Silent Hill 3D Revelation [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O) Fr. Dennis (2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review

Silent Hill 3D Revelation (written and directed by Michael J. Bassatt) like its predecessor Silent Hill [2006] is a film adapted from the (originally Japanese) "survival horror" video game series Silent Hill set in a fictitious "small American town" by the same name.  Like the video game, so the film, takes place in a "multiverse," that is on one level the story takes place in our own world (in and around that small town called Silent Hill) and on other level it exists in an alternate somewhat "dreamy" / "nightmarish" reality where ghastly things take place.

In the current movie, Australian actress Adelaide Clemens plays the lead role of Heather (in this world) / Alyssa (in the alternate one).  She has found herself moving quite a bit with her dad (played by Sean Been) in this world in order to try to avoid returning the town of Silent Hill, but, alas, she finds herself coming back to that town (or at least its equivalent in the other dimension) anyway.  Much of course ensues.

With the film being released around Halloween time and having been responsible for our parish's youth group over the years, I found the feel of this movie to be that of a good (meaning really scary) "virtual haunted house" (I saw the movie in 2D but I would imagine that if one wanted to spend the extra $4 to see it in 3D it _probably_ would not be a waste of money this time).

What I found annoying after a while was the film's arguably taking itself too seriously at times with regard to things "Occult."  Yes, I suppose some of this was necessary for the setup of the story, but I would have simply made "Silent Hill" some kind of "Gateway to Hell" / "Purgatory" (a la Dante) and just be done with it.  However, the film (and presumably the video game) chooses to dwell on what appear to be "Occult nuances" and I could imagine a great many Christian/Catholic parents finding this "really, really annoying" or worse.  And I would tend to agree.

However, rather than make a big thing of this, I would just suggest to parents to remind their teens (if their teens insist on wanting to see this movie or play the game) that this film/game is _really_ "just a story"/"game" and to honestly not dwell on the details.   As I recently wrote in my blogpost here about Paranormal Activity 4, there's really no need for any of us to become expert "Zoologists of Evil."  (There are plenty of far more positive ways we could spend our time...)


But heck, as a "virtual haunted house" or even as a "virtual descent into Hell" the film (and presumably the game) is really "kinda cool."  Just honestly LIKE DANTE "visit" these places "with a smile" ;-)


 << 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 ;-) >> 

Alex Cross [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review


Alex Cross (directed by Rob Cohen, screenplay by Marc Moss and Kerry Williamson based on the novel by James Patterson) is about the exploits of an African American detective and psychologist named Dr. Alex Cross (played in the film by Tyler Perry).  In the novels, he lives and works in the South East quadrant of Washington D.C. In the current film he and his family live in Detroit, MI. In both cases these are both "tough" generally crime ridden areas but with some more upscale sections where wealthier/upper middle class African Americans (like Alex Cross and his family) live.

The film concerns itself with Alex Cross' hunting down a particularly sadistic criminal who is given the nick-name "Picasso" (played by Matthew Fox) because he tends to leave charcoal drawings of his victims (often wrything in pain) at the scenes of the crimes.  This criminal apparently sees killing as an "art form" and he also _enjoys_ seeing his victims in pain.

After a particularly brutal murder of the woman of an otherwise unsavory gangster, Alex Cross and his partner Tommy Kane (played by Edward Burns) are brought in on the case.  After "Picasso" finds out that Alex Cross is on his tail, he of course takes enjoyment in "playing" with him and finding some very awful ways to cause Cross and his family (Alex Cross' wife Maria played by Carmen Ejogo, daughter Janelle played by Yara Shahidi, son Damon played by Sayeed Shahidi, and mother played by Cicely Tyson) pain.

IMHO it all makes for a rather good crime thriller and I like the development of Alex Cross' family.  However, PARENTS I would definitely warn you that the film should really be rated R.  There are definitely some very graphic/violent scenes present.  IMHO that does not necessarily make it a bad film, just at times a rather violent one and parents/families ought to know what they are walking into in that regard.


 << 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 ;-) >>

Valley of Saints [2012]

MPAA (Unrated would be PG-13/R)  Fr. Dennis (4 Stars)

IMDb listing -


Valley of Saints [2012] written and directed by Musa Syeed, is an Indian/USA film (Kashmiri w. English subtitles) that played recently at the 48th Annual Chicago International Film Festival (Oct. 11-25, 2012).  It is set in and around Dal Lake in the Valley of Saints in the disputed territory (between India and Pakistan) of Kashmir.  The Kashmiri conflict forms an important part of the backdrop to the story.

Afzal (played by Mohammad Afzal), 20-something years old, along with his best friend Gulzar (played by Gulzar Ahmed Bhat) is a humble taxi/tourist boatman.  The two make their livings paddling tourists in their boats around the lake to the various islands, lotus gardens and so forth.  The beginning of the story finds Afzal beginning his day pretty much like any other day, helping his aging and somewhat ailing traditionally Muslim uncle get up.

Afzal appears to have some special concern about his uncle that day as apparently the uncle is going to travel somewhere reasonably distant for some kind of medical checkup.  But after his uncle is on his way (presumably by bus) the day continues like any other day with Afzal, Gulzar and other taxi/tourist boatmen hustling for customers onshore.  Eventually both get gigs, Afzal taking a young long-haired European couple to one of the islands, Gulzar meeting him on the island with his boat after taking somewhere as well.

However, this is Kashmir... So what began as a "normal day" soon ceases to be one.  While the two friends were transporting their customers to the island somewhere in the middle of the lake a riot broke-out onshore and the military authorities imposed a week-long 24 hour curfew on the cities onshore.  So the two find themselves stuck now on this island for a number of days.  Would Afzal's uncle be able to come home from his trip to the medical clinic?  Perhaps he made it back before the curfew was imposed, perhaps not.  In any case, "normal life" is frozen for a week and the two are stuck on the island.

While stuck on the island, the two come across a young woman, Indian/Kashmiri like they were named Asifa (played by Neelofar Hamid).  She was a university student (more probably a graduate student) who had come back to Dal Lake to study its environmental degradation.  Apparently not only is the Kashmiri conflict going on, but with the increase of population and general increase of "stuff" the overall environmental quality of the lake has been going down as well and it becomes progressively clear to the viewer that all kinds of garbage and refuse is being thrown or otherwise dumped into the lake.

