GaBlog

There is a fruit tree in our garden I could not make out what kind of fruit it would bear. My wife kept telling me that it is peach or nectarine, but I did not believe her, because the fruits were so small. Earlier this week I noticed that a third of the fruits have fallen on the ground from the branches. I picked the better ones up and got all from the tree. I guess they were ripe enough. They were indeed nectarines, albeit smaller than usual. They were sweet, with a hint of bitterness. We decided to make jam out of them. Three days passed between picking them and actually making the jam. Unfortunately I forgot to take a picture of the nicer looking nectarines that we used for the jam. So, on the first picture you see the leftover fruits, that we later cut up, removed the bad parts and froze in small chunks for later use.

I washed them.

I halved them.

I sterilized the jars that we collected over the year for this purpose.

I also boiled the lids.

I twelved the fruit, i.e. cut each half into six pieces.

I measured them. We ended up having 18 cups of cut fruit.

The pits. Call me obsessive, but I was curious how many fruits we used. Considering that there were 114 pits, I assume that was the final number.

Sugar and lemon juice was called for.

Mixed the ingredients.

Started to cook, the sugar melted real fast.

Still cooking.

The jars are ready.

Used a small ladle to put the jam into the jars.

The ready products a day later, removed from the wrappings that ensured slow cooling.

I had three good reasons to watch Bonneville. First I read in the description that is I about three women, who travel to Santa Barbara. Having spent two good years there I was eager to see more, so I inflicted a temporary folly on myself and equated “traveling to” with “being there.” Disappointment was inevitable: this is a road movie that shows nothing of the city Santa Barbara. The closing scene is set on a beach that might be there, but I could not identify it for sure. The other two reasons satisfied me though: both Jessica Lange and Kathy Bates acted to my, and I believe to their own, delight. The third actress was Joan Allen, whose name I did not recognize, but whose face was familiar (from The Notebook, The Contender, Pleasantville, The Crucible, Peggy Sue Got Married and the Bourne series.) She has such a strict-looking face that roles of passive-aggressive people suit her rather well.

Here she was the most suppressed and orthodox from the three friends. Suppressed in terms, of not letting her emotions reign free and orthodox in terms of level of adherence to her Mormon faith. By the end of the movie she lets up in both areas and it is good for her. The movie is still not an anti-church one as it does not take an explicit stand of connecting LDS practices to unhealthy life, just implies it. It shows having fun as antithetical to being a Mormon. This depiction is only true if we view life through the lense of secular pleasures, where drinking, swearing, having sex, gambling is defined as fun, while contemplating and following moral standards is not.

This however is not the main theme of the movie, just my side observation. The movie is more about the rediscovery of the shades of meanings of friendships. The three women are radically different, yet extremely loyal to each other. They laugh together, they fight together, but here they mostly travel together, carrying the ashes of one of the husbands from Idaho to Santa Barbara. Along the way bits of the ashes are scattered at places that were important in the couple’s life. By the time they get to the daughter on the coast … heh, you thought I would tell you. No way. (But you can guess anyway.)

Bates was the genuinely funny, the funniest I have ever seen her. Lange was spontaneous, musing and stoical. All three women played so well, that for their sake I am ready to forgive the slightly flat story line and boring directing. The movie was like a comfortable overcoat, no real surprises, but keeps you warm and fuzzy till the end.

DVD @ Amazon.com

I think this is the first time I’ve seen a sequel without having seen the first episode. To confuse things I read that the first Scorpion King movie is chronologically and thematically set after this one. If that’s not enough for confusion all both of these are considered offshoots of the Mummy series set in the present. As opposed to the Scorpion King movies that are set in the mythic past. None of this matters though, because The Scorpion King 2: Rise Of A Warrior is a pure adventure film with lots of fights and fantastic scenery. The scenery is fantastic in both meanings of the words: they are imaginary (or existing, but re-imagined) and are visually well designed.

