Chef

On the Silver Screen: ‘Chef’ is delectable

Thursday July 3, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

There is a whole genre of movies known affectionately as “foodie films.” Movies Like “Water for Chocolate,” “Eat Pray Love,” Babette’s Feast” and “Eat Drink Man Woman” use food as a metaphor, yet engage our senses in the most basic and delightful ways. “Chef” joins that pantheon of “foodie films.” Like its predecessors, “Chef” sent me out of the theater craving something to eat. In this particular case, a Cuban sandwich or cubano.

I will add “Chef” to another category known as the “likable” movie. It can be on the same list as “About A Boy,” “ET,” “Driving Miss Daisy,” “On Golden Pond” and the like. These films have an irresistible quality and a certain authenticity of human emotion that compels us to look favorably upon them. I look very favorably upon “Chef.”

This is a smart, sweet and nice film about nice people wanting happiness through honest endeavor and true merit. It is also a very funny movie, written, directed and starring Jon Favreau in the most surprising performance of the year so far.

Favreau plays a chef in an upscale restaurant. As a chef, he has gained a fair amount of fame and praise from Los Angeles’ most renown food critic, played by the always spot-on Oliver Platt. After 5 years of praise, the food critic revisits the restaurant to reassess the chef’s culinary skills, with hopes that his favorite chef is still pushing the envelope.

What stands in the way is the eatery’s owner, marvelously played by Dustin Hoffman in a sensational cameo. Seems he subscribes to the belief “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Chef however wants to “fix it.” What ensues after this set up is unpredictable, funny, surprisingly dramatic and heartwarming.

Yes, it is a feel-good movie, but of the highest caliber. Not corny, not pandering, just a lovely slice of humanity. Thrown in is a healthy dose of commentary on social media that is wisely stated and completely convincing. And there’s the food – ah, the food – mouthwateringly convincing, as well.

“Chef” starts out as a situation comedy, then transitions into being a road movie, then transitions again into a humorous study of familial love and ends with a rather inevitable climax that we the audience see coming but are thankful that we were right.

The cast is pitch perfect. Sofia Vergara shows a soft, lovely side we never get to see on “Modern Family.” John Leguizamo effortlessly portrays Favreau’s sidekick with nary a false note. Emjay Anthony as the chef’s young son is in a word - remarkable. My only quibble is that Robert Downey Jr.’s character is written so out of sync with the rest of this sweet-natured film. Acted out of sync as well, it is a brief vulgar bump in an essentially fine comedy of heart and quiet triumph.

As for Jon Favreau, he is simply great. As a writer, director and especially actor, I feel Favreau has finally come of age, as an artist. His talent has matured considerably. He may just be on an upward trend of filmmaking, giving us a body of work that could approach the likes of such auteurs as Woody Allen and Mel Brooks. Whatever the case, “Chef” stands on its own as an original work of quality that will delight and amuse all who choose to see it.

Take a break from the summer superheroes and enjoy a fine comedy about a super chef that is superhuman. “Chef” is currently in theaters.

X-Men: Days of Future Past

‘X-Men’ is the perfect summer movie

Thursday June 12, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Of all the super hero franchises, the X-Men series is the most satisfying. This very entertaining series is more fun than the proverbial barrel of monkeys. “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is the sixth film continuing the mutants’ fight for equality in a distrusting world.

As in the five films before it, the mutants, good and some bad, bring their individual powers to bear down once again on a mutant-phobic society. That’s when the fun begins and never lets up. From the great Wolverine to the wildly fascinating Mystique, we are treated to various acts of revenge and justification. Getting even – that’s the ticket.

Wolverine is sent back to 1973, to alter history in an attempt to prevent the implementation of a scheme to wipe out the entire mutant population. It may even bring down all of humanity, if allowed to happen. Giant robots were created to detect and hunt down mutants, including humans who are friendly to the mutants, and render them extinct. These robots, called Sentinels, were built in 1973 but now, decades later pose a threat to all humanity. Professor Xavier, with the help of Kitty Pryde and her special powers, sends Wolverine back in time to change things.

