You are browsing the archive for 2010 December.

Movie Review: Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)

December 14, 2010 in Movie Reviews

I think I’ve found my “worst film of 2010″.

This was unexpected for me, as I am a lover of horror films, especially supernatural ones.  I also like the idea of the “found footage” film, like The Blair Witch Project and I particularly liked The Last Exorcism this year.  I found the original Paranormal Activity to be less than inspiring — there were some good bits, but for the most part, the film was tedious and boring to me.  Too many pointless time-fillers between scares and the slow pace were not enough to make up for the spooky climax and horrific ending.

However, according to some accounts, Paranormal Activity 2 is better than the original.  With more experience, a proper script and a bigger budget, I was expecting an upgrade.

Talk about a letdown.  Paranormal Activity 2 is a prequel that basically recycles the idea of the first film — and throws crap all over it.  For those who haven’t seen the original, I won’t reveal too much, but essentially it’s about a haunting of a suburban house that escalates over time.  Last time it was a couple; this time it’s a family of four, plus a dog.

Like the original, nothing happens for most of the film, with a few extremely minor incidents trying to pass off as scares.  Even worse than the original is the fact that nothing notable happens until the final 15 minutes.  For the rest of the 91-minute running time, I was just waiting and waiting, hoping for something — anything.  It was like watching a very long episode of America’s boringest home videos.

The premise of the film made little sense to me.  In the first one, the couple decided to film everything because they thought the house may have been haunted.  In the sequel, the family decides to install surveillance cameras in just about every room of the house — and that’s where we get most of the footage — because of a burglary.  I’m sorry, but don’t people install security alarms to prevent burglars?  What is the point of putting on surveillance cameras all around the house — so you can see what has been stolen?  And correct me if I’m wrong, but I’ve never seen home surveillance cameras that can also capture crystal clear sound.

More annoying is the hand held camera footage.  Sure, families sometimes like to film stuff, especially when there is a baby — but why would anyone film things like: having an emotional conversation with a sibling, having a casual phone conversation with a friend, or when doing research on a computer?  I understand we need to learn things in order for the plot to progress, but when the footage frequently stretches the credibility of the film, that’s a big problem.

Speaking of credibility, the performances were less than convincing.  When the best actor in the entire film is the family’s dog, you know you’re in trouble.  And I won’t even start with the stereotypical Latino maid that happens to know everything about demons, including exactly how to get rid of them.

In my opinion, the reason the first film was so successful was not just because it was a clever idea — it was because a lot of people wondered whether the footage was actually real, or at least thought it felt real, which made everything in it much scarier than it really was.  Obviously, with the exception of a few, most people know that Paranormal Activity 2 is totally made up, which is okay, as long as they upped the scares.  But if anything, Paranormal Activity 2 was less scary than the original.

The scariest thing about the whole thing?  Paramount Pictures have announced that they are releasing another one next year.

1 star out of 5 (For being able to tie in the original film.  And the dog.)

Stop this 3D madness!

December 13, 2010 in Entertainment, Movie Reviews, Technology

Source: http://3dvision-blog.com

I’m so sick of watching a promising trailer for a new film, only to see in big letters at the very end, “Coming to you…in 3D”!!!

Here I go again.  I have been consistently vocal in my objection towards this current tidal wave of 3D films hitting our cinemas.  Sure, there are some movies that provide an enhanced experience in 3D — for example Avatar, or dare I even say Resident Evil: Afterlife, but ther vast majority of 3D films out there charge a hefty premium and give you a shitty time with the uncomfortable and darkening glasses and pointless 3D effects.

Worst of all, 3D films aren’t discounted at all, even on cheapo days, and even those that use movie money have to pay a few dollars extra.  For instance, if you go watch a 2D movie on cheapo Tuesday (in Australia), you can catch a film for around $10 (or less if you use movie money on any day of the week).  But if you watch the same movie in 3D, you can fork out up to $24 for an adult ($17.50 + $3.50 for 3D + $1 for Vmax + $1 for internet booking) and $19.50 for a child.  Enough said.

I thought after films like Clash of the Titans (where the 3D actually made the film worse) , the backlash against 3D will make studio execs think twice before making their latest release in 3D, but it hasn’t appeared to slow the trend at all.  According to this article from the Economist, 3D is relatively inexpensive, adding only a 10-15% to the cost of production, with a huge upside and low risk of piracy.  No wonder they’re even trying to re-release a bunch of old films in 3D to cash in.

