Hi guys. Thanks to all of you who have helped to keep this little blog going. Unfortunately, I've been on a little bit of a hiatus. Things at work have been ridonk-culous. Somehow however, we reached 5,000 page views. YAY! Things should be settling down a little bit, so I should be starting to post again after labour day.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 25 August 2011
Wednesday, 6 July 2011
Critique: Immigrant Drivers Are Safer
What a load of horse manure is this?! According to research from Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre's Dr. Donald Redelmeier, new immigrants get into fewer major accidents than long-term residents.
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110706/imigrant-drivers-safe-110706/
Unfortunately, I haven't found the actual study and have only been able to read the articles from various news media sites. According to his statement in the CTV article, "So we're not looking at violations of (driving) etiquette, we're looking at serious crashes that end you up in the emergency department and hospitalized."
This does NOT mean that new immigrant drivers are safer! He said himself that they weren't looking for violations of etiquette, which means they could very well likely have been the cause of somebody else's crash! The article continues to read:
"The study, published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, found immigrant drivers' comparative risk of being in a nasty collision was lowest in the initial years following arrival, but still persisted beyond the fifth and sixth years of the eight years each person was tracked"
My reasons after the jump
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110706/imigrant-drivers-safe-110706/
Unfortunately, I haven't found the actual study and have only been able to read the articles from various news media sites. According to his statement in the CTV article, "So we're not looking at violations of (driving) etiquette, we're looking at serious crashes that end you up in the emergency department and hospitalized."
This does NOT mean that new immigrant drivers are safer! He said himself that they weren't looking for violations of etiquette, which means they could very well likely have been the cause of somebody else's crash! The article continues to read:
"The study, published in the journal Accident Analysis and Prevention, found immigrant drivers' comparative risk of being in a nasty collision was lowest in the initial years following arrival, but still persisted beyond the fifth and sixth years of the eight years each person was tracked"
My reasons after the jump
Movie: Resident Evil - Apocalypse (2004)
Rating: C
A perfectly written, well acted, brilliantly directed film this is not. But I love it! It's a movie that thanks the fans of the game by adding lots of easter eggs and paying homage to the game, not by staying true to the game's storyline, but taking enough of the game's aspects, and spinning out a different story altogether. And most importantly, not taking itself too seriously.
Was it a brilliant cinematic feature? Absolutely not. And it's not supposed to be. It's a popcorn movie through and through with hot girls in great outfits kicking zombie ass. Normally, I'm bothered by holes in movies, but in this case, who cares! I mean seriously. Why do zombie dogs all look like demonised dobermans? What, Chihuahuas can't be infected too? And what about cats? Bunny rabbits? Chickens? Mosquitoes? Probably would have been a better idea to have left out the fluffies. But who cares. It was fun to watch.
Milla Jovovich returns to lead the charge against the undead as Alice. One of the best things in the entire series is Alice's wardrobe. Bad ass, sexy, and totally awesome. Yes, I'm sure I sound like a total pimply faced teenaged gamer drooling over this character, but that's part of the appeal of this series. Again, don't take it seriously. Enjoy the physically impossible stunts Alice and her crew pull off. Oh, and I have no idea who this Sienna Guillory is, she can't act a lick, and I TOTALLY wish that they would have just kept her natural accent, but she looked spot on as Jill Valentine, and that's again, awesome.
As long as they keep pumping this series out, I'm likely going to keep buyin' the popcorn.
~Cheers.
A perfectly written, well acted, brilliantly directed film this is not. But I love it! It's a movie that thanks the fans of the game by adding lots of easter eggs and paying homage to the game, not by staying true to the game's storyline, but taking enough of the game's aspects, and spinning out a different story altogether. And most importantly, not taking itself too seriously.
Was it a brilliant cinematic feature? Absolutely not. And it's not supposed to be. It's a popcorn movie through and through with hot girls in great outfits kicking zombie ass. Normally, I'm bothered by holes in movies, but in this case, who cares! I mean seriously. Why do zombie dogs all look like demonised dobermans? What, Chihuahuas can't be infected too? And what about cats? Bunny rabbits? Chickens? Mosquitoes? Probably would have been a better idea to have left out the fluffies. But who cares. It was fun to watch.
Milla Jovovich returns to lead the charge against the undead as Alice. One of the best things in the entire series is Alice's wardrobe. Bad ass, sexy, and totally awesome. Yes, I'm sure I sound like a total pimply faced teenaged gamer drooling over this character, but that's part of the appeal of this series. Again, don't take it seriously. Enjoy the physically impossible stunts Alice and her crew pull off. Oh, and I have no idea who this Sienna Guillory is, she can't act a lick, and I TOTALLY wish that they would have just kept her natural accent, but she looked spot on as Jill Valentine, and that's again, awesome.
As long as they keep pumping this series out, I'm likely going to keep buyin' the popcorn.
~Cheers.
Monday, 4 July 2011
Movie: After.Life (2009)
Rating: C-
You give credit where credit is due. I love movies that leave you wanting for more. I love movies that use misdirection. I love movies that make you scratch your head and make you think. But After.Life is a movie that seems to be puzzling for the sake of puzzlement.
Conceptually, I thought the movie was fantastic. But the application and execution were less so. From the trailer, you already know what the movie is about. Is Christina Ricci's character dead? Or the other question if you like; is Liam Neeson's character a gifted mortician or a deranged psychopath? I commend Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo for her effort of trying to keep the audience in limbo about what the truth is in both questions, but her effort ends up in a tired tedium. And it would have been less of a problem if there weren't so many holes in the movie. The result is that you end up not caring either way somewhere around 30 minutes into the movie.
I loved the use of Hydronium Bromide (spoiler alert if you click) in the movie. I thought Liam Neeson's portrayal as a chillingly nice, potentially gifted, probably deranged mortician to be outstanding. I'm confused at the point of Christina Ricci's, otherwise decent performance, nakedness for the majority of her scenes. And I am completely disappointed at how obvious these performances made evident, Justin Long's inability to act.
~Cheers.
You give credit where credit is due. I love movies that leave you wanting for more. I love movies that use misdirection. I love movies that make you scratch your head and make you think. But After.Life is a movie that seems to be puzzling for the sake of puzzlement.
Conceptually, I thought the movie was fantastic. But the application and execution were less so. From the trailer, you already know what the movie is about. Is Christina Ricci's character dead? Or the other question if you like; is Liam Neeson's character a gifted mortician or a deranged psychopath? I commend Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo for her effort of trying to keep the audience in limbo about what the truth is in both questions, but her effort ends up in a tired tedium. And it would have been less of a problem if there weren't so many holes in the movie. The result is that you end up not caring either way somewhere around 30 minutes into the movie.
I loved the use of Hydronium Bromide (spoiler alert if you click) in the movie. I thought Liam Neeson's portrayal as a chillingly nice, potentially gifted, probably deranged mortician to be outstanding. I'm confused at the point of Christina Ricci's, otherwise decent performance, nakedness for the majority of her scenes. And I am completely disappointed at how obvious these performances made evident, Justin Long's inability to act.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 30 June 2011
Movie: I Am Number Four (2011)
Rating: C-
While this movie makes much more sense than DJ Caruso's Eagle Eye, it is simply too lightweight and fluffy to be taken seriously. Of course, this movie is also catering to the Twilight demographic, you know, the demographic that enjoys watching shirtless pretty boys. Thankfully, there were no shirtless scenes. Haha.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why the heck does Timothy Olyphant think that grinding his teeth when he talks makes him look tough? And who is this Alex Pettyfer kid and why does he think that he can act? While the first 15 minutes of the movie were decent, and the last 20 minutes of the movie was entertaining enough, there is about an hour and a half or so of this movie that is pure and utter fluff. The entire middle section of the movie was a snoozefest, focusing on teenage puppy love and high school drama that, by the way, disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I'd say, that without Teresa Palmer, I probably would have given this movie a D. I don't care that she was only in about 15minutes of the movie, but she was hot. Which means, I'm torn about whether or not I want to watch the sequel, which it hints at in the special edition. HAHA.
~Cheers.
While this movie makes much more sense than DJ Caruso's Eagle Eye, it is simply too lightweight and fluffy to be taken seriously. Of course, this movie is also catering to the Twilight demographic, you know, the demographic that enjoys watching shirtless pretty boys. Thankfully, there were no shirtless scenes. Haha.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Why the heck does Timothy Olyphant think that grinding his teeth when he talks makes him look tough? And who is this Alex Pettyfer kid and why does he think that he can act? While the first 15 minutes of the movie were decent, and the last 20 minutes of the movie was entertaining enough, there is about an hour and a half or so of this movie that is pure and utter fluff. The entire middle section of the movie was a snoozefest, focusing on teenage puppy love and high school drama that, by the way, disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I'd say, that without Teresa Palmer, I probably would have given this movie a D. I don't care that she was only in about 15minutes of the movie, but she was hot. Which means, I'm torn about whether or not I want to watch the sequel, which it hints at in the special edition. HAHA.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 29 June 2011
Game: Green Lantern - Rise of the Manhunters (2011)
Genre: 3rd Person Action
Game Play: 3 / 5
Graphics: 3.5 / 5
Storyline: 3.5 / 5
Re-Playability: 3 / 5
Overall: 3 / 5
Quite honestly, I enjoyed it. I like playing games with heavy story support. And quite frankly, I found the story more compelling than the Green Lantern movie.
I played the PS3 version of the game. After games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed, I've come to expect some spectacular graphics. Unfortunately, Rise of the Manhunters came just a little short. And I found the entire game to be such. It just came up a little bit short. It was ok, entertaining enough, but there wasn't anything great about it.
You're either running through a pretty linear plane, or flying through the air. When you're in the air, so long as you keep moving, you pretty much can't die, and you'll make it through the section. On the ground, you get to use your ring. There are some super moves that you can use the ring for, called "Constructs". Constructs are available for purchase with experience points. There are enough constructs to buy to play the game MAYBE 2x. But I was really hoping for a whole lot more. There are some puzzles in the game, but none that gave you too much grief.
I did however, encounter a couple of glitches that I wasn't too pleased about. After unlocking one of the doors, it was still locked. I ended up going online to check the walkthrough and found no additional locks for the door. I was finally able to get through it after turning the machine completely off and then back on. Really, it was a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure if it was just the disc I had that was missing this information, or if it's missing on the PS3 system. There is one piece of key information that, again, I found on the walkthrough that wasn't part of the dialogue in my game. Once I heard that, I was able to get through the level. But it wasn't available on my game at all.
Aside from a few nuisances, the game isn't horrible. Granted, Green Lantern was one of my favourites growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Oh, if you want to beat the game REALLY easily? Have Player 2 jump in. Just to stand there. The AI's for some reason enjoy beating up the decoy more than beating up on you.
~Cheers.
I'm glad that the storyline was separate from the movie tho.
Game Play: 3 / 5
Graphics: 3.5 / 5
Storyline: 3.5 / 5
Re-Playability: 3 / 5
Overall: 3 / 5
Quite honestly, I enjoyed it. I like playing games with heavy story support. And quite frankly, I found the story more compelling than the Green Lantern movie.
I played the PS3 version of the game. After games like Metal Gear Solid 4, Uncharted, and Assassin's Creed, I've come to expect some spectacular graphics. Unfortunately, Rise of the Manhunters came just a little short. And I found the entire game to be such. It just came up a little bit short. It was ok, entertaining enough, but there wasn't anything great about it.
You're either running through a pretty linear plane, or flying through the air. When you're in the air, so long as you keep moving, you pretty much can't die, and you'll make it through the section. On the ground, you get to use your ring. There are some super moves that you can use the ring for, called "Constructs". Constructs are available for purchase with experience points. There are enough constructs to buy to play the game MAYBE 2x. But I was really hoping for a whole lot more. There are some puzzles in the game, but none that gave you too much grief.
I did however, encounter a couple of glitches that I wasn't too pleased about. After unlocking one of the doors, it was still locked. I ended up going online to check the walkthrough and found no additional locks for the door. I was finally able to get through it after turning the machine completely off and then back on. Really, it was a bit of a nuisance. I'm not sure if it was just the disc I had that was missing this information, or if it's missing on the PS3 system. There is one piece of key information that, again, I found on the walkthrough that wasn't part of the dialogue in my game. Once I heard that, I was able to get through the level. But it wasn't available on my game at all.
Aside from a few nuisances, the game isn't horrible. Granted, Green Lantern was one of my favourites growing up, so that might have something to do with it. Oh, if you want to beat the game REALLY easily? Have Player 2 jump in. Just to stand there. The AI's for some reason enjoy beating up the decoy more than beating up on you.
~Cheers.
I'm glad that the storyline was separate from the movie tho.
Monday, 27 June 2011
Blogger's Note: 4000 Page Views...
Wow. Another 1,000 page views. Thanks everyone for the support! More amazing, it's only taken 20 days to get from 3,000 to 4,000! At the beginning of the year, I'd said that I was going to aim to post 2x a week for 2011. This will have been my 48th post this year. So I'm pretty much on track. And much of it, I have to thank all of you. It's really encouraging to see the page view numbers every time I log in to put up another post. So from the bottom of my heart, thank you.
5,000 is going to be a bit of a milestone for me. And so, my token of appreciation is going to be a bit bigger. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 5,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Wow. 5,000. I can hardly imagine.While a few of you are following this little blog of mine, I really wish I knew who the rest of you were so I could thank you all personally. So please, feel free to comment lots and often! Thanks again!
~Cheers.
5,000 is going to be a bit of a milestone for me. And so, my token of appreciation is going to be a bit bigger. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 5,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude.
Wow. 5,000. I can hardly imagine.While a few of you are following this little blog of mine, I really wish I knew who the rest of you were so I could thank you all personally. So please, feel free to comment lots and often! Thanks again!
~Cheers.
