Many may have read not the best reviews of “Burnt.” I found the movie to be quite enthralling. The theme of cooking is taken seriously in this movie. That is something I found unique and classy about this clever, independent flick. Bradley Cooper is top-notch and so is Sienna Miller. The movie is serious, charming, and very honest. I personally think that this movie is one that I will watch again in the future for something to watch just to feel happy or entertained.

The plot of the movie is about a chef named Adam Jones (Cooper). A chef that has had a rough past and career but is looking to get back into the game with his knowledge of food. He keeps a journal with many keys and ideas of what makes food good to perfection. Therefore, he invents his own restaurant business. When he does this, he hires numerous chefs, buys expensive supplies, and lays the rules of how to cook professionally in his kitchen.

Jones is a man of talent, but also has the assistance to make better for his restaurant. His assistant is Helene (Miller), a fun girl that is also a top chef. Both build a relationship for success and have their differences. The movie does a good job at implying the pros and cons of these two actors. Both of them cook differently, have different routines, and are just different individuals.

The director is John Wells. He directs the Showtime series “Shameless.” I feel his writing relates more to “Shameless” as it does with “Burnt.” The fact that things go wrong no matter what, and that is something that happens with both “Shameless” and “Burnt.” However with “Burnt” he has it start off kind of funny, in the middle point, the movie gets serious, and then later everything goes in an unpredictable manner. I will not elaborate much on this concept. That is something for viewers to have to find out for themselves.

Overall, “Burnt” is fairly classy with elegance. I love the concept of food, the seriousness of the film, the acting, and the story. I found myself mesmerized in certain serious moments. Especially with Cooper, he never disappoints. He acts well as he does in “American Hustle” (2013), “American Sniper” (2014), and many other films to name. I think I may watch it again.

Three and a half stars.

Some may think that high school is where bad encounters happen. “The Basketball Diaries” takes these types of encounters to a whole different level. Scott Kalvert directs this gripping true story of the legendary Jim Carroll (played by Leonardo DiCaprio). The film is stunning, powerful, and so intense where it may be hard after a one-time viewing. The story of a young boy that was a great basketball player, a brilliant writer, a heavy drug user. However, drugs are not the only concern on terms of Carroll’s behavior, but also who is involved with him.

We meet Jim Carroll, a boy who lives with his mother (Lorraine Bracco) in an apartment in New York. Carroll writes consistently. He writes poems about his life. He is also on the basketball team of his high school with his teammates (other bad influences) Pedro (James Madio), Mickey (Mark Wahlberg), and Neutron (Patrick McGaw). They plan to be the top championship team in the nation. They think they can multitask with being troublemakers at certain portions of their life and play professional basketball, but as soon as their friend Bobby (Michael Imperioli) gets really sick, their behavior with drugs and alcohol becomes increasingly worse. Worse to the point where their privileges of being in school is on the line along with being able to participate in playing basketball.

The real Jim Carroll did the writing for “The Basketball Diaries.” The film consists of narrations throughout on what he is writing. I found the film’s narrations to be enticing because the writing is where the intensity portion of the movie plays in. As Carroll states in a scene where he is playing a basketball game saying, “I play like a cheetah,” that states the type of cheetah he is throughout the movie. Carroll not a good one, he is a naughty one.

What I found amusing though about the movie is how some characters become increasingly worse in the film. Pedro and Mickey are somewhat worse than Jim. They think it is worth taking someone’s life to get out alive and get drugs. Jim is against that because one side of his mind knows there is still good in him, but the other side is his addiction to drugs. DiCaprio plays the part of having withdrawals so well, that viewers cannot help but watch.

I think this movie is good, not amazing, but good. Just I feel some of the heavy and violent focuses get out of hand. What held my most attention was the storytelling through the writing of Carroll. I found that to be the honest portions of “The Basketball Diaries.” The writing contains explosive, yet heavy information that viewers will not be able to let go.

Three stars.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978) is a film that is in the genre of horror. The movie is a remake. The first version of the movie is geared on the communist influence. This version is the opposite of that subject matter. The film focuses on a strange epidemic that is unexplained, but in the suspense of time, the epidemic progresses to get worse. There are weird puzzles around some kind of spirits roaming free in the earth and that brainwashes people and eventually ends up killing them. The film’s incorporation of paranoia plays into the distrust it has on its viewers.

The film focuses primarily on regular society in the beginning of the film. There is rush hour traffic, people in their suits, people grabbing their morning coffee, and just moving along as if the setting is a regular work day. Later on, the credits role with cast members seeming suspicious, but they continue to look as if they are going to work. The opening with ghosts, shadows, and mountains sets the tone for a horror film. The strain of paranoia continues throughout the series of paranoia films through the stress of the characters. Viewers see the stress through the characters Matthew (played by Donald Sutherland), Jack (played by Jeff Goldblum), and Nancy (Veronica Cartwright). Like The Friends of Eddie Coyle (1973), which shows the main character Eddie Coyle (played by Robert Mitchum) paranoid of how people are out to get him, these three characters have a similar paranoia, but on terms of monsters. The characters are stressed about the monsters because they never know when they will make an appearance.

The events worsen as some people end up dead in the spur of the moment. The suspense of the invasion becomes odd as people encounter weird behaviors in public. As Jack goes to a spa where mud baths take place, one man goes into another room of the spa, and then later Jack finds him dead. As Jack is trying to figure out what to do with the body, the situation becomes haunting. What happens is the dead man’s eyes open and his nose begins to drizzle out blood. The change of events leads me to believe that the movie is about corruption on sci-fi terms. Director Philip Kaufman is trying to suggest that the invasion will become a war. He is trying to say that there is something about this odd epidemic that is a conspiracy. Unlike the original version, this one does not focus so much on communism, but it focuses more on conformity. The way this happens is when other people tell the scared victims to not worry and that is everything is ok, where really it is not.

The film may seem scary, but funny at moments which effects the audience to be laughing at times instead of being scared. An example of this is when a pedestrian runs to Matthew’s car and is scared saying something is out to get to get everyone. That moment is funny based on how the pedestrian looks like he is making a fool of himself because he is just running continuously trying to get everyone’s attention, but nobody believes him.

The ending is the epidemic taking over one of the characters. This throws viewers off guard because there is nothing else to sum up the ending. This ending connects with other films in this era because many of them contain endings that are generally putting the viewers out of place because there is little or no support for the ending. This ending connects to a film like The Graduate (1967) because it has an unexpected ending. The Graduate ended with the two main characters running away from a wedding leaving the viewers with questions. In Invasion of the Body Snatchers, it leaves viewers with questions also. The main character gets infected, he did not fight off getting infected, and then the movie ends showing him in desperation. The suspense built so much tension, but that ending did not make the film that good.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers has tendencies to drag. What I mean by this, is that it is not that attention-grabbing when it opens. I see this as something intentional so viewers will have no idea how out of hand the conflicts get. Twenty minutes or so into the film, the intensity steps up a notch. As characters keep the issues a secret from the authorities, they end up putting so much more paranoia amongst themselves. The director’s choice of changing the era of paranoia films is probably to suggest a change of pace, that being not involving real life situations all the time.