Coming up...

I'm going to review McD's lamb burger. Yes, I'm aware that the chances of it tasting like actual lamb are about the same as me farting out a Toyota Prius in the next 20 seconds, but everyone's talking about it so thus I feel I need to put my two cents in.

MOVIE REVIEW: Star Trek (2009)

Okay, it's been three years since this movie came out but since it was on TV last week I thought I would give it another view. 

A RE-VIEW!

(ba-doom-tish)
I'll start with this: I've always liked Star Trek as a franchise - it's ambitious, big idea science fiction with particularly dodgy production values. The new movie, by comparison, is small-minded, generic, by-the-numbers science fiction without any of the ambition or narrative that made Star Trek what it is, or was. It's almost as if the Borg had assimilated the franchise and stripped it of all drive and enthusiasm.

Primarily, I blame bad writing. Star Trek's script was the brainchild of Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the same people who updated Transformers and gave us the spectacles of Spike's mother eating a hash brownie, and Devastator's scrotum. The problem with the movie is that it's a hash of coincidences. There are so many 'it just so happens' moments throughout (it just so happened that Kirk was marooned on the same planet as Old Spock and it just so happened that it's the same planet that McCoy is on as well) that I end up feeling that the story and the narrative were more an afterthought to the big special effects extravaganza.

However, as far as a special effects extravaganza goes, Star Trek is great. The space battles are heated and furious, the firefights are action-packed, and the explosions are bright and big and explosion-y. However bad writing and great special effects is what ruined another venerable sci-fi franchise, and it's a complete 180 on what made Star Trek great in the first place. I get the feeling that this re-side-boot (you know what I mean if you've seen it) is a geek in jock's clothing (even to the point of proclaiming that "this isn't your father's Star Trek!" in one promotion). It stinks of trying too hard to be part of the 'in crowd', those jerks who pushed me around when I was younger and took my stuff and ran off.

Sorry, lost it a bit there; where was I?

The acting is... okay. Karl Urban, Simon Pegg, and Zachary Quinto are the standouts. Chris Pine's Kirk is so two-dimensional it's almost a parody of the role and Zoe Saldana's Uhura is pretty much absent. John Cho's Sulu is solid (aside from the glaring 'Sulu is now obviously Korean' thing) and Anton Yelchin's Chekov is unmistakeably Chekov. Eric Bana's portrayal of the Romulan Nero is supposed to be full of gravitas and angst for a civilization lost, but there are so many (badly written) holes in his justification/master plan that he would have been more a more sympathetic villain if he put on a black cape, top hat, and moustache, laughing maniacally as he ties Uhura to the train tracks.

A final word on casting: please stop encouraging Tyler Perry. Please. I beg of you.

So overall, Star Trek has punch but no heart; lots of balls but very little brain to back it up. Yes, I know Star Trek is known for huge plot inconsistencies (which Star Trek has aplenty) but it had heart and ambition to back it up, neither of which were abundant in this venture. Overall, I would agree that Star Trek definitely isn't my father's Star Trek - however at times I was left wondering if it was Star Trek at all.  

RESTAURANT REVIEW: Arbitrageur, Wellington

Arbitrageur
125 Featherston Street
Wellington CBD

Just in case you were unaware, 'arbitrage' is the practise of buying an item (usually stocks or currency) in one market and selling it for a higher price in another, making a profit from the difference between the two. Those who engage in arbitrage are known as 'arbitrageurs'.

This bit of information is considerably more interesting than the meal I had at this restaurant. 

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't mind-numbingly boring in the same way that say, Avatar was, it just completely failed to blow me away. The food was nice, the service was adequate and the atmosphere was fine. But that's just it, I can't think of anything that really stood out for me about this experience that would make me want to recommend it whole-heartedly to someone. Apart from the wine list, and more on that later.

Walking in on a Friday night off a busy Featherston Street, I was greeted by a warm handshake, a friendly smile and was whisked away to my seat. Actually that's what I would have liked. Instead I had to wander cautiously well into the restaurant before anyone realised I was there. No matter, after that I was quickly (almost off-handedly) shown to my seat and given a menu and the wine list.

Ah, the wine list. The first time I had seen it was after a sumptuous degustation at Martin Bosley's and it was no less impressive given that this time I was sober. There is an excellent selection of wines on offer - well organised with a range of budgets and tastes in mind. 

The food? Well it was alright. I began with the Pâté de Tête (pig's head pâté), which was served with brioche, Dijon mustard, cornichons and a pickled onion. For mains, I chose Roast Poitrine of Pork, which was incredibly tender but was a little salty and a bit overpowered by the dried cherries. Both courses were accompanied by bread, which was, well, fine.