Movie: Biutiful (2010)
Rating: C+
I generally stay away from watching foreign films. I don't particularly like watching movies where I have to stare at the bottom of the screen because I can't understand the words that are coming out of the people's mouths. But subtitles are a heck of a lot better than poor attempts at dubbing films. But Biutiful was one of those movies that piqued my interest with Javier Bardem in the starring role and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu directing.
Quite honestly, I didn't know what to expect. The trailer doesn't seem to tell you a whole lot, although it makes much more sense after you've sat through 2.5 hours of Uxbal(lead character)'s life spiraling out of control in a downward race to devastation and despair. Bardem's portrayal of Uxbal is flawless and is absolutely the saving grace to this otherwise depressing film. In an otherwise brutal depiction of how devastating the world can be to a person and their family, Bardem's eyes alone tell the tale of a man's love for his family and his struggle to set things right.
But unfortunately, Inarritu tries too hard. Perhaps there are things in Spanish culture I'm missing, but there were so many parts of the movie that I found were absolutely unnecessary. There were storylines that had no bearing on the main storyline itself, as well as relationships inserted seemingly for the sole reason of making the audience uncomfortable. In an otherwise straightforward and painfully beautiful story about a man and his family, these scenes dragged the movie on, and made the movie somewhat arduous to watch.
~Cheers
I generally stay away from watching foreign films. I don't particularly like watching movies where I have to stare at the bottom of the screen because I can't understand the words that are coming out of the people's mouths. But subtitles are a heck of a lot better than poor attempts at dubbing films. But Biutiful was one of those movies that piqued my interest with Javier Bardem in the starring role and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu directing.
Quite honestly, I didn't know what to expect. The trailer doesn't seem to tell you a whole lot, although it makes much more sense after you've sat through 2.5 hours of Uxbal(lead character)'s life spiraling out of control in a downward race to devastation and despair. Bardem's portrayal of Uxbal is flawless and is absolutely the saving grace to this otherwise depressing film. In an otherwise brutal depiction of how devastating the world can be to a person and their family, Bardem's eyes alone tell the tale of a man's love for his family and his struggle to set things right.
But unfortunately, Inarritu tries too hard. Perhaps there are things in Spanish culture I'm missing, but there were so many parts of the movie that I found were absolutely unnecessary. There were storylines that had no bearing on the main storyline itself, as well as relationships inserted seemingly for the sole reason of making the audience uncomfortable. In an otherwise straightforward and painfully beautiful story about a man and his family, these scenes dragged the movie on, and made the movie somewhat arduous to watch.
~Cheers
Wednesday, 22 June 2011
Commercial: Glico - Ice no Mi (2011)
Rating: A+
Are you freaking kidding me?! Some of you might already know about the secret behind this commercial, but for those of you who haven't, I CHALLENGE you to figure out what that secret is.
One of the girls in the commercial isn't real. Watch it again. See who it is THIS time? Her name is Aimi Eguchi, and she is, in actuality, the best features of all the other girls. Love it or hate it, it's got people talking about Glico. It's got people talking about their product Ice Nomi. And it's got people talking about the 61 (now 62) member group AKB48.
Still don't believe me? Here's the making of clip:
Great publicity, Great concept, Great gimmick! I wonder if they'll keep Aimi as a permanent 62nd member.
~Cheers.
Are you freaking kidding me?! Some of you might already know about the secret behind this commercial, but for those of you who haven't, I CHALLENGE you to figure out what that secret is.
One of the girls in the commercial isn't real. Watch it again. See who it is THIS time? Her name is Aimi Eguchi, and she is, in actuality, the best features of all the other girls. Love it or hate it, it's got people talking about Glico. It's got people talking about their product Ice Nomi. And it's got people talking about the 61 (now 62) member group AKB48.
Still don't believe me? Here's the making of clip:
Great publicity, Great concept, Great gimmick! I wonder if they'll keep Aimi as a permanent 62nd member.
~Cheers.
Movie: Big Fish (2003)
Rating: A
Tim Burton tells an ebullient story by doing what he does best; bringing reality into a realm of fantasy and wacky wonder. Armed with heartfelt warmth from the likes of Andrew Finney and Jessica Lange, it was probably one of the most touching movies of 2003, and probably my favourite movie from Tim Burton.
Aside from making Danny DeVito unfortunately look like Ron Jeremy, it's hard to think of anything I didn't like about the movie. And if it doesn't bring a tear or two to your eyes and leave you with a smile feeling like a kid again, I've got to wonder if you've got a heart.
This isn't a movie that you want to make sense out of everything. It's like lying in bed as a kid, eager to hear your grandfather re-tell stories of his glory years in a bedtime story form. It's seeing those stories come to life, and never really knowing which part is true and which isn't, and in this movie, seeing all of that come to life. It's sweet, it's sad, it's wonderfully wacky.
~Cheers.
Tim Burton tells an ebullient story by doing what he does best; bringing reality into a realm of fantasy and wacky wonder. Armed with heartfelt warmth from the likes of Andrew Finney and Jessica Lange, it was probably one of the most touching movies of 2003, and probably my favourite movie from Tim Burton.
Aside from making Danny DeVito unfortunately look like Ron Jeremy, it's hard to think of anything I didn't like about the movie. And if it doesn't bring a tear or two to your eyes and leave you with a smile feeling like a kid again, I've got to wonder if you've got a heart.
This isn't a movie that you want to make sense out of everything. It's like lying in bed as a kid, eager to hear your grandfather re-tell stories of his glory years in a bedtime story form. It's seeing those stories come to life, and never really knowing which part is true and which isn't, and in this movie, seeing all of that come to life. It's sweet, it's sad, it's wonderfully wacky.
~Cheers.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Movie: The Tree of Life (2011)
Rating: B-
OK. I get it. The world is like a tree. And like a tree, it grows and spreads, and splits, and blossoms. Our lives too, reflect that. But in all that imagery and symbolism and beauty and awe, there needs to be some sense of cohesion, flow, and continuity. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Terrence Malick starts the movie off with random shots of the past, the present, and the future with some awe inspiring shots of absolute magnificence that is so randomly perplexing that while some might call it cinematic poetry, I can only describe as a convoluted collection of photographic genius that left me to wonder if this was some randomised National Geographic footage. All that was missing was the Alexander Scourby narration (although I guess these days, it would probably be done by Morgan Freeman. Haha).
Aside from the first 40 minutes where Malick tries to randomly select beautifully crafted footage to symbolise the creation of the world, including shots of waterfalls, volcanoes, and I'm sorry...Dinosaurs(?!)...There is a feebly concocted jagged story of a father (played by Brad Pitt) and his family. While some of the arbitrarily selected snippets showed a boy's struggle growing up, it's a pretty weak collection of memories for the boy to grow up to be so morose and tormented. The boy grows up to look remarkably like Sean Penn, which makes no sense because there's really no reason for him to be in the movie. Oh right...so that they could put his name on the poster.
If, somehow, you're able to see past the arbitrary randomness to the symbolic abstractions, this distorted metaphor for "The Tree of Life" is a visually stunning, cinematically perplexing experience.
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: I loved the way Mike Ward from Richmond.com finished off his review of the movie:
"I admire “The Tree of Life” – in the same way I admire the white-haired lady in the “Guinness Book of World Records” with 28-foot fingernails. By the way, after “The Tree of Life,” you’ll probably have to cut your nails, just saying."
OK. I get it. The world is like a tree. And like a tree, it grows and spreads, and splits, and blossoms. Our lives too, reflect that. But in all that imagery and symbolism and beauty and awe, there needs to be some sense of cohesion, flow, and continuity. Somewhere. Anywhere.
Terrence Malick starts the movie off with random shots of the past, the present, and the future with some awe inspiring shots of absolute magnificence that is so randomly perplexing that while some might call it cinematic poetry, I can only describe as a convoluted collection of photographic genius that left me to wonder if this was some randomised National Geographic footage. All that was missing was the Alexander Scourby narration (although I guess these days, it would probably be done by Morgan Freeman. Haha).
Aside from the first 40 minutes where Malick tries to randomly select beautifully crafted footage to symbolise the creation of the world, including shots of waterfalls, volcanoes, and I'm sorry...Dinosaurs(?!)...There is a feebly concocted jagged story of a father (played by Brad Pitt) and his family. While some of the arbitrarily selected snippets showed a boy's struggle growing up, it's a pretty weak collection of memories for the boy to grow up to be so morose and tormented. The boy grows up to look remarkably like Sean Penn, which makes no sense because there's really no reason for him to be in the movie. Oh right...so that they could put his name on the poster.
If, somehow, you're able to see past the arbitrary randomness to the symbolic abstractions, this distorted metaphor for "The Tree of Life" is a visually stunning, cinematically perplexing experience.
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: I loved the way Mike Ward from Richmond.com finished off his review of the movie:
"I admire “The Tree of Life” – in the same way I admire the white-haired lady in the “Guinness Book of World Records” with 28-foot fingernails. By the way, after “The Tree of Life,” you’ll probably have to cut your nails, just saying."
Saturday, 18 June 2011
Movie: Green Lantern (2011)
Rating: C+
Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.
Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.
As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.
To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.
Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....
Seriously, I'm getting a little tired of movies meandering in mediocrity this year. I've yet to see a single film this year that's blown me away. 2010 was a Smörgåsbord of absolutely brilliant films. Green Lantern, continues this trend of pedestrian product.
Green Lantern is JUST funny enough, JUST presentable enough, JUST entertaining enough, JUST...well...I think you know what I'm getting at. It's a good thing they cast Ryan Reynolds in the lead role, otherwise, I fear this movie would have just fallen flat. I mean, just when I was starting to think that Blake Lively could act (See The Town), she goes back gives a performance that is JUST noticeable enough.
As with X-Men: First Class, and Thor earlier this year, the introduction of the movie takes too long. They don't really have much of a choice, they're trying to introduce everybody and trying to set up the situation, but the movie is (thankfully) only 105 minutes long, but the introduction is unfortunately, too long, too tedious, and too tiresome. It does seem however, that there will be a sequel. If that's the case, I think that they will do a better job of it all. Less flying back and forth between planets and less trying to figure out who I am moments.
To summarise, it's JUST watchable enough.
Just a few more personal thoughts after the Jump....
Friday, 17 June 2011
Movie: Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011)
Rating: A-
Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.
The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.
I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.
Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!
Too many sequels are money mongering excuses to build a franchise, that just regurgitate the same story in a different setting (ie, The Hangover Part 2). Kung Fu Panda 2 is among the select few sequels that might actually be better than its first installment.
The story, while nothing new, is compelling enough to be retold. The jokes actually have some thought put in to them and fitting for all ages. The star studded voice cast did an admirable job.While I would have liked to have seen the supporting cast be more involved, the story would have been far too complex to properly use ALL of them.
I loved the artwork when they were talking about the past, in particular, Po's little stuffed toy. Very adorable. It's great to see them use a different art style to differentiate what is now and what was THEN.
Is it twice the awesomeness as advertised? Yes it is!
Wednesday, 15 June 2011
Movie: Phoebe in Wonderland (2008)
Rating: B
Watching Super 8 yesterday and seeing how far Elle Fanning has come, really made me think of the first time I noticed this young actress. For one, she's Dakota Fanning's younger sister, and for another, she's a fantastically gifted young actress in her own right.
To be quite honest, some of the 'extra' characters kind of put me off of this movie. And when you watch it, you'll know what 'extra' characters I mean. I found them to be pretty annoying and I think that's why critically, it wasn't extremely well received. But if you put those characters aside, the movie was very touching, and in the end, very delightful.
In particular, Elle's portrayal as young Phoebe was particularly breathtaking. Watching her struggle with the little idiosyncrasies that made her so different was both depressing and heart warming. It totally helps that you have such acclaimed actors in Felicity Huffman and Bill Pullman playing Phoebe's parents. Their warmth, their struggles, and their love really made this movie believable; and perhaps more importantly, made the audience care.
~Cheers.
Watching Super 8 yesterday and seeing how far Elle Fanning has come, really made me think of the first time I noticed this young actress. For one, she's Dakota Fanning's younger sister, and for another, she's a fantastically gifted young actress in her own right.
To be quite honest, some of the 'extra' characters kind of put me off of this movie. And when you watch it, you'll know what 'extra' characters I mean. I found them to be pretty annoying and I think that's why critically, it wasn't extremely well received. But if you put those characters aside, the movie was very touching, and in the end, very delightful.
In particular, Elle's portrayal as young Phoebe was particularly breathtaking. Watching her struggle with the little idiosyncrasies that made her so different was both depressing and heart warming. It totally helps that you have such acclaimed actors in Felicity Huffman and Bill Pullman playing Phoebe's parents. Their warmth, their struggles, and their love really made this movie believable; and perhaps more importantly, made the audience care.
~Cheers.
Monday, 13 June 2011
Movie: Super 8 (2011)
Rating: B
From the director that brought you Alias, Lost, and Fringe; the director that totally, and single-handedly revitalised the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams brings mystery, suspense, and sublime terror to Super 8.
The younger sister best known for playing the younger version of her older sister, I was first impressed with Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland. And again, she totally shines in this movie. Any scene that she's in, you simply could not keep your eyes off of her.
The story line was too ambitious. And sometimes I think that's what happens when you're used to directing TV. There are episodes in a TV series, and generally you can space it out in 20 hours of broadcast material. In a movie, you have to shrink all that in to 2 hours. And by trying to cram so much into a 2 hour film, you end up with holes and unanswered questions that could have been avoided if they had simply not tried to do so much.
So while there are obvious holes in this movie, Abrams brings you back to the rural innocence of 1979, and taking a page out of Spielberg's ET in a film that makes you care about the characters while continuously building up the suspense around the cargo from the train wreck. Some call it suspension of disbelief, but I think in this case, it's more abandonment of logic. That being said, the kids were definitely the saving grace of this movie. And despite these flaws, Super 8 is still one of the best movies released this year so far.
~Cheers.
From the director that brought you Alias, Lost, and Fringe; the director that totally, and single-handedly revitalised the Star Trek franchise, J.J. Abrams brings mystery, suspense, and sublime terror to Super 8.
