Recent Gaming

Well, I’m way, waaay behind on my Roger Ebert Great Movie reviews – in the hole by 5, in fact.  What better time to do a post on video games!!  These little gems are what kept me going during my biannual personal hell, i.e. sitting for an actuarial exam (yes, these things are, in fact, endless).

Bionic Commando Rearmed:  I’m a big fan of the original Bionic Commando for the NES (1988, baby), and it’s clear that the creators of this excellent remake are as well.  All the levels have been faithfully recreated, and there are lots of humorous references to the game’s infamous Engrish.  More importantly, they took a good, long look at what didn’t work in original and made organic improvements that are in the same spirit as the Capcom classic.  To whit:

- The weapons have been revamped.  The Rocket Launcher was significantly nerfed (good call), the useless “3-way” was replaced with the much niftier Vector Cannon, and Joe’s Machine Gun got a face lift.  All the weapons now have special upgrades and can be switched to at any time, thus eliminating one of the more annoying aspects of the original.  Oh, and that goes for the various communicators as well.

- They added several secrets to each level, as well as an encyclopedia of sorts for which you collect entries as you encounter stuff.  There are two new mini-levels replacing the secret passageways of the original, and they’re pretty tough.  Several “challenge rooms” were also added to further test your swinging skills.

- The boss battles have been massively redesigned, generally for the better.  I say generally because I found myself missing the classic boss battles a little.  They were definitely a part of BC’s charm.  But from a purely gameplay standpoint, this is definitely an improvement, and some of the battles take particularly clever advantage of the bionic arm mechanic.  Oh, and the Albatross is now its own level!

- They improved the graphics and remixed the soundtrack.  I liked the graphics upgrades, but missed the less techno-y tunes of the original.  That Area 2 music was just the best.

Overall it’s a really thoughtful remake.  My biggest single complaint is that they left the overhead stages in, which continue to be a huge hassle as you navigate the map.  This is sort of like making a Star Wars Special Edition and changing everything EXCEPT the blatant mistake of not coloring the lightsabers in certain shots.  You know what scenes I’m talking about.  “Ben!?!?!!  NOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Mega Man 9:  It’s pretty amazing that Capcom made this game.  Mega Man 9 is a fully-formed, brand new NES-style Mega Man game, complete with 8-bit graphics.  It follows the gameplay mechanics of the best entry in the series, Mega Man 2 – and that means no slide, although you do get Rush instead of the various adapters.

I’ve played all the original Mega Man games without regret, to the extent that you can play video games without regretting doing more productive things, and if you’ve liked all the previous Mega Mans you’ll like 9 as well.  Mega Man is kinda like the Rocky of the video game world, or Friday the 13th - they just keep on comin’.  With Mega Man, though, the core concept is really that good, and I think the endless sequels are pretty well justified.

Mega Man 9 is a bit of a rally for the franchise in some departments.  The Robot Masters were taking a serious turn for the lame towards the end of the NES run, and that has been somewhat rectified here, including the first female Robot Master (Splash Woman).  The music is actually quite good, as well…not quite MM2 standards, but definitely more enjoyable than anything in 5 and 6.  The level design is thoughtful, although murderously difficult at points (Tornado Man’s stage is just ridiculous).  A slight drawback to this game is that it’s shorter than the Mega Mans past 3 – there’s only the first 8 stages and 4 stages after that.  I’m not going to tell you where those final 4 stages take place, but I bet you can make a good guess.

Symphony of the Night:  My latest foray into classic gaming, I’m really only a half hour into the game at this point.  But it is totally awesome, justifying its frequent appearances on top game lists.  Basically this game is Super Metroid in Castlevania, and that’s enough to make me a very content person right now.

Belle de Jour

1967, France
Director: Luis Buñuel
Screenplay: Buñuel, Jean-Claude Carrière
Story: Joseph Kessel (novel)
Notes: The title translates as “daylilly,” and is a play on “belle de nuit,” or prostitute.

Belle de Jour is a bizarre and beautiful movie. It follows a young housewife named Séverine Serizy as she comes to grips with her sexual identity. She is compelled beyond the forces of reason into becoming a high-class prostitute during the day, before returning to an unknowing husband at night. Yet plot is almost secondary to the film’s skillful conjuring of mood, emotion, and presence. It is a study on sexuality, its mystery and power, that is simultaneously highly creative and thoroughly engaging.

