Food Review: Serenitea (Updated!)

Serenitea at Eastwood

Milk Tea is all the rage these days! Remember back in the days when it was only Quickly that offered mass-commercially palatable milk tea? Those days are gone now. This means, Milk Tea is now a fad. Soon it would dissipate into the niche it once occupies once the fad turns to fade and demand dies down. For now, here is a review of one of the hotly discussed tea-serving place: Serenitea.

Note: this review has been updated since I last wrote it with new pictures and a final verdict. Updates are written in blocks of italicized text so it would be easy for those who have read this to discern which parts have been updated.

Specifics

Location: Eastwood Cybermall, imposing on the entrance door, impossible to miss (there are other locations all over Metro Manila, but this one gets my review)
Concoctions: Tea
Type of Service: Pay and Claim
Target Market: Yuppies, Tea Drinkers, Chinese
Price Range: 75 pesos to 120 pesos~

Thingamajig for getting your ordered item

The new thingamajig when I revisited. So much better. And cuter

Customer Experience
The idea behind Serenitea is to make it as authentic a tea experience as possible without having to deviate from experimenting here and there. The menu board is littered with authentic-looking tea items from various parts of Asia and some experimental ones (Exciting Yakult Tea!). Their bestseller as I was told was the Hokkaido Milk Tea. Unfortunately for me, I wanted to experiment and ordered something else. So I ordered the Large Wintermelon Milk Tea. A very tall cup sets you off 105 pesos. Not bad, considering you get a smaller size at 100 bucks in Happy Lemon and 125 in Bubble Tea (without egg pudding). The furniture and ambiance of Serenitea, is well, serene and a bit minimalist. Though this one in Eastwood is very in-your-face and out in the open, it suggests that you take your drink for a walk through the expanse of Eastwood City.

Large Wintermelon Milk Tea at 105 pesos

Open-faced store here at Eastwood

Service was quite on the slow side given that I managed to argue about Contagion with my friends and end up agreeing on disagreeing before my thingamajig buzzed. Took around 10 to 15 minutes. It also didn't help that the couple in front of me were being meticulous and at the same time clueless. At some point the people at the counter were uninstructive and very trusting of their customer's judgment of what they are ordering. You can tweak the ice and sweetness and for 105 you get add-ons to your drink like my favorite "egg pudding" or pearl. You can apparently add some toppings for no cost, but the counter person made it sound like I would need to pay something so I said no to it, to which he strongly suggested that I add some "sinkers" and I was like, OK, give me the egg pudding.


The second time I was here, service is recognizably faster--given the meticulous couple has probably been busy elsewhere that night, although I noticed how their crews remain to be apathetic. These people don't seem to love working and seem to loathe customers silently. I mean seriously, frown at me much when I have been smiling at you since I got to the cashier? Very friendly, sir. Very friendly.

I got the Wintermelon Milk Tea as mentioned above on a relatively friendly price. It was, well, throat-bustingly sweet and was more than sorry that it did not completely agree with my taste buds. Some people will like this drink but the sweetness (at the default 100% level) makes me wonder if their other teas are as sweet. Something tells me Milk Tea isn't their specialty and that specialty still belongs to Bubble Tea. The tea is also a bit on the strong side, kind of like Cha Time. But hey, it's as authentic as they promised.

For the second time I was here, I owe it to myself to order the bestseller. The Hokkaido Milk Tea is actually really good with just the proper sweetness. The tea strength is also proper, with each component (tea, milk, and caramel, etc) perfectly combining into a seamless discernibly distinct taste. If it is your first time in Serenitea, this is the drink to buy. This or the Royal Milk Tea--which is the simplest most enjoyable tea on any menu.

Cozy furniture

As I have said earlier, the fixtures and furniture used in Serenitea is classy. But what I noticed is just how badly ventilated Cyber Mall is. I could not wait to get off Serenitea, actually, because it was incredibly warm where I was seated--I was sweating loads and it didn't look like I was enjoying at all. I hope Serenitea would find time to address this as the temperature is unwelcoming.

