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.
Monday, 30 May 2011
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
