Chris' Choice: For People with Leisure

Review: Fly Boys

2007-03-21T14:01:00.001-07:00

I'm a big fan of WW1 flying films. This was a fun movie, but problematic. The movie is about the story of the French flying squadron that was filled with American volunteers fighting during the First World War before the US joined the fight. The squadron was real and called "L'Escadrille Lafayette".

The movie is fun in that it is a classic war movie with all of the formulas that one comes to expect. We found ourselves guessing who was going to die first and the next plot twist. The characters were one-dimensional and, obviously the plot was not so good.

I enjoyed the movie none the less, but it was a fan-boy kind of thing. There are much better WW1 movies out there that have aged well. I would recommend The Blue Max. Unlike Fly Boys, the movie was filmed entirely using old aircraft and the pictures are thrilling. The use of CGI in Fly Boys was distracting and from a fan boy perspective was a let-down.

On the Chris' Choice Rating Scale Fly Boys gets one star

*

Review: Marie Antoinette

2007-03-11T13:36:00.000-07:00

It has been a while since I last posted a review to this site, but it has also been a long time since I last saw a movie. So, here is one of two movies that we were able to squeeze in on a Saturday night.

Marie Antoinette follows the life of the Austrian Princess from the time that she is betrothed to the Dauphin to the time that she flees Versailles in the midst of the French treason of 1789. Putatively this is a period piece. There are plenty of lavish scenes of the royal court and lives the courtesans. Some of the most interesting points in the movie involve the elaborate ritual of the court as seen from the perspective of the relative outsider.

There were three things that I found objectionable about this movie. The first was the infusions of contemporary music into the score. It was distracting to hear an electic guitar and punk music being played over scenes set in 18th century Versailles. Related to that was the use of montage in order to speed through the passage of time. Such a device is often one of the last resource of a screen writer trying to salvage a poor script. Finally was the constant attention paid to the issue of the consummation of the marriage of Marie and Louis. This did not have to be the subject of the first half of the film. Though an important part of the film it takes too much attention away from other issues that play a larger role in the downfall of the rightful kings of France in the inevitable treason at the end (I am not spoiling anything here because it is a matter of historical fact. If me revealing the fact that Marie was involved in the French Revolution is news to you, then I do not want you reading this blog anyway, feel free to spend your time reading a history book). There is no doubt that the foibles of the Royal couple had something to do with the revolution, and that revolution looms over the entire film. It is an inevitable fact and the movie does not adequately deal with that fact.

It must be difficult to write a film about a story where everyone knows the ending, but that cannot be helped. The writer and director must come up with a strategy for dealing with this fact. This film did not do that, and that is a significant failing. Despite some of the better aspects of it.

On the Chris Choice Rating Scale Marie Antoinette gets one star
*

2000 Storikengold, Dietrich Joss

2006-10-02T22:21:00.000-07:00

I'm enjoying a superb glass of vintage Dietrich Joss Storikengold. It is a fine blend of white hybrid grapes and is one of my last bottles from this excellent Quebec winery. I strongly urge people to give this winery a chance. I've been drinking their product for years, and will be going back this Christmas to stock up again. Give Quebec a chance! Yum!

The Rating Scale

2006-08-20T22:54:00.001-07:00

Developed in Conjunction with Mr J.J.E. Imber, Esq

This was lost after some house cleaning on my other site. So, I've reposted it.

Ratings on this website will attempt to follow a rational and meaningful system of evaluation and quantification. There will be two systems. One system will follow a number-name system between -3 and +3 with no fractions and only a theoretical zero. The second system will be identical in substance, but since everyone on earth rates movies using stars we will condescend to a star based system. from 0 to 5 stars using only whole stars. The meanings and terminology of the system are outlined below:

Number- Name	Stars (movie)	Descriptor	Meaning	Success
+3	5	Very superior, fantastic	A Z-score of greater than +2 or 2.275 % of all things of this nature. (98th and 99th percentile)	STRONGLY SURPASSED Revolutionary qualities and others better start taking notice.
+2	4	Quality, very good, excellent,	A Z-score of between +1and +2 or 13.590 % of all things of this nature. (between 84th and 97th percentile)	SURPASSED Has surpassed expectations with unique and innovative qualities
+1	3	Legit, good, alright	A Z-score of between 0 and +1 or 34.135% of all things of this nature. (between 50th and 83rd percentile)	STRONG PASS Has met expectations with general satisfaction
0	"2 1/2"	The theoretical average	This is the theoretical average point. A grade of zero will not be given. Iit has no real existential value. Have you ever had the average wine?
-1	2	Not impressive, has problems	A Z-score of between 0 and -1 or 34.135 % of all things of this nature. (between 16th and 49th percentile)	WEAK PASS Did not meet all expectations, but has certain redeeming qualities
-2	1	Junk, bad, not good	A Z-score of between -1and -2 or 13.590 % of all things of this nature. (between 2nd and 15th percentile)	MARGINAL FAIL with no redeeming qualites (wine would be rejected)
-3	0	*@#^&#	A Z-score of less than -2 or 2.275 % of all things of this nature. (0th and 1st percentile)	SEVERE FAIL Has qualities, but they are bad. This was a step in the wrong direction

The Z-score is a statistical tool. If you decided to sleep through your statistics course or have simply forgotten what it all means please check this website for a brief refresher:

http://www.sysurvey.com/tips/statistics/zscore.htm

Review: Domino

2006-08-18T11:52:00.000-07:00

The movie Domino is a movie about a member of the Beverly Hills 90210 establishment who rebels against her mother and becomes a Bounty Hunter. The movie attempts to build a character development story along with the action movie strory. The former is not very convincing and/or interesting; the latter is pretty standard. What saves the movie and brings it slightly above average is the style of the presentation and some pretty cool casting - if it has Christopher Walken chances are it will be cool.

The action story line is told by Domino the bounty hunter in a police interrogation room. Of Course, this has been done, but Lucy Liu is the interogator and there is a good raport between the two. The main action story line develops over an inside job gone wrong, again, it has been done. What makes the movie kinda edgy is the female bounty hunter trying to prover herself. Plus the filming is done in a gritty kind of colour that lends a Bobba-Fet meets American Western in modern LA feel to the movie. I don't like making those kind of analogies any more than most people like reading them. Nonetheless I think the comparison is apt, so tough.

What does this all add up to? A solid action movie.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Domino gets three stars.

***

Some Recent Reviews

2005-09-25T11:31:00.000-07:00

Kim
An old movie based on the Kipling book. It was lots of fun and worth seeing. You just can't make movies like this anymore. ***

Primer
An intteresting movie that has garnered a lot of attention recently. I'm not sure it is all that is cracked up to be. Yes, it is cool that it was made for so little money. Unfortunately the narrative is very difficult to follow after a while and the movie gets a little tiresome. I don't really care how much money the movie was made for so: **

Saw
Another interesting movie with a cool premise. Too bad it falls into that category of american film making that just wants to shock and surprise with gore and twist endings. Yawn... *

Movie Review: The Constant Gardener

2005-09-25T09:51:00.000-07:00

The Constant Gardener
Just out this weekend, this is a movie based on a LeCarre book. The first layer of the story involves investigations into pharmaceuticals, testing, aids and poor Africa. But, there are several other layers - notably a beautiful love story. The acting is first class, the photography stunning and the direction great. Go see this movie ****

A Great Ebert Review

2005-08-19T11:43:00.000-07:00

You have to check out this review by Roger Ebert! Though I haven't seen the Deuce Bigalow 2 movie, from Ebert's comments it would seem that the only good thing to come from this movie is his review. I can only fantasise that one day I could write such a witty and yet still useful review.

Quick Reviews: Big Fish & Leboweski, Passion of the Christ

2005-04-02T11:47:00.000-08:00

Big Fish:
This was a nice looking film that was all style and little substance. It had the advantage of containing an interesting story and some very likeable characters. The movie is about an oldman with many stories dying and a son who isstruggling to understand the fantastic stories. The stories are very fantastic and we struggle to figure out, with the son, what it all means. Unfortunately the stories are fullof sound and fury, the brief candle is extinguished and we are left with a tale told by an idiot. Idon't think I've spoiled anything. The movie should be better knowing that one need not expend neural energies trying to find underlying meaning.

** Two Stars

The Big Lebowski:
A fun movie with some great characters. The movie is full of great moments and great lines. It is entertaining and is almost a cult classic, but in the end it lacks the qualities that makes a movie great.

*** Three Stars

The Passion of the Christ:
This movie was full of formula and second rate tricks. Slow moton shots, lingering shots, a cheesy score and symbolism with a sledgehammer. This doesn't diminish the importance of the movie or the power of the message. The movie is just a substandard piece of cinema telling an important story.

** Two Stars

Review: Sin City

2005-04-02T11:45:00.000-08:00

What can I say, this was a bad movie. The only thing worse than living in Sin City would be to live in a city that enjoyed Sin City.

The movie has no coherent narrative structure. The movie is organised around three stories that are VERY loosely related - they all passed through one bar. The characters are all bad, they differ only by degree.

The great thing about comics is that they develop very intricate characters with rich back stories. Of course comic series develop over years. Part of the challenge of puting comics on screen is to develop those characters in an hour or two. Sin City has three stories and three sets of charactres. It can't develop any of those characters except as caricatures. Consequently, the movie is a caricature. Cliches and rediculous lines get tossed about as easilly as the bullets and the whole thing is over the top.

