I have not yet mentioned my wife, Mrs. Mosley. She's the one who encouraged me to start the blog and tunes into it on a regular basis. So, let's bring her out here...Mrs. Mosley!
Seriously, she's a lovely woman that has given me so much joy. We've been married just over a year now, so we're still an incredibly sickening couple. In the event that we exchange any witty repartee, or some approximation thereof, I'll post it. In the meantime you could do far worse than tune into the ongoing adventures of Matthew and the Queen.
Wednesday, July 14, 2004
Tuesday, July 13, 2004
Chicken Caesar Review: Panera
Panera is a bakery/cafe/restaurant that started popping up in Jacksonville several years ago. Despite the whole Atkins craze, they have become very popular. Their Grilled Chicken Caesar, which goes for $5.99, includes Romaine lettuce, grilled chicken, Asiago-Parmesan cheese, homemade Asiago cheese croutons and their special Caesar dressing.
The lettuce is green, fresh and chopped into nice, bite-size pieces. The chicken is very tender and actually tastes like chicken. Both lettuce and chicken are evenly coated with a mild Caesar dressing that doesn't overwhelm it. Mixed with the dressing are slivers and chunks of Asagio-Parmesan cheese, which really give it a kick. The croutons are very chewy but go well with the salad. Finally, the salad is accompanied by a nice hunk of fresh bread (well, bread made that day, anyway). It's very good bread, but it can be very tough to rip apart by hand and certainly by teeth. It is crust and chewy and should not be attempted by those who no longer have their own teeth.
Overall, an excellent Chicken Caesar for the price and a filling meal.
The lettuce is green, fresh and chopped into nice, bite-size pieces. The chicken is very tender and actually tastes like chicken. Both lettuce and chicken are evenly coated with a mild Caesar dressing that doesn't overwhelm it. Mixed with the dressing are slivers and chunks of Asagio-Parmesan cheese, which really give it a kick. The croutons are very chewy but go well with the salad. Finally, the salad is accompanied by a nice hunk of fresh bread (well, bread made that day, anyway). It's very good bread, but it can be very tough to rip apart by hand and certainly by teeth. It is crust and chewy and should not be attempted by those who no longer have their own teeth.
Overall, an excellent Chicken Caesar for the price and a filling meal.
Review: "Kiss Me Deadly" (1955)
One of the more interesting parts of doing reviews is the ability to buck conventional opinion when it comes to critically loved movies. I always site two classic films as examples: John Ford's "The Searchers", while considered a classic western and was the inspiration for "Taxi Driver", has some jarring unfunny attempts at humor that damn near derailed the whole film for me. "Touch of Evil", which is cited by many as one of the best examples of Film Noir, has never evolved for me above a collection of interesting camera movements and locations.
But as for the Film Noir genre, even "Touch of Evil" was better in my mind than "Kiss Me Deadly", which features one of the first portrayals of Mickey Spillane's hard-as-nails detective, Mike Hammer. Hammer is a classic character who is a thug and a detective, usually in that order. He picks up a mysterious woman on the side of the road and makes brief conversation before finding out that there are bad guys after her. Before he knows it, she's dead, the car is totaled and he's beaten into a coma. When he wakes up, he's determined to find out what all of it is about.
A big fault of this film is the acting. Ralph Meeker, who looks like a cross between Marlon Brando and Charlton Heston, has the charisma and acting talents of neither. His tough guy facade is all he has, and even that can't hide the moments when he looks like he's reading off cue cards. This same tendency afflicts many of the other characters who deliver their dialogue as stilted lines with no real emotion behind them. Of the few actors who do, you know, act, there is the big villain, who is only revealed at the end and cannot go two sentences without making a reference to ancient mythology or the Bible. It is a simplistic way to characterize him as the "educated" villain, and is an example of the film's attempts at subtlety.
The film as a whole was also choppily made with some bad visual and sound editing. The very beginning has the woman on the road panting from the first time we see her to the end of the credits. It gets annoying after awhile, especially since it sounds like they had the actress "pant" once and simply looped it over and over again, often to a steady rhythm. The shot of the woman waving down cars also seems to be the same shot recycled over and over again. Such sloppy work is not a good first sign and does nothing for pulling the viewer into the story.
One positive to the film is the cinematography, which is essential to a good Film Noir. Cinematographer Ernest Laszlo, who did wonderful things with b&w photography in "Inherit the Wind" and "Judgment at Nuremberg", does some nice arty shots that catch the viewer off guard. My favorite was when Hammer enters a room bathed in shadows and walks up to his desk. He turns on the desk lamp and two thugs that had been sitting there are suddenly illuminated. It actually made me jump when I first saw it. Too bad there wasn't more of that.
