days watching them, like me.
That's all for now. I'll hopefully get a condensed review of The Simpsons season 4 and Ocean's 12 up sometime soon. However, my friend and compatriot Mr. Caleb Bartley returned to Minneapolis yesterday, and I will be in Portland, OR visiting Kathreen's family after Christmas, so I may have less time than usual over the next few weeks. In case I don't get back here before then, everyone have a Merry Whatever-it-is-you-might-celebrate-at-this-time-of-year, and if you're in MN for New Year's Eve, the Party's at Java's.
Monday, December 20, 2004
Friday, December 10, 2004
Blade: Trinity Review
I kind of have a soft spot for the Blade movies because the first Blade was the first film of the modern Marvel era. It enjoyed enough success to get decent financial backing for X-Men, which opened with $56 million in its first weekend and convinced movie execs everywhere that the public had indeed recovered from the horror of Batman and Robin and was again ready to go see well-made movies based on comic books. The style and action of the first two Blade films makes them extremely watchable, even with their flaws. Blade:Trinity is supposedly the final Blade movie, although there have been rumors that it may spin off a Nightstalker franchise.
If you've seen the first two Blade movies, you'll probably realize after watching this one that it doesn't really measure up. The action isn't as good. The plot (such as it is) isn't as good. The villian isn't as cool. I even think Blade's character loses something from the first two movies. Also, I enjoy hero shots as much as anyone, but B:T goes a little over the top with the heros-prepping-for-battle montage sequences. David Goyer (who wrote all three and directed this one) could have cut out a solid 30 seconds to a minute and still have plenty to go around. Another thing I was confused by was that, over the course of the first two movies, the vampires were set up as an ancient hierarchical society with tradition, legends, and different families: essentially a fully developed separate culture. The first two movies showed pieces that hinted at a larger whole. That element was completely lacking in this movie. Also, when Whistler dies in the first 15 minutes I was reminded by just how much cooler and how much more impact his death scene had in the first movie. Getting shot in the chest by FBI agents just doesn't compare.
The first movie sets up Blade as a loner: it's just him and Whistler against the world. The second movie teamed Blade up with the Bloodpack, a group of vampires who had been training to take him out. This worked because of the tension and dislike built into the relationship between Blade and the Bloodpack (and the kick ass performance of Ron Perlman). There's not that sense of tension when Blade joins the Nightstalkers (which is unavoidable, since they hunt vampires instead of, well, you get the idea). Sure, Blade doesn't like them at first, but that's about as far as it goes.
This brings me, however, to the one redeeming quality of this movie: Ryan Reynolds' performance as Hannibal King. Not only does he have a fantastic name, he steals pretty much every scene he's in. His acerbic wit is hilarious, whether he's cutting into Blade or giving a big "fuck you" to the vampires when he gets captured. He has all the best lines in the movie, including "you made a fucking vampire Pomeranian?!" He's fantastic.
It's not B:T is outright bad. It's just that it's not that good. Reynolds is pretty much the only reason to see the movie outside of being a compulsive Marvel film viewer like me. If you can avoid paying full price, by all means save your money for the better flicks out there.
If you've seen the first two Blade movies, you'll probably realize after watching this one that it doesn't really measure up. The action isn't as good. The plot (such as it is) isn't as good. The villian isn't as cool. I even think Blade's character loses something from the first two movies. Also, I enjoy hero shots as much as anyone, but B:T goes a little over the top with the heros-prepping-for-battle montage sequences. David Goyer (who wrote all three and directed this one) could have cut out a solid 30 seconds to a minute and still have plenty to go around. Another thing I was confused by was that, over the course of the first two movies, the vampires were set up as an ancient hierarchical society with tradition, legends, and different families: essentially a fully developed separate culture. The first two movies showed pieces that hinted at a larger whole. That element was completely lacking in this movie. Also, when Whistler dies in the first 15 minutes I was reminded by just how much cooler and how much more impact his death scene had in the first movie. Getting shot in the chest by FBI agents just doesn't compare.
The first movie sets up Blade as a loner: it's just him and Whistler against the world. The second movie teamed Blade up with the Bloodpack, a group of vampires who had been training to take him out. This worked because of the tension and dislike built into the relationship between Blade and the Bloodpack (and the kick ass performance of Ron Perlman). There's not that sense of tension when Blade joins the Nightstalkers (which is unavoidable, since they hunt vampires instead of, well, you get the idea). Sure, Blade doesn't like them at first, but that's about as far as it goes.
This brings me, however, to the one redeeming quality of this movie: Ryan Reynolds' performance as Hannibal King. Not only does he have a fantastic name, he steals pretty much every scene he's in. His acerbic wit is hilarious, whether he's cutting into Blade or giving a big "fuck you" to the vampires when he gets captured. He has all the best lines in the movie, including "you made a fucking vampire Pomeranian?!" He's fantastic.
It's not B:T is outright bad. It's just that it's not that good. Reynolds is pretty much the only reason to see the movie outside of being a compulsive Marvel film viewer like me. If you can avoid paying full price, by all means save your money for the better flicks out there.
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
How to Make a Gin and Tonic
Since I just diatribed about it, I thought it would be judicious to include instructions on how to make the perfect Gin and Tonic.
This is a very simple drink to make, and therefore the difference between making a good Gin and Tonic and an excellent one is a matter of details.
