Al's Omniflick Spotlight: 1980

It's been awhile since I focused an Omniflick spotlight on a particular year, so I thought I would do so again by randomly selecting an interesting time from yesteryear to revisit. This time I chose 1980, which, when I looked over the releases from that particular time, I found to be quite fascinating. Though I didn't include all the terrific films from that year, the following effectively demonstrate that cinema was alive and thriving. When one considers a sampling of 1980's cinematic output, one sees a diverse offering of films with a talent pool featuring Stanley Kubrick, Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Samuel Fuller and David Lynch; to name just a few. It is also worth mentioning that three of the films on my list were filmed in black and white.
Looking over the titles, one can see a male-dominated film scene and though this is regrettable, we can see the problem has only been corrected a smidgen here in the 21st century. Be that as it may, one can hardly deny the quality of the films on the list I've compiled below.
I only chose ten films from that year but feel some guilt for leaving off notables that are no less deserving of recognition. Concision is always of the essence.
I hope you enjoy my selection and hopefully the movies listed herein will inspire you to revisit or maybe see them for the first time. The films are haphazardly arranged, without qualitative concerns.

10 From '80

1. Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back--Director: Irvin Kershner
George Lucas' follow-up to his absurdly successful Star Wars was widely anticipated and easily lived up to the promise of the first film. Of the original trilogy, The Empire Strikes Back is easily my favorite. It has a darker ending and didn't stint on character or story. We can only hope the next installment in December '15 will live up to the original series and this film in particular.

2. The Shining--Director: Stanley Kubrick
Though Stephen King has disowned Kubrick's adaptation, it has nevertheless achieved iconic status in the Horror-movie genre. The Diane Arbus-inspired twin girl shot has been copied, stolen and satirized to death while Jack Nicholson's "Here's Johnny" has suffered the same fate. In spite of Nicholson's occasional, over-the-top mugging, the film is chilling and always fun to watch. Kubrick's camera work still seems fresh and brilliant.

3. Raging Bull--Director: Martin Scorcese
Back when Robert De Niro still had a serious actor's aura, his depiction of boxer Jake La Motta was (and is) something to see. Scorsese's shots inside the ring are memorable for their inventiveness and their ability to capture the brutality of the sport. Joe Pesci and Cathy Moriarty are superb in supporting roles. Still one of the best boxing movies of all time.

4. Stardust Memories--Director: Woody Allen
I don't know that Stardust Memories wowed many critics at the time but it is very entertaining and always worth a gander. The deliberate blurring of fact and fiction; the past and present, imparts a surreal quality to the film. Some of Woody's funniest material can be found here, including the 8 1/2 parody at the beginning of the film. Charlotte Rampling, Jessica Harper and Marie-Christine Barrault are quite terrific as Woody's three loves.

5. Altered States--Director: Ken Russell
An underrated film that isn't exactly science fiction or horror but a cerebral fusion of both genres. The collaboration of Russell and screenwriting legend Paddy Chayevsky produced this gem about a man who uses mind-altering drugs and a sensory-deprivation tank to connect to man's primeval past. The dialogue and William Hurt's terrific performance, as well as Russell's trippy imagery-from-the-sub-conscious, make Altered States worthy of repeated viewings.

6. Breaker Morant--Director: Bruce Beresford
One of the great military-courtroom films, Bruce Beresford's Breaker Morant is also arguably his best work. The tragic and true story of three Australian soldiers charged with a murder during the Anglo-Boer War (1899-1902) is distinguished by its riveting courtroom scenes and fine performances. The film is especially effective in showing how soldiers become convenient scapegoats for those who make and administrate war. Forever stirring and powerful.

7. Melvin and Howard--Director: Jonathan Demme
A story almost too bizarre to be true, Demme's film is funny in a sad sort of way. Paul Le Mat and Mary Steenburgen make this movie shine with their oddball characters who find themselves in an extraordinary situation. I had the good fortune to see the film on the big screen last year and I'm happy to say it hasn't aged a bit. It is only one among many great Jonathan Demme films.

8. The Changeling--Director: Peter Medak
An unsung film in the haunted house, horror sub-genre. The creepy, shadowy, lighting and the film's very effective use of sound are enough to keep one chilled to the marrow. A seemingly innocuous red ball becomes a terrifically spooky object while George C. Scott's presence (and performance) lends the film some added cachet.

9. The Big Red One--Director: Samuel Fuller
Fuller, known for tough, gritty films, is true to his reputation with his World War II drama. The film is chock full of memorable scenes; one of which involves a carefully orchestrated ambush of GIs' by German soldiers while another is the liberation of a concentration camp, where American soldiers see Nazi atrocities first-hand. One of the film's stand-out performances belongs to real-life WWII veteran Lee Marvin, who plays a Sergeant whose toughness is tempered by compassion.

10. The Elephant Man--Director: David Lynch
David Lynch's black and white film makes his version of the story of John Merrick seem timeless and keeps us focused on the characters and story. With no colorful finery to distract us, Merrick's tragic story becomes more poignant and heart-rending. Lynch doesn't seem like the obvious choice to direct such a film but he manages the story quite well and doesn't stint on stunning visuals; which are accomplished in part by cinematographer Freddie Francis' striking chiaroscuro. John Hurt's Elephant Man isn't a self-pitying grotesquery but an articulate, gifted man who happens to be physically deformed. A superb performance by someone who literally and figuratively vanishes into his character.

I hope I provided an interesting, cinematic cross-section of the year 1980. Some other notable films from that year are: The Last Metro, Atlantic City, The Blues Brothers, Friday the 13th, Kagemusha, Superman II and Airplane. Sorry about the omissions!


Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back, The Shining, Raging Bull, Stardust Memories, Altered States, Breaker Morant, Melvin and Howard, The Changeling, The Big Red One, The Elephant Man.

By The Sea--or--The Elegance of Suffering

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Angelina Jolie-Pitt/Starring: Angelina Jolie-Pitt, Brad Pitt, Niels Arestrup, Melanie Laurent and Melvil Poupaud

Angelina Jolie-Pitt follows up her 2015 drama Unbroken with her latest cinematic effort By the Sea; a stale, thinly-plotted, timid and stubbornly bland story about a couple seeking refuge in a French Mediterranean town. The couple seeks escape from marital woes, writer's block and recent tragedies that threaten to sunder their relationship. Jolie-Pitt's third film does little to build on a still budding directorial career that has showed little promise. If her new film can be said to make a statement, it is that she shows no flair for visual composition, storytelling or challenging her actors (including herself) in meaningful ways. She is neither a visualist nor a dramatist. But, that is hardly an impediment to one half of the most popular and glamorous acting couple on the planet. Being one of the world's most famous actresses allows one opportunities to pick and choose projects and write and direct, irrespective of said person's limited artistic range. Many actors step behind the camera and many demonstrate innate, directorial talents. One such actor is French actress Melanie Laurent, who happens to be in Jolie-Pitt's newest film and whose recent Breathe established her auteurist bona fides. One would be hard-pressed to find a wider disparity in talent. While Laurent's film was a psychologically dark portrait of a venomous friendship, Jolie-Pitt's is a shallow drama with dark pretensions. It is all pose and attitude and a little child with ideas too big to express.