The younger sister best known for playing the younger version of her older sister, I was first impressed with Elle Fanning in Phoebe in Wonderland. And again, she totally shines in this movie. Any scene that she's in, you simply could not keep your eyes off of her.
The story line was too ambitious. And sometimes I think that's what happens when you're used to directing TV. There are episodes in a TV series, and generally you can space it out in 20 hours of broadcast material. In a movie, you have to shrink all that in to 2 hours. And by trying to cram so much into a 2 hour film, you end up with holes and unanswered questions that could have been avoided if they had simply not tried to do so much.
So while there are obvious holes in this movie, Abrams brings you back to the rural innocence of 1979, and taking a page out of Spielberg's ET in a film that makes you care about the characters while continuously building up the suspense around the cargo from the train wreck. Some call it suspension of disbelief, but I think in this case, it's more abandonment of logic. That being said, the kids were definitely the saving grace of this movie. And despite these flaws, Super 8 is still one of the best movies released this year so far.
~Cheers.
Saturday, 11 June 2011
Critique: Blue-Ray 3D
Rating: F
Last month, Blockbuster's Canadian Unit filed for bankruptcy protection. With news that Blockbuster would be closing a handful of stores, I went to see if there were any good deals to be had. I saw a copy of Tron: Legacy for Blue-Ray 3D and thought about picking it up. But taking a look at the package, I decided to put it down.
To watch the movie in 3D you need:
- A 3D TV
- 3D Glasses
- 3D Player
- 3D Disc
Really?! Are you kidding me?! While I understand the need for all of these components, I am NOT shelling out for a new TV, at LEAST 2 pairs of 3D glasses, AND a 3D friendly Blue-Ray Player JUST so I can watch a movie. And anyone foolish enough to do so really needs their head examined.
A 3D TV (46")costs roughly $2,500. A pair of 3D glasses will run (depending on which pair you buy) about $150. Each. Unless you plan on watching movies alone, you'll need at least 2 pairs, so that's $300. A Playstation3 console is probably the best value you'll get for a 3D capable player, and that will cost another $300. So before you even consider watching a movie in 3D, you've already spent $3,500.
Watching a movie in 3D at the local cinema will run you roughly $15. Even if you're paying for your date, that will run you $30. You can enjoy over 100 movies in 3D and still be less expensive than BUYING all these components.
OK, fine. You've got a family of 4 and you'd like to watch these 3D movies in the comfort of your own home. But think about it, how much available media is there in 3D? Even at the cinema, only select movies are available in 3D. Television programming isn't yet in 3D. Very select titles in games are available in 3D. If you add up all the available 3D media to date, I doubt you will reach 100 titles! And even if you're currently looking for a new TV, you can get a decent HDTV with 1080p for under $1,000 these days.
Oh, and here's the kicker. Toshiba's already showing off a glasses-less 3D TV. Granted, 40"+ is still likely a few years away, but to spend that much money for stop-gap technology? Give me a break!
~Cheers.
Last month, Blockbuster's Canadian Unit filed for bankruptcy protection. With news that Blockbuster would be closing a handful of stores, I went to see if there were any good deals to be had. I saw a copy of Tron: Legacy for Blue-Ray 3D and thought about picking it up. But taking a look at the package, I decided to put it down.
To watch the movie in 3D you need:
- A 3D TV
- 3D Glasses
- 3D Player
- 3D Disc
Really?! Are you kidding me?! While I understand the need for all of these components, I am NOT shelling out for a new TV, at LEAST 2 pairs of 3D glasses, AND a 3D friendly Blue-Ray Player JUST so I can watch a movie. And anyone foolish enough to do so really needs their head examined.
A 3D TV (46")costs roughly $2,500. A pair of 3D glasses will run (depending on which pair you buy) about $150. Each. Unless you plan on watching movies alone, you'll need at least 2 pairs, so that's $300. A Playstation3 console is probably the best value you'll get for a 3D capable player, and that will cost another $300. So before you even consider watching a movie in 3D, you've already spent $3,500.
Watching a movie in 3D at the local cinema will run you roughly $15. Even if you're paying for your date, that will run you $30. You can enjoy over 100 movies in 3D and still be less expensive than BUYING all these components.
OK, fine. You've got a family of 4 and you'd like to watch these 3D movies in the comfort of your own home. But think about it, how much available media is there in 3D? Even at the cinema, only select movies are available in 3D. Television programming isn't yet in 3D. Very select titles in games are available in 3D. If you add up all the available 3D media to date, I doubt you will reach 100 titles! And even if you're currently looking for a new TV, you can get a decent HDTV with 1080p for under $1,000 these days.
Oh, and here's the kicker. Toshiba's already showing off a glasses-less 3D TV. Granted, 40"+ is still likely a few years away, but to spend that much money for stop-gap technology? Give me a break!
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 7 June 2011
Blogger's Note: 3000 Page Views...
It's only been a little over a month and y'all have helped me make this little blog hit another 1,000 page views! Thanks so much! We're actually well over 3,100 now, but I only noticed this morning. It means a lot to me that you come visit this little blog of mine, which is why I've been giving a little thank you gift to the first person to comment after every 1,000 page views. By the way, no one has claimed the 3000th page view token of appreciation yet! Be the first to comment on THIS post, and I'll make sure you get a little thank from me to you.
As promised, I'm going to keep this going for a while yet. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 4,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude. I really do appreciate the support all of you have given me over the past few months. Hopefully I'll be able to keep this going. I said at the beginning of this year, that I was going to try to post 100 entries this year. I've got 37 so far, I need to hit 50 by the end of the month. That's pretty good I think right? =)~
Anyway, thanks for the continued support. And don't forget to help me spread the love! =)~
~Cheers.
As promised, I'm going to keep this going for a while yet. Again, same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 4,000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude. I really do appreciate the support all of you have given me over the past few months. Hopefully I'll be able to keep this going. I said at the beginning of this year, that I was going to try to post 100 entries this year. I've got 37 so far, I need to hit 50 by the end of the month. That's pretty good I think right? =)~
Anyway, thanks for the continued support. And don't forget to help me spread the love! =)~
~Cheers.
Movie: The Hangover Part II (2011)
Rating: C
Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).
I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~
The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.
Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.
But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?
~Cheers.
Talking with some friends after watching the movie, I dropped the score for The Hangover Part II from a B-, down to a C. While it was mildly entertaining, and it certainly had its moments of hilarity, from what they told me of the first one, this sequel is simply a lazy derivative of the first movie. If I were in to that, I'd probably go read myself a few more John Grisham novels (or watch the movies).
I just don't get Zach Galifianakis. I don't understand why anyone thinks he's funny and I don't understand why he's famous. It's like watching Jar Jar Binks but with different names. Yes, I do find him THAT annoying. Thankfully, this movie has Jamie Chung (she can be my ChiChi anyday...HAHAHA). There really wasn't a reason to bring her up, she's just cute enough to deserve a nod. =)~
The first rendition of The Hangover (2009) was original and innovative in concept; turning an alcohol imbibing, drug inducing hangover that forces the members of "The Wolfpack" to re-trace their steps to figure out what happened. But to follow the same formula all over again, that's just lazy. And even though I haven't watched the first one, The Hangover Part II was only mildly entertaining.
Set in Bangkok, The Hangover Part II seems more of a comedy noire than a comedy. While it has its moments, I found most of the jokes to be low brow, slapstick humour that simply plays on the stereotypes of Thailand. And while some of the footage was quite beautiful, it's pretty hard to mess up the naturally beautiful scenes of the country.
But how do you not watch a movie that features a smoking monkey?
~Cheers.
Saturday, 4 June 2011
Movie: X-Men: First Class (2011)
Rating: B
After a couple of abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and absolutely appalling sequels following a fairly inspired X-Men in 2000, X-Men: First Class is a much appreciated reboot...or pre-boot(?)...that's ambitious, smart, and surprisingly entertaining.
Kevin Bacon? Really?! I can't remember the last memorable role that he was in. Well...Footloose maybe? Haha. And yet, he seems to keep popping up everywhere. OK. Seriously. This movie is really about how Professor Xavier's relationship with Magneto. For the fans out there of the comic series, this prequel really doesn't follow the same story lines. That being said, it more than adequately addresses the beginnings of their relationship, their bond, and their struggles.
Using snippets of actual history, including actual footage of President Kennedy, X-Men: First Class does enough with actual events to make this movie pretty real. But one thing totally threw me off. The appearance of Brendan Fehr. No lines, not even a name! In the credits, they name him "Communications Officer". I tried looking it up, but I haven't been able to find any answers as to the reason he's nothing more than an extra in this film.
That being said, the film is great. It takes a little while to get started, and it does have a couple of slow spots, but other than that, it is fairly well thought out. There are also some brilliantly placed cameos and hints about the origins of some future X-Men characters.
*Ed.Note: There isn't anything to stay for after the credits. Forgot to include that.
~Cheers.
After a couple of abhorrent, abominable, atrocious, and absolutely appalling sequels following a fairly inspired X-Men in 2000, X-Men: First Class is a much appreciated reboot...or pre-boot(?)...that's ambitious, smart, and surprisingly entertaining.
Kevin Bacon? Really?! I can't remember the last memorable role that he was in. Well...Footloose maybe? Haha. And yet, he seems to keep popping up everywhere. OK. Seriously. This movie is really about how Professor Xavier's relationship with Magneto. For the fans out there of the comic series, this prequel really doesn't follow the same story lines. That being said, it more than adequately addresses the beginnings of their relationship, their bond, and their struggles.
Using snippets of actual history, including actual footage of President Kennedy, X-Men: First Class does enough with actual events to make this movie pretty real. But one thing totally threw me off. The appearance of Brendan Fehr. No lines, not even a name! In the credits, they name him "Communications Officer". I tried looking it up, but I haven't been able to find any answers as to the reason he's nothing more than an extra in this film.
That being said, the film is great. It takes a little while to get started, and it does have a couple of slow spots, but other than that, it is fairly well thought out. There are also some brilliantly placed cameos and hints about the origins of some future X-Men characters.
*Ed.Note: There isn't anything to stay for after the credits. Forgot to include that.
~Cheers.
Monday, 30 May 2011
Movie: Conviction (2010)
Rating: B-
There isn't a lot that's more touching or inspiring at the lengths that family members will go to for each other. In this movie, based on real life events, tells the story of how a sister, who is also a working mom; spends18 years, to pass high school, college, and law school, to prove her brother's innocence, because no one else would.
Sam Rockwell has been around for quite a long time, but I've never found that he was memorable in any of them. He does however, do an admirable job of protraying Kenny Waters, an innocent man sentenced to life imprisonment. Playing a young man who gets arrested to a middle aged convict who is finally exonerated, Rockwell's portrayal I think was quite spot on. I did however, find Hilary Swank's depiction of Betty Anne Waters to be a little mechanical. Just slightly.
It's a great story, and truly inspirational, but when you have such a stellar cast that has such pedigree, you have to wonder if perhaps, it's the director Tony Goldwyn that's holding this movie back from greatness. To be quite honest, the whole film plays like a TV movie; but who's to say that a TV movie can't be good right? Who knew that it would be the annoying little antagonist from Iron Man 2 that truly holds this movie together. Huh.
~Cheers.
There isn't a lot that's more touching or inspiring at the lengths that family members will go to for each other. In this movie, based on real life events, tells the story of how a sister, who is also a working mom; spends18 years, to pass high school, college, and law school, to prove her brother's innocence, because no one else would.
Sam Rockwell has been around for quite a long time, but I've never found that he was memorable in any of them. He does however, do an admirable job of protraying Kenny Waters, an innocent man sentenced to life imprisonment. Playing a young man who gets arrested to a middle aged convict who is finally exonerated, Rockwell's portrayal I think was quite spot on. I did however, find Hilary Swank's depiction of Betty Anne Waters to be a little mechanical. Just slightly.
It's a great story, and truly inspirational, but when you have such a stellar cast that has such pedigree, you have to wonder if perhaps, it's the director Tony Goldwyn that's holding this movie back from greatness. To be quite honest, the whole film plays like a TV movie; but who's to say that a TV movie can't be good right? Who knew that it would be the annoying little antagonist from Iron Man 2 that truly holds this movie together. Huh.
~Cheers.
Friday, 27 May 2011
Movie: The Mechanic (2011)
Rating: C+
I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to remake a Charles Bronson movie. Thankfully, the 2010 version of The Mechanic is much improved with Jason Statham playing the lead role of Arthur Bishop.
In the simplest of terms, one word summarizes this movie. Gratuitous. The sex scenes, the bullets used, the stunts performed; were all applied generously throughout the movie. In the trailer, he said that his jobs sometimes need to look like accidents. It made me think of a movie from Hong Kong called, 意外 (Accidents) that came out a few years ago. And I kind of wish they made more of the assignments look like accidents. There was little subtlety in this movie and it made the movie a little bit obvious.
Jason Statham is perfect for this role. He does most (if not all) of his own stunts, can actually fight, and looks completely at ease doing it. Ben Foster on the other hand, reminded me a little too much of this Stand Up Comic with Cerebral Palsy I've seen called Josh Blue. It also seems to me that Donald Sutherland is getting lazy. He still gets his title credits, but the amount of time he spends on the screen is getting shorter and shorter. And it's a bit of a waste to cast such a powerhouse to play little more than an extended cameo. They also need an entirely new role for Tony Goldwyn, or just stop casting him. The second he shows up, you know he's going to end up being the bad guy. But.... With Mini Anden sashaying across the screen with those swaying hips, totally makes up for everything. Haha.
The stunts are over-the-top, explosive, and fairly original. The interplay between Statham and Foster is credible, and despite a couple of holes in the story, is a fairly solid action movie.
~Cheers.
I'm not sure why anyone would ever want to remake a Charles Bronson movie. Thankfully, the 2010 version of The Mechanic is much improved with Jason Statham playing the lead role of Arthur Bishop.