Competition
Price point suggests that they are competing with Cha Time. What makes Serenitea more viable is that the menu board is not as unfamiliar as Cha Time. I managed to visit Cha Time three times and so far, everything I ordered is regrettable. Serenitea comes off on the safer side, and even if I got a very sweet drink, I can say people will rather order a very sweet drink than a bland one that Cha Time serves. Happy Lemon on the other hand is a different story as that one is more on the experimental and on the slushie side of things. You go there for the "fun" drinks not strictly for tea. If you want tea, your best bet is Serenitea. They have all sorts of tea at the best price.

Verdict
What to say of Serenitea? Well, mixed. The fixtures are good, but the service and store temperature is just utter crap. Not bad, utter crap. You can put up with it, though, because you're getting good value for money. I mean 105 pesos with "toppings" or sinkers as they call it on a VENTI size cup is not something you can pick up in say, Bubble Tea or Happy Lemon. They offer the most stuff for the same price compared to competitors and if I want tea, I know this is my stop. But other than that, why should I go here instead of Happy Lemon? I mean larger does not always mean better, right? Perhaps the long line? That's the only thing I can think of against Happy Lemon's favor. Not to mention, Happy Lemon offers friendlier service and has a wider range of offerings compared to Serenitea. I really think Serenitea (at least in Eastwood) can do better, and how I wish they would already.


Service - 2
Product - 4.5
Ambiance - 3


3.17 out of 5

In Review: Contagion

Contagion, Steven Sodebergh, 2011.

The Gist

Gripping, fast-paced, and told very matter-of-factly, Contagion is a social commentary hiding behind the guise of a movie with a powerhouse cast mostly gone underutilized, but mostly for good.

The Good

• good editing
• gripping and emotional amid the manner of delivery
• good acting by the cast amid little screen time for some

The Bad

• seriously underused Gwyneth Paltrow and Marion Cotillard
• Wahlberg's parts could use a little less expansion, Jude Law needed to be hated more
• too wide-scale a plot, could have used a little focus

Synopsis

Beth Emhoff (Paltrow), an executive of a multinational corporation, is on a business trip in Hong Kong for an opening of their new factory. Upon getting back to America, Emhoff showed signs of sickness and died that night after a short seizure. Soon her son displayed the same symptoms and died. Her husband, Mitch (Wahlberg) was sent to quarantine as news of an outbreak of the disease similar to his wife spread on the news like fire. Meanwhile, blogger Alan Krumwiede who tracked this disease on his blog as early as the first casualty in Hong Kong, Japan, and UK, has been approached by a pharmaceutical company to promote their drug Forsythia to his 2 million unique visitors for $4.4M. As the CDC--lead by Dr. Cheever (Fishbourne) and his team: Dr. Mears on the field (Winslet) and Dr. Hextall on the lab--and the WHO (shown to be represented by Dr. Orantes played by Cotillard) race to find a cure, society as we know it collapses, with the government unable to do anything but to mum the news and keep the panic levels down. 

It's Not a Small World After All

The synopsis I've written for this review is quite long because mostly for good, the movie is expansive and tackles several plots on how social structures respond to such cases of a deadly and contagious epidemic: Fishbourne's POV shows the government, Winslet's shows the medical workers, Wahlberg's shows the family, Cotillard's the international organizations, and Law's the media. Each of those are well-written and are, more often than not, not directly touching the other plots. Compare it to watching The Game of Thrones were there is no central characters, but instead several POV characters for you to root for. The bad thing, some of the characters feel like they can use more screentime, like, hey, Cotillard and Paltrow appeared for only 20 minutes of the movie combined. Seriously, they could've hired someone cheaper and wouldn't have made any difference. I also wanted to hate Jude Law very very much, but I couldn't. He is really evil, but they only showed a little bit. Surprisingly, it still worked. I also felt that Wahlberg's part was too much focused on in the movie--his parts were the more boring ones compared to the others. Some things can really be improved upon this movie, but it was so finely made, a tiny error in changing it could make the whole thing crumble like the society depicted in the movie.