Something should be said about the ending, so those who hate spoilers should beware this paragraph. Much is made on the DVD that the original ending is edited into the film. The other shorter ending is also included as an extra for comparison purposes. I had read that the included footage answers so many questions about the plot, but I sure didn't see that. All you find out from the longer ending is that the two main characters escape the exploding the house (the original ending left it more ambiguous as to whether they survive or not). It was just another annoying aspect to the film that had annoyed me already.
This is a film only for those who love Film Noir, and then just barely. All others should avoid it. If you want a good taste of the genre, start with "Out of the Past" with Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas. And then there's "The Killing", "Asphalt Jungle", "The Big Sleep", "Laura" and, well, you get the idea.
Five out of Ten
But as for the Film Noir genre, even "Touch of Evil" was better in my mind than "Kiss Me Deadly", which features one of the first portrayals of Mickey Spillane's hard-as-nails detective, Mike Hammer. Hammer is a classic character who is a thug and a detective, usually in that order. He picks up a mysterious woman on the side of the road and makes brief conversation before finding out that there are bad guys after her. Before he knows it, she's dead, the car is totaled and he's beaten into a coma. When he wakes up, he's determined to find out what all of it is about.
A big fault of this film is the acting. Ralph Meeker, who looks like a cross between Marlon Brando and Charlton Heston, has the charisma and acting talents of neither. His tough guy facade is all he has, and even that can't hide the moments when he looks like he's reading off cue cards. This same tendency afflicts many of the other characters who deliver their dialogue as stilted lines with no real emotion behind them. Of the few actors who do, you know, act, there is the big villain, who is only revealed at the end and cannot go two sentences without making a reference to ancient mythology or the Bible. It is a simplistic way to characterize him as the "educated" villain, and is an example of the film's attempts at subtlety.
The film as a whole was also choppily made with some bad visual and sound editing. The very beginning has the woman on the road panting from the first time we see her to the end of the credits. It gets annoying after awhile, especially since it sounds like they had the actress "pant" once and simply looped it over and over again, often to a steady rhythm. The shot of the woman waving down cars also seems to be the same shot recycled over and over again. Such sloppy work is not a good first sign and does nothing for pulling the viewer into the story.
One positive to the film is the cinematography, which is essential to a good Film Noir. Cinematographer Ernest Laszlo, who did wonderful things with b&w photography in "Inherit the Wind" and "Judgment at Nuremberg", does some nice arty shots that catch the viewer off guard. My favorite was when Hammer enters a room bathed in shadows and walks up to his desk. He turns on the desk lamp and two thugs that had been sitting there are suddenly illuminated. It actually made me jump when I first saw it. Too bad there wasn't more of that.
Something should be said about the ending, so those who hate spoilers should beware this paragraph. Much is made on the DVD that the original ending is edited into the film. The other shorter ending is also included as an extra for comparison purposes. I had read that the included footage answers so many questions about the plot, but I sure didn't see that. All you find out from the longer ending is that the two main characters escape the exploding the house (the original ending left it more ambiguous as to whether they survive or not). It was just another annoying aspect to the film that had annoyed me already.
This is a film only for those who love Film Noir, and then just barely. All others should avoid it. If you want a good taste of the genre, start with "Out of the Past" with Robert Mitchum and Kirk Douglas. And then there's "The Killing", "Asphalt Jungle", "The Big Sleep", "Laura" and, well, you get the idea.
Five out of Ten
Online Advertising (Part Two)
I mentioned in a previous post that I didn't mind online advertising that formed itself in response to the user's personal tastes. In particular, I'm citing Amazon for this trend. I still don't mind it as much as others, but the logic processors of these computers are fried once in a while. Case in point:
This morning, I logged on to Amazon to check on a pending order and then went to the front page. Usually, when I do this I just see small items alerting me to the pending release of a DVD that is related to one I purchased through Amazon before. They're not obnoxious, but they are there. This time, they have a new feature called a "plog" where the whole front page is nothing but chunky paragraphs listing "Fill-in-the-blank was released recently; We thought you'd be interested because you bought Fill-in-the-blank". Again, I have no real problem with this. However, here are some examples:
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, though. I mean, in T2 and T3, you have battles between Terminators where stuff is done to them that no normal human being can take. The same could be said of Sylvester the Cat and Wile E. Coyote when they end up taking anvils to the head and falling from great heights only to get back up again and keep going...just like Terminators!
Still, I guess I must have missed the scene in T3 where Arnold Schwarzenegger slams into the brick wall onto which Kristanna Loken had painted the mouth of a tunnel.