First, select a tumbler, or glass of similar volume. If it has been sitting for a long time, rinse it out with water (do not bother to dry it). If it is your intention to drink more than the tumbler can hold, be patient. This should be done by refilling the glass, as opposed to using a larger one.
Second, pour in the Gin. I highly suggest Bombay Sapphire, although Tanquery is also a good choice. The Gin should be either room temperature or slightly chilled.
Then pour in the Tonic. The best Gin and Tonics contain Tonic from a bottle that has just been opened, and has therefore lost none of its carbonation. Flat Tonic is the easiest way to lose points when mixing a G&T. You will have to use trial and error to determine just how strong you want the drink. I personally suggest somewhere between a 3:1 and 5:1 ratio of Tonic to Gin. The Tonic should be well refridgerated, and will compensate for the warmth of the Gin.
Finally, take a wedge of lime, squeeze it into the glass, and then drop it in. The wedge should not be large-less than an eighth of the whole. A lemon can be used as well, but I myself find the lime to be superior.
Your Gin and Tonic is now ready to be enjoyed. It should be savored but not sipped. I hope you like it.
This is a very simple drink to make, and therefore the difference between making a good Gin and Tonic and an excellent one is a matter of details.
First, select a tumbler, or glass of similar volume. If it has been sitting for a long time, rinse it out with water (do not bother to dry it). If it is your intention to drink more than the tumbler can hold, be patient. This should be done by refilling the glass, as opposed to using a larger one.
Second, pour in the Gin. I highly suggest Bombay Sapphire, although Tanquery is also a good choice. The Gin should be either room temperature or slightly chilled.
Then pour in the Tonic. The best Gin and Tonics contain Tonic from a bottle that has just been opened, and has therefore lost none of its carbonation. Flat Tonic is the easiest way to lose points when mixing a G&T. You will have to use trial and error to determine just how strong you want the drink. I personally suggest somewhere between a 3:1 and 5:1 ratio of Tonic to Gin. The Tonic should be well refridgerated, and will compensate for the warmth of the Gin.
Finally, take a wedge of lime, squeeze it into the glass, and then drop it in. The wedge should not be large-less than an eighth of the whole. A lemon can be used as well, but I myself find the lime to be superior.
Your Gin and Tonic is now ready to be enjoyed. It should be savored but not sipped. I hope you like it.
Tuesday, December 07, 2004
Gin and Tonic
Could it be the greatest drink ever invented? Maybe. I have a hard time taking a definative stand on this sort of thing because I always have the nagging (and perhaps unreasonable) fear that as soon as I do, someone is going to show up with a drink never before seen outside the Austrailian outback, the African veldt or the infamous penquin bars of the ancient Antarctican Ice Palaces, that blows me away. But until that person shows up, the Gin and Tonic remains King of potent potables.
My disclaimer here is that I'm talking mixed drinks, which includes everything that's not scotch. Scotch is the only thing that could challenge the G&T for the title of Joe Kreuser's Ultimate Drink, and if you told me I was going to a desert island and had to choose one to take with me, I'd have to knock you out with a cricket bat and take them both. But this isn't about Scotch (I'll talk about that some other time). It's about Gin. And Tonic, I suppose. And, as I would be forced to futher concede if pressed, Limes.
The first time I drank Gin was during my junior year at Carleton. Caleb and I went to a birthday party for a girl who had been a freshman on our floor the year before, and they had a bottle of rather noxious Gin there, because she had never had any before and wanted to try some. We both tried some (I can't really remember how it was served, it's possible we drank it straight), and were slightly underwhelmed, in the sense that we nearly swore it off entirely. It both smelled and tasted unpleasantly like pine sap. To this day I strongly recommend against drinking straight Gin, unless served extremely cold in a cone-shaped glass and accompanied by some amount of vermouth and either an olive or (preferably) a pearl onion. Ahh, the martini. It put in a good showing, but remains the runner-up in the Joe Kreuser's Ultimate Drink race. But this isn't about martinis. It's about all that stuff I mentioned before.
I came back to Gin, and to the Gin and Tonic, largely because of the special place they held for one of my favorite authors, Douglas Noel Adams. If you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy arc, you have run across the passage which informs the reader that every sentient race in the galaxy has a drink whose name is phonetically identical to the Gin and Tonic, which can range from water at slightly above room temperature to a liquid that can kill the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal at 30 paces. One gets the feeling that, even with the infinite iterations of the universe at his fingertips, Adams would not have strayed from Earth's version of the drink. Adams would later write (in an essay included in The Salmon of Doubt, a posthumous collection of his work) that the Gin and Tonic was the only drink he could consume at will without suffering ill effects. Adams' affinity for the drink gave it an automatic plus, and though I cannot remember the first time I tasted one, it clearly was not enough to put me off of them forever. Over the past couple years it has quickly become my default drink, something I can order if I am at a loss in a bar, something that I will almost certainly possess the requisite ingredients for at home. I honestly can't say exactly what it is about it that makes it so good. The balance, I suppose, between the distinctive nature of the Gin, the carbonation of the Tonic and the lime thrown in for flavor. As with so many things in life, it transcends exact terms and can only be communicated through common understanding. I enjoy many forms of alcohol, and they all have different personalities, created by my history with them and the associated memories. The Gin and Tonic is the most comfortable and familiar, which is perhaps why I keep coming back to it.