The film settles quickly into its story as we see Roland (Brad Pitt) and Vanessa (Angelina Jolie-Pitt) arrive at seaside hotel in the French Mediterranean; their stylish convertible tells us economized traveling is hardly a concern. Within the first minutes of being in their room, which boasts a beautiful view of the Mediterranean, the couple rearrange the furniture to provide Roland a view in which to write.

In the days that follow, Roland seeks his own escape in the local restaurant/watering hole; run by a native named Michel (Niels Arestrup, from A Prophet), who listens to the writer's mopey tales of marital disenchantment. When not lending a sympathetic ear, he helps a drunken Roland to the door or in one instance, expels him for being an inebriated lout.

And while Roland wiles away the hours at Michel's establishment, Vanessa spends her time mostly cooped-up on the hotel room, looking stylishly tragic in her loose, flowing gowns. She never once wears slacks or dresses down the entire film. The suffering with which she copes is articulated in couture elegance. In fact, the way she lolls about the furniture in her gowns reminded me of a perfume commercial. I could almost hear a soothing, female voice say; Suffering...by Givenchy.

Providing some distraction are the sensual female, Mediterranean bodies she sees sunbathing below her room, which also awaken voyeuristic tendencies that become more manifest as the film progresses.

And why all the angst and dourness? What has the couple suffered that would make a moody sojourn on the French Mediterranean necessary?

Jolie-Pitt maintains the mystery; teasing the viewer with visual flashes that are supposed to offer clues but instead just keep us in the dark.

As the days pass; the couple remain alienated from one another in their respective daily distractions. They discover a French couple on their honeymoon have just occupied the room next to theirs and while sitting out on her patio one day, the man; Francois (Melvil Poupaud), and Vanessa make seemingly light conversation though the exchange bears some sexual tension.

Before the monotony of languorous living begins to take hold, Vanessa discovers a hole in the wall connecting her room to the couple next door. After an initial look-see, she begins to peep through the hole regularly, particularly when the French couple are in the throes of passion. I found this development very welcome because one wonders at this point if the film has anywhere to go. I thought; great, some Hitchcockian or David Lynchian psycho-sexual shenanigans to give the film a much needed defibrillation. Vanessa becomes titillated by the sight of French couple's lovemaking and before long, her husband learns of her new hobby and joins in.

Vanessa and Roland become acquainted with the couple while the wife; Lea (Melanie Laurent), proposes some girls-only outings. But though the couples establish a amicable rapport, Vanessa and Roland continue to spy on the couple through the wall.

The voyeurism Vanessa and Roland engage in is supposed to highlight the lack of eroticism and intimacy in their own marriage and though we (and Vanessa and Roland) expect to see something steamy and maybe kinky in their surveillance, they (and we) see nothing remotely erotic. Yes, the couple have sex but it is surprisingly mundane; the kind of love-making your average honeymooners might perform at a Quality Inn. More pitiful is the thought that 50 Shades of Grey offers more lascivious thrills; a damning criticism Jolie-Pitt should find embarrassing.

In time, we learn the nature of the Damoclean Sword hanging over the Roland/Vanessa marriage but the revelation is hardly a surprise, nor is it very interesting. In spite of Roland's earnest efforts to save his marriage, he encounters stiff resistance from his wife and we begin to wonder what it might have been that made her such a catch in the first place. We also wonder if any kind of wife-swapping activity will take place. Being that the story is set in the sexually-adventurous 70s', the idea is hardly out-of-place.

The movie always threatens to go somewhere but it ends up getting in its own way and Jolie-Pitt's script, which she penned herself, doesn't allow anyone to be real. Her characters are just flimsy and shallow caricatures who behave according to vague ideas in her head.

A man seen rowing out of the harbor in the morning and back in the evening is noticed by Vanessa and Roland but aside from idle speculation as to his identity and where and why he goes where he goes, we learn nothing about him or what symbolic purpose he serves.

Always a feeble actress unless she's playing a fairy-tale character like Maleficent, Jolie-Pitt does little to convince us her grief and suffering are anything but skin-deep. She pouts and glowers and looks very glamorous doing so. The other characters are also lazily conceived. The writer experiencing writer's block and a sexless marriage seems like a retreaded plot-line from a Philip Roth or a John Updike novel. Though Brad Pitt is an infinitely more capable actor than his wife, even he can't do much with what little he's given. Ditto for Arestrup and Laurent, who are accustomed to playing characters with more depth.

The story takes its time floundering and when the climax arrives in the third act, it is followed by a very neat conclusion.

The movie, which has vanished quickly from theaters after a very limited-release, is such an eye-roller and a wince-inducer. The biggest cringe bomb is the music that plays over the final scene; Chopin's 24 Préludes, Op. 28: No. 4 in E Minor. Not only is it clumsily deployed, it is a huge slab of seriousness grafted to an unbearably silly film. I guess it's there to show us how earnest the director is and how high-minded she can be.

Jolie-Pitt has made three films and all three have been pasted by critics and bloggers alike. I guess we can give her credit for being persistent. Will she ever surprise us with a deftly-made film or even one that is skillfully competent? I'm not holding my breath. At least the viewer gets to spend some time in the French Mediterranean.
That will have to serve as compensation for anyone unlucky enough to sit through this film.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Francis Lawrence/Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Julianne Moore, Donald Sutherland, Liam Hemsworth, Jena Malone, Jeffrey Wright, Stanley Tucci, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Natalie Dormer, Elizabeth Banks and Woody Harrelson

Did this series really begin in 2012? Have we really seen four films in a mere three years? And where has the time gone? Seems like yesterday since I first heard about Katniss Everdeen; a name that is now as familiar to movie audiences as Harry Potter. Well, almost. But it seems like she's always been with us.

The series comes to a definitive end with The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 and though I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected, it's still a relief to see the saga finally coming to rest. I found the ending to be satisfying (I don't know how those who read the series feel) and because I can be as sentimental as the next sentimental person, I'm kind of sorry to see Katniss go. It isn't often a major action franchise features a woman in a lead role. With Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss, the character became someone could we could care about.

The last film in the series poses many questions, which we know will be addressed before the final credits. Will Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) overcome the brainwashing to which President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has subjected him, rendering him dangerously hostile to Katniss? Will the rebellion topple the government and if so, who will be the leader in a new world order? What will become of the Katniss/Gale Hawthorne (Liam Hemsworth)/Peeta triangle? Is President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) all that she seems? Will she be the best choice for president if the rebellion succeeds? Because this is the final film in the installment, all questions are answered forthwith. And as the story dispatches them, it manages to move along at an exciting clip, with brief stops for exposition and plot development.