Before I get to dessert, let me talk a bit about the service because the two are linked. On the positive side, they weren't bothering me every three minutes asking me how my meal was (which is a pet hate of mine). However I never got the impression that the staff were enthused with what they were serving; they described it, but didn't seem interested in selling it. I think this lack of enthusiasm showed particularly with the way the order was taken - the waiter had to come back and re-confirm it, as if the thought had become bored with life and committed suicide halfway to the kitchen.

The atmosphere? Usual for somewhere like this. The lights were fairly dim (either an intentional effect or a by-product of requiring electricity to keep the waiters awake) and the music was made up of inoffensive remixes of music I had heard before (and would hear again as it was on its third loop in the 90 minutes I was there).

Anyway, dessert. It took quite a while for the waiters to realise that I was sitting with neither plates nor wine in front of me. In fact, I swear I heard one of them give a small exclamation as he realised that yes, I was still there and yes, I might want to order more food. The chocolate mousse was light, with a white chocolate interior and went well with the 2007 Mill's Reef Gimblett Gravels Port.

At the end of the night, I was pointed in the direction of the place where my bag had been stored and retrieved it myself; another testament to the indifferent service that had punctuated the evening. I left disappointed - not because anything had been wrong with the experience, but because I was expecting so much more. I haven't been particularly scathing (like I was with Voodoo) or full of praise (as with Sweet Mother's Kitchen) because Arbitrageur failed to make me fly into a rage or fall in love. It's like getting John C Reilly when you were expecting Meryl Streep - the movie's not awful, but there are no Oscars on the horizon and at least it's not Megan Fox.

I'll leave it at that, as you go off to Google who John C Reilly is (I've saved you the trouble). If I go back, I think it will be to pick up where I left off with the wine list.

Although self service might need to be an option in the future.

RESTAURANT REVIEW: Turo-Turo Philippine Cafe, Auckland

TURO-TURO PHILIPPINE CAFE
26a Mayfair Place, Glen Innes, Auckland
(09) 528 6050

As my visit to Turo-Turo (literally, 'point-point', from the stalls where people would point at their food) was my first exposure to Philippine cuisine, any review of the Cafe will inevitably involve my thoughts on Philippine food as a whole.

Philippine cuisine is like a four-car pile up between an Audi, an eighteen-wheeler, an SUV, and an old Ford Escort. Flavours and concepts that you wouldn't normally expect together combine on the plate and sucker punch the palatte. "Take savoury, add sweet" seems to be the order of the day - from sweetened spaghetti to cheese-flavoured ice cream.

Inside, it looks like a typical ethnic cafe in suburban Glen Innes - posters of the Manila skyline (complete with smog), pictures of the stalls where the cafe gets its name, and Turo-Turo t-shirts cover the walls. The tables are clean and uncovered and the service is friendly and familiar.

I start off with siopao, reminiscent of the pork buns I used to eat back in Samoa. This is my first exposure to the contradiction that is Filipino food - the pork is tasty and nicely cooked with (maybe) a hint of vinegar, contrasted completely by the syrupy sweet gravy and the sweet doughy bun that surrounds it. Delicious and supposed to be eaten as a side but the size of them (almost as big as my hand) together with the sweetness makes me wonder if I made a mistake ordering a mains. 

Nevertheless, I push on with the Pinoy Spaghetti - (sweet) pasta topped with ground beef and cheese, with a piece of garlic bread and a Joyful Chicken drumstick. The garlic bread is unremarkable (been there, had that territory) and the pasta, although cooked perfectly, just tastes like spaghetti bolognese with sugar added. The star of the dish though, is the Joyful Chicken. The chicken skin is crispy, with a salty/sweet coating. The meat underneath is juicy and for once I don't feel like I need a roll of paper napkins to mop up the grease from fried chicken. Damn, really should have just had that!

After seeing some of the desserts on the Cafe's Facebook page, I had to make room for the Brazo de Mercedes, a meringue dessert similar to a roulade, with a custard and almond filling. After the contrasting flavours of the previous two courses I expect it to be served with a fillet of beef on top but alas, no, just whipped cream. It's a light ending to a filling and reasonably priced meal.

I was very happy with my first foray into the food of the Philippines, thanks to Turo-Turo, and will definitely be back. I would recommend it to anyone who wants a well-priced meal with a few friends in simple, friendly surroundings.