Much of the blame of course rests with moviegoers that continue to go to 3D movies.  These days I choose 2D whenever the option is available, but I admit there have been times when I have wondered: will the 3D finally be good this time?  Needless to say, it never is.  I’m a frequent visitor to the cinema, but with a lot of people or families who only go a handful of times a year, 3D can seem like a real treat, especially if you haven’t experienced it before.  So I guess as long as people keep paying up to 240% the price of what they ought to be paying, the 3D rush will continue.

It was interesting, though, to see this New York Times article that discussed the backlash against 3D films in Hollywood.  Perhaps it is filmmakers who will take the charge to stop this 3D madness.

Movie Review: Red Hill (2010)

December 12, 2010 in Movie Reviews

Red Hill is a strange one.  Starring Ryan Kwanten (who rose to stardom with True Blood), it’s an old-fashioned, modern ‘Western’ of sorts set in rural Australia.  It has a very simple (and may I say pretty predictable) plot, a scarred, ‘cliched’ villain, and it’s not particularly action-packed or fast-paced for the most part — and yet, for whatever reason, I really enjoyed it.

Kwanten is Shane Cooper, a big city constable who has just moved to Red Hill for “personal” reasons.  Red Hill is exactly what you would expect from a tiny rural town in Australia, where just about everyone owns a farm and police still get around on horses.  But Cooper is going to have one hell of a first day on the job, because Jimmy Conway (Tom E Lewis), a convicted murderer, just escaped from prison, and he’s heading back to Red Hill to cause havoc.

Written and directed by Patrick Hughes, Red Hill is a slick, well-made thriller that I liked a lot more than I probably should have.  Naturally, being an Aussie film set in the countryside, there are many wide shots of the beautiful landscape, but Red Hill kept me intrigued because of Hughes’s handling of the brewing tension and unsettling mood.

There are lots of weaknesses with this film, which I suppose some may consider boring and silly at times, and despite the unoriginal plot, it felt like I had just seen something a little different, a little more unusual.

3.5 stars out of 5

Amir Khan overcomes Marcos Maidana in exciting decision victory

December 12, 2010 in Boxing

In what could be a potential candidate for fight of the year, talented Brit Amir Khan defeated gritty Argentine Marcos Maidana by a close but unanimous decision with the scores 114-111 (twice) and 113-112.  Khan knocked Maidana down in the first round with a couple of thudding body shots and Maidana had a point deducted for using his elbow in the fifth round — and those two 10-8 rounds proved to be the difference in the end.

Salivating matchup

This was a junior welterweight bout (140 lbs) for Khan’s WBA title, and it was a fascinating fight because Khan (24-1, 17 KOs), for all his talent and speed, has a questionable chin after being knocked out in 54 seconds by Breidis Prescott in Khan’s 19th professional fight.  And of course, Maidana (29-2, 27 KOs) is considered one of the, if not the hardest puncher in the 140lb division.

However, since Khan’s devastating defeat, he had won five straight fights in dominating fashion, in part due to him hiring the same team that made Manny Pacquiao the no. 1 pound-for-pound boxer in the world (trainer Freddie Roach and conditioning coach Trevor Ariza). So while Khan may have been the favourite in this fight, no one was taking Maidana for granted, and many thought there was no way Khan would be able to withstand Maidana’s heavy fists for 12 rounds.

Action packed bout

This was an exciting, action-packed fight from start to finish.  Khan clearly had the advantage in hand and foot speed, but Maidana sure could take a punch, and there was no doubt he could hurt Khan if he landed the right shot.  And so it was a game of cat and mouse — Maidana stalking and Khan doing his best Pacquiao impersonation, using his jab, firing rapid combos and getting out of the way.

Maidana gave Khan a bit of a scare in the opening round with a couple of big shots, but Khan was in control, dictating the distance with his jab and combinations.  Khan unloaded a couple of ripping body blows towards the end of that first round that dropped Maidana and had him rolling around in agony, but to his credit, Maidana not only got up, he managed to survive the round.

In the fifth round, Maidana, perhaps becoming more frustrated, tried to sneak in a backhanded elbow when the referee was trying to separate the two boxers.  It cost him a point.  At this stage, I would say Khan was in control, but Maidana was starting to look more dangerous.

Rounds six and seven belonged to Maidana the aggressor, as Khan looked like he was beginning to tire.  But then Khan turned the tables in rounds eight and nine to retake control with his rapid combos and skillful evasion.

