You are browsing the archive for 2010 August.

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Movie Review: Easy A (2010)

August 26, 2010 in Movie Reviews

I went to see another preview screening last night, one I had extremely low expectations for — Easy A.  Even though it was showing at a mainstream cinema, I thought the turn out was going to be relatively small.  Boy was I wrong!  The cinema was packed out with people lining up way in advance to see this Will Gluck-directed teen comedy, featuring an all-star cast headed by the up-and-coming Emma Stone (I last saw her in Zombieland).  Luckily, with my (ahem) press credentials, I avoided the crowd and the security check.

My first instinct was that Easy A was going to be another hopeless teen flick that’s stupid, vulgar, and not particularly funny.  Wrong again.  As it turned out, Easy A was, suprisingly, a rare teen flick that’s actually funny and clever!

Emma Stone plays Olive, a super-nice, witty and “normal” high school girl who one day decides to lie about a sexual encounter to her best friend.  And before she knows it, the school rumour mill turns Olive into the local skank.  As her life spirals out of control, Olive begins to see the parallels between her life and that of Hester Prynne in Nathaniel Hawthorne’s literary classic, The Scarlet Letter (hence the “A” in Easy A).  I know it doesn’t sound all that great but don’t let that put you off.

Easy A‘s impressive all-star cast is led by Emma Stone, who carries the film from start to finish as the immensely likable and endearing Olive.  If this film takes off she’s going to be huge.  Amanda Bynes plays her arch-nemesis, the ultra-religious Marianne (with Cam Gigandet from Twilight as her dim-witted boyfriend), while Penn Badgley plays the too-nice, always-around Woodchuck Todd (it was worth putting up with him just for the Gossip Girl reference) and Dan Byrd (from The Hills Have Eyes) is Brandon, the obvious closet homosexual.  Others include Thomas Haden Church as the wonderful teacher, Lisa Kudrow as the guidance counsellor, and Malcolm McDowell as the principal.  But it’s Olive’s quirky parents, played by Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson, that absolutely steal the show with their crazy antics.

My problems with Easy A are relatively minor.  First of all, it’s hard to buy Emma Stone (as pretty and sassy and witty as she is in this film) as just an “ordinary” girl who was virtually invisible at her school before gossip made her notorious.  Why the heck would she not have been a superstar at school?  Secondly, it doesn’t really make sense that someone as sensible and intelligent as her would ever want to perpetuate vicious rumours in order to become more “popular” amongst her peers.  And thirdly, there were times when she was simply too nice to be believable.  But if you can overlook those things, Easy A is a stand-out teen comedy in almost every other way.

Easy A is a throwback (or even a homage) to those classic 80s films made by John Hughes, such as Sixteen Candles, The Breakfast Club and Ferris Beuller’s Day Off (there are numerous references to them throughout the film).  There’s a huge cast of characters, mostly caricatures but at least with interesting quirks.  The story is compelling but grounded and at least semi-plausible.  It’s funny without being outrageously hilarious or over-the-top.  And there’s a social message about high school life (in this case, how gossip can get out of hand) that adds a dash of poignancy to the whole affair.  It doesn’t quite reach “classic” status, or at least not yet, but considering the crap teen comedies that have been churned out in recent years, Easy A is a refreshing, pleasant surprise.

3.75 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments »

The Reluctant Journalist

August 25, 2010 in On Writing, Study

I’ve been a little quiet on the posting front lately because I’ve been shitting bricks about my writing course.  One of my subjects involves writing features, which involves actual human interaction in calling people and going out for face-to-face interviews.  It’s essentially a journalism subject (but they allow us lowly writer students to do it too) that aims to produce publishable work.  Great experience, though frightening for those with no experience (like me).

Anyway, the first assessment is due in a couple of weeks I’m doing a piece on mobile speed cameras.  And it’s a “feature”, so it’s more than just gathering a bunch of stats and figures and piecing them together.  I need to add what my lecturer calls “colour” to it.  A “human element”, she said, which is difficult considering my subject is machines.

And so I tried to see if there was anyone out there that has recently received a speeding fine.  Apart from the usual avenues (asking friends, Facebook call out, etc), I signed up for a few online forums where people discuss cars, motorbikes, and driving in general.  Five, of them, in fact.  I posted a friendly query at around 9am and rubbed my hands, waiting for the responses to flood in.

