This one is slightly convoluted. The food I got was made in Taiwan, by a Taiwanese company (the Royal Family Food Corporation), but the type of food itself is Japanese in origin. Specifically, a type of rice cake called mochi. This is yet another find from the superlative Wegman's supermarket, in the Rochester, NY area.
Mochi is made from a kind of Japanese short grain, glutinous rice. This rice is pounded into a paste, and then molded into the desired shape. There is quite a variety of mochi types--some are more savory, some are more sweet, and some are even put into soups. The traditional method of making mochi is extremely labor intensive. Now, of course, machinery makes this process much quicker and easier. The exact origins of mochi are rather murky. The first recorded instances are from the Yayoi period, or 300 B.C. to 300 A.D. Mochi has also run the gamut in prestige. During its long history, it's been known as the "food of the gods," as a religious offering, part of the New Year celebration, and more recently, a good luck symbol for weddings. The type of mochi I tried appears to be daifuku, which is a soft, round, variant with a sweet filling, such as sweetened red bean paste. Other countries in the region have their own mochi-like dishes. For example, China, Korea, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Taiwan all make their own take on it.
As I learned from the company website, the Royal Family Food Corp. was founded in 1985, and incorporated in 1986, by a Mr. Huang Zhiming and his unnamed wife. Royal Family started as a meat company, but market decline after a few years led them to diversify in the early 1990's. At about this time the owners were dazzled by Japanese mochi, and went to Japan to learn about recent manufacturing techniques and machinery to make mochi. So, in 1992, with the help of these Japanese manufacturing innovations, Royal Family started making its own Japanese-style mochi. Currently they make many different flavors. Some of these include coconut, taro, sesame, peanut, red bean, pumpkin, brown sugar, peach, blueberry, sweet potato, strawberry, and even wormwood molasses (See October 18, 2015 post). Other products include pastries and egg rolls. The company now exports to 42 nations around the world.
1) Royal Family Food Corp. red bean mochi. Each individual mochi is about 3 cm. (about 1.25 inches) to a side, and is a rounded square shape. They came 6 to a box. They were whitish-yellow on the outside, with a red center, from the red bean filling, obviously. The texture of the outside was very soft, and the filling was jelly-like. The flavor wasn't that sweet, only slightly. But still good.
2) Royal Family Food Corp. taro mochi. Same size, number, and shape as the red bean kind. Color was light purplish-brown, with a brown center. Had a similar dense, filling texture, too. Also was only slightly sweet, yet oddly tasty. Weird flavor, but still good.
3) Royal Family Food Corp. peanut mochi. Same number in the box, size, and shape as its siblings. With its brown powdery exterior, it kind of reminded me of a chicken cutlet in appearance, with a brown center. My favorite of the bunch, which makes sense due to my love of peanut butter. Same heavy texture, and the flavor was once again a little strange, but still very positive.
Therefore, as you can tell, I was quite taken with Royal Family's mochis, and would certainly buy them again, or try alternate flavors if given the chance. I would also try other companies' versions of mochi, and other countries' variants. One note of caution, however. Over 100 people a year, mostly elderly folks, are hospitalized in Japan alone from accidentally choking on mochi. There are even unfortunate cases of people dying from suffocation from them. Which I can understand, given the treat's full, dense nature. There's even a warning on the Royal Family mochi boxes about this very thing. So enjoy your mochi, but do so carefully, using smaller bites, etc.
Saturday, November 24, 2018
Saturday, November 17, 2018
Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--A Cameroonian Snack
I'm returning to Cameroon for this week's post. (Readers with good memories may recall that I did a post about Cameroonian soft drinks back on June 22, 2016.) This was a 12 ounce (340 gram) bottle of roasted corn and peanuts. Why a drink bottle was used instead of a jar, or can, is beyond me, but that's what it was. This snack was made and packed by God's Time FOB Leader Foods in Cameroon, and distributed by JKUB LLC International Foods.
I wasn't able to find out much about this particular snack type. Other than that it's evidently a common street food in Cameroon. It's also a good source of protein and dietary fiber, and has a bit of potassium. Some websites said that alternative names for this snack are guru-guru and krang krang. (The latter, in singular form, is apparently also a slang term for marijuana, and is the name of a supervillain in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles universe.)
Similarly, I wasn't able to learn much about the manufacturing or distribution companies. The oddly named God's Time FOB Leader Foods also makes cassava leaves, spices, sauces, yams, escargot, and fish. JKUB International Foods was founded in 2009 by a Ms. Ouadje, an ex-pat Cameroonian living in the Washington, D.C. area. It's devoted to importing African foods and beverages, especially Cameroonian ones. Other products handled include soft drinks, vegetables, oils, spices and condiments, meat and fish, tubers, starchy roots and fruit, legumes, sugars and syrups, and "miscellaneous."
The snack itself was as billed--dried roasted corn kernals and dried roasted peanuts, which still had their inner papery skins on them. I was unimpressed. I'm not big on corn in general, after a childhood incident wherein I vomited up corn and ham in a traumatic fashion. Even so, these pieces of corn were dry and mostly tasteless. I do love peanuts (or "groundnuts" as they're called in Cameroon), but this presentation was disappointing--they were bland and weak-tasting as well. I could only manage to eat maybe a fifth of the bottle before I gave up.
I'll end by discussing some famous Cameroonians. First off, there's Roman Oben, who played offensive tackle in the NFL from 1996-2007, with the New York Giants, Cleveland Browns, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and San Diego Chargers. He was a member of the Buccaneers Super Bowl 37 winning squad. Controversial nose tackle Ndamukang Suh currently plays with the Los Angeles Rams, and formerly played with the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins, starting in 2010. Suh has been named to 5 Pro Bowls and 3 All Pro teams, and was also the Defensive Rookie of the Year. (And yes, he's also been fined many times, and suspended once, for on the field disciplinary infractions.) Suh was born in the U.S., but is of Cameroonian heritage.
At least 3 guys with Cameroonian ancestry have played in the NBA. Joakim Noah played as a center from 2007-18, with the Chicago Bulls and New York Knicks. He was named to 2 All Star teams, and was a Defensive Player of the Year. His father, Yannick, was a pro tennis player, who won 23 singles titles (including a Grand Slam event), and a Grand Slam doubles title. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute currently plays power foward/small forward with the Los Angeles Clippers, and he's also played with the Milwaukee Bucks, Sacramento Kings, Minnesota Timberwolves, Philadelphia 76ers, and the Houston Rockets. My 76ers currently start center Joel Embiid, who was the 3rd pick in the 2014 draft, and was an All Star in 2018.
Several entertainers have Cameroonian ancestry, too. Some of them only learned this based on results of DNA testing. Yaphet Kotto is an actor, probably best known for roles in "Alien" (1979), "The Running Man" (1987), and "Midnight Run" (1988). Chris Rock is best known for his stand up comedy, and he's won 3 Grammys and 4 Emmys. He's also acted in such films as "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" (1988), "New Jack City" (1991), "Dogma" (1999), and the "Madagascar" series. Chris Tucker is also an actor, probably best known for roles in movies like "Friday" (1995), "Dead Presidents" (1995), "The Fifth Element" (1997), the "Rush Hour" series, and "Silver Linings Playbook" (2012). Blair Underwood has acted in such movies as "Krush Groove" (1985), "Just Cause" (1995), and "Gattaca" (1997), and was a regular on the television series "L.A. Law" (1987-96). Jessica Williams is best known for being a correspondent on "The Daily Show," but she also acts in the just released "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" and hosts a podcast, "2 Dope Queens."
And finally, in the world of politics, Condoleezza Rice was the U.S. Secretary of State from 2005-09.
I wasn't able to find out much about this particular snack type. Other than that it's evidently a common street food in Cameroon. It's also a good source of protein and dietary fiber, and has a bit of potassium. Some websites said that alternative names for this snack are guru-guru and krang krang. (The latter, in singular form, is apparently also a slang term for marijuana, and is the name of a supervillain in the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles universe.)
Similarly, I wasn't able to learn much about the manufacturing or distribution companies. The oddly named God's Time FOB Leader Foods also makes cassava leaves, spices, sauces, yams, escargot, and fish. JKUB International Foods was founded in 2009 by a Ms. Ouadje, an ex-pat Cameroonian living in the Washington, D.C. area. It's devoted to importing African foods and beverages, especially Cameroonian ones. Other products handled include soft drinks, vegetables, oils, spices and condiments, meat and fish, tubers, starchy roots and fruit, legumes, sugars and syrups, and "miscellaneous."
The snack itself was as billed--dried roasted corn kernals and dried roasted peanuts, which still had their inner papery skins on them. I was unimpressed. I'm not big on corn in general, after a childhood incident wherein I vomited up corn and ham in a traumatic fashion. Even so, these pieces of corn were dry and mostly tasteless. I do love peanuts (or "groundnuts" as they're called in Cameroon), but this presentation was disappointing--they were bland and weak-tasting as well. I could only manage to eat maybe a fifth of the bottle before I gave up.
I'll end by discussing some famous Cameroonians. First off, there's Roman Oben, who played offensive tackle in the NFL from 1996-2007, with the New York Giants, Cleveland Browns, Tampa Bay Buccaneers, and San Diego Chargers. He was a member of the Buccaneers Super Bowl 37 winning squad. Controversial nose tackle Ndamukang Suh currently plays with the Los Angeles Rams, and formerly played with the Detroit Lions and Miami Dolphins, starting in 2010. Suh has been named to 5 Pro Bowls and 3 All Pro teams, and was also the Defensive Rookie of the Year. (And yes, he's also been fined many times, and suspended once, for on the field disciplinary infractions.) Suh was born in the U.S., but is of Cameroonian heritage.