The story is simple enough: a young lad witnesses his father’s death by an evil king and swears to avenge it, gets trained for six years to become a warrior, sets out on a journey with some faithful sidekicks to lay hands on the weapon that can kill the king, who has magic powers and delivers on the promise made to himself. I was thoroughly entertained but then I am easy to please. I liked the underworld scenes, the ancient styrofoam (or whatever materials they use now) towns, the minotaur’s labyrinth and mostly the clockwork design of the death machine in the center of an arena. The film had the look and feel of the Xena and Hercules (TV series from 1990’s), that I watched back then.

I was underwhelmed with the special effects though. Monsters were rendered with too cheap CGI here. Nevertheless it was a fun little movie to watch, when I was so tired I needed light entertainment.

DVD @ Amazon.com

Resurrecting the champ is so full of lessons that it takes focus to untangle all of them. First there is the lesson of the importance of doing good work. The protagonist, sport journalist, is missing out on this one and learns the hard way, because it (almost?) destroys his career. Then there is the importance of loving your family. He vehemently cares for his son and wants to get back with his separated wife as well. His intentions are honest and come from love, but his actions to gain his family back are not guided enough form the heart. I felt like yelling himself throughout the movie: be true to your heart and yourself otherwise you have no chance. Thus the question of integrity arose. Does he have any? How far is willing to go to get ahead? This is the question he is struggling with in his better moments of which there are not enough.

The next question is gullibility. He is willing to believe what he wants to believe without looking for confirmation. This becomes his fate. I cannot resist sharing that this week I had an “aha moment” when I realized that the Swift probably made up the name Gulliver form the word gullible. It is probably obvious to literary critics, but I was rather happy with myself when it occurred to me. So, who is gullible here? The reporter, the system that created him or the viewers. I would say all of the above.

Right now I do not want to into the father-son dynamic between the journalist and his deceased father. The issue there is whose expectations you want to live by and how/why is it important to surpass your father(’s). Instead I’d rather explore the idea of exploitation. On one hand the swanky reporter exploits the homeless man (portrayed terrifically by Samuel L. Jackson) to further his career. There is a very clear class separation between them in terms of education, income and lifestyle. Another kind of exploitation could be discovered if you are looking between athletes (Jackson played an old ex-boxer) and white-collar workers.

This leads me to the third area which was not explicitly expounded in the movie: race issues. The white journalist wants to build his career using the story of a black boxer. The boxers’ managers were also white people in the past without exception. I am not sure whether these were intentional assertion or the movie makers were just following the original, true story the movie is based upon. Either way it is hard to imagine the situation with reversing the colors of the main people. The fact that it is unimaginable speaks to the existence of racism in our society. To put it another way the film questions whether and how sports—usually thought as one of the few means black people can get out of poverty– work. If you are not good enough you’ll end up on the streets anyway.

I would gladly watch the movie again to find more nuances and enjoy Jackson’s antics.

DVD @ Amazon.com

The three main reasons I liked the original Lost Boys from 1987 was that it was shot in Santa Cruz, that Kiefer Sutherland was a cool evil guy and that this was the first (and only) biker/vampire movie I’ve seen. Unfortunately the sequel, Lost Boys: The Tribe, made 21 years later only kept the third part. No, I am wrong, the plot line is so similar to the first one that it is scary And I do not mean scary you like that in horror movies. On a scale of predictability I give it 11 out of ten. I am sorry, even the tagline (”Never grow old. Never die. Never know fear again.”) sounds more funny than menacing. The special effects were tired, and the main actors seemed too.

As I want to find positive things to say about the movie I should mention Corey Feldman’s raspy voice. I haven’t followed this typical 80’s star’s career (Gremlins, Goonies, Stand by Me, Lost Boys, Rock ‘n’ Roll High School Forever) since then, but seems like he’s done a lot of action/horror movies. His voice certainly fits it. The other painfully hilarious aspect of the movie was the Aunt character, who was so out of touch with her newcomer relatives’ lives and youth in general that her mild wickedness became funny.

