Thursday, February 21, 2013

My 2013 Oscar Picks

IMDb listing
Previous/Other years


Since beginning this blog two and a half years ago, I've found myself surprisingly ambivalent when it comes to the Oscars.

On one hand, it's become clear as day to me that there are many excellent though generally smaller films being made both in the United States and across the world that aren't going to find recognition at places like the Oscars.  In part for this reason two years ago, I created my own "Denny Awards" list to offer some recognition to films and performances that I felt deserved such attention.

On the other hand, one can not but feel for both the actors/actresses and film-makers in general for whom the Oscars are, well "The Oscars" [TM].  So one would have to be a pretty hard-hearted person to not feel empathy with those who for the first time and/or after much struggle/sacrifice find themselves up there on stage tearfully beginning their acceptance speeches with: "I'd like to thank ..."

Finally as another über-movielover at my parish put it, the Oscars this year are about as competitive as they've been in recent memory.  Just about every major category contains several nominees that both deserve and have the clout to win. 

So here then is my annual "week before the event" Oscars list: 

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
       WILL WIN - Alan Arkin (Argo) or Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook)
       SHOULD WIN - Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wall Flower) or Alan Arkin (Argo)
       DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Ezra Miller (The Perks of Being a Wall Flower), Michael Peña (End of Watch), Matthew McConaughey and/or John Cusack (The Paperboy), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (for A Late Quartet instead of The Master)

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
         WILL WIN - Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables)
          SHOULD WIN - Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables) or Helen Hunt (The Sessions)
          DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Scarlett Johansson (Hitchcock), Judy Dench (Skyfall) and Anna Kendrick (End of Watch)

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
          WILL WIN - Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), Daniel Day Lewis (Lincoln) or Denzel Washington (Flight)
           SHOULD WIN - TOSS-UP among the three given above along with Christopher Walken (A Late Quartet)
           DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Christopher Walken (A Late Quartet) possiblyLogan Lehrman (The Perks of Being a Wall Flower), Bradley Cooper (for The Words instead of Silver Linings Playbook)

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
           WILL WIN - Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) or Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook)
            SHOULD WIN - Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) or Blake Lively (Savages), Nicole Kidman (The Paperboy)
            DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Blake Lively (Savages), Nicole Kidman (The Paperboy), Barbara Straisand (The Guilt Trip), Chloe Grace Moretz (Hick), Greta Gerwig (Lola Versus), Leila Hatami (Meeting Leila)

BEST ORIGINAL SCREEN PLAY
            WILL WIN - Toss-up between Amour, Zero Dark Thirty and Django Unchained
            SHOULD WIN - Any of those three plus Flight (nominated) or A Late Quartet (not nominated)
            DESERVED CONSIDERATION - A Late Quartet, End of Watch, Lola Versus, Celeste and Jesse Forever, Meeting Leila (orig. Ashnaee ba Leila), Have You Seen Lupita? (orig. ¿Alguien ha visto a Lupita?)

BEST ADAPTED SCREEN PLAY
             WILL WIN - Argo, Life of Pi or Silver Linings Playbook (TOSS-UP)
              SHOULD WIN - Lincoln
              DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Cloud Atlas, Hick, SavagesThe Perks of Being a Wall Flower, Cosmopolis

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
              WILL WIN - Life of Pi or Lincoln
               SHOULD WIN - Samsara, Cosmopolis, Cloud Atlas, Anna Karenina
               DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Samsara, Cosmopolis, Cloud Atlas, End of Watch

BEST DIRECTOR
               WILL WIN - Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), Ang Lee (Life of Pi) or David O. Russell (Silver Linings Playbook)
               SHOULD WIN - Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), Kathryn Bigalow (Zero Dark Thirty), David Ayer (End of Watch), Ron Fricke / Mark Madigson (Samsara) or Oliver Stone (Savages)

               DESERVED CONSIDERATION - Kathryn Bigalow (Zero Dark Thirty), Quentin Tarantino (Django Unchained), David Ayer (End of Watch), Ron Fricke / Mark Madigson (Samsara), Oliver Stone (Savages), Adel Yaraghi (Meeting Leila (orig. Ashnaee ba Leila


BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
               WILL WIN - Brave or Wreck-it Ralph
               SHOULD WIN - Brave, Wreck-it Ralph
                
BEST PICTURE
               WILL WIN - Silver Linings Playbook, Argo, Lincoln, or Zero Dark Thirty
               SHOULD WIN - Lincoln, Zero Dark Thirty, Cosmopolis
               DESERVED CONSIDERATION - A Late Quartet, End of Watch, The Paperboy, Savages, Cosmopolis, The Perks of Being a Wall Flower, Hick, Anna Karenina


<< 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! :-) >>

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Safe Haven [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (L) Chicago Sun-Times (1 1/2 Stars)  AV Club (D+) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Chicago Sun-Times (R. Roeper) review
AV Club (S. Tobias) review

Ok it must be admitted at the outset that Safe Haven (directed by Lasse Hallström, screenplay Leslie Bohem and Dana Stevens, based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks [IMDb]) is schmaltzy.

But (1) I've been a consistent and unblushing fan of schmaltz on my blog (Country Strong [2010], Crazy Stupid Love [2011], Damsels in Distress [2012], The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn [2011-2012]) and (2) hello, this film is being released FOR VALENTINE'S DAY.  And among the other films being released in the United States this Valentine's Day -- the Bruce Willis ultra-shoot-em up vehicle A Good Day to Die Hard ;-), and the pro-witch (err "caster") movie Beautiful Creatures -- it would seem TO ME ;-) that Safe Haven is by far the best film being released for the occasion this year though I also honestly liked the teen/young adult 1/2 zombie romance Warm Bodies (again über-schmaltzy) released a few weeks ago.

Additionally, Safe Haven actually has a nice message to it -- stalking / abuse destroys all that is good about life and love -- that's not necessarily something bad to be reminded of on Valentine's Day as well.

Okay, so what is the film about?  The movie begins with what appears to be a crime scene and a young woman who we later know as Katie (played by Julianne Hough) fleeing the scene in a driving rain storm, taking refuge by a sympathetic neighbor.  We next see her with shorter and blonder hair dressed in a very innocuous way (jeans, t-shirt and a hoodie) boarding a bus (still during a driving rain storm) to "head out of town" (the "town" apparently being Boston).  After she boards, we see a police officer (played by David Lyons) frantically running from bus to bus looking for her (though alas expecting someone with longer and browner hair) in a scene somewhat reminiscent of the closing scene of Sucker Punch [2011] of a few years past.  As in the closing scene of that movie, she gets away...