Integral to Belle de Jour’s tone is its ability to weave fantasy with reality. There are several dream sequences interspersed through the film, and on at least one occasion I found it difficult to determine what was real and what was imagined. Buñuel uses non-diegetic sound to heighten this effect, lapping the strange associations of the main character against the shore of reality. The meow of a cat, the tinkle of a bell – they signify something to her, and therefore to the audience, but she is as helpless to decipher them as we are. They are ultimately mere components of her hyperactive imagination, and as unassailable as they are fascinating.

The blurring of fantasy and reality is furthered by a parade of characters, all with peculiar desires of their own. In the movie’s best-known scene, a large Asian businessman visits Séverine’s brothel, propositioning one of the other girls with a mysterious lacquered box. There is a strange sort of buzzing sound in the background as he opens it. The girl peers inside, and draws away with a look of repulsion. Séverine, too, has her doubts when the businessman proffers it to her; but a later cut suggests that she had no qualms with the businessman, and perhaps the box and its contents. What could possibly be in the box? There is no logical interpretation, but it’s a creative bit of symbolism that piques the imagination.

Séverine herself is one of the most interesting characters I’ve seen on film. She has very little personality, and acts almost entirely under the influence of her passions. At times she seems possessed by them. In a sense, we understand the logic of this; Buñuel didn’t need to flesh out her character, because she is a vehicle for the film’s encounters and ideas. But there is enough there to make us wonder about her, what makes her tick. In the movie’s final act, note not just her actions, but her emotional state – I feel like this tells more about her than anything else we see.

Style: 9
Here is a movie with style in spades, from excellent directing (watch how carefully the camera tracks from face to face, or follows a nervous Séverine’s hand) to the effective use of sound and symbolism. Catherine Deneuve is perfect in the lead role, striking a unique blend of distance and passion. Note that the film manages its tone with no explicit shots – by itself, a remarkable feat.

Substance: 9
Belle de Jour is a rare movie that demands not only repeat viewings, but interpretation and analysis. It is a study on human emotion and desire, on morality and psychology, on fantasy and reality. On top of that, it’s emotionally engrossing. Its existentialist tone reminds me of Kubrick’s 2001, or Hitchcock’s Vertigo. These are films that suck the reality out of you, and leave you wondering “what exactly did I just see?”  It never fails to amaze me, when a movie can have that sort of effect on you.

Overall: 9
It seems natural that in perusing a great movies list I eventually come upon a truly great movie. Belle de Jour is my favorite find from Ebert’s list to date (excepting Days of Heaven – review pending). I would heartily recommend it to all walks of film fans.

W.

2008, United States
Director: Oliver Stone
Writer: Stanley Weiser

A few analogies sprang to mind while watching W., but my favorite is one offered by history. I’m thinking of Marcus Aurelius, the last of Rome’s philosopher kings, by all accounts a learned and just ruler. Aurelius is remembered for breaking a century-old tradition and selecting his son as his successor, rather than the most capable person he knew. Emperor Commodus proved to be unstable and incapable; he alienated the Senate, failed to annex the all-but-conquered lands that would someday be responsible for Rome’s fall, and his reign marks the beginning of the Empire’s end. Looking back through history, should we forgive Aurelius for blindly placing his family before his country? Could he have possibly known his moment of fatherly weakness would be so debilitating?

Watching W, I am brought to the same question. In the film, George Bush Sr. is portrayed in a mostly positive light, except in one important aspect: he falls well short of the discipline needed to rein in his, er, free spirited son. Given countless reprieves and opportunities by his preoccupied father, “Dubya” is finally able to demonstrate his ineptitude to all upon election to the most important office in the world. This is the central thesis of the film, and while there is doubtless much supposition that went into forming the Bush Sr. character, in particular, the story is convincingly constructed – and quite compelling.

The casting is nothing short of superb, headlined with Josh Brolin’s Oscar-worthy performance. It is a little weird at first to see all these current public figures in a movie, as if you’re violating their privacy somehow; when John McCain flashed momentarily on the screen people around me laughed, as if it was funny because they “knew” him. But the “behind closed doors” element is a big part of what makes the film so fascinating. W’s life is the door that is thrown open the widest, and the film flows around his personal history. There are many funny parts, but mostly it takes on a frank and even sympathetic tone with regards to the main character. W. the story of a guy that mostly means well, but is damned from birth with a lethal combination of high expectations and insufficient grey matter. In the end, the “villains” of this film are Cheney, Karl Rove, and to some extent George Bush Sr., who precipitate Bush’s failings.

