Toy Story 3: “easily the best film of 2010”.

Sun, 20 Jun 2010
2 min read
Add Comment

Toy Story 3: The Toys Are Back In Town!

Well, the title says it all.

I got the quote off a post off Huffington Post and the picture from this site which has a pretty cute review.

First things first, or, how you know the movie’s really good – I’m writing a sort of review on it, something I rarely do unless I am immensely moved or immensely pissed off by something.

However, I’m not providing any specific examples from the film so that I don’t spoil the film for you.

Why I like Toy Story 3 so much is because it’s packed with so much goodness in it that it has something valuable for everyone.

For example,

  • Entertaining and humorous storyline for the kids: Check.
  • Tearjerker/romance/comedy/action elements for the various segments of the adult population: Check.
  • Concepts like existentialism for the literary geeks: Ch – WTF?

Yes, I’m serious. You can even see some Freudian psychology (yeah I know it’s passe but still) at work in terms of the life drive/Eros/self-preservation instinct that some characters portray.

Some other literary aspects of the film that appeal to me:

  • The plot has been crafted very well and fits together very tightly, such that there is adequate closure to each conflict that arises, which allow the round characters to progress in a convincing fashion,
  • The conflicts are both plausible and palpable – what each character goes through is at no times trite or contrived, and last but not least,
  • What really had me in awe was the film’s employment of a literal deus ex machina that leverages on a series of motifs from the fim/within the Toy Story trilogy. It’s cheesy and a tad predictable if you’ve been following the clues in the film – but it’s done very well.

So please go and watch Toy Story 3 if you can. Even if you can’t appreciate the literary aspects of it, I think you’ll appreciate the truths about life that the film depicts.

P.S. No, I haven’t been paid to plug the film, but I wouldn’t mind a free t-shirt if anyone could get me one of these babies.

Romano Ristorante.

Sun, 11 Apr 2010
1 min read
2 Comments

Went there for lunch yesterday without reading any reviews; we wanted to try something different so we headed to the Jalan Leban area and browsed the restaurants before settling on Romano’s.

(via)

It was a good choice. I liked the:

  • Calzone with Mushrooms,
  • Bellini (some Italian soda concoction),
  • Marscapone Tiramisu.

For your info, the food was 3.5/5 quality. Having said that, the prices match the quality of the food so don’t go there expecting to be blown away.

What impressed me most (hence a blog post dedicated to it) was the service (obviously) – the staff members were friendly without being familiar; respectful without being obsequious; helpful without being intrusive.

Go there, now.

What reviews should be.

Mon, 25 May 2009
3 min read
Add Comment

Well, I’ve been thinking about this for a while – since August 2008 to be precise, after the reviews for OTOT came out. So I guess now is as good a time as any to talk about it.

To contextualise things slightly: the general opinion of Something Old hasn’t been very positive. From a personal standpoint, I agree wholeheartedly – while the premise of the play was intriguing, the way I handled the dialogue, drama and action left much to be desired.

So I’m cool with it if reviews say the play was poorly written. For one, everyone is entitled to their opinion; for another, I am my worst critic, in more ways than one: I am self-aware enough to recognise when something did not work. In the case of Something Old, it worked, but it could’ve worked better if I hadn’t been so heavy-handed with the writing.

But back to the point about reviews. What I want to question is: what is the relevance and value of a review, if the review merely says a particular piece of art was bad? (Sidenote: Students might want to approach this from the classroom perspective e.g. when you say a teacher can’t teach well.)

I think reviews – regardless of what is being reviewed – should have some relevance and value. One might argue that a review’s relevance and value is in informing the general public if a production is worth watching or a book is worth buying, etc. That makes sense: people neither want to waste their money on bad theatre nor do they want to waste money on bad books, or bad education, and so on.

But on the other hand, where is the sustainability in that? With some hindsight any artist worth her salt will recognise when a piece of art is shite. Being told that the art is shite doesn’t make the art any better, but only serves to make the artist feel crappy too. Save the stereotype of the artist as having a sensitive soul, most people are human, and if I may take this opportunity to add: not kind words from friends cut deeper than stones from strangers do.

So: here’s The Laremy Challenge (cheh…). For anyone who’s reading this – bloggers, journos, winos, blogger-journos, journo-winos and the like – I’d like you to keep the idea of sustainability in mind when you next write a review about something.

If that something sucked – be frank. Say it sucked. But say it in a sustainable fashion. Say it sucked nicely and then say how it sucked, and what could’ve been done to stop it from sucking so much e.g. if the piece had been written this way, or if it had been painted that way, etc.

I think if you try this, you might find your review still sells. People will want to read you so long as you write well, and any writer worth her salt will know how well s/he writes after a bit of hindsight.

But what’s more important is that the art you create is going to help someone else become a better artist. At the very least, you might realise that creating good art, in all senses of the adjective, isn’t so easy after all.