2019 OSCAR Blog

Oscars just came out this morning.  8 nominations for best picture and great fields for actors and actresses.  I will be updating this blog as I see more movies.  I have seen two already so I will start with those and add them in as I watch.  I will try to hit all the actors/ actresses as I go as well.

BEST PICTURE

A STAR IS BORN

Before seeing this film, there was so much hype.  I couldn't help but see everyone rating this film so HIGHLY that my expectations were slightly skewed.  Allowing for the over-hype, I still thought this would be a serious contender for best picture.  The film chronicles an unknown's (Lady Gaga) rise to fame after she is discovered by a veteran rock star while she is performing in a drag show.  From his (Bradley Cooper's Jackson Mayne)  immediate love of her talent, he brings her on stage, they fall in love, yadayadayada...  This film does not have a story that we haven't heard before.  That being said, I think what makes this film so compelling is the music (which Cooper and Gaga co-wrote for the entire film).  The music mirrors the feelings being felt by the characters (and the audience as well).  Add the music to the superior acting of most of the cast during most of the movie and we have an Oscar contender.

That being said, I think this film had some serious strengths and some serious weaknesses as well.  As I alluded to, the performances of Cooper, Sam Elliot, and Andrew Dice Clay were magnificent.  Lady Gaga did a very good job for her first movie.  A few scenes could have been slightly better but overall, she was good throughout the film.  Cooper as director could have gotten a few things done better but overall, it was a solid effort for his directorial debut.  The score and music were A+ and in any other year without Mary Poppins, "Shallow" walks off the stage with the best song statue without batting an eye.

Overall, the movie was definitely worth watching, if for nothing more then the actor's engaging, wholly believable performances.  Great job there.  And the music is top notch.  My rating for this film is 3.5/ 5.  I was expecting a little better but it was still a solid film.

ROMA

Saying that this movie's first 45 minutes to an hour was pointless is the understatement of the century.  We gleaned a few facts about our protagonist that we could have received in roughly three minutes.  She was a poor, single woman who worked her tailfeathers off for a more affluent family somewhere in Mexico.  She, having very little money and seemingly no family, was looking for love and affection in any corner of the universe that would pay attention to her- hence, making the decision to have unprotected sex with a guy who had no job and spent all day practicing martial arts.  Not the sort of checklist most women are looking for.  And hour later, we find out whe is pregnant and that Judo Juan wants nothing to do with her.  From this point forward, the film takes off.  We see several events that shape this woman into what she will become and the script, acting, cinematography, score, everything is fantastic.  The emotional impact that the last hour of this film has on the audience is major to say the least.  We truly get a feeling of what happens to the poor, working class in Mexico.

The acting in this film was good- I am not sure either should have been nominated for an Oscar though.  I found it hard to actually empathize with the characters as I read the subtitles and didn't understand the inflection in their voices.  I am going to trust that the academy members who speak Spanish have made a good choice when nominating both women for their performances.

After seriously contemplating this film, there is no way I can give a movie that wasted so much time at the beginning a really high score.  My feeling is that Cuaron knew he had an hour film but needed to stretch it out so we got 45 minutes of very little depth or storyline.  I think he saved everything with neaning until the end as he knew we would walk out of the theatre thinking of that; the the 45 minutes where we twiddled our thumbs.  If I could break this movie into two ratings it would probably look like this:  first hour: .25  second hour: 4.75.  Overall, I'm going to go a 3.5 for this one as well.

BLACK PANTHER

Before reading this, please know that I am not a fan of the superhero films.  I do not watch the Avengers, haven't seen the new Aquaman, Superman, or Incredible Hulk.  I don't watch the Transformers movies, etc.  I have openly railed on the two newest Star Wars movies as well.  My point being, I am not attacking this one independently.  I am an equal opportunity hater if the genre and would never, ever argue that anything made since The Dark Knight has a chance at being nominated for best picture.

After watching the first 60% or so of this movie, I cannot for the life of me figure out why it was nominated.  I was expecting some sort of revelation about the power of the African American filmmakers/ actors and the lens through which they told the traditional comic book story.  I realize that they were constrained by the Stan Lee comic here but I was amazed at the lack of anything found on this film.

