Deepwater Horizon [2016]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (I. Vishnevetsky) review


Deepwater Horizon [2016] (directed by Peter Berg, screenplay by Matthew Michael Carnahan and Matthew Sand based on the NYT article by David Barstow [wikip], David Rohde [wikip] [IMDb] and Stephanie Saul [NYT] [IMDb]) dramatizes the final hours of the Deepwater Horizon off-shore oil drilling rig, which exploded on April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico after a well blowout, resulting in one of the most spectacular industrial disasters in memory and the worst oil spill in U.S. waters in history.

What happened?  As the name of the ill-fated rig already implies, the rig and its crew were pushing the limits (the horizon) of deep-sea (deepwater) oil drilling.  To do so, they were inevitably taking risks.  Both the article and the current film note that the rig was not particularly well maintained (there is the temptation when "pushing the envelope" to let more "mundane" maintenance concerns take a back seat...).  Added to this, British Petroleum, which contracted the rig from Transocean (the rig's owner), was pressuring Transocean to get the particular well that the rig was drilling _done_ (it was over 50 days behind schedule) so that the rig/crew could proceed to BP's next project (that it had _also_ already contracted Transocean for).  So there was commercial pressure as well to go faster with this project than would have been smart or prudent.  Well ...

While the film simplifies some of the dynamics -- BP was definitely cast as the villain in the film, while the original NYT article put more attention on Transocean's own cutting corners in neglecting both maintenance and emergency preparedness protocols -- the film IMHO does capture, and quite viscerally, the horror of a _really big disaster_ exploding upon a rather complacent crew accustomed to getting by on quick-wits (as necessary) and ... luck.  This time the roulette wheel spun terribly, terribly wrong ... Even the best bronco-rider can sometimes be thrown-off his horse in a particularly bad way and ... stomped.  Here the oil well exploded, 11 of the Deepwater Horizon's crew died in the explosion / subsequent fires and the environmental damage caused by oil disaster remains simply incalculable.

Heroics of the crew aside, the greater society has the right to ask the question: Should that crew have been out there drilling for oil "in our name" in the first place?

An excellent / thoroughly thought provoking film about a tragedy that on multiple levels, honestly, didn't need to happen.


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Storks [2016]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (C. Lemire) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review


Storks [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Nicholas Stoller along with Doug Sweetland) makes for a remarkably insightful (or at least hopeful) children's parable about priorities.

Where do babies come from?  Well, storks, of course, bring them to families that wanted them.  I don't know if that was the explanation my folks used when I first asked this question, but I always liked it as a nice age appropriate explanation for young kids who couldn't possibly understand the real answer ;-).

Well if this was the case -- that storks bring babies into the world to families that wanted them -- in the past generation this has proven to be a problem: Both storks and (potential) parents found babies to be ... well kind of a hassle.  So ... (potential) parents _stopped_ asking for babies _and_ storks led by a particularly "business savy" head stork (voiced by Kelsey Grammer) "repositioned" the storks into "delivering" less problematic items -- consumer electronics -- for a new (and omnipresent) Amazon-like company called "cornerstore.com";-). 

And nobody, neither the storks nor people, seemed to mind until ... a somewhat neglected little boy named Nate Gardner (voiced by Anton Starkman) asked his ever-on-their-cell-phones parents Henry and Sarah (voiced by Ty Burrell and Jennifer Aniston) -- running some sort of a real estate business out of their home -- that he'd REALLY WANT "a baby brother" to play with.  How to fit _that_ in?  The parents initially are _definitely_ NOT "on board."  So ... Nate decides to "write the storks" himself. 

