DO NOT SEE THIS MOVIE. There, got that out of the way. This is the worst movie I've watched in a long time. Seriously. Don't know what they were thinking. Movie suffers from mixed (and confusing) tones, poor acting (and casting, for that matter), terrible music choices, and general cheeziness of the bad variety. It's too bad, because I've been told that the book is pretty good.
The parts of the movie that were most successful were:
Stanley Tucci
The suspenseful parts
Things missing from this movie:
A real main character
A single compelling arch
A sense of when special effects stop being cool
Skip it.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Lots of Movies
The combination of slowness at work and the approaching Academy Awards has inspired me to watch a whole lot of movies in the last couple weeks. All told, and in no particular order, I've seen:
Serious Man (see previous post)
Julie and Julia
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Brothers
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Informant
Up in the Air
Crazy Heart
...
oh, and Bruno. Ugh. Bruno. Don't ask why. The opportunity presented itself, and I watched. It was not funny.
Somewhat surprisingly, I actually really enjoyed all of these movies (except Bruno). In fact, its possible that my LEAST favorite was Fantastic Mr. Fox. Brief commentaries about the merits (and demerits) of each:
A Serious Man: See previous post.
Julie and Julia: I went into this expecting to not really like it, but I was pleasantly surprised. THe movie is sort of split in two- half is about Julia Child's past and how she became a chef (thumbs up) and half is about a woman who writes a blog about cooking every recipe in Julia's cookbook in a year (mostly thumbs down). I like food and cooking, so all of that was interesting. I though Meryl Streep was excellent- she NAILED the weird Julia Child mannerisms. Amy Adams, who I usually like, was less good and her character was not particularly interesting or likable.
Avatar: What can I say? A feast for the eyes and a whole lot of fun. Yes we've seen the story before (Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, etc), but we've certainly never seen that world before nor have we seen technology used this successfully. I was skeptical about this due to the crazy hype, and I still think $500 million or whatever it cost is way way way too much for a movie. But it was a ride from start to finish and I enjoyed pretty much every minute- even the super cheesy parts.
The Hurt Locker: Really enjoyed this one- super tense, well developed characters, interesting look at the "new" kind of war. Focuses on the idea of war as a drug and makes the audience complicit by pumping up the tension to draw us in and make us "addicted" to the excitement.
Brothers: Heard mixed reviews and was pleasantly surprised. Acting was solid, although for some reason I don't like Natalie Portman (in anything). Super intense movie- not a feel good flick by any stretch. Something about family and super cute kids always gets to me... I had some issues with the structure and the music, but overall thought this was decent. I would be interested to see the same movie without knowing what happened to Tobey Maguier's character in Afganistant... I think it would have been more interesting for the audience to learn what happened at the same rate as the family...
The Fantastic Mr. Fox: It was fun, but something about it just didn't quite click for me. Wes Anderson has that tendency towards smugness and I think in this case it annoyed me. There were some clever parts, and, as usual in Wes Anderson movies the writing was the star. That said, I didn't particularly enjoy the animation style and thought the film was decent but not great. IMHO, "Up" is a much stronger film as a whole.
The Informant: Funny bits, but a bit too long. Matt Damon did a pretty decent job on the whole, but nothing in this movie is really worth talking about.
Up In The Air: I really enjoyed this movie and can't think of anything bad to say about it. Well made, well acted, thematically relevant... Yep, it's a good little movie. Does it deserve some of the best picture buzz it's getting? Probably not, precisely because it's a good little movie. For me, Best Picture needs to have something great, grand, or new. Not that dazzling eye candy should always win, but doing something new and different should be rewarded, and while this is certainly a good film, there's nothing "special" about it. Also, I'm a little tired of George Clooney. Too often I feel like he plays himself.
Crazy Heart: I love Jeff Bridges. He is a talented dude and is good in almost everything he's in. He was great in this role, and probably deserving of Best Actor. The movie itself is solid, although not super original- its sort of a combination of The Wrestler meets Ray/Walk the Line/any other movie about a musician's tough life. Bridges is the driving factor and the shining light of this film. That and I find Maggie Gyllenhal weirdly attractive.
Bruno: Skip it. Seriously. I maybe laughed twice.