In the simplest of terms, one word summarizes this movie. Gratuitous. The sex scenes, the bullets used, the stunts performed; were all applied generously throughout the movie. In the trailer, he said that his jobs sometimes need to look like accidents. It made me think of a movie from Hong Kong called, 意外 (Accidents) that came out a few years ago. And I kind of wish they made more of the assignments look like accidents. There was little subtlety in this movie and it made the movie a little bit obvious.
Jason Statham is perfect for this role. He does most (if not all) of his own stunts, can actually fight, and looks completely at ease doing it. Ben Foster on the other hand, reminded me a little too much of this Stand Up Comic with Cerebral Palsy I've seen called Josh Blue. It also seems to me that Donald Sutherland is getting lazy. He still gets his title credits, but the amount of time he spends on the screen is getting shorter and shorter. And it's a bit of a waste to cast such a powerhouse to play little more than an extended cameo. They also need an entirely new role for Tony Goldwyn, or just stop casting him. The second he shows up, you know he's going to end up being the bad guy. But.... With Mini Anden sashaying across the screen with those swaying hips, totally makes up for everything. Haha.
The stunts are over-the-top, explosive, and fairly original. The interplay between Statham and Foster is credible, and despite a couple of holes in the story, is a fairly solid action movie.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Movie: Predators (2010)
Rating: C
After the past few attempts of futility at trying to keep the Predator franchise alive, I didn't think that I'd have anything good to say about this rendition. Let's not kid ourselves, it's still a Predator movie and you're only watching it for one reason. And for that, Nimrod Antal does an admirable job.
Sometimes I wonder if Danny Trejo would find work without Robert Rodriguez. Sorry... A little non sequitur perhaps, but a random thought from this movie. Haha. Anyway, it's a little hard to get over some of the choice of actors; in particular, Adrien Brody as a Merc, but if you get over that, get over the gutteral cliche one liners and stop trying to make sense of the whole thing, Predators does have its moments.
For one, I never figured Alice Braga to be a military woman, but she's actually a pleasant surprise in this role. For another, the story does attempt to throw you a few surprises. And for a few fleeting moments, you get Lawrence Fishburne. Why? I have no idea. But there he is. Haha. It has its share of gun fights and fight scenes, trying not to be too repetitive, but let's face it. It's got nothing on the original.
~Cheers.
After the past few attempts of futility at trying to keep the Predator franchise alive, I didn't think that I'd have anything good to say about this rendition. Let's not kid ourselves, it's still a Predator movie and you're only watching it for one reason. And for that, Nimrod Antal does an admirable job.
Sometimes I wonder if Danny Trejo would find work without Robert Rodriguez. Sorry... A little non sequitur perhaps, but a random thought from this movie. Haha. Anyway, it's a little hard to get over some of the choice of actors; in particular, Adrien Brody as a Merc, but if you get over that, get over the gutteral cliche one liners and stop trying to make sense of the whole thing, Predators does have its moments.
For one, I never figured Alice Braga to be a military woman, but she's actually a pleasant surprise in this role. For another, the story does attempt to throw you a few surprises. And for a few fleeting moments, you get Lawrence Fishburne. Why? I have no idea. But there he is. Haha. It has its share of gun fights and fight scenes, trying not to be too repetitive, but let's face it. It's got nothing on the original.
~Cheers.
Monday, 23 May 2011
Movie: Pirates Of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides (2011)
Rating: C
Let's face it. Johnny Depp's portrayal of Jack Sparrow is the ONLY reason why this franchise is still breathing. If you've followed the franchise, you'll have come to not expect a whole lot. Without expecting a whole lot, On Stranger Tides, is surprisingly not bad.
While Jack Sparrow is the only reason why this franchise still breathes life, we've seen too much of the character for him to be the primary and only focus of this movie. And while Keira Knightley and that elf from that other film (no, his name does not escape me) don't reprise their roles in this chapter, there are enough characters to keep Jack Sparrow interesting.
The movie is a little long, and some of the scenes seem like they were half-arsed together. But if you just sit back and enjoy the alcohol induced slurred verbage (verbal garblety goop) that finds its way out of Jack Sparrow's mouth and the off balanced fight scenes, you don't really notice that this movie was made to pad certain wallets.
And yes, fans of the franchise, stick around for after the credits.
~Cheers.
Let's face it. Johnny Depp's portrayal of Jack Sparrow is the ONLY reason why this franchise is still breathing. If you've followed the franchise, you'll have come to not expect a whole lot. Without expecting a whole lot, On Stranger Tides, is surprisingly not bad.
While Jack Sparrow is the only reason why this franchise still breathes life, we've seen too much of the character for him to be the primary and only focus of this movie. And while Keira Knightley and that elf from that other film (no, his name does not escape me) don't reprise their roles in this chapter, there are enough characters to keep Jack Sparrow interesting.
The movie is a little long, and some of the scenes seem like they were half-arsed together. But if you just sit back and enjoy the alcohol induced slurred verbage (verbal garblety goop) that finds its way out of Jack Sparrow's mouth and the off balanced fight scenes, you don't really notice that this movie was made to pad certain wallets.
And yes, fans of the franchise, stick around for after the credits.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 19 May 2011
TV Series: Smallville - Series Finale (Season 10)
Rating: B+
Let's not kid ourselves. CW's Smallville was never really meant to be taken seriously. It started off as a tween show to talk about the youth of Clark Kent; his life before he became Superman. Over the years, it became almost too lovey dovey to watch, his relationship first with Lana Lang, and then with Lois Lane. It was a directionless show gasping for life. At some point in time, the series shifted and started moving towards "The Justice League" and in my opinion, totally saved the series from gasping from its last dying breath. But the series is called Smallville; so how the heck do you migrate from one to the other?
OK, so the clip above isn't the actual promo, but quite honestly, I felt it was better than what the CW had put together. Haha. The writers told us years ago that Clark Kent would not fly, that the day he did, the show would be over. They stayed true to their word.
The series finale was perfect. So why did I only give it a B+? Because after 10 years, these guys still can't act. Because after 10 years, the script is still saccharine filled. Because defeating Darkseid... was totally anti-climactic.
But there were throwback scenes to the original Christopher Reeve 1978 Superman, if they were to remaster that movie, this 10 year series would have been an excellent introduction. Towards the end of the series, they started showing why and how "Clark Kent" from Smallville, became the four-eyed "Clark Kent" from the movies. They miraculously brought back Lex Luthor. They found a way to let Clark become Superman.
It's not the comics. And they change much of what DC Universe has taught us about Superman and his friends. But between the Golden Age, and the Bronze Age, and Earth 2 and Earth blah blah blah, does it really matter any more? But if you were a fan of Christopher Reeve's Superman from 1978, this series finale merges almost seamlessly into the movie. Almost.
~Cheers.
Let's not kid ourselves. CW's Smallville was never really meant to be taken seriously. It started off as a tween show to talk about the youth of Clark Kent; his life before he became Superman. Over the years, it became almost too lovey dovey to watch, his relationship first with Lana Lang, and then with Lois Lane. It was a directionless show gasping for life. At some point in time, the series shifted and started moving towards "The Justice League" and in my opinion, totally saved the series from gasping from its last dying breath. But the series is called Smallville; so how the heck do you migrate from one to the other?
OK, so the clip above isn't the actual promo, but quite honestly, I felt it was better than what the CW had put together. Haha. The writers told us years ago that Clark Kent would not fly, that the day he did, the show would be over. They stayed true to their word.
The series finale was perfect. So why did I only give it a B+? Because after 10 years, these guys still can't act. Because after 10 years, the script is still saccharine filled. Because defeating Darkseid... was totally anti-climactic.
But there were throwback scenes to the original Christopher Reeve 1978 Superman, if they were to remaster that movie, this 10 year series would have been an excellent introduction. Towards the end of the series, they started showing why and how "Clark Kent" from Smallville, became the four-eyed "Clark Kent" from the movies. They miraculously brought back Lex Luthor. They found a way to let Clark become Superman.
It's not the comics. And they change much of what DC Universe has taught us about Superman and his friends. But between the Golden Age, and the Bronze Age, and Earth 2 and Earth blah blah blah, does it really matter any more? But if you were a fan of Christopher Reeve's Superman from 1978, this series finale merges almost seamlessly into the movie. Almost.
~Cheers.
Monday, 16 May 2011
Movie: Priest (2011)
Rating: F
I'm trying desperately to find a redeemable quality to Scott Charles Stewart's Priest, which is entirely too loosely based off of a Korean Graphic Novel of the same name. Oh! It was in 3D! Does that count?
A total waste of talent to cast Paul Bettany in this movie. While Priest had some nice high-production scenes and cool editing and effects, this movie could have been made with a cast of nobodies. The plot was a long drawn out cliche. The script was worse. And this mish mash of horror movie / post-apocalyptic / sci-fi / vampire / religious drivel just simply ended up being that. Drivel.
I'm STILL trying to find SOME redeeming quality to this movie. There simply isn't. And the end of the movie implies that there might be a sequel? Are you kidding me?!
~Cheers.
I'm trying desperately to find a redeemable quality to Scott Charles Stewart's Priest, which is entirely too loosely based off of a Korean Graphic Novel of the same name. Oh! It was in 3D! Does that count?
A total waste of talent to cast Paul Bettany in this movie. While Priest had some nice high-production scenes and cool editing and effects, this movie could have been made with a cast of nobodies. The plot was a long drawn out cliche. The script was worse. And this mish mash of horror movie / post-apocalyptic / sci-fi / vampire / religious drivel just simply ended up being that. Drivel.
I'm STILL trying to find SOME redeeming quality to this movie. There simply isn't. And the end of the movie implies that there might be a sequel? Are you kidding me?!
~Cheers.
Saturday, 14 May 2011
Restaurant: Czehoski
At some point in time, they Czehoski must have changed hands because last I heard, this place was pricey and not entirely worth it. But with the most expensive entree priced at $23. How is that overpriced?
Ambiance: 3.5 / 5
Cleanliness: 3.5 / 5
Service: 4 / 5
Taste: 3 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Price: $$
Overall: 4 / 5
A 3 floor restaurant / bar with a nice bohemian feel and a stage for live music. It's got a well stocked bar, and guess what... That third floor? Rooftop patio! Definitely a place I'm going to have to try and hit this summer.
The first thing we ordered were the onion rings. I only had my mobile with me and I'm certainly no photographer. But these rings are the best I can remember. Nice, big, juicy, plump rings of onions covered with light, fluffy, batter with the smallest kick. Very yum.
Then the entrees came. My friend ordered Pork Belly over Lentils/Tomatoes. It's not the lightest of fares, but it's pork belly. Which means the meat is nice and juicy and tender (partly because it's moist with belly fat. Haha). The lentils do have a bit of a kick, but you can ask for mild if you're not a fan.
I actually ordered their Mac & Cheese. Topped with slices of Chorizo, I found it a touch milky for my taste, but at $14.95, it's certainly no Kraft Dinner. Aside from the Onion rings, I wasn't particularly blown away by the food. But the ambiance is nice, with that old world feel, and retains a little bit of its original Butcher shop / Kalbasa store feel. The service is friendly, and the food is decent.
Czehoski
678 Queen St. W
Toronto, ON
M6J 1E5
416-366-6787
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: Found a nice little story in blogto about this place from the daughter of the original owners (please read after the jump).
Ambiance: 3.5 / 5
Cleanliness: 3.5 / 5
Service: 4 / 5
Taste: 3 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Price: $$
Overall: 4 / 5
A 3 floor restaurant / bar with a nice bohemian feel and a stage for live music. It's got a well stocked bar, and guess what... That third floor? Rooftop patio! Definitely a place I'm going to have to try and hit this summer.
The first thing we ordered were the onion rings. I only had my mobile with me and I'm certainly no photographer. But these rings are the best I can remember. Nice, big, juicy, plump rings of onions covered with light, fluffy, batter with the smallest kick. Very yum.
Then the entrees came. My friend ordered Pork Belly over Lentils/Tomatoes. It's not the lightest of fares, but it's pork belly. Which means the meat is nice and juicy and tender (partly because it's moist with belly fat. Haha). The lentils do have a bit of a kick, but you can ask for mild if you're not a fan.
I actually ordered their Mac & Cheese. Topped with slices of Chorizo, I found it a touch milky for my taste, but at $14.95, it's certainly no Kraft Dinner. Aside from the Onion rings, I wasn't particularly blown away by the food. But the ambiance is nice, with that old world feel, and retains a little bit of its original Butcher shop / Kalbasa store feel. The service is friendly, and the food is decent.
Czehoski
678 Queen St. W
Toronto, ON
M6J 1E5
416-366-6787
~Cheers.
Blogger's Note: Found a nice little story in blogto about this place from the daughter of the original owners (please read after the jump).
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Movie: Thor (2011)
Rating: C+
You gotta hand it to Marvel for having the patience and drive in order to bring The Avengers to the big screen for 2012 (scheduled). It seems that every character that will be in The Avengers, will have their own introductory movie previous to The Avengers release date.
I know that Marvel Mythology isn't entirely parallel with Greek Mythology, but the role of Loki threw me for a loop. In Greek Mythology, Loki is the God of Mischief. He's not evil, he's just mischievous (which does tend to mean that he does bad things). But Marvel portrays him as evil. Anyway. The effects and the visuals of the movie are stunning. But I didn't really feel the connection between Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth.
Dealing with Marvel means that you have the wealth of decades of material, so much so that trying to stuff it all down 2 hours, just doesn't do it justice. While I thought that they made a valiant attempt, I felt that the story was too rushed. The relationship between Thor and Loki seems glossed over. The relationship between Thor and Jane Foster forms in the blink of an eye. Even Thor's return to Odin's favour almost seems too easy.
But, let's not forget WHY we're watching it. We want the back-story leading up to The Avengers. And this is a valiant effort into the introduction of Thor. So far, in the whole Avengers saga, there have been reason to sit through the credits. This one is no different. You want justification for sitting around until the credits are done? I'll simply say that you find out who will be in next year's Avengers.