At least 3 guys with Cameroonian ancestry have played in the NBA. Joakim Noah played as a center from 2007-18, with the Chicago Bulls and New York Knicks. He was named to 2 All Star teams, and was a Defensive Player of the Year. His father, Yannick, was a pro tennis player, who won 23 singles titles (including a Grand Slam event), and a Grand Slam doubles title. Luc Richard Mbah a Moute currently plays power foward/small forward with the Los Angeles Clippers, and he's also played with the Milwaukee Bucks, Sacramento Kings, Minnesota Timberwolves, Philadelphia 76ers, and the Houston Rockets. My 76ers currently start center Joel Embiid, who was the 3rd pick in the 2014 draft, and was an All Star in 2018.
Several entertainers have Cameroonian ancestry, too. Some of them only learned this based on results of DNA testing. Yaphet Kotto is an actor, probably best known for roles in "Alien" (1979), "The Running Man" (1987), and "Midnight Run" (1988). Chris Rock is best known for his stand up comedy, and he's won 3 Grammys and 4 Emmys. He's also acted in such films as "I'm Gonna Git You Sucka" (1988), "New Jack City" (1991), "Dogma" (1999), and the "Madagascar" series. Chris Tucker is also an actor, probably best known for roles in movies like "Friday" (1995), "Dead Presidents" (1995), "The Fifth Element" (1997), the "Rush Hour" series, and "Silver Linings Playbook" (2012). Blair Underwood has acted in such movies as "Krush Groove" (1985), "Just Cause" (1995), and "Gattaca" (1997), and was a regular on the television series "L.A. Law" (1987-96). Jessica Williams is best known for being a correspondent on "The Daily Show," but she also acts in the just released "Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald" and hosts a podcast, "2 Dope Queens."
And finally, in the world of politics, Condoleezza Rice was the U.S. Secretary of State from 2005-09.
Saturday, November 10, 2018
Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Maqui Berries
So a couple of weeks ago I was in a Wegman's supermarket near Rochester, NY, when I saw something new. They were fruit smoothies in a pouch, from a company called Noka. Most of them were fruit combos that I've had before, but one caught my eye. The blueberry/beet flavor also contained something called maqui berry. The label mentioned it was a superfood, and that it had crazy amounts of antioxidants, four times more than blueberries, even. Therefore I got one to see what the fuss was all about.
Maqui berries are native to parts of Southern South America, in Chile and Argentina. Which is why an alternate name for this fruit is Chilean wineberry. The local American Indian tribe, the Mapuche, has reportedly been eating maquis for thousands of years. (I know that's awfully vague, but it's the best that I could learn.) Maquis are consumed in berry form, as a dried powder, and as a juice. (And I didn't see this listed specifically, but from the alternate name, maybe they're fermented into wine, too.) From what I read, they're not technically farmed, either--they're so ubiquitous in the Chilean/Argentinian countryside, that people just gather them up, and don't need to plant and cultivate them. In recent years they've become known away from Chile and Argentina, and are now grown in other areas with suitably similar climates and soil.
I'm used to seeing incredibly detailed, very optimistic healthy claims about the "superfoods" I've consumed over the years, but maquis may well take the cake, to use a non-healthy food-related expression. Here's a list of the benefits that maqui berries are supposed to provide: helping in weight loss, combating fatigue, battling heart disease, diabetes, colon cancer, arthritis, high cholesterol, dry eyes, skin problems, leukemia, viruses, digestion problems, and kidney issues. Oh, and they're supposed to aid the immune system, boost the metabolism, and provide better general health and wellness. And probably other things--I stopped consulting websites after a while. But regular readers will see where this is going. One site did mention the key, important statement--"large scale clinical trials are needed to confirm these claims." As with all the so-called "superfoods," maquis are surely good for you, but it seems unlikely that they're the miracle, magic substance that some folks think they are. (Of course, if extensive scientific testing does indeed confirm all these claims, I'll happily eat both my words, and more maquis to treat and cure all potential diseases and conditions.)
The website for the California-based Noka company was one of the tersest I've ever seen. They essentially just showed their product line. Other flavors of their smoothies include cherry/acai, blackberry/vanilla, strawberry/pineapple, sweet potato/goji, and mango/coconut. Also, another website mentioned that blueberries have slightly more antioxidants than do maquis (instead of maquis having 4 times the amount of blueberries, as Noka claimed), so somebody's mistaken, or lying.
Noka blueberry/beet flavor superfood blend organic smooothie. Aside from blueberry, beet, and maqui, this product included banana, apple, flax seed, brown rice protein, and lemon juice concentrate. Came in a 4.22 ounce (120 gram) pouch. It was a thick brown liquid. Had a distinct fruit/banana-y odor. Tastes like a fruit smoothie. I couldn't pick out individual fruit flavors, really. Kind of sweet and tart at the same time. Okay, but not great.
I realize this one was a bit of a stretch for maqui berry, since it wasn't really a fair trial of the food. The smoothie I tried was chock full of other fruit juices, and other vegetables, so I couldn't pick out the actual maqui berry flavor. But, to be frank, it's sometimes tough to come up with 2-4 of these exotic/disgusting foods and beverages every month, so I hope readers can cut me a little slack. And obviously if I can locate actual maqui berries on sale, or just pure maqui powder or juice, I'll come back and edit this post.
Maqui berries are native to parts of Southern South America, in Chile and Argentina. Which is why an alternate name for this fruit is Chilean wineberry. The local American Indian tribe, the Mapuche, has reportedly been eating maquis for thousands of years. (I know that's awfully vague, but it's the best that I could learn.) Maquis are consumed in berry form, as a dried powder, and as a juice. (And I didn't see this listed specifically, but from the alternate name, maybe they're fermented into wine, too.) From what I read, they're not technically farmed, either--they're so ubiquitous in the Chilean/Argentinian countryside, that people just gather them up, and don't need to plant and cultivate them. In recent years they've become known away from Chile and Argentina, and are now grown in other areas with suitably similar climates and soil.
I'm used to seeing incredibly detailed, very optimistic healthy claims about the "superfoods" I've consumed over the years, but maquis may well take the cake, to use a non-healthy food-related expression. Here's a list of the benefits that maqui berries are supposed to provide: helping in weight loss, combating fatigue, battling heart disease, diabetes, colon cancer, arthritis, high cholesterol, dry eyes, skin problems, leukemia, viruses, digestion problems, and kidney issues. Oh, and they're supposed to aid the immune system, boost the metabolism, and provide better general health and wellness. And probably other things--I stopped consulting websites after a while. But regular readers will see where this is going. One site did mention the key, important statement--"large scale clinical trials are needed to confirm these claims." As with all the so-called "superfoods," maquis are surely good for you, but it seems unlikely that they're the miracle, magic substance that some folks think they are. (Of course, if extensive scientific testing does indeed confirm all these claims, I'll happily eat both my words, and more maquis to treat and cure all potential diseases and conditions.)
The website for the California-based Noka company was one of the tersest I've ever seen. They essentially just showed their product line. Other flavors of their smoothies include cherry/acai, blackberry/vanilla, strawberry/pineapple, sweet potato/goji, and mango/coconut. Also, another website mentioned that blueberries have slightly more antioxidants than do maquis (instead of maquis having 4 times the amount of blueberries, as Noka claimed), so somebody's mistaken, or lying.
Noka blueberry/beet flavor superfood blend organic smooothie. Aside from blueberry, beet, and maqui, this product included banana, apple, flax seed, brown rice protein, and lemon juice concentrate. Came in a 4.22 ounce (120 gram) pouch. It was a thick brown liquid. Had a distinct fruit/banana-y odor. Tastes like a fruit smoothie. I couldn't pick out individual fruit flavors, really. Kind of sweet and tart at the same time. Okay, but not great.
I realize this one was a bit of a stretch for maqui berry, since it wasn't really a fair trial of the food. The smoothie I tried was chock full of other fruit juices, and other vegetables, so I couldn't pick out the actual maqui berry flavor. But, to be frank, it's sometimes tough to come up with 2-4 of these exotic/disgusting foods and beverages every month, so I hope readers can cut me a little slack. And obviously if I can locate actual maqui berries on sale, or just pure maqui powder or juice, I'll come back and edit this post.
Saturday, November 3, 2018
Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Finnish Crispbread
I had never heard of crispbread before a couple of weeks ago. Which makes sense, since it seems to mainly be a Scandinavian/Nordic countries thing. Crispbread apparently dates back to Sweden in about 500 A.D. Although the date for "traditional crispbread" is said to be about 1500 A.D., so evidently there was a lot of unofficial, non-traditional crispbread, or pseudo-crispbread, being made for a millennium. By the 1800's it was being made in Finland as well.
Crispbread is a thin, dry kind of bread. So thin and dry that it's more like a cracker than a piece of bread. Traditionally it was made from rye flour, salt, and water. It was made twice a year--in autumn, following the harvest, and then again in the spring after frozen rivers and lakes melted. Crispbread is very useful in part because it's stored easily, and keeps very well. The typical manner was to make the pieces of it in doughnut-like shapes--round, with a hole in the middle. That way the crispbread discs could be put on long sticks, and stored underneath the roof. (I guess being hung in this way deterred mice and rats from getting to them.) At some point in history it was reportedly considered a food of the poor. However, it seems to have made a resurgence, and not have that negative stigma anymore.