A somewhat "impossible romance" naturally starts to develop.  Afzal, a humble boatman falls for the exotic and far more educated Asifa.  As a result, some traditional gender roles do reverse.  Trying to impress Asifa, Afzal cooks for her (Indeed, one gets the sense that Asifa probably would have been rather lost on the island during the curfew if not for Afzal).  On the other hand and certainly at the beginning of their interaction, Asifa treats Afzal as basically an underling "in need of an education" (by her) of how to treat the lake with respect.  In one scene he shows her a bathroom and she proceeds to draw him a plan for an "environmentally sound one" ... ;-).

Nevertheless, Afzal does seem to grow on Asifa...  However, remember folks that in many respects this is a "traditional Muslim movie" ;-).  So Westerners especially may find it "surprising" that the budding relationship doesn't seem to go anywhere.  Or honestly, does it (go nowhere)?  This aspect of the story becomes fascinating for me because it offers an invitation for viewers (and readers here) to reflect on the question of _when_ does a friendship (or even relationship) become _meaningful_?   And yes, I do believe that this film does offer an alternative to contemporary Western cultural "orthodoxy" on the matter.  :-)

The other aspect of the film that I found fascinating was the number of "levels of action"/"things happening" that are present in the film:  There was (1) the story of Afzal's uncle's gradual decline in health.  There's (2) the story of the three young protagonists' struggles to "grow-up" (finish school, achieve a stable and secure existence) and _begin_ their (adult) lives.  Both of these stories would fall into the realm of "the natural/human order of things."  But then there's (3) the intrusion and obvious resentment of the conflict in Kashmir: There's enough suffer, there are enough problems in life, why add political/military conflict to the mix?  Then there's (4) the (current) gradual decline in the quality of the Lake.  Even as Hindus/Muslims, India and Pakistan are fighting for this (previously) beautiful piece of land, it's being poisoned and _may_ become a lifeless cesspool to whoever ends up finally "winning" that political conflict.  Finally there's (5) a "timeless" dimension to the story, something that Afzal appears to be struggling with.  During the course of the film, Afzal narrates the story of why the area in which he lives is called "The Valley of Saints:"  At some time immemorial, there was a demon who lived in the lake that used to attack small children.  The Saints (giant, presumably at least partly supernatural beings) came and killed the demon, making the lake safe for the people who lived around it.  During the course of the film, Afzal repeatedly asks "Where are 'the Saints' now?" in the midst of all the suffering mostly political/military but also in regards to the lake's declining capacity to sustain life.  And yet, the story says that "life on the lake" has been guaranteed "safe" by those "Saints" since pretty much the beginning of time.  So is life "safe" or has it been pretty much _always_ rather "precarious" and yet are we still somehow guaranteed by those "Saints" (supernatural beings / Religion) that All will turn out well in the end?

This is a simple story that ends up asking some really big questions!  Very 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 ;-) >>

Meeting Leila (orig. Ashnaee ba Leila) [2011]

MPAA (Unrated would be PG-13)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing

Meeting Leila (orig. Ashnaee ba Leila) [2011] directed and cowritten by Adel Yaraghi along with Abbas Kiarostami is an Iranian film (in Farsi with English subtitles) that played recently at the 48th Annual Chicago International Film Festival (Oct. 11-25, 2012).

It is about two lonely Iranian 40-somethings, Leila (played by Leila Hatami, who also played recently in the 2011 Oscar Winning film A Separation [2011]) a chemist, and Adel (played by Adel Yaraghi) who works for a Tehran advertising agency.  They meet one winter morning in Tehran when Leila has trouble getting her Volkswagon Beetle up a small hill after a snowfall.  Adel also driving a Volkswagon Beetle courteously stops helps her get her Beetle moving up the slight but irritating incline (anyone who's ever driven a VW Beetle -- it was the car that I learned to drive stickshift on when I was a teenager ;-) -- would know its rather temperamental gearshift ;-).  They exchange phone numbers and apparently hit it off because when we meet them again, it's apparently a year later and it looks like they are going to get married.  Except there's a problem ... Adel's a chain smoker and _really enjoys smoking_, sincerely thinks it helps him in his creative work and Leila, again a chemist, one who _may_ be working in some sort of a pharmaceutical or medical lab, just hates it.  What to do?  Well that's what the rest of the movie is about ;-)

This is clearly a very simple and yet very universal story.  And then there are some fairly predictable as well as surprising elements impinging on both Iran's current cultural circumstances as well as our Western perceptions of them.

Look, my parents were Czechoslovakian who came here after fleeing the Communists.  Czechoslovakia was also in a cultural deep-freeze during most of the Communist Era.  Yes, there was the Prague Spring around 1968 but the cultural flourishing that occurred during that remarkable period before it was crushed by Soviet tanks only makes the point.  And the point is this: the story in this film, as simple, poignant, lovely as it is, is _exactly_ the kind of film that is _safe_ when a creative community is living under the boot of a totalitarian regime.  There's absolutely _no politics_ here (none, zero, nada...), just a story about a woman who'd really like to have her man stop smoking....

And yet, there are also surprises (for the "know it all" Westerner ;-).  Among them are simply that a Westerner gets to see that Tehran has "winter," something that I noted in the discussion that followed the screening of the movie happily surprised me, because most of the time when I think of the Middle East, I think of a "hot dry desert climate." ;-).

But that's really a triviality.  What fascinates me much more about this film is that in many respects this is a very "classically Hollywood/American" film: It's simply the story of one man and one woman, both in their 40s (so both would have had some definite "life experience") with almost no friends and _no relatives_ in the story to speak of.  It's basically Humphrey Bogart [IMDb] and ... Ingrid Bergman [IMDb] / Lauren Bacall [IMDb].  So in the discussion after the film I did ask about that: Would this story be realistic in a place like Iran?  And the answer was that it was basically as realistic as the Humphrey Bogart [IMDb] movie of the 1940s, the implication and _reminder_ being that Iran is a sophisticated place.  For further support in this point, let the reader remember here the occupations of the two protagonists of the story.  He was an _ad man_ a profession as "hip, happening, modern" (and arguably as "artificial") as can be, and she was a chemist.  Neither was simply a "shop keeper" much less a "salt of the earth goat herder" of some sort.  They lived in Tehran, but they could have _easily_ lived in Los Angeles, Paris or New York.

And so I am very happy to have had the opportunity to see this film and then to share it with others here.   None (or extremely few) of us would have the capacity to visit "all the world,"  but with festivals such as these we do have an opportunity to visit the world and to see that we're not necessarily as different as we may at times think that we are. 