I feel like there were more, but then again maybe not. That's a lot. I have a few more to see (most notably Precious) and I'll update when I do.
Serious Man (see previous post)
Julie and Julia
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Brothers
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Informant
Up in the Air
Crazy Heart
...
oh, and Bruno. Ugh. Bruno. Don't ask why. The opportunity presented itself, and I watched. It was not funny.
Somewhat surprisingly, I actually really enjoyed all of these movies (except Bruno). In fact, its possible that my LEAST favorite was Fantastic Mr. Fox. Brief commentaries about the merits (and demerits) of each:
A Serious Man: See previous post.
Julie and Julia: I went into this expecting to not really like it, but I was pleasantly surprised. THe movie is sort of split in two- half is about Julia Child's past and how she became a chef (thumbs up) and half is about a woman who writes a blog about cooking every recipe in Julia's cookbook in a year (mostly thumbs down). I like food and cooking, so all of that was interesting. I though Meryl Streep was excellent- she NAILED the weird Julia Child mannerisms. Amy Adams, who I usually like, was less good and her character was not particularly interesting or likable.
Avatar: What can I say? A feast for the eyes and a whole lot of fun. Yes we've seen the story before (Fern Gully, Dances with Wolves, etc), but we've certainly never seen that world before nor have we seen technology used this successfully. I was skeptical about this due to the crazy hype, and I still think $500 million or whatever it cost is way way way too much for a movie. But it was a ride from start to finish and I enjoyed pretty much every minute- even the super cheesy parts.
The Hurt Locker: Really enjoyed this one- super tense, well developed characters, interesting look at the "new" kind of war. Focuses on the idea of war as a drug and makes the audience complicit by pumping up the tension to draw us in and make us "addicted" to the excitement.
Brothers: Heard mixed reviews and was pleasantly surprised. Acting was solid, although for some reason I don't like Natalie Portman (in anything). Super intense movie- not a feel good flick by any stretch. Something about family and super cute kids always gets to me... I had some issues with the structure and the music, but overall thought this was decent. I would be interested to see the same movie without knowing what happened to Tobey Maguier's character in Afganistant... I think it would have been more interesting for the audience to learn what happened at the same rate as the family...
The Fantastic Mr. Fox: It was fun, but something about it just didn't quite click for me. Wes Anderson has that tendency towards smugness and I think in this case it annoyed me. There were some clever parts, and, as usual in Wes Anderson movies the writing was the star. That said, I didn't particularly enjoy the animation style and thought the film was decent but not great. IMHO, "Up" is a much stronger film as a whole.
The Informant: Funny bits, but a bit too long. Matt Damon did a pretty decent job on the whole, but nothing in this movie is really worth talking about.
Up In The Air: I really enjoyed this movie and can't think of anything bad to say about it. Well made, well acted, thematically relevant... Yep, it's a good little movie. Does it deserve some of the best picture buzz it's getting? Probably not, precisely because it's a good little movie. For me, Best Picture needs to have something great, grand, or new. Not that dazzling eye candy should always win, but doing something new and different should be rewarded, and while this is certainly a good film, there's nothing "special" about it. Also, I'm a little tired of George Clooney. Too often I feel like he plays himself.
Crazy Heart: I love Jeff Bridges. He is a talented dude and is good in almost everything he's in. He was great in this role, and probably deserving of Best Actor. The movie itself is solid, although not super original- its sort of a combination of The Wrestler meets Ray/Walk the Line/any other movie about a musician's tough life. Bridges is the driving factor and the shining light of this film. That and I find Maggie Gyllenhal weirdly attractive.
Bruno: Skip it. Seriously. I maybe laughed twice.
I feel like there were more, but then again maybe not. That's a lot. I have a few more to see (most notably Precious) and I'll update when I do.
Friday, January 22, 2010
A Serious Man
This is one of the movies I wanted to make sure I saw before the Academy Awards. I have to start by saying that I'm a huge Coen Brothers fan- I think they're some of the most consistently excellent filmmakers of this era. And, happily, A Serious Man did not disappoint.
