Watching it on reruns, but I have avoided any news of it. Let's see how this season goes.
I do wonder, though, what happened to Kenmore. Now the kitchen is GE Megasomething. Did Kenmore not want to give them a big kitchen? Did the Top Chefs not appreciate it? I wonder if Harold was able to use that kitchen in his new restaurant.
Also, I think they should create a Top Chef Restaurant guide. So in x city, what restaurants are run by former Guest judges or contestants. That way, when I'm in Orlando, I turn to that page, and can visit one of their places, etc. I think this is a genius idea. Anyone agree? I wonder if I can sell it to Top Chef in exchange for a free meal at some of these places.
The quickfire challenge seemed kind of cool - lots and lots of citrus. The display did look really nice. Hung is turning out to be very pompous, though, and may not stay as my favorite for very long. I know he and Tre are good - they were on the top of the first challenge, but they keep editing him with these ridiculous quotes - (and I paraphrase)" we're clearly the favorites" and after winning the quick fire " I didn't expect anything less." C'mon. Every time CJ is on screen it is kind of awe-striking how tall he is. He is clearly literally the top chef. I also loved the amount of alcohol in the quickfire - a tequila hinted smore, a mojito, a Grand Marnier drink. The guest judge, Van Aken, was very blunt with the contestants, but I thought his being critical comments all seemed like they could be helpful.
Champagne Barbecue - the sheer name of the challenge makes my stomach growl. And high end barbecue, I actually think this seems like something a Top Chef should have to do!
I love Tre - in the kitchen he quickly switches away from Shrimp quietly, smartly as he sees that others are doing it. He just seems so nice. Hung continues to be intense and kind of annoying. I am, however, surprised there was no coordination between the contestants. Maybe there was no time, and maybe barbecues don't require it, but they could have eliminated repetition, made sure there were some drinks, etc.
The barbecue itself is kind of boring. Everything looks fairly tasty, but nothing seems amazing. Part of it, though, is some of the people are getting so little screen time. Camille, for example, is not getting a lot of screen time. Makes me think she's not going to be the best or the worst this challenge. Someone who is getting a lot of face time is whiny Joey. Why is Joey so upset about Hung's Watermelon drink? They aren't allowed to make a beverage with the same fruit? You'd think Hung stole the watermelon literally out of Joey's hands.
SO Sara was a surprise. I thought the whole episode that she was going to be eliminated - she has trouble with the quickfire with shrimp, orders the wrong amount of protein until Hung corrects her, she doesn't know what her peppers are, can't start a barbecue. Micah being in the top, though, is frustrating since she was annoying all day.
Again with the bottom 4. Total insanity.
Joey needs to watch more Top Chef. Picking other people to be eliminated is not a smart idea.
I like that their decisions are made on a definitional question of what is up scale barbecue. However, I am really touched by everyone's reaction to Sandee's departure. She must have been really great to be so well loved after so little time.
Another episode down. I'm lukewarm about this season. Nothing turning me off, but nothing really getting me invested in these chefs either.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Friday, June 15, 2007
Spiderman 3
Spoilers beware, but really this movie sucks so bad, it shouldn't matter if I "ruin" it for you. I think this movie proves that restraint when writing is crucial. Three outside villains, a personal struggle against evil, and another woman. That's like 8 movies, not one almost THREE hour long movie. As a result, none of these plots were well explained. What happened with Gwen? Where did the black stuff come from? Why does it hate vibrations? Why did it wait to make a move until an hour into the movie? And why did it only affect the Spiderman suit at first? Why was Topher Grace's character such a jerk? Why did Kirsten Dunst just forgive him? Didn't she care that he HIT her in public? And she forgave Harry quickly too? And why, in the name of all that is holy, did the butler suddenly walk into the secret room and tell Harry about his father's wound? The butler couldn't have mentioned this earlier? And Harry suddenly decided to believe him and put down the vendetta? And his father's spirit just went away? And who is inheriting all that money??
