The Chili’s Theory of Movies

I’ve developed a brilliant theory for classifying movies with analogues in the food service industry. It goes something like this: First we must all agree that there is better and worse food in the world. For instance, McDonald’s is okay if you are in the mood for a mass-produced burger-like product slathered in ketchup and mustard, but we’d all agree that Chili’s is better. Want the “nice” version of Chili’s? Give Outback a try – it’s still a chain, but they have steak and Bloomin’ Onions and Cheese Fries. But if you want something that qualifies as an excellent cullinary experience, then you need to seek out the bastion of fine dining in your area. Here in Bryan-College Station we have Christopher’s World Grill and Madden’s. Now that we’ve got the basics down, let’s put our theory to work.

1. The McDonald’s Movies
The McDonald’s movies have very bad plots, mediocre acting, and unbearable writing. Movies that spring to mind here are Under Siege, Road House, The Blues Brothers 2000, and any movie whose title is preceded by “National Lampoon’s.” Since Lindsay and I just watched it, I’m going to include the movie “Because I Said So,” which starred Diane Keaton, Mandy Moore, and the lady who played Lorelai in Gilmore Girls playing the same character with a different name and a better job. This was a perfect McDonald’s movie. The plot had more unanswered questions than a lecture on the Problem of Evil. In addition, there were two outbursts in song which can only be explained by the presence of Mandy Moore. Even Lindsay agreed that it was bad. Just like a burger and fries from McD’s, it left you feeling a little bloated and greasy.

2. The Chili’s Group
The Chili’s movies are very formulaic too, but usually you come away liking them. As far as chick flicks go, I would put “You’ve Got Mail” in this category. It was “Sleepless in Seattle,” except that the role of the dead wife and mother was played by the out-of-business Shop Around the Corner. But it is impossible not to like Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan and that catchy version of Somewhere over the Rainbow at the end. The Oceans XX franchise probably belongs here, too. Make Vegas look cool and glamorous, get lots of cool actors, and viola, you’ve got a Chili’s movie. One common trick that makers of Chili’s movies make is the music montage that substitutes for significant plot development. Instead of having characters talk to each other, you show lots of scenes of them doing fun things together accompanied by inspiring/playful/whistful music in order to take them from coquettish rivals to passionate lovers. Watch out for this in the next romantic comedy you see. Lindsay and I just saw this happen in “No Reservations,” which is a Chili’s movie set in better restaurant than Chili’s.

3. The Outback Movies
As you would expect the Outback movies are just a tad better than Chili’s movies. Still formulaic, but better writing, directing and acting. I think the Bourne franchise falls here. It is hard to argue that they achieve the status of great art, but they are smart and entertaining. A recent example I saw was the movie “The Interpreter.” It is sort of borderline Chili’s/Outback, actually, but I thought it was a decent thriller. Let me list a few of it’s biggest faults:

• The stereotypical emotionally wounded cop with a chip on his shoulder, played by Sean Penn as a secret service agent. The age-old recent widower trick (also used successfully in Sleepless in Seattle as noted above) is used to make you sympathetic and understand why he’s a little bit of a jerk.
• A made-up African nation: Matobo. There is just something strange when a movie about international intrigue has to make up a country. Maybe Zimbabwe would sell them to the rights to use their name or something
• Closely related to this last point is the mystical wisdom of the heathen tribe. This probably brings this movie down the most. Nicole Kidman plays a white woman who grew up in Matobo, and through the entire movie she keeps yammering on about the way the native Matobans deal with death and victimization – very corny. It would have been slightly forgivable if Matobo were a real place. But again, this is a classic sign that you are not watching great art.

Listing all those points has almost made me demote The Interpreter to a Chili’s movie, but for now it will retain its Outback status.

4. The Christopher’s Films
I’m not enough of a film critic to really say what should go here, but I have my opinions. Personally, I think some of the Wes Anderson movies make it. “Stranger than Fiction” is a recent movie that I would put here. Discuss amongst yourselves what else you thing belongs here, but there is one other category of movies I’d like to talk about.

5. The Good Company Bar-b-Que Movies
Most of you probably don’t know what the Good Company Bar-B-Que is, but trust me in that it is the best place to eat BBQ in Houston. The Good Company has picnic tables and a large outdoor dining area, and it looks like it might have been cobbled together in stages when they got enough money to add on. It is one of those great, one-off places in every town that everyone loves. If the Good Company ever closes, I think I would cry. There are a lot of unique, great movies that for one reason or another don’t really qualify as a great artistic achievement. “Raising Arizona,” is just such a movie. It doesn’t have a high production value or a profound story, but that is part of its charm. Many of the Coen Brothers movies probably belong here, but I’m sure you could think of others. Maybe the Princess Bride goes here, or perhaps one of my favorite movies, “The Zero Effect.” Just like little hole-in-the-wall joints, everyone probably knows of a movie or two that fall into this category.

So there you have my current taxonomy of movies. I’ll be sure to inform you in the future when I see a movie that exemplifies one of these categories. Until then, good golf, good tennis, or whatever makes you happy.