Cooking Up The Delicious Food In Jon Favreau’s "Chef"

 

For his culinary dramedy, expanding nationwide this weekend, Favreau turned to celebrated chef Roy Choi to create dishes so tasty you would want to eat them off the screen. “I really tried to tell a story with the food,”

John Leguizamo, Jon Favreau, Bobby Cannavale, and chef Roy Choi on the set of Chef Open Road Films

With a title as direct as Chef — the indie dramedy written and directed by Jon Favreau (Iron Man) that is expanding nationwide this weekend — it is perhaps no surprise that the food in Favreau’s film looks good enough to eat. And that’s because it was.

“We were eating the food,” Favreau told BuzzFeed. “There was nothing that we shot that wasn’t amazing.”

The food in Chef wasn’t just delicious, though. (Warning: Some plot — and food — spoilers follow.) It was also crucial to telling the film’s central story about lauded chef Carl Casper (Favreau), whose many years at a middlebrow Los Angeles restaurant have dulled his culinary senses so much that it takes a scathing review by a famed food critic (Oliver Platt) — and a subsequent social media meltdown — to jolt Carl back into making great food again. That journey comes to a head with a sequence in which the food critic is served Carl’s old menu a second time while Carl, who has been fired, cooks up a far more adventurous — and mouthwatering — menu at his home.

With so many different dishes appearing on screen at the same time, Favreau turned to one of L.A.’s most celebrated cutting-edge chefs, Roy Choi, to construct it all. Choi, 44, became a star of the foodie world when he launched the food truck phenomenon with Kogi, which fused together Korean BBQ and Mexican cuisine so effectively that it has launched countless imitators. In addition to Kogi, Choi now oversees a string of Los Angeles restaurants. When it came time to find a culinary adviser for Chef — which ultimately leads to Carl starting his own food truck serving authentic Cubano sandwiches — Favreau understood that Choi’s sensibility was so spot on for his story that he gave Choi an unusual degree of creative control over his movie. “His whole thing was, as long as you do it right, and as long as we get it authentic, he would put the work in and do whatever I needed and teach me whatever he could,” said Favreau. “Everything — whether it was the script, what I was wearing, what I was cooking, what the kitchen looked like — everything was cleared through him.”

John Leguizamo, Emjay Anthony, Jon Favreau, Oliver Platt, and chef Roy Choi at the SXSW Film Festival premiere of Chef Michael Buckner / Getty Images

Choi took that wide latitude very seriously. “The way we designed the food, I really tried to get into Carl as a character, as a person, and what he was going through,” he told BuzzFeed. “I really tried to tell a story with the food.”

That proved to be a challenge when Choi was tasked with creating a menu that a food critic would not like.

“That was tough, man,” said Choi. “It was really, really tough. It wasn’t tough to create, but it was tough forcing yourself back there. Imagine some of the stuff you first wrote when you first started [in journalism], and having without judgment to go back to that place and use those same metaphors and same similes and ways of structuring your words, the over-the-top stuff before you kind of evolved. Going back there was weird.”

Choi crafted a menu filled with what have become culinary clichés, including a poached egg topped with caviar, a bowl of French onion soup, scallops with beurre blanc, frisée salad, and filet mignon topped with a massive slab of butter.

Caviar Egg

Open Road Films

French onion soup

Open Road Films

Filet mignon

Open Road Films

“I just tried to think of six or seven things that would be like daggers to us [chefs],” said Choi. “It was like wearing old clothes from stuff you looked at in the ’80s. Like, Ohhhh, man.” The idea, he explained, is that Carl’s restaurant — and his cooking — had over the years become an institution without any invention. “Maybe similar to like [popular L.A. establishment] The Ivy, where it’s packed, you’re still going there [to] see and be seen. It’s not like you can put a roast squab with braised tripe and test it on the menu with pickled fermented chili. No one’s going to order it, and everyone’s there for the cobb salad and the scallops or whatever.”

That was most typified by the final menu item that Favreau had written into the script early on as the nadir of Carl’s creative stagnation: a chocolate lava cake.

Chocolate lava cake Open Road Films

“Jon had it there as a placeholder [in the script],” said Choi, “and then I think as we got to know each other he started to understand the impact of why that is kind of symbolized as the worst part of our era. It was overplayed. It was something that was a wonderful, wonderful thing that was created by Michel Bras, but then it got copied and mutilated and taken across the world into every chain restaurant, every chasm of American psyche. And it was done wrong a lot of the time.”