The special effects were awesome as were the CGI cameras.  It was a first rate film with great effects and may win something as a consolation prize.  As for best picture, there is no way.  I think the Academy finally relented to the audience's opinion and box office totals; think the same argument as  The Dark Knight.  From the academy's point of view, I think the only thing that separated this from being the Dark Knight (which was a much better film by the way- hands down) was that these were African characters and the political heat applied by not nominating was too much for them to absorb.  As a result, we get a mediocre film (think black Captain America- only from a made up African country) as a contender for best picture.  Up to the last two years, I thought the Academy had done a good job of toeing the line between being inclusive and also having some integrity.  Unfortunately, with Get Out last year and Black Panther this year, that line is being eroded quickly.  At some point, I hope the academy can judge all films on merit rather then color of stars and director.  Get Out was a bad nomination; this one is horrendous.  The story is ridiculous, the acting is OK, the overall film is almost unwatchable if you care about things like plot, character development, and emotion.   Needless to say, I didn't bother watching the last half.

Just to clarify, the Avengers and the new Star Wars movies (the ones creating the actual story) are equally as bad, if not worse.  So, I'm not picking on this because of the color or race- despite what some of you would like to believe- I'm saying this for the same reason I would have a coronary if the Avengers or the new Star Wars were nominated- it's just not a best picture candidate, regardless of popularity.

If you like other superhero movies, you will love this.  If you want a movie with some sort of realistic substance and emotion, skip it completely.  In the words of Flavor Flav:  Don't Believe the Hype.  Overall rating:  1.

Hopefully, the other five present something above what I have seen with these three.  I will update after I watch the next one.

BLACKKKLANSMAN

So, Spike Lee finally got a best picture nod.  Before going any further, I must say that Spike Lee is not my favorite director of all time.  I respect him and his obvious talent but am not a fan of his style.

Unfortunately, this film did not change my perception of Spike and his methodology.  The story was interesting; the acting good for the most part but I felt the characters and the use of stereotypes were just too much.  I would have liked to have seen a much grittier, true to life adaptation of this compelling story rather than a Saturday Night Live or Dave Cahappelle skit about how dumb the whites were (which the KKK is plenty dumb- not disputing the truth of the basis for this attitude).  I thought Lee's over the top style detracted from the film's gripping story about a Jewish guy and a black guy joining the KKK as part of an undercover police operation.

As over the top as the characters in the film were, after the actual movie was over, Lee's inclusion of the real-life footage of the car being driven into a protest crowd in 2016 really underlined the film's true intent: racism in all forms must stop now.  Killing each other based on skin color is dumb.  Everyone has the same value as a human being.  I commend Lee for including this as a counterpoint to his satirical take on this topic.  It drove home the point of why this film was made.

Overall, the film was definitely worth seeing but I doubt it has a realistic chance to win.

Overall rating:  2.5/ 5.

THE FAVOURITE

I have yet to see "The Lobster"; Yorgos Lanthimos' first major film.  After watching "Killing of a Sacred Deer" last year and being irked and intrigued at the same time, I was cautiously optimistic about the Favourite, Lanthimos' third film and first best picture nomination.

The film is a period piece about Queene Anne and her right hand woman, (played by Rachel Weisz) who are running England together with no problems until Weisz' cousin shows up (played by Emma Stone).  As the film's title foreshadows, Weisz and Stone eventually fight about who will be the "hand of the queen" (borrowing Game of Thrones lexicon here).  As the fight intensifies, highjinks ensue.  Acted brilliantly by Weisz, Stone, and Olivia Coleman (Queen Anne), the film has it's strengths for sure.  Unfortunately, Lanthimos's directorial style gets in the way of what could have been a really good black comedy.

My major criticism of Lanthimos is that, in my opinion, he wants to be the star.  His quirky directorial style and camera-work are distractions as the movie progresses.  Several shots using fish-eye lenses for no apparent reason distract the viewer as the film progresses.  I actually thought my TV was messed up until they kept repeating.  The non-stop movement of the camera lends well in a few scenes; in others, it becomes the film's primary focus.  Why I wanted to watch a tracking shot of Emma Stone walking down a hallway for what seemed like 4 minutes was beyond me.  It was worse then the poop sweeping scene in Roma.  Towards the end of the film, I was yearning for a straight up shot of a room as the scene played out.  Coupled with the insistence that the only two colors seen in the film are black and white, combined with the camera work and weird lenses, became another character which greatly detracted from the film's overall worth.  As viewers, we understand that Olivia Coleman's Queen Anne's either bi-polar or manic-depressive states provoked two distinct personalities.  Being beaten over the head with the black and white imagery was a little too much at times.  The lack of stability in the character's lives was evident without the constantly shifting camera to remind us that nothing besides the queen and her ever-changing temper were static in England at this time.