I've got a billion plot questions left from that awful movie. But to be fair, the first hour would have been a great movie. Kill the sandman. Be upset about it. Wam, bam, thank you writers, done. I even think it'd have been cool to show Topher Grace get the black stuff and then end the movie there. We come back for Spiderman 4 where there'd be some more development of Harry. The butler's revelation could have been less of a random aside, and they, together, could have had the end battle scene that was mediocre. (Um, the Sandman just goes away? That makes zero sense) In exchange, they could have explained a bit more in Spiderman 3 and put in more jokes.
Despite the bad reviews, I went to see this in the theater thinking that the battle scenes and the special effects would make this worth seeing on the big screen. Yeah, I was wrong. Wait for it to come out on DVD, pay the rental to see the movie, and hate it for cheaper.
I've got a billion plot questions left from that awful movie. But to be fair, the first hour would have been a great movie. Kill the sandman. Be upset about it. Wam, bam, thank you writers, done. I even think it'd have been cool to show Topher Grace get the black stuff and then end the movie there. We come back for Spiderman 4 where there'd be some more development of Harry. The butler's revelation could have been less of a random aside, and they, together, could have had the end battle scene that was mediocre. (Um, the Sandman just goes away? That makes zero sense) In exchange, they could have explained a bit more in Spiderman 3 and put in more jokes.
Despite the bad reviews, I went to see this in the theater thinking that the battle scenes and the special effects would make this worth seeing on the big screen. Yeah, I was wrong. Wait for it to come out on DVD, pay the rental to see the movie, and hate it for cheaper.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Top Chef Season 3 Premiere
After watching Season 1's top 4 defeat Season 2's top 4, I couldn't wait for Season 3. This season is a make or break it deal for me. Season 1 was awesome (especially thanks to Harold!), but Season 2 was a huge disappointment. Sam should have been in the finals, Elia was ridiculous, and Marcel - victim or victimizer - who knows and really, who cares?
Okay, but Season 3 seems more varied in terms of background and personality. Lot of interesting hairstyles, at minimum. (Spoilers begin - beware)
I love love love that the first quickfire begins during their party. It's like the ultimate "left over" challenge (unlike that pathetic attempt in Season 2 where they had TONS of stuff in a fancy hotel's kitchen). I do think its a bit outrageous that they don't have utensils, an ability to heat, etc. Also, does anyone care about hygiene? Did they wash their hands before preparing that food? I hope none of them give one of the judges a cold! The "Tuscan sushi revisited" by Micah looked impressive and tasty. Clay's gazpacho, however, seemed kind of pathetic. Apparently not small enough, but also just gross, not soupy, etc. It kind of disappoints me that we didn't get to see all of the quick fires, though. Of the 6 we saw, though, I want to point out that I liked Micah's the best. (I'm blogging as I watch, so on my honor, I thought it was the best even before Colicchio called it.)
Season 3's digs are outrageous. If i were Season 1 or 2, I would be writing to complain. Season 1 and 2 were able to trash talk in smaller quarters, why does Season 3 get a hot tub to talk about how each of them is the best chef EVER. (Hello, has anyone picked up that a little humility goes a long way on this show? At minimum, so you don't get beat up).
The Surf & Turf elimination challenge is kind of gross. I am kind of surprised, though, that they didn't use Ilan as a guest judge. I liked that Harold was the guest judge last season for the first challenge - it acknowledged that the best of the previous season might have something to share. I am a big fan of traditions though, so who knows.
Howie fails to put his second protein on the plate. Wow. This is the kind of drama that made Season 1 a must watch. (Anyone remember when Dave forgot to make a third dish for the Cirque performers in that semi-finals?) I am embarrassed for Howie that he has to show an incomplete dish. Clay's dish is, however, inedible. Better to finish or better to have good food? That'll be the judge's table for sure.