Round 10 was the big one.  Khan was still doing his thing, dancing around and throwing quick punches, but out of nowhere Maidana threw a big right hand that tagged Khan on the chin — it buckled his legs and had Khan stumbling around the ring.  For the remainder of that round, Maidana busted Khan up and punched him all over the ring as Khan tried to tie up and cover up to survive.  While Khan blocked a lot of punches, the replays showed that he also got cracked with a few huge shots — shots no one ever thought he would be able to take.  That was a clear 10-8 round for Maidana because of Maidana’s dominance and how little Khan threw.

Just when I thought Maidana would finish Khan off the next round, Khan somehow came back alive in the second half of round 11 and clipped Maidana with some big shots of his own to claim the round.  Round 12 was another survival round for Khan, who looked absolutely spent and bleeding from the nose.  Khan was battered around a fair bit in the final round, but towards the end he landed a few good ones to keep Maidana honest.

My scorecard was 114-112 in favour of Khan (ESPN had it 116-109 for Khan, which I thought was too wide — despite eating a lot more punches, Maidana’s face was relatively unmarked by the end of the fight compared to Khan).

I gave six rounds to Khan and five rounds to Maidana with one round even (the fourth round, where both men had their moments).  Khan had two 10-8 rounds — the first where he knocked Maidana down, and the fifth because of the point deduction.  Maidana had a 10-8 round in the 10th, where he almost knocked Khan out.  So it was very very close — if Maidana didn’t get the point deduction and if I gave him round four, this would have been a draw on my card.

CompuBox stats: Khan — 273 of 603 punches (45 percent); Maidana — 156 of 767 (20 percent).

I’d love to see Khan take on the winner of the Alexander-Bradley winner.  This was an ugly win that showed us that Khan probably isn’t as technically sound as we thought he was, but at the same time it showed he has a much better chin and a much bigger heart than anyone gave him credit for.

Khan vs Pacquiao?

Khan said it himself that it would never happen — because both guys use Freddie Roach and Trevor Ariza.  Unless Khan wants to change camps, there’s no way this fight can happen.

I know Roach recently said Khan has more potential than Pacquiao (probably because Pacquiao has peaked while Khan is still improving) and that in sparring sessions Khan has sometimes gotten the better of Pacquiao, but if these two ever did lace up the gloves in a fantasy bout, I have no doubt Pacquiao would wipe the floor with Khan.

Khan’s only advantages are his youth (24), height (5’10″) and reach.  Khan is fast, but Pacquiao is much faster (in both hand and foot speed, especially in foot speed), throws sharper, longer and more accurate combos (Khan’s are more like Calzaghe’s ‘pitter-patter’ shots while Pacquiao’s bust people up), has better defense (Khan has very little head movement), power, experience, stamina, and is significantly better at creating angles.

Khan doesn’t have the same balance as Pacquiao, which is why he looked awkward at times against Maidana, and when he tries to back away he keeps moving in the same direction (and often into the ropes), whereas Pacquiao keeps turning his opponents in the middle of the ring.

Still, Khan is young and has a bright future ahead of him.  I’m not sold that he can be a superstar like Pacquiao, but if he keeps improving, he could certainly be a champion in multiple divisions for years to come.

Revisiting Ola’s Flavors in Taipei!

December 11, 2010 in Food, Taiwan, Travel

I thought I’d start off my latest trip to Taipei with a visit to one of my favourite places — the sensational Swedish restaurant, Ola’s Flavors.  In the eleven or so months since my last trip, Ola and his wife Stephanie have had a baby girl, which has made them extremely busy, though I am happy to report that the quality of the food is as good as ever.

I had been dreaming of Ola’s famous Swedish meatballs ever since the first time I went there, and of course I had it again this time.  We also had the pork main again (which I recall now is from Ola’s grandmother’s recipe) as well as the apple pie dessert.  I won’t bother posting the photos for those dishes again — you’ll be able to find them here (together with information on how to get there, etc).

This time, we got a new starter — crab salad on toast.  Great mix of flavours and textures with a tangy mayo.  For one of the other main courses we got the veal chops, which were sublime.  For dessert, we also got a rhubarb crumble — which is very similar to the apple pie but in my opinion even better as it has a thicker pastry and is crunchier on the outside.  Makes me drool just thinking about it.

Without further ado, there are the pics!

Veal chops -- even better than the lamb chops we had last time

 

Crab salad on toast -- even better than it looks

Rhubarb crumble -- possibly their best dessert yet

Can’t wait to go there again!

Bad Behavior has blocked 641 access attempts in the last 7 days.