One last note: I saw on the menu that Turo-Turo offers sirloin, chips, and salad if you 'don't feel like Filipino'. I would politely suggest to anyone who orders steak and chips at a Filipino cafe to rethink their choice... 

...right before I take them out and shoot them.

MOVIE REVIEW: The Dark Knight Rises

(Note: there are going to be some mild spoilers here so if you haven't yet see The Dark Knight Rises go and see it, then come back).


When the lights dim just before a movie starts, I'll often wonder how I'll feel when the final credits roll. Elated? Relieved? Disappointed? Enraged?


After the Avengers post-credit sequence, I actually cheered. Yes, cheered. So did a few other people in the audience. I wanted to watch it again. I was annoyed that there wasn't another Avengers movie right now.


To put it bluntly, The Dark Knight Rises is no Avengers. It isn't The Dark Knight and to be honest isn't even really Batman Begins. Despite how much I wanted it to be the best of the three, it is the weakest of Christopher Nolan's trilogy. There just isn't that sense of depth, purpose, and gravitas that the other two have. The story is oddly put together and unfortunately the movie itself isn't strong enough for that to be overlooked.


First, the good. Anne Hathaway is fan-freaking-tastic. I had always shrugged when I saw an Anne Hathaway movie because I found her playing the same characters - the flawed, inherently-good-but-out-of-place character (see The Devil Wears Prada or The Princess Diaries). They don't once mention 'Catwoman' in the movie but the icons are there - the suit, the ears, and the mannerisms. She's channelling more Lee Meriwether than Michelle Pfeiffer and does a great job of bringing back the girl power aspect of the role (as opposed to Batman Returns, where Selina Kyle was a crazy cat lady who went psycho).


Also, Gary Oldman is brilliant as Commissioner Gordon. I loved how the events of The Dark Knight reverberate throughout this movie, with Gordon haunted by the guilt of blaming Two Face's crime spree on Batman. More on that later.


What didn't work? Well, like a partygoer watching someone walk in wearing an outfit that four sizes too small for them, I was wondering if Rises was going to talk about the elephant in the room. You know, The Joker. I was disappointed that despite that character causing untold chaos in Gotham and turning Batman into public enemy number one, he doesn't receive a mention, or even an off-handed comment (Joss Whedon did a great job of that with Natalie Portman's character in Avengers). I know that this was probably a mark of respect from Nolan to Heath Ledger but at least some reference would have provided closure on the character.


Also, Bane (who was the character in name only, really) just wasn't as interesting as either Ledger's Joker or even Liam Neeson's Ra's al Ghul. Bane does what Bane has been leading up to do ever since it was announced he was going to be in the movie, thus kicking off the titular rise of the Dark Knight.


Which leads me into something I alluded to earlier - the structure of the story is a bit messy and unfortunately the movie isn't good enough to cover it up (see Inception). The story opens eight years after the events of The Dark Knight. Batman has been M.I.A. over that time and the first hour of the movie focuses on Bruce Wayne rediscovering Batman. Which makes it all a bit odd when Bane does his thing and we find ourselves following Bruce Wayne as he rediscovers Batman, again. What the hell was I just watching for the last hour, then? There have been a few complaints that the movie was a bit too long and I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that it has, in effect, a false start.


I also found it a bit odd (not in a bad way, just odd) that Nolan seems to throw in a whole lot of nods to the source material that he was going out of his way to avoid with the last two, including something obvious with Joseph Gordon-Levitt's character that anyone familiar with the mythos could see coming a mile off.


All in all, the movie was okay. No, that's unfair. It was good. I wanted it to be fantastic, I wanted Rises to be Nolan's magnum opus but it comes off being all the more disappointing because it just doesn't rise to the challenge. Go and see it, by all means, just don't expect any cheering at the end.

The thing that really grinds my gears

People at the gym who don't put their weights away when they're done. If you're strong enough to pick it up, you're strong enough to put it back. It seems that being so lazy that you can't put things back is the very antithesis of what you're doing at the gym in the first place.

Even worse is when they leave weights in a big pile, or put dumbbells back in the wrong order. Do those two *look* like they go together? THEN WHY ARE YOU PUTTING THEM TOGETHER?

On religion

So, Katie Holmes and Tom Cruise huh?

Now all eyes are on Scientology and just how crazy those Scientologists are. Is it though? Have a read of the Wikipedia entry here, then compare it to the Christian creation story of omnipotent and omniscient being creating the Universe in seven days. Does Scientology just push that crazy boundary a bit too far that opens it up to mockery?