The crispbreads I bought were Finn Crisps. I purchased two kinds--the original flavor, which is sourdough rye, and the caraway thin rye (also made with sourdough). The makers are the Vaasan Group, out of the Finland town of Vaasa. Vaasan Group started out in 1849 as a steam mill, which processed rye flour for bread makers. By 1904 the company began making their own crispbread. In 1952, to mark the Summer Olympic Games, being held in Finland's capital city, Helsinki, Vaasan rolled out Finn Crisps. Their original flavor became their flagship brand. By 2015 Vaasan was the number one manufacturer of thin crispbread in the world, and exported to 40 markets around the globe. (I don't know if this means 40 separate countries--the website didn't explain.) In 2016 the company joined the large Lantmannen company. Lantmannen is a large multinational company which operates out of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Ukraine. Lantmannen is very diverse, as it's other activities include an agricultural sector, a machinery sector, an energy sector, and real estate. As for their edibles they also make flour, muesli, pasta, pancakes, meats, green food, and drinks. There are also many different kinds of Finn Crisps. Some of the alternate flavors include coriander rye, garlic & herb, 5 whole grain, tomato & rosemary, and sesame.
1) Finn Crisps, original sour dough rye flavor. These were brown rectangles about 12 cm. by 4 cm. (or about 5 inches by 2 inches), with a white dusting, presumably of herbs. And very thin, of course. They tasted crunchy, rye-y, and kind of plain. I was staying in a hotel without any semblance of a kitchen, so the condiments I tried on the crisps were only ketchup and Taco Bell hot sauce. They were definitely tastier with both of these, especially the latter.
2) Finn Crisps, caraway thin rye flavor. These were the same size, and color. And the taste was also very similar. And once again the ketchup and Taco Bell sauce helped things out. As with the original kind these were alright overall, but not great or anything.
However, it must be admitted that I didn't eat these as intended. I should have bought some other spreads, or cheeses, or lunch meat, or just about anything else. It was like I got a box of plain saltine crackers and basically ate them out of the box. As I mentioned, they were okay plain, or with my simple condiments, but I'm betting they're much better with more complicated toppings. A recipe on the website showed a Finn Crisp open face sandwich, essentially, made with smoked salmon, cream cheese, dill, spinach, radish, and onion. It looked pretty delicious to me. So I'll try to eat these right if/when I get the chance. Probably the next time I'm in an area with both a high population of Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry and a grocery store with a decent selection.
Crispbread is a thin, dry kind of bread. So thin and dry that it's more like a cracker than a piece of bread. Traditionally it was made from rye flour, salt, and water. It was made twice a year--in autumn, following the harvest, and then again in the spring after frozen rivers and lakes melted. Crispbread is very useful in part because it's stored easily, and keeps very well. The typical manner was to make the pieces of it in doughnut-like shapes--round, with a hole in the middle. That way the crispbread discs could be put on long sticks, and stored underneath the roof. (I guess being hung in this way deterred mice and rats from getting to them.) At some point in history it was reportedly considered a food of the poor. However, it seems to have made a resurgence, and not have that negative stigma anymore.
The crispbreads I bought were Finn Crisps. I purchased two kinds--the original flavor, which is sourdough rye, and the caraway thin rye (also made with sourdough). The makers are the Vaasan Group, out of the Finland town of Vaasa. Vaasan Group started out in 1849 as a steam mill, which processed rye flour for bread makers. By 1904 the company began making their own crispbread. In 1952, to mark the Summer Olympic Games, being held in Finland's capital city, Helsinki, Vaasan rolled out Finn Crisps. Their original flavor became their flagship brand. By 2015 Vaasan was the number one manufacturer of thin crispbread in the world, and exported to 40 markets around the globe. (I don't know if this means 40 separate countries--the website didn't explain.) In 2016 the company joined the large Lantmannen company. Lantmannen is a large multinational company which operates out of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Denmark, and Ukraine. Lantmannen is very diverse, as it's other activities include an agricultural sector, a machinery sector, an energy sector, and real estate. As for their edibles they also make flour, muesli, pasta, pancakes, meats, green food, and drinks. There are also many different kinds of Finn Crisps. Some of the alternate flavors include coriander rye, garlic & herb, 5 whole grain, tomato & rosemary, and sesame.
1) Finn Crisps, original sour dough rye flavor. These were brown rectangles about 12 cm. by 4 cm. (or about 5 inches by 2 inches), with a white dusting, presumably of herbs. And very thin, of course. They tasted crunchy, rye-y, and kind of plain. I was staying in a hotel without any semblance of a kitchen, so the condiments I tried on the crisps were only ketchup and Taco Bell hot sauce. They were definitely tastier with both of these, especially the latter.
2) Finn Crisps, caraway thin rye flavor. These were the same size, and color. And the taste was also very similar. And once again the ketchup and Taco Bell sauce helped things out. As with the original kind these were alright overall, but not great or anything.
However, it must be admitted that I didn't eat these as intended. I should have bought some other spreads, or cheeses, or lunch meat, or just about anything else. It was like I got a box of plain saltine crackers and basically ate them out of the box. As I mentioned, they were okay plain, or with my simple condiments, but I'm betting they're much better with more complicated toppings. A recipe on the website showed a Finn Crisp open face sandwich, essentially, made with smoked salmon, cream cheese, dill, spinach, radish, and onion. It looked pretty delicious to me. So I'll try to eat these right if/when I get the chance. Probably the next time I'm in an area with both a high population of Nordic/Scandinavian ancestry and a grocery store with a decent selection.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--Ovaltine Cookies
"Why do they call it Ovaltine? The mug is round. The jar is round. They should call it Roundtine. That's gold, Jerry, gold!"
Well, I'm going to ruin Jerry Seinfeld's joke, that delighted hack comedian Kenny Bania so much. The original name for the product was Ovomaltine, from the Latin words for "egg" and "malt," which were two of the substance's main ingredients. However, Ovomaltine was misspelled on some trademark registration papers, meaning in English-speaking countries its name is Ovaltine.
Whatever you call it, this product was developed by a chemist, Dr. Georg Walder, and his son Albert in Bern, Switzerland, back in 1904. Ovomaltine/Ovaltine is a powder that's mixed in with hot or cold milk, to make a quasi-milkshake. It was quite a hit, as it was being exported to England by 1909, and by 1915 it was being manufactured in the U.S. It's enjoyed pretty much around the world. Some of its more favored homes, besides the places already mentioned, are Brazil, China, Thailand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan.
Ovaltine was marketed as a nutritional, energy drink. Olympic athletes guzzled it down in 1932. During Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay's initial 1953 ascent of Mt. Everest, Ovaltine was in their packs. I think it's a bit of stretch to call it a health beverage, but it does lack fat, and has Vitamin B6, iron, Vitamin D, and calcium (the milk also provides/augments some of these nutrients, obviously).
The maker of Ovaltine/Ovomaltine is complicated. After several acquisitions over the years, the Ovaltine trademark is currently owned by Associated British Foods, although it's made by Walder AG, which in turn is a subsidiary of Twinings. To add to the fun, in the U.S. Ovaltine is owned by Nestle. Both of these current manufacturers bought the rights from Novartis, and the Himmel Group owned it for a time in the 1990's. Confused yet? I sure am. For one final convoluted item, the cookies I got were made in Jamaica, by International Biscuits Ltd. out of Kingston. Oh yes, I forgot to mention, Ovaltine also makes chocolate bars, Easter Eggs, cereals, and cookies/biscuits.
Anyway, here's what I thought: These were rectangular in shape, about 5 cm. by 4 cm (about 2 inches by 1.5 inches), light brown in color, with "Ovaltine" and a star symbol embossed on them. The main ingredients included wheat flour, Ovaltine malt drink mix, milk powder, reduced cocoa, sugar, salt, and corn syrup. The taste was pretty solid. Not spectacular, but good. I didn't detect much chocolate, though. They weren't that sweet, but they were still a decent cookie. I've never actually had Ovaltine that I can recall, but these cookies were alright.
Finally, mention Ovaltine to many people, and their first thought will be the scene in the popular holiday movie "A Christmas Story" (1983), wherein the young Ralphie decodes a "Little Orphan Annie" secret message from the radio show, only to discover it's a "crummy commercial" for Ovaltine. While it is a funny moment, this is actually a fabrication. While Ovaltine was a sponsor for the radio show, and advertisements for it ran before and after the program, the secret messages were previews for the following shows' plots. Also, yet another Ovaltine reference in popular culture came in 1974's "Young Frankenstein," as it's one of a long series of after dinner beverages that Frau Blucher offers Dr. Frankenstein.
Therefore, I'll conclude by advising: Be sure to eat your Ovaltine.
Well, I'm going to ruin Jerry Seinfeld's joke, that delighted hack comedian Kenny Bania so much. The original name for the product was Ovomaltine, from the Latin words for "egg" and "malt," which were two of the substance's main ingredients. However, Ovomaltine was misspelled on some trademark registration papers, meaning in English-speaking countries its name is Ovaltine.
Whatever you call it, this product was developed by a chemist, Dr. Georg Walder, and his son Albert in Bern, Switzerland, back in 1904. Ovomaltine/Ovaltine is a powder that's mixed in with hot or cold milk, to make a quasi-milkshake. It was quite a hit, as it was being exported to England by 1909, and by 1915 it was being manufactured in the U.S. It's enjoyed pretty much around the world. Some of its more favored homes, besides the places already mentioned, are Brazil, China, Thailand, Australia, Hong Kong, and Japan.
Ovaltine was marketed as a nutritional, energy drink. Olympic athletes guzzled it down in 1932. During Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay's initial 1953 ascent of Mt. Everest, Ovaltine was in their packs. I think it's a bit of stretch to call it a health beverage, but it does lack fat, and has Vitamin B6, iron, Vitamin D, and calcium (the milk also provides/augments some of these nutrients, obviously).
