Category: General

40 Duxton Hill
Singapore

Date dined: 31/07/08

Although the term “Australian cuisine” suggests something between a tribal cook-out and a white suburban barbecue, there’s a lot more to eating down-under than grilled meats. Roast beef, for one. Many ‘traditional’ Australian favorites have their roots in English recipes, a warning sign if ever there was one, but these days – as Australia’s cultural identity is being transformed by her migrant populations – one is as likely to find a Roghan Josh as a Sunday roast.

Uluru, a fairly new restaurant in Singapore’s KTV-happy Duxton Hill area, seems to embrace the cosmopolitan face of Australian cuisine a little too readily, as there is nothing on its menu that stands out as being definitively Australian. Items run the gamut from grilled salmon steaks and Japanese-seasoned scallop salads, to fish & chips and cuts of prime Wagyu beef. International cuisine it is then, although Victoria Bitter (VB) and other Aussie beers put in some effort.

The French Onion soup was above average, but the Cream of Tomato soup was even better. It tasted as if it were made from ripe tomatoes grown in a field of bacon, if one could do such a thing. The two flavors were perfectly twinned, leaving a rich result that was possibly the best part of dinner.

My burger ($30) was ordered medium-rare but turned up very close to well done. It lacked the beetroot that one would expect to find in an Australian burger, but by the time it arrived I was hungry enough not to care about the beetroot. Honestly, who likes the stuff? The slices of jalapeno pepper in its place, however, were a matter of gross misjudgement. The accompanying potato wedges could have used some salting, or even ketchup, but this was not provided. Ho hum.

I’ll probably be skipping dessert on my second visit, as the Granny Smith Apple Tart was soft in the crust and very hot inside, suggesting the use of a microwave oven, and for $16 including the wee littlest scoop of ice-cream in the world, represented pretty poor value. Top marks for the inclusion of fresh berries on the side, though.

The braised beef cheek, ribeye steak, and baby back ribs ordered by others at the table fared much better, so it is possible that some Australian heritage is at work here after all.

* * * ½

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Singapore Garden Festival, originally uploaded by sangsara.

I went with my mom and girlfriend on some complimentary tickets, and on the whole can’t say I’m too sorry I spent a Saturday afternoon looking at indoor “fantasy gardens”, even if they were largely useless vanity projects for rich landscaping companies. Some, like the one above, made for good photos.

.flickr-photo { border: solid 2px #000000; }.flickr-yourcomment { }.flickr-frame { text-align: left; padding: 3px; }.flickr-caption { font-size: 0.8em; margin-top: 0px; }

Altar, originally uploaded by sangsara.

It’s been settling for two days now, and I think Get Smart was better than Wanted and You Don’t Mess with the Zohan, but worse than Kung Fu Panda. I liked some of the references to the old series, and I always like looking at Anne Hathaway too, but an unnecessary remake movie’s gotta have more to offer than that! I doubt many people are on the fence about seeing this anyway, so I won’t go into any details. It’s an alright 2 hour movie to see in the middle of a hot afternoon, but don’t make it the high point of your night out.

I laughed a couple of times, so I’d say it was worth 3/5 stars. For the record, Wanted got 2, Zohan got 2.5 (mostly for its opening minutes), and Kung Fu Panda got 3.5.

I saw this last night and was rather disappointed with the story. This movie has gotten something like 88% at RottenTomatoes.com, which is in a region previously reserved for Studio Ghibli and Pixar movies (or Disney, if you’re old enough to remember a time when they didn’t suck). So naturally, I had my expectations high enough that anything short of a beautiful, sensitively made film that delivered the old “if you believe, you can do anything” message in new ways was going to feel like a waste of 10 dollars.

