This just in: Clive and Julia didn't win the weekend. But having enjoyed seeing it at a moderately packed 10am showing at the local AMC, I'm kind of surprised they didn't fare better. The numbers don't lie, though. And the numbers, so says Hollywood Reporter, are thus:
KNOWING (starring Nic Cage): $24.8 million
I LOVE YOU, MAN (starring Paul Rudd): $18 million
DUPLICITY (starring Clive & Julia): $14.4 million
What do we know about KNOWING? It's got Nicolas Cage, and he rules the box office. Know what we love about I LOVE YOU, MAN? Paul Rudd's fabulous awkwardness revealed. And know what's duplicitous about DUPLICITY? The fact that these spies are incredibly smart and yet, ultimately, easily duped. Is that what turned people off? Or was it the lack of novelty? If I had to guess, I would say the MR. AND MRS. SMITH-ishness of this film, the "it's kind of already been done before" factor, might be what chiefly worked against it. Plus, it's been a while since the world has seen Julia, and Clive has never really been a sure BO-winner, despite his sultry eyes. What I know is that DUPLICITY, despite these things working against it, actually is enjoyable.
Focusing on two lovers who are married to their careers as corporate counterintelligence spies, DUPLICITY weaves a thick but comprehensible net that basically teaches the moral "keep sex and work separate." When Clive and Julia (Ray and Claire, respectively) decide to take down their bosses and garner a huge pay-off in the process, we get roped into their journey of lies and subterfuge. Who can you trust? The answer is no one, no one at all. Another good title for this film, actually, might have been DOUBT.
One thing for which I must commend Tony Gilroy, the writer/director, is how thickly he wove his web. I actually wasn't sure a lot of the time who was conning who, which player was ahead or behind, but if you hang in, you figure it all out. Gilroy doesn't leave you hanging, and that I really liked. Unlike many other heist movies I've seen--and I've seen a good number--you knew exactly what the stakes were, exactly what each side was after, and the measure of believability within this world (how they were accomplishing their hijinks under either corporation's noses) was actually rather high. What scored low was the climax scene--and I don't want to give anything away, but I will say this: for two people presented as amazingly cunning spies, they shouldn't have let what happened happen.
Now, having seen both DUPLICITY and I LOVE YOU, MAN, I refuse to believe that KNOWING actually was the best of the three films. I won't be seeing it to confirm--sorry, Nic--but my gut tells me I'm right. If you want a pretty solid caper movie with some nice bits of romance thrown in, DUPLICITY will do ya fine. If you want NATIONAL TREASURE meets NEXT, well...you obviously already saw KNOWING.
plot: New-school espionage with old-school romance.
thought: They take shaving cream seriously.
in five: 3/5
no angelina: http://www.duplicitymovie.net/
lundi 23 mars 2009
dimanche 22 mars 2009
Laffer Saturday (Hamlet 2 & Grosse Pointe Blank)
Saw two comedies chez moi this weekend, both of which I loved.
HAMLET 2, starring Steve Coogan as a nutty high school theatre teacher struggling to produce an off-color play that will let him deal with his daddy issues. It is awkward city, but it is funny. Co-stars Marisa Tomei, Amy Poehler and Elisabeth Shue.
plot: Producing art is never easy.
thought: Woo, there are rape jokes.
in five: 3.5/5
play on: http://www.filminfocus.com/focusfeatures/film/hamlet_2
GROSSE POINTE BLANK, starring John Cusack in probably one of the best turns in his career, as an insecure hit man who travels home for his high school reunion. Co-stars Minnie Driver, Dan Aykroyd and Jeremy Piven.
plot: Hitman remembers his first love.
thought: Best dialogue of 1997.*
in five: 4/5
on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119229/
read the first draft here.
*=FARGO actually won the award that year. GPB wasn't even nominated, which is sadness.
