Note to self for future trip
Wednesday, January 13, 2016
Mainland China, High Street Phoenix
Most of the times when I go to Phoenix I haven't decided in advance where I am going to have lunch. But last weekend I knew that I was in mood for some Asian food. There is only one place that serves it there - Mainland China.
I was sorely tempted to order Nasi Goreng once again - it was unbelievably delicious last time I ordered it. But I had made up my mind to try something new this time around. So my choice was Burmese Pan-fried Noodles with chicken and Stir-fried chicken with Chilies, Garlic and Hot Basil. The server informed me that the noodles will be cooked in coconut milk (I wonder if it was because people are allergic to or don't like coconut milk!) and that along with chicken it will contain some vegetables (I have no idea why he had to put in that disclaimer!). We said that we are fine with both these things.
Now, I don't know if we are lucky every time we order from their menu or their chefs, by some culinary magic, manage to turn every dish into a delicious riot of texture and flavors. I suspect that it is the latter. The Pan-fried Noodles were cooked in rich coconut milk and the perfectly cooked generous chunks of tender chicken just melted in one's mouth. The Stir-fried chicken had all the flavors of Chilies, Garlic and Hot Basil blend into a thick out-of-this-world sauce coating the chicken pieces. Each morsel was an absolute delight.
Now if only they would serve some Khimchi instead of the pickled peanuts as soon as you are seated and some fortune cookies along with your bill, my world would be just perfect!
I was sorely tempted to order Nasi Goreng once again - it was unbelievably delicious last time I ordered it. But I had made up my mind to try something new this time around. So my choice was Burmese Pan-fried Noodles with chicken and Stir-fried chicken with Chilies, Garlic and Hot Basil. The server informed me that the noodles will be cooked in coconut milk (I wonder if it was because people are allergic to or don't like coconut milk!) and that along with chicken it will contain some vegetables (I have no idea why he had to put in that disclaimer!). We said that we are fine with both these things.
Now, I don't know if we are lucky every time we order from their menu or their chefs, by some culinary magic, manage to turn every dish into a delicious riot of texture and flavors. I suspect that it is the latter. The Pan-fried Noodles were cooked in rich coconut milk and the perfectly cooked generous chunks of tender chicken just melted in one's mouth. The Stir-fried chicken had all the flavors of Chilies, Garlic and Hot Basil blend into a thick out-of-this-world sauce coating the chicken pieces. Each morsel was an absolute delight.
Now if only they would serve some Khimchi instead of the pickled peanuts as soon as you are seated and some fortune cookies along with your bill, my world would be just perfect!
Sherlock, The Abominable Bride(Spoiler Alert!)
These days it has become fashionable to show Holmes and Watson in the 21st century. When the novelty of them using gadgets like laptops, smartphones etc wears off (and it does, in first episode itself!) the stories would be like any other depicted in countless other espionage and detective shows. It would be more interesting to see the crimes in the 19th century instead and how the duo manage to solve them using the techniques of the day and Sherlock's famous deductive powers. Alas! No one is willing to bet on this idea. :-(
Anyways, so that was precisely why I was very interested in this 2-hour episode that takes place in the 19th century England with Holmes and Watson residing in 221B, Baker Street with good old Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson in tow. I stopped short of stocking on chips and soda. :-)
The plot, in a nutshell, is like this - a woman goes on a shooting spree on the day of her marriage anniversary and then kills herself by shooting herself in the mouth. Scotland Yard treats this as a routine suicide until the dead bride shows up outside a club her husband is known to frequent and kills him.This is then followed by more shootings - all by the same dead bride. Sherlock's help is sought by a Lady whose husband sees the Bride who tells him that he will be killed on that night.
The plot looked promising and my first thought was that the Bride has a twin. I burst out laughing when Watson proposed the same theory and was chided by Sherlock who emphatically stated that 'it is never the twin'. :-) I have never much cared for Sherlock's elder sibling, Mycroft, and his fat, eating-as-if-there-is-no-tomorrow avatar in this episode didn't do much to improve his image for me. Frankly, the idea of the siblings betting on when Mycroft is likely to die as a result of his over-eating was ludicrous at its best and gross at its worst! The sudden switch from 19th to 21st century jarred horribly and I am yet to figure out why they had to insert 'the suffragettes' in this mystery. The presence of Moriarty and his role in the whole conspiracy was equally puzzling. That said, why was the actor playing Sherlock's nemesis over-acting so horribly?