The only way I could recommend this movie I if you treat it a parody of vampire movies. Every time you see or hear a cliché you should pop a piece of pop-corn in your mouth. By the end of the movie you will be more than full.

DVD @ Amazon.com

A few months ago we were driving through San Francisco and noticed a few unusual posts at a few bus stops. They were white background, black lettering, mimicking handwriting, containing some unpleasant words and ending with “IHateSarahMarshall.com.” The ads were effective enough that we checked the website when we got home and learnt that they were advertising a new movie with Kristen Bell. We rather liked her in the Veronica Mars TV series as a high school student who does detective work, so we checked this movie out as well. The funny thing was that the movie opened with a scene from a fictional TV series, where she was a detective again. Furthermore at the end of the movie, they were showing a scene from her (the character’s) new series, where she had superpowers. This is a direct reference to her new recurring role in Heroes, although the superpowers are different. I was glad and freaked at the same time that I am immersed enough into TV series to notice these references. Am I watching too much TV?

But back to Sarah Marshall. I liked enough this light and somewhat predictable romantic comedy. It had enough funny moments and characters. The rock start persona was well delivered by Russell Brand, but having worked at the front desk of hotels I appreciated more Mila Kunis‘ Rachel, who had the same job. I’ve only seen her in the TV series “That 70s show” and was wondering about her ethnic background. I just learned that she is an Ukrainian Jew. Which reminds me that I was wondering about the Biblical naming of the characters. She is Rachel and the other woman in the love triangle Sarah. In the Bible they are two generation off from each other so that is not the intended reference if there was any. On the other hand here, Sarah is the original first woman and Rachel is a very latecomer into the family, due to unfortunate circumstances. While she is a venerated ancestor, but she is the only of the four foremothers who was not buried with the other patriarchs and matriarchs, so she remained an outsider. In the movie Rachel is the islander, while the others are from the continental metropolis. I know that the parallel a bit forced, but having two Biblical names in a movie made me think of it.

If your want to have a pleasant 90 minutes go check this out, particularly the puppet musical segment about Dracula.

DVD @ Amazon.com

I am not very familiar with Japanese martial art films genre, but I am aware that it exists, is popular and huge. But I could not place Princess Blade within that framework, so I have to analyze the movie through the lenses I have.

I liked:

• The fact that the hero was a woman. More specifically a young princess. Played by Yumiko Shaku, who was apparently already a pop star, when she shot this movie, her first.
• The fights were well enough choreographed. But I have seen some better ones too. They were enjoyable with just a tiny bit more gore than I like.
• Some of the mise-en-scene was composed eloquently. There were at least 5 images in the movie I would like to look at as large scale paintings, because I think they would provide more aesthetic pleasure that way. One of them is the heroine standing at the edge of the water at the very end of the movie.

I was confused about:

• The ethical aspects of the movie were confusing. There was a lot of betrayal involved and I could not exactly figure out the reasons behind them. What’s the message, if any?
• I was also upset to see those good characters to die, who would not have been killed in an American version of the same story. Looks like I got conditioned by Hollywood too much.
• The protagonist sword fight was not top-notch. She could handle the blades in slow and practically still shots and it even looked good in her hand. Having a movie titled Princess Blade, where the princess is depicted as the best swordsperson ever, while she was clearly not is confusing

Did not like

• The post-apocalyptic era and scenery was mostly hinted at and not shown enough. This was the main reason I watched the movie and was disappointed in this regard.
• The music. You may ask what music. Exactly: there were long stretches of uncomfortable silence. I can appreciate silence when it has a dramatic role. Here it was simple missing, I considered it a mistake.

DVD @ Amazon.com

Uma Thurman and Evan Rachel Wood gave terrific performances in The life before her eyes. Wood plays a high school student who witnesses a Columbine like massacre at her school. We get a view of her life, relationship with his best friend and her mother, particularly the days and weeks leading up to the tragic day. On the other hand Thurman plays the same woman 15 years in the future. There she is teaching art at a college and has a young daughter who keeps disappearing while playing. The conversations are often around the memorial organized at the school commemorating the 15th anniversary of the incident. She is undecided whether to go or not.