At around 5pm that afternoon, I went and checked the responses.  I got about 10 reply posts in total across all forums…and not ONE was helpful!  Instead, all I got were narky and sarcastic comments, and comments that made absolutely no sense.  Is this what our society has come down to?  Or was I looking for answers in the wrong place?  I mean, what did I expect from people who visit forums to talk about and post pictures of their cars and motorbikes?  During work hours?

Ahh…back to the drawing board.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
2 Comments »

Hunter Valley Dining: Firestick

August 23, 2010 in Food, Travel

The view from Firestick/ROCK

ROCK Restaurant (don’t blame me for the caps), headed by chef Andrew Clarke, is one of the better known places to dine in the Hunter Valley (with 2 Chefs Hats).  Unfortunately, ROCK is only open for dinner, but its “sister” restaurant, Firestick Cafe, takes its place during the day.

Having arrived at the Hunter Valley around lunch time, we were desperately in search of a place to eat, and Firestick was one of the few places that served lunch and had seats available.  And so we went.

Located at Poole’s Rock Winery Estate, Firestick/ROCK has an exterior that is sleeker and classier than most of the other restaurants in the region.  Inside, the seating area is long and rectangular, with a wide view of the winery and a rare lake (complete with sprinklers) on one side and the bar/kitchen on the other.  It made the place look more commercial than the laid back, family style of the other restaurants we would visit in the next day or two.

Firestick serves a combination of proper fine dining meals and lighter snacks, such as pizza.  The full menu can be found here.  After much deliberation, we went with something light in lieu of the massive dinner we intended to have — a Wagyu burger ($23) and a pork belly and red cabbage pizza ($25).

The food didn’t take too long to come, but the service was not very attentive, even though they were not particularly busy or understaffed.  It took several attempts to catch the attention of the two waiters, and we were constantly needing refills of our water.

The meal started with a free amuse-bouche, a small piece of bread with cream cheese and tomato.  It was not bad — quite refreshing and not as heavy as expected.

The amuse-bouche

Then the mains.  I must admit, they were not as good as I wanted them to be.  The burger, while nice (especially the Wagyu), was tiny and lacking in flavour, though the chips were excellent — hot and crunchy, just the way I like them.

Wagyu beef burger

The pizza, on the other hand, was pretty good — they were certainly not stingy on the toppings and the flavours of the pork belly, cabbage and pear relish complemented each other nicely.  My only complaint is that it looked and felt very oily.

Pork belly, braised red cabbage and pear relish pizza

For dessert, we went with some kind of apple/rhubarb crumble ($14).  Not bad, but not great either.

That is not ice cream. It's just cream!

So that’s that.  Our first meal in the Hunter Valley was pricey ($62 for lunch + drinks) but didn’t quite give us the satisfaction we craved.  Clearly I cannot comment on ROCK because it is a different restaurant (albeit same venue) with a different menu, but Firestick was ultimately a disappointment.

6 out of 10

Tags: , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Book Review: John Grisham’s “The Firm”

August 21, 2010 in Book Reviews

My first John Grisham novel, The Associate, was a shocker, and I said as much in my review of the book here.  However, several Grisham fans who commented assured me The Associate was an anomaly, and that Grisham’s other books, especially his older ones, were much better and advised me to give them a go.

And so, roughly 6 months after The Associate, I decided to read a Grisham “classic”.  My first choice was his debut, A Time to Kill, but I couldn’t find it on special.  Instead, I found a copy of The Firm at a bargain bookstore (it was part of the Grisham “Gold” Collection) and dived straight into it.

Most people should be aware of the basic plot, so I won’t go into it too much.  Young Mitch McDeere is a hotshot Harvard graduate with a pretty wife and a jailbird brother.  After fielding a bunch of offers from the big Wall Street firms, he chooses a small but tight-knit and extremely exclusive firm in Memphis — because they paid better than anyone else and the perks were great.  But of course, as he settles in, Mitch realises that not everything is as it seems and that once you join The Firm, you can never leave.

To my great surprise, The Firm was actually very good.  It had a good premise, interesting characters; it was well-plotted, meticulous with details; and it was exciting and suspenseful.  A real page-turner.  Everything The Associate was not.

I suppose the biggest compliment I could pay is that it was the first book in a while that I actually wanted to keep reading and find out what would happen next.  While it was far from perfect, The Firm was still a cracking good read.