Then, there is the violence. It takes a lot to get me to baulk at the violence. The violence was just extreme for the sake of extreme violence. There was nothing symbolic or purposeful in the violence except that it was demanded by the fact that these guys are all bad. All the violence got tiresome.

Of course there is the style. The style is not as original or great as people seem to think. Schindler's List effectively used well placed colour in a B&W film. But, as a comic based movie it does look and feel like a comic book. Comic books, however, are more than just entities that exist preserve a style their characters and stories are what sustain them - not style. Thus a movie like this that is all style and no substance is very much defective.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Sin City gets one star.
*

Review: Hostage

2005-03-16T11:49:00.000-08:00

Quickly - We were out last night to see Hostage starring Bruce Willis. This is a competent action flick with an experienced action star. The background story was smart and, to my knowledge, unique. Visually, the movie seemed to do everything it needed to and had a fairly interesting opening sequence. The major problem with the movie was with the logic and the sequence of the movie's action.

In the end, the movie was a good watch but on the walk home the holes began to appear.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Hostage gets three stars.

***

Movie Review: The Phantom

2005-03-09T22:32:00.000-08:00

The Phantom:
This is an older film that we rented. It is based on an old 30s superhero and is one of the better comic book action adventure films. The 30s superheroes have a sort of innocence that makes them endearing and fun to watch. You can get lost in the innocence of their crusade to fight evil, and in this case piracy as well. The film matches the innocence of the characters with a visual pallette that is vivid and simple. The purples, reds and browns help to create a story that is easy to sink into and enjoy as a pleasurable and entertaining adventure. This movie does what it does very well.
**** Four Stars!

Some Quick Reviews

2005-03-09T22:29:00.000-08:00

Bride and Prejudice:
This is a pretty good adaptation of the Jane Austen Classic. It is set in contemporary India, Los Angelas and London. The characters in the film are great and lots of fun - they also correspond the traits of the original quite well. The plot, too, follows the original well, and so, there is little to fault to find there. The setting is adequately adapted, but the film is too short to fully develop the parallels and we are left relying on the original to fill things in. Then there is the singing and dancing.... well it can be amusing and often it is annoying.
*** Three Stars

Constantine:
Here we have another comic/superhero movie. It is a stark contrast to The Phantom. The scene is dark and gothic the characters are deeply flawed. The story is interesting, though not too engaging. The story is driven by characters we don't ever get to know. That means that the supervillain isn't very active there is nobalance to the hero. That hero, Keanu Reeves doesn't put up the greatest performance - nor do any other actors. It's a decent attempt and is entertaining. You'd be surprised - it isn't a total waste of money.
** Two Stars

Movie Review: Million Dollar Baby

2005-02-15T22:35:00.000-08:00

Here we have a decent movie that has been given a lot of attention because of the paucity of good films to come out this past year. I enjoyed this film, that is, I enjoyed it as much as one can enjoy a film of this nature. The problem is that Million Dollar Baby has been thrust into the company of films beyond its merit.

The film starts off well. In fact, it was the beginning of this movie that made the greatest impression on me. We meet some great characters - all of the important ones - in a boxing club run by Clint Eastwood. The dynamic that develops between the regulars at the club was far more interesting, better acted, and generally done with greater skill and effect than anything in the third and final act. One enjoys the relationships as these characters learn to get along, deal with the past and build a future. The lessons learned and the themes are developped with a modicum of subtlety and a great deal of sympathy is built.

The second act train starts to gather speed, but stays on track. If the first act was a character drama, the second is a boxing fantasy. The backstories begin heading toward resolution and we are curious to know if anyone learns anything.

Of course, my problem is always with the endings of movies. The ending has all of the subtlety and art of a trainwreck. First, everything in the final act is alluded to in the second act, because the third act is so extreme that if these allusions hadn't been made the whole act would have been considered 'unrealistic'.

A lot of attention has been drawn to the relationship between Clint's character and the priest character. Many people believe that film is trying to make a statement. I think the film is really just trying to setup a basis for discussion. That is, the film wants the discussion that takes place between Clint and the priest to continue after people leave the theatre. In that respect, it has been successful. However, the ending belittles the potential of the first and, to a lesser extent, the second act. The third act has all of the subtlety of one of those moral-philosophical thought experiments where everything is setup, then put in motion and one decision is required with great, but innevitable, consequence. Such experiments are designed to eliminate variables and to focus ones thought on the essential question that requires an answer. And so, in the end, we are tricked by a movie that appears multifaceted that is, though interesting, a well constructed one-dimensional conversation piece.

The conflict between the beginning and the end of this movie, obviously, left me feeling as though it had failed to live up to its dramatic beginnings. Maybe the attention that it has been getting is simply a refelction of its success at generating discussion - what I think its goal was. Clearly in one respect it is a good movie, but in the aspect that I have tried to articulate I feel it has a big problem and it is the kind of problem that 5 star movies ought tobe able to sort out.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Million Dollar Baby gets three stars.

***

Zip.Ca

2005-02-08T22:37:00.000-08:00

So we've been getting the movies delivered to the shacks here in Halifax. That is, we've been using an internet movie rental site to order DVDs. So far things are going well. We are pleased with the DVD service. There wasan incident where one DVD did not arrive. We knew it had likely shipped with three others in the same package, if at all. Since the DVD in question didn't arrive with the others we sent an e-mailand got no response. The site doesn't seem to respond too wel l to e-mails, though when the DVD was sufficiently overdue the website allowed a proforma complaint to be filled and that was deal with rapidly.

Stay tuned as we get more experience with the service and have more to report.

Movie Review: The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen

2005-02-08T22:36:00.000-08:00

This movie is notas bad as everyone says, though it certainly isn't a good movie.

Good: Big-name actors, neat out-of-time technology.

Bad: The big-name-acting, some of the situations get too fantastic for the fantasy setting and become 'unrealstic'.

On the official Chris' Choice scale The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen gets Two stars.

Contemplating the East Coast

2005-02-07T22:39:00.000-08:00

Now that I've been out here on the East Coast of Canada for some time - this is my second time in Halifax, I feel as though it is time to shed some light on a misconception.

Atlantic Salmon:
Well, it pales in comparison to some of the larger pacific varieties. I've been trying to experience as much Atlantic Salmon dishes as I possible can. Simply, I want to be able to judge as openly and fairly as I can the local 'delicacy'. Of course the manner in which a dish is prepared willhave a tremendous effect on the quality and the taste of any dish. As it turns out the methods of preparation on the east and west coast do not vary as much as one might have expected. I've also sampled extensively, so I feel confident in my belief that I am not judging the lesser fish on a poor preparation.

The fact is simply this, Atlantic Salmon has a lighter colour and a weaker taste. Compared to that rich flavour that one expects from, say, a Coho or Sockeye Atlantic Salmon is bland.

Coming Soon: Haddock & Cod vs Halibut

Movie Review: Terminator 3

2003-07-22T12:07:00.000-07:00

The only thing remarkable about this movie is that it is the shape Arnold is in after all of these years!

The intriguing ideas and three (or four?) dimensional characters the first two movies are gone and all that is left is a long chase scene. Arnold can keep up - cool.

I don't know why a third movie was necessary. I was happy with T2.

Anyway, what is there to say? Machines (one good and one bad) go back in time to solve problems of the future... they chase some people... destruction... slight surprise at the end. For a chase movie T3 is pretty good. There are some cool scenes that I don't think have been done before and the budget was high - cool.

The movie is cool, but unremarkable. I am wasting time that could be spent elsewhere.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Terminator 3 gets two stars.

Movie Review: The Matrix Reloaded

2003-07-22T12:05:00.000-07:00

Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

William Shakespeare, Macbeth, act 5, scene 5

Keep poor old Macbeth in mind when you watch this movie and you will have a grand time. The Matrix Reloaded is a fabrication about a fabrication about a ...

I liked this movie - maybe because I have a tendency to be soft on the middle movie of trilogies. Much has to be revealed and set-up for the third movie. There are long speeches by the Morpheus, new characters, and hints of things to come. I don't see this stuff as boring or some kind of teasing but as potential for a really good third movie.

The movie plays with what we understand reality to be. In the first installment we were confident that we could tell one from the other. The sequel puts that all in question. We see speeches by Morpheus that seem so deep that they signify nothing; the unstoppable determinism that rules Neo's life makes us wonder if he is on a stage; we even meet the idiot. My question is: whose story is he telling? and how far does the stage extend? All of these questions, and more, get posed or at least alluded to in this movie. The possibilities are intiguing. I was not expecting to leave satisfied, I was expecting to leave excited to see the third. I was happy - surprised even - to leave with my knowledge of the first film so unravelled that I had to watch it again.

A movie like this is a refreshing change from a lot of the crap that gets spewed out these days. On one level it thrills you with all the FX it uses and the cool fight scenes. The thing I like is that it excites you intellectually you are forced to spend time trying to figure out just what idea is the key that will bring reality into focus. The "philosophy" and "depth" is sound and fury - in the end signifying nothing - regardless of what a bunch of geeks think. The search for the key, or the coffee house theories about what will make the whole story make sense provides the fun.

On the official Chris' Choice scale The Matrix Reloaded gets three stars.

***

Movie Review: The Score

2003-04-05T12:09:00.000-08:00

This is a solid movie! There are several genres of movies out there. The Score is a 'heist' movie. It's about robbers stealing things. I said that I thought Saving Private Ryan was the epitome of the 'American War Movie' The Score is a very solid representative of the the heist genre. Simply, I am not as familiar with heist films as I am with war movies and The Score isn't as perfect as Ryan.