Again, more fun, as we are treated to all things ‘70s such as waterbeds, lava lamps, music of the era and even Richard Nixon. It’s wild but made credible by great plotting, acting, special effects and a darn good script. This is how you do a sci-fi movie. You create an outrageous world and make us believe. And believe, we do.

Hugh Jackman is back as Wolverine. Looking a bit weathered and weary, Jackman is perfect. Also returning in the roles they created are Patrick Stewart, Ian McClellan, Halle Berry, Jennifer Lawrence, Ellen Page, Anna Paquin, James McAvoy and the great Michael Fassbender, among so many others. The integrity of the X-Men series is gratefully kept intact. Additional casting brings in the wonderful Peter Dinklage in a villainous role. Frankly, the whole cast is wonderful. I especially like Lawrence as Mystique and Evan Peters as Quicksilver.

All of these characters and all of their intriguing powers make “X-Men: Days of Future Past” the perfect summer movie for everyone – children and adults included.

Bryan Singer, as producer on this as well as previous X-Men movies, adds director to his duties. He is a splendid director and word is he will direct the next X-Men, set to hit theaters in 2016. It’s entitled “X-Men: Apocalypse.”

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” is available in 3-D. Let me say, not since “Life of Pi” has 3-D been used so well. Remarkable visuals of depth and texture enhance the experience to the highest level.

However you decide to see it, don’t miss this latest episode in the saga of lovable mutants who just want to be allowed the freedom to pursue a happy life. We can all relate to that.

“X-Men: Days of Future Past” is currently in theaters.

http://www.thesunnews.net/scene/988-X-Men_is_the_perfect_summer_movie.html 

Godzilla 2014

New ‘Godzilla’ is scary-bad

Monday June 2, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — It’s that time of year when we are inundated with super hero and monster blockbuster movies. Godzilla has arrived – once again. There just may be more Godzilla movies than any other movie remakes and sequels, combined. You’d think with all the attempts they’d finally get it right. I am sad to say this is not the case.

“Godzilla” (2014) has all the hardware, all the special effects, all the required action one should expect with today’s phenomenal movie technology. It’s even in 3-D! What it doesn’t have is a worthwhile story.

A movie like “Godzilla” must provide thrills. That’s why we go to films of this genre. We are not going for a message or a life lesson. We are going to scream, to have a few laughs, to ride the roller coaster, if you will. This latest “Godzilla” is a big bore. Our monster doesn’t make his entrance until an hour into the film and he is upstaged by two other monsters stalking Tokyo, Las Vegas and San Francisco. I’m still shaking my head in disbelief over this geographical plotting. Ah well, it isn’t Shakespeare. It’s Godzilla. OK, but must it be this stupid?

The other monsters wreaking havoc in “Godzilla” are termed “Massive Unidentified Terrestrial Organism” or MUTO, as they are referred to throughout the movie for economy. There are two MUTO. The MUTO eat energy, especially radiation, but they also eat nuclear waste. So, why are they the bad guys? According to the film’s logic, they are. So, Godzilla shows up to battle them and restore nature’s balance. He shows up to save mankind by wiping out the MUTO. And that’s the problem with this film. Godzilla is not scary enough because he’s just so darn good and politically correct. He’s also not very scary looking. He’s just big – very big and featureless.

As for the acting: Bryan Cranston turns in a surprisingly bad scenery chewing performance. Juliette Binoche, a great actress, is wasted. Ken Watanabe seems to possess one expression – pained. Aaron Taylor-Johnson, as the lead character in “Godzilla,” is as weak as a wet noodle.

The plot deals with cliché elements such as government secrets, one lone man knowing the truth that no one will believe and the usual destruction of major cities. The outcome is predictable and I, for one, am left with the nagging question: how will they rebuild the destroyed cities?