I love some of the stylistic decisions Stone makes in this film. For one, there is no hard and fast continuity, except for the vaguely emerging narrative of a failed presidency. The chronology is also tied together by recurring images, most notably Bush’s love of baseball. Food also plays an amusing and recurring role – Bush is often talking with his mouth full, and look for a priceless moment with Donald Rumsfield and a slice of pie.

Style: 8
A very stylishly executed biography with a cast that is spot on. Despite jumping back and forth through time the film hangs together splendidly, in part thanks to effective images and themes. A diverse set of locations, from Bush’s Texas ranch to various rooms around the White House, add to the already fine sense of realism.

Substance: 8
I think most people expect this film to be a scathing anti-Bush piece, but W. is surprisingly deep and reflective. Some pro-Bush people (aren’t they extinct yet?) might complain that it’s unfair, but I think W. does a good job of celebrating the man’s virtues to the extent possible. The narrative of his life turns out to be a pretty good one, and most of the individual scenes are compelling all on their own; in particular, the meeting in which he and his cabinet decide to invade Iraq is superb entertainment.

Overall: 8
W. is not quite the comedy I expected. Though it is funny, it is mostly a fair and serious look at the man we currently have heading up our government. Remarkably, parts of it are even touching (witness the scene where Bush Sr. loses his reelection bid). When a film runs the gamut of emotion like that, in a smart and compelling way, I almost want Dubya back in office so we can get sequels. That, of course, supposes Hollywood would still exist after the country’s been reduced to barbarism.

Beat The Devil

Just a couple housekeeping reviews before my review of “W” later this weekend!

1953, England
Director: John Huston
Screenplay: Huston, Truman Capote
Story: James Helvick (novel)

Beat The Devil is a John Huston-Humphrey Bogart collaboration that defies all genres. Its tone is somewhat humorous, as established by the first exchange of dialogue (in which a woman voices her distrust of passing men because they didn’t bother to check out her legs). Though there are a couple good laughs, they are buried by a meandering, extremely weak plot that takes us places and shows us events without accomplishing anything interesting. There’s sort of a nihilistic flavor here, with the end in particular making light of the characters’ dalliances.

Ultimately, it’s a film that fails to find itself. For one, too much screen time is given to the childish Gwendolen Chelm (Jennifer Jones), who is a microcosm of the film’s nonsensical bent. She asks the sort of pointed questions you might expect from a six-year-old, and tries to cheat on her husband without the slightest hint of weighing the consequences. Her irreverence is quickly tiring, and I started to wonder why Bogart’s typically cynical character would put up with her. Bogart, for his part, never seems to quite belong. For a guy who admits he’s obsessed with money, he does not go to great lengths to secure it, and his motivations are indecipherable. It’s consistent with Bogart’s actual approach to the film, which was complete apathy (he later said of the movie that “only phonies like it.”)

The problem, indeed, is that no one really seems to care about much of anything. There’s uranium in Africa, somewhere, but except perhaps for Robert Morley’s character, no one is particularly determined to claim it. There’s a hundred different digressions in the course of the story…a car falls off a cliff, a fight takes place in a bar, a ship runs aground. That might sound funny, but really it’s just plodding and random (though the car is good). The best saving grace to Beat The Devil is the rare gem or two of dialogue, including a famous piece on the nature of time.

Style: 4
Beat The Devil had poor production values, and indeed feels rather rushed; Bogart, for example, might have needed a few more takes in some scenes. Though the imagery and presentation is largely unremarkable I did enjoy the diverse phenotypes of the four antagonists.

Substance: 5
What do you do with a movie that has a few very clever lines and funny moments but buries them in a mess of unmotivated characters and pointless plot developments? If you’re me, you argue they all roughly cancel out and slap an average score on it.

Overall: 5
Beat The Devil has something of a polarizing effect on film fans, so I’m going to split the difference here. I love some of the lines, but not enough to justify such a listless plot (the scenes in the boat are particularly overlong). If you’re a diehard Bogart or Huston fan it might be worth a look…though seeing as it’s public domain, don’t pay a whole lot.

Iron Man Appeals on a Primal Level

I just watched my brand new (okay, okay, totally eBayed) 2-disc Ultimate Edition Iron Man blu-ray. I still think this movie kicks ass, although now I’m starting to form a theory as to why it appeals to me so much. Sure, it’s got lots of comedy and fantastic special effects, but there’s something to the Iron Man idea that sets him apart from other superheroes.