I didn't like the way "Killing of a Sacred Deer" was shot but for completely different reasons.  After contrasting the two Lanthimos films, I feel like he is trying way too hard to say, "Look at me!  I'm the artist here, not these actors!"  In most great movies, the director makes everything fit and nothing stands out- that is what makes it feel perfect.  If a certain style is used (I'm thinking Wes Anderson here), it is very rare that the viewer feels as if he is watching Wes Anderson make a movie about some weirdos who stumble through their life.  In fact, it's the opposite- Anderson's use of color and camera enhance the story to make it easier for us to see what is happening internally with the characters.  Lanthimos's antics do just the opposite.  They annoy the viewer and make the story harder to follow.

I can see several in the academy taking to this film because it is avant-garde enough to be trendy but I can't see it garnering enough support to be a serious contender.

Overall Rating 2.0

BOHEMIAN RHAPSODY

This biographical film about the life of Freddy Mercury was eye-opening and entertaining.  As I grew up, I only knew that Freddy Mercury was an unabashedly gay man who flaunted his sexuality with no shame.  Truly a groundbreaker, Mercury paved the way for coming out, gay rights, and unfortunately, the tragedy of the Aids epidemic in the 80's.  I knew all that going in.

What I didn't know was that his life was far more complicated and not nearly as paved in stone as what MTV and the few music magazines I could read in the 80's let on.  The way in which he carried himself so confidently was an eye-opening revelation in bravery.  Standing up to almost everyone in order to fully realize himself was an inspirational story to see unfold on the screen.  What really made the story interesting was watching Freddy deal with the hurt and pain he caused others by taking the stances he took- while he deeply cared, he didn't apologize as he knew what would make himself happy.

Rami Malek's portrayal of this icon certainly did him justice as his Golden Globe and other awards have recognized.  Showing both the brazen side contrasted with the vulnerable side of Mercury was no easy task.  After seeing this film, I understand why he has won so many awards so far.  The rest of the cast was flawless, the script was sound, the music was perfect (if you are a Queen fan- my feeling is that most will be drawn to it after seeing this if they were not a fan to begin with), and Bryan Singer did a great job in bringing out the best in Malek and the script.

This is a serious contender in my mind.  With two films to go, I am glad I have seen one that has a legitimate shot at Best Picture.  If you would have told me in January that a Freddy Mercury biography would be leading the pack as the Oscars loomed, I would have said "NO WAY."  But, that is why it is impossible to guess which movies will shine.  See this one if you are a Queen fan, see it if you hate them.  Regardless of your stance on homosexuality, seeing the bravery Freddy displayed should be an inspiration to all of us.

Overall Rating 4..5/ 5

VICE

So I went into this movie already knowing a couple of things.  One, Dick Cheney was an egomaniac.  I knew about the Halliburton contracts and the level of corruption he brought into the White House.  Secondly, I knew Christian Bale was a fine actor.  He has played some great roles in the last few years but this may be his finest performance yet.  Surrounded by some of Hollywood's best actors at the moment, Bale managed to shine above them all as former Vice President, Dick Cheney.

The story begins during Nixon's presidency and follows Mr. Cheney's career through his role as vice president for George Bush II.  Watching Cheney evolve into the power hungry machine behind the curtain that he was portrayed as, was frightening to me as a voter in the USA.  Cheney was not remotely concerned about the public- he was concerned about two things; feeding his ego and his pocketbook.

The rest of the film did a great job of highlighting some of Cheney's more despicable acts as vice-president while simultaneously showing George Bush to be second in charge to Cheney's self-fueled megalomaniac dictator.  Culminating in what may be the most despicable political act in recent times, the film delivers on it's promise to expose Cheney for what he was- a dirtbag.

Regardless of politics (although I'm sure conservatives will blindly label this left-wing Hollywood propaganda instead of actually researching the unopposed Halliburton contracts etc.), this film depicts the inherent dangers of an unchecked oval office.  Considering that is what our sitting president so obviously wishes for, we should all take a moment to ask what good having someone like Cheney in office did for the United States.

The rest of the film was technically sound- the actors (from Amy Adams to Steve Carell) did a spot on job.  The cinematography was sharp, the score was fine.  Nothing let this film down except, depending on your own personal taste, the director.  Choosing at one point to add a false ending into the movie was either a masterstroke of genius or a rabbithole of annoyance depending on what your personal preference was.  I personally did not care for it and would have appreciated a more linear, traditional approach- especially given we were watching a historical drama.  That being said, I admire Adam McKay's willingness to try new things and the creativity it took to develop these ideas.