HAMLET 2, starring Steve Coogan as a nutty high school theatre teacher struggling to produce an off-color play that will let him deal with his daddy issues. It is awkward city, but it is funny. Co-stars Marisa Tomei, Amy Poehler and Elisabeth Shue.
plot: Producing art is never easy.
thought: Woo, there are rape jokes.
in five: 3.5/5
play on: http://www.filminfocus.com/focusfeatures/film/hamlet_2
GROSSE POINTE BLANK, starring John Cusack in probably one of the best turns in his career, as an insecure hit man who travels home for his high school reunion. Co-stars Minnie Driver, Dan Aykroyd and Jeremy Piven.
plot: Hitman remembers his first love.
thought: Best dialogue of 1997.*
in five: 4/5
on imdb: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119229/
read the first draft here.
*=FARGO actually won the award that year. GPB wasn't even nominated, which is sadness.
SUNSHINE CLEANING
Otherwise known as LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE: REDUX.*
A cute, little tale about a single mom and her troubled sister who both, along with their aging and addled father, try to keep life in check. Our key players are Rose (Amy Adams), Norah (Emily Blunt) and Joe (Alan Arkin). Together they raise Rose's son, Oscar (the adorable and ridiculously busy Jason Spevack), because, you know, it takes a village.
The three are still living in the aftershock of Joe's wife committing suicide some twenty years earlier, and their lives are in a permanent funk. Still living in their hometown, Rose works as a maid, Norah works to keep a job--any job--and Joe dreams up hair-brained, get-rich-quick schemes that all inadvertently fail. They're as American as the cast of lovable losers in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, and that's this movie's strength. It's almost the same film. Hello, the word "sunshine" is in the title.
I never wrote about LITTLE MISS when I saw it in Paris, but I really liked that film; it was simple and just as special as everyone let on. I don't know what others say they loved about it, but me, it wasn't so much the story. It was the American-ness, that thick and heady middle class soot that oozed out of every scene. From the moment Toni Collette drops the bucket of KFC chicken on the table about three minutes in and announces that dinner is "ready," the American Studies major in me went berserk. I was in it. And even though Paul Dano's character got more normal and the plot a little less remarkable as the film went on, I had to appreciate how this film completely encompassed everything about America that you could love, hate or disinterestedly observe in such an accurate way.
Now, SUNSHINE CLEANING, though a reprisal of the theme, lacked that ooze. It was American, small-town American, but there was a little bit of melodrama and more than a little bit of unfinished character development. Our actors were great, though. Alan Arkin does a great Alan Arkin. And Emily Blunt a great dispassionate American girl in her mid-20s. And this is the first film in which I've really loved Amy Adams. Like--don't get me wrong--I like Amy Adams a lot. I like the idea of her. But having only seen MISS PETTIGREW and DOUBT, I know I haven't seen her best work. SUNSHINE CLEANING must definitely rank up there. She was the star of this film for me, and I'm so glad she was cast as Rose; she really owned it. Though I'll tell you what--for a single mother, Rose looked maaaaybe a bit too good. Better than all her high school friends, that's for sure. Times might be hard for her, but time has been harder on their hips. Then again, those women can shove it.
plot: Cleaning up houses and lives.
thought: Working at two hard jobs.
in five: 3.5/5
a little sunshine: http://www.sunshinecleaning-themovie.com/
*=This is post #200. Huzzah!
A cute, little tale about a single mom and her troubled sister who both, along with their aging and addled father, try to keep life in check. Our key players are Rose (Amy Adams), Norah (Emily Blunt) and Joe (Alan Arkin). Together they raise Rose's son, Oscar (the adorable and ridiculously busy Jason Spevack), because, you know, it takes a village.
The three are still living in the aftershock of Joe's wife committing suicide some twenty years earlier, and their lives are in a permanent funk. Still living in their hometown, Rose works as a maid, Norah works to keep a job--any job--and Joe dreams up hair-brained, get-rich-quick schemes that all inadvertently fail. They're as American as the cast of lovable losers in LITTLE MISS SUNSHINE, and that's this movie's strength. It's almost the same film. Hello, the word "sunshine" is in the title.