Society Tumbles and Capitalists Win

Honestly, the movie felt more of a drama for me than a thriller as it was advertised. The great thing about it is that the drama works. It's not so forced that you would smell its fraudulence. The narrative also felt like reading a book where some details are left out or considered "already known" by deduction or common sense or details shown /  briefly mentioned en passant. For instance, Cotillard develops a Stockholm syndrome in the movie but the process as to how she got it is no longer explained; Sodebergh also avoided explicitly telling the audience that she has.

I like the pacing of the movie; it felt just right. When some parts are about to get boring (yes, I often wished we skip Wahlberg's parts), Sodebergh allows the film to shift and tell another story, relevant or not to the previous one it skipped. And it actually worked, probably because they are all dealing with the same villain, the disease, but are struggling from its different effects on their lives.

The narrative is very very dry--almost feels like watching a news cast on primetime, but the acting behind it pushes it far from the drab fest it ought to have become. If this is an organism, the narrative is the brain and the acting is the heart. Great performances, especially from Ehle, Wahlberg, and Winslet. I think that is what actually got me, Sodebergh presents everything in dry narrative and when you least expect it, BAM! There goes the tearjerkers, there goes the emotion, there goes humanity unraveling on each of the supposedly dry puppets. And it's all so sudden, it makes your eyes wet and your hearts clenched and it's kept there until there's nothing more to feel.

Cinematography is also good. I have to commend how with mere pictures, some things are explained and some sufferings are brought forward. How Sodebergh shows human sufferings in such short glimpses! It can be really sad, this movie, and for all the suspense and powerhouse screen time that it promises and does not deliver, you can forgive it just by how good the depictions are.

I could add that I was not completely satisfied with some depictions like in Jude Law's parts where he fools the whole of UK and a mere glimpse of the sufferer's POV there is only shown. He also suffers. He sees a friend die who was hoping on the cure he promised, and some more focus on that friend could have made it a bit more human, Law's side. But still wouldn't mind if that wasn't done.

Looking back, yeah, it's supposed to serve pizza, yet you get ice cream, but you won't mind. It's good ice cream.

My verdict:

A passing and recommended mark of 4.25/5.

Food Review: Jollibee's Hashbrown Burger

I love hash browns; If I can eat only one thing everyday for the rest of my life, it would be hash browns. You can imagine my delight when Jollibee launched their Hash Brown Burger just this September. Unlike KFC's Tower Burger where the hashbrown is a padding to the patty to make the burger tall, Jollibee's offering is a tad bit simpler in execution. Let's head on to the review proper, shall we?

Packaging

One thing I have liked about Jollibee is how they are moving from using plastic and styrofoam packaging into paper and cartons. For the hash brown burger, they used a simple wax paper and carton packaging as pictured above. 

Product Composition and Caloric Content

As you can see from the image above, a beef patty and a single cheese is in between two hash browns, it couldn't get any simpler than that. (I chose to have my ketchup removed as I don't really like ketchup, but by default, it has ketchup in between the Hash brown patty and the beef patty.) These hash browns are baked, so you have less to worry about cholesterol-content-wise. Calorie content-wise, as per my research, baked hash browns have more calories than a fried one, though. A baked hash brown can contain as much as 190 calories, where as a fried one has 150~. The burger patty that Jollibee used here is the same one they use for the Regular Yum products. This patty is, as per official records, 95% imported beef, with only 5% fat. At most, this accounts for 145 calories only. The cheese slice clocks in at 70 calories. Over all, the Hash brown Burger will set you off at 595 calories, give or take.

Please note that this is not at all official and based only from speculation on the general caloric content of each component found in http://caloriecount.about.com/. If you think, the calorie content is a lot more than KFC's Double Down, officially declared by KFC to have 540 calories, then I would like to point out that a single chicken fillet is around 300 calories, give or take.