It wasn’t that this food was unappetizing — Favreau made a point of noting that every dish overseen by Choi “is actually all good food” — just that it was boring, and deserving of a terrible review that could push Carl to begin to exercise his cooking imagination again.

In the film, that creative reinvigoration starts with Carl whipping up a few new possibilities for the restaurant’s menu, including Santa Barbara spot prawns in a curry-carrot purée and garnished with radishes, and a roast squab with pickled red onion, chilies, gochujang, and soy vinaigrette.

Santa Barbara spot prawns

Open Road Films

Roast squab

Open Road Films

“At that stage, he still hasn’t completely reached the mountaintop yet and spread his wings,” said Choi. “He’s just starting to explore, really tying to find his voice again. I feel like that [squab] dish was one that really stood out that you could see Carl was really trying again — seasoning and roasting the squab whole, and serving it with Korean chili paste and puréeing garlic and green onion and ginger [in] all of these fermented flavors, with an infused soy reduction, and pickled red onions, and chiles. Really starting to push himself again, to say, I don’t need a starch on this plate. I don’t need the flavors to be subdued. I can really cook the way that I love to eat.”

Of course, as Choi said, “That’s a huge leap for a traditional restaurant in [L.A.], putting these flavors on the menu” — and when Carl tries to put them on the menu, he’s fired. Which is what finally launches him into cooking at his own home with abandon. “He’s fucking pissed,” Choi said. “He’s lost his job. And it’s like a guy punching a wall and making hole after hole in a wall, like a boxer just pissed off and just cooking. In his apartment, I wanted him to cook in a way where he was cooking food that you couldn’t deny.”

First up, “a whole roast pork belly slathered with garlic chili paste, cured and braised and cut and served over an heirloom carrot purée that’s as silky as can be, with a little salsa verde and pickled radishes.”

Open Road Films

Next, “Korean spicy octopus, like a stir-fry with bell peppers, onions, green onions, sauce filled with sesame oil, ginger, garlic, puréed onion, orange juice, chili paste, kimchi, all that stuff.”

Open Road Films

Then, a “28-day dry-aged ribeye from Harvey Guss in Los Angeles. It’s fully coated with salt and pepper an hour-and-a-half before. Searing it. Letting it rest. Serving it with charred cauliflower, roasted potatoes, lemon, garlic, and really good oil.”

Open Road Films

The dessert dish was a trickier challenge, because it needed to contrast with how symbolic the chocolate lava cake had become to Carl’s career. “Jon really wanted something that you could see and be like, Oh my god, I want that right now,” said Choi.

Open Road Films

“I thought, he’s not going to be baking anything,” Choi continued. “He’s not going to be making his own ice cream in his house and things like that. So I was thinking what possible dessert can we do: Let’s just macerate some berries, some really good mint, some lemon verbena inside of there, make a really great whipped cream. And then Jon said, ‘I want something to show that Carl has this really fine-tuned level of OCD where it’s like even the smallest thing takes steps.’ So then we started thinking of a brittle, and then it evolved into this powder. We’re cooling it, breaking it, pounding it, running it through a sieve, and then letting it fall like dust, all for just one little piece of that dessert. I think that was the story right there.”

Indeed, Choi’s investment was not just in making the food look good but making sure it connected to both the film’s central narrative and reflected where cooking is today. “How he’s cooking in the apartment is a whole departure, not only mood-wise, but getting away from dishes having to be completely composed for each diner,” said Choi. “We’re just cooking. Sometimes things are shared. Sometimes you’d have your own plate, but it’s a lot more rustic. It’s a lot more focused on the actual flavor versus the construction to wow you and show you how special we are. It’s more about making sure it’s delicious, and I felt like that food in that apartment was all about that, making it as delicious as possible.”

Open Road Films

The Country Club - Total Mall Scam

 

This week I was the target of a scam run by The Country Club and Total Mall. The scam runs in various malls across India, but in my case, I was targeted at Total Mall on Old Airport Road. After searching about this on the net, I now realize I luckily (or smartly) escaped from this well planned scam targeting innocent shoppers.

