Thursday, June 29, 2017

Someone was taste testing the recipe?

I got an email from a very well known "Island Flair" chain restaurant about what they are offering in the "new drink" department for July 4th weekend. The food and beverages look yummy and there's opportunity to test drive the stuff at home (aka make it yourself), except there's one little problem.

The refreshing tropical liquid they're sporting right now, must not have been proofed before the email blast was sent. As in, someone was definitely taste testing while they were typing out the recipe.

Case in point:

The "One Love" adult beverage. The recipe and picture look amazingly good and I'd be tempted to try it during a party. I'm just having a little trouble figuring out the size ration and materials needed (bowls, etc).

I'm sure you can guess the restaurant brand!

Breaking everything down, I guess there's no prep time, but the cook time takes all of 2 minutes. I don't know what the serving size is supposed to mean. "12" what? Ounces? Liters? People? Judging by the amount of liquid being used in this drink, there's enough for a full party. I mean, an entire 750 ml bottle of Malibu Rum? 12 oz Appleton Estate Reserve? Yeah, this is going to give you a hangover for sure, if you drink it yourself. Be careful on what you're doing later - no heavy lifting or driving (a car, work machinery, etc). You're gonna feel like doodoo tomorrow morning. Slow and steady wins the race with this one; don't rush through this because it has orange juice in it. If drinking in the hot and humid part of the world... seriously take your time. Alternate with water. Have a nosh or two.

Meanwhile, the list goes on for other simple ingredients (non 21 and up worthy - a lime, a liter of guava nectar, a quart of orange juice) and finally there is the whole "procedure" to put it all together. Like you're going in for surgery... although, you may need some extra strength headache reducers or lots of H2O if you plan on going at this alone. Make sure your friends know what you're doing. Or just invite them over to partake in the servings. It says "12" for a reason. I'm sure you can find 11 people to hang out with. Get some party favors and have some fun.

The way to prepare this drink is by pouring all the liquids into a picture or serving bowl. Then you stir. Wait a minute; rewind that back... I don't know what a "picture" is, in relation to cooking. A picture is like the screen cap I put into this blog post or when I say "photo proof or it doesn't count". I think the author meant "pitcher", but I could be wrong? I know serving bowls - they're made for punches and finger snacks. It's this "picture" I'm not sure about. Is it new (culinary) English? Can someone explain this to me?

And why if you're adding all the liquid together in a big bowl (to stir together), aren't you adding ice to it? Is it supposed to be served at room temperature, only adding a flash of cold in the highball glass? All the punches I've seen people make, there's usually some sort of cold item in the bowl with the liquid. Can you freeze orange juice or guava nectar? Maybe you can add those as ice cubes to the bowl, as you are adding the liquid in anyway? I haven't made any punches in a while... is this possible? I know some people add a thing of sherbet when they make certain fruit punches because the sherbet is what keeps the drink cold. Once you scoop the punch in your glass, it is usually over ice.

Why are you saving room in the highball glass at the end for the Appleton Reserve? Let me rephrase that. The recipe says when serving, "fill a highball glass with ice and fill the with the batch leaving just a touch of room at the top. Float one ounce of Appleton Estate Reserve. Serve, sip, yum". So we are back to calling this something scientific and medical - "batch". What's a "touch of room at the top"? We talking 1 or 2 fingers worth - let's call shots! If you're supposed to "float one ounce" on the top, is that really "a touch of room"? I'm no bartender, so that's why I ask. "Serve, sip, yum"... someone come make this, serve me, I'll sip it, and tell you how yum it looks. Otherwise, I think I'll leave it to the professionals and just go in and order this (the website states it's $8.49 - It costs more to buy all the materials, but if you're making it for friends, then it comes out to be relatively cheaper).

Until next time... for those in the States, enjoy the upcoming holiday weekend!