I never wrote about LITTLE MISS when I saw it in Paris, but I really liked that film; it was simple and just as special as everyone let on. I don't know what others say they loved about it, but me, it wasn't so much the story. It was the American-ness, that thick and heady middle class soot that oozed out of every scene. From the moment Toni Collette drops the bucket of KFC chicken on the table about three minutes in and announces that dinner is "ready," the American Studies major in me went berserk. I was in it. And even though Paul Dano's character got more normal and the plot a little less remarkable as the film went on, I had to appreciate how this film completely encompassed everything about America that you could love, hate or disinterestedly observe in such an accurate way.
Now, SUNSHINE CLEANING, though a reprisal of the theme, lacked that ooze. It was American, small-town American, but there was a little bit of melodrama and more than a little bit of unfinished character development. Our actors were great, though. Alan Arkin does a great Alan Arkin. And Emily Blunt a great dispassionate American girl in her mid-20s. And this is the first film in which I've really loved Amy Adams. Like--don't get me wrong--I like Amy Adams a lot. I like the idea of her. But having only seen MISS PETTIGREW and DOUBT, I know I haven't seen her best work. SUNSHINE CLEANING must definitely rank up there. She was the star of this film for me, and I'm so glad she was cast as Rose; she really owned it. Though I'll tell you what--for a single mother, Rose looked maaaaybe a bit too good. Better than all her high school friends, that's for sure. Times might be hard for her, but time has been harder on their hips. Then again, those women can shove it.
plot: Cleaning up houses and lives.
thought: Working at two hard jobs.
in five: 3.5/5
a little sunshine: http://www.sunshinecleaning-themovie.com/
*=This is post #200. Huzzah!
WATCHMEN (as watched from the outside)
The coming of WATCHMEN was heralded like the coming of the Nintendo Wii. Spreading like a splash of 300-style blood across the interwebs, its trailer was one of the most watched clips on YouTube last year. The week before its opening, Fandango allegedly crashed multiple times as fanboys and girls alike flooded the site to buy tickets to midnight screenings nationwide. But naysayers parlayed their critique, speaking more judgmentally about the film's flaws than Tom Colicchio dissing Stefan on the penultimate episode of this season's "Top Chef." The decries led those unfamiliar with the subject matter to lose interest in its reported SIN CITY-style darkness. All that hullabaloo, and now, a mere two weeks after it hit theatres, its presence is fading into a mere box office memory.
It's a shame, I must say, having just seen it. Why is it fading out when the film is so freakin' good?
Now, I'll admit, I don't read graphic novels (in fact, I barely read anything but my own blog, that's what a ham I am), so I knew nothing about WATCHMEN. I didn't know the characters, the plot, the fact that that blue guy is naked and swinging for most of the movie--didn't really know any of that until about a week ago. But I loved it. I think I even liked it more than some of my friends who are fans of the story's original form. Not sure if that means there's something wrong in the film's marketing...or something right in my digestion of it...or vice versa...or both, but I'm here to say that if you go in, hang-up free and at least a little informed, you're sure to enjoy WATCHMEN. Here's why I did:
1. The superheroes. I love superheros, and WATCHMEN has them in spades, behaving goodly, behaving badly, being human and being superhuman. I haven't seen so many men and women of mystery on screen since the X-MEN trilogy, and this was done so much better than Ratner could have, even if given a handicap (look, more special effects!). Their stories were well-realised, and I was completely drawn in by watching them use their powers, both practiced and inherent. This is a movie that extols superheros even as said icons critique themselves. It's kinda meta that way.
2. The central hero. Would you say it's Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach? I'd say the latter. I was most confused/intrigued by the character Rorschach, as I wasn't sure, really, what his power was--perhaps as a result of not having read the novel. But if you break it down and define what makes someone a superhero as someone who uses any superhuman ability to fight for good--be it superhuman intelligence (Tony Stark) or superhuman stickiness (Spiderman)--Rorschach fits the mold. They all did. About Rorschach, I thought, "Hmm. He is strong. And smart. Unbelievably violent. Yet fighting for good. And that mask thing is cool. He's a superhero." I was pleased by the non-traditional superhero "space" his character inhabited, and hence got pulled into his slightly psycho obsession with journals and justice. And really, in a fight, would you rather have him for or against you? He was a loner, he was a fighter, and he was the glue that brought these superheroes back together.