Well the storks "aren't in the baby delivery business anymore" anyway.  So the letter is destined to be "returned to sender" BUT ... BY HAPPENSTANCE ... this letter manages to get through, and the LONG MOTHBALLED "baby making machine" up there on a perch on a faraway mountain in the clouds, starts-up and makes a CUTE AS A BUTTON baby for Nate.  And ... seeing this cute as a button baby ("after all these years") despite calls by the "head stork" to "not get distracted" and just continue to deliver the consumer electronics that they're now delivering, the CUTE AS A BUTTON baby proves FAR MORE INTERESTING (first to the storks and _eventually_ to potential parents) and ... the rest of the story ensues ... ;-)

It's honestly A LOVELY STORY ... PEOPLE (and especially KIDS) prove FAR MORE INTERESTING than "stuff" ;-)

Great job folks!  GREAT JOB! ;-)


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Bridget Jones's Baby [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J.P. McCarthy) review
Los Angeles Times (K. Walsh) review
RogerEbert.com (S. Wloszczyna) review
AVClub (J. Hassenger) review 

Bridget Jones's Baby [2016] (directed by Sharon Maguire, screenplay by Helen Fielding, Dan Mazer and Emma Thompson, based on story and characters by Helen Fielding [wikip] [GR] [IMDb]) is a charming (if not necessarily demanded) "Part III" of a story that charmed "back in the day" fifteen years ago when the first film, Bridget Jones's Diary [2001] first came out.  But there it is.  Clutsy, endearing, everywoman/everyperson Bridget Jones (played wonderfully as ever by Renée Zellweger) finds herself "celebrating" alone, yet again, on her 43rd birthday (How?  See the movie, and most will immediately understand... It could honestly happen to anybody, but it still hurts). 

But our often unlucky heroine didn't not let her, yet again, quite lousy birthday get her down ;-).  She now had a (pretty) great job as a producer of a "hard-hitting" (if tabloidish) News Program called "Hard News" where her über-focused / no-nonsense anchor Miranda (played by Sarah Solemani) would take her guests (often enough quite awful/unsavory despots and/or their henchmen) to a (quite comfortable-looking) "sofa" for questioning.  (Think Monty Python's "Spanish Inquisition" -- "Bring out ... the comfy chair" ;-) ;-).   Of course, Bridget, the producer, would often get distracted by other things and feed Miranda (into whose earpiece she'd be talking) wildly inappropriate questions and comments that would, of course, "make the show" even as the questions / comments would undermine it.

Miranda, about the same age as Bridget, thankful for Bridget's unscripted goofiness (as it paid _her bills_ as well), decides that what Bridget really needs is to "hookup with a man" and get one epic ...  So she takes her to a contemporary Woodstock-like music festival complete with quite tidy Mongolian hookup "yurts" (part of the thematics of film appeared to be how everything today, even raunchy no-holds barred hedonism is actually quite scripted and sanitized today).  There she does, in fact, hook-up with an American looker (played by Patrick Dempsey) named "Jack."  A week later, at a far more traditional / staid Christianing she runs into her old and far-more stiff  British boyfriend Mark Darcy (played by Colin Firth).  Despite her/their better judgement, the two end up spending the night together as well. 

A number of weeks later, Bridget finds herself pregnant, and of course, doesn't know by whom, and ... in typical Bridget Jones fashion can't seen to find an easy way to tell either of the other.  Much of course ensues ...

It makes for _a strange_ sort of comedy to write about (positively) on a Catholic blog ;-).  But underneath the story is actually a more-or-less consistent bias toward the traditional.  Yes, Bridget is a klutz.  Yes, her good yet ever-stiff ex is often incredibly boring (even to himself).  BUT ... in the end both are more authentic, more "made for each other" than the faux "über-self-realized" (nominally "far more perfect") others who surround them.


Strange as it may be, this is a goofy, middle-aged rom-com that leaves one with much to think about ;-).  (Pretty) good job!



<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Blair Witch [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  RogerEbert.com (2 Stars)  AVClub (B-)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Chang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review 


Blair Witch [2016] (directed by Adam Wingard, screenplay by Simon Barrett) is a rather benign "20 years later" sequel (wow, it's been nearly twenty years...) to The Blair Witch Project [1999] which, "back in the day" had really "turned heads" / caught the attention of movie goers and movie producers alike.  Yes, the original BWP was the very first film built around the "lost footage" device that has become part-and-parcel of horror / "scary movies" ever since. 

