Saturday, January 15, 2011

Ohhhhhh Ok, a Post!

Alright, so, if you couldn't tell, I haven't posted in a long-ass time. This is because my new job is going GREAT and it makes me so tired I barely have energy to passively scroll through my RSS feed let alone write something at least moderately interesting. Being a baker is pretty awesome. Even though I make a lot of the same recipes every week it is never boring. The other baker and my boss are starting to trust that I can do a lot more stuff now that I've had more practice. I'm hoping to maybe introduce a recipe sometime soon-ish. Probably a cupcake, who knows!

As far as recent culinary endeavors are considered: I made champagne cupcakes for New Years and they seemed to be well received! I didn't get a picture but they didn't look as complicated a they actually were. Champagne cake, custard, and frosting, a whole bottle of champagne for two dozen cupcakes.

Ok, lets see, movies...

Well, I've seen a LOT of movies since my last update, but I guess I'll stick to the most recent and give a quick blurb:

The Social Network: Yes, I did just recently get around to seeing this movie. When it first came out Andy was deep in his "everything about social networking is horrible" tirade and neither of us were too excited to see it. Now with the beginning of Oscar season upon us, and the massive number of "greatest movie of 2010" accolades the film received, we decided to hop into it. The movie itself is solid, but the plot is a little disjointed. I might have just missed it completely, but there is little to no reference as to the actual timeline, as in length of time between scenes, through the entire film. This is more than a little confusing to the audience. With that said, Jesse Eisenberg is pretty fucking brilliant in this role. He's the perfect blend of obsessed and self absorbed with this wonderful tension behind every word; as though the act of talking to people is painful and demeaning. Wonderful.

The King's Speech: The only things needed are the following names: Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, in that order. Firth is just... beautiful in this role. He hits every note with such precision and craft. He places layers upon layers of conflict within his character and makes them just visible enough to tease you before they come to maturity. Geoffrey Rush is the same but is really the support to Firth's symphony of emotion. The characters depend entirely on each other and the acting does exactly the same. Rush could not have been his character without Firth and vice versa. See this movie, even if you know nothing about the background to the story te movie plays textbook enough to keep even a seven year old up to pace.

True Grit: And the Dude does it again! Jeff Bridges does a great job in this film, but it really becomes more on an ensemble piece. Bridges' character is not given enough background to make him the center of attention. Hailee Steinfield, however, completely surprises with her ability to play the girl caught up in a man's world without any of the expected stereotype. You never question if she can handle what she is getting in to and it's a real breath of fresh air. Matt Damon's character, though not as prominent, reminds the audience the Damon came into the game as a dramatic actor and that is really where his craft is best exposed. Not sci-fi (the Hereafter), not action (the Bourne movies), not comedy(the Informant!), and not as a secondary plot main character (Invictus), but as a dramatic support or lead.

Tron: Legacy: The only reason you should see this movie in I-MAX is because there are few things more awesome that a 20,000 watt, 6.1 surround system blasting fucking DAFT PUNK for an ENTIRE movie!!!! I bought the soundtrack on the way home from the movie! The visuals are also impressive but the script was pretty sloppy and the acting was... ok. However, seeing Jeff Bridges (have I mentioned that I love the Dude? because if I haven't, I do) reprise the role I first saw him in was pretty awesome. We had Jeff Bridges Tron sheets when I was little, there's where my love began. But in all earnestness, Daft Punk is awesome and their music can really carry your interest through the movie.

Just a thought, is there a theoretical difference between a film and a movie? For a period of time during my undergrad I began making a distinction between the two, but that might have just been pretentious of me. Movies were limited to blockbusters, star vehicles, and sloppy productions that pandered to a certain, I hate to say it, less fancy audience. Films were art house, independent, and a-typical productions that I thought were genuinely good. That isn't to say that movies cannot also be very good, just that more often tan not I would be left thinking about films for weeks when I'd forget most smaller plot points of movies shortly after watching them. Hmmm, food for thought!

1 comment:

  1. I think the terms are interchangeable - whichever one happens to sound better in context. For instance, if I said I was a Movie Major, that would sound stupid. But really, since one term is derived from the material that the pictures appeared on and the other is a shortened form of "moving picture," there isn't a difference.