All said, I think it was a clear waste of two hours of my life :-(
Anyways, so that was precisely why I was very interested in this 2-hour episode that takes place in the 19th century England with Holmes and Watson residing in 221B, Baker Street with good old Lestrade and Mrs. Hudson in tow. I stopped short of stocking on chips and soda. :-)
The plot, in a nutshell, is like this - a woman goes on a shooting spree on the day of her marriage anniversary and then kills herself by shooting herself in the mouth. Scotland Yard treats this as a routine suicide until the dead bride shows up outside a club her husband is known to frequent and kills him.This is then followed by more shootings - all by the same dead bride. Sherlock's help is sought by a Lady whose husband sees the Bride who tells him that he will be killed on that night.
The plot looked promising and my first thought was that the Bride has a twin. I burst out laughing when Watson proposed the same theory and was chided by Sherlock who emphatically stated that 'it is never the twin'. :-) I have never much cared for Sherlock's elder sibling, Mycroft, and his fat, eating-as-if-there-is-no-tomorrow avatar in this episode didn't do much to improve his image for me. Frankly, the idea of the siblings betting on when Mycroft is likely to die as a result of his over-eating was ludicrous at its best and gross at its worst! The sudden switch from 19th to 21st century jarred horribly and I am yet to figure out why they had to insert 'the suffragettes' in this mystery. The presence of Moriarty and his role in the whole conspiracy was equally puzzling. That said, why was the actor playing Sherlock's nemesis over-acting so horribly?
All said, I think it was a clear waste of two hours of my life :-(
Friday, January 8, 2016
The November Man (Spoiler Alert!)
Pierce Brosnan has always been my favorite - right from Remington Steel to his becoming the famed agent 007. Frankly, I actually looked forward to Bond movies while he was Bond. So it won't be wrong to say that I watched this movie for Brosnan because there have been so many movies in this genre over the years that there is practically nothing new left when it comes to the plot.
Brosnan plays Peter Devereaux, an erstwhile CIA officer, who is living a retired life in Lausanne when his past life catches up with him. His former boss, Jake Hanley, suddenly shows up at his doorstep announcing that he needs to help Natalia, the aide of a Russian presidential candidate Arkady Fedorov, flee Russia because she asked specifically for Peter. Natalia copies a few incriminating photos from Fedorov's safe which will help bring him under the influence of the CIA. Peter and Natalia have a history - and a daughter. He rushes to help her but sadly cannot save her when his protege David Mason kills her under orders from CIA station chief, Perry Weinstein. The dying Natalia gives him the proof on her phone. Now Peter must track down the person whose name Natalia gave him as soon as she met up with him - Mira Filipova.
The plot, for once, does not revolve around any missiles - biological or otherwise. Thank God for small mercies! It doesn't seem out-of-the-world either. We have all heard of the Chechen conflict. A war instigated for the sole purpose of securing a weak nation's oilfields sounds way too familiar. But what I could not understand is why Peter chooses to expose Federov rather than joining Hanley in a plot to blackmail him to make sure that Russia joins Nato. Surely, as a former CIA agent he understands the international implications of it. Also, Natalia died while making sure that CIA got the proof they needed to make sure that Federov dances to their tune. I am not sure that he can take the moral stand that Federov is guilty of killing his own men to trigger a war and hence deserves to be exposed. Whichever way I looked at it, Peter Devereaux's actions seem inexplicable. Another puzzling thing - how can CIA remain oblivious to the fact that Peter has a daughter while Mason fishes out the truth seemingly easily?
That said, I enjoyed the movie - though half of it was spent in sighing over Mason. If only he were my neighbor, I would have followed the commandment 'Love Thy Neighbor' to a T. :-)
Brosnan plays Peter Devereaux, an erstwhile CIA officer, who is living a retired life in Lausanne when his past life catches up with him. His former boss, Jake Hanley, suddenly shows up at his doorstep announcing that he needs to help Natalia, the aide of a Russian presidential candidate Arkady Fedorov, flee Russia because she asked specifically for Peter. Natalia copies a few incriminating photos from Fedorov's safe which will help bring him under the influence of the CIA. Peter and Natalia have a history - and a daughter. He rushes to help her but sadly cannot save her when his protege David Mason kills her under orders from CIA station chief, Perry Weinstein. The dying Natalia gives him the proof on her phone. Now Peter must track down the person whose name Natalia gave him as soon as she met up with him - Mira Filipova.