On an aside, Brian, is an idiot. So he doesn't finish his dish. It looked done. There was a lot on there. Why not just present the positive things instead of saying "oh and I am bad at time management." This hurt Marcel in the finals when he mentioned that his Heart of Palm dish was suppose to include carpaccio. Do these chefs not study up before going on the show???
Okay, so judge's tables and there is only a top two? Not a top three? Well at least the top two are my early favorites as people.
Hung - I love this guy already. He's my pick to win (hey, and last two seasons, I fell for the top chefs during the first episode, so all you gamblers out there, put you money on Hung!) This does run in direct contrast with the trend from the last two seasons that the person who wins the first elimination challenge wins the show.
Tre is favorite, too. Apparently his cooking is excellent, just like Hung's, and they seem to already be pals. Tre complemented Hung's cooking, which I like.
TC exec's are keeping us on our toes with a bottom 4, and a jerk judge.
Asking Howie "What is your major malfunction?" C'mon, that's rude. Howie knew he screwed up. He was awesome in the way he was standing up to the judges. I like this guy's gumption, but someone needs to teach him time management skills.
I just can't help but feel like Clay was set up as the poor dumb southern kid. He looked like he was going to cry. But, to vote Clay off stands in the face of the rules of the game.
They were told to prepare two proteins.
Howie didn't.
Period.
It shouldn't matter how good his first one was. Really, what if someone had said - screw it, I'll cook one of these SUPER well and just not do anything with the other one? This decision allows for unfair strategic calculations. This should be a TKO.
And on a total tangent, Joey seems like a real character. He doesn't like Micah's mothering of Clay. He is a time freak. He was shown wielding a big knife. This guy could turn out to be the catalyst for a lot of interesting behind the scenes stuff. That being said, can we eliminate the awful bickering from Season 2? The end of the show already shows clips of that fighting. Just edit it out! Please! Don't ruin a great show. So, I think the premiere is great. But I'm a little suspect of the season still.
Okay, but Season 3 seems more varied in terms of background and personality. Lot of interesting hairstyles, at minimum. (Spoilers begin - beware)
I love love love that the first quickfire begins during their party. It's like the ultimate "left over" challenge (unlike that pathetic attempt in Season 2 where they had TONS of stuff in a fancy hotel's kitchen). I do think its a bit outrageous that they don't have utensils, an ability to heat, etc. Also, does anyone care about hygiene? Did they wash their hands before preparing that food? I hope none of them give one of the judges a cold! The "Tuscan sushi revisited" by Micah looked impressive and tasty. Clay's gazpacho, however, seemed kind of pathetic. Apparently not small enough, but also just gross, not soupy, etc. It kind of disappoints me that we didn't get to see all of the quick fires, though. Of the 6 we saw, though, I want to point out that I liked Micah's the best. (I'm blogging as I watch, so on my honor, I thought it was the best even before Colicchio called it.)
Season 3's digs are outrageous. If i were Season 1 or 2, I would be writing to complain. Season 1 and 2 were able to trash talk in smaller quarters, why does Season 3 get a hot tub to talk about how each of them is the best chef EVER. (Hello, has anyone picked up that a little humility goes a long way on this show? At minimum, so you don't get beat up).
The Surf & Turf elimination challenge is kind of gross. I am kind of surprised, though, that they didn't use Ilan as a guest judge. I liked that Harold was the guest judge last season for the first challenge - it acknowledged that the best of the previous season might have something to share. I am a big fan of traditions though, so who knows.
Howie fails to put his second protein on the plate. Wow. This is the kind of drama that made Season 1 a must watch. (Anyone remember when Dave forgot to make a third dish for the Cirque performers in that semi-finals?) I am embarrassed for Howie that he has to show an incomplete dish. Clay's dish is, however, inedible. Better to finish or better to have good food? That'll be the judge's table for sure.