The maker of Ovaltine/Ovomaltine is complicated. After several acquisitions over the years, the Ovaltine trademark is currently owned by Associated British Foods, although it's made by Walder AG, which in turn is a subsidiary of Twinings. To add to the fun, in the U.S. Ovaltine is owned by Nestle. Both of these current manufacturers bought the rights from Novartis, and the Himmel Group owned it for a time in the 1990's. Confused yet? I sure am. For one final convoluted item, the cookies I got were made in Jamaica, by International Biscuits Ltd. out of Kingston. Oh yes, I forgot to mention, Ovaltine also makes chocolate bars, Easter Eggs, cereals, and cookies/biscuits.
Anyway, here's what I thought: These were rectangular in shape, about 5 cm. by 4 cm (about 2 inches by 1.5 inches), light brown in color, with "Ovaltine" and a star symbol embossed on them. The main ingredients included wheat flour, Ovaltine malt drink mix, milk powder, reduced cocoa, sugar, salt, and corn syrup. The taste was pretty solid. Not spectacular, but good. I didn't detect much chocolate, though. They weren't that sweet, but they were still a decent cookie. I've never actually had Ovaltine that I can recall, but these cookies were alright.
Finally, mention Ovaltine to many people, and their first thought will be the scene in the popular holiday movie "A Christmas Story" (1983), wherein the young Ralphie decodes a "Little Orphan Annie" secret message from the radio show, only to discover it's a "crummy commercial" for Ovaltine. While it is a funny moment, this is actually a fabrication. While Ovaltine was a sponsor for the radio show, and advertisements for it ran before and after the program, the secret messages were previews for the following shows' plots. Also, yet another Ovaltine reference in popular culture came in 1974's "Young Frankenstein," as it's one of a long series of after dinner beverages that Frau Blucher offers Dr. Frankenstein.
Therefore, I'll conclude by advising: Be sure to eat your Ovaltine.
Saturday, October 20, 2018
The Most Overrated Horror Movies
Regular readers may recall that several times a year I do posts about horror/sci fi movies that I feel haven't gotten the attention they deserve, or are underrated. Today I thought I'd go negative, and focus on on the opposite. Also unlike the underrated articles, which focus in depth on one movie, this one will be shorter bits about many movies. And yes, I realize that this is a bit click bait-y, on my part. Obviously, taste in movies (or books, or music, or art, or anything creative) is subjective, so these are just my opinions. I understand that many people disagree with me, sometimes very strongly. Finally, there are a couple types of overrated films discussed here. Some I think are terrible, or at least below average. And some I think are good or even very good, but not as stupendously awesome as many viewers think. I'm including some statistics, too. The IMDB number is from the Internet Movie Data Base website, and their number is from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best. RT score is for the Rotten Tomatoes website, which collects various film critics' reviews, and averages these. These scores are represented as a percentage, with a higher percentage meaning a better film. There are also "Audience Scores" on Rotten Tomatoes, which are made up of non-professional viewers' reviews. And I've listed the films' budgets and box office amounts, expressed in U.S. dollars, if known. Both of these are somewhat inexact, as Hollywood accountants sometimes "cook the books," so take these numbers as being rough. And it probably goes without saying that there are some SPOILERS AHEAD.
Movies I thought were poor:
1) Dracula (1931). Directed by Tod Browning, and starring Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, and Edward Van Sloan. RT 91%, Audience 81%, IMDB 7.6. It's hard to exaggerate how important a movie this was to American films, and horror films in particular. Although reviews of the time were somewhat mixed, audiences loved this movie, and it opened the door to the horror movie genre in general. It also made Bela Lugosi a star, and a legendary horror movie icon. Even now, 87 years later, people still recognize Lugosi's Dracula as a famous terror icon, and can even quote some of his lines. But while I acknowledge and respect the effect the movie had, sitting through it wasn't a positive experience for me. It's just plain dull. The story is somehow slow even though it's a short movie, the violence is mostly offscreen, and even the visuals aren't that compelling. And I'm not adverse to early 20th century movies, either. I enjoy "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), "The Island of Lost Souls" (1932), "The Invisible Man" (1933), "The Wolf Man" (1941), and "King Kong" (1933), to name a few, so I can appreciate black and white movies of that time period, with their different styles of acting, primitive special effects, and lack of explicit violence and gore. I would like to see the Spanish version of "Dracula," directed by George Melford and starring Carlos Villaries in the title role, shooting at night on the same sets, with the same costumes, as the English language version. Reportedly this version is more interesting and exciting.
2) The Haunting (1963). Directed by Robert Wise, starring Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, and Russ Tamblyn. RT 87%, Audience 82%, IMDB 7.6. Budget of 1.05 million, box office take of 1.02 million. As you can see from the stats, this wasn't a financial success. But it's held up as one of the classic haunted house movies by fans and critics. And I don't understand why. I like some horror movies that are "slow-burns," methodically paced, with subtle scares. But this one left me cold. I get that special effects back then weren't as sophisticated, but to me it was a movie where the ghosts couldn't be bothered to do much to frighten us. I need a lot more than just a bulging door and a shaking spiral staircase. That said, the novel the film is based on, "The Haunting of Hill House," by Shirley Jackson, is quite good, as on the page some of the scenes are more frightening, and you can understand the characters' thoughts and motivations better. I haven't seen the 1999 remake, which was savaged by critics and fans as being overly reliant on unconvincing CGI special effects.
3) The Birds (1963). Directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Tippi Hendren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, and Veronica Cartwright. RT 96%, Audience 83%, IMDB 7.7. Budget of 3.3 million, box office of 11.4 million. Clearly, Hitchcock is incredibly respected, and this one is considered to be one of the very best nature-run-amok films. I, though, just think it was goofy. The special effects were unconvincing. I know it was long ago, but when the movie is about killer birds, and they don't seem to be in the same place as the characters, it doesn't work. The tone was probably a mistake, too--playing it straight, and grim, with a story about psychotic pigeons just seemed silly. To be fair, Hitchcock is kind of hit and miss for me. "Dial M for Murder" (1954), "Psycho" (1960), "Frenzy" (1972), and "Rear Window" (1954) I all liked, but this, "Family Plot" (1976), and "Vertigo" (1958) I found forgettable at best. Also, Hitchcock reportedly was a monster to Hendren, blackballing her when she rebuffed his advances, and freaking out her daughter, Melanie Griffith, by giving her a morbid wax figurine of her mother in a coffin for her 6th birthday.
4) Event Horizon (1997). Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, starring Lawrence Fishburne, Sam Neill, Kathleen Quinlan, and Joely Richardson. RT 26%, Audience 61%, IMDB 6.7. Made 26.7 million on a 60 million budget. This movie is admittedly a stretch for this list, as it was a critical and box office dud. However, it's amassed a bit of a cult following over the years, so that's why I'm including it. I like the set up of the story, and there's clearly talent in the cast. But what they did with these just didn't impress me. You'd think a movie involving people opening a portal to Hell would be more memorable. I even gave it a second viewing over 15 years later, and I still didn't enjoy it.
5) Diary of the Dead (2007). Written and directed by George Romero, starring Michelle Morgan, Joshua Close, Shawn Roberts, Amy Lalonde, and Joe Dinicol. RT 61%, Audience 41%, IMDB 5.7. Again, maybe a stretch for this list, but because it was made by horror maestro George Romero, I think it was regarded better than it deserved. Romero joined the found footage conceit way too late, and ineffectively. I also didn't like that it changed the (admittedly shaky) dead returning to life timeline, and made it happen in 2007. But mostly it's just so sad, and pointless, from the guy who created the modern zombie. Tedious characters, not enough action--it felt like a ripoff of a George Romero "Dead" movie, only it was made by the man himself. "Land of the Dead" (2005) and "Survival of the Dead" (2009) were mediocre to disappointing entries in the "Dead" series, but "Diary" was clearly the worst of the bunch.
6) The Amityville Horror (1979). Directed by Stuart Rosenberg, starring James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, and Murray Hamilton. RT 31%, Audience 52%, IMDB 6.2. Made 86.4 million on a 4.7 million budget. Obviously the critics rather disliked the movie, but it did fantastic business, and jump started a ludicrously successful series. There are 10 official ones, including a remake, and 11 related Amityville movies! It helped, certainly, that it's based on an allegedly true story (and book) on Long Island. I invite readers to research this story themselves, and decide whether or not the Lutz family, Ronald DeFeo's lawyer, the Warrens (a now famous pair of supernatural researchers) , and others were making things up or not. But I agree with the critics here--the movie's boring. I read the book, and while I think it's fiction, it at least keeps the reader engaged. Not much goes on in the movie, and the special effects of the demonic pig were especially ridiculous. And this was the late 1970's, too--they should have been able to do the effects better. Or write a good script. Or create characters you care about. Or--you get the idea. The 2005 remake was similarly mundane. I haven't seen any of the other entries in this series, and I'm not planning to, as I hear mostly negative reviews.
7) Bubba Ho-Tep (2002). Directed by Don Coscarelli, starring Bruce Campbell, Ossie Davis, Bob Ivy, and Reggie Bannister. RT 71%, Audience 79%, IMDB 7.1. Grossed 1.2 million on a 1 million budget. This one hurts to admit. I really like Coscarelli's "Phantasm" series (well, most of them), which feature Bannister, and I similarly adore the "Evil Dead" movies, of which Campbell is the star. And the plot--a secretly alive Elvis and a man who thinks he's an alive JFK battle an ancient mummy who's killing old folks in a retirement home--sounded wonderfully original, weird, and funny. But sadly, all of that is for naught. Incredibly, the movie was largely forgettable. I had to look at the plot summary online to see what happened, as I forgot nearly everything about it, except that I didn't enjoy watching it. This movie seemed tailor-made for me, and I wanted to like it. But I didn't.