3. The tone. Again, one point for the non-traditional. If the coming era of superhero movies means a little more DARK KNIGHT, a little less IRON MAN, I'm not sad or happy--they're both great flicks--but I am impressed. I think it's got to be alienating to be "the only one of your kind" (thanks, HANCOCK), and exploring that alienation is human. Exploring it on Mars is just plain cool. It's also a bit wimpy of Dr. Blue Balls, but I forgive him. It ain't easy being all-powerful and somewhat god-like. I appreciated the darkness, the poignancy, of this tale of good-doers with some serious skeletons in their closets. Growing up different wasn't easy for Rorschach or Silk Spectre II, living in the present is a struggle for The Comedian and Nite Owl, in their own ways, and thinking about the future almost derails Dr. Manhattan. In this film, we see the underside of superhero life, and it ain't pretty. But like we saw in DARK KNIGHT last year, a superhero knows his/her place--serve the world first and self second; live a life of hurt either way. That dedication to depicting this message sets WATCHMEN apart, as it did the caped crusader.
4. Story accuracy. As I said--and please don't judge too harshly--I didn't read the graphic novels. I actually (sorry) didn't even know who the Watchmen were until about the fourth time I ran into the trailer, around mid-December of 2008. Yes, I know, way late. But I don't think that entirely dispels my ability to discuss the accuracy of the story. I've asked around, and people tell me the film was very true to the comic, even encapsulating much of the comic's flaws. Interestingly, the things I left thinking didn't work in the movie were things that, upon conversations with others, I found didn't work in the graphic novel, either. And certain observations I made--why is Rorschach so long-winded when dictating his journal but so terse when speaking in scene?--seemed to be details lifted straight from Alan Moore's pages. Don't take the credit if you don't want to, Mr. Moore, but it's all there. You wrote something brilliant, and Zack Snyder did his damnedest to get it all on screen. But how do you turn a painting into a poem? Changing mediums is tough, and I suppose that's why they invented DVD-extras. Apparently, upon DVD-release the already dauntingly lengthy film will be beefed with deleted scenes galore to make this re-telling of the reawakening of the world hopefully even closer to what Moore would have wanted. That's dedication to a story, my friends, and Snyder deserves some serious praise.
5. I was prepped [SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD]. Final reason I could enjoy WATCHMEN, I think, was because I was told I wouldn't. From every media source, friends and foes alike, everyone had an opinion about the movie. I wanted to go in a little "clean-slate," but it was impossible. I heard early that there was graphic violence, graphic sex, it was longer than TITANIC and darker than DARK KNIGHT. I heard Malin Ackerman sucked, you could see Billy Crudup's possibly fake balls, that it was confusing to the outsider (me) and slow in pacing to everyone. I went in informed, and I knew: "Get a good night's sleep the night before. Use the bathroom before it starts. Pay the frack attention. Don't be distracted by the cyan-colored schlong. Get ready for lots of dialogue and a fair bit of cartoonish blood." It was like cheating, knowing all this. But then by the time that [seriously, SPOILER ALERT] Matthew Goode's awful American accent revealed the Noah-and-the-Ark-like nature of this long-winded tale, I was hanging on every minute. I had been waiting for it to get bad, but it didn't. THE WATCHMEN delivered. Well, actually, the ending, the big climax/resolution kind of disappointed me, but knowing that's how the graphic novel ended as well means I had to forgive it. So what, if it boiled down to "kill a million, save a billion"? Was the ride worth it? Knowing what I knew walking in--certainly.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
Of course the cinematic portrayal of the most well-known graphic novel of all time stands to be critiqued, but as far as I can tell, the naysayers are shooting crap. I encourage anyone willing to spend three hours of their time in a dark room with the darkest heroes of our time to go in with an open mind. You don't have to be some graphic novel aficionado to love WATCHMEN. You just need to have a good appreciation for the superhero genre and, perhaps, dark characters in general. If you understand at least a bit of what you're getting into, you'll fare fine. You may enjoy it even more than expected. I, for one, totally did.
plot: Even superheroes drop like flies.
thought: Who will save us now?
in five: 4/5
watch them: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/
It's a shame, I must say, having just seen it. Why is it fading out when the film is so freakin' good?