~Cheers.
You gotta hand it to Marvel for having the patience and drive in order to bring The Avengers to the big screen for 2012 (scheduled). It seems that every character that will be in The Avengers, will have their own introductory movie previous to The Avengers release date.
I know that Marvel Mythology isn't entirely parallel with Greek Mythology, but the role of Loki threw me for a loop. In Greek Mythology, Loki is the God of Mischief. He's not evil, he's just mischievous (which does tend to mean that he does bad things). But Marvel portrays him as evil. Anyway. The effects and the visuals of the movie are stunning. But I didn't really feel the connection between Natalie Portman and Chris Hemsworth.
Dealing with Marvel means that you have the wealth of decades of material, so much so that trying to stuff it all down 2 hours, just doesn't do it justice. While I thought that they made a valiant attempt, I felt that the story was too rushed. The relationship between Thor and Loki seems glossed over. The relationship between Thor and Jane Foster forms in the blink of an eye. Even Thor's return to Odin's favour almost seems too easy.
But, let's not forget WHY we're watching it. We want the back-story leading up to The Avengers. And this is a valiant effort into the introduction of Thor. So far, in the whole Avengers saga, there have been reason to sit through the credits. This one is no different. You want justification for sitting around until the credits are done? I'll simply say that you find out who will be in next year's Avengers.
~Cheers.
Monday, 9 May 2011
Product: Motorola Xoom
Design: 4 / 5
Sound Quality: NA / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Operating System: 3 / 5
Available Software: 2 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
MSRP: $599.99 (CAD)
Overall: 2 / 5
The toys you can get your grubby hands on when you know people that know people that know other people that know the right people that can introduce the appropriate people. And when all of those people happen to have exactly the same toy you want? Priceless. =)~
I think that if I had played with this Android powered device BEFORE I played with the Playbook, I'd probably enjoy it a bit more. Unfortunately The Playbook's UI is infinitely more user friendly and more intuitive. You simply waste too much time trying to get everywhere and out of everywhere. Oh, and then there's the power button, which is BEHIND the machine; while the inconvenience isn't insurmountable, it's an inconvenience nonetheless. For me however, it's about efficiency, and all this is just a little too counterproductive.
When it comes to the apps, Xoom has the benefit of the entire Android catalogue at its disposal. Unfortunately, the ones that I played with (including Angry Birds), doesn't seem optimised for a tablet. On top of that, at 10", the device is significantly larger than the Playbook, which is great if you're using it on a table or at home, but mobility is the point isn't it?
Again, I can see the potential for this device too....But for my money, I gotta go with the device that's more intuitive, more efficient, and more mobile.
~Cheers
Sound Quality: NA / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Operating System: 3 / 5
Available Software: 2 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
MSRP: $599.99 (CAD)
Overall: 2 / 5
The toys you can get your grubby hands on when you know people that know people that know other people that know the right people that can introduce the appropriate people. And when all of those people happen to have exactly the same toy you want? Priceless. =)~
I think that if I had played with this Android powered device BEFORE I played with the Playbook, I'd probably enjoy it a bit more. Unfortunately The Playbook's UI is infinitely more user friendly and more intuitive. You simply waste too much time trying to get everywhere and out of everywhere. Oh, and then there's the power button, which is BEHIND the machine; while the inconvenience isn't insurmountable, it's an inconvenience nonetheless. For me however, it's about efficiency, and all this is just a little too counterproductive.
When it comes to the apps, Xoom has the benefit of the entire Android catalogue at its disposal. Unfortunately, the ones that I played with (including Angry Birds), doesn't seem optimised for a tablet. On top of that, at 10", the device is significantly larger than the Playbook, which is great if you're using it on a table or at home, but mobility is the point isn't it?
Again, I can see the potential for this device too....But for my money, I gotta go with the device that's more intuitive, more efficient, and more mobile.
~Cheers
Saturday, 7 May 2011
Movie: The Bang Bang Club (2010)
Rating: C+
(Originally premiered for TIFF 2010, but wide release 2011) Through the news, photos, documentaries, and even movies, we're told time and time again of the destruction, tragedy, and conflict that people get into. Too rarely however, are we told the stories of the people that gave us that footage in the first place.
We've seen many of the Pulitzer winning photos in newspapers, magazines, and classes. But have you ever stopped to think about what the person behind the camera was thinking at the time? Why they took that photo and how they got themselves in to that particular spot at that particular time?
The Bang Bang Club is more of a dramatised documentary than move, but it nonetheless tells the story of a group of 4 young men in South Africa in the years leading up to the 1994 elections that freed South Africa from Apartheid. Because of this, the camera work really takes a while getting used to. And in the beginning, I found it fairly distracting to the film. As the story progressed however, it didn't seem to be as much of a problem. While the movie tells the story about The Bang Bang Club, they gloss over the demons that they fought within themselves. You really have to dig for yourself to get inside the photographers' psyches. But if they'd done that, the movie would have had to have been 4x as long. So while the movie glosses over most situations, it does still does the job in giving you a glimpse of who the photographers were. And I like that they didn't over-dramatise the movie, JUST for effect. It helped to keep the story of these four photographers somewhat authentic.
What remained a problem, is the lacklustre performances from both Ryan Phillippe and Malin Akerman. Oddly, it was Taylor Kitsch that stood out. But if you're a photographer, or a fan of photography, I nevertheless think this movie deserves a once over if for the simple reason to better appreciate the job of those conflict photographers who put their lives in harm's way so that you and I can understand the conflict better.
~Cheers.
(Originally premiered for TIFF 2010, but wide release 2011) Through the news, photos, documentaries, and even movies, we're told time and time again of the destruction, tragedy, and conflict that people get into. Too rarely however, are we told the stories of the people that gave us that footage in the first place.
We've seen many of the Pulitzer winning photos in newspapers, magazines, and classes. But have you ever stopped to think about what the person behind the camera was thinking at the time? Why they took that photo and how they got themselves in to that particular spot at that particular time?
The Bang Bang Club is more of a dramatised documentary than move, but it nonetheless tells the story of a group of 4 young men in South Africa in the years leading up to the 1994 elections that freed South Africa from Apartheid. Because of this, the camera work really takes a while getting used to. And in the beginning, I found it fairly distracting to the film. As the story progressed however, it didn't seem to be as much of a problem. While the movie tells the story about The Bang Bang Club, they gloss over the demons that they fought within themselves. You really have to dig for yourself to get inside the photographers' psyches. But if they'd done that, the movie would have had to have been 4x as long. So while the movie glosses over most situations, it does still does the job in giving you a glimpse of who the photographers were. And I like that they didn't over-dramatise the movie, JUST for effect. It helped to keep the story of these four photographers somewhat authentic.
What remained a problem, is the lacklustre performances from both Ryan Phillippe and Malin Akerman. Oddly, it was Taylor Kitsch that stood out. But if you're a photographer, or a fan of photography, I nevertheless think this movie deserves a once over if for the simple reason to better appreciate the job of those conflict photographers who put their lives in harm's way so that you and I can understand the conflict better.
~Cheers.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Restaurant: Koyoi
Let's face it. Toronto isn't close to any ocean, so it's going to be rare to find a sushi restaurant that REALLY stands out without breaking the bank. But that shouldn't stop us from enjoying yummy, scrumptious Japanese eats! My recent joys? Finding little Izakayas (居酒屋), which generally serves Japanese style tapas.
Ambiance: 2.5 / 5
Cleanliness: 2.5 / 5
Service: 4 / 5
Taste: 4 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Price: $
Overall: 3.5 / 5
You really can't go wrong with a quaint little restaurant that can fill up your belly with yummy tapas for under $20. For a long time now, I've a big fan of おでん (oden) and in particular, 大根 (daikon - radish).
It's only $1.50 a piece and very light in flavour. I could totally eat this all day long. If I remember correctly, the above photo is scene with some fish cake.
Of course, you're not going to JUST eat おでん for dinner. Another item worth noting, is the Koyoi Salad, with some tofu and lettuce, there's also some chips for a bit of crunch too. Nice and light in flavour, I highly recommend this.
The next thing that came was Koyoi's version of お好み焼き (Okonomiyaki), again, one of my favourite dishes. Unfortunately, most places I've tried, can't make this right. Luckily, Koyoi's rendition is quite good. I found them a little heavy on the bonito flakes, but otherwise, still very good.
I was introduced to this little Izakaya a little while ago, and have been back a few ti mes, wanting to try as many of their little tapas as possible, I've been back a few times. The picture above isn't very clear, but at the bottom, it says that only 25 portions of this Tonkotsu Ramen is made starting on Wednesdays. But every single time I go, it's already sold out. Last time, the waitress told me that if I come any later than Thursday, it's likely to be sold out. So I just HAD to know, what is so special about this Ramen? Not only does it cost $13.99 (one of the most expensive things on the menu), but they only have 25 available a week?!
Finally went this past Wednesday so that I could FINALLY try this elusive ramen. Went with a few friends, we each put an order in. And waited while we enjoyed some of their other dishes, and waited while we sipped our tea, and waited while we conversed about how to save the world, and waited, and waited and waited. It took OVER 45 minutes for them to bring out ramen. Seriously?! It only takes about 4minutes to cook a pack of Nissin. I mean, granted, this isn't Nissin, but over 45 minutes?!
OK....45 minutes, this thing better be WORTH the wait, better be WORTH the $13.99.When the ramen finally came, there was one. yes, count it....ONE piece of Tonkotsu. Are you kidding me?! On top of that, there were 5 of us. Each piece of Tonkotsu that was served got progressively SMALLER. Mine was the 2nd bowl!
In their defense, all the money is in their soup. I'm fairly certain that they make one huge pot of soup base each week, chock full of ingredients. Although a bit too oily for my tastes, the soup was very rich and very delicious. But seriously, how much does a single slice of pork cost? I'd rather the ramen cost $14.99 but have 3+ pieces. This just feels like a big rip off.
Koyoi is definitely worth visiting, just stay away from the Tonkotsu ramen. It's not worth $13.99 and definitely not worth waiting over 45 minutes. And to finish, just a couple of other items I've tried.
Koyoi
2 Irwin Ave.
Toronto, Ontario
(647) 351-5128
~Cheers.
Ambiance: 2.5 / 5
Cleanliness: 2.5 / 5
Service: 4 / 5
Taste: 4 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Price: $
Overall: 3.5 / 5
You really can't go wrong with a quaint little restaurant that can fill up your belly with yummy tapas for under $20. For a long time now, I've a big fan of おでん (oden) and in particular, 大根 (daikon - radish).
It's only $1.50 a piece and very light in flavour. I could totally eat this all day long. If I remember correctly, the above photo is scene with some fish cake.
Of course, you're not going to JUST eat おでん for dinner. Another item worth noting, is the Koyoi Salad, with some tofu and lettuce, there's also some chips for a bit of crunch too. Nice and light in flavour, I highly recommend this.
The next thing that came was Koyoi's version of お好み焼き (Okonomiyaki), again, one of my favourite dishes. Unfortunately, most places I've tried, can't make this right. Luckily, Koyoi's rendition is quite good. I found them a little heavy on the bonito flakes, but otherwise, still very good.
I was introduced to this little Izakaya a little while ago, and have been back a few ti mes, wanting to try as many of their little tapas as possible, I've been back a few times. The picture above isn't very clear, but at the bottom, it says that only 25 portions of this Tonkotsu Ramen is made starting on Wednesdays. But every single time I go, it's already sold out. Last time, the waitress told me that if I come any later than Thursday, it's likely to be sold out. So I just HAD to know, what is so special about this Ramen? Not only does it cost $13.99 (one of the most expensive things on the menu), but they only have 25 available a week?!
Finally went this past Wednesday so that I could FINALLY try this elusive ramen. Went with a few friends, we each put an order in. And waited while we enjoyed some of their other dishes, and waited while we sipped our tea, and waited while we conversed about how to save the world, and waited, and waited and waited. It took OVER 45 minutes for them to bring out ramen. Seriously?! It only takes about 4minutes to cook a pack of Nissin. I mean, granted, this isn't Nissin, but over 45 minutes?!
OK....45 minutes, this thing better be WORTH the wait, better be WORTH the $13.99.When the ramen finally came, there was one. yes, count it....ONE piece of Tonkotsu. Are you kidding me?! On top of that, there were 5 of us. Each piece of Tonkotsu that was served got progressively SMALLER. Mine was the 2nd bowl!
In their defense, all the money is in their soup. I'm fairly certain that they make one huge pot of soup base each week, chock full of ingredients. Although a bit too oily for my tastes, the soup was very rich and very delicious. But seriously, how much does a single slice of pork cost? I'd rather the ramen cost $14.99 but have 3+ pieces. This just feels like a big rip off.
Koyoi is definitely worth visiting, just stay away from the Tonkotsu ramen. It's not worth $13.99 and definitely not worth waiting over 45 minutes. And to finish, just a couple of other items I've tried.
 |
| Ankimo (アンキモ) |
 |
| Tsukune (つくね) |
 |
| Black Sesame Ice Cream |
2 Irwin Ave.
Toronto, Ontario
(647) 351-5128
~Cheers.
Product: Blackberry Playbook
Design: 4 / 5
Sound Quality: 4.5 / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Operating System: 3.5 / 5
Available Software: 2 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
MSRP: $499.99 - $699.99 (CAD)
Overall: 4 / 5
I've had the opportunity to play with the Blackberry Playbook for a few days and at first blush, it is indeed quite impressive.
We can go all day about all the different features and whatnot, so I'm going to try to sum quickly some of my likes and dislikes.
Likes:
I love how the Playbook is an extension of your Blackberry. There's an app called Blackberry Bridge, that once synchronised, your phone and your tablet work almost seamlessly. The Playbook's interface is great. It's clean, intuitive, and very functional. The images are clear and crisp, the webpages load quickly, and there is real multi-tasking capability. At 7", it's a great device to hold in one hand, leaving your other hand to navigate, type, and in my case, have a cup of coffee.
