The Hundred-Foot Journey (2014)

“The Hundred-Foot Journey” is largely a movie about food. It tries to romanticize the kitchen but sadly can’t quite get the audience to get emotional over their dinner like “Ratatouille” or “Babette’s Feast” can. The story of an Indian family opening a restaurant across the street from the French restaurant owned by Madame Mallory - a very, well, chauvinistic French chef stuck in her Frenchiness - tells of intertwining culture and overcoming bias. It is as familiar as it is stereotypical. A re-told story, however, rarely means a bad movie for me. A re-told story with one-note characters and boring, surface-y conflict does.

Helen Mirren and Om Puri are the veteran actors of the ensemble and also the most enjoyable thing to watch on-screen. The casting choice for Madame Mallory is interesting, of course, in that Mirren is not actually French. The weight of Mallory’s domineering character, however, would not have been the same were a lesser-known French actress cast in her stead. Mirren established herself as a regal presence worthy of respect in her Oscar-winning portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in “The Queen.” In “The Hundred-Foot Journey” Papa Kadam even addresses her at one point by saying, “You sit up there like a queen” to point out her self-satisfied, controlling, and entitled demeanor. To help establish Madame Mallory’s character as the standoffish and insensitive neighbor to the Kadam family, the choice to cast Helen Mirren – a well-established, automatic attention-grabbing actress, as well as offering a stark contrast to Puri – was only appropriate.

Likewise, the choice to cast Om Puri was well suited (though perhaps more obvious due to being an Indian actor). He has a great ability to play off the characters around him – particularly Madame Mallory. In one scene, when Madame Mallory grows upset at the loud Indian music, Puri nonchalantly tosses the tablecloth and calmly thanks her for barging into their home. In response to her condescending behavior, he promptly turns the music back up and starts dancing joyfully. This shows pride in his culture and feisty defiance to mistreatment. Their early scenes show the cultural difference with amusing conflict, but unfortunately these scenes are few.

These two performances are great and show an interesting side to the convergence and celebration of culture in the way I wish the food or the story had been able to. I'm sure this theme could have been better illustrated were these two talented actors given more time to interact and carry the story instead of allowing the younger actors and struggling plot filled with clichés to dominate. Manish Dayal plays Papa Kadam's son - the cooking prodigy who goes on to advance his career in other fancy Frenchy restaurants - and Charlotte le Bon plays the sous-chef of Madame Mallory's restaurant. The attempts at a romantic side-story seem half-hearted and unbelievable and both characters seem devoid of passion. It seems the son, Hassan, is the protagonist, but his character is underdeveloped and without much dramatic arc. I was left unsatisfied.

It's a tale as old as time where you know the end as soon as the beginning ensues. But "The Hundred-Foot Journey" brings nothing new to an old story. Any element with potential to enthrall is thrown in with laziness: the humor is brief and mediocre; the story takes no risks. Each actor's talent seems wasted and each potential conflict comes without tension. Of course, mediocre feel-good movies have their place. Nothing particular, though, stands out enough to make me remember it or desire to watch it again.

Ultimately, everything about the movie felt hollow. With Lasse Hallström as director, I expected "Chocolat" 2.0 and with Oprah as an executive producer, I expected something sentimental with a high probability of soap and cheese. I will admit, the time spent watching wasn't unpleasant. I just hoped that a movie with any kind of food subtext would leave me craving and hungry rather than checking my watch. 4/10

Oblivion (2013)

The year is 2077. It's very interesting to me how these dystopian post-apocalyptic films want us to feel uncomfortable by always choosing a year that's not so far in the future. Why not 2248? Why not 2301? No, filmmakers want us to connect. They want us to feel ownership of our mother earth. 2077, this is us and our children we're talking about, here. We're nervous and uncomfortable because the 2077 Earth is much different than the earth we all know and love. It's an earth that's covered more with radioactive waste than it is people after a bunch of alien scavengers attacked it and strip it of its resources. 

Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) (why is EVERYONE named Jack?) is one of the last remaining people around. He chills in his little floating house in the sky with his working partner Victoria (Andrea Riseborough) while he repairs drones (little robot dudes) and gathers more resources from the planet. He is part of a massive operation to help prepare the way for the rest of Earth's population to make it to Titan, one of Saturn's moons. His memory has been wiped of the tragic war, and he's got questions with no answers. He doesn't go prying too far, though, until he finds a crashed spaceship with human survivors and he realizes that nothing can be taken at face value.

Oblivion is a fun film. It is a visual, sensational treat. I watched this cold turkey and please, if you're into sci-fi stuff, and if you've never heard of this before like I hadn't, then don't read this and go watch that instead. It's a good film experience. Then come back and we can talk about it some more. And if you've never seen Blade Runner, 2001: a Space Odyssey, I Am Legend, Prometheus, Wall-E, Minority Report, District 9 or especially Moon (I could keep going), then you'll probably leave thinking this is the greatest sci-fi film ever made. But... really, you should probably watch those first.

That being said, there will be spoilers.

So yeah, it's fun. But I found myself wondering the whole time whether all of this was going to come together or if any of it was going to make any sense and if I was ever going to care about any of it making sense. It's all surface. It's all superficial.

Let's talk about the plot: it's a good idea. It's a really good idea that Joseph Kosinski (TRON: Legacy) is executing for a great sci-fi film however let's be real, it's 2001 and we all KNEW the second there was an alien or robot or drone or whatever it's called we all knew that it was Hal 9000, red light and everything. Of course the aliens were the enemy! All of this Jack memory loss bull was a red herring that anyone with half a lick of sci-fi knowledge could pick out. All of the big reveals, all of the twists were predictable as anything. Yes, the alien is the enemy. Yes, Jack isn't who he thinks he is and there's a much bigger thing going down here. Yes, the Russian is his wife. I mean, he finds this random chick who's been asleep for 60 years, obviously she's important to the story I mean he was DREAMING about her. We're supposed to be surprised she's his wife? 

My other big complaint has to do with character. Granted, it's probably part of the plot and Jack's character concept that we don't relate to him or feel any connection to him at all. He's, like, a clone and stuff. (Though if you watch Moon, it doesn't HAVE to be that way. Kids, just watch Moon, it's way better). But all of the characters were wooden. They could have all been clones, it was really hard to tell the difference. I didn't feel anything for any of the characters at all. The golden opportunity for contrast and emotional involvement is wasted when we are introduced to a bunch of human survivors on Earth. I think of A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) and the masterful contraposition illustrated when we go to the big bad real world. It's in those transitional moments that we feel connected to the characters and understand where the plot is headed. In Oblivion, even when they were being killed by drones, I felt nothing. I didn't connect with Morgan Freeman, I didn't even connect with the wife with Julia (Olga Kurylenko) or whatever her name is. I mean, Jack's a clone, but Julia's human! You'd think that she'd have some sort of emotional response, something to SAY at least when she finally sees her husband after 60 years in cyber sleep.

However, the visuals are absolutely breath taking. I was taken in and completely captivated by the beauty - I feel like everything was made by Apple. The camerawork, lighting, and first 12 minutes of the film were completely incredible, and those were all big pluses. Also, M83's music was pretty sweet. Claudio Miranda won the Academy Award for cinematography for Life of Pi (2012) and it's clear that he's the man who takes our breath away. I just wish there was some heart below the beautiful surface that we could connect with and wish to come back for more. But when all acting is wooden, and when there are way too many plot holes, and when it rips off some of the greatest sci-fi movies of all time, I must say my patience was tried. And for reals, the movie is too long! 4/10

The Accidental Tourist (1988)

I really wanted to like this movie.  It’s got two of my favorite things in it: dogs and travel.  It also has a man who hardly cares for either.  I gave an involuntary shiver at him searching for American cuisine in foreign countries – I mean eating Burger King in PARIS?  Sinful.  That hurt me just a little bit.