Take, for example, Superman. Superman certainly appeals on a primal level. Ever have dreams you can fly? I’m sure you have, and I’m sure you would agree they’re utterly euphoric. Who wouldn’t want to be Superman? Who can’t help but cheer watching him blast off into the sky, or lift helicopters or whatever with his bare hands? Of course, the Superman personae is more nuanced than that. Superman is perfect through and through. As Superman, you’d go around not only flying but also representing, you know, truth, justice, and the “way” of the World’s Greatest Country, the United States of America. You’d laugh as bullets bounced off your chest, and then politely escort the criminals off to jail for their fair trials (since that’s clearly what America is all about). There’s something primal about being Superman, but it’s sort of a package deal, of both powers and morals. That’s would it would mean to be Superman.

Batman, or Spiderman, perhaps? I group them together as the “rooftop” heroes. Who wouldn’t want to leap from rooftops, swinging through the night with grappling hooks or strands of silk? Of course, their personalities are like night and day. Batman is the world’s greatest detective, somewhat grim and removed from society, despite the excesses of his high society alter-ego. Spiderman is the wise-crackingest of superheroes, prone to hanging upside down and mouthing off to villains as much as landing a punch. Each is fun in their own way, but as with Superman, there’s a certain sort of perfection, of unattainability, to them. Batman is the perfect person, mind, body, and soul, while Spiderman relies on a happy accident for his superhuman powers.

Which brings us to Iron Man. While all the above superheroes appeal in a primal way, I feel like Iron Man appeals to those who love superhero movies in the most primal way of all. That’s because Iron Man is really nothing more than a dork in a suit. Okay, okay, I know Tony Stark can smelt iron or whatever, but unlike Batman, his physical strength is not a key asset. Tony Stark is at heart an engineer, who has this wild idea to make an indestructible suit capable of flight and can fire blasts of energy from palm thingies. His ultimate power derives from his intellect, which directly translates to his suit and his vigilante alter-ego.

This distinction makes the idea of Iron Man more accessible and – dare I say it – realistic. In Batman Begins, we sort of get an idea of why Bruce Wayne decides to become the Batman, but ultimately the film cannot explain what is a fiction of the purest form. How can you possibly justify a multibillionare, even one who has experienced deep tragedy, deciding to dress up like a bat and fight crime? The idea is ludicrous, even if it is part of the character’s primal appeal. But watching Robert Downey Jr. go through the origin of Iron Man convinced me of the character and his decisions. Tony Stark is a genius, but he is a much farther cry from perfection than Bruce Wayne. He gives the audience that much more to hang on to, an aspect I think is absolutely critical in making Iron Man such an effective superhero movie.

And, yeah, maybe as I watch him land with a thud in the middle of a war zone, repulsor rays at the ready and raising a visage designed to do business – maybe I’m thinking a little bit more than usual how kick-ass that would really be.

Goin’ to California (and back)

Here are some pictoral highlights from a weeklong sojourn in California, the sunniest blue state there is:

The San Diego zoo is amazing, I spent almost a full day there. The big cats are my favorite, they’re actually aware of crowds and come right up to the cage. I’m sure they just want to play.

Meekrats and their ilk are just the cutest of all animals. This guy is acting as a sentry, though what could possibly threaten their idyllic existence (tunnels, tunnels galore!) is beyond me.

Sunset at beautiful Coronado Beach.

The first of many photos I took along a six-hour drive on the Pacific Coast Highway. Absolutely incredible scenery that I cannot do justice here.

Another beautiful Pacific coast vista.

The road is long and winding, with majestic mountains rising straight up from the curbside opposite precipitous drops to the blue waves. I tried to convey a sense of that scope with this photo.

While parking next to the solitary Big Sur trail open to the public, I was amused to see this license plate. Apparently this Suburu owner thinks his car is as swift as Shadowfax.

A pretty typical Golden Gate Bridge photo, but I do like how the colors came out, big reds and greens and blues.

The Three Necessary Characteristics of a President (and VP!)

I think people should be looking at three main characteristics when choosing a president and his/her vice president. Here I will describe these characteristics, why I think they’re important, and how they relate to the current election.

1. Intelligence – I think fundamental qualities dominate; if you are intelligent, you will tend to do more things intelligently. In a president the benefits of intelligence are obvious…being more experienced with critical thinking will better prepare the candidate to make major decisions. A good education will also grant a better understanding of a broader range of issues, enabling him/her to understand situations quicker and make more effective choices.