In the next scene, we see Katie getting off the bus "somewhere in the South" (it turns out to be a beach side community somewhere in North Carolina inevitably evoking the film Cape Fear [1962][1991]).  The stop is actually just a rest stop for the bus, which is heading further south to Atlanta.  But Katie decides to stay.  Since this is a story, some suspension of disbelief is necessary to accept what follows -- in short order she finds both a job (as a waitress at a seaside seafood diner) and place to live (in a somewhat rundown and very secluded cabin in the woods outside of town).  It does not take a great deal of life-experience to know that securing either is not nearly that easy, especially if one is "new" in town, presumably using "only cash," and presumably / necessarily not carrying a lot of it.  But again, it's a story ... ;-)

Traumatized as she is (we see that she experience flashbacks/nightmares) and initially wary of others, she finds herself making friends, specifically with two people (1) a young woman, about her age, brunette named Jo (played by Cobie Smulders) who shows up one day at her house and introduces herself as someone who also lives at the edge of the woods and (2) a young widower named Alex (played by Josh Duhamel) again her age, who operates the town's general store and lives in town with his two little children Josh (played by Noah Lomax) and Lexie (played by Mimi Kirkland).

Inevitably an initially cautious romance begins between Katie and Alex with the encouragement of both Jo and Lexie and initial skepticism of Josh.  But of course it's an "impossible romance" so long as whatever happened back in Boston remains (something that Katie's not found a way to share with anybody down in the sleepy little town in North Carolina she begins to call home).  And indeed, we find the police officer back in Boston methodically tracking her down with Les Miserables' Javert-like doggedness.

Of course, all this must come to a head, and it does.  There is a climactic scene that takes place in the midst of the North Carolina town's 4th of July (Independence Day) fireworks display.  And much comes to be revealed as it all comes to be (happily) resolved.

Again, it's a schmaltzy movie, but a lovely one and one that even reminds the viewer of the Demi Moore / Patrick Swayze romance/tear-jerker Ghost [1990].  And I have to admit that I'm a complete sucker for these kind of films, especially since I also lost my mother when I was young (though definitely not as young as the kids in this film) and I watched my dad rebuild his life afterwards (with all the attendant pain and initial incomprehension/misunderstandings).

So very nice film folks and Happy Valentine's Day to 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! :-) >>

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Amour [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Roger Ebert (4 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (K. Jensen) review
Roger Ebert's review

Amour (written and directed by Michael Haneke) is a generally well-written and well-acted French language (English-subtitled) film about an elderly couple Georges (played by Jean-Louis Trintignant) and Anne (played by Emmanuelle Riva) that stupidly chooses to "go controversial" in its last 5 minutes.

(Spoiler Alert I suppose): After presenting a lovely and gentle film about Georges taking care of his wife after she has a stroke and her health deteriorates quite rapidly afterward with all the attendant issues very poignantly presented -- Anne asking George promise that he won't institutionalize her in a nursing home; her adult daughter (played by Isabelle Tharaud), married and with her own life, proving perhaps not being as helpful as she could have been and perhaps not as appreciative of what her mother and Georges were going through; and finally the home care nurse (played by Carole Franck) again perhaps being not absolutely perfect in her care of Anne -- Georges decides after Anne's largely unconscious and no more than a week or two from death anyway to take a pillow and suffocate her and presumably kill himself afterwards.

Wow, but honestly why?  Viewers who do see the movie will see so clearly that the woman was so close to death anyway, why not just have let God take her rather than "playing God" instead?  And if he had come to the end of his rope in terms of his caring for her, his "betrayal" of her wishes to not be institutionalized for the last short days of her life would have certainly less a betrayal than having him kill her in her bed ("at home") instead.

And while the film certainly seeks to tug at emotions and justify Euthanasia: "Look at how much he loved her..." what of an alternate scenario in which the adult child of the elderly person would be pressing medical personnel "let their parent go" more quickly so as to perhaps receive a larger inheritance?

On my first ever pastoral call after being ordained a priest, I actually had to deal with an adult daughter who wanted to "pull the plug" on her not any where near approaching death mother (neither was a parishioner just a family that the hospital wanted a priest to talk to).  I told the daughter: "Look, you could probably pull the plug on your mother if you want.  But when she gets hungry, she'll just get up and _walk to the cafeteria_ to get a hamburger herself."   I honestly was stunned.  And while certainly I believe that a person has a right to decide to undertake "no extra-ordinary means" to remain alive and I do believe that a family has a right to decide that for someone after all honestly reasonable options have been exhausted (I've had cases like that too: After trying to resuscitate one's loved one for the seventh time after suffering a massive heart attack, it is probably the time to honestly weep and let go) actively seeking to kill someone because they appear to be inconvenient (or even for potentially financial gain) is clearly against Catholic Teaching and honestly ought to be obviously seen as an offense against common morality. 

Yet when we see films about Euthansia, we see only these kind of films presented ... "Oh, he loved her sooo much."  If he did, he would have respected her wishes until he could not take care of her and then have had her taken to a nursing home (and _visited her_) for her remaining days until she passed away herself.  And then finally, he would have asked God: "I'm still here, You must have a reason, what do You want of me now...?"


<< 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! :-) >>

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Identity Thief [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L) Chicago Sun-Times (2 Stars)  AV Club (C+) Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (A. Shaw) review
Chicago Sun-Times (R. Roeper) review
AV Club (T. Robinson) review 

Identity Thief (directed by Seth Gordon, screenplay by Craig Mazin story by Jerry Eeten and Craig Mazin again) is an often funny that both places its two stars Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy in rather familiar territory and yet also surprises.

Bateman plays Sandy Patterson (named by his father for baseball legend Sandy Koufax) who is introduced to viewers at the beginning of the film as a respectable (if "put upon" by his boss) Denver-area family man with wife Trish (played by Amanda Peet) two lovely little daughters Franny (played by Mary-Charles Jones) and Jessie (played by Maggie Elizabeth Jones) and one more child on the way.

McCarthy plays "Diana" a short, heavy-set, always with a story, modern-day electronic "grifter" introduced to us at the beginning of the film as operating out of Orlando, Florida.

Even as the opening credits roll, we hear "Diana" impersonating "a representative from an identity protection service" calling Sandy Patterson at his work telling him that "someone had attempted to steal his identity," that "they" (her firm) had blocked the attempt but that his recent brush with identity theft would perhaps make him interested in "enrolling" in the "free" identity protection service that her firm offers.  As perhaps many others would, Sandy, who had never before been a target for identity theft but perhaps caught a little offguard by this apparent recent attempt to do so, decides to enroll in "Diana's" service "as long as the service is free ."  Diana happily responds "okay!" and proceeds to ask him for his birth date, social security number and other key personal information to "enroll" him.  Wonderful.  A few hours later, Diana has printed out for herself perhaps a dozen or so credit cards in Sandy Patterson's name (she herself was an identity thief ...) and goes out on a spending spree on his dime.

A few days later back in Denver, the real Sandy Patterson finds his credit card blocked when he tries to purchase gasoline at a service station and soon afterwards finds himself stopped and arrested by Denver police because of an "outstanding warrant" for "Sandy Patterson" in Orlando, Florida (Diana Patterson had gotten into a bar-fight after a night of buying an entire bar drinks on one of Sandy Patterson's credit cards...).