As if the story would not be compelling enough it is the cinematography makes the movie worth watching. This is Vadim Perelman’s second movie. Having seen this I definitely want to see the first one, House of sand and fog. The first thing I liked about the visual experience was the flower shots. (The movie’s work title was In Bloom.) Using a limited palette, not much wider than primary colors and dreamlike contrasts it uses the visual language well that we learned to associate with dreams. Did you notice that dream sequences in most movies are using the same techniques? Real dreams however not really like that. Nevertheless watching enough movies our mind learns to identify these kinds of images as dreams and we do not even think about it any more. Then comes a movie like this where we are forced to question what a dream is and what reality is. I like when I have to work through dissonances like these. The break was enhanced by other aspect of the editing I liked. The music composed by James Horner (Apocalypto, Iris, Titanic…) is similarly dreamy, but when it is accompanying some slowed down sequences it sounds even more so. Good fit.

If it would be a murder mystery you would be disappointed to figure out at least halfway through the movie if not earlier, who the victim is. Maybe I am slow, and you would know from the very beginning, because of the title of the movie. It is clearly a reference to the assertion that we see version of our lives going through our eyes right before you fie. If that does not give enough clues, you might ponder upon how it is possible to see the adult life of Diana, supposedly 15 years in the future, while the shooting is set in the present. The movie shows plenty of cultural references, helping us to frame the period as the early 2000’s, but the future is void of hints defining the year.

From perspective the film supports pro-life, Christian morality. Two o the main characters are explicitly identified as “the virgin and the whore.” SPOILER ON: And the “whore” dies, presumably for her sins.  Furthermore, we also know that she had an abortion accompanied by ravaging emotions. Therefore when the murderer asks who he should shoot from the two of them, she volunteers herself. She might be driven by guilt or by the recognition that the “virgin’s” life (and future untapped potentials) deserves more protection than her own. Whether I agree with this view or not the movie was terrific and I would recommend it in a heartbeat to anyone.

DVD @ Amazon.com

Wargames 2 is one of the worst sequels I have ever seen. The first one, 25 years ago with Matthew Broderick, was trendsetting, full of new concepts and ideas and became a classic 1980’s movie. This one will accomplish none of the above. The plot is mostly repeating the original. The actors attempted to make something out of a misguided script, but did not manage to do very well. The two main characters were supposed to be high school students, but the actors playing them were 24 and 26 years old and their age showed. Don’t get me wrong I am not ageist and I think actors of all ages should get great roles. But the effect on this movie of employing older actors was that it took away whatever sense of reality it might have had. Which was not much to begin with. The only good thing I can say about the movie, that it showed how much surveillance is present in our cities and how post 9/11 paranoia works in security circles. I ended up fast forwarding the last third of the movie (with subtitles on)  I was so bored.

DVD @ Amazon.com

I have never seen a Marx Brothers movie so it was time. I had very little preconception of them. I was expecting a slapstick comedy and was happy to get much more. Yes there, were about 5-10 of the predictable slapstick kind of jokes going back and forth between two or more characters. But there was a lot of verbal comedy as well. They surprised me by their non sequitur nature. Hearing inappropriate answers, seeing reactions that have nothing to do with the original questions was refreshingly shocking. It reminded me that we often hear what we want and are driven on to accomplish their goals no matter how the circumstances change. Ducksoup is a great parody of this kind of behavior.

The movie’s main plot centered on a war, how it broke out and what came out of it. As the movie was made in 1933 I could not avoid thinking of World War II. Unlike Chaplin’s Great Dictator 7 years later, this film treated the topic with innocent charm. Nobody really got heart, the whole affair was really rather silly and depicted as such. They also tried to show warring as stupid Old World habits of kings and monarchs.  If there is any message in this movie than it is that war is futile and unnecessary. The movie ended so abruptly after 68 minutes that I am inclined to end my review in a similar manne…

DVD @ Amazon.com