So how does the sequel do?  To be honest, "Eh, pretty well..." IMHO ;-).  Indeed, I'm somewhat surprised at the R-rating (for language mostly and, yes, least one of the "college aged couples" going out into Maryland's "Black Hills Forest" in search of "what really happened to Holly" (one of the college aged women who disappeared in the first film) more-or-less clearly set-out to do so with the expectation of sharing a tent together (They die, of course ... But then, in the "Shakespeare as a teen" (as HE _could_ have been "back in HIS DAY...") ETHOS of the whole "lost footage genre" ... they ALL "kinda have to die ..." ;-)

The technology of course is updated, reminding us today of JUST HOW HUGE the "state of the art" handheld "minicams" of 1999 still were.  In the current film, the characters wear "flash cams" mounted to blue-tooth style earpieces, the batteries powering them presumably being no larger those powering today's hearing aids.  One character even brings along a little plastic "Walmart Special" four propeller helicopter drone ;-). 

None of this technology, however, is a match for the well-timed-to-be-scary "wind gust" or random howl of some random animal, wild or domestic, in the distance.  Add rain (and the mud it produces) and between shaky cams and shaky flashlights, it all makes for one heck of a low budget, and quite believable "scary high school / college camping story" ;-). 

The best comment about the film that I've heard came from the teenager who sold me the ticket as I went to see it.  I asked: "So did you see it yet?"  "No, and I don't plan to.  I'm just a big scardy cat" ;-)  Scardy cat indeed ... ;-)

Folks, this is not Citizen Kane [1941], nor even Psycho [1960].  But for teenagers and those who _were_ teenagers "back in (some) day" who used to go hiking or camping, it spins a pretty good tale ... ;-)

Not bad really, not bad at all ;-)


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Snowden [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB ()  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB () review
Los Angeles Times (J. CHang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (M. D'Angelo) review  

Snowden [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Oliver Stone along with Kieran Fitzgerald based on the books The Time of the Octopus [GR] by Anatoly Kucherena [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb] and The Snowden Files [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] by Luke Harding [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]) is a film that's destined to be controversial simply for the persons involved.  Both Edward Snowden himself (whose demeanor was IMHO captured _spot-on_ in the film, and arguably to Oscar nomination heights, by Joseph Gordon Levitt) and director Oliver Stone have their (often quite reflexive) "haters."  Yet, I admit that I both like and honestly _admire_ both of these inconvenient / disturbing messengers.

Everything that I have seen / read of Snowden indicates to me that he was a sincere and _measured_ "brainiac" who saw what was being done in terms of (near universal) surveillance at the NSA and thought (rightly!!) that _at least the American public / world ought to know_.  I'm not excited that he finds himself in Russia.  I do think that despite his best efforts _some_ secrets above and beyond his control will (or already have) gone to the Russians. 

But after seeing this film, I would like to see Jennifer Lawrence and Selena Gomez, et al, make a "Hollywood Star" CLASS ACTION FOIA inquiry into _simply_ "the meta-data" of the NSA / CIA's "searches" over the past 5-10-15 years, to simply get a sense of HOW MANY TIMES _THEY_ were "searched" by said "NSA / CIA geeks" using their "google search OF ALL" search engines.  For this would be _the simplest_ explanation of _how_ these Stars' iPads, tablets, cell phones were "hacked" for all their private photos ...  Honestly, who (most) else (outside of the world's intelligence communities) would even know where / how to look?

And yes, after seeing this film, one would be INSANE to not have a piece of electrical tape over one's "comes installed in your laptop" webcam.  I'VE HAD SAID PIECE OF ELECTRICAL TAPE OVER MY "PART OF THE EQUIPMENT" WEBCAM on my Laptop since 2 days after buying it (a dirt cheap Dell model that I've come to call a "NSA SPECIAL" :-).  I did so because 2 days into buying it, SUDDENLY a light started shining at my face from my laptop (I didn't even know up to that point that a webcam was there... it didn't even come with CD Drive, that's how simple / bare-bones it was) and I could not shut it off.  