What a nightmare!  When the Denver police get a print-out of the mug-shot of the "Sandy Patterson" arrested in Orlando, FL and it looks _nothing like_ him, the nice, respectable family-man Sandy Patterson of Denver, CO they are able to release him.  However, Diana has by this time destroyed Sandy Patterson's credit rating and racked-up tens of thousands of dollars of debt on his credit cards.  Would Denver's police do anything about that?  No.  It's not their jurisdiction and even if they filed a warrant for "Diana's" arrest and extradition to Colorado, Denver Police Detective Reilly (played by Morris Chestnut) tells him "if she bought something fraudulently on your credit card with Amazon, then Seattle would want a piece of her, if she bought something through Apple, then Palo Alto in California would.  She could have fraudulently purchased goods and services in dozens of communities across the United States.  It could take years before we'd finally get her here to Denver."  With his own job (at a financial services firm) in Denver on the line, good ole honest Sandy Patterson who always had paid his bills on time decides to go out to Orlando, Florida to catch Diana himself and bring her to justice back in Denver himself.  The rest of the film unspools from there...

Among the intrigues that un-spool, is, of course, that Diana is in trouble not only with nice guy Sandy Patterson but also (perhaps inevitably) with various other more unsavory underworld characters.  Hence, even as Sandy Patterson catches up with her and starts taking her from Orlando, Florida to Denver, CO she has two sets of bounty hunters a younger black and hispanic team of Julian (played by P.I.) and Marisol (played by Genesis Rodriguez) and an older, more "hickish" more traditional looking bounty hunter going by the name "Skip Tracer" (played by Robert Patrick).  Much ensues...

Among that which ensues is an appreciation by each of the characters (and perhaps by the audience as well) of the two central characters' "worlds."  Sandy Patterson (played by Jason Bateman) really was a nice honest guy who didn't deserve to have his and his family's life so grievously wounded, while "Diana" (Melissa McCarthy's character) had her own pain and truth.   Short, chunky and growing-up largely abandoned, she really made the life that she's had largely through her own whits.  The scene in which she picks up similarly short blue-collar chunkster named "Big Chuck" (played by Eric Stonestreet) at a random road-side bar somewhere in Georgia ought to run through every American moral theologian's mind when he/she writes and/or reflects on his/her work because there is pain and poverty expressed there that generally doesn't make its way into Sunday sermons of Catechetical instruction.  This is not to say that "non-photomodels" ought to get a "free pass" when it comes to sexual morality, but there ought to be an acknowledgement that life for the "not stunningly beautiful" (that is for most of us) is _not easy_ and that there is a special (and _real_) pain that is experienced by the "fat and frumpy" (and again that includes more of us than perhaps we'd like to admit ;-).

Finally, the film eventually finds itself carrying itself into the realm of asking the question of whether there are people (generally rich, arrogant people) who deserve their money stolen from them.   Interestingly, this is the second film in several weeks that explores this theme (the other being the far more violent and far less funny or convincing Parker [2012]).  Here the CNS/USCCB's reviewer reminds his readers that theft generally remains theft.  Yes, a case could be made to steal a loaf of bread to feed one's starving children.  Yet, the case really can't be made to permit stealing from one's boss simply because he/she is a rich, arrogant jerk. 

Yet, what a remarkable movie this film turns out to be ;-).  Simple as it is (and often somewhat crude.  Parents the film is appropriately R-rated.  It won't necessarily "damage" your teens if they see it.  On the other hand, you really deserve to have the right to have a "final say" on whether you'd allow your teens to see a film like this) it actually gives viewers much to think about with regards to practical "feet on the ground" morality.

Finally the film, IMHO, has a surprisingly _appropriate_ "happy ending."  Those who've read my blog over the years would know that I've repeatedly pointed out that Hollywood is not necessarily as "swinging from the chandeliers liberal" as many would portray it as being.  Yes, it wants its stories to "end well."  But actually more often that not, it also wants its stories to end in a way that's believable and acceptable to its audiences.

Crimes were committed in this film.  And to its credit, the film does not let them be simply "talked away."  Good job folks, 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! :-) >>

Friday, February 8, 2013

Side Effects [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L) Roger Ebert (3 1/2 Stars)  AV Club (B+) Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig)'s review
Roger Ebert's review
AV Club (S. Tobias)'s review

Side Effects [2013] (directed by Steven Soderbergh, screenplay by Scott Z. Burns) is a glossy contemporary noirish psychothriller that probably solidifies actress/star Rooney Mara as one of the most compelling if arguably "scariest" (in a "don't mess with her characters" sort of a way ;-) actress of her generation.  In The Social Network [2010], Mara played "the girl who dumped (Facebook co-founder) Mark Zuckerberg."  After seeing her in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo [2011] and now Side Effects [2013], one would think that Zuckerberg's character in that film should probably have been grateful to have been "let off" so easily ;-).

Side Effects begins by giving the audience a blood-stained glimpse of a murder scene in what appears to have been a moderately priced apartment "somewhere in the city" (which we soon find out is New York).  What happened?  Well, the film quickly tells us that it's going to transport us to "three months before" this frightful scene.

We meet therefore Emily Taylor (played by Rooney Mara) a young adult working for some small "graphics design" firm in New York, three months before the murder, thanking her boss (played by Polly Draper) in a soft, mildly depressed voice, "for the support" she's given her over the past (unspecified) period of time.  Emily's boss responds with compassion, "Well I know that these things are always far more complicated than what we see reported."

With her boss' blessing then Emily takes the rest of the day off.  Why?  Because she's heading somewhere not altogether far "upstate" to pick-up her husband, Martin Taylor (played by Channing Tatum), who's getting released (after 4 years) from prison following an "insider trading" conviction.  Before arriving at the prison to pick-up her husband, she also stops to pick-up Martin's mother/her mother-in-law (played by Ann Dowd) to take her to the prison as well.  (Apparently, they've been on good terms throughout the ordeal as well).

So Emily and Martin's mom pick Martin up from prison.  Martin remains apologetic to both and promises Emily that quickly bring them back-up to the standard of living that they were accustomed before.  Emily kind of shrugs her shoulders in a disinterested sort of a way and drives them back to the city.  The next scene shows Martin and Emily having sex in the rather small apartment that Emily's taken-up in the city since Martin's arrest and conviction.  After four years of prison, Martin definitely seems "into it," Emily clearly does not, instead just laying on the bed, looking disinterestedly "to the side" appearing to want to avoid looking at her husband.  Again, Martin promises to make things better.  Again, Emily does not seem to care.

A few days later pulling out of her parking spot in a parking garage with her average-looking sedan, she first lazily stops by a parking attendant (who notices enough of her to take note that she's acting somewhat strangely) and then speeds up to smash her car directly into a wall.  We see the airbags inflate...

We next see Emily later that morning at the hospital being interviewed by a Dr. Jonathan Banks (played by Jude Law) an onstaff psychiatrist at the hospital who asks her about "what happened there?" noting that the circumstances of her accident suggested that she "wanted to hurt herself" that morning.   He recommends that she stay at the hospital for observation for a couple of days.  She instead begs him to let her go, telling him part of her sad story (that her husband was just released from prison for a white collar crime; that yes, she's been down/disoriented a bit of late; but that she simply has to be able to go home to her husband that day or else would only get worse, with him as well as with her).  He consents to her request to be released but only on the condition that she come to see him at his practice in the next several days so that she could be treated more or less obvious depression that she's suffering.  She agrees.  He also gives her a prescription to one or another anti-depressant, and they part.