Excellent 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 ;-) >>

Xingu [2012]

MPAA (Unrated would be PG-13/R) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
Adorocinema listing - [PT Orig][ENG trans]

Xingu [IMDb][AC-PT orig][ENG trans] directed and cowritten by Cao Hamburger [IMDb][AC Pt orig][AC Eng trans] along with Elena Soarez [IMDb] and Anna Muylaert [IMDb] is a remarkable Brazilian film that played recently at the 48th Chicago International Film Festival (Oct 11-25, 2012) about three brothers from a middle class family from São Paulo -- Claudio, Orlando and Leonardo Villas Boas (played by João Miguel [IMDb][AC Pt orig][AC Eng trans], Filipe Camargo [IMDb][AC Pt orig][AC Eng trans] and Ciao Blat [IMDb][AC Pt orig][AC Eng trans] respectively) who in the 1940s pretended to be illiterate in order to be allowed to join a Brazilian military expedition into the as of that time largely unexplored interior of Brazil specifically into the region called Mato Grosso.

Despite having good comfortable jobs São Paulo, the three brothers did so for the adventure of it _and_ out of a true respect/fascination with Brazil's indigenous peoples.  When the expedition had traversed a fair amount of the wilds, it made contact with the Xingu peoples in Mato Grosso and the three brothers became instrumental in establishing a remarkable relationship of respect between Brazil's government/military and the Xingu peoples such that the development of the area in the decades that followed actually resulted in the creation of a surprisingly successful Xingu National Park (under the supervision of the three brothers) where the Xingu peoples as well as others from the whole of the Amazon region were able to survive and keep their native ways of life more or less in peace.

(North) American readers will no doubt know of the both the largely tragic history of the Reservation system in the United States as well as Brazil's own often tragic history in this regard.  This film provides an IMHO much needed opportunity for viewers/readers to come to know, evaluate and hopefully learn from what could well be a true and very nice success!  Honestly good job makers of this this film and God bless you! ;-)

ADDENDUM:

My own religious order, The Friar Servants of Mary, as small as it has always been, has actually been very much involved in many of the issues surrounding the Amazon Rain Forest from calling for a 10 year moritorium on logging in the Amazon rain forest to the defense of both the indigenous peoples of Acre state in Brazil and the white/poor rubber tappers (seringueros) sent up to Acre in the 1940s by the Brazilian military during the same time as the three Villas-Bôas brothers joined the expedition that they took part in from São Paulo.  The Brazilian Servites in Acre knew the famed eco-martyr Chico Mendes personally (he was a _parishioner_ of theirs from their church at Xapuri in Acre, and he traveled with the Servites on their "desobriga" trips up and down the rivers of Acre as they did their missionary work.   In recent years, the Brazilian Servites contracted a book written by Brazilian writer Milton Claro to tell the story of "The Amazonia that We Do Not Know" mostly about the remarkable yet largely unknown humble people who inhabit the Amazon region.  I was the book's primary translator into English and since it was always intended for free distribution, I recently put it up on the internet so that people like yourselves could have access to it.  It is a truly remarkable text and there are entire chapters dedicated to the environmental destruction of the Amazon [2] [3], to the lives and challenges of the Indigenous peoples [2] [3] [4] and to the case of Chico Mendes.

Seven Psychopaths [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1931533/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv124.htm
Roger Ebert -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121010/REVIEWS/121019997

Seven Psychopaths (written and directed by Martin McDonagh) is certainly a strange and often violent movie (the R rating is definitely deserved).  Yet it is often very funny as well as poignant and pointed.  I'd characterize the film as partly Quentin Tarentino's Pulp Fiction [1994] meets the Coen brothers' Big Lebowski [1998] but also reflecting some of the "over the pond" exasperations with "America" perhaps best expressed in my mind by Jon Ronson (who, like McDonagh comes from Britain and who is perhaps most famous for his book/movie The Men Who Stare at Goats [2009] but one who even wrote a recent bestselling book called The Psychopath Test (2012)]).

As such, the principal protagonist in McDonagh's film set in and around Los Angeles is Marty (played by Colin Farrell) a transplant from "the Isles," who, when he is sober..., is trying to write a screenplay called "Seven Psychopaths."  The idea's kinda edgy/cool.  But Marty has writer's block, which causes him to drink all the more.

And in truth at the beginning of the film, he's only been able to come up with one (perhaps one and a half) interesting psychopath(s) for his story: A "Buddhist psychopath" who he imagines as having had been a salutary, patriotic Vietcong fighter who went insane after he found that all his loved ones were murdered by American troops as part the Mi Lai Massacre in 1968.  So impersonating a Catholic priest, he emigrated to the United States and set out to murder in revenge everyone in the unit responsible for the massacre.  And after murdering a couple of them, he gets his big chance to get them all when he finds out that the unit was going to have a "reunion" in Las Vegas ...

But having "a priest" force a "Las Vegas hooker" to strap on a vest made of dynamite that he would detonate as she entered the room with 200 or so veteran members of the unit responsible for the Mi Lai Massacre apparently seemed too improbable/deranged for Marty and so he changes his "Buddhist psychopath" to a "Quaker" one, who exacts his revenge on a savage murderer of his only daughter by simply but _relentlessly_ "following him" (at a respectful, but still plainly noticeable distance) where-ever the murderer went until, the murderer, who himself had a change of heart (in prison) converting to Catholicism and had subsequently lived an otherwise _peaceful life_ even eventually earning parole simply could not stand being tormented by this malevolent yet supremely pacifist Quaker father "psychopath," and commits suicide.

But even with these two strange (if honestly quite fascinating "psychopaths") he had only one, one and a half or perhaps two psychopaths for his story and his goal was seven.  What to do ... besides drink?

Well it turns out that Marty's best friend, Billy Bickle (played by Sam Rockwell) and one who's been honestly trying really hard to get Marty to realize that his drinking is killing him (yes "Bickle" is the last name of the Robert De Niro character in Taxi Driver [1976] ... this point coming from Roger Ebert's review of this film), is running something of a mildly insane/evil scam with an older partner named Hans (played by Christopher Walken): The two kidnap the pet dogs (usually quite small) of rich people and then "find/return" them to their owners for the reward money.  Why would anyone (or any two people) do something so _mildly_ insane/Evil?   Well Hans had spent 20 years in jail ... and his wife Myra (played by Linda Bright Clay) now suffered from cancer.  Where's he gonna get a job with the attendant health insurance with his record?   So the two "steal dogs" of rich people and give them back to them for cash.  (They don't even write ransom notes to the dog owners.  They just wait until the rich people who've lost their beloved pets start posting notes on various neighborhood kiosks promising "reward money" for the return of their dogs).

