danny rosenberg
sr. copywriter

Soggy Waffles

Welcome to Soggy Waffles. Here’s how these bite-size, digestible movie reviews work. Every movie gets a haiku. That’s one movie, 17 syllables. Every movie gets a short write-up. I’m talking so short that you should be able to completely syrupize a plate of waffles in the time it takes to read the write-up. If not, then I’m not doing my job. This is my take on the movies I see, not a chewed up and spit out version of anything you’ll find online.

 And finally, every movie gets a Soggy Waffles rating. The scale is as follows:

1 = The Frozen Waffle. The type of waffle that you can still taste the freezer burn when you bite into it. That bite was so traumatizing that you it might be awhile before you can safely bite into another.

 2 = The Soggy Waffle. You don’t need a pick-axe or other climbing gear to attack this waffle, but the pneumonic device you learned in elementary school to memorize the cardinal directions still applies: Never Eat Soggy Waffles.

3 = The Microwaved Waffle. This is the type of waffle that won’t stick with you for the rest of your life, but damn you enjoyed it nonetheless. Not every movie can be a Superbad.

 4 = The Crispy Waffle. Oh yeah, it’s not the best waffle you’ve ever had, but it’s pretty close. This is the type of movie that cracks into your End-of-Year best list, but doesn’t quite make it onto your Best of All Time.

5 = The Toasty Waffle. This is that from-scratch, special recipe, best-you’ve-ever had waffle. The kind in which the waffle is so good that the act of adding chocolate chips, butter or even syrup would be sacrilegious. You can never eat it for the first time twice, so savor it when you’ve got it.

Logo and illustrations by Adrienne Luther.

Logo and illustrations by Adrienne Luther.

Welcome to Soggy Waffles Reviews. Here’s how these bite-size, digestible movie reviews work. Every movie gets a haiku. That’s one movie, 17 syllables. Every movie gets a short write-up. I’m talking so short that you should be able to completely syrupize a plate of waffles in the time it takes to read the review. If not, then I’m not doing my job. This is my take on the movies I see, not a chewed up and spit out version of anything you’ll find online. And finally, every movie gets a Soggy Waffles rating. The scale is as follows:

Soggy_Waffles_Draft-08.png

1. The Frozen Waffle

The type of waffle that you can still taste the freezer burn when you bite into it. The whole experience is so traumatizing that it might be awhile before you can safely bite into another.

Soggy_Waffles_Draft-07.png

2. The Soggy Waffle

You don’t need a pick-axe or other climbing gear to attack this waffle, but the pneumonic device you learned in elementary school to memorize the cardinal directions still applies: Never Eat Soggy Waffles.

Soggy_Waffles_Draft-03.png

3. The Microwaved Waffle

This is the type of waffle that won’t stick with you for the rest of your life, but damn you enjoyed it nonetheless. Not every movie can be a Superbad.

Soggy_Waffles_Draft-02.png

4. The Crispy Waffle

Oh yeah, it’s not the best waffle you’ve ever had, but it’s pretty close. This rating is reserved for the movise that crack into your End-of-Year best lists but don't quite make it onto your Best of All Time.

Soggy_Waffles_Draft-01.png

5. The Perfectly Toasted Waffle

This is that from-scratch, special recipe, best-you’ve-ever had waffle. The kind in which the waffle is so good that the act of adding chocolate chips, butter or even syrup would be sacrilegious (but obviously you still do). You can never eat it for the first time twice, so savor it when you’ve got it.

1917

1917use.jpg
Rating: Crispy.

Rating: Crispy.

There are worse options

For the Oscar frontrunner

This late in the game. 

I have a hard time watching Best Picture nominees after the nominations come out. Knowing a movie is nominated before you watch it can only raise your expectations (unless you fucking hate the Academy, I suppose). So when the stakes are high and a movie doesn’t live up to its hype, we write it off. Naturally. This year, seven of the nine nominees have the benefit of me formulating my opinion on them without the knowledge of Awards season to inform or persuade. “1917” was not so lucky. Nor will “Ford Vs. Ferrari” be, if I ever get around to it. That being said, 1917 is the rare case in which knowing it’s the Best Picture frontrunner going into it did not negatively impact my viewing experience.

I didn’t see 1917 until long after the nominations were announced because “Dunkirk” has pretty much been my only exception to my dislike for war movies, but also just because it took its sweet time getting to Kansas City. By the time I did get around to it (6pm last night to be exact), my expectations were crushingly high. This is a movie that sported what was probably my favorite trailer of the year (the metric for this is the fact that I never got tired of it no matter how many times I saw it over the holidays), from the director of the best Daniel Craig-era James Bond and *everyone’s* favorite cinematographer. So despite my negative disposition toward war movies, there was a lot to be excited about here. 

With so much on the line,  I’m happy to report that 1917 is exception number two. I’m not sure if I was on the edge of my seat for the entire movie because I had to pee so badly or because I was jittery from all the coffee I drank earlier in the day, but I’m pretty sure it was just that intense. As intense as “Uncut Gems,” you ask? I’d call Gems more anxiety-inducing but 1917 more intense, if that makes sense. Most war movies are a slog, but 1917 keeps the momentum moving and never quite lets up. 

The biggest qualms I’ve read that people have with 1917 are either that it doesn’t do enough to condemn war, or that that’s all it does. 1917 is a movie that does more showing than telling, I agree, but I don’t think every war movie has to aspire to do more than just find a unique way to tell a story. And 1917 tells a damn good one. As far as originality goes, 1917 has it in buckets. World War I is far less mined for movies than WWII, so it’s refreshing to see trench warfare for a change. And a war movie without Nazis is a welcome change. 

Some peeps have also said that 1917 has too much of a video game feel to it. Whether you agree or not, and whether you like the movie or not, will likely come down to your take on the single-shot technique that you’ll either find a gimmicky bore or a surprise and delight. I never personally found the movie to be too video game-like, with the exception of a few scenes that play like every level of a stealth video game. But overall, I very much enjoyed the single-shot technique and marveled at the achievement. It’s claustrophobic and dreadful, and it’s the primary reason I spent so much of the movie with a 175+ BPM. I’m looking forward to reading the script next, as I’m very curious as to how the camera directions are written. And that can’t be said about any other movie I’ve ever seen.

In Theaters, CrispyGuest User