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.
Saturday, November 27, 2004
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)