Let me talk generally. There is little need to go into specifics about this movie, it is easy to understand and so I needn't explain plot. First, unlike movies like Heat and other heist films this one is all about characters and plot and is consequently more expressive and intriguing. I think there are about three, maybe four gunshots fired and nobody is murdered. As the plot develops you can see the two main characters DeNiro and Norton develop and the contrast of their characters demonstrates why this is such a compelling genre. DeNiro is the old veteran and is trying to find that one piece, that will satiate him and put his life in order so that he can retire. There is a genuine yearning for normalcy in DeNiro's character. Norton is the new guy who wants honour and demands respect, though he is unwilling to earn it. The two characters are working together on this heist of great complexity and cooperation is tolerated. The genre, and this movie are not about the heist, but about life and the place of material possession in this material world. Norton wants something so that he can be respected, DeNiro wants something so that his life will be more complete. The movie works very well on this level and need not rely on explosions and unbelievable Mission Impossible style whizbang gimmicks to keep us interested.

The allegory of the tale is simple, and compelling. The story is well told, complex and complete. There are no plotholes. Every character is interesting (except DeNiro's girlfriend who is one dimensional). The actors are superior and the photography is well done. This movie is well worth seeing

On the official Chris' Choice scale The Score gets four stars.

****

Scotch: Bowmore 12 Year Old Single Malt

2002-06-25T22:56:00.000-07:00

Ah, Bowmore! This is a tough Scotch! But, then, what do you expect from an Islay malt? These guys have their character, don't they, and its a character that needs to be properly appreciated. An Islay might threaten someone venturing in to the world of single malt Scotch for the first time. For the beginner, guidance is required or perhaps a Highland malt. The Islay Scotches must be handled by the experienced, and since I count myself as one of the experienced, perhaps not an expert, I will allow myself to carry on and have a dram.

As your nose approaches this one, it is greeted by a sweet, but sharp, scent. Don't linger on the scent too long - it's powerful. Go for the goods and take a drink, or try breathing in the scent slowly through your mouth. This will give you an entirely different appreciation for the aromas and they are less harsh more reflective of the Scotch's taste. Once you get the stuff in your mouth you are drinking dirt! This is a purely earth taste - everything in this Scotch comes from the peat bog that Islay is famous for. Strong hints of smoke, earth, oil and peat dominate. If you are careful, you can discern that sweetness that was there at the beginning, though it is a grassy sweetness. It goes down nicely with a smoky aftertaste. The problem with this one is that it is an Islay, and to be frank, like all Islays only the earth/peat tastes can be discerned. Perhaps to a true Islay connoisseur one might be able to discern various different peat and earth flavors, but then, who wants to be able to distinguish different flavors of earth? Peat is nice in moderation and an Islay is an important part of any collection of fine Scotch, but, as Aristotle says: seek moderation. Excess in anything is a vice and a distraction.

Stats:
Name:Bowmore
Region: Islay
Age: 12
Alcohol: 43%
Website:

Rating:
On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Bowmore rates a:
+1

Scotch: Laphroaig 10 yr Old Single Malt

2002-06-25T22:55:00.000-07:00

Well, I'm going through my Islay malts. No tour of that island could be complete without a Laphroaig! This is one of the most famous single malts out there. Now, I have a bit of a warning for you over zealous Scotch drinkers out there, and I think my good friend Mr Timothy J. Button will concur with this statement. You see the tube that the Whisky comes in says that it is "A touch aloof, at first. But make the effort, broach acquaintance and you'll have a warm and genuine friend for life." One night my friend and I tried to make the effort with a stubborn cask-strength Laphroaig. You see, these whiskies are sensitive and old fashioned - they like to take it easy. No one night stands! Also, these whiskies are deceptive. You start getting to know them and the more you get to know them the more you think they are your friend, but if it was just a one night stand the whisky will punish you in the morning, and they don't pull their punches. The moral of the story here is take it easy. Single malts are long term friends. Try to make it last! Now that I am up to drinking Laphroaig again, here's what I think:

This Scotch is a nice golden colour, not too dark. The nose is subdued and mellow. It must be like the sea that surrounds the island. You can catch a a glimpse of the salt air and perhaps a bit of seaweed, but not too much of the later. Like the sea air there is a bit of sweetness in the aroma. Now the Scotch itself is a rough oily texture. On the palate, obviously there is a tonne of peat and smoke - it's what Laphroaig is famous for. In that peat fire you can still taste the nutty barley. It finishes smoothly enough and lingers leaving your mouth feeling smoky.

Remember this is an Islay, it takes a bit of getting used to. It's hardy and tough, but it lacks complexity and is not as smooth as you would expect. I understand the older versions improve on these two points.

Stats:
Name:Laphroaig
Region: Islay
Age: 10
Alcohol: 40%
Website: http://www.laphroaig.com/

Rating:
On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Laphroaig rates a:
+1

Movie Review: Minority Report

2002-06-25T12:14:00.000-07:00

Only the Minority got it!

What can I say, when you start playing with time and possible futures you have to have a bullet proof plot, otherwise things get messy. Throw in a conspiracy and people's heads start to burst.

The movie is about a future world where crime is prevented before it happens. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is in charge of the pre-crime unit in future Washington DC. He believes the system that uses three psychic kids is flawless and he goes about his business like a true believer until one day he is accused of a future crime and his confidence in the system is shattered. A chase ensues and Anderton tries to prove his innocence.

This is an effective futuristic action movie. If that's all the movie tried to be it would do quite well, but it tries to be so much more. It tries to wrestle with questions about free will, identity and existence. In this light, the complex action/chase movie becomes an overwhelming burden. The action and the plot move so fast and develop into such a tangled web that when it is time to leave we aren't thinking about the big questions but the simple, what the hell just happened questions.

It's too bad. Given how close the future world is too reality it would be good to engage people in dialogue on the questions this movie tries to raise and I think Spielberg is trying to do that. However, he knows that the only way to get the attention of the mindless masses is through an action flick. In pandering to the crowd his message gets lost.

There is one other aspect that must be mentioned. The incredible pictures and imaginative setting. That is, the world Spielberg creates with his camera is is absolutely astonishing. He knows how to work a camera! It is worth seeing just for this.

Now, simply, I expected it to be able to deal with the big questions. Though my expectations were high, they were not met. When that happens the scale demands that it get no more than two stars.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Minority Report gets two stars.

Some Quick Reviews

2002-06-25T12:11:00.000-07:00

The Bourne Identity: What can I say, I agree entirely with Roger Ebert on this one. However I must convert scales here, so I give it: ****
Harry Potter: The books better be good, because the movie must be hanging on to the coat tails of something. The story is lame and canned, the characters are entirely one dimensional and the CGI hits you over the head. Frankly, if this is supposed to the new kids story replacing things like C.S. Lewis' Narnia adventures then kids these days are getting gipped. Harry Potter, you suck. *
No Man's Land: This is a Yugoslavian war movie. It is in Serbo-Croatian with English subtitles. It is probably one of the most original war movies out there. It includes, UN bashing, war bashing, nationalism bashing, media bashing etc, etc. It is not too subtle, but done lightheartedly. It is not overly bitter so we get the message without being insulted. In the end though it is unfulfilling as there is a certain futility to the whole thing. Definately worth seeing and thinking about. ****
The Brotherhood of the Wolf: This is a French action/martial arts movie. It lasts too long, lacks any point, is insulting to native Canadians, and the plot is highly implausible. I would also like to add, that there is lots of violence (gratuitous and unbelievable) and a few token brothel scenes with lots of nudity (gratuitous and believable). Movies like this don't come around every day, if you can check it out. This is one you don't need to think about. I won't even bother with a rating.
Changing Lanes: BOOOO!!! What is this? who are these people? and can I have two hours of my life back? *

Movie Review: Attack of the Clones

2002-05-24T12:17:00.000-07:00

Well, this is my first review of a Star Wars movie. The question of how little old me is to review a master like George Lucas weighs heavy on my soul! But, go on as I must, I shall review.

There are movies, and then there are Lucasfilms. This is a Lucasfilm. Despite my enthusiasm, however, I must admit that I was disappointed. And here is why: In the original films the technology that Lucas had at his disposal was truly in its infancy. The technology that he did use was marveled at and rightly made him famous. Now, despite the awe in which the originals find themselves today they did have some problems. Mainly the acting was lack luster and some of the dialogue shabby. If great visual effects, bad acting and cheesy dialogues was all that characterized a Star Wars movie, then Attack of the Clones fits in well. However, to my mind, the genius of the first series lay in the mythology, symbolism and classic characters that Lucas brings together into one epic and heroic story. The acting, dialogue AND the effects were of secondary importance to the incredible and simple story that Lucas is able to tell in a filmed format.

Attack of the Clones focusses too much on the effects at the expense of characters and story. This episode was perhaps the crucial installment of the series. Like The Empire Strikes Back, this episode is all about setup. Here's the problem: the story is so complicated that much needs to happen and be said. Also, the story calls for giant battles and awesome chases. Putting all of this into one movie is a great challenge. I think Lucas did a great job with the battles and chases. The problem is that they take up too much time and the stuff that needs to be said in order to bring us up to date and to move the plot ends up in drawn out dialogues that seem flat. They needed to happen as part of the action. There is a glimpse of Lucas' forgotten genius when Anakin goes to rescue his mother. Here the plot is moved by the action and the characters are developed. All three work together.In other scenes only one is developed. During the droid factory sequence we have stunning visuals lots of action, no plot and no character. The focus on the visuals is inefficient and Lucas consequently needs to rely on crappy dialogue (like the Anakin-Padmay discussions) to do what needs to be done.