Taste, Texture, Value for Money, Combination Correctness

I daresay, this is the best Jollibee product ever made ever since the Burger Steak. I would possibly get clinical depression if this gets taken off the menu board. Seriously, it's that good. It's better than your girlfriend, plus the price point, too: a definite value for money. The saltiness of each component is just right, with the hash brown acting like a proper substitute for the bun--given how starchy it is, it feels like a proper bun. The soft texture of the hash browns also plays well along with the juicy beef patty. 

The cheese is a bit of a conundrum though, but I think it has its purpose, though I haven't realized what even after three servings. Nonetheless, the combination of the ingredients make the final product still very delightful.

Price and Competition

The Hash Brown burger sits above the Regular Yum in terms of pricing and well below the Champ. For an a la carte order, the Hash Brown Burger is priced at an affordable 64 pesos. Adding a drink will set you off at 80 pesos. It is not offered with fries, because, hello, hash browns: potatoes. 

Along with the hash brown burger, Jollibee has released a side-product called "Baked Hash Brown" which is priced at 28 PhP. Looking at this pricing, the hash brown burger is really a good deal. Two hash browns are already pegged at 56 pesos. You basically pay 8 pesos for the patty and the cheese slice.

The Hash Brown burger brings to mind KFC's own hash brown sandwich offering: The Tower Burger. Between the two, I'd have to go with Jollibee's effort. For one, you barely taste the hashbrown and chicken fillet in the Tower Burger; for another, it's restrictively more expensive. The combination in the tower burger does not make much sense as compared to the Hash Brown burger.

Price point considered, the main rivals of this offering inside Jollibee are the Chicken Sandwich, priced at 39 pesos, the Regular Yum, and the Yum with TLC. Of course, it is expectable that during the first month of offering, a product will shoot high in the sales chart. For the long run, it still remains to be seen if the sales will continue to be as good. Being a rice-eating country, the hash brown burger also faces competition from the Burger Steak, which sits almost at the same price point--a la carte.

Outside Jollibee, there is little to no offering to rival it directly. It is a unique offering which is delightful enough to secure itself. Nonetheless, I fear this will become a novelty product, which will see seasonal promotion and availability like the similarly good Tuna Pie--available only during Lenten Season plus give or take three months. I wish it to be staple as it is a very good offering, so fingers crossed.

Verdict

Yay! Never haveI this been delighted about a product offering from a fast food chain that it merits a review.  Nonetheless, if I can eat only one thing for the rest of my life, it would be this. A firm 4.75 out of 5 stars. So try out the new Hash Brown burger and tell me what you think about it.

In Review: Crazy, Stupid, Love.

The Gist

At glance a typical rom-com, Crazy, Stupid, Love surprises and amazes with its subtle take on love and life; the used up "small-world" plot dangerously treads on predictable with a boring narration, but is nonetheless saved by a good script and good casting.

The Good

• good dialogue
• surprising casting

The Bad

• can be predictable
• lazy narration

Synopsis

Cal Weaver (Carrell) marries young with the girl of his dreams, Emily (Moore). Their comfortable marriage ends up in a divorce when he discovers that her wife is cheating on him with her co-worker, David Lindhagen (Bacon). Cal moves into his apartment and spends every night moping to random strangers in his local bar about how his wife cheated on him with David Lindhagen. Mean time, the resident womanizer of the bar Jacob (Gosling), whose advances has been recently rejected by Hannah (Stone) as she is seriously dating someone, took pity on Cal and groomed him to up his game and help him move on from the mess he is at. Hannah on the other hand just got the upset of her life when her boyfriend did not propose to her as she expects. What happens next is a series of coincidences and "small-world" events that surprises everyone in the end.

Slap Me

First off, let me just get this off my chest: I like the movie, I really do. But what's so blatantly bad about it was the way it unraveled itself. It was just done lazily. As if the director is uninterested with the story himself. Individually, Carell, Stone, Moore, Gosling, Tomei, etc., are all funny. But the editing and narration just didn't piece them altogether nicely. It was only until the end that it all got pieced well. It felt sloppily done and uncohesive, and you know what they say about cohesion, without it, it's like putting a horse in front of a carriage; it looks funny, but wouldn't go far. You know how some movies like, say, Iron Man where it goes Bam! Bam! and Bam! and poof, it's the end and you feel cheated because the way it was pieced together was so good you felt like you just sat 5 minutes and it's already the credits. Fast and gripping storytelling. This one ain't like that. It's the opposite. Dragging, actually. But with sparks of brilliance, and if only those were properly edited, remove the draggy parts that we've seen from other movies anyways, it would have been a nicer movie.