Anyway, William Hurt stars as Macon Leary (what kind of a name is that anyway?) and he dispassionately writes travel guides for people who hate traveling.  A travesty, yet I guess someone’s gotta do it, so it should probably be Macon Leary.  We meet him at the beginning of the movie in an ICU gazing over his son’s dead body. He and his wife Sarah (Kathleen Turner) take it hard, but they’re having difficulty coming together over it.  So she leaves him.  And leaves the dog.  Macon falls down some stairs, screwing his mobility and goes to stay with his weird siblings.  They play funny games.  His editor, Julian (Bill Pullman) comes to see him sometimes.  He likes his sister.

Then he meets Muriel Pritchett (Geena Davis).  She’s kind of awesome, but also kind of eccentric and definitely quirky.  She’s talkative and forward, and knows a lot about dogs.  He hires her to help him train his own dog.  Then they fall in love, or whatever.  Then everything comes to a big wha-bam in Paris, of course.  The end.

Before you write me off completely, I emphasize that my low opinion has NOTHING to do with it being slow.  On the contrary, I love slow, quiet films (84 Charing Cross Road for example).  What I didn’t like had nothing to do with the story.  It’s like I could see, even almost taste, the beauty and potential of an emotional connection but I was just never truly moved.  The letdown was even more potent with that in mind.

I’ve always loved William Hurt, but the man disappointed me with this one.  It didn’t feel like a story of a hurt man who needs a little attention and lovin’ to make his way to recovery.  No, he was static, he was expressionless.  How could the fiery Muriel even dream of falling in love with him?  His personal journey seemed superficial at best.  He doesn’t even like his own dog…

Geena Davis, on the other hand, was great.  She manages to play the wacky woman with just enough umph yet still grounded in reality to make her likable and not overbearing.  She’s a realistic mother, looking after her son with great care and love.  She’s also realistic in her relationship with Macon.

I’ll admit, the writing is excellent.  Kasdan and Frank Galati know how to run things, and on paper it portrays the beauty that could not be captured on screen.  Something is missing.  I found myself searching for emotion, something that only Davis gave to me.  Okay scratch that, the other actors were also pretty solid (though I don’t care for Kathleen Turner too much), but I did love Macon’s crazy family surroundings and the family dynamic.  As well as Bill Pullman.

The Accidental Tourist was a disappointment.  I wouldn’t go so far as to give up on it forever, but it’d take a lot of will power to get myself to sit through Macon’s monotonous personality for an additional hour and a half.  4/10

Basketball Diaries (1995)

Basketball Diaries is basically about basketball star Jim (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his going off the deep end. He loses his best friend to leukemia, but loses himself to drugs.  He also writes.  He’s a charmer, for sure.  Especially when screaming his guts out in pain for a fix.  That’s a turn on if I ever saw one.  It was... painful.  But basically if I didn’t know anything about drugs before I certainly do now.  On the whole, this true story based on the life of Jim Carroll is very harrowing, and agonizing.

It’s also, you know, overdone?  Not to bag on people with terrible drug addictions who think their story is just as awful and heart-wrenching as any other (and it probably is…) but we’ve seen this before.  Drugs are bad, don’t drop out of school, the end.  Plus I am not a drug addict.  It looks pretty awful, no lies, but I couldn’t relate.

On another note, it’s ugly.  Yeah, it paints a picture and in some ways it contributes to what’s going on but hey.  It’s still ugly.

I didn’t totally hate it though.  I’m a Leo fan, and this is one of his earliest (he looks like he’s nine…).  Though even with his age he’s far from untalented.  I like the guy, and he’s basically why I saw this in the first place.  He’s showin’ through some realistic teenage angst.  Believable is the word I’m looking for, I think.  Some argue that he was over the top, but I didn’t think that for the most part.  In fact, this performance is one of the best I've seen of someone fighting an addiction. The other acting is pretty good too (Mark Wahlberg, Bruno Kerby, and Lorraine Brocco).  The soundtrack is awesome, the title is fitting.  And yeah, it’s memorable.  I won’t be forgetting all that drugness anytime soon.  Its outline is also effective with a very poetic feel.  Oh, and my favorite scene is when they play basketball in the rain.  Gotta love it.