Unfortunately, a significant portion of America does not regard intelligence as a necessary presidential characteristic. I suspect the uneducated rationalize that since they’ve done just fine in the game of life, education is an overrated attribute. But voting for an unintelligent president is analogous to allowing your local mechanic to perform your triple-bypass surgery. For tough jobs, education and intelligence is very, very important, and the president of the United States is the toughest job around.

Considering the current candidates, Barack Obama graduated from an Ivy League school consistently rated among the best in America, and pursued his law degree at Harvard. John McCain graduated from Annapolis Naval Academy at the bottom of his class. Now while intelligence and education are not interchangeable, as I have insinuated here at points, a person who has done worse in the education system typically needs a demonstrable edge to pull ahead of his/her more educated colleagues. I don’t see McCain as having that edge, so this contest is at best a push for him.

2. Integrity – Or at least, what passes for integrity in the mire of politics. As a citizen in a democratic nation, I want to believe that the president will not abuse his powers at the expense of the nation’s best interests. I’d also want to more or less believe he is representing his/her character and policies faithfully.

Integrity is always a focus of elections, yet it is one of the hardest attributes to measure. It is easy to cite voting records or the qualities of individual bills out of context. It is also often hard to trace the motivations for “flip flopping,” which could range from the abjectly political to more benign evolutions of opinion. I personally feel that while we can nibble at this issue, often through rather subjective means such as behavioral analysis, it is difficult to get a good understanding of the candidate’s integrity without a comprehensive look at their voting record, including the context and complete understanding of each bill voted on. I would even go so far as to say that only insiders, people who are intimately close with the workings of the legislative branch, can ever truly understand who has the best interests of the nation at heart.

For what it’s worth, I felt McCain had a great deal of integrity before his campaign for president began this year. I know Al Franken, for example, has written approvingly of McCain’s sense of honor. I also appreciated McCain’s voting against the Bush tax cuts, which indicated his willingness to do what he believed was best in spite of party pressure. However, in part due to his reversal on this particular issue, I now question how much of his “maverick” voting was designed to separate himself from the rest of his party and therefore secure his nomination. Lately, his campaign’s attempts to defame Obama have placed another black feather in the once proud senator’s cap. As for Obama, the main reason I would support him more than any other political creature is his early rallies against the Iraq war. Though he was not a Senator at the time, there’s little doubt that anti-war sentiment was a politically unpopular stance, and thus reflects positively on his integrity.

3. Perspective – Perspective, or judgement, is the ability of the candidate to allocate finite attention and resources appropriately. The president is one man or woman, and has four to eight years to significantly influence the nation’s path. A candidate with good perspective will purport to address the nation’s greatest weaknesses in sensible ways. After all, what good is intelligence and integrity if you’re dead set on fighting the wrong battles?

I think we can all agree that President Bush has demonstrated exceptionally poor judgement during his time in office. Whatever good may come out of the protracted Iraq War, it’s doubtful the exorbitant resources committed could not have been used for more pressing domestic (or foreign) issues. I have personally long maintained that reducing the national debt and improving the public education system are the two highest priorities for the U.S., and I continue to look for those qualities in a president.

The Iraq War of course continues to be an important issue, and candidates should intelligently weigh the value of committing $10 billion a month to our new Middle Eastern “ally.” Not surprisingly, I think Obama’s aggressive desire to end the war is merited and demonstrates good perspective, especially in light of America’s reeling domestic state. As for McCain, I question his judgement in appointing Sarah Palin as his running mate, who demonstrates on a daily basis her gross unfitness for the office.

There can be many factors that go into supporting a presidential candidate, but I think important that we as a nation do not lose our way. The voting population needs to remember the high standards required for such an important position, and the very real consequences brought about by supporting the unfit. Though I sincerely hope we never see another George W. Bush in our lifetimes, the results of the upcoming election will go a long way towards making me believe it can happen.

Superman: The Movie

1978, United States
Director: Richard Donner
Screenplay: Robert Benton, David Newman, Leslie Newman, Mario Puzo
Story: Puzo (Really? Puzo? I had no idea.)

As far as big Hollywood movies go, Superman does a number of things right. The opening scenes are effective at portraying a mystical world, with Marlon Brando’s Jor-El injecting the right amount of gravity. The special effects, both on Krypton and throughout the movie, are obviously far less impressive now…but they deserve credit for being outstanding in their day, as well as having an enduring sense of style about them. (If we aren’t all wearing hyper-reflective suits in pitch black rooms at some point in my lifetime, I’ll have to consider humanity a fine idea that sadly came up short when it really mattered.)