If you were expecting a series of pitched battles between the rebels and Snow's army, you will be pleasantly surprised to find the movie avoids that obvious plot-line. Instead, Katniss' obsessive quest for revenge and Snow's assassination supersedes Coin's directives, which demand the face of the rebellion become a PR tool in uniting the districts against the Capitol. Of course we know Katniss will never sit passively as the war is about to rage. Escaping from the rebel base, she commandeers a combat unit; effectively lying to them about a Coin-mandated operation to kill Snow. The unit, ostensibly led by Boggs (Mahershala Ali), become unwitting accomplices in Katniss' personal operation, which becomes increasingly dangerous the closer they come to their objective.

Utilizing a holographic map of the Capitol, the unit plots a course through the vast array of deadly traps-known as pods-that lay hidden in every street. Using a pod-locating device in Bogg's possession, the unit, which includes Boggs, Katniss, Gale and Peeta, make their way through the city streets, hoping to avoid sudden death and the the Capitol's military forces. The group encounters frightening obstacles, like a searing wall of flame and later a terrifying deluge of what resembles crude oil. Adding a wrinkle to their mission is Peeta, who has yet to shake off the conditioning that makes him liable to kill Katniss at any given moment. Finding the pod-deployed streets too much to overcome, the group enters the city sewers to bypass the horrors above, only to encounter other nightmarish foes below.

As they come within sight of the palace gates, Katniss and Gale don cloaks to disguise themselves but find Capitol security checking refugees entering the compound. The rebellion arrives in time to divert attention away from Katniss and Gale, which makes it possible for her to enter the palace. After Snow is apprehended, he divulges secrets about Alma Coin's pursuit of power, which are confirmed during a round-table meeting between Coin and the principle players of the rebellion. Any hopes Katniss embraced for a just, free society ruled by Coin become instantly dashed.

In the execution scene that follows, the story takes a twist not entirely unanticipated. As Katniss stands ready to be Snow's executioner, she fires and arrow that irrevocably alters Panem's future and gives the plot yet another twist. In the aftermath, we see Panem's future clearly laid out. And in the epilogue that follows, we see what becomes of Katniss Everdeen; a conclusion that seems almost inevitable.

It is astonishing to consider the ensemble cast; the many actors and actresses whose talents have been enlisted for the series. To see Phillip Seymour Hoffman is both eerie and a pleasant illusion. The end of the series means we have unfortunately seen the last of him onscreen.

I like that the story carries a bit of realpolitik. Novelist Suzanne Collins and film-makers are wise and maybe cynical enough to understand that revolutions and revolutionaries are often as reactionary as the regimes they hope to supplant. Katniss and her soldier colleagues discover this hard fact in post-uprising Panem. And in earning this wisdom, the ending becomes downbeat, rather than a buoyant, ecstatic celebration.

The film's opening weekend receipts exceeded $102 million; a staggering amount for a film featuring a female lead. It is worth mentioning that the film's opening weekend figures dwarf both Spectre and Mad Max: Fury Road; two other action franchises with male leads (though one could argue MM:FR featured a female co-lead). If Hollywood gleans nothing from this factoid, then we can safely say progress is still a work in progress. Maybe the new Star Wars series should take heed. From what I've seen of the trailers for that film, the story features a female co-lead. Future film-goers may look back to The Hunger Games: Mockingjay-Part 2 as the film that first ushered in a trend for strong female leads in cinema. I guess Katniss Everdeen is a revolutionary outside the story too.

So we say goodbye to Katniss Everdeen; the Mockingjay and her heroic exploits. It has mostly been a pleasure. May her bow ever be supple and her arrows ever aim true.

Trumbo

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Jay Roach/Starring: Bryan Cranston, Helen Mirren, Diane Lane, Louis C.K., John Goodman, Elle Fanning and Michael Stuhlbarg

The sordid history of the Hollywood blacklists has been well documented and dramatized in cinema. Two notable films on the subject; Martin Ritt's The Front (1976) and Irwin Winkler's Guilty by Suspicion (1991); come to mind. But unlike the aforementioned fictitious films, director Jay Roach's Trumbo is based on the real-life experiences of a legendary screenwriter who endured the unforgiving and unconscionable political witch-hunts that left so many unemployed and unemployable. Dalton Trumbo, played beautifully and with much artistry by Bryan Cranston, stands as one of the more talented writers in movie history but because his communist ties were seen by the House Un-American Activities Committee as suspicious and possibly seditious, he, along with other screenwriting peers, were barred from submitting work to the studios. Deprived of their livelihood, many found their economic situations severely stressed and their lives and reputations ruined by one of the more diabolical political movements in American history.

In Trumbo, the screenwriter's experiences serve as a testimony to the indignities and humiliations visited on a group whose membership in the communist party was borne of humanitarian concerns.

Early in the film, we see Trumbo sitting before legendary studio executive Louis B. Mayer, basking in praise and the promise of being the highest paid screenwriter in Hollywood. Unfortunately for Trumbo, a new contract comes with an ominous warning about his political affiliations. Unconcerned, he spends his days writing and enjoying time with his family and screenwriting friends.

But we also see the machinations of anti-communist forces, led by the powerful Hollywood gossip columnist Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) and a government committee hellbent on expunging traitorous elements in the film community. In one scene, Hopper stands before a full auditorium of like-minded "patriots" with actor John Wayne (David James Elliott). After rousing the audience with bile-spewing rhetoric about political subversives in Hollywood, Hopper and Wayne encounter Trumbo and his fellow-screenwriters outside the auditorium, where their leaflets about constitutional rights are left untouched by the those exiting the venue. Wayne and Hopper are unmoved by and dismissive of the writer's pleas for tolerance, while Trumbo counters Wayne's bullying with a biting question about the actor's war service.

But Trumbo finds more powerful forces marshaled against him, as a subpoena served to him during a family picnic demands that he testify before the House Un-American Activities Committee in Washington D.C. to address issues about communist propaganda finding its way into Hollywood films. Refusing to answer questions they deem intrusive, Trumbo and his screenwriting cohorts--known as The Hollywood Ten--are convicted of contempt of Congress and subsequently arrested.

We see Trumbo in the following scene standing before a prison guard. He is forced to strip naked, exposing his privates for examination. The degradation he endures for his views says much about the political climate of the time. In prison, he is hardly exempt from the hard labor demanded of inmates.

While serving his time, Trumbo stays in contact with his wife Cleo (Diane Lane) as she tries to hold the family together. Trumbo (and the audience) experiences a wonderful moment of comical irony when he discovers the man who led the witch-hunt against him in Hollywood is also serving time in the same prison for tax-evasion.

But upon being paroled, Trumbo discovers his problems have only begun. He finds being blacklisted to be another punishing sentence as he is effectively shut-out from Hollywood. Public humiliation becomes common. Trumbo is accosted in a movie theater after a patron sees his face in a newsreel about The Hollywood Ten, whereupon a drink is splashed in his face.