Then, "Julius Caesar" / "Richard III" Shakespearean in style as Oliver Stone [wikip] [IMDb] has been in his films, I do believe that he does _nail_ the essential personality traits of the characters in his biopics.  Indeed, I do believe he absolutely _nails_ the essences of the key personalities of the G.W. Bush Administration in "W" [2008] in a way that both helps one understand "what happened" during that Administration and arguably makes one even feel sorry for some of the key characters present.  

SO ... in this film we're presented with Stone's understanding of the "essential Edward Snowden" presenting him as both a patriot and a geek who does come to see THE POWER that HE (and OTHERS AROUND HIM at the NSA/CIA) had come to have (the "power to KNOW ALL" about ... just about EVERYBODY) and becomes deeply disturbed by it.  Yes, OTHERS were not as concerned... Even his own girlfriend (again played quite credibly / honestly by Shailene Woodley) in as much as she knew what Ed was part-of at his job (and she did not know much), was NOT particularly concerned that the NSA could have 'pictures of her boobs...' ... she was a young 20-something spritely / generally cheerful photog ;-).  But Edward Snowden KNEW that this was entirely possible, even probable, and he was ONE GUY (and it only takes one) WHO REALLY BELIEVED THAT "PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW" (that this kind of surveillance REALLY WAS HAPPENING). 

The rest of the story follows.  It plays out like a "Jason Bourne for geeks" ;-).  But the warning of the story is ABSOLUTELY CLEAR: The NSA (and OTHER intelligence services around the world) IS / ARE WATCHING YOU ... WATCH OUT FOR WHEN THEY DECIDE _TO ACT_ / TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WHAT THEY'VE SEEN ...

GREAT / THOROUGHLY THOUGHT PROVOKING FILM ...

<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Don't Breathe [2016]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  RogerEbert.com (3 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Los Angeles Times (J. Tang) review
RogerEbert.com (B. Tallerico) review
AVClub (A.A. Dowd) review  

Don't Breathe [2016] (directed and screenplay cowritten by Fede Alvarez along with Rodo Sayagues) is a rather nihilistic indie thriller in which _no one_ comes out particularly good.

Three random and not particularly bright / good Midwestern teens to early year olds - Rocky (played by Jane Levy), her nominal alpha-male boyfriend Money (played by Daniel Zovatto) and their perhaps more sensible (or just weaker) beta-male friend Alex (played by Daniel Minnette) -- are on a two-bit home burglary spree through the Rust Belt with only a vague goal of _eventually_ "making it to California." 

Well they get word of a particularly juicy target: a blind Vet (played by Stephan Lang) who recently had come into some serious money (a million dollars) for the wrongful death of his beloved daughter.  Since he was blind, he had demanded the sum in cash, which he presumably kept somewhere in his house (on a street of rundown abandoned homes somewhere in Detroit).  If they came in there, who'd know? Who'd care?  Heck the man was blind?  They could do the robbery _in daylight_ while he was there.  What could possibly go wrong?

Well, true, the man was blind, but he was also some sort of a special forces vet.  The house, which he knew _intimately_ was small.  And he had a trusty and vicious pit-bull of a guard-dog. Finally it turns out that as a Vet, he was not only blind, but had some rather significant psychological "issues ..."

So by midway through the film, not only did the original "plan" (in as much as there was one) of the three rather stupid "teenagers without a clue" go _really, really wrong_ in a hurry, it turned out that the Vet was not exactly "a good guy" either.

Who to root for in a story like this?  And even more to the point _why_?  There's actually even a rather oddly expressed "religious message" to the story.  The by then blood covered old blind man (who had already killed two of the teenagers who had broken into his home and was methodically hunting for the third, who he's spared but now wanted "to keep" for another, rather insane, purpose...) declares: "When one stops believing in God, all things become possible."  

Wow.  Sigh.  Yuck.  What a future to look forward to ...