So last week, we were happily shopping at Total Mall; now usually I cautiously stay away from big malls, preferring to shop only at smaller stores, but I had to buy something which was available only at some meat stores. I knew the meat store at Total Mall had it, so off I went. On the way back, we saw these young 20-something sales boys going around telling customers about their lucky draw program. Country Club (the guy with the thumbs up) and Total Mall was organizing this draw, and winners would get exciting gifts ! All we had to do was to fill in our detail in their foms. I was sceptical, but thought of trying it out just to see where it goes. Both me and my wife filled out only first names, and phone numbers in the forms, leaving everything else blank. Both of us entered MY cell number, so that I would get the call no matter who’s form was selected. Nothing else was entered. We forgot the whole matter.

Two days later, I get a call from an unknown Bangalore number, to confirm my identity. They asked me my monthly salary, which I refused to reveal. I added the caller’s number to my phones black list, so that they could never call me again from that number.The scam had started !

And then today, at about 3pm, I get this call from another unknown number. It sounded like another 20-something guy, who wanted to inform me that I had just won one of their elusive prizes ! Worth 30,000 Rs /- Wow ! He tried to sound enthusiastic, but I could sense the tiredness in his voice. He told me that 30 couples had been selected from 2000 families, and we were the luck ones to win the prize. A travel prize of 25,000, a one day something pass of 1000 , and a kitchen set of 4000! Inorder to claim the prize, both of us had to attend their function at 9pm at Outer Ring Road. I thanked him, and said I would attend.

This is the message I got from them via SMS:

Total mall convention hall , BEFOR Intel Cmpny, near to new horizon engineering college  DEVARBESANALI stop B'lore
After coming here it will take maximum  30 to 45 min to collect your gifts
manoj 9686618685

The call came from : ‍+914066050000.

 

 

I was outside, so when I cam back to office, I tried simply googling up Total Mall Country Club Prize. Then I started seeing pages of pages of complaints, consumer complaints. People before me had unknowingly fallen for the scam and had lost lakhs of rupees !

Basically, this is how the scam worked:

1. Couples would get fill in their details in forms run by these scammers.
2. They would then get a phone call a week later, saying they have won the prize. Inorder to claim the prize, they had to attend the function as a couple together.
3. The function would be at 8pm onwards, during which the poor attendees would be subjected to a hour long presentation from Country Club, about how their life would improve if they would join the club. Annual vacations abroad, using their club…blah blah..blah. Some tea and biscuits would be provided.
4. The salemen would make the deal sound like a once in a life time offer, and convince the couples to sign on. The amount is in the range of 75,000/- to 1.5 lakhs rupees. They would be given a cheap kitchen set, which can be bought outside for some hundreds of rupees.
5. The rest of the prizes including the vacation prize, they say, would be mailed later.
6. Poor couples who have just lost some lakhs, go home waiting for the remaining prize, which never comes ! If they call country club up, the support guys give bullshit like call some other numbers, blah blah…
7. The poor couples have now paid lakhs for a vacation, which can be had for a few thousands.

I did not attend the function. The next day, I got a call from that guy Manoj again, asking why I did not come. I told him to f** off, and that I would never fall for their marketing scam.

 

The Indian Consumer is a breed very susceptible to fraudulent marketing schemes. Poor (not money poor) Indians are always looking for discounts and free prizes, they would buy even poison if it is on a 50% sale ! Such fraud scams thrive on the money of such people, worsened by the fact that they don’t think twice, or know of their rights as a consumer.

Always be careful when you hand out your personal details to strangers outside.

Why I did not fall for it: I have heard of such scams in the past, and I make it a point to double check every form I put my sign on and hand out. And nowadays, due to cheap internet, any information can be had easily. So I make sure I search on such things before I jump in joy at the thought of winning a free prize ! As a rule, I do not answer calls from unknown numbers, staying away from such hunters.

 

Be an alert customer ! Happy Shopping !

Suits Season 4 - Where is this heading ?

 

Suits used to be my favourite TV series, when they started airing it on Z-Cafe some years ago. Now I catch up on the series via episode downloads, like everyone else, I guess. So much has happened since Mike walked into Harvey’s interview room, now I am no longer sure what I am watching it for.

Now, two steps back. Suits is not the first lawyer/courtroom drama to hit English TV networks, it has been done for years. Most such series was focused on finding the culprit, or punishing the murderer, or following the twists and turns of the case investigation. In every case, the protagonists of the series was on the good side, for some reason, the mobsters/villains never thought of taking the help of the good guys and making them win it for them. But on Suits, the focus was on what else was happening in the lives of these lawyers, and specially, the bromance between Mike Ross and Harvey Specter.