Dislikes:
While it's a beautiful device and I want it and crave it and find it completely droolworthy, it is simply not ready. There are too many OS updates, and scarcely any apps. I am fairly confident that all of this will be solved over time, but in the meantime, it isn't doing what I need for it to do. The Playbook is at the moment, is not stable enough, and with every OS update, you have to make accommodations for possible changes in how you've gotten used to using the device. And of course, there's the issue with the power button. I don't think it's a big deal, since the device will go to sleep on it's own, but turning The Playbook off requires you to sharpen your fingernails into a sharp pin.
Overall
I love it. But it's not ready. Even most of the apps that ARE available aren't ready. And the apps that I will require the most (Documents-To-Go） are nothing more that larger versions of the one that's currently on my Blackberry Torch. Given what's available to date, I drool at the potential of this device. The hardware is great. The software is VERY GOOD....but not exceptional....yet.
Sound Quality: 4.5 / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Operating System: 3.5 / 5
Available Software: 2 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
MSRP: $499.99 - $699.99 (CAD)
Overall: 4 / 5
I've had the opportunity to play with the Blackberry Playbook for a few days and at first blush, it is indeed quite impressive.
We can go all day about all the different features and whatnot, so I'm going to try to sum quickly some of my likes and dislikes.
Likes:
I love how the Playbook is an extension of your Blackberry. There's an app called Blackberry Bridge, that once synchronised, your phone and your tablet work almost seamlessly. The Playbook's interface is great. It's clean, intuitive, and very functional. The images are clear and crisp, the webpages load quickly, and there is real multi-tasking capability. At 7", it's a great device to hold in one hand, leaving your other hand to navigate, type, and in my case, have a cup of coffee.
Dislikes:
While it's a beautiful device and I want it and crave it and find it completely droolworthy, it is simply not ready. There are too many OS updates, and scarcely any apps. I am fairly confident that all of this will be solved over time, but in the meantime, it isn't doing what I need for it to do. The Playbook is at the moment, is not stable enough, and with every OS update, you have to make accommodations for possible changes in how you've gotten used to using the device. And of course, there's the issue with the power button. I don't think it's a big deal, since the device will go to sleep on it's own, but turning The Playbook off requires you to sharpen your fingernails into a sharp pin.
Overall
I love it. But it's not ready. Even most of the apps that ARE available aren't ready. And the apps that I will require the most (Documents-To-Go） are nothing more that larger versions of the one that's currently on my Blackberry Torch. Given what's available to date, I drool at the potential of this device. The hardware is great. The software is VERY GOOD....but not exceptional....yet.
Wednesday, 4 May 2011
Critique: Cineplex UltraAVX
(blogger's note: More detailed comparison between IMAX & UltraAVX here)
Cineplex has been advertising their "new conecept" theatres at some of their multiplexes dubbed UltraAVX. But for $14.99 plus tax, I really don't think it's worth the money. You're paying halfway between regular admission ($11.99 plus tax) and IMAX admission ($17.99 plus tax), but really, you're just watching a the same movie on a bigger screen. They boast digital projection and immersive sound, but I don't think it's evident enough for the average viewer to differentiate between the better systems you can get for regular price. It's slightly better...but it's not IMAX.
The only real benefit of UltraAVX is reserved seating. You can buy your tickets in advance, and just show up when the movie is about to begin. There's a chance that some idiot's taken your seat, but the seat number is clearly stated on your ticket, and the ushers WILL walk to the middle of the row, and block everyone's view, JUST so that you can get your seat. But it means that you won't have to wait in line TWICE on opening night; once to purchase the ticket, and then over an hour in advance to get a decent seat.
For me, I think that's really all I will use UltraAVX for in the future. If I want to watch a movie on opening night. You know, say for example, for Green Lantern, which opens June 17th.
~Cheers.
Cineplex has been advertising their "new conecept" theatres at some of their multiplexes dubbed UltraAVX. But for $14.99 plus tax, I really don't think it's worth the money. You're paying halfway between regular admission ($11.99 plus tax) and IMAX admission ($17.99 plus tax), but really, you're just watching a the same movie on a bigger screen. They boast digital projection and immersive sound, but I don't think it's evident enough for the average viewer to differentiate between the better systems you can get for regular price. It's slightly better...but it's not IMAX.
The only real benefit of UltraAVX is reserved seating. You can buy your tickets in advance, and just show up when the movie is about to begin. There's a chance that some idiot's taken your seat, but the seat number is clearly stated on your ticket, and the ushers WILL walk to the middle of the row, and block everyone's view, JUST so that you can get your seat. But it means that you won't have to wait in line TWICE on opening night; once to purchase the ticket, and then over an hour in advance to get a decent seat.
For me, I think that's really all I will use UltraAVX for in the future. If I want to watch a movie on opening night. You know, say for example, for Green Lantern, which opens June 17th.
~Cheers.
Monday, 2 May 2011
Movie: The Fast and the Furious 5 ... a.k.a Fast Five (2011)
Rating: B-
Who would have thought that this franchise would have lasted this long? But forget about acting, forget about character development, forget about the laws of physics and you have an action packed, edge of your seat, car crashing, testosterone induced, sweat drenching, extreme version of Ocean's Eleven.
It almost feels like Justin Lin went to the stunt team before he went to the writers...And succeeded. With barely a slow moment in the movie, each stunt performed is more outrageous than the previous. Bringing in most of the main characters from all the previous Fast and the Furious movies also allowed for the movie to fore-go the need for any character development and simply insert the characters as necessary for this film, giving him the flexibility to just focus all attention on blowing things up and mixing in generous amounts of hilarity.
Oh...and by the way, for you fans of the franchise...stick around for the credits.
~Cheers.
Who would have thought that this franchise would have lasted this long? But forget about acting, forget about character development, forget about the laws of physics and you have an action packed, edge of your seat, car crashing, testosterone induced, sweat drenching, extreme version of Ocean's Eleven.
It almost feels like Justin Lin went to the stunt team before he went to the writers...And succeeded. With barely a slow moment in the movie, each stunt performed is more outrageous than the previous. Bringing in most of the main characters from all the previous Fast and the Furious movies also allowed for the movie to fore-go the need for any character development and simply insert the characters as necessary for this film, giving him the flexibility to just focus all attention on blowing things up and mixing in generous amounts of hilarity.
Oh...and by the way, for you fans of the franchise...stick around for the credits.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 28 April 2011
Blogger's Note: 2000 Page Views...
Wow. It seems like it was only yesterday that I was all excited about getting 1000 views on my little blog. Cuteviv apparently, didn't forget about my little offer for the 2000th person to click in. I hadn't even realised that I was closing in on 2000! But here we are, 4 months into this little blog, and from the bottom of my heart, I thank all of you for your support. As promised, a little gift will be going out to Cuteviv soon; just a small gesture to show my appreciation.
Thanks everyone for the support and love shown to this little blog. I'll appreciate it even more if y'all help me to spread the love more! HAHAHA....And you know what? Let's keep this going! Until further notice, I will send out a small token of my appreciation for every 1000th page viewer. The next gift will be given at 3000 page views. Same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 3000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude. Thanks again for all your continued support. Hope to send my next little gift soon!
~Cheers.
Thanks everyone for the support and love shown to this little blog. I'll appreciate it even more if y'all help me to spread the love more! HAHAHA....And you know what? Let's keep this going! Until further notice, I will send out a small token of my appreciation for every 1000th page viewer. The next gift will be given at 3000 page views. Same rules. First person to send a comment that they are the first comment on or after 3000 page views will get a little gift as token of my gratitude. Thanks again for all your continued support. Hope to send my next little gift soon!
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 26 April 2011
Movie: Source Code (2011)
Rating: B+
Why do some people have to go bugger up the ending of a perfectly good movie?!
Directed by newcomer Duncan Jones, Source Code is a smart, quantum sci-fi version of Groundhog Day. If this is Jones' first crack at a major motion picture, I can't WAIT to see what else he's got up his sleeve. As with most fast paced, science fiction movies, you're not going to get Oscar worthy performances. But the movie was well thought out, well written, and well paced. The movie does ask for some suspension of disbelief, but don't all science fiction movies?
Near the end of the movie, there's a scene where Jake Gyllenhaal kisses Michelle Monaghan. When you see this, RUN. Get out of the chair, and bolt for the door. They ruin a perfectly good movie from that point forward. Stupid "Spielbergian" need to wrap up movies in a neat little bow. Had they cut that out, I probably would have given this movie an A.
Oh...and if you need another reason to watch this movie? Russell Peters is in it. That's right, "Do da wite fing" and watch this movie. Well....if you want =)~
~Cheers.
Why do some people have to go bugger up the ending of a perfectly good movie?!
Directed by newcomer Duncan Jones, Source Code is a smart, quantum sci-fi version of Groundhog Day. If this is Jones' first crack at a major motion picture, I can't WAIT to see what else he's got up his sleeve. As with most fast paced, science fiction movies, you're not going to get Oscar worthy performances. But the movie was well thought out, well written, and well paced. The movie does ask for some suspension of disbelief, but don't all science fiction movies?
Near the end of the movie, there's a scene where Jake Gyllenhaal kisses Michelle Monaghan. When you see this, RUN. Get out of the chair, and bolt for the door. They ruin a perfectly good movie from that point forward. Stupid "Spielbergian" need to wrap up movies in a neat little bow. Had they cut that out, I probably would have given this movie an A.
Oh...and if you need another reason to watch this movie? Russell Peters is in it. That's right, "Do da wite fing" and watch this movie. Well....if you want =)~
~Cheers.
Monday, 18 April 2011
Movie: Hanna (2011)
Rating: B-
2011 has been rather slow. I've had to wait until NOW (April 16th) to finally find a movie that's really intrigued me enough to want to watch it. I never thought however, that a young actress that I never heard of...scratch that...a young actress whose name I can't even pronounce....scratch that... well, BOTH statements are correct...I never thought of a young actress whose name I can't pronounce and that I've never heard of would be so charismatic and captivating.
Saorise Ronan, whom apparently was in was in Atonement with Kiera Knightley (among other films), stars in this coming-of-age thriller. An fairly interesting concept that dances around a Grimm theme, the movie moves along at a fairly good clip, but I really wish that they would have found more depth in the characters and the stories. Hanna only grazes the surface of a story that could be so much more, but instead leaves too many loose ends and unanswered questions.
While the performances of Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett give gleaming performances, there's just simply not enough depth in the characters for us to care about either of them. I really think that if Joe Wright would have less attention to spinning cameras and more attention to scratching more than just the surface, this would have been a MUCH better movie.
Despite fight scenes that were too slow for the post-Jason Bourne era; Hanna is fairly delicious from start to finish, but leaves you hungry for more substance.
~Cheers.
2011 has been rather slow. I've had to wait until NOW (April 16th) to finally find a movie that's really intrigued me enough to want to watch it. I never thought however, that a young actress that I never heard of...scratch that...a young actress whose name I can't even pronounce....scratch that... well, BOTH statements are correct...I never thought of a young actress whose name I can't pronounce and that I've never heard of would be so charismatic and captivating.
Saorise Ronan, whom apparently was in was in Atonement with Kiera Knightley (among other films), stars in this coming-of-age thriller. An fairly interesting concept that dances around a Grimm theme, the movie moves along at a fairly good clip, but I really wish that they would have found more depth in the characters and the stories. Hanna only grazes the surface of a story that could be so much more, but instead leaves too many loose ends and unanswered questions.
While the performances of Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett give gleaming performances, there's just simply not enough depth in the characters for us to care about either of them. I really think that if Joe Wright would have less attention to spinning cameras and more attention to scratching more than just the surface, this would have been a MUCH better movie.
Despite fight scenes that were too slow for the post-Jason Bourne era; Hanna is fairly delicious from start to finish, but leaves you hungry for more substance.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 13 April 2011
Movie: The Fighter (2010)
Rating: A-
Christian Bale is one crazy actor, and totally dedicated to his craft. The guy is 6'2" and over the past 7 years, has distorted his body again and again and again. In 2004, he dropped his weight down to 120lbs. for his role in The Machinist. In 2005, he brought it up to 190lbs for Batman Begins. 2006, back down for Rescue Dawn. Back up for The Dark Knight in 2008. Back down again for The Fighter in 2010 (He'll be back up for Dark Knight Rises for 2012 and rumoured to lose again, for Concrete Island).
Bale says that he was willing to put his body through such extremes because he worries that he won't be taken seriously as an actor. "I didn't really take acting classes, I didn't go to drama school or anything -- I always felt like I had to make up for it!" He doesn't have anything he needs to make up for anymore after his performance in The Fighter. He won Best Supporting Actor for both the Oscars and the Golden Globes.
Brilliantly done all around, but I'm giving Bale all the credit. I'm not even going to bother talking about Mark Wahlberg, or Melissa Leo, or Amy Adams. Bale steals the show as Dicky Eklund and is all the reason anyone really needs to watch this. Amazing.
~Cheers.
Christian Bale is one crazy actor, and totally dedicated to his craft. The guy is 6'2" and over the past 7 years, has distorted his body again and again and again. In 2004, he dropped his weight down to 120lbs. for his role in The Machinist. In 2005, he brought it up to 190lbs for Batman Begins. 2006, back down for Rescue Dawn. Back up for The Dark Knight in 2008. Back down again for The Fighter in 2010 (He'll be back up for Dark Knight Rises for 2012 and rumoured to lose again, for Concrete Island).
Bale says that he was willing to put his body through such extremes because he worries that he won't be taken seriously as an actor. "I didn't really take acting classes, I didn't go to drama school or anything -- I always felt like I had to make up for it!" He doesn't have anything he needs to make up for anymore after his performance in The Fighter. He won Best Supporting Actor for both the Oscars and the Golden Globes.
Brilliantly done all around, but I'm giving Bale all the credit. I'm not even going to bother talking about Mark Wahlberg, or Melissa Leo, or Amy Adams. Bale steals the show as Dicky Eklund and is all the reason anyone really needs to watch this. Amazing.