However this mildly crazy/evil scam goes horribly awry when the two accidentally kidnap the beloved Shih Tzu (yes, it allows the characters in the film to say "shi...tzu" in countless variations during the rest of the film) of an otherwise truly sociopathic gangster named Charlie (played by Woody Harrelson).

Much, often very violently, ensues even as the characters with all their more or less obviously flaws and foibles actually talk about some fairly profound stuff (and Marty tries to get his screenplay together ...).  And yes, the whole story gets "nicely tied together" by the end ;-).

It all makes for a very well written, often funny if often pointedly disturbing story that reminds me of the influences I mentioned above.  Good job, McDonagh!  (I think ;-)


 << 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 ;-) >>

Paranormal Activity 4 [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2109184/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv125.htm

Paranormal Activity 4 (directed by Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman, screenplay by Christopher Landon, story by Chad Feehan) is one of those films that I've found little enthusiasm in seeing and yet I do believe deserves some mention here.  Other films in this category have included Sasha Barron Cohen's The Dictator, the Transformers' series knockoff Battleship and last spring's Silent House which starred Elizabeth Olsen who I generally like but could not bring my self to yet another "troubled/haunted house" film.  And there have been other popular/widely released films movies that I've found to be so uninteresting/unappealing that I've chosen to ignore them completely.

In the case of the Paranormal Activity franchise, I do have to say that I liked very much the first installment (which came out before I began writing this blog).  Like many others, I found it to be a brilliantly made, low budget (horror) film.  But by the end of the second installment and certainly the  third (both of which I did review here) I came to believe that the series had "jumped the shark," (and certainly in terms of filming technique).

I do believe that there are only a few very limited directions in which the series can go.  That is, it can, as the third installment suggests, get "increasingly dark" and I don't have any particular interest in either becoming (or, more to the point encouraging others in becoming...) "zoologists of Evil."  I do think that I have a healthy respect for Evil and don't care to know what "kind of demon" a particular demon tormenting a family would be.     As a priest, I've periodically blessed houses of parishioners concerned about strange things happening in their homes.  Generally speaking that's all that's ever been necessary.  If something really strange was going on (never has) I'd probably recommend calling the Diocese.   Honestly, there's no need to play with these things any more than that.  If one really believes in the existence of Evil / malevolent spirits, etc, then it really makes no sense to "study" or "play with them" unless one just wants to get into trouble.  (These spirits would be far smarter and certainly more Evil than you or I...).

So I'm done folks.  Who knows, maybe the Paranormal Activity series will go into a different direction, that of deciding to make light of itself.  And that would be fine.  However, if it chooses to continue to go in the path of poking ever more deeply into the Occult/Abyss, it will just become increasingly (though unintentionally) vapid or make us "experts" in things that we really _don't_ need to become experts in.

Meaning this as a joke: If at the end of our lives we find ourselves in Hell tortured by demons, will it be particularly helpful to us to "know" what class of demons is doing the torturing?  "Oh by the way, are you related in any way to the demons we saw in Paranormal Activity __?" "Oh no, Hollywood always gets this stuff wrong ..." ;-)


 << 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 ;-) >> 

Student [2012]

Unrated (would be PG-13/R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2369333/

Student [2012] directed by Darezhan Omirabayev is a Kazakh film (filmed in Russian with English subtitles) that I saw recently at the 48th Annual Chicago International Film Festival (Oct. 11-25, 2012) that sets the story of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's famous novel 19th century Crime and Punishment in contemporary Almaty, Kazakhstan. 

The Raskolnikov character of Dostoyevsky's novel, known in this film as simply "the Student" (played by Nurlan Bajtasov) is a quiet/sullen, shoulder's bent, eyes always looking toward the ground philosophy student who American viewers would probably recognize as a clearly troubled youth / potential "school shooter."  When we meet him, he's already "on the edge."  Working on a film crew, he tries bring "some tea" to the lead actress only to spill the hot water on her.  She, apparently the girl friend of a powerful post-Communist banker, get's upset and when the banker's entourage comes to pick her up after the shoot, she has two of the thugs beat him up for the "insult" he caused.

A few scene's later, he's at a philosophy class, where the lecturer is praising the status of who things are today: "Yes, even Kazakhstan has its millionaires, even billionaires, oligarchs.  Don't resent them, try to be like them.  For 70 years we believed in a system that could life everyone up.  Today we know that we can't prosperity as a herd.  Prosperity is to be fought for by each person's individual's initiative.  Yes, there will be poor people.  You can pity them but don't waste too much time on them.  The law of nature is that the strong survive."

A Friend of the Student asks the Lecturer: "Doesn't it then logically follow in such a Darwinist world that those wishing to be successful would come to murder their rivals."  And there it is, the seed is planted.

Like in the novel, the Student doesn't kill anybody particularly significant.  And just as in the novel, he immediately finds himself needing to kill someone who is completely innocent.  He also has a mother and sister who love him, even visit him, but don't have a clue of what's going on in his head.  There's also a Sonia character that he grows to love.  As the implications of what he had done begin to close in on him in his head, The Student, like Raskolnikov in Dostoyevski's novel begins to lose his grip on reality and to bring himself back, it becomes increasingly clear what he must do.

Readers here who've read the novel we know how it ends and those who didn't should note that Dostoyevsky's novel was written in the 19th century.  As a result, both the novel and this story end better than some of the experiences that we've had in the United States with similarly distressed youth.

All in all, I found Darezhan Omirabayev's adaptation very interesting and I probably would not have made the connection between Dostoyevsky's Raskolnikov and various distressed youth ranging from Timothy McVeigh or the school shooters at places like Virginia Tech or NIU.  That's a pretty good insight that comes from the country, Kazakhstan, that Sasha Baron Cohen brutally/gratuitously chose to ridicule in Borat [2005].


 << 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 ;-) >>

Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica (orig. Era uma vez eu, Verônica) [2012]

Unrated (would be R)   Fr. Dennis (2 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing 
Adorocinema.com listing: [PT-orig] [ENG-trans]

Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica (orig. Era uma vez eu, Verônica) [2012] [IMDb] [AC-PT orig.] [Eng-Trans]written and directed by Marcelo Gomez [IMDb] [AC-PT orig] [Eng-Trans] is a Brazilian film that played recently at the 48th Chicago International Film Festival (Oct 11-25, 2012) and could be described as Central Station (orig. Central do Brazil) [1998] meets Gray's Anatomy [2005-] / E.R. [1994-2009].