8) Salem's Lot (1979). Television miniseries film, directed by horror icon Tobe Hooper, starring Reggie Nalder, David Soul, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, and Bonnie Bedelia. RT 85%, Audience 64%, IMDB 6.8. This is a TV movie, but it's still highly regarded in some circles. Based on the Stephen King novel. Even understanding that because it was on network TV it couldn't be as explicit as a theatrical movie doesn't justify its hokeyness. They took a very good horror novel and watered it down. I was especially appalled with the Kurt Barlow head vampire design, too. Instead of the book's seductive, darkly charismatic figure we get a stupid, monstrous, creature. It looks like a cross between the Nosferatu vampire and a Smurf, and is utterly ridiculous. Hooper, was, let's face it, more miss than hit as a director, and this was definitely a miss, not great like his "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) or "Poltergeist" (1982).
9) From Hell (2001). Directed by The Hughes Brothers, starring Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, and Ian Richardson. RT 57%, Audience 66%, IMDB 6.8. Made 75 million off a 35 million budget. I really liked most of The Hughes Brothers' output, and the cast was certainly good. But the movie itself didn't grab me. It used one of the more absurd Jack the Ripper theories, for one. Weird flourishes like making the main inspector an opium addict didn't contribute anything, either. And for all the care taken to properly use period appropriate costumes, props, sets, etc., they then use too pretty, and too clean Heather Graham to portray a diseased, downtrodden, poverty-stricken prostitute. This is a rare case where I liked the DVD extras better than the movie--there were documentary-type features about the real Jack the Ripper case that were quite interesting and informative.
10) eXistenZ (1999). David Cronenberg wrote, directed, and co-produced this, and the movie starred Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law, Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, and Sarah Polley. RT 73%, Audience 69%, IMDB 6.8. Budget was 15 million (U.S.), box office was only 2.9 million. I'm usually a huge fan of Cronenberg, who made such classics as "The Brood" (1979, see my March 1, 2013 post), "Scanners" (1981), "Videodrome" (1983), "The Fly" (1986), and "A History of Violence" (2005), but this one was by far my least favorite. His movies are usually kind of strange, but this one seemed, "weird for the sake of being weird" to quote Moe from "The Simpsons." Original as always, but dense, and confusing, and not in a good way. I was barely remember anything about it, which is not a good sign.
11) Resident Evil (2002). Directed and written by Paul W. S. Anderson again, and starring Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriquez, Eric Mabius, James Purefoy, and Martin Crewes. RT 34%, Audience 67%, IMDB 6.7. This may seem like an odd choice, given its lack of critical acclaim, but hear me out. This one made 103 million on a 33 million budget. It then spawned a series of 6 movies (as of now), which have grossed 1.235 billion (!) It's also based on a popular video game. I really hated this movie. It was all Matrix-style ripoff action and slow-motion, when it wasn't ripping off other action movies and zombie films. It also had a dumb plot, unrealistic dialogue, and unconvincing CGI special effects. Bad acting, bad writing, bad editing, bad directing, bad everything. Also, I can't buy skinny little Milla Jovovich as some bad-ass fighting expert. An insult to zombie movies. Maybe movies in general. I wasn't inclined to see any of the sequels, as you can guess, but I have nonetheless heard awful things about them. But clearly millions of people keep paying to see these, so the series endures.
12) John Carpenter's Vampires (1998). Directed by John Carpenter, of course, and starring James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, and Maximilian Schell. RT 38%, Audience 47%, IMDB 6.1. Box office take of 20.3 million off of a 20 million budget. This one also hurts to admit, as I love my Carpenter movies usually. "Halloween" (1978), "The Thing" (1982), "Escape from New York" (1981), "The Prince of Darkness" (1987), "In the Mouth of Madness (1995), "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976), and "They Live" (1988) are all great, in my view. Hell, even his expanded student film, "Dark Star" (1974) was funny, and worth watching despite its tiny budget. But not this one. The opening scene was kind of cool, but it was all downhill from there. I didn't particularly like the characters, and the story was overly simplistic and disappointing. I recall that the major third act plot twist about which character was secretly betraying them, was laughably easy to figure out, since there was only really one candidate. I felt embarrassed, as I'd taken a group of friends to see it, while extolling how much I liked Carpenter's movies. Alas, since the mid 1990's John Carpenter has rarely done any movies, and the few he did weren't even mediocre.
13) Paranormal Activity (2007). Directed by Oren Peli, starring Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs, and Ashley Palmer. RT 83%, Audience 56%, IMDB 6.3. Box office take of 193.4 million off of a $15,000 budget! I know, this is kind of going after low-hanging fruit. This is a massively polarizing movie--obviously many people loved it, but it also has many vocal detractors. Count me as one of the detractors. This movie epitomizes one of the things I hate most about a lot of modern horror movies, which is filmmakers who substitute jump scares for real, significant scares. Startling an audience is childishly easy, yet ultimately hollow. I like movies that are creepy, unsettling, that make you think about them later on, that give you nightmares. Jump scares aren't bad in and of themselves, but if that's all your movie has, then you've failed. I gave this series a fair trial, watching the first 3 movies, and they were interminable. Literally, much of the films' run time is watching found footage of nothing--the camera shows people sleeping, or even empty rooms, for lonnnnnnnnng waits, followed by a startling noise, or door slamming, or someone being grabbed. There is almost no characterization, little to no plot, or even change of venues. I give Peli credit--this series has grossed over 890 million, on tiny budgets, but to me these movies are incredibly tedious.
14) Sharknado (2013). Another made-for-TV movie, in this case for the Syfy channel. Directed by Anthony Ferrante, starring Ian Ziering, Tara Reid, John Heard, and Cassie Scerbo. RT 82%, Audience 33%, IMDB 3.3. I realize this seems like cheating, too--who can even criticize a movie which is so over the top, deliberately cheesy and bad? At the risk of coming across as being stuffy, I find this film a bit offensive. There are a lot of cheesy, inept movie out there---just in the past few months I've watched "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959), "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (1966), "Zaat" (1971), and "Death Bed: The Bed that Eats" (1977). But, as bad as they are, I at least have a modicum of respect for the filmmakers, because at least they were trying. The results were laughable, and at best so-bad-they're-good, ironically enjoyable, but the filmmakers were doing their best, and were sincere. Whereas, movies like "Sharknado" are intentionally shitty, which I find lazy, and contemptuous of their audience. Anybody can intentionally do something that's terrible, but should they? Yes, some enjoyment can be had, some laughs will be generated watching "Sharknado," but they're not earned. It's clear that many people disagree with me, as we're up to 6 movies in the series, and 1 spinoff. This was made by The Asylum, the company that blatantly rips off other movies, while only slightly changing the title, and enough of the plot, and characters, to avoid being sued.
The following are movies that were good, or even very good, but not as great as many viewers claim:
15) I Am Legend (2007). Directed by Francis Lawrence, and starring Will Smith, Alice Braga, Charlie Tahan, and Dash Mihok. RT 69%, Audience 68%, IMDB 7.2. Earned 585.3 million on a 150 million budget. This was the 3rd try at Richard Mathewson's "I Am Legend" novella, the others being "The Last Man on Earth" (1964), and "The Omega Man" (1971). There's a lot to like about this movie. The sets and overall visuals were great--Manhattan really seems desolate, crumbling, and empty. Will Smith does a very good acting job, too. There's none of his usual, "Aw Hell No," brash, overly cool, cliche persona here--he really seems like a lonely, somewhat crazy guy dealing with the apocalypse. But then things kind of fall apart. The vampires are extremely unconvincing, like "Star Wars Prequels" level bad CGI, like a poor video game. With ridiculous, unbelievable abilities, too, like having the skill to leap like 40 feet in the air, or dig through walls and floors with their bare hands. And the ending is foolish. Smith's character could have easily hidden himself away from the grenade blast, but instead he sacrifices himself for no reason. And the sanctuary they go to after doesn't seem safe at all. How could its low walls stop the super strong, super jumping vampires? Evidently this movie was significantly reedited, and had several scenes cut, and I've heard the ending was as well. Maybe I would like it more seeing these alternate versions. But as it is, I regard "I Am Legend" as a decent film which wasted a lot of talent and potential.
16) Don't Breathe (2016). Directed/co-written/co-produced by Fede Alvarez, and co-produced by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert, who created the awesome "Evil Dead" movies. Film starred Jane Levy, Stephen Lang, Dylan Minnette, and Daniel Zovatto. RT 88%, Audience 78%, IMDB 7.1. Earned 157.1 million on a 9.9 million budget. I only liked this movie. And most reviews I've read rate it a bit too high, in my opinion. It was certainly tense, and disturbing. It was a slight twist on the home invasion trope. However, there is a huge problem, and that is the main characters are rather awful. They're scumbag thieves, who rob from ordinary people. And, the meat of the movie sees them attempting to rob a blind ex-soldier who's been devastated with grief because his daughter was killed by a drunk driver. We later learn that he's evidently gone insane, or was messed up to begin with, as he's kidnapped the drunk driver (who got off with a slap on the wrist) and is forcing her to give birth to another child. (He claims he didn't rape her, showing us that his grasp on what constitutes consent is absurdly literal and psychotic.) But the key thing is--the three thieves don't know this until after they've broken in. So it makes it hard to sympathize with them. The woman thief is shown having a crappy home life, with a possibly abusive mother and stepfather, and a younger sister that she's trying to save by leaving home together. But why couldn't she just flee to California using money that she earned legally, or get help from another family member, friend, or shelter? So, in short, you're kind of rooting for the alleged protagonists, but they're pretty terrible. Also, I thought the movie was clearly inspired by/ripped off Wes Craven's "The People Under the Stairs" (1991). I thought Craven's film was superior, while being even more disturbing and even darkly comic.