Nonetheless Attack of the Clones remains a decent movie. I look forward to the next installment, though I am fearful that Lucas will need two movies to get what needs to be done done. I will abstain from giving this film a rating though.. It is too hard to separate enthusiasm and all of the baggage that accompanies a Star Wars movie from any objective criticism. If a Lucasfilm fails as a Lucasfilm is it not still a superlative film?

Movie Review: Spiderman

2002-05-24T12:16:00.000-07:00

Wow, talk about a cool movie!

I've always been a big Spidey fan and have lamented the absence of a Spiderman movie ever since the original Batman movie came out.

I'm not going to draw out this review. The movie doesn't really need a review. It's a simple movie, nothing is really complicated. There are no no complex themes, or anything that really needs interpretation. Good and Evil are easy to identify. This simplicity is part of the beauty.

The movie is a comic book put on film, and that's all that I wanted. It has the feel of a comic and not a movie. You can't put deep thematic developments into a rag aimed at kids. You can put simple action, black and white moral situations and heroic and villainous characters. The formula is simple and time tested. The action and moral clarity dominate the film so that we can get to the action. Sappy love stories are, at best, secondary - young boys want to see fights, not kisses. Though perhaps these boys, now that they are older, would prefer to see Kirsten Dunst.

The acting was fine, though Aunt May and Spiderman get the best treatment. The Green Goblin (Willem Defoe) is great. Defoe was an excellent choice. He can play the sympathetic father, lunatic, businessman, and supervillain. He gets my vote as one of the most under appreciated actors out there. Charges of over acting have been levied, and perhaps they are justified. But this is a comic book. Things like heroes and villains are all supposed to "super" so exaggeration is necessary. If you don't like it, well, guess what? It's part of the genre, too bad.

As for the visuals, well, contrary to Mr Ebert, they were perfect. The images portray everything as they should be portrayed. The ordinary scenes are ordinary, but when the masks get put on, the rules don't apply. That's what being a superhero is. If the rules applied to you, you wouldn't be "super." Again Ebert is wrong. Parker has his problems in the real world, and that's why so many people can sypathize with him, but when he is Spiderman he leaves his problems behind and the rules that physical and social that we all deal with no longer apply.

In short, this is a comic book on film and it works - I like it.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Spiderman gets four stars.

****

The War Movies

2002-02-15T12:18:00.000-08:00

I can't even count all the e-mails I've got saying: "Chris, I want to impress my friends with my insight into movies, can you help me out, what's the best war movie?" Well, that's a good question. Here are my picks. I will look at three each of which will be reviewed separately. They are:

Saving Private Ryan **** (4)
Das Boot **** (4)
Regeneration ***** (5)

I know, I know, you're saying: "What? Private Ryan over Thin Red Line? Are you crazy?" I have a private theory about these two movies and the people who promote Ryan over the Line. Anyway, I chose to review Ryan because it is the American war movie. I agree, Thin Red Line is better, but only marginally so. They would still get the same number of stars. It is not that much better. It is certainly not what one might call an 'American war movie.' The Cranky Critic calls it an art house movie.

Let's get going! Aristotle talks about the human good, the one thing that we all strive for. He says its happiness, self fulfillment. War is very much the opposite of this. These three movies each have a different take on this idea. War movies, if they are worth their salt, should explore and peer into, in a visual and literary way, how war affects these our most important human projects whether as individuals or collectively. DAs Boot does the latter.

As a project of the German people, the U-Boat is a symbol of nationalism and collective aspiration. Though I don't agree with the final message entirely at least it speaks to us about war. Unfortunately, the issue of war is transcended, indeed, in the end it is not clear whether or not we are still talking about war. In the greatest visual expression of existential angst, it is no longer certain if war is the only thing that is futile, perhaps all human action is. This is a weakness of the German perspective. It cannot do otherwise lest it take sides in the conflict.

In Private Ryan, there is a schizophrenia. On one hand war is portrayed as horrible violence. Let's be honest, this is not very imaginative. Happiness, as simple physical pleasure, is an impossibility. But then, happiness is, in some sense, possible. The band of brothers adventure that makes up the second act provides a glimmer of light through the storm clouds that showered blood during the first act. This kind of camaraderie is present in all three and just as effective. It is the third act that really pissed me off, and sealed this movies fate as, yet another American war movie. The last stand, good old fashioned ingenuity, and a character forged in battle all stink of jingoism! On the other hand, not including these things is like having Bond without a Bond girl! The clincher, of course, was the cemetery scene. I'm being harsh here because everything is done with the subtlety of a Las Vegas neon sign. However, these are important themes. We cannot forget about sacrifice and the good things that have come from war.

Regeneration on the other hand does everything with style, subtlety, restraint and art. When violence is psychic the will has been overcome and the self cannot be realized. Happiness in Aristotle's grand sense is impossible. Ryan is a triumph of the will, Das Boot is about the futility of willing anything while Regeneration shows you how war paralyzes the will. Yet, in the end, the will triumphs. Most of the themes in Ryan are present, but there is no jingoism. There are positive things to come from war. This movie is not silent on this issue. For Ryan friendship and life are saved. In this movie friendship too survives the war, and obviously so does life, but human creativity and art do too. The enduring things, the vehicles of expression and self realization are present here like in no other war movie. When the images and characters are brought into the calculation this move's superiority is well established.

Well, those are my thoughts, and I'm sticking with 'em!

Movie Review: Saving Private Ryan

2001-12-18T12:24:00.000-08:00

The American War Movie

Well, what can I say? Graphic? Sentimental? This is the American war movie. I don't know how anyone could top it. There is graphic violence, a motley cross section of American society, a sentimental mission and a courageous "Alamo" of a last stand using good old American ingenuity.

We all know the plot, we all know the story, hell, we've all seen it five times. The problem is, this is a franchise. We saw this movie when we watched The Guns of Navarone, The Devil's Brigade, and others. The opening scenes are epic, but unlike A Bridge too Far, the movie is not epic. It turns the minor - a side show of a side show into an epic. Classic Hollywood!

The characters are none too heroic, they are just doing their job. In fact some are completely un-heroic. Of course, they come from all over the USA and they all long for the life back home.

The film turns into a giant allegory. The small platoon is out to risk their lives so that some other might live. It is a great sacrifice, and the band of brothers would not be doing it if the cause wasn't so great. Of course they are reluctant, but in the end they see the nobility of the cause.

One cannot escape the graphic opening scenes. They are so graphic that they are unreal. A friend of mine, who landed at Juno Beach, told me that he laughed at the opening scene. He said "bullets don't make a mess like that, they go through you, make holes and you fall down." These protests aside, the sense of violence, destruction and chaos is unequalled.

Putting this all together, it doesn't say too much about war that is not tivial or the self-congratulations of a Johnny come lately. Violence and noble sacrifice are very important parts of war. Saving Private Ryan just reinforces the obvious to such an undeniable extent.

Well filmed, good acting, and half decent characters. Not bad. The best of one genre of a genre.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Saving Private Ryan gets four stara.

****

Movie Review: Das Boot

2001-12-18T12:22:00.000-08:00

The German War Movie

Ouch! Why would you even bother with war after seeing this one.

The characters aren't so important. The life, the excitement and the action are what's important. The fact that this is a Nazi submarine that we are being shown is not important. Very little mention of politics enters into this film. For a German film, I guess that is to be understood, and its good for our purposes as well. There are other wars than the Second World War.

>> I'm just going to spoil this one!

Of course, I don't really know much about German war movies. I've only seen one other. Unlike other war movies this sub is out for adventures and for glory. The martial -teutonic - virtues seem alive and well, and they deserve them. Ahh, but we forget that life is a tale told by an idiot. The message is: why bother? The things we value get destroyed.

Das Boot tells us that war is cruel and unjust, it destroys the things we love. How can anyone argue with this. Coming from the Germans who ought to know. This is undeniable. The crew and the ship go through so much together. They suffer, find salvation and survive together, only to be kicked in the groin.

The visuals are spectacular. You feel as though you are on the sub. The sea is a truly awesome force, and you feel its strength, its infiniteness and its brutality. For the visual experience alone this is a film worth seeing. If you like submarine movies this one is the mother of them all. U-571, Crimson Tied, The Hunt For Red October are all judged in comparison with this one. But this is a war movie. I will judge it as such.

As a war movie, it is cannot transcend the German perspective. Not all wars are as futile as this one was for this particular sub-crew. This was a stunning movie, but still it doesn't say it all.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Das Boot gets four stars.

****

Movie Review: Regeneration

2001-12-18T12:21:00.000-08:00

The English War Movie

This is not the kind of war movie people are used to, however, it does its job better than any other movie I have seen. It doesn't take place during the Second World War, but the first.

The movie is set in Scotland in, like so many modern films, hospital. This is not just any hospital, but one for shell-shocked British officers. There are three principal characters, all of whom are real historical figures. The doctor, Rivers and two poets Sassoon and Owen form heart of this film. Sassoon is a gallant officer. He's brave and cares deeply about his men. He cares so much that he has taken to protesting the war. As a result Horse Guard's has declared him shell shocked and in need of treatment. Owen is quintessential sensitive poet. Rivers is a caring and hard working physician who wants to see his patients actually recover.

Rivers must treat Sassoon, and this forms the central action of the film. Of course, Sassoon is not shell shocked. So we think anyway. Rivers can't stand it, there are others in the hospital who are actually suffering, but he holds back his feelings. Sassoon is completely contemptuous of his situation and those trying to silence him. Like all movies set in hospitals like this the question of who's crazy is central.