The next several weeks involve Emily coming for appointments to see Dr. Banks several times a week.  During this time, see seems to only be getting worse.  She nearly falls off the platform waiting for a subway train not out of any direct attempt to commit suicide but out of drowsiness or general "out of it-ness" resulting from either her depression or the side-effects of the various anti-depressants that Dr. Banks has been prescribing her.  One day, she simply doesn't come to work to the consternation of her boss who (remember above) had been "patient" before but has been getting increasingly irritated with increasingly "detached" behavior.  Emily tells her that she didn't mean to miss so much work that day, but that she simply "forgot to get off the train."  Emily's boss shakes her head and tells her that this behavior has got to stop because "this is not working for me (as your boss)."

Emily shares these incidents with Dr. Banks who compassionately listens and wonders why none of the medications seem to be working.  At some point, she shares with him that she had been previously seeing another psychiatrist a Dr. Victoria Siebert (played by Catherine Zeta-Jones) out in suburban Connecticutt where she and Martin had been living prior to and in the immediate aftermath of Martin's arrest.  Not having any idea of what to do with Emily, Dr. Banks decides to pay a visit to Dr. Siebert.

When he comes out to suburban Connecticutt to see Dr. Siebert, he finds a confident, enterprising psychiatrist who's actually something of an "industry promoter" of various anti-depressant drugs.  He tells her of his problems with finding an antidepressant which could lift Emily out of her depression, noting that "all the regular anti-depressants out there don't seem to work."  Dr. Siebert then suggests "well, maybe something new then" and drops the name Ablixa (obviously fictional) which is to have been relatively new anti-depressant drug on the market that she's been marketing and even looks in her purse to see if she has any samples (she does not).  Not particularly impressed with Dr. Siebert who seemed to him to be a rather irritating "mercenary for the pharmaceuticals," he nevertheless suggests Ablixa to Emily the next time they meet and prescribes it to her when she consents.

Boy does Ablixa seem to work!  The next scene has Emily full frontal naked ... (Parents take note...) jumping up and down all over Martin in bed a short time (a few days/few weeks?) after starting to take the drug.  After they finish, Martin, the former trader (and still trying to get back into the business) tells Emily, "whoever makes this drug is going to make a fortune!"  HOWEVER, Martin soon finds that there are some rather disconcerting "side-effects" to the drug as well -- Emily starts "sleepwalking."  Frightened by this, we see Martin with Emily at Dr. Banks' office relating to the good doctor Emily's recent sleepwalking episodes and Dr. Banks suggesting that perhaps Emily try something else.  But Emily is adamant.  After months or perhaps years of walking in a persistent "fog," Ablixa seems to work!  So Dr. Banks keeps Emily on Ablixa for the time-being, perhaps figuring that she was coming in for appointments several times a week anyway.  So what could go wrong...?

Well, Emily's sleepwalking incidents don't stop.  And one evening Martin comes home, perhaps somewhat late.  He finds her "preparing dinner" (strangely "for three") in her sleepwalking state.  He asks her what's going on?  She turns around and stabs him several times in his abdomen with her kitchen knife, then as he tries to flee, once more in the back.  She then goes back to bed ... Sometime later she finds her husband dead on the floor with the knife in his back.  She calls 911.  The police respond.  They find her husband dead on the floor and her hysterical.  They take her in for questioning and eventually arrest her for her husband's murder (her prints were all over the knife).  What now?

Well, Dr. Banks comes to her defense.  He knew of her sleep-walking episodes after her beginning to take Ablixa and it seemed clear enough to him what happened: She may have killed her husband but she had no consciousness of what happened (hence had no criminal intent).  The courts accept the explanation and she is found "Not Guilty on account of (temporary) insanity," and is remanded then to a state psychiatric facility for at least some time with Dr. Banks remaining her court appointed doctor.  Dr. Banks was confident, in fact, that after (obviously) getting her off the Ablixa and establishing that she was not otherwise insane she could be released from the state hospital after some time.

All this would have worked-out well, except, of course, Dr. Banks himself starts to feel repercussions from the incident.  He had, after all, prescribed the Ablixa to Emily and kept her on it even after she exhibited symptoms (sleepwalking) that were potentially dangerous to her/others.  Would you want to be treated by someone who was at least partly responsible for a terrible tragedy like this, especially after both he and Ablixa made inevitable headlines in the News?  So his patient list inevitably takes a deep hit.  His partners in his practice also come to want him out their office because their association with him was hurting their credibility as well.  Finally, a pharmaceutical company with which he had received a contract to help them study another anti-depressant drug (and he was going to receive $50,000 for this work for them) terminates its contracted with him.  He and his wife Diedre (played by Vinessa Shaw) had just bought a new rather expensive home or condo somewhere in Manhattan ...

In trying to defend his own practice/reputation, Dr. Banks finds to his surprise that it was Emily's former psychiatrist Dr. Seibert who had written the clinical article warning about Ablixa's causing "sleepwalking" in some patients.  Yet, it was she who had recommended Ablixa to him in the first place... Why would she have done that?  The rest of the film unspools from there ... :-)

The film therefore plays on a number of contemporary phenomena -- (1) an addiction to the high flying "Wall Street"/"Professional living on Manhattan" lifestyle by those who've experienced it, (2) the betrayal/pain caused to loved-ones by those caught in "white collar crimes" and (3) the proliferation of all kinds of anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, etc psychiatric drugs many with various "side effects" but still prescribed (or even demanded by patients) because these drugs do actually help many people even as the risks of these treatments are often minimized -- which all combined make this a very sleek if scary "noirish" tale.

A note to Parents/Adults.  This film is definitely R-rated (for the nudity and generally adult themes) and is definitely not for the squeamish.  There is the blood from the murder of Emily's husband described above.  There's also the very convincing indeed stunning performance by Rooney Mara as the simultaneously arguably sympathetic yet clearly troubled young woman, Emily (talk about a classic but also contemporary femme fatale).  The film makes for a great thriller, but it can turn one's stomach inside out.  So honestly, as good as the film is for young adults and above, it is certainly not a film for the kids.


 << 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! :-) >>





Saturday, February 2, 2013

Quartet [2012]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Roger Ebert (2 1/2 Stars)  Fr. Dennis (3 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Ebert's review

Quartet (directed by Dustin Hoffman, original play and adapted screenplay by Ronald Harwood) is a lovely arguably too idyllic story about growing old, retirement and coming to terms with it all.  I say the story may grate some folks as being "too idyllic" because it is centered around the life at "Beecham House" a retirement community  "somewhere in England" for former operatic singers and classical musicians.  As such, this is not exactly the average "senior community," much less a nursing home that the vast majority of Americans would understand (and often honestly and with some reason fear...).

That being said, the story is a reminder that economics aside, coming to terms with "growing old," fixing what relationships need to be fixed, etc is still not easy.  And perhaps with economic questions largely set-aside in this film (though central to the story is actually the "plot device" of the residents having to perform an annual "benefit concert" to help pay for the continued operation of their lovely retirement home) the more universal concerns of "grief" / "loss" and reconciliation can come to fore.