~Cheers.
Sunday, 10 April 2011
Movie: Bruce Lee, My Brother (2010)
Rating: C+
Most people have heard of Bruce Lee. Several biopics have been made over the years talking about this superstar, his life, and how it was cut short. Most however, gloss over his childhood focusing instead on his time in the US. This rendition, based off of memoirs, written by his brother, talks about him and his family growing up, and how he got his start in Hong Kong.
The movie stars some relatives unknowns along with Tony Leung (梁家輝）and Christy Chung (鍾麗緹) as Bruce's parents. The movie is largely superficial, talking about Bruce and his buddies getting into trouble, and how he breezes into fame. But it's a feel good story and not a documentary. It doesn't talk about any personal demons he had or anything like that. But just gives you an overview of how he grew up.
If anyone knows anything about Hong Kong biopics, it is to believe no more than 20% of what's presented to you. This movie, is the same. Not a GREAT movie by any stretch of the imagination, but gives you certain insights to how Bruce grew up, his family, and life in Hong Kong in the 60s. Also, a great job by Tony Leung, and the kid the plays Bruce as a child? Brilliant.
~Cheers.
Most people have heard of Bruce Lee. Several biopics have been made over the years talking about this superstar, his life, and how it was cut short. Most however, gloss over his childhood focusing instead on his time in the US. This rendition, based off of memoirs, written by his brother, talks about him and his family growing up, and how he got his start in Hong Kong.
The movie stars some relatives unknowns along with Tony Leung (梁家輝）and Christy Chung (鍾麗緹) as Bruce's parents. The movie is largely superficial, talking about Bruce and his buddies getting into trouble, and how he breezes into fame. But it's a feel good story and not a documentary. It doesn't talk about any personal demons he had or anything like that. But just gives you an overview of how he grew up.
If anyone knows anything about Hong Kong biopics, it is to believe no more than 20% of what's presented to you. This movie, is the same. Not a GREAT movie by any stretch of the imagination, but gives you certain insights to how Bruce grew up, his family, and life in Hong Kong in the 60s. Also, a great job by Tony Leung, and the kid the plays Bruce as a child? Brilliant.
~Cheers.
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Movie: Megamind (2010)
Rating: C-
There was still 8hours on my flight back from Hong Kong, and I had run out of movies to watch. I had watched every single movie that I had wanted to see, and the fat snoring guy in the aisle seat had no intention of waking up. Flipping through the pages of movie selections, I came across a big blue head. No, it wasn't the Smurfs. It was......MEGAMIND
Unfortunately, it starred Will Farrell. While some love his antics, I find him fairly annoying. Especially when he starts shouting and yelling. There seemed to be a lot of it here. The movie was amusing enough, with some small chuckles here and there, but it never gave you reason for bellyaching laughter. And the same goes for the movie as a whole. Mildly entertaining, but entirely formulaic. Nothing inspiring and nothing new.
While you do finish with a smile, it just seems to be a waste of such an all star cast. Tina Fey, Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, David Cross, and even Ben Stiller. And yet, none of their performances were memorable. And I hate to say it, but if it weren't for Will Farrell, Megamind would have been a MegaDisaster.
~Cheers.
There was still 8hours on my flight back from Hong Kong, and I had run out of movies to watch. I had watched every single movie that I had wanted to see, and the fat snoring guy in the aisle seat had no intention of waking up. Flipping through the pages of movie selections, I came across a big blue head. No, it wasn't the Smurfs. It was......MEGAMIND
Unfortunately, it starred Will Farrell. While some love his antics, I find him fairly annoying. Especially when he starts shouting and yelling. There seemed to be a lot of it here. The movie was amusing enough, with some small chuckles here and there, but it never gave you reason for bellyaching laughter. And the same goes for the movie as a whole. Mildly entertaining, but entirely formulaic. Nothing inspiring and nothing new.
While you do finish with a smile, it just seems to be a waste of such an all star cast. Tina Fey, Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, David Cross, and even Ben Stiller. And yet, none of their performances were memorable. And I hate to say it, but if it weren't for Will Farrell, Megamind would have been a MegaDisaster.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 6 April 2011
Movie: 127 Hours (2010)
Rating: B+
When you only have 1 actor for the bulk of a movie that runs 93min long, you better cross your fingers, beg and pray that he can act and carry your vision. I would never have guessed that James Franco would be the one to pull it off.
I think I would have enjoyed the movie a little bit better if Kate Mara had a bigger role. Haha. Personal preference. Despite this, I was floored by Franco's performance. What a difference from the spoiled rich brat he played in the Spiderman series! I can't quite decide if I want to take Franco seriously as an actor yet, but this film certainly doesn't hurt.
This is a based on true events movie about a guy whose arm is trapped under a boulder for 127 hours. Don't expect a whole lot to happen in these 93 minutes. Instead, you're watching Franco's performance as he deteriorates and becomes more and more desperate. And does the job quite well.
~Cheers.
When you only have 1 actor for the bulk of a movie that runs 93min long, you better cross your fingers, beg and pray that he can act and carry your vision. I would never have guessed that James Franco would be the one to pull it off.
I think I would have enjoyed the movie a little bit better if Kate Mara had a bigger role. Haha. Personal preference. Despite this, I was floored by Franco's performance. What a difference from the spoiled rich brat he played in the Spiderman series! I can't quite decide if I want to take Franco seriously as an actor yet, but this film certainly doesn't hurt.
This is a based on true events movie about a guy whose arm is trapped under a boulder for 127 hours. Don't expect a whole lot to happen in these 93 minutes. Instead, you're watching Franco's performance as he deteriorates and becomes more and more desperate. And does the job quite well.
~Cheers.
Sunday, 3 April 2011
Movie: Cleopatra (1963)
Rating: B.....and C-
I've always been a fan of the classics. In my case, it simply means that I've always WANTED to watch them. Unfortunately, never really found the right opportunity to watch them. But after the recent passing of Elizabeth Taylor, I decided that it was high time I watched one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, and a movie, that for the first time ever, gave an actress $1,000,000 in salary.
Critics have mostly bashed this movie, and quite honestly, I don't blame them. However, regardless of whatever the Academy was smoking, this film WAS nominated for Best Picture for the Oscars. As the trailer points out, Cleopatra is indeed a spectacle to watch. It is lavish and opulent, over the top and stunningly beautiful. It doesn't unfortunately, take away from the fact that this movie is 4, yes count'em.... FOUR HOURS LONG! It was long enough that it actually included an intermission!
Cleopatra is actually 2 movies in one. The first tells the story of Cleopatra's ambitious affair with Julius Caesar, played brilliantly by Rex Harrison.The script was witty, smart, and the movie itself was as ambitious as Cleopatra's plan to rule the world. The second, tells the story of Cleopatra's torrid affair with Marc Antony (Richard Burton). But I felt that this is where the movie ran out of steam. The chemistry between Taylor and Burton was obvious; heck, their affair off the screen (and eventual marriage.....twice...) became as talked about as their affair on screen! Directionless chatter and drivel, coupled with poorly orchestrated battle scenes made the 2nd half of the movie arduous to watch, and tedious to sit through.
While Cleopatra isn't required viewing, Elizabeth Taylor shines and shows why she nearly single handedly changed America's rating system for movies. And I can't see very many movies today that will invest money into such brilliant hubris and opulence.
~Cheers.
I've always been a fan of the classics. In my case, it simply means that I've always WANTED to watch them. Unfortunately, never really found the right opportunity to watch them. But after the recent passing of Elizabeth Taylor, I decided that it was high time I watched one of the most expensive movies ever made at the time, and a movie, that for the first time ever, gave an actress $1,000,000 in salary.
Critics have mostly bashed this movie, and quite honestly, I don't blame them. However, regardless of whatever the Academy was smoking, this film WAS nominated for Best Picture for the Oscars. As the trailer points out, Cleopatra is indeed a spectacle to watch. It is lavish and opulent, over the top and stunningly beautiful. It doesn't unfortunately, take away from the fact that this movie is 4, yes count'em.... FOUR HOURS LONG! It was long enough that it actually included an intermission!
Cleopatra is actually 2 movies in one. The first tells the story of Cleopatra's ambitious affair with Julius Caesar, played brilliantly by Rex Harrison.The script was witty, smart, and the movie itself was as ambitious as Cleopatra's plan to rule the world. The second, tells the story of Cleopatra's torrid affair with Marc Antony (Richard Burton). But I felt that this is where the movie ran out of steam. The chemistry between Taylor and Burton was obvious; heck, their affair off the screen (and eventual marriage.....twice...) became as talked about as their affair on screen! Directionless chatter and drivel, coupled with poorly orchestrated battle scenes made the 2nd half of the movie arduous to watch, and tedious to sit through.
While Cleopatra isn't required viewing, Elizabeth Taylor shines and shows why she nearly single handedly changed America's rating system for movies. And I can't see very many movies today that will invest money into such brilliant hubris and opulence.
~Cheers.
Monday, 14 March 2011
Movie: The Town (2010)
Rating: B
I'm not generally a big fan of Ben Affleck. I don't particularly think he's a very good actor. So imagine how I felt about this movie when I realised his role behind the camera.
After watching the movie, I started to wonder if perhaps Mr. Affleck might want to make a permanent move behind the camera. After some pretty good reviews for Gone Baby Gone directorial debut, I wasn't sure if maybe it was beginner's luck. I think The Town solidifies his capabilities behind the camera. Oh, and who knew Blake Lively could actually act?!
Advertised as a heist film, this gritty picture displays some very human elements, allowing the audience to connect with the characters, making this a serious adult film in a genre that's generally just run and gun. A few slow spots in the middle and a supporting cast that was a little lack lustre are the only two real criticisms I have.
~Cheers.
I'm not generally a big fan of Ben Affleck. I don't particularly think he's a very good actor. So imagine how I felt about this movie when I realised his role behind the camera.
After watching the movie, I started to wonder if perhaps Mr. Affleck might want to make a permanent move behind the camera. After some pretty good reviews for Gone Baby Gone directorial debut, I wasn't sure if maybe it was beginner's luck. I think The Town solidifies his capabilities behind the camera. Oh, and who knew Blake Lively could actually act?!
Advertised as a heist film, this gritty picture displays some very human elements, allowing the audience to connect with the characters, making this a serious adult film in a genre that's generally just run and gun. A few slow spots in the middle and a supporting cast that was a little lack lustre are the only two real criticisms I have.
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
Product: Jawbone Era
Design: 3.5 / 5
Sound Quality (in): 5 / 5
Sound Quality (out): 4 / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
Comfort: 4 / 5
MSRP: $129.99 (USD)
Overall: 4.5 / 5
I started using wired headsets while in University. I was pretty active, so the only time I really had to talk on the phone was when I was cooking, or doing laundry. So when I found out about Bluetooth headsets, I jumped at the opportunity of getting one. I picked up my first BT headset to use with my Sony Ericsson T68i (still one of my favourite phones I've ever used). I've been hooked ever since. I have since developed a big distaste for wires in general, opting for the wireless alternative at any opportunity.
For Valentine's Day, I was given my newest headset, Jawbone Era. It boasts using Noise Assassin 3.0, a military grade noise canceling technology using the vibrations of your jaw, and blah blah blah. I'll just let the video tell you what it does.
Jawbone decided that they were going to introduce some new technology to their latest release.
It has the ability to "learn". You can plug it into your computer via its microUSB port, and download apps for it. You can change the voices that talk to you, and other little gimmicky features.
They've also put in an accelerometer. Pretty cool, but totally useless. Another gimmick to increase the price of what I suspect could have cost under $100. But it's certainly gives you pause to think about some of the possibilities of having such technology in place for a headset. I'm fairly certain that, and excited to see, more useful applications will be rolled out in the future. You can currently shake the headset 4x to put it into pairing mode, and double tap to take and end calls.
The incoming sound is a VAST improvement from previous iterations of the Jawbone line. It was pretty good before, but a little soft, and slightly "tinny". The Era has a 25% bigger speaker, giving fuller, richer sounds. It features pretty good stereo-over-mono music (music in one ear), and adaptive volume, depending on how loud your surrounds are.
They boast 5 hour talk time and deliver. And at the push of a button, a voice tells you how much more time you have to speak.
I am however, getting a little bored with their design. It still looks great, but I think it's time for them to try something different. I also don't like their hidden on/off switch, which is located on the inside of the headset. That being said, I am THRILLED that they've done away with the flashing LED light that broadcasts to everyone around you that you're on the phone. Instead, they've put it subtly on the inside of the headset, forming a sleek ring around the jawbone sensor.
Fantastic improvements overall, but I still wish that SOMEBODY (hopefully Jawbone) will come out with a commercial BT headset that will get rid of wind noise.
~Cheers.
Sound Quality (in): 5 / 5
Sound Quality (out): 4 / 5
Build Quality: 4 / 5
Battery: 5 / 5
Comfort: 4 / 5
MSRP: $129.99 (USD)
Overall: 4.5 / 5
I started using wired headsets while in University. I was pretty active, so the only time I really had to talk on the phone was when I was cooking, or doing laundry. So when I found out about Bluetooth headsets, I jumped at the opportunity of getting one. I picked up my first BT headset to use with my Sony Ericsson T68i (still one of my favourite phones I've ever used). I've been hooked ever since. I have since developed a big distaste for wires in general, opting for the wireless alternative at any opportunity.
For Valentine's Day, I was given my newest headset, Jawbone Era. It boasts using Noise Assassin 3.0, a military grade noise canceling technology using the vibrations of your jaw, and blah blah blah. I'll just let the video tell you what it does.
Jawbone decided that they were going to introduce some new technology to their latest release.
It has the ability to "learn". You can plug it into your computer via its microUSB port, and download apps for it. You can change the voices that talk to you, and other little gimmicky features.