Trumbo finds a way around the blacklist by writing scripts with non-blacklisted writer's names on his work. He writes Roman Holiday but attaches the name of his screenwriting peer Ian McLellan Hunter (Alan Tudyk} on the front page. Though his screenplay wins an Oscar, Trumbo is unable to accept the award while Hunter is loathe to keep the statue.

Soon Trumbo discovers writing under a pseudonym to be an effective way of earn a living. As the Trumbo family is forced to move into more modest digs, Dalton is also forced to work for a schlock movie company run by brothers Frank (John Goodman) and Hymie (Stephen Root) King, who churn out low-budget pot-boilers. Though Frank and Hymie make objections about not being able to afford Trumbo, the writer gladly accepts lower pay to keep his family fed. Unlike the major studios, the King brothers don't see the Black List as an impediment to hiring a black-listed writer. Friend and fellow blacklister Arlen Hird (Louis C.K.) sees his writing junk-scripts as insulting while Trumbo sees writing under a pseudonym as an effective way of circumventing the blacklist. Soon Trumbo enlists the talents of his fellow blacklisters for the King brothers, sometimes with humorous results. One scene that is particularly funny involves a space alien story over which Frank and Arlen lock horns.

As betrayal is the overarching theme in the film, we see its many incarnations. One instance involves screen legend Edward G. Robinson; who proves to be a sympathetic ally to Trumbo and his friends before he too is forced to sit before a committee to answer questions about his dubious affiliations. Other liberal figures in the industry pledge fealty to the Trumbo and his fellow communists, until they also turn their backs on the vilified Ten.

We also see how betrayal can take the form of familial alienation. Trumbo's obsessive writing schedule drives a wedge between himself and his family. Though Cleo feels he is guilty of neglect, the person it affects most acutely is his daughter Nicki (Elle Fanning). She tries to get her father to join the family gathering for her 16th birthday, only to find him in the bathtub with his typewriter; hostile to all entreaties.

Trumbo's career takes a dramatic turn when he discovers actors and directors who are willing to defy the blacklist to work with him and more importantly, include his name on scripts. Two such people; Kirk Douglas and Otto Preminger, help dismantle (though not eradicate) the Committee and Hedda Hopper's influence, thus extricating Trumbo from the blacklist's pernicious hold.

If the film ends with vindication, it also carries the bitterness of injustice. Though we see Trumbo accepting an award years after the blacklist's wane, he is quick to point out that all who suffered through its noxious influence were forever changed by it, mostly for the worse. Closing subtitles inform us credit for Trumbo's work on Roman Holiday and The Brave One, both Oscar-winning screenplays; were awarded only later; the former posthumously.

The film's showcase is Bryan Cranston, whose performance here should soundly establish him in movies. Cranston shows us a highly principled man whose unwavering loyalty to his colleagues and his unassailable political convictions came with a fiery resolve. He is a wonder in this role.

But one can't walk away from the film not having noticed Helen Mirren, John Goodman, Louis C.K. and Michael Stuhlbarg all doing exceptional work as well.
John McNamara, whose writing credits have been mostly relegated to television, contributes a solid, intelligent script. His dialogue is smart and witty and his hero wonderfully nuanced.

The Hollywood Black Lists will forever inspire dramas; it's a subject that never seems to get musty. Jay Roach's film proves the history can still be mined poignantly. The film also shows that Dalton Trumbo was long overdue for a biopic of his own.

The 33

Director: Patricia Riggen/Starring: Antonio Banderas, Lou Diamond Phillips, Juliette Binoche, Kate de Castillo, Gabriel Byrne, Rodrigo Santoro and James Brolin

The 2010 Copiapo Mining Accident in Chile's Atacama Desert, where 33 miners were trapped for 69 days underground, riveted the world and became a headline mainstay. A concerted effort by engineers and mining personnel from around the world made a difficult rescue possible. Malnourished and weak, the men were supplied--by way of drilling--with food, water, clothes and electronic devices to enable the miners to maintain contact with their rescuers and loved ones. The miner's struggle to stay alive in a dangerous environment and the rescue effort that followed soon after, were made possible through ingenuity and the human spirit. A film version of such an incredible story deserves a powerful telling but though director Patricia Riggen's The 33 dramatizes the accident and the rescue, it fails--in spite of its well-meaning efforts--to capture the suspense and danger of the miner's seemingly hopeless struggle underground and the desperate attempt to rescue them above ground.

Like the real-life multinational effort that made the rescue possible, the film-makers have called upon an international cast that includes Juliette Binoche, Antonio Banderas, Kate de Castillo, Rodrigo Santoro and Gabriel Byrne to portray Chileans, with mixed results. Though it's hardly a stretch for Castillo, Banderas and Santoro to sound Chilean, the accent proves unwieldy for Byrne and Binoche, whose best efforts come to naught.

The mine caves in after the 33 miners begin what seems like a typical day below ground. Among the crew is a Bolivian, whose shabby treatment becomes an issue later. We get background on some of the miners. One miner's love-life is shambles as his mistress and his wife vie for his attentions. Another fights alcoholism while yet another is only days from retirement.

After the mine collapse, which is caused by a slab of rock twice the mass of the Empire State Building, the way in and out of the mine is obstructed; leaving them cut-off from the surface. The foreman assigned to oversee miner safety; Don Lucho (Lou Diamond Phillips) becomes consumed by guilt; believing he has failed in his job. Though Lucho's position as foreman gives him authority in the mine; a miner named Mario Sepulveda (Antonio Banderas) becomes de facto leader. It is Sepulveda's stubborn optimism that lifts the miner's spirits and their gloomy mood as they face further disasters and almost certain death.

After Sepulveda and another miner discover the ladders leading to the surface were never completed, the other miners prepare for a protracted stay; many believing a rescue will never come.
The miners also begin to think pragmatically as they begin rationing 3-day food supplies.

Above ground, the Minister of Mining; Laurence Golborne (Rodrigo Santoro); petitions Chilean President Pinera (Bob Gunton) for help, reminding him of the government's duty to intervene. Pinera commits government resources to helping the miners, with Golborne directing the effort.

Meanwhile, the miner's wives and girlfriends become a sustained presence at the mines; demanding information about their loved ones and forcefully resisting the mine company's attempts to disperse them. Leading the familial gathering is Maria Segovia (Juliette Binoche), who, like the others, waits impatiently for any news regarding the miners.

Unsure of the miner's fates, Golborne learns a common area in the mines which serves as a living space may be the area where the survivors congregate. Deterred by the slab of stone blocking the entrance, attempts are made to drill down to the miners to provide life-preserving supplies. As days drag into weeks, the rescue attempt draws the attention of the world media; which in turn attracts outside support. A drawn-out rescue operation makes it necessary to summon a state mining engineer named Andre Sougarret (Gabriel Byrne) to assume leadership in the operation. In time, drilling makes it possible to provide much-needed supplies to the men below.