While the end is redeeming of the bad storytelling, the way the movie was told kind of agrees more with Stupid than Crazy.

Surprise Casting

The one who I will not call must pack their belongings and go. Remember that line? If not, then you will not know that the character of Jessica Riley, the Weavers' babysitter was played by Analeigh Tipton of America's Next Top Model Cycle 11. Amazing how she landed that role and really, she played her character well--how did she even look that young. Her turning from blond to brunette upset me, she looks so barbie doll-ish back in 2008, though it does make her look more mature. Along with Jonah Boba, who played Cal Weaver's son and who felt like the actual hero of the story, really, Analeigh was lauded as one of the faces to watch by movie critics.

Ryan Gosling who I last remember from The Notebook appeared as do-no-goodie, womanizing, gym-frequenting, alcohol-worshipping, rich dude which is a complete departure from that goodie image he played in the Notebook worked this one well, too. He sounded though he has a lisp, but it wasn't that distinct. It actually made him feel mafiaso and mature. Emma Stone has few dialogues but her role in the film was one that really surprised me. Should've figured out that red hair of hers actually has to do with it. She is "Easy A" funny as I remember, husky voice and all.

Lastly, at first, I couldn't quite figure out why Steve Carell felt unlikeable to me. Then this: he portrays a pathetic guy, typical Carell, only this time he does turn into awesome and uses the newfound awesomeness to screw around--something not one will empathize to and I didn'y and maybe that's why I didn't fully enjoy this movie. The hero is pathetic and turns into a bad guy in the end and hurts everyone he loves. Then again, that's typical Hollywood hero for you--hurts the people he loves and makes amends in the end, why do we make films about these people again? Is it to rationalize why we cheat? To redeem ourselves because we make wrongs? To show it's completely rational to be a jerk as long as you fix everything in the end?

Anyhoo, I'm getting sidetracked. I've told my gripes with the storytelling. That's my only real gripe. The way the hero is could've been excusable if the storytelling was good and not done lazily. The script is good, the actors did well, it's just really the way it was edited and narrated that hindered me from completely enjoying the movie.

Verdict: 3/5. Passed. 

Jerky Talks #4: City of Bad Art

The photo above is the hotly debated work of Mideo Cruz, displayed at the Cultural Center of the Philippines. Much has been said about this piece of art--or crap. The photo above, if it is not apparent, is a life-size wooden crucifix. That red protruding object affixed below the number 36 on the cross is a... penis. An erected male genitilia made of wood and finished with a red paint. The cross itself seems to be made of worn out doors adorned with various items such as the word "UP" or University of the Philippines, I believe, House address numbers, some religious items like amulets and rosaries, and a piece of linen probably to give it a Shroud-of-Turin feel. On the left side of the cross (not pictured) is a replica of a severed hand inside a glass box that spews red blood-like water. This is the part of the centerpiece that I like most as I find it artistic and macabre. You can almost imagine that Christ is there but you can only see a part of him by peering into that box.

The walls surrounding the centerpiece are littered with religious images mishmashed with various pop culture images. Teletubbies meets Coca-Cola meets Jesus Christ meets Santa Claus meets Mickey Mouse. It was such a colorful mishmash that one would need to take a look closer how all these where mashed together, and I think he did a good job there. On the right side of his part of the exhibit is an old Sacred Heart Jesus statuette fitted with a bunny crown and pierrot nose (pictured below). Hilarious and juvenile. Something a child would do.