Recent medical school graduate Verônica (played by Hermila Guedes [IMDb] [AC-PT orig.] [Eng-Trans]) gets a residency assignment at an urban public hospital in her home city somewhere in coastal, north-eastern Brazil.  She lives with her aging father (played by W.J. Solha [IMDb] [AC-PT. orig.] [Eng.-Trans]).  And she also has a lover/boyfriend named Gustavo (played by João Miguel [AC-PT. orig] [Eng.-Trans]) that in truth she's not entirely certain about (and neither is he about her).

The work in the hospital is both challenging and important, hence my references to both the Brazilian film Central Station (orig. Central do Brazil) [1998] and the American television series E.R. [1994-2009] (that was also set in an urban setting in the United States).

However, Verônica is also a young adult trying to make sense out of her life, hence the somewhat "Brazilian Gray's Anatomy [2005-]" feel to the movie, (Gray's Anatomy being an American television series about a group of young medical school graduates).

That being said, someone like me, a Catholic priest from a religious order with a fair number of our priests having worked as chaplains in both Catholic and secular hospitals in the United States, I do have to raise the complaint that both this film and the American teleivion series, Gray's Anatomy [2005-] have presented the lives of recently graduated medical doctors as basically "party time" where the patients actually "kinda get in the way" of their otherwise "dulce vita."

At the end of the film, Verônica buys a house for her and her dad (a point is made that she had already bought a car) and takes a job in a _private hospital_ (where she presumably won't have to deal with that many poor people anymore).  And the film ends with Verônica rolling around with her on-again/off-again boyfriend and their friends at beautiful Brazilian beach somewhere.

That may be "the dream" _both_ in the United States and in Brazil for the past several generations when it comes to "doctors" ... that they simply become very, very rich or otherwise "important."  But that's _not_ what medical doctors used to be.

Medical doctors _used to be_  respected because they _healed people_ at times putting even themselves at risk in doing so.  Today, thanks to the soaps in the United States (and telenovelas in Latin America and elsewhere) medical doctors are generally presented as simply glamorously rich people and working with sick people needing help has become beside the point and even a burden.  

As such, the current film ends rather badly in my opinion.  HOWEVER, this may actually be the intent of the film maker as the title implies that Verônica loses herself.  The title of the film is, after all, "Once Upon a Time Was I, Veronica" (or "Era uma vez eu, Verônica" in the original Portuguese).

In any case, medical doctors, whether American, Brazilian, Egyptian, German, Indian, Japanese, or Russian if they are not taking care of sick people, people who need them then they are not really doing their job.

Finally, I would also note that there is "a fair amount" of nudity in this film.  I do hope that those readers who do see it will understand both my noting it and my rather obvious ambivalence to it, because I think that the nudity in the film was both "beside the point" and/or may actually _accentuate it_: Why does one (or should one) become a medical doctor...? To _help people_ or simply to become rich or otherwise "important"? 


 << 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 ;-) >>

Here Comes the Boom [2012]

MPAA (PG)  CNS/USCCB (A-II)  Michael Phillips (2 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips' review

Here Comes the Boom (directed by Frank Coraci, written by Kevin James, Rock Ruben and Allen Loab) is a nice, feel good story about a (fictional) Boston area high school biology teacher, Scott Voss (played by Kevin James) who though initially burnt out and depressed, could not bring himself to give-up on the school, teaching, the kids, others and his own life.

Yes, he was getting older, flabby, _wasn't_ exactly "livin' the dream," and yes he was "tired" at the beginning of the film: When a young, bright eyed Filipino girl named Malia (played by Charice) asked him a question about a discrepancy she had found between what their biology textbook said about something and what she found on the internet, he just responded with some iritation: "Malia, it really doesn't matter.  There's nothing that you're going to learn in this class that you're ever going to apply in your real life."  Saddened / deflated, she just slinks back into her chair ...

But after being first struck by the simple goodness and remaining enthusiasm of an older music teacher, Marty Streb (played marvelously by an older Henry Winkler, who people of my generation remember as the young "Fonz" of Happy Days [1974-1984]), and finding out only a short time later at a faculty meeting that "due to budgetary considerations," the (as Voss) similarly frustrated/discouraged/angry/cynical Principal Betcher (played by Greg Germann) was going to "ax all non-essential extracurricular programs" at the school come next year, including specifically Marty Streb's music program, Voss has had enough.

Typical of Kevin James' roles, Voss initially doesn't have any idea what to do.  But upset at the injustice of seeing perhaps _the only teacher_ on the school's staff left with any enthusiasm about what he was doing facing the budgetary chopping block (and there's really even more to it than that, Marty Streb had told him earlier in the day that in his / his wife's old age -- she was 48, he was simply "old" -- they just found out that they are going to have a baby) Voss was just not going to let this stand.  He tells the Principal "we" (meaning the faculty) will raise the money ourselves (meaning, initially certainly that _he_ was going to raise the money himself)" to save Marty Streb's job/program.  Okay, but how?

Initially,  Voss has no idea.  But as he stumbles along, opportunities open up for him.  He decides on a whim to start teaching a night class again (for immigrants preparing to take their citizenship exam).  It seems like a boneheaded, _completely inadequate_ response to the need to raise $55K before the end of the school year.  (For each class he gets paid something like $75).  BUT one has to start somewhere... In the class, he meets an entire classroom full of adults all, like James, basically simple but hard working/good hearted people trying to eek out a living and, in as much is possible, to "do the right thing."

Among the people he meets is a Slavic or otherwise East European exercise instructor / "trainer" named Niko (played by Bas Rutten).  Niko has a good heart but feeling that he had perhaps more muscles than brains, asks James for more (private) help on preparing for his citizenship exam.  It was an additional, small "gig," but what the heck, why not?

Well when he comes to tutor Niko at his place, he finds that Niko and his friends are there eyes glued to the television set to watch a Mixed Martial Arts match.  The match proves to be a monumental disappointment.  One of the two fighters is pinned/knocked out something like 10 seconds. In disgust, Niko exclaims "and he got 10 grand for that" Voss responds: "For losing??" "Yes!  And the winner got 50K!"  Now for Voss who, flabby as he was now, had wrestled in college _that_ was real money!  And the rest of the movie proceeds from there...