The war is not seen so much as it is remembered. The world has been turned inside out. Everything is backwards. Nothing is as it should be and this is all the fault of the war. War is the driving force of the movie. It is all that can be talked about and for the poets its all that they can really write about.

The war is driving Rivers to shell shock, and he has never been shot at. War, not love is the source for the greatest poetry. Sassoon may actually be shell shocked. Officer's are commanding young children. The most effective healing is done outside the hospital. Doctors torturing patients.

The power of war is evident throughout the film. It doesn't just blow things up. It kills souls. You don't even have to be at the front to be killed.

The violence in this film is psychic, and what could be more disturbing than that? The film is not devoid of hope. The name is after all Regeneration. The characters overcome, but once they overcome, their fate is to return to the war. So enters Futility.

Heroism is also evident. The strength of character of each patient, and Rivers is apparent. But these men are officers, and leaders ultimately their willingness to heal themselves is also a willingness to return once more into the breach, for dear friends. They are moved by concern for others, for their troops. There is an honour amongst these men.

This movie has it all, and it is all done with gently with words, characters and plot. There is no need for the obvious. War is violent enough. The violence is belittled if it only seen to be a physical violence. In Regeneration the physical violence mnifests itself psychically in the patients, in the language of the poets and aesthetically in the reversals. In the end life regenerates and the human spirit triumphs.

The film is on all accounts excellent. Though characters and plot are central it is beautifully filmed. A superlative film!

On the official Chris' Choice scale Regeneration gets five stars.

*****

Movie Review: K-Pax

2001-12-17T12:31:00.000-08:00

Good movie. This joins the ranks of other great movies set in mental institutes. For some reason movies about crazies work well these days. Perhaps because, as one English prof used to say, nobody is quite sure "who's crazy." That's just about the jist of it. Spacey, again, proves himself an excellent actor. Though, I am not sure he has yet transcended Hollywood. (one of my beefs is that Hollywood actors play themselves and not their characters. Contrast Peter Sellers, the perfect example of non-Hollywood acting, and Mel Gibson, the Hollywood actor)

In any event, a very good film there is a lot of emphasis on light and things are nice visually, but the great achievement is characters and character development. The film wants you to believe that Spacey is an alien, and the crazies really start believing him. Then, so do a bunch of rocket scientists. The idea is that you must take a leap of faith and admit like medieval church Credo quia absurdum est. (I believe because it is irrational). It may defy explanation or the way we see the world, but it would truly be the best way to explain things. This goes against so much of the things the modern world holds to be so. And if you are truly a modern, there is an easy explanation for you. The romantics, those who leave room for doubt, or those who have faith in the point of view and decency of others, in short, - the crazies - have a harder time. Maybe I'm saying that because I'm either sympathetic with or a crazy myself. The lever in the plot is Jeff Bridges - the shrink. He is the one that must be convinced that Spacey is from the planet K-Pax.

The ending is good. It leaves open the question of who's crazy. I like it. Nicely filmed, good story and great characters. Not that original though.

On the official Chris' Choice scale K-PAX gets three stars.

***

Movie Review: Unbreakable

2001-12-17T12:30:00.000-08:00

Unwatchable!! Don't watch this movie! From watching ads and trailers for this one you would not know that it is about comic books, but it is. Actually its about a psychotic comic book collector and Bruce Willis who survives a train wreck, in fact it turns out that Bruce has never been hurt. The comic book collector connects comic books, Bruce, and the fact that Bruce has never been hurt. Guess what the conclusion is. In fact, you can guess a lot about this movie. But don't worry, don't watch it. It's not worth it. The movie haad potential, but squandered it with a laborious pace and complete predictability. There are some neat scenes that are like comic book tableaus. It takes a great deal of skill to bring comics to the big screen. Go rent The Phantom if you want to see comics done right.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Unbreakable gets one star.

Movie Review: Pi

2001-12-17T12:28:00.000-08:00

PI
(3.14...)

This is a good, but puzzling movie. Basically this math genius locks himself in his apartment with a whole whack of computer equipment and tries to solve the chaos around him. He keeps telling us his premises so that we believe that he is still rational. They are the premises of chaos theory:

(1) that mathematics is the language of the universe,
(2) nature can be expressed in numbers, and
(3) there are patterns everywhere in nature.

Visually, the film is a study in chaos theory, with almost still shots of nature and its recurring patterns, then the dynamics of coffee and cream. Moreover, there is a certain recurrence and self-similar quality to the whole film and its downward spiral. The film moves from genius to madness. The old sage character in the film, the stars old math professor reminds the star that there is a fine line to drawn between mathematics and numerology. It is never clear just where that line is drawn. Two forces are out to pull the genius from the true path. Some religious fundamentalists are looking for numbers and patterns in sacred texts, while a wall street firm is trying to get a hold of any discoveries in order to turn a serious profit.

Pi is a good movie, but will leave you puzzled about just what the hell is going on, and leave you asking "what is this all about?" Good question, and maybe that's the point. It is a good movie, and says a lot visually, perhaps too much.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Pi, gets three stars.

***

Movie Review: American Psycho

2001-12-17T12:27:00.000-08:00

American Psycho

Yikes! A truly chilling movie about the narcissists around us! But it is also sickeningly funny. There is a perverse sense of depraved irony that floats, like everything in this movie, on the surface. The movie is all about the surface, of skin, business cards, credit cards etc.

The yuppies that populate this movie are so obsessed with themselves and their status that they are all at some level nuts. The real nutcase - Bateman goes around killing people in an orgy (literally in some cases) of self indulgence and vain glory. Whenever he is forced to recognize someone as a person, as in some way like him he feels the need to kill that other person. There is a twisted way that this is related to business. At a night club he says "murders and executions" instead of mergers and acquisitions.

Gloriously twisted, this film does well on all accounts.

On the official Chris' Choice scale American Psycho gets four stars.

****

Scotch: Glendronach: 15 yr Sherry

2001-11-20T22:59:00.000-08:00

There are some thing out there that just don't seem to fit into moulds. I don't know, maybe some things refuse to follow the laws of nature, but it just seems as though ALL Scotch is good. According to our scale, some scotch, statistically speaking, really should be bad! I just have not found any! I know that it is out there, and I guess that I'll just have to keep buying more scotch so that I can satisfy the natural distribution upon which the official Chris' Choice scale is based. I guess you could call this a statistical duty!

So, on to the task at hand! What a pleasant task it is! The Glendronach is not just another great Scotch! The extra years make this one very smooth. Really, the first thing you notice about this one is the colour. It is a dark red gold - very distinct. The aromas are fruity, citrus, maybe even of oranges. The taste is smoky, nutty, very much like Bristol Cream sherry. There is a light peat (as the box said there would). Sherry, however is present all over this malt. Too much sherry could be its only fault! But I like sherry! Once you move past the sherry there are hidden tastes of spices, coffee and toffee! And it is so smooth! What a special scotch. This one is a must have! It will occupy a pride of place among my other Scotches!!

Stats:

Name:The Glendronach 100% Matured in Sherry Casks
Region: Highland (Aberdeen)
Aged: 15 Years
Alcohol: 40%

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, The Glendronach 15 Year Old rates a:

+3

Scotch: Chivas Regal 12 yr Blend

2001-11-20T22:58:00.000-08:00

Well, here is another blend. Not so bad really. First some things must be said:

I stand by my previous statements about blends and single malts
I will not rate blends. There simply are not enough blends out there to make the whole project meaningful.
Also, all blends are pretty good. Presumably they were blended this way or that way for a reason.
If the blend really stinks I'll let you know. It's possible, but chances are it would never make it into my glass.

On to the Chivas. This is a well known blend that has been around for quite some time.

Aromas of heather butter and a bit of wood. Being from Strathisla the flavour of peat and smoke are present. Flavours of coffee can also be found. The scotch is light and unassuming. Like all decent blends its smooth and well balanced.

If you prefer your Single Malt Scotches to be like Laphroaig then this one should be in your decanter. Otherwise, it's a nice smooth whisky that goes down well - a good blend. Again, the peat and smoke flavours distinguish it from other blends.

Stats:

Name:Chivas Regal
Region: Speyside (Keith Strathisla)
Aged: 12 Years
Alcohol: 40%

Movie Review: Serendipity

2001-10-23T12:26:00.000-07:00

Serendipity

Well that sucked! Yawn! Groan... Hey Christa - guess what's gonna happen next!

Those are just some of the things that you might have heard had you been in the same theater as Christa and I. First of all, I did not choose this movie! It is not my fault! I am just warning others here.

Maybe I should put a spoiler warning here. The movie is about fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it (crap?) So, it's about fate, and love. Well, guess what happens? The whole damn movie is on auto pilot. And not a very good auto pilot at that! Really, I don't know if I should go on. I like John Cusack, he's done well in the movies I have seen with him.