How the miners cope with their predicament provides much of the drama in the film. As one might expect, bickering and petty factionalism take hold briefly before the miners unite in common cause. We see their supplies dwindle to almost nothing as meal portions become minuscule. Fighting despair but losing hope for a rescue, the supplies temporarily lift sagging morale and make it possible for the miners to maintain video contact with the leaders of the rescue. More importantly, the families are able to converse with their wives and children, which boosts spirits all around.

But though life-sustaining supplies bring relief, the problem of actually bringing the miners to the surface creates another problem. Attempts to employ massive drills to create a shaft into the rock are initially unsuccessful as a massive drill bit is shattered. The metallic fragments make a large magnet necessary, which in turn means summoning the necessary implement from Brazil. Sougarret and Golborne realize that every delay means one more day the miners' lives are endangered by the shifting rock in the mine, which also complicates rescue efforts.

As we see news programs from around the world broadcasting the rescue effort, one month underground becomes two. In spite of their dire situation, we see the miners gradually form an unbreakable bond.

After Sougarret and the Chilean government nearly give up the miners for dead, Golborne's determination to rescue the miners reverses what almost becomes full capitulation by all parties involved. With renewed resolve, another attempt is made with the help of an American engineer named Jeff Hart (James Brolin).

As previously mentioned, the accident and subsequent rescue were hardly wanting for suspense, drama and heart-breaking and heart-warming sentiment. But somehow the film only stirs interest rather than giving us a visceral experience. It is competently dramatized but it never leaves us breathless with suspense. Part of the problem may be we know the outcome before hand but the film itself never does much to make the audience forget it knows.

As also previously mentioned, it was difficult to overlook the various accents, particularly Binoche's. Though I highly esteem her as an actress, even she can't overcome a hokey, Chilean accent. She deserves better. Vaudeville accents are the domain of lesser actresses, like Meryl Streep; not French film stars with boundless talent.

I wanted to like the film more but a whiff of Disney seeped into the story. The real-life events ended happily (thank goodness) but the ordeal must have been hell for many involved. It's that hellish aspect that's lacking in The 33. What we're left with is something pretty decent but who pays multiplex prices to see something decent?

What this movie needs is a small screen to make its tepid, emotional output seem gargantuan, which is how I recommend one see the film.

The important thing is the miners survived, with their health intact. A so-so movie about their ordeal is less important in the grand scheme.

Spotlight

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Tom McCarthy/Starring: Michael Keaton, Liev Schreiber, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, John Slattery, Brian d'Arcy James, Stanley Tucci, Jamey Sheridan and Billy Crudup

Two films on journalism are currently making the rounds of theaters; The Truth and Spotlight. Both tell stories based on actual events but of the two, it is safe to say the latter is the superior. While the former flounders in liberal sanctimony, the latter is tougher and ultimately more disquieting. The former makes the filthier aspects of journalism look glamorous with Cate Blanchett and Robert Redford in the leads while the latter is grittier and glamor-free.

Based on the Boston Globe's investigation into pedophilia in the Catholic Church, Spotlight tells the story of how the newspaper's crack reporting team; known as Spotlight, uncovered the Catholic church's efforts to bury evidence condemning more than 90 clergymen in the Boston area. We are reminded how daunting the investigation must have been in a city that is 53% Catholic and in thrall to men of the cloth. Pursuing the story means, as several Boston Globe personnel are quick to point out to the newly-arrived editor Marty Baron (Liev Schreiber), suing the Church. Baron learns how daunting the idea of taking on a monolithic institution with impressive and near-infinite resources can be when he assigns the Spotlight team; lead by Walter "Robby" Robertson (Michael Keaton) to research the story. Robertson's staff of veteran reporters; Mike Rezendes (Mark Ruffalo), Sacha Pfeiffer (Rachel McAdams) and Matt Carroll (Brian d'Arcy James) express surprise when given their new assignment; knowing former attempts to break the story of pedophiliac clergy were previously suppressed.

As Robertson and his staff chase down leads and interview victims, the effort to gain access to public files on cases against the Catholic Church is thwarted not only by the church itself, but the legal system, which becomes a collusive agent. But Spotlight learns of other lawyers who have filed cases or have pending cases against the church. One such lawyer: Mitchell Garabedian (Stanley Tucci), is at first reluctant to allow Spotlight to interview his clients but eventually cooperates. Another lawyer for a high-profile firm; Eric Macleish (Billy Crudup), has also tried cases against the church with mixed results but unlike Garabedian, he refuses to share any information on his cases. The way Macleish responds to Robertson's request for information tell us everything about the Catholic Church's extensive power and influence.

Those that share personal accounts of abuse with Spotlight reporters tell disturbing stories of being coerced by priests, who they held in reverence and awe, to perform sex acts on them, including fellatio and intercourse.

Spotlight also makes contact with a former victim; Phil Saviano (Neal Huff), who has since formed an organization to help victims and who becomes a key source in the investigation. Spotlight members encounter much resistance from parishioners, who find the idea of exposing priests and bishops unsavory.

We get a sense of the sickness that pervades the priestly ranks, which leaves one with a feeling of revulsion. In one disturbing scene, Sacha interviews a pedophile priest at his front door. We expect the priest to slam the door in her face but instead he is shockingly candid about what he did but more horrific is his lack of remorse or any acknowledgement of guilt. His mantra-like response to Sacha's questions about molesting kids is "Yes, but I didn't feel any gratification." The questions are brought to a halt by the priest's sister, who does slam the door. And though the Spotlight team makes progress in their interviews and fact-finding, Baron realizes the story will only make an impact if the they can prove the abuse was systemic, which means running afoul of Cardinal Law, the presiding church power. Doing so also means securing the files on cases against the church.

In a exciting sequence, Rezendes manages to gain access to the secret files but not without stiff resistance from a clerk who isn't sympathetic to the reporter's investigation.

What Spotlight accomplished is public record now, but seeing the story depicted in a movie gives one a sense of how determined the Catholic Church is/was to suppress its darkest, evil secrets. This is accomplished in part by excellent performances all around and intelligent, crisp dialogue that keeps one's ears engaged and mind alert. Michael Keaton proves his performance in Birdman is no fluke. His intense presence plays well against Schreiber's Marty Baron, whose reserve masks a penetrating intelligence. Mark Ruffalo is always terrific and Rachel McAdams, who has recently extricated herself from years of crappy romantic comedies, is also quite good.

The pace is fast but not frenetic though one is sure to confuse names and personalities in a film where facts and people quickly come and go.

Though director McCarthy's story is affectively told, somehow it failed to completely go for the throat. It is a terrific film and a stirring one, but it wasn't as dark as I had hoped it would be. This should in no way be read as a major criticism but maybe just personal taste. The Catholic Church has much to answer for in its history; the sexual abuse of children is only one example of its moral failings. The film's unflinching pursuit of one truth the Church would rather not acknowledge or pretend doesn't exist is commendable and brave, especially when one considers it may offend a certain movie-going demographic.

