A 'so-so' or bad review of a movie doesn't stop me from seeing it, if I'm interested in it in the first place. Okay, granted, this was not a review in THR or The New York Times, etc. I just accidentally came across the one in US Magazine while waiting to check out my cart of Mai Tai ingredients at Safeway. It pissed me off because I had seen 'Burnt' the day before.
I love movies. Even though I coach actors in film acting, I go into a theater prepared to love every minute of it, go into its world, and down a Diet Pepsi and a large bag of Orville's popcorn. I just love the whole experience. I watch movies like most people do. I'm not an expert in analyzing them and I don't pretend to be. But this review in 'Us' pissed me off because it seemed overly pretentious and no more than an excuse to use bad chef metaphors.
Example #1 - "Anybody else but Bradley Cooper in the starring role, and this film is toast." Oh, please, there about twenty other actors who would have been great in this film. I love Bradley Cooper and I am a real fan, but get real.
Example #2 - "...the frenetically paced drama bites off way more than it can chew." What the hell does that really mean? This sentence is just an excuse to use a clever line that means nothing. I happen to love frenetically paced movies, and that's one of the things that kept this movie interesting.
EXample #3 - "Aside from his mouthwatering, work-of-art entrees, though, not much else cooks here." Stop it already. And by the way, everything works fine. This movie is fine. I loved watching the chef try to redeem himself. I loved his flaws and the mistakes that caused him to try so hard to fix his life. Loved it. I should probably try to use the typical buzz words that critics so often espouse . Like this..."The protagonist's arc makes a sharp curve in the third act as he goes to the only person who really understands him...the antagonist." Oh, come on, just say it so that all of us civilians can understand and cope with the fact that we had feelings and loved the show.
The reviewer states that Uma Thurman and Alicia Vikander 'are wasted' in a world of overstuffed (stop it!) characters. What's the number that is too many characters in a movie? Depends on the movie I guess. Personally, if I feel like I know them, I don't care how many there are. The bad guy in this movie was great. Oh, sorry, I mean the secret antagonist. Whatever. I didn't see it coming. I like that. Uma and Vikander played cameo roles in this movie and they were not wasted. They were fantastic, and neither one of them chewed the scenery at all. See, I can be clever and cute too. I wish I hadn't said that.
So...anyway...love Bradley and the rest of the cast, loved the acting and story of this poor guy. I think he'll be okay, and that makes me happy. It's not easy being human. But that's what makes great storytelling.
I'm going to tell my actors to go see this movie. It's a class act. Get it? Nyuck, nyuck...