The film is darkly lit, which adds to the confusion. Godzilla is one of those films where we find ourselves asking “What’s going on?”

What’s going on is a gray muddle of noise, a plodding and ponderous movement of dull visuals and a directorial failure to build suspense and interest. I kept thinking during the first hour of the movie, “Where’s Godzilla? I bet when he finally appears this movie will get better.” Believe me; I wanted it to get better. I wanted to like “Godzilla”.

I still do like Godzilla, the monster. I just don’t like “Godzilla”, the movie.



“Godzilla”(2014) is currently in theaters.


http://www.thesunnews.net/news/957-New_'Godzilla_is_scary-bad.html

The Amazing Spider-man 2

‘Spider-man 2,’Most Thrilling Film This Year

                                               

                                               

 Friday May 23, 2014 | By: Tony Baksa |

Peter Parker/Spiderman is the Marlon Brando of superheroes. Brilliantly acted by Andrew Garfield, Spiderman inhabits a substantial world of angst. Like any well-written character Brando has ever portrayed, Garfield brings an amazing reality to Spiderman. Within this comic book adventure is a touching love story that is the glue that holds this movie together. For those lo...oking for high adventure and sweeping special effects, not to worry. It’s all there to be savored. But what elevates “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is its humanity.

We are given three young characters – all with father issues. They are all so appealing and likeable, even the semi-villain Harry/Green Goblin. Dane Dehaan’s debut as Harry lights up the screen with originality and a compelling pathos. Equally compelling is Emma Stone as Gwen, the object of Spidey’s affection. This trio of young actors interacts with great chemistry. They will make you care, very much so. They feel deeply. They love fully. And they live the adventure.

This film is far superior to its predecessor. The first Spiderman with Garfield was very good. This follow up is great! With kinetic direction by Marc Webb and a smart screenplay by a team of writers led by Alex Kurtzman, “The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is the most thrilling movie of the year.

The film opens with a flashback showing Peter’s parents and their supposed fate. This bit of exposition will figure in to the plot later. We then are brought into the present. Peter is enjoying his alter ego’s crime-fighting but is unhappy, due to his promise to Gwen’s dying father to stay away from her – for her own good, he pleaded. Well, how can one break a promise to a dying man? This is Peter’s main conflict throughout the film. Staying away from Gwen is an impossible feat for Peter. Keeping away from Peter is equally impossible for Gwen.

Along the way, we meet new opponents for our beloved crime-fighter. Jamie Foxx turns in a fine performance as a good man who is transformed into a monster – namely Electro. He becomes a very formidable nemesis to Spiderman. The maniacal Rhino, played by an unrecognizable Paul Giamatti, fills the screen with terror and perhaps a small snicker of delight.

Yet, with all the battles and fireworks, at the very heart of this movie is the towering love story – beautiful and sad. For fans of the Spiderman saga, there is a shocking development to grapple with. I am still grappling with it. Frankly, I was stunned.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is a uniquely balanced film – love, betrayal, adventure, comedy and thrills – thrills and chills galore. Perhaps the movie should have been called “The Thrilling Spiderman 2.” Peter Parker inhabits a world we care about. For all the superhero trappings, this movie is not flighty – pardon the pun. It is a rich narrative – fully satisfying especially because Peter Parker has promises to keep.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is in theaters.

‘Spider-man 2,’ most thrilling film this year | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net

Bears

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears'

Thursday May 1, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |
I am so glad that I am not a salmon living in Alaska. A salmon must swim up stream, but once its journey is successful, along comes a brown bear....

Our stars of Disney’s newest nature film “Bears” are bears, of course – brown bears. Salmon is apparently an essential sustenance for their survival. But what about the poor fish? I guess that’s another movie.

In “Bears,” we are witness to one year in the life of a family of Alaskan brown bears, mother Sky and her cubs Amber and Scout. We know their names, because John C. Reilly, our cheesy narrator, tells us so. He also occasionally speaks “bear.” It is unfortunate that this movie is saddled with such a bothersome narration.