It is particularly sobering to see the staggering list of international cities where church members have reported abuse, which precedes the end credits. It is even more sobering to see one's home town on the list.

Spotlight is one of the significant films of the season. Whether it will be worth seeing again years hence or become a relic is for the future to determine. For now, it is a compelling drama with a big target.

45 Years

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Andrew Haigh/Starring: Charlotte Rampling, Tom Courtenay, Geraldine James and Dolly Wells

An elderly British couple, living contentedly and happily in their rural home, are suddenly forced to confront a past that not only threatens their idyllic bliss, but their marriage as well. The husband; Geoff Mercer (Tom Courtenay) sits at their breakfast table, having just read a letter that has left him distraught. His wife; Kate Mercer, having just walked in from an invigorating stroll, finds her husband troubled. Responding to his wife's puzzlement, he says he has just been informed by the Swiss authorities that the body of his former girlfriend; a woman Geoff was involved with before his marriage to Kate, was found in the Swiss Alps; perfectly preserved in ice. Her death; the result of a hiking accident in 1965; occurred five years prior to his marriage to Kate.

Though Geoff downplays his relationship to the woman, we can see from Kate's reaction to the news that his former girlfriend is a source of anxiety and jealousy. How the news of Geoff's former girlfriend affects the Mercer's marriage is the subject of director Andrew Haigh's 45 Years, which is based on a short story by author David Constantine.

The story unfolds at a deliberate pace as Kate's suspicions of the girlfriend's significance in Geoff's life prompts closer scrutiny. Though the discovery of his ex-girlfriend's body causes him anxiety, his attempts to allay Kate's fears come to naught. The implications of the letter prompts many questions; the most pertinent being: was the girlfriend's death the only obstacle to a more serious relationship? Would Geoff have eventually broken off his relationship, irrespective of the fatal accident, or would he have married the woman? Has Kate and Geoff's time together; a mostly happy 45 years; been rendered meaningless by her suspicions about the other woman? Are any or all of Kate's grave concerns groundless? The questions themselves become a razor-sharp blades, whose painful cuts leave gaping, marital wounds.

Though the Mercer's marriage is of paramount concern, the film's point-of-view belongs to Kate. Her suspicions gain some legitimacy when she discovers photos in the attic that belie her husband's claims of innocence. Furtive investigations only strain the marriage further. It is interesting to note that the crisis occurs during plans for the couple's forthcoming anniversary party.

As doubt creeps into Kate's thought, becoming all-consuming, the anniversary party edges ever nearer. How will the party play out? Anytime a party or anniversary serves as a climactic moment in a film, we can expect a speech or incident at said event to assume narrative significance.

I anticipated Geoff's obligatory visit to the body at the beginning of the film but I'm glad that never happened. The very idea of an unseen, frozen body causing marital upheaval works extremely well as a metaphor and a plot device.

The film's time motif is an appropriate symbol. The past and present; particularly the former, weigh heavily on the couple; what might have been becomes almost unendurable speculation.

The final scene, which follows Geoff's anniversary speech, is followed by a turn on the dance floor, where Kate's reaction to her husband's rapturous cheer leaves little doubt to her state of mind.

And as much as the story belongs to Kate, the film is Charlotte Rampling's. So much of her performance plays out in her face; we see her inner turmoil and pain; her eyes registering so much anguish. She is quite marvelous (as one would expect of an actress of Rampling's caliber) but so is Tom Courtenay; who shows us that Geoff's subtle, inconsistent behavior betrays a more complicated personality.

The film's soundtrack is made up of the songs the couple have selected for their anniversary celebration and like the girlfriend who is locked in ice, the music is riveted to a particular period of the past. Not one contemporary song is heard in the celebration or the soundtrack. And if not for the current car models seen in the movie, one might feel the couple is suspended in an indeterminate time in the past; computers, cellphones and tablets are nowhere to be seen.

45 Years will be released next month. It is sure to get buried in the holiday, cinematic shock-wave, which is too bad. It is a film that isn't flashy or sensational, but quiet and darkly introspective.

The film is really about one character and her demon-haunted past. Andrew Haigh tells a story that is both touching and in a way; frightening. The possibility that one's seemingly happy life is no more than an illusion is explored with poignance and depth. That it denies us a happy denouement is a reflection of its grim view of the Mercer marriage and the unbearable truths that lie therein.

Al's Omniflick's Greatest Hits

I just wanted to take this blog-post moment to celebrate my 10,000th hit, which just arrived today. I want to thank everyone, in America and the world, who have taken the time to visit my modest little bit of cyber-real estate on the internet. The visits are very much appreciated.

Looking ahead, if you have a suggestion of what you might like to see on the blog, don't hesitate to leave a comment or contact me via e-mail, which is provided at the bottom of the screen.

Thank you all again for stopping in. Hope you all come back soon.

Your Pal, Al's Omniflick

Heart of a Dog

Director: Laurie Anderson

Musician Laurie Anderson returns to documentary film with Heart of a Dog; her poetic meditation on life, death, her dog Lolabelle and her mother. Her film isn't a documentary per se; it is more a stream of ruminations and observations about her life and sometimes the world. The film is like Anderson's music; offbeat, unpredictable and sometimes strange. Lovely images supplement her narration; which has a trance-like quality; she enunciates her words soothingly before they taper to a whispery end.

Anderson begins her film by telling us about a dream she had, which is recollected in animation. She is lying in a hospital bed when the doctor hands her a bundle we might think is a baby, only it isn't; it is her rat terrier Lolabelle. As if speaking to a human infant, Anderson tells the dog she will love it forever.

The fact that she introduces her dog is key. In her film, Lolabelle's perspective on the world is a source of fascination for Anderson. In relating Lolabelle's first encounter with birds of prey, who abort their attack when they see she is an unwieldy target, Anderson observes that her dog first became aware of the world above her. One can't help but think Anderson is commenting on human consciousness; our inability to be fully aware of another reality.

In between remembrances and observations; beautiful images, real and animated, play on the screen. Her thoughts take us different places. Cogitations on death give way to ideas about how language defines our reality, which is attended by a quote from Wittgenstein. Later Anderson reflects on her past when she tries to remember a moment when she felt her mother's unconditional love. The memory involves a harrowing incident where she very nearly caused her twin brother's drownings.

Another observation is about how soldiers suddenly became omnipresent in airports and public life after 9/11; a bewildering development that leads her to ask: "when did this happen?"
The death of a close friend and the subsequent sighting of his specter stimulates thoughts about ghosts. Anderson also shares a traumatic experience from her youth where, in showing off on a diving board, she inadvertently landed on concrete; breaking her back in the process. Told she would never walk again, she defied doctor's expectations, which leads to her to believe "adults didn't know what they were talking about."

A film like Heart of a Dog has an amorphous, narrative structure. The film goes where Anderson's mind takes her--and us--and it's a wonderful, dream-like journey.