Central to the story is the attempt to bring back together for said benefit concert the four operatic singers, all now retired and -- with the arrival last, Jean Horton (played by Maggie Smith) -- all now living at Beecham House, for a reprise of their famed performance/recording of the Rigoletto Quartet (YouTube) by GiuseppeVerdi.  This, of course proves "not particularly easy," as there are egos and past hurts that need to be overcome.  Reginald Paget (played by Tom Courtenay) had been briefly married to Jean when they were young and their marriage collapsed after Jean confessed to cheating on him (once) while she (apparently always a bit more successful than he) had been singing for a season at "La Scala" in Rome.  Reginald also has seemed to have a tougher time of retirement than former colleague Wilf Bond (played by Billy Connolly) who enjoys happily flirting young women in his old age in contrast to Reginald's (remember, he had been hurt by someone cheating with his wife ...) wounded rigidity on the matter.  Still Reginald has tried to "keep himself young" in another way: by engaging the contemporary generation of young musicians and keeping up with their styles and times (Operatic singer though he was, he seemed quite happy to engage and applaud the ability of a young rapper he encounters during a music theory/history class that Reginald continues to offer in his retirement).  Finally, there is the good-hearted Cissy Robson (played by Pauline Collins) who has remembered the four's long-ago recording of the Rigoletto Quartet as one of the high points of her life, and apparently not just from a "career" point of view, but simply that their previous time working together had brought her great joy. 

Much of course needs to be fixed/reconciled as the story progresses ... but it makes then for a very, very nice story such coming to terms with the Past, the Present and even what awaits in the Future.  So it all does make for a very lovely story offering everyone much to reflect on as one considers these questions in the context of his/her life as well. 


<< 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! :-) >>

Friday, February 1, 2013

Warm Bodies [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Chicago Sun-Times (3 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (A. Shaw) review
Chicago Sun-Times (R. Roeper) review
AVClub (T. Robinson) review

Warm Bodies (screenplay and directed by Jonathan Levine, based on the novel by Isaac Marion) is a surprisingly gentle "post-Apocalyptic" teen oriented love-story between a young zombie who's still trying really hard "to communicate" but, among other things, can only remember that his name had once begun with the letter "R" (played by Nicholas Hoult) and a cute teenage/young adult girl named Julie (played by Teresa Palmer) with a "super protective dad" (played by John Malkovich).  Readers, what do these names remind you of...? ;-)

Now Julie's dad was the military officer (National Guard?) responsible for defending what's left of their town and he did so by building AN ENORMOUS WALL around it to keep the remaining healthy humans inside the walled-off city and the infected flesh/brain-eating zombies outside.  HOWEVER, every so often, he (a necessarily older/middle-aged military commander) had to allow his necessarily younger "soldiers"/"charges" (including his daughter and her other universally militarily trained friends...) pass outside the walls (in foraging parties) to search for needed supplies so that the inhabitants from walled-off city could continue to survive.  Here the analogy may not be pefect, but once again, Readers, what contemporary situation does the predicament Julie, Julie's dad and the rest of the surviving humans in the completely "walled off city"_kinda_ remind you of?

Well during one of those "military" incursions/excursions, "R" runs into Julie and after killing Julie's boyfriend (played by Dave Franco) and then necessarily "eating his brain" (after all, that's how zombies feed themselves) "falls in love" with Julie abducting (but not killing) her.  The rest of the film unspools from there.

Among what both Julie and "R" discover is that "R's" zombified condition IS REVERSIBLE.  The experience of compassion makes "R's" heart and then of his best friend "M's" (played by Rob Corddry) beat again.  This excites, above all Julie's best friend Nora (played by Analeigh Tipton).  Like all the young people of her town, Nora's had to go through military training and carry weapons to defend the town from zombies, but what she always really wanted to be was "to be a nurse."  Now "zombieism" proved to be a TREATABLE CONDITION.

However, things are still not that easy.  There are the "recently zombified people" and there are the "hard-core zombified" people called "bonies" (all that's left of them are ligaments and bones even though they are as hungry for human flesh/brains as the others) who "R" introduces as "those zombified people who just gave up hope."  These "bonies" still have to be dealt with...

Anyway, while not a perfect parable about compassion/reconciliation -- the zombified people were still treated as only having been sick (victims) without having anything positive to offer ("healthy") humanity from their experience -- I can't but be in awe at the film's BEAUTIFUL, YOUTHFUL OPTIMISM.  Even "flesh/brain eating zombies" are redeemable.  How wonderful is that!

Finally, a note to Parents:  This, IMHO, is a completely appropriately rated PG-13 film.  While the zombies may still be a bit too frightening to smaller children, by the time one gets to the "tween age" they'd probably be able to handle it.  And it's just a nice story (and arguably _less violent_ and certainly with a happier ending) than the Shakespearean story that it's largely based on :-)

SO GOOD JOB FOLKS, HONESTLY, 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! :-) >>


Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Movie 43 [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Chicago Sun-Times (0 Stars)  AVClub (D-)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. Mulderig) review
Chicago Sun-Times (R. Roeper) review
AVClub (N. Rabin) review

Movie 43 is actually a series of shorts each written, directed and acted by different people.  Coherence, such that it is, to the film is given by narrative featuring a writer/director named Charlie Wessler (played by Dennis Quaid) pitching the idea of a film composed of a series of shorts to a mid-level studio exec named Griffen Schraeder (played by Greg Kinnaer).  The central joke in the film is that Charlie Wessler is, of course, completely insane and the film that he's proposing is, except as a joke..., utterly unmakeable.  But then even as he's talking about these series of really stupid, generally over-the-top ridiculously offensive shorts, the viewers get to see these really stupid, often obscene shorts (often acted-out by some of Hollywood's top actors/actors) play out.  So we see an "utterly unmakeable" movie being "made" even as it is being simply "discussed as a hypothetical..."

The result is a really, really stupid R-rated with a huge capital R film.  Honestly parents, there's no reason at all to take a minor to this film and plenty of reasons not to.

That said, I do have to say that a number of the shorts, if borderline unspeakable, are very very funny.

Consider a couple of the vignettes:

(1) Kate Winslet plays Beth, a busy Manhattan executive being set-up to go on a blind date.  As the short begins, she's listing to her friend all the concerns that she has as she approaches this blind date.  Is he an unemployed "loser"? (No, he made senior partner at his law firm at 28).  Is he therefore "all business"?  (No, he's volunteered weekly at a homeless shelter for years and is on the board of numerous philantropic boards across the city).  Is he therefore fat, out of shape?  (No he's "run triathlons" or whatever...).  So they meet by the restaurant, Kate's character is impressed.  "Davis" (played by Hugh Jackman) is the good looking, benevolent, witty lawyer that she's been told that he is, EXCEPT when he takes off his scarf as they enter the restaurant, he's shown to have ONE utterly UNSPEAKABLE (and, indeed, obscene...) "defect" on his neck ;-).  The rest of the short proceeds from there ...