The Principal initially thinks that Voss is an idiot.  But Voss doesn't care.  He tells him, "If I had a better plan I'd take it, but I don't.  This is the best that I can do."  And by subjecting himself to getting beaten up, and yes, progressively improving, Voss slowly becomes an inspiration to the whole school, to everyone, to the faculty including another teacher (or perhaps the school nurse) Bella Flores (played by Salma Hayek) who initially considered Voss to be _perhaps_ a "nice guy" but mainly a "going nowhere loser," to the Principal, to his own brother Eric (played by Gary Valentine) and his brother's family.

Voss even rediscovers his enthusiasm for teaching.  He tells students at one point that even on the cellular level (action and inaction) is contagious: A cell that's progressively becoming more dormant (or dying) puts other cells neighboring it progressively to sleep, while a cell that simply comes to "vibrate" awakens and increases the motabolism of the surrounding cells as well.

It all makes for a pretty good lesson!  And what I particularly liked was Voss' (James character's) willingness _to simply begin_ not with a complete plan, but to simply take the first steps into an unknown ... and then discovering that by simply _willing to try_ "opportunities" open up.  IN MY OWN LIFE, I've found this to be true.  And I would maintain that there is even a theological basis for such optimism/initiative: We're told _repeatedly_ in the Biblical Scriptures to (1) "not be afraid," and (2) to say "Yes" to Life and what it brings us.

So good job Kevin James, et al!  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 ;-) >> 

Argo [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1024648/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv123.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121010/REVIEWS/121019999

Argo (directed by Ben Affleck, screenplay by Chris Terrio based on an article by Joshuah Bearman) is about the truly remarkable story of how the CIA led by agent Tony Mendez (played by Ben Affleck in the film) was able to get 6 U.S. diplomats who had been taken in by the Canadian Ambassador out of Iran during the Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979-81.

Following the 1977 overthrow of the Shah of Iran, who had been reinstalled to the Iranian throne by a coup engineered by the CIA and British intelligence in 1953 after a democratically elected government had moved to seize back Iranian oil concessions to British and American oil interests, the Islamic revolutionary regime was further incensed when in 1979 the U.S. under the Carter Administration had given the deposed Shah _temporary asylum_ in the United States to _undergo cancer treatments_.  The result was the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November, 1979.  During the chaos of the initial hours of the storming of the embassy, six U.S. diplomats who worked in the Consular department of the Embassy (and by luck happened to have access to a direct exit to the street) managed to flee the Embassy compound and take refuge at the Canadian Ambassador's Residence (the Canadian Ambassador played by Victor Garber).   Wonderful, but what now?  To a certain extent, since they were unaccounted for (even though the Iranian regime didn't seem to know about them) they were arguably in bigger danger than the actual hostages who the Iranian regime was holding but was also as a result responsible for.  What now?

Extraction options were minimal.  Back at the State Department in Washington DC and at CIA headquarters at Langley numerous options were considered but none seemed feasible.  What to do?   The idea that the CIA came-up with was to invent buzz about a Canadian film crew looking to see if Iran (of all places) would be a good place to film portions of a (fake) science fiction movie ("exotic desert location, yada, yada, yada...").  Using a contact that the CIA had in Hollywood, a makeup artist named John Chambers (played in the film by John Goodman), Tony Mendez learned what would be needed to put together a credible cover story to make the idea work.  He needed a producer.  John was able to put him in contact with Lester Siegel (played in the film by Alan Arkin).  Then they needed an actual script.  They found and bought one called "Argo."  Then they created an entire "small production company" around the film (well at least an office with a phone in a studio lot somewhere in Burbank, CA).  They then planted a few articles in Hollywood trade magazines like Variety and created a poster as well a storyboard for the key scenes for the film.  They didn't have Tony Mendez (under an assumed Canadian name/passport) go directly to Iran but rather first to Egypt and Istambul and then only "on orders" from Producer Siegel "to simply check on a whim" apply to go to Tehran from Istambul to scout out "possible shooting locations" in Iran.  When Mendez got to Iran (with six other Canadian passports along with six complete fake identities/curricula vitae for the Americans at the Canadian Ambassador's residence) he had only two days to get them out.  It was nerve wracking because they had to pretend to be an actual film crew (despite never having done anything of the sort) in Tehran for that thankfully short period of time.

Obviously it worked and the story of the escape of the six Americans who had been hiding under protection of the Canadians (even though details of this operation remained classified for a very long time) was one of a very few bits of "good news" to have come-up during the whole Iranian hostage ordeal.  Indeed, almost exactly at the same time as these six Americans were able to leave Iran, a larger attempt to rescue all of the hostages failed in spectacular fashion.

U.S. relations with Iran have never really gotten better in the decades since since.  Over the course of the last several years, there has been increasing concern that we may have to go to war with Iran in the near future to prevent the Iranian regime from acquiring nuclear weapons.  This film does come out at a time when tensions between the United States and Iran have been increasing.

So is this film something of a propaganda piece?  Here I would say that if it is, it is _a very good/effective one_.  I say this because the film both at the beginning at its end seeks to put its story in its proper context.  The 1977 Iranian Revolution didn't come by accident.  It was the result of an Iranian reaction to decades-long U.S. support for the Shah's brutal regime, which was put up by the U.S. and Britain to support U.S./British oil interests.  So the film makes clear the U.S. didn't / doesn't have clean hands either.

Yet over the course of the last 35 years, the Iranian government has needlessly chosen to give itself problems with the United States. This film reminds Americans that we have also been hurt and that we have grievances against Iran too. 

And if it does come to war between the United States and Iran in the coming years, this film will certainly helps to explain, quite soberly, to Americans, why we would have arrived at that point.  So I wonder:  Will this film will be on Ahmadinijad's "Netflix" queue ... it should.


 << 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 ;-) >>  

Sinister [2012]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Roger Ebert (3 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1922777/
CNS/USCCB review -
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/12mv121.htm
Roger Ebert's review -
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20121010/REVIEWS/121019995

Sinister (written and directed by Scott Derrickson) is a truly disturbing, hard-R movie that's definitely _not_ "for the little ones."  Indeed, I really don't see any particularly reason why an underage teenager should see a film like this except perhaps to "teach him/her a lesson" about the MPAA rating system (that sometimes they really do mean R) along with the advice "you know folks, you _can_ walk out of the film if it proves too much for you...