On an aside, Brian, is an idiot. So he doesn't finish his dish. It looked done. There was a lot on there. Why not just present the positive things instead of saying "oh and I am bad at time management." This hurt Marcel in the finals when he mentioned that his Heart of Palm dish was suppose to include carpaccio. Do these chefs not study up before going on the show???
Okay, so judge's tables and there is only a top two? Not a top three? Well at least the top two are my early favorites as people.
Hung - I love this guy already. He's my pick to win (hey, and last two seasons, I fell for the top chefs during the first episode, so all you gamblers out there, put you money on Hung!) This does run in direct contrast with the trend from the last two seasons that the person who wins the first elimination challenge wins the show.
Tre is favorite, too. Apparently his cooking is excellent, just like Hung's, and they seem to already be pals. Tre complemented Hung's cooking, which I like.
TC exec's are keeping us on our toes with a bottom 4, and a jerk judge.
Asking Howie "What is your major malfunction?" C'mon, that's rude. Howie knew he screwed up. He was awesome in the way he was standing up to the judges. I like this guy's gumption, but someone needs to teach him time management skills.
I just can't help but feel like Clay was set up as the poor dumb southern kid. He looked like he was going to cry. But, to vote Clay off stands in the face of the rules of the game.
They were told to prepare two proteins.
Howie didn't.
Period.
It shouldn't matter how good his first one was. Really, what if someone had said - screw it, I'll cook one of these SUPER well and just not do anything with the other one? This decision allows for unfair strategic calculations. This should be a TKO.
And on a total tangent, Joey seems like a real character. He doesn't like Micah's mothering of Clay. He is a time freak. He was shown wielding a big knife. This guy could turn out to be the catalyst for a lot of interesting behind the scenes stuff. That being said, can we eliminate the awful bickering from Season 2? The end of the show already shows clips of that fighting. Just edit it out! Please! Don't ruin a great show. So, I think the premiere is great. But I'm a little suspect of the season still.
Age of Love - WTF?
While watching "Last Comic Standing" (this season looks okay, stay tuned for blogging on that some other day), I saw a preview for "Age of Love." This show has to be the most ridiculous form of blatant sexism on TV today. This is eloquently explained by http://www.tvsquad.com/2007/05/11/age-of-love-hits-nbc-in-june/
I just want to add, though, these women might have signed up for a dating show, but did they know the full results? Perhaps those women fully knew how they'd be grouped and depicted, and I won't question their to choose that. However,just become those women agree, does that make it fit for prime time tv?
It's outrageous. Grey's Anatomy correctly takes a stance against homophobic slurs and eliminates a well loved character, but no one thinks to stop a show that is so clearly misogynistic? I thought television executives were finally accepting some responsibility for the messages they put out in society.
There is a slim chance for redemption - some of the commercials just introduce the show with a tag line of does age matter if you want to fall in love, or something along those lines. However, when the groups are called "kittens" and "cougars," I remain skeptical that this show will not be the worst of all the dating shows. Really, if this show was about whether love was ageless, and all the women agreed to compete, would there be a need for grouping of the women with those titles? We couldn't stick to the old format created by "The Bachelor" ?
I just want to add, though, these women might have signed up for a dating show, but did they know the full results? Perhaps those women fully knew how they'd be grouped and depicted, and I won't question their to choose that. However,just become those women agree, does that make it fit for prime time tv?
It's outrageous. Grey's Anatomy correctly takes a stance against homophobic slurs and eliminates a well loved character, but no one thinks to stop a show that is so clearly misogynistic? I thought television executives were finally accepting some responsibility for the messages they put out in society.
There is a slim chance for redemption - some of the commercials just introduce the show with a tag line of does age matter if you want to fall in love, or something along those lines. However, when the groups are called "kittens" and "cougars," I remain skeptical that this show will not be the worst of all the dating shows. Really, if this show was about whether love was ageless, and all the women agreed to compete, would there be a need for grouping of the women with those titles? We couldn't stick to the old format created by "The Bachelor" ?