The plot, for once, does not revolve around any missiles - biological or otherwise. Thank God for small mercies! It doesn't seem out-of-the-world either. We have all heard of the Chechen conflict. A war instigated for the sole purpose of securing a weak nation's oilfields sounds way too familiar. But what I could not understand is why Peter chooses to expose Federov rather than joining Hanley in a plot to blackmail him to make sure that Russia joins Nato. Surely, as a former CIA agent he understands the international implications of it. Also, Natalia died while making sure that CIA got the proof they needed to make sure that Federov dances to their tune. I am not sure that he can take the moral stand that Federov is guilty of killing his own men to trigger a war and hence deserves to be exposed. Whichever way I looked at it, Peter Devereaux's actions seem inexplicable. Another puzzling thing - how can CIA remain oblivious to the fact that Peter has a daughter while Mason fishes out the truth seemingly easily?
That said, I enjoyed the movie - though half of it was spent in sighing over Mason. If only he were my neighbor, I would have followed the commandment 'Love Thy Neighbor' to a T. :-)
Automata
I knew it would be one of those humanity-on-the-brink-of-disaster movies which end up totally creeping me out because the plot seems too plausible. :-( I mean, it is supposed to be happening sometime in the future like year 2156 or something like that but the rate at which the world is hurtling towards one disaster or another, it looks entirely possible in the next decade or so.
The reason for the earth's destruction in this movie is the solar flares - which have managed to clear out about 99% of the population. The surviving humanity has built robots to help it live in this world. These robots have 2 basic protocols in their bio-kernel (whatever that means!) - one, they cannot harm any form of life and two, they cannot modify themselves. But the desertification has relentlessly marched on and the robots have becomes little more than manual laborers.
Jacq Vaucan (Anthonio Banderas in a bald avatar!) is an insurance investigator for a company manufacturing these robots. He is investigating a claim that a police officer shot a robot because it was caught in the act of modifying itself. Jacq suspects that someone somewhere is illegally modifies the robots. His boss finds it hard to believe but nevertheless tells Jacq that he will authorize his transfer to an area near the ocean if he can find the proof. The rest of the movie is about Jacq's search for the elusive 'Clocksmith' and the choices that he has to make.
The whole movie has a grey depressing look that is common to these Armageddon genre movies. I wondered why Jacq's wife wanted to bring a child in this sorry miserable world where people had to think hard to remember what an ocean looked like. I ended up feeling sorry for the robots instead of the humans. Two images that will forever remain seared in my memory are that of a legless robot trying to cross the road and saying 'your wish is my command' as the corrupt officer Wallace yells at him to speed it up and a robot, sitting with his penniless owner, saying over and over again 'Please sir, my owner is hungry'. :-(
Definitely not a good movie to start your new year with but then definitely a movie that makes you wonder (for the nth time!) if this indeed is the future that is in store for the humanity :-(
The reason for the earth's destruction in this movie is the solar flares - which have managed to clear out about 99% of the population. The surviving humanity has built robots to help it live in this world. These robots have 2 basic protocols in their bio-kernel (whatever that means!) - one, they cannot harm any form of life and two, they cannot modify themselves. But the desertification has relentlessly marched on and the robots have becomes little more than manual laborers.
Jacq Vaucan (Anthonio Banderas in a bald avatar!) is an insurance investigator for a company manufacturing these robots. He is investigating a claim that a police officer shot a robot because it was caught in the act of modifying itself. Jacq suspects that someone somewhere is illegally modifies the robots. His boss finds it hard to believe but nevertheless tells Jacq that he will authorize his transfer to an area near the ocean if he can find the proof. The rest of the movie is about Jacq's search for the elusive 'Clocksmith' and the choices that he has to make.