My disclaimer here is that I'm talking mixed drinks, which includes everything that's not scotch. Scotch is the only thing that could challenge the G&T for the title of Joe Kreuser's Ultimate Drink, and if you told me I was going to a desert island and had to choose one to take with me, I'd have to knock you out with a cricket bat and take them both. But this isn't about Scotch (I'll talk about that some other time). It's about Gin. And Tonic, I suppose. And, as I would be forced to futher concede if pressed, Limes.
The first time I drank Gin was during my junior year at Carleton. Caleb and I went to a birthday party for a girl who had been a freshman on our floor the year before, and they had a bottle of rather noxious Gin there, because she had never had any before and wanted to try some. We both tried some (I can't really remember how it was served, it's possible we drank it straight), and were slightly underwhelmed, in the sense that we nearly swore it off entirely. It both smelled and tasted unpleasantly like pine sap. To this day I strongly recommend against drinking straight Gin, unless served extremely cold in a cone-shaped glass and accompanied by some amount of vermouth and either an olive or (preferably) a pearl onion. Ahh, the martini. It put in a good showing, but remains the runner-up in the Joe Kreuser's Ultimate Drink race. But this isn't about martinis. It's about all that stuff I mentioned before.
I came back to Gin, and to the Gin and Tonic, largely because of the special place they held for one of my favorite authors, Douglas Noel Adams. If you've read The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy arc, you have run across the passage which informs the reader that every sentient race in the galaxy has a drink whose name is phonetically identical to the Gin and Tonic, which can range from water at slightly above room temperature to a liquid that can kill the ravenous bugblatter beast of Traal at 30 paces. One gets the feeling that, even with the infinite iterations of the universe at his fingertips, Adams would not have strayed from Earth's version of the drink. Adams would later write (in an essay included in The Salmon of Doubt, a posthumous collection of his work) that the Gin and Tonic was the only drink he could consume at will without suffering ill effects. Adams' affinity for the drink gave it an automatic plus, and though I cannot remember the first time I tasted one, it clearly was not enough to put me off of them forever. Over the past couple years it has quickly become my default drink, something I can order if I am at a loss in a bar, something that I will almost certainly possess the requisite ingredients for at home. I honestly can't say exactly what it is about it that makes it so good. The balance, I suppose, between the distinctive nature of the Gin, the carbonation of the Tonic and the lime thrown in for flavor. As with so many things in life, it transcends exact terms and can only be communicated through common understanding. I enjoy many forms of alcohol, and they all have different personalities, created by my history with them and the associated memories. The Gin and Tonic is the most comfortable and familiar, which is perhaps why I keep coming back to it.
Thursday, December 02, 2004
I Heart Huckabees Review
I finally got to see this movie last week, after having wanted to see it since I first saw the trailer on the web. I went in with high expectations for this movie, and although my initial reaction upon walking out of the theater was one of introspection rather than enthusiasm or elation, my expectations were not let down. There will be spoilers in this review, so you might not want to read on if you haven't seen the movie and are planning on it.
The underlying question of Huckabees address is whether anything matters. Life, joy, pain, happiness, suffering, etc. It starts with Albert (Jason Schwartzman), whose position as the head of a local environmental group is being threated by a much more people-friendly Brad (Jude Law), goes to an existential dective agency to discover what his three seemingly chance meetings with a tall black man might mean. The detectives, Bernard and Vivian (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin), who believe in the fundamental interconnectedness and relevance of all things, proceed to investigate Albert. Things start to fall apart when Brad goes to the detectives to complete his takeover of Albert's turf, driving Albert and his other, Tommy (Mark Walhberg) into the camp of rival existentialist Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert). Caterine also believes in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, but believes that everything is pointless and the universe is cruel only to be cruel.
Like I said, the question that David O. Russell (the writer and director whose last project was the brilliantly complex Three Kings) weaves through the movie is "does anything matter?" The two answers (yes and no) are personified by the two sides of detectives and Caterine, respectively. Russell also shows us the limitations of every character that prevents them from seeing the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. Ultimately we even see that even Bernard, Vivian and Caterine, who act as guides to the rest of the characters and therefore to us as well, have their own limitations. Russell, while not necessarily endorsing an answer to the movie's question, is trying to get us, like the characters, to look at the big picture: to try and transcend our own limitations and see that underneath it all, we're the same.
Huckabees (which has the brilliantly appropriate slogan "the everything store") does this philosophizing with a fantastic cast who predictably give great performances (including Naomi Watts, who I haven't mentioned yet and plays Brad's girlfriend who is also the Huckabees spokesgirl). Hoffman and Tomlin are especially good with some of the less conventional dialogue. Russell and Jeff Baena turn in a great script, including a fantastic dinner scene where Albert and Tommy (who are both ardent environmentalists) clash with a religious suburban family who couldn't care less. There's also an excellent arguement between Tommy and Bernard about the nature of matter and space. Russell takes the idea to a visual level by parsing off smaller and smaller squares on the screen (if you see it you'll recognize what I'm talking about).
The nice thing about this movie is that it doesn't get bogged down in the ideas. It's a detective movie, and hence you discover things about all the characters along the way. If you're not willing to intellectually invest in it, or refuse to transcend some of your limitations, you may not get much out of it. But if you show up and give the movie a chance on its own terms, you may enjoy it quite a bit. I certainly did.
Note: If you liked this movie, I would suggest Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams, which also deals with the subject of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, but with a slightly darker tone.