17) The Shining (1980). Directed and written by Stanley Kubrick, starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Crothers. RT 86%, Audience 93%, IMDB 8.4. Grossed 44.4 million on a 19 million budget. That's right, I'm going here--come at me! This isn't a bad movie--it's actually quite good. I own a copy on DVD, and have seen it many times. It's got the usual great Kubrickian visuals, interesting shots, methodical pace, and a lot of genuinely creepy and disturbing goings-on. But there are some problems. I should note that the movie is based on Stephen King's novel, which I love. Kubrick obviously didn't like certain aspects of the book, and made many changes, some of which were very significant. First off, Jack Nicholson is clearly a very talented actor, but I don't understand why he played Jack Torrance the way he did, and why Kubrick accepted this. The whole point of the book is that it's about a normal guy, struggling with alcoholism and a strained marriage, who's gradually driven insane by supernatural forces in a hotel that's completely isolated in the winter months. But he redeems himself at the end. Nicholson's Jack Torrance seems crazy right from the beginning, so his character arc is basically a straight line. Duvall is also miscast. She's not the stronger Wendy from the book, she's a bit too much of a damsel in distress. Major plot points are also ignored. I understand why the hedge animals couldn't be convincingly rendered in 1980, so that's a justified cut. But where's the boiler, and the accompanying hodgepodge of hotel records? Why is the maze turned into the main part of the ending? And why wasn't Jack redeemed? Supposedly Kubrick didn't like the supernatural aspects of the book, and wanted to keep the story ambivalent, so we're not sure if they're really happening, or if the characters are just imagining them. (And there are scores of theories about the true meaning of the film, and there's even a whole documentary, "Room 237" that explores these.) I actually liked the television movie version better than Kubrick's, basically because it follow King's book more accurately, and doesn't have the drawbacks that I mentioned. (King was more involved in the script and production of the TV version.) Kind of like "I Am Legend," but even more so, this movie, while very good, could have been even better if Kubrick had just altered some things. Yet, Kubrick's "The Shining" is so lauded. Pretty much every horror director cites it as one of the very best horror movies ever, and even non-horror fans mention it as being the best horror movie. So there it is--very good, but not as great as it could have been.
Movies I thought were poor:
1) Dracula (1931). Directed by Tod Browning, and starring Bela Lugosi, Helen Chandler, David Manners, Dwight Frye, and Edward Van Sloan. RT 91%, Audience 81%, IMDB 7.6. It's hard to exaggerate how important a movie this was to American films, and horror films in particular. Although reviews of the time were somewhat mixed, audiences loved this movie, and it opened the door to the horror movie genre in general. It also made Bela Lugosi a star, and a legendary horror movie icon. Even now, 87 years later, people still recognize Lugosi's Dracula as a famous terror icon, and can even quote some of his lines. But while I acknowledge and respect the effect the movie had, sitting through it wasn't a positive experience for me. It's just plain dull. The story is somehow slow even though it's a short movie, the violence is mostly offscreen, and even the visuals aren't that compelling. And I'm not adverse to early 20th century movies, either. I enjoy "Frankenstein" (1931), "The Bride of Frankenstein" (1935), "The Island of Lost Souls" (1932), "The Invisible Man" (1933), "The Wolf Man" (1941), and "King Kong" (1933), to name a few, so I can appreciate black and white movies of that time period, with their different styles of acting, primitive special effects, and lack of explicit violence and gore. I would like to see the Spanish version of "Dracula," directed by George Melford and starring Carlos Villaries in the title role, shooting at night on the same sets, with the same costumes, as the English language version. Reportedly this version is more interesting and exciting.
2) The Haunting (1963). Directed by Robert Wise, starring Julie Harris, Claire Bloom, Richard Johnson, and Russ Tamblyn. RT 87%, Audience 82%, IMDB 7.6. Budget of 1.05 million, box office take of 1.02 million. As you can see from the stats, this wasn't a financial success. But it's held up as one of the classic haunted house movies by fans and critics. And I don't understand why. I like some horror movies that are "slow-burns," methodically paced, with subtle scares. But this one left me cold. I get that special effects back then weren't as sophisticated, but to me it was a movie where the ghosts couldn't be bothered to do much to frighten us. I need a lot more than just a bulging door and a shaking spiral staircase. That said, the novel the film is based on, "The Haunting of Hill House," by Shirley Jackson, is quite good, as on the page some of the scenes are more frightening, and you can understand the characters' thoughts and motivations better. I haven't seen the 1999 remake, which was savaged by critics and fans as being overly reliant on unconvincing CGI special effects.
3) The Birds (1963). Directed by Alfred Hitchcock, starring Tippi Hendren, Rod Taylor, Jessica Tandy, Suzanne Pleshette, and Veronica Cartwright. RT 96%, Audience 83%, IMDB 7.7. Budget of 3.3 million, box office of 11.4 million. Clearly, Hitchcock is incredibly respected, and this one is considered to be one of the very best nature-run-amok films. I, though, just think it was goofy. The special effects were unconvincing. I know it was long ago, but when the movie is about killer birds, and they don't seem to be in the same place as the characters, it doesn't work. The tone was probably a mistake, too--playing it straight, and grim, with a story about psychotic pigeons just seemed silly. To be fair, Hitchcock is kind of hit and miss for me. "Dial M for Murder" (1954), "Psycho" (1960), "Frenzy" (1972), and "Rear Window" (1954) I all liked, but this, "Family Plot" (1976), and "Vertigo" (1958) I found forgettable at best. Also, Hitchcock reportedly was a monster to Hendren, blackballing her when she rebuffed his advances, and freaking out her daughter, Melanie Griffith, by giving her a morbid wax figurine of her mother in a coffin for her 6th birthday.
4) Event Horizon (1997). Directed by Paul W.S. Anderson, starring Lawrence Fishburne, Sam Neill, Kathleen Quinlan, and Joely Richardson. RT 26%, Audience 61%, IMDB 6.7. Made 26.7 million on a 60 million budget. This movie is admittedly a stretch for this list, as it was a critical and box office dud. However, it's amassed a bit of a cult following over the years, so that's why I'm including it. I like the set up of the story, and there's clearly talent in the cast. But what they did with these just didn't impress me. You'd think a movie involving people opening a portal to Hell would be more memorable. I even gave it a second viewing over 15 years later, and I still didn't enjoy it.
5) Diary of the Dead (2007). Written and directed by George Romero, starring Michelle Morgan, Joshua Close, Shawn Roberts, Amy Lalonde, and Joe Dinicol. RT 61%, Audience 41%, IMDB 5.7. Again, maybe a stretch for this list, but because it was made by horror maestro George Romero, I think it was regarded better than it deserved. Romero joined the found footage conceit way too late, and ineffectively. I also didn't like that it changed the (admittedly shaky) dead returning to life timeline, and made it happen in 2007. But mostly it's just so sad, and pointless, from the guy who created the modern zombie. Tedious characters, not enough action--it felt like a ripoff of a George Romero "Dead" movie, only it was made by the man himself. "Land of the Dead" (2005) and "Survival of the Dead" (2009) were mediocre to disappointing entries in the "Dead" series, but "Diary" was clearly the worst of the bunch.
6) The Amityville Horror (1979). Directed by Stuart Rosenberg, starring James Brolin, Margot Kidder, Rod Steiger, Don Stroud, and Murray Hamilton. RT 31%, Audience 52%, IMDB 6.2. Made 86.4 million on a 4.7 million budget. Obviously the critics rather disliked the movie, but it did fantastic business, and jump started a ludicrously successful series. There are 10 official ones, including a remake, and 11 related Amityville movies! It helped, certainly, that it's based on an allegedly true story (and book) on Long Island. I invite readers to research this story themselves, and decide whether or not the Lutz family, Ronald DeFeo's lawyer, the Warrens (a now famous pair of supernatural researchers) , and others were making things up or not. But I agree with the critics here--the movie's boring. I read the book, and while I think it's fiction, it at least keeps the reader engaged. Not much goes on in the movie, and the special effects of the demonic pig were especially ridiculous. And this was the late 1970's, too--they should have been able to do the effects better. Or write a good script. Or create characters you care about. Or--you get the idea. The 2005 remake was similarly mundane. I haven't seen any of the other entries in this series, and I'm not planning to, as I hear mostly negative reviews.
7) Bubba Ho-Tep (2002). Directed by Don Coscarelli, starring Bruce Campbell, Ossie Davis, Bob Ivy, and Reggie Bannister. RT 71%, Audience 79%, IMDB 7.1. Grossed 1.2 million on a 1 million budget. This one hurts to admit. I really like Coscarelli's "Phantasm" series (well, most of them), which feature Bannister, and I similarly adore the "Evil Dead" movies, of which Campbell is the star. And the plot--a secretly alive Elvis and a man who thinks he's an alive JFK battle an ancient mummy who's killing old folks in a retirement home--sounded wonderfully original, weird, and funny. But sadly, all of that is for naught. Incredibly, the movie was largely forgettable. I had to look at the plot summary online to see what happened, as I forgot nearly everything about it, except that I didn't enjoy watching it. This movie seemed tailor-made for me, and I wanted to like it. But I didn't.