Basically if you want to teach how awful life with drugs can be, here’s your movie.  Though I probably wouldn’t show it to your kids unless, you know, they’re already overboard. 4/10

Bright Star (2009)

What to say, what to say…  Acclaimed English poet John Keats falls in love with Fanny Brawne, and then he dies.  The end.

Okay, okay.  There was something of a story there in the middle.  Recognizing my minority status, I hesitate to criticize this film at the risk of sounding immature and one-sided.  But frankly, I didn’t like it.  I didn’t really get into it, and once I did it was difficult to see where the story was headed.  I understand this film’s beauty and love its scenery and poetic themes.  Keats (Ben Whishaw), I must admit, was excellent – if only he were in it more.  The supporting performances were, for the most part, solid – particularly Fanny’s younger sister, Toots.

In my humble opinion, the greatest weakness was Abbie Cornish (Fanny).  It’s like Twilight for adults.  Call me crazy, but I have this firm belief in a woman’s independence and stability to never ruin their lives over a man.  Just as I can’t stand Bella – I’m not such a fan of Fanny either.  She was annoying and overdramatic.  I found nothing to really like about her, even her looks.  Afterall, Keats is the one everybody knows… I learned nothing much of his work, nor much about the man himself other than his strange obsession for Fanny.

The screenplay was far from exceptional – written and directed by Jane Campion (The Piano), it never really explores outside of its Fanny/Keats bubble.

I give it a 4/10 for its beauty and Ben Whishaw, though I still wish I knew more about Keats.  Give me Sense and Sensibility over this any day.

The Ring (1927)

I’m sick today. I’ve been sick for a few days actually… but not all is lost. I just get to watch a few more movies than usual. 

I’ve actually been compiling over 20 different “blah blah blah movies to see before you die” lists including those from  Empire Magazine, AFI, Yahoo, Roger Ebert and also all the Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress and Director Oscar winners. That alone includes over 1000 movies. I look at such lists and I find that I KNOW 95% of the movies just from my film knowledge but I’ve seen only about 15%. This frustrates me at first… but then I remember that I’m only 18. I’ve got lots of time to catch up.

I’ve been continuing to watch more old Hitchcock movies. For some reason I have this issue of keeping separate the main male characters. Me: “Wait, is that the husband or the lover?” My mom: “It’s the husband, he’s the BALD one…” I’m finding, however, that they are worth the time for historical purposes if nothing else. Many of these “comedies” are so unlike the Master of Suspense’s later work that it’s delightful to catch small glimpses of certain Hitchcockesque filming angles or other such qualities and techniques.

You’ve got your Rockys, your Raging Bulls and your Cinderella Storys… but go much earlier than 1947′s Body and Soul and you won’t find many movies centered around boxing. As I watched this movie, I thought how few films about boxing could have been made before 1930, so a silent dramedy about boxing in 1927 would have been something new to the British screen. That in and of itself is commendable. Since watching I have done a bit of research and found films such as the 1926 Buster Keaton movie Battling Butler or The Champ in 1931, neither of which I have seen. I remain, however, that The Ring was daring for its time.

The film itself was interesting, though not necessarily worth watching twice. The plot centers around a love triangle and the two lead men fighting (literally) for her (undeserving) heart. There were very few title cards, but the plot was predictable enough with them. I was especially impressed with the fight scenes, which were cinematically awesome for 1927, and I enjoyed one particular scene in which the two opposing men are dancing back-to-back in front of the camera while searching for one another. It was some very clever camera work.

I can’t say I enjoyed this film. I would say that I appreciated it. But I’d still take Rocky. 4/10