The underlying question of Huckabees address is whether anything matters. Life, joy, pain, happiness, suffering, etc. It starts with Albert (Jason Schwartzman), whose position as the head of a local environmental group is being threated by a much more people-friendly Brad (Jude Law), goes to an existential dective agency to discover what his three seemingly chance meetings with a tall black man might mean. The detectives, Bernard and Vivian (Dustin Hoffman and Lily Tomlin), who believe in the fundamental interconnectedness and relevance of all things, proceed to investigate Albert. Things start to fall apart when Brad goes to the detectives to complete his takeover of Albert's turf, driving Albert and his other, Tommy (Mark Walhberg) into the camp of rival existentialist Caterine Vauban (Isabelle Huppert). Caterine also believes in the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, but believes that everything is pointless and the universe is cruel only to be cruel.
Like I said, the question that David O. Russell (the writer and director whose last project was the brilliantly complex Three Kings) weaves through the movie is "does anything matter?" The two answers (yes and no) are personified by the two sides of detectives and Caterine, respectively. Russell also shows us the limitations of every character that prevents them from seeing the fundamental interconnectedness of all things. Ultimately we even see that even Bernard, Vivian and Caterine, who act as guides to the rest of the characters and therefore to us as well, have their own limitations. Russell, while not necessarily endorsing an answer to the movie's question, is trying to get us, like the characters, to look at the big picture: to try and transcend our own limitations and see that underneath it all, we're the same.
Huckabees (which has the brilliantly appropriate slogan "the everything store") does this philosophizing with a fantastic cast who predictably give great performances (including Naomi Watts, who I haven't mentioned yet and plays Brad's girlfriend who is also the Huckabees spokesgirl). Hoffman and Tomlin are especially good with some of the less conventional dialogue. Russell and Jeff Baena turn in a great script, including a fantastic dinner scene where Albert and Tommy (who are both ardent environmentalists) clash with a religious suburban family who couldn't care less. There's also an excellent arguement between Tommy and Bernard about the nature of matter and space. Russell takes the idea to a visual level by parsing off smaller and smaller squares on the screen (if you see it you'll recognize what I'm talking about).
The nice thing about this movie is that it doesn't get bogged down in the ideas. It's a detective movie, and hence you discover things about all the characters along the way. If you're not willing to intellectually invest in it, or refuse to transcend some of your limitations, you may not get much out of it. But if you show up and give the movie a chance on its own terms, you may enjoy it quite a bit. I certainly did.
Note: If you liked this movie, I would suggest Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, by Douglas Adams, which also deals with the subject of the fundamental interconnectedness of all things, but with a slightly darker tone.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
Capitalistic Orgies
For years, I thought that people who went out shopping the day after Thanksgiving were insane. "If you know for certain that there will be enough people in line at Best Buy to turn back the 121st Airborne using only cell phones and the pointy ends of cd cases," I reasoned, "why would you add to the melee?" Also, I have never been known as an early riser, and getting up at 6am to go shopping seemed the ultimate idiocy. But then last year I saw an ad in the paper advertising the first season of The Simpsons on DVD (which had been out for quite awhile) for $12. Now that was a good deal, seeing as it usually sold for somewhere around $35 or so. So I went out and bought it. It took a little while, and the line was certainly ridiculous (they had to use the appliance department as a rope cordon), but the salve of $12 Simpsons DVDs was more than enough to soothe me.
So now Thanksgiving rolled around again, and I eagerly searched through the newspaper ads to see if anyone was offering a similar deal. And indeed they were. Target was advertising season 4 of The Simpsons for $18. Now season 4 came out in June, and has many more quality episodes than season 1, so I understood the price hike. So I set my alarm, rolled out of bed still full of turkey, and got to the nearest Target at 7:30am. The store was populated, but by no means packed. Still, when I finally navigated the DVD section and found the laser-imprinted treasure, there were only two copies left on the shelf. I don't know if they had more in the back, but I'm glad I didn't have to find out (they also had seasons 1 & 2 of South Park on sale for the same price, but as I don't really have a job right now I forced myself to pass on them). So I have now obtained seasons 1 & 4 of The Simpsons for a total of $30. Cost on amazon at this moment: $63. Now that's a deal you won't get on Amazon.
So I guess my advice here is to only go out shopping the day after Thanksgiving if you have a very, very good reason, which you can find because all stores everywhere would go bankrupt, causing the immediate and catastrophic implosion of our society if people didn't go shopping after Thanksgiving. Thus to save humanity as we know it, retailers are forced to offer the massive discounts we see every year so as to stir up the public and induce an orgy of capitalistic spending. I suggest selectively taking advantage of the retailers' vulnerable position (and I suppose if society imploded it might impact you in some small way, so you might actually be helping yourself). Go early, leave as quick as you can, and you can be back at home asleep before you even know what happened.
Note: I will be posting a review of season 4 as soon as I get through it and check out some of the extras. So far it's fantastic. Upcoming reviews also include Smallville season 3 and I Heart Huckabees.
So now Thanksgiving rolled around again, and I eagerly searched through the newspaper ads to see if anyone was offering a similar deal. And indeed they were. Target was advertising season 4 of The Simpsons for $18. Now season 4 came out in June, and has many more quality episodes than season 1, so I understood the price hike. So I set my alarm, rolled out of bed still full of turkey, and got to the nearest Target at 7:30am. The store was populated, but by no means packed. Still, when I finally navigated the DVD section and found the laser-imprinted treasure, there were only two copies left on the shelf. I don't know if they had more in the back, but I'm glad I didn't have to find out (they also had seasons 1 & 2 of South Park on sale for the same price, but as I don't really have a job right now I forced myself to pass on them). So I have now obtained seasons 1 & 4 of The Simpsons for a total of $30. Cost on amazon at this moment: $63. Now that's a deal you won't get on Amazon.