They've also put in an accelerometer. Pretty cool, but totally useless. Another gimmick to increase the price of what I suspect could have cost under $100. But it's certainly gives you pause to think about some of the possibilities of having such technology in place for a headset. I'm fairly certain that, and excited to see, more useful applications will be rolled out in the future. You can currently shake the headset 4x to put it into pairing mode, and double tap to take and end calls.
The incoming sound is a VAST improvement from previous iterations of the Jawbone line. It was pretty good before, but a little soft, and slightly "tinny". The Era has a 25% bigger speaker, giving fuller, richer sounds. It features pretty good stereo-over-mono music (music in one ear), and adaptive volume, depending on how loud your surrounds are.
They boast 5 hour talk time and deliver. And at the push of a button, a voice tells you how much more time you have to speak.
I am however, getting a little bored with their design. It still looks great, but I think it's time for them to try something different. I also don't like their hidden on/off switch, which is located on the inside of the headset. That being said, I am THRILLED that they've done away with the flashing LED light that broadcasts to everyone around you that you're on the phone. Instead, they've put it subtly on the inside of the headset, forming a sleek ring around the jawbone sensor.
Fantastic improvements overall, but I still wish that SOMEBODY (hopefully Jawbone) will come out with a commercial BT headset that will get rid of wind noise.
~Cheers.
Saturday, 5 March 2011
Movie: The King's Speech (2010)
Rating: A
I was thinking about how to start this entry off in this little blog of mine, and the cliche, "A Crowning Achievement" came to mind. But upon further consideration, I decided that there's probably a dozen or so reviewers out there that would have used this eye-roll worthy pun. A war of nations paled by the war within a single man. Brilliant.
I've got to say, I've never really been a big fan of Colin Firth. But this was a stellar performance. The Oscars don't always get it right, but they were bang on for giving Firth the Best Actor Award this year. And it's great to see new stars rising behind the camera in Tom Hooper as well. Brilliantly crafted, the internal conflict of King George VI with the imminent threat of Nazi Germany breathing down Britain's neck keeps you holding your breath with every careful word uttered by the struggling King. People rise and cheer for sports and war movies, but at the end of this movie, it is an impassioned speech by a dedicated king that gives the audience a reason for elation and exultation.
I did however, find Guy Pearce to be a bit of a miscast in this one. With such brilliant performances from Helena Bonham Carter and the rest of the cast, nothing about Pearce's delivery stood out. Even Michael Gambon, who was in the movie for all of maybe 5 minutes, was able to connect with the audience. And yet, you look forward to moving on to the next scene every time Pearce opens his mouth.
Best movie of 2010 tho? I think I'll still give it to Black Swan.
~Cheers.
I was thinking about how to start this entry off in this little blog of mine, and the cliche, "A Crowning Achievement" came to mind. But upon further consideration, I decided that there's probably a dozen or so reviewers out there that would have used this eye-roll worthy pun. A war of nations paled by the war within a single man. Brilliant.
I've got to say, I've never really been a big fan of Colin Firth. But this was a stellar performance. The Oscars don't always get it right, but they were bang on for giving Firth the Best Actor Award this year. And it's great to see new stars rising behind the camera in Tom Hooper as well. Brilliantly crafted, the internal conflict of King George VI with the imminent threat of Nazi Germany breathing down Britain's neck keeps you holding your breath with every careful word uttered by the struggling King. People rise and cheer for sports and war movies, but at the end of this movie, it is an impassioned speech by a dedicated king that gives the audience a reason for elation and exultation.
I did however, find Guy Pearce to be a bit of a miscast in this one. With such brilliant performances from Helena Bonham Carter and the rest of the cast, nothing about Pearce's delivery stood out. Even Michael Gambon, who was in the movie for all of maybe 5 minutes, was able to connect with the audience. And yet, you look forward to moving on to the next scene every time Pearce opens his mouth.
Best movie of 2010 tho? I think I'll still give it to Black Swan.
~Cheers.
Friday, 18 February 2011
Movie: You Again
Rating: F
Given that it was Valentine's Day, I allowed myself to be persuaded to rent this torture-by-chick-flick, bland, overly convoluted, tedious slapstick of a movie. In every genre, there are good movies and bad movies and this vapid, inane, and quite honestly, I could go on. I mean, how do you get a movie with Betty White wrong? I didn't think it was possible!
Every joke is cliched slapstick. Every vindictive plan is a snooze-fest. Every scene is predictable and ends with an, everybody's sorry, everybody's forgiven, we're all now one big happy family ending with a nice red bow tied to it.
And while I'd like to say that stalwarts like Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver salvaged this train wreck, I can't. There just doesn't seem to be a single genuine emotion coming out of this movie. And in all of this saccharine filled mess, I have to feel sorry for Victor Garber, who plays the patriarch of the dysfunctional portrait of a 'perfect' family and has to live thru this whole ordeal.
~Cheers.
Given that it was Valentine's Day, I allowed myself to be persuaded to rent this torture-by-chick-flick, bland, overly convoluted, tedious slapstick of a movie. In every genre, there are good movies and bad movies and this vapid, inane, and quite honestly, I could go on. I mean, how do you get a movie with Betty White wrong? I didn't think it was possible!
Every joke is cliched slapstick. Every vindictive plan is a snooze-fest. Every scene is predictable and ends with an, everybody's sorry, everybody's forgiven, we're all now one big happy family ending with a nice red bow tied to it.
And while I'd like to say that stalwarts like Jamie Lee Curtis and Sigourney Weaver salvaged this train wreck, I can't. There just doesn't seem to be a single genuine emotion coming out of this movie. And in all of this saccharine filled mess, I have to feel sorry for Victor Garber, who plays the patriarch of the dysfunctional portrait of a 'perfect' family and has to live thru this whole ordeal.
~Cheers.
Tuesday, 15 February 2011
Movie: The Rite
Rating: C
From the preview, we're supposed to think, The Exorcist meets Hannibal Lecter. Given the pedigree of Anthony Hopkins and all the brilliant characters he's put together in the blast, this was a no brainer. The Rite is indeed a no brainer. As in, without a brain.
Anthony Hopkins did indeed deliver. His performance as usual, was stellar. But unfortunately, that's where the compliments end. The rest of the cast were duds. My guess is, that the director, Mikael Håfström was trying to stay true to the movie's original inspiration, and spinning a story around it, but the end result was neither horrific or exhilarating. Quite honestly, the trailer is much more intense than the actual movie.
From the preview, we're supposed to think, The Exorcist meets Hannibal Lecter. Given the pedigree of Anthony Hopkins and all the brilliant characters he's put together in the blast, this was a no brainer. The Rite is indeed a no brainer. As in, without a brain.
Anthony Hopkins did indeed deliver. His performance as usual, was stellar. But unfortunately, that's where the compliments end. The rest of the cast were duds. My guess is, that the director, Mikael Håfström was trying to stay true to the movie's original inspiration, and spinning a story around it, but the end result was neither horrific or exhilarating. Quite honestly, the trailer is much more intense than the actual movie.
Saturday, 12 February 2011
TV Series: Flashpoint (Season 3 Finale - Fault Lines)
Rating: A
Cuteviv & Certain Individual told me about Flashpoint a while ago, but I never really felt compelled to watch it. It's a cop show about an Strategic Response Unit (SRU - aka SWAT team). I mean, how do you take a cop show that stars the Pink Ranger (Amy Jo Johnson) seriously?! And to boot, they're headed up by Enrico Colantoni, who's probably only recognisable role is from Just Shoot Me!, a sitcom with David Spade!
(Sorry guys, couldn't find a good embeddable video - Watch Here)
But, CTV scheduled the Season 3 Finale after the Superbowl (XLV) last Sunday. And sprawled on the couch with a belly full of beer and similar libations, the only part of my body willing to move was my thumb, resulting in some serious channel surfing and ended up watching the season 3 finale of Flashpoint. I was totally blown away. It was intense, well written, gripping, and left you with a huge cliff hanger at the end. And I'm not giving it a great writeup because it's Canadian either.
Not only was the episode amazing, it's a great place to START watching Season 4 and not have to catch up and start with Season 1. It gave the characters depth, made you care about the characters, which made you care about the team. Full marks CTV for a great show that's even found success south of the 49th.
~Cheers.
Cuteviv & Certain Individual told me about Flashpoint a while ago, but I never really felt compelled to watch it. It's a cop show about an Strategic Response Unit (SRU - aka SWAT team). I mean, how do you take a cop show that stars the Pink Ranger (Amy Jo Johnson) seriously?! And to boot, they're headed up by Enrico Colantoni, who's probably only recognisable role is from Just Shoot Me!, a sitcom with David Spade!
(Sorry guys, couldn't find a good embeddable video - Watch Here)
But, CTV scheduled the Season 3 Finale after the Superbowl (XLV) last Sunday. And sprawled on the couch with a belly full of beer and similar libations, the only part of my body willing to move was my thumb, resulting in some serious channel surfing and ended up watching the season 3 finale of Flashpoint. I was totally blown away. It was intense, well written, gripping, and left you with a huge cliff hanger at the end. And I'm not giving it a great writeup because it's Canadian either.
Not only was the episode amazing, it's a great place to START watching Season 4 and not have to catch up and start with Season 1. It gave the characters depth, made you care about the characters, which made you care about the team. Full marks CTV for a great show that's even found success south of the 49th.
~Cheers.
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Restaurant: Ted's Montana Grill
Media mogul, philanthropist, and environmentalist, Ted Turner, is the largest independent land owner in North America. He also re-introduced Bison back into the United States... And bred them... And cultivated them... And opened up a chain of restaurants so people can eat them.
Ambiance: 3.5 / 5
Cleanliness: 4 / 5
Service: 5 / 5
Taste: 3.5 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Price: $$
Overall: 4 / 5
Sometimes, it's the little things that make the difference. And for me, in this case, it was the paper straws. The food was decent, and the Bison steak, while a little chewy, was certainly leaner and healthier than beef. The service was superb, with the waitstaff exuberantly showcasing some of that 'Southern Hospitality'. But it was the paper straws that made the ultimate difference for me.
I stole a Bison Slider from my friend. A smallish cheeseburger, it was moist and tender, and cooked just right. The buns however, were a little disappointing. It didn't seem any different from the store bought ones. And there's nothing wrong with store bought buns, except that the restaurant claims their stuff is "made-from-scratch".
Being that it was my first time at Ted's Montana Grill where they feature a Bison on their logo, a Bison head on the restaurant wall, and Bison options over regular beef, I ordered the Delmonico Bison Rib Eye. This Ted guy, that founded CNN is pretty patriotic too. Every single dish served comes with an American Flag.Yes, that IS a hunk of butter on that rib eye. I should have asked if it was Bison butter. Ah well. Another time I suppose. You get to choose your sides, and I chose half and half (fries and onion rings) and their garlic mashed potato.
The rib eye was ordered rare, but was a little bit tougher than I would have thought, but I will attribute it to the fact that Bison is leaner than beef. But other than that, it was seared perfectly, and the onion ring was big, juicy, and perfectly drool-icious with the home made horseradish dipping sauce.
The one thing I really enjoy about heading into the Southern parts of the United States is the service. It's always friendly, and always warm. I guess they don't call it Southern Hospitality for nothing. And the service at Ted's was no different. We had our main waiter, with a trainee who were patient and warm, but also a couple of waiters who came around, just to make sure that we didn't need anything extra when our guy got a bit busy. We were very well taken care of.
At the end of the night, the manager came over and spoke to us to make sure everything was to our liking, and again, oozing that Southern Hospitality Charm. I'm not generally a big fan of chain restaurants, but this place was warm, welcoming, and inviting, and the food was fairly decent to boot. And using paper straws? Total bonus.
Ted's Montana Grill
1874 Peachtree Road
Atlanta, GA 30309
USA
~Cheers.
Ambiance: 3.5 / 5
Cleanliness: 4 / 5
Service: 5 / 5
Taste: 3.5 / 5
Presentation: 3.5 / 5
Price: $$
Overall: 4 / 5
Sometimes, it's the little things that make the difference. And for me, in this case, it was the paper straws. The food was decent, and the Bison steak, while a little chewy, was certainly leaner and healthier than beef. The service was superb, with the waitstaff exuberantly showcasing some of that 'Southern Hospitality'. But it was the paper straws that made the ultimate difference for me.
 | |
| Sorry, only had my mobile to take photos with. |
I stole a Bison Slider from my friend. A smallish cheeseburger, it was moist and tender, and cooked just right. The buns however, were a little disappointing. It didn't seem any different from the store bought ones. And there's nothing wrong with store bought buns, except that the restaurant claims their stuff is "made-from-scratch".
Being that it was my first time at Ted's Montana Grill where they feature a Bison on their logo, a Bison head on the restaurant wall, and Bison options over regular beef, I ordered the Delmonico Bison Rib Eye. This Ted guy, that founded CNN is pretty patriotic too. Every single dish served comes with an American Flag.Yes, that IS a hunk of butter on that rib eye. I should have asked if it was Bison butter. Ah well. Another time I suppose. You get to choose your sides, and I chose half and half (fries and onion rings) and their garlic mashed potato.
The rib eye was ordered rare, but was a little bit tougher than I would have thought, but I will attribute it to the fact that Bison is leaner than beef. But other than that, it was seared perfectly, and the onion ring was big, juicy, and perfectly drool-icious with the home made horseradish dipping sauce.
The one thing I really enjoy about heading into the Southern parts of the United States is the service. It's always friendly, and always warm. I guess they don't call it Southern Hospitality for nothing. And the service at Ted's was no different. We had our main waiter, with a trainee who were patient and warm, but also a couple of waiters who came around, just to make sure that we didn't need anything extra when our guy got a bit busy. We were very well taken care of.
At the end of the night, the manager came over and spoke to us to make sure everything was to our liking, and again, oozing that Southern Hospitality Charm. I'm not generally a big fan of chain restaurants, but this place was warm, welcoming, and inviting, and the food was fairly decent to boot. And using paper straws? Total bonus.
Ted's Montana Grill
1874 Peachtree Road
Atlanta, GA 30309
USA
~Cheers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