The movie is also elevated due to Christopher Reeve’s performance. He looks the part more than any comic book movie star, with the possible exceptions of Hugh Jackman’s Wolverine and Christian Bale’s Bruce Wayne, both coming 20 years later. Like Brando, Reeve’s presence is perfect in his role – he’s easygoing, confident, somehow warm and slightly aloof at the same time. If Superman’s tagline is to be believed, Reeve deserves most of the credit. The script, too, does a good job with the character, poking fun at the comic book clichés and having fun with his powers.

What is more questionable to my modern tastes is the portrayal of Lex Luthor. I can’t say what Luthor was like in the comic books back in the 70s, but today the character is pretty well established as a bald, extremely intelligent multi-billionaire. In this film, Luthor instead carries on the tradition of the 1950s Batman villains – he’s a self-absorbed, slightly zany madman that surrounds himself with incompetents. In this more cynical age, it’s hard to buy into such a cartoony antagonist. We also lack the naïvité to believe that a nuclear warhead could be hijacked by simply blocking the road it was being transported on. I know, I know, it was never meant to be taken seriously, but what might have been amusing in 1978 is just lame in 2008. Finally, maybe I’m being unduly influenced by Gene Hackman’s French Connection role, but I just don’t understand the decision to cast him as Lex Luthor. Isn’t he a little too blue-collar to be a supervillain?

Style: 9
Then-cutting-edge special effects, a couple fine performances, and the magnificent Superman theme all add up to a classic comic book experience. Christopher Reeve really was Superman, even more than Sean Connery was James Bond.

Substance: 6
I love the opening scenes, and how Superman is handled in this movie…the writers clearly had a lot of fun with the character. Unfortunately there are extended sequences that have aged pretty poorly: most of the scenes with Clark Kent, Superman and Lois Lane flying through space (seriously, that’s just bizarre, right?) and all the bumbling done by Luthor and his cronies.

Overall: 7
If I was born 20 years earlier, I would probably be swearing to this day that Superman is the greatest movie ever made. I could just kinda see that happening. But while I’ll tip my cap to that unrealized possibility, I have to discount all the fun of Superman for its many campy moments.

L’Espalier

Anne and I went to one of Boston’s best restaurants last weekend. Our visit to L’Espalier marks the third “nice French restaurant” we’ve been to in the area. The first, No. 9 Park, is perhaps my favorite restaurant ever; the second, Aujourd’hui, I found to be a touch disappointing (for the price). L’Espalier fits somewhere in between.

When I had the opportunity to have dinner at Daniel in New York a couple months ago, I was surprised to walk away from a gourmet establishment with my stomach stretched to its limit, having been used to more wanting portions. Well, my coat buttons were again endangered at L’Espalier, and I discovered the common thread to be prix fixe meals. Between the chef’s complimentary dish, appetizer, main course, optional cheese tray, and desert, you may find your wallet a little lighter, but you sure aren’t going to go home hungry. Overall it’s probably slightly more economical, but it’s really not my preference.

The decor was very, very good at L’Espalier – bright and modern, offering a three-story overlook of bustling Boylston street. I prefer this modern look over Aujourd’hui’s more traditional ambience (though neither exceeds the cozy dining room on the commons at No. 9). The service was polite and unobtrusive, overall equal to expectations.

And the food? Undeniably outstanding, though I couldn’t help but notice that the quality marginally decreased as the evening went on. The appetizers were both truly phenomenal. Anne had a potato and leek soup, delightfully flavored with mango, while I had a tomato-mushroom-sausage omelet with a honey dijon sauce – the best omelet I’ve ever tasted. After that tour de force, it followed that the main course would be a bit of a step down. Anne had a relatively straightforward dish, free-range chicken and veggies, while I had lamb with almonds and a salsa sauce. Though tasty, these dishes didn’t have quite the delectable synergy of their predecessors. I was too stuffed to fully enjoy the deserts (a soufflé and pavlova), but they were also pretty good.

All in all it was a very nice experience, befitting a restaurant that vies for the title of Boston’s best.

A new “official” photo

Anne and I actually had a few nice pictures taken of us over the weekend.  Lately I’ve been aging like mad in the face, and there haven’t been many pictures I can approve of, but I look halfway decent in this one.  Anne, of course, is a vision.