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>

Ignacio de Loyola [2016]

MPAA (UR would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing

The Jesuit Post (D. Gustafson, S.J.) review
Jesuits West article / review


Ignacio de Loyola [2016] (directed and screenplay by Paolo Dy, collaborating director Catha Azanza, story by Paolo Dy, Catha Azanza, Pauline Mangilog-Saltarin, Emmanuel Alfonso and Ian Victoriano based on the Autobiography [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] of St. Ignatius of Loyola [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn]) is a really quite excellent English language film made by the Jesuits of the Philippines about the early (young adult) years (and quite interesting conversion...) of St. Ignatius of Loyola [wikip] (the founder of the Jesuit Order).  The film has enjoyed a two week run to fairly, even _impressively_ large audiences here in Orange County, CA (at the AMC Orange 30 Theater).

The film presents young Ignacio (Iñigo) of Loyola [wikip] (played in the film quite excellently by Andreas Muñoz) as a brash to arrogant / entitled feeling young man from the environs of 16th century Pamplona, Spain, who steeped in the chivalric romances of the then still relatively "recent past" would have actually had a lot in common with his contemporary Miguel de Cervantes [wikip] and more to the point, with Cervantes' character/creation Don Quixote [wikip] [GR] [WCat] [Amzn] [IMDb]:

It is clear that young Iñigo (of Loyola) was a dreamer, and one who from the very beginning _dreamed_ / believed himself to be destined for "great things."  What those "great things" would be, were yet to be determined.  However, at least initially he was pretty much certain that they would probably play out, somehow "on the battle field."

HERE, HONESTLY, AND I WRITE HERE WITH SOME "EXPERIENCE," young even 20 year-old Iñigo would _not_ be all that different from the teenager / young adult OF TODAY who having spent the last 5-10 years playing the "Call of Duty" video game and having then seen American Sniper [2014], would have decided to run to an Armed Forces Recruitment Office convinced that Glory / Destiny awaited him (or her) "on the battlefield" / "behind enemy lines" / piloting "drones" (or other robots) on behalf of God and Country.

I honestly found brash / young Iñigo (of Loyola) TOTALLY RELATEABLE and EVEN KNOW and _could point out_ SIMILARLY LOVELY, HONEST, SINCERE / PATRIOTIC young people from _my own parishes_ who'd almost be JUST LIKE HIM

Iñigo's dreams of battlefield glory came to a rather inglorious end with a wound with a cannonball that injured / messed-up his leg, leaving him with a limp for the rest of his life.  What to do now?

Well folks, that's the rest of the story, AND IT'S A GOOD ONE:  As a GOOD / WELL BROUGHT-UP (even arguably somewhat pampered) SPANIARD of the 16th century he turned to God.  But HOW?  Well, having read (and dreamed) of being part of all those Medieval / Chivalric / Arthurian Romances he already had a very active imagination.  So he quite literally started to live his life working out in his mind  -- IMAGINING -- the answer to a question, very well known TODAY: "What would Jesus do?" (and its corollary: "What is Jesus asking _me_ to do?").  Indeed, he came, on his own, to develop a method (his since famous Spiritual Exercises [wikip] [GR]) for the "discernment of spirits." 

Yes, getting his method approved and _not_ getting "burned at the stake" for it -- this was 16th century Spain of the Spanish Inquisition after all ... and at least initially, Ignatius was just a "War Vet turned itinerant preacher" (who hence today could have been initially dismissed as having "PTS issues" ...) -- proved a challenge.  But it also explains _why_ Ignatius of Loyola went _back_ "to School" and arguably _why_ they Jesuits have put so much emphasis on learning ever since: If you know your facts and (come to) be "the smartest / best ecdcated person in the room" _eventually_ your opponents have to let you be / concede. 

Anyway, the film becomes one that could prove very interesting _many_ young people dreaming of Glory / "making a difference" in this world and may help them to seek to do it in a manner that would be honestly pleasing God. 

Great film!  IMHO the best (Catholic / Christian) religiously themed film of the year thus far!


<< NOTE - Do you like what you've been reading here?  If you do then consider giving a small donation to this Blog (sugg. $6 _non-recurring_) _every so often_ to continue/further its operation.  To donate just CLICK HERE.  Thank you! :-) >>