Overall, I enjoyed this film almost as much as I hated the main character.  Rating is 3.5/5.

GREEN BOOK

Wow.  What a powerhouse of a movie this was.  It should win best picture.  But it won't.  Unfortunately.  

It tells the story of Dr. Frank Shirley, an exceptionally talented African American concert pianist, who toured through the deep south in the 60's.  Dr. Shirley needed a driver and bodyguard so he hired Tony "Lip" Villenega, a bouncer at the Copa in New York.  Needless to say, the two were polar opposites.  As the tour proceeds, the become friends despite the inherent prejudice that Tony carries and the inherent quirkiness of Dr. Shirley. 

Having conquered the south and returned home, they could have easily retreated into their own prejudiced worlds and never saw each other again.  But both decided that their friendship was worth pursuing, despite it bringing each out of their comfort zones.  The real winner in this film was the human connection made between these two opposites- despite social class, upbringing, and prejudice.

Dr. Shirley is played by Mahershala Ali and after he wins the best supporting actor award for the second time in three years,  he is going to be ready to make the transition from supporting man to leading man.  Viggo Mortensen is up for best actor as well but with Malek and Bale's performances, I'm not sure he has a real shot despite being very good in this film.   The rest of the performers and technical aspects were up to par as well.  An excellent job of cinematography and editing were on display; the soundtrack and score were brilliant as well.  Overall, this was my favorite movie of the bunch.

Overall Rating 4.5/ 5.

PREDICTIONS:

Best Picture:  Roma
Best Director:  Spike Lee: BlackKKKlansman barely over Cuaron
Best Actor:  Rami Malek barely over Christian Bale but this could go either way.
Best Actress: Glenn Close
Best Supporting Actor: Mahershala Ali
Best Supporting Actress: Regina King

OTHER MOVIES I'VE SEEN WITH OSCAR IMPLICATIONS:

FIRST MAN
This biopic about Neil Armstrong's trip to the moon, was beautifully shot, well produced, and truly an eye opener for me in that I had no idea that Neil Armstrong had such adversity in his life.  After seeing it and the eight nominees, I can say that this one should have been nominated for best picture in lieu of some of the others.  See this movie, if for nothing more then the CGI of them on the moon.  It was fantastic and it made you feel like you were there.  There were no hokey spacecraft is going to fail moments up there and the emotional impact the scenes have on the viewer parallel the emotional impact that the trip had on Armstrong- but not in the way you imagine it would.  This was a pretty good movie.  OVERALL RATING 4/5

IF ONLY BEALE STREET COULD TALK
The follow up from Barry Jenkins to Moonlight, this film was not nearly as good.  It could have been nominated over several of the actual nominees- most notably Black Panther- but it wouldn;t have won.  Besides the standout performance from Regina King, the movie fell flat.  Many of the scenes were too long, too drawn out, too over-dramatized.  I get what Jenkins was going for; he will learn from this and improve for his next film.  Overall rating 2/5.  Regina King's performance 4/ 5.

SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY
Up for visual effects, it should win but I think the Star Wars universe is a victim of it's own perfection.  Solo looks technically perfect in that you don't even notice the visual effects- you take it for granted they are really happening.  Overall rating, 3/5 for a Star Wars movie. 5/5 for the effects.

THE BALLAD OF BUSTER SCRUGGS
Up for costume design, this doesn't stand a chance compared to "The Favourite" and its period-piece dresses which could double for small apartments.  Overall the Cohen Brothers entry into the Netflix library isn't their best but not their worst either.  Quirky in typical Cohen Brothers fashion, it's entertaining enough to watch but not good enough to memorize like The Big Lebowski or Fargo.  Overall Rating 2.5/ 5.

CAN YOU EVER FORGIVE ME?
This based on a true story film about Lee Israel, who faked over 400 letters from prominent authors and sold them to collectors, placed the age-old question in front of the viewer?  Can we empathize with- and ultimately sympathize with- a truly despicable set of characters because they are too lazy/ stubborn/ dumb/ unwilling to make changes to their lives?  Lee Israel was a destitute author who needed money to pay her bills.  With the help of her only friend, Jack Hock, (played brilliantly by Richard E Grant) she sells these letters for noble reasons- to get her cat medicine, pay her rent, etc. but also to buy copious amounts of booze with.  Melissa McCarthy (in the least likely Melissa McCarthy role ever) plays the miserable old lady to perfection.  Both main actors are nominated for best actors.  Grant's performance was impeccable but against Malek and Bale, I'm not sure he has a chance.  McCarthy is a dark horse.  I have yet to watch all of THE WIFE (hoping to finish it tonight) but in my mind, McCarthy has the best performance of the four I have seen.  Watch this movie just for the perofrmances these two actors put in.  Overall Rating 3.5/ 5.