Mike was the bumbling, but super smart new intern at one of the top law firms, where he landed purely by chance and managed to impress the Alpha-Male Harvey. Mike enters the firm without even a college degree, because Harvey saw potential in him; another Harvey. Harvey, on the other hand, is the firm’s top closer, he talks obscenities coolly in the office at anyone, except Jessica, maybe. He is so good at what he does, most of the time, he just scares and negotiates with the other side before the case reaches court. He has mastered his art, and now has to train an intern as part of his work at the firm. After hiring Mike, Harvey proceeds to dump all his regular work on him, and just, well, struts around the huge office in his shiny suits and gelled hair. But there was chemistry between them, Harvey may have overworked and tortured Mike with work, but there were various places in the first three seasons where he seemed to care about him to. Harvey saved Mike more than once, and tries and does his best to keep Mike’s not-having-a-degree-from-Harvard a secret, so Mike can keep his job. Fro his part, Mike used to reach out to his super efficient brain to go through complex documents in minutes, and memorize everything in it AND find any loopholes in them too. He is grateful for his new job, and wants to turn over a new leaf, so he works his ass-off. In the process, he has to break up with his gf, and even anger old friends too.

In short, Suits was best when Harvey and Mike were on the same side. Together. Same team. Together they worked as one solid giant law machine. They could solve any case and make anyone win. But the on-going side story was, how to keep Mike’s secret a secret? For how long ?

Now I am watching season 4 of the series, I cannot find reasons to stay with the show. Mike and Harvey are on opposite sides now, different teams. Against each other. Sure, they still care about each other, but corporate law is a difficult realm to be good friends with the enemy. In the current season, not once have they focussed on Mike’s amazing memory and power of recall. Or on Harvey closing deal after deal by just showing up in court.

The only person I still care about in the show – Louis Litt. Here is a hardworking, dedicated and honest guy, who does not get the appreciation he deserves. He once got the chance to move out of the firm, and start over fresh, but he decided to stay and work his way up. He has his own problems, but his integrity to the firm, and Jessica in particular, is unbreakable. I just hope Litt gets his long due recognition, otherwise it just proves that honest guys don’t win in life, but corrupt guys do.

I have just been Litt-up !

 

Go to hell, Mike !

How Jurassic Park III Could Have Been Better

 

 

When Jurassic Park hit the theaters in 1993, it caused a revolution in CGI filmmaking because for the first time we had what appeared to be living creatures created entirely digitally–also, those creatures were dinosaurs!  It went on to be the highest grossing movie of all time (the third time a film directed by Steven Spielberg was to hold such an honor).  Naturally, a sequel was in order, so Spielberg loosely based The Lost World: Jurassic Park on the novel by Michael Crichton.  The follow-up made a ton of money, though was met with mixed critical response.  It’s not surprising that Spielberg decided to pass on directing the third film and instead took a producing role, allowing Joe Johnston to helm the new adventure.

While the first film was science fiction horror, the second attempted to deal with themes such as “hunters vs. gatherers” (while providing more humans for the dinos to eat).  Jurassic Park III, however, was straight-up adventure.  It was a sparse, fast-paced story about Alan Grant being suckered into flying to Isla Sorna (site B from The Lost World) in order to rescue a boy who was stranded on the dinosaur-infected island.  With a running time of 92 minutes, it was only 3/4 of the length of the previous entries in the series and left most of the audience yearning for the magic of the original.

It seems that Jurassic Park III (oddly named since there was technically no Jurassic Park II) suffered the curse of the third film in a trilogy.  Despite having a screenplay re-written by Oscar-winners Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, the story was too slight to have much of an impact and featured far too many problems to be enjoyable.  That’s not to say that the entire movie was a failure; in fact the dinosaurs were perhaps the most realistic yet, including a redesigned velociraptor with feathers and odd colorings and a very cool spinosaurus that made a T-rex seem like a puppy dog.  Several scenes were quite effective, such as the “bird cage” scene with pteranodons, the raptor attack in the lab, and the spino tracking the heroes through the river while the phone it ate rings.  Johnston handled the action and the effects well, but was saddled with an inferior screenplay.  The frustrating thing is that it didn’t need to be this way–with a few changes, this could have been a great popcorn movie.

