Change Your Image
gbsparta48
Reviews
Good Eats (1999)
Astonishingly Informative
If you are new to cooking, this is a great show to begin your journey. If you are a seasoned pro in the kitchen, this show is still necessary to keep your talons sharpened.
Alton Brown has managed to make a highly entertaining, humorous, and original food show with great recipes while doing something that is lost on other food show hosts: Educating his viewer.
There are many excellent qualities to AB's show, but his use of science is what sets his show apart from anything else food-related on television. Alton gets very, very scientific about why certain things must be done, why certain things do not need to be done, and why certain things may be done if desired. Other shows tell you to do specific things in recipes; Alton tells you why you must do this and how it affects the dish. While he educates the viewer, Alton takes his episode topic and turns it inside out. He teaches you how to use the ingredient, and how to cook in general (and bake, as well).
Authenticity is another staple of the show. If you are looking for the most authentic version of, say, New Orleans' style "Red Beans and Rice," you need look no further than Good Eats. Alton also cooks the most authentic versions of more common recipes such as onion soup, spinach salad, or prime rib - he does so by exploring the origins of the dishes and determining how they were originally prepared. Alton also ALWAYS cooks and bakes from scratch. He does not cut corners. He is basically the opposite of Sandra Lee (Semi- Homemade). In fact, at times Alton even mocks himself and caves in and tells the viewer that they can cut a corner if he might be going a little too far (e.g. In an episode in which he teaches the viewer to make baklava, Alton makes homemade rosewater but jokingly tells the viewer there is no shame in buying the store-bought version).
Alton always speaks with the viewer; never at the viewer. He frequently uses comedy sketches and comic bits to hammer home his point, and the actors he employs do a fine job (yes, actors are used). In summary, this is a great educational food show with terrific, authentic, made-from-scratch recipes. Being fun and amusing are added bonuses.
Personal Note: Alton Brown's "Coconut Cake Revival" episode is jaw-dropping. This is a long, difficult dish to prepare, and what Alton goes through to make this cake from complete scratch is nothing short of remarkable. Halfway through the episode he makes homemade coconut milk, coconut cream, and coconut extract (to use in the dish), and when he finally finishes the cake Alton lets out a laugh at the end of the episode. Highly impressive, to say the least.
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End (2007)
Delusional People
Fans of the last two Matrix movies and the last two POTC movies should organize a support group. Or you should get together and go to massive therapy sessions. The two film franchises are nearly identical:
1. Excellent first installments. 2. Sequels that were INCREDIBLY bad, yet super fan boys will not admit it for some reason because they loved the originals so much.
I wrote a similar comment/review on POTC 2. What is wrong with you people? This movie SUCKED. It was TERRIBLE. Why can't you just be honest with yourself? You think in 10 years you'll be watching this? Or recommending it to people? If you say yes you are a liar. You are lying to yourself.
What I don't get is that admitting this movie is bad does not in ANY way take away from the original POTC. It doesn't make it any less great of a movie (which it was - the first POTC was a very, very good movie).
Questions for some of you die-hards:
1. What was with the "sexual tension" between Knightley and Depp? The movie started to imply there was something there in numerous scenes, but never got any deeper into it or explained why there was tension at all in the first place. Perhaps just bad acting on Knightley's part? I checked into this and the script never intended there to be any.
2. What the hell was that flipping the boat over crap all about? (DON'T just recite the inane storyline to me, I understood it quite well at the time. It was just completely stupid.)
3. Could there have been possibly one more double-cross? Could the director have possibly squeezed in just ONE more? To make it, by my count, 18 double crosses?
4. The pirate meeting! THE PIRATE MEETING! Where they all get together and it looks like a Michael Jackson "We Are The World" pirate music video!
You guys need help. I love how over time the ranking for this movie has dropped, dropped dropped. Soon it will be below a "7" and you all will start to get it and admit to yourselves that these were mediocre-to-bad sequels.
UGH.
4: Rise of the Silver Surfer (2007)
Complete mutilation of a cherished story (***Spoilers Herein***)
Wow. Where to begin. Let's start with the positives: The Surfer looked excellent. He really did. I was impressed and excited when he first appeared.
Now, the negatives: Apparently Tim Story decided Stan Lee's work, which has lasted for years because it was a great story that stood the test of time, wasn't good enough for his motion picture. Apparently the Hollywood big wigs sat in a big executive board room around a large table and decided that they could come up with a better storyline along with changing the powers/abilities of various characters and basically murdering a storyline that was near perfect.
***SPOILERS*** Let's get a few things straight, people. I'm not one to hate on a movie because of a few nitpicky things. There were MAJOR plot flaws in this movie that were completely different from the original adaption. To begin with, and I want to be sure everyone understands this, The Silver Surfer DOES NOT get his powers from his board. There is no other way to say this other than "um, no, that's incorrect." About halfway through the flick Dr. Doom "discovers" that the Surfer gets his powers from his board, and you can obviously infer that at some point he is going to try and take it for himself.
In the comics, the Surfer is able to fly and use his powers all on his own; he only uses the board so that he doesn't expend the extra energy that flight requires (and very rapid flight at that - faster than the speed of light).
It's kind of like doing a Superman movie and saying that he gets his powers from his cape - Everyone would stare with a confused face and say, "Wha?" Once "de-boarded" The Surfer takes on an almost human-like existence (e.g. breathing heavily, fatigued, etc). Again, this is - what's the word? Oh yes - RIDICULOUS. I'm not trying to sound like some fan-boy, but it's just simply incorrect. Doing a Batman movie and making him a chimpanzee would irritate many who read the comics. The Surfer does not breath, eat, drink, etc. If you want an in-depth look at his abilities, use a search engine on the web and use a nice wik* site to explore.