How did I feel when I saw this artwork? Mixed. For one, I disliked the erect red penis sticking out, it just felt out of place and is a centerpiece for controversy. I'm a Christian after all, devout no, a Christian, yes. I have my beliefs and that glaring phallic object does not belong there, though I believe it is to symbolize God's being human, that perhaps even Christ felt the human urge when He was alive. If not, then I would stop my belief that we are made in the likeness of God. Surely, Jesus also pooped. So he must have felt that urge one time or another. Part of being a man.
The rest of the exhibit is well-put and creatively done, I can say. Mostly humorous and thought-provoking in a sense that it made me think the process of thought Mideo Cruz went on to put all these pieces together. The effect to me is mostly comedic. if not intriguing. I still have to question the wooden penis, though. Where am I leading this post?
Fact: Senator Tito Sotto has threatened CCP that they will get budget cuts. Fact: Mideo Cruz has received several death threats. Opinion: The Catholic Church is pulling the strings in this. If they can do this to art, the hell they can do it to the RH bill, Divorce bill, and any hopes of same-sex marriage. So we say the art is distasteful and offending, then don't go see it. Good Lord. It's not like they are being required to see it. It's inside a museum in Manila. You have to go to that museum on your own consent. If you look at it and get offended, then it is in your own doing that you get offended.
Apparently, the law forbids exhibition of immoral stuff like this. It says that anything that offends a certain religion is considered unlawful and as the Church is apparently offended, the closing of the exhibit is lawful.
This means we are not liberal enough, a populace, to laugh at such things and find it humorous if not sarcastic. We are still, as a nation, conservative and would stick to our old ways. that's what this whole snafu means. Art is the last thing to develop in any race as everything else must be satiated before it can flourish. It means, since our art is not flourishing enough and our sense of art being in its infancy with our media littered with crap called teleserye and our movies being mostly romantic-dramas and slapstick, just as our sense of art is stuck to the 70s, our progress as a nation is also. It's 2011 but our art is mostly crap and when foreign concepts are introduced we do not accept it because it does not fit with where our artistic perception is currently at.
I am Christian. My family is devout. I may be the apple that fell far from the tree, but I do not see it as an attack to my religion. I do not see a church defaced or a terrorist attack launched on my fellow Christians. These are religious articles, yes, but they are not my God. I was taught in school that this is what my God looks like and I have grown to believe that that is not true. God does not have a face that man has seen and the images of Jesus we have are artistic renditions only made to make the religion appealing. All these are what marketing materials are if the Church is a business. Attacking the Bible is a different story (Hello, Da Vinci Code). This is nothing more than an artwork using religious articles as base materials--with some getting defaced in the process. It's the nation's reaction that is disconcerting, and the power the church is exhibiting over the government.
To close this post, I say, "if you want a summary of a nation's progress, look at the state of their arts. Arts can only flourish when the stomach is fed and the mind nourished." Sadly, our art and our perception is a vast work in progress that don't seem to have a bright future.

Jerky Talks #3: Mean Girls

Here's what: Internet makes people mean. Everywhere you go on the web, there would always be one or two people dishing out nasty comments on the discussion. But why go far when you can just go Twitter and look who's being ridiculed by the netizens by checking on the trending topics. The same may be said about Facebook where FAN PAGES can simply be created to insult people. What lead me to this post?

Yesterday, a UP (University of the Philippines) Law Graduate drove his car through a waist-deep flooded street much to his car's dismay. The angry Christopher Lao, interviewed by the local media, in all his frustration blamed the bystanders for not informing him about how deep the flood is. Good Lord, bless you, Mr. Lao. In a matter of minutes, the video of this interview went viral and Mr. Lao now has a Facebook fan page with (as of last checking) has more than 40,000 likes--this started from 2,000 early the night before. Reading on the posts on the fan page's wall is a chore. It is an endless tirade made by countless people, some of them using even fake accounts for good measure.