I might suggest that this is a good movie to see with a girl, but its not even that. Really, I think this point is more important than any review of the plot. The girls I have spoken to really like this film, they thought it was great. Heck, Cranky Critic gave it his highest possible rating! Astonishing! For some reason some people think that is romantic and nice to believe that some cosmic force is out there, bringing people together. This is not appealing, hell, its dangerous. Guys, listen to me, if you go see this movie with a girl read this review! Fate, soulmate, Mr Right, all that crap can only lead to doubt and second guessing in a REAL relationship. Does anyone know with any certainty the mind of God? In philosophy we talk about epistemic responsibility. What kind of criteria is there to know that fate has brought you together?? This kind of attitude can only lead to doubt and questioning and the kind of sad heart breaking stories that the two other people in this movie would have told if we were not so fixated on the two main characters. Really, the question is for the people who find this fate crap appealing: do you really want to be chosen by some impersonal force? Would you not rather be chosen because some person you care for has decided for a multitude of special reasons that you are the person they want to spend the rest of their life with? Ultimately, it means that the persons making the decision are the ones responsible for that decision. Here, there can be no doubt who is accountable to whom. The persons making the decisions, though more fallible than fate know the reasons for the decision, and know that they are also responsible for the outcome and maintenance of the venture they have jointly undertaken.

I have said too much really. This is a bad movie and I have better things to do than go over it in any more detail. If you want a good summary of the film go see Ebert. He is a smart guy and has written a good review. He is getting paid, I am not. I'll leave the boring job of going over this movie to him. So now all that remains is giving it a a rating.

Really, it is not ALL BAD. It does seem to have been a higher budget movie. So in that respect it has a redeeming feature. In these slower economic times it might help stimulate the economy and help some of my investments. Further some smart guy might read my review and be able to score some points with a girl. Who know my friend Spanky might end his dry spell thanks to me. Well, that might be pushing it

On the official Chris' Choice scale Serendipity gets one star.

Scotch: Scapa Single Orkney Malt Scotch

2001-09-26T23:04:00.000-07:00

This is a tasty Scotch!! But, before we get down to business some background is required. This Scotch comes from Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, the most northerly region of Scotland. My Scotch book tells me that the Scapa distillery shut down in 1993, but there seems to be some discrepancies. Anyway, I've got a bottle. From the box, bottle, and shelf at the BC liquor store, I find it hard to believe that this is some kind of independent bottling. Maybe I just misunderstood the Scotch book, but this seems to be a readily available Whisky.

This scotch is a dark yellow gold. It smells of honey and sweet salt sea air. It has a smooth body, and tastes of honey, oak and heather. There is a definite sweetness to this scotch. The finish is warm and comforting.

I don't know what to do with this Scotch. It can be, at once, sweet and refreshing and warming. It certainly does not have that tough earthen flavour of Laphroaig. It is definitely a drinking Scotch and versatile enough to be both refreshing and comforting for either warm or cold nights.

This is an excellent, tasty Scotch!!

Stats:

Name:Scapa
Region: Orkney Island
Aged: 12 Years
Alcohol: 40%

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Scapa 12 yr Old Single Orkney Malt rates a:

Movie Review: 15 Minutes

2001-09-26T22:41:00.000-07:00

On the advice of Mr T.J. Button, Esq I have discovered an excellent film. I certainly would not have picked out this movie if it wasn't for his recommendation. After watching 3000 Miles from Graceland on Tim's advice (a one star movie and not worth the expenditure of my reviewing energy) he has redeemed himself.

The story concerns two East-European men who come to America to pick up some money. They end up with a video camera and going on a bit of a crime spree of murder and arson. Enter one celebrity NYPD detective and a fire department arson investigator (a fireman with a gun). Both have something to prove. Enter the news media and in particular a tabloid news program that likes reality TV and has a relationship with the cop.

Our two criminals have been saturated by American talk shows and tabloid news programs. They believe that they can get away with their crime spree by insanity. I don't really want to get into much detail of the plot. Suffice to say that these criminals are at once insane and completely rational. This is the beauty of the film. The premises on which the criminals reason is based are so faulty that they appear insane. Unfortunately, you cannot really blame these two guys. The talk shows and trash journalism that make up their idea of America, was given to them by Americans. It is difficult to fault them for having the twisted view that they have.

On the other side of the coin are the cops. Like all copps and robbers movies, one cop is a hardened veteran the other is naive and idealistic. Unlike all of the other movies of this ilk, 15 Minutes does not look at good cop, bad cop with respect to procedure. The veteran is a veteran television star. He knows how to do things right in front of a camera. The naive idealist doesn't think that such things are important. This whole aspect is just as interesting as the criminal side. Both sides are insightful, well done.

The movie sticks to the genre of action detective films. It does not really on irony or satire to make its point like Wag the Dog or Bob Roberts. Don't get me wrong the whole movie is ironic, but this is not a comedy. It is an action movie. There are some minor problems with the film. The fresh approach and unique vision of the film well make up for these small problems. This is a very good movie.

On the official Chris' Choice scale 15 Minutes gets four stars.

****

Movie Review: Artificial Intelligence

2001-08-24T22:32:00.000-07:00

Artificial Intelligence

Real Hollywood

Well, it's Tuesday so I went to see a half price movie. There has been a bit of talk on the newspaper about Artificial Intelligence, the new Steve Spielberg flick, so Christa and I went to see what it was all about. The comments that I had read were concerning the movie's suitability for young children.

I can't really say what my thoughts were going into see the movie, but the combination of Spielberg, some sort of collaboration with Kubrick and warnings about unsuitability for children sort of make me think they weren't that bad. Anyway, the film starts off interestingly enough. It begins in a futuristic classroom like setting, where what the movie's framework seems to be set up. A bunch of engineers come up with a plan to make a robot child that is capable of loving. They imply that this has never been done before and will represent a new and possibly revolutionary development. In other words words this will be the most intelligent form of artificial intelligence, one that capable of emotional learning and personality development. They treat the question like any bunch of engineers. The problem is to program emotional love which becomes a technical question. One young lady in the classroom asks an interesting question, but in the end it is a marketing question. And so the engineers go off and solve the problem of making a robot love.

The first act of the movie is quite interesting and we are taken with what seems to be the central theme in the movie. The robot, David, is created and given to a couple who's real son has a terminal illness and has been cryogenically frozen and will remain frozen until he can be cured. Some emotional scenes follow where the human family struggles with whether they can accept David. Soon the real son is miraculously cured and the real son competes with David for the Mother's affection. We are occupied with the idea that if it is possible to create an object that loves us what if anything do we owe to that object. This idea is, however abandoned quickly. The answer is apparent. Though one might become strongly attached to David, when the real son is threatened David is tossed. David filled a need, but is only seen instrumentally as something capable of loving when you need to be loved.

In the second act we hit some really interesting stuff. David, who has been abandoned, tries to become 'real.' That is, he wants to be a real son in order to gain the love of the lady who was his mother, who he was programmed to love. During this act we are asked: what would make David real, something we would consider a person? Throughout, David is drawn by his love for 'his mother' and the belief that the Pinnochio fairy tale is real. So, he searches for a blue fairy to make him real. In typical American style David wanders. He meets some memorable characters and moves off to a dangerous frontier. Oddly enough he heads east, to Manhattan, a ghost town that was flooded when the ice caps melted. In Manhattan David was supposed to be turned into a real boy.

I will not spoil how the ending turns out, it is enough to say that it will spoil itself. It is a typically Hollywood ending. The possibilities questions that the movie starts with never realize themselves. Instead, what begins as a movie that seems to ask hard and interesting questions turns into a teary, emotional, made for Oprah mother - son moment. Even that wouldn't be so bad had the second, and central theme been realized. There is a moment, the climax, when we see a Hegelian/Hobian consciousness dialectic emerging. Unfortunately, it does not realize and David remains a slave to his programing. The third act is really pointless.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe I simply don't buy into the idea that emotional love equals humanity, that love is our one defining trait. I thought self-consciousness had at least something to do with it.

This movie, however had beautiful and haunting images and all that technical stuff, but the story failed. The max this movie can get is 49%. Therefore it gets

2 1/3 stars. ERRATUM

Using the scale recently developed with Mr J.J.E. Imber, Esq this Movie gets: ** (2 Stars)

Blends and Single Malts

2001-08-22T23:08:00.000-07:00

Blends and Singles

After singing the praises of blended Scotch, I don't want to seem biased or overly stuck in my ways. So, the other day I picked up a bottle of Single Malt. I had heard that Scotch aged in sherry oak casks was something to try, so I tried it.

First, we should talk about the Single Malt experience. It is very much a different experience than drinking blended whisky. First of all, let's get one thing straight, you cannot compare blends to singles. I won't say that it's like comparing apples and oranges, really, its more like comparing a night out with the boys and a night out with one of the boys. You like going out with the gang because their is a certain comfort and familiarity, but when you and a buddy go out there is a certain connection - a unique experience that cannot exist when you are out with the gang. The difference between singles and blends is comparable, in my humble opinion.

The Single Malt

The Single Malt has that unique edge to it. It has personality and qualities that you don't see everyday. You probably don't want to drink Single Malt everyday. As far as I'm concerned, the great strength of a blend is that you can drink it everyday. It is a something that you won't get tired of, it's something you can rely on. A Single Malt, however, has to fit the occasion. You can't put it in the decanter, like you can a blend, no, the individuality of a Single Malt is ruined if it leaves the bottle. Single Malts must be kept distinct, in their bottles, as part of a collection. The true Single Malt lover keeps the tube or cylinder that the bottle comes in.

Single Malts, by definition are at least three years old, forty per cent alcohol, from malted barley, aged in oak and distilled in a pot still. Most importantly they must have been produced from one single distillery. Naturally there are many varieties of Single Malts out there. The peculiarities of the region, land, water and distillery all help to fashion the unique taste of each malt. Hopefully, as my collection expands, you will see many of the Single Malt varieties reviewed here.