Alan Grant

Sam Neill’s character, paleontologist Dr. Alan Grant, was the heart of the first movie.  He was a “digger” who found himself “extinct” in the face of genetically cloned living dinosaurs.  While planning his future with his co-worker and apparent lover Dr. Ellie Sattler, he makes it plain that he doesn’t want children–but in the course of the story has to be a surrogate father to two kids while crossing the island where dangerous beasts have escaped their pens.  Spielberg explored his common theme of broken families and missing fathers through these characters, wrapping it up nicely in the final scene where the exhausted kids are cuddled up with him in the helicopter flying them to safety while a bemused Ellie looks on.

Grant was not featured in The Lost World in favor of Jeff Goldblum’s Ian Malcolm taking over as the lead (also proving to be a largely MIA father).  With the third film, Grant returned as the protagonist, but was given very little to do.  His presence almost seemed like an after-thought.  We’re introduced to him visiting Ellie, now married to another man with a 3-year-old son, and then quickly we see him giving a boring lecture where he does not want to acknowledge the fact that there are once again live dinosaurs on the planet.  He’s then conned into leading an aerial tour of Isla Sorna (an island he never stepped foot on) for a supposedly rich couple, only learning when it’s too late that they are neither wealthy nor still a couple, but rather they are looking for their son who went missing on the island.  Grant then spends the rest of the movie running around trying to keep everyone alive, a function that mostly wastes his knowledge of the animals hunting them.

The first mistake is how the writers dealt with Grant several years after the events in Jurassic Park.  For him to think that anyone would be interested in hearing about fossilized bones and theories of dinosaur behavior when there are living examples of these creatures in existence is ludicrous.  Yet he naively gives a speech and refuses to even acknowledge his experience on Isla Nebular.  It wouldn’t be in his character to profit off of tragedy, but he is self-defeating to not even discuss his adventures, even in a clinical manner.  Wouldn’t his lectures be so much more interesting if he compared what the theories based on fossils told him compared to what he saw in real life?

Secondly, why were he and Ellie no longer together?  Their single scene together barely touched upon their relationship, alluding to the fact that they were now merely friends or colleagues.  These two had been planning a future together, both professionally and romantically!  Did the events in the first movie tear them apart?  Did they just realize that they weren’t right for each other?  Did his insistence on pursuing fossils rather than live animals cause a rift between them?  It would have been nice for the movie to provide some answers as well as conflict.  Did Grant have any regrets for breaking up with Ellie?  She’s moved on to an apparently happy life with a husband and child while maintaining her career, while Grant is a relic in his own time.  He never wanted children and she did (another possible source of their separation), and both got exactly what they wanted–but is he happy with that decision?  Perhaps he could have seen the missed opportunity in her child.  This and his downward career spiral could cause him to be at a rather bleak part in his life, but this is not explored in the film other than a sense of melancholy that undermines the adventurous tone of the movie.

As an alternative, the movie could shown the two characters married (happily or otherwise).  With him being called back into action, how would he react to be separated from his wife and child now that he’s adjusted to the role of father?  This could be especially poignant given that he must rescue another couple’s child.  Even keeping Grant single without any kids, he could look at the missing boy as a means to make up for not being the father of Ellie’s child like he should have been.  He was a surrogate father once and missed his chance at being one for real.  The decision to go after the boy could have been driven by this inner need in him, which would have been a lot stronger than what was actually on screen.

Speaking of which, Grant doesn’t even know about the missing boy until he’s stranded on the island.  Why?  A primary rule of storytelling is that the protagonist drives the story.  As it is, Grant is just along for the ride, being misled by the boy’s parents in order to get him to agree to one thing while plotting something completely different.  Why couldn’t they have just been up front with him and pleaded to his sense of decency?  This would have given him inner conflict–there’s no way he would return to Jurassic Park or its Site B under normal circumstances, but a lost child would play upon his conscience.  In making the decision to go in search of him, that puts him in the story’s driver’s seat rather than being there just because he happened to have been in the first film.

Not only would this strengthen his character, but he would then be able to call the shots through the rest of the story.  Rather than be hapless (and helpless) survivors of a plane crash, Grant and the other characters would have started with a solid plan, albeit one that would fall apart and need to be improvised along the way.  This would give them solid hurdles to overcome that would be organic to the story and not forced upon them simply because the film needed an action scene here and there.

