Scotch: Bowmore 12 Year Old Single Malt

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

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

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

• 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

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

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

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!