Skip to main content

Shut up and taste this, amuse-douche.

Chef
(2014)

It’s quite understandable that reviewers have highlighted the perceived autobiographical elements of Jon Favreau’s Chef, the story of a successful man in his chosen field brought low by the critics. After rosy responses to Zathura , Elf and Iron Man, Favrea’s lustre was tarnished by back-to-back underwhelmers Iron Man II and Cowboys and Aliens. Following the line of thought that his Chef character in is commentary and payback for this doesn’t really follow, however, not unless Favreau wants us to believe those who brought him low are a sobering force of good. Whatever his intentions, the retreat into a small personal movie has done Favs the world of good; it’s his best picture since he made Marvel Studios what it is by casting Robert Downey Jr as Tony Stark.


Favreau wrote, starred and directed, so he’s consciously setting his dish up to be wolfed down or regurgitated across the sidewalk. He plays Carl Casper, a Miami-born chef at a Riva’s (Dustin Hoffman) L.A. restaurant. When renowned critic Ramsey Michel (Oliver Platt, vying with Favs for girth cred) slates Carl’s menu (“His dramatic weight gain can only be explained by the fact that he must be eating al the food sent back to the kitchen”), reserving particular venom for his lava cake, Carl takes to Twitter (“You wouldn’t know a good meal if it sat on your face”) and challenges Carl to a second round.


Riva refuses to let Carl decide the menu, and the chef walks out. This leads to a broadcast meltdown as Carl confronts Ramsey (“It hurts”).  Now without a job, Carl is persuaded by his ex-wife to buy a food truck. Aided and abetted by the son he has neglected and his devoted sous chef, Carl takes a road trip from Miami back to L.A. selling the Cuban cuisine he loves as he goes.


This is a fantasyland of a guy who has a whole lot anyway getting even more when he subtly course redirects. All he needs is a bit of cajoling from a wise ex who knows anyway that he wont be happy until he’s his own boss (and comes back to her with his tail between his legs). When Carl takes delivery the dilapidated truck there’s a mere modicum of spit and polish before it’s miraculously spick and span and spruced and painted. 


There’s very little conflict here; I was waiting for the son to get rushed to ER after burning himself on a hotplate, and Carl getting blamed by the ex, but it never happened. Favreau also really takes his time (a trim 90 minutes would probably have been the ideal). The subplot with his neglected son is on the clumsy side (that’s not Emjay Anthony’d fault), alternatively having Casper act the jerk or engage in cloying reconnection.


If the unlikelihood of Casper being surrounded by a bevy of beauties looks like wish fulfillment on an alarming scale, Favs at least presents it like he’s in on the joke. The succession of digs about Carl’s dramatic weight gain makes it marginally more feasible he might once have attracted Sofia Vergara, and it’s quite clear the only way to hostess Scarlett Johansson’s heart is through her stomach. Favreau shoots Molly’s anticipation of Casper’s dish like a response foreplay, followed by her raptures as she digs in.  Generally, Favreau does a fine job making the food look delicious. One might make cracks about how obvious it is that he likes his chow, but it really does come across on screen.


Much has been commented, not so glowingly, of Chef being built on Twitter, but it works pretty well, as device for spinning the plot and building up Favreau’s business. It even extends to building Carl’s relationship with his tech-savvy son.


As for Favs calling favours from his pals, mostly this pays off. ScarJo is hardly in it really, and the female characters suffer slightly as unimpeachable forces who guide Carl back to his calling, but she’s far more alive and present here than in any number of Black Widow outings. Vergara Inez is too good to be true, but she’s so likable the character gets a free pass. Amy Sedaris is very funny as the publicist who wants to get Carl on Hell’s Kitchen.


Then there’s John Leguizamo as faithful Martin. I don’t know if he’s got new management, but the last couple of times I’ve seen him on screen Leguizamo’s been playing likeable sorts. It comes as a bit of a shock after all those years of him embodying weasels. He’s a good fun, as is Bobby Carnavale. Dustin Hoffman’s great too (he’s really not looking like he’s nodding towards 80) delivering one of his increasingly finely chosen cameos. 