8) Salem's Lot (1979). Television miniseries film, directed by horror icon Tobe Hooper, starring Reggie Nalder, David Soul, James Mason, Lance Kerwin, and Bonnie Bedelia. RT 85%, Audience 64%, IMDB 6.8. This is a TV movie, but it's still highly regarded in some circles. Based on the Stephen King novel. Even understanding that because it was on network TV it couldn't be as explicit as a theatrical movie doesn't justify its hokeyness. They took a very good horror novel and watered it down. I was especially appalled with the Kurt Barlow head vampire design, too. Instead of the book's seductive, darkly charismatic figure we get a stupid, monstrous, creature. It looks like a cross between the Nosferatu vampire and a Smurf, and is utterly ridiculous. Hooper, was, let's face it, more miss than hit as a director, and this was definitely a miss, not great like his "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" (1974) or "Poltergeist" (1982).
9) From Hell (2001). Directed by The Hughes Brothers, starring Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Robbie Coltrane, and Ian Richardson. RT 57%, Audience 66%, IMDB 6.8. Made 75 million off a 35 million budget. I really liked most of The Hughes Brothers' output, and the cast was certainly good. But the movie itself didn't grab me. It used one of the more absurd Jack the Ripper theories, for one. Weird flourishes like making the main inspector an opium addict didn't contribute anything, either. And for all the care taken to properly use period appropriate costumes, props, sets, etc., they then use too pretty, and too clean Heather Graham to portray a diseased, downtrodden, poverty-stricken prostitute. This is a rare case where I liked the DVD extras better than the movie--there were documentary-type features about the real Jack the Ripper case that were quite interesting and informative.
10) eXistenZ (1999). David Cronenberg wrote, directed, and co-produced this, and the movie starred Jennifer Jason Leigh, Jude Law, Ian Holm, Willem Dafoe, and Sarah Polley. RT 73%, Audience 69%, IMDB 6.8. Budget was 15 million (U.S.), box office was only 2.9 million. I'm usually a huge fan of Cronenberg, who made such classics as "The Brood" (1979, see my March 1, 2013 post), "Scanners" (1981), "Videodrome" (1983), "The Fly" (1986), and "A History of Violence" (2005), but this one was by far my least favorite. His movies are usually kind of strange, but this one seemed, "weird for the sake of being weird" to quote Moe from "The Simpsons." Original as always, but dense, and confusing, and not in a good way. I was barely remember anything about it, which is not a good sign.
11) Resident Evil (2002). Directed and written by Paul W. S. Anderson again, and starring Milla Jovovich, Michelle Rodriquez, Eric Mabius, James Purefoy, and Martin Crewes. RT 34%, Audience 67%, IMDB 6.7. This may seem like an odd choice, given its lack of critical acclaim, but hear me out. This one made 103 million on a 33 million budget. It then spawned a series of 6 movies (as of now), which have grossed 1.235 billion (!) It's also based on a popular video game. I really hated this movie. It was all Matrix-style ripoff action and slow-motion, when it wasn't ripping off other action movies and zombie films. It also had a dumb plot, unrealistic dialogue, and unconvincing CGI special effects. Bad acting, bad writing, bad editing, bad directing, bad everything. Also, I can't buy skinny little Milla Jovovich as some bad-ass fighting expert. An insult to zombie movies. Maybe movies in general. I wasn't inclined to see any of the sequels, as you can guess, but I have nonetheless heard awful things about them. But clearly millions of people keep paying to see these, so the series endures.
12) John Carpenter's Vampires (1998). Directed by John Carpenter, of course, and starring James Woods, Daniel Baldwin, Sheryl Lee, Thomas Ian Griffith, and Maximilian Schell. RT 38%, Audience 47%, IMDB 6.1. Box office take of 20.3 million off of a 20 million budget. This one also hurts to admit, as I love my Carpenter movies usually. "Halloween" (1978), "The Thing" (1982), "Escape from New York" (1981), "The Prince of Darkness" (1987), "In the Mouth of Madness (1995), "Assault on Precinct 13" (1976), and "They Live" (1988) are all great, in my view. Hell, even his expanded student film, "Dark Star" (1974) was funny, and worth watching despite its tiny budget. But not this one. The opening scene was kind of cool, but it was all downhill from there. I didn't particularly like the characters, and the story was overly simplistic and disappointing. I recall that the major third act plot twist about which character was secretly betraying them, was laughably easy to figure out, since there was only really one candidate. I felt embarrassed, as I'd taken a group of friends to see it, while extolling how much I liked Carpenter's movies. Alas, since the mid 1990's John Carpenter has rarely done any movies, and the few he did weren't even mediocre.
13) Paranormal Activity (2007). Directed by Oren Peli, starring Katie Featherston, Micah Sloat, Mark Fredrichs, and Ashley Palmer. RT 83%, Audience 56%, IMDB 6.3. Box office take of 193.4 million off of a $15,000 budget! I know, this is kind of going after low-hanging fruit. This is a massively polarizing movie--obviously many people loved it, but it also has many vocal detractors. Count me as one of the detractors. This movie epitomizes one of the things I hate most about a lot of modern horror movies, which is filmmakers who substitute jump scares for real, significant scares. Startling an audience is childishly easy, yet ultimately hollow. I like movies that are creepy, unsettling, that make you think about them later on, that give you nightmares. Jump scares aren't bad in and of themselves, but if that's all your movie has, then you've failed. I gave this series a fair trial, watching the first 3 movies, and they were interminable. Literally, much of the films' run time is watching found footage of nothing--the camera shows people sleeping, or even empty rooms, for lonnnnnnnnng waits, followed by a startling noise, or door slamming, or someone being grabbed. There is almost no characterization, little to no plot, or even change of venues. I give Peli credit--this series has grossed over 890 million, on tiny budgets, but to me these movies are incredibly tedious.
14) Sharknado (2013). Another made-for-TV movie, in this case for the Syfy channel. Directed by Anthony Ferrante, starring Ian Ziering, Tara Reid, John Heard, and Cassie Scerbo. RT 82%, Audience 33%, IMDB 3.3. I realize this seems like cheating, too--who can even criticize a movie which is so over the top, deliberately cheesy and bad? At the risk of coming across as being stuffy, I find this film a bit offensive. There are a lot of cheesy, inept movie out there---just in the past few months I've watched "Plan 9 from Outer Space" (1959), "Manos: The Hands of Fate" (1966), "Zaat" (1971), and "Death Bed: The Bed that Eats" (1977). But, as bad as they are, I at least have a modicum of respect for the filmmakers, because at least they were trying. The results were laughable, and at best so-bad-they're-good, ironically enjoyable, but the filmmakers were doing their best, and were sincere. Whereas, movies like "Sharknado" are intentionally shitty, which I find lazy, and contemptuous of their audience. Anybody can intentionally do something that's terrible, but should they? Yes, some enjoyment can be had, some laughs will be generated watching "Sharknado," but they're not earned. It's clear that many people disagree with me, as we're up to 6 movies in the series, and 1 spinoff. This was made by The Asylum, the company that blatantly rips off other movies, while only slightly changing the title, and enough of the plot, and characters, to avoid being sued.
The following are movies that were good, or even very good, but not as great as many viewers claim:
15) I Am Legend (2007). Directed by Francis Lawrence, and starring Will Smith, Alice Braga, Charlie Tahan, and Dash Mihok. RT 69%, Audience 68%, IMDB 7.2. Earned 585.3 million on a 150 million budget. This was the 3rd try at Richard Mathewson's "I Am Legend" novella, the others being "The Last Man on Earth" (1964), and "The Omega Man" (1971). There's a lot to like about this movie. The sets and overall visuals were great--Manhattan really seems desolate, crumbling, and empty. Will Smith does a very good acting job, too. There's none of his usual, "Aw Hell No," brash, overly cool, cliche persona here--he really seems like a lonely, somewhat crazy guy dealing with the apocalypse. But then things kind of fall apart. The vampires are extremely unconvincing, like "Star Wars Prequels" level bad CGI, like a poor video game. With ridiculous, unbelievable abilities, too, like having the skill to leap like 40 feet in the air, or dig through walls and floors with their bare hands. And the ending is foolish. Smith's character could have easily hidden himself away from the grenade blast, but instead he sacrifices himself for no reason. And the sanctuary they go to after doesn't seem safe at all. How could its low walls stop the super strong, super jumping vampires? Evidently this movie was significantly reedited, and had several scenes cut, and I've heard the ending was as well. Maybe I would like it more seeing these alternate versions. But as it is, I regard "I Am Legend" as a decent film which wasted a lot of talent and potential.
16) Don't Breathe (2016). Directed/co-written/co-produced by Fede Alvarez, and co-produced by Sam Raimi and Rob Tapert, who created the awesome "Evil Dead" movies. Film starred Jane Levy, Stephen Lang, Dylan Minnette, and Daniel Zovatto. RT 88%, Audience 78%, IMDB 7.1. Earned 157.1 million on a 9.9 million budget. I only liked this movie. And most reviews I've read rate it a bit too high, in my opinion. It was certainly tense, and disturbing. It was a slight twist on the home invasion trope. However, there is a huge problem, and that is the main characters are rather awful. They're scumbag thieves, who rob from ordinary people. And, the meat of the movie sees them attempting to rob a blind ex-soldier who's been devastated with grief because his daughter was killed by a drunk driver. We later learn that he's evidently gone insane, or was messed up to begin with, as he's kidnapped the drunk driver (who got off with a slap on the wrist) and is forcing her to give birth to another child. (He claims he didn't rape her, showing us that his grasp on what constitutes consent is absurdly literal and psychotic.) But the key thing is--the three thieves don't know this until after they've broken in. So it makes it hard to sympathize with them. The woman thief is shown having a crappy home life, with a possibly abusive mother and stepfather, and a younger sister that she's trying to save by leaving home together. But why couldn't she just flee to California using money that she earned legally, or get help from another family member, friend, or shelter? So, in short, you're kind of rooting for the alleged protagonists, but they're pretty terrible. Also, I thought the movie was clearly inspired by/ripped off Wes Craven's "The People Under the Stairs" (1991). I thought Craven's film was superior, while being even more disturbing and even darkly comic.