This morning, I logged on to Amazon to check on a pending order and then went to the front page. Usually, when I do this I just see small items alerting me to the pending release of a DVD that is related to one I purchased through Amazon before. They're not obnoxious, but they are there. This time, they have a new feature called a "plog" where the whole front page is nothing but chunky paragraphs listing "Fill-in-the-blank was released recently; We thought you'd be interested because you bought Fill-in-the-blank". Again, I have no real problem with this. However, here are some examples:
All in the Family - The Complete First Season was released just 7 days ago on July 6, 2004; We thought you'd be interested because you bought M*A*S*H - Season One (Collector's Edition).Nice comparison. Classic sitcoms from the Seventies, and I do like both of them. No problem.
The Name of the Rose was released just 7 days ago on July 6, 2004; We thought you'd be interested because you bought The Lion in Winter.Again, Nice comparison. Riveting dramas set in Medieval Europe. No problem.
Terminator 3 - Rise of the Machines (Widescreen Edition) was released today; We thought you'd be interested because you bought Looney Tunes - The Golden Collection.Hmmm. Uh, hmm. Well, I can't really say I see a connection here. I actually saw T3 in theaters and, I have to say, I enjoyed far more than I thought I would. However, I don't recall any scenes with Bugs, Daffy or any animated characters at all.
Maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way, though. I mean, in T2 and T3, you have battles between Terminators where stuff is done to them that no normal human being can take. The same could be said of Sylvester the Cat and Wile E. Coyote when they end up taking anvils to the head and falling from great heights only to get back up again and keep going...just like Terminators!
Still, I guess I must have missed the scene in T3 where Arnold Schwarzenegger slams into the brick wall onto which Kristanna Loken had painted the mouth of a tunnel.
Monday, July 12, 2004
Review: "Spiderman 2" (2004)
Critics bemoan the fact that so many comic books are being made into movies. The fact is, they are actually sick of comic books being made into bad movies, and five years ago they had a point. Back then, Hollywood still looked at the transfer of comic book material as a great way to realize action scenes through superior special effects. This would be at the expense of compelling characters and story lines (and, pitifully, even the action scenes were poorly done, giving the films almost no worth at all). But now, we have interesting directors and stars matched up with good material. Thus we have such exemplary films as “X-Men” and “Hellboy”.
And then there's "Spiderman 2", the long awaited sequel to the very good “Spiderman”. The original benefited from a good cast, namely Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, with the acting chops to give depth to their characters. The director, Sam Raimi, had a background of films that were, first and foremost, fun. This was a quality that comic book films desperately needed. Raimi's enthusiasm for the material was the same as Peter Parker's when he first discovers his powers. Yet Raimi, having also delved into darker human territory with his 1998 film "A Simple Plan", hinted at the character complexities to come with Parker and his alter-ego.
Maguire, still possessing that boyish charm, has even more to deal with as Spiderman in the sequel. Here's the thing that differentiates this movie from other comic book adaptations: His ongoing conflict between his personal and public personas is given equal weight as his conflict with Doc Ock. In fact, his introspection is often a larger part of the story than anything else. I have to admit that sometimes this went on a little too long, like some of Maguire's interior dialogue and Aunt May's speech on heroes. Having seen "The Hulk", I know that just as action can be emphasized too much in a comic book film, it is also possible to saddle the hero with too much angst and, thus, ruin the fun of the action. Fortunately, Raimi has achieved a balance here that is the closest anyone has yet come to since the first two "Superman" films.
On a personal note, my biggest anticipation for this film was seeing Alfred Molina a Doc Ock. I had been a big fan of his since spotting him in small films like "Enchanted April" and "American Friends". When he started getting higher profile roles in films like "Boogie Nights", I still would never have guessed he would make it this high. Audiences who are just now discovering him are in for a treat. His is one of the great screen villains and a joy to watch.
By the way, for you Sam Raimi fans out there, you’ll find a lot of references to his earlier works in this new film (aside from the standard Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi cameos, of course). The scene where Doc Ock terrorizes the nurses and doctors in an operating room is straight "Evil Dead", right down to the doctor reaching for a (medical) chainsaw to defend himself. J. K. Simmons’ newspaper chief and his rapid fire dialogue with his assistants is reminiscent of “The Hudsucker Proxy”, which Raimi co-wrote with the Coen Brothers. Finally, the whole series of scenes where a deformed scientist (Doc Ock) takes refuge in an abandoned and atmospheric warehouse, starts wearing a black trench coat and fedora, and restarts his life’s work with tons of hi-tech equipment in such a dilapidated setting is taken whole cloth from “Darkman” (of course, Doc Ock’s situation is slightly more plausible than Darkman’s due to the advent of internet shopping, but it’s probably best not to think about this at all).