Downey Jr, as another of Inez’ ex-husbands, is okay, but he’s just showing up, coasting on the charisma (Will Smith did similarly recently, to more laughable effect, in Winter’s Tale). Platt’s always dependable, but even he struggles with the syrupy pixie dust of the final scenes (not only does Ramsey make up with Carl, but he puts his own money into a joint business venture!)


Interpreting the self-styled Hollywood metaphor, Hoffman becomes the disinterested studio boss, content with the bottom line and blanching at any prospect of “artsy shit”. Of course, Favreau has never made artsy shit and, as marginally indie as Chef is, there’s not really much danger of it being seen that way. But Carl’s excursion into a food van is Favs making this movie, basically. The critic finances his next venture is… what, crowdsourcing? The analogy drops out a bit there.


It also drops out in terms of the complaints over being criticised (we even get it rehearsed again at the end; “It hurts people like me”). It’s implicit that if Ramsey hadn’t stuck the boot in then Carl wouldn’t have regrouped and come out a better person. Perhaps Favs is just too nice a guy not to see all sides. Certainly, this doesn’t leave a bad taste in the way Shyamalan’s bite back in Lady in the Water does; there’s a sense of humour mixed with the grandstanding and saccharine denouement.   


Whatever Chef’s faults, you can tell Favs feels it, connects with it, which helps hugely. There’s no attack of indigestion here, just a mild bloaty feeling. And now, having got this out of his system, Favreau has forsaken the indie food truck and returned to the big studio eatery, tempting fate with one of the duelling Jungle Books. He may be putting his heart and soul into the picture, but is it personal, and meaningful? Will Shere Khan hurt people like him? 

Yes, the top-lining poster is shockingly real.




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

She writes Twilight fan fiction.

Vampire Academy (2014)
My willingness to give writer Daniel Waters some slack on the grounds of early glories sometimes pays off (Sex and Death 101) and sometimes, as with this messy and indistinct Young Adult adaptation, it doesn’t. If Vampire Academy plods along as a less than innovative smart-mouthed Buffy rip-off that might be because, if you added vampires to Heathers, you would probably get something not so far from the world of Joss Whedon. Unfortunately inspiration is a low ebb throughout, not helped any by tepid direction from Daniel’s sometimes-reliable brother Mark and a couple of hopelessly plankish leads who do their best to dampen down any wit that occasionally attempts to surface.

I can only presume there’s a never-ending pile of Young Adult fiction poised for big screen failure, all of it comprising multi-novel storylines just begging for a moment in the Sun. Every time an adaptation crashes and burns (and the odds are that they will) another one rises, hydra-like, hoping…

Rejoice! The broken are the more evolved. Rejoice.

Split (2016)
(SPOILERS) M Night Shyamalan went from the toast of twist-based filmmaking to a one-trick pony to the object of abject ridicule in the space of only a couple of pictures: quite a feat. Along the way, I’ve managed to miss several of his pictures, including his last, The Visit, regarded as something of a re-locating of his footing in the low budget horror arena. Split continues that genre readjustment, another Blumhouse production, one that also manages to bridge the gap with the fare that made him famous. But it’s a thematically uneasy film, marrying shlock and serious subject matter in ways that don’t always quite gel.

Shyamalan has seized on a horror staple – nubile teenage girls in peril, prey to a psychotic antagonist – and, no doubt with the best intentions, attempted to warp it. But, in so doing, he has dragged in themes and threads from other, more meritable fare, with the consequence that, in the end, the conflicting positions rather subvert his attempts at subversion…

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

Must the duck be here?

The Favourite (2018)
(SPOILERS) In my review of The Killing of a Sacred Deer, I suggested The Favourite might be a Yorgos Lanthimos movie for those who don’t like Yorgos Lanthimos movies. At least, that’s what I’d heard. And certainly, it’s more accessible than either of his previous pictures, the first two thirds resembling a kind of Carry On Up the Greenaway, but despite these broader, more slapstick elements and abundant caustic humour, there’s a prevailing detachment on the part of the director, a distancing oversight that rather suggests he doesn’t feel very much for his subjects, no matter how much they emote, suffer or connive. Or pratfall.

Whoever comes, I'll kill them. I'll kill them all.