Saturday Night Stoutfest!  (or just dark beer).  It's about 45 below out so John and I decided to stay in and drink some dark beer.  So here we go!

First up, we are finishing up the beer I brought hom early in the summer from Against the Grain brewery in Louisville.  If you make it anywhere near, I would strongly recommend stopping by as they had some good stuff to go.

Brewer: Against the Grain
Beer Name:  The Brown Note
Beer Style:  Brown Ale
Price:  About $10 or $12 for a 4pack of 16 oz cans.

Aroma:  There really isn't any.  Maybe a slight almond or other nut smell but very feint.

Appearance:  Obviously, it's brown.  Medium in color- foggy but not dense.  It's a real light brown around the edges.  A very nice looking beer.  John says pretty clear, amberish in color.

Mouthfeel:  Light, not much weight to it.  John says it is very smooth.

Taste:  John's first words were, "Man, this is good."  We have both had it before and we both agree it was the best of the beers I brought back.  It is a solid brown ale for sure.  Google the label and read it.  It's worth the 20 seconds.  John gets a little malt taste but not overpowering.

Overall rating:  I put a 4 on untappd when I rated it there and I'm sticking with it  If you like brown ale at all, this is a good one to drink.  John says 4 as well.  We agree that this is worth tracking down a 4pack.

2nd Beer:

Brewer:  Against the Grain
Beer Name:  35K

Beer Style:  Milk Stout

Price:  About $10 or $12 for a 4 pack of 16oz cans

Aroma:  Not much there.  John agrees.

Appearance:  Dark.  A nice, oily look to it.  Great lacing.

Mouthfeel:  Very tingly.  This feels like a regular stout.  I had one of these already and it tastes much more like a regular stout then a milk stout.

Taste:  This is very much like a regular stout.  Licoricey and malty.  John agrees that it is not a traditional milk stout.   He thinks it is good, but not very milky.

Overall Rating:  I'm saying 3.5.  John says 3.75.  It's good but not as good as the brown.

3rd Beer:  

Brewer:  Terrapin
Beer Name:  Moo Hoo

Beer Style:  Chocolate Milk Stout

Price:  $10 for a six pack if memory serves correctly.

Aroma:  Again, not much here.  John smells chocolate.

Appearance:  Dark, clear, and handsome.  Not as oily as the 35K. 

Mouthfeel:  Again, not much going on.  Smooth, light, some tingle as it passes over the tounge.

Taste:  This has a LOT of chocolate in it.  It puts the chocolate milk in chocolate milk stout.  It is delicious.  I have had the other five and I think I drank them colder because I haven't gotten this much taste out yet.  It pays to drink them at the right temperature.  John loves it.  He says you can really taste the chocolate.

Overall Rating:  John says 4.25.  I'm saying a solid 4.  It is way better as it warms up.

Beer #4

Brewer:  4Hands
Beer Name:  2018 Tiki Chocolate Milk Stout (I have a bottle of 2017 in the fridge that I will rate at a later date)
Beer Style:  Chocolate Milk Stout w/ Coffee and coconut.
Price:  You can buy a 12 pack of 6 regular and 6 tiki at Friar Tucks for about $18.

Aroma:  John says it has a sharp coffee smell.  It does have a coffee aroma but I think it smells good.

Appearance:  Also dark in color, opaque.  Has brown lacing.

Mouthfeel:  This has a good tingle to it as it goes down.  light. smooth, more volume then the others. 

Taste:  For a mass produced beer, this is complex.  It starts with the coffee, but quickly changes to the coconut, chocolate, vanilla, licorice, etc found in the rest of the beer.  As much as I love the regular chocloate milk stout, I like this as much or more.  The coffee is not overpowering at all; it does not overpower any of the other flavors.  It's one of the few beers where each flavor is overtly expressed at some point in each drink.  For the record, John doesn't care for it.  Not going to drink my Perennial Sump with him.  (Don't tell him that).

Overall Rating:  John says a 3.25.  He is not enamored by the coffee.  I say 4.75.  I love this stuff.  It is a flavor bomb.