Aside from these obvious blunders, at the end the Surfer apparently "kills" or at least "deters" Galactus from doing his work. This is kind of like saying that an ant got the best of Rambo in field combat. I can't stress this enough - it was storyline murder.
What made the Surfer stories so great is that they weren't just wham, bam thank you ma'am comics. They were very philosophical and contained a heavy amount of dialogue. In today's silver screen, most of the actors complain that they can't "act" enough in superhero movies. The unfortunate thing is, the creators of this movie had a great chance to appease both the fans and the actors by just simply FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL STORYLINE.
I'm not going to bore you any further complaining about this catasrophe. If you are still reading to this point, you obviously get what I'm trying to explain here. I'll sum it up like this: This movie, although visually appealing (while the Surfer is fully powered), is a complete nightmare.
If you want to read a very entertaining, thoughtful, and insightful story about a man who gave up his life in order to save others and his incredible journeys after this event, go to an online search engine and type up the word "parable" after the words "silver surfer." And a few last mathematics for you, according to the comics: 1. Galactus created the Surfer 2. The Surfer, in the comics, was far too powerful for the Fantastic Four (The Surfer alone is capable of destroying planets and stars, and has done so before), board or no board. The only reason he decided to help the Four was because he was touched by humanity and the goodness of the people on Earth (specifically the Fantastic Four). 3. In the Comics, when the Surfer tried to stop Galactus, he attacked him with enough force to destroy the solar system, and Galactus didn't even budge.
Now, hopefully you go and read the Parable story, so I won't ruin what happens for you. But using those guidelines, as for the movie...
How in the heck is the Surfer supposed to, if you are using the least possible scenario, DETER GALACTUS?!?!?! Give me a break. I know Stan Lee was a part of this movie, but it's widely known that the Surfer is perhaps his most favorite creation, along with most comic book fans loving this specific character. So why would he go and let Tim Story literally murder this character on the big screen? Well I have the answer, folks.
When you start getting old and senile, and someone hands you a big wad of cash, you pretty much stop caring about what's going on and what someone is doing with your most famous storyline.
Congratulations, Avi Arad and Tim Story. Thank you for nothing.
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
POTC 2 - The Search For More Money
Wow. Where to start? Walking out of the theater, I began hearing the inevitable.
I heard the same crap when I walked out of Matrix 2.
"Well, it WAS entertaining..." I know people are going to defend this movie by saying that it is leading into the third installment. I know they are going to defend it by saying that it was still entertaining.
But what does "still entertaining" mean? It means you just watched crap. People sometimes have a hard time letting go. It's okay to say this movie was mediocre at best (which is me being very, very nice). It's okay to wonder why they decided to trade in a semblance of a plot and instead fill two and a half hours plus (!!!) with rum jokes.
My girlfriend asked me what my favorite part was as we were leaving. To quote the ageless movie-review joke, I told her it was when the movie finally ended.
I'm not a hater either, so I don't want to catch any grief from any of you. The first POTC is a great movie. I was laughing and in suspense and enjoying great action sequences.
Just don't expect much from this motion picture.
Remember, it's okay to admit that it just wasn't a good movie.
The Prince of Tides (1991)
A Mistake
The problem with this movie is that, like most incredible, wonderful books made into movies, it does not come remotely close to capturing what the novel did.
It is a crime to watch this movie without first reading the book. In fact, to be honest, just read the book. The book is quite possibly the most terrific book I have ever read.
Pat Conroy delivered a masterpiece of a novel and there is just no way a movie could possibly touch all the aspects of the book. I will not give anything away, but the first obvious reason the movie cannot accomplish this task is because the book is chock too full of story to fit in a 2 to 3 hour span of movie time.
Do yourself a favor and read the book. If you aren't a big reader but are interested in reading something that will get you into reading, DEFINITELY read this. Words can't really describe it.
Hulk (2003)
awful
If you haven't seen this movie, please heed my warning:
"Hulk" is up there on my list of the worst movies I have ever sat through. About 30 mins into the movie, my friend and I agreed that it was terrible so far and I was asked how much longer the movie was. I gasped in horror as I looked at the ticket stub and came to the realization that the movie was over 2.5 hours.
There is crap, garbage, Steven Seagal movies, and then there's "Hulk," in a class by itself.
Connelly looked like she had just gave up. There are scenes when you can actually see it in her eyes - "Can I have my paycheck now?"
The CGI people for this movie should be taken out back and beaten unmercifully with a tire iron.
Whoever let this happen should suffer a far greater punishment.
Hellboy (2004)
disappointment
There was a lot of hype for this movie, and it just didn't live up to it. I was pretty bored the entire time, and the story was relatively lame. The actor that played John T. Smith was just awful - and Selma Blair was either sleepwalking through her performance or she just plain sucks.
The only bright spot about this flick was Ron Perlman's "Hellboy." He brought the character to life and basically carried this CGI-loaded movie. And the funny thing is - he didn't even have that much dialogue, mostly just one liners. They should have used him more and let him take over.
What happened to Abe Sapien? Quite an interesting character, but they failed again here in making him unavailable at the end of the movie because he was injured.
Luckily there was some action, and Perlman made it watchable. Because of his performance, I would give Hellboy a 4/10. There were just a few too many corny scenes that killed this movie for me.