 About midway through the rather packed showing that I saw, a young couple did pick up and go, and I also packed-up and left before the end as well.   By that time, I honestly saw enough, knew pretty clearly where the film was heading and decided "Ya know I really don't need to see this all the way through..."   I do remind Readers here that there is absolutely nothing (except possibly "social control" ...) that would prevent anyone from doing the same with regards to a film that one's had enough of ...

So what then is the film about?  Ellison Oswalt (played by Ethan Hawke) moves him and his family (played by Juliet Rylance, Michael Hall D'Addario and Clare Foley) into the house where a grizzly multiple hanging (plus the disappearance of a little girl) had occurred some years earlier.  He's a "true crime" writer, having had some success 10 years back with a book called "Kentucky Blood" about some unsolved murders in, well, you can guess by the book's name.  Oswalt had since written a couple of other books, but none of the had the same success as his first.  By taking on this unsolved case (and moving into the house where it occurred) he dearly hopes to recapture some of his past success.

When the family arrives at the otherwise vacant house and begins to move in, he finds in the attic a box with some old super-8 films.  When he plays the tapes, he finds to his horror that they appeared to record a series of very grizzly murders, including the multiple hanging that occurred in the back of this house.  He comes to realize that all these grizzly murders were somehow linked.  Much, often in various shades of darkness, ensues from there ...

While certainly stunning, the grainy Super-8 films evoke a level of horrific realism that I do believe cross a line.  Yes they are "fake" but they are but _one step away_ from real "super 8" snuff films (depicting real murders and the torture of real human beings).  While their effect is certainly _unforgettable_, Readers and Parents especially would probably understand why I would warn them that this film really is a "hard-R" that isn't for the faint hearted and why I honestly question its value other to than really, really, really disturb people and mess with their minds.

Yes, some "true crime" is truly sickening.  Perhaps it even has a truly supernatural basis (which this film certainly suggests).  But honestly, there's no particular reason why one should have to watch it.  Yes, on one hand, this is a truly world class horror film (arguably it makes Scott Derrickson's previous film The Exorcism of Emily Rose [2005] seem like Disney).  On the other hand, to spend $10 on this to try to sit through a film like this at a movie theater?   Honestly, there are a lot of better (less stressful, more enjoyable) films out there to spend those $10 on ...


 << 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 ;-) >>  

Love's Christmas Journey [2011]

Fr Dennis (3 3/4 Stars)

IMDb listing

As a result of my blogging here, I was asked to take a look at / review the Hallmark Channel's Love's Christmas Journey [2011], which is going to be released on DVD on October 30, 2012 along with the release of the Love Comes Softly Tenth Anniversary Collection on the same day.  Both Love's Christmas Journey [2011] and the entire Love Comes Softly series of films are based on the books of Evangelical Christian writer Janette Oke.  Since I've been a life long fan of gentle movies, perhaps because I grew-up on The Waltons (1971-1981) [IMDb] and especially The Little House on the Prairie (1974-1983) [IMDb] television series, fulfilling this request proved to be to be not only "not a problem" but indeed  joy.

Love's Christmas Journey [2011] is a very well done, gentle Christian period piece set in the American West in the late 1800s and made very much in the tradition of the Little House on the Prairie television series.  Viewers of my generation and above will also recognize obvious homages to both the made-for-tv movie The Homecoming: A Christmas Story (1973) [IMDb] (which was actually the pilot later Waltons television series) and Frank Capra's classic It's a Wonderful Life (1946) [IMDb]. 

So what's the story here about?  Ellie Davis (played by Natalie Hall) who had recently lost both her husband and daughter to a tornado, packs up and goes for an extended visit to her bother Aaron (played by Greg Vaughan) who serves as a sheriff in a small Western town at the foot of the Rockies.  Aaron's also recently been widowed but has two young children Christopher (played by Ryan Wynott) and Annabelle (played by Jada Facer) who need someone to look after them.

When Ellie arrives, she finds a bustling town full of life and optimism.  Rumor has it that "the railroad" is going to extend its line to the town and everyone is gearing up to a big celebration of the announcement, which is to come a few days before Christmas.   Everybody is happy because they equate "the railroad" with "fortune."  But there are also problems.  Outside of town, land disputes are beginning to arise as everyone from bankers to small-time ranchers to tenants, arguably squatters are all positioning themselves to be able to sell their land, previously largely worthless grazing ground, to the railroad when it begins to build the line.

In the midst of this excitement beginning to build into violence, Aaron, sheriff after all, decides that he has to check on some land outside of town that has become a source of contention and ... is delayed in coming home.  What happened?  We, the viewers actually know quickly what happened to him but his family does not.  The rest of the story follows, and makes for a poignant and actually quite current parable about priorities.  What really ought to matter in our lives?  That "a train" (progress, potential prosperity) should perhaps one day "come to town" or that "dad" (family, someone we love) would be able to _make it back_ home/to town at all?   

Yes, it all ends well.  Yes, it's kinda a tearjerker at times and yes, it all moves at times kinda slow (It's actually a 2 part movie that goes for a total of 2 hours and 50 minutes).   Still I do think I understand the film's somewhat surprising length (and remember folks that this film was intended originally to play for the Hallmark channel): At a time when TV may be doing a fair amount of parenting in many homes, this is actually not a particularly bad movie to have playing for the kids while ma' is preparing dinner for the rest of the folks or otherwise busy with various other chores.  And also, since the story is such a lovely period piece, I don't think a lot of people would particularly mind if the story lingers at times because it allows viewers to stay a bit longer out there in the Old West with Ellie and her family.

So folks this is a very, very nice movie and certainly is safe for even the smallest of kids.  And it does teach good values and does so in a very nice, gentle sort of way.  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 ;-) >> 

The Oranges [2011]

MPAA (R)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing -
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1313139/

The Oranges (director Julian Farino, screenplay by Ian Helfer and Jay Reiss) is a film that's both funny and one that (if one's thinking at all) take one "aback."

Set in respectable West Orange, New Jersey, it's about two middle upper middle class families, the Ostroffs and Wallings, who have been neighbors for years.  Indeed, the parents if no longer necessarily the kids have been best of friends.  David Walling (played by Hugh Laurie) and Terry Ostroff (played by Oliver Pratt) jog, religiously, three times a week together.  Together with their spouses Paige (played by Catherine Keener) and Carol (played by Allison Janney) respectively along with their grown kids Vanessa (played by Alia Shawkat) and Toby (played by Adam Brody) on the Walling side and Nina (played by Leighton Meester) on the Ostroff side (in as much as they are around, more on that below...), they share pretty much every holiday together.  What could possibly get between them?

