brettalder Reviews

Burnt (I) (2015)

Burnt and Misunderstood

[10/10 · 17 January 2024]

One of my favorite all-time films. Why?

Because true greatness is not achieved by us well behaved folks. It's achieved by the hell bent, the crazy, the uncorked. This movie is not about food, it's about obsession. About a man that will stop at nothing to achieve his goals, about redemption, about the journey of transitioning from independent ferocity to inter-dependent surrender.

All I can say is that I'm sorry for people that don't relate to this movie. Does it align with some pre-established tropes? Who. Cares. This movie has 1,000X more heart than the average movie making rubbish and it's entirely inspiring. Cooper's performance is incredible. I believe that if you aspire to excellence, and have had any interaction with a world that punishes such aspirations, you will love and identify with Burnt. Is he a terrible person? By who's definition? History is made by such men as these and it's awesome to see it portrayed on film. I mean, the dialogue is also incredible. Wanting to serve food that "makes people sick with longing." To touch heaven and forever regret the brevity of the moment.

If this movie were truly pandering or formulaic, it would have done better at the box office. That was not it's problem. It's problem is that it DARED to "go there", which made some people who don't want to stare into the abiss "uncomfortable". They want to enjoy food without thinking of any associated unpleasantness. They want gourmet without discomfort. Well, sorry, but that's never how anything ground breaking is invented or true excellence is achieved. I'm very grateful, and kind of surprised really, that the movie was so daring and true to itself in a world of washouts and blandness.

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power (2022– )

Magnificent, epic cinematography with meh storytelling

[5/10 · 15 October 2022]

The Great: Visuals are stunning, gorgeous and immersive.

The Good: Fresh cast of characters with unfamiliar faces. Initial investment in character development. Really liked the intro of Durin as it was textured, familiar and intimate. Lack of gratuitous sex, nudity, and gore. I love that Galadriel is not some super-busty broad. Was so tasteful in the initial episodes.

The Bad: The storyline and character development are just not able to keep pace with the visual effects and it becomes this lopsided, almost unwatchable caricature as it haltingly unfolds.

Despite a solid start with their character development, the action has completely monopolized the plot development and we're left with paper thin characters as our fellow sojourners. Let's for a moment analyze their care circles and see how we're doing:

Galadriel: Values: Who knows. Disvalues: Orcs. Don't care circle: Everything else?

Halbrand: Values: Joining the blacksmith guild. Disvalues: Some really bad thing he did once. Don't care circle: Everything else?

Elrond: Values: Friendship with Durin, though he hasn't visited in 20 years. (???), Disvalues: Dying from blight. Don't care circle: Everything else?

Now, compare this with a couple characters from the Office and you'll see why it was such a sticky show for viewers:

Michael Scott: Values: Getting attention and being seen as cool. Disvalues: Despite being single and childless he strongly disvalued loneliness, being upstaged, and any indication that his life was meaningless. Don't care circle: Work related activities, creating a constant air of tension as employees tried to get things done and preserve their jobs amidst the distraction and chaos caused by his antics

Dwight Schrute: Value circle: Craved power, sought positions of authority over his colleagues, and was obsessed with weapons, martial arts, and law enforcement. Highly valued specificity, and regardless of the topic, Dwight would have a specific opinion or preference, often ridiculous, on the subject. Disvalues: Inefficiency and rule breaking. Don't care: What kept Dwight interesting was that his 'don't care' circle included many things that most people cared about: decorum, interpersonal decency, and a shared sense of culture.

How am I supposed to relate to these characters? Why would I journey with them? The takeaway is that it doesn't matter how many twists and turns there are in the plot (which are way too jarring - Defeat=>Victory=>Defeat=>Victory in very close succession), if the characters are not developed and genuine, then the dialogue is stale, and the action needs to overcompensate. I would rather watch Dwight running a simulated fire drill than all of these characters fight over the fate of middle Earth.

Please, there is still time. Fill out their care circles and stay true to them and you'll have the most loyal audience ever. Allow that to flow into intelligent dialogue. Let intelligent and textured characters band together to cleverly overcome well crafted and believable obstacles. Thank you.

Lonely Are the Brave (1962)

Weird mash up of anachronistic liberal ideals and the wild west

[3/10 · 12 December 2016]

I will say this is a gripping movie. Kirk Douglas is a fantastic actor and this is certainly one of his greatest performances, but that doesn't redeem this frustrating and contradictory portrayal of "an old-time cowboy supplanted by modernity".

When it comes to food, you don't criticize an Indian buffet for being lousy Chinese -- it's not trying to be Chinese. So when critiquing this work, it's important to separate out what the work is attempting from what it is not. It's NOT attempting to be a feel good story of redemption or good guy triumph. It IS trying to portray a rustic and cunning cowboy as he interacts with a modernizing world that can nary afford a glance backward on the society it is replacing.

The biggest problem with this work is the fact that they're pretending to, but not actually, portraying a cowboy, when they're actually showing a Hollywood liberal-idealized version that renders an absurdist plot line. Douglas plays Jack Burns, a man who survives by his wits and grim determination in an unsettled wilderness with his horse while occasionally hiring himself out. Burns should be an icon of wilderness practicality, but basically the whole plot line is based on him being an idealistic buffoon. Examples:

1) Jack knows nothing about jail, but gets himself condemned to a hear in prison just to see his friend (visitation hours won't do). He sneaks a hacksaw into his cell and starts sawing the first night without taking the lay-of-the-land, determining who might rat him out, the guard rotation, etc.

2) Upon escape, he knows the police will be after him, but takes an excruciating amount of time bidding adieu to his former lover (now wife of his friend) and wandering around pensively. Is this a cowboy or a romantic philosopher?

3) While escaping through the hills he takes a nice rest during the day without having first reached the ridge he needs to get to.

4) Along the way he meets up with the police officer/jail guard that a) he had previously threatened and b) had extra judicially beaten him while in jail -- knocking out a molar. Instead of killing this menace to society, Burns is content to knock him out. Is this a hard bitten cowboy or a wandering Buddhist monk we're dealing with? If he's a legit brave cowboy he shouldn't be making empty threats he doesn't plan on following through on or failing to mete out retribution for breaking the tacit laws of the West. That guard was previously taunting Burns' best friend Paul in jail. Sparing him will have consequences Burns' impracticality won't allow him to consider. "This one's for Paul, you SOB!"

5) All of Burns' impracticality and dawdling is required to set up a final break for the trees after he reaches the ridge where he is being fired at by not one, but three separate groups of officers simultaneously.

Overall this adds up to lousy and lazy story telling. Don't pretend to portray a cowboy and then not do it. I know it's hard to mesh realistic acting characters with a gripping plot line. I know it's hard to try to understand cowboy culture and portray it vividly, but at least try. As it is it's modern-vs-modern critique where 1960's romantic ideals in the form of Jack Burns go head to head with 1960's modern realities. Weird.