Now, I'll admit, I don't read graphic novels (in fact, I barely read anything but my own blog, that's what a ham I am), so I knew nothing about WATCHMEN. I didn't know the characters, the plot, the fact that that blue guy is naked and swinging for most of the movie--didn't really know any of that until about a week ago. But I loved it. I think I even liked it more than some of my friends who are fans of the story's original form. Not sure if that means there's something wrong in the film's marketing...or something right in my digestion of it...or vice versa...or both, but I'm here to say that if you go in, hang-up free and at least a little informed, you're sure to enjoy WATCHMEN. Here's why I did:
1. The superheroes. I love superheros, and WATCHMEN has them in spades, behaving goodly, behaving badly, being human and being superhuman. I haven't seen so many men and women of mystery on screen since the X-MEN trilogy, and this was done so much better than Ratner could have, even if given a handicap (look, more special effects!). Their stories were well-realised, and I was completely drawn in by watching them use their powers, both practiced and inherent. This is a movie that extols superheros even as said icons critique themselves. It's kinda meta that way.
2. The central hero. Would you say it's Dr. Manhattan or Rorschach? I'd say the latter. I was most confused/intrigued by the character Rorschach, as I wasn't sure, really, what his power was--perhaps as a result of not having read the novel. But if you break it down and define what makes someone a superhero as someone who uses any superhuman ability to fight for good--be it superhuman intelligence (Tony Stark) or superhuman stickiness (Spiderman)--Rorschach fits the mold. They all did. About Rorschach, I thought, "Hmm. He is strong. And smart. Unbelievably violent. Yet fighting for good. And that mask thing is cool. He's a superhero." I was pleased by the non-traditional superhero "space" his character inhabited, and hence got pulled into his slightly psycho obsession with journals and justice. And really, in a fight, would you rather have him for or against you? He was a loner, he was a fighter, and he was the glue that brought these superheroes back together.
3. The tone. Again, one point for the non-traditional. If the coming era of superhero movies means a little more DARK KNIGHT, a little less IRON MAN, I'm not sad or happy--they're both great flicks--but I am impressed. I think it's got to be alienating to be "the only one of your kind" (thanks, HANCOCK), and exploring that alienation is human. Exploring it on Mars is just plain cool. It's also a bit wimpy of Dr. Blue Balls, but I forgive him. It ain't easy being all-powerful and somewhat god-like. I appreciated the darkness, the poignancy, of this tale of good-doers with some serious skeletons in their closets. Growing up different wasn't easy for Rorschach or Silk Spectre II, living in the present is a struggle for The Comedian and Nite Owl, in their own ways, and thinking about the future almost derails Dr. Manhattan. In this film, we see the underside of superhero life, and it ain't pretty. But like we saw in DARK KNIGHT last year, a superhero knows his/her place--serve the world first and self second; live a life of hurt either way. That dedication to depicting this message sets WATCHMEN apart, as it did the caped crusader.
4. Story accuracy. As I said--and please don't judge too harshly--I didn't read the graphic novels. I actually (sorry) didn't even know who the Watchmen were until about the fourth time I ran into the trailer, around mid-December of 2008. Yes, I know, way late. But I don't think that entirely dispels my ability to discuss the accuracy of the story. I've asked around, and people tell me the film was very true to the comic, even encapsulating much of the comic's flaws. Interestingly, the things I left thinking didn't work in the movie were things that, upon conversations with others, I found didn't work in the graphic novel, either. And certain observations I made--why is Rorschach so long-winded when dictating his journal but so terse when speaking in scene?--seemed to be details lifted straight from Alan Moore's pages. Don't take the credit if you don't want to, Mr. Moore, but it's all there. You wrote something brilliant, and Zack Snyder did his damnedest to get it all on screen. But how do you turn a painting into a poem? Changing mediums is tough, and I suppose that's why they invented DVD-extras. Apparently, upon DVD-release the already dauntingly lengthy film will be beefed with deleted scenes galore to make this re-telling of the reawakening of the world hopefully even closer to what Moore would have wanted. That's dedication to a story, my friends, and Snyder deserves some serious praise.