Beer #5

Brewer:  Narrow Gauge
Beer Name:  Old Town Porter
Beer Style:  Porter
Price:  $12 for a 4 pack of 16oz cans

Aroma:  Slight vanilla maybe?  Hazelnut possibly?  None of these beers have an aroma.  I've been drinking so many juicebomb IPA's recently, this is crazy.  John says he gets nothing.  Seems to be a theme.

Appearance:  Dark brown. 

Mouthfeel:  Super tingly.  A lot more alive then the others.

Taste:  Maple and bacon right off the bat.  Anise, maybe some berry as well.  This has a lot of flavor for a porter.  I think it has more of a stout taste to it.  John doesn't think it has much of an extra flavor.  As many of you know, Narrow Gauge is an IPA brewery so darker beers are not their specialty.  That being said, this was an admirable attempt at a porter.  It's not bad- not good.  John says it's roasty and smoky. 

Overall rating:  John says its a 3.5.  I say 3.5 also.  Consistency is the key.  Not my favorite porter but not the worst I've had by any means.

 
Beer #6  (Time for the Big Boys)

Brewer:  Left Hand
Beer Name:  Wake Up Dead Nitro
Beer Style:  Russian Imperial Stout Nitro
Price:  Don't remember but it wasn't that much.  Maybe $3 or $4 for a 16 oz can.

Aroma:  Something going on here finally.  Black licorice, maybe some dates or plums?  A slightly tart aroma for sure. 

Appearance:  Think TLC Waterfalls as the foam gathers its way up the glass.  A beautiful pouring beer.  Gotta love nitro.  Obviously, it has a great head on it.  Creamy as could be and the lacing is not disappearing at all.

Mouthfeel:  Defintely a big boy.  Boozy but with the nitro, it still passes as a regular beer.  John thinks this one could really sneak up on you.

Taste:  John says he likes it but the name is appropriate.  He does not think it tastes like a 10% beer.  He wants another one.  I, on the other hand, don't care for it.  It is too dry to me.  It has a very bitter taste that I don't care for.  I want my stouts sweet and malty.  This one is too bitter and it has a weird fruity/ pruney/ datey thing going on.  Maybe that's the Russian flavor.  Not my thing. 

Overall Rating:  John says 4.0.  I say 2.0.  Give me some chocolate milk in my beer. 

Beer #7

Brewer:  Samuel Smith
Beer Name: Imperial Stout
Beer Style:  Stout
Price:  $4 for a 550 ML (1 pint 2 oz) bottle.  Relatively cheap for 2 almost full glasses.

Aroma:  Fruity.  I'm guessing the yeast? John doesn't smell anything.

Appearance:  Another beautiful pour.  Not the lacing of the nitro but still very nice.  Dark, lacey, clearish for a dark beer.  John just said we have to go to Sam Smith some time.  I'm all for it.  We did try to open a local branch last year but they only franchise in the UK.  For real.  Not making this up.  We actually looked into it.

Mouthfeel:  Very smooth again.  No tingle on this one. 

Taste:  Very pruney as well.  I am a little perplexed by the taste to be sure.  I was expecting a little more.  It is good but very simple.  John says it's light and smooth but definitely has the prune taste. 

Overall Rating:  John says its a 3.5.  I say 3 even.   

Beer #8 (Last One)

Brewer:  Tool
Beer Name:  Don't Cry Over Spilt Milk
Beer Style:  Imperial Milk Porter
Price:  I bought this about 3 years ago.  I have no idea.  We had a similar brew from Tool a few years back and we decided to let the other one wait  for a while.

Aroma:  A slight hint of bourbon followed up with a huge aroma of bourbon.  Besides the bourbon, it has a slight fruit aroma- similar to the stout John and I drank four years ago, it has a fruity undertone.

Appearance:  Very dark- it's about time to make a joke about Brad Owens' women here-  it's a good looking dark beer.

Mouthfeel:  Tart and fruity on the front; followed by the burn of heavy alcohol on the back.  This is a strong beer for sure. 

Taste:  Very raisoney/ pruney, tart for a porter.  This is very similar to the stout we drank 4 years ago.  John says it is very strong and boozy.  I agree.  It's a strong beer.  That being said, we both like it.  John tastes the lactose or milk or whatever it is in there.  John says it probably has mellowed over the last four years it sat in my fridge.  Either way, it didn't hurt to let it sit there; that's for sure.

Overall Rating:  John says 3.75.  I say 3 even.  Not my favorite bourbon barrel aged.  Still ineresting to drink beer from Denmark.