Anderson wrote and directed the film but also provided the soundtrack, which serves the images well. I'm not entirely sure what Anderson wants us to take away from the film but for me her cerebral wanderings were enough. What I saw seemed like an essay with lyrical asides and abstract diversions. Such a film can hardly be everyone's cup of tea, but I enjoyed it and I appreciate her artistic objective. One might not expect a documentary that begins with a dream about a dog to go places Heart of a Dog goes, which is one of its wondrous surprises. In it, Anderson is a poet, a scientist, a musician, a philosopher and a dog-lover. How often does a filmmaker wear so many hats in one film?

Spectre

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Sam Mendes/Starring: Daniel Craig, Lea Seydoux, Christoph Waltz, Ralph Fiennes, Monica Bellucci, Ben Whishaw, Naomi Harris, Dave Bautista and Andrew Scott

What would the world do without 007? We would have suffered a great many disasters as a species if Mr. Shaken, Not Stirred weren't on the job. And where would movie audiences be without Bond movies to liven up multiplexes every few years? I suppose the world will never tire of James Bond, nor will I. No matter the cast, I can always find time to see the world's greatest spy onscreen. Director Sam Mendes has found himself a comfortable niche as a Bond-director and has done quite well. His latest is fun and very faithful to the series.

Spectre looks and feels like a Bond film and has terrific action sequences, so what more does one need? Do we need a director to reinvent the series; tinker with a formula Bond fans have come to expect and cherish? No. What do we ask of any Bond movie but action, cool cars, cooler gadgets, psychotic baddies, beautiful women and romantic locales? You get all that in the latest film and a fun villain in Oberhauser (the always entertaining Christoph Waltz) and some choice babes in Lucia (luscious Monica Bellucci) and Madeleine Swann (sexy Lea Seydoux). The latest film also attempts to tie all the Daniel Craig/Bond Films together in a story that links the various villains in a way Bond films never have.

Bond finds himself in hot water with M (Ralph Fiennes) and British intelligence after conducting a mission in Mexico without his superiors' consent or oversight. Grounded from duty, Bond learns the double-0 program may be scrapped by another intelligence agency run by a man referred to as C (Andrew Scott). Said agency's objective is to link with other intelligence-gathering organizations from around the world, thereby creating the ultimate surveillance network. Of course we know that anytime 007 is told the world no longer needs his kind, he is going to prove otherwise. Though M intends to keep Bond under watch and tethered to London, 007 has other plans.

Not long after, Bond finds himself in Austria visiting the shadowy personality known as Mr. White (Jesper Christensen); who we've seen in previous Bond films. Mr. White's link to various international crime syndicates includes one called Spectre, who Bond learns of after Q (Ben Whishaw) identifies a symbol found on a ring in White's possession. Bond manages to infiltrate a Spectre meeting in Rome; a secret society-like affair run by a man named Oberhauser. Well aware of 007's presence, Oberhauser's thugs set upon Bond, who manages to escape with the help of a sleek Aston Martin sports car, which was previously "borrowed" from Q's lab. The Aston Martin is naturally loaded with all manner of gadgets and weaponry, which Bond employs in a thrilling car-chase through the streets of Rome.

Bond also learns the various high profile criminals he's encountered in his past are all linked to Spectre. Hoping to locate the headquarters, Bond searches for Mr. White's daughter; Madeleine Swann, who may have information about the organization. Like all Bond girls, Swann is beautiful and seductive and knows more than she is willing to divulge. The two manage to elude more of Spectre's thugs, including a muscle-bound menace known as Hinx (Dave Bautista). Bond and Swann's investigation leads them to Tangiers, where a secret room in Mr. White's apartment provides useful information about Spectre's whereabouts.

After locating the headquarters in a enormous crater in the desert, Bond and Swann gain access to the complex, only to be captured by Oberhauser's men. The requisite torture scene follows--a staple in all Bond films--which in turn follows another Bond movie mainstay; the disclosure of the villains' grand plan. Spectre's (and Oberhauser) scheme involves the control of a world-wide surveillance system; a counter to 9 Eyes ; a vast surveillance system to be monitored and controlled by the nine most powerful governments of the world. Bond discovers C is in fact an operative of Spectre who intends to implement Oberhauser's plan. But another fact comes to light; one that links Bond and Oberhauser in a surprising way.

As stated previously, we look for and expect Bond films to follow a formula, which Spectre achieves with happy fidelity. The beautiful aerial shots of Austria, Rome, London, Mexico City and the deserty landscape of Morocco are intoxicating visual tics for which the series is known.

Lea Seydoux makes an excellent love-interest; her beautiful blue eyes and French accent compliment Craig's own.

Bond's victory at the end seems to come a little too quick and easy but that's a very minor criticism for a movie I enjoyed.

The question that kept nagging me as I watched the film was: will Craig return again? I've heard he is to do one more but given the ending of his latest, it is hard to say whether that's true. Of all the actors who have played 007, I must say Craig is the Bond I like most after Connery. He brings ruggedness as well as gravity to the role. His version is very physical.

If Spectre is his last, I'll be sorry to see him go but am pleased he performed the role in earnest. If he has one last film left in him, so much the better. If not, I'll always be excited to see the latest James Bond movie. It's nice to know we can expect to see him every couple of years. Hope to see him again.

Nasty Baby

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: Sebastian Silva/Starring: Kristen Wiig, Sebastian Silva, Tunde Adebimpe, Reg E. Cathey, Mark Margolis, and Alia Shawkat

Director Sebastian Silva's Nasty Baby kind of plods along; unhurried and un-urgent, until it takes a grisly turn; which, in a movie of this ilk, seems very contrived and absurd. But until it reaches that narrative turnpike, it doesn't seem to be about anything except a gay couple trying to have a baby with the help of their close female friend, who expects to share parenting chores.

Silva plays Freddy, a performance artist who, with his life-partner Mo (Tunde Adebimpe), is hoping to become a parent with the help of their friend Polly (Kristen Wiig). Unfortunately for the three would-be parents, tests have proven Freddy to be infertile. Impregnating Polly falls on Mo's shoulders, who expresses his reservations about being the donor.

While the three cope with fertilization and the prospect of parenting, Freddy develops a performance piece for a gallery relating to babies, which entails being curled up on the floor, making various infant sounds.

Another problem arises when Freddy and Mo's mentally unstable, downstairs neighbor; known as The Bishop (Reg E. Cathey), begins operating his leaf blower at an unreasonably early hour. Though Mo is able to endure the noise, Freddy becomes exasperated. He shouts imprecations from his apartment window, which go unheard in the blower's din. But The Bishop's disruptive behavior isn't relegated to leaf-blowing, for he begins sexually harassing Polly on the street and directing hate-filled, homo-phobic comments at Freddy. Bishop's behavior becomes more threatening until a cop is later forced to intervene. The cop assures Freddy and the other neighbors that The Bishop's apartment is to be sold in a matter of days, which will effectively end the torment he visits on the residents. But Freddy's next encounter with The Bishop leads to a violent confrontation and a tragic mishap before a more drastic act rids Freddy and the community of their problem. More shocking (or what is supposed to be) is Freddy's subsequent act of self-preservation, which involves not only Mo and Polly but another neighbor as well.