5. I was prepped [SPOILER ALERTS AHEAD]. Final reason I could enjoy WATCHMEN, I think, was because I was told I wouldn't. From every media source, friends and foes alike, everyone had an opinion about the movie. I wanted to go in a little "clean-slate," but it was impossible. I heard early that there was graphic violence, graphic sex, it was longer than TITANIC and darker than DARK KNIGHT. I heard Malin Ackerman sucked, you could see Billy Crudup's possibly fake balls, that it was confusing to the outsider (me) and slow in pacing to everyone. I went in informed, and I knew: "Get a good night's sleep the night before. Use the bathroom before it starts. Pay the frack attention. Don't be distracted by the cyan-colored schlong. Get ready for lots of dialogue and a fair bit of cartoonish blood." It was like cheating, knowing all this. But then by the time that [seriously, SPOILER ALERT] Matthew Goode's awful American accent revealed the Noah-and-the-Ark-like nature of this long-winded tale, I was hanging on every minute. I had been waiting for it to get bad, but it didn't. THE WATCHMEN delivered. Well, actually, the ending, the big climax/resolution kind of disappointed me, but knowing that's how the graphic novel ended as well means I had to forgive it. So what, if it boiled down to "kill a million, save a billion"? Was the ride worth it? Knowing what I knew walking in--certainly.
[END SPOILER ALERT]
Of course the cinematic portrayal of the most well-known graphic novel of all time stands to be critiqued, but as far as I can tell, the naysayers are shooting crap. I encourage anyone willing to spend three hours of their time in a dark room with the darkest heroes of our time to go in with an open mind. You don't have to be some graphic novel aficionado to love WATCHMEN. You just need to have a good appreciation for the superhero genre and, perhaps, dark characters in general. If you understand at least a bit of what you're getting into, you'll fare fine. You may enjoy it even more than expected. I, for one, totally did.
plot: Even superheroes drop like flies.
thought: Who will save us now?
in five: 4/5
watch them: http://watchmenmovie.warnerbros.com/
LITERATI | lunch
Girlfriend, don't get me started on cafes. I love cafes. Give me a latte, anything from the bakery and some soft but lively music churned into the low hum of regulars mewling over humdrum life events, and you will be giving me a shot of happiness. Cafe culture is my forte; I live for cafes. And though Fire City is not a purveyor to the sauntering lifestyle (to which cafes typically cater), it does try hard to pretend. Isn't that what this city is about? Pretending? And thus, it has a high number of cafes stationed county-wide, albeit far apart.
LITERATI CAFE in Yupwood is a new discovery of mine. After it had been recommended to me by a number of friends, I looked it up and realised it was down the street from my place of business. I fancied a stop-in. I've been there twice now, and each time was wonderful. LITERATI is not flawless, however. But would I recommend and revisit? Most definitely.
Having recently undergone a makeover, Literati now inhabits two side-by-side locations. Side A is casual but always crowded, with Ikea-like wooden tables crammed too close together. But there is wi-fi, and the service is quick. Side B is a bit more upscale, more "this-is-strictly-business" lunch. The food items seem a touch more refined, and they are also pricier. I have only eaten on Side A and only during lunchtime. First visit, I had a grilled portabello mushroom panini with melted swiss on focaccia (amazing); second visit, I had carrot ginger soup with a side of Mediterranean salad replete with olives and pine nuts and a splash of house vinaigrette. Are you salivating yet? It's okay. I did, too.
I have yet to try the desserts or the classier end of the half-cafe-half-restaurant, but if the first two tastes are anything to go by, I doubt I could ever be disappointed. Now, I don't know if I could do work at Literati--for a place with that name, it seems a bit too busy for any sort of literary endeavor--but it is on my cafe radar. But when it comes to places to station yourself for an afternoon of laptop time, I think my picks are elsewhere.
the place: 12081 Wilshire Blvd 90025 - (310) 231-7484
the taste: Light, farm-fresh, American organic.
in five: 4/5
dine out: http://www.literaticafe.com/
LITERATI CAFE in Yupwood is a new discovery of mine. After it had been recommended to me by a number of friends, I looked it up and realised it was down the street from my place of business. I fancied a stop-in. I've been there twice now, and each time was wonderful. LITERATI is not flawless, however. But would I recommend and revisit? Most definitely.