Well ... in actuality, things are not necessarily as rosy as they may seem, if Vanessa's voice-over introducing us to the story is to be believed.  Yes, the parents are best of friends and Vanessa and Nina may have been best friends up until the middle of high school, but that quite some time ago.  Vanessa may have had talent.  She went on after high school to study interior design in college has harbored hopes of "moving to New York City someday..." to pursue that career.   Nina, on the other hand had looks and moxy.  By midway through high school, she had parted company with Vanessa, joined to "popular group" in school and indeed "stole" (or stole) Vanessa's only true heartthrob in high school.  Then as soon as high school was over, Nina split town going off to study, briefly, at a university about as away from home as possible.  Indeed, she hadn't been "home for the holidays" in something like 5 years.

We first meet Nina as she's calling her parents from San Francisco to tell them that she's getting engaged to her photographer boyfriend Ethan (played by Sam Rosen) someone who the parents had apparently never met and one gets the sense that mom, especially, never ever would have approved of.  "Are you coming home for Thanksgiving?" dad asks, "You haven't been back for the holidays in years."  "The whole gang will be there," adds mom.  "I just told you that I got engaged..." The phone call, to which the Wallings were present, because dad had put it on speaker phone ... ends with the sense that Nina's not coming back.  However, seconds after the call, Nina who had been calling from a party, finds Ethan in a compromising position with someone else ...

So ... a few weeks later, Nina's come home rolling her smart, light, quite fashionable travel bag in tow.  And ma' couldn't be more pleased because the Walling's son Toby, was going to be home as well.  Toby was an accountant apparently, who'd gotten some kind of a job with the Federal Trade Commission in Washington DC.  He seemed "to mom" to be a good sensible catch, unlike that photog boyfriend that Nina had before, and, if Nina / Tobi hit it off, well, that would bring the two families "even closer than ever."

Nina, no doubt counting the minutes before she would be able to leave again, does give it a try.  And Toby is _not_ hopeless.  But it's clear that he's not for Nina.  Who would be?   She doesn't really know but it's clear that "unconventional" is her preference.

Sigh, it turns out that the elders, David and Paige Walling, are having some marital difficulties.  Paige is really involved in the community, and as a result of constantly inviting her projects home, has been pushing her husband, just a regular guy further and further to the edges of "life at home" until he just sets up a "man cave" in the garage, wide screen and cable sports package and all.  And though he doesn't really have a "big plan" for the rest of his life, he knows that at least for the time being, he'd just prefer sit back and watch some sports.  He's worked hard for most of his life, he's earned it, he just wants to relax. 

So into this comes Nina, who's over at the Wallings largely to please her mom and to entertain her mom's dream that _perhaps "a spark" could be made with Toby.  But Toby, who's working hard for the FTC in Washington and beyond, falls asleep while Nina's getting him something from the fridge.  Nina sees David somewhat sadly going off into his "man cave" to watch "Korean Basketball" ... alone.  It seems somewhat clear that Nina "kinda liked/respected" David when she was a kid.  She feels sorry for him now.  So she comes over to his "man cave" with the glass of water meant initially for Toby, and ...

Yup.  Actually they don't anything more on screen than kiss.  And one gets the sense that they didn't necessarily do much more off-screen (both then or later...) either.  HOWEVER... a kiss is a kiss is a kiss and an adulterous (at least in spirit) connection is made.  What the heck now?

Well the sky falls.  It does.  The first to find out is Nina's snooping mom.  And almost immediately afterwards, life as these two quaint, small, suburban families knew it ... was over.  What now?  That's what the rest of the movie is about ...

How could one make sense of this?  Viewers, remember here that this story is being told by David's daughter Vanessa who initially still feels kinda pissed off at Nina for having blown her off in high school and even "stealing" her boyfriend back then.  It turns out that Vanessa has a coworker at the dead-end job at a suburban furniture store where she's been working since graduating _with a college degree_ (in interior design!).  The coworker's name is Henry (played by Hoon Lee) even though he is clearly of Chinese decent.  Hearing her complain about how her life _completely sucks_ now, that her former best friend had not only stolen her boyfriend back in high school but now was in the process of stealing her dad, "out of the blue" he tells her a Chinese proverb: "Sometimes an old cow just needs some new grass."  "What the heck are you talking about! Why _this grass_, why now, and for how long?"  "I don't know.  But is he happier?"

And there it is ... despite having done _everything wrong_, David was happier.  And indeed, others look at David -- Nina's dad (David's best friend), Vanessa (David's daughter), even David's wife (Vanessa's mom) -- And they all can see that.  Nina, fill-in the blank ______, may have been, fill in a nother blank ___________ but she had shaken things up.

Now, for _me too_, a Catholic priest after all, this movie is not the easiest to watch.  AND YET, with a smile I do note that ... while the two did kiss, twice, it's never absolutely clear or even particularly close to being clear that the two, Nina and David, actually slept with each other.

What was clear though that neither David nor Paige were particularly happy in their marriage and this "interlude" gave both the opportunity (an excuse) to go "their own way." 

Without SPOILING THINGS too much (but I give the warning anyway), Paige, already community minded, finds the opportunity to take her interest in reaching out several steps further, while David, who was finding himself at the beginning of the movie so marginalized that he was sleeping in the garage, finds that he actually kinda likes the house that he had worked for (and had largely paid for) and he also finds that not being relegated to the garage any more that he likes being involved in the life of his kids.  And Nina's ma learns to finally leave her daughter alone and even that "If Nina doesn't come home, maybe that makes for an invitation to go out and visit Nina..."

Here I would like to note that during the (Christian) Middle Ages in Europe it was not unheard of for married couples "after the kids were grown" (or otherwise taken care of) to "part ways" NOT TO REMARRY but honestly to enter into a new vocation.  Indeed, several of the Seven Holy Founders of my own religious order apparently did just that -- made provisions for their spouses and kids and then joined the rest of the seven to found the Order.  It could be said that Paige (certainly) and David (possibly) chose to do that.

Something to think about, huh? ;-)

Anyway, what I liked about this movie was that it didn't simply end "with the Apocalypse" (with the destruction of a family) or even with portraying someone (anyone) as being simply "the villain" of the story.  In the language of Vanessa's Chinese friend Henry: "Sometimes you have to burn down the house to see the moon."  And honestly, in our Christian/Catholic language: "With Death comes the opportunity for Resurrection/Rebirth."


 << 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 ;-) >>