I am not writing to express my sympathy with Mr. Lao as his was a mistake anyone could have possibly made--but surely the phrasing of his comments made him an overnight celebrity, which if he can exploit properly and take with a pinch of salt, can send him to Philippine Show Business. Yes, dear, that's how it works here. Perhaps we can say that his comments in the interview was born of frustration and arrogance, but how hard was it to just say, "yeah, I was stupid enough to drive through the flood thinking it wasn't that deep." And granted he was that stupid and arrogant, I just feel that such fan pages warrant nothing but empty entertainment and an emotionally bruised Mr. Lao (again, a person with a more incontrovertible sense of humor would have made out of this unscathed and probably would even have guested in a morning talk show, but Mr. Lao doesn't strike me as one). It's his fault, but why should we go about rubbing it all over his face that not only was it his fault, he is also the biggest arrogant who made it to primetime TV last night?

What makes me sad is not that people are making fun of him: it's how people harshly respond to some things over social media. Reporter Karen Davila has before said that Social Media has made us anti-social (of course she might have just picked it up somewhere, but then again it is something wise to tweet). One does not even need to look at the trending topics. Surely we all have that one friend / follower who does nothing on his/her time but to tweet mean stuff (Guy Kawasaki's definitive 5 types of twitter users lists this type as the b!tch). I have some of these who I cannot unfollow as they are good acquaintances and such would seem curt. Sometimes--on a bad day--I just wanna step up to them and yell on their ear, "Hey, before you go calling people ugly, go check the mirror, buddy," or "Hey, tard, use a real pic of yourself before calling my friend ugly in his profile pic." But I can't as that would just be mean and And besides, this:

 

Arguing with these people just won't change anything. But letting them be saves you time. And also makes you more social-media-friendly, I realize. Your tweets are not tainted with heated arguments.

I've gone off-track. Sadly, this is what the Internet has made of us--mean people ready to rub a witty, if not harsh, salt to the humiliating wound like we are close friends to strangers who just made a bad call on national TV and such banter would not matter. I have had my fill of this, and I'm glad I have my friends to banter with. I do not have to waste my dry wit on people who have made it to today's entertainment column. And while the Internet continues to be mean, I guess the only thing I can do is to filter what I read and click those unfollow buttons.

Have a great day ahead.

In Review: Captain America: The First Avenger

The Gist

While Captain America: The First Avenger may be seen as nothing more than a mood-setter for the 2012 The Avengers film, it has cemented the idea that Marvel movies are worth your every penny.

The Good

• A typical Marvel film, balancing humor, grit, drama, and the Marvel heroic feel
• A well-done throwback to the 40s; entertaining take on Captain America's backstory
• An excellent introductory movie to the Avengers; leaves a lot of questions

The Bad

• dry script; can be dragging at some points
• too American feel
• stale villain

Synopsis

During the 1940s, a frail, young, idealistic, and patriotic Steve Rogers (a thinned down version of Chris Evans at first) enthusiastically enlists himself for the war. Sadly his enthusiasm can only get him so far as the physical checkup, his frailty and wench-like physique always sends him to the potato peelers, watching over his fellow men head to the war hesitantly. But just like with any fairy tales, Rogers has his own fairy godmother--er father--in this one in the form of Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), developer of a physiology-enhancing Super Soldier Serum, who happened to be at the Stark Expo where Rogers was having his last try to enlist himself. Seeing how determined and a good man Rogers is, Erskine asked him to be part of the Super Soldier program to which he agrees. At first ridiculed by his peers, Rogers remained determined to stick to his job, passing several tests of character, which eventually earned Col. Chester Philips (Tommy Lee Jones) decision to have Rogers be the first person to undergo the super soldier program. Else where, the Nazi (particularly its HYDRA branch) lead by Johann Schmidt (Hugo Weaving) sees that this cannot happen and hatches on a plan to stop the Super Soldier Program. On the day of the serum transfusion, Dr. Erskine was killed and the Super Soldier was shelved with Rogers becoming nothing than an emblem of the American pride and a source of America's entertainment--being deemed too valuable to be sent to the war. Finally feeling like a dancing monkey in the face of his comrades, Rogers disobeys orders and chases his destiny and in the process uncovers a threat darker than the Nazi.