So I guess my advice here is to only go out shopping the day after Thanksgiving if you have a very, very good reason, which you can find because all stores everywhere would go bankrupt, causing the immediate and catastrophic implosion of our society if people didn't go shopping after Thanksgiving. Thus to save humanity as we know it, retailers are forced to offer the massive discounts we see every year so as to stir up the public and induce an orgy of capitalistic spending. I suggest selectively taking advantage of the retailers' vulnerable position (and I suppose if society imploded it might impact you in some small way, so you might actually be helping yourself). Go early, leave as quick as you can, and you can be back at home asleep before you even know what happened.
Note: I will be posting a review of season 4 as soon as I get through it and check out some of the extras. So far it's fantastic. Upcoming reviews also include Smallville season 3 and I Heart Huckabees.
Friday, November 26, 2004
National Treasure Review
My expectations going into this movie were not high. The trailers had looked good, but the rather low Rotten Tomatoes score was not a good sign. However, I have three reviewers I generally trust, and I had not heard from any of them yet, so I was willing to reserve judgement, especially since I was going to see it anyway. So I went with my friends Carl and Java on opening night. We got there about 20 minutes early and it was a damn good thing we did, because that theater was full. We actually arrived in time to score decent seats, but with about five minutes to go there were probably 10-15 people wandering around trying to find seats that weren't 7 feet from the screen, and the usher asked everyone to move in and fill in empty seats (which we had actually already done to accomodate someone). Obviosly the bad reviews weren't keeping people away.
I'll try to give a fairly spoiler-free review here. The movie, as you know if you've seen a trailer, is about Benjamin Gates (Nic Cage) and his quest for an ancient, massive treasure. It's consumed his family for generations, but, for some reason, Ben actaully makes some progress on it. In the course of searching, he is forced to steal the original Declaration of Independence, run around doing deeds of daring do, gets the girl (come on, it's a Disney movie. You knew he was gettin' the girl before you knew there was a girl) and that sort of thing. Working against him is Sean Bean, who plays Belloq to Cage's Indiana Jones, and Harvey Keitel, an FBI agent who wants to have a discussion about the Declaration. Working with him is his plucky, quippy sidekick (Justin Bartha) who happens to be a computer whiz, a scientist from the National Archives (Diane Kruger, who played Helen in Troy), and Gate's reluctant father, who gave up the search for the treasure years ago.
Most of my problems with this movie occurred in the area of believability, although they were never so dramatic as to bring me out of the movie. The presence of security forces was extremely low, especially to our post-9/11 mentalities. Both parties of treasure hunters seem to get to wherever they need to be rather easily and without having to knock out even so much as a tour guide. I understand why they did this, and it was just a running awareness in the back of my mind during the movie. Another issue was the Declaration itself. I don't know what the physical state of the Declaration is, but I'm willing to guess that it might not be up to the physical rigors this movie puts it through. Maybe it would, but I'm not so sure. I realise both these choices were made to make the movie possible, so it's really my argumentative side that's pointing them out. I pity the guards who will have to deal with the rash of kids trying to get into restricted areas of national monuments after seeing this movie.
I also had a slight problem with the treasure itself. Now, for most of the movie the treasure acts as a plot device rather than as an actual treasure, but I was left with lingering questions about how the treasure was assembled, moved, installed-that sort of thing. In the end, the treasure was just a lot of valuable stuff. Although there was nothing wrong with this, I felt the movie would have been better if the treasure had a little more personality. The classic example would be the Arc of the Covenant in Raiders, and even the gold coins in Pirates of the Caribbean were more intriguing.
Now, with all that said, I enjoyed this movie. It was fast paced, which helps to hide the problems previously discussed, at least while you're watching it. The action worked, the heist scenes worked (in the context of the lessened security), and I felt the characters, in particular the quippy sidekick, actually got better as the movie went on. The sets were excellent, and I felt the script integrated the history aspect of things very well (I say this without being an American Historian, who for all I know are having fits about this movie). It also succeeded in building a fair aura of mystery and intrigue, which I initially felt was lacking. In fact, I generally felt that the entire movie got better as it went on, which was a pleasant surpise.
Is it formulaic and predictable? Of course. Is it a fun way to spend 100 minutes? As long as you let yourself get into the movie and don't think about it too much, yes. See it once, for cheap if you can, then go see The Incredibles again for a really great film.
I'll try to give a fairly spoiler-free review here. The movie, as you know if you've seen a trailer, is about Benjamin Gates (Nic Cage) and his quest for an ancient, massive treasure. It's consumed his family for generations, but, for some reason, Ben actaully makes some progress on it. In the course of searching, he is forced to steal the original Declaration of Independence, run around doing deeds of daring do, gets the girl (come on, it's a Disney movie. You knew he was gettin' the girl before you knew there was a girl) and that sort of thing. Working against him is Sean Bean, who plays Belloq to Cage's Indiana Jones, and Harvey Keitel, an FBI agent who wants to have a discussion about the Declaration. Working with him is his plucky, quippy sidekick (Justin Bartha) who happens to be a computer whiz, a scientist from the National Archives (Diane Kruger, who played Helen in Troy), and Gate's reluctant father, who gave up the search for the treasure years ago.