Finally, Grant needs to grow through the course of the movie, something that doesn’t currently happen.  In the first movie, he learns to be a father figure, though by the third film he has regressed as if that change in him never happened.  Does he need to relearn that lesson all over again?  That would be redundant.  Perhaps he needs to mature so that he’s ready to take on the responsibility of being a husband and father–something that was lacking in him that drove Ellie away.  Or if he is married to Ellie and is the father of her little boy, maybe he’s still not dealing with the situation, and this new adventure gives him a new perspective on his life.  After all, what if it was his own son that was missing on an island filled with vicious dinosaurs?

Ellie Sattler

Why bring Laura Dern back only for a one-scene cameo?  Especially since she doesn’t do anything in that scene except establish the fact that her character has moved on with her life without Alan Grant?  Her character, palebotanist Dr. Ellie Sattler, was a tough, resourceful heroine in the first film.  In this one, she is relegated to the role of deus ex machina, sending in the Marines to rescue Grant and company off screen.  There’s a joke where Grant uses a satellite phone and contacts Ellie’s little boy, who watchesBarney while Grant is being threatened by a real, non-purple dinosaur.  Ellie presumably gets to the phone in time to hear screams and somehow puts the pieces together to call for help.  Why couldn’t we see her being resourceful once again and urgently trying to get the U.S. military to respond?  That would have been great conflict to contrast with what the characters on the island were going for.  It also would have created suspense rather than just have a surprise ending where the heroes get saved out of the blue.

The Bickering Ex-Spouses

William H. Macy and Téa Leoni play Paul and Amanda Kirby, separated parents of Trevor Morgan’s Erik Kirby, who was para-sailing with Amanda’s boyfriend near Isla Sorna when disaster struck and left him stranded to fend for himself on the island.  At first, the Kirbys pretend to be wealthy business owners wanting a unique vacation and convince Alan Grant to give them a guided tour of the island in hopes of spotting some dinosaurs.  However, they also hire mercenaries to help defend themselves against the beasts when they land on the island–which they do only after one of the mercenaries knock Grant unconscious.  Paul and Amanda spend the rest of the movie arguing loudly and quite annoyingly.  In fact, Amanda proves to be the most shrill film character since Kate Capshaw’s Willie Scott in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.

As was mentioned before, why couldn’t they have been upfront with Grant about their real purpose?  The sneaky shenanigans do nothing to advance the story other than make Grant look like a weak protagonist.  Once their subterfuge is discovered in Act 2, it’s pretty much dropped from the plot.  They’re used to develop the theme of the broken family that is a common denominator in this series; that’s fine, but it’s handled in a clunky manner.  The script treats high-volumed bickering as character development, and all too quickly the estranged couple finds themselves back together.  In fact, when they find the skeletal remains of Amanda’s boyfriend, she reacts with an hysterical scream–not for the boyfriend, but for her son.  It’s as if the boyfriend was inconsequential.  At least Erik could take care of himself, something that cannot be said for the parents.

The Mercenaries

 

The first Jurassic Park featured the game warden, Muldoon, who carried a powerful looking gun but was still bested by the raptors.  In The Lost World, his character was one-upped by Pete Postlethwaite’s big game hunter Roland Tembo, whose desire was to bag a T-rex.  In fact, he brought along a whole team of wranglers who ended up as a moveable dinosaur feast.  It only makes sense that Jurassic Park III would take this type of role to the next level with a team of mercenaries–though if the definition of “team” is two generic tough guys led by the weaselly little Mr. Udesky (Michael Jeter in one of his last screen roles before succumbing to AIDS).

Having the team leader be the complete opposite of the rugged gunsman that the first two films featured was a nice twist; it’s just too bad that the firepower featured in an early scene was never used.  Also, the two mercenaries were only in the movie long enough to be eaten shortly after the plane carrying the heroes landed.  Perhaps the filmmakers thought this was ironic, but in reality it robbed the movie the potential to have some awesome action scenes involving these characters and their weapons.  It’s not that they were killed that’s the problem, it’s just that they’re dispatched so quickly.  Maybe the movie could have had at least one more mercenary that survived the initial attack in order to last a little way into the plot.

Additionally, Udesky is barely developed as a character and is merely used as the bait in a trap the raptors set for the others.  This was actually a brilliant idea, but since we knew little to nothing about the guy, it was hard to care about his fate.  The movie would have been so much richer if this scene were put off until later into the story and allow him to show his worth (or lack thereof).  The slimy lawyer in the first film had more screen time, and his death was very satisfying!