The film is a continuation (or perhaps an expansion on) a theme present in many if not all of the Coen's movies- the lack of order (or tendency towards chaos) in the universe. The main character is a man of science (well, math, but that's close enough) who, do to the ever increasing disorder in his life turns to religious authorities for aid and comes away with... nothing. The comment is clear- no one, scientist nor religious leader can explain why things happen. While the results of this chaos are painful for the film's main character (played convincingly by Michael Stuhlbarg), they strike the darkly comic notes that the Coen brothers have perfected over the years and end up being remarkably entertaining of the audience.
The film is something of an assault on organized religion in general through the lens of Judaism. And what a perfect group to poke fun at when so much of Jewish culture are about remembering the sufferings of the last few thousand years. The Jews are a perfect representation of a group of people who have, at least in their self-identification, been victims of the lack of order in the world. The film certainly plays on Jewish stereotypes, but there are also the fine details that reveal the Coen's familiarity with the culture. And perhaps more importantly, the Rabbis are meant to represent religious leadership in general in a hilarious yet poignant commentary on religion's ability (or lack thereof) to shed any real light on why bad things happen to people who have "done nothing wrong."
The film is well made throughout- well shot, well edited and successful in using the fate of one poor individual to represent the plight of mankind living in this crazy chaotic world.
The film is a continuation (or perhaps an expansion on) a theme present in many if not all of the Coen's movies- the lack of order (or tendency towards chaos) in the universe. The main character is a man of science (well, math, but that's close enough) who, do to the ever increasing disorder in his life turns to religious authorities for aid and comes away with... nothing. The comment is clear- no one, scientist nor religious leader can explain why things happen. While the results of this chaos are painful for the film's main character (played convincingly by Michael Stuhlbarg), they strike the darkly comic notes that the Coen brothers have perfected over the years and end up being remarkably entertaining of the audience.
The film is something of an assault on organized religion in general through the lens of Judaism. And what a perfect group to poke fun at when so much of Jewish culture are about remembering the sufferings of the last few thousand years. The Jews are a perfect representation of a group of people who have, at least in their self-identification, been victims of the lack of order in the world. The film certainly plays on Jewish stereotypes, but there are also the fine details that reveal the Coen's familiarity with the culture. And perhaps more importantly, the Rabbis are meant to represent religious leadership in general in a hilarious yet poignant commentary on religion's ability (or lack thereof) to shed any real light on why bad things happen to people who have "done nothing wrong."
The film is well made throughout- well shot, well edited and successful in using the fate of one poor individual to represent the plight of mankind living in this crazy chaotic world.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
For want of a food processor...
I tried (and failed) to buy a food processor during the holidays. Macy's had a sale, but apparently I arrived a day late and the sale was over. I've wanted one for a while, but its been a little hard to justify as I don't cook all that much (athough I'm trying to cook more) and I'm perfectly capable of chopping. So I found myself waiting for another Macy's sale to drop the price under $100, but really wanting to make a recipe from my first issue of Cook's Illustrated (thanks for the subscription, Mom!).
The recipe was for Spicy Thai Chicken with Basil. A pretty standard Thai dish made with minced chicken. Sort of like this (although I didn't take this):
The recipe is pretty simple... if you have a food processor. As discussed, I do not. Yet I was determined to give it a go anyway. That translated into about 45 minutes of extra work: finely chopping basil, jalapenos (couldn't find the thai chilies at my local corner stores), garlic, and chicken. And mincing chicken, with no cleaver, is not a lot of fun.
That said, once the everything was chopped the actually cooking time is less than 10minutes total. So this really is an easily prepared and flavorful dish. The ingredients aren't too numerous either- probably only need an extra trip to the store to pick up some fresh chilies (jalapenos worked fine if no thai chilis) and shallots (the recipe actually has a bunch of shallots) as long as you have the thai standards of fish sauce and oyster sauce.
A good back-pocket recipe when a quick dinner is needed- at least after a food processor appears in my kitchen.
The recipe was for Spicy Thai Chicken with Basil. A pretty standard Thai dish made with minced chicken. Sort of like this (although I didn't take this):
The recipe is pretty simple... if you have a food processor. As discussed, I do not. Yet I was determined to give it a go anyway. That translated into about 45 minutes of extra work: finely chopping basil, jalapenos (couldn't find the thai chilies at my local corner stores), garlic, and chicken. And mincing chicken, with no cleaver, is not a lot of fun.