17) The Shining (1980). Directed and written by Stanley Kubrick, starring Jack Nicholson, Shelley Duvall, Danny Lloyd, and Scatman Crothers. RT 86%, Audience 93%, IMDB 8.4. Grossed 44.4 million on a 19 million budget. That's right, I'm going here--come at me! This isn't a bad movie--it's actually quite good. I own a copy on DVD, and have seen it many times. It's got the usual great Kubrickian visuals, interesting shots, methodical pace, and a lot of genuinely creepy and disturbing goings-on. But there are some problems. I should note that the movie is based on Stephen King's novel, which I love. Kubrick obviously didn't like certain aspects of the book, and made many changes, some of which were very significant. First off, Jack Nicholson is clearly a very talented actor, but I don't understand why he played Jack Torrance the way he did, and why Kubrick accepted this. The whole point of the book is that it's about a normal guy, struggling with alcoholism and a strained marriage, who's gradually driven insane by supernatural forces in a hotel that's completely isolated in the winter months. But he redeems himself at the end. Nicholson's Jack Torrance seems crazy right from the beginning, so his character arc is basically a straight line. Duvall is also miscast. She's not the stronger Wendy from the book, she's a bit too much of a damsel in distress. Major plot points are also ignored. I understand why the hedge animals couldn't be convincingly rendered in 1980, so that's a justified cut. But where's the boiler, and the accompanying hodgepodge of hotel records? Why is the maze turned into the main part of the ending? And why wasn't Jack redeemed? Supposedly Kubrick didn't like the supernatural aspects of the book, and wanted to keep the story ambivalent, so we're not sure if they're really happening, or if the characters are just imagining them. (And there are scores of theories about the true meaning of the film, and there's even a whole documentary, "Room 237" that explores these.) I actually liked the television movie version better than Kubrick's, basically because it follow King's book more accurately, and doesn't have the drawbacks that I mentioned. (King was more involved in the script and production of the TV version.) Kind of like "I Am Legend," but even more so, this movie, while very good, could have been even better if Kubrick had just altered some things. Yet, Kubrick's "The Shining" is so lauded. Pretty much every horror director cites it as one of the very best horror movies ever, and even non-horror fans mention it as being the best horror movie. So there it is--very good, but not as great as it could have been.
Saturday, October 13, 2018
Exotic/Disgusting Foods and Beverages Forum--A Ghanaian Soft Drink
We're headed back to Ghana for this one. Some readers may recall I did a previous post about a Ghanaian food product, about their candies, back on April 13, 2016. I purchased these in Washington D.C.'s wonderful Union Market, a complex of stores which sold many international products. Alas, my friend Keith just informed me that the Union Market is essentially finished--all but one of the stores were razed to build apartments, and even the remaining one doesn't look like it's long for the world. Moving on, then, I was able to find a substitute of sorts--Abuja international grocery in Waldorf, Maryland. The soft drink I got was Malta, a non-alcoholic (of course) malt drink (also of course) from the Guinness brewery in Ghana. (For more on the famous Guinness company, refer to my February 3, 2018 post about a Guinness candy.)
The drink malta (it's not a company trade name, but the drink type name) was inspired by a kind of German (alcoholic) beer called malzbier. Malzbier is regular beer which is interrupted during the brewing process, resulting in a weak adult beverage (about 2% alcohol). A Danish brewery, Albani, claims to be the first one to make a non-alcoholic version of malzbier. This new type was made with similar ingredients (water, barley, malt, hops) but was not fermented. By the 1950's more folks were interested in a completely non-alcoholic version of malzbier, and malta became much more widespread, and popular. It's especially enjoyed in Caribbean countries, and parts of Africa, including Chad, Cameroon, and Ghana. Unlike beer, it's not uncommon to add ice to the drink, and sometimes evaporated or condensed milk is mixed in as well. However, the original malzbier is still made in Germany, and in Chile "malta" is their name for the alcoholic schwarzbier. Plus I was amused to see that malta is avidly consumed in the country of Malta. (Which is a rare country-and -edible-having-the-same-name example, to add to eating turkey in Turkey, chili in Chile, etc.) Finally, I wrote about another kind of non-alcoholic, energy/vitamin enriched malt beverage, a Danish kind, in my March 22, 2016 post.
The malta I had came in a 330 milliliter (11.2 ounce) glass bottle, and cost about $2. Its listed ingredients are water, barley, malt, maize, sorghum, sucrose, caramel color, hops, and vitamins (specifically Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, and B6). The tagline is, "Vitality--Goodness--Energy." I had misgivings going in, as I haven't usually liked the other non-alcoholic, energy, malt beverages I've tried. This one, though, was alright. Not great, but okay, and drinkable. The color was dark brown, like a cola drink. The taste was peculiar--kind of a mix of root beer and soy sauce, which sounds gross, but somehow kind of worked. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy it again, but if I happen to see it for sale, I might get some more.
I'll wrap this up with a few nuggets about Ghana. It produces the second most cocoa beans in the world, trailing only the Ivory Coast. And by surface area, it has the largest human-made artificial lake in the world, Lake Volta (it's third largest judged by volume). As for famous people from Ghana, or with Ghanaian heritage, Kofi Annan was the secretary-general of the U.N. from 1997-2006. Actor Idris Elba ("American Gangster" (2007), "28 Weeks Later" (2007), "Prometheus" (2012), "Star Trek Beyond" (2016), "The Dark Tower" (2017), and in various "Thor" and "Avengers" movies playing the character Heimdall) has Ghanian heritage on his mother's side. Hugh Quarshie is another actor of Ghanaian ancestry. He's probably best known worldwide for roles in "Highlander" (1986), "Nightbreed" (1990), and "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999). Joseph Addai played running back in the NFL from 2006-11, including a starting role on the Indianapolis Colts's Super Bowl 41 winning squad. Ghana has also produced at least 3 boxing title holders--Nana Konadu (super flyweight 1989 and bantamweight 1996), Ike Quartey (welterweight 1994-98), and Joseph Clottey (welterweight 2008-09).
The drink malta (it's not a company trade name, but the drink type name) was inspired by a kind of German (alcoholic) beer called malzbier. Malzbier is regular beer which is interrupted during the brewing process, resulting in a weak adult beverage (about 2% alcohol). A Danish brewery, Albani, claims to be the first one to make a non-alcoholic version of malzbier. This new type was made with similar ingredients (water, barley, malt, hops) but was not fermented. By the 1950's more folks were interested in a completely non-alcoholic version of malzbier, and malta became much more widespread, and popular. It's especially enjoyed in Caribbean countries, and parts of Africa, including Chad, Cameroon, and Ghana. Unlike beer, it's not uncommon to add ice to the drink, and sometimes evaporated or condensed milk is mixed in as well. However, the original malzbier is still made in Germany, and in Chile "malta" is their name for the alcoholic schwarzbier. Plus I was amused to see that malta is avidly consumed in the country of Malta. (Which is a rare country-and -edible-having-the-same-name example, to add to eating turkey in Turkey, chili in Chile, etc.) Finally, I wrote about another kind of non-alcoholic, energy/vitamin enriched malt beverage, a Danish kind, in my March 22, 2016 post.
The malta I had came in a 330 milliliter (11.2 ounce) glass bottle, and cost about $2. Its listed ingredients are water, barley, malt, maize, sorghum, sucrose, caramel color, hops, and vitamins (specifically Vitamins B1, B2, B3, B5, and B6). The tagline is, "Vitality--Goodness--Energy." I had misgivings going in, as I haven't usually liked the other non-alcoholic, energy, malt beverages I've tried. This one, though, was alright. Not great, but okay, and drinkable. The color was dark brown, like a cola drink. The taste was peculiar--kind of a mix of root beer and soy sauce, which sounds gross, but somehow kind of worked. I wouldn't go out of my way to buy it again, but if I happen to see it for sale, I might get some more.
I'll wrap this up with a few nuggets about Ghana. It produces the second most cocoa beans in the world, trailing only the Ivory Coast. And by surface area, it has the largest human-made artificial lake in the world, Lake Volta (it's third largest judged by volume). As for famous people from Ghana, or with Ghanaian heritage, Kofi Annan was the secretary-general of the U.N. from 1997-2006. Actor Idris Elba ("American Gangster" (2007), "28 Weeks Later" (2007), "Prometheus" (2012), "Star Trek Beyond" (2016), "The Dark Tower" (2017), and in various "Thor" and "Avengers" movies playing the character Heimdall) has Ghanian heritage on his mother's side. Hugh Quarshie is another actor of Ghanaian ancestry. He's probably best known worldwide for roles in "Highlander" (1986), "Nightbreed" (1990), and "Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace" (1999). Joseph Addai played running back in the NFL from 2006-11, including a starting role on the Indianapolis Colts's Super Bowl 41 winning squad. Ghana has also produced at least 3 boxing title holders--Nana Konadu (super flyweight 1989 and bantamweight 1996), Ike Quartey (welterweight 1994-98), and Joseph Clottey (welterweight 2008-09).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)