Most of my problems with this movie occurred in the area of believability, although they were never so dramatic as to bring me out of the movie. The presence of security forces was extremely low, especially to our post-9/11 mentalities. Both parties of treasure hunters seem to get to wherever they need to be rather easily and without having to knock out even so much as a tour guide. I understand why they did this, and it was just a running awareness in the back of my mind during the movie. Another issue was the Declaration itself. I don't know what the physical state of the Declaration is, but I'm willing to guess that it might not be up to the physical rigors this movie puts it through. Maybe it would, but I'm not so sure. I realise both these choices were made to make the movie possible, so it's really my argumentative side that's pointing them out. I pity the guards who will have to deal with the rash of kids trying to get into restricted areas of national monuments after seeing this movie.
I also had a slight problem with the treasure itself. Now, for most of the movie the treasure acts as a plot device rather than as an actual treasure, but I was left with lingering questions about how the treasure was assembled, moved, installed-that sort of thing. In the end, the treasure was just a lot of valuable stuff. Although there was nothing wrong with this, I felt the movie would have been better if the treasure had a little more personality. The classic example would be the Arc of the Covenant in Raiders, and even the gold coins in Pirates of the Caribbean were more intriguing.
Now, with all that said, I enjoyed this movie. It was fast paced, which helps to hide the problems previously discussed, at least while you're watching it. The action worked, the heist scenes worked (in the context of the lessened security), and I felt the characters, in particular the quippy sidekick, actually got better as the movie went on. The sets were excellent, and I felt the script integrated the history aspect of things very well (I say this without being an American Historian, who for all I know are having fits about this movie). It also succeeded in building a fair aura of mystery and intrigue, which I initially felt was lacking. In fact, I generally felt that the entire movie got better as it went on, which was a pleasant surpise.
Is it formulaic and predictable? Of course. Is it a fun way to spend 100 minutes? As long as you let yourself get into the movie and don't think about it too much, yes. See it once, for cheap if you can, then go see The Incredibles again for a really great film.
Saturday, November 20, 2004
The New, Interactive NBA
I should start by saying that I haven't actually seen the footage of this incident. I probably will at some point, but so far all I have to go on are the several accounts and reactions I've read (mostly on espn.com and cnn.com). For those of you who haven't heard about this, or don't know what all went on, here's what happened:
1. With 45.9 seconds left in last night's Indiana Pacers-Detroit Pistons game in Detroit (technically Auburn Hills, but whatever), Ben Wallace (a Piston), drove to the basket for a dunk. Now, with less than a minute to go, the Pacers held a 15 point lead at 97-82, meaning the game was essentially over. General basekball etiquette (and strategy) dictates that, since it doesn't mean anything, you let Wallace score, get the ball back and continue running out the clock to your inevitable win (on the road against a major rival, no less). However, what happened was that, as Wallace went up for the dunk, Ron Artest fouled him hard from behind.
2. Wallace, angry about being fouled on a play that didn't matter, gets up and pushes Artest. The benches clear, but at this point no real punches are being thrown (which is pretty standard for this sort of "fight"). As things are being calmed down, Artest goes to the scorer's table and lies down.
3. With order still being restored on the floor, someone from the stands throws a cup full of beer at Artest, hitting him as he lays on the table.
4. Artest gets up and goes into the stands after the fan who threw the beer at him. Stephen Jackson (Artest's teammate) goes after him, and punches start being thrown between Jackson, Artest, and the fans, others of whom start to throw things at the Pacers in the stands and on the floor.
5. After Artest and Jackson are taken out of the stands, a fan comes onto the floor and approaches Artest, who punches him. The fan gets up, comes after Artest again, and is this time decked by Pacer Jermaine O'Neal.
6. The game is called, and the fans throw cups, bottles, liquid, and basically whatever else they can at the Pacers as they leave the floor.
For me, here's the bottom line: Artest demonstrated extreme stupidity in going into the stands. But for me, the most responsible person is whoever threw the first cup of beer at Artest. What the hell do they think gives them the right to do something like that? Were they drunk, or did they merely get hit the head with a bag of stupid bricks when they were little? Unfortuneately, this sort of thing has been happening with greater frequency lately. The incident this summer when a Rangers' reliever threw a chair into the stands after some idiot fan yelled insults at him for god knows how long is a prime example. For some reason, many sports fans have come to believe it to be their right as ticket holders to do whatever they want in regards to any athlete within earshot or throwing range. Artest should not have gone into the stands (in fact he shouldn't have fouled Wallace in the first place), but it's hard not to understand the mindset of the guy who just got hit with big cup of beer. "I'm gonna find that son of a bitch and fucking kick his ass!" would be my guess of what he was thinking. The problem was he forgot to add "BUT I make millions of dollars to play a damn game, and with those millions I can probably hire enough lawyers to sue this guy into a cardboard box." Let me just make this 100% clear: you can't go into the stands and start hitting people, even if they did throw beer at you. Artest is both wrong and a dumbass. That said, I think you'd be hard put to find someone who wouldn't have at least wanted to do the same thing. The real blame lies with that first fan who crossed the line and all the people who proceeded to make it worse should be banned from all sports stadiums along with him. It's a shame that so many games are coming down to a few obnoxious assholes spoiling it all for the rest of us who just want to sit, watch, and have a good time.
Although there were many fine contenders, the stupid award for the evening definately goes to the guy who came on to the court to continue the fight with Artest and proceed to get decked first by Artest, then by O'Neal. Wow. Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that if you go on to the field of play, you are going to get beat.