Silva lulls the audience into complacency and near boredom in the first half of the film to create a jarring contrast with the pivotal scene which follows in the second. The shock value should be considerable only it is hard to accept what happens when it feels as though Silva is prodding the story in a direction that seems implausible. That Freddy is driven to a violent exchange makes sense, as does the subsequent life-threatening injury to The Bishop but what follows seems more grand guignol than the realism the story embraces before. I know Silva would like us to think about the irony of three people eager to bring life into the world suddenly taking it out but its a fascinating idea that requires a story that works. I couldn't help but roll my eyes though what happens to The Bishop satisfied my curiosity about where such a deliberate but seemingly directionless story might go. For me, the dramatic shift seemed too outrageous. For the sensational plot turn to work, we have to believe the characters are capable of what Silva suggests. I'm sorry; I just couldn't believe.

The film is a nice effort but it falls short. After the climactic scene, I lost complete interest in the story and waited impatiently for it all to end.

Silva is a talented director; a claim substantiated by his 2009 effort The Maid, but this film, though a miss, nevertheless earns plaudits for its narrative ambition.

Nasty Baby isn't as nasty as it would like to be but it tried. In showing Freddy and his friends writhing on the floor, uttering baby noises, Silva would like us to draw a connection between our infantile nature and adulthood though I'm not completely sure what statement he is trying to make. He may be saying that we are always subject to uncontrolled, infantile impulses, which carry into adulthood. Interesting idea; not so interesting film.

Burnt

**Spoiler Alert**

Director: John Wells/Starring: Bradley Cooper, Sienna Miller, Daniel Bruhl, Omar Sy, Emma Thompson, Uma Thurman, Alicia Vikander and Matthew Rhys

With a globally diverse and talented cast such as that in Burnt, one might expect the movie's success to be a foregone conclusion but unfortunately a movie's quality isn't solely determined by its actor's substantive talents. At the epicenter of the film's impressive actor roll call is Bradley Cooper, who brings a touch of glamour and impressive acting chops to the role. Too bad said talent, which includes seasoned writer Steven Knight (Pawn Sacrifice, Locke) and director John Wells (The Company Men), couldn't pull this film off. Part of the problem is the character of Adam Jones; a hot-shot chef with overpowering bravado, played by said Mr. Cooper. It isn't that I can't buy the idea of a world class chef being hounded by French drug dealers and rival chefs while seeing a psychiatrist and being chick flypaper. But I couldn't buy it. At least not in the way Wells and Knight conceive the character. Though the film is fun to watch, its flavor fades as fast as a Big Mac, rather than lingering like the gourmet cuisine prepared onscreen.

The lead character in question; Adam Jones, has recently arrived in London after having sabotaged his prestigious position as head chef in a Parisian restaurant and slumming in a New Orleans seafood joint, shucking oysters for a living. Fed up with his itinerant life and wasting his culinary talents, Jones settles in London, hoping to assemble a crack kitchen staff for his new restaurant venture. But isn't enough to open an acclaimed restaurant; Jones' arrogance and ambitions crave something more lofty: a 3 star rating from the venerable Michelin Guide.

Standing in his way are said drug dealers, who appear often to collect a sizable debt. Other obstacles are those he has essentially screwed over; who make up a considerable number. Among them is Tony (Daniel Bruhl), who runs a restaurant in a hotel owned by his father and whose Parisian restaurant was ruined by Jones' self-destructive behavior. Jones bullies Tony into letting him take over his floundering hotel restaurant. Funding for the restaurant is contingent on Jones staying sober and drug free, which is accomplished by his psychiatrist; Dr. Rosshilde (Emma Thompson), who administers regular blood tests while also dispensing on-the-fly advice and guidance.

All that remains is for Jones to recruit a team. The film's cinematic touchstone is a famous western, which Jones refers to when he says "I want a crew like The Magnificent Seven." How he goes about assembling them might remind one of the recruitment process in said film. His fame in culinary circles is enough to attract talent though another former colleague, Michel (Omar Sy), chases Jones through the streets and gets into a scuffle with him before agreeing to join his staff. Jones' history with Michel, like many of his former relationships, is fraught with betrayal. It comes to light that Jones once deliberately sabotaged Michel's own restaurant venture, which involved a dirty trick with the health inspector. Why Michel would agree to join Jones' staff becomes apparent later in the film. And of course where would a handsome lady's man chef be without a beautiful and talented she-chef to provide eye-candy and romance for the audience? A woman named Helene (Sienna Miller, teaming up with Cooper again); a talented chef in her own right, is aggressively pursued for Jones' kitchen and as we expect, becomes his love-target.

In Jones' mad pursuit of the 3 star Michelin rating, he becomes monstrous; throwing tantrums and humiliating everyone in his kitchen. Being the best means being a perfectionist and being so means being a SOB, which the staff quickly learns. Destroying dishes in a violent sweep of a counter, shouting in the faces of his colleagues like a drill sergeant; Jones pushes everyone, including Tony, who stands to inherit the hotel and the restaurant.

In trying to anticipate the Michelin operative's unannounced appearances, Tony informs the waitstaff about their tendencies, which generates tension and suspense.

And as Jones chases the ultimate restaurant prize, we know his past will rear its ugly head with drug dealers and a former colleague/now rival chef named Reece (Matthew Rhys) and a revelation about Tony and the film's twist; which involves Michel. We also know he'll have a crisis of self-doubt, where he falls off the wagon and makes a drunken fool of himself. It all seems programmed and mapped. Or as Jones says to Helene while they sit inside a Burger King: "the problem with the (Burger King) food is that it is consistent." Ditto for the screenplay.

Like many well-cast films that falter, the actors give us something to admire when the story fails. Sienna Miller, who shares terrific, onscreen chemistry with Cooper, keeps the audience interested in her character when it's clear she has few places to take it. The same can be said for Daniel Bruhl; who I always find fascinating. I wanted to see Emma Thompson onscreen more but she makes do with the bone she's thrown.

We see the kitchen staff tend to the tiny details of food preparation, which is fine but the food doesn't stimulate one's taste buds, the way it does in films like Babette's Feast or Big Night. The food looks fit to frame but frankly, not to eat. Or maybe haute cuisine is out place on a multiplex screen?

I left the film; not with an appetite but disappointed that the story seemed so mechanical. It was watchable and an effective time-killer but it left me cold. Do all the chefs on T.V. have Adam Jones' problems? Did Julia Childs? I hope not. But after watching Burnt, you might feel cooking is a violent, degrading experience whose only reward are stars in a guidebook. What a pity.