Although the story of our charming family isn’t ground-breakingly new, the visuals are appealing. Alaska is beautiful and so are the bears, the wolves and the other featured wildlife.

This is a short movie, but because of Reilly, it felt rather long. I think the idea was to have this tale appeal to children. But why dumb down the film? It is not necessary, when you have this kind of footage.

The story is a simple one: survival. We are taken along the Alaskan terrain, witnessing our bear family members hold on to their lives, avoiding predator wolves and other bears. Most importantly, they are searching for food to provide them with protein, which will allow a healthy hibernation. Here is where the poor salmon come in. It seems that they are essential to the bears’ survival.

Unfortunately, “Bears” is disappointing. It is bland and mild. It tries to be exciting and cute, but it fails. All of the bears are brown, therefore confusing the viewer. Lacking distinct traits, the “characters” are difficult to discern.

The “plot” is repetitive. The 77 minutes is a series of episodes in which the bears are doing the same thing: searching for food or battling predators. But a sense of danger and adventure is missing.

I seriously think children, this film’s obvious target audience, will not care for “Bears.” But the movie could be saved with reediting, dropping the smarmy narration, dumping George Fenton’s pompous score and giving the salmon more screen time. I perked up in the middle of the film, when a short segment was devoted to the plight of these fish.

The end credits were the most interesting; they show the film crew’s capturing the animals’ actions and, in some instances, provoking the creatures.

This closing segment spoke volumes. What particular scenes did the filmmakers create? How real was the menace? There was closing footage of a wolf standing approximately 5 feet from a camera, slowly advancing toward the crew. I am certain this footage was edited into the sequence, when the wolf was threatening to attack the cubs.

Did the filmmakers manipulate nature? Perhaps they should have let nature take its own course.

I left the theater unmoved. The movie was just OK. I don’t think we go to the movies to leave at its conclusion with that feeling.

Most especially, a film about such magnificent creatures should enthrall, excite and entertain. “Bears” is just OK.

The Sun movie review: ‘Bears' | Scene |News Classifieds Events | thesunnews.net

www.thesunnews.net

"Captain America"

The Sun movie review: 'Captain America'

Saturday April 19, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Captain America has got to be the oddest superhero. Unlike Superman, Batman and Spiderman, Captain America has no innate superhuman powers. His abilities are the result of a lab experiment in which he was injected with a serum that resulted in transforming him into the perfect human specimen.

His strength, endurance and reflexes are at a maximum. He never tires. His body renews the serum, so it never wears off. Pretty neat; where can I acquire this terrific substance?

In “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” Steve Rogers returns as his alter ego, Captain America, wearing his patriotic costume and brandishing his indestructible shield, to once again save the world.

Isn’t this basically the plot of most superhero movies? But Captain America is different in so many ways. He is more human. He is simple, direct and uncomplicated. I like him and I liked this movie.

I will admit that there was much I did not understand, but I knew I had just seen a good movie.

Let me explain. This may be helpful to anyone else who is planning to see this film. At the conclusion of the movie, I saw an usher reading the credits, as they rolled by. Something told me he was a fan, so I asked him what he thought of this movie. We got into a discussion in which I learned about what I should do to fill in the blanks and help me understand what I just saw.

It apparently helps comprehension if you have seen “Captain America: The First Avenger” and “The Avengers,” in that order.

That very evening, I went to my nearby Redbox©, rented “Captain America: The First Avenger,” watched it, and loved it. The next day, I watched “The Avengers” on Netflix© and found that to my liking, as well.

The result of these viewings led me to a clearer understanding of “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” and a new appreciation for this film. I am not sure I like this practice of movie serials, where knowledge of the previous films is necessary, but that is the deal and I am powerless to change it. That said, I can recommend this movie to especially fans of the other two.