That said, once the everything was chopped the actually cooking time is less than 10minutes total. So this really is an easily prepared and flavorful dish. The ingredients aren't too numerous either- probably only need an extra trip to the store to pick up some fresh chilies (jalapenos worked fine if no thai chilis) and shallots (the recipe actually has a bunch of shallots) as long as you have the thai standards of fish sauce and oyster sauce.
A good back-pocket recipe when a quick dinner is needed- at least after a food processor appears in my kitchen.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Adventures in Crock-Potting #1
We received a crockpot/slowcooker as a holiday gift this year. It's taken us this long to finally get the thing out and start playing with it. Our first attempt came from a recipe found by mama Newman for Shredded Chicken Tacos. The beauty of this recipe (and slow cooker recipes in general) is that dinner can be ready when I get home. I tend to work late sometimes, add that to my decent length commute and sometimes its hard to find the motivation to shop and cook. Drop everything in the pot before heading to work, turn it on low for 6-8 hours, and voila! Dinner is hot and ready when I get home.
As a burgeoning foodie, I'm not sure if I should be offended by the idea of tossing all the ingredients in at the same time. The lack of technique involved goes against everything I've learned watching Top Chef or the detail-oriented care I tend to put in to my more elaborate cooking. That said, there are some nights when its nice to eat a home cooked meal without taking the time to cook it post-work.
The beauty is, on top of being almost absurdly easy, this dish was tasty and well textured. If I made it again, I'd add a little more spice (then again, there aren't many things I WOULDN'T add a little more spice to). I made tacos out of the meat, but it could just as easily be used as enchilada filling, nacho topping, taco salad topping, etc.
I intend to continue this series of Crock Pot adventures now that I've moved past the fear of leaving an electrical appliance on all day while no one is home. I'll have to continue to suppress the part of me that finds the whole notion insulting to the art of cooking, but that shouldn't be too hard if all the dishes that come out of the thing are as easy and tasty as this first one.
As a burgeoning foodie, I'm not sure if I should be offended by the idea of tossing all the ingredients in at the same time. The lack of technique involved goes against everything I've learned watching Top Chef or the detail-oriented care I tend to put in to my more elaborate cooking. That said, there are some nights when its nice to eat a home cooked meal without taking the time to cook it post-work.
The beauty is, on top of being almost absurdly easy, this dish was tasty and well textured. If I made it again, I'd add a little more spice (then again, there aren't many things I WOULDN'T add a little more spice to). I made tacos out of the meat, but it could just as easily be used as enchilada filling, nacho topping, taco salad topping, etc.
I intend to continue this series of Crock Pot adventures now that I've moved past the fear of leaving an electrical appliance on all day while no one is home. I'll have to continue to suppress the part of me that finds the whole notion insulting to the art of cooking, but that shouldn't be too hard if all the dishes that come out of the thing are as easy and tasty as this first one.
Speisekammer
I've been meaning to get out to Alameda to give this place a shot for a while. But Alameda is not particularly accessible and it took me until now to make it. Speisekammer is Alameda's bastion of German food and drink- like Suppenkuche East. I went for lunch with my coworkers as a celebration after a successful screening. And let me tell you, there may not be a better way to celebrate than a breaded, fried, meat cutlet.
To be fair, we started with potato pancackes (latkes to those of you from the tribe). They were beautiful and delicious:
For a main, all of us but one went with the Weinerschnitzel. And a good decision it was. On top of the two slices of breaded pork cutlet, we got roasted potatoes. They were delicious, and I quickly realized that was mostly because they had a whole lot of bacon mixed in. Bacon makes things good. Make a note.
My meal paired very nicely with my Weltenburger Kloster Dunkel (a dark wheat beer). Now my body wants a nap time, fortunately, things are slow at work so I might just take my body up on that offer. [NOTE: I don't sleep at work. At least, not on purpose.]
To be fair, we started with potato pancackes (latkes to those of you from the tribe). They were beautiful and delicious:
For a main, all of us but one went with the Weinerschnitzel. And a good decision it was. On top of the two slices of breaded pork cutlet, we got roasted potatoes. They were delicious, and I quickly realized that was mostly because they had a whole lot of bacon mixed in. Bacon makes things good. Make a note.