The Running Time and the Ending

To say this film feels rushed is an understatement.  Probably in response to The Lost World taking 45 minutes to gear up for some action, Jurassic Park III wastes little time in getting to Isla Sorna and putting the characters in danger.  But as stated before, this robs the movie from any character development, rendering them merely action figures to be moved around in the admittedly effective set pieces.  It can be argued that these films were never heavy on deep character analysis, but at least there was motivation for their actions (beyond, of course, the Kirbys wanting to rescue their son).  A lot of the problem is the fact that this movie is very short.  Why did the filmmakers feel the need to make it barely an hour and a half long?  It feels like the Cliff Notes version of a story and could have easily been fleshed out to be a full two hours long and still be exciting.  Screenwriters Payne and Taylor know how to craft character-driven stories, so it’s inexplicable that they ended up doing the exact opposite here.

The Lost World ended its Act 2 with a rescue from the island and proceeded into its third act with taking a T-rex (and its baby) to San Diego.  A lot of criticism was given to this movie for tacking on a Godzilla-like climax with the Tyrannosaur running loose through the city, but it was vastly different from the first film and it completed the theme of letting animals live free that ran through the film.  Jurassic Park III ended at the same point that The Lost World geared up for its climax, with a surprise rescue by the Marines.  As stated earlier, it’s implied that Ellie Sattler called in the cavalry while off screen, but that’s a cheat.  Alan Grant is the protagonist, yet not only did he not cause the plot to happen, he didn’t resolve the conflict either.  Sure, he gave the eggs back to the raptors, but he and his companions surely would have been eaten regardless until the comically huge beach assualt saved them at the last minute.  Granted, Grant and his original companions were saved in a similar manner by a T-rex, allowing them to simply run out of the building, but that at least felt somewhat organic to the plot (after all, the T-rex had a habit of showing up out of nowhere to chow down on unsuspecting animals).  The ending to Jurassic Park III is a cheat.  It makes the characters completely helpless and ineffectual–ultimately, everything they went through was meaningless.  The first two films had a point, but this one was pointless.  The characters ran around the island, being chased by the dinosaurs, and then were rescued.  The end.  No, no, no–they needed to provide the means for their own escape.

Worst software I have used

This is something I have been planning for months, maybe a year now. As part of my work as a Software consultant, I have had to use some really terribly designed and poor performing software. Here is the top 3 , (or worst 3) so far:

1. IBM Lotus Notes (I used version 8.5):  In a world where simplicity ,ease of use, and minimalism is gaining appeal, Lotus notes dares to go miserably against the tide. It is slow, hogs memory and resources, and follows and out-dated layout style. It would be easier for a newbie to master a flavor of  Linux system than to get used to Lotus notes. Also, it does not merge into Window’s theme system, further showing its age. It even lacks functionalities you have come to expect from an e-mail system; like forwarding meeting requests, and recalling sent mails.
2. BMC Remedy:  I was on a support project for over a year, and the part of my job I hated worst was where I had to use and update the ticket details on the Remedy system. Its ironic that they thought of such a name when it does not remedy anything ! Again, the aged look and feel and cumbersome navigation itself put me off. But it was also terribly slow; so slow that on many occasions I missed SLAs because the system did not respond on time. And if you are planning to run long queries to prepare your reports on this dinosaur, be prepared to lose hours with the hourglass spinning. I used to start a query and go get a cup of coffee before the results came out. We used to joke that we need to bill 1 hour to Remedy ticket updation separately over and above our usual bill hours, because our productivity during that time was absolutely zero !
3. HP Quality Center:  I used to like using the earlier version of this software, when it was still called Mercury Quality Center. But after the last upgrade, when it moved to the latest HP QC version, I found I was spending more time updating QC records. The fact that it uses ActiveX and runs  only on IE was further complicated because it hogged up memory, and frequently crashed.

 

There ! I said it. That takes some weight off my chest :-)

Update: When it comes to professional/company e-mail, Microsoft’s Outlook is the best. And after years of using various bug tracking software, I have to come to believe that the best software is one which does it’s job, without interfering in your other work, or having you learn all the basics all over again. Take a look at Atlassian’s JIRA bug tracking system. It has a lightweight user interface which runs in every browser, has notifications, and generates graphs for reports. Its probably the best bug-tracking system I have used.