Kung Fu Panda, sadly, is not that ‘something new’. And it is very flawed, structurally. I think they were just hoping that the animation and inherent panda cuteness would make up for the fact that the writers never managed to solve the problem of how to have an unfit panda convincingly best the world’s greatest warrior in combat, apart from using his ass/belly as a bouncy surface. As a result, the film looks like this:

2 minutes of Panda being a bad-ass (dream sequence)
is followed by
55 minutes of Panda shown as well-meaning but incompetent as a fighter
followed by
5 minutes of his teacher having an epiphany
followed by
1 minute of training montage
followed by
10 minutes of Panda being a full-fledged kungfu expert
followed by
10 minutes of doubt
followed by
5 minutes of unbelievable, unjustified competence
followed by
THE END.

I know I sound like a picky asshole who can’t just relax and enjoy a summer blockbuster for kids, but the bar has been raised by others that came before, and so Kung Fu Panda has to work a little harder. In ways, it is the perfect example of Dreamworks’ approach to animation, and offers several reasons why they consistently fail to deliver something as timeless as say, oh… any Pixar film? These include: loud, brash characters who don’t change so much as they do unlock their artificially stunted potential that everybody else saw from the beginning. Pop culture jokes (admittedly fewer here). Uneven pacing and plot progression. Disregard for the passage of time – and this is a big one for me.

In order to build believability, you have to let certain events breathe. Compared to something like Ratatouille, Kung Fu Panda occurs almost in real-time. It honestly feels like everything happens overnight. The result of such carelessness is a lack of drama and audience emphathy for the characters. How are you supposed to feel that Po (the panda) is really ready for his challenge when you’re given at least 30 times as much evidence of his unreadiness as his 1 minute training montage? Classic heroes were products of sustained hardship. Rocky had the heart, and even Remy from Ratatouille had the nose and talent from the beginning. Po, in contrast, is only shown having a fan’s interest in the history of kungfu. It’s like saying little Johnny Redneck by ringside can throw it down with a pro wrestler after a weekend of training with Hulk Hogan.

Animation is a feature film industry where you have far more time and money to get things right, and so directorial failures are even more disappointing. I imagine the guys at Pixar (and I’ve read a little to this effect) hammer the hell out of every detail for their films in pre-production. They’re not afraid to throw away great scenes in order to find even greater ones. The results haven’t just been the best 3D animated films; they pretty much legitimized the form. Kung Fu Panda has a couple of dead-air scenes that I think John Lasseter wouldn’t even wipe his ass with.

One last thing. I’ve had Pixar movies move me to tears. Those guys know how to write emotionally effective scenes that don’t feel like manipulation. And when the time comes to deliver an inspirational message, they know how to show rather than tell. WALL·E pretty much proves it by having two non-speaking leads. Kung Fu Panda on the other hand relies on lines as false as fortune cookie proverbs.

I just had to defend wide/flat burgers against tall/thick burgers for 30 mins. I’m finding that this is an argument I get into with too many people. For the record, it’s not about taste. I acknowledge that it is possible (but less technically likely) a tall/thick burger can be evenly cooked and taste great. My issue with them is one of design, construction, and symmetry.

Real burgers need to be large, pleasurable meals (I’m not talking about those goddamned sliders or mini-burgers; when was the last time you ordered a half-pint as your first drink?) and a wide footprint on a burger encourages the eating of it to last longer, while visually implying a satisfying quantity. Width also make them stable against cutting actions, letting you slice in straight lines perpendicular to the plate. If you eat them with your hands, then it’s also less likely that bits are going to be squeezed out.

One solution for my rage is to not think about them as “burgers”. Or to think of them as “Tall Burgers”. Somehow, that makes everything better. It’s like “Chicken Luncheon Meat”, or “Turkey Bacon”. Build an excuse into the name and suddenly all can be forgiven. I’m just very protective over some words and can’t stand to see something wrongly labeled. This could be a problem with my brain, because lately I’ve realized how much I hate some words, because of the way their sounds kinda feel wrong.  Like unexpectedly biting into something crunchy when you were expecting smooth ice-cream. It just ruins your day.

“Terrier” is an example of a perfect word. When you look at a terrier and think of how it came to be named that, you know the guy did a fucking first-class job. It absolutely fits.