My meal paired very nicely with my Weltenburger Kloster Dunkel (a dark wheat beer). Now my body wants a nap time, fortunately, things are slow at work so I might just take my body up on that offer. [NOTE: I don't sleep at work. At least, not on purpose.]
Monday, November 2, 2009
Paranormal Activity
During the week leading up to Halloween, we figured it was the appropriate thing to do to head to our local cinema and watch a scary movie. Paranormal Activity seemed to be getting some good buzz, so that was our selection.
For those who don't know, its a Blair Witch style horror film- hand held cameras manned by the characters in the movie. It's kind of a dream come true for producers, as its really cheap to make with low production values, and pretty easy to sell. Apparently, Paranormal Activity only cost $15k to make. That is pretty low. And to this point its made something like $85million, so something tells me we'll be seeing a lot more of this type of movie in the future. I just hope they do them better.
For me, Paranormal Activity was lacking in, oh, how do I call it, scariness. It was only an hour and a half long, but the total amount of actual scary parts probably boiled down to about 5 minutes. If that. Too much of the movie was a boring- waiting for scary things to happen. And when the scary things happened, they weren't that scary. Now, I don't scare particularly easily in movies. But I can safely say I've seen at least 5 movies scarier than this one (in no particular order, and off the top of my head: Alien, The Ring, The Orphanage, The Descent, and the scariest movie ever: Event Horizon). And that's without spending much time remembering all the slashers I've seen. Shoot, come to think of it, I think Blair Witch was scarier.
I appreciate what the filmmakers were able to achieve with a small budget. In fact, I think sometimes small budgets make for better horror movies as filmmakers are forced to rely on storytelling and subtler forms of building tension. Alien was great because you rarely see the monster yet you still feel the tension due to the setting and the atmospheric effects. Along those lines, the creepiest parts of Paranormal Activity were the smaller creepy moments- like when the girl sleepwalks and stands staring at her sleeping boyfriend for a couple hours in a row.
I have always appreciated horror as a genre; it highlights the ways that filmmakers can use all the tools of the trade to manipulate the audience's experience and control their emotions. It also (often) provides a platform to attack/question/portray social norms that other more "serious" films have a hard time doing. For those reasons, I'm always interested in seeing a different approach to horror, even if the end result is less than successful.
For those who don't know, its a Blair Witch style horror film- hand held cameras manned by the characters in the movie. It's kind of a dream come true for producers, as its really cheap to make with low production values, and pretty easy to sell. Apparently, Paranormal Activity only cost $15k to make. That is pretty low. And to this point its made something like $85million, so something tells me we'll be seeing a lot more of this type of movie in the future. I just hope they do them better.
For me, Paranormal Activity was lacking in, oh, how do I call it, scariness. It was only an hour and a half long, but the total amount of actual scary parts probably boiled down to about 5 minutes. If that. Too much of the movie was a boring- waiting for scary things to happen. And when the scary things happened, they weren't that scary. Now, I don't scare particularly easily in movies. But I can safely say I've seen at least 5 movies scarier than this one (in no particular order, and off the top of my head: Alien, The Ring, The Orphanage, The Descent, and the scariest movie ever: Event Horizon). And that's without spending much time remembering all the slashers I've seen. Shoot, come to think of it, I think Blair Witch was scarier.
I appreciate what the filmmakers were able to achieve with a small budget. In fact, I think sometimes small budgets make for better horror movies as filmmakers are forced to rely on storytelling and subtler forms of building tension. Alien was great because you rarely see the monster yet you still feel the tension due to the setting and the atmospheric effects. Along those lines, the creepiest parts of Paranormal Activity were the smaller creepy moments- like when the girl sleepwalks and stands staring at her sleeping boyfriend for a couple hours in a row.
I have always appreciated horror as a genre; it highlights the ways that filmmakers can use all the tools of the trade to manipulate the audience's experience and control their emotions. It also (often) provides a platform to attack/question/portray social norms that other more "serious" films have a hard time doing. For those reasons, I'm always interested in seeing a different approach to horror, even if the end result is less than successful.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)