(2) Samantha (played by Naomi Watts) and Sean (played by Alex Crammer) share "the joys" of "homeschooling" their teenage son Kevin (played by Jeremy Allen White) to their new neighbors (played by Liev Schriver and Julie Ann Emery) telling them that they've wanted their son to have "the whole experience of high school" even if he was studying at home.  So Samantha (Kevin's mom) repeatedly knocks Kevin's books down as he carries them around the house (presumably to go to different classes) calling him a "loser."  His dad has him performing exhausting and humiliating drills on their drive way as part of after school "sports practice."  They even wanted him to have the "awkward experience having his first kiss."  So _both_ of Kevin's parents, Samantha and Sean, "hit on him." Sean (dad) in particular sitting next to Kevin tells him ever so awkwardly, "I'm not like into guys, but if I was, you'd be like totally who I'd be into..." (Insanely "Yuck" ... but also, honestly IMHO very funny.  What a nightmare THAT would be...!)

(3) Vanessa (played by Anna Faris) and Jason (played by Chris Pratt) have been dating for 16 months.  Both want to "take it to the next level."  Jason wants to propose, but before he can get the words out, Vanessa confides to him that she wants him to "poop" on her ... leaving him both disgusted and suddenly wondering if he really wanted to go out with her at all ... ;-).

And the other vignettes are all basically of the same vein, all both almost unspeakably disgusting and yet ... most actually "with a point."

Once again, parents, clearly this film is _not_ for your "young ones" and FILM MAKERS TAKE NOTE that it's REALLY HARD for potential viewers to justify paying anything near "full price" to see this gross-out fest.  Still, I suppose I found the film to be funnier than I expected.  Did this film "need to be made?" certainly not.  But it is (or can be) quite funny :-)


<< 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! :-) >>

Parker [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Chicago Sun Times (1 1/2 Stars)  AV Club (C+)  Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB (J. McAleer) review
Chicago Sun-Times (P. Sobczynski) review
AV Club (J. Modell) review

Parker (directed by Taylor Hackford, screenplay by John. J. McLaughlin based on the character by the same name from Donald E. Westlake's crime novels) is another of several rather poorly produced films that were released this past weekend.

The story in this film centers on Parker [IMDb] (played by Jason Statham) who is conceived in Westlake's novels as a "criminal with a code."  Indeed, he first appears on the screen in this film dressed as a Catholic priest (even as he leads a raid on the central bank at the Ohio State Fair...) telling the money counters there (even as he asks them to lie down on the floor while his cohorts tie their hands behind their backs...) that "I don't steal from anyone who can't afford it, and I don't hurt anyone who doesn't deserve it."  

No doubt the hope is that movie goers see in Parker a modern-day Robin Hood [IMDb].  That Parker be  introduced in the film in this way -- dressed as a Catholic priest -- is, of course, rather jarring (to be kind) or appalling (to call it for what most, especially older, Catholics watching the film would see it as).  One of course remembers that Friar Tuck [IMDb] was a member of Robin Hood's "Merry Men."  One even remembers that the recent film For Greater Glory [2012] portrays a gun-toting (and arguably mass murdering...) Catholic priest as a "hero" (one who led a raid that blew-up a train killing several hundred innocent passengers ... But apparently his cause was deemed by the film-makers to be "good" so it was "okay" while priests merely suspected of sympathizing with left-wing guerrillas fighting appalling social and economic inequalities in Latin America during the 1980s were routinely investigated by the Vatican and often defrocked...).  Finally, one remembers that during the infamous crime wave that hit the United States in the early 1930s during the early years of the Great Depression, many common people, including many common Catholics considered bank-robbers like John Dillinger and Bonnie and Clyde to be Robin Hood like heroes as well.  All this said, however, the film makers here have chosen to make their product so needlessly bloody/violent that it's honestly difficult find any sympathy for Parker or whatever "code" that he chose "to live by."

And beyond the blood and the gore of this film of which there is plenty (Parents take note that this film features definitely an R-rated bloodbath of violence, which in the context of the recent real-life massacres in Aurora, CO and Newtown, CT has become all the more difficult to watch), critical aspects of the film appear to have been left on the "cutting room" (editor's) floor.  For instance, the primary usefulness to Parker of the "Palm Beach, FL real estate agent" Leslie Rogers (played by Jennifer Lopez) was that she could help him escape Palm Beach island after a second, climactic heist near the end of the film, without detection.  She had told Parker, in effect, "The people of Palm Beach are smart, they all know each other, they are all well connected with the local authorities and you won't know how to get off their island (after your heist) without someone like me."  Yet, after the heist and the police as a matter of course lift all the draw bridges leading from the island, we're _not_ shown how the two get off the island effectively reducing Lopez' character in the film to simply eye candy.  And frankly both Lopez and the audience deserved better.

So between the blood and the poor execution of the film one's left with a really disappointing product which given the allusions to past folklore and history mentioned above could have been far more intriguing than the film turned out to be. 


<< 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! :-) >>

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (O)  Roger Moore (1 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C-)  Fr. Dennis (1 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Roger Moore's review
AVClub's review

Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters (directed and cowritten by Tommy Wirkola along with Dante Harper) is IMHO one of several surprisingly poor films released this past weekend.

To be fair, I do think that some aspects of this film were certainly fun/creative.  For instance, the film plays with, indeed, glories in an aesthetic that resembles that of the recent Sherlock Holmes movies (with lots of grudgingly "plausible" if generally "over the top" anachronistic gadgets and time altered action scenes) the SH films themselves no doubt influenced by earlier sci-fi The Matrix movies.  Thus the Hansel and Gretel of Grimm's fairy tales, the children who were abandoned in the woods by their parents and who escaped from the clutches from an evil witch who wanted to cook/eat them, triumphantly emerge in this story from the forest as confident young-adults, Hansel (played by Jeremy Renner) and Gretel (played by Gemma Arterton), toting semi-automatic cross-bows and Gatling-gun style shot-guns (one can't really make a musket into a Gatling gun ...) setting themselves on a crusade to rid Europe of witches with news of their exploits spreading via "press clippings" made possible by, well, the then "recently invented" Gutenberg press.

I'm in awe with the amusing take on the story.  However, the film deteriorates into a needless Matrix style bloodbath as the two splatter their way through a CGI medieval Germany ridding it of some really grotesque looking and generally Evil, child-eating witches.  Further there is a truly (in our day) surprising nude scene in the film in which an inevitably good witch slowly strips in front of Hansel (and the viewers) and takes a slow leisurely dip in a magical mountain spring giving us all a truly _leisurely opportunity_ to take in the view of far more of her (up down, pretty much all around) than could possibly be justified by the plot's demands.  Don't get me wrong, the actress was drop-dead beautiful, but other than for the sake of "getting to see her naked" (and then from a fair number of angles ...) there's really no justification for the way that scene was filmed. 

So while the underlying concept is rather cool, the execution is needlessly violent/crude.  Tone down the violence and rewrite "magical mountain spring scene" and this could have been a 3 1/2 star PG-13 winner.  Instead, it's a 1 1/2 star R-rated groaner/disappointment.


