That was an excellent one.

A lot of fun.

Simple and well acted, it has tension enough to knot the stomach.

Each character in this movie — down to the smallest one — is an individual rather than a type, prone to spontaneous changes of mood and sometimes amusing outbursts of pettiness or ill humor.

Just thought this documentary, directed by Laura Gabbert, was enjoyable as well as informative. It centers on Jonathan Gold, acclaimed food critic for the L.A. Times, and winner of the first Pulitzer Prize for food criticism, in 2007.We follow Gold as he cruises through the streets of Los Angeles, describing or visiting the many multi-cultural restaurants, or street vendors, along the way. Gold specializes in reviewing the smaller ethnically oriented establishments, often surprisingly located in small mini malls or even based out of food trucks. Based on interviews with his colleagues, Gold has a reputation of being extremely fair and empathetic towards those that he critiques, with Gold stating himself that he'll visit an establishment a minimum of 4 to 5 times before he'll write a review.The movie is not all food, as we learn about Gold's remarkable history and upbringing, and we'll get to meet his family as well. They'll also be quite a lot of humor in the film, as well as some heartfelt interviews with several of the restaurant owners. Finally, for those concerned about such, there is explicit language laced throughout the doc.All in all, I thought this film was quite interesting, and one of the better documentaries I've seen in s while.

Still not sure what the director or writer was going after here, except for a clever play on words that goes nowhere since we are quite frustrated by the end of the film. L.A. still remains a scattered mess with no design or purpose, and Gold's influence on the local scene looks at least, limited. Worse, it's hard to see the connections between his upbringing and the type of person he became.It's hard to appreciate a place like Los Angeles, with his scattered design, plenty of roads that go nowhere, freeways that shine for their lack of mobility, and poor public transportation. One struggles to go from place to another, but if you know where you're going and what you want, you might be rewarded. The documentary focuses on specific areas in the city, and for what we see, there might be four five types of cuisine in L.A., and it becomes pretty clear which one he favors. One of the pluses of living in a big urban setting is that you can find many types of offerings simply by crossing the street. According to the movie, there are only two countries in Latin America, one in Africa, and Asian cuisine is represented by three choices in Los Angeles.It is clear he loves to eat, and his followers are desperate to hear about the latest trend. Apparently, food trucks are one of the best signs of food offerings we can find. How would anyone like to wait in lines and love to stand up while eating goes beyond any comprehension. When we are lucky to actually see the inside of a restaurant, things are simplified to the point that we hear a family story, but this could have happened in any setting, and his presence would have been superfluous. The only time he shows much interest is when he's around Mexican fast food, and the culinary descriptions are minimal at best. He makes a big deal about spicy food, but we have no reference as to what makes the dish special or about its ingredients.Instead, the film indulges in his musical background??? Not sure how classical music is related to his appreciation for his favorite Latin American food, and I wonder if his rebellious procrastination originates from his punk music days. Truly, all this time I was wondering about the rest of Central American offerings, South America must have disappeared in the last ice age, and other than Ethiopia, you would think Africa doesn't exist. Worse is ignoring the varied and delicious Asian restaurants one can find all over the city. It's not like you blink you miss. I was confused.Ang Lee manages to show his love of food in his films, and one can look around cable shows to see how food critics travel all over the world and bring back a social experience where food is the star, and we understand its origins and its influence on society. "Gold" whatever its intentions might have been never succeeds at any of that.

"A hundred different dishes can be good in a hundred different ways." Jonathan Gold Although Los Angeles is many things to many people, most of us who know it more than in passing can agree its place for diverse ethnic food is about numero uno in the universe. It's the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow those of us who long for Korean one day and American the next, one day Thai the next Mexican, and so it goes. The true LA Gold is Jonathan Gold, the food critic who elevated mom and pop to king and queen. Who'd have thought the home of film glamour was also the home of casual, strip mall dining elevated to Oscar worthy.The new documentary, City of Gold, follows Jonathan Gold around the city and its ethnic enclaves where he started his culinary journey to The LA Times. Did you ever stop at a Salvadoran stand on Pico Blvd. for a pupusas? Gold makes you wish you had. Are you aware that he made us aware of the greatness of Marisco Jalisco and Jitlada? Guelaguetza's barbacoa tacos live in glory because of Gold.This robust raconteur can write about a taco as if it were a truffle. Not because he embellishes but because he gets to the heart of the experience of social sharing found in the food's tasty essence. Although he never fully explains why certain food is worthy of his exaltation, his Odyssey around town, punctuated by shots inside his car while he passes little restaurants and comments on their merits, or rarely the lack thereof, is more about ethnic diversity than tasty dining.More often than not he is praising the food until you long for a moment of real truth that exposes it for the crap it might taste like. Perhaps he has reserved his negative criticism for passing comments about the effects of the infamous Watts riots. Maybe that's the point—this sunshiny critic saves his negativity for the one non-food disaster everyone can agree on. Only in that instance can you feel he is fully objective about this checkered city.In the end, City of Gold is a paean to a melting-pot town of such food glamour that you forget the monumental traffic and epic social clashes. It is a rousing depiction of one critic's ability to bring a city together around one table. Robust and inclusive, Gold doesn't so much deconstruct food as he infuses it with energy: "Taco should be a verb." Gold

You might approach this film in the same way that I did: with a deep respect for Gold's work and a general interest in so-called foodie culture. You might have even first encountered Gold's work in much the same way that I did--by stumbling upon a glowing review pasted near your table in some hole-in-the-wall eatery (in my case, the Chung King Restaurant in the Monterey Park location that now houses Huolala). Like me, you'll certainly find much to enjoy in this documentary such as the fascinating forays into some of his most liked restaurants (perhaps some of which you have even been to) and the bemusing insights into his personal life (as a "failed cellist"; as a man of voracious appetites for food, knowledge, culture, and so on). Unfortunately, these small vignettes amount to the entirety of the film's charm and there is little to elevate it to greater than the sum of its parts.City of Gold feels disjointed, fragmented, and altogether uncompleted to me. I don't necessarily feel that a documentary must ascribe some overarching meaning to its subject--a character study can often stand on its own--but even as a character study, the film fell flat. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to what is included and when it is included in the film. Instead, even some of the most fascinating points simply feel shoehorned in at awkward times. The final twenty or thirty minutes, for instance, use a KCRW guest DJ appearance by Gold as a sort of refrain. It is a cheap way to investigate his persona and it fails to link up with much of anything else in the documentary. My biggest gripe with City of Gold is how it failed in a way that ultimately separates good documentaries from mediocre ones: much of it felt like performance rather than unadulterated insight. In some scenes, he is at the LA Times offices and in meeting with his editors and others to discuss upcoming pieces. Any notion of unfiltered access is immediately dispelled: much of the conversation seems addressed to the camera (the viewer) and it feels both stilted and pretending. The film, as short as it is, feels at least twenty minutes too long. At the conclusion, it fails to make up for this. There is a great documentary somewhere inside of City of Gold. Had I turned it off after the first 30 minutes, my review would likely be 8 stars but, well, it just kept going (nowhere).