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Bicycle Thief
Such an important and written about neo-realist film seems out of place on this blog. Since I'm blogging about things as I see them, please forgive me for writing a sub par critique of a truly excellent flick.
This post I want to focus on the where's waldo aspect of the film. Where's waldo, or rather, where's the bike? Given the title (and well, I did absorb an occasional fact or two in those film studies classes) I knew that the bike would be stolen. I found myself constantly scanning the screen for the A Rides frame. I could barely take my eyes off of the handle bars when he walked up the stairs after his wife when she visited the Sonata. When it was off screen, I visualized it being stolen by all kinds of different hooligans. This hyper sensitivity to one object heightened my sense of paranoia about this fairly quotidienne object. At first, I thought this was annoying and felt as if I was missing out on enjoying the beauty of the city and the acting of the people. Now, I feel as if this is part of the message of the movie. The main character, Antonio, often looks past the beauty of the city in search of his bike. It's almost shocking how often he looks past his own son, Bruno, in search of his bike. This intense focus on an ordinary object distracts him from enjoying the rest of his life, perhaps like the focus on the bike distracted me from enjoying the rest of the film.
The bike was, of course, not just an ordinary object to Antonio, nor is it ordinary to the viewer of the movie. To Antonio, the bike is the vehicle (literal and metaphorical) that would carry his family out of poverty. He adds the amount he would have earned and laments having to lose that this economic freedom each day. The family's dreams are pinned on this bike, which is amplified by the opening scenes where each part of the family invests in this chance for advancement. Maria, Antonio's wife, sells the sheets that were a part of her dowry in order to buy back the bike from the pawn shop. Bruno cleans and repairs the bike as it hangs in the apartment. Maria and Bruno each are shown riding on the bike with Antonio at different times, perhaps foreshadowing the possibility that this bike would carry them to a more carefree life. To the reader, the bike is of crucial importance as the plot revolves around it. Without the bike, the watcher would have nothing for which to search.
So, in this instance, I think knowing a bit more about the plot of the film, or at least the title of the film, allowed me to sympathize with the protagonist as he/we focused on a seemingly ordinary object. Just as those destitute workers had to focus on the daily essentials of life and not on the beauty of their surroundings, so too did I miss out on the beauty of the city.
This post I want to focus on the where's waldo aspect of the film. Where's waldo, or rather, where's the bike? Given the title (and well, I did absorb an occasional fact or two in those film studies classes) I knew that the bike would be stolen. I found myself constantly scanning the screen for the A Rides frame. I could barely take my eyes off of the handle bars when he walked up the stairs after his wife when she visited the Sonata. When it was off screen, I visualized it being stolen by all kinds of different hooligans. This hyper sensitivity to one object heightened my sense of paranoia about this fairly quotidienne object. At first, I thought this was annoying and felt as if I was missing out on enjoying the beauty of the city and the acting of the people. Now, I feel as if this is part of the message of the movie. The main character, Antonio, often looks past the beauty of the city in search of his bike. It's almost shocking how often he looks past his own son, Bruno, in search of his bike. This intense focus on an ordinary object distracts him from enjoying the rest of his life, perhaps like the focus on the bike distracted me from enjoying the rest of the film.
The bike was, of course, not just an ordinary object to Antonio, nor is it ordinary to the viewer of the movie. To Antonio, the bike is the vehicle (literal and metaphorical) that would carry his family out of poverty. He adds the amount he would have earned and laments having to lose that this economic freedom each day. The family's dreams are pinned on this bike, which is amplified by the opening scenes where each part of the family invests in this chance for advancement. Maria, Antonio's wife, sells the sheets that were a part of her dowry in order to buy back the bike from the pawn shop. Bruno cleans and repairs the bike as it hangs in the apartment. Maria and Bruno each are shown riding on the bike with Antonio at different times, perhaps foreshadowing the possibility that this bike would carry them to a more carefree life. To the reader, the bike is of crucial importance as the plot revolves around it. Without the bike, the watcher would have nothing for which to search.