The NBA has already handed out indefinate suspensions (which means you're suspended, but we haven't figured out for how long yet and you can't play in the meantime) for Artest, Jackson, O'Neal and Wallace. I'm sure they'll be out for a while, but I'm more interested to hear if the offending fans can be identified, and how they'll be dealt with.
1. With 45.9 seconds left in last night's Indiana Pacers-Detroit Pistons game in Detroit (technically Auburn Hills, but whatever), Ben Wallace (a Piston), drove to the basket for a dunk. Now, with less than a minute to go, the Pacers held a 15 point lead at 97-82, meaning the game was essentially over. General basekball etiquette (and strategy) dictates that, since it doesn't mean anything, you let Wallace score, get the ball back and continue running out the clock to your inevitable win (on the road against a major rival, no less). However, what happened was that, as Wallace went up for the dunk, Ron Artest fouled him hard from behind.
2. Wallace, angry about being fouled on a play that didn't matter, gets up and pushes Artest. The benches clear, but at this point no real punches are being thrown (which is pretty standard for this sort of "fight"). As things are being calmed down, Artest goes to the scorer's table and lies down.
3. With order still being restored on the floor, someone from the stands throws a cup full of beer at Artest, hitting him as he lays on the table.
4. Artest gets up and goes into the stands after the fan who threw the beer at him. Stephen Jackson (Artest's teammate) goes after him, and punches start being thrown between Jackson, Artest, and the fans, others of whom start to throw things at the Pacers in the stands and on the floor.
5. After Artest and Jackson are taken out of the stands, a fan comes onto the floor and approaches Artest, who punches him. The fan gets up, comes after Artest again, and is this time decked by Pacer Jermaine O'Neal.
6. The game is called, and the fans throw cups, bottles, liquid, and basically whatever else they can at the Pacers as they leave the floor.
For me, here's the bottom line: Artest demonstrated extreme stupidity in going into the stands. But for me, the most responsible person is whoever threw the first cup of beer at Artest. What the hell do they think gives them the right to do something like that? Were they drunk, or did they merely get hit the head with a bag of stupid bricks when they were little? Unfortuneately, this sort of thing has been happening with greater frequency lately. The incident this summer when a Rangers' reliever threw a chair into the stands after some idiot fan yelled insults at him for god knows how long is a prime example. For some reason, many sports fans have come to believe it to be their right as ticket holders to do whatever they want in regards to any athlete within earshot or throwing range. Artest should not have gone into the stands (in fact he shouldn't have fouled Wallace in the first place), but it's hard not to understand the mindset of the guy who just got hit with big cup of beer. "I'm gonna find that son of a bitch and fucking kick his ass!" would be my guess of what he was thinking. The problem was he forgot to add "BUT I make millions of dollars to play a damn game, and with those millions I can probably hire enough lawyers to sue this guy into a cardboard box." Let me just make this 100% clear: you can't go into the stands and start hitting people, even if they did throw beer at you. Artest is both wrong and a dumbass. That said, I think you'd be hard put to find someone who wouldn't have at least wanted to do the same thing. The real blame lies with that first fan who crossed the line and all the people who proceeded to make it worse should be banned from all sports stadiums along with him. It's a shame that so many games are coming down to a few obnoxious assholes spoiling it all for the rest of us who just want to sit, watch, and have a good time.
Although there were many fine contenders, the stupid award for the evening definately goes to the guy who came on to the court to continue the fight with Artest and proceed to get decked first by Artest, then by O'Neal. Wow. Anyone who knows anything about sports knows that if you go on to the field of play, you are going to get beat.
The NBA has already handed out indefinate suspensions (which means you're suspended, but we haven't figured out for how long yet and you can't play in the meantime) for Artest, Jackson, O'Neal and Wallace. I'm sure they'll be out for a while, but I'm more interested to hear if the offending fans can be identified, and how they'll be dealt with.
Friday, November 19, 2004
How to Make Tea
If you're using bagged tea, it's pretty simple:
-Put tea bag in cup (or put several in pot).
-Pour Boiling Water into the cup (or pot).
-Let it steep for about 5 minutes or so.
-Drink, burn your mouth, then try and sue me for damages.*
*This last part is optional. And I don't have any money anyway, so it's probably not worth it.
If you're using loose leaf tea:
-Put one spoonful (regular size spoon, not a ladle or anything stupid like that) of tea into the pot for every cup, plus one for the pot (i.e. if you're making 2 cups, put in 3 spoonfuls of leaves). Obviously, this should be adjusted if you want a stronger or weaker pot, and over time you'll hit on some amount that's good for you.
-Pour the Boiling Water into the pot.
-Let steep for +/-5 minutes. Be careful: while most teas can be left almost ad infinitum, Adagio black teas (particularly the Earl Grey) will turn extremely bitter if left to steep for too long. Either take out the leaves (if your pot is equipped with an infuser basket) or pour out the pot into a large cup to keep the tea the desired flavor.
It is important to note that these instructions are not for Green Tea (or White Tea, so I hear). Ideally Green Tea should be steeped at slightly below boiling temperature (180 degrees or thereabouts).
-Put tea bag in cup (or put several in pot).
-Pour Boiling Water into the cup (or pot).
-Let it steep for about 5 minutes or so.
-Drink, burn your mouth, then try and sue me for damages.*
*This last part is optional. And I don't have any money anyway, so it's probably not worth it.