Comic book fans have long known that, despite their reputation, they can deliver stories both exciting and meaningful. "Spiderman 2" delivers in spades, and makes me actually glad that there will inevitably be more sequels to come.
Nine out of Ten
And then there's "Spiderman 2", the long awaited sequel to the very good “Spiderman”. The original benefited from a good cast, namely Tobey Maguire and Kirsten Dunst, with the acting chops to give depth to their characters. The director, Sam Raimi, had a background of films that were, first and foremost, fun. This was a quality that comic book films desperately needed. Raimi's enthusiasm for the material was the same as Peter Parker's when he first discovers his powers. Yet Raimi, having also delved into darker human territory with his 1998 film "A Simple Plan", hinted at the character complexities to come with Parker and his alter-ego.
Maguire, still possessing that boyish charm, has even more to deal with as Spiderman in the sequel. Here's the thing that differentiates this movie from other comic book adaptations: His ongoing conflict between his personal and public personas is given equal weight as his conflict with Doc Ock. In fact, his introspection is often a larger part of the story than anything else. I have to admit that sometimes this went on a little too long, like some of Maguire's interior dialogue and Aunt May's speech on heroes. Having seen "The Hulk", I know that just as action can be emphasized too much in a comic book film, it is also possible to saddle the hero with too much angst and, thus, ruin the fun of the action. Fortunately, Raimi has achieved a balance here that is the closest anyone has yet come to since the first two "Superman" films.
On a personal note, my biggest anticipation for this film was seeing Alfred Molina a Doc Ock. I had been a big fan of his since spotting him in small films like "Enchanted April" and "American Friends". When he started getting higher profile roles in films like "Boogie Nights", I still would never have guessed he would make it this high. Audiences who are just now discovering him are in for a treat. His is one of the great screen villains and a joy to watch.
By the way, for you Sam Raimi fans out there, you’ll find a lot of references to his earlier works in this new film (aside from the standard Bruce Campbell and Ted Raimi cameos, of course). The scene where Doc Ock terrorizes the nurses and doctors in an operating room is straight "Evil Dead", right down to the doctor reaching for a (medical) chainsaw to defend himself. J. K. Simmons’ newspaper chief and his rapid fire dialogue with his assistants is reminiscent of “The Hudsucker Proxy”, which Raimi co-wrote with the Coen Brothers. Finally, the whole series of scenes where a deformed scientist (Doc Ock) takes refuge in an abandoned and atmospheric warehouse, starts wearing a black trench coat and fedora, and restarts his life’s work with tons of hi-tech equipment in such a dilapidated setting is taken whole cloth from “Darkman” (of course, Doc Ock’s situation is slightly more plausible than Darkman’s due to the advent of internet shopping, but it’s probably best not to think about this at all).
Comic book fans have long known that, despite their reputation, they can deliver stories both exciting and meaningful. "Spiderman 2" delivers in spades, and makes me actually glad that there will inevitably be more sequels to come.
Nine out of Ten
The Great Chicken Caesar Salad Debate
According to Merriam-Webster Online:
The modern American Caesar Salad doesn't quite resemble this older recipe, but that doesn't make the new recipe any less valid. The common incarnation is composed of grilled chicken (natch), Romaine lettuce, Parmesan cheese, Caesar dressing, and croutons. It has proved so popular a salad that there are very few restaurants that do not serve either a Caesar salad as a side or a Chicken Caesar as a main entree.
Now, you'd think that such a simple recipe would be hard to screw up, but it can be done. I happen to very much enjoy a good Chicken Caesar Salad, so I plan on posting reviews of different ones at different restaurants, starting tomorrow with one of my favorites at Panera. Stay tuned (all two of you).
Caesar salad, noun, a tossed salad usually made of romaine, garlic, anchovies, and croutons and dressed with olive oil, coddled egg, lemon juice, and grated cheeseWell, what the hell does Merriam-Webster know anyway, huh?!?!
The modern American Caesar Salad doesn't quite resemble this older recipe, but that doesn't make the new recipe any less valid. The common incarnation is composed of grilled chicken (natch), Romaine lettuce, Parmesan cheese, Caesar dressing, and croutons. It has proved so popular a salad that there are very few restaurants that do not serve either a Caesar salad as a side or a Chicken Caesar as a main entree.
Now, you'd think that such a simple recipe would be hard to screw up, but it can be done. I happen to very much enjoy a good Chicken Caesar Salad, so I plan on posting reviews of different ones at different restaurants, starting tomorrow with one of my favorites at Panera. Stay tuned (all two of you).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)