John Wick: Chapter 2 (2017)
(SPOILERS) There’s no guessing he’s back. John Wick’s return is most definite and demonstrable, in a sequel that does what sequels ought in all the right ways, upping the ante while never losing sight of the ingredients that made the original so formidable. John Wick: Chapter 2 finds the minimalist, stripped-back vehicle and character of the first instalment furnished with an elaborate colour palette and even more idiosyncrasies around the fringes, rather like Mad Max in that sense, and director Chad Stahleski (this time without the collaboration of David Leitch, but to no discernible deficit) ensures the action is filled to overflowing, but with an even stronger narrative drive that makes the most of changes of gear, scenery and motivation.

The result is a giddily hilarious, edge-of-the-seat thrill ride (don’t believe The New York Times review: it is not “altogether more solemn” I can only guess Jeannette Catsoulis didn’t revisit the original in the interven…

I don’t think you will see President Pierce again.

The Ballad of Buster Scruggs (2018)
(SPOILERS) The Ballad of Buster Scruggs and other tall tales of the American frontier is the title of "the book" from which the Coen brothers' latest derives, and so announces itself as fiction up front as heavily as Fargo purported to be based on a true story. In the world of the portmanteau western – has there even been one before? – theme and content aren't really all that distinct from the more familiar horror collection, and as such, these six tales rely on sudden twists or reveals, most of them revolving around death. And inevitably with the anthology, some tall tales are stronger than other tall tales, the former dutifully taking up the slack.

Can you float through the air when you smell a delicious pie?

Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018)
(SPOILERS) Ironically, given the source material, think I probably fell into the category of many who weren't overly disposed to give this big screen Spider-Man a go on the grounds that it was an animation. After all, if it wasn’t "good enough" for live-action, why should I give it my time? Not even Phil Lord and Christopher Miller's pedigree wholly persuaded me; they'd had their stumble of late, although admittedly in that live-action arena. As such, it was only the near-unanimous critics' approval that swayed me, suggesting I'd have been missing out. They – not always the most reliable arbiters of such populist fare, which made the vote of confidence all the more notable – were right. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse is not only a first-rate Spider-Man movie, it's a fresh, playful and (perhaps) surprisingly heartfelt origins story.

I don’t know if what is happening is fair, but it’s the only thing I can think of that’s close to justice.

The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017)
(SPOILERS) I think I knew I wasn’t going to like The Killing of a Sacred Deer in the first five minutes. And that was without the unedifying sight of open-heart surgery that takes up the first four. Yorgos Lanthimos is something of a Marmite director, and my responses to this and his previous The Lobster (which I merely thought was “okay” after exhausting its thin premise) haven’t induced me to check out his earlier work. Of course, he has now come out with a film that, reputedly, even his naysayers will like, awards-darling The Favourite

There's something wrong with the sky.

Hold the Dark (2018)
(SPOILERS) Hold the Dark, an adaptation of William Giraldi's 2014 novel, is big on atmosphere, as you'd expect from director Jeremy Saulnier (Blue Ruin, Green Room) and actor-now-director (I Don’t Want to Live in This World Anymore) pal Macon Blair (furnishing the screenplay and appearing in one scene), but contrastingly low on satisfying resolutions. Being wilfully oblique can be a winner if you’re entirely sure what you're trying to achieve, but the effect here is rather that it’s "for the sake of it" than purposeful.

Never compare me to the mayor in Jaws! Never!

Ghostbusters (2016)
(SPOILERS) Paul Feig is a better director than Ivan Reitman, or at very least he’s savvy enough to gather technicians around him who make his films look good, but that hasn’t helped make his Ghostbusters remake (or reboot) a better movie than the original, and that’s even with the original not even being that great a movie in the first place.

Along which lines, I’d lay no claims to the 1984 movie being some kind of auteurist gem, but it does make some capital from the polarising forces of Aykroyd’s ultra-geekiness on the subject of spooks and Murray’s “I’m just here for the asides” irreverence. In contrast, Feig’s picture is all about treating the subject as he does any other genre, be it cop, or spy, or romcom. There’s no great affection, merely a reliably professional approach, one minded to ensure that a generous quota of gags (on-topic not required) can be pumped out via abundant improv sessions.

So there’s nothing terribly wrong with Ghostbusters, but aside from …