Having recently undergone a makeover, Literati now inhabits two side-by-side locations. Side A is casual but always crowded, with Ikea-like wooden tables crammed too close together. But there is wi-fi, and the service is quick. Side B is a bit more upscale, more "this-is-strictly-business" lunch. The food items seem a touch more refined, and they are also pricier. I have only eaten on Side A and only during lunchtime. First visit, I had a grilled portabello mushroom panini with melted swiss on focaccia (amazing); second visit, I had carrot ginger soup with a side of Mediterranean salad replete with olives and pine nuts and a splash of house vinaigrette. Are you salivating yet? It's okay. I did, too.
I have yet to try the desserts or the classier end of the half-cafe-half-restaurant, but if the first two tastes are anything to go by, I doubt I could ever be disappointed. Now, I don't know if I could do work at Literati--for a place with that name, it seems a bit too busy for any sort of literary endeavor--but it is on my cafe radar. But when it comes to places to station yourself for an afternoon of laptop time, I think my picks are elsewhere.
the place: 12081 Wilshire Blvd 90025 - (310) 231-7484
the taste: Light, farm-fresh, American organic.
in five: 4/5
dine out: http://www.literaticafe.com/
ONE SUNSET | dinner
Yes, yes, it's true. Meant to write about this one eons ago. But it's still on the mind, so I thought I'd finally get around to it.
The better part of a month ago, a group of friends and I decided to take advantage of a foodie tradition in Fire City known as Restaurant Week. It's a misnomer, really, as this year's Restaurant Week (which historically lasts a fortnight) actually lasted an entire month. God bless the recession and desperate chefs citywide!
Restaurant Week features some of the best eateries in the city offering prix fixe menus at reduced prices for those who like to scale up when masticating but don't like to part with their hard-earned. Well, I am among that number. So I made a schedule of places to go and things to eat, detailed by cuisine and price, with the intent to eat out at least twice per week for the entire month-long affair.
Alas. Not even this foodie could spare the cash. Luckily, ONE SUNSET was one of the first stops on my still-uncompleted schedule (which, for the record, will remain unfinished indefinitely), so we did make it there, at least. Funny story, though--we didn't do the Restaurant Week menu. Realising upon arrival that we could upgrade for a mere $10 (bringing the meal-sans-drinks total to $45) to the Chef's Tasting Menu, we did that. And boy, what a treat.
From the sweet potato fries to the mac & cheese to the beet salad to the Angus beef sliders (yeah, I didn't eat those--but I did get my own salmon slider, compliments of the chef) to the mushroom flatbread to the fabulous desserts (creme brulee, blueberry bread pudding & red velvet cupcakes!) everything was great. Our server was kind and knowledgeable--and obviously good at her job, seeing as she upgraded us against our intentions--and the ambiance was classy without being pretentious. Perhaps that's because we went on a Thursday night instead of the high-volume Friday or Saturday scenester's dining time. But we were the better for it. Good food was elevated to great thanks to the entire atmosphere of the place. I've already recommended the joint to several friends, none of whom have left hungry or disgruntled, so I say one point to ONE SUNSET. You're not too shabby at all.
the place: 8730 W Sunset Blvd 90069 - (310) 657-0111
the taste: American with a mock-Asian twist.
in five: 3.5/5 (for the fusion factor--you can't score a four if you serve Asian fusion, sorry)
dine out: http://www.onelittlewest12.com/sunset/
The better part of a month ago, a group of friends and I decided to take advantage of a foodie tradition in Fire City known as Restaurant Week. It's a misnomer, really, as this year's Restaurant Week (which historically lasts a fortnight) actually lasted an entire month. God bless the recession and desperate chefs citywide!
Restaurant Week features some of the best eateries in the city offering prix fixe menus at reduced prices for those who like to scale up when masticating but don't like to part with their hard-earned. Well, I am among that number. So I made a schedule of places to go and things to eat, detailed by cuisine and price, with the intent to eat out at least twice per week for the entire month-long affair.