It is hard to know just how the reviews will go. There are many fine Whiskys out there and many of the characteristics are unique and special making it hard to judge deficiencies and qualities. Further, Single Malts are harder to sample than wines. In order to sample the singles you have to buy relatively expensive bottles of Scotch, and I'm cheap! Nonetheless, in the interest of saving you from the scourge of poor taste, I am determined to let the world know what is good and what is bad so that you don't have to find out on your own. I will rate and I will judge so that you will know what is Chris' Choice.

Scotch: Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish

2001-08-22T23:06:00.000-07:00

So, this is what I think of Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish:

When you get a hold of the aromas of this scotch you are sent back to those carefree meadows of your childhood, where the sun is shining, the flowers are out and the woods are not to far away. The sweet grassy aromas are balanced nicely by floral and wood-nut scents. A delightful nose leads to a creamy mellow, but strong mouth. The flavours are strong and nutty with a bit of oil. The aftertaste lingers for some time. This is a 'classy' drink. The dark colour and lingering flavour will no doubt help you fool someone into thinking you have taste. So long as you follow my advice and drink this whisky you won't need taste, you'll have me to guide you!!

Stats:

Name:Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish
Pronounced: Glen m-orange-ee (sounds like the fruit orange)
Region: Northern Highland
Age: Not indicated on the bottle or tube, but is part of the line of 12 year old Glenmorangie products
Alcohol: 43%

Website: www.glenmorangie.com

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish rates a:

Movie Review: Requiem for a Dream

2001-08-22T22:39:00.000-07:00

Another disturbing movie about drugs. Look folks, I don't get drugs and I don't normally get movies about them. But, I liked this movie, though it could have been better.

The movie follows two parallel plots, with parallel tragedies. The similarities are a matter of form. Plot A deals with an elderly lady whose husband, I presume, is dead. She lives alone and ritualistically drags a lawnchair out to sit on the sidewalk with a gang of other old ladies. Her son, the main character in Plot B, is a junky although she loves him dearly. The majority of her life is spent in front of the tele. She watches an annoying game show. Then one day she is selected to attend the game show. She is filled with ideals and visions, all of the sudden she is the most popular lady in her group and she wants to wear her favourite red dress. Of course, she can no longer fit into her red dress. She goes on a diet, then unsatisfied by the diet she visits a little man in a white coat. And the descent begins.

Plot B is about the son, who we know from the onset is a junky. His life is spent pawning his mothers television for drugs. His mother then, without fail, buys back the television and the ritual continues. The son and his friend 'Tyrone' get the idea that they could start selling the junk in order to fund their habit. They are quite successful, so successful that the son buys mom a big screen tele. The third character in this plot is perhaps the most tragic. The son's girlfriend, a junky from a well off family, seems to really love the son. The two of them plot of one day running a business. They want to sell the clothes the girlfriend designs and will make. All seems to be going well. Then, all of the sudden, the supply runs dry. And the descent begins.

What is remarkable about this movie is the movement and the photography. The whole movie moves according to the seasons. Summer, described above, is full of dreams and possibility. Fall begins the descent to winter. This, of course, is not all that thrilling. Beneath the macro movement of the seasons is the micro movement of the characters. Both plots go round and round in parallel in the search for the next fix. Each sequence begins with a disturbing set of close up pictures of drug-doing.

What really got me, was the lingering of the dream and the haunting images that capture the idea of the dream. The movie has pictures of great beauty made more beautiful by the images of great horror that capture the descent and ultimately the underworld that the characters descend to.

I have to comment on the characters themselves. They were, for a movie about drugs, quite human. It was their dreams and aspirations that made them so. The drugs were what made them subhuman. The constant reminder of the dreams helped to keep us aware that these were people and maintains the sympathy needed for us to keep watching the movie through the horrible winter season.

This is not a meditation on a theme, or the exploration of an idea. Requiem for a Dream really is a requiem. It is a tragedy in the grand sense. It sings out to the soul of the lost dreams and ideals that have died because of human stupidity. There is a certain gruesome naturalism that tries to tell the dreams to rest in peace, to forgive these humans, they know not what they do. The movement of nature only reinforces this idea.

Requiem for a Dream cannot really be a tragedy in the grand sense, I lied. Don't get me wrong it is tragic and tries to be a tragedy. The problem is that there cannot be a character like Antigone, Oedipus or Hamlet. The junkies are not being tossed around by nature. My conservative right wing sensibilities tell me that doing drugs is a choice. Drugs is not a part of the tragic nature of man. It is part of the stupid nature of some stupid people. My idealism tells me that some people can reach their dreams, in fact that many people can - even people that have done drugs. Dreams in this movie make junkies human, it is the junk that stops the junkies from being human. Sub-humans, to carry on the metaphor, cannot be the subject of proper tragedy. Tragedy must appeal to our universal human nature. Look to the Greeks or to Shakespeare for tragedy, not Hollywood.

This is a good movie, but I am bound by my rating scale. The movie passes, but the film suffers from the deficiency that I've just mentioned. The movement and photography ought to give this film four stars, but I cannot in could conscience ignore the official Chris' Choice scale. Requiem for a Dream has surpassed my expectations of a movie about drugs, but it has problems. It does not meet my expectations of a tragedy. The problems weaken the pass,

On the official Chris' Choice scale Requiem for a Dream gets two stars.

Movie Review: Magnolia

2001-08-11T22:38:00.000-07:00

Huh?!?

I saw this movie a long time ago. I've made a lot of judgments about it and commented on it ad hoc for some time. The other day I put it on and really tried to figure it out.

Most movie reviews that I have read try to give a summary of the plot and characters. In the case of Magnolia I do not think that this is appropriate. This is a very different movie. Really, it is quite smart in some ways. The elaborate interconnections set out in the preface tell us that there is an elaborate force that brings people together. The plot and characters in the movie are not immune from the cosmic interconnection. Any real elaboration of the plot would ruin the fun of trying to figure out just what the heck is going on.

Really, Magnolia is all about trying to figure out what the hell is going on, it is what makes it a fun movie. It also makes writing a review quite difficult. There is so many complicated things going on, and it tries to appear as a deep film that anyone commenting on the movie does not want to appear to be an idiot. Everyone says, "I loved it, what a great film" but my hunch is those people do not want to look foolish.

There are some really cool things that really got me going. For instance, there is a scene reminiscent of the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey where Earl Partridge (the dying old man) is lying in bed, then the theme from 2001 starts up (Thus Spake Zarathrustra) and the scene changes to Frank T.J. Mackie (Tom Cruise the sex therapist) and one of his speeches about inner strength and dominating what is around you, linking the 2001 theme to the meaning of the original song as an interpretation of Nietzche's poem about the 'superman'. I thought that was cool. Things of this nature help to get us to believe that this is a deep and meaningful film.

The characters are all in some sort of crisis. The narrator tells us "things don't just happen" and "this is not just a coincidence." Some of the characters speak in verse. There is a young kid who says that he will tell us what it all means. He tells us in rap. The old quiz kid (Donnie) tells us that "it is ok to confuse children with angels." Of course the children in the film end up appearing to be more wise than all of the adults. Of course, since everything is connected, the speeches of the children are of cosmic significance. The children probably are angels.

OK, the whole thing is terribly confusing. There are a few things that one ought to know and will help to make sense of the movie.

The music is very important
The children ARE smarter than the adults and are keys to unlocking the plot - they are angels
The weather forecasts are messages from God
The cocaine addict is the main character.

>> SPOILER WARNING

So Chris, what does it all mean? Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the whole thing, but there is no deep meaning in the traditional sense. The movie does not ask any questions like other movies (see my review of The Virgin Suicides). It does not explain some fact of life. Instead, the movie is insulting. Magnolia is a polemic. It tells us what to do. "But if you refuse to let them go. Behold, I will smite all your territory with frogs." (Exodus 8:2) The movie is about the past and its hold on our consciousness. Just about every character in the film says "we may be through with the past, but the past aint through with us."

The movie isn't reflecting about forgiveness as the cop would have us believe. He says "sometimes people need to be forgiven, sometimes people need to go to jail." The movie says: you must forgive lest you be plagued by bad things! My objection is that a movie should reflect and ask questions. They ought to be reflective. Although it was fun to try and sort out everything that goes on, to figure out the the intersections and complications the movie is unsatisfactory. There is a deep paternalism, a warning about forgiveness from someone who is supposed to know more than us. The movie makes you dig and forces you to sift through a lot unnecessary complications. It tricks you into thinking you are smart and that the movie is deep. It is not deep. It is simple pedantic moralizing with flashy marketing. This is not new. This is not innovation. It is insulting. I don't go to the movies for a lecture. I can think on my own thank you very much.

<< END SPOILER

This movie gets two stars on the official Chris' Choice rating scale.

Movie Review: Sunshine

2001-07-30T22:35:00.000-07:00

Sunshine
Maybe a Little Cloudy

I'm not a big fan of movie reviews that get into all the details of the cast, production crew and those sorts of things. As a result, you won't see me dropping many names in any of my reviews. Incidentally, I've never studied film and do not intend to.

So, what about this Sunshine movie? Well it certainly is a long movie. It lasts about 3 hours. It is not an action movie. For these reasons alone it is doomed to be ignored by mainstream movie goers and people in or just out of high school who scream like chimpanzees to simply be 'entertained' (these are the people who have seen both Scary Movies and demand a third). This movie is not about entertainment per se. Sunshine has epic aspirations.

The epic hero Odysseus is exchanged for a family, the Sunshine family (it is pronounced differently, but I won't try to spell it). Our hero does not wander about the Agean trying to find home, but wanders through time.