Star-Spangled Marvel

One can concur that as time go by on, Marvel movies share a familiar quality of having some grit and wit--all the while having good character development and personal drama that makes it relatable. This is not a bad thing as most Marvel movies have followed on (though all failed) the formula set by the first Iron Man film--though most pale in comparison. Captain America does not differ much from these modern set of Marvel movies--except that it had a 40s comic book feel. Swashbuckling was omnipresent for half of the movie and much of the focus on character development is lent to the heroes, with the villains becoming nothing but mere instruments to make the heroes more heroic. In a sense, it is a movie that is very much intended for a World War II audience. Had this been shown during that time, there will be tears on the audience. Nonetheless, audience of the present will still enjoy, but may get bored in the process, especially the French who deride the American way. Captain America, need not be said, is very American in every way.

Too Late the Villain

What can be said of the acting in this film? Pleasant, mostly. Though lacking in some departments. Evans did not display a broad range, which is excusable given that Captain America, even on the comic books does not make plenty of funny. Such is the case that there was a time that Captain America managed to chuck in a joke in the middle of a fight that made Spider-Man elated enough to jeer that "Oy! Cap made a funny." Evans' acting can be said as spot-on, given that Cap is like that in the books, but how I wish they made him less comic book canon and more relatable--though the latter might be the case with the Avengers movie as that is set in present time. Tommy Lee Jones's Col. Philips made perhaps the wittiest remarks in the film while staying in character. But if you are wishing for this film to be a witty humor-fest like Thor or the original Iron Man, you are riding a horse to the village Frustration, city of Disappointment.

One thing I was feeling lacking in this film was that the villain didn't feel too involved in the movie--and it felt confused, for me at least, whether Captain America was winning the war because he was defeating the HYDRA or the Nazi as apparently, the war was against the Nazi with HYDRA having cut its affiliation with the Nazi after successfully harnessing the power of the Tesseract (that glowing blue cube from times of yore) and that the public is not aware of HYDRA. Still, Cap battled HYDRA forces, but the public was rejoicing with every news about the defeat of the Nazis. Nonetheless, The Red Skull felt like such a background character, being relegated to working behind the scenes often while his henchmen get killed.

I wouldn't completely blame the director for not focusing on The Red Skull though. The Red Skull has seen better days as one of Marvel's prime villains and that have gone with the Cold War with the Soviets. The Red Skull may not have been interesting enough to focus attention on, thus it might have been wise that he was skipped to give Evans more airtime. Sad thing is that Captain America doesn't have that many interesting villains in his comic book run--which endangers future Cap movies, but Iron Man has far less, and how Favreau managed to make Obadiah Stane a very menacing villain, Johnston couldn't make of the Red Skull. The Red Skull's involvement in the film is just so oversimplified he felt like the Saturday morning cartoon villains who kept plotting only to get their plans beaten by the heroes again and again. At best, he is forgettable, with the mantle of villainy mainly laid on the Nazis.

Though this fault might have to be for the better in the end as Captain America's backstory is convoluted, really, if you go to wikipedia and look him up, it would be plenty of read--with three Captain Americas taking the guise during the early runs before Rogers retires the character by the end of World War II only to be revived around the mid 60s. Johnston simplified the storyline and made it easily digestible for modern audience. Kids, though, might only enjoy the fight scenes--which has, in my opinion, middling CGI. I suggest you skip the 3D and watch it on a cheaper 2D theatre with good sounds.

Romance on the film was surprisingly thin compared to other Marvel movies--particularly Thor, with the movie being strictly conservative. If anything, the ending of the 1940s plot really saves the film for those who got bored in some parts. The dialogue between Captain America and Peggy Carter is a tearjerker and highlights the budding romance in the film all the while establishing the empathic question of how will the Captain feel after he awakens 70 years in the present where his life has passed him completely--and it was successful in that aspect. It does not make you ask for more Captain America, but it just makes you wonder, how will this all work with the Avengers, and I think this is the absolute goal of the movie: set the mood for the 2012 Avengers film.

Though with a few compromises, Captain America is a movie one ought not to miss, especially that teaser in the end.

A passing mark of 3.75/5.

Below is the teaser for the Avengers as shown after the credits of Captain America. Credits to my friend JP for taking this.