Inferno

I'm not one to be disappointed by movie adaptations of books. This isn't because I know that they'd get them right, rather I don't let my hopes get too high due to the inevitability that they will butcher the source material. I don't know why I let my guard down with the latest Dan Brown adaptation. Past experiences with The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons should have taught me otherwise, but I ended up getting hurt more than ever with this one.

Harvard professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) wakes up in a hospital in Florence with no memory of how he got there and a head wound. His attending doctor, Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones), explains that he arrived at the hospital with bloodied clothes and that his head wound has caused amnesia, but his memory should return. Before any of this can be processed, he is attacked by Vayentha (Ana Ularu), a mysterious assassin disguised as an Italian police officer. Soon Langdon and Brooks discover that he was there to prevent the release of a plague that could wipe out half of the world's population, a plan devised by Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster), a scientist concerned with overpopulation and who died at the start of the film.

Let me talk about the brief positives of the film before I get into how it devastated me. The film really captured the effects of amnesia and really eased the audience into the story. This is a pretty creative way to convey the confusion of the characters as well as not giving away everything at once. The scenery is spectacular, but that's what is expected when you set your film in Florence, Venice and Istanbul.

I know this isn't a book review, so I won't go into too much detail about it. While Dan Brown's writing is somewhat formulaic, the ending of the book was very different and original. While the movie has the super Hollywood ending (spoilers!) of Langdon stopping the plague from being released and saving the world, the book actually reveals that the plague has already been released and the day that they spent trying to stop was actually the day when the whole world would be infected. Instead of the plague killing people, it actually just made a third of the population infertile, a trait that may or may not be passed down through the gene pool. This ending is so much better and would make people stop and think. But because of Hollywood, we now just got a movie that everyone will forget because it lacks anything to make it stand out. That just defeats the purpose of making a movie, you want something that lasts the test of time to make as much money as possible.

Even if you haven't read the book on which it's based, Inferno is a pretty dreary movie. It sets an exhilarated pace that it can't keep up with. This is combined with a bland and conventional story, as well as confusing twist, to make an unforgettable movie that no one wanted.

Burnt

At That Other Movie Blog we have a special relationship with the food film. We don't know whether it's just the fact that they are always slightly weird or if it's because we love food porn. Director John Wells dives headlong into this genre, but unlike Chef's take on street food or The Hundred Foot Journey's exploration of a home cooked experience, Burnt takes into the high stakes kitchen of a high end restaurant.

Adam Jones (Bradley Cooper) is a chef looking to get back on top of his game. After shucking a million oysters in Louisiana, he journeys to London where he seeks out old friend Tony (Daniel Brühl), who is mâitre d' at a high end restaurant. Adam reveals to Tony that he has come back to get a third Michelin star, the highest honour a chef can attain. To do this he acquires his own dream team of chefs, including Michel (Omar Sy), David (Sam Keeley) and Helene (Sienna Miller).

I'm pretty sure that the food film is the 2010's equivalent of the 80's action movie because it has all the same beats one of them. Guy who was once on top has hit rock bottom and through a series of montages defeats the bad guys and comes out on top. In the case with Burnt, the bad guys are Adam's own demons who are getting in the way of him being able to achieve that third Michelin star. I'm not entirely convinced though that this is an interesting enough conflict for a film like this because it forces the other characters to just fade into exposition or motivation for the main character.

And the other characters do suffer. Daniel Brühl's Tony only serves to hint at the life that Adam used to live. Young up-and-coming chef David goes around and tells everyone what a god Adam used to be. Characters like Michel and Helene are both different motivations that drive Adam forward, but that's all they serve as. There was a real missed opportunity in making rival chef Reece (played by Matthew Rhys) a bigger part of the film. The same could be said of Adam's ex-girlfriend Anne Marie (Alicia Vikander), who appears in only two scenes just to make a little bit of unnecessary conflict.

I'm not sure if the London setting was a good choice, or why they didn't take advantage of it more. I understand that it is a city where the Michelin Guidebook holds a lot of weight, moreso than any US city, but at the same time not as much as other European cities, but Burnt doesn't really go out of its way to show that London is a culinarily interesting city. Yes, we do get shown a lot of the multicultural influence that immigrants have on the food culture, but these forays are all too brief, oftentimes being shown in the films many montages.

The performances are all fairly average, with no one really sticking out. Cooper's sociopathic performance doesn't really make him relatable apart from a heart touching scene where he makes a cake for Helene's daughter. Sienna Miller reunites with Cooper again after American Sniper and proves to me once again that they have no chemistry. Brühl can make any performance his own, but Tony feels too much like a weak background character. Omar Sy is very understated in this film and would probably give a better performance in a better film, which this is not.

I wouldn't say I disliked this film, but I also wouldn't say that I liked it either. It's definitely a movie that you have to go and eat at a restaurant after, even if it's Burger King, because the one thing I did learn from Burnt is that there's nothing wrong with a Whopper.

Jurassic World

So I've shown time and again that I am a huge fan of the Jurassic Park movies. I grew up as a dinosaur kid and the movies really did feed my desire to want to be a palaeontologist (I've since discovered that movies have impacted those desires and choices). The last movie in the series was a bit of a departure from the whole trying to build a dinosaur theme park. This movie sets that all back on track. 

In Jurassic World, the theme park has been running for quite a few years. It is headed by ambitious Claire (Bryce Dallas Howard) whose estranged nephews Zach (Nick Robinson) and Gray (Ty Simpkins) are coming to stay for a week. Elsewhere on the island, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), a Velociraptor expert has being training a team of raptors under the watchful eye of InGen head of security Vic Hoskins (Vincent D'Onofrio). Claire is also getting ready to reveal a new attraction in the park; the first genetically engineered dinosaur created by Dr Henry Wu (B.D. Wong), a process the park owner, Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), has come to oversee. As usual nothing goes to plan.

It is very enjoyable for me to see a functional Jurassic Park (or World in this case). The park has some super enjoyable attractions, such as the rides and attractions that John Hammond would have wanted. There is even a super cute petting zoo for the kids. Of course we get to see the complete destruction of all of this. The action that happens is really fun and completely ridiculous. At one stage a velociraptor is riding the back of a T.Rex and there are many other moments that are just mindblowingly exciting. There are also dozens of references back to the original film. Some are glaringly obvious (they visit the abandoned original Welcome Centre) and some of the imagery is reminiscent of shots from that one.

I have a few minor gripes with the movie. One is that there are way too many characters. They all are introduced rather quickly and we have to juggle where they all fit in. There is also not too much care given to the minor characters who we are teased with interested backstories but not developed at all. The characters I wanted to see to see more of were Masrani as he takes over the role of charming head and plays the character exactly the same as Richard Attenborough. Also Jake Johnson and Lauren Lapkus play park controllers that provide great comedic relief. B.D. Wong is the only actor to return from the original film, but his character is tarred as a bad guy, which is a shame because I have always loved Dr Henry Wu. A lot of people have also criticised the ridiculous ending, but I just laughed the entire time.

Chris Pratt continues to be the charming action movie lead and it really works to his benefit. He's serious demeanour also adds some variation. Bryce Dallas Howard acts well, but her character's clothing choices are questionable. I didn't even recognise Vincent D'Onofrio in his role and I feel so ashamed. Simpkins and Robinson are okay, but I felt as though their main purpose was just character motivation. Again Irrfan Khan provides some great moments.

All in all, Jurassic World is a lot of fun. It may not be scientifically accurate, but it's a fun ride. There are some romantic elements that are pointless. I thought that this movie would be a perfect opportunity to use something like this.