Chris Evans as our superhero is perfect. Unassuming and likeable, he gets the job done. The ubiquitous Scarlett Johansson returns as the Black Widow, with special powers of her own.

Introduced in this film is a sort of sidekick for Captain America, The Falcon, played by Anthony Mackie. Our team of heroes is embroiled in an unusual plot.

Captain America becomes the hunted, rather than the hunter. His enemies are many, but one surprisingly shocking enemy surfaces: the Winter Soldier. This throws Captain America into a tailspin of incredulous conflict, especially because of the Winter Soldier’s true identity. I won’t reveal any more, except to say that this revelation is all the more powerful, if you have seen the first Captain America movie.

Samuel Jackson returned as Nick Fury. Robert Redford appeared as a pretty lame villain in a pretty lame performance. Fortunately, Redford does not spoil the movie. What with the personal dramas and the extraordinary action throughout, Redford is a minor quibble.

Brilliantly edited and boldly directed, this film is another hit for Marvel Studios©.

“Captain America: The Winter Soldier” is currently playing in theaters.

OFF OFF BEAT!

The Sun movie review: ‘Grand Budapest Hotel’

Friday April 4, 2014 | By:Tony Baksa |

HAMBURG — Some comedies make you laugh out loud. I’m thinking movies like “Young Frankenstein” and “Blazing Saddles.” Those great Mel Brooks films are always good for a laugh; lots of them, guaranteed.

There are other comedies that make you smile. Woody Allen’s movies come to mind. Pleasantly wise and insightful, these movies guarantee a good time and a broad smile.

Then there are comedies that try so hard to be funny. The effort is great, but the result is not funny. Wes Anderson comes to mind. His movies are generally offbeat, which he seems to equate with comedy. This equation is sometimes correct (“The Royal Tenenbaums” and “Rushmore”). Other times, not. “The Grand Budapest Hotel” is such a film.

This, Anderson’s latest romp, should have been funny. With a star-studded cast and the silliest of situations, this farce would have been funny had it been directed by someone else – how about Brooks? What a missed opportunity that was.

The acting style by the entire cast is wide-eyed absurdist. It never varies. The actors come off like puppets being manipulated by Anderson. You never see one iota of real, flesh-and-blood, breathing human beings.

Here lies the problem. The situations are fraught with danger, yet we never fear for the characters, because they are not real enough to care about. Perhaps Anderson should have animated this movie like his last film “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” which was funny, charming and, yes, offbeat; very offbeat. I truly feel “The Grand Budapest Hotel” would have worked very well as a cartoon.

Frankly, the script isn’t very funny. It is painful to watch good actors mug their way through this badly written comedic adventure.

And I didn’t even like the characters. Ralph Fiennes in the lead is especially cloying and annoying. He plays Gustave, a supposedly world-famous concierge at the Grand Budapest Hotel, who caters to rich old women. Set some time between the two great wars of the 20th century, Gustave takes young Zero Moustafa (Tony Revolori), the hotel lobby boy, under his wing.

Together, these two unlikely characters are off on a Tom and Jerry adventure involving a chase all over Europe. They are being pursued by the family of a deceased rich dowager (Tilda Swinton) who leaves her fortune, including a very valuable painting, to Gustave.

His pursuers, led by the dowager’s evil son Dmitri (Adrien Brody) and a huge cast of villains, most prominently Willem Dafoe, behave like characters in a Road Runner cartoon.

With such a large cast of characters portrayed by so many major actors such as F. Murray Abraham, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Tom Wilkinson, Owen Wilson, Bob Balaban, Fisher Stevens and many more, the budget for this flick must have been enormous and must have all gone to the cast. The rest of the movie gets short-changed.

“The Grand Budapest Hotel” does not look very grand. With all of the running around and traipsing all over Europe, you would think the scenery would enthrall. The palate is bright and colorful, but not pretty. And it should be pretty. And it should be exciting. And it should be funny. And it is not – down on all three counts.