Alas. Not even this foodie could spare the cash. Luckily, ONE SUNSET was one of the first stops on my still-uncompleted schedule (which, for the record, will remain unfinished indefinitely), so we did make it there, at least. Funny story, though--we didn't do the Restaurant Week menu. Realising upon arrival that we could upgrade for a mere $10 (bringing the meal-sans-drinks total to $45) to the Chef's Tasting Menu, we did that. And boy, what a treat.
From the sweet potato fries to the mac & cheese to the beet salad to the Angus beef sliders (yeah, I didn't eat those--but I did get my own salmon slider, compliments of the chef) to the mushroom flatbread to the fabulous desserts (creme brulee, blueberry bread pudding & red velvet cupcakes!) everything was great. Our server was kind and knowledgeable--and obviously good at her job, seeing as she upgraded us against our intentions--and the ambiance was classy without being pretentious. Perhaps that's because we went on a Thursday night instead of the high-volume Friday or Saturday scenester's dining time. But we were the better for it. Good food was elevated to great thanks to the entire atmosphere of the place. I've already recommended the joint to several friends, none of whom have left hungry or disgruntled, so I say one point to ONE SUNSET. You're not too shabby at all.
the place: 8730 W Sunset Blvd 90069 - (310) 657-0111
the taste: American with a mock-Asian twist.
in five: 3.5/5 (for the fusion factor--you can't score a four if you serve Asian fusion, sorry)
dine out: http://www.onelittlewest12.com/sunset/
samedi 21 mars 2009
TAKEN
The long and short of it is that Liam Neeson took me by surprise (ba-dum-ching!).
I love French films. And this film, despite being helmed by an Irish actor, is French, through and through. Produced by Luc Besson. Financed by most of Europe. Takes place in Paris. Has on-the-nose dialogue that makes you kinda go, "Oookay, is this written badly...or is it written so well it feels bad?"
Ha. That's a trick question. And the answer is, "It's actually a mix of both."
Revolving around the violent kidnapping of a dumb-as-nails, pre-college Daddy's girl in the city of love, TAKEN offers enough action to make up for the mediocre dialogue. Who says older men can't still pack a punch? Liam is definitely still in fine form (thank you, editors), and he is a star. TAKEN will have you tense and riveted as you watch the dad you wish you had tear shit up to get his daughter back. That's unconditional love.
I've always been a fan of Mr. Neeson. From ETHAN FROME (creepy!) to LOVE, ACTUALLY (adorable!) to GUNSHY (so weird!), I find that whatever movie he's in, I like to see him. So if you haven't seen it yet, consider TAKEN and soon. There's a reason why it stayed in the box office top five for over a month. It's worth the rush.
the plot: "Forget it, Kidnapper. It's Liamtown."
the thought: Can classes teach those tricks?
in five: 4/5
get taken: http://www.takenmovie.com/
I love French films. And this film, despite being helmed by an Irish actor, is French, through and through. Produced by Luc Besson. Financed by most of Europe. Takes place in Paris. Has on-the-nose dialogue that makes you kinda go, "Oookay, is this written badly...or is it written so well it feels bad?"
Ha. That's a trick question. And the answer is, "It's actually a mix of both."
Revolving around the violent kidnapping of a dumb-as-nails, pre-college Daddy's girl in the city of love, TAKEN offers enough action to make up for the mediocre dialogue. Who says older men can't still pack a punch? Liam is definitely still in fine form (thank you, editors), and he is a star. TAKEN will have you tense and riveted as you watch the dad you wish you had tear shit up to get his daughter back. That's unconditional love.
I've always been a fan of Mr. Neeson. From ETHAN FROME (creepy!) to LOVE, ACTUALLY (adorable!) to GUNSHY (so weird!), I find that whatever movie he's in, I like to see him. So if you haven't seen it yet, consider TAKEN and soon. There's a reason why it stayed in the box office top five for over a month. It's worth the rush.
the plot: "Forget it, Kidnapper. It's Liamtown."
the thought: Can classes teach those tricks?
in five: 4/5
get taken: http://www.takenmovie.com/
Inscription à :
Articles (Atom)