<< 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! :-) >>

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Broken City [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Michael Philkips (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (C+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Michael Phillips' review
AVClub's review

Broken City (directed by Allen Hughes, screenplay by Brian Tucker) is IMHO a very well written and well acted exploration of life/corruption and political life/corruption in a large contemporary American City.  Set in New York, it centers, above all, on two life long New Yorkers who could have been neighbors when they were young.  One, Billy Taggart (played by Mark Wahlberg) has lived his life pretty much on street level, the other Mayor Hostetler (played by Russell Crowe) has risen clearly to greater heights.  Yet a good part of the mayor's his political appeal seems to have been that he has remained comfortable at least speaking the language of the street.

As such, it's not really a surprise that when at the beginning of the film Billy Taggart then a NYPD officer is standing trial for effectively murdering a street thug (who had beaten the rap on a technicality for the brutal rape/murder of a 16 year old girl from his old neighborhood), he finds in Hostetler an ally.  Since a gun was found on the thug -- after Taggart had shot him dead -- Taggart himself gets acquitted.  But the circumstances of the shooting are such that the Police Commissioner, Carl Fairbanks (played by Jeffrey Wright) recommends Taggart's (quiet) dismissal from the force anyway.  But the mayor wants to get a look at Taggart before he goes.  So he invites him to his office, and in the presence of the Police Commissioner breaks Taggart the news:  "There are some wars you fight and some you walk away from.  This is the kind you walk away from ... but in my book, you're a hero."  As such, the Mayor does what needs to be done, but does so in a manner that Taggart himself must have felt that, despite being fired (by the Mayor) the Mayor actually "liked him" / "had his back."  Wow, that's smooth ... ;-)

So what does Billy Taggart do after being unceremoniously dumped from the force?  He becomes a private investigator, not a particularly financially successful one, and eventually shacks-up with the sister of the rape victim whose rape he had avenged (Apparently Taggart had known the rape victim's family from his youth.  As such, his flirtation with vigilantism was neither random nor driven by particularly high ideals.  He simply avenged the brutal rape and killing of a family friend).  His live-in girlfriend Natalie (played by Natalie Martinez) thus is also "of the old neighborhood" and while she, like the mayor, also has "higher aspirations" (seeing herself as a "struggling actress") as long as she remains "struggling" she doesn't mind hanging around a "struggling private investigator" like Taggart, who seems to end-up being beaten up as often as he is paid.  And this goes on for some years ...

Finally both Billy and Natalie get their big breaks at roughly the same time.  Natalie gets a "starring role" in an "Indie production," Billy gets a call from the Mayor ...  While it soon becomes rather clear what Natalie's willing to do to become a star ... Billy has a tougher time of it.  Billy's given the job by the mayor, involved in a hair-thin tight race for re-election, to follow the mayor's wife (played by Catherine Zeta Jones) who the mayor tells him he's convinced is cheating on him. ("New Yorkers will elect all kinds of people as mayor, but not someone who's own wife is cheating on him" he tells Taggart).  Taggart takes the job, especially when he's given his advance ($25K wow! he can pay his bills for once ... ;-)  But as Taggart begins to tail the mayor's wife, he enters into a looking glass world of corruption and intrigue far beyond that which he would have ever imagined from his previous "street level" perspective.  Much ensues ...

I liked this movie.  I liked the diversity of characters -- Black, White, Hispanic, new-rich, old-rich, working class, poor, even gang-banger, artsy, blue-collar, Harvard educated, night-school educated, gay, straight, everybody -- kinda like what you'd find in a big American city like New York today ;-).  And I thought that the film-makers did a great job weaving a tale out of a canvas as big as that.

Finally, reviewing this film from Chicago, I would say that the "conspiracy" that the film finally settles on is one that Chicagoans would certainly understand.  Cities across the country have struggled to find ways to "balance budgets" in recent years.  The approach proposed in this film is one that Chicagoans will know quite well. Great 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! :-) >>

Friday, January 18, 2013

The Last Stand [2013]

MPAA (R)  CNS/USCCB (L)  Richard Roeper (2 1/2 Stars)  AVClub (B) Fr. Dennis (1 Star)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Richard Roeper's review
AVClub's review

The Last Stand (directed by Jee-woon Kim, story and original screenplay by Andrew Knauer, rewrite by Jeffrey Nachmanoff supervised by George Nolfi) is I suppose what one could expect of an Arnold Schwarzenegger starring action movie.  There's, of course, a heck of a lot of gun play.  There's also a bit of "Ahnold" Schwarzenegger charm, some self deprecating jokes about his age (He's over sixty now, and playing here in his first full-length action movie since serving 2 terms as Governor of California).

All this said, the film is definitely problematic on two fronts.  First, it is needlessly graphic.  Yes, that a lot of bullets are spent and a lot of glass is broken is standard fare in Hollywood "shoot em up" action movies.  But only some of these movies make it a point of lingering or even focusing on the gore.  This is one of those films.  Yes, we see an evil lieutenant of a drug kingpin kill a troublesome local (American) farmer near the border of Arizona and Mexico.  But did we really need to see him blow his head off with bits of head flying all over the place?   And this choice of showing the blood / gore is made repeatedly in the film.  And as far as I can see the choice is made to no particular purpose except perhaps to shock.

The second problem, is to be found in the appalling racial messaging in this film, this despite the film's apparently significant rewrite:  Blacks are shown as incompetent. The hapless FBI agent John Bannister (played by Forest Whitaker) first loses and then is repeatedly unable to recapture a Mexican drug kingpin named "Gabriel Cortez" (played by Eduardo Noriega) who he was responsible for.  There's also a black "swat commander" who's shown only long enough to register that he's black and completely out of his depth because _seconds_ after receiving an order from said Agent Banister he and his unit are completely put out of commission by said escaping Mexican drug kingpin).  Hispanics are shown as alternatively cowardly to a "minstrel show level" as portrayed by Luis Guzman playing the silly, comic-relief affording deputy named Mike Figuerola to the strong (and über-white) Sheriff Ray Owens (played, of course, by Arnold Schwarzenegger) or criminal as exemplified by the escaping drug-king pin "Cortez" and even a turncoat woman Hispanic FBI agent played by Genesis Rodriguez who helps Cortez escape in the first place.  Even "the white women" while "dependable under fire" as exemplified by Sheriff's deputy Sarah Torrance (played by Jaimee Alexander) seem to prefer to be "led by a strong (and white) man" if only one would step up ... which Ahnold, of course, does as does (eventually ...) poor Sarah's "boys will be boys" ex-and-future boyfriend.

All this is somewhat sad because Schwarzenegger has played his share of GERMAN accented (or otherwise FOREIGN accented) villains in his day.  But perhaps he's back to taking the roles that he can get.