Basically, the Sunshine family gets established in Budapest during the 1840s and we follow the lives of three generations of the Sunshine men. Incidentally all of the three men are played by Ralph Fiennes. They struggle to find their place in society.. None of them are content to accept the traditional Jewish role of the outsider. The first becomes a highly educated and very successful judge in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In order to do so, he must change his name from Sunshine (which using the proper pronunciation does not sound Hungarian) to Sors.

The real action begins at midnight at the dawn of the 20th Century. Everything before this is setup. The story of Sunshine is the story of the last century. The century's tragedy is the tragedy of sunshine. The first Sors is a strong supporter of the liberal/nationalist Emperor. He is heartbroken that the First World War is over. He wanted to win. His marriage to his sister/first cousin (another story) fails at the same time as the war. At this point a cycle begins. Revolution and regime come and go.

The story is not hard to follow. Generation after generation of the Sunshine family get caught up in each regime and swept away in ideology. There are communists, nationalists, Stalinists, and revolutionaries. The constant backdrop is the last century. A Sunshine goes to the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin as the Hungarian Fencing Champ. The Second World War sees the Sunshine (recent Catholics) hoping for exemption from the Jewish Laws. The hope was in vain and a Sunshine is lost in the Holocaust. Communism liberates Hungary at the end of the war. Their are reprisals. Then Stalin dies and the purges come. Then Hungary revolts against communism. Then the Soviets crush the revolution. And so it goes.

The Sunshine family tries to fit in. They change their name, abandon their faith finally they lose their history. The three generations of Sunshine are linked together by Valerie. The first cousin of the Judge who was raised as his sister. They marry against their parents wishes. She is perhaps the most enigmatic of all the characters. It is said that she is the only Sunshine that was ever able to breath freely. That is what the movie is all about. Being able to breath freely. Being able to be yourself.

The movie achieves its goal and it is a fascinating movie to watch. The period pieces are done with incredible beauty. Thematically you feel as though you are being pulled into a whirlpool as the century progresses. Round and round you go from regime to regime, and from generation to generation the same mistakes are made and the same fate awaits.

BEGIN SPOILER WARNING >>

My problem with the movie was personal. I didn't like the thematic substance. It belittles politics by portraying it all as extremist and flawed. It does this quite well. I won't hold this against the film. As far as I'm concerned, a movie should be reviewed and judged on form not substance. Anyway, when one of the Sunshines is dying (the judge's brother, and a communist) asks Valerie "what was the purpose of this wretched life?" to which she responds "life itself, we were happy once." To me, this is unsatisfactory. To others this is revolutionary. It is a bury your head in the sand mentality. And, of course, this is what Valerie does. She is content to survive. None of the critics I know have pointed this out. Valerie survives the liquidation of the Budapest ghetto. The many loves of her life have died. She has betrayed some of them. Her husband/brother/cousin who she convinces to love her ends up doing just that. Valerie cheats on him, we find out near the end, but when divorcing him she uses the argument he gave at the beginning. It is her joy, that is important to her. She does things with good reason. In the context of the movie her reasons are justified and act as a foil to contrast the ambition and obsessions of the men. She is content to love and be loved, and failing that she is content with the memories of joy and happiness. To me, the Sunshine men have a much more noble goal even if their goals are flawed. At some level they all seek to secure a place for joy and happiness to exist. Valerie's virtue is she can find some joy despite the misery around her. Fine, but does that make her life a paragon for others? The film does not deal with my problems, and that's fine. What the film does show it that Valerie is content having been happy and trying to photograph life (find good things in life without changing it). She preserves the times when things were beautiful and happy. She wants to go on trying to sing her way through life. And she does. The last male Sunshine finally accepts his grandmother's philosophy and tries to find himself. His redemption is not complete, but then time has not stopped. It is a good ending to a good movie. It is his acceptance of his grandmother's creed that legitimizes the creed. As a virtue of the survivor Valerie's ideals have value, but beyond the ordinary life they are problematic. They are the virtues of acquiescence and subjectivism. Assuming we are meant to be disgusted with the men and their regimes then we are left with Valerie. Hopefully the last Sunshine will be able to come up with some 'golden mean' between the two. It, however seems unlikely.

<<>

It is not a revolutionary movie. The Red Violin is better at using time as a setting and throwing away the focus on single character Heroes Technically the photography seems to be well beyond the average. It is very well acted and the plot and themes are well developed.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Sunshine gets four stars.

****

Movie Review: The Virgin Suicides

2001-07-24T22:33:00.000-07:00

The Virgin Suicides

Who is this about?

I guess that is really the question. Who, or even better what is this movie about? You would expect this movie to be about the girls, the virgins. In a way it is, but only in a superficial way. I don't really know, but I think that this movie can be seen as a female version of Fight Club. That is, where Fight Club wanted to show men dealing with anger, disillusionment and violence, The Virgin Suicides wants to show young girls dealing with pain, disillusionment and love. I thought that, and maybe its true at some level, but I think that misses the point.

The difficulty that I think some people might have with this movie is the "Thin Red Line/Private Ryan" problem (send me an e-mail and I'll explain the problem explicitly). Though this movie has a narrator, and the time settings are not difficult to follow this movie is not a narrative, but an allegory. THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT SEX and how we kill our own ideals and our own innocence.

The question you ought to ask yourself is not "why did they kill themselves?" but "what has changed now that they are dead?" Maybe I missed something, but I don't think you will find a satisfactory answer to the first question. And, sorry ladies, but if you look for an answer to the second question the most important characters are no longer the troubled teenaged girls who write bad poetry, but the seemingly one dimensional boys. Oh, and the girls' parents - not important. They are just as annoying as any set of parents might seem to any set of teenagers.

In order to understand this movie you have to understand the proper characters - who they are and what they represent. The movie is a reflection about a sexual ideal (the girls) in an Eden (suburbia). To begin with there is no knowledge (experience) only a perfect idea (the girls). The story is about original sin, about getting forbidden knowledge and finding out that it might not be what we thought. Again, why these girls killed themselves is not important, only that they did. If this was a movie about characters, properly speaking, it would fail miserably. The girls don't really develop, the older one does a bit. The boys are inarticulate and abscessed. And, abscessed people don't change. In the context of an allegory these are important points, and do not detract but enhance the power of the film.

This is a good movie. I like it because it appears to be trendy, but I don't think a lot of people will get it. They will leave asking the wrong questions, questions that ultimately are not answered by the film. Those same people will leave saying "yeah that was cool because it was so messed up" The movie was too well done to be left at that. It had to be taken to the next level, a level where different questions get answered successfully. Further, it is not a movie that holds you by the hand, but relies on the viewers intelligence to grasp the intelligence of the film (this is not something Hollywood does very often).

I give this movie a four stars (****) on the official Chris' Choice movie rating scale.

Scotch: Blends

2001-07-11T23:10:00.000-07:00

Misconceptions: Blends vs Single Malts:

Don't even start. I know someone is going to start up on how wonderful single malt Scotch is and that only it deserves to be appreciated by true connoisseur. Well, too bad, if that is your attitude you can stop reading now.

Unfortunately, blended Scotch has been getting little attention over the last couple of years. Single Malts are all the rage, such that it is hard to walk into a restaurant or bar that doesn't mention its wide selection of Single Malt Whisky (often Glenlivet, Glenfidich, and some other (likely Highland Park). Scotch, however, is best suited to be consumed among gentleman, and a gentleman, as far as I can tell,does not buy a round in a bar or sip single malts before dinner in a dining room. This is far too expensive a venture for a gentleman, and much too distracting.

The best place for a Scotch is in a gentleman's sanctuary, his office, study or den - often in a comfortable chair with his favourite music playing softly in the background. A gentleman's Scotch ought to be within arms reach. This precludes getting his Scotch from his well stocked bar. No, the man's Scotch ought to be close and in a crystal decanter. Since one just does not keep Single Malts in a decanter, we ought to pay the blend some much deserved attention.

The Blend

Blended Whisky has been the norm until the mid eighties I am told. Instead of being produced solely form malted barley, blends contain a variety of malts but most importantly they contain less expensive grain whisky. Blenders scour the countryside tasting the various malts combining them with the grain whisky to produce a constant, smooth product. They often attain their goal. Of course, not all blends are created equal.

All this being said, one can understand why blended Whisky is the appropriate drink of a gentleman. It is consistent, smooth, refreshing and consequently it is much more drinkable than a single malt. One does not get the same variety, but then a blend can be counted on, just like a good retriever can depended on to bring back a grouse, a blend can be depended upon to be the same time and time again.

Sure, go to the single malt if you want to sit around and talk flovours and scents all night. Go to the blend if you want to sit back and enjoy the evening with a close and trustworthy friend.

Scotch: The famous Grouse

2001-07-11T23:09:00.000-07:00

The Famous Grouse

The Scotch itself comes in two varieties. The one I have is the normal blend. There is also a 12 Year old Gold Reserve which, of course, is not carried by BC liquor stores. The Famous Grouse is bottled by Matthew Gloag and Sons Ltd in Perth.

When you approach this whisky the light grassy aromas let you know that you are not tasting any ordinary blend. You know from the start that this is going to be a quality Scotch. There are no harsh scents of alcohol here. As you move the glass back to taste your nose is hit by smells of butterscotch. The taste is smooth from the beginning. A light hint of nuts at first, but it goes down smoothly, yet always with that bit of a kick you want in a Scotch. This is a very smooth, Scotch with simple flavours. There is no peat here. It goes down easily and is a pleasure to drink. I like it.

Oh, and check out their web site, very cool. http://www.famousgrouse.com/