If you're using loose leaf tea:
-Put one spoonful (regular size spoon, not a ladle or anything stupid like that) of tea into the pot for every cup, plus one for the pot (i.e. if you're making 2 cups, put in 3 spoonfuls of leaves). Obviously, this should be adjusted if you want a stronger or weaker pot, and over time you'll hit on some amount that's good for you.
-Pour the Boiling Water into the pot.
-Let steep for +/-5 minutes. Be careful: while most teas can be left almost ad infinitum, Adagio black teas (particularly the Earl Grey) will turn extremely bitter if left to steep for too long. Either take out the leaves (if your pot is equipped with an infuser basket) or pour out the pot into a large cup to keep the tea the desired flavor.
It is important to note that these instructions are not for Green Tea (or White Tea, so I hear). Ideally Green Tea should be steeped at slightly below boiling temperature (180 degrees or thereabouts).
A Personal Evolution of Tea
My first experience with tea was freshman year of college, and involved me drinking a cup of herbal something-or-other one of the girls on my floor had made. My reaction was that the slightly flavored water wasn't bad but was nothing special. My indifference remained until I spent a term studying in London. My term had ended, the other students in the program had mostly departed, and I had a week to kill waiting for some friends to disentangle themselves from the shackles of finals and family Thanksgivings to come visit me.
Unfortuneately my wallet's health was inversely related to the amount of my free time, and I found myself in one of the most expensive cities on the planet with nothing to do and no money to do it with. I began taking long walks through the city, tried to intuit the rules of cricket from watching a severly edited test match on tv, and investigated the several packets of tea that accompanied the electric kettle in my room. I found this tea (a standard Earl Grey) to be more flavorful than the tinted water I remembered, and my opinion of tea began to improve. My interest rose again when I read Douglas Adams' description of how to make the perfect cup of tea in his posthumous novel The Salmon of Doubt. The key: boiling water, which would bring out the full flavor of the tea. I began drinking bagged tea regularily, and then last year I received (from my girlfriend Kathreen) a teapot and several canisters of Twinings loose leaf tea for Christmas. The Earl Grey, which has a distinctive scent, smelled and tasted better than the bagged variety, but was clearly the same tea.
This was all well and good, until a month ago when Kathreen and I ran out of Earl Grey. It was not an immediate problem, because we had other kinds of tea, but it needed to be replaced. As Kathreen wanted some loose Ceylon (which we could not find locally), she looked online to see if we could order it there. She found a site called Adagio (pssst-it's linked on the site of the site), and decided to try their teas. What arrived was a pound of Earl Grey, a pound of Ceylon, and 8 ounces of their Yunan Gold blend (that's a lot of tea). When I opened the Earl Grey, I found it to be even more pungent than usual, with more depth to the scent than was to be had from a tin of Twinings. As I tried the first cup out of the pot, I was shocked to discover that it tasted almost nothing like the Earl Grey I had been drinking for the past two years! After drinking it for two weeks now, I realize that the taste is similar, only with more subtlety and depth. Somewhat like comparing a blended Scotch to a single malt. The site's promotional material proclaimed that their teas were not only fresher, but also harvested by hand, making them of higher quality than teas collected by less discriminating threshers. I can only assume that this is the difference I taste.
So that's where I'm at right now with tea. I suggest that if you drink tea, to give Adagio (or any one of the other high-quality tea sites you can find) a try and see if you find a similar improvement in your tea.
Unfortuneately my wallet's health was inversely related to the amount of my free time, and I found myself in one of the most expensive cities on the planet with nothing to do and no money to do it with. I began taking long walks through the city, tried to intuit the rules of cricket from watching a severly edited test match on tv, and investigated the several packets of tea that accompanied the electric kettle in my room. I found this tea (a standard Earl Grey) to be more flavorful than the tinted water I remembered, and my opinion of tea began to improve. My interest rose again when I read Douglas Adams' description of how to make the perfect cup of tea in his posthumous novel The Salmon of Doubt. The key: boiling water, which would bring out the full flavor of the tea. I began drinking bagged tea regularily, and then last year I received (from my girlfriend Kathreen) a teapot and several canisters of Twinings loose leaf tea for Christmas. The Earl Grey, which has a distinctive scent, smelled and tasted better than the bagged variety, but was clearly the same tea.
This was all well and good, until a month ago when Kathreen and I ran out of Earl Grey. It was not an immediate problem, because we had other kinds of tea, but it needed to be replaced. As Kathreen wanted some loose Ceylon (which we could not find locally), she looked online to see if we could order it there. She found a site called Adagio (pssst-it's linked on the site of the site), and decided to try their teas. What arrived was a pound of Earl Grey, a pound of Ceylon, and 8 ounces of their Yunan Gold blend (that's a lot of tea). When I opened the Earl Grey, I found it to be even more pungent than usual, with more depth to the scent than was to be had from a tin of Twinings. As I tried the first cup out of the pot, I was shocked to discover that it tasted almost nothing like the Earl Grey I had been drinking for the past two years! After drinking it for two weeks now, I realize that the taste is similar, only with more subtlety and depth. Somewhat like comparing a blended Scotch to a single malt. The site's promotional material proclaimed that their teas were not only fresher, but also harvested by hand, making them of higher quality than teas collected by less discriminating threshers. I can only assume that this is the difference I taste.
So that's where I'm at right now with tea. I suggest that if you drink tea, to give Adagio (or any one of the other high-quality tea sites you can find) a try and see if you find a similar improvement in your tea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)