See Also (aka what I am currently listening to as I type this):

See Also (aka extra links):

* In no way did I get any sponsorship or payment from this blog post, in regards to my "questionable review" of the drink. I only wrote this because I'm always looking at how many email blasts go out to people on a daily basis (from businesses), and it amazes me how many times external links have grammar or spelling issues. I know I am not immune to these faults, and I do try to read what I write in order to correct anything, but it's awkward and embarrassing for companies to produce things like recipes and have errors.

I only "get paid" if someone clicks my Amazon Affiliate link and purchases that item.

Thursday, June 15, 2017

"Everybody... everybody get naked"

(line borrowed from an interview I did while in college)

I just finished watching a 1961 "sexploitation" video called Diary of a Nudist. Amazon is currently pairing it with a title called The Naked Venus. I haven't seen the latter movie as I found the former on one of the cinema apps I've got downloaded on my Roku.

The whole premise of Diary is a young lady, working at a newspaper, is given the task of exposing a local nudist colony. Her boss had wandered onto the property one day whilst hunting, and found himself other areas of game to play with. He sets up the woman to interview at the colony and she's able to spend time there, getting to know the residents. Lo and behold, it's not what she expected and she actually likes being there. How does her article fare? Well, I suggest trying to find the video.

But in the meantime, I've got some areas to pick at. It definitely shows it's age - 1960's (possible 16mm) movie film. It's surprisingly nicely squared out on a flat screen TV.

My first problem is the simple fact the color is deeply faded in various scenes. Yes, it's a color film, and no, it wasn't added digitally later on. Not all the cameras seemed to be white balanced together... meaning... in the same 10 minute scene, there can be three camera changes (three different views). None of the views are the same contrast and color. One can be too hot (the person's body looks like it's drenched in a white spot light. Yes, I'm sure it's not the sunlight, so don't ask that question. There's a difference between sunlight washout and studio lights washout) while another looks like it's drenched in some kind of contrasting low light (too dark in some places but trying hard to over compensate for it). I feel like no one tried to "color correct" this when they attempted to re-release it to the digital masses.

I think I wouldn't have so much of problem if I didn't work at a couple photo studios and transfer old movie film as my job for four years - I'd not be such a stickler for better quality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with the random mold spots and dust flying through the picture, however, this being a 70 something minute movie, half of it is bad coloring.

On top of that, my second problem is that the production company re-dubbed the actors, so it was like watching a badly dubbed Asian movie. Sorry for the comparison, but I'm sure you know what I mean. For an American made film, they didn't use the voices of the American actors. If they did, it wasn't recorded with the film, it was recorded separately and added after the fact. The silent era ended 30 years prior to this movie; I'm sure the current state of celebrity had better speaking voices than those trying hard to transition into talkies.

The third and final thing is the simple contorting everyone had to do. According to research, nudie films were illegal and prohibited across the country at this time, so if you were going to make something, it had to attempt to be tasteful and not overly pornographic. Production companies got away with showing a lot of "T&A" by way of what is now referred to as "sexploitation" "cult" films. Women and men were placed in very specific positions, as not to give away the entire farm - the women were able to bare their breasts, men had their torsos exposed, but anything further south of the belly button got a nice little cover up. The person either held a sun hat, a newspaper, or a beach towel (or whatever was needed to further a scene). In some scenes, it was how they were laying on the lounge chairs or how they stood behind shrubbery to watch beach volleyball (which was shorts vs butts. Guess why!). Outside of that, we got to see everyone's (un-suntanned) white tushies in all their (in some cases flabby) glory, but peens and vajayjays were off limits.

For a movie based on "sun worship", some of the residents needed to work on their tans. There were a few who had nice, evenly bronzed skin; while others had their white markings of prior clothes usage.

Will I watch this film again? Quite possibly, only to make sure some of my film buff friends are able to see it, and we can discuss it further. It's camp enough that you do have to give it an eye roll in places, slow enough where you may want to fast forward in places, but over all, it's a decent try and I can see why it's put into different cult genres.

*** I did find a single version of the movie here on Amazon.