Written 18 years apart, it was interesting to see the parallels and differences between The Firm (1991) and The Associate (2009).  They are both about young hotshot lawyers who join powerful law firms with great ambition and excitement, but soon find that they are in over their heads.  But the main difference is that The Firm, though relatively raw and unpolished, really gives you a sense of Grisham’s passion and enthusiasm for the story.  On the other hand, to me it was clear The Associate lacked those qualities, and as a result was dull and lifeless.  The Associate whinged endlessly about the atrocious hours worked by young associates, but Mitch McDeere in The Firm worked even longer hours and loved it.  Perhaps it’s a reflection of the changing attitudes of today’s top lawyers, or maybe it’s a sign that Grisham is getting tired.

Anyway, The Firm has whetted my appetite for more vintage Grisham.  Any suggestions on what should be next?

4 out of 5

[PS: The Firm (published in 1991) is a book that has always stuck in my mind for a couple of reasons.  First, I saw the 1993 Tom Cruise adaptation at a time when I was too young to understand it, and when I got older, it was one of those films that I made a mental note to re-watch when I had time (I did re-watch it recently and it wasn't quite as good as I imagined it, and it was also very different to the novel).  Secondly, it was burned into my brain when I watched that horrible 1995 Pauly Shore movie Jury Duty, in which he unwittingly borrowed a number of adult films named after popular movies in an effort to beef up his legal knowledge, and one of them was "The Firmness" (another was "Three Men and a Maybe").  I don't know why, but I always find that funny.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

Movie Review: Boy (2010)

August 19, 2010 in Movie Reviews

In the end, the choice between free screenings to Boy and The Girl Who Played with Fire was made for me.  It took me so long to post my homework (from my writing course) that by the time I was done, the only feasible option was Boy (which was playing at a closer venue).

So how was the highest grossing New Zealand film of all-time?  Surely all those Kiwis can’t be wrong, right?

Well, in my humble opinion, Boy is not as mind-blowing as some might expect, but for a low budget New Zealand comedy-drama by a second-time writer-director (Taika Waititi, who was nominated for an Oscar for his 2003 short film, Two Cars, One Night), it’s about as good as it could have been.  Boy is fresh, original, imaginative, quirky, funny, and ultimately poignant without being manipulative.  And that’s extremely rare for a film these days.

Set in 1984 rural New Zealand, affable eleven-year-old “Boy” (James Rolleston) lives on a farm with his grandmother, his little brother Rocky, a goat, and a bunch of little cousins.  When Boy’s gran leaves town to attend a funeral, Boy is left in charge of the family, but his life is turned upside down when his father (Taika Waititi), Boy’s biggest hero apart from Michael Jackson, returns from prison.

That may sound like a somewhat grim tale, but Boy is a coming-of-age film full of life and laughs.  There are some subtle stabs the problematic indigenous culture in New Zealand, but for the most part, Boy has a lighthearted tone that at times borders on farcical.  The jokes, which start off fast and furious, are predominantly verbal gaffs and slapstick gags related to the imagination/innocence/stupidity of the characters.  As such, they do get a bit stale after a while, but to Waititi’s credit, he skillfully shifts the film’s tone towards drama in the second half, and by the end you may find yourself strangely moved.

One of the main reasons Boy works so well is young James Rolleston, a first-timer who has turned out to be a remarkable revelation.  He carries the film from start to finish without a bit of self-consciousness.  He makes Boy a real and immensely likable kid who just wants to be loved and connect with his father.  Based on this performance and his looks alone, Rolleston appears destined for stardom.

Having talked the film up so much, I should remind readers to keep their expectations in check.  There are some slower moments and not every scene is captivating.  A few of the gags don’t necessarily work.  But Boy should be enjoyed for what it is — a simple and unambitious film (by Hollywood standards) focused on characters and relationships.  It’s a different type of experience to your brainless Hollywood blockbusters (many would say thankfully).  It’s also completely different to those heavy dramas that drain you emotionally or those crazy comedies that bust your gut.  It’s just 88 minutes of exceptionally well-made light entertainment.

3.5 stars out of 5

[This might be a strange comparison, but in some ways Boy reminds me of the highest grossing Taiwanese film of all time, Cape No. 7 (2006) -- both small, simple comedy-dramas that struck a chord with the locals and ended up exceeding all box-office expectations.]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Bad Behavior has blocked 463 access attempts in the last 7 days.