In any case, perhaps the best way to see a film like this is to see it as a double feature with Robert Rodriguez' Machete [2010] (which inverts just about every one of these stereotypes) and then wonder why these blood-soaked films are made 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! :-) >>

Mama [2013]

MPAA (PG-13)  CNS/USCCB (A-III)  Richard Roeper (3 Stars)  AVClub (B+)  Fr. Dennis (3 1/2 Stars)

IMDb listing
CNS/USCCB review
Richard Roeper's review
AVClub's review

Truth be told, I didn't expect to like Mama (directed and cowritten by Andrés Muschetti along with Barbara Muschetti and Neil Cross, executive produced by Guillermo del Toro) as much as I did.  While at times intriguing -- I liked the first Paranormal Activity [2007] movie as well as last year's The Cabin in the Woods [2012] -- I generally go to these films because I know a lot of young people are going to see them (I've been responsible in overseeing the youth group at Annunciata during the whole of my time here) and I do see part of the "mission" of my blog here to give parents a "heads-up" as to films that their teens may be talking about.

Indeed the run-up to the release of Mama had captured the imagination of the family of one of our secretaries here at the parish.  She has five children, all girls and apparently the 4th and 6th graders have taught their baby sister, 4 years old, to go around the house and reach out with her hand while saying "Mama" in the same creepy fashion as the little girls do in the film (to the amusement of all, including the 4 year old who, smiling from ear to ear apparently really enjoys the attention she gets by doing this ;-).  So part of my mission in seeing this movie was to see if this film would "work" (be appropriate and not scare the daylights out of the 4th and 6th grader girls who've put their little sister up to this ;-).

In answer to that question, Parents, honestly ... while the film has no nudity and as far as I can remember little to no profanity (I work in an ethnic (generally Slavic/Hispanic) parish in Chicago, so I honestly tend to have a "tin ear" for the latter) ... it's quite a scary movie.  There are scenes where there are "ugly/creepy insects" and all kinds of things "jumping out at you" that honestly may be too intense for the pre-teen crowd.

Then, with ticket prices the way they are, it would be a shame to shell out $50 to take the family to the movies only to have one's 8-10 year old (or their 8-10 year old friend) starting to cry and wanting to go home.   So my recommendation to FAMILIES would be this: If you have relatively small kids (8-10 years old) who'd want to see this movie, DON'T "invest" a lot of money in going to see this movie in the theater.  The more kids you'd be taking of that age group, the more likely it'll be that one or two of the kids would start crying and want to go home.  Instead, if that's the age group of your kids then wait for the film to come out on DVD and watch it at home.

All that being said, I do think that the movie tells a very good "family oriented" "scary story" ... the kind that a good uncle would tell his nephews/nieces in the evening during a summer family get-together somewhere.

So what then is the setup of the story?   In the immediate aftermath of some financial crash, the father of two small girls (the father played by Nikolaj Coster Waldau) having shot his wife and his accountant (apparently the father had been some sort of an investment banker or was otherwise a fairly rich man) returns home (in suburban Richmond, VA) and hurriedly puts the girls in his car driving off with them "into the mountains" apparently to flee.

But as they get up into the mountains, there's snow and he's driving too erratically and too fast.  Inevitably they slip off the road with the car rolling down a fairly long slope into the forest before it crashes into some tree.  The airbags work, so no one's hurt, but now they find themselves far from the road.  No matter, the father (remember he's fleeing) gets the two kids out of the car and together they hobble down further into the forest until they happen upon a rickety, old, apparently abandoned cabin.  There the father sets the girls, the older named Victoria (played by Megan Charpentier) the younger named Lily (at this point just a toddler played by Isabelle Nélisse), in front of a fire, and now with for the first time in a while having "some time to think" he becomes very distraught.  In his despair, he decides to shoot the kids and then himself.  However, before he could pull the trigger on the first child, something very strange happens that saves her and her sister (and prevents him from causing them further harm...)

FIVE YEARS LATER, searchers, hired by Jeffrey, the father's rather "bohemian/artistic" brother (also played by Nikolaj Coster Waldau) who apparently had no other use for his richer and "until he snapped" more responsible brother's money other than putting it to use to find out what happened to him and his children, finally stumble upon the rickety-abandoned cabin and discover the two girls, alive (!). However, the two girls are found in a very feral state, scampering around on all fours, covered in mud, barely communicative in a human sense and having apparently kept themselves alive eating huts, twigs and berries.

The two girls are promptly taken back to Richmond, VA and placed in a special psychiatric unit presumably at some state university/medical center there.

Eventually a custody hearing is held.  Jeffrey, the girls' uncle (and their father's brother) would like to take custody of them.  But there is a dispute.  Their mother's family would like to take custody of the children as well (After all, the two little girls' father murdered their mother...).  But they live across the country and Jeffrey is actually closer kin and lives in Richmond.  However Jeffrey's life is kind of a mess.  Again, he's been an artist, living in a small, cluttered apartment with his rather intimidating, dyed-short raven haired, tattoo-down-the-length-of-her-arm "rocker" girlfriend named Annabel (played marvelously by Jessica Chastain, OMG what a talent she is!  She's up for the Oscar, of course, for her role in Zero Dark Thirty [2012]!) who's actually not at all excited by the prospect of becoming an "adoptive mother" of two very troubled wilder-kids. (Talking a bit about the situation with one of the other women in her punk-rock group, the friend just tells her: "Dump him...").  Still she doesn't want to "dump" Jeffrey and decides to give it a shot...

However, there's still the hurdle of Jeffrey and Annabel's apartment.  It's way too small and cluttered to pass any serious adoption inspection.  Dr. Dreyfuss (played by Daniel Kash), the state's psychologist on the case of these two little girl's would really like to see the girls stay in Virginia as well (so that he could continue "to study" them...).  So he comes up with an idea.  There was a house near the University that his department uses for "case studies."  Jeffrey and Annabel could be given the house, "rent free," for them and the girls while the girls were still in need of psychiatric supervision.  Eyes-rolling, raven-haired/punk rocker Annabel now being asked to "become a suburbanite..." goes along with this as well ... even if she does not like it.

And actually neither do the girls.  Victoria, who is older and still does remember human speech is a little more accepting of the move.  Lily, the younger one, who largely speaks in gibberish and continues to sleep under her bed with a leafy twig in her hand rather than sleep on a far more comfortable mattress, clearly hates it. 

But there it is and the story goes from there...  The question that's on every adult's mind is ... of course ... how did those children survive (or even learn to survive) out there in the often snow covered woods of Virginia for five years?  The children, especially Lily, refer to someone they call "Mama."  But who is this "Mama"?  Well that's what the rest of the film's about ... ;-)

I'm not going to say much more because I think I've done my job in setting up the story.  I would repeat however that the story becomes a very good rendition of a very good "spooky story" that one could hear "around the campfire" at an "outdoor family gathering" as it gets dark on some lazy summer's eve.

Is it too scary for little kids?  I do believe that the PG-13 rating is appropriate.  And as I hint above, the difference between hearing this story (or even watching this film) "at home" and going to see it at the movie theater is that "at home" when the kids start getting "too scared" one can "tone the story down" as one tells it (or just turn off the video if one is watching it).  But in the movie theater, once one pays for admission one is stuck... 

Again, Mama is a great "spooky story" but if one's kid is 10-or-under, it really may be too much for them to see in the theater.


<< 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! :-) >>