So, in this instance, I think knowing a bit more about the plot of the film, or at least the title of the film, allowed me to sympathize with the protagonist as he/we focused on a seemingly ordinary object. Just as those destitute workers had to focus on the daily essentials of life and not on the beauty of their surroundings, so too did I miss out on the beauty of the city.
A Beautiful Mind
I loved this movie. However, I want to blog about how I ruined it. I knew the premise of the movie, that it was about a schizophrenic, and I knew to guess about what were hallucinations, etc. I didn't guess the full extent of these hallucinations until well into the movie, but all the same, I feel like I missed out on a complete movie experience. Luckily, of course, I have now seen this movie many years after it came out (not as bad as the Sting at least) but I feel like the morale of the story is to not watch previews or read about movies before I watch them. Does kind of put me in a conundrum for how to pick movies, though. I guess I can fall back on the old method of picking movies - just look for the attractive actors!
Sunday, June 10, 2007
The Sting
Saw this movie for the first time tonight and I can't wait to see it again. I'll do my best to not spoil anything too major in the storyline.
First, I'd be remissed not to mention that the young Robert Redford is totally dreamy. However, that is the smallest reason to watch this movie. This 1973 movie is about Johnny Hooker (played by Redford) seeking revenge on Doyle Lannegan (played by Robert Shaw) for the death of one of his close friends. Hooker finds help in a friend of a friend, Henry Gondorff (played by Paul Newman). Together, Hooker and Gondorff manage to pull off a series off cons in order to get the best out of big time crime boss, Lannegan.
The costumes are impeccable, as are all the elements of the set. The integration of music into the movie is by far the most outstanding. The usual montage sequence was accentuated by these Scott Joplin tunes (performed and adapted by Marvin Hamlisch). The entire period feel is carried through in every element, but truly the music seals the deal.
The plot is perfect. I'm usually persnickety and look for holes, especially in these kind of caper flick. In this case, I can't imagine a more eloquent plot where the mystery of it all isn't revealed until the last 2 minutes of the movie.
I'm most impressed, however, that the makers of this new favorite showed some restraint. Unlike some current caper films, there were no extraneous romances, no obnoxious shots of everyone being pleased with themselves, and no need to leave open the possibility for a sequel.
But really, it's all about Robert Redford. Especially when he delivers this line -
"You know me. I'm the same as you. It's two in the morning and I don't know nobody."
*sigh*
First, I'd be remissed not to mention that the young Robert Redford is totally dreamy. However, that is the smallest reason to watch this movie. This 1973 movie is about Johnny Hooker (played by Redford) seeking revenge on Doyle Lannegan (played by Robert Shaw) for the death of one of his close friends. Hooker finds help in a friend of a friend, Henry Gondorff (played by Paul Newman). Together, Hooker and Gondorff manage to pull off a series off cons in order to get the best out of big time crime boss, Lannegan.
The costumes are impeccable, as are all the elements of the set. The integration of music into the movie is by far the most outstanding. The usual montage sequence was accentuated by these Scott Joplin tunes (performed and adapted by Marvin Hamlisch). The entire period feel is carried through in every element, but truly the music seals the deal.
The plot is perfect. I'm usually persnickety and look for holes, especially in these kind of caper flick. In this case, I can't imagine a more eloquent plot where the mystery of it all isn't revealed until the last 2 minutes of the movie.
I'm most impressed, however, that the makers of this new favorite showed some restraint. Unlike some current caper films, there were no extraneous romances, no obnoxious shots of everyone being pleased with themselves, and no need to leave open the possibility for a sequel.
But really, it's all about Robert Redford. Especially when he delivers this line -
"You know me. I'm the same as you. It's two in the morning and I don't know nobody."
*sigh*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)