The whole movie has a grey depressing look that is common to these Armageddon genre movies. I wondered why Jacq's wife wanted to bring a child in this sorry miserable world where people had to think hard to remember what an ocean looked like. I ended up feeling sorry for the robots instead of the humans. Two images that will forever remain seared in my memory are that of a legless robot trying to cross the road and saying 'your wish is my command' as the corrupt officer Wallace yells at him to speed it up and a robot, sitting with his penniless owner, saying over and over again 'Please sir, my owner is hungry'. :-(
Definitely not a good movie to start your new year with but then definitely a movie that makes you wonder (for the nth time!) if this indeed is the future that is in store for the humanity :-(
Scion Of Ikshvaku - Amish Tripathy
Trust Amish to turn a well-known story on its head and get away with it as well. That's why we see Ram, the eldest son of King Dashrath, the apple of his eye by all accounts, depicted as the one least favored by him - just because he was born at the same time Dashrath was defeated by the Lankan king Ravan in the battle at Karachapa. That's why Manthara is a rich merchant lady instead of a lowly maid in the palace. And that's why Sita is a brave warrior who also happens to be the prime minister at her father's kingdom instead of a meek shy wife following every one of her husband's orders. What can I say? I like this version much better.
I have always preferred Mahabharata over Ramayana - because, let's face it, it is more practical, more suited to Kaliyuga than the painfully straight-laced Ramarajya. I have never understood the King who abandoned his wife just because someone in the kingdom was doubtful about the paternity of the children the Queen was carrying. And I absolutely hated the Queen who made her husband go after a deer for its skin and got herself kidnapped. On top of it, she sacrificed her own life to prove her faithfulness to him instead of reducing him to a pile of ashes with a mighty curse when he dared to cast aspersion on her. As far as I am concerned, the men of Ramayana are too ideal and the women too meek, except of course Kaikeyi. But then she is the quintessential vamp - not up to any good.
So I devoured Amish's version of the ageless tale with glee abandon. Prince Ram is painfully straightforward here as well but I could identify with his need to obey rules. Well, most of the times - because I totally approved of Prince Bharat's methods of punishing the guilty in the Roshni case (a very painful reminder of the Nirbhaya case!). He also has very clear ideas about marriage - which are so relevant in today's times. I liked the independent, brave and intelligent Seeta. I also appreciated that Amish refrained from changing some of the very basic characteristics of this tale - the scheming nature of Kaikeyi and the love between the four brothers. Lakshmana and Bharat are well-known characters from the original epic because the former accompanied his brother and sister-in-law in exile and the latter looked after the kingdom only as an emissary of his eldest brother. But we don't get to read much about Prince Shatrughna. Amish, however, has also managed to build a pretty comprehensive character of him.
I am looking forward to reading the next novel in this series because I want to see how Amish builds up the character of the mighty Lankan king - Ravana.
I have always preferred Mahabharata over Ramayana - because, let's face it, it is more practical, more suited to Kaliyuga than the painfully straight-laced Ramarajya. I have never understood the King who abandoned his wife just because someone in the kingdom was doubtful about the paternity of the children the Queen was carrying. And I absolutely hated the Queen who made her husband go after a deer for its skin and got herself kidnapped. On top of it, she sacrificed her own life to prove her faithfulness to him instead of reducing him to a pile of ashes with a mighty curse when he dared to cast aspersion on her. As far as I am concerned, the men of Ramayana are too ideal and the women too meek, except of course Kaikeyi. But then she is the quintessential vamp - not up to any good.
So I devoured Amish's version of the ageless tale with glee abandon. Prince Ram is painfully straightforward here as well but I could identify with his need to obey rules. Well, most of the times - because I totally approved of Prince Bharat's methods of punishing the guilty in the Roshni case (a very painful reminder of the Nirbhaya case!). He also has very clear ideas about marriage - which are so relevant in today's times. I liked the independent, brave and intelligent Seeta. I also appreciated that Amish refrained from changing some of the very basic characteristics of this tale - the scheming nature of Kaikeyi and the love between the four brothers. Lakshmana and Bharat are well-known characters from the original epic because the former accompanied his brother and sister-in-law in exile and the latter looked after the kingdom only as an emissary of his eldest brother. But we don't get to read much about Prince Shatrughna. Amish, however, has also managed to build a pretty comprehensive character of him.
I am looking forward to reading the next novel in this series because I want